Forged Alliance Forever

Re: Paragon cost need to be adjusted

2016-04-05T14:22:12+02:00

LichKing2033 wrote:
Gonna necro this topic for a moment (thread is only 1 month old so relax)
So... maybe it's the right time to lower the cost of Mavor to 200k mass or increase its DPS to Vanilla standards? So it can win against Paragon? It's kind of illogical that a non-military unit wins over military unit, is it not?

What exactly screams "Civilian building as in every home owner has one in its basement! Hey, it´s free energy for your heating!" about this absolutely confidential, classified EXPERIMENTAL optimizied-for-producing-a-boatload-of-killingpower mass reactor that terminates itself at it´s end-of-life in a city eradicating nuclear explosion? Would you rather sayit´s a brick-and-mortars DIY warehouse?

Mind: blown.

Edit, to clarify: It´s called game ender for a good reason. Is it better than the mavor? Is it worse than the mavor? Any game ender is extremly powerful and needs to be nullified immediately. I really do not see a balancing issue here.

Statistics: Posted by Vanguard — 05 Apr 2016, 14:22

Re: Paragon cost need to be adjusted

2016-03-18T21:57:59+02:00

Lowering the cost of other game enders is out of the question and so is buffing the Mavor. Of course Paragon is the best it is (near) INFINITE resources.

Statistics: Posted by briang — 18 Mar 2016, 21:57

Re: Paragon cost need to be adjusted

2016-03-18T21:43:51+02:00

Gonna necro this topic for a moment (thread is only 1 month old so relax)

briang wrote:
The classic argument is that you ought to always be able to counter a Paragon given equal circumstances, but in practice there are never truly equal circumstances, and that isn't necessarily true to begin with. If you sit 2 people across the map from each other with 1000 mass income and 20 SCU and one builds a Paragon and spams build power and the other builds a Mavor, which wins?

The player building the paragon wins because he can defend his finishing Paragon from a completed Mavor, and with the correct amounts of build power in the right positions you are able to defend other vital structures as well. It has been done before, and it will continue to be done.

So... maybe it's the right time to lower the cost of Mavor to 200k mass or increase its DPS to Vanilla standards? So it can win against Paragon? It's kind of illogical that a non-military unit wins over military unit, is it not?

theeggroll wrote:
Apofenas wrote:I doubt i could find a ladder game even with heavy T3 arty.

Challenge accepted for next time I play ladder

Well good luck, theeggroll. Do you want me to start digging a grave for you on Open Palms?

Statistics: Posted by Lieutenant Lich — 18 Mar 2016, 21:43

Re: Paragon cost need to be adjusted

2016-04-07T03:28:04+02:00

"Personally as Aeon in PvP games I've never built one. I would go for a Salvation first, only a few times have I completed one and won compared to the times it either got destroyed during construction, or the enemy had enough attack strength to destroy it that cost less (crash a couple Czars on it). Sure, I got the mass, but at that point I had invested much or my attack in the one super arty, he had way more T3 units and a couple of Czar & GC leftover. Gameover."

There are too many problems with this to point out... but I'll start by asking you why would you build a 225k mass arty unit that can be tanked by assisted shields when you could spend another 25k mass and be able to build infinite amounts of anything you want?

Paragon is BY FAR the best game-ender. The Yolo is decent for the cost but the Mavor is significantly better. W/ a Mavor on the field the enemy must select choice structures to defend w/ shield assist; contrarily to the Yolo which can be defended over an entire area with ~6-8 anti-nukes.

Paragons on Gap are a questionable choice compared to other maps because of the low transit times for experimental(s) from your enemy, but that can be said for any game ender (which is why you rarely see anything more expensive than a Scathis or T3 static arty there). The fact that you built your arties merely expresses the basic principles of countering a game ender: not sitting around while your opponents build it.

The larger the map, the more complex countering it becomes. But depending on how you synced your fire, and if your opponents had proper amounts of build power (I'd bet money they didn't), they likely could have defended their Paragon from your arties while they spammed GCs and Salvations and all sorts of nasty things. I'd suggest that on Gap your best choice for countering would be expirimentals upwards of 90% of the time...

The classic argument is that you ought to always be able to counter a Paragon given equal circumstances, but in practice there are never truly equal circumstances, and that isn't necessarily true to begin with. If you sit 2 people across the map from each other with 1000 mass income and 20 SCU and one builds a Paragon and spams build power and the other builds a Mavor, which wins?

The player building the paragon wins because he can defend his finishing Paragon from a completed Mavor, and with the correct amounts of build power in the right positions you are able to defend other vital structures as well. It has been done before, and it will continue to be done.

Statistics: Posted by briang — 29 Feb 2016, 17:00

Re: Paragon cost need to be adjusted

2016-02-28T09:34:15+02:00

Para is a big advantage IF enemy is not alert enough or strong enough to attack it. If they are, you wasted a lot of resources.

I recall a game on Gap where the enemy built Paragons, first his main one and started 2 more for his two remaining allies. Meanwhile, I had 2 Heavy Arty built and was hitting their bases (thus also why they were down an ally). I let him complete that Paragon, two of the players had their ACUs nearby from building it, and thought they could build enough shields to protect it

They were wrong, when it blew it took both of them out. Para is as OP as a Yolana Oss - if you let them build it, you are probably toast. Given the resource draw, you should be able to counter and destroy it during construction with equivalent attack units in mass/energy, and best blow it up right after completion taking out whatever built it as well (very often an ACU).

Personally as Aeon in PvP games I've never built one. I would go for a Salvation first, only a few times have I completed one and won compared to the times it either got destroyed during construction, or the enemy had enough attack strength to destroy it that cost less (crash a couple Czars on it). Sure, I got the mass, but at that point I had invested much or my attack in the one super arty, he had way more T3 units and a couple of Czar & GC leftover. Gameover.

Statistics: Posted by Saxxon — 28 Feb 2016, 09:34

Re: Paragon cost need to be adjusted

2016-02-10T19:33:11+02:00

Theres that t3 arty war on serenity between me and zock that i posted on replays for casting thread

Statistics: Posted by Blodir — 10 Feb 2016, 19:33

Re: Paragon cost need to be adjusted

2016-02-10T19:26:20+02:00

Pascal and I tested shield assist vs. Mavor extensively. It doesn't take as much build power as you might imagine. Woth as much as you should have when your para is nearing completion it is totally feasible.

Statistics: Posted by briang — 10 Feb 2016, 19:26

Re: Paragon cost need to be adjusted

2016-02-10T18:33:59+02:00

Apofenas wrote:
I doubt i could find a ladder game even with heavy T3 arty.

Challenge accepted for next time I play ladder

Statistics: Posted by theeggroll — 10 Feb 2016, 18:33

Re: Paragon cost need to be adjusted

2016-02-10T11:37:12+02:00

I've seen a lot of games where people defend against mavors, but too lazy to find replays.

Statistics: Posted by Yudi — 10 Feb 2016, 11:37

Re: Paragon cost need to be adjusted

2016-02-10T10:48:36+02:00

briang wrote:
Wow FFA with gentleman's agreement no rush? If you take 5 minutes to build your first arty after the para you are awful. You are still assuming equal eco and sane start times which doesn't make any sense. Not to mention that you can defend a finishing Para from a mavor without much effort.

There are no "no rush" and "no attack" agreements when someone starts game ender when people play serious. If that player is close, you team up with somebody and attack, if he is far away - start game ender race. I had a game ender fight on Ocean Fortress when i managed to build Mavor while team with Yolona tryed to kill team with Paragon. I made Mavor and killed about 5 Paragons and a couple Rapid fire artileries so that team lost.

Spoiler: show

I saw people defending from Yolona, scathis, Salvation. Never from Mavor. I count it not possible untill you prove othewise.
In theory(asuming you use only aeon tech) you could trash sky above para with air units and put a huge assist on shields. If that worked, i'd just kill anti nukes and still kill para.

If you can find me 10 ladder games with game enders in the last 2 months you can say Seton's is irrelevant. In reality it is the only map that really is relevant.

Irrelevant argument. There is no real opportunities to build game ender in ladder for a lot of reasons: too little big maps (and those big maps are comparitevly small), map meta that somewhat promotes being agressive, 99% people playing cybran, ect. I Sure if you compare Ladder and Thermo, there will be more game enders on thermo. I doubt i could find a ladder game even with heavy T3 arty.

Statistics: Posted by Apofenas — 10 Feb 2016, 10:48

Re: Paragon cost need to be adjusted

2016-02-09T23:40:37+02:00

Replay pretty please. I imagine that could happen quickly but two minutes is absolute bullshit.

Statistics: Posted by theeggroll — 09 Feb 2016, 23:40

Re: Paragon cost need to be adjusted

2016-02-09T16:57:47+02:00

If you don't have the BP ready you're doing it wrong. Past time I built a para on Seton's I had arty and second para within 2 minutes. I refuse to even consider that your opinion is based on games vs AI... if I did I'd probably explode.

Statistics: Posted by briang — 09 Feb 2016, 16:57

Re: Paragon cost need to be adjusted

2016-02-09T16:28:38+02:00

I actually disagree briang, the 5 minutes to make an article after paragon seems reasonable. Once you finish the paragon people normally don't have INSANE amounts of BP yet. Whenever I make one in campaign I spend the first 2-3 minutes getting the necessary BP so that I can build whatever I want in like 2 seconds. In terms of late game, I think coop works just as well as sentons lmao

Statistics: Posted by theeggroll — 09 Feb 2016, 16:28

Re: Paragon cost need to be adjusted

2016-02-09T15:37:37+02:00

Wow FFA with gentleman's agreement no rush? If you take 5 minutes to build your first arty after the para you are awful. You are still assuming equal eco and sane start times which doesn't make any sense. Not to mention that you can defend a finishing Para from a mavor without much effort.

If you can find me 10 ladder games with game enders in the last 2 months you can say Seton's is irrelevant. In reality it is the only map that really is relevant.

Statistics: Posted by briang — 09 Feb 2016, 15:37

Re: Paragon cost need to be adjusted

2016-02-09T05:01:43+02:00

So, by experience of "realities of late game" you mean the experience of ̶t̶h̶e̶r̶m̶o̶ ̶w̶i̶t̶h̶ ̶w̶a̶t̶e̶r̶ setons late game? Oh please, it's you who has no real experience than.

Not so long ago i played like 10 FFA games on Gentleman's reef with one tactic - don't expand, eco up till 500-600 mass income and make game ender. I lost only one game, can guess which game ender i had? If i built Mavor or Yolona, i won once i got it first. It doesn't matter if you get your game ender one a minute later or 15 minutes later, it will get attacked and destroyed before/some time after it was finished assuming your opponent knows how to scout and correctly set priorities.

You can't defend your Paragon from Mavor exept killing it first. Which means you need to get your Paragon 5-6 minutes before to build something from it. If you did that, it means you had decent advantage and could win a game with other game ender or without them at all.

Statistics: Posted by Apofenas — 09 Feb 2016, 05:01