Hives Need a Nerf vol. III
-
@moses_the_red come on - you're taking it out of context. You're free to make a mod, ask FtXCommando (or whoever has authority over that) to have it ranked, etc. The same has been done for RksExplosions - it is therefore possible. Problem solved for that single map. And that is what it should be - a solution for a single rather unique map.
Gap (and Astro) is a unique type of map where all the players are heavily concentrated along with 8x mass / player and therefore:
- Raiding is impossible when both teams are decent
- Expanding is not actually required because you start with 8x mass
This is fundamentally different to even Isis:
- There is reclaim in the center that you have to go for
- There is enough space for raiding and / or drops because the mass is not 100% concentrated
- Because there are (relative to gap) many options one has to take them into account and that costs resources / skill
And with regard to your argument about 'me and my friends all think that' - the same can be applied to you, me and my neighbor. Without being disrespectful to anyone, that is generally a good description of how a community works with the assumption that you consider the people in the community to be your friends.
And I'd really like to end with the casual vs competitive type of players. But, we've been there and we didn't agree on that so I won't.
-
@Jip said in Hives Need a Nerf vol. III:
@moses_the_red come on - you're taking it out of context. You're free to make a mod, ask FtXCommando (or whoever has authority over that) to have it ranked, etc. The same has been done for RksExplosions - it is therefore possible. Problem solved for that single map. And that is what it should be - a solution for a single rather unique map.
I'm not stepping into the question of whether or not Hives should actually be changed or whether they're even OP. I don't know, haven't thought deeply about it, haven't watched the replay at the beginning of this thread. I know its a complex topic, and I'm not going to wade into that unless I have a position that I feel makes sense and is strong. I don't, so I'm not commenting on that. I'm commenting on the notion that we don't need to balance turtle maps because there are a TON of good turtle maps, and they tend to be the dominant type of map in team play.
Gap (and Astro) is a unique type of map where all the players are heavily concentrated along with 8x mass / player and therefore:
- Raiding is impossible when both teams are decent
- Expanding is not actually required because you start with 8x mass
This is fundamentally different to even Isis:
- There is reclaim in the center that you have to go for
- There is enough space for raiding and / or drops because the mass is not 100% concentrated
- Because there are (relative to gap) many options one has to take them into account and that costs resources / skill
I've played a lot of gap and Isis. Those are some of my favorite maps.
You can drop on either. There is reclaim in the center on both that you need.
I do consider Gap to be more turtley than Isis, but its a difference of degree, not kind. They're both turtle maps.
Most importantly, I assume the tactic described in the original post will work on any turtley map. I don't imagine that there is some feature that only Gap and Astro have that Isis or Four Corners would somehow lack.
And with regard to your argument about 'me and my friends all think that' - the same can be applied to you, me and my neighbor.
Except that I'm claiming we should try to balance around all popular maps to the extent possible. I'm not saying "Fuck 1v1 maps", I'm saying we can balance both.
Without being disrespectful to anyone, that is generally a good description of how a community works with the assumption that you consider the people in the community to be your friends.
And I'd really like to end with the casual vs competitive type of players. But, we've been there and we didn't agree on that so I won't.
Dude, you act like I somehow made all that up, but its a common thought stopping cliché in here to say "We don't balance around Gap". This isn't me coming in and starting trouble for no reason. This is me coming in here and pointing out the absurdity of the notion that we don't have to care about how the game plays on the maps that are most played.
People act like I'm somehow the cause of the "casual versus competitive" player thing, but I'm not. I'm just pointing out that the community here has become so toxic that disregarding the class of maps that casual players play is now taken as sage-like wisdom.
-
I like that you conveniently ignore that, as multiple people have stated, you can just make a ranked balance mod for maps that need a different balance than the main balance.
-
@BlackYps said in Hives Need a Nerf vol. III:
I like that you conveniently ignore that, as multiple people have stated, you can just make a ranked balance mod for maps that need a different balance than the main balance.
Its a bad suggestion.
Its saying "Fuck all these maps, they aren't really part of the game, balancing around them isn't worth the effort".
The game has always had turtle maps, and they've always been popular. They're oftentimes even in the ranked game pool. Pushing the job of maintaining balance on those maps off of the balance team is a terrible idea.
-
-
You can't balance for all maps. If you change something for map X and Y, then map A and B will desire another change, etc. And I don't recall saying they're not part of the game - they are. Just a unique part that you reference to as turtle maps. Why would we balance the entire game taking into account a specific genre of maps? Instead, make a balanced mod for those maps that fixes specific problems, whether that is hives or something else.
I'd also like to argue that isis is significantly less of a turtle map merely due to its size: 10x6 against 20x12 (estimation). Hence early raids are a lot more applicable: a bomber doesn't have to fly for two minutes to reach its target. In Gap raiding of the 8x core mass extractors is effectively impossible if both teams play decent. Therefore it is a lot more turtle-like.
And I'm not saying you made things up and you certainly didn't introduce that concept: I introduced that concept with an extensive post a few weeks back. Not balancing for what can happen in a casual map is quite common in any game. They are all balanced around the competitive section of the game and the casual players just follow along.
-
@Jip said in Hives Need a Nerf vol. III:
You can't balance for all maps.
Sure you can.
Map choices certainly changes the game, but its very much still FAF.
It mostly just emphasizes a different stage of the game. Turtle maps tend to emphasize the late game. Large open maps, the early game.
A problem on a turtle map is likely to also be a problem in the very late game stages of 1v1 games.
If you stealth nerfed T3 static arty for all factions but one, the first people to notice would be your Gap/Isis players.
If you nerfed the mantis, gap players might never notice... but the ladder crowd would lose their minds.
The notion that they're somehow completely different games is just wrong.
Striving to balance all maps is effectively the same as trying to balance all stages of the game. You're going to wind up with a more balanced game if you take all maps into account.
Think of turtle maps as "canaries in the coal mine". If those players spot an imbalance, that imbalance may eventually show itself on ladder. You just have to have games played so evenly that they routinely make it to the extreme late game before you notice.
Will the hives imbalance that the OP is claiming exists appear in ladder 2-5 years from now? Maybe... As players get better and games become more even... maybe exploitation of hives will eventually show itself as a significant balance issue in the ladder scene.
Of course its going to appear on turtle maps first, every game on those maps is focused on the late game.
NOTE: Again I'm not trying to take sides on whether Hives are actually OP, just trying to provide perspective.
-
Hives are imbal because they are used to spam boys. You justify the increase in infrastructure to spam up RAS SCUs in a singular, defensible location where the hives can either protect thru shield assist, immediately put infinite eco into eco production, or deal with a threat by making a t4 quickly.
Remove SACU garbage and hives are back to their normal stationary use as stationary buildpower that can't help you build up eco since you need to spread out your mass fabs and can't cover them with a singular shield.
And you do get different results based on games you look at. I'd say you could pretty quickly see SMLs are quite OP by looking at turtle games (as this thread is all about it). You would also see that scathis is a garbage T4 by watching dual gap games. In fact, novax would even be considered trash-tier in a dual gap game. These are all not true at all on maps that allow for interaction at all or most phases of the game.
Ultimately balance, or determining if something is OP or UP, should revolve around looking at a game state where you not only had to take into account the opportunity cost of getting to a position but then the utility from using the option.
In dual gap games, this is drastically simplified. You have your eco slot make the first and really final decision "Do I nuke rush or do I eco sim into t3 arty or t4 game ender?" and this is in just about every situation what decides the game assuming enemy air is not extremely competent against your garbage air.
There is no decision "hmmm maybe I need to make a T4 to help win mid" or "hmmm maybe I need to put more mass into air production" or "hmmm maybe I need to get into navy" because the map is extremely linear with 1-3 things to think about for really any slot. If your map is reduced to this, it doesn't really tell anything noteworthy about the state of balance in the game.
-
Also as another thing, that entire idea presumes that dual gap players are at some higher refined meta on lategame tactics relative to “ladder players” or whatever. Which is really just not true. It’s the map that forces the strategies, not some hidden microcosm of epic gamers on dual gap. Most top tier ladder players are also top tier senton players, which is a massively superior teamgame map for determining the strength of lategame tactics anyway BECAUSE it allows so much more room for opportunity cost consideration.
-
@FtXCommando said in Hives Need a Nerf vol. III:
Also as another thing, that entire idea presumes that dual gap players are at some higher refined meta on lategame tactics relative to “ladder players” or whatever. Which is really just not true. It’s the map that forces the strategies, not some hidden microcosm of epic gamers on dual gap. Most top tier ladder players are also top tier senton players, which is a massively superior teamgame map for determining the strength of lategame tactics anyway BECAUSE it allows so much more room for opportunity cost consideration.
I haven't taken a poll or anything, but I believe the notion that T4 is a bit OP is fairly widespread in the team game community.
And I think an understanding that the scathis was in a terrible place was also well understood in the team game community.
And yet in both instances, I had to come in here and do a lot of arguing before people came around.
If you play games where you're primarily building T3 land and T4 assault experimental game after game after game, you're probably going to be the first people to notice if there's a problem with those specific units because you're constantly exposed to them.
I'm sure they're fantastic on any map they play, but they aren't focused in on that set of units. That's all I'm saying. I'm not proclaiming that I'd kick their ass on gap or anything.
-
Scathis has been known to be in a bad spot since it was first nerfed in 2016. Fixing it was always on the cards, knowing how to fix it wasn’t. If you reread the scathis thread on old forums, you’d see it’s mostly people discrediting bad fixes rather than acknowledging no fix is needed.
I don’t agree on t4 being OP, really. ML could see a use of a lower turn rate on laser maybe, only real thing I’d adjust. Problem seems to center around ML being able to vet quicker due to cheaper cost, just need to slightly nerf it in some way to account for that.
-
I do not think Hives are strong enough to require the other factions to get engineering stations. Nor do I think the existence of Hives justify rebalancing Experimentals. Additionally, different maps encourage different game styles, but it is still FAF. I agree that different communities who have different game styles are going to notice different things, but don't disparage other subsections of the FAF community.
@Tagada said in Hives Need a Nerf vol. III:
Hives are strong in super late game where BP concentration and pathfinding is more important then BP efficiency. In every other situation other forms of BP are more efficient and therefore with good BP scaling better.
I'd say Tagada's comment accurately sums up all that needs to be said in this thread.
-
Couldn’t in theory the Monkey Lord get a specialized vet table?
-
@Dragun101 said in Hives Need a Nerf vol. III:
Couldn’t in theory the Monkey Lord get a specialized vet table?
The problem isn't the Monkeylord, and if all this results in a nerf to just the Monkeylord then we're doing it very wrong.
This is the patch that is in question:
https://content.faforever.com/patchnotes/3696.html
In that patch, you can see significant across the board nerfs to most T3 units in the "T3 Land Combat" section. Notice that there were no corresponding nerfs to the combat effectiveness of assault experimentals.
Its not just the Monkeylord that's OP. The GC, Chicken and Fatboy are also all too damn capable relative to T3 units.
As I posted in another thread, as you read through that section remember that those nerfs are not additive, they're multiplicative. Its not a 17% nerf to those units, its a 33% to 50% nerf to each of those units.
-
Nah don't touch vet values. The game has too many exceptions to general rules as it is. Would be better off adjusting the physical unit.
-
Ah yes i remember that nice patch. The patch after which everybody was complaining how t4's became useless because of the buildtime nerf
-
@moses_the_red said in Hives Need a Nerf vol. III:
In that patch, you can see significant across the board nerfs to most T3 units in the "T3 Land Combat" section. Notice that there were no corresponding nerfs to the combat effectiveness of assault experimentals.
Patch also nerfed almost every experimental in the game but that's okay dude, I know you'll contort it to suit your righteous crusade, i'm sure we can revert this patch and go back to the glory days of loyalist/harbinger rushing literally every game very soon.
@moses_the_red said in Hives Need a Nerf vol. III:
Its saying "Fuck all these maps, they aren't really part of the game, balancing around them isn't worth the effort".
-
This post is deleted! -
This post is deleted! -
Pay attention to the wording.
"Nerfs to the combat effectiveness of Assault Experimentals".
Their build times were nerfed, doesn't affect their combat effectiveness. Just affects how quickly they can be turned out.
