Posts made by Deribus

@PapaMi0 try again now. I believe they were having some technical difficulties with links when archiving old forum.

@CorvathraNoob said in Balance Thread Guidelines Feedback:

However I would be totally happy with a minimum 1500 rating requirement to start any thread for balance issues. (This should not at all be the case for suggestions, just the balance forum).

I cannot and will not support a rating requirement to post in the balance forum.

First and foremost, it's unenforceable. It can take multiple minutes just to check one user's rating. I frankly cannot be bothered to do that, nor would I expect any other moderator to. Plus it's never that simple. Are they 1500 global but 1k ladder? Are they on a losing streak and lost 200 rating since posting? Are they 1800 rated but not played a single game in the past year?

Second, being under a certain rating doesn't prevent you from recognizing issues, just potentially from developing a good fix for them. As Tagada has said, fixes are what the balance team is for. There's no reason to filter for 1500+ when everything has to go through the balance team anyway.

Lastly, balance isn't for the tip top of gameplay only. If a unit is incredibly overpowered until 1500 where players have the APM/coordination to counter it, it's still a problem. Take hoverbombing for example. Imagine if instead of removing it bomber balance was adjusted to compensate because everyone above 1500 knew how to hoverbomb anyway. Bombers would probably be unusable in lower ranks.

@FtXCommando said in Balance Thread Guidelines Feedback:

Only petric has mod rights.

Oh right, I misremembered. I'll bring up the idea of extending it to the rest of the balance team

Ruleset 3.1

1. Describe the problem and where it occurs (game/map type, rating bracket, etc.). Optionally provide one or two viable methods of resolving the problem.
2. Provide evidence if and when it is requested. Burden of evidence is on you as the one pointing out the balance issue
3. Do not create new threads on the same topic unless there has been a balance update affecting it since
4. Be objective and consider all game elements. Balance requests because of a single map or map type will be immediately locked
5. Stay on topic, if you have a different balance idea make a new thread. You may link to the original thread if you believe it to be relevant

@Tagada said in Balance Thread Guidelines Feedback:

Don't put the emphasis on solving the problem as this shouldn't be the primary reason for a balance post. They of course can propose a solution but it shouldn't be the main focus of a post. Most people can't suggest the best way to solve balance problems and thus shouldn't really do it, after all it's mostly the job of the balance team.
What players should focus on is finding and describing a problem they notice in a game in a well structured way with clear arguments showing and describing said problem or imbalance.

Thanks for the feedback! I'll make changes accordingly.

@biass said in Balance Thread Guidelines Feedback:

The current "ruleset" is not a "ruleset".
It's a benchmark to raise the standard of posting else you are liable (keyword) to be removed. People complaining that you removed every post in the forum that didn't contain a replay is not the fault of the benchmark, but a failure of you as a moderator. You should have considered the quality of the post/evidence and locked/removed based on that. If people wanted all posts without a replay file gone, we could have made a bot script.

That's what I mean with exceptions being made. A benchmark saying "posts need a replay" is a failure of a benchmark when there have been plenty of good posts not following it. As such I am attempting to adjust accordingly. This feedback should help with moderation as well. Knowing the community's expectations for moderation is the first step toward improvement.

@Tagada said in Balance Thread Guidelines Feedback:

Also another thing, perhaps Balance team should be allowed to moderate the posts in the Balance forum?

Wait, can you not? Balance team should have had moderation power in Balance forum for months now.

@Tex said in Monkey Lord - roleless T4 that needs a Buff:

If you didn't like my speed buff idea you could just say so

Oh no I didn't mean it like that. A speed buff was also one of the first things that popped to mind upon reading the OP

The community has shown that the existing ruleset is not necessary for nor does it promote productive discussion. Too many exceptions have needed to be made for it to continue to be effective.

These new rules are intentionally much simpler and leave much more room open for interpretation. However, that's why I'm opening them to feedback first, I agree they might not cover everything.

Make it a jumping spider with a leap ability

(Obviously I'm memeing)

Handled in chat

Okay, third time's the charm

What are people's thoughts on this as a potential ruleset?

1. Describe the problem and provide one or two viable methods of resolving the problem. Provide evidence if and when it is requested
2. Do not repeat the same request if 3 or more posts has been made in the same thread
3. Be objective and consider all game elements. Balance requests because of a single map or map type will be immediately locked
4. Stay on topic, if you have a different balance idea make a new thread. You may link to the original thread if you believe it to be relevant

@Tagada said in Is aeon arty nerf a bit too much ?:

Aeon arty is bugged and it deals twice the damage then it should if it hits a unit directly. This was supposed to fix that issue but it's obviously a subpar solution and we are investigating the core bug and trying to fix it.

Interesting, is that the case if it hits a shield?

Moved to balance forum

That's yet more reason to add the FAF CPU score, to show it's drawbacks and lack of real information

A common question we get is "best PC components for FAF," and usually the advice is "anything made recently will be just fine." While I don't disagree with that sentiment, I thought it might be more informative and interesting to set up a spreadsheet that has the following information:

• CPU
• GPU
• RAM
• FAF CPU score
• Time to run a set replay at +10 speed
• Date
• Username (optional)

This would be done by each participant manually, and the information above would be sent in to me for me to add to the spreadsheet. There isn't any way I know of to verify anything, especially the times, but there also isn't any incentive to cheat.

Thoughts?

That is odd. Was it on hold fire? I don't know of any way to check that in the replay.

Do what?

That Blender plugin does work, but only for Blender 2.7. I'm unaware of an updated version

@ZLO please add a replay to conform to guidelines

Yes, they'll attack the unit closest to them

@arma473 said in Low health ACU speed boost:

I don't see any lore-friendly way to justify it. Why would a damaged machine be able to do something a full-health machine can't?

Armor got blasted off; it's lighter now

Anyway I don't think lore friendliness is an issue, but it is a bad idea for other reasons. Rambo ACUs are already incredibly difficult to kill, and this would just make punishing overextention even more difficult.

Plus it leads to some weird mechanics like running away from an incoming T4 by TMLing yourself for the speed boost.