The Last Thread about RAS SACU Balance

0

changing reclaim values will change sentons mid reclaim.

i rest my case

0

I have said this in other posts, but we already have a model or method to enable faster deployment of higher tech land:
Support Factories. They just take so long to build, and even more to maintain a consistent rate of production given how BP with EngiMod has worked out.

Why not make Support Factories take less time to build/reduce mass cost and maybe reduce their BP. (If we reduce there cost cost and BP by 33% you keep the same mass to BP relationship. But previously where you could only maintain 2 Factories you can now maintain 3 Factories. 2 Factories will finish 4 units admittedly in the time it takes 3 factories to finish).

This additionally could add reclaim that decreases as you tech, from 80% to 60% to 40% if the controller/owner/army NotCivilian which wouldn’t as such mess with any reclaim on a map.

3

OP is 100% correct and any arguments against him are flawed. The correct move for the good of the game is to remove the upgrade entirely, and to remove the static resource generation from the base body as well.

Mobile, build-capable, self-defending units should not be able to produce resources, period.

The only, read, ABSOLUTELY ONLY reason it is even slightly acceptable on the ACU is that you only have 1, and if it dies, the game is over. That's the downside to a mobile, build capable, self-defending unit. Oh. No, there we go. There's the balance guys. If you want to keep the RAS SCU upgrade, the way to balance it is that when it dies, you lose the game. That might, maaaaybe, make it doable.

Anything else is not enough.

Remove the upgrade.

1

The big problem is late game economics where is simply too much mass in-game, and all is concentrate in core mexes that are super easy to defend. Nerf this will overall help the game to be more aggressivee.

0

@FtXCommando said in The Last Thread about RAS SACU Balance:

They should just be nerfed into irrelevancy or even removed just for the sake of promoting a healthier game.

I'm curious why you've always been incredibly against adding units (see T3 MAA) but are so chill with straight up removing one.

1

Doesn’t need to be removed, just nerfed to irrelevancy. Functionally removed if that makes you feel better. Why? Same reasons beetles faced the same sentence. They’re just not good for gameplay in their current role and would be better off reinvented.

3

I wish the player councillor for faf would be a bit more mature.

1

You literally cant use T3 or T4, because if you lose the attack you basically lose the game. Which is dumb because it promotes cancer gameplay. I'd drop reclaim to 25% of the original unit across the board. That would fix late game right there. Another reason the game lags so bad late game is because nobody is fighting so this buildup leads to more and more lag theres no grind or nothing.

Late game shouldnt devolve into artillery and 5000 exps

0

what is your vision of what lategame should look like then

1

If this topic is about meme... alt text

2

@TheWheelie

Late game should have options... Right now your kind of forced into this standoff late game where the middle of the map is a wasteland with tons of reclaim your just licking your lips at and I understand reclaim is very vital to the Game of course.

I'm not saying remove but it's so important to the game in some many aspects its hurting more then helping. Every T3 you lose is basically 1k mass on the enemy's doorstep which may look good but it's really not good, because you end up rewarding certain bad behaviors and punishing certain gameplay styles.

This is where stuff like turtling and being aggressive diverge Because reclaim will always lend in favor of the defender but late game it lends so hard into that said defenders favor your basically forced to play like him even if you have 80% of the map, you cant attack with your large useless army too risky too punishing especially if he has lots of pd and his own big base. You lose 20 pervicals there goes 20k mass to the enemy for example.

By late game theres so much reclaim you might as well not even have mexes. What I'm stressing is this is just one step towards creating a healthier playing environment. Where you can be proactive late game instead of it being almost a 100% chance of mass economical artillery/experimental spam.

If the game wasnt so stalematey you could play 20km more proactively, because you could actually attack, you could invest into these larger pushes without having to worrying if you lose this single reclaim field the game is just cooked. 20km is a prime example of economy being extremely out of hand. Most of the time theres simply too many mexes, too much early game reclaim which turns into a super quick stalemate because you reach t3 and t4 so quick that reclaim is pretty much out of control, everyone has these large bases full of ras coms, Sams, Pd, And Armie. That any push any proactive gameplay is immediately shut down because even if you gain ground it's done nothing to the enemy in fact you've probably done more dmg to yourself given the enemy more reclaim and demoralized yourself into this slog fest of a game.

0

In reality late game without even talking about stuff like T3 Mex income or ras income or mass fabs. Theres just core issues like too many mex points theres too much natural reclaim things like that which flood the FAF Vault, and of course you cant do anything but I hope we get a clean selection of maps for TMM, that will address these issues.

I just dont want my late game to turn into this slog every game.... I want active, productivity and proactivity. Late game feels like map control just doesnt matter at all theres just so much mass everywhere quick and easy ways to get mass like RAS Boys and things like T2 Mex being 9 income and then t3 mex being 27 things like this which just make the economy go wack late game contributing more and more into this late game slog and disgusting lag fest of a game where nothing is fun or active or anything

0

@Azraeel said in The Last Thread about RAS SACU Balance:

because you end up rewarding certain bad behaviors and punishing certain gameplay styles.

I have your point here. Not like it's really matter, but... My 2 cents Its not only about mass, but about APM and other stuff like this, but you need to have more resurses, one way or another to crush opponent. If you attack and units die - its mass gift, and if you defend and happens the same, you can have almost all mass + mass from enemy units if you are not crached by superior forse. So - attack and crush and you are good, defend and cruch - you are good. But - attack and do some damage and you are in in trouble if damage aren't sigininficant. Exchange 1:1 allways good for defender.

A problem with RAS - is that they are much, much more
easier to pay off. If you make rambo, you have to move it to the front, and control for long time for profit. If you make RAS, you need just not suiside it, and wait for some time.

If, other things being equal, one player attacks, and the other makes the economy, then it is the aggressor who is "on the counter". He needs to crush before he completely falls behind.

But I don't thing that lowering reclaim value is good fix, because then attack will become mindless suiside of unint's.

1

Reducing Reclaim wont make it exactly mindless attacking. You'll still be able to lose if you literally gift mass.

Reducing reclaim will give more options, I didnt say dump it down to 5% of original or anything. I saying like 40% of orginal. You'll still get punished but not as nearly as hard, if you didnt know navy reclaim was changed to 40% of original.

RAS and T3 Mex income are really side problems not a super serious issue so I wont get into that topic. The main topic is reclaim

0

ASF reclaim was redused even more, and we still have seton air meta. Because if you are attack and lost - there no way to comeback. And if you have t4 and enemy have t4, and you attack and lost it, he can have mass, and if you attack and kill it, but your exp is wonded and you not cruch his base or com, you have to go back. Low hp exp can be used for defens almos as good as full, attack is different story.
The problem with turtle gameplay is that all comeback mechanisms only work for the defender. If any comeback is posible - its will be from defending side. There the way to rebuild after successful but not fatal attack, using reclaime mass, and no way for redo unsuccessful. Nefing reclaim will also nerf strategy "attack, secure, reclaime, repeat". 6 ravs can kill ML on blockpost. If you have ML and exchange It for 6 ravagers, you have 80% or 40% but of ~6-10k of mass, and if you have 6 ravagers and exchange for ML you will have 80% or 40% but of ~20k of mass. That woks for mantis and t1 pd with small numbers.
So even if you have full map control vs one turtle base, but equal eco you better to siege it. If you have more mass, you better eco on it, and only them attack. Because "have mass, eco, attack and fail" means - "give chase to comeback", and have mass, eco, attack and fail" means - "gg wp better luck next time". So every agression becames siege.
If there was a way to, convert mass in somethig, that will be not a siege weapon, that but bunkerbuster, hmmm....

3

@Azraeel said in The Last Thread about RAS SACU Balance:

RAS and T3 Mex income are really side problems not a super serious issue so I wont get into that topic. The main topic is reclaim

Actually, the title of the thread is "The Last Thread aboud RAS SACU Balance."

0

Ok, it can be as simple as this: You can counter the exp or \ and t3 spam with your exp, or t3 spam, or turrets maded by RAS SACU, ok? Exp bp was nerfed, t3 spam was nerfed. Was PD nerfed even once?

5

Pd's are not the issue at hand here. The problem is that you can spam RAS bois that give you economy but if your enemy decides to push you already have BP in place (Ras coms) that are hard to kill and can easily build tons of PD's.
The problem with the later stages of the game is that the amount of mass you have in units compared to your income is growing. Basically usually the longer the game goes on the longer it would take for your economy to re built the army you have. This indirectly makes reclaim insanely important and thus promotes very static gameplay.
I think that in order to achieve healthier gameplay in later stages of the game we would need to encourage players to trade more during the game. The easiest way to do that would be to reduce the amount of reclaim you get from higher tech units.
We should look over some games and see how the value of Total mass in units/mass income changes through the game when we reach different stages and then adjust the reclaim in order to bring values of different stages closer together.
I would need to go and see some replays but from the top of my head the difference rn is huge. (This is for 10x10 land maps, different maps have different values and it also depends if you make land, air, navy).Early t1 stage is ~2k/~25, Late t1 stage ~4k/~35, t2 stage ~8k/45, late t2/t3 rush ~14k/~60 , t3 stage ~20k/80, late t3 stage ~30k/100. As you can see from this very inaccurate approximation from the top of my head the value of the units on the field grows much quicker.
To address one of the arguments against changing our beloved 81% reclaim value. I really disagree that changing that number for different tiers will confuse ppl so that they won't know how much reclaim they will leave. First of all most people have no idea how much units cost so they don't know how much reclaim a Rhino will leave anyways. Changing the % of reclaim left by t2, t3 units won't really confuse ppl since it's quite intuitable, higher tech units leave more mass, it doesn't matter (in sense of understanding) if a brick leaves 800 or 1k mass, it leaves more then your t2 tank, that's all you really need to know. If we are talking about judging how much mass will a failed attack donate you do it with experience and on the fly judging so people will just adapt with time to those changes.
Another counterargument is that with such changes all the wreck props (reclaimable units) on the maps will be changed with such balance change. I am really not to sure what's the best way to address this issue but I don't think it should stop us from balancing the game. Possible solutions are: Just let it happen, most maps will be absolutely fine with slight reclaim decrease. If author wants to adjust his maps, he will do it, as for GPG maps and Classic ones whose authors are inactive we could look over them and see if any would require changes and adjust the wrecks there as needed.
The other idea is to separate the values for civilian owned units or w/e but I am not sure if this is even possible and it's extremely hacky and then unintuitional for future mappers, so I don't think this is the way to go.
Over all I think there is a need for some changes to the values of reclaim in order to make the gameplay especially during later stages of the game healthier, more action packed and rewarding. If we look at other RTS games, especially SC2 we can see similar pattern. Pro matches there used to be either cheeses or games where something happens in the early game, then both players macro'ed, maxed out and clashed once. Right now games can be a 30 minutes of nearly constant fighting, often in different parts of the map at once.
As for the exact number I don't have a proposition yet, I am not even sure if we should balance it for t1, t2, t3 ,t4 or for each tech stage for Land, Air, Navy separately. It needs to follow a logical progression -> higher tech units yield more reclaim (in total since they cost more) but they yield lower % of their cost. With such changes I really hope that we could also buff micro compared to macro since players would be more rewarded for constantly trying to use their units and to find weakness in opponents defense (as it is currently during t1 stage on most 5x5 and 10x10 maps).

0

Just make RAS bois produce only power and like 1 mass per tick, ez.

0

@Tagada to be fair sc2 lategame is totally fucked snoozefest just like supcom is, but for different reasons. In sc2 you simply run out of lategame tech really quickly and also hit the supply cap quickly so you can't eco either. After about 10-15mins no more tech or eco is acquired and like 90% of interesting decisions in the game are gone. Supcom does this way better since you are making macro decisions throughout the game all the way until you hit a game ender (which more or less ends the game, which is also good). Supcom/sc2 are pretty much polar opposites in this respect, sc2 lategame is only micro and no macro, whereas supcom lategame is all macro and no micro.

I think it would be much nicer if we had a nice mix of macro and unit control all the way to the game ender stage in both games 🙂