Balance Patch 3750 - Feedback
-
@t_r_u_putin yes but that’s for dual gap. Outside of dual gap, one nukes makes opponents create 3-5-8 SMDs, easily making the nuke pay itself off just in making opponents waste stuff on SMD and then nuke can still destroy armies/navy, adding more value to itself
-
@whiterush said in Balance Patch 3750 - Feedback:
Somehow, the units have grown in price, but the meaning of their effectiveness has fallen. In the game, you can't balance a noob's ally so as to win a loss from the clutches of victory.The patch before these changes was better.
Maybe people didn't stop complaining about the units, maybe they just stopped building them.
@femboy said in Balance Patch 3750 - Feedback:
@t_r_u_putin yes but that’s for dual gap. Outside of dual gap, one nukes makes opponents create 3-5-8 SMDs, easily making the nuke pay itself off just in making opponents waste stuff on SMD and then nuke can still destroy armies/navy, adding more value to itself
On Valhalla It is the same. Maps with 2 SMD covering all bases need 1 Nuke to cost somewhere around 2 SMD. Bigger maps need more SMDs per SML therefore they want nukes to cost more. The only solution for all is to reduce range on Nuke Launchers to the point where the 1 nuke = 2 SMD principle is met and revert their cost back to pre patch.
-
Wise members of the balance team, is 'absolute garbage' a technical term?
-
yeah, in layman’s terms it means it’s ass, next question
-
When it come to how powerful nukes are, it really depends on the map. I don't have the time right now to do all of the math but this is the gist of it: SML is 16.5k mass, nuke is 12k. An SMD is 7.5k and anti-nuke is 3.6k. That means that the first nuke costs 28.5k mass which means that if enemy needs to build 3 SMDs then you are already ahead (Yes I know that nuke costs more power but I can't be bothered to account for that right now). This means that on any map that requires enemy to build >= 3 SMDs then nukes are basically always a good and safe investment. They are low risk and extremely high reward unit, simply a no-brainer in a lot of scenarios. Now consider maps that require only 2 SMDs, this means that either you are playing 1vs1/2vs2 which doesn't have major expansions or you are playing a turtle map with all bases clumped up. Then the nuke is not as strong but it isn't weak either. Remember that with 3 SMDs the nuke was basically worth it BEFORE it killed anything. But even if enemy's main bases are protected then there are still plenty of viable targets: expansions, armies, navy, forward bases etc.
If the range of the nuke would be reduced enough that you couldn't reach enemy's main base from your own it would just make the unit basically useless on those maps, especially in 1vs1 which I am not interested in (any smaller nerf siply wouldn't do anything either). The game is balanced around a set of competitive 1vs1 and team game maps. If you play on a map that strictly favors defensive play by clumping up all of the players together and doesn't encourage a lot of expansion either then you can expect the game to NOT be balanced. That is not to say that I think nukes are weak on DG, they are still viable. You just may not see 1 rushed every single game.
-
thanks mister ftx
-
And, if you use BrewLAN, where you have mobile SMD - then all of that thinking goes out the window.
-
@tagada said in Balance Patch 3750 - Feedback:
If the range of the nuke would be reduced enough that you couldn't reach enemy's main base from your own it would just make the unit basically useless on those maps, especially in 1vs1 which I am not interested in (any smaller nerf siply wouldn't do anything either). The game is balanced around a set of competitive 1vs1 and team game maps. If you play on a map that strictly favors defensive play by clumping up all of the players together and doesn't encourage a lot of expansion either then you can expect the game to NOT be balanced. That is not to say that I think nukes are weak on DG, they are still viable. You just may not see 1 rushed every single game.
I'd say on some of those maps, if you design it to work like t3 arty where say one air on senton can only hit 3 bases, you just make the meta for the back slot to always still rush a nuke. You don't change anything about nukes being insane, you just remove the noob mistake of 2 full eco players not both going nuke and one going SMD instead of nuke on these maps.
Air player on maridia still has like 3 bases to kill rather than 5, he still forces those front 3 players to be playing on the timetable of a nuke rush killing their whole base.
-
https://replay.faforever.com/19185523
Noooo nukes are worthless now
-
@thewheelie their worth noticable reduced. beucase there is no threat enemy is able to rush a nuke and hit you even if you don'r scout him. Duel gap - the map where every 2nd game = Eco player has nuke at 16 min finished. After the patch noone is able to nuke me whatever he does and no matter how bad my air players are. Enemy builds a nuke slower and loads slow too. I am able to build cheap SMD and after than I defend three bases and I know my enemy economy is fucked cause he has no worthy targets anymore.
The patch changed cost values in many times - this cannot be smart decision from 1st attempt. -
https://replay.faforever.com/19186014
Noooo nukes are worthless now
-
I'm getting "I killed 4 T2 mexes with beetles against a team with no radar, this is evidence" flashbacks
-
So these tmm games aren't a real example? I just watched 3 replays in a row and all 3 replays had nukes killing a base after min 25. Yes, in theory people can 'easily' make an smd, but in a real game people make mistakes. Why is it that last week i killed 2 chickens with a cloak lazer acu? It's easy to make a few t3 scouts and kill my single acu fighting. Why did i see a 1500 make a cloak lazer acu today as well killing invading t4's? Easy to make some scouts right. Why did i just see foley die to 10 notha's in a seton's game? They are easily dodged and should never kill an issue unless groundfired.
The same can be said about beetles. Ofcourse they are easily countered in theory, but in reality i have killed enough 2k+ players and died myself to beetles as well due to the fact a real game is chaotic and you don't have perfect intel. (Aside from the fact like i already explained before that sniping acu's or mexes isn't even the main intended purpose for beetles).
-
I meant less in terms of validity, more in terms of salt
Also how come weak units get justified by saying that they're good when the enemy is retarded once in a while but mercies were left untouched for years because lmao put T1 AA in front of your com at all times -
I'm not salty if you think that. In fact i think it's quite funny when people act like a unit is completely useless when i see it do well in a lot of games.
Idk why you're using the mercy line against me since i hate them enough to have banned them from all my hosts.
Also this is not a case of an enemy being retarded at all. It's simply the nature of a game being chaotic or having a lack of intel. That's like calling any guy being sniped being retarded cause duh why didn't u see it coming and made some aa?
-
simply put do you want nukes to be tactical or strategic? If you limit range on them they IMMEDIATELY turn into tactical weapons employed mostly against mobile fielded armies and stuff imo, which tbh. I would prefer but it'd be a huge change and gameplay. It'd also have to be balanced significantly different.
-
@thewheelie said in Balance Patch 3750 - Feedback:
Idk why you're using the mercy line against me since i hate them enough to have banned them from all my hosts.
One was important enough to be canonized into balance, the other wasn't
-
or maybe one rework is harder than another
-
Give it 800 HP and an equivalent of one-and-a-half T2 bomber volley, band-aid fix done. Already better than Loya special ability that's still being tweaked to not be useless.
-
800 hp mercy that does like 1800 damage is a band aid fix?
