Forged Alliance Forever

Re: Support Commanders

2012-05-15T11:18:37+02:00

Just looking over the posts on the last page, I would always agree that we should stick to the original vision of the game as much as possible, but SCUs are one of the few areas I feel the devs would have gotten onto making some kind of real change to outside of stat tweaking. Currently they have such a foggy role and are strung out on such a protracted place on the build tree as to never have a good reason to be built, thats even before you get into babysitting whatever upgrades you want on the thing after its built.
I agree with others that making them (along with ACU upgrade) the sole T4 builders sounds like a great start to giving them a role (before we get into how much they cost, how they are built / upgraded etc), but just wondering what are some of the knock on effects of this might be?
Effectively setting back T4 another tech level means that there will be greater use of T3, which could be a good thing, but might nerf some factions like Cybran who rely on early fast T4 to go against powerful land forces like Percies + Shields. Also, in situations where there is limited space (like island maps or late game Isis etc), that huge Quantum Gateway may be a real pain to build (why is its footprint so damn big?!) and be really juicy hard to shield target for bombers, tac missles etc.. It will be a huge sign saying to your enemy, look Im going T4, rush me with T3 now! If you can also upgrade your ACU to get T4, I see people just doing that over the hassle of building the Quantum Gate. Maybe do away with the ACU upgrade, or make it significantly more expensive than going the SCU route in this case? Also, could the footprint of he Gate be reduced? The actual model is the same size as other factories, but is allotted a bigger footprint.
Don't get me wrong, I really like this idea as a great start, but just wanted to hear peoples opinions on these possible issues^

Statistics: Posted by Crayfish — 15 May 2012, 11:18

Re: SCU

2012-05-05T23:16:22+02:00

FunkOff wrote:
SCUs see a lot of use in phantoms and FFAs.... Their build power, combat power and resource generation is not spectacular, but they have all three and that makes them unique.

Of course, one option that is certainly possible is making SCUs the sole-bearers of T4 technology.... which I think makes good sense. Unlike all the other tech transitions, there's no real transition between Tech 3 and tech 4, aside from a 490 mass engineer, which is less than tech 1 to tech 2. That would guarantee that SCUs got some use, because you'd need them to build the super-powerful experimentals.

Diamond did this and frankly I think it's an excellent idea. Add a T4 tech upgrade to the ACU (it'd be just like the T2/T3 arm upgrades but it'd have the circle dot symbol instead of the II/III in a circle symbols) and require SCUs or T4 ACUs for the T4 schematics.

Also buffing T1 air and ground scouts would make a ton of sense and see them actually get play. I think in diamond their HP was basically doubled for every faction. In general a lot of the changes in Diamond would work well in FAF (not all of them though).

Statistics: Posted by Veta — 05 May 2012, 23:16

Re: Support Commanders

2012-05-05T18:15:12+02:00

as for radical redesign yes, you would also have to go over hp and other stuff, also all the upgrades. because even if you lower the cost and buildtime, you will only see them in simcity games.

they are just too big for an engineer at frontlines. and just too small of a power for being something like a miniature experimental for fighting purposes.

Statistics: Posted by Jace — 05 May 2012, 18:15

Re: Support Commanders

2012-05-05T17:27:31+02:00

You're not telling me what I did and did not read. Assuming something like that is completely false.

Just trimming cost and buildtime won't work.

Here is what YOU wrote. I responded with an explanation of the upgrades and how they could be balanced when only changing buid time and cost. That is something completely different from:

You have to do a radical redesign on them

Which implies a possible change in cost, effect, damage, HP, SCU speed, firing randomness, HP regen, sensor ability, build power and also (most important) location on the SCU.

All of those things are involved in a radical redesign and none of them are required, apart from the cost. That is what I pointed out and that is where I agree with pip and disagree with you.

Statistics: Posted by Plasma_Wolf — 05 May 2012, 17:27

Re: Support Commanders

2012-05-05T16:15:26+02:00

So whats your post there for Plasma_Wolf? You didn't even read what pip wrote and what i responded, thats for sure.

So in the end you are telling us the same thing i said, when you make SCUs cost and buildtime cheaper you also have to think over every upgrade too.

Gz for that.

Statistics: Posted by Jace — 05 May 2012, 16:15

Re: Support Commanders

2012-05-05T13:55:47+02:00

Jace wrote:
Just trimming cost and buildtime won't work. You have to do a radical redesign on them. Making them affordable ultimately ends in most of their upgrades being too cheap.

Absolutely untrue. As long as you don't overdo the reduction in cost, then there's nothing wrong. At the moment, they are very expensive for what they can do. Reducing them in cost will make them not so very expensive for what they can do. You claim they will be blatantly OP, as if they have the old bugged cheap seraphim restoration field.

overcharge

Won't do much. Sure you can attack an experimental with it but there's still the same complete weakness against air, long range naval. Plenty of options. As it is now, I got two OC shots at a GC, while attacking it from behind. The cost perspective: 12800 vs 27500 mass. Perfectly fine so that bit can be left as it is. If there is going to be a cost reduction, an HP reduction is going to be done as well, so the SCU won't be OP on the field. The overall outcome won't be much different.

teleport

Is the only one that could be dangerous. The cost can be made perfectly in tandem though. Additionally, an SCU teleporting takes 30 seconds opposed to the ACUs 10. An SCU that teleports will not be able to get away again.

ras

Only has to be about as powerful as a T3 mass fab. As it is now, I'd say the cost/benefit ratio is perfectly fine.

shield bubble

Take a look at the math work I've done. Cheapening it in terms of build power and perhaps energy will get you closer in terms of a T3 UEF shield generator. If you stack 20 of those together, I'll just go attack someplace else. Really not a problem to just cheapen it. If it actually turns out to be too powerful, either make it a bit more expensive or reduce the SP a bit.

you can already tell now that it wont work otherwise.

I can already tell that it will work perfectly fine when you fiddle with the numbers a bit. If something is not working because it is too expensive, just cheapen it a bit. If something is working too well because it is too cheap (ML was an example of this at some point), just make it a bit more expensive.

TL;DR just get to work with the build time and cost reduction, there's no need to completely overthrow the upgrade system. Absolutely not.

Statistics: Posted by Plasma_Wolf — 05 May 2012, 13:55

Re: Support Commanders

2012-05-05T12:48:29+02:00

Just trimming cost and buildtime won't work. You have to do a radical redesign on them. Making them affordable ultimately ends in most of their upgrades being too cheap.
If SCUs are affordable you have to completely overthink upgrades like overcharge, teleport, ras, shield bubble,..... you can already tell now that it wont work otherwise.

Imagine a few Sera-SCUs with overcharge? Or a base stuffed with 50.000 shieldbubble UEF-SCUs? Or 5 Aeon SCUs kamikaze-teleporting into your base?

Statistics: Posted by Jace — 05 May 2012, 12:48

Re: Support Commanders

2012-05-05T12:13:20+02:00

There are interesting ideas in this thread, but I'm against a complete rework of them. I'm positive SCU can be tweaked, in two steps.

First, a cost and buildtime reduction that would make them affordable and not a waste of ressources and time, along with a proportional HP reduction (for instance, if cost reduction is 50%, then HP hare 50% lower). Let the players toy with these for a month or two.

Second, if after a phase of adaptation, big dicrepancies are found between the different SCU because of upgrades, the problematic upgrades get adjusted.

Statistics: Posted by pip — 05 May 2012, 12:13

Re: Support Commanders

2012-05-04T20:12:08+02:00

Topics merged.

Statistics: Posted by Ze_PilOt — 04 May 2012, 20:12

Re: SCU

2012-05-04T18:56:23+02:00

Bump

Statistics: Posted by Crayfish — 04 May 2012, 18:56

Re: Support Commanders

2012-05-04T18:55:47+02:00

Guys there is already a thread about SCUs here:
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=95

Its much better to keep all debate within one thread so that people can see all the input and arent just repeating the same arguments. Is there a way to merge threads?

Statistics: Posted by Crayfish — 04 May 2012, 18:55

Re: Support Commanders

2012-05-04T18:18:19+02:00

So now my question is: why do we need support commanders with mobile sam upgrades to protect a T3 group while the T4 units are perfectly fine on their own?

There is no "need". It is already in the game. It's just not usuable because of buildtime and Mass costs. If you normalize the cost to what they could potentially bring to the arsenal (massive amount of utility) it will be such a great unit and fun to play with.

Only Cybran has the upgrade. Then again: cybran have no shields. It's mobile while UEF could build forwarded firebases with a good sACU that doesn't die when you hit it with a stick.

Statistics: Posted by Pavese — 04 May 2012, 18:18

Re: Support Commanders

2012-05-04T18:07:49+02:00

Additionally, T4 units are just as vulnerable to Strategic bombers than T3 armies (if not even more vulnerable). 21 percivals can be built with (slightly less than) the mass for a GC. They get 201600 HP in return (Seraphim Siege tank group is even higher at 32x6700, while the brick, 21x9000, and the Harbinger, 32x5900 are both at about 189K HP combined).

Now the first argument against this is that bombers have splash damage but I've seen numerous StratBomber attacks on groups that move over the battlefield. Even if unattended (or perhaps sometimes becuase they are unattended) to, bombers usually won't hit more than 2 units at the same time. This shows that you need about as much bombs to deal with a GC as with a group of T3 bots/tanks. Time is the most essential point if you're using bombers to deal with such a group.

So now my question is: why do we need support commanders with mobile sam upgrades to protect a T3 group while the T4 units are perfectly fine on their own?

Anyway, to get back to the point of Support Commanders (There's a been a discussion before, you should be able to find it in the depths of this subforum), I think the costs should be normalized with the rest of the arsenal.

Statistics: Posted by Plasma_Wolf — 04 May 2012, 18:07

Re: Support Commanders

2012-05-04T15:49:05+02:00

Can agree here. Large numbers of T2 flack and shields will shred all air units capable of attacking them with the exeption of expermentals but we all know how easy they die to ASF

Statistics: Posted by noobymcnoobcake — 04 May 2012, 15:49

Re: Support Commanders

2012-05-04T15:15:37+02:00

yes they can hit t3 bombers i played often enough setons to see this. maybe not so effektive but even t3 bomber dont feel so comfortable over a mass of t2 aa guns! (and please stop to quote so much in this forum this is pure spam)

Statistics: Posted by Iszh — 04 May 2012, 15:15