Forged Alliance Forever

Re: Teleport inhibitors

2015-05-02T17:09:47+02:00

This whole thread is a complete non issue.....

16 t1 pd plus either 3 t2 shields in a triangle around your ACU or personal shield will deny telemazor nearly 100% of the time, for a tiny fraction of the cost of the telemazor upgrades.

The defenses you "should" have already around game enders will be able to deny tele-snipe.

A single well placed omni and semi-regular scouting (which you should be doing anyway) will let you know about any stealth bases on your side of the map.

Multiple antinukes are a necessity anyway because of strat snipes and other methods of killing smd. These structures are also stupidly cheap in end game terms, and significantly cheaper than the tele sACU that will be suiciding in an attempt to kill it.

Wanting a dedicated building to deny teleports seems #1. pointless, as there are already multiple denial tools and map awareness, and #2. lazy to look at the problem and say "I have all these options, but sometimes I forget and die anyway, so I want a dedicated building that makes this option literally impossible."

Just my two cents.

Statistics: Posted by BRNKoINSANITY — 02 May 2015, 17:09

Re: Teleport inhibitors

2015-05-02T12:42:01+02:00

every one will move their com away if they don't have enough defense against a lazer com.

and since you take risk by teleporting your acu in the middle of your opponent base, that wouldn't be a good idea to add this sound.

Statistics: Posted by keyser — 02 May 2015, 12:42

Re: Teleport inhibitors

2015-05-02T11:41:33+02:00

I wonder, what would the effect be if there was a "teleport beam detected" notification the same as "strategic launch detected" when a teleport was started?

Statistics: Posted by arkitect — 02 May 2015, 11:41

Re: Teleport inhibitors

2015-04-30T09:24:03+02:00

Get a personal shield, get pd, get shielding and there is no way you gonna be sniped by laser lol. Telemazor is the thing you should expect mid-late game from a player who has nothing to loose.
And again as many people said here before, why don't you go and abuse it like a boss before posting here?

I think discussion is getting stupid because it doesnt consider gameplay anymore, only some subjective thoughts.
Afterall cybrans don't have mad winrates, which they could if the thing was so OP, do they?

Statistics: Posted by tdrqwako — 30 Apr 2015, 09:24

Re: Teleport inhibitors

2015-04-30T02:24:43+02:00

A bit late to the party but I'd like to add to the discussion.
So we have two options. Change it or keep it the same.
I do agree with Gyle that everything should have a counter. But it does (pd spam plus shields) though that's hardly elegant and often incorrectly used.
So the question is, should it have a designated counter and not a piecemeal one.

While I'm not a big fan of adding new elements to the game, I think we should test such a change.

For a teleportation counter we have three basic options.
Inhibitor- outright prevents teleportation
Notifier- detects and announces
Delayer- slows teleport arrival/departure times.

And I like the idea of using each one for factional variance.
What do you players think?

Side note: as CodingSquirrel pointed out the Cybran ACU does not show an animation when teleporting. This always bugged me as it seems more like a glitch than feature. I think it should be shown by default and if people think its all that important offer a secondary ACU upgrade (stealth teleport).

Statistics: Posted by Fudge — 30 Apr 2015, 02:24

Re: Teleport inhibitors

2015-03-14T11:40:59+02:00

CodingSquirrel wrote:
I personally don't necessarily think we need to add something like a teleport inhibitor to the game. I think shields and T1 pd are a good solution to this as it stands. However, I just wanted to point out something I realized today while doing some testing. ALL ACUs, plus the Seraphim and Aeon SCUs show some kind of animation at the other end when they activate their teleport, except for Cybran. I don't understand the point of this. Why have this at all if the one unit that this would be the most useful for is exempt? An SCU teleporting into your base you could probably deal with without crippling risk to your own commander, and getting away is probably not as much of an issue. But the Cybran Telemazor is something you do not want your commander sticking around for, so having that early warning and being able to run away in time is crucial.

Someone said that the Cybran was originally included in this but removed for balance reasons. But then why bother keeping it in for any of the other ACU/SCUs? No one fears a UEF teleporting into their base.

Because Cybrans are the best faction.

Statistics: Posted by zeroAPM — 14 Mar 2015, 11:40

Re: Teleport inhibitors

2015-03-14T01:52:04+02:00

I personally don't necessarily think we need to add something like a teleport inhibitor to the game. I think shields and T1 pd are a good solution to this as it stands. However, I just wanted to point out something I realized today while doing some testing. ALL ACUs, plus the Seraphim and Aeon SCUs show some kind of animation at the other end when they activate their teleport, except for Cybran. I don't understand the point of this. Why have this at all if the one unit that this would be the most useful for is exempt? An SCU teleporting into your base you could probably deal with without crippling risk to your own commander, and getting away is probably not as much of an issue. But the Cybran Telemazor is something you do not want your commander sticking around for, so having that early warning and being able to run away in time is crucial.

Someone said that the Cybran was originally included in this but removed for balance reasons. But then why bother keeping it in for any of the other ACU/SCUs? No one fears a UEF teleporting into their base.

Statistics: Posted by CodingSquirrel — 14 Mar 2015, 01:52

Re: Teleport inhibitors

2015-03-09T13:37:00+02:00

It's a fun discussion but you can't quantify all variables.

You mention placement / rotation and shields for instance. You can at least add personal shield to that. Late game it's pretty common to protect yourself against snipes with personal shield (replacing (A)RAS anyway). If you factor in the personal shield (1500 mass) on Aeon and UEF ACU you get 29k HP for cheap. On UEF ACU it's probably a given that you go shield. Seraphim is different because of nano-repair, but it can become quite beefy too, especially with vet. And then there's Cybran that is probably most vulnerable ACU late game. If you want to take it further, you can also consider that it's possible to hide an ACU. Then the telemazor ACU can only be used against other strategic targets, meaning 10 pd is probably enough already. At least for preventing worst-case of losing everything against a desperate Cybran opponent (in share until death scenario) like you said. And another thing to consider is that you can usually tell when telemazor is the coming. You can have some gunships, sniperbots, mercies etc. on standby if you don;t feel like spamming a million pd in fear or taking personal shield.

So maybe instead of comparing some of the many variables in numbers, it's better to look at how it plays out in practice. In most high level games I watch I don't ever see 40 t1 pd in one place. I think I've seen some templates with that many pd around a game ender, with shields, and if you are that far in the game I would say that's not unbalanced for telemazor defense.

Statistics: Posted by Col_Walter_Kurtz — 09 Mar 2015, 13:37

Re: Teleport inhibitors

2015-03-06T20:29:50+02:00

T3 laser teleport ACU w/o vet = 170000 hp, laser is 4000 dps

Your own ACU probably also 17000 hp

ACU deals 2500 blast damage when it dies, so when he dies, you need to have 2500 left.

(17000-2500) / laser damage = seconds you have to kill the Cybran dude = 3,625 seconds

Now assume you have all t1 pd turned the wrong way, so they need to turn 180 degrees (2 seconds), and that the cybran guy teleports right (no turning needed). Means you have 1,625 seconds to kill.

17000 / 1,625 seconds = 10461 dps needed.

That's 63 T1 pd's

Now, this is usually a bit less, because usually the Cybran needs some time before firing too, the pd doesn't usually all have to turn 180 degrees, there is a shield layer in between, etc. etc.

If the Cybran guy comes in with full veterancy or if your ACU is T1 / T2 however...

If you are ok with your ACU dying too, likely first, and just want to kill the cybran before he teleports out, then you can do with a lot less pd. But with 20 or even less, like _VODKA_ says, your ACU is definitely gonna die first. On team games it's often a Cybran whose base got destroyed that reverts to telemazor. In those cases it's a bad deal for the team to trade a good player for an already decimated enemy cybran.

As for the pd turning; that's why you always teleport north of your target and north of their pd; you don't need to turn; they do.

Statistics: Posted by E8400-CV — 06 Mar 2015, 20:29

Re: Teleport inhibitors

2015-03-05T12:28:51+02:00

Reaper Zwei wrote:
Do you need 40 to kill a telemazorcom?

Not even half that amount I would say.

Statistics: Posted by Col_Walter_Kurtz — 05 Mar 2015, 12:28

Re: Teleport inhibitors

2015-03-05T10:21:41+02:00

Just curious but where's the 40 coming from? How many SCU's you anticipating? Do you need 40 to kill a telemazorcom?

Statistics: Posted by Reaper Zwei — 05 Mar 2015, 10:21

Re: Teleport inhibitors

2015-03-05T09:18:51+02:00

SAKO_X wrote:
It's actually quite cheap. Considering each ACU has to protect itself vs telemazor, and also smd's and stuff... that already costs more than the whole upgrade would cost.

this is technically true but in reallity its completely normal.
http://content.faforever.com/faf/unitsDB/unit.php?bp=URB2305,URB4302
if you are playing a game whenever 1 nuke is built and you have 3 spread apart bases, then you need 3 antinukes to defend - 50% more than the cost of the nuke.

same applies to pretty much any long range weapon - its what keeps this game agressive:
http://content.faforever.com/faf/unitsDB/unit.php?bp=URB2108,URB4201

so really that is a (very) mute point.
especially considering telemazors are limited in number

why doesnt everyone who thinks telemazor is op go abusing it every possible opportunity? that way we can have some actual eveidence rather than useless sepculation
same applies to tele sacus, which are much better imo (if used correctly, as always).

3x loaded smd = 31800 mass. 1x loaded sml = 28000, so nowhere near 50%

If you need 3x 40x T1 pd, you are looking at 30000 mass, even more than smd cover.

Statistics: Posted by E8400-CV — 05 Mar 2015, 09:18

Re: Teleport inhibitors

2015-03-04T12:06:26+02:00

Every now and then, this discussion starts all over again xD

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8751

Still it bothers me, that you can blow up a paragon lategame with just 5 SCUs teleporting and exploding nearby, which is a cost effective strategy. I like the idea of limiting the teleport range of the SCUs (maybe TML range). This would avoid adding new units and it would kinda punish full turtling because you have to be in control of a large area of the map, to protect key structures. If you have this map control, it is possible for you to counter kamikaze SCUs without spamming retarded T1 pd around key structures. Notice that I would only limit SCU teleport range, because I would be fine if someone sends his ACU to blow up my paragon xD.

Statistics: Posted by noovd — 04 Mar 2015, 12:06

Re: Teleport inhibitors

2015-03-01T16:14:48+02:00

It's actually quite cheap. Considering each ACU has to protect itself vs telemazor, and also smd's and stuff... that already costs more than the whole upgrade would cost.

this is technically true but in reallity its completely normal.
http://content.faforever.com/faf/unitsDB/unit.php?bp=URB2305,URB4302
if you are playing a game whenever 1 nuke is built and you have 3 spread apart bases, then you need 3 antinukes to defend - 50% more than the cost of the nuke.

same applies to pretty much any long range weapon - its what keeps this game agressive:
http://content.faforever.com/faf/unitsDB/unit.php?bp=URB2108,URB4201

so really that is a (very) mute point.
especially considering telemazors are limited in number

why doesnt everyone who thinks telemazor is op go abusing it every possible opportunity? that way we can have some actual eveidence rather than useless sepculation
same applies to tele sacus, which are much better imo (if used correctly, as always).

Statistics: Posted by Exotic_Retard — 01 Mar 2015, 16:14

Re: Teleport inhibitors

2015-03-01T08:20:38+02:00

E8400-CV wrote:
It's actually quite cheap. Considering each ACU has to protect itself vs telemazor, and also smd's and stuff... that already costs more than the whole upgrade would cost.

Yes each ACU does but that's because its a team game. Should we make the tele upgrade more expensive or make the counter less expensive in team games to "balance" that?

Statistics: Posted by Reaper Zwei — 01 Mar 2015, 08:20