AEONS are GARBAGE!
-
@FtXCommando If u need AEON COM to hold BRICKS or PERCIES... U are wrong, cause you are taking a HUGE risk and cant be on everywhere.
-
The huge risk being OC’ing them before they can shoot or what? This whole post just sounds like you dunno what you’re talking about
Aeon is the generally best t2 land, best t3 land, best t2 air, best t3 air and basically 2nd best across navy now. You could even argue they have the t1 air advantage since they have like the quickest loading transport and the best lab to put into it alongside an AOE bomber that granted has some micro quirks.
-
@FtXCommando said in AEONS are GARBAGE!:
bomber that granted has some micro quirks.
Was fixed, it no longer flips out when you try to micro it.
-
gg that was the only thing sera air had over aeon on t1 stage
-
@Sainse said in AEONS are GARBAGE!:
@Evan_ said in AEONS are GARBAGE!:
In fact if you use up the hp on your shield it will recharge to 8k hp in 75 seconds which is over 100 hp per second. That is much more effective hp and regen than Seraphim's nano, which by the way is more expensive.
It’s incorrect approach. You may get 100 hp/s while recharging, but you don’t get it while not recharging. Meanwhile regen upgrade works all the time. You cannot compare them this way.
Yes this is a good point, and while it is strong when recharge does happen, you are right that they can't be compared that way. In fact another disadvantage is that being hit temporarily stops shield regen, which I did not mention.
I still believe shield is a viable and affordable upgrade, cheaper and more upfront hp than nano, that allows Aeon ACUs a good degree of survival when pushing. And stacking the extra range on top makes Aeon combat ACU very effective.
@AYAHUASCA_Dest said in AEONS are GARBAGE!:
@Evan_ U You need a lot of energy to upgrade everything and finally use it in combat. Meanwhile, your enemy has already built GUN, T2, and some PDT2 to protect the area.
You don't need every upgrade to use it though, Aeon first stage range and speed gun has the same functionality as other factions gun upgrade but is 3k energy cheaper and you can stagger the cost. Other factions ACUs get just gun and walk towards their opponent
all the timeoften. Getting T2, gun, and some T2 pd is quite expensive early on, and certainly not something you can do while under fire from an opposing gun ACU. At the very least they will have to get it on their side of the map rather than in the center where they can lock down resources.Aeon does indeed have weaknesses, I don't find them to be stronger than other factions, but they certainly aren't bad, and I see them regularly enough in 1v1, 3v3, and casts to say that players aren't abandoning them as you say.
-
@FtXCommando Please… Don’t say nonsense… I’m just giving suggestions, and you’re acting completely rude, unwilling to accept that the MAJORITY of players, I repeat, the MAJORITY, despise the faction.
I repeat and reiterate, if it were a satisfactory faction to play in most matches, which are team-based, the general average of players would choose it.
This is different from only playing 1v1 or even needing to use players with high scores to make good use of it. -
@Evan_ If people are aiming to get to T3 and T4... they definitely love COLOSSUS.
But getting to that point is a real struggle.Take the stats from any FAF player, and you'll see that Aeons are the most despised faction.
-
@AYAHUASCA_Dest said in AEONS are GARBAGE!:
@FtXCommando Please… Don’t say nonsense… I’m just giving suggestions, and you’re acting completely rude, unwilling to accept that the MAJORITY of players, I repeat, the MAJORITY, despise the faction.
This has not been my experience. Aeon is frequently played.
I repeat and reiterate, if it were a satisfactory faction to play in most matches, which are team-based, the general average of players would choose it.
This is wrong. Cybran is currently quite strong. Consequently, you'll find Cybran being picked very frequently. If a large group of players play often with cybran, that already means none of the other 3 factions are picked by 'the general average of players'.
In any case, some numbers. I looked at the 25 most recent replays of games that have at least 6 players. Here are the numbers:
Doesn't look like the kind of numbers you'd expect from Aeon being a garbage faction. Which makes sense, of course, because it isn't.
You're free to check if this pattern holds up if you look at a larger number of games to see if what you say suddenly starts making sense, but I think a sample of 25 is more than enough.
"Design is an iterative process. The required number of iterations is one more than the number you have currently done. This is true at any point in time."
See all my projects:
-
-
@IndexLibrorum in the world of statistics a sample size of 25 is actually not very good considering the large data pool of games. (I'm guessing a thousand games every 2 to 3 days)
Also does this sample size of 25 include games like dual Gap and Astro? If so I would argue that those need to be separated and compared to map generated matches. (Or delete it from the data pool entirely)
In my experience the players who frequent map generated games are far more likely to choose random faction than dual Gap players or Astro players (especially at the 1.2K plus level) who tend to pick a faction based on a position on the map, and to ensure that a team has at least one of each faction.
Also I believe that players in dual Gap or astro type games always make sure they have at least one aeon on their team specifically for the eye (and in many cases the para) with the point being that these statistics would be skewed based on the intent behind their selection of aeon.
Not to over complicate something that does need to be over complicated because I truly believe that aeon is fine as is.
I personally choose random faction 99% of the time and I like when I get Aeon but I can't stand it when my lane opponent is Aeon because my skill set finds it a lot more difficult to counter them than other factions between 0-30 mins.
-
I would not even be so sure that last 25 games were actually rated. It’s not specified. Could as well be 6 players survival.
That’s the general problem which was brought up on many occasions inside faf statistics megathreads for example. Most raw data is meaningless until you apply a multiple filters to it. But if it was, the result of additional work would likely far exceed quick forum reply format
-
Always the same classic, something is unpopular for one reason or other but not due to being weak. And somehow everyone thinks that buffing that shit is gonna fix the problem...
Hell, people are still gonna play cybran and Uef due to them just being the cool dudes that people like thematically. Even if they were weak. -
@Dorset said in AEONS are GARBAGE!:
@IndexLibrorum in the world of statistics a sample size of 25 is actually not very good considering the large data pool of games. (I'm guessing a thousand games every 2 to 3 days)
Also does this sample size of 25 include games like dual Gap and Astro? If so I would argue that those need to be separated and compared to map generated matches. (Or delete it from the data pool entirely)
You're free to share your own analysis
. I'm not feeling the urge to spend several hours on data wrangling in Rstudio to get paper-ready data. You'll note I didn't include confidence intervals or whatever. This is good enough for a quick look at the data.@Sainse said in AEONS are GARBAGE!:
I would not even be so sure that last 25 games were actually rated. It’s not specified. Could as well be 6 players survival.
That’s the general problem which was brought up on many occasions inside faf statistics megathreads for example. Most raw data is meaningless until you apply a multiple filters to it. But if it was, the result of additional work would likely far exceed quick forum reply format
Didn't specify, but yes I selected only rated, non-modded games with at least 6 players.
@TheVVheelboy said in AEONS are GARBAGE!:
Hell, people are still gonna play cybran and Uef due to them just being the cool dudes that people like thematically. Even if they were weak.
That's my understanding as well. UEF is not in a terrific place right now, but from my quick review looks like it's the most popular faction. Style and the factor of COOL counts for a lot, I suspect.
-
@IndexLibrorum Your own graph shows that AEONs represent the lowest percentage.
Being played 2x less than UEF and Cybrans.
Do you really believe there’s no problem with that?I play team games almost every day... 3v3... 4v4...
It’s undeniable that AEONS are rarely chosen.
There are matches with 10 players where absolutely no one chooses that faction! -
@AYAHUASCA_Dest I dont know what you mean? Just because many people not to choose Aeon because it actually the most difficult faction to play (but very strong if you do it correctly) doesnt mean that it is bad. Just because most of the players are playing Dual Gap it isnt a good map. This isnt a valuable argument in the slightest.
-
Guys stop feeding the troll!
-
-
Most players have no idea what they're doing. They aren't picking factions based on what is actually good. I still get 1200 rated players telling me Aeon T2 is bad because they watched a Heaven video 8 years out of date. The faction pick rates have hardly ever adjusted based on meta strength across time. UEF and Cybran have always been the top 2 factions by a large margin, Sera and Aeon have always been the bottom 2. This was true when Cybran was the dominant faction, it was true when UEF was, it was true when Aeon was. Aeon was picked less than UEF when they had all their current advantages + a t2 tank only slower than t1 land scouts + chrono autowinning any engagement prior to t3 + a gun acu that was impossible for 2 factions to counter outside of indirect/air combat + a destro good enough to trade mass efficiently against battlecruisers. Using overall player data is bad data. I could have literally told you Index's results without seeing them just because of paying attention to these trends from years ago, it's always been around 30/30/20/20 as a general rule split. You could remove the UEF t1 tank from the game and it would still be picked more than Aeon.
If you look at 1800+ faction pick rate, you have a more robust view of faction strength or at least you did more in the past but these days basically everybody plays random. So the only area you really have to look at for a statistical sample on faction strength is high rated tournaments where people are invested in winning games.
In generic land teamgames, Aeon and Cybran are probably top 2. In generic navy teamgames, Sera and Aeon. In a teamgame air slot, Aeon and UEF would be my generalist ratings if I had to pick top 2 factions in roles.
If you think Aeon is a bad faction, you're the reason it's bad when you roll it. It's incredibly strong and is ALWAYS an inclusion in your team faction rollout in a tournament because of the generic strength the faction provides. It's extremely difficult to thing of a situation where you're actually making a mistake for going with Aeon. Its weakness is entirely reliant on some snowball t1 stage which is extremely rare to exist in teamgames compared to 1v1.
-
Aeon is a strange faction they are over strong in some areas and very week in others
Aurora is OP on maps that are mixed water maps and outrange an upgraded com but are trash at raiding and get murdered by any air.
Destros are both OP and week as hell, very good range and damage but if oponent just moves their destros in circles then aeon destros are usless, I beat like 6 aeon destros with 3 sera destro just by cirlcing them aeon missed almost every shot.
Harbingers are good early on but get murdered by percy and bricks so the longer the game goes on the worse they get.
GC has less dps than the mokeylord so its not good enough to counter the weekness of harbingers.
Czars need to be directly over anything they try and kill so die very easily to sams but have less health than the bug.
Aeon has strengths but overall I find it to be weeker than any other faction.
-
If these are the Aeon weaknesses, it contains three of their strengths.
The destro is still the 2nd best destro, of course it’s worse than the best destro but both salem and valiant suck against exodus.
Harbs are absolutely not just good early on, they are the overall highest utility t3 land unit and are good across the entire t3-t4 stage. They are great at drops, at raids, at small number attacks, and at large number attacks. The only unit arguably as useful as harb is brick since it got buffed to just be a strictly better percy, putting percy over harb is completely nuts and not based in reality. Percy is like the 3rd best t3 unit for UEF let alone a unit to put into an argument on strong t3 units.
GCs are the perfect complement to harbs. Harbs suffer late game from not being able to force engagements due to range. A GC not only provides excellent HP tanking but it also forces essentially anything that isn’t a mega/fatboy into a fight when supported by either harbs or potentially snipers. Talking about GC dps just sounds like you aren’t using GCs properly nor do you understand what purpose it serves alongside harbs. You thinking this is how you use it just goes to show how strong it is, because you can just meathead spam GCs and still get completely solid results.
Czars are just really big restos, you’re not supposed to just fly over sams and have it die. I'll admit it isn't a strength tho.
