Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread
-
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.
-
TML is 256 range, t3 arties are 825. Easier to think of it as 1.5x a TML. Just grab ACU TML and pretend that’s basically the tele range.
-
The first range comparison that came to mind was arty is 800ish but the tml comparison is better, didn’t remember the range on that.
Anyway, I don’t feel strongly about the tele changes I just think it’s kind of weird how dramatic it is, as it is I feel like I haven’t seen a game ended by tele recently where the team of the person teleporting wins because of it. Feels a bit like taking away something just because.
-
@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?
Not really since tele atm is way stronger on 20km maps than 10km maps. Also the fx change should disproportionally affect 10km maps over 20 km maps
-
Happy with the changes to the Janus. Not so much with the ASF changes.
Very not happy with the tele changes. Agreed that tele at the moment is strong, but max range seems to be too short now.
-
I'm just gonna throw out some knobs for teleport changes that don't involve reducing the range/can be applied on a per faction basis:
- Add ammo, requiring a rebuild of the component after it's been expended
- Only allow teleportation to/from Quantum gate* (so QG -> field, or field -> QG). Alternatively, give quantum gate teleports unlimited range, but add a range restriction for backpacks.
*You have the flexibility here to increase the time required for gate teleports, widening the window for scouting while allowing the return time to be balanced independently.
What percentage of games are fullshare, and what's the priority in balancing this particular mechanic around them? Squaring that circle is going to be tough, akin to adding or removing a unit from Cybran based on victory condition.
-
@slicknixon said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
What percentage of games are fullshare, and what's the priority in balancing this particular mechanic around them? Squaring that circle is going to be tough, akin to adding or removing a unit from Cybran based on victory condition.
Both AstroCrater and DualGap are played NoShare which obvsly are a majority of FAF. However balance doesn't refer to those maps aka isn't directed to it (due to obvious reasons) so I'll leave them out. Seton's is fullshare, but again, balance isn't targeted to that.
TMM is completely played fullshare, so if you check the active TMM-games you can alrdy see how many fullshare games are running. For my personal experience I would say that like 90% of the ""normal"" (aka non-astro|gap|seton's) maps are being played with fullshare now. You can check the "statistics megathread" since there might be a number there, however I couldn't find one by skipping through it.Also keep in mind that balance is around 1v1-3v3 TMM which are fullshare.
-
Sounds like fullshare is the priority then, in which case survivability is secondary.
Primary telemazor balance knobs are therefore:
- range
- upgrade cost
- teleport cost
- mazor attributes
Secondary knobs:
- teleport time
Was there much exploration of changing teleporter balance on a per faction basis (cost, range, etc.), not just in regard to synergistic upgrades?
@relentless, @FtXCommando
For a variable cost, you could have the number popup next to the cursor. Looks cool, very intuitive, technically easy. -
I like the T3 MAA, Vulthoo, T2 Trans, and Air HQ proposed changes.
Not sure about the Teleport, TeleBilly and Janus changes - I would like to see more info on those.
I'm not a fan of the Stinger and ASF proposed changes.
-
T3 MAA
Needed a change going for it.
I'm happy it's going somewhere, here with this buff. -
Vulthoo
Good change. Makes the unit more heavy-duty.
Similar to the Illshy. Also makes up for the lack of a T3 gunship. -
T2 Transports
Their speed is barely changed, but it is lowered.
They felt a little too quick and maneuverable with the last patch's changes.
Good change, even if it isn't much. -
Air HQ:
Positive change in increasing Build Time.
Slowing down T2/T3 air is a good step in reducing the oppressiveness of T3 air. -
Teleport (Range & FX)
I think could be good, but with more twiddling.
Perhaps a small change in teleport time?
The FX changes, I like. However, I would like to see a LOD increase along with it, to make it a tad slightly more visible from a higher camera angle/altitude. -
TeleBilly
I'm looking forward to it, though with this combination, it would now be impossible to Teleport with a T3 suite, in general. Just Tele and T3, I mean.
Which in my opinion is why placing it on the left arm didn't make much sense to me.
However, the other option would be more oppressive (T3, Tele, and Billy), so I can understand that.
But if that's the case, why not move Billy instead of Tele?
So, Tele and T3 can still be a thing as well as Billy and T3 would be possible, but not Tele and T3?
Granted, this could mean other combinations that should not make sense, either. -
Janus
I'm for, but being honest, I feel indifferent about it.
Janus is still the worst Fighter-Bomber and will probably continue to be, even after this change. -
Stinger
I dislike these changes... a lot.
This change feels quite out of the blue as to why they're being changed.
The problem with them was their tracking... was this not fixed with this?
Why are they being changed, now?
Making a unit like the Stinger cheaper is not the way to go.
The only way I can see this change working out is if that one weird idea from Discord of them coming preloaded with a LAB, but even then, it won't make sense. -
ASF
An already oppressive unit made better?
What's the reasoning behind these changes? Performance?
@Jip has improved the game considerably over the last year or two.
Delaying the first ASF? Achieved via the Air HQ BT changes.
If anything, ASF need a nerf as they're too oppressive against T2 and T3 air.
A nerf in damage, at least.
Anywho, just my two cents.
~ Stryker
-
-
@comradestryker said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
ASF changes, an already oppressive unit made better?
What's the reasoning behind these changes? Performance?
Jip has improved the game considerably.
Delay the first ASF? Achieved with the Air HQ BT changes.
If anything, ASF need a nerf as they're too oppressive against T2 and T3 air.
A nerf in damage, at least.I'll try to explain my (mostly own opinion) thought process behind that.
Currently the t3 air meta is just to rush air and scale your airgrid infinitely until you won air, then abuse it. When you have mass, you go t3 mex besides that.
The change is more radical on purpose so we can feel the impact in beta. Goal is to 1) Delay the ASF in general so t1 and t2 air have more time and frontplayers can use them as well for a longer periode 2) Let ASF-fights last a bit longer and 3) Let the airgrid-scaling be more interesting with more conscious decisions you have to make.
Imagine you cannot just scale your airgrid and go mexes besides that, imagine that you really have to think whether you can afford to invest ressources into eco or if you have to build more ASF first.The cost-change is not directly a nerf. It's a shift such as the T2 Sera Gunship. It's better (e.g. hp) but also costs more so you don't have 30ASF at min 16 but like 20.
Please keep in mind that these number - as said before - are a heavy change for the simple reason to see how it affects the airplay in general.
Inactive.
-
I see, that is actually fair reasoning.
But, If I may say, there are other ways, as well.Reducing damage from ASF, increasing Build Time, increasing mass, increasing energy...
Any combination of these could obtain a similar result.Reducing damage would increase ASF fight duration, as you mentioned, and increasing resource costs would obtain the difference between Mexes and Air, as you mentioned.
And increasing build time reduces the number of ASF so you have less ASF at minute 16, as you mentioned.
Yes, I can understand that an overall buff to make it more costly is what you're aiming for,
but I don't think that's the best way to go with ASF.It makes sense how you explained it, yes, but, well... The T3 air dynamic is just all wrong.
I'm happy it is getting some attention here to try and fix it, that's all.
~ Stryker
-
@ComradeStryker
T3 Air in general is an insanely difficult subject because it's far from balanced. If you nerf it too much / in the wrong way, t2 air (which is already insanely strong as well) just becomes even stronger.
See it as an experiment, it's prob not the final product anyway for this patch but just a small step into the direction we're aiming to go.Please do play around with it in beta once it's out and experiment around. Especially when trying something with t1 and t2 air or in general how greedy you can scale / eco. Depending on the results we'll see whether it's the right direction or if we have to go for a different approach.
