Forged Alliance Forever

Re: future of SCUs

2015-08-19T16:19:11+02:00

Definitely agree about formalising t4 as a distinct tier apofenas

Statistics: Posted by Korbah — 19 Aug 2015, 16:19

Re: future of SCUs

2015-08-19T15:14:38+02:00

Well, this is just an idea. Probably if something like this will ever get in FAF, it would be really well designed and balanced. However i got to say that t4s can be stronger against special kind of t3s. Example is spider bot which can kill infinite amount of titans, loyalists, harbs, othuums if it is microed, but does terribly bad against percivals and bricks. Another example i saw in Ithilis' balance mod, where GC could non-stop suck and insta kill t3 units with its tractor claws from 40 range, which made expensive and slow percivals far less valible than cheap and fast titans.

Statistics: Posted by Apofenas — 19 Aug 2015, 15:14

Re: future of SCUs

2015-08-19T10:08:22+02:00

Not sure why you are saying that briang.
I don t like the idea of having exp like real titan that if you suceed to build win the game.
I m ok for getting their bt up with a little buff if needed, but i still think they are good balance atm because they are weaker than t3 but stronger if you can take good engagement and vet it up

Statistics: Posted by keyser — 19 Aug 2015, 10:08

Re: future of SCUs

2015-08-18T15:55:15+02:00

No one likes reworks, but that would be nice to try

Statistics: Posted by yeager — 18 Aug 2015, 15:55

Re: future of SCUs

2015-08-18T13:43:26+02:00

I think SCUs are an option to make a proper balance between t3 and t4 in late game. I really dislike experimentals that can be built super fast, but don't win t3 units mass for mass in a direct fight.

I'm a fan of diamond mod feature, where SCUs are only units capable of building experimental. In that mod you need 16k(not sure) mass just to get 1st SCU out and start an experimental. That would allow t4s to become real experimentals with slow build time and enough fire power to fight its own against mass sufficient amount of t3 units in direct fight.

This would create 2 problems: 1)aeon/seraphim would be stack with harbs/othuums against bricks/percivals for a long time;
2)Mega is expensive and spider is not a match for a GC or Ythota(without loyalist stun abuse) and Uef doesn't have direct fire experimental at all;

This is where SCUs would come in and solve both problems. Combat unit:Concept of aeon shield combatant preset is good solution of 1st problem. These ones are cheap, tanky, have low dps, huge AOE and 40 range, so they would kite and force percivals in close range to harbs. So it would make micro intensive, but possible to win. Support unit:Add chrono upgrade to aeon and restoration field to seraphim SCUs.
For the 2d problem i would use 2 concepts from current UEF SCU. Combat unit: making 10k cost rambo capable of facing direct fire experimentals; Support unit: making 2d shield easier to get and keep double shield-omni or double shield-double gun SCU with fatboy or percies.
All other combat capabilities remove or tweak, so intence microed SCUs with them would barelly win t3 mass for mass.

This concept is a bit complicated, but creates proper tech level distribution t1->t2->t3->SCUs->Exp.

Statistics: Posted by Apofenas — 18 Aug 2015, 13:43

Re: future of SCUs

2015-08-18T10:43:26+02:00

Well you sais it.
Cybran is incredebly strong againt t1/t2/t3
Uef is really strong against everything
Aeon is kinda weaker
And sera is eating exp alive.

Yes on paper they aren't that op, but they can dodge 90 % of percy shot if well micro making it really really strong. They are high reward micro unit.

They want to keep usefull feature, but making them less strong as assault unit. So that they are real support unit.

Statistics: Posted by keyser — 18 Aug 2015, 10:43

Re: future of SCUs

2015-08-18T06:06:50+02:00

did i miss a scu buff ? or how come they are suddenly op?

for all i knew they were very cost inefficient in all regards o.O.
The only times you use them is

when you either have too much mass cause the fightingpower per unit exceeds that of t3 units (naturally with that cost),

to reclaim in contested areas cause of speed Hp BP, since any other unit gets one shot...
for the same reason you'd want a scu build forward bases / or do a PD drop rush on enemy base ( which is a valid yet easily counterable strategy).
Or to reclaim under sea cause they can only be hit by torps.

then of course there are additional special roles to scu of diff factions:

the seraphim can get really really really tanky, which make sthem marvelous combat units( I haven't done the math on them when it comes to cost efficiency, but they usually get countered the same way a GC would)
or they are a nice way to snipe enemy coms.
cybrans huge regeneration and rapidfire stun makes them incredibly strong as anti t1-3 spam unit. But they are weak against t4. The AA is also a very nice feat.
UEF offers a nice shield though compared to the tankiness of the seraphim thats neglectable lol... almost no one uses them for their bubbles sadly - must be cause they are hardly effective.
Aeon, iI barely ever see in action, unless theres some unprotected area they can teleport to and suicide, a very expensive maneuver tho.

well thats how i perceived them anyway

Statistics: Posted by andybe — 18 Aug 2015, 06:06

Re: future of SCUs

2015-08-11T07:00:49+02:00

Mechsangoku wrote:
Wow,

Build time is masive on those, a non assited single quantum gate will be kinda useless no ?

Five minutes (for the most heavily upgraded SCU, at that) hardly seems "massive" to me, it's not like we're talking about building a Mavor with a T3 engi here... But I definitely agree that limiting a player to one gateway only would be a step too far - seems unnecessary and counterintuitive.

yeager wrote:
I personally think that is a stupid answer, hard locks like this shouldnt be on regular units, that's a recipe for disaster. (Look at supcom 2)

A fully customizable unit that is good at just about everything... that hardly sounds like a "regular" unit to me. The whole point of SCUs is that they're not supposed to be regular units, after all, they're supposed to pretty much be extra commanders. If ever there was a unit for which a hard lock is appropriate, it would be these. (Much more so than nukes, really.)

Also, a big theme of this thread is about how SCU spam is too powerful, and this would work well to reduce the power of SCU spam without having to dramatically restructure their balance - they'd still be powerful, and you could still spam them if you want, but you would need to build several gateways, so it would require a bit of an investment and some time, instead of popping out a bunch of them as soon as you get to T3. As it is, at 3k a pop gateways aren't that expensive to begin with, so it's not even that much of a limiting factor if you really want lots of them.

Korbah wrote:
You could rebalanced the base build time to a lower number factoring the quantum gate would not be assisted

Statistics: Posted by Mycen — 11 Aug 2015, 07:00

Re: future of SCUs

2015-08-09T06:19:33+02:00

Mechsangoku wrote:
Wow,

Build time is masive on those, a non assited single quantum gate will be kinda useless no ?

You could rebalanced the base build time to a lower number factoring the quantum gate would not be assisted

Statistics: Posted by Korbah — 09 Aug 2015, 06:19

Re: future of SCUs

2015-08-08T17:13:03+02:00

I personally think that is a stupid answer, hard locks like this shouldnt be on regular units, that's a recipe for disaster. (Look at supcom 2)

Statistics: Posted by yeager — 08 Aug 2015, 17:13

Re: future of SCUs

2015-08-08T10:48:48+02:00

Wow,

Build time is masive on those, a non assited single quantum gate will be kinda useless no ?

Statistics: Posted by Mechsangoku — 08 Aug 2015, 10:48

Re: future of SCUs

2015-08-08T01:21:46+02:00

ckitching wrote:
Vee wrote:In that case you could also limit the number of gates to 1 and remove assist.

Well, that's kinda been done for nukes, remember. Assisting them jsnr very effective: maybe quantum gates should be similar?

Still the best way to balance them. You likely wouldn't even need to limit the number of quantum gates to one if you just make them (effectively) unassistable. If someone wants to spam SCUs they'll really have to invest in it.

Also, it would finally make SCU building logical - if on-site construction units can build them, why do they need to be teleported in in the first place?

Statistics: Posted by Mycen — 08 Aug 2015, 01:21

Re: future of SCUs

2015-07-24T16:58:38+02:00

Vee wrote:
In that case you could also limit the number of gates to 1 and remove assist.

Well, that's kinda been done for nukes, remember. Assisting them jsnr very effective: maybe quantum gates should be similar?

Statistics: Posted by ckitching — 24 Jul 2015, 16:58

Re: future of SCUs

2015-07-24T15:55:10+02:00

Well it was clear scu's needed more than just some more hp and damage, but it really doesn't seem necessary here, they are in a pretty good spot, they just need a nerf

Statistics: Posted by yeager — 24 Jul 2015, 15:55

Re: future of SCUs

2015-07-24T14:27:02+02:00

pip kinda redisigned it the first time, that's why spam scu is strong nowadays.
so why not redesign it back ?

Statistics: Posted by keyser — 24 Jul 2015, 14:27