Game Balance and Version » Forum Post by Blair Fraser

Double post

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting MindsEye,

Celio maybe could be a notch lower on the labs.

I don't think so, I like that you need at least 5 research lab before your hitting accuracy could increase, if I had it my way, it would have gone up to level 6 or 7 max

Successfully updated karma reason!

Designate Target is too good to warrant lower tech level placement. 40% extra damage income from all sources is nothing to scoff at.

Successfully updated karma reason!

1.02

I think we only need a minor tweak to flak.Flak should do less damage to fighters then carriers could better counter lrf.I like the build penalty on sc and would be in favor of a bit more (flak adjusted accordingly).The main prob before with carriers was their build rate. People didnt have to micro anything.Just build enough carriers and let loose. Nothing could kill the sc faster then produced.As a result carriers always did damage and bombers and flak were useless.The only thing that kills fighters is flak and other fighters so if we nerfed damage from flak a bit it would be fine and we could still use bombers and docking is still part of sc strategy.I would be in favor of a minor buff for flak against lrf as well.Flak are a very soft counter to lrf and a small buff would help.I think carriers need an am buff(small).

Caps need some reworking.Mb is perfectly fine imo because it is stoppable.Nano is way op.Only one effective way to stop it(repulse).Some of the probs with caps is all the good abilities are on one ship.Marza with mb and raze...killer.Egg with nano and suck...rediculous.Some abilities need timing and am adjustments.Kols main gun is nice but uses to much am.Malice needs to last longer.15 sec up from 10. Its to hard to use with to little rewards.Some caps have to face target to use an ability.This should not be. It is a penalty for a substandard ability. Caps need a difference in price according to their abilities and usefulness.Radience animosty needs to work better.Advents siege cap needs a major buff.I have never built one in mp once.Basically bring other caps usefulness up so one can build and use them more often.

The mb fits tech perfect.Tech is underpowered in most fleet and when you get 6 marza you have upper hand. Makes playing tech fun.More risk early on but greater reward later.

Caps should be cheaper to get(research to build them).

Upgrading experience levels for caps should be 15-20% cheaper.

Domina subjugator needs to be useable(should not have to face target to cast healing ability)

Guardian and hoshi are good.

Celio could be brought down a tier in research.It is rarely used ship but if could be acquired sooner would be used.

Culture needs major buff it totally sucks for offensive uses.Advents bonuses for culture should be cheaper and sw should not be tied to them.

Lf are pretty good as is.Alot of people dont realize they need alot of these to counter but they counter really good in numbers.If flak dont get a buff vs lrf maybe we could use a nerf from lrf vs lf.Say 10%.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Well I agree annatar but this thing is rarely ever built.It needs something.Also I never see subverters or overseers however I dont have much opinion on them.Dominas have potential but suck as they are now.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I almost forgot but the starfish is almost worthless for cost and fleet points and needs adjusted.

Mines should be cheaper noone uses them.

Siege ships fleet points should be reduced some noone uses them either.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Entrenchment.

Carriers were nerfed too hard as has been mentioned above. Half a dozen flak can quickly clear out large numbers of fighters in a short amount of time and they stay dead because the rebuild rate is so bad. There is little reason to build fighters except to kill bombers after any enemy has half a dozen flak or more. Starfish are indeed not worth the cost because they are too fragile and are only worth it if you have a cluster of structures not defended by a fleet. Its money better spent on carriers with bombers if you are going to kill structures that have anything at all guarding them.

Marza is overpowered. It should be more limited in its destructive capabilities either by narrowed range of effect or target cap. The only comparable ability(cleansing brilliance) is nowhere close in destructive power as missle barrage. No one uses mines as mentioned above. They should be buffed or made cheaper in some small way. Dominas do suck as is and should receive some attention.

[_]-Greyfox

Successfully updated karma reason!

I don't agree that damage is instant upon firing, if you've ever watched a TEC Ogrov Torpedo Cruiser's missiles, and kept tabs on the targets health, the tagets health doesn't go down until the missiles hit it, same with TEC bombers, LRM's, etc.

Also, MB DOES NOT NEED NERFED. If it does get nerfed, please also nerf Guardians, Aeria's, the Vulkoras Desolator's Disintegrate power, and Kostura's.. because their all essentially the same.

Also, I think that Cap. Carriers are WAY too underpowered. Compared to Cruiser Carriers, 3 cruisers = 1 lvl. 8 Cap. in terms of strikecraft. Their strikecraft-support abilities also seem underpowered, as only the Cap.s strikecraft are afftected(except for Skiranta's). I think that 1 Cap. Carrier should have a max of 9 squadrons, and that Squad-support abilities should affect ALL strikecraft in the Grav. Well.

Koda0 (^)

EDIT: Not that current carriers COMPLETELY suck, it's just that they're the lowest on the Cap. ship food chain, and that doesn't seem right to me.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Also, MB DOES NOT NEED NERFED. If it does get nerfed, please also nerf Guardians, Aeria's, the Vulkoras Desolator's Disintegrate power, and Kostura's.. because their all essentially the same.

DESOLATOR??? KOSTURA??? How are these one-click, direct damage attacks that can destroy everything in a fleet but capitol ships with one use? The Desolator is one of the weakest Capitol ships in the game and Kostura (vanilla) only disables buildings for a while - the ship disable is barely worth mentioning, it's only for ten seconds or so

in entrenchment, yes, it does create a temp phase gate, but the planet it is used on must have been explored, and you must have a fleet and a phase gate already. that means at minimum tier 6 empire research and tier 8 warfare research. that takes a lot of resources. not to mention the 7k cred, several k mineral cost for a Kostura, the thousands of resources for a major fleet, and the cost of the stabilizer itself.
that tactic requires work, strategizing, a TON of time, and a lot of luck, Vasari being a late-game race.

Marza, conversely, merely requires you to get a capitol ship (which is free), and get it up to level 6, which is quite easy early game, when there's plenty of stupid and weak militia to kill for exp.

Successfully updated karma reason!

1.16

If LMFs were a bit slower (so they could not chase), LFs were slightly faster and turned faster and shield mitigation. was redone so it better fullfills its purpose(preventing focused fire) Capships wouldnt die stupidly fast to FF, and a player would need both LFs and LMFs in the early game, because using only LMFs would mean that they would be expanding slower (since it would take more time for the LMFs to get to the next grav well).

Slower LMFs would also mean that it would take them longer to reach carriers, and that carriers could outrun them (since carriers are supposed to be the counter to LMFs...) which would make LFs more used to catch those pesky carriers.

About the shield mitigation. and FF... see https://forums.sinsofasolarempire.com/354424

Successfully updated karma reason!

v1.16

If it is desirable to prevent the rush, as well as help out the player or team under pressure so that one battle doesn't determine the entire game, then how about a change to the cost of the basic planetary defences?

As it is, a turret costs about the same as a frigate and a hangar only slightly less than a carrier. Yet the ships have the ability to move in the grav well and make phase jumps! Why should gauss turrets cost crystal, and not Cobalts? Earth-bound warfare featured fixed defences that cost far less than ships, and also outranged them.

Even if the basic point defences stay short ranged, how about a reduction in the cost by a factor of 50%- and without any crystal at all, too precious in the very early game. As the hangars were effectively downgraded when the carriers got an extra squadron, their cost could be reduced substantially as well. These measures would reduce the value of the LRM in the early game- even if they could still take out turrets without danger, it would take much longer, and a hangar defence would become viable.

The proposals to increase the powers of carrier capitals and slow LRMs also seem solid. I'm not sold on the reversal of the strikecraft build penalties though- perhaps this could be made an attribute of the carrier capitals instead, so that combat penalties are ignored if one is nearby?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting DesConnor,

reply 11

v1.16
The proposals to increase the powers of carrier capitals and slow LRMs also seem solid. I'm not sold on the reversal of the strikecraft build penalties though- perhaps this could be made an attribute of the carrier capitals instead, so that combat penalties are ignored if one is nearby?

YES! I like this.

Successfully updated karma reason!

1.02 and 1.16

I noticed that the LRM in all races, the missles seems to slower than the ships themselves and perhaps also firing, even when the ship is dead. I noticed that hasn't even been fixed yet.

And in the tech, the flak guns can only fire at strike crafts yet the same weapons on the orbital hanger, can fire at both ships and strike crafts, will that be fixed too?

Quoting DesConnor,

reply 11

v1.16

If it is desirable to prevent the rush, as well as help out the player or team under pressure so that one battle doesn't determine the entire game, then how about a change to the cost of the basic planetary defences?

As it is, a turret costs about the same as a frigate and a hangar only slightly less than a carrier. Yet the ships have the ability to move in the grav well and make phase jumps! Why should gauss turrets cost crystal, and not Cobalts? Earth-bound warfare featured fixed defences that cost far less than ships, and also outranged them.

Even if the basic point defences stay short ranged, how about a reduction in the cost by a factor of 50%- and without any crystal at all, too precious in the very early game. As the hangars were effectively downgraded when the carriers got an extra squadron, their cost could be reduced substantially as well. These measures would reduce the value of the LRM in the early game- even if they could still take out turrets without danger, it would take much longer, and a hangar defence would become viable.

The proposals to increase the powers of carrier capitals and slow LRMs also seem solid. I'm not sold on the reversal of the strikecraft build penalties though- perhaps this could be made an attribute of the carrier capitals instead, so that combat penalties are ignored if one is nearby?

I agree with you however, I would also suggest that the hangar should move up on the research tree to 2 or maybe 3, cause even in early game you probably have crystal production so low it is economically not viable to build one anyways, so why not upgrade their stats, keep the cost and up the research levels?

Also, I don't if it is intentional but all of the siege firgate is probably the most suicidal frigate ever, except the scout frigates (which is a no brainer). ok, if it goes into a gravity well, it goes straight for the planet, like it just doesn't see another thing in the way, will the frigates become sort of like the capital ships where it will help with the battle and then after a certain amount of time or percentage of the enemy gets destoryed till they start go attack the planet?

Successfully updated karma reason!

WHIPperSNAPper2008

Join Date 03/2008

+126

Quoting DesConnor,

reply 11

As it is, a turret costs about the same as a frigate and a hangar only slightly less than a carrier. Yet the ships have the ability to move in the grav well and make phase jumps! Why should gauss turrets cost crystal, and not Cobalts? Earth-bound warfare featured fixed defences that cost far less than ships, and also outranged them.

The price of turrets as it stands now is just fine and they're about half-as-expensive as an LRM, which is fine. Perhaps the price for hangers should be decreased very slightly since they don't get built too often. If turrets are made too cheap then people willl spam them all over the place, which will increase the length of online multiplayer games without adding anything to the game's strategy, which is a no-no.

The only changes I really want to see (aside from the addition of various features for online multiplayer) are a nerfing of the Marza and a decrease to the carrier strikecraft build penalty. I'm afraid that any other large changes will mess up the game balance. The game is pretty good the way it is--I'd hate to muck it up just because a few people don't like LRMs.

Successfully updated karma reason!

WHIPperSNAPper2008

Join Date 03/2008

+126

Quoting koda0,

reply 8

Also, MB DOES NOT NEED NERFED. If it does get nerfed, please also nerf Guardians, Aeria's, the Vulkoras Desolator's Disintegrate power, and Kostura's.. because their all essentially the same.

You're saying that all of those ships...with a single click...can destroy 200 LRMs or LFs and damage several cruisers and capital ships at once time--like the Marza's Missile Barrage?

Also, I think that Cap. Carriers are WAY too underpowered. Compared to Cruiser Carriers, 3 cruisers = 1 lvl. 8 Cap. in terms of strikecraft. Their strikecraft-support abilities also seem underpowered, as only the Cap.s strikecraft are afftected(except for Skiranta's). I think that 1 Cap. Carrier should have a max of 9 squadrons, and that Squad-support abilities should affect ALL strikecraft in the Grav. Well.

This might not be such a bad idea, but it kind of screws over the races (TEC, Vasari) whose carrier caps aren't as good as the race with the best carrier cap (Advent). For Advent, the carrier cap is NOT the lowest cap on the capital ship food chain--not by far. In fact, it's probably the 2nd from the top. (I can tell you don't play Advent much.)

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting CenturionJixra,

reply 15

Quoting koda0, reply 8Also, MB DOES NOT NEED NERFED. If it does get nerfed, please also nerf Guardians, Aeria's, the Vulkoras Desolator's Disintegrate power, and Kostura's.. because their all essentially the same.
You're saying that all of those ships...with a single click...can destroy 200 LRMs or LFs and damage several cruisers and capital ships at once time--like the Marza's Missile Barrage?

Also, I think that Cap. Carriers are WAY too underpowered. Compared to Cruiser Carriers, 3 cruisers = 1 lvl. 8 Cap. in terms of strikecraft. Their strikecraft-support abilities also seem underpowered, as only the Cap.s strikecraft are afftected(except for Skiranta's). I think that 1 Cap. Carrier should have a max of 9 squadrons, and that Squad-support abilities should affect ALL strikecraft in the Grav. Well.
This might not be such a bad idea, but it kind of screws over the races (TEC, Vasari) whose carrier caps aren't as good as the race with the best carrier cap (Advent). For Advent, the carrier cap is NOT the lowest cap on the capital ship food chain--not by far. In fact, it's probably the 2nd from the top. (I can tell you don't play Advent much.)

the halcyon is the one with the energy weapon bonus, isn't it? that one is sweet. also, telekinetic push is quite nice, if you happen to run into larger amounts of fighters. I'm not that impressed with its ultimate though. bunch of extra fighters ... meh.

Successfully updated karma reason!

You're saying that all of those ships...with a single click...can destroy 200 LRMs or LFs and damage several cruisers and capital ships at once time--like the Marza's Missile Barrage?

its funny you didnt mention Heavy Cruisers... you did happen, however, to mention that MB can take out the too most lightly armored/shielded wahtever units in the game...

well duh, if it cant destroy a fleet of LIGHT SHIPS... then its kinda useless huh...

dont want to get in an arguement about it here, i personally dont care if it gets nerfed or not, i just think people who complain about fleets of LIGHT ships getting nuked by a missile BARRAGE are really very silly

build some variety, dont rely on Scissors Paper Rock

Successfully updated karma reason!

Mazra Missile Barrage: The hard counter to frigate spam.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting mbaron888,

reply 18

Mazra Missile Barrage: The hard counter to frigate spam.

Marza MB = hard counter to anything that includes many ships and no interruptors.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Entrenchment 1.02 observations:

Seige frigates were overnerfed a LONG time ago and are still today just as useless. A thought to improve them, how about increasing their damage vs planets but make it dependant on anti matter. So just after jumping anywhere they do very little damage for a while but as the AM recharges they become more effective. So hit and run tactics are still bad but they are good at doing the job we are paying so dearly for.

The Jasarul Evacuator is the cap ship of choice always, it's too powerful. It helps the Vasari player get off the ground at the start but when I will never choose a different cap to start with then there is something wrong and ruins the point of options. Is the Vasari battleship really only supposed to be chosen over a Space Egg because of the strike craft silence?

The Antarak Marauder is seriously lacking. People claim it's fine because of it's extremely situational abilities. The speed boost is kind of cool and the Phase Gate is decent but enough to sacrifice the option of having any other Vasari cap? Not at all.

Carriers feel too expensive now because their payload is easily wiped out in the early stages of a battle. Destroying the payload should have an effect but currently it reduces the damage of carriers to next to 0 too early in a battle with the right fleet composition.

I suggest you consider an increase of 25% of Anti Heavy vs Heavy Armor type, and decrease the build time penalty of carriers slightly. The idea being that the payload will always be a threat even if reduced a lot with correct counters but the LF will be a more important part of a fleet because of it's effectiveness vs flak and carriers.

Successfully updated karma reason!

v1.16

The gauss turrets are more expensive than an LRF- the other turrets are about 2/3 the cost of their respective LRMs, but then an illuminator is a level three ship... and the turrets still cost as much as light frigates without being mobile or having enough coverage to be able to defend a planet by themselves.

Why would cheaper turrets be spammed, there's only so many slots and they're only useful against an early game rush anyway? Would you build many more if they were half the price? Also why would game length be increased at the expense of strategy in your opinion- do the starbases accomplish this as well? Most often, because the siege frigates are so over-priced, an accompanying fleet spends considerable time hanging around inactive while the capitals level a planet.

All that the reduction of costs of point defence and hangars might accomplish is to make the early game LRM rush dreaded by many players somewhat less potent.

Successfully updated karma reason!