Brackmens are generally fine.
But Loyalists don't cut it on their own, so some suggest buffing the brackman to compensate - problem would be back to old days (which, retrospectively probably weren't bad) where it would be mass brackman spam.

And ground fire is a bit stop-gap, as you can't ground fire + move at same time <.<

Well, to get this thread going again: I can now change buff definitions on research (how much impact it has, like if structure cost decrease decreases cost by 5% or 10% or whatever I like), and RP cost for upgrades.

My question:
What RP costs would you like changed?
What buffs do you want changed?

Right now, my changes are:
Research Point changes:

- Renegade 3 > 2
- Soul ripper 13 > 12
- Intellitron 5 > 3
- Engi Gun 3 > 1
- Command class 5 > 4
- Kraken 12 > 10

- Vulthoo 3 > 2
- Chromehealth 3 > 4
- Airnomo 7 > 6
- Willfindya 7 > 6

- Bombcamera 3 > 2
- AC1K 5 > 7
- Broadsword 5 > 4
- ACU Artillery 7 > 5
- Archanist Direct Fire 3 > 1
- Sharpshooter 3 > 2

Research Buff changes

- Cybran Air Agility 0.05 > 0.1
- Cybran Air Health 0.3 > 0.4
- Bomb camera duration 1 > 3
- UEF Air Health 0.35 > 0.3
- Aeon Commander Range 0.5 > 0.25
- Cybran land Health 0.2 > 0.25

THESE ARE NOT TESTED CHANGES, THEY ARE JUST QUICK SKETCHES. NO REASON TO FLAME THESE. INSTEAD GIVE THOUGHTS ON WHAT IS BETTER.

I will release a new version tomorrow, RP changes included. Any suggestions are welcome.

I don't see the particular need for RP changes, just buffing or nerfing the units as necessary would be better imho. But I don't disagree with any of the changes.

I have to get back to this:

Simply remove projectile leading for Brackman, or just speed up the projectile a bit after that, and see how that balance.

Removing leading projectile from brackmans would probably result in spamming them because if your blob is big enough, you can hardly ever get to the brackmans without losing almost all of your units. I rather like ground fire micro, and leading projectiles tbh...

Well, that's why I never play Blizzard's RTS: too much micro involved.

I rarely see any Brackman been built in competitive games recently due to... I guess it's the micro, and people are whining about how weak loyalists are.

Every self respecting cybran players uses those, actually. Its just the purpose of brackmans you should wonder about. You usually dont mix them in your blob. You use them for holding chokepoints, ground fire while in a blob war, or just to buy time. Not as primary combat unit. Same goes for UEF, demolishers are really good for buying time when rushing a fatboy.

That's what they can do now and that's why Cybran Land is UP. Their role is defined by their attributes. Once it's changed people will fill them into their new role.

Personally I believe no unit should be in a position like the current Brackman or Kraken that you only build them for a very limited purpose. The RP-free Brackman should be Cybran's strength instead things of little value.

If brackmen shells don't miss often evreybody will just spam the brack and the loyalist will never be used again.

Brackmen are awesome, even without ground fire (which makes it so they kill things). Just building a few of them forces your opponent to micro heavily, and prevents him from just charging into your loyalist blob.

This debate has been done to death. Do we really want arties and brackmen to be attacking the players APM rather than his units? Sure, building brackmen gives you an advantage because your enemy will have to micro to dodge the shots, but if I want gameplay like that, StarCraft does that kind of stuff 10 times better.

The problem with arties is that if they manage to hit something, the damage is so great that you can't afford to not dodge it. On the other hand, if you leave them to their own devices, they'll never reliably hit anything against stuff that moves slightly less predictable that a complete straight line. Sure, there is the ground fire mode, but it's implementation is awkward at best. Would it be possible to give them a seperate "ground fire" command that does not require them to switch engagement modes? At least it would be possible to quickly target a spot on the ground without having to switch modes all the time. A toggle to switch shot-leading on and off would be a godsend as well, methinks.

But my central question is: do we like it that arties involve a lot of micro for both the one using it and the one on the receiving end?

Well, in a different game (its probably not suitable for SCom2 by now), I would make arty style units not lead the target, but also introduce incentives for people to stay still. (like dig-in defense bonuses, or more accuracy when stationary.)

So we get the tradeoff between staying still getting an advantage, but making yourself vulnerable to arty, or staying on the move to avoid arty, but losing those advantages.

Yeah, that's the whole point of artillery in real life. But in this game, that role is for MML (destroying stuff that stands still, that is). So what do we want from our arties? Obviously something along the lines of: splash damage against clumps of units, but vulnerability up close and inefficient against small groups. How about giving them a native spread that's quite large at its maximum range, so they can never realiably hit a group of, say, 15-20 tanks? Then we can buff them in some other way, like a lower arc or something. And it would actually be good against blobs, because then spread is only a good thing.

Well, I dont think MML works terribly well against groups of units standing still (hence arty). But anyways, enough from me on this.

I was refering to buildings, which are the only things that can be considered as "fortified" in this game.

- Renegade 3 > 2
- Vulthoo 3 > 2
- Broadsword 5 > 4

I would be willing to try it.

- Soul ripper 13 > 12

Not really a big change here.

- Intellitron 5 > 3

Interesting... honestly think that we should wait on changing this puppy.

- Engi Gun 3 > 1

Most people think adapters are too good. What about switching the upgrades Engi Gun and the Adapter, but reducing the cost of both by 1?

ROF (3) -> Engi Gun (2) -> Adapter (2)

This way you could start defending your base with tank gun wielding engineers from the start of the game, and TMD would cost 7 like Aeon.

- Command class 5 > 4

I would rather improve the Command Class to a more useful level before reducing it's RP.

- Kraken 12 > 10

This isn't enough 22RP total for a unit that doesn't destroy bases doesn't make sense. Reduce the Kraken RP to 6 or 18RP total and test something that might help.

- Chromehealth 3 > 4

I like the current set up, but would be willing to trade the first Chrome Health 5 > 4 for this change.

- Airnomo 7 > 6

I would rather improve the Airnomo.

- Willfindya 7 > 6

I would rather improve the Willy.

- Bombcamera 3 > 2

I would like to see the improvements you made to Bombcamera before we decide to reduce the RP cost.

- AC1K 5 > 7

I would increase the Total RP cost of the AC-1K to 15, so 8+1 if you reduce the cost of broadswords.

- ACU Artillery 7 > 5

I assume you mean the UEF commander. We need to change the range buff back to 50% before we discuss any other rollbacks on the UEF commander nerf.

- Archanist Direct Fire 3 > 1

Not a good idea, this is actually a really good upgrade.

- Sharpshooter 3 > 2

Yes!

Research Buff changes

- Cybran Air Agility 0.05 > 0.1

I definitely want to test this.

- Cybran Air Health 0.3 > 0.4

.3 for 4 RP is already bodacious

- Bomb camera duration 1 > 3

I definitely want to test this.

- UEF Air Health 0.35 > 0.3

UEF don't have a .35 Air Health. I don't see why you would want to change this.

- Aeon Commander Range 0.5 > 0.25

Yes. Patch this naow!

- Cybran land Health 0.2 > 0.25

Doesn't seem fair. UEF pays the same for 0.1.

Here's a few extra:
Reduce the Cost of Jump Jets by 2, but increase the upgrade of Jump Jets by 2.

Reduce the cost of the cybran land speed upgrade from 4 to 3.

Increase the cost of the Aeon land range upgrade from 2 to 3 like the UEF, but reduce the cost of the Harvog and the Willy by 1 if you do.

Controversial, and in need of testing, but lets try to give the Gunship ROF upgrade to the Gemini for AA missiles only. If you do, increase the upgrade cost to 7.

Another controversial, what about switching the Rapid Fire upgrade with the Structure Detonate upgrade in the Cybran Structure Tech tree? This would make structure detonate far more rare, making gunships more viable and allow cybran players to upgrade their PDs quicker to help deal with ACU rush, tanks, snipers, etc.

THESE ARE NOT TESTED CHANGES, THEY ARE JUST QUICK SKETCHES. NO REASON TO FLAME THESE. INSTEAD GIVE THOUGHTS ON WHAT IS BETTER.

I will release a new version tomorrow, RP changes included. Any suggestions are welcome.

Not a bad start.

Change for the sake of change, eh?

Negative just to be a troll, eh? How does this comment help?

It looks like you're trying to change more than you keep the same. You're not making a balance mod, you're making a total conversion.

I agree with funkoff here, you're pretty much shaping the game to your own view instead of just doing balance changes.

Hmm... well im indeed changing a lot, thats true. Still, since Cybran clearly has weaker land, UEF clearly has better naval, Cybran air generally sucks, the Cybran and Aeon commander are generally WAY better than the UEF commander, and that some experimentals/upgrades are generally useless, I thought I'd adress it all. If people prefer, I can make a version where I cut out all of the minor adjustments and only keep the most nescessary stuff though. It just felt like, "OK, we fixed that imbalance pretty easily. How about making this useless ability better if we are busy modding anyways?"

So you think Im overdoing it? What do you think are the imbalances that need to be fixed then?

So making strategies that aren't viable, viable isn't ok by you guys? You need to grow up and open your minds. If you actually play the mod then you will realise that multiple strategies have been made much more viable and thus the all important factional diversity has been increased. Competitiveness has also been improved

And just a fyi, we are also consulting with "top" players as well as a lot of people that play the game for fun.

And who might those players be? You sure as hell aren't consulting spuddy, funk, iron, soviet, cat. 2 of those already dissaprove of the changes, whilst the rest don't care.

Certain strategies more viable? I certainly thought that cybrans already running up to my tanks and blowing up, then jumping around and raping my base whilst I was being blocked by my buildings was viable enough last time I played cat on palms.

Not every strategy should be viable at every single point. Me going gunships against cybran as UEF is very, very unviable. Not to mention going air vs cybran on small-mid maps. Yet you find it totally OK, and only try to change cybran strategies instead by nerfing anything that counters them. I agree, cybran air lacks something, but that's not early game, it's late game where it needs some AWESOME upgrade. That's it!

If you want to influence GPG, you should maybe also consider the scope of the changes they are willing to make.

I don't know if they are able to approve a comprehensive balance change, politically speaking. (GPG staff feel free to chime in ;)

It might be more useful to treat your mod as a demonstration for the "next patch" rather than a "perfect SCom2". So start it off as a showcase for your preferred solution for the most pressing issues faced by the game right now.

Maybe you dont consider it an ideal path to take, but its a more practical one.
(and hey, its less work for you!)


Ultimately though, its up to you Neph, you are the one doing the work, its your mod.
Sometimes having the confidence to believe in your own vision is also important.

But you need to decide, do you want this mod to be:

- your vision for the game as it should be?

- or do you want it to represent a wider section of the community (not the whole community, but a subset of your choice ;) and your own opinions are secondary?