FAF Beta - Feedback

FtXCommando

A range increase of 5 has zero real game impact. You also can't kite with salems.

Fichom

@ftxcommando said in FAF Beta - Feedback:

A range increase of 5 has zero real game impact. You also can't kite with salems.

I was thinking give it 10 extra range (hence the total 70), which is not little, especially given that in realistic situations, you won't be fighting pure destroyers vs destroyers, but there'll be plenty of frigates as well.

If you are referencing the torpedo range upgrade, sure, 5 is negligible, but if paired with higher sonar and radar ranges, it could help in early situations where you might want to go rogue with a single destroyer (which is not a total suicide given it has somewhat solid torp defense and some AA capability).

You can not do a braindead 'run away in a straight line' kite since the guns won't be firing, yes, but if you micro even a bit and other units are included, then yes, you can get good amount of damage on those Valiants before they get into range, you can put in some good shots. And ofc I was just giving a bare example, but if some frigates are included, you'll benefit even more (since they are more dmg/mass dense).

I mean honestly, I personally think Valiants are somewhat the best T2 destroyer if you get to like 10+ numbers, and an actual battle takes place, not just glancing blows in a stalemate - but in those situations, it suffers quite a bit from it's lack of range. And while not as effective as with an Exodus (because of the alpha damaga), you can also do a shoot-and-scoot with a Salem.

FtXCommando

There are zero realms on this planet where 10 valiants beat either 10 sera or 10 aeon destros. They beat 10 salems because you aren't supposed to have 10 salems but 4 salems and 80 cyb frigs.

Fichom

@ftxcommando said in FAF Beta - Feedback:

There are zero realms on this planet where 10 valiants beat either 10 sera or 10 aeon destros. They beat 10 salems because you aren't supposed to have 10 salems but 4 salems and 80 cyb frigs.

Again, yes, I'm talking about a fully developed naval regiment, not 10 salems and 10 valiants vs the world.

FtXCommando

But then you need to account for the fact 2 coopers or a cooper and a bulwark is a destroyer down, which UEF needs to not lose against any of the other factions in navy. So it never really is 10 v 10 it's more like 10 v 8 with cooper/shield support because a t2 sub switch could come and obliterate your destroyers or sera destros could submerge.

If you want to talk about frigs, all the frigs aside from Aeon, who wants to just spam destros anyway, are better than UEF frigs so that's even more mass UEF needs to spend to maintain parity.

Chenbro101

Not a fan of the billy loya interaction change.
It's too entertaining when it happens. Do you really want to remove all these small amusing things?

Chenbro101

A suggestion I would make for the Soul Ripper is to change its interaction with gunships. It is targetable by them but cannot target them.

arma473

@Chenbro101 If the soul ripper can target gunships and sprays the air with its anti-ground weapon (which does AOE damage), would the AOE damage interceptors?

Would it damage enemy interceptors/asf?

Would it damage friendly interceptors/asf?

Jip

Yes, yes and no. Looking at the code - it appears the Soul Ripper does not damage friendly units.

CheeseBerry

@tagada said in FAF Beta - Feedback:

There will also likely be a frigate rebalance alongside so that while cybran will still have the best frigate it will be much less oppressive.
I can't guarantee it will make it into this patch (January) but we will do our best.

Even if you don't have the time for a full frig rebalance in this patch, I'd love it if you simply towned down cybran frig anti-navy dps by like 5-10% for now.

With a more sensible, but still strong, cybran frig you'd also get a lot more feedback for any further navy changes in future patches.

Tagada

Due to lack of time, I won't be able to push out a full navy rebalance, but some small tweaks will be included to make the navy, especially on smaller maps that are limited to mostly T1 navy, more enjoyable. The changes will probably be something alongside what you suggested. I've also toyed with the idea of making the Cybran frigate have a bit less range but I am unsure about it for now.

Blade_Walker

@tagada said in FAF Beta - Feedback:

Due to lack of time, I won't be able to push out a full navy rebalance, but some small tweaks will be included to make the navy, especially on smaller maps that are limited to mostly T1 navy, more enjoyable. The changes will probably be something alongside what you suggested. I've also toyed with the idea of making the Cybran frigate have a bit less range but I am unsure about it for now.

just up the cost a little, same as was done for mantis, to avoid changing the 'feel' of the unit

Tagada

I've updated the changelog with a lot of changes. Read more here.

Things that will come really soon:

Chrono nerf
Nuke adjustments
GC claw nerf
T3 arty adjustments

As a reminder the balance patch is set to release on the 28th of January, make sure to host games using FAF - beta to get a feel for the changes.

As always all feedback is welcome.

FtXCommando

I said it as a shitpost in stream chat but I really like the idea of soul ripper releasing some fart cloud of flak shots around it as a unit ability. The rework of it just being made cheaper is sorta meh

Mach

about the t4 air crash nerf, imo it will look very counterintuitive for something as massive as czar to fall on top of basically anything non-experimental and not just not kill it, but deal even less damage now than before

I suggest instead that same solution as was for novax is applied to this problem, random trajectory for falling wrecks so that they can't be aimed:

czar can spin out of control in random horizontal direction during fall instead of dropping straight down like a rock
ahwassa (if possible) can split its model into multiple pieces that all fall with their own different random trajectories and deal smaller (but not negligible) damage individually to where they land (something suggested by someone else)
ripper not sure about but can just copy czar until something better

also more balance thing, why does uef get even more jamming monopoly? I am still missing wailer jamming, cybran is the faction that is supposed to be all about intel warfare over raw power

FtXCommando

The idea of intel warfare being one faction’s thing is almost as fundamentally asinine as radar being one faction’s thing.

My issue with these last changes is that one of the key issues in large t3 stage teamgames is the quandary of pushing into massive bp concentrations. You walk an army, but it was scouted leaving your base with omni so a t4 was started and finished. Even better, panic hives keep spamming up shield upgrades to keep an emergency ml safe against 1.5x the mass in units.

So when this is a massive problem, why is this patch seemingly double buffing engineers and doing some minor (acceptable still) nerfs to a few t3 land units?

Game is dangerously close to just being rambo boy skip if u want to be aggressive on larger maps already.

Mach

I never said it should be only cybran having counter intel of any kind, you really like to blow what others say out of proportion, why aren't you considering it as asinine that jamming is only one faction's thing then (hint: it literally is atm, UEF being it)? even stealth exists across all factions, even if mobile ones are only in cybran, meanwhile cybran nor any other faction have even static jamming, that feature exists only for UEF atm, while it was originally also in cybran before FAF itself replaced it by more stealth

FtXCommando

It’s literally a straight up buff for a gunship to have stealth instead of jamming so idk why you’re upset about that. I’d swap it with broadsword jamming in 2 picoseconds.

Reason UEF gets jamming is because Cybran is the stealth dominant faction and so it’s only rational for UEF to get the counterintel specialization they had the majority of units for already. Aeon and Sera need their own counterintel creation and then game actually has something fun to do with intel besides just knowing things from habitus of gray square formats.

KonjikiNoYami

My personal feedback & balance ideas on this patch:

Air T4’s
I somewhat agree with the changes but I think there are a few MASSIVE overlying issues.

I feel like all T4 air units are much too glass cannon. They all do extreme damage (alpha or dps or crash) but have extremely low amounts of HP, often dying in a single pass by a few dozen ASF. 15-20 SAMs, flak or MAA also counters the majority of t4 air. I think they should have their damage further reduced but have their health pools massively increased.

The problem with increasing the energy cost is now t4 air competes with producing more ASF’s. Why build more power to build a t4 when they die so fast to ASF anyway? Just use the extra power to build more ASF. The issue is finding a sink for your mass. It's a catch 22.

T4 Air really needs their distinct roles more defined. They should have their strength buffed and everything else reduced to compensate.
The Czar should be primarily used defensively as a long range AA t4. It should be very good at zone denial and bombarding ASF swarms from long range.
The Awassha should be used for base bombardment & killing large groups of t3/t2/t1 land or sea armies with its big AoE & high alpha damage.
The Soul Ripper should be used for stealth snipes & killing off high value targets like game enders or experimentals.

Ideas for changes:

Czar - Increase missiles from 4>8, half the damage of the beam/crash, double its shield & HP, reduce its movespeed by a significant amount, increase the range of AA missiles.
Awassha - Make it stronger for lower rated players who cant micro as much while not buffing it too much for high end players (if that is even possible). Maybe something with speed or turn radius, and increase the HP by 1.5x.
Soul Ripper - Double the HP, reduce the splash of the missiles, slightly reduce the firing randomness, slightly increase the speed, make the model 1.5x smaller so it doesn't get hit by all the flak.

Navy
These changes seem MUCH too oppressive for Aeon.The Aeon frigate needed a buff and it is good to see that, however it seems like it will still have the worst frigate & now the worst destroyer & worst late game navy too. The combination of oppressive jamming/steath fields, more common enemy shields, slow projectile speed, high alpha damage, & a decrease in range means the exodus will be the weakest, easiest destroyer to counter.

Having stealthed Cybran destroyers sit out of the range of the Exodus is going to feel absolutely terrible when you can't fire back. Having a beefed up UEF destroyer sitting under shields, which you will have to get in close & can’t kill them quickly, is also going to feel equally bad. Especially when your destroyer misses shots against UEF jammed frigates.

As for late game Aeon navy, I think the T3 skip into spamming Tempest is more reflective of a problem with the state of t3 rather than the state of t4. The tempest already loses pretty decisively mass-mass against Atlantis, Summits, sera cruiser TML, T3 sub hunters, torp bombers, frigates, harms, and stealthed Cybran Battleships.

Recommended Changes:

Aeon T3 Sonar - Give it an 80 range Omni to counter stealth/jamming spam which hurts Aeon the most.
Aeon t2 destroyer - Give it stronger torpedoes to counter the range nerf & buffing of others HP.
Aeon t2 cruiser - Give the main gun bonus damage against shields like the t3 land unit.
Tempest - revert the changes.
Aeon t3 battleship - increase the rate of fire or movespeed to make it more competitive with the tempest and prevent t3 navy skips.

FtXCommando

increase rate of fire of aeon bs lol

might as well as give it an ml laser at that point