The Last Thread about RAS SACU Balance
-
@Psions said in The Last Thread about RAS SACU Balance:
Is that really appropriate in a balance discussion thread?
@Psions said in The Last Thread about RAS SACU Balance:
They do not promote "toxic gameplay" either, and such a suggestion is spitting on Chris Taylors idea. this is Supreme Commander, not FtxCommander.
Is that really appropriate in a balance discussion thread?
-
@biass Suggesting, that a unit fundamental to the design by Chris Taylor is toxic, is spitting on his ideas. Are you suggesting we should start removing Vanilla units, because of someone's idea on balance?
Posting random meme's is really not productive here, nor is blatant bias among COS members.
Please have a rethink biass.
-
@Psions said in The Last Thread about RAS SACU Balance:
that a unit fundamental to the design by Chris Taylor is toxic, is spitting on his ideas
RAS preset SACU's were never a part of the original game design nor "Chris taylors vision"
FAF added them as a QoL change, please have a rethink about your hero worship.
-
@biass We're not discussing presets here. No, one is complaining about the fact you can get a mass cost deduction with fabs surrounding, This discussion is about the balance of the unit itself.
Ftx was commenting how the "unit" was toxic because of its inherent capabilities, not the way in which it is constructed.
So now you're pulling at straws and making a strawman out of me.
I'm trying to have a productive discussion here with other people, and you both are derailing this thread. It really is not appropriate, and it gives a bad light on both of you and your roles. Please for the sake of the community act a bit more mature.
In that light I propose all posts from that meme onwards get purged.
-
What? Dude the preset IS the unit. People are not wanting to remove making a stock SACU out of a gate and then upgrading RAS, they're wanting to remove being able to make the RAS SACU right out of the gate, that's something we added to FAF and thus it's not spitting on CT's "vIsiOn" if we remove it. you're buggin dude
As for actually removing them, I don't hold as strong a feeling either way, but i'm not sure if I want to go play fab farm instead of making SACUS. I would probably still use SACUS if they're nerfed.
-
@Psions said in The Last Thread about RAS SACU Balance:
@Tex Yes, but then people also don't calculate the payback time properly either.
The delay isn't merely 10 minutes for payback, it is also the accumulation time.
So it takes time to accumulate the 6500 mass, then it takes time for the unit to pay back that 6500 mass. The total of that time, is how much mass is otherwise lost.
You can just as easily say it takes time to accumulate mass for mexes or for any other unit. The mass that you accumulate to build something and the mass that it has to pay back is the same mass. You even say yourself that it pays itself back in 10 minutes later on in the same post.
Maybe what you need and maybe the only change that is needed is for Ras SACu specifically to have an increase of their death explosion damage to 4000, so that like with t3 fabs if one or two die this will chain react and kill the other sacu near it.
This has been suggested several times in the thread but SACUs are really easy to keep alive. They have high health and regen and can build shields, and you can move them around. Adding a couple thousand points of explosion damage won't change anything.
-
@FtXCommando said in The Last Thread about RAS SACU Balance:
They aren't "OP" in the sense of being a dominant strategy but they promote inherently toxic gameplay. The only thing that should combine mass + e + flexible BP is the ACU itself. When other units do it, you open up the ability to do things like protecting infinite eco in a single, condensed area. Lategame eco should be about factoring in the risk/reward of additional eco adjacency efficiency and additional risk of exploding mass fabs. Not make boys and forget.
They should just be nerfed into irrelevancy or even removed just for the sake of promoting a healthier game.
@Biass how is this discussing a preset and not the unit itself?
-
because the unit IS the "ras sacu preset"?
-
I think his complaint would still be the case if you build a normal sacu then upgrade ras on it.
-
@Psions said in [The Last Thread about RAS SACU Balance:
@Tex Yes, but then people also don't calculate the payback time properly either.
@Psions said in [The Last Thread about RAS SACU Balance:
and the people complaining about them don't understand how to do excel tables properly,
@Psions said in [The Last Thread about RAS SACU Balance:
6500/11 = 640
The irony is off the charts
-
For once I have to agree with thau. Math in its simplest form has finally defeated psions.
-
@Psions said in [The Last Thread about RAS SACU Balance:
6500/11 = 640
The irony is off the charts
And +1k energy which equals 10 mass in fabricators.
So payback time is actually halved, 5.3 minutes is not that long to pay for itself. -
Hey guys we've been getting quite a few reports from this thread. Play nice and stay on topic
-
@FtXCommando said in The Last Thread about RAS SACU Balance:
They aren't "OP" in the sense of being a dominant strategy but they promote inherently toxic gameplay. The only thing that should combine mass + e + flexible BP is the ACU itself. When other units do it, you open up the ability to do things like protecting infinite eco in a single, condensed area. Lategame eco should be about factoring in the risk/reward of additional eco adjacency efficiency and additional risk of exploding mass fabs. Not make boys and forget.
They should just be nerfed into irrelevancy or even removed just for the sake of promoting a healthier game.
100% Agreed.
-
What about the suggestion about incorporating diminishing returns? Did I miss a response to that suggestion?
Seems like that would be easy to tune by the balance team and keeping RAS SCUs useful.
-
Incredibly incoherent with the rest of the game. We don’t need units with additional exceptions that break the core rules of how things work.
-
RAS SCUs aren't strong, lategame aggression is just super weak. Same thing for t3 arty. It's a massive mass investment, but it's not like you can just mount a land attack lategame. Navy situation is a bit better, but it's a bit too slow paced too imo. Balance team might want to consider playing around with some stat changes for all of t2+ (scale change magnitude by tech level) to provide more mid/lategame aggression opportunities
- reduce cost, reduce strength
- increase movement speed, reduce strength
- increase dps, reduce hp
- reduce reclaim % (scale % inversely with tech level, like 60%, 40%, 20%, 10%, for t1, t2, t3, t4 respectively)
-
@Blodir said in The Last Thread about RAS SACU Balance:
- reduce reclaim % (scale % inversely with tech level, like 60%, 40%, 20%, 10%, for t1, t2, t3, t4 respectively)
This I think is needed. People are punished too much for using T3 units and so much of the meta around the use of T4 units is about where the reclaim ends up. Reduce the reclaim that is left and attacks become a lot more economically viable. This would also be an incentive to tech up (so you don't give so much mass to your opponent). We would see a lot more aggression I think.
I don't like the other suggestions. Watering down T3 or boosting its DPS isn't going to solve the problem.
Apart from land units, air/navy/buildings should probably keep leaving the same amount of reclaim. No reduction based on tech level.
-
Strats are the only 'usefull' t3 land/air unit cause they can sort of damage something ('snipe') if this stuff is not protected by asfs sort of 'fast'. We need way faster t3 units, so they could 'outrun' t4 and harass/get around them. t4's alread have more hp/dps, so they should be slowert than regular t3 units. Then you have to invest in your own t3 OR mobile arty/radiding forces will just wreck your base.
Edit: also planet annihilatino have 'teleporation gates' so you can deploy your forces fast to needed point. This could solve the problem of 'slow land units'.
-
While this is going wildly offtopic I also can't be bothered to start a new topic. In this post I give some justification for my suggestions
The two main goals are to increase the amount of interaction between players during t2-t4 stage, and to fix the volatility curve. Imo the game should be least volatile in the t1 stage and most volatile in the game-ender stage and gradually transition inbetween. Currently the volatility evolves something like this: from most volatile to least: game-ender > t4 > t1 > t2 > t3
(just to remind: all points are talking about t3 phase units and to a lesser extent t2 phase units)
reduce cost, reduce strength
- small runby's are more justifiable since their cost is reduced while they can still be effective even with reduced strength
- reclaim is more spread out with bigger armies, making reclaiming slower, and sometimes allowing both players to get their piece of the pile (as we see in t1 fights)
- player's reach significant numbers of t3 more quickly, and no longer need to wait for t3 mex. The transition to a t3 army is extremely slow currently
increase movement speed, reduce strength
- units get to the frontline faster so defenders advantage is reduced
- game becomes faster paced, it's easier to out-multitask your opponent like in the earlygame
increase dps, reduce hp
- battles become more volatile, easier to out-multitask opponent with aggression since each mistake is more punishing
- raiding is significantly more effective
- certain slow paced matchups could be sped up slightly (very long battleship wars on seton... don't get me wrong they are cool, they just take a bit too long right now imo)
reduce reclaim % for high tech units
- significantly reduce defender's advantage in the lategame. This would allow you to take favorable fights on the enemy side of the map (whereas currently even a significantly unfavorable fight is better for the defender due to reclaim)
There's certainly much more that could be said, and probably a lot of important things I forgot to mention as well...
