Navigation

    FAForever Forums
    • Login
    • Search
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    1. Home
    2. ComradeStryker
    ComradeStryker

    ComradeStryker

    @ComradeStryker

    16
    Reputation
    81
    Posts
    18
    Profile views
    0
    Followers
    0
    Following
    Joined Last Online

    • Profile
    • More
      • Following
      • Followers
      • Topics
      • Posts
      • Best
      • Groups
    ComradeStryker Follow

    Best posts made by ComradeStryker

    The Problems With The UEF - Part 1 (ACU Bubble Shield Upgrade)

    THE PROBLEMS WITH THE UEF - Part 1 (The ACU Bubble Shield)


    -About Me-

    After debating whether or not to post, and after my buddies finally encouraged me to do so, here I am. Hi, my name is ComradeStryker, or Stryker for short, and we need to talk about the UEF.

    To start off, I would like to share some quick info on myself. I am currently a 1,500-rated player with over 1,100 ranked games with the UEF faction alone. I've been told I have around 1,800 matches played if we include unranked games. Now, I am aware that there are players who have played significantly more games, but I just want to lay out that I do have a bit of experience with the UEF faction.

    I would like to address several areas that I believe would significantly improve the UEF faction from its current iteration. Rather than addressing these concerns in one large post, I have decided to split these into multiple small posts. This will be part 1.

    Just a quick note, I use Advanced Strategic Icons, in case someone is wondering about the weird icons I have.

    This was originally planned to be one significantly large post, but I doubt many of you would want to read almost 8,000 words all at once. So, if anything ends abruptly, I apologize, as my decision to split this article up was made at the last minute, so, I couldn't iron out everything.
    All information was gathered from in-game statistics and cross-referenced with the unit database.


    -Disclaimer-

    These are just some problems I wanted to bring attention to. I am offering my own solutions to these problems, however, I am not a balance team member, nor do I have a large data pool to back up my suggestions; Hence, the balances will likely need some adjustment. There may also be some better ideas to fix these issues, out there - so I encourage you guys to suggest your own ideas as well.

    Now, to get started!


    -The Armored Command Unit (ACU)-

    Problem: Bubble Shield Upgrade, detailed version:

    FtXCommando has already pointed out this issue and I'm here to reinforce it. The UEF's Bubble Shield upgrade is absurdly power-hungry as it costs nearly as much power as a Cybran ACU's Laser upgrade! We're talking about a 50,000 power difference (450,000 to 500,000). This is a huge issue, as the purpose of this upgrade is to allow the Commander to remain on the front lines for an extended period of time and for it to push with some unit support.

    The upgrade itself is meant to be used during the early stages of T3, but because of its power cost, it never gets used as such. The issue is that you need seven, I say again, SEVEN T3 power generators (pgens)(-13,465 E/s) to have this upgrade passively building without powerstalling! Don't even think about assisting the upgrade unless you want your descendants to keep paying the power cost. Just for context, adding in a T1 engineer to assist the Commander with this upgrade will cost you an additional -661 E/s.

    Now, these seven T3 pgens are needed if your Commander has the T3 Engineering Suite upgrade as it provides 100 Build Power (BP) for the ACU. Roughly halve that amount if you have the T2 Suite - still needing about three T3 pgens (-5,788 E/s) to compensate for the upgrade's power. This number seems like a more reasonable power consumption cost if it were a T3 Engineering ACU. Constructing the pgens needed for that upgrade to be usable at its most advantageous time would mean you would have to focus solely on your economy, never mind actually playing the game (building land, air, navy, and structures). It would be made even more difficult to obtain this upgrade if you're trying to manage an entire base, army, and its economy on top of that.

    (This is also a second upgrade, needing the previous upgrade to unlock)

    The power cost should, at the very least, be reduced by half. The Bubble Shield's HP could be altered if need be, but I would say to still offer a large HP boost compared to the first shield upgrade (which provides an extra 19,000 HP) to still make it a lucrative upgrade.


    Now, let's talk about the bubble shield itself. The bubble isn't nearly as big enough as it should be, as only a handful of units can fit underneath it. This is noticeable when the ACU and an escort of units enter combat. The units tend to strafe out of the shield constantly, especially if you're micro-managing (microing) your ACU, which you will be considering you're on the offensive.

    Another factor here is the speed of the ACU and that of the units accompanying it. Every unit is faster than the ACU. Yes, even the Percival. This causes even more issues as when you order them to move to a destination, the units will leave the Commander behind.

    9785e939-a77e-4690-afcb-ea8a9d3df402-image.png
    Image: Shows land units not slowing down for the ACU

    A formation move would help keep all units moving together, but most of the time, it would place the Commander at the far back of the formation or at either side. Even if the ACU was in the middle or at the front, the spacing between units in a formation is too large leaving the majority of them outside of the shield cover.

    fc9ccaf9-9e1f-48a4-b4de-7811064c3ee0-image.png
    Image: Formation 1 - ACU is placed at the back

    3e680f40-f387-4c84-81d7-a3efc61c4c96-image.png
    Image: Formation 2 - ACU is placed on either end

    On top of that, even with a smaller number of units, giving them a formation-move order, then updating or changing that move order will result in the units cluttering around into a pathfinding-wreck, leaving them vulnerable to attacks as they have likely moved out of the ACU's shield cover during that time.

    You may have thought that assisting the ACU may work, as units tend to circle around the assisted unit or structure, this is true. However, in this case, it becomes difficult to move the ACU as it bumps into the units constantly, as they do not change direction as quickly as the ACU does as there is a small delay (between the order given to the ACU and the units assisting the ACU to react). This becomes increasingly more difficult to manage as the size of the formation grows.

    9f931546-8e23-4644-8ab7-83d1b7974063-image.png
    Image: Based on the track marks, you can see that the units are going mayhem. (These units were given an order to assist the ACU. Giving a formation-move order when needing to change directions during combat would have all units bumping into each other, similarly to this assist order

    Adjusting the size of the shield to encompass a larger army would help alleviate most, if not all of these issues.


    Problem: (Bubble Shield Upgrade TL:DR)

    The ACU's Bubble Shield upgrade is very expensive in energy and the shield size is not large enough.

    Proposed Solution:

    Reduce the power cost: 450,000 -> 225,000
    Increasing the shield size to allow the accommodation of a larger army to tag along with the ACU would be of benefit: 16 -> 20


    Thanks for your time!
    Again, I encourage you all to offer your own suggestions.
    I appreciate the feedback.

    I will be posting the next parts over the course of the next few days.
    Sneak peek at part 2: The Billy Nuke

    For now, see you on the battlefield!

    ~ Stryker

    posted in Balance Discussion •
    The Problems With The UEF - Part 2 (ACU Billy Nuke Upgrade)

    THE PROBLEMS WITH THE UEF - Part 2 (The ACU Billy Nuke)


    Welcome back!

    In this post, I would like to bring some attention to the UEF's Billy Nuke Upgrade.
    And, to save some time, let's just head straight into it.


    -Disclaimer-

    These are just some problems I wanted to bring attention to. I am offering my own solutions to these problems, however, I am not a balance team member, nor do I have a large data pool to back up my suggestions; Hence, the balances will likely need some adjustment. There may also be some better ideas to fix these issues, out there - so I encourage you guys to suggest your own ideas as well.


    -The Armored Command Unit (ACU)-

    Problem: Billy Nuke Upgrade, detailed version:

    For a while, I've felt that the UEF's Tactical Nuke could have used an update. Don't just take my word, however - I've gone around and asked players (of varying skills) what their thoughts of this upgrade are and this is what they had to say:

    "Currently, the upgrade is a meme that you only use in team games." - Oblii
    "I never use it, tbh." - Strdxr
    "...it's super easy to counter." - Xeigho
    "Every Billy Nuke you build is that fewer Titans." - snowy801
    "I think it's lackluster... Needs to do more damage in a bigger area and have more health." - Hyp3r2001
    "It's a good meme, that's it." - SpikeyNoob
    "It's just the 3-4 T3 pgens that are a bit outrageous." - Xayo
    "Too expensive to use..." - Prohibitorum
    "...I almost never ever get it as its rarely worth the risk..." - Hot-Soup
    "Too Expensive... by the time you can afford it, it's already too late." - Rikki-Tikki-Tavi
    "... If opponent has brain... billy is completely unusable" - Grimplex

    The Tactical Nuke is a bewildering upgrade. Currently deals 12,252 damage, which is enough to wipe out any Tier 1-3 land unit, however, it has a few large issues, causing it to really not be seen outside of team games. I believe the reason for its rare use is because of its overall high risk with low-impact on the game.

    To start off, the damage fall-off is extraordinarily high. The Billy Nuke deals all of its damage in the inner ring of the reticle; dealing a pitiful 252 damage to anything outside of that inner circle. This makes the upgrade difficult to use, as not only can the missile be destroyed with ease, but if it barely misses its target, it will just tickle it!

    A decrease in the damage fall-off needs to be made, as well as a slight increase to its main damage, so, that even if it misses its intended target, the projectile would still have an effect on it. After all, it is a tactical nuclear warhead.

    Increasing the damage would help get the most out of the cost of this upgrade as it costs a whopping 5,400 mass! Let's not forget the previous upgrade, too! Plus 1,400 mass! On top of that, you have to build the projectile for an additional 3,000 mass. All totaling 9,800 to fire one projectile.
    Almost 10,000 mass and you only get 12,000 damage out of it and we're not counting the mass needed to build the power generators to obtain said upgrade.

    4b56474a-f98f-477b-a1d7-a545c09e9a47-image.png
    Image: Shows where Billy Nuke damage is applied against Brick test subjects.

    d50c7a03-92b9-47b2-a0e3-a5c9817cd78c-image.png
    Image: Shows HP remaining from an enemy unit stationed in the outer ring.

    The upgrade and projectiles themselves are already expensive on power, so I believe that by increasing the damage the projectile deals, it would counter-weigh its power cost, making it worth the investment if it manages to land one hit, even if multiple are fired.

    Since the Billy Nuke is easy to counter, a small increase in its projectile HP would be of benefit. This would also help counter-balance the upcoming Buff to Tactical Missile Defenses (TMD) as they were buffed to counter cruiser missiles, which offsets the balance against The Billy. Again, it can tank three hits from a TMD with the fourth destroying the projectile. This makes it incredibly punishing to use as any shield will block its damage and it takes only two TMDs to destroy it. Aeon, on the other hand, only needs one TMD as the flare completely deflects the projectile.

    Because of this, the projectile should explode upon destruction. However, instead of dealing full damage when destroyed, it would deal a portion of the damage. This would still keep it deadly and would make it viable to use against navies or very shielded targets.

    Since we are talking about a nuclear projectile, I would also like to bring some attention to unused audio lines that have been found in the game files. Specifically audio lines numbers 202 & 203. Unfortunately, I cannot link or post them here as the forum does not take .MP3 files, however, audio line 202 warns "Enemy Nuke Inbound" & audio line 203 notifies "Strategic Missile Destroyed".

    I believe these two audio lines can be brought back and used in conjunction with this new Billy Nuke change. Considering its new damage output, it will be deadly to unshielded enemy Commanders, bases, and armies. When the projectile is fired, line 202 should be activated to warn enemy players and line 203 can be used to notify the player that the projectile has been destroyed.

    (Audio line 202 should be edited to say "Tactical Nuke Inbound".
    Line 203 could get annoying if the enemy Commander keeps firing them progressively, so this line could be left out.)


    Problem: (Billy Nuke Upgrade TL:DR)

    Billy Nuke missile lacks HP, projectile damage is low compared to its high-risk and investment costs, and damage fall-off is ridiculously high.

    Proposed Solution:

    Projectile HP increase: 4 -> 6 (Edit: 5)
    Projectile explodes upon expiration.
    Direct damage increase: 12,252 -> 15,000 (Edit: 13,000)
    Fall-off area damage increase: 252 -> 10,000 (Edit: 5,000)
    Add warning to enemy players when the projectile is fired.


    Thanks for your time!
    I encourage you all to offer your own suggestions.
    I appreciate all the feedback I can get.

    I will continue to post the next parts over the course of the next few days.
    Sneak peek at part 3: The Parashield

    For now, see you on the battlefield!

    ~ Stryker

    posted in Balance Discussion •
    The Problems With The UEF - Part 6 (The Kennel & Drones)

    THE PROBLEMS WITH THE UEF - Part 6 (The Kennel & Drones)


    Hi everyone!

    Today I would like to talk about the Kennel and its drones.
    In extension, the shoulder drones for both the UEF ACU and SACU.

    I won't quite get into specifics on mass efficiency or Build Power efficiency as FtXCommando has already covered Kennels Vs. Hives in one of their previous posts with great detail. So, go view that one, too!

    But the main gist will still be tackled.
    This one is a little long, so bear with me.


    -Disclaimer-

    These are just some problems I wanted to bring attention to. I am offering my own solutions to these problems, however, I am not a balance team member, nor do I have a large data pool to back up my suggestions; Hence, the balances will likely need some adjustment. There may also be some better ideas to fix these issues, out there - so I encourage you guys to suggest your own ideas as well.


    -Structures-

    Problem: The Kennel (Engineering Station) & Drones, detailed version:

    Kennels are a fantastic unit, they produce flying engineer drones that can move anywhere on the map! In terms of Engineering Stations, they are quite similar to the Hive and its variants, so I will focus on its comparison with the Cybran structure.


    Structure Wreckage Values

    To start off, I would like you guys to take a look at the image below:

    4a39b00b-51d6-4792-b510-802cf2336d73-image.png
    Image: Shows reclaim values for each tier of engineering station for both Cybran and UEF.

    Notice a problem? If you haven't, allow me to assist.

    What we are looking at specifically is the wreckages of each Engineering Station. On the top row, we have the Hive and each of its tier's wreckage values. On the bottom row, we have the UEF and its variants.

    Notice how the base Kennel's wreckage is worth 446 mass, yet the upgraded variant is worth a little bit less at 405.

    Before I go on, I would like to quickly point out that a max upgraded Hive and a max upgraded Kennel are worth the same in terms of mass investment. Both require 1050 mass total.

    Now, with this information, the wreckage of the upgraded Kennel should be valued at around 810 to 892 mass. Or, for balance's sake, at least the same as the max upgraded hive; valued at 851 - since you are investing the same amount of mass.


    Drone HP

    If you are unfamiliar, drones are classified as air units. Air units that have 6 HP each - across all Tech stages. This means anything with AA (with the exception of ASF) can shoot at them; and with their low HP, they will be destroyed easily. I'm specifically mentioning this as even a T3 drone has 6 HP. Yes, 6 HP at the T3 & T4 stage.

    The drone's range and ability to be used anywhere is severely held back by their HP.
    I will explain in more detail further below.


    Drone Rebuild Time & Cost

    It takes almost 40 seconds for a Kennel to rebuild a drone. The Kennel requires 6 mass and 66 energy per second to rebuild it during that timeframe.

    Doing the math, that's about 240 mass and 2,640 energy to rebuild a drone. (According to the database, a drone is valued at 250 mass & 2,500 energy.)

    So, this is a problem as losing the Build Power for almost 40 seconds is already a huge penalty. Why must the user also pay for the drones each time they are destroyed, as well?

    On top of this, the Upgraded Kennel only rebuilds one drone at a time, needing 80 seconds to rebuild both drones. Another issue here is that you cannot even assist the Kennel in rebuilding its drones - so it's a static 40 to 80 seconds at all times!!!


    Drone Speed & Assist Range

    Though this isn't quite an issue as the other problems mentioned, but, I would still like to touch on it.

    The assist range of a drone makes swapping between assisting units, structures, factories, and more, quite lengthy and wacky. Currently, its range matches that of a T1 engineer; This makes the drone fumble around needing to re-adjust its heading, height, and the direction it's facing when swapping assist orders, then it has to move as well.

    If this was increased to that of a T3, or even just a T2 engineer, it would make the drones a little more viable to use in bases. More than accounting for the awkwardness drones have. As they will swap and start assisting a little bit quicker, not wasting time on the movement.

    Below, we are comparing the range of a Kennel's Drone to that of a T3 engineer.

    3cbc6385-e583-479a-82e7-14a1413104be-image.png

    Image: Comparing the range of Drone (Inner dark brown circle) to T3 Engineer (Outside golden circle) with a base as reference.

    In theory, it does make up for this 'short range' with its ability to fly; However, then its speed comes into question. Its max speed, as stated by the database is "3-4".

    8fb20013-2a44-45fb-9fa2-c8ebcf8b7fd8-image.png

    Image: Stats of a Kennel Drone, specifically, focusing on the speed stat.

    Its assist-range ability is greatly affected by its speed as it cannot swap between structures as fast as the Hive - which can swap INSTANTLY between anything in its range.


    Reclaim Action

    A hive is able to reclaim incoming Moving units
    Let's be real, we've all done it once or twice in games when it's getting tight.

    Incoming Experimental? Suck it up and leave its wreckage as a statue to remember this victory!

    28f098ae-0578-4ce9-a07d-d64cb9162260-image.png
    Image: Standing wreckage of an unlucky GC that attacked a base with Hives as T4 PD

    However, drones cannot reclaim units that are moving. I believe this is an engine limitation, but I'm still mentioning it in case anyone can explain why this isn't possible.


    I can see a few possible solutions to these problems; Option 3 was offered by Oblii (2100), so credit for that idea goes to them.

    • Option 1: Make the Kennel drones far cheaper, or even free, to rebuild.
      Lower the rebuild time significantly.

    • Option 2: Increase the survivability of the drone.

    • Option 3: Increase the HP by a significant amount, but impose restrictions.


    Option 1:
    Decreasing the time needed to rebuild the drones would make it so a player goes less time without needing to rebuild their BP.

    Decreasing their cost would make it so the user doesn't need to pay multiple times per drone each time they are destroyed as they are very fragile and quite expensive in numbers. You can easily lose 10 drones, costing you 2,500 mass, and 25,000 energy!


    Option 2 (A):
    An option here is to increase their HP. This will help them significantly.
    It will make it more difficult to lose a drone to any form of AA as well as lose them to excess splash / AoE damage.

    For example: If your drones are under a shield (specifically near the edges of the shield), and anything with AoE attacks, (Strats, T2 & T3 static and mobile arty, etc.) There is a high chance that damage spills into/through the shield which then destroys the drones.


    Option 2 (B):
    A suggestion that was offered to me was that the drones fly a little higher to prevent splash from hurting them. This can be useful in all Tech stages of drones but would benefit the ACU shoulder drones mostly, especially in the early stages of T1.


    Option 3 (A):
    Increase the HP of the drones significantly to allow them to be used with more confidence. However, to balance this, add a 'leash' - or limit their range - so they cannot fly everywhere.


    Option 3 (B):
    Similar to the previous option, but instead of limiting their range, a fuel bar is imposed. Requiring the drones to refuel at their stations every few minutes.


    Drone BP:

    (This section may be disregarded if the Nerf to the hive goes through.)

    I believe their drone's BP should be increased. Compared to the Hive - which can upgrade itself twice, effectively tripling its BP, it's lacking!!

    Now, I understand that you need to pay for the flying ability and the range that Drones offer, as they can move anywhere, but sacrificing so much BP for that seems strange. Right now, Kennels cost 550 mass to build and a Hive costs 350 mass to build. Both produce the same BP: 25. The Kennel can be upgraded for 500 mass to double its BP, which now totals 50, and the Hive can upgrade itself twice for 350 mass each time, for a total of 75 BP.

    Essentially, both will cost you a total of 1050 mass. However, one provides you with 50 flying BP while the other provides you with 75 static BP. So, you're paying the same mass cost for 33% less BP.

    By increasing the BP of the drones just slightly, they will have more of a chance to compete with Cybran Hives. Though you will still lack enough BP to keep Hives as the king of assistance in the immediate area where they operate in. This small increase in BP should balance itself out with the fact that Drones can be destroyed by almost every unit that has anti-air and by the higher drone and structure costs.


    Suggestions:

    I recommend all drones be immune to damage whilst they are docked as any form of (AoE) damage will destroy them.

    This can be witnessed on the ACU and SACU Drones as they will be destroyed by damage from another (support) commander's main weapon, T1 mobile artillery, overcharge, T1 bombers, Strats (Their AA capability), etc.

    Heck, even an Interceptor can also shoot the drones off of a Commander's back!

    AoE damage can also be noticed if a T1 bomber ground fires the area where a drone / or a group of drones are operating in, the AoE will damage and destroy the drones.


    A quality-of-life suggestion would be that, if we are to take advantage of the drone and its ability to fly, they should be allowed to reclaim wreckages with just a Patrol or Attack-move order. This would encourage drone use outside of just bases.

    Though, the HP again, would be an issue.


    On a separate note, I suggest that the Kennel get its own T3 variant. In the FAF database, the upgraded Kennel is classified as a T3 structure. It would be favorable for the Kennel if you could build the upgraded variant when you have a T3 Engineer or T3 Suite, saving you some time from managing upgrades as these upgrades take longer than Hive upgrades. It'll still cost the same resources and whatnot, but it would also give the Kennel some more compete-ability against the Hive as in typical Cybran fashion, they are more favored.


    Problem: Kennel Drones / Drones: TL:DR

    All drones the UEF has in its arsenal are in need of rebalancing.
    The Kennel itself as well as its drones have a few flaws that are in need of re-adjusting.


    Proposed Solutions:


    All drones:

    Invulnerable whilst docked (Kennel Station, ACU, SACU).
    Allow all drones to reclaim like standard engineers (Patrol & Attack Move)

    As for what Option 2 (B) says:
    Operational elevation increase: 3 -> 8?

    For reference, a T1 Interceptor flies at an elevation of 18. This would help avoid random ground splash damage from killing the drone(s). But not too high to where they float above/outside of shields.


    ACU Drones:

    HP increase: 6 - > 51

    This would make it so ACU drones take 2 shots from an Intie before dying but still keep their HP low enough so that T1 AA can deal with it with ease. They're already worth quite a lot - as much as a T1 Transport each. Having them with a bit more HP would help in their survivability.

    Rebuild time reduction:
    It takes longer to rebuild the drone than it is to get the upgrade again.


    SACU Drones:

    HP increase: 6 - > 201
    Increase speed of drone: 4 -> 5

    In the T3 Stage, even with 200 HP, anything will kill them with ease. But this would help again, with random Splash that hurts them. For example, a Spy Plane or an ASF's crash's damage won't just send them to oblivion.

    As for the speed, having it increase would compliment the Kennel drones when they are tasked on a mission, having one slower than the other would be counterintuitive.

    Rebuild time reduction:
    It takes longer to rebuild the drone than it is to get the upgrade again.


    Kennel & Drones:

    Increase the wreckage value of T3 Kennel: 406 -> 851
    Increase the assist range to match a T3 engineer.
    Increase speed of drone: 4 -> 5
    (Fixes issue with drone fumbling, compliments SACU drone speed change.)

    Option 1:
    250 Mass -> 50 Mass (Free?)
    2,500 Energy -> 500 Energy (Free?)
    Rebuild Time: 40 seconds -> 7 seconds
    (10 seconds or more would still feel quite long and 5 seconds may be a little short. 7 would be a good middle ground.)

    Option 2:
    Increase drone HP: 6 -> 151.
    This would help in sending drones out to get reclaim or whatnot in the T2 and T3 stages as well as make it slightly more difficult to lose them.

    Option 3: (A)
    Increase drone HP: 6 -> 501
    Max Range ∞ -> 256 (Same range as a TML)

    Option 3: (B)
    Increase drone HP: 6 -> 501
    Fuel Capacity: 10 Minutes

    Suggestions:
    Allow the blueprint for an upgraded T3 Kennel to be built in the T3 Suite.
    Allow passive reclaim via Patrol or attack-move order.


    My thoughts on option 3 (A & B):

    The high HP would make them quite useful for front-line use. With this HP, the drones would be far weaker than gunships, (flak would 3 or 4 shot them) but still enough to make inties and "Swift Winds' (Aeon T2 Combat Fighter) not one-shot them which would increase their utility and enforcing more aggressive actions with drones.

    However, I would prefer Option 3 (B), as even without fuel, the drone could still fly around and utilize its range. This can be useful in larger maps like Seton's when you want to send out the drones to reclaim in the middle of the pond(s), risking air and navy fire.

    That being said, I still believe Option 1 is the best overall as it doesn't change the fundamentals of the drone itself and how it's used.

    Being honest, Option 3 (A) is quite extreme, to me. And imposing range restrictions would make the point of paying for the Kennel's range ability, quite dull. But the huge HP increase would likely make up for the fact.

    Though I am slightly opposed on imposing limitations on range; I am still sharing it with you all as it seems like a great idea that could be further expanded upon. With obvious balances, of course.

    Having a drone with 500 HP would likely mean a hefty change or nerf elsewhere.


    Thank you!
    I encourage you all to offer your own suggestions.
    I appreciate the feedback.

    Next post on Friday!
    Sneak peek at part 7: The Ravager

    For now, see you on the battlefield!

    ~ Stryker

    posted in Balance Discussion •
    RE: The Problems With The UEF - Part 1 (ACU Bubble Shield Upgrade)

    @ftxcommando

    UEF best faction!

    ~Stryker

    posted in Balance Discussion •
    RE: The Problems With The UEF - Part 3 (The Parashield)

    @spikeynoob

    You are correct, the mod's versions stats are a bit off and need to be reduced - it is difficult to visualize numbers without actual gameplay or without physically seeing them in action.

    After some tests, I have adjusted the stats a bit in this post.

    (Side note: The Billy Nuke damage is a little off, too, haha.)

    Thanks again for being a legend, Spikey!

    ~ Stryker

    posted in Balance Discussion •
    RE: The Problems With The UEF - Part 2 (ACU Billy Nuke Upgrade)

    @barry_whiter

    increase the maximum speed of the projectile.

    I honestly didn't think of that. That is actually quite smart.

    Though, I believe we would still have issues with the damage AoE.
    The fall-off damage is still quite high, in my opinion.

    Originally, I had it at 10,000 but after seeing some tests, I think this could be toned down to 5,000 or less. This way, it would still damage units on the outside ring.

    Still need to conduct more tests to have a more balanced option.

    But, yeah, An increase in speed would be quite useful actually.
    Thanks for the feedback. I really do like that idea.

    ~ Stryker

    posted in Balance Discussion •
    The Problems With The UEF - Part 5 (The Bulwark)

    THE PROBLEMS WITH THE UEF - Part 5 (The Bulwark)


    Hi everyone. Thanks for sticking with me throughout these posts.

    Today, we will tackle the Shield Boat. I would like for us to focus mainly on the shield itself and how it interacts with the environment, but I will also be offering a nerf / buff as well. The nerf / buff is more so of a secondary change. So, please keep this in mind. Thanks! Now let's get to it.


    -Disclaimer-

    These are just some problems I wanted to bring attention to. I am offering my own solutions to these problems, however, I am not a balance team member, nor do I have a large data pool to back up my suggestions; Hence, the balances will likely need some adjustment. There may also be some better ideas to fix these issues, out there - so I encourage you guys to suggest your own ideas as well.


    -Navy-

    Problem: The Bulwark (Shield Boat), detailed version:

    The Bulwark is a strong support unit. Very strong if paired with almost any other navy unit, in fact. However, it comes with a drawback. I understand that the shield range is meant to be large to accommodate the navy underneath as well as to allow enemy units the opportunity to get underneath it and destroy the shield boat, but, the issue here is that the shield size is very misleading. To explain this, I will be using the following terms: 'Actual range', 'Visual Range', and 'Usable range'.
    Below you will find an image showcasing each ring and its position.

    4323a2f8-7e30-4334-b2e7-d2972b503327-image.png
    Image: Shows the range of the Bulwark's shield with custom terms.

    When you select a Bulwark, you will notice the shield's range ring; the light-brown or cream-colored circle. I will be dubbing this term the Actual Range - A novice player may see that it extends a certain distance away from the unit and based on that range, may think that the shield would cover a unit up to this point - it does not.

    If we zoom in to see the shield render, you will instead see that the shield hits the seafloor - Visual Range - before it reaches its maximum shield range. Again, a novice player may see the physical shield extend a certain distance away and would think that it would cover a unit near the edge of this marker - It does not cover surface ships, but it does extend past the surface down to the 'Actual Range'. Here it would offer some protection to subs.

    Now for the 'Usable Range'. The shield size covers about 34 units (distance) away from the actual unit before it hits the surface. Up to the red ring's range is where any surface ship would be protected.

    Instead of having a shield with a large diameter (currently it reaches up to 120 units (distance) away), it would have a smaller diameter to make the shield steeper at the edge to match its usable range.

    3d5eb536-a959-47bc-ba8f-2321b84e57e6-image.png
    Image: Frigate is positioned so the Bulwark's shield covers the back half of it, Attack Submarine is in front of the Frigate but is still covered by the shield. Support ACU is further in front of the Attack Submarine on the seafloor yet is still covered by the shield

    As you can see, the shield is quite misleading.
    This shield is still a little large as it was exaggerated to showcase a point.


    I will now like to show what I believe would be a more reasonable shield adjustment.

    383baa31-aea6-4a3a-a140-679c8b38566b-image.png
    Image: Shows new shield range of Shieldboat.

    2df045bc-55d5-48ce-856b-5adfdcc5ab2e-image.png
    Image: Shows a side view of the new shield adjustment. I apologize for the weird shield height, I am still new to modding;

    This shield modification has a range of 88, which is in between its current surface range (34) and its maximum range (120). Here we can see that the shield is significantly steeper when it collides with the water surface and the seafloor. This will fix the issue with the current shield as this will no doubt clear up any confusion about where the Shield Boat can and cannot cover.


    On a different note, the Shield Boat is quite the unit to face, especially in late navy engagements or in large numbers. I recommend that the Shield Boat's energy cost be adjusted to better represent the unit. It's a strong unit, after all. Increasing the energy cost by just 1,000 would mean only 2 more seconds from one T2 Pgen's power output. So it would not become too expensive - even in the early T2 navy stage.

    Why increase the energy cost and not the mass cost? Well, In my experience, the mass cost is already where it needs to be, especially in relation to global T2 and T3 navy. It's already over half the cost of a destroyer. Increasing its energy cost just a tad, as well as increasing the build time to mirror will help to better balance the unit in early T2 all the way into late T3 navy engagements.

    To help balance this small nerf, I suggest that it get some light torpedoes and torpedo defense. This would help the UEF in its infamous torpedo problem. Not so much so that it is strong or that it matches the Cooper (UEF T2 Torpedo Boat) but instead mirrors the Valiant (UEF T2 Destroyer). This would alleviate some pressure as the UEF has a difficult time dealing with subs of any sort unless you have a few Coopers to take on the task. This would help buy time in navy mixes without anti-sub capabilities.


    Problem: (The Bulwark's Shield TL:DR)

    The Bulwark's Shield is quite misleading and would be of benefit to be adjusted.

    The unit has a strong influence in combat, so its energy cost should be adjusted to reflect that.
    The unit is defenseless; some light torpedos and torpedo defense should be added in.

    Proposed Solution:

    Decrease shield range: 120 -> ~70 & adjust shield height, and size.
    Add light torpedo defense to help fend off small attackers that get under its shield.
    Increase energy cost: 13,000 -> 14,000
    Increase build time: 5,200 -> 5,400


    Thanks for your time!
    Unfortunately, this change isn't implemented in the mod, just yet.

    Again, I wanted to focus mainly on the shield rather than the changes to the unit itself.

    I encourage you all to offer your own suggestions.
    I appreciate the feedback.

    To not bombard you guys with posts, I will now be posting on Fridays and Mondays.
    Only about 5 more posts! Haha! Just a few structures to talk about and then the infamous Experimentals!
    Sneak peek at part 6: The Kennel

    For now, see you on the battlefield!

    ~ Stryker

    posted in Balance Discussion •
    RE: The Problems With The UEF - Part 5 (The Bulwark)

    @Javi

    Perhaps I am focusing more on one faction... But I'm trying my best to keep things balanced overall - though I am not perfect... Hence the disclaimer I place before every post.

    That being said, it seems that you have a lot to say, so I look forward to reading your posts on improving other factions.


    ~ Stryker

    posted in Balance Discussion •

    Latest posts made by ComradeStryker

    RE: The Problems With The UEF - Part 6 (The Kennel & Drones)

    @ftxcommando

    How would it be quite the change? Why would I build an engie station to get reclaim which can die to some dude that is putting 6 mass a second into int spam? The HP buff does essentially nothing useful for survivability, it means my drones will die when the int does a turn rather than as soon as the int gets into range. It's nice in terms of making it less frustrating for a gust of wind to cripple your eco balance, but you're still keeping the kennels in base on your actual win conditions not dicking around on the map.

    I think you may be mistaking the changes I offered. They are quite a lot of changes, so, lets see if I can clear it up:

    The ACU shoulder drones would have 51 HP, instead of 6. This would just make it so - as you said - 'a gust of wind' doesn't cripple them.

    Kennel drones should get about 151 HP so they can still survive the T2 stage if they decide to be used outside of a base - for reclaim purposes or just whilst traveling in general.

    SACU drones would only get 201 HP so they don't die to random AoE in the late stages. I've seen a Spy plane crash right in the middle of a bunch of drones and bam, there goes all my Build Power. Both Kennels and T3 Drones.

    That's the HP difference - it's only to prevent them from dying to random AoE... Anything direct would still be well, dreadful for you, but would still be a good counter to flying drones.


    The other changes, though, would still benefit the Kennel, regardless if it's being compared to the Hive. The Rebuild time is a definite problem, and that needs to be tacked. The rebuild cost, as you said, isn't a huge issue, but you're still paying so much for a unit that you already built. Making payments on top of that is an insult to injury.

    Allowing them to reclaim with a patrol or attack move order would make them more viable as engineers too... this would also encourage using drones outside of your base and to utilize the range that they provide.

    As for the other options, those are still questionable to me - as limiting the range is detrimental to the Kennel as it's the only perk the Kennel has over the Hive - but I offered them in hopes someone could expand on them with more balance in mind.

    I wouldn't reduce the BP, I'd just make it more expensive. I would disagree, there is definitely a premium you can attach to the utility of hive where you can tradeoff decisions between hive/kennel. But that's mostly me looking at it from a teamgame point of view. I assume if both have a tradeoff against the other, it would still be healthy in a 1v1 just the same. Currently you just never really make a kennel in a 1v1.

    Yeah, and that's an issue with how they work. Options 3 A & B would work well in 1v1s!
    It would encourage the production of drones - much alike Sparkies - and would encourage them to be used away from your base.

    In team games, this would not work as well, but it would still be an option available to the player - though again, I'm not for the range limitations.

    When does it depend on the situation? Floating mass is always an issue and that's a gigantic component to why kennels are trash; you are required to float mass while hives are not.

    My apologies for the typo. I meant "Floating mass may not be an issue..."
    But yes, it does depend on the situation as even if you are mass stalling, diverting the mass into a unit or structure could be the difference between you winning or losing the game.

    If you're mass stalling already, and you lose your drones - it's not neccisarrily true that you will be floating mass. For 1, you could still be mass stalled, and you were just diverting the mass into an experimental or some other structure like a Nuke, or for 2, you do start to store mass, but in 40 seconds, I doubt that is enough time for you to float it to your teammates. By the time the mass BP returns, you can spend it all the same, again.

    But I agree with your overall point, Kennels are quite bad, at least with some minor changes that I offered, they won't be as bad as they are now. Though, again, I don't think they will ever compare to the Hive - they may come close but likely never match it.

    At least... not unless a dire rework is made to them. But I doubt that would happen.

    To me, I just say keep the Kennels as they are, just make them less of a hassle to use. Improve the quality-of-life of them a bit more and they would be far better than their current iteration.


    ~ Stryker

    posted in Balance Discussion •
    RE: The Problems With The UEF - Part 6 (The Kennel & Drones)

    @rowey

    @ComradeStryker https://github.com/FAForever/fa/pull/4132 Fix for the Wreckage Mass Discrepancy

    👍


    ~ Stryker

    posted in Balance Discussion •
    RE: The Problems With The UEF - Part 6 (The Kennel & Drones)

    @veteranashe

    When hives, engines due they leave wreckage, so your now gone BP can at least get mass back.

    The HP is so low on drones that they will always be overkilled and never leave wreckage enen if they are set too. At least if one dies you can reclaim the wreckage for some mass back like other forms of BP.

    You make a good point. At least this way the mass can be gathered back.

    I've built plenty of drones, engies are mostly better and more useful.

    Engineers will always be more efficient, too. But the travel time of drones is quite nice, too.


    ~ Stryker

    posted in Balance Discussion •
    RE: The Problems With The UEF - Part 6 (The Kennel & Drones)

    @ftxcommando

    Basically all of these suggestions do nothing and keep kennel irrelevant because hives being able to instantly swap bp while being cheaper means they’re superior in 99% of situations.

    I would argue that these changes will at least make the Kennel a far more viable option overall. It'll have its own strengths over the Hive. The Hive would still be the "King of assistance" but at least the Kennel would have some strengths of its own, as well.

    Specifically if the cost reduction, rebuild time reduction, and the Patrol/Attack-move order goes through. That last one would be quite the change, actually.

    This would make it a far more competitive and balanced option rather than a one-sided story, as it is right now.

    Really all engie stations need is a hive nerf so it has the mass efficiency of kennels and maybe making kennels slightly more mass efficient so that there exists some tradeoff between the sheer utility of hive and the objectively worse translation of bp that drones provide.

    Even with the BP reduction of the Hive (if it even goes through) it would still keep the Kennel out of the equation as the drones would not be as effective as the Hive.

    Like the engie stations costing mass to rebuild drones isn’t the problem because the removal of drones means you’re now floating mass with nothing to do. I’d rather the stations had the bp to make a drone in 3 seconds given I had the resources to rebuild them (which I will since all my bp just died).

    Well, this would depend on the situation as well - but losing drones overall is quite a penalty at 40 seconds per drone. Floating mass may not be an issue but having the drones to divert the mass (even if you're stalled) is still a benefit.


    ~ Stryker

    posted in Balance Discussion •
    RE: The Problems With The UEF - Part 6 (The Kennel & Drones)

    @maudlin27

    My thoughts on the proposed solutions:
    Fixing wreckage values - sounds like a bug so fixing would be good
    Increasing height the drones operate at - good idea
    Allowing them to function similar to normal engineers with patrol and attack-move - good idea

    Glad you like the suggestions. I do think they need the Patrol/Attack-Move order as this would make them far more versatile at getting reclaim but they would also need a small increase in HP to help in this. Just enough to lower the risk of them dying but not enough to where they're too tanky.

    HP increase - Also a reasonable idea in moderation. I'd prefer a consistent HP across all drones rather varying by drone which is more confusing; A t1 engineer is 150 health so I'd put it slightly below this at somewhere between 50-100 health, so it still dies quickly to T1 AA

    Though I agree that they need an HP increase, I beg to differ that they shouldn't have different HP. There are only 3 drone variants in the game. One for each tech level. Depending on the game, it would be easily identifiable to know which drones you are facing depending on the time and what your opponent has.

    The 3 levels are drones are as follows:
    T1: ACU Shoulder Drones
    T2: Kennel Drones
    T3: SACU Drones

    With this, again, it's not that difficult to know which drone you are facing.
    Having all drones with 6HP across all tech stages makes them quite difficult to use. This is why I offered reasonable HP increases per tech stage. Max of 201 HP at T3.
    T1 would have 51 HP - enough to survive one pass by a T1 intie, T2 Would have about 151 HP, enough to survive random splash that hurts them, and T3 would just be a slight increase on top of that but enough so that they don't die to random AoE, too.

    Speed increase to 5 - again if changing this then make it consistent for all of them
    Build time reduction - also agreed, current time feels far too long
    Resource cost reduction - Agreed; I dont think it should be free, but the 80% reduction proposed seems fine

    Glad to hear you support these changes, too. Though I agree completely, having free drones would make it so there isn't much of a penalty when you lose them aside from making them respawn at their Stations a few seconds later.

    I'm not keen on the fuel mechanic though, it adds extra complexity and deviates from the original FAF game, and I dont think it's really needed, since even with a speed increase to 5 the drones would be so slow that they could be easily shot down if moving far away. If this was a concern I'd just scrap the speed increase or adjust the cost of building the drones by a smaller amount (to say 60% reduction).

    I'm not for the range limitations either as that's literally the only advantage they have over Hives, currently. Limiting that hurts the Kennel more and I say they need all strengths as they can.

    But yeah, any air unit can catch up to them - they are quite slow.

    Overall if they were changed I think the changes should be consistent across drones - i.e. drones should all function the same way in terms of speed, health, and cost to rebuild

    What about the mass investments of a T1 drone compared to a T3 drone?
    The mass difference is quite large, and I wouldn't like losing a T3 drone.

    T1 drones cost 120 mass each, T2 drones cost 250 mass, and T3 Drones cost 380 mass. All with 6 HP. I'd expect at the very least a reasonable increase for HP at each tech level. For the mass cost that you're investing at least.


    Thanks for the support! Hope to hear more from you on this.
    Hopefully, at least a few of these changes go through.


    ~ Stryker

    posted in Balance Discussion •
    RE: The Problems With The UEF - Part 6 (The Kennel & Drones)

    @blackyps

    Having a fuel mechanic on the drones increases complexity, but I don't see what current problem that would solve?

    It was just a suggestion offered to me. To counter this, the HP of the drone would be increased to 500 - which would make them far more useful on front lines or whatnot.

    This would give them more versatility, but yeah, I'm still opposed to limiting their range.

    It seems like it can be a good idea if implemented properly hence why I shared it even though I'm against it. Hopefully, someone can see something here where I can't and they could expand more on this.


    ~ Stryker

    posted in Balance Discussion •
    RE: The Problems With The UEF - Part 6 (The Kennel & Drones)

    @veteranashe

    I haven't seen kennel drones die to inties much because they are out later in the game where inties are not around as much.

    This can mainly be seen very early on in the T1 stage of the game where ACU drones are flying about.

    I don't build kennels because they die to Artie's too much and they have been balanced equally to engies, and they are just better except for clumping and travel time.

    You should still build them - their range is quite good and a lot of plays can be done with them - as long as you're very careful with them. But if you have the option, definitely take Hives over drones. They're just better in almost every way.

    Build radius doesn't matter since they don't clump up, engies do and that's why a t3 has slightly bigger build radius so to ease clumping around a factory.

    Fair point, but increasing their range just a tad would help in movement and assisting around a base. I think this is a nice change over engies as they don't have an engineering suite. They're just BP.

    If they are given fuel it needs to be spent only in travel time and not while building. I don't think fuel is the right balance effort.

    Good point. This should be taken into consideration, too.

    Drones cannot attack move or patrol irc, very micro heavy to send them on missions, often they travel slowly across the map, do 1 thing and travel back.

    Yes! This is quite annoying. They want to fly back after every order and it's just a hassle.

    Drones definitely need a rework on when they get destroyed, they become a mass suck when that happens, would be nice if they leave wreckage, but they always get overkilled from low HP.

    Leaving wreckages - that's something I didn't think of. Perhaps you could expand on this more?


    ~ Stryker

    posted in Balance Discussion •
    RE: The Problems With The UEF - Part 6 (The Kennel & Drones)

    @jip

    To add to @Nex , the wreckage value is a bug and one we should fix regardless. I'm also in favor of increasing the height of the drone so that it is less vulnerable to splash damage, while at the same time reducing the amount of mesh intersections with structures.

    Sounds like a good overall change. 🙂

    I like the idea of fuel, but I'm not sure how they'd refuel.

    Likely at their Kennel Stations

    Having them go back and forth doesn't work for me, it would nerf them into the ground.

    I don't think so - as it really depends on the amount of fuel time they get. If it's around 15 minutes or more, that might be fine. This could arguably be considered as a "battery life" change rather than fuel, too.

    What about a maximum operation radius, and use the fuel bar as an indication as to whether they're near the edge? If they surpass the radius, they simply drop dead. We could give the kennel some additional intel overlay to indicate the radius when building. The same can apply to the drones of the command unit, where the radius is relative to where the ACU is.

    I guess this is worth a shot, but I must say, I am opposed to limiting their range as it would make using them outside of bases not worth it. That is a strength that they have over Hive and reducing that range would significantly hurt the Kennel - and it already needs a dire change as is.


    ~ Stryker

    posted in Balance Discussion •
    RE: The Problems With The UEF - Part 6 (The Kennel & Drones)

    @nex

    This is probably a bug anyway. The blueprint is missing this: DifferentialUpgradeCostCalculation = true (and simply has it's cost at 500 instead of 1050).
    So basically the t3 kennel is not considered an upgrade, but rather a replacement, in terms of economy stats.

    I see. I figured it was a bug, but several years later, and it's still not fixed? Weird.

    So they currently can only manually reclaim?
    Is an attack moving drone that op?

    Yes, they can only manually reclaim, which is quite a hassle.
    I don't think an Attack moving drone reclaiming is OP, as currently, they have 6 HP - which is considerably less than T1 engineers. Yes, they can fly, but they're slower than any air unit. So, I don't think giving them this ability would be OP.

    I kinda like the idea of drones having fuel. Not sure tho if it's possible/easy to implement, that they return to the station to refuel. Because having them refuel at staging would be weird.

    I asked someone to double-check this beforehand, and they said it was possible to add a fuel system. If this is implemented, I believe returning to their station is the best option to refuel.

    Though, I am still opposed to leashing or implementing restrictions on their range. You're already paying a lot for the range, and now we're gonna limit it? Seems kind of a nerf to me, and they need a drastic buff as is.

    I think a higher build time (at least like 20 seconds) is better or there would be no point in shooting down a drone (if it's free). And combined with increased health it would also be more of an investment to shoot them down.

    Well, it was either or, not both. Increasing their HP OR reducing their rebuild time and cost. If Kennels got both, I believe that may be a little strong.

    I think reducing their susceptibility to AOE is the best way to increase their survivability, as this would make the drones die less randomly, without preventing you from actually killing annoying drones.

    Yeah, this is a good suggestion offered to me. Really nice.

    I also think there shouldn't be to many drone variants. I would suggest 1 per tech level at most or even keep it at 1 drone blueprint, because it would be impossible to differentiate between them and if they have different stats, it would make it hard to tell if you can shoot down that drone or not with your intie.

    There are 3 drone variants.
    Tech 1: ACU Shoulder Drones
    Tech 2: Kennel Drones
    Tech 3: SACU Shoulder Drones

    They all have the same stats for the most part, with the exception of Build Power and Engineering suites. Having A T3 drone die to an Intie, or literally crash damage, makes it so... questionable. A SACU drone is so expensive as is, and having them die to anything is just absurd. I agree that they should have low HP but they should be able to survive one or two random AoE hits. Obviously not from a Strat or anything but from an indirect arty shell or a T2 PD.


    ~ Stryker

    posted in Balance Discussion •
    The Problems With The UEF - Part 6 (The Kennel & Drones)

    THE PROBLEMS WITH THE UEF - Part 6 (The Kennel & Drones)


    Hi everyone!

    Today I would like to talk about the Kennel and its drones.
    In extension, the shoulder drones for both the UEF ACU and SACU.

    I won't quite get into specifics on mass efficiency or Build Power efficiency as FtXCommando has already covered Kennels Vs. Hives in one of their previous posts with great detail. So, go view that one, too!

    But the main gist will still be tackled.
    This one is a little long, so bear with me.


    -Disclaimer-

    These are just some problems I wanted to bring attention to. I am offering my own solutions to these problems, however, I am not a balance team member, nor do I have a large data pool to back up my suggestions; Hence, the balances will likely need some adjustment. There may also be some better ideas to fix these issues, out there - so I encourage you guys to suggest your own ideas as well.


    -Structures-

    Problem: The Kennel (Engineering Station) & Drones, detailed version:

    Kennels are a fantastic unit, they produce flying engineer drones that can move anywhere on the map! In terms of Engineering Stations, they are quite similar to the Hive and its variants, so I will focus on its comparison with the Cybran structure.


    Structure Wreckage Values

    To start off, I would like you guys to take a look at the image below:

    4a39b00b-51d6-4792-b510-802cf2336d73-image.png
    Image: Shows reclaim values for each tier of engineering station for both Cybran and UEF.

    Notice a problem? If you haven't, allow me to assist.

    What we are looking at specifically is the wreckages of each Engineering Station. On the top row, we have the Hive and each of its tier's wreckage values. On the bottom row, we have the UEF and its variants.

    Notice how the base Kennel's wreckage is worth 446 mass, yet the upgraded variant is worth a little bit less at 405.

    Before I go on, I would like to quickly point out that a max upgraded Hive and a max upgraded Kennel are worth the same in terms of mass investment. Both require 1050 mass total.

    Now, with this information, the wreckage of the upgraded Kennel should be valued at around 810 to 892 mass. Or, for balance's sake, at least the same as the max upgraded hive; valued at 851 - since you are investing the same amount of mass.


    Drone HP

    If you are unfamiliar, drones are classified as air units. Air units that have 6 HP each - across all Tech stages. This means anything with AA (with the exception of ASF) can shoot at them; and with their low HP, they will be destroyed easily. I'm specifically mentioning this as even a T3 drone has 6 HP. Yes, 6 HP at the T3 & T4 stage.

    The drone's range and ability to be used anywhere is severely held back by their HP.
    I will explain in more detail further below.


    Drone Rebuild Time & Cost

    It takes almost 40 seconds for a Kennel to rebuild a drone. The Kennel requires 6 mass and 66 energy per second to rebuild it during that timeframe.

    Doing the math, that's about 240 mass and 2,640 energy to rebuild a drone. (According to the database, a drone is valued at 250 mass & 2,500 energy.)

    So, this is a problem as losing the Build Power for almost 40 seconds is already a huge penalty. Why must the user also pay for the drones each time they are destroyed, as well?

    On top of this, the Upgraded Kennel only rebuilds one drone at a time, needing 80 seconds to rebuild both drones. Another issue here is that you cannot even assist the Kennel in rebuilding its drones - so it's a static 40 to 80 seconds at all times!!!


    Drone Speed & Assist Range

    Though this isn't quite an issue as the other problems mentioned, but, I would still like to touch on it.

    The assist range of a drone makes swapping between assisting units, structures, factories, and more, quite lengthy and wacky. Currently, its range matches that of a T1 engineer; This makes the drone fumble around needing to re-adjust its heading, height, and the direction it's facing when swapping assist orders, then it has to move as well.

    If this was increased to that of a T3, or even just a T2 engineer, it would make the drones a little more viable to use in bases. More than accounting for the awkwardness drones have. As they will swap and start assisting a little bit quicker, not wasting time on the movement.

    Below, we are comparing the range of a Kennel's Drone to that of a T3 engineer.

    3cbc6385-e583-479a-82e7-14a1413104be-image.png

    Image: Comparing the range of Drone (Inner dark brown circle) to T3 Engineer (Outside golden circle) with a base as reference.

    In theory, it does make up for this 'short range' with its ability to fly; However, then its speed comes into question. Its max speed, as stated by the database is "3-4".

    8fb20013-2a44-45fb-9fa2-c8ebcf8b7fd8-image.png

    Image: Stats of a Kennel Drone, specifically, focusing on the speed stat.

    Its assist-range ability is greatly affected by its speed as it cannot swap between structures as fast as the Hive - which can swap INSTANTLY between anything in its range.


    Reclaim Action

    A hive is able to reclaim incoming Moving units
    Let's be real, we've all done it once or twice in games when it's getting tight.

    Incoming Experimental? Suck it up and leave its wreckage as a statue to remember this victory!

    28f098ae-0578-4ce9-a07d-d64cb9162260-image.png
    Image: Standing wreckage of an unlucky GC that attacked a base with Hives as T4 PD

    However, drones cannot reclaim units that are moving. I believe this is an engine limitation, but I'm still mentioning it in case anyone can explain why this isn't possible.


    I can see a few possible solutions to these problems; Option 3 was offered by Oblii (2100), so credit for that idea goes to them.

    • Option 1: Make the Kennel drones far cheaper, or even free, to rebuild.
      Lower the rebuild time significantly.

    • Option 2: Increase the survivability of the drone.

    • Option 3: Increase the HP by a significant amount, but impose restrictions.


    Option 1:
    Decreasing the time needed to rebuild the drones would make it so a player goes less time without needing to rebuild their BP.

    Decreasing their cost would make it so the user doesn't need to pay multiple times per drone each time they are destroyed as they are very fragile and quite expensive in numbers. You can easily lose 10 drones, costing you 2,500 mass, and 25,000 energy!


    Option 2 (A):
    An option here is to increase their HP. This will help them significantly.
    It will make it more difficult to lose a drone to any form of AA as well as lose them to excess splash / AoE damage.

    For example: If your drones are under a shield (specifically near the edges of the shield), and anything with AoE attacks, (Strats, T2 & T3 static and mobile arty, etc.) There is a high chance that damage spills into/through the shield which then destroys the drones.


    Option 2 (B):
    A suggestion that was offered to me was that the drones fly a little higher to prevent splash from hurting them. This can be useful in all Tech stages of drones but would benefit the ACU shoulder drones mostly, especially in the early stages of T1.


    Option 3 (A):
    Increase the HP of the drones significantly to allow them to be used with more confidence. However, to balance this, add a 'leash' - or limit their range - so they cannot fly everywhere.


    Option 3 (B):
    Similar to the previous option, but instead of limiting their range, a fuel bar is imposed. Requiring the drones to refuel at their stations every few minutes.


    Drone BP:

    (This section may be disregarded if the Nerf to the hive goes through.)

    I believe their drone's BP should be increased. Compared to the Hive - which can upgrade itself twice, effectively tripling its BP, it's lacking!!

    Now, I understand that you need to pay for the flying ability and the range that Drones offer, as they can move anywhere, but sacrificing so much BP for that seems strange. Right now, Kennels cost 550 mass to build and a Hive costs 350 mass to build. Both produce the same BP: 25. The Kennel can be upgraded for 500 mass to double its BP, which now totals 50, and the Hive can upgrade itself twice for 350 mass each time, for a total of 75 BP.

    Essentially, both will cost you a total of 1050 mass. However, one provides you with 50 flying BP while the other provides you with 75 static BP. So, you're paying the same mass cost for 33% less BP.

    By increasing the BP of the drones just slightly, they will have more of a chance to compete with Cybran Hives. Though you will still lack enough BP to keep Hives as the king of assistance in the immediate area where they operate in. This small increase in BP should balance itself out with the fact that Drones can be destroyed by almost every unit that has anti-air and by the higher drone and structure costs.


    Suggestions:

    I recommend all drones be immune to damage whilst they are docked as any form of (AoE) damage will destroy them.

    This can be witnessed on the ACU and SACU Drones as they will be destroyed by damage from another (support) commander's main weapon, T1 mobile artillery, overcharge, T1 bombers, Strats (Their AA capability), etc.

    Heck, even an Interceptor can also shoot the drones off of a Commander's back!

    AoE damage can also be noticed if a T1 bomber ground fires the area where a drone / or a group of drones are operating in, the AoE will damage and destroy the drones.


    A quality-of-life suggestion would be that, if we are to take advantage of the drone and its ability to fly, they should be allowed to reclaim wreckages with just a Patrol or Attack-move order. This would encourage drone use outside of just bases.

    Though, the HP again, would be an issue.


    On a separate note, I suggest that the Kennel get its own T3 variant. In the FAF database, the upgraded Kennel is classified as a T3 structure. It would be favorable for the Kennel if you could build the upgraded variant when you have a T3 Engineer or T3 Suite, saving you some time from managing upgrades as these upgrades take longer than Hive upgrades. It'll still cost the same resources and whatnot, but it would also give the Kennel some more compete-ability against the Hive as in typical Cybran fashion, they are more favored.


    Problem: Kennel Drones / Drones: TL:DR

    All drones the UEF has in its arsenal are in need of rebalancing.
    The Kennel itself as well as its drones have a few flaws that are in need of re-adjusting.


    Proposed Solutions:


    All drones:

    Invulnerable whilst docked (Kennel Station, ACU, SACU).
    Allow all drones to reclaim like standard engineers (Patrol & Attack Move)

    As for what Option 2 (B) says:
    Operational elevation increase: 3 -> 8?

    For reference, a T1 Interceptor flies at an elevation of 18. This would help avoid random ground splash damage from killing the drone(s). But not too high to where they float above/outside of shields.


    ACU Drones:

    HP increase: 6 - > 51

    This would make it so ACU drones take 2 shots from an Intie before dying but still keep their HP low enough so that T1 AA can deal with it with ease. They're already worth quite a lot - as much as a T1 Transport each. Having them with a bit more HP would help in their survivability.

    Rebuild time reduction:
    It takes longer to rebuild the drone than it is to get the upgrade again.


    SACU Drones:

    HP increase: 6 - > 201
    Increase speed of drone: 4 -> 5

    In the T3 Stage, even with 200 HP, anything will kill them with ease. But this would help again, with random Splash that hurts them. For example, a Spy Plane or an ASF's crash's damage won't just send them to oblivion.

    As for the speed, having it increase would compliment the Kennel drones when they are tasked on a mission, having one slower than the other would be counterintuitive.

    Rebuild time reduction:
    It takes longer to rebuild the drone than it is to get the upgrade again.


    Kennel & Drones:

    Increase the wreckage value of T3 Kennel: 406 -> 851
    Increase the assist range to match a T3 engineer.
    Increase speed of drone: 4 -> 5
    (Fixes issue with drone fumbling, compliments SACU drone speed change.)

    Option 1:
    250 Mass -> 50 Mass (Free?)
    2,500 Energy -> 500 Energy (Free?)
    Rebuild Time: 40 seconds -> 7 seconds
    (10 seconds or more would still feel quite long and 5 seconds may be a little short. 7 would be a good middle ground.)

    Option 2:
    Increase drone HP: 6 -> 151.
    This would help in sending drones out to get reclaim or whatnot in the T2 and T3 stages as well as make it slightly more difficult to lose them.

    Option 3: (A)
    Increase drone HP: 6 -> 501
    Max Range ∞ -> 256 (Same range as a TML)

    Option 3: (B)
    Increase drone HP: 6 -> 501
    Fuel Capacity: 10 Minutes

    Suggestions:
    Allow the blueprint for an upgraded T3 Kennel to be built in the T3 Suite.
    Allow passive reclaim via Patrol or attack-move order.


    My thoughts on option 3 (A & B):

    The high HP would make them quite useful for front-line use. With this HP, the drones would be far weaker than gunships, (flak would 3 or 4 shot them) but still enough to make inties and "Swift Winds' (Aeon T2 Combat Fighter) not one-shot them which would increase their utility and enforcing more aggressive actions with drones.

    However, I would prefer Option 3 (B), as even without fuel, the drone could still fly around and utilize its range. This can be useful in larger maps like Seton's when you want to send out the drones to reclaim in the middle of the pond(s), risking air and navy fire.

    That being said, I still believe Option 1 is the best overall as it doesn't change the fundamentals of the drone itself and how it's used.

    Being honest, Option 3 (A) is quite extreme, to me. And imposing range restrictions would make the point of paying for the Kennel's range ability, quite dull. But the huge HP increase would likely make up for the fact.

    Though I am slightly opposed on imposing limitations on range; I am still sharing it with you all as it seems like a great idea that could be further expanded upon. With obvious balances, of course.

    Having a drone with 500 HP would likely mean a hefty change or nerf elsewhere.


    Thank you!
    I encourage you all to offer your own suggestions.
    I appreciate the feedback.

    Next post on Friday!
    Sneak peek at part 7: The Ravager

    For now, see you on the battlefield!

    ~ Stryker

    posted in Balance Discussion •