Posts made by Evan_

@maudlin27 said in Gun Upgrade Nerf:

The problem is that your main counter is T2 PD (and aeon Guncoms if you're not Aeon), which is likely what the enemy has if they didn't go guncom.

This is absolutely true, but what I'm arguing is that this typically takes more resources than the guncom, and at best leaves both sides at a standstill or at worst lets the Guncom go attack a teammate.

T2 upgrade also provides far more general utility - e.g. if you're near the frontline you can build radar without needing an engineer; if the enemy tries attacking with bombers you can quickly get T1 AA. You can reclaim faster (I've yet to test it properly in sandbox but if you micro it quickly I reckon you can get DPS signfiicantly better than your base gun reclaiming enemy T1 units); in some niche cases you can even capture the enemy T1 PD. You get more health and regen, and if you decide to retreat your ACU from the frontline you can use it as a useful builder (while getting any future upgrades faster).

You also mention the cost of T2 PD + T2 upgrade for defending guncom, but this neglects a number of points:
1 - the utility provided by T2 upgrade more generally (see above)
2 - the cost of all the extra PGens the guncom needed to get before they could start their upgrade. Mass for these is needed much sooner than the mass for the T2 PD, hence costs more (since your mass income increases at a significant rate early game) - i.e. what % of your income * time does T2 upgrade and T2 PD require cumulatively vs more T1 PGens and Gun upgrade? It's not a case of comparing absolute mass costs since you're getting them at different times. The answer also varies depending on the map.
3 - T2 PD will usually be got if getting a T2 upgrade even if the enemy isnt going guncom assuming the map has some sort of choke point/high value location, since it also helps defend against T1 arti (that can outrange T1 PD).

The extra utility will take quite a while to create an advantage if you have to immediately put it to work on defense, by the time enough PD is up, the player with Gun may almost be done on a T2 HQ for tech, something both players are probably going for anyways. Being able to get up radar is nice, but by that point you'll usually have several engineers there.

Those Pgens still work to scale the economy after the upgrade is done, it isn't as if they stop benefitting after theit initial role. Besides which one of my main points is that the energy curve can be softened by frontloading e-storage while the ACU walks to the front. And in regards to point 2, The economy really doesn't scale at all if you're upgrading and then immediately placing down PD. It's not like you'll upgrade a mex when you need to quickly build defenses against a guncom. For point 3, even if you are going to get PD later that doesn't eliminate it's cost. It would be as if I said the same thing but for the Pgens.

You also mention it's in a good spot 1v1 but not team games, but your changes would hurt it in 1v1 more than teamgames - when I go guncom in 1v1 I find it really hard to make it work, as I've got fewer tanks (due to more PGens) and am really vulnerable to a T1 arti attack (assuming I'm upgrading away from my base - if my ACU has to sit in my base I've probably just lost the game anyway on smaller maps). Making it take much longer to upgrade drastically increases the disadvantages on 1v1, and (given your stated aim) actually has slightly less impact on a teamgame (since teamgames are usually on larger maps, hence you could build fewer PGens since the upgrade is spread over a longer time but not have to worry as much about T1 Arti forcing you to cancel the upgrade compared with 1v1).

Actually you typically have way more space and resources per player on ladder on most maps, with the exception being 20x20 ladder where gun isn't used often anyways, and some 5x5 where one player getting it can be a game-ender. Gun and other ACU upgrades are something you typically get later, as units can have much more of an impact. And the ACU needs to be more generalist.

I'm not denying Gun won't be slightly worse in Ladder with the changes (which by the way can be decreased if necessary), and that it won't come slightly later, but for 400 more mass it is still one of the most mass efficient things you can build, and absolutely takes at least as much of an investment to stop.

@ftxcommando said in Gun Upgrade Nerf:

No, a gun ACU dies to like 15 t2 tanks no problem if it overextends. Or at least gets into such low hp it is basically incapacitated if it has somewhere to retreat to unless it gets an hp upgrade or farms several vets. Even more so if you include shields to waste initial OCs since people arent (or shouldn't be) running around with +1000 overflow at min 10-11.

My point isn't that a Gun ACU is immune to everything, not the least of which 4 times the investment in an HQ and 15 T2 tanks. In my second post I was arguing (admittedly not worded very well) that a unit advantage can overcome a veterancy/hp disadvantage. However in a fight between gun ACUs, this advantage is reduced significantly unless you have nearly twice as many tanks.

Gun upgrade rush min 5 is only going to be countered by gun upgrade or t2 upgrade yeah, nature of clustered teamgames because you have nowhere to emphasize a unit advantage and so generally stacking utility upgrades on the ACU is the best move to gain or hold ground. Gun is more expensive than T2 and should generally require 5 more pgens, this translates to about 70% of the cost of a t2 pd alongside a later upgrade finish.

Even if the extra pgens needed was 100% of the cost of a PD, I would consider it advantageous, as once the upgrade finishes, the energy is going towards something else.

I'd also say clustered teamgames already are disgustingly static but that's mostly because of how the t3 stage plays and there being essentially no counterplay against a ball of snipers aside from spending the 12k mass to set up a t2 arty firebase or a t4 like a fatboy or a mega. Nerfing gun just pushes the game forward into static play earlier in those games.

I agree with the first point but not the latter, I believe that the cheap Gun Upgrade is one of the main things stopping units from contributing and unit advantages from being significant in the early game. Not that teamgames will magically be perfect after, but I think it's a start.

I disagree with vet being the problem, you can fight against and take down an ACU with much higher vet if you have some compensation, however fighting a Gun Acu usually requires your own gun, or least an acu and multiple T2 PD.

It's my experience that the ACU gets even better in the late T2 stage as you add more energy, vet, and e-storage. However, my focus is on the early T2 stage, where pushing against Gun ACU is costly at best even with more tanks and your own Gun, and where if you do want to attack you only really have one option, which is to grab the gun upgrade.

It's true you can hold with T2 pd but you are usually spending more than the attacker. At 500 mass and 3500 energy, that quickly goes past the attacking cost even though the T2 ACU upgrade is cheaper. You also aren't vetting the ACU, and a mismicro or latency can lose the position to a guncom-t1 arty mix while the opponent has a large window to retreat. Alternatively they can sometimes just ignore the PD and attack a teammate. That doesn't make T2 necessarily worse, and it gives some interesting options like TML, but it doesn't have the immediate threat that the gun upgrade does, and doesn't nearly limit counterplay to the same degree.

In this post I argue that the ACU Gun upgrades are overpowered, and that they hurt game diversity at the late t1/early T2 stage. I will also list the drawbacks of getting the gun-upgrade and why I feel that these drawbacks are too easily circumvented. This post is primarily intended towards affecting larger team-games without making the gun upgrade too weak in ladder/2v2, as I feel it is in a good spot there.

The ACU gun upgrades are arguably the most mass efficient choice in the entire game. On many maps you are at a serious disadvantage if your opponent goes for it but you do not. the upgrade enables one unit to hold points with ease while ecoing or using units elsewhere, and at an early point in the game it can easily snowball with veterancy and future upgrades.

Some people may say that nerfing gun upgrades will make the game more turtly, however it is my opinion that in many cases, the ACU gun upgrade itself is what limits aggression. In an ACU vs ACU fight, one side having far more units can often still be unable to gain enough of an advantage to push, and this is even moreso the case with the Gun-upgrade. Units are virtually unable to contribute in some cases, as they just become vet before getting into range, and the fight becomes a game of who can bring T2 pd or mobile shields to support their Gun ACU faster.

It's my opinion that the gun upgrade is strong enough to limit strategic options, such as pushing with an unupgraded Acu and an early T2 Army, or getting nano/regen field without gun, et cetera. With that, my hope is that the Gun upgrade will be nerfed so that there is more of a choice of which to get first within the first several minutes of the game.

Gun upgrade does have some drawbacks that in theory, work to prevent it from being overpowered:

• The Gun upgrade has a relatively large energy cost
• You can not move or control the ACU while upgrading (though you can queue up orders)
• Opponents are aware you are upgrading due to the lighting effects on the ACU, and can see what arm is upgrading.
• You can not get other upgrades on the same arm (affects some factions more than others).

However, in many cases, I feel that these drawbacks are not enough to hold Gun back from being overpowered, and that they are often even nullified:

• The energy cost is appears high but is often negligible. Most of the time when going for it, you'll have an energy surplus and e storage for overcharge anyway. By building 1-2 e-storages while walking your ACU to a front/expansion you are essentially pseudo-building the upgrade, as by the time you get there you can click the upgrade button and use all your stored energy without having to unbalance your economy. Even just having 9000 energy in storage makes the upgrade very easy to get.
• Furthermore, in teamgames, players often gift energy to allow gun upgrades to finish super quickly. This does in theory put the gifter at a disadvantage, but in 4v4's and up there's usually at least someone with energy to spare.
• It's true that you can't use or move the ACU while upgrading, however the upgrade finishes so quickly that usually no loss is felt. Sometimes, you can even start upgrading in the middle of battle if your opponent doesn't have too much t1 arty, letting your acu still shoot and tank for your units.
• Your opponent can see that you are upgrading, but cannot see how close you are to construction. It could be just started or almost complete, and attacking an upgrading ACU with an unupgraded ACU is very risky, especially with the fast build-times and the ability to gift energy.

In conclusion, I believe that the drawbacks to getting the gun upgrade are too easily nullified in teamgames.

I do understand that certain units (such as Aurora) may become a lot stronger if Gun Upgrade is nerfed too much, so it makes sense to be careful and strike a balance. Furthermore, I the Gun Upgrades are decently balanced in combat outside of their cost. For that reason, I suggest changes to the price of the upgrade:

• Increase the build-time of the gun upgrade so an ACU can't just walk to the front while e-storage builds, and upgrade within half a minute or so.
• Increase the mass cost of the upgrade. This way, gun upgrades will cost something even with a ton of energy either gifted or in storage. I believe trying to increase the energy costs would have a negligible effect in teamgames while making Gun underpowered in 1v1.

My idea for the numbers is as follows, they are of course not set in stone:

UEF, Cybran, and Seraphim:
Build time: 800 → 1200
Mass cost: 800 → 1200

Aeon (both upgrades):
Build time: 500 → 720
Mass cost: 500 → 720

That's a cool screencap. Some of every faction with the Pillar, ED4, GC, and what looks like a Zthuee salvo.

Usually, if someone has connection problems to some people, but is connected to at least a few, then leaving via alt+f4 creates a delay for everyone, while leaving via the menu seems to resolve things better and lets the game pick up immediately.

@zlo said in If people ragequit alt+f4 do we get the 1:30 menu?:

i would also like to know if alt+f4 causes any side effects... cause it should not be different from regular disconnect or exit to windows or click score button or whatever

It's hard to say for certain because I can't be sure which way someone leaves unless they're a streamer, but if a streamer left a game early, and there were connection problems, I would watch their perspective and usually, they would leave with alt+f4.

The pool looks pretty nice! I'm glad to see that Wonder Open is in there, it's a good map.

Have to say I'd be interested in having Setons in occasionally so I can give it a try without being in a game with 7 Setons pros.

@woippa said in Someone's cheating on the coop leaderboard:

someone cares about that leaderboard?
anyone can just lower the gamespeed by using external programs or manipulated game rules and streaming fake replays should also work

Yes, enough people care about the amount of skill and planning that goes into finding the fastest way to progress through a co-op mission. That's why beating the previous top time by over 2 minutes is something big and why several people have already checked the replay and seen what they can do about it.

Lowering gamespeed wouldn't really help much as co-op is more dependent on coordination and strategy as opposed to clicking a little faster. Also any small gains in efficiency have to be weighed against being able to make fewer attempts. As for manipulated game rules and fake replays, those should not (in theory) get past the replay system.

Hello, I am Evan_. I mostly play mid level (1600-2000) teamgames, and occasionally ladder games. The goal of this balance patch is to make the T3 air game more interesting by making gunships viable in more situations again. This post is primarily focused on team-games, as I do not feel the changes proposed are enough to significantly shift the T3 air-game in 1v1 (that is up for discussion though).

T3 gunships were nerfed in balance patch 3709 without a justification attached, (while it could exist somewhere else, there should be at least a reason given for such a large change). Both their mass cost and energy cost increasing substantially:

Mass cost: 1260 → 1500 (1680 on FAF unit database)
Energy cost: 42000 → 65000

The strength of T3 gunships at the time (in team-games) was that they could be rushed on T2 power generators while opposing air players were getting a T3 power-generator for ASFs. Additionally, T3 gunships are effective against Flak as they attack as a few mass-dense units rather than a lot of cheap units, reducing the impact of AOE damage.

This led to a brief window where the T3 gunship player had time to do damage in exchange for reduced air control in the future, creating an interesting imbalance. T3 gunships and a swarm of Inties could hold and even win against the first few ASF, However, the T3 gunship player had to play intelligently and not let his inties fly over flak while doing as much damage as he could. This led to an interesting imbalance as one team creates an advantage on land while the other team creates an advantage in the air.

After the nerf however, this risky strategy is now much harder to pull off in a way that benefits the team in the long run. This makes the T3 air game on 10x10 maps more static as players go straight for ASF rather than trying to create an imbalance.

Additionally, in the late-game, there is little reason to build T3 gunships over Strat Bombers if you have air control. Strats will take little to no damage from Flak and have AOE to hit many targets. T3 gunships are also a lot slower than Strats, both to deal damage (Alpha damage on Strats vs DoT on gunships) and to move around the map. Strats actually have some use if air is even, as you can drop a bomb and then retreat to Sams if you catch your opponent's air on the other side of the map. This has become more viable in spread out maps with the decrease to asf speed. T3 gunships however, will be slow to move in, to deal damage, and to move away. There are still a few cases where you build them, but opponents mostly only need to be wary of Strat bombers and not T3 gunships.

I propose to revert or reduce the cost nerf to T3 gunships while reducing speed slightly. This makes them more efficient to use and cheaper to get out without making them too dominant, and giving players more reaction time to prevent a snipe. This plays into the idea of them being slow and bulky.

Here are my proposed changes. The speed nerf is not meant to offset the cost decrease. These changes are meant to be an overall buff as I feel that the previous nerf was too harsh. The numbers themselves can be finetuned of course.

Mass cost: 1260 → 1500/1680 → 1260  
Energy cost: 42000 → 65000 → 48000 
Max air speed: 8 → 8 → 7.5

@flametempest

This is what I found after searching the thread. I'm not sure if it's the official one, the one who posted the link said something in russian about it. Should be good though.

If that doesn't work, I'd ask in Discord if I were you, someone can share a mod file.

This can lead to a problem though, because sometimes you really are not sure if you are about to draw your opponent. Your opponent could be about to vet, or have a mobile shield on the way, or enough units coming to block your attack.

Is there perhaps some workaround that can be done by modifying the ACU's death weapon? Replace it in lua code with something that adds a flag to the replay file that the server can see when determining who won the game? I'm not very knowledgeable about FAF's inner workings but I know that as long as the server's able to see something that indicates a draw, then it can award the correct points instead of counting it as a win.

I think the Mods are doing a pretty good job.

The balance team (I don't speak for them) generally avoids adding new units where possible to keep FAF resemblant of base FA. There were only a few exceptions such as the T3 MAA and even those were controversial.

I understand you want it balanced for lower-rated players, but I think it is best to balance around how units are played at the top level. Lower rated players and even ones at my level really struggle with some basic concepts, so it is hard to say if it is due to it being harder to fight at a lower level, or just less experience in the matchup:

If an Aeon player plays 30 ladder games, and we say for the sake of argument that all factions are picked evenly, then he will gain experience against 'normal tank' factions 75% of the time. On the flip-side, a UEF player will face a 'range tank' faction (aeon) only 25% of the time. So when you're a new player with only 30 or so ladder games, it's quite often that an aeon player of the same skill level will have double the experience in a matchup. This is part of what I think contributes to new players having trouble against Aeon.

Aeon Auroras require a bit more thought to use than simply right-clicking, but once you get enough of them they start snowballing quite hard in the early game. There are a lot of counters (gun-com, t2 land, bombers) but these can be tough to get under pressure without losing much of the map. As Arma mentioned, there's also the Aeon double guncom, which has more range for a small cost increase, and you can buy and use it in increments (start with just the range/rof upgrade, use it, then get the other one shortly after).

The downside is that Auroras are slow, which makes attacking/raiding harder early on, and if you get careless with them you can lose them against other tanks. New players also sometimes forego land scouts, which really hinders them until you get radar up. New players sometimes also seem to have an aversion to air units, letting their opponents get control for free and just bombing them.

They can feel unfun because slowly grinding down your opponent with a range advantage (whether its auroras, guncom, or destroyers) can be unfun and feels a little mean. But using 3 Auroras to beat 5 Strikers/Mantis/Thaams is a good feeling.

@zukko said in Make it obvious that a game is rated or not:

I had recently played a custom 2v2 and i played like my life depended on it, but after winning we found that the host had set the victory condition to sandbox, as you can imagine this was very disappointing.

Doesn't change the fact that you had a good game and won! No need to feel disappointed.

I play unrated games often vs other players. What I would recommend you do is in the lobby, activate the 'hide default options' checkmark, that will let you see anything out of the ordinary easily, like the game being set to sandbox.

To me, getting rid of the large power drain removes depth. As it is now you can build it to take advantage of overflow, you can throttle it when power is more important, and you can decide between saving e costs, and saving/earning more mass. T3 Fab farms are more efficient than SCUs, we don't need to change something to make Mass Fabs compete better than them (even though this idea makes them slightly worse). As for ease and accessibility, I think templates make things easy enough to not need changing as well.

T3 Fabs and pgens surrounding a nuke launcher are also good although you have to shield it and watch for tele-SCUs.

To be honest, removing their power cost and adding part of the cost of a T3 pgen in it to compensate will make it worse in some situations. This is because you're adding a 3/5th of the cost of a T3 pgen when the actual in-game power cost is less due to adjacency (you yourself show a template that does this).

Even if it's the lower rated player getting sniped, and the better player gets his stuff, it's still often a good idea if you can do it without huge losses. Losing an acu is often devastating, usually either it's at the front where it was guarding something that can now be attacked, or it's in the base, and when it explodes it takes all of the buildpower with it. It also loses any mass and energy in storage, of course you can manually give it away before dying but a lot of players do not.

All in snipes on a weaker player are bad
Logical snipes on a weaker player are good

After an enemy ACU dies you have to take advantage of it before the opponent can stabilize. Full share increases the skill ceiling of snipes because you don't just have to plan the ACU snipe, you have to plan and be ready for the aftermath.

I have been having a lot of fun on Rainmakers as single-player, it is quite a challenge! I have to set the settings low and then turn the speed down, there's just so much to do. Absolutely my favorite survival map. Also great to see the cinematics mod, I'll try it out soon.

T1 Mass Extractors are pretty cheap, it's ok to lose a few as long as you get it back quickly, and trying to protect them all in the first few minutes is near impossible. Try and figure out what expansions you need to prioritize, and protect the engis there, while the rest of your units attack and raid them, as FTX said.

I'm always willing to help test new mods/maps, if you see me in FAF you can always reach out.