Forged Alliance Forever

Re: SACU balancing

2013-01-03T19:21:09+02:00

Bhaal wrote:
Does anybody not use ASF and still win regularly?

ASF are the most cost effective air unit. (in mass)

Bhaal wrote:
Does anybody not use hundreds of T1 engineers and win?

T1 engies are the most cost effective buildpower.

SCUs are not the most cost effective at anything. Thats not what they are for, so why should we treat them like they need to compete with t3 land or t1 engies in direct comparison?

Statistics: Posted by Softly — 03 Jan 2013, 19:21

Re: SACU balancing

2013-01-03T19:12:19+02:00

DilliDalli wrote:
Does anybody not use them and still win regularly?

Does anybody not use ASF and still win regularly?
Does anybody not use hundreds of T1 engineers and win?

For phantom or eco maximizing games I dont see a problem if players use them. If you want to play such kind of games do it!

Statistics: Posted by Bhaal — 03 Jan 2013, 19:12

Re: SACU balancing

2013-01-03T16:10:30+02:00

Does anybody not use them and still win regularly?

Statistics: Posted by Softly — 03 Jan 2013, 16:10

Re: SACU balancing

2013-01-03T15:52:06+02:00

DilliDalli wrote:
Unless you're suggesting that we should make them cheaper since you don't see them in use? How about only 1000 mass and 1000 dps?

yeah why not, Fervor has nearly 3 dps per mass
but back to topic, i've played some Phantom games, the games with maybe the most SACUs overall
and i would say even in this often superhardlategamegames the posibilities of abusing are limited, i could not say that in any of these games SACUs made the winning point

Statistics: Posted by ColonelSheppard — 03 Jan 2013, 15:52

Re: SACU balancing

2013-01-03T15:49:10+02:00

http://pastebin.com/V2pPTgat

Here is 500 replays pre-3621.

I can provide you 10.528 replays total on seton that last at least 40 min if you want more.

I'm pretty sure that I need my two hands to count the amount of SCU in all these.

Statistics: Posted by Ze_PilOt — 03 Jan 2013, 15:49

Re: SACU balancing

2013-01-03T15:37:33+02:00

We are talking about late-stage games. Do you really want a list of all the seton replays that last at least 45 min ?
Because I can provide it...

Statistics: Posted by Ze_PilOt — 03 Jan 2013, 15:37

Re: SACU balancing

2013-01-03T15:34:46+02:00

Then you don't play the right kind of games, thats like saying mavors need a buff based on their usage in 1v1 ranked.

Unless you're suggesting that we should make them cheaper since you don't see them in use? How about only 1000 mass and 1000 dps?

Statistics: Posted by Softly — 03 Jan 2013, 15:34

Re: SACU balancing

2013-01-03T15:26:20+02:00

in my last 200games before the patch i did ot saw single scu thats why i thught they should be get a buff so they will get built more often.

im dont see any now to but maybe it needs some time until they players found out they are cheaper now.

Statistics: Posted by Mr-Smith — 03 Jan 2013, 15:26

Re: SACU balancing

2013-01-03T15:18:12+02:00

DilliDalli wrote:
Well where are the replays to show SCUs need changing?

Easy, I can give you about 10.000 replays of games that can be considered as "late game" without any SCU built.

Statistics: Posted by Ze_PilOt — 03 Jan 2013, 15:18

Re: SACU balancing

2013-01-03T15:10:42+02:00

Well where are the replays to show SCUs need changing?

They were made cheaper in the previous patch and instead of learning to use them we just changed them to suit how we want to use them. Go find some replays pre Winter 2012 patch that show how rubbish the SCU is. I've seen none of them.

Such a hypocritical use of repetition here, how come it is the people who did not want the current change who have to provide evidence that its a bad idea? If we changed Paragons to costing 100000000000000000000000 mass then asked you to provide replays proving it was underpowered how many would you get? All we would have to say is sorry but you didn't finish it, or sorry but you didn't build it at the right time, or sorry but you didn't use it effectively enough.

Statistics: Posted by Softly — 03 Jan 2013, 15:10

Re: SACU balancing

2013-01-03T13:18:27+02:00

Plasma_Wolf wrote:
Lyr wrote:Building more than one SMD is absolutely not an option. Sure you can build multiple SMD's, but having multiple SMDs with missiles loaded? That represents a very significant opportunity cost.

This argument is completely ridiculous. Reread my post about the SMD costs.

Also: These changes were carried out after Pip had done some research in the SCUs. He put proposals forward and tested with it. There was no voicing against it at that time, so the changes were carried out. Then don't complain about "suddenly shifting the burden of proof" afterwards, because it is now rightfully in your hands.

If you only build 1 nuke defence and it gets taken out THEN you get nuked..... you deserve it.

I'm sure Lyr has complained in multiple threads concerning a number of balance issues, and each time fails to provide any evidence to back up his point of view. Particularly in the "Scathis and Soul Ripper are OP topic". When Lyr is effectively countered in an argument he says something about "Shifting goalposts" and "Burden of proof", then fails to provide any evidence what so ever.

I think its crucial that balance discussions are backed up with replays emphasising the point. The burden of proof lies squarely with the people claiming that there is a problem. Pretty much the easiest and most meaningful way to prove your point about balance, is with replays, Replays, REPLAYS, REPLAYS REPLAYS
So as always, "Pics or it didnt happen!"

Statistics: Posted by Stin — 03 Jan 2013, 13:18

Re: SACU balancing

2013-01-03T10:58:30+02:00

Anaryl wrote:
If you're being allowed, for whatever reason to construct an economy that amounts up to an income of over 700 mass, no matter in what kind of form, and then being allowed to build more than a dozen satellites, then you're being left perfectly alone. Those few brick attacks? Please

No, being left perfectly alone is being left perfectly alone. If you were to say that my opponents were not of the highest calibre or did not pose a real challenge, I could accept that. But you didn't say that. You watched the reply and misrepresented what you saw. That, sir, is a lie.

I do not accept being called a liar over the difference between perfectly alone and a couple of brick attacks. The effect of the attacks were negligible. But if you insist, I'll say it again: your opponents were in no way actually challenging you.

On your actual point. The effectiveness of the SCUs RAS is not changed in terms of cost/benefit. Only in terms of babysitting and that may be a problem. I however, have no problem with it. I'll have it either way.

Addditionally: to reduce micro management, download the GAZ UI mod and set the SCUs construction upgrade path to just the RAS. I know that this does not change the behaviour or statistics of RAS balance but it saves you a lot of time.

I'll watch the second replay later this day.

Statistics: Posted by Plasma_Wolf — 03 Jan 2013, 10:58

Re: SACU balancing

2013-01-03T09:32:48+02:00

They were totally useless and never used except in phantom.

Statistics: Posted by Ze_PilOt — 03 Jan 2013, 09:32

Re: SACU balancing

2013-01-03T01:20:48+02:00

I'm just gonna throw out there that old SCUs were amazing. Like 3603 SCUs. They were much more expensive but their stats matched their price. More health, better build times, they were awesome, and not OP by any means. They were an investment. And cool! I'm honestly not sure why they were changed initially from their 3603 stats...although I'm sure there must have been a reason. Anyone know why?

Statistics: Posted by CocoaMoko — 03 Jan 2013, 01:20

Re: SACU balancing

2013-01-03T00:23:45+02:00

If you're being allowed, for whatever reason to construct an economy that amounts up to an income of over 700 mass, no matter in what kind of form, and then being allowed to build more than a dozen satellites, then you're being left perfectly alone. Those few brick attacks? Please

No, being left perfectly alone is being left perfectly alone. If you were to say that my opponents were not of the highest calibre or did not pose a real challenge, I could accept that. But you didn't say that. You watched the reply and misrepresented what you saw. That, sir, is a lie.

Now, if we could stop the petty bickering, and actually get to the debate at hand. I could argue that SCUs allowed me to construct an economy of that size. The question is, did they actually allow me to do that?

I've posted another replay, (I lost this time) but it does show how quickly the SCU's can build defences.

My first complaint and I believe most legitimate one is that RAS should not have been nerfed in terms of output. This creates needless busy work and baby sitting of SCUs in order to achieve the same effect. RAS is the T4 economic unit. We always had to baby sit RASSACUs, but now the problem has been compounded by halving it's effectiveness. Trying to hit that late game exponential economy requires much more needless busy work.

We could increase the cost of RAS so that a RASSACU cost the same as it did before, for the same output but I believe that if you are making changes to accommodate another change, then you've made a mistake. The other solution is to see if the SCU manager UI mod could be implemented into FAF but I'm not sure if this is possible as it's not compatible with the GAZ UI, and it still doesn't resolve the problem of exponential eco.

I'm not saying that the SCU is conclusively imbalanced, but I think there is enough evidence to say that it is not an unreasonable opinion to believe so.

Statistics: Posted by Anaryl — 03 Jan 2013, 00:23