FAF Beta - Feedback

Nice to see these changes and it's good that many things are touched.
Feedback:

• Personal I'm unsure if we heard to much to the whining regarding loyas and titans.
• I would like more changes in the naval game, especially UEF and T3 Subhunters.
• I would like T3 Scouts abilities normalized (see forum, omni).
• I like T2 land buff, but would apprechiate a shift from T3 maa to T2, to make T2 stage even more viable (And parashields energy drain is toxic).
• And I would like changes to the concept of hives/kennels -> UEF has no clear identity/BP wise it's a noob trap and hives may be too strong.
• Another thing I'm unsure is the normalization of PD build time. I like the cultural appropriation of the aliens regarding our craftmanship and that this makes it easier for new players, but it doesn't fit their identity of conquerors.
• Overall I like the patch, more changes welcome

well, i don't like adjustments are going to be made cause they are too BIG.

AIR T4 units E cost 2.5 times increase - thats too much - it is not balance adjustment but just simply a prohibition to build.
50% E cost increase would be totally ok since they are really easy to build fast nowadays.

Nukes - same thing - just a prohibition. cost is extremely high, defence vs them is super cheap. another disbalance thing.
you simply throw out things u don't like instead of rebalancing. I offer Energy Cost: 210.000 > 300.000 change only.

If the patch will be released as is. you won't see any nukes. barely see t4 experimentals but you EVERY GAME which is not finished within 20 minutes will be T3 arty gang bang - the silly thing which pursuits supcom recent 6 years.
Changing cost in times totally brakes overall balance.
Real issue is cheap T3 arty which costs only 72k shoots fast and will be even more easier to defend vs air experimentals than before. You won't see any other solutions to end the game except T3 arties every game.

@t_r_u_putin said in FAF Beta - Feedback:

well, i don't like adjustments are going to be made cause they are too BIG.

AIR T4 units E cost 2.5 times increase - thats too much - it is not balance adjustment but just simply a prohibition to build.
50% E cost increase would be totally ok since they are really easy to build fast nowadays.

Nukes - same thing - just a prohibition. cost is extremely high, defence vs them is super cheap. another disbalance thing.
you simply throw out things u don't like instead of rebalancing. I offer Energy Cost: 210.000 > 300.000 change only.

If the patch will be released as is. you won't see any nukes. barely see t4 experimentals but you EVERY GAME which is not finished within 20 minutes will be T3 arty gang bang - the silly thing which pursuits supcom recent 6 years.
Changing cost in times totally brakes overall balance.
Real issue is cheap T3 arty which costs only 72k shoots fast and will be even more easier to defend vs air experimentals than before. You won't see any other solutions to end the game except T3 arties every game.

There are more maps than just dual gap. With these cost changes, nukes are still an absolute no-brainer investment on maps where there are more than 3 bases that can't cover each other with SMDs.

The energy cost increase for air experimentals just means that you either build ASF or an Air experimental. It does lock players without an air grid effectively out of building one, which limits excessive snowballing via air.

However, I can see that these changes, together also with the washer crash damage decrease, make the dualgap meta even more stale. Maybe just play a more interesting map?

Even on dual gap if you were playing correctly you wouldn’t have air players build the washers and 2 are basically impossible to stop once air is won and u micro crashing correctly.

@ftxcommando said in FAF Beta - Feedback:

Even on dual gap if you were playing correctly you wouldn’t have air players build the washers and 2 are basically impossible to stop once air is won and u micro crashing correctly.

Don't agree - too simple look.
well if u lost air. enemy air players unable to build ahwasa and win air again. someone else should do t4 bombers - this is the only case you're right.
adjusting E cost will slow down the proccess of building ahwasa - i support that change, but not by 2.5 times. it will take forever to build - so it will not be built, also because usual bombers have better mass-damage ratio.
If map control totaly lost and air is lost too - it is normal that you cant stop experimental bombers. it is totally logically correct.

Playing dual gap is not logically correct

@xayo I play different maps, but yes almost 80% are dual gap. And on DuelGap it is almost impossible to nuke players above 1400 rating no matter how good is your build order cause even with current balance nuke cost is high and build power required to assist is high.
The only guys who easily get nuked are NON-russian players which simply play worse in some terms of dualgap gameplay no matter what their rating is. Cause all the nuances and and guides how to do something the best on dual gap are spreaded from my activity on youtube and all the russians know it.
Still I support changing the cost of nuke from 210k to 300k energy - it will require additional t3 power generators which will slow down the nuke build by extra minute. Changing it by 2.5 times mean the only guy who will be nuked - the guys without smd at all = nobody

Stop playing gap.

@t_r_u_putin Why should we balance nukes around dualgap and not map where nuke forces 3+ smds?

Dual Gap is a map where a single nuke defense can defend 3 players. It's heavily weighted in the nuke defense direction.

@tomma First nuke costs 27k mass (we count just mass to simplify calc) loads in 5 mins. SMD costs 10.5k mass and loads in 4 mins, also it is easier to speed up loading by asissting - bonus is bigger than assisting the nuke.
Even If 3 players build SMD each - it is barely more than simply 1 nuke.
After patch the guy who build nuke will be a fool.
Patch will make building nukes senseless cause there are things with better mass-effectiveness ratio.
Same effect to experimental air units.

@deribus duel gap is the map where you can do Nuke very fast and where 1 smd almost cover 3 bases. The only thing you need is to scout nuke in time.
After patch nuke on that map won't ever be built because it will be more effecient to do eco-t3 arty or eco-game ender. But there are other maps where 1 SMD is not enough and I support value change - but not that big - just energy. Power generators are not free you spend a lot of mass to build them, skilled player will notice excessive amount of energy generation and will guess about nuke in near future.
But making Nuke too expensive - will simply throw it from gameplay. Same to super expensive t4 air.

After reading patchnotes I imagine guy(s) which are tired of nukes and ahwassas braking their cute bases which decide to make it so expensive that no any player will bother them again.
Rebalancing for few lazy guys right? not funny at all.

Real issues which all the games looks similar are cheap game enders, cheap t3 artilleries building just few of them will totally destroy any players production and economy except guys with ECO position.
We almost never see big land battles - why do I need to think strategically If i simply put big gun and shoot shells at the enemy leaving no wreckage?
+Slow down t3 arties and-or make them 25% more expensive.
+All game enders ~+15% to the cost in average and little slow down firing rate. Paragon outcome reduce to 7000 mass

^^^ Wants big land battles -- Plays dual gap

@lord_asmodeus you are trying to joke - where no jokes needed. I will pick any replay of any of you. if games passes 20 mins. everyone tries to bunker and advance map control untill it costs not much res. at some point - everyone starts t3 arty and it become "Groundhog Day". Land units are made after that are for holding the map-defending

@Tagada
Any plans for the Atlantis and Cooper?
These units still have awkward roles.
Or will these be tackled later on with the more detailed navy rebalance?

And the UEF Bubble Shield rework I heard so much about - anything on that?

~ Stryker

Imagine if this man stepped out of his dual gap. All his problems with the patch would suddenly disappear. Magic.

@t_r_u_putin The stupidity of this post shows just how little you play anything other than gap.

@t_r_u_putin said in FAF Beta - Feedback:

@ftxcommando said in FAF Beta - Feedback:

Even on dual gap if you were playing correctly you wouldn’t have air players build the washers and 2 are basically impossible to stop once air is won and u micro crashing correctly.

Don't agree - too simple look.
well if u lost air. enemy air players unable to build ahwasa and win air again. someone else should do t4 bombers - this is the only case you're right.
adjusting E cost will slow down the proccess of building ahwasa - i support that change, but not by 2.5 times. it will take forever to build - so it will not be built, also because usual bombers have better mass-damage ratio.
If map control totaly lost and air is lost too - it is normal that you cant stop experimental bombers. it is totally logically correct.

It is not too simple and I talked about this shit with Suzuji in the past. You can’t lose air because your air slots aren’t making the washers. They will get to kill enemy air, especially since dual gap has zero room for air maneuvers due to being 10km wide so as soon as washers get over the mountains they are dropping. You will not stop 2 bombs, killing all shields, followed by 2 crashes, killing anything of game ender value which is 2.5x as expensive as the washers in mass. You will never sam up enough to make this unviable unless you already had all mid control and game was already over.

Strat bombers can’t crash damage nor instantly drop shields. If you can’t fathom why washer has high utility and that this change is built to make air t4s a question of “defensive vs offensive air” rather than “i make it on 1 t3 pgen min 13 as one of 3-4 non-air stagnant slots on dual gap” then you really got dg brain rot.

Got curious. If you normalized a strat to have the mass-to-energy ratio of a washer, it would cost about as much as building 4 t2 bombers in terms of energy. Do you think that sounds totally reasonable and healthy? Having some slot that has nothing happening for 2 minutes to rush a t2 pgen and just make a strat bomber min 7 while the air players spam ints to allow it to do whatever it wants?

@t_r_u_putin said in FAF Beta - Feedback:

@lord_asmodeus you are trying to joke - where no jokes needed. I will pick any replay of any of you. if games passes 20 mins. everyone tries to bunker and advance map control untill it costs not much res. at some point - everyone starts t3 arty and it become "Groundhog Day". Land units are made after that are for holding the map-defending

https://replay.faforever.com/18935954

Combined land push with t3 arty base to win game.

With regards to the nuke stuff, the game is balanced around the conditions surrounding the matchmakers. Those are what are considered the standard gameplay environments. A nuke on metir forces 4 SMD. A nuke on Senton forces 3 SMD at minimum, it will force more because you cannot rely on front SMD staying alive with either navy killing it. Lena River forces 4 SMD to protect all major expansions/bases. The maps where you can get away with 2 SMD are maps like Crateria which are so low mass that a nuke would effectively require half the team working towards it as an end goal and likely lose the game well before it can even launch.

You play a Cybran player, and now this nuke is sitting next to a 30 hive brick and you now can even force a 2nd SMD from each player just because of the sheer potential of you rushing faster nukes with the hives.

On all these maps where 3+ SMD are forced btw, that's just the result to prevent an auto game loss. A nuke is still getting positive utility simply nuking forward bases, reclaim piles, BP like naval yards, loose mex expansions (4+ t3 mex) and so on. I genuinely struggle to think of a game where a nuke cannot find a 10k+ mass target to kill. We're not even getting into the reality that nukes help stagnate late game pushes because the risk of a nuke being used defensively forces you to split the army/navy.

With that all being said, I wouldn't even mind a change for t3 arty to cost like 135k BT and 80-85k mass and game enders to be 30-50k mass more expensive in general.