Forged Alliance Forever

Re: Anti-teleport towers

2013-04-12T16:14:11+02:00

They are doing good vs. EXPs if you micro them as they can dodge well (even beam weapons, somewhat glitchy, though) and distribute the damage (by moving full hp SCU's between one low HP one and incoming fire).

However, here are some calculations about SCU's:
UEF:
Full Combar SCU:
Mass: 10696 (including energy drain in T3 pgens)
Energy: 593950
Build time: 33400
DPS: 750
Range: 35
AOE: 2.5
HP: 16000
Shield: 52000

Percival:
Mass: 1280
Energy: 14000
Build time: 4800
DPS: 400
Range: 35
AOE: 0
HP: 9300

Percivals per SCU:
Mass: 8.35625
Energy: 42.425
Build time: 6.958333333
DPS: 1.875
HP: 7.311827957 (including shield)

So for the mass cost of one UEF combat SCU you can get 8 Percivals (3200 DPS, 74400 HP, same range).
For the energy cost you can get 42 Percivals (16800 DPS, 390600 HP).
For the build time you can get 7 Percivals.
Sure, SCU's got other advantanges:
- they cannot get sucked in by a GC
- they can build/reclaim
- they can guard SCU's or other valuable stuff and help PD creeping
- they have splash, but it will be useless against any half decent micro'ed experimental or T3 bot army.

I think the energy cost of 42 Percivals is the main issue here... or the high mass cost combined with high energy cost. Note though that the high energy cost is mainly the second shield, without it pure combat efficiency gets better (14 Percivals per SCU).

Aeon:
Full Combar SCU:
M: 6677.6
E: 223100
BT: 26600
DPS: 400
Range: 40
AOE: 3.5
HP: 15000
Shield: 35000

Harbinger:
M: 840
E: 9600
BT: 3600
DPS: 375
Range: 28
AOE: 0
HP: 4600
Shield: 1300
Energy drain in T3 pgens: 32.4

Harbinger per SCU:
M: 7.94952381
E: 23.23958333
BT: 7.388888889
DPS: 1.066666667
HP: 8.474576271 (including shield)

Building SACU's against T3 bots or EXP's is hardly worth it. They are good vs. T1/T2 or mixed armies and for utility.
The main problem IMO is the cost of the quantum gateway, though. If it would be cheaper people maybe wouldn't always skip SCU and go straight for T4 in competitive play...

Statistics: Posted by SC-Account — 12 Apr 2013, 16:14

Re: Anti-teleport towers

2013-04-12T08:19:44+02:00

They may have gotten a DPS buff, but 3603 SCU had 3 times the health and faster build power too. It could do a lot more damage when it was tele'd in.

It costs less, but that doesn't necessarily mean tele is available sooner. Remember tele is as expensive as a nuke launcher in mass, and around the cost of an actual nuke in power. You need a lot more power before tele becomes viable.

-------------------

SCU may have the weapons that you described, but rarely are they seen in those roles. You see the thing is, land units die a lot. You don't expect all your T3 bots to survive every engagement. And the SCU is the same, especially with it's significantly lower health now. But if you lose an upgrade SCU, well then you have to replace it with another upgraded SCU. This takes time and attention, which is why, as nice as your hypothetical scenarios sound, SCU's don't seem much use in army combat. It's a more effective to simply crank out a tried-and-true T3 siege bot out of a factory, which is battle ready the instant it starts rolling off the assembly line.
Also I can't be bothered to test this right now tonight, but are SCUs treated as military units when you drag-select units, or engineers? Because that will make your battle micro a lot more tedious as well. If they're treated as attack units though then that concern in moot.

SCUs are good weapons but just too tedious to really be that effective in an army, right now.

They also get obliterated by EXP too now, cept maybe sera's OC SCU. Man fight an exp with a couple OC SCUs and a gun-upgraded commander is funnnnn.

Statistics: Posted by CocoaMoko — 12 Apr 2013, 08:19

Re: Anti-teleport towers

2013-04-12T07:34:21+02:00

SC-Account wrote:
A Harbinger has 400 dps...

Pardon my noobishness, I always assumed that dealing 300 DPS to 3 or 4 targets per shot = 900 or 1200 DPS. I also thought that outranging Percies and Bricks was very useful at t3. Superior range must be less important in FA than I thought. Thanks for proving me wrong so concisely. Aeon SCU are obviously weak, I discourage anyone from using their weapon upgrade. They are only good for RAS and telesnipe.

Statistics: Posted by pip — 12 Apr 2013, 07:34

Re: Anti-teleport towers

2013-04-11T21:15:43+02:00

A Harbinger has 400 dps...

Statistics: Posted by SC-Account — 11 Apr 2013, 21:15

Re: Anti-teleport towers

2013-04-11T20:57:11+02:00

SC-Account wrote:
Ya, that already works for UEF SCU's which are somewhat useful as support with double shield. Aeon SCU's however are mainly useful for reclaiming/building but not rly as combat units. They would be great against t1 spam, but by that time T1 spam will already be annihilated by Harbingers...

With their weapon upgrade, they have an AOE of 3.5, 300 DPS and 40 range. Yeah, it's only useful against t1 spam...

Statistics: Posted by pip — 11 Apr 2013, 20:57

Re: Anti-teleport towers

2013-04-11T20:54:01+02:00

Ya, that already works for UEF SCU's which are somewhat useful as support with double shield. Aeon SCU's however are mainly useful for reclaiming/building but not rly as combat units. They would be great against t1 spam, but by that time T1 spam will already be annihilated by Harbingers...

Statistics: Posted by SC-Account — 11 Apr 2013, 20:54

Re: Anti-teleport towers

2013-04-11T19:07:07+02:00

SC-Account wrote:
Sure SCU's have been buffed and it is great (although in terms of tele SCU's that is very arguable and anything else still is far from OP), but why would you nerf them as long as there is nothing that has been proven OP. I mean on what basis did you nerf them if it where not for the replays V provided (where he was unable to counter them).
What else did lead to the conclusion that they had to be nerfed? I didn't even see anyone else really complaining about it, at least there where not more complainers then there where people that said it would be OK the way it is now...

BTW, what about nerfing build time of (non tele) SACU upgrades. It still is extremely high compared to experimentals...

Cause if SCU become too good, too fast to upgrade, they will replace t3 units, and we don't want that to happen. They are a support unit, to add to your t3 army, not an army on their own.

Statistics: Posted by pip — 11 Apr 2013, 19:07

Re: Anti-teleport towers

2013-04-11T18:33:00+02:00

Sure SCU's have been buffed and it is great (although in terms of tele SCU's that is very arguable and anything else still is far from OP), but why would you nerf them as long as there is nothing that has been proven OP. I mean on what basis did you nerf them if it where not for the replays V provided (where he was unable to counter them).
What else did lead to the conclusion that they had to be nerfed? I didn't even see anyone else really complaining about it, at least there where not more complainers then there where people that said it would be OK the way it is now...

BTW, what about nerfing build time of (non tele) SACU upgrades. It still is extremely high compared to experimentals...

Statistics: Posted by SC-Account — 11 Apr 2013, 18:33

Re: Anti-teleport towers

2013-04-11T18:12:20+02:00

ColonelSheppard wrote:
pip, why do you dare 2 replays from setons (!) while that obviously hasnt been a problem on any other map yet, if it's not a problem and not a bug, dont fix it

setons is NOT FA, we just discussed that in another thread

SCU have been only buffed for Seton? No, they have been buffed for all kinds of maps. I didn't mention Seton, it's irrelevant.

Statistics: Posted by pip — 11 Apr 2013, 18:12

Re: Anti-teleport towers

2013-04-11T18:00:28+02:00

pip, why do you dare 2 replays from setons (!) while that obviously hasnt been a problem on any other map yet, if it's not a problem and not a bug, dont fix it

setons is NOT FA, we just discussed that in another thread

Statistics: Posted by ColonelSheppard — 11 Apr 2013, 18:00

Re: Anti-teleport towers

2013-04-11T18:15:30+02:00

What most of you guys seem to forget is that SCU got major buffs:
- mass cost is 4.75 times less than before
- buildtime has been cut in half
- Sera SACU DPS were quadrupled
- Aeon SACU DPS were x 1.5
- cost of upgrades has also been reduced considerably (not teleport, but gun, TML, shields, etc)
Compared to before, the only thing they have less is health (half HP).

So it's not fair to say that teleport is the same as it was before. SACU are much more powerful than before. SCU + teleport is available much sooner, SACU are much more versatile because they can fight and not just reclaim or build stuff as they used to do.

I am not saying the 10 seconds stun is perfect (maybe 7 or 5 seconds would be enough). But there are objective good reasons other than V's whims to at least tune down a bit the most powerful SACU tactic, after all the buffs they recieved over the last year.

Statistics: Posted by pip — 11 Apr 2013, 17:49

Re: Anti-teleport towers

2013-04-11T16:27:15+02:00

tp sacu ~ 18k mass
30 asf ~ 10.500 mass + get an eye and spot the SACU and spam mercy then --> epicly countered
sry to say but it feels like (some) setons players just have problems to adapt o new tactics as there game ran the same for years lol

the animation is cool but pls remove stun!

Statistics: Posted by ColonelSheppard — 11 Apr 2013, 16:27

Re: Anti-teleport towers

2013-04-11T16:19:42+02:00

Please stop suggesting un-natural additions to the game with bogus reasoning behind them. Re-balance them, don't add in a retarded new building.

Statistics: Posted by ZaphodX — 11 Apr 2013, 16:19

Re: Anti-teleport towers

2013-04-11T15:49:19+02:00

Anti Tele would be sth like anti pd. Only if an anti-pd existed would an antitele not break the balance of the game.

Statistics: Posted by prodromos — 11 Apr 2013, 15:49

Re: Anti-teleport towers

2013-04-10T18:52:37+02:00

-_V_- wrote:
SC-Account wrote: Even if 100 engineers die, you are usually ctr + k'ing them anyway at that stage and will replace them rather quickly.

troll spotted!

You know really well, the time you need to replace the build power is what can cost you a game.
It's true for air, for navy at least. Land is slower overall so you can have enough time to replace your build power to counter to some extent.
Let's be honest, this is exactly why you use those "features". You knew very well it would cripple the build power long enough to turn the tide completely.

And again, that is only ONE sample of the BS you could pull out with the tele SCU. There are many other scenarios.
Tele under a shipyard, a few TML shots and there you go, no more build power -> fucked.

Am I supposed to spam tons of torp launchers around my shipyards too, just in case you come here with your SCU with tele (still granted with a HUGE mobility compared to my STATIC defenses ?) ?
How do I counter the vet the SCU would gain fast by killing 50 eng in one shot ?
The SCU would eventually die, but not before making significant damages, really worth the cost of a tele SCU.

And let's please NOT forget one ressource that you can't replace : TIME. The game is not only about mass and energy!

How complicated is that to understand. TELE can bring you ANYWHERE on the map as it is right now, ANYWHERE! and a SCU loss is no biggie.
This is why it's not a problem with the cybran ACU. You actually risk losing something critical! SCU you just go "meh" and move on.

One good example is a game I played vs. some good air player a while ago. We where even in ASF count until I started making teleport, I was about 30 ASF behind when it was done (which is still less than the energy cost of teleport). I also had a better economy to start with, but my mass was constantly drained which slowed down ASF production.
However, the teleprot was well worth it, I was even able to kill his entire energy with it, which I could do even faster with ACU teleport due to higher build power, taking down the engineers would have been slower, though and with Cybran of course it would have been GG due to multiple ACU kills.

I am not saying that there is no chance that SCU teleport is OP like that, maybe it is, maybe it is easy to counter or will even turn out to be a sure suicide for the one using it.
However, one player being confronted with a new strategy which he is incapable and unwilling to counter doesn't prove anything.
You reacted slowly and then built 106 T2 PD's which probably slowed you down more than the whole teleport stuff while 30 T2 gunships or 15 Restorers would have been infinitely more efficient (not to mention mercies).
I on the other hand expected you to try the same against me and prepared for it. I was quite optimistic that I could counter it why don't you do that?
Please don't say something like "I don't use lame tactics", there is no reason you would not use it against me, other than being afraid of failure. As long as you don't even try the same against me I can't take your complaining seriously.

Statistics: Posted by SC-Account — 10 Apr 2013, 18:52