Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread
-
sacu rebalance is older than some faf players
-
Even broader--what's the issue that's been identified with them? Why do they need to be rebalanced? Surely that should be pretty static and okay to reveal.
-
Another thing are the shield-SACUs. Since the SACUs are going to change quite a bit in the future, it can be that they will be an important factor to consider as well. So yeah, overall not easy to tell right now.
I'm happy you guys are looking into the Fatty!
Can't wait to see what you guys have in store for it.
Though, if I may say, adjusting a different unit should not really be the way to fix the one with the issue.
Does it help? Of course it will, yes - synergy is stronger and effectiveness together may increase, but the problem isn't really the unit composition, is it? Rather the unit itself. In this case, the Fatty.Adjusting the Sacu does close to nothing for the Fatty, other than at times when they are together - which in this case, would start enforcing tandem gameplay causing a player to only build a Fatboy after they build support commanders.
Oh, and perhaps you missed my previous message..
Just had a quick question in regards to the Bubble Shield.
~ Stryker
-
C ComradeStryker referenced this topic on
-
@comradestryker I did indeed miss your earlier question; Cannot really answer it though cuz I didn't have time the last meeting (or even two meetings?) and therefore dunno their thought process there. But it'll get changed, yes.
And to the SACU:
They are not getting a change, because the fatty needs to be changed. They're getting changed cuz they are insanely bad in so many situations and most of them are simply not efficient than e.g. t3 units / exps. Main reason you see bois being built anyway is if the players don't take the round serious. Just see it as a change we must not ignore but not the main focus when talking about the fatty itself.
If that somewhat makes sense -
rails line of pre-workout How about if there's an observer in the game, when you build an SACU they have the option of taking it over and joining your team?
-
@sladow-noob said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
Another thing are the shield-SACUs. Since the SACUs are going to change quite a bit in the future
Is there a place I can go to read about these proposals?
[edit - nevermind, I saw your reply to another similar question!I can see a SACU change potentially making a difference to a fatboy, too.
When I build a fatboy, I always tried to have a SACU or 2 spamming T2 shield structures (and the odd TMD) around the fatboy as it moves in. (T2 shields are so cheap for what you get). I'm still in this habit, even with the new moving factory mechanic, and there's a good chance that means I'm building too many shields nowadays.
But I can totally see how SACU changes would make a difference.
(I also remember UEF shield SACUs being one of the other units, like the fatboy, that have 'special values for overlapping shield 'bleedover', but I forget what it is exactly - edit, it's 20%, better than normal shields; and the UEF ACU's bubble shield is 0% like the fatboy!!!). ] -
well you can see that you are favoring UEF with teleport and billy nuke, at list give cybran loyalist back the ability to counter it.
im wondering, do you have any plans to change T3 Mobile Heavy Artillery for alll factions?
harms are bad now, to much mass cost, less range, no stealth, less hp, build time
( alll this has to change)it would be good to buff by 5 build power for hives or increase build range
-
Seeing how Cybran are the only land without shields so Billy is bit more effective against them, reenabling redirect would be a nice deterrent.
-
I think we decided to add the redirect ability again for loyas (and potentially cybran cruisers) if the bug is fixed where redirected missiles are ignored by tmd and shields
-
It’s not favoring factions it’s making useless upgrades useful. UEF is just babymode difficulty while Aeon requires more of a thought behind how to make their teleport not shit.
-
What about a small range buff 5 or 10 for T3 mobile arty, might see it used more after setup nerf. Also help vs snipers.
-
Really liking the changes so far , however i do not see the reasoning for increasing ASF dps as justified. They are still too spammable in general (with 30-50 of them making VERY fast work of most if not all air experimentals)
-
@spcr their cost went up by about 28% and their dps went up by 25% so you will have slightly less dps per mass/e invested into ASF, so you won't kill air exps quicker unless there's anti air involved making the increased HP of ASF valuable, but even then it's hard to say if you really get more dps out of your ASF cloud.
-
I don't understand what the asf change is supposed to accomplish.
-
@Chenbro101 see my other messages in this post:
@sladow-noob said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
@comradestryker said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
ASF changes, an already oppressive unit made better?
What's the reasoning behind these changes? Performance?
Jip has improved the game considerably.
Delay the first ASF? Achieved with the Air HQ BT changes.
If anything, ASF need a nerf as they're too oppressive against T2 and T3 air.
A nerf in damage, at least.I'll try to explain my (mostly own opinion) thought process behind that.
Currently the t3 air meta is just to rush air and scale your airgrid infinitely until you won air, then abuse it. When you have mass, you go t3 mex besides that.
The change is more radical on purpose so we can feel the impact in beta. Goal is to 1) Delay the ASF in general so t1 and t2 air have more time and frontplayers can use them as well for a longer periode 2) Let ASF-fights last a bit longer and 3) Let the airgrid-scaling be more interesting with more conscious decisions you have to make.
Imagine you cannot just scale your airgrid and go mexes besides that, imagine that you really have to think whether you can afford to invest ressources into eco or if you have to build more ASF first.The cost-change is not directly a nerf. It's a shift such as the T2 Sera Gunship. It's better (e.g. hp) but also costs more so you don't have 30ASF at min 16 but like 20.
Please keep in mind that these number - as said before - are a heavy change for the simple reason to see how it affects the airplay in general.
-
The Stinger and Vulthoo changes makes me think of a Jester T1 Cybran gunship. It's not the most horrific thing, but it can stick around if you don't have interceptors or enough land AAto deal with it. Maybe the Stinger should have more HP and less damage with the speed change? This might give it an advantage in poorly defended areas. THe Vulthoo HP increase is going to play out interestingly.
Different teleports for different factions would be interesting. The beta change seems a bit much. Perhaps have T2-T3 upgrades speed up the teleport? It already costs a terrible lot, so that might be a bad idea. Perhaps upgrade steps for range and speed? Or make Teleport "charges", where you pay for the teleport forward, then instant teleport to your destination. Not all of these at once of course. Just ideas.
-
The Stinger just tends to miss moving targets a lot. Could it get the same love the Jester and Vulthoo are getting with the soft projectile tracking?
-
After watching 5 Stingers chase a Thaam, I agree, something should be done.
-
I looove the proposed tele range nerfs!
Now tele actually requires correct execution and interaction with the rest of the map, while still being super strong when it works as it should be
As an idea, I'd propose to change the tele range from 350 to 410, for no other reason than 410 is the nuke sub range and having standardized ranges where possible is nice.
-
@TheWheelie Thanks for taking the time to address feedback, here and in discord. I think the balance team's reasoning is solid and you explained it well. I'll try to play some games with beta balance before forming an opinion.
