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?
-
@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.
-
Will do. Looking forward to that Beta.
If I may ask... and I apologize if it's too soon to tell, but are these all the changes?
I was hoping to see something in regards to the Fatboy, as it was the biggest topic, on both the Forums and Discord for about 3 or 4 weeks.Well, Fatboy and other changes, as well.
~ Stryker
-
@ComradeStryker
Feel free to ask anything you want!
And no, those were definitely not all the changes. The Fatty is definitely a thing I wanna talk about, same with some other important (and tbf quite large) topics.
I can talk only for me here, but I want to talk about the UEF bubbleshield, the mercies, the TML and the Fatty at least. The rest is up to the others, also cannot promise that we get through everything cuz there is a strict deadline. -
Put t3 on uefs backpack so noobs would stop getting the drone upgrade
-
T TheWeakie referenced this topic on
-
Updated the changelog with more detailed explanations.
I also want to point out that there is a reason why this is Faf Beta. It is meant exactly to test out new unit/ability design ideas. Whether the first iteration of the change is balanced or not does not mean it shouldn't be tested out.
Also obviously if it turns out a unit or ability is too strong or too weak in beta we would take another good look at it.
-
@thewheelie said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
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.
It might only be 'my played race syndrome'.
We're all so vulnerable to the impression that the race we prefer are weak, need buffs, and keep getting nerfed, and/or the races we don't are strong, need nerfs, and keep getting buffs.
I recognise that, even though I play ABSOLUTELY balanced (more than always-random: meaning that I cross-off a race when it has randomly been picked more than another), I STILL do it! (I kinda like seraphim, and suggest things like lightning tank being 'fixed' to stop missing, or selen being 'fixed' to not be reclaimed so easily by engineers....)
I think we're ALL massively guilty of this, no matter our noble intentions, and I think it's probably the reason for certain adjustments being seen as 'nerfs' or 'buffs' depending on whether said player prefers UEF or Seraphim.I could be wrong, of course... But I've seen it SO often in SO many games, I really think it's a possible reason here, and not a lot more time needs to be dedicated to figuring it out.
(For clarity - yes, vulthoo is definitely better vs T2 antiair, but worse vs T1 and T3 antiair, including ASFs. The opposite is true for the stinger changes, it seems... Somewhat necessitated by lack of a t3 gunship for sera.
-
Mass efficiency doesn’t matter, the Vulthoos role in the Seraphim toolbox is to be a strong and hardy, albeit inefficient sniping tool that can shrug off flak… I.e. kill a land experimental that’s coming at your base, and get the reclaim anyways. Since they don’t have a T3 gunship they have to use the less mass/hp efficient T2 tech (usually DPS per mass goes down and HP per mass goes up as you tech). But the Vulthoo is like a T2.5 unit, and now it’s more like a T2.75 unit. It only further fleshes out the gap in the Seraphim air force.
-
Debuffed t3 air = nothas spam as hard as u can, specially on maps where 2 mexes are 1 cell apart each other.
