Forged Alliance Forever

Re: Air experimentals

2011-11-06T08:10:19+02:00

Good luck with your static shipyard in a middle of a fight
Yeh you can rebuild your shipyard for cheaper and embrace the waste of time!
Let's not forget that the tempest is a whole not just a fact.

Its a viable on site factory (like the fat boy) in support of units + atlantis like sub (it actually owns very very badly one atlantis) + battleship fire power that you can submerge if needed (9seconds to do it, it's slow but enough to dodge bombing) + HUGE water vision (like the atlantis) which annihilates any stealth. You have all that at the same time.

So you can fight one atlantis, get it its spanking, at the same time shooting shields like you had a battleship.Doesn't sound that bad to me .

Now that you guys added ship wrecks , it's even more usefull since it can produce engies next to the the wrecks.

In a fight configuration TEMPEST vs ATLANTIS + BSHIP, the tempest LOSES. So I will agree that adding like 10k HP would be a good thing. But even without those, people just don't give enough credit to the tempest imho.

Statistics: Posted by -_V_- — 06 Nov 2011, 08:10

Re: Air experimentals

2011-11-06T07:46:41+02:00

Food for thought:
A modest team of 40 T1 engineers has a combined build rate of 200. (They cost 2,080 mass)

40 T1 engineers can build a T2 Naval factory in ~10 seconds for 1470 Mass.

After that, they can build T2 ships at the exact same rate as a Tempest. Now, obviously, this setup is even more vulnerable than a Tempest, and it lacks a Tempest's offensive power, mobility, and intel range. But the fact is that Tempests are incredibly slow (speed 2.5) and, even though you seem to think it's trivial to submerge them, that takes time (especially if they're sitting there building ships). So if you're imagining a very well defended position, one with shields and cruisers to keep things secure, then a forward-built naval yard might be safe too. (If you upgrade the yard to T3 it actually has more HP than a Tempest, so that's a plus).

So, we may disagree here, but if I was playing a large enough and rich enough map where I wanted to be reinforcing my fleet near the front lines, I'd probably just spend a few thousand mass on a couple of transports and T1 engineers and build a new shipyard. If you're in a situation where you might need a mobile naval yard, odds are that you've taken an enemy island and so you might as well build a new base there anyway.

I still don't see the Tempest as a good investment in that case, and I don't think I've ever seen a game or replay where someone used one to great effect... in any role. I've seen them built, yes, but I've also been silly enough to build CZARs in some of my games. That doesn't make it a good idea.

Statistics: Posted by Mr Pinguin — 06 Nov 2011, 07:46

Re: Air experimentals

2011-11-06T07:01:57+02:00

Mr Pinguin wrote:
So the fact that the Tempest loses pretty easily to two Atlantis is hardly a sign that the Tempest is balanced.

Where did I say that ? I believe the word I used was "underestimated", not "balanced".
I said that for the same cost of 2 atlantis (a bit more , agreed) you have the power of one atlantis and one battleship in terms of DPS. Having a battleship fire power you can submerge if needed is not negligible.

Really though, I don't think it makes sense to balance the Tempest directly off of the Atlantis anyway. Neither one is meant to be a counter for the other.

Well for me atlantis is the direct counter to tempest.

What is far more important is that the Tempest, like the CZAR, is incredibly vulnerable to being sniped by air. The Atlantis can perform its factory duties while sitting hidden and (relatively) safe under the ocean. If it is threatened by torp bombers, it can surface and fend them off in modest numbers.

Well you're not supposed to surface when there are air units that can shoot ur stuff, and even so, do you think your CZAR will be without surrounding cruisers, flaks and shields ?
Usually it will be the same for atlantis, it won't be alone.

The Tempest, on the other hand, has to sit on the surface, completely immobile and defenseless, when it's working as a factory. Sitting still like this is dangerous even near your own base since the Tempest is such a huge investment (and thus a huge target for the enemy). Asylum shield bubbles are too small to stack them in any great numbers over the factory. Bombers, gunships, torp planes, and enemy vessels are all a huge threat.

I already invalidated your points. And sorry but LOL if your tempest is - i quote - "near your own base" and you don't see the torps/bombers soon enough to submerge your tempest. Furthermore let's not forget that t2 is slower than than t3 air, therefore your CZAR will be faster subject of possible attacks than a tempest and so far I didn't see flying shields.
Stopping an attack of t2 air or even t3 torp/strat bomb is much easier to stop a swarm of asf from shooting down a czar.

Moreover, even in battle the Tempest is hard to use. It's not very maneuverable, and that's critically important when you're facing off against high damage, long-ranged guns from other Bships. Likewise, its uber gun is slow to fire and relatively easy for enemy ships to dodge, even with its big AoE.

That is true. The moving of the tempest is horrible. What you say on the aeo is true too, but to me the point of this weapon is to take down packed shields and bases.

The Tempest can be fun to use in a campaign or if you're clearly dominating a match, but I can't believe you're suggesting that someone would build one for 'serious' use as a front-line mobile factory (it can only build T1 and T2 anyway..). Rather than spending 28k Mass on a Tempest, an Aeon player would be much better off building 3 whole Omen battleships and some Exodus and Asylums. Even with 55k hp, the Tempest would still be a risky investment. At 35k hp, it's comically bad imo.

"only" t2, hum like the destroyers and cruisers ? Yeah those are irrelevant .

Now, if the Tempest could build Asylums.. maybe then it would be almost-kind-of-but-not-really worth the cost and risk of dragging it to the front lines.

Of course you don't put in in front front for it to be shot down, you put in where you fight, using it range and then produce destro/cruisers that arrive in a matter of secs. I hope you are aware that when it comes to navy the time for your units to arrive is a lot more crucial than with land and air. and that "detail" can make you win or lose a battle.

I re-read one of my last posts and realized i forgot the word "not" in my last sentence. Might be the reason of the misunderstanding.

I'm NOT sayin it doesn't need a buff, I just observe that you guys underestimate its efficiency.

Statistics: Posted by -_V_- — 06 Nov 2011, 07:01

Re: Air experimentals

2011-11-06T06:36:39+02:00

-_V_- wrote:
Let's compare what whould be compared.

1 v 1 Tempest owns atlantis, it's a like a joke. But of course half the mass or so ...
2 v 1 Tempest shots down one atlantis. BUT let's not forget that for the tempest is like the combination of an atlantis + battleship + very fast factory ON SITE

I'm sayin it doesn't need a buff, I just observe that you guys underestimate its efficiency.

This is a bit silly as a comparison. First of all, 1 Tempest costs 28k Mass, 350k E. Two Atlantises cost 24k Mass and 300k E.

So the fact that the Tempest loses pretty easily to two Atlantis is hardly a sign that the Tempest is balanced. Really though, I don't think it makes sense to balance the Tempest directly off of the Atlantis anyway. Neither one is meant to be a counter for the other.

What is far more important is that the Tempest, like the CZAR, is incredibly vulnerable to being sniped by air. The Atlantis can perform its factory duties while sitting hidden and (relatively) safe under the ocean. If it is threatened by torp bombers, it can surface and fend them off in modest numbers.

The Tempest, on the other hand, has to sit on the surface, completely immobile and defenseless, when it's working as a factory. Sitting still like this is dangerous even near your own base since the Tempest is such a huge investment (and thus a huge target for the enemy). Asylum shield bubbles are too small to stack them in any great numbers over the factory. Bombers, gunships, torp planes, and enemy vessels are all a huge threat. Moreover, even in battle the Tempest is hard to use. It's not very maneuverable, and that's critically important when you're facing off against high damage, long-ranged guns from other Bships. Likewise, its uber gun is slow to fire and relatively easy for enemy ships to dodge, even with its big AoE.

The Tempest can be fun to use in a campaign or if you're clearly dominating a match, but I can't believe you're suggesting that someone would build one for 'serious' use as a front-line mobile factory (it can only build T1 and T2 anyway..). Rather than spending 28k Mass on a Tempest, an Aeon player would be much better off building 3 whole Omen battleships and some Exodus and Asylums. Even with 55k hp, the Tempest would still be a risky investment. At 35k hp, it's comically bad imo.

Now, if the Tempest could build Asylums.. maybe then it would be almost-kind-of-but-not-really worth the cost and risk of dragging it to the front lines.

Statistics: Posted by Mr Pinguin — 06 Nov 2011, 06:36

Re: Air experimentals

2011-11-06T06:08:09+02:00

Is that a joke ?

GO ahead and produce asf on site, where you need them.

Then compare the time your tempest gets killed in a GAME where you produce on site , i.e. in support a strong navy with some shields and stuff.

Stop just looking at the stats, and imagine the real game situations. I am assuming of course decent playing and not a player who would make little navy (or none) and just send a tempest.

Statistics: Posted by -_V_- — 06 Nov 2011, 06:08

Re: Air experimentals

2011-11-06T06:05:20+02:00

-_V_- wrote:
There's a big difference. The CZAR is completely vulnerable if you want to produce on site.
The tempest isn't.

How do you mean? CZAR dies to ASFs makes it more vulnerable? Tempest can die from further away with bships :-p

Statistics: Posted by FunkOff — 06 Nov 2011, 06:05

Re: Air experimentals

2011-11-06T06:02:19+02:00

There's a big difference. The CZAR is completely vulnerable if you want to produce on site.
The tempest isn't.

Statistics: Posted by -_V_- — 06 Nov 2011, 06:02

Re: Air experimentals

2011-11-06T05:24:14+02:00

Should be noted that the Tempest suffers from the same the Czar does. Because you have to pay for a factory as well as the experimental instead of a pure combat unit, it should never be cost efficient as other pure combat units. If we were to buff the Tempest the only things I think we should only buff the range and the muzzle velocity. That way it could do a better job as a supporting unit from the rear.

Statistics: Posted by microwavelazer — 06 Nov 2011, 05:24

Re: Air experimentals

2011-11-06T07:03:18+02:00

Let's compare what should be compared.

1 v 1 Tempest owns atlantis, it's a like a joke. But of course half the mass or so ...
2 v 1 Tempest shots down one atlantis. BUT let's not forget that for the tempest is like the combination of an atlantis + battleship + very fast factory ON SITE

I'm NOT sayin it doesn't need a buff, I just observe that you guys underestimate its efficiency.

Statistics: Posted by -_V_- — 06 Nov 2011, 02:12

Re: Air experimentals

2011-11-06T01:31:59+02:00

Plasma_Wolf wrote:
Aeon Omen Bship: 100
Seraphim Bship: 128
Cybran Galaxy Bship: 150
UEF Summit Bship: 150

This is just a little quibble, but unless you guys have changed something I don't know about, the Summit is the only 150 range T3 Bship. (The galaxy has a range of 128, like the Seraphim).
http://www.faforever.com/faf/unitsDB/su ... bp=URS0302

The BattleCruiser's "relative" equivalent isn't a frigate. If you see any frigates at the time a BattleCruiser is in the field, something has gone wrong. Anyway, I doubt the BC would be at such a disadvantage against frigates like the Tempest is against Battleships.

Frigate vs BattleCruiser:
Mass: 260 - 6000 (factor ~= 23)
Build time: 1300 - 12000 (factor ~= 10)
Range: 28 - 80 (factor ~= 3)
DPS: ~50 - 560 (factor ~= 11)

Additionally, the Battlecruiser's laser is instant.

Actually, with the 3603 buff T1 Frigates can be very cost effective, even against T3 ships. Frigates beat destroyers, frigates can overwhelm T2 torp defense (Destroyers cannot), and T1 frigates can even overwhelm Neptunes so long as the Neptune doesn't kite them. If the Neptune kites, then it's a long, drawn out chase that is harder to judge. Of course, mobs of frigates are vulnerable to subs and the massive splash damage from UEF battleships, so they're still not the best counter. But they can, according to my tests, beat Neptunes head-on.

Statistics: Posted by Mr Pinguin — 06 Nov 2011, 01:31

Re: Air experimentals

2011-11-06T01:16:04+02:00

-_V_- wrote:
Hum one word : range ?

Mass for mass, battlecruisers would be owned by frigates ...

Tempest: 150
Aeon Omen Bship: 100
Seraphim Bship: 128
Cybran Galaxy Bship: 150
UEF Summit Bship: 150
The factor of range varies from 1 to 1.5

As I said, the Damage figures aren't very much in the advantage for the Tempest either. HP is lower and mass cost is 10 times as large.

Conclusion: The tempest easily gets owned by its "relative" equivalents in the form of raw data. Additionally, the Tempest has a 10 second recharge time and a relatively slow projectile.

The BattleCruiser's "relative" equivalent isn't a frigate. If you see any frigates at the time a BattleCruiser is in the field, something has gone wrong. Anyway, I doubt the BC would be at such a disadvantage against frigates like the Tempest is against Battleships.

Frigate vs BattleCruiser:
Mass: 260 - 6000 (factor ~= 23)
Build time: 1300 - 12000 (factor ~= 10)
Range: 28 - 80 (factor ~= 3)
DPS: ~50 - 560 (factor ~= 11)

Additionally, the Battlecruiser's laser is instant.

Also: Would it be better if this topic was called "experimentals and their stats" rather than just "Air Experimentals"?

Statistics: Posted by Plasma_Wolf — 06 Nov 2011, 01:16

Re: Air experimentals

2011-11-06T00:49:48+02:00

FunkOff wrote:
Yes, the Tempest sucks. I wouldn't mind buffing it substantially (+100% health or so...)

I agree that the Tempest is a joke in 3599/3603 balance. However, I tested it a bit and decided that a buff to 55k HP was about right.

At 55k HP, the Tempest is still clearly inferior to T3 battleships for cost (on the surface), but that follows the game's standard pattern of T3 vs T4 balance (T3 specialists are always better for cost vs T4 multi-role units, and that makes sense to me).

I tested the Tempest at higher HP (60k), and it seemed pretty reasonable in most situations. However, it's important to note that the Tempest also has excellent torpedoes and at 60k hitpoints it was challenging the Atlantis for submersible dominance. This could be debated, but I personally felt like the Atlantis was already pretty well balanced for its utility and I wanted to keep it a bit stronger than the Tempest.

On that same note, I'd actually considered buffing the Megalith's underwater performance (either in speed or DPS), but I never got around to testing it. I know that the Megalith is pretty strong under the sea, but it also costs a friggin' fortune and its torps can be easily nullified by something like a pack of UEF Coopers (because of their uber torp defense).

Statistics: Posted by Mr Pinguin — 06 Nov 2011, 00:49

Re: Air experimentals

2011-11-06T00:35:07+02:00

Land exp. do 10times more damage in comparison to naval or air exp. Buffing them would be much welcome from my pov.

Statistics: Posted by Pavese — 06 Nov 2011, 00:35

Re: Air experimentals

2011-11-06T00:30:41+02:00

Hum one word : range ?

Mass for mass, battlecruisers would be owned by frigates ...

Statistics: Posted by -_V_- — 06 Nov 2011, 00:30

Re: Air experimentals

2011-11-05T20:45:35+02:00

uberge3k wrote:
Unfortunately, I don't think I've even built a Tempest. Therefore I can't comment on their pros or cons... or perhaps I can?

Introducing The Special Guest Star of Units No One Builds: The Tempest
A picture is worth a thousand words: http://www.faforever.com/faf/unitsDB/su ... 01,UAS0302

Perhaps more in this case.

That displays it rather well. 84% of the dps for 32% of the mass cost. The range is lower as well, but with such weapons, high range isn't the most useful of all things imo (well, if you want to attack land I suppose).

The factory is good enough as it is I think and the enormous speed at which you can build a Tempest should remain the same too.

Then you have the simple statistic of health. 35K against about 50K for the battleships. And the tempest is more than three times as expensive... It's an obvious target so I think it should have an obvious amount of HP. Maybe Funk's 100% increase is a bit over the top but for 3x the mass and about the 20%-25% more dps than the normal battleships, 70K HP doesn't sound too bad.

Statistics: Posted by Plasma_Wolf — 05 Nov 2011, 20:45