Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread

You make subs earlier = less eco = you're behind = making units later are a smaller proportion of your eco as torp bomber player.

The cost in e doesn't matter because due to making earlier t1 navy, you're going to be behind in scale and therefore have t2 pgen later, meaning you're still putting less of a proportion of your total e income into units, more into eco, meaning you are now ahead as the torp bomber player.

Saying "uhhhhhhh the torp bomber dude has a t2 pgen and the sub player doesn't look at the costs" isn't how the game works, everybody will be getting t2 pgens in the game. It's about the proportional level of income going into units for a player, the e cost serves as a bottleneck to force you to have t2 infrastructure before starting the spam of it.

@ftxcommando said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:

You make subs earlier = less eco = you're behind = making units later are a smaller proportion of your eco as torp bomber player.

The cost in e doesn't matter because due to making earlier t1 navy, you're going to be behind in scale and therefore have t2 pgen later, meaning you're still putting less of a proportion of your total e income into units, more into eco, meaning you are now ahead as the torp bomber player.

why the hell should you be behind in eco? And why u make them earlier. I think you do not even get what I want to say. I am saying that for the same amount of spent mass in units, the guy with subs gets the units that can not be countered when attacking. I have given you list of units for team A and list of units for team B (read the message above). And the team with subs is unkillable with the list of units in team with torps, when attacking, it can only be countered if the subs attack.

Saying "uhhhhhhh the torp bomber dude has a t2 pgen and the sub player doesn't look at the costs" isn't how the game works, everybody will be getting t2 pgens in the game. It's about the proportional level of income going into units for a player, the e cost serves as a bottleneck to force you to have t2 infrastructure before starting the spam of it.

I am not saying anything about the t2 pgen, like literally nothing. It is you who started talking about t2 pgen. I only said that u need more energy to spam torpedos, which is also resource, but the guy was not considering it, and pointed only on mass value.

My point was just to consider the cost of energy when comparing 2 units. I think sometimes people forget that there are actually 3 types of resources in this game, not only mass. Yes, torps are cheaper than subs in mass, but much more expensive in energy AND in build power, which is 3rd resource in the game.

@gabitii said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:

@deribus said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:

@gabitii said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:

It was not OP that torpedo bombers were killing subs with one shot, cause they are much more expensive

Well you can not simply take mass costs. If you would have read the whole text, you would also have read that you have to consider energy costs, which means extra pgens and technology costs(t2 air hq). So yes, they are more expensive.

This guy is only considering mass value, whereas torps are more expensive in both energy and build power

So you aren’t talking about games just ethereal weird sandbox situations gotcha, the whole strength of torps is that you can disregard navy for an extra 2-3 minutes as you eco and then use torps to win back map control with overall superior eco.

In a teamgame setting u don't build the torps urself just ask for 1 torp from teammate and it will clear all subs with a bit of micro. Also torp launchers are much better now so if you don't want to build subs (such as if the map doesn't have many raidable mex by sub/frig) then you can hang out near a torp launcher until t2 navy.

@blodir said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:

In a teamgame setting u don't build the torps urself just ask for 1 torp from teammate and it will clear all subs with a bit of micro.

what is the problem? 1 t1 bomber from an ally can also kill expansion of ur opponent by killing engies. T3 strat can also clear up the t1 factories producing the t1 spam), if it is cybran facs. 1 Janus can also clear up all the t1 army (specially aeon) with a bit of micro. 1 t1 bomber from ur teammate can also kill the entire army of auroras with a bit of micro. 1 Hover tank from teammate can also deal lots of damage if the opponents army consists of only subs, like killing factories or engies. It is always so that u have and advantage if the teammate helps. Why not nerfing janus or hover tanks then or buffing auroras? You could also delete all the air bombers so that the teammates will not be able to help and everybody will just play 1v1 against their opponent with that logic.

@blodir

@blodir said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:

Also torp launchers are much better now so if you don't want to build subs (such as if the map doesn't have many raidable mex by sub/frig) then you can hang out near a torp launcher until t2 navy.

Torpedo launchers are useless in attack. Which means that the agression against the subs is almost impossible now, because u can not easily wipe them out with t2 bombers. Which means if u make only frigs and ur opponent makes only subs the opponent can spend less mass on units and eco more, since there is no way u can kill their navy very fast, specially sera subs, which require 3 or more torpedo shots if they are located near each other. This type of buff of subs is causing passive gameplay with only ecoing, cause u barely can punish ur opponent for building less units. I personally think that the t1 subs do need a buff, on that I totally agree with the balance team. But I think they should be more cheaper OR they should have more dps.

Aeon Chrono Dampener animation seems off, the animation activates when in range of the max gun range upgrade even if you have no gun range upgrades at all. The animation also extends to the max gun range of 35 even if you can't shoot that far, the animation also doesn't sync up at lower ranges, causing the animation to pass through the target well before the stun occurs.

The Seraphim regen aura seems odd too, its dropping HP regeneration down to 12, even with a Veteran 5 Galactic Colossus.

This is not the right place for this, is it?

@tankenabard Ill look into it, thanks for the feedback.

Is it important than seraphim torpedo bombers currently destroy seraphim submarines in 1 pass?

• (The 3761 patch notes state that "All T1 subs are getting a survivability increase which allows subs to take 2 hits from torp bombers. This does not apply to Sera, but they have anti torp which will accomplish the same result.")*

back Salvation to t3

buff uef

@sylph_ said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:

Is it important than seraphim torpedo bombers currently destroy seraphim submarines in 1 pass?

• (The 3761 patch notes state that "All T1 subs are getting a survivability increase which allows subs to take 2 hits from torp bombers. This does not apply to Sera, but they have anti torp which will accomplish the same result.")*

Did some testing and apparently sera torp bombers practically ignore the torp defense of a lot of navy units, including sera t1 subs.

I know I'm a little late to the party on this one but reducing the UEF ACU bubbleshield from 36000 to 9000 HP seems like a pretty significant change. Is now a 60% increase to base durability instead of 240%. Looks like the personal shield got a similar reduction (*edit: that was five years ago).

Well yeah, bubbleshield went from a "too expensive to make at a relevant point" cost to a "make at late t2/early t3 stage" cost.

Does the reduction make it worth having at all if the choice is between two upgrades of the same cost, with the personal shield having over double the hp and an advantage for ACU survivability? We're talking 2.25 parashields worth of bubble shield here.

bubble shield doesn't die to oc

Does that outweigh all the other disadvantages I touched on? Is there a special rule for bubble shield oc interaction besides commander armor?

As I've mentioned before...

The Bubble Shield feels really worthwhile, now...
but for the cost of it... it lacks SHP.

So, I could see the SHP being increased, or the cost being reduced.

And maybe I'm getting ahead of myself, but an upgraded Bubble Shield, to get back to the original 36,000 SHP, would be cool, too.

UEF ACU late-game survivability now lacks 17,000 HP.

~ Stryker

Bubble should be about double shp for that cost.

Tbh, I'd rather see it get higher regen so that it's up-time is higher and so that you can juggle shield and HP with nano more.
Though obviously it might be wishful thinking as upfront HP is just so much easier to use. Still, I would love to see small but high regen shield somewhere in the game(cybran upgrade instead of the new nano? kappa).

@slicknixon said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:

Does that outweigh all the other disadvantages I touched on? Is there a special rule for bubble shield oc interaction besides commander armor?

Idk, I don't really have a strong opinion on it being strong or not, I just know it was a necessary change for the upgrade to see any use in games. Before it was strictly used to sit your ACU on SMDs except it wasn't even your best tool for that since a bubble SACU has more HP and a bigger bubble.