peregrins

Need them back

Here is my proposal. We add them back no aoe. But they do still have higher dps then hummingbird but give them a secondary weapon at a fire rate of 2 that shoots down anti air missles.

An anti-anti-air air unit!

They should do the same or less damage as hummingbirds but with AoE.

what?

AA inception.

Can we first fix the utterly broken economy? Especially energy, commander income, commander storage, and combat fabbers.

Some people don't think the exonomy is broken.combat fabbers need some tweaking I suppose

But yeah a much better fighter is needed. Now every investment is calculated against air. So metal wise if you go t2 air you could be down 25 fighters at least before you even build an air unit from the factory.

The economy isn't broken, that's an overstatement.

It's just unbalanced considering all the things that interact with it.

Definitely like ing the idea of reintroducing the peregrine for this role... just need to make t2 a viable option for it to work though

I just think the peregrine should fire 3 1 hit missiles, with a long recharge. That way, they win in 1 on 1 engagements, but not cost effectively and not in sustained combat.

The kestrel still needs more health, to differentiate it from the t2 bomber.

Its a proven mathematical fact that the economy is broken. Sorry.

On topic, I'm still skeptical about adding the t2 fighter back to the air game. I guess I'm skittish about Ubers way of balancing things in t2 v t1 still.

I'd rather have economy fixes before adding back old units that could ruin the air game.

Can we see this proof anywhere?

Sure. Let me go get the links for it.

Cola-Colin's thread: https://forums.uberent.com/threads/of-investments-energy-metal-and-reclaiming.65512/
My thread: https://forums.uberent.com/threads/fixing-the-balance.65408/
Another thread of mine: https://forums.uberent.com/threads/the-next-step-in-balance-the-commanders-economy.66092/

I looked through, but couldn't find any mathematical proof that the economy is broken.
Do you mean that it's broken as in a bug?

No, I mean the economy doesn't allow you to do anything besides rush rush rush. Its mathematically insane to do anything else, and few people have managed to break free of that system. The options are limited, essentially.

Yeah it's kinda stressful playing 1v1 now, you gotta race t1 out and contest every metal spot all the time. I figure that's cos the starting points are so close together though. Even the new one with water both players start on the same island for some reason.

I actually agree with this - to an extent. By the numbers, the economy is still pretty darn broken in terms of options. Even with more mex, it still only makes sense to pump out tons of T1 and orbital to defeat you foes.

Well, what's wrong with that? What you have described is two players fighting for resources and trying to outproduce each other from the moment the game starts. Instead of having 5 minutes of arbitrary nothing every single time you enter a game.

Maybe uber needs to add an official no rush 20 game option for people who want to play that kind of thing.

As for peregrines, root problem is the high cost of t2 air. There is too much of a cost disparity between t2 air and t1 air. You would first want to reduce t2 air costings and powers out of line with the t2 land model, because as soon as it becomes viable to trade off x cost of hummingbirds for y cost of t2 air then we're in business. After that you can add back peregrines if you wanted.

1000 metal peregrine would need to be able to kill probably 1800 metal in hummingbirds (1:10) for it to be worth building t2 bomber and gunship.

I don't want a no rush option. That's lame.

There should be options. The game should be based on map control, not army size. Right now it is all about who has the bigger army and who can micro better. That's just boring. It's not exciting. It doesn't offer options.

I find it interesting that folks consider the Beta start (3 mex, pgen, fac, infinite engineers and commander on power) to be *boring* and *doing nothing.*

Those people definitely were not good enough back then to take advantage of the first 3 minutes. It was tense, the raids, counter raids, etc. You couldn't be EVERYWHERE to stop your opponent like you can now - so both sides traded blows constantly over the course of the game, from beginning to end.

No nothing is wrong with it. I just said it was stressful
I think it'll probably be fine with starting positions that don't allow immediate and constant t1 raiding.
The nice thing is that different systems should allow entirely different play styles.