ITT: We discuss the balance of the navy in BA

[Muka]

well in the same time it will be to cheap for no water maps, and getting guardians on key positions will be 2fast and 2cheap

[JohannesH]

Sea is really good for maps like Sands, where theres coasts near so you cant hide from roys etc. But big open sea is just shitty, underground mexes play a big part maybe. Making sonars and reclaiming mexes is kinda lame, and you gotta do it all the time.

And imo theres nothing wrong with microing ships currently.

You could easily say that problems of sea play are just because of bad sea maps.

And guardian is shit against land too pretty much always.

[Muka]

well guardian is good to shoot down enemy defenses / front base and getting rid of enemy in key position. example upper part of DSD i see guardian there in almost every game

[pintle]

You could easily say that problems of sea play are just because of bad sea maps.

No

[JohannesH]

k

[Llamadeus]

It is kind of stretching the definition of "bad sea map" when you're forced to include every map that is just a moderately open sea with some metal in it.

[Saktoth]

while there aren't many mexes esecially at start pos.

This, BTW, is what i mean by 'bad sea maps'- terrain matters, but metal placement more.

Secondly ships vs hovers.... making a tower based defense is too costly, and defending with t1 ships vs hovers is just , useless? hovers cost at least twice less than ships, they don't suffer from subs and are more micro friendly. I think that it should be a bit changed cause t1 ships vs hovers is quite annoying when u do your best to conquer the other water based player and hovers get your ass so easily...

Ships will beat hovers if you know what you are doing. Scout early, if there is no shipyard, set up a few scout boats to keep an eagle eye on the coast (and totally prevent him using air) and start expanding rapidly (UW mexes are hover immune ofc, which is one advantage of that system in regards to ships over hovers). Keep a few vettes on hand and just ramp up your econ. If he is playing hovers, he will have to try and contest the sea metal and will probably scout- the moment you see a hovercraft (scout or con), spam vettes. If he does attack you with hovers, your sea metal is safe, and you only need to worry about defending your beaches and base. Use radar and intercept him with vettes. If he masses up a huge horde of hovercraft before revealing them, you should already have mexed the sea by that point and have more econ. Since they never contested water with you, you will have switched to a hover/air/something force yourself ready for the land assault.

but in the sea he can get screwed by a scout boat

Read my first post. You're doing it wrong, reclaim the damn boat.

Subs kill ships? I've found that Destroyers handle them well-enough to make T1 subs not worth building. Too slow, too much micro, and all you get is a unit that does okay (but not great) against destroyers.

Vettes are the best thing on the sea against destroyers, scout boats, and hovers. Subs are the counter to vettes. Thats prettymuch how it works. Spam roys he spams vettes spam vettes he spams subs spam subs he spams roys. Though in large sea games you may often end up going destroyer just for the versatility, mex raiding and land bombardment, especially if there are is no immediate threat of hovers.

[Pxtl]

well guardian is good to shoot down enemy defenses / front base and getting rid of enemy in key position. example upper part of DSD i see guardian there in almost every game

Seriously? I don't think I've ever seen anybody get it built. Once in a while a noob _tries_ to put a Guardian on top of the DSD mountain, but they hardly ever see it through to completion.

@Saktoth - Destroyers don't get omgwtfpwned by vettes - it's a pretty tight fight, so I've found that spamming them is best... I mean, in a close game the vettes will win, but the versatility of the destroyers makes up for it. Maybe in a competetive 1v1, you'll use vettes, but otherwise I stick to the destroyers.

[Neddie]

The issue is with how laser damage drops off over range, if you bring the Corvettes into minimal engagement distance they're considerably more effective.

[Pxtl]

Yes, but that level of micro isn't always an option... and if it is, he's going to be kiting the destroyers, which is hard to do with those lumbering beasts but not impossible, and will make it hard to use that range-boost.

[HectorMeyer]

If the Guardian had a faster projectile and lower trajectory, like the toaster, it could fulfill it's role as a defensive unit better.

Also, why not give the Jellyfish a huge range and sonar buff, so it can't be outranged by destroyers anymore? Getting a foothold in contested sea would be easier then.

You could easily say that problems of sea play are just because of bad sea maps.

Yes. Claim some metal rich pond with a few scouts and vettes, get huge metalboost for your land eco from underwater spots for the rest of the game - this sucks.

[JohannesH]

Also, why not give the Jellyfish a huge range and sonar buff, so it can't be outranged by destroyers anymore? Getting a foothold in contested sea would be easier then.

This would ruin sea, roy is supposed to be able to attack land.

[KaiserJ]

pretty offtopic, but i think we're gonna have this sea to land relation effectively defeated in evo; you'll be able to start as hover or amphibious (among others) and pop directly into the sea if need be.

[Pxtl]

Guardian is too low-profile to have a Toaster-style weapon at low-trajectory. It's going to be shooting downhill, and isn't a tower.

The problem is that any fiddling with the Guardian would mess up it's gameplay on land. Its big barrier to use in naval games is it's huge cost... but if you cut that cost, it doesn't matter how much you nerf it against land, it will still be a huge change in gameplay to have such a long-ranged plasma cannon be affordable.

[Saktoth]

I wouldnt be looking at the guardian at all for a solution to sea balance. Only time ive ever seen it used is in a weird SoW rush strategy which fails more often than not.

[Neddie]

The problem of sea balance is situated in the water, for the most part, a land turret is not an effective avenue of balancing play, as special damages by LRPCs against vessels should probably reveal.

[Gertkane]

Can't say sea is completely broken like some like to think it is, when its taken into consideration as sea vs sea. But sea vs Land is broken thanks to already mentioned non-existent berthas and counters to those (sea-s biggest weakness are berthas).

More diversity could be used, perhaps flagship be made into short range heavy hitter with lots of armor and a bertha ship added.

BTW t1 subs actually do get used.

That being said, if the reworking of sea would be taken seriously it could end up real nice, but a half assed attempt will ruin it beyond all recognition.

[YokoZar]

but in the sea he can get screwed by a scout boat

Read my first post. You're doing it wrong, reclaim the damn boat.

The scoutboat outranges comm reclaim and is easily 3 times as fast. If you get reclaimed, you're doing it wrong.

Regardless, the scout can harass long enough to get a sub in there, which is the real lockout.

[hunterw]

i disagree with anyone saying sea balance is fine. look at all popular ba maps - very few have any large expansions of water. sands of war and ssb come to mind. can anyone else name popular ba maps that are over 50% covered with water?

there's plenty of maps that may become fun with rebalancing.

[1v0ry_k1ng]

"QQ im bored of BA cause i'v played it a lot so now i want to change it..."
Sea is fine.

you joke but one of the best things about AA was that every new release felt like a diffrent game