Thanks for playing!

shout out to hybrid

WHERE ARE THE MAPS

@waffelzNoob said:

In my experience, no

gotcha!!!

@waffelzNoob do you think this about every game ender? Imo mavor/scathis don't really pose an issue but para/yolo are massive problems because aside from being good offensively they're also super good defensively.

Also compared to 4 years ago yolo's were massively buffed to the point were u used to be able to counter them with 6-7 smd's but now its 10-11 (someone correct me if i'm wrong but i keep hearing this from others) because it's no longer as buggy were it doesn't want to launch and/or engi assist is better.

Also if it was just sentons i would agree with you, but in the last year there have been quite some instances with different types of mapgens which let to the same situation as you see on sentons.

@Skrat said:

Not everyone wants to play one game for 1.5 hours, building 50 exp each, as if it were a t1 unit

that's not what's being talked about at all. I have seen tons of games where the optimal move is to make a game ender somewhere between the 30 and 40 min mark. The most classic example of this is 2 opposing sentons ponds winning their navies but 1 guy goes for a proxy while the other goes for a game ender (both starting at min 35 so its still "early" on in the game, not 1,5 hours in). It is way too easy to have a good shot at winning the game while doing nothing while watching your game ender slowly tick up compared to putting in 100x the effort in a proper invasion just to lose to a game ender.

Also it is true like ftx said that a paragon and yolo are the 2 main contributors to this imbalance. It used to just be a paragon that's op but since the yolo bugs got fixed it's now way too strong.

@Skrat said:

This does not happen on 10x10 maps or maps with a small amount of resources. This doesn't happen in a 1x1, 2x2, or 3x3 game. But if you are playing 20x20km slopgen, where there is a huge amount of resources, or Seton, where in late game navy gives a huge amount of reclaim that is building a game ender is an absolutely normal way to complete the game.

yea it doesn't happen on 10x10 maps, that's because t3 arties are the game enders on those maps which you do often see.

Aside from that i don't understand your argument about nto seeing it happen in 1v1 to 3v3's. Does that matter at all? We saw 0 game enders being build in LOTS so it doesn't matter that they're breaking teamgames!

If anything it's the opposite that if they were made more often in lower player count games it's an incentive not to nerf them because it would ruin the unit for those type of games, but as it stands you basically never see them being build anyway so that is of no concern.

game ender stage arrives too early. the entire design is supposed to end a game that is locked and nobody can make any progress, but you often see game enders being build in a completely dynamic game. Game enders should not be able to win against a team that's actively trying to play the game instead of sitting afk in their bases watching the progress bar of the game ender go up slowly and then win when it's done.

dw guys i got u with this beautiful extremely unique crafted artwork...

@Skrat said:

@Nuggets Bad is bad. It wasn't my goal to offer an alternative balance for each point. I've gathered the opinions of different pro players. Most people think it's better not to change snipers and sacu at all than to change it like that. Because it will destroy the balance at the t3 stage.

The other proposed changes are interesting and no one objects to them.

I literally didn't answer it because i couldn't voice my intent with a question like this.

I think that the sniper change isn't needed at all but i don't think there is anyone that disagrees with a more balanced sacu considering they are almost never build in any serious (tournament) environment. Rebalancing sacu's has literally been on the balance agenda for 5+ years at this point and everyone always wanted it to happen. Just because the current proposal of nomander is not well balanced doesn't mean that the idea for rebalancing it is wrong. It just means that the current iteration is bad.

This is why the questions you asked are pretty irrelevant because you only ask about the current iteration (which is on fafdevelop, a testing mode, for a reason) and not about people's opinion about the big picture.

This tourney sucked i did not have fun!!

i've never been this offended in my life

Finally a new domain for grimplex

Just gonna answer the OP.

First of all i don't get the logic of ignoring the paragon because there are, in your opinion, more pressing issues regarding balance. If there is an easy and simple solution to fix the current paragon problem it can just be quickly implemented. Also some issues are way harder to tackle than others; A good example being the SACU rework which arguably is the most important balance rework but it requires so much attention/detail/time to work on it to properly balance it, in combination with the classic lack of manpower in the balance team, that it sometimes makes more sense to just try to quickly fix a few smaller/simpler issues.

Funnily enough out of the 8 issues you mentioned that you deem more important than the paragon change i think at least 3 aren't even issues to begin with and the other 5 are either as important or just slightly more important than the para change.

So clearly we have different opinions on what's important to change. You say you spoke to multiple people that agree with you. I have also spoken to multiple people that think para's have been broken OP for years now and the only reason why you don't notice it often is because game enders are rare to come across.

So who's to say who's right and what's more important? A ladder player would think the stealth/titan/othuum issues are more important. A teamgame player would think the novax/czar issues are more important and a seton's player would think the novax/stealth/paragon issues are more important. All of this shows that, going back to the beginning, it makes no sense to ignore an improvement to the game because somebody else thinks there are better improvements to make.

Now regarding the individual balance issues you mentioned.

• Mercies: They aren't completely ineffective, they can be pretty good, but it's extremely rare to see it happen so they should see some sort of rework yes.
• Absolvers: They are already super strong and are a sleeper unit that people refuse to discover. Thinking about buffing it is nuts imo.
• Czars: They are probably the most balanced air t4 in the game right now. They tend to perform relatively average but have potential to be absolutely insane because they're very flexible.
• Titans: They are pretty fine right now. It being weaker than a loya doesn't mean it's bad, because a percy is stronger than a brick after all. Somehow u listed the e drain as a negative while ignoring it's because it has a shield, which is basically always a good thing (the shield is why harbs are one of the most dominant t3 units). It also has a big role of protecting percies against slop while loya's have a role of charging into percies to try and stun them. Titans also have mobile shield support while loya's don't. I do agree titans are on the weaker side, but i don't think that's any issue given the current UEF roster (not every unit has to be as strong as another factions unit) and the titan covers a few specific roles.
• Spearheads: They are a great example as to why the absolver could be a sleeper unit. For years and years players in faf thought the spearhead was bad and almost nobody ever made them. Now most people see them as being too strong even though they basically didnt get a single buff. They should probably get a nerf though, it mostly being hp so its easier to try and snipe them like other long range units.
• Novax: nowadays everyone agrees it's an annoying unit, it's not really OP though. Just an annoyance that makes the game unfun, so it probably at some point needs a big overhaul (not just making it useless) but it's gonna be quite some work.
• Othuum: right before i left the balance team i already buffed the turn rate/maneuverability. I wanted to make it more but at the time ppl were against it because it would look unnatural (iirc)
• Stealth: not sure what to think. Stealth is super good but the lack of shields (which are insane) needs to be replaced by something good. Also after 30+ min in a teamgame you can't stealth your asf while building more asf if you didnt make spare pgens to overflow. 250 asf (a relatively normal amount) is -7.5k e drain. You also have to keep in mind that cybran asf are worse than the others without stealth

And last but not least: Paragon

Paragon is the most broken game ender and it has always been that way. The reason why it's broken isn't because of the game ender vs game ender balance, but because of the game ender vs non game ender balance.

Let's take setons for an example (it's very similar on almost all other maps but this makes it easier to explain):
If team 1 loses both ponds but have a mavor they still lose the game because the map control of the ponds is more important than the mavor.
If team 1 loses both ponds but have a scathis they still lose the game because the map control of the ponds is more important than the scathis.
If team 1 loses both ponds but have a yolo they still lose the game because the map control of the ponds is more important than the yolo. Yolo has a bigger chance to win though than scathis/mavor) since the assist buff it received.
If team 1 loses both ponds but have a paragon the map control is completely irrelevant and they auto win the game.

Now quite some people would say "Well you shouldn't have let them build a para" and that's one of the most wrong/stupid statements ever. Eventually lategame you can build a game ender, even a paragon, in a few min and because of defenders advantage it is extremely hard to deny it. This counts for every game ender.

The issue is that for every non paragon game ender you have a chance of winning if you don't have a game ender yourself, while this isn't the case for para's. So for some reason, for a meager 25k more mass than a mavor/scathis, a paragon is allowed to win the game while u sit and turtle in a corner and people somehow accept that as not being completely and utterly broken.

I've seen so many games, even recently one on sentons, where quite literally the entire team loses all of their slots over a 30min game. Mid lost, beach lost, rock lost, air lost. But because they had an aeon player they just gambled on a para while sitting in the corner and eventually they won. No other game ender even comes close to this being possible.

And once again this is purely about game ender vs NON game ender gameplay. game ender vs game ender is more balanced. Para's are insanely OP in this situation and it requires fixing.

Yapper out.

Wait till you hear about air units

I havent seen this issue since both crash dmg and ahwassas themselves were nerfed, so for like 2 years.

I just don't understand why we still don't have the right picture; the old aeon facs. They look imo infinitely better than the new one.

Other factions i honestly barely see any difference so without looking at the details its fine. Aeon just looks insanely bad though.

when is april fools over?

@magge said:

FAF is associated with a USK 12 game, so casino-themed gambling mods may be questionable. The casino mod deserves a discussion regarding whether this type of content should be associated with FAF at all.

Btw both terraria and dst (dont starve together) are PEGI 12 games with over 80 million copies sold and both either have gambling in their base game (dst has a slot machine) or in mods.

Also on official minecraft servers there are gambling elements as well.

What happened to the good old times of MAI in aeolus where half the mods were playing poker for imaginary chatpoints.

Did you know that on faflive during tourney streams lots of people gamble with chatpoints to bet on which player will win the match? Should we disallow that as well?

They're still insanely good, except that the timeframe in where they are good is smaller now