Forged Alliance Forever

Re: OC and the new vet system

2012-07-11T08:01:59+02:00

You know that you post on the wrong forum ? Assume that I read nothing from this one (not far from truth).

From your video : Moving your ACU toward your enemy to finish a won game is a really bad move to start with, new vet system or not. You don't put your queen next to the enemy king at the end of a chess game (and if it was possible to move your king next to the enemy one, you would be the biggest moron ever)

Statistics: Posted by Ze_PilOt — 11 Jul 2012, 08:01

Re: OC and the new vet system

2012-07-11T05:14:05+02:00

Yeah, just some mass testing and tweaking will set it straight. I like the direction this new vet system is going.

Statistics: Posted by regabond — 11 Jul 2012, 05:14

Re: OC and the new vet system

2012-07-11T02:55:00+02:00

The problem isn't the new vet system itself, but the values assigned to each tech level. A Titan should be worth more vet than a lab, but not 10x more. The minute of insanity that Cerberus just posted was possible solely because t3 units are worth 10 points each. The XP values definitely need some tweaking, but I don't see the need to scrap the entire system because of it.

There's also no reason to nerf OC because the XP values are too high.

Statistics: Posted by Icy — 11 Jul 2012, 02:55

Re: OC and the new vet system

2012-07-11T02:08:01+02:00

I read and skimmed most of these posts. My 2 cents. OC is right where it should be. It is epic, it is perfect, it is fun. Now, Forgive the rage...
WHY THE HELL ARE WE TRYING TO NERF OC BECAUSE WE IMPLEMENTED A BROKEN VET SYSTEM!?!!
so.... We are going to change OC to 'balance' a change that was poor in the first place... ffs people.
If any of you have any illusions as to if the new vet system is garbage, here is proof.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGaZamKs ... e=youtu.be

I can do this with any practical number of t2 bots, and up to 10 t3 bots. If you want more proof, let me know. Now in the meantime, how is it 'balanced' that one ACU can force a draw out of, or win against a ACU with 10 titans? At the end of the fight, The lone ACU has 9K HP, and the ACU with 10 titans backing it up has 10.5k With the lone ACU's new and improved regeneration from bet bonus, this at the very least forces a draw, and possibly a win. I have Had this save me so many times,

There is a game on my youtube channel vs eXivo on open Palms where me OC his t2 army saved me time and time again. I was rewarded for not making t2 land like my opponent did.

I played a game Vs MadStork, I had a t2 ACU with gun and about 20 t1 tanks. I completely crushed his T2 army and T2 PD because my ACU got vet HP bonuses faster then it could be DPS'd down.

Dont get me wrong. Dont nerf OC, Dont Nerf the Com vet hp boost. These are the coolest things in the game, it makes it fun, and exiting to play. Change the new vet system back to the old one. And don't It even get me started on t4 units with this vet system. It makes t4 units gain thousands of HP for every 3rd or 4th t3 unit killed. I can make replays of that if you want too.

TLDR:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGaZamKs ... e=youtu.be
Stop bitching about OC
Revert the vet system
(If you cant open to the youtube vid, just go to my youtube channel and find it there, Cerberus1st

Statistics: Posted by Cerberus — 11 Jul 2012, 02:08

Re: OC and the new vet system

2012-07-11T01:04:20+02:00

I have to agree with regabond.

DilliDalli:

If you rushed t3, neglecting t1 and t2 then you deserve to be scouted and raped all over the map by t1.

If you got t3 and the other player is still at t1 and the game is still close you have a huge advantage. Scout the other player's ACU.(You really should know where the enemy ACU is at all times) Pick a target that doesn't have the ACU in it(the ACU doesn't take up the whole map). Demolish that target with your titans, there is nothing the enemy could do against you except start pulling the acu back, which means you control what he does, or build t2 point defenses. If he starts turtling up with t2 points defenses all over the map, you can get out a couple t3 arty and take that out, or you can take them out with some air or cruise missiles or mmls. Not to mention what t2 and t3 engies can do for you.

If on the other hand you don't scout and just throw your titans blindly at the ACU, hoping that they can pull it off just because they are t3 then you will get punished by a player who is paying attention.

A general note: An acu safely sitting under a shield with its oc, is not out taking over the map with t1 assistance. If one player uses the acu to fight, while the other doesn't, the player that does will have more success, however the player that uses his acu in the field to fight is taking a bigger risk than the player sitting back at base.

I also think that you give the ACU a little too much credit against t3 land. Bricks can easily kite the acu, killing it as it is trying to crach up(doesn't work against aeon with range upgrade) Fighting percies with an acu is a very dangerous game, especially if there are some t2 shields present. T3 aeon and sera have mobile shields to protect their harbies and othuums from the oc, they also have the sniper bots that can eaily kite an acu. The only real situation where the ACU is good against t3 is when the t3 bots rush the ACU, so it is very much a last piece of defense for the ACU.

Why do you think the ACU needs to be nerfed? So far I have no seen a single good reason for this, however I have given reasons why an acu nerf would create less aggressive game play. It would give an indirect boost to mobile shields. (one of the problems listed in this threads)

One thing I am getting from this thread is that there is a general agreement that t3 doesn't get enough play time and it seems that we all agree that t4 stage has a big role in this.

I think the idea to make all t4 experimentals more expensive in power is a good idea. Someone said that this should not be done because T4 is balanced in terms of dps/cost. This is misleading, however. You should say, t4 is balanced in terms of dps/mass. Power and build capacity are fundamentally different resources relatively to mass. Power and build capacity reflect the infrastructure that the player has been able to establish, while mass reflects how much of the map the player has been able to control as well as how much was invested into mass extractors. Increasing the build capacity cost of experimentals would not make much of a difference based on today's gameplay since in most cases, while the experimental is being built mass in storage is at 0. Increasing the power cost of the experimental would force the player to invest more in to power generators before an experimental can be produced. This is similar to what has happened with t3 air. In 3599 it was not uncommon to see players go to t3 air with only t1 pgens, or a single t2 pgen. Today if you want to have t3 air production, you want either a whole bunch of t2 power or t3. This has pushed tt3 air back away from the initial stages of the game, allowing both air t2 and land t2/t3 more chance to play.
Think about what you can do when you scout a base and see that an experimental has just been started. Today you can try bombing the engies, but it won't make much difference since build capacity is not the limiting factor. You can bomb power, but that won't make much difference since power is also not the limiting factor. If power cost was increased, it would lead to a number of new strategic effects. The player making the experimental would have to sacrifice at least some of their air production, allowing the other team to take over air. The player making the experimental can be put into a big hole if their t3/t2 power generators are sniped by cruise missiles, drops, bombers, gunships, or a desperation t3 land assault, making a half finished chicken a huge liability, since completing this chicken would require the reconstruction of power generators. These two factors make going t4 a much more risky decision and allows our beloved t2 and t3 a chance to shine in the face of an imminent threat.

With regard to other maps without choke points, I haven't seen many spread out ones like painted desert, but some maps played today are better than others in this regard. I am sure there are many undiscovered ones, since people like to have allies close by for protection. I personally love wonder, it is a map where point defense creeps and forward bases are easily countered by t3 artillery and it often happens that t3 land is able to sneak through the defenses to get behind bases. The biggest problem for t3 here is not the acu oc, it is the quick t4. Another great map like this is rivers where on a regular basis t3 is able to sneak around the sides, as well as dropped behind people's bases, once again here t4 usually ends the fun. There is also that map with a pyramid in the middle that seems to have a lot of space. I would ask the brazilians, they generally play many more different maps than others.

PS

I don't think it is useful to compare the TA commander to the supcom ACU. Like was said, in TA the ACU was much more fragile, but could d-gun like crazy, so it was a very different unit.

Statistics: Posted by SeraphimLeftNut — 11 Jul 2012, 01:04

Re: OC and the new vet system

2012-07-10T22:16:29+02:00

TA4Life said it very well.

In the case of 20 T1 vs ACU and 2 T3 vs ACU, part of the balance of the game is that OC can defend extremely well against a few powerful or grouped up units. Thus using a few T3 units to kill an ACU is just a bad use of your resources. T3's role tends to be more along the lines of being able to attack multiple fronts, late game fodder unit, or elite ops team that avoids the ACU and wrecks everything else.

That comparison would be similar to trying to use T2 MMLs to kill a T4. I mean sure you could do it...maybe. But that isn't the role of the unit and thus not what it excels at. Small numbers of T3 units do not excel at killing ACUs. I'm personally a fan of it. It means on tiny maps, it is best not to go T3 and stick to T2 at the most. In the end you just have to use your units as they were meant to be used. It would also be like saying why use anything but T1 LABs since they deal the most damage/mass of any unit. And it comes back to unit roles. LABs are very cost effective in raiding forces throughout the game, if they can get in range. But you'd still rather use T1 tanks vs an ACU than equivalent LABs.

Another thing I thought of is the timeframe or eco-frame of the game. You can't really compare T1 to T3 right off the back. I mean you can, but a better comparison would be to compare them when they cause the same percentage drain on your economy. When you can afford T3 units like T1 units, you can just as easily take down the ACU. OC just makes it harder to assassinate the ACU early game by land forces. But as land is cheaper and can take cover behind terrain, unlike air, OC is in place to balance early land of any kind.

Statistics: Posted by regabond — 10 Jul 2012, 22:16

Re: OC and the new vet system

2012-07-10T21:03:09+02:00

I agree that an OC nerf won't affect pd creeps etc on maps with excessive chokepoints, but in a fight between mobile units with acus, the current overcharge simply diminishes the power of higher tier units. If there is a skirmish between 1 acu with 20 t1 tanks, and an acu with 2 titans for example (similar mass cost), it is essentially an even fight given that the guy with t1 can use his oc more effectively. The conclusion that is drawn from this skirmish is that t1 has the same effectiveness as t3. In fact in this situation I'd put my money on the guy with t1.

This ignores the fact that the guy with t3 has had to upgrade his fac twice, while the guy on t1 is now sitting on vasts amount more eco after succesfully getting about 5 mexes from t1 to t2.

So you need to have a serious group of t3 to stop the acu taking a generic bit of map control with just t1 assistance, and in the mean time the t1 dude can sit back and laugh while his units spread out across the map and waste the other guys economy, and his com sits safely under a shield with his overcharge.

Now if thats how the balancing is intended, then fine. This promotes the use of t4, and squeezes the place of t2/3 further, which is an outcome that I thought we were trying to avoid.

As far as the above points from TA go I agree generally, although I disagree that its an effective counter to t2 creeps (and you had two point d5's ), except the problems you have identified are deliberate. The point is that the we think the acu needs a nerf.

Also, an upgrade to oc could be included into engineering upgrades and cost increases in storage as well, so the cost of oc better reflects the damage it causes.

Statistics: Posted by Softly — 10 Jul 2012, 21:03

Re: OC and the new vet system

2012-07-10T20:47:22+02:00

I agree that the maps typically played is part of the problem. A couple times I have tried to get a painted desert game going but others in the lobby shot it down. Although I am not sure choke point-filled maps are the whole problem, because wonder games, while a little more dynamic and unpredictable, tend to follow the same pattern.

I think a problem is that not enough team maps have contested expansions that really matter. They are typically designed to split mex points roughly down the middle no matter how the early game goes, with only a few points really in play (or in the case of isis/confrontation, none).

TA4life (or anyone): other than painted desert, do you have any suggestions of more open maps that would not lead to tower standoffs?

Statistics: Posted by MadStork — 10 Jul 2012, 20:47

Re: OC and the new vet system

2012-07-10T20:11:32+02:00

my TA4Life account no longer logs in...

The lack of logic in this thread is really bothering me. Let me try to make this clear for people who are refusing

to do the thinking on their own.(I don't mean to be an ass, but don't expect to me to be nice when it comes to

destroying supcom fa)

Benefits of ACU OC:

Defensive:

1. Against a large t1 spam where enemy units get clumpted up together.(Cost: power and micro)

2. Against t1 spam with a few t2 tanks/bots mixed in.(Cost: power and micro)

3. Against land spam with t2 shields, countering the 4000 health on the shield. (Cost: power and micro)

4. Against t2/t3 units dropped in to assasinate the ACU, or ACU that finds itself in trouble without support against

a few t3. (Cost: power, micro)

5. Against creeping t1 and t2 point defense creeps made by either enemy ACU's or enemy engineers. (Cost: power micro and risk)

5. Against naval units that get too close due to poor micro (power micro and risk)

6. Against experimental units coming into the base. (Cost: power micro and risk)

Offensive:

1. Breaking through a t1 land force giving your t1 force an advantage (COst: power and micro)

2. Taking out t2 units in an enemy force to give your t1/t2 armies an advantage. (Cost: power and micro)

3. Finishing off enemy ACU's (Power and micro)

4. Taking out t1 and t2 point defenses during a t1 t2 pd creep.(power micro and risk)

5. Taking out lone t3 units sent out to counter an acu push. (power micro and risk)

6. Taking out charging experimentals in a forward base under a couple t2 shields. (power micro and risk)

7. Increasing survivability during an ACU drop against #4, #5, #6 (power micro and risk)

8. Teleporting under fatty shields to take it out with one shot (Cost: power micro and risk)

The problem Pavese et. al. are trying rememdy: After the t1 stage the game quickly becomes a pd/shield stand off making t2/t3 less useful. Not until the t4 stage does the game restart.

Proposed solution by Pavese et. al. : Make the ACU overcharge only kill t1 and t2 units. If a player wants a better overcharge they have to upgrade their ACU.

Problems:

1. The solution doesn't solve the problem of point defense/shield stagnation. It doesn't even help the problem since ACU oc can both prevent and promote establishment of t2 pd/shield bases. (points #d5 and #o4)

2. The solution diminishes many other capabilities of the ACU (defensive 3-6 and offensive 4-8)
(Note: Saying that the player should just get the OC upgrade to gain those capabilities back is not a solution, since this would prevent other upgrades. Are you willing to sacrifice one of the following for the sake of regaining lost abilities?: acu engineering, acu shield, acu nanorepair, acu gun, acu resource allocation, etc.)

The legitimate problem that Pavese et. al. have brought up in this thread is not solved by their proposed solution. In fact their solution diminishes different strategies available to the player and overall makes the player more defensive by making the ACU unit less offensive and in need of more protection.

Instead I would like to propose a different solution to the problem proposed by Pavese et. al. Stop playing maps that have so many choke points. clover, Syrtis, Canis, Confrontation, nuke the elk, isis, etc. all the common maps played in the 4v4 5v5 games contain a lot of choke points, which promotes defensive play. The reason for this is clear, it is much easier to get a large game going where players feel safe, the epitome of this is thermo. This also leads to longer games.

Supcom FA is a game with a lot of flexibility, don't diminish this flexibility to solve a problem that you imposed on yourself by limiting the map pool that you play because of psychological problems of the average supcom fa player. Instead embrace this flexibility and start playing wide open maps where your starting position is not by the edge of the map, where mass extractors are not concentrated near starting positions and where there are not a lot of choke points. Start playing maps that are a little bigger and have more open space for drops and proxy bases.(setons is one example)

Statistics: Posted by SeraphimLeftNut — 10 Jul 2012, 20:11

Re: OC and the new vet system

2012-07-10T17:24:43+02:00

AdmiralZeech wrote:
Maybe they're talking about chokepoint maps?

A defending army usually has the upper hand against an equal strength attacking army.
Air units are unaffected by choke points and are the tactics of choice for mobile warfare on a chokepoint map, be it transports or bombers/gunships.
The advantage for the attacker lies in the fact that he can concentrate his mobile force to achieve superiority.
That can be accomplished by either moving units or team building a T4.

Statistics: Posted by rootbeer23 — 10 Jul 2012, 17:24

Re: OC and the new vet system

2012-07-10T16:38:35+02:00

Maybe they're talking about chokepoint maps?

Statistics: Posted by AdmiralZeech — 10 Jul 2012, 16:38

Re: OC and the new vet system

2012-07-10T15:58:39+02:00

Pavese wrote:
OC doesn't lead to turtling per se, it makes turtle just easier because you can just OC whatever is thrown at you (that is not MML).

This plus the current stong turtle mechanics (shields and PD) render a midgame t2 land push in teamgames almost useless. Not saying you can't pull it off, but it will cost you big time and if you fail you might as well gg no re right then and there.

A T2 firebase is an investment into control of one area of the map. An opponent who will make that investment into movable
units has a better chance of taking control of the remaining parts of the map. If stationary units could not withstand an equal cost attack from a mobile force, there would be no reason to build them.

Statistics: Posted by rootbeer23 — 10 Jul 2012, 15:58

Re: OC and the new vet system

2012-07-10T14:31:13+02:00

OC doesn't lead to turtling per se, it makes turtle just easier because you can just OC whatever is thrown at you (that is not MML).

This plus the current stong turtle mechanics (shields and PD) render a midgame t2 land push in teamgames almost useless. Not saying you can't pull it off, but it will cost you big time and if you fail you might as well gg no re right then and there.

Statistics: Posted by Pavese — 10 Jul 2012, 14:31

Re: OC and the new vet system

2012-07-10T01:48:58+02:00

Well, I'm no longer sure whether this thread is about vet, OC, or shields, but I would like to throw my full support behind this statement:

Pavese wrote:
So they deviate into the tower fest and defensive strategies to t4. Why? Because the amount of investment you have to do to break a defensive strategy is not worth it when you could invest the same amount of mass in Eco.

...But when t1 hits the t2 Pd phas the game becomes a stall until someone is dumb enough to get sniped or the first t4 walks around the map.

Most every team game I play in has a dynamic start, but stagnates as soon as the first couple t2 PDs go up. Then it's an eco-fest/race to T4. It's a predictable, increasingly stale rhythm. I appreciate both sides of the debate about OC, but I think the bigger cause of the above problem is OP shields/PD. That, or the disparity in effectiveness of T2/T3 vs. T4 in breaking through the bunkers. Even a decent-size T3 force is hapless against 2-3 shields + 5-6 PDs. All the more so if the ACU is in there.

I don't know the answer. A possibility besides nerfing shields is buffing MMLs/T3 arty. These are the supposed counters to PDs, but quickly become useless against overlapping shields, unless built in the numbers where it would have been easier to skip to T4.

In any case, hopefully this thread can start a more general discussion about improving the dynamism of mid-game team battles.

Statistics: Posted by MadStork — 10 Jul 2012, 01:48

Re: OC and the new vet system

2012-07-09T23:24:01+02:00

That's what I keep repeating.

Note that I'm very highly in favor of a TA ACU

Statistics: Posted by Ze_PilOt — 09 Jul 2012, 23:24