Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread

@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

@gibsaw said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:

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...

No it wasn’t. I’ve got like 2000 games as high level UEF with another 2000 that I’ve watched probably. The only time I’ve seen UEF teleport (seriously) used is to teleport to the back of the sentons base to kill an air base. I have never used it, ever nor have I ever watched a replay of my games back and noticed a sieve for some sort of teleport play that would have been better than me just making anything else.

The only upgrade to see the same level of competitive use as UEF teleport is Aeon teleport, because they got the same problem.

I’d also say this “faction identity to do t3 uef teleport” thing makes about as much coherent sense as “it’s your faction identity to be worse.”

For one, every faction can get t3 tech teleport. For two, Cybran and Seraphim players never do it, because it’s just bad compared to double gun or laser.

This whole billy tele change is specifically to increase faction diversity and introduce more tools into the strategic toolbox.

i was thinking, what if when a tele from an enemy is about to happen, you get a notification (sort of like the nuke launch) if that is inside the vision range of one of your units? this way slightly nerfs mazor, in the sense that a snipe will be harder, because as soon as you hear the notification you can move your acu and stay alive and the cybran player has still the possibility to kill grids or important targets but its more risky because opponent will be much quicker at reacting with bombers and pds. And most others tele strategies don't get touched by the change (as you scout that were you are going to tele is a hidden enough place)

"Slightly nerfs maser" this would absolutely demolish maser

@mazornoob said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:

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.

That's basically what happened. All hover units got like +10 vision, so their vision is now larger than their weapon range and I believe that is the case for (almost) all units, except for artillery and similar units which are expected to work with radar intel. So while the bug still occurs it no longer (or at least much less frequently) occurs when the enemy units are within your units weapon range.

@mazornoob said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:

@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?

This was a good change and was needed.