Reduce t3 stationary arty cost

[Stratocaster]

I think the right cost for a t3 arty would be the current cost of the Scathis.

That seems like a rather arbitrary way of cost balance, even more so since the Scathis is being complained about for its seemingly arbitrary balancing methods.

You gotta think what happens when people start building more than 1 arty, and the alternate ways of using that mass. It's like, why send 3 fatboys at someone's fortified base, when they have a nuker which can kill all 3 fatboys. Make an arty instead. But if Arty is as cheaper than 3 fatboys or GC, if 1 GC can't break through, why bother making GCs at all, when you have cheap Arty? The balance is rather delicate.

[noms]

63k mass is way too cheap for a T3 stationary arty.

a 10% cost reduction to around 81k is a better proposition.

no need to encourage turtling...

2 T3 arty will present serious problems for the defending team and with the current stationary shield nerf behave like a game ender.

[Seleucus24]

I think the cost now is fine, the weapon is very good with the current shield nerf at destroying bases even singlehandedly. As such 90k mass seems reasonable. If shields get buffed again then a mass reduction would be warranted.

[pip]

I proposed this number because the shield nerf will probably be removed. With unnerfed static shields reducing the cost by 10% won't be enough, t3 arties cannot go through shields. If the shield nerf remains, the current price is fine.

[eXivo]

it should probably cost around the cost of a scathis right, seeing as the scathis has more dps and the arty has about twice the range (the scathis moves though)

i suggest something around 54k-57k mass (the shield de-nerf will probably be voted yes)

[Stratocaster]

If you lower the cost of T3 arty, you're gonna need to rebalance the cost of other units that are balanced according to the cost of t3 arty. For example, the Mavor and Salvation are balanced to be equivalent to about 3 T3 arty. The Satellites are kind of balanced accordingly too. The ultimate game enders, including the Paragon and T4 nuker, were sort of targeted at the 250k mark. It would make it easier to fit into the whole balance of things to tweak their stats, rather than their cost. If you reduce their cost, then something else has to give. See the hate over the Scathis and how unbalanced that turned out. If it weren't an exp that doesn't show up very often, due to its cost, people would be crying more about how unbalanced it is, like the old restorer.

[uberge3k]

We should first figure out exactly what the role of T3 artillery is.

It can never be more efficient than an army, that much is obvious. But if so, what is its purpose?

The most logical solution would be to balance its role as similar to that of it's mobile T3 counterpart: something that breaks shields and harasses structures from afar. Note "harasses", not "murders bases". But somewhere between that and the current "can't break anything that's shielded with 0.X% of its cost".

It might also work as a guaranteed base cracker when used in combination with a nuke. T3 arty to kill the shielded SMD, SML to destroy the actual base. Their combined cost would be quite expensive, but worth it as the final option to break a turtle stalemate without going to a game ender such as a paragon or yolona oss.

[Mycen]

I don't know about that. How many T3 arties are you talking about? If the T3 artillery can break the shielding around and destroy what should, logically, be one of the most heavily shielded structures, then it can simply lay waste the rest of the base as well, making your example nonsensical.

Also, you talk about what the purpose of T3 artillery is, but aren't the factions' arties supposed to have different purposes? Consider that pinpoint strikes like the one you mention are only the primary function of the Aeon T3 artillery. The Sera and UEF T3 arties also have distributed damage as a function, and Cybran one isn't designed to take out specific targets at all.

In the example you mentioned, the Emissary should be able to function as you describe. What I've noticed, though, is that, even assuming 100% accuracy (did it's accuracy get reduced at the same time as the Mavor's, by the way? I have difficulty hitting any specific target with them now), since its rate of fire is longer than the rebuild time of a T2 shield, it can't possibly serve in that function. The UEF and Seraphim arties seem fine to me, but the Cybran one seems either overcosted or underpowered. Especially considering the current stats of the Scathis, I'm not really clear on how the Disruptor is ever supposed to be a better investment, except in the most specific of circumstances.


Before talking about pricing or capability changes for T3 artillery, you're right, we should figure out what it's primary purpose is. But do let's try not to forget that faction diversity is also a goal.

[InnocentInstinct]

I just know that in SC2 I got really sick of someone spamming up 20 Long Range Arty and me having to spam up shields. Or my having to spam up 20 Arty to break their 30 some-odd shield gens. Cheap arty and too powerful a shield gen causes a turtle fest, and no one likes that. I just don't want this to turn into an SC2 type turtle fest. I think the current shield is fine, I hardly ever use T3 arty so I'm not sure about the cost of it. Just keep it expensive enough so that one person can't spam up several in just a few minutes.

[Wakke]

If we increase the muzzle velocity, T3 arty might be used against ground armies. The increased splash was already a step towards that.