Forged Alliance Forever

Re: Cybran's lack of hover weakness

2012-01-22T19:43:52+02:00

You cannot form a reasonable argument not to either Buff the torpedos on those things or remove them entirely. I'm all for increasing them slightly. I think give wanger 7 torpedo dps not 9 because don't forget its land capabilities

Statistics: Posted by noobymcnoobcake — 22 Jan 2012, 19:43

Re: Cybran's lack of hover weakness

2012-01-22T04:24:38+02:00

Yes, I dont think anyone ever uses terms like "increase by 1x".

If you really must use such notation, then at least "increase by 100%" is more commonly understood.

/semanticsnazi

Statistics: Posted by AdmiralZeech — 22 Jan 2012, 04:24

Re: Cybran's lack of hover weakness

2012-01-19T16:47:39+02:00

Cybran's LACK of hover WEAKNESS??!?
OMG NERV CYBRAN! why should all factions but cybran have this weakness?!:D

On topic:
Funk, could you elaborate how you define you "effinciency" and why it is a good value to balance units around?
I have a healthy distrust for any approach using (only?) numbers for balance, as they can't reflect gameplay appropriately.

Aside from that, I think the 2ndary torpedos on some units were balanced as the 2ndary AA (close to useless), but this was never revised, as it was for the 2ndary AA. So I think some buffs are in order.

ps: "increasing by x1" is majorly missleading, plz use x2 like the rest of the world, thx

Statistics: Posted by lebensnebel — 19 Jan 2012, 16:47

Re: Cybran's lack of hover weakness

2012-01-19T14:12:28+02:00

Kryo wrote:
but this is in fact x2

Damage before e.g. 100, afterwards 200, which is 2x100=200

You're not understanding: Increasing by means the amount of the difference between old and new numbers. Increasing to means what the new number will be. For the Megalith, increasing by 1x means 1x old damage is difference between old damage and new damage.

Statistics: Posted by FunkOff — 19 Jan 2012, 14:12

Re: Cybran's lack of hover weakness

2012-01-19T13:37:46+02:00

but this is in fact x2

Damage before e.g. 100, afterwards 200, which is 2x100=200

Statistics: Posted by Kryo — 19 Jan 2012, 13:37

Re: Cybran's lack of hover weakness

2012-01-19T00:41:30+02:00

Kryo wrote:
increase x1? this means it will stay the same? or +100% which is a difference

Increase 1x means adding 1x damage to present damage amount.

Statistics: Posted by FunkOff — 19 Jan 2012, 00:41

Re: Cybran's lack of hover weakness

2012-01-18T22:51:59+02:00

FunkOff wrote:
tl:dr: Change Wagner torp DPS from 3 to 9.

Edit: I'm using a revised algorithm now, wagner efficiency is 49, sliver is 152. My recommendation for the wagner remains the same.

Brick raw efficiency is 55, so the torpedo DPS could be doubled and it would be fine.
Seraphim T3 tank is 47, so it's about the same and DPS could be doubled in the same fashion.
The Monkeylord is only 5, so it could be given considerably better torpedoes without too much risk of imbaness.
The megalith is 24, so it's torp dps could also be doubled without too much worry.

Based upon my numbers, recommendations for changes to units other than the wagner would go as follows: Brick torp DPS increase by 1x, Seraphim T3 tank by 2x, Monkeylord by 9x, and megalith by 1x.

Also karo, the torp efficiency of the serpahim destroyer is 218, so it's not going to be cost-effectively beaten by wagners unless the torp DPS is greater than 12. For reference, the Aeon destroyer torp efficiency is 268.

increase x1? this means it will stay the same? or +100% which is a difference

Statistics: Posted by Kryo — 18 Jan 2012, 22:51

Re: Cybran's lack of hover weakness

2012-01-17T23:50:22+02:00

tl:dr: Change Wagner torp DPS from 3 to 9.

Edit: I'm using a revised algorithm now, wagner efficiency is 49, sliver is 152. My recommendation for the wagner remains the same.

Brick raw efficiency is 55, so the torpedo DPS could be doubled and it would be fine.
Seraphim T3 tank is 47, so it's about the same and DPS could be doubled in the same fashion.
The Monkeylord is only 5, so it could be given considerably better torpedoes without too much risk of imbaness.
The megalith is 24, so it's torp dps could also be doubled without too much worry.

Based upon my numbers, recommendations for changes to units other than the wagner would go as follows: Brick torp DPS increase by 1x, Seraphim T3 tank by 2x, Monkeylord by 9x, and megalith by 1x.

Also karo, the torp efficiency of the serpahim destroyer is 218, so it's not going to be cost-effectively beaten by wagners unless the torp DPS is greater than 12. For reference, the Aeon destroyer torp efficiency is 268.

Statistics: Posted by FunkOff — 17 Jan 2012, 23:50

Re: Cybran's lack of hover weakness

2012-01-17T23:24:51+02:00

/me imagines that his sera destroyer will cost-effectivly be beaten by wagners too in the future...

Statistics: Posted by Karottenrambo — 17 Jan 2012, 23:24

Re: Cybran's lack of hover weakness

2012-01-17T23:17:39+02:00

me too! torpedo damage of Wagner/brick/monkey/Megalith/t3 sera tank is too low right now

Statistics: Posted by Kryo — 17 Jan 2012, 23:17

Re: Cybran's lack of hover weakness

2012-01-17T23:14:34+02:00

I agree on these changes too.

Statistics: Posted by TAG_ROCK — 17 Jan 2012, 23:14

Re: Cybran's lack of hover weakness

2012-01-17T03:15:00+02:00

ToejamS wrote:
I think you should work out a cost/mass/something ratio of how many riptides/blazes/sera floating thingy it takes to kill a destroyer or some naval unit then base the torp damage on that.

This wouldn't work out very well. For one, cruisers/destroyer can kite T2 hover tanks, so it's not like you can put a finite number on exactly how many of one it takes to beat of the other or visa versa.

Also, the advantages of having submerged tank versus a hover one shouldn't be underestimated. Underwater units can only he hit by torps and can only be detected by sonar and ships' water vis.

Further, buffing torps for amphib units beyond the efficiency of subs is a no-no because it makes subs useless. (As you'll note, in another topic I was lobbying for a 30% buff to submarine torpedo damage, which would raise the ceiling on the max DPS that the amphib tanks can do without being imba...)

So yes, the wagner needs more torp DPS than it has right now, but it can't be more efficienct at torp dps than subs.

Statistics: Posted by FunkOff — 17 Jan 2012, 03:15

Re: Cybran's lack of hover weakness

2012-01-17T03:07:15+02:00

I think you should work out a cost/mass/something ratio of how many riptides/blazes/sera floating thingy it takes to kill a destroyer or some naval unit then base the torp damage on that. As you stated, cybran has no hover units to counter naval, perhaps they could counter naval from sub-marine. I know it was done like that at some stage in the beta, where cybran just pwned the world with wagners but at the moment, cybran suck, they suck hard. They suck so hard Rock doesnt even play cybran. Rather than a little gentle buff, they should be able to mass effectively counter navy similar to the other races.

Statistics: Posted by ToejamS — 17 Jan 2012, 03:07

Re: Cybran's lack of hover weakness

2012-01-17T01:28:24+02:00

Isen wrote:
yes same with sera t3 tanks. killing something with torps of those units is like killing an acu with t1 scouts.

Let's see here... brick has 10 torp DPS and 9000 health for 1280 mass... that gives it an efficiency of 70.31... so it's a better sub that T1 subs are by a significant amount. Of course, the brick also has an anti-torpedo as well, making it even better.

The seraphim T3 tank has a raw efficiency of about 39.9 (5 dps, 6700 health and 840 mass cost), so it's only half as good of a sub killer as the brick... and almost, but not quite as good as the T1 sub and only half as good as the brick.

The monkeylord has 50 torp DPS, 45000 hp and costs 21000 mass, so it's raw efficiency is 107.1, making it almost twice as efficient.

Statistics: Posted by FunkOff — 17 Jan 2012, 01:28

Re: Cybran's lack of hover weakness

2012-01-17T01:21:54+02:00

yes same with sera t3 tanks. killing something with torps of those units is like killing an acu with t1 scouts.

Statistics: Posted by Isen — 17 Jan 2012, 01:21