Factional Flavor- Art or Science?

0

@zeldafanboy said in Factional Flavor- Art or Science?:

No, I mean that Cybran and Seraphim tend to have more options at any given random moment, but slightly less effective ones for the price. (Cybran less robust, Seraphim pricier) While UEF and Aeon have slightly fewer but better options.

I don't think this is true, I cant think of any position where i cant accomplish some with 1 faction but not the other. Some notable exceptions being the fatboy instead of a direct fire experimental or the lack of sera t3 gunships. But those are so niche that they should not be considered, just make a different unit. As for cybran being less robust, u have tanky rhinos, tanky bricks, and tanky mega.

@zeldafanboy said in Factional Flavor- Art or Science?:

lack weaker complementary weapons that other factions units tend to have-- no AA on their frigate or destro or battleship, no AA on their land experimental, no AA on their strat bomber...

Aside from the frigate none of these matter to gameplay, and even the frigate is not super important.

@zeldafanboy said in Factional Flavor- Art or Science?:

I don't want to give that impression, it's more like each faction has a small bonus towards a certain trait. I intentionally chose to say "more X" instead of just "X", maybe I should amend that to "Slightly more X" to be completely unambiguous.

My argument is that there is no "Slightly more X" because the X of the faction swings wildly depending on what units you look at.

@zeldafanboy said in Factional Flavor- Art or Science?:

I was just referring to the volume of responses, I think most of the replies were made in good faith and had effort put into them. But nobody was responding to the OP anymore

Ah i see.

@zeldafanboy said in Factional Flavor- Art or Science?:

Cybran is undeniably the stealth faction.

Sure some might see it as the stealth factions but at the same time they are, among high rated players, known just as much as the faction with good frigs. There frigs do not require complexity or trickery, simply building a shit ton of them and clicking the enemy. Or some may know them as the faction with hives, that promotes turtling which does not align with the stealth idea.

0

There is no defensive or offensive faction. The differences in factions come into play with how long factions want to stay at a tech level. I’d also say some factions prefer a more chaotic over stagnate pace of the game depending on the theater. For example, UEF and Cybran both need to be highly aggressive at t3 stage to abuse their bots because they stand zero chance in a stagnant game against snipers. Likewise, Aeon would love to keep navy in a situation where there aren’t frigs everywhere and instead can just concentrate their destros and shields on one spot to slowly grind you to death.

The problem comes when you start factoring maps in, these takes are based on my experience around the maps I play. If somebody played 100% syrtis, they would say snipers are shit and UEF/Cybran prefer the stagnant game because percies/bricks crush there.

0

@spikeynoob said in Factional Flavor- Art or Science?:

I don't think this is true, I cant think of any position where i cant accomplish some with 1 faction but not the other. Some notable exceptions being the fatboy instead of a direct fire experimental or the lack of sera t3 gunships. But those are so niche that they should not be considered, just make a different unit. As for cybran being less robust, u have tanky rhinos, tanky bricks, and tanky mega.

I didn't just mean units, I mean options in general-- including intel, commander upgrades, shields and static defense, etc. Sure, Cybran has tanky units-- but except for the Brick they have poorer HP/Mass ratios, the Brick is the only exception. And all of their static defense and buildings are straight-up more fragile, although they at least have slow regen. Cybran commander is also the lowest HP. And all the rest of the mobile units have the worst HP. So overall you can objectively say Cybran is the least tanky faction. (Not the same as being the worst defensively). But, the moderate regen is an interesting quirk because it is also versatile. It is not as optimal as having more HP, or having a shield that more quickly regens. But it also will never be the worst option. Having a higher HP pool is best for an all-in push to run down the enemy commander, and having a commander shield is best for hit and run skirmishing, but a regen in between those two things means you can do both, not as optimally as either extreme, but on average not going to be completely unfit for the situation. To me, that embodies the "More Flexible" side of the chart very well.

@spikeynoob said in Factional Flavor- Art or Science?:

Aside from the frigate none of these matter to gameplay, and even the frigate is not super important.

That's not true, weak AA always has utility because it can down scouts, which can be a big deal depending on radar coverage. Obviously, it's worthless for combat but the intel game is important.

@spikeynoob said in Factional Flavor- Art or Science?:

My argument is that there is no "Slightly more X" because the X of the faction swings wildly depending on what units you look at.

That's why you have to take all the units (and again not only units but upgrades and structures) into account at once.

@spikeynoob said in Factional Flavor- Art or Science?:

Sure some might see it as the stealth factions but at the same time they are, among high rated players, known just as much as the faction with good frigs. There frigs do not require complexity or trickery, simply building a shit ton of them and clicking the enemy.

I edited my comment above to talk about naval gameplay, and how its so different that you could argue that Aeon and Cybran become the more straightforward factions on the water and especially UEF becomes complex.

@spikeynoob said in Factional Flavor- Art or Science?:

Or some may know them as the faction with hives, that promotes turtling which does not align with the stealth idea.

I posted this in the other thread but I don't think anybody saw it before it got deleted:

"-Every faction can do almost everything provided it pays a “tax” in increased cost or with a caveat

*Going back to the telesnipe capability of each faction is a good example. Cybran does it the best, but Seraphim can do it with double gun (better against infrastructure than single targets, more likely to be a one way trip) and even Aeon can do it by using teleport sacrifice SACUs to instantly conjure up a GC— but of course at a massively increased price. They pay a big “tax”. And UEF is stuck making a stealth generator and a row of TML for pure cheese."

So by the late game, every faction can do most anything (but still not everything, only Cybran has mobile stealth, only Aeon has infinite resources), but it has to pay an increased amount of resources to wield that capability. So yes, a Cybran player with 50 Hives assisting a shield has the toughest base to crack with arty, but that's a massive amount of resources being indefinitely spent to assist the shield (not only E, but mass). Pound for pound, Seraphim still has much better shields, when comparing resources spent. Cybran actually has the worst.

put the xbox units in the game pls u_u

0

What's the complexity of UEF navy? That you don't make it? Or that you rally point your summits and bulwarks to the same spot?

0

@ftxcommando said in Factional Flavor- Art or Science?:

There is no defensive or offensive faction. The differences in factions come into play with how long factions want to stay at a tech level. I’d also say some factions prefer a more chaotic over stagnate pace of the game depending on the theater.

I actually considered writing "more passive" and "more active" instead of "defensive" and "offensive" but the word passive felt like a value judgment or criticism since "passive play" doesn't have a positive connotation. But actually, the more that I think about it that would have been better and less prescriptive. But ultimately I think the actual dichotomy is more "solid/efficient/utilitarian/" vs. "flexible/unpredictable/unconventional". But only very slightly. Using all three words would convey the meaning the best but I think that would look cramped on the chart.

Its true that the tactics and strategies a faction employs can change up quite a bit between tech levels, but since T1 land has an outsized influence (practically 100% of games have to navigate through the T1 land phase of the metagame and many end there) and things like commander upgrades, defensive turrets, and building hp more fully retain the faction's attributes throughout teching up, I think that looking at units like the Restorer or Brick don't fully invalidate the idea of a faction having unique flavor.

@ftxcommando said in Factional Flavor- Art or Science?:

The problem comes when you start factoring maps in, these takes are based on my experience around the maps I play. If somebody played 100% syrtis, they would say snipers are shit and UEF/Cybran prefer the stagnant game because percies/bricks crush there.

I wrote this in the previous thread:

Further disclaimer: when I approached thinking about the different factions in this way, I was thinking in the context of how a new player would most likely try to understand the game— a 1v1 ladder match on a conventional average sized land map.

@ftxcommando said in Factional Flavor- Art or Science?:

What's the complexity of UEF navy? That you don't make it? Or that you rally point your summits and bulwarks to the same spot?

Having to manage the jigsaw puzzle of T2 to even get to the Summit and Bulwark stage

put the xbox units in the game pls u_u

0

The player that wins the game had the more solid/efficient/utilitarian faction (read: gameplay). That's the game. Pointless distinction.

T1 land has near zero influence in big teamgames, the influence in 2v2 is about what I mark as healthy, it's only 1v1 where I think it's outsized. If you look at t1 phase there is near zero variance at all, all the fun parts of factions come in the later tech levels. Like what? Mantis is 4 mass less and .1 speed faster so that's a faction identity? lol. If you're 1900 in ladder that'll matter.

"Having to manage the jigsaw puzzle of T2 to even get to the Summit and Bulwark stage"

Yeah you do that by not making navy unless you can rush a neptune.

0

@ftxcommando said in Factional Flavor- Art or Science?:

The player that wins the game had the more solid/efficient/utilitarian faction (read: gameplay).

I don't understand, why would I read "faction" as "gameplay"? The statistical efficiency of a unit, each exclusive to a single faction only (even when they are a uniform price class like inties, the slight hp variance creates a slight efficiency variance) is completely set in stone. Only a balance patch from on high can change that. The efficiency of someone's gameplay is constantly fluid, even within a single match. And only the first kind of efficiency can be objectively measured.

I think I understand what you're trying to say, that the most optimized, efficient use of APM and reclaim and build power and overcharge respective to the opponent's wins you the game, but I don't even think that is always true, due to the presence of fog of war. Since there is always a comeback mechanic in the form of a commander snipe, a player who inefficiently plays 80% of a match in pursuit of a losing strategy, but then realizes it's not working and flexibly switches into a T2 air snipe to clinch a kill, wins the game despite having played overall less efficiently than his opponent.

Now, you might say that he actually was being efficient by bypassing the superior forces of his opponent to kill the commander via the path of least resistance, but that begs the question of why he didn't pursue that snipe strategy from the get-go instead of wasting mass on something else first. The answer is the fact that there is a psychological component to the game provided by fog of war, and technically inefficient investments of mass and energy can still provide net positive utility by forcing out the wrong responses from your opponent. I don't think you can say the most efficient player always wins for this reason, nor do I think that a good conception of "efficiency" can only find out what was most "efficient" retroactively. An all-in rush towards some form of devastating tech is always the most efficient... unless it fails to end the game, then you are behind. Technically, it would be optimal to start reclaiming your base to rush out an ML x:xx sooner if you're already depending on it to end the game, but you don't see even pros doing that often. How do you measure risk in terms of efficiency? I guess this goes into a bunch of game theory.

@ftxcommando said in Factional Flavor- Art or Science?:

T1 land has near zero influence in big teamgames, the influence in 2v2 is about what I mark as healthy, it's only 1v1 where I think it's outsized.

I addressed this in the disclaimer above, the chart took conventional land-based ladder maps more into account than other types of maps.

@ftxcommando said in Factional Flavor- Art or Science?:

If you look at t1 phase there is near zero variance at all, all the fun parts of factions come in the later tech levels. Like what? Mantis is 4 mass less and .1 speed faster so that's a faction identity? lol. If you're 1900 in ladder that'll matter.

I disagree that all the fun parts of the factions come at later tech, I think the expansionary heavy raiding flow of T1 is really fun in its purity and ironically one of the biggest unit variances in the whole game is at T1: Aurora are very different from the other 3 main battle tanks. And actually, Mantis is the most expensive T1 tank, tied at highest mass cost (56) with Striker while also costing slightly the most E (3 more than Aurora and Thaam) Since they also have the 2nd lowest HP they are the least efficient T1 Tank on paper. Mantis also have the lowest buildtime which means they drain these higher amounts of resources faster.

Yet Mantis are clearly a great unit-- why? Because they are flexible. They are economically flexible: they have buildpower for upgrades in the field. They are flexible in combat: high ROF means a lack of wasted DPS, even though high alpha strike is more useful in certain situations, a high ROF will never be the worst option. And they are flexible in location; they can reposition the farthest on the shortest notice because they have the fastest speed. And not by .1-- they are 0.2 faster than Thaam, 0.3 faster than Striker, and a whopping 0.7 faster than Aurora (123% faster). On top of that, every commander is slow as fuck at 1.7 speed, which means body blocking with Mantis is actually pretty strong. And even a 0.1 speed difference would mean that nothing could catch retreating Mantis. So when you have an Aeon vs. Cybran match, the huge disparities in speed on one side and range on the other lead to a different metagame that sees more T1 bombers from Cybran to take out big clumps of Aurora, and consequently the Aeon player makes more inties, which uses E and slows down eco scaling.

And again, this chart was made with new players in mind, not 1900 level ladder players.

@ftxcommando said in Factional Flavor- Art or Science?:

Yeah you do that by not making navy unless you can rush a neptune.

Depending on the map, whether it's a teamgame or ladder match, you may not have the privilege. And I would argue that the preparations one needs to make to successfully tech skip from T1-->T3 add a great deal of complexity to manage regardless.

put the xbox units in the game pls u_u

0

i dont even know how to continue this if you are deadass telling me t1 has some of the biggest unit variances in the game, you must be playing supcom2

0

Factions dont have specific themes really, they have different options on each tech level, like uef t2 air working best if you stay at it for longer, or t2 land of cybran being bad at maps where you have to use acu, but its not one theme for all options. Best way to describe difference between factions is to just list options you have at each tech level, giving broad generalization is just misleading.

Skill issue

0

@ftxcommando

You misunderstood me, I didn't mean to say that T1 overall has the biggest factional variance: but that one of the largest differences among a single class of units exists at the T1 stage-- the Aurora is more dissimilar to the other 3 main battle tanks than the main battle units at every other stage of the game imo.

At the T3 stage, UEF and Cybran share the scheme of lower value raider bot---> higher value assault bot, with Aeon and Seraphim having a combat unit of intermediate strength and T3 sniper bots. So half the factions have one unit roster pattern, and half have another. At T2 things are a bit more dissimilar, but I would say that Pillar and Rhino also aren't that different, although Obsidian and Illshavoh are admittedly more unique. So you have two factions sharing similar main battle units, and then the other two each get something more unique. But only at T1 is there a separation between 3 whole factions and 1 off to the side. (For the main battle tank at least, I guess you can argue the Wagner is the black sheep when it comes to amphibious tanks but that's more niche.)

@tomma said in Factional Flavor- Art or Science?:

Factions dont have specific themes really, they have different options on each tech level, like uef t2 air working best if you stay at it for longer, or t2 land of cybran being bad at maps where you have to use acu, but its not one theme for all options.

I remember back when Heaven was into FAF before becoming a Black Desert Online Youtuber (He's moved on to Naraka: Bladepoint as of late), he made faction overview videos that compared each faction in a category throughout the course of progressing tech level.

alt text

alt text

alt text

alt text

This was back around 2017 so obviously the balance was different then (Remember when Aeon T2 was notoriously shitty? Or when Titans sucked?) but I think that much of it still is helpful info. In fact, I believe that you can categorize and group factions objectively due in part to watching these guides. Notice how UEF and Aeon tended to have the "red" squares, meaning they struggled in that area of the game at that tech level-- whereas Seraphim had more yellow, meaning mediocre but never the worst (and Cybran was just busted lol, never the worst at anything except of course their commander has a large empty gap in useful upgrades in midgame). Now that the balance is a little healthier, UEF and Aeon have more dark green squares, meaning they are superior in that area of the game at certain tech, and Cybran has a few less dark green squares (Strat AOE nerf, Loyalist EMP no longer stuns T4/Commanders, experimental build-time increase nerfed Monkeylord and Soul Ripper hard). That fits into a scheme of slightly more utilitarian factions that have more rigid, less flexible tools that outperform if they are in the right scenario but underperform if they are in the wrong scenario, and more adaptable factions that can more quickly present a response to a scenario even if it's not as effective/efficient.

put the xbox units in the game pls u_u

0

You are being completely schizophrenic. There is literally a larger difference between pillar and blaze in every single stat except HP than there is between aurora and striker.

Actually I forgot to look at range kappa

Still, both t2 and t3 involve gameplay with more nuance than draw factories and make 1 unit and the dynamic of blaze/obsidian already proves that. The charts you're talking about are what I'm talking about with factions preferring to either stay on techs long term (stagnate the game) or either create an aggressive snowball/transition out (chaotic game). I still dispute any of this being "efficient" or "utilitarian" as these words are only defined by the efficiency or utility of winning a game, which every faction can do.

0

@ftxcommando said in Factional Flavor- Art or Science?:

You are being completely schizophrenic. There is literally a larger difference between pillar and blaze in every single stat except HP than there is between aurora and striker.
Actually I forgot to look at range kappa

Well, range is one of the most important stats a unit can have, especially when it is slow and low HP like the Aurora. And the larger absolute value of HP between Blaze and Pillar is still not as extreme as the larger relative value of HP between Aurora and Striker. The Blaze has 73% of a Pillar's HP. The Aurora has 51% of a Striker's. Obviously as you tech up the stats increase almost by orders of magnitude, so focusing on the absolute difference between numbers is misleading. So range and effective HP are higher between Striker and Aurora than Pillar and Blaze. I would say those are two of the most important stats in land combat, aside from DPS, and you can see that reflected in how good players use the Aurora very differently from the Striker. Blaze is better at raiding, but is used more similarly to the Pillar than Aurora is used like Striker, especially considering the fact that they're both often paired with mobile shields in small battalions. Shielded Blaze balls are basically a ghetto T2 UEF Pillar push that can hover.

@ftxcommando said in Factional Flavor- Art or Science?:

Still, both t2 and t3 involve gameplay with more nuance than draw factories and make 1 unit and the dynamic of blaze/obsidian already proves that.

Yeah you are right that at T2 Aeon uniquely can't spam one tank+ supporting units, it has to choose between Blaze or Obsidian depending on the situation... but that's on brand for Aeon.

@ftxcommando said in Factional Flavor- Art or Science?:

The charts you're talking about are what I'm talking about with factions preferring to either stay on techs long term (stagnate the game) or either create an aggressive snowball/transition out (chaotic game).

What factions do you think prefer to stagnate at X level vs the ones that prefer to be chaotic?

@ftxcommando said in Factional Flavor- Art or Science?:

I still dispute any of this being "efficient" or "utilitarian" as these words are only defined by the efficiency or utility of winning a game, which every faction can do.

Again, I am measuring efficiency on a discrete per unit basis, looking at the role of the unit/structure/upgrade and how well it performs that one specific role, without micro or exploits, in real gameplay vs. the economic investment required to deploy that unit/structure/upgrade. To arrive at the efficiency of a whole faction, I add up each individual value, I am not grading the faction all at once. As I said, it's impossible to objectively measure the "efficiency" of gameplay, nor does the most "efficient" player always win using any conventional definition of the word. Creativity, mindgames, and game sense are also important to winning games.

put the xbox units in the game pls u_u

1

Something else I've noticed, although it's too complicated to be worth putting into a guide; the weaponry of each faction also is biased towards certain archetypes:

Aeon is αeon: it has the most alpha strike damage of any faction, with the Aurora, Fervor, Obsidian, T2 PD, T2 Gunship, Destroyer, Strat bomber, Tempest, sniper bot (though technically not exclusive) and in the most extreme case, Mercy (literally all alpha damage). All of these units live and die on their strong initial punch in a fight. Except for the strat bomber I suppose.

Cybran wastes the least DPS: it tends to have the most high ROF units (Mantis, Rhino, Cerberus, frig destro and battleship, Brick as well as ML with constant laser), and the most AOE on applicable units (T2 Gunship, T2 and T3 arty, T3 mobile arty, strat bomber, Scathis). Their tactical missiles can also retain some of their damage even after being hit with TMD since they split.

UEF and Seraphim are between the two, although UEF is slightly more alpha strike biased and Seraphim wastes less DPS (lots of high rof and especially beam weapons and 2nd place in AOE)

And of course there are notable exceptions like GC, Blaze, and Restorer for Aeon or Megalith, Fire Beetle and Hoplite for Cybran

put the xbox units in the game pls u_u