Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread
-
The long aa is a component of the czar's utility for sure but one of the main reasons to spam czars is so that if you get 5 of them you can beat large quantities of asf but without the laser, it simply isn't possible for large quantities of czars to beat 500 asf. I cant speak for everyone but spamming lots of czars is a lot of fun and I would be disappointed to see it no longer be viable.
-
@thewreck said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
The long aa is a component of the czar's utility for sure but one of the main reasons to spam czars is so that if you get 5 of them you can beat large quantities of asf but without the laser, it simply isn't possible for large quantities of czars to beat 500 asf. I cant speak for everyone but spamming lots of czars is a lot of fun and I would be disappointed to see it no longer be viable.
yeah i think czar is really weak if you are looking to use it to win versus air with ASF only time its ok when its equal and you get czar, its ground weapon is good but idk i just feel like im gifting mass but its way better now since its gifting 30% less now so i do use built it a bit more in my beta games.
-
@comradestryker intltirs are getting updated too just the changes aren't in yet
-
@TheWreck It's still able to kill ASF? Czar got reduced to 20 but ASF got reduced to 18, meaning they still fly beneath it and therefore get killed?
-
The CZARs killing ASF won't work against anyone that is aware of such a mechanic since they just won't right-click the CZAR and instead just fly around it so I don't see it as some game-breaking change. The CZAR's ability to kill ASF with its beam is more like a nice little feature/gimmick than then important part of the unit. Also, someone would need to confirm but I suspect the elevation difference doesn't matter as long as ASFs are below the CZAR.
-
With this patch I feel like navy will be op general and can be barely stopped by any other units (land and air). In the late game there was often situation where both teams have 300-400 asaf and as soon as someone lost air everyone is able to build a lot of aa. Air could have dealed damage, but for a short time. Now air will be much weaker as it was, and navy way stronger. No other units will be able to stop navy, land could not have done it either, for air it will be too expensive now. But navy instead was always able to stop land attack, even some t3 units were sucking against destros, on the other side t4 exp has no chance against t3 navy, mega can just hold a bit. I guess with this balance patch the balance is in favour on navy units and they will become op.
-
@tagada said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
Also, someone would need to confirm but I suspect the elevation difference doesn't matter as long as ASFs are below the CZAR.
They're not below the CZAR when you tell them to attack it. All interceptors (or asf) move towards the elevation of their target.
In this example units deal no damage. The CZAR is at a height of 50. The interceptors are initially not, of course.
Then at some point in time they are (all) on the exact same height.
And here we have the CZAR ground firing, which hits the planes:
Which works because the beam still intersects with the collision shape of the interceptors:
And after giving them a movement order they go back to their current elevation within a second or two:
-
So, to sum up. Changing the elevation of ASF doesn't matter for this mechanic, right?
-
Yes, it doesn't matter at all.
-
@tagada Even if you manually micro asf there is no way to avoid flying underneath the laser when there are a large numbers of asf and czars involved. especially if the fight also involved asf from the person with the czars because the standard way to fight large air battles is to press the stop button in which case asf will fly underneath the czar beam. Regarding the height difference, the beam is slightly below the czar if I'm not mistaken so having a height difference of just 2 will probably make the czar beam less effective especially if there's any hills involved.
-
I have tested yesterday in game lobby and the pending patch, and the barracudas(tech 2 cybran subs) now need 4 torpedo bombers to kill it, which is op in my opinion, assuming that it has stealth. Not considering that u need a scout to torp it but just cost ot the torps and subs. 4 torps 4 * 270 = 1080 mass and 4* 32000 energy. barracuda 1100 mass and 8800 energy. This is a really huge difference. Pls fix the hp of the barracudas accordingly in order to make 3 torps killing it, it fill be fine then. It is 2 torps before pending patch.
All the other subs were buffed so that u need 1 torp extra, whereas in case of t2 cybran subs u need 2 torps extra, which is a lot.
-
The torpedo bomber nerf is getting reverted so don't worry about barracudas.
-
@tagada Sorry, didnt see it
-
I am pleased to see this development finally coming to fruition.
I have been anticipating this for quite some time.Though, now that it is here, I have some concerns regarding the relatively low costs associated with the shield upgrade and its corresponding shield hit points.
Would it not be more logical for the shield to be far greater in durability and incur a slightly higher resource cost?After a brief overview, I must admit that I find myself favoring Spikey's original implementation of the upgrade changes.
That change aligned more closely with an advanced upgrade suitable for late-stage front-line use, as opposed to mid-stage use.
I hope this change has not been firmly set.
Then if so, more tweaking could be done before it goes live.If I may suggest, this could be mitigated by introducing another upgrade option for the bubble shield.
This additional upgrade could be designed to align more with a mid or late T3-stage, as well.
This would also keep the Bubble Shield useful as it currently is in live games - Shielding a valuable building and whatnot.
Nonetheless, I extend my gratitude for the remarkable efforts put forth by the FAF team.
I can't wait to see it when it goes live!
~ Stryker
-
I had a thought for reducing the "volatility of t1 navy" aka navy lock. Why not give frigates and destroyers a speed nerf so that hover has better chances of running it down?
-
I think cybran acu getting nano is a bit odd, just doesnt quite suit it. 20 H/s regen on a base acu is also pretty crazy, for 5km 1v1 especially. Additionally, im pretty sure vet scales multiplicitavely, and the first level adds roughly 50%, meaning just one vet would put it near 30 H/s. Add stealth, and it'll regen 50. This is almost on par with the uef nano, for a lower cost, and added stealth.
These number are not entirely correct (uef vet brings regen 10->15, cyb vet brings regen 15->21, not quite 50%) so im not sure this'll be the case, it's just something im worried about happening. If someone knows more on how vet/base regen scaling works, i'd love to hear
frick snoops!
-
UEF ACU shield field seems poor stat wise - 9k health vs the 19k of the personal shield (same cost). Compared to a T3 Seraphim mobile shield it comes off even worse (same size, 1k less health, much slower to recharge, costs 2.1k mass vs 720).
Not a fan of Cybran ACU laser damage being nerfed, it made sense that it was the same damage as the monkeylord laser. Plus it was very rare to see a cloaked laser ACU (requires a high investment for something that enemy can counter with a spy plane, or GC, in addition to omni radar, and would die to any experimental with omni support). Coudln't the cost be increased if the upgrade is thought too powerful, so the weapon itself stays dealing the same damage as a monkeylord?
However nice to see the base regen boost, as the current small regen advantage Cybran gets doesn't compensate for its much lower health early game - it'd need to survive in/after combat for almost 7 minutes to get more value from it than the hp boost, hence I'd much rather have the UEF's 2k extra HP early game than the Cybran's previous +5 hp regen. At +10 regen for -2k health it starts being a net positive 3 1/3 minutes after taking significant damage which feels more of a tradeoff (sometimes better sometimes worse) than before.
-
@thewreck said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
I had a thought for reducing the "volatility of t1 navy" aka navy lock. Why not give frigates and destroyers a speed nerf so that hover has better chances of running it down?
Because not every faction has hover. I would rather propose that acu's can overcharge under water. So you could commit it defending early naval fac's. You will thus need to put your navy factories farther away from opponent if acu walking distance is short.
-
The increased regen on stealth probably will result in another cost increase needed. How about adding radar instead? Would fit the upgrade better in terms of information warfare.
The laser change is kind of weird. Cloaked laser is a one trick pony that is almost never even used. Changing laser to be more viable in army battles against t3 ground and less useful as a cheese would be more desirable. Halving the damage and increasing the range could work?
Edit: I am pretty stoked that the cybran acu is getting more defensive options.
-
UEF bubble shield doesn’t die to OC. Can’t compare it to mobile shields.
