HerrPinguin

[quote who="SivCorp" reply="549" id="2713355"] I'm gonna crunch some numbers on this and see what may work better.... and lets see how strike craft abilities would The only problem now is how to balance the abilities to it. I propose doing nothing yet and testing it at these numbers first. The total damage per squad is the same, and the total hull points per squad is also the same. The abilities should not be influenced at all.&

[quote who="Seleuceia" reply="18" id="2697694"] Nevertheless, I am rather in favor of longer cooldowns and more power...but that may be rather difficult to balance...what I would like to see with most of the envoy bonuses is something more constant instead of boom and bust type of advantages... [/quote] Ok.. that's a good point too. In some ways I think a more constant bonus makes more sense since you're generally just going t

As you know.. jumping to big buffs makes me a bit nervous. (Cutting the Domina's cooldowns by 2/3 and AM costs by 1/3 seems like a big change).. On the other hand, I like those changes because they soften the punitive edge of the Domina's reliance on channeling.. So maybe they're about right. As for Embolden.. I'm not sure about the 25% cooldown (and therefore DPS?) buff. The ability costs only 50 AM and has a very low cooldown and long duration. With 350

Ship Class Faction Total hull</t

[quote who="Seleuceia" reply="29" id="2696613"] Carriers, Flak, and Support all have the same armor type...you can't reduce the effectiveness of LRFs vs just one unless you changed the armor type of carriers (which would affect a lot of things)... We're having a bit of a problem here because there is virtually no agreement... The problem with LRFs is that they are damn good at killing just about everything... Something has to give... LFs are

[quote who="Seleuceia" reply="4" id="2696659"] Cultural Assistance gives +50% culture for the same time period...so on average 16.7%...problem with this is, since it ain't constant it really doesn't do a whole lot of good... even if 50% is enough to start overthrowing a world, the 2 minute break between cooldown and duration pretty much guarantees you'll never make any headway...culture is too slow, this ability doesn't do squat....I'd recommend reducing the cooldown to 60s and red

What about removing the channeling requirement on one or both of the Domina's abilities? I find Perseverance especially inconvenient as a channeling ability (I'm sure I'm not alone). As for Repulsion: What if we added a very brief but very large acceleration buff to targets when they're hit? Might this offset the momentum-reducing stun issues? This might be a bit funny though since it would probably let ships immediately charge back towards the Iconus. O

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

Ok. Just in case it wasn't clear, all of my suggested nerfs to Animosity were dependent on the idea of buffing it to affect an infinite # of SC. I wasn't suggesting any of those nerfs on their own.. And I definitely agree with you about the value of damage reduction with respect to giving Animosity a secondary use. It doesn't have to be damage reduction per se, but some sort of secondary buff is definitely nice because it keeps the ability useful even whe

About Animosity and SC: You didn't mention my suggestion of setting the SC max # of targets to infinite; do you think that's overpowered? I really don't have a good feel for Animosity's current balance.. so I can't say at all whether it *needs* the buff of including SC in its target list. But as you say, I like the idea of including SC because they're key to FF'ing. A Radiance that could taunt fighters would be very useful for covering groups of LRF in the ear

About increasing AM costs: I think this is fine, and it should definitely be considered since the AM reserves and regen for a cap ship increase a lot as it levels. It's not weird at all for the cost of an ability to increase if its strength is also increasing. It's only a problem if the cost is increasing more (proportionally speaking) than the added value of the next ability level. More specifically, we expect an ability to get better and better as it is levelled.

I like all of the changes. I agree with you about Cleansing Brilliance.. I wondered if the 3,000 dmg might be too high for 90s, but it's still much lower than something like GRG (and with a higher AM cost per dmg than GRG). And as I detailed before, it compares very well with the Disintegration ability that also has a 90s cooldown. (Disintegration does less damage to a single target, but it strikes armor directly for half that damage and it re

PPS: If you want to move to the armor issue, I've already been toying with some numbers. Right now I'm trying a LRF debuff of: 0.75 -> 0.65 vs Capitals, 0.75 -> 0.70 vs Very Heavy, and 0.75 -> 0.70 vs Heavy armor. I'm also trying to think of ways to buff Light frigates for the later game, so I'm trying: Anti-heavy (light frigate attacks) as: 0.5 -> 0.55 vs Caps and 0.5 -> 0.55 vs Very Heavy (i.e., Heavy Cruisers). Right now, H

[quote who="Seleuceia" reply="180" id="2690491"]I personally vouch for increasing the max number of targets...since an infinite target limit seems rather unpopular, I'll suggest some numbers... First, let's determine the average ratio between capital ships and number of frigates/cruisers...early game you will likely see a player field 2 caps and have 2 fleet upgrades...that is 400 fleet supply, with 100 of it used to support two capital ships...therefore, the early game ratio in te

[quote who="Seleuceia" reply="167" id="2689423"] I'm not certain I understand what you are getting at but I think I do...someone (I think Pbhead?) brought up the point that the buff BuffTauntFriendly that uses ForceAttackersToRepickTarget may cause an enemy ship outside the affect of animosity to still be unable to shoot a ship within the sphere of influence of animosity...in theory this is correct, but in practice I'm not sure yet...if it's a problem I'll work on fixing it (likely

[quote who="Darvin3" reply="2" id="2686251"]Moving in the z-axis is possible, but it's pretty much only used for exploits. [/quote] Do y ou mean that there's some sort of bug associated with Z-axis movement, or do you consider it an exploit just because most of the game and ship movements normally function in a (roughly) 2d plane? I use the Z-axis movement when I want to put my ships above/below defenses in a grav well. @aaa11: You need to issue a move

I can't read all of this right now, apologies, but I made and tested some changes of my own last night so I'll throw in some quick comments: Magnetize does not need to be doing 40 dmg per impact imo. It's a very good anti-SC ability since it kills ships outright. It's also an interrupt that disables abilities until it reaches its finish, and it has a low cooldown. It can be difficult to use vs kiting carriers since it can only target hostiles and the SC are norm

Uh oh.. That's a long list. :) I read your whole post. I don't disagree with any of it, although I may have a rosier view of the v.0.20 cap ship abilities than you.. (What's wrong with Colonize? I liked the extra constructors idea but haven't tried Vasari yet at all, is that not working?) And I don't have any immediate suggestions for any of these issues.. But I have some suggestions for you as 'mod leader' and (currently) the only one doing

[quote who="Darvin3" reply="95" id="2685430"] Finally, I want to point out that the 20/40/60% wpn debuff is 2x what's provided by Vertigo Actually, you're completely wrong here. Even ignoring the gross stretch of imagination needed to compare a debuff that affects a single target and a debuff that affects an entire fleet, vertigo still reduces the damage of its victims more than my proposed GRG. Vertigo gives a 10/20/30% damage reduction and a

[quote who="Darvin3" reply="147" id="2685165"]Clairvoyance definitely needs a secondary effect. I have no doubts about this. The problem is that duration isn't worth very much. Usually for scouting purposes you only really need a single snapshot anyways. If anything, I'd be more inclined for a shorter cooldown and antimatter cost so it can be used more often rather than just buffing its duration. In any case, I don't think any such tinkering will "solve" the

I think that wpn cooldown is too high, but I seem to be on the opposite side of the proverbial fence from you two because I'm still not convinced GRG needs these extra buffs.. So I don't want to beat a dead horse, but I'd like to try and understand what standard you're comparing GRG to.. In my view, its DPS compares well vs several other abilities even without the debuffs. E.g., Cleansing Brilliance, an ultimate, is currently set to 3000k dmg every 12

Just to vote: I like the increased duration on Clairvoyance. I'll state the obvious and say that vision on a planet for 240 seconds is much better than vision for 10 or 30 seconds.. :) That doesn't mean that another buff isn't needed, but I think the simple increase in view time makes it a great way to first check and then continually watch a (few) planet(s). That makes it a lot easier to locate enemy fleets and observe their movements. If it could be pa

@GRG: 1200 dmg for 60 AM every 6 seconds already seems pretty powerful to me.. @Lvl 3 that's 200 extra DPS before modifiers, and @60 AM it can maintain that extra DPS for at least 30 seconds. If you're waiting a bit to get the full value out of the speed/wpn debuff, then it's only 120 DPS (i.e., 6 shots per 60 seconds), but at that rate you can probably keep it going longer.. and an extra 120 DPS is already a lot of focused damage on a single target. My last sugg

[quote who="Seleuceia" reply="84" id="2684080"]Tomorrow (Saturday) I should be on ICO around 1 or 2 PM (central time) until, well, more or less whenever I get tired...[/quote] U.S. CT = GMT+6, so I think 1-2pm CT would be 7-8pm GMT/London time. [quote] Tested a game today with Waxworks...we both were TEC, I started with a Kol and he started with a Dunov (built a Kol 2nd)...magnetize and flack burst seem to be a pretty good combo for dealing with SC...however, the damage d

I just looked over the 0.20 list of changes. I don't have time to give much specific feedback tonight, and a lot of it will depend on how the testing goes this weekend.. But I want to suggest a note of caution on changing too many things at once, especially as the changes seem to be picking up speed. :) I'm not saying that any of these new changes will be unbalanced per se, but I think simpler changes will help.. well.. simplify the testing.&n