Forged Alliance Forever

Re: Bomber first - discussions.

2012-09-21T19:16:15+02:00

After some reflexions, only the energy cost was increased.

Statistics: Posted by Ze_PilOt — 21 Sep 2012, 19:16

Re: Bomber first - discussions.

2012-09-21T13:58:40+02:00

No.

I agree that bomber first is fine (except that sera bomber), and the "OP"ness of it is mostly due to the lack of skill/lazyness of the majority of the players (I can see that from the replays where bomber works great).

But I also agree that I bring nothing really great to the game.

If we want to tweak it, it will need more tests than this community is able to give.

So, and as we have to deal with more "noob" than pro, and that overall only 3 players are totally okay with it (and they barely play the game anymore), it will be removed/reverted to original 3603 values today or tomorrow.

Code:: T1 Bomber cost increased to 100M 2250E from 80M 1400E T1 Bomber increased build time to 500 from 400

And for those who complain for so long about it, if you had posted these replays 6 months ago,it would have been removed from a long time. And maybe re-tested to tweak it better in-between.

Statistics: Posted by Ze_PilOt — 21 Sep 2012, 13:58

Re: Bomber first - discussions.

2012-09-21T13:48:15+02:00

Given there seems to be very little consensus, might I suggest that Zep makes a poll with all the suggestions (inc no change) and people can vote on it.

Once this has happened we can decide how to best implement said solution in a balance testing mod so that it can be tried before entering ranked games.

Statistics: Posted by Softly — 21 Sep 2012, 13:48

Re: Bomber first - discussions.

2012-09-21T12:45:59+02:00

Also, I will note. I don't think bombers are incredibly overpowered, or unbalanced. I just believe this mechanic leads to bad gameplay. You can beat bomber first, or early bombers 2nd, but I think they make for shitty games as they involve too much micro.

I also think its very hard on new players. FA is more macro oriented, and we should try to preserve that IMO. That is what makes it unique compared to other RTS.

Statistics: Posted by CrazedChariot — 21 Sep 2012, 12:45

Re: Bomber first - discussions.

2012-09-21T12:40:31+02:00

T3 Int Cost = 400 Mass 40,000 Energy 3000 Build Time
T3 Bomber= 2100 Mass 105000 Energy 8400 Build Time

T2 Int Cost = 200 Mass 6000 Energy 1600 Build Time
T2 Bomber = 420 Mass 8400 Energy 2400 Build Time

T1 Int Cost = 50 mass 2250 Energy 500 Build Time
T1 Bomber = 80 mass 1400 Energy 500 Build Time

I don't think its that complicated of an issue. Bomber isn't meant to be the first unit created in the game, and due to its stupidly low energy cost it can be built before its one effective counter, the interceptor.

At every tech level bombers cost vasty more than ints, and require longer to build. T1 should be exactly the same.

This issue extends beyond bomber first. Due to the low energy cost, you are much better off building 1-2 bombers out of your Air 2nd factory on any large maps. Why? because your opponent won't be able to get Ints out in time if you have the correct build order.

in 3599 the bomber was underpowered, and for reasons unknown to me, the fix was to make them cheaper. I believe that air works much better when you have to win air superiority, then make bombers / gunships. Just like an early jester, or GG, there should be a risk with building early bombers without any interceptors.

IMO, the solution to fix bombers was to make them better / stronger. Not cheaper.

Statistics: Posted by CrazedChariot — 21 Sep 2012, 12:40

Re: Bomber first - discussions.

2012-09-21T10:26:14+02:00

Cerberus wrote:
I Can micro any other bomber good enough to make it OP, If you are going to nerf the sera bomber because it is better and call it a first air fix, thats just like saying that navy is OP, so we are only going to Nerf UEF's navy, because the general consensus is that it is the best. If I had the time to play, I will gladly show you OP first bomber with any other bomber.
TBH, I love this community and lobby, and everything else that people have done for this game, But I am really disappointed In how this is being handled. Once again, The problem is first air, not sera bomber. Most of the pro's play sera anyway, so thats why you see so many sera bomber opining, yes the bomber is better, but so is the aeon aurora, so is the UEF LAB, and so is the cybran jester. They each have something better and unique.

This thread is called 'Bomber first - discussions' not 'sera bomber first discussions'. Open A different thread for it then, Just like you opened separate threads for replays and bomber first discussion.

That's a fair point. I did some dry runs yesterday and you will get engy kills regardless of your faction when going bomber first. Also dodging the bombs costs build time. I feel that sera bomber first just appears to be the problem because this stategy is more inviting to a sera player because of their strong bomber. Unfortunately I do not have the replays to prove it.

The problem that remains though is one of timing: If I go bomber first with any faction I can snipe the very first engineers of my oppenent while they're on their way to build mexes.
In my opinion the solution should be adressing this point by either delaying the timing a bomber first opening can hit or putting the player opening with bomber first at a economical disadvantage for doing so, e.g. bomber first is only viable when the bomber manages to kill at least 3 or 4 engies.

Statistics: Posted by SCArcoth — 21 Sep 2012, 10:26

Re: Bomber first - discussions.

2012-09-21T09:34:53+02:00

FunkOff wrote:
Solution is simple: Remove radar from T1 bomber, add it to scout. Keep scout price 40 mass, 500-1000 E.

according to zep, it was already tested and failed horribly because you could barely use the bomber, only with an insane amout of micro... maybe it's better due to the groundfire-replacement when you lose vision, no idea

i'm still for: get the sera air fac pushing out engies slower again (like 3599), it's nothing done to their important bomber but makes first bomber weaker for them, as they won't have as many engies as usual

Statistics: Posted by Myxir — 21 Sep 2012, 09:34

Re: Bomber first - discussions.

2012-09-21T06:16:21+02:00

Solution is simple: Remove radar from T1 bomber, add it to scout. Keep scout price 40 mass, 500-1000 E.

Statistics: Posted by FunkOff — 21 Sep 2012, 06:16

Re: Bomber first - discussions.

2012-09-21T03:49:25+02:00

Anaryl wrote:
It wouldn't, not exactly, but his idea has some merit. The point is that currently, Bomber aside, even with the faster Engineer production Seraphim as a faction is balanced. If you got rid of this property, a Seraphim player makes a trade off decision. Do you go Land first, and stay even with the other factions, or do you go Air first, get a powerful bomber, but have slower production of Engineers. An advantage, and a disadvantage. I'm not sure it will work, but the concept is worth looking into.

Can I be honest ShadowKnight?

It's okay, that was rhetorical. I think you're a nice bloke etc etc. but ...

That's complete crap.

What you're describing is a difference in engy production between Sera and Cybran that amounts to what, a 6.75 engy difference over a period of 25 engys? What we've discussed and demonstrated is that first bomber starts costing the opposing player time and engys over a 1 - 2 minute threshold, which then has a cumulative effect. That's the worst case scenario (Sera v Cybran). Quite simply put, it doesn't matter if you're making engys 100% faster than the first bomber player if they're all dead. (Okay 100% maybe, but you get the idea?)

It's not that the engy ramp times aren't an issue, it's just that adjusting it won't have an appreciable impact on the first bomber issue. Also I might be mistaken, but I thought there were adjustments made to off-ramp time for air factories?

Also, air factories shouldn't be used for engy production anyway, the land factory is cheaper & it's offramp times make it far more suitable for engy production. Just curiously has anyone checked LFact off-ramp times vs AirFact?

Hohoho, that's fine. I was sceptical of it myself, the theory has merit, but no, I don't think it would work unless we made things extreme. No, you asked 'How did he get this, WTF?', so I explained how he got it. The point pip was trying to make was that if you made the Seraphim Air Factory have an insane rolloff time, like, 10 seconds rolloff, then pip thinks the Seraphim player will be at a severe disadvantage on the expansion front if he goes Air Factory first. But again, this is pip's idea, I'm just explaining it for you

OT: Is it worth throwing the Armour system into consideration? I mean, if the big problem is bombers hitting the expanding Engineers, than it might be worth looking at giving the Engineer a 50% resistance to Bombers or so... Just an idea, don't bite my head off

Statistics: Posted by IceDreamer — 21 Sep 2012, 03:49

Re: Bomber first - discussions.

2012-09-20T20:02:42+02:00

What can be done about this? lol (254579)
Or this? (236939)

After a week of absence, I played Using a Aeon bomber, I still managed to get 3 engi kills, first try with a different bomber, first game in a week. At the end of the game I was pausing bombers above hoplights and dropping bombs, yes its harder, but it can still be done. That was my first game. I did manage to lose because it was my first game in a week, And because I fail to understand the concept of idol engis and not move ordering auroras into mantis ^^

I can upload the replay if you want, But I have a feeling that if I upload the replay where I end up losing, people will not understand the loss was from facepalm fail on my part, but because of a silly bomber. Talk to Congreve about it, I played him for it.

Statistics: Posted by Cerberus — 20 Sep 2012, 20:02

Re: Bomber first - discussions.

2012-09-20T18:59:06+02:00

Anaryl wrote:
As for making air factories take longer to unload engineers, like the Cybran air factory does, it's a good drawback for air first, that was previously even more stressed for Seraphim : Sera air factory used to have an animation for engineer that took even longer than the Cybran one, but it was removed completely in a fix, that ended in making Sera air factory the best to produce t1 engies. Now that it is a part of the 'air first problem", maybe it's a good idea to review the fix and make it a bit less efficient.

So, how did you get that correcting Sera air fact making engys 27% faster than a Cybran air factory would solve the bomber first problem?

It wouldn't, not exactly, but his idea has some merit. The point is that currently, Bomber aside, even with the faster Engineer production Seraphim as a faction is balanced. If you got rid of this property, a Seraphim player makes a trade off decision. Do you go Land first, and stay even with the other factions, or do you go Air first, get a powerful bomber, but have slower production of Engineers. An advantage, and a disadvantage. I'm not sure it will work, but the concept is worth looking into.

Statistics: Posted by IceDreamer — 20 Sep 2012, 18:59

Re: Bomber first - discussions.

2012-09-20T18:41:14+02:00

Cerberus wrote:
I Can micro any other bomber good enough to make it OP, If you are going to nerf the sera bomber because it is better and call it a first air fix, thats just like saying that navy is OP, so we are only going to Nerf UEF's navy, because the general consensus is that it is the best. If I had the time to play, I will gladly show you OP first bomber with any other bomber.
TBH, I love this community and lobby, and everything else that people have done for this game, But I am really disappointed In how this is being handled. Once again, The problem is first air, not sera bomber. Most of the pro's play sera anyway, so thats why you see so many sera bomber opining, yes the bomber is better, but so is the aeon aurora, so is the UEF LAB, and so is the cybran jester. They each have something better and unique.

This thread is called 'Bomber first - discussions' not 'sera bomber first discussions'. Open A different thread for it then, Just like you opened separate threads for replays and bomber first discussion.

What would be great, Cerberus, is to have a dozen of your replays of you or your opponent doing bomber first. Dig your own replay stock and post replays in the dedicated thread (old replays are backward compatible), especially if you know that some players do it very often (like Chn Dragon).

As for making air factories take longer to unload engineers, like the Cybran air factory does, it's a good drawback for air first, that was previously even more stressed for Seraphim : Sera air factory used to have an animation for engineer that took even longer than the Cybran one, but it was removed completely in a fix, that ended in making Sera air factory the best to produce t1 engies. Now that it is a part of the 'air first problem", maybe it's a good idea to review the fix and make it a bit less efficient.

Statistics: Posted by pip — 20 Sep 2012, 18:41

Re: Bomber first - discussions.

2012-09-20T18:22:19+02:00

How is the uef lab better?

Anyway maybe we need to reintroduce the deployment delay of engineers from air facs so that the first air guy builds engies slower, atm sera air fac is the fastest and in the time it produces 100 engies a cybran fac has only made 73...

Perhaps we should make all air facs similar to the cybran one.

Statistics: Posted by Softly — 20 Sep 2012, 18:22

Re: Bomber first - discussions.

2012-09-20T18:15:50+02:00

I Can micro any other bomber good enough to make it OP, If you are going to nerf the sera bomber because it is better and call it a first air fix, thats just like saying that navy is OP, so we are only going to Nerf UEF's navy, because the general consensus is that it is the best. If I had the time to play, I will gladly show you OP first bomber with any other bomber.
TBH, I love this community and lobby, and everything else that people have done for this game, But I am really disappointed In how this is being handled. Once again, The problem is first air, not sera bomber. Most of the pro's play sera anyway, so thats why you see so many sera bomber opining, yes the bomber is better, but so is the aeon aurora, so is the UEF LAB, and so is the cybran jester. They each have something better and unique.

This thread is called 'Bomber first - discussions' not 'sera bomber first discussions'. Open A different thread for it then, Just like you opened separate threads for replays and bomber first discussion.

Statistics: Posted by Cerberus — 20 Sep 2012, 18:15

Re: Bomber first - discussions.

2012-09-20T14:30:39+02:00

Ze_PilOt wrote:
100% of the replays posted as problematic show sera bombers..

Ofc, each attacking unit is problematic.
Im really not good player, but some(many) of replays posted here and in original thread ...this is just a whining, bad joke or absolute ignorance of game mechanics.

So imo (Sera)bomber first is not OP, is just bored.

Statistics: Posted by chvd — 20 Sep 2012, 14:30