Community Balance Patch: Counters and Damage Modifiers

I'm not in agreement on LRF.  If you take away their hitting power what will be the TEC play against a mothership-centred battleball?  Capital ships survive long enough when employed properly.  One of the most annoying aspects of the game is trying to chase a capital that is damaged but able to leap quickly from neutral gravwell to gravwell.  Even a colony cap can do this.  Also LRF are slower than capitals.  Carrier capitals can kite them.

Heavies against LRF seems more dubious.  Anyone got the figures for an Assailant Vasari fleet versus an Enforcer Vasari fleet?  I imagine with a few upgrades it gets dire.  At best heavies are a soft counter to LRF, that cannot be right. 

LF are faster than LRF, as has been pointed out.  While LF rushing is still a feature of the game this balance doesn't seem to need work.  Scout-LF combinations are still evident.

The issue with bombers is due to the vast number of squadrons on a Halcyon or Skirantra, the two problem capitals in the current game.  These ships break the unwritten rule that fleet should be more effective than capitals at lower levels, they should be corrected, rather than improving the Sova to match them.  Flak could possibly be made more effective against bombers.

While LRF may still be too much in evidence, the problems may become less if capital ships are boosted, as LRF are vulnerable to area effect.  I considere Vasari flak and fighters another problem as they just gain to much advantage from their peculiar phase missile use.. in game a phase missile seems to be a slow weapon, why is it suitable for these ships?

For many factions, that means sitting far away from the battle and running as soon as it looks like the enemy LRF (or bombers or heavies) are moving in your general direction.  While there are a few combos you can pull off, primarily the battleball, that enable capital ships to tank, these are very much faction specific and capital-ship specific. 

This is the very problem.  Capital ships do nothing but kite and run.  If the enemy LRF get in range, they die unless they're already lining up to jump.  This is one of the big reasons why battleships suck; LRF will beat them to a pulp before they can actually do anything, so all we're left with are support caps and carriers that can influence the battle from afar.  Any capital ships that actually needs to get close to be effective is simply dead meat because the LRF will pick it apart long before it can get away. 

This needs to change.

 

 

I don't think that we should be looking at damage types in isolation.  This is very much a holistic issue that's going to need lots of different approaches.  The primary units we're looking at are LRF, bombers, and capital ships, that much is certain, but I'm not sure whether armour types are what we should be targeting.

First off, I want to bring attention to the fact that we need to have capital ships scale.  From the early minutes of the game where they comprise more than half of your fighting power, to the early game where they're up against no more than 20 LRM's, to the late game where a hundred LRM focus firing is ordinary.

 

I don't think we can reduce the effectiveness of LRF versus capitals, since that would create an early-game hole that would need to be plugged.  The best approach here is probably a nerf to LRF speed so they simply cannot pursue capital ships.  Right now, as DesConnor says, their pursuit capabilities are about right against carrier capital ships.  The problem is, they're way too good at pursuing battleships and other capital ships that need to get close to be effective. 

Bombers are where we need to make a stronger nerf, and this will also nerf the carrier capital ships themselves since these are their primary offensive weapons.  I feel reducing the bomber damage against capital ships is necessary since they're tough to counter early-game and extremely deadly later on.  This is one of the few places I feel an armour type change is fully justified.

As for unit versus unit, I think anti-medium versus heavy might be toned down, but if we reduce the movement speed of LRF then that should be unnecessary. 

 

That is a rather specific concern that is very valid...but, Repulsion could be fixed to deal with this, still allowing changes to be made to LRFs in general...I think repulsion is fine as is for now, but if we do change LRFs then repulsion inherently will have to be looked at...

In a straight fight between Heavies and LRFs, the HCs will dominate...the issue is that LRFs are just as good if not more effective against caps, support/carriers/flak, LFs, and structures...and LRFs are more resilient against bombers (weak against fighters, but those can easily be shot down)...instead of making HCs stronger, I'd advocate making LRFs weaker against something other than just capital ships...

I like that idea a lot...

I agree...Vasari fighters and sentinels need to use something else...I'd vouch for pulse beams, but I can see an argument for pulse gun or wave cannon...

Boosting the speed of capital ships might help some...even allowing them to turn faster would make a difference...

I don't like this element either...but I don't know if LRF speed is going to help...reducing the speed of LRFs makes it easier for caps to run away, but it doesn't prevent them from running away in the first place...

I think if bombers were easier to kill, that would be a start...making flak better against bombers would certainly help the situation...sure, they could still FF on a starbase or cap ship in the beginning of the battle, but if they fell like fighters after a minute or two, then HCs would be much more useful and carrier fleets wouldn't be as dominant...

I am attempting to just get the unit types in general straitened out, that way any adjustments that only effects one faction can be handled better.

1. Agreed, this is a very delicate file, and nerfing one thing is in fact a closet buff to another thing which can potentially be a hidden nerf to everything else. However I believe there are a few imbalances here that might be justified in correcting despite the risk.

2. I guess I don't really think this early whole is that much of an issue. The funny thing about capitals is that the first one is free, thus everyone is going to have one. Even if LRFs are rendered ineffective against them (and I doubt any changes will make that happen), there are always the other players capitalship, which is how I think it should be very early on. While I am not opposed to changing ship speed as well, I think a slight (.05-.1 reduction) should at least be tried to see if it helps but doesn't brake it.

3. As I see it we either make bombers easier to kill or less effective, not both. I'm leaning with less effective against capital ships to avoid having to starbases be protected to easily.

It's not as hard a counter as some would like, but it works.  I'm not opposed to making HC's more resistant to LRF attack (because right now they're tough to phase) but I wouldn't go too far here, particularly if we're nerfing bombers in the same stroke.



We need to be careful with flak, because that unit is also fairly top-notch.  I think we do need to pay attention to the fighter/bomber/flak interactions.  We don't want any one of these three to be dominating the exchange.



If anything, I'd be more inclined to buff up fighters a little to make bombers more fragile.  Flaks already clean out fighters quite nicely, making a flak/bomb combo very difficult to approach.



If two Vulkoras Desolators show up at your homeworld, guns blazing, you'll be churning out whatever you can to quickly send them home.  Or try two or even three Sovas with missile platforms and loads of strike craft.  Early-game capital ships can be a very big deal.




The problem is the decisiveness factor.  Imagine an army of LRF against a single capital ship; as the battle continues, the LRF will take casualties and their damage output drops.  The capital ship, however, is still at 100% damage output until it goes down.  This means that LRF need to overcompensate to account for taking casualties (and this is before we even consider the possibility that this capital ship might be doing hit-and-run tactics!) and this means proportionately you need more LRF early on to counter that capital ship.

As well, there's an issue with repair.  Early-game, repair gives a massive TTL bonus.  The problem is that if (after mitigation) you deal 30 DPS, repair will cut this down to a mere 10 DPS.  That's a 66% damage reduction on top of mitigation and armour.  Late game, reducing 100 DPS down to 80 is much more manageable.

These factors, plus the fact that your first cap is free, make capital ships a lot more dangerous early-on.  The big risk is that we create a situation where mass capital ships is the way to go, since smaller frigates are non-viable until you get a sufficient mass.



I'd agree; we don't want to make starbases tougher, but we do want to make bombers less effective against capital ships.  If we're going to nerf bombers further, I'd do it indirectly by buffing the fighter.

Hmmm...you know the more I think about it, the more I like this instead of buffing flak...

1. I agree, but I am suggesting we just make them do less damage to capital ships, which will leave their heavy cruiser counter role intact. Thus it should be able to safely reduce LRF effectiveness against HC a little bit.

2. Yes they are a big deal, but you seem to think that LRFs are the only way to deal with them. If the enemy has two Vulkoras, you can have two Radiances/Kortuls to counter them. And I don't think a 5% damage decrease on LRFs are going to be that noticeable early game, but once you have over 20 or 30 of them focus firing you it might just give your level 6 cap just enough time to get out of their.

3. Per fleet supply LRFs should still be more effective, but I think they are currently well over that point.

4. I think you are missing my point. Just making fighters more effective will in fact make starbases tougher because they are usually covered by hangar defenses (if they don't have fighters of their own). If we just reduce their damage against capital ships bombers are still the same against HCs and starbases and thus still are very valuable units to have. Besides if we make fighters too powerful no one will use bomber, as was the case in Sins 1.1 I believe (whatever the carrier patch was).

Hmmm...didn't think about that...but on the other hand, more powerful fighters may partially solve the LRF issue (though not necessarily in the way we want it to)...

I think GoaFan is right though...armor values are the most direct way to solve this problem...you make LRFs and Bombers 5% or 10% weaker against capital ships, and the problem is more or less solved...

 

 

Here is my 2cent on a few of these things. Some of these issues Ive attempted to address with the MP update for DS.

 

LRF's:

-To be honest they are too good against too many things. Period. Their damage modifiers are the most balanced out any damage type.

-Since Caps have their own armor type its easy to modify LRF's aganst Caps only, and not mess up their damage against other armor types. In the DS MP update I have reduced their modifer against Caps to .70 from .75. Im not sure if this had made a difference yet but TBH dropping it down to .5 would not hurt. Since they have the some of the highest DPS.

The only problem with this solution is that Caps will survive early game much longer. To combat this I have been tossing around the idea of increasing LF damage to Caps. This IMHO will also give them a larger role in later game fleets as pontential Cap killers. And since LRF already counter LF very well this seems like it will promote a more balanced early game fleets and maybe later game fleets also.

Bombers:

-Im not a fan of Bombers at all. or SC. The ability to Insta pop a Cap or other target from across the Grav well pisses me off. With all that aside though. Ive reduced their damage modifer against Caps only by .5. Again not sure if thats enough but its a start.

-I think with a nerf of Bombers great damage prime targets ( SB not included) you will see Fighters alone or with Flak support will be able to handle the Bomber horde better before they can pop all your critical stuff. A slight damage modifer change for the Flak vs Bomber wouldnt hurt but it may change how it interacts with other targets.

-Also a change in rebuild time and AM cost for the Bombers squads may help keep them suppresed.

-I also personaly thing a slight damage modifer reduction against HC is needed. This is up in the air, but again I dont like losing a huge chunk of my HC before they even get close to LRF range.

 

LF:

-These poor guys need help! I feel sooo bad and that these get ignored for 90% of games and battles. While they are "good" at killing Carriers and other Support Cruisers I dont think they can do that job well enough to warrant the higher fleet supply cost of these guys. I have no problem with their weakness to LRF. I rather see their modifers change to allow them to be better Cap killers and such. I think of LF should be half as useful damage modifer wise as HC since they are usually half the Fleet supply. With a few differences. HC with overall better modifers, higher in Compostie/Sturcture, LRF armor type. And LF better and support/carrier armor types, flak and with equal modifer against Cap as HC.

So one could pick between HC or LF....based on the battle ahead.

 

Just somethings Ive done or plan to do. Im sure someone will discredit them with better MP experience but I thought I share some thing that have been used in a mod on MP.

If we're worried about an early hole in the (ideally) circular unit counter system, why not buff LF vs Caps at the same time that we nerf LRF vs caps?

I'm not 100% convinced that this would be necessary, but if you guys think that early caps would be too powerful then this seems like a straightforward fix to me..    LRF are so brutally dominant over LF that any buff (and increase in use) for the LF is also a nice buff to LRF.  So a nerf to LRF vs caps and a buff to LF vs caps helps maintain the value of LRFs and ease their long-range sniping of caps.  That makes it easier to bring caps into the fray.  The biggest problem I see there is the factional differences in LF/LRF balance, both in terms of the individual units (some argue that the Illuminator now needs a buff, others have worried about the Vasari Skirmisher being too weak..) and in terms of availability (again with the Illuminator being a 3rd tier tech).

I also like the idea of slightly nerfing LRF vs heavy and very heavy (reducing their potency vs HCs, carriers, and support to further enhance the role of LF), and perhaps even buffing LF vs very heavy.  Again, I think those two balance each other out quite well.

As for Bombers, I've considered adjusting flak's accuracy vs bombers and/or fighters, but this seems like a very delicate balance so I'm not sure.  If Flak were nerfed (slightly) vs fighters then that would provide an indirect nerf to bombers (and arguably another nerf to LRF).. but I worry about pushing flak to the sidelines and making it mostly about who brings more carriers/SC to the battle.

 

Nerfing bomber dmg, perhaps with an across-the-board buff to bomber HP, could also work well to blunt the 'insta-pop' assasination potential of bomber swarms without making them useless.

 

[edit: hehe, I guess Carbon and I see things about the same.  Although I opted for LRF vs Caps at 0.75->0.65, and LRF vs heavy and very heavy at 0.75->0.70 with my current test mod).

In general, I agree with UE_Carbon and HerrPinguin...a slight buff to LFs while nerfing LRFs vs Caps I think could work out real well...

What if the combat penalty to construction rate was increased and made even more severe?  That way, you have the same shock value you do now with bombers...but it would be much easier to kill them off and suppress them...

I disagree with this one.  The problem is purely bomber vs capital ship, and if anything the staying power of carriers needs to be increased.

Same here about the carriers, an adjustment with bomber vs capital ship is much preferred. I have found that a 100 bombers can't stand up to 100 flak frigates in a straight up battle. When you consider that 100 flak frigates cost you 400 supply points vs 100 bombers costing 700 supply points (TEC and Vasari Carriers cost 14 points for two bombers and Advent carriers cost 20 points for three bombers so each bomber costs about 7 supply points) this more then fair. I do see some small issues with Capital Carrier SCs (they still loose to 100 flak), but I found that a slight increase in build times helps this issue.

Eh, I don't think we want to make carriers more powerful...

But, I do like the most direct approach of working with the armor types...a .05 or .10 change may be enough...

Alright, first version for starters...

*LRFs Vs. Capitalships reduced from 0.75 to 0.65.

*Bombers Vs. Capitalships reduced from 0.75 to 0.65

*LRFs Vs. Heavy Cruisers reduced from 0.75 to 0.65

*LFs Vs. Capitalships increased from 0.5 to 0.55.

I recommend testing this with the Project Equilibrium Capitalship abilities mod as well (so we can start to see the different aspects start to come together).

Are the numbers perfect?  Who knows...but its a great starting point!  I like the changes, and will look forward to testing them

Aside from the LRF vs Heavy, which should have a pretty strong impact, I don't think any of these are going to be very big changes.  We'll see how that pans out, though.

Did anyone think a big change was necessary? I thought we'd be careful with it at first and if the problem still persists then go to more extreme measures.

In another note, I notice that the capitalship abilities damage modifier is 1.0 against everything except capital ships and starbases. While this is probably okay with abilities like Missile Barrage, it is a major handicap against things like GRG where you would only want to target these kinds of ships. Is it worth changing or not?

I'd say no and here is why...conceptually, yes I think it should be one but all the abilities are balanced with this current armor value...everyone's frame of reference is dependent on this value...if we were to make this game from scratch I'd definitely make it 1.0 but I'm afraid changing that number may mean other abilities will have to be looked at again...good catch though...

The problem, as I've already stated, is that bombers and LRF scale extremely well since their range and mobility (respectively) just improve as the game goes on.  It doesn't matter if you reduce them from 75% to 65%, it just changes the critical threshold slightly.  If it used to be 50 LRM's, it's now 58.  This will certainly give a little more breathing room, but I don't think it solves the fundamental problem and we're still going to see capital ships kiting without exception.

As I already said, I think we need to make a more substantail change to one of either bombers or LRF so that unit is no longer effective against caps, and the other becomes the prototypical counter.  The other unit is then modified in such a way so that capital ships have more effective counter-measures without being invulnerable.

My preferred approach, as I already said, was to nerf bomber vs capital ship and then nerf LRF speed while buffing most capital ship speeds.  By nerfing bombers, carrier capital ships would no longer be able to routinely dominate other capital ships with fewer squads in the first few minutes, and in the long-term it'd be more difficult to blitz caps with huge bomber swarms.  A nerf to LRF move speed would keep them as devastating capital ship killers, but you'd be easily able to outmaneuver these slower units and escape them.

This would be my preferred approach:

• Bomber damage versus capital ships reduced to 50% from 75%
• Javelis LRM and Kanrak Assailant move speed reduced to 400 from 500 (illuminator unchanged)
• Battleship Capital Ship move speed increased to 600 from from 525
• Battleship Capital Ship turn rate slightly increased (10%, maybe?)
• Support Capital Ship move speed increased to 575 from 525
• Colony Capital Ship move speed increased to 550 from 475
• Siege Capital Ship move speed increased to 550 from 525
• Carrier capital ship move speed unchanged (525)

 

Changing the speed of LRF wont help those Caps that require to be in the thick of it. All it helps is Carrier Caps kit yet another ship type.

The speed change will help those other capital ships, because it enables them to clear the LRF threat range much more quickly.  Right now I have to run as soon as the LRF start heading in my direction, but with this change I have more speed with which to escape their threat range, and therefor more leeway to time my maneuvers to avoid damage.  This keeps LRF as a hard capital ship counter, but better enables battleships and other capital ships to get away. 

You bring up a decent point about kiting, but I've already considered this one.  Taken together, this should be a huge nerf to kiting carriers, perhaps even too hard overall.  The unit chasing them is no longer the LRF, but rather the battleship.  It's faster (much faster, actually) so you effectively have no escape.  It's more resistant to bombers now, and still deals a big chunk of damage that can take down a relatively fragile carrier cap, especially if there's no support nearby.

I strongly think this is the way to go.  You might do a little bit of improvement to LF versus capital ships, but I wouldn't go too far there.

If carriers are 525 (and I really don't think anyone wants to see that number go up), then I vouch for colonizers and siege being the same (no more)...

I also think support should stay at 525...they have powerful abilities, a fair amount of SC...I'm not sure they need to be faster than carriers...

However, I do think 600 is a good speed for battleships...and the faster turning rate is not bad either...

I really think all caps should have the same speed with the battleship being the only one that is faster...but, I can see arguments for boosting the speed of the support caps...

With that said, I am wary with lowering the speed of LRMs simply because of kiting (both cap carriers and light carriers)...sure, you could switch to LFs, but LRFs are so powerful against those I think in the end carriers would just be easier to kite with...not certain which way to go with this yet...

Currently, colonizers are at 475, all other capital ships are at 525.  It's very much a carry-over from pre-1.18 when colony capital ships ruled the roost.  It's just not true anymore.  I really like the idea of different capital ship classes having different speeds.  I don't think there's such a big deal with support capital ships, since they're not much as stand-alone assets and really only worthwhile if they're tagging along with other units anyways.  It's mostly a survival thing.

 

Here's the catch; LF are countered by LRF, which are no longer fast enough to keep up with kiting carriers.  On the downside, this means you can't chase kiting carriers with LRF, but on the upside it also means you can't guard them with LRF (or if you are, you're being slowed down by them anyways, and enemy LRF can catch up).

I think this actually revitalizes the role of LF, since they are now capable of pursuit where the heavier LRF falls behind.  As well, this also improves the heavy cruiser because it is capable of pursuit as well (though not as well as the LF).