Make t3 navy more exciting!?!
-
I'd say that using APM to increase effectiveness is desired.
Using APM to prevent a counter is not.In Starcraft 2 all pro terrans split marines vs. banelings, but banelings are still a counter against marines.
A baneling army attack oneshots marines. Player APM determines how many marines survive, but if they survive they are in no shape to immediately attack.Subs come in 0.1 dps/mass, battleships at 5.1 hp/mass - it takes almost 1 minute for subs to kill a battleship, not accounting for the sub army DPS dropping as subs are destroyed. Taking 1 minute to kill something is already bad in an RTS for a close range unit.
-
Don’t forget it takes torps only 5 seconds to kill all subs on the map. Interesting way to look at things, but I think since the time it takes to build a unit increases a lot at higher tier navy it only seems reasonable that these units take more time to die. Also in terms of realism tanks and planes die much faster than navy vessels, the former usually exploding after a single direct hit, the latter being able to take multiple hits and being able To conduct damage control. Back to the topic: I too agree that t3 navy micro is incredibly dull and I almost never go to that stage as a result and only play on the basis of timing all ins and navy build power suppression. I think that increasing projectile speed is a nice idea, but that would make it hard for Land things like Acu to dodge incoming navy fire. This would in my view spell a death sentence to acu once in range of navy, which is acceptable but welp. I kinda liked the fact that you can dance out of navy range. And I think the projectile physics are something unique to faf and a big reason for its Charme.
My idea would be to make battleship on battleship salvos “homing”.
Either by increasing battleship hit boxes or by really making the projectile homing when firing on another ship or even any ship. That way Bship wouldn’t miss frigates so much and not waste their Dpm so much and the frig Bship balance would improve. -
This post is deleted! -
This post is deleted! -
This post is deleted! -
This post is deleted! -
Even though the OP raised some nice points the conversation quickly derailed and achieved nothing. Stop with all of this quoting and arguing back and forward, especially about something that's not the topic of the thread. From now on I will be deleting a lot more posts that derail the discussion or serve as a platform to attack/argue with another person. Since we now enforce some standard for the thread to be made we will also ensure that the discussion has some merit and it's not pure shit posting and arguing.
-
I'd like to go back to my first point here. Ground firing subs is now part of the meta, predicting what happens is difficult. We can just let it happen and see things develop, so:
- Prevent ground-fire from killing subs
- ?? - let meta develop
- Rebalance navy if needed
Worst case scenario: T3 navy is broken until next patch, but only for high level players who won't leave over it. - low and medium level players are unaffected.
-
And stopping them from being ground-fired would be a net good because.....?
-
Presumably sub viableness be increased
-
Safety from surface guns is the entire reason for submarines. That's why torpedoes were developed. The idea that you can sink submarines, under the water, with any kind of surface gun is bizarre, and makes the entire class pointless. If you support that kind of thinking, simply removed the subs from the game - and just have 'water' units - and go the final yard towards simplicity.
-
This post is deleted! -
Except subs still have a game usage beyond alt clicking at a battleship and seeing who wins the boxing match.
You use them to raid underwater mexes and bp on navy heavy maps like Maridia or Drunken Beetles as they are harder to spot and respond to. You also use them to counteract Seraphim or UEF destros.
Just because a 10k mass unit is capable of killing a 1200 mass sub hardly means the unit is irrelevant and could be replaced by some surface ship. And even then, there is still the fact that a battleship user has to both expend the apm to keep targeting this moving targets while also losing his battleship dps doing this while an enemy battleship could be getting free damage on him.
Honestly the only sub that actually feels the doom-and-gloom in this thread is the Atlantis because it is neither sneaky nor maneuverable.
-
I would counter that by saying we see anything underwater being taken out with ground fire - so it's not exclusively the domain of submarines - which would be a natural conclusion. The only time we don't see that is with water depths greater than the AOE radius (and then some since those units are often a couple of units high themselves).
The AOE radius is truly the culprit - and no real analysis has ever been done to associate the range of AOE with the accuracy of a weapon, and that's especially true of all the large battleships - and - more important - just about every modded unit that's been introduced. The proliferation of AOE - on even the smallest units, is another subject though.
-
Yes, I immediately discarded most other things underwater because it would break just about everything that isn't a sub.
Tempest would be busted OP and so would HARMS. Actually that's about the only two that come to mind 4head but still.
-
It's highly map dependent - that's for sure - a great many water maps have very shallow water which contributes to the issue as much as the AOE and depth of underwater units themselves. That's why I suggested simply reducing the AOE range on water impacts - this allows the ability to continue to exist - but moderates in a way that makes water depth a more important factor.
I don't, offhand, recall the AOE on the big battleship guns - but it's AOE radius is 4, or more, in some cases - that's really a great deal.
-
@ftxcommando said in Make t3 navy more exciting!?!:
Except subs still have a game usage beyond alt clicking at a battleship and seeing who wins the boxing match.
That is your (justified) concern, we do not know for sure that will happen. However, I hope you too can admit that the current ground-fire meta is silly on face value. Again, some silly things are kept for skill reasons or otherwise, however, we should just try if we can remove the silly things.
To re-iterate my point, with some clarification:
Sub Grounf Fire Nerf
- Because ground-firing subs feels wrong
- Because some consider that the subs are pushed out of the game at T3
- Acknowledging this might adversely affect the T3 high skill water meta
The following change is implemented:
- Direct fire splash damage against subs is reduced by 95-100%
Near future:
- Players are asked to watch the T3 navy game carefully and report to the balance team
- The balance team will revisit this issue the next patch, and possibly revert this change
-
Anyway I'm still gonna be saying that ground fire should stay. And any kind of realism pleading means jack shit in Sci-fi game where they can easily have "intelligent" ammunition for battle ships that instead of exploding on contact will explode after going through certain amount of armor or traveling deep enough underwater.
Anyway if people want to shake up the subs + navy meta I would rather go about it this way:
- Start by increasing the muzzle velocity of all t3 navy units to make their effective DPS higher than it currently is without having to increase their theoretical DPS. Part of why the current fights tend to take so long is due to ineffective weaponry on half the ships at long ranges. Increasing the muzzle velocity will make it so more shots connect even when enemy is microing his units, allowing for faster and more decisive impact of t3 navy when fielded early. Honestly this change is something that could be implemented easily in the next patch without breaking the meta/destroying the balance all together.
As for subs balance:
- Keep the ground fire as is.
- Increase the HP and speed of subs so that they are harder to hit and kill by surface units
And now for the clue of the program: Introduce depth charges to more T2 destroyers, Torpedo bombers and other anti-submarine units while making them useless against surface targets so that the DPS against frigs etc stays the same(obviously Aeon units would need some rebalance here)
This way you can make them more resilient against ground fire while having them still be squishy against normal anti submarine units like destroyers. This would also introduce more balancing levers in submarine balancing which you seem to want.
Obviously that only goes if we can make it happen by making depth charges aim at subs only or by introducing armor for navy that makes it invulnerable to depth charges.
-
On topic of my original post:
I like the Idea of battleships being able to deal more damage to each other by preventing dodging.
Faster muzzle velocity would be one option but that would also make frigates etc. a lot more voulnerable to battleships. Thus requireing to adjust the hp/dps stats of battleships anyway. Also it kind of breaks the theme. I love the summit for its projectiles, they just have the right feel of weight to them.Another option would be to decrease battleships acceleration and turn speed. Making it impssible for battleships do dodge anothers salvos. This would also go with the theme of battleships being sluggish. Downside: The pathfinding mess around factories would get worse when factroy placement is done poorly.
I could even imagine giving battleships a slight top speed buff in order do accelerate the t3 navy stage. Top speed doesn't affect dodging capability when the acceleration is low enough. -
I love navy, and have always thought it was a bit underdeveloped in this game. I have been studying naval history for game development reasons for another project, but as for games I don't see a lot out there similar enough to FAF to really get a good metric for what people find fun. I really like the macro aspect of SC, that's what brought me to it, and others above have mentioned not just random micro but micro that's actually fun and has a use. One quote I like for game dev is "A game is a series of meaningful decisions" from Sid Meier. So how do we add options to the t3 navy that let the player make meaningful decisions, and if they have the APM, boost their fleet effectiveness?
We could add toggle-able abilities. I'm unsure what would be viable, but toggling your big ships from direct fire to plunging fire, or a tight vs wide spread, seems like it would be useful. Something like an overcharge could be done too. A hard hitting shot that costs energy or mass, with a cooldown, etc. And the right click 'auto use' feature. Perhaps it can do HP damage to the ship per use or something?
I think every ship should start with HP regen. Ships have damage control and I think for big ships this could be expanded upon. A fast repair mode, (or an ACU style upgrade that only repairs HP damage), that disables the ships guns and movement, and makes it extra vulnerable to torpedoes (IE, adding late game raiding targets for subs). Could be interesting. I think this would pair well with expanding on battleship veterancy. Adding other benefits through the ranks to incentivize keeping your capital ships alive, and tending to them.
If I can find time I will try to mod this in to test it.
