The Problems With The UEF - Part 8 (The Fatboy)

ComradeStryker

@phong
I recall seeing a post or video on the forums where some aircraft carriers were building on the move.
Maybe it was on YouTube - I can't quite remember, but the ability was there.
Clear as day. Carriers building and moving at the same time.

maybe giving the fatty itself the ability to make buildings as well is easier to achieve

I'm willing to bet, that that will never happen.

@veteranashe

I dislike an anti arty system, no lore for it.

I think lore flew out the window as a balance strategy long ago.

~ Stryker

deletethis

@comradestryker

Did someone say...Fixed in Equilibrium??

ComradeStryker

It can build on the move!!!!!

Also, with those changes, it seems to be a little more viable.
Large increase in AA damage, torpedo damage and range, secondary gun damage,
shield recharge time, and a tad little more HP.
All of that is awesome!
(Less main weapon damage, though. Interesting change here.)

I wonder what all this looks like in-game.

~ Stryker

Reckless_Charger

This post is deleted!

TankenAbard

@comradestryker said in The Problems With The UEF - Part 8 (The Fatboy):

"Siege Mode"?
I think I understand what you mean, but, could you elaborate?

~ Stryker

I'm not sure how FAF is about enabling/disabling abilities of units based on mode switches. What we see now is Snipers with a binary weak/strong shot, the Tempest goes up/down and the cannon turns on/off, Salems can/cant go on land, so these toggles turn something on and off, not CHANGE it.

The Seige mode idea for the fatboy could change/enable aspects depending on what is possible to put in the game. I imagine rooting the unit to the ground with a setup time would be part of it. You could enable/disable a stronger AA cannon, increase range of the main cannons, activate tactical missile defenses, increase build speed, increase shield regeneration rate.

I'm sure any of these ideas would be hamstrung by programming, and any changes like these would come with other balances that would have to be hashed out in detail. For example, increasing cannon range in a siege mode would come with a decrease in standard range, etc.

ComradeStryker

@TankenAbard

That would be cool, though it would be an arbitrary change, to be honest with you.
And somehow, I don't think that solves any of its main issues.

For it to get any real value, I'd reckon the siege mode would have to have more range than a T2 static artillery structure.
But at that point, it may be too much of an increase leaving little play for a ground counter to the Fatboy.

On the other hand, If it shares the same range or if the extended range is less than that of a T2 artillery, it would take fire when deploying, which would make that ability useless, regardless.

~ Stryker

TankenAbard

@comradestryker

Something I noticed about the Fatboy cannon rounds is that there seems to be an arbitrary air hang time. shoot at something far away then shoot at something close and you can see it, the rounds stay in the air an unusual amount of time.

So, thinking of this, the theoretical siege mode could increase the cannon range but reduce something having to do with the speed of the rounds, I'm unsure what specifically, but make the cannon great at range bombardment but start to be less effective at shorter ranges, if such a thing is possible. The increased range would have to be longer than T2 static artillery, to make it useful for such a thing. The siege mode would somehow have to make it vulnerable to an assault of some kind, assault bots, lots of bombers, flurry of tactical missiles, etc.

I see a unit that doesn't know what it wants to be, though I'm limited to my own understanding. As far as the main issues with the Fatboy, what are they summed up? or, what are you seeing wrong with it?

ComradeStryker

@tankenabard said in The Problems With The UEF - Part 8 (The Fatboy):

Something I noticed about the Fatboy cannon rounds is that there seems to be an arbitrary air hang time.

I haven't noticed this, myself, I'll have to look at it when I get a chance.

So, thinking of this... flurry of tactical missiles, etc.

Interesting idea, though I'm unsure of it.
At first glance, it seems that it may be too strong considering that the main land counter to a Fatboy is T2 arty.
Hardcountering a hard counter doesn't seem like the way to go.
But I could be wrong. I do wish the range was a little larger by default, on the Fatty, though again, that doesn't quite solve its survivability issue.

what are you seeing wrong with it?

My guy, you're in my forum post - scroll to the top / first post. xD

But in short, survivability is the issue for it.
It doesn't have the HP to defend itself, unlike any other land exp.
They have such large HP pools that they can be suicided in half the time spearheading a push with support units.

I don't recall exactly who said it... but someone said "You can't win a game by defending"
Which is exactly what the Fatboy does.
It 'aggressively' defends; Though it has difficulty doing that too due to all the counters it has.

~ Stryker

TankenAbard

My guy, you're in my forum post - scroll to the top / first post. xD

I know and I apologize, there is a lot here and I appreciate the summary so far in.

PiGuy

I like the idea of letting the Fattie be able to build structures, build units on the move, and a slight bump to HP and speed.