Gamers Bill Of Rights
Home | News | Case Studies | Forum
Search
Forum Home | Login

Patch Stat Changes Forum [NEW TOPIC: Adjudicators 8/25/09]!!

23 PagesFirst 12 13 14 15 16  Last
Deceiver_0
Deceiver_0
Join Date 12/2008
+42
Reply #326 July 25, 2009 11:52:40 PM
from Sins of a Solar Empire ForumsSins of a Solar Empire Forums

Good suggestions from everyone, thanks, update coming soon.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Deceiver_0
JuleTron
Join Date 06/2008
+17
Reply #327 July 26, 2009 12:38:20 AM
from Sins of a Solar Empire ForumsSins of a Solar Empire Forums

It's also probable that they thought of this while developing entrenchment and couldn't get it to function properly, so decided to do without it.

The Devs didn't put stealthy mines in Entrenchment as it screwed up the gameplay. Searching for mines was extremely time consuming and game pace slowed to a drag. I'm sure that they did manage to get it to work, but it was for game play reasons that they didn't use it.

Anyway, mines do need some love and the mines that need it most are gravity mines. These things make Mobile Phase Detection look useful. Why do more research to slowdown the enemy when you can do less research and just destroy them? It is completely illogical. The only reason to use these would be if they were a fraction of the cost of regular mines.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Deceiver_0
Deceiver_0
Join Date 12/2008
+42
Reply #328 July 26, 2009 4:53:01 AM
from Sins of a Solar Empire ForumsSins of a Solar Empire Forums

Juletron brings up an important point. During the developement of Entrenchments, I have no doubt in my mind that they considered invisible mines at some point, and decided against it for a damn good reason. So I don't think thats the solution for mines the way they currently function. Plus if we were to request that kind of fix, that would mean a lot of extra work coding and debugging for them. Simple fixes are what really need to be requested, based on the variety of small things suggested here.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Deceiver_0
Cykur
Join Date 03/2003
+48
Reply #329 July 26, 2009 6:42:55 AM
from Sins of a Solar Empire ForumsSins of a Solar Empire Forums

Serevun Overseer- Allow 'Jump Degradation' to disable passive regeneration?

Not a good idea.

Repulse- Increase cooldown rate?

Probably not a good solution. Increased Antimatter cost would be better. Bottom line, multiple Guardians will be able to get the same effect either way....there has to be a solution to counter Repulse without nerfing the ability to uselessness.

Light Frigate- Decrease LRF damage bonus to medium armor?

Nah...I think you should increase other things ability to kill LRF in the balance of the game rather than nerf LRF themselves.

Mah Nay's haven't been tallied!   Hep, A'hm bein repressed!

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Deceiver_0
Deceiver_0
Join Date 12/2008
+42
Reply #330 July 26, 2009 1:52:13 PM
from Sins of a Solar Empire ForumsSins of a Solar Empire Forums

lol, sorry Cykur, theyre up now.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Deceiver_0
JuleTron
Join Date 06/2008
+17
Reply #331 July 27, 2009 3:37:37 AM
from Sins of a Solar Empire ForumsSins of a Solar Empire Forums

As for the new mine changes I say yay, nay, yay, nay, nay, yay, yay, yay, nay.

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Deceiver_0
N3rull
Join Date 10/2008
+42
Reply #332 July 27, 2009 5:50:34 AM
from Sins of a Solar Empire ForumsSins of a Solar Empire Forums

 Buff Mines
                        Increase damage?

                            no vote - may or may not happen, now that I think of it.

                        Increase damage radius?

                            Nay , it's ok

                        Increase activation radius?

                            Nay

                        Increase mines per deployment?

                            Nay

                        Increase deployment spread?

                            Nay

                        Decrease cost?

                            Yay , by some 20%

                        Reduce build time for Proximity Mines(TEC)?

                            dunno

                        Increase duration of Gravity Mines(Vasari)?
 
                            Yay , duration AND the speed nerf. AND their range. AND drop them one tier too! Damn, this thing is completely and utterly useless as it is!

                        Fix homing mines AI to return to original deployment location(Advent)?
 
                            Yay 

   

I think mines would need a heap of other fixes, but I suppose doing the above would be a good beginning.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Deceiver_0
Deceiver_0
Join Date 12/2008
+42
Reply #333 July 27, 2009 6:03:44 AM
from Sins of a Solar Empire ForumsSins of a Solar Empire Forums

As for the new mine changes I say yay, nay, yay, nay, nay, yay, yay, yay, nay.

Juletron I'm curious as to why you say nay to fixing homing mines. Personally i think it sucks that a passing scout on autoexplore can ruin the placement of several squadrons of homming mines, that cost about as much as a HC for each deployment. Especially when the scout can out run them half the time. So essentially a single 200 credit unit can make the mines absolutely useless in seconds on accident.

On the otherhand I think its dumb that homming mines activation radius is = to scouts attack range.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Deceiver_0
JuleTron
Join Date 06/2008
+17
Reply #334 July 27, 2009 7:35:00 AM
from Sins of a Solar Empire ForumsSins of a Solar Empire Forums

Juletron I'm curious as to why you say nay to fixing homing mines.

That was a mistake. I got the order for yays and nays mixed up. *facepalm*

Recount my vote. I've also changed my mind about a couple of things.

 

Increase damage? yay (only a small increase so that clearing them with suicidal flak is slightly harder)

Increase damage radius? nay

Increase activation radius? nay

Increase mines per squad? not sure

Increase deployment spread? nay

Decrease cost? yay

Reduce buildtime for TEC mines? yay

Fix Homing mines? yay (scouts need slightly longer range detection as you said Deceiver)

Sorry about the inconvenience.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Deceiver_0
N3rull
Join Date 10/2008
+42
Reply #335 July 27, 2009 8:07:19 AM
from Sins of a Solar Empire ForumsSins of a Solar Empire Forums

I think Ruiner needs a buff.

TEC can use its construction frigs to build mines and every planet they colonized has construction frigs.

Advent uses Drone Hosts which are otherwise the best carriers in the game ®, so they don't have a problem here either.

The Vasari, on the other hand, have to research the Ruiner (T3 research), spend money on the ruiner (moderately expensive), wait till the ruiner is finally built (it builds like a HC, dammit) and then drag it along (it has to be the slowest ship in the game, along with caps and carriers -.-) wherever they want it to start working.
There is a lot of hassle a Vasari has to do just to be able to start laying mines, which he still has to pay full price for. When he doesn't lay mines, he is left with a useless, slow and squishy ship floating around. If mines were free (dear Lord, I don't want them to be!) then this frig could just float around laying mines for the fun of it. But when mines cost badass money to plant, a ruiner is useless throughout 99% of its life, unlike TEC construction frigs or Advent carriers.

I think Ruiners need to receive some other role. Some feat, ability, or just a flat combat buff, that would make them moderately useful in other situations than just minelaying. 
A siege cruiser role would be tempting, but I guess most of us (and definately the Devs) believe that a moving Starbase is enough for Vasari in this field.

I have a cool idea of what could be done to ruiners, but I am afraid this wouldn't pass.
Anyway, what I thought about is to make Ruiners a battle-capable unit with minelaying ability. A unit that has a use outside minelaying, but is not really worth spamming.

For example:

Skarovas Enforcer
Cost - 625 C , 150 M , 110 Crys, 12 supply, 65 seconds build time.
1180/700 Hull / Shields
4 armor , armor type Very Heavy.
20-ish dps wave cannons, damage type composite.

My idea of Ruiner
Cost - 600 C , 130 M , 100 Crys, 9 supply , 50 sec build time.
950/600 Hull / Shields
3 armor , armor type Heavy (so that LFs can counter them decently well).
20-ish dps wave cannons, damage type anti light (so they are an alternative lrm counter, if not explicitly efficient) or
13-sh dps composite.
same speed as Enforcer.

As you see, the Ruiner would be a heavily overpriced, weaker counterpart of HC, but it would still be somewhat capable in combat.
It would have medium armor, so LFs would hard-counter it. That would give LFs another purpose.
It would have anti light damage, so it would be yet another LRM counter. It wouldn't be a good counter, though, being very expensive and not really effective, but it would have a USE to it outside dropping kablam-balls for 700-something credits per blob.

I think that would be cool.
As it is, the whole process from building enough Military labs to having a ruiner spend more of your credits on actually dropping some mines out there is just too much of a hassle.

But... ah hell. Nobody is gonna care anyway

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Deceiver_0
Deceiver_0
Join Date 12/2008
+42
Reply #336 July 27, 2009 12:06:31 PM
from Sins of a Solar Empire ForumsSins of a Solar Empire Forums

Sorry about the inconvenience.

No problem dude, gave me the oppurtunity to drop some knowledge.

oh and n3rull, you have a valid point with the ruiner being pretty useless after its served it purpose, however I think a very easy and small fix can help it out a bit.

All mines have an initial vulnerbaility once they are deployed, there is a few seconds in which they cannot activate and are not phased out so anything can shoot at them and destory them. This prevents people from dropping mines smack dab in the middle of a battle and using them offensively. I'm not sure how long it actually is but I think its somewhere between 10-20 seconds. I think this time shuold be shortened for Vasari mines, to somewhere between 5 and 10 seconds, that way the ruiner can join battles and become a working member of a fleet. They are small and tough to spot, allowing them to sneak around with ease, and it would be great if they could creep up and drop some mines around an enemy fleet while they are fighting, even 1 deployment could be quite deadly.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Deceiver_0
Dargoon999
Join Date 05/2008
+8
Reply #337 July 27, 2009 12:32:31 PM
from Sins of a Solar Empire ForumsSins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting N3rull,
reply 10
I think Ruiner needs a buff.

TEC can use its construction frigs to build mines and every planet they colonized has construction frigs.

Advent uses Drone Hosts which are otherwise the best carriers in the game ®, so they don't have a problem here either.

The Vasari, on the other hand, have to research the Ruiner (T3 research), spend money on the ruiner (moderately expensive), wait till the ruiner is finally built (it builds like a HC, dammit) and then drag it along (it has to be the slowest ship in the game, along with caps and carriers -.-) wherever they want it to start working.
There is a lot of hassle a Vasari has to do just to be able to start laying mines, which he still has to pay full price for. When he doesn't lay mines, he is left with a useless, slow and squishy ship floating around. If mines were free (dear Lord, I don't want them to be!) then this frig could just float around laying mines for the fun of it. But when mines cost badass money to plant, a ruiner is useless throughout 99% of its life, unlike TEC construction frigs or Advent carriers.

I think Ruiners need to receive some other role. Some feat, ability, or just a flat combat buff, that would make them moderately useful in other situations than just minelaying. 
A siege cruiser role would be tempting, but I guess most of us (and definately the Devs) believe that a moving Starbase is enough for Vasari in this field.

I have a cool idea of what could be done to ruiners, but I am afraid this wouldn't pass.
Anyway, what I thought about is to make Ruiners a battle-capable unit with minelaying ability. A unit that has a use outside minelaying, but is not really worth spamming.

For example:

Skarovas Enforcer
Cost - 625 C , 150 M , 110 Crys, 12 supply, 65 seconds build time.
1180/700 Hull / Shields
4 armor , armor type Very Heavy.
20-ish dps wave cannons, damage type composite.

My idea of Ruiner
Cost - 600 C , 130 M , 100 Crys, 9 supply , 50 sec build time.
950/600 Hull / Shields
3 armor , armor type Heavy (so that LFs can counter them decently well).
20-ish dps wave cannons, damage type anti light (so they are an alternative lrm counter, if not explicitly efficient) or
13-sh dps composite.
same speed as Enforcer.

As you see, the Ruiner would be a heavily overpriced, weaker counterpart of HC, but it would still be somewhat capable in combat.
It would have medium armor, so LFs would hard-counter it. That would give LFs another purpose.
It would have anti light damage, so it would be yet another LRM counter. It wouldn't be a good counter, though, being very expensive and not really effective, but it would have a USE to it outside dropping kablam-balls for 700-something credits per blob.

I think that would be cool.
As it is, the whole process from building enough Military labs to having a ruiner spend more of your credits on actually dropping some mines out there is just too much of a hassle.

But... ah hell. Nobody is gonna care anyway

We do care Nerull,

I also have an idea of what to do with the Ruiner; give the ship one squadron, that way they can support your fleet during engagement. Just another one of my dumb ideas.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Deceiver_0
Dargoon999
Join Date 05/2008
+8
Reply #338 July 27, 2009 12:34:19 PM
from Sins of a Solar Empire ForumsSins of a Solar Empire Forums

Double Post, hell yeah!

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Deceiver_0
Raging Amish
Join Date 03/2008
+77
Reply #339 July 27, 2009 12:50:52 PM
from Sins of a Solar Empire ForumsSins of a Solar Empire Forums

The ruiner is the only actual mine layer ship. Advent can make strikecraft, sure. But those strikecraft require antimatter to make and take some time after deploying once to use again. Not to mention using a slot of strikecraft for mine laying drones takes away a squad of fighters or bombers.

The ruiner is unique because first it can lay down 2 different types of mines, and second it has the unique ability of just pointing at one spot and dispersing 10 mines with ease . Drones do that too for advent, but there's more delay between uses (ur waiting for antimatter stores). The ruiner spreads them out automatically (as opposed to constructing 1 by 1 with TEC), and require a relativley small wait period between uses (compared to Advent).

With those advantages, and the fact that you only ever need 2-4 ruiners, I dunno if it needs a fix.

Also, let's not forget that Z - axis control makes bypassing mines so easy. You can just go up and over the minefield, making your opponent spend all of his money on nothing more than forcing you to turn your ships up.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Deceiver_0
EadTaes
Join Date 03/2008
+25
Reply #340 July 27, 2009 1:34:31 PM
from Sins of a Solar Empire ForumsSins of a Solar Empire Forums

Buff Mines
                        Increase damage? No they cause siffient damage.


                        Increase damage radius? Yes they could cause more area damage


                        Increase activation radius? No if you do that they will be to hard to counter


                        Increase mines per deployment? No


                        Increase deployment spread? No or youll see combat spam deployments would eb bad for gameplay if people can use mines offensively.


                        Decrease cost? Yes by 25% at max no more.


                        Reduce build time for Proximity Mines(TEC)? Yes takes ages to build TEC mine feilds since the constructor has to trael to each mine. The mine should be instantly built.


                        Increase duration of Gravity Mines(Vasari)? Haven't teste it yet so I will say NO for now.
 

                        Fix homming mines AI to return to original deployment location(Advent)? Yes, currently this lead to mines going in areas mines shouldnt be. It can cause for the landing zones in gravaty well to be completly swamped by mines.
 
      No fix needed-

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Deceiver_0
Deceiver_0
Join Date 12/2008
+42
Reply #341 July 27, 2009 2:48:05 PM
from Sins of a Solar Empire ForumsSins of a Solar Empire Forums

Not to mention using a slot of strikecraft for mine laying drones takes away a squad of fighters or bombers.

This is true, but is negligible as they can simply be switched to something more useful. Ruiners do lay mines faster, but if you were to take 3 drone hosts with 3 mines squads each, you can lay down 90 mines faster than 3 ruiners can, at the expense of some antimatter. The whole point is though that drones have mine laying in addition to their normal function, so they don't lose their usefulness once mine laying is finished. Ruiners can lay 2 kinds of mines, but gravity mines are crap currently.

Also, let's not forget that Z - axis control makes bypassing mines so easy. You can just go up and over the minefield, making your opponent spend all of his money on nothing more than forcing you to turn your ships up.

This is exactly why I think the spread needs to be larger (specifically along the z axis), the damage radius larger and there to be more mines per deployment. If this were the case, a cost decrease would not be warranted as you would get more for what you pay for.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Deceiver_0
EadTaes
Join Date 03/2008
+25
Reply #342 July 27, 2009 3:08:53 PM
from Sins of a Solar Empire ForumsSins of a Solar Empire Forums

More mine per deployment would mean you could have a bigger impact faster. Making mines a pottent weapon for offence witch is something that needs to be avoided.

The rest i agree with.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Deceiver_0
EadTaes
Join Date 03/2008
+25
Reply #343 July 27, 2009 3:10:37 PM
from Sins of a Solar Empire ForumsSins of a Solar Empire Forums

yay forums go boom for triple post

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Deceiver_0
Deceiver_0
Join Date 12/2008
+42
Reply #344 July 27, 2009 5:03:57 PM
from Sins of a Solar Empire ForumsSins of a Solar Empire Forums

Making mines a pottent weapon for offence witch is something that needs to be avoided.

The thing in place to prevent offensive deployment is the delay all mines have before they phase out and become active, leaving them vulnerable to attack when they are first deployed. It couldn't possibly be a matter of 'amount' as Advent can deploy multiple squadrons within seconds and Vasari can have multiple ruiners deploying, yet we don't see mines being used offensively.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Deceiver_0
EadTaes
Join Date 03/2008
+25
Reply #345 July 27, 2009 5:08:47 PM
from Sins of a Solar Empire ForumsSins of a Solar Empire Forums

It means they will be more mien to kill from 1 scource int hat time amount. Makes them more pottent as an offensive weaposn wince more are deployed from the same about of ships as before.

Curently you have 4 ruiners deploying 10 mine with a 30 second activation. So you have 40 mines to kill before they go boom on your fleet.

If you add mroe mine say 15 per deployment you have 4 ruiners deployign 15 mines each, so 60 mines total to kill before they go boom. More mien for lest ships is bad, turnt hem into offencive weapons for the enemy si havign a harder time to eliminate them.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Deceiver_0
Deceiver_0
Join Date 12/2008
+42
Reply #346 July 27, 2009 5:31:38 PM
from Sins of a Solar Empire ForumsSins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting EadTaes,
reply 20
It means they will be more mien to kill from 1 scource int hat time amount. Makes them more pottent as an offensive weaposn wince more are deployed from the same about of ships as before.

Curently you have 4 ruiners deploying 10 mine with a 30 second activation. So you have 40 mines to kill before they go boom on your fleet.

If you add mroe mine say 15 per deployment you have 4 ruiners deployign 15 mines each, so 60 mines total to kill before they go boom. More mien for lest ships is bad, turnt hem into offencive weapons for the enemy si havign a harder time to eliminate them.

This also means you have 30 seconds to *gasp* move your fleet out of range, which is plenty of time.  Its not the number of mines that prevents their offensive use, or you would see homming squadrons being deployed all over the place during a battle, its their immobility and vulnerablilty when first deployed.

Anyway the idea behind more per deployment is to have a single deployment cover a larger area especially along the z axis where ships can simply go over or under your well place mine field

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Deceiver_0
N3rull
Join Date 10/2008
+42
Reply #347 July 27, 2009 6:49:16 PM
from Sins of a Solar Empire ForumsSins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting Raging Amish,
reply 14
The ruiner is the only actual mine layer ship. Advent can make strikecraft, sure. But those strikecraft require antimatter to make and take some time after deploying once to use again. Not to mention using a slot of strikecraft for mine laying drones takes away a squad of fighters or bombers.

The ruiner is unique because first it can lay down 2 different types of mines, and second it has the unique ability of just pointing at one spot and dispersing 10 mines with ease . Drones do that too for advent, but there's more delay between uses (ur waiting for antimatter stores). The ruiner spreads them out automatically (as opposed to constructing 1 by 1 with TEC), and require a relativley small wait period between uses (compared to Advent).

With those advantages, and the fact that you only ever need 2-4 ruiners, I dunno if it needs a fix.

I still think it not enough. TEC mines are where they're supposed to be, in the defensive. Advent as well - so what that they need to replenish antimatter if you're not in a hurry anywhere. Once you do, you have you carrier back. It gives a neat new layer of usefulness to Drone Hosts as they aren't fighting enemy units.

Ruiner, on the other hand, makes the same stuff in a more sophisticated way (as in: pay for it, tug it around, use it, let it waste supply as it is no longer of any use) while not giving you the chance to trully use it on the offensive. So what that it plants two kinds of mines. Grav mines suck. Period. Not worth the money, let alone the research and tugging the ruiner around to place them. Not worth wasting your time on thinking where to place them.

I see number of fixes for mines, all could work well.
But if the Ruiner is to be worth itself, its high price, low maneuverability, retarded speed and utter uselessness above laying mines where it is currently floating, it needs some offensive boost. I dunno, an ability to throw mines into their position from a distance, to deploy them in a more complex fashion (ring, wall, evenly spaced field?), something.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Deceiver_0
JuleTron
Join Date 06/2008
+17
Reply #348 July 28, 2009 3:41:36 AM
from Sins of a Solar Empire ForumsSins of a Solar Empire Forums

I think this time shuold be shortened for Vasari mines, to somewhere between 5 and 10 seconds

Agreed.

the Ruiner would be a heavily overpriced, weaker counterpart of HC, but it would still be somewhat capable in combat.
It would have medium armor, so LFs would hard-counter it. That would give LFs another purpose.
It would have anti light damage, so it would be yet another LRM counter. It wouldn't be a good counter, though, being very expensive and not really effective, but it would have a USE to it outside dropping kablam-balls for 700-something credits per blob.

Interesting idea. Medium armor would make it countered by LRMs. You must mean heavy armour. Anyway, I think shorter deploy times might be a better solution. Maybe have both changes? In any case, I'd like to see a speed boost.

Grav mines suck

This might be very OP, but how about make grav mines an upgrade for existing mines? This way, Vasari will be able to damage AND slow down enemy ships at the same time. "Throwing" mines into position should work well imo.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Deceiver_0
JuleTron
Join Date 06/2008
+17
Reply #349 July 28, 2009 3:48:47 AM
from Sins of a Solar Empire ForumsSins of a Solar Empire Forums

Double post cos forums go boom

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Deceiver_0
Dargoon999
Join Date 05/2008
+8
Reply #350 July 29, 2009 9:11:07 AM
from Sins of a Solar Empire ForumsSins of a Solar Empire Forums

This might be very OP, but how about make grav mines an upgrade for existing mines? This way, Vasari will be able to damage AND slow down enemy ships at the same time. "Throwing" mines into position should work well imo.

I really dont think this would be OP. BTW, this idea was first brought up by JohnJames months ago and I always though it was a good idea.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
23 PagesFirst 12 13 14 15 16  Last
View all recent posts
Mark all posts as read Delete cookies created by the forum Return to Top
Stardock Forums v        Server Load Time:   Page Render Time:
© 2025 Stardock. All rights reserved.
Home News Case Studies Forums