Weak Overcharge

0
This post is deleted!
2
This post is deleted!
0

Arma473 as it stands guncom is not worth the investment. It costs too much mass, delaying significantly meanwhile you're still taking a huge risk by having your com at the front making it an easy snipe target.

The extra mass is icing on the cake, really.

Its much more efficient just to build Harbs, Percy, or hell strats after ecoing. Nano com is only effective in a certain window of the game, and all this does is make that window shorter, its now at the point that the window is not sufficiently long enough for you to see a benefit.

My secret spreadsheet? Just do the mathematics yourself. How long does it take to accumulate income. How much income do you get from each building, and compare against the building of a game ender on that basis.

4

Hmmm Yes, Gun soo bad, mmm, Yes, sooo thrash. Next time I play I will remember that.
If you honestly think that gun or rambo acu is weak then you really have no clue what's strong and what's weak. A gun acu with some support units is easily worth around 3k mass in t3 units (given you have few E storages and some overflow). And that's just an ACU with a gun and a t2 or w/e. If you add Shield(UEF, Aeon)/Nano (sera) then the ACU becomes a No-Go zone for any units, especially t3. Like just any 2k+ ladder game and see how strong ACU's are.
A note here: I actually think that ACU is pretty OP and it's power isn't too healthy for the gameplay but if you would nerf it then the game would become more stale since other aspects of the game are not promoting aggressive gameplay. I think that with tweaks to Reclaim % values and some nerfing to Rambo ACU's you would get a much better gameplay that focuses more on trying to attack around the map instead of doing 1 big push through the middle.

0
This post is deleted!
1
This post is deleted!
3

I really wish we would have a few guys that would be responsible for deleting all the stupid posts (in the balance forum) but I guess then we would be too "elitist" . Also probably a waste of their time since most of people that actually have a say in balance have abandoned forums long time ago since it's so thrash.

4

i've learnt to read only the relevant post, i guess you should try ignoring these guys.

1
This post is deleted!
3

@Tagada said in Weak Overcharge:

I really wish we would have a few guys that would be responsible for deleting all the stupid posts

Ask and you shall receive.

All posts that did not actively contribute to the conversation and/or contained personal attacks have been deleted. Keep it civil, keep it on topic.

0

As my calculations and post on the OC nerf in a thread discussing OC got deleted, I'm simply going to restate the facts that we know about the new OC and then an opinion on what this does.

The facts:

You need roughly 4 e storage and a t2 pgen to support killing Harbs, and to kill Bricks or Percy you now need roughly 7 e storage, and 2 t2 pgens.

You are now looking at an extra cost of 2200 mass to 4100 mass on your nano or shield com. This significantly delaying the window where guncom is effective.

Opinion:

Guncom is very risky, because as soon as a T4 pops, you're whole investment is gone, as you have to retreat. Guncom is inherently risky mid-game cause your com is at the front instead of with ras at the back. This is directly supporting a less aggressive gameplay.

Now, we might ask, well guncom is still more efficient mass for mass than T3? Yes, but guncom can only be in one place at a time. At what point do we just call it a day, and eco into building a T4 instead and not have to worry about the constant threat of a com snipe. Guncom is most effective in the middle game where T4 are not easily built, and where there isn't sufficient air that you are likely to get stratted. Now that window is significantly shortened due to the extra upfront cost on making guncom effective, and therefore the time it takes to accumulate said resources.

3

@Psions said in Weak Overcharge:

The facts:
You need roughly 4 e storage and a t2 pgen to support killing Harbs, and to kill Bricks or Percy you now need roughly 7 e storage, and 2 t2 pgens.

You are now looking at an extra cost of 2200 mass to 4100 mass on your nano or shield com. This significantly delaying the window where guncom is effective.

Yes, instead of 3 e storage and 3/4 of a t2 pgen you now need 4 e storages and 1 t2 pgen which makes it cost: 550 more mass, such an insane nerf.

Opinion:
Guncom is very risky, because as soon as a T4 pops, you're whole investment is gone, as you have to retreat. Guncom is inherently risky mid-game cause your com is at the front instead of with ras at the back. This is directly supporting a less aggressive gameplay.

Yes, gun com vs t4 is risky, I wonder why ... I am sure that this is the reason why your dual gap games are not promoting agressive gameplay and it has nothing to do with the horrendous map layout ..

Now, we might ask, well guncom is still more efficient mass for mass than T3? Yes, but guncom can only be in one place at a time.

I see that your t3 units have magical ability of teleportation so that they can be in 3 places at once? Not sure if you knew but ACU can be transported via a t2 transport as well.

At what point do we just call it a day, and eco into building a T4 instead and not have to worry about the constant threat of a com snipe.

Try doing that on any normal map, GL with that

Guncom is most effective in the middle game where T4 are not easily built, and where there isn't sufficient air that you are likely to get stratted. Now that window is significantly shortened due to the extra upfront cost on making guncom effective, and therefore the time it takes to accumulate said resources.

Using terms middle game and t4 in one sentence tells the whole story here.

If you want to see any aggressive gameplay I suggest playing other maps that do not involve having 6 monkeys packed in small space closely together throwing banana peels at each other.

0

@Tagada

You're missing the point. Guncom is only effective until the mid t3/t4 stage at which point its a dead investment, and you can't even get the mass back, while with dead units you can ctrl k and reclaim them.

You're spending maybe 10K+ mass on your com for maybe 3 minutes being able to use it, after which you have to waddle back to your base and cry.

So you have 3 minutes with which you have to effectively have such a high impact that you win the game, or you have lost the game by sheer virtue of wasted investment so early.

Transporting a guncom by a t2 transport. Is that a serious suggestion? On most team maps ASF will be out at 10-11 minutes latest. Your guncom with nano will be complete at around 9 minutes. T2 transport won't be doing you any favours.

Eco into T4 done it on loads of maps, pyramids, wonder, canis, it doesn't really matter. Maybe I should suggest play something other than 5km ladder maps?

0

Try playing those maps 2v2 or 3v3.

0

Just to put this argument to bed.
A real game on the 2v2 ladder, https://replay.faforever.com/13506640
I had gun and nano 1600 mass, 2 t2 pgens 2400 mass and 7 e storages 1750 mass, totals 5750 mass,
Go to my view for the battle before the one where reds com dies and watch my energy bar, everything just melts before the OC's.
My team mate also had 2 t2 pgens.

Look at the mass killed by my ACU at the end, if anything you could nerf it again XD

0

@Freedom_ All that proves is that your opponent was incapable of bombing you with the 6k mass advantage, and that they'd rather run random t2 units into your com on a mass feeding frenzy.

For reference 6k mass in bombers will get you 16k dmg each pass.