Balance Patch 3674 Feedback Thread

Moderator: JaggedAppliance

Re: Balance Patch 3674 Feedback Thread

Postby SpoCk0nd0pe » 09 Feb 2017, 03:51

Nepty wrote:FAF was turning into a one faction game in 1v1. I forseen it, and warned the dev/pro's for 6 years. Nobody listened until it was too late. So many threads being made about Cybran being the best, and having the best blah blah blah.

While I do agree with this, I do not know why Sera and Aeon where nerfed so much as well, especially at t3. At t1, the differences look reasonable, around 20% (Cybran<Sera/Aeon<UEF). At t2, they grow to 30% and at t3, they reach 40% (all factions vs UEF). At t3, the faction differences between Sera/Aeon vs Cybran have shrunk to 3%, but they don't get regen.

I would like to know why the progression behaves so strangely.

Aeon/Sera resource buildings at something around 7500 (t3) and 2160 (t2) seems more reasonable imho.
SpoCk0nd0pe
Avatar-of-War
 
Posts: 246
Joined: 24 Sep 2014, 21:17
Has liked: 20 times
Been liked: 37 times
FAF User Name: SpoCk0nd0pe

Re: Balance Patch 3674 Feedback Thread

Postby Morax » 09 Feb 2017, 05:14

Ok people start posting replays rather this chit-chat... k thx
Maps and Modifications Councilor

M&M Discord Channel

Come join us and help create content with the artists of FAF.
User avatar
Morax
Councillor - Maps and Mods
 
Posts: 2865
Joined: 25 Jul 2014, 18:00
Has liked: 1167 times
Been liked: 662 times
FAF User Name: Morax

Re: Balance Patch 3674 Feedback Thread

Postby speed2 » 09 Feb 2017, 09:43

yes, he proposed this but it was rejected. I thought that the new BC & the team would do a different patch instead of passing what the old councilor suggested and what community largely has disapproved?

Rejected by who? While this patch was in making he was still BC and as I said it was his last patch. Now it's up to Jagged if he continue this, adjust it or takes completelly different approach.

And do you have any actual numbers behind this claim or it's just your feeling? Cause only thing I remember was some forum votes with max 50 ppl there voting.
User avatar
speed2
Contributor
 
Posts: 3189
Joined: 05 Jan 2013, 15:11
Has liked: 636 times
Been liked: 1119 times
FAF User Name: speed2

Re: Balance Patch 3674 Feedback Thread

Postby Mad`Mozart » 09 Feb 2017, 16:48

Have to say, makes me happy as a cybran player that strats can now oneshot those pesky t2 mexes :)
Mad`Mozart
Supreme Commander
 
Posts: 1092
Joined: 10 Mar 2013, 19:09
Has liked: 138 times
Been liked: 431 times

Re: Balance Patch 3674 Feedback Thread

Postby Hzale » 09 Feb 2017, 17:11

Damn i wanted to give a nice long feedback, but lost it when i tried to submit it..... :o :o :o
“When the world pushes you to your knees, you're in the perfect position to pray”
User avatar
Hzale
Crusader
 
Posts: 31
Joined: 26 Nov 2015, 12:28
Has liked: 25 times
Been liked: 6 times
FAF User Name: Schneeparty

Re: Balance Patch 3674 Feedback Thread

Postby Farmsletje » 09 Feb 2017, 18:01

SpoCk0nd0pe wrote:While I do agree with this, I do not know why Sera and Aeon where nerfed so much as well, especially at t3. At t1, the differences look reasonable, around 20% (Cybran<Sera/Aeon<UEF). At t2, they grow to 30% and at t3, they reach 40% (all factions vs UEF). At t3, the faction differences between Sera/Aeon vs Cybran have shrunk to 3%, but they don't get regen.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePFfw0p3Xd8

np
FtXCommando wrote:
need to give him some time to blossom into an aids flower
Farmsletje
Contributor
 
Posts: 1116
Joined: 14 Sep 2016, 18:38
Has liked: 383 times
Been liked: 452 times
FAF User Name: Farmsletje

Re: Balance Patch 3674 Feedback Thread

Postby Viba » 09 Feb 2017, 18:06

speed2 wrote:
yes, he proposed this but it was rejected. I thought that the new BC & the team would do a different patch instead of passing what the old councilor suggested and what community largely has disapproved?

Rejected by who? While this patch was in making he was still BC and as I said it was his last patch. Now it's up to Jagged if he continue this, adjust it or takes completelly different approach.

And do you have any actual numbers behind this claim or it's just your feeling? Cause only thing I remember was some forum votes with max 50 ppl there voting.

Counting the forums as some kind of format for the community opinion :lol:
...maybe if everyone who has a faf account would have access and more people would actually use or even know about the forums ;)

There aren't really any real numbers because nobody organized a proper survey. And no, the vote that was done with the PC vote wasn't really too useful.

The most definite "proof" so far of people being unhappy with the recent balance direction are the votes for BH balance in the feature feedback vote page, which I now notice has been removed from the view... This all was before the more recent changes too, which would probably be noticed in even more votes.
https://feedback.userreport.com/7a3715d ... as/popular
Image

Presently or after some time, you probably wont even see too many complaints/people voicing about balance, because people simply stop playing/play less/stop caring/move on to other games because of the balance :)

I hope the new balance team does some good changes.
Viba
Councillor - Moderation
 
Posts: 746
Joined: 22 Jan 2015, 21:42
Has liked: 144 times
Been liked: 224 times
FAF User Name: !smurfcheck Viba

Re: Balance Patch 3674 Feedback Thread

Postby SpoCk0nd0pe » 09 Feb 2017, 18:26

Farmsletje wrote:
SpoCk0nd0pe wrote:While I do agree with this, I do not know why Sera and Aeon where nerfed so much as well, especially at t3. At t1, the differences look reasonable, around 20% (Cybran<Sera/Aeon<UEF). At t2, they grow to 30% and at t3, they reach 40% (all factions vs UEF). At t3, the faction differences between Sera/Aeon vs Cybran have shrunk to 3%, but they don't get regen.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePFfw0p3Xd8

np

Yeah, I know that vid. It still doesn't make sense to me. Land unit strength at tech level x does not seem to be tied to resource building HP at tech level x. The new building HPs seem to be meant as a general design/new faction flavor and as such, I don't get the strange progression.
SpoCk0nd0pe
Avatar-of-War
 
Posts: 246
Joined: 24 Sep 2014, 21:17
Has liked: 20 times
Been liked: 37 times
FAF User Name: SpoCk0nd0pe

Re: Balance Patch 3674 Feedback Thread

Postby speed2 » 09 Feb 2017, 18:56

Counting the forums as some kind of format for the community opinion :lol:
...maybe if everyone who has a faf account would have access and more people would actually use or even know about the forums ;)

There aren't really any real numbers because nobody organized a proper survey. And no, the vote that was done with the PC vote wasn't really too useful.

Well that's what I pointed out and asked if he has better numbers to support his claims...

The most definite "proof" so far of people being unhappy with the recent balance direction are the votes for BH balance in the feature feedback vote page, which I now notice has been removed from the view... This all was before the more recent changes too, which would probably be noticed in even more votes.

That's even worse than the forum vote, since you could only vote if you were not happy with the balance and wanted BH.
User avatar
speed2
Contributor
 
Posts: 3189
Joined: 05 Jan 2013, 15:11
Has liked: 636 times
Been liked: 1119 times
FAF User Name: speed2

Re: Balance Patch 3674 Feedback Thread

Postby Farmsletje » 09 Feb 2017, 19:17

SpoCk0nd0pe wrote:
Farmsletje wrote:
SpoCk0nd0pe wrote:While I do agree with this, I do not know why Sera and Aeon where nerfed so much as well, especially at t3. At t1, the differences look reasonable, around 20% (Cybran<Sera/Aeon<UEF). At t2, they grow to 30% and at t3, they reach 40% (all factions vs UEF). At t3, the faction differences between Sera/Aeon vs Cybran have shrunk to 3%, but they don't get regen.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePFfw0p3Xd8

np

Yeah, I know that vid. It still doesn't make sense to me. Land unit strength at tech level x does not seem to be tied to resource building HP at tech level x. The new building HPs seem to be meant as a general design/new faction flavor and as such, I don't get the strange progression.


Faction diversity is (imo) a good thing, although everything has to be balanced ofc.

And my mistake, i thought you were talking about the factions in general, not about the buildings :D
FtXCommando wrote:
need to give him some time to blossom into an aids flower
Farmsletje
Contributor
 
Posts: 1116
Joined: 14 Sep 2016, 18:38
Has liked: 383 times
Been liked: 452 times
FAF User Name: Farmsletje

PreviousNext

Return to Balance Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest