SACU Rebalance

[waffelzNoob]

@nuggets said in SACU Rebalance:

Why does UEF have a Sheild?! wtf is that?!

uef rambos have always had shields gooner

[Nuggets]

@thewheelienoob said in SACU Rebalance:

@nuggets said in SACU Rebalance:

Why does UEF have a Sheild?! wtf is that?!

uef rambos have always had shields gooner

not talking about shields gooner

[SainseRow]

@exselsior

Touches on the point that no one builds unupgraded SACUs as it is, so what's the point/role for them? Are they now supposed to truly never be built?

I don't think so. I believe that basic SACUs should be cost-effective against T3 assault bots. Because if you have to build a whopping separate T3 building in order to build them, then they should be good against at least something.

And then later on they would lose to snipers, bricks and percies. But by that time they can be upgraded to become battle SACUs. Also in theory it works great with veterancy system. Since basic sacus without preset is calculated per their basic 2k mass cost.

@thewheelienoob Nuggets is probably talking about weird typo sh-EI-d (e-i swapped) repeated multiple times on github. if it even worth mentioning...

[snoog]

I like the changes tbh. I never understood why SACUs were so strong. It never made sense that they were better ACUs. I think turning them into actual SUPPORT ACUs will be a nice change and add some more depth to their usage and to late stage gameplay in general.

[maudlin27]

Thanks for including an overview of the changes - I've based my comments on that rather than reviewing the underlying file changes

General

• I don't understand the nerf to base SACUs, they never felt strong before and their on death explosion also makes them weak to spam. From memory 1+ years ago I recall the justificaiton given to the then plans to nerf base SACUs was to nerf the combat potential of RAS SACUs, in which case why not lower the cost of base SACUs and increase the cost of RAS SACUs (so the base SACUs are roughly similar in combat potential to currently for their mass cost)?

• Also disappointing that there doesn't appear to be a buff to the engi mode on SACUs which is really weak

• I like the quantum gateway change as it felt inconsistent how factories are more efficient to build vs engineers due to the support factory mechanic but there was no equivalent support factory for gateways

Cybran

• I don't like the introduction of a completely new mechanic not in FA, an area damage field, for Cybran. There are a few Cybran-like 'features' that could be explored if the aim is to give Cybrans 'something', e.g. stealth generator field; torpedo launcher; mini-monkeylord laser; none of which would involve a completely new mechanic and would be in keeping with faction specific features of other Cybran units

UEF

• If I've understood right, the shield dome is the same as currently in stats, except for the cost of the upgrade which is less (due to not needing the personal upgrade first)? In which case I worry it becomes too powerful (although the slow speed of the SACU does make it harder to use than other mobile shields)
• If the (personal) shield NewHealthMod affects the SACU health rather than the shield health then it doesn't make sense to me - I'd expect a shield upgrade to just give a shield, not to change the base unit health. I'm presuming (if this is what happens) it's because of the nerf to base SACUs, in which case either lower the cost of the base SACU to compensate, and/or increase the personal shield health

Overall I'm confused by the rationale behind these changes - my own impression is that generally SACUs are relatively weak units with only RAS SACUs seeing much use (albeit some of the other SACU presets do have some niche uses). I was hoping the SACU rework would therefore be focused on making the rarely used presets a bit more competitive overall. However given the nerf to the base SACU stats it feels like the reverse - that outside of a couple of exceptions the SACUs are being made weaker.

It would be interesting to understand the intent behind these changes - e.g. is it that SACUs are currently considered OP and the changes are aimed to stop them being too powerful? Or are the changes intended to make them more viable, in which case have I overlooked or not appreciated the impact of the changes at achieving this aim (quite possible)?

[waffelzNoob]

@nuggets said in SACU Rebalance:

@thewheelienoob said in SACU Rebalance:

@nuggets said in SACU Rebalance:

Why does UEF have a Sheild?! wtf is that?!

uef rambos have always had shields gooner

not talking about shields gooner

i understand what it means now, thanks skibidi

[Reckless_Charger]

So no Seraphim RAS then. Any changes to base mass/energy generation rates? If quantum gateway costs go down will RAS Bois be easier (for those factions which have it)?

[ovenman]

Sera shield:
I like sera shield rambo as a super tank for snipers to hide behind. If an army wants to get to the snipers behind, it has to go through ~45k of hp + regen + oc. I think of it as a bootleg ion storm. Chicken is ~30k mass for ~65k hp with ion storm. Sera is 10k mass for 45k hp. It's weaker of course, but also leaves less reclaim when it dies. Sure it's pretty niche/weird, but I still liked it. It should be easy to maintain the upgrade with the current changes.

Aeon sensor:
I've been curious about a sensor upgrade. Would be cool to see how it plays out. Will it have vision like aeon sensors, or just omni like the others?

[FtXCommando]

My take on SACU upgrades is that they should work as either:
A) A viable progression out of t3 armies
B) A viable tradeoff from t3 armies as an accommodation to t4s

Either one of these solutions require them to work in tandem with t4s which should never really be phased out (they cost a bajillion mass after all compared to both rambo and t3 and are obviously a hugely enticing part of the game culturally). Also keep in mind most of the subjective terms of scaling here mainly refer to other faction's SACUs. They're just statements on where the unit's powerlevel should be compared to these units.

So in terms of design principles:
First I think all combat SACUs need to be REALLY bad at building. Like genuinely terrible. They can have the t3 suite, but the notion of their utility should come from "we can start projects but we need support units to finish it up." They should have the buildpower closer to something like a sparkie than what they are in this readjustment where they are still superior to t3 engies. If you want to have the utility of emergency t2 shields or emergency sams with your SACUs, you need to mix engineer SACUs into your combat group rather than simply spamming combat SACUs. It should be its own tradeoff. You can keep engineers at the buildrate set here, but you definitely need to nerf rambos because if you don't, it really hampers how much fun you can have with introducing different styles of gameplay per faction.

UEF Rambo should operate like a really heavy titan, it should be faster than t4s with short range but decent HP and alright dps. The goal is for it to escort the perpetually slow and not very impactful fatboy while being able to split up to cause damage and force T4s to either be out of position or slow themselves down in order to deal with them. This gives time for fatboys to do damage to T4s that usually can just walk into it while also giving fatboys quicker damage dealing potential indirectly.

Sera should have OC boys that get reworked OC to work like old OC. It should be a fixed cost with a fixed quantity of damage. I say this because I would rather OC be a prevalent part of the sera SACU experience rather than just having like, 2. If you have 5 of them, you do not want the volatility that comes with scaling E cost OC because it makes your own damage unpredictable and it's annoying as a user for knowing whether you can take engagements or not. I do not think it's an enjoyable skill gauge. So do something like 10k e for 5k damage or something similar.

Likewise, since sera has no RAS suite, it should maintain a high base SACU buildrate which in turn gives it a competitive advantage on top of OC in SACU fights because it will be able to build support structures much faster. This synergizes well with the fact sera SACUs are going to be encouraged to be a concentrated ball in order to do major lump sum damage to high priority targets of the enemy. This enables chicken to continue to be the sera unit for dealing with spam of units while the SACUs are there to prioritize targets that a chicken will have issue with alone.

Cybran have 2 t4s that really hate being surrounded. ML laser sucks really bad at targeting around itself and mega wants things to always stay right in front of it. So Cybran rambos need to be big on stunning, but not particular damage dealers. They would likely be the most utility driven of the SACUs but the worst in "1 for 1" combat. Make them fast, solid hp, good stun, but not great overall damage.

Aeon would just be an upgraded variant of the current harb + gc dynamic. GC is a tank that absorbs damage while harbs provide cheap but efficient quantity of dps while targets focus the gc. Aeon SACUs would want to be slow, slower than t4s. I imagine them as the inverse of UEF combat preset. They would be really good damage, great range, slow speed, and not good health. You want them to force engagements on your GC but you don't want them exploring the world without GCs.

I'm not sure what the exact values would be, but something like this would create a dynamic at late t3 stage where you have the options of

A) continuing mass scale of t3 units
B) transitioning to SACUs to assist your t3 army through their own individual utility
C) transition to T4 to accommodate your t3 army

Ideally super late land armies would mostly be consisting of T4 and SACUs, with t3 units primarily being there as a utility force.

[Noble_Ice]

@maudlin27 I was also thinking of adding a torpedo because with cybran it's very punishable if you lose the navy and HARMS because now it's totally bad and easy to counter with ground fire... and laser is not a bad idea either, there would be interesting combinations with laser and torpedo

[TheWeakie]

Ill try to give a thorough explanation when i got time this weekend (or u can hop on stream to ask)

[boom-]

@theweakie can't wait daddy

[Elusive]

Been thinking furthur about the implications of the changes (as presented so far) for Sera SACUs, and I have concluded that the nano repair upgrade would do well to be split into two levels, similar to the ACU version.
As an example, if the first level cost approximately 1000 mass 40 seconds BT and the second cost approximately 2000 mass 120 seconds BT, it would allow player choice between cheaper faster deployed rambos, or full strength comparable to nano+shield rambos, while also maintaing faction coherence.

[waffelzNoob]

1000 mass is nothing at that point of the game so everyone would just opt for the stronger nano

[Chenbro101]

@thewheelienoob Except its per unit. So no, a 1000 mass is not nothing.

[waffelzNoob]

Yes it is lol, no one's gonna think twice about spending an additional 1k mass (usually produced in 3-4 seconds) for an upgrade that significantly boosts the sACUs performance. And if it isn't a significant boost, why make the distinction?

[veteranashe]

Seems Like the base unit is kinda of worthless, perhaps we should make the gateway quite cheaper so base units can come into play more?

[Dorset]

Not trying to get off topic because I feel it's related so apologies if it leads that way.

I would love it if FAF allowed the option of not having artillery/game enders/novax in a ranked match. That way we could have amazing back and forth battles that would result with such changes to sacu's. I feel like by the time any typical 40-minute plus long match gets to the point where such T3.5 to T4 battles occur at any scale they are overshadowed by multiple t3 artilleries, novax spam and game enders concluding the match. These types of changes that make sacus more viable and allow for the epic battles we all yearn for will be very short-lived because people will always resort to building game enders, artillery and Novax spam so is there really a point in changing anything?

I love the idea of the changes but I just wonder how practical they are considering what typically occurs from the 40-minute mark onward.

I think if everyone is consenting to a ranked match that doesn't include artillery, game enders and novax then it should be allowed as long as land, sea and air and all other units are enabled. I wouldn't want ranked matches that didn't include one or more of the three theaters of war.

Aside from that I think ras sacu should be introduced into Sera... Anytime I'm Sera at the point I want to get ras sacu I end up getting a different engineer off a teammate which isn't the end of the world but we might as well have ras for sera.

These are the thoughts of an under ranked noob with 4,000 games.

[SainseRow]

@dorset Stop playing astro & gap & huge mapgens and you'll forget last time you've seen t3 arty or game enders. No matter how much rating you have. Play more 3v3. Game enders aren't a problem, astrocrater is.

[Dorset]

@sainserow Thank you. Actually pretty much exclusively only play map gen for the last 2,000 or so games. I hit Astro every now and again because I like the arcade aspect of it. I think you're right though playing some 3v3 would be better than the 6v6 + I usually play.