T3 Gunships

[Morax]

Don't know jack, I think I have to simply agree with galactic here that the culture of an accepted "specialization" spot makes team games suck for me. It obviously bothers others since there is a post on it, but meh.

I'll play a few team games going forward with strict crowd but sick of the stacks and drunk mix (Smurf Hunter-like people) that just make it a flip of the coin as to whether or not fun, calculated strategy will take place.

[galacticfear]

I still think thats its way harder to deal with 6 t3 gunship than with 18 corsair or the same mass amount of t2 gunship or any t2 bomber.

Couldn't you say exactly the same with, for example, percy vs pillars or mongoose for the purpose of acu sniping? The difference is the additional tech cost, and in the case of air especially, energy infrastructure.

[galacticfear]

Don't know jack, I think I have to simply agree with galactic here that the culture of an accepted "specialization" spot makes team games suck for me.

I don't know for certain, but in my opinion you can avoid much of the problems you suffer if you pick team maps without a "safe" rear spot. For example, I don't believe specialisation could occur very easily on a map like the dark heart.

[jackherer]

I still see a way out against early percies or any kind of land unit specially with a "rambo" acu.

And the syrtis were ftx kill me is a good example of the feeling you can have. You go full t1 spam gun + nano, you roll on your opponent at min 9 (sry koopa) deny mercy deny t2 gunship with t1 flak because you just get t2 land fact and t2 flak on their way a little late cause you put all your ressource in spam and acu upgrade. Then you have t3 gunship on min 10 on your head, after you've done the job perfectly with not any way to survive to that.

So for me the first part of the game is how i wanna see fa played. Using acu push, it's the funnier part of the game. Then i get ejected out of this fun game without anyway to counter that.
Or yes there is a way i see, go t2 acu pd shield and turtle

[TheKoopa]

Well I got cyb vs uef Rambo com is it was totally expected

[Gorton]

As with most t3 air, the problem isn't really the air but that someone can sit back and spam air with no danger. Usually either map problem, or just imbalance on airspot.

[Morax]

Well, I would entertain hosting "no air" maps but that would result in a life-long lobby sim.

[Hildegard]

I don't understand the perspective of this discourse; wherein lies the problem but in balancing players, when designated air players on team games build first [t3] gunships with slight regard for their foes response; wherein but in the patience of a teams backbone for not reading match-ups - were the air players unevenly matched? Were not the strengths uneven elsewhere too? If not, fie the host for stacking his games! If yes, is it not the elders responsibility to make something of it, by themselves or by instructing those who in positions most able reside? Why, when in lobby or with a pressing of f11 you discern a 300 rating difference rests heavy twixt the opposing skies, would you insist taking on your foe with all your force, well knowing the intents of their air which your actions will provoke, knowing even this timing: exactly 10 minutes and some seconds?

If the air is reasonably balanced, for one side building [t3] gunships the cost is enough to mark that team a loss if they don't richly prosper from that early firing power. Defied with flak or with superior numbers of interceptors their cost becomes high, and higher still the better the opposing air. And if the airs are evenly matched, wouldn't investing such resources to some early gunships mean they were by strong measures forced to be made, in sacrificial intents of saving a crumbling side for at least a chance to later win the day, since for their price the foe, unless their state was the same, must have made ASF and thus win the air.

High is their cost and reasonably modest is the power of their arms. The problem is not the unit, I deem, but people avoiding their rating-brought responsibility to even out these imbalances through other sections of the map, even if it means investing precious early resources into perhaps an air-directed drop, or manufacturing a less tank-dense army. Remembering the greater cause (as befits team games) should you easier digest the shame of leaving you weaker foe alive for longer than your high skills boast should otherwise be possible.

[Morax]

Who are you, Hildegard? I don't believe I have seen you play before unless your forum name is different from FAF username.

[Hildegard]

A fellow of no great mark nor likelihood, and never seen but in the heat on Seton's shores (please don't scourge me for this sin).

On Aeolus, I heard you call my logic asisine, as [t3] gunships can be produced earlier than ASF's. So it is without a doubt, yet tell me, would you not consider it asisine that entire teams never lift a finger if their opponent air began building t3 gunships with one or two t2 pgens at minute 6 or 7? Did not a scout fly past? Was there no marker laid: "Something is sketchy over here"? Isn't it also a risky move by this rash air? How should he get away with producing units which in mass demand a third of [t3] pgens cost, and in energy a rounded 73% of the same? What's the cost of two or three dozen interceptors to this, evenly split by a team, to shelter their friends from this threat - or have I been deceived? Was the pristine state of teamgames a set of simultaneous ladder games played side by side? On my part I thought the higher the quality of a game, the more each and every player perceived themselves as parts of some greater whole, a team, which by joining small streams of forces can overcome obstacles like a frothing river. Because here exactly is the perspective I can't grasp: why talk of the strength of costly units that are used against you exclusively by players who were not your direct foes, yet in the same breath forget the friends who could have mirrored this act on your foe, or aided you in your defense against this assault.