Scope of the next patch

[Zock]

Hi everyone,

After monitoring the first patch for a while, we are ready to move on. While the first patch focused on small and uncontroversial issues that we wanted to fix fast, the next one naturally will include a few more controversial ones too, especially as some issues like harbinger rush or strategic bombers could not fully be solved with small changes alone, and big changes are always controversial.

This leaves us with two possible options for the next patch:

Option a) would be a patch for a bunch of related and tied problems, that would be difficult to address alone. This makes for a couple of big changes though, including some often requested, but also controversial topics:

-The relation between t2 and t3 units
-Tied to that, the harb rush problem
-The relation between t3 units itself (siege bots vs light t3 bots vs snipers, shield disruptor..)
-The buildtime of experimentals (this has many difficult implications, but is an often pointed out big issue of the game)
-Defined roles for SCUs
-possibly a rework of the vet system


Option b) would be another couple of unrelated and smaller changes similar to the last one, some examples, but there will be more:

-Some changes to AA and t3 bombers to further work on the several problems of strats, especially early strat rushes in teamgames. This would be the only rather big change, and the start for a set of more changes to t3 air that will possibly happen in the future.
-Several smaller changes to make the game more accessible for newer players without reducing the depth of it
-Some of the suggestions from this forum,like the fix of aeon TMD and making switched fire modes easier visible
-A rework or introduction of repair as viable part of the game
-The new vet system could be in this patch too
-A discussion about first bomber
-A possible small cost/time increase for t2 HQs


Which kind of patch would you prefer next? Or is there something completely different you want to see? Share your opinion!

[Zock]

It will definitely need sufficient time for both development and testing to make sure the changes are good. A release of the patch this year would be early.

[Exotic_Retard]

damn what a tough choice!

i think that option b would be nice, it also gives the chance to finish up on the previous patch if any problems are found (i have a couple regarding sacu and such)

but i would be fine with option a as well.


what i would like to see is not just patches but also a bit of "side stuff":
- involving community a bit more - asking casters to mention balance talks in casts, putting this post on whats new
- unhiding/publicizing the discussions you and the balance team have about these things (will help deal with a number of complains imo)
- generally a bit more transparency and explanation of the process of balancing

regarding the actual patch:
- all aa should be able to at least hit most aircraft - just like PD can, but isn't as effective vs higher tiers
- mercies and beetles are just a bad unit atm for gameplay - especially mercies, which prevent aggression and not much else
- ras preset sacu got a buff in the last patch when it should have gotten a nerf - needs a buildtime or a resource generation nerf
- sera doesn't have ras preset, so it loses out on that, not saying you should give them ras, but consider upping the base generation up by 1mass?
- t1maa sucks and needs a buff: speed, range and dps are the stats to look for
- linked with the above bombers might need a little tweaking, like cybran which has most problems dropping properly atm (i mean killing its stationary target)



hope this helps and im looking forward to the next patch

[keyser]

a : because we can do so much better for scu/T3/exp balance
T1/T2 is pretty well balance already.

[yeager]

b, let's fix the little issues before we move to another rework

[Exotic_Retard]

T3 mobile anti air...

yeah that's true, but in this case there isn't a bad option in the polls (:
and if only the balance team is allowed to contribute then i don't see the harm in letting other people see their discussions

the idea is to have all the reasons known before you make a complaint, so if a dubious change is made, people at least know why.

[Valki]

Option B seems to be about improving the game from the bottom up, Option A seems to be about improving the game top down.

I think Option B would work better.

Also, I spend much more time playing in T1 and T2, and I feel option B would benefit me more.

[Myxir]

Option B seems to be about improving the game from the bottom up, Option A seems to be about improving the game top down.

I think Option B would work better.

i agree with that one, B seems a more stable choice to me, and imo that is what we need more right now

[Lu_Xun_17]

C

[JaggedAppliance]

Kind of a scary choice. I think if you don't go for (a) now it'll never happen. FAF doesn't have time on its side. But (a) also has the potential to drive away players.

As for (b), the phrase "making the game more accessible without reducing depth" is worrying. Please no, that thinking has never led to anything good or worthwhile.