Best posts made by epic-bennis

Hi all,

As you might have noticed I was quite active in the balancing forums in the last couple of months as this was the only way for me to stay in touch with the game as I was traveling.

Many meaningful points were raised in the last couple on months, I don't want to go into detail. When looking at the most recent balance patch I am, quite frankly, a bit puzzled. As someone who thinks quite a bit about the game, and who really has an open mind when it comes to changes as long as they can be explained, I still believe that the balancing team has not really done a good job.

Here is my criticism:

• of all the potential issues on the plate, I feel like in terms of prioritisation the changes are not important. Take the mex changes: it's a needless change, without any meaningful justification (tradeoff between reclaim and mex assist better? Are you kidding me? That sounds like complete bullshit and only increases eco gameplay because it effectively becomes cheaper to eco than before, which is definitely not what the eco heavy meta needs)

• the shard change comes extremely late. Every since I play faf (3-4 years) the shard is absolutely useless, and it apparently took 3-4 years and longer ( I assume it has always been useless) to make a change here.

• changes like the bomber change, the lab change, the mex changes, come totally out of the blue without any sort of public debate. I don't say that people like funkoff should have any say in balance changes, but at least present it to the public and have a debate about the changes, and don't just present the community with facts. And in my books faf beta is not a debate. It should be a forum debate, or another form of engagement with the community. Especially when it comes to choosing priorities for future balance patches

• sometimes the balance forum comes up with legitimate points of imbalance or improvement opportunities for the game, and currently except for the occasional condescending statement I see no engagement by the balance team with these issues. It almost seems to me as if for a lack of counterargument some issues are just left on the table, mix in a little bit of favouritism and pride. This has to change, a well formulated balance suggestions with well formulated support by top players stands as an open issue, and the balance team should have the responsibility to engage with it. Otherwise we might as well close the balance forums. Surely a lot of complete bullshit is raised here by people who just don't know any better, but at the same time many very good points are raised, and it is the duty of the balance team to weed out and isolate the good ideas.
  It's even a source for inspiration, let the community do the work of identifying improvement opportunities for you, and just pick them up and work from there. The way this is handled currently seems like a waste of resources, and it's even disrespectful to the community members who try to help and improve the game.

Anyway, this is not intended to be a rant, but rather it is a request to the balance team to take the forum more seriously, and engage with the attitude of a councillor or a person of responsibility with the information presented here. At the end of the day it's going to make the balancing process more transparent, more resourceful and will feel more rewarding for community members who care.

Maybe sandbox streams of the balancing team once every fortnight could be a nice idea, but anything really to involve the cloud.

Thanks.

What I noticed was very powerful was to pet new players, take them under your wing, personally approach them. If you throw them into the cold water with lobbies such as "500+ NO GREYS" where a new player who managed to win his first two games get called out as a smurf by garytheubernoob and his cronies can be very disheartening.
It might sound rediculous - but I think there are enough people up for the job - a sort of mentoring program could be a powerful tool to retain people. If you are new, then you should be approached by a mentor who gives guidance, explains rating system, how to find good games, basic game mechanics etc. I did that to a few people and some of them still stick around. Maybe add an add to the opening page of the client: "YOU ARE NEW: GET HELP HERE" and then a list of people to approach. Maybe put new players in a special IRC channel #new players where mentors sit and ask questions. I know that from games like eve online. I think approaching people personally is the best way to get someone involved, to feel acknowledged and it takes away the frustrations from not knowing anything in the beginning.
I think fafs biggest asset is the dedicated community members it has, people willing to put in work and explain stuff - connecting these ressouces to new players is a task that im sure will boost new player retention.

Some Sort of Ethos
I dont need to be a 2k ladder god to be the bennis

Identify a Problem

In teamgames T3 mex is the winning play, most of the time. Setons meta, dual gap meta (the most played maps) degrode into T3 mex simulator. Canis, Wonders, all these maps are T3 mex simulator. Even in 2v2, after initial skirmishes, gameplay degrades into T3 mex and try to get somewhat useful ways to spend mass style.

RAS COM is just another symptom of the problem: you can get away with T3 mex gameplay because it pays back too fast and unit speed is too slow for the aggressor to be able to convert his early investment into substancial damage before defendant has enough BP and mass accumulated to formulate an effective defence.

This is further amplified by reclaim values being very high at 83% which makes it even harder to aggress.

This also devalidates T2 stage in teamgames entirely. In 1v1 this is less of a problem as most fighting occurs in T1 and T2 stage, but a T3 mex nerf wouldnt hurt 1v1 either as it will just extend T2 stage further which is probably a nice thing.

Its a problem because it limits the meta. Problem should be evident and doesnt need showcasing.

Find a Solution

1. *priority Make Eco options past T2 mex with storages more expensive. Increase T3 mex cost by 25%. Increase Ras cost, sacu ras cost and fab cost by 25%.

2. Decrease reclaim values to a flat 50%, everywhere (water air land )

• this is effectively a reclaim reduction of 40%. Its nice and intuitive, reclaim is still a huge factor, but not so huge it makes any attack that doesnt clearly win a flank or destroy a base a mass donation.

Justify the Solution

Obviously, if T3 mex is more expensive it increases the duration of the window for the aggressor to deal damage. It also adds a small challenge for the T3-mexist to defend his precious mex against units, he cant just rely on travel time of units to be too high to be any threat. Thats why air is so strong: the mass investment immidiately pays off as units dont need to walk across the map. unit travel time is airs benefit, not its balance of strenght relative to AA options. (nvm T3 MAA is still mostly useless)

I think the recent bomber and lab changes have highlighted what faf needs: more options that reward aggressive gameplay. These changes have been a welcoming touch to 1v1. But for anything with more players this doesnt cut it. Mass enters the game too fast, and the reason is the many efficiently teched up mass extractors that pay off too quickly. One eco noob with T3 mex can wipe a wonders with fast T3 mex rush + GC, Chicken, Megalith when the rest of the players go full out aggression and naturally dont eco. Because all he needs to do is survive for 10 minutes.

I think map gen in ladder pool is great and I'm sure it would greatly increase ladder acitivity much like TMM brought back people to the game.

I think its something fresh and new and thats what video games need to stay alive.

Therefore I recommend easing your usual selection criteria for ladder pool in favour of map gen. Try it out, you wont be dissappointed. And if its shit and people complain: ooohh kkaaaayy remove it the next cycle.

It's not that you can find a random quote by ftx to make him look bad. The problem is that 10 per cent of what he writes can serve as such quote. From the top of my head I can quote him at least 10 times. Ftx does not have the attitude of a councillor, that's why he was originally excluded from running for the position. Being in the position has proved the council's concerns true: during his tenure he kept displaying arrogance and toxicity towards players while trying to make friends with top players or people with decision making powers. And this even got worse as he felt more secure in his position. Call it what you want, but I call it unfit for the job..

Ftx is always online and well connected to some top players: great he can help faf elsewhere, he does not need to be the voice of the player base and representing all of fafs players and interests. Because as it is currently that sounds like a joke to me.

Behaviour needs to have consequences. Feather has been banned for it, I have been banned for it, we both have changed our behaviour. Now it's time for ftx to be taught a lesson and to make some adjustments.

For once I have to agree with thau. Math in its simplest form has finally defeated psions.

Howdy Folks,

Replay: I don’t have one because the ML is useless and nobody makes it anymore.

Now why do I think it’s underpowered:

I think the role the ML fits with his relatively low hp and high dps is the role of a surprise glass cannon cheese weapon. You build it fast and hope it’s unscouted, use it’s stealth field to creep up and then kill acu, or a base or something critical.

ML strategies are most of the time all-in, because getting t3 acu, T3 Power (to be able to spend mass quick enough for the ml to matter) and then the mass for ML (before T3 MeX, because this is the time frame where the map isn’t littered with t3 units, bp concentrations that can spam pd or air build power that can make gunships, corsairs or even t1 bombers that can easily counter the ml and reduce it to a nice mass donation. If you give up t3 MeX or units or air in favor of a ML that’s so easily countered you are almost always behind, the ML just isn’t worth it, doesn’t really have a nieche anymore.

Now why do I think the ML has become worse?

The build power nerf totally killed it. Before you could make a ML with t3 acu only in a reasonable amount of time, which not only saved mass, but also made it harder to scout a ML in the making, because acu could make it underwater. Engi clusters are more easily scouted by radar, it’s just much harder to make a sneaky ml because of a combination of the need for more engis (mostly t1 engis because this is the bp you got in the relevant timing window of the ml) and the increased time it takes to make it.

Now I could go on how the game matured and cheese options are harder to get away with because people know how to deal with it better, scout more and know how to make hives that that straight up reclaim and approaching ML, but that’s Another discussion.

I would propose to reduce the build power required to make a ML back to the old levels, or maybe at least reduce it by 33% to see if it gives some strength back to the ML as a surprise mechanism that has an actual timing window on team game maps like Canis, setons, wonders etc.

The arguments for the experimental bt nerf were to make them less of a late game mass sink: I think people will not start spamming MLs now, because of their relative inefficiency in terms of hp per mass, and if they do: great, sounds like fun games.

Yeah right ftx. Training is pointless, its all about t3 mex and getting t3 mex fast.

To all with a qualified opinion

The reason why RAS SACUs are still being talked about, and why this discussion has been filling numerous thread pages, is that they are very hard to balance and very hard to understand in terms of balance.

Fact is that many make them almost every teamgame, and some make them even in 1v1 (hint hint), and consistently win games and produce a questionable experience for the others involved.

On the other hand, some say they are never efficient, can be easily punished, etc.

Now im not the best player in the world, unlike I sometimes believe, but yet find it very hard to "easily" punish Yudi when he does it. In fact, I find it incredibly hard, sometimes impossible. I think they are broken.

BUT I dont want to make another argument about them being OP. I want to make the argument that they are simply too difficult to balance properly because they offer a unique combination of features that just doesnt belong together, and therefore shouldnt exist.

Usually in supreme commander, if you want eco you need to protect it. Map control with PD and units, you make a mex upgrade, protect it against units, after T3 mex stage you need to make fabs that are volatile and require building space, need to be shielded against sats, arty, bombers, etc.

This basic concept doesnt apply to RAS ACU. Its a mass fab that can relocate, specifically relocate under water, can make its own shield, can make its own sam, has a gun worth 3 ACUs and produces power, which removes the need to protect a power grid in late game. ??????

Its plain crazy.

Its already a versatile builder and fighter, a useful utility unit when sieging to protect key areas with infrastructure that doesnt die instantly. But why give it the supreme mass fab and pgen role aswell?

These features DO NOT BELONG TOGETHER, its impossible to balance the price of a mobile underwater mass fab + pgen that just walks out of a gateway.

Make it 300% more expensive? I dont know if thats fair, I dont want to think about it. I dont want to make a complex formula to estimate a fair price, I want to get rid of the RAS Upgrade on SACU and be done with it.

Any good arguments against that reasoning? I doubt there are.

Biass the snake supporting his fellow reptile ftx. Texbook cronism.

@FtXCommando

Could you please substantiate your argument? Frankly right now your posts look like nothing more than shitposts. I completely disagree that mex price is a fundamental pillar with complex interactions thats shifts it all. It literally only affects timing of aggression vs defence. All units stay the same. I think my analysis is fairly complete. TA lore isnt a reason to leave mex income and prices untouched. At the end of the day we need to ask ourselves why faf has become slow and static and wether we want that. Making eco a worse option makes units better. And i think faf should be about making units and using them right and not about making mexes and firebases.

How many games people where surprised in teamgames in the following way:

"Oh no my opponent made units. I might have a problem"

You would understand.

You are insane man, but in the good way. I love to see how passionate your are about rts.

finally a tourney I can win - sign me up 1674

Come on he wrote such a big post show some respect to the Democratic movement

I would say: remove it. What good is it doing to the game?

Hi,

I think its known: hard to see which carrier carries how many units, hard to see in general how much progress carriers made when you produce strats or torps in them from zoomed out look. how about a little number on top of them, much like mex overlay or nuke progress? Would be a small yet very convenient improvement.

cheers

I think changing mercies is a bad idea because it makes faf even more mechanical. Mercies are a cheese mechanism, and a comeback mechanism much like tac missles. It offers alternative ways for games to take and therefore makes the game more exciting. Of course it sucks to be mercy sniped, or tml sniped, or old beetle sniped, or corsaired, but its a nice cheese thats super costly and all-inny. mercies have insane bt, so if you do your homework and scout and dont neglect air and radar and play zoomed out, they are super easy to counter.

Now i dont want to talk about mercies, but about the direction the balance has been going since im here. The game became more and more "be efficient in eco and grind down your opponent" style with less abilities to make plays, ie. Use units to conclude a game fast. If you remove mercies the games objective boils down more and more to "acquire mass to make t1 tanks to hold map"-style. Or in teamgames "be as greedy as possible and upgrade mex style", and i think thats boring. I like it when games have cheese options like fast ml that doesnt require half its mass worth of bp to be constructed within the relevant time window, or beetles to snipe acus, because thats exciting to do and punishes people who are lost in basebuilding and efficiency optimisation playstyle.

Are you gonna match the client to add another digit to the game count row as tribute to highlanders COMMITMENT to faf?

YOU GONNA AMEND THE CLIENT TO EQUATE TO HIS GREATNESS

WE ARE HIGHLANDER

@humanpotatoe let me tell you one secret only high rated players understand. Once you are high rated, you don’t care about all the shit you just mentioned. You are just good enough to foresee all the bullshit, prepare for it and deal with it and compensate for it. Far is a hard game, lower rated team members are one of the harder aspects of it.

Emerald is a good map because you actually need to think about how to invest your mass, especially in terms of what areas of the map to hold and fortify, acu position is important and air vs land are both totally viable choices with parity for long periods of time. It’s a nice map without clear cut winning strategies like land spam, much better than Open palms or twin river lose one expansioneer lose game garbage style first 5min game plan maps.