Balance Patch 3750 - Feedback
-
No, there was just no real consideration of macro, spaced-out 20x20 maps because full share teamgames used to only happen on sentons and everything else was tightly compact wonder/canis/hilly where 1-2 SMD keep your whole team safe. Now that competitive teamgames have branched out into these larger 20x20 maps with the evolution of preferences and matchmaker, it's different. Even on those old maps, a nuke was only a game ender assuming insane greed gameplay where your whole team decided they didn't want to make the SMD.
It's like the cost of a GC for the launcher and first nuke. It isn't supposed to be a mini game ender any more than any direct fire t4 is a game ender.
-
Just ended a game because I built a nuke ~35 min and killed their top rated with it. Nukes are totally not viable anymore /s
-
Do we have data on how these changes have impacted the average game length in team games? Average game length and faction win/loss per patch and per rating bracket would be very interesting data, with further breakdowns for the most common maps.
I haven't really played any games since the patch, definitely interested to see how navy feels now.
-
@t_r_u_putin I played a TMM game today and had multiple enemy asswashers bombing the shit out of my battleships while I advanced my navy and killed the SMD (with my mega) and then nuked the enemy to death. Everything seems to work just fine.
-
@mazornoob said in Balance Patch 3750 - Feedback:
Didn't nukes use to be treated as mini game enders, as in if one team could spare the mass to make one and the other couldn't make SMD in response, the game was over? The "main bases should always be comfortably safe from nukes" rationale is something new.
Nukes is 3 times more expensive than SMD (before the "patch". If one team build a nuke but opposite cannot build SMD to defend them - they are simply bad noobs. Also nuke loads slower by 1 minute + time for launch animation and fly + 25 45 seconds additionnaly depends on the map size.
you get nuked simply because u don't scout in time having so much advantage in SMD cost and time.
The last patch simply removed nuke threat completely - you will be nuked after 30 mins of the game if u simply forgot to build and SMD and never scout the enemyYoutube: https://www.youtube.com/FAFputinFAF
Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/faf_putin
Discord: https://discord.gg/dxeMFxY -
Somehow, the units have grown in price, but the meaning of their effectiveness has fallen. In the game, you can't balance a noob's ally so as to win a loss from the clutches of victory.The patch before these changes was better.
-
@t_r_u_putin yes but that’s for dual gap. Outside of dual gap, one nukes makes opponents create 3-5-8 SMDs, easily making the nuke pay itself off just in making opponents waste stuff on SMD and then nuke can still destroy armies/navy, adding more value to itself
-
@whiterush said in Balance Patch 3750 - Feedback:
Somehow, the units have grown in price, but the meaning of their effectiveness has fallen. In the game, you can't balance a noob's ally so as to win a loss from the clutches of victory.The patch before these changes was better.
Maybe people didn't stop complaining about the units, maybe they just stopped building them.
@femboy said in Balance Patch 3750 - Feedback:
@t_r_u_putin yes but that’s for dual gap. Outside of dual gap, one nukes makes opponents create 3-5-8 SMDs, easily making the nuke pay itself off just in making opponents waste stuff on SMD and then nuke can still destroy armies/navy, adding more value to itself
On Valhalla It is the same. Maps with 2 SMD covering all bases need 1 Nuke to cost somewhere around 2 SMD. Bigger maps need more SMDs per SML therefore they want nukes to cost more. The only solution for all is to reduce range on Nuke Launchers to the point where the 1 nuke = 2 SMD principle is met and revert their cost back to pre patch.
-
Wise members of the balance team, is 'absolute garbage' a technical term?
-
yeah, in layman’s terms it means it’s ass, next question
-
When it come to how powerful nukes are, it really depends on the map. I don't have the time right now to do all of the math but this is the gist of it: SML is 16.5k mass, nuke is 12k. An SMD is 7.5k and anti-nuke is 3.6k. That means that the first nuke costs 28.5k mass which means that if enemy needs to build 3 SMDs then you are already ahead (Yes I know that nuke costs more power but I can't be bothered to account for that right now). This means that on any map that requires enemy to build >= 3 SMDs then nukes are basically always a good and safe investment. They are low risk and extremely high reward unit, simply a no-brainer in a lot of scenarios. Now consider maps that require only 2 SMDs, this means that either you are playing 1vs1/2vs2 which doesn't have major expansions or you are playing a turtle map with all bases clumped up. Then the nuke is not as strong but it isn't weak either. Remember that with 3 SMDs the nuke was basically worth it BEFORE it killed anything. But even if enemy's main bases are protected then there are still plenty of viable targets: expansions, armies, navy, forward bases etc.
If the range of the nuke would be reduced enough that you couldn't reach enemy's main base from your own it would just make the unit basically useless on those maps, especially in 1vs1 which I am not interested in (any smaller nerf siply wouldn't do anything either). The game is balanced around a set of competitive 1vs1 and team game maps. If you play on a map that strictly favors defensive play by clumping up all of the players together and doesn't encourage a lot of expansion either then you can expect the game to NOT be balanced. That is not to say that I think nukes are weak on DG, they are still viable. You just may not see 1 rushed every single game.
-
thanks mister ftx
-
And, if you use BrewLAN, where you have mobile SMD - then all of that thinking goes out the window.
-
@tagada said in Balance Patch 3750 - Feedback:
If the range of the nuke would be reduced enough that you couldn't reach enemy's main base from your own it would just make the unit basically useless on those maps, especially in 1vs1 which I am not interested in (any smaller nerf siply wouldn't do anything either). The game is balanced around a set of competitive 1vs1 and team game maps. If you play on a map that strictly favors defensive play by clumping up all of the players together and doesn't encourage a lot of expansion either then you can expect the game to NOT be balanced. That is not to say that I think nukes are weak on DG, they are still viable. You just may not see 1 rushed every single game.
I'd say on some of those maps, if you design it to work like t3 arty where say one air on senton can only hit 3 bases, you just make the meta for the back slot to always still rush a nuke. You don't change anything about nukes being insane, you just remove the noob mistake of 2 full eco players not both going nuke and one going SMD instead of nuke on these maps.
Air player on maridia still has like 3 bases to kill rather than 5, he still forces those front 3 players to be playing on the timetable of a nuke rush killing their whole base.
-
https://replay.faforever.com/19185523
Noooo nukes are worthless now
-
@thewheelie their worth noticable reduced. beucase there is no threat enemy is able to rush a nuke and hit you even if you don'r scout him. Duel gap - the map where every 2nd game = Eco player has nuke at 16 min finished. After the patch noone is able to nuke me whatever he does and no matter how bad my air players are. Enemy builds a nuke slower and loads slow too. I am able to build cheap SMD and after than I defend three bases and I know my enemy economy is fucked cause he has no worthy targets anymore.
The patch changed cost values in many times - this cannot be smart decision from 1st attempt. -
https://replay.faforever.com/19186014
Noooo nukes are worthless now
-
I'm getting "I killed 4 T2 mexes with beetles against a team with no radar, this is evidence" flashbacks
-
So these tmm games aren't a real example? I just watched 3 replays in a row and all 3 replays had nukes killing a base after min 25. Yes, in theory people can 'easily' make an smd, but in a real game people make mistakes. Why is it that last week i killed 2 chickens with a cloak lazer acu? It's easy to make a few t3 scouts and kill my single acu fighting. Why did i see a 1500 make a cloak lazer acu today as well killing invading t4's? Easy to make some scouts right. Why did i just see foley die to 10 notha's in a seton's game? They are easily dodged and should never kill an issue unless groundfired.
The same can be said about beetles. Ofcourse they are easily countered in theory, but in reality i have killed enough 2k+ players and died myself to beetles as well due to the fact a real game is chaotic and you don't have perfect intel. (Aside from the fact like i already explained before that sniping acu's or mexes isn't even the main intended purpose for beetles).
-
I meant less in terms of validity, more in terms of salt
Also how come weak units get justified by saying that they're good when the enemy is retarded once in a while but mercies were left untouched for years because lmao put T1 AA in front of your com at all times
