| Author |
Message |
|
|
LkASr wrote:
dr. pepper wrote:Please don't mistakenly believe I think Mantisse will dominate now. They'll still be taken down quite easily by ground light in range among many other units. I'm just curious about how the change will impact Mantisse vs. Speeder. A ground heavy unit "should" win vs an Amphibian in most cases. With this new change, I can see the Mantisse trading quite well. Interestingly enough, both units cost the same.
That's what someone else did 
If you're referring to me, I'll laugh at your joke (ha!) and then respond by saying that you're exaggerating based on what I've said. I asked a question if this unit match-up (Mantisse vs. Speeder) was considered as well. Considering my personal opinion that Fuzes suck by comparison, I'm not as concerned about Fuze vs. Speeder. I haven't seen anyone address this question or provide any feedback.
|
|
|
LkASr wrote:
dr. pepper wrote:
dr. pepper wrote:Was there any consideration given to how this will impact Mantisse vs. Speeders? Mantisse already trade decently well with terrain bonuses and obviously at 2 range. Seems this change could maybe cause Mantisse to be overpowered vs. Speeders.
Looks like the Salamander change is going in. I know it was intended for TvK but will also impact TvS and TvT. I suspect Mantisse might become more popular vs Speeders now. Maybe I'll be able to build a useless Fuze now too, lol.
When that time someone used Mantisse as a new Speeder when I got my Marauders ready to wreck house 
Please don't mistakenly believe I think Mantisse will dominate now. They'll still be taken down quite easily by ground light in range among many other units. I'm just curious about how the change will impact Mantisse vs. Speeder. A ground heavy unit "should" win vs an Amphibian in most cases. With this new change, I can see the Mantisse trading quite well. Interestingly enough, both units cost the same.
|
|
|
|
dr. pepper wrote:Was there any consideration given to how this will impact Mantisse vs. Speeders? Mantisse already trade decently well with terrain bonuses and obviously at 2 range. Seems this change could maybe cause Mantisse to be overpowered vs. Speeders.
Looks like the Salamander change is going in. I know it was intended for TvK but will also impact TvS and TvT. I suspect Mantisse might become more popular vs Speeders now. Maybe I'll be able to build a useless Fuze now too, lol.
|
|
|
|
Was there any consideration given to how this will impact Mantisse vs. Speeders? Mantisse already trade decently well with terrain bonuses and obviously at 2 range. Seems this change could maybe cause Mantisse to be overpowered vs. Speeders.
|
|
|
I'm interested to see how the Salamander change impacts KvT. I was tired of Mecha + Speeder running over all Khraleans units. Maybe the Salamander will now provide the much needed buffer to protect Swarmers and Borflys.
I also agree with the majority of posters here that buffing tanks defense strength is not the way to go as it's already difficult enough to do damage to tanks unless you're using another tank, aquatic, or long range artillery unit.
I also think that one poster was wise to point out that AP negates the Plasma's Tank defense strength. As it stands now, I think most are in agreement that the PT is slightly underpowered compared to the other tanks.
I'm still not sure why raising the price of blasters has not been given any consideration. By raising their cost relative to all other units, the other units will become more attractive by comparison while they still retain their ability to do damage to GH.
|
|
|
Borfly's actually do the most base damage to heavy ground with a piercing value of 50% and damage of 6 (the devs have previously hinted at nerfing their GH attack). Compare that to the Bopper with a piercing value of 30% and damage of 5 or the Guardian with a piercing value of 45% and damage of 5. After terrain bonuses, I'm assuming the Guardian does slightly more damage with 45% / 7 (I said assuming because I don't have all the math down but it seems to be that way from experience).
They're just limited by their inability to move and then attack and their inability to defend themselves at melee range.
I understand LkASr's concerns that significant nerfs to the blaster's attack (or piercing values) would make them underpowered (I don't think we're there yet for the Guardian - it could still be nerfed a bit especially to GL and Aerial), but I don't think the issue is the damage.
The issue is their damage output / cost. Blaster units are capable of doing anywhere up to 6 HP of damage to units that cost anywhere from 250-800 while taking no return damage. When you consider the amount of damage these units are doing to other expensive units (like Tanks, Plasma Tanks, Pinzers, Hydronauts, etc.), a 200-350 cost seems a bit cheap. Raise the price and they'll be built less frequently and will be utilized in their intended role as support units, rather than a large part of a Uniwar army.
Additionally, most agree that blasters>tanks for the money. By increasing the cost of blasters, you're causing all other units to be slightly more attractive by comparison. Isn't that what we want? Maintain the function of the blasters while indirectly buffing the usage of the original Uniwar units. With this suggestion in mind, I still think there's some additional tweaking that needs to be done to ensure the blasters are adequately balanced against each other (primarily a slight reduction to Guardian's GL and Aerial attack).
I had already mentioned in another thread that the Titans have a couple more anti-air options than Sapiens, and I'm glad someone else brought that up in here.
|
|
|
Of all the available options, I still like mine the best....
While raising the defense of tanks would reduce the ability for blasters to damage them, it would mean that only blasters and other tanks would damage them.
Lowering the price of tanks would make them extremely strong against ground light, amphibians, and the lighter ground heavy units.
Nerfing the blaster's attacks too much further defeats the purpose of a blaster unit.
Raising the price of the blasters in relation to other units seems to be the most logical approach since they won't be as attractive by comparison with the increased cost.
|
|
|
|
Cpt Hawaiian wrote:The anti-heavy units have definitely made tank units extremely weak. This really hurts titans most as they out of necessity turtle. I think they should be made weaker against amphibian units in particular. And, to be honest, even a slight nerf to their anti-heavy damage. Rather than a cheap ranged unit being able to almost half an enemy heavy unit, I feel like they should do 2 to 3 damage to a heavy unit like a tank, etc. And I think borflys should do no damage at all to ground light units.
Yeah, I think it's a tough balance because they could easily be nerfed too much and become useless. I like the damage they can dish out, but the tank units should be boosted in some way to make them more cost effective by comparison. The blasters are particularly good when they're on forests and mountains while still being fairly effective without the attack bonuses. Building tank units and marching them into blasters in defensive positions is suicide.
|
|
|
|
wargasm wrote:I've been playing with the blaster units, but I don't own the guardian yet. I have all three amphibian units, and the S/K blasters. I definitely agree that when opposed by a field full of blasters, tanks become useless. I also believe that blasters have left Eclipses in the dust, because Eclipses are now used strictly for anti-air, despite being strong against amphibian and light ground units themselves.... why not use blasters when they cost half as much?
Just wait till you get the guardian. Titans vs. Titans seems to be an all-out speeder war with guardian support although I will say it seem that Sapiens have a slight edge over Titans.
|
|
|
Pento wrote:I don't really see it that way.
When you build a blaster + protection you have to spend the same amount of credits as if you would in building a tank.
But you use them in a different way.
You can always counter the blasters with cheaper units, like speeder/marine.
What I noticed is that there are far less artillery stand off matches. What I personally appreciate. Before lots where building tanks to protect the future artillery. Games now got quicker and more versatile because of the blasters.
I like them and I think the costs are pretty fair (except guardian  ).
So far.
It's not just that you use them in a different way. It's that the combination of protection unit + blaster is a way better investment of money in a majority of situations. Don't get me wrong, I like the blasters but it's causing the tanky GH units to become obsolete.
|
|
|
I'd love to get a discussion regarding everyone's observations about the impact the blaster units have had on the meta of the game. I'm interested to see if my observations are seen at the highest levels of play (I typically hover around 1900).
Going forward, when I say "tanky GH" I mean Tanks, Plasma Tanks, and Pinzers. I'm not referring to speeders, marauders, etc. I'd be interested in seeing data that tracks each unit's usage before and after the release of the blaster units. My suspicion is that the tanky GH units usage has gone down quite a bit, and they're some of the least used units in the game (outside of aquatic and amphibious units). I anticipate it'll get worse when the 'watch an ad' feature comes out that will enable anyone to build units they haven't purchased.
Assuming you don't take a direct hit to your blaster for a couple turns, the cost effectiveness and damage output for a blaster is almost always better than a tanky GH unit. Where I used to build tanks in SvT, I now build boppers. Where I used to build plasma tanks in TvK or TvS, I now build Guardians. Where I used to build Pinzers in KvT, I now build borflys. Blasters are such a hard counter to the tanky GH units that I can't seem to find much use except to soak up damage, buy time, and for positional control, etc.
I've been brainstorming ways to balance these units' usage against each other but haven't come up with much yet. The most common counter to the Bopper seems to be a Speeder, and the most common counter to the Guardian seems to be a Swarmer or Marauder. Nerf the blaster units damage too much more and they won't be 'blasting' anything. The only thought I have right now is to bring their cost up 50 credits each. Then it'll make it even more important to protect them at all costs, which in turn will make them less valuable and used less frequently as you'll need to build other units and follow up with them in support. As it stands now, it's too easy for the blasters to be a large part of the army due to their relatively cheap cost.
Borfly - 250
Bopper - 350
Guardian - 400
I think this brings them more in line with their actual value and is a better solution than nerfing their damage any further. Perhaps a minor boost to defense strength (+1) to compensate for additional cost.
|
|
|
|
ninjacentaur wrote:eclipse can teleport, and can repair. it is also quite a bit more heavily armored. I agree that it is too weak though. I always felt like it should have repair +2, because then when it gets banged up it would still be reusable later.
guardian isnt near as good as ppl are claiming it is imo. you just have to hit it once, then its useless except for gangup really.
The issue with the guardian (and blasters in general) is that it's easy to use a mecha or a marine to block combined with a blaster and deal 3-4 damage on a more expensive GH unit (tank, plasma, pinzer) from range. Before blasters, you typically needed GH to deal with GH. Now you just need blasters. I rarely see Plasmas in TvT these days and I don't see Pinzers in KvT. Why build a Plasma to counter a Pinzer when you can build a cheaper, ranged unit and deal more damage while taking none in return?
|
|
|
|
Maneetoe wrote:You all realize that the arguments that started on this thread on March 6th were predicated on statements made about the Fuze before it had its defense and attack nerfed, right?
Fuze is no longer the powerhouse it was back in beta and early release.
Correct, the post started by saying the Fuze was overpowered. I personally think it's underpowered now.
|
|
|
|
wookieontheweb wrote:I've said it before and I still think guardians are more interesting without heal.
Why? I'm curious to see the direction devs take on the blasters. Sounds like more nerfs are coming for the Guardian and one for the Borfly. The Borfly would be great if Khraleans could protect them.
|
|
|
Duaneski wrote:
dr. pepper wrote:The more I think about it, it probably would be better to hold off on adding more units until the balance is corrected although I understand the developers needing to make money as well.
TBH I think the thought is that the new units may actually fix the balance issues we currently have. Which could be true... we can imagine but really only Xavi knows what is upcoming so I try to defer to him.
Without a timeline it can be frustrating at times though.
I am good w a unit being comparatively weak as long as each race has their strengths. I am hoping the next unit or two gives khral the hammer they kinda need (or rather, the cheap brick wall they kinda need).... in the meantime just gonna tell myself.... more underling
I guess it depends on what you mean by fixing the balance issues. Introducing new units might fix the overall balance between the race match-ups, but it wouldn't necessarily fix the 'balance' between units of the same race. If the units aren't balanced against their cost and then compared against the cost effectiveness of the other units, some units will end up being utilized a lot more than others. Right now, I think that's the issue we have with blasters and the tanky GH units. I realize there are quite a few other issues I'm probably unaware of as well.
|
![[Search]](/templates/default/images/icon_mini_search.gif){kind=icon}
![[Recent Topics]](/templates/default/images/icon_mini_recentTopics.gif){kind=icon}
![[Login]](/templates/default/images/icon_mini_login.gif){kind=icon}
Login
