cybran t3 navy
-
You’d think that the failure of 20th century command economies would have showcased the danger of “my experiments run contrary to natural results, it is obviously the natural results at fault” but, guess not.
Rule of thumb is that if your experiment doesn’t match popular wisdom, especially in complex things like an rts where tons of variables exist to account for, it’s because of externalities you disregarded for the sake of making your experiment easier.
Case in point:
I sandbox mass equivalent ints vs swift winds and ints win. This means that swift winds are useless units and need to be buffed. They can’t beat the unit they are intended to replace in a fair fight.Except they don’t because things like speed, engagement control, snowball dps loss, factory scale to match mass investment, etc factor into discussing units. Anyone would call you nuts for suggesting a buff to swift winds.
You’re free to get to 1800 crushing people with battlecruisers when you’re facing battleships, but there’s a reason this isn’t meta. Battleships scale significantly better and bc + shield combo very quickly has depreciating returns.
You can say “experience is irrelevant” but it isn’t. Any reasonable study accounts for discrepancies between experimental conditions and natural conditions and how these can lead to different things being efficient. There is no replay of someone high level putting BCs against BS because it sucks, straight up. Even your test is weird and has this shield boat that doesn’t get sniped + doesn’t account for how bc needs to get in range of bs frigates which can keep pushing the bc away while the BS does free damage.
I don’t care about showing a replay because it’s just shit you see in any t3 navy game. Sentons/Metir/Lena River/whatever, waste of time to go prove it. Go climb 1000 rating disregarding BS and showcase yourself how you found the new meta.
-
It's not often that I agree with FtX but here is that one time. You can't make assumptions about performance based upon a narrow set of data points. Not only do the units have more to them than just firepower and HP, but the myriad of other factors that make this game what it is - and more importantly - the units don't exist in a bubble where it's just X versus Y. So many intangibles come into play that have little or nothing at all to do with those stats will simply ruin your day if you try to live by them too much.
A guideline ? Perhaps. But nothing more.
-
Yeah ftx said what I was relatively poorly trying to say quite well. This has definitely run its course as a balance discussion as Turin said earlier, for @Lorem_Ipsum I’m happy to give tips and create a replay still but that should be outside of this thread
-
@turinturambar i cant convince someone that does not want to be convinced, when your not open to discussion or willing to admit i, or anyone else for that matter, has a point why even have a forum to discuss matters of balance, so pls do tell me what is a convincing argument in your eyes, because your own attempt to prove an argument with a replay leaves alot to be desired.
Haachamachama's replays are interesting because he has recently stopped playing cybran navi entirely:
#16265740 what is navy t3 frigate best navy into para
#16259097 he dosent go t3 navy enven when he could
#16220286 comdrop
#16085870 plays eco instead of navy(top pond bc vs bs but not the best example because of number diff)i dont know why but maybe he is willing to share
@FtXCommando popular wisdom is often wrong history and gaming in particluar has tons of examples (lots of things like "its too difficult to execute" in figthing games until people managed it despite difficulty, basketball and the 3point evolution, 7seconds or less offense, moreyball come to mind, in sc2 byun and his reapers). the line that leads to evolution in thougth goes: “my experiments run contrary to natural results, why?" also there are economists that have predicted every financial crisis of the last 100years rarely the same and all for different reasons but conflicting opinions of experts just means there is more to it then currently known (im not claiming expertise in this case, i have no basis for it). on the other hand everything we take for a fact can be recreated in some form of test or experiment, highligthing or showing the causes of it. i wont ever hit 1800 because im not good at videogames, i will try to get 1k regardless.
me learning is not the goal but a bonus on the side.
-
@lorem_ipsum we are all so sceptical about your stuff because there are like 100k seton games. Keeping that in mind i can safely say that meta has had been known for 7 years or so. And someon3 who has not played even 1k hours says that he discovered a new meta the community missed by 100k games is in itself may seem like an insult to us.
-
Dude you don't even know that we are playing all random... ffs...
-
@randomwheelchair imagine that some replays have a symbol for when random is picked, that matchmaker games dont have that yet ppl i stalk the replays of play a different race every game and wow great addition to the conversation again, doing gods work out here. also Haachama again seems to have no problem playing navi with the other factions.
-
@randomwheelchair dude, speak for yourself. Ffs, He is a new to our game, how would he know that. The guy wanted civil discussion about navy and you go saying dude you dont even know we play random, that really says alot about community.
"Good luck and a safe landing commanders!"
-
@banan3 i think scepsis is warranted, even welcomed but when im in the wrong there has to be a better way to show it then to say "this is more complex so your example is invalid" and some ability to disproof my assumption/case, this so far hasnt happened.
-
@banan3 said in cybran t3 navy:
@randomwheelchair dude, speak for yourself. Ffs, He is a new to our game, how would he know that. The guy wanted civil discussion about navy and you go saying dude you dont even know we play random, that really says alot about community.
He's not even new to the game, he's been part of the community for over 2 years and have over 100 ranked games. That's not new, he have spent at least 50 hours in this god forsaken game playing ranked game's(funnily enough mostly on non navy maps).
And sorry but how am I supposed to take him seriously when he's still lacking basic knowledge about how the game is played nor does he make actual tests that involve other important factors instead of just right clicking into enemy BS?
Really, go white knight somewhere else.
-
@randomwheelchair 2 year old account first game plyaed 5 months ago, played vanilla 8 years ago and not since, made faf account and started playing again because of community casts, dunno if that makes me not new. i stared looking at unit stats in the client to understand navy, that plus cast led me to posting this, then watching replays reeinforced my sentiment.
u made some sick tests today aswell, testing how many tac defenses you need to confuse the missile or that cybran aircraft carriers cant hit spyplanes, guess they really do suck ?
and hey you playing 5 games in the last year makes you ontop of the meta rigth ?
-
Galaxys are fine, i´ve killed plenty of tempests with those ships, they are better at killing frigates than UEF battleships.
The torps are low dmg but they always help you saturate the enemy anti-torps. -
Cybran, one of the biggest advantages, is their stealth option. And not even once is that mentioned in OPs wall of first text.
Comparing some raw AA and hp values and coming to the conclusion that they are different does not make them unbalanced per se. Cybran navy was even buffed a little in the last patches.
The community and the balance team is open-minded for balance discussions and even welcomes it. If OP provides several replay IDs which underlines the unbalanced problematic with some clear bullet points why XY should be changed, then we can have a proper discussion about it.
But an unformatted wall of text with some raw value comparison, mixed with some personal feelings, is the wrong approach to start a topic about balancing. It will just end in misunderstanding and backbiting, because everyone assumes he/she/it knows it better, because of different game experiences.
I would suggest to OP that you play a few games where you show us the problematic with real game examples and start a new topic about that, with the IDs and bullet points. I would be happy to take apart in that discussion.
-
you want proof and replays then come let us make some tests.
1 vs 1 me navy 100k mass vs 100k
Rules: no fog of war(this is a disatvanage for cybran since they lose stealth but if wanna claim thats why you cant win, i think your argument is shit), no more then 25k mass of submersiable units (this allows fielding a tempest and hopefully prevents winning by submarines only[this isnt a test to show who has the best subarmines], also limits the amount of seraphim destroyers), only units of one faction, no units produced from land factories, no air units, no nukes, no engineers(no acu or sacu). Before we start i need your army list and need to check the math. Ill be comepeting using uef and not use bs. if this test turns out to be too biased im open to changing the rules and faction i compete with. ill keep track of results and post them alongside replay#. anyone is welcomed to participate or run theyre own tests (i can only participate 1 match at a time). lobby is open for or running the next few hours. -
This is like arranging a contest between two MMA fighters to find out who is better.
But, instead of having a regular fight, you tie them to a chair within reach of each other with one hand free, and only allow them to do jab punches.Effectively negating everything that actually would decide who truly is the better fighter. Instead you get the better jabber from that specific and restricted sitting position than the better fighter.
-
@giebmasse then tell me how do you suppose to fix this ?
because until you got an alterantive that is scientific and replicatable this is the best anyone in this post has shown so far. -
Listen to the experience of experienced and highly skilled players, whose gameplay is a part and continuance of thousands upon thousands of iterations of "real world tests" in the form of actual matches since the game has been released.
-
@giebmasse on the base of changing patches and copious amounts of cheese, mental breakdowns, and player skill and eco imbalances, this is why you experience is biased and hardly basis for actual analaysis if u wanna prove me wrong fucking do it using a test istead of telling me my lack of experience makes anything i say invalid because im telling you my lack of experience makes these points more valid
-
Hello. I just discovered FAF two days ago, I’m greatly enjoying this game, and the community is great. I have a professional SC2 background and I was gifted with enormous dexterity allowing to be a perfect specimen for RTS competitive gameplay domination. I have watched every single Gyle and BRNK video up to date saturating myself with deep lore and gameplay knowledge. I have finished at least 2 coop missions on Hard and played 3 games vs Sorian AI Adaptive and 2 games vs Sorian AI Rush with a perfect score and finishing the games in under 50 minutes. If I were to guess I would say I’m pretty decent at most gameplay elements, in particular I'm really good at micro and usually dominate my opponent in a straightforward fashion. Also I’m really good at ecoing but I’m struggling with this one thing... Could someone please tell me when to upgrade my Mass Extractors to Tech 2? Thanks in advance.
-
People listened to what you had to say, took your arguments seriously, and explained why your arguments are wrong. They explained why your spreadsheet math doesn't take into account so many things that affect game balance. Your arguments were not misunderstood or mischaracterized. The explanations they gave you contain a lot of insight that you could use to improve your play and get your rating up.
You don't want people to take your arguments seriously, you want people to take YOU seriously, even though you haven't done the work to get even 1000 rating let alone 1500 rating. People who are rated 850 should focus on improving their own gameplay, not on trying to change the game balance. It's the wrong attitude.
The game cannot be balanced around anything except the reality of how high-level players play. You can't balance the game for 800s or even for 1400s. By definition, people who are less than 2k are messing up. If you try to change the game balance to help 800s do better against 2ks, you would end up changing the meta, but the 2ks would still dominate. With the change in meta, there would be new ways for 2ks to flex on 800s. Good players take advantage of opportunities available to them, and weak players make mistakes. Changing the balance won't change that fundamental truth. If you dumb down the game to where there are few opportunities for interesting play and few opportunities for mistakes, you could make a game where 800s have a better chance against 2ks, but it's not a game that anyone would want to play.
