Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread
-
Should just increase build time and cost of all air units of the same tier by % you want to decrease their amount . People mainly use big grids without assist to spam asf and use 1 or 2 factories with heavy assistance when building strats or t3 gunships. So it won't be big nerf to strat building, but will have impact to mass asf spam. And they still be same ol asf that we know without much troubles, that could potentially appear with ground and sea aa, other air tier planes
-
@redx said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
@zeldafanboy said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
The T3 MAA becoming cheaper and more spammable + HP normalization is good. Flak all have the same HP, which is good, although T1 MAA have slightly different HP (And Aeon has the lowest, not Cybran). I guess air gets so much more important the longer the game goes on its only fair for every faction to have identical HP on their land AA.
My understanding is that they are lowering the HP of all the AA, not giving them all the same HP.
It's only for the non-Cybran Factions. Even if they aren't equalizing HP, they are normalizing it.
-
@relentless said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
Whats the determining factor in the teleport range? e.g Is it aimed at 10km maps?
It's hard to imagine the exact impact since it's very map dependant, but it is mostly meant as an impact for 20km maps (since it's usually a lot stronger there since there are more spread out bases and more spots with no vision)
@maudlin27 said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
Don't get why stinger is getting nerfed when it's already bad thanks to missing lots of shots on t1 units. I could see the change if it was combined with the hitbox issue being resolved, but on it's own I find it strange.
@zeldafanboy said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
The T2 air changes are mostly lip curling. Nerfing T2 transport speed again? Making the Stinger even weaker and more spammable so it's even worse against flak? Making the Vulthoo even denser so it's better against flak? Nerfing the Janus spamability? Making ASF even more resistant to ground AA?
The stinger "nerf" is not a nerf for the same reason as the soulripper and bulwark nerfs weren't a nerf but a buff (in different scenario's that is). I think it's quite funny that people instantly see the vulthoo change as a buff even though it technically worsens the stats / mass invested compared to the current version while the stinger more or less stays the same.
T2 transport speed has been untouched for 6 entire years. You make it sound like we're chain nerfing it. Also if you missed it t2 transports got a huge mobility buff in the last patch which makes them way more maneuverable. In combination with the fact that inties still have an incredible hard time to catch t2 transports because they are very dumb with pathfinding makes this a necessary change.
Asf keep the same hp/mass ratio which by nature means that ground aa has the same impact on asf after this change.
@zeldafanboy said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
The T3 MAA becoming cheaper and more spammable + HP normalization is good. Flak all have the same HP, which is good, although T1 MAA have slightly different HP (And Aeon has the lowest, not Cybran). I guess air gets so much more important the longer the game goes on its only fair for every faction to have identical HP on their land AA.
There is no normalization on t3 maa. All non sera factions have very slight differences. Sera t3 maa are unique and should be put seperately in there (cause of different stats) but until gieb gives me permission to edit my own post it stays like this.
@ftxcommando said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
I’d rather factions get diff ranges for their teleports tbh. Aeon and Sera are epic aliens, they get no range limit but they have current expensive teleport. Cyb and UEF work with Earth tech, get a range cap but slightly cheaper teleport or something.
Making tele upgrades different per faction is something i want to work to yes. It makes sense to do it to balance it out, but for now i didn't have the time yet to think about the exact details so i wanted to add the range change to beta and see what impact it has to have a better understanding what changes the factions need.
@eminence said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
Imho if only problem is telemazer, then increase its build time or cost, only for cybran acu,
See above. Also it is not feasible to simply nerf 1 factions teleport without anything in return. The nano upgrades for different factions are of different costs but also of different strengths. We will not have the same strength teleport upgrade with different costs.
-
@ftxcommando said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
I’d rather factions get diff ranges for their teleports tbh. Aeon and Sera are epic aliens, they get no range limit but they have current expensive teleport. Cyb and UEF work with Earth tech, get a range cap but slightly cheaper teleport or something.
What range are you thinking about? It would be cool to have a Late T2-Early T3 teleport with a shorter channeling time, teleport E cost, and price that could allow for tactical sniping instead of strategic sniping. For example, sniping shields to start a fight, teleporting behind a T2 pd to OC it before it can turn around, etc. Or start a fight with rambo com, teleport back when HP is low enough.
-
@thewheelie said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
The stinger "nerf" is not a nerf for the same reason as the soulripper and bulwark nerfs weren't a nerf but a buff (in different scenario's that is). I think it's quite funny that people instantly see the vulthoo change as a buff even though it technically worsens the stats / mass invested compared to the current version while the stinger more or less stays the same.
Well, even if you keep the price-to-cost ratio the same, the reality is that T2 gunships are going to be going up against Flak. And having more, weaker gunships is worse than having fewer, stronger gunships because of AOE. So making the Stinger cheaper and proportionally weaker is a nerf. Making the Vulthoo stronger and proportionally more expensive is a buff.
put the xbox units in the game pls u_u
-
Thelemazer is already the one way ticket in many cases. If the reason of the nerf is to make it even more risky then maybe it makes sense to add cooldown, so the (s)acu could not instantly fly away. What's the point of nerfing features that spice up the gameplay anyway?
I understand that it might be very strong in full-share games, but it is optional setting after all. -
@zeldafanboy said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
Well, even if you keep the price-to-cost ratio the same, the reality is that T2 gunships are going to be going up against Flak. And having more, weaker gunships is worse than having fewer, stronger gunships because of AOE. So making the Stinger cheaper and proportionally weaker is a nerf. Making the Vulthoo stronger and proportionally more expensive is a buff.
I'm not sure, maybe it being only 10% slower than any fighterbomber and thus the fastest gunships in the game while being the cheapest to make gives it some other advantages? You don't think mantis are the worst t1 tank because they have the worst stats (excluding aeon) since 'they are going up against other tanks' right?
@greensubmarine said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
Thelemazer is already the one way ticket in many cases. If the reason of the nerf is to make it even more risky then maybe it makes sense to add cooldown, so the (s)acu could not instantly fly away. What's the point of nerfing features that spice up the gameplay anyway?
I understand that it might be very strong in full-share games, but it is optional setting after all.The most important reason is that it adds counterplay. Right now there is very little interaction in defending against a telemazer other than queueing up lines of pd and hope it works. The max tele range allows you some chances to chase a failed tele attempt (yes they happen often enough).
Full share also isn't optional since all the matchmaker queues use full share as a standard setting.
-
@thewheelie said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
It is not feasible to simply nerf 1 factions teleport without anything in return. The nano upgrades for different factions are of different costs but also of different strengths. We will not have the same strength teleport upgrade with different costs.
Why is it not feasible, and why won't you have the same strength upgrade with different costs? With units you can have a stronger unit that costs less (see Cybran T2 stealth gen vs Aeon T2 stealth gen as an example), why not similar with upgrades? I'd have also thought it less confusing to have the same upgrade cost different amounts than it would be to have the same ability (teleport) have different limitations.
Relieved to hear you'll consider different strength teleport abilities to compensate other factions whose teleport will otherwise be unusuable though (assuming this will be done as part of this patch and not deferred to a subsequent patch).
However, if the most important reason for the teleport change was to add counterplay, I'd note that making the upgrade too weak to be viable (I could see it being worthwhile on a 10km map for Cybran but not in most scenarios where it's currently used in 20km if the cost remains unchanged) effectively removes the counterplay (since there is no play to counter in the first place).
-
Stinger change = nerf cuz decentralizing stats in gunships that need to float to apply their dps is a nerf
Vulthoo change = buff cuz even with losing some efficiency, the stats being stacked in a single entity is a buff for making flak less efficient. -
See above. Also it is not feasible to simply nerf 1 factions teleport without anything in return. The nano upgrades for different factions are of different costs but also of different strengths. We will not have the same strength teleport upgrade with different costs.
Maybe my engrish not good enough, but i never said to nerf teleport for 1 faction. I said to nerf telemazer if you see it as huge problem. It could be done by increasing laser upgrade build time or cost, although you already nerfed damage by 25%. But personally i don't see any problem with telemaser now, i'd say it will become problem when there is no counter play. It is not like faf played only fullshare, it is actually big risk to use telemazer in late game when fullshare is off. If you can rush telemaser early for cheesing your opponent- then it is your skill and opponent's mistake for not scouting or making counter to that, same as nuke rush, strat rush, notha/corsair rush, t3 arty rush.
Must i say that even with laser, teleport and t3 upgrades cybran acu very vulnerable to teledef. Unlike certain telesacu with more than 50k hp and 250 regen. -
@thewheelie said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
I'm not sure, maybe it being only 10% slower than any fighterbomber and thus the fastest gunships in the game while being the cheapest to make gives it some other advantages? You don't think mantis are the worst t1 tank because they have the worst stats (excluding aeon) since 'they are going up against other tanks' right?
You don't send random gunships out and about like that except in 1v1 or MAYBE some really big 2v2. You just risk dumping mass, especially since you can't cover multiple gunships around the map at once with your ints that you need to keep concentrated in any teamgame. Likewise, the speed isn't really comparable to mantis because t2 air in teamgames comes at the point of map control being closed. For you to send your gunships around to waste the time of enemy, you would need to have total air dominance in the game where you are fine with intercepting on his map half.
Maybe it's a slight buff for 1v1? It's really bad for nearly all utility cases in teamgames.
-
new meta incoming:
stingers cheaper & faster + stingers can transport units + T2 trans is slowed down to same speed as stingers
perhaps we are going to see stingers used more for offensive drops
it will be cheaper to stick a t1 engineer on a stinger and just drop it next to mexes that are being raided
or bring 6 stingers each with 1 lobo
This change probably also makes stinger+LAB more viable
-
@thewheelie said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
I'm not sure, maybe it being only 10% slower than any fighterbomber and thus the fastest gunships in the game while being the cheapest to make gives it some other advantages? You don't think mantis are the worst t1 tank because they have the worst stats (excluding aeon) since 'they are going up against other tanks' right?
Well, there is no anti ground weapon that Mantis are fighting with comparable AOE, and you can micro Mantis to dodge with their high speed while still firing. Gunships have to hang above a target to shoot it, and they have no collision so they stack and take lots of AOE damage from the high AOE flak... the move speed just means they can run away from bad fights easier, but that doesn't matter when they suck at fighting in the first place.
-
Is it perhaps possible, since the costing/duration while being in the blueprint is not static in the teleportation logic to adjust the cost and time based on the distance that wants to be traveled?
This would allow teleportation to scale in cost and charge duration with the more distance desired. If someone wants to teleport across a 20km map they can but its going to cost alot more and have a longer delay than a shorter distance.
-
Hard to make that clear to a player.
-
@ftxcommando said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
You don't send random gunships out and about like that except in 1v1 or MAYBE some really big 2v2. You just risk dumping mass, especially since you can't cover multiple gunships around the map at once with your ints that you need to keep concentrated in any teamgame. Likewise, the speed isn't really comparable to mantis because t2 air in teamgames comes at the point of map control being closed. For you to send your gunships around to waste the time of enemy, you would need to have total air dominance in the game where you are fine with intercepting on his map half.
Maybe it's a slight buff for 1v1? It's really bad for nearly all utility cases in teamgames.@zeldafanboy said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
Well, there is no anti ground weapon that Mantis are fighting with comparable AOE, and you can micro Mantis to dodge with their high speed while still firing. Gunships have to hang above a target to shoot it, and they have no collision so they stack and take lots of AOE damage from the high AOE flak... the move speed just means they can run away from bad fights easier, but that doesn't matter when they suck at fighting in the first place.
For those who are curious: https://discord.com/channels/197033481883222026/476200727912644618/1154553519966265475
(discussion about Janus/Stingers/Asf lasts for a little over an hour)@eminence said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
It could be done by increasing laser upgrade build time or cost, although you already nerfed damage by 25%. But personally i don't see any problem with telemaser now, i'd say it will become problem when there is no counter play. It is not like faf played only fullshare, it is actually big risk to use telemazer in late game when fullshare is off. If you can rush telemaser early for cheesing your opponent- then it is your skill and opponent's mistake for not scouting or making counter to that, same as nuke rush, strat rush, notha/corsair rush, t3 arty rush.
Must i say that even with laser, teleport and t3 upgrades cybran acu very vulnerable to teledef. Unlike certain telesacu with more than 50k hp and 250 regen.You are right that telemazer is not too strong in non full share games, but it's impossible to balance a strategy game around all different map sizes, different maps and different gameplay settings. Some sacrifices have to be made in some way or another. Labs are useless on big maps/chokepoint maps. Game enders are useless on small maps. Telemazer is maybe risky on assasination but is OP on full share.
You have to keep in mind though that one of the reasons why you think telemazer is hard to use is because it's so strong that almost everyone auto builds shields and pd as tele defense. As lategame telemazer is around 20k mass (the power you get as overflow from the air player) it isn't uncommon to see 50k mass worth of teledef around the map even if there is no tele scouted. The fact that it's hard to pull of a telesnipe with that doesn't necessarily mean it's weak in that case.
Sera tele sacu might be addressed in the sacu rework.
-
@thewheelie said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
For those who are curious: https://discord.com/channels/197033481883222026/476200727912644618/1154553519966265475
(discussion about Janus/Stingers/Asf lasts for a little over an hour)For some reason I cant access the FAF Discord, invites dont work. Was I banned or something
-
If you wanted to hinder telemazer a bit don't extend the range of the mazer with gun upgrade or have the gun upgrade on the same slot as tele
Stingers should carry flak and if they run into inties or asf drop the flak and watch them get good kills.
-
@thewheelie said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
You are right that telemazer is not too strong in non full share games, but it's impossible to balance a strategy game around all different map sizes, different maps and different gameplay settings. Some sacrifices have to be made in some way or another. Labs are useless on big maps/chokepoint maps. Game enders are useless on small maps. Telemazer is maybe risky on assasination but is OP on full share.
You have to keep in mind though that one of the reasons why you think telemazer is hard to use is because it's so strong that almost everyone auto builds shields and pd as tele defense. As lategame telemazer is around 20k mass (the power you get as overflow from the air player) it isn't uncommon to see 50k mass worth of teledef around the map even if there is no tele scouted. The fact that it's hard to pull of a telesnipe with that doesn't necessarily mean it's weak in that case.
Sera tele sacu might be addressed in the sacu rework.
You should play checkers with such logic.
You said it yourself that telemazer only becomes problem on specific maps with specific settings, but instead of directly balancing laser upgrade, you decide to nerf all teleports in game. You make other teleport strategies useless and create yourself more work to balance other teleport units instead.
If you want to make some sacrifice then to sacrifice less would be more logical. Just increase mass cost of laser upgrade and thats it.
Personally i think combination laser + teleport should become more costly, but cost of laser + cloack should stay the same. So while laser upgrade would become expensive, cloack upgrade should become cheaper, comparable to t2 shield upgrade of aeon com, and cheaper than sera advanced nano. Because it is defensive upgrade but it countered easier than another factions defensive upgrades. -
Or you could simply introduce in faf antiteleport structures from some mods out there and be done with telemazer once and for all. And you would need only balance teleport denial range, building cost and maintenance energy cost of those structures
For example make it increase teleportation cost and time inside of area protected by such structure, instead of complete denial. I think that would solve cheap and low risk telesnipes in fullshare games, while teleport would remain viable option in all kinds of maps and game modes.
