Forged Alliance Forever

Re: Total changes since 3603 and balancing opinion

2012-08-26T23:03:52+02:00

ShadowKnight wrote:
What these players are really thinking but are too scared to say to your face is 'You are an arrogant sod forcing your ideas of how a game should be played onto everybody.'

I know

But what they must realize is that they are not my ideas (except the scathis and novax).
The test were, well, tested, and made it to the patch. Like it or not, but you could have said something during that period. Too late of course when it's released.

Statistics: Posted by Ze_PilOt — 26 Aug 2012, 23:03

Re: Total changes since 3603 and balancing opinion

2012-08-26T22:23:37+02:00

What these players are really thinking but are too scared to say to your face is 'You are an arrogant sod forcing your ideas of how a game should be played onto everybody.'

I disagree with them and think you have made a tremendous effort mostly in the correct direction, but I feel I must offer you some advice of my own: Caution - However much you may dislike it, more defensive Ramping or Turtling strategies always have, always will, and always SHOULD be a part of all RTS games. If you go too far along certain paths which have threatened to loom in the distance of FaF's future, you will be left with the more dynamic fast-paced gameplay of T1 spam with ACU backup as the only remaining viable strategy. If this happens, by your own hand you will have killed the very purpose of FaF, which was and is to keep the game going and progressing and being played. Get rid of all but one gamestyle and you will force out a great many players.

Just a friendly heads-up caution which I have learned from experience. Be careful

Statistics: Posted by IceDreamer — 26 Aug 2012, 22:23

Re: Total changes since 3603 and balancing opinion

2012-08-26T12:26:26+02:00

Raevn wrote:
The common-sense approach to this would have been: Fix any obvious bugs that can't in any way be subjective, include these in the game. Then, make a seperate balance mod that people can play if they want (oh wait, there is, so why on earth did you make these changes mandatory???). Everyone would have won.

I really strongly disagree with that statement, for many reasons.

The main one is that it will confuse everyone, and will drive away new players that doesn't even know that GPGNET ever existed, and for witch 3599 is just a patch number like 3596, 3598, ...

The second one is that some people will disagree with a restorer fix, for example. There is no way to please everyone.

But there is a only way to make new player coming and staying : support and constant updates.

Statistics: Posted by Ze_PilOt — 26 Aug 2012, 12:26

Re: Total changes since 3603 and balancing opinion

2012-08-26T12:19:43+02:00

This project was made to make FA able to evolve. You can play on steam if you don't like that.
You think FAF is a mod, sorry to disappoint you but it's not. They are unofficial patches (unofficial in the sense that GPG have nothing to do with it).

I don't know what is the "constant vibe", but I think that the balance forum never stated the opposite of what I am saying. Not my fault if people don't understand that asking for change need more work than just asking.

I'm sorry that GPGNET was shut down, but I won't change FAF because of that.

You probably take the "community-driven" too literally. I'm part of the community (as well as all contributors), hence that definition. But it's still my project.

And again, you are free to use ANY mod you want on FAF. Just make a 3599 mod and play it.

Statistics: Posted by Ze_PilOt — 26 Aug 2012, 12:19

Re: Total changes since 3603 and balancing opinion

2012-08-26T12:10:15+02:00

Ze_PilOt wrote:
Raevn wrote:Scathis' range reduced from 4000 to 350? That isn't a balance tweak, it's now a completely different unit.

From no role to a niche role. We are trying to make useless units useful (and don't tell me that the scathis was).

And thus you are not balancing the game but changing it. Feel free to do so, but why is this mandatory?
Also, twice the cost of a megalith for a slightly further than tac missile range? That's even more useless than the old scathis was, at least it could fire on things other than a 10x10 or 5x5 map.

Raevn wrote: I can't find any patch notes.

In the wiki.

Cheers, I'll take a look.

If you don't like that some people decide for you, then participate ! (after all, if you don't, how are we supposed to know how to adjust the game to what you think is right).

I'm not asking it to be changed, i'm asking the opposite: to be able the play an un-modded version of the game. Also, the constant vibe of this whole thing is "we won't listen to anyone, we decide what the balance should be", so what you're saying here isn't really true.

FA emphasis on map control. Anything that can reduce turtling and make the game more dynamic is in the FA spirit.

That's only one interpretation. I'm not saying I disagree, but it is subjective, hence my dislike for being forced to play these mods.

You can play vanilla supcom that emphasis more on turtling.

I'd like to play FA, not vanilla.

But we won't make each patch playable

Again, not what I'm asking. I'm asking for a version of the game where you did not modify the balance of the units.

Also, in the next patch, while shields are "nerfed" (reducing turtling power), the UEF can have access to one of the better shield of the game more easily (SCU parashield), making, I think, the factions a little more diverse and open new doors in the gameplay.

Another example of a game change that I shouldn't be forced to play.

I don't see how is that bad.

Because it is how you want to play. Not how I want to play.

But if you really want, you still can make your own balance mod and play it with your friend. It's not that difficult.

The common-sense approach to this would have been: Fix any obvious bugs that can't in any way be subjective, include these in the game. Then, make a seperate balance mod that people can play if they want (oh wait, there is, so why on earth did you make these changes mandatory???). Everyone would have won.

Statistics: Posted by Raevn — 26 Aug 2012, 12:10

Re: Total changes since 3603 and balancing opinion

2012-08-26T10:46:35+02:00

Raevn wrote:
Scathis' range reduced from 4000 to 350? That isn't a balance tweak, it's now a completely different unit.

From no role to a niche role. We are trying to make useless units useful (and don't tell me that the scathis was).

Raevn wrote:
I can't find any patch notes.

In the wiki.

Raevn wrote:
What you are doing is fundamentally altering the game to match a particular way of playing that a minority of people have, that is, the top-end people.

Wrong. The balance forum and patches test are opened to everyone. Fact is that most of the people that get involved into are top-end players. But that also account also seton top players.

Raevn wrote:
You say "A minority won't decide for a majority just because they are louder.", but also say "Right now a minority decide for a majority", "You really (all of you) have to stop thinking that balance will be a community process. It will not."

It's up to you to be part of the process.
If you don't like that some people decide for you, then participate ! (after all, if you don't, how are we supposed to know how to adjust the game to what you think is right).
Of course, saying "this suck" or "I think that ..." won't be taken in account. We need real test, replays, and serious analysis of a problem.

Raevn wrote:
There are numerous ways of fixing balance, there's not necessarily a "right" way.
I'd much rather play the game as it was left than a game that's been changed, even if it's "more balanced" for 1v1 games on a 5x5 map, or specifically for setons. Not everyone plays those.

FA emphasis on map control. Anything that can reduce turtling and make the game more dynamic is in the FA spirit.
There are several way of fixing the balance, but the only right ones are the one leading toward to goal. Dynamics.

Raevn wrote:
I respect what you are doing, it's hard and often tedious work, and I am all for balance mods. But give us the option of playing vanilla FA if we want to, without any balance applied. Make that separate.

You can play vanilla supcom that emphasis more on turtling. But we won't make each patch playable, it will be a mess real quick (can you play all balance version in gpgnet ? Starcraft 2 ? Battlefield ? Name any game that ever existed?)
Also, in the next patch, while shields are "nerfed" (reducing turtling power), the UEF can have access to one of the better shield of the game more easily (SCU parashield), making, I think, the factions a little more diverse and open new doors in the gameplay.
I don't see how is that bad.

But if you really want, you still can make your own balance mod and play it with your friend. It's not that difficult.

Statistics: Posted by Ze_PilOt — 26 Aug 2012, 10:46

Re: Total changes since 3603 and balancing opinion

2012-08-26T07:23:59+02:00

I thought FAF was great, until I realised that you've made "balance" changes, with no way that I can see of playing with the original balance of the latest pre-FAF patches.

Scathis' range reduced from 4000 to 350? That isn't a balance tweak, it's now a completely different unit. I also don't know what you've done to the veterancy, because I had a soul ripper get to level 5 veterancy in about 10 seconds after engaging a large group of ASF's (that should have killed it) over a large group of SAMs (that should have killed it). and live to kill a paragon under tripple shields. There may also be other changes I don't know about, I can't find any patch notes.

What you are doing is fundamentally altering the game to match a particular way of playing that a minority of people have, that is, the top-end people. You say "A minority won't decide for a majority just because they are louder.", but also say "Right now a minority decide for a majority", "You really (all of you) have to stop thinking that balance will be a community process. It will not."? There are numerous ways of fixing balance, there's not necessarily a "right" way. I'd much rather play the game as it was left than a game that's been changed, even if it's "more balanced" for 1v1 games on a 5x5 map, or specifically for setons. Not everyone plays those.

I respect what you are doing, it's hard and often tedious work, and I am all for balance mods. But give us the option of playing vanilla FA if we want to, without any balance applied. Make that separate.

Statistics: Posted by Raevn — 26 Aug 2012, 07:23

Re: Total changes since 3603 and balancing opinion

2012-08-25T16:59:12+02:00

There will be a new version soon.

For the balance game, it's true, and sad, that it's really hard to get a game going.
People have to realize that if they want better patch directly on release, they need to test it.

Statistics: Posted by Ze_PilOt — 25 Aug 2012, 16:59

Re: Total changes since 3603 and balancing opinion

2012-08-25T11:30:51+02:00

No. Right now a minority decide for a majority because they put a lot of hard work and sense into it.

It's up to you do to the same. (tip : the balance game mod is available for anyone, as well as the FAF code).

Statistics: Posted by Ze_PilOt — 25 Aug 2012, 11:30

Re: Total changes since 3603 and balancing opinion

2012-08-12T12:26:29+02:00

Because 3605 is the difference between 3599 and 3605. Not between 3603 and 3605.

Statistics: Posted by Ze_PilOt — 12 Aug 2012, 12:26

Re: Total changes since 3603 and balancing opinion

2012-08-12T10:39:51+02:00

Ze_PilOt wrote:
In was a changed from 3603 (so, not me but GPG), but they were right : The monkey lord rush was a too effective (and must-do) strategy on 10x10 team game maps.

The wiki lists it as a 3605 change, you might want to correct that...

Statistics: Posted by FA_Returnee — 12 Aug 2012, 10:39

Re: Total changes since 3603 and balancing opinion

2012-08-12T10:36:22+02:00

In was a changed from 3603 (so, not me but GPG), but they were right : The monkey lord rush was a too effective (and must-do) strategy on 10x10 team game maps.

Statistics: Posted by Ze_PilOt — 12 Aug 2012, 10:36

Re: Total changes since 3603 and balancing opinion

2012-08-12T05:19:28+02:00

Ze_PilOt wrote:
A game like FA will have a lot of back and forth to be balanced.

I don't want to start a new thread unnecessarily, Pilot, so I'll reply here. I notice there's not been much discussion about land experimentals being made more expensive by FAF (back in 3605), I'm curious to hear the reasoning behind it. Especially as adding 5,000 mass to the cost of an ML (for example) is no small change. They were made cheaper by FA vs Vanilla of course, but they were also nerfed significantly in the process. Was there a problem with T4 spam being too cheap?

Statistics: Posted by FA_Returnee — 12 Aug 2012, 05:19

Re: Total changes since 3603 and balancing opinion

2012-07-31T19:51:32+02:00

A game like FA will have a lot of back and forth to be balanced.

Statistics: Posted by Ze_PilOt — 31 Jul 2012, 19:51

Re: Total changes since 3603 and balancing opinion

2012-07-31T19:43:30+02:00

Ze_PilOt wrote:
C14 wrote:I think a dropbox for the version is not too difficult to do and could simplify things for all new players, not only 5 persons.
I could do it, if you gave me the code for the current db.

They are php based driven by a database. Dropbox wouldn't help.

I mean a dropbox to select the corresponding table from the database of course.
As I said, I could do it. Can you pm me a link to the resources?
For the database, the easiest would probably be to have different game version stats in different tables.

Ze_PilOt wrote:
C14 wrote:But you are right, you can do what you want and ignore the part of the community that doesn't fit with your opinion.

We can talk. But if a change is good, it's good.
A minority won't decide for a majority just because they are louder.

This is clear. Noone is against good changes.
But obviously not all changes have been good when they need to be corrected again in the opposite direction.
I argue for more care here as two small steps in the right direction are better than a large one that needs to be corrected again in the opposite direction.
Why? Because continuity and closeness to vanilla FA is important for new and casual players, which are probably underrepresented here on the forum.
Example: I bet that the Spearhead with a DPS factor of 2.5 compared to vanilla FA will get corrected down again soon.
Lets see

Statistics: Posted by C14 — 31 Jul 2012, 19:43