| 1 |
I would be cautious about buffing Phoenix; it is not good against many things but for a few purposess it is already quite powerful:
|
1 |
I would be cautious about buffing Phoenix; it is not good against many things but for a few purposess it is already quite powerful:
|
| 2 |
\n
|
2 |
\n
|
| 3 |
- puppy balls
|
3 |
- puppy balls
|
| 4 |
- wind farms
|
4 |
- wind farms
|
| 5 |
- okay against moderator, placeholder, wolverine
|
5 |
- okay against moderator, placeholder, wolverine
|
| 6 |
\n
|
6 |
\n
|
| 7 |
Thunderbird does not need a buff. I don't think it needs a nerf either.
|
7 |
Thunderbird does not need a buff. I don't think it needs a nerf either.
|
| 8 |
\n
|
8 |
\n
|
| 9 |
This is a more controversial opinion, but I think Vulture is fine on land maps too (and obviously good on water maps). Its large LoS range is quite useful for artillery, and to know exactly what you're fighting rather than radar dots. This is the opinion of a 1v1 player where air is much less contested, though.
|
9 |
This is a more controversial opinion, but I think Vulture is fine on land maps too (and obviously good on water maps). Its large LoS range is quite useful for artillery, and to know exactly what you're fighting rather than radar dots. This is the opinion of a 1v1 player where air is much less contested, though.
|
| 10 |
\n
|
10 |
\n
|
| 11 |
Raven might need changing but my understanding is that making raven "bad against mobile targets" is less simple than you might think.
|
11 |
Raven might need changing but my understanding is that making raven "bad against mobile targets" is less simple than you might think.
|
| 12 |
\n
|
12 |
\n
|
| 13 |
Air in general has the problem that there is not much micro (especially in dogfights) and what there is is rather hard to grasp. I am not sure that putting in "D to dodge" for every unit is the right solution.
|
13 |
Air in general has the problem that there is not much micro (especially in dogfights) and what there is is rather hard to grasp. I am not sure that putting in "D to dodge" for every unit is the right solution.
|
| 14 |
\n
|
14 |
\n
|
| 15 |
Sea in general has the problem that "terrain" is generally far less interesting, and that it is mostly not done for maps to have underwater cliffs which amph cannot traverse. (Obviously you can do this with terraform but on a large scale this is expensive and time consuming.) The different "damage types" of "antiair", "anti-surface" and "anti-submarine" further complicate things. When there is only "antiair" and "antiground" that means there is more space for interesting variation within each category.
|
15 |
Sea in general has the problem that "terrain" is generally far less interesting, and that it is mostly not done for maps to have underwater cliffs which amph cannot traverse. (Obviously you can do this with terraform but on a large scale this is expensive and time consuming.) The different "damage types" of "antiair", "anti-surface" and "anti-submarine" further complicate things. When there is only "antiair" and "antiground" that means there is more space for interesting variation within each category.
|
|
|
16 |
\n
|
|
|
17 |
(Yes, I know most things can in theory shoot air, and that there is overlap between all of the above categories. Even so, it appears difficult to find enough space in hover, amph and ship for a decent RPS-or-other relationship applicable to both surface and underwater fighting.)
|
please list your balance problems/solutions.. even if they are 'do nothing'.