Shouldn't T1 Torpedo Launchers have some advantage over T2?
-
Ngl I have the bad feeling buffing t1 / t2 torp defenses will result in (especially lower ranked) players just creating firebases.
You can always abuse the navyfac as a meatshield for your frigate until another one is ready.
You always have more engis to assist (and build) stuff in navy compared to e.g. land.
There is always the option to build the OP unit called Torp-bomber in order to counter navy (Here I'm referring more to the alternative of building t2 torp launchers).It's like having t3 air. You have to rush t3 air on teamgames or you'll get strated. You have to rush a frigate in order to not get competely annahilated (not even on most of the maps). Where is the difference and why is noone complaining about t3 air then?
Torp-launchers should never be considered an alternative for not investing into navy (just as Sams are not a solution against strat-rushes early on). They're an emmergency-solution giving you a small advantage if you fucked up your navy-timing.
(Also Destros and cruisers outrange that shit anyway -> Doesn't rlly have much impact once t2 is on the field)
-
@sladow-noob lmao if you lost navy, torps launcher is never going to be anything more than a mass donation. 0 advantage whatsoever in the navy game from spending 500 mass in 3/4 of a frigate that can’t move.
I’ve built 0 torp launchers in all my games, it’s absolute garbage that only sees use to kill a t1 sub being annoying and that’s it. Might as well remove it to stop new players from thinking it’s like a t1 PD or AA
-
buddy I'm literally saying that they're NOT an alternative or whatsoever but it's more like t3 air. Aka you have to build navy anyway until you have hover or torp bombers.
It's like fighting air with ASF over a couple of flak. Doesn't have the biggest impact, but can indeed make a difference. You shouldn't rely on it though.
Just as you shouldn't rely on torp launchers anyway -
submerge T2 TD and give cybrans T3 TD cloak -kappa
-
submerged torp defense basically makes it pointless to make sera or uef t2 navy.
-
That's why I thought give it the t1 range or stats so you can move around it.
How good is a cooper v a t1 or t2
-
You may not be aware, but T2 Torp defense currently has Personal Stealth - for all factions. Being a fixed structure means it will remain on your strategic view as soon as you get visual on it.
But if you make it mobile, even the slowest supported speed which is 0.1, then you will need current vision / Omni to get a bead on it. Making it very slow should prevent using it as an actual unit to attack with.
-
That's pretty cool
-
Perhaps buffing the torpedo launchers could work.
I propose for consideration:- They have range and damage buff.
- Salvo size nerf (buff to effectiveness of anti-torp)
- Magazine and ammunition build requirements. magazine size and torp cost a good variable to tweak for balance. Underwater TML esque.
- reduce build time/cost (offset costs to ammunition)
Why I think this will make games more interesting:
Assuming the naval defenses are viable, they could hold off a fleet, but on a timer. Defenders get a few options, put mass in naval factories, or let the torp launchers spend mass to make more torpedoes. Maybe put some engineers on the front to assist in torpedo production speed or build more launchers.The attacker has some options as well. Bringing in longer range bombardment, missiles or something, to try and wear down the defenses. Or rush and try to wear down the defenses. Send in a couple frigates to trick the launchers into firing, forcing the defender to toggle them on and off shoot.
The defender also gets some counter-intel options as well. Building a bunch of cheap launchers but not having them build torpedos, essentially bluffing the defenses. Attacker would have to weigh that as well.
So I guess make them viable defensively, and good, but not in a sustained engagement. might be able to catch people off guard and shred a fleet.
-
What about making t2 torp launcher move of around same speed as sera t2 sonar? Since no one ever uses them. And make their build place like 3 times larger? So that you will not creat a moving blockpost. And also making them a bit more expensive should do stuff. Like make them 20% more expensive masswise and 10% less expensive energywise. Might actually make t1 subs useless, but dont forget that they are not that usefull. Since they cant kill facs due to 1 t1 torp defence or t2 torp bomber. But fine at scaring frigs when you have low amount of frigs. And after the change we would actually need to rebalance subs a bit. Also would really love to see a buff on t1 and t2 sonars. Since they are built only to upgrade them to t3 which makes me wonder if they are even needed in a game.
-
One thing I can think of is t1 pd is really good v tanks and is countered by arty, but t1 torps don't have this relationship. Just kinda thinking out loud that t1 torps defence owns frigs but gets countered by t1 subs. Would make t1 subs more useful but would require a lot of thinking and balances changes.
-
Maybe t2 torp launchers could use a bit of love, but i think they are generally in a pretty good state right now. The reason why t2 feels so underwhelming is because it only increases the range from 50 to 60. Issue is you cant make it higher than 60 or it'll start outranging uef and sera destros.
That being said, for roughly x2 mass cost you get x2 dmg and x4 hp and with the added range it means its quite more efficient. However because of torp launchers mostly being used in defensive situations the 33% longer buildtime is often a reason to spam t1 torps instead. But when you are in a prolonged defensive naval battle u can see t2 torps be pretty decent. Ive seen quite the number of aggressive t2 navy leading to t2 torps with 3k to 10k mass killed.
Yes, overall torp launchers are pretty weak, but imo this is way healthier for gameplay than how pds are right now.
-
@thewheelie what’s wrong with outranging uef destroyers? They have the cruiser for longer range so it would be a similar relationship to PD where t2 PD outranges pillar but is outranged by MML
M27AI and M28AI developer; Devlogs and more general AI development guide:
https://forum.faforever.com/topic/2373/ai-development-guide-and-m27ai-v71-devlog
https://forum.faforever.com/topic/5331/m28ai-devlog-v130 -
because the last thing uef destro needs is another thing it loses to
-
You know you can build TMD on water right
-
@zeldafanboy You know you can build TMD on land right
-
@maudlin27 but on land you have arty
-
@nex Not sure if you mean T2 fixed arti, or T1/T3 mobile arti. The lack of a T2 arti equivalent on naval is even more reason for T2 torps to get a boost since it removes an option for counterplay by the defender if the attacker gets a unit that outranges the T2 torp launcher. Battleships perform a better 'firebase breaking' role than T3 mobile arti (as if the enemy gets enough T2 arti then even with mobile shields and larger numbers the T3 mobile arti will generally die before they can crack the firebase) so again even more of a reason for a T2 torp boost. The only thing against is that the attacking naval player doesnt have is a T1 arti equivalent, but then we're talking about not being able to easily beat a fixed in place T2 unit with mobile T1 units so it's less of a consideration.
Currently on land you have far more strategic options, variety and interesting gameplay with defences. See an area you want to fortify? You could build T1 PD but enemy can counter with T1 arti. Then you could get T2 PD to outrange the arti and t2 main tanks, but they could get MMLs. Then you could get TMD to defend against the MMLs (or even T2 arti although it's not a cost efficient counter). If the enemy switches to T3 mobile arti or sniper bots then you could get T2 arti.
Meanwhile your opponent in addition to those options for outranging the T2 PD could just ignore/go around the firebase.
On navy, the T2 torps are even easier to go around on a typical pond because terrain obstructions are rarer. On narrower 'streams' then a naval torpedo launcher firebase is potentially vulnerable to land attack (given torp launchers can't attack land). The value of holding a specific naval area is also (outside of chokepoints) less due with underwater mexes being rarer than on land.
Meanwhile from a very basic balance/strategy game perspective, you're sacrificing the ability to move a unit at all, so there should be sufficient compensation. Even with a small range boost every faction has an answer to T2 torp launchers at the tech2 level that is either similar to MML's answer to T2 PD on land, or even better, and unlike land the naval player doesnt have a T2 arti option (the best it could hope for is T2 arti on the land near to the torpedo launcher but the range of it will be so reduced and is crushed by battleships anyway). As such even if you want to fortify a naval area, you're better to focus on mobile naval units to do it giving less variety in games and in tactical challenges.
-
@maudlin27 said in Shouldn't T1 Torpedo Launchers have some advantage over T2?:
Battleships perform a better 'firebase breaking' role than T3 mobile arti
But from a cost perspective T3 mobile arty is more comparable to a destro than a battleship and getting the t2 naval factory is also more expensive than getting a t2 engie to build a torp launcher, so the balance is quite different in building vs naval as opposed to building vs land. So by making the torp outrange the destro, thus making cruisers required (which would also lead to 2 of the 4 factions being hardcountered by tmd and then they need battleships) will give you a much larger timeframe where your defense is impenetrable compared to a t2 pd. In a land scenario the attacker could also make t2 static arty to counter the pd even earlier, but in navy that's not possible for the attacker. Only the defender can place an arty as he is defending his coast (mostly). But arty sucks against mobile units so it's almost never worth it.
@maudlin27 said in Shouldn't T1 Torpedo Launchers have some advantage over T2?:
On navy, the T2 torps are even easier to go around on a typical pond because terrain obstructions are rarer.
I don't think so, because in navy you don't make torp launchers out in the open since you have less space you actually need to defend, so you can make your defense there instead of somewhere in between. (Unless it's a very water heavy map)
I think torp launcher are more intended as an anti sub turret, but subs are quite rare and you get sub defense for free on your destros (unless your UEF ofc), so the launchers don't see much use.
So i think making torp launchers outrange destros would not only throw off the faction balance but also lead to longer stalemates than a t2 pd does.
-
@nex said in Shouldn't T1 Torpedo Launchers have some advantage over T2?:
@maudlin27 said in Shouldn't T1 Torpedo Launchers have some advantage over T2?:
Battleships perform a better 'firebase breaking' role than T3 mobile arti
But from a cost perspective T3 mobile arty is more comparable to a destro than a battleship and getting the t2 naval factory is also more expensive than getting a t2 engie to build a torp launcher, so the balance is quite different
TMD+pd firebase is beat by t3 mobile arty. Getting t3 land hq and spamming out t3 mobile arty is comparable to getting t2 navy hq and spamming out destros. The latter (with the ability to submerge and so on) would require factions like UEF to make a 10k investment in tech followed by a 10k investment in a unit, just to beat like 3k mass in torps. This is only like 15% more ridiculous than the shitshow that is current UEF navy balance.
Requiring battleship spam to deal with t2 torp launchers is like having a land PD that is only possible to counter with fatboy spam.
