traveurysm traveurysm

Mines, Torpedoes, Constructors - annoying micro

▼

Mines, Torpedoes, Constructors - annoying micro

And how to fix it

from Sins Forums

One of the things I love about Sins is that micro can give you an edge but it isn't necessary. You can just send a fleet to attack and the fleet AI is smart enough that you dont necessarily have to worry about it. But you CAN - through focus firing and careful use of abilities - get an edge in combat. Such micro is fun; it's about decisions and timing as opposed to tedious, repetitive tasks.

As currently implemented, clearing and avoiding minefields and launching torpedoes are tedious, repetitive tasks. 

ANNOYING MINE MICRO:

Synchonizing a scout to travel ahead of a column to "light the way" and make mines visible is necessary and looks cool but it gets old fast. It's not interesting and often the player has to spend several minutes microing his fleet and scout around the well clearing out mines. Nothing is more annoying than realizing a planet two conquests back still has a few undefused mines.

Steering your fleet into a minefield is, obviously, a bad idea. In almost no situation would anyone choose to do it. Minefields aren't about doing damage to enemies; they're about denying your enemy room to meneuver. The fleet AI will send your ships straight into a minefield, but in 99% of cases you'll take the time to go around. This means you have to micro your fleet in any well with mines present.

PROPOSALS TO FIX ANNOYING MINE MICRO: 

1) Create a toggle-able ship behavior to avoid mines. This makes the area around a mine a no-man's land, like the area between the surface of a planet and the region ships can traverse. If a player really wants to ram the minefield, he can just toggle off this setting. 

2) Give scouts a toggle-able minesweeper behavior, which causes them to automatically travel to reveal a mine in the local grav well when their current move orders have ended.

Implement these two suggestions, and clearing mines will take time but not necessarily player input; battles around mines will be about the battle and not about shepherding that stray frigate away from danger. 

Mines would have to lose some strategic effectiveness; it shoudn't be possible to place mines right on the edge of a well so they blow up when the ships jump in. That's not strategically interesting and it makes the proposed solutions unworkable.

ANNOYING TORPEDO MICRO:

Torpedo cruisers should work as effortlessly as every other ship in Sins. But get a big group of them together, and you're forced to select the ability on each individual cruiser and then select the target. Also, because they have no main gun, they have strange pathfinding behaviors; sometimes they'll huddle around a target that everyone else is shooting at because they interpret everyone else's attack order as a move order. 

The easiest way to use them seems to be to carefully meneuver the cruisers into the golden area outside the target's attack range but within the cruiser's attack range and then auto-cast the torpedoes. Such a method is not becoming of the sterling UI reputation of Ironclad.

PROPOSAL TO FIX ANNOYING TORPEDO MICRO: 

I am of the opinion that torpedo cruisers should have at least some sort of main gun. Consider siege frigates like the Krosov: They fire lasers at enemy ships/structures but roll out nukes for planetary bombardment. I speak in ignorance of the coding necessary to make this happen, but is it possible to make torpedo cruisers fire lasers at ships and torpedoes at structures? The main focus should be to make use of torpedoes a non-ability function. I should be able to select all my torpedo cruisers, right click an enemy starbase, and come back in five minutes.  

ANNOYING CONSTRUCTOR MICRO:

I have to order the constructor to move to where I want the starbase and then wait patiently for him to get there before issuing the build starbase order. Trying to queue the ability (so the constructor went where I wanted and then built the starbase) gave me a rude surprise. 

PROPOSAL TO FIX ANNOYING CONSTRUCTOR MICRO:

Starbase constructors should work just like those tiny utility frigates: click the build starbase button, click where you want the starbase, and forget about the whole thing. This also gives you a preview of the firing range of the future base, which I miss very much in placing the base. If possible, you should be able to tell the constructor to build the base in distant gravity wells. This fix has zero balance/gameplay effect; it just makes the game friendlier and more easy to use.

Ironclad, I love you guys. You're my favorite game devs. Keep up the good work!

15,091 views 37 replies
Reply #26 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting FCN_Athena, reply 24

Quoting Shadowhal, reply 23
make the vasari (and possibly the advent, however they work) version work the same way as tec. it is an ability, it has to be manually selected, it costs something and it places a small field of like 10 mines where you want it.

I absolutely agree.

A thought on mine caps: everyone seems to agree we should have them; the difficulty facing Ironclad is: what should it be? I propose adding a Fleet Logistic line for Defense, used up by starbases and mines. Players can pay to upgrade the Defense logistics, allowing them to support more starbases and lay more mines, but they cant just spam recklessly.

A player right now: "I'll put a starbase in every forward well and put maybe 50 gajillion mines down. And now, since I have such a lopsided defensive bonus, I may as well sit around a culture spam/novalith the guy to death."

A player after the defense cap is installed: "I can put down 50 mines. Where do I want them? Hm. Maybe I should just build a starbase. Maybe I'll upgrade my defense cap and get both! But I really want another Marza ..."

Voila. The game is fun again.
End of FCN_Athena's quote

that actually sounds like a decent idea. also makes the placement und deployment of starbases a bit more strategic if you can't just spam them everywhere.

something like 5 points for a starbase and 1 point for a mine field (so 10 individual mines). if you start out with 10 - 20 pts and can reach something like 100 or 150 .. sounds about right.

but then, should there also be a resource drain? I wouldn't think so, the one for fleet supply is enough. and if the cost is about that of the capship research, then the cost alone should be enough to deter total spamming (combined with the cost of actually building mines).

 

one other thing I wanted to bring up: I would like to see a reduction of mine dmg and an according reduction of cost. somehow, for the tec, 1000 plus resources seems a tad much for just one field. that is becaus one field won't really do you any good, you need probably at least 3 - 4 for any kind of decent coverage. and that gets quite expensive. on the upside though, once you have it, it's a pretty good protection.

but what I'd prefer is that it's easier to mine a hole area with them, but the indivdual effects of mines are not that drastic. that way they just weaken the fleet passing through and there still have to some other defenses to finish them off. I know, it's not exactly what mines work like for real, but I think gameplay wise it's better to have something to protects large areas reasonably well than something that protects small areas exceptionally well.

I mean, there could be dmg upgrades for mine too, it's not like that is forbidden or anything.

Reply #27 from Sins Forums Top

damn. double post. sorry.

Siege of Centauri
Reply #28 from Sins Forums Top

here's another (adding on) idea: shrink the maximum range from planet for mines as a defensive structure. (explain it as needing to be closer to keep it in orbit due to its lesser mass) so that you can place a turret say 1500 from an asteroid or whatever (outer build limit) but you can only place a mine field 900 from an asteroid.

Reply #29 from Sins Forums Top

Tha is a fantastic idea Purple Paladin. Well, if mined didn't get tweaked then it would be a great idea. But its the beta, so people should be forced to play with them, to get a balance right, and then once the game launches, then they could put that in if theres people who still hate them.

Reply #30 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting PurplePaladin, reply 25
This discusion sounds simular to pirates; some like them, some really disliked them.  So, I hope they will at least put a toggle, Mines/No Mines, just like pirates.  That's one sure way to please the "Underminers".
End of PurplePaladin's quote

I disagree agree for two reasons:

1) The vast majority of players really like mines; they just don't like the way they're currently implemented. That's what beta is for. When the game is released the mines will be well balanced to be fun, easy, and useful without being OP.

2) Something human players can build is very different from the layout and behavior of the map. Turning mines on and off would totally skew the balance of the game. Imagine if we said: "Some people don't like LRMs so we'll make those toggleable." Of course this would be absurd. The solution to mine balancing is not to make it optional, but to fix it.

Quoting Shadowhal, reply 1


what I'd prefer is that it's easier to mine a hole area with them, but the indivdual effects of mines are not that drastic. that way they just weaken the fleet passing through and there still have to some other defenses to finish them off. I know, it's not exactly what mines work like for real, but I think gameplay wise it's better to have something to protects large areas reasonably well than something that protects small areas exceptionally well.

I mean, there could be dmg upgrades for mine too, it's not like that is forbidden or anything.
End of Shadowhal's quote

I agree; making minefields more about just making the whole grav well dangerous to be in is probably a better way to go than having little pockets that make you go: "nonononocomeback ... dangit!" when the fleet AI wanders you into it. Which is what we have now.

A thought on Advent mines: obviously there's a lot of work to be done on them, but I'd like to go on record saying homing mines are pretty nifty. In concept, a cluster of mines that can travel across a well toward someone is scary without being OP. Players learn to give homing mines a wide berth until they're ready to charge in with scouts. Homing mines really cover the most area of any of the minefields because of their drift. We still have to kill some annoying micro problems, but Advent mines are much further along in the balancing process than TEC and Vasari.

Reply #31 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting FCN_Athena, reply 5


I agree; making minefields more about just making the whole grav well dangerous to be in is probably a better way to go than having little pockets that make you go: "nonononocomeback ... dangit!" when the fleet AI wanders you into it. Which is what we have now.

A thought on Advent mines: obviously there's a lot of work to be done on them, but I'd like to go on record saying homing mines are pretty nifty. In concept, a cluster of mines that can travel across a well toward someone is scary without being OP. Players learn to give homing mines a wide berth until they're ready to charge in with scouts. Homing mines really cover the most area of any of the minefields because of their drift. We still have to kill some annoying micro problems, but Advent mines are much further along in the balancing process than TEC and Vasari.
End of FCN_Athena's quote

I really disagree with the idea of mines being used to make an entire grav well dangerous.  Mines should be used for tactical advantage, just like other defenses.  I think whoever was talking about improving the ability to lay mines to create barriers (e.g. being able to draw lines which the minelayers will use as guides for laying them) was right on the money.

They should be used to force the enemy to choose between trying to go through your minefield, or working to clear it, or going through the path that is not mined, which you presumably have other defenses covering.  I do think that there needs to be a mine cap, but it should probably be pretty high (I'm thinking a few hundred), especially for TEC.

As for the problem of ships wandering into minefields, that's an AI issue that I think needs to be addressed.  Ships shouldn't maneuver into a minefield that they're aware of without explicit orders to do so.  I noticed that there are some AI issues like this with the missile cruisers too.  They'll fire off their shot, and then start making a wide u-turn in the direction of their target, often taking them into its weapon range.  WTF?  Why not just rotate and retreat?  Ships should use whatever maneuver is necessary, but they should avoid minefields completely.

Reply #32 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting BaggerX, reply 6
Quoting FCN_Athena, reply 5
I really disagree with the idea of mines being used to make an entire grav well dangerous.  Mines should be used for tactical advantage, just like other defenses.  I think whoever was talking about improving the ability to lay mines to create barriers (e.g. being able to draw lines which the minelayers will use as guides for laying them) was right on the money.

They should be used to force the enemy to choose between trying to go through your minefield, or working to clear it, or going through the path that is not mined, which you presumably have other defenses covering.  I do think that there needs to be a mine cap, but it should probably be pretty high (I'm thinking a few hundred), especially for TEC.

As for the problem of ships wandering into minefields, that's an AI issue that I think needs to be addressed.  Ships shouldn't maneuver into a minefield that they're aware of without explicit orders to do so.  I noticed that there are some AI issues like this with the missile cruisers too.  They'll fire off their shot, and then start making a wide u-turn in the direction of their target, often taking them into its weapon range.  WTF?  Why not just rotate and retreat?  Ships should use whatever maneuver is necessary, but they should avoid minefields completely.
End of BaggerX's quote

I stand convinced, BaggerX. And ... hehe ... that was me talking about lines earlier. I may be throwing out ideas a bit recklessly. We'll call it a brainstorm. Generally making the well more dangerous is preferable to what we have now, but what is MOST preferable, based on what everyone has more or less agreed on up to now in this thread, is:

FCN_ATHENA'S MINE FIXES:

1) Easy 2-click placement of mine walls.

2) Smart AI that avoids mines unless you disable that behavior to ram the field.

3) A mine cap that prevents reckless pollution while still making serious minefields possible, probably a capital-ship-crew-esque Defense tree to upgrade the cap dynamically.

 

Reply #33 from Sins Forums Top

Just getting back to work here at IC central. Great thread, great OP ideas. I have a lot more posts to take notes from so I'll just say this "the micro issues will be fixed!!!"

Reply #34 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting FCN_Athena, reply 5
1) The vast majority of players really like mines
End of FCN_Athena's quote

 

What, exactly, do you base that on? Mines are the most loathed and complained about thing on this forum. They hurt performance and game flow at the same time. An option to make them go away entirely (ala pirates) is a good thing.

Reply #35 from Sins Forums Top

I like your ideas because  I play as the TEC the mines for them are WAY over priced as is it takes a large amount to resources and ceds to just to do a small part of one grav well and you don't even want to know what it costs to fill the well with them. For that I can build a fleet and have it be there at all times to slow the attacking fleet 

Reply #36 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting Tridus, reply 9

What, exactly, do you base that on? Mines are the most loathed and complained about thing on this forum. They hurt performance and game flow at the same time. An option to make them go away entirely (ala pirates) is a good thing.
End of Tridus's quote

 

Tridus, as far as I know there's no scientific evidence one way or another about how popular mines are. Thanks for calling me on that. Let's not say they're popular or hated. Polarizing for sure. : )

Toggling pirates makes a lot of sense because it's about turning off a single game mechanic. Toggling mines doesn't because mines are part of the wholistic defensive mechanic. The rest of the units and structures (and even factions) in the game have to be balanced around mines. Being able to turn off mines means the devs have to create a whole new game balance that doesn't account for them, and players have to learn two different balances. This is not what we want.

Quoting Blair, reply 8
Just getting back to work here at IC central. Great thread, great OP ideas. I have a lot more posts to take notes from so I'll just say this "the micro issues will be fixed!!!"
End of Blair's quote

Good to hear Blair! Keep up the good work. You're a personal and professional inspiration to me. : )

Reply #37 from Sins Forums Top

Pirates are on a complex system consisting of bounties and can change gameplay drastically depending on map size and other variations.

Mines always work the same.  IC should read these suggestions and improve their mechanic and they're doing so.  Good.  The notion of simply putting everything on a game setup toggle that's controversial is pretty dumb.  Back when siege frigates led to game-breaking moments, should the developers have simply left them as is and let players enable/disable them upon game creation?

Fix the problem.  Don't code in new ways to just ignore the problem if it bothers you.