Forged Alliance Forever

Re: Aeon static t2 AA

2013-05-24T23:37:19+02:00

good morning, i write it here viewtopic.php?f=42&t=3898 , and in aeon discusion about balance.
and nobody read it, so dont has so atractive name like zaphodx

but heres my suggestion about how balance this statick v mobile isseu

Statistics: Posted by Ithilis_Quo — 24 May 2013, 23:37

Re: Aeon static t2 AA

2013-05-22T01:30:09+02:00

I guess data in DB not same is real situation, should be fixed

Statistics: Posted by ZLO_RD — 22 May 2013, 01:30

Re: Aeon static t2 AA

2013-05-22T01:04:00+02:00

ZaphodX wrote:
ShadowKnight wrote:Mobile Flack is just as effective as Static, but is way cheaper and CAN MOVE. Why would you EVER build static? Just build mobile and place it where you would have put the static.

I don't really think this is true. You have to have a t2 land factory and have to stop the other units you might be building instead to get flak out and then you have to move it to wherever is needed.

It shouldn't be buffed because it's unnecessary and because it will encourage turtling.

A: You have to have a T2 Factory to get Static too (Or the equivalent in ACU upgrade)

Sure, it has the advantage of being able to be built where you are... Or you could just spend the resources early and send MOBILE along with whatever would be building the Statics. Look, the FACT that people fill their bases with Mobile rather than Static for the defence of their base PROVES that something is wrong. You don't build Mobile shields as your primary base defence, or Tanks as your primary base defence, you build their static versions. Something is wrong here.

Statistics: Posted by IceDreamer — 22 May 2013, 01:04

Re: Aeon static t2 AA

2013-05-22T00:33:44+02:00

Transports do not solve the problem because if you can safely fly a transport to the desired location you hardly need flak cover in the first place!

I'm sorry, but no.
Think about it. If I am airlifting units (mobile flak in this case) you're not going to send your fighters after it. Why would you. Considering distance and radar coverage, you wouldn't know about it until it was on route, and you probably wouldn't get there in time to stop it. Remember this is not at t3, this is early - mid t2.
You would not send in your fighters without a good reason; and that requires scouting to KNOW what's happening. Otherwise you risk running into a trap.
Also, flak is mostly going to be covering against gunners and bombers, both of which are ineffective vs transports and would not impede their route if they were in the area.

Even if these were not issues, the transport would likely be destroyed but the units would probably get to land.

and, as you said, for water spaces flak turrets are useful. Consider a map like high noon for example. The lagoons to the north and south are large enough to want AA protection over the water for your amphibious units, but there is so little water on the map that investing resources in a T2 naval factory to get cruisers solely for AA is a huge waste. For UEF and Cybrans, flak turrets solve this problem.

Exactly. They are area denial.

Statistics: Posted by Gorton — 22 May 2013, 00:33

Re: Aeon static t2 AA

2013-05-22T00:20:56+02:00

ZaphodX wrote:
What's wrong with static vs mobile? You think static should be more efficient?

Hell yes it should. Always.

Statistics: Posted by Gyle — 22 May 2013, 00:20

Re: Aeon static t2 AA

2013-05-22T00:17:13+02:00

I was talking about conducting amphibious assaults with Cybran or UEF. You're right that on land it would likely be easier to just drive some flak over.

Transports do not solve the problem because if you can safely fly a transport to the desired location you hardly need flak cover in the first place! Also, when you add in the various costs involved with the transports (time and micro especially) it is much easier and faster to pop out a turret.

And, as you said, for water spaces flak turrets are useful. Consider a map like high noon for example. The lagoons to the north and south are large enough to want AA protection over the water for your amphibious units, but there is so little water on the map that investing resources in a T2 naval factory to get cruisers solely for AA is a huge waste. For UEF and Cybrans, flak turrets solve this problem.

Statistics: Posted by Mycen — 22 May 2013, 00:17

Re: Aeon static t2 AA

2013-05-21T23:16:31+02:00

Mycen wrote:
Gorton wrote:However Mycen you can merely drive the flak with you to the front. Building stationary flak is worse in that you could instead build a shield or stealth or ground pd. Excessive buildpower is an option but not feasible in that they'd get in the way (if t1) and if they were t2 then you built a bunch of t2 engies -> just build mobile flak instead which gets rid of the problem.
Range increase is the way to go with the static; as I said, it is area denial.

When playing UEF you would drive some mobile flak along with your Riptides to protect them? No. No you wouldn't. Because they do not hover. Engineers, especially Sparkies, do hover, however, and the ACU is amphibious.

I don't recall we were talking about crossing any kind of sea or water... The scenario described was the ACU building a forward base. A transport solves the problem even if crossing water.

Now IN the water is a completely different story. Building stationary flak is obviously a good idea here to protect naval/ACU from torpers or gunners. IF UEF. As cybran their cruisers murder torpers better than UEF, and both sera and aeon have hover.

Statistics: Posted by Gorton — 21 May 2013, 23:16

Re: Aeon static t2 AA

2013-05-21T22:33:43+02:00

Gorton wrote:
However Mycen you can merely drive the flak with you to the front. Building stationary flak is worse in that you could instead build a shield or stealth or ground pd. Excessive buildpower is an option but not feasible in that they'd get in the way (if t1) and if they were t2 then you built a bunch of t2 engies -> just build mobile flak instead which gets rid of the problem.
Range increase is the way to go with the static; as I said, it is area denial.

When playing UEF you would drive some mobile flak along with your Riptides to protect them? No. No you wouldn't. Because they do not hover. Engineers, especially Sparkies, do hover, however, and the ACU is amphibious.

Statistics: Posted by Mycen — 21 May 2013, 22:33

Re: Aeon static t2 AA

2013-05-21T22:04:41+02:00

However Mycen you can merely drive the flak with you to the front. Building stationary flak is worse in that you could instead build a shield or stealth or ground pd. Excessive buildpower is an option but not feasible in that they'd get in the way (if t1) and if they were t2 then you built a bunch of t2 engies -> just build mobile flak instead which gets rid of the problem.
Range increase is the way to go with the static; as I said, it is area denial.

Statistics: Posted by Gorton — 21 May 2013, 22:04

Re: Aeon static t2 AA

2013-05-21T21:32:34+02:00

I agree that a range increase is the way to go.

Saying that there is never any situation where static flak should be built is oversimplifying things rather a bit, I think. Off the bat, I know that if I'm fighting an amphibious battle with Cybran or UEF, it is difficult to move non-hover flak from section to section - popping out flak turrets as I go with my ACU or engineers is much easier. Also, If there is a relatively large body of water but I don't want to invest in navy, flak turrets can cover that area.

Gorton wrote:
Time is also a resource; having two mobile flaks instead allows you to build something else...

Yes, but time is related to buildpower. If you have a lot of buildpower on the front (because you're doing PD creep, for example) then it is easy to pop out flak turrets, and the wait will be shorter than driving the mobile flak all the way up to the front.

I don't see the problem with flak turrets being underused though. It can't hurt to add a little range to static flak, but before we start talking as emphatically as this:

ShadowKnight wrote:
It does seem a little low, but I think the bigger problem of Static VS Mobile NEEDS to be addressed first.

can we think about how we would be improving the game by making static flak more viable vs. mobile? I mean, really, what would it really add or change?

Statistics: Posted by Mycen — 21 May 2013, 21:32

Re: Aeon static t2 AA

2013-05-21T20:04:13+02:00

ZaphodX wrote:
ShadowKnight wrote:Mobile Flack is just as effective as Static, but is way cheaper and CAN MOVE. Why would you EVER build static? Just build mobile and place it where you would have put the static.

I don't really think this is true. You have to have a t2 land factory and have to stop the other units you might be building instead to get flak out and then you have to move it to wherever is needed.

It shouldn't be buffed because it's unnecessary and because it will encourage turtling.

The mobile bit is a huge advantage, make no mistake.
I think this can be solved with increasing the range of the static flak to 50 or slightly more. It allows more effective coverage of an area, which is exactly what static defenses are... not killers, they are area denial.

Statistics: Posted by Gorton — 21 May 2013, 20:04

Re: Aeon static t2 AA

2013-05-21T20:03:16+02:00

oh i just checked and it seems like i didnt read that.
then the db should propably be updated

Statistics: Posted by Golol — 21 May 2013, 20:03

Re: Aeon static t2 AA

2013-05-21T20:02:12+02:00

But it's not half. Didn't we already establish that the stats for the aeon static flak is wrong in the db?

Statistics: Posted by Gorton — 21 May 2013, 20:02

Re: Aeon static t2 AA

2013-05-21T19:35:59+02:00

but the aeon one should.
i just dont see a reason it is half as good. 130 dps, ok. but wtf half? even if it isnt built

Statistics: Posted by Golol — 21 May 2013, 19:35

Re: Aeon static t2 AA

2013-05-21T19:24:48+02:00

ShadowKnight wrote:
Mobile Flack is just as effective as Static, but is way cheaper and CAN MOVE. Why would you EVER build static? Just build mobile and place it where you would have put the static.

I don't really think this is true. You have to have a t2 land factory and have to stop the other units you might be building instead to get flak out and then you have to move it to wherever is needed.

It shouldn't be buffed because it's unnecessary and because it will encourage turtling.

Statistics: Posted by ZaphodX — 21 May 2013, 19:24