T2 torpedo turrets are awful
-
Buffing T2 torps range will disadvantage Cybran navy (unless you buff it up to 70-80). Also, doing this leads to increasing already good range of HARMS (otherwise, what's the point). That's why I suggested making them movable, as it makes them a bit more versatile.
By the way, these two options are not mutually exclusive - why not both?
-
Why is it just being implicitly taken to be a good thing that more static navy gameplay is a great thing? Why would you even bother with uef destros if uef had a 85 range (salems outrange cyb cruisers btw) t2 torp launcher?
Why do you need more reason to make cruisers again? Why are people talking about unit mix as though navy isn’t the most healthy theater of the game in terms of unit mix already? How is buffing torp launchers that already currently are problematic for sera destros, will obsolete uef destros, and god knows what else to aeon/cyb gameplay a good change?
-
If anything td p2 are op and should be nerfed. The current balance for t2 torps is way healthier for gameplay and theyre not bad to make at all
-
Do you have any high rated replays of T2 torpedo defence being built? Might be good to have some context in what situations you might want to build them
-
@FtXCommando okay, let me re-explain. My point is NOT that T2 torps are weak / underpowered.
My main point is that T2 torps should be changed. They rarely appear in games, and are mostly built by new players, by my experience. Now, T2 torps just do not fit in navy battle kit available for players. And there are very few units/building that are that misfitting. Can you disagree with that?
What's the change is a different question. Personally, I prefer movability over range. It's not a big buff, but makes T2 torps more versatile (moving towards to halt the enemy attack temporarely, supporting your attack, intercepting incoming annoying t1 subs on maps like dual gap, micro them to avoid some fire, etc.). Right now, they are just a static obstacle which says "hit me with your t2 destroyers / cruisers a bit before entering my pond". Compare these two situation. How it a better gameplay? In my opinion, first one (imaginary, yes) provides richer decision-making both for you and your opponent.
Also, in my opinion, this quite fits overall idea of balance in FAF: it's quite uniform, but almost all units have some quirks that distinguish them across races / tech tiers. Let T2 now-static torp launchers have their time to shine, their place to fit in the players' toolkits. Now, they are like t1 torps, but crappier.
-
@Saver Please do! It would be interesting to actually test it out.
-
@rampeer ok, I will create a mod for this test in the coming week . Is there an estimation of what speed the launchers should get? similar to the T3 Sonar? or lower?
-
Destroyer speed is 5, Cruisers and T3 sonar speeds are 4.5 (I was surprised by these numbers, btw). Battleships speed is 3-ish.
Giving T2 turrets same speed as cruisers / more than battleships seems a bit too much (picture a battleship running from a flock of T2 torp launchers - it's funny but not right).
What about 2.5?
*Just realized that the thread is not in the balance-related forum. Oops
-
M maudlin27 moved this topic from Suggestions on
-
Hello,
I finished my terrace earlier today, so I had time for the mod. I tested the speed at 2.5 and found it to be too fast for what should be a stationary setup. I have therefore set the speed to 1.You can also test the mod yourself. It is now on FAF.
mobile T2 Torpedo Launcher
-
Just FYI - all T2 torp defense also have personal stealth so if moveable they will not show on radar / sonar after you lose vision of them… this would actually make them more useful as (semi) static defense if they had very slow speed (0.1 is minimum I believe)
-
@Blade_Walker it would be annoying to micro
-
Will try with bots ASAP!
Did not know t2 turrets have stealth (checked unit DB, it's true). But as it's a building, once spotted (by air scout, for example) the radar blip will always remain while it's in the zone of a radar - right? Sounds like a strange feature
The more this thread goes on, the more I discover. They are half the price of a destroyer for about the same HP and DPS; not all factions' destroyers outrange T2 torps; they have steath. Maybe underutilization is just a meta thing?
-
So, I played a couple of games with movable torp launchers. Here are my findings.
@Saver Thank you a lot!
@Sainse : you are correct. Despite being very slow, turning speed allows maneuvering them around enemies with ease (especially given stealth). Maybe nerfing turning speed will help that.
To sum up:
- It's too easy to kite with them, given high turning speed. That's bad, as I described above.
- They seem fast enough and just shred T1 crap. Movespeed is enough to move turrets in range and intercept units trying to get these juicy engie kills. That's good.
- They seem too slow to be in right position during attack. Maybe it's good: their slow speed gives away their trajectory and position, and to effectively push using them, one has to decide: push now, and bombard engineers / factories using current army, OR: push a bit later, wait for T2 torps for extra power.
- T2 torps guarantee you safe retreat (after failed push, as they can kite, unless it's due to enemy T2 torp bombers). Another strategic use!
So, I think it's beneficial buff, but it requires some tuning. Movable long-range bombardment tools with stealth are OP now.
-
Dear balance team -- take a note, please.
It might work.
-
You do realise the entire identity of static defenses is that... they're static right? If they're too weak (which they aren't) they should be buffed in a more logical way
-
You are right... it will a movable defence then! Other ways to buff seem to break the game in one way or another, as discussed above
-
If the torp defense is mobile, and most of them have radar stealth, will they re-stealth once they are outside of vision range after some time? That alone could make them interesting, but depending on how fast they move, if they can fire while moving, etc, then why make subs? The range increase would destabilize naval balance for sure. Perhaps with all of the variables that exist in naval play, it shouldn't mimic the way land plays. Subs, amphibious, surface, hover and air can all play a part in the water. There are also no turrets that shoot at the surface that also float on the surface. I've seen mods that have things like that, it throws everything off. Shield towers don't exist on the water either.
Personally, I'd say increase their health, make them stick around for a while longer. No one wants to run up on a bunch of T2 torpedo turrets, shoot them at a distance because it's safe. What if it bought more time?
-
They’re literally already good
-
I see them as really good situational options against UEF and Seraphim navies. It's especially important to note that for some time (as long as I can remember) folks have said that Sera navy is oppressive while any T2 TD will give you a reasonably powerful defensive option against T2 Sera navy if you sensibly combine them with TMD.
For a price of a half of a Destroyer you get about the same DPS, and a bit more HP.
Which is wild to think about because for the same price as one destroyer, you have a defensive option that can:
- fire on twice as many targets to deal with lower tech units (including subs!)
- have more HP than two equal tech naval units
- have the same DPS
They are easily outranged and destroyed by T2 ships.
For only Cybran and Aeon ships. At least for me, that's great faction diversity.
If you're against Cybran and/or Aeon navy then you can't rely on static defences to protect you from destroyers. Sure, every faction has cruisers but only UEF and Seraphim have cruisers that can similarly deal damage to torpedo launchers without being hit back - and those factions can't attack your T2 TD with destroyers without being immediately hit themselves.T2 TD does one thing pretty well: make enemy navy lose momentum.
- Cybran and Aeon navy have to fight at full range
- If you're UEF, that's a good opportunity to micro shield boats to protect your T2 TD - spend your APM to preserve mass and make enemy mass decisions more taxing
- If you're UEF or Seraphim, you can threaten with cruisers
- If you're Cybran or Aeon you could be shooting back just the same
- Sera and UEF navy havy to rely on overwhelming TMD or fighting against T2 TD because they either attack into mass efficient weapons (that can't move, of course) or spend mass on cruisers which are, again, taxable due to the cost of TMD or the opportunity to make your own cruisers
I enjoy using T2 TD. I would like to know how making them movable or some other direct buff (range, damage, etc.) won't also make them that much more oppressive against UEF and Seraphim navy as a result. It's a situational tool that plays into understanding the unit mix of the factions you're playing with and against to make combat more complex.
-
Don't know if this helps but Cybran has t3 TLs and has 2 Experimentals with TLs 1 of which also has TD. Both the Amphibious tank and Brick have TLs. you have t1 and t2 subs with TLs Destroyers and BattleShips also have TLs Destroyers have TD and Walk on land. Cruisers Reflect Tac Missiles. Battleships have TMD Same with ACC. And Nuke subs have TLs. If you have an issue with Torpedoes or Navy Just play Cybran. Cybran is a terrifying force against Navy
