Can we lower reclaim value to 20 percent

Moderator: JaggedAppliance

Re: Can we lower reclaim value to 20 percent

Postby Ithilis_Quo » 19 May 2015, 14:54

On my opinion is reclaim value fine. But have hypothetical suggestion. maybe we are looking on bad dirrection. Will not fill this situation better when time for reclaim would be longer, so additional reclaim from wreck will show on game later, and enemy would have chance interrupt reclaim party after lose fight, Then reclaim field can create interesting place of interest because dont disperser to enemy storage immediate.



Time that units need to reclaim is now quite fast, actually wreck can be reclaimed about 55x faster as is time for build. T1 engineer (5 br) reclaim Percival (6000build time) for 22second, but T1 enginer would build percival for 1200second.
what would happens when this time would be about 20x faster as time for build, = t1 engineer reclaim Percival after 60s, T3 engineer reclaim Percival after 10/7,5 second.
"Fixed in Equilibrium" Washy
User avatar
Ithilis_Quo
Supreme Commander
 
Posts: 1366
Joined: 29 Dec 2012, 15:55
Location: Slovakia
Has liked: 390 times
Been liked: 173 times
FAF User Name: Ithilis

Re: Can we lower reclaim value to 20 percent

Postby ZLO_RD » 19 May 2015, 15:28

Afaik reclaim rate is 50 mass per sec for t1 engy, and yes that is huge speed, lowering it will nerf reclaim steal tactics for initial reclaim on map like stones and civ buildings (imho it is kinda bad) but also nerf tactic of stealing mass after a fight so you have to controll territory longer to get reclaim

I like this idea, i was suggesting it long time ago but in a sence of "what if we do..."
I am not sure if change actually needed, but since any change is good i would like to see it introduced( but i also feel pain inside when think about nefing reclaim, cause i really love it)
http://www.youtube.com/user/dimatularus
http://www.twitch.tv/zlo_rd
TA4Life: "At the very least we are not slaves to the UI"
User avatar
ZLO_RD
Supreme Commander
 
Posts: 2193
Joined: 27 Oct 2011, 13:57
Location: Russia, Tula
Has liked: 293 times
Been liked: 375 times
FAF User Name: ZLO

Re: Can we lower reclaim value to 20 percent

Postby E8400-CV » 22 May 2015, 16:46

da_monstr wrote:
Col_Walter_Kurtz wrote:Pretty radical, but I must admit, the idea of lowering the reclaim value sounds appealing. Everyone just scrambles for every piece of debris like a bunch of scavengers now. It's almost funny if it wouldn't promote turtling so much.

That might be true, but then we would lose one of the distinctive concepts of Supcom: when attacking, you better do enough damage or it's gonna bite you in the a**. If you were to reduce reclaim to 20%, that would mean dumbly rushing a ML to enemy base and only destroying, for example, 1 T3 power gen would be worth it.
There are enough options to wrecking turtlers as it is.


Euh, no

Means you spend 19K, giving them 3.8k while costing them only 2592

Nett; your cost; 19000. Their gain; 1208
E8400-CV
Evaluator
 
Posts: 840
Joined: 24 Feb 2013, 21:00
Has liked: 29 times
Been liked: 32 times
FAF User Name: jcvjcvjcvjcv

Re: Can we lower reclaim value to 20 percent : "Random Value

Postby =M.V.K.= » 27 Jun 2015, 07:54

3 quotes limit... sorry..

Aulex wrote:
E8400-CV wrote:
Deering wrote:Before faf there was no reclaim in water, so no reclaim for ships. Any reclaim in water (mostly ships) is 50% of the normal reclaim amount (81%). ASFS are also 50% of the normal amount because it was just another reason to stack asf and never have an airfight. Neither person wants to drop 50k mass near an opponent. This stacks with the water amount so ASF in water are 20%

Everything else is at the quite high 81%. I can understand wanting to make it smaller. If two armies collide the reclaim field can build 3/4 of the combined armies. That is a lot.


Wreckage can take damage too and have reduced reclaim value.


Only be weapons with aoe


Sheeo wrote:Actually, there's a bug with the hitboxes of wrecks: Most of them are offset vertically about -50%. Since most weapons don't collide with wrecks it's not really a problem though, but there are a few projectiles that do--nukes for one.


"Wrecks/debris taking", "Wreck/debris taken" "damage" is good "idea(s)", but "seems" already there. I don't know much about "hitboxes" but doesn't seem like it should make much a "difference". If it still has "direct" hit worth, what should "still" "start" to be left?? "Dust Fields" is what I keep getting for what "starts" to be "left" anyways. When "running over", think what comes into "play" seems to kinda "solve" some of that "out", for "Dust Fields" to be "in" still anyways, but who knows.....
Maybe "Trialing Fields" can gather "elsewhere" rather on a high "efficiency" (for amounts from "debris/wrecks" that still been possible "damaged" "upon") or not still i "guess". "Area Coverage" also "seems" to "hamper" "interest" of "efficiency" "highly" . After "awhile" though might not be as "bad" though still "highly" "of". Which does now though seem to bring "Trialing Fields" into "question" on "regards" of "damage" "interests" though. "Dust Fields" should be first though on "say" what to "regard", if not "mistaken" though. (Speculative worth on speculating is probably just well of/off for speculation, in regards to just speculate still of course..but hey...)

Random "values" of "debris/wreckage" does "seem" better "put" though when it's "reclaimed"; still based off of "value" changes prior to by "random". "How" or a "say" of "Why" to be, I don't know. What say "said" before, might "help", but probably still isn't "it" ( At a time, "At times" anyways).

If say a "rewording" might be "found" of "interest" to say , I should be able to, sometime from "mentioned" or say "better" as of "inquiry/inquire/enquire" in "interest" to do "so", if still not say "mistaken" anyways but probably for "as" though( ...if still not "as" "mistaken") ..sorry..

Thx..
=M.V.K.=
Spammer
 
Posts: 87
Joined: 22 Jun 2015, 22:58
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 4 times
FAF User Name: MVK_

Re: Can we lower reclaim value to 20 percent : "Random Value

Postby Sheeo » 27 Jun 2015, 12:41

=M.V.K.= wrote:"Wrecks/debris taking", "Wreck/debris taken" "damage" is good "idea(s)", but "seems" already there. I don't know much about "hitboxes" but doesn't seem like it should make much a "difference". If it still has "direct" hit worth, what should "still" "start" to be left?? "Dust Fields" is what I keep getting for what "starts" to be "left" anyways. When "running over", think what comes into "play" seems to kinda "solve" some of that "out", for "Dust Fields" to be "in" still anyways, but who knows.....
Maybe "Trialing Fields" can gather "elsewhere" rather on a high "efficiency" (for amounts from "debris/wrecks" that still been possible "damaged" "upon") or not still i "guess". "Area Coverage" also "seems" to "hamper" "interest" of "efficiency" "highly" . After "awhile" though might not be as "bad" though still "highly" "of". Which does now though seem to bring "Trialing Fields" into "question" on "regards" of "damage" "interests" though. "Dust Fields" should be first though on "say" what to "regard", if not "mistaken" though. (Speculative worth on speculating is probably just well of/off for speculation, in regards to just speculate still of course..but hey...)

Random "values" of "debris/wreckage" does "seem" better "put" though when it's "reclaimed"; still based off of "value" changes prior to by "random". "How" or a "say" of "Why" to be, I don't know. What say "said" before, might "help", but probably still isn't "it" ( At a time, "At times" anyways).

If say a "rewording" might be "found" of "interest" to say , I should be able to, sometime from "mentioned" or say "better" as of "inquiry/inquire/enquire" in "interest" to do "so", if still not say "mistaken" anyways but probably for "as" though( ...if still not "as" "mistaken") ..sorry..

Thx..


I'm sorry, this grammar is beyond me. I can't meaningfully reply.
Support FAF on patreon: https://www.patreon.com/faf?ty=h

Peek at our continued development on github: https://github.com/FAForever
Sheeo
Councillor - Administrative
 
Posts: 1037
Joined: 17 Dec 2013, 18:57
Has liked: 109 times
Been liked: 233 times
FAF User Name: Sheeo

Re: Can we lower reclaim value to 20 percent

Postby =M.V.K.= » 29 Jun 2015, 04:11

Well, I don't think I'm going to reword this, given I thought It was a good post, but(As if I didn't mention already, as in the words with quotes being on a "but" status at a time...)..

In regards to say differences of , Debris Fields and/or Wreck Fields, Dust Fields, and Trial/Trialing(s) Fields might have some ideas to interest..or not..hey..

That and how reclaim can be of or basis as..
=M.V.K.=
Spammer
 
Posts: 87
Joined: 22 Jun 2015, 22:58
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 4 times
FAF User Name: MVK_

Re: Can we lower reclaim value to 20 percent

Postby JaggedAppliance » 03 Jul 2015, 21:15

I think nerfing the speed an engie reclaims at is a nice idea.
"and remember, u are a noob, u don’t have any rights to disagree" - Destructor

My Youtube channel with casts > https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVukA3 ... xnqxq3YD1g
My Twitch > https://www.twitch.tv/jaggedappliance
JaggedAppliance
Councillor - Balance
 
Posts: 621
Joined: 08 Apr 2015, 14:45
Has liked: 701 times
Been liked: 295 times
FAF User Name: JaggedAppliance

Re: Can we lower reclaim value to 20 percent

Postby The Mak » 04 Jul 2015, 16:37

JaggedAppliance wrote:I think nerfing the speed an engie reclaims at is a nice idea.


Yes, this is a good idea to start with before we lower reclaim values (which I agree as well, but not as low as a 20% level).
- Will give losing side more time to fight back to get some reclaim.
- Allow for higher tech engineers to be closer at front lines, maybe see more of Sparky.
- More positioning strategy to make sure you have an advantage in acquiring mass.
- Strategies involving reclaim denial, such as destroying reclaim, may come about, bringing more units with AOE into the battle.

Some negatives I foresee:
- T1 eng spam will grow, causing pathing issues and other possible game slow downs
- Possible stagnant play where you keep your forces for longer periods of time in reclaim fields to protect engineers instead of attacking.
- Slower game play because it is taking longer to convert reclaim mass into units.
User avatar
The Mak
Contributor
 
Posts: 342
Joined: 03 Mar 2012, 21:09
Location: New York, NY, USA
Has liked: 5 times
Been liked: 39 times
FAF User Name: The_Mak

Re: Can we lower reclaim value to 20 percent

Postby Zock » 04 Jul 2015, 20:02

another aspect, especially for newer players: the mass income from reclaim gets more stable, making it easier to balance your economy with it, and gives more time to react before you waste mass.
gg no re

ohh! what a pretty shining link! https://www.youtube.com/c/Zockyzock
User avatar
Zock
Supreme Commander
 
Posts: 1395
Joined: 31 Aug 2011, 22:44
Has liked: 172 times
Been liked: 397 times
FAF User Name: Zock

Re: Can we lower reclaim value to 20 percent

Postby Nyx » 05 Jul 2015, 19:00

JaggedAppliance wrote:A lower reclaim percentage could lead to more dynamic games. A failed attack has a very high penalty right now.



That is a good thing and part of the game, makes people be careful and increases immersion.
So it is a perfectly logical mechanic, do you know what engines/propulsion the planes use?

Zoram wrote: Quantic pixel dust ? :p

No actually it is a Dirtymatter Propulsion System otherwise known as DPS that you often hear people talking about.
User avatar
Nyx
Crusader
 
Posts: 44
Joined: 22 Sep 2014, 03:30
Has liked: 37 times
Been liked: 4 times
FAF User Name: Nyx

PreviousNext

Return to Balance Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest