The Problems With The UEF - Part 2 (ACU Billy Nuke Upgrade)
-
Buff fatboy but delete novax. That seems fair.
-
@sylph_ This is all salt. Some factions shine under certain conditions and at the same time they lame at other certain conditions. Uef is fairly mediocre at almost everything without going crazy op or trash. Of course janus are strong. Incredibly so. But it doesnt mean they are that OP. What else can you name OP about uef? Undying acus? ive seen sera acu not die and current Cybran acu is unkillable. I cant think much of OP about uef. Unlike other factions.
"Good luck and a safe landing commanders!"
-
@comradestryker said in The Problems With The UEF - Part 2 (ACU Billy Nuke Upgrade):
If I may answer...
Of course, and thankyou for explaining further!
Artillery shells that would've otherwise missed would either collide with the Shield - damaging all other shields too, directly or indirectly due to spillover damage - or it would hit the Fatboy, and since it's so large, the unit would take damage.
Even if the shields could cover the Fatboy - which they only partially do - the Fatboy's shield is far too big, meaning it's almost always exposed somewhere which means it will likely still take damage even if a Parashield blocks it.
So, if the Fatboy still takes damage when shielded with mobile shields and when not shielded, then what's the point?
It's a waste of mass.
This is what I'm getting at - the fact that shots that hit a mobile shield also do 50% of that damage to overlapping mobile shields (a FaF change) feels like it just ruins the ability to use shields to defend against artillery, and since fatboys ALWAYS feature mobile shield combat (ie. they have a huge shield, and less significantly should always build more when stationary), it seems to affect them particularly.
Artillery obviously tends not to miss against the huge target of a shield bubble, and this 50% extra damage bonus per shield (even without the artillery AOE hitting more than 1 bubble at a time, which makes the effect much worse) just feels like it makes approaching artillery with moving shields - including the fatboy, a bit too poor.
From reading old threads, I get the impression that these nerfs to shields, and MASSIVE nerfs to mobile shields, were made to stop players from turtling using shields packed really densely. In that case, it makes sense that the penalty wasn't so large on shield buildings (where they only take 10%, rather than 50%, IIRC) since it's hard to 'mass' static shields - there's not enough space etc...
But I feel like this FaF change just makes mobile shields absolutely junk against long-range defensive positions.ie. The intended effect of that shield nerf - weakening static emplacements, actually seems to work the other way... Overlapping shield building bubbles can still be somewhat strong (only 10% damage spread), but mobile shields (50% damage spread) are now unable to approach them.
I quite liked the suggestions for fatboys having anti-artillery weaponry. I understand why players don't want 'special cases' (quick aside - Was there a similar anti-artillery weapon in the Xbox-exclusive units, somewhere?).
But, I wonder whether the problem is only so significant, and solutions being suggested, because of how backbreaking FaF's massive 50% penalty for overlapping mobile shields actually is?If only there were a way of keeping mobile shields strong, but stopping them from helping turtles?
Is there a possibility of making 'popped' shield bubbles destroy power generators in a sort of 'chain reaction' effect? That might be a better way of limiting overlapping shields (particularly given how mobiles shields were at their worst when defending power/air grids or artillery (artillery needing power gen adjacency to maximise firerate etc).Just some thoughts, related to how mobile shields feel 'too weak' when used to approach enemy static positions, which seems to be their intended niche.
Apologies for the long replies.
Sometimes, there's too much to say about something, and to save you some time, I'll stop here.
Otherwise, I'd go on for another 3000 words.
I'm unsure about others, but I appreciate the info you're feeding me. I always figure that discussing the game is the reason people come to gaming forums, so what the hell, I write word after word after word!
-
Make mobile shields volatile with low aoe so they don't blow up units but can damage buildings they are parked next to.
I think as well as build on the move, so a Fatboy can build sheild while retreating, riot guns and aa need to be improved.
-
@veteranashe That's much better than my power generator 'overload' suuggestion... Assuming it could actually work (I'm not sure of the exact mechanics at play regarding volatile, AOE, buildings etc.)
If there were a way for popped shields to hurt buildings, it would be a wonderful way of allowing mobile shields, including the fatboy, from helping break defenses and fighting artillery without rewarding turtles. -
I always thought mobile shields were too small of a bubble to help buildings
-
@veteranashe As I understand it, defending turtle strategies was the reason FaF nerfed mobile shields so heavily.
-
No, mobile shields were nerfed because they make a push impossible to break.
-
Speaking of shields; And since this is the Billy thread...
What if a Billy projectile was able to go through shields without collision?
A counterbalance could be that it'll lose 1HP per shield that it goes through or deal less damage, but this way, Mobile 3 or 4 shields do not completely absorb the blast.Reimplement the 'Return to sender' for Loyalists since they don't have mobile shields.
Still, it would be risky to throw a Billy at armies that are heavily shielded,
But would give more wiggle room to be able to use the upgrade.
~ Stryker
-
more exceptions = bad game design
also just not needed because billy isn't bad so why would it get a buff
-
@ftxcommando Oh, wow!
So the reason for the changes to shields all that time ago was that AGGRESSION was too strong back then?
(And, thus, the FaF nerf to shields was designed to help defensive / turtling play become strong? yes?)That's a massive lesson for me... I thought it was the exact opposite!
Ok, so do people generally, currently, feel that attacking is currently (July 2023) too strong?
I got the impression that people felt that turtling was too strong at the moment.Because it seems that, if attacking is too strong, the FaF 50% penalty to overlapping mobile shields is a great thing.
But if defense is too strong, then the FaF 50% penalty to overlapping shields should be reduced.
(I honestly aren't skilled enough to venture a guess either way)I'm sorry for asking for this clarification, @FtXCommando : (I have read old threads as much as I can, I promise...) -
Is attacking currently considered better than turtling?
Or is turtling considered better?
Or is it considered balanced (outside of aforementioned UEF problems with artillery bases and Cybran needing absolvers to beat shields) -
It's not about attacks being too strong, it's about a specific type of attack being too strong. It's cancerous to, for example, have to deal with 3 UEF battlecruisers under 25 bulwarks that you will never be able to touch or deal with. The gameplay isn't fun for anybody. You just keep stacking infinite HP in 1 spot, no micro, no consideration about unit mix, no interaction.
-
@sylph_ said in The Problems With The UEF - Part 2 (ACU Billy Nuke Upgrade):
Is attacking currently considered better than turtling?
Or is turtling considered better?
Or is it considered balanced (outside of aforementioned UEF problems with artillery bases and Cybran needing absolvers to beat shields)I'm honest, I didn't read anything you wrote before and just stumbled across this take randomly. So if it's in a larger context, feel free to just ignore my message. If It's a general question, then I want to give at least my PoV to that topic.
The question is pretty much yes and no.
You have do differentiate first what gamemode you're referring to. 1v1? 3v3? 7v7?
I want to take Illshis (T2 Sera bots) as an example. They're expensive but strong. They rape most other units and can deal brutal damage. However since they cost so much, they have one problem such as every other expensive unit. An ACU fucks them because one Overcharge kills them easily.
And here it's important what we are talking about. In 1v1 they're strong. Because they just run around the ACU and fight other units, being worth the so called "T 2.5 unit" they are. However if we talk about a 6v6, then you can't run around an ACU. Cuz what happens? You stumble in another ACU. That's the reason you will literally only see 1-3 illshis in a large teamgame on the field. In total. And because of these type of things it's hard to say it in general.Play a lot of teamgames and defensive, eco-heavy play is going to be more rewarding.
Play 1v1-3v3 and you'll find yourself spamming intis til minute 20 while not even thinking about upgrading a mex to T3.That's also the reason why ppl saying "turtling is so OP in rating range X-Y" are basically clowns. Cuz the only reason to reward aggression even more in teamgames is to nerf the ACU. Which already happened quite a bit in the past, but you'd need to nerf it way more. Like SupCom2 ACU where you run away from 5 tanks cuz otherwise you're dead.
The following is honestly only my opinion:
<1000: figure out the basics of the game, usually ends in turtle-battles cuz they suicide a lot of stuff into firebases
1000-1500: Monkey spam with no / barely eco = pog OR purely ecoing with basically no units
1500-2000: Figure out how to balance spam+eco'ing so you have both units and eco
2000+: Learn the details. Perfection about unit micro, usage, eco'ing etc.
what I mean is that you also need to include what rating range you're talking about. Tbh.. Now after reading it, this paragraph is a bit out of context, but ig I'll just leave it here regardless?
If you want, I can offer you to talk about this sort of thing in VC someday.
-
@sladow-noob said in The Problems With The UEF - Part 2 (ACU Billy Nuke Upgrade):
usually ends in turtle-battles cuz they suicide a lot of stuff into firebases
I'm totally low rating!
I'm enjoying understanding the nuances of the current game a little better, and appreciate these topics.FWIW, I usually play 1v1 games, but I try to get an understanding of team-game balance, ready for when I start daring to inflict myself on others more regularly!
-
@lunyshko cyb nano was nerfed, and the +20h/s regen on stealth was removed, so cybran acu seems pretty balanced to me now
-
@waffelznoob doesnt change the point.
-
the acu is very much killable now
-
In my opinion the 1000-1600 rating is where the most aggression occurs and where aggression is the most successful. These players have enough game knowledge and eco skills to preform an impressive rush but do not have the necessary scouting skills to spot and counter a rush.
<1000: Learning to get reclaim and acu micro
1000-1200: learning and perfecting one specific rush
1000-1600: Learning to make air factories early and improving scouting; using target priority mod
1300-1600: learning how to click trees and manual reclaim
1600+: pausing shields, radars, sonar, etc to avoid power stall; targeting scout planes
2000+: Niche micro tactics: strat bomber micro; paragon micro; awassha micro; etc. -
Bro I don't do half of that stuff
-
Nice to see my good friend the paragon micro in the same sentence as strat and ahwassa micro
