T3 arties - noob heaven, need rebalance

[____]

Off the top of my head without doing any real research so no one should take this too seriously I'd cut its range by a third, cut its splash according to faction by 2 and reduce its rate of fire by 25%.

That sentence alone undermines your entire post and the point you want to make.

Coming from the guy that wants its range to change depending on the size of the map its played on that really hurts man. =P

I thought it would, since none of your recent posts contain any form, or at least the basic outline of a structure resembling an argument.

You simply disregard valid points based on "this should not be" or "whatever" instead thinking about the topic for more than 2 minutes. If you want anyone to take you seriously you should test things yourself, think about the possible outcome of a change and not simply state that the relevant point is without merit.
You can transform any point, no matter how ridiculous he might seem at the first glance, into a valid argument by giving the reader a well thought out hypothesis and a couple of examples. Your problem is that you make both suggestions which might be very impactful on the game as a whole, and then fail to back up any of them. The result is this thread.

You also can't expect anyone to write half a novel as an answer to your posts when you yourself fail to provide the basics, like actually thinking about the problem. The fact that there are still very long replies with several well thought out points, should give you an idea, with what people you are dealing with.

[FtXCommando]

Units balances for single maps won’t happen because of three major reasons:

1) I don’t even think it’s possible

2) If it was possible, you just quintupled the balance team workload

3) It effectively gives FAF consent to divide the communities into weird ghettos based on maps. Even if those already exist, it isn’t something that balance nor FAF as a whole is going to encourage.

If you aren’t happy with vanilla icecream FAF balance, try a dual gap flavor to appease your palette. Or whatever other highly focused balance mod for a map that could be made.

[____]

1) I don’t even think it’s possible

Well, if that is the case, all I said was useless. Sadly, I don't have the insight that I might want to have.

2) If it was possible, you just quintupled the balance team workload

Perhaps what I wrote was not formulated clearly enough. Sorry for that. My idea was to have a system that recognizes the map size in the map data and then adjusts the T3 arty range accordingly. So, the balance team would just have to pull on one leaver to change the values for all the required maps. Or a single very popular map. If that is not given the default ranged will be used. I admit, that this might be a utopia.

3) It effectively gives FAF consent to divide the communities into weird ghettos based on maps. Even if those already exist, it isn’t something that balance nor FAF as a whole is going to encourage.

My point was to change one and only one group of units (which are not even used every game) based on what map is played. I 100% agree, that this would be a problem if one would change more than one type of unit, though I honestly cannot imagine that my suggested change could have any effect on the segmentation of the game since only T3 arties and maybe the Scathis would be changed.

If you aren’t happy with vanilla icecream FAF balance, try a dual gap flavor to appease your palette. Or whatever other highly focused balance mod for a map that could be made.

Sadly "make a mod for it" is achieving pretty much the exact thing you just mentioned is to be avoided, namely the splitting of the player base. If the mod is successful there will be people who only want to use said mod, others won't even come close to joining a lobby with it enabled. So, the mod would actually compete with the normal FAF experience. This is a small community however and needs unity. This is also the reason why I am against mods like EQ (even though they have many great concepts and a lot of work is invested in them).

The point I am trying to make is, that the proposed arty change would not impact people who don't play a certain map type on which the ranges are different and would please the people which are actually effected.

[FtXCommando]

I get what you said, but people still need to properly balance FOR maps if this was a theoretical FAF feature. Now we gotta get a dual gap team (do they just do 6v6? wat about the fellas that like doin 2v2 smh), a sentons team (oh wait that is half the balance team 4head), and of course MY WONDER OPEN INTELLECTUALS

Now you’ve gone and opened the floodgates for 5x5 aurora, 10x10 aurora, 20x20 aurora etc

Basically every dude that dies in game that “”””clearly”””” only lost due to a unit or a map will be d e m a n d i n g their own version of this and honestly I’m struggling to think of how t3 arty has any more of a noteworthy argument for this feature here than auroras.

It might not “create” segments to the point that it’s some hard barrier, but the point is that you have now increased the barrier of entry for dudes to play both FAF and new maps.

“Wtf, why arty cost jack shit now did you use a game hack?”
“Uh no if you looked at the Unit google sheet and went to the page for t3 arty, you’d see that it was made 10k mass cheaper on wonder closed while shooting at 4/5ths of the original speed. It’s critical to the balance please keep up cmonBruh.”
We got too many problems getting dudes to comprehend what is happening in game without changing variables on them for arbitrary circumstances.

Sure, making a mod splits the playerbase. But that’s players actively joining that new community rather than being forced into that community. It’s the difference between galance existing and forcing all sentons to now have mandatory galance.

[moses_the_red]

If you want anyone to take you seriously you should test things yourself

Oh, you've arrived to this discussion late my friend. That is one hilarious comment.

[____]

If you want anyone to take you seriously you should test things yourself

Oh, you've arrived to this discussion late my friend. That is one hilarious comment.

Yeah, ofc I am late to this discussion, especially when considering that my first comment on this thread was on page 3 :kappa:
You can definitely expect people to tell you the same things over and over again, considering that every post of yours has the same basic outline with the same message.

I get what you said, but people still need to properly balance FOR maps if this was a theoretical FAF feature. Now we gotta get a dual gap team (do they just do 6v6? wat about the fellas that like doin 2v2 smh), a sentons team (oh wait that is half the balance team 4head), and of course MY WONDER OPEN INTELLECTUALS

Yeah, I agree that this could run out of hand. When other player bases see this was possible, they would most likely want the same.

Basically every dude that dies in game that “”””clearly”””” only lost due to a unit or a map will be d e m a n d i n g their own version of this and honestly I’m struggling to think of how t3 arty has any more of a noteworthy argument for this feature here than auroras.

Well I thought telling the players that this would be a one-off thing would eliminate this problem, though I can see your point.

It might not “create” segments to the point that it’s some hard barrier, but the point is that you have now increased the barrier of entry for dudes to play both FAF and new maps.
We got too many problems getting dudes to comprehend what is happening in game without changing variables on them for arbitrary circumstances.

Yes, it will most definitely increase the barrier of entry, but when I see huge mods being made which propose a completely alternative view to balance which results in having to relearn the game just to play the mod, I can’t see how a simple Scathis or T3 Arty change based on map size would fundamentally change this.
If someone new joins a highly modded game I cannot see how he would understand what is going on in that game either.

Again, I will say that you absolutely have a point, with too many changes to the game based on my system, your mentioned downsides would certainly occur. Though I still think that if it is only ONE change to ONE type of unit people would understand what is going on.
Sadly, I forgot to mention it in my first post but adjusting the ranges based on the map size would be the only change I would accept. Changing the costs or anything else because the map is smaller/larger makes no sense to me either.
Though I still stand by my opinion, that it would be a good idea to change the ranges, since it is obvious which targets the arty can reach, because you can see its range by selecting it in the build menu beforehand. If the player thinks “wtf this range sucks” after he built the arty, it is his fault since he should always check the ranges and what he can reach before building the arty anyway.

Sure, making a mod splits the playerbase. But that’s players actively joining that new community rather than being forced into that community. It’s the difference between galance existing and forcing all sentons to now have mandatory galance.

All changes the balance team makes are forced on the players anyway. Is that a bad thing? No. That is how changes are made. The balance team decides the changes, and in the end, you will play with them anyway, even if you don’t like them. Either that, or you will just have to play a mod which resolves the problems you see in the game. In that sense you will still be forced to play said mod since you fundamentally disagree with the direction the balance team has chosen.
Ofc making it right for everyone is difficult and there will always be someone who does not like the changes. However, if making real changes is the goal, people will be upset either way. Integrating one change like that will not change anything in that aspect.

[moses_the_red]

Yeah, ofc I am late to this discussion, especially when considering that my first comment on this thread was on page 3 :kappa:
You can definitely expect people to tell you the same things over and over again, considering that every post of yours has the same basic outline with the same message.

When I entered this thread the consensus was that T3 arty was in no way OP. People were saying that 20k mass in shields counters 70k mass in Arty.

Its taken something like 15 pages in this thread to finally break through all that, and it required a lot of basic math and replays to get here, and I had to push for this when nearly every poster in this thread was entirely dismissive of every word I said because of my rating.

But I think I have moved the conversation forward. I don't for instance see people still claiming that T3 arty is countered by a few shields.

Now you can go ahead and ignore all that while you push for something as silly as dynamic unit abilities based on map size if you want, but it doesn't make you correct.

[FtXCommando]

Narrator’s Voice: And it was still countered by a few shields

[Endranii]

Single shield can counter countless tml. It's a fact so now prove me wrong and I will prove you're wrong too.

[moses_the_red]

Narrator’s Voice: And it was still countered by a few shields

... a few shields over every mex and economic structure... resulting in a higher cost for the defender than the arty itself.