Forged Alliance Forever

Re: Navy fine tuning

2012-08-26T14:23:24+02:00

Sera subs are not used nearly as much as they were in phantom before the change to them. Its all aeon now. A nice fleet of tempests, missile ships, sub hunters, destroyers, flack and cruisers with 100 shields, hover tanks and a few flack eats all alive. Any subs are dealt with by the fleets mass shields that soak up all sub DPS, subs of your own, destroyers and tempest ground fire that can take out 10 at a time. UEF is next to useless in phantom due to its limited offensive ability and cybrans dont need much navy when they can just spam soul rippers and kill everything but ASF cost effectively .

Statistics: Posted by noobymcnoobcake — 26 Aug 2012, 14:23

Re: Navy fine tuning

2012-08-24T14:43:56+02:00

Ghoti wrote:
pip wrote:IMO, 10 seconds reload instead of 20 for the torpeod defense would be enough of a small buff, and would make it a real defense rather than a cosmetic one. Sera has other advantages on sea, so the sub can be slightly sub par (but not as it is currently, I think).

Ah. Yah I just picked 7 because that was approximately how long a 1 on 1 engagement lasted. Test it yourself, they still get their hineys handed to them by every race... except aeon.

7 seconds is probably a better value, more fair, for t1 Sera subs. They do need some buff, in anycase.

But to be honest, I am much more concerned about the Sera t3 sub nerf. They seem a shadow of their former glory after losing 110 DPS (the third of their firepower). 50 less DPS, more or less, would have been enough in my opinion. I would like to hear what heavy naval players would have to say about this change (like Seton's players).

EDIT: they also have a significantly higher buildtime now (14400, before, they were 12000), making them harder to spam already.

Statistics: Posted by pip — 24 Aug 2012, 14:43

Re: Navy fine tuning

2012-08-24T00:56:26+02:00

pip wrote:
IMO, 10 seconds reload instead of 20 for the torpeod defense would be enough of a small buff, and would make it a real defense rather than a cosmetic one. Sera has other advantages on sea, so the sub can be slightly sub par (but not as it is currently, I think).

Ah. Yah I just picked 7 because that was approximately how long a 1 on 1 engagement lasted. Test it yourself, they still get their hineys handed to them by every race... except aeon.

Statistics: Posted by Ghoti — 24 Aug 2012, 00:56

Re: Navy fine tuning

2012-08-23T22:28:54+02:00

IMO, 10 seconds reload instead of 20 for the torpeod defense would be enough of a small buff, and would make it a real defense rather than a cosmetic one. Sera has other advantages on sea, so the sub can be slightly sub par (but not as it is currently, I think).

Statistics: Posted by pip — 23 Aug 2012, 22:28

Re: Navy fine tuning

2012-08-23T19:13:38+02:00

Out of curiosity I just tried that.
Sera subs do seem to get completely owned.

actually that is a bit odd. Is the torpedo defense just not working?

edit4: Ah, no. It is just silly. 1v1 will result in a draw if all things go well, but in a sustained engagement seraphim will lose.

It DOES present the possibility for the seraphim to come out ahead, by keeping the subs in a tight ball, you can move in, fire off your top defense, then run off again and wait about 15 or so seconds for it to reload, then move in again. Horribly micro intensive, and not even that possible, because the sub isn't faster than the opposition.

I wonder what happens if I change the fire speed of the torp defense to 7 seconds reload...

Edit4: That causes 3 UEF subs to remain, rather than 6. Interestingly, it causes the serphim to nearly mutually annihilate VS aeon, the spammy cybran are pretty effective against them still.

It would also make the subs more useful later as support.

one last thing I feel I should go out on, is that comparing the navy in this way is misleading. In general UEF tend to be the most vulnerable to submarines, so having the most powerful T1 sub isn't that big of a deal.

Statistics: Posted by Ghoti — 23 Aug 2012, 19:13

Re: Navy fine tuning

2012-08-23T07:02:53+02:00

Anaryl wrote:
noobymcnoobcake wrote:T1 sera sub needs a little more HP and UEF battleship needs a bit of a cost tweak from 9000 mass to 1500 mass as it does not give anything else on the sea a chance. The UEF battleship is a base killer. The neptune class battle cruiser is more comparable to the omen class battleship and the summit class battleship is more comparable to the aeon torrent class missile cruiser.

Why does it need more HP?

Simply looking at the stats, and thinking "Hey this is a good idea" isn't productive. In this case the T1 sera Sub and Uef T1 sub are pretty much even, despite the HP disparity.

Code:
Ajellu Anti-Torpedo Defense (Defense, Normal): 0.1 dps, range: 0 - 32projectile: 2 damagemuzzle velocity: 80, lifetime: 7fire cycle: 1 projectile every 20 seconds, 2 damage totalturret pitch: 0° ±180° (180°/s), turret yaw: 0° ±180° (180°/s)

Looking at the unit blueprint before blindly advocating changes can prove useful.

Go ahead and test a 1v1 battle between a Sera sub and a UEF sub.
Then 10v10. Then tell us the results please.

Statistics: Posted by pip — 23 Aug 2012, 07:02

Re: Navy fine tuning

2012-08-20T14:16:00+02:00

sorry, 11500.

Statistics: Posted by noobymcnoobcake — 20 Aug 2012, 14:16

Re: Navy fine tuning

2012-08-20T13:02:47+02:00

noobymcnoobcake wrote:
T1 sera sub needs a little more HP and UEF battleship needs a bit of a cost tweak from 9000 mass to 1500 mass as it does not give anything else on the sea a chance.

noobymcnoobcake wrote:
UEF battleship needs a bit of a cost tweak from 9000 mass to 1500 mass

1500 mass for a battleship? Brilliant idea. I support this

Statistics: Posted by Plasma_Wolf — 20 Aug 2012, 13:02

Re: Navy fine tuning

2012-08-19T23:29:12+02:00

T1 sera sub needs a little more HP and UEF battleship needs a bit of a cost tweak from 9000 mass to 1500 mass as it does not give anything else on the sea a chance. The UEF battleship is a base killer. The neptune class battle cruiser is more comparable to the omen class battleship and the summit class battleship is more comparable to the aeon torrent class missile cruiser.

Statistics: Posted by noobymcnoobcake — 19 Aug 2012, 23:29

Re: Navy fine tuning

2012-07-27T00:19:11+02:00

SeraphimLeftNut wrote:
Cybran getting screwed here.

The story of their life....

Also as far as the missile ship is concerned, it may be most often used when navy is already won, so possibly it should be balanced against the land countermeasures rather than other navy.

Although I won't pretend to have the slightest clue what to do with a naval force XD

Statistics: Posted by Softly — 27 Jul 2012, 00:19

Re: Navy fine tuning

2012-07-26T23:40:19+02:00

I would like to agree with pip completely about the cybran t3 sub. Check out the seraphim t3 battleship cost and that is also a nuclear launcher. Cybran getting screwed here.

Statistics: Posted by SeraphimLeftNut — 26 Jul 2012, 23:40

Re: Navy fine tuning

2012-07-26T23:23:28+02:00

Subhunter are a mistake, I changing that.

Statistics: Posted by Ze_PilOt — 26 Jul 2012, 23:23

Re: Navy fine tuning

2012-07-26T23:26:26+02:00

Ze_PilOt wrote:
I changed the build time of subhunter at the same rate as other units. (before, buildtime of atlantis half a battleship, now, the same. Should be 14.400 actually).

I kept the missile ship the same as it's not a unit you use to fight, but use when you already won the navy.

All that can be tweaked later, again, no testers, has to release the patch as it is.

14400 for t3 Subhunter and Atlantis is good, but t3 sub has 25200. I just watched your Seton's replay and the poor vmcsnekke had a lot of trouble building t3 sub :p

I think the other values are good, and I agree torrent ships are not as big a problem as Battlecruisers.

Lastly, Cybran would really benefit from less energy strat subs because their t3 sub is expensive but great at long range assault and it can defend itself well against other subs. Cybran strat subs would be great to help against shield boats for instance. It's a good unit without building nuke, it should not required a full t3 power just to be able to build one without the intent to build a nuke (and it's better than UEF and Aeon ones).

Statistics: Posted by pip — 26 Jul 2012, 23:21

Re: Navy fine tuning

2012-07-26T23:10:48+02:00

I changed the build time of subhunter at the same rate as other units. (before, buildtime of atlantis half a battleship, now, the same. Should be 14.400 actually).

I kept the missile ship the same as it's not a unit you use to fight, but use when you already won the navy.

All that can be tweaked later, again, no testers, has to release the patch as it is.

Statistics: Posted by Ze_PilOt — 26 Jul 2012, 23:10

Re: Navy fine tuning

2012-07-26T22:42:52+02:00

I just noticed you changed t3 buildtimes in 3616 official release.

Two remarks :
- I don't understand why Seraphim T3 sub (3000 mass, 4500 HP) should take as long to build as a battlecruiser (25200), especially since it was extremely nerfed already. Meanwhile, Aeon Missile ships, which are much more powerful (15000 HP, 200 range) still have only 16000 buildtime. Was it a mistake between the Atlantis (14400 buildtime) and the Seraphim t3 sub?
- Strat submarines energy cost stayed the same

Statistics: Posted by pip — 26 Jul 2012, 22:42