FAForever Forums
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Login
    1. Home
    2. ETFreeman
    The current pre-release of the client ("pioneer" in the version) is only compatible to itself. So you can only play with other testers. Please be aware!
    E
    Offline
    • Profile
    • Following 0
    • Followers 0
    • Topics 8
    • Posts 63
    • Groups 0

    ETFreeman

    @ETFreeman

    1600 Ladder / 1800 Global. Sera main.

    27
    Reputation
    7
    Profile views
    63
    Posts
    0
    Followers
    0
    Following
    Joined
    Last Online
    Location Russia

    ETFreeman Unfollow Follow

    Best posts made by ETFreeman

    • [Vulthoo stats]Inventing right T2.5 gunship with math&logic

      Hi
      Previously (in discord), i made topic about Vulthoo buildtime (bt should be reduced). In the process i went deeper into vulthoo stats and discovered that they are far from perfect.

      So i decided to really understand what is going on here and what Vulthoo stats should be if we want it to be "T2.5" gunship, using math & logic to get the values. (I dont really want to do this already but i promised to Rhaelya so rip me☠ )

      Key points:

      • I assume that Vulthoo should be T2.5 gunship in all the stats (assuming mass cost is constant 500)

      • T2.5 gunship here is the gunship between Stinger and Broadword.
        Why Broadswoard? It has no other abilities (Wailer's stealth, Restorer's AA), as well as Vulthoo
        Why Stinger? Its the only t2 gunship which shoots as Vulthoo (no aoe, no alpha-shot)
        I will mention some other gunships still tho

      • I will split the post into several chapters to make the brain load less. Each chapter will have some thought about some particular param and what it should be.

      Prologue, speed & range

      The data:
      c0094b66-e143-4ae4-a3fc-9c76fb2d1e74-image.png

      As you see, currently vulthoo is slower than needed and has more range than needed.

      Someone will say "but stinger is the fastest t2 gunship"
      Ok, Specter & Renegade have 12 speed, lets calculate "average t2 gunship speed" then: (12 + 12 + 13.5) / 3 = 12.5.
      Even with this approach, T2.5 will be (12.5 + 10) / 2 = 11.25

      About range, Renegade has the same range as stinger, only specter has 20, which will lead to 23.16 range

      So:
      Vulthoo:

      • speed should be buffed to 11.75 (11.25 if we look not only on stinger) (11.5 average between both suggestions)
      • range should be nerfed to 23.5 (23.16 if we look not only on stinger) (23.33 average between both suggestions)

      Interlude, about raw power

      As soon as i will suggest any change, some people will appear to claim that "but concentraded power!"; Fair enough

      To key points here:

      1. Concentraded power factor vs flaks: hard to calculate "middle value". I mean its obvious that vulthoo is better than stinger vs flaks, but what stats exactly should be? Size of the gunship? Range? Hp? This is too complicated to make any suggestions, so i completely skip this case because i have no idea how to analyze it properly so it makes any sense.
      2. Concentraded power factor vs anything else: this one can actually be calculated!
        Most AA in the game has no aoe (Any air aa: inties, swiftwinds, asfs, t2 bombers, restorers, etc) or has small enough aoe to still completely negate its effect with proper micro (non-sera cruisers, sams, t3 maa) (note: use formation move and some move orders for ez negating aoe of any of these)

      So, lets define raw_power as the amount of damage the group of N gunships can do before some ideal target with infinite HP and some single-target AA kill them. And N can be calculated for each resource (mass, energy, buildpower) individually (how many gunships i can build for 5k mass / 50k energy / 50k buildtime, etc)

      The formula is:
      90dde398-de3d-4955-89ee-0b200371548a-image.png

      If we want to see only "real" game values (because we cannot send 3.41 gunships, we can send only 3), we can just floor the values:
      b18b3556-df5d-4f1a-82ba-36c450e9aa12-image.png

      For any people wondering why this formula is like this, i will just show this screen and i think this is enough.
      a4b266b0-41c6-459c-a388-8e3ac40475bc-image.png
      Formula is correct according to tests, if you have any doubts free to write below

      Chapter 1, DPS and HP per mass

      The data: 031f6606-d97d-4042-b9f3-a9e8c9b433e3-image.png

      Raw power, under 3000 mass (left is smoothed, right is "real"):
      57cdb96e-78cc-4ae6-a87d-9e9ecb4de795-image.png

      Raw power, under 20000 mass:
      2a3b254f-71f4-4828-9808-f3ff91a1d032-image.png

      As you see, currently Vulthoo has lower hp/dps values compared to what it should be. In addition to that, it also has lower raw_power per mass (even if you count "concentrated power" effect, its worse)
      Yes, in current game balance t2 gunships have better raw_power per mass than t3 at the cost of being bad vs flaks and buildtime difference (about that-later).

      Lets try to fix dps/mass according to the table:
      dps: 100 -> 111
      hp: 1800 -> 1911

      The data:
      24263212-0be8-4ad8-af12-fc2b2a8d5f12-image.png

      As you see, now it looks more what is should be. On large scale it performs as t2.5 indeed. Under 1500 mass (3 gunships) spended it is very close to stinger by raw strength due to "high mass concentration" factor, and after that cloud of stingers starts to be stronger.

      I believe these are right numbers to be. If you worried about "but i will be sniped before even build first flak, i understand your concern, but dont worry, we can balance this with e cost for example. Vulthoo is still much worse vs flaks than broadsword and it should be used on t3 because sera has no alternatives, so being too weak just is a bad idea.

      So:
      dps: 100 -> 111
      hp: 1800 -> 1911

      Chapter 2, buildtime
      The data, [current vulthoo]
      e90b7b67-9602-43f0-8f2d-e9ea48504d2e-image.png

      ec439ee7-8988-48ad-b24c-cd4e679cf4d5-image.png

      From the data, we can see two things:

      1. t3 gunships are far better in raw power per buildtime compared to t2. In addition to that, t3 fac has 3x more buildtime than t2, so you can multiply broadsword score by 3 if you want.
      2. Vulthoo buildtime is just stupidly bad currently. It supposed to be better than stinger in (raw_stength / buildtime) because of "T2.5", instead he nerfed below that.

      I will draw suggested charts for current Vulthoo and for new Vulthoo. New Vulthoo will have all the stats i suggested above so we need to account for them while suggesting other stats.

      What builtime current Vulthoo should have? That is a really tricky question!
      Here is the plot, "how much builtime vulthoo should have to be T2.5 in raw_power_per_buildtime terms":
      835c47e6-365c-4e20-b81e-ade236c1eeca-image.png

      As you see, the answer is really depends on what amount of buildtime (BT) you use. (With current stats, no constant value of buildtime will make raw_power_per_buildtime always exactly between Broadsword and Stinger at any point of the game)
      The max value (limit to the infinity, very large armies) of the function is ~ 2437.75 buildtime
      The min value (limit to 0, tiny armies) is ~ 1347 buildtime
      for BT = 3300: 2026
      for BT = 10000: 2247
      for BT = 30000: 2364

      So, the actual value here should be taken from the point (how many BuilTime will be invested into Vulthoo in the average game)

      I think it is not more than 30-50k, so 2364-2400 should be good enough for current Vulthoo.

      Here are the charts for raw power with 2370 buildtime vulthoo:
      e2eb993b-5021-4561-90e4-249bf7cdf254-image.png

      Now, lets go to more instesting part and check out or new Vulthoo (111dps, 1911hp):

      The same situation with buildtime, it depends:
      10ebcdb0-1430-48c1-855c-383925342525-image.png
      But here values are starts from 1587.370786 and going to 2646

      T2.5 BT for 30k Buildpower invested is ~ 2575
      T2.5 BT for 50k Buildpower invested is ~ 2600
      Excel table suggested value which has no idea about "concentrated mass" is 2630, which is still in range

      Ok, lets check out 2600:
      50d2b1a9-8a49-4ad6-b5bd-6d7aaf839a11-image.png

      Looks good

      So

      new Vulthoo:
      dps -> 111
      hp -> 1911
      buildtime -> 2600

      Buildtime can be a bit more if you wanna balance it for ultra-late-game, but nothing more than 2646 make any sense.
      Can also be a lot less if you wanna balance it for more early game usage instead.

      Chapter 3, energy cost

      The data, [current vulthoo]
      d8660fa4-1a5a-4845-a9cb-4a45c15f9c8a-image.png

      Intresting! Finally, green numbers!

      Now let me explain what is going on here:

      1. t3 energy is much cheaper than t2 energy. For each 100 mass invested into t2 pgen, you get 41.6 energy income.
        For each 100 mass invested into t3 pgen, you get 77.16 energy income
        So basically t3 energy is 1.85x cheaper than t2 energy
      2. If we look at vulthoo as pure t2 gunship which is produced on t2 pgens, then current E cost makes sense: 1.85x multiplier nullifies broadsword's high E cost, so current E cost looks fine at 99% of what dps/mass per energy should be.
      3. if we forget about 1.85x multiplier and look only on E cost, basically producing all gunships at t3 pgens, then vulthoo has 113% dps / energy and 131% hp / energy it should have
      4. if we imagine some mythic T2.5 Pgen which is average between T2 and T3, then vulthoo has 106% of correct dps / energy and 119% of correct hp / energy

      Since this whole topic is about making T2.5 gunship, i assume 4) as right point

      T2.5 gunship should cost more energy than current Vulthoo costs
      for current Vulthoo, its about 11200e.

      But we're talking here not about current fraud t2.5, we're talking about real T2.5

      So, what energy cost should have new Vulthoo with stats:
      111dps
      1911hp
      2600bt
      ?
      Its about 12200e (22% more than current) to be balanced for imaginary "T2.5 pgen".
      If you want to balance for T3, its 13200
      If you want to balance for T2, its 10700

      These numbers are all from only dps and hp / energy stats, what about raw_power?

      [current Vulthoo picture]
      Here are 3 charts. Basically, all what adjusting does is shifts broadword ratio to stinger and vulthoo. adjusted_energy_for_t2 makes discount for broadsword cuz t3 energy is cheaper per mass.
      Adjusted_energy_for_t2.5 makes also discount for vulthoo & stinger, imagining they are builded on t2.5 pgen (trying to balance both for t2 and t3 at the same time).
      91ca1e78-dd1f-421e-836c-6cb64201f0e3-image.png

      As you see, currently vulthoo is indeed considered t2 gunship from energy POV. It has not enough E cost to be t2.5, which can be partially responsible for its current horrible stats.

      [new Vulthoo picture]
      7b1046cd-ffa2-4883-a8b2-1296c95b2635-image.png

      Yep. Now, spamming Vulthoo at t2 pgens will not give you more raw_power / [adjusted_energy] than spamming broadsword on t3, but using t3 pgens you still will have more, as it should be for t2.5 gunship.

      So
      e cost: 10000 -> 12200

      Conclusion

      Current Vulthoo is not even near t2.5 gunship level.
      Right T2.5 gunships stats are:

      Speed -> 11.75 (Or 11.25/11.5, see prologue)
      Range -> 23.5 (Or 23.16/23.33, see prologue)
      Hp -> 1911 (chapter 1)
      Dps -> 111 (chapter 1)
      Buildtime -> 2600 (or from 1587 to 2646, see chapter 2)
      E cost -> 12200 (chapter 3) (also see post below)

      These are correct stats for T2.5 500mass gunship
      From all the above only E cost is somewhat arguable, because the result is really depends on "do i adjust for t2/t3 pgens factor and if yes, how?". (Depending on how you adjust for unit tier, i got up to ~15300 e cost as middle one)
      Make hp/dps/speed less and now its not t2.5 really but some strange abomination.

      posted in Balance Discussion seraphim balance gunship
      E
      ETFreeman
    • RE: Introducing Mapgen Week on Ladder

      Lololol
      That's gonna be really funny

      No whoring builds, pure fun and skill. Love it

      posted in General Discussion
      E
      ETFreeman
    • Divide Ladder by map size

      My greetings

      In a rare moments when i have free time to play the game I catch myself thinking 'why don't i go ladder right now?'
      And in 70% cases inner voice says: "Wait, what if you got 20x20 map? Do you really want to sweaty macro play for the next 30-50 mins?
      And then i just go to testing or other less stressful activity

      So, to the point:
      Why dont we let players choose map size in ladder?

      Just let to choose 5x5, 10x10, 20x20 or any combination of these
      and calc rating separetely for each map size

      What we gonna get?

      • Incresed ladder online: its easier to go ladder on your favorite map size

      • Less time to found a match Just result of prev. For a high-rated players it's quite difficult to found a ladder match, and this'll help them (just pick all the categories, not one)

      • More fun Just because some people adores 5x5, some hates. Now every player will be more happy

      What we gonna lose?

      • Simple one-for-all-maps rating After ladder dividing we will got even more rating numbers (one for each map size). May be that looks not very nice (and will make rating system more complicated), but in fact this doesn't create any discomfort in the game for the players

      Actually, i don't see other disadvantages
      Well, may be after this change we'll must increase ladder map pool, but that doesn't seem like a serious problem

      So, what do you think?

      posted in Suggestions
      E
      ETFreeman
    • RE: about 1v1 ladder and fire beetle

      make stealth field and delete aeon t2 army when he is pushing you, for example:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIDYryiuNzw

      posted in Game Issues and Gameplay questions
      E
      ETFreeman
    • RE: Introducing Mapgen Week on Ladder

      all neroxis maps are good but still 33% of 20x20 is too much
      imagine to play almost an hour and then lose it
      1 hour of time, and for what?
      5x5 and 10x10 value your time much more than 20x20, that's why i dont love what we have for now

      pls make 20x20 less likely :C
      too much time for too small amount of games

      posted in General Discussion
      E
      ETFreeman
    • RE: Map Gen Week Feedback Thread

      @morax
      Question 1:
      I pretty like all the types of random maps, there is no such which i dislike. We love neroxis for randomness, it won't be cool if one of the map types will have much more chance than other

      Question 2:
      All was fine. I had maps with a really lot of reclaim, have maps with some reclaim and maps where's no reclaim at all. All is ok for me

      Question 3:
      I played a bit worse, but mostly because innactive and my tries to change game style.
      And because there was really a lot of 20x20. And i am suck on 20x20, so my rating is droped a bit

      Question 4:
      5x5 are fun and quick
      10x10 are the best, balance of quickness and gameplay variety
      20x20 are the worst, really long games, takes a lot of time and effort, while victory is the same as for 5x5
      really want to different queue for them or something like that
      i sometimes have no mental strength to play it and don't go ladder because of it

      Question 5:
      i personally love neroxis more than static maps, so i dont care if we deleted current map pool and place neroxis instead, forever. But me is me, 1 neroxis week in each month will be better than 1 neroxis month and then no neroxis for no-one-knows-how-much-time
      want it as regular event

      Question 6:
      i really dont love orange and red maps, it hurts my eyes a bit
      white and green are the best, nice and clean
      other is ok

      Also, can i know, when the next neroxis ladder event will happen? Can't wait for it

      posted in General Discussion
      E
      ETFreeman
    • TML is broken

      For now TML's shift is bugged and clearly broken

      How to simulate bug:

      1. build TML
      2. Make some targets for it (i dunno, mb ground fire will be also bugged)
      3. Order to launch rocket into few targets in a row
      4. Cancel one order after every launch (to not launch two rockets into the same target)

      So, basically after one-two launches tml just stands with an attack order and do nothing

      I also tested it with cancelling order and giving the new one, still happens quite often

      Fix it pls

      Stays with an attack order and doesnt shoot forever
      Stays with order and dont shoot forever

      posted in Game Issues and Gameplay questions
      E
      ETFreeman
    • RE: Road to Glory! 1v1. 1000-1500 ladder rating. 50$ prize

      Sign me up
      ETFreeman (1400 ladder, 1590 global)
      Had inactive for about 6 months but i'll try my best

      posted in Tournaments
      E
      ETFreeman
    • RE: Matchmaker Pool Feedback Thread

      I was very excided about "New 1v1 Ladder Map Selections", where was said about the intention of matchmaker team to eliminate very small or large maps and extremely high reclaim maps, and focus on more consistent ladder experience
      I was thinking about "no 5x5 (sad), no 20x20 (good), more 10x10 (15x15, maybe?) open palm-ish (gold standard for me) type of maps, no reclaim mountains etc

      And now i am extremely disappointed
      They indeed removed 5x5 for 1200+ (sad, but doable)
      But now from 8 maps i got 3 20x20, so if press a btn i got large map in 37.5% cases
      More over, i have no idea how Bermuda Locket (20x20 map with reclaim mountains) can be in the pool where supposed to not be large maps and maps with reclaim mountains
      Crossfire canal also, it is again large map, and you can say anything, but you cannot say about any "consistency" in ladder gameplay when this map in a pool. The land paths to enemy bases are non-existing there, so you cannot push with land spam directly, which is maybe fine alone, but not with the fact that navy also fights in thin water tunnels. The crossfire canal gameplay differs from average ladder map very drastically. And this is only the cherry on the cake, it shouldnt be there just because its 20x20.
      I cannot say anything bad about point of reach except its size tho (yes, direct land push is impossible, but atleast navy gameplay is "as always"). As with all 20x20, the game length there can be very different than 10x10. Cannot see any sense being 20x20 in a pool where is no 5x5 for "game length should be consistent" reason.

      Additional feedback data:
      Im 1600 1v1 ladder
      here is the tier-list of current mappool:
      my-image.png
      as you see, the pool overall is not so bad
      Bad is the fact that i got 100% of S-tier maps and 62% of A-tier maps deleted just because im in 1200+ bracket
      With 37.5% of 20x20 maps in my pool i surelly will press the btn less, will probably just switch to 3v3 where you have no 20x20 in the pool at all (also the pool full of neroxis is very tasty) (lol, why we have 20x20 in 1v1 and dont have it in 3v3)
      You gain rating, you get more of shitty maps, i think this is not how it should be working
      Veto system would be help, if i could atleast ban bermuda and crossfire it would be good enough (except the map pool of only 6 maps is kinda small). Also in this case you can add couple of 5x5, so 20x20 lovers ban 5x5, and 5x5 lovers ban 20x20, everyone is happy
      Without veto system, i think the max map size should be capped at 15x15, otherwise i doubt about any consistency in game length / gameplay.
      the link to make ur tier list: https://tiermaker.com/create/faf-1v1-ladder-mappool-0923-16127913

      posted in General Discussion
      E
      ETFreeman
    • RE: TML is broken

      @valki yea, i tried split attack too
      even if i cancel first order after shot and give second split attack order immediately after - they dont shoot
      have to repeat one order few times to just fkn launch them, that really sucks if you have to control other parts of map too

      posted in Game Issues and Gameplay questions
      E
      ETFreeman

    Latest posts made by ETFreeman

    • RE: [Vulthoo stats]Inventing right T2.5 gunship with math&logic

      @arran i dont have much time currently and not really intrested in deep research of other units unless i'll see some really bad stats like vulthoo buildtime, i am not a balance team member after all

      (coding veto system rn)

      posted in Balance Discussion
      E
      ETFreeman
    • RE: [Vulthoo stats]Inventing right T2.5 gunship with math&logic

      I should probably also mention that for "T2.5" gunship, Vulthoo doesnt have currently anything really what you should build to start to spam them other than some mass.

      I mean, you need to build t3 hq & t3 pgen first to spam broadswords, probably, so this is additional argument to make E cost more.
      Additional t2 pgen will be as "0.5tech" which justifies all the stats

      posted in Balance Discussion
      E
      ETFreeman
    • [Vulthoo stats]Inventing right T2.5 gunship with math&logic

      Hi
      Previously (in discord), i made topic about Vulthoo buildtime (bt should be reduced). In the process i went deeper into vulthoo stats and discovered that they are far from perfect.

      So i decided to really understand what is going on here and what Vulthoo stats should be if we want it to be "T2.5" gunship, using math & logic to get the values. (I dont really want to do this already but i promised to Rhaelya so rip me☠ )

      Key points:

      • I assume that Vulthoo should be T2.5 gunship in all the stats (assuming mass cost is constant 500)

      • T2.5 gunship here is the gunship between Stinger and Broadword.
        Why Broadswoard? It has no other abilities (Wailer's stealth, Restorer's AA), as well as Vulthoo
        Why Stinger? Its the only t2 gunship which shoots as Vulthoo (no aoe, no alpha-shot)
        I will mention some other gunships still tho

      • I will split the post into several chapters to make the brain load less. Each chapter will have some thought about some particular param and what it should be.

      Prologue, speed & range

      The data:
      c0094b66-e143-4ae4-a3fc-9c76fb2d1e74-image.png

      As you see, currently vulthoo is slower than needed and has more range than needed.

      Someone will say "but stinger is the fastest t2 gunship"
      Ok, Specter & Renegade have 12 speed, lets calculate "average t2 gunship speed" then: (12 + 12 + 13.5) / 3 = 12.5.
      Even with this approach, T2.5 will be (12.5 + 10) / 2 = 11.25

      About range, Renegade has the same range as stinger, only specter has 20, which will lead to 23.16 range

      So:
      Vulthoo:

      • speed should be buffed to 11.75 (11.25 if we look not only on stinger) (11.5 average between both suggestions)
      • range should be nerfed to 23.5 (23.16 if we look not only on stinger) (23.33 average between both suggestions)

      Interlude, about raw power

      As soon as i will suggest any change, some people will appear to claim that "but concentraded power!"; Fair enough

      To key points here:

      1. Concentraded power factor vs flaks: hard to calculate "middle value". I mean its obvious that vulthoo is better than stinger vs flaks, but what stats exactly should be? Size of the gunship? Range? Hp? This is too complicated to make any suggestions, so i completely skip this case because i have no idea how to analyze it properly so it makes any sense.
      2. Concentraded power factor vs anything else: this one can actually be calculated!
        Most AA in the game has no aoe (Any air aa: inties, swiftwinds, asfs, t2 bombers, restorers, etc) or has small enough aoe to still completely negate its effect with proper micro (non-sera cruisers, sams, t3 maa) (note: use formation move and some move orders for ez negating aoe of any of these)

      So, lets define raw_power as the amount of damage the group of N gunships can do before some ideal target with infinite HP and some single-target AA kill them. And N can be calculated for each resource (mass, energy, buildpower) individually (how many gunships i can build for 5k mass / 50k energy / 50k buildtime, etc)

      The formula is:
      90dde398-de3d-4955-89ee-0b200371548a-image.png

      If we want to see only "real" game values (because we cannot send 3.41 gunships, we can send only 3), we can just floor the values:
      b18b3556-df5d-4f1a-82ba-36c450e9aa12-image.png

      For any people wondering why this formula is like this, i will just show this screen and i think this is enough.
      a4b266b0-41c6-459c-a388-8e3ac40475bc-image.png
      Formula is correct according to tests, if you have any doubts free to write below

      Chapter 1, DPS and HP per mass

      The data: 031f6606-d97d-4042-b9f3-a9e8c9b433e3-image.png

      Raw power, under 3000 mass (left is smoothed, right is "real"):
      57cdb96e-78cc-4ae6-a87d-9e9ecb4de795-image.png

      Raw power, under 20000 mass:
      2a3b254f-71f4-4828-9808-f3ff91a1d032-image.png

      As you see, currently Vulthoo has lower hp/dps values compared to what it should be. In addition to that, it also has lower raw_power per mass (even if you count "concentrated power" effect, its worse)
      Yes, in current game balance t2 gunships have better raw_power per mass than t3 at the cost of being bad vs flaks and buildtime difference (about that-later).

      Lets try to fix dps/mass according to the table:
      dps: 100 -> 111
      hp: 1800 -> 1911

      The data:
      24263212-0be8-4ad8-af12-fc2b2a8d5f12-image.png

      As you see, now it looks more what is should be. On large scale it performs as t2.5 indeed. Under 1500 mass (3 gunships) spended it is very close to stinger by raw strength due to "high mass concentration" factor, and after that cloud of stingers starts to be stronger.

      I believe these are right numbers to be. If you worried about "but i will be sniped before even build first flak, i understand your concern, but dont worry, we can balance this with e cost for example. Vulthoo is still much worse vs flaks than broadsword and it should be used on t3 because sera has no alternatives, so being too weak just is a bad idea.

      So:
      dps: 100 -> 111
      hp: 1800 -> 1911

      Chapter 2, buildtime
      The data, [current vulthoo]
      e90b7b67-9602-43f0-8f2d-e9ea48504d2e-image.png

      ec439ee7-8988-48ad-b24c-cd4e679cf4d5-image.png

      From the data, we can see two things:

      1. t3 gunships are far better in raw power per buildtime compared to t2. In addition to that, t3 fac has 3x more buildtime than t2, so you can multiply broadsword score by 3 if you want.
      2. Vulthoo buildtime is just stupidly bad currently. It supposed to be better than stinger in (raw_stength / buildtime) because of "T2.5", instead he nerfed below that.

      I will draw suggested charts for current Vulthoo and for new Vulthoo. New Vulthoo will have all the stats i suggested above so we need to account for them while suggesting other stats.

      What builtime current Vulthoo should have? That is a really tricky question!
      Here is the plot, "how much builtime vulthoo should have to be T2.5 in raw_power_per_buildtime terms":
      835c47e6-365c-4e20-b81e-ade236c1eeca-image.png

      As you see, the answer is really depends on what amount of buildtime (BT) you use. (With current stats, no constant value of buildtime will make raw_power_per_buildtime always exactly between Broadsword and Stinger at any point of the game)
      The max value (limit to the infinity, very large armies) of the function is ~ 2437.75 buildtime
      The min value (limit to 0, tiny armies) is ~ 1347 buildtime
      for BT = 3300: 2026
      for BT = 10000: 2247
      for BT = 30000: 2364

      So, the actual value here should be taken from the point (how many BuilTime will be invested into Vulthoo in the average game)

      I think it is not more than 30-50k, so 2364-2400 should be good enough for current Vulthoo.

      Here are the charts for raw power with 2370 buildtime vulthoo:
      e2eb993b-5021-4561-90e4-249bf7cdf254-image.png

      Now, lets go to more instesting part and check out or new Vulthoo (111dps, 1911hp):

      The same situation with buildtime, it depends:
      10ebcdb0-1430-48c1-855c-383925342525-image.png
      But here values are starts from 1587.370786 and going to 2646

      T2.5 BT for 30k Buildpower invested is ~ 2575
      T2.5 BT for 50k Buildpower invested is ~ 2600
      Excel table suggested value which has no idea about "concentrated mass" is 2630, which is still in range

      Ok, lets check out 2600:
      50d2b1a9-8a49-4ad6-b5bd-6d7aaf839a11-image.png

      Looks good

      So

      new Vulthoo:
      dps -> 111
      hp -> 1911
      buildtime -> 2600

      Buildtime can be a bit more if you wanna balance it for ultra-late-game, but nothing more than 2646 make any sense.
      Can also be a lot less if you wanna balance it for more early game usage instead.

      Chapter 3, energy cost

      The data, [current vulthoo]
      d8660fa4-1a5a-4845-a9cb-4a45c15f9c8a-image.png

      Intresting! Finally, green numbers!

      Now let me explain what is going on here:

      1. t3 energy is much cheaper than t2 energy. For each 100 mass invested into t2 pgen, you get 41.6 energy income.
        For each 100 mass invested into t3 pgen, you get 77.16 energy income
        So basically t3 energy is 1.85x cheaper than t2 energy
      2. If we look at vulthoo as pure t2 gunship which is produced on t2 pgens, then current E cost makes sense: 1.85x multiplier nullifies broadsword's high E cost, so current E cost looks fine at 99% of what dps/mass per energy should be.
      3. if we forget about 1.85x multiplier and look only on E cost, basically producing all gunships at t3 pgens, then vulthoo has 113% dps / energy and 131% hp / energy it should have
      4. if we imagine some mythic T2.5 Pgen which is average between T2 and T3, then vulthoo has 106% of correct dps / energy and 119% of correct hp / energy

      Since this whole topic is about making T2.5 gunship, i assume 4) as right point

      T2.5 gunship should cost more energy than current Vulthoo costs
      for current Vulthoo, its about 11200e.

      But we're talking here not about current fraud t2.5, we're talking about real T2.5

      So, what energy cost should have new Vulthoo with stats:
      111dps
      1911hp
      2600bt
      ?
      Its about 12200e (22% more than current) to be balanced for imaginary "T2.5 pgen".
      If you want to balance for T3, its 13200
      If you want to balance for T2, its 10700

      These numbers are all from only dps and hp / energy stats, what about raw_power?

      [current Vulthoo picture]
      Here are 3 charts. Basically, all what adjusting does is shifts broadword ratio to stinger and vulthoo. adjusted_energy_for_t2 makes discount for broadsword cuz t3 energy is cheaper per mass.
      Adjusted_energy_for_t2.5 makes also discount for vulthoo & stinger, imagining they are builded on t2.5 pgen (trying to balance both for t2 and t3 at the same time).
      91ca1e78-dd1f-421e-836c-6cb64201f0e3-image.png

      As you see, currently vulthoo is indeed considered t2 gunship from energy POV. It has not enough E cost to be t2.5, which can be partially responsible for its current horrible stats.

      [new Vulthoo picture]
      7b1046cd-ffa2-4883-a8b2-1296c95b2635-image.png

      Yep. Now, spamming Vulthoo at t2 pgens will not give you more raw_power / [adjusted_energy] than spamming broadsword on t3, but using t3 pgens you still will have more, as it should be for t2.5 gunship.

      So
      e cost: 10000 -> 12200

      Conclusion

      Current Vulthoo is not even near t2.5 gunship level.
      Right T2.5 gunships stats are:

      Speed -> 11.75 (Or 11.25/11.5, see prologue)
      Range -> 23.5 (Or 23.16/23.33, see prologue)
      Hp -> 1911 (chapter 1)
      Dps -> 111 (chapter 1)
      Buildtime -> 2600 (or from 1587 to 2646, see chapter 2)
      E cost -> 12200 (chapter 3) (also see post below)

      These are correct stats for T2.5 500mass gunship
      From all the above only E cost is somewhat arguable, because the result is really depends on "do i adjust for t2/t3 pgens factor and if yes, how?". (Depending on how you adjust for unit tier, i got up to ~15300 e cost as middle one)
      Make hp/dps/speed less and now its not t2.5 really but some strange abomination.

      posted in Balance Discussion seraphim balance gunship
      E
      ETFreeman
    • RE: Matchmaker Pool Feedback Thread

      @thomashiatt tbh yes
      I dont understand why we have daroza but dont have 5x5 then
      If we really wanna do a bit of "diversity" in map playstyles, 5x5 shouldn't be an exception

      posted in General Discussion
      E
      ETFreeman
    • RE: Matchmaker Pool Feedback Thread

      Why we again have high-reclaim maps in the 1v1 mappool? Bermuda, daroza, etc
      Everything was so good when we had "consistent" mappool with ok maps without extreme differences in amount of reclaim, why it was changed back? :C

      posted in General Discussion
      E
      ETFreeman
    • RE: Matchmaker Pool Feedback Thread

      Now the pool is nice, thanks everyone, keep it like that for the whole year B)

      posted in General Discussion
      E
      ETFreeman
    • RE: Matchmaker Pool Feedback Thread

      I was very excided about "New 1v1 Ladder Map Selections", where was said about the intention of matchmaker team to eliminate very small or large maps and extremely high reclaim maps, and focus on more consistent ladder experience
      I was thinking about "no 5x5 (sad), no 20x20 (good), more 10x10 (15x15, maybe?) open palm-ish (gold standard for me) type of maps, no reclaim mountains etc

      And now i am extremely disappointed
      They indeed removed 5x5 for 1200+ (sad, but doable)
      But now from 8 maps i got 3 20x20, so if press a btn i got large map in 37.5% cases
      More over, i have no idea how Bermuda Locket (20x20 map with reclaim mountains) can be in the pool where supposed to not be large maps and maps with reclaim mountains
      Crossfire canal also, it is again large map, and you can say anything, but you cannot say about any "consistency" in ladder gameplay when this map in a pool. The land paths to enemy bases are non-existing there, so you cannot push with land spam directly, which is maybe fine alone, but not with the fact that navy also fights in thin water tunnels. The crossfire canal gameplay differs from average ladder map very drastically. And this is only the cherry on the cake, it shouldnt be there just because its 20x20.
      I cannot say anything bad about point of reach except its size tho (yes, direct land push is impossible, but atleast navy gameplay is "as always"). As with all 20x20, the game length there can be very different than 10x10. Cannot see any sense being 20x20 in a pool where is no 5x5 for "game length should be consistent" reason.

      Additional feedback data:
      Im 1600 1v1 ladder
      here is the tier-list of current mappool:
      my-image.png
      as you see, the pool overall is not so bad
      Bad is the fact that i got 100% of S-tier maps and 62% of A-tier maps deleted just because im in 1200+ bracket
      With 37.5% of 20x20 maps in my pool i surelly will press the btn less, will probably just switch to 3v3 where you have no 20x20 in the pool at all (also the pool full of neroxis is very tasty) (lol, why we have 20x20 in 1v1 and dont have it in 3v3)
      You gain rating, you get more of shitty maps, i think this is not how it should be working
      Veto system would be help, if i could atleast ban bermuda and crossfire it would be good enough (except the map pool of only 6 maps is kinda small). Also in this case you can add couple of 5x5, so 20x20 lovers ban 5x5, and 5x5 lovers ban 20x20, everyone is happy
      Without veto system, i think the max map size should be capped at 15x15, otherwise i doubt about any consistency in game length / gameplay.
      the link to make ur tier list: https://tiermaker.com/create/faf-1v1-ladder-mappool-0923-16127913

      posted in General Discussion
      E
      ETFreeman
    • RE: The Fatboy

      I think its a good idea to increase buildpower and slightly buff shield regen
      However, buffing vision / baseHP / agility is too strong, i think
      Its already good and annoying kiter, there is no reason to buff its abilities even further

      posted in Balance Discussion
      E
      ETFreeman
    • RE: Repair units balance

      @sheikah attackers also can have bonuses from it

      for now the attacking player have a longer delay in supply (his factories is far away), so it's quite hard to hold captured territory

      but if for example t2 com can pretty fast repair all damaged units it will be easier to hold this territory and then attack once again

      also attacker's units might already have veterancy so when they will be full hp - they will be stronger than equal enemy army, that's really intresting

      Overall, nothing changes: do not fight the battle you cannot win

      But a win in battle will be more rewarding (because your survived army will be stronger than before, after repair)

      posted in Balance Discussion
      E
      ETFreeman
    • RE: Tell me your Shard stories!

      They are very useful. In the aeon company mission one 😆

      posted in General Discussion
      E
      ETFreeman