Forged Alliance Forever

Re: SACu conceptual rework

2015-07-13T20:49:25+02:00

I'm saying it depends on the scu, I'm fine with uef having a lot of health but not nearly as much damage, and cybran can have pitiful health put keep the emp etc. so different units have different counters and jobs

Statistics: Posted by yeager — 13 Jul 2015, 20:49

Re: SACu conceptual rework

2015-07-13T19:20:06+02:00

yeager wrote:
Seraphim are OP because overcharge, it is cheap fr it's damage and works like a charm, and with the range upgrade they are only getting shot by say a GC for about a second before yet overcharge, so if there is 6 or so of them ( probably more but you get it) they can still kill a GC without losing a single scu, as for cybran they are OP because they can emp an unlimited amount of non experimentals, health doesn't matter if you never get shot. This is why decreasing health won't work well.
Ps uef also has the range/damage/aoe to be fine on half health, also health isn't the issue, it's that damn shield, units like ye holy ilshavoh are entirely useless vs it and if you pare them with a fat boy no experimental has the health to take them on.

I was thinking they move slow enough that the obvious counter would be air, so it they had fewer HPs you could kill them effectively with Strats or FBs or gunships. Against and EXP yes they'd have to be attacked from the right angle and continuing to press their attack against something other than the EXP. I still think air should be the effective counter to them and by reducing hp you make that possible. Do you suggest leaving them with that hp level and just nerfing their attack?

Statistics: Posted by KD7BCH — 13 Jul 2015, 19:20

Re: SACu conceptual rework

2015-07-11T16:24:15+02:00

Seraphim are OP because overcharge, it is cheap fr it's damage and works like a charm, and with the range upgrade they are only getting shot by say a GC for about a second before yet overcharge, so if there is 6 or so of them ( probably more but you get it) they can still kill a GC without losing a single scu, as for cybran they are OP because they can emp an unlimited amount of non experimentals, health doesn't matter if you never get shot. This is why decreasing health won't work well.
Ps uef also has the range/damage/aoe to be fine on half health, also health isn't the issue, it's that damn shield, units like ye holy ilshavoh are entirely useless vs it and if you pare them with a fat boy no experimental has the health to take them on.

Statistics: Posted by yeager — 11 Jul 2015, 16:24

Re: SACu conceptual rework

2015-07-10T17:31:13+02:00

Nope can you elaborate like I'm noob more please ?

Statistics: Posted by KD7BCH — 10 Jul 2015, 17:31

Re: SACu conceptual rework

2015-07-10T15:50:38+02:00

But what about say sera?if you have 5 you can one shot just about anything before it's even in range, and cybrans don't need the health, they just permanent stun anything that isn't an exp, see what I mean here?

Statistics: Posted by yeager — 10 Jul 2015, 15:50

Re: SACu conceptual rework

2015-07-10T15:07:07+02:00

I am in agreement with you and I think they need an HP nerf. Played a game where the front guy got killed and they came in with a fatty and two SCUs, the fatty died in about 45 sec to T3 air, and after the SCU took out almost half my mexes and my auxillary mass FAB grids then they finally got the 2nd SCU I was engaged with it with my ACU and overcharged that bastard.

They have too much HP.

Nobody will build them If they don't kick ass, so I think their fire rate and dps should stay. I also think they should be an option to help rush builds and ramp an eco to 1000 mass and best used as auxiliary support in a turtle busting role when the turtle has heavy air support. However, they have what I feel is about double the HP they should with the damage rate they cause. The fact that they can blow up and leave no mass means since they are more effective than of the EXPs against base defenses it makes sense to use them more than it does EXPs which makes no sense because EXPs are the king on the battlefield. SCUs are support units.

I don't agree with nerfin the damage they do to relegate them to oversized engineers and take them back to 2006 but I do favor cutting down their HP so they can't overrun anything on the battlefield, and right now if you have 4-8 of them you can overrun just about any combined defense.

Statistics: Posted by KD7BCH — 10 Jul 2015, 15:07

Re: SACu conceptual rework

2015-07-10T02:25:09+02:00

I'm just saying kill a megalith can win you the game, killing its equal in scus just means you survive.

Statistics: Posted by yeager — 10 Jul 2015, 02:25

Re: SACu conceptual rework

2015-07-10T01:32:03+02:00

yeager wrote:
True, but killing a unit equivilant to a small exp should have some reward

The reward I'd give is the ability to kill it FASTER and keep your base intact.

Statistics: Posted by KD7BCH — 10 Jul 2015, 01:32

Re: SACu conceptual rework

2015-07-09T17:07:07+02:00

True, but killing a unit equivilant to a small exp should have some reward

Statistics: Posted by yeager — 09 Jul 2015, 17:07

Re: SACu conceptual rework

2015-07-09T11:29:29+02:00

yeager wrote:
has an engineering suit/ and doesn't leave a wreak so...

That hasn't helped them in the last 8 years. No one used them because they sucked. Now everyone makes them because they are good in combat. So that's what matters. You can't value the build / no wreck attributes objectively anyway. People will just use the cheapest build power as soon as the SACU is once again reduced to a silly super-builder.

I know you are not trying to make SACU's silly super-engineers, the point I'm making is that they should only be balanced as combat units / for their combat abilities.

Statistics: Posted by Col_Walter_Kurtz — 09 Jul 2015, 11:29

Re: SACu conceptual rework

2015-07-08T20:40:21+02:00

KD7BCH wrote:
yeager wrote:
KD7BCH wrote:I would cut all sacus down by 50% HP, the Rambo upgrade should still be possible but again only 50% of the current hp. Marching 10 of these anywhere is essentially unstoppable even by EXPs. Air has very hard time stopping them, navy can't stop them, land can't stop them, fixed defenses can't really stop them, only a nuke or layers of exps or combination force can stop them.

If you cut down their hp by half you reduce their effective lifetime and effective firepower so one EXP should be able to survive engaging 10 of them, and a few strats should be able to take em out given enough time and massed land should still suffer a lot of casualties but be able to stop them. They'll still be able to get to but probably not though a concentrated and reinforced defense but they'll weaken the defense enough to permit follow on exps or land mass to get through.

You can have 2 dozen gunships and it would take you 15 minutes to take out 10 of them.

You should be careful, Overcompensating is why we are here in the first place

I agree overcompensating is bad. I don't think 50% of the huge HP that they have is cutting too much but cutting it by only 25% makes it take substantially longer to kill each one, meaning you need fewer of them to do the same amount of damage because they are too survivable. Large hp units are imbalanced by their nature, battleships, GC, Cybran Bug, but all these other things you can't build 10X in a standard game in the time it would take for them to be wiped out by an equally opposing force. Not true with SACUs. The combined hp of 10 SACUS is too much. That is where the cut needs to happen in my eyes.

I agree, but this is supcom, so I don't think that's the way to go, it's a bland fix the will do little but make people build percivals instead. I think some scus (say uef) shoul have their insane hp, just not equally outrageous damage. Also this approach dooms aeon scu forever and has minimal effect on sera if they can stay out of range, I think the approach should very, maybe:
Uef: decrease damage (and aoe) so it's really hard to kill but not a damage dealer, also a good decoy
Sera: increase cost, so it's not so outrageously easy to build but still a logical counter (since chickens such as defensive units due to thier death ball)
Cybran: not sure, maybe decrease fire rate or emp etc. (don't see them enough to know for sure)
Aeon: increase damage so it's better vs percivals, no aoe tho
After that if they are still OP you can decrease health all around, but this should make them more even

Statistics: Posted by yeager — 08 Jul 2015, 20:40

Re: SACu conceptual rework

2015-07-08T20:00:08+02:00

yeager wrote:
KD7BCH wrote:I would cut all sacus down by 50% HP, the Rambo upgrade should still be possible but again only 50% of the current hp. Marching 10 of these anywhere is essentially unstoppable even by EXPs. Air has very hard time stopping them, navy can't stop them, land can't stop them, fixed defenses can't really stop them, only a nuke or layers of exps or combination force can stop them.

If you cut down their hp by half you reduce their effective lifetime and effective firepower so one EXP should be able to survive engaging 10 of them, and a few strats should be able to take em out given enough time and massed land should still suffer a lot of casualties but be able to stop them. They'll still be able to get to but probably not though a concentrated and reinforced defense but they'll weaken the defense enough to permit follow on exps or land mass to get through.

You can have 2 dozen gunships and it would take you 15 minutes to take out 10 of them.

You should be careful, Overcompensating is why we are here in the first place

I agree overcompensating is bad. I don't think 50% of the huge HP that they have is cutting too much but cutting it by only 25% makes it take substantially longer to kill each one, meaning you need fewer of them to do the same amount of damage because they are too survivable. Large hp units are imbalanced by their nature, battleships, GC, Cybran Bug, but all these other things you can't build 10X in a standard game in the time it would take for them to be wiped out by an equally opposing force. Not true with SACUs. The combined hp of 10 SACUS is too much. That is where the cut needs to happen in my eyes.

Statistics: Posted by KD7BCH — 08 Jul 2015, 20:00

Re: SACu conceptual rework

2015-07-08T19:50:40+02:00

briang wrote:
Exps aren't mass efficient because they aren't supposed to be... each tier of unit sacrifices dps/health per unit of mass for compactness and often range. Exps are especially poor because they're quick to build. If you have X mass, turning that mass into a GC or X mass in percies with equal buold power will result in the GC being faster.

But the equal amount of scus can beat either/has comparable build time/ has an engineering suit/ and doesn't leave a wreak so...
Further more I know percivals beat gcs but take way longer to build but this is often mute on maps like setons where by the time the GC gets to the other side of the map there is enough or nearly enough percivals to counter (and with defensive structures and other units you can usually get away with it) also percivals go on transports so all in all exps aren't worth it, but try really should be, as for sACUs... Well... Like I've Said before sACUs are monkey lords that for in transports so I guess what needs to be done is people need to decide where they want exps/t3 to fit in the world, but no matter how you slice t sACUs are gonna need a nerf. Personally I'd like exps that we're better but more costly so that t3 had a chance to shine but doesn't step on t4.

Statistics: Posted by yeager — 08 Jul 2015, 19:50

Re: SACu conceptual rework

2015-07-08T15:48:46+02:00

Col_Walter_Kurtz wrote:
briang wrote:Either increase the costs of the current ones, or reduce their effectiveness and keep the cost. That seems by far the most simple solution to me.

Agreed. Reworking the total upgrade tree or their abilities seems wrong, because people need to re-learn everything. Just balance the costs and strengths of the unit.

True dat

Statistics: Posted by yeager — 08 Jul 2015, 15:48

Re: SACu conceptual rework

2015-07-08T14:13:03+02:00

briang wrote:
Either increase the costs of the current ones, or reduce their effectiveness and keep the cost. That seems by far the most simple solution to me.

Agreed. Reworking the total upgrade tree or their abilities seems wrong, because people need to re-learn everything. Just balance the costs and strengths of the unit.

Statistics: Posted by Col_Walter_Kurtz — 08 Jul 2015, 14:13