RE: Upcoming balance changes

The changes are WIP and once they are ironed out I will make a post similar to this: https://forum.faforever.com/topic/1311/faf-beta-current-changelog

posted in Balance Discussion
RE: Add upgrade t2 shields for aeon

While I think T2 Aeon Shield is in a fine spot I don't really see this "Feature" of not being able to upgrade them as something that has a lot of meaning and value besides being annoying every now and then. In competitive 1vs1 games you basically never upgrade T2 shields to T3 so it doesn't matter for that game mode. In Team games, it happens but it really doesn't have much impact besides being annoying for the player that built the shields. I will look into including this in the next Balance Patch.

posted in Balance Discussion
RE: The Problems With The UEF - Part 3 (The Parashield)

You haven't given any arguments why Parashield should be buffed besides saying that Asylum is stronger which is definitely not enough to justify a buff. UEF T2 land is perfectly fine as it is, it doesn't need any buffs.
T2 mobile shields were nerfed 1.5 year ago because they were too strong. I think that parashield is in a good spot right now. Asylum is currently a bit too strong thus it's getting nerfed.

posted in Balance Discussion
RE: Chrono Dampener Rework

@auriko said in Chrono Dampener Rework:

As i've stated before, the upgrade is in a strange spot atm since it''s quite expansive, and comes up at a time (late T2 / early T3) where you really want your ACU to be safe and not on the frontline.

can't be more wrong honestly

So now that it's going to be weaker, i think it should also be less expansive, otherwise it will never be played : it will be too weak to handle t3 units, and barely strong enough to juggle a big t2 army, and it doesn't protect you from air snipes, why pick it over shield then ?

Right now chrone is ultra dominant and super OP. Why do you think that the upcoming nerf will instantly make it worthless. If anything i'd say it might need another nerf because it will still be too strong, but that's up for later debate after we see the effects of the first one

posted in Balance Discussion
RE: The Problems With The UEF - Part 3 (The Parashield)

@comradestryker said in The Problems With The UEF - Part 3 (The Parashield):

I would disagree, as both units share the same purpose; To cover your army/navy.

This is over simplifying, since the units the shield covers are different. This becomes especially obvious on T3. There the units covered are:

UEF: percy, titan, upgraded UEF ACU,aa

Aeon: Harb,sniper,upgraded Aeon ACU,aa

Harb+shields behaves very different from percy+shields or titans+shields, since shields perform especially well with army compositions that kite a lot or fight many small skirmishes.
And obviously sniper+shilds is completely different from percy+shields, first of all because the snipers can die in a second when not shielded.

I hope this shows that you have to compare whole army compositions of a faction, with whole army compositions from other factions to draw meaningfull conclusionson faction balance.

posted in Balance Discussion
RE: The Problems With The UEF - Part 3 (The Parashield)

I will write more tomorrow but I must say I completely disagree with this suggestion and problem description. You consider the unit in isolation without taking into account the whole faction land roster. Just because UEF's t2 mobile shield is worse then Aeon's it doesn't mean that it should be buffed. In this particular case I actually consider Aeon shield to be too strog currently and therefore it might potentially be slightly nerfed (currently there is a PR open increasing its e maintanance cost)

posted in Balance Discussion
RE: The Problems With The UEF - Part 2 (ACU Billy Nuke Upgrade)

@brannou said in The Problems With The UEF - Part 2 (ACU Billy Nuke Upgrade):

Looking at the game, billy nuke wasn't that usefull.

Took a very long time to build even with the ressources you had (beside the T1 spam at the start, you weren't fighting the bottom and building higher tier units).

Had plateau and a very good position to harrass ennemi without retaliation

Still stalled with 3 T3 pgen and air player overflowing.

Result : 4/5 T3 units (harb/sniper bot) and a few T2 shields

1 T3 land HQ with a couple of mex

1 aeon Tmd shoot

Even with those very favorable conditions it didn't impact the battlefield as much

I dont know if the hassle was worth the use

Meanwhile on top, expe and mazer go brrr

Yea i never claimed it was that usefull. Someone wanted an example of it being used.

If you think i should be able to build it on 100 mass income then idea of when you make a billy is completely different from how it actually is used.

All in all this wasn't the best time to make a billy because the t3 armies were small, and like i said the main use for a billy is to go for big t3 armies. But even then with my first 2 launches i got 20k mass killed so i'm almost even already. Then you have to take in mind the impact it can have on a battle and the fact that your opponent is now forced to spend way more mass on tmd.

You mention 1 aeon tmd countering it, but you didn't mention that the only reason it survived the t1 bombers was by some coincidental asf movement that accidentally shot down the bombers killing the tmd making it live on 50 hp. Guess what, if he wasn't lucky that could've killed that base and leave the acu on 1k hp.

Mentioning the mazer acu is funny since it got literally nothing accomplished and the acu died to a few gunships

posted in Balance Discussion
RE: The Problems With The UEF - Part 2 (ACU Billy Nuke Upgrade)

@comradestryker said in The Problems With The UEF - Part 2 (ACU Billy Nuke Upgrade):

Perhaps, but it's still not something you'd use on a smaller scale, perhaps a 1v1, 2v2?
I mean, when it comes down to it, anything available in FAF should be balanced in 1v1 scenario.

In theory yes, but in practice it's impossible. It's not like you see game enders or t3 arties ever build in one. You can't perfectly balance a unit for both teamgames and 1v1.

The projectile itself really easy to counter, heck, even just a few T2 mobile shields will protect what's under them.

No it doesn't. t2 shields are literally irrelevant vs a billy. It kills them including the army under it.

As many others agree with me, it's really not worth the mass investment for the projectile. It's too risky to use for its plausible worth.

People agreeing with you doesn't mean its true.

Again, the UEF, Aeon, and Seraphim have mobile shields to protect their armies, and the Cybran faction has the Loyalist - deflecting the projectile back at the unit that fired it. Too many counters, too many risks, it just isn't worth it most of the time.

Even if it's not worth it most of the time, is that bad? It's a faction specific lategame upgrade. Probably most similar to cybran going cloak/lazer, which is also rarely used. But even though they are rare upgrades i've seen enough times when they shine. I've seen billy acu's and cloak lazer acu's getting 100k mass killed.

Though, I do agree that it shouldn't be 'TMD pummeling', but, even 2 TMD, depending on how they're positioned, could still manage to land 6 shots on the projectile killing it.

The main use for billy is killing big t3 armies, not trying to wipe out a base. And even then you can easily assist the billy by sniping some tmd's with air

posted in Balance Discussion