[Poll] Orcas/Apaches

[LavaDr4gon]

Are air vehicles too strong, weak, or just right?  That is a good question as air vehicles are a dominant force on flying maps.  (I am focusing on orcas/apaches).  I feel like the main purpose of the air vehicles are to provide support for the ground force, as in they shouldn't be used to rush bases but support the people out in the field.  There are multiple ways of balancing aircraft directly or indirectly that could even out the uses of air vehicles.

1. Damage nerf

Only against buildings.  Nerfing the damage orcas/apaches deal against structure will hopefully decrease their effectiveness at rushing bases causing players to use them more as support aircraft in the field.

2. Armor 

I don't know about their armor type but they could be changed to the point where anti-air units will deal more damage to them.  If the rocket soldiers damage increases against the orcas/apaches it could potentially reduce the amount of flying in the game.

3. SAMs/ anti-air towers buff

How many of you guys flew into the enemy base and said, "SHIT what am I doing?"  You think having base defenses specifically designed for countering air would show some actual effort in shooting down air units.  If the firework displays were replaced with SAMs capable of hitting their target the air units will avoid entering the enemy base while making the SAMs an actual target that must be destroyed.

4. Helipad w/ limit

A possible solution is to include the helipad on flying maps and have it be destructible.  Including a helipad as a structure like the wf/air could be interesting as it can become a prime target to remove any air units from the enemy.  Also we could add an aircraft limit for good measure. 

 

 

[RoundShades]

The problem is, 9 have so much armor, that what could 1-shot them already (plenty of units can if they all fire together, including ramjet), can't prevent 8 from hitting a building.

So armor isn't an option. They do pretty healthy damage though, perhaps their damage could be reduced a bit, and not hamper their hit-and-run or building-endangering properties?

Limits could work, but would also reduce dynamic aspects of game and might not be necessary.

Helipads actually do exist, coding might be finnicky, and placement in existing maps might be finnicky, generally a lot of trouble, but it could work.

[Henk]

Not in favor of adding helipads to each flying map, but limiting them to 4 or 5 per team is a good solution I think.

[boxes]

Limiting aircraft restricts rushes which is not what we're aiming for. Air rushes still need to be a thing, but the way it functions now is stupidly powerful. The problem is that rushes with air vehicles have insane burst damage with speed and 400+ HP per helicopter. You can't block air vehicles unlike a med rush, where you'd put 1-2 flame tanks at the base entrance to prevent tanks from rolling in. Just 6 recruit apaches/orcas alone, only the missiles, can break building armor instantly. Add on top of that the machine guns which deal 12+ damage per magazine as well as Technician/Hotwire pilots infiltrating with remotes. You can alternate between buildings instantly when inside a base during a rush. Matters are even worse when there's superweapons included, as you have to take care of those as well as the building(s) that are getting shredded by helis. All the noise they make can also mask the beacon location. 

As a vehicle in general, they have the best anti-infantry capability, far exceeding that of the humvee/buggy which were buffed against inf in the recent patch. They are the best for quickly transporting infantry from one location to another, again much better than that of the humvee/buggy. They can counter dedicated AA vehicles by using the environment, and tanks/artillery don't stand a chance in almost any circumstance.

When it comes to covering beacons, nothing is better than using orcas/apaches to wipeout repairmen with the machineguns or simply by running them over. Rooftop beacons especially as they are far away from purchase terminals and ground vehicles can't get up there. 

[voltex]

I don't think they should be nerfed just yet, the thing about them is that they are highly maneuverable which in the case of lakeside, the map I'm pretty sure everyone is thinking about, all of them can be in the enemy base is a matter of seconds. While on maps like eyes or whiteout I don't see them used as much as they are more open and usually spotted and can be dealt with sooner.

Yes they are great at dealing with infantry but most adv infantry can deal with them fairly easily especially since most of them can out range them, another reason why they aren't used as much on open maps.

Yes a large group of them can quickly take down a building but so can a group of mrls/ artys from a greater distance, the orcas have to be inside the base.

I would like to see the SAM sites get a buff, currently they don't really make a noticeable difference and aren't worth defending, most players reaction to one being destroyed is "we lost a SAM site, oh well, one less thing to repair", a buff to their damage, range, rate of fire, or splash damage as orca's/ apache's tend to clump together would be nice. They wouldn't necessarily keep air units out but they would be better at helping to clear them out.

Just watch any game with SAM sites, 9 times out of 10 all the SAM sites are still intact at the end because they are completely ignored, if they are destroyed its usually by some random infantry or mrls/arty trying to get extra VP.

[boxes]

That's because on whiteout using ground vehicles is more optimal in keeping the enemy team holed up in their base as you can shell a building from 3 areas instead of 1. Spamming air vehicles with inf support can work just as well as it does on walls concerning map control.

SAMs if anything need a buff in range so they can keep air vehicles out of base perimeters. Their range currently is the same as apache/orca missiles which plays no role except during a base raid. 

[Jarzey]

40 minutes ago, CampinJeff said:

SAMs if anything need a buff in range so they can keep air vehicles out of base perimeters. Their range currently is the same as apache/orca missiles which plays no role except during a base raid. 

Not really. SAMs have the same range as Turrets/GTs or AGT/Obi, which is 2500 units higher compared to Apache/Orca missiles.

Another concern about SAMs is that their missiles are too slow; if you see them incoming, you can evade them by shift drifting or backing into cover. I would personally suggest to either double their projectile speed to match AGT's rocket speed, or add projectile acceleration to them, in a manner akin to how stank missiles work.

Edited October 26, 2016 by Jarzey

[boxes]

I highly doubt that's the case, maybe the missiles themselves have that range but sams wont engage you in a heli until you're also within firing range

[Jarzey]

So with the assistance of a volunteer and my brother we looked deeply into this:

Picture 1:

The SAM site on the left edge of the screen is just in range of the stolen Apache. The SAM fired missiles against it. The Apache did not move forward and retreat afterwards; it just hovered around without moving.

Picture 2:

The Apache's rocket swarm only reaches the Turret if fired from there and without moving forward.

Picture 3:

The Orca is struck by the SAM (explosion), while the Hellfire missile is en route towards the SAM.

Picture 4:

The Orca's Missile expires and explodes just in range of the Turret. Apache and Orca have the same range, both with missiles and their machinegun/cannon.

If they only fired when you are in range of your heli's guns, then the SAM wouldn't fire unless your heli got forward approx around the second rock under the trees on Lakeside.

This was tested on MPF forums server and more of this on skirmish.

I understand your perspective: I think the SAM right now has to account for the lock-on time akin to a charge-up time, so therefore the illusion of them only firing when you are in range with your heli's guns is mainly because you have probably been moving forward rather than standing still during the SAM's charge-up time.

Possible buff: SAMs should fire immediately when you are in their range.

Edited October 26, 2016 by Jarzey

[j0g32]

If anything, make Anti-Air (SAM sites, or rocket soldiers) more deadly to aircraft by increasing their damage and/or agility. I wouldn't nerf the armour though, as sniper rifles will again become the best anti-air defence ...

[Madkill40]

Increase damage of rocket-based attacks against Orca/Apache or nerf Orca/Apache armour so 3 rockets can kill an Orca/Apache, making dodging rockets more important. 

Nerf building damage for Apache and Orca rockets,

Nerf vehicle damage for Apache MG,

Nerf infantry damage for Orca MG,

Increase infantry damage for Apache rockets,

Increase vehicle damage Orca rockets,

Decrease reload time for Orca rockets by 1 second,

Decrease reload time for Apache MG by 1 second,

Remove passenger for Orca and Apache,

Increase Orca rocket range,/Decrease Apache rocket range,

Increase Apache MG range./Decrease Orca MG range.

 

Edited October 27, 2016 by Madkill40

[Sn4ke]

7 hours ago, Madkill40 said:

Increase infantry damage for Apache rockets

why? Apaches MG is already super strong against infantry - even dealing a lot of splash damage so it's hard to hide from Apaches

7 hours ago, Madkill40 said:

Remove passenger for Orca and Apache

think that's just unnecessary limiting of strategic possibilities

[yosh56]

Was honestly still debating going back to having Orca/Apache rockets not lock and just move faster for one, so air battles are less weird and unintuitive with the whole 'move in - hope you lock on first - move out... probably just go back to base'. It's actually more lag-based than skill-based right about now, one reason you rarely see me fly Apaches/Orcas.... I'm always struggling to lock onto anything (I just have to guess where the server thinks I should be looking to lock).  

On top of editing how rockets work, removing the passengers seat may fix a 'problem' with Walls: that being that holding the plateau after you have mass air is a cake walk, since Apaches/Orcas in mass (especially coordinated) can easily ferry infantry to the top as well. 

 

----------------

Overall I think their damages could use some tweaking... but maybe not too much. They do a lot, but they're far from overpowered. 6 breaking armour in one 2-3 seconds isn't actually that much more impressive than 6 flamers doing, or Meds/MRLS or Mammoths. Honestly I'd say Lakeside is just an imbalanced map for aircraft because of one MAJOR flaw: 

Aircraft can just use the infantry paths (the chasm and the forest) which means that their greatest threats (APCs/Humvees/Buggies) can't react to them UNTIL they're pretty much in their base doing damage. It's not like you can intercept Apaches with anything but Orcas (or vice versa) until it's too late. On Whiteout/Walls, aside from right on the plateau, Apaches/Orcas still have to move over vehicle lanes to rush, and even then, if they go straight over the middle they're click bait for snipers/rockets... but also still have to deal with taking damage after they're past the plateau, and still not able to do damage yet. 

-------------------

On the subject of buffing SAMs... they already got  the largest damage buff ever like 8 patches ago. Maybe to stick with the theme of CnC(3), I'd be willing to add some fairly significant splash damage though, that way large groupings of aircraft are less viable until they're down. At most making the rocket's damage 75*2 would be acceptable, as opposed to the current 50*2

 

 

[Henk]

Agreed on the bigger splash radius for SAMs.

Wouldn't know how you'd change Lakeside except for a huge vehicle blocking volume, blocking access to the air above the infantry path, but that would just feel weird.

[Axesor]

Rocket soldier. Buff rocket soldier. Solved.

[boxes]

7 hours ago, yosh56 said:

Overall I think their damages could use some tweaking... but maybe not too much. They do a lot, but they're far from overpowered. 6 breaking armour in one 2-3 seconds isn't actually that much more impressive than 6 flamers doing, or Meds/MRLS or Mammoths. 

The difference like I said is the mobility. Aircraft can easily swarm a building whenever they want and wherever, while tanks have to use a specific path to enter a base. Aircraft also have the most burst damage and are also unable to be physically blocked. 

[Jarzey]

My two cents on how the SAMs should get buffed.

-Increase projectile speed to 4000;

-Decrease reload time to 3.5;

-Increase range to 8000 (same as AGT rocket);

-Double the damage radius to 600.

Increasing damage to 75x2 sounds fine.

10 hours ago, yosh56 said:

they already got  the largest damage buff ever like 8 patches ago

 

10 hours ago, yosh56 said:

"(Seriously... they did like 40 damage per 2 rockets? That's not even significant enough to deter a SINGLE aircraft)"

I presume that before that damage buff they did 20x2 damage, based on this comment found in the GitHub repo....

[Madkill40]

16 hours ago, DarkSn4ke said:

why? Apaches MG is already super strong against infantry - even dealing a lot of splash damage so it's hard to hide from Apaches

So it counter-balances the Orca suggested changes which I also suggested as a basic suggestion list of overall suggestions of which to make balance changes for the two aircraft in question.

16 hours ago, DarkSn4ke said:

"Remove passenger for Orca/Apache."

think that's just unnecessary limiting of strategic possibilities

There doesn't seem to be much of a strategic possibility in fighter-craft taxi, the Transport helicopter exists for a reason and an Orca/Apache being able to ferry a passenger makes that 9 Orca/Apache rush with 5 Hotwires/Technicians a lil'overkill on Walls, on Lakeside you can ferry 5 people across the refinery side in less than a minute, whiteout delivers that hotwire/technician 'strategy'. This all just feels like it takes away from the actual passenger-based vehicles. (Trans/APC)

 

These quotes aside, removing lock-on and having faster rockets would be fun.

[Handepsilon]

On 10/27/2016 at 5:53 PM, yosh56 said:

Aircraft can just use the infantry paths (the chasm and the forest) which means that their greatest threats (APCs/Humvees/Buggies) can't react to them UNTIL they're pretty much in their base doing damage. It's not like you can intercept Apaches with anything but Orcas (or vice versa) until it's too late.
 

You can probably solve it by making some sort of short cavern with high cliff in the middle of the forest to filter aircraft and effectively disallow them to cross the Infantry path.

I agree that it's Lakeside's major flaw, the lack of actual Infantry path since vehicles deter them in almost everwhere. And no, getting deep into the forest don't help much

[vandal33]

I'm more concerned about how they can destroy a building (it's armor bar especially) in just seconds. Apache/Orca rushes still needs to be a thing in the game ( Teams still deserve to lose a building from air assaults if they fail to respond in time ), but not this powerful.

My suggestion is lower the firing/reloading rate and damage and remove "squishing" infantry so it has to rely more on it's canons while fighting rocket soldiers or stopping engineers disarming.

[Sn4ke]

To all developers:

Do you generally consider to change Orcas / Apaches or not?

55 % voted no, but with only 20 votes this is not really significant. @yosh56 / @Henk posted their view as devs, but there was no response that clarified the initial request.

Maybe you're already discussing this in private but I guess we all would like to know

[boxes]

I think the plan is that sams/AA towers are going to be buffed first. We'll see how they stand from there, then consider any kind of adjustment afterwards.

[Madkill40]

The Lakeside infantry routes by the refinery's could do with being more opened up so more in-base units can fire at incoming aircraft or blocked from air-vehicle access. The route being more open to give a bigger view of incoming aircraft may actually work better than just blocking it off but blocking it off means aircraft have two routes which gives infantry and vehicles a chance to spot and/or take out aircraft. 

Will provide a visual of what I mean when I say "The route being more open"

[Sn4ke]

@Madkill40

On 22.11.2016 at 4:50 PM, Fffreak9999 said:

I have already produced a non-flying version of the map, it is not available to others yet.

I want to wait until we have a full working downloader for the custom maps sorted before introducing it, although I may see about trying it out on a PUG one day.

Well, if Lakeside (hopefully) becomes a Tanker map, this is no longer necessary