Title: A Time For Change: FAF Community Balance Team
-
Reading comprehension is hard so let's see if your inductive reasoning ability rotted away with age.
Reality: FAF provides player with the democratic ability to play and create whatever maps they want to.
Reality: With this ability, players converge to playing heavily passive maps with simple meta
Proposal: Have a balance team that is democratically voted
Outcome: The passive, simple maps become the new frame of reference and as balance is fixed to make them "better" you get new simple, passive maps and the cycle continues anew.
-
@penguin_ said in Title: A Time For Change: FAF Community Balance Team:
Speaking of votes and deciding how various aspects of FAF should be run, the FAF Association's annual general meeting is happening within a few weeks, and I'd like to encourage those who care about FAF and want to influence its future to consider joining. Click here to learn more.
Should be stated it's very pointedly NOT the job of the Board nor the Association to micromanage teams. They have their own independent statutes governing how they operate that were agreed upon by the people doing the work and the Board in turn.
In fact this exact scenario and your attempt to bring the Board in as a solution is the exact doomsday situation that made half the people in the Association worried about it existing when it was first being proposed.
-
I actually wasn't trying to bring the Board into this..... I was trying to encourage people to participate in the Association and thinking some might draft some proposals as well.....
-
@lord_asmodeus said in Title: A Time For Change: FAF Community Balance Team:
-- Fire beetles are by far not obsolete.
Beetles mentioned
1 T2 transport with 1 mobile stealth gen and 5 fire beetles can wipe an air grid.
3 T2 transports of Medusas are about as expensive, as hard to get to the enemy air grid as 1 transport, need less micro, can target T2+ mexes as well as pgens and out-DPS beetles mass-for-mass after 2 volleys.
They can be used to clear large armies of units.
Why not just make more rhinos so you have a bigger army? They shoot all the time and need way less micro.
They can be used as a fast attack and wipe upgrading mexes.
Mantis also can for a fraction of the cost, and they don't kill themselves on a T1 mex.
Hell you can use them in your army to snipe acu's
If you made enough beetles to make it through, you could've made more rhinos to the same effect.
-
3 transports are easier to see
Medusas provide more reaction time (means you can stop chain pgen explosion)
Cybran can't win a war of attrition against pillar or blaze spam with rhinos due to mobile shields existing. Beetles force ACUs to stop pushing and trade efficiently with both of these units by getting under shields and into clumps.
Ah, beetle drops are also significantly less telegraphed because nobody is going to see the beetles in your base, just a t2 transport which can exist for a billion other reasons.
-
@penguin_ said in Title: A Time For Change: FAF Community Balance Team:
thinking some might draft some proposals as well.....
Proposals like what? Changing how balance team gets appointed?
-
Transports can stack on top of each other. It doesn't matter if you have 1, 3 or 5, it's about as easy to maneuver them around enemy vision. I made beetle drops with T1 transports, I know. Actually it's better since only 1 transport needs mobile stealth.
Since you're not reaching a T3 air grid if you get scouted along the way, you actually get more of a drop since you can drop stealthed and medusas will start firing once they get in range. And of course you can just start killing mexes in 3 different places, something a single transport of beetles can't really do. -
Beetles aren't intended to kill mexes, of course medusas are better. The post you quoted was primarily talking about air grids which I have seen plenty of successful beetle snipes on even in late t3 air stage. Medusa drops are going to fail because they miss decent dps in initial volleys and the first 5 seconds are absolutely imperative in making those sort of drops work. Beetles give near zero time to react and the lack of experience with how to notice they're happening just adds to their efficiency in that.
Even with all of that, 2 beetles going around killing loose t2 mexes in a large 2v2 map is way harder to notice and stop than a random group of mantis.
-
Alright, I suppose beetles are better specifically at ambushing air grids, if nothing else. I still can't imagine a map where a T2 mex would be raidable by 2 beetles (implying no radar) and where at the same time 8 mantis or a corsair wouldn't do the same job better.
Regarding stopping ACU pushes, T2 PDs can do the same thing more reliably and without killing themselves. -
PD can't move and you need a pretty ridiculous clump of them to actually stop an intentional t2 push from either Aeon or UEF. Lack of AOE on cerb hurts against shield spam.
In terms of maps, I can just say like a lot of the 15x15 or 20x20 custom map gens that got hosted over the last few months. Corsairs leave reclaim and might work for a few early mexes but by then it's getting intercepted and a mass donation. I really can't say I ever see mantis productively kill t2 mexes, they take forever and are easy to intercept with air.
-
I believe this calls for a community poll.
-
I don't see the argument with PDs. If you don't have some units with you, beetles won't save you either. Assuming the enemy is preparing for a T2 push, would you rather have:
- 8 beetles and a deceiver which will stall the push for 30 seconds and maybe kill half their mass cost if the opponent is not an idiot, or
- 4 PDs and a shield which will deal 400 DPS for however long you can stall the push with your ACU and units and give you a chance to actually stop the push?
As for raiding, I suppose people prefer raiding with units that can defend themselves and keep raiding if there's no response, even if they take a few more seconds to kill a mex. Versatility matters. Nobody builds beetles preemptively for that reason.
-
I'd choose the beetles against 20 pillars, 6 parashields, and an ACU tbh
Best combo is like 1-2 PD so the enemy gets confident and walks in and you bomb half or more of the pillars.
-
I kinda agree with thomas on the point that the game is pretty linear/predictable and there's not a lot of variation that you can do strategy wise. Nowhere near the lvl of other rts games that is anyway. I do not however think that making factions tech stages and/or units more balanced towards each other is something that negatively impacts that. I'm not saying here that all units should become similar to eachother. I'm saying each unit should have their own unique strength that's good in atleast 1 scenario.
If we would go back to old balance then there would be tons of units that would literally never be made and could simply be removed from the game. Aeon t2 stage was so bad you would always rush t3 land. I'm not saying the old t3 land rush power spike for aeon was a bad thing, but the lack of t2 certainly was.
In an ideal world we would have both together, and it is kinda true to some aspect that some of the strongest units were made weaker to be more balanced. Maybe too much, idk, it's hard to tell, but i still do think that some of them were more than justified considering their dominance.
I'm not sure what your (thomas) idea is for an sacu change that would make is less linear to fit in the tech paths that exist in the game. It kinda feels like an empty shout that everyone agrees with. Let's make these units special and unique so they're great to play with! Sure, how?
Personally my ideal future vision of the game is that it gets unit upgrades, armor types and weapon types all balanced to make the game a lot more complex and interesting. I wouldn't even mind adding new units. You can make snipers have special penetration dmg against heavy armored units like percies while making them tickle titans, you can add an expensive upgrade to give spearheads a homing ability, etc. The problem however with this together with other suggestions that were proposed in this topic is if people even want this and from the general understanding i have the answer tends to be no. It's to leave the base game as it is aside from some minor balance changes. This aside from the fact that making such things will cost a tremendous amount of time and manpower which faf in general doesn't have a lot of.
One remark to the OP: I honestly don't know why you even wrote this. Balance team members, both past and current, tend to be evolved in tons of different areas in the community. They make youtube content, cast for FAFlive on twitch (that was co created by a balance team member), make maps, are in the matchmaker team, are faf moderators, host tourneys (some donate their own money), you can continue. Most are in the faf association as well.
Now why do you think these people tend to be on the balance team. Do you think this is because they care about faf and want to help it in some way? Nah no way right. They're just evil dictators that want to change the balance in their favor to win some more games.
At the end of the day everyone spends their free time to try and help improve the game. Now you can disagree with the changes made, but instead of screaming like this maybe it would be more usefull to start a proper discussion where you use proper arguments instead of going full conspiracy theory.
-
@thewheelie said in Title: A Time For Change: FAF Community Balance Team:
I'm not sure what your (thomas) idea is for an sacu change that would make is less linear to fit in the tech paths that exist in the game. It kinda feels like an empty shout that everyone agrees with. Let's make these units special and unique so they're great to play with! Sure, how?
I can't say exactly since I haven't fully thought it out or done the work, of course, but I imagine there is a possible balance where you decide between making a T2 Quantum gateway or a T3 land HQ. SCU would obviously have to be cheaper, but could have some kind of support upgrades for your t2 army. Regen fields, bubble shields, chrono, etc. They can also have other combat upgrades so they can scale well into the T3 stage. With the factions having different power levels on T2 and T3 land, and different SACU options, it could potentially add an interesting decision and a lot of interesting gameplay. Putting SACU between T2 and T3 seems infinitely more interesting and adds more levers to balance with than keeping them in their post-T3 stage role or stupid RAS SACU spam.
It is a difficult path to go down that would require tons of work and testing, so I do not expect it to ever actually happen. That's just my SCU dream.
-
So easy to complain and talk about getting rid of current contributors and putting new people but what the fuck have you guys done to contribute??? Or do you just complain until someone does what you want?
An election? Do you guys know who gets elected? Politicians that don’t do jack. I prefer quality of play over popularity choosing how to balance the game.
-
I want to first thank all the members of dev and balance teams, you occupy a position where when you are doing things right, no one knows you are doing anything at all.
Conversely, any fuck up is an instant shit show hellstorm of nerd rage.
I have criticisms, and agree with many of Drew's points, but I wanted to point out that I think its easy to take criticisms as an attack or dismissal of the obvious work required. I don't have much rating but many games, and having played OTA as a kid, this game and community means quite a bit to me.
In short i don't think the criticism is with the goals or changes directly, but the second order effects the changes have.
Where perhaps the goals could have been achieved in ways less obvious but also less disruptive to existing meta. Thus requiring less energy to adapt on the part of players of maps considered highly popular but unsophisticated. -
Just add shit tons of new units and this game will stop being linear
Everyone just squeezed out every possible unit with every possible way -
Another election thread would be great.
Wouldn't mind a balance 'todo' list though, or maybe there's already one somewhere idk. -
@evildrew Your post is rife with generalities, but lack specifics. You spew accusations, but refuse to support them. For shame.
Have you seen @ComradeStryker 's posts? The lad wrote an essay's worth of suggestions so large, it had to be cut into several chapters and included a table of contents. He went into detail explaining the problems as he saw them, and offered specific solutions. And you know what happened? Several of these suggestions have since been adopted.
If you have a problem with the current balance, that is the post you should emulate.
You say the recent changes have ruined map designs. Which maps are these? You seem to have been unable to find any room in your post to name specifics. A quick look at the last 200 games you played shows you near-exclusively play two maps: a survival map, and a map that looks like what Settons would have been if Settons was a 10x10. You complain about a lack of strategic diversity and staleness, yet have you considered that perhaps your refusal to play more than two different type of games might be the cause of that? Is it not more fair to admit that you have a very specific preference for a very limited type of game, and that you don't like the balance changes that have been made? That would have been a post worth making, I would think.
Instead I get this barely coherent tirade describing a group of very motivated players, who are donating their effort and free time to improve a 15-year old game, as a "cancerous oligarchy". You call them "self-centred", inferior candidates, and imply they equal corrupt politicians and dictators. Do you hear yourself speak?
