Seraphim Variations

[Ubilaz]

Hi!

I have a thought that I want to convey mainly to the highest ranked players in the community.

What I am thinking of is the seraphim faction, as a whole. During my time as a supcomplayer I have always stayed with seraphim as my faction, until recently. I did this mostly out of pure stubborness and I have realised some things when I played.

When I play I play at my best by being creative. I perform much better in tournaments than ladder, mostly because of the fact that I give so much thought about my tournament matches and open up for more creativity. Though, I have to say, seraphim is, in my opinion, the worst faction you can choose if you want creativity. Why? Because of the fact that seraphim consists of fewer units and buildings in almost every category. This accentuates with tech level, and is not very prominent in the earlier tech levels. Most obvious is the T2/T3 land stage and the lack of one experimental. I also consider the T2 naval stage a problem. No t2 sheilds and so on... Things like no T3 sonar is also very limiting.

I think that it makes a difference that you don't have any like special tactics, like mobile bombs or mercies.

This problem can of course be balanced away by making units, like the seraphim destroyer or the sera T2 bot, stronger. The problem is that when balance happens you usually, cause it's the easiest way, balance units against each other. This shows that sera works fine. But when you look at the whole faction and all of it's unit types, I think mere numbers are speaking for themselves. By that I mean count the numbers of different units and maybe you'll see that one faction might have fewer of them: http://content.faforever.com/faf/unitsDB/. Sure, seraphim has its uses on some maps (water, drop T1 arty) but as a whole?

I wouldn't say that it exists some kind of "all sera units are multi purpose" solution to this problem. They are at least not more multipurpose than the other factions units. The solution is probobly not necessarily to give sera more units either.

What do you think about this problem, any thoughts?


Regards,
Ubilaz

[Lame]

I think this is mostly a problem where the lack of options leads to a situation in which seraphim has no counter left: for example
with cybran t2 subs - seraphim destroyers lose to them mass for mass the subs are faster, get stronger with numbers and are not scoutable whereas cybran t3 sonar sees everything. on top of that seraphim torpedo bomber deals <50% of the damage of cybran torpedo bombers.
as getting t3 naval is completely not viable on most maps the only thing left to do is go first bomber and abuse hover to the max and avoid any t2 naval fights. i dont think this is really great balance.

The situation with t2 and t3 is pretty much the same you are creating a very asymetrical fight during the different phases of the game.
On maps where t2 and t3 is equally viable this can lead to interesting fights but on most other maps you are just giving one of the players an advantage for no reason.

[Ubilaz]

I think this is mostly a problem where the lack of options leads to a situation in which seraphim has no counter left: for example
with cybran t2 subs - seraphim destroyers lose to them mass for mass the subs are faster, get stronger with numbers and are not scoutable whereas cybran t3 sonar sees everything. on top of that seraphim torpedo bomber deals <50% of the damage of cybran torpedo bombers.
as getting t3 naval is completely not viable on most maps the only thing left to do is go first bomber and abuse hover to the max and avoid any t2 naval fights. i dont think this is really great balance.

The situation with t2 and t3 is pretty much the same you are creating a very asymetrical fight during the different phases of the game.
On maps where t2 and t3 is equally viable this can lead to interesting fights but on most other maps you are just giving one of the players an advantage for no reason.

I would say that is one thing that happens, yes. It basically reduces your options in general and it makes you much more predictable. Say for example you have two ways your faction can snipe, while all the others have 3. That puts you at a disadvantage for no reason. Thats my point.

[IceDreamer]

on top of that seraphim torpedo bomber deals <50% of the damage of cybran torpedo bombers.

Wut? They all have 60dps...

[Lame]

yes and then seraphim torpedo bomber dmg gets more than halved because its the only torp bomber that gets effected by torpedo defense when attacking surface ships - and against subs other torpedo bombers still deal way more damage

[ZLO_RD]

only torp bomber that gets effected by torpedo defense when attacking surface ships

i think that is wrong, torp bombers are not affected by torp def as far as i know...
but i would agree that sera torp bombers do not work in shallow water

[Aulex]

only torp bomber that gets effected by torpedo defense when attacking surface ships

i think that is wrong, torp bombers are not affected by torp def as far as i know...
but i would agree that sera torp bombers do not work in shallow water

I think sera does, aeon doesn't because depth charge, cyb doesn't because it never reaches the water, rather tracks the boat above water. Uef I thought it behaved like cyb but recently I've seen people discuss how it doesn't track, so if you move away from it, the torps will reach the water(haven't tested this though)

[Lame]

i did some tests in deep waters and sera torp bomber is absolutely terrible compared to the others - the reason is torpedo defense.
combine that with weakest t1 sub weakest t2 sub equivalent and no other stuff to give you an edge like shields or stealth its just too much of a disadvantage imo

[IceDreamer]

So changing the Bomber to not be affected by defences is an example of a balance change which is *probably* safe for inclusion?

[Aulex]

So changing the Bomber to not be affected by defences is an example of a balance change which is *probably* safe for inclusion?

no