Screamer and Mercury are still shit

Screamer and Mercury are still shit

Classic game design, maintained to please you...

Moderator: Content Developer

User avatar
RageQ
Posts: 19
Joined: 03 Apr 2013, 18:10

Screamer and Mercury are still shit

Post by RageQ »

www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzftlPMLzb8

Do what you must, I have already won.
User avatar
Silentwings
Moderator
Posts: 3695
Joined: 25 Oct 2008, 00:23

Re: Screamer and Mercury are still shit

Post by Silentwings »

I don't know whats made you think screamer/mercury are supposed to be a replacement for flaks. In general we try and avoid duplicating the roles of units. And yes for what you're testing there of course flak kills much more stuff.

If you try and do the job of a dominator using a goliath it won't be very effective either, even though the goliath costs alot more ...

For comparison only: :P
Attachments
20130403_193415_DeltaSiegeDry_94.sdf
(60.09 KiB) Downloaded 25 times
User avatar
RageQ
Posts: 19
Joined: 03 Apr 2013, 18:10

Re: Screamer and Mercury are still shit

Post by RageQ »

Silentwings wrote:I don't know whats made you think screamer/mercury are supposed to be a replacement for flaks. In general we try and avoid duplicating the roles of units. And yes for what you're testing there of course flak kills much more stuff.

If you try and do the job of a dominator using a goliath it won't be very effective either, even though the goliath costs alot more ...

For comparison only: :P
About the replay:

airshield will be pulled back when screamers start shooting at it.

screamers will be berthaed/bombed because they are too shit to defend themselves against air attack.

when someone can deploy sufficent buildpower so close to enemy fightershield and have 3k m to spare for screamers, they probably have won already and are just making the game longer.

At least dominators are good at something...

sorry. they are still shit. just like core t3 (maybe excluding catapult)
User avatar
Silentwings
Moderator
Posts: 3695
Joined: 25 Oct 2008, 00:23

Re: Screamer and Mercury are still shit

Post by Silentwings »

"For comparison purposes only" means my replay was not intended to replicate a real game situation, as far as I can see nor was yours? I'm not making a stand for the usefulness/uselessness of merc/scr.

Posting "A video that is both informative and offensive at the same time" with only the words "Do what you must, I have already won" is not much motivation for me...

The variation in peoples views in what is useful or not is bigger than I think you realize - actually more people complain that core t3 is too good (kargs especially, and in fact the majority of people who've spoke to me about catas were wondering about an hp increase).

Since merc/scr underwent a huge change recently its likely not to be perfect and its much more damaging to gameplay if we introduce something OP than something underpowered. We collect unit statistics from large numbers of games and in comparison to how much info we'll get from that I can't make much use of your "Sorry but its shit" video.

In response to your comments though: The buildpower needed for merc/scr/flak is actually about equal, although the cost is different. Yes people will move fight screens back, but this also gives a big advantage to you when they do. Often they also forget or take ages to do it (I've seen you rage at people who aren't doing it before...). The situation where I've found them really useful is when pushing a ground attack forward and building them in behind as I go to cover the front. But I've not seen nearly enough of them to make a decision. They aren't causeing any trouble (they were *really* useless before imo) and aren't top of my priorities of things to do.
User avatar
RageQ
Posts: 19
Joined: 03 Apr 2013, 18:10

Re: Screamer and Mercury are still shit

Post by RageQ »

Silentwings wrote:"For comparison purposes only" means my replay was not intended to replicate a real game situation, as far as I can see nor was yours? I'm not making a stand for the usefulness/uselessness of merc/scr.....

...We collect unit statistics from large numbers of games and in comparison to how much info we'll get from that I can't make much use of your "Sorry but its shit" video.
Be sure to comment, like and share on Facebook.
klapmongool
Posts: 843
Joined: 13 Aug 2007, 13:19

Re: Screamer and Mercury are still shit

Post by klapmongool »

Hmm. I'v only did a small test after the change but that was with blades. Those seemed to die like crazy against screamer/mercury. Did I miss something?

Also, range can be worth a lot.

The main downside I noticed to screamer/mercury was that they also rape your own air and ground..
User avatar
Floris
Balanced Annihilation Developer
Posts: 609
Joined: 04 Jan 2011, 20:00

Re: Screamer and Mercury are still shit

Post by Floris »

I agree since its range has also been nerfed. Nice video
User avatar
Neddie
Community Lead
Posts: 9406
Joined: 10 Apr 2006, 05:05

Re: Screamer and Mercury are still shit

Post by Neddie »

I was very amused by the title of this thread; they've largely been rubbish since AA.
User avatar
Silentwings
Moderator
Posts: 3695
Joined: 25 Oct 2008, 00:23

Re: Screamer and Mercury are still shit

Post by Silentwings »

@Neddie, yes :P We tried to change this recently. They are definately 'less shit' but apparently at least still 'slightly shit' ...
User avatar
Cheesecan
Posts: 1571
Joined: 07 Feb 2005, 21:30

Re: Screamer and Mercury are still shit

Post by Cheesecan »

Nice video! :mrgreen:

Screamers and mercury have extreme range so they should by definition not be cost effective. They can be used for attrition warfare when opponents are nearby, e.g. FFA. This is a niche ability that could be abused to shit, rendering other AA and even fighters useless, if screamer/mercury were cost effective. My definition of cost effective here is beating flak and fighters.

However they should also not be useless. I think few will debate this thanks to the video, and the rarity of seeing these turrets built by good players in any scenario.

Ideally, all units/turrets should force enemies to adapt and change tactics. For screamer/mercury the counters could be:
  • Spacing out bombers/transport drops, in order to minimize losses.
  • Send in scout planes first, in order to eliminate loss (scouts are virtually free).
  • EMP/Tactical nuke.
  • Flanking by utilizing slow turn rate (see below).
My proposal of balance changes:
  • Carefully tune down metal cost by 15% (1572->1337 / 1762 -> 1500).
  • Increase the area of effect to 345 (+15%).
  • Increase the turn rate to the same as golly, so that players have to pre-position them in anticipation of attack using the fire command.
  • Keep the reloading time the same.
  • Have screamer/mercury automatically coordinate attack, so they fire on different targets with optimal spacing. Add a menu button for toggling firing on scout planes.
User avatar
Silentwings
Moderator
Posts: 3695
Joined: 25 Oct 2008, 00:23

Re: Screamer and Mercury are still shit

Post by Silentwings »

My proposal of balance changes:
I think your 'suggested changes' are aimed at the screamer/mercury from 7.72 and before; not the one from 7.73+. In 7.73+ it has AoE of 500 and fires 3 missiles in a burst before reloading. It also won't aim at already dead targets and will preferentially spread its missiles. Low damage though; it murders cheap small air attacking in close-knit swarms but doesn't hurt the big stuff all that much.
Screamers and mercury have extreme range so...
I agree. Also having them optimize where they fire is a nice idea and is even possible in 94.0+ thanks to some new lua callins.
User avatar
REVENGE
Posts: 2381
Joined: 24 Aug 2006, 06:13

Re: Screamer and Mercury are still shit

Post by REVENGE »

Copy ZK.
User avatar
Johannes
Posts: 1265
Joined: 17 Sep 2010, 15:49

Re: Screamer and Mercury are still shit

Post by Johannes »

What exactly would having better (at whatever point they'd stop being SHIT) screamers accomplish? Ok, you've got a long range AA turret that can be frequently used to good effect of some kind. Will BA be a better game then?
gajop
Moderator
Posts: 3047
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 20:42

Re: Screamer and Mercury are still shit

Post by gajop »

A series of good small changes should produce a better game overall, I think.
klapmongool
Posts: 843
Joined: 13 Aug 2007, 13:19

Re: Screamer and Mercury are still shit

Post by klapmongool »

Johannes wrote:What exactly would having better (at whatever point they'd stop being SHIT) screamers accomplish? Ok, you've got a long range AA turret that can be frequently used to good effect of some kind. Will BA be a better game then?
Defending against t2 air with ground AA is pretty shitty now (and has been for a long time). It should be a feasible option not to have a fighter screen.Now this part of the gameplay is severely limited since you HAVE to do a fighterscreen.

Diversity of feasible tactics adds to the fun i think. Making screamers balanced for long range AA would help.
User avatar
Jools
XTA Developer
Posts: 2814
Joined: 23 Feb 2009, 16:29

Re: Screamer and Mercury are still shit

Post by Jools »

Silentwings wrote: I agree. Also having them optimize where they fire is a nice idea and is even possible in 94.0+ thanks to some new lua callins.
You mean proximityPriority tag in weapondefs? Or what callin?
User avatar
Silentwings
Moderator
Posts: 3695
Joined: 25 Oct 2008, 00:23

Re: Screamer and Mercury are still shit

Post by Silentwings »

You mean proximityPriority tag in weapondefs? Or what callin?
They already have proximity priority controlled - in 94 there are new (I think) callins that allow you manipulate the behaviour of projectiles individually.
User avatar
Johannes
Posts: 1265
Joined: 17 Sep 2010, 15:49

Re: Screamer and Mercury are still shit

Post by Johannes »

klapmongool wrote:
Johannes wrote:What exactly would having better (at whatever point they'd stop being SHIT) screamers accomplish? Ok, you've got a long range AA turret that can be frequently used to good effect of some kind. Will BA be a better game then?
Defending against t2 air with ground AA is pretty shitty now (and has been for a long time). It should be a feasible option not to have a fighter screen.Now this part of the gameplay is severely limited since you HAVE to do a fighterscreen.

Diversity of feasible tactics adds to the fun i think. Making screamers balanced for long range AA would help.
They are already balanced for long range AA (at least were, haven't checked the changed version). Which means, only a very rare circumstantial thing. Anything else and it ruins things by being simply too boring yet good - you just pop one down wherever and pretty much all your skies are covered with little room for clever maneuvering.

Of course another thing is that a lategame fighter screen as is can be blamed of the same thing, not much micro or positioning to be made, but that's not something fixable by buffing/remaking screamer. Another approach is needed.
User avatar
SinbadEV
Posts: 6475
Joined: 02 May 2005, 03:56

Re: Screamer and Mercury are still shit

Post by SinbadEV »

Seems to me the purpose of these things is to deal with single fighters being used as scouts... not so much protecting your base as making it harder for the other guy to see what you are working on (needs to send the right kind of planes or small swarms to make it close enough to assess your "real" defences).
User avatar
Pxtl
Posts: 6112
Joined: 23 Oct 2004, 01:43

Re: Screamer and Mercury are still shit

Post by Pxtl »

REVENGE wrote:Copy ZK.
Ick, no. ZK's screamers are just OMGWTFBBQ super-expensive AA that deprecates everything below it when you build one - the stockpile mechanic is pointless since they stockpile free and it basically provides invincible AA coverage once you have one well-stocked. The BA screamer - an area-denial weapon and not a bona-fide defense, is a far more interesting device.
Post Reply

Return to “Balanced Annihilation”

cron