cybran t3 navy
-
If you think I meant a single frig then I don’t really know what to tell you. By your logic the valiant (t2 uef destro) is also op because it beats other destros 1v1 with no micro. Spitballing here, but I feel that a decent typical late game cybran navy comp has at least 20+ frigs for every bs and that can’t be ignored when considering bs balance.
@SpikeyNoob im down, sounds like good practice to try to win with mass controlled navies actually
-
@randomwheelchair so i should stop trying to proving that i have a point and just do what everyone else does yeah ?
so far im really enjoying this post because it has been kept fairly objective and the worst outcome is for me to learn navicomposition, but thanks for calling me delusional and adding nothing to the conversation.
@Exselsior you referenced my previous test for bc vs bs "So the Cybran bs lost vs a greater mass force with zero micro?" the mass difference was 300mass the frigate was the only cybran naval unit fitting into that limitation and i made the point that a frigate wont matter. the test is exactly, that a test for a direct comparison, in reality yes there is alot more going on but as @FtXCommando said before "UEF BC -> kill anything not a BS" the bc will perform better vs other naval units then any bs (aside from subs where one can say the galaxys more hp with same dps will be more effective but using any of those units vs subs is suboptimal anyway) -
I’m talking in practice rather than number crunching. Myself and other people have brought up other examples of why contrived tests like this only mean so much. You had to give the bc a shield boat to win without micro. Give the galaxy a t3 sonar and it’ll crush while taking literally zero damage for a bit more mass if nothing is being micro’d and there’s no scout stream.
No one is arguing that the Galaxy isn’t the weakest BS of them all. It is. No one has an issue with that. The burden of proof that it’s too weak in the grand scheme of naval balance is on you, it’s not on us to prove that it’s not as weak as you’re presenting. 1v1s with the galaxy vs whatever navy unit you want prove nothing other than the fact the galaxy is the cheapest and therefore weakest of the bs, and not that there’s actually a balance issue.
I forgot to get a replay last night because I got distracted by starting some tourney prep for fun on the chance I actually get picked, but tonight if I’ve got some time I’ll find a replay or two. Unfortunately there’s not a whole lot of high level setons these days but I’m sure I can dig up something.
-
@exselsior i kinda got proof by watching about 30 replays of cybran navy and coming to the conclusion that they dont win navy once both sides have a t3 hq. i was asking before for a replay showing that cybrans winning t3 navy and got one where other factors impacted the scenario so much that it cant be used as an example.(a good example would be about even eco, both sides hitting t3 navy at similar times, 1 vs 1 navy, not too significant involvment by an air player for either side)
i agree that an isolated test is not realistic in the grand sceme but can be an indicator or reason for further testing or even attempts to apply the results to real games and build more likely scenarios as a result.
one of the reasons i really wanna see the replay that spikey offered to produce
-
I get home in a few hours, if ex is around ill try to 1v1 him with equal mass navy. Then ill send replay.
-
just to make it clear, the point of this forum is you convincing the balanceteam, not we teaching you how to play the game. if you want to learn how to play the game, go in that part of the forum/discord.
-
Personally I find Cybran navy to be one of the best in general. Bs is cheapest, so normal that weaker than others. But I find most impressive the logic, calm and work behind comments of @Lorem_Ipsum . I am only young player myself, but open for testgames or discussion.
-
Find games where Haachamachama is playing Cybran navy on Seton’s. Other top players would be people like Nexus and Tagada but they don’t play anywhere near as much setons, at least recently. You’re never going to find an equal mass scenario, I don’t think that really exists in actual games. Best case it starts sorta equal until one side gets more reclaim than the other, and even that idk.
Will also hopefully create the replay tonight depending on when I’m back from work, that should be interesting
-
You’d think that the failure of 20th century command economies would have showcased the danger of “my experiments run contrary to natural results, it is obviously the natural results at fault” but, guess not.
Rule of thumb is that if your experiment doesn’t match popular wisdom, especially in complex things like an rts where tons of variables exist to account for, it’s because of externalities you disregarded for the sake of making your experiment easier.
Case in point:
I sandbox mass equivalent ints vs swift winds and ints win. This means that swift winds are useless units and need to be buffed. They can’t beat the unit they are intended to replace in a fair fight.Except they don’t because things like speed, engagement control, snowball dps loss, factory scale to match mass investment, etc factor into discussing units. Anyone would call you nuts for suggesting a buff to swift winds.
You’re free to get to 1800 crushing people with battlecruisers when you’re facing battleships, but there’s a reason this isn’t meta. Battleships scale significantly better and bc + shield combo very quickly has depreciating returns.
You can say “experience is irrelevant” but it isn’t. Any reasonable study accounts for discrepancies between experimental conditions and natural conditions and how these can lead to different things being efficient. There is no replay of someone high level putting BCs against BS because it sucks, straight up. Even your test is weird and has this shield boat that doesn’t get sniped + doesn’t account for how bc needs to get in range of bs frigates which can keep pushing the bc away while the BS does free damage.
I don’t care about showing a replay because it’s just shit you see in any t3 navy game. Sentons/Metir/Lena River/whatever, waste of time to go prove it. Go climb 1000 rating disregarding BS and showcase yourself how you found the new meta.
-
It's not often that I agree with FtX but here is that one time. You can't make assumptions about performance based upon a narrow set of data points. Not only do the units have more to them than just firepower and HP, but the myriad of other factors that make this game what it is - and more importantly - the units don't exist in a bubble where it's just X versus Y. So many intangibles come into play that have little or nothing at all to do with those stats will simply ruin your day if you try to live by them too much.
A guideline ? Perhaps. But nothing more.
-
Yeah ftx said what I was relatively poorly trying to say quite well. This has definitely run its course as a balance discussion as Turin said earlier, for @Lorem_Ipsum I’m happy to give tips and create a replay still but that should be outside of this thread
-
@turinturambar i cant convince someone that does not want to be convinced, when your not open to discussion or willing to admit i, or anyone else for that matter, has a point why even have a forum to discuss matters of balance, so pls do tell me what is a convincing argument in your eyes, because your own attempt to prove an argument with a replay leaves alot to be desired.
Haachamachama's replays are interesting because he has recently stopped playing cybran navi entirely:
#16265740 what is navy t3 frigate best navy into para
#16259097 he dosent go t3 navy enven when he could
#16220286 comdrop
#16085870 plays eco instead of navy(top pond bc vs bs but not the best example because of number diff)i dont know why but maybe he is willing to share
@FtXCommando popular wisdom is often wrong history and gaming in particluar has tons of examples (lots of things like "its too difficult to execute" in figthing games until people managed it despite difficulty, basketball and the 3point evolution, 7seconds or less offense, moreyball come to mind, in sc2 byun and his reapers). the line that leads to evolution in thougth goes: “my experiments run contrary to natural results, why?" also there are economists that have predicted every financial crisis of the last 100years rarely the same and all for different reasons but conflicting opinions of experts just means there is more to it then currently known (im not claiming expertise in this case, i have no basis for it). on the other hand everything we take for a fact can be recreated in some form of test or experiment, highligthing or showing the causes of it. i wont ever hit 1800 because im not good at videogames, i will try to get 1k regardless.
me learning is not the goal but a bonus on the side.
-
@lorem_ipsum we are all so sceptical about your stuff because there are like 100k seton games. Keeping that in mind i can safely say that meta has had been known for 7 years or so. And someon3 who has not played even 1k hours says that he discovered a new meta the community missed by 100k games is in itself may seem like an insult to us.
-
Dude you don't even know that we are playing all random... ffs...
-
@randomwheelchair imagine that some replays have a symbol for when random is picked, that matchmaker games dont have that yet ppl i stalk the replays of play a different race every game and wow great addition to the conversation again, doing gods work out here. also Haachama again seems to have no problem playing navi with the other factions.
-
@randomwheelchair dude, speak for yourself. Ffs, He is a new to our game, how would he know that. The guy wanted civil discussion about navy and you go saying dude you dont even know we play random, that really says alot about community.
"Good luck and a safe landing commanders!"
-
@banan3 i think scepsis is warranted, even welcomed but when im in the wrong there has to be a better way to show it then to say "this is more complex so your example is invalid" and some ability to disproof my assumption/case, this so far hasnt happened.
-
@banan3 said in cybran t3 navy:
@randomwheelchair dude, speak for yourself. Ffs, He is a new to our game, how would he know that. The guy wanted civil discussion about navy and you go saying dude you dont even know we play random, that really says alot about community.
He's not even new to the game, he's been part of the community for over 2 years and have over 100 ranked games. That's not new, he have spent at least 50 hours in this god forsaken game playing ranked game's(funnily enough mostly on non navy maps).
And sorry but how am I supposed to take him seriously when he's still lacking basic knowledge about how the game is played nor does he make actual tests that involve other important factors instead of just right clicking into enemy BS?
Really, go white knight somewhere else.
-
@randomwheelchair 2 year old account first game plyaed 5 months ago, played vanilla 8 years ago and not since, made faf account and started playing again because of community casts, dunno if that makes me not new. i stared looking at unit stats in the client to understand navy, that plus cast led me to posting this, then watching replays reeinforced my sentiment.
u made some sick tests today aswell, testing how many tac defenses you need to confuse the missile or that cybran aircraft carriers cant hit spyplanes, guess they really do suck ?
and hey you playing 5 games in the last year makes you ontop of the meta rigth ?
-
Galaxys are fine, i´ve killed plenty of tempests with those ships, they are better at killing frigates than UEF battleships.
The torps are low dmg but they always help you saturate the enemy anti-torps.
