Forged Alliance Forever Forged Alliance Forever Forums 2013-03-03T05:45:44+02:00 /feed.php?f=52&t=3073 2013-03-03T05:45:44+02:00 2013-03-03T05:45:44+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=3073&p=32697#p32697 <![CDATA[Re: Reduce t3 stationary arty cost]]>
in the balance testing mod it only takes a single T3 arty to get through multiple T2 sera shields.

One arty can also take down a single T3 sera shield.

Statistics: Posted by noms — 03 Mar 2013, 05:45


]]>
2013-02-20T23:00:00+02:00 2013-02-20T23:00:00+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=3073&p=31529#p31529 <![CDATA[Re: Reduce t3 stationary arty cost]]> Statistics: Posted by Ze_PilOt — 20 Feb 2013, 23:00


]]>
2013-02-20T07:51:09+02:00 2013-02-20T07:51:09+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=3073&p=31454#p31454 <![CDATA[Re: Reduce t3 stationary arty cost]]>
Skilzat99X wrote:
The cost of the scathis (or a little more) would be nice. However, this ties in to the shield nerf, because that nerf to stationary shields right now makes one arty able to blow through even moderately-heavily shielded bases easily.


go here pls:
viewtopic.php?f=52&t=3072&start=30

Statistics: Posted by ColonelSheppard — 20 Feb 2013, 07:51


]]>
2013-02-20T07:18:21+02:00 2013-02-20T07:18:21+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=3073&p=31448#p31448 <![CDATA[Re: Reduce t3 stationary arty cost]]> Statistics: Posted by Supreme321 — 20 Feb 2013, 07:18


]]>
2013-02-20T00:21:48+02:00 2013-02-20T00:21:48+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=3073&p=31420#p31420 <![CDATA[Re: Reduce t3 stationary arty cost]]>
uberge3k wrote:
We should first figure out exactly what the role of T3 artillery is.

It can never be more efficient than an army, that much is obvious. But if so, what is its purpose?

The most logical solution would be to balance its role as similar to that of it's mobile T3 counterpart: something that breaks shields and harasses structures from afar. Note "harasses", not "murders bases". But somewhere between that and the current "can't break anything that's shielded with 0.X% of its cost".

It might also work as a guaranteed base cracker when used in combination with a nuke. T3 arty to kill the shielded SMD, SML to destroy the actual base. Their combined cost would be quite expensive, but worth it as the final option to break a turtle stalemate without going to a game ender such as a paragon or yolona oss.

for 80k mass if damn well better murder that base

Statistics: Posted by eXivo — 20 Feb 2013, 00:21


]]>
2013-02-20T00:00:22+02:00 2013-02-20T00:00:22+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=3073&p=31419#p31419 <![CDATA[Re: Reduce t3 stationary arty cost]]>
Arkansas wrote:
How about increasing the damage and splash hugely, make it cost mass to shoot, reducing the fire rate hugely so its totally ineffective vs sheilds but slaughters anything it hits :D. This would make it only work when used in conjunction with other units.



MOBILE SHIELDS :o :o :o

Statistics: Posted by Supreme321 — 20 Feb 2013, 00:00


]]>
2013-02-19T20:57:46+02:00 2013-02-19T20:57:46+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=3073&p=31398#p31398 <![CDATA[Re: Reduce t3 stationary arty cost]]> . This would make it only work when used in conjunction with other units.

Statistics: Posted by Arkansas — 19 Feb 2013, 20:57


]]>
2013-02-19T20:23:49+02:00 2013-02-19T20:23:49+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=3073&p=31396#p31396 <![CDATA[Re: Reduce t3 stationary arty cost]]> Statistics: Posted by Wakke — 19 Feb 2013, 20:23


]]>
2013-02-19T16:32:51+02:00 2013-02-19T16:32:51+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=3073&p=31372#p31372 <![CDATA[Re: Reduce t3 stationary arty cost]]> Statistics: Posted by InnocentInstinct — 19 Feb 2013, 16:32


]]>
2013-02-19T06:17:44+02:00 2013-02-19T06:17:44+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=3073&p=31297#p31297 <![CDATA[Re: Reduce t3 stationary arty cost]]>
Also, you talk about what the purpose of T3 artillery is, but aren't the factions' arties supposed to have different purposes? Consider that pinpoint strikes like the one you mention are only the primary function of the Aeon T3 artillery. The Sera and UEF T3 arties also have distributed damage as a function, and Cybran one isn't designed to take out specific targets at all.

In the example you mentioned, the Emissary should be able to function as you describe. What I've noticed, though, is that, even assuming 100% accuracy (did it's accuracy get reduced at the same time as the Mavor's, by the way? I have difficulty hitting any specific target with them now), since its rate of fire is longer than the rebuild time of a T2 shield, it can't possibly serve in that function. The UEF and Seraphim arties seem fine to me, but the Cybran one seems either overcosted or underpowered. Especially considering the current stats of the Scathis, I'm not really clear on how the Disruptor is ever supposed to be a better investment, except in the most specific of circumstances.


Before talking about pricing or capability changes for T3 artillery, you're right, we should figure out what it's primary purpose is. But do let's try not to forget that faction diversity is also a goal.

Statistics: Posted by Mycen — 19 Feb 2013, 06:17


]]>
2013-02-19T05:32:13+02:00 2013-02-19T05:32:13+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=3073&p=31294#p31294 <![CDATA[Re: Reduce t3 stationary arty cost]]>
It can never be more efficient than an army, that much is obvious. But if so, what is its purpose?

The most logical solution would be to balance its role as similar to that of it's mobile T3 counterpart: something that breaks shields and harasses structures from afar. Note "harasses", not "murders bases". But somewhere between that and the current "can't break anything that's shielded with 0.X% of its cost".

It might also work as a guaranteed base cracker when used in combination with a nuke. T3 arty to kill the shielded SMD, SML to destroy the actual base. Their combined cost would be quite expensive, but worth it as the final option to break a turtle stalemate without going to a game ender such as a paragon or yolona oss.

Statistics: Posted by uberge3k — 19 Feb 2013, 05:32


]]>
2013-02-19T03:48:25+02:00 2013-02-19T03:48:25+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=3073&p=31289#p31289 <![CDATA[Re: Reduce t3 stationary arty cost]]> Statistics: Posted by Stratocaster — 19 Feb 2013, 03:48


]]>
2013-02-17T13:42:50+02:00 2013-02-17T13:42:50+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=3073&p=30972#p30972 <![CDATA[Re: Reduce t3 stationary arty cost]]>
i suggest something around 54k-57k mass (the shield de-nerf will probably be voted yes)

Statistics: Posted by eXivo — 17 Feb 2013, 13:42


]]>
2013-02-17T05:58:48+02:00 2013-02-17T05:58:48+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=3073&p=30935#p30935 <![CDATA[Re: Reduce t3 stationary arty cost]]> Statistics: Posted by pip — 17 Feb 2013, 05:58


]]>
2013-02-17T03:43:32+02:00 2013-02-17T03:43:32+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=3073&p=30926#p30926 <![CDATA[Re: Reduce t3 stationary arty cost]]> Statistics: Posted by Seleucus24 — 17 Feb 2013, 03:43


]]>