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
Ok maybe we can work out the mitigation to an exact level, so that it performs its essential task, while still keeping caps killable and not making ti to high for smaller fleets to kill Bombing cap rushes. Thing about early game bombing rushes is you need 2 caps to make it work effectively, which means you arent going to have a whole lot of cash lying around to increase their level (so most likely they'll be lvl1 when they get to you hw maybe lvl2) and if the mitigation increases per level but remains similar at low levels, it shouldnt make much of a difference. I'd say best case scenario for the bombing rusher is 2 lvl 3 caps, and each would have only 2-3% more max mitigation, which is probably not enough to make a significant difference. Its only when the caps get to lvl 5 and above that the max mitigation starts making a big difference (ie 5+% extra mitigation) However, advent have 2 ways to increase max mitigation, so it can't be an additional 1.8% per level as I recommended, as it would give advent the possibility of having above 85% max mitigation on their caps, which needs to be avoided. As Carbon said, approaching 90%, caps become too difficult to kill, so I say 85% should be the absolute ceiling.
OK so here's the problem with mitigation increase:
Advent get +1% mitigation for every level of culture they research, for a total of 6%. Add that to the research at the end of their shield research tree and they can have 10% more mitigation than any of the other races. If we kept that and the ceiling at 85%, we could only add 3% mitigation max over 10 levels, which means for TEC and Vasari, their caps could only have a maximum of 75% mitigation at level 10, which is not enough of an improvement (over 72%).
So the only way to do mitigation as a solution is to leave advent caps the same, and only buff mitigation increases to TEC and Vasari caps. which probably isnt fair to Advent (eventhough an additional 10% dmg reduction to all their ships doesnt seem very fair anyway). The only problem I see with excluding Advent caps from mitigation increases is it would be messing with faction benefits (like culture bonuses and specialities like TEC Armor research). The only way around that is to compromise with mitigation increases across the board, but more for TEC and Vasari. So it would have to be like this:
Vasari: Max Mitigation increase per level = 1.6% for an absolute mitigation ceiling of 78%
TEC: Max Mitigaiton increase per level = 1.6% for an absolute mitigation ceiling of 78%
Advent: Max Mitigation increase per level= 1.2% for a mitigation ceiling of 74% (Shield upgrades make it 78%(+4%), culture bonuses make it 80% (+6%)) For a total mitigation ceiling of 84%.
Might not seem fair that Advent caps need research to reach those kinds of mitigation level, but it should be noted that the mitigation bonuses under culture and shield research apply to ALL ADVENT SHIPS, where as for TEC and Vasari, the increased mitigation only applies to their capital ships (for better scaling).
If this were the case, TEC and Vasari cap ships would gain an extra 2% mitigation every 3 levels, and Advent caps would gain an extra 1% every 5 levels.
Now that I see it though all written out, the gains probably arent enough to make a huge amount of difference. I mean a level 6 cap taking 4% less damage from a horde of illums would probably only buy it a couple of extra seconds to escape, and the risks of altering faction dynamics are a bit to great for this to be a workable option.
As much as my tinkerer's instinct makes me want to delve into all the different ways mitigation might be altered to achieve our ends, I have to agree that it doesn't fit the spirit of this board. I think there's general agreement that the problem is the role of capital ships scaling as fleet sizes get bigger, but there isn't an obvious way to address that within the boundaries of what we consider acceptable topic for this thread.
With that stated, I would like to suggest a topic for discussion: carrier cruisers and hangers. They are expensive and have antimatter problems, particularly early game when compared to carrier capital ships. Because fighters are the only counter to bombers, and it's difficult to suppress fighters without a strong fighter presence of your own, carrier caps are ruling the roost. A possible way to tone down their excessive dominance is to give them some real competition by buffing the hanger and carrier cruiser (leaving the strike craft themselves unchanged). I believe an antimatter regeneration buff and cost decrease are the most sensible courses of action.
If we're going to propose a cost decrease for hangers, we may as well also address turrets at the same time. I propose two possibilities for buffs: a cost decrease and a range increase.
First of all I hink carrier caps are far too superior in terms of SC...
Pure numbers:
Skinatra has max 8 squadrons + 6 given by Scramble bombers = 14 SC at 10 level
Halycon has max 11 squadrons + lvl6 ability increasing effective number of squadrons by ~5 = ~16 SC max at 10 level
Sova has 8 SC max, but have ability increasing their overall effectiveness by ~30% = effective number of SC is ~10-11 squadrons
CarrierCaps in terms of armor and damage are just little weaker then other caps, which is not justifying their fighters superiority.
Everyone agree CarrierCaps are fine, problems are other caps which are UP.
Thats why I think we should ask for slight SC squad number increase for non-carrier caps.
As I said before: BattleCruisers/PlanetKillers should get 3 squadrons Max and support caps (which are definitely weakest caps class) should gt 5 squadrons max. Why? CarrierCaps will be still superior by far in terms of SC control because both of their max SC limit AND abilities giving further SC improvements, but player choosing other caps will no longer suck in terms of SC completely.
Because Carriers are relatively strong in terms of DPS and HP/SH i see no reason of giving them so huge superiority in terms of SC.
I'll second an increase in AM regen for both hangars and carriers. Otherwise I think their cost is sufficient, maybe a little pricey, but I feel like the seemingly high credit and resource cost of things is slightly skewed by the type of games most frequently played by posters here, IE team MP games on single star randoms. Turrets I feel are certainly priced correctly.
As for Cap survivability. This is also seeming to be skewed by the MP single star random type of game, where half of the players have military but no econ, and the other half have econ but little military, leaving little room for multiple caps (2-3 per player tops), where as in longer games, players will have econ and military and many cap ships that are able to support eachother with superior abilities, and a single cap ship is less valuable and somewhat easier to keep alive. These types of games are also where illum spam flourishes, and once it toned down a bit with a bug fix, melting caps may become less of an issue.
So maybe there is no solution, and maybe there isnt such a need for one.
Arthanis- Adding extra squads will not help the other cap ships, because their weakness to them isnt in the late game, its starting off where 2 lvl 1 carrier caps can provide 6-8 squads. Your proposed solution would not work because 2 of any other cap ship would still only provide 2 squads at lvl 1, which would still be dominated by the carrier caps. Darvin suggestion of increasing AM regen on carriers would help because a carrier or 2 would be able to keep up production of SC to fight off the early squadrons that dont cost carrier caps AM to build.
As I said before I strongly prefere multiple slight buffs (like SC increase) to many aspects for UP caps instead of single huge buff to one cap's aspect. I don't say "it will fix problems with UP caps". I say "SC increase is step into good direction".
i think its hilarious how we've come full circle from saying SC are way too overpowered to saying SC need to be buffed to make X Y and Z viable... =P
just a slightly random question, is it possible to make a unit invulnerable to a certain type of damage (i.e. anti-light etc)?
like, lets say we make (after research) late game caps either invulnerable or highly immune (though still damageble) to fighters and maybe certain other ships like LF, maybe bombers, maybe turret defense, one or both types of support cruisers or whatever units (im just throwing names out there)
i mean, the heavy hitters like HC, LRF, other caps, bombers and of course SB's should of course damage caps as normal, but the little annoying units like SC and LF/Flak would be extremely ineffective, thereby increasing survivability...
another idea is: to discourage early carrier spamming (without proper support) might be to (if at all possible) make carrier caps particularly vulnerable to LF, while Battleships and Dreadnoughts are vulnerable to LRF etc etc... it may not be possible... but it might be an idea...
Darvin and Deceiver_0, I guess the only other idea I can come up with for mitigation would be to leave the late game mitigation for caps exactly where it is now, but bump the early starting mitigation. This would mean caps start out with higher mitigation than they do now, but it grows more slowly to the level 9 mark than it does now.
Thing is, this probably wouldn't really solve the problem of melting capships, so then why tinker with anything at all? If this wouldn't be enough to help the issue, I guess I'm for tabling the motion.
EDIT: What about simply making capships cheaper? This would be something to allow their role to scale with fleet size. Just throwing a number out off the top of my head, 2500 credits instead of 3000 would be about 16% cheaper. I think its a good idea, but would have to be done with other adjustments so that you dont' see even MORE carrier cap spam.
Making capships worth their cost >>> making capships cheaper
- my 5 cents
They don't need to be cheaper by any means. The first one is already free, and you can buy a second one less than 5 minutes into a game. The cost of a cap ship is relatively low if you have an economy. Like jsut last night, I was Vasari and had only 5 planets pretty much the whole game, but I had econ up and was able to build, 1 egg, 1 skirantra, 1 marauder and 4 kortuls, and still had a giant fleet to go with them. (40 carriers, 20 sentinels, 60 assailants). Sure they seem really expensive when you have no economy and are being fed by your allies, but thats only 1 specific situation. I know that the kind of deathmatches played really point out the relative strenghts and weaknesses of things. But again, I'm leaning towards the melting capship being a situational game specific issue where the solution to me is just have a better economy to support building them.
Thats what flak is for.If you buff am on carriers then all you will do is make bombers less useful.It will cause carriers to be able to produce a constant stream of fighters so you will never be able to clear fighters out.Advent fighters build at 17 sec a piece.Just 2 hosts will be making a fighter every few seconds.Make fighters themselves tougher and make losing them more costly.Most of the am upgrades are paticularly helpful to the carriers.Most people dont like the sc for free part about carriers and your just bolstering this with an am buff.
I think hangers need a big price buff and maybe even turrets a little.No am buff to them tho because vas hanger with ability is already exetremely powerful.
Why should you be able to counter a cap with same amount of carriers?Mix in some flak.They are cheap and always produce full dps.You could also get some carriers and then start building lrf.He will have to choose to use his fighters to kill your lrf and lose his fighters or they will fight each other for awhile in meantime you are killin his cap with lrf.
Flaks are not the answer. While they can suppress fighters, they are ineffective against bombers in any realistic numbers. If you don't have fighters (ie, carriers) of your own, then you have no way to stop bombers. Even if you did manage to get enough flaks to do the job, this would cut out virtually every other unit type and your opponent only needs to follow up with a light frigate spam or starbase rush to get the kill.
Right now, the only early game answer to a carrier-cap loaded with bombers is a carrier cap loaded with fighters. As far as I'm concerned, until this is dealt with, the ONLY viable opener on the front lines is carrier. Maybe you could get away with colony if you quickly got a carrier cap to back it up, but only then.
If phasic traps become a problem, compensate by raising the antimatter cost on those. However, the problem right now is the hangers ability to produce strike craft; the antimatter regeneration they currently have is so low that they completely empty all their reserves just by building their first set of strike craft (Advent hangers - and they're brutally expensive - need 2 or 3 minutes of antimatter regeneration just to fill all their strike craft capacity, it's that bad)
You're missing the point. I agree that doing this is the best course of action, but the math I just showed demonstrated that the correct carrier to choose to counter a capital carrier is another capital carrier. This is the problem, the carrier caps are blatantly outperforming carrier cruisers at level 1.
Carrier cruisers need both a cost decrease and an antimatter/antimatter regen increase. Preferably, I want to see a decrease in metal/crystal costs and increase antimatter by 100 or so. Currently, the cruisers are outclassed by carrier caps because of the expense and lack of good antimatter regen. You can swat out any Fighters/Bombers and make the cruiser completely useless.
Hangers also need a good cost decrease and a large antimatter increase, for similar reasons.
I'm not sure that the carrier capital problem is a lack of a viable carrier cruiser counter so much as an issue with the starting stats of the capitals themselves. I suspect that this could be solved with capital balancing and cheaper early game defences.
The carrier capitals just aren't as fragile as they need to be compared to the others. It seems fair for the siege and colony capitals to have problems with carriers, as these two have very strong abilities outside ship-ship combat. The Revelation has only as much health as the Halcyon and less shield, though. The battleships might use enough of a boost to make them a viable anti-carrier choice. The support capitals also need a boost, their antimatter costs could be brought down. I've always wondered why none of the support capitals have their faction's area healing ability, the classic support ability- this affects their utility to begin with, though the Dunov has got the single target shield heal. Whether a support capital needs to be made a viable starting capital is questionable though.
probably because in theory a colony cap is supposed to be a support cap.
In practice this kinda fails though.
Thats why I suggest increasing number of SC on support Caps to 5. Support caps are atm caps with no purpose (because other caps are usually better in everything including supporting fleet), giving them better SC armament will at least make them decent in SOMETHING. Of course DPS/HP/SH increase and abilities buff in addition to SC increase will be nice too.
LOL, increasing SC on other Caps doesnt make them more support'ish'. Cap carrier is suppose to be support in theory also reminde you. If you want support SC wise for your fleet you build one of those.
I fail to see the reason for your push for MORE SC. When its SC that have got us all in arms since Entrechement started. A huge portion of most of any debate has centered around SC.
To be honest, I think everyone forgets (Including me) that Caps are all support ships. Every single one is suppose to help your Fleet. Problem with this is they either dont b/c they die too quick to make a differance for your fleet, or they overshadow your fleet by themself.
This was certainly the "old school" pre-buff philosophy. It still works that way, but I see some people trying to flip the equation, i.e. use fleet to support the caps. I actually think this was the proper way to go with the game. The devs had the mechanic backwards. Playing the game with hundreds of frigs all shooting at each other is just... boring.
Ya.
The capital ships have no real escorts in the game- that is, ships which are poor when attacking capitals but good at attacking threats to capitals. Flak are the nearest, but flak are better at defending LRF than capitals, and LRF are one of the two main threats to capitals. LF also come close in that they threaten carriers and therefore bombers (though not on carrier capitals), but LF are too vulnerable to LRF to function as escorts. Scouts are useful against LRF but are too vulnerable to a mixed fleet, and can just end up feeding an opponent who isn't employing pure LRF spam.
It doesn't make sense to me to have LRF counter both LF and capitals. If the LF-LRF balance were adjusted so that LF countered LRF and LRF countered flak and carriers, then LF would become proper escorts for capital ships, and the LRF problem would be solved. Fighters and scouts just aren't the solution to LRF and should be left to fulfil their more natural roles. Better one proper counter than two half-counters.
If all capitals are support ships then why have 'support' capitals at all, it becomes no surprise that they are marginalised? Also, why are the carrier capitals allowed to kite, when the carrier cruisers aren't?
Idea: LRF have 50% reduced accuracy at 50% of their max range and below
Lore: targeting systems have problems with attacking close opponents
Balance:
- It will significanlty reduce short-range effectiveness of LRF and will force players using them too keep optimal range.
- LF/Caps/HC at close range are real opponent to even massed LRFs
- mindless LRF spam no longer work vs smart opponent
- it will promote micro
Then what counters LF? The only counter to LF currently is LRF.
Caps?
SC?
HC?
Then what counters LRF?
Capital ships are a hard counter to LF at the moment, as are structures and heavies, that wouldn't change? The abilities of support cruisers also counter LF more effectively than any other ship, though LF would retain the drain antimatter ability. Flak might have parity, with both disadvantaged against the others armour flak have superior stats. Strikecraft wouldn't be much use but then LF would only have LRF damage against carriers without the range advantage.
I doubt that LRF would be marginalised in the game, they'd still be useful against a wide variety of targets and the only early counter to a capital rush. Early on the effect might not be much different from the existing scout/disciple mix. However, it would make capitals much less vulnerable later.
If LRF/Assai/Illums are not suppose to counter capitals then why is there an entire weapon research line dedicated to them? LRF are the destroyers of the SINS navy whose job is to screen out other LRFs so the Capships can get in and fight.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
