I like the changes, but I think we should still consider including SC as a separate group with its own max targets (that's a very solid approach imo).
I'm not set either way on this either...part of my really likes affecting SC since they are so instrumental to FFing...but part of me wants to avoid SC since it will be hard to balance...
As for the numbers: I like the sound of your previous suggestion (40/80/120) but I haven't tested that so I can't say too much about it..
120 SC is 40 Vasari Bomber squadrons or 17 Advent Bomber squadrons or 13 Advent Fighter squadrons...that is a big difference...for abilities like magnetize and flak burst we have no choice but to face the issue...but for animosity we do have a choice to avoid it entirely...
On the rare occasions that I've maxed out my fleet, I usually went for 30 Aerias (600 fleet supply), 8 or so caps ( 400 fleet supply), 70 destras (700 fleet supply), 20 Defense vessels (80 fleet supply), 20 Inconus Gaurdians (140 fleet supply), and 20 Dominas (80 fleet supply)...not necessarily the perfect fleet composition but good for the advent...Vasari and TEC would have probably more since their carriers cost less fleet supply and they actually have useful LRFs for the late game...
In any case, one animosity affects 16/32/48 ships...this full fleet composition has 138 combat ships, so one Radiance could affect about 1/3 of a full fleet...
8 or so caps would probably include 4 Halcyons and one of each other type...lets just say on average each cap had 4 SC...with 30 Aerias and 8 caps that comes to 122 squadrons...using the same ratio with frigates, 1/3 of that is about 40...
So, if the goal for lvl 3 Animosity is to affect 40 squadrons, that can range anywhere from 120 SC (Vasari Bombers) to 360 SC (Advent Fighters) or even more...
So, I'm alright with the numbers 40/80/120 I suppose...
As for the mitigation: This seems fair enough to me, but I haven't tested it yet. However, I still favor an armor boost for Energy Absorption over any buff to its AM regen. The buffed AM regen on Energy Absorption just made the abilities too cheap. The more AM is a limited resource, the easier it is for us to balance abilities by their costs. So if the big mitigation boost to the Radiance convinces you not to buff Energy Absorption's armor, then I vote for decreasing the migitation on Animosity and moving some of that buff to the armor on EAbsorption.
By mitigation, do you mean the damage reduction on animosity?
So lets take a look at these values...
Adaptive forcefield...damage reduction values are 15%/25%/35%...results in an actual decrease in damage of 13%/20%/26%....animosity has damage reduction values of 20%/40%/80%....if you consider that this ability is only up for 4/7 of the time, the actual decrease in damage on average is 10%/16%/25%...
That is less at level 1 and 2, but almost the same at lvl 3...so, how about we change animosities bonus to 20%/40%/60% (actual values of 10%/16%/21% when duration/cooldown is taken into account)...now, the difference between adaptive forcefield and animosity is 3%/4%/5%...lets make up that difference with armor....
A lvl 1 Radiance with no other bonuses has 4.5 armor...so lvl 1 energy absorption with its +1 armor will actually reduce damage by 3.2%...so that is the value we want...
A lvl 3 Radiance with no other bonuses has 5.3 armor...lvl 2 energy absorption with its +2 armor will reduce damage by 5.8%
Likewise, with a lvl 5 Radiance and lvl 3 energy absorption you get an extra damage reduction of 7.9%...
So, already, animosity + energy absorption is comparable to adaptive forcefield...these values indicate that reducing animosity and keeping energy absorption the same would make the Radiance comparable to the Kol...
However, some other things must be taken into consideration...adaptive forcefield helps block PMs and requires no antimatter...the Kol also has Finest Hour which regenerates hull 15/s for 60s...also, as the Radiance goes beyond level 5 and armor techs are researched, each additional point of armor becomes less and less significant...with all that in mind, I don't see any reason why energy absorption can't have at least some sort of buff...
Here is my proposition...change animosity to a damage reduction of 20%/40%/60% (won't be quite linear with actual values) and then have energy absorption increase armor by 1/3/5 instead of 1/2/3...at first 1/3/5 may seem rather strange, but remember each additional armor point becomes less and less significant, so 1/3/5 I think actually is rather balanced...the AM conversion percentages would be reverted to their original values...
Any chance that this would boost allied ships as well? And should it?
It should and...it should...most abilities affect allies...the new change to this ability is interesting though because it makes the planet more susceptible to bombing, no matter who actually does the bombing (if I understand it correctly)...right now I'm okay with that...the TEC have embargo, the Vasari have Subversion (both which will be in affect regardless of who else attacks the planet) so I don't have any problem with Clairvoyance's new traits...
However, I do wish Flak Burst had a smaller radius than Telekinetic push. Telekinetic push has other advantages of course, but since FB does 20 more damage per shot I liked that Telekinetic push used to have a broader radius. It's a minor issue, but I just liked that kind of subtle factional differences between similar abilities. I think a 3000/3400/3800 FB would still be ok.. But I'm not sure it deserves the nerf.
Hmm, you bring up a good comparison, I didn't really think about this...
I really like the 3000m range at lvl 1....2400m was, I felt, too restrictive (especially given the antimatter cost)...In my recent game testing animosity, there was an enemy Kol that was hitting my bomber swarms...a double tap of this ability hit most of my bombers and cleared them up pretty good...they weren't killed, but a lot of them died quickly to TEC fighters...that loss alone forced me to retreat since I was already outnumbered in frigates...this ability is very powerful...
We have the current values of 3000/3600/4200...we could revert them to the original changes of 3000/3300/3600 or pick somewhere in between (3000/3400/3800 or 3000/3500/4000)...Right now, I'm actually sort of leaning towards the original changes...
On EMP pulse for example, the antimatter increases by 5 every time but the ability only adds 50 damage/antimatter removed every level. Granted the range increases and cooldown decreases every time as well, but I think a slight increase to the effect say 50/105/160 would be better at preventing the diminishing returns effect. Again trivial, and it does encourage the getting all of the abilities unlocked early, but I'm not sure if it is the ideal way to handle the situation.
You and HerrPinguin have a good point...the abilities that have this incrementing AM cost are Magnetize, EMP, Vertigo, and Vengeance...now, all 4 of these abilities are on Support ships (which get the most antimatter)...
EMP had an original cost of 100/90/80...the new cost is 80/85/90...so, would a constant cost of 80 be a good change?
Magnetize had an original cost of 80 and is now 80/85/90...however, magnetize did get a decent buff...I'm not certain on lowering this AM cost, but it is still something worth considering...
Vertigo and Vengeance could do with a constant cost...I would advocate making that constant cost 55 (not the lvl 1 cost of 50) but I'm open to ideas...
Feedback is appreciated...we are at the point where specific numbers are definitely needed....
