Fixing ASF lag/swarm.

[FunkOff]

I like this! Daring and yet wisely restrained. I take it the line I highlighted actually refer to the cybran carrier rather than cruiser (whose projectiles already track)?

Yes, it's the carrier projectiles that now have slight tracking. I tested the cybran carrier's AA without tracking and it has pitiful accuracy (<10%) at above 50% or its maximum range. It needs a little bit of tracking to hit stuff, so it has a little bit tracking. It can still miss, it just hits around 80% of shots, rather than 8%.

[ICKEN]

i really dislike the idea of reducing the asf numbers with increasing its mass costs. infact i do not want any change because i like spamming asf.

but if i had to suggest a change it would be completely different. the reason why asf numbers are getting that high is because you cant get up after you have lost an airfight. there are many reasons for that.
1. if you try being aggressive you have to enter enemy territory which means you will drop shit loads off mass in any case
2. early t3 air is not really an option because you will most likely lose more than you gain due the economy sacrifices you have to make
3. you will laugh now, but i think there should me more micro involved because it should be possible to win even with lower numbers

my suggestion is to make damaged asf significantly weaker to full health asf than now. so that you are basically forced to repair your asf´s after a fight if you want to keep air superiority. i think a hp nerf could help here.
also reducing the wreck mass could help.

[FunkOff]

infact i do not want any change because i like spamming asf. .

Okay.

my suggestion is to make damaged asf significantly weaker to full health asf than now.

I see.

also reducing the wreck mass could help

It makes perfect sense.

[pip]

I tested changes to ASF and SAM to make them easier to kill by SAMs, so that you can't stockpile ASF as much as before. Here are the changes:
1) ASF :
- 750 HP nerf = more vulnerable to SAM, flak and Cruisers / Carriers.
350 mass instead of 400
- wreck multiplayer = 0.45 (so that you don't risk to feed to much mass if you lose them = prevent the trend to stockpile them for fear of nurturing the other team's eco)
> the goal is to make them more disposable, weaker, so harder to stockpile.

2) SAMs reworked:
- AOE = 1.5 so that they can hit 2-3 or 4 ASF at the same time when there is a swarm over the SAM.
- 7000 HP (from 10500 HP), so that it's easier to kill them with t3 gunships (spread out to avoid AOE though). SAMs would also be more vulnerable to land threats.
- Range = 70 (from 60)
- Muzzle velocity = 45 (from 30), so that they can counter high speed planes better, especially ASF.

The only downside of these changes is that it forces players using gunships and t3 bombers to micro their units so that they are not too close to each other in order to not take AOE damage from SAM. But I believe it's not a bad thing : the skill required for that is minimal, because 1.5 AOE is moderate (compared to AOE 4 of flaks).

[Pathogenic]

infact i do not want any change because i like spamming asf. .

Okay.

my suggestion is to make damaged asf significantly weaker to full health asf than now.

I see.

also reducing the wreck mass could help

It makes perfect sense.

He said clearly in his post that he prefers no change, but if he had to suggest a change, those are the things he suggested.

I also prefer no changes to ASFs. Most proposed changes in this thread strike me as too game changing. Ints become a main counter to ASFs, seriously? I say leave well enough alone.

[ZaphodX]

I think Icken's idea is really good.


Isn't the lag due to particles and calculations? Can't we increase the damage per shot and decrease the fire frequency? Couldn't we also remove/reduce most or all of the particles effects on the asf e.g. the trails and firing effects?

[Badsearcher]

Most proposed changes in this thread strike me as too game changing.

Well, yeah, that's the point.

The game is broken, you have a unit that can't really be countered except by other units exactly like it turning a large part of the game into an asf spamfest, the game needs to be changed.

[Vmcsnekke]

I've been following this thread for a while and I finally have some time to react.
I don't think T3 air swarm is a serious problem, but if anything is to be changed
I'd like to present my thinking.

Indeed a problem is that (as ICKEN said) early/aggressive T3 air is not a real option.
I believe this is because of:
-1- the map (setons)
-2- early t3 air costs more than the damage it does

The map, setons that is, should obviously not be changed (although more mass points in
the middle (sea) to fight for and leaving out the ponds to hide ACU would be good).

If anything is to be done about -2-, I'd say decrease the hp of the t2/t3 mex extractor
which would be a good thing for other reasons too.
Reducing the air wreckage mass would be good also.

A 2nd problem which causes major T3 ASF swarm is that T3 air is way more superior to
T1/T2 air than T3 ground/naval is to T1/T2 ground/naval. This is mostly because
of the speed difference, but also hp/dps/turnspeed are related.

I'd suggest speed increase of interceptors and switfwind and less hp for ASFs.
Maybe ASFs should be even more expensive.

A 3rd "problem" which causes major T3 ASF swarms is that T3 air (if the air
battle is won) can do serious damage to naval units (think restorers against
cybran navy and t3 torp bombers to sera t2 destroyers) and even more to ground units.
This should not be changed in principle, although cybran navy needs more aa and
t2 flaks may need much faster/effective aa missiles.

A 4th problem is that SAMs are too ineffective. SAMs simply suck at taking
down ASFs and T3 bombers.
one single, more effective, missile every 1.05 seconds (as suggested before)
sounds good.

Another reason for setons back players to spam T3 air continuously is that they
can be scouted too easily. If a players tries to surprise the enemy by building
a nuke, making lots of (cybran) t3 bombers or preparing massive arty drops it will
be seen by the other because of the cheap and unstoppable T3 spy plane. This means
they think twice before doing something else than spamming air.
Of course scouting should still be possible and everything an enemy does should
in principle be detectable (imagine the funny games we'd get if not), but it is
too easy and inexpensive and it cannot be stopped.

I'd suggest T3 spy plane has less hp, way less fuel and costs more mass.

[Gyle]

(Summary: Basically, this should allow T1/T2 interceptors to cost-effectively kill ASFs that wander too close.)

This concept scares me. The one thing this game doesnt need is more comparativly powerful t1 units. It already has slight issues with mass low fi spam vs tech.

The overkill script may not be working right yet but I still feel the trick to balancing air lies on the ground.

[noms]

Will the vapour trails for planes be removed in the next patch? Not sure if this will increase sim speed but worth a try.