Seraphim faction analysis

[FunkOff]

I've been playing Seraphim almost exclusively pretty much since FAF started and I have to say, they are a lot better than 3599 because most of the bugs have been fixed, but they seem decidedly weaker than the other factions. Seraphim isn't without strengths, but the weaknesses outweigh them by a large margin, I think.

T1 land: Slight strength. Not as good as UEF, but the combat scout makes up for a lack of LAB.
T1 Air: average. The T1 bomber is arguably the best of the bunch as is the T1 transport and the T1 air scout, but the lack of a ghetto gunship/regular gunship is substantial enough to counterbalance that.
T1 naval: Substantial weakness: The frigate can't fire straight forward, which isn't a huge problem, but the sub has 2/3rd the normal HP and is completely owned in sub-vs-sub battles.
T1 structure: Same as the rest
T2 Land: Slight weakness. The T2 bot is about the best T2 direct fire unit, but the lack of a support unit (shield, stealth) and the worst T2 amphibious tank make this an overall weakness.
T2 air: slight Weakness. The gunships is average. The T2 fighter bomber is a good bomber, but the almost useless torp bomber is too big a weakness. 420 mass for a 1200 damage bomb that can be dodged versus a 240 mass for a 750 damage torp that can't be dodged is actually a big ripoff and simply doesn't work well vs navy.
T2 Naval: Severe weakness: The cruiser's bombardment weapon can be stopped by a single TMD and the cruiser itself has abysmal hp at only 2400, compared to 3000 for more other cruisers. The AA weapon isn't worse, just different, but the other aspect of the cruiser are worse. Also, the T2 destroyer loses to every other destroyer in a 1v1 and, again, Seraphim does not have any T2 naval support units (no sub hunter, no shield boat or stealth boat).
T2 structure: Slight advantage. A strong shield, beam PD and strong TMD make the T2 structures an advantage.
T3 land: Average. The tank/sniper combo is average. The benefits of the T3 mobile shield are outweighed by its enormous energy cost to use (-300).
T3 air: Substancial Weakness. The only faction without a T3 gunship or a special ability (T3 torp bomber for aeon, T3 transport for UEF, T3 air stealth for Cybran)
T3 naval: Substancial Strength. Average battleship but really strong T3 sub hunter. Battleships nuke capability is counterbalanced by the fact that the nuke costs 19200 mass per missile as compared to only 12000 for a stationary launcher. The carrier is the most useful of the non-XP carriers, but that's not really worth much because all of them suck.
T3 structure: Average. The best T3 shield is counterbalanced by a complete lack of any intel enhancers, (eye or rhianne, soothsayer) or engineering stations.

So to count them:
1 slight strength
1 substantial strength
2 slight weaknesses
2 substantial weakness

That wouldn't even be so bad if there wasn't a weakness in 3 out of the four areas of tech 2 (Land, air and naval). Serpahim just gets killed at tech 2 at the moment, so I'd like to recommend a few adjustments to help change that.

First, to address the T2 land weakness, just making the T2 hover tank a little bit better can, imo, help out.
-Range from 18 to 23. This would basically put it more on par with the aeon T2 hover tank (range also 23) while keeping the faction diversity (different fire cycle... one damaging shot for 175 versus many quick shots.)

To address the T2 air weakness, making the torp bomber projectiles immune to anti-torp would be sufficient. It would still be worse than the Cybran/UEF versions because, like he aeon variant, it would fail in shallow water, but at least it would be as good as the aeon version rather than much worse.

To address the naval weakness, I recommend a buff to the destroyer. First, a slight damage buff to one of the two guns to even them out. One gun does 42 and the other does 47. I'd change the first one to also do 47 damage. The second change would be to increase torpedo DPS from the 66 it is right now to about 100, to put it on par with the Cybran destroyer in terms of torpedo DPS and allow seraphim to combat T2 subs.

Lastly, a small buff to the T1 sub by increasing the fire rate of the T1 sub anti-torp from 20 secs to 5 secs would help make the T1 subs less weak.

With these changes, keep in mind that Seraphim largely lacks the unit variety that other factions have, so if a unit appears stronger than its equivalent in another faction, that it can still be balanced. Seraphim doesn't have a T2 long-range bot, a T2 land support unit, a T2 sea support unit, a T3 strategic missile sub, a T3 sonar, a T1 ghetto gunship, a T3 gunship, a T3 heavy assault bot, or any special T3 air ability (T3 torp bomber, T3 transport, T3 air stealth). Also, keep in mind that Seraphim lacking units, having weak units and just all-around sucking is not "faction diversity".


So... opinions?

[Hanuman]

Is adding units to Seraphim completely out of the question?

[Karottenrambo]

Is adding units to Seraphim completely out of the question?

Have you completly lost your mind???
That would change the game and could fix alot issues of seraphim and that is definitely the last what the most players want here.

[FunkOff]

Is adding units to Seraphim completely out of the question?

For basic FAF patch? Yes. Adding new units to the game is something that must be done in mods.

Now, giving old units new functions may be warranted, but entirely new units? No.

[Gowerly]

I don't think that's necessary.

I think Funk's analysis is thorough and concise enough to see the problems with Sera.
I would go one way or the other with the torp bombers. Either make them all defensible or make none of them defensible. One faction much worse that another at doing something with no counter-strength != Faction Diversity, as was said.

For T2 Navy I would possibly reduce the firing time of the Cruiser's missile by 0.1 seconds to 1.9, which will be ever so slightly faster than TMD can fire, meaning it's not hard countered by a 200 mass building.

For the destroyer, I would do nothing to the beam weapon, as it's the only non-dodgeable destroyer weapon, but I would double the torpedo DPS, meaning that, submerged, it's quite dangerous to the enemy's navy.

[noobymcnoobcake]

There T3 siedge tank is like the harb, a balance between T3 bots and heavy T3 bots.

from wiki
The Othuum is probably the most cost-effective T3 direct-fire unit land unit in the game, making it godlike for heavy assaults. Costing about as much as two Titans or Loyalists, one of these can face two Titans or two Loyalists at the same time and expect to win the battle. The Othuum can also destroy a Harbinger Mark IV in a one-on-one fight, for the same price. Finally, three can expect to win a battle against any two armored assault bots, once again, for the same price.

It is great in base assults or against experementals and beats the harb one on one. It is slower however. The lack of the T2 long range bot and shield is an issue. It gimps there T2. the ishlahov is good but gets SLAUGHTERED one on one by obsidians and if there are not obsidians around overcharge does fine there much mores expensive than other t2s and are more vunerable to overcharge as a result. One great advantage it as is that it owns all T1 hard. Its not rare to see a group of 3* vet ishahovs. . you could move the T3 shield down to T2 but this would again destroy faction diversity.

There T2/1 navy sucks hard. There destoyer has short range low topedo and ground dps and also low hp IT is also suposed to be a sub hunter as well but does not work in this role due to its cost and bad torpedos. The buffs you sugested would work. The cruiser had flack and thats good vs gunships but it has low hp. The missile launcher is good on it but only against outlying mexes because as you said tmd stop it dead. the sub sucks also in a 5v5 vs any other sub 2 of the enemys survive. thats how bad it is. The buff you sugested would be good. But it would still get owned in more than 1v1 because anti torpedos self destuct when there target torpedo is hit by another. They dont find new torpedos to target like they should. I never knew the frigate cant fire directly infront of it. not much of an issue though.



T1 air scout is by far the best. The T1 bommbers has the best alpha. The T1 intie is fine. T2 gunship is average. T2 f/b drops a high damage bomb but with no accuracy and no damage radius. Good vs shields, T2/3pgans, facs and experementals only. acus can dodge them all day. The T3 scout is the 2nd best after cybran as it has sonar. T2 torpedo bommber I agree make its torpedos not anti torpedo counterable. you could also make aeons torpedo bommber not immune to anti torpedos. would fix T2 navy balance a bit too. The T3 intie is fine and the T3 bomber can kill T2 mex in one pass unlike cybran and has large damage radius. The seraphim dont need a T3 transort because there T2 one is so good. but one thing:They are MISSING a T3 gunship.

I myself think the seraphim were a rushed and were not finished when the game was released.
I bet gpg wanted to put more units in but could not due to the deadline set to them by THQ. I dont think adding a few units in would be a bad idea myself.

T2 long range bot (rapid fire short range missiles that track?)
T3 gunship
T2 protection thing. Could move shield down a level or you could make up something else entirley. There was this mod that added meatchield bots to seraphim that had High targeting prioroty and hp but no guns. This would increase micro and I dont like this idea much but better than nothing.

[Treble]

If we're talking new units for Sera, which we are, then I suggest for T2 a regeneration field tank. Fits in with Seraphim faction style and would be a needed support unit. As for the numbers, I have no idea. Small area of effect similar to Cybran's mobile stealth field range. Would be slow, like the T2 bot, and probably need to use some energy ~75-100. Some one should make a mod so we can test it. Use the mobile shield model without the shield bubble for now.

[Treble]

Also, I see a lot of the top players playing Seraphim and Aeon in ranked. Havent seen as much Cybran and UEF. I guess this is because of the maps with water. Seraphim and Aeon can really be aggressive on maps like Haven Reef, Paradise, Finns Revenge, etc...

[FunkOff]

Also, I see a lot of the top players playing Seraphim and Aeon in ranked. Havent seen as much Cybran and UEF. I guess this is because of the maps with water. Seraphim and Aeon can really be aggressive on maps like Haven Reef, Paradise, Finns Revenge, etc...

Trebs, you've seen me playing Seraphim. Just look at Zep's stats:

21.493 UEF ( 31,3 % )
17.335 Cybran ( 25,2 % )
19.623 Aeon ( 28,5 % )
10.210 Seraphim ( 14.8 % )

About twice as many players play every other faction individually than play Seraphim.

[Treble]

I've seen those stats. I said I've seen a lot of top players playing Seraphim and Aeon. A lot of newer players play UEF and Cybran. I dont think those stats represent the faction spread of top players.