Patch v3251 open thread
Now that the patch is out, and you have had some time to play around with it, what are your impressions? Are you happy with the patch, disappointed, or a little of both? Are there any changes that didn’t make it into the patch that you might still like to see in the next patch?
Also, which changes do you think are the most critical? Is there anything in particular you feel was a standout change?
What is the most important change in the v3251 patch?
- T2 vs T1 rebalancing (30%)
- SAB and T3 rebalancing (22%)
- More intelligent Anti-Air (18%)
- Cost decreases on experimentals (11%)
- Bomber physics changes (9%)
- Billy now being strategic (7%)
- Shield assisting / repairing (4%)
Total Votes: 168
Loading …
May 26th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
I like the T2 vs T1 balancing we have right now. It’s accelerated the teching alot. Finns Revenge is a completely different map now. As is Open Palms.
May 26th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
T2 vs. T1 changes a lot. Reducing siege bot range doesn’t change much at all. T2 PD buff changes T3 battles somewhat, but that’s not directly related to the siege bot changes. T2 has become much more prevalent and useful than it was, so on small maps it’s often the guy who gets a T2 PD or a few T2 tanks up who ends up with a decisive advantage. Before, simple T1 spam would quell T2 tanks easily, but now that’s not the case so much. On Winter Duel if you can get to T2 in less than four minutes you’re in a pretty good spot to take the win.
May 26th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
The game still being broken I think is the most important, though if you only play multiplayer 1v1 or 2v2 ranked you’ll probably never run into it. It’s mostly in skirmish or LAN parties where you actually get epic battles going that you’ll uncover the holes:
http://forums.gaspowered.com/viewtopic.php?t=11610
But besides that, yeah making Billy strategic was kinda lame.
So was breaking/not fixing the Cybran and UEF Air Superiority Fighters.
May 26th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
I think T1 vs T2 is an important change….
Actually… T2 now totaly pwnes the shit out of T1… as it is supposed to do :)
People better have their pointdefences ready before they let some T2-tanks into their base
-Skrie 8)
May 26th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
As far as I’m concerned anything more than 2vs2 is a bit silly anyway. Who gives a toss about those players? They’re not going to be playing a serious, competitive game so why optimise and balance the game in their favour? It’s like 64 player Battlefield servers. Nobody is interested in that number of players except idiot noobs. Everybody who knows the game well knows that more people doesn’t necessarily equal more enjoyment.
Total Annihilation didn’t cater well for games larger than 2vs2 initially. But now it can handle 4vs4s quite comfortably. Of course, the game balance isn’t really that well suited to such numbers. And it’s incredibly hard to find 4 players of equivalent skill, but it works. The bottom line is Supreme Commander can’t, and shouldn’tbe able to support 3vs3’s for another couple of years now, when quad and 8 core processors are commonplace. Just because the top spec machine today can’t max out the game spec doesn’t always mean it’s badly programmed. That just means it scales well to take advantage of future hardware.
May 26th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Molloy, I totally disagree with your first paragraph. As I’ve said before, and as the polls have shown, a large portion of the people who play SupCom and who read this site are not serious, competitive players. In fact, from years of playing games from every genre, I would go so far as to say “idiot noobs” make up the vast majority of the gaming community. Certainly, my experiences in the WoW and Halo communities have only reinforced that belief. Recreational players, financially, make the gaming world exist in the way we know it. So maybe when a few of them ask for a truly epic gaming experiences, whether or not it is an accurate gauge of their skill, they shouldn’t be ridiculed.
But I agree with everything you said in the second paragraph. :)
May 26th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
Molloy: First of all nothing I was talking about related to balance. It related to crashes and game instability. To fix such things does not have a negative impact on anyone.
And yes, most of the userbase plays skirmish much more than multiplayer online. That’s just a fact of the RTS genre.
May 26th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
Also,
“anything more than 2vs2 is a bit silly anyway”
Not when it’s skirmish and you’re playing with a bunch of AIs. It’s actually quite fun, challenging in its own way, and much more approaching the epic scale the game was marketed as. ;)
May 27th, 2007 at 12:15 am
Are these just balance changes that we are voting for? It didn’t say that in the post, you should add optimisation in there because to me that is a HUGE bonus, much more important than the balance changes, but then again, it must be because I run a single core.
My opinions on the poll options.
I can’t say that T2 vs T1 is a good thing since now a couple of T2 tanks can own around 5 T1’s, but I’m not saying I liked the previous configuration either. TA’s configuration of T1 vs T2 was fine (but I don’t know how they would fit in T3 for Supcom), but then again in TA missile truck (Slasher and Samson) rushs were too effective (but they don’t have missile trucks like TA in Supcom).
I didn’t think assisting shields was a good idea because it fed the turtles until I learnt of the cost.
More intelligent anti air will be annoying for some people (including me) since we will have to build lots of bombers instead of craploads of scout screen planes, but there are other ways to kill turtles than just thinking that one air armada of planes is gonna win you the game.
I think cheaper experimentals is a good thing for cracking turtles, but you might end up seeing too many of them in late games, but that’s the only thing I have wrong with it.
Changing bomber physics is fine because it was just a bug that everyone hated.
Billy… now seems redundant, although it was a bit weird to have it tactical pre patch, it should be a tactical nuke, 2x or 1.5x an SCU explosion (and of course reduced damage, something that can’t kill a Monkeylord in one shot, 10k - 20k?) with a cost and build time reduction, and range reduction (so it can’t be used against bases conventionally and is more like the UEF’s area of effect overcharge when the enemy is near), to make it useful for UEF commanders to take out groups of units, instead of it being an actual proper base destroyer nuke.
I haven’t really tried the SABS out against T2 and T1 and base defences yet, so I don’t know about them.
May 27th, 2007 at 12:44 am
Sorry for double post, this thing needs an edit button :D. I also believe that either Mass Fabricators (T3), should either use up a lot more energy or produce less mass than T3 Mass Extractors, not demanding it now, just something that could be considered in future (patches).
May 27th, 2007 at 3:18 am
On the contrary, I believe that T3 mexes should give a substantial amount of mass (at least 24) so that upgrading to them will actually benefit you in some way. Nerfing fabs too much causes the game to be all about one key battle over land, at which point the loser of that battle is pretty much screwed because he cannot retake that land due to lack of resources. Fabs give people who have lost all their outlying resources a chance to get something done; fabs remove (well, greatly reduce) the positive feedback loop associated with winning land battles. The bigger the feedback the better off the winner is and the more likely he is going to win, while the losing player has less and less chance of making a comeback. The loop now is relatively small - the one with the land gets the extra mass from it as well as access to all the fabs and such back in his base, but that doesn’t mean he’s won due to the guy without land having access to fabs.
I’d also go for the removal of the RAS upgrade from SCUs. I’d rather it be an ACU upgrade but much more expensive at the cost of producing many more resources. Being able to build fabs without having to build gens to go with them just because you have SCUs is silly. SCUs have tons more health, mobility, firepower, RAS produces more energy than a T3 gen, and then there’s other upgrades you can get as well to make them even harder to take down. It’s ridiculous and needs to be gotten rid of ASAP. I understand that land controlled shouldn’t be the end-all, but there’s no reason to hold any land whatsoever outside of your base. That’s just wrong, IMO.
May 27th, 2007 at 3:19 am
What does “Billy now being strategic” mean?
May 27th, 2007 at 3:47 am
Billy is the missile launcher that the UEF commander can get from an upgrade, called Billy by Funkykong on the forums to avoid describing the missile every time you refer to it. Even when you upgraded it to a nuke, GPG made a mistake and it was considered a tactical missile so strategic missile defenses couldn’t shoot it down, only tactical defenses could, GPG just fixed that.
T2A: I was going to suggest that, but…I…ummm…forgot….yes…. >.>
May 27th, 2007 at 5:22 am
Optimisation is by far the most important fix idd.
@Molloy: I’d say the contrary.
May 27th, 2007 at 8:46 am
It was a tactical nuclear missile launcher and judging by the name and the description of the upgrade, the only mistake was calling it “strategic” one time amidst several references to it being “tactical”, but they decided to change all that and make it strategic. Oh well. Heh.
May 27th, 2007 at 8:57 am
Sorry if my post earlier was a little heavy handed. I was spectacularly drunk.
May 27th, 2007 at 9:09 am
I think I’ve worked out what it was I was trying to say there. I’m simply just venting about team games. It was spectacularly hard to find a 1vs1 game in the TA Spring community because less experienced players all tend to gravitate towards large team matches on small maps where you aren’t going to have alot of space to expand into, or alot of different angles your base can be attacked from.
I’m seeing this happening in Custom matches for Supreme Commander in a big way. It’s all 3vs3. 2vs2’s are getting less common. 1vs1s are practically non existent.
Ranked matches are brilliant, and I love them, but when you’re not quite on tip top form they can be a bit intimidating. It’d be nice if there were more non competitive 1vs1s on a wider range of maps.
I’m not trying to be elitist about this. I’m just not that surprised that the engine or the net code might crap out if people insist on playing 3vs3s on porc friendly maps. If the game can sort of handle 2000 units then GPG have done a wonderful job and delivered everything they promised.
May 27th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
I’ve never had much trouble getting a custom 1v1 going by hosting the game myself. You’re right that 1v1s don’t seem to be very prevalent though; the last time I checked GPGnet there were zero 1v1s being played or offered. If that fails, just ask in the chat to play someone. D:
May 27th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Well, I’m gonna say the bombing physics for the following reasons:
For me, I never noticed anything between T2 and T1, mainly, because I almost never built T2. :P
Shield repairing, not really interested…
Decrease on experimentals, I normally don’t ever get to the point to be able to build one. :P
SAB and T3? I guess SAB is Siege Assault Bots, they still seem to own.
And the AA priority I think would go hand-in-hand with the bombing, but I put my vote on bombing.
May 27th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Billy.
May 28th, 2007 at 11:41 am
I’m surprised the issue of experimentals isnt coming up. The decrease in cost is astronomical. Now, they are actually usable in ranked games. Even with some of the higher ranking players.
also, something I didnt see in the poll, that I think is particularly important is the greater importance and use of Point Defense. With decreased SAB range and now that pds dont miss, they are incredibly better and make bases much harder to penetrate.
October 9th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Shared Hosting Resources…
I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting…
October 24th, 2007 at 10:43 am
Web Hosting Providers Directory…
Sorry, it just sounds like a crazy idea for me :)…