@maudlin27 said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
Only one I dont like is the HARMS change given it is a big nerf and it presumably can still be ground fired. I'd rather the nerf was smaller to see how it fares (e.g. 40% build time reduction, 2k health reduction, or no build time reduction and no health reduction). At -4k it ends up having about the same health as a T2 torpedo launcher (6.4k for UEF)
Comparing the hp of above water and under water units doesn't work. T2 subs also have 1/5th the hp of destroyers
@waffelznoob said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
I don't see how the torpedo bomber and cruiser changes will help the interaction between cruisers and torp bombers. Decreasing the cruiser's range plays a huge role in this interaction, and reducing it so much will obviously mean less torpedo bombers will be required to snipe a cruiser, which kinda works against the cruiser HP increase and torp bomber damage decrease. Maybe these values do work towards improving interaction between torp/cruiser, would require some testing atleast. if this has been done already then ignore everything i said
Right now you need 4 torps(if all torps land their hit) to kill most cruisers, after this change you need 6 torps. The 15 range isn't gonna let you kill 2 more torps if they were coming for your cruiser even when kiting away so in a straight up torps vs cruiser matchup this is definitely a buff for the cruisers.
This means that torp micro is rewarded more since it's easier to go around the cruiser to snipe navy units at the edge of your navy formation but in a straight up battle you lose more torps.
It also incentivizes wanting a mix of cruisers and carriers in the t3 stage so you have cruisers for close up damage dealing and the carriers for longer range control.
Atleast, this is the intention/direction we want to go. Not gonna be perfect and work right away from the start ofcourse.
@indexlibrorum said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
Are there any changes planned for the Soulripper? Currently feels too expensive for what it delivers.
No because we think it's in a decent state atm.
@comradestryker said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
I'm failing to see how the Atlantis's proposed changes will alleviate its issues.
Sure, the size change will help, but 10%... Well, we will have to see how that translates to in-game.
Its main issue is its lack of specialization or role.
It's a unit that's trying to be an aircraft carrier and a sub - failing at both!
Also, not sure why one of the Atlantis's strengths, (a small benefit, to say the least), is being overshadowed by all carriers getting the same utility in vision/water vision.
Idk why you think making it smaller and thus harder to hit while giving it a 16% speed increase isn't gonna help it.
It's a unit that doesn't specialize because it does multiple things yes. Unless you want to remove features you can't buff them by much at all otherwise it can become broken a lot faster than you imagine.
vision/water vision is not something that should be locked behind a faction. This is to make carriers from other factions have a more supportive role against something like stealth/subs.