Forged Alliance Forever

Re: Is Seton's Clutch representative of FA as a whole?

2013-04-13T02:45:56+02:00

The only balance changes I have seen that fit into the "OMG this is OP! Take it out!" category are ones coming from the relatively high ranks of Setons Clutch such as "V". What I tend to see in this is that players get locked into their little build orders and playing sim city and completely fail at being flexible and thinking outside the box.

I DO NOT want to start a flame war here... I play a lot of Seton's, and I have just now escaped from my box and you know what? I became a better player.

Example -> Seraphim t1 arty drops. I grant you that when these land they are beyond devastating. I hear some small circles talking about nerfing the arty hard or what have you exclusively for this reason. After being hit by some of these myself, I can see the argument, but in reality the drops are extremely easy to counter. A few t2 mobile flak, some stationary AA, tons of intercepters, early cruisers.... there is an infinite number of ways to easily counter this tactic early or late game. I would ask the players regularly killed by this "Why the hell are you not scouting?" I know that this is a simple example, but it is case in point.

My point is... I really don't think there is any such thing as an OP tactic. There are OP units on rare occasions, such as the original Restorer, but seriously, any tactic can be countered. Tele, game ender (to some degree), whatever. Yeah, you may lose some stuff, but hey, you lose units at the t1 stage too. If you can't get over the fact that you didn't scout around the map and find the monkey lord they were building, or an sACU tele'd in and killed most of the engies around an air factory, that is your problem. The ONLY thing I agree with on Seton's is the soft ban on navy mixing... building an unkillable t3 navy is not cool, and I would prefer to play a non mixing game, but it needs to be specified before game and I will play with it in the game.

TL;DR -> Seton's is a map.... all the ragers that assume it is a special case need to get over themselves and play the game in a flexible way.

Statistics: Posted by BRNKoINSANITY — 13 Apr 2013, 02:45

Re: Is Seton's Clutch representative of FA as a whole?

2013-04-12T20:47:43+02:00

What I would like to know is if there is any way to find out, of all the games played on faf, how many are on setons. I ask because it seems like no matter when I log on there is at least one setons game either waiting to start or in progress. It is not irregular for me to see several setons games come and go in the time it takes for me to start a game on another map.

As disheartening as it would be, if three out of four games of SupCom are played on Setons, can we really not consider it 'representative of fa as a whole'? The fact that, unlike any other map I've ever heard of, we see changes being implemented because they cause problems on setons seems like evidence enough of this to me.

Statistics: Posted by Mycen — 12 Apr 2013, 20:47

Re: Is Seton's Clutch representative of FA as a whole?

2013-04-11T13:57:03+02:00

I think it's clear that we cannot use Seton's as a sole example for rebalancing any given unit.

Gowerly makes good points about Seton's being a useful testing ground for super-late-game unit interactions, but nonetheless I think that the sheer number of ways that Seton's differs from even other large team maps means that we should no longer accept evidence from Seton's alone that a tactic or unit is overpowered.

If a given unit is overpowered, then it will be overpowered on every map, or at the very least every map of a given size. It is my opinion that if a tactic cannot be shown to be overpowered on at least two maps then it is not a problem and should not be changed.

Seton's already has several arbitrary rules introduced to stop perceived game-breaking tactics, and I think that if more of these game-breaking tactics are found, more arbitrary rules should be enforced to stop them, unless these tactics can be proved imbalanced in general.

As an analogy, if regular Thermo players came onto the forums and started arguing for UEF ACU shoulder drones to be removed from the game, would their request be entertained?

In any non-Seton's match, using naval stealth and shields together would be considered clever use of game mechanics, and if a match was won by a tele-SCU exploding an energy storage next to a key enemy structure the match would be considered epic and awesome. Please let's not neuter the potential for fantastically inventive tactics just because one completely non-representative map doesn't support them.

Also to be considered when advocating anything at all be banned, this is a quote from Sirlin's Playing To Win:

Sirlin wrote:
Only in the most extreme, rare cases should something be banned because it is “too good.” This will be the most common type of ban requested by players, and almost all of their requests will be foolish. Banning a tactic simply because it is “the best” isn’t even warranted. That only reduces the game to all the “second best” tactics, which isn’t necessarily any better of a game than the original game. In fact, it’s often worse!

The only reasonable case to ban something because it is “too good” is when that tactic completely dominates the entire game, to the exclusion of other tactics. It is possible, though very rare, that removing an element of the game that is not only “the best” but also “ten times better than anything else in the game” results in a better game. I emphasize that is extremely rare. The most common case is that the player requesting the ban doesn’t fully grasp that the game is, in fact, not all about that one tactic. He should win several tournaments using mainly this tactic to prove his point. Another, far rarer possibility is that he’s right. The game really is shallow and centered on one thing (whether that one thing is a bug or by design is irrelevant). In that case, the best course of action is usually to abandon the game and play one of the hundreds of other readily available good games in the world.

Only in the ultra-rare case that the player is right and the game is worth saving and the game without the ultra-tactic is a ten times better game—only then is the notion even worth fighting for. And even in this case, it may take time for the game to mature enough for a great percentage of the best players and tournament organizers to realize that tactic should, indeed, be banned. Before an official ban takes place, there can also be something called “soft ban.”

[Sirlin then goes on to describe the "soft banning" of Akuma in Street Figher, which is completely analogous to the arbitrary rules enforced in Seton's and Thermo]

Statistics: Posted by Eukanuba — 11 Apr 2013, 13:57

Re: Is Seton's Clutch representative of FA as a whole?

2013-04-10T17:33:19+02:00

MushrooMars wrote:
We should start by removing all T2 Land but MML to save memory

What? I don't get it.

Statistics: Posted by da_monstr — 10 Apr 2013, 17:33

Re: Is Seton's Clutch representative of FA as a whole?

2013-04-10T17:26:50+02:00

I like the way Jordy thinks. We should start by removing all T2 Land but MML to save memory, and making Restorers available to all factions.

Statistics: Posted by MushrooMars — 10 Apr 2013, 17:26

Re: Is Seton's Clutch representative of FA as a whole?

2013-04-10T17:15:40+02:00

Why do we not have a setons mod yet? Then they can 'fix' the things that are broken and leave the rest of faf alone.

Statistics: Posted by Jordy — 10 Apr 2013, 17:15

Re: Is Seton's Clutch representative of FA as a whole?

2013-04-09T16:01:40+02:00

"I like to play xxx game type in FA -> therefore, only that exists to me and everyone should bend to my will as things are not balanced in game for that super-specific game type."

Does that sound familiar?

Statistics: Posted by da_monstr — 09 Apr 2013, 16:01

Re: Is Seton's Clutch representative of FA as a whole?

2013-04-09T15:56:02+02:00

Setons has:
ONE land choke
This severely limits the strategies that are generally employed in land based play (raiding from the side, sniping mexes, etc). I am aware this can be done with drops, but the map is large, so the ability to do it is also mitigated.
This is true from all levels of unit tech. As the front players only need to defend from attacks through the middle (with the exception of floating units), a measure of "skill" in this area is not required.

Specific Roles
You have:
- A "Front" player
- A "Rocks" player
- A ... "beach?" player
- An Air/"Back" Player

These are very specific in what you do. There are variations, sure, but in general you will be doing the same thing in those positions most of the time. This is usually a subset of what you would do in a normal game. For example, the back player will generally only eco and make air (again, there are exceptions, blahblahblah). In a standard 1v1 a player is expected to handle land fights, air fights, ecoing, small naval battles, etc etc. This is not the case when playing in a position on Setons.
Yes, it is possible to be good at every position on Setons. However, you're still going to be playing only one of the spots per game.
This can specialise knowledge. You can be very good at knowing the intricacies of T3 air units, for example. Moreso than people that will generally only play ranked. However, what you would have in that area you would lose out on other areas. It may be possible to get most of the knowledge about FA from a mixture of Setons only players (and this knowledge would be deep and meaningful), but there would still be small gaps.

Medium-Large Map Size
Setons is 20x20. If you were to play a 10x10 (or 5x5 lol) version of Setons, the mechanics and gameplay would be completely different.
Saying that, the "Mid" players are, effectively, playing on a 10x10 map with a massive choke.
This skews the required knowledge for the game to that particular map size. In a 20x20 map:
- T1 land spam is less useful
- Drops are very powerful
- T3 Air is pretty much guaranteed
- Naval armies are expected
- Late game is a certainty (with the exception of super-cheesy play)

Also, with the resources to reclaim in the middle (and knocking over trees), parts of the game are skipped out, as upgrading economy takes a bigger focus than harassing other players.

No Central Resources
"What? What about all those reclaimables?!" Yes, there's those, and there are 2 Mass points close to the middle, but there's no economical advantage to maintaining the middle of the map, so it becomes a case where the best play is to take the middle and then set up a concave outside of the middle. If you look at more of the 1v1 maps, there's usually an economical advantage to holding the middle of the map, even if it's quicker access to expansions to the side.
In Setons there are simply two islands with some mass points on them. These are inaccessible to the middle players, so holding the middle has no tactical advantage past the reclamation of the mass.

Heavy Naval Play
There are few maps in the ladder that have naval play. The most notable naval map is Open Waters. This is, generally, because in 1v1 games the cost of the naval factory and a boat puts you far behind in the map control.
This gives Setons players, in general, more knowledge about the mechanics of naval play.
However, I find it odd that there is no further experimentation on naval combination, in favour of it being outlawed. This is even though there have been changes to shields and some of the naval units. I would like to see the knowledge base increased in this area, and I think the Setons players are the most suited to it.

A Map with more than its fair share of stalemates
An evenly matched Setons game can enter the super-late-late-late-end-ultimate-end-game-turbo-championship-edition more than nearly any other map. With the possible exception of Phantom games played by paranoids, these games are the longest.
This gives Setons players a more unique perspective on what can be done really late game. These include things like:
- Teleporting units
- Massing Nukes/Game Enders
- Massive Experimental armies
- Huge Naval Forces
- CPU crippling numbers of air units
I would be more inclined to at least listen to a Setons player talking about the various aspects of these areas.

So, in conclusion: No, I don't think Seton's Clutch is representative of FA as a whole. I do, however, think that Setons players have a very specific and well defined knowledge set in some of the areas that the general ladder/competitive players may not have, due to not needing in 1v1 play.

Do I think this knowledge should be used for general game balance? No. Do I think this knowledge is useful? Of course. There will always be areas that will need a broad spectrum of knowledge to assess, and the knowledge held by Setons players will be invaluable in these cases.

Statistics: Posted by Gowerly — 09 Apr 2013, 15:56

Re: Is Seton's Clutch representative of FA as a whole?

2013-04-09T13:14:28+02:00

I think making the small island larger and moving it into the corner of ocean would work well, have two land extensions from each beach that connect to it so the oceans are just two big lakes surrounded by land.

Would look kinda like EoTs with a diagnol land bridge going through the center

Statistics: Posted by Rocksteady — 09 Apr 2013, 13:14

Re: Is Seton's Clutch representative of FA as a whole?

2013-04-09T11:48:52+02:00

setons needs a facelift. there is a lot of space wasted in the corners of the map, where there could be bigger islands to fight
for with land units.
its also rather boring to not have any kind of small islands or cliffs in the oceans.
a little more elevation in the middle to protect land units from sea bombardment wouldnt hurt either.

Statistics: Posted by rootbeer23 — 09 Apr 2013, 11:48

Re: Is Seton's Clutch representative of FA as a whole?

2013-04-09T11:35:26+02:00

see: normal team maps have something to fight for (mex points) setons has a total of what? 10 mex points to fight for? + the mass but you can basicly leave out the mass in the middle because it goes the same way 90% of the time

so yes i say setons is more like thermo with naval/air and mass in the middle, and on thermo tp is forbidden
so i cannot really understand why there go gamechanges only because somebody showed a replay where it was op on setons (or not)
nobody showed me a replay showing the opness of SACUs on another (normal, with something to fightfor, with actually mapcontrollfight) map yet for example, but it was changed anyways

Statistics: Posted by ColonelSheppard — 09 Apr 2013, 11:35

Re: Is Seton's Clutch representative of FA as a whole?

2013-04-09T11:22:51+02:00

This has got off-topic, please can we avoid the details of a specific issue that is being discussed elsewhere.

EDIT: Note 'tele-SCU' is just an example. Please read it as any thing that is well-known to Seton's players but unheard-of in 1v1, including but not limited to HARMS creep, knocking over trees, and many other things that I probably don't know about.

What I'm looking for is slightly more abstract thinking about why Seton's differs from other maps, and whether or not it is therefore appropriate to apply things which appear imbalanced on Seton's to the rest of the game.

My thinking is that Seton's is different in several important ways.

1. You are effectively left alone to tech up, as long as you know the specific build order that will balance your defences with your mex-upgrading.

2. There is almost no raiding, except perhaps for the far end of the beach position and the islands, although all of these areas can be defended pretty easily.

3. Any attack on a base is likely to either be completely repelled or completely destroy the base, there is very little room for chipping away gradually due to shielding and the size of attacking forces.

Therefore I would say that the effect of all of these is that any early eco advantage snowballs to a massive degree over 30 minutes, meaning that units that are otherwise super-expensive and rarely-seen become spammable. This is clearly going to result in unstoppable attacks.

Due to the lack of raiding and general 'Mexican-standoff' nature of the map it is very hard to attack the enemy's eco, further compounding the problem of runaway economies and meaning that whoever is ahead will get progressively more ahead over time.

This last point applies to any large teamgame: the rules of 'balance' as seen in 1v1, 2v2 and to an extent 3v3 are simply not present. Because players are effectively left alone to tech in many cases, some players will be able to divert all their resources into a game-changing unit and it often becomes about which team can get one of their out-of-the-way players to make a Ythotha fastest (for example).

So my position is that using large team games (and Seton's especially) to decide on fair balance is a mistaken premise.

Statistics: Posted by Eukanuba — 09 Apr 2013, 11:22

Re: Is Seton's Clutch representative of FA as a whole?

2013-04-09T07:12:10+02:00

I've used Tele SCUs on a wide variety of maps. The only maps that they will probably never get used on is ones that are generally decided by T1 land spam or T2 pushes. Any game where you get can get into T4 or nuke is a game where Tele scus are quite feasible.

They're really not that huge of a problem though, even without their tele changes.

Statistics: Posted by CocoaMoko — 09 Apr 2013, 07:12

Re: Is Seton's Clutch representative of FA as a whole?

2013-04-09T06:46:00+02:00

Maps where it is no problem:
Canis 4v4
Wonder
Pyramids
Claudron
Sera Glaciers
to be continued

Maps where it seems to be a problem:
Setons

statement done, although i agree with lappen that setons is a nice playground for naval testing

Statistics: Posted by ColonelSheppard — 09 Apr 2013, 06:46

Re: Is Seton's Clutch representative of FA as a whole?

2013-04-09T05:07:26+02:00

twocents2ya wrote:
It usually a very late game tactic and it is often one of desperation.

Exactly. You should lose big time, but some "miracle" make you win.
When it's a ACU jeopardizing its survival that's one thing, when it's SACU, who cares. Just build another! At this stage, it doesn't matter much.

And no it's not only me, I just happen to warn about it a lot and am "active" on the forum.
Tnu, you gloated yourself because you owned "several players, several times" with this bullshit! Not me saying, you did .

And again, and again it's not a problem ONLY on setons, play any decent big map , to a quite high level, and late game, this will cause problems as well. If you can't picture/foresee it, nothing I can do there. I won't play other maps to prove my point

Anyway, if it's to discuss about this, better do it in the proper topic. Let's try to not have 3-4 topics talking about the same shit (that is probably sort of fixed for now moreover).

Statistics: Posted by -_V_- — 09 Apr 2013, 05:07