balance changes I would like to see edited as of 7/11/11

[Karottenrambo]

That would gimp seraphim even more. If they have to use a giant low hp ship with just a bit more range, which is as fast as the battleships, instead of a fast nuke sub.


If I got it right the concept should be: battleship < t3 sub < nuke sub/carrier < battleships?

[FunkOff]

That would gimp seraphim even more. If they have to use a giant low hp ship with just a bit more range, which is as fast as the battleships, instead of a fast nuke sub.


If I got it right the concept should be: battleship < t3 sub < nuke sub/carrier < battleships?

It wouldn't gimp seraphim because the seraphim carrier, as compared to the UEF SMS, is much cheaper (4400 to 10000 mass), has 6x the health, has AA, can build air units, and is only a little slower (3 vs 3.5).

Also, you're thinking about naval combat too simplistically. Remember, I said naval combat is more about maneuvers than hard counters. It would be more like this, tho, Bship > Destroyer > SMS/Carrier > Bship

[Armmagedon]

t2 gunships need a nerf -_-

[noobymcnoobcake]

t2 gunships need a nerf -_-

I think its better to buff T1 aa instead. T2 gunships are nasy though. They got so much hp. A buff of aa and nerf of gunship hp is another option I suppose

[Mr Pinguin]

t2 gunships need a nerf -_-

I think its better to buff T1 aa instead. T2 gunships are nasy though. They got so much hp. A buff of aa and nerf of gunship hp is another option I suppose

Yeah, or they could be reverted to 3599 costs or halfway in between. If people did decide that they need a nerf, a HP reduction might be a good compromise since that keeps them lethal for defensive missions. They're my favorite tool for taking out a surprise/early Monkeylord or the like..

Maybe Ze_Pilot should put out a call for T2 Gunship abuse replays?


...Oh, and I hope some of you consider my suggestion for nerfing Bulwark E-maintenance cost (up to 265, plus a reversion to 3599 build costs). I think this would help to reduce the mid-to-late-game shield stacking. As FunkOff knows and has posted many times before, shields in SupCom are fine until you get the ridiculous stacking where you can never break through.

I also think the Seraphim Athanah needs some tweaking. One idea I've had lately: Could we make it so the T3 naval yard could build Athanah shields? This would bypass the ridiculousness of needing a T3 shipyard and a T3 land fac to compete with UEF's T2 shipyard.

[pip]

I agree with M Pinguin. Balancing process is often a tweak followed by some adjustments. This seems appropriate for T2 gunships. Maybe a slight HP nerf combined with buffed mobile t1 aa would find the sweet spot.

This idea is great, I had forgotten about it:

I also think the Seraphim Athanah needs some tweaking. One idea I've had lately: Could we make it so the T3 naval yard could build Athanah shields? This would bypass the ridiculousness of needing a T3 shipyard and a T3 land fac to compete with UEF's T2 shipyard.

[noobymcnoobcake]

...Oh, and I hope some of you consider my suggestion for nerfing Bulwark E-maintenance cost (up to 265, plus a reversion to 3599 build costs). I think this would help to reduce the mid-to-late-game shield stacking. As FunkOff knows and has posted many times before, shields in SupCom are fine until you get the ridiculous stacking where you can never break through.

I also think the Seraphim Athanah needs some tweaking. One idea I've had lately: Could we make it so the T3 naval yard could build Athanah shields? This would bypass the ridiculousness of needing a T3 shipyard and a T3 land fac to compete with UEF's T2 shipyard.

Late game shield stacking is unstopable. T3 power is basicaly free and if you increase its power consumption so much then its useless at T2.

If you want T3 sera shipyard to build T3 shields then why not aeon T2 one build T2 shields. then even why not let them build hover flack and hover tanks too?

I think its a good idea but then people complain that sera can build shields and seon cant ect and shipyards are for building ships and nothing else. engineers and every fac can build those so they are exeption.

In TA there was hovercraft factories I think but they will not be brought back in to FA

[Gowerly]

The key point you may be missing here is that 1xt2 land fac + 1xt2 naval fac costs less than 1xt3 naval fac, so you're not really being put back too much by having to get a t2 land factory to get your shields out. Also, if you're building a shield, you're not building subs.
Finally, thinking that energy is free is really not that true. The mass cost for even a t2 energy generator is significant enough to make overbuilding an issue.

[noobymcnoobcake]

lategame when you got 2 or 3 T3 pgens up energy for shileds is basicaly a non issue.

Yes T2 fac costs are far less than T3. I would not mind giving sera a T3 shield in the navy fac but it just dont quite look right thats all

[pip]

lategame when you got 2 or 3 T3 pgens up energy for shileds is basicaly a non issue.

Yes T2 fac costs are far less than T3. I would not mind giving sera a T3 shield in the navy fac but it just dont quite look right thats all

Why would it not look right? Seraphim have 7 naval units. The other factions have 10-11. This would help a bit Seraphim to close this huge lack in unit diversity.