Forged Alliance Forever

Re: HARMS

2017-04-06T16:04:50+02:00

crispyambulance wrote:
Um, nobody said anything about making HARMS useless. The change I proposed would just make them easier to counter with battleships, which are already the only counter to them. The change would make them harder to use offensively and to creep with. You'd probably have to significantly buff their HP to give them a mass to HP ratio closer to other T3 naval units, but after that they would be more or less just as powerful as before, just without the hideous groundfire mechanic.

It definitely wouldn't be easy to get the changes right, but having to groundfire them is bad game design. The change doesn't have to be a nerf at all though. Put them above water but give them an HP to mass ratio in line with a BS and that's definitely not a nerf.

Each HARMS would end up taking 3x longer to kill than right now with your BS, but I'd be able to go back to my base and build power while they chew through a series of them so I'd be happy.

Sorry I'm not gala ;_;

Edit: I doubt it's intended, but I also noticed last time I went up against HARMS that they behave as if underwater while they're being constructed as well and you need to groundfire them.

and this would make it useless, why build it when it cant fire and everyting can fire at it as easily as to BS? did you ever saw someone use T2 torp def in T1/T2 stage as creep? no? because it not worth it

let me guess you are UEF player, right?

Statistics: Posted by ZeRen — 06 Apr 2017, 16:04

Re: HARMS

2017-04-05T23:45:28+02:00

Um, nobody said anything about making HARMS useless. The change I proposed would just make them easier to counter with battleships, which are already the only counter to them. The change would make them harder to use offensively and to creep with. You'd probably have to significantly buff their HP to give them a mass to HP ratio closer to other T3 naval units, but after that they would be more or less just as powerful as before, just without the hideous groundfire mechanic.

It definitely wouldn't be easy to get the changes right, but having to groundfire them is bad game design. The change doesn't have to be a nerf at all though. Put them above water but give them an HP to mass ratio in line with a BS and that's definitely not a nerf.

Each HARMS would end up taking 3x longer to kill than right now with your BS, but I'd be able to go back to my base and build power while they chew through a series of them so I'd be happy.

Sorry I'm not gala ;_;

Edit: I doubt it's intended, but I also noticed last time I went up against HARMS that they behave as if underwater while they're being constructed as well and you need to groundfire them.

Statistics: Posted by crispyambulance — 05 Apr 2017, 23:45

Re: HARMS

2017-03-20T20:23:20+02:00

give me replay, wanna see that

so we make HARMs useless, because some low rated players dont know how to counter it? (no it dont take so much micro to swith target you need 1APM to do it)

Statistics: Posted by ZeRen — 20 Mar 2017, 20:23

Re: HARMS

2017-03-20T00:06:12+02:00

The issue is not the stats or theoretical mass effectiveness of harms. The issue is that they put an insane micro load on your opponent to counter them and it takes a long time to chew through them. That's why they're "OP". Even if they're not OP, there's nothing else in the game that's this annoying that I've ever come across and we should just consider changing this based on that. At no other time do you HAVE to manually switch between targets one by one take care of something. Imagine if you had to do that with t3 arty versus ravagers. All other submarine/torpedo units can be countered by spamming your faction's respective sub, except possibly for atlantis which is a hilariously useless unit. This is not a well designed aspect of the game whether it's OP or not.

Gala's point is fair, in that the highest rated players don't seem to have an issue with it. Or nobody has done what I'm talking about the way I'm talking about, I don't know.

I don't know what kind of games you two are playing, but in mid level setons these things can be used to wreck if you use them intelligently. Most people don't. I'll update this thread with a replay at some point.

Statistics: Posted by crispyambulance — 20 Mar 2017, 00:06

Re: HARMS

2017-03-17T17:52:23+02:00

crispyambulance wrote:
The other player absolutely should have more BS or other ships, but whatever advantage there is in ships is groundfiring continuously at harms which can just be immediately reclaimed and rebuilt. Or even better, your advantage in ships is wasting DPS on water. The harms can just be built under your opponent's BS in a creep if he moves his BS out of range of the harms. And if you just keep moving backwards to make the harms "useless" you just surrendered the reclaim field. This unit is absolutely fantastic for controlling reclaim fields which justifies its cost. And cybran ALSO has the cheapest BS

Or you did take advantage of the cybran player's choice to build harms and have more BS, but you can't move forward until you groundfire the harms one by one, manually switching targets and wasting DPS in between them.

What would be the difference if you doubled their HP and made them sit above water? They could be swarmed by frigates pretty easily would be the only big change. BS and destroyers can already wreck them.

Its strength is totally in the unfun and insane babysitting it requires you to do with your navy. It's less that this unit is OP and more that this is just stupid gameplay that it creates.

and when you build HARM that not firing is what? not wasting ?

HARM built under enemy BS ? go ahead and try it

Statistics: Posted by ZeRen — 17 Mar 2017, 17:52

Re: HARMS

2017-03-17T15:26:31+02:00

It doesn't guarantee control of that reclaim field though. For one thing, 2/3 of the other factions have hover engineers and the other one has jamming/shield boats that lets you grab it.

I'm too lazy to check in game but assuming the unit db is correct, then (shield HP)/(dps - shield regen) = 27.11 almost half a minute which is compounded by the fact that you can buy 2 bulwarks for every harms and still have 100 mass left over.

Also, as mentioned before cruisers can also deal damage to Harms. It's not enough to finnish it quickly, but enough so that you can re-target battleships on something else while cruisers deal the killing blow.

On a side note I've recently noticed a lot of Cybran nerf threads in BD. Harms, mantis, exp vet, Scu hp. What's up with that?

Statistics: Posted by Evan_ — 17 Mar 2017, 15:26

Re: HARMS

2017-03-17T07:47:01+02:00

The other player absolutely should have more BS or other ships, but whatever advantage there is in ships is groundfiring continuously at harms which can just be immediately reclaimed and rebuilt. Or even better, your advantage in ships is wasting DPS on water. The harms can just be built under your opponent's BS in a creep if he moves his BS out of range of the harms. And if you just keep moving backwards to make the harms "useless" you just surrendered the reclaim field. This unit is absolutely fantastic for controlling reclaim fields which justifies its cost. And cybran ALSO has the cheapest BS

Or you did take advantage of the cybran player's choice to build harms and have more BS, but you can't move forward until you groundfire the harms one by one, manually switching targets and wasting DPS in between them.

What would be the difference if you doubled their HP and made them sit above water? They could be swarmed by frigates pretty easily would be the only big change. BS and destroyers can already wreck them.

Its strength is totally in the unfun and insane babysitting it requires you to do with your navy. It's less that this unit is OP and more that this is just stupid gameplay that it creates.

Statistics: Posted by crispyambulance — 17 Mar 2017, 07:47

Re: HARMS

2017-03-16T10:17:57+02:00

crispyambulance wrote:
galacticfear wrote:I have never ever lost a won or close navy due to HARMS, all they do is slow down an imminent loss a little bit.

I can think of multiple games where I abused this and the scu nano regen upgrade to reverse advantages for my opponent. I'm sure Bigboy remembers on of those. Think about how it could be possible, because I've definitely seen it and usually been the beneficiary of it.

Don't confuse observation of players failing from their own lack of ability with an actual balance problem, as often occurs. Think about it. The mass spent on that scu, especially with nano + mass cost for building harms = enemy should have more ships. And the fact HARMS have much less range than battleships so would have to be built well within range to do any damage at all in the first place.

Statistics: Posted by galacticfear — 16 Mar 2017, 10:17

Re: HARMS

2017-03-15T22:17:39+02:00

galacticfear wrote:
I have never ever lost a won or close navy due to HARMS, all they do is slow down an imminent loss a little bit.

I can think of multiple games where I abused this and the scu nano regen upgrade to reverse advantages for my opponent. I'm sure Bigboy remembers on of those. Think about how it could be possible, because I've definitely seen it and usually been the beneficiary of it.

Swol, at least those shields aren't such a micro nightmare to take care of. For example with all but UEF BS I just queue up attacks on the shields and hit spread attack. Assuming I can't just send in something better to do it like frigs. You can't queue up attacks on HARMS.

The issue here is if your opponent can get 4 or so engi SCUs in the water they can build harms pretty much as fast as you can micro to kill them. Even if it's not 4, there's a tipping point somewhere.

And THEN they can put nano regen on all of them to make them unkillable without serious sub spam. Which you will have to move into harms range to kill the SCUs

Edit: Evan, I know.

That doesn't address the issue in the OP that you can't queue up ground attack commands to take out multiple harms. You have to manually move the command after each one dies, meaning a large group of battleships needs to be tended to every few seconds. And then how are you going to kill the SCUs?

Statistics: Posted by crispyambulance — 15 Mar 2017, 22:17

Re: HARMS

2017-03-14T16:37:57+02:00

APM for mass killed is always a good tradeoff. It might seem to take a long time to groundfire battleships but what you can do is default to groundattack, then use a to quickly place an attack order and move it over enemy subs. Then as said earlier use shift to move once dead.

Statistics: Posted by Evan_ — 14 Mar 2017, 16:37

Re: HARMS

2017-03-09T17:37:20+02:00

I'm not sure HARMS are any more annoying than say, the shields other factions have. I would even go out on a limb and say they need a buff because i think it's kinda BS how they can die to T2 hover and how a couple of frigates can kill them and all their projectiles

Statistics: Posted by Mel_Gibson — 09 Mar 2017, 17:37

Re: HARMS

2017-03-09T17:12:46+02:00

galacticfear wrote:
I have never ever lost a won or close navy due to HARMS, all they do is slow down an imminent loss a little bit.

exactly, those noobs that say that HARM is OP should try it first
-----------------------------
yes SACU has nano, but build HARM take quite a while and it is built above surface! anything can kill before it is done

and ground fire take all your APM, jesus what you have 4? just select few BS/cruisers put ground fire, when HARM is dead hold shift and move to another HARM, this must be so much APM expensive

you never ground fired Sub hunters? I did and it is very easy, but HARM can't move!

Statistics: Posted by ZeRen — 09 Mar 2017, 17:12

Re: HARMS

2017-03-09T14:15:13+02:00

I have never ever lost a won or close navy due to HARMS, all they do is slow down an imminent loss a little bit.

Statistics: Posted by galacticfear — 09 Mar 2017, 14:15

Re: HARMS

2017-03-09T09:19:46+02:00

Don't forget the nano engineer cybran sacus with +400 regen making harms in an otherwise close naval fight

Statistics: Posted by Viba — 09 Mar 2017, 09:19

Re: HARMS

2017-03-09T08:47:18+02:00

keyser wrote:
exotic retard is actually a bot that is triggered by some words in a post. Like the setoner for example.

That or is the boundless power of the kind of autism that will lead SupCom becoming Turing Complete

Statistics: Posted by zeroAPM — 09 Mar 2017, 08:47