Current balance beta survey

[IceDreamer]

Check out this thread, it's over in the balance subsection of the forums viewtopic.php?f=69&t=13421&p=138391#p138391http://forums.faforever.com/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=13421&p=138391#p138391

If you can't see that page for some reasons, here's the survey link anyway https://goo.gl/2538YO , questions are fairly simple and a changelog for the changes in discussion is here: https://github.com/FAForever/fa/commit/ ... 336351e59a

[Yakmann]

What I do not understand is the reasoning behind giving Sera and Aeon the same HP. One of the "advantages" of Sera was the fact that they had the second highest HP - what's the reason behind throwing that difference away? It's not like Seraphim need to be nerfed.

[angus000]

What I do not understand is the reasoning behind giving Sera and Aeon the same HP. One of the "advantages" of Sera was the fact that they had the second highest HP - what's the reason behind throwing that difference away? It's not like Seraphim need to be nerfed.

Original HP differences were subtle. It's not that Sera HP was nerfed, all factions hp was nerfed, then UEF got a buff and cybran got a further nerf. That's how you should see it.

[TheKoopa]

Uef got a buff from values we have now )

[angus000]

Uef got a buff from values we have now )

No. Only t3 land and air support factories and t3 and t1 mexes.

[biass]

I don't think we should further radicalise the hp, it's already more of an inconvenience then it is promoting faction styles

[PhilipJFry]

Imho the biggest issue with different HP values for eco buildings is that there is no reason to make the "weaker" t3 PGen/Mex when you have a choice between factions.

Spoiler: show

And please don't tell me that 10hp/s regen is a tradeoff. Its not.

[IceDreamer]

Results have been nice so far, could do with a few more. Found here: https://www.survey-maker.com/Account-Qu ... a9bEA1fb-3

So from this I would say the path forwards is clear.

- General agreement that we want to knock down HP on T3 Mex, Walls, and T3 HQ, with a weaker but still present consensus that T3 PGen and Mass Storage could also use a HP reduction, perhaps of lesser proportions
- We don't want HP changes for the sake of factional diversity, at least not for now and certainly not in their present form
- Weak, but present, consensus that we should look at decreasing T3 PGen explosive damage. This should probably go hand in hand with a HP reduction (Maintain grid combustibility, make standing next to them less punishing)
- ACU T2 changes definite yes
- Weak, but present agreement on the RAS changes. I'd say this certainly shows that there's agreement something needs to be done, even if a few don't agree with the exact changes present right now
- Aeon shield changes are not viewed favourably, with a surprising number saying yes to a rather specific suggestion there
- UEF Nano approved
- Billy upgrade has consensus, though a lot of 'Neutral' (Possibly some players who have used it so little it doesn't really matter to them?)
- Aeon T1 MAA approved
- Janus appproved
- UEF T2 MML approved
- Air Staging approved
- Ythotha approved
- T1 Bombers approved, though with some indifference and adversity
- Mercy approved

[Softly]

Will the results be released at some point?

[IceDreamer]

Should be visible on that link. Are they not?