Restructure air by delaying tech 3 air
-
If a sniper can't move from point A to point B - it's a buff. Point is - is it slow because the weapon is just too large for the frame ? Or is the frame simply underpowered. It's all related.
-
@zeldafanboy And again - you can't do one without the other.
You and I seem to be on the same page - and you even use the phrase I coined so many years ago.
'Holistically'. It's completely true. It is complicated - but it's not hard. If the torp bomber is carrying a payload so huge that it dominates - then you have to examine that - and the AA on the naval units, which is, underpowered - almost across the board.As for the 'not going to lead to a fun balanced interesting game' - you seem to imply that all those things are mutually exclusive. And the debate above would infer that you don't have those things now.
-
No, snipers being faster makes them way harder to micro shields with which in turn makes them harder to keep safe during pushes. Does that counteract the fact they get to points of conflict faster? Who knows? Definitely not your spreadsheet.
Also it’s harder to stay in range but not so in range that you get shot against percies/bricks.
-
That's ok that you seem to content with the status quo.
-
No, I just don't think bringing up relationships between damage and mass and so on is some big brain blast to the discussion. Everybody is aware of these things. Saying to look at these things and then proposing nothing isn't even a suggestion, it's just proclaiming common sense. Do you think we're over here just shouting random numbers into the ether because they sound cool? Your method takes you halfway to a decent balancing process, the other half involves actually understanding how things work when they're pushed to the limits and which stats actually impact that.
Like what is the conclusion from the statements you brought into this discussion? Air in general is too strong? How do you change it then? What is the solution that keeps air working in 1v1 and 2v2 as viable punishment/comeback mechanics without being insane in 4v4?
-
I think that things like HP or DPS per Mass/E cost are somewhat easier to quantify than the many and varied other statistics that make a unit go-- how do you objectively measure the value of something like speed, range, AOE, alpha strike, even stuff like acceleration, turning radius, "Firing Tolerance" (I'm only vaguely sure what this means), turret angles, salvo size... At that point you might as well observe the unit in the wild as it were and make judgements from there. RTS balance is as much ecology as it is statistics and economics.
The OP is talking about T3 air appearing too quickly. I suppose that is somewhat true on certain maps (teamgame maps with dedicated airslot with decent amount of mexes, a hydro helps too) but it's definitely in a fine place on most other maps. But that's not actually directly talking about what you were talking about, which is that T3 air is too strong relative to T2 and T1. Whether T3 air appears a bit later won't fundamentally change that dynamic-- as I said, the fact that air has no terrain or collision and high move speeds means that there's little opportunity to use lower tech units creatively for a defeat in detail as you can do with land. Therefore the only way to change the peerless dominance of ASF spam is to introduce new air units. And for better or worse FAF is very averse to adding new units (not to mention thats a lot of modeling coding and animation work).
@sprouto said in Restructure air by delaying tech 3 air:
As for the 'not going to lead to a fun balanced interesting game' - you seem to imply that all those things are mutually exclusive. And the debate above would infer that you don't have those things now.
Not mutually exclusive, but definitely independent. A game can be balanced, but not fun or interesting. It can be fun and imbalanced. And nope, I think the game overall is fun, interesting, and mostly balanced. It could improve, but obviously I am happy with how it plays now and I wouldn't be sad if it never changed much from this point, though of course I want development to continue.
-
That's an honest sentiment, thanks for putting it that way instead of being dismissive about it.
My goal in saying anything in this thread is that there is a way forward, to making informed decisions about how to make changes to units, and address all perceived issues in a way that doesn't come across as 'shut up noob'.
If you want a certain condition to exist with a certain unit, or set of units, you should at least have a way of telling all those who feel disabused by it - as to why it is. That's the best situation, all around. Not everyone is going to like it - that's a given - but at least when changes are made, there's factual premise to it and not just theories based on anecdotal observation. FAF is littered with many changes that have fallen into that category over the years - many rescinded or revisited due to undesired consequence. Most of that can be avoided.
-
A total rework of air would be ideal, I agree with you, but I don't think that's feasible as I said before. So that's why I don't think your approach is good, it's not going to be done justice. It is more likely for a smaller amount of units/structures to be changed than the whole air layer at once.
-
I would counter that by saying that these repeated roundabouts would happen far less if someone just did the work instead of openly conjecturing about it. A lot of folks, that might have an interest in the subject, have zero point of reference to the numbers that are often talked about - and even less understanding of how those values might impact the multiple relationships.
It's not something that creates a hard and fast rule about how units are set - but it does provide a stable platform to build changes on, and increases the level of trust that the community has in the work that is done by the those who do it. That's an important aspect to consider.
-
At this point, I am honestly a bit lost. I don't know what exactly you are proposing @Sprouto . Cause if it's just: Look at the HP/Dmg/cost etc. of different units across different tech tiers and do balance based on that then that's already what we are doing.
If it's: make a model that will approximate a unit's strength, then that's basically impossible to achieve even if we constrain ourselves to eg. land only. There are just too many different variables with very unobvious relations to each other.
For example, The sniper speed that Ftx mentioned. In theory, more speed = better until a unit depends heavily on another support unit, and then if you have more speed than eg. shields it's actually worse.
Another good example is Alpha damage. Is it better or worse than a higher RoF? Take two units: A and B. Both with equal stats except for one having big alpha while the other shoots every second. Now depending on the DPS, Alpha strike Dmg and the HP of the units. Depending on those variables either unit can be much better than the other AND much better against some unit C.
As you can see coming up with some formula for the "power" of the unit is not only impossible but probably unhelpful since it would inevitably produce skewed results. -
@Tagada I'm not trying to propose anything directly - but more I'm trying to affect a change in perspective of how to have these conversations and base them on something concrete instead of conjecture. I'd assume that the simple stats are already involved, considering the way they are repeatedly mentioned, but - It's the relationships between them that you have to add to the mix.
Let me make a really simple example - two 'tank' units, from the same tier. One has more armor, more gun but less speed.
Now - modern tank design operates within a narrow performance curve, in any given general weight class. So, for the sake of keeping this simple - let's assume our two tanks are built on the same general 'frame' with common performance characteristics. At that point, the cost, firepower and mobility performance is equal.
How can we quantify the additional armor, and better gun of the one versus the other ?
Armor is dead simple - mass is pretty directly responsible - but - as you add more - you have to somehow account for what that might do to mobility - so a math function is required to describe that effect - for example, 12% more mass = 20% more HP = 10% reduction in speed/turn/acceleration. As you push the armor up - that return becomes less and less - and mobility drops quickly.
Likewise, the gun - but the gun is not so much mass as it is fine crafting - and fine crafting takes E. You want the standard pew-pew gun for that class - no problem - it's built into the base. But, you want more range ? That takes a lot more E to accomplish, and a small amount of extra mass. You want a bigger shell - that's a little different requirement - perhaps more mass. Likewise, as you push range and payload, accuracy may suffer. You want both more range and more bang - well, you see where this goes.
In the end, you get functions that let you play with any specific variable you like - and will give you a corresponding impact on related parameters - and/or - the additional costs you need to incur to make it where you want it to be.
There's a reason that Leopard tanks are far more expensive in the end, than a T-72 - and understanding the above relationship informs you as to why that is so.
I suppose, my point has really been this - we have a lot of real world examples of just how certain choices in any vehicle have an impact on the other performance factors - which implies the relationship I've been talking about. So - at the most basic level - simple relationship metrics like HP/mass, DPS/E, DPS/totalcost can help you identify 'outliers' within a unit 'type' - and if you extend that analogy, between tiers (which goes back to the T3 ASF discussion). Each unit type will have it's own variations - like shield tanks, or artillery - but they all start from a common basis - which is what is currently lacking.
As for the point about arriving at some definition of overall 'power' - it is possible - but it's complicated, not hard - you must break down the components, and evaluate each one, before you can recombine them and say 'this is power'.
No, it's not meant to be definitive, or answer every edge condition - but it's a more focused approach that just tossing around comparisons from one unit to another, or vague moving terms like 'Alpha' strike. No one talks about 'Alpha strike' in the real world, because no one constructs one-shot vehicles, DPS is DPS - whether it's delivered in 10 seconds or 1. If a unit has a weapon that can deliver such a massive punch - but only once every 10 seconds, your function will describe what it took to get that weapon to that point.
Balance comes from the whole picture - and needs to have a firm footing at some level (like T1) which will define the progressions that come afterwards. Along the way, you get to sync that with the lore - and start making sense of things like shields, sniper weapons, bombs and artillery, and how much power it takes to make a certain sized 'boom' have a certain amount of AOE around it when fired at a certain range. And why some factions seem to be more capable in one aspect, while sacrificing something else to make that possible.
I'm not advocating any kind of change - but I do think it's important to get these discussions out of the rut of 'guesswork and conjecture' - so start simple. Do some of the suggest math on the most basic units, and see where they sit.
-
What needs to be taken into account are the different multiplayer team modes and 1v1.
With full share, t2 air has less value in terms of reliably giving an advantage.
Air in 1v1 is pretty decently balanced I think.
So what does one balance towards? -
I don't think balance should revolve around fan-fiction about mass based armor or fine crafting requiring energy. Change whatever stats you want to get the desired gameplay effects. There should be a scripted map that can automate balance testing by pitting different groups of units against each other with rudimentary scripted micro or formations, then instead of spending hours testing by hand you can do it in a few minutes.
-
Random thought I had during a game this morning:
What if we swap SAMs and T2 flak? Give us access to T2 SAMs so that T2 stationary AA can better deal with strat rushes, and T3 flak can do a better job against clouds of ASF/T3 gunships.
-
Let me illustrate air vs navy for u.
Whenever there's an air fight over someone's navy, you'd expect the team with the navy to come out on top. However what ends up happening is that anything that flies dies so fast to asf that cruisers get very few shots off before the air fight is already over such that the cruisers almost might as well not have existed.
-
Sounds like 500 v 500 asfs, cruisers definitely matter when there's 100 or less asf
and if the cruiser mass is a tenth of that asf mass, they still would matter
-
@thomashiatt said in Restructure air by delaying tech 3 air:
There should be a scripted map that can automate balance testing by pitting different groups of units against each other with rudimentary scripted micro or formations, then instead of spending hours testing by hand you can do it in a few minutes.
I'd love such a map, and thought about making a small proof of concept a couple times before.
I think there is some potential in a testing map, especially for "mirror" units, like comparing the frigates of all factions.
You don't even need any micro there, you'd just need to ram them into each other and see what happens.That still doesn't give you the full picture of frig balance of course, but you could automate a couple hundred test runs and then (I assume?) output it to a win percentage into a spreadsheet using some mod/debugger/logging functions.
For anything more complex, a map/script like this can't work though imo.
How'd you accurately measure the impact of e.g. an intie speed increase? The mirror results won't change, but it will make catching bombers and transports easier.
But by how much though? Does it even matter in a real game? Does it only matter on some maps and not on others? Does it only matter if you control the inties well and is irrelevant in the lower ranks? Idk.This is such a simple change, and yet the only thing you can reasonably figure out with automated testing in a case like this is trivial stuff like "If you make inties slower than T2 transports, they won't catch them".
So is there potential in an automated balance testing map? Probably.
Will such a map make balance testing take minutes instead of hours? Probably not.
-
I apologise if someone already mentioned that idea or if it was discussed already (or if it's simple clown level 1000). I'm not going to read through 100 posts in order to comment exactly one idea 4head
Thought experiment I had:
What exactly speaks against nerfing the T3 MAA by a lot but putting them on the t2 stage? Main problem (for me) is that flak won't kill strats obvsly due to slow projectile speed so a low dmg AA with high projectile speed might be an idea to play with.
(Note: Talking about the early t3 air phase, I don't have problems with lategame t3 air)Aight, that was my comment for this whole thing, byeeee
-
Regarding T2 bombers being too strong, I did some tests recently, and you need something like 80% the mass cost in either T1 or T2 (static) AA to counter a group of (microd) corsairs. T1 MAA trades better if spread out, probably because of massive overkill. Also Corsairs miss a lot on return runs; I think they'd be more effective if the attack run was longer so they properly lined up before firing.
Why is T1 and T2 static AA the same mass-cost-effectiveness? Flak is designed to murder grouped T2 gunships (also massed T1 bombers). It is somewhat crappy vs T2 bombers, especially considering you often need to protect multiple locations. Suggestion: give flak slightly higher damage and higher muzzle velocity but less area of effect. Because T1 AA to T2 flak is a "meh" upgrade (except vs mass groups of air), while T2 flak to T3 SAM is a huge upgrade.
Another point: shields are a more important defence upgrade vs power snipes than T2 AA, but also shields are power-hungry making comebacks hard.
-
I think a good start would be to prevent T3 Air before X amount of time (maybe 15 to 17 min mark?), under 10 min T3 bomber is a bit too fast. By moving T3 Air to the 15 -17 min mark will give T1 and T2 air a bit more time to be useful. So now if a player tries to rush T3 Air they can be punished by a player investing in T1 or T2 air.
Rushing T3 Air needs to be more risky rather than the go to strategy and an extra 5 to 7 mins slowdown to T3 Air at the start could achene this without affecting late game air fights.
