Forged Alliance Forever Forged Alliance Forever Forums 2012-05-08T19:41:00+02:00 /feed.php?f=11&t=561 2012-05-08T19:41:00+02:00 2012-05-08T19:41:00+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=561&p=12689#p12689 <![CDATA[Re: The great and powerful Tempest]]>
Jace wrote:
From the time i was modding i think there could be a few technical problems with having a flying Unit go to ground level and still move though :/


Yeah i though there might since Supcom has no Sea Planes (like T.A had), or shallows that land units can 'wade' through, perhaps also why the underwater transports that were announced before Vanilla release had to be cut.
Still it would be awsome to see a CZAR suddenly surface out of the water next to your base and start beaming you. CZAR was the most impressive unit when you first saw it in Vanilla, now when u see one coming toward you, you just laugh.. shame.

Statistics: Posted by Crayfish — 08 May 2012, 19:41


]]>
2012-05-08T19:35:41+02:00 2012-05-08T19:35:41+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=561&p=12687#p12687 <![CDATA[Re: The great and powerful Tempest]]> Statistics: Posted by Jace — 08 May 2012, 19:35


]]>
2012-05-08T19:31:36+02:00 2012-05-08T19:31:36+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=561&p=12686#p12686 <![CDATA[Re: The great and powerful Tempest]]> Statistics: Posted by Crayfish — 08 May 2012, 19:31


]]>
2012-05-08T02:46:32+02:00 2012-05-08T02:46:32+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=561&p=12614#p12614 <![CDATA[Re: The great and powerful Tempest]]>
noobymcnoobcake wrote:
Atlantis cost 50 mass/buildtime. Kennels are 35. No it doe no need buff because on top of that you get a very powerful submarine and 150 air staging platforms.

Aeon T3 battleship is more like the UEF battlecruiser as an anti ship unit. Fast (3.6 speed instead of summits 2.5), Low range(100 instead of 128 or 150), high DPS and low trajectory. The missile ship is the anti base unit. It is the worst battleship and I would like to make it cheaper than the other battleships as it does not fill the same role.



that's a pretty astute analysis, i think that's probably the best way to address aeon navy, relative to other navy. that would see aeon battleships more in line with battlecruisers (role/cost wise) and then the tempest would be the ultimate in naval bombardment/domination.

Stuff that be a problem off the top of my head includes how aircraft carriers fit in (specifically the uef) relative to a buffed tempest and aeon cruiser-esque battleship. that wouldn't be too hard to address though - just buff aircraft carrier hp

Statistics: Posted by Veta — 08 May 2012, 02:46


]]>
2012-05-07T10:58:10+02:00 2012-05-07T10:58:10+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=561&p=12589#p12589 <![CDATA[Re: The great and powerful Tempest]]>
Aeon T3 battleship is more like the UEF battlecruiser as an anti ship unit. Fast (3.6 speed instead of summits 2.5), Low range(100 instead of 128 or 150), high DPS and low trajectory. The missile ship is the anti base unit. It is the worst battleship and I would like to make it cheaper than the other battleships as it does not fill the same role.

Statistics: Posted by noobymcnoobcake — 07 May 2012, 10:58


]]>
2012-05-06T11:32:32+02:00 2012-05-06T11:32:32+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=561&p=12484#p12484 <![CDATA[Re: The great and powerful Tempest]]>
Jace wrote:
Veta wrote:Tempest and Aeon T3 Battleship need buffs relative to other navy - T3 Aeon Battleship is a joke and the Tempest isn't viable whatsoever when 1 UEF Battleship can beat it 1v1.


lol?

T3 navy is messed up right now, but relative to the UEF Battleship or even those of other factions the Aeon BS really needs calibrating (not saying everyone should have an equivalent battleship) it's just awkward right now. Also the Tempest should stay a clearly XP/T4 unit but it should just be repurposed/buffed relative to other navy. And as far as Atlantis vs Tempest balance goes, maybe the Atlantis does need retuning too, right now it's only used as a super sub right?

Edit: I'm just getting back into FA so if I'm missing something about naval balance disregard what I'm saying

Statistics: Posted by Veta — 06 May 2012, 11:32


]]>
2012-05-06T10:27:58+02:00 2012-05-06T10:27:58+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=561&p=12470#p12470 <![CDATA[Re: The great and powerful Tempest]]>
Veta wrote:
Tempest and Aeon T3 Battleship need buffs relative to other navy - T3 Aeon Battleship is a joke and the Tempest isn't viable whatsoever when 1 UEF Battleship can beat it 1v1.


lol?

Statistics: Posted by Jace — 06 May 2012, 10:27


]]>
2012-05-06T10:18:38+02:00 2012-05-06T10:18:38+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=561&p=12466#p12466 <![CDATA[Re: The great and powerful Tempest]]>
Double Tempest HP, buff it somehow, but don't lower cost - keep it experimental in tier!. And then T3 Navy in general needs to be repurposed, but the main battleships need rebalancing as well.

Statistics: Posted by Veta — 06 May 2012, 10:18


]]>
2012-05-05T22:40:52+02:00 2012-05-05T22:40:52+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=561&p=12438#p12438 <![CDATA[Re: The great and powerful Tempest]]> battleship for a reason, so I'd say it really should be a more powerful version of the T3 battleship. Add to that the extra perk of constructing a T2 navy and I think you're there.

However, the cost reduction you proposed gives somewhat the same effect, along with the big damage for a shot and the high range it already has.

I may also not have clarified myself enough (if at all) on the "fatboy" role you propose. I agree with that role completely, it can build a T2 naval force and that should remain so (perhaps add the strategic missile sub to it because that unit looks small enough to fit in the construction area). I think everyone agrees on that part (note that the build power of this unit is 240 where that of the fatboy is 180 so it does build quick enough). That should be maintained I think. The thing that is missing is the battleship role and that should be restored with a HP bonus (damage is really good now).

About the price: it is extremely expensive but the T3 naval is too cheap. Fix that pricetag first and then review the price of the Tempest.

Statistics: Posted by Plasma_Wolf — 05 May 2012, 22:40


]]>
2012-05-05T19:19:36+02:00 2012-05-05T19:19:36+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=561&p=12420#p12420 <![CDATA[Re: The great and powerful Tempest]]>
Plasma_Wolf wrote:
I agree with noobytoolongofanamecake, but the tempest should have the HP up to 70K. Plain and simple. The cost increase of the T3 fleet has already been discussed and kind of approved of (Though an increase to the old value would be too much). This will put the tempest back into the "useful" zone. Also because of the fact that it does have a factory, as you just pointed out.


I suppose that would put it in line with the 'Battleship' moniker and warrant its pricetag.

Statistics: Posted by ElCapitan — 05 May 2012, 19:19


]]>
2012-05-05T16:41:47+02:00 2012-05-05T16:41:47+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=561&p=12398#p12398 <![CDATA[Re: The great and powerful Tempest]]>
Gyle wrote:
If you wanna focus on an injustice with the experimentals you gotta give it to Sera and UEF. UEF still lacking a punch bot to lead with in an attack and Sera is the only race not to have an experimental with some epic production capability.


I kind of like that the factions are diverse in that way at T4, it would be pretty boring to have every race have a supersub, megabot etc.. Its not like UEF really lack a punch with Percys + Shields anyway, and the Fatboy is actualy more usefull in alot of situations than a short range bot.

Statistics: Posted by Crayfish — 05 May 2012, 16:41


]]>
2012-05-05T13:59:32+02:00 2012-05-05T13:59:32+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=561&p=12383#p12383 <![CDATA[Re: The great and powerful Tempest]]> Statistics: Posted by Plasma_Wolf — 05 May 2012, 13:59


]]>
2012-05-05T11:53:26+02:00 2012-05-05T11:53:26+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=561&p=12375#p12375 <![CDATA[Re: The great and powerful Tempest]]>
noobymcnoobcake wrote:
Increase the tempest hp from 35k to 55k. Nobody can and say it will be op. then leave it for a while and it can be changed more if needed.


I don't think that's the right way to go. It would easily kill an Atlantis this way but still be so ridiculous expensive there's no reason to ever build one.
Part of that problem is the current T3 BSes.
I think reducing its price by around 1/3 would be more in line with the idea of making it viable.

In my opinion it is some kind of the water-Fatboy.
Produces units of the same kind, decend defense (torp defense, surbmersible) [where fatboy has its shield], bad HP, high range weapons.

Statistics: Posted by ElCapitan — 05 May 2012, 11:53


]]>
2012-05-05T11:22:34+02:00 2012-05-05T11:22:34+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=561&p=12370#p12370 <![CDATA[Re: The great and powerful Tempest]]> Statistics: Posted by noobymcnoobcake — 05 May 2012, 11:22


]]>
2012-05-04T11:39:50+02:00 2012-05-04T11:39:50+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=561&p=12277#p12277 <![CDATA[Re: The great and powerful Tempest]]>
monty wrote:
Jace wrote:I have a solution: Just delete it!
I am serious here! What do Aeon need a water XP for?
They have already very strong Land and Air EXPs. They have even a MavorCopy! They have a InfiniteMassFab!
Cybrans have just Land and Air too,
UEF has only Land and Navy.
Sera have only Land and Air.

Aeon have lived forever without that thing, so just remove it?
Are Aeon so weak that anything would justify them having strong EXPS for Land,Air and Navy?


CZAR is not strong. its only good when it crashes. the cybran's soul ripper is better


Don't you dare! lol
Czar can not be counted as an affective weapon at all! its most as far as I'm concerned the only reason you would consider building it in any game other then one you are already way ahead in, is to use it for its pimp air production.

You can use it to crash on front line defenses if you're lucky but since it gets shot out of the air in ONE pass from 60 ASF's if you are facing an opponent who even is vaguely competent it will never get near your base or army.

If you wanna focus on an injustice with the experimentals you gotta give it to Sera and UEF. UEF still lacking a punch bot to lead with in an attack and Sera is the only race not to have an experimental with some epic production capability.

Statistics: Posted by Gyle — 04 May 2012, 11:39


]]>