About the veterancy system
-
@ftxcommando said in About the veterancy system:
You realize that veterancy is a mechanic you factor into these sort of attacks, right? My point is that it existing is what gives a higher push for aggressive actions to be worth doing as it enables a snowball against poorly micro’d or too few units. The existence of other ways to make aggression less punishing doesn’t change the point that it existing promotes more interactive/proactive gameplay now and so removing it without some coherent plan to make up for the loss in interaction is asinine. That’s a bare minimum by the way, I don’t even see the need to think about removing it unless aggression became TOO strong.
Saying “it’s a wrong move” presumes you don’t take the full system of tools available to you into account when gauging your options, which is the actual skill issue not the aggressive move.I've never considered veterancy to be such a core mechanic that you should consider it before every engagement, except maybe with the ACU early game. It has pretty much no predictable or measurable effect in normal unit vs unit situations, only ACU and experimentals. If it is something that is supposed to be considered before each engagement then I'm even more in favor of removing it since 99.9% of players already struggle to even consider location, reclaim, and numbers before taking engagements.
Hoping that you micro an experimental better than your opponent doesn't seem like something you should be basing strategic decisions on. Are you supposed to know every player on FAF, how well they micro each specific unit, and hope anonymous matchmaking is never implemented?
The benefits of veterancy system as you describe them are only valid since it was adjusted to be mass based, which you were extremely against at the time. An experimental used to require 100 kills to get a veterancy, so this even battle with superior micro scenario would not have mattered. It would be totally irrelevant in any even numbers scenario. Your argument against moving to the mass based system is that it was unpredictable so you couldn't reason about it while playing, yet now you are telling me it is a core mechanic that you should always consider and are bad if you don't. Removing the system entirely would have about the same effect on gameplay as going back to the previous kill based system.
If you have since changed your mind on that, fair enough.
@rezy-noob said in About the veterancy system:
removing vet system is so beyond bad actually
imagine having a completely passive game because gun is now pointless and land pushes are insta deathEveryone arguing for the removal of veterancy either excluded the ACU from this, or said balance adjustments would have to be made to compensate.
-
Definitely doesn’t matter in a 50 v 50 tank fight. It does matter for ACU, first t3 units, first t4s.
And yes, you should have a base level of comfort with your own micro. Gauging accurately at what level that micro is, whether u know the other guy or not, is still a matter of skill. Overestimate yourself and you might donate mass, underestimate and you might be too passive.
-
@thomashiatt said in About the veterancy system:
My philosophical hatred is of chaos and complexity.
Ok that's your problem, I don't want an orderly and simple war game and nobody else does either
-
@zeldafanboy said in About the veterancy system:
Veterancy rewards skill both on the attacker and defender's side. For the attacker its fairly obvious but for the defender they need to make a decision on how to engage a dangerous unit without giving it too much free mass to kill, i.e Ctrl+k your low tech spam or insufficient defenses before an experimental reaches them.
t1 spam is quite literally the best at not feeding an experimental veterancy lol
-
Pure T1 arty or LAB spam maybe, but tanks or any mixture of units which is a more typical composition not really. They will not do significant damage
-
idk where you get the confidence from. You should've seen Endranii test monkeylord vs mass equivalent cybran t1 maa, and LOSE. experimentals on their own are not built to deal with 500 units
either way, my point was that t1 spam barely contributes to a T4 vetting, not how much damage t1 would do to t4. sending in 50 t1 tanks into a t4 is only 2.6k mass which isnt much at all considering what a t4 needs for veterancy. it's a good way to stall for time if anything. ctrl k'ing t1 tanks, engineers, and buildings is completely unnecessary.
-
@ftxcommando said in About the veterancy system:
Can dudes stop with the “heckin realismino” arguments?
Never. I came to this game for this. It's a simulation RTS. Not a lot of these around.
-
@melanol said in About the veterancy system:
@ftxcommando said in About the veterancy system:
Can dudes stop with the “heckin realismino” arguments?
Never. I came to this game for this. It's a simulation RTS. Not a lot of these around.
The realism card loses all meaning considering it's year 2700 something in the game. There would be nothing strange for single Battleship shell to be able to either detonate on hit or go underwater and detonate in proximity of the submarine. Checkmate, groundfiring submarines stays in the game.
-
@xiaomao said in About the veterancy system:
The realism card loses all meaning considering it's year 2700 something in the game.
Logic won't break in 700 years. Hence, we have science fiction, where they at least try to explain things.
-
I love my science fiction where dura omega furitata steel is used to be super lightweight and super
just like in real lifehard science fiction and soft science fiction exist, and supcom is definitely more the latter than the former considering no real explanation of how an ACU or anything else can actually teleport exists.
-
@ftxcommando "Commander Dyson took a hit. He looked at his wife's picture one last time only to realize he had enough energy to overcharge his opponent. A flash of energy led by a nuclear explosion of his mortal enemy. He instantly got healed and received a boost to his max HP before the nuclear blast could get to him. He will fight another day."
Try selling this one.
-
The nanomachines in the bot got activated, son
-
@melanol said in About the veterancy system:
Try selling this one.
The armor was already there, but it wasn't arranged properly. With additional information about combat picked up by the ACU's sensors, and processed by its onboard computers, the armor was adjusted to provide additional protection.
Experiencing combat provides a wealth of information to the ACU's onboard computer systems, information that would be too voluminous to teleport across space and time, but which the ACU can develop through dealing damage to enemy units.
-
I am speechless.
-
Why is this combat information not instantly spread to all allied units?
Supcom is a fairly realistic game, much more than any other game, so it does need to keep a realism deal to it.
-
@veteranashe said in About the veterancy system:
I like ta's vet system, just says it's a veteran and has a bonus to accuracy.
TA's vet system was 100% useless to nearly every unit, yet OP for Long Range Plasma Cannons. Please do not bring that back.
@thomashiatt said in About the veterancy system:
Everyone arguing for the removal of veterancy either excluded the ACU from this, or said balance adjustments would have to be made to compensate.
Yes, ACUs feel like the use-case for veterency. Yet it still feels jarring when you realise you are already at Vet5 and have no more free HP boosts.
Alternative: ACUs have a nano-reclamation weapon code-name Vampire that regens HP based on the damage done.
@ftxcommando said in About the veterancy system:
Definitely doesn’t matter in a 50 v 50 tank fight. It does matter for ACU, first t3 units, first t4s.
Yes, vet matters for early T4s (thankfully not as much as it used to with the old kill-based vet system).
IMO the potential reward for winning should be the option to repair your units. But in this game vet and air staging gives free HP but every other repair takes stupid amounts of build power (about the only thing ever repaired by engineers it a transport).
-
what about only adding regen with no instant nor max hp
-
Stop arguing vet should be removed because it doesn't make sense in-universe or story wise. Compatibility with your fanfictions has never been and will never be a balance consideration.
If you believe vet should be removed or changed, explain how this would improve gameplay.
-
Ok, sure. Ez Commander is already op in teamgames early on especially on 10km unless you are facing an opponent maybe 600 rating below and they cant macro at all. If your opponent can macro for example, Open Wonder you are forced to go into gun because theres no other way to counter Gun COM only Gun com can counter GUN Com on t1 phase which makes essentially all 10x10 Teamgame maps unless they are water shitty. They is essentially compounded by the trash Veterancy system we have, in which the com gets like 15 t1 unit kills, now hes suddenly got 2k to 3k more HP and hes just walking through ur t1, you cant fight the guncom without guncom because it ends up feeding the enemy. Its the same concept with late game experimentals and why feeding them t3 makes t3 completely garbage unless you are ALL in on t3 and its like a monkeylord or a chicken.
-
If you body block nicely for your Pd's you can stop the gun acu with t2 suite just fine. And the moment gun didn't manage to roll over your position he is royally fucked and not only him, but also his teammates as they will now get TML'ed.
Also, why are you feeding your units to your opponent, move them back. Make him pay for getting into his firing range. It's ACU you can out manouver it even with friggin aurora spam. If anything veterancy is the thing that actually allows the rambo playstyle to be even properly viable in team games. Otherwise there's literally no reason to go gun when T2 suite is just so much more flexible.
