Upcoming balance patch, final round of testing/feedback

[zinc cipher]

League has way way way smaller margins than bar. Not only is the game optimized to death but you also have a very small input space. Anyways i do agree that stuff will definitely break and things will be mixed up. I hope we get some quick patches after release

[dreamy jay]

Seems like we're really trying to push people into not making fus and making Asolars instead? if we're nerfing fusion health too

[tropic river]

the health would be to keep it neutral instead of giving it more hp/cost

[next iron]

you can think of all the fusion change as neutral and the asolar change as buff. So yes you will see more asolar
not much more though because T2 mex push your production so much it still invalidates lower tier production anyway

[turbid galleon]

That's almost a willful misunderstanding, its making both more a palatable option to scale vs skipping to afus or staying on winds

[dreamy jay]

yeah I mean that much is clear at face value but that makes it not only less efficient, not enough to powera single starlight but also now weaker to bombing for the same explosion issues, whilst asolar has only received buffs

[restive prism]

I still don't think we can go all the way down to neutral-change on HP. Even if it's just enough to counter the bonus effect to repair, that might be enough (but obviously a little more than that)

[halcyon laurel]

Yes except currently you can just share shit away to the pure aggro players and fix their macro. But with no share and tax they’re effectively broke and main player has to play 1v4 for rest of game cuz they have all the eco

[tropic river]

well you can't buff asolar without making asolar better in some cases, so yeah

[dreamy jay]

I am just confused we're still pushing for these specific changes when community polling is more than 2:1 against when so many of the changes are receiving positive feedback

[real dirge]

I would have prefered a simple BP cost buff. It would have made it better still but in a non obvious way and not in every circumstances

[next iron]

in my example its just 1v2 for the rest of the game, with double eco and higher tier units

[tropic river]

yeah there was a big asolar thread where we went over it right? it's only a smallish buff anyway

[turbid galleon]

0.3% of the active playerbase does not make a good sample

[dreamy jay]

so why bother having a poll? It seems the intent is to ignore feedback at any cost

[tawny canyon]

Then tell them to give feedback 🤷‍♂️

[gritty sky]

The fusion change is more/less neutral except for that part where you take on 25% less risk before it is done(w/ less reward to be fair). In BAR, your economic structures don't make anything unless they are done. This leads to less risky scaling. Why is this desirable? Like why now amongst a long list of other changes does this one make it in? Same for the BP changes? These are complicated structures to change.

[turbid galleon]

I would love to know lmao, its just fueling this ragefest at minor changes in an alpha version of an unreleased game

[tawny canyon]

Only 0.0000022976% of the playerbase approves of this change btw

[turbid galleon]

And that x15 disapproves***, so idk what your point is or what the hell youre using as a player count?

[tawny canyon]

My point is that people either don't know about the patch or don't care enough about it to provide good feedback. You can't use whole percentage based stats because not enough people care about it. You can only use partial because of the limited size of people who have given feedback (the people in this discussion)

[outer fern]

I suggest also to isolate this part of balance patch :

*Factory buildpower:
All T2 factories: -300 metalcost, 1.5x buildtime. Except Cortex Vehicleplant only -200 metalcost.
T2 factories (bots, vehicles, navy) buildpower: 300 -> 600
T2 airplants buildpower: 200 -> 600
Seaplanes buildpower: 200 -> 300
T3 gantry buildpower: 600 -> 1800

Units from t2, t3 and seaplane factories:
new buildtime = old buildtime * 1.1 + (metalcost * 60 + energycost) / 20
(Roughly 30% for most units. Less for units with already high bp costs like air, more than that for fast-building units like most ships)
*

As it have a lot of impact on all units, maybe make a dedicated modoption for this named "Factory BP rework".

The trouble to have this in same patch with unit changes is bad because it make harder to identify a trouble on a unit is based on unit change or on new BP calcul

[gritty sky]

This as well as the fusion changes. I'd be down for adv geo/adv solar changes and the unit changes...those seem legit.

[river vapor]

^^support above

[tropic river]

I think I brought this up before but I'd rather incisor get a nerf to HP or something instead of costs

reason: they're already expensive and costs will hurt anti-scout coverage (fewer tanks)

[soft wave]

lol and there I was about to make a bananas in pyjamas commanders in pyjamas meme... sigh

[dull dawn]

You can take them initially and then just have a rezzer reclaim them as the one dude sends a con to get them behind u, lots of maps this is op even if sharing/overflow is removed

The front guy keeps his t1 army alive and the back guy can fund insane amount of t2 gg good luck beating that

[rapid heart]

More scout wars you say? Who would have thought?

Bet that is highly desirable gameplay

It would be a shame if sensible advice was listened to.

[tawny canyon]

It has been over 12 hours any update?

I don't wanna be pushy tho but evening for just about everyone has passed :/

[civic solstice]

We decided to move the season 3 update to January. There is too much negative feedback about the major elements of the patch to drop it before Christmas and too little time to address and retest them.

The idea is to follow through with the unit changes as they are generally accepted, maybe add some more of these since there seems to be appetite for that from the player-base, and reconsider the fusion, bp and con turret changes.

[civic solstice]

Decision on pushing other things lined up for S3 like T2 Legion navy now will be down to the respective project owners in these areas.

[rich torrent]

We did it folks, world peace has been achieved

In all seriousness, good to see that the backlash and feedback was taken into account

[rapid heart]

Thanks for listening to the community concerns. It actually does help. I am personally really surprised/grateful as after the last statement from johannes thought it was gonna get steamrolled despite the obvious concerns.
Thanks again for listening.

[pine violet]

Ok, breathe out. Time to turn around and start tearing into people who think systems changes are the only way to tackle coop.

[frigid wedge]

I can fix coop without lifting a finger just let my friend enable taxing in game options ez

[rapid heart]

Funny, we thought memes werent allowed.

Sort of worrying you still think that people upset about the change just because it was a change and still denying that it was a bad change/for worse gameplay despite the feedback but you are free to not reevaluate.

The same as the t1 balance changes arent enough but because it has been done on a Yes/No fashion thats whats gonna be. We will be stuck with it for another year and come next BPL you will see the numbers and wonder why once again.

[soft wave]

and there i was thinking we were so close to killing the strait lobby for good 😂 joking

[soft mirage]

in tournaments it goes a little past coop. i would recommend the recent apm open or BCCL league 5v5 game if you want to see the high level of coop that happens in tournaments

[wanton mica]

Taxing only moves the problem somewhere else because players will share mex/con turrets/winds instead.

[indigo sky]

How to fix coop
No sharing at all
No help in construction
Only excess share
No slider
If someone take a player every eco and factory get paralysed for 20-30 second e

[gray sparrow]

You cant reclam self-d ally coms

[frigid wedge]

So what like it still helped alot and way way way less commie.

[gritty sky]

based

[sleek mango]

I always thought coop was a problem primarily because it encouraged low OS noobs to hand over their base to a higher OS player in 8v8 public lobbies. Why is it a problem in tournaments?

[gritty sky]

That's one of many problems. Other problems are found here in this short thread. https://discord.com/channels/549281623154229250/1337861239526785064. My main issue w/ tournaments are that ...it looks terrible to play.

[dreamy jay]

idk it's kinda fun honestly

[young apex]

The most successful tournies imo have people who watch aspiring to do the same stuff like f1 trickle down tech to consumer vehicles. Imo non commie tourny resonates better with bar players as the top form of play they can aspire to and take inspiration from

[slate raft]

I don't think fusion and afus need changes, they are literally perfectly balanced, both have purpose and reason to exist, just make Asolar into the thing that fills the gap or make an entirely new eco building for t2 cons that is cheaper then fusion

[dreamy jay]

fission reactor 💡 new structure with the proposed stats of the changed fusions or maybe even a bit smaller

t3 eco: Zero Point/vacuum energy/singularity reactor op

[rotund folio]

the changes to fusions just means more wind spam, which is annoying for multiple reasons. There are already too many ppl that think building wind across the whole map especially in other ppls bases is the way forward, so annoying and also aesthetically horrible.

Personally i was hoping to see solar getting a buff and wind getting a nerf so less wind spam and solars becoming more viable. Of course the variability due to map wind settings makes this tricky, but effectively making wind better is definately not the way to go.

[valid karma]

Allow Commando to be built from amphibious complex?

[slate raft]

Too bad there won't be any new units even if they're desperately needed

Would be nice to have: fission reactor 500E, fusion reactor 1000E, Afus 3000E. All with increasing buildpower requirements and metal eficiancy as you go up in tiers

[halcyon laurel]

Self reported straits noob

[gray sparrow]

Its not like rotato maps have wind too ( it was funny to play on 20 avg wind speed ) :>

[soft wave]

Im working on a new arm t3 tank concept 😍. Dreams I know. But it's a good idea I reckon

[young apex]

I believe they are never adding units to existing factions

[soft wave]

Yeah I know. Technically they wouldn't

[cursive sand]

I dunno why fusions where heavily nerfed in metal to energy ratio, keep the reduction in total scale but keep same ratios, with asolar changes, this then becomes an afus and windmill nerf

[real dirge]

That metal to energy ratio is a useless number, that's not how economy works in BAR. There is no single number that can describe how good an energy source is because their effectiveness depends on time.

The new fusion is better than the old one for a while, like you can get more energy by spending less metal on them. On the long term (minutes, but depends on buildpower) the old one is slightly more metal efficient.
But the small long term efficiency difference doesn't really matter because it's insignificant at that point, but also because the better early advantage can snowball to 'pay' for that difference.

[tropic river]

iirc the costs were calculated to give about the same scaling curve as existing fusions

[restive prism]

Right. That's instantaneous efficiency, which isn't how building things works in BAR. Not sure what to call the real cost efficiency without sounding like an investment advisor.

[pine violet]

You're not going to get caught with your pants down and 4k metal in an unfinished fusion, this alone is a buff

[soft wave]

wouldnt be the first time ive been caught 4 grand down with my pants around my ankles 🥁

[void barn]

Something being bigger doesn't mean it's automatically riskier. A cheaper fusion / t2 factory / etc can be risky just as well, the timings for that are just different.

Getting caught with unfinished 4k investment at 7 minutes, isn't categorically different from getting caught with a 3k investment at 6 minutes, as an example. But in a teamgame, the bigger an investment is, the bigger the payoff for properly cooping it

[pine violet]

Something bigger is automatically riskier. A cheaper fusion can be risky, but an expensive one is riskier, that's kinda self-evident.

If you're getting a fusion at 6min, odds are you are vulnerable throughout, same with 7min and that's a longer vulnerability window. Bad example.

[next iron]

regular fusions were probably designed as high risk, high reward energy option: the long build time creates a meaningful window for counterplay compared to incremental scaling with solars. Or so we all thought until a year ago. In practice, reclaiming solars and cooping largely removes that risk, since the extra resources help finish the fusion much faster. This shrinks the counterplay window to the point where, the best response becomes “rush your fusion faster” which flattens the strategic decision.

one could argue that it therefore needs to be even riskier. Higher risk and higher reward to preserve the counterplay window, but that would be a gigantic buff to coop. So my proposal is to make it less punishing for those who don't use the proper method to rush fusion (coop abusing)

you might get the fusion 2 minutes late by not cooping, but its better than 3 minutes late.

(this is mostly for solar map btw)

[void barn]

The vulnerability period is only longer if the thing takes longer to finish. The later the game is / bigger your economy, as a player and team, the faster you can finish even a big thing.

[pine violet]

We're talking about coop rushing your first fusions here, what happens later in the game isn't relevant. Later in the game you can gamble an afus if you feel spicy.

[next iron]

regardless if were talking early game or late game, bigger cost = bigger build time so bigger risk

[pine violet]

yes, but to a point, if you're already 6 fusions in, the metal difference between the fusion versions isn't exactly exploitable

I've also been thinking about lowering t2 lab hp for a couple days now, but never getting a good opportunity to bring it up. Roughly the same approach.

[next iron]

that would be good change imo. its not worth to bomb a T2 lab because you need enough bomber to overkill it (or abuse the forbidden trick but it has its own risk)

even just a small change in HP would change that interaction drastically given the overkill formula

[void barn]

There's always a timing when something is safe to build, a bit earlier when it's risky but rewarding to build, and earlier than that when it's not worth building. There's a risky timing to build either size of fusion, you just can start making it earlier if it's smaller

[pine violet]

Isn't the entire problem here that fusions are so safe to coop that the window is too difficult to exploit already? Making it safer doesn't help that, and trickles the problem down to lower skill levels and other gamemodes.

And I say "problem" accepting your view that it is. In my view, what problem there is with tournament-level play is not remotely worth nerfing the impact for every other skill bracket and gamemode.

[void barn]

Again. Making it smaller doesn't intrinsically make it safer, rather it changes the timing.

Buildings arent risky/safe, build orders are. In coop vs coop if played to a high level (including higher than what we have now), you'll still always have greedy and safe strategies. That doesn't hinge on a single building

[pine violet]

It changes the timing to be smaller and earlier, which is, believe it or not, safer

Especially if you step outside of coop and look at, say, 1v1, where mistiming a large construction could easily be a death sentence.

[dreamy jay]

Smaller window of construction surely is less risky?

[next iron]

on high level 1v1 solar map you build basic solars until around 600e-700e (4650m+), fill 2 or 3 estorage, make t2 lab and fusion while reclaiming your solars.

basically you went up 300 energy per second with 0 metal cost

[void barn]

Window of construction depends on the economy you have.

3k m structure built with 30m/s is similar risk to 4k m structure built with 40m/s

[pine violet]

You've done nothing to impact the m/s the players have in the game. That remains a constant, so the fusion window shifts.

[halcyon laurel]

Yeah idk what johannes is tryna argue here. It don’t got anything to do with the changes

[next iron]

also tournament and high level play trickles down into the more casual lobby overtime, what was groundbreaking a couple years ago is the meta in nowadays average lobbies

[void barn]

The time / economy it's reasonable to start it shifts. Taking ages to finish a fusion isn't a greedy play, it's just dumb

[pine violet]

Surely it'll trickle down faster if it's easier to execute, and if we assume that gameplay in undesirable, otherwise what are we even talking about, then making fusions safer is no good

[halcyon laurel]

So if I’m building a 4k fusion at 50 income vs. 3k fusion at 50 income the 3k is less risk?

[pine violet]

The economy up until a fusion is unchanged, you can get the fusion earlier, or you can get it at the same time but faster, either way the window is shorter.

[next iron]

no I agree safer fusion is no good. What I say is it's already very safe anyway on solar maps

[pine violet]

Well, Johannes doesn't and he's the one with the bacon

[pine violet]

would throwing a spanner in the works with nightmode variable solars be a viable answer to the monotony of solar map build orders?

[next iron]

yea im not sure what he meant. My point was simply that fusion is so safe, even in 1v1 in fact, that the meta has been very stale with no depth in early T2.

[halcyon laurel]

Anyways I think nerfing all power spikes in the game will make it incredible boring. As long as coop exists and it has benefit people will still do it. Systemic changes are only possible solution without completely flattening everything

[pine violet]

Safe at your lvl, I'm 37os which is supposed to be way above average, yet I still die to transitions all the time

[next iron]

yea I guess the safety in the fusion is proportional to how much skill + coop you have. with more skill you need less coop to keep the same level of safety

[real dirge]

I don't think that's true. The timing is not both smaller and earlier, it's either smaller, OR earlier.
So for example you can build it a bit earlier in about the same time as the older one but with one fewer con turrets.
Or you can get the same number of con turrets and build it at the same time as the old one and in this case it will be faster a bit.

[void barn]

What non-coop power spike is being nerfed, exactly? With the eco changes specifically, unit changes nerf some power spikes obviously

[pine violet]

Yes, it's either/or, but both are safer.

[halcyon laurel]

Fusion?

[real dirge]

The point is, that it's a same risk if you're just start building it like 20 second earlier.
If you don't start building it earlier, then you're going to be inefficient but safer which is true with the old fusions as well.

[next iron]

its not being nerfed though its a very small buff

[pine violet]

It's not the same risk, you start and finish it earlier while the enemy has no economy/units to punish you for it. Likewise if you do it later but faster, the time you're down metal is shorter and less punishable.

[halcyon laurel]

But why are we comparing these buildings in different environments? In the same equal environment it’s less risk.

[next iron]

even in the non equal context they describe, its still less risk

[rapid heart]

Gonna include this on my patch cause it is a good point.

Labs have a whole lot more hp than they should, particularly the t1labs and I keep forgetting to add it to my to do list.
Thanks for the reminder

[next iron]

problem is unit power spike and eco power spike go hand in hand. so eco powerspike from coop exacerbates unit power spike

you go from T1 tanks at 10e per 1m ratio
into countering those tanks with tzar at 20e per 1m
into countering those tzar with sniper at 30e per 1m

on solar map, you go t2, start a fusion
enemy coop t2, make a tzar and pushes your lane.

you need that fusion to finish to fight back

[real dirge]

There is an efficient way to build stuff. Like, you don't start building fusions with 10 metal income, but also you don't really build them with 300 M/s income either. There is a sweet spot. The sweet spot for the new fusions is different, so to be efficient you have to adjust your build order, it's not going to be the same environment.

Like, let's say previously you were building fusions when your income was about 60 M/s and to minimize risk you were building it with enough BP/s to finish it in 60 seconds.
Now with the new fusions, to be efficient you might want to build them when your effective income is 50 M/s, and again to minimize risk and optimize efficiency you will build it with enough BP/s to finish it in 60 seconds. It's the same risk, the difference is that you can build it earlier and with one less con turret.

Also, players frequently reclaim T2 lab to build fusions, that reclaim is going to take more time after patch.

[next iron]

I understand what baldric means but in practice this overlaps with mex upgrades so you build the fusion at the same time regardless of the change

also you could just choose to be "less efficient" and build it at 60 m/s like you would have prior, build it at the same speed you would have prior, and use the 10 extra metal per second on protective measures

for example you could compare glitter tech spot current fusion vs proposed fusion

in both case you would upgrade your 6 mex then make fusion
my proposed new fusion would finish earlier and leave you vulnerable for less duration

[halcyon laurel]

After I make a few t2 mexes and units I’m going to need more energy and make a fusion. Why am I suddenly making a fusion way earlier? I still need a fusion at same point before and after patch.

[pine violet]

In that example sheldons should dunk on the tzar at 5e to 1m, doesn't seem to play out that way in practice.

[real dirge]

If you have 60 M/s income, and 1000 BP/s, then you can build the new arm fusion in about 56 seconds while the old fusion would be built in 72 seconds, so 16 seconds faster, which is much safer.

Except my point is, that you wouldn't build the old fusion with 1000 BP/s because it's too risky. You would build it with let's say 1200 BP/s. So you would start it a few seconds later and also spend 6 seconds building one more con turret, and then you would build it in 60 seconds.

In this case the difference is 4 seconds, and that's if we ignore the T2 lab's bp cost and similar factors.

[next iron]

yea im aware, my point is no one has 1000bp with 60m/s in game because the resource ratios of the fusion dont match with the ratio of anything else in the game except maybe sheldon

[real dirge]

1000BP/s is about the BP/s you need to spend 60M/s on fatboys (I didn't calculate it)

It's like, you need one fewer con turrets for the T2 lab since that has an increased BP/s (even when we take the increased BP cost of the units into account). And then you can start building the fusion with that one fewer con turrets a bit earlier.

But of course we can always get one more con turret and wait a bit to make the fusion build less risky.

[next iron]

yea fatboy is another outlier with very low E to M cost actually almost sheldon level but not quite

[halcyon laurel]

I don’t feel like I ever build more con turrets for fusion. Usually you already have a bunch for mexes and units and you’re m stalling very easily with it

[real dirge]

There are situations of course where the environment won't change and the new fusion will just be straight up safer because of faster build time. Like in 1v1. But I think in these situations the difference won't matter as much and/or we want to buff these situations anyway.

[halcyon laurel]

So why is the environment changing in 8v8? If anything don’t you need more bp for all t2 units costing more

[real dirge]

But you need fewer con turrets after the lab BP/s buff. So if you don't build more con turrets for fusions, then you will have less BP/s for building the new fusion which makes them slower to build, about as slow as the old fusion.

[next iron]

not really, you need the same amount of con turret to upgrade your mex to reach the fusion level of metal income

[lone echo]

In practice decreasing the completion time of the fusion project on lower m/s spend, should favor newer/less experienced players.
As they will not be optimal with reclaiming stuff/halt production etc.
Less stalling should mean a more enjoyable game experience for those players. Not a bad thing imo

[halcyon laurel]

Also I just realized with all t2 units costing more bp won’t that mean it’s slower to Rez and heal all of them which is a big nerf to tanky units like tigers

[real dirge]

Sorry I don't see that. In what situation? If I were an eco player on glitters and I get barely any payment from the team, than I would only have a couple of con turrets to upgrade the mexes. I would build more con turrets to make T2 units, and after patch I would need fewer of those.

[next iron]

whether you have 300 or 600 bp from lab youre building the same amount of turret to up your mex

[real dirge]

I would build the minimum amount I need to build the T2 mexes as fast as possible.
Then I would build what's necessary to make T2 units such as T2 cons or fatboys.
After patch the number of these latter con turrets will about one fewer. So I wouldn't end up with the same number of con turrets. I would have one fewer.

[halcyon laurel]

Also why we just taking about time? It costs less m and e to make. In same environment that means your committing extra potential t2 units into more e production.

[next iron]

except for fatboy and sheldon, you dont need more con turret to make T2 unit once your mex are upgraded, you need more energy

[real dirge]

Technically I bet that is often true. But I wonder how many games I could find where the player don't build any con turrets or get any BP/s (like butlers) after all T2 mexes but before the fusion.

[next iron]

from my experience most of them dont build con turret after t2 mex are done, they do after the fusion is done, otherwise they would energy stall while floating alot of metal.

[real dirge]

But anyway. I don't argue that there's no change. Obviously the new fusion can and often will be safer then the old one. But it's not true that fusions will just be built earlier and faster.
Sometimes they will be built earlier and in about the same time as before. Sometimes they will be built later but faster.

My point is, that this was always true. We could always just delay the fusion, get more BP/s and build it faster.

[safe gulch]

What is balance teams perspective on the glitters games where trotski is giving his base to jagomu on the s3 patch. The coop timing seems pretty similar and still oppressive.

The weakness to me seems to be that back anti canyon should have no one to contest early raids, but that spot is often held by a weaker player who doesnt punish well and air+a narrow map means glitters can often shut down raids fairly early.

Is glitters just a lost map?

[sturdy marsh]

Preventing co-op on glitters is very difficult because 50 % of the team has no responsibilities in early game. So they can spend all their apm on maximizing build orders and there's always some advantage to including co-op in those build orders.

[ember field]

you can tighten up the timings on that build and have quakers on front around min4, so the frontliner just makes more grunts to cover for leaks and than quakers auto win vs any amount of rocketbots

[gritty sky]

This problem isn't unique to glitters unfortunately. It is just a good example of how broken the resource sharing mechanic is.

[slate raft]

Would it be entirely out of the question to get a third eco building for t2 cons? A half fusion that makes 500 E and is less eficiant

[real dirge]

I just saw one of those games. Is this like representative?

If so, then I don't think there was an issue with co-op in this one.
I think the main issue was, that one team was making units while the other was making eco. I'm pretty sure Drongo could have matched that Tzar timing with a fatboy if he wanted to (which is a worse unit I know).

And also, I'm fairly certain that the Tzar timing (5:44) could be matched or at least approached by a solo player without any team help other than a few empty metal spots. I mean a player simply doesn't build some of their mexes, eco player builds them instead and then makes a Tzar at like 6:00 or something.
And I can't really imagine any changes that would prevent that, maybe a tech split like change would.

[slate raft]

I haven't seen the replay, but my guess would be that the coop team just makes the tzar and upgrades mexes while the other team would be financially crippled and couldn't upgrade mexes on tech spot

[next iron]

maybe its time glitter mex becomes 2.0 instead of 1.8 so the mex rusher side has a bit more counterplay opportunity too

[civic solstice]

Anti canyon inted that game pretty much

[real dirge]

The team that made the tzar barely had T2 cons. I think they shared 2 T2 cons after some units while Drongo shared with the whole team (I think)

[civic solstice]

Trotsky tried the same thing on us in strait lobby today

https://www.beyondallreason.info/replays?gameId=5df043696ffd7294bee957decf551d28

But we too good

[next iron]

he played the spot where its meta to rush t2 units with no upgraded mex tho, would be something if he played techer and did the same thing instead

[real dirge]

I said above, that solo Tzar is probably possible at 6:00.

I tried it like 5 times with the patch and the best I could manage was 6:22 and I think I was pretty efficient.
This was without any help, payment and without com sacrifice though. So with some tweaks and with the help that the eco player usually receives and maybe with some E overflow from the team I'm sure 6:00 is possible.

So even if there would be a resource tax, or a building that's necessary to share resources, etc. it would still just be Tzar at 6:00 instead of 5:44.
(to be fair, that coop build could be improved too)

[void barn]

coop is still strong with the patch, just a little less so, compared to other builds. You can lower the advantage cooping has, but not remove it

one thing to note also, is that solo techers mostly dont do builds fully optimised for the new factory costs, yet (but same goes for the coopers).

[ember field]

2 players cooping with optimisation can have 3 tzars before min 7

[safe gulch]

This one, but they are all in on the strategy. In this game, i am thinking this is also a meta game exploit since usually anti canyon is occupied by bad players. They often dont come front or do so with passive units. But if they instead built 10 incisors to open, they can punish trotski lack of units and wipe that whole base.

But this requires multiple players to be ready to aggress or it can just be a waste. Plus shurikens can shut it down.

I agree drongo would have been close with a fatboy, but he'd run out of steam faster.

T1 units apart from raiders dont pressure quickly enough, and raiders are high risk on glitters.

[ember field]

if the strategy is executed correctly its not stoppable

[safe gulch]

Yeah isn't the op tech here just pond full sharing to geo? Or tech like you said. I think its generally known that geo should be the commie target, no one cares about sea or air t2 if the game is over pre 10 minutes.

[ember field]

there is no way to punish if t2 units start coming out at min 4 like they should, the guy in charge of 2 fronts can easily make extra grunts to cover the narrow glitter front or if you wanna be extra safe the techer can make a couple grunts and delay his strat by 15-20 sec and 4:20 quaker is not any more stoppable than 4:00 quaker

only strategy that is proven to reliably be able to compete with techer/corner coop is techer/front, or corner/front coop because you can start the domination right from the start by outproducing enemy side with raiding units and quickly transition into forward t2 on many mex

front player can simply full boost lab with 0 time wasted building energy production, rush a con turret before enemy has a con and walk to front while his lab pumps whatever grunts and cons mix he wants

this kinnda style ensures enemy side will have no ability to prepare for t2 transition because they will never even be able to cap all their mexes

[craggy patio]

the main thing here is that coop team did NOT upgrade mexes and made units instead. So the other team died before t2 mexes paid off

[ember field]

dont make me prove this stuff again guys, VonCommie nicname still sticks to me and I havent done it in months xD

[safe gulch]

So I think its well established that early t2 units will always beat a team who goes for early eco.

It is also established that coop gets you earlier t2 units. Many players, myself included dont really enjoy this playstyle, as it is too solved.

S3 patch wants to overhaul core game timings to reduce commie payoffs (we've debated fusions a bunch). But given what we are seeing in the glitters s3 lobby, it appears to have had no impact (plus fusion timing has nothing to do woth tzar/Quaker rush).

Are there other lobbies playing the s3 patch that show it is fulfilling its purpose? Or is the thesis that players will adjust to these changes and start playing a way that deals with commie strats individually more effectively?

[tropic river]

this patch by itself is probably neutral or worse on those fast rushes, since the extra bp added to the lab isn't counteracted by extra unit build costs until later

and the extra lab buildtime by the extra bp plus metal discount

but the idea behind it is it should incentivise the next t2 lab sooner because each additional lab is cheaper

[gritty sky]

I've seen 0 indication the changes in this patch have any effect on coop

[restive prism]

It seems like it should impact rainbow coop but not base sharing

[safe gulch]

This doesnt make much sense to me. Well executed coop games dont get to the next t2 lab. Its all about coordinating on that first one. And a team that is sweaty enough to commie was never building a second t2 lab anyway, as it is still less efficient than making units from the first.

[royal vessel]

i dont think that drongo vs trotski game (coop winning) or the ptaq vs trotski game (coop losing) can be used as representative of anything, they're both filled with so many unforced errors that determined the game's outcome far more than the strength of any given strategy

[tropic river]

yeah but if you tweak the numbers enough it might become worth it to build one for distance efficiency reasons... that's the idea anyway

[restive prism]

There were some Glitters pathologies in the Drongo game, both a passive canyon and a passive anti-canyon, plus others. Still it probably shouldn't be such a death sentence not to preempt a coop rush.

[safe gulch]

I agree those specific games should not be complete evidence of anything. Troski and jagomu are doing this in more games than the one posted.

Coop lost pre patch as well because of similar unforced errors.

But my point is the talk has been, this will change co op timings, and thats for the better. But looking at these games, commie enjoyers are still doing commie, and their timings dont really seem impacted.

[ember field]

there are hundreds of games like that that didnt go viral and commie tends to win over 70% i would say (anecdotally)

[tropic river]

at the end of the day you still need sharing barriers to kill off the worst of commie imo

[real dirge]

I think BP/s for the T2 cons should be increased.
I mean, the lab now has significant BP/s so a normal eco player like Drongo don't even need con turrets to make T2 cons and fatboys and such on low eco. But they do need con turrets to build the T2 mexes.
If T2 bot cons would have like 280 instead of 180 BP/s, then the solo player could get the T2 lab without overbuilding BP so they could save 20-30 seconds.
Meanwhile the coop player would need multiple con turrets to spend their higher income.

[restive prism]

Buffed T2 cons would go very extremely hard with the full S3 changes

[tropic river]

yeah, I thought about that as well... they could be buffed as long as they don't overtake con turret in efficiency
extra bp to lab tilts the game towards unit rushing a bit

[safe gulch]

Thats a funny response. Solve the coop unit rush by turning the con into the op unit. Everyone starts commie t2 cons as god intended.

[real dirge]

well. The solo player needs the T2 mexes to build T2 units. The coop player don't really

[restive prism]

We used to call that the tech position, I think, and it didn't have 57,000 comments being mad about it

[ember field]

if cons could somehow be buffed in relation to units it would be a positive change I think, longer games give worse players more room to make mistakes and skill expression is overall increased

[safe gulch]

What makes this a line that cant be crossed? Obviously youd remove much of the reason to build con turrets since theres something better to build.

Are you more concerned about con turret not being top of the food chain, or is the con turret efficiency a pretty important balance point around bp in general?

From screwing around on some lava isthmus games, I do recognize that bp can get out of hand op very fast. Its not well understood as a resource.

[void barn]

in the 5v5 tourney we did see games with multiple t2 factories. 300m saved + 300bp gained is still not a huge change so its not some paradigm shift, but does meaningfully nudge the game in that direction even in coordinated teams.

[tropic river]

just the fact that you'd have lots of T2 cons around your lab for a long time, T2 cons around gantry, stuff like that... just a feeling that con turrets should get efficiency in return for being immobile

[safe gulch]

Happy for them. I don't play in the 5v5 tourney.

[void barn]

but you dont coop into a single t2 factory for the whole team every game, I assume.

[slate raft]

Well that can play out exactly the same way without coop if 1 person makes t2 units and the other upgrades mexes, that's how it allways goes on isthmus you're expected to make units first because the distance to front is so short but on glitters the same can happen with trans

The really broken part about coop usually is that you have so much metal and relatively little BP in comparisson so you can make the tzar AND upgrade mexes at the same time while solo can only do 1 of these things

[ember field]

i dont think doing both at the same time will ever be efficient really

[river vapor]

It would encourage more decision making from eco whether or not to go early t2 units. Kinda like old glitters meta.

Rosetta is a diff map but t2 before cons is usually bad because of how metal rich it is, and how fast t2 cons pay off.

I think @next iron was suggesting higher mexc values on Glitters - that might work but the map is a bit smaller so it just takes one break in early t2 phase to end game.

[frigid wedge]

Bring back season 1 changes thanks we don't want no season 3 and even the season 2 is not as enjoyable as season 1 balance

[potent hedge]

I 100% agree it did nothing to nerf fboy significantly enough to matter

fboy is a massive problem in glitters still

[potent hedge]

Been playing s3 as a necessity and it helps some but it feels like 5-10% with a 90% wr strategy

[void barn]

The eco changes don't really nerf rushing t2 (at least just a 2-player coop, if you funneled from more ppl that'd be slowed down more) , rather it helps a non-coop player catch up in tech.

Rushing specific units is best targeted by changing those units. Tzar / fb got big nerfs but still very useful. Quaker / Mauser there was less agreement on how strong they are and what would be a good change if any, so they're left untouched.

Overall it's good that there's interesting rushes and power spikes available, so that the game isn't always simply t1 units fighting t1 units -> lull in fighting as ppl tech/eco up -> t2 vs t2 fight.
The rushes just need to be balanced right so it's an interesting fight between the t1 and t2 units during that transition period.

[slate raft]

It would be nice to have a more affordable energy building on t2 cons, but I feel like fusions and afus are just working too well in their current iteration and reducing cost on fusion destroys part of its identity, a third energy building on t2 cons would be the best of both worlds

This new eco building could be the t2 version of solar panels, less fragile and less prone to chain reactions, very little BP and energy cost but bad energy return for its metal compared to fusion, maybe it turns off its E production when being attacked just like t1 solars

[cursive sand]

I want aware there was an issue with T2 energy. you can't just make t2 eco without at least a starting robust t1 economy

[coral meadow]

I think it's fine to make basic bot cons more effecient than nano slightly, but only if that's the intentional effect (to make cons be used early before switching to nanos later on). It

[tropic river]

when you take into account energy production and granularity it's already quite close I think

for T1 cons that is, T2 cons have a lot of room to be buffed

[frigid wedge]

can you buff flagsip for @gritty sky

[gritty sky]

can confirm if you just remove flagship that'd be easier

[gray sparrow]

dont worry, legion 12k flag is waiting in queue :>

[heady vine]

Your going to love the legion flagships and battleships that can walk on land.

[pastel thunder]

if you release legion might aswell turn extra units on by default

[cursive sand]

is legion even going to "release"

[pastel thunder]

latest hottest 8d rumor says very very soon

[shut lava]

isn't legion like, rather unbalanced right now? especially sea, which just released?

[rich torrent]

It is
Then again, I vaguely remember people saying that before legion gets a formal release it needs to be balanced by the teams

[sturdy marsh]

Yea Legion still needs some balancing. I would say the T1 land units are decently balanced now for 8v8 at least (we nerfed decurion a couple of days ago).

[rapid heart]

Yep, plenty to balance

[gray sparrow]

good luck with navy, you put so much utility there that you created 3 swarm host to balance.

[gritty sky]

Yes can confirm, I used decurion last night and it was terrible compared to before

[cursive sand]

https://tenor.com/view/the-it-crowd-the-it-crowd-denholm-the-it-crowd-denholm-loves-saying-team-the-it-crowd-denholm-team-gif-8469261891600306465

[dreamy jay]

It's bananas people think they can just add new faction that has all these cool op mechanics other factions have not got, like yeah it's cool but if you want it you gotta go rework other factions or it can never go in base game

[zealous lava]

There is one thing I really dislike in this patch: fusion change. Making fusion more accessible is a bad thing - it is really a good thing that it is a high risk high reward thing. And then nerfing it's efficiency to oblivion... Just no.
As for the hover platform cost change I thing it's an OK change but hovers need a bigger rework in order to be used. Make them fast glass canon units, make them slow acceleration and low turn rate with high max speed, give them a unit that fills the gap between scouts and light units and another that fills the gap between light and medium tanks. Or give them a fast T1 con. Any of those changes could make the lab interesting, useful and different than other labs, not just worse vehicles that can drvie over water.

[halcyon laurel]

Do they still have the fire shit

[dreamy jay]

where do I even begin, whatever bananas shit you saw before it's only gotten worse

[frigid wedge]

Its time to make bar great again

[coral meadow]

legion navy it's less about the balance itself, but the unit's designs potentially being problematic

if the battleship indeed walks on land. My first impression this is unbalanceable, in that to make it remotely balanced as a tank-boat you would have to nerf it to the point that it would be unviable as a sea vs sea battleship.
Perhaps if the land walking speed was <33% the sea speed... even then, out of all ships, to make the core heavy t2 ship land walking seems like asking for problems.
It almost sounds like the conception idea was "isn't it annoying when you win sea and can't attack land?" and made a unit that ignores navy's fundamental weakness.

edit: turns out they do in fact have ~40% speed on land, they are faster than other battleships but lower range and hp. Need testing to see if t2 legion is viable in situations where it is forced to fight enemy t2 battleships, but balance wise the battleship and neptune are reasonable.

[slate raft]

Navy t2 units are t2.5 strong because navy is stronger then land units, amphib units like salamanders duxks, platypus turtle poison arrow are all made worse in a head on fight on purpose to be balanced overall so they are basicly t1.8 strong, if the battleship is as strong as actual navy its comepletly busted cause it faces way weaker units on land from angles where nobody expects them, if its as strong as other t2 anphibs you just made a unit that serves the same role as a poison arrow but takes away the slot of a battleship for no reason

[hearty jolt]

As I said earlier, it self-balances by movement speed diff on land vs sea. Making "design fundamentals" irrelevant.
And nothing is unbalanceable anyway, at least by my means.

And besides, the mathematical theory below on how to treat the tier of amphibious units is irrelevant too.
Else that would mean that even the biggest t3 units like Titan, Marauder, Shiva... are completely unusable.
Except they are usable, and used so often that it makes this theory crash into thousand pieces
simply meaning that vanilla doesn't use tools at it's disposal to balance the userates of such amphibs.

Same exact thing goes for spiders, and especially aircraft. If on average map, the air is used more frequently with higher success (success being how much enemy metal was wasted and of own metal not fed) than other surface-farers like hovers/spiders/amphibs, then there's a flaw somewhere.

[rich kindle]

theres a difference between a sea lab producing amphib units and a amphib lab making amphib units, that difference is the problem

[hearty jolt]

Ah and if to bring the amphibious lab into equation...
The problem being... the act of building Pincers from an elite 1300 metal cost lab..?

especially after a recent update where all t1 labs are now much cheaper

[rich kindle]

whats a pincer and what do you mean by elite

the turtle is the sala equivalent

[hearty jolt]

...no

We should focus on what this balance patch does instead of theorycrafting, as usual when any balance patch feedback post emerged ever.

[slate raft]

Titans are balanced for land usage the amphib tax doesn't really apply to them.i would say, wich is fine since they are a game ending unit they are allowed to break the rules a little

Marauders are definetly balanced around some kind of amphib tax, they are the best raiding unit in the game but only as long as they go up against other t2 and not t3 units

[dreamy jay]

I have found metal for metal they actually can trade surprisingly well, even positively vs other t3 units, due to how easily they can apply flanking damage

[coral meadow]

marauders are real units on larger land-only maps too

[dusk bison]

I find your assertion that no design is unbalanceable by 'your' means, or even any means, naïve.

[hearty jolt]

Balanceable in context of predictable ("averaged") map with most popular player composition (teams, midskill)

I urge you to join community balance lobby I'm in rn and share opinions on how it plays. :D
It is, after all, a community effort.

[rapid heart]

Been trying to test leg properly for two days but struggling to find high end testers for a decent round of sea map rotation testing. If anyone is keen you will see me around on a "patch/legion test" lobby

[valid karma]

Is there still a balance patch for units coming before the end of the year?

[manic crow]

Balance patch was moved back to January

[rich torrent]

Moved back to jan due to heavy backlash

[rapid heart]

Still struggling to get high level testing done but on the meanwhile I may ask.
What brought legion devs to decide the t2 sea jammer is not to be destroyed and only disabled for 8secs and only if it takes a direct hit from a juno (not when passing by the juno area)?

[hearty jolt]

Actually only Scout units in the list of "junoables" die to the continuous area of effect of each juno pulse every second. While all radars/jammers in the game only die upon initial impact, as far as I seen games go people would just rebuild radar immediately after getting juno'd.

The "junoables" getting EMP'd is only the case for the Junorework option part of the list iirc.

but essentially noone plays with this old modoption toggled on.

[rapid heart]

but the other t2 jammers do die to a hit

[hearty jolt]

The fact that (likely hurried) legion navy units weren't even included into extraneous lists, like all t2 boats missing from a proper Armordefs list as I mentioned here:
#🔋｜legion-faction message

And so such list is appropriate for Dolus, Dolus probably just not being listed in the proper list. As I mentioned here in the huge list of current issues in leg t2 navy that I found in immediate simple tests in the day after:
#1377226132511916093 message

[coral meadow]

yes, most coop solutions, including ones in #1402416120211968000, are not going to completely balance coop on SI/glitters, because those maps are quite strong coop maps
Perfectly balancing SI/glitters coop should not be the primary guage for measuring a coop nerf

[halcyon laurel]

Can we add jugg buff to s3. It had overwhelming support in multiple threads and I thought gdt approved it.

[dreamy jay]

Jugg been lacklustre since forever - no idea why obvious stuff like that doesn't just get thrown in, like halberd buff also

If really out of ideas just make it 2k metal cheaper or something or a bit more speed, health, etc, give it a better chance of ever succeeding in this walking nuke idea

[rich kindle]

Give it tac nuke 🥺

[civic solstice]

It already got buffed tho

Feels completely fine to me now

[coral meadow]

to be 100% honest, cor battleship might not need 10% more hp, arm battleship really does
arm bat is faster but they've always been very tricky to use into cor bats, very paper against anything and snipes from high alpha units

[soft wave]

I almost feel like whoever comes up with the base stats for legion units is completely unaware of the two other factions stats in bar. It's like "Cool legion t2 con.... Okay let's start by giving these homing lazer missiles." It feels like so much extra work is created by not at least trying to get it in the same ball park. 😂

[halcyon laurel]

Is that the movement speed buff? Its stats overall are underwhelming compared to its insane cost. It’s only main use is long range poke but its dps is so low and it’s a giant walking liability. It utility costs are massive requiring constant junos, spam, and radar coverage (usually scout spam since regular radar has coverage issues), you need air superiority or loads of aa also to stop com drops. There aren’t many scenarios where I would prefer a jugg over 8 catapults or vanguards

[gritty sky]

+1 jug is a meme unit(it is insanely cool though, but I only make it as a flex ngl)

[slate raft]

make juggs throw tactical nukes with their hands so it makes logical sense that its less range then tac nuke launcher (thats totally the reason not cause its badass)

https://tenor.com/view/fall-out-liberty-prime-communism-explosion-gif-12000227

[coral meadow]

season 3 patch accidently remove the battleship dmg vs subs?

[restive prism]

Hmm I don't see where it does/would. Maybe the sub is missing its armor class or something? Should I check this?

[coral meadow]

flag still has its sub 20% dmg
was the sub dmg% nerf applied to battleships in the first place, or just flags?

[restive prism]

Probably just flags then

[void barn]

Yeah it was added just for flag. Some other high aoe weapons have reduced vs subs damage, but inconsistent amounts.

Would be something to standardize

[hearty jolt]

No it was never applied to battleships in vanilla, only flags. ambr tweak did it for flags and battleships a year ago but I didn't see it anywhere else.

[frigid wedge]

for the love of god make spy bots great again

[hazy scroll]

Nerf Centurion

[void barn]

This is a feedback thread, extra wishes you have should go to their own threads

[tawny canyon]

Has anything changed?

[fleet kernel]

Supreme OP loves the cheaper fusion (Smoother scaling for all positions). To make the cosplayers happy: I think it would be cool if it had proximity bonus to other fusions to make it fun spicy target (Frostpunk 1 style). Each nearby fusion increases the E of all of them(HEATBONUS). You could choose to risk it for greed or play safe spread.

[coral meadow]

patch benefits core fusion slightly

Maybe this is a match ideal but I think it'd be good if t2 + few asolar pushes are viable, if not meta

[next iron]

you could try a modoption where asolar and fusion cost ratios are swapped (lower metal higher E cost fusion and higher M lower E cost asolar. I can work out the number if you care to make a mod to try it

[coral meadow]

asolar requiring a lot of e isn't really a step against it necceraily, just makes it more situational. If you got metal reclaim or you need units now you don't have E to make asolar. it just means you have to find a gap to greed / finish asolar and then you are online fast.
fusion requiring a lot of E might make it frustrating on t2. When you are stalling E on t2, you can't even build a fusion xD

[next iron]

yea it would be a big change but if youre on T2 stalling E you could make asolar then since the cost are swapped

[coral meadow]

ah. then asolar would usurp solar's role, would it not? being costed like tidals

[next iron]

otherwise you just wont see asolar push be viable just because it's window of ...viability? competes with fusion for efficiency and solar for tempo
why opt for the middleground solution

[coral meadow]

solar isn't tempo when you would run into metal bottleneck. Push requires enough E (e.g. early t2 units), and you don't have enough total metal to spam solars and still have enough to push.
asolar push can be situational but I'd like it to at least exist. (talking no/low coop)

I mean bombing runs are done on asolar for same reason.

[next iron]

sort of actually, 2 armada adv solar cost 700m 10k E to produce 150 (or 160 with the patch)
for 700m you can make 4.5 basic solar to generate 90 e/s for 0 E cost

so by making adv solar you need to offset 10k E cost at a production rate difference of 150 - 90 = 60 e/s
for the same metal cost, without accounting for the incremental income from basic solar, you need 10000/60 = 166 seconds to produce more energy than basic solar

[coral meadow]

ah. right, you can just make less e in solars

[next iron]

lets just say its 3 minutes with incremental income considered. If I wanted more energy I could make fusion in 3 minutes and defend the adv solar push

[coral meadow]

It's the difference in metal sunk / BP that makes fusion pushable. At the very least you can clear the middle tier mexes, get reclaim, and roam around looking for weaknesses

[next iron]

absolutely yea but thats also why at the top level its such a drag to play solar map because the metal sunk is reclaimed from old solars so theres only a build power and energy cost really

[coral meadow]

most interesting map is where wind/solar/asolar are all relevant
is there a real benefit from asolar letting you put 100% of bp into building energy gen? (basically functioning like e storage). If you made pure solar you'd excess the E
The tightest solo asolar builds skip estorage early i think.

[next iron]

biggest benefit is definitely what you said, it acts like an energy storage, so its great on hybrid wind solar map when the wind is high but you still have some solars, its a great time to reclaim your solar and make adv solar instead of converting your excess energy to metal.

and on a less obvious note, its as you've experienced with the afus challenge theres also some reward with delaying or even foregoing the energy storage on pure solar maps although that reward is negligible and requires more micromanagement

[soft wave]

no surprises there 😂

[rich kindle]

honestly, after playing alot of s3 balance i cant really tell the difference between the fusions its not a huge deal, but what gets me is the decreased efficiency which i do not understand

[fallen ether]

so ermh we turn on s3 patch always on in the glitter op lobby we rly like most of the changes we just needed time to appreciate it hehe ^^'

[shut lava]

Most of the patch is good, it's just the fusion and BP changes that are weird

[rich torrent]

I think it was largely accepted at this point that the unit changes were ok but not enough, but the other changes were bad)

[frigid wedge]

Need spy bot change

[sturdy marsh]

There is a spybot change in the patch.

[fallen ether]

even the fus change is arguably accepted, people beens saying it make scale smoother

[rich kindle]

whenever i scale fusions tho i just think, this isnt as efficient as before so i dont wanna do it :(

[pine violet]

But do you want it to be smooth? I don't.

[hearty jolt]

hold on, did the s3 proposed balance patch get updated sometime these weeks to include more stuff?..

fusions? BP costs? Iguess I should read into it one day cuz it sounds awful lot like AMBR (again) which means I'll like it. :D

[pine violet]

For BP I'd like to see a commitment to ironing out the gameplay too. Once we get past not being used to it, there seem to be some problems with it, like rezzing t3 now taking too long to be practical.

[shut lava]

accepted by who? Also even if the scaling seems "smoother", I don't want smooth brain gameplay.

[young apex]

bp cost change for t2 lab feels like trash when you want to be cool and do your own t2 play solo. the energy and bp requirement for a 2nd nano to eek it out in the same time invites co-op.

stop adding ""co-op fixes"" into balance, it doesn't work. it's been explained since months ago that it does not work and that it invites co-op. stop

[tawny canyon]

Has there been any changes?

[river vapor]

I feel like fusion change was good, but BP change kinda annoying and doesn’t do anything to stop coop.

[frigid wedge]

buff spy bot and we dont need anything more

[real dirge]

feels like trash

Is understandable, players still need to adjust their build orders, get used to the new timings, etc.

Is it actually trash though? In what situations to achieve what goals?

Let's say I want to have an idle T2 bot lab and I build it with 280 BP/s (one con turret and one bot con).
In this case, when we can apparently already spend 50 M/s but somehow have less BP/s than we start with you are correct, the new T2 lab is going to be delayed. It needs about 36 more seconds to build, or one more con turret to build it about the same time (so this is the case you mentioned). I don't think this is a common situation but still it's an example we can look at.

I personally rarely want an idle T2 bot lab though. I usually want to use that lab to make T2 units. Shouldn't the increased BP/s of the new lab help with that? I mean that's part of the same patch after all so it shouldn't be ignored.

So let's say I want Recluses from that lab and I don't build that additional con turret. I'm saving 300 metal on the lab, I have the same BP/s you mentioned so delay the lab by 36 seconds compared to the old one but I can also make those Recluses faster. At what point can I overtake the old T2 lab + Recluses setup?

The answer is 5 Recluses, if you want to make any more than that, then the patch will help you even without additional con turrets.
T2 lab to make 5+ Recluses I think is a fairly common situation and the patch helps with that by saving you metal and getting you better units timings.

It's also interesting to see how 'smooth' this T2 unit transition is: You need to spend about 30 M/s to build the new T2 lab with that 280 BP/s, and then you need the same 30 M/s to spam Recluses without getting more BP/s.
So if you actually start building the T2 lab as soon as you reach this amount of BP/s and M/s, then all the BP costs and BP incomes will be perfectly balanced for you to make Recluses.

Before patch: you needed about 50 M/s to build the T2 lab with that 280 BP/s and after that you needed to build 3 more con turrets just to spend that same income on Recluses.

I ignored the 300 metal saved on the new lab, it's easy to see how that would decrease that 37s delay by 10s if you have 30 M/s income and could decrease it even more with lower income.

^ tldr: if you have balanced spending (not floating 1000 metal and such) and you build the T2 lab as soon as you can afford it, then the after patch T2 lab and unit production should feel better since both are objectively better/more balanced/smoother.

[real dirge]

The above wall of text wasn't long enough for my taste...:
That 'smooth' T2 transition for the average solo player's income IS the coop nerf/solo buff.
Essentially coop players can't do it smoothly with practically infinite resources, they have to make that T2 transition 'unbalanced' from resource spending perspective, for example by overbuilding con turrets.

Balanced spending = efficient unit production.
Patch makes balanced spending easier for solo players, harder for coop players.

[coral meadow]

i don't think the bp change on lab is neccesarily bad, it does make lab reclaim builds a lot worse tho

solo player sucks com wreck all the same, this smoothness only really matters if you try and build t2 lab off a streaming eco with no bank

[ember field]

sneak in emp launcher range nerf 🙏 it defeats the entire purpose of "game enders"

[coral meadow]

Arguably rag should just be emp immune, but more expensive

Emp launcher yeah the range is kinda abusive. Gives you superiority over a massive area

[ember field]

it also counters massed t3 units completely for a fraction of the cost

[dreamy jay]

it also is 100* better then core tacnuke

[frigid wedge]

Nah bro its the best thing in the whole game but we need a spy bot buff.

[cursive sand]

they should have the same range but emp should recharge faster and stun for slightly less time, currently it does 30s structures 15s units, seems way too long

[ember field]

data on s3 changes is accumulating quite fast now that its more or less perma on in op lobbies and I think some revised feedback is in order because the changes that looked bad at start turned out to be no big deal or even good and the good looking changes seem to have missed the mark completely

specifically I think the t2 lab bp changes are no big deal and have minimal effect on everything (if you are rushing it its still down to how much metal you can scrape together), fus change makes t2 eco a bit more approachable and falling behind feels less bad so overall I can live with it

the bad stuff is that fatboy and tzar changes miss the mark completely and both remain extremely dominant units-i'm now convinced that the right way to nerf them is hp reduction to enable more t1 plays, we should not be balancing these units around commander dgun primarily but more so around their interactions with other units (currently the play when you face fatboy with t1 units is to reclaim them)

[twilit hound]

I disagree. I have had multiple 60+ min game where the limiting factor was putting bp into T3. They were slogs.

Just make more bp is not what happens in mixed lobby. People run out of space and then everyone just has less units.

[ember field]

i dont understand this point at all, you have problems spending metal on t3 units?

[coral meadow]

Is it the commie or the unit?

I think the fatboy got weaker with the aoe change. Not so insane at splashing enemy t2

[ember field]

even way after relevant commie timing you cant really kill out of position fatboys to punish the mistake

[river vapor]

It’s about the same. Yes dmg went down but the splash area went up so it kills spam easier.

[coral meadow]

I need to play with them some. Fatboy is tanky, even for it's slowness.

[river vapor]

Can we just make spybots one shot fatboys 🙏

[outer fern]

#1353364944350871632 message

We have info on refinements done on s3 balance patch before 8th release ?

About fus hp ?
About bp rework keep or isolate ?

[coral meadow]

Fus seems fine on casual playing but it's more about what are the side effects of more accessible fus. New lab bp is fine. Afus is made stronger due to less eff. Fusion and t2 t3 units being heavier bp

Whistler/lasher seems strong, it definitely has counters but it requires much more creativity / effecient play from enemy then the executor. Maybe more t1 wall spam too. T1 wall counters everything

I don't think it's problematic it's just good

[ember field]

i feel like whisler/lasher is kinnda not really meta atm

[restive prism]

Would be good to get a preview before S3 drops, yeah

[twilit hound]

In the lategame you build as many turrets around gantry as you can fit. You dont suddenly fit more turrets.

You are also not limited by metal when there is 300k reclaim on the ground.

So when you previously had 5 titans you now have 4.

And even if you are limited by metal, if you have 50 turrets on gantry and 50 on making afus a higher percentage of metal goes into afus.

In mixed lobbies people dont compensate with extra t1 aircons, they just hit a point where they cant spend their metal properly.

Same with bombers. Bp is a limiter lategame as much if not more than metal. So less bombers.

I am talking about minute 40+. Less units on the ground just slow down the game.

You dont feel a difference, because midgame metal is more of a limiter and you can compensate with an extra turret. Its also hard to "feel" a difference in bp cost.

But a game that previously was 60 minutes is now 70.

Thats my reasoning. If you just want feelies, i had some long games with the new patch and those "felt" slower.

[pine violet]

This is a bit of a weird area. T3 units are much more prone to coop. You can imagine a state where everyone has their own t2 lab, but everyone having their own gantry even sounds ridiculous.

So with that, on paper, t3 having the bp increase as well makes sense. In practice, seems to be a net negative. You need dumb amounts of nanos so you run out of space, and resbots barely do anything

[ember field]

just make multiple gantries and pay attention to your sim city, sim city is infact good skill expression outlet

[pine violet]

I suppose we're not stopping to figure out why everyone complains about loss of agency when it comes to t2 labs, but is perfectly fine not owning a gantry?

[twilit hound]

I play a lot of mixed lobby. Just play better is not the answer here. Game needs to feel good for casual and mid tier lobbies.

[ember field]

it is the answer

[twilit hound]

Anyway, i made my point. I think the change is rooted in some weird anticoop/midgame logic and screws with the lategame.

[zinc cipher]

I feel like we need some lategame bp solution thats less cost efficient than nano but more space efficient

(200 aircons doesnt count btw)

[pine violet]

I've thought about it too but I really don't want t2 nanos to be core

[restive prism]

I am rubbing my hands together and making the most sinister chuckles

[ember field]

butlers and twitchers are certianly more space efficient than nanos, no?

[pastel thunder]

if each s3 gantry can solo spend 50-80m/s you only need 10 gantries to spend afusato income. Genious. (this message added zero value to conversation)

[void barn]

a handful of changes, fusion hp is one of them. Eco overall about the same as in the modoption rn. There will be some newspost about it sometime between now and then

[void barn]

DPS nerf gives T1 units more time to kill a Tzar or Fatboy, just as an HP nerf would. This way the battles between them just go on for a bit longer, a high DPS / low HP glass cannon is more volatile, but also more devastating when it's not sniped. Also Tzars/Fatties just don't look like glass cannons.

If they're still too strong that they invalidate T1 plays too much, I don't think it's a question that the nerf is of a wrong kind, but just too little still. But they still need to remain reasonably strong vs T1, otherwise they don't really have much of a niche

[ember field]

but thats the porblem in my experience, the window before fatboy gets pulled back into friendly porc or additional units come to reinforce it is almost never long enough to kill it so you end up just wasting all your units and you would have been better off not trying since the dmg you did will get repaired and you effectively achieved nothing

[forest goblet]

Give labs xp with faster bp? This might overcomplicate things elsewhere though. Would have to do the same for rezbots and cons which throws of calculations (but having a max rank t1 constructor does sound cool)

[cursive sand]

I like 3k metal fusions

[frigid wedge]

Community Balance Patch Jan '26 #6550
how new is this

[shut lava]

community balance patch ≠ s3 patch. It's from today

[hazy scroll]

The problem is, that you guys nerfed the Tzar but not really the Fatboy, the Fatboy only recieved changes but that's it. Tzar was nerfed last year 3 times already related to changelogs. The new nerf impact only the tzar heavily, that brings the Fatboy even more in focus, which was actually the meta since month now.

[tawny canyon]

Goated changes tho

[frigid wedge]

I agree

[brisk hill]

'community balance patch' is so bad, why are we making the com MORE op?

[tawny canyon]

Wdym?

[brisk hill]

oh i take it back, thought the patch notes said commander not commando lol

[valid karma]

https://tenor.com/view/commando-arnold-schwarzenegger-gif-11406261913302792441 It's his time to shine

[shut lava]

Are you really going forward with the fusion change????? 71% of the people didn't like it and it's still going through? After it was said it will be reconsidered?

#1449520596143571015 message Here it's 78% against the nano nerf, and you decided to nerf them even further????? (Edit: i missed that is just naval turrets. The point still stands though)

I honestly don't know what to say here. But it's an extremely big disappointment that after all that talk about community feedback and putting up those polls you just decide to go straight in the other direction

At this point just shadow drop all the patches if any feeback is useless

[gritty sky]

Ngl id prefer more frequent and smaller patches that are just updated as default settings. Noone really tests this stuff until its on by default. Like sure, make a bunch of noise its going in or w/e but thats how meaningful testing will get done

[shut lava]

OP glitters lobby has been testing it extensively, I myself played over 30 games with the patch, probably more, and the fusion changes suck

[fleet kernel]

Lobsters had it on for the entire time it was available. Love it. Game feels good. Changes are nice. Good job.❤️

[fleet kernel]

I like the fus and asolar change. Not stuck in build animation for so long(Smooth scaling). Makes it more viable for carry players build one sometimes now too. -57 lobsterfront point of view

[tawny canyon]

Smooth scaling takes out all risks and dampens the reward of switching to fusions tho

[coral meadow]

yeah this is the concern
it does feel smoother, but the question is is that make for more interesting decison making / gameplay? is every game just t2 mexes into fusion?

[fleet kernel]

I think it will lead to more options when are not forced to play every game whit poor opener. I like Ageo, lab and bp changes slowing down techs giving more time for t1 fights. I just wanna see the rainbows/broken commies balanced away next. (THE REAL ISSUES ARE OVERSHADOWING ANY OF THESE CHANGES)

[dusk bison]

All things in due season, Xthrawn. To everything there is a time and a purpose.

[empty nymph]

i think there was alot of topics about how rez bots are op, or im wrong

[tawny canyon]

I didn't see any

[gray sparrow]

yes, and its gets boring with that.

[empty nymph]

there is 2 of them but from 1y ago, but fell like there was alot conversation mixed it to other topics, but maybe im wrong maybe rezing units is't op right now

[gritty sky]

I like the rezzed units keeping xp, adds more stakes and rez gameplay in general is good. Curious to see how it turns out

[empty nymph]

don;t get me wrong, on paper it looks cool

[dusk bison]

yeeees another step towards XP mattering as per the GDD

[river vapor]

im surprised you don't like it lol, it makes pushes a lot easier

[gritty sky]

Main issue with rez gameplay is when I watch Starcraft or AoE I'm always subconsciously worried if they are going to get the reclaim. Its like rez PTSD

[frigid wedge]

I just want sniper energy cost buff 20k --> 15-16k, spy bot emp buff and also cheaper t2 mexes

It would be a dream come true

[frigid wedge]

I like it I can get stable energy quick and reliable energy unlike the wind. also the asolar buff is cool but still not efficent enough like fusion since e cost is very high.

[gray sparrow]

its even better, cuz of smooth scaling, noobs dont have time to make units now :>. On old system they at least had breaks for units production.

[coral meadow]

reclaim should be made slower xD. you can blink for 10 sec and the whole wreck field is gone

[gritty sky]

ya I'd be interested in trying it, although I think the pressure/urgency is cool too

[coral meadow]

the reclaim on the front of SI is slower than of corpse wrecks, that and it's very exposed. giving a moment for slower builds to recontest mid

[craggy patio]

The idea is to push it and nerf resurrection if needed

[sturdy marsh]

The buildcost nerf to t2 and t3 also mean longer resurrection and healing times.

I am personally of the opinion that it's okay for resurrection to be slightly overpowered (not that it necessarily is at the moment) because it's such a cool and unique mechanic that helps lift BAR above other RTS games.

[shut lava]

it doesn't really, and it's smooth brained gameplay, there's no risk to building fusions, losing one doesn't hurt as much

[pine violet]

Pitchfork time?

But yes, it really does feel like a spit in the face

[shut lava]

in a year or two there might be no other choice, or just running community balance tweakunits in lobbies

[pine violet]

None of these changes are individually so shit that I see lobbies adopting tweaks to reverse them. I don't think the s3 patch itself even had adoption outside of op lobbies.

Idk, maybe if the op lobbies are of a different opinion, there's a chance

People did somehow mass hysteria themselves into turning off custom widgets everywhere

Looking for a charismatic leader to lead the cause

[frigid wedge]

I'll take on the lead

[pine violet]

You couldn't even get them to revert the spybot

[young apex]

Ask for feedback, overwhelming no, go through with changes anyways. Lmao, writing was on the wall with ignored feedback from the start

[craggy patio]

What about sticking to asolars for longer instead of rushing fus. There are different options xd

[rich kindle]

probably like half of mid level lobbies use s3 patch

i dont think anybody notices the changes tho, never seen much talk about it
That being said i still hate fus changes

[young apex]

Mid level is noob level ngl so they dont really understand what to feel.. op lobby is dead relative to 1 month ago which is dead relative to 4 months ago which is dead relative to 8 months ago. Op lobby is so dead people don't complain about commie anymore. Except op isthmus, they are the last lobby

People give feedback but no changes so why continue to give feedback. At the very least, this will generate some memes

[twilit hound]

I played this lovely 78 minute new years eve game on the new patch. https://www.beyondallreason.info/replays?gameId=7a3555691f484e2395a0f83ecfd23e65

Both teams had very big and evenly matched economies. Team red got pushed in and was trying their best on two to three gantries but was never able to spend their metal from minute 40 to the end.
Team blue had more space and six gantries so they eventually outproduced us.

Did the patch change the outcome of the game? Dont know. Probably not.
Could team red have mitigated the effect of the patch with better space management? Probably, but its a very mixed os lobby.
Can i give you exact math on how the game would have changed without the patch? No, which is why giving feedback on the bp changes is difficult and also why they got accepted by the lobbies as "they are probably fine".
But do i think the game would have ended 10 minutes earlier if people had a 25% easier time converting their metal? Yes. Team red would have had more stuff earlier, team blue could have saved on infrastructure and also had more stuff. There would be more reclaim on the field to snowball and it would actually be possible to convert that reclaim into new units.

So this was a long death that could have been speed up, which is annoying.

But mostly my concern is that this was not addressed at all in the justification for this particular change. When i asked @void barn about the bp change, the explanation was, that lab bp is increased and this makes for a smoother transition in T2 for individual players and the bp cost increases are there to "offset" this adjustments.

If the justification included "We want gantries to take up a bigger blueprint in the lategame and are generally concerned about aircons being underused" i would not be complaining.

But my feelings in games that went long were, that they felt slower and if we made a statistical comparison of games that go to the lategame before and after the patch i would not be surprised if we found them to last longer.

[sturdy marsh]

The whole point of the bp changes is that a team of 8 players should not be funneling all their metal into two to three labs like you say. 8 players should have 8 labs so that everyone plays instead of cooping all resources into 1-3 players.

[rich kindle]

i dont understand, now you would just coop the extra bp costs aswell and end up in the same problem? if you have to build that extra bp anyways you might as well focus it around your teammates lab instead of spending 8k on your own lab

[twilit hound]

That is not the consens in the coop discussion. There is explicit desire to have options that enable sharing lategame.

[sturdy marsh]

Buildpower is special in that it cannot teleport to the other side of the map like metal and energy can. There is actual travel time and cost of sharing as the builders cannot do other useful things while walking to other side of map.

[rich kindle]

but funding somebody the metal and energy to make bp is better than making your own cons to do it yourself no? it sounds like the same premise, just bp not units, and cons not labs

[sturdy marsh]

Even if you do give someone 1000 metal to make more buildpower it takes time to scale up buildpower. And then it's somewhat stuck at that location so you won't be using it to e.g. upgrade mexes in your own base. It's not a perfect solution but it should help prevent co-op at least a little bit.

[twilit hound]

It was mostly air player overflowing in my example. Its borderline impossible to put 2k income into air and they just did not have space or apm for another gantry.

I dont think everyone needs to manage their own t3 lategame is where the coop discussion was ever going.

Coop problem is about dominant early rushes. At 60 min i just want my eco to have titans and end the game. My base was gone long ago.

[zinc cipher]

my personal preference is that everyone gets to build their own production and units, including on t3

[void barn]

People will always play a bit worse when they're not yet adapted to the new patch. So with time you'd expect people to learn to spend their metal better.

Factories are still inefficient buildpower compared to assist, but noticeably better than before. If you don't personally want to make your own units lategame, you can still just funnel now... But the players who want their own production regardless, are paying a smaller tax for it

[twilit hound]

There was not enough map control for everyone to have a gantry or a base at 40min.

Which is fine, the game might still be winnable from the backline.

But in my mind even the side with map control and space could have won sooner if they build faster.

[hazy scroll]

This Topic can be closed, since feedback getting official ignored.

[silent hazel]

What was even the thought process behind lowering t2 labs metal cost while giving it more bp. It should be more expensive....
Despite bp cost increase for t2 units, this will still make it much cheaper and faster to go t2 now. While this does to some degree nerf coop, it doesnt fix it and while doing it, it kills t1 gameplay even more xdd. Not to mention t2 mex was giga imba and is now even more giga unbalanced. Cant believe no one blocked this patch...

[coral meadow]

they take initial setup but if it's your plan to do so from the start, you can accumulate bp in the centralized location effeciently.

a player's ability to ramp bp can be dictated by the M/E funnel they receive
so instead of having 2 bases with 50:50 or 66:33, you have 1 base with 80% of the bp, and a t2 con with 10-20% of the team's bp following it

the fact that bp can't teleport just means you are encouraged to decide where ahead of time to put it/ramp it. metal/energy are already centralized, to centralize bp (complete things faster), you have to physically put the bp in the same place. This leads to superbases.

[fleet kernel]

https://youtu.be/tjlp4fe08xM?si=0nnFAOdyHd7sC2zm&t=188 (THE LATEST TREND: RAINBOWCONS)

[coral meadow]

when players share m/e to a player so they can boost out more bp, they are are bypassing the travel distance. You can tell because such a build is not more costly if the bases are 500 units or 10000 units apart. If you were to build your own units and help, or transport your bp to the location to help, that would require travel distance.

[pine violet]

And by no one blocked this patch, you mean you didn't block this patch? Where were you the past 2 weeks

[silent hazel]

lmao build is so slow even solo u can do it faster

[fleet kernel]

I know, but it shows you how to teleport bp/money instantly. IDK HOW SOMEONE DOESNT KNOW THIS ALREADY. And this makes personal skill completely irrelevant for EVERYONE in the lobby outside the driver of rainbowcons

[silent hazel]

well its 8v8 personal skill never mattered in first place, just play with better team and u can be even 50os as 0os player

[fleet kernel]

Well we here to argue it should matter. The game is brilliant but coop balance is busted. WE SHOULD START COOP THREAD to get this fixed. HMM

[coral meadow]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1s4IXDz7ukNYdSVAfNO7H3WVs1HvabGSRhIZkUF3Or5g/edit?gid=0#gid=0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pua5Neu8bxE can also 6:13 marauders with 2 man coop on rosetta (making 5 pawns and 10 ticks)

the funniest thing is that people underestimate t1 coop. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFFYmoFBYLU
Imagine a map with a geo and you coop and comp their geo shortly after it finishes. game's basically over since they are light years behind on e
having access to all the super fast threats, even if they are not done puts the defender in a worse spot as playing around each one will slow you down

[silent hazel]

well own actions should matter, but accepting the facts, first bar player base is too small and second 8v8 is an uncompetitive format. with this both truths there will never be ever "fair" gameplay. as long as u play with such huge skill diff the worse players will always take less impact roles and the nature of competitiveness will make some people not cooperate or tryhard while others will which will always cause unfair games.

so the tldr is it will always be a shit show even if there is 0 coop. and then u have same shit gameplay but without the freedom of coop.

[fleet kernel]

Yes, I agree, but the current coop balance is literally like aimbot wallhack from tarkov level of cheating. IT CAN BE MORE BALANCED.... but its up to whoever is running this show to find their backbones and actually fix it. I DONT WANT 8v8 to be 1 driver whit 7 slaves... Its so much more potential when its actual 8v8 or a more balanced version where unlimited sharing is limited past 10min behind a HIVEMIND COOP TECH BUILDING.

[silent hazel]

idk party and dodge always been way more effective at winning than coop ever was. u can maybe remove the aim assist, but the aimbot and wallhack will stay

[fleet kernel]

We know we are getting matchmaking... and there are some promises to TRY fix coop(HOPEFULLY BEFORE MATCHMAKING). SO I HOPE WE GET THERE SOON.

[silent hazel]

match making will not be for large team. it will be duel, ffa , 2v2 and maybe 3v3-5v5. and even if match making was there i can tell u with 100% certainty that all lobbies will be like all welcome lobbies and u will never see high os lobby again XD

[fleet kernel]

YEAP. But if game/coop is balanced and they can't dodge/cheatOS the casual ladder will be fun for all modes. I'm gonna slaughter them all or die trying. ---------Part 2 balance patch, Co op Balance update SEASON 3.5 -- COPIUM------

[dreamy jay]

I just wanna say for a variety of reasons I think this patch is not ideal, I'd explain those reasons but feedback is pointless as we've seen so instead I will just share my sentiment that I don't like it and it makes me less motivated to continue playing.

[gritty sky]

1. I appreciate all of the effort that goes into these patches/development. 2. If you dont want feedback, then just release it directly into the game. It's easier/ more efficient(higher dev/iteration velocity) than waiting around for people in discord to cry about the changes. Just say "hey, we're releasing balance patch XYZ. We think it's neat and fixes coop." It's bad form to release changes that have the appearance of requested feedback...getting negative feedback...then releasing them anyways. If you want to set design direction without feedback....just do it. Implement w/e vision there is and go for it. Further, if the idea is that this is some forum to make people "feel heard", it doesn't work b/c there's little/nothing done when people voice concerns.

[fleet kernel]

Im confused. What part you hating in the notes ? .. Its major buff to "get big eco" when you can react to threats not being stuck on fusions?.. I do agree it lacks any HARDCORE coop fix but in "fair" games it played great. (You can go like 4 fus before antinuke now.- if you making one)

[fleet kernel]

Majority (20os) opinion is not always the correct one. I'm sure they listen, but actually have to figure out whats best for the game. I'm very confused whats bad here. (Or what ppl think is bad) HUH GAMING

[gritty sky]

ya I don't think this should be "design by majority" by any means, but when the players that are high OS and have many thousands of hours take issue w/ the changes then it's a bad look, if the perception is that feedback is being requested. Like, who are you supposed to listen to if not them? The 20 OS takes xd?

[shut lava]

I don't think I would be terribly wrong if I said majority of the high os players take issue with the patch

[fleet kernel]

I think the issue is more like glitters/supreme/rotato techs mains mad/riot that the t1 players can potentially fight back in "fair games". t1 fight time is/was really short and need fix. I think the t2 lab should cost more not less, but Ill take the bp nerfs. (BUT I AGREE: This doesnt change anything if hardcorecommierainbows/base share/gigafeeeed). Cheaper/smoother fusion opens more interesting gameplay whit units -Risk of dying while building fus is not intresting gameplay to me.

[outer fern]

Rez units regain their old XP is very audacious.

There will be a way to see the XP on a wreck ?
Or it will be just lottery if you didn't memorize or saw the XP of the unit killed ?

Imagine wreck turn gold if they are "golden star level", would be fun, we could use the "Saint Seiya" armor color to categorize different xp level of wrecks, 😮 a whole new mechanic

About fus changes, i appreciate the feedback about HP take in count

[tawny canyon]

I'm not a tech main, I'm a front main and I still think the fusion changes are buns because I want the risk of going for a fusion, and the reward of actually making it. When I'm going t2 on my own with the new fusion changes, I literally feel like a caveman making it because its so cheap and accessible

Also, they forgot the naval fusions in the change, if anything that should be the fusion that gets decreased in cost

[fleet kernel]

how you live if you going t2 on your own ? Chill fronts ehh.

[pine violet]

so let me gt this straight, t1 players should have more opportunity to fight back, but safer fusions is a good thing?

[fleet kernel]

I didnt build a fusion in 1000 games (it was death sentence).. Its a good thing that front players can make one now too. Tech t2 still slowed down now from the bp nerf so the initial fusion is still the same timing. I think its good. (if fair game. if commie its still a mess)

[pine violet]

What did you build instead of a fusion, infinite winds on isthmus?

[fleet kernel]

yea forever online poor gaming... over 50 os curse: you cant stop units.

[tawny canyon]

Rotato, where you actually get the metal do to shit lol

[pine violet]

Most times you die during a fusion is to someone who doesn't have t2. There was an argument made by Kuchy I think?, that high-skill players never die to building fusion because they just don't make that mistake, but for the rest of the playerbase, this is the way to counter t2 on t1, and now it's not there. The decision on whether or not to commit to the fusion is likewise not there.

And not every map has isthmus wind.

Which isn't even my biggest gripe with it. Small fusions are boring and that's their biggest sin. No excitement in building fusions anymore.

[fleet kernel]

If you have maps where you can afford your own t2 labs you are not in risk of dying to fusion buildtime(old or new). - MEX metal high. But yeah theres map balance things here too.. The changes work great on supreme (Supreme- low mex - high wind)

[tawny canyon]

You have wind, why would you even need a fusion

[fleet kernel]

I didn't.. Well it really was not viable until now for front.. You have infinte metal from mex to make own t2 why would you be in danger of dying while building old fus?

[tawny canyon]

Because your sinking 4k metal into something that's not units, while your opp doesn't have too

[fleet kernel]

I think its better if games are won whit units and not fusion timing killing someone... Its more interesting gameplay.. also the window was only for the first fus.

[tawny canyon]

I think so too, that's why i want the fusion to be risker and more rewarding than what it is in this tweak. Currently with the new fusions, I feel like I have to make one because its so cheap. I also have to make one cause more con turrets arnt free

[ember field]

no if you are on a poverty lane there is still a good chance that making 3 asolars is the better call

[tawny canyon]

Thats another point, why would I even make fusions when adv solars are about the same ratio but incremental

[pine violet]

ratio of metal, if you take into account the other costs it looks like fus still unambiguously better, before you get to space considerations

[real sorrel]

I think what could improve such threads is to conclude such threads with a summary of the problems players see with the patch (focusing particularly on those who are really good at the game) and then go through each of the points.

Then it would be possible to discuss the points and if something still goes into the patch there would have to be an explanation why.

[tawny canyon]

Honestly we should just close the thread at this point, it's obvious that none of the feedback here was ever taken into consideration

[shut lava]

I was 68os at one point and I built fusions in every game. Even now at 55os I build fusions every game. No idea what you're doing that you never build a fusion. I also play exclusively front on glitters or rotato and the fusion changes are dumb.

The BLT decided to make the game even more smoothbrained than it was

[twilit hound]

I do feel like we went from "No lobbies are using it, all feedback must be dismissed as unqualified." to "Lobbies are playing with the patch, that must mean everyone loves the changes." kinda quickly.

[real sorrel]

I never saw a point in the cheaper fusion. I don't know what it even should accomplish.

[pine violet]

less cost > less difference between coop and solo fusion. Cooping fusions in tournaments is too strong, allegedly.

[shut lava]

Smooth brain gameplay with 0 risk

[twilit hound]

This is a 4-1 ratio, average OS is probably about 40 and more than half of people active in this thread made a vote. Feedback doesnt really get better than this.

NotReal is right. I appreciate getting a patch, but just push the patch. Thats a much more efficient process.

[fleet kernel]

what risk did you have before you have like 7x more mex metal compared to other maps on glitters?.. impressive os so no SMOOTBRAIN commie or party was used solo no dodge? took me 7000 games to hit 60 no dodge solo no commie

[restive prism]

Some changes were eliminated from the patch, but not others, so it's not that nothing was changed. We can expect a larger feedback process for new seasons going forward, and I think we will do better in S4+. The minor patches throughout the season won't be anywhere near this torturous.

The process that the S3 patch went through was decided while making it, which is harsh. That much -- that ability to adapt to feedback -- went really well. Just where exactly your feedback went to is only mysterious if you ignore this part.

[pine violet]

and I think we will do better in S4+
it's not too late to do better now

[restive prism]

I called the new fusions "less fusiony fusions" early on, and that's still my feeling. They are less pronounced. I do want fewer footguns in BAR, so I don't need any rigged math to show that new fus > old fus. I think it's directionally if not specifically correct.

It literally is too late, btw. Season starts tomorrow. Wait for the first balance patch to S3.

[pine violet]

The feedback got ignored, there's no two ways about it. "Less fusiony fusions" was deemed not to be a valid argument and was a non-factor, as far as I can tell. That this dimension was not considered despite being brought up in the feedback is unacceptable.

[shut lava]

who cares about coop in tourneys, all teams do it so it's fine

Edit: @pine violet the BLT who don't play turney nor public lobbies?

[pine violet]

the BLT, allegedly

[regal glen]

I wonder how many thumbs downs, no's and people complaining it would take to actually rethink or revert the change. 50? 100? 1000?

[pine violet]

The BLT play public lobbies and the balance consultants play tourneys.
This hyperbolic shit doesn't help, you're only making yourself easy to dismiss, since if anyone involved played in a tourney, everything you said could get automatically branded as invalid

[pine violet]

It's not too late, no. Delay it again, correct it last minute, revert in the first patch afterwards.
The game comes first, don't commit to a mistake because it's incovenient to correct it.

[zinc cipher]

There has never been significant risk to building fusions at the highest level. With a more expensive fusion you just built a few more solars that you insta reclaim once fusion done. Also, now you have cheaper fusion, but less con turrets. So you need fewer solars but reclaim them slower

[pine violet]

well, believe me, for anything but the highest level there was a risk to building fusions, which is significantly diminished with the update

[void barn]

It was considered. It was just decided that it's ok.

Angry discord comments is just one thing among many to consider, most important is seeing how actual games play out.

[tawny canyon]

And what did the actual games tell you?

[pine violet]

And how, pray tell, did you arrive at the conclusion that it's ok?

[zinc cipher]

If you can't explain it then any of your opinions besides "it feels bad" are basically worthless. Any discussion where one side doesn't understand the others pov is entirely fruitless

[pine violet]

Ok, but it feels bad. I explained to the best of my ability why it feels bad. Is things feeling bad going to be forever disregarded because you can't put feelings on a spreadsheet?

[tawny canyon]

Why the fusion changes specifically "felt bad" was explained in much more depth earlier. Tldr: it dampens the eco dips and spikes leading to constant, simple scaling.

[pine violet]

If you're a balance team member but can't understand the other side's pov, you should not dismiss the other side out of hand. That is, by definition, ignoring feedback

[zinc cipher]

Clearly johannes has acknowledged your "it feels bad". Being heard is not the same thing as a public poll. You are not being polled on balance changes. It's a hearing of opinions not a poll on declaring the winner

[pine violet]

We did get polled too btw, that also went the way of reverting fusions

Johannes evidently has the power to ignore feedback. I'm saying he shouldn't do that.

[tawny canyon]

Also just asking what the feedback from the games he watched was

[zinc cipher]

Not going with the public opinion is simply not the same as ignoring feedback. Just because you are not seeing the result you want doesn't mean your thoughts aren't being considered or valued

[pine violet]

Well I'm sure he had a good reason not to go with the public opinion. I'll hear it any second now

[tawny canyon]

Then why did they delay and not change anything?

[zinc cipher]

No you won't, if you actually had any interest in good faith discussion you'd already be able to accurately describe the reasoning

[pine violet]

I heard the reasoning Kuchy gave for the change. I provided my reasoning for why it feels shit. I haven't heard anything from Johannes or you other than outright dismissal.

[void barn]

That there isn't anything weird or imbalanced that stood out. Game plays fine and fulfills goals set for the patch (make solo teching smoother and more competitive, without buffing tech rushes based on funneling)

Then why did they delay and not change anything?
To get more data how it plays, to see if the doomsaying has a point or not. But turned out that with more playtesting, a lot of people initially skeptical also saw that nothing crazy happens.
While that's not everyone naturally, just about any change will have its detractors, overall mood is far more positive than with people most active in this thread.
And could've been that in the extra time, there would've been some great idea to do it better. But as nobody presented some great synthesis, we just settled for the finetuning.

[zinc cipher]

Personally i think that balancing for low level play like this is fragile. The general skill level and knowledge of the playerbase improves over time, you don't want the gameplay experience to degrade when you level up in skill etc. (all the usual arguments in this direction which is kinda offtopic). Take for example coop (which nobody thought was a problem when i clowned on 8v8 players in dsd when i started playing), com trans (which again nobody thought was a problem when i first talked about it), spybots (same story, again).

[zinc cipher]

Furthermore, I would favor stability over spikiness at low level. The skill cap didn't go anywhere, it's just less punishing for new players to fail that particular skill check. Every high level player will still keep reclaiming solars like usual. The new player still gets to learn that particular avenue of skill expression (just perhaps it can be prioritized lower than before)

[pine violet]

This isn't a question of balance, nothing imbalanced is going to stand out as a result of worse feeling gameplay. Idk how you define weird.

a lot of people initially skeptical also saw that nothing crazy happens
overall mood is far more positive than with people most active in this thread

Who are the people who were initially skeptical but not in this thread, and why does nothing crazy happening mean that the game feel impact of an individual change out of the bunch is not negative? Overall mood among whom, anyway? You say that as if you've reviewed a meaningful amount of games across a wide slice of the playerbase.

[tawny canyon]

Thats exactly why I don't like the fusion changes

[pine violet]

Take out the fusion changes, run the patches side by side, see which people prefer. Measure for balance and game feel separately. Include all levels of player skill, including pve and singleplayer enjoyers. Maybe start collecting singleplayer replays for analysis, they're going to be useful.

What is it, anyway, that moment to moment balance team members do when reviewing the changes? What did you actually do to determine that "there isn't anything weird or imbalanced that stood out"

[void barn]

Would a list of people that have changed their opinion about the patch really make you happy? What's your point exactly, that our process feels bad for you? Unless you've got concrete, actionable ideas for how to improve it, that doesn't matter much.

I'm not about to start a social study about gameplay feels among sp players

[pine violet]

Do you have such a list? If yes, seeing it wouldn't hurt.

[pine violet]

These are your actionable ideas

Since you haven't answered what you actually did to come to your conclusion, I can't answer how that stacks up to your process

And if you're not going to study gameplay feel among sp players, someone else has to. You can't disregard it, that's a major part of your game.

[tawny canyon]

To put it in the extreme, making everything a thug will fix all issues except "feel" so why not do that?

[pine violet]

As for the patch, revert the contentious changes, go through the steps above. Clearly define the problem you want to fix and how the change does that. Clearly determine any other impact the change has. Make an informed assessment of if the positive impact is worth the negative impact. There's your actionable steps.

[shut lava]

The entire midnset that commie needs to be adressed via balance is completely wrong. Just stop making these changes that "make solo teching more competitive" when in fact it doesn't. Balance the game so it feels good to play, so there's some depth to it. Fix commie via another means. The game has already been dumbed down a lot since 2 years ago, and now eco scaling is even more smoothbrained.

If you keep balancing to kill coop, the game will be unplayable when coop finally gets fixed

[void barn]

Clearly define the problem you want to fix and how the change does that. Clearly determine any other impact the change has. Make an informed assessment of if the positive impact is worth the negative impact.

That's all been done.

As for polling singleplayers (or people in general, potentially), it's kinda marginal value to know what they think of the latest patch. If somebody was to seriously get their sentiments on something, it'd be much better to know what they consider the biggest issues in the game, etc. Though polling will have a big survivorship bias, people who disliked some aspect enough didn't stick around to answer polls.

[shut lava]

It was considered. It was just decided that it's ok.

I'm sorry what? If an 80% negative vote was considered OK, then how high does it need to be for you to actually change it? 90%? 99.99999%? Any statistician or whoever it is will tell you that if 80% of people don't like something then it's most definitely not OK.

Though polling will have a big survivorship bias, people who disliked some aspect enough didn't stick around to answer polls.
Again, what?? People who don't like the patch are the most likely to fight against it and stick around. That just seems like another excuse. Not to mention that even if what you say was true, it would mean the final negativeness would be even higher?

[pine violet]

That's all been done.
May I see?

[gray sparrow]

btw if you make fusion cheaper you will enable earlier starlight's. You will skip early t2 even more like gunslingers and mausers.

[fleet kernel]

but bp cost was increased lab units... time to build starlights about same if not more?

[gray sparrow]

yes but instead of making more mausers you will just skip to 1/2 starlights

[coral meadow]

Yeah these are the considerations that I'm interested in. The fusion change definitely makes it smoother but does that reduce economical decisons?

I'm thinking there's literally no reason not to go Amex fusion cookie cutter every game

[halcyon laurel]

sooo tldr; the thread was completely cosmetic and we made balance changes to nerf coop but its still super op and mandatory lgtm

[zinc cipher]

this is just meaningless hyperbole, clearly changes like cheaper fusion affect coop to some degree. You can argue that it's not enough to justify the loss of "spikiness" or whatever, but statements like above just make you look ignorant at best and uncooperative at worst

[fleet kernel]

poor mausers did work, but the issue pooor mausers had on supreme was the commies whit the early snipers.... POOR anything not really viable in this meta (and unlimited coop)

[zinc cipher]

obviously any cost reduction has some effect on coop, if you reduce t2 lab cost by 99% you'll never see t2 coop again

[coral meadow]

Blossom remarked that it makes going for Nuke bomber faster since you (presumably because you didn't need the entire fusion)

The discussion on whether it effects coop is kinda pointless and probably stems from differing definitions of coop. It doesn't address the main part of coop that people care about.

[inland flicker]

blüdor

[coral meadow]

You coop the units themselves

It feels like a technicality to say that reducing cost lowers coop. While lowering cost means a solo player can afford it by themselves the coop players just does it faster. Just like t1 bombing, 1 player can afford it, doesn't mean it's not a coop target.

[fleet kernel]

If you do the rainbow cons/turrets. This balance update doesn't touch broken coops at all. https://youtu.be/tjlp4fe08xM?si=DvgQgrXzRtrxtZyU&t=207

[frigid wedge]

#1458388326334595133 something like this aswell. but how do you make sure that the t1 phase doesnt just get shorten entirely and I agree with that part.

[coral meadow]

If fusions cost 1 metal and produced proportionate the same energy then solo production would be the same effeciency as coop but that's just never going to happen. There are multiple reasons why some things in this game have to cost >1000 metal

[frigid wedge]

The cost is what makes it not ideal to make your own units like if something costs alot and someone already has it why even bother to get it yourself. Lets assume your tech has went t3 and you have 6k metal just sitting there would you either go make your own t3 lab or just buy a t3 unit off him?

It's always the cost of things and the unit types that people want and why they commie in the first place

same thing in like making t2 cunits instead of t2 cons. it takes 1k metal by buying a t2 and upgrading a mex which could have been better spent by making 3 mausers and getting front metal which I brought up before in #1458388326334595133

[gritty sky]

I'd guess, if anything, this patch just changes coop(a lateral move). It doesn't reduce it....b/c that's not how balance changes like this interact w/ resource sharing. In the future I'd suggest not labeling fixes as coop fixes b/c they are not that to any meaningful extent.

[zinc cipher]

it's you with the random gotcha rhetoric when you obviously understand the point given the next message. The less resources something costs, the less reason there is to coop it. Obviously.

And again obviously I don't think that nothing should cost a lot of metal, just that saying "changing fusion cost doesn't affect coop" is just dumb

[coral meadow]

Why do you cite fixing coop under the fusion change? If fixing coop was the goal why not make it 2k? 1k?

The basis for whether it's a good change or not should be on whether it makes the economic gameplay better or worse

[zinc cipher]

iirc originally a bigger cost reduction was proposed, but I argued against it because I like the spikiness lol

[coral meadow]

Yes it makes it different than the smaller eco buildings.

[frigid wedge]

Ye there's just no way to fix coop other than just adding no ally assist but its broken rn, taxing and no unit sharing other than maybe t2 cons:

But the issue here is that if you make something expensive like what's being done with the t2 lab build time you're just gonna see more coop games because it's always and most optimal strat to use resources by sharing 2 players better than 1. It basically attracts more gameplay like that

[pine violet]

Good thing Clearly define the problem you want to fix and how the change does that. Clearly determine any other impact the change has. has been done so we can point Chrono these.

[coral meadow]

Anyways I'm not super opposed to it, game is likely fine with or without it. Just as always I disagree with coop being a primary justification. It should be minor if at all.

You can just push it but keep an eye out for how the builds and build diversity changes. Most games are played solo economy, the fusion price changing definitely changes starlight and nuke bomber builds

[zinc cipher]

the update will certainly not "fix" anything like glitteurs coop. But that doesn't mean there's 0 impact. It slightly incentivizes multiple t2 labs, just like cheaper t1 labs slightly incentivized multiple t1 labs and as a result there's much less need for total slave nolab gaming on many of the more playable/less-coopy 8v8 maps

[coral meadow]

It has a real effect on solo builds though. You can do smaller starlight/nuke bomber rush, accessing fusion effeciency at a higher tempo

[fleet kernel]

THERE IS NO EFFECT ON COMMIES... commie didnt change at all -> rainbow cons/turrents not limited at all...

[restive prism]

Rainbow is probably the least impacted by this, yeah.

[zinc cipher]

i don't see why there needs to be some specific branding on a change. This is a change that was proposed, be in coop context or not, it of course changes the game in a variety of ways, which were considered, and the net result was deemed positive. The reduction (not removal) of spikiness is an intended result that was discussed

[fleet kernel]

I like the changes ... but the COMMIE issue overshadows it all ... ITS SO BAD ATM... it gets player moderated so the game is playable atm

2:15 tzar.... 3min 3 tzar ....4 min 6 tzar ....5min 8 tzar..... welcome to hell

[zinc cipher]

rainbow cons like that is extremely low level inefficient beginner gameplay. There's really no reason to target that specifically. But ye anyway just because your favorite lobby doesn't see significant change, doesn't mean that there's no change in higher level gameplay

and yes as i said any change to coop is probably very minimal on 8v8 glitters, even at higher level. It should be much more noticeable on maps where there's actual real reasons to build more than 1 lab (where distance matters because there's more space)

[pine violet]

A thing occurred to me recntly that cheaper t1 labs might be the reason for cent's dominance as a rush unit lately

[frigid wedge]

I don't think cents were made better because of t1 lab cost. I mean you always could afford a t1 lab even before the changes

[zinc cipher]

this is of course absolutely true, but imo those changes need to be looked at individually if they become a problem. I doubt there's going to be anything truly gamebreaking as a consequence of earlier access to t2 energy production. Quite the opposite many units feel inaccessible due to their energy cost (like sniper, starlight, tremor) in maps that don't have ageos and when you aren't cooping your fusions out

[zinc cipher]

the timing doesn't line up really, but ye I think lab change (cheaper + more bp) is a marginal buff to cent because cent is so bp efficient you can leave naked lab building them in many 8v8s

[gritty sky]

ngl, the main annoyance w/ the patch is that coop was brought up at all when it's unrelated. Like we could actually be talking about stuff that matters(like coop)

[pine violet]

You have more metal and e to sink into them while you'll struggle to spend the same amount of metal on grunts. The grunts lose in tempo when ideally it should be the opposite and the lone cent should get swarmed by "earlier" units.

[frigid wedge]

I mean the grunt has been a unit that always gets nerfed even in this patch alone another buff to pawns and no attention to grunts

[fleet kernel]

Yea but thats what avarage players can achieve right now .. Ill do t3 in 5min---- ill do the tzars in 2... doesnt change the fact thats its BROKEN BUSTED... personal skill dont matter at all if we doing this.. its just 1 driver and their 7 slaves.

[pine violet]

the timing lines up with the range bug and people remembering cent exists. I don't think there were any changes at all to coincide with the timing?

[shut lava]

I'm sorry, exactly how does it make me seem ignorant?

From my POV the entire BLT and to an extent some consultants are hell bent on fixing coop by balance. I think that is a profoundly wrong approach, and should not be taken, because yes, when (if) coop gets properly fixed by other means, we will just be left with a broken mess of a balance.

And please do enlighten me how exactly does the fusion change make coop less powerful / non-coop more competitive. Fusions were never cooped in public lobbies, and while energy may be a problem and a reason to coop, asolars now scale almost as efficiently as fusion, making it redundant regarding early t2 coop.

[pine violet]

If correct, this further demonstrates that unforeseen changes are rampant.

[zinc cipher]

i think the cent gained a slight amount of range even post-bugfix from the change and that caused cent dominance, but this is yet to be proven

[restive prism]

Its new range is somewhere from -4 to +10 its pre-bug range, and it varies by the targeted unit.

But people have been running Centurion comps for months now, not just since the bug.

[shut lava]

Furthermore, if I seem uncooperative, it is because even though me and others have asked many times for a proper explanation of some of the changes, of the thought processes behind it, and all we have gotten was "lol it makes coop slightly worse" with which I disagree to an extent. Nothing is communicated to us outsiders, nothing is explained properly, the BLT keeps swinging around with phrases like "the general consensus is positive" or "from our playtesting it's good", but a) I don't see any proof of a positive consensus, I see only majorly negative impressions of the patch (see the NO vs YES reactions on this post, and the upvotes/downvotes in the other thread) and b) The BLT doesn't play on a high level, if at all (I don't have the data for thjs, but I've never seen anyone but PtaQ play the game, and neither have a lot of others), and I've never seen a summary of any of the results of the playtesting you mention or the matches that were observed by the BLT.

Thus I am speaking just from my experience of over at least 40 S3 patch games, probably more, and in my experience from those games the fusion changes help nothing and make the game worse in my opinion.

The overall attitude to receiving feedback and the lack of transparency does not help either btw.

[fleet kernel]

"rainbow cons like that is extremely low level inefficient beginner gameplay. There's really no reason to target that specifically. But ye anyway just because your favorite lobby doesn't see significant change, doesn't mean that there's no change in higher level gameplay"...... yeah ... ....yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.-.... come fite me and ill show you how I stole emres plot amor.. OR DO YOUR FUCKING JOBS

[frigid wedge]

Lets just replace commanders with juggernauts and call it a day

[tawny canyon]

Replace everything with tick because feel doesnt matter, only balance does

[outer fern]

The fusions changes have huge impact indeed, seems like it is brought without a lot of game knowledge or/and game experience in all gameMode, i mean the most obvious side effect was about bomb run interaction, this is almost fixed, but overall this casualify a lot the game, is it good ? Maybe, but you loose mechanics depth as all frontliners can just simply grow their E production with almost 0 risk

[halcyon laurel]

what is "branding"? We're looking for the logical justification for the changes. Unless you're just making random changes for fun with no purpose

[pine violet]

Clearly define the problem you want to fix and how the change does that. has been done

[zinc cipher]

I understand that fusion coop is not super relevant in the average 8v8 lobby. There's simply not a lot of coop to begin with in most 8v8 lobbies. Like I get that it might feel like a lot, especially on straits/glitters, but it's very far from competitive gameplay. In tournys on the other hand everything gets cooped (because we play 5v5 tournys on 3v3 maps), so does any change even matter? Well, there's a lot of ground between and around those two extremes where the fus change does matter. When making fus you are often going from super inefficient solar scaling, to reclaiming all of your solars and using the mass for t2 mex. That powerspike is really big and cheaper fus does bring the solo (smaller amount of coopers) closer to coop (or larger amount of coopers). Like im sure you understand that theoretically any cost reduction disincentivizes coop. Anyway, the coop part is a classic case for balancing for "optimal/high level" gameplay. If you balance for low level it appears to have no effect, but because it fundamentally disincentivizes coop, you can always find a scenario where it matters

[zinc cipher]

Yes that's exactly what im saying stop branding it as "coop change". Same goes for chrono lol that's literally what i was trying to say. Fus cost influences many things and coop is one of them (but not the only one)

[fleet kernel]

So you think you sooo far ahead in ability to play than the rest of us ..so its IMPOSSIBLE TO FIX BROKEN COOPS ?... thats what this says.... you are avarage as fk bro...everyone in bar is .. its TINY COMMUNITY... you would get clapped like chisato xfactor emre inda got clapped in supreme THIS VERY WEEK:..... Can the devs just say you ABANDON 8v8 balancing instead.... for the 10 "tourney" avarage players.

[shut lava]

Then why is the BLT's main reason for the change as anti-coop? That's branding it as a coop change

[pine violet]

(c) Johannes

so excuse me?

[shut lava]

This raises the question though - do you balance for actual competitive gameplay which happens once every few months (I'm talking about major tourneys) or for the 99.999% public games? In my eyes BAR doesn't have the competitive scene to justify balancing for it like SC2 does or any other competitive game. Another reason in addition to the small volume of competitive games is the fact that competitive gaming resolves around coop with sliders and voice coms and thought out strategies which is impossible in the said 99.999% of public games

[fleet kernel]

its weird that the balance is being worked for the TINY TINY minority of the game... but not the actual 8v8 MAJORITY OF PLAYERS side that makes this game any good.... broken commies still full ignored....... I FIGURED IT OUT THESE BOIS ARE ONLY BALANCING IT FOR TINY TEAMS AND 1v1.... maaaaan rip bar

And the reasoning is that they not competitive!?. bro Ill pay you a 100 if you win 1 in 10.. im actually motivated.

[dusk bison]

Reading this thread gives me anxiety, so much interpersonal conflict

[zinc cipher]

Ok fair. Though it's a bit much to expect an entire essay of all aspects that have been considered every time there's questions (every day)

[pine violet]

I think it's entirely reasonable to expect Clearly define the problem you want to fix and how the change does that. Clearly determine any other impact the change has.
You can then copypaste or link to it, whatever floats your boat. If the above explanation from Johannes is deficient, it might the the case that the public at large has never even heard the proper reasoning for the change? I'm pretty active here and I don't remember another explanation.

[dreamy jay]

Blodir come 1v1??

[zinc cipher]

Well this comes back to the same argument that i mentioned earlier, and it has been discussed to death everywhere, as it's relevant to all games. My opinion is that you don't want the gameplay experience to get worse the better you get at a game. In a competitive (if there's a winner and a loser it's competitive) you need to incentivize winning, and therefore getting better, or you're tugging the rug from underneath the entire format

[dreamy jay]

Good game design encourages desired behaviours and discourages undesired behaviours

[midnight swallow]

I guess a tax system won't be added to this game until 5 years from now ,they're still just changing units and economies.

[pine violet]

Taxes suck, but we can talk about it after we revert the fusions

[shut lava]

You say you don't want the experience of the game to get worse the better you get at it. However the fusion change seems to be the exact opposite of that. It placates noob misgakes, makes the entire scaling smoother, more braindead, easier. To me stuff like making the game easier by removing non-problematic "quirks" like the hound projectile toggle, or for a while the trajectory toggle being removed, makes the game experience significantly worse

-# Also it seems we are misaligned on what we mean by competitive, to me it means tourney play only. Public lobbies are casual, regardless of how sweaty they are

[tawny canyon]

Can someone explain to me why the naval fusions are unaffected? If anything they should be the ones that get reduced

[dreamy jay]

cos no one cares about sea (joke answer but it's actually probably really why lol)

[pine violet]

Because nobody cares about naval fusions

[empty nymph]

can i right click your lab

[coral meadow]

I mean if your not calling coop a main reason for it than I won't. We're not trying to label it as a coop change for the purpose of blocking it.

But yes, if tourney meta is a reason for the change the explanation is appreciated

[midnight swallow]

why taxes suck

[fleet kernel]

Ye they dont give a DAMN about 8v8 its all 1v1 smol team game balance. (we never getting balance fix to broken coops and rainbow turrets). Would be nice to just announce it now .. I mean its not in the matchmaking right? WRITING IS ON THE WALL

[tawny canyon]

Thats been the same since s1 balance patch :/

[fleet kernel]

8v8 -> I think its the 2nd reason after qol that makes bar any good... small team and 1v1 games feel whatever... Its been done before... 8v8 is the special sauce HOTTAKE

[pine violet]

Revert the fusions and I'll tell you

[midnight swallow]

use your mod power

[tawny canyon]

@void barn why weren't naval fusions affected as well?

[shut lava]

because they are never cooped

[tawny canyon]

It would actually make sea gameplay so much better tho 🙁

[next iron]

because idgaf sorry

[inland flicker]

is coop gone now can I play the game

[empty nymph]

https://tenor.com/view/haha-gumichan-bird-no-laughing-gif-5128531988218293677

[fleet kernel]

Nope we gave up on balancing 8v8 all together instead.. The changes are only for 1v1/small team games in mind... 8v8 will be removed from the game when matchmaking is live.... THERE! does it feel good when someone speaks the truth.

[zinc cipher]

A competitive game is any zero sum game with winners and losers, no matter how casual. Checkers is a competitive game.

The fusion change makes not playing around the high cost less punishing yes, but doesn't fundamentally alter gameplay. Like i'll still make a few t2 mex first and keep scaling solars, then reclaim all solars to get the fusion. That's all good. All the skill expression around fus cost is still there. Now I can just afford it earlier. I guess you could say that previously youve had to sim city better to fit the numerous solars into nano range, but i don't find that particularly appealing personally

[tawny canyon]

So your saying that you can just make a new fusion on a whim rather than having to make a decision like with the old one?

[zinc cipher]

No what

[tawny canyon]

Thats literally what you described :/

You talk about making the new fusion with very little investment compared to the old one which has quite a bit more investment.

[zinc cipher]

?? I have no idea where you are getting any of this. I said that the gameplay is effectively the same from my pov, you just make it a bit earlier with a bit fewer solars. I dont make a solar on a whim let alone asol, not to even talk about fus. -25% or not xd

[tawny canyon]

That was just me overexaggerating my point, I just hate how the economy is becoming smooth brain now in bar with this change.

[fleet kernel]

These changes are for 1v1 and tiny teams.. blodir doesnt give a DAMN about 8v8 balance/issues ... glitters supreme... its not tourney.. it can die

[zinc cipher]

How is it smooth brain if i have literally the same considerations and gameplay, just earlier? Yeah you are punished less if you fuck up your energy eco, but it's not like the margin is so thin that you have to be a top player for good energy eco management to matter... it's just -25% remember?

[zinc cipher]

I did just play hundreds of 8v8s and have #2 8v8 os, but i guess i'm not allowed to speak on it yet

[tawny canyon]

It's not the same considerations given that the ratios are pretty much the same between new adv solars and fusions, there is also a big decrease in cost which means you don't have the same amount of risk compared to the old one. The change is to make fusions easier to obtain but less rewarding once they get it. Which i am very much against

[coral meadow]

The asolar kept the same mechanics just made it better since it's use case was niche in addition to being not very strong

[fleet kernel]

os means nothing if its done whit broken coop or dodge. thats what we want fixed before ANY other balance changes. thats the issues we want fixed. YOU ACTING LIKE YOU DONT KNOW THESE ISSUES. --------EMRE IS ONE... INDA IS THREE ... Both lose to MEE: ).. IM A POET

[zinc cipher]

Good thing then that there hasnt been any broken coop or dodge. Actually there's not much non-meta level coop in rotato in general in last few months (or more)

[fleet kernel]

So coop is not an issue ... if we just don't do it? Thats the solution to making player skill matter in 8v8?

[zinc cipher]

Co-op is a problem

[fleet kernel]

Now we getting somewhere. Admitting the REAL balance problem is the first step to heal it. Making ANY other changes before fixing it IS COMPLETE WASTE OF EFFORT... unless its for 1v1 or small teams.

[halcyon laurel]

os also means nothing if you only play tutorial map

[fleet kernel]

You mean the one where you play all labs instead of just land? weak roast and offtopic

[halcyon laurel]

its like an aram player unironcally saying b..but...but we play all champs

[fleet kernel]

HELO sir this a a beyond all reason balance feedback discord.. Go home ur drunk.

[halcyon laurel]

no its not its a useless thread not even the devs give a fuck about

[fleet kernel]

Im working on it why you attak me ?.. We on the same side ? HUH GAMING

[real dirge]

I'm not sure why these things needs to be explained the nth time:

If we start building the new fusion at the same time and with the same BP/s we started building the old one, then the new one will be up faster. This might make it seem that the new one is safer.

But we always had the option to build the old fusion faster too. If building it in 80s is too risky, then just store up some M and E, get a bit more BP/s and build it in 60s, or 40s, or 10s.
Obviously this is not very efficient for EXACTLY the reasons it is not efficient to build the new one faster. Like literally you only get the new one faster because you store up resources and build more con turrets than needed.

If you're trying to be efficient, then your risk will be about the same as before, just a bit earlier.

The other thing, how the new adv solar is equivalent to the new fusion is such a bad take I'm not even sure how to respond to it.
I mean, if you think that, then I'm sorry but you just have no understanding of how economy works in BAR. There is just no comparison between these two buildings.

The advanced solar is an extremely bad option when you could afford a fusion, it's only a good option at relatively early game, exactly when most players don't build advanced solars...

If you could build a fusion but you decide to scale E with advanced solars instead just because 5 seconds spent on a napkin math said so, then you're being so extremely inefficient already that you shouldn't be bothered by any small balance changes.

Here's a chart. It's difficult to explain what this shows, I mean it's technically easy, this is just the effective efficiency of different energy buildings over time.

It's difficult because I think most players have such a warped view of what efficiency means in BAR that they won't understand these curves. I'm planning a longer post about this but for now one example based on this chart:

At about 240s you can see that both old fusions' curves have about twice the y value of the advanced solar's curve, that literally means, that the fusions are twice as good at that point in time (with the specific BP/s I used as an input for the chart).
There are also times when the difference is significantly larger (earlier in time).
What a naive napkin math would show is the end point those curves converge to which literally doesn't matter in an actual game.

[fleet kernel]

I agree. I don't understand why ppl are rioting about the fus change. (IT FEEELS GREAT TO PLAY)......... BUT they not rioting about lack of real commie fixes to rainbowcons/baseshare/gigafeed instead for 8v8 balance. These issues make all these changes pointless before personal skill matters again. 2min tzar dont give a damn if you plan on making fusions. Everyone has a plan to build many fus until you get hit by 5min- 8 tzar.

[real dirge]

And imagine the balance team's position. They probably do understand the above chart. Still they had to read 100+ comments here about how the new fusion is just too good or just as bad as the new advanced solar or something equally wrong. Then they can see the thumbs down reactions on the fusion changes... why shouldn't they ignore those? I would.

[coral meadow]

Personally when I play in tournament I'm prepared to full coop because that's the version of bar that everyone comes expecting to play. No one is trying to play split economy in tournaments (except where sometimes you play more t1 labs because it's more familiar, easier to balance eco and requires less sharing units)

[coral meadow]

no one ever complained about having to coop fusions in tourney. geo/ageo is a much more powerful coop target, but what are you going to half size the geo too? delete geos from the game? doing that technically nerfs a coop target but it also takes something away from the game. including notably solo play.

[next iron]

when we bring up tournament specific situations its because the tournament meta slowly trickles down into the public meta where applicable like the pond on isthmus grew to become a tidal slave over time.

theres a bit more friction in 8v8 without the ability to just slider gaming your way into a 3 minutes adv geo, but the given enough time this is the gameplay we will be looking at in public games.

[coral meadow]

in 8v8 the ez way to do it is just 2 man or 3 man full coop. It's not physically hard, just players heavily pushback against it.
It is NOT difficult for someone to make 6 solars, queue up 10 more and share their com and base to you.

it's not like we are unaware of 2-3 man full coop, the reason why it's not studied and practiced like solo builds is because majority of pub lobster lobby feel like it leads to worse experience

[next iron]

more importantly i guess, the scope of this balance patch was specifically to address coop as much as possible through only numerical change and not fundamental mechanic changes.

While larger mechanical changes are on the way, it will not solve the entire issue, without completely removing what makes bar unique compared to other RTS

[outer fern]

https://www.bar-stats.pro/playerstats?playerName=Blodir&dateRange-0=1658102400000&dateRange-1=1767916799999&playerCount-0=2&playerCount-1=16&includeUnranked=false&maps=[]&gameTypes=["team"]

Hundred in a gameMode with a very low playerBase and often in easy carry spot.

You should play in most advanced meta map played to see your "adaptation skills" to other gamers and chaotic gaming.

I mean, you have huge skills (on ground, you lack lot of knowledge on air gaming imo), but force tend meta in your favor is not good, you need to think in "how can i improve global game state"

[tawny canyon]

Building the new fusion is easier because of the decrease in cost. That's why there is less risk and less reward. Saving up resources doesn't make it any less riskier. It also comes up faster because it costs 25% less.....

Also, adv solar is only 400 metal less efficient than the new fusion, but since the fact it's incremental means it's roughly equal.

Honestly I think you need to play some team games.

[next iron]

but since the fact it's incremental means it's roughly equal.
video proof?

[fickle iron]

What is the unit on the y axis? How are you measuring efficiency? E produced per converted metal cost?

Its a pretty graph but without a specific definition of "effective efficiency" I don't know what we could take from this.

[next iron]

looks to me like Y axis is energy produced / 70

[real dirge]

The most efficient way to build anything expensive is to spend exactly your income. The lower your income is, the bigger will be the time difference between the two fusions. So if we consider only this, then you are correct, for example if we have 50 M/s then the new fusion build time will be about 20% shorter, so less risky.

But do you think you could find me a game where any player does that? Like literally spends exactly their income on building the fusion? Most players don't even know that we have an ingame tool to help us do that.

What actually happens in practice is that the player will have some amount of BP/s, some income, some amount of stored resources, maybe a reclaim field, etc. and then they will just decide to build the fusion. Most often they overflow BP doing this so the BP cost doesn't even matter.

My point is, that after players get used to the new fusion, they will just make that decision a bit earlier than before. Like, they won't wait until they have 20k E in storage, or a wreck field of 2k metal, etc. they will just start building it with 10k stored E and 1000 metal and with less income.
For example you won't wait until you have 50 M/s income, you will start building it with 40 M/s income because you can afford the same risk as before.
If you can't afford the same risk, then you can build it in a shorter timeframe but this is true for the old fusion as well.

[coral meadow]

why does asolar have -400 at 66 seconds (you'd expect 0 net e)

[next iron]

because it needs to scale build power more to start spending* at the same rate of fusion

[rich kindle]

my problem with this whole "lowering the cost of fusions disincentives cooping fusion" like yeah, you have very slightly less reason to coop a fusion, does this mean people will stop cooping fusions? no, is the whole t2 phase balanced around t2 economy buildings? from my understanding, yes, so you can say it has no impact of most 8v8 lobbies because nobody coops fusions, but if you stop talking about coop, suddenly you have a change that hardly impacts coop, changes the whole tempo of the t2 phase and for what? there is plenty of other ways you can smooth out ecoing you dont have to lower fusion prices and payoffs and ultimately you will still have people cooping fusions and you changed them for what reason exactly?

[coral meadow]

when making structures to convert E, asolar is 40-50 sec worse than fusion, but incremental payoff helps with that
Fusion is better if you can build it.

[real dirge]

Imagine that in an actual game you measure the actual energy you can make by building an energy producer with some BP/s.
For example a solar will make you 200 E in 20 seconds if you build it with the commander. (you spend 10 seconds building it, then it will produce for 10 seconds).
Now let's divide this 200 E by the time which in this case is 20s. We will get back 10 E/s, this 10 E/s is the y axis.

[fickle iron]

So if I'm understanding correctly you picked a BP number to run all this for? What's the BP? Commander 300?

The numbers would be different if you had less BP

[real dirge]

Above explanation, except we're building something that costs us E. So our actual E production is negative. (The input was 1800 BP/s for the chart).

[coral meadow]

is that of constantly building asolars?

[fickle iron]

Also you aren't considering the m+e costs at all? Only BP? That's fine but it's an unusual angle because a lot of people are going to analyze from a metal cost standpoint.

Why should BP efficiency be so important? I think metal efficiency is more important most of the time but both matter.

[tawny canyon]

#1447323521662455910 message

[real dirge]

Yes, the number would be different with different BP/s. Just like in a real game the E you can produce depends on how early you can make the producer (BP/s). The chart assumed 1800 BP/s (because of the fusions)

I do consider both M and E costs. Actually it's only possible to consider them this way, there's no other way.

[next iron]

if you look at the graph you'll see it doesnt change the whole tempo of the T2 phase

also, picture this:
youre playing 8v8 on ATG, your techer send you constructor, you upgrade your mex and queue fusion

enemy team techer doesnt send constructor, instead coops fatboy and transports it to frontline.

How do you, individually, deal with the fatboy rampaging your lane?
With old fusion you had to upgrade a few mex before you could afford a fusion and then turn that energy into snipers / starlights to counter the fatboy.
with new fusion you can upgrade fewer mex and build the fusion faster, compounding to even faster response against coop'd fatboy

[coral meadow]

having to make more bp is expensive. sure if your com is building something you often have a lot of bp. But if there is sufficient metal often solar spam is best because it has the best tempo until you bottleneck metal.

anyways, you rarely build asolars for conversion purposes. at the higher lv of optimzation you should see eco buildings as a path to being able to pay for the cost of certain targets

[fickle iron]

This example didn't do anything with the cost of the solar, you were able to give the data point of 10e/s for 20s without factoring in cost.

How are you factoring in cost?

[real dirge]

There are other inputs. Essentially I have a target M spent. Maybe this hover state helps
edit: sorry, wrong graph.

[next iron]

no video there?

[coral meadow]

you can make 1 sniper on solar and wind on glitters. multiple snipers is where it becomes kinda impratical (not enough m to make e to do it without bricking yourself) fusion is too slow regardless.

[tawny canyon]

Ask him for a video, he's better than me at scaling and my quick math says yes to that

[next iron]

fuck it I'll just record it myself

[real dirge]

chart again because the last one was the wrong one:

[fickle iron]

I appreciate your analysis. I''m skeptical because I distrust graphs that arent backed up by a specific list of formulas and data. Can you share the spreadsheet itself so I can see the formulas?

Im not trying to call you out or anything I just think it's easy to make mistakes and also easy for things to be misunderstood and miscommunicated so I don't like a vague unitless graph being posted like it means something.

[coral meadow]

imagine you need to make 10 winds or 5 solars to reach 100 energy. making 10 winds is significantly slower, as well as the -175e cost. so if you are rushing say incisor/pawn rush then the 5 solar build will be a lot faster

16000-2800*5 = 5 solars is 2000 bp less, or 6.66 seconds of com build time. 1750e is another 6 seconds of +300 e income
Being able to turn your money into e-structures faster speeds up the next step

[fickle iron]

Yeah I understand and if that's the purpose of this and is clearly stated then that's fine.

Imagine you're trying to scale conversion eco, you care a lot less about BP cost than you do about m cost. That's why you see loads of wind and t1 converters on supreme.

Different scenarios will want different types of efficiency so it's important to be very clear about what data is being presented.

[real dirge]

Sorry I explained this type of thinking about the game so many times already I just won't do it again here. I have an inprogress post about it that will make this clear (eventually).
But I think I can say that I have a track record of sorts when it comes to this type of analysis.

[coral meadow]

yea something like this. converters also take a lot of BP so it's not like you can skimp on bp anyways
whereas for unit making builds there are builds with very limited bp

[fickle iron]

All good, and yes I've seen you write a lot of great in depth posts with specifics so I know you have credibility. I'm mostly questioning the communication around what the graph means and what it is good for and what it's not good for.

I look forward to your more detailled post. I'm still waiting for a 1 mex strategy guide if that's something you are working on. I saw you cook up some really effective 1 mex builds which look great.

[coral meadow]

basically 0mex 1 mex are good when: wind is above 14-15, and usually, but not always, when there are bunch of multiple expansion mexes for you to cap (speeding up the con/com walk)

basically you trade METAL, for E and BP. which usually goes into faster expansion con and units for tactical advantage
such a build only works if you work it out so you don't stall metal
if there are little to no expansion mex then getting con out earlier doesn't help you cap any mexes faster

[rich kindle]

you cant express everything on a graph, you dont decide a game just by your overall efficiency during a game, its also decided by things that happen in the moment among other things, if you make fusions 950 metal cheaper, the overall efficiency will be the same, good for you, but that means you get what you wouldve gotten just a minute or two earlier, which when were talking a couple of minutes, or less with coop, thats a big change, can this be good for some things? sure but then its equally bad for other things all the while youve barely fixed the issue which you actually set out to fix, so what did you actually achieve with the fusion change aside from keeping its efficiency the same, id like to see you try and explain how a match will play out on a spreadsheet or graph, youre gonna need a bloody line for my blood alcohol level, for how much the fusion change, actually changes, how much does it really solve? energy prices, energy cost to fire, all these things were decided with what the fusion and all other eco buildings give you, not just its efficiency 10 minutes after you build it

like how much earlier can you get out starlights solo? a minute, well a coop player can still get it out faster, and as long as they can, coop will be the dominant strategy for winning, you could probably find a graph for that one tho
^ so the coops actually faster than it was before but maybe thats just me

[tawny canyon]

Ngl this doesn't make sense at all and feels like you haven't read the thread much. Saving up resources does not negate the risk. The only difference between the old fusions and the new fusions is that the new fusions are "smaller" which means they come up faster with less reward and less risk. It's pretty cut and dry.

[coral meadow]

sniper being faster answers fatboy but it also shuts down hound, recluse, gunslinger, bull, etc. That a complicated one.

You want interesting options to be available so stuff like duck/telchine have too high E cost which makes them too hard to use.
Certain higher tier units or high power density units are gated by E in bar, requiring higher amounts of E infrastructure. These long range high alpha units sometimes counter the early uits.

Fusion change doesn't reduce the sniper E cost, it just makes it smoother to get that boost of E, instead of spamming solar (fast but expensive) or wind (unreliable)

[rich kindle]

sounds like youre just changing the meta and hoping for the next one to be better

[frigid wedge]

I think the sniper e cost should be like 16 or 18k tbh like the starlight which is 18500

[real dirge]

If the chart let's say shows 2k on the y axis and that the fusion reaches that point at 300s. And I add details, like that the BP/s I used was 1800 BP/s and I used a 14k metal limit: Then this means that if you build 4 new fusions in a real game with 9 con turrets, then at the 300s mark you will have made about 600k E, or divided by 300s = 2000 E/s on average.
I show this average on the y axis because it's difficult to show 600k on the chart in a nice way.

Or in other words, multiply the x axis value with the y axis value and you get the exact amount of E you can produce in a real game with that 1800 BP/s.

I did share the math too before, but it's not very pretty. And also in this case I didn't use pure math but a simulation because I use this chart to get wind turbine efficiencies as well and that needs simulation.

The post I'm writing about this will have a section about specifically those 1-2 mex builds.

[next iron]

like how much earlier can you get out starlights solo? a minute, well a coop player can still get it out faster, and as long as they can, coop will be the dominant strategy for winning
yea coop is going to be dominant and theres no numerical change that will fix that it was acknowledged many times.

as for the time saved by coop vs non coop, cheaper unit always benefit the non coop side.
imagine if the T2 lab cost 10k metal instead of 2.8k, you would save minutes by cooping it

[rich kindle]

so was all the changes worth shaving off a couple of second from coop timings, if you wanna get it down to a manageable time, it sounds like the games going to be unrecognisable from what it was, if it was relay or something that actually harshly targets coop and has quite a few obvious downsides but atleast you know where its going, whats next after the fusion? you cant stop at just the fusion if this is the way youve decided to solve coop

[next iron]

bro half the lobby I join have the patch up and fusion is the least intrusive change in the patch how can you claim it makes the game unrecognizable stop trolling dude

[restive prism]

I think he means a large rule change would be unrecognizable

[rich kindle]

"if you wanna get it down to a manageable time, it sounds like the games going to be unrecogniseable" fusion doesnt get it down to a manageable time, if changing the fusion fixed coop go ahead but it doesnt

[tawny canyon]

The only thing that will solve coop is a resource tax, everything else is just a bandaid

[coral meadow]

that's more like it's hard for anyone to afford something 2kmetal+ at t1 without wreck field. At t2 you can upgrade first and make 4k fusion on t2 mexes relatively comfortably
geo is only a 800 cost converted building, but getting it out 60 seconds earlier with 2 man coop is insane.
ofc coop will always be able to make things faster, but where solo especially gets weakened is when it becomes very difficult to pay for it solo (you have to blow com, stop production of everything else, etc.)

[rich kindle]

and i think this is important now, is the reason to get rid of coop because its unfun to play against? or because youre forced to play it if you want the best chance of winning, or something else? so even if you get it down to a couple second difference, does it solve the reason we want coop gone?

[tawny canyon]

None of the changes in here affect coop, it's been well said already

[next iron]

why are you arguing against some hypothetical changes that you made up that arent in the patch?
also read this line slowly:

yea coop is going to be dominant and theres no numerical change that will fix that it was acknowledged many times.

[tawny canyon]

Also kuchy where video

[coral meadow]

for example, solo build that blows com is ~70 seconds behind coop... until after the first 800 metal worth units, then they run out of metal and becomes increasingly behind (in timestamp to produce X unit)

[next iron]

the goal is not to fix coop, just alleviate the problem a bit with small numerical changes

[rich kindle]

so whats the point of doing these big changes if it doesnt even try to solve the issue, you can put the fusion change in and then get people quit because of coop or because of the fus change, or the bp change and then youre sitting here with the problems from last season and you need to think up a new solution to something you say that cant be solved, the problems there nonetheless, the noobs wont notice it beacuse they dont fight it, the tourney players will still only play coop and high os player will still complain their asses off and all youve actually managed to do is make fatboys have more counterplay while fucking everything else up, i mean im not a balancer or anything but it feels like youre shooting a rpg at a single wasp in a whole nest of them

[tawny canyon]

Balance isn't only about coop :/

[next iron]

the point is to alleviate the problem, it means reducing it

[coral meadow]

by that logic you should make geo smaller too. geo is much stronger coop target

lets be real, the real justification should be about feeling that reclaiming solars is a pain, and "spikiness"
who complained about cooping fusions in tourneys? did anyone say "oh I wish I could split my economy in the tournament, okay lets make fusion cheaper". that doesn't matter cause everyone is full cooping fusions in tourney anyways

[tawny canyon]

I want to keep the eco spikes in because they make the game fun and not smooth brain

[next iron]

yea geo should go as well but I mean mean map makers can also just not put them everywhere on solar maps

I was the one that brought up fusion, every tournament game on solar map theres 0 action until the fusion is finish its really bland

[coral meadow]

they just need variable strength geos. either scale their power to be appropriate for map or put them in more exposed locations

[next iron]

going from 150 metal cost 20 energy production to 3.3k metal / 750 energy production is still going to be spiky dw

[tawny canyon]

350/80 dont you mean?

No one going fusion off of basic solars

[coral meadow]

pushing is just risky, and without e economy you can't spend metal from wreck anyways. t2 + solar-->fusion transition is the most reliable strategy

na they go solars off basic solar in tournament. because you have enough metal, asolar is good in specific situation where you don't have t2/metal for fusion, but you have time.

[rich kindle]

but is the alleviation justified by the amount of changes which try to fix it by collateral, what about coop builds that dont make fusions

there are many ideas to alleviate coop which are targetted and directly attack it, making fusions cheaper, is just lessening the jump, and by collateral it nerfs coop somewhat

[next iron]

no thats not what I mean, adv solar are still trash even at 80 at high level

[tawny canyon]

Not in 8v8 tho, you can reclaim 3 basic solars per adv solar and still have +20 e

[coral meadow]

in solo tech build asolar is good to conserve metal. because metal is your constraining factor, you can take the extra time to make asolar and reclaim solars --> the most metal effecient, but takes a lot of bp -- slow. ofc wind + estorage is another metal light, bp heavy strat.

[tropic river]

80->750/850 is still a big jump if you think abot it 🤔

[pine violet]

The more intrusive change at least has a chance to be worth it, so I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt. It still has problems, especially with t3.

The fus change is very clearly not worth it and is the easiest to just drop, yet for some reason it was kept

[tawny canyon]

For arm it's even smaller of a jump, only a 150 metal difference between 10 a solars(800) and 1 fusion (750)

[coral meadow]

that neglects the very high e cost, and higher bp cost

[tropic river]

if you wanna make 10 asolars instead of a fusion then go for it

[pine violet]

Although given that we've kept the fusion change, it' s clear the bp would've been kept regardless of merit, so maybe we should revisit it too once we make decisions basen on someithing other than a few people going "meh, not too bad"

[tawny canyon]

I neglected the high e cost because t2 e costs put a damper on it

[next iron]

the more intrusive the change, the more it needs to solve to be worth it. fusion changes are the least intrusive and solve the most and no one has shown evidence of otherwise. that being said I agree that if a change is not widely accepted it should just not go in, including fusion

[pine violet]

Solves what, exactly? A problem nobody had but could possibly have in the future, because strategies tend to improve over time?

All at the cost of a major blow to game feel

[next iron]

im pretty sure alot of people complain about fatboy / tzar and how they cant afford the counters to those as solo players because they are locked behind high energy cost which is locked behind 4k fusion

show evidence of new fusion giving a major blow to game feel otherwise you're just repeating yourself and we can agree to disagree and move on

[pine violet]

How am I supposed to produce evidence of that? The closest I can do is polling people, and we already did that

[tropic river]

if the change was in reverse and fusions were originally +750 but changed to be +1000 do you think people would be praising the new game-feel?

[tawny canyon]

#1447323521662455910 message
Most reacted piece I've seen

[pine violet]

You can't put game feel on a chart. How much less fun is the game with absorber shields instead of deflectors. Exactly 3.28%?

[next iron]

if its such a major blow im sure you can go in skirmish, make up an hypothetical scenario, and compare the new fusion to old fusion and type a couple words how the new fusion completely changed your experience in a bad way

[pine violet]

I can give you one of my ai games with "this is ass" attached to it if you want

[tawny canyon]

It changed my experience because it felt brain dead to eco. All my decisions were already made for me by the patch.

[next iron]

then how are you still making asolar

[pine violet]

Unlikely anyone would be vocal about it, but it would feel better and that's what matters. Maybe we need 10 changes like that and people would notice the game is better than a year ago overall. I don't think anyone is looking for them

[tawny canyon]

Idk, I'm not thinking about it but it works cause of the patch

[pine violet]

As it stands, the game does not feel better than a year ago. Some reasons for it can be considered justifiable, but then there's fusions

[coral meadow]

If you go solo tech into fusion you are dead from the metal cost, 3 or 4k makes no difference.

[next iron]

wdym?

[real dirge]

In that comment you write "With adv solars and fusions being so close together metal wise, where is the risk?".

The issue is, that they aren't close together metal wise at all! I mean they get close over time but in such a long time that this doesn't matter in an actual game.

There are situations when ASolar is great (and was great before the patch as well).
But if fusion is on the table, then ASolar is almost always a terrible choice. At that point either build solars, or the fusion.
Build solar if you want E on the short term, fusion if you want it on a longer term.
Build asolar if you don't want E...

[tawny canyon]

It's a 400 metal difference between cor and a 150 metal difference between arm. Tell me that's not close together with a straight face

[coral meadow]

If opponent does tzar or fatboy rush try building a fusion. It's not even remotely possible, unless we talking tourney coop meta.

[next iron]

well yea you sacrifice your entire front for it im aware but the point is after your fusion is finished youre able to play the game 1k metal earlier, that can be a full minute depending on the map. its not the objectively good strat most of the time (especially not against coop) but that time definitely makes a difference

[coral meadow]

So you sacrifice 1000 metal reclaim and 8 mexes for a fusion? Never worth it if your opponent knows what they are doing.

Assuming no or low coop from both sides

Where the fusion matters is if they continue to make fatboys, and you want to be able to make multiple snipers.

[next iron]

on wind map its obvious
on solar map not so much

3300 metal 18k energy for new arm fusion at 750 e/s
the other side builds 4 adv solar + 22.5 basic solar for 750 e/s for a total cost of 4775 metal and 20k energy
thats 1475 metal and 2k energy diff for the same production. thats how much damage the fatboy needs to do in the small window its uncontested

also youre losing 8 t1 mex on front in your scenario but gaining some T2 mex in the back which are 4x the income of T1 mex

[coral meadow]

Early techer rush and greed happens on the scale of individual t2 mexes and sneaking in t2 cons, no way building a fusion is an option unless when your front is winning hard.

[real dirge]

So let's say you want to build that 10 ASolars and you have 800 BP/s.
You will spend 3500 metal and in about 120 seconds those ASolars will produce you 0 E, they will pay their own E cost back at that time.

If you build a fusion instead with the same amount of BP/s, then at the same 120 seconds mark you will have produced 21k E.

But of course those ASolars will produce you an extra 50 E/s, so they will catch up eventually, in about 7 minutes...

But you might say, that fusion is more BP efficient so you might not be able to afford it with that 800 BP/s. In that case you can build solars. Let's say 10 solars (which is only 1550 metal) again with the same 800 BP/s. Those will produce you close to 20k E as well at the 120s mark.

This is how this situation looks like on the chart:

[coral meadow]

T2 mex costs money, bp, and e to make. You jave to pay for extra bp to make fusion and reclaim everything

Pure tech rush build only needs like 300-350e, if you are laning first it's about 500+

[tropic river]

I think there's no way it would play out that way, it would be like increasing current fusion size by 30%, people would just say it felt worse because it's too spiky

[coral meadow]

True the more bp and solar you already made the more attractive fusion becomes.

[next iron]

im tired so I cba to make it optimal right now but it should be good enough to see the difference,
https://youtu.be/XXegOVSgiBg

ah I even made too many adv solar on right side rip
point is, the side making fusion is always up on energy

[pine violet]

If you increase it to 1.3k, it is worse. Fusions are good where they are

[tropic river]

what about 1.1k? 900? what I'm getting at is there isn't any rationale here beyond things feel good how they are because that's how they are

each of these values have their own tradeoffs and gameplay implications but that's not what's being analyzed here

[next iron]

change is scary

[pine violet]

But they do feel good. Bar is a good game, actually.

I don't know how we arrived at the current fusions, but I'm glad we did

[tropic river]

I mean you can say that the number some guy picked in 1997 because it's a power of ten happens to be the best most optimal value for all time, but I'd like a little more reasoning to go with it?

[pine violet]

Probably is, and probably there's inherent value in being a power of 10 too. If it wasn't the right number, probably wouldn't have kept it for 30 years

What reasoning do you want? I'm not a psychologist, not even an armchair one, I don't know why things feel good. I gave the inherent excitement of spikiness as my best guess. 1.3k is too much for balance reasons, you actually can't afford it. Maybe there's an argument to be made for adjusting the rest of the game to make 1.3k feasible and that would be better

[tropic river]

well it's not me specifically that you'd have to convince, but "this is how it's always been" isn't a persuasive argument imo

[pine violet]

This is how it is and we have a good game on our hands

Proven over 30 years to feel good

Allegedly, anyway, I didn't play much ta. Wouldn't even know if it has 1k fus

[tropic river]

the counterpoint would be that almost every stat has changed many times over since then, why should any value be sacrosanct? isn't the game basically robust enough to absorb modest stat changes like this?

[pine violet]

The counter-counterpoint is that you changed so many stats and nobody said anything, so dismissing me with "change is scary" when you touched something you shouldn't have makes you blind to what you're doing

I may be equally blind in my ability to explain why humans find things fun, but this isn't actually my responsibility. I'm not on the BLT or GDT, they should know what they're doing, not argue they're just as blind as me and I failed to illuminate anything sufficiently

isn't the game basically robust enough to absorb modest stat changes like this?
The game is robust enough to absorb it, it's not turning to complete shit overnight because you changed the fusion. But this isn't an isolated change. Exhausting the game feel budget with changes like these is not remotely worth it when you also have to slow down the bp, remove cloaking from jammers, kneecap com trans, remove deflectors, and whatever 100 other detrimental changes you have to absorb. Being worth it doesn't make it any less detrimental to game feel, and the fus is not worth it.