Forged Alliance Forever

Re: UEF Nano

2015-11-14T23:21:09+02:00

The Billy is the issue. Look at some of the other ACU upgrades, and how they're basically meant to be used in conjunction (mazor and tele/cloak, gun/stealth, torp/stealth, both double guns, range/sensors, resto/nano, etc.). UEF nano should work the same way with BIlly. As you said, we have to think about how the Billy should/would/will look and what nano could do for that combination.

Completely understand this line of reasoning but my point is that i don't see how it can possibly be done to make the com more survivable than t3, and survivable enough to use billy offensively without introducing the option of forgoing the billy altogether and upgrading it a straight up toe-to-toe brawler among all the other options. UEF: brawler, biggest ranged menace, biggest building menace, big survivability menace. I'm not sure nano is the solution to any problems with the billy. Artificially moving billy to arm and away from shield would probably be more balanced if you wanted to go down that route.

And ofc, as mentioned, all this without the survivability of the build power that would surely be needed.

That's the exact opposite attitude from what faf is supposed to be about. If everyone thought that way, the number of units in this game that would be useless would be huge.

For what it's worth. Nano upgrade isn't a unit, the com is.

Statistics: Posted by Rudolph'sRedNose — 14 Nov 2015, 23:21

Re: UEF Nano

2015-11-14T12:25:13+02:00

Rudolph'sRedNose wrote:
It's clearly not the same upgrade as Seras. Currently. "wouldn't even be used in the same way as Sera upgrade". What would it be for then?

...

If you want to rework anything, rework the billy, but that is an entirely different can of worms...

Edit:
The UEF's weapon is meant to be Billy TBH, but that needs a hefty buff if we want it to fill that role. Needs much better outer ring damage and a faster travel time.

^^ Well, seeing that would have saved me a post.

One the one hand you express confusion about what it would be for, and on the other you describe exactly what should be done with it.

The Billy is the issue. Look at some of the other ACU upgrades, and how they're basically meant to be used in conjunction (mazor and tele/cloak, gun/stealth, torp/stealth, both double guns, range/sensors, resto/nano, etc.). UEF nano should work the same way with BIlly. As you said, we have to think about how the Billy should/would/will look and what nano could do for that combination.

When I say that it would be used differently from Sera, what I mean is that Sera Nano allows you to make a powerful short-range attacker with double gun, or a crazy-tough combat engineer with resto/nano/tech. UEF Nano means no combat engineer, and if it's paired with Billy, it would make a medium-range support unit. Quite different from the Sera ACU, don't you think?

Iszh already described it - Nano should work with Billy to allow the ACU to actually use it. Nano could make forgoing a shield an actual option, allowing offensive Billy use. I don't know that you would even need to have it add build power - just have the Billy require several assisting SCUs/engis in order to be able to fire at a reasonable rate.

Iszh wrote:
1st Billy rambo not even sure if that would be useful since you can simply spam shields with t3 acu

It's powerful when paired with a Fatboy. The fatty knocks down shields and TMD and prevents shields spamming, while the Billy does damage. But without a shield it's too risky to be worth ever doing, especially since bubble SCUs are relatively useless now.

Rudolph'sRedNose wrote:
To make UEF nano "useful" is surely to nerf early cyrban stealth, aeon double gun and be better earlier than (similar) sera? Or make it basically a shield but now you have the option of arm or back. Combine it or tele with ras for invincibility and guaranteed draw.

The sounds pretty overblown to me. How would tele make it invincible? And if you make the UEF nano costed so that you can't reasonably build it until the late game, I don't see how that's going to nerf any early upgrades. Look at how expensive the 2nd Sera gun is, or the Mazor. It doesn't have to be attainable in the early/mid game.

Rudolph'sRedNose wrote:
Just because there is a pretty picture on the upgrade slot since 2007 why does it need to be useful? Everything else in the game has changed. It's obsolete. Keep it as useless as it is or just get rid of it entirely.

That's the exact opposite attitude from what faf is supposed to be about. If everyone thought that way, the number of units in this game that would be useless would be huge.

The idea is to get to a point where everything has a point. That's the whole point of balance.

Statistics: Posted by Mycen — 14 Nov 2015, 12:25

Re: UEF Nano

2015-11-13T22:28:28+02:00

No mention of the super-cheap version, or the mad-but-rather-brilliant temporary repeated booster.

Statistics: Posted by IceDreamer — 13 Nov 2015, 22:28

Re: UEF Nano

2015-11-13T21:12:01+02:00

Ok but if you want to keep a seperate path for nano keep in mind if it is lategame it needs to add builtpower or you deny billy upgrade with it. Other option early rush upgrade still is possible without built power.

Statistics: Posted by Iszh — 13 Nov 2015, 21:12

Re: UEF Nano

2015-11-13T19:52:14+02:00

To make UEF nano "useful" is surely to nerf early cyrban stealth, aeon double gun and be better earlier than (similar) sera?

We are comparing these upgrades (UEF Nano, Sera Doublegun and potentially Sera Resto field vs Gun) to their already established, and well known and used upgrade. The answer is not that T2 is too OP. Stealth is not OP (Cybran seriously needs some survivability, especially on a 10K HP guncom...) 5 Range for T2 is questionable. It is a huge kiting advantage, but if you just charge into the aeon commander when you yourself have T2/Gun, he can never escape YOUR range, and you kill him with your superior health. Its a calculated risk, but is at least sometimes WORTH not having T2.

>IceDreamer
Obviously, i like the idea of Nano synergising with Shield, although i don't think we need any scripted cross-upgrade buffs for this to work, Ideally Nano should stand on its own as useful aswell as helping survive shield down. For this it simply needs health-buff that is AT LEAST on par with T3.

Which brings me to >Iszh
Sticking Nano inbetween T2 and T3 actually sounds like a decent idea (it at least solves the problem of fighting with T2/T3 Regen and Health boosts, and you get the 6K health from T3, and the regen from T3 ONTOP of the mediocre nano boost, rather than instead of, so you're no longer competing with T2/3, and instead augmenting it.

However this removes the alternate upgrade path, EVERYBODY with T3 will also have to have nano first. I think the idea of this should be to offer an ALTERNATIVE to the tech choice, not simply make tech better.

It may be for balance AND late-game usefulness considerations be necessary to split nano into two upgrade...

Statistics: Posted by d-_-b — 13 Nov 2015, 19:52

Re: UEF Nano

2015-11-13T17:41:42+02:00

You do not like the idea to leave it as it is now and simply add it between t2 and t3 engi?

T2 engi -> Nano -> t3 engi
720 mass + 1200 mass + 2000 mass

That would be a small nerf for t3 pd creep but give new mid game ability weak alternative to shield without e cost. Result would be a uef acu with 18k hp and arround 100 hp/s regen at t3 stage. but it costs more. The very early rush upgrade yes i think everybody can agree to this 300 mass upgrade every faction has one except uef. That will stay the last way how to do it if we will not find another. Temporaty upgrade mmhhhmmm no better not in my opinion. But of course i am not really against it, it has to be changed somehow thats anyways better than now.

Statistics: Posted by Iszh — 13 Nov 2015, 17:41

Re: UEF Nano

2015-11-13T17:32:37+02:00

I can't understand this angle of seemingly wanting to make the UEF acu comparable in combat to other coms by making nano "useful"

Rudolph'sRedNose wrote: If it's possible to give UEF a useful nano you're on the road to op and reduced faction diversity of seras nano.

It's the same upgrade, right down to the exact same name. It only makes sense that they would be do similar things in a similar way. Considering that we have three different ACUs with upgrades that have totally different names but do the exact same thing, and that doesn't seem to be a problem for anyone, I don't see how making uef nano useful reduces faction diversity. It wouldn't even be used the same way as the Sera upgrade in the first place.

It's clearly not the same upgrade as Seras. Currently. "wouldn't even be used in the same way as Sera upgrade". What would it be for then?

To make UEF nano "useful" is surely to nerf early cyrban stealth, aeon double gun and be better earlier than (similar) sera? This in addition to already superior UEF stock health. Or perhaps keep the UEF philosophy of not being a toe-to-toe fighter and make nano "useful" late game? With the other UEF upgrade paths, like Iszh, I see no option for "useful" nano there unless somehow you want something that rivals the Cyran telemaze or, indeed, a Sera nano-gun com. Or make it basically a shield but now you have the option of arm or back. Combine it or tele with ras for invincibility and guaranteed draw.

No other faction has 3 options as useful as UEF at all stages of the game. Cybran has a right arm which is essentially useless on certain maps and generally most of the time other than cheese. Aeon can't use back until later game. Sera has a slot that is almost useless unless the com is being used offensively. The T3 UEF suite is better for combat than all the others because of the ravager. Having RAS on a slot away from all their power hungry upgrades is also a huge advantage over the others. Ras-T3-Tele, Ras-T3-Billy, Ras-T3-Sheild, at the expense of what? The 4 minute gun?

Just because there is a pretty picture on the upgrade slot since 2007 why does it need to be useful? Everything else in the game has changed. It's obsolete. Keep it as useless as it is or just get rid of it entirely.

If you want to rework anything, rework the billy, but that is an entirely different can of worms...

Edit:

Well yeah, combat UEF is always sucky, but survivability + Overcharge kinda works. The UEF's weapon is meant to be Billy TBH, but that needs a hefty buff if we want it to fill that role. Needs much better outer ring damage and a faster travel time.

^^ Well, seeing that would have saved me a post.

Statistics: Posted by Rudolph'sRedNose — 13 Nov 2015, 17:32

Re: UEF Nano

2015-11-13T16:53:22+02:00

Well yeah, combat UEF is always sucky, but survivability + Overcharge kinda works. The UEF's weapon is meant to be Billy TBH, but that needs a hefty buff if we want it to fill that role. Needs much better outer ring damage and a faster travel time.

Iszh wrote:
I like the idea of Icedreamer i simply cant see how it should be useful vs t3 engi..

Well... The aim of the game is to outlive the enemy right? It becomes a lot, lot harder for the enemy to end the game if they can't... You know. Kill you. The UEF war machine gets stronger and stronger late-game, the war of attrition favours the faction. If they simply can't reasonably kill you...

OR we go back to what I have been saying for four freaking years. We make Nano upgrade really, really cheap, and design it to be an upgrade which is intended to be replaced. Cheap, VERY low build-time so you can really build it fast on the front lines with no assist, and give a decent regen to give you powerful early-game power, but designed for T2 to come along later and replace it.

Current T2 - 3000 HP, 20 HP/s, T2 for 720/18000/900
Current Nano - 60 HP/s for 1200/44800/1400 - (I love how when written like this, you immediately see how shite Nano is )
New Nano - 50 HP/s for 300/8000/150

Yes, it's an extreme difference, but it's 300 mass invested for an early advantage that you have to make sure pays for itself because it WILL probably be wasted when you replace it with T2 later.

New crazy idea: Repeatable temporary diminishing upgrade. 200/5000/100 for regen starting at 100 HP/s, then every second it diminishes by 2 until it runs out. Can be build even when you have the tech upgrade so that the two stack temporarily. This would be 2000 HP over 50 seconds I believe.

Statistics: Posted by IceDreamer — 13 Nov 2015, 16:53

Re: UEF Nano

2015-11-13T15:05:40+02:00

And you are sure that a bit of regen rate will pay back as a medium game upgrade? For me it feels like if you dont make t3 engi with a uef acu having especially because of having ravager you are removing the theeth of the uef acu. The UEF gun is ridiculous.

Aeon gets range -> very good vs exp units you can kill a monkey 1v1 with this acu and any t3 army because of same range small extra range big effect for low cost

Sera -> can get 1k dps and splash (i know thats not realistic to expensive for the game stage you could use it t3 engi is better here as well in fact sera acu is same shit like uef acu but it has double ras and nano is a nice toy sometimes

Cybran -> gets Laser + oc = crazy 7333 dps for tele and stealth (can it shoot same time? i guess so)

Uef got for late game tml and billy as a weapon and its engi plans ravager + spamming shields tml pd and sam. Without t3 engi uef acu is not much more than a gun acu with a shield on back. even 20k hp more or less in lategame thats a few seconds. Thats maybe the reason why the t3 engi upgrade cant be replaced by nano in late game it is the "big weapon" of the uef acu which opens the option for save play with shield or offensive play with billy/tml. When i go in with uef acu t3 i mostly remove gun and do ras because it is ensuring that i am not stalling e. The gun upgrade does not help vs any exp or t3 units so why to keep it. What exactly should be the benefit of nano while having no real weapon? Thats why i suggested to add nano with big hp boost and built rate without additional engi plans so you could use it for a billy+gun+nano rambo. I can only see those 2 options,

1st Billy rambo not even sure if that would be useful since you can simply spam shields with t3 acu
2nd early game rush triple upgrade add some hp regen of t2 engi suite. nano -> t2 engi -> t3 engi

example 1 - add 20k hp and 150 hp/s regen and 126 built power to nano for 4k mass and high e cost
example 2 - add nano in row with t2 and t3 engi - 20hp/s + 3k hp 450 mass -> 270 mass t2 engi and remaining values

maybe uef acu can have in the end with triple upgrade slightly higher hp like 20 or 30 more regen does not really matter in late game my problem with example 2 is it will make uef acu op in early game maybe. example 1 still does not make any sense vs t3 engi have no idea anymore atm. no matter how you turn it you either remove the "main weapon" of uef acu or you make it op. I like the idea of Icedreamer i simply cant see how it should be useful vs t3 engi.

Maybe do something really crazy and make it like telemazor to a monster with my example 1 but in so big numbers that it will even beat the t3 acu:
15k mass cost lots of e cost
80k hp + 150 hp/s
some built power for billy 63-126
Nobody will agree to this

Edit got a new idea rofl maybe still triple upgrade but nano in middle between t3 engi and t2 engi it will cost 1000 mass more from t2 and add a value like 66 hp/s additional to t2 engi and the t3 engi of uef will result with a bit higher hp regen compared to others but will cost 1000 mass more as well. Uef t3 engi is anyways the most useful. 60hp/s should be no big deal in t3 game. The option with influencing other upgradews sounds nice but is not enough billy is already not working without t3 engi. more connected upgrades on uef acu maybe not the best idea.

Statistics: Posted by Iszh — 13 Nov 2015, 15:05

Re: UEF Nano

2015-11-13T14:14:44+02:00

When was the last time you saw a UEF Bubble ACU? Not often. When was the last time you saw a Bubble ACU go raambocom with it? Never. The bubble is a BAD combat upgrade, because you can just get under the darned thing and evaporate the ACU in half a second. There's a reason you just never see that upgrade except for protecting an SMD or whatever in base.

Even if that were not true, there's no way UEF ACU becomes OP. Let's compare current UEF Nano/Bubble/Gun

Aeon - Not only does it have an extra 7K HP, it has similar regen (50 Aeon vs 70 UEF), you can't get under the shield, and you also have the 5 extra range, which is an absolute killer.

Seraphim - Loses out 16.5K HP, but has a 90/s regen advantage, meaning less than 200 seconds to completely make up the difference, and be at an advantage from there on out. In hit/run engagements of the type that actually happen, that is an easy ask. Not only does this ACU have more HP in the long run, it also has 1000 DPS. A thousand!!! And it has 2 AOE as well!!!! The gun is a HUGE advantage.

Cybran - 25K HP is irrelevant when you're completely invisible, untargetable, and therefore to all intents and purposes indestructible. You also have a 4000 DPS laser. I've seen this thing kill 100,000 mass worth of T4s without even blinking. No. Fucking. Contest.

It's pretty obvious to me that we could significantly buff the power of the UEF non tech upgraded (No Ravagers, no insta-T1 PD) by a significant amount without it becoming even remotely OP. Remember, it lacks range, and it lacks firepower. Even with 100,000 HP, both Sera and Cybran would mince it head to head, and Aeon can kite all day long and is better against units.

At the very least Nano needs to offer an alternative to Tech in being at LEAST between T2 and T3 in terms of bulk. Nano is currently 40 HP/s ahead of T2, which means 75 seconds to catch up at all, is nearly twice the price, and lacks buildpower and tech. Buffing it to +80 would be an advantage of 60 HP/s, or 50 seconds, a much more reasonable proposition. Still underpowered though, and here's where we pair it with the Shield.

If grabbing shield grants an extra 2K HP if you have Nano, we're getting closer to T2 parity, but tech is so strong it's still not there. Reducing shield recharge time from 140s to 120s is a very subtle, but powerful advantage. Now, Nano is worth building instead of T2, but still not T3. To make it worth losing T3 access, we need more, but we can't have it for free without overpowering the relatively (To T3) cheap Nano. So we tie the final improvement into a very late-game upgrade, the bubble, and make it so using Nano with the Bubble is a good, synergistic alternative to T3. We add another 2K HP (So now we're 2K behind the tech path), add another +30 regen to take account of T3's additional healing, and have the Bubble take 140s instead of 175 to recharge.

We end up with two variants of the UEF ACU. One has 54K HP, 45 HP/s, 205 HP/s shield regen when it's recharging, great buildpower, and access to Ravagers, T2 Shields, AA etc etc. This path is also cheaper at first, and gives access to T2 PD creep, one of UEF's most popular strategies. The other has 52K HP, 120 HP/s, 257 HP/s shield regen when it's recharging, but loses out on all the rest. That, to me, seems both an even trade, AND retains the UEF's status as worst of the rambocoms. Sera and Cybran aren't going to care which they take on, and Aeon can still kite all day with very similar bulk.

Statistics: Posted by IceDreamer — 13 Nov 2015, 14:14

Re: UEF Nano

2015-11-13T08:33:59+02:00

Thats alike my option no.2 a lategame upgrade which is quite strong. The difference is it works only together with a shield. If you simply make this nano to a 20k hp with 150hp/s you reach more or less the same effect with the difference you can do more.

Abilities with your idea:
-Late game rambo acu with double shield and lower range compared to aeon acu. If it increases hp more than 6k and maybe life and regen of shield as well it is to cheap so you also need to make it more expensive except you make a 2 stages nano out of it. With uef acu range you cant fight vs big t3 units like aeon you have less range and will fail.

My standalone upgrade would only work if you add the 126 built power then you can do (self repairing sounds like getting more repair power inside )
-Tele acu with high hp and built power can spam pd and factory somewhere
-Billy Rambo with gun, billy and Nano
-Same like you offered late game rambo

But still i like your idea maybe it should improve other upgrades as well not only shield because with lower range than percy and brick it will be still a victim for any exp and small group of t3 units. If you improve range of gun a bit then you have a clone of aeon acu ... if you increase bonus to hp of double shield extreme you would reach a higher hp. Hp is the speciality of uef so why not.

AEon has 55k hp with double shield and no vet + double gun

Sera has arround 1k dps with splash and 31,500 hp 160hp/s or you can add t3 engi to this rambo and get instead of 800 dps 7k additional life and t3 engi which is better

UEF will have 48k hp bubble and normal gun upgrade since no other upgrade really useful thats already stronger than sera acu now you want to add nano. Result will be much stronger than sera acu. On the other hand if you realize the big upgrade nano result will be as well op. Maybe this guy was right you told to delete it. Nano would be with your idea a light t1 shield buff not sure if and how that should pay off compared to beeing able to spam sams and stationary shields and stealth building and so on ... The Big problem is that a uef acu with Bubble shield gun/ras and t3 engi is already a monster. Nobody who has the eco for shield bubble or even normal shield would not have a t3 engi except you will get a 150k hp super monster after lol. I like the idea but i cant imagine how it should work. If nano would not be nano but increasing damage of OC for example from 12 k to xx k it might be better but since people want to keep the nano it seems nearly impossible to a useful nano. More and more i think a early game nano would be good <500 mass cost.

Statistics: Posted by Iszh — 13 Nov 2015, 08:33

Re: UEF Nano

2015-11-13T04:15:19+02:00

No need for it to be reduced faction diversity Had an idea while watching BRNK's latest.

Idea: Interbuffing cross-slot upgrades.

We make the Nano upgrade the play for when you want PURE bulk. As in, when what you really want is more bulk than Shield + T3 can give, and we do it by making the Nano and Shield upgrades explicitly play nice with one another. So...

First we buff the normal Nano slightly to 75 HP/s. That alone is not enough to justify the cost and the lack of Tech. However, if you pair Nano with shield, the Nano upgrade gets +3k HP and the Shield gets reconfigured to regenerate significantly faster when it goes down. So we get more bulk to survive the recharge time, and it goes faster. Upgrade to bubble shield and once again it synergises better with Nano, boosting Nano's regen and HP bonus even further.

This solution is unique, gives a real late-game incentive to use it over Shield + T3, and allows the UEF to get true, late-game rambocom capabilities a bit closer to Aeon's better shield + gun, Seraphim's insane cannon, and Cybran's almighty Cloak/Laser.

Statistics: Posted by IceDreamer — 13 Nov 2015, 04:15

Re: UEF Nano

2015-11-12T17:49:25+02:00

A lot of ideas being thrown around here, but I'd like to point something out: It's called, pretty specifically the "Nano-Repair System." Making it give access to new build options, jamming, radar, etc. would make no sense at all.

Unless you're going to change the name, icon, etc., (which would be fine too) the upgrade should be about repairing the ACU, not doing other stuff.

Rudolph'sRedNose wrote:
If it's possible to give UEF a useful nano you're on the road to op and reduced faction diversity of seras nano.

It's the same upgrade, right down to the exact same name. It only makes sense that they would be do similar things in a similar way. Considering that we have three different ACUs with upgrades that have totally different names but do the exact same thing, and that doesn't seem to be a problem for anyone, I don't see how making uef nano useful reduces faction diversity. It wouldn't even be used the same way as the Sera upgrade in the first place.

Statistics: Posted by Mycen — 12 Nov 2015, 17:49

Re: UEF Nano

2015-11-12T15:38:40+02:00

What jamming DOES do, is make things like PD or long range units that have no vision on your army miss by shooting fake signatures, unless scouted. This would be far more useful if jamming signatures remained after units were scouted.

Slightly off topic but there was a great clip on youtube somewhere of a dead ACU walking building single walls sections while in retreat and the poor opponent shooting at the radar signatures as if they were PD

Statistics: Posted by Rudolph'sRedNose — 12 Nov 2015, 15:38

Re: UEF Nano

2015-11-12T15:29:19+02:00

"not a fan"

Statistics: Posted by Rudolph'sRedNose — 12 Nov 2015, 15:29