The question has been answered
Posts made by Deribus
Topic locked by Valki's request
That'd be such a minor nerf as to be irrelevant. By the time you have a novax (or T3 arty for that matter) you have the power overflow to sustain it.
It's like T3 PD. Did you know that costs energy to fire? Yeah, no one does because it doesn't matter.
This is the rework I have on my balance mod to do list. I might try some other ideas but given how long other stuff has taken me I wouldn't expect it anytime soon.
Here's a copy of the rework I suggested back on old forums:
Instead of directly funneling the mass/energy cost of the unit into the structure, the unit will begin to build at 3x its usual build speed. The engineer will shed health over the course of the duration, and it can only be cancelled by the premature death of the engineer. If the unit is not killed, it dies and refunds 40% of its cost directly into storage. [EDIT: No idea why I had the refund but I'd probably remove that]
For T1-T3 engineers this would last 10 seconds, allowing them to do 30 seconds worth of building before death.
For SCUs, it would be 1 second per 150 mass cost of the SCU. Which would be 19 seconds for just Rapid Fabricator and 43 seconds for RAS. This is about 33% less efficient than the Engineer numbers.
Now what is the range and how many bombers do you need to one pass single MAA and how many to one pass single Shard?
Also what is the relation between high range units and killing low HP targets?
You forgot one: https://faforever.github.io/spooky-db/#/UAL0104,UAB2104,UAS0102
Compared to T1 static AA shards are 20% cheaper, get 4 more range (whoop de doo) and have the same HP, but have less than half the DPS.
As long as Shards are slow as balls over land (like Salems) then I don't think it'd be a problem.
It's an interesting idea, but I'm hesitant because it gives Aeon all of the following:
- Torpedo immune AA at T1 navy
- A T1.5 MAA for land
- A T1.5 land scout with 32 vision range (Aurora firing range is 26)
- AA that is able to escort Auroras across water at T1
- Probably some other shenanigans
Some of these are pretty major. The more things a single change affects the harder it is to balance.
We can reuse the existing firing animation as helicopter blades
My perspective is from a 1k ladder player and a sample size of 16 games.
The only one I had issue with were Flooded and Small Islands 20x20s. Aeon/Sera can have a pretty big advantage on those maps due to the tendency of mex groups being separated by tiny strips of water.
Was fine but could use some reclaim very close to spawn. Would be nice to sometimes have a rock or two to prioritize.
I definitely played better but I think most of it was just due to playing more consistently.
Nah all of them are pretty good. 20x20s are exhausting but that's just by nature of the map size, it's unavoidable.
Not a "Map Gen Month" but it'd be awesome to have the first week of every month be mapgen only. Consistency > a long test period imo
Eh, I'll use this point to talk about the aesthetics generally. Water can be incredibly hit or miss. Sometimes it's not immediately obvious where there is water or where the terrain slopes smoothly enough to provide access to water. Other times it creates that horrible mess you see pictured on the islands 20x20s. Also some of the terrain is just way too damn bright, those colors should be removed IMO.
check out this map I like to call "Dollar Store Seton's"
I've started a new job so I haven't really had time for modding (not that I was ever dedicating much time to it) but I thought I'd write a list of problems I'd like to address before I start forgetting some.
I'm not affiliated with the balance team at all and these are just ways for me to try out my own ideas before suggesting them.
I've locked this topic. From now on if you have such an issue please send me a forum PM with the accounts involved so that I may help you out. @KamauWarrior1 included
I definitely think this should be for everyone, not particular rating brackets. There's no reason to host and advertise an event only to say "oh but only the top 10% of players can participate."
Lower rated players (myself included) are less likely to have map specific build orders and gameplay styles anyway.
MLWATKK I've already PMed you about your report. If you're unhappy with the decision we can discuss it further there.
RandomWheelchair is right, we don't allow moderation issues to be discussed publicly for privacy reasons. If you continue to do so I'll have to lock the thread.
Thank you for your report. As Morax has said, such behavior is unacceptable and will be handled with extreme prejudice.