Smol ACU Adjustment
-
Auto-overcharge is a nice quality of life feature that manages to both allow simplification of the game for newer players, and also add more complexity/depth since it adds extra decision making re whether to use auto or manual overcharge.
It's clearly weaker outside specific scenarios where you want to overcharge while moving (e.g. to chase down an enemy ACU or avoid being chased down), since against T1 units it can waste the OC against a half-health T1 unit (instead of getting a clump of them via a manual overcharge), and later in the game you cant overcharge as much with it as with manual overcharge.
It was a nice crutch during my earlier sub-1k days, but I quickly moved to using manual OC most of the time, with auto-overcharge now used very rarely (outside the specific scenarios noted above) where I need the apm for something important, I can afford to waste energy on poor overcharge shots, and my ACU isnt in imminent danger.
It sounds like the complaint is more about the power of overcharge against T2 units, but that's an issue with overcharge itself as a mechanic, and if anything auto-overcharge makes the problem slightly less severe since if a player relies on it they're more likely to waste an overcharge on a T1 tank when T2 units are nearby.
Meanwhile nerfing gun damage encourages passive ACU gameplay (why take the risk of losing the game for such a small benefit vs the current scenario where taking risks with your ACU gets rewarded), makes it far better to go for T2 upgrade over gun, and makes overcharge even more powerful than it currently is (since it will account for a far greater proportion of the ACUs damage output).
-
@phong said in Smol ACU Adjustment:
@ftxcommando that's how people dealt with shift-g and snipe mode in theory right? Just play less risky with acu.
No because snipe mode doesn’t lower the net utility of your ACU. You are still mandated to put your ACU in danger because if you don’t and enemy does, you lose. Snipe mode operated as an insane way to bleed ACU hp without lowering any of the incentives of keeping the ACU at the front.
-
Encourages passive ACU gameplay: good. The whole problem of teamgames rn is that you sit an ACU at mid map control and it’s unbeatable until 10k mass in t2 exists to overrun it. Anybody that doesn’t do this is immediately recognized as bad. It’s to the extent that air players send their ACU to idle at the front because it’s an extra OC body that forces more investment. It’s hilarious that this move has almost 0 tradeoff.
Strategic depth with auto-oc? You just turn it on bro. When game is simplified so you can zoom in on ACU you look at it again. I don’t know of much of any dude that’s decent and literally doesn’t press the button. It’s just such a waste of your time to look at your ACU every 3.5 seconds.
I do not have a problem with OC as a mechanic nor the way it interacts with units now. Nerfing the actually fun tool that makes you engage with your toy in the game is just terrible game design.
Honestly I can’t even conceive how you think auto-oc existing makes oc less severe of a mechanic. That entirely contradicts your initial point of it being a baby pacifier for new players and instead you have swung to it being a noob trap that should actively be removed for being a false choice. Pick a lane for your rationale.
-
I want to reiterate I never claimed the problem didn't exist or didn't need addressing. I was just hoping there was a way to do so without creating too steep a learning curve for those willing to grow into an aggressive ladder player from an astro turtler. But there are more nuanced ways of specifically nerfing auto-OC as I have shown, or of nerfing the acu vs spam in various ways. Why does it have to be such a drastic change with no mass (as i suggested) or time (as suggested by Zelda) tradeoff available? I don't feel like the problem is properly addressed, by the way, and you've made no attempt to show that it is even addressed at all without a nerf to manual OC as well or some general downgrade of the ACU in relation to units. In teamgames where even a 1000 has little enough to focus on that they can go mid and OC, your proposal amounts no change at all. I also thought 1v1 was the ultimate balance target, although I understand priorities have shifted with the introduction of tmm.
-
@ftxcommando said in Smol ACU Adjustment:
@phong said in Smol ACU Adjustment:
@ftxcommando that's how people dealt with shift-g and snipe mode in theory right? Just play less risky with acu.
No because snipe mode doesn’t lower the net utility of your ACU. You are still mandated to put your ACU in danger because if you don’t and enemy does, you lose. Snipe mode operated as an insane way to bleed ACU hp without lowering any of the incentives of keeping the ACU at the front.
But the damage done by the ACU wasn't ever the main reason to have it in front, it was its tanking ability, I thought. The imperative remains, while the risk is increased. Maybe my analogy with shift-g snipe mode wasn't perfect and I even said there's a difference of degree depending on skill but still, the point was, even when presented with incredible risk, players at the highest skill levels found that ACU back was not an option. Maybe there's a fundamental limit to how much we can stretch balance to cover both 1v1 and 4v4 before we consider making changes elsewhere like promoting more open maps with more spread out mexes, or in other words, wide enough fronts
-
Maybe I misunderstood the problem you identified and am confusing it with something else, but it just seems to me like confident enough play would look no different with your solution, only you'd be clicking more and the skill ceiling would be higher, while I was hoping for a solution that made spam more viable in general and would require a more strategy-level response. Zelda's idea of having to put more time into the guncom is interesting. Why are you so enamored with the idea of taxing attention and won't consider alternatives? As you said, OC is fun, but what you're suggesting amounts to saying only pros should get to have that particular brand of fun
-
I very much doubt anything needs to be touched with manual OC because people drastically underestimate the cost that comes from keeping attention focused on your ACU. Like 3 guys in this game even use camera hotkeys to quickly cycle between something like your ACU and your base to get back to macro. These guys should be rewarded for that extra effort. Those of us being insane lazy with turning on auto-oc or even just zooming in and out whenever they hear ACU is under attack should face a penalty for it. I do not have a problem with the strength of an ACU when it comes with an attention deficit, I do when it’s basically free. I fully disagree that play won’t change, attention is a critical resource and it already showcases itself with nearly everybody in practical terms managing 2 bases worse than 2 people managing 1 base each even though theoretically that makes zero sense.
-
I'm with Ftx in that ACUs in team games kill a lot of early action and in that auto-OC is worth keeping.
But I don't think auto-OC is too powerful, at the early T2 stage when there isn't a huge amount of power. If you think it is, send a few T1 units ahead of the T2 to use up that stored E.
Ultimately I don't see a solution to the strong-ACUs-in-teamgames problem other than paper-thin armour on ACUs. Or maybe making snipes more balanced (yes, that Mercy vs T2 bombers for snipes balance issue).
-
Higher skill in managing attention can be put to use gaining an advantage in myriad ways. Requiring more of it's investment into acu management means fewer players get to use it. Yet it's one of the more attractive and most distinguishing features of supcom. That's my problem with the attention cost. You could increase risk, cost, delay for a strong ACU in other ways but only a sacrifice in attention will satisfy you? That's why I feel like I've misunderstood your problem in the first place, it just feels like we're talking past each other. I thought spam was too weak vs ACU and that was the justification for all this
-
@ftxcommando said in Smol ACU Adjustment:
I very much doubt anything needs to be touched with manual OC because people drastically underestimate the cost that comes from keeping attention focused on your ACU. Like 3 guys in this game even use camera hotkeys to quickly cycle between something like your ACU and your base to get back to macro. These guys should be rewarded for that extra effort. Those of us being insane lazy with turning on auto-oc or even just zooming in and out whenever they hear ACU is under attack should face a penalty for it. I do not have a problem with the strength of an ACU when it comes with an attention deficit, I do when it’s basically free. I fully disagree that play won’t change, attention is a critical resource and it already showcases itself with nearly everybody in practical terms managing 2 bases worse than 2 people managing 1 base each even though theoretically that makes zero sense.
You say you have a problem when it's basically free. What are your misgivings with associating mass or time costs with a stronger acu?
-
This post is deleted! -
@ftxcommando said in Smol ACU Adjustment:
Could we put an experimental change into faf beta to test out ACUs getting auto-oc removed and/or halving the direct gun damage (and therefore gun upgrade doubling just brings it to the current damage)?
I'm mostly interested in seeing how such changes could impact how teamgames play out since there is a lot of talk about how little room t2 in particular has and either one of these changes would help that segment of the game get room to breathe.
Re-reading your first post, I now feel like you're not particularly interested in a discussion about potential solutions to the problem you mentioned, T2 land being weak. You are specifically interested in how your suggestion would help address it. Have you considered making a mod and trying it? I believe there are instructions linked in the pinned thread with the balance guidelines for this forum. It's also a bit ironic you made that thread yet your OP hardly follows said guidelines. Wouldn't you feel a bit silly criticizing others for such non-compliance in the future, having set this unfortunate precedent?
-
Don't see why I'd feel silly at all nor do I care about your pointless garbage in that post.
I address ACUs because ACUs are the crux of the problem in the issue. I do not want to directly nerf OC because it's one of like 3 tools in this game that actually reward unit management. You got veterancy, shield juggling, OC, and that's about it. So instead, I want a soft nerf on OC that punishes lazy play while rewarding active play. I don't care if auto-OC is kept but it needs to have a drastic nerf to how often it gets shot at minimum. Like literally doubling it.
My main crux is nerfing ACU damage which is what will really make spam much more viable in general for games and actively require players to back their forward ACUs with some cushion of units to retreat to rather than just impulsively building 2 t1 PD and getting gun once they see 30 tanks.
Speed nerf to gun ACUs not only doesn't address this issue fully, since it extends all the way down to base ACUs, but it actively hurts proper rambo pushes which are now slower and have a harder time catching enemy ACUs out of position. It doesn't even really resolve the actual problem since a gun ACU is still going to be getting insane passive value, you just make UEF and Sera stronger since they are the ones that can actually carry a base with their gun ACU.
Nerfing HP is also not a solution because that hampers everything about ACUs beyond the early T2 stage where ACUs are totally fine. It also buffs snipes that are already basically meta in a coordinated teamgame. Funny enough, these attempts to make ACUs less of a bedrock essential factor in being at the frontline from everybody would actually help counteract that meta.
The only other solution that would lead to anything decent that I can imagine is a general nerf to com explosions so that armies don't get blown up when ACUs die which in turn makes snowball pushes less of a necessity when committing to attacks. This, however, carries implications for draw gameplay and just a general quandary on it looking incredibly stupid that a big nuclear explosion from an ACU does no damage.
-
@ftxcommando said in Smol ACU Adjustment:
Don't see why I'd feel silly at all nor do I care about your pointless garbage in that post.
Then I have entirely misjudged you. Your post must have been meant to broach a potentially controversial change the balance team is considering, gauge feedback, and gather all criticism unto yourself while shielding them from it for now.
It's a noble thing to do in their aid, as their task is already hard enough. I will defer to their better judgement although a little hope remains that some suggestion in this thread inspires them, should they have the mental fortitude to read through and endure mine and others' ramblings.
As I must have misjudged the present relevance of the forum guidelines, perhaps the recent criticism for a perceived lack of transparency makes enforcement problematic right now.
-
-
What about making it half as good? As in it needs double the power for the same damage as normal OC? So that it's more of an investment to keep auto OC vs t2 and t3 units. It won't make it that much weaker but it would be imo step in good direction. Same with small cooldown nerf to 6s from 5s.
-
Eh, it mostly just comes down to intuitiveness I guess. Not sure if it would be very clear or how to make it clear to people that you would need say double the energy. In terms of it being a solution, there's definitely a number where energy cost nerf can match a time nerf.
-
An energy-cost solution has less impact in a team game than in a 1v1 because of team overflow, since it is increasingly unlikely that every commander is engaged at the same time the larger a team is. It would also impact manual OC. On the upside, lower rated players would feel the change less, since there's generally more overflow in lower rated games, so the idea's not bad. An energy-storage based solution could scale similarly in 1v1 and in team games, and both amount to a mass tax but energy storage isn't shared. If manual OC is to remain unaffected, auto-OC fire rate would have to be tied to e-storage as well, and even though damage already is, it might not be a problem. The issue outlined in the OP is with t2 spam, and at that stage, anything beyond 2 e-storages is basically overkill. Requiring extra e-storages at that stage purely for the benefit of auto-OC doesn't impact the later t3 land stage as much, since by that time, the risk has inherently increased as well and having the extra OC damage earlier is maybe not as problematic. I have no other suggestion for making this intuitive than a UI change that shows auto-OC fire rate, maybe it's possible to display it inside the OC icon, and have a text bubble explain the relationship in more detail when you hover over it, along with OC damage potential which is currently not displayed
-
If we want to penalize people for using auto OC, why not just remove auto OC? The argument in the thread is that higher rated players shouldn't want to use auto OC, checks out since it doesn't exist. For lower rated players, having to manually OC a valuable target every once in a while is about as valuable as any kind of nerfed auto OC. Yes it's more micro, but so is manual reclaim, LAB and tank micro, bomber micro, drop queueing, engineer management and all the other things a player must learn.
-
@mazornoob said in Smol ACU Adjustment:
If we want to penalize people for using auto OC, why not just remove auto OC? The argument in the thread is that higher rated players shouldn't want to use auto OC, checks out since it doesn't exist. For lower rated players, having to manually OC a valuable target every once in a while is about as valuable as any kind of nerfed auto OC. Yes it's more micro, but so is manual reclaim, LAB and tank micro, bomber micro, drop queueing, engineer management and all the other things a player must learn.
If you want to penalize people for using auto-OC by removing it, not by having them spend mass, that means you've identified a problem and come up with this solution after weighting the pros and cons. My worry is that lower rated players will feel less inclined to try out an aggressive play style until they gain more experience relative to how things are now.
This postponement might mean more new players remain stuck in astro gap lobbies, choosing instead to become experts at that, since they have some vague idea of what to do and only have to build on that, rather than exploring and finding the enjoyment of a more dynamic play style, but having to face the frustrations associated with learning a very powerful mechanic with very high risk so late in the process. Players are softer on themselves and take criticism from teammates more lightly when they're new, but it gets old really fast and the more they play just astro, the more likely they are to keep playing just astro.
I'm worried that until the matchmaker comes to dominate, or by some unimaginable twist of fate Supremacy or something like it becomes the preferred victory condition in casual custom lobbies, this kind of decision effectively costs us future play partners. A small player pool is extremely bad, for team matchmaker and for tournament play and for keeping the game alive in general. If other solutions exist to the problems this proposal addresses and are somewhat viable, maybe they're worth exploring first, with this in mind? It is not a minor change, compared to the examples you listed. Few of those units are as useless without constant micro as a com with half the DPS and no auto-OC, and losing any of them is not the same as losing the commander.
