[Search] Search   [Recent Topics] Recent   [Hottest Topics] Hottest   [Login] Login
3 new units BLASTER class discussion thread
Forum Index » New Feature Request
[Avatar]
Angkor

Messages: 146,
Joined: Mar 27, 2016,
Offline

[Avatar]
Angkor

Messages: 146,
Joined: Mar 27, 2016,
Offline
Let's argue a little here about new units and changes which they will bring shall we? In one place, so it'd be easier for everyone.
Some pro players opinions highly admired. Please?
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1EHJYGWLPbAWJTDej6L49TzpIkNm68hjZcoP1spqNga0/edit#gid=0

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My '2 words':

1) We must keep an eye for new units to not become a PAY-TO-WIN feature. To do so, I don't see any other option than the following: THE NEW UNITS MUST BE DELIVERED IN NERFED, LOWERED STATS, so we can balance them to the up, adding new tactics and strategies with them in the process. Not the other way around, if they will be introduced too strong, they will ruin the game, discourage new players coming, make huge mess and complainment. Also in this point, I'd like to point out that all of the new units are ranged, 2 of them shooting 3 tiles away, so we can't really just compare the numbers with the existing units. It would be even worse than simply comparing stats of swarmer to marauder and speeder.

2) We probably should keep the prices of new units 'around' the current value. Firstly, it would be bad idea if units cost the same as the one existing already. And, secondly, we don't know Xavi's masterplan for a whole new pack of units, so we don't know what to expect.


-----------------------------

some propositions for a 'lowered balance' of new units:

BLASTER units obviously are targeted to battle against heavy units. Probably water units too, but I will skip that topic, because I feel that area is gonna change totally in the next few months.

Attact against light infantry:
it must be LOW. Very low. Otherwise it will ruin all low income maps current and future ones and instead of sending marines and mechas we will just make a wall out of old units and shoot the hell out of everything else.
I propose values around 3-4 if we shall keep the attack range of 3, and 5-6, if attack range is 2.

Attack against aerial:
Again, it must be LOW. Comparable of swarmer, that is 3-4. If not, the whole advantage of KHRALEAN race is lost.

Attack against heavy units.
I feel that if the new units are 'alternative' of the standard tank vs plasma duel or plasma vs pinzer duel, with current price (or about prices, like sapiens unit 350, titans 350, khralean... well, let's just forget about 200 here. It's hardly possible to balance that)...

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at Nov 28, 2016 16:36

[Avatar]
Angkor

Messages: 146,
Joined: Mar 27, 2016,
Offline

[Avatar]
Angkor

Messages: 146,
Joined: Mar 27, 2016,
Offline
Anyway... attack against heavy units should be just a tiny little less than tank units, so around... 9?

Mobility:
regarding low defence, it shouldn't matter in artillery vs blaster duels, so let's just mind it won't be too low or too much regarding the light infantry type and costs. I like them as they are personally. Especially borfly after-attack additional move.

DEFENCE:
Low, as it is. Titans naturally 1-2 higher than a competition for a flaws somewhere else.

HEAL, ABILITIES, VISIBILITY - I don't have any opinion at all.


So, what do you guys think? Please let's argue a little, this is after all the biggest change of... well, all time?

[Avatar]
Duaneski

Messages: 1019,
Joined: Nov 27, 2015,
Offline

[Avatar]
Duaneski

Messages: 1019,
Joined: Nov 27, 2015,
Offline
Angkor we are synced up man! Just mostly copying my posts from the other thread:

There's options. I have said before and I'll say again: since these are going to be paid units, I think it's important they stay more on the underpowered side to start with. I'm sure that the beta testing will help to vet these stat lines and or costs... but to help that process, stats should probably start in a good place!

I don't know if this is an option, but....

Would it be at all possible to assign an attack bonus to the BLASTER units when attacking the TANK class units?

This would allow you to reduce the GH attack of the units, which really helps because a 14 GH on a 300 cost unit w a threat range of 5 means dead artillery / Walker / wyrm. It also makes these units trade pretty well with the 250 cost units.

This also, again, would specialize the class.

Since it would still be a cheap ranged unit, it would still see play too, I believe.

Here's the stat line I'm imagining for the bopper (that name is starting to grow on me, yeah ;p):

Range 1-3
GL 4
GH 7*
Aerial 3
Aq 10
Mobility 7
Cost 300

*double GH attack against tank, pinzer, or plasmatank

Or... a cooldown ability that adds to GH or just overall attack for the turn would be good. Like +4-7 to GH with a 2-3 turn cooldown would really force the player to choose their target wisely. I know it's more programming either way.

It is Probably easier to just adjust the stats overall. Which I think means you probably want to start with
GL 3, GH 9-11, aerial 2, aq 9, cost 300.




[Avatar]
simsverd

Messages: 921,
Joined: Dec 02, 2010,
Location: Bergen, Norway
Offline

[Avatar]
simsverd

Messages: 921,
Joined: Dec 02, 2010,
Location: Bergen, Norway
Offline
My 2 cents..

I think its hard to evaluate the balance just by looking at stats. The new units have a very high GH and a very low defence.. so its hard to say how they will survive just behind the "front". Seems like 2 hits from a light infantry unit will kill all these tank-buster units.

I think perhaps GH, GL and air should be lower, but i disagree that it must change before beta-testing.




Moderator of gamechat and forum. Tourney admin.

Send me a PM here or invite me to a game if you want to ask me something, suggest a map for tourney or just wanna play a game
[Email]
heskey30

Messages: 1,
Joined: Aug 27, 2016,
Offline

heskey30

Messages: 1,
Joined: Aug 27, 2016,
Offline
I really think they shouldn't be ranged. Comat between range 1 units allows tons of interesting positioning play while ranged units just cause battle lines.
[Avatar]
Duaneski

Messages: 1019,
Joined: Nov 27, 2015,
Offline

[Avatar]
Duaneski

Messages: 1019,
Joined: Nov 27, 2015,
Offline
  simsverd wrote:My 2 cents..

I think its hard to evaluate the balance just by looking at stats. The new units have a very high GH and a very low defence.. so its hard to say how they will survive just behind the "front". Seems like 2 hits from a light infantry unit will kill all these tank-buster units.

I think perhaps GH, GL and air should be lower, but i disagree that it must change before beta-testing.





I mean... this is true for swarmers, batteries, wyrms, and walkers too? The native defenses on these units is 2-3 but they can easily get +2-4 in forests/bases/mountains? Maybe part of my concern for their balance is adding these numbers in. But I just can't imagine these stat lines being even close. If you let an enemy hit your Walker with two infantry then it was a bad plan... same thing here?

I guess we can agree to disagree on that. I guess either way beta testing will be the answer...
[Avatar]
LkASr

Messages: 752,
Joined: Sep 24, 2015,
Offline

[Avatar]
LkASr

Messages: 752,
Joined: Sep 24, 2015,
Offline
Here's my suggestion:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-SSwN8BR0u5VRT07TwOdOC1cnUBhEVc0dW-0nalz6QQ

My idea is that both Blaster & Borfly can go 2 actions per turn, but they can't attack after move. It may be deadly for 2 actions but they're terrifyingly slow (6 for Blaster, 5 for Borfly). They can still attack after move, but they have to spend both actions to do so and are also slow.

I worry about Blaster tho, I have to decide if I should go with the mobiliy of 5 or 6. Making it 5 and it can't go through mountains, swamps, and chasms. Making it 6 will allow it to move 2 tiles in open ground. Changing its mobility makes a huge difference.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at Nov 28, 2016 17:39


Never surrender when you still have the chance.
"I have achieved navel superiority" -myself 2017
All the good stuff [WoT Generals Beta Tester, Uniwar Beta Tester, Vainglory Hero Suggestions List Contributor]
Come look at my profile for more info
copeab

Messages: 31,
Joined: Jun 25, 2014,
Offline

copeab

Messages: 31,
Joined: Jun 25, 2014,
Offline
All the anti-armor units should have all their attack strengths lowered by 2. Range of the units should be two (three for the sapiens unit in siege mode).

Just for reference ... there are a few modern anti-tank missiles that can be used versus helicopters (ADATS, LAHAT Hellfire II), and against small warships as well. They are accurate to a longer range than tank cannon rounds.

I think sapiens would use missiles for this unit type. Titans probably use energy weapons and khral organic weapons.
[Avatar]
japhib

Messages: 47,
Joined: Jul 13, 2016,
Offline

[Avatar]
japhib

Messages: 47,
Joined: Jul 13, 2016,
Offline
High range is a bigger problem than high attack numbers. Any time you have a range advantage over an enemy, with comparable mobility, you get a bunch of free damage. For example, if there were 10 destroyers facing off with 10 hydronauts, the hydronauts will always win because of their range advantage. The only time a destroyer gets free damage on a hydronaut is when it can get within 1 range of it, which doesn't happen that much and is usually suicide for the destroyer anyway.

Saps' Blaster unit attacking from range 3 (range 4 when sieged!!) is going to easily out-range anything in the early game with its low credit cost of 300. That's a lot of free damage. At least make it so it only has range 2 normally, range 3 when sieged. This would be better for Saps' ideal, which is to semi-turtle whilst sending out little, highly mobile missions to take out important enemy infrastructure (marauders taking out an enemy walker, etc.). That way the Blaster would be better defensively (3 range when sieged) than offensively. 3 range un-sieged just sounds oppressive. A blaster can probably take out a whole walker in one turn, without even walking all the way up to the wall of plasma tanks.


Unrelated question: will the Titans' Guardian change unit types when it's in "barrier" mode? Because even if it's got 10 defense as a GL, that's still much less useful than 10 defense as a GH (most units have higher GL attack than GH). So it would be awesome if it changed unit types from GL to GH when in barrier mode.
[Avatar]
LkASr

Messages: 752,
Joined: Sep 24, 2015,
Offline

[Avatar]
LkASr

Messages: 752,
Joined: Sep 24, 2015,
Offline
  japhib wrote:High range is a bigger problem than high attack numbers. Any time you have a range advantage over an enemy, with comparable mobility, you get a bunch of free damage. For example, if there were 10 destroyers facing off with 10 hydronauts, the hydronauts will always win because of their range advantage. The only time a destroyer gets free damage on a hydronaut is when it can get within 1 range of it, which doesn't happen that much and is usually suicide for the destroyer anyway.

Saps' Blaster unit attacking from range 3 (range 4 when sieged!!) is going to easily out-range anything in the early game with its low credit cost of 300. That's a lot of free damage. At least make it so it only has range 2 normally, range 3 when sieged. This would be better for Saps' ideal, which is to semi-turtle whilst sending out little, highly mobile missions to take out important enemy infrastructure (marauders taking out an enemy walker, etc.). That way the Blaster would be better defensively (3 range when sieged) than offensively. 3 range un-sieged just sounds oppressive. A blaster can probably take out a whole walker in one turn, without even walking all the way up to the wall of plasma tanks


Range isn't much of a problem imo, it's more on how each ranged unit attacks. The only reason why Hydronauts always win nowadays is that it has much better vision and it can attack after move, before that, destroyers used to have 7 vision and can move much faster, because of that, hydronauts attempting to kill destroyers was suicidal, but it's now the opposite. The problem with the new units is that they can attack like hydronauts, creating problems, tho infantry are easy pickings against them. As I suggested in my post, have Blaster & Borfly act twice, but denying them to attack after move. Guardian needs that attack after move bc of short range tho

Never surrender when you still have the chance.
"I have achieved navel superiority" -myself 2017
All the good stuff [WoT Generals Beta Tester, Uniwar Beta Tester, Vainglory Hero Suggestions List Contributor]
Come look at my profile for more info
[Avatar]
LkASr

Messages: 752,
Joined: Sep 24, 2015,
Offline

[Avatar]
LkASr

Messages: 752,
Joined: Sep 24, 2015,
Offline
Speaking of Destroyers vs Hydronauts, a 2v2 in open grounds would give Destroyers advantage despite Hydronauts getting a 1st strike (assuming only one of them were able to get close)

Never surrender when you still have the chance.
"I have achieved navel superiority" -myself 2017
All the good stuff [WoT Generals Beta Tester, Uniwar Beta Tester, Vainglory Hero Suggestions List Contributor]
Come look at my profile for more info
[Avatar]
LkASr

Messages: 752,
Joined: Sep 24, 2015,
Offline

[Avatar]
LkASr

Messages: 752,
Joined: Sep 24, 2015,
Offline
I have a suggestion regarding to Siege. How about adding minimum range in it so it won't be very powerful. My idea is that:

Siege: Upon activation, Blaster increases its maximum range by 1, but this will render it immobile and having minimum range of 2.

My other suggestion is that Blaster would have a range of 2 to make siege less threatening without sacrificing minimum range.

Never surrender when you still have the chance.
"I have achieved navel superiority" -myself 2017
All the good stuff [WoT Generals Beta Tester, Uniwar Beta Tester, Vainglory Hero Suggestions List Contributor]
Come look at my profile for more info
Forum Index » New Feature Request
Powered by JForum 2.1.9 © - 2020-04-14 v124 - UniWar website