Destroyer and railgun carrier rework and bug

Balance discussions for The Nomads.

Moderators: Softly, pip, Brute51, CookieNoob, JJ173, Moritz

Destroyer and railgun carrier rework and bug

Postby Apofenas » 29 Oct 2014, 15:07

Me and Ithilis dislike destroyer and railgun carrier. It's actually really hard to play for nomads on navy. And 70% of that is destroyer being unable to shoot torpedoes. It's just too easy to lose railgun carrier to any kind of damage, you also get countered even by t1 sub fleet if enemy knows you build 1st destroyer. Also railgun carrier isn't a good unit itself because it has bad anti-torpedoe - railgun weapon which is weapon and defence at the same time(and that's terrible). So we thought about re-work here into more common style:

Destroyer: front gun 150 dps, back gun 100 dps(with 80 range), add rail gun 40 dps(with 45 range); So 250 damage above water - means it's better than cybran or aeon destroyer from range, but worse than uef one in close combat. In fact 290 dps total is worse than any destroyer in close fight.

Railgun carrier rework to cooper style unit and rename. I'm not sure about stats here, but it should have standard torps(may be mixed with rail guns like aeon destoyer) standard torp defence and should be 1.5 more effective than cooper(since it costs 1.5 times more), but have a bit more hp/mass due to nomad fleet not having any shields compare to uef.

Remind about bug. Sometimes trees don't disappear on starting positions: for example bunnyroanoke. I told about that a couple times and it wasn't fixed yet.
When we had ZeP's ladder system I played more 1v1s on only Winter duel, than I play actual games in current trash they call ladder. Makes me so sad.
Apofenas
Evaluator
 
Posts: 656
Joined: 21 Jul 2013, 14:39
Has liked: 137 times
Been liked: 137 times
FAF User Name: Apofenas

Re: Destroyer and railgun carrier rework and bug

Postby pip » 29 Oct 2014, 22:00

Ok for the bug, I reported it the proper way this time.

As for Destroyer and railgun carriers, they will not change. It's one of the Nomads specificities. We will not redo the models, textures, weapons, concepts of these units. If you think they are too weak, for instance if you think railgun shots don't "eat" enough torpedoes, it can be adjusted, or if you think Destroyer has too low HP, but the concepts will not change. Railgun carriers have 60 range, it's a much longer range than subs, you can kill a lot of subs from a distance, and their weapon is not concerned by antitorpedoes.

Don't forget that Nomads Cruiser is the best in the game, and that you can counter an enemy Destroyer with Cruiser + Frigates / railgun carriers. Nomads players have to play differently, especially they have to keep building t1 subs, even at t2. Their t1 sub is quite strong (more DPS than others). Not to mention the recently buffed t2 gunships.

As usual, Nomads need a mix of units to be efficient. They are the opposite of Seraphim.
pip
Supreme Commander
 
Posts: 1825
Joined: 04 Oct 2011, 15:33
Has liked: 191 times
Been liked: 86 times
FAF User Name: pip

Re: Destroyer and railgun carrier rework and bug

Postby Apofenas » 30 Oct 2014, 00:45

There is 3 problems here: early t2 navy, mid-late t2 navy and t3 navy.

1) T1 subs rape early nomad t2. You build destroyer and your enemy will just either make t1 sub fleet, or make t2 of his own and make t2 sub from it(which will even appear faster).
If you build railgun carrier first, you don't stand any chance versus destroyer or frigates with it. Full T1 sub fleet will still kill the railgun carrier since you need t2 hq to build it.
Seraphim destroyer is insane headache here since it can submerge.
T1/t2 sub+t2 air still wins nomad t2 navy. Railgun carrier costs like 6 torp bombers. Those will kill it even if you have cruiser. After that submarines just go in and kill cruiser and destroyers and frigates in mix have no chance.

2) At mid-late t2 navy the main problem of nomad fleet is less hp per mass and selfish torpedo defence on railgun carriers make it even worse. T2 destroyers+t2 subs mix acts here very well: you either don't build enough destroyers to defend from enemy ones, or build not enough RG cariiers to defend from sabs, or lose RG carriers to destroyers and subs rape rest of the fleet.

3) 2 railgun carriers do no damage to t3 sub - 1st doesn't break through torpedoes and don't completely block them, 2d doesn't brake through torpedo defence -> sub kills railgun carriers without taking any damage. Swarms of t3 subs will have no problems against railgun carriers because torp defence on subs stacks and it will be getting better and better for subs and worse and worse for carriers in range battles.

The way I suggested it, it would still keep main concept of nomad t2 navy, which is mixing units, but would solve problems that i described without reworking the concept too much.
When we had ZeP's ladder system I played more 1v1s on only Winter duel, than I play actual games in current trash they call ladder. Makes me so sad.
Apofenas
Evaluator
 
Posts: 656
Joined: 21 Jul 2013, 14:39
Has liked: 137 times
Been liked: 137 times
FAF User Name: Apofenas

Re: Destroyer and railgun carrier rework and bug

Postby Ithilis_Quo » 30 Oct 2014, 01:54

Apofenas wrote:3) 2 railgun carriers do no damage to t3 sub

you are probably wrong on this one, rail gun is not affect by torp defense. So railgun dont care about torp defense stack, and against subs its superior weapon. And probably rape T3 subs by mass.

I feel that biggest problem is that actual concept is very cruel for mistake. for example first naval, on start you must chose one units what would be first, and when enemy know what you chose or you are unlucky then is very hard to handle it. Like when nomad chose first destroyer and enemy come with T2 subs its game over. Or nomad chose railgun and enemy come with destroyer its game over. on small map its not enough time to make mix of all, for more like only one units from each type. In mix it is pretty well balanced. I personally was balance it:D. But this balance have very sharp edges, and is easy to make fatal mistake what would be critical and close all door to back.

It dont need new models, models can stay as it is,they are fine. it only need new weapon on railgun carrier (can be copy past from cooper x1,5) and change stats. It is not big change, but make less critical unmixed units, or less painful small mistake.
________________

What apofenas dont wirte is cruiser. This units is great, i realy love it. but cruiser is making balance problem. EMP can turn naval on nomads favor very easy, it can be easy OP with destroyer when enemy dont have subs. It is sensitive to make some move for both very critical. And that is not good. So i would suggest change to make cruiser more distractor like stun units. and make cruiser less important units but still very useful. Already is cruiser alfa and omega of nomads navy.

Cruiser rework: rocket: 2 missile fire in one time. 1 hp. muzzle velocity 15. rof 5sec. aoe 3. remove guide missile. dmg 400 for each=160dps. range 100.
EMP canon: range 70, big firing randomness (as T2 mml), fast rof (as bombard mode on EMP tank) aoe 1,5. dps 100 (more as half of shot miss), against shield dps 400. stun 0,3/0,2/0,1 sec = its not exactly stun it is as distract enemy navy to dont be fluent.

In final it is nerf because remove stun, and remove guide missile (-110 dps against navy) but make stronger land bombardment, and fast rocket will have position on static naval battle . would be more support units as now is main naval unit.
_________________________

Yes this all, and others is in reason to make nomads more like others fraction, champfer edges. It is not big change, realy isnt it still have nomads concept, It still is much more different as other navy, but is more forgiving mistake. and its more forgiving when player dont know how exactly play/play against nomads navy.
"Fixed in Equilibrium" Washy
User avatar
Ithilis_Quo
Supreme Commander
 
Posts: 1314
Joined: 29 Dec 2012, 15:55
Location: Slovakia
Has liked: 371 times
Been liked: 171 times
FAF User Name: Ithilis

Re: Destroyer and railgun carrier rework and bug

Postby Apofenas » 30 Oct 2014, 02:38

Ithilis_Quo wrote:
Apofenas wrote:3) 2 railgun carriers do no damage to t3 sub

you are probably wrong on this one, rail gun is not affect by torp defense. So railgun dont care about torp defense stack, and against subs its superior weapon. And probably rape T3 subs by mass.


In this case, what blocks rail gun weapon from 2d carrier to hit t3 sub? I just tested that and rail gun shell just disappears near unit(tested also on cooper), if that is not the affect from torp defence, than it's a bug. In that case it might lead to balance issue to t3 subs being super ineffective against RG carrier, which is not good due to subs being main sera naval unit and their additional cost in t3 HQ.

Edit: I tried to test that, but seems like shells just disappear without hitting torpedoes or be hit by torp defence. Also seems like t3 sub would win 1v2 and that is 100% because of railguns being offence and defence at once and not stacking to protect nearest units: after 1st RG carrier dies, 2d one is just unable to do damage and may be finish sub(not sure), or propertly protect itself.

This is actually a very painful theme here: these 2 units affect a lot of balances in this game at once: destroyer, t2/t3 sub, scu torp and t2, t3 naval balance. It might be impossible to tweak only 2 of 10+(?) units to make this balanced. There will need to be a rework in some way and making it more common to other factions is best one i believe.

As for cruiser, i would be sligtly more conserative: either leave it as it is and tweak it to change, or give it roles of both cybran and uef cruiser at once: direct fire gun for help in battle, like cybran(~100 dps) and missles for bombard, like uef. The missles that don't track targets(which pisses off a lot of people i played with), that shoot at the same time at bombarding mod(like crawler) and ~100-120 dps total with emp(need to see the next patch in action to tell surely though)
When we had ZeP's ladder system I played more 1v1s on only Winter duel, than I play actual games in current trash they call ladder. Makes me so sad.
Apofenas
Evaluator
 
Posts: 656
Joined: 21 Jul 2013, 14:39
Has liked: 137 times
Been liked: 137 times
FAF User Name: Apofenas

Re: Destroyer and railgun carrier rework and bug

Postby Ithilis_Quo » 30 Oct 2014, 11:25

Apofenas wrote:As for cruiser, i would be sligtly more conserative: either leave it as it is and tweak it to change, or give it roles of both cybran and uef cruiser at once: direct fire gun for help in battle, like cybran(~100 dps) and missles for bombard, like uef. The missles that don't track targets


It is exaktly how you say.

EMP is direct fire weapon. Is no reason take another weapon with dmg, when can simply rise dmg of EMP.

you suggest more direct fire dps, and then more effective bombard. But this cruaiser would be definitly op. Compare it with cybran. Only 160dps against navy and 30% of it miss. And any other option. And then nomad with 220 dps against wavy with small stun, and with bombard posibility. Its much more stronger units for same price. And for no reason.

my suggest is about cca 50true dps against navy (with emp dmg), with distract function (ministun) and with 160dps on bombard for short distance but much more effective against land units as other(muzzle rise), but still less efective as destroer. (maybe it can give some dmg on navy too, but only on time when enemy tmd cruiser come) So in midle of cybran and UEF cruiser.
"Fixed in Equilibrium" Washy
User avatar
Ithilis_Quo
Supreme Commander
 
Posts: 1314
Joined: 29 Dec 2012, 15:55
Location: Slovakia
Has liked: 371 times
Been liked: 171 times
FAF User Name: Ithilis

Re: Destroyer and railgun carrier rework and bug

Postby pip » 30 Oct 2014, 13:15

There is indeed a bug with one of the two weapons of the railgun carrier, one projectile dies just before farthest range (57 instead of 60). This will be fixed.

Again, the concepts will not change. There will be small adjustments but no rework. Nomads t2 navy is asymetrical and unique compared to the other factions. That's the whole point, it is fully intentional. Their Cruiser is the jack of all trades of Nomads navy because it is good against multiple types of targets. It is a very strong unit and make up for specialized role of Nomads' Destroyer and Railgun carrier. Railgun carrier is a very hard counter to subs, so any big sub fleet will be easily dispatched by some railgun carriers.

Against Seraphim, in early t2, if you spam frigates + Railgun (and the occasional Cruiser) and don't make Destroyer, you will be fine (at least when the bug will be fixed), that's a way to counter early Sera Destroyer spam. If they submerge, railgun carriers totally own Sera Destroyers, and on surface, they are better, but not too much, because their lasers don't outrange railgun carriers. With Frigates to protect the railgun carriers, you can compete against Sera Destroyers. You can't do the same strategy against Destroyers which have more range, like Cybran and Aeon, and will need Nomads Destroyers to deal with them. Same with UEF : the shield boat will have to be countered by either Cruiser or Destroyer.

Unlike other navies, you may not want to rush Nomad destroyer as your first t2 unit, unless the opponent is going heavy frigate spam. As your navy grows, you will make Destroyers more normally, when its weaknesses are covered by the presence of a few railgun carriers.

All in all, you make it sound like Nomads t2 navy sucks, but if you know what you are doing, it's not true, it's a strong, yet different navy. You have to adjust what you need depending on the faction you face, and the units they use.
pip
Supreme Commander
 
Posts: 1825
Joined: 04 Oct 2011, 15:33
Has liked: 191 times
Been liked: 86 times
FAF User Name: pip

Re: Destroyer and railgun carrier rework and bug

Postby Apofenas » 30 Oct 2014, 14:49

pip wrote:Against Seraphim, in early t2, if you spam frigates + Railgun (and the occasional Cruiser) and don't make Destroyer, you will be fine (at least when the bug will be fixed), that's a way to counter early Sera Destroyer spam. If they submerge, railgun carriers totally own Sera Destroyers, and on surface, they are better, but not too much, because their lasers don't outrange railgun carriers. With Frigates to protect the railgun carriers, you can compete against Sera Destroyers. You can't do the same strategy against Destroyers which have more range, like Cybran and Aeon, and will need Nomads Destroyers to deal with them. Same with UEF : the shield boat will have to be countered by either Cruiser or Destroyer.


There is absolutely nothing nomads can do with seraphim destroyers even if you have correct mix to may be even draw those in unmerge and submerge modes, seraphim players just get in, kill carriers with no problems, submerge and kill destroyers and even ground fire with bombarding mode will not help here.

UEF fleet would have same problem, if there wouldn't be shield boats, torps and torp def on destroyers and coopers with insane torp defence. Nomad destroyers don't have torp, RG carriers don't help fleet, cruiser with its emp is far worse support unit than bullwark.

Same thing with first built seraphim destroyer: you will lose, no matter what naval unit you will build: t1 subs - lose to torps; frigates, destroyers don't shoot underwater; railgun carrier gets killed by surface weapon. You just cannot compete with those.

pip wrote:All in all, you make it sound like Nomads t2 navy sucks, but if you know what you are doing, it's not true, it's a strong, yet different navy. You have to adjust what you need depending on the faction you face, and the units they use.

Only works a single time: when enemy doesn't know nomad units. Next game you will suck even if you do everything right.

May be if you want a smaller change, you could try to put depth charge on destroyer, so it would work only against submerged units and torpedo defence on cruiser, so it would be even more usefull support unit. But i don't think it would change much: any other t2 fleet will still stay stronger/far easier to play.

Ithilis_Quo wrote:EMP is direct fire weapon. Is no reason take another weapon with dmg, when can simply rise dmg of EMP.

you suggest more direct fire dps, and then more effective bombard. But this cruaiser would be definitly op. Compare it with cybran. Only 160dps against navy and 30% of it miss. And any other option. And then nomad with 220 dps against wavy with small stun, and with bombard posibility. Its much more stronger units for same price. And for no reason.


At first, i mostly consider to keep cruiser unchange, even though i hate tracking missle and emp in navy and wanted to get it change only if current cruiser will do balancing work worse than suggested one.
At second, cybran cruiser deals 184 dps with main gun and extra 180 with nanodart launcher.
At third, cruiser that i suggested would do 100 dps with direct fire with no emp and shoot 100 dps missles with emp(and ofc absolver effect), that don't track units. 5-6 emp missles with 100-120 dps total is only 20 dps per missle, that may not hit unit, that may get killed by tmd.

Still there should be no talks about cruiser change and their stats. The RG carriers and destroyers is what has to be done first.
When we had ZeP's ladder system I played more 1v1s on only Winter duel, than I play actual games in current trash they call ladder. Makes me so sad.
Apofenas
Evaluator
 
Posts: 656
Joined: 21 Jul 2013, 14:39
Has liked: 137 times
Been liked: 137 times
FAF User Name: Apofenas

Re: Destroyer and railgun carrier rework and bug

Postby Ithilis_Quo » 30 Oct 2014, 17:58

pip wrote:All in all, you make it sound like Nomads t2 navy sucks, but if you know what you are doing, it's not true, it's a strong, yet different navy.


I know nomads navy is strong. It can be strongest, maybe too much strong. but its very different game play. This suggestion is about give destryoer 40dps underwater - like T1 subs, from only surface dmg, Its small redistribution of dmg. for dont be as fatal when dont play/dont know play in nomad gameplay.

I would not like to see deep charges on nomad destroer its only aeon technology, as is railgun only nomad technology.

You see it as something what must be different as other, but this is so strict that is very hostile for new palyer. They will not, and they are not play nomads, because its too different from other fraction, They need hard learn how to play them and how to paly against comon strategy dont work, and are its very cruel. it is much more complicate as learn how to play cybran when previous play only aeon.

I want to have nomad integrate and would push pressure what help them to be played. People dont play them for some reason.
"Fixed in Equilibrium" Washy
User avatar
Ithilis_Quo
Supreme Commander
 
Posts: 1314
Joined: 29 Dec 2012, 15:55
Location: Slovakia
Has liked: 371 times
Been liked: 171 times
FAF User Name: Ithilis

Re: Destroyer and railgun carrier rework and bug

Postby Apofenas » 31 Oct 2014, 02:08

Ithilis_Quo wrote:I know nomads navy is strong. It can be strongest, maybe too much strong. but its very different game play.


Don't lie to yourself. It is not strong at all. If enemy is not experienced to play against nomads, you can compite and win. Soon as he understands its weaknesses and strong sides, you are no match for him.

The game play is different, yes. It's very close to (cybran+uef)/2. But there are some unique and unknown features and balance decigions that make it extremely complicated and new people just dislike those. Some of those were called shit, some - imba. Right now, the only thing that is questionable for me is nomad t2 navy balance.
May be i suggested it wrong at the beginning, with total reworking railgun carrier. But Nomads still need destroyer with torps and torp defence somewhere. So prehaps you could make it this way:

Destroyer: 150+100 dps(may be better number like 175+125 depending of how it will work) surface guns with current range of 80 and railgun weapon(at least single one) with 30-40 dps and range of 35-40(smaller than standard range).

Railgun carrier: nerf dps a bit and spread it between 3 rail guns instead of 2. Make a second shooting mode, so railgun carrier would try to shoot multiple target at once.

Cruiser: Add torpedo defence.
When we had ZeP's ladder system I played more 1v1s on only Winter duel, than I play actual games in current trash they call ladder. Makes me so sad.
Apofenas
Evaluator
 
Posts: 656
Joined: 21 Jul 2013, 14:39
Has liked: 137 times
Been liked: 137 times
FAF User Name: Apofenas

Next

Return to Nomads Balance

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest