Suggestion for SAMS - Heavy AA
-
With the new patch on the 19th of November and the (much needed) buff to T3 mobile AA, I think we now have a good opportunity to differentiate SAMs and T3 mobile AA.
First, some history. Obviously, T3 mobile AA was not in the developer version of FAF, but it was added because it was needed. The first iteration of T3 mobile AA was minimalist in order to not change balance very much: It was essentially an exact copy of the SAM, just mobile. However, obviously that was underpowered, so it was eventually buffed.
Now, T3 mobile AA is a low-cost deterrent to T3 bombers and gunships, and a minor threat to passing ASFs and scouts. This is a great spot for T3 mobile AA. Now what about SAMs?
SAMs should be heavy anti-air. I'm proposing an increase in cost by 100% (800 mass/8k Energy --> 1600 mass/16k Energy) paired with an increase in damage (+100%), a decrease in rate of fire (~40% decrease) and an increase in maximum range (+50%), and a minimum range (of maybe 30 units). (UEF SAM example: 200 damage --> 400 damage. Range: 0-60 --> 30-90. Firecycle: 6x1/0.1 sec + 3.1 sec reload = 3.6 total --> 6x1/0.1 sec + 6.6 sec reload = 7.1 sec total.)
With these changes, SAMs will be significantly distinguished from T3 mobile AA, with T3 mobile AA being clearly better sometimes, particularly against masses of T1 and T2 air units and in the early T3 air stage. Also, SAMs that are built alone or closely together will be vulnerable to T2 gunship and will need mobile T3 mobile AA or flak to cover them up close. Also, this will buff SAMs against T3 air, mainly enabling them to One-Shot ASF, and improving performance against experimental air units.
Thoughts?
-
I like the idea of a minimum damage radius
, it allows for gameplay opportunities with Gunships -
Sams are still incredibly tanky even after the HP nerf and it would be trivial to spam them to cover their blind spots.
-
I think a better alternative to a hard minimum range would be altering the missile guidance so they tend to miss more at close range against moving targets.
I like the idea of sams as heavy aa, but my power creep sense is tingling with the increase in damage because it increases the odds of an increase to t3 air health down the road. I think balancing it within the existing state would be better, the numbers for air just feel so wonky in comparison to anything else in the game*.
*Especially in how many secondary AA weapons (on ships etc., not cruisers) are underpowered to the point of being eye candy.
-
@clyf with the proposed changes a 100% increase in damage and 40% decrease in rof and a 100% increase in costs will lead to 60% dps/mass, so aside from alpha damage it'll perform worse against air. You'll also have half the amount of sams thus half the amount of hp, so against air-to-ground units your sams will perform at about 30% efficiency compared to current sams and perform even worse against low hp units. (aside from the range increase)
-
Okay that's fair. I don't think we can sleep on alpha strike + range increase given how much AA tends to shoot at fast moving aircraft that tend to get away + quickly have an opportunity to repair.
But let me take a step back, move the goalposts, and say that if the role of a unit is being changed significantly, I'd like to see the numbers worked out from first(ish) principles (say, based on the unit they're targeting) instead of suspiciously round percentages. Whenever I see +50%/+100% etc. I get the vibe there's not a ton of analysis going on behind the scenes.
So first we need to define what role SAMs play now (in relation to flak and interceptors/ASF, which both have strong identities), and what role we'd like them to play. From the OP, looks like FunkOff's suggestion is long-range, heavy hitting, and (implicitly) aerial denial. That appeals to me on multiple levels, establishes a unique identity for the unit, interesting interactions with jamming, etc. etc.
Increasing the range also A. allows SAM health to be decreased without compromising their usefulness and B. opens the door for them to rely on radar more, which makes radar more relevant as a tactical target.
Later, after we get runaway balance issues/sprinkle some salvia in our coffee we can talk about anti-missile defense (lasers, flares) for big, slow air units we don't want to get absolutely trashed by the changes. Or radar adjacency effects. Sky's the limit.
-
@zeldafanboy said in Suggestion for SAMS - Heavy AA:
Sams are still incredibly tanky even after the HP nerf and it would be trivial to spam them to cover their blind spots.
The intent is to make SAMs different from T3 mobile AA, not to necessarily nerf them or buff them.
-
@clyf said in Suggestion for SAMS - Heavy AA:
I think a better alternative to a hard minimum range would be altering the missile guidance so they tend to miss more at close range against moving targets.
This is harder than you might think. The simplest option is to greatly nerf the SAM's turret yaw speed, meaning how fast it can turn, although this might be a bit heavy handed. You could, for example, send a scout to one side of a SAM then approach safely with gunships from another side. Actually, thinking about it, I kind of like this idea, too.
Regarding changes to missile guidance, I have greatly experimented with this in trying to make ASFs ineffective against T1 interceptors. It's quite challenging. One idea, potentially, is that the missiles have 0 tracking until maybe 1.5 or 2.0 seconds into flight, at which point they have tracking. The turn rate and lifetime of the missile would need to be nerfed so the missile will disappear before turning 180+ degrees
-
-
@funkoff said in Suggestion for SAMS - Heavy AA:
@zeldafanboy said in Suggestion for SAMS - Heavy AA:
Sams are still incredibly tanky even after the HP nerf and it would be trivial to spam them to cover their blind spots.
The intent is to make SAMs different from T3 mobile AA, not to necessarily nerf them or buff them.
I'm not sure I understand the point here. They're all fairly different from mobile AA as it is, certainly much more different than when you compare T2 mobile and static AA. In general I would say the extremely fast projectile speed of T3 mobile AA is far more effective then T3 static AA except for Seraphim.
-
I only agree with the range and cost increase , but the damage increase doesn't feel justified.
T3 AA sams are already dirt-cheap for the amount of DPS they provide , along with their tanky health.
A range and cost increase will serve greatly to make them less DPS effective early T3 stage against T3 gunships (which i believe they shouldn't be effective against at all, just like how T3 Land defense isn't as effective against T3 heavy units , unlike how T2 defs compare to T2 units)For the argument to hold , compare the percy (7200 HP , 1280 mass cost, 337 dps, 34 range) against T3 uef defense (6500 HP , 2000 mass , 272 dps, 70 range) and the SAM(7000 HP , 800 mass , 342 DPS, 60 range) against T3 Uef gunships (6000 health , 1500 mass, 250 dps , 44 range)
Land gameplay is highly dependant on range since land units are far more slower paced , thus the turrets doubled range is justified, along with its mass cost.
For air however .. the units are far more mobile , the range difference between SAMS and T3 gunships is 16 , which is fast to close by air units . The main point of T3 sams should be to provide a stationary defense for a large area against weak/harrasing forces , not to completly block tactical avenues for the enemy once they are spammed enough(which is very convenient to do because of how cheap they are for their utility) -
@spcr I agree with your post, which is why I emphasized a doubling of SAM cost without any increase in hp, and a decrease in overall DPS per mass.
-
I like the idea... perhaps a mod can be created so we can test it out?
