Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread

@accidental_aeon said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:

If you want to nerf harms then NERF the hp on Cybran ras coms. Why is it that Cybran ras coms just has 4,000 more hp than the Aeon ras com and 3,000 more hp than the UEF ras com? Cybran ras coms sitting underwater building harms, sams, and tmd and reclaiming is one of the worst aspects of navy balance. If Cybran ras coms were easier to snipe then you would see a lot fewer harms finish and it would reward players who scout and snipe expensive units. All i am asking for here is for the Cybran ras com hp to be reduced to that of Aeon or even lower.

You forgot to mention that Cybran SACUs (base ones, at least) are the second cheapest at only 2,000 mass.
Just 50 more mass than Aeon.

Apart from having the largest health pool, they also have the highest regen as well.
Sitting in at 25HP/S with the second highest at 20 HP/S.

Though this may not be the thread to speak about that unit, I would say SACUs do play a large part in HARMS.
The Cybran Support Com being arguably one of the strongest SACUs AND one of the strongest units underwater;
This together makes building HARMS a devastating combo.

Sure, T3 engineers can build these too, but since they sit on the water, they can be taken out by any factor of means.
It is far more difficult to take out a support commander located underwater - especially if it has upgrades.

For 800 mass, you can double its Build Power, and for an extra 2,000 mass, you can make your SACU basically unkillable for +400 HP regen.

I agree in that HARMS themselves do need a tad bit of adjusting, but, the unit that builds them needs adjustment, too.

Granted, this would possibly be tackled with this adjustment (which was an extension of this) as posted on Github a while back.

~ Stryker

Yes, as you pointed out the SACUs are getting adjusted and specifically the cybran one will have a lot less hp by default.

Isn't Cybran SACU regen overrated? UEF and Sera have upgrades that give them decent regen too, and around 20k more total HP.

if cybran sacu gets -x base hp than the nano upgrade will get +x hp so the combat sacu doesn't get affected

roughly speaking

@comradestryker said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:

Wasn't the range one of the primary reasons the Summit was nerfed (very) long ago?
To make it slower and more costly to obtain critical mass in a unit with excellent range?

Took me a bit to find the balance patch log but here it is.

Salem range changes:

That said... I have some significant concerns regarding these changes made to the Salem in terms of its range.

It's unclear to me why the Salem now possesses a range that surpasses other destroyers by a factor of 15 units in range and 25 units against other factions, without any corresponding drawbacks to compensate for such an extended range.

Notably, the Salem now outranges frigates by a factor of about 50 units, as well.

We're now seeing the same thing that happened to the Summit, but with potentially more severe consequences as the Salem is a T2 unit, rather than T3.

And because of this, we can anticipate encountering this 'imbalance' more frequently and at an earlier stage of a match.

And though, I've said this before... I'll note it again.
The Salem now outranges one of its counters, the Battlecruiser, which poses a challenge.

In FAF, range is a paramount statistic, and in my opinion, far outweighs the other stats - damage output and health.

While the additional 5 units of range may seem relatively minor, it essentially grants the Salem an overpowering advantage.
I mean... We're literally seeing the exact same thing with the Aeon Gun Com post.

The Salem has always stood out among the other destroyers mainly due to its notable fire rate and consistent damage output.
With a range increase, it now has the ability to engage enemies from an even greater distance .
Its effectiveness is multiplied when paired with a Stealth Boat, thus allowing players to bombard opponents from afar while basically remaining impervious to a counterplay.

On top of this, the Cybran frigate is receiving a buff via a reversion to the changes made in the previous
balance patch.

While I understand that the Cybran navy still required some adjustments, I still question whether altering the Salem's range was the sole viable option.

Carriers changes:

The vision changes implemented for carriers, although necessary, inadvertently affected the Atlantis as well.
And not in a good way.

The Atlantis is already widely considered to be barely an experimental unit as is.
You construct one only for its intel capabilities.
Otherwise, it is better to use those resources for a battleship instead as they are cheaper, have more range, more damage, and more HP.

With all carriers now possessing the same vision range, some form of compensation should have been given to the Atlantis - IE: a slightly larger vision radius or even an adjustment in the carrier's vision capabilities relative to its radius - yet received nothing?

Many of the players I have spoken with;
Well, we all agree that these changes are questionable.
And the reasoning behind them is... lackluster, to say the least.

~ Stryker

Salem is worst or 2nd worst destro, wtf are you even talking about

good luck using ur bs to kill subs

@ftxcommando said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:

Salem is worst or 2nd worst destro, wtf are you even talking about
good luck using ur bs to kill subs

I understand that you have a strong opinion about the Salem and it being in a bad spot.
And I am with you on that. Cybran Navy does currently need an adjustment.

If I may mention... It's important to keep in mind that different people may have different experiences or perspectives.
Especially in FAF and rating brackets.

I may not be a god-like 2K, but at my rating, what I mentioned as part of my concerns, comes into play.

Range is very powerful.
Barring all other factors, a game of FAF is usually simplified to range.
In short... it comes down to who can attack first.

And adding or taking away without looking at all the factors;
That would be... "lazy balancing".

Hence why I am sharing my viewpoint.

(Regarding subs, various factors come into play.
Different units will have an advantage or disadvantage in different situations.)

~ Stryker

Different units indeed have advantages. That's why you make an Atlantis to deal with barracudas or t3 sub hunters. Doesn't really matter to me if it gets an intel buff honestly but it still serves a role against late game sub spam while cooper is ass. Though I didn't really get to gauge if the new changes make cooper decent or not.

Micro against salem is click to each side every second. All destros are the same speed and all frigates are faster. You catch it and if it needs to turn away it loses 90% of its dps so it dies. It having more range just means you click for 3 seconds longer. It's some of the easiest micro to learn in the game because salem shoots at a constant rhythm unlike something like aeon destro.

@ftxcommando said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:

cooper is ass.

The extra range is commendable and the stat reduction is also a good change.
But, I would think the opposite may be the way to go... no?
Being honest, though, I don't have the slightest idea of what to suggest for that unit.

Maybe it would be better off as a T1 unit?
But, then it would make the Sub kind of pointless, and then you have other factors...

I guess the Cooper will always be in a predicament as it is 1 of 2 navy units in the UEF that counters subs.
It has to be strong in its role, but as a T1 unit, then it'll be the complete opposite.

Either way, I can see the new stats being a positive change for it.

~ Stryker

@ComradeStryker all beta chanegs are listed here : https://patchnotes.faforever.com/fafbeta.html

@rowey Tldr of the changes: We hate aeon. We deleted their cruiser from the list of useful units, now its time for aeon gun and mercies because screw aeon I guess.

Also apparently we need to make sure that big failed pushes are harder to punish, oh and transports even more broken, and not really fix the atlantis or HARMS

@thecodemander said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:

@rowey Tldr of the changes: We hate aeon. We deleted their cruiser from the list of useful units, now its time for aeon gun and mercies because screw aeon I guess.

Also apparently we need to make sure that big failed pushes are harder to punish, oh and transports even more broken, and not really fix the atlantis or HARMS

Aeon have been receiving buffs for a while now without nerfing their most OP stuff. To list:

• Obsidians and Blazes were steadily buffed until they became strong, without nerfing the big ACU gun range advantage that was meant to offset weak T2 land.
• Their T2 gunships now have big alpha damage and AoE making them the best T2 gunships in the game to offset Aeon not having a fighter-bomber equivalent, but nothing was done with Mercy's cancerous aspects.
• Aeon labs are now the strongest for actual combat and are the best for ghetto gunships to cover for Aurora's low mobility, but big clumps of Auroras are still way stronger than other T1 tanks.
• Aeon T3 mobile arty is the only arty that can fire on the move. All other arties, notably Cybran T3, were nerfed with a 4s deployment time so it's nigh impossible to use them in the field against armies, indirectly buffing Aeon and Sera.
• Recent buffs to T1 frigates without really nerfing destros that much. They still outrange and are more powerful than UEF and Sera, and Cybran destroyers are no less shit than they were.
• Arguably GC claw fixes, but that's being nerfed again.

I don't think the balance team hates Aeon based on all that.

codemander really looking to become #1 faf clown. got some big contenders, but good luck

Who would even pay for the 2nd Aeon ACU range upgrade?

Energy Cost: 31000
Mass Cost: 900
Build Time: 1100
New Range: 35 (from 30)

@waffelznoob Shame I'll never be as much of a clown as people who get triggered when I dont agree with some of the balance changes

I'm a little confused on the reclaim changes. Is there an explanation as to why it was done?

@snagglefox said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:

I'm a little confused on the reclaim changes. Is there an explanation as to why it was done?

Seconding this. The fact that reclaim ratios are universal for all units is pretty intuitive and fundamental to the game balance. Making higher tier units give less reclaim seems unwarranted.

@snagglefox the beta parthenotes is more to let you know what changes are currently live a more in-depth explanation for each change will come along with the official release of the patchnotes. but i will ask for a simplified version of why this is being changed for the beta notes

@snagglefox said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:

I'm a little confused on the reclaim changes. Is there an explanation as to why it was done?

essentially promotes aggression as before attacks were way too punishing late game

@kazuya said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:

@snagglefox said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:

I'm a little confused on the reclaim changes. Is there an explanation as to why it was done?

essentially promotes aggression as before attacks were way too punishing late game

it doesn't make a lot of sense at the current stage though because T3 land rush meta is way too oppressive and with the reclaim-change it just becomes even stronger, being the direct opposite of what the Balanceteam wants