Forged Alliance Forever

Re: Summit Summation

2015-07-29T20:07:48+02:00

Also you point out 10 summits have to fight 13 galaxys, but after one volley it's 10 summits vs 12 galaxys, and they can't even return fire yet, and even when then can you can throw a few shield boats in and freakin steam role those battle ships

Statistics: Posted by yeager — 29 Jul 2015, 20:07

Re: Summit Summation

2015-07-29T19:39:43+02:00

JTG1, you're arguing that the summit range advantage isn't worth anything, but then you flip flop and say that t3 subs are unstoppable due to their range, even though yeager pointed out that the torp defense on coopers is so good that they nullify t3 subs in numbers, especially with shields

I am not arguing that the range advantage isn't worth anything, in fact it certainly is. I think that after the changes in the beta patch that the price is too steep for what you get (see my other long post). I think that they should at least remove the AOE nerf.

Statistics: Posted by JTG1 — 29 Jul 2015, 19:39

Re: Summit Summation

2015-07-29T19:23:20+02:00

JTG1, you're arguing that the summit range advantage isn't worth anything, but then you flip flop and say that t3 subs are unstoppable due to their range, even though yeager pointed out that the torp defense on coopers is so good that they nullify t3 subs in numbers, especially with shields

Statistics: Posted by quark036 — 29 Jul 2015, 19:23

Re: Summit Summation

2015-07-29T11:37:31+02:00

Even though I have no problem with one faction having the strongest late navy, a UEF nerf is needed. Not everything is about Setons of course, but the fact that high level play there simply requires UEF on navy tells you a lot. You could say well you are doing it wrong when you get in a massive standoff with UEF navy, just rush / sub / torp / hover it to death. But superior range, damage and durability (thanks shieldboats) just doesn't play out well in practice.

The way to nerf them would probably be a cost nerf, because touching either the range, damage or shieldboats would remove faction specific traits and ruin faction diversity. We don't want to be playing generic factions with mirror units.

Statistics: Posted by Col_Walter_Kurtz — 29 Jul 2015, 11:37

Re: Summit Summation

2015-07-29T05:51:04+02:00

angus000 wrote:
I'd rather have a health nerf for the summit than an offensive (range/dps) nerf. It makes more sense behind the philosofy of a ranged unit to be fairly strong at attacking and instantly lose when you get to it. The same way the fatboy works. A nerf for bulwarks could also work, or both, even. Now that would be interesting.

Apart from the balance thing, adding E cost when firing would also be a very interesting idea. It could make the game more interesting.

It could, it could also make balancing easier.

Statistics: Posted by yeager — 29 Jul 2015, 05:51

Re: Summit Summation

2015-07-29T05:52:00+02:00

I'd rather have a health nerf for the summit than an offensive (range/dps) nerf. It makes more sense behind the philosophy of a ranged unit to be fairly strong at attacking and instantly lose when you get to it. The same way the fatboy works. A nerf for bulwarks could also work, or both, even. Now that could be interesting.

Apart from the balance thing, adding E cost when firing also sounds good. It could make the game more interesting.

Statistics: Posted by angus000 — 29 Jul 2015, 05:49

Re: Summit Summation

2015-07-29T05:04:32+02:00

JTG1 wrote:
Cooper torp defense is god like, that plus the shields and you barely get hit, if you want put 3 sera subs against a small mix of coopers and shield of equal cost and watch how it plays out (here's a hint, it won't be pretty for sera sub ;D)

Yes they will lose if you let the coopers shoot them from behind the shield but that isn't the correct way to play against that strategy...you would want to outrange them. After all a lot of this thread is about the 22 range advantage of the summit. T3 subs have a 15 range advantage over the cooper. Coopers die like flies if any direct fire gets in or under the shield too.

In small numbers, sure, but like I said, any good player will tell you a critical mass of uef navy is Absolutly untouchable, also once you get 15 coopers tell them to move, hit shift G and just try to get Torps through, if you do we will give you a big fancy trophy, cause it Just doesn't happen

Statistics: Posted by yeager — 29 Jul 2015, 05:04

Re: Summit Summation

2015-07-29T04:59:28+02:00

Cooper torp defense is god like, that plus the shields and you barely get hit, if you want put 3 sera subs against a small mix of coopers and shield of equal cost and watch how it plays out (here's a hint, it won't be pretty for sera sub ;D)

Yes they will lose if you let the coopers shoot them from behind the shield but that isn't the correct way to play against that strategy...you would want to outrange them. After all a lot of this thread is about the 22 range advantage of the summit. T3 subs have a 15 range advantage over the cooper. Coopers die like flies if any direct fire gets in or under the shield too.

Statistics: Posted by JTG1 — 29 Jul 2015, 04:59

Re: Summit Summation

2015-07-29T04:49:53+02:00

JTG1 wrote:
Well if you let the subs under the shield then yeah, they wont last long, but battleships+shield boats + coopers (which you totally under appreciate) with an occasional Neptune is unstoppable, the trick to uef navy is establishing a critical mass of units, once you have done that you can steam role any other faction, aeon can't get under the shield in time, sera have no chance vs a critical mass of coopers, and cybran navy doesn't have anything that can come near that shear force.

Why don't sera have a chance against coopers? T3 subs outrange coopers. You will lose if you just have coopers + shield boats to counter the T3 sub. I am not trying to biased be toward UEF. I play Aeon, Seraphim, and UEF. I just think the summit nerf will cripple their navy then I won't want to play them at all.

Cooper torp defense is god like, that plus the shields and you barely get hit, if you want put 3 sera subs against a small mix of coopers and shield of equal cost and watch how it plays out (here's a hint, it won't be pretty for sera sub ;D)

Statistics: Posted by yeager — 29 Jul 2015, 04:49

Re: Summit Summation

2015-07-29T04:40:10+02:00

Well if you let the subs under the shield then yeah, they wont last long, but battleships+shield boats + coopers (which you totally under appreciate) with an occasional Neptune is unstoppable, the trick to uef navy is establishing a critical mass of units, once you have done that you can steam role any other faction, aeon can't get under the shield in time, sera have no chance vs a critical mass of coopers, and cybran navy doesn't have anything that can come near that shear force.

Why don't sera have a chance against coopers? T3 subs outrange coopers. You will lose if you just have coopers + shield boats to counter the T3 sub. I am not trying to biased be toward UEF. I play Aeon, Seraphim, and UEF. I just think the summit nerf will cripple their navy then I won't want to play them at all.

Statistics: Posted by JTG1 — 29 Jul 2015, 04:40

Re: Summit Summation

2015-07-29T04:28:26+02:00

JTG1 wrote:
2 words bud, shield boats

As I said in the post, shield boats can't solve everything. It isn't that hard to kill them with subs.

Well if you let the subs under the shield then yeah, they wont last long, but battleships+shield boats + coopers (which you totally under appreciate) with an occasional Neptune is unstoppable, the trick to uef navy is establishing a critical mass of units, once you have done that you can steam role any other faction, aeon can't get under the shield in time, sera have no chance vs a critical mass of coopers, and cybran navy doesn't have anything that can come near that shear force. Uef is like a Tom -boy, absolutely 0 forplay but great in the long run

Statistics: Posted by yeager — 29 Jul 2015, 04:28

Re: Summit Summation

2015-07-29T04:17:32+02:00

2 words bud, shield boats

As I said in the post, shield boats can't solve everything. It isn't that hard to kill them with subs.

Statistics: Posted by JTG1 — 29 Jul 2015, 04:17

Re: Summit Summation

2015-07-29T04:01:04+02:00

2 words bud, shield boats

Statistics: Posted by yeager — 29 Jul 2015, 04:01

Re: Summit Summation

2015-07-29T03:46:51+02:00

After reading the beta patch 3645 notes on the summit, I think the nerfs are too extensive. I also agree that we have to consider other maps other then setons. A 1500 (16.6%) increase in mass and a 8000 (14.8%) cost in energy I think is too much. I personally play Setons and Roanoke Abyss a lot and after reading these notes I don't think I will be playing UEF any more (I also play Aeon and Seraphim). The summit is the only decent naval unit that the UEF has and we have to consider the state the UEF navy will be after the nerf. Sure the Battle Cruiser is good against T2 destroyers and T1 ships but it has the same weakness as the WHOLE UEF navy, crappy torpedoes. The UEF destroyer has crap 30 dps torps, the worst out of all of the destroyers by far, the battle cruiser has nearly useless 20 dps torps, and the T2 torp boats have similiar dps/mass as the T2 sub hunters but I find that they always get killed too easily by any direct fire. In order for the torp boats to be effective against a navy with anything other then subs you have to have shield boats. Even with shield boats it takes a lot of micro to keep the shields boats alive and the torp boats in the shields while being able to fire at the subs. UEF T1 subs, like all other T1 subs, have decent dps per mass but they are outranged by all other torpedo units and they have no torp defense as well. Now as for the atlantis, I find that it seems underpowered. 12k mass for 400 dps is just garbage. Sure it has good range (the best along with HARMS and the tempest) but its maneuverability is horrendous compared to other subs and its huge profile makes it very vulnerable to ground fire. It also has no torp defense. At best it is only good for turtling and it just isn't very economical because of the dps per mass.

Now lets break down the battleship stats with this beta patch changes:

UEF Summit:
450 dps,3 3x1000 damage projectile w/20 sec reload time, 150 range, 2 A0E
Move Speed - 2.5, Turn Rate - 25
51000 Health
10500 Mass, 62000 Energy 33000 Build Time

Cybran Galaxy:
450 dps,2 1x900 damage projectile w/4 sec reload time, 128 range, 2 AOE
Move Speed - 3.0, Turn Rate - 30
47000 Health
8000 Mass, 54000 Energy 25200 Build Time

Aeon Omen:
508.7 dps,3 1x1000 damage projectile w/5.9 sec reload time, 100 range, 2 AOE
Move Speed - 3.6, Turn Rate - 35
48000 Health
9000 Mass, 54000 Energy 28800 Build Time

Seraphim Hauthuum:
450 dps,3 1x600 damage projectile w/4 sec reload time, 128 range, 2 AOE
Move Speed - 3.0, Turn Rate - 30
49000 Health
9000 Mass, 54000 Energy 28800 Build Time

Comparing to the stats of Summit to the Galaxy, you pay a huge price for a 22 range advantage and 4k health. On top of that the summit already has its disadvantages. A Cybran commander could build about 13 battleships for the price of 10 summits (31.25% price difference) and what does the UEF commander get?A 22 range advantage and not to mention, worse mobility, slower rate of fire, and no torps. This sounds absurd to me. How is that going to be balanced? 22 range does not justify a 31.25% price hike. Cybran will out spam hands down. All he has to do is move his battleships in slightly closer, the summits cannot kite them, the summits can't retreat (less dps on the back side, slower move speed).

As compared to the Seraphim battleship, the Summit has the same disadvantages as it does against the Galaxy (other than the torps). A seraphim commander could build about 11.6 battleships for the price 10 summits. Again UEF will be out spammed. The UEF navy in the current patch is vulnerable to the deadliness and mobility of the T3 sub hunter, more so with the beta patch since the AOE on the summits has been nerfed. Good luck hitting T3 subs with 2 AOE and 20 sec reload time.

Comparing the Aeon battleship, the situation looks unbalanced as well. An aeon commander will be able to build 11.6 Omens for the price 10 summits. The Aeon battleship has 1.1 more move speed, 10 more turn rate, 58.7 more dps, and a better a fire rate. The UEF summit has 50 range and 3k more health. Here I argue the summit range advantage is mostly nullified by the superior mobility and better dps. Now UEF is at a disadvantage with the cost as well. I just don't see how this is going to be balanced.

In conclusion, I think nerfing the Summit this hard is going to cripple the UEF navy. T2 UEF navy is already at a disadvantage as was stated in this forum thread. I think the AOE nerf is uncalled for and the eco nerf is excessive. After this nerf, the summit just doesn't compete with the others in terms of stats. We will see what happens but it doesn't look good UEF. UEF is at a disadvantage with T2 navy and now doesn't have anything that shines in T3 so what is the point in picking UEF? A small 22 range advantage for a hefty price on its battleship? Shield boats can't solve everything for the UEF navy and they are counterable. If the summit is nerfed, I think the atlantis should at least get a DPS buff.

Statistics: Posted by JTG1 — 29 Jul 2015, 03:46

Re: Summit Summation

2015-07-14T22:30:21+02:00

briang wrote:
IceDreamer you are speaking from a place of 0 naval experience... as someone who plays cybran navy (properly) regularly... I can tell you it is vastly inferior to UEF... A stream of T1 scouts counters stealth... it is almost meaningless at that point. The reason you never see it "DONE" is because it isn't feasible... come play some Seton's and you'll find that out very quickly... The stealth is strong w/ a small force, not in a massive T3 slugfest. And lets not forget that the Galaxy will be applying peanut dps through the endless stream of Bulwarks a proper UEF player will be sending.

A few problems with this. Firstly, lesser experience is not none. Secondly, I had forgotten that Stealth isn't working properly right now. Once it's fixed and working you'll need a lot more than a few scouts to keep track, because targets will reset the second vision is lost. Thirdly, can we move away from Setons please? It's an incredibly contrived, limited naval theater, very compressed and confined, and it's backed up by huge Eco, which itself is a factor favoring the UEF's greater late-game power. Try looking at the factional naval balance on replays from Roanoke's, Glaciers, Flooded Strip Mine, and other such maps where the navies have room to flank, dodge, and sneak. Yes, UEF wins out in the end, but it's by less of a margin and good heavens above Cybrans are strong on those maps.

In fact, on Roanoke's particularly, the vast majority of games I've played and watched on there have resulted in the UEF Navy being overwhelmed by both Cybran and Seraphim in the long run... Somehow... It's possible that there was influence from Air/Land/Experimentals at play, but that's part of the game, we can't take things in a vacuum.

1: Increase Summit cost to 10,000
2: Look at decreasing damage and/or introducing an energy drain on firing, similar to the game's big artillery, which this is fairly close to in terms of range, damage, and collective AOE.

Statistics: Posted by IceDreamer — 14 Jul 2015, 22:30