Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread
-
@thewheelie said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
Idk why you think making it smaller and thus harder to hit while giving it a 16% speed increase isn't gonna help it.
It's a unit that doesn't specialize because it does multiple things yes. Unless you want to remove features you can't buff them by much at all otherwise it can become broken a lot faster than you imagine.
vision/water vision is not something that should be locked behind a faction. This is to make carriers from other factions have a more supportive role against something like stealth/subs.
Perhaps, you misunderstood me.
I never said these changes weren't going to help.
That's the point of the changes, to begin with, right? To help?I said I didn't see how it would alleviate its (main) issues.
The size change is welcome, as I stated in my post, it's quite a big target.
The speed change is welcome, as well, as it is quite slow.My concern was that the unit itself barely classifies as an experimental,
yet, it lacks strength in either of the roles that it tries to fulfill.Most, if not all, other multi-role units in this game excel in at least one of their roles.
For example, the Aeon T3 Gunship.
Moderate Air-to-ground capability, but impressive air-to-air combatability.As for vision, I can understand that being helpful to all navies.
Though, I stray to see how it could differentiate the Atlantis as an Experimental.I'm not saying these features should be limited to one faction, but I also fail to see; as my point in the sentence above.
Shouldn't an Experimental be... you know... slightly better than a unit in a tech level below?Wouldnt it make more sense to have the carriers with slightly less vision than the Atlantis?
not matching it?
~ Stryker
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
-
No, experimentals shouldn’t be better than their mass equivalence in t3 units.
-
@comradestryker said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
@thewheelie said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
Idk why you think making it smaller and thus harder to hit while giving it a 16% speed increase isn't gonna help it.
It's a unit that doesn't specialize because it does multiple things yes. Unless you want to remove features you can't buff them by much at all otherwise it can become broken a lot faster than you imagine.
vision/water vision is not something that should be locked behind a faction. This is to make carriers from other factions have a more supportive role against something like stealth/subs.
Perhaps, you misunderstood me.
I never said these changes weren't going to help.
That's the point of the changes, to begin with, right? To help?I said I didn't see how it would alleviate its (main) issues.
It being a slow bulky unit with bad maneuverability has always been the main issue.
My concern was that the unit itself barely classifies as an experimental,
yet, it lacks strength in either of the roles that it tries to fulfill.No idea why you think it barely classifies as one. At the same cost as 4 subhunters you get 1.25x more range and 10x more hp. When you surface it you get a carrier with double the hp of other carriers. More over it's like 10x the size of the 2nd largest sub.
Does it not qualify as one according to you because it's too weak? Does that mean Novaxes didn't classify as an t4 until they were balanced years ago? Does that mean the ripper didn't classify as an t4 until a year ago?
Most, if not all, other multi-role units in this game excel in at least one of their roles.
For example, the Aeon T3 Gunship.
Moderate Air-to-ground capability, but impressive air-to-air combatability.You're wrong. Restorers are worse at anything they do compared to their counterparts. They roughly have half the dps of a broadsword when shooting at ground targets and less than half the dps of asf when shooting at air. They are still good however because they are flexible.
Shouldn't an Experimental be... you know... slightly better than a unit in a tech level below?Also as ftx said t4's are never better than
As ftx said: no. All land t4's lose to mass cybran t1 maa spam. This doesn't mean they aren't good.
-
I think reducing the cost and/or build time of torp Launchers would work better than their dmg buff unless you are wanting people to build them before they get rushed
-
@thewheelie said:
Comparing the hp of above water and under water units doesn't work. T2 subs also have 1/5th the hp of destroyers
Groundfiring mobile units is much harder than structures. Besides which, the key point is reducing the health of a unit for which health is highly relevant by almost 40% is a massive nerf, whether the unit is submersible or not, and an improvement to build time doesn't come close to compensating for it.
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 -
@ftxcommando said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
No, experimentals shouldn’t be better than their mass equivalence in t3 units.
@thewheelie said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
As ftx said: no. All land t4's lose to mass cybran t1 maa spam. This doesn't mean they aren't good.
I agree, but that is not anywhere near what I said or mentioned.
I said: "Shouldn't an Experimental be" ... "slightly better than a unit in a tech level below?"I did not mention mass equivalence. I mentioned tech.
In layman's terms: T1 < T2 < T3 < T4
@thewheelie said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
You're wrong. Restorers are worse at anything they do compared to their counterparts. They roughly have half the dps of a broadsword when shooting at ground targets and less than half the dps of asf when shooting at air. They are still good however because they are flexible.
They're obviously not going to be GREAT at either role.
But they're more built for one role rather than another.
That was my point.A unit specialized in a specific role is obviously going to be better.
But Multi-role units have mixed capability, having a hand in both areas.This is why certain units are good investments, until you engage a dedicated unit in that role.
Like my Restorer example.
Or Fighter bombers.
Or Mercies and Swifties (Granted these aren't Multi-Role but they are dedicated for Air-to-air and Air-to-ground which is what makes them better in that role.)
~ Stryker
-
@maudlin27 said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
@thewheelie said:
Comparing the hp of above water and under water units doesn't work. T2 subs also have 1/5th the hp of destroyers
Groundfiring mobile units is much harder than structures. Besides which, the key point is reducing the health of a unit for which health is highly relevant by almost 40% is a massive nerf, whether the unit is submersible or not, and an improvement to build time doesn't come close to compensating for it.
Yes, but it still requires you to groundfire them. It's a big nerf because harms right now are super strong and the bt change isn't suppose to compensate for the hp loss. If these changes somehow end up nerfing harms too much then they can be buffed in another way, but not in hp because imo from a conceptual level an underwater defense unit should not have that much hp in general.
@comradestryker said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
@ftxcommando said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
No, experimentals shouldn’t be better than their mass equivalence in t3 units.
@thewheelie said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
As ftx said: no. All land t4's lose to mass cybran t1 maa spam. This doesn't mean they aren't good.
I agree, but that is not anywhere near what I said or mentioned.
I said: "Shouldn't an Experimental be" ... "slightly better than a unit in a tech level below?"I did not mention mass equivalence. I mentioned tech.
In layman's terms: T1 < T2 < T3 < T4
So how is this not the case right now? It is by far the best sub in the game. Unless you want it to win 1v1 against a bs (which is a different type of unit so a weird comparison to make imo) and to make that happen the only solution would be to up it's mass cost and do a stat increase. Then it would be better than a unit in a tech lvl below, but it would funnily enough make the unit worse since the upfront cost of making a single 1 would be a lot higher and in theory you want more than 1 spread out (partially for vision) as well.
@thewheelie said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
You're wrong. Restorers are worse at anything they do compared to their counterparts. They roughly have half the dps of a broadsword when shooting at ground targets and less than half the dps of asf when shooting at air. They are still good however because they are flexible.
They're obviously not going to be GREAT at either role.
But they're more built for one role rather than another.
That was my point.A unit specialized in a specific role is obviously going to be better.
But Multi-role units have mixed capability, having a hand in both areas.Restorers aren't though. They're build almost exclusively after winning air and one of the main reasons why you can maintain making them for as long without losing air is because for double the bt you get tripple the hp and quadruple the mass invested. You mainly use restorers to do damage to land stuff. Their aa is mostly meant to buy time not losing air.
Atlantis is also already kinda specialized as a sub. A lot more than it is on being a carrier anyway. The speed/size changes should also have a way bigger impact on how it performs as a sub as to how it would perform as a carrier.
-
HARMs is a stalling unit. Getting rid of its stealth AND lowering its range AND gutting its hp all compound to make it too easy to be bursted down. The GitHub comment even says that now T2 destroyers would have a chance against them. Why should T2 mobile units have a chance against T3 static defense? It should be 2 out of the 3 nerfs— lower the range and hp but keep stealth seems fine, or lower hp and remove stealth but keep range etc. Halving the build time just makes it easier to HARMS creep or use them offensively with underwater SACUs which is annoying enough to deal with
-
@TheWheelie
from a conceptual level an underwater defense unit should not have that much hp in general.
From a conceptual level I would expect a defense unit to have more health than a non-defense unit (which is also consistent with static AA, T2 arti and PD vs their mobile counterparts). So presumably your point is an underwater unit should not have as much HP as a surface unit (something I'd agree with).
However, the Atlantis is a fairly big contradiction to that - to be consistent, given it's already being changed in this update, should it have a significant DPS boost and health nerf to be consistent? It currently has 40k health, almost as much as a battleship, and far more than it's closest comparable unit, the T3 Seraphim subhunter.
Meanwhile in terms of the severity of the nerf/your point it could always be buffed if it's too big a nerf, much higher priority changes have taken a while (e.g. GC), so I think it optimistic that if the HARMs was nerfed into obscurity it would be a priority for a buff in the near future. Better to nerf moderately and then if it's still a problem to nerf again than to risk making the unit near-unusable.
To illustrate why it looks too big a nerf - I would expect an immobile torpedo defence unit to be a mass efficient counter to a head on attack by torpedo units (indeed previously when I've called for a buff to T1-T2 torp launchers due to their weakness against surface naval units I've been told they're meant as a counter to subs, not surface ships). From a general balance perspective it is sacrificing mobility, and is a higher tech level (so harder to obtain), so should be compensated to some extent for this. Meanwhile the relationship seen on land where T1 units are mass efficient against higher tech units is less relevant as it's simple to concentrate a large number of submarines in a single area (achieving a similar 'force concentration' benefit to higher tech land units) - the same can't be done for land units, where 100 t1 tanks won't all be able to engage at once, and where aoe is much more prevalent.
So, doing a simple sandbox test of spawning T1 subs out of range of a harms and having them attack it, 9 T1 subs (the mass equivalent value is 8.333) bring a HARMS down to 3.7k health.
In other words, even before the range nerf is factored in, T1 subs will mass for mass trade roughly equally to the proposed harms. That seems a nerf too far, especially given HARMs is outranged by T3 surface naval units (battleships) which can kill it for free (and more easily than before with the combined removal of stealth, reduction to HARMs range, and reduction to health). -
Now do the test with a ravager and 34 strikers.
-
Let's just be honest, with the HARM nerf as is, they'll be built less than T1 torps are. You'd be better off investing your mass into other means of stalling.
-
@ftxcommando Almost like you read one line in my post and missed/ignored the points I made which already addressed that...
-
Your post fails to mention the reality that harm creep revolves around cybran sacus, the 500 hp of regen a second ones, scooping up mass and creeping harms as they move along the sea board. You not only need to groundfire the harms but you need legions of subs/torps to kill the sacus on top of it. It isn’t some lab experiment of looking at harms as though they appear in the middle of the ocean.
-
Ravagers are usually built as part of a firebase, meaning they can be shielded and covered by lower tech PD. The same is not true of naval static defense especially Cybran which has no way to shield things on water
-
If you're firebase warring with ravagers you're bad. You're spending more than a t2 arty, combined with getting a needless t3 ACU, to spam a unit that is countered by either t3 mobile arty if your opponent got that instead (which results in more tactical flexibility as well) or you are like 3 t2 arty behind and out of range of his t2 arty base.
You also can't perpetually defend with ravagers against pushes the way HARMs enable you to because of the SACU dynamic. Torps die to sams built in 7 seconds, ships die to the harms built in 10 seconds unless you perpetually babysit your navy.
-
Sacu's are kind of a gray sheep sine there are only two valuable preset options, engineering and ras and engineering is just too good in navy support role both to scoop up the reclaim and to spam harms quickly... Now this is mostly DG problem with Setons here and there
What I trying to say give hrams slap on the wrist in the nerf department and figure out a way to make sacu more relevant and optimised for the mid t3 stage.
-
I don’t know why you brought up firebase wars, everything you said is correct but not relevant, the discussion was about how Harms losing to 9 t1 subs is fine because a ravager will lose to its mass equivalent in strikers. So we’re talking about how the T3 static defense fares against other units not other base structures. Ravagers are usually supported by shield and other pd. Harms are not shielded or supported by other torp launchers. On top of that, subs have no collision and there’s no walls or terrain to block them from getting close to harms and overwhelming it but the same is not true on land. Subs are also garbage for their cost and the same isn’t true of strikers
-
@maudlin27 said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
@TheWheelie
from a conceptual level an underwater defense unit should not have that much hp in general.
From a conceptual level I would expect a defense unit to have more health than a non-defense unit (which is also consistent with static AA, T2 arti and PD vs their mobile counterparts). So presumably your point is an underwater unit should not have as much HP as a surface unit (something I'd agree with).
However, the Atlantis is a fairly big contradiction to that - to be consistent, given it's already being changed in this update, should it have a significant DPS boost and health nerf to be consistent? It currently has 40k health, almost as much as a battleship, and far more than it's closest comparable unit, the T3 Seraphim subhunter.
Not sure why the atlantis comparison is relevant? I mean you are right that atlantis hp is inconsistent compared to other sub hp/mass but it's a t4 and they are all special in a way and shouldn't really be compared too much to non t4's.
Meanwhile in terms of the severity of the nerf/your point it could always be buffed if it's too big a nerf, much higher priority changes have taken a while (e.g. GC), so I think it optimistic that if the HARMs was nerfed into obscurity it would be a priority for a buff in the near future. Better to nerf moderately and then if it's still a problem to nerf again than to risk making the unit near-unusable.
The intention is to have more frequent balance patches. Hopefully something akin to the delayed gc change won't happen again.
Aside from that harms are currently considered insanely strong. The bt change is also way more significant than you think if you take into account the current way to use harms. All in all imo this isn't anywhere close to nerfing harms into obscurity
To illustrate why it looks too big a nerf - I would expect an immobile torpedo defence unit to be a mass efficient counter to a head on attack by torpedo units (indeed previously when I've called for a buff to T1-T2 torp launchers due to their weakness against surface naval units I've been told they're meant as a counter to subs, not surface ships). From a general balance perspective it is sacrificing mobility, and is a higher tech level (so harder to obtain), so should be compensated to some extent for this. Meanwhile the relationship seen on land where T1 units are mass efficient against higher tech units is less relevant as it's simple to concentrate a large number of submarines in a single area (achieving a similar 'force concentration' benefit to higher tech land units) - the same can't be done for land units, where 100 t1 tanks won't all be able to engage at once, and where aoe is much more prevalent.
So, doing a simple sandbox test of spawning T1 subs out of range of a harms and having them attack it, 9 T1 subs (the mass equivalent value is 8.333) bring a HARMS down to 3.7k health.
In other words, even before the range nerf is factored in, T1 subs will mass for mass trade roughly equally to the proposed harms. That seems a nerf too far, especially given HARMs is outranged by T3 surface naval units (battleships) which can kill it for free (and more easily than before with the combined removal of stealth, reduction to HARMs range, and reduction to health).I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Did you know labs easily outvalue ravagers? percies? Any t4? In a real game this type of sandbox stuff is completely irrelevant because it just doesn't work like that.
Also fyi, torp def isn't meant just to counter subs
-
@thewheelie said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
Right now you need 4 torps(if all torps land their hit) to kill most cruisers, after this change you need 6 torps. The 15 range isn't gonna let you kill 2 more torps if they were coming for your cruiser even when kiting away so in a straight up torps vs cruiser matchup this is definitely a buff for the cruisers.
ok sick thanks
-
will never answer to u again buddy
