Catapults and the dire need for Tactical Defence

Since the introduction of T2 Flak and the significant buff to walls, Catapult creep is the new Arty creep.

With absurd range and pinpoint accuracy, Catapults really do undermine any other form of defence. There is absolutely no downside to spamming them.

Since we're not going to be getting any form of shielding in PA, there is big gap in the ability to deal with Catapults. FA had anti-tacts. PA sorely needs Anti-tacts.

Or, you know, if they couldn't track bloody targets they might be a little more reasonable.

Yet people still keep insisting that this is somehow a good idea and that it is fully intended.

I bet the 'super advanced robots' argument will soon arise
I agree however that they shouldn't be guided. I also don't think they really have a place in the current game - we already have long range artillery for this job which can be easier balance through inaccuracy. I'd rather have some short ranged mobile tac missile vehicles (MERL anyone?).

The "Super advanced robot" argument works both ways. Just as a missile can be guided, its guidance can be dicked around with.

Stationary continent-range artillery is a really flaky idea, especially where invasions are concerned. A player who lands on an occupied world can very well be surrounded by these things. Give up any hope of making an initial base.

I'm in the "Wait and see camp", we don't know exactly what Uber has planned for the "Balanced" Catapult's Role or how it will function. There are some outcomes that might require some form of Missile Defense, but there are others that wouldn't require it as well and until we know which variant we're dealing with it's hard to say if some form of Missile Defense is actually needed.

Mike

if any sort of anti-catapult defense WERE implemented, i feel it would have to function similarly to nuke defense: you must be able to overwhelm it, by having more missiles than it can shoot down at a time.

Since we're not dealing with explosive AoE, we could get away with a shorter range. but give it fire rates similar to anti nuke, where it is able to deal with isolated missiles, but not dedicated cata-spam. at least, not by itself.

but at the same time make it function in the same way a catapult/ orbital laser does: power reserves affecting its fire rate.

that's just my personal input.

Same, I wouldn't want Anti-spam to utterly make the Catapults useless, but just SOME way of defending against it. Because currently, a single Catapult with thick walls around it, T2 Flak and a couple of turrets makes for an unassailable anti-building weapon.

Catapults are omnidirectional, where Holkins have a slow turn rate. Catapults also track, where Holkins can miss moving targets. Either of these on their own would be fair for an equal-but-different structure, but not both. The Catapult should be at least twice as expensive as a Holkins for it to be near balanced.

Even with a bigger pricetag, however, the Catapult may conceptually be a little too good for its own... good.

I think the catapult would be nice if it could not track, maybe only good against static units/buildings. A tank or bot with tactical missile defense would be nice... I mean we need some sort of defense.

Right now a catapult costs 3/4 what a holkins costs.
It has 5/6 the range of a holkins, the same health, twice the firing rate, 3/10 the damage and lacks the splash damage of the holkins (if pamatches has the info correct right now), giving it considerably lower DPS, especially against tightly packed units.
If I want to lob artillery at an enemy base on-planet, I'll use a holkins. It's better at that job by quite a bit. Catapults, on the other hand, are effective against outposts where DPS isn't so important but cost effectiveness is. They can also work well against a stream of T2 units, where a holkins may have a harder time as its splash damage potential is minimized.
I'd say the only time that they're 100% better though is on small planets, where they are the only form of artillery that can be used. I've used them to assault moon bases before, and they are very good at that. Otherwise, I don't really have a problem with the current catapult, though it could probably use a health reduction.

For the cost of 1 catapult you could have 12 t2 bombers which can do far more damage far quicker.

For the cost of 5 catapults you could have a nuke.

You're assuming that the Catapult is being used in a strictly anti-unit setup, which it isn't, it's being used as a creep to take out defences and eventually snipe commanders.

For 300 Metal I can make 12 T2 bombers irrelevant.

Nukes are counterable, Catapults are not.

No, I'm not. I'm saying that the holkins is usually better at assaulting bases than the catapult because it deals far more damage and has more splash damage than the catapult's single-target damage.
I think a few people here don't realize that the catapult has no splash damage at all. Sure, it can track units, but if you have a group of 60 land units, it will take a catapult 10 minutes to kill them all, so it isn't OP against moving targets, and no splash and 3/10 the damage of a holkins makes it less useful against bases.

Well I can't argue against numbers. So my feelings towards the thing turn to purely anecdotal data and personal experiences, which as we all know are the mother of all screw ups in terms of balancing.

I just feel the fact it never misses puts it miles ahead of the Holkins in terms of pushing power.

We could give it a slower firing rate, with a greater amount of power needed to keep on-line.

Thus making an anti-base push a over time thing, but with amazing pinpoint accuracy and tons of damage.

I'd prefer the Catapult be something besides the little brother to the Holkins.
Also, if you nerf the Catapult or add a counter, you'll just discover that Holkins creep is as or more effective.

Well I consider one to be anti-building, one to be anti-unit.

Holkins as they stand are massive, and take a lot of power to use in large numbers, but are sitting ducks should anything get close.

You could decrease their damage further and up the aoe for their shots so they really just fire-storm an area with their shots.

Making them less effective vs entrenched buildings with combat fabber support.

There really is no good defense against these things. It's a huge problem.

Bombers.

It's a missile. What do you expect? I do agree that we need tactical missile defense like in SupCom, but I have seen a decrease of catapul use lately, mostly becue spaccimg t2 air and bots is more important than catapulti creep. I did do it to a guy yesterday though, but that's because I managed to somehow send 10 fabbers toward his base instead of doxes So I thought, why the hell not.. I'll use htem.