Hi
Previously (in discord), i made topic about Vulthoo buildtime (bt should be reduced). In the process i went deeper into vulthoo stats and discovered that they are far from perfect.

So i decided to really understand what is going on here and what Vulthoo stats should be if we want it to be "T2.5" gunship, using math & logic to get the values. (I dont really want to do this already but i promised to Rhaelya so rip me )

Key points:

• I assume that Vulthoo should be T2.5 gunship in all the stats (assuming mass cost is constant 500)

• T2.5 gunship here is the gunship between Stinger and Broadword.
  Why Broadswoard? It has no other abilities (Wailer's stealth, Restorer's AA), as well as Vulthoo
  Why Stinger? Its the only t2 gunship which shoots as Vulthoo (no aoe, no alpha-shot)
  I will mention some other gunships still tho

• I will split the post into several chapters to make the brain load less. Each chapter will have some thought about some particular param and what it should be.

Prologue, speed & range

The data:

As you see, currently vulthoo is slower than needed and has more range than needed.

Someone will say "but stinger is the fastest t2 gunship"
Ok, Specter & Renegade have 12 speed, lets calculate "average t2 gunship speed" then: (12 + 12 + 13.5) / 3 = 12.5.
Even with this approach, T2.5 will be (12.5 + 10) / 2 = 11.25

About range, Renegade has the same range as stinger, only specter has 20, which will lead to 23.16 range

So:
Vulthoo:

• speed should be buffed to 11.75 (11.25 if we look not only on stinger) (11.5 average between both suggestions)
• range should be nerfed to 23.5 (23.16 if we look not only on stinger) (23.33 average between both suggestions)

Interlude, about raw power

As soon as i will suggest any change, some people will appear to claim that "but concentraded power!"; Fair enough

To key points here:

1. Concentraded power factor vs flaks: hard to calculate "middle value". I mean its obvious that vulthoo is better than stinger vs flaks, but what stats exactly should be? Size of the gunship? Range? Hp? This is too complicated to make any suggestions, so i completely skip this case because i have no idea how to analyze it properly so it makes any sense.
2. Concentraded power factor vs anything else: this one can actually be calculated!
   Most AA in the game has no aoe (Any air aa: inties, swiftwinds, asfs, t2 bombers, restorers, etc) or has small enough aoe to still completely negate its effect with proper micro (non-sera cruisers, sams, t3 maa) (note: use formation move and some move orders for ez negating aoe of any of these)

So, lets define raw_power as the amount of damage the group of N gunships can do before some ideal target with infinite HP and some single-target AA kill them. And N can be calculated for each resource (mass, energy, buildpower) individually (how many gunships i can build for 5k mass / 50k energy / 50k buildtime, etc)

The formula is:

If we want to see only "real" game values (because we cannot send 3.41 gunships, we can send only 3), we can just floor the values:

For any people wondering why this formula is like this, i will just show this screen and i think this is enough.

Formula is correct according to tests, if you have any doubts free to write below

Chapter 1, DPS and HP per mass

The data:

Raw power, under 3000 mass (left is smoothed, right is "real"):

Raw power, under 20000 mass:

As you see, currently Vulthoo has lower hp/dps values compared to what it should be. In addition to that, it also has lower raw_power per mass (even if you count "concentrated power" effect, its worse)
Yes, in current game balance t2 gunships have better raw_power per mass than t3 at the cost of being bad vs flaks and buildtime difference (about that-later).

Lets try to fix dps/mass according to the table:
dps: 100 -> 111
hp: 1800 -> 1911

The data:

As you see, now it looks more what is should be. On large scale it performs as t2.5 indeed. Under 1500 mass (3 gunships) spended it is very close to stinger by raw strength due to "high mass concentration" factor, and after that cloud of stingers starts to be stronger.

I believe these are right numbers to be. If you worried about "but i will be sniped before even build first flak, i understand your concern, but dont worry, we can balance this with e cost for example. Vulthoo is still much worse vs flaks than broadsword and it should be used on t3 because sera has no alternatives, so being too weak just is a bad idea.

So:
dps: 100 -> 111
hp: 1800 -> 1911

Chapter 2, buildtime
The data, [current vulthoo]

From the data, we can see two things:

1. t3 gunships are far better in raw power per buildtime compared to t2. In addition to that, t3 fac has 3x more buildtime than t2, so you can multiply broadsword score by 3 if you want.
2. Vulthoo buildtime is just stupidly bad currently. It supposed to be better than stinger in (raw_stength / buildtime) because of "T2.5", instead he nerfed below that.

I will draw suggested charts for current Vulthoo and for new Vulthoo. New Vulthoo will have all the stats i suggested above so we need to account for them while suggesting other stats.

What builtime current Vulthoo should have? That is a really tricky question!
Here is the plot, "how much builtime vulthoo should have to be T2.5 in raw_power_per_buildtime terms":

As you see, the answer is really depends on what amount of buildtime (BT) you use. (With current stats, no constant value of buildtime will make raw_power_per_buildtime always exactly between Broadsword and Stinger at any point of the game)
The max value (limit to the infinity, very large armies) of the function is ~ 2437.75 buildtime
The min value (limit to 0, tiny armies) is ~ 1347 buildtime
for BT = 3300: 2026
for BT = 10000: 2247
for BT = 30000: 2364

So, the actual value here should be taken from the point (how many BuilTime will be invested into Vulthoo in the average game)

I think it is not more than 30-50k, so 2364-2400 should be good enough for current Vulthoo.

Here are the charts for raw power with 2370 buildtime vulthoo:

Now, lets go to more instesting part and check out or new Vulthoo (111dps, 1911hp):

The same situation with buildtime, it depends:

But here values are starts from 1587.370786 and going to 2646

T2.5 BT for 30k Buildpower invested is ~ 2575
T2.5 BT for 50k Buildpower invested is ~ 2600
Excel table suggested value which has no idea about "concentrated mass" is 2630, which is still in range

Ok, lets check out 2600:

Looks good

So

new Vulthoo:
dps -> 111
hp -> 1911
buildtime -> 2600

Buildtime can be a bit more if you wanna balance it for ultra-late-game, but nothing more than 2646 make any sense.
Can also be a lot less if you wanna balance it for more early game usage instead.

Chapter 3, energy cost

The data, [current vulthoo]

Intresting! Finally, green numbers!

Now let me explain what is going on here:

1. t3 energy is much cheaper than t2 energy. For each 100 mass invested into t2 pgen, you get 41.6 energy income.
   For each 100 mass invested into t3 pgen, you get 77.16 energy income
   So basically t3 energy is 1.85x cheaper than t2 energy
2. If we look at vulthoo as pure t2 gunship which is produced on t2 pgens, then current E cost makes sense: 1.85x multiplier nullifies broadsword's high E cost, so current E cost looks fine at 99% of what dps/mass per energy should be.
3. if we forget about 1.85x multiplier and look only on E cost, basically producing all gunships at t3 pgens, then vulthoo has 113% dps / energy and 131% hp / energy it should have
4. if we imagine some mythic T2.5 Pgen which is average between T2 and T3, then vulthoo has 106% of correct dps / energy and 119% of correct hp / energy

Since this whole topic is about making T2.5 gunship, i assume 4) as right point

T2.5 gunship should cost more energy than current Vulthoo costs
for current Vulthoo, its about 11200e.

But we're talking here not about current fraud t2.5, we're talking about real T2.5

So, what energy cost should have new Vulthoo with stats:
111dps
1911hp
2600bt
?
Its about 12200e (22% more than current) to be balanced for imaginary "T2.5 pgen".
If you want to balance for T3, its 13200
If you want to balance for T2, its 10700

These numbers are all from only dps and hp / energy stats, what about raw_power?

[current Vulthoo picture]
Here are 3 charts. Basically, all what adjusting does is shifts broadword ratio to stinger and vulthoo. adjusted_energy_for_t2 makes discount for broadsword cuz t3 energy is cheaper per mass.
Adjusted_energy_for_t2.5 makes also discount for vulthoo & stinger, imagining they are builded on t2.5 pgen (trying to balance both for t2 and t3 at the same time).

As you see, currently vulthoo is indeed considered t2 gunship from energy POV. It has not enough E cost to be t2.5, which can be partially responsible for its current horrible stats.

[new Vulthoo picture]

Yep. Now, spamming Vulthoo at t2 pgens will not give you more raw_power / [adjusted_energy] than spamming broadsword on t3, but using t3 pgens you still will have more, as it should be for t2.5 gunship.

So
e cost: 10000 -> 12200

Conclusion

Current Vulthoo is not even near t2.5 gunship level.
Right T2.5 gunships stats are:

Speed -> 11.75 (Or 11.25/11.5, see prologue)
Range -> 23.5 (Or 23.16/23.33, see prologue)
Hp -> 1911 (chapter 1)
Dps -> 111 (chapter 1)
Buildtime -> 2600 (or from 1587 to 2646, see chapter 2)
E cost -> 12200 (chapter 3) (also see post below)

These are correct stats for T2.5 500mass gunship
From all the above only E cost is somewhat arguable, because the result is really depends on "do i adjust for t2/t3 pgens factor and if yes, how?". (Depending on how you adjust for unit tier, i got up to ~15300 e cost as middle one)
Make hp/dps/speed less and now its not t2.5 really but some strange abomination.

Lololol
That's gonna be really funny

No whoring builds, pure fun and skill. Love it

My greetings

In a rare moments when i have free time to play the game I catch myself thinking 'why don't i go ladder right now?'
And in 70% cases inner voice says: "Wait, what if you got 20x20 map? Do you really want to sweaty macro play for the next 30-50 mins?
And then i just go to testing or other less stressful activity

So, to the point:
Why dont we let players choose map size in ladder?

Just let to choose 5x5, 10x10, 20x20 or any combination of these
and calc rating separetely for each map size

What we gonna get?

• Incresed ladder online: its easier to go ladder on your favorite map size

• Less time to found a match Just result of prev. For a high-rated players it's quite difficult to found a ladder match, and this'll help them (just pick all the categories, not one)

• More fun Just because some people adores 5x5, some hates. Now every player will be more happy

What we gonna lose?

• Simple one-for-all-maps rating After ladder dividing we will got even more rating numbers (one for each map size). May be that looks not very nice (and will make rating system more complicated), but in fact this doesn't create any discomfort in the game for the players

Actually, i don't see other disadvantages
Well, may be after this change we'll must increase ladder map pool, but that doesn't seem like a serious problem

So, what do you think?

make stealth field and delete aeon t2 army when he is pushing you, for example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIDYryiuNzw

all neroxis maps are good but still 33% of 20x20 is too much
imagine to play almost an hour and then lose it
1 hour of time, and for what?
5x5 and 10x10 value your time much more than 20x20, that's why i dont love what we have for now

pls make 20x20 less likely :C
too much time for too small amount of games

@morax
Question 1:
I pretty like all the types of random maps, there is no such which i dislike. We love neroxis for randomness, it won't be cool if one of the map types will have much more chance than other

Question 2:
All was fine. I had maps with a really lot of reclaim, have maps with some reclaim and maps where's no reclaim at all. All is ok for me

Question 3:
I played a bit worse, but mostly because innactive and my tries to change game style.
And because there was really a lot of 20x20. And i am suck on 20x20, so my rating is droped a bit

Question 4:
5x5 are fun and quick
10x10 are the best, balance of quickness and gameplay variety
20x20 are the worst, really long games, takes a lot of time and effort, while victory is the same as for 5x5
really want to different queue for them or something like that
i sometimes have no mental strength to play it and don't go ladder because of it

Question 5:
i personally love neroxis more than static maps, so i dont care if we deleted current map pool and place neroxis instead, forever. But me is me, 1 neroxis week in each month will be better than 1 neroxis month and then no neroxis for no-one-knows-how-much-time
want it as regular event

Question 6:
i really dont love orange and red maps, it hurts my eyes a bit
white and green are the best, nice and clean
other is ok

Also, can i know, when the next neroxis ladder event will happen? Can't wait for it

For now TML's shift is bugged and clearly broken

How to simulate bug:

1. build TML
2. Make some targets for it (i dunno, mb ground fire will be also bugged)
3. Order to launch rocket into few targets in a row
4. Cancel one order after every launch (to not launch two rockets into the same target)

So, basically after one-two launches tml just stands with an attack order and do nothing

I also tested it with cancelling order and giving the new one, still happens quite often

Fix it pls

Stays with an attack order and doesnt shoot forever

Sign me up
ETFreeman (1400 ladder, 1590 global)
Had inactive for about 6 months but i'll try my best

I was very excided about "New 1v1 Ladder Map Selections", where was said about the intention of matchmaker team to eliminate very small or large maps and extremely high reclaim maps, and focus on more consistent ladder experience
I was thinking about "no 5x5 (sad), no 20x20 (good), more 10x10 (15x15, maybe?) open palm-ish (gold standard for me) type of maps, no reclaim mountains etc

And now i am extremely disappointed
They indeed removed 5x5 for 1200+ (sad, but doable)
But now from 8 maps i got 3 20x20, so if press a btn i got large map in 37.5% cases
More over, i have no idea how Bermuda Locket (20x20 map with reclaim mountains) can be in the pool where supposed to not be large maps and maps with reclaim mountains
Crossfire canal also, it is again large map, and you can say anything, but you cannot say about any "consistency" in ladder gameplay when this map in a pool. The land paths to enemy bases are non-existing there, so you cannot push with land spam directly, which is maybe fine alone, but not with the fact that navy also fights in thin water tunnels. The crossfire canal gameplay differs from average ladder map very drastically. And this is only the cherry on the cake, it shouldnt be there just because its 20x20.
I cannot say anything bad about point of reach except its size tho (yes, direct land push is impossible, but atleast navy gameplay is "as always"). As with all 20x20, the game length there can be very different than 10x10. Cannot see any sense being 20x20 in a pool where is no 5x5 for "game length should be consistent" reason.

Additional feedback data:
Im 1600 1v1 ladder
here is the tier-list of current mappool:

as you see, the pool overall is not so bad
Bad is the fact that i got 100% of S-tier maps and 62% of A-tier maps deleted just because im in 1200+ bracket
With 37.5% of 20x20 maps in my pool i surelly will press the btn less, will probably just switch to 3v3 where you have no 20x20 in the pool at all (also the pool full of neroxis is very tasty) (lol, why we have 20x20 in 1v1 and dont have it in 3v3)
You gain rating, you get more of shitty maps, i think this is not how it should be working
Veto system would be help, if i could atleast ban bermuda and crossfire it would be good enough (except the map pool of only 6 maps is kinda small). Also in this case you can add couple of 5x5, so 20x20 lovers ban 5x5, and 5x5 lovers ban 20x20, everyone is happy
Without veto system, i think the max map size should be capped at 15x15, otherwise i doubt about any consistency in game length / gameplay.
the link to make ur tier list: https://tiermaker.com/create/faf-1v1-ladder-mappool-0923-16127913

@valki yea, i tried split attack too
even if i cancel first order after shot and give second split attack order immediately after - they dont shoot
have to repeat one order few times to just fkn launch them, that really sucks if you have to control other parts of map too

@keyser how sera can push on t2 when his army dies from overcharges faster than any other?
other factions have either sheilds or cheaper units or both of it
overcharges are the reason why sera can push vs enemy com only on early t3, with some shields

until that sera has to avoid enemy com unless he has a way bigger army

@jip As i wrote, we can have 3 separate rating for each map size
Just more detailed info about the player, tho
Here and now i (we) actually play not equal on different map size, with that change we just will know more precisely, how big is the gap

And when you will host global lobby you can check the player skill on hosted map size, isnt that cool? (well, only if he's playing ladder, but stilll)

@Auricocorico i dont want to choose the map, i wanna play random
i dont want to host the lobby
i dont want to play with the same dude each time
i dont want to wait too much
global rating is bad for describing 1x1 skill, so in global i have no guarantee for decent battle even if our ratings will be the same

i just wanna press the fkn button and play the equal match on random map, that's what the ladder system do

@ftxcommando veto system is a good start anyways
about "what rating level we’re taking about." - map preferences can be different for person on the same rating level

i am 1300 ladder now (formed 1450 but inactive for a long time)
love 5x5 10x10, dont like 20x20
but i got a friends with 1200 and 1800, that hates 5x5 and loves 20x20, for example
actually, i know 1 more dude with ~1300-1500 ladder (demonstreamer), who is also hates 5x5

and here people writes that 5x5 is good tho
so - different people loves different size, i think
map preferences are not depends only on rating

but for the noobie 5x5 maps can be more preferred, they're just simpler
that's my opinion, to know exactly we need to ask a lot of people or test it in practice

@zeldafanboy said in Epic 0 damage Jesters:

Why do Jesters have AOE it’s a beam weapon lol

it's was added to decrease jester shots miss count... ironic

now range of damage will be incresed from 0.15 to 0.4
fast targets (scouts, labs, blazes) still can evade in some conditions, but overall that's ok

@Deribus said in Sera can't deal with enemy's guncom push on t2 without a bunker:

Solutions:
-Get your own gun, potentially with nano
-Rush T3 land for sniper bots, they're basically guncom hard counters
-Sera T2 air has the highest damage bombers. If the ACU is dodging bombs it isn't advancing as fast
-Sera has the most flak resistant T2 gunships
-Use zthuees to kill them during the upgrade
-First regen field effectively gives T1 tanks 33% more HP vs gun ACU

I'm sure there are plenty of others, but those are a few examples

1)gun is no solution, because you can't OC his units as him. They're shielded. Yours - not.
2)t3 factory is not a thing that you can rush fast enough to play t3 units on mid t2 stage. If you're going to t3 that fast - you will have no t2 spam at all, and you dead again (check it's cost and buildtime)
3)to play t2 bombers you should win the air first. I consider equal situation. Nothas can't win a fight vs t1 interseptors on equal mass, so if enemy has air spam on equal mass - nothas gonna drop 1 bomb, and then air fight happens, and you loses air.
4) same as 3
5) ridicolous. zthuees gonna die from him spam. arty cannot fight vs tanks on early game. And he's gonna upgrade on his territorry, not on my base
6) t1 spam is uselles against his t2 spam. (And t1 field effectively gives T1 tanks 0% more HP vs UEF 200dmg. gun)

any other?

Got a game with my friend and had this ridiculous bug

2-3 Jesters shooting sera ACU for about 10-20 seconds and clearly have intervals when their shots make no damage at all

Video:
https://youtu.be/gzeEiGsqCag

Replay:
https://replay.faforever.com/15177017

Where should i write to to have hope that this is gonna be fixed?

Ok. Lets compare UEF and Seraf. nano-regen ACU upgrade

UEF: 800m/24000e, +1500hp, hp regen +10->+50 (boosts regen +40)
Sera: 1800m/56000e, +2000hp, hp regen +10->+70 (boost regen +60)

So WHY does it costs so much?
Sera pays 2.25x of UEF regen's cost, but gains only +33% hp and +50% regen boost relative to it.

This kinda sucks, explain me please what balance team thought about when decided to write these numbers

@thewheelie
ctrl + k variant and then rebuild new unit is not working for regular units, if the factory is far away
i like the idea of reducing repair cost mostly because it make vet system more viable too
imagine have t2 com and repair damaged ilshavohs to gain them chance to get few vets more, for example
regen aura is strong but you have no way of focus it effect on the most damaged unit, repair can be good addition to it

sounds intresting for me, repair feature is used too rare in the game, would be nice if it will gain some buffs

@sheikah attackers also can have bonuses from it

for now the attacking player have a longer delay in supply (his factories is far away), so it's quite hard to hold captured territory

but if for example t2 com can pretty fast repair all damaged units it will be easier to hold this territory and then attack once again

also attacker's units might already have veterancy so when they will be full hp - they will be stronger than equal enemy army, that's really intresting

Overall, nothing changes: do not fight the battle you cannot win

But a win in battle will be more rewarding (because your survived army will be stronger than before, after repair)