Thanks to the ability to boost, the swift is effectively immune to mobile AA with slow-firing missiles, but quite vulnerable to insta-hit mobile AA. The Jethro, Flak and Archangel are effective killers vs Swift, but Vandal and Crasher fail miserably. Tarantula and Flail fail but not quite as severely as they have greater range/flight time and can sometimes still hit the Swifts as they flee. Is there a reason for the discrepancy?
+0 / -0
|
I'm also curious about the thinking behind the AA units. Not only in their interaction with the swift and its dgun, but also their synergy with their fac (flex AA units etc.).
+0 / -0
|
quote:
Is there a reason for the discrepancy? |
It would be awfully boring if all the AA units performed the same way in every situation. Some are better at doing certain things, others are better in other areas. Additionally, I don't really agree that Gremlins are good killers of Swift. They have no alpha so the moment you hear their lasers you just press d. Gremlin has atrocious range due to which your Swifts will get out of range almost immediately. Meanwhile, if you mistime the boost when getting into range of Crashers/Vandals the missiles succeed at catching up and will actually hurt. Utlimately though I don't see how this matters. Swifts are made of paper and merely tickle ground units. In groups they will harrass undefended raiders/skirmishers, but even very low concentrations of dedicated AA (including Crashers/Vandals/whatever) will zone them out completely.
+2 / -0
|
quote:
It would be awfully boring if all the AA units performed the same way in every situation. |
Agreed, but I don't think that difference should be defined in such an arbitrary way - alpha, range, damage, reload time, projectile speed/spread/angle/AoE, plus the characteristics of the unit itself, are enough means of differentiation. Its not interesting to have units that are just bad vs a specific type of plane because their projectiles are too slow and low flight time - this is info normal players don't even have access to, its not intuitive (why is making crashers - mobile AA - the wrong response to someone massing a type of plane?) It could be standardised by giving all the AA missiles a longer flight time - then any missile fired at a plane is likely to hit eventually. quote:
Additionally, I don't really agree that Gremlins are good killers of Swift. |
They are not good killers, but they can get the jump on them via cloak, and they can hit them.
+0 / -0
|
quote:
not interesting to have units that are just bad vs a specific type of plane because their projectiles are too slow and low flight time - this is info normal players don't even have access to. |
TIL that normal players cannot compare speeds of objects moving on their screen despite three hundred million years of mammalian evolution
+5 / -0
|
In the fiery light of that straw man. speed of objects =/= flight time (ability of projectile to exceed range of weapon before losing trajectory/guidance) How far beyond weapon range can projectile of Crasher fly? How does this compare to that of Tarantula? Where is this info available to players? certain factories AA units being extra weak vs a type of plane =/= intuitive
+0 / -0
|
I find that it's rarely flight time that gets Swifts, but rather the moment at which D is pressed and the missile speed. The only missile i know which they cannot Dodge is the Screamer's - because it has enough speed to chase them even when dodging.
+0 / -0
|
I think that missile speed, turnrate, flight time and flight distance should be part of the balance to make some missiles miss fast targets. Last time I discussed it if I recall correctly, Licho and KingRaptor didn't like it because they thought it would be unintuitive that intercepting missiles are more likely to hit at max range than chasing missiles at max range. Personally I am used to that from OTA. In OTA missile would frequently miss airplanes because they ran out of fuel and because the missiles couldn't keep up with the planes when coming from certain angles.
+2 / -0
|
In general, the boost seems to run counter to the intent of the difference between the two fighters - I mean, isn't it supposed to be that the Hawk is the one that fights in hostile territory and is high survivability while the Swift is a fragile raider? The boost was a massive buff to Swift survivability. It's a beautiful, spectacular, sexy gameplay concept, but I didn't quite understand why it was added.
+0 / -0
|
So that swift wasnt just cheaper vamp with different guns.
+0 / -0
|
  Pxtl Swift is the mobility fighter and Hawk is the tanky fighter.
+0 / -0
|
It's mostly the retreat-ability of the boost I'm talking about. It lets the swift hit in defended areas that probably should be left to the Hawk.
+1 / -0
|
As an alternative; the boost could be nerfed. The speed increase is a little ridiculous when you think about it. Maybe the duration could be increased but the maximum speed decreased.
+3 / -0
|
Maybe you can dive into enemy aa a bit with swifts to kill something flying, but not more really. It's true you can avoid some aa missiles with d-gun on your way back, but you still need to get into first.
+0 / -0
|
Seems fairly minor to me. I've never heard anyone complain that their factory choice is underpowered vs. swift unless they're GS. There is variance, but honestly I think the cost and single target DPS discrepancies are more impactful. If rapiers are coming it's a little tricky to get out your archangel in time.
+1 / -0
|
quote:
I've never heard anyone complain that their factory choice is underpowered vs. swift |
"Light vehicles are underpowered vs. swift"
+0 / -0
|
Are you quoting someone having said that or are you explicitly stating that you believe this to be the case? How can LV have a problem with swifts when swifts are essentially dead metal against even token GtA? That swifts can survive being looked at by a unit does not a problem for that unit make. Crashers are fast and cheap with long range and that's huge. They do a good job of deterring bombers and that seems like a more important job than taxing swift scouts.
+0 / -0
|
I believe that to be the case. Crasher is ineffective against swift. This allows a swiftball to frequently fly over your territory or advancing units and snipe things, crashers fail to add any real risk of attrition (context: teamgames). This is only really an issue vs swift and licho, but its still an unintentional failing of the unit.
+0 / -0
|
Okay context helps (my apologies, I have a tendency to assume 1v1 balance, bad habit). Okay, team games. If swifts boost through your territory to pick off targets, your air player should eat them alive. Boosting into opposing territory is a terrible idea and your team had already lost if you can't stop it. If they're coming in, sniping stuff, and then boosting out before a real reaction, I can see that possibly being a problem, but again, this seems to imply your air player is utterly incapable of defending himself. Essentially, if someone is air and they manage to circumvent your crashers and every other mobile AA, defender, and dedicated AA, then make cost in air to air and then use boost to get away without your airplayer doing the same to catch up, they deserve to win! Do you have any particular games in mind that you could post?
+0 / -0
|
How does Gs have problems with swifts? Tridents do very nasty things to them...very efficiently. Not to mention rapiers alone do ok. Swifts only work well when you have a huge ball so you can sniper air units one at a time and run away, but this is not very practical. Swift balls can be very effective on large maps where speed trumps all, but otherwise they are a gimmick strategy like caretaker farms. It is very "cute" and does something cool, but like caretaker farms is not practical due to its cost inefficiency. Scorchers alone deal well with swifts. Luckily SF casted a game where this is apparent here around 11:30 being an example.
+0 / -0
|
