Mycen wrote:
Oh, it was terrible. It would hit even moving targets with almost perfect accuracy across the map. I remember killing MLs and GCs sallying from the enemy base with a few shots.
In the games I've been playing with them lately I haven't found them to be notably underpowered. But I don't play on the same level as you guys, so I'm used to games where players have more time to do and build stuff than they might at high levels - I would defer to your calculations about what constitutes reasonable cost for damage. If you're going to make it more powerful though, please make sure we don't go back to how it was in vanilla. Regardless of how cool John Mavor might find it, Mavors really shouldn't be effective to the point where you can use it against mobile units as well as buildings, that's just ridiculous.
At 300,000 Mass, it cannot break through a below-average late-game shielding array. That, by definition, makes it 'Notably Underpowered'. Even now the cost has been brought down to 225,000, it is still nowhere NEAR powerful enough for that kind of mass investment. However, you are absolutely right, we do NOT want the Vanilla one back. It was too much, and the bug where it would seek out enemy ACU with no radar was way too over the top. My version of Mavor CAN be used against mobile targets, but only if you put a significant amount of its' time into targeting that one, single unit.
Mycen wrote:
Six seconds? The base RoF is 8 seconds, right? So if you surround it with T4 pgens, it should fire about as fast as you describe (faster, actually) would be an effective RoF already, no? Why would changing its stats be necessary at all then? Honestly, I'm not sure why you used a Paragon surrounded by T3 shields as the benchmark for the Mavor's effectiveness, either. Considering that a Paragon costs more to build than a Mavor, and contributes nothing directly to a player upon its completion, it makes a certain amount of sense to me that a Paragon could 'beat' a Mavor in this fashion.
Nothing to do with costs. The reason I chose that setup of a Paragon ans Shields is because that is the exact kind of target a Mavor will try firing at. It SHOULD be able to penetrate three shields, regardless of whether or not there happens to be a Paragon beneath them. It can't. Also, I'm fairly sure Mavor no longer gets a RoF bonus from T3 PGens.
Mycen wrote:
Do we really think that the Mavor should be impossible to defend against, able to single-handedly break through the toughest shielding?
It costs 225,000 Mass. For that you get 12 Spiderbots, which will penetrate ANY static defensive line. Yes, it should. When you consider that the entire point of this is to make it totally awe-inspiring to watch, and that I would not be adverse to my version of Mavor costing 500,000 Mass to build, yes, it damn well should end the game if you complete it.
Mycen wrote:
I don't really think that's an argument that the Mavor should be better, but that the Salvation should be worse. I think it has always been too powerful - it is supposed to rapidly fire submunitions that spread across a large area, but its damage is still focused enough that it can destroy T3 units in one shot, and it can destroy targets deep underwater? OUTrageous.
Salvation costs 200,000 Mass. If they have built it, you SHOULD lose. It SHOULD be able to obliterate absolutely any target you point it at. The fact is they completed a 200,000 Mass unit, meaning you should have a 200,000 Mass advantage on the battlefield. If you cannot win the game with that, then you don't DESERVE to win.
All this is pointless anyway. Nobody has yet come forward with an offer of trying to get the unit polished up nicely.Statistics: Posted by IceDreamer — 17 Sep 2013, 17:25
]]>
I'm so proud of myself... lulz