Decreasing accuracy of Shellers?

Hello, I think that current shellers are kinda broken in mechanical sense. Imo their shots shouldnt be 100% accurate, look at Sup Com FA, any arty above t1 had some spread added to their bullets (besides Mavor), so regular armies consisting only of arty units were pointless. They were used more as support instead of front line units. Also you couldnt really stand with few units just to take out specific units from enemy emplacement cuz it was mostly missing the target.

In PA we got shellers that predict movement of units and hit them with 100% accuracy, have longer range than stationary artillery (which is stupid for me), besides holkins thats rarely built due to energy drain.

I have idea to give them some spread radius, like 1.5 radius of adv. power gen. It would make stationary shellers a bit better do defend some tight crossings on metal planets. And less effective against few units due to miss chance. That would also be quite good for situations when enemy is sometimes chasing you with one or 2 shellers while you have around 10% hp, right now they will always snipe you down, but with bullet spread not. Sniper bot should be used for such job.
I really think that this change would be really significant in positive way. Give some feedback what do you think about it.

This belongs into the balance forum. But I guess you could not post there yet (first post as I see it).
If you decrease precision, you have to give them a AoE to compensate. Wich would make them too effective against bots.
T2 Mobile Arti beats T1 stationary arty. That is nothing unexpected, T2 is supposed to beat thier T1 counterpats and just about anything T1 it can attack.

aw hell yeah, ANY artillery and even catapults in PA are utterly ridiculous right now.

Artillery isn't really good enough to justify a nerf. All you have to do to counter it is strafe your units lightly. If you want to nerf because of it's effectiveness against static structures or something I'd probably be a bit more for it. Although I'm not really a fan of making defensive structures more effective.

There is no real need to give them bigger AoE, since their current AoE is ok in terms of my proposed bullet spread area, secondly if someone wants units that hit fast moving targets then should build levelers, right now arty is being frontline unit where the tank is meant to be and arty should be support for these tanks.

About pelter, holkins and sheller. Pelter is just funny unit to me, its super squishy and has too little AoE, Uber should really rethink defences, cause you cant trully defend against anything, holkins is too expensive in terms of energy. Pelters are useless, cuz shellers easily outrange them and once 3(or less?) shellers fire at pelter, it is doomed.
With shellers not being able to snipe out buildings, and pelters with more hp, Im pretty sure game wolud be still balanced.

I dont take such change as a nerf, just change in their mechanic, their demage would stay the same, in huge groups it wouldnt matter cause where one sheller missses others would hit, as I stated in first post It wouldnt change gameplay of huge battles.

Artillery is fine where it is. Pelters are t1, shellers are t2. There's a reason why one is better than the other. Although you could argue that the cost difference makes shellers kind of overpowered, considering shellers cost 300 metal less than pelters. If they buffed the cost of shellers to around 1700 metal instead of 1200 and lowering the cost of pelters to 1000 or 1200 metal it'd definitely make pelters a cheaper alternative. Less effective, but cheaper. Artillery should definitely stay the same in terms of damage and AoE. Buffing arty in any way like that would definitely justify putting shields in the game as a hard counter and I honestly don't want that.

All in all stationary units should autrange moving units due to the fact they cant change position. Any unit is kinda spammable so why not let players fortify?

Defensive playstyles aren't exactly something I agree with. Any buff to artillery would promote artillery spam and more defensive gameplay which is already fine where it is. Bases are currently a challenge to attack when the enemy has their weak points surrounded by walls and backed by turrets.

I disagree, its not a big deal to break through fortifications, mix shellers vanguards and levelers up and you can crack base in two.
PS: Id like to see Uber opinion about my suggestion, changing bullet spread of one unit is 5 min of work. Having this in pte could easily tell if players are ok with it etc...

You Ain't makin' enough of 'dem Artilery pieces den, SON!

Get back to training! NOW! Gimme Fifty matches of PA!

THAT'S "YES SIR!" TO YOU!!

Early game walls are ridiculously good and having super good defensive structures in the early game would be pretty dumb. Most 1v1s barely go on long enough for t2 to really "crack a base in two" as you say. A buff to artillery would just make early game defenses overpowered.

Holkins could probably use a buff though now that I think about it. They have a slow RoF, aren't very powerful, take forever to build, and are super expensive. It's not really worth the expense.

I don't get it.

......arty pieces are rediculously OP, they dominate late game, you can't send any army through.

you need to play those bigger games with hundreds and hundreds of arty pieces.

It's a military boot camp joke.

I think.

I've never played a game where my opponent's strategy was based off artillery and even if they did they'd probably lose because I'd have the upper hand in unit production. Artillery just seems like a waste of resources right now and a way to lose a game, although I could argue that with any sort of defenses besides walls. It's easy to counter with unit micro. I honestly don't see how arty would be good in a game where both players know what they're doing. The only time I could see it being useful is if it's a team game and one player is doing a complete support role while the other is being very aggressive. I could be wrong but based on my experiences it really isn't good enough to justify building unless you're barely getting attacked or your opponent is incompetent.

Pelters are fine where they are in terms of damage and what not, lowering the cost might make them a more reasonable option over shellers.
Holkins aren't too good. Refer to my other post for my opinions on that.
Shellers are good where they are but I find it kind of dumb that they're cheaper than pelters with no real disadvantage besides a slight damage difference.

Imo pelter just needs a bit bigger emplacement and more hp, so its not spammable due to bigger area need, and it can be maintained by nearby healing bots(by maintaining I mean being able to actualy heal it before it instantly dies...).

Two reasons:
1. This is a offense focussed game. The entire pace depends on it. Defenses are only good at holding off the odd harassment, not major attacks. Sufficient material in vehciles should always beat defenses (as that is vehicles primary purpose).
2. T2 outranges T1. There is no problem with taht. You need to get there (in PvP game) first. And then you might still be better of to jsut build vangaurd/levelers for the same metal and just crush them. Or just have build a few more T1 factories for the same price in eco.

Shellers currently outclass sniper bots in most situations, which is weird, I don't feel they should fill even remotely the same role. Either give them cluster projectiles, or less accuracy + greater AoE.

I feel most of the units, especially the T2 ones, could use some diversification.

Edit: come to think of it, what are sniper bots like at the moment? I haven't seen them used or used them much recently

They're probably only used to snipe defenses, commanders, or vanguards before they even get in range. They seem useless otherwise. Most bot units outside the dox, slammers, and boom bots are pretty useless. Especially grenadiers. Giving sniper bots a piercing effect would definitely put them on par with shellers though. It'd be like AoE... but not really.