Forged Alliance Forever

Re: T2 Artilery instalation rework

2014-04-29T00:55:24+02:00

ColonelSheppard wrote:
If you do that (and i doubt you do because the "change it change it" - people almost never have an actual point), then we are on a level on which we can agrue about something and i can show you games where it was used very well and gave the player an advantage (i have 3 specific games in mind here right now but there are surely more).

Any reason you didn't just post the replays instead of berating me cause I'm not auguring the way you want me to?

Semi-off topic, replays don't show that much actually, which I why I don't bother searching countless games to prove a hypothetical case. It's more efficient to hack out the theory on the forums, run some tests during balance periods, then use that data to approximate who things where before, then make a decision for which was better from there.

Why don't replays prove much? You can argue up and down the skill of either player or just say 'they used it in the wrong situation hence they lost' without actually hitting the merit of the unit in question.
And how exactly can a replay show arty to be too niche? Can't show it working in it's niche -cause we've already established it does a handful of things well so the reply is redundant. Can't show it failing outside of it's niche -cause we've established it sucks in 'that' situation so the replay is equally redundant. So show it being sub-par in something that's sorta it's niche like EXP killing? Which boils down to mirco on the EXP part or insane amounts of artillery to mirco is impossible. Either side winning can be blamed for failing to use their units right so it's still a wash.

Or do we look economically and show replays of people crashing their eco trying to use arty in the situation it's justifiable to use in? Oh wait, he sucked for not having a strong enough eco to begin with, shoulda saw that one coming. How can we show the impact of the high opportunity cost arty has relative to the low number of situation it counters? Show people building it pointlessly and losing as a result and back it up with showing people not building it when they 'clearly' should have and losing as a result then maybe the opposite of both? What did that prove and what does that even look like?

"Looks like a huge naval force is coming, better make arty in preparation..."
"Oh wait, he changed to air production, arty now pointless and I lost that opportunity cost." -or- "Drat, didn't build enough, now I'm swarmed with naval units and my bank of arty will die shortly."

Any negative case show in a replay can be countered by cherry picking an example of someone doing it just right -be it luckily or skillfully- and then everything is null and fine -which isn't necessarily true.

So yea, coming from other gaming forums, I've been conditioned to not trust anecdotal evidence on it's own as it's too up to interpretation and just polarizes either side to think they are more right. In a few key times, it's ideal and should be mixed in with theory crafting, but it's not the start of the conversation by any stretch. Moreover, it tends to be in the 'this is OP, he's a clip as to why' direction than the 'it's UP...' cause one is provable in a replay and the other really isn't. (Really, you'd need a lot of replays to even start a base for the second argument -which is approximated by experience- which doesn't require me posting every game I've ever played as 'proof'.)

And at the end of the day, I have no way of looking for replays that fit any criterion you'd impose upon it without spending countless hours hoping someone builds arty in a meaningful way. So I can't fulfill your request.

But you can certainly answer the question phrased in my previous post and post the replays you've already stumbled onto.
Thanks.

Statistics: Posted by errorblankfield — 29 Apr 2014, 00:55

Re: T2 Artilery instalation rework

2014-04-27T18:21:43+02:00

It's perfectly capable of what?

Naval annoyance, sure.

Actual defense, nope.

Experimental defense, meh.

Fire base breaking, not ideal but works.

So again, what are this things magically good at? Especially when everything but range can be gotten from the T3 phase for a fraction of the cost.

Statistics: Posted by errorblankfield — 27 Apr 2014, 18:21

Re: T2 Artilery instalation rework

2014-04-27T11:21:56+02:00

No change needed. The unit is perfectly balanced and capable.

Statistics: Posted by Hawkei — 27 Apr 2014, 11:21

Re: T2 Artilery instalation rework

2014-04-27T02:03:19+02:00

http://rogercpress.wordpress.com/2012/0 ... -tutorial/

Have fun

Statistics: Posted by IceDreamer — 27 Apr 2014, 02:03

Re: T2 Artilery instalation rework

2014-04-27T00:05:27+02:00

BRNKoINSANITY wrote:
Ithilis_Quo, you need to just make your own mod.

good point but i had totaly no idea how make it, i try learn something about mod making from one exremly old manual from gpg net forum, bu with zero impact. Dont had some link for manuals how to rewrite blue print, at first how i can open it as text ?
Thx

Statistics: Posted by Ithilis_Quo — 27 Apr 2014, 00:05

Re: T2 Artilery instalation rework

2014-04-26T23:26:08+02:00

Actually, nothing about this needs changed. It fits its purpose and is balanced in by its cost in mass.

If you want stronger point defense, play UEF with t3 point defense. That is essentially what you are asking for. If you give this kind of arty to all the other factions, then UEF will lose that advantage in fast and hard PD wars.

I see a very long string of change requests by the OP, none of which are suited for the main version of the game.....

Ithilis_Quo, you need to just make your own mod. There is all this stuff you want, and none of it is really able to be implemented like you want or will be stupid balance wise. Making a mod to hook in that you can play is really really simple. Just do that, and then you can play the way you want.

Statistics: Posted by BRNKoINSANITY — 26 Apr 2014, 23:26

Re: T2 Artilery instalation rework

2014-04-26T20:41:29+02:00

IMO, if you want to increase T2 arty use and effectiveness, you must simply improve its accuracy.

Statistics: Posted by pittlebelge — 26 Apr 2014, 20:41

Re: T2 Artilery instalation rework

2014-04-26T16:56:22+02:00

Ithilis_Quo wrote:
... Becase now is T2 arty build only by noobs, ...

LOL

Statistics: Posted by Xinnony — 26 Apr 2014, 16:56

Re: T2 Artilery instalation rework

2014-04-26T16:55:54+02:00

Ithilis_Quo wrote:
ColonelSheppard wrote:way more than for example absolvers, billy, mazor or chronodumper was used.

epic quotemining bro

Statistics: Posted by ColonelSheppard — 26 Apr 2014, 16:55

Re: T2 Artilery instalation rework

2014-04-26T15:59:37+02:00

errorblankfield wrote:
Situation 1: T2 phase

Situation 2: Fatboys

T2 fase is valid but only on point when you build 2 or less t2arty. T3 land cost as much as two miasma, and then mobile is better. And build only one is totaly ussles that dont deal with one mobile shield who cost 150mass (less than 10%)
EDIT : I was think that fatboy had 150 range but had only 100, so it can be effective against him. point for you. Ok thats a two point where it can be build in some effect

That price what it cost change this unit for be more like T3 units like T2 whith already is. in most of map it too expensive to make it. And never for defense on land. I agree that it is situational building, and know some situation when it was good but styll only becase i had plenty of mass. It can be effective against ships, not for kiling but for saying go away from my range. but on land defense never. or nearly never.

IceDreamer wrote:
If you are going to use numbers, get them right for goodness sake.

I got that numbers +- whitotu calculator and agree that are not 100% corect, but styll
aeon
radius 2 vs 3 on mobile +50%
accuraci 1,5vs1 +50%

cybran
radius 4vs7 +43%
acc 2,5vs2 +25%
sera
radius 3 vs 6 +100%
acc 1,5 vs1,75 -15%
uef
radius 3 vs 4 +33%
acc 2vs 1,25 +75%

so its realy bigg diferences in posibility to hit something.

IceDreamer wrote:
Know that Navy will be coming? This is THE BEST COUNTER to Navy if Air and Navy of your own are off the table.

agree. but whats wrong when you will had a posibility to build this building for half cost/effectivnes. and then upgrade it for full numbers. Your oppinion is that is scruw balance ? the upgraded one would be same (on easy unmaster plane:D) only would be one more semi units.
_____

ColonelSheppard wrote:
way more than for example absolvers, billy, mazor or chronodumper was used.

absolver is great units and i dont know why people dont use it more. chronodamper is nearly ussles, too extremly risky do it, more like spend mass for T2 arty. I try to change general opinion about it for give on chrono something what take some surviability. billy is nearly ussles for that energy cost and easy counter, similar like chrono, and dont know what is mazor. So what i see as ussles or "situational" for one use on 1000 games i try to change for make more option how to play this game.

Ok this post is maybe with bad names, but in principle this is about bring new building in game, not change previous one. Becase i see that is better make other units (mobile arty) instead of it.

Statistics: Posted by Ithilis_Quo — 26 Apr 2014, 15:59

Re: T2 Artilery instalation rework

2014-04-26T11:26:13+02:00

@errorblankfield
What exactly are you talking about? I remember a lot of games where T2 arty was used and had a serios impact, way more than for example absolvers, billy, mazor or chronodumper was used. Are these things up then? No they arent, they are situational, there is nothing bad about units beeing situational, not every unit needs to be a unit to be spammed like a t1 tank.

This whole thread is a huge joke because there are claims based on impression and some random numbers from the database without really looking into games. See this is your way you proof T2 arty is UP:

- You look for a replay
- You look for a replay where somebody builds t2 arty
- You look for a replay where somebody runs into a disadvantage BECAUSE he goes for t2 arty
- You do not take a replay where somebdoy place T2 arty on a stupid location

If you do that (and i doubt you do because the "change it change it" - people almost never have an actual point), then we are on a level on which we can agrue about something and i can show you games where it was used very well and gave the player an advantage (i have 3 specific games in mind here right now but there are surely more).

Statistics: Posted by ColonelSheppard — 26 Apr 2014, 11:26

Re: T2 Artilery instalation rework

2014-04-26T09:49:49+02:00

Ithilis_Quo wrote:
IceDreamer wrote:Situational =/= Underpowered. It's clearly not 'Only built by noobs' as I have seen it built by every one of the higher rated players in replays, when the time calls for it

say me some at least 2 stituation when you can use it for deffense and it will be better like use T3 mobile.
http://faforever.com/faf/unitsDB/unit.p ... 04,UEB2303

T3 cost 30% mass, had 30-100% bigger splash dmg !! had 50% less firing randomnes !!! its mobile, dont must be on one place and had less range (but its mobile) and its mobile. And its muth better like 3x more expensive static.

Where is better make T2 statik instead of mobile?

And why is mobile so much better accurate as is static?

___
My suggestion only bring something like half T2 arty, something beten what would not be so incredible expensive and not so rarely usse, but of course with half effectivnes.

800/1995 = 40% the cost
3 AOE vs 4 AOE = 25% less
1.25 High-Arc FR VS 1.5 Low-Arc FR = No noticeable difference. If anything, Static is more accurate. Also, MuzzleVelocity is important. Mobile is dodged very easily, Static is not.
If you are going to use numbers, get them right for goodness sake.

As I said before, it is the RANGE which makes Static worthwhile in the right place, at the right time. A single one of these in an unreachable location but covering a battlefield is an unimaginably large advantage if they can't take it out. If you notice the enemy making an irritating T2 Firebase, retreat a bit and put some of these up, and you probably win the base-war. Know that Navy will be coming? This is THE BEST COUNTER to Navy if Air and Navy of your own are off the table. THE best. Just a couple of them will permanently fend of any Destroyers and do enormous damage to Battleships.

This is not PD. It's not meant to be. It's not supposed to be seen every game, useful in every situation. It is a niche weapon, and so long as it works there then the balance is fine. It does.

Statistics: Posted by IceDreamer — 26 Apr 2014, 09:49

Re: T2 Artilery instalation rework

2014-04-26T01:42:29+02:00

Situation 1: T2 phase

Situation 2: Fatboys

But I agree actually, no one builds them for a reason, they cost way to much. If the target moves, arty is pretty useless. All it does is force someone to either move back, or attack your encampment. If you have so much eco tied into static PD that having them attack you is ideal (rather than waiting to build up your army), then yea, arty all the way. But most people defend with a mobile army for the duality of offense and defense. Forcing someone to attack your army isn't the best idea if there is parity... There isn't a good defenders advantage in this game. So you need a bigger defending army before forcing an attack is good -but then you should just attack.

So unless your within arty range of their fire base and can rain arty on them so they have to leave the comfort of their PD to attack, arty is the key. But that's not the most common situation -nor one you'd want to force. Build big army, be stalled by PD, ferry out an engy, build a fire base, build arty, now you can crush the firebase -after the arty kills things slowly...

Or just bomb the shift out of that base.
And/or mobile of course.

So either fatties or no other options -the perfect situations for T2 arty!

Even more range would be interesting... or cost reduction. Could even keep the build time high for reasons.

Statistics: Posted by errorblankfield — 26 Apr 2014, 01:42

Re: T2 Artilery instalation rework

2014-04-26T01:06:02+02:00

IceDreamer wrote:
Situational =/= Underpowered. It's clearly not 'Only built by noobs' as I have seen it built by every one of the higher rated players in replays, when the time calls for it

say me some at least 2 stituation when you can use it for deffense and it will be better like use T3 mobile.
http://faforever.com/faf/unitsDB/unit.p ... 04,UEB2303

T3 cost 30% mass, had 30-100% bigger splash dmg !! had 50% less firing randomnes !!! its mobile, dont must be on one place and had less range (but its mobile) and its mobile. And its muth better like 3x more expensive static.

Where is better make T2 statik instead of mobile?

And why is mobile so much better accurate as is static?

___
My suggestion only bring something like half T2 arty, something beten what would not be so incredible expensive and not so rarely usse, but of course with half effectivnes.

Statistics: Posted by Ithilis_Quo — 26 Apr 2014, 01:06

Re: T2 Artilery instalation rework

2014-04-25T21:03:22+02:00

I in fact also agree that it is fine like it is but i was wondering since adjacency for those artis was implemented and for t3 it is so great maybe it would not harm to give it a mini buff with adjacency that you can have a bit better relation mass / dps.

Example UEF arti:
1890 mass cost 100 DPS --> 18,9 mass /dps
+4 x t1 pgens:
2190 mass cost 120 DPS --> 18,25 mass / dps

maybe if the reload time could be decreased a bit more for t2 arti with t1 pegen so adjacency is useful for those arti and get 10% bonus or 20% instead of 2,5 % like atm
(2,5% is the difference from 18,9 mass / dps to 18,25 mass / dps)
somehow that would add something nice to the game.

Statistics: Posted by Iszh — 25 Apr 2014, 21:03