Forged Alliance Forever

Re: Useless weapons attached to units

2016-07-28T14:04:10+02:00

if all the units had weapons for any situation, the game sense would change to who's army is bigger

Statistics: Posted by Masyaka — 28 Jul 2016, 14:04

Re: Useless weapons attached to units

2016-07-03T20:36:43+02:00

Nepty wrote:
Remove broadsword crappy AA and replace it with a Tech 3 transport clamp. Allow it to ferry tech 3 units. Alot less useless. Just an idea.

Please don't touch my broadswords. They are perfect right now. Having a crappy AA gun is fine - it is the excellent air to ground damage that I really want. Much better than a Restorer IMO. The AA gun isn't entirely useless. As I have known it to take out the odd T1 air unit. Sure, it isn't going to make a huge difference, but against annoying T1 interceptors it can have some tactical merit... Heck, it is also pretty good at shooting UEF engineering drones in a UEF mirror match. So it is useful sometimes.

Statistics: Posted by Hawkei — 03 Jul 2016, 20:36

Re: Useless weapons attached to units

2016-07-02T20:29:54+02:00

Nepty wrote:
NapSpan wrote:Air jammer is Stinger with sparky, with UEF you can f*** enemy aiming with those beautiful engies (as long as they are not spotted)

OMG I never thought of that! Thanks. (Silly brain Y U No think of that?)
Ooooooo! I now understand why T2 mobile shields deactivate on transports. Good lord, we could have had shielded stingers! Finally after 8 years I know why air shields were removed. Thank you so much NapSpan.

Shields deactivate in gunships because lot of noobs were complaining about that, that could work as "faction ability". Radar jammer working in transport is not so obvius, after all shields are deactivated when they are loaded, I thought the same happening in sparkies until I saw one replay where I had some loaded in transport.

Statistics: Posted by NapSpan — 02 Jul 2016, 20:29

Re: Useless weapons attached to units

2016-07-02T17:24:50+02:00

Nepty wrote:
Ooooooo! I now understand why T2 mobile shields deactivate on transports. Good lord, we could have had shielded stingers! Finally after 8 years I know why air shields were removed.

Also because SupCom 2 has shielded UEF Air and SC 2 is hated on FAF. Just another thought...

Statistics: Posted by Lieutenant Lich — 02 Jul 2016, 17:24

Re: Useless weapons attached to units

2016-07-02T14:38:23+02:00

NapSpan wrote:
Air jammer is Stinger with sparky, with UEF you can f*** enemy aiming with those beautiful engies (as long as they are not spotted)

OMG I never thought of that! Thanks. (Silly brain Y U No think of that?)
Ooooooo! I now understand why T2 mobile shields deactivate on transports. Good lord, we could have had shielded stingers! Finally after 8 years I know why air shields were removed. Thank you so much NapSpan.

Statistics: Posted by Nepty — 02 Jul 2016, 14:38

Re: Useless weapons attached to units

2016-07-02T13:49:24+02:00

Nepty wrote:
Continental. That's right. Umm. Broadsword radar jammer then? That can be added, and Give cybran wailer stealth instead of jamming. Makes perfect sense. Dunno why it wasn't done yet. Jamming is UEF's thing.

Better yet. Give the sword stealth , let the wailer keep its jam. How you like them apples cybran? I can taste the salt already...

Fixed in Equilibrium

NapSpan wrote:
...(as long as they [jamming] are not spotted)

Fixed in Equilibrium too

Statistics: Posted by Ithilis_Quo — 02 Jul 2016, 13:49

Re: Useless weapons attached to units

2016-07-02T13:30:02+02:00

Air jammer is Stinger with sparky, with UEF you can f*** enemy aiming with those beautiful engies (as long as they are not spotted)

Statistics: Posted by NapSpan — 02 Jul 2016, 13:30

Re: Useless weapons attached to units

2016-07-02T13:14:15+02:00

NapSpan wrote:
Nepty wrote:Remove broadsword crappy AA and replace it with a Tech 3 transport clamp. Allow it to ferry tech 3 units. Alot less useless. Just an idea.

We actually have one badass gunship with good AA, Air to ground gun and 6 T3 clamps.

Continental. That's right. Umm. Broadsword radar jammer then? That can be added, and Give cybran wailer stealth instead of jamming. Makes perfect sense. Dunno why it wasn't done yet. Jamming is UEF's thing.

Better yet. Give the sword stealth , let the wailer keep its jam. How you like them apples cybran? I can taste the salt already...

Statistics: Posted by Nepty — 02 Jul 2016, 13:14

Re: Useless weapons attached to units

2016-07-02T11:42:15+02:00

Nepty wrote:
Remove broadsword crappy AA and replace it with a Tech 3 transport clamp. Allow it to ferry tech 3 units. Alot less useless. Just an idea.

We actually have one badass gunship with good AA, Air to ground gun and 6 T3 clamps.

Statistics: Posted by NapSpan — 02 Jul 2016, 11:42

Re: Useless weapons attached to units

2016-07-02T01:32:27+02:00

Remove broadsword crappy AA and replace it with a Tech 3 transport clamp. Allow it to ferry tech 3 units. Alot less useless. Just an idea.

Statistics: Posted by Nepty — 02 Jul 2016, 01:32

Re: Useless weapons attached to units

2016-06-25T23:21:38+02:00

Apofenas wrote:
Most of these weapons don't necessary need any kind of purpose. They should just remain cosmetic with potential to do some damage but make no affect on balance. Neptune with 60 DPS torpedoes will barely be any different than one with 20 DPS torpedoes except it wouldn't die to couple t2 subs or t1 sub force.

Yeah, well ships are not meant to travel alone in dangerous waters. Big units should their own AA/torps, like they do now, to fend off minor attacks. But big, heavy and expensive units must never travel without an escort. Have you ever seen a real-life aircraft carrier travel without cruisers and subs around it? No, because a carrier can be sunk by subs and missiles. That is why it has cruisers and subs as an escort.

So yes, there are minor weapons like battleship's AA and torps, Soul Ripper's anti-air or the AA of Broadsword and Wailer that do little damage. But that is because those units are heavy an expensive. They are meant to have an escort such as subs + cruisers for battleships (just as an example), ASF for soul ripper and the other gunships. It would be OP if Broadswords would be able to kill ASF AND deal colossal damage to land. Restorer does both not too great, sacrificing the ability to do either one efficiently for the sake of having two abilities of medium efficiency.

Apofenas wrote:
It will just be more logical to have t3/t4 unit to shoot better torps than t1 sub.

Yes, like Yathsou (Sera sub hunter), Tempest and Atlantis.

Statistics: Posted by Lieutenant Lich — 25 Jun 2016, 23:21

Re: Useless weapons attached to units

2016-06-25T11:35:42+02:00

Exotic_Retard wrote:
nice catch with the galaxy. but again same point, what is the purpose of that buff?

galaxy aa - might be less dps per mass but dont forget that the aircraft carrier has 640dps and 20000 hp. this is better at defending itself vs air than a dedicated aa unit? and its not its role at all. why? you can argue that it should be its role, but again, why?

Galaxy would be able to protect itself from small amount of subs and help protect itself in bigger fights.

that is not relevant. in reality you would be facing torpedo bombers as cyb battleships. while cyb navy might need all the help it can get on t3 stage to defend vs air, you might send, i dunno 15 torps? well too bad they dont kill that cyb BS. but an aeon one would die pretty easy. not intuitive, causes frustration, not very predictable either btw due to the projectile on the BS and the torp behavior.

This is a relevant argument. 8 aircraft carriers or 8 cruisers that cost less would kill it no problem because they have dps and range to get all ships at fight. Battleship with suggested AA would be able to assist to dedicated air units and shoot back if those got killed, but never fight effectively on its own.

Most of these weapons don't nesesary need any kind of purpose. They should just remain cosmetic with potential to do some damage but make no affect on balance. Neptune with 60 DPS torpedoes will barelly be any different than one with 20 DPS torpedoes exept it wouldn't die to couple t2 subs or t1 sub force. It will just be more logical to have t3/t4 unit to shoot better torps than t1 sub.

Althoough for some units it's a good buff to get them used more. For example Soul ripper wouldn't die to <20 ASF and cause enemies use air staging facilities.

Statistics: Posted by Apofenas — 25 Jun 2016, 11:35

Re: Useless weapons attached to units

2016-06-24T15:58:16+02:00

thanks for reply, heres some more explanations/thoughts/whatever:

Spoiler: show

t2 trans does have too much hp. i was sandboxing with uef trans and 50 aa dps. you can micro it vs 5 inties and win with 700hp left. not really that hard.
if youre taking about 86aa dps, i believe that may have been the aeon trans, whose effective aa dps is far lower. due to muzzle vel and 2 of its guns not being 360, and even different ranges. really i was referring to making trans have 60 ground dps, in which case its a t2 gunship with same dps, slightly higher price and 2x the hp and more speed. great.

uef strat indeed does have 50dps but not muzzle velocity so it barely ever hits its targets, even inties. its useless in real tests. cybran strat does far better.
you could set it to 50 dps and it be not absurd, but in this current balance i wouldnt give any buff to strats at all if possible xD either its not appreciable, or it will just make strat rush even more brutal.
in equilibrium strats actually do have 50dps but strat rush is much weaker there, so its ok for them to be able to shoot down some inties. even then the uef strat still has terrible aa cos its not change there. if you fix strats, then sure by all means put some aa on there if you want.

whether its some ML being killed with 20 bricks and 5 gunships (and the gunships then die and dont really achieve anything, even though theyre supposed to help they just give vet instead) you can blame this on 29 different things (look at beetle aruments saying just build flak noob) but if you can make it better through changing balance, why not? (btw theres always a reason : D )

nice catch with the galaxy. but again same point, what is the purpose of that buff?

galaxy aa - might be less dps per mass but dont forget that the aircraft carrier has 640dps and 20000 hp. this is better at defending itself vs air than a dedicated aa unit? and its not its role at all. why? you can argue that it should be its role, but again, why?

i had 8 Galaxies firing CZAR

that is not relevant. in reality you would be facing torpedo bombers as cyb battleships. while cyb navy might need all the help it can get on t3 stage to defend vs air, you might send, i dunno 15 torps? well too bad they dont kill that cyb BS. but an aeon one would die pretty easy. not intuitive, causes frustration, not very predictable either btw due to the projectile on the BS and the torp behavior.

in short its the mechanic by which you expect something to help in a smaller numbers, but in reality it doesn't. every token weapon suffers from this issue, you just need to justify why they should be there in the first place. why does it make the game better? what benefits does it have?

most token weapons in eq are still pretty useless, or are made better due to faction philosophy (cyb aa is decentralized on navy but weaker) or help give the unit a new use (czar is an aircraft carrier and so supports units from afar, so its torps are buffed) and last reason is because they are cool ))

in any case you might want to know that it was me who put the stats (for token weapons at least) into this balance research mod you played ))
after the testing in there i came to the conclusion that if they are gone they will not really be missed. however if we put them back in they could become a pretty big nuisance. so adding them in only when required was what happened in equilibrium (btw due to this thread we are revisiting them a little)

hope this helps

Statistics: Posted by Exotic_Retard — 24 Jun 2016, 15:58

Re: Useless weapons attached to units

2016-06-24T08:07:55+02:00

NapSpan wrote:
T2 transport AA can take down 1 or 2 inties, and AA from Strat bomber can take down all inties behind as long as it flight more less straight, Soul Reaper doesnt have bad AA, etc etc...

Super playes since GPG and during last 2-3 years he rushed strats every time he played air. He was very surprised to hear those have AA...

Even 50 DPS is not a big buff for them since UEF strat has 45 DPS already. I would make it like 100 DPS so they could fight back t1 and t2 air units somewhat effectively, but there is no conditions to do so.In BalanceResearch mod where strats were slower than t1 inties so cloud of inties would catch strat no problem and rape it. And there won't really be a bigger usage for this weapon apart from strat rush before your opponent got ASF which wouldn't bother about strat AA.

Exotic_Retard wrote:
-t2 trans has way too much hp. if you give it appreciable dps then it becomes a pretty good replacement for gunships/inties depending on if youre talking about aa/ground dps. on top of that they are as fast as an intie and can carry units.

T2 transport won't become better option than interceptors or gunships. With 86 dps in BalanceResearch i managed to get 5 star transport once but only because of veterancy and inties flying one by one. WIth 50 it won't be a big issue. Also this could buff such underused unit combination as Getto gunship.

- ML - sounds ok, but again it would mean that you just cant use small amounts of t2 gunships to help out in killing it, (cos they just die and give vet), still nice idea about the firing pattern

If small amount of gunships is able to do something reasonable, than it's ML user mistake for not having a single flak with his experimental. ML firing pattern would mean that any unit with AA behind ML can grab a free kill.

-valiant - sure, sounds cool, will need to make sure its not too similar to cyb navy.

Not like it would be a problem if Valiant had stronger AA than current Salems and that's not a big buff at all.

-galaxy - nope. it becomes better destroyer than the destroyer. it has 47khp. thats 7.76 times more hp for only 3.6 times the price.

It doesn't become a better destroyer for very simple reason - torp defence. Salem torp def allows it to avoid a lot of damage so it would have better survivability against torps. 4 Salems have 8 torp valley; 1 galaxy has 2 torp valley; 8 torps overwhelm torp defence better than 2 and thats the reason 8 t2 subs would kill such Galaxy and wouldn't kill 4 Salems.

-BS AA:
--galaxy too much, again because of absurd hp on it (no point in getting cruiser/carrier then). in equilibirum it gets 60->120 dps
--summit - same reason, but now with added uef navy. in equilibirum it gets 56->80 dps

Even so that's less DPS per mass than cybran frigates have. That's not a lot of DPS by the t3 stage and would matter against In BalanceResearch i had 8 Galaxies firing CZAR. CZAR killed them all with recieving veterancies.

Statistics: Posted by Apofenas — 24 Jun 2016, 08:07

Re: Useless weapons attached to units

2016-06-23T18:34:53+02:00

nice ideas apofenas,
about a year ago now i helped release a balance mod (ahahaha not eq for once) where these were changed. heres some thoughts as a result of testing that mod, and then way more testing in eq.

i went through your list:

Spoiler: show

tldr: so bscly in supcom you expect x to counter y. thats cool and all but if x only counters y a little, then its pretty easy to lose with a unit thats supposed to counter your opponent if you get the wrong numbers/micro/ect. thats the point where you say shit balance and complain on forums, and so on. so usually its safer to make sure that units are more specialized, or that you really do know that they are against everything.

as long as you expect to lose sometimes vs the thing you want to counter thats ok, but even now people are complaining about cyb frigs and whatnot. this is because of this behavior.

Statistics: Posted by Exotic_Retard — 23 Jun 2016, 18:34