Compilation of naval balance changes

Post here any idea about current FA Balance.
REMINDER : This is NOT a community balance forum. The thread ideas won't be used in a patch.
Forum rules REMINDER : This is NOT a community balance forum. The thread ideas won't be used in a patch.

Compilation of naval balance changes

Postby FunkOff » 07 Jan 2012, 22:02

At the moment, it seems there are a few problems with naval balance.
First, torpedo defenses (T1 and T2) are rather underpowered, with T1 costing nearly double what a land-based PD does and doing less than half the damage.
Second, subs are odd. They do low damage and low health per cost, but because only destroyers/other subs can attack them, they are usually spammed for sea superiority. Also, battleships can hit subs with ground fire, which seems silly.
Third, strategic missile subs and carriers are about useless. They both have a purpose, but it's not as part of the fleet.

I hope to solve these problems with a few changes.

To tackle #1: All T1 and T2 torpedo defenses reduce mass cost by ~30%. So, that's going from 450 for a T1 torp defense to 300.
To take #2 is more complicated: First, all subs will get an increase in torpedo damage, about 30%, to increase lethality. Second, subs will float at a lower depth, making them less vulnerable to splash from battleships. Third, destroyers + UEF torpedo boat will be give greatly improved torpedo defenses so that destroyers strongly counter subs (now that battleships can't). Lastly, subs will be given sonar stealth when not moving and not firing, to give an element of maneuver/surprise to sub battles.
To solve problem #3, I'll modify all SMS/seraphim carrier missiles to be strong against T3 ships, but to miss against anything faster moving or smaller than them. I'll also make carriers auto-spawn torpedo bombers for free (including the Atlantis, when it is surfaced), but with a maximum of 5 at a time per carrier and a limited respawn rate (one every 20 seconds or so). (The torp bombers will not be controllable directly, rather controlled via a weapon on the Carriers.)

These changes, the greater of which were tested in the balance test mod, should greatly improve naval balance at all levels.
FunkOff
Supreme Commander
 
Posts: 1863
Joined: 26 Aug 2011, 17:27
Has liked: 14 times
Been liked: 43 times
FAF User Name: FakeOff

Re: Compilation of naval balance changes

Postby Treble » 07 Jan 2012, 23:35

I do like those changes. I think an increase in sonar radius, water vision and add a bit of omni to the carriers would be helpful as well.

Does anyone else find it strange that sonars are mobile? They are already extremely cheap for the amount of intel they produce especially at T3. Increase carrier intelligence and make sonar stations static gives carriers another role.
Image
Treble
Avatar-of-War
 
Posts: 71
Joined: 07 Sep 2011, 00:39
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 0 time

Re: Compilation of naval balance changes

Postby Karottenrambo » 08 Jan 2012, 18:03

You forgot the battleship/battlecruiser buildtime increase. :P

Anyway, it would not only improve the balance but also the gameplay, because you have practically several "new" units to use(redesigned t2 sub, sms, carriers).
I can imagine that the sera destroyer could be really nasty when its submerged, with a really good torpedo-defense... uargh, indestructible sub.
But that is a problem that could be solved by deactivating the torp-defense if its submerged, or something like that.

Sadly until zep does not something about the balance team(since no more will join because of the rules/the thread is forgotten), another "this game could be better if x" - thread makes not much sense. :|
User avatar
Karottenrambo
Avatar-of-War
 
Posts: 189
Joined: 31 Aug 2011, 23:04
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 0 time

Re: Compilation of naval balance changes

Postby Isen » 08 Jan 2012, 19:10

its already easy to defend a t1 sea factory with a t1 torpedo. Make them change and you wont see t1 navy anymore, just a t2 sea factory with some torpedos.
Isen
Avatar-of-War
 
Posts: 115
Joined: 31 Aug 2011, 22:56
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 9 times
FAF User Name: Isen_

Re: Compilation of naval balance changes

Postby Kryo » 08 Jan 2012, 19:35

Funkoff, you should use the word torpedo launcher instead of what you call torpedo defenses, as torpedo defenses might also be the anti torpedo systems.
Kryo
Evaluator
 
Posts: 518
Joined: 12 Sep 2011, 15:13
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 0 time
FAF User Name: Kryo

Re: Compilation of naval balance changes

Postby FunkOff » 08 Jan 2012, 19:43

Karottenrambo wrote:You forgot the battleship/battlecruiser buildtime increase. :P


The thing about that is, if battleships/battlecruisers get a build time increase, I don't think we'll see T3 navy anymore once you factory in these other changes. After all, Destroyers that are highly resistant to subs will, pretty much, beat any and all other ships for cost, except battleships and even then, a single battleship can be brought down by destroyers. I think keeping the buildtime on T3 ships unusually low is necessary to prevent destroyer spam from essentially replacing sub spam as the dominant strategy. After all, if somebody wants to rush T3 naval and spam fast-building T3 ships, they are going to find that their entire fleet is efficiently murdered by T1 and T2 subs. (Carriers will have a limited ability to kill subs, but it won't be cost-effective at short range and it will be entirely dependent on air superiority.)

its already easy to defend a t1 sea factory with a t1 torpedo. Make them change and you wont see t1 navy anymore, just a t2 sea factory with some torpedos.


Of course you'll still see T1 naval: Destroyers can be cost-effectively beaten by frigates.
FunkOff
Supreme Commander
 
Posts: 1863
Joined: 26 Aug 2011, 17:27
Has liked: 14 times
Been liked: 43 times
FAF User Name: FakeOff

Re: Compilation of naval balance changes

Postby Plasma_Wolf » 08 Jan 2012, 20:43

When you mentioned the stealth on subs before, we had a discussion about the Barracuda.

That has stealth a standard, at a cost of some energy. If you're going to turn the subs into stealth when stationary, the barracuda should have a costless stealth at that point. The normal stealth (at the cost of energy) should remain when moving.
User avatar
Plasma_Wolf
Supreme Commander
 
Posts: 1335
Joined: 20 Oct 2011, 11:28
Has liked: 23 times
Been liked: 91 times
FAF User Name: Plasma_Wolf

Re: Compilation of naval balance changes

Postby FunkOff » 08 Jan 2012, 21:19

Plasma_Wolf wrote:When you mentioned the stealth on subs before, we had a discussion about the Barracuda.

That has stealth a standard, at a cost of some energy. If you're going to turn the subs into stealth when stationary, the barracuda should have a costless stealth at that point. The normal stealth (at the cost of energy) should remain when moving.


Or I could just turn off the energy drain for the barracuda when it's not moving or firing.
FunkOff
Supreme Commander
 
Posts: 1863
Joined: 26 Aug 2011, 17:27
Has liked: 14 times
Been liked: 43 times
FAF User Name: FakeOff

Re: Compilation of naval balance changes

Postby Karottenrambo » 08 Jan 2012, 21:47

FunkOff wrote:The thing about that is, if battleships/battlecruisers get a build time increase, I don't think we'll see T3 navy anymore once you factory in these other changes. After all, Destroyers that are highly resistant to subs will, pretty much, beat any and all other ships for cost, except battleships and even then, a single battleship can be brought down by destroyers. I think keeping the buildtime on T3 ships unusually low is necessary to prevent destroyer spam from essentially replacing sub spam as the dominant strategy. After all, if somebody wants to rush T3 naval and spam fast-building T3 ships, they are going to find that their entire fleet is efficiently murdered by T1 and T2 subs. (Carriers will have a limited ability to kill subs, but it won't be cost-effective at short range and it will be entirely dependent on air superiority.)

Yeah well, a single battleship should be brought down by destroyers?

I think you can compare the destroyer/battleship relation a bit with the frigate/destroyer relation. You are able to counter a certain amount of destroyers with frigate spam, but the effectiveness decreases with the growing size of the enemy's fleet, sooner or later you need destroyers too.
Of course destroyers have not other softcounters like the battleships (subs, sms), but even these counters do not justify the ridiculous small buildtime.
User avatar
Karottenrambo
Avatar-of-War
 
Posts: 189
Joined: 31 Aug 2011, 23:04
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 0 time

Re: Compilation of naval balance changes

Postby Ze_PilOt » 08 Jan 2012, 21:52

Treble wrote:Does anyone else find it strange that sonars are mobile? They are already extremely cheap for the amount of intel they produce especially at T3. Increase carrier intelligence and make sonar stations static gives carriers another role.


Then you will remove a big role of sonars. They have stealth, torps and torps defense, depending of the faction.
Nossa wrote:I've never played GPG or even heard of FA until FAF started blowing up.
User avatar
Ze_PilOt
Supreme Commander
 
Posts: 8985
Joined: 24 Aug 2011, 18:41
Location: fafland
Has liked: 18 times
Been liked: 376 times
FAF User Name: Ze_PilOt

Next

Return to FA Balance Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest