[Search] Search   [Recent Topics] Recent   [Hottest Topics] Hottest   [Login] Login
Messages posted by: StarryBlink
Forum Index Profile for StarryBlink »» Messages posted by StarryBlink
What's New in the Latest Updates » 1.9.97 with REWARDED AD to build any unit & full turn undo » Go to message
It's great you bring equality back to this game !
Sapiens » Dealing with Salamander spam. » Go to message
  R3dRevenge wrote:Hello all,

I'm a returning player (2,300 player) who decided to get back into the game due to the new units and updated systems. I made a new account and began playing.

Recently, I've ran into the problems against Salamander spam on heavily watered maps and low/mid income (300-400).

The game that I'm currently playing is on Frozen Islands Refurbished (sorry I can't display a picture). Basically my opponent spends his begining 2-3 turns purchasing 5-6 Salamanders and spreads them across the maps pressuring my city income. Then he begins purchasing his airforce (Swarmer + Garudas).

The problem is Saps Fuze unit is terrible against air units and is pretty weak when damaging defense 10 Salamanders. I've found that Helicopers + Maruders are the most effective way with dealing with this strategy, however the constant plague backlash is brutal on my units.

I'm beginning to think that Salamanders are incredibly strong or Fuze being to weak leading to an imbalance.

What do you think? Any advice?

I never encounter this situation yet.

But I ever played the opposite when I was kharl and opponent was sap
in a random map with heavy water & coral. No shipyard.

At start, I spammed salamander while he spammed fuze.
And I just win right away killing his fuzes one after one.

Then he tried marines & copters instead.
His situation was better. But not enough. I won.

So I think your strategy using copters & jeeps is already among the optimal one.

Actually, copter maybe the only unit you can truely rely against salamander spam.
But it's difficult since copter is very expensive.

Using fuze against salamander is really don't work.

In my opinion, fuze is underpowered compare to salamander & mantise.
It should get +1 defense and +1 mobility to be equal to other amphibians.
General Discussion » upcoming balance changes April » Go to message
The armor piercing mechanic make superior defence of plasma tank meaningless.
Reduce % armor piercing and increase the GH attack of blasters instead should make plasma tank's defence valid again.

And, actually, why do we need the armor piercing mechanic at the first place ?
Wyrm has 9 GH attack and usually deal 2 hp damage to plasma tank.
Then why don't just let blasters borrow wyrm's cannon to fight ground-heavies ?

They'll have simply massive 9 GH attack. But no armor piercing.
And they'll usually deal 2hp damage to plasma tank and 3hp damage to pinzer/tank.
That's easy to understand. Easy to compare the strength across all units.
General Discussion » upcoming balance changes April » Go to message
  charclo wrote:I don't like the idea to give +1 armor to tanks because it makes tankbusters the only option to deal damage to them (bad gameplay).

Agree. Infantry, jeep/speeder/swarmer will no more do any injury to tank.
And that will be really bad to gameplay.
Today we still able to extract 1-2 hp damage from tank by infantry with an ample strategy.
That make the game fun.

Also note that the majority of player don't own blasters yet.
To them tanks will looked like immortal wall with iron teeth

I agree with Phill.
If you don't want to reduce blasters GH attack,
then nerf other stat instead.
Maybe reduce its movement or infantry/aerial/amphibian attack.

Then players will have to use them more cautiously.
Open more opportunities for tanks to run freely in the battlefield.

Note that eclipses is used very rare now.
The indicator that guardian is much more cost-effective compare to eclipse.
General Discussion » Blaster's Impact on the Meta and how to make GH viable again » Go to message
  LkASr wrote:
My balance suggestions revolving this thread are mainly indirect, meaning I wish that we could get around this argument without sacrificing something vital in mind (such as Blaster unit atk and ap). It may require a ample supply of brainstorming, but it wouldn't matter as much as long as we have at least a pair of those (such as I do) who can tackle that for others.

Blasters NEED the atk, otherwise they're not so worth after nerf. Besides being anti tanks, they're also used as light artillery at convenience. Nerfing their atk means they lose their utility as a light artillery and become crippling overspecializations (which is not good thing half the time when it comes to war)

Why do you think it will be so complicated ?

In many years ago swarmer ever had more aerial attack.
That made kharl-kharl battles were exclusively swarmer fight.
Then after swarmer was nerfed anti-air a little, people started to mix garuda & wrym into kharl vs kharl.
Despite swarmer is still the main force.

Or in the recent past. Sap vs sap were almost the battle of marauders. Whit just 2-3 copters in the mix.
After reduced marauder's anti-infantries, players started introducing marines to occupy forest & mountain in sap vs sap.
Also marauder are still being used in the most amount.

The point is : the way uniwarriors buy units are the same way people buy things in supermarkets.
Slightly buff unit's stat or reduce its cost, then players buy the unit a little more often.
While slightly nerfing the unit or increasing its cost, and players will buy it slightly less.
There's no enigma, just economic.

Then why don't make it simple ?
Blasters are overpowered. Thus, the direct solutions are either nerf them or increasing their costs.
After doing that, we'll definitely see the game swing slightly toward the perfect balance.

But I prefer nerfing blasters rather than increasing their costs.
Since at first we called for blasters to be a cheap mean to stop the tank-and-artillery stalemates.

And, as it's not a standard unit, it's being overspecialized is actually better.
As long as it can fix the problem of tank & artillery build up, it get its job done.
Players shouldn't be forced to buy it to win the battle.

General Discussion » Blaster's Impact on the Meta and how to make GH viable again » Go to message
I agree with cpt.Hawaiian that blaster units should do 2-3 hp damage to tanks.

To be specific, blasters should do 2 hp damage to tanks in normal circumstances.
They should do 3 hp damage to tanks only when they’ve got really good attack bonus.
And they should never do more than 4 hp damage to tanks.

Blasters should be weak and have no armor penetration against all units which are not tanks or ships.
Their attack against infantries & amphibians should be nerfed a lot.
Against aerials, bopper & borfly shouldn’t have any anti-air ability at all.
While guardian may keep some very weak anti-air capability like pinzer.

Some people suggest buffing tanks to counter blasters. But I disagree.
Tanks are overpowered before the born of blasters.
That’s why we called for blasters at the first place.
But blasters are owned by only minority of players.

If you solve blaster problems by buffing tanks, majority of players who don’t buy any units yet will wonder what on earth make developers think they should buff the already overpowered tanks.

And, as blasters are extra units, make them a bit underpowered is actually better to the game overall.
Make them being used in only specific situations like the case of amphibians.
Then players who don’t own them may able to win the game.
Reduce the inequality and the resentment for the game.
General Discussion » Changes to support system » Go to message
How about link users to post in this forum instead of mailing to Xavi ?
Then 80-90% of questions should able to be answered by the community.
And giving moderators the ability to perform support functions is a good idea.

Also I see that Xavi usually look in this forum.
Then if the requests can't be handled by the community or moderators, they shouldn't take long for Xavi to see them.
Some mechanism allow moderators to flag relevant requests in the forum to Xavi should allow him to react even quicker.

General Discussion » Fuze is the new op unit » Go to message
  dr. pepper wrote:

Not sure how a Fuze is ever better than a Mantisse considering it's either equal or worse in every possible statistic. The only thing you could logically say that makes any sense is that'd you'd prefer 5 Fuze to 4 Mantisse. There is literally not a SINGLE stat or ability the Fuze has that is better than the Mantisse. On the other hand, I do agree a Marauder can be better than a Speeder due to having 2 actions compared to the Speeder's one.

I'm not sure why you're struggling to see that this is an apples to oranges comparison.

I agree with you. While we can't just compare stat between fuze and slamander.
Because their range are different. And the value of range can't calculate easily into stat.

But to compare fuze and manrise,
it's not difficult like the case of fuze vs salamander or marauder vs speeder.

Their range are the same, their number of action are the same.
If all other stats are the same, they'll be absolutely identical.
Then it's obvious that mantise is overpowered compare to fuze.
As all its stat are superior to fuze, with cost just 50 credit more.

I think mantise should be nerf a little.
Maybe reduce its mobility from 11 to 8.
Then it will match titan style of slow but strong.

Or increase its cost from 250 to 300.
And keep all its current stat.
To make is an expensive but solid titan-style unit.
General Discussion » Thoughts on the New 2-23 Balance Changes » Go to message
The game become better balanced.

Swarmer still left underpowered since the last nerf.
And that make kharl still slightly weaker that the other two races.

Guardian now reasonably strong against ground-heavy.
But I think it's still too strong against aerials.
It's cost 350. Has aerial attack of 7.
Compare to bopper, cost 300. With aerial attack of 1.
You'll see it's still overpowered. Despite inability to repair.

And in fact most player, including me, rarely build eclipse today.
Instead, replace eclipse with guardians. Mixing them with your alway available mecha&speeders.
Although they've less anti-air power than eclipse, they still have enough to repel most aerial threats.

Beside, it has a lot more versatility. I mean a lot.
Guardian/speeder/mecha combination are cheap and can deal with literally all type of units.
Name it infatry, tank, aerial or ship.

So I think if swarmer get +2 or +1 ground-light attack and guardian get -2 or -1 aerial attack,
the game should become very fine balanced.

And the monthly balance adjust plan is good.

General Discussion » New units on Khraleans' perspective » Go to message
  Michaelrn wrote:

I don't think that giving raw status boost to Khraleans would necessarily make it overpower. If they really are generally weaker, then a status boost (as long as well executed) would first give it an edge to fight a fair battle.

Nerfing T and S blasters also can help K (not only K, but the overall balance of the game ). These blasters aren't only too much effective against tanks, but also very good against other unit types. They can hurt aerial units a lot.

Agree. Let's keep it simple.

If titan & sap blaster too strong, then nerf its stat.
If swarmer & boffly too weak, just boost its stat first.

Then it will definitely help, more or less.
And we shall see whether it's work or not.
If it's not enough or it's too much, it's still very very easy to reverse .
General Discussion » New units on Khraleans' perspective » Go to message
Many interesting ideas here. And mostly I agree with you guys.

Major concern in my opinion are :

1) Kharl become weaker & weaker now like you said.
Mainly because swarmer was nerf too much and boffly too weak to be useful in the real battlefield.

2) Tank of all races are declining in their presence. And are heading down toward extinction.
Yeah the old Uniwar has a problem when both players build a wall of tanks and a few artilleries behind. Then the game is last for an eternity.
New blaster units do solve this problem. But tanks deserve some place on Earth to stand too.

3) New units create inequality in this game.


So my suggestions (mostly copy from previous comments) are :

1) Increase swarmer attack against ground-light and maybe ground-heavy.

2) Definitely buff the boffly someway & somehow.
How about transforming it into Starcraft Zerg's guardian ?
Let boffly able to move then attack. With a range of 3 only, like bopper.
Increase its cost. Decrease its defense and attack strength a bit.

3) Decrease guardian and bopper attack vs ground heavy a little.
To create a fine balance which tanks have some place in the battlefield.
While they're not too strong and cause a stalemate like before.

4) Make all new units a bit less in cost-effectiveness compare to original units.
New units should be use only in some spacial situations.
While most of the time players can prosper building only an original units.
Then its possible for people to win without buying any new units.

New Feature Request » Replace "skip" with "force move" » Go to message
How about when the time expired any players in the same team can make the absent player's move ?
But when the skip button is pressed, bot will make the move.
General Discussion » New units: offensive specialists with major limitations » Go to message
Guardian's repair rate of zero is really weird.
It's not proper that the unit can't repair themself despite it's already stay resting.
And what's good for teleporting it to safety, when it can't be repaired anyway ?

With repair factor of zero mean you also can't repair it at the heal pad or use assimilator.

So I think it's better increasing its repair factor to 1 while decreasing its defence a little instead.

Otherwise 3 new units are interesting and should be funny to play.
New Feature Request » 18 New units are coming... » Go to message
Few comments :

1) terrain modification unit - I don't think it's a good idea.
If the map is already balance, it's better leave its terrains as it is.
Just modifying a single tile of it, then you're likely to screw all its delicate balance.

While if the map is unbalance, its unlikely that terrain modification by player playing in the game will fix it.
Better let the map fall to the bottom of the list by voting down.

If you want a new strategy to break the stand off, a transport amphibian unit maybe the better option.
It won't destroy the balance of maps.
Yet you'll have a lot of new strategies break the enemy's fortress.
Like sending a walker and 2 plasma tanks behind the enemy line.
Or send a marauder across a wall of plasma tanks to hurt walkers from behind.

I know Simsverd ever said that you don't want a transport unit since it will be too much of new features.
But as now you're talking about terrain modification, why don't rethink about transport units again.

2) Splash damage - it's something lacking in Uniwar.
In most war game there will be a unit which make a splash damage.
Typically it's a grenadier throwing grenade explode in the group of enemy. And sometimes also hurting its own friend.
Splash damage is fun to play with. And increase depth of the game strategy.

How about making your new tank-buster and anti-air units make a splash damage ? Should be interesting.

Overall I'm very happy to known you'll bring a lot of new units.
And waiting eagerly to play on them. Whatever your decision

General Discussion » Changing attack damage without gang-up bonus, same unit » Go to message
It's the random factor like posts above.

Tip : If you start the turn with bad roll, attack something easy or unimportant first.
Then when your random factor turn better, it's a time make your prime shot.

For example. You a start your turn and find that your 10hp garuda will do 3hp damage to enemy's copter.
Then you know for sure your roll are really bad.
So you send your 10hp swarmer to kill 3hp marine instead. Since it will alway success regardless of your luck.
Then your random factor change. And you find your garuda will make 4-5 hp damage to enemy's copter.
Forum Index Profile for StarryBlink »» Messages posted by StarryBlink
Powered by JForum 2.1.9 © - 2020-04-14 v124 - UniWar website