Pelter and Holkins

Hey, uhh, you know these artillery units have been around forever but I only see them get built by players who, uhh, don't last very long or do much compared to others?

So yeah, I'm not sure what exactly is wrong with them but I don't ever call going "holy snapper dem mad, mad Pelter plays so pro", and in my attempts to use it I've found that it is has a pretty poor range but decent damage against buildings alongside poor splash and anti-unit ability.

Holkins on the other hand is only slightly less meh considering its huge range which does help when you are stuck with multiple players on a small map but such a game going late game without most players leaving the planet/getting destroyed is very rare and even then its inaccuracy seems to nullify any advance its more sufferable AoE would otherwise provide.

I'd like to see some range buff for Pelter and some accuracy buff for Holkins, but I'd also like to have your opinions on this.

Both artillery guns deliver almost no punch whatsoever and are totally pointless in this game. They take too much time to build and cost to much. When you get them built the enemy is already upon you with cheap units. At least that's my opinion.

And I forgot to mention, the new torpedo towers also finish any utility it had to defend ground bases against enemy naval units, and Pelter doesn't even outrange it by much if at all.

I know Titans just came out, and balance will come with community feedback, but as a huge fan of the push/firebase/push/firebase, I'd really like to see the arty give me incentive to actually attack the enemy. Make it slightly more painful, slightly more expensive, slightly more vulnerable to air, and kick up the range a touch.

You must not have been around for pelter creeping. That was more cheese than vanguard dropping. It caused pelters to have their firing arc adjusted to go higher rather than being very direct.

Artillery would be a good excuse alongside teleporters to build as you advance, but as it stands Pelter barely has the range to hit anything and Holkins barely has the accuracy to hit anything. I wasn't around for pelter creeping (how do you drop a Vanguard without the Pelican or Astraeus getting killed instantly?),sure, but that doesn't excuse the current anemic artillery we have.

I've been around for the duration, but I stopped picking it up every patch around beta.

I'd just like to see all the units/towers be competetive. I think the game has a tendency to encourage unitblob a bit much at this point, and that's fine, and fun, but the stationary structures are cool, and I'd like to see a reason to build them.

Both artillery structures are extremely useful in the right scenarios and I frequently win control over planets with them. No change needed there.

Yea, artillery pushes were a very real threat back in the day. As it stands, using a Holkins to harass or destroy an enemy base is inefficient except in the most well-defended extremes.

Artillery still does a respectable job against vehicle armies and, in theory, the Atlas. The real problem with defenses overall is that the enemy usually has no incentive to go through them rather than find an alternative.

This has been fixed to some extent in Titans: Actual terrain chokepoints now give you places to put defenses that the enemy will more than likely have to address. Especially in the new 1v1 maps.

Which made them completely useless and they've sucked bad since this change. They need to go back to a low angle arc, change the damage, rate of fire or overall accuracy, don't use those crazy high angle shots. They look bad (visually) and they make shot travel time way too long.

The TA versions of these units (Pelter -> punisher / guardian, Holkins -> Intimidator / Big Bertha) were awesome but not game breaking, there's no reason the PA versions can't be balanced similarly.

There we go! The "most players don't get any use out of it and there are many much superior alternatives but I do okay with it so no change is needed" guy. Just because something works for you in the specific situations you put yourself into doesn't mean these units are viable in any way, shape or form. You'll never see this in any decent 1v1, you'll very rarely see this in any decent 2v2/2v2v2, and your said "right scenarios" are so rare, few and far between that there is absolutely no reason they should be considered; and even when they do occur other units can take their place just fine. If most players don't find the unit accessible or useful (admittedly, this is anecdotal evidence going by I simply never see them get used), and you do, your opinion is worth nothing and it should be completely disregarded when doing balancing. It is a fact that these units are not worth using, otherwise they would get used. This is as simple logic as it can get.

I may sound harsh but the "oh no unit X is usable if 3 blue moons are aligned while a 7-tailed orange comet is on a solar escape trajectory" routine is the most annoying and lazy attempt at an argument I come across on the internet, and it is very rude of you to be so dismissive of a problem brought up by me and supported by others, by using vague phrases with a subtext of accusing everyone else who dislike the artillery performance by not knowing what they are doing, when you could at least have gone through the trouble of exemplifying when these units are useful at least in comparison to other things you could have bought with the same amount of resources.

Now you can either join the discussion by providing an actual argument or pull the "I am entitled to my own opinion" card and just leave the thread. What you did right now is not to join the discussion but to insult everyone who find these units to be less than useful in an indirect but just as rude manner.

More than anything, a well positioned and defended pelter or two can be very annoying for the enemy, denying them an area of mex or slowly shelling the outskirts of the pgens. They can attack your opponents attention effectively, forcing them to respond and engage you on your terms.

As for killing units based on mass/energy cost, no, they almost never are worth according to those metrics.

I guess the question is, "What metrics matter?" This game is very intricate, and clearly things aren't as cut and dry as, "A pelter should be able to eliminate x number of doxes"

Make both pelters and holkins cheaper, increase holkins splash (but not accuracy), increase pelter range or reduce firing arc.

I've used pelters to fend off slow moving unit blobs outside my laser tower range. Also near terrain features which protected them from rushes. Mostly I'd just use a few of them as deterrents more so than full on defense lines. It forced my opponent to move into T2 tanks to break the pelters and by that time I had already established a larger base elsewhere.

I could see them getting a slight cost reduction though. Same with the Holkins I suppose.

two thirds of the units in the game you won't see in a 1v1, so what

Way to cherry pick. You won't see it in a 2v2 or 2v2v2 either where most things do get used.

Eh, in the 2v2s I fight, I find myself using the Holkins regularly for siege purposes (or as a faster-than-air response to an enemy building a teleporter), it deals a lot of damage per shot. Pelter is garbage though, range is too short to be useful.

That's fair enough, though most of the time you would have done better with the same amount of metal spent in other things. Plus teleporter faster-than-air teleporter countering is an ever shrinking niche with Helios around and if I own the planet I personally swarm it with Icaruses which double as early warning and supplementary power.

Or consider shellers, instead of the inaccurate Holkins you could build 8 Shellers, and 8 Shellers are infinitely more mobile with less range, granted, but far more accuracy and overall utility.