The Problems With The UEF - Part 2 (ACU Billy Nuke Upgrade)

@comradestryker It does help, thankyou!
I just needed a more 'general' understanding, being so new to what is obviously a deep 'can of worms' regarding balance and racial identity.
I guess I specifically wanted to understand whether the UEF faction's an outlier in having such sizeable 'holes' in its strategic options, because while I can absolutely see most of the points you spell out, I see similar 'holes' with other factions, too. In fact, from my very limited understanding, it seems as though the UEF actually has the least/smallest 'gaps', compared to other factions.
'Direct fire experimental' seems the most obvious, glaring one, but at least it can somewhat be filled by percivals , right? IE more than can be said for aeon's lack of an (OP) fighter bomber or T1 'mob' tank, cybran's lack of shields, seraphim's lack of all sorts (from LABs all the way up the tech tree) etc.)

I guess, at the end of the day, I'm just surprised that you're not writing these threads for the other factions 'problems', and wanted to better understand why. Apologies if I shouldn't have been asking this here, and I appreciate the time you've taken to help explain for simple little me!

(That, and I quite like the 'gaps' in the factions, myself. I'd feel a bit gutted if they were homogenised more. When I've discussed this specifically I've been told that team-game balance is very different from 1v1, and in many ways more important (most supcom players seem to prefer the big 4v4s and up!); but my experience in team games has always been that engineer passing is allowed, so that nobody is really missing ANY technology... And that makes me think that perhaps 1v1 and 2v2 are the more critical areas to 'get this right'. )

Aeon lacks fighter bomber -> still best t2 air stage in the game

Sera lacks lab -> scout has cloak tradeoff for raiding later and has zthuee + larger transport as a tradeoff for the lack of ghettos

UEF lacks direct fire t4 -> doesn’t even have the best direct fire t3 unit in exchange and said t3 unit is slower than t4s so it’s forced to stay in a deathball which also makes it hugely vulnerable to aoe that is ridiculously efficient at killing it at all times.

Cybran shield thing would be addressed by them having absolvers. Really funny btw, absolvers are such a ridiculous unit that in UEF or Cybran or likely Sera (dealing with harbs) you would see the unit every game but Aeon is so insanely stacked they get the luxury to not even worry about including it if they don’t want to.

@sylph_

I see similar 'holes' with other factions, too.

With faction diversity, there will always be an imbalance or an adjustment that will need to be made.
Though the changes that can be made can only go so far.
The best that can be done is to minimize the 'imbalance'.

'Direct fire experimental' seems the most obvious, glaring one, but at least it can somewhat be filled by percivals , right?

This one is a difficult question to answer.
In ideal circumstances or under technicalities, I would be inclined to agree; The Percy should be able to fill that lack of direct fire experimental.

However, the Percy's speed is lacking, preventing it from reaching 'critical' locations in reasonable time. In addition, its low fire rate makes it ineffective against spam, which Titans are better suited for that, anyway.
On the other hand, Harbs, Othuums, and Bricks overpower Titans with ease, leaving the Percy as the only real counter to these units.
So, as you can see... a dilemma.

I'm just surprised that you're not writing these threads for the other factions 'problems',

I could but as my experience is quite limited with them, and as others already posted their concerns... I saw little point in doing so.

(That, and I quite like the 'gaps' in the factions, myself. I'd feel a bit gutted if they were homogenised more.

I'm with you, here.
Having normalized faction units or stats would make the game far less fun, no?

When I've discussed this specifically I've been told that team-game balance is very different from 1v1, and in many ways more important (most supcom players seem to prefer the big 4v4s and up!);

Yeah, how games play depend on map sizes and number of players.

And that makes me think that perhaps 1v1 and 2v2 are the more critical areas to 'get this right'. )

Very, but SupCom is a team game... it's meant to be enjoyed with some friends.

~ Stryker

@comradestryker said in The Problems With The UEF - Part 2 (ACU Billy Nuke Upgrade):

In ideal circumstances or under technicalities, I would be inclined to agree; The Percy should be able to fill that lack of direct fire experimental.
However, the Percy's speed is lacking, preventing it from reaching 'critical' locations in reasonable time. In addition, its low fire rate makes it ineffective against spam,

I've definitely experienced that first-hand! The percy's lack of speed being a critical factor makes a lot of sense, thanks!
(I get a similar feeling when using seraphim against LABs, but at least there LABs are terrible enough in a real fight to be a minor inconvenience, and one that we can always tech past!)

I could but as my experience is quite limited with them (other factions), and as others already posted their concerns... I saw little point in doing so.

From other RTS games I've played, focusing on 1 race always tends to give an understanding of 'problems', but perhaps gives less perspective on strengths, or weaknesses of other factions. I assume the same is at play here, but I totally get that you understand racial balance way better than I do, regardless of any biases.

Very, but SupCom is a team game... it's meant to be enjoyed with some friends.

I love fighting my friends in 1v1s!
(cut obligatory rant about team game players kicking newcomers for not having played enough team games!).
.
.

@ftxcommando I totally get you regarding the absolver! I remember reading a discord post suggesting that loyalists get a 'shield breaker' effect added to their EMP death explosion, and thought it sounded like a nice idea. At least for a 'different' and racially fitting way of giving cybran a sort of absolver-ish effect!

That being said, in the games I've been playing, it's felt as though mobile shields are a bit too weak! I understand they were considered horribly OP before the changes were made to FaF which made shields take damage when overlapping shields took hits.
But for me it feels like the commander overcharge is just a bit too strong vs mobile shields. I've been wondering whether it absolutely HAS to destroy the unit itself when an overcharge hits the mobile shield bubble (ie, in addition to weapons getting +50% damage for every mobile shield overlapping the shield they hit).
I don't suppose you have some examples of games where mobile shields are dominating? I'd love a chance to witness the problem.

Cybran problems aside, though, the start of your post didn't quite gel for me. Or rather, I agree with the facts you stated, I just felt that if you're prepared to say:

@ftxcommando said in The Problems With The UEF - Part 2 (ACU Billy Nuke Upgrade):

"Sera lacks lab -> scout has cloak tradeoff for raiding later and has
zthuee + larger transport as a tradeoff for the lack of ghettos"...

You should also be willing to say:

"UEF lacks direct fire T4 -> fatboy is the only mobile T4
artillery/ kiting machine as tradeoff for lack of direct fire T4".

(I was going to say something about percivals vs direct fire T4, but ComradeStryker's point about percival speed made me understand whey they don't work too well there. )

Anyway,
I get that you're saying that cybran would be alright if they only had a way of dealing with shields.

Is the rough point about the UEF, then, the fact that they are unable to beat artillery? (Since artillery beats the fatboy and percivals?)
If so, do ythothas and monkeylord do that much better against artillery?
(Not a rhetorical question - I'm legitimately interested in understanding)

Finally, could it be the case that the reason this struggle against artillery exists, might be because of all the FaF nerfs to mobile shields?
(Mobile shields always felt like the intended defense against T2 artillery bases & defenses, and it felt like they worked many years ago. Maybe FaF's nerfs to mobile shields have made static shields and static weaponry too good in comparison?)

@sylph_ said in The Problems With The UEF - Part 2 (ACU Billy Nuke Upgrade):

Is the rough point about the UEF, then, the fact that they are unable to beat artillery? (Since artillery beats the fatboy and percivals?)
If so, do ythothas and monkeylord do that much better against artillery?
(Not a rhetorical question - I'm legitimately interested in understanding)

If I may answer...

Every other Experimental has every advantage going for it.
They all have much higher damage - as they are all direct fire,
higher speed - reducing the time it takes to get to the artillery,
but most importantly, a much Higher HP pool.

The next closest experimental in HP as compared to the Fatboy is the Monkeylord, yet the ML has an extra ~ 13,000 HP. And not to mention, Stealth, too.
And again, the aforementioned advantages in speed, damage, and Health.
Cost is also a factor. Fatboy is the most expensive land T4, only being 2nd to the Megalith.

Even if speed and damage were nearly identical, the sheer difference in HP is far too great.
Ythothas, Megaliths, and the Galactic Colossus, all have so much HP, that they could just waltz right into them without much care.

Every unit has its place, but some just have more wiggle room- allowing them to be far more flexible in multiple environments and situations.
A GC and Ythotha are almost always good investments but a Fatboy?
Far too niche, I'd say.

The investment is almost never worth it.
And even if it was - for the one time everything is going for it - it'll take a minute to chew through the armies and defenses.

The Fatboy is only relatively decent for defending.
But as someone once said, "You can't win a game by defending".

Finally, could it be the case that the reason this struggle against artillery exists, might be because of all the FaF nerfs to mobile shields?

Partially, but the Fatboy is too wide of a target. And the Shield... even bigger.
Artillery shells that would've otherwise missed would either collide with the Shield - damaging all other shields too, directly or indirectly due to spillover damage - or it would hit the Fatboy, and since it's so large, the unit would take damage.

Even if the shields could cover the Fatboy - which they only partially do - the Fatboy's shield is far too big, meaning it's almost always exposed somewhere which means it will likely still take damage even if a Parashield blocks it.

So, if the Fatboy still takes damage when shielded with mobile shields and when not shielded, then what's the point?
It's a waste of mass.

Apologies for the long replies.
Sometimes, there's too much to say about something, and to save you some time, I'll stop here.
Otherwise, I'd go on for another 3000 words.

Also... This isn't the Fatboy thread.

~ Stryker

The Fatboy needs something going for it like build on the move

Buff fatboy but delete novax. That seems fair.

@sylph_ This is all salt. Some factions shine under certain conditions and at the same time they lame at other certain conditions. Uef is fairly mediocre at almost everything without going crazy op or trash. Of course janus are strong. Incredibly so. But it doesnt mean they are that OP. What else can you name OP about uef? Undying acus? ive seen sera acu not die and current Cybran acu is unkillable. I cant think much of OP about uef. Unlike other factions.

@comradestryker said in The Problems With The UEF - Part 2 (ACU Billy Nuke Upgrade):

If I may answer...

Of course, and thankyou for explaining further!

Artillery shells that would've otherwise missed would either collide with the Shield - damaging all other shields too, directly or indirectly due to spillover damage - or it would hit the Fatboy, and since it's so large, the unit would take damage.

Even if the shields could cover the Fatboy - which they only partially do - the Fatboy's shield is far too big, meaning it's almost always exposed somewhere which means it will likely still take damage even if a Parashield blocks it.

So, if the Fatboy still takes damage when shielded with mobile shields and when not shielded, then what's the point?

It's a waste of mass.

This is what I'm getting at - the fact that shots that hit a mobile shield also do 50% of that damage to overlapping mobile shields (a FaF change) feels like it just ruins the ability to use shields to defend against artillery, and since fatboys ALWAYS feature mobile shield combat (ie. they have a huge shield, and less significantly should always build more when stationary), it seems to affect them particularly.

Artillery obviously tends not to miss against the huge target of a shield bubble, and this 50% extra damage bonus per shield (even without the artillery AOE hitting more than 1 bubble at a time, which makes the effect much worse) just feels like it makes approaching artillery with moving shields - including the fatboy, a bit too poor.

From reading old threads, I get the impression that these nerfs to shields, and MASSIVE nerfs to mobile shields, were made to stop players from turtling using shields packed really densely. In that case, it makes sense that the penalty wasn't so large on shield buildings (where they only take 10%, rather than 50%, IIRC) since it's hard to 'mass' static shields - there's not enough space etc...
But I feel like this FaF change just makes mobile shields absolutely junk against long-range defensive positions.

ie. The intended effect of that shield nerf - weakening static emplacements, actually seems to work the other way... Overlapping shield building bubbles can still be somewhat strong (only 10% damage spread), but mobile shields (50% damage spread) are now unable to approach them.

I quite liked the suggestions for fatboys having anti-artillery weaponry. I understand why players don't want 'special cases' (quick aside - Was there a similar anti-artillery weapon in the Xbox-exclusive units, somewhere?).
But, I wonder whether the problem is only so significant, and solutions being suggested, because of how backbreaking FaF's massive 50% penalty for overlapping mobile shields actually is?

If only there were a way of keeping mobile shields strong, but stopping them from helping turtles?
Is there a possibility of making 'popped' shield bubbles destroy power generators in a sort of 'chain reaction' effect? That might be a better way of limiting overlapping shields (particularly given how mobiles shields were at their worst when defending power/air grids or artillery (artillery needing power gen adjacency to maximise firerate etc).

Just some thoughts, related to how mobile shields feel 'too weak' when used to approach enemy static positions, which seems to be their intended niche.

Apologies for the long replies.

Sometimes, there's too much to say about something, and to save you some time, I'll stop here.

Otherwise, I'd go on for another 3000 words.

I'm unsure about others, but I appreciate the info you're feeding me. I always figure that discussing the game is the reason people come to gaming forums, so what the hell, I write word after word after word!

Make mobile shields volatile with low aoe so they don't blow up units but can damage buildings they are parked next to.

I think as well as build on the move, so a Fatboy can build sheild while retreating, riot guns and aa need to be improved.

@veteranashe That's much better than my power generator 'overload' suuggestion... Assuming it could actually work (I'm not sure of the exact mechanics at play regarding volatile, AOE, buildings etc.)
If there were a way for popped shields to hurt buildings, it would be a wonderful way of allowing mobile shields, including the fatboy, from helping break defenses and fighting artillery without rewarding turtles.

I always thought mobile shields were too small of a bubble to help buildings

@veteranashe As I understand it, defending turtle strategies was the reason FaF nerfed mobile shields so heavily.

No, mobile shields were nerfed because they make a push impossible to break.

Speaking of shields; And since this is the Billy thread...

What if a Billy projectile was able to go through shields without collision?
A counterbalance could be that it'll lose 1HP per shield that it goes through or deal less damage, but this way, Mobile 3 or 4 shields do not completely absorb the blast.

Reimplement the 'Return to sender' for Loyalists since they don't have mobile shields.

Still, it would be risky to throw a Billy at armies that are heavily shielded,
But would give more wiggle room to be able to use the upgrade.

~ Stryker

more exceptions = bad game design

also just not needed because billy isn't bad so why would it get a buff

@ftxcommando Oh, wow!
So the reason for the changes to shields all that time ago was that AGGRESSION was too strong back then?
(And, thus, the FaF nerf to shields was designed to help defensive / turtling play become strong? yes?)

That's a massive lesson for me... I thought it was the exact opposite!

Ok, so do people generally, currently, feel that attacking is currently (July 2023) too strong?
I got the impression that people felt that turtling was too strong at the moment.

Because it seems that, if attacking is too strong, the FaF 50% penalty to overlapping mobile shields is a great thing.
But if defense is too strong, then the FaF 50% penalty to overlapping shields should be reduced.
(I honestly aren't skilled enough to venture a guess either way)

I'm sorry for asking for this clarification, @FtXCommando : (I have read old threads as much as I can, I promise...) -
Is attacking currently considered better than turtling?
Or is turtling considered better?
Or is it considered balanced (outside of aforementioned UEF problems with artillery bases and Cybran needing absolvers to beat shields)

It's not about attacks being too strong, it's about a specific type of attack being too strong. It's cancerous to, for example, have to deal with 3 UEF battlecruisers under 25 bulwarks that you will never be able to touch or deal with. The gameplay isn't fun for anybody. You just keep stacking infinite HP in 1 spot, no micro, no consideration about unit mix, no interaction.

@sylph_ said in The Problems With The UEF - Part 2 (ACU Billy Nuke Upgrade):

Is attacking currently considered better than turtling?
Or is turtling considered better?
Or is it considered balanced (outside of aforementioned UEF problems with artillery bases and Cybran needing absolvers to beat shields)

I'm honest, I didn't read anything you wrote before and just stumbled across this take randomly. So if it's in a larger context, feel free to just ignore my message. If It's a general question, then I want to give at least my PoV to that topic.

The question is pretty much yes and no.
You have do differentiate first what gamemode you're referring to. 1v1? 3v3? 7v7?
I want to take Illshis (T2 Sera bots) as an example. They're expensive but strong. They rape most other units and can deal brutal damage. However since they cost so much, they have one problem such as every other expensive unit. An ACU fucks them because one Overcharge kills them easily.
And here it's important what we are talking about. In 1v1 they're strong. Because they just run around the ACU and fight other units, being worth the so called "T 2.5 unit" they are. However if we talk about a 6v6, then you can't run around an ACU. Cuz what happens? You stumble in another ACU. That's the reason you will literally only see 1-3 illshis in a large teamgame on the field. In total. And because of these type of things it's hard to say it in general.

Play a lot of teamgames and defensive, eco-heavy play is going to be more rewarding.
Play 1v1-3v3 and you'll find yourself spamming intis til minute 20 while not even thinking about upgrading a mex to T3.

That's also the reason why ppl saying "turtling is so OP in rating range X-Y" are basically clowns. Cuz the only reason to reward aggression even more in teamgames is to nerf the ACU. Which already happened quite a bit in the past, but you'd need to nerf it way more. Like SupCom2 ACU where you run away from 5 tanks cuz otherwise you're dead.

The following is honestly only my opinion:
<1000: figure out the basics of the game, usually ends in turtle-battles cuz they suicide a lot of stuff into firebases
1000-1500: Monkey spam with no / barely eco = pog OR purely ecoing with basically no units
1500-2000: Figure out how to balance spam+eco'ing so you have both units and eco
2000+: Learn the details. Perfection about unit micro, usage, eco'ing etc.
what I mean is that you also need to include what rating range you're talking about. Tbh.. Now after reading it, this paragraph is a bit out of context, but ig I'll just leave it here regardless?

If you want, I can offer you to talk about this sort of thing in VC someday.

@sladow-noob said in The Problems With The UEF - Part 2 (ACU Billy Nuke Upgrade):

usually ends in turtle-battles cuz they suicide a lot of stuff into firebases

I'm totally low rating!
I'm enjoying understanding the nuances of the current game a little better, and appreciate these topics.

FWIW, I usually play 1v1 games, but I try to get an understanding of team-game balance, ready for when I start daring to inflict myself on others more regularly!