If anything, this and similar topics have taught me that there is a lot to know about which navals suck. For example, I have been reluctant, a few years ago, to build Aeon Destroyers because I never felt destroyers were very good when I played a lot of UEF. New or low-ranked players might complain less about navies when we know not to build 10 Aeon cruisers or 10 UEF destroyers. I feel all this could somehow be communicated better to players, maybe with tooltips - just a wall of text players will find in the client could help.

A uef strat running away from a small group of inties (irc 3-4) can beat them down, perhaps 1 broadsword should be able to kill 1 intie per pass

@archsimkat just realized, the widow mine cloak is disabled when recharging in SC2. You can ditch the stealth entirely reminding low ranked players to build scouts, and if you want you can pair them with deceivers.

How about increasing the damage to it's secondary weapons? Make it a walking sam launcher and/or increasing the bolter's to 500 dps?

Cruisers doing aoe removes possible micro potential from torps where you try to dive in to snipe 1/2 key units and get out because torps alwqys stack onto eachother

Well tbh this doesnt sound like a bad idea, but making them a tml projectile doesnt realy make any difference when you want to snipe a pushing acu (they wont have tmd). When it comes to sniping somebody sitting in a base i think this would be a massive buff to mercys since nobody really has more than 2 tmds sitting in one place to defend vs 15 tml rockets and 1 or 2 aa wouldnt be able to to kill a mojority of the mercys, sice they have way more hp now. I think if you remove the homig missile part this would actually make more sense.

Well the pattern I see here is that lots of noobs or low level thinkers come in here and shit-post about this or that needing to be changed and everyone seems to get a default approach of trashing any post that comes through (because statistically that is a good guess without even reading the post). Then when people actually raise good points the normal crowd does it's hatchet job and theres more counter-argument than there should be so it stalls or appears on a numerical post basis to be unpopular. Gonna take some special kinds of insight to work around that so hopefully you'll see what I'm talking about and act smartly.

@exselsior said in 2v2 Full Share means: Eco > Snipes, Luck and Unit Skill: @veteranashe said in 2v2 Full Share means: Eco > Snipes, Luck and Unit Skill: With share until death you only need to kill one acu to win, and it's not very fun when your teammates acu gets killed. Correct, this is what I was talking about a bit more since I knew other people would talk more from the vantage of the one doing the sniping. With fullshare when your teams acu gets killed your seriously fed for about the next 5 mins and if you hold out and figure everything out then it's just a 2v1 after that. You don’t get fed, you lose every single unit in production in your teammates factories. You have to restart all production, redo all engineer orders, redo all movement commands, shore up the hole created from acu explosion, possibly now stop 2 gun coms with one, etc. You don’t magically have more eco than the other two players unless your teammate was quite far ahead. As other people have said, it’s not “just a 2v1.” 2v1s aren’t magically easy. Don’t believe me then see if you can find some high rated shared army gameplay to see just how hard it is vs double apm even without the massive handicap of one acu vs two. I feel like I remember watching Yudi going full sweat vs maybe two 1800-2k players using shared armies and losing at the end despite being better than his opponents and having an apm so high I barely keep up just watching. This isn’t exactly the same but it helps show some of why it’s hard to 2v1 unless it’s a very closed off map. Hey, little typo, not fed, f'ed, or screwed, James, fucked, etc just like you describe lol

if they are unit without the 'SNIPEMOD' cat, they will retarget, as soon as mobile unit come in range. what would be interesting to see is if pillar that would keep the target on the acu in that kind of situation without using custom MOBILE, would actually retarget to other unit if you use the custom MOBILE target prio.

Idk what it would mean for balance but it would def be fun to micro. It seems like jesters have a good amount of hp rn so maybe decreasing health, decreasing cost, and adding what he said above might have a cool result. Like a lab but in air. Just throwing out ideas, i have not looked at the numbers at all.

As long as i can load them in a transport, i don't quit care about what you do to aeon lab

I am asking you because I think it would alleviate all the balance update hate in this sub forum. If people got a chance to be part of the evaluation it would be a much more “community approved” action rather balance coming out every so often to declare “okay, these are the updates, don’t care if you like them or not”

don't tell him about t1 tanks

@corvathranoob said in Wreck value and health: @sinforosa I think reclaim decay is a pretty creative and interesting idea and you have some good points to support it. I'm not sure if there is a way to avoid this effect for wrecks that are initially placed on a map, or if it is a good idea to have them still decay, or what rate of decay would be appropriate. I guess if we can't exclude those initial wrecks a number of maps would just have their design impacted, for better or worse. What rate are you thinking might be appropriate? 10% per minute? 0.5% per second (30% per minute), or more? And maybe so that you don't need to use a lot of bp to reclaim large wrecks quickly, the decay mechanic could be paused if the wreck is currently being reclaimed? I agree with you that recycling wrecks encourages creativity and speeds things up, but I also find reclaim to lead to more defenders advantage than I would prefer, so if the decay idea isn't feasible, maybe we could still get the best of both worlds by keeping the same reclaim value for units and structures that are ctrl-k'd, while decreasing it to 50% (or so) for units or structures that are killed? In theory people might be able to somewhat abuse that differential, but I'm guessing it would be pretty difficult to do in practice for anything besides T4s. You can make a distinction in behavior for static wrecks (placed by the map maker) and dynamic wrecks (during gameplay). As an example: https://gitlab.com/supreme-commander-forged-alliance/mods/mass-adjustment-proof-of-concept You could therefore change the decay behavior too.

Put equal mass titans v ml, then equal mass percy v ml Fun result