5129 replies to this topic

[BotRot]

Why is it that most suggestions/feedbacks lead to hating allied aircraft or ifvs?

From the way I see it, Allied fighter jets and IFVs can be frustrating to fight against in PvP, as thanks to their speed and range, retaliating against them in early-mid game is very difficult. 

 

Spamming Allied fighter jets that can effectively delay an enemy's tech level without hard counters and too cost-effective GI IFVs are currently the main issues, if I'm not mistaken. 

[Handepsilon]

As far as I've heard, GI IFV can take down even tanks more effectively than an actual Anti-Tank

[BotRot]

As far as I've heard, GI IFV can take down even tanks more effectively than an actual Anti-Tank

So I recently experimented to prove this statement. Basically, I had a GI IFV and an anti-tank infantry force fire some main battle tanks . Turns out that even if I gave the anti-infantry a slight head start by firing once before the GI IFV attacks, the main battle tanks are destroyed within seconds, if not the same time. This applies to undeployed Guardian GIs, Flak Troopers and Archers.

 

So to conclude, basic anti-tank infantry is almost equal to a GI IFV in one-on-one situation and time taken to destroy a main battle tank.

 

I also tried performing the same experiment, but the anti-tank infantry is replaced by a Gatling Tank. Guess what, the GI IFV won by a mile. Who knew a machine gun beats twin gatling guns in penetrating tank armor?

[StolenTech]

that is not the only problem but the fact that it serves all purposes (except repairs obviously) in 1 unit variation only which is the exact opposite of what an IFV is, but acts more like an Opus tank. Mental Omega usually have their hard limitations to some units capabilities like anti-tank being strong vs tanks and maybe buildings in some cases, while the GI IFV just completely defies that logic as a T1 unit.

Edited by StolenTech, 05 October 2017 - 12:24 PM.

[NorthFireZ]

BotRot. How many Anti tank infantry did you use per experiment? Also, have you tried making both sides able to fire in your testing?

[BotRot]

BotRot. How many Anti tank infantry did you use per experiment? Also, have you tried making both sides able to fire in your testing?

.
Just 1 anti vehicle infantry per faction, and yes, both sides fire at the about the same time (but I let the anti tank infantry fire just once then the GI IFV fires).

[0Weber0]

Could the Magnetron deal damage over-time like the Shadray,  instead of instantly damaging a building with it's beam that proceeds to be purely aesthetic for the next few seconds? It's kinda weird right now.

Edited by 0Weber0, 06 October 2017 - 12:50 AM.

[Tathmesh]

 

BotRot. How many Anti tank infantry did you use per experiment? Also, have you tried making both sides able to fire in your testing?

.
Just 1 anti vehicle infantry per faction, and yes, both sides fire at the about the same time (but I let the anti tank infantry fire just once then the GI IFV fires).

 

 

This kind of suggests that GI IFV is reasonably balanced with anti-armour infantry, in a direct fight with a MBT. GI Stryker is about $700, for comparison, a Guardian GI is $200, Flak Troopers are $120, Archers are $250 and Lancers are $500.

 

If a GI Stryker and a single anti-tank infantry kill tanks at around the same time, then the GI Stryker is inferior to anti-tank infantry in a straight up fight, because it costs more for the same outcome. Buy 3 GGIs, 6 Flaks, 3 Archers or 1-2 Lancers and you'll find that the anti-tank infantry wins every time for about the same cost. 

 

 

I have a suggestion to improve your tests: spend the same amount of money in IFVs / Anti-Tank Infantry as you do in Battle Tanks. 

 

So for example, send $10,500 of GI IFVs against $10,500 of bulldogs, then send $3000 GGIs against $3000 of bulldogs. In an ideal scenario where both players have equal resources, the best choice against MBTs should be the GGIs. So, GGIs should always kill all the bulldogs and do it faster than the GI IFVs.

 

If the GI IFVs somehow win, then there's a serious balance problem for GI IFVs in direct fights with tanks.

 

 

However, this testing doesn't take into account the main issue of IFVs: their annoying speed and their range. Foehn vs Allies is extremely annoying because Lancers are completely useless against IFV micro. You have just churn out knightframes non-stop. You also need Jackal/Lancer to scare away IFVs, but they usually wont kill them because IFVs still have a speed, range, and cost advantage. 

Edited by Tathmesh, 06 October 2017 - 12:55 AM.

[0Weber0]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This kind of suggests that GI IFV is reasonably balanced with anti-armour infantry, in a direct fight with a MBT. GI Stryker is about $700, for comparison, a Guardian GI is $200, Flak Troopers are $120, Archers are $250 and Lancers are $500.

 

If a GI Stryker and a single anti-tank infantry kill tanks at around the same time, then the GI Stryker is inferior to anti-tank infantry in a straight up fight, because it costs more for the same outcome. Buy 3 GGIs, 6 Flaks, 3 Archers or 1-2 Lancers and you'll find that the anti-tank infantry wins every time for about the same cost. 

 

 

I have a suggestion to improve your tests: spend the same amount of money in IFVs / Anti-Tank Infantry as you do in Battle Tanks. 

 

So for example, send $10,500 of GI IFVs against $10,500 of bulldogs, then send $3000 GGIs against $3000 of bulldogs. In an ideal scenario where both players have equal resources, the best choice against MBTs should be the GGIs. So, GGIs should always kill all the bulldogs and do it faster than the GI IFVs.

 

If the GI IFVs somehow win, then there's a serious balance problem for GI IFVs in direct fights with tanks.

 

 

However, this testing doesn't take into account the main issue of IFVs: their annoying speed and their range. Foehn vs Allies is extremely annoying because Lancers are completely useless against IFV micro. You have just churn out knightframes non-stop. You also need Jackal/Lancer to scare away IFVs, but they usually wont kill them because IFVs still have a speed, range, and cost advantage. 

 

GI IFV was supposed to be directly countered by armour. What we see with his tests is that GI IFV is perfectly capable of doing an AT infantry duty when tanks were supposed to beat the crap out of it. It's an nigh-uncounterable anti surface unit at tier 1 for 700 bucks.Even if the tank lands a shot, he can jus run away and head for repairs or outmanuever him and pick another target. Worst case scenario for defending player is if the GI IFV is accompanied by repair IFV's, because that makes the allied player have superior speed, firepower AND capacity to sustain prolonged damage. This allows unlimited harassment, and if you get low on money and stops building units, he can just go for your structures. Then it's GG.

[TeslaCruiser]

 

 

BotRot. How many Anti tank infantry did you use per experiment? Also, have you tried making both sides able to fire in your testing?

.
Just 1 anti vehicle infantry per faction, and yes, both sides fire at the about the same time (but I let the anti tank infantry fire just once then the GI IFV fires).

 

 

This kind of suggests that GI IFV is reasonably balanced with anti-armour infantry, in a direct fight with a MBT. GI Stryker is about $700, for comparison, a Guardian GI is $200, Flak Troopers are $120, Archers are $250 and Lancers are $500.

 

If a GI Stryker and a single anti-tank infantry kill tanks at around the same time, then the GI Stryker is inferior to anti-tank infantry in a straight up fight, because it costs more for the same outcome. Buy 3 GGIs, 6 Flaks, 3 Archers or 1-2 Lancers and you'll find that the anti-tank infantry wins every time for about the same cost. 

 

 

I have a suggestion to improve your tests: spend the same amount of money in IFVs / Anti-Tank Infantry as you do in Battle Tanks. 

 

So for example, send $10,500 of GI IFVs against $10,500 of bulldogs, then send $3000 GGIs against $3000 of bulldogs. In an ideal scenario where both players have equal resources, the best choice against MBTs should be the GGIs. So, GGIs should always kill all the bulldogs and do it faster than the GI IFVs.

 

If the GI IFVs somehow win, then there's a serious balance problem for GI IFVs in direct fights with tanks.

 

 

However, this testing doesn't take into account the main issue of IFVs: their annoying speed and their range. Foehn vs Allies is extremely annoying because Lancers are completely useless against IFV micro. You have just churn out knightframes non-stop. You also need Jackal/Lancer to scare away IFVs, but they usually wont kill them because IFVs still have a speed, range, and cost advantage. 

 

No, no, you don't test balance by doing those comparisons. You only check units stats/cost. And those comparisons are so simple you know the result previously most of the times.

Sadly you need actual games to check balance, preferable between above average players.

 

The important info in BotRot test is about the multiple roles the GI IFV can cover, including AT role

[NorthFireZ]

He showed that the damage is not as ridiculous as everyone claims it to be. I really have to wonder though, is it possible to buff MBTs? They really seem outclassed by the light vehicle/ infantry combo (Gatling and Epsi spam, Seal IFVs and Mass Medic/infantry, Jackles with Lancers do way more dps than regular Foehn tanks and are quite faster) and some don't even do their regular job very well. (Kappa being very niche because of its speed and special ability)

 

I think the only one faction that is worth building tanks for are the Soviet factions, even then Tesla Troopers do more damage to vehicles, is cheaper, and more spammable. Which leads to MBTs being phased out of pretty much every Army Composition besides a few factions (Scorpion cell, China, and maybe EA). Not sure if everyone agrees with me on this point, I know the Chinese community actually uses MBTs quite a lot in their mobile playstyle. To give a better look at buffing MBTs how about starting with increasing their uniform range to 6 and reducing costs by 50? It's not much, but there's room to add on here and I'd like to hear other people's opinion on this. 

 

Maybe giving a better counter to G.I ifvs besides giving a dps nerf (and a slight .25 range nerf?) will help kind of weed out the problem. 

[Tathmesh]

Tesla, I'm aware that direct fight comparisons are dumb. Like you said, they're simple enough that you could do them on paper, but also, they don't take into account IFV micro and they're an idealised scenario that pretty much never happens.

 

But if you're going to do direct fight comparisons, which seems to be what BotRot did, it makes more sense to match costs and compare cost efficiency.

 

He showed that the damage is not as ridiculous as everyone claims it to be. I really have to wonder though, is it possible to buff MBTs? They really seem outclassed by the light vehicle/ infantry combo (Gatling and Epsi spam, Seal IFVs and Mass Medic/infantry, Jackles with Lancers do way more dps than regular Foehn tanks and are quite faster) and some don't even do their regular job very well. (Kappa being very niche because of its speed and special ability)

 

I think the only one faction that is worth building tanks for are the Soviet factions, even then Tesla Troopers do more damage to vehicles, is cheaper, and more spammable. Which leads to MBTs being phased out of pretty much every Army Composition besides a few factions (Scorpion cell, China, and maybe EA). Not sure if everyone agrees with me on this point, I know the Chinese community actually uses MBTs quite a lot in their mobile playstyle. To give a better look at buffing MBTs how about starting with increasing their uniform range to 6 and reducing costs by 50? It's not much, but there's room to add on here and I'd like to hear other people's opinion on this. 

 

Maybe giving a better counter to G.I ifvs besides giving a dps nerf (and a slight .25 range nerf?) will help kind of weed out the problem. 

 

Not sure who "he" is in the first sentence, kinda ambiguous. Anyways,

 

I'd like to see MBTs be buffed as well. I second that range buff. There seems to be a lot of effort put into the various subfaction tanks in attempt to promote different playstyles, but it seems to be unused. 

Edited by Tathmesh, 06 October 2017 - 02:58 AM.

[BotRot]

In case anyone wondered, Lancer beats GI IFV by a landslide

[Handepsilon]

Well that's GI IFV fault for not getting out of the way tho

[BotRot]

Apparently the Blasticade can be toggled on and off at will once it is off cooldown, but there is a slight and silly issue with that.

 

If attempting to rapidly click the Blasticade icon (activating and deactivating) once it is off cooldown, the message "WARNING: Blasticade is now working!" will flash multiple times on screen. Problem is, this will result flooding the chat screen. As far as I know, no other superweapon/support power or anything that can cause a message to appear besides deliberate chat spamming can do this.

 

While this has no effect against AI, this could prove annoying to players, especially if the Foehn player is deliberately trolling and the other players have something to say. But, in a way, the Blasticade can protect one from insults and other profane messages 

 

And yes, I know that the Blast Furnace is rarely used in online play, but I'm just pointing this out. Thankfully, this measly issue has never happened yet in any online match (as far as I know).

[Handepsilon]

Apparently the Blasticade can be toggled on and off at will once it is off cooldown

Ah yes it is... it's particularly useful if you're on a AoD survival challenges.

[FELITH]

another Blasticade buff idea:

 

Make the Blast Trench invincible while Blast Furnace still exists.

It'll only get vulnerable when the Blast Furnace had been destroyed or on low power.

[PACER]

 

another Blasticade buff idea:

 

Make the Blast Trench invincible while Blast Furnace still exists.

It'll only get vulnerable when the Blast Furnace had been destroyed or on low power.

 

 

Invulnerable road block for unlimited time literally destroys the game balance

[FELITH]

As I remember ground unit can walk through the Blast Trench.

 

edit: never use it since 3.3.1

Edited by FELITH, 06 October 2017 - 05:51 PM.

[PACER]

As I remember ground unit can walk through the Blast Trench.

 

edit: never use it since 3.3.1

 

All units can move past it when not activated. Only Epics (yet not all of them) can move through an activated one.