Soban balance suggestions

(Tren) #1

Soban is pretty weird balance wise, they have some very strong options and some terrible options.

as it stands the Armed Logistics Modules(ALM) are the only thing keeping Soban Competitive with its very weak carrier, while their high DPS railguns allow them to snipe carriers more effectively than most other factons.

So I have a small list of my own recommendations to better balance the faction and hopefully open more effective builds.

Soban
Substantial increase to Soban carrier PD damage (should still have the lowest DPS but should still be comparable to other carriers)
ALM deployment range nerf, should be comparable/slightly better than Khaan missile ranges, consider ALM max deployed cap
Soban BR, Disruptor beacon deploy cost removed, Beacon has 8 second lifespan, cannot be targeted/destroyed
Soban BC, improve accuracy and increased movement speed (reliable damage output and better mobility to off sets its inferior DPS to Coal variant)

By increasing the Soban carrier PD effectiveness it allows the Soban carrier to play a far more proactive role in the match than simply deploying ALMs and opens up less railgun centric build orders.

Nerfing the ALM deploy range restricts the versitility they currently possess, I have been able to deploy my entire force to attack one flank while deploying ALMs half way accross the map to stop a enemy railgun push, purely with ALMs.
This gives Soban so much more flexibility in the late game along with the excellent scouting ALMs provide, restrict this would be a step in the right direction to better balancing the Soban faction.

The Soban BR can be a real CU sink, deploying probes and disruptors, I feel taking the cost of the disruptor and making it a timed ability would encourage more pro-active use of the BR as well as make it a far more effective tool.

The Soban BC currently is a over priced, up armoured Railgun with limited mobility.
Opting to use Soban BCs forces you on the defensive, you need high ground bonus and you cannot react to enemy attacks.
Improving their accuracy would allow them to more effectively operate with out the high ground bonus and it would make their lower DPS more reliable.
Increasing their movement speed would then help them actually get into combat(we are only talking 5-10 more speed, putting them on par with Gaal/khaan cruisers)

This would open up a much more varied late game for Soban while also reigning in ALMs offering opponents more ways to punish Soban.

0 Likes

(Empty Soul01) #2

Soban
Substantial increase to Soban carrier PD damage (should still have the lowest DPS but should still be comparable to other carriers) = Indeed
ALM deployment range nerf, should be comparable/slightly better than Khaan missile ranges, consider ALM max deployed cap = Indeed nuff range, Both coalition and soban use logs to scout areas why should one faction have a limit?
Soban BR, Disruptor beacon deploy cost removed, Beacon has 8 second lifespan, cannot be targeted/destroyed = I like the idea
Soban BC, improve accuracy and increased movement speed (reliable damage output and better mobility to off sets its inferior DPS to Coal variant) = If soban BC get more speed there needs a trade for it like less HP and its not overprice its 20 cu and 30 ru less then coal BC.

0 Likes

(Tren) #3

Concerning the Soban BC, so we have 780CU 220RU vs 800CU 250RU

For this lower price, you have better range(comparable to a railgun) lower Alpha damage(270 vs 300), a lower rate of fire and loses the AoE.
In a straight 1v1 a Coal BC will generally win in 40% or more hp left and the Soban BC is complete incapable of engaging strikecraft or turrets. ironically making the Soban BC weak to ALMs.

Furthermore in the Soban v Khaan match up Soban, struggle against Khaaneph siege cruisers which counter ALMs effectively as well as punishing railguns with their barrage.
The Soban BC should be an effective tool to fight them, but with it’s lower damage, unreliable damage output combined with limited mobility they are left at the mercy of Khaaneph cruisers.

The RU discount is nice but it isn’t enough to make them worthwhile, maybe a stronger argument is that the Soban BC is too similar to a railgun.

0 Likes

#4

This is interesting, I never thought in using the Logistic model to scout as Coalition.

1 Like

(Tren) #5

the coalition logistics modules are the same as the beacons from the boneyard mission in campaign functionally, just in MP they are deployable from the carrier and provide pop cap

0 Likes

(Ritualcoercer) #6

Perhaps the Soban could also get a twist on one of the air units. Like a faster bomber? Or a Gunship that fires faster?

0 Likes

(RagnaroK) #7

I pretty much agree with everything in the OP. Especially the weakness of the Soban Carrier and BC.

It creates the issue that there is really only 1 viable way to play the faction competitively.

0 Likes

(Brect) #8

The BC being too slow is definitely an issue as the counter play seems to be just drive the other direction. It also makes it difficult to maintain position with the rest of the army with it’s current speed.

I love the idea of the beacon being a timed ability. I feel that it’s really only generally effective for a few seconds anyway and gives me a reason to keep the BR up front. But with the current cost unless I am floating a lot of resources I feel the investment is better served on a unit.

The ALM deployment range reduction I feel is fair but being capped at max pop feels like it it would push me to have to float a bigger bank because I assume I am going to need to replace ALMs just to get my army back together.

0 Likes

(Ritualcoercer) #9

Okay, this just occured to me. What if the Soban Gunship had a Soban type Railgun on it instead of the machine gun AoE?
That would surely add some variety to the air line-up and could introduce an interesting new element as you now effectively have a precision bomber that can strike quickly but still needs time to do its full damage.

0 Likes

#10

I think it would make it too specific against heavy vehicles, which we already have in the shape of regular rails. But it is an idea.

0 Likes

(Tren) #11

I think it is best to focus on balancing the units we have, although the Gunship and bomber both need some balancing, a problem Soban shares with Coal.

Going back to the BC issue.

What if the standard BC (a Soban design) were reinstated and the Soban BC were changed to a Defence Cruiser as a replacement for the Assault cruiser (a gaalsien design).

The stats and cost would need a rebalance as more of a “light cruiser” built around a support and defence role but it would open up AAV>Defence Cruiser>Artillery as a viable tech path with anti-strikecraft, rails and indirect fire.
This would also give the Soban fleet a much chunkier line up and a solid alternative to regular Railguns.

The trade offs between the 2 would be mobility and DPS for railguns versus the staying power of a cruiser fleet.
However the Defence cruiser would need comparable range to be able to work in a rail role and it is debatable if such a fleet comp would be good for gameplay.

Regardless it would be a big improvement on the curent situation

0 Likes

(Megarith) #12

I agree.

0 Likes