Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread
-
Unironically, the reason I chose UEF as my primary faction was because of its survivability over all the other factions.
I was not a good player back then (and still aren't), so having units and structures with large HP pools eased my tension.
I know, it's hard to imagine Stryker as a -200 at some point.The reliance on that high HP pool is what slowly made me love this faction more and more.
Whenever I swapped factions, it never felt right to me.
They all have their advantages... though not so sure about that, anymore.Sure, some changes were needed for a healthier game, but again;
I miss when it would take 3 passes from a bomber to kill a T1 Pgen or Mex.Yeah, I may be a little biased, but having the factions be normalized now just makes the factions feel weird, to me.
Like carriers having the same vision as Atlantis... although healthier for the game and better-suited for the carriers in a support role,
it just doesn't make sense to me that these units now share the same vision range.
I miss my pgen and mex HP.
~ Stryker
-
I know it would be a bit of a hassle to calculate, but why not increase the cost of resource structures according to their total HP?
-
That would make UEF beyond unplayable.
-
Just did a game on FAF Beta Balance, huge fan of the increased energy storage and adjacency
-
If eco generating buildings were more expensive without providing any more resources it would instantly make that faction garbage
-
The changes to capacity are great! I am enjoying them, as well.
Especially since I forget to build enough power, sometimes.Though, now I get the feeling they should deal slightly more damage when destroyed.
Since they hold double their capacity, we may see a slight decrease in their construction numbers, especially early on in a match.
Where once you needed 3 or 4, now you only need 1 or 2.To compensate, I say their death damage should be increased, especially with the buff to adjacency as well.
To make it a slightly more lucrative strategic target to take out.Specific numbers are to be properly calculated, but I reckon something like a 25% increase in damage would suffice.
1,000 -> 1,250Or maybe even a 50% change.
Heck, double the capacity, double the adjacency;
Then double the risk! Double the damage to 2,000 entirely!
Another thing, correct me if I'm wrong here, but...
Resource structures are not the only structures that could see a benefit with (storage) adjacency.I recall @Jip mentioned that more stats could be adjusted with energy storage adjacency.
IE: Shield recharge time, shield hp, and more.Now that energy storage is being looked at, could we see in the future additional benefits for something like adjacency?
~ Stryker
-
If there is one thing that could almost be universally agreed upon in faf, it’s that shields don’t need to be stronger as a general rule.
-
@ftxcommando said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
If there is one thing that could almost be universally agreed upon in faf, it’s that shields don’t need to be stronger as a general rule.
Shields were just one example.
I'm sure many other structures could have any stat buffed with adjacency.
~ Stryker
-
Hello,
@SpikeyNoob Here some feedback to the new UEF bubble shield upgrade.
First of all I love the idea of making the bubble shield as an alternative option to the personal shield. I can see a lot of fun for UEF players to go Rambo with a bubble shield ACU and a couple of percy's. I would really love to see such game play!
but right now the shield is just ridiculously weak compared to the cost. Below is a comparison of all mobile shields.
I think the bubble shield upgrade is most comparable to the Athanah mobile shield. Same size and similar amount of HP (9k vs 10k). But more than 4 times less HP/mass and if you also include the energy costs, the bubble shield is just so bad in terms of bang for bug.
I really see no reason why the upgrade is so much more expensive, especially since the other mobile shields have less than half the recharge time and are much faster and you can have as many as you want.
Even the SACU bubble shield is more than twice as good in terms of HP/mass with a shield HP of 52k!
So I would say give the bubble shield at least the same HP as the personal shield, i.e. 19k. The recharge time should be still at 90s because every arty shell typically hits and the shield will be down pretty quickly.
-
Because the ACU-shield is resistant against Overcharges while the mobile ones are not. The main reason for getting the bubbleshield is to protect your Percies from getting overcharged, which is a thing a normal shield doesn't fulfill due to dying instantly, especially since the patch where the remaining DMG from the OC gets directed onto the unit itself.
-
@sladow-noob You can have 10 - 11 Parashield (and if you include energy costs much more). I would argue even with OC killing the Parashield they will do a better job. Simply because of the amount of Parashield you can have.
-
So the torp upgrade got changed? Same dps but less torps. Is this not a nerf against torp defence?
And if the laser does less damage should it not have cost less?
-
Please don't put that Self-repair crap on the Cyrban com, really not needed and will only end up in more silly changes to other faction coms to "balance". Cybran coms regen more anyway. Plus are we really gonna have tele laser nano coms fresh everytime they tele to the next area?! I only play as Cybran and think this change would be tragic.
-
@burni said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
Please don't put that Self-repair crap on the Cyrban com, really not needed and will only end up in more silly changes to other faction coms to "balance". Cybran coms regen more anyway. Plus are we really gonna have tele laser nano coms fresh everytime they tele to the next area?! I only play as Cybran and think this change would be tragic.
Teleport and Nano cannot be obtained together.
They take up the same back slot.
It's only one or the other, not both.As for Self-Repair, the Cybran com was arguably the weakest early on.
This only makes up for the deficit.
It needed something to make up for it.
Also, too much work already went into the upgrade in the programming, testing, and balancing standpoints.
And it may be a little late for feedback as the changes go live in about 2 days.
Cybran coms regen more anyway.
They do now.
~ Stryker
-
Where can I go to read more discussion about the vision range changes?
I'm sure I'll be talked around as soon as I see people's reasons for wanting it... But at the moment I just feel like I've always loved how including scouts was an important part of supcom combat; even having some great opportunities to bomb the enemy scout to render their forces weaker etc! At the moment I feel like it would be a massive shame to reduce how essential scouts are.
As I said, I'm sure I'll understand better as soon as I see the discussions where people talked about why they wanted this... I just don't know where I can read it all. x
-
I believe the best place to look for a discussion about this is on the FAF Discord in under the BALANCE section in #balance-suggestions &/or #balance-discussion.
-
@mostlostnoob Damn, I already searched both those places with the keyword 'vision' and saw nothing recent besides discussions of ways to change the fatboy.
(plus other or older, unrelated comments like 'Jip's original vision', how to make blodir's vision meta, units disappearing inside vision range, seraphim scouts giving vision when they die, artillery requiring vision to get built facing an enemy, "vision/radar and bombers idk what those were about" etc etc, going back to February this year! )
I'm sure I just don't know how to use discord search properly. Thanks for the pointer, I'll try to learn! I'd just hoped to find an actual discussion between people about why vision needed increasing 15%.
-
@Sylph_ I did search on Discord too & also didn't find anything relevant for the 15% change. The only thing I've found is the brief description about the change on the fafbeta patchnotes page: https://patchnotes.faforever.com/fafbeta.html#vision
-
@mostlostnoob
That's the only place I read about it, too!Where is the discussion / justification behind these vision changes, devs?
Please help me understand why this change is being implemented! -
I'm not a dev, but I think I can partially answer your question.
The vision change was meant to try and fix an age-old problem of... well... vision.
Sometimes you have an enemy unit right on the edge of your vision, and since, it's on the edge, you technically should be able to see it and engage it, yet you don't.This is because vision and intel rings are nowhere near a perfect circle, as FA(F) implies.
In fact, if you played the original SupCom, you can see the vision of the game updates in more of a grid-like pattern.I can't plug in an MP4 file, here, but if you head to Discord, you can plug this link somewhere so you can see it what I'm referring to.
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/862695268901453864/1129601713096114246/VisionDemo.mp4Global vision increases just help to effectively mitigate those niche circumstances.
The perfect vision circle is just a placebo effect, sadly.
A good placebo, at that, though.
~ Stryker
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
