-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 21
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Toxin GLA SCUD Launcher is rarely used #784
Comments
I think it is fine SCUD Launcher is weaker. Toxin General is good enough with everything else it has. |
Giving it some bonus for Anthrax Gamma would be reasonable though. |
It's still effective counter artillery in spam games as it one shots other long range units. If anything, toxin missiles on any Scud Launcher are underpowered. Contrary to Toxin Truck contamination, the poison cloud just doesn't last long enough to matter (and can be cleaned up with Nuke/Toxin shells). Wouldn't touch this. It works fine as is. |
Can make it cheaper, but otherwise I have difficulty aswell to change anything else, even though it's mega bad and there being zero reason to spend a genpoint. Removing the genpoint is strange aswell and inconsistent with other GLA's. |
Yup, think it is fine as is. It is used in rare cases in 1v1s but more common in FFA. As mentioned above, Tox has enough powerful units. |
I too think it shouldn't be changed. |
Still it feels weird to have such expensive unit in the game that costs a genpoint, but is totally useless. Here a few big nono's though:
I would still like to do something about it and we have these two options imo:
|
I think some data is missing in opening post. Regular GLA also has Anthrax SCUD missile. Should check if Anthrax SCUD missile is competitive, or pretty much useless compared to Explosive SCUD missile. |
There's not much that can be done here. It already creates a large, long-lasting toxin field. |
I forgot price, in 1.04 it's 1200 for all factions (GLA/Tox/Demo). In the current state it's definitely not worth this amount of money, could make it 900-1000. |
It's odd that Anthrax Gamma does nothing for the Tox Scud Launcher, but I guess buffing the gamma fields changes that. Neither does AP Rockets help the Tox Scud Launcher, while it does buff the vGLA Scud Launcher in HE mode, as well as the Demo Scud Launcher. It's a bad unit and all upgrades fail on it too. |
Poor Toxin Generals so weak :( |
Make toxins last longer, the only acceptable buff imo. |
We could also increase the secondary damage of the Anthrax missiles by 16.66% and 33.33% like on the Scud Storm missiles. Then is consistent. |
Primary dmg isn't consistent anyway, so I don't see the point really. Tox just doesn't need strong scud launchers. |
What does this mean? |
Tox Scudstorm has same primary damage (before it was stronger) as the Vanilla Scudstorm, however Tox Scudlauncher has lower damage than the Vanilla one. It's inconsistent already. |
I still do not understand. |
Given that fact, why should the secondary damage be consistent? |
This comment was marked as spam.
This comment was marked as spam.
This comment was marked as spam.
This comment was marked as spam.
It does not have to be. Was just a suggestion so that the Anthrax makes some difference like it does on the Scud Storm with its +16.66, +33.33 secondary damage. |
Suggestion is fair, but there should be a good reason to go through with it. |
Toxin GLA SCUD Launcher is rarely used :D |
-> so Tox Scud Launcher does not benefit from Anthrax Gamma at all, despite the colour change of the poison cloud/explosion. There is no increase in damage, damage radius or damage over time with the poison field. The upgrade is entirely cosmetic That said, I think Scud Launchers are annoying when spammed, so I'd rather not buff them at all. |
Please stop being so cheeky. On topic: I think there are other ways to make them to them more attractive, like lowering the price, or buffing poison fields. Something that doesn't buff them directly (too much). However it could be approached the opposite way aswell, make them stronger but increase the price at the same time. |
None of my replies were meant to be condescending. Toxin Scud Launcher, according to this report, is rarely used. Making it more attractive by increasing Anthrax Gamma damage does make sense. Actually that is already a Proposal, Number 3. Toxin General has received notable nerfs already. Giving back some strength where it originally lacked is ok too. |
Considering all the nerfs toxin general has gotten so far, it might not be so bad to re-look into this. But first let's clearfy some things It's already buffed by the suggested gamma puddle damage increase #2012 correct? Any other indirect buffs do we have? Is the gamma buff enough? What else can be done here that doesn't over buff it?
This isn't the case any more after #2012 correct? If so there's nothing else that needs to be changed.
Good point about the AP rockets, I'd hate it to have an upgrade that doesn't benefit a unit that is clearly in the same category, but how much of an impact does that make? It's a bit in lategame where this upgrade is purchased, i think it depends, if it makes a little difference i think it's ok to add, we'd need to test that |
#2012 is just a minor buff for Toxin General. In most circumstances it will make no tangible difference, because the damage output of all small and medium fields is low. Combined with #2023 I expect its impact to be a bit better for Gamma Scud Storm puddles, but Gamma Scud Storm was nerfed, so it remains a net nerf. #2023 is a major buff for all hazard factions, China and GLA, except China Infantry. |
Proposal 3 done. |
Toxin GLA SCUD Launcher is considered useless by players. Why?
Reasons
Toxin SCUD Launcher weapons with Anthrax Beta
Toxin SCUD Launcher weapons with Anthrax Gamma
Demo SCUD Launcher weapons
Regular SCUD Launcher weapons
Weapon findings
Proposal 1
Remove General Promotion requirement.
Proposal 2
Increase damages.
Proposal 3
Increase damages with Anthrax Gamma. (Done)
Proposal 4
Increase damage radius.
Proposal 5
Increase damage radius with Anthrax Gamma.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: