Raging Amish Raging Amish

The LF/Scout fleet, a Response

The LF/Scout fleet, a Response

To start, I'm going to make an arguement that I know a lot of you are going to disagree with. I don't think fighters are an acceptable counter to long range firgates. Why? It takes a dispraportianate amount of effort to counter fighters than it takes to build them. For like 30 or so fighter squads, you only need 30 or so flak. Think about it. 200 ship slots vs. 120? That favors flak heavily.

Fighters to me always have and will always be a wierd unit. They are super weak and die super easily. That to me means they need to be on the move when countering whatever they're countering so they're not in range of what can kill them, which to me says the fighters is designed to counter the bomber. It just happens to be good against other units.

Strikecraft are the only unit that can die, but not have to be fiscally replaced. This leads to imbalance in using fighters against lrfs because if flak destroy the fighters, the person who was using fighters has to wait a loooong time for antimatter reserves to build up and rebuild his fleet rather than build new carriers with new fighters.This gives the flak/lrf user a window of opportunity to deal a knockout blow with the enemy's investment dead and rebuilding.

This is why scouts have to stay. The relationship between fighters and flak makes it so that fighters can't be too strong, because then you have a new spam, but can't be too weak because then the bomber spam would become popular. This means scouts are the only reliable answer to the lrf spam early in a game. Thankfully, there's a big drop off in how effective scouts are later in the game thanks to bad multipliers and poor amounts of dps.

And so it begins............

People seem to hate scouts.....

No, not that kind, although some poeple do.

Gotta love 'em, but not  that  kind, unfortunately

Ah....that's nice...but still no.

You're getting warmer. (Age of Empire II Scout Cavalry)

Ah....there they are.....but oh?  What's this?

People are using these with their scout armies because it's an effective early game fleet that is useful more because these units counter a lot of early game targets but in and of themselves are actually weak units? Whaaaaa?

Seriously though, take a look at this. In green are the two types of damage scouts and light frigs do.

 

  Very Light Light Medium Heavy Very Heavy  Capital
Anti-Very Light 150 75 50 50 50 50
Anti-Light 100 200 50 50 50 50
Anti-Medium 100 100 150 75 75 75
Anti-Heavy 100 75 100 150 50 50
Anti-Very Heavy 50 50 50 50 100 75
Composite 100 150 125 100 100 75
Capital 25 75 100 100 100 100

Now take a look at it again. I'm going to highlight the columns of what both anti-light and anti-heavy units suck against

 

  Very Light Light Medium Heavy Very Heavy  Capital
Anti-Very Light 150 75 50 50 50 50
Anti-Light 100 200 50 50 50 50
Anti-Medium 100 100 150 75 75 75
Anti-Heavy 100 75 100 150 50 50
Anti-Very Heavy 50 50 50 50 100 75
Composite 100 150 125 100 100 75
Capital 25 75 100 100 100 100

 

Scouts and lf's suck against against targets with medium armor, very heavy armor, and capital armor. A carrier cap, light frigs early, and some heavy cruisers later (if the idiot is still making them) is all you need early to snuff this strategy. If you want people to stop doing it, you have to beat them first. We complained for ages about the Illuminator (still do), but not there is an actual counter so people don't do it as much anymore. People have drifted to this strategy either because they've had their ass handed to them with it, or they find it to be the most effective.

The counter is rather unusual, I admit, but still works. Thanks to the fact that the lf/scout combo requires scouts, that means half that fleet is bascially just taking up space in his ship slots.

Poeple don't like that a tier 0 strategy works so early.....What else is going to work super super early in the game? You can't build mid game ships in the early game and have them work? Hello? How is that unexpected? You can't build a MID game ship in the EARLY stages and  win? The early game fleet wins in the early stages? Whaaaaa? Really?

Now, I will be serious and say I think the bigger grievance is when these fleets get large. If his fleet gets large, (60 + lf, 80+ scouts), then that means you had adequate time to be forming your own fleet of light frigs, caps, and hc's in some mix or form. A pure lf fleet will crush said opponent. A couple caps will help. And with that kind of time getting hc's out in decent 10+ capacity isn't unreasonable. Repair bays are your friends against people who rush you first.

Let's not forget that scouts are pathetic in combat, as are light frigs, yes even the seeker and disciple.

I seem to be in the minority among the vets in thinking this isn't a problem. I don't see the scout army as a problem. I don't see the light frig army as a problem. I don't see them together as a problem. As along as they're all counterable, I'm happy. I don't make my fleet according to what I want to make. I make it according to what my opponent made. I don't think this prohibits late game ships from coming out, and I don't think this is a problem for current balance. It's a new trend that people need to learn to crush, and the exploiters will look for something else (they'll probably go back to the Illum).

 

 

110,640 views 71 replies
Reply #51 Top

The scout is not a combat unit!

You're around the 5th person I've heard vehemently argue this point, yet the only response I can give you is it's like saying I can't sleep on a couch because it's not a bed.

Also, while this is not a shot at you, the underlying reasons for people who have argued this point with me have had the underlying motive of:

"Whaaaaaaaaa, my lrf fleet can be countered!!!! Now I have to play tactically and not rely on a broken unit".  Not saying that's what you're doing, but that's almost immediately what I'm reminded of.

FIX the fighter. STOP the scout from being abusable as a military unit that requires no military research or dedication whatsoever. I refuse to believe this balancing is the kind of rocket science math some on these threads will claim!

Rocket science no. The feeling on this board seems to be that 1.10 was the closest we've seen to balance. I wasn't around all that much then, so I have to say I think the current balance is the best we've had. I mention 1.10 because the one thing that poeple seem to agree on is that while fighters countered lrfs....they were also OP. Flak couldn't kill the unit, so the unit was abused. The devs made it so that flak could destroy fighters sufficiently.

People probably are going to disagree with me on this point, but I think the idea of balancing say drone hosts vs. disicples/flak was along the ilk of:

2 light frigs and 3 flak. The flak kill the fighters, the light frigs kill the carrier. 5 flak will neutralize a carrier yes, but aren't gonna kill it anytime soon. This is a very case specific example, but I hope you see what my point is here. You need both flak and something to kill the actual carrier ( which begs the question, why not just adjust the multipliers and give carriers very light armor?, or if you can't live with that name, call it carrier armor)

The obvious solution and appropriate counter to the LRF is the fighter. This unit was MEANT to be the counter. Let's not settle for some 'they-can't-get-the-balance-right-so-let's-balance-it-ourselves-by-abusing-the-scout' pseudo-balance.

In a matter of almost 2 yrs now we have seen fighters go from obscelesence, to over bearing superiority, to a current state where if there are no flak, they are sufficient, but if there are flak, good luck. Personally, I'm happy with that balance.

I don't see where the frustration comes in here because flak counter BOTH scouts and fighters hard. It's a matter of choice for which anti-light damage dealer you want. Even worse for the scout case is that they suck hard against light frigs, carriers, EVEN SUPPORT FRIGS, and heavy cruisers. The only thing they're good at is anti-lrf.

RA talks around the issue on one side claiming that Scouts & LF are INEFFECTIVE units to downplay them, but then goes on to say he doesn't care if they are imbalanced as long as they counter LRF.

I feel like my words have been misconstrued. Look at the base dps of scouts and lf's compared to lrfs/hcs. They're pitiful. The only thing they're good at is countering specific targets, and yes....these happen to be units that more popular for rushing. I would never want an OP tactic in this game. Where we seem to agree is that the current state of scouts is poor and should be balanced. I want them to balanced overall to about the current TEC scout. You would like to be balanced around the current navigator. We both see the same issue. We just have different opinions of balance and different solutions.

I just want a sufficient counter to LRF. None of this "buf it there's flak it doesn't work" stuff. Something that I can turn to and get an answer to " I need to kill lrf, what do I use? ". If that answer is fighters. So be it. I'll be content . Provided it works. In the past two years the issue hasn't been resolved, and I don't think it can be for reasons stated in the OP. I don't want a scout counter that can just barely work by your chinney chin chin like navigators, but I don't want a counter like seekers where it's ridiculous. I want it around t he arcova. Not too strong. Not too weak. Just right. That's my opinion....stressing OPINION.

 

 

Reply #52 Top

Again, some people seem to be missing that nerfing scouts will just lead to the LRM/flak show again.  Heavy Cruisers are not a counter when they more or less require a feed to get to in time.  What else counters LRMs?  Fighters?  Get 10 flak and your opponent just wasted thousands on his now useless carriers.  LFs?  LRMs own them.  That leaves gettings LRMs yourself.  Many are tired of this, and choose to spam scouts instead.  Are Advent scouts a little too good?  Sure.  Are Visari tier 0 units a little too weak?  Definitely.  Is LRM spam going to dominate the game again if scouts get nerfed across the board?  It's a very safe bet.

I played a 3v3 on ICO for the first time in ages.  What did the entire opposing team do?  Spam LRMs all game.  How did we beat it?  My teammates got a lot of scouts, and I was forced to spam LRMs back after my LFs and carriers got utterly crushed by LRMs and flak.  This is unacceptable, and until a real counter to LRMs is presented scouts MUST be able to serve that role, even if they weren't meant to.  I feel a bit bad for Visari players as their LF is totally UP and can't beat scouts for cost, but I will not shed any tears over LRM spammers losing to scout spam.

Reply #53 Top

The obvious solution and appropriate counter to the LRF is the fighter. This unit was MEANT to be the counter. Let's not settle for some 'they-can't-get-the-balance-right-so-let's-balance-it-ourselves-by-abusing-the-scout' pseudo-balance.

Quit with the theorycraft.  The fact is, the fighter ISN'T an appropriate counter to LRF, period, paragraph.  So when you spam your LRF at me, what am I supposed to do?  Build fighters and just PRETEND that they will be effective?  Build fighters and ask that you not build flak to counter them?  Or perhaps I'm supposed to spam LRF back at you?

I'm with Amish.  Telling me I can't build scouts is sort of like telling me I can't sleep on the couch.  I can build whatever unit works, regardless of what it's name or "intended role" is.  If that's not it's intended role, then that's between the devs and God.

Reply #54 Top

Your analogy can go both ways.  Weapons on a scout does not imply they should be the backbone of a fleet.  Just because a chicken has wings doesn't mean it should fly.

 

[_]-Greyfox

Reply #55 Top

Weapons on a scout does not imply they should be the backbone of a fleet. Just because a chicken has wings doesn't mean it should fly.

Nope, just means God nerfed the hell out of em so we could eat them. Yum.

Reply #56 Top

Yeah, dinosaurs took a huge nerf because mammals kept screaming OP OP.  Now we eat em with barbecue sauce.

Reply #57 Top

I did a bit of testing in my other thread.

fighters do counter LRMs very, very well. without kiting... I knocked out 2 lrms before the illums reached my carriers... and then had to run 2 carriers to the next grav well before the last illum died. (this was 14 illums vs 6 carriers btw)  Illums were mircored to use side beams btw.

And... In responce to amish... straight skrims do not counter disciple/seeker rush. While the fleet costs are identical... the skrims did not kill a single scout before dieing.  (6 skrims vs 7 disciples and 7 seekers)

oddly... Straight assailants do rather ok... killing all but 2 scouts before going poof.

herm... ima go try 1/2 assailanets and 1/2 skrims.

 edit: that did not work well... worse than straight skrims or straight assailanets... Oddly i had to micro the scouts to target the assailants... but... all the scouts and 3 diciples survived. (started with 6 skrims, 6 assailanets, 13 scouts, 13 disciples.)

Reply #58 Top

Make scout armor type Very Light. Problem solved :O

Reply #59 Top

Quoting Astax, reply 58
Make scout armor type Very Light. Problem solved

Which would then make Flak even more dominant in the game.

Reply #60 Top

In response to #52, 53: Why is it so set in stone for you that fighters cannot be rebalanced to become the LRF counter they were intended to be? It's like, 'no, fighters suck and they always will so let's use scouts instead'. Hello? The figters are unbalanced, that's why they're not working and that's why you're having to resort to scouts! Don't settle for fighters being 'the useless unit' (exagerated). If fighters were buffed to counter LRF well, it would kill most of the balance issues with the game and there would be no LRF dominance problem with the numerous side-problems that create.

In response to #57: Fighters may counter LRF well, but what's the point when flak drop them like flies? I'm not [necessarily] asking for fighter damage to be increased, but their survivability certainly should.

 

Reply #61 Top

In response to #52, 53: Why is it so set in stone for you that fighters cannot be rebalanced to become the LRF counter they were intended to be?

How long have you been playing the game?  Fighters were buffed once before in this game's history.  You know what happened?  All you EVER saw anyone build, EVER, was TONS and TONS and TONS and TONS and TONS and TONS and TONS and TONS and TONS and TONS and TONS and TONS and TONS of carriers loaded with fighters.  NOTHING ELSE.

You keep proposing the theorycraft that fighters should be balanced.  I propose the realitycraft that 1) It was tried, it failed, and 2) the game has been out for what... 2 years?  Yet this balance still hasn't been achieved?

Score:

Realitycraft - 1.  Theorycraft - 0.

Reply #62 Top

Actually i remember there being usually a 50% carrier 50% other type ship mix that was very vaible, and much better than 100% carriers.  But still 50% carrier is pretty high.

Reply #63 Top

I remember almost all carriers, almost all of the time... but that's just my experience.

Reply #64 Top

The people that griped about carriers in their heyday were unwilling to counter them with LF.  Carrier only fleets were easy pickings but the amount of bitching about them was louder than any of this other griping about lrf, scouts or whatever.  Flak at that time were crappy and needed a boost but fighters are still suffering from it now.  Back in those days, lrf spam was handled well obviously and people built well rounded fleets in general.  Ahhhhh for the good ol days.  If you were spammed with carriers then, you should have considered it an easy win with a decent sized ball of LF.  The one problem with fighters being king again now would be the impracticality of bombers and thus increasing the relative power of starbases.

 

[_]-Greyfox

Reply #65 Top

I liked the 1.10 balance as well.  If someone didn't make enough other ships to protect their carriers, you could slaughter them with LF.

Reply #66 Top

I liked balance much better then too.Only thing I really hated was the build rates of fighters.You could never supress them until they ran out of am.

Reply #67 Top

The people that griped about carriers in their heyday were unwilling to counter them with LF.

Totally incorrect.  Many people, including myself, tried and tried and tried and tried and tried to counter them with LF.  The first problem was, even just a little LRF included in the mix would totally devastate any attempt at an LF counter.  Secondly, it just plain didn't work regardless.  Carriers could kite, LF dps against carriers was extremely sucky, on and on.

Funny, the pros always said "counter carriers with LF," yet all they ever did was counter them with their own carriers, because I witnessed it.  Makes me wonder what their true motivations were in giving such advice, LOL....

Reply #68 Top

I liked the 1.10 balance as well. If someone didn't make enough other ships to protect their carriers, you could slaughter them with LF.

I'm quoting myself with emphasis....the key was you had to make some of your own carriers to destroy their LRF so your LF could go to town.  Fleets were still required to be diverse, but I will totally agree, carriers were the backbone of most successful players fleets.  I DID have a few times when people attacked me with nothing but carriers, and I built nothing but LF and mauled them.  I recall this one fight where I chased the guys retreating carriers across 3 systems before I destroyed the every last one.  I commented, "Those are expensive, huh?"  ...and then he quit.

Reply #69 Top

Carriers being the backbone is not out of line imo.Backbone of the navy is the carrier today.Most space faring shows put great importance on sc in battles.Anyway thats my take on it.Certianly makes more sense then scouts and lf being the backbone of fleets.Carriers are very diverse.They can counter lrf,hc,sb,structures,caps,fighters,and bombers.They also counter these things without themselves being in harms way.This is where it becomes difficult to balance them in accord with the carrier.Fighters and bombers should be balanced as their own entity.Just like a fleet of frigates.If it gets destroyed its gone.The advantage is sc are replaced for free.Fighters should be able to do their job well but harder to replace.If they are replaced for free there has to be a disadvantage for losing them or they become op.If sc are replaced easily then there is no window of opportunity to counter them.This is why carriers were so op.People could suicide a huge amount of fighters at killing stuff kill all the targets pull back and rebuild all the fighters in no time.Yes am was a limited control for fighters but initially carriers have so much they could decimate whatever and have enough to rebuild to fight off other sc.If player had am upgrades then he could do it all day.

Reply #70 Top

Carriers being the backbone is not out of line imo.Backbone of the navy is the carrier today.Most space faring shows put great importance on sc in battles.Anyway thats my take on it.Certianly makes more sense then scouts and lf being the backbone of fleets.Carriers are very diverse.They can counter lrf,hc,sb,structures,caps,fighters,and bombers.They also counter these things without themselves being in harms way.This is where it becomes difficult to balance them in accord with the carrier.Fighters and bombers should be balanced as their own entity.Just like a fleet of frigates.If it gets destroyed its gone.The advantage is sc are replaced for free.Fighters should be able to do their job well but harder to replace.If they are replaced for free there has to be a disadvantage for losing them or they become op.If sc are replaced easily then there is no window of opportunity to counter them.This is why carriers were so op.People could suicide a huge amount of fighters at killing stuff kill all the targets pull back and rebuild all the fighters in no time.Yes am was a limited control for fighters but initially carriers have so much they could decimate whatever and have enough to rebuild to fight off other sc.If player had am upgrades then he could do it all day.

Star Trek being the main exception.  Not to totally derail the thread.

Reply #71 Top

lol ya I thought of star trek after I wrote that.