Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread
-
What even is the point of this discussion?
-
Yea, this seems stupid. Just a fight between 2 people that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. If you want to discuss the impact of realism on balance make a new thread. Thanks
-
This post is deleted! -
@slicknixon said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
@xiaomao
You would be alright with shooting through mountains if there were units that could burrow underneath? What would be the point of them burrowing?
There is a cool Russian RTS game called Perimeter with underground units and full terraforming. Just saying.
-
@DevelopNoob
Found a possible bug with the Cybran ACU changes.
Nothing in-game, just Math values that don't add up.In the live FAF branch, Stealth grants the ACU 2,000 extra HP.
Cloak grants an additional 13,000 HP.
For a total of 25,000 HP as shown below:
According to this PR, 3,500 HP was transferred from the Cloak upgrade to the new Nano Upgrade.
The new stats are as follows:Stealth: +2,000
Nano: +3,500
Cloak: +9,500
Still, a maximum HP of 25,000.
However, the issue comes from the updated PR.
This PR adjusted the Cybran ACU upgrades further.Specifically this:
Since the HP was adjusted for the other upgrades, I assume the Cloak upgrade was compensated for that, but...
Where did the extra 2,000 HP come from?
The Cybran ACU now boasts 27,000 HP with all three upgrades on FAF Beta.
I couldn't find anything related to increasing the HP of the ACU further, and the Beta changelog doesn't mention anything about increasing the total HP to 27,000.
It only mentions what the PR already mentioned.
So, I assume it was probably an oversight, unless the upgrade itself was buffed without details given, yet.
~ Stryker
-
@comradestryker 27k is correct it is the same as the base with the 2 upgrades
Stealth > +1500
Nano > +1500
cloak > +14000
This = 17000 + base acu = 27k"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" - Spock
-
@developnoob
Ah, I see. So, it is a small buff, then.
If I may ask, what's the reasoning behind this small change?
As I mentioned, I didn't see anything for it on the Beta changelog for the increase to HP.Cloak and Stealth paired with the new nano upgrade already granted the ACU a lot more survivability.
What's the extra buffer for?
Also, you may want to fix this.
Going from 13,000 -> 14,000
It's being buffed, not nerfed.
~ Stryker
-
It should be the same total hp in beta as in current faf.
Stealth hp 2k > 1.5k
Nano hp 0k > 1.5k
Cloak hp 15k > 14k= net 0
Maybe it once again is a case of the unit db lying with wrong cloak numbers, but if it isnt it should result in the same hp.
-
@thewheelie
I took my numbers directly from in-game.
I even showed the images.If the database is wrong, that's a different issue, but, yeah, it just appears to be that the extra HP appeared out of nowhere.
Edit: It appears to be an unintentional bug fix, then.
Apparently, in the base FAF game, the Cloak upgrade overwrote Stealth's extra 2,000 HP.
Cloak does offer 15,000 HP, and no one noticed this entire time. RIPThanks for clarifying, @DevelopNoob!
~ Stryker
-
Do the changes to the Cybran ACU torp upgrade cancel out so the DPS is unchanged?
(damage 250 upped to 500, number of projectiles 4 to 2)With the buffs to t1 sub health it could make it much harder for a torp com to deal with mass t1 subs.
-
The FAF beta has some amazing changes, especially the x2 power storage adjacency bonus and the really needed strategic bomber adjustments. Looking forward to playing it.
IMHO the HP nerf (edit: well, some get somehow buffed) for the following buildings makes sense to make raiding more attractive - However, I think the spirit of the UEF got a bit lost in it - it does not feel on par with the experience that UEF has chunky HP stuff - What is the opinion of the others about those changes?
Building HP:
Mass Extractors:
Tech 1:
-28% (Cybran: from 500 to 360)
-47.37% (UEF: from 760 to 400)
-38.33% (Aeon: from 600 to 370)
-41.54% (Sera: from 650 to 380)Tech 2:
-20% (UEF: from 2500 to 2000)
Aeon: 1900
Cybran: 1800
-2.5% (Sera: from 2000 to 1950)Tech 3:
+4.17% (Cybran: from 6000 to 6250)
-22.22% (UEF: from 9000 to 7000)
+4.84% (Aeon: from 6200 to 6500)
-3.57% (Sera: from 7000 to 6750)Power Generators:
Tech 1:
500 Cybran
-21.05% (UEF: from 760 to 600)
-12.5% (Aeon: from 600 to 525)
-15.38% (Sera: from 650 to 550)Tech 2:
UEF 2500
+22.22% (Cybran: from 1800 to 2200)
+21.05% (Aeon: from 1900 to 2300)
+20% (Sera: from 2000 to 2400)Mass Storage
-25% (Cybran: from 800 to 600)
-33.33% (UEF: from 1200 to 800)
-35% (Aeon: from 1000 to 650)
-36.36% (Sera: from 1100 to 700) -
I couldn't care less and would rather have had all the factions normalized to the same value. Though funny enough in beta Cybran is now the best structurally since the regen is vastly better to whatever tiny hp difference exists.
-
Ha, exactly. The Cybran benefits a lot from those changes with their HP reg. When the faction buildings have only ±10 HP difference in the T1 phase - it looks odd to me on paper.
-
Unironically, the reason I chose UEF as my primary faction was because of its survivability over all the other factions.
I was not a good player back then (and still aren't), so having units and structures with large HP pools eased my tension.
I know, it's hard to imagine Stryker as a -200 at some point.The reliance on that high HP pool is what slowly made me love this faction more and more.
Whenever I swapped factions, it never felt right to me.
They all have their advantages... though not so sure about that, anymore.Sure, some changes were needed for a healthier game, but again;
I miss when it would take 3 passes from a bomber to kill a T1 Pgen or Mex.Yeah, I may be a little biased, but having the factions be normalized now just makes the factions feel weird, to me.
Like carriers having the same vision as Atlantis... although healthier for the game and better-suited for the carriers in a support role,
it just doesn't make sense to me that these units now share the same vision range.
I miss my pgen and mex HP.
~ Stryker
-
I know it would be a bit of a hassle to calculate, but why not increase the cost of resource structures according to their total HP?
-
That would make UEF beyond unplayable.
-
Just did a game on FAF Beta Balance, huge fan of the increased energy storage and adjacency
-
If eco generating buildings were more expensive without providing any more resources it would instantly make that faction garbage
-
The changes to capacity are great! I am enjoying them, as well.
Especially since I forget to build enough power, sometimes.Though, now I get the feeling they should deal slightly more damage when destroyed.
Since they hold double their capacity, we may see a slight decrease in their construction numbers, especially early on in a match.
Where once you needed 3 or 4, now you only need 1 or 2.To compensate, I say their death damage should be increased, especially with the buff to adjacency as well.
To make it a slightly more lucrative strategic target to take out.Specific numbers are to be properly calculated, but I reckon something like a 25% increase in damage would suffice.
1,000 -> 1,250Or maybe even a 50% change.
Heck, double the capacity, double the adjacency;
Then double the risk! Double the damage to 2,000 entirely!
Another thing, correct me if I'm wrong here, but...
Resource structures are not the only structures that could see a benefit with (storage) adjacency.I recall @Jip mentioned that more stats could be adjusted with energy storage adjacency.
IE: Shield recharge time, shield hp, and more.Now that energy storage is being looked at, could we see in the future additional benefits for something like adjacency?
~ Stryker
-
If there is one thing that could almost be universally agreed upon in faf, it’s that shields don’t need to be stronger as a general rule.
