uef/cyb vs sera/aeon

[pip]

About Auroras : Pilot is mostly correct. The unit is designed to be countered by other things than tanks : mainly bombers, and normally labs or any units that are fast enough to overcome their range advantage (like mantis). It's true that labs are probably currently lacking in strength (probably speed more than strength) in the current FA balance.

But the issue with auroras now is not that they are too strong per se but that they become slightly too strong when microed (they can even dodge labs shots easier than labs can dodge their shots = something wrong there). Before, it required a lot of care to micro auroras. Now, it's very easy (good thing, really), but it provides a huge additional strength (too good). It's normal that good micro provides an advantage, but in this case the advantage (dodging + higher hit rate than other tanks when microed) has to be tuned down a little bit. Hence no change is required to 'usual' stats like DPS, range, HP, etc, just a reduction of their advantage when microed => small inaccuracy when they move (= when they are microed).

As for fobos, the list of maps where there are too strong against Cybran and UEF is not limited to Eye of the storm or Haven Reef (they are most op there because of the cliffs from where they can attack). You have to add : Dark Heart, High Noon, The Wilderness, Paradise, Four Corners, and all similar maps because they allow a much easier early map control. Sera players only need fobos + inties to protect them from bombers in order to expand, kill engies, secure wrecks, prevent any expansion etc, and an opponent of equal skill can do nothing against that except if he is Aeon or Sera himself, or just a better player. Aeon has no problem against fobos, for sure.

[Ze_PilOt]

You have to add : Dark Heart, High Noon, The Wilderness, Paradise, Four Corners, and all similar maps because they allow a much easier early map control.

You have to prove me that. It's really easy to defend fobo on these maps.

[pip]

Only map that was in rank among the list I made = the dark heart. Let's have a look at the stats:

Cybran : overall win ratio : 40.06 %
UEF:overall win ratio : 43.45 %

Aeon : overall win ratio : 59.83 %
Seraphim : overall win ratio : 62.5 %

I think it's significant enough to say that Aeon and Sera have a huge advantage on this map, especially fobos (check Sera replays, it's fobos spam all game long, sent in every corner of the map, very easy to do, very efficient). The other maps I listed are of the same kind, the stats would probably differ, for sure, but would be not too far from that.

[Ze_PilOt]

Again, are players do the right thing against them in the first place?

Is there any replay/evidence of the problem? (someone doing the right thing to counter it but failed)
It's not because 70% of the players can't play the map that it means fobo are a problem.

Uberg3ek came with that argument a while ago on balvery (the one with two island separated with a small river).
I did a full fobo spam, all he managed to do was giving me free mass.
But I can understand why it can seems unfair if you don't do the right thing.

[pip]

Blackheart vs Zock, two almost equally skilled players. Sera against UEF on the Dark Heart.

Zock plays with fobos exactly the way they are most efficient and hard to counter : he sends a handful of them early all over the map to kill enemy engies (and even kill wrecks le fourbe!), help secure islands, while he covers them with air and can expand all he wants, then make navy.

Blackheart knows he has to counter fobos so he tries bombers : fails because Zock makes inties, so then : frigates spam, and riptide spam. But he lost map control early, so is at a disavantage, and then it's just a slow struggle to delay the defeat, despite his eco and macro skills. Early game advantage obtained with fobos gave Zock a decisive advantage.

Blackheart is not the kind of player who doesn't know what to do.

[Ze_PilOt]

So it's the same case than eye of the storm : it's just hard because of the hill.

Not the same for paradise, four corner or high noon.

[Zock]

The only time an arty shoot over a cliff was when it half killed a mex in his base by accident. All other fobos, no cliff included. Neither BH or me played that very well in the early gamet hough.

Now its not terribly OP, but the efford for countering compared to the gain is a bit off.

The key problem, aside from attention (its not just one time a few move orders, it would be like 10 times+ a few move orders, it sums up) is that in early game, you can easy atack everywhere at once with fobos. Same with auroras. You just send one everywhere. A frigate can kill 10 auroras/fobos, but it can only be at one place, and it takes longer to get it. So while you can defend one place, the other will get killed. With bombers the same, bombers need air coverage, and you can only ensure that it one place.

Its not impossible to defend, but it is really hard to come out of the early game without a significant disadvantage.

Also as lower the skillevel, as harder it will be to defend. Bomber micro, frigate micro, defending everywhere at once, microing engies not to get hit..all this things are really hard for no top players, while sending a bunch of fobos, pretty much everyone can do.

That goes for the watermaps we have now. On the maps you listed, its even harder, because you can combine the early hover pressure with ACU rush.

Well i just played a game vs petric for you, its attached.


Now to auroras on landmaps. Just because people whine, doesn't mean there is no problem. Bombers are extremly unreliable, and quite easy countered once armies get bigger and you have a few AA + int support. They can kill 12 auroras with one bomb sometimes, but you can't count on it. T2 is reliable, but on most maps, just going t2 will lead to such a mapcontrol disadvantage, that it will be really hard to use it afterwards. Not impossible, but hard. Bombers and t2 can't be the only allowed unit vs auroras, t1 tanks must work to some degree. T2 and bombers, also gun, will give you an advantage over the auroras. But the disadvantage you already have from auroras slaugthering your tanks is bigger. We can either

Its wrong that people don't try to counter auroras properly. They go heavy air, t2, gun. I've had a lot of games with "countering" auroras myself, or get "countered" that way, and saw replays of other people doing the same. It just doesn't work that well.

For each, fobo on watermap, and aurora on land and some degrees on watermaps, it is hard to find a sweet spot, where they are strong, but counterable without putting you in disadvantage from start. But i don't think we have this sweet spot yet.

Also, if people stop whining about the aurora after a change, we can see it was a bad change. But they will still whine, because it still will be strong.

[lebensnebel]

Bombers are extremly unreliable, and quite easy countered once armies get bigger and you have a few AA + int support. They can kill 12 auroras with one bomb sometimes, but you can't count on it.

I don't really see, why few AA + int support deny the counter with bombers:

To be mass-efficient a bomber needs to kill 2 auroras ( 80 vs 102 mass).
Do you think that
1) a bomber will kill usually >2 auroras per pass
2) a bomber will drop at least one bomb
yes/no?

Ofc you need to make an initial investment in power.
From my experience, bomber counter auroras BETTER when they are in high numbers than they do in the raiding/small skirmish phase. Do you have a different impression?

ps: Still waiting for a replay showing auroras cannot be countered by bombers.

well there is no doubt along the pro ranges

is not exactly a proof

[Zock]

To be mass-efficient a bomber needs to kill 2 auroras ( 80 vs 102 mass).
Do you think that
1) a bomber will kill usually >2 auroras per pass
2) a bomber will drop at least one bomb
yes/no?

1 bomber, yes. 10 bombers through the whole game? No.

Killing 10 auroras with 1 bomber? Ok, can do that.

Kill 5 moving auroras + 5 AA, that attempt to raid your mex, before they can do so, with 2 bombers? Unlikley.

And thats the key. You can only cause demage with bombers, but you can't really defend.

If anyone claims bombers are enough to counter auroras, he should better provide some replays instead of demanding some. And then get some other good player to make it work against me. (should be easy if the only problem was that no one tried it yet)


edit: played the high noon vs petric in reverse. I did won that, but you can still see that he got a significant early game advantage with fobos. If he didn't made some big mistakes (too many fobos, they are really bad if you make too many, no acu pressure after start, no usage of navy, not enough air), it would've been extremly hard for me not to lose.

[lebensnebel]

Kill 5 moving auroras + 5 AA, that attempt to raid your mex, before they can do so, with 2 bombers? Unlikley.

Well, if the aeon guy is forced to make so many AA, can't you beat this mass efficient with t1 tanks again?
In this example 7 mantis vs 5 auroras?

If anyone claims bombers are enough to counter auroras, he should better provide some replays instead of demanding some.

Yeah I would like to do that. Unfortunately, I don't really remember a game where someone consistently tried this approach (maybe because everybody knows OR thinks - to be determined - that it doesn't work;)).
In my games (I only play aeon, but not at a very good level) I usually encounter only 2-3 bombers. Maybe people are discouraged when they are shot down after the first pass, because they don't "feel" mass efficient?
Even though strictly speaking, you claim that there is an unbalance, therefore the burden of proof is on you

Anyhow, even if auroras can be countered by bombers, there should be a limit how much better they perform (than other t1 tanks) in a pure t1 spam war. It would be nice if someone could produce a replay with aeon winning the t1 land spam phase. Then we could discuss if the aeon advantage is to big or not.