Make t3 navy more exciting!?!
-
@auricocorico groundfiring subs is the biggest navy has apparently. I get that subs don't really have a role atm. At least on setons. But battleships groundfiring is not the issue. I totally agree with turin here.
It annoys me though that the only efficient counter to harms is groundfiring it.
Torpedobombers can not kill it mass efficiently if you have well placed sams behind it that are out of range of battleships which don't push into harms range. Pretty sure every sub/destro gets absoluetly melted by harms as well.Groundfiring harms is just another navy apm drain that gives huge benefits and isn't fun at all. And depending on the faction it can take ages to kill them.
I would prefer if they weren't groundfireable but had less hp so that suiciding torps into them would result in a 1:1 kill loss ratio.
-
@biass said in Make t3 navy more exciting!?!:
Fire cannon for a full 66 seconds
It only has ammunition for about 20s of fire though 4Head
-
equip extended mag
-
Back on topic, have you taken a look at other games with navy? In BAR for example navy seems a lot more interesting and subs can actually be useful, but they also don't piss their pants when adjusting balance and actually try out stuff.
-
@turinturambar said in Make t3 navy more exciting!?!:
Where do you even get the idea from that current T3 navy stage sub meta is significantly shaped by groundfire?
@harzer99
Well I never said it was the biggest issue, just a problem. I'm sick of this misinterpretation that simply talking about an obvious problem implies it is the biggest problem.
It doesn't have to "significantly shape the meta" to be a broken game mechanic. We don't ban building factories underneath a transport dropping units because it often has a huge game deciding effect so often that it shapes the meta, it's because the game mechanic is broken.
Have you considered that maybe people are talking about it quite a lot because it is so many people find it problematic, regardless of how much of an overall impact it has on the game?And: if people think groundfiring subs has such a tiny impact on the game anyway, then you should have no problem whatsoever with removing the mechanic from the game.
-
RE hoverbombing:
Well the USA has had the Harrier since the 1980s(?), so it's not inconceivable for a super futuristic bomber to be extremely maneuverable and able to quickly stop, and actually hover. -
i was adressing valki with my post
(the guy who posted directly above me) -
@corvathranoob said in Make t3 navy more exciting!?!:
And: if people think groundfiring subs has such a tiny impact on the game anyway, then you should have no problem whatsoever with removing the mechanic from the game.
also did you miss the part where I explained why it would change current balance in towards the worse?
-
Yeah, Valki said groundfiring subs is part of the meta. You incorrectly read that as "significantly shaping" the meta. Things can also be a small part of the meta. And the point here is that they are a small part, because subs suck, because groundfire exists.
I saw your argument, and I don't think it would make game balance worse. You're saying, we make a change that BUFFS subs, but they are still vulnerable to torps, so air and torps become more important because that will now be the way you have to counter them. Well, that's the point. Removing groundfire still only makes subs more viable, because you CURRENTLY can torp them just as easily. It doesn't sound like you think removing groundfire would make subs OP, just that this would only help make subs slightly more viable. Well, slightly more viable is better than zero more viable, when they are already significantly underpowered...and giving a small buff to an underpowered unit will improve balance rather than make it worse.
-
@turinturambar it helps to @[username] to make clear who you reply to.
No matter how big or small the problem, everyone agrees sub ground-fire is silly.
If subs are rendered immune to ground-fire, then this could massively alter the meta, even if it is in a desirable way. Making more changes at the same time only complicates things. So in patch N you make subs immune to ground-fire, in patch N+1 you revisit naval to see how things are and what now needs fixing.
-
how did you get to litterally everyone?
-
By injecting the faf superiority complex into this discussion where 80% of the dudes for removing the groundfire are wanting it removed cuz muh realism and muh faf superior to other games.
-
Just do the ASF armour solution. Give T3 Subs and Altantis something to heavily reduce damage frim battleship fire.
*And increase speed of T1 Subs maybe I don’t know
-
Everybody agrees valki is wrong
-
Isn't every aircraft in faf vtol? Anything vtol can hover bomb. While your hovering, your also completely helpless to aa.
-
@thewheelie said in Make t3 navy more exciting!?!:
Hoverbombing bombers is more unrealistic than groundfiring subs and instead of 1 in every 200 games it happens 1 in every 2 games. Waiting for the HOVERBOMBING IS BROKEN AND UNREALISTIC thread, thanks
Out of fuel planes hovering slowly instead of crashing to the ground is more unrealistic than groundfiring subs, and it happens in every game where someone (cough Tagada) uses select all fighters every time there is a single bomber somewhere. Waiting for the OUT OF FUEL PLANES SHOULD INSTANTLY CRASH thread, thanks
-
I'm just sitting here in the "I think the navy side of the game is probably the best balanced segment of the game" audience shocked that people are talking about it needing some total overhaul.
-
ftxcommando said in Make t3 navy more exciting!?!:
I'm just sitting here in the "I think the navy side of the game is probably the best balanced segment of the game" audience shocked that people are talking about it needing some total overhaul.
It might be relatively balanced, but it's boring af to watch and to play. You just spam the same unit and there's no real potential for plays.
-
? There is potential for plays, people are just boring and unwilling to take risks which often ends up with no one committing until they feel like they have over 85% chance to win the fight. So instead of playing aggressive and microing few frigates or 1-2 destros they wait until they can force engagement that will surely go their way.
Like I never felt constricted by the navy balance, if anything I felt that I can use all the tools I have no matter how stupid the idea.
It all just came to working it out instead of smashing my head into keyboard like monkey with attack move or waiting for the perfect chance to strike like 90% of players. Just be willing to duke it out like a man and your navy game won't be nearly as boring(though get ready to get smashed too if you lose all reclaim).Hell, I loved t1 sub rush if I were to frig crush my opponent. Shit often scored me massive BP advantage, forced opponent to make their own sub/torp launcher and then after that I could go harass some mexes.
-
@femtozetta said in Make t3 navy more exciting!?!:
You just spam the same unit and there's no real potential for plays.
Imo this is completely off the mark. Unless you're playing a map like intertemporal, you certainly don't just "spam some unit". Navy is the only domain where every unit retains some role throughout the course of the game. This is not the case for land and air, where you usually have obsolete units you never need to build again when you reach a higher tier. Naval battles are super interesting because, with the possible exception of maybe the t1 sub, no unit is obsolete, and since every unit fulfills a different niche, you need to adjust your composition based on changing situations. The possible addition of hover makes naval naval compositions and battles even more interesting. Naval battles are exciting and don't need to be reworked, especially in the way suggested so far in this thread.
Also, I really don't understand this argument for buffing t2/t3 navy just because t1 navy is more cost efficient if you just look at raw hp/dps to mass stats. I will point out, for the people advancing this argument, that t1 direct fire land has much higher dps per mass than t2 and t3 land, and inties have higher hp per mass than asf. Naive stat comparisons like this, with all context removed, just don't work, so it would be real nice if people stopped doing them.
