This thread is to discuss everything regarding T3 air. Only balanceteam members can post here, use the other thread for guest contributions.
In specific, but not exclusive:
ASF
T3 air speed
T3 gunships of UEF/Cyb
Restorer
t2 and t3 AA
cybran lategame AA on water
This forum is archived and read only.
Please move to the new forum!
- It is currently 07 Apr 2021, 00:46
Forged Alliance Forever
Forged Alliance Forever Forums
T3 Air Balanceteam only
13 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
T3 Air Balanceteam only
by Zock » 03 Nov 2013, 21:46
-
Zock - Supreme Commander
- Posts: 1395
- Joined: 31 Aug 2011, 22:44
- Has liked: 173 times
- Been liked: 397 times
- FAF User Name: Zock
Re: T3 Air Balanceteam only
by Master_Vallex » 06 Nov 2013, 00:40
i have a bunch of random ideas, read them and think about it twice at least pls 
- make airunits lose fuel all the time => pointless to have them sit at base => have many patroles and fleets with personal air squads etc blabla
- reason why people stack airunits: erm maybe cuz t2 mobile and t3 static aa is horribly op and suicide to fly over in any case? just sayin
- increase experimental AAs to kinda snipe strat bombers, like 1 shot every 10 seconds prio on strats but onehit
- lower stratbomber flying hight (not matching the imagination of a strategic bomber but meh) => t2 mobile aa has VASTLY better odds hitting (no mobile sam needed, no disbalance for t2 air), also avoiding strats bombing on asf <.<
- to avoid air-nogo-zones (making people sit and stack): sam cost increase to ~2400 mass (like a t3 defense usually is, not like 3 T1s) => strategical importance of sams increased without removing the counter-strat-snipe-task of them, but also keep them from being spammed 10 sams per mex ._.
- cybran late game on water? increase aircraft carrier and battleship AA-DPS by x3 each. (shots with high muzzle-velocity with enough dps to kill t3 air)
- restorer: connecting to t4 aa change: lowering ground dps hard, increase aa dps, lower speed a bit => restorer is mobile sam replacing missing t4 aa.
- t2 static AA: little increase of range, damage per shot, muzzle-velo, hp (all by 5%~)
- t3 heavy gunships: increase speed much
about "recovering from lost air fight": since mostly the winner will start building strats, increase BT on strats hard, so there is more time for the loser to recover his asf. (balance stays the same basicly)
- t3 airspeed: fine to me as it is, absolutly.
- t4 air: hp increase to make them able to fight air more instead of fight little bit of ground or suicide-crash-snipe something.
if you dont like some points, lets see how we can make you like them
- make airunits lose fuel all the time => pointless to have them sit at base => have many patroles and fleets with personal air squads etc blabla
- reason why people stack airunits: erm maybe cuz t2 mobile and t3 static aa is horribly op and suicide to fly over in any case? just sayin
- increase experimental AAs to kinda snipe strat bombers, like 1 shot every 10 seconds prio on strats but onehit
- lower stratbomber flying hight (not matching the imagination of a strategic bomber but meh) => t2 mobile aa has VASTLY better odds hitting (no mobile sam needed, no disbalance for t2 air), also avoiding strats bombing on asf <.<
- to avoid air-nogo-zones (making people sit and stack): sam cost increase to ~2400 mass (like a t3 defense usually is, not like 3 T1s) => strategical importance of sams increased without removing the counter-strat-snipe-task of them, but also keep them from being spammed 10 sams per mex ._.
- cybran late game on water? increase aircraft carrier and battleship AA-DPS by x3 each. (shots with high muzzle-velocity with enough dps to kill t3 air)
- restorer: connecting to t4 aa change: lowering ground dps hard, increase aa dps, lower speed a bit => restorer is mobile sam replacing missing t4 aa.
- t2 static AA: little increase of range, damage per shot, muzzle-velo, hp (all by 5%~)
- t3 heavy gunships: increase speed much
about "recovering from lost air fight": since mostly the winner will start building strats, increase BT on strats hard, so there is more time for the loser to recover his asf. (balance stays the same basicly)
- t3 airspeed: fine to me as it is, absolutly.
- t4 air: hp increase to make them able to fight air more instead of fight little bit of ground or suicide-crash-snipe something.
if you dont like some points, lets see how we can make you like them
Ze_PilOt:
don't care about washy
Maverick:
farty fu noob
Maverick_work:
fart fu piece of shit
don't care about washy
Maverick:
farty fu noob
Maverick_work:
fart fu piece of shit
- Master_Vallex
- Avatar-of-War
- Posts: 92
- Joined: 03 Jul 2012, 20:26
- Has liked: 0 time
- Been liked: 3 times
- FAF User Name: Brainfart
Re: T3 Air Balanceteam only
by Master_Vallex » 07 Nov 2013, 03:58
my first t3 air rebalance concept:
(i might edit it sometimes, i will note it right here when and what)
problems i try to solve:
- strat-bombers(/t4 air) too useful defensivly
- asf stacked/not used to attack
- add an alternative to asf
actual changes:
- strat-bomber altitude lowered by 25%
- asf cost to 800mass and 80k power, buildtime x2, HP x2 of 3599 values, DPS x2
- Sam cost to 2400mass, AoE removed
- T4 air ground-dps halfed, HP +50%, AA dps +50%
- asf wreck value to 25% (from 50% atm)
- something to make asf placement/positioning/stationing rather important, some ideas:
t3 air speed nerf by 20%
make asf have a "starting time" (when grounded, some seconds take-off time)
make asf lose fuel all the time, even when grounded.
make asf have a shield that loses HP closer to the t3 air HQ
- asf fuel down to 6mins
goal i try to acchieve:
- in the right numbers and balance, have t2 *mobile* flak counter any AIR-to-GROUND-unit, so that asf is not needed
- have people use asf to fight other airunits (like asf), gain airsuperiority => keeping enemy from using airunits (as goal of asf play) without having the asf-user be too worried about AA and leaving wrecks etc.
- have asf and stratbombers have a totally different behavior towards AA (mean, asf care much less than strats do)
- make air-to-air play one thing, air-to-ground another (having its own counter).
- make people use air smarter, have it stationed and maybe even little fights not all-ins only
t3 heavy gunship changes will most likely fit in this concept somewhere along the air-to-ground-part.
all to be balanced in some numbers maybe, this is a basement at which i hope to see a final solution to anyones worries with t3 air.
(i might edit it sometimes, i will note it right here when and what)
problems i try to solve:
- strat-bombers(/t4 air) too useful defensivly
- asf stacked/not used to attack
- add an alternative to asf
actual changes:
- strat-bomber altitude lowered by 25%
Spoiler: show
- asf cost to 800mass and 80k power, buildtime x2, HP x2 of 3599 values, DPS x2
Spoiler: show
- Sam cost to 2400mass, AoE removed
Spoiler: show
- T4 air ground-dps halfed, HP +50%, AA dps +50%
Spoiler: show
- asf wreck value to 25% (from 50% atm)
Spoiler: show
- something to make asf placement/positioning/stationing rather important, some ideas:
t3 air speed nerf by 20%
Spoiler: show
make asf have a "starting time" (when grounded, some seconds take-off time)
Spoiler: show
make asf lose fuel all the time, even when grounded.
Spoiler: show
make asf have a shield that loses HP closer to the t3 air HQ
Spoiler: show
- asf fuel down to 6mins
Spoiler: show
goal i try to acchieve:
- in the right numbers and balance, have t2 *mobile* flak counter any AIR-to-GROUND-unit, so that asf is not needed
- have people use asf to fight other airunits (like asf), gain airsuperiority => keeping enemy from using airunits (as goal of asf play) without having the asf-user be too worried about AA and leaving wrecks etc.
- have asf and stratbombers have a totally different behavior towards AA (mean, asf care much less than strats do)
- make air-to-air play one thing, air-to-ground another (having its own counter).
- make people use air smarter, have it stationed and maybe even little fights not all-ins only
t3 heavy gunship changes will most likely fit in this concept somewhere along the air-to-ground-part.
all to be balanced in some numbers maybe, this is a basement at which i hope to see a final solution to anyones worries with t3 air.
Ze_PilOt:
don't care about washy
Maverick:
farty fu noob
Maverick_work:
fart fu piece of shit
don't care about washy
Maverick:
farty fu noob
Maverick_work:
fart fu piece of shit
- Master_Vallex
- Avatar-of-War
- Posts: 92
- Joined: 03 Jul 2012, 20:26
- Has liked: 0 time
- Been liked: 3 times
- FAF User Name: Brainfart
Re: T3 Air Balanceteam only
by pip » 09 Nov 2013, 00:27
As you said, lot of random changes. Let's have a closer look.
Lower altitude of t3 bombers may seem a good idea at first sight, but it will result in them destroying themselves on t3 shields.
More expensive ASF (twice more expensive, twice firepower) is a solution that was tested in a previous balance phase, and it didn't work (inties spam simply replaces ASF spam). We won't retest the changes that were discarded already, that's a waste of time.
SAM would be useless with such a cost and no AOE. Everybody thought they were useless, and they were rarely built when they were 800 mass and without AOE, so imagine with a 2400 mass cost. Better remove them from the game and build flaks instead everywhere.
Speed nerf for ASF will indeed make them harder to use, require better positioning. 20% speed nerf (= 20 speed) may be too big though (close to swiftwinds = 18 speed), and it will perhaps make ASF extremely vulnerable to flaks. It may be good that ASF are slightly more vulnerable to flaks, but they should not be eradicated by them. But it's very hard to check this kind of changes outside real games. I myself would start with 22 speed, and then test with 20 speed.
Making ASF have a "starting time" may not be a bad idea, i just have no clue how to do that. But slowing them overall will achieve a part of the same result.
Having ASF lose fuel all the time: I don't know about this one, but since they have 16 minutes of fuel, for this to be meaningful, they need to have less fuel to begin with, and then it should be tested first before having them lose fuel all the time.
No shields will be added to ASF. It's a Continental exclusive ability.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is my take on t3 air:
1) Cheaper t3 gunships with less DPS and faster speed. Cost would be in line with Restorers. Then they can be used more often, and better at sniping single units.
2) It would be nice that strat bombers would be slightly more vulnerable (small speed nerf too, or less HP), less frontloaded, but with a bigger AOE so that they are better against armies and less sniper units.
3) About the ASF issue, let's try to slow them + less fuel indeed, so that there is more skill needed to use them instead of brainless spam.
4) If the ASF boring gameplay cannot be solved in a satisfying way with speed adjustment alone, I'd like to introduce mobile t3 AA into the game as an exception to the rule that FAF doesn't add new units, in order to provide an alternative to deal with t3 and t4 air that would not be spamming of ASF or the cheap mobile flaks.
It would be a way to improve gameplay with additional variety, and for me, it's the most elegant way to solve the issue, because relying on mobile flaks is not really good. If we look at t1 mobile aa, it's almost harmless against t2 air, I don't see why the very cheap t2 mobile flaks should be able to counter all t3 air units and even t4, just because there is no land alternative among mobile units.
Lower altitude of t3 bombers may seem a good idea at first sight, but it will result in them destroying themselves on t3 shields.
More expensive ASF (twice more expensive, twice firepower) is a solution that was tested in a previous balance phase, and it didn't work (inties spam simply replaces ASF spam). We won't retest the changes that were discarded already, that's a waste of time.
SAM would be useless with such a cost and no AOE. Everybody thought they were useless, and they were rarely built when they were 800 mass and without AOE, so imagine with a 2400 mass cost. Better remove them from the game and build flaks instead everywhere.
Speed nerf for ASF will indeed make them harder to use, require better positioning. 20% speed nerf (= 20 speed) may be too big though (close to swiftwinds = 18 speed), and it will perhaps make ASF extremely vulnerable to flaks. It may be good that ASF are slightly more vulnerable to flaks, but they should not be eradicated by them. But it's very hard to check this kind of changes outside real games. I myself would start with 22 speed, and then test with 20 speed.
Making ASF have a "starting time" may not be a bad idea, i just have no clue how to do that. But slowing them overall will achieve a part of the same result.
Having ASF lose fuel all the time: I don't know about this one, but since they have 16 minutes of fuel, for this to be meaningful, they need to have less fuel to begin with, and then it should be tested first before having them lose fuel all the time.
No shields will be added to ASF. It's a Continental exclusive ability.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is my take on t3 air:
1) Cheaper t3 gunships with less DPS and faster speed. Cost would be in line with Restorers. Then they can be used more often, and better at sniping single units.
2) It would be nice that strat bombers would be slightly more vulnerable (small speed nerf too, or less HP), less frontloaded, but with a bigger AOE so that they are better against armies and less sniper units.
3) About the ASF issue, let's try to slow them + less fuel indeed, so that there is more skill needed to use them instead of brainless spam.
4) If the ASF boring gameplay cannot be solved in a satisfying way with speed adjustment alone, I'd like to introduce mobile t3 AA into the game as an exception to the rule that FAF doesn't add new units, in order to provide an alternative to deal with t3 and t4 air that would not be spamming of ASF or the cheap mobile flaks.
It would be a way to improve gameplay with additional variety, and for me, it's the most elegant way to solve the issue, because relying on mobile flaks is not really good. If we look at t1 mobile aa, it's almost harmless against t2 air, I don't see why the very cheap t2 mobile flaks should be able to counter all t3 air units and even t4, just because there is no land alternative among mobile units.
- pip
- Supreme Commander
- Posts: 1826
- Joined: 04 Oct 2011, 15:33
- Has liked: 191 times
- Been liked: 86 times
- FAF User Name: pip
Re: T3 Air Balanceteam only
by Zock » 09 Nov 2013, 02:42
Ok my two cents:
Some starting assumptions:
Possible solutions:
4) and 5) are quite without big downsides for me, so i'd implement them quite away. (for testing purposes of course)
3) is not conceptional, but will be more or less minor changes to shift land/air and navy/air balance towards land, navy, or air, as we see fitting.
1) is relative easy to archive, but i wouldn't want to do that without solving 2) first. And for that i don't have anything good yet, only not thought out ideas.
Some starting assumptions:
- 1) It is impossible to 100% defend high priority targets against t3/t4 air without ASF, leading to ASF stack.
- 2) Aside from this high priotity snipes, stratbomber are quite useless, it is not efficient to kill i.e. t3 pgs, t3 mex, engies, etc. This might be caused by the power of AA, or the price of the stratbombers, i'm not sure.
- 3) The power of t3 air vs land/navy mobile armies is very impactfull. Not 100% sure if it is too strong though. This leads to rather static and turtleish games where no one wants to atack against air.
- 4) ASF gameplay contains very little tactic and strategy, its almost purley down to number and micro.
- 5) T3 gunships
Possible solutions:
- 1)
a) implement overkill-prevention mod (don't think the mod is done, or works, so its unlikley)
b) make either flak, sams, or new mobile sams capable of killing strats before they drop their bombs. (or most of them). It shouldn't be too cheap to get this number of AA, so you can't just spam it everywhere. It needs to be exclusive to high priority targets, similar to the concep of every counter-unit i.e. TMD.
If this is done by changing AA, or stats of the bomber doesn't really matter. - 2)
If 1) is solved, this will make 2) a very big problem. Stratbomber will need a new role (don't understand it wrong: sniping will still be possible. But more like all other snipes, only if the enemy didn't prepare properly)
a) give stratbomber the ability to efficiently kill non-high priority targets like t3 mex, pg, engy masses etc. Not sure how to archive this yet though. Might require some AA changes, or things like cost reduction for bomber.
b) give stratbombers the role as army killer only. They already are more or less though, so its not really a new thing, just some adjustments. Due to the lack of big t3 armies on most maps, it might look like stratbombers are useless though. - 3)
Well not sure about this whole thing. T3 air has the advantage of mobility, so it shouldn't beat anything mass efficient if it has the proper AA units. It might be the case already, or propably not (i.e. cybran navy, t3 land armies). But there is some point where air is rather weak, but very mobile, and still usefull for many things, without beeing too rewarding in direct firepower against other army types.
The maps also play into this, on a typical closed teammap (gap of rohan, wonder, setons) , air will naturally have much less uses and impact then on open maps (painted desert, drunken pirates)
Even when seton's players won't like this, there is no rule for air having at least 33% impact on the game on that map, because it would be extremly OP on more open maps with this. Just as there is no rule of 33% land impact on open maps. They will naturally be somewhat more air dominant. - 4)
a) Less Speed on ASF increases tactic, because the positioning is more important. The speed should be as low as possible without making ASF too weak against shift winds and flak. I see no real downsides here, simple change to improve tactic a little bit. Won't magically solve any other problems though.
b) implement fuel as game mechanic for ASF. Big topic, pretty much same effect as with speed, just a lot bigger. Movement and positioning gets a lot more important, also a very nice synergy with land and navy fuel stations, that can become strategic elements.
Not sure if it is possible to implement fuel without leading into babysitting and micromanagement work though. Imagine fuel for t1 tanks..would be a nightmare.
But no reason not to try it for me.
Might be possible to implement some comfort-changes to get rid of eventual micro (auto-refuel) - 5)
cyb/uef rather easy. Simple buffs, that will hopefully also increase the offensive capabilities of t3 air, so there is some more reason to fight instead of turtle-stack. Will conflict a bit with the role of stratbombers, but should be ok.
restorer are a different story. For a hybrid unit, it is still extremly strong, even when not OP. But the name of the unit is AA Gunship, so i'd actually like to give it that role. Nerf ground DPS to a cosmetic value like the AA of the other t3 gunships, but buff the AA dmg, so they do actually beat ASF mass for mass. They have enough downsides with speed, and their vulnuability to flak, that it won't come to a pure restorer spam (if im not wrong ), but it will be an interesting unit.
4) and 5) are quite without big downsides for me, so i'd implement them quite away. (for testing purposes of course)
3) is not conceptional, but will be more or less minor changes to shift land/air and navy/air balance towards land, navy, or air, as we see fitting.
1) is relative easy to archive, but i wouldn't want to do that without solving 2) first. And for that i don't have anything good yet, only not thought out ideas.
-
Zock - Supreme Commander
- Posts: 1395
- Joined: 31 Aug 2011, 22:44
- Has liked: 173 times
- Been liked: 397 times
- FAF User Name: Zock
Re: T3 Air Balanceteam only
by Master_Vallex » 09 Nov 2013, 03:34
1) to start with as reminder, there wont be a mobile sam. it has been vetod by zep so get it out of your heads, also it would break air for the best part since it would be an all-around counter (my concept sees to have sams counter asf and t4, flak counter bomber and gunships)
2) speed change to any t3 air is micro-changing so hard, it might break t3 air micro totally (better use swiftwinds where there is no t2 flak..)
3) sams are op, reason why people stack asf is not only to defend but also cuz there is absolutly no point to suicide over 3-4 sams which rape 50 asf in 2 salvos.
4) strats might bomb themself on t3 shields? maybe, but that can be changed by a friendly fire block to themself or damage reduce against airunits in general (since they barly bomb airunits anyway).
5) continental have a shield-field, asf with personal shield like obsidian would be something else (but seems bit strange to me aswell)
6) "cheap mobile flak as counter" is a) balanceable rather easy i think (since we are gonna change t2 static flak too, and t1 aa is rather useful masswise against t2 air actually), b) has a huge speed(means tactical) disadvantage towards t3 air-to-ground anyway)
7) t3 gunships i like any idea that changes the current situation
8) asf play was waaaaaaay better and more tactical/active in gpg balance, i aim to get it back there (not the strats/gunships/t4s)
9) changing the asf 'value' by x2, even if it was tested before, it wasnt tested combined with the rest of my ideas (alternative strat counter NOT countering the asf, too)
10) 2 disagrees to zocks assumptions: a) it is possible to save high priority targets, they are masswise just cheaper to build many (acu can dodge/be shielded hard, not against czar-suicide tho) and b)t3 air is well balanced against navy (except cybran i guess), i agree to the rest basicly.
11) reminder again: "asf being too dominant" was voted with no(as opinion). and i agree, asf never have been to dominant cuz they can not harm a base at all. strats can, so change them, dont nerf asf/make them useless by op aa changes like in the past
12) the only offensive capablility of t3 air atm is sniping if you are lucky, else its only defensivly. asf need a purpose to attack, and cuz its the closest to reality, asf should be the unit to block the enemies air production(as long as he has an alternative mobile counter to air attacks(not asf), instead of 1 op static one)
=> in order to keep using scouts and some raiding air, the players will constantly fight for aircontroll very hard. not being hindered by AA it will be a way more active and aggresive play even without a 'tactical improvment' to asf
but i´m glad to have some conversation finally, just need to find something satisfying for all before patching
2) speed change to any t3 air is micro-changing so hard, it might break t3 air micro totally (better use swiftwinds where there is no t2 flak..)
3) sams are op, reason why people stack asf is not only to defend but also cuz there is absolutly no point to suicide over 3-4 sams which rape 50 asf in 2 salvos.
4) strats might bomb themself on t3 shields? maybe, but that can be changed by a friendly fire block to themself or damage reduce against airunits in general (since they barly bomb airunits anyway).
5) continental have a shield-field, asf with personal shield like obsidian would be something else (but seems bit strange to me aswell)
6) "cheap mobile flak as counter" is a) balanceable rather easy i think (since we are gonna change t2 static flak too, and t1 aa is rather useful masswise against t2 air actually), b) has a huge speed(means tactical) disadvantage towards t3 air-to-ground anyway)
7) t3 gunships i like any idea that changes the current situation
8) asf play was waaaaaaay better and more tactical/active in gpg balance, i aim to get it back there (not the strats/gunships/t4s)
9) changing the asf 'value' by x2, even if it was tested before, it wasnt tested combined with the rest of my ideas (alternative strat counter NOT countering the asf, too)
10) 2 disagrees to zocks assumptions: a) it is possible to save high priority targets, they are masswise just cheaper to build many (acu can dodge/be shielded hard, not against czar-suicide tho) and b)t3 air is well balanced against navy (except cybran i guess), i agree to the rest basicly.
11) reminder again: "asf being too dominant" was voted with no(as opinion). and i agree, asf never have been to dominant cuz they can not harm a base at all. strats can, so change them, dont nerf asf/make them useless by op aa changes like in the past
12) the only offensive capablility of t3 air atm is sniping if you are lucky, else its only defensivly. asf need a purpose to attack, and cuz its the closest to reality, asf should be the unit to block the enemies air production(as long as he has an alternative mobile counter to air attacks(not asf), instead of 1 op static one)
=> in order to keep using scouts and some raiding air, the players will constantly fight for aircontroll very hard. not being hindered by AA it will be a way more active and aggresive play even without a 'tactical improvment' to asf
but i´m glad to have some conversation finally, just need to find something satisfying for all before patching
Ze_PilOt:
don't care about washy
Maverick:
farty fu noob
Maverick_work:
fart fu piece of shit
don't care about washy
Maverick:
farty fu noob
Maverick_work:
fart fu piece of shit
- Master_Vallex
- Avatar-of-War
- Posts: 92
- Joined: 03 Jul 2012, 20:26
- Has liked: 0 time
- Been liked: 3 times
- FAF User Name: Brainfart
Re: T3 Air Balanceteam only
by pip » 09 Nov 2013, 12:54
@ Brainfart :
About mobile flaks / mobile SAMS:
A buff to cheap mobile flaks is a bad way to adjust t3 air balance because they are really cheap, and extremely efficient already against t2 air units. Improving them further will result in removing t2 air gameplay from the game, just so that t3 is more balanced. Maybe on Seton players don't care about t2 air gameplay, but on 95% of the other maps, it's a big part of the gameplay.
Not to mention the even bigger advantage this would give to the 2 factions with hover mobile flaks.
It's simply not elegant. Adding a t3 aa unit that is more expensive and specifically able to hit fast moving targets is a new technology, different from flak, it deserves its place in a higher tech. You discard a concept that everybody agrees on for static defense, and it's suddenly stupid for mobile units? I don't get it.
Zep hasn't vetoed mobile SAMs completely as far as I know, but if you don't like it, fair enough. I'll adjust balance for the t3 mobile AA mod, upload it in the vault so that people can test them and judge if it ruins t3 air gameplay or actually improve diversity and options.
About SAMS: If they are OP now because of too big AOE, it's more simple to reduce it instead of multiplying price by 3. SAMs are supposed to counter T4 too, it's impossible to do so with 2400 mass SAMs. Overkill script for SAM may fix them and allow the removal of AOE completely, but I have yet to see such a working script.
Strat bombers elevation: Even if you make strat bombers immune to their own damages, with 25% altitude reduction they would fly under or through certain t3 shields, I don't think it's good. They would also be shredded by t2 mobile flaks, even more than t2 bombers.
Overall t3 air gameplay:
Lastly, I agree with you about t3 air gameplay being almost all about sniping. I believe this can and should be adjusted by making t3 strat bombers a little less good at sniping (but still able to do so) and a bit better against armies (bigger AOE) so that they can fill different purposes depending on the situations (sniping / weaken t3 armies and navies).
About mobile flaks / mobile SAMS:
A buff to cheap mobile flaks is a bad way to adjust t3 air balance because they are really cheap, and extremely efficient already against t2 air units. Improving them further will result in removing t2 air gameplay from the game, just so that t3 is more balanced. Maybe on Seton players don't care about t2 air gameplay, but on 95% of the other maps, it's a big part of the gameplay.
Not to mention the even bigger advantage this would give to the 2 factions with hover mobile flaks.
It's simply not elegant. Adding a t3 aa unit that is more expensive and specifically able to hit fast moving targets is a new technology, different from flak, it deserves its place in a higher tech. You discard a concept that everybody agrees on for static defense, and it's suddenly stupid for mobile units? I don't get it.
Zep hasn't vetoed mobile SAMs completely as far as I know, but if you don't like it, fair enough. I'll adjust balance for the t3 mobile AA mod, upload it in the vault so that people can test them and judge if it ruins t3 air gameplay or actually improve diversity and options.
About SAMS: If they are OP now because of too big AOE, it's more simple to reduce it instead of multiplying price by 3. SAMs are supposed to counter T4 too, it's impossible to do so with 2400 mass SAMs. Overkill script for SAM may fix them and allow the removal of AOE completely, but I have yet to see such a working script.
Strat bombers elevation: Even if you make strat bombers immune to their own damages, with 25% altitude reduction they would fly under or through certain t3 shields, I don't think it's good. They would also be shredded by t2 mobile flaks, even more than t2 bombers.
Overall t3 air gameplay:
Lastly, I agree with you about t3 air gameplay being almost all about sniping. I believe this can and should be adjusted by making t3 strat bombers a little less good at sniping (but still able to do so) and a bit better against armies (bigger AOE) so that they can fill different purposes depending on the situations (sniping / weaken t3 armies and navies).
- pip
- Supreme Commander
- Posts: 1826
- Joined: 04 Oct 2011, 15:33
- Has liked: 191 times
- Been liked: 86 times
- FAF User Name: pip
Re: T3 Air Balanceteam only
by Master_Vallex » 09 Nov 2013, 19:41
seems like the points where we disagree get less, thats good to start with.
1) about flak: i would prefer a nerf to mobile flak (speed for example), never a buff ^^. and this wouldnt be just setons adjusting, it would actually match any situation for any map like strat rush (which has no counter except for massive t1 aa spam yet, this would be an expensive but lower tech one eventually). hover flak is another story, can be a problem but like aurora/fobo is surely balanceable.
the mobile sam, i am sure that zep 100% vetod it for good, argument (his not mine): if we add 1 unit, people will start to demand many others, thats a point i do not want to cross. the solution might solve many problems at once(not all) but veto is veto i guess(i would like a mod to test it tho)
2) sams, yes they are op i am sure there. they should counter air t4s i agree, but have you tested how many sams you need to kill a czar before it does more than 20k damage?(shields). maybe about 10, and what is the cost of the t4? also i reccomend a t4 gound-dps nerf and aa-dps buff => have them be AIR-experimentals.
problem is, which i saw agree for in the public t3 air forum, we shouldnt not have any ground counter to asf(a slow and expensive one to have it be a strategic decision to go against asf by ground) but what we need is strat counter.
leads to
3) strats are being used more effectivly against t3 armys and t4s already, snipe only cuz people either nap or cuz it always was like this. making them more useful against armys increases the strat-defensive-op problem IF there is no mobile counter.
4) the 25% altitude lowering was a more random number that well thought of. we can lower it just enough to let them fly over any t3 shield. we can make it 10% only to start with and balance the t2 mobile aa. important (for me) is the idea to make them vulnerable to t2 aa just like against t2 without touching asf or oping t3 aa.
5) overall t3 gameplay should be 2 parts imo. air-ground and air-air (which is in almost no other rts). air-air should be a story by itself, very hard to touch by ground (like gpg days). air-ground needs just a mobile counter (which can be used for basedefense too)
strats imo should have 2 uses: raiding(cuz of their speed) and weakening t3 armys.
and asf should have one use: to KEEP the enemy from getting enough strats for a snipe or a t4 overall reached by aggresive and pre-emptive kinda airplay => lower asf numbers
6) about the asf cost change, i dont care too much, i just believe it will solve the asf lag problem better, but we can play around with thta or leave it be if asf are being used offensivly again it doesnt matter too much
1) about flak: i would prefer a nerf to mobile flak (speed for example), never a buff ^^. and this wouldnt be just setons adjusting, it would actually match any situation for any map like strat rush (which has no counter except for massive t1 aa spam yet, this would be an expensive but lower tech one eventually). hover flak is another story, can be a problem but like aurora/fobo is surely balanceable.
the mobile sam, i am sure that zep 100% vetod it for good, argument (his not mine): if we add 1 unit, people will start to demand many others, thats a point i do not want to cross. the solution might solve many problems at once(not all) but veto is veto i guess(i would like a mod to test it tho
)2) sams, yes they are op i am sure there. they should counter air t4s i agree, but have you tested how many sams you need to kill a czar before it does more than 20k damage?(shields). maybe about 10, and what is the cost of the t4? also i reccomend a t4 gound-dps nerf and aa-dps buff => have them be AIR-experimentals.
problem is, which i saw agree for in the public t3 air forum, we shouldnt not have any ground counter to asf(a slow and expensive one to have it be a strategic decision to go against asf by ground) but what we need is strat counter.
leads to
3) strats are being used more effectivly against t3 armys and t4s already, snipe only cuz people either nap or cuz it always was like this. making them more useful against armys increases the strat-defensive-op problem IF there is no mobile counter.
4) the 25% altitude lowering was a more random number that well thought of. we can lower it just enough to let them fly over any t3 shield. we can make it 10% only to start with and balance the t2 mobile aa. important (for me) is the idea to make them vulnerable to t2 aa just like against t2 without touching asf or oping t3 aa.
5) overall t3 gameplay should be 2 parts imo. air-ground and air-air (which is in almost no other rts). air-air should be a story by itself, very hard to touch by ground (like gpg days). air-ground needs just a mobile counter (which can be used for basedefense too)
strats imo should have 2 uses: raiding(cuz of their speed) and weakening t3 armys.
and asf should have one use: to KEEP the enemy from getting enough strats for a snipe or a t4 overall reached by aggresive and pre-emptive kinda airplay => lower asf numbers
6) about the asf cost change, i dont care too much, i just believe it will solve the asf lag problem better, but we can play around with thta or leave it be if asf are being used offensivly again it doesnt matter too much
Ze_PilOt:
don't care about washy
Maverick:
farty fu noob
Maverick_work:
fart fu piece of shit
don't care about washy
Maverick:
farty fu noob
Maverick_work:
fart fu piece of shit
- Master_Vallex
- Avatar-of-War
- Posts: 92
- Joined: 03 Jul 2012, 20:26
- Has liked: 0 time
- Been liked: 3 times
- FAF User Name: Brainfart
Re: T3 Air Balanceteam only
by Zock » 09 Nov 2013, 22:20
1) to start with as reminder, there wont be a mobile sam.
There is no absolute veto. But the adding of a new unit would need extreme circumcances, and absolutly no other possible solutions. We can talk about it again if all other solutions fail (and there are quite many already).
2) speed change to any t3 air is micro-changing so hard, it might break t3 air micro totally (better use swiftwinds where there is no t2 flak..)
Might break it just as any other changes. Will be seen in tests.
3) sams are op, reason why people stack asf is not only to defend but also cuz there is absolutly no point to suicide over 3-4 sams which rape 50 asf in 2 salvos.
Has not really anything to do with ASF stack, if anything, that would be a reason against making more ASF, not for it. Its a reason for not beeing more agressive with air, but most of that applies to the effectiveness of sams vs air-ground, and not vs ASF. If air-ground is not efficient anyway, weaker sams vs ASF won't help with agression.
8) asf play was waaaaaaay better and more tactical/active in gpg balance, i aim to get it back there (not the strats/gunships/t4s)
ASF play might have been better (don't agree it was way better tho), but it was, and still is, always tied to the other airbalance. It is not possible to just pick the ASF balance and ignore the rest, when theese are the main reasons for ASF balance in the first place. (want more agression for ASF? make bombers OP and you get it, regardless of if sams shred ASF or not)
10) 2 disagrees to zocks assumptions: a) it is possible to save high priority targets
Then why is there ASF stack, if you can protect without? And why do so many snipes happen? Because people are bad? It happens to everyone, good players too, and very often. The efford/reward relation is off in any case.
11) reminder again: "asf being too dominant" was voted with no(as opinion)
Actually not even true.
Answer Count Percentage
Yes (Y) 58 38.41%
No (N) 48 31.79%
Uncertain (U) 45 29.80%
No answer 0 0.00%
And the question has not much to do with a conceptional change to t3 air, instead of only some ASF nerf, anyway.
12) the only offensive capablility of t3 air atm is sniping if you are lucky, else its only defensivly. asf need a purpose to attack, and cuz its the closest to reality, asf should be the unit to block the enemies air production(as long as he has an alternative mobile counter to air attacks(not asf), instead of 1 op static one)
=> in order to keep using scouts and some raiding air, the players will constantly fight for aircontroll very hard. not being hindered by AA it will be a way more active and aggresive play even without a 'tactical improvment' to asf
5) overall t3 gameplay should be 2 parts imo. air-ground and air-air (which is in almost no other rts). air-air should be a story by itself, very hard to touch by ground (like gpg days). air-ground needs just a mobile counter (which can be used for basedefense too)
Rather nice idea, but with big downsides.
a) Air-Air on t3 would involve one single unit, against exactly the same. It's not a good base for interesting gameplay. For this to work well, it would use Funks mod of giving ints/asf two roles, instead of replacing each other.
b) it doesn't really make sense and is impossible to seperate air-air and air-ground anyway. Air-air is to enable/protect air-ground, thats pretty much the whole purpose of it.
c) beeing able to deny air production leads only to even harder "winner takes all" situations then now, without rooms for counterplay once someone lost aircontrol. It works well on t1, and it is impossible to deny air production on t1 for longer then a few seconds. And it wouldn't be any good if it were possible longer.
If you win air, you get the ability to use air-ground, and you also have a big number advantage in terms of aircontrol that will be already hard to get back for the loser. Making it even harder doesn't solve any problem.
That said, i don't mind changes to sams, or AA in general, but not with the purpose to seperate air-air from air-ground. Only with the purpose to make air-ground more rewarding aside from high-priority targets.
-
Zock - Supreme Commander
- Posts: 1395
- Joined: 31 Aug 2011, 22:44
- Has liked: 173 times
- Been liked: 397 times
- FAF User Name: Zock
Re: T3 Air Balanceteam only
by Master_Vallex » 10 Nov 2013, 00:33
we are really getting closer to a common solution
1) mobile sam, i am sure zep said no, but if everything fails which is unlikely then we can rediscuss this topic(with reason and proof then)
2) asf micro is based on 2 things: speed and turret yaw. if we actually lower speed a bit we need to adjust turret yaw too. but i cant say it would be unfixable.
3) having sams scare the shit out of asf surely doesnt help making people (in their minds, its not *only* a thing of numbers) be able to use asf to their purpose.
4) op bomber would actually solve the problem for asf, but create new ones for air-ground.
and i see no problem getting a reason for people to use asf WHILE 'ignoring' the original reasons for asf stack. that would maybe even lead to a more strategic play for air in general (shall i use asf, shall i stack them or get aa in xyz situation?) but thats just a thought.
5) asf are also being stacked defensivly cuz they are mobile AA for the entire team (and i think having this kind of AA be the aggresive pre-emptive one would be cool)
6) the vote, fine i may have had the wrong one in my head there, but this is not a clear "yes pls do it" to me either.
7) and for my air-air / air-ground split-play:
to a) i dont see a reason why asf shouldnt be the only 'counter' to other asf when there is alternatives for defense against air-ground. we would need to implement some sort of AA gunship for every faction to solve the problem (=mobile sam shootable by asf)
to b) i dont want to *fully* seperate the plays, just have asf back like gpg days (they felt more free to move etc blabla)
to c) air-air play needs to have some game-advantage-bringing purpose just like navy vs navy play is (bombing shores, so why not have asf block an airbase?)
also: keep in mind i dont want to make it worse than it was in gpg, sams could (without overkill mod or AoE) get rid of asf too, just too a *bit* longer. sams were still 'respected' cuz asf can't shoot back. its freekilling either way.
and you cannot compare t1 air with t3 air. example on land: t1 armys usually respect defended positions/need micro(arty). t3 land lets say a percy wall against remaining t2 and t3 PDs just walk through. they basicly only respect damn expensive huge AoE-deathzones (strats, artys, nukes) or other AABs, not much else.
also, we can hinder the gameplay of air-ground a bit: BT increase for strats (as said 5 posts ago) to have the enemy suffer less, not not at all, but less or slower against air-ground play even when lost air-air. balanceable point
and for the last thing: i would prefer to make air-air play more rewarding (than atm, back to gpg/early faf way) than reward air-ground for one reason: i see no way at all to make air-ground better against bases without increasing their defensive capablilitys against armys (stack eventually).
more AoE less damage does exactly that for example.
BUT we can try it in combo with a force-to-use-asf-change tho, like some of them i try to offer/make work.
if we are lucky, we get both air-air and air-ground play to be super aggresive but both halfway counterable. atm it is both defensive as hell cuz base defense is op and mobile counter is lacking, the exact oposite wouldnt be perfect but much better/more entertaining for sure.
1) mobile sam, i am sure zep said no, but if everything fails which is unlikely then we can rediscuss this topic(with reason and proof then)
2) asf micro is based on 2 things: speed and turret yaw. if we actually lower speed a bit we need to adjust turret yaw too. but i cant say it would be unfixable.
3) having sams scare the shit out of asf surely doesnt help making people (in their minds, its not *only* a thing of numbers) be able to use asf to their purpose.
4) op bomber would actually solve the problem for asf, but create new ones for air-ground.
and i see no problem getting a reason for people to use asf WHILE 'ignoring' the original reasons for asf stack. that would maybe even lead to a more strategic play for air in general (shall i use asf, shall i stack them or get aa in xyz situation?) but thats just a thought.
5) asf are also being stacked defensivly cuz they are mobile AA for the entire team (and i think having this kind of AA be the aggresive pre-emptive one would be cool)
6) the vote, fine i may have had the wrong one in my head there, but this is not a clear "yes pls do it" to me either.
7) and for my air-air / air-ground split-play:
to a) i dont see a reason why asf shouldnt be the only 'counter' to other asf when there is alternatives for defense against air-ground. we would need to implement some sort of AA gunship for every faction to solve the problem (=mobile sam shootable by asf)
to b) i dont want to *fully* seperate the plays, just have asf back like gpg days (they felt more free to move etc blabla)
to c) air-air play needs to have some game-advantage-bringing purpose just like navy vs navy play is (bombing shores, so why not have asf block an airbase?)
also: keep in mind i dont want to make it worse than it was in gpg, sams could (without overkill mod or AoE) get rid of asf too, just too a *bit* longer. sams were still 'respected' cuz asf can't shoot back. its freekilling either way.
and you cannot compare t1 air with t3 air. example on land: t1 armys usually respect defended positions/need micro(arty). t3 land lets say a percy wall against remaining t2 and t3 PDs just walk through. they basicly only respect damn expensive huge AoE-deathzones (strats, artys, nukes) or other AABs, not much else.
also, we can hinder the gameplay of air-ground a bit: BT increase for strats (as said 5 posts ago) to have the enemy suffer less, not not at all, but less or slower against air-ground play even when lost air-air. balanceable point
and for the last thing: i would prefer to make air-air play more rewarding (than atm, back to gpg/early faf way) than reward air-ground for one reason: i see no way at all to make air-ground better against bases without increasing their defensive capablilitys against armys (stack eventually).
more AoE less damage does exactly that for example.
BUT we can try it in combo with a force-to-use-asf-change tho, like some of them i try to offer/make work.
if we are lucky, we get both air-air and air-ground play to be super aggresive but both halfway counterable. atm it is both defensive as hell cuz base defense is op and mobile counter is lacking, the exact oposite wouldnt be perfect but much better/more entertaining for sure.
Ze_PilOt:
don't care about washy
Maverick:
farty fu noob
Maverick_work:
fart fu piece of shit
don't care about washy
Maverick:
farty fu noob
Maverick_work:
fart fu piece of shit
- Master_Vallex
- Avatar-of-War
- Posts: 92
- Joined: 03 Jul 2012, 20:26
- Has liked: 0 time
- Been liked: 3 times
- FAF User Name: Brainfart
13 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest