Pirates should (mostly) grow in numbers, not in upgrades. 300% upgrades? WTF? ATM facing lategame pirate base is like facing 100-200 fully upgrded 10lvl caps protected by ~20 turrets with health and damage of starbase (EACH!). Pirates should be much stronger then they were in entranchement, but Diplomacy pirates are (unlimited power)*(unlimited number)...
It need further tests, but I bet 2000+ supply fleet of fully developwed empire with all upgrades, all artifacts, all Pacts etc. etc. will not be able to take single lategame pirate base (Note pirate base I tried to destroy was not fully developed and there were only 2 pirate groups in their system...). So... It is probably OP.
Killing people is funny. Nuking planets is funny too. Not being able to zoom camera and see city destroyed by nuke is not funny. Not being able to see REAL bombardment casualties (instead of "symbolic population value") is not funny. Not being to occupy planet instead of annihilating it (if I don't want) - not funny
Well... Pirates ARE strong. I've send following force vs pirate base: 10 capships (4 Kortuls, 2 Skinatras, 2 Vulkoras, 1 Jarrasul, 1 Marauder, all on lvl 5-7) ~50 Asilants ~25 Enforcers ~25 Overseers ~10 subverters 1 Migrator to deploy starbase I also had: - ALL battle-oriented artifacts (weapon buff, shield buff, hull regen buff, AM buff) - ALL Vasari upgrades
Basicaly it is THE SAME [e digicons]>_>[/e] Both buff options allow you to heal completely same number of hp for completely same AM cost in same time. I'm ok with both options, but I don't understand why option 1 is in your eyes completely OP while option 2 is "better". Could you explain? (I am going to add option 2 to list, don't worry, I just want to know why almost same stats are so different in your eyes).
[quote]Say, Volt, what if he cut RC's values in half on all values? Would that make it no longer OP? I will say, though, that PS is probably fine as-is - I don't have much issues with it as it stands, personally, so I don't think it needs a buff.[/quote] Sorry, If i cut values by 50% then this rebalance will be huge nerf to RC... Please note, I gave HUGE cooldown increase. This abili
Note my changes are based on your suggestion... and this RC is weaker then your one :) I've added very significant cooldown increase. RC work for 10s, but cooldown is 25 (was 12), so you have 15s hole when this ability is not working. Difference between ability working ~84% of time and ability working 40% of time is significant. So: SC total healing rate (including lower cooldown) is 6 times lower (at highest level) Frigates/Cruisers total healin
What about something like this: Repeair Cloud: - Cooldown increased to 25 (from 12) - AM cost increased to 100 (from 100/90/80) - Duration 10s (not changed) - Now repair: 5/10/15 hp/s on Strikecrafts 25/50/75 hp/s on Frigates/Cruisers 50/100/150 hp/s on Caps/Starbases/Buildings (instead of 25/35/45 hp/s on Everything) - Range increased to 4000/4500/5000 (from 3000/3500/400
Personally I don't see any big balance problem with RC. Problem is only RC-SB interaction making Scrambled bombers never used. Thats why lowering RC AM/s cost (for small nerf) is IMO best solution.
BTW. instead of giving this ability any damage filter, we can change fixed regeneration value to % buff to natural regeneration - larger targets will be healed faster then smaller because their natural regen is higher.
Let's fix Scramble bombers - Regeneration Cloud AM interaction first. After it, I'm ok with any further changes to this ability. Anyway I like Your idea Volt (target filter). But again - this ability is draining too much antimatter, if we want to see SB time-to-time, RB AM/s decrease is critical.
[quote]plus no synergies between caps.[/quote] Yes, atm it hurt. Reason of Many Vas buffs on Caps balance list is creating some synergies between Vasari caps.
Ok, leave "making it spammable" alone. What about simple rebalance (not buff) based on small cost decrease and small cooldown increase (so RC can be castet few more times, but total HP/s regeneration is slightly lower) in order to give scramble Bombers chance of being used? IMO it is perfect non-balance touching solution.
You say this ability ~suck (your arguments in post #171). I say "make it cheaper and spammable". You say it is op. So... This ability in your eyes dont suck at all (I am asking for your opinion, IMO this ability is not that bad - it only need some improvements, especialy AM/s reduction-based)? Buffed crap don't turn autoamtacally into something OP... Anyway, what do you think of my RC buff (75 AM + 15s cooldown) suggestion? What do you think of giving it some kind of further b
We can als don't touch it's healing capabilities/radius, but make it cheap and spammable. This change will also fix problem with Scramble bombers not being used...
[all "," in numbers mean dot: ".", example 1,32 => 1.32] Ok, some analysis here. Cost of Scramble Bombers and Repair cloud:
[quote]Why should Vasari have to pay for two more, enormous-cost upgrades just to be on par with Advent and TEC? It sounds like a great idea but the costs for upgrades makes it negilable.[/quote] Because you start with mobility. Nobody force you to build all 10 upgrades, but if you want, you can get mobile equivalent of ther factions SBs (for extra cost). In simple words you pay for extra mobility - if you want extra mobility AND same firepower as other space stations,
What is wrong with increasing Orkulus upgrade slots to 10? IMO it has potential of fixing all problems. Vas player to get same firepower as Advent/TEC player will be still forced to buy 2 extra upgrades, but will still have enough slots for something extra.
Ok N3, so what in your opinion should be done with Orky to make this SB balanced? Splash to Disints? More Upgrade slots available? More Healt/damage per upgrade? Abilities buff?
Update: - EMP charge: UE Carbon suggestion - Magnetize: stats 6 posts above - Shield restoration: stats 6 posts above - Phase Out Hull: cooldown increased to 15/15/15 - Scramble Bombers buff removed (patch uploaded, it already exist) More ideas: Ion Bolt: - Duration increased to 5/7/9 (from 3/5/7) - AM cost reduced to 65 (from 85) </p
Orky - can - move. Other - SB -can't. IMO it is reason of relatively weaker offence capabilities of Orky. You pay % of firepower and armor for ability to relocate your SB if needed. Of course in direct combat 5up Orky will die to 5Up Transcendentia or Argonev... but none of them is able to move. Anyway - what is wrong with increasing number of Orky build slots?
What if we increase Orkulus (or even all starbases) upgrade slots to 10? It won't break balance, because UBER_combinations_of_more_then_8_upgrades_pwning_everything_and_screwing_balance don't exist. It is just more upgrades = higher cost = higher possible casualties when Space Station explodes - but increasing number of slots to 10 will solve all Orkulus problems.
Any more comment to proposed dunov buffs (4 posts above)?
Idea: What if we increase Okulus upgrade slots to 10?
I thought all Orkulus disadvanatges to other space stations are justified by it's mobility.
