@mazornoob said in Satellite overperforming.:

If we're talking so late in the game that e costs no longer matter then the opposing team should afford tele def anywhere they have antinuke anyway.

People just naturally overbuild E late in the game, if you naturally hoard 50k mass then this will be true.
It's also not that E costs don't matter, but they are less relevant than mass costs, since if you at some point needed E for something you invested the mass already but the E production will continue for the rest of the game.

@mazornoob said in Satellite overperforming.:

Yes I am. Nukes are yet another "target anywhere on the map, has a specific per-area cost counter that you need ahead of time" weapon that has yet another counter with different numbers. Doesn't make the underlying mechanics much different.

A GC can also walk anywhere on the map and shoot things down so where's the difference?
The difference between a GC and a Novax is similar to the difference between a Novax and Telemazor. You can see and defend against a GC on it's way to its target, while you can only see the Novax and have to prepare defenses at it's target position + it's faster.
Telemazer you cannot intercept or even detect on it's way and it's also way faster than a sattelite.

@mazornoob said in Satellite overperforming.:

How is paying 20k mass and 2 million e for a telemazer not an opportunity cost?

That's just cost, the Novax needs to travel to places and the enemy can just concentrate on building defenses where it's going. against telemazer you need your defenses up everywhere at all times.

@mazornoob said in Satellite overperforming.:

Fighter-bombers obviously won't protect the telemazer target in the first place sure, that's the job for T2 PDs. Their purpose is to ensure the first tele is the last one, and this they can do no problem.

As soon as you build your t2 pd you lost to the telemazer because making it is more expensive than the telemazer was. So while you think you just countered the tele, in fact you just lost some mass to the enemy.
Also because Telemazer is hard to scout and arrives very fast you need to start preparing such defenses even before a telemazer is out, so you need to invest in useless PDs in your core base just because your enemy is Cybran.

@mazornoob said in Satellite overperforming.:

Conceding the Novax DPS analysis, except again, you have to factor in the cost of shielding all the mexes where otherwise you wouldn't bother because SAMs stop strats and no one will nuke/arty/Asswasher random lone T3 mexes.

The math presented doesn't factor in shields because it assumes you don't build any. Making shields would be more effective, but even if you just rebuild the mexes destroyed by the Novax it's not that expensive, because it has such low dps.

@cocucka said in Punish bad lobbies:

All in all, this sounds like matchmaking 2.0) with much more control of games.

This rather sounds like matchmaking 0.5
Like what you actually want is a matchmaking queue for dual gap, where you can check slots you prefer or even only play those slots.

What you are proposing is just making custom games less custom, which might be a good thing in these very specific scenarios, though I doubt even there it'll actually make things better.

There is no reason to do any of this when adding a matchmaking queue is more effective and requires 95% less effort.

@mazornoob said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:

Telemazer ACU and Novax aren't really comparable since Novax isn't putting itself in harm's way. Once you kill the ACU that's it. So arguably, we should compare the cost of shielding everything with Novax not against "kill ACU before it does damage, everywhere" defenses, but against "kill ACU before it does damage in the few places where it can lose me the game, and kill it before it teleports otherwise" defenses. AKA packs of TMLs here and there rather than PDs and shields all over the place.

You should also factor in when you need to start making those defenses, which is once you see the novax, then you might loose a few mexes if your too slow (so he already put his 50k mass in)
vs
once the game launches and your opponent has cybran, because scouting the enemy ACU making tele and/or laser isn't really feasible and if you start making defenses once the upgrades are done, you already lost the game. (you need to preemptively spend mass to prevent the eventual laser snipe)

@mazornoob said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:

Nerf to mazer damage also nerfed non-tele strategies, which is sad.

They are worse, but cloak-laser is still kinda doable or not?

@mazornoob said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:

It's weird for a naval equivalent of a T3 PD to be outranged by regular lower-tech units. It's as if Ravagers were outranged by Hoplites, except you also can't build shields in the water.

I don't think it's fair to compare torp launchers to pd, as even in the t1/t2 stage they just function very differently

@mazornoob said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:

I lost all hope in the balance team when they made a blanket 15% increase in vision for all units without a warning, passed it off as a minor technical fix and increased deceiver stealth radius by 15% to "compensate" as if it was an equivalent exchange in any way.

I also think the vision upgrades were handed out a bit too liberally with the argument of fixing the vision bug. I think structures and some units that already have a vastly larger range than they have vision should be exempt or at least be argued for differently as to why the change is made.