FAForever Forums
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Login

    Fix tactical artillery - Battleships/T2/T3 mobile artillery

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Balance Discussion
    19 Posts 10 Posters 1.6k Views
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • waffelzNoobW
      waffelzNoob
      last edited by

      Make all laser weapons the same range. They have to be, for balance reasons

      frick snoops!

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • F
        FunkOff @Deribus
        last edited by

        @deribus I'm glad you asked.

        1- It would buff T3 mobile artillery, which are currently under-used. (Although I think the main issue is their extremely low HP, this HP issue can be mitigated with use of shields. Their damage is low, but their damage radius is very good which mitigates that. That basically leaves the range as the only problem.
        2- This would serve not as a nerf to battleships mainly, but as a modest hedge against their domination against bases.
        3- T2 static artillery seem relatively balanced (aside from their weakness to battleships) and so changes should focus on requiring minimum changes to them.

        Regarding #1 in particular, I've been sure to watch ALL the LoTS games on Youtube. These games surely represent the top tier of play. In my view, it's pretty clear that direct combat units of all tiers (tanks, T2 tanks, T3 bots) take precedence generally, and only in specific situations do the 'support' units such as MMLs and T3 mobile artillery warrant consideration. Hypothetically, the game could be balanced in the reverse, that mobile artillery are always better than tanks, except in rare/specific circumstances.

        I'm not asking for a paradigm shift, just a modest adjustment.

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • IndexLibrorumI
          IndexLibrorum Global Moderator
          last edited by

          Why should a T2 unit be able to hold its own against a significantly more expensive T3 unit?

          "Design is an iterative process. The required number of iterations is one more than the number you have currently done. This is true at any point in time."

          See all my projects:

          F 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • F
            FunkOff @IndexLibrorum
            last edited by

            @indexlibrorum I agree with you that a T2 unit shouldnt hold its own against a T3 units without a large resource/numerical advantage. This is, in fact, why I propose that T3 mobile artillery should have an improved range to help them combat T2 artillery. Regarding t2 artillery against battleships, under my proposal, battleships will still win, at least until T3 shields are used to help aid the defense of the t2 static artillery.

            IndexLibrorumI 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • IndexLibrorumI
              IndexLibrorum Global Moderator @FunkOff
              last edited by

              @funkoff then, do you propose to decrease the damage output of the static T2 arty?

              "Design is an iterative process. The required number of iterations is one more than the number you have currently done. This is true at any point in time."

              See all my projects:

              F 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • F
                FunkOff @IndexLibrorum
                last edited by

                @indexlibrorum If the balance team deems it necessary to reduce the raw DPS of the T2 static artillery for this purpose, then I'm sure it is a needed change. I will only add that a transition from low arc to high arc will likely change the effective DPS of the T2 static arty without needing to change the raw DPS because it's much more likely to miss entirely and less likely to hit valid targets behind the intended target even when nominal misses occur. Therefore, the high arc will reduce the raw DPS somewhat, but a range increase may make a nominal damage decrease necessary in addition to that.

                LunyshkoL 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • LunyshkoL
                  Lunyshko @FunkOff
                  last edited by Lunyshko

                  @funkoff I dont understand why t3 mobile artillery should be better than t2 stationary when the t2 costs x2.5. Also if you make some cringe arcs with t2 artillery its going to be a huge buff to a fatboy, the things are more interconnected than meets the eye.
                  A small incompetent balance change may lead to enormous amount of balance tweaks in other areas that will ruin balance, balance is not about arty vs ships, its about how every units is interconnected to each other, also note that if you make too much of an arch the air units will be hit, rn they dont fly that high

                  "Good luck and a safe landing commanders!"

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                  • S
                    snoog
                    last edited by

                    As a general concept, I fail to see why mobile artillery should be better than stationary. Also, do people actually think t3 mobile arty needs a buff? I don't think I've ever seen anyone ask for that. I see them used quite often and they can be exceptionally good at base breaking unless countered by Ravagers or even more T2 arty.

                    F 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • MazorNoobM
                      MazorNoob @FtXCommando
                      last edited by

                      @ftxcommando said in Fix tactical artillery - Battleships/T2/T3 mobile artillery:

                      made uef the worst at yet another tech level

                      Made a list just to check if it's true.

                      T1 land -> arguably yes, but not by a lot
                      T2 land -> no, Cybran is
                      T3 land -> no, Cybran is
                      T4 land -> sure

                      T1 air -> arguably yes, but by a tiny margin
                      T2 air -> yes
                      T3 air -> no, Sera is
                      T4 air -> arguable since they have Novax and it's not like Cybran bug is any good

                      T1 navy -> after Aeon buffs, sure
                      T2 navy -> no, Cybran is
                      T3 navy -> no clue
                      T4 navy -> no, Cybran and Sera are by not having naval exps

                      Sladow-NoobS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • Sladow-NoobS
                        Sladow-Noob @MazorNoob
                        last edited by Sladow-Noob

                        This post is deleted!
                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • FtXCommandoF
                          FtXCommando
                          last edited by

                          cybran worst at t2 navy, ur actually insane

                          and i was talking about navy stage

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • F
                            FunkOff @snoog
                            last edited by

                            @snoog I would like you to find a single LOTS game in which they were used. (I believe I saw one, myself, but just one. And I wont tell you which it was 😜 )

                            S 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • S
                              snoog @FunkOff
                              last edited by

                              @funkoff Don't even know what LOTS is.

                              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • First post
                                Last post