5129 replies to this topic

[CLAlstar]

Not again please.

 

 

Can we discuss the defense spam in team games, especially in 3v3 and in 4v4

i find that quite opposite dude. barely anyone uses defenses these days. the last thing we need is to punish those that play defensively. also it would entirely destroy last bastions and euro alliances defensive themes. not completely but it would hurt em hard.

Do you even multiplayer? Since last patch i noticed a massive increase of tower rushes and basecrawls happening in MO - May watch Glioper's stream from time to time.

 

 

the amount of tower spam becomes kind of unbearable

seriously...? not what i see anyways... usually people just pump out big armies. defenses aren't that OP. in fact, they are slightly underwhelming to all of the removal alternatives and downsides but they are fairly balanced currently

Sorry to blow your bubble, but with recent changes defense spam is a super viable alternative, if map allows basecawling.

 

 

which makes rush tactics not worth the risks

T1 rushing is currently pretty used in the meta. especially from USA. and trust me... seals + ifvs are already powerful and annoying enough, nerfing defenses would make this combo near unbeatable.

And early game is the only good part im probably at, so i can with clear heart tell you that couple of well placed defenses can easily deny/delay rush to point where you can counter it without problem.

 

 

if any team mate can simply build some towers in seconds. Also Tower crawl it in my opinion way too good at the time especially prism towers and neutralizers.

maybe its not a problem with the defenses its a problem with you then. you gotta make an army and control it well. sometimes, be defensive on your own part. also theres quite a few counters to most early game defenses, including, the siege infantry, such as mortar quads, siege cadres and a few other early game siege units. also you can go around them. get creative!.... but within reason!

Once again, im going to ask, do you multiplayer? In team games basecrawl is even more annoying to deal with - to the point where some of players disable Build Off Ally to handle this mess.

 

 

Sonic emitter not sure why this one was buffed last patch some people already seems to think it was already the best, I would propose to reverse the change, also dame its lithe tanks seems a bit high.

sonic emitters weren't that grand last patch. they took a few shots to gun down infantry in comparison to pillboxes etc, easily leaving then weak to their own factions T1 infantry rushing. its a good adjustment in my opinion. also since we got neutralizers, we don't really need sonic emitters as much late game so the buff should help keep em viable late game.

Sonic Emitter is arguably one of the best T1 defenses, despite power cost. Damage + ambient + railgun mechanic = You are capable of removing infantry attacks with ease. Esspecialy in early.

 

 

strike nest could need a damage buff against fling infantry it looks a bit stupid if Norio and his 20 rocketeers killing you tec wile being shot by some strikes and nothing happens.

thats you you have sodar arrays. just activate the deploy ability on them after sending them somewhat near to a shrike nest. it will boost their damage. they do have good range so it doesn't have to be perfectly near shrike nests. also make sure you make some terratrons i think they are called. they are extremely effective for taking out air units.

DID YOU KNOW THAT even with Sodar Array Shrike Nests get outDPS by other T1 anti air defenses?

 

 

prism, inferno, railgun …  could need a major hp nerv (like 25-30%) in my mind to ensure you can take than out faster if you have a reasonable strike group at hand. Prism towers should lose the elite attack animation were the attack 2 extra target for some damage theory were buffed enough with the veterans buff, it doesn’t fit then anyway.

WHAT! a 25 to 30% hp nerf... are you joking? like. seriously...? they really don't need a nerf. they aren't even OP. they gotta be strong you know. we can't just depend on nothing but T1 and T3 defenses. we still need strong T2 defenses dude.

We dont need HP reduction for towers, we need increase in warheads of some units against defenses. So you wont need specialized siege all the time to breach through.

 

 

Neutralizers can they get a small decrease in building damage to get the more in line with the others?

nah. they are fine :L most foehn players dont base crawl as much these days so i can't see it being much of an issue.

Oh my sweet summer child

 

 

putting it simple. i reckon you can solve alot of these problems by learning about siege units :O or harvesting alot of ore early game to be able to make big armies. if you are still struggling. try playing USA  or something. they are pretty OP currently so you should be able to pick em up easy and not have any major difficulties with em. its not a matter of having to get completely better at the game but learning more should help you combat at least some of those problems you have currently.

The fact that you are attempting to school one of rather skilled players by telling him to learn about siege units or switch factions is making me question a lot of things.

Edited by CLAlstar, 21 October 2018 - 09:03 AM.

[OfficialLolicon]

 

......................

First of all, please increase the size of your font, if you mind.. It's too small and hard to read.

Neutralizers are not fine, not fine at all. Multi is infinitely base crawling right now (if the map allows such a thing) and neutralizers can shred buildings within seconds! That is not normal at all.

With the tesla buff against structures to, it's like promoting base crawling with factions. It's annoying and hard to deal with.

 

However, I do agree that Maintenance is black magic. It's like denying destruction and requires multiple siege units just to destroy one building with it.

 

 

 

 

The Gehenna Platform often run off on their own. I mean, they literally runoff from their appointed position (chasing after aircraft?) and fall all too easily to enemy fire. Can we just put in it a tank bunker in the future?

2) It's an engine problem. Putting them into tank bunkers would look really weird with its long appearance.It's better to just wall them and put them into guard mode if you plan to keep them in one place.

 

 

It's technically possible to grant it a deploy mode in which it cannot move but still auto-engages. Not sure if this is gonna make it OP however.

 

>not being a bugged POS will make something OP

 

Gehennas can never be OP just because of the way they work. Their range and firepower are respectable, but no matter what you do, they will always be useless against ballistic missiles, can never shoot down attacking jets before they can strike, they will always sperg out on Quetzal Drones, and they still have trouble engaging multiple targets (as Allies, bait them with a single rocketeer and watch as they become sitting ducks for a good 10 secs afterwards). And ofc the interceptor can be shot down, disarming the platform.

 

I do like the idea where it can deploy and stay at its position. They're pretty good if you order them manually most of the time. Leaving them in one area is bad, like horrible. If you make them deploy to stay ideal, ordering them is still a must if you want the best result, so the deploy function won't make it OP at all.

[DrunkMaster]

The reason why tower crawl is so effective is because all base defenses use "steel" armor, which is arguably one of the strongest armor types in the game. Many warheads often do less damage vs steel than they would dealing damage to anything else. To put it into perspective- a MADMAN, something that levels entire bases and easily kills construction if it gets to the correct distance- literally CANNOT kill any t2 defense at full health no matter where it detonates, as the MADMAN warhead is noticeably less effective vs steel armor than vs wood armor, plus the fact that the t2 defense takes up only one tile making it resistant to splash attacks. 

 

While the above example is obviously quite a very specific situation (and the fact that defenses survives a madman doesn't matter as more often than not the enemy would be at low power), this only shows how powerful the steel type armor used by defenses is so good. 

 

As Alstar suggested, increasing certain warhead types against defenses seems to be the best way to reduce such towerspam, as the main reason why towers are so good is because they are so durable against almost all types of attacks, especially when compared to their building counterparts. 

 

So if certain warheads need to be more effective vs defenses, specifically which ones should be buffed vs defenses?

 

I feel like MBT and Jet warheads should be buffed substantially vs defenses. More often than not any MBT rush often gets instantly stopped cold when a t2 tower defense gets popped up, which is why MBTs get such a drop in viability at t2. Jet warheads should be buffed ALOT vs defenses, and although this might sound like a radical change, I believe this is an excellent way of keeping defenses in check. If a team of 4 jets, say, can snipe down an inferno tower, it would easily help stop tower rushes if their defenses can be quickly sniped and it prevent an advancing army at t2 getting stopped cold by a few well placed towers. If jets were effective vs defense armor, it would also increase the viability for stuff like soviets to build their airbase during t2 if one plans to attack during t2. 

 

Artillery that currently cannot outrange t3 defenses (eg. prisms and magnetrons), should get a significant increase in their damage against defenses to compensate for their lack of range. I mean, its just not right for an Antares battery to be able to eat over 5 shots from a prism tank. 

 

There are other warheads that might deserve a buff vs defenses, feel free to mention them

[OfficialLolicon]

 Jet warheads should be buffed ALOT vs defenses, and although this might sound like a radical change, I believe this is an excellent way of keeping defenses in check. If a team of 4 jets, say, can snipe down an inferno tower, it would easily help stop tower rushes if their defenses can be quickly sniped and it prevent an advancing army at t2 getting stopped cold by a few well placed towers.

 While I do agree popping towers are annoying, I heavily disagree with this. Why?

1) Jets were nerfed against structures (any form of structures) because back in 3.3.2, a group of jets were overwhelming to deal with. (Especially Foxrots and Black Eagles, which were the OPest Jets back in that patch)

Dybbuks are an exception of this, since they're really bad against structures

 

2) Each jets have there own specialty against various targets. Stormchilds are the best for infantry assassination, Harriers are good for attacking units and ships tanks to their armor modifier, Black Eagles are the one of the best jets thanks to their high damage and slight bonus damage from the ice animation, Foxrots deny clustering or clumping units and excellent at infantry clearing, Dustdevils (although I do find them underused in Multi) are excellent damage reducers when you're in the middle of the battle, Dybbuk-Attackers (worst jet against structures) has the largest amount of ammo and can easily tear down units with proper numbers (I commonly do 3), Dybbuk-Evolvers are dangerous against infantry squads and the brutes became extra firepower, Lionheart (stolen tech) deals massive damage to units and applies a short EMP in compensate for its long reload time and Dybbuk-Seizer (stolen tech) mind controls stuff in the air, applies 60s rage to what it mind-controlled and already got buffed repeatedly.

 

As of now, the 4 jets that can snipe down defenses is unique for the Allies, which belongs to the Barracudas. Allies are suppose to have air advantage (hence why stolen tech against them give grumbles for the soviet) so I believe the Barracuda's unique damage against such thing belongs to them alone. If each jet that can target structures get buffed (and by what you said, ALOT), the game would become an aerial warfare and PF and the Soviets would no doubt be picked repeatedly in Multi.

 

If you think an buff for jets against defenses are deserved, it's just a slight and barracudas should get no buffs at all (or just a slight? They can't 4 hit an Artillery bunker from what I tested so far).

What I prefer is buffing the damage of anti-structure infantry against such defenses. In this way, a player can somehow engage such rushes when controlling the right amount of the said infantry. In later games .where Siege Units are now a must, I think siege units should get buff against t3 defenses.

 

I think the Prism shouldn't get the a massive buff for its damage tho, it's the best siege IMO. It's accurate, instant, somehow-fast (light armored tho), shreds infantry quickly (Athenas can miss and Hailstorms can be denied) and shots hit multiple targets. I think the range is a good way to compensate this.

Magnetrons, not sure about this, they can hover and also promotes siege attacks from water like the Tarchia, but they do indeed deal less damage than the rest. They can semi-EMP metal infantry and the beams deal fast damage once they hooked up. I do agree they lack firepower against T3.

 

EDIT: My first statement is entirely wrong...

Edited by OfficialLolicon, 21 October 2018 - 06:33 PM.

[Divine]

[SeitaadEMPCannonProj]
Shadow=yes

 

The thing is essentially a ball lightning, it should not cast a shadow, if anything, it should have a light of its own. (I tried removing the shadow, interestingly, it removed the entire image of the projectile. I'm not sure how it works... either way, the EMP ball has an actual, real shadow which doesn't make sense.)

Edited by Divine, 21 October 2018 - 09:46 PM.

[DrunkMaster]

 

 

2) Each jets have there own specialty against various targets. Stormchilds are the best for infantry assassination, Harriers are good for attacking units and ships tanks to their armor modifier, Black Eagles are the one of the best jets thanks to their high damage and slight bonus damage from the ice animation, Foxrots deny clustering or clumping units and excellent at infantry clearing, Dustdevils (although I do find them underused in Multi) are excellent damage reducers when you're in the middle of the battle, Dybbuk-Attackers (worst jet against structures) has the largest amount of ammo and can easily tear down units with proper numbers (I commonly do 3), Dybbuk-Evolvers are dangerous against infantry squads and the brutes became extra firepower, Lionheart (stolen tech) deals massive damage to units and applies a short EMP in compensate for its long reload time and Dybbuk-Seizer (stolen tech) mind controls stuff in the air, applies 60s rage to what it mind-controlled and already got buffed repeatedly.

 

Doesn't matter about their specialties if the all of the default jets (stormchilds, harriers, beagles, foxtrots, and dybbuk-a) all get a flat buff vs defenses (specifically Steel type armor). Some of these specialities are non-existent too (eg. beagles are just as effective vs infantry as stormchilds are for all practical purposes)

 

 

 

As of now, the 4 jets that can snipe down defenses is unique for the Allies, which belongs to the Barracudas. Allies are suppose to have air advantage (hence why stolen tech against them give grumbles for the soviet) so I believe the Barracuda's unique damage against such thing belongs to them alone. If each jet that can target structures get buffed (and by what you said, ALOT), the game would become an aerial warfare and PF and the Soviets would no doubt be picked repeatedly in Multi.

 

I don't see how 4 jets can snipe down defenses needs to be unique for the Allies when defenses are a problem for all factions. Wouldn't buffing regular jets vs defenses further accentuate the Allies' air advantage (and make grumbles more useful). 

 

Also, who actually uses the barracuda to attack defenses? Most of the time you are better off using your four barracudas to snipe tech buildings or superweapons rather than snipe defenses. I don't see why buffing jets against defenses (aka steel type armor) will invalidate the barracuda's main niche (tech sniping), and become an "aerial warfare" where PF and Soviets would be dominant. 

 

 

If you think an buff for jets against defenses are deserved, it's just a slight and barracudas should get no buffs at all (or just a slight? They can't 4 hit an Artillery bunker from what I tested so far).

What I prefer is buffing the damage of anti-structure infantry against such defenses. In this way, a player can somehow engage such rushes when controlling the right amount of the said infantry. In later games .where Siege Units are now a must, I think siege units should get buff against t3 defenses.

 

Well a buff to jet's damage vs defenses should be meaningful, however, I never said that barracudas need buffs. By jets, I I meant like the basic jets that each faction gets (stormchilds, harrier, beagles, foxtrot, dybbuk-a). My bad on communication. Barracudas as of now are very strong vs defenses already (2 can take down a t1 or t2 defense) but most of the time you use barracudas to snipe tech /superweapons

 

I also wouldn't oppose a buffing of anti-structure infantry vs defenses. 

 

 

I think the Prism shouldn't get the a massive buff for its damage tho, it's the best siege IMO. It's accurate, instant, somehow-fast (light armored tho), shreds infantry quickly (Athenas can miss and Hailstorms can be denied) and shots hit multiple targets. I think the range is a good way to compensate this.

Magnetrons, not sure about this, they can hover and also promotes siege attacks from water like the Tarchia, but they do indeed deal less damage than the rest. They can semi-EMP metal infantry and the beams deal fast damage once they hooked up. I do agree they lack firepower against T3.

 

Prism tank is definitely not one of the best siege unit when conducting an actual siege (ie. breaking through an enemy fortification). They are outranged by t3 defenses (unlike many other t3 siege). Its funny because while prism tanks are no doubt excellent anti-infantry and quite mobile for an artillery unit, they are quite lackluster when doing the role they are actually relegated to doing (which is siege of course). The reason why I think the are lackluster is because their damage is one of the weakest vs defenses when compared to other artillery, and their range is not enough. What I am suggesting with their damage buff vs defenses is to fix the first part (damage is underwhelming vs defenses).

[OfficialLolicon]

 

 

Prism tank is definitely not one of the best siege unit when conducting an actual siege (ie. breaking through an enemy fortification). They are outranged by t3 defenses (unlike many other t3 siege). Its funny because while prism tanks are no doubt excellent anti-infantry and quite mobile for an artillery unit, they are quite lackluster when doing the role they are actually relegated to doing (which is siege of course). The reason why I think the are lackluster is because their damage is one of the weakest vs defenses when compared to other artillery, and their range is not enough. What I am suggesting with their damage buff vs defenses is to fix the first part (damage is underwhelming vs defenses).

I get what you mean now. I also checked the overall stats of the unit rather than just focusing on its weapon's warhead. My bad over there.

I do agree they lackluster, in fact, I think they're the most normal of all the siege units. It instant damage, fast and the weapon scatters. It's great for other targets yea, but not much gimmicks involve.

Unlike the Athena's bonus damage with a Mercury, Plague Splatter's armor debuff, Tarchia's charge mechanic and the Buratino's switching mechanic.

 

 

 

If you think an buff for jets against defenses are deserved, it's just a slight and barracudas should get no buffs at all (or just a slight? They can't 4 hit an Artillery bunker from what I tested so far).

What I prefer is buffing the damage of anti-structure infantry against such defenses. In this way, a player can somehow engage such rushes when controlling the right amount of the said infantry. In later games .where Siege Units are now a must, I think siege units should get buff against t3 defenses.

 

 

Well a buff to jet's damage vs defenses should be meaningful, however, I never said that barracudas need buffs. By jets, I I meant like the basic jets that each faction gets (stormchilds, harrier, beagles, foxtrot, dybbuk-a). My bad on communication. Barracudas as of now are very strong vs defenses already (2 can take down a t1 or t2 defense) but most of the time you use barracudas to snipe tech /superweapons

 

I also wouldn't oppose a buffing of anti-structure infantry vs defenses. 

No no no, not your fault, I get what you mean. I just pointed out that if the standard jets do gets buff, I wouldn't mind seeing a buff for Barracudas so 4 can destroy a tech artillery. When I tried 4 against one artillery, it survived with 1 bar of hitpoints. (Pretty odd since 4 barracudas can destroy an elite Hammer Defense.)

 

 

As of now, the 4 jets that can snipe down defenses is unique for the Allies, which belongs to the Barracudas. Allies are suppose to have air advantage (hence why stolen tech against them give grumbles for the soviet) so I believe the Barracuda's unique damage against such thing belongs to them alone. If each jet that can target structures get buffed (and by what you said, ALOT), the game would become an aerial warfare and PF and the Soviets would no doubt be picked repeatedly in Multi.

 

I don't see how 4 jets can snipe down defenses needs to be unique for the Allies when defenses are a problem for all factions. Wouldn't buffing regular jets vs defenses further accentuate the Allies' air advantage (and make grumbles more useful). 

 

Also, who actually uses the barracuda to attack defenses? Most of the time you are better off using your four barracudas to snipe tech buildings or superweapons rather than snipe defenses. I don't see why buffing jets against defenses (aka steel type armor) will invalidate the barracuda's main niche (tech sniping), and become an "aerial warfare" where PF and Soviets would be dominant. 

I do, because there are times where tier 3 buildings are too well defended against AA and I need to revert to other tactics. I ended up using my 4 barracudas to destroy t3 defenses and use siege to destroy its lab.

Like I said, back in the previous patch where  jets were effective against structures (including steel), Foxrots and Black Eagles were the greatest offenders of this. You can literally just bunker yourself up and just amass this aircraft and annihilate everyone. Replacing them wasn't an issue too, since you can deny harvest attacks with them and with the jets cost, you can destroy more before they even destroy your jet.

[Acac]

You are right that prism tanks are outranged by T3 defense. However, when I compared the damage output of all MO siege units versus a T3 defense that is not firing, prism tanks were one of the fastest tanks to kill a T3 defense. This means they are already one of the top siege tanks with a high damage output. Obviously, when it comes to a T3 defense that is firing, prisms are nowhere close to being effective as scuds.

Also consider this. Unlike scuds, prisms can do a massive amount of splash damage to low tier infantry and light vehicles. And this does not require much micro to accomplish. Compare this to athena and scuds which require lot more micro in order to be able to kill light units. This is why prisms tanks are actually so effective in PvP games against an Epsilon player. Also in PvP games, a group of 9 chronoed prism tanks can topple a base within seconds, and this is worse when they are iron curtained. Can the same damage be done by any other siege tank in the game? I do not think so.

So, in my opinion, because prism tanks are actually one of the best siege tanks/infantry killer in the game. It doesn't need a buff IMO

Edited by Acac, 21 October 2018 - 10:00 PM.

[LunaMoon]

So, in my opinion, because prism tanks are actually one of the best siege tanks/infantry killer in the game. It doesn't need a buff IMO

I agree that Prism tank doesn't need a buff. But hey, they are not that OP though, they have low health and armour and are terrible when dealing with tanks. 

On the other hand, T3 anti-airs are pretty good, I mean too good at taking down siege airships like Basilisks, an elite sky ray kills basilisk in one shot and deal a huge amount of damage to Kirov. Same with Neutralizer.

One thing I found annoying about Foehn is their Signal Inhibitor.  Players with four to five signal inhibitors are basically immune to support powers and super weapons. That's a huge advantage because they know full well that their opponents can't retaliate with super weapons and they don't even need to send clairvoyants to infiltrate enemy bases to reset the super weapons ( which needs intense macro).

And it only cost 300 power !!! Three wind traps can power 5 of them.

I don't think there should be a build-cap or increase in cost but -500 power or more seems to be more balanced for a Signal Inhibitor.

Edited by LunaMoon, 22 October 2018 - 02:34 AM.

[DrunkMaster]

 

I do, because there are times where tier 3 buildings are too well defended against AA and I need to revert to other tactics. I ended up using my 4 barracudas to destroy t3 defenses and use siege to destroy its lab.

Like I said, back in the previous patch where  jets were effective against structures (including steel), Foxrots and Black Eagles were the greatest offenders of this. You can literally just bunker yourself up and just amass this aircraft and annihilate everyone. Replacing them wasn't an issue too, since you can deny harvest attacks with them and with the jets cost, you can destroy more before they even destroy your jet.

I feel like you are missing a crucial point-- the buff is only the damage versus defenses (steel type) armor, not against buildings (wood and concrete armor). There won't be any of that 3.3.2 jet camping bs as jets will still suck against tech structures, production structure, and any other buildings if my proposes buff was implemented. What will only change is their damage vs defenses.

 

As for prism tanks, I guess I have misjudged their damage, but its still evident that they struggle against t3 defenses. 

However, I will take back the buff for their damage as they will be even more devastating as they already are with the chronosphere. But they do need some buff to assist them against t3 defenses. Same goes with the magnetron and shadray. 

[OfficialLolicon]

 

 

I do, because there are times where tier 3 buildings are too well defended against AA and I need to revert to other tactics. I ended up using my 4 barracudas to destroy t3 defenses and use siege to destroy its lab.

Like I said, back in the previous patch where  jets were effective against structures (including steel), Foxrots and Black Eagles were the greatest offenders of this. You can literally just bunker yourself up and just amass this aircraft and annihilate everyone. Replacing them wasn't an issue too, since you can deny harvest attacks with them and with the jets cost, you can destroy more before they even destroy your jet.

I feel like you are missing a crucial point-- the buff is only the damage versus defenses (steel type) armor, not against buildings (wood and concrete armor). There won't be any of that 3.3.2 jet camping bs as jets will still suck against tech structures, production structure, and any other buildings if my proposes buff was implemented. What will only change is their damage vs defenses.

Okey okey, I completely get it now. My bad.

[SukaHati]

Has anyone shoot down the hunter-seeker? I had manage shot down one or two of them.

Before that, I have seen some AI units shooting at them so I tried this.

[Thesilver]

Can you shoot at hunter seekers? They couldn't be targeted in the previous patch.

 

Anyway, is it just me or do alanca stystations appear... bad?  They look designed to be glass cannons but they are far to fragile and their range far too low to actually fight aircraft. The main reason im saying this is irkalla and salamanders. Both of these units outrange alanca's by a significant margin letting them kite alanca's like nothing to the point of them being almost worthless. Make no mistake, alanca's cost 2500, the most expensive dedicated anti air unit (and unit in general) and it gets completely wrecked by the very things it is supposed to counter. Yet at the same time it's damage is so crazy it 1 shots barracuda's and wolfhounds which is also far too much. It's tornado's which look very cool are almost useless because of how little health they have on top of it. Anyway, the point is that when hq builds irkalla alanca's become a 2500 dedicated counter unit that can only do something when your opponent makes a giant mistake. The relation with salamanders is even worse, the chaos beam makes them 1 shot each other. 2500 down the drain with every shot.

 

2 things should happen:

 

alanca's get a range boost so they are no longer outranged by other air units.

They get a substantial damage nerf, but more health in exchange.

 

Hopefully this would make them more of a reliable answer to enemy aircraft instead of the gimmicky dice roll that they are now.

[CLAlstar]

Alanqa is doing perfectly fine, esspecialy as its meant to be a guardian, not an assault anti-air - anything that attack from closer range will be shut down. Salamander and Irkalla are different cases - one is stolen tech and another is limited to 1.

 

Also, Alanqas specialize in removing blobs of air units - which makes it useful against things like mass rocketeers or people spamming helicopters.

 

Small note: Alanqas are immune to their own projectiles. Salamander chaos beam will cause them to attack other air units.

[Terminal Velocity]

Besides, I wouldn't say they are totally useless  vs Irkalla. 2 Alanqas can shot it down with a bit of microing, although at the cost of their lives.  2400x2 -1500(if you have Reprocessor)  vs 3000.

Nvm, actually only one of them has to die:

Spoiler

Edited by Terminal Velocity, 23 October 2018 - 12:49 PM.

[Terminal Velocity]

Has anyone shoot down the hunter-seeker? I had manage shot down one or two of them.

Before that, I have seen some AI units shooting at them so I tried this.

Yeah, it seems like you can shoot at them manually.

Spoiler

[Handepsilon]

I need to question this : Why would defenses have one of the best armor quality when their 1x1 size already made them far tougher than most other structures anyways? Because you know, Westwood AoE logic and all that

[arandompersons]

Not again please.

 

oh gosh. what could you possibly have to say -_-

 

 

Can we discuss the defense spam in team games, especially in 3v3 and in 4v4

i find that quite opposite dude. barely anyone uses defenses these days. the last thing we need is to punish those that play defensively. also it would entirely destroy last bastions and euro alliances defensive themes. not completely but it would hurt em hard.

Do you even multiplayer? Since last patch i noticed a massive increase of tower rushes and basecrawls happening in MO - May watch Glioper's stream from time to time.

 

actually. yes. also youtubers are just streamers. what they experience may not be what others experience... i'd also appreciate some proof of the excessive basecrawling. and not just videos. some basic statistics/charts would be nice. nothing overboard but at least a basic tally on how many players you verse who basecrawl ya.

 

 

the amount of tower spam becomes kind of unbearable

seriously...? not what i see anyways... usually people just pump out big armies. defenses aren't that OP. in fact, they are slightly underwhelming to all of the removal alternatives and downsides but they are fairly balanced currently

Sorry to blow your bubble, but with recent changes defense spam is a super viable alternative, if map allows basecawling.

 

to counter that. making an army or taking preventive measure is still viable. especially navy seal + ifv rushing is still adequate. same with T1 rushes, miner harassment and spies can be useful if managed right.

 

which makes rush tactics not worth the risks

T1 rushing is currently pretty used in the meta. especially from USA. and trust me... seals + ifvs are already powerful and annoying enough, nerfing defenses would make this combo near unbeatable.

And early game is the only good part im probably at, so i can with clear heart tell you that couple of well placed defenses can easily deny/delay rush to point where you can counter it without problem.

 

defenses have their limits. just cause you got a few setup doesn't mean much. also defenses don't delay it by much as ifvs + seals can simply outrun defenses, if managed correctly. simply charging in head on is obviously going to have dire consequences.

 

if any team mate can simply build some towers in seconds. Also Tower crawl it in my opinion way too good at the time especially prism towers and neutralizers.

maybe its not a problem with the defenses its a problem with you then. you gotta make an army and control it well. sometimes, be defensive on your own part. also theres quite a few counters to most early game defenses, including, the siege infantry, such as mortar quads, siege cadres and a few other early game siege units. also you can go around them. get creative!.... but within reason!

Once again, im going to ask, do you multiplayer? In team games basecrawl is even more annoying to deal with - to the point where some of players disable Build Off Ally to handle this mess.

 

basecrawling isn't so bad. use artillery units, you can rush em. also T1 rushing is still viable. so is miner harassment as said before. you can easily prevent/negate basecrawling. its usually a matter of perception, intelligence and luck. perception for seeing a way around, intelligence for micro managing ya army and making combos and luck... is self explanatory

 

 

Sonic emitter not sure why this one was buffed last patch some people already seems to think it was already the best, I would propose to reverse the change, also dame its lithe tanks seems a bit high.

sonic emitters weren't that grand last patch. they took a few shots to gun down infantry in comparison to pillboxes etc, easily leaving then weak to their own factions T1 infantry rushing. its a good adjustment in my opinion. also since we got neutralizers, we don't really need sonic emitters as much late game so the buff should help keep em viable late game.

Sonic Emitter is arguably one of the best T1 defenses, despite power cost. Damage + ambient + railgun mechanic = You are capable of removing infantry attacks with ease. Esspecialy in early.

 

this. is a good thing, they had problems last patch with em being more of an anti tank weapon than an anti infantry weapon due to their low damage. with the damage set to a higher amount, it should give em slightly more crowd control early on. after all. foehn is excellent at T1 rushing if combo'ed in right.

 

 

strike nest could need a damage buff against fling infantry it looks a bit stupid if Norio and his 20 rocketeers killing you tec wile being shot by some strikes and nothing happens.

thats you you have sodar arrays. just activate the deploy ability on them after sending them somewhat near to a shrike nest. it will boost their damage. they do have good range so it doesn't have to be perfectly near shrike nests. also make sure you make some terratrons i think they are called. they are extremely effective for taking out air units.

DID YOU KNOW THAT even with Sodar Array Shrike Nests get outDPS by other T1 anti air defenses?

 

hence why terratrons are an awesome AA counter. geez. you are making me look good with your... well... incompetence. sorry for being rude. but wow... i'd except you to know that AND take it into relevance. :O

 

prism, inferno, railgun …  could need a major hp nerv (like 25-30%) in my mind to ensure you can take than out faster if you have a reasonable strike group at hand. Prism towers should lose the elite attack animation were the attack 2 extra target for some damage theory were buffed enough with the veterans buff, it doesn’t fit then anyway.

WHAT! a 25 to 30% hp nerf... are you joking? like. seriously...? they really don't need a nerf. they aren't even OP. they gotta be strong you know. we can't just depend on nothing but T1 and T3 defenses. we still need strong T2 defenses dude.

We dont need HP reduction for towers, we need increase in warheads of some units against defenses. So you wont need specialized siege all the time to breach through.

 

warhead buff? no thanks. defenses can only engage em when they are around 45% on their way to their destination. easily leaving shrike nests and gattling cannons exceptionally vulnerable to warheads already. also note that the 2 best artillery units in game are submarines. with warheads.

 

Neutralizers can they get a small decrease in building damage to get the more in line with the others?

nah. they are fine :L most foehn players dont base crawl as much these days so i can't see it being much of an issue.

Oh my sweet summer child

 

 

uh, you have a child? congratz. i guess :L

 

putting it simple. i reckon you can solve alot of these problems by learning about siege units :O or harvesting alot of ore early game to be able to make big armies. if you are still struggling. try playing USA  or something. they are pretty OP currently so you should be able to pick em up easy and not have any major difficulties with em. its not a matter of having to get completely better at the game but learning more should help you combat at least some of those problems you have currently.

The fact that you are attempting to school one of rather skilled players by telling him to learn about siege units or switch factions is making me question a lot of things.

 

um. and "how" am i meant to know this person is some... "veteran"... is this person really a veteran? i know even experienced people have problems... but having issues with structures seems awkward... 1 person "had" complained about it here ( as far as i have seen so far ) so i was expecting the problem to breeze over and then you come along and bloat it out even longer, forcing me to create this overlong post. ( now i'll probably get told off since i have to listen to OfficialLolicon since that persons had a hard time reading the small text :L and people also get hasty when i gotta type something this long. )

my apologies public... but i gotta reply accordingly :L

Edited by arandompersons, 24 October 2018 - 02:32 PM.

[arandompersons]

I need to question this : Why would defenses have one of the best armor quality when their 1x1 size already made them far tougher than most other structures anyways? Because you know, Westwood AoE logic and all that

uh... i can't explain that :L but i don't mind seeing defenses being more relevant. its somewhat of a yin-yang currently. theres somewhat of a balance now... but it could do with some ironing out if people keep complaining about it.

[Thesilver]

Well, almost nothing stacks its damage based on number of tiles so it barely matters, and as far as accuracy goes only plague splatters used to have significant problems (although not anymore with their AoE buff). MADMAN is i think the only significant structurebuster that damages every single tile instead of the building hence why it one shots conyards but can't kill soviet barracks sometimes.

 

 

But back to alanca's, i probably should have clarified more. A lone irkalla isn't a problem for any faction, hell nothing is broken when you consider it alone. Irkalla itself doesn't kill alanca's like nothing, its the archers that do, they have much better warheads against medium air armor. The thing i can't really seem to wrap my head around with irkalla and salamanders is how to engage into them. What happens is i either overinvest in AA and get overwhelmed by the ground army (and rahn) or i don't have enough AA and end up with irkalla killing everything. I have to spend alot more money on anti air than what the other player spends on air, and it is dedicated anti air. This ends up leaving me completely on the defensive awkwardly trying to keep salamanders at bay with turrets.

 

Think of it this way, 20 flak troopers will destroy a salamander, but getting the troopers into the position where they can actually fight is much harder and why flak troopers aren't enough. (this is also partly the reason pteradons were such a problem)

Because of the range disparity, countering the anti air units is much easier than countering the air units. This is why i consider the gehenna to be by far the best dedicated anti air unit despite having nowhere near the dps of the others. It has the range to safely engage into any air targets without immediatly being a giant fragile target for all the ground units. This is not a preferance, they were the only reliable answer against salamanders.

 

This seems a very faction dependant issue, a pacific front player with loads of blizzards has zero problems with irkalla, because blizzards have no problem being in a large engagement, they eat adepts and rahn for breakfast. USA on the other hand needs to sneak in a couple of airoblazes into range which is much easier to prevent with a ground army.

 

I don't really know if anyone else really thought about this, maybe im just missing something about countering a supported irkalla without relying on turrets.

 

(holy crap what just happened above me?)

 

Oh right, gyrocopters. Those are the second one, pretty decent against structures but holy crap do they do suck against 1*1 buildings.

Edited by Thesilver, 24 October 2018 - 02:59 PM.