Increase T1 inties turn-rate
-
T2 gunships are not that tanky to interceptors. 1 on 1, sure, but you should compare mass values instead.
Mass equivalent inties will decimate a gunship.Could you elaborate why the "issue of transport micro" is an issue? You can counteract their transport micro by hovering the interceptor (place a move order underneath it)
-
@waffelznoob having to micro air at such a level goes against the very notions of FA, that is macro is more important than micro.
If we compare DPS even 12 inties should be able to do a big amount of damage ,but unless you hover them , they will barely enact any DPS . This is why T2 GS snipes are so prevalent , because you either need a obscene amount of T1 asfs or to micro-manage them. -
@spcr said in Increase T1 inties turn-rate:
having to micro air at such a level goes against the very notions of FA, that is macro is more important than micro.
I'm dubious about this.
'The very notions' of FA?
What I enjoy about it is that it's an RTS without the micro-crazy zoomed-in focus of starcraft, but without the 'players aren't part of the battle' disconnection of zero-K (or risk!, for that matter!
)
I certainly don't want an RTS whose units play as well when the player is elsewhere, as they do when the player is interacting.('Why would anyone want stupid units?' Cues me for a fun rant about player interaction for contesting attention, mental stack and all that - but I'll spare you!)
-
@sylph_ A fair point , however this disparity shouldnt be as big as it is with air right now in DPS , i understand losing land if you dont micro for a while against T1 arty , but the lost is not extreme and fast , and the units move slowly . With AIR the playstyle is more fast-paced and a lot of damage can be done in a short amount if units get past.
-
@spcr said in Increase T1 inties turn-rate:
having to micro air at such a level goes against the very notions of FA
Ok, then don't do it. I've personally never done it and I'm still top 0.01% in ratings
and no, 12 interceptors will not do very well versus 12 gunships, but maybe you should consider building more interceptors. they are a lot cheaper than gunships
you could also just build flak
-
@waffelznoob How is being in the top 0.01% relevant to the argument at hand?
Also yes 12 interceptors wont od well against 12 gunships, but their expected efficiency is otherwise reduced by a lot if not ordered to hover. -
@spcr said in Increase T1 inties turn-rate:
@waffelznoob How is being in the top 0.01% relevant to the argument at hand?
that you don't need to do it to be good. just don't do it if you don't want to, and there is obviously no problem
@spcr said in Increase T1 inties turn-rate:
Also yes 12 interceptors wont od well against 12 gunships, but their expected efficiency is otherwise reduced by a lot if not ordered to hover.
Expected efficiency based on what?
-
@waffelznoob For the first point , balance is ever-evolving . Rating is not a constant that is relevant here at all, especially considering that i couldve been obtained whilst some things were unbalanced and kept up by just not playing.
Another reason it doesnt matter you're the 0.01% is that most of the 1600+ lobbies enact "bans" against "unbalanced" strategies like tele-mazer and kick people known to do them, leaving them "comfortable"As for the second point , all land unit DPS is fully enacted upon a unit while its within its weapon range , whilst for interceptors , they have to spend 3-4 seconds to enact 2-3 seconds of their DPS, ASF's face the same issue ,however it is not as bad since they got the highest DPS to TOP any gunship , unlike T1 inties which got low DPS and low health combined with low speed and high turn rate(and are expected to be able to deal with T2 gunships)
-
Another reason it doesnt matter you're the 0.01% is that most of the 1600+ lobbies enact "bans" against "unbalanced" strategies like tele-mazer and kick people known to do them, leaving them "comfortable"
This is just false lol
The only "bans" I've experienced in higher rated lobbies are mutual agreements to not build game-enders and instead just have massive battle instead. And that's incredibly rare.
-
@snoog Then explain why players like telemazers and a few others are constantly kicked out of them ? they dont troll their team and use valid strategies.
-
Without knowing who you're even talking about, I couldn't begin to give you an answer. Besides that, there's 1000 other reasons to kick someone.
-
@snoog said in Increase T1 inties turn-rate:
Another reason it doesnt matter you're the 0.01% is that most of the 1600+ lobbies enact "bans" against "unbalanced" strategies like tele-mazer and kick people known to do them, leaving them "comfortable"
This is just false lol
The only "bans" I've experienced in higher rated lobbies are mutual agreements to not build game-enders and instead just have massive battle instead. And that's incredibly rare.
You’ll get banned from the next X games if you nuke rush
Nobody bans over gunship snipes, those are entirely possible to proactively play around as the victim. Nuke rush the optimal move is to nuke rush back.
-
Well, nuke rushes are just dumb and boring so that's fine with me personally
-
tis true, i'd be a common 800 if i played lobbies where telemazer was used
