The Problems With The UEF - Part 3 (The Parashield)
-
UEF has an almost unstoppable combo of nano and gun, extremely cheap t2 and broken t3 land at the moment, i see no reason whatsoever to buff what is already insanely strong on literally every spot in-game, shields change will lead to basically unkillable armies and monkey pushes right into your base and pds won't be able to prevent that due to drugged hp from com vet, combine that with personal shield and you get a t4 on min 12.
-
Thanks for that formula - I didn't realize that there was one. I thought everything was manually balanced.
This is most interesting, though.
Thanks for sharing!
~Stryker
-
I see the UEF mobile shield as a strength of the faction, and it compares reasonably with the Aeon given how their fixed shields compare (i.e. Aeon is stronger but smaller for fixed shields, the same is the case for the mobile shields).
Aeon does have better and more efficient shields. However, the size difference when comparing the 2 mobile shields, is negligent. We're talking about a smidge more shield radius and in practicality, it's literally nothing.
Similar to how you said you were comparing static shields, I was trying to expand on that with the UEF mobile shields, a bit. Hence they cover more but have almost the same HP - and are far worse in efficiency.
So the only change I might be ok with is a slight reduction in energy maintenance, since comparing T2 fixed shields the UEF costs 200 vs Aeon's 150, so having the mobile shield cost say 65 (instead of 80) would be more in line with that sort of a ratio.
Of course! That is why I offered 2 suggestions.
One to reduce the maintenance cost and one to expand on the unit a little more.Boosting the shield health to me runs counter to the faction identify on shields, while increasing the shield size to 19 makes it comparable with the T3 mobile shield size for a T2 unit.
Perhaps you are correct here, but I do want to point out that the UEF does kind of similarly match Seraphim in coverage - in the T3 stage of shields, at least. The unit is far worse, too! We're talking about having a third of the HP. I mean... it is T2 vs T3.
~ Stryker
-
You said it yourself
Still waiting for that insight. x)
So UEF land is fine even with a bad mobile shield and people even build that bad unit.
So there's no reason to buff that unit.Well, saying this was more of a general statement... something to get a sentence going.
And, of course we would build the unit. Not building it means you're missing out. I'd rather build a bad unit than not build it when it comes to it. I need every unit I can get.
Why wouldn't someone build it? If you don't you're just kicking yourself in the teeth, haha.
~ Stryker
-
@comradestryker said in The Problems With The UEF - Part 3 (The Parashield):
Thanks for that formula - I didn't realize that there was one. I thought everything was manually balanced.
This is what we use in LOUD, for all shields, and shielded units - we have similar formulae for firepower/range/AOE/power consumption relationships for Artillery, Teleportation, and, in fact, for a great deal of our balance work.
-
@comradestryker said in The Problems With The UEF - Part 3 (The Parashield):
And, of course we would build the unit. Not building it means you're missing out
There are a lot of units that don't get build every game tho, because they might have just been bad in the situations where you could have build them, so you chose to build something else.
So you can not build certain units without missing out on "combat power", as it's not like your factories have to idle because you don't want that parashield.
And if UEF land is solid or even good (which you and a lot of others said) even though people build that unit (if no one ever builds it, it wouldn't contribute to how good that factions land is and we could assume it's bad), then that unit is not in dire needs of a buff. -
@farmseatmushroom
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
Aeon: + Destroyers, Cruisers, etc.
Remember... Asylum hovers. Multi-purpose.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.How exactly do they behave differently? I apologize as I'm not following your point. It's kind of the same overall, to me. Shields are meant to protect what's underneath, no?
Obviously, snipers would need mobile shields due to their low health. Harbs have their own shields, Percies shoot slow, and Titans have their own shield as well - albeit much lower HP than a mobile shield.
You mentioned :
shields perform especially well with army compositions that kite a lot or fight many small skirmishes
I would agree, hence why the Parashield's main battle units it protects are Percies and Pillars. Both of which need an accompanying mobile shield desperately as one shoots very slow and the other has low DPS.
Harbs on the other hand need shields because, well, they can't take on Percies one on one. And Sera T3 units deal high damage with a little lower hp than other units. And we're including experimentals, too.
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.
Trust me, I'm trying to compare everything, haha.
Thanks for the reply!
Hope to hear more from you!
~ Stryker
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
-
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.
The main issue I felt the Parahshield had was its energy cost. But whilst I was offering a solution to that, I realized I could also offer a suggestion that would make the unit match more of the faction's static shields.
I wasn't trying to give it just a buff - I offered 2 suggestions.
One was to reduce the maintenance cost, and the other was to expand on the unit a little bit. I was trying to expand specifically on the faction strength which has moderate HP with large shield coverage but to counterbalance this change, increased costs to the unit.
Thanks!
~ Stryker
-
Parashields are just as critical for titans as percies. Both t2 mobile shields are essential to a competent unit mix for t2 and t3 stage for both factions.
-
Do the parasheild mass cost with t2 pgens, because, well, you have t2 tech
Well, at this rate, if you have T2 power, you're saving, not on mass, but on power instead. But, let's see if I can get some stats for you.
-T2 PGen:
1,200 Mass, +500 E Yield-Parashield :
220 Mass, -80 E Yield-Asylum:
220 Mass, -45 E YieldSo, you need 6.25 Parashields (500/80) or 11.11 Asylums (500/45) to use up all of power output of one T2 Pgen.
-Parashield:
220 * 6.25 = 1,375 mass-Asylum:
220 * 11.11 = 2,444.2 massThis means that as Aeon, you can spend an extra 1,069.2 mass (2,444.2 - 1,375) by using one T2 pgen's power on more Asylums. However, this does not include the extra Asylum units. Let's adjust for that.
Aeon has an extra 5.23 units (11.11 - 5.88). This means the extra units cost you 1,150.6 mass (5.23 * 220). So, basically, the mass you could spend on another Pgen as UEF, you can spend into units as Aeon. Aeon ends up spending a whopping 81.4 mass (1,150.6 - 1,069.2) to use the same power.
If that didn't make sense, let me explain it another way - in gameplay terms
10 mobile shields on each side vs the power they need to run. I will be using T1 as well as T2 power.
UEF requires an extra 15 T1 pgens to even out with a +0 power cost.
Aeon requires no extra pgens, but instead still has a +50 networth in power.
So, again, Aeon saves 1,125 mass (15 T1 pgen for 75 mass each).(And not to mention each Asylum has 500 more HP than the Parashield. (And Hover.))
Hope this made sense.
~ Stryker
-
This is what we use in LOUD, for all shields, and shielded units - we have similar formulae for firepower/range/AOE/power consumption relationships for Artillery, Teleportation, and, in fact, for a great deal of our balance work.
I hope I don't regret asking but, what exactly is "LOUD"?
~ Stryker
-
@comradestryker Something like FAF: A Modding Project
But instead of focusing on 1v1 and maps up to 20x20 loud maps rather start there and get bigger.
So the focus lies on very large/long teamgames and the balance is made accordingly
I believe these are the sites where you can get it/more info on it.
https://www.moddb.com/mods/loud-ai-supreme-commander-forged-alliance
https://github.com/LOUD-Project/Git-LOUD -
There are a lot of units that don't get build every game tho, because they might have just been bad in the situations where you could have build them, so you chose to build something else.
Well, of course. This is part of the learning process of the game. A Mercy vs AA tends to be a mass dump. You can't use every unit in every situation - so of course you can build something else.
So you can not build certain units without missing out on "combat power", as it's not like your factories have to idle because you don't want that parashield.
True, but in almost what situation would a mobile shield not help? Even if you're powerstalling, it is another unit among the others - at that point, it's a lackluster meatshield but, still helps, I guess. And as UEF, Aeon, and Seraphim, you should be mixing them in with your forces - regardless of how inefficient they may be.
And if UEF land is solid or even good (which you and a lot of others said) even though people build that unit (if no one ever builds it, it wouldn't contribute to how good that factions land is and we could assume it's bad), then that unit is not in dire needs of a buff.
Again, that was just a generic statement. Plus, it literally can be said for every other Faction as well.
And just because someone doesn't build the unit often, doesn't mean it doesn't need to be adjusted. As you can see by the post above this one, the Parashield is really inefficient causing you to build more Power which costs you mass.
Common unit or not, it should still be balanced.
Thanks for the comment.
~ Stryker -
@comradestryker said in The Problems With The UEF - Part 3 (The Parashield):
Common unit or not, it should still be balanced.
The point is, the unit is balanced by the different unit roster between the two factions.
having a bad mobile shield just means, that you include more other units in you composition. UEF has the mongoose for example, which has more dps/mass than any aeon t2 land unit while also having more range and It's also faster than obsidians.
One of the downsides is it's low hp (as with every other non-heavy bot), which can be offset by a shield. but having a good mobile shield and a great dps unit with high range, that only misses some hp is probably pretty strong. So a weaker shield is more balanced for the whole roster.
This kind of balancing is the same for a lot of other units as well. For example all frigates have a different value, while aeon is just the worst frigate, cybran is the best.
But Aeon has a lot stronger destros so the whole roster is still balanced.
It's just part of the faction to play around the weaker units and try to use your strong units. -
Isn't one of the lore points of Aeon that they have really good shields, since they originally copied the Seraphim?
-
@comradestryker said in The Problems With The UEF - Part 3 (The Parashield):
How exactly do they behave differently?
in this matchup percies kite, while harbs all in into the percies, trying to run them down. with proper micro this heavily favours percies. In this case for percies shields serve to reduce losses and can easily reduce losses down to 0 since the harbs die/have to disengage before even a single shield dies.
For the harbs the shields are just a minor hp boost slightly increasing the strenght of the attack.
Ergo: in this example UEF profiles far more than aeon from mobile shields, meaning there is no reason at all for shields to have "equal" stats.Forumpros doing balance https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wTcguJZh3A .
When a canis player remembers to build more than 3 units https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hjp8xJHuyA . -
@warreaper001
Isn't one of the lore points of Aeon that they have really good shields, since they originally copied the Seraphim?
I believe they were shown "The Way" (great name xD) which was a teaching / religion of sorts, no?
Their designs reflect their mutual relationship but I don't know anything about shield lore.~ Stryker
-
@farmseatmushroom
Ergo: in this example UEF profiles far more than aeon from mobile shields, meaning there is no reason at all for shields to have "equal" stats.
Fair point. However, percies are slower, Harbs can catch up or even dodge an incoming Percy shot.
With proper micro and mass for mass on Percies vs Harbs, (Harbs are ~30% cheaper)
I believe Harbs would win. Percies deal high alpha damage, but against multiple targets, and long fire cooldown, Harbs would catch up an can outmaneuver them, at least, that's what happens to me often.I mean, it could go either way, depending on micro, obviously.
~ Stryker
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
-
The dualist has a video on t3 bots, I believe the harbs won it, but this is without micro.
-
The dualist has a video on t3 bots, I believe the harbs won it, but this is without micro.
Well, I wouldn't be surprised if they won. More targets are not good for Percies, lol.
~ Stryker
