Developers Iteration III of 2023

@comradestryker said in Developers Iteration III of 2023:

The Mega should have a much larger BP, so, I'm looking forward to that.
And the Czar being able to build on the move... Can't wait!

These aren't implemented yet.

@comradestryker said in Developers Iteration III of 2023:

I thought the consensus was that all Experimentals had poor BP to begin with...?
Maybe that changes with the new dynamic in mobile factories, so this reasoning may now be outdated.
But a Fatty building a Percy or a Cougar in 35 seconds as opposed to 26 before, plus the rolloff time, it still takes a while.
Same with the Atlantis. The high BP is one of its perks when building ASF or other air units.

They still have a significant build rate. And unlike other factories, these units roll off at the frontlines instead of somewhere way back.

Thanks for the overview Jip, some very cool changes coming up, maps looking better than ever and very excited to see the mobile factories in action-- one very small gripe though, although this is less "development" related and more "balance" related-- won't reducing the BP of aircraft carriers make them not worth building? According to the current unit DB, carriers are roughly 3x the price of a T3 air fac... I think it will de-incentivize building carriers as mobile factories if it gives the same BP for 3x the price, mobile or not, having 1.5x BP seems like a fairer middle ground since that means you're still paying more for the BP but it's not quite so steep.

Build on the move helps a lot with unit usefulness, that's probably why it's reduced

@piguy said in Developers Iteration III of 2023:

Thanks for the overview Jip, some very cool changes coming up, maps looking better than ever and very excited to see the mobile factories in action-- one very small gripe though, although this is less "development" related and more "balance" related-- won't reducing the BP of aircraft carriers make them not worth building? According to the current unit DB, carriers are roughly 3x the price of a T3 air fac... I think it will de-incentivize building carriers as mobile factories if it gives the same BP for 3x the price, mobile or not, having 1.5x BP seems like a fairer middle ground since that means you're still paying more for the BP but it's not quite so steep.

The previous build rate was quite high because the unit would either move or build. Now you can build all the time. Overall, you'll be able to build more units than before

You can find the build rate changes here:

• https://github.com/FAForever/fa/pull/5339/files

It is a 33% reduction: from 180 to 120 On the other end, the time that you get to build units stretches the life span of the carrier. That is a significant increase, way more than the 33% build rate reduction

And last time I checked, aircraft carriers can build tech 3 aircraft without a tech 3 Air HQ. That is of course a one-time investment, but it matters

The release is delayed by one week and is now set for the 2nd of September. I'm mentally too tired and in need of a short break from responsibilities

Key actions can now reference an article on the FAForever Wiki. The distribute orders hotkeys are the first to have such a wiki article.

We'll be adding more articles of sophisticated hotkeys as time passes. You can find a link to articles in the Key Bindings menu, see also the little 'world-wide-web' icons. By clicking on them the game opens your default browser at the correct page

I'd consider removing of mobile factories of Czar and Mega as balance change and revert. These abilities are crutial for those 2.

@Azath0th show me the three replays of the last few months where you used either of them as a mobile factory

@jip just by following your ideas we can remove half of units’ abilities because no one uses them every game…

That sentence is a logical fallacy, come on. On top of that, we both know what you're saying is wrong too

Crucial would mean you build the czar or mega for the mobile factory and anything else is a perk on the unit.

I think you would be hard pressed to find a replay in the last two years of someone using the factory.

@veteranashe I can easily find ones that uses that ability

Waiting

@jip said in Developers Iteration III of 2023:

That sentence is a logical fallacy, come on. On top of that, we both know what you're saying is wrong too

How is that a logical fallacy?

You wrote:
"*The following units lose their mobile factory capabilities:

Megalith (Cybran Megabot)
CZAR (Aeon Experimental Carrier)"*

What was the reason for this change? Frequency of usage? If so, what is the threshold value? Will Mantis lose the ability to assist? t2 Gunships ability to transport for rarely used? Would like to understand.
I am primarily puzzled that a change was mentioned without any reason given whatsoever iirc.

In my experience the idea of the exps being a mobile factory is very appealing to new players. Its a cool concept, but in practice completely useless as it is. Perhaps there is a way in order to make the feature actually viable. Perhaps by making the production of units free and lowering the build time?

Also didnt i read somewhere there was work done allowing the fatboy to produce untis while on the move? I mean in that case, it will definitely be used more often

@stormlantern said in Developers Iteration III of 2023:

In my experience the idea of the exps being a mobile factory is very appealing to new players. Its a cool concept, but in practice completely useless as it is. Perhaps there is a way in order to make the feature actually viable. Perhaps by making the production of units free and lowering the build time?

You can now build while moving. That makes it a lot more viable.

@ninrai said in Developers Iteration III of 2023:

How is that a logical fallacy?
You wrote:
"The following units lose their mobile factory capabilities:
Megalith (Cybran Megabot)
CZAR (Aeon Experimental Carrier)"

What was the reason for this change? Frequency of usage? If so, what is the threshold value? Will Mantis lose the ability to assist? t2 Gunships ability to transport for rarely used? Would like to understand.
I am primarily puzzled that a change was mentioned without any reason given whatsoever iirc.

@azath0th said in Developers Iteration III of 2023:

@jip just by following your ideas we can remove half of units’ abilities because no one uses them every game…

Slippery slope

A slippery slope fallacy (SSF), in logic, critical thinking, political rhetoric, and caselaw, is a fallacious argument in which a party asserts that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect.

@Azath0th wrote almost a text book example of the above. And you ( @Ninrai ) are pretty close to it too, why make all those weird examples? It is completely out of context, based on the assumption of someone else. You could've just asked me to elaborate and I would have, as I will do now too.

The mobile factory part of the Megalith and the CZAR are temporarily removed. You ( @Ninrai ) didn't quote the next sentence. Allow me to do that for you:

@jip said in Developers Iteration III of 2023:

We hope to include them in the future. At the moment they are not within reach to be finished any time soon.

There you go. They are removed because their implementations are unfinished. I'd like to give users one, common and expectable user experience. That means I want all mobile factories to work the same. I can already see the questions coming where people ask me why the Fatboy can build on the move but the CZAR can't. Will you be there to answer it for them?

In the past years that I've played FAF I've never seen a serious use of the mobile factory aspect of the Megalith or the CZAR. I'm also still waiting for the replays of @Azath0th where he shows that it is a critical balance change because without it, he would've lost a game.

Until then, I'm removing their mobile factory components for the sake of consistency towards the user.

@jip said in Developers Iteration III of 2023:

We hope to include them in the future. At the moment they are not within reach to be finished any time soon.

Things would be clearer if you explained things a little more to begin with. This mechanic was working before, now it was removed with you saying eventually it ll be included once again when "finished". Not stating what this "finished state" is nor providing the explanation you just gave now leads to confusion imo.
You also wrote you "hope" to include them again. That is not the same as "we will include it back again", so I wonder what you mean.

It would also be much nicer if people would find back to a more benevolent tone when they have questions or concerns about development. Lately it felt like people are up in arms all the time. It feels like people treat the developers/balance team as a hostile force that must be kept from ruining FAF. It makes for a very unpleasant work environment.
We are all on the same page here in the sense that we all want to make FAF the best it can be. It can be that you don't understand why something is happening, or even that there is a disagreement on which change is good, but please keep in mind, that there is probably a good reason why something was decided.
It's much nicer to ask for more info instead of making everything a power struggle. If a post makes wild claims with minimal reasoning, for example saying that feature X is crucial and it's removal will be rUiNIng FAF, then that post will likely be answered in a similar style. It makes it easier on everyone if the conversation starts more relaxed.

I feel like I am sounding a bit condescending, because I am spelling out the obvious here, but it's really been bugging me, and I don't know why everyone's been so hostile lately.

@blackyps said in Developers Iteration III of 2023:

and I don't know why everyone's been so hostile lately.

I have to agree and was going to post something similar myself, so thanks for doing it.

Misunderstandings can always happen but it would be good sometimes to take a moment and realize "I didn't read this properly" rather than pointing fingers and saying "you didn't explain this properly".

Or, when in doubt, just ask for an explanation, like Jip said.

Let's try to keep hostilities for when we are playing, shall we?