FAF Beta - Feedback

@espiranto Me no understand your English.

@melanol Try turn on screen

Don't troll the man for his English. An actually good player raised some valid points about the current balance.

Some of that stuff got me fucked up, Cybran is an autopick on any map where navy matters and is a strong pick on any air map. Navy is self evident but air has the combination of corsair (how is that the worst t2 bomber when it’s the most flexible in terms of air to ground utility) and stealth t3 air.

Only issue Cybran has in their roster rn is that every other faction has mobile shields. To rectify that, all they really need is a redesigned version of disruptor given to them while fitting Cybran aesthetic.

@xayo

What are you talking about? His english is totally legible, it's the extreme cybran bias that's hard to understand. If you can't cope with the fact that Cybran ACU and PD are intentionally weaker in combat for balance reasons then I don't think you have an involved understanding of the game balance. Who the hell thinks Corsairs are bad lmao.

Just make beetles not a meme (impossible) and make Soul Ripoff worth using

@zeldafanboy
UNDERSTANDABLE when the guy with Cyb playing on <1200 rated with impressive map list talking about my opinion with game balancing. Try once a time fight with ur creepy t1 inties and some corsairs fight over nothas with air, and Januses with air. Its kinda disgusting, some of this Combinations may crush started asfs producing manage when corsairs is having serious troubles with any of t1-t3 stage air fighting. So if talking about effectivity its shoting. Its targets are on the move, it can still be curbed by error, but it misses standing buildings and you have to turn around on the floor of the map to finish off a t2 generator or something if you use 2 corsairs and the unit is not tall enough this makes your attack fatal and unrealizable due to just a stupid spread on the target, which does not require any spread when firing. I am well aware of the pros and cons, but when out of 10 times sending 2 corsairs to kill t2 mex, t2 gen, they do not kill him in 1 volley, even though they have enough damage to kill - this is stupid. In the case of t2 seraph bombers, this does not happen. Why for normal use, do I need to use ground attack instead of right click and forget?Also, their turn rate is much worse than that of the Janus and the notes are also, try to turn it for fun to make a second salvo, as we can with the rest of the units, come on. Or microing it goodly at some of fights of 2 corsa x 5 inties. I would understand if you were a high rate. But it seems that at your level, the players still don’t understand how to respond when the opponent makes 10 minutes of corsairs under enemy reconnaissance and then shoots for 10 minutes at someone who does not dodge.I understand that the balance of corsairs is now based on the complication of sniping, but why should it miss and not kill the target, the taxi driver is drunk, or maybe the lgbt fem community does not allow working with clients too rudely. Let the accuracy remain as it is in this regard, I have not so much controversy as dissatisfaction with the work of pilots who should kill the target with damage in the first volley and not fly in two volleys trying to kill a standing building. But the air plan does not look convincing at all, and turning rate.

also to @FtXCommando the navy if fine, dont can say anything with a t1-t2 stage gamurs, except late stage and good aeons/uef realisation. As cybran is hard-counterable something like a shields. There kinda gameplay thing with ahead or behind and unit manage, like a 2 cyb destro owning 5 shields 1 aeon destro. But on a larger scale, this becomes a serious problem if the opponent knows about the countermeasure against t2 subs, or harms. Air stage is pretty same, there no difference for real between any of asf's armyes.

• Here is a purely male gameplay, where the strongest puts cancer. By need, there are variations between spamming an early large number of asfs and grid at point-blank range of resources, a rush strat and an assist for the asf of the plant, an economy with a balance in airgrid and the production of asfs without a minus, and a full t3 economy (with a slight increase in the grid) and after a full t3, a huge bp to recreate the grid along with an increase in even more economy for the grid again. Here the strength of a unit is no longer in quality, but in quantity. And stealth does not solve at all, rather it allows you to crank out some chips like turning on stealth and a sharp attack or a bite to attack. In technical terms, it makes no sense to talk about choosing cybran or any other faction for precisely t3 air.

• I would even say that for air t3 it is much more promising to take an aeon, in view of t3 gunships against air and ground attack, or switching to the czar, maybe washer. In the case of cybran, a beetle (I'll go eat shit, maybe it will at least from a fall cause damage that can be done with washer when the air is won).

My thoughts on the latest changes and upcoming changes:

• Jamming for T3 UEF Air - Offers chance for interesting tactics (previously I had to create 30 t1 air scouts for a similar effect which meant I've hardly ever done it), and happy the strat jamming is off by default (since at the lower ratings I play at it feels like a great way of making the enemy team aware you have a strat sooner than they otherwise would have)
• Sparky - ok with the stealth generator, but building all T1 factories feels too much
• Loyalist billy nuke change - I'd rather billy nuke was buffed rather than nerfing the loyalist's ability

Overall with the changes I feel bad for the non-UEF factions.

In terms of upcoming changes:

• Nuke missile vs silo costs - sounds good
• T3 arti E nerf - The main theme with E c osts is that air costs far more than ground, which is consistent with the T2 arti Mass to E cost. in my mind it feels like T3 arti should therefore not cost as much E (per mass cost) as an air experimental so I worry the E nerf will be too great
• Reworking UEF bubble shield - depends on how it turns out (could be good, as it could use a boost to usability)
• GC claws - sounds good, GC feels too OP vs T3 armies at the moment
• Loyalist buff - sounds good, it could use a small buff
• Kennel tweaks - depends on how far they go, I wouldnt want to see them reach mass per BP parity with a hive
• Soul ripper tweaks - not sure how the value over time will be reached - presumably by giving it a decent amount of HP regen which would fit with the Cybran theme, it could use some help, and I like mechanics that favour value over time (its one of hte reasons I really like the shield addition to the Czar) so sounds good
• Reducing crash damage of air experimentals - while a small reduction sounds ok it'd be nice for them to still be impactful
• Bulwark change - no view without seeing the detail (could be good or bad)
• Mini SACU rework - no view without seeing the detail (could be good or bad)
• Nerfing HARMs - if its going to be nerfed it'd be nice if ground firing it by battleships could be removed; would also be nice if T1-T2 torp launchers could get a small buff as I worry this could just lead to no torp launchers being usable
• Buffing higher tech engineers - sounds likely to be good and indirectly help performance by reducing the incentive to build T1 engis at T3 stage of the game
• Adjusting T2 static artillery - I hope this means a small buff rather than a nerf as they're a fairly niche unit
• Billy nuke adjustments - hopefully will be a small buff as this upgrade is hardly ever seen

Reworking T3 Engineers to be more BP Efficient will be amazing!
I 100% disagree with a HARMs unless unless you fix ground firing which makes harms the worst naval unit in the game.

Reworking Bulwarks would be a god sent and SACU rework even if mini would be great too

If the HARMs are getting nerfed, will they get HP regeneration with vet. status?

@espiranto

Invoking rating can augment an argument, but not replace it. You seem to be complaining about three things concerning the Corsair: it has bad AA, its rocket spray is inconsistent, and the turning radius is bad. The first thing is an intentional design decision, it's like complaining that the Janus is bad at sniping or that the Swift Wind can't attack ground. In exchange for being the only bomber that attacks in front of its flight path instead of dropping a bomb below itself, it has the worst AA. The second thing can sometimes lead to lost DPS when attacking a smaller target like an ACU but that's made up for by the fact that the random spread gives it decent utility vs large clumps of armies, more than the Notha. And attacking structures from my experience is totally fine. As for the last thing, I'm not actually opposed to giving them a tighter turning radius, but I think the Janus should have the best turning since it has a swing-wing design that changes its aerodynamics during a turn.

But that's just the Corsair. You were also offering a litany of balance complaints about the Cybran faction as a whole, like the fact that you have to choose between T2 and Gun, or that Cerberus is weak, or the fact that Cybran has no mobile shields, along with slow Mantis turret speed (use zig zag micro). Those are all really silly things to complain about, and in a vacuum I'm not opposed to buffing the Corsair or Making Loyalists Great Again but as a whole, it's very clearly a ranting response to a slew of UEF buffs. Cybran is not underpowered.

Really disagree on your late game air take. Restorer is solid as a comfy unit that allows you to scale an air win’s lead while continuously increasing your air to ground ability, but wailer and broadsword are great units regardless for being immediate dps dumps with massive hp. We don’t even need to go into the fact Cybran have the best strat.

I also absolutely do see a difference between asfs, the ability to stealth means that you can decide the first turn of engagement which, barring proper scaling, is the penultimate factor in deciding who wins an air fight. The only counter against it is proper spy plane screening ensuring enemy air cannot sneak up on you but that in turn creates weaknesses for cyb air to focus on. This is before even taking into account that if there is no spy plane coverage, cybran asfs can pop out of thin air and shoot your asfs while your asf did not have enough time to react and thus your air flies through them without doing any damage.

Does soul ripper suck? Sure, but Cybran still have the best strat and a broadsword equivalent t3 gunship. Finally, in a serious teamgame you don’t really want your air player to be responsible for washer/czar in current balance. Better to let some stagnant slot make it while air continues to secure their air win since the units cost nothing in terms of energy infrastructure. And for that security, Cybran is certainly one of the best.

@zeldafanboy said in FAF Beta - Feedback:

Those are all really silly things to complain about, and in a vacuum I'm not opposed to buffing the Corsair or Making Loyalists Great Again but as a whole, it's very clearly a ranting response to a slew of UEF buffs. Cybran is not underpowered.

Ok mod uploaded with some ideas

@BulliedNoob I agree.

@zeldafanboy said in FAF Beta - Feedback:

@espiranto

Invoking rating can augment an argument, but not replace it.

I just want to note that pulling out the rating card is totally legit when you are replying to a post like this:

What are you talking about? His english is totally legible, it's the extreme cybran bias that's hard to understand. If you can't cope with the fact that Cybran ACU and PD are intentionally weaker in combat for balance reasons then I don't think you have an involved understanding of the game balance. Who the hell thinks Corsairs are bad lmao.

There's no argument here besides anecdote. "Corsairs aren't bad, just trust me". Higher rating players have stronger anecdotes when it comes to balance in the specific form of "in my experience x is good and y is bad".

As a sidenote you also insult pepsi for absolutely no reason. If it was up to me u would be warned/banned for that.

It is nice that the topic gets more and more attention and sparks discussions about the feedback.

Please, this is a serious thread and should not be polluted with meme images or being crude against members who are not sharing the same point of view.

Fun fact: Aeon and Cybran ints deal less than 50 damage per volley, while UEF and Sera inties deal 50 or over. Coupled with HP differences, this means Cybraa/Aeon ints need 7 volleys to kill a UEF/Sera ints, all other combinations need 6. Aeon and Cybran ints also need 11 volleys to kill a T1 transport rather than 10. Aeon/Cybran ints used to cost 2 less mass to compensate, but it was equalized at some point. I wonder how it compares to Cybran versus Sera frigates.

@mazornoob That kinda sucks. I don't like that.