Cybran desperately needs something for floaty crap

[FtXCommando]

The complaint is that you have to build navy, or frankly should for safety's sake,

step 1: scout
There is no step 2

If you play finn's revenge and your enemy suprised you with a 4k mass investment into 1 cruiser without you knowing it you're clearly doing something wrong.

That's cute if you were playing in a vacuum, but practical experience teaches there are a lot of situations where "just scout for that thing that kills you" is dumb advice, especially with threats that have exceedingly long range. That's why conventional wisdom dictates you build TMDs when you reach T2, not after you've scouted the TML. It's possible to imagine a situation where the enemy builds a naval factory before T2 and patrols a few subs near your shore to make it difficult for you to build a factory. If you don't want to gamble or try to recover from an already losing situation, it's better to build a naval factory early and commit to having naval support.

This is what we call faction diversity, every faction has their weaknesses and strengths.

The faction diversity is the fact that Wagners submerge instead of hovering. As a side-effect, the Cybran have a strategic hole. If it weren't such a niche problem it would be a really poor design decision and that bit of "faction diversity" would have be to abandoned.

Yeah, scouting to see if an enemy is going to exploit a vulnerability of yours is such stupid advice. It's the sort of stupid advice that never applies to anything. Classic 2k players thinking they know how to play.

For hover to be a big threat you need not only a t2 land hq, but you also need several t2 support factories spamming them. Totally different circumstance than someone just suddenly deciding to build a tml. The majority of the time, hover spam is a win condition for a faction in the game. Otherwise, it's just a minor nuisance that 2-3 frigates can stop, which is basically the same mass investment that the t2 hover is going to cost. It's a useless argument.

[Ars Nova]

You do realize you are talking to 2 people with a combined 4000 games played right? "practical experience"

Then act like it.

There are reasons why the Cybran have this strategic hole, but you can't convince people it doesn't need looking at from a balance perspective by telling them stealth fields and Mantis run-bys are too good. Good lord.

[FtXCommando]

You do realize you are talking to 2 people with a combined 4000 games played right? "practical experience"

Then act like it.

There are reasons why the Cybran have this strategic hole, but you can't convince people it doesn't need looking at from a balance perspective by telling them stealth fields and Mantis run-bys are too good. Good lord.

Please quote where farm or eco said that pls.

[Ars Nova]

Please quote where farm or eco said that pls.

Please quote my ass. If they don't disagree with me then they don't disagree with me.

Literally the only argument here is "it's fine if you play around it". The complaint is "it kinda sucks having to play around this".

[biass]

on todays episode of "rating 300 tells a bunch of 1800s how to play in order to get his favorite faction buffed"

you're honestly delusional if you think some shitty hover tanks are going to stop a t2 navy that magically appeared outside your base, regardless of faction

please try to cut down on your "words typed" and increase your "things said"

until you dispute my claim im pretty sure your name is Ayn_Rand and you have a ladderrating of -162, please confirm or deny

[Ars Nova]

you're honestly delusional if you think some shitty hover tanks are going to stop a t2 navy that magically appeared outside your base

Cruisers aren't really able to counter hover units very effectively so you can temporarily drive them off with factory units. Subs can't even hit hover units, so if they're in the water trying to deny naval factories they won't prevent hover spam from making an effort. Destroyers don't have a range that exceeds all land-based responses so while they're powerful they can be driven off with the tools that are there.

It's a niche problem. The problem does exist. Maps that exhibit the problem aren't really used in the ladder now for a reason. I am not advocating for change because there are non-stupid reasons the change isn't going to happen.

[biass]

Cruisers aren't really able to counter hover units very effectively so you can temporarily drive them off with factory units.

Yes because you're living in a fantasy world where a player made a shield boat and a cruiser, but seemingly is incapable of making frigates, again, delusional

please confirm or deny you're the user i mentioned above

[Plasma_Wolf]

You do realize you are talking to 2 people with a combined 4000 games played right? "practical experience"

Then act like it.

There are reasons why the Cybran have this strategic hole, but you can't convince people it doesn't need looking at from a balance perspective by telling them stealth fields and Mantis run-bys are too good. Good lord.

From another perspective: you're not looking into the strategic advantages of the Cybrans and want a rebalance of the hover game to accommodate the Cybran.

Literally the only argument here is "it's fine if you play around it". The complaint is "it kinda sucks having to play around this".

Very much so. The complaint is not, "Cybran lack of hover makes them UP". Because it doesn't. We've used the facts of the game that it indeed is fine if you play around it, which is the correct argument to "it kinda sucks having to play around this". No, it really doesn't suck to have to play around it.

I've got a more pressing thing tbh: Aeon frigates have no AA. None whatsoever, so frigate spam won't deal with the few Air units that someone sends to counter it. Every other faction has it, but not the Aeon. Why? Why do they have to build a specific unit to deal with air threads (the shard)?

UEF: no direct attack land experimental. Sera: no T3 gunship.

This is simply part of faction diversity and that's not a balance discussion. When faction diversity goes wrong, you get something completely different, like the Aeon Restorer winning against 2x the mass in ASFs, being rushable and cheap in energy. Thank god we got rid of that one right at the start of FAF. If such a thing happens, you'll find out how badly it needs to be changed. That simply isn't the case in this situation.

There is only one map where hover is truly OP and that's the wilderness. The counter to that is not to give every faction a hover unit, but to kill off the wilderness.

[Nepty]

Wow. This is interesting. Clever tactics and strategies can counter anything. From flanking to outsmarting your opponent.
Anyone ever look at Trident class frigate up close? It's pretty beautiful. A nice big proton cannon up front. Mmmmm. Them yellow lasers....

[Ars Nova]

Cruisers aren't really able to counter hover units very effectively so you can temporarily drive them off with factory units.

Yes because you're living in a fantasy world where a player made a shield boat and a cruiser, but seemingly is incapable of making frigates, again, delusional

please confirm or deny you're the user i mentioned above

So you're like this high level player but you can't think of a situation where having hover units would be useful. Not even situations that are openly admitted to be niche and uncommon. Nor can you think of any maps where having hover units is an advantage however mild or temporary. I know you want to look like this high-level Forged Alliance savant, but maybe you're stretching a bit thin right now.

you're not looking into the strategic advantages of the Cybrans and want a rebalance of the hover game to accommodate the Cybran.

I don't want to touch the hover game. The whole thing with Wagners is in its own box and it doesn't have to do with how hover units work. I think the lack of T3 gunship for Sera isn't that big of a deal because they still have air-based attack options along the same pathway. UEF not having a good direct attack land experimental is kind of an issue - people remark the Percy is a replacement for this but I think you could argue about it, and people do sometimes.

The only reason I'm in the thread is because I recognize the complaint being made, and for the record I don't think the strategic hole is there because the Mantis is too good, or because the Cybran TMLs are too good, or any that schlock. It's for practical reasons having to do with the game engine, how submersible units work, and the desire to maintain diversity by keeping Wagners as submersibles. Cybran would benefit from having an amphibious assault option - I also don't think their lack of amphibious ability is strictly intended - but there's not really any way to change, so at the end of the day you just have to work around it.

Point is, RocketRooster, you are observing an actual strategic weakness of the faction. It is there. It is frustrating and there are times you will lose because of it. There are people on the balance forum who will act like it NEEDS to be a problem for the Cybran, or who will refuse to acknowledge it exists because they're for some reason afraid it might get fixed. However, it's been discussed seriously years ago, and nobody ever figured out a way to work with it, so for now and indefinitely it's just a drawback of playing Cybran.