Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread

@blodir said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:

Tbf the hp diffs were already in some sense meaningless. Like maybe someone really good has at some point thought "oh the enemy is UEF, so I will now choose to not send a raiding party because their mex has more hp", but that has never occurred to me. Yes it obviously makes a pretty significant difference, but it felt still like it wasn't impacting practical decisionmaking very much.

You're right. No one consciously thinks about not sending raiding parties or whatnot due to HP differences.
What does change is the damage.

For example, if a raiding party comes through, it'll either take longer for them to destroy a mex, or they'll just run by dealing minimal damage.

The difference between T1 mexes is meaningless, yes, but the difference between T2 and T3 mexes grows exponentially per tier and per faction.
We're talking 9000 HP down to 6000 across the biggest gap at T3.
2500 to 1800 across T2.
Large differences.

And that's what's changing.
The faction HP differences are being minimized and normalized...
But if I guess it's for the better health of the game, I guess we'll have to see...

~ Stryker

UEF bubble shield refresh rate doubled. Regen rate increased by 50%. Called small buff.

That HP normalization fucks me up as well. And in defense it favors cybran which is per design an offense faction. It brakes with the faction identities and doesn't make sense to me. It's the same with mercies going from precision to aoe but the difference is that mercies needed a change this feels just random. I get the underlying idea but the execution seems bad, especially with the reclaim change.

UEF Bubble will probably be a meme, based on the costs. Otherwise interesting changes. Hope the naval experience is well balanced.

@comradestryker How will increasing the vision range solve this issue? Won't it just make the 'circle' of fuzzy 'can I see or not' happen a little further out?

I assumed that the vision changes were more to do with what the beta changes page suggested - trying to give a player more information to act on during non-radar combat.

My immediate thoughts on it were that while that sounds like a noble goal, it has the side-effect of making radar vs no-radar combat much weaker. Ie, make scouts less crucial, and potentially mess up certain balance tightropes like aurora vs t1, and remove the advantage that range+scout can give to many engagements like, say, ilshavoh, or mongoose. Even hoplite (particularly when paired with a deceiver, which is so much fun if a little niche)...
But, knowing that I'm a total noob, I know I'll be talked around by the opinions of better players, that I very much respect! As such, I was hoping to read the discussion where they were justifying the advantage of a sweeping +15% across-the-board increase to such an important stat.

(Are you sure that the upcoming vision changes are just to try to fix a UI nuance? If so, doesn't the knock-on effect on balance and strategy concern you?
ps. I can't seem to view that attachment in discord. I tried 'search', 'find a conversation' etc, and it turned up a 'can't seem to find what you're looking for'! Basically, I don't know where I'm supposed to paste that link to reach the video you were describing. I'll keep trying (although if it's just that a unit on the edge of vision can often not be seen or come in and out of vision while trying to attack it - I expect that will happen the same when vision is increased by 15%. After all, it can currently happen to a scout, an engineer, or an atlantis!
Thanks for taking the time to reply to me. Sorry for still being confused!)

The point is that basically all units have intel that is the same as their attack radius. This means there are a lot of situations where even though you are in range of a unit, it doesn’t get engaged because of a vision bug where the unit doesn’t pop in until it’s well into the vision radius. The extra intel is supposed to smooth that over.

After a few games, Bubble Shield rework definitely feels like a new viable strategy.
I like where this new placement and direction of the upgrade is going.

Though, as stated before, the stats should be further adjusted.

I believe it should either;

1. have more SHP for the resource cost.
2. or its resource cost be reduced.
   That's all.

~ Stryker

@ftxcommando Essentially, this change, to me, felt like it was making non-radar stronger when up against radar.

It might be a 'sweeping' change, that we can assume affects all factions equally, but (at least at my level) I see certain factions/unit choices using more scouts than usual (aforementioned aurora, mongoose, ilshovah, hoplite etc). I feel like those units are getting a (very) indirect nerf.

I'm unsure whether they need that nerf- I've heard that aeon are too strong, but I think that's in tier:2, right? And I haven't seen anyone talking about mongoose or hoplite being too strong. Ilshovah, otoh, is kinda 'supposed' to be 'too strong' from what I understand, given seraphim's lack of 'ace' cards after that.

And, all that being said, I was just hoping to see the discussion / justification behind these changes.

Thanks for taking the time to help me understand.

I do not think that the buff of t1 subs was really needed. It was not OP that torpedo bombers were killing subs with one shot, cause they are much more expensive. It is not fair to consider only mass value. Firstly, because torps are more expensive in energy, 2.5 times more than sub, also u have to add the cost of the technology, air factory hq costs 920 mass and 18K extra in order to counter those subs (We do not consider now torpedo launchers, as in the patch notes was clearly said that the buff was aimed to make subs suffer 2 shot from torpedo bomber). So if we just count that I have invested mass in torps and t2 air and have 6 torps against 6 subs, which is 1620 mass and 48K energy against 2160 mass 17K energy. Not fair that u have to invest so much resources in something that can be so easily countered.
Imagine my opponent has not invested resources in t2 air and invested resources in t1 interceptors instead. I invested 920 mass and 18K energy in T2 air HQ and my oppnent spent 900 mass and 40K energy in 18 interceptors, which easily kill all the bombers I have.
So in the end of the day I spent 2540 mass and 56K energy and my opponent invested 3060 mass and 57K energy. I can really deal NO damage to my opponent in that case. Even if I add 2 more torps and spend same amount of mass on that I can deal NO damage to that. And also I have not considered the resource of build power, t2 torps cost more in bp than the subs. So it makes no sense to make them die from 2 shots of torpedo bombers.
I am not against the sub buffs, however. I suggest to make them cheaper or add extra damage, so that u will not bury ur 6 subs with cost of 2K mass into one torpedo launcher that costs 450 mass. Making them cheaper will be enough buff for them in my opinion.

@gabitii said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:

It was not OP that torpedo bombers were killing subs with one shot, cause they are much more expensive

It was not OP that torp bombers were one shoting t1 subs, because t1 subs are cancer and should be bad

@deribus said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:

@gabitii said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:

It was not OP that torpedo bombers were killing subs with one shot, cause they are much more expensive

Well you can not simply take mass costs. If you would have read the whole text, you would also have read that you have to consider energy costs, which means extra pgens and technology costs(t2 air hq). So yes, they are more expensive.

Extra pgens? You not making t2 pgen as sub spammer? Why doesn’t your analysis account for the fact subs always are made much earlier than torps?

@ftxcommando said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:

Extra pgens?

Yes extra pgens, just look at the energy cost and realize that u need extra pgens to counter that shit tons of subs with t2 torpedo bombers.

@ftxcommando said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:

You not making t2 pgen as sub spammer? Why doesn’t your analysis account for the fact subs always are made much earlier than torps?

@ftxcommando why does it matter that they are made earlier then torps? If it does then consider that I have to rush t2 air hq much earlier than I supposed to. We consider the amount of spent mass and the counter actions for that. Tell me pls what is wrong in my analysis and how the t1 subs should be countered then? It was only t2 torpedos which are extremely expensive to rush, but at least they killed them. But now all I have to do with subs is spam enough t1 ints which is not a problem when my opp rushing t2 air.
They barely can attack because of the low dps, but they are mega annoying in case of defense cause still they can be countered too easily with torpedo launcher. So I think that buff should be in dps or in mass cost, not in hp.

Btw, you knew that with the new patch u need 3 shots of torpedo bombers to kill sera sub? I do not know about others but I have just played game where torp was dealing exactly 250 damaage to sera sub from one shot. The replay is https://replay.faforever.com/20389212 timing is about 9 00. The ACU was going back to base from island and focused by subs. 1 torpedo bomber has not killed sub from 2 shots leaving it with 60 HP.
It is because when u have more than 2 subs near each other, torpedo defense works well.

You make subs earlier = less eco = you're behind = making units later are a smaller proportion of your eco as torp bomber player.

The cost in e doesn't matter because due to making earlier t1 navy, you're going to be behind in scale and therefore have t2 pgen later, meaning you're still putting less of a proportion of your total e income into units, more into eco, meaning you are now ahead as the torp bomber player.

Saying "uhhhhhhh the torp bomber dude has a t2 pgen and the sub player doesn't look at the costs" isn't how the game works, everybody will be getting t2 pgens in the game. It's about the proportional level of income going into units for a player, the e cost serves as a bottleneck to force you to have t2 infrastructure before starting the spam of it.

@ftxcommando said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:

You make subs earlier = less eco = you're behind = making units later are a smaller proportion of your eco as torp bomber player.

The cost in e doesn't matter because due to making earlier t1 navy, you're going to be behind in scale and therefore have t2 pgen later, meaning you're still putting less of a proportion of your total e income into units, more into eco, meaning you are now ahead as the torp bomber player.

why the hell should you be behind in eco? And why u make them earlier. I think you do not even get what I want to say. I am saying that for the same amount of spent mass in units, the guy with subs gets the units that can not be countered when attacking. I have given you list of units for team A and list of units for team B (read the message above). And the team with subs is unkillable with the list of units in team with torps, when attacking, it can only be countered if the subs attack.

Saying "uhhhhhhh the torp bomber dude has a t2 pgen and the sub player doesn't look at the costs" isn't how the game works, everybody will be getting t2 pgens in the game. It's about the proportional level of income going into units for a player, the e cost serves as a bottleneck to force you to have t2 infrastructure before starting the spam of it.

I am not saying anything about the t2 pgen, like literally nothing. It is you who started talking about t2 pgen. I only said that u need more energy to spam torpedos, which is also resource, but the guy was not considering it, and pointed only on mass value.

My point was just to consider the cost of energy when comparing 2 units. I think sometimes people forget that there are actually 3 types of resources in this game, not only mass. Yes, torps are cheaper than subs in mass, but much more expensive in energy AND in build power, which is 3rd resource in the game.

@gabitii said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:

@deribus said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:

@gabitii said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:

It was not OP that torpedo bombers were killing subs with one shot, cause they are much more expensive

Well you can not simply take mass costs. If you would have read the whole text, you would also have read that you have to consider energy costs, which means extra pgens and technology costs(t2 air hq). So yes, they are more expensive.

This guy is only considering mass value, whereas torps are more expensive in both energy and build power

So you aren’t talking about games just ethereal weird sandbox situations gotcha, the whole strength of torps is that you can disregard navy for an extra 2-3 minutes as you eco and then use torps to win back map control with overall superior eco.

In a teamgame setting u don't build the torps urself just ask for 1 torp from teammate and it will clear all subs with a bit of micro. Also torp launchers are much better now so if you don't want to build subs (such as if the map doesn't have many raidable mex by sub/frig) then you can hang out near a torp launcher until t2 navy.

@blodir said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:

In a teamgame setting u don't build the torps urself just ask for 1 torp from teammate and it will clear all subs with a bit of micro.

what is the problem? 1 t1 bomber from an ally can also kill expansion of ur opponent by killing engies. T3 strat can also clear up the t1 factories producing the t1 spam), if it is cybran facs. 1 Janus can also clear up all the t1 army (specially aeon) with a bit of micro. 1 t1 bomber from ur teammate can also kill the entire army of auroras with a bit of micro. 1 Hover tank from teammate can also deal lots of damage if the opponents army consists of only subs, like killing factories or engies. It is always so that u have and advantage if the teammate helps. Why not nerfing janus or hover tanks then or buffing auroras? You could also delete all the air bombers so that the teammates will not be able to help and everybody will just play 1v1 against their opponent with that logic.

@blodir

@blodir said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:

Also torp launchers are much better now so if you don't want to build subs (such as if the map doesn't have many raidable mex by sub/frig) then you can hang out near a torp launcher until t2 navy.

Torpedo launchers are useless in attack. Which means that the agression against the subs is almost impossible now, because u can not easily wipe them out with t2 bombers. Which means if u make only frigs and ur opponent makes only subs the opponent can spend less mass on units and eco more, since there is no way u can kill their navy very fast, specially sera subs, which require 3 or more torpedo shots if they are located near each other. This type of buff of subs is causing passive gameplay with only ecoing, cause u barely can punish ur opponent for building less units. I personally think that the t1 subs do need a buff, on that I totally agree with the balance team. But I think they should be more cheaper OR they should have more dps.

Aeon Chrono Dampener animation seems off, the animation activates when in range of the max gun range upgrade even if you have no gun range upgrades at all. The animation also extends to the max gun range of 35 even if you can't shoot that far, the animation also doesn't sync up at lower ranges, causing the animation to pass through the target well before the stun occurs.

The Seraphim regen aura seems odd too, its dropping HP regeneration down to 12, even with a Veteran 5 Galactic Colossus.

This is not the right place for this, is it?