FAF Beta - Feedback

TheVVheelboy

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

SpikeyNoob

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

FtXCommando

@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.

FtXCommando

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.

Blodir

@ftxcommando said in FAF Beta - Feedback:

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.

Would just make the game take longer for no reason without incentivizing anything interesting to happen. Unless fabs and ras bois are interesting, I guess u might see more of those.

FtXCommando

No? You need more time actually seeing the lump sum of infrastructure for t3 spam paying dividends. It's pointless to pay 15k mass in factories for an eventual 40k mass in units because the return on payment in t3 arty or nukes is insanely quick.

phong

i know it's been talked about before but it would be nice if someone from the balance team gave an update on the mercy, any plans to change it and any difficulties with that

Deribus

I'll present some alternative Mercies to the balance team tonight or tomorrow morning, after some fine tuning.

Resistance

I am not entirely sure why crash damage is getting a rework.
As to me energy increase is actually a must since air t4's were getting spammed too often without a real penalty, and with the rework they will become sort of another atlantis where you literally make them vs navy/land spam and that's it, the base breaking potential is so beyond unreasonable that you'd just want to make an arty or something.
however i find nukes to be still op and i'd nerf them even harder and double the mass needed per missile alongside the existing changes.
is there a reason why the crash damage (which is quite a good feature) getting a drastic nerf?

Resistance

@rezy-noob also, not to be rude or anything but this looks like a big meme

Zeldafanboy

@rezy-noob

On Ahwassa the forward momentum along with insta ctrlK means you have 10000 shield piercing damage with 10 AOE even in the presence of heavy enemy AA. The only game ender that can survive that is Yolona Oss. 48,000 mass to kill 200,000~ mass is a no brain equation

FtXCommando

Crash damage abuse is about equivalent in cancer levels as using air to kill nukes mid flight.

Plunder

@tagada I think nerf for ahwassa in energy cost is way to much, because it has very little hp/mass compared to t3 bombers. I would say 1,2KK would be perfect, I think it really needs to be nerfed. The speed buff of t2 in 0.1 is not really much, I think players will not feel it.

HOSCHMOSCH

@t_r_u_putin said in FAF Beta - Feedback:
The only guys who easily get nuked are NON-russian players

propaganda works

CheeseBerry

@tagada said in FAF Beta - Feedback:

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

After reading through the changes I was a bit nervous about the exodus range nerf and what impact the frig changes will have, but after playing around with them a bit on the balance branch they seem promising.

The range changes are possibly a really nice way to balance the frigs a bit more while still keeping them distinct.

I'm not sure about the tempest mass cost increase though.

The build power nerf I understand, but considering they are already so high cost for so little health I never found them all that oppressive. That may just be the setoner experience talking though.

In general I think most if not all of the proposed changes move in the right direction, so I'm looking forward to playing with them

HollowSubmarine

@zeldafanboy Shield prevents some part of the crash damage. Para actually can survive hit+ctrlk combo with 2-4 properly positioned t3 shields.
With new changes to ahwassa it won't be capable to mercy even t3 cybran gen or para coverd by single t3 shield. And with t3+t2 shield combo smd should survive as well.
Dunno what was the reason of this nerf but in my opinion crashing air exp was fun and did not affect the balance on majority of maps.

PS: Since i do not know exact crash damage mitigation formula i might be wrong, feel free to correct me

FtXCommando

@greensubmarine said in FAF Beta - Feedback:

Dunno what was the reason of this nerf but in my opinion crashing air exp was fun and did not affect the balance on majority of maps.

Couldn’t be more wrong. It breaks every single teamgame map because there is nothing that can be done to stop the non-air player from making a washer which in turn guarantees either constant (or even game-winning) damage or an air win purely due to existing.

Mach

they are talking about air crash damage though, not energy cost change, air crash damage has no effect on who can build it and it is one time only, not constant

Azraaa

@ftxcommando said in FAF Beta - Feedback:

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.

why tho, i mean i agree but like that's a crazy uptick in already expensive units how are you going to fill that in. I'm asking what game differences are you looking for... ? More experimentals being thrown at each-other i mean yes that's exciting for casters and shit but like???

I agree with Blodir if you are going to nerf the shit out of late game then you have to make other things more interesting.

Tagada

The changelog has been updated with a few last changes:

T3 Artillery Nerf
Adjustments to the Nuke nerf
Reduction of strat elevation
Hive and Kennel adjustments

Sadly we didn't manage to get the Chrono, GC, and SCU changes in as all of them change logic and require more testing. However, there will be a small patch on the 18th of February that will include them.
UEF bubble shield rework has been delayed until the next patch.