Novax needs to be nerfed, here's why.
I've never had a Novax center be the turning point of a game. Usually a Novax center causes immediate retaliation that most aren't exactly ready for. I think it's fine as is.
@CheeseBerry Thank you for your answer. Even more because it is not just pointless spamming of toxity. After reflexion, I respectfully disagree. I aknowledge of course that I might be wrong.
If you say that nuke is op, than Novax is by far more effective in "earning" mass.
Massfarms are very explosive and hard to protect. And this is not the case of Novax. Even the more effective t2 fabs around mexes are often not built. And one cant always cover the map in massfarms. So the comparaison is not perfect.
Would i build Novax rather than something else? If I am winning navy, of course not. If game is open, with lots of mouvement, and opportunitys, no. If the situation is quite blocked, I think usually (1) Novax would be better than nuke, beginning of t3 or t4 arty, some more ras boys etc. Scouting is so important, mass and apm "earned" very good, price cheap, easy to defend, etc. I think in specific situations and maps like that it is by far better than alternatives. So, yes, i think it is op.
From what I have seen, opinions like mine is quite common, at least at my level. 1 or 2 Novax are built quite often on Setons. Most discussions about Novax ingame turn around how op it is. And players even excuse for useing Novax.
We have talked about numbers, and now we have talked about opinions, not much more to add. Cheers
@wikingest Your focus just seems to be on how good it is on a single map, Setons - there are other maps played and it’s performance is significantly worse on maps that aren’t large with spread out mexes.
Even if it was considered very powerful on one map (I dont think that has been established yet in this thread), I dont think balance should be based on a single map anyway. For example the alternative extreme would be if I said how novax needs a big buff because it’s near-useless on Astro Craters.
M27AI developer; Devlog and more general AI development guide:
@maudlin27 Unit that is not an obligation to build, should be balanced on its best map. If it is too weak in other conditions, than it does not matter, people do not need to build it. But if it is op in one map, then the game is "broken".
For example. Lets say that Mavor is useless in one-v-one game on open 5 by 5 km map. Lets make it ten times cheaper, so it would become useful. Now imagine what would happen on game in general, on other maps, when players notice that mavor is ten times cheaper and all other prices (also gameenders) are the same. What would happen to FAF.
Sentons is fine for novax because the the only thing sentons brings that is “unique” for novax to take into account is the utility helping with late game navy fights. Basically any decent big teamgame map is going to have mexes similar to sentons or even more spread out. Novax just isn’t anything more than a nuisance in these games when properly handled.
I feel giving the smd a toggle to shoot down a novax is reasonable. The missiles only cost like 3.6k vs the satellites 10k to replace. If its something you can turn on then you can't use them to overwhelm the smd either and since its not economic to build smds all over the map for most of the game it protects the core base and still lets the extent mass be threatened. The sat can do its job to harass outer mexes, defend against pushes and even be an early scout.
Addendum: If needed you could even buff the sat to compensate, drop its reload from 20 secs to 16 to make it more useful as a defensive unit or to kill far units and buildings. this would raise its dps to ~300ish.
AntiVax=anti Novax= pro nerf
put the xbox units in the game pls u_u