Zock wrote:
Worth quoting myself here:

HZH wrote:
@Gorton: Exactly, I just propose to make RAS more expensive (you could reduce the power income at the same time by a bit)

I forgot to mention that making RAS and ARAS more expensive could create an interesting dynamic between players choosing to go for ARAS straight up in teamgames as air player.

@biass: In other thread ( viewtopic.php?f=67&t=10702 ), many top 1v1 players felt that RAS is too cheap for what it provides in secure (since it's mounted on your ACU) income. On larger maps, RAS is the most efficient, easy, and secure option to increase your power income after T2 pgens. On 4 T2 pgens, you can finish RAS after roughly 1,25 to 1,50 minutes, after which (reclamining pgens or) rushing T3 air are very compelling options to get a further advantage.

Looking at the stats of RAS and Mozart's post in above mentioned thread once more, I found that most players disagree with the mass cost of RAS (in terms of power, RAS is actually more expensive than the combined cost of a similar income based on pgens and mexes). Hence, I want to go forward with my original proposal to make RAS more mass expensive (while reducing power income to a lesser degree, no mass income change):

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

CALCULATION
RAS income: 3,5k/3,3k/3,0k/2,7k (3,125k) power; 12/14/16/18 (avg 15) mass

Equivalent with T3 pgens and capped T2 mexes: 1,25 T3 pgen and 1,78 capped T2 mex

RAS equivalent economy: Cost of 1,25 T3 pgen and 1,78 capped T2 mex:

1,25 T3 pgen: 4.050 mass, 72.000 power
+1,78 Capped T2 mex: 3.026 mass, 20.292 power
= RAS equivalent economy cost: 7.076 mass, 92.292 power


Here is how I would include the cost for T2 or T3 tech:
- Getting RAS on T1 pgens is possible, but very unlikely. T2 pgens and, hence, T2 tech is basically a requirement for getting RAS. Therefore, removing the cost for T2 tech from this comparison is a justifiable simplification.
- By the time you get the chance to go for RAS in 1v1, you will almost always have a T3 land HQ already.
- The only issue are teamgames, where T3 tech is often not available at the time when players (especially air players start their RAS upgrade before getting any T3 tech)
- The T3 ACU is the cheapest way to get to T3 tech. At the same time, a T3 ACU can be used for many other things
- Hence, my conclusion is to add half the cost for a T3 ACU to the comparison: Average from T3 ACU not required (1v1) and T3 ACU required (teamgames)

RAS equivalent economy cost: 7.076 mass, 92.292 power
+ 1/2 T3 ACU: 1.200 mass, 25.000 power
= RAS equivalent no-RAS cost: 8.276 mass, 127.292 power

compared to RAS cost in current version of FAF: 5.000 mass, 150.000 power

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

As can be seen in the calculation above, to build up a similar economy to RAS, you would need approx. 65% more mass than the cost for the RAS upgrade. In terms of power, RAS is not as efficient as some players actually think it is. However, considering the fact that the RAS upgrade is mounted on the back of your ACU and, thus, less susceptible to be destroyed, the increased cost is tentatively justified.

It will probably take an extended period of time to test possible new configurations with RAS. However, I suggest that starting with a 40% increase in mass cost for RAS combined with a 20% reduced power output may be an interesting approach. Considering that most players opposing RAS all together dislike it for the early T3 air rushes that you can pull off in teamgames, this change will provide a solution to that problem in contrast to the current approach.

Zock, just to clear up things, I didn't mean to say that your and the balance team's approach is going the wrong direction. In fact, I think it is already better balanced with those changes compared to what we have right now. I would just further improve the proposed change to RAS in the current beta to also make T3 air rushes requiring more time. Obviously, as a player who enjoys high-level teamgames (at this time arguably only happening on Setons) and who is often stuck on the air position on many normal teamgame maps, I am convinced that this will be a more easy change for player to adapt to. At the same time, it leaves air players with more mass later on, which is crucial, since air players usually have no space to expand to on most teamgame maps.

While I am a little sad that it will take longer with these changes to reach the later stages of teamgames I believe that these are the best option to balance both, RAS in teamgames as well as 1v1.