[Search] Search   [Recent Topics] Recent   [Hottest Topics] Hottest   [Login] Login
Blaster's Impact on the Meta and how to make GH viable again
Forum Index » General Discussion
Pento

Messages: 97,
Joined: Feb 14, 2017,
Offline

Pento

Messages: 97,
Joined: Feb 14, 2017,
Offline
Less defense would obsolete the idea of the tank.
Price is fine. If you raise or lower the price you would loose the relation to other units.

Extra ability might be a fine idea.
Perhaps something like +1 defence to surrounding troopers.

That's how they used tanks in WW2 as well.

That wouldn't change the tank itself but offers a little strategic plus.
[Avatar]
simsverd

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

[Avatar]
simsverd

Messages: 921,
Joined: Dec 02, 2010,
Location: Bergen, Norway
Offline
be realistic.. dont hold your breath for other abilities than what is the current changable parameters.

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]
dr. pepper

Messages: 127,
Joined: Aug 08, 2009,
Offline

dr. pepper

Messages: 127,
Joined: Aug 08, 2009,
Offline
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.
[Avatar]
LkASr

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

[Avatar]
LkASr

Messages: 752,
Joined: Sep 24, 2015,
Offline
Ok as far as suggestions goes:

Buffing tank def/mobility
Add an ability to each tank unit
Decrease the cost of tanks
Increase the cost of blasters
Nerf the blasters even further

Nerfing the blasters would make them underpowered.

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
Pento

Messages: 97,
Joined: Feb 14, 2017,
Offline

Pento

Messages: 97,
Joined: Feb 14, 2017,
Offline
  simsverd wrote:be realistic.. dont hold your breath for other abilities than what is the current changable parameters.


does your comment improve this discussion anyhow?

And why shouldn't it be changeable?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at Mar 27, 2017 21:39

[Avatar]
LkASr

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

[Avatar]
LkASr

Messages: 752,
Joined: Sep 24, 2015,
Offline
I mean guys, I don't want anyone of us just argue our way to no avail, but not like we should go for just one thing. We could think of something else besides Tank or Blaster units.

Why not have the blasters get 1-2 range while either reducing their cost or increase their mobility in return. That's my another 2 cents, anyone agree to this?

Or perhaps give Bopper bury/camouflage while allow Borfly to attack after move and retain move after attack upon range nerf.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at Mar 27, 2017 22:25


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
wargasm

Messages: 11,
Joined: Mar 21, 2017,
Offline

wargasm

Messages: 11,
Joined: Mar 21, 2017,
Offline
  LkASr wrote:I mean guys, I don't want anyone of us just argue our way to no avail, but not like we should go for just one thing. We could think of something else besides Tank or Blaster units.

Why not have the blasters get 1-2 range while either reducing their cost or increase their mobility in return. That's my another 2 cents, anyone agree to this?

Or perhaps give Bopper bury/camouflage while allow Borfly to attack after move and retain move after attack upon range nerf.


I thought the point of this thread was to find a solution to the damage of blasters (being too powerful). Your post sounds like you want to improve them even further...not the direction we want to go.

Blaster units do too much damage to tanks when factoring in terrain bonus. Borflies aren't as bad, because they attack then move, AND they do not gain terrain bonuses... but Borflies certainly aren't a 1 unit army that can kill anything like Guardians. The simplest solution is to slightly reduce the attack power to most all unit types, and completely remove the guardian's ability to hit air units (*every* other Titan unit can, so they don't need it).

[Avatar]
LkASr

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

[Avatar]
LkASr

Messages: 752,
Joined: Sep 24, 2015,
Offline
  wargasm wrote:
  LkASr wrote:I mean guys, I don't want anyone of us just argue our way to no avail, but not like we should go for just one thing. We could think of something else besides Tank or Blaster units.

Why not have the blasters get 1-2 range while either reducing their cost or increase their mobility in return. That's my another 2 cents, anyone agree to this?

Or perhaps give Bopper bury/camouflage while allow Borfly to attack after move and retain move after attack upon range nerf.


I thought the point of this thread was to find a solution to the damage of blasters (being too powerful). Your post sounds like you want to improve them even further...not the direction we want to go.

Blaster units do too much damage to tanks when factoring in terrain bonus. Borflies aren't as bad, because they attack then move, AND they do not gain terrain bonuses... but Borflies certainly aren't a 1 unit army that can kill anything like Guardians. The simplest solution is to slightly reduce the attack power to most all unit types, and completely remove the guardian's ability to hit air units (*every* other Titan unit can, so they don't need it).



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)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at Mar 28, 2017 05:27


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
dr. pepper

Messages: 127,
Joined: Aug 08, 2009,
Offline

dr. pepper

Messages: 127,
Joined: Aug 08, 2009,
Offline
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.

This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at Mar 28, 2017 23:25

[Avatar]
StarryBlink

Messages: 184,
Joined: Jan 04, 2012,
Offline

[Avatar]
StarryBlink

Messages: 184,
Joined: Jan 04, 2012,
Offline
  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.

Kohtar

Messages: 40,
Joined: Oct 12, 2016,
Offline

Kohtar

Messages: 40,
Joined: Oct 12, 2016,
Offline
Blasters are no longer overpowered I think. If you try to mass produce them you lose. And new amphibious units are pretty good blaster killers. Maybe the future new set of units will help balancing further. For example, imagine what will happen if the new units have splash damage: the tanks will shine against this kind of units, while blasters will suffer a lot.
wargasm

Messages: 11,
Joined: Mar 21, 2017,
Offline

wargasm

Messages: 11,
Joined: Mar 21, 2017,
Offline
  dr. pepper wrote: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 think you're failing to factor in terrain bonus when comparing the damage of the three units. You also fail to compensate for the borfly's lack of mobility, and I think attack before move is a bigger disadvantage in comparison than you make it out to be.

Look at the current meta.
KvK doesn't use borflies at all, because it's always an airborn battle.
KvT can use borflies, but borflies are far too vulnerable to every single having air attacks.
KvS is marginally useful vs tanks since they cannot shoot back, but marauders and helicopters are hard counters to a unit that has to attack before it moves.

Compared to a unit that can jump forward up to three tiles THEN attack for the same damage? There's just no comparison imho, again considering current metas.
join wang

Messages: 59,
Joined: Oct 02, 2016,
Offline

join wang

Messages: 59,
Joined: Oct 02, 2016,
Offline
How about nerving vision to 1 this would force the production of other units and allow an indirect counter to the two blasters that can move than attack. Borflys well they just sit their so they can keep their vision I guess.
[Avatar]
wookieontheweb

Messages: 485,
Joined: Jan 27, 2016,
Location: Southampton, UK
Offline

[Avatar]
wookieontheweb

Messages: 485,
Joined: Jan 27, 2016,
Location: Southampton, UK
Offline
  join wang wrote:How about nerving vision to 1 this would force the production of other units and allow an indirect counter to the two blasters that can move than attack. Borflys well they just sit their so they can keep their vision I guess.


Vision adjustments are not really effective due to search then undo.

Android 9. Samsung Galaxy A50
Forum Index » General Discussion
Powered by JForum 2.1.9 © - 2020-04-14 v124 - UniWar website