V0LUM3:

the problem is still that you can have 30 Marines and their rockets will still only hit 1 hog unless you micro them beyond belief.

And if you're a covenent player then your sticky grenades rarely hit a moving hog anyways.

That or just have extra Marines/grunts launch their RPG's/Stickies at other units.  It would be nice to command a group of Marines to fire on hogs and watch them take down 4 or 5 instead of 1.

 The tweaks to Anders and Cutter sound GREAT, bringing Anders down closer to Forge's level and bringing Cutter up.  

I agree with his main point on the Marines and Grunts. When you select a group of Vampires and order them to use Stasis on a group of hornets for example, they will split into group and select differen hornets to Stasis they will not just Stasis one. I wish that would be done to Marines/Grunts so that when you order them to attack one Warthog/Wraith/Locust/Hornet/Banshee they would instead attack many. I would like the Marines/Grunts to attack in the same way Vampires do when they Stasis.

Split off into efficient groups that allows each group to efficiently take down the unit/s in question.

I haven't read all the posts so I don't know if this has already been posted on this thread, but are you guys planning on fixing the glitch where the Arbiter gets teleported across the map when he is in rage mode attacking.  This has happened to my friend almost every game we have played the past week.  Everything else you plan on doing seems ok to me. 

TrUe SkiilL TM:

But why should a unit get a buff versus all heavy and medium armour just to suit this one situation that ROBOT feels is flawed?

They said nothing about heavy armor...

---

Do, or do not... there is no try
GT - FXT Redwolf

Learn how to post well:
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting

Typo. My point still stands.

---

zIP r i n c eIz

MeatShield:

everyone knows prince is the best

MangyForestCat:

V0LUM3:

the problem is still that you can have 30 Marines and their rockets will still only hit 1 hog unless you micro them beyond belief.

And if you're a covenent player then your sticky grenades rarely hit a moving hog anyways.

That or just have extra Marines/grunts launch their RPG's/Stickies at other units.  It would be nice to command a group of Marines to fire on hogs and watch them take down 4 or 5 instead of 1.

 The tweaks to Anders and Cutter sound GREAT, bringing Anders down closer to Forge's level and bringing Cutter up.  

I agree with his main point on the Marines and Grunts. When you select a group of Vampires and order them to use Stasis on a group of hornets for example, they will split into group and select differen hornets to Stasis they will not just Stasis one. I wish that would be done to Marines/Grunts so that when you order them to attack one Warthog/Wraith/Locust/Hornet/Banshee they would instead attack many. I would like the Marines/Grunts to attack in the same way Vampires do when they Stasis.

Split off into efficient groups that allows each group to efficiently take down the unit/s in question.

This is where skill in the RTS shines.  People who can micro good come out on top.  They don't need to make this change because some people can't micro well.

---

Do, or do not... there is no try
GT - FXT Redwolf

Learn how to post well:
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting

Hojubobdan:

andrewkole:

Jasper16:

Hojubobdan:

Balance changes:: 

1.  Gauss warthog gauss cannon damage bonus against units with heavy armor (Scorpions, Wraiths, Scarabs, Locusts) reduced so that tanks will stay as a viable option to counter warthogs.  Fair enough, reduce guass a tad bit.  But still keep it an option for unsc, its preaty much all they got against cov.  Personally i own any kind of warthog rush.

2.  Warthog build time slightly increased to restrict how fast players can mass and replace warthogs during the game. Once again, no reason to do this to warthogs. i would quit playing if this ever happend.  Seriously unsc would suck so much and the game would be thrown in the complete wrong direction, towards the fine gentlemen that dont even play.

3.  Anders bonus to tech build rate reduced to further balance the leader.  I dont even know what that means? but dont do it.

4.  Base turrets attack and health boosted slightly to increase turret viability in early and late game.  Increase turretling is not fun either, you need to think along the lines as a top stragetic game and not a fine gentlemen playground.   The game is fine You dont need these giant changes, especially for guass.

5.  Elephant health increased to improve survivability and viability as a unit.  I would like to see the elephant fixed.  I thought make the turrets on it the same as the chain gun spartan, since after all they are the same weapon, and slight very slight health increase.

6.  Grenade/ Plasma grenade / RPG damage against medium armor (warthogs, ghosts, choppers, wolverines and cobras) increased to both better balance marines/ grunts against warthogs and to improve marines overall against players who try to turtle with wolverines and cobras.  WHoa whoa whoa. That is just silly!!! Vehicles are supposed to own infrantry.  Let me just say that infrantry are still the best units in the game.  They were since the start of the game and i still use them alll the time.

7.  Recycle basic cost return fixed to be 50% for constructed buildings.  (While a technically a bug, this directly impacts many slightly exploitive strategies)  This one i oppose the most... I thought your recycle style was perfect, it actually added some inovation to the game.  Whenever it loses hitpoints it decreases in wealth, its brilliant! 

 Turrets are already a pain in the butt and stop any warthog rush for up to 6 minutes. They dont need boosting. I think the dev team needs to try again for a patch because this one isnt to good. it would send the game downhill. Just play me and i will show up warthogs are crap and infantry are already the best. 

I know this is to late but listen to him he has said it as well as it can be said.  I agree with everything he is saying.  Except I do like the idea of of recycle costing a bit but 50% is high, I would like to see maybe 20%.  As soon as the patch comes out can we start a COV is OP after the update sticky.  They already have the better winnign percentage and the unsc just got hit hard with down grades.   I hope the build time on gunner hogs has been left the same or expanding with the usnc just got really hard, and the cov rush more devestating. 

The Covenant has a better winning percentage for newer players, not expert players.  New players have no idea how to stop a leader rush properly.

 

 

I never lose with a cov leader against unsc. cov have the best win percentage from good players, not fine gentleman ones, they run around using cutter and stuff in there fine gentleman play ground.  Dont change the building sell percentage jazz at all its perfecft how it is.

I don't think this bug fix is necessary, I don't warthog rush By blowing up extra reactors. But sometimes I move my reactors around to different bases when i have the chance ( particularly on tundra when they keep bombing my reactors with the uber turret)   

Redwolf:This is where skill in the RTS shines.  People who can micro good come out on top.  They don't need to make this change because some people can't micro well.

Agreed.

---

zIP r i n c eIz

MeatShield:

everyone knows prince is the best

MangyForestCat:

V0LUM3:

the problem is still that you can have 30 Marines and their rockets will still only hit 1 hog unless you micro them beyond belief.

And if you're a covenent player then your sticky grenades rarely hit a moving hog anyways.

That or just have extra Marines/grunts launch their RPG's/Stickies at other units.  It would be nice to command a group of Marines to fire on hogs and watch them take down 4 or 5 instead of 1.

 The tweaks to Anders and Cutter sound GREAT, bringing Anders down closer to Forge's level and bringing Cutter up.  

I agree with his main point on the Marines and Grunts. When you select a group of Vampires and order them to use Stasis on a group of hornets for example, they will split into group and select differen hornets to Stasis they will not just Stasis one. I wish that would be done to Marines/Grunts so that when you order them to attack one Warthog/Wraith/Locust/Hornet/Banshee they would instead attack many. I would like the Marines/Grunts to attack in the same way Vampires do when they Stasis.

Split off into efficient groups that allows each group to efficiently take down the unit/s in question.

I understand that there is virtue in micro'ing well, but as Noctis has posted before, effectively micro'ing infantry seems to require the micro'ing skills of GOD. 

Redwolf:

MangyForestCat:

I agree with his main point on the Marines and Grunts. When you select a group of Vampires and order them to use Stasis on a group of hornets for example, they will split into group and select different hornets to Stasis they will not just Stasis one. I wish that would be done to Marines/Grunts so that when you order them to attack one Warthog/Wraith/Locust/Hornet/Banshee they would instead attack many. I would like the Marines/Grunts to attack in the same way Vampires do when they Stasis.

Split off into efficient groups that allows each group to efficiently take down the unit/s in question.

This is where skill in the RTS shines.  People who can micro good come out on top.  They don't need to make this change because some people can't micro well.

No, that just asinine. You're disagreeing with something the developers can easily put into the game and already have on other units. This would just simplify matters. It's not logical to be against a change that will be to the benefit of all involved. This takes nothing away from any player, yet you're against it for no other reason than separating people who spend all their time practicing "micro" on their controller from those who have a life outside of "micro-ing".

 EDIT: True Skill... GO TO HELL

MangyForestCat:

 

No, that just assinine. You're disagreeing with something the developers can easily put into the game and already have on other units. This would just simplify matters. It's not logical to be against a change that will be to the benefit of all involved. This takes nothing away from any player, yet you're against it for no other reason than separating people who spend all their time practicing "micro" on their controller from those who have a life outside of "micro-ing".

You don't think it is good that people who are able to manage units individually should be rewarded?

---

zIP r i n c eIz

MeatShield:

everyone knows prince is the best

TrUe SkiilL TM:

wodan460:And all that does is save you some more resources.  You save about 150 resources for not having to build a Reactor first, and you save somewhere between 30-60 resources for skipping the upgrade.  While this is a tremendous boon to Forge early in the game, the total resources saved is nowhere near what Anders will do.  775 for teching to Gauss, 1100 for teching to Hawks, not to mention the Armory Upgrades.

...It doesn't save you more resources, it generates you more resources - a lot more than you'll save as Anders. Don't be ridiculous.

Explain to me how Forge saves/generates more resources than Anders does.  130-160 for each Pad, and 150 for skipping out on an early Reactor.  Forge's savings/generated resources might be more useful all around, but it doesn't have the same raw total as Anders does.

"Grenade/ Plasma grenade / RPG damage against medium armor (warthogs, ghosts, choppers, wolverines and cobras) increased to both better balance marines/ grunts against warthogs and to improve marines overall against players who try to turtle with wolverines and cobras."

 Does this mean, that grunts will be stronger against hornets? That would be great because I think Infantry should be better against air. ( infantry<tanks<air<infantry)

TrUe SkiilL TM:

You don't think it is good that people who are able to manage units individually should be rewarded?

Nobody has ever said that. Nothing is being taken away from people who want to continue to go that route. It's not taking anything away from top players should they wish to continue out micro-ing other players. It makes everything easier for everyone involved though, even for the best players when they wish to NOT super micro everything to the ASININE level that you want to maintain.

wodan460:

TrUe SkiilL TM:

wodan460:And all that does is save you some more resources.  You save about 150 resources for not having to build a Reactor first, and you save somewhere between 30-60 resources for skipping the upgrade.  While this is a tremendous boon to Forge early in the game, the total resources saved is nowhere near what Anders will do.  775 for teching to Gauss, 1100 for teching to Hawks, not to mention the Armory Upgrades.

...It doesn't save you more resources, it generates you more resources - a lot more than you'll save as Anders. Don't be ridiculous.

Explain to me how Forge saves/generates more resources than Anders does.  130-160 for each Pad, and 150 for skipping out on an early Reactor.  Forge's savings/generated resources might be more useful all around, but it doesn't have the same raw total as Anders does.

This might not be the best description but it might help you understand.

If Forge can bring up a HSP in 30 seconds.. -- Income starts right away at a high rate

Anders has to build a reactor first (30 seconds) and then a supply pad (another 30 seconds).  During the time her first SP is building Forge is gaining money from his first pad and his second pad is now built.  OR Anders builds a supply pad first and has to wait for the reactor to build to upgrade it.  Overall, the time spent with the reactor and upgrades allows the supply pad income of forge to out weigh the eco bonus of her upgrades.  Look at any game where Forge and Anders play.  You will always notice Forge has the better eco.

---

Do, or do not... there is no try
GT - FXT Redwolf

Learn how to post well:
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting

Timotron:

 Balance changes:: 

1.  Gauss warthog gauss cannon damage bonus against units with heavy armor (Scorpions, Wraiths, Scarabs, Locusts) reduced so that tanks will stay as a viable option to counter warthogs.

Great, but what about Gauss vs. Hunters ? (or do Hunters have heavy armor ?)

2.  Warthog build time slightly increased to restrict how fast players can mass and replace warthogs during the game.

Well, once Gauss is nerfed, I don't see why the build time should be increased -_-

3.  Anders bonus to tech build rate reduced to further balance the leader.

Great, but don't make her useless, again, once Gauss is nerfed, I don't see her as OP as before (especially early game ...)

4.  Base turrets attack and health boosted slightly to increase turret viability in early and late game.

Well, I have a hard time killing 2 diagonal turrets early game (better said, I really can't kill them, until I have tanks, etc.)), maybe just make the upgrades stronger, b/c early game they're fine (I don't want to play 30 min games -_- )

5.  Elephant health increased to improve survivability and viability as a unit.

Great, Arbiter and Prophet killed an elephant like it was nothing, but maybe just switch the upgrades (first upgrade = more armor and third is "dual-engine" ... )

6.  Grenade/ Plasma grenade / RPG damage against medium armor (warthogs, ghosts, choppers, wolverines and cobras) increased to both better balance marines/ grunts against warthogs and to improve marines overall against players who try to turtle with wolverines and cobras.

Again, great, as long as it is only increased against the mentioned vehicles.

7.  Recycle basic cost return fixed to be 50% for constructed buildings.  (While a technically a bug, this directly impacts many slightly exploitive strategies)

Finally...

 

Last not least, as an Arby player, I have to ask, why didn't you put a slight nerf on him ...

Imo he's too "strong", maybe reduce the health he gets back from killed enemys, or reduce his "jumping radius", I don't know ...

---

I got two states of mind, stoned and asleep ...