Statistics: Posted by JaggedAppliance — 06 Jan 2018, 08:01
Mephi wrote:JoonasTo wrote:T1 Mobile AA
HP: Nerf UEF and Seraphim HP to 260
I agree, that t1 maa with 360 hp is far too powerful. Although im not sure about the amount yet.
Statistics: Posted by JoonasTo — 06 Jan 2018, 07:25
Farmsletje wrote:
I know i'm 1 year late with this, but...
Can we make t1 maa rape bombers less hard?
Right now you can just go first second third fourth land fac on most maps while making 1 t1 maa to rape all incoming air. The couple of 2v2 games i played with bhedit made me realise i actually have to make second air to prevent air rape. Which meant that from the start there was a constant air supremacy battle going on combined with the usual land battles.
t1 bombers already got nerfed hard, but combined with the t1 maa buff it made early air harassment a lot harder (compared to how easy land harassment is). I'm not saying to revert it back to what it previously was. Just make it atleast a bit more viable for more air action in the early game.
Mephi wrote:JoonasTo wrote:T1 Mobile AA
HP: Nerf UEF and Seraphim HP to 260
I agree, that t1 maa with 360 hp is far too powerful. Although im not sure about the amount yet.
Petricpwnz wrote:
Things like the bomber change. Why is it different? First what was changed: bomber was made much more expensive and slower to build, it's automatic behavior was improved while hover bombing was made much harder making it a strategy with the risk/reward ratio very high.
This produces several detrimental results:
1. Micro is made unrewarding. Absolute most of the time even the best players go for simple targetting instead of attempting hover bombing because the bomber behavior is so unstable and automatic one is consistent enough. This lowers available strategies, this lowers skill gap, this lowers interesting gameplay opportunities.
2. For the second result we have to go and look into the reasoning that was put behind this change. And the main reasoning was that first bobmer was deemed "too strong" for new players to deal with. This indeed caused some ruckus amongst people, some liked it some didnt and it wasn't a mechanic contoversial exclusively to low level players. But what a change like this did is catering to "lazy" players and shallow gameplay. Players who do not want to learn how to split their engineers and react properly, players who do not want to learn how to micro a bomber themselves. If the first bomber was too strong the reaction should have been to nerf it, not completely change and flatten the mechanic. So what is the second result of the bomber change? The opening strategies have become way more static and boring. First bomber is only seldom used on it's best maps like White Fire and never on "normal maps". Realistically I can only imagine myself losing to first bomber on a normal map because I simply don't expect anyone to build it anymore. But it doesn't end there. Air openings were affected all along. Second air has become a much more hard opening to use and more and more I see static openings of building countless land factories before air which eliminates early air raids, eliminates early gameplay variety, makes all games predictable and boring. There is a reason I fell in love with Forged Alliance and it's sure as hell not because it was casual or shallow.
Statistics: Posted by Evan_ — 06 Jan 2018, 06:53