Why is the Aeon a broken faction?

[Fen]

You’re here to prove to us why the change is a good idea. You have done nothing of the sort.

I did, and i can and will do it again. Too bad nobody cared to give in the argument. So here it is.
1- auroras are a gamble that top players can explore with perfect micro. Not all players have that skill. Whatever advantage they gain is easilly turned against the aeon players because auroras with their low hp are specially ineffective Vs t2, t1 bombers, commander fire, loyalists, titans, and many others. Improving the other factions t1 tanks micro options and intel while lowering the aeon unit aceleration since it does not have to turn to back up would even out the micro game advantage and improve playabillity.
2- the t2 tank is useless vs t1 spam and t2 tanks, because it wastes DPS and do not have range or speed, therefore forcing the aeon players to go for another HQ upgrade to counter what the enemy can do with a single HQ upgrade. Improving its shot to match the highest HP t1 tank and its range to match the t2 tanks at the cost of some DPS would give the aeon an actual t2 hold short of an expensive t3 HQ upgrade.
3- Apart from the initial harb rush vs t2 tanks, no even, equally matched with support, split of aeon units can hold on when unto combat direct engagement from bricks, percies or even oothum numbers, This making the aeon T3 a death countdown vs an equally or even less skilled opponent that choose to spam bricks , oothums or percies. Buffing snipers are just short of a tangent solution to improve battlefield management, adding micro options for an underpowered t3 game.
4- Except for the mega, all land experimentals are mass deliveries vs an equal mass Of t3 units like bricks or percies and also specially true for the GC claw weapon vs cybran emp from loyalists when mixed along with bricks. Buffing the sniper would be just another tangent solution. Ex is an even bigger gamble considering that units have escalar production.
5-t2 navy is very weak vs t1 spam. Doubling The range of the cruiser cannon would be on par with all other factions t1 spam solution, although still tangent in face the main ground attack T2 navy unit is the destroyer. The destroyer could greatly improve its survivabillity vs other destroyers, since its slow muzzle speed males its shots be easily dodged with a simple move order queue.
Improving its muzzle speed would patch that easilly exploited weakness. A small improvement on its rof would keep the faction trait While making it more effective vs lower tier units from splitting its damage.
6- A couple commmander upgrades are of lower usage, more exactly the chronotron amplifier and sensor suíte.

I guess that would be the optimal balance changes i see a necessity, But the land chances are fairly necessary for all the aeon gamebreaker unit philosophy that linger from supcom turtle setup.

[FtXCommando]

1- auroras are a gamble that top players can explore with perfect micro. Not all players have that skill. Whatever advantage they gain is easilly turned against the aeon players because auroras with their low hp are specially ineffective Vs t2, t1 bombers, commander fire, loyalists, titans, and many others. Improving the other factions micro options and intel while lowering the aeon unit aceleration since it does not have to turn to back up would even out the micro game advantage and improving playabillity.

Game isn't balanced for bad players. Aurora is indisputably the strongest t1 tank and just because 800 rated players cant figure out what a move command is doesn't mean balance will be based on them. FAF doesn't have a "No child left behind" program ok.

aurora against t2: build shields to give them more hp
t1 bombers: aurora is the only t1 tank that can win battles with less mass investment, you can use the extra mass to win air
commander fire: it's called a move command
loyalists + titans: lol you gonna complain that LABs don't beat harbs too?

Trash suggestion Conclusion: It would make Aeon OP by buffing what they are already dominating at.

2- the t2 tank is useless vs t1 spam and t2 tanks, because it wastes DPS and do not have range or speed, therefore forcing the aeon players to go for another HQ upgrade to counter what the enemy can do with a single HQ upgrade. Improving its shot to match the highest HP t1 tank and its range to match the t2 tanks at the cost of some DPS would give the aeon an actual t2 hold short of an expensive t3 HQ upgrade.

Aeon has very strong T1 and early T3. T2 is supposed to be a relative weakpoint and even then the obsidian is a severely underrated unit. It wastes DPS on t1 because Aeon doesn't need a t2 tank to deal with t1. Range/Speed is the sacrifice for strong damage/hp. It doesn't need any of the considerations you put. If you really had an understanding of the game, you would have complained that OC from ACUs makes obsidians very poor due to such extreme mass investment per unit. Obsidians are not built because everything they do, a harb does better and the T3 HQ isn't that expensive. It has nothing to do with obsidian being bad.

Trash suggestion Conclusion: It is a buff to the weakpoint Aeon has in order to make them have no weakpoints.

3- Apart from the initial harb rush vs t2 tanks, no even, equally matched with support, split of aeon units can hold on when unto combat direct engagement from bricks, percies or even oothum numbers, This making the aeon T3 a death countdown vs an equally or even less skilled opponent that choose to spam bricks , oothums or percies. Buffing snipers are just short of a tangent solution to improve battlefield management, adding micro options for an underpowered t3 game.

Othuum is easily crushed by harb with kiting. Percy and brick are supposed to beat harb in direct engagements. You can easily beat percy with harb on a 1v1 due to micro. You forgot to mention loya/titan because they don't help your poor logic. Aeon T3 is aggressive early on in order to prevent a critical build up of direct fire units that stomps them before GCs/eco advantage is available. If you would read the posts I am writing on your thread, you would realize this.

Trash suggestion Conclusion: Based on a poor understanding of gameplay and the role of units.

4- Except for the mega, all land experimentals are mass deliveries vs an equal mass Of t3 units like bricks or percies and also specially true for the GC claw weapon vs cybran emp from loyalists when mixed along with bricks. Buffing the sniper would be just another tangent solution.

Chicken crushes clumps of T3. GCs can be very efficient against mass-expensive units such as percy. Buffing the sniper is useless and doesn't address anything on this issue although, on an unrelated note, they could gain 300 hp or so just for some survivability. Harb already counters loyalist very well.

Trash suggestion Conclusion: You're just throwing out situations where Aeon is weak and demanding they don't exist. You aren't even using the reality of game balance for these situations but making up random bullshit.

5-t2 navy is very weak vs t1 spam. Doubling The range of the cruiser cannon would be on par with all other factions t1 spam solution, although still tangent in face the main ground attack T2 navy unit is the destroyer. The destroyer could greatly improve its survivabillity vs other destroyers, since its slow muzzle speed males its shots be easily dodged with a simple move order queue.
Improving its muzzle speed would patch that easilly exploited weakness. A small improvement on its rof would keep the faction trait While making it more effective vs lower tier units from splitting its damage.

Ever heard of aurora? The f*** are you making destroyers/cruisers to deal with t1 spam WHEN YOU ARE LITERALLY A FACTION WITH A FLOATING TANK. The exploited weakness is a reward for micro against Aeon. They do not need a weakness eliminated.

Trash Suggestion Conclusion: I would like to get rid of my destroyer's weakness, but please do not change epic damage, epic range, or epic torpedoes. Thanks in advance balance team!

6- A couple commmander upgrades are of lower usage, more exactly the chronotron amplifier and sensor suíte.

Sensor sees usage, chromo doesn't really. Might be interesting to see if something would be possible with it.

I guess that would be the optimal balance changes i see a necessity, But the land chances are fairly necessary for all the aeon gamebreaker unit philosophy that linger from supcom turtle setup.

None of these changes are necessary. Some possible changes from your suggestions are small hp boost to sniper bots and chromo cost reduction. That's about it.

[Farmsletje]

Factually incorrect:

I did, and i can and will do it again. Too bad nobody cared to give in the argument. So here it is.
1- auroras are a gamble that top players can explore with perfect micro. Not all players have that skill. Whatever advantage they gain is easilly turned against the aeon players because auroras with their low hp are specially ineffective Vs t2, t1 bombers, commander fire, loyalists, titans, and many others. Improving the other factions t1 tanks micro options and intel while lowering the aeon unit aceleration since it does not have to turn to back up would even out the micro game advantage and improve playabillity.
2- the t2 tank is useless vs t1 spam and t2 tanks, because it wastes DPS and do not have range or speed, therefore forcing the aeon players to go for another HQ upgrade to counter what the enemy can do with a single HQ upgrade. Improving its shot to match the highest HP t1 tank and its range to match the t2 tanks at the cost of some DPS would give the aeon an actual t2 hold short of an expensive t3 HQ upgrade.
3- Apart from the initial harb rush vs t2 tanks, no even, equally matched with support, split of aeon units can hold on when unto combat direct engagement from bricks, percies or even oothum numbers, This making the aeon T3 a death countdown vs an equally or even less skilled opponent that choose to spam bricks , oothums or percies. Buffing snipers are just short of a tangent solution to improve battlefield management, adding micro options for an underpowered t3 game.
4- Except for the mega, all land experimentals are mass deliveries vs an equal mass Of t3 units like bricks or percies and also specially true for the GC claw weapon vs cybran emp from loyalists when mixed along with bricks. Buffing the sniper would be just another tangent solution. Ex is an even bigger gamble considering that units have escalar production.
5-t2 navy is very weak vs t1 spam. Doubling The range of the cruiser cannon would be on par with all other factions t1 spam solution, although still tangent in face the main ground attack T2 navy unit is the destroyer. The destroyer could greatly improve its survivabillity vs other destroyers, since its slow muzzle speed males its shots be easily dodged with a simple move order queue.
Improving its muzzle speed would patch that easilly exploited weakness. A small improvement on its rof would keep the faction trait While making it more effective vs lower tier units from splitting its damage.
6- A couple commmander upgrades are of lower usage, more exactly the chronotron amplifier and sensor suíte.

I guess that would be the optimal balance changes i see a necessity, But the land chances are fairly necessary for all the aeon gamebreaker unit philosophy that linger from supcom turtle setup.

nice argument mate

[Steel_Panther]

Don't feed the trolls...

[TheKoopa]

Aeon player coming in

You’re here to prove to us why the change is a good idea. You have done nothing of the sort.

I did, and i can and will do it again. Too bad nobody cared to give in the argument. So here it is.
1- auroras are a gamble that top players can explore with perfect micro. Not all players have that skill. Whatever advantage they gain is easilly turned against the aeon players because auroras with their low hp are specially ineffective Vs t2, t1 bombers, commander fire, loyalists, titans, and many others. Improving the other factions t1 tanks micro options and intel while lowering the aeon unit aceleration since it does not have to turn to back up would even out the micro game advantage and improve playabillity.
2- the t2 tank is useless vs t1 spam and t2 tanks, because it wastes DPS and do not have range or speed, therefore forcing the aeon players to go for another HQ upgrade to counter what the enemy can do with a single HQ upgrade. Improving its shot to match the highest HP t1 tank and its range to match the t2 tanks at the cost of some DPS would give the aeon an actual t2 hold short of an expensive t3 HQ upgrade.
3- Apart from the initial harb rush vs t2 tanks, no even, equally matched with support, split of aeon units can hold on when unto combat direct engagement from bricks, percies or even oothum numbers, This making the aeon T3 a death countdown vs an equally or even less skilled opponent that choose to spam bricks , oothums or percies. Buffing snipers are just short of a tangent solution to improve battlefield management, adding micro options for an underpowered t3 game.
4- Except for the mega, all land experimentals are mass deliveries vs an equal mass Of t3 units like bricks or percies and also specially true for the GC claw weapon vs cybran emp from loyalists when mixed along with bricks. Buffing the sniper would be just another tangent solution. Ex is an even bigger gamble considering that units have escalar production.
5-t2 navy is very weak vs t1 spam. Doubling The range of the cruiser cannon would be on par with all other factions t1 spam solution, although still tangent in face the main ground attack T2 navy unit is the destroyer. The destroyer could greatly improve its survivabillity vs other destroyers, since its slow muzzle speed males its shots be easily dodged with a simple move order queue.
Improving its muzzle speed would patch that easilly exploited weakness. A small improvement on its rof would keep the faction trait While making it more effective vs lower tier units from splitting its damage.
6- A couple commmander upgrades are of lower usage, more exactly the chronotron amplifier and sensor suíte.

I guess that would be the optimal balance changes i see a necessity, But the land chances are fairly necessary for all the aeon gamebreaker unit philosophy that linger from supcom turtle setup.

1) Wow good job comparing t1 vs t3 (???????)
And auroras are actually better vs t2 than mantis or thaams because their range is still comparable to pillars or even better, so they deal more damage (aurora also have the best dps out of all t1 tanks)

2) This is just plain wrong, opsidians are actually amazing tanks, but they are not used often because of the better options of double gun in teamgames and harbs in 1v1

3) This is also wrong, you will reach critical mass of harbs much faster than percies or bricks and they are just plain better than sera tanks, not to mention you should be focusing on raiding with them and your opponents simply will not have the ability to fight back because they have too low of a mass income

4) You mix harbies with gcs and this problem is fixed (why are you sending experimentals anywhere with no escort?)

5) So is every other t2 navy which is kind of the point; you have frigates to fight hover spam which for aeon works fine (and aurora + blazes + hovershields makes it even more trivial to deal with any hover spam)

6) Underused upgrades are not a problem, a weak shield is, otherwise range gun is one of the better upgrades and used quite often

[Farmsletje]

Don't feed the trolls...

its fun. forum points count as mai points right?

[Fen]

FtXcommando and others, again you trow what is mostly your personal opinion on how the grand scheme of the overall game progress goes and should go or simply go over the tangent. I havent seen any real serious opinion why the overal gamebreakers arent so but some weakness thats supposed to ne like that anyways. If aeon is so good why noone chooses it for land gameplay on tournaments?
T2 mobile shields would only slow down t2 tanks longer range and better movement bite through them and pick the auroras one by one.

[TheKoopa]

Do you not read

[PhilipJFry]

aeon are by no means underpowered in the current balance of the game
if you feel that they are then please prove your point by abusing the weakness of aeon and give us some evidence
until then we'll continue to discard your incoherent rambleing

[Plasma_Wolf]

Fen: replays please. If there is an imbalance we'll be able to understand the problems you're having. If not, we'll be able to you what went wrong. You want the changes, you provide the evidence that they're necessary.

Any suggestion is useless without replays. But even with replays suggestions probably won't go in. Especially not if they're this wild.

double the range and rof for the cruiser ground weapon

The cruiser is not an anti-ground weapon. It's an anti-air weapon. You want to give it strong anti-ground as well? With a range almost the same as a T2 artillery? That's 2000 mass spent on the strongest naval AA possible and you want to give it the firepower of 2.5 frigates with a range bigger than anything but Cybran, Sera, UEF Battleships? That's absurd.

again you trow what is mostly your personal opinion on how the grand scheme of the overall game progress goes and should go or simply go over the tangent

The other people have given some direct points as to why the other changes you've proposed are not good, it's not just their personal opinion. They based their claims on what they've actually seen in the game. Also, without replays to back your argument, your argument is also just a personal opinion.

At any rate, good job on keeping the forum alive. In less than 24 hours you got a 5 page thread