Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread
-
@ftxcommando said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
This shield serves as a way to make your first few percies OC proof.
If we assume that the opposing player is equally invested in combat,
we can reasonably expect them to possess an equal number of units and mass invested in upgrades.Having 9K HP at T3 would provide around 5 seconds of survivability at best.
Overcharge damage may not have a significant impact on an ACU's Bubble Shield, but, that is almost meaningless as Tech 3 units would take care of the shield, regardless, and with ease, I might add.Considering the current HP at 9K, it would make more sense for the shield to be more affordable.
On paper, the upgrade would make the first 2 or 3 Percies far more effective - especially if your Com is there, too...
However, my perspective on the upgrade was to allow the ACU to extend its usability well into the T3 stage, rather than just the early T3 stage.At most, this change would grant an additional minute or two before the ACU becomes outmatched and is forced to retreat.
That said...
I must admit, my limited experience with the recent change makes it difficult to foresee its true impact in a match.
I'll have to do some more testing.For now, though -
If a player is able to obtain it during a T2 stage, then that can be a huge turning point.
~ Stryker
-
Bubble shield has never been very good. A bubble boi although not oc proof provides 50k hp for 5k mass and you don't lose when the bubble boi dies.
-
I'll believe it when I see it.
Still not sure with the current bubble sheild you have to stand in one spot.
-
Is this and of an era of hover strat?
-
just hoverbomb it longer 4head
-
You can always do flips with aeon t1 bomber if you get bored
-
Since in this patch navy is going to be changed a lot, I suggest also to rework t2 torpedo launchers to make them more usable. Now they are completely useless and literally no one builds them. I sugges to place them under water and reduce hp amount to approximately 2000, so that they could effectively kill t1 spam but will lose do destros with torpedos (cooper in case of the UEF). You can change them also in another way but please make them playable.
-
@gabitii they have been buffed in FAF beta
-
With 50% more build time, doesn't sound like a buff.
-
@rowey I do not think they need a "buff" which is actually not the case in balance patch. The damage was increased by 20% whereas build time was increased by more than 20%, therefore it is not a buff. Even if it would have been buff, I think they need a decent rework, not a buff.
-
Regarding the recent Cybran upgrade modifications...
Has the impact of veterancy been taken into account?
The combined effect of these changes, even with just one level of veterancy, seems somewhat excessive.While the new nano upgrade itself appears reasonable, when coupled with the regen enhancements from stealth and the base Cybran ACU, along with the increased HP on top of that...
Well, in my opinion, stacking these upgrades with veterancy might make it a bit too powerful.The Cybran ACU now boasts:
15,500 HP
90 Regen
StealthAll for a mass investment of 1,650.
These are the base statistics without any veterancy levels.
~ Stryker
-
What is the number for the uef nano com?The mass investment for that is like 1000
-
https://replay.faforever.com/20187315 at min 42 a t3 reactor gets killed and the explosion kills 30k mass in t3 gunships. I don't think decreasing the air height is a good idea. Also you can groundfire the gunships with an asswasher which is more than a little broken.
-
You could ground fire gunships with ahwassa even before this change. Now it's just gonna be more brutal I guess.
-
The fact that killing a t3 pgen now kills them all is almost more concerning tbh
-
@thewreck said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
What is the number for the uef nano com?The mass investment for that is like 1000
Base stats without any level of veterancy:
UEF Nano: (Stacks with Base ACU stats)
800 mass
+1,500 HP (Total = 13,500)
+40 Regen (Total = 50 HP/S)
Cybran Stealth: (Stacks with Base ACU stats)
650 Mass
+2,000 HP (Total 12,000)
+20 Regen (Total = 40 HP/S)New Cybran Nano: (Stacks with Stealth)
1,000 Mass
+3,500 HP (Total = 15,500)
+50 Regen (Total = 90 HP/S)
The new nano upgrade's regen stat as a nano upgrade is very reasonable.
But the extra HP, paired with a huge Regen increase in both Stealth and Base Regen is quite extreme, in my opinion.
And this would stack far more so for every level of vet, as well.I recommend more testing be made before a huge change like this rolls out.
~ Stryker
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
-
@xiaomao said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
You could ground fire gunships with ahwassa even before this change. Now it's just gonna be more brutal I guess.
@thewreck said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
https://replay.faforever.com/20187315 at min 42 a t3 reactor gets killed and the explosion kills 30k mass in t3 gunships. I don't think decreasing the air height is a good idea. Also you can groundfire the gunships with an asswasher which is more than a little broken.
There are no changes to elevations of gunships or the Ahwassa (gunships are still 10, and Ahwassa is still 25). That being said perhaps increasing gunship elevations to 12 or 14 could be experimented with.
-
@comradestryker can you also add up what sera double nano is as well to get a fair comparison
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" - Spock
-
Where is the nano upgrade at for cybran? Middle?
-
@thewreck wdym gunships always took damage when killing explosive buildings. I remember losing a campaign over a year ago cuz 70 Restos just died due to a grif 4head.
I thought that was a known fact
