So here's the problem: Strip to the Core
The issue is not that it is too easy to get....the issue isn't even really the amount of resources that you get...the problem is that once planets are double stripped to asteroid belts, everyone else is hosed...
Multiple games now I have seen a VL player able to drag games on forever even when massively outnumbered and out done in economy...so long as they have enough fleet to deal with a fully upgraded SB (which is not that hard), all they have to do is jump to a world, eat it, and move on before they get caught...eat it again, and no one can ever colonize it....
Last night I played a 5v5 where 3 of our players got wiped...yet the game still continued for about 6 hours because one of our two players was VL...even with wormholes and 5 fleets in 5 different locations, the other team struggled trying to catch the VL fleet...even with no kostura, the VL can just keep moving moving moving, eating planets and avoiding fleets like none other...
The concept of this strategy is actually quite cool....it is unique, and I think it should stay...the problem is that 2 players can take on 5 will relative ease...
The VL eats planets while the other player just survives...since the VL can be anywhere rather quickly, it is exceptionally hard to wipe the 2nd player...even if 3 or 4 players team up on them, they'll be facing an entrenched player with titan + SB and the VL's orky...oh, and the VL can jump back at any time to assist...if the 5 man team doesn't try to break the entrenched player, they'll just waste time chasing the VL fleet of doom that can be anywhwere, anytime...
Having been on both sides of the issue (facing VL pulling this crap and being allied to VL doing this), I find that it is extremely difficult to counter, especially if players drop....more to the point, any other factions (so not Vasari) stuck in a 2v5 would never come even close to being as succesful as the VL planet eating strategy...when you are the only faction that can handle a 2v5, I think it is fair to say you are OP...and heavne forbid if 2 VLs tagged teamed and stripped the galaxy...
So, how does this get fixed? I think the solution is actually quite simple: Stripped to the core does not remove the ability to colonize...
I suggest that when a planet is stripped (Terran, desert, ice, volcanic, moon), it becomes an asteroid (not dead)...if an asteroid, dead asteroid, or pirate base are stripped, the entity simply stays the same....this is extremely easy to implement and requires no engine changes, just entity file changes...if you remove the effect and give no resources, "Stripping" an asteroid, dead asteroid, or pirate base basically is just like normal disbanding (only difference is a string saying you are stripping)...
How does this solve the problem? Well, the players still have asteroids to colonize, and therefore still can stay in the game just fine...since the VL won't be able to guard each and every asteroid, the attrition strategy doesn't work out when seriously outnumbered...when the teams are equal, Stripping is still an effective strategy...if slighlty outnumbered, stripping can really wittle the enemy down via attrition and pull an underdog victory...but if the game keeps dragging on, the VL can eventually be brought down since the enemy will always be able to have something to colonize and build structures on...
As a last comment, I think it is crucial planets strip to asteroid instead of dead asteroid...right now the dead asteroid is basically almost as bad as asteroid belts (though it still makes it hard to actually wipe a player) and furthermore, it seriously biases the late game against Advent...TEC have development mandate and can build units via SBs, but Advent can't do anything....
I think complaining about VL being difficult to finish off is bit of a moot point, because that one particular "property" is meant to be their main characteristic trait. Not saying now its not OP, just you cant probably have both a race completely mobile and easy to finish off, it would be defeat the whole point...
Another approach:
SttC should give variable income according to the development level of the planet. A fully developed one would give more than a just-colonized one, because its resources a better understood, leading to a more effective stripping.
Planet scuttling should take time according to the planetary max HP + damage taken. Damage taken would influence by making SttC take more time, since the hypotetical planet eater machines would be under constant attack, being damaged etc.
If the planet is destroyed OR its health reaches 0 before SttC timer runs out, SttC is cancelled (even if a SB prevents planet loss). Planet should have at least 50% health to begin SttC process.
A 'SttC counter' would begin at the max planet HP and move down at a defined rate per second. Taking damage would increase it back up, up to max planet level. Once it reaches zero, planet is SttC'ed.
I think a reasonable rate would be 10/20/30 hp per second (3 tiers of upgrades to increase SttC speed). A 5000 hp planet would then take 167 seconds to be SttC'ed if it takes no damage.
I second the notion of having double-strip change the extractors to capturable. This way, the scorched-earth tactics still come into play in terms of tax/credit revenue, but the Vasari don't get to completely deprive everyone of metal/crystal income. It even adds a bit more strategic choice to VL, as you need to decide if it's worth leaving anything behind to keep the enemy from capturing the remaining mineral extractors rather than simply moving on and eating up all the planets with no real strategic decisions to be made.
Most stripping occurs in gravity wells that the Vasari player would be unwilling or unable to hold....when you kostura jump to a HW, plop a phase stabilizer, strip it, then jump back, you do so because you are trying to avoid the enemy fleet...I just don't find the VL trying to hold and defend all the planets they strip...maybe the occasional one or two for building factories and the like, but most times you are "running through" the enemy worlds and not trying to make a stand or anything...as such, I don't find it problematic that the VL could colonize these asteroids...
In my experience, more often than not the VL have no intention of keeping the planets they are running through, so leaving them as asteroids would benefit the defender more than it would benefit the Vasari....
I initially thought taxation would be a good idea, but my biggest gripe with it is that if the income is taxed, how do you pick a good number for earned resources? Currently, I find independent of whether this income is taxed, SttC provides too many resources considering how easy it is to get...your first stripped planet (which usually is some random planet near the center of the map) basically gives you a titan, and if you get two stripped planets you are almost guaranteed to have most powerful fleet by that point, hell maybe even prepping for kostura if you were in eco spot...at that early stage, having taxation affect SttC ain't going to do much since your taxation is so small anyway...
So, independent of taxation or not, I feel the base income needs to be reduced by a lot...but then, if you compound that reduction with taxation, the amount of resources you get with stripped to the core late game will be hardly anything...if Sttc is reduced by 50%, and then your mid-game fleet reduces that by another 50%, now you are getting 1/4 of what you are getting now...extend that to late game (with maintenance of 60%-75%), and it's even worse....I think if taxation were implemented, VL players would never be able to go fully mobile (or at least very close to it), and that is not the result I want from nerfing SttC...
I'd rather see a serious nerf to the base amount of resources earned and maybe something to make it harder/take longer to strip than to tax the resources...the intention I see for SttC was that it was supposed to be a late game strategy, and I feel that taxation would completely flip that and make it an early-mid game strategy for getting titan and kostura quickly...
Not sure if there is room in the tech tree for this but what if the SttC tech was broken up into multiple techs, each for a different planet-type, like asteroid stripping, desert, etc. (don't all have to be the same tier).
Could increasing the up-front cost in time and credits give a little more wiggle room in nerfing the ability less drastically in other ways?
I see SttC as being a key mechanic of the VL, not a late game trick to pull off.
And to repeat myself once again: Why not tie SttC income and time to planet health? 1 credit per planet HP, 500 resources per extractor, 1 second scuttle time per 10 HP. I am aware that this is beyond entity file modding. But this would mitigate a lot of the problems associated with SttC. Additionally, this would be more in line with "going mobile" than the current "going locust".
Btw. non-capturable extractors after scuttling Asteroids should be considered a bug, there is no reason for them to behave like this.
This might actually make the situation worse, because then only VL in eco would be able to strip effectively while frontliner VL would be hosed...so, even if both teams had the same number of VL players, who would have the advantage would come done to a crapshoot of which VL's got eco spot....
Same thought here. Players are going to exploit one mode of play or another, and yeah it makes online an irritating venture. I can't think of an RTS in which I've seen every player perform as the game most clearly intended. There's always some eye-rolling trick they can't help but deploy.
When I had this strategy used against me by a VL player, there were a few crucial things I learned.
1. A handful of anti-structure frigates is enough to upset their advances. In my case specifically I'd put up a space station with manufacturing on it, and they had a lot of trouble fighting me on that ground.
2. Fortify. Following a rapid advance in early game, it's not hard at all. This means starbase with auxiliary government, heavy weapons, heavy armor, and either manufacturing (TEC) or hangars. (in fact, if you make it manufacturing you can just ignore the aux government.)
3. The player panicked like his house was on fire when I ran a large fleet to his core worlds. What followed was a free-for-all in which I destroyed as many labs, frigate factories, hangars and repair bays as possible. Bombed what planets I could in short order; the bigger ones I just left limping and useless. I won soon after, and took only moderate losses of my own frontiers due to slowing his advance with mines, anti-structure frigates, and space stations. In hindsight I wish I'd left my titan to go defensive, because that probably would have stopped him entirely, and on that player's frontier my titan was a bit slow.
4. Eat like seven hard boiled eggs in a row, 'cause you're a stallion now.
Edit: to provide a suggestion against this particular player exploitation, I wouldn't mind seeing some timer on the Scuttle (planet) function after a player has conquered a world. Maybe they have to fill up the pop to max, or maybe it's just a flat number. Otherwise I don't see the point of changing it - make it any weaker and it might as well be removed.
Again, true about the asteroids.
I do still believe taxing SttC would work well. It is true the VL could eco and say, strip all their worlds at low fleet supply, but afterwords, once their fleet is large enough to attack hostiles, they run the risk of biting too much. Just like every other faction. The point is the VL would not be able to continue running around like they had no fleet supply. They might get one big boom and that's it. Or they might moderate. It'd be a way of having more variables and more risk. More strategy. And about "fully mobile," what VL is doing that right now? Usually only if he loses his HW, from a hostile faction. More to the point, I don't think making SttC taxable will hurt too much, since planet income is taxable already.
I would also point out that V has fleet supply expansion research, while neither of the others do. This can offset things too.
No, it is the exact opposite...they continue running around precisley because they have fleet supply...they need to eat planets in order to research techs and build up/replace their fleet...stop eating planets and their economy dies (especially since they may have abandoned their core planets or had to strip them)...
I still stand by my statement that taxing the income does nothing to prevent SttC from being OP early game...the base income earned from strip has to be reduced...it's easy to say that the income should be taxed now because the amount of resources earned is ridiculous...but halve the number of resources, and I think you will quickly find that taxing that value further will make stripping just too weak late game...simply denying large enemies some good planets isn't enough...large and huge maps just have too many planets, the VL has to get something from stripping those planets to make the strategy viable...
Reducing the base amount of resources helps to prevent SttC from being OP early game...taxation does not....having nothing strip beyond an asteroid prevents the VL from wiping players with impunity and no counter....taxation does not....and, significantly reducing the resources earned (which needs to be done regardless) while taxing SttC income at the same time will just nerf this ability into oblivion...
Honestly I'm starting to feel part of the problem is that "the Vasari Loyalist strategy" has too many Facets. In a nutshell Stripped tot he Core accomplishes the following:
1). Gives a very large short term resource advantage, making your fleet ienvtably larger then whatever the enemy is defeending against
2). Allows for a viable "full mobility" strategy by allowing the Vasari Loyalists to maintain a high level of income even with high fleet upkeep and few to no planets left so long as they keep conquering new planets.
3). Denies enemies all future use of each destroyed world
Any one or two of these in themselves would be fine, but all of them together push Stripped tot he Core over the edge.
AT least one of these areas needs it's potency hit.
Good options IMO would be to have Stripped tot he Core income affected to some degree by fleet upkeep and/or to extend the time it takes to strip planets to a long enough period that the enemy has a reasonable chance at reclaiming conquered worlds before the vasari Loyalists destroy them forever. This would require at least 5-8 minutes stripping time.
To bad Stripped to the Core wasn't set like Drain Planet. Colony Cap triggers chain reaction, gains 8000 c/m/cr over whatever duration, then particle kicks in and mesh swaps. 7DS is going to have a time with this one since we've resized planets... doh.
I don't think the game has the coding to have either the scuttle value affected by taxation. Drain planet isn't affected by taxation. I don't think it's appropriate for scuttle value to be taxed, it's just ripped from the planet, not brought in by planetary population, tradeports, mining operations or refineries.
Changing #3 has to be the way. The question is how. Is there a way to make a research item or ability/buff that turns dead asteroids into asteroids and asteroids into dwarf planets either on colonization or application of ability/buffs? If so, would let the TEC/Advent to have future use of the planet. The other thing is how to make it so the research or ability/buff only affects worlds scuttled and Stripped to the Core or TEC/Advent would use it to gain an unfair advantage.
It'd also be neat, just graphically to create a swirling nebula particle that ends in a bang turning asteroid belts into an asteroid planet. I don't think, however, Kirk would appreciate the Genesis Missile being misused. Would give another bonus besides Space Ponies... SPOCK! and he boosts research rates. LOL.
You misunderstand. I mean run around like no fleet supply, I mean they don't have to worry about maxing the fleet research, ever. It simply doesn't apply to them. Having a 2000 supply fleet is like having 200. Thus a VL player runs the risk of making SttC weak end game because he chose to fleet up before his enemies. It's the same risk other factions already face in regards to fleeting up, that is outstripping what the economy can handle. Taxation does counter wiping them out with impunity. It means VL runs the risk of attrition against powerful opponents.
Add to that the mere threat of future taxation might mean the VL would be more hesitant to fleet up as quickly, instead taking a more moderate approach, perhaps with multiple small raids to SttC the other player unawares while finishing out research.
More likely then not, he'll keep his fleet as small as possible until he is unable to advance any further, thus offering a counter, a chance.
I think it's a shame STTC was bound to abandoning planets... I was originaly under the impression that the VL Titan would consume planets. Having it as an ability would have been much better in my opinion.
Would have also opened the doors for more modding fun.
I concur with CoronalFire, SttC should be brought in line with the risk/reward-principle all factions are subject to. And the primary means of this is taxation.
Still, to be able to balance SttC and make it viable early through late game, I propose making it available early on in a weak form and then provide multiple salvaging improvements further up the tree.
Other than this, there is one thing I might think of that could be implemented as of now, that might help with the current problems of SttC. Scrap it as a scuttle technology and let it add owned planets to the Jarrasul's Drain Planet target filter instead. Perhaps make it non-cancellable on owned planets to add another risk factor and prevent half-stripping planets.
Thus you would have a moderate to high prerequisite, an indicator where Stripping might occur, and a possibility to counter it.
Well, obviously STTC isn't a buff, but if it were made one, that would be interesting.. Of course, you'd have to differentiate between loyalist and rebel ships and I feel like once you start doing that to any of them, you ought to continue to most of them.
2 other approaches:
Making SttC an ability on the matter processor
(as mentioned earlier) Make income gained dependent on the number of planet health upgrades
I don't intend adding SttC as a new ability/buff per se, I rather want to extend the list of possible targets for Drain Planet. Since there are already abilities with different effects/buffs depending on ownership (Phase Out Hull?), this should be possible. Additionally, abilities can be made tech-dependent (even lab-dependent). I don't know if this applies to buffs, too, though.
Haha my thoughts exactly before Rebellion was released. I thought it would be a Titan ability.
In principle I agree. Other balance issues might still need to be addressed, and your method makes a lot of sense, like say a 10% boost in the amount saved from stripping (similar to how you can do trade ship research), but in addition to this the VL have several variables they could adjust that would work well.
The way I see it, SttC being taxed would open up a new way of using it. Many people would point out that with taxation, most VL, if possible, have a small fleet, strip a lot of planets, and then fleet up. I say of course. SttC should be an advantage. But a small fleet means that either the hostiles are incompetent, or you have a smaller empire (in which case not as much stripping, even though you get more bang for the buck), or your in an eco spot. If he chooses to fleet up after stripping, he knows he must continue to steamroll his enemies quickly, never slowing down in his advance. If he loses so to speak, all is not lost, as the VL are mobile and can easily run to allied or neutral territories. Small time raids can work as well. Attrition works both ways. He might have stripped enough that he or his allies will be able finish them off.
The alternative to fleeting up would be to keep your planets, and SttC only as a scorched earth tactic. Such a move might be enough to turn the tide and go on the offensive again. Taxation means that a VL has to be very concerned with how many he gets in the beginning (i.e. his expansion, because it is easier to strip your own planets with a small fleet than it is of your enemies) and not just how many hostile planets he can roll over.
Wow, that's actually a really good idea! It would slow down strip time by forcing you to build the structure, and give defenders a chance to save the planet by destroying said structure.
I second the SttC on matter processor. And reward based on number of planet upgrades (it was my idea )
Have any of you other than Zombie actually played VL and tried the SttC strategy? While it is immensely powerful, to get it set up early enough requires the right conditions (eco or a roomy frontline)...even extremely skilled players like How (who I've seen as VL on the frontline) are not able to Strip rush every game simply because of the nature of their starting position...
There is no need to make SttC harder to get via technologies, and giving "water-downed" versions that requires more technologies later is just redundant and serves no purpose...why would you need SttC to give you more resources late game??? Oh, because you want it to be taxed...so instead of just keeping it simple, you want to simultaneously both increase and decrease how much SttC gives you late game...
Reducing the base income of SttC (I'm thinking halving it for starters) is more than enough to prevent this from being OP in the hands of an eco player early game...ensuring that the VL can't just make everything an asteroid belt prevents players from being completely wiped by a force they can't catch...
Regardless of what specific changes do occur in the next patch, it is safe to assume that somehow SttC will be harder to use and will probably give less resources....I really don't want taxation on top of those nerfs....
My money says SttC will be nerfed to oblivion next patch...
I think there's a disconnect somewhere. If we change SttC to being taxed, that is more of a concept change then a balance change per se. After it is changed you have to re-balance it. SttC itself might be moved to an earlier research tier, the research to % increase SttC could be added only if needed....in other words these are very reasonable ways to balance SttC once it is changed to being taxed.
Of course if the devs nerf SttC as we suspect (like just reducing the amt gained from SttC), it would be ridiculous to add a taxation nerf as well. I do believe SttC needs to be a little harder to use, i.e. interruptable, as previous ideas mentioned are a special ability attached to a titan/cap/ship/refinery.
Not to be insulting, but your reasoning above makes no sense. "By keeping it simple" you could apply that to trade ports! Why research to where trade ports give you more money per trade port/ship then they do at the beginning? Come on now, really? These upgrades offset the increased taxed income later in the game to an extent, as well as adding the variable of "should I eco or do something else right now?"
The problem with just changing the amount of fixed income from SttC as I see it is, either it's nearly always worse then just keeping planets, in which case no one uses it except perhaps as scorched earth (although if you scorch earth and turn the tables, now you have that scorched earth....yeah) or else it will be overpowered and overused. Not saying balance would be impossible with the fixed income, but it would limit "map size balance" by which it would always be imbalanced if a select map size was chosen.
Here is my solution:
What does this do?
As VL in eco, stripping early game is still a good option, but it isn't the obvious option...currently, a VL in eco just always rushes strip, strips a planet or two near center of map, gets titan and kostura, and goes and kills things...halving the income you earned from SttC helps you get titan faster but it doesn't put you so far ahead of everyone else...it makes the VL in eco consider their options without nerfing SttC into oblivion...
As VL in eco, stripping mid-game (when you have titan and/or kostura and going on offense) is still useful...you are taking away a good enemy planet (probably another eco player's HW), and getting some resources from stripping it...however, the stripped planet is still an asteroid, so after the VL retreats or moves on, the defender still has something to put structures on...
As any VL, stripping late-game is not nearly as OP as it is now...you still get a nice feed of resources, but with only half as many, it's still a good idea to have a regular economy...also, because you can't strip below an asteroid, you can't "cleanse" sections of the map and completely wipe players' planets...even if you strip every planet, unless you magically are able to simultaneously hold all those gravity wells, the defender can always recolonize those asteroids and put up structures...
Your solution:
As VL in eco, you aren't going to have any problem getting all those techs quickly...even with SttC as a tier 8 with 3 mid/high level prereqs, eco players easily get SttC early on...simply changing what techs you need isn't going to change things in the slightest...also, the taxation part does nothing to prevent you from getting uber resources early on...eco player has no fleet upgrades (maybe 1) so the first two planets they strip still are going to give them a titan and kostura pretty quickly....
As VL late game, let's just say your taxation rate is ~50%....you are getting the same amount of resources you would if you had just halved the base income...no difference late game...
Taxation also does nothing to prevent you from wiping players...but even if you combine taxation/different techs with no stripping below asteroid, you still have done nothing to prevent VL eco players from abusing this like none other....
Additionally, by allowing SttC early game, frontliners can now get it as well...sure, maybe they can't upgrade SttC but that hardly matters...suicide players getting double teamed could colonize some planets, get some quick cash from the extractors, and then strip as soon as they realized they couldn't hold them...frontliners could just start with two caps, bomb out the nearest enemy world, strip it, then retreat with impunity....and if a frontliner is losing a planet? Strip it, retreat with extra resources...by having SttC so early, you have denied the enemy easy sources of income at no loss to you (cause remember, you couldn't hold them anyway, that's why you left) and have prevented them from being able to get as many factories close to your HW...
Taxation and tech upgrades to strip do nothing to prevent this from being OP for early game eco VL....they make SttC more OP for early game frontliners and suicide spots, and they are equally successful late game (assuming you also keep the asteroid rule)...
So what do I mean by simplicity?
Well, simply halving the earned income combined with the "Asteroid" rule stands a good chance of solving most of the problems with strip...one might say you still need to make strip harder to use (maybe it takes longer to use, or requires a titan ability) but it would be a vast improvement over what we have now...my solution is simple, requires no engine change, and I'd argue would be very effective....
Your solution not only requires more work (new techs and engine changes), but actually makes SttC more powerful early game with no late game offset...even if you tried to "balance" it by making it harder to strip, etc, you are complicating the situation far more than it needs to be...I won't say it is impossible to balance but taxation is completely unnecessary to make SttC viable but not OP
Why implement a system that requires engine changes and is going to be a pain to balance when there is a simpler and more effective alternative?
No not around tier 3, more like 7-8. And a researchable upgrade would be minor, like 3-10%, if and only if, SttC is too weak endgame. Additionally it could have another prerequisite in addition to SttC, something like have a Titan research, thus harder to use with a small fleet (or a fleet research prereq if that is possible...).
Yes the first strip(s) are going to give a big bang. But it is risky, since after that bang you have to fleet up to do anything, thus nerfing further strips. The VL might run wild for a little bit, but attrition can get them if they cannot continue to expand gobbling planets fast enough with few enough losses. This would also make the game less static (i.e. people might player longer even after losing their frontline if they feel they can eventually repel the VL).
I do not deny that your proposed solution is simplier. I do dispute it being more effective or easier to balance. For one, you said yourself it would be better to keep planets if you could...in which the VL aren't fully mobile
As for your own suggestion, someone earlier pointed out the VL could plop 3x trade ports on a regular asteroid after already obtaining the strip bonus. And as for stripping allied planets, they can already use such a technique. Making it an interrupt-able ability could help this some perhaps (though that's really a slightly different issue).
I do however see one issue. A VL eco player could strip his and his allies planets and feed his allies the resources gained from the SttC. Such might make the game not so fun for the VL player, but alas, it is still possible. Any ideas? Giving resources has to be researched...maybe the VL horde resources like no other....
Maybe it's not too bad a problem, since the allies would have to be expanding without the aid of a large VL fleet...or letting VL eat their own planets....but still I'm not quite convinced on this point. Ideas?
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
