Forged Alliance Forever

Re: T2 "tanks" needs rebalance

2013-03-21T00:37:45+02:00

There is also an important moment.

All my math in the beggining was done in assumption of perfect focused from both sides and doesn't take overkill into account (for the reason of keeping things simple).

Say tests show that Pillars win vs unmicroed Wagners, but my math says Wagners have slight edge focused.
Mb overkill will eat the edge up, mb wagners will win with like 1 or 2 left for 2000 mass.

But I assume, that if you even build T3 units in current state of things, you don't spam them, but use in limited quantities for whatever strategic goals before the transition to totally dominating T3. This makes the assumption of perfect focused fire strong.

Statistics: Posted by Sunny — 21 Mar 2013, 00:37

Re: T2 "tanks" needs rebalance

2013-03-19T00:36:40+02:00

come on, tell me whats wrong.
mabye i see it and agree on you.

Statistics: Posted by Golol — 19 Mar 2013, 00:36

Re: T2 "tanks" needs rebalance

2013-03-18T23:39:21+02:00

Golol wrote:
yes and you pay for that feature.
the aeons only counter t1 unit is the hover tank what is bad, because the hover tank will barely bee as good as a usal unit because you have to pay for the hovering.
the amphibian tanks of the races should be for sudden naval attacks, easy crossing or assissting your fleet. not the needed unit for land war.
i think that makes tech a bad option for an aeon and he should go spam
but the aurora is bad for spam and because they have such a strong cpunter t2 unit they feel like they should be dedicated to tech.

ahm, yeah no

Statistics: Posted by ColonelSheppard — 18 Mar 2013, 23:39

Re: T2 "tanks" needs rebalance

2013-03-18T23:24:58+02:00

yes and you pay for that feature.
the aeons only counter t1 unit is the hover tank what is bad, because the hover tank will barely bee as good as a usal unit because you have to pay for the hovering.
the amphibian tanks of the races should be for sudden naval attacks, easy crossing or assissting your fleet. not the needed unit for land war.
i think that makes tech a bad option for an aeon and he should go spam
but the aurora is bad for spam and because they have such a strong cpunter t2 unit they feel like they should be dedicated to tech.

Statistics: Posted by Golol — 18 Mar 2013, 23:24

Re: T2 "tanks" needs rebalance

2013-03-18T21:50:45+02:00

yes, but it cant hover, like i said, you cannot compare it

Statistics: Posted by ColonelSheppard — 18 Mar 2013, 21:50

Re: T2 "tanks" needs rebalance

2013-03-18T21:38:10+02:00

i was using wagner for amphi tank comparison.
the rhino is definetly thr cybrans t1 slayer and it costs less than a blaze (after my knowledge).

Statistics: Posted by Golol — 18 Mar 2013, 21:38

Re: T2 "tanks" needs rebalance

2013-03-18T21:25:14+02:00

As Aeon I usually get Blazes mixed in with my force and they seem to do fine, offcourse, I do micro my army a bit. Note that they are cheaper than your Wagner.

Statistics: Posted by Valki — 18 Mar 2013, 21:25

Re: T2 "tanks" needs rebalance

2013-03-18T20:55:06+02:00

well what ky basic problem was that aeon dont have anything on t2 thats worth buying against t1.
the obsidian is useless because of insane overkill and the blaze will never challenge the same amount of mass put into t1 units.
i think an extended range on the blaze like the auroras would help because i personally see the blaze as a t2 aurora (atleast thats what it should be in my opinion)
mongoose or rhinos are pretty efficient at slaughtering t1

Statistics: Posted by Golol — 18 Mar 2013, 20:55

Re: T2 "tanks" needs rebalance

2013-03-18T19:31:52+02:00

Golol wrote:
well but what matters is not simply the rate of fire, it matters if they overkill with 1 shot. and since they do not, they are pretty good against t1

Let's say Wagners vs. Strikers.

Strikers have 300 hp, Wagners deal 200 damage every 4 seconds, and 2x 50 damage every 2 seconds.
Over a greater engagement, there will be strikers with 0 hp, 100 hp, 200 hp, and 300 hp.

Assuming the Wagners big gun engages a random target each time, there is a 33% chance to overkill with the main gun.

However, if you are naturally transitioning into Wagners then you will have Mantis mixed with Wagners. So, with 8 damage on the Mantis, Strikers will have 300 hp, 292 hp, 284 hp... etc.

Effectively, there is a 9% chance the Wagners small gun will overkill, and a 33% chance for the big gun.

Notice I didn't take a cheap example such as a 140 hp Aurora.

Statistics: Posted by Valki — 18 Mar 2013, 19:31

Re: T2 "tanks" needs rebalance

2013-03-18T19:11:29+02:00

well but what matters is not simply the rate of fire, it matters if they overkill with 1 shot. and since they do not, they are pretty good against t1

Statistics: Posted by Golol — 18 Mar 2013, 19:11

Re: T2 "tanks" needs rebalance

2013-03-18T19:09:57+02:00

Golol wrote:
i have tested some things out and in my opinion the blaze is too weak and the wagner too strong.
you can get 6 wagners for 8 blazes and the wagners have about 400 more health and twice the damage!

Blazes have a high rate of fire, 1 shot every 0.3 seconds. They are meant to deal with T1 units.

Statistics: Posted by Valki — 18 Mar 2013, 19:09

Re: T2 "tanks" needs rebalance

2013-03-18T19:08:08+02:00

Golol wrote:
i have tested some things out and in my opinion the blaze is too weak and the wagner too strong.
you can get 6 wagners for 8 blazes and the wagners have about 400 more health and twice the damage!

Blazes are way quicker to build and have hover.

Statistics: Posted by ZaphodX — 18 Mar 2013, 19:08

Re: T2 "tanks" needs rebalance

2013-03-18T19:06:17+02:00

they are not compareable, take obsidians vs wagners instead

Statistics: Posted by ColonelSheppard — 18 Mar 2013, 19:06

Re: T2 "tanks" needs rebalance

2013-03-18T19:01:29+02:00

i have tested some things out and in my opinion the blaze is too weak and the wagner too strong.
you can get 6 wagners for 8 blazes and the wagners have about 400 more health and twice the damage!

Statistics: Posted by Golol — 18 Mar 2013, 19:01

Re: T2 "tanks" needs rebalance

2013-03-11T13:31:56+02:00

armor type: Normal

Stupid enough question, but what armor type means?

Statistics: Posted by Yama_Dharma — 11 Mar 2013, 13:31