Posts made by Turinturambar

2018

2018

Turin 2030

why is there only 1 mapgen icon, even though there are 3 mapgen options?

@blodir these numbers are for a PC, not a laptop.

IF i understand your proposed RAS change correctly, it results in the following issue.
A resource discount below the value loss from ctrking a structure allows building a structure and then reclaiming it to generate additional income. This becomes especially extreme for the soothsayer, which has a ratio of about 4mass/bt (other usable buildings would be between 1-2), resulting in an additional income of about 4x28x0.06 = 6.7 (with 28 being the SCUs halfed bp (using the adjusted engineering upgrade on top of this would tripple the income!) and 0.06 = 0.81 -0.75 being the amount of reclaim left after ctrking sth minus the cost to build them with a 25% discount. In case of the 100% discount for sera, this is an effecive income of 90 mass!).

Signing up

@femboy said in Targeting without altering movement orders:

I guess it’s more of a team game issue than ladder. Pretty annoying not being able to do that on 1v1 where it can matter so much.

It was allmost 100% a ladder issue. THe main issue was not only, that a 2 second missstep could cause defeat, but even more, that once a critical mass was reached it was possible to suicide ones army into the opponents army + acu to get a kill, no matter if the opponents army was a bit larger or not. because enemy units cannot be bocked very well, and, because with snipemode the army couldnt tank enemy fire either, just having 40 tanks and suiciding them+your own ACU into the enemy army would be enough to kill an enemy ACU that stands in the front row of his tanks.
Snipemode therefore made it very risky to use your acu to poke at the enemy army, instead one had to put the ACU in the 3rd to last row to be actually safe. Even more, it made retreating harder, since you could not sacrifice a part of your army to tank for your ACU while kiting backwards, because your opponent could allways turn on snipemode, forcing you to send a larger part of your army to your ACU to be safe.
Both these effects had a very bad impact in 5x5 and 10x10 gameplay.
On 5x5 you must use your ACU to trade or you lose. Since your ACU is at the front (and due to trading it will soon be at 5-8k HP) your opponent could allways! all in with his tanks and ACU and in the worst case get a draw out of it. Thefore even when a palyer would be significantly ahead the game could still end in a draw (he only needed to deal 2.5-5.5k dmg for that which is very easy with snipemode+shift g), since you cannot just send your ACU back on a 5x5 without completely losing your advantage in the next 3 minutes.
On 10x10 maps being forced to send most of your units to your com, while also being forced to play safer (to not die to a random all in - just reacting 2-3 seconds to late could already cause a draw) caused 10x10 to be rather stale and static since one needed most units with the ACU to not get randonly all in-ed (so less units available everywhere else) but also had to play more defensive to not randomly die. On top of that, snipemode is even worse with high tech units, due to their higher range ond conentration of dps, making it allmost impossible to survive a random shift g+snipemode of any (non obsidian) T2 unit into your army - your com would die even before your could rly use your army to block the enemy army.

@arran said in Titan shield recharge after collapse OP.:

Problem
The Titan's personal shield comes back online too fast after being reduced to 0.

This explains nowhere why this actually would be a problem INGAME. The argument faction A has X, so faction B needs it aswell is a fallacy and shouldn't have a place in balance discussions.
If you want to actually make a point, please expand on your reasoning, either based on ingame balance, or based on overall unit design principals (in which case it would be, to provide a concept on how shield reachging in general, or for all all units that fit a certain role (harbs and titans do not necessarily fit into the same role...), should be done in a comprehensive manner).

In the current form you only argument is jealousy.

I definetly agree with the idea of making game visuals more intuitive, as long as it doesn't affect balance.
Just out of my head I see 2 possible effects your way of changing the shield bubble could have.

1. Overspill: if I remember correctly how overspill works, and understand your idea correctly, the resulting shield would be smaller, therefore also reducing the area other shieldbats would take overspill damage in. This might be an issue due to the stranght of shieldboats.
2. Interactions with air. From how I understand your idea, you move the centr of the shield upwards while reducing the shield radius. This might move the top of the shield higher (or lower the the reduction in the sheld radius is sufficiently large), which can change the interactions of shieldboats with air, making it easier/more difficicult to move an airunit inside the shield bubble to snipe the shieldboat.

Therefore such a change might need some testing and adjustments.

@comradestryker said in The Problems With The UEF - Part 3 (The Parashield):

With proper micro and mass for mass on Percies vs Harbs, (Harbs are ~30% cheaper)
I believe Harbs would win.

As you state in your prior posts, youre a 1k. If you actually want to convince anyone, especially when disagreein with in points that invalidate your argumentation you should bring actual evidence.
"I believe xxx" is a 100% worthless argument.

@comradestryker said in The Problems With The UEF - Part 4 (Ambassador & Blackbird):

Cybran is highly favored for this position

cyb needs some strenght in air, due to their weaknesses in T2 and T3 land.

@comradestryker said in The Problems With The UEF - Part 3 (The Parashield):

How exactly do they behave differently?

in this matchup percies kite, while harbs all in into the percies, trying to run them down. with proper micro this heavily favours percies. In this case for percies shields serve to reduce losses and can easily reduce losses down to 0 since the harbs die/have to disengage before even a single shield dies.
For the harbs the shields are just a minor hp boost slightly increasing the strenght of the attack.
Ergo: in this example UEF profiles far more than aeon from mobile shields, meaning there is no reason at all for shields to have "equal" stats.

@comradestryker said in The Problems With The UEF - Part 3 (The Parashield):

I would disagree, as both units share the same purpose; To cover your army/navy.

This is over simplifying, since the units the shield covers are different. This becomes especially obvious on T3. There the units covered are:

UEF: percy, titan, upgraded UEF ACU,aa

Aeon: Harb,sniper,upgraded Aeon ACU,aa

Harb+shields behaves very different from percy+shields or titans+shields, since shields perform especially well with army compositions that kite a lot or fight many small skirmishes.
And obviously sniper+shilds is completely different from percy+shields, first of all because the snipers can die in a second when not shielded.

I hope this shows that you have to compare whole army compositions of a faction, with whole army compositions from other factions to draw meaningfull conclusionson faction balance.

on top of tagadas point, on maps where there are many rocks (10-30 mass) inbetween broken trees, I would assume such a mod to prioritise the rocks, enableling a player to massively increase the reclaim rate on such maps, which will change the meta on such maps. the reclaim is hidden in trees for exactly that reason.
Any changes that add prioritisation are not acceptable from a balance perspective since they will break the meta/balance on some maps.

"Advantage in the beginning of the game can snowball into big advantage, it is not so important from what rating exactly people have necessary apm in average. It favors click spam like some game on smartphone where you do nothing but click as fast as you can. No tanks, units, nothing but clicking."

this only matters if a) you are actually able to capitalise on the extra mass instead of just overflowing it, having no e , not noticing youre having idle facs/engies... (classic <1.5k issues)
b) you dont get a dissadvantage from not spending the time on sth else (e.g. not noticing youre suiciding 19 tanks into 20).
on high level there only rarely is actual coockie clicker reclaim after min 3 or so (youve nothing else to do before that anyways so clicking reclaim actually saves you from boredom there...)

transport anti ground weapons are for ghettos gunships and therefore have an important role

nerfing sniper speed can also have the opposite effect vs percies. Currently snipers are significantly faster, so if kite on max range and move them back they will get out of range and you have to move them back in. nerfing sniper speed down do percy speed might make kiting vs percies (and also bicks for that regard) even easier and stonger since the snipers will never get out of range (considering their massive range advantagethere will still be enough time to react.
So I would expect that to main affect sniper vs hard/othuum

Signing up Turinturambar, 4762 (CPU) rating!

@eternal obscuring rating is the whole point of the league system and I would consider that its strong!, not its weak side. Most ppl dont understand how the rating works/what it means and that its a system to gauge gamebalance/skill and not sth you wanna farm up at all cost.
I dont even know what you want the actual (TMM rating) numbers for. TMM autobalances, leagues (after some fine tuning) will (in the long run) provide the same "status" that ratinig gives and most 1.5k+ ppl have a usable global for custom balance anyways.
Its not even like rating is a great indicator either, since (talking from my 1v1 experience, not sure how diretcly that translates to e.g. 4v4) my rating can go up/down by 100-200 points
on a good/bad//very good/very bad day. So a 1.9k after a bad day (week) can be 1700, same as an overperforming 1500. If you dont know the history/average performance of that person even current rating - in the end - can be as uncertain of a skill indicator as some league placement (for 1v1).

One issue I see with the current system (very sidecase) is that it can take ages to climb if your innitial rating during placement was low. I think im still in the +2/-1 phase, even after 70 games (though I might be wrong there, and last 5-10 games were +1/-1).