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.")*
-
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.
-
@thewheelie I assume it's because their torpedoes split into so many little individual targets - chaff for torpedo defenses.
Either way, it seems significant when it comes to the new balance regarding torpedo bombers and submarines.(A fix seems easy - make seraphim torpedo bombers have less 'splits' in their attack, but do more damage per split projectile)
-
@sylph_ said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
it seems significant when it comes to the new balance regarding torpedo bombers and submarines
does it really if it's sera torp vs sera sub?
Sure, they're better vs t2 subs and other torp defenses, but is it too good to need a nerf/change? -
So stealth on cybran acu has no purpose now? Cant stealth shoot a t2 pd or enemy acu.
Please revert vision on t2 pd an acu. -
@nex said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
Sure, they're better vs t2 subs and other torp defenses, but is it too good to need a nerf/change?
I'll admit I'm not well-versed in the exact necessity of it - that's for more knowledgeable players than me! What I do recognise is that the seraphim torpedo bomber is way less vulnerable to torpedo defences.
Personally, I love little factional differences like this, but I think it would be bad to assume that it's only significant in seraphim vs seraphim, torpedo bomber vs sub etc.Is it ok? I dunno - given a million other racial differences - like how missile defenses are usually a solid way of protecting land bases from T2 seraphim navy, or the difference that hover flak makes, or T3 hover shields etc etc... I'm sure there are many, many knock-on effects in all kinds of directions that are way beyond my understanding!
I just think that the seraphim torpedo bomber, which has always been a bit of a dog to use given its love of hitting seabeds and shorelines previously, might have, so-far, had its incredible resistance to torpedo defenses go undetected.
Maybe there's a way forward where it keeps some of this identity, but 'trims it down' so that it's not quite so severe? For example, having its 3 torpedos split into 2 each (for a total of 6), rather than 3?
(For clarity - most torpedo bombers fire 2 torpedoes each 'pass', meaning 2 anti-torpedoes will nullify them. The skimmer is better in that it fires 3. The Uosioz, on the other hand, fires 9. )
@nex said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
does it really if it's sera torp vs sera sub?
If you want a non-sera vs sera example: a single Uosioz can destroy 2 UEF coopers that are defending each other.
Obviously, time will tell. I just thought it worth bringing up.
-
@sylph_ Yeah, wasn't saying it didn't matter
The "new" sub balance in the patchnotes only refers to t2 torps vs t1 subs tho right?
And for that it doesn't matter if the sera torp beats the sera sub. For everything else it totally matters, but I have also no Idea how significant that is. -
@nex said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
The "new" sub balance in the patchnotes only refers to t2 torps vs t1 subs tho right?
And for that it doesn't matter if the sera torp beats the sera sub.I don't believe the goal of the new "sub balance" (t2 torps vs t1 subs, as you mentioned) is about racial balance though - I think it's more about the strength of subs and torpedo bombers in navals fights, irrespective of race.
If I'm right about this goal, subs dying to seraphim torpedo bombers this quickly definitely does seem to matter, in that the goal of these patch changes hasn't been met in the seraphim mirror.
Is it 'fair'? Yes, absolutely; in the sense that both players have access to the same tools (being the same race). But "doesn't matter", just because it's 'fair' for each player? I don't think so.(Sorry if this sounded nitpicky at all btw - it was intended only to further explore discussion. I appreciated your reply and the discussion it invites.)
-
@sylph_ said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:
Is it 'fair'? Yes, absolutely; in the sense that both players have access to the same tools (being the same race). But "doesn't matter", just because it's 'fair' for each player? I don't think so.
Yeah, I also thought about that. It would also matter for teamgames, where the air player is sera but your direct navy opponent is not. (But I will ignore that at least and assume a 1v1 scenario)
And in a 1v1 I think this falls under nice faction diversity, as subs will just be weaker for both players in that specific matchup.
So it matters and changes the matchup, but to me the important thing is that the whole game is still balanced and I'd consider it a positive even, as this changes the value of subs in that matchup making it more unique
