Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread
-
@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. -
@eminence said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
You said it yourself that telemazer only becomes problem on specific maps with specific settings
The "specific" maps and settings are sadly all maps that get to the t3/4 stage of the game and use the matchmaker settings and the balance is made around matchmaker games, since all custom games can use mods if they want to have a different balance.
So Full Share isn't an option when considering balance changes, it's set in stone.@eminence said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
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 cheaperBut cloak is also already pretty good with the last HP buff it got. why would you buff cloak instead of nerfing teleport in this scenario?
Also simple stat nerfs makes it weirdly balanced, since there just isn't really any calculated counterplay to telemazer. You just build random pd everywhere where it's important and you have to do that before someone even attempts to teleport or even before someone even has the upgrade or you wouldn't get up enough defences in time.
So it costs you opponent mass just by you playing cybran, but with a range nerf (personally I'd feel like ~3-4 teles from one setons air base to the next or something would be fine) it allows you better predict where someone could teleport and gives you more time to prepare for it. It also gives you a chance at spotting the tele upgrade earlier, by scouting the ACU in unusually dangerous positions.@relentless said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
adjust the cost and time based on the distance that wants to be traveled?
I think that is also an interesting idea, since it basically soft caps tele distance if it becomes increasingly more expensive and more obvious the further you teleport.
@ftxcommando said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
Hard to make that clear to a player.
I think you can show the e cost and eta next to the cursor when selecting your tele location?
-
@eminence
farms: "Making tele upgrades different per faction is something i want to work to yes. [...] but for now i didn't have the time yet to think about the exact details so [...]"
u: "You make other teleport strategies useless and create yourself more work to balance other teleport units instead." -
Also adding a completely new unit / building such as an anti-tele-tower is the very last option you ever want to do. So if there's another way to balance things (which there is for the tele), there won't be a new building/units most likely.
-
@eminence said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
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.Telemazer doesn't 'only become a problem on specific maps with specific settings'. It only doesn't become a problem on specific maps with specific settings. On the vast majority of gamemodes and maps (again, including all matchmaker modes) telemazer is an issue.
Also see what sladow said
-
Didn't we just recreate the old Scathis problem in a softer version? Tele is kind-of sort-of powerful on smaller maps and useless on larger ones?
-
@mazornoob said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
Didn't we just recreate the old Scathis problem in a softer version? Tele is kind-of sort-of powerful on smaller maps and useless on larger ones?
Probably. Not sure exactly what the 350 range is in practice and will need to test that but I think it’s going to make it virtually useless on most common 20x20 maps. Funnily enough UEF might now have the strongest tele since the Billy doesn’t need to be as close.
Edit: 350 is less than half of the Aeon t3 arty range, so on setons for example you’d have to be starting a land invasion for tele to have any chance at all to work unless the enemy team has really bad intel. On Gap you’d have to own the entire middle section. Basically you’d have to be in scenarios were it’s unlikely you’d want to tele anyway. For how expensive tele is I don’t see tele ever really happening anymore.
