Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread
-
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
-
@thewheelie why not
-
I feel t2 cybran destros gonna be way too op with the upcoming patch, because they have stealth boats with range it is way too powerful. They are hiding in the stealth field and u always have to come very close to them do deal some damage. Also cybran t2 subs are now need 3 torps to shot them, not 2. It is a bit op that it has now more range than a battlecruies of the UEF. Same range was already painful as t3 navy is slow and u can hardly micro them. Whereas Neptuns are used to counter t1/t2 spam.
-
@gabitii
t2 sub cost: 1100 mass
t2 torp cost: 270 mass
3*270 < 1100
-> Still worth suiciding the torp bombers if you assume they're just going to dieCybran Destros can't retreat in a straight line anyway cuz they stop shooting -> Either you're not going to deal dmg while doing that or you have the potential to get in range anyway if you want to escape sideway. That also requires perfect reaction timing as Auroras. Definitely always happens.
Referring to UEF Navy it's still worth it to suicide torp bombers or just build a couple of coopers since they're going to be buffed afaik. -
@sladow-noob what about stealth stuff? I have tried the beta balance patch in the sandbox and cybran destros are just way too strong against, for example, aeon and sera, even with full vision to sera, and cybran was not microed, just staying. Aeon t2 navy is just the weakest now, since the frigates dont have any AA and cruisers do not participate in the battle at all. Cybran frigs have the best AA and also their cruiser deal extra damage to the enemy. UEF and Sera on the other side are useful against tech 3, since the bships are very slow u can deal a lot of damage. Also they are useful in the siege of the base. Whereas aeon cruisers are just useless. But nevertheless I think in the combo with stealth cybran destros are way too powerful. For now I only see UEF destros that can really do smth against cybran destros, since they have a lot of HP and shield boats to tank damage when coming closer. Aeon is the weakest t2 as I see now.
-
"Aeon t2 navy is just the weakest now, since the frigates dont have any AA and cruisers do not participate in the battle at all."
-
@sladow-noob yeah wrong point. Aeon t2 is the weakest cause can be torped too easy... Now fine
-
It's still a clowntake.
-
Aeon still has both the strongest frigates and destroyers. Calling Aeon the weakest t2 navy is just so wrong on every possible level.
-
How are Aeon cruisers useless? They Probably have the best AA, especially taking into account hover flak gives them spatial control in combination with their high velocity.
-
Aeon still has one of the most oppressive t2 navy stages especially if you combine navy with their hover flak and shields, though I think navy for them is actually in a pretty nice spot now so I'm not saying they should be nerfed more than the frig cost change.
That said, I'm a little worried about playing UEF vs Cybran navy match up in particular pre T3, or more specifically pre full scale late game eco T3. I think too many of these balance changes are a straight buff to an already not bad Cybran navy. Reverting frig cost nerf + destro buff + implicit sub buff with torp bomber nerf seems like a lot. I nearly always use a few torps to counter t2 cybran sub aggression because making coopers early feels bad. Sure it's worth it to suicide torps math wise, but a competent opponent can very easily set it up so they get all the reclaim from the subs + torps.
