Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread

I had an issue with Aeon Tac missile defense Vs. Seraphim Mobile Tac launchers even before this latest patch. The flare doesn't seem to get out fast enough.

I've also been having Salem issues. There's a few other tactics I can try, but it's rough.

My thoughts.
Good to have energy costs become more relevant. All the air changes seem good, but the gunship changes will inevitably need some fine tuning after seeing play for a few months.
Teleporter range reduction will reduce the possible fun strategies available in the late game. Since cybran mazer was already nerfed, this change seems like overkill. I'd rather have teleporter take longer to activate. This would still allow the "bad yet fun" tp strategies of proxy base building, while heavily hindering the viability of tele-mazer since the defending player can see the incoming threat for longer.
Can we also see a reduction to titan shield strength? Those shields pop on so fast, it's like their shield HP is doubled.
Also think the t3 maa changes will be healthy too since t3 static aa was recently nerfed.

Overall, most of the changes of this year have been on point and good! Well done balance team.

I'd also suggest having a map icon for incoming teleports inside vision. PLEASE INCLUDE THIS CHANGE INTO THE GAME!

Just remove teleport from the game at this point at this rate

Some of the changes defy logic.

UEF was never a great tele incursion com under any circumstances... It was always incredibly risky to tele in with no stealth or shield. The billy replaced your ticket home... and was always easily countered with anti-tac.

The UEF teleporter being at the cost of any tech upgrade is ludicrous. It now might as well not exist, compared with cybran and seraphim.

Not saying there hasn't been good work done... Things like performance improvements to air battles... com upgrades being queueable, SACU presets, and mobile T3 AA - but there's been an awful lot of "fiddling" that has made things that were sorta-the-point of some factions pointless.

UEF are tough'ish and can build.
SERA are real tough but expensive.
Cyran are cheap but fragile.
AEON had unusual advantages like range vs hp.

I feel like the game is being ruined because of a few people have some pet peeves about ways they've lost.

stuff that was risky as hell, but could work well...

• tele-snipe didn't need nerfing... It generally results in the cybran com dying.
• put UEF's com upgrades back the way they were. (see above)
• bring back T1 com transports... It's not "OP".. ONE inty can end your game..

I'm at the point of feeling this entire "balance patch" needs to be reverted. In fact, I'd even go as far as saying to mostly revert the balance to vanilla FA and start again.

@shadysocks said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:

@storm said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:

PD everywhere

You don't even need PD everywhere. 3 tac missiles will do

Not sure I agree with this... TAC will generally miss a com on the move, and from that moment you hear "commander under attack"...

... it's a big ask to select, aim, launch and hit with TAC missiles before you die...

@gibsaw said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:

Not saying there hasn't been good work done... Things like performance improvements to air battles... com upgrades being queueable, SACU presets, and mobile T3 AA - but there's been an awful lot of "fiddling" that has made things that were sorta-the-point of some factions pointless.

Point out the fiddling, give us something to discuss.

@jip

well, I thought I did give some examples... I could comprehensively go through and bitch, but I'm mainly voicing a little frustration with tweaking of things that were well understood and ok.

For example in this particular patch, changed the ASF hp and dps to change the dynamic at T1 and T2, and if I read it correctly - nerfed the Janus, which was never a particularly tough plane.

One other commentor made the point that a lot of the changes seem "anti-snipe", and that seems a reasonable comment. There's a bunch of threats - from fire-beetles to mercies... that have been nerfed - when they had their costs, risks and counters.

... If I had to request anything, I'd love to see the com make less bizarrely suicidal pathing decisions when being mobbed.

@gibsaw said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:

• tele-snipe didn't need nerfing... It generally results in the cybran com dying.
• put UEF's com upgrades back the way they were. (see above)
• bring back T1 com transports... It's not "OP".. ONE inty can end your game..

Please make sure to actually follow the balance discussions, the notes in the balance patches or farms' stream where he is talking about the balance. Or ask without immediately going for "change XY!". There are reasons for every balance change and the first point simply proves for me that you apparently didn't read anything before commenting here.

I'm at the point of feeling this entire "balance patch" needs to be reverted. In fact, I'd even go as far as saying to mostly revert the balance to vanilla FA and start again.

You can create an own balance mod, giving some ideas. But again, don't just go into a forum with the "change XY, balance sucks"-attitude, but maybe ask first why things got nerfed if you're too lazy to read through the old balance discussions, then think, then argue about certain changes. Thank you.

@gibsaw said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:

nerfed the Janus, which was never a particularly tough plane.

One other commentor made the point that a lot of the changes seem "anti-snipe", and that seems a reasonable comment.

This is not a reason for a nerf. See balance patches / discussions for the reasoning.

Take my rant about Janus as an example. They felt incredibly strong in a 1v1 game, so I posted my take together with the replay and got absolutely roasted bc of how shit I played while the Janus were not even the main issue.
A thought like "Oh the balance members were sniped, they'll surely nerf it the next times" is not a reason for a nerf. If anything the snipers will get kicked out of the lobbies, but the balance doesn't work like that.

@sladow-noob said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:

and the first point simply proves for me that you apparently didn't read anything

Ummm. No... I read it.. and I don't agree.. I routinely see most telesnipes dying achieving nothing...

But that wasn't really my point. I didn't say "balance sucks" or "change XY". My point is a bit of frustration with change for the sake of change. I DO follow the "reasons" but they're often debatable. One person's OP is another's "part of the game".

Things that were fine, get adjusted or outright removed, such as UEF teleport now being basically pointless replacing the tech upgrade. i.e. T3 tele was the UEF's point of difference for teleporters...

You know that classic gag about someone attempting to adjust a kitchen table by shortening a leg... and by the time they've finished it's a coffee fable?

That's where my comment about reverting to vanilla is coming from... It's ending up further and further from the original game...

@gibsaw said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:

But that wasn't really my point. I didn't say "balance sucks" or "change XY". My point is a bit of frustration with change for the sake of change. I DO follow the "reasons" but they're often debatable. One person's OP is another's "part of the game".

They're all opinions. And I think we (as a project) do need more opinions on certain aspects of the game. The problem (from my perspective as an active contributor for the past three years) is that we usually get no opinions (from the community, outside of those that participate in the teams already) or we get 'brain dumps' that are not really suited for a healthy discussion. Even when we beg people for their opinions, we usually get very little to none that we can work with.

I'd encourage you to join the balance team if you want to help out .

@gibsaw said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:

@sladow-noob said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:

and the first point simply proves for me that you apparently didn't read anything

Ummm. No... I read it.. and I don't agree.. I routinely see most telesnipes dying achieving nothing...

But then where are your arguments? Yes, the Cybran ACU often dies, yet the arguments were that one team has to invest 10k+ mass into teledef only because a Cybran-ACU exists in the other team (And no, "Scout" is not the correct answer to this). Or the argument that even if the ACU dies, in a fullshare game (which is the primary mode due to TMM and the mode the game is balanced towards) you lose one ACU but kill an entire airgrid.
Okay, you disagree, but then please just don't say "tele-snipe didn't need nerfing", but bring up the arguments. Why does it not need a nerf with the said points?
Also please note that the game is balanced towards high ranked games. Meaning if a telemazer didn't achieve smth in like <1500 ranked lobbies, it does not automatically mean it is bad in general.

I DO follow the "reasons" but they're often debatable. One person's OP is another's "part of the game".

This is exactly the reason why this exists. But then please actually bring up the points, so far the only argument with Cybran-telemazer was "the ACU dies" which was not ignored while talking about the balance change.

Ofc if you're unhappy with something, you can always just state it. But for the balance team knowing a person is unhappy, but not knowing what exactly is wrong with balance change XY doesn't really help. Problems exist, the most current one being Cybran which can't reliably defend against sniperbots, this can not be the status quo of like "Damn I got Cybran on a t3 land map. I guess I'm fucked." and things have to be changed due to competitive reasons. The how can be discussed and this is what balance talks are for.

@sladow-noob said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:

There are reasons for every balance change

What was the reason for giving 90% of units and buildings 15% more vision radius across the board?

@mazornoob Due to the vision bug. One of my latest games there was a mantis fighting with mine, however it was near the edge of the vision so even though their mantis shot at mine, my mantis couldn't shoot back due to that bug (we both had no extra intel -> He literally only had an advantage cuz or RNG). It wasn't like a super-early mantis but you can assume how this bug effects the games early on.

By increasing the vision of everything just a little, the hope was that the vision bug didn't play such an important role. However how much the impact really was is something I can't tell you, I only know the bug is still there. Now it might be much better than months ago, but yeah.
I was streaming the game but I doubt anyone in the Discord remembered the exact game / time / mantis

@sladow-noob said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:

@mazornoob Due to the vision bug. One of my latest games there was a mantis fighting with mine, however it was near the edge of the vision so even though their mantis shot at mine, my mantis couldn't shoot back due to that bug (we both had no extra intel -> He literally only had an advantage cuz or RNG).

Sounds like the game working as intended, you don't have intel so you're worse off. In microfights like this there's already other sources of RNG like who started shooting first or micro, so I don't see it as a legit reason.

As for unfairness of early game small scale fights, UEF and Sera inties can kill transports in 10 hits and inties in 6 while Aeon and Cybran need 11 and 7 respectively. It has never, ever been brought up as an issue even though almost killed drops happen fairly often.

By increasing the vision of everything just a little, the hope was that the vision bug didn't play such an important role. However how much the impact really was is something I can't tell you, I only know the bug is still there. Now it might be much better than months ago, but yeah.

It's not surprising. Increasing vision range didn't make the mechanism itself more consistent, it just pushed the RNG envelope more towards units that used to have much less vision than range. Short of giving all units vision range well beyond weapon range there's no surefire fix.

And in turn that would make Cybran stealth completely useless rather than much less useful like I've seen people in the forums complain about.

@mazornoob said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:

@sladow-noob said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:

@mazornoob Due to the vision bug. One of my latest games there was a mantis fighting with mine, however it was near the edge of the vision so even though their mantis shot at mine, my mantis couldn't shoot back due to that bug (we both had no extra intel -> He literally only had an advantage cuz or RNG).

Sounds like the game working as intended, you don't have intel so you're worse off. In microfights like this there's already other sources of RNG like who started shooting first or micro, so I don't see it as a legit reason.

Please don't get me wrong here. We both had no radar intel, only the mantis were fighting against each other. Yet his mantis saw mine, while my mantis couldn't see his though they (obvsly) were both in each others' vision range. So the conditions were exactly the same, same unit, same faction, same intel. Yet his mantis dealt free dmg for quite some time, deciding the fight.

By increasing the vision of everything just a little, the hope was that the vision bug didn't play such an important role. However how much the impact really was is something I can't tell you, I only know the bug is still there. Now it might be much better than months ago, but yeah.

It's not surprising. Increasing vision range didn't make the mechanism itself more consistent, it just pushed the RNG envelope more towards units that used to have much less vision than range. Short of giving all units vision range well beyond weapon range there's no surefire fix.

I can't really remember the whole conversation since it happened months ago, so I'd rather wait for someone else to respond to this due to the chance of explaining something incorrect.

And in turn that would make Cybran stealth completely useless rather than much less useful like I've seen people in the forums complain about.

That's why Cybran stealth got a buff iirc, it was a topic in the vision-debate as well.

@sladow-noob said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:

That's why Cybran stealth got a buff iirc, it was a topic in the vision-debate as well.

What buff? If you're talking about the stealth field range increase, then it doesn't nearly compensate for the vision range buff and I'd like to know the train of thought of someone who thought "if we give stealth equally more range then it all equals out". Why would I care for deceiver having a bit more range when stealthed units are still dealt damage way sooner than they used to on attack or are completely locked out of kiting in more situations?

@mazornoob I'm talking about the buff two days ago with the extra explanation
http://patchnotes.faforever.com/balance/3777.html
Intuitively I'd say "due to the vision bug playing a way more important role than stealth", but don't quote me on that. As stated before, I can't recall the details anymore so if you don't mind I'd give the lead to someone who can still remember the proper details about this topic.

Okay, so that's a stealth field radius buff, which as I already explained does not compensate the vision range buff.

@gibsaw our balance despots knows what is right. they will favoritism uef and nerf cybrans . so we all need to start playing uef and only uef