Bobucles Bobucles

Carrier balance idea.

▼

Carrier balance idea.

antimatter drain.

from Sins Forums

Carriers have it all. They have a modular weapons loadout, the longest range in the game, and can heal their fleet while staying unharmed themselves, all at the same time. Supposedly, they are balanced against their antimatter stores, but this doesn't work out in game, even against direct antimatter counters. So:

Have strike fleets drain antimatter while fielded. When the antimatter is gone, the strike ships are no longer considered under "carrier support". They may decay, they may run out of ammo, or they may simpy run back to the carrier so it can recharge. This change accomplishes many things at once:

- Carrier damage output is tied indirectly to their antimatter stores. When the antimatter runs out, their ships putter out.

- Carriers have a time limit that their ships can be out, based on their antimatter storage.

- Carriers have a long wait time before the antimatter stores, and thus the ship's flight time, are at full capacity.

- Carriers that do rapid jumps will quickly be unable to field squadrons (biggest change).

What this means is that carriers need time to recharge their strength, no matter if they're countered or not. This is fine, considering that carriers do the highest, best controlled, lowest risk damage in the game. Limiting their engagement is a good counterbalance. Hit and run tactics will be hurt, as the carriers will quickly run out of flight time for their fleets. In prolonged engagements, carriers will eventually lose their edge over dedicated fighting frigates, and on the run carriers would be nearly defenseless.

Flak frigates would get a big boost, as their biggest issue is fighting the carrier's ability to replace squadrons. Currently, carriers not only replace squadrons with ease, but recharge their ability to do so while they're fighting. If carrier combat drains their ability to replace squadrons, then flak has much fewer ships it needs to take out.

In terms of how this would affect each faction:

- Advent has the best antimatter recharge, thanks to the antimatter stealing frigate and recharge station. Their carriers would be more reliant on this synergy, but shouldn't be hurt very much. Advent also get a discount on the antimatter penalty for jumping, which helps for keeping a carrier push strong.

- Tec has a culture bonus to antimatter, letting their carriers be highly durable on the defense, but the drain would hurt them on the offense. Overall Tec would likely be hurt the most.

- Vasari don't have antimatter support for their ships. However, phase gates allow carriers to get anywhere in one jump. This means they lose the least antimatter on a long trip, which is great because they won't have much help elsewhere.

Edit: Ships that are docked will of course not drain antimatter, so that the carrier can recharge. Ships that are passive(hanging around the carrier sleeping) will simply dock so that they don't drain antimatter.

76,883 views 48 replies
Reply #26 from Sins Forums Top

tbh, i prefer that it will carry more squads

Reply #27 from Sins Forums Top

 

If the carriers get nerfed then we might as well just go back to v1.05 and LRM spam.

WindowBlinds - Free yourself of the default settings, customize your desktop.
Reply #28 from Sins Forums Top

Capital ships didn't need antimatter for their squadrons before. They don't need squadrons to chew up antimatter now. They'll be unaffected.

If a squadron has to dock after a single volley or because of some strikecraft ammo box, then that just turns them into giant boomerangs. This would destroy the carrier's DPS, as the ships will now be spending time flying back and forth, useless but highly vulnerable.

The reason I picked the cruiser as the source of the limitation is because players don't pay attention to squadrons. In the end, what matters is if the carrier can keep supporting its fighters in long term combat, and antimatter best represents that.

I didn't touch upon flak vs. carrier balance, because that's not what I'm addressing. I'm talking about how carriers interact with the other 90% of the game that isn't flak. Carriers are unique in that without a direct flak counter, their squadrons can remain fully uncontested. Every other ship must engage in direct combat of some sort. Rather than turn space into a giantic flak fireball just to fight one unit type, that unit type should have limitations fitting for a wave of small, non-sustainable space ships, which other dedicated deep space units don't have.

Reply #29 from Sins Forums Top

If the carriers get nerfed then we might as well just go back to v1.05 and LRM spam.
End of quote

Amen! v1.1 is much more balanced than v1.05.

Reply #30 from Sins Forums Top

The balance is pretty good, certainly much better than 1.05 but it's not perfect.

Carrier fleet supply cost should be slightly increased to reflect the constant rebuilding of strikecraft.

Reply #31 from Sins Forums Top

I say just increas lf damage or make them more affective against carriers. Make LRF less effective against lf.

Reply #32 from Sins Forums Top

Not exactly. The hard counter to strikecraft is flak. Would you really try to counter a capital ship with siege frigates? If the hard counter is not up to snuff, then that is what needs to be balanced. Each race has one capital that has an anti-SC ability, and eahc race has flak frigates. If you aren't using these, then you cannot complain. However, like I said, if the hard counter is not working, then that is the root of the problem. The recent bank upgrades have helped, but I think a minor increase in dmg would be preferrable. Hell, just give each flak frigate some "overcharge" ability that allows them to fire at an increased rate for a short amount of time. Say, like the LRF's cluster missile.

Reply #33 from Sins Forums Top

If the hard counter is not up to snuff, then that is what needs to be balanced.........If you aren't using these, then you cannot complain. However, like I said, if the hard counter is not working, then that is the root of the problem. The recent bank upgrades have helped, but I think a minor increase in dmg would be preferrable
End of quote

Exactly, although it seems the bank upgrade for the flak friggates doesn't fix the fact that they are useless or it might not be working at all, it needs a power upgrade, seeing as you need almost 1.5 flak per fighter/bomber squad and that is like 75 ships for a average mid game 25 carrier spam fleet 75! that is a big number....yup...big number. Flak needs a power upgrade, instead of slightly hurting (from 100 to about 50%) 1 out of 5 fighters, it should shoot down 1 fighter, if this was per bank, it would be worth it to actually build them, as far no-one builds them online, they are useless sad as it is. Go ahead and power them up and increase the cost proportionately.

Reply #34 from Sins Forums Top

Until flak is balanced, Carrier spam has a complete field day raping everything only counterable by your own carrier spam. 

For the love of god, give all cap ships Flak and buff Flak Frigates, and above ALL increased the build time of strike craft or somehow prevent them from rebuilding their strike craft as soon as they lose them in a battle. 

Please oh god. 

Reply #35 from Sins Forums Top

or somehow prevent them from rebuilding their strike craft as soon as they lose them in a battle.
End of quote
That's sort of what I was plugging from the very start. Strike craft take antimatter to rebuild. Currently this is not an issue, because carriers have a MASSIVE antimatter reserve, and they recharge in battle. A carrier with 400 antimatter, recharging, may end up with over 600 antimatter with which to rebuild squadrons. This is nearly unstoppable endurance. A carrier with 400 antimatter, draining, can have less than 200 to spare, aas long as there aren't AM supporting abilities. With research, those numbers can inflate to over 700 on the plus side, or 300 on the negative side. It's a HUGE difference.

 

Edit: From one of my other posts:

There is NO way to balance flak damage values against carrier hit and run tactics, because it has nothing to do with the flak's damage, the squadron's health, nor the carrier's rebuild rate. The carrier doesn't stick around long enough for any of those things to become a factor.

It's all because the carrier can do high speed and high damage hit and run attacks, and it can keep on doing it without personal restriction. No other ship can do this.

Reply #36 from Sins Forums Top

But the very fact that the carrier is a hit-and-run vessel is an important factor for the opposite reasons. If an opponent just did that all day, and you had enough flak--and they were buffed slightly--then you would see the endless XP as a god-send. Just plop a newbie cap ship there and watch the XP skyrocket. The balance for flak would be so that one could take down a full squadron in one pass--that way, there is still another squadron to die on another pass, and the immediate dmg from a run would be realized and not taken down. At least, unless the flak was properly placed in front of the valuable target. At which point only one wave of dmg would occur. At that rate, and assuming no other dmg factors and the inclusion of repair stations, the carrier spam would not do significant dmg to trump the power of a balanced fleet.

Reply #37 from Sins Forums Top

I'm all for balanced fleets trumping spam.

Capital Ships esp. go down to spam. How about the developers entertain the idea of penalties such as if a person has over a certain amount of one type of ship close together in a part of the grav well, then they'll get get -20% dmg output to all their SC.This may not be the most elegant solution and if there is a better idea then this I'm for it.

In the game Company of Heroes the developers put this penalty on pio-spam, too many of the same unit grouped together get a penalty to balance out the OP tactic of pio-spamming.

Reply #38 from Stardock Forums Top

and can heal their fleet while staying unharmed themselves,
End of quote

huh?

Reply #39 from Sins Forums Top

this fits in with my fix option (witch isdamn good) make SC's have an ammo limit so they have to return ot the carrier to re-arm. common sense people!

as well as that, make different types have different amounts and make the amount of ammo researchable. solution found, thankyou.

 

Reply #40 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting litle_pet_slinki, reply 14
this fits in with my fix option (witch isdamn good)

as well as that, make different types have different amounts and make the amount of ammo researchable. solution found, thankyou. 

End of litle_pet_slinki's quote
Didn't you post a similar solution in another thread? Well, that thread was broken when I got there, so I'll reply here:
more ideas : ammo limit SC's to there class. and make it researchable that they can take more ammo.
End of quote
Antimatter.
Research more antimatter =  more flight time = more air superiority = more ammo.
and perhaps - build them in 3 ways - 1 that has highest hull/armour and speed and lowest ammo,
End of quote
Antimatter.
More replacements = more total hull =  less antimatter = less ammo.

2nd that has middle everything,
End of quote
Antimatter.
Medium replacements = medium total hull = medium antimatter = medium ammo.

and 3rd highest ammo and lowest everything else. allthough, that might complicate things.
End of quote
Antimatter.
Low replacements = low total hull = high antimatter = high ammo.

make SC's have an ammo limit so they have to return ot the carrier to re-arm. common sense people!
End of quote
Antimatter.
No antimatter = no ammo = dock to re-arm.

Notice how I solved all those things with one word? It seems so simple. :-"

Reply #41 from Stardock Forums Top

um the advent DVs work fine for me as long as theyre by halycons that have the energy buff

Reply #42 from Sins Forums Top

I think all caps should have some flack capabablity besides whatever ability they have. I mean if i am building a giant ship like that it would def have flack guns. Plus it would make the caps more valuable to defend the fleet.

Reply #43 from Stardock Forums Top

i agree with that but the caps flak shouldnt be too powerful though

and also a way to control how SC prioritize targets

Reply #44 from Sins Forums Top

'Overall Tec would likely be hurt the most'

 

Sorry how is this balancing the carriers?

 

If people build carriers, let them, just counter them with more carriers back :D

Reply #45 from Sins Forums Top

wait so your saying, substitue ammo with antimatter?

that actualy might damn well work! cause all carriers have Antimatter.......

and if you drain that antimatter your "stealing" there ammo! wicked!

and a little tweak for different classes, and your laughing.

oh, and ive allready fixed up the thread by re-posting, check it out and post away!

Reply #46 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting SunnyVS, reply 19


If people build carriers, let them, just counter them with more carriers back
End of SunnyVS's quote

but it gets a little dull if everybody does the same thing

Reply #47 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting SunnyVS, reply 19
'

If people build carriers, let them, just counter them with more carriers back
End of SunnyVS's quote

wow, what an horrible argument. doh. x_x  

Reply #48 from Sins Forums Top

Flak is much more useful with build rate nerfs and that is all that is needed to carriers.I think they should be brought down to 60% but it is much better with this change.The only problem with carriers is their relentless build rates and constant streams of sc pouring out of them and build rate change fixes this. With lower builds flak can keep up with destroying sc and thus counter carriers. How ever carriers should not be countered by 1 unit. They are most expensive unit in game and are most powerful since they can kill anything so you need carriers yourself.This does not make them unbalanced.Carriers are heavily countered by caps as well.