Hey everyone its that time again, lets compile some data!
This is a post that I will update regularly to give the DEVS a better idea of what people think should be done to stats in the next patch. This is ONLY for patches, no new ships or elaborate concepts for the next expansion. This is for dealing with peoples’ concerns about balance. If there’s a balance idea you have that’s not on here, post it and I’ll put it up for voting if it seems valid. I love the fact that ICO pays attention to the forums and what people suggest, I’d like to make it easier for them. The idea is to have all ideas posted straight forward and ranked so the DEVS don’t have to sift through pages and pages to find popular ideas. SP and MP players are both welcome to comment. Post yay or nay for any idea you like or dislike (be specific please) or say no fix needed. If you’d like I’ll also insert specific values you may come up with. Some votes will be taken from other threads.
BUGS
Since the last patches release, the main complaint I've seen on the forums are in the form of bugs, so I'm compiling a list of the known ones, and will update the list as more are discovered. Some of the early bugs were fixed in the hotfix, and perhaps (fingers crossed) the Devs will release another hotfix to address the rest, rather than a whole new patch. So here it goes:
- Nano Weapons Jammer autocast AI casts continuously
- AM Recharger autocast AI casts continuously
- Illuminator causes mystery damage between shots
- Phasic Trap research Level 2 still has no effect.
- Orkulus Phase Stabilizer does not work on stars.
- Random Map Bugs:
- Single Phase lane starts
- No connected Asteroids
- Overlapping Gravity Wells
- Backwards Dunov Icon
- Pathing Improvements (specifically dealing with stationary obstacles)
- Orkulus commands cancelled when trade ships dock
- No wave cannon sounds on Kortul
- Resource extractors on HWs produce income before they're constructed.
- PAWELOS BUG HUNTING
- Siege Militia/pirates run from turrets before construction is complete (exploit).
CAPITAL SHIPS
This will be a large section that will continue to evolve through out the life of this thread so check back often for new topics. Consensus seems to think now that carrier caps have all been buffed, many of the other caps need to be brought up to par with them.
Buff Battleship Class(Kol/Radiance/Kortul)
Increase hp/shields/armor?-
Yay- Volt_Cruelerz(20-25%) Darvin3 Deceiver_0 CallenExile MindsEye Swordsalmon Hrabandur CrazyElectron Ryat Arthanis Warlord Mike Onigiri
Nay-
Increase DPS?-
Yay- Volt_Cruelerz(20-25%) Darvin3 Deceiver_0 MindsEye Swordsalmon CallenExile Hrabandur CrazyElectron Ryat Arthanis Warlord Mike
Nay- Onigiri
Buff Gauss Rail Gun?-
Yay- Volt_Cruelerz(800/1200/1600) Darvin3 Deceiver_0 CallenExile MindsEye Swordsalmon CrazyElectron Ryat Arthanis Warlord Mike
Nay- Hrabandur Onigiri
Re-work Animosity?
Yay- Volt_Cruelerz Darvin3 Deceiver_0 MindsEye Swordsalmon Ryat Arthanis Warlord Mike
Nay- CallenExile Hrabandur Onigiri
No Change needed- CoBBQ
Colonizer Caps(Akkan/Progenitor/Jarrasul)
Buff Jarrasul Evacuator's colonize?
Yay- Darvin3 Volt_Cruelerz Deceiver_0 Swordsalmon Agent of Kharma Hrabandur Ryat Arthanis Warlord Mike Onigiri
Nay- CallenExile MindsEye
No Change needed-
Carrier Class Caps(Sova/Halcyon/Skirantra)
Buff Scramble Bombers?
Yay- Darvin3 Volt_Cruelerz Deceiver_0 MindsEye Swordsalmon Agent of Kharma Hrabandur Ryat Arthanis Warlord Mike
Nay- CallenExile Onigiri
Buff Replicate Forces?
Yay- Arthanis Warlord Mike Onigiri
Buff Support Class Caps(Dunov/Antorak/Rapture/Revelation)
Increase AM regen?
Yay- Darvin3 Hrabandur CrazyElectron Ryat Juletron Arthanis Warlord Mike Swordsalmon
Nay- CallenExile Mindseye Onigiri
Increase maximum AM?
Yay- CallenExile Darvin3 Hrabandur Mindseye Volt_Cruelerz CrazyElectron Juletron Arthanis Warlord Mike
Nay- Ryat Swordsalmon Onigiri
Increase Dunov EMP range?
Yay- CallenExile Mindseye Volt_Cruelerz CrazyElectron Ryat Juletron Arthanis Warlord Mike Swordsalmon
Allow Dunov shield restore to be self targetable?
Yay- Mindseye CrazyElectron Juletron Arthanis Deceiver_0
Nay- Ryat Volt_Cruelerz Warlord Mike Swordsalmon Onigiri
Allow Antoraks subversion to effect SC?
Yay- Mindseye Juletron Volt_Cruelerz Arthanis Warlord Mike Onigiri
Nay- Ryat Swordsalmon
Buff Phase out hull?
Yay- Mindseye Juletron Volt_Cruelerz Arthanis Warlord Mike Swordsalmon
Nay- Ryat Onigiri
No Change Needed-
DELIVERANCE ENGINE
Without a doubt the weakest of the superweapons, there is little point in seeking it. For too long its been sitting in a dusty box on the shelf, to weak to be worth its tremendous costs. Lets consider some buffs to at least make it functional as a weapon. The one buff thats been suggested that I like is an instant allegiance drop, which will aid Advent in cultural takeovers of border planets and with enough, could possibly overthrow an enemy planet (though Id say it should require many more than the fearsome novalith)
Buff Deliverance engine-
Cause an instant decrease in allegiance?
Yay- Deceiver_0 Kitkun Greyfox2 anteachtaire Mow Mow Warlord Mike Hrabandur Arthanis
Nay- Howdidudothat
No buff needed- Qu4r Darvin3 CallenExile
EMPIRE TREE
As I feel that the devs decision to put "Phase Jumping" ships at the top of the tree was purposeful and not a bug, I think most of us agree that the constant movement it creates (especially with phase monitoring!) makes the empire tree difficult to use. Move it to the bottom?
Adjust Empire Tree-
Move "Phase Jumping Ships" to the bottom of the tree?
Yay- Deceiver_0 Darvin3 SwordSalmon JSW_Ballz Mindseye Agent of Kharma Ryat 52500 Mow Mow Fuzzy Logic EadTaes Warlord Mike Hrabandur Howdidudothat -Ue_Carbon Chaotic Magician Arthanis
Nay- CallenExile
FIGHTERS
Some are unsatisfied with fighters with regards to surviving flak. I urge everyone to read the points of debate between Mindseye and myself starting on page 10-11, to get a better understanding of why fighters should or should not be adjusted. Below are a few suggestions
Buff Fighters-
Increase armor/hp?
Yay- Mindseye Mow Mow Greyfox2 Qu4r Arthanis
Nay- Deceiver_0 Darvin3 Ryat Top Vasari Warlord Mike EadTaes Hrabandur Howdidudothat -Ue_Carbon Chaotic Magician Agent of Kharma CallenExile CrazyElectron
MAPS
Raging Amish has proposed some modest changes to maps that I think we could possibly have implemented with enough support, so lets get a vote to see what people think of them. Magnetic clouds are huge wastes of space as their is nothing terribly beneficial about them. People with ability heavy fleets and caps would opt to fight you somewhere else (and can do so without much penalty). They make awful chokepoints because you can't put starbases or mines there, and they offer no economic value. I'd like to hear some ideas on how to improve them (beyond removing them completely from the game as RA has suggested). If we can come up with some good ones I'll put them up for a vote. In the meantime, I think one should at least be able to construct Starbases here, so I'll put that up as a topic. Also, all too often we see Ice and Volcanic planets (which require research to colonize) offering you only 2 resource mines for the trouble of colonizing them. Personally I don't think that PLANETS should have less resources to offer than an asteroid. What do you think?
Magnetic Clouds-
Allow starbase deployment?
Yay- Deceiver_0 Darvin3 Hrabandur Juletron Howdidudothat Warlord Mike DirtySanchezz Kitkun Qu4r CrazyElectron
Nay- Ryat CallenExile EadTaes DesConnor -Ue_Carbon Chaotic Magician
Ice/Volcanic planets-
Change minimum mines to 3 (currently 2)?
Yay- Deceiver_0 Swordsalmon Ryat Darvin3 Juletron Mindseye Mow Mow EadTaes JSW_Ballz Howdidudothat Warlord Mike Kitkun Ovi_187 -Ue_Carbon Chaotic Magician CrazyElectron
Nay- CallenExile DesConnor DirtySanchezz Hrabandur Agent of Kharma Qu4r
No Changes needed-
ORKULUS STARBASE
This topic is going to be heavy on the debate, and will likely be updated several times with NEW votable options throughout the life of this thread. Now, I think it's safe to say that we're beyond the point of the DEVS making a Vasari Assault cruiser and making the Orky stationary. So if thats what you think should happen thats fine, but it would be more useful for everyone if you hada second opinion on the Orky and voted on the issues below.
Nerf Orkulus-
Increase build penalty in hostile wells? (currently 2.25x unupgraded)
Yay- Greyfox2 Raging Amish(3x) Mindseye Arthanis
Nay- Deceiver_0 Cykur Howdidudothat Top Vasari Swordsalmon Ryat anteachtaire LordMechanoid JSW_Ballz Warlord Mike Agent of Kharma DesConnor DirtySanchezz Kitkun Qu4r 52500 Hrabandur -Ue_Carbon Chaotic Magician Qu4r CallenExile
Other-
SB constructors trigger phase monitoring alarm? ("Hostile forces are inbound")
Yay- Mindseye Deceiver_0 Howdidudothat Top Vasari Cykur LordMechanoid Warlord Mike DirtySanchezz Kitkun 52500 Hrabandur -Ue_Carbon Chaotic Magician CallenExile CrazyElectron Arthanis
Nay- JSW_Ballz DesConnor Qu4r
SCOUT FRIGATES
A hotly debated topic right now on the forums, none can deny their increased presence on the MP battlefield. As the cheapest buildable unit in the game, as well as being tier 0, its utility against long ranged frigates has been thoroughly exploited. The question remains, is it balanced? This topic will be split into two sections, a general section for a blanket nerf and a more specific section for interspecies balance. The reason for this is that some think scouts need to be weaker in general, whike other think they need to be balanced on par wtih TEC scouts.
Nerf Scouts-
Decrease hp/shields?
Yay-
Nay- DirtySanchezz Cykur Arthanis
Decrease DPS?
Yay- DirtySanchezz Greyfox2 Mindseye Arthanis
Nay- Cykur
Increase Cost/supply?
Yay- Mindseye Cykur Swordsalmon
Nay- DirtySanchezz Arthanis
No Nerf Needed- Deceiver_0 Wingflier Howdidudothat Darvin3 Ryat CallenExile Chaotic Magician Agent of Kharma Sivcorp 52500 JSW_Ballz LordMechanoid Kitkun Hrabandur -Ue_Carbon Qu4r CrazyElectron
Balance Scouts-
Decrease Seeker Vessels Hp/shields/armor?
Yay- Deceiver_0 Wingflier Mow Mow Swordsalmon Darvin3 Ryat Greyfox2 52500 JSW_Ballz Cykur Top Vasari LordMechanoid Kitkun Hrabandur -Ue_Carbon Qu4r CrazyElectron Arthanis
Nay- DirtySanchezz Howdidudothat CallenExile
Decrease Seeker Vessels DPS?
Yay- Swordsalmon DirtySanchezz Howdidudothat Greyfox2 Hrabandur Qu4r
Nay- Wingflier Darvin3 Ryat CallenExile 52500 JSW_Ballz Cykur LordMechanoid Kitkun -Ue_Carbon CrazyElectron Arthanis
Decrease Jikara Navigator cost/supply?
Yay- Deceiver_0 Wingflier Howdidudothat CallenExile 52500 LordMechanoid Hrabandur Qu4r
Nay- Swordsalmon DirtySanchezz Darvin3 Ryat Chaotic Magician JSW_Ballz Cykur Greyfox2 Kitkun -Ue_Carbon CrazyElectron Arthanis
Increase Jikara Navigator DPS?
Yay- Mow Mow Swordsalmon Howdidudothat Ryat Chaotic Magician 52500 JSW_Ballz Hrabandur -Ue_Carbon Qu4r CrazyElectron Arthanis
Nay- Wingflier DirtySanchezz Darvin3 CallenExile Cykur Greyfox2 LordMechanoid Kitkun
Increase Jikara Navigator hp/shields?
Yay- Mow Mow Darvin3 Ryat Chaotic Magician Sivcorp Top Vasari Kitkun Hrabandur -Ue_Carbon Qu4r CrazyElectron Arthanis
Nay- CallenExile JSW_Ballz Cykur LordMechanoid
No Balance Needed- Agent of Kharma EadTaes DesConnor
RAVASTRA SKIRMISHERS
While the most expensive light frigate in both resources and supply, these ships have the worst DPS per supply. With the recent buff to all light frigs, Cobalts and Disciples are now delivering on the tasks they're meant to, yet skirmishers are still struggling. So what should be done?
Buff Skirmishers-
Increase DPS? Yay- Deceiver_0 Darvin3 52500 Cykur Chaotic Magician Top Vasari Howdidudothat Wingflier Swordsalmon Juletron Ryat Sivcorp DirtySanchezz GreyFox2 Raging Amish CallenExile Mindseye JSW_Ballz Warlord Mike lbgsloan Mow Mow EadTaes DesConnor Kitkun Agent of Kharma Hrabandur -Ue_Carbon Qu4r CrazyElectron Arthanis
Nay- LordMechanoid
Decrease Supply cost?
Yay- Raging Amish LordMechanoid Hrabandur Qu4r
Nay- Deceiver_0 Darvin3 52500 Cykur Chaotic Magician Top Vasari Howdidudothat Wingflier Swordsalmon Juletron Ryat CallenExile Mindseye JSW_Ballz Warlord Mike lbgsloan Mow Mow Kitkun -Ue_Carbon CrazyElectron Arthanis
Decrease Resource cost?
Yay- 52500 Warlord Mike
Nay- Darvin3 Cykur Chaotic Magician Top Vasari Howdidudothat Wingflier Swordsalmon Juletron Ryat DirtySanchezz Raging Amish CallenExile Mindseye JSW_Ballz LordMechanoid lbgsloan Kitkun Hrabandur -Ue_Carbon Qu4r Arthanis
Adjust Reintegration autocast AI to activate earlier?
Yay- Deceiver_0 Darvin3 52500 Chaotic Magician Top Vasari Howdidudothat Wingflier Swordsalmon Juletron Ryat Sivcorp Runesia DirtySanchezz GreyFox2 Raging Amish CallenExile Mindseye JSW_Ballz Warlord Mike lbgsloan Mow Mow EadTaes Kitkun Agent of Kharma Hrabandur -Ue_Carbon Qu4r CrazyElectron Arthanis
I said the repair tech is a sunk cost, I didn't say that about shields.
I'm not sure if you understand what a "sunk cost" is. A sunk cost is something that has already been paid for. If I am deciding whether or not to build culture as Advent, I would only count the cost of the labs if they had not already been built. If I already had two civic labs (for instance, to access ice/volcanics) then I would ignore this cost since it's already been paid for. Sunk costs are already paid, meaning they are ignored in all future economic assessments.
In the case of repair bays, it's extremely likely that I will already have these researched by the time I'm going for Hoshikos. This might impact someone who put up three labs at the start of the game for a hoshiko rush, for the vast majority of players you already will have repair bays by the time you're considering hoshikos. As well, the cost of those technologies isn't that great; off the top of my head a level 1 and level 2 tech will cost you about 1000 credits and 175 resources. Even counting repair bays (which I regard as a sunk cost and therefor not to be considered in the total price) this still comes out as less than the combined cost of an extra lab and the higher price of a 4-lab level tech.
Secondly, the prerequisites cannot be directly compared with the cost of a lab because they have useful properties. The lab is just a big building that does very little other than give you access to overseers. There are virtually no other worthwhile technologies at the 4-lab military level for Vasari. Unless you're moving up to 5 or more labs for other technologies, that extra lab is just for overseers. On the other hand, the entire Advent faction will benefit from extra shields and TEC gets a lot of performance out of their upgraded repair bays.
In practice, no one can afford 4 labs at the start of the game, so you will have PLENTY of time to grab the techs as you move along. This would be applicable if we were talking about a unit which you are potentially going for in the first few minutes of the game, but the only support cruiser that is ever used this way is the Hoshiko, which pretty much undermines your main point.
Actually, I just ran the math. These are the costs of researching the unit and its prerequisites, with one extra lab added to the Vasari cost:
In terms of sheer cost, the Hoshiko is slightly less costly to access, while the guardian is slightly more costly. However, they are all within about the same range. By the way, I did not count the repair bay as a sunk cost, which would make the hoshiko even more affordable by comparison. In any case, the cost difference isn't very substantial, we're talking about pocket change here.
No no no, I understand what you meant by "sunk costs", I just think its dumb to ignore its cost because you have it already. You still have to research repair, which means you spent money on it. It doesnt make any sense to me to ignore the cost because you needed it anyway. I need repari bays as Vasari too, difference is I don't have to spend th money to research them if all I want is a support cruiser. I'm not arguing that Hoshis and Guardians come out of the gate better due to the "sunk costs", because they're better ships anyway. The debate isn't "who comes out with more useful stuff after getting a support cruiser" its whether or not the rammifications of dropping it a tier justify doing it, and although the two are related, the "sunk costs" are only part of the entire equation, and I think are negligible due to the multitudes of downsides.
Also I wouldn't consider the 4th tier Vasari military tech only good for overseers. Most the time I don't get 4 labs just to get Overseers. Much of the time I get there to get Charged missiles, or research the faster SB build speed, and on occasion interference for my Skirms. I consider all those worthwhile techs in the 4th tier.
Your right about the difference in cost being pocket change. But moving Overseers to tier 3 would make them way way cheaper by taking 1000 credits (+ resources) off the cost. Thats a good chunk of change towards getting enough for a devastating SB rush, and then we'll just hear people whine more and more about how impossible SB rushes are to stop, and they'll have more than an acceptable reason to. Then the only other option is to have them require prereq research, at which point you're just making them more like the other races (upsetting the struggle between balance and diversity), and at which point they may hardly be worth the cost since they aren't the best 1st support cruiser anyway. They're fine where they are.
Oh and BTW, One can afford 4 labs (and the planet upgrade to place them) with the starting cash on quickstart using the black market. You have barely any money afterwards, but you can still have 4 queued before your 1st cap ship finishes building.
My point is: dropping a tier, while it may seem sound at first, is too drastic a change for the Overseer, and though they may seem unbalanced, they aren't as bad as people think. In previous patches we've seen extremes go from way OP to way UP, which is why small adjustments are the way to go (the previous patch was full of a bunch of different small adjustments), losing a whole tech tier is too large an adjustment.
As always, if you can show me a decent amount of support for the idea, I'll put it up for a vote.
A word on SBs in Magnetic Fields:
First consider that currently the worst neutral well to find a Starbase in is a Plasma Storm. Among the intended counters for starbases (assault cruiser/sb and bombers), Plasma storms eliminate the bomber option (which is by far the best option) of destroying a Starbase, leaving only assault or brute force.
Magnetic Clouds disable abilities, and while that may be detrimental for fleets trying to destroy the thing, its also detrimental for the Starbase, as it will be unable to use special abilities like frontal shield, debris vortex, meteor storm, disorientation and big red button. There in we have a trade off, your abitlites won't help you destroy it, and it can't use abilities to destroy your fleet. Its really more detrimental to the Starbase because it cannot use abilities to defend itself from its counters.
Now how often do you rely solely on abilities to bring down a starbase. Only in its infancy right, when they're the most vulnerable? Wouldn't you say the ability to attack the SB with bombers is a much more reliable way to destroy one? In magnetic clouds, a Starbases counters would still work (which is more than can be said about plasma storms).
Lets look at the benefits then:
No disrupted supply chains.
Magnetic Cloud choke points can be defended.
So, Nay because why?
This is fine by you?? if u say so....
btw deceiver, are u willing to put up a yay/nay for a buff/nerf of the deliverance engine?? methinks it will be a good topic to debate given the fact that superweapon is pretty weak.
also, for the minimum ice/vol mines poll, put me up for a yay
Why is it stupid to ignore the costs for something you already have? Sorry, it doesn't make sense to me; if I already own it, I don't need to pay for it again, therefor the cost can be ignored.
A ) The odds are the TEC player already has repair bays in play before he even started pursuing hoshikos. Most players I know, regardless of faction, queue up this technology near the start of the game because it's so important.
B ) Chances are the Vasari player researched repair bays, too, even though it wasn't on his research path to overseers. They're just so important that you cannot go without them!
I have never been in this hypothetic position. I've always had repair bays researched long before I reach the 4-lab level. In fact, it's almost always the first military technology - regardless of my faction - that I research.
Yeah, but you won't have any cash left over to use those labs. As I said, in practice you can't afford it.
I will go so far as to agree that the overseer could make a starbase rush pretty wicked, but if you'll recall I asked for a build-time increase of all starbases. Aside from this issue, there does not appear to be any outstanding reason why the overseer would be too strong at the 3-lab level.
Oh, and added to your bug list: the TEC and Advent starbases have "blind spots" directly above and below them, so anyone who uses the Z-Axis can move into these blind spots and kill them without difficulty. This is only the most egrarious of z-axis exploits that need to be dealt with.
Another issue is that minefields are rendered worthless against someone who uses the Z-Axis. While you can place minefields in 3 dimensions, they will be so sparse that an enemy moving in 2 dimensions will be able to just walk through the field with minimal damage, defeating the purpose.
Requiring one more lab is a fairly big detriment. For one thing, you gotta find space for that lab somewhere. If you are rushing overseers faster than a TEC can get hoshis, as you proposed you could do, you will have to upgrade logistics on a planet you already own because you don't have the time to conquer another planet at your leisure. For another thing, requiring an extra lab makes it that much easier to sack a lab and remove that unit from your enemy's arsenal. But requiring extra research, as with TEC, is not something that can be sacked. I find all of this in favor of TEC/Advent support cruisers, not vasari.
Having said all of that, there will never be any tech tree changes in this game. The best hope for that was in the diplomacy expansion, but seeing as that's already out (beta, anyway), I can promise you there will not be a tech tree adjustment. So, what to do? Buff the overseer. If it is to come late in the tech tree then simply make it "worth the wait." As it is, I honestly don't think its worth the wait even if it comes as tier 3. The unit sucks, in my opinion.
One idea I had a while back for the overseer was to make its phase jump degradation better. I mean, what is this, a tier 5 or 6 tech? And what does it do... next to nothing? I say make each overseer able to delay phase jumps by 70%, and make the effect STACKABLE. So 10 overseers would get you a moveable phase jump inhibitor (700%)
Why can't you just put the lab on your hw? It will support 4, you'd have to upgrade logistics to get 3 anyway. And how much is making labs "that much easier" to sack? It doesn't change every labs hp to have more of them. Destroying one lab takes the same amount of firepower regardless of how many others there are. You may mean that its more difficult to defend 4 than 3 (not really by much) which is not the same thing as being easier to destroy. And again we're arguing balance with somehing that cannot be quantified, because having already researched something can either be 1) useful in any inumerable ways or 2) not inherently useful to you based on the situation. You can't definitively say that it will make a significant difference, so why use it in debate?
My point is that it doesnt make sense to argue that Hoshis are cheaper because one of its prerequisites is useful.
I have noticed when playing with players coming from SP and through my own experience going to MP from SP that frequently repair bays are not their priority on the defensive side. And while that may work in SP it doesn't in MP. But remember this game isn't just MP. So the idea is to separate out players strategies and skills and focus on just the facts. The odds and chances are that the things you state about players could be true for MP but not for SP, or really just true for some not for others and depending on the situation. Why add a weird specific variable like that into the equation, why not see it more generally, remove human variables and focus on just the numbers. The numbers are saying that the balance is there, not perfect but close, why make a change that would throw off those numbers completely? Thats how exploits are born. The SB rush scenariois just one we can predict, there are bound to be others we haven't even thought of yet. Did anyone predict flak swarms like 1.16/1.02? Personally I'd rather not see or constantly be annihilated by that kind of SB rush or whatever exploits may be hidden in in such a shift. If that change was made, I have no doubt in my mind SB rushing would become a much bigger problem than people think it is now, and that alone is enough to make me say NAY to that suggestion, and why I've gone into such a legthy debate about it. Don't get me wrong, at first I thought it was another good idea right out of RAs mouth (erm fingers?), but after thinking about it a little more I've definitely changed my mind.
I do recall that Darvin, as I recall much of your proposed changes. Your ideas make sense, and would probably work. But as the OP says, you have to look at things individually, because what if we don't get one part of it (like the build rate increase on SBs), things would no longer be balanced. We will be more likely to get changes we request so long as they're simple, one part fixes. Better to say "tweak this" than to say "if you tweak this than tweak that"
As for the z-axis, SB and minefield problems for awhile, but I've been debating with myself whether simply removing that option is the best way to deal with it. I mean getting rid of it is the easiest thing to do, but although I don't use it that much, its still nice to have. The option is fix the blindspot, but what do you do with minefields? You'd have to spread em out further and add more mines per deployment, that all just seems cumbersome. What do you think? Any ideas?
Good idea for a topic, DE is something we may wanna take a look at.
You can have 3 labs at HW without upgrade if you scrap the capship factory, which many people do.
Easy. The more labs you are forced to maintain, the more vulnerable you are. Theoretically you'd prefer to have to maintain 0 (then no techs can be taken out). If that's not allowed, then theoretically you'd prefer to have to maintain 1. I'd rather maintain 3 than 4 any day.
In the big scheme of things, it's not something that's hopelessly out of whack, but my point was, if you are saying you'd rather be vasari and have to build 4 labs to get overseers, I'm saying I'd rather be tec and build 3 to get robos even though I have to do some additional research.
Changing the topic.
I mean this as no disrespect or insult to you or anyone else. so don't take it that way. I think some of the things we are putting to a vote are being put to a vote "too flippantly." I think the only things we should be voting on are bugs, and what we all agree are serious balance issues, or just plain major issues. The skirmisher and scout are valid to vote on, but magnetic clouds, I think we can all agree that it cannot be considered a major issue. If magnetic clouds are never touched until hell freezes over, I think we can all agree that the world won't end, and there are probably a bazillion other issues that could be addressed before we ever thought about magnetic clouds.
Also, when we vote, each individual should only cast a vote if 1) he feels STRONGLY on the issue, and 2) he truly has thought it through. So having said that, I'd like to retract my vote on magnetic clouds, if possible. While being able to put SBs there might be nice off the top of my head (always sort of irritated me when it was a choke I couldn't defend, or when it cut off my trade), it isn't something I feel strongly about at all, and it isn't something I've put a lot of thought into. Furthermore, as I said it probably isn't even something we should be examining anyway from my vantage point, so that's another reason I shouldn't have cast a vote on it in the first place. My mistake and my bad. I encourage others to examine whether they themselves are casting votes too flippantly, on issues which might indeed be flippant in themselves.
Consider these things I just said when putting deliverance engine and other things to a vote. I'd say deliverance engine should be thoroughly debated and hashed out on another thread (like marza, siege frigs, etc) before it is voted on here. Actually, I guess everything should be done that way.
Regards.
Agent most likely the devs wont touch mag clouds anyway but since it isnt or wouldnt be a major issue and most people would like to have it then why not try to lobby for a change.Thats what this thread is all about.Improving the game to make it more fun.I didnt vote because I really couldnt care less about that issue either way.To me mag clouds are a bit of a safe haven as is.I know there will be nothing waiting for me there(sb,mines) and no fleet killers(mb).
Darvin I dont always research repair bays depending on the situation.If I am on heavy offense and battle is intense researching repair bays and repair bay upgrade that doesnt affect my battle is like losing 2-3 ships.Also with hoshis if you get them you dont always even need repair bays.They are basically mobil bays on their own.
Hey deciever I havent seen you post anything about the fighter issue.Are you considering utting it up or no?
Magnetic Clouds- Allow starbase deployment? - I'll be honest: It's annoyed the hell out of me before, but if you change it then the clouds won't be all that different from other gravity wells. Additionally don't magnetic clouds prevent you from using strike craft? (I can't remember) If that's the case, I think it'd overpower the current main way of dealing with the things. On the plus side, it would force people to use the anti-structure cruisers.
I'm still undecided.
Ice/Volcanic planets- Change minimum mines to 3 (currently 2)? - Yay
I agree with some of the pathing complaints. I've seen some weird behavior of late. Not sure what the underlying problem is, though.
I'm included! I exist! Perhaps the simplest method of fixing the minefield z-axis blindspot would be to allow the area of effect of mines to extend to the top and bottom of the gravwell, so that it was a column not a sphere...?
The z-axis should be included as a bug however... anything that allows an exploit must need a patch?
Anyone prepared to confirm the problem of queued extractors yielding income before they are constructed on normal start (v1.041)? Or Advent AIs being unable to use both strikecraft and mines?
No magnetic clouds only prevent you from using abilities. Plasma storms prevent the use of strikecraft (yet sbs can be built there...)
I'm kinda on the fence about whether it is really a problem. I get what you mean about it being weird that flak have a harder time killing bombers (maybe they just have so much armor, most the flak just bounces off). I think the triangle Flak>Fighters>Bombers is working ok ATM, fighters die off a bit quickly to flak yes, and flak aren't all that effective against bombers (though still useful), but the way I'm looking at it is that Flak RAPE fighters and fighters RAPE bombers. What its looking like in your suggestion is that a nerf be given to bombers by making the untis that counter them better at it. If flak can do more damage to the bombers, and fighters live longer due to reduced damage by flak, thats 2 strikes against the bomber, and I don't really think thats necessary. Fighters take care of bombers no problem, thats what they're meant to do so it only fits. Flak on the other hand aren't meant to hard counter bombers, and I don;t think it should be cost effective to mass flak against bombers (which currently you can, but it isnt really cost effective, better to get some fighters). I don't know, I haven't really had any problem with strikecraft since the patch, and let me tell you I use them 100% of the time. (one of my favorite opens is producing a handful of carriers with bombers to take care of an enemy cap ship if he decides to rush me, but a couple of fighters can throw a nasty wrench in that plan, and with improved carrier caps, that happens more often)
No I didnt mean it that way.I threw out 2 diff suggestions.I dont want fighter to counter bomber better but lrf better.They need to survive longer.Either buff their hulls or nerf damage from flak.For flak if they become useless over this nerf maybe give them a small buff vs bombers.My main objective is to make fighter viable to counter lrf instead of using scouts all the time.All the scout voting is to make all 3 scouts equal and doesnt fix the main issue that fighters cant counter lrf.
Oh ya and how bout a voting on the empire tree moving violently thruout the game?I would rate this as a bug.Maybe if we can get enough votes they may make it stationary.
Ok I see what you mean now. Fighters did get a good nudge in the last patch: flak do 17% less damage to them, the build penalty on carriers was reduced, and now carrier caps can have more of them. And I've seen people complaing about carrier cap spam crushing their lrf spam (early game anyway). That plus my own experiences with fighters recently makes me disagree with you that fighters cant counter lrf. I think they can, and they do a pretty decent job of it. But you see what I do when I need my fighters to kill lrf but there are flak frigs running around, I set my fighters to hold position and position them near what I want them to kill. If they're flying around a couple of flak cruisers can be deadly due to their multiple guns, but if your fighters aren't moving, flak can only use 2 of their banks, cutting their damage to your squads down significantly, and allowing your fighters to kill more. I like to think of it as almost a single frigate that can only be damaged by flak (and other sc), can fire in all directions like a starbase, and has attack bonuses against lightly armored frigates. So, try that next time your using fighters to kill lrfs and see if you still think they make poor counters to them.
Oh and about the Empire Tree, the jumping is obnoxious, but I don't really consider it a Bug, as I get the feeling the Devs put the biggest cause of it (the phase jumpimg tree) at the top for a reason or personal preference. I don't think it was accidentally put there and theyve just ignored the fact that it makes the tree jump wildly when lots of ships are moving. That being said, I see no reason we can't have a topical vote on it. Moving the "phase juming vessels" part of the tree from the top to the bottom of the list would solve a large portion of the problem and shouldn't be to hard to code right? In that sense, I think giving the devs our support of moving it from top to bottom through a vote better than labeling it as a bug. I'll consider it for an upcoming update.
Agent of Kharma-
I'm actually really glad there are things on here you feel you don't feel strongly about. The more trivial things become on here, means lass gripes people have with the state of it, which is a good indication that the game is very close to perfect balance. The more we move into suggestions for improvement of gameplay (like magnetic storms and resource extractors) and less on demands for balance, the better the state of the game. I'm already struggling to find topics to address that are serious issues to the community, the only ones right now that seem to be on everyones minds are scouts, skirms, and the illum dmg bug. I recall the the last PSCF was very long,(I would know I had to update it every couple of days), and the devs took the important things on there and fixed em, and threw in some of the suggestion people gave. I'm sure this one will not even close to as long, and be filled with more suggestions than demands. So if you don't feel strongly about a topic thats fine, don't vote on it. Devs will take things as suggestive if only a few people support or do not support a topic, and more important with more support. Go ahead and exercise your right to not vote.
MAPS-Yay and Yay.
Well I definately believe empire tree jumping should be voted on, it has bugged me and everyone else from day one. It often times makes the empire tree totally useless. Z-axis exploits seem an almost no-brainer to add to the vote as well.
My main point was that things should be thrashed out pretty heavily first in debate (probably on other threads so as not to clutter your fine thread here) before submitting to a vote. I definately think deliverence engine, tec planetary shield generator, etc. are candidates that could use a good thrashing out on other threads to hear all the pros and cons, yaes and nays, and suggestions on what should be done, if anything. I like one guy's suggestion about defeating the z-axis exploit against mines (he said their explosive effect should extend up and down the z-axis all the way, so they are laid in 2 dimensions but essentially affect things in 3 dimensions). We should start separate threads on these things and hash everything out and see what the consensus is, which arguments win the day, etc. Then you can put to a vote whatever you think deserves to be voted on.
Deciever I know the hold position tricks for fighters and I use them.Thing is you cant target when you put on hold and you cant kill any ships if they are moving.When someone does that to me I move my flak back and forth to use all guns so your point is easily nullified.If you really want we can play a game where you build nothing but carriers and fighters and I build flak and ilums.Just 1 flak can easily nullify a fighter squad waaay before it can kill 1 lrf.With amount of cost and effort it takes to field carriers which should counter lrf with flak is totally imbalanced.
Ah, I return to this topic! Lessee now...
Allow starbase deployment in MCs? I'm all for it, personally - if they're one phase-jump choke points, it makes for an annoying threat that'd need to be destroyed.
Change min. mines @ Ice/Volcanic worlds to 3? Yessir! I can't tell you how many times I've gone to an ice planet and discovered only 2 mines are there. If they're supposed to be crystal- or metal-rich worlds, then why do they have only 2 mines? Doesn't make much sense, in my opinion.
Youre on. But before we do that lets talk numbers and counters. I totally understand your arguement here, but I'd like to point out that fighting a fleet of lrfs and flak with just fighters is poor strategy. (Id fight with bombers if you had flak) It only stands to reason that the flak/lrf fleet would win in that fight, but that isnt the point I guess. But I'll bet you if we did equal supply cost fleets, I could probably take out more lrfs than you'd think, and thats where the real test would be. So with that heres some numbers:
100 fleet supply-
Advent flak- 4 supply >= 10 flak/10 lrf (this about what you would use? or would you change that up?)Advent lrf- 6 supply
Vs.
Advent Carrier- 20 supply. = 5 Carriers(15 fighter squads)
With that I'd say against an equally skilled opponent I could probably take out 6 or 7 lrfs before my fighters dropped below a critical number. Against a less skilled player I estimate I could kill them all, and against you (not ashamed to say more skilled than I) I'd say I could take out at least half. Now keep in mind thats given a 1 time launch, IE no docking, kiting and relaunching. Without a unit to kill the carriers, they'll eventually kill all the lrfs.(no cost reinforcements put a little more weight on the fighter side of the balance). Tell you what, If I can't kill at least half your lrfs on the first try, I'll agree with you.
Magnetic Clouds? Yay.
Ice/Volc Extractors: Nay
Nerf Orkulus: Nay
SB Construciton Alarm: Yay
Maps:
Yay
Orky:
Nay
Scouts:
Skirms:
Even if you kill half my lrf I will eventually kill your carriers and win the day because once I destroy your fighters You cant ever kill another lrf.So you have 100 fp wasted for the rest of the battle be it 30 min to kill all those carriers.This is why to me its such a critical deal because once they are defeated its over for carriers.Even to retreat and rebuild you lose 200 am on way out and back all the while im killing your stuff....hardly a counter.Keep in mind 10 flak is only 40 fp while you have 100 fp in carriers and you cant kil but 30 or so fp in lrf?The flak to fighter counter is way to hard imo.You dont even need half that to wipe the floor with fighters plus flak is fast and easy to put into battle while carriers are not.Just look at the numbers.Your saying 40 fp vs 100 fp of carriers is a balanced counter?Flak is not am dependant either.Flak can also kill lots of other stuff after they kill fighters.Which is other point...lrf can be replaced very quick and easy compared to fighters.Giving instant and full dps back to fleet.So if you kill a few lrf I can replace them back to full fleet while you have to go up in fleet supply to make a new fleet to deal with the same fleet the carriers could only scratch.Lets remember the point of building the carriers would be to clear the way for some lf to take out the flak.
BTW I usually only use about = number of flak to fighter squads so if I did that I would have 15 and 60 fp but I wouldnt mind doing it your way either.Also there is a time factor with carriers.I can simply overwelm carriers with build speed of flak and lrf before you could build carriers to counter my ships in time...easily(in mp scenerio).By mid game people have hoshis and guards which directly affect the performance of fighters making their durability that much more important.
Finally in mp there are other techniques to help preserve your fighters like picking one off in one pass then waiting to pick another off but you dont have the time.You need your fighters to be full on attacking lrf before and during their aussalt becuase they are coming for your cap and other ships.If fighters cannot deal with lrf or make a guy wait to bring them to the well until he clears fighters then they arent a counter and all we have is scouts and hc.
I find this horribly untrue. Fighters are replaceable with no cost. Yes they take a little time, but if I can take out even HALF the lrfs, the resulting loss of firepower would allow the carriers to live longer, and thus produce more fighters. If you destroy all my squads, Im not going to let my carriers send the replacements out one at a time to be slaughterd (just like you dont send ships directly from your frig factory into an attacking fleet with no support) I would keep all squads docked until they can some of the fighters, then launch again. Thats what I meant by dock, kite, launch. Your right in that eventually the flak fleet will kill the carriers, but that will take FOREVER. The lrfs you came in with are dead at that point, and while your producing more to replace them, maybe Im building lfs to handle your flak. Also, its much more difficult to protect lrfs with flak if theyre in pursuit of you carriers, makes them easier targets.
You say it as if you mean 40fp can destroy 100fp. It doesnt work quite like the other counters (lf and lrf for example) because the flak arent DESTROYING the carriers, theyre just removing their firepower for a period of time.
I think this is the root of our disagreement. Where you believe a Carrier fleet is a good as dead once its SC are destroyed, I think quite the opposite. While my fleet has simply been disabled, your fleet has lost ships, ships that you have to spend resources and supply to replace. To me SC have no resource value, only a time value (if I can buy myself some time then all is well) where as the ships they can kill have both resource and time value (ie their actual cost plus their build time). Now killing all my strikecraft only costs me time, where as killing your lrfs costs you time and money. Destroy my carriers, well then theres where Ive got a problem.
I agree, lrf are quick to replace. But replacing ships you've lost, means I've got time to increase my fleet to a greater level than yours because you haven't destroyed any of my ships. That gives me the advantage of a larger fleet. My carriers will keep on killing (after some recovery of course) and I'll be adding more things for you to have to deal with.
You also need to think about the whole scenario you've got. Your pitting a single variety ship against a fleet with better diversification. I'd argue if you sent light frigates into a lrf+flak fleet, you would get a similar result, a couple of flak dead, and the lrfs tearing apart the lfs. Granted, that situation would probably yield more destroyed ships for the lfs, but you're also losing those lfs, and can never fight with them again, unlike with Carriers which are free to fight until they're destroyed. Again back to the whole disablement vs destroyed arguement.
I figured you would probably prefer to go with that, problem is that means there are only 6 lrf for me to kill. Even with 15 flak instead of 10, I think 3 lrfs would be easier to kill than 5, hence the equal distribution.
I'm an avid MP player, and while I am guilty of making generalizations about game mechanics based on the flow of the average MP pug game, I do try and avoid them. Surely in a rush situation, carriers may not be the best option for stopping the lrf + flak fleet (they are a bit of a mid-game unit because of their high cost anyway), but this game isn't all about rush situations. If I'm being rushed, I may not have the time to be microing the hell outta some fighters, but then again, maybe I do have the time. Maybe my cap isnt even involved in the fight, maybe my other ships are elsewhere. Maybe I scouted you first and decided not to throw fighters headlong into their toughest counter and built bombers instead. Bottom line is you got to remove all those variables when examining the balance.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
