While I wouldn't pretend to be an expert on the military techs of all the other races, as I was the one who suggested a complementary military thread to Darvin's survey of financial techs, and no-one else took the hint, I decided to try to produce one.
Planetary Shields- Overrated even before starbases, as they were most useful against siege frigate raids and before the carrier cruiser revision, when the ships couldn't simply take the shield generator out first. When starbases allowed the retention of planets despite bombardment they became wildly overpriced, as what you then pay for is the difference in credit income between a bombed planet and one that isn't bombed, rather than all the investment in infrastructure. They're even higher on the tech tree than the starbase control of planets... on a volcanic planet or roid the Vasari ability to keep planetary control is so much better than this that it becomes derisory.
While the novalith has also lost some of its value due to starbase control of planets, it isn't nearly as badly affected as planetary shields, at least a novalith will still have some targets, whereas anywhere you would have built a shield will have a starbase as a priority.
Solution: Many solutions have been proposed, but the most basic problem is that this tech is just incredibly far up the tech tree for what it does in the game. I would suggest that with the arrival of the starbase control abilities, tier 1 and tier 2 might be more appropriate for the research, unless the effect of the research is radically altered. Even at tier 1 and 2 and with reduced cost, I doubt there would be many of them.
Martyrdom- The seekers have only just disappeared! We don't want them back! However, as this ability costs a ship, the damage might be very poor. I haven't ever seen it used online, and I've seen a great deal, including sort of crop circles made with turrets and my feed being used to build multiple cap ship factories. Having said that I've rarely played Advent so I'm not sure, but I wanted at least one Advent tech in the four.
Solution: Is this damage straight or mitigated? Either way, improving the damage would seem to be a straightforward solution.
Wave weapons- Another perennial is that improvements to wave weapons are too expensive, as they are too high up the tech tree. The tech just requires vast numbers of heavy cruisers to make it remotely viable, rather than building another cruiser.
Solution: The obvious solution would be to bring them into line with other techs, drop them a tier. However, as more variation should always be encouraged, why not make them twice as effective instead, 10% not 5%? Vasari ships still tend to be undergunned, and at a high price this could then be altered.
Pinpoint Bombardment- I'm not sure what this tech was ever intended to achieve, a 13% increase in the range from which bombardment is possible doesn't sound much for a tier 1 tech. You can buy a whole scout for that. I wouldn't buy it.
Solution: This one just needs to be completely redone. If it's to stay where its is on the tech tree then I would suggest that it should allow destructors to also have a ranged anti-structure attack like ersatz assault cruisers, only not nearly as effective. Either that or add to the starbase anti-structure weapon, though then it would belong in a different tree. Maybe both?
So there we are, I'm sure that there are many other candidates and suggestions, but let's stay with military techs rather than capital ships and their abilities, which belong on another thread.
@DesConner for your forum activity. You've had some really good posts.
On the damage type for mines I'm a little curious as mines use ability/buff to cause damage and not weapons. Therefore the instant action type is DoDamage for 700 or 1050 respectively that affects shields and hull and is shared damage. I don't see anything around buffs that indicates there is a damage modifier. I guess my understanding was damage dealing abilities inflict 100% of the damage to hull and/or shields based on the damage affect type (normal mitigation and armor rules apply of course). Is this innacurate?
@DesConner- since mines use an ability to do damage, they have the ability damage bonuses of the GamePlayConstants file. This allows them to do 100% damage to EVERYTHING except capitals (50% damage to caps I believe; checking.... nope, 75% damage in v1.19 and v1.05 (don't know about Diplo but I'd imagine it's the same)).
Also, Vas&TEC mines don't have a specific splash damage entity set for their detonation abiltiy because BY DEFAULT they do full damage to anything in radius. Thus, while Advent Homing Mines do 1050 damage to a single target and 150 damage to anything else in a specified radius, Vasari and TEC mines do a flat 700? damage to EVERYTHING unfriendly within their radius of effect.
Ah, so all abilities use the CAPITALABILITY damage modifier in gameplay.constants then?
I believe so. After all, it would make sense, would it not?
Well, given their appears to be no other ability modifier then yes it makes sense. However, i might have also assumed there would have been a non-capital ability modifier, but apperently not.
Actually, if you wanted to you could make an ability designed to wipe out LRF and fighters at the same time but nothing else, then you could give the damage on that ability ANTIVERYLIGHT damage type so it would only be effective against those targets.
Keep telling them until they hear
Yeah... Today I was writing code for a mod, and the name of the ability was for a Vasari capital's ultimate ability called Xenocide which damages all ships in the gravity well for 300 points directly to hull and all SC take 40. This ability is meant to knock down frigates slightly, but more importantly, it is meant to allow Vasari to quickly take out SC since they lack an ability that does that directly.
At any rate, I another ship in said mod is called the Defense Cruiser which is a late-game version of the Flak Frigate, though there are advantages to using some FF's in your fleet. This unit specializes in taking down LRF and SC. Basically, I set up a combat triangle of three late game units: LRF>HC>DC>LRF. In this way, the damage dealing units can be countered and as such, units are less likely to be abused due to an inability to counter them.
Completely back on subject... I was unable to find the line of code that actually allows you to change damage type... The option that I went with is simply to have it have target filters and then different buffs for each unit type so you could make it deal more damage to frigates, but I don't know if you can single them out. I seem to recall seeing something like that, but it may have just been when I was writing the code for the capitals and was doing the weapons rather than their abilities...
Well mines don't seem to do 100% damage to everything other than capitals with the limited experience I've had of them. I'd like them to be substantially more deadly- as it is, with the best result where an enemy force enters the minefield you might destroy a couple of frigates, but this only pays for the cost of the minefield, so at very best you break even- except that the enemy has already had the use of the ships, while your minefield does nothing until it is destroyed.
Unless your fleet is present, its difficult to capitalise on damage that doesn't destroy, and TEC minefields at least can't be meant for fleet support? The Advent mines are the only ones difficult to sweep, anyway. I might add mines to the original four priority enhancement requests, unless anyone can present a case for keeping the explosive power as it is. The Subverter/Ruiner combination would be the only worry, but if it were only the gravity mines that got the increased explosive power as well, it might correct the deficiency identified earlier by Darvin?
@Volt- the damage percent values are in the GameplayConstants.GAMEPLAYCONSTANTS file.
Even the Advent mines seem to be considerably less powerful than I expected. Is it reasonable to assume that if you have a Drone Host next to a couple of enemy carriers and deploy three sets of mines almost on top of them, that they would be destroyed? The cost of the mines themselves is equivalent to losing more than a Drone Host, plus you then have another Drone Host without any strikecraft.
I'm still hoping for tactical advice on mine deployment, or examples of successful use. My impression, however, is that mines are just an ignored part of the game. I've only ever seen them in multiplayer with a Ruiner, or when someone was left alone for ages in a locked FFA, and had the time and funds to deploy TEC mines.
I ran some Illuminators through two Vasari minefields at the end of a game, to see what would happen. The lead Illuminator survived three mine hits, though it was badly damaged, the following ships were far less affected. Four mines failed to go off, even with a fleet passing over them.
If mines can't destroy long range frigate squadrons then they have no practical value- to deploy two minefields costs the enemy faction the equivalent of 2.5 long range frigates, and they can be swept by scouts at no cost at all.
However it's achieved, whether by a more appropriate damage multiplier or just more damage and attack range, then mines could use an improvement. They seem to be very rarely used in multiplayer, as their numbers are limited they should do more damage. The gravity mines problem might be solved by having them explode as well. Mines add a dimension to the game and their cost is sufficient that I can't see them being overused, as under usual circumstances any competent player will detect them fairly easily and destroy mine carrying ships swiftly.
A few players seem to have the attitude that multiplayer might be better without mines, as they cause lag, and any increase in effectiveness might lead to them being deployed by players, rather than just AI.
A severely restricted number of effective minefields would seem better than many ineffective ones. Naval mines were very dangerous to ships, but they were mostly limited to restricted waters close to harbours, and the three dimensional nature of space would seem to further limit their role.
How about a limit of three minefields per grav well rather than the current limit, and cranking up the damage accordingly? That would make them more effective and usable. As scouts have lost their combat role, it would be good to have them needed for minefields, rather than players just ignoring mines because the damage isn't critical and is spread around a fleet. The mines might then be cost-effective. A limit of three minefields wouldn't affect Ruiner or Drone Host deployment techniques, though if mines were to be made vastly more powerful a greater arming period might be necessary, to prevent abuse. Also the AI minefields wouldn't then affect the game.
Mines should not be deployed randomly, instead having a preset pattern so you don't end up with a place where someone can slip though a weak point and only set off 1-3 of them.
Gravity mines: Maybe make them Antimatter reliant, and permanent? So they do what they do, then have to recharge and do it again? Would make them more useful.
Probably make them really OP, but how about being able to direct which target homing mines will attack? Not all the way across a grav well, but within a certain range, slightly outside the normal range? Alternateively, have them be able to kamikaze into a ship while in squad form, dealing significantly less damage than if they were deployed.
-Twilight Storm | My life for the Dahkri
Alternateively, have them be able to kamikaze into a ship while in squad form, dealing significantly less damage than if they were deployed.
That would help to mitigate the ai's habit of building to many mine squads. But wouldn't that also be invading the bombers role to some extent.
Not really, these are 1 shot craft, then have to be rebuilt at 1/2 normal rate just like strikecraft. Unless there are hundreds of fighters out there that would wipe out bombers before making a single pass, then the kamikaze mines wouldn't be interfering.
I'd like to be able to control the mines in the grav well they're in. Like send them here or there. Not all the way across at once. Give em 10 Antimatter that burns up while moving or something. IDK.
-Twilight Storm
the marterdom ablity officially sucks.
Its like... almost as powerfull as the gauss rail gun (rofls)
I really thought it did splash damage... well it doesnt.
the autocast (which starts off) sends the scout in at around 1/2 health... which means that its got to make it from point a to point b before it blows up, and considering it is being focus fired... gl with that.
ya, so itll do 80-90 damage to that capital ship... (before armor)
So... if you happen to be bored... and have 50 scouts lying around... and have 4 military labs... and are rediculous at micro... you can prolly take down a lv 1 cap ship.... for about twice the fleet supply and cost as that cap ship.(not including research)
however... that being said and all... if i see you with 50 scouts... ima going to be verrry carefull with my cap ships!
After returning to these threads I'm convinced that the game will only be improved by a community patch. It's been too long, and there's just too much of the game that needs work to believe that one last patch, put together while the developers are busy with a new project, will improve it enough. The wave weapons problem has been with the game for as long as I've played, for instance, as pointed out by N3rull- but the developers haven't heard before, why would they hear after they've finished work on the game?
Any community patch has to establish its parameters, and wave weapons are a good example. To move them down a tier would require work on the graphical layout of the game- I suspect that this would be fairly easy, though I haven't attempted it. However, this would affect the nature of the community patch- should it be oriented to just the most blatant fixes, or should it establish a new level of gameplay? Other changes might include alterations to weapons loadouts on the ships or starbases, or changes in the effectiveness of upgrades. I'd prefer a far more research based game, as I reckon that 5% increments for improvements is extremely low- but is that preference widespread enough to be justified for inclusion in a 'community' patch? Phase missiles are popular because of the low upgrade cost and the high effectiveness of the upgrade compared to others.. but changes to upgrade effectiveness might also alter that aspect of current gameplay...?
Sometimes just making weapons at all useful might change the game as we play it. I've strongly advocated a change to mines to make them effective- I believe that they should destroy ships larger than scouts, not just annoy them. As a trade-off for vastly increased power I'd like to see vastly restricted deployment, which might help framerates as well. However, the intent of the patch would be that mines would appear in games, which is a change from the current style... However the game hasn't been played in a single consistent style throughout its lifetime.
Another question is whether a community patch should improve gameplay by adding to the game's resources. I've advocated at least one further planet type, and I'm surprised that the game wasn't expanded with new terrain in at least one of the expansions, but new weapons or abilities might prove even more controversial. I don't believe that the game needs any new military technologies though, just to have the existing ones properly functional. It's complex even as it is. Too complex, it seems, for Ironclad...
I actually once lead such a project for Battle for Middle Earth 2. Basically, if we could change it with a text editor, it was fair game.
It's impossible to say what we could do for Sins, but at very least I'd wait to see what the next patch has in store.
Balance, research, ships, structures, SBs, abilities, all that's text editor changeable.
Effectively, a community balance patch for Sins would be easy to actually code. Agreeing on what's balanced is where the hard part would be.
Darvin is the lead on our community multiplayer map pack project also... and I would suggest that the community patch include new maps.
Three of the four worst military technologies I've identified have just never been integrated into the game, so there's no real starting point for balance- as soon as they become at all useful they will start to change the game as it exists. Planetary shields should have been adjusted with Entrenchment, when all factions got a superior version of the technology available on their starbases.
Also we might have to be careful not to break the combat AI. The maligned Repulse, like Resource Focus, is another example of a feature that has been heavily affected by changes to the design of the gameplay, and though Repulse was then nerfed slightly many consider it still to be a balance issue. But were these issues produced by 'dumbing down' the game in response to poor play? Should they be solved by a return to the original design?
The original design of the game had Illuminators as different from other LRF, they countered capitals and heavy armour more effectively, but LF with medium armour not as much. This meant that Advent were more vulnerable to light frigates, so Repulse may have been intended to prevent the Advent support cruisers being picked off by faster LF. Also, Illuminators were more effective against Subverters than standard LRF. However, when Illuminators became anti-medium in v1.04 the range of usefulness of light frigates declined, and as Repulse was no longer needed to cover a weak spot it became more of an offensive than defensive ability. Advent have been the balance problem for much of the game's history from then on.
For a while I have contended that the option chosen when the Illuminators were made similar to other LRF was wrong, and that in fact other LRF should have been more like Illuminators. Instead, what has happened is that LRF damage against LF has been generally decreased, so that instead of LF being a good option against only Advent, they became poor, modified to weak when it was realised that LF were going out of the game entirely, against all factions.
However, if in the patch we returned to either the original anti-capital Illuminators, or moved to entirely anti-capital LRF with less effect against LF, would it impact the AI's automatic choice of target in combat? What I'd like most is to have LRF that were no better at attacking capitals but lost their superiority against LF- switch them to anti-heavy: 50% light 75% medium, 125% heavy, 75% capital and anti-heavy and LF with anti-medium: 100% light and medium, 75% heavy and 50% capital and anti-heavy. That might solve both the Repulse and Subverter problems without hitting capitals. Flak could become more vulnerable, solving the flak problem without having to limit flak effectiveness against strikecraft. However the hardcoded AI might not be able to handle this.
Got that? It took me a while to work the original intent of Repulse out, and I've played many many games. This could be a very complex game, and if if was balanced with all its features it would be. I've also been advocating superweapons that were an effective end to games.. of course, if the resources were limited, as they were in the original design, the existing superweapons start to become superweapons again. The more I research the game the more I become convinced that some of the original concepts are much superior to the carrier strikecraft=no antimatter cost game that exists at present. Why tone down some of the combinations like Malice-Vengeance to the extent that they were no longer used, and capital ship variety became an issue? Why was there a need to look for 'other methods' of victory when there were civics technologies like the Difference Engine, returning fleets and Insurgency that already presented alternative paths- had they been implemented?
Here's another problem. There is a mod that aims to add more mobility to combat because the designers find the game too static. Yet if you watch a really good player, the combat is anything but static. Good players micro, can you imagine a top Starcraft player's reaction to a mod that automatically 'flew' units around...? But how many players who post on this board can say that they have seen a really good player in combat? I might have seen it two or three times, for obvious reasons it only happens when they are under pressure, and most times the top players can just exploit a better knowledge of counters or better strategic planning. But micro doesn't just mean being able to retreat capital ships at the right time. Can we balance a patch without these extremely talented individuals? How much skill should it take as a minimum? Should anyone who can't play multiplayer be involved at all, as they just don't 'know' the game? I wouldn't want the game dumbed down some more...
'Constant developer involvement with the community continues to hone both Sins and Entrenchment and will do so for a long time.' March 2009
That's... actually a good idea. We could certainly integrate several of the modding/mapping projects.
As I said, though, I'd like to wait for version 1.20 to see what the developers do with it before we start modding our own creation.
It already builds poorly balanced fleets and seldom uses its special abilities well. Frankly I don't think we have much to worry about here.
LRF are the only counter to LF... you'd need to completely overhaul the counter system to get what you want, which I don't think is the right approach. In any case, this is a very difficult issue. I'm more in favour of keeping the current roles.
More like Indifference Engine. Sorry, couldn't help myself
It's called the "Deliverance Engine".
I think we can all agree that it's difficult to gauge certain issues against the AI. You will never know the true terror of LRF or bomber swarms that turn capital ships to space junk in singleplayer. However, there are other issues that can be measured and discussed quite accurately with respect to singleplayer. I'm a firm believer in open discussion and evaluating different viewpoints. If there's a multiplayer/singleplayer disconnect on the issue, that should become evident through discussion.
As for skill level, that will be a trouble unless we can get some of the other skilled players on board. I'm pretty solid, and I'm sure we can get several other solid players on board, but the real masters will be harder to get feedback from.
By the combat AI I meant the combat auto-target AI, not the strategic AI.
Your input is always welcome, I shall be sure to refer to it as the Indifference Engine in future, to make it more clear- and the non-returning fleets, until they are made useful once more, perhaps...
Players say that there are no counters to LF but LRF and it just isn't true. Heavies counter LF. Capitals counter LF, and isn't that one of the main purposes of the patch, to have a greater role for non-carrier capitals? Turrets counter LF... Up to v1.04, if LRF were the only counter to LF, Advent had no counter as Illuminators were anti-capital. Would you agree that the change altered the game substantially? For the better? It led to an extended period where balance greatly favoured Advent.
Would you agree with the central point, that effectively including all of the unused technologies would make for a far deeper game very unlike what we have at the moment? For the Indifference Engine to work, Culture would have to work...
I'm very tired of carrier capitals, all of them exploit the hole that their strikecraft don't need antimatter, so they don't 'pay' for poor play. Zombie bombers is just the worst case, where the hole is exploited so much that it completely distorts the game. However the Halcyon is nearly as bad, especially after the extra squadrons rather than extra strikecraft in a squadron change, that was a dumb down option. As the carriers have gained large numbers of squadrons compared to carrier cruisers, I'd also have all of them pay costs for rebuilding strikecraft, at a reduced rate, but still some cost. Nothing should be entirely free in games, free strikecraft is worse than 'free' returning fleets- which were expensive to set up, not free from the first minute of the game... also the 'free' returning fleets even had a cooldown, which could have been nerfed to just have a larger cooldown... larger than 35s, anyway.
If we simply waited for the developers it would give them no assistance at all. Also, we have been told that 1.02 is not under development. While we have also been told that there is, however, still developer interest, a community patch might sharpen that interest...?
don't know where you got this from but this thread suggests that the devs are still interested (reply 26)
https://forums.sinsofasolarempire.com/381255
I think this is more a case of too many prerequisites; this ability is quite fine once you have it on the field, the problem is that it's an 8th civic lab level tech with a 5th and a 7th level tech as prerequisite, and requires a network of expensive phase stabilizers be built to support it. That's a massive investment to get it off the ground, but once you have it this ability is just to die for.
I'm not sure how to fix it; if we push it too far it will once again turn into a "GG" ability once it's on the field (the Kostura is bad enough in that way...), but on the other hand I don't see an easy way to reduce its rather steep prerequisites.
First of all, that leaves the LF uncountered until you hit the 5-lab mark and get these tanks on the field. Secondly, heavy cruisers are really bad at chasing after light frigates. Long range frigates at least can use that long range pepper more distant targets, but a heavy has to stay close and keep pursuit of a much more agile unit, something it really isn't built for. I do believe that LF need to be countered by a unit that has some answer to its mobility, and the LRF has that answer with its range (or, with illuminators, their side-beams). I don't think a heavy assault tank is the right kind of unit to counter this one.
Not really; a battleship or other strong tanking capital, sure, but throw a Halcyon, Antorak, or Akkan against a swarm of LF and they will be high-tailing it outta there.
I don't mind this being the advantage of carrier capitals ships, but you are certainly correct that something needs to change about their current dominance. My view is to tone back bombers, and then bring the other capital ships up to the same level as the carriers.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
