PATCH 3696 RELEASE THREAD

Moderator: JaggedAppliance

Re: PATCH 3696 RELEASE THREAD

Postby JoonasTo » 15 Jun 2018, 17:09

PsychoBoB wrote:This would be a good idea in general. OC change was made to make T2 more viable against ACU but SCUs appear way after the T3 stage. So why not keep the old OC (with maybe small adjustments) for SCUs?

There is no change in OC vs T2. It still costs the same to kill T2 units. If anything, it is now MORE viable against T2 because it leaves full size wrecks.
User avatar
JoonasTo
Priest
 
Posts: 498
Joined: 08 Feb 2015, 01:11
Has liked: 18 times
Been liked: 81 times
FAF User Name: JoonasTo

Re: PATCH 3696 RELEASE THREAD

Postby Strogo » 15 Jun 2018, 19:32

AdmiralZeech wrote:...and the ACU OCs are the magical style.


This is a futuristic game, what's so strange about smart wireless energy draining shoots?


Or, maybe it's not wireless ;) In futuristic games everything can be explained pretty easily. This is wire-guided missile:

Image

now imagine same concept in sc:

Image

Yes, your reactor is pretty epic (look at the explosion!), but still, you don't want to spend more energy than needed =)
Strogo
Avatar-of-War
 
Posts: 51
Joined: 25 Oct 2017, 00:51
Has liked: 7 times
Been liked: 31 times
FAF User Name: Strogo

Re: PATCH 3696 RELEASE THREAD

Postby IceDreamer » 15 Jun 2018, 21:46

AdmiralZeech wrote:... But personally I would rather that be the responsibility of the player (due to target choice, making sure the line of fire is clear, etc), rather than a system that unpredictably drains energy in this way.


Then by all means you should have contacted the balance team and/or councillor during the multiple months this was available for you to preview and test out. You should still make your opinion known to them now. Just bear in mind that they considered your proposed method, and for whatever reason decided this way at the time.

Also, the drain of Energy isn't unpredictable. It's roughly predictable if you know roughly what your target is. You can't predict it exactly, no... But I think the idea was to change the mentality. Rather than "I will spend 5K to do 12K damage", perhaps they wanted people to be thinking "That unit is a danger. I will now spend whatever is needed to kill it.", and introduce the decision to play aggressively with OC and need to build more E Storage and generation, or to spend those resources on units and hang back. I don't really know, that's just what I can think of off the top of my head.
IceDreamer
Supreme Commander
 
Posts: 2600
Joined: 27 Dec 2011, 07:01
Has liked: 138 times
Been liked: 481 times

Re: PATCH 3696 RELEASE THREAD

Postby 5cript » 16 Jun 2018, 05:17

Can we at least get faster t3 engineers (movement speed), now that experimentals need ludicrous amounts of buildpower to build?

The t3 engineer move speed has always been ssuuuuppper painful to me. And now especially so with the extreme buildtime nerf on experimentals.

You cannot always have expensive SACUs everywhere and more t1 engineers is more pathfinding hell.
5cript
Crusader
 
Posts: 31
Joined: 11 Oct 2017, 21:20
Has liked: 5 times
Been liked: 2 times
FAF User Name: NomenNominandum

Re: PATCH 3696 RELEASE THREAD

Postby Dunstklinge » 16 Jun 2018, 16:47

IceDreamer wrote:Then by all means you should have contacted the balance team and/or councillor during the multiple months this was available for you to preview and test out. You should still make your opinion known to them now. Just bear in mind that they considered your proposed method, and for whatever reason decided this way at the time.


The majority of people dont participate in the beta process and never will. Therefor it seems logical that the majority of feedback and opinions will arive only after the proper release. You almost make that sound like you blame him for being part of the majority that doesn't involve himself in the beta testing.
I also don't think that the balance council is less inclined to change systems now than they were during the beta. Quite in the contrary, i'd expect them to rethink decisions more thoroughl once they get more feedback from more people. At least thats how i imagine the balancing process.

5cript wrote:Can we at least get faster t3 engineers (movement speed), now that experimentals need ludicrous amounts of buildpower to build?

The t3 engineer move speed has always been ssuuuuppper painful to me. And now especially so with the extreme buildtime nerf on experimentals.


Personally, I'd be more hesitant to take away the last hard disadvantage that higher tier engies have over t1. I've heared on multiple occasions that the build power nerf might have been a little bit too strong; maybe a change to that will be enough to fix it without having to sacrificing unit diversity.
Dunstklinge
Crusader
 
Posts: 16
Joined: 28 May 2018, 14:23
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 5 times
FAF User Name: Dunstklinge

Re: PATCH 3696 RELEASE THREAD

Postby PsychoBoB » 16 Jun 2018, 16:57

5cript wrote:Can we at least get faster t3 engineers (movement speed), now that experimentals need ludicrous amounts of buildpower to build?
The t3 engineer move speed has always been ssuuuuppper painful to me. And now especially so with the extreme buildtime nerf on experimentals.
You cannot always have expensive SACUs everywhere and more t1 engineers is more pathfinding hell.

I had the same thoughts and made a mod some years ago with some adjustments for T2 and T3 engies. They are now a bit faster and have a bit more buildrange than T1:
T2 and T3 Engineer Adjustment.zip
(3.87 KiB) Downloaded 72 times


Code: Select all
T2
    Economy = {
        MaxBuildDistance = 6,   -- from 5
    },
    Physics = {
        MaxAcceleration = 2.5,   -- from 1.9
        MaxBrake = 2.5,      -- from 1.9
        MaxSpeed = 2,         -- from 1.7

T3
    Economy = {
        MaxBuildDistance = 7.5,   -- from 5
    },
    Physics = {
        MaxAcceleration = 2.5,   -- from 1.9
        MaxBrake = 2.5,      -- from 1.9
        MaxSpeed = 1.7,      -- from 1.4


But nobody of the Pros was interested to test it or gave reasonable answer why this is not a good idea...
If you fear the dark you have never seen what light can cause!
PsychoBoB
Priest
 
Posts: 395
Joined: 12 Sep 2011, 09:25
Has liked: 150 times
Been liked: 29 times
FAF User Name: McNeil

Re: PATCH 3696 RELEASE THREAD

Postby Apofenas » 16 Jun 2018, 18:07

Something i dislike about t3 engineers is factionable advantage/disadvantage.

UEF/Cybran t3 engies get 30 bp and Aeon/Sera get 40 for same cost. I remember it was done because UEF and cybran have engy stations. Yet Aeon/Sera t3 engie is more efficient than t1 engy while engy stations are inefficient for bp.

EDIT: oh nvm. Never noticed they were all changed to 30 at some point

EQ found a solution to make all engineers (t1-t3) to have same bp/mass, but Aeon/sera t3 engineers are more expensive than UEF/cyb and pack more bp to be able to focus more build power in one spot.
Last edited by Apofenas on 17 Jun 2018, 03:22, edited 1 time in total.
BalanceVictim wrote:I tried it out, and yes, the anti-torpedo is a useful tool now. Sadly, the rest of the unit is still extremely weak compared to any other frig
Apofenas
Contributor
 
Posts: 744
Joined: 21 Jul 2013, 14:39
Has liked: 175 times
Been liked: 180 times
FAF User Name: Apofenas

Re: PATCH 3696 RELEASE THREAD

Postby JoonasTo » 16 Jun 2018, 22:39

That hasn't been the case for years. They're all 30.
User avatar
JoonasTo
Priest
 
Posts: 498
Joined: 08 Feb 2015, 01:11
Has liked: 18 times
Been liked: 81 times
FAF User Name: JoonasTo

Re: PATCH 3696 RELEASE THREAD

Postby 5cript » 17 Jun 2018, 05:25

T3 Engineer move speed adds minutes to ETAs of things because of travel time.
I would even accept them getting squishier for more speed (like t2 engineer speed or something).

Another thing that t3 engineer speed does lead to is dense bases. You dont really want them to walk much, because it takes forever.

I would love to have a broader discussion on this.
5cript
Crusader
 
Posts: 31
Joined: 11 Oct 2017, 21:20
Has liked: 5 times
Been liked: 2 times
FAF User Name: NomenNominandum

Re: PATCH 3696 RELEASE THREAD

Postby FtXCommando » 17 Jun 2018, 05:53

You will have dense bases regardless; any map where such a thing is a consideration would first and foremost be worried about SMD coverage which relies on your critical structures being together. Slower engies are also one of the reasons that RAS SACU spam is even remotely viable as the inefficiency of T3 engie speed/range makes the inefficiency of spamming RAS SACUs (eco-wise) worth it.
Are you upset? Are you happy? Are you a FAF Player? Come to the PC Discord and share your thoughts and build the community!

https://discord.gg/Y2dGU8X
User avatar
FtXCommando
Councillor - Players
 
Posts: 1059
Joined: 09 Jan 2017, 18:44
Has liked: 201 times
Been liked: 508 times
FAF User Name: FtXCommando

PreviousNext

Return to Balance Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest