Patch 3704 Release Thread

[FtXCommando]

Teamgames for the most part are strongly ACU centric. Guess who has the best ACU for 95% of the game.

“all factions have better options”
>zthuee

Your idea of Making Sera Great Again calls back to an era where sera was basically banned from navy slots because all 3 other factions basically had no answer to t3 subs. This includes torp bombers because they got raped by their absurd aa once you made like 15 subs.

[keyser]

Thanks for ignoring my detailed post. Really motive me to explain the decision made by the balance team.

Game enders:
I played a game recently as Cybran, which I normally never do, and went for a scathis. It was ridiculously easy. You can start with a mass eco of less than 300 and build it under sea (almost no way to prevent it). Whilie you are building you can keep building up your economy with RAS ACU's (something that Sera also doesn't have) and increase the power build gradually since it also need much less Energy than let's say a Marvor or yolona oss. Needless to say that we won easily.

Compare this to Sera: The yolona oss needs so dammn much energy that you need a shit load of t3 Reactors and you need to shield it since it can't be built under the sea. Also it's huge and can be sniped easily. Powerbuilding is more expensive due to the energy cost and building up your economy on the way is more difficult because, no RAS ACU.

I am not a big fan of Game enders so I am very okay with them being very expensive and difficult to get. But if the Scathis is now this cheap, can be build totally protected, is small and mobile, than it HAS to come with a much greater cost than it does now. THIS is clearly not balanced.

So, if I had a magical wand I would buff Sera navy back to the way it used to be so it becomes a valid option to pick again and either nerf scathis or make it (much) more expensive.

quickly : the scathis cost ~40k more mass than Yolona Oss (which is 20% more expensive something like that). As we said the e cost is most likely not going to bother you that much at this stage, since you will have, most likely, enough power set up already.
btw you also need to shield the scathis, because it need to be out of the water to fire. Also I wouldn't risk to build it under water, since it takes ages to build, it will be most likely scouted, and you can't shield it in water against torpedo bomber.

[Little Miss Murder]

If we can have the responses in the thread have a little more than some pointless banter, we can save space and offer something relevant for everyone here to read through, thanks

Frankly I'm not understanding your point Miss Murder (is that what I should be calling you?), if in terms of balance you're trying to bring realism to what dictates tactics and strategy in a video game? You can do some nifty stuff with your unit positioning and formation, all that good jazz, but it'd be hard to take you serious if trying to say all this about "true oceanic warfare" when considering how drastically different and unreliable this game is to actual strategy. I don't mean to crush expectations and immersion, but you do have to take a step back to realize why balance runs the way that it runs here Unfortunately naval combat does not run ideally run in games as we would like to.

If you really were a Wise Old Dog, you'd know that you can call me anything you like, since it's your money

Whenever I successfully pull off a successful outflanking or crossing of the T (particularly the latter), it's always tempered by the realization that it's because my opponent was blind. In the real world, or, at least the belated 20th centuy world that the FAF direct fire naval game mimics, that would have been considered realistic.

In the FAF world, it's because I got lucky. For me the talk about tactics is as academic as a comparison of frigate dps, since the fact is that, in the FAF world, to see what's happening around you is to simply stick a rod in the ground and to give it a burnt offering if you want to see further. You spam up a bunch of scouts. Instant, reliable, persistent intel.

Hey! Suddenly I'm off to my 1-2-3 spreadsheet. Hey no fair! He has more DPS than me at game tick 204! Then it turns into this boring slugfest; the victor of which is often the guy who can best suck muck from the seafloor. Flanks disappear, it's 1918 all over again (ha), and all that matters is how many shells you can build and cart to the front lines.

I'll tell ya what, after four thousand years of total war, we haven't learned much, have we?

Anyway. My point is this - forget about dps and mass cost. It just needs to be enough to be roughly equivalent. I'd rather take range over dps too, tbph (entirely different discussion). If you want to improve this game, drastically reduce the effectiveness, persistence and ease of acquisition of intelligence.

The fact of the matter is, if you are fighting blind, then it doesn't matter if you have more dps or hp or what have you. If you get caught with your pants down, you gonna get fucked even if you carry a bigger stick.

And that, my furry little friends, is what I call perfection in a game.

[Thomy100]

Yikes. Seraphim is probably the second easiest teamgame faction to play because they have a lot of safe and reliable options.

And yet it's being picked the least.

I do not know why you still think they are bad at navy.

I said navy used to be their strenght and now it's not anymore. As compared earlier it loses to the Aeon Destroyer and doesnt really hold up to the t2 mix of the other factions. Why don't you just try it yourself against decent players?

Maybe you just do not know how to play Seraphim?

Maybe you should just address the points i made WHY I think they are too weak now instead of making senseless statements

Just because UEF gets shield boats does not make seraphim weak.

actually yes it does. The shield boats protects them from air attacks and gives them additional hp. What else do you want to make them stronger at T2?

Is cybran weak because they dont have shields with their hoplites?

Cybran does have the counter inteligence boat and Salems. it's for sure not worse than Sera

Seraphim WILL beat ALL other destroyers 1v1 if microed AT ALL. You can even beat 6 enemy destroyers with 4 Seraphim ones. If you cannot do that, it is a fault with you, not the faction.

Depends on against which factions destroyers. VS Aeon? Hell no (more DPS, stronger Torpedos).

[Thomy100]

Thanks for ignoring my detailed post. Really motive me to explain the decision made by the balance team.

I didn't ignore it keyser I just don't agree with your conclusions.

Yes, Energy is less of an issue in late game. But powerbuilding increases the demand of energy drastically. that's why you can't put as many engies on building it like, let's say, on a scathis.

By your logic, since energy is not an issue, there should be as many yolonas build in the late stage of a game as scathises or Marvors. The building time is comparable (240 to 250) and the mass for yolona even less. But that's not the case! it's much more difficult to get a yolona up due to the huge energy consumption and the fact that you need to build a ton of t3 Reactors and shields beforehand.

Building a scathis under water is 99% of the cases super safe. After all you don't build it in the middle of the ocean but protected in your bay. while it get's build you make a few shields and roll it casually over from where it start's fucking up your opponets base. easy.

[Ze Dogfather]

If we can have the responses in the thread have a little more than some pointless banter, we can save space and offer something relevant for everyone here to read through, thanks

Frankly I'm not understanding your point Miss Murder (is that what I should be calling you?), if in terms of balance you're trying to bring realism to what dictates tactics and strategy in a video game? You can do some nifty stuff with your unit positioning and formation, all that good jazz, but it'd be hard to take you serious if trying to say all this about "true oceanic warfare" when considering how drastically different and unreliable this game is to actual strategy. I don't mean to crush expectations and immersion, but you do have to take a step back to realize why balance runs the way that it runs here Unfortunately naval combat does not run ideally run in games as we would like to.

If you really were a Wise Old Dog, you'd know that you can call me anything you like, since it's your money

Whenever I successfully pull off a successful outflanking or crossing of the T (particularly the latter), it's always tempered by the realization that it's because my opponent was blind. In the real world, or, at least the belated 20th centuy world that the FAF direct fire naval game mimics, that would have been considered realistic.

In the FAF world, it's because I got lucky. For me the talk about tactics is as academic as a comparison of frigate dps, since the fact is that, in the FAF world, to see what's happening around you is to simply stick a rod in the ground and to give it a burnt offering if you want to see further. You spam up a bunch of scouts. Instant, reliable, persistent intel.

Hey! Suddenly I'm off to my 1-2-3 spreadsheet. Hey no fair! He has more DPS than me at game tick 204! Then it turns into this boring slugfest; the victor of which is often the guy who can best suck muck from the seafloor. Flanks disappear, it's 1918 all over again (ha), and all that matters is how many shells you can build and cart to the front lines.

I'll tell ya what, after four thousand years of total war, we haven't learned much, have we?

Anyway. My point is this - forget about dps and mass cost. It just needs to be enough to be roughly equivalent. I'd rather take range over dps too, tbph (entirely different discussion). If you want to improve this game, drastically reduce the effectiveness, persistence and ease of acquisition of intelligence.

The fact of the matter is, if you are fighting blind, then it doesn't matter if you have more dps or hp or what have you. If you get caught with your pants down, you gonna get fucked even if you carry a bigger stick.

And that, my furry little friends, is what I call perfection in a game.

I genuinely have no idea what you're on about, but that starting line made me chuckle quite a bit , thanks for that.

I mean if you're making a point of big brain strategy, I'd prefer looking toward the real life equivalents of warfare than take a fictional environment and game seriously. I've had enough time playing this game to know what works and doesn't, and while I hate to pull this card (it's extremely likely I have a stronger understanding of the game, skill at it, and standing as far as rating), what I've learned from my time here is that some things are tossed out of the window because it's a video game. I dunno who you've been bullying to reinforce this naive perspective, but I can't help but think this is a blind man calling others blind.

The chances are if you're treating the battles in FAF as though it were some kind of military sim, you're going to be ousted regularly by those who are going to utilize game mechanics and meta to order to win, or as I'll reconstruct your saying, you're gonna get dicked on.

[Ze Dogfather]

Depends on against which factions destroyers. VS Aeon? Hell no (more DPS, stronger Torpedos).

In 1v1s, yes, he is correct; Seraphim destros will beat any other destro with micro. You would be correct, assuming the Aeon player has a substantial amount of destros, which then it becomes harder to compete, but in 1v1s or in small numbers, Aeon destroyers are easy to dodge as far as their cannons, and as you might have noticed, Seraphim ones do not miss. This is the main reason that they will win, and as you might have guessed, the main way to beat Seraphim destros is kiting them with range (avoid getting into their range), and if they don't micro well enough, which gets harder when there's more destroyers.

[Little Miss Murder]

The chances are if you're treating the battles in FAF as though it were some kind of military sim, you're going to be ousted regularly by those who are going to utilize game mechanics and meta to order to win, or as I'll reconstruct your saying, you're gonna get dicked on.

Haha!

So, I'm an exclusively Cybran player, for the simple reason that I love navy and I love the fact that I have some mechanism available to me to hide my ships. It helps restore my suspension of disbelief because it subtly makes it more realistic. That increases my enjoyment all on it's ace. The fact that I rely on my own easily accessible uber intel to make tactical decisions like crossing the T is neither here nor there, as hypocritically contradictory as it might seem. That is, perhaps precisely because it is, as you say, a video game.

Perhaps I don't care enough about winning. It can be disappointing to lose, nevertheless, just as a nice win or pulling off a sneaky drop is so satisfying.

It's like having sex. I guess I don't understand that race to the finish line when the whole game is made up of little dramas.

[Thomy100]

Teamgames for the most part are strongly ACU centric. Guess who has the best ACU for 95% of the game.

Maybe in smaller team games thes strong ACU helps of course but the difference is not that big, also being agressive with the ACU comes with a very high risk. I don't consider this imba, just a strenght.

Your idea of Making Sera Great Again calls back to an era where sera was basically banned from navy slots because all 3 other factions basically had no answer to t3 subs. This includes torp bombers because they got raped by their absurd aa once you made like 15 subs.

I definetelly believe Sera needs more love. I feel like it has been nerfed too hard. The original developers gave them awesome navy units (destro/subhunter) for a reason, to make up for their lack of unit variety. But I don't mean by that making them imba.

[Ze Dogfather]

Haha!

So, I'm an exclusively Cybran player, for the simple reason that I love navy and I love the fact that I have some mechanism available to me to hide my ships. It helps restore my suspension of disbelief because it subtly makes it more realistic. That increases my enjoyment all on it's ace. The fact that I rely on my own easily accessible uber intel to make tactical decisions like crossing the T is neither here nor there, as hypocritically contradictory as it might seem. That is, perhaps precisely because it is, as you say, a video game.

Perhaps I don't care enough about winning. It can be disappointing to lose, nevertheless, just as a nice win or pulling off a sneaky drop is so satisfying.

It's like having sex. I guess I don't understand that race to the finish line when the whole game is made up of little dramas.

As long as you're enjoying yourself out there, that's good. Most people come here to play casually, and they can live without being concerned about the meta and balance of the game; imo as long as your perspective of the game's design and immersion isn't cradling to making the balance/meta your own, but rather grounded on your enjoyment of the game, then that's perfect.

I don't enjoy the competitive scene anymore (being a long time player, I just burnt myself out), but I can still enjoy and have fun with the game, which is what matters anyway.