Posts made by Cyborg16

Sometimes when clicking to launch the billy nuke it doesn't fire. This may be when the ACU is building.

What I expect:

• launch the nuke
• continue other activity (move, build, etc.)

What seems to happen:

• stops other order
• does not always launch

Replay: https://replay.faforever.com/19459562

That sucks brutally, ACUs don’t need to be nerfed in t3 stage.

Right. I wonder about adding a second level range upgrade? But it's still a nerf vs T2 PD.

I'm with Ftx in that ACUs in team games kill a lot of early action and in that auto-OC is worth keeping.

But I don't think auto-OC is too powerful, at the early T2 stage when there isn't a huge amount of power. If you think it is, send a few T1 units ahead of the T2 to use up that stored E.

Ultimately I don't see a solution to the strong-ACUs-in-teamgames problem other than paper-thin armour on ACUs. Or maybe making snipes more balanced (yes, that Mercy vs T2 bombers for snipes balance issue).

What if T1 subs have cloak but no stealth and no sonar; also T1 scout planes have no sonar? Makes subs vs mexes & engies strong without affecting subs vs navy. Also means moving sub loses to lurking sub every time (if they engage at all).

It would likely skew ratings, e.g. someone might only play 5x5. This would make it harder to compare people by looking at their ladder ratings.

@thomashiatt said in Smol ACU Adjustment:

Auto OC is some stupid ability FAF added, so it's much easier to argue for it's removal than things in the game from the start. It has horrible anti-synergy with the new variable energy overcharge system (which I still think is the worst thing ever done to the game).

Give me the ability to OC while still following the last move order and I won't complain about removing auto-OC. As is, it is useful for retreats.

---

IMO frequent lack of T2 usage comes down to dynamics that have very little to do with the T2 units themselves:

1. Early game, grabbing mexes and reclaim is a must. Raiding is often also important. Hence T1 cannot be skipped.
2. Mid-game, eco is important. T2 pushes take time to build and reach the enemy, time that allows preparation of defence (gun ACU, T2 PD, maybe even T3 land).

T2 land is not useless, but mex upgrades and map size are the real reasons T2 land has little use.

So, nerf mass-storage adjacency bonus for more T2 tanks?

The other option is to look at energy cost for OC. OCing an Ilshovah already requires more than one Estor.

Cobalt Valley. It has a good number of raiding paths with mostly open centre (but would be better without those four pillars IMO) and is a good size for T1, sometimes T2 fights. And the playable area has a "natural" edge (cliffs) instead of the edge of the map square.

"The Hunting Ground" is also interesting: tree groups allow double-factory start, one expansion plus a few lone resource points, several possible attack paths (though the middle is a weird dead area). May have a bit too much small reclaim.

Just ban maps where you build bases right at the map-edge. Simple.

(Yes, quite a lot of popular maps need fixing! Arguably, it's already broken having a completely arbitrary wall limiting base expansion and air fights.)

@veteranashe said in About the veterancy system:

I like ta's vet system, just says it's a veteran and has a bonus to accuracy.

TA's vet system was 100% useless to nearly every unit, yet OP for Long Range Plasma Cannons. Please do not bring that back.

@thomashiatt said in About the veterancy system:

Everyone arguing for the removal of veterancy either excluded the ACU from this, or said balance adjustments would have to be made to compensate.

Yes, ACUs feel like the use-case for veterency. Yet it still feels jarring when you realise you are already at Vet5 and have no more free HP boosts.

Alternative: ACUs have a nano-reclamation weapon code-name Vampire that regens HP based on the damage done.

@ftxcommando said in About the veterancy system:

Definitely doesn’t matter in a 50 v 50 tank fight. It does matter for ACU, first t3 units, first t4s.

Yes, vet matters for early T4s (thankfully not as much as it used to with the old kill-based vet system).

IMO the potential reward for winning should be the option to repair your units. But in this game vet and air staging gives free HP but every other repair takes stupid amounts of build power (about the only thing ever repaired by engineers it a transport).

Note: after paying 3k mass for a large factory to build an SACU, most players don't want to leave the factory idle.

Possible fix: let the factory build T1-T3 land units (possibly with increased build power, possibly requiring a land HQ).

Or: just let land factories build SACUs (possibly via a T4 HQ upgrade).

If veterency were removed, then an alternative is needed, e.g. cheaper repairing. Regen is OP IMO, especially regen from vet. An alternative might be regen-on-what-you-kill (remember the "vampire" mod in some shooters like UT2004?).

Anyway the current vet system is fine, though I do dislike the way vet lets an ACU get back to full HP quite quickly at no cost.

SACU balance should consider the cost of the quantum gate: sometimes having a couple of SACUs is useful (e.g. as combat engineers, kinda a T4 sparky but without the insane speed), but this is not cost effective when you have to pay for the Q gate too.

Possible alternative: "T4" land factory HQ upgrade which only does two things: (1) add SACUs to the build menu and (2) increases build power.

Alternative: allow the quantum gate to build all T1-T3 land units (possibly only by assisting a land factory).

In both cases you can build 1-2 SACUs without wasting 3k mass on a factory you don't want, but only if you commit to the T3 land stage.

Interesting... I would at least suggest moving a few items around.

• Allowing personal shield generator + tactical preservation system is a bit much?
• All three RCH upgrades for UEF sacu are combat upgrades.

So for UEF: move TPS to back, engineering to RCH, targetting uplink to LCH?

RAS / QRS offering subsidised building is a weird one, but nice idea that the SACU must be building to get the (full) benefit.

@thomashiatt said in Do you think Sanctuary will replace FAF?:

There's not a single thing I would like to see in FAF that involves changing the source code

Really? There are loads of things (balance and taste dependent) which could potentially be better:

• improved pathing instead of all this bumping into each other
• sub depth not fixed
• radar and sonar shadows (no more hiding radar behind a cliff)
• no free intel from mex/factory upgrades
• possibly some different intel models such as deployed drones with limited lifespan
• modular units without the clunky upgrade system (e.g. in game unit designer)
• better damage models
• better unit AI (e.g. auto dodging, raid mode): for those of us who don't think the game is about unit micro

The concern I have is that several quite different units have the same icon and mostly the same appearance. Is it possible to use a different icon for each upgrade path?

Heck, you could remove the base SACU and all upgrade options and just make the various "upgrade paths" completely different units (without upgrades). It would likely be simpler to use and I think wouldn't lose much (does anybody ever convert a rambo boy into an engineer boy on the front line, or similar)?

Surface-to-air balance in the game is just weird IMO:

• T1 AA: reasonably well balanced vs T1 air; poor vs T2 due to higher HP of T2 units (though cost somewhat excuses this)
• T2 AA: flak is great vs gunship clouds. Not quite so good as I'd expect vs inties. Maybe should have larger AOE.
• T3 AA: SAMs are OP (strong damage + AOE) except that nothing less than nukes and massive numbers of weapons can kill an ASF cloud quickly (fair enough, considering the cost)

The problem is that T3 air play is too often about getting an ASF lead and keeping it. Since T1 and T2 AA is so weak vs most T3 air, SAMs are the main counter. But SAMs are expensive, high-damage systems not anti-swarm systems.

Fix: make SAMs much cheaper and weaker. Maybe also move to T2. Maybe also remove AOE, giving flak a role vs gunships even at T3 (will take more tweaks to balance).

Additional note: there is no good T2 AA vs T2 bombers; this is also in part why a strat rush can be strong. Having a T2 SAM would help balance both.

A frigate is roughly comparable to a T2 tank on cost and HP, about 2/3 the DPS but with more range, and is much faster (very arguably the better unit due to speed + range). The same is true of destroyer vs T3 siege assault bot except that the destroyer is more expensive with much longer range.

In other words, these units are not at the correct tech level.

Wacky, wacky balance idea: push the whole of navy up a tech level by requiring a T2 engineer to build the first shipyard (effectively, we get T2, T3 and T4 shipyards).

Problem 1: UEF and Cybran have no T1 floaty units (besides engineers). New units needed, either from a "small boats factory" or (more likely) T1 land hover.

Problem 2: it wrecks navy balance on most popular navy maps since frigs and destros take longer to get into action. But maybe not as badly as it first appears since their high cost.

Anecdotal: expansion already happens before building T1 navy. Fast T2 air is common on navy maps, so this probably doesn't have a major impact on big navy maps (Setons, Glaciers).

Problem 3: a few weird maps. Saskiya has a water start which becomes untenable without a T1 navy factory (no big loss, people already complain about that). TAG Craftious lets early frigs get major damage in (IMO delaying that is a balance fix).

Problem 4: air is already strong vs navy; this makes it stronger.

---

Obviously this is a wacky idea, but it's a fun thought experiment, especially considering how imbalanced navy vs land is now.

Probably would have a whole host of balance repercussions:

• Leaves obvious gaps in T1 amphibious capabilities (already Aurora and Zthuee can be imbalanced here, but it's even more obvious without T1 frigs)
• You play Setons and go T2 air. Opponent builds T2 land and sends riptides or blazes before you get navy built. At least you have the air advantage. Hope you aren't vs Phim who have hover flak.
• As a T2 unit the frigate might want a small buff to damage and range (but at a higher cost)
• Not obvious what role subs have in this: but probably not much different than where they are now since they are anti-navy units.

@lord_asmodeus said in Extensive Navy Redesign and Rebalancing suggestions - My vision:

If you want "The whole point is to have unit types that have advantages vs others and through a unit mix you can equalize or extend an advantage."

Then just play better clearly a skill issue at hand.

I for one like the fact that PD counters tanks forcing the addition of arty to your tank force.

The best counter to frigates at the T1 stage is, um, frigates. The nearest equivalent of PD, torp launchers, is a better counter to subs than to frigates. But subs barely need a counter since they have so little utility in the first place.

IMO the proper counter to frigates should be some form of PD (delaying assaults on navy production until destroyers are available) but I don't see how to make this can be worked into SupCom balance.

@rezy-noob said in Extensive Navy Redesign and Rebalancing suggestions - My vision:

speaking from experience, navy feels (by far) the most balanced thing in the game

Navy also has the smallest numbers of units:

• T1 land? Scout, (lab), tank, AA, arty
• T1 air? Scout, inti, bomber, transport
• T1 navy? Frigate, sub (plus Aeon AA boat)

The frigate is simultaneously a scout, front-line direct-fire unit, anti-defence unit (beating T1 PD on range at the same cost and trading decently vs T1 torp launcher) and (except Aeon) AA unit.

Sure, the frigate costs significantly more than most T1 land or air units but somehow it is a single unit able, mass-for-mass, to beat any T1 land unit or structure, when in range of water (range means only T1 arty can fire back). If T1 PD were able to match frigates on range then at least there would be some counter.

Probably a lot of the land/navy imbalance is due to forcing navy to have a role in a game where almost all base-building is restricted to land and confined enough to where there is only 1-2 significant bases worth defending. That said, navy is (IMO) a lot more fun on maps like Ndera where frigates have many raiding options than maps like Seton's Clutch.

So, can frigates be balanced well in both the role of T1 tank (front line) and T1 arty (base busting & raiding)? Kinda.

Then there's T1 subs... subs only beat frigates if the frigate's mission is to destroy the sub. It's not. The frigate completes its mission (destroy engies/mex/navy factory) before the sub kills the frigate. Effectively the sub loses, even if it lives and the frigate dies.

IMO to make subs useful, they should become ambush hunters: able to lurk stealthily (maybe requires cloak as above) and having a high-alpha strike (high initial damage, long reload time. E.g if T1 subs fire a torp salvo with total 750 damage and 20sec reload time, DPS is unchanged but 3 subs can kill 1 frig instantly. I'm not convinced that even this is enough to make T1 subs actually useful besides mex hunting.