Raging Amish Raging Amish

Quirks, Irks, and Things that Bother Me TAKE FOUR

Quirks, Irks, and Things that Bother Me TAKE FOUR

First off, I know Deciever has a post with a list of fixes the community is voicing together to have fixed. I applaud his effort, but this post is more of a rant, a run down of just little things that as I've played, things that have annoyed or confused me.

TAKE FOUR

For a third round of redunancy: REPULSE

I still can not stress how much this needs to be addressed.

The Overseer

It needs a 360 degree firing arc like the repair bots on the hoshiko. Also, why is this thing tier 4? Advent get guardians at tier 3. TEC get hoshikos at tier 3. Vasari get their first support cruiser at tier 4. That aint fair. I have to spend the money on another lab AND extra money on the tech for a somewhat less effective version of the hoshiko? Bull.

Also, the tier 4 and 5 abilities on this ship are laughable. Unless that 50% extra jump time gives you enough time to take out a specific target (PJI or a lightly upgraded starbase), it's useless. So you can see them jumping in? OOOOOOO boy, that's exciting. Never mind the econ tree techs where I can see 1, 2 jumps, and then EVERYTHING at tier 8. The 2 jumps is probably a bit more accurate. It's a bit cheaper in total and in the end probalby a better overall option than the overseer if you wanna see what ur opponent's doing.

Strikecraft cost no $$$ to replace

This one irks me a lot. My opponent can jump in with 10 carriers, 30 squads of fighters, take out whatever he can of my lrf's/bombers/scouts/whatever, then jump out, and replenish his losses at NO COST. Meanwhile I must pay to replace the frigs I lost. Bull. Strikecraft shouldn't be ridiculously expensive. No, then they'd be useless, but right now, i don't like the system.

 

If I could have my way I'd:

1. I'd lower the health and shields of all lrfs as they stand by 10%. I've never understood why these units are so tough. From the description you see in game, these are supposed to be like archers. They do a lot of damage at a longer range, but are very weak and frail, so can easily be destroyed by something that gets up close. As it stands Illums on paper look as strong if not stronger than Enforcers, and LRMs + Assailants are fleets that are so tough that they can just make enemy siege frigates go *pop*.

Lrf's will still crush light frigs, but you'd actually be able to counter lrfs now. Maybe. I don't know if 10% would be enough, but considering I'm already suggesting to nerf the Illum, a 10% additional nerf is appropriate.

1a. If 1 does or doesn't happen, I'd lower the Illum health by 100 and the armor by one. Illums have the best health and shields of the lrfs. Shields yes. Health should be worst. Also, LRFs need a slight nerf in shields and assailants need a slight buff in shields for balance of the lrfs.

In order for shields from toughtest to worst it should be advent, vasari, tec.

In order for health from toughest to worst it should be tec, vasari, advent.

2. Because of the fix I propose in 1a, I'd probably have to nerf flak. Flak already can just barely beat lrfs. With that fix, Flak would now crush lrfs and fighters. To fix this, I'd lower the multiplier against light armor by either 25% or 50%. I'm leaning towards 25%. Flak wouldn't be as effective against bombers anymore, but then again, you're not supposed to use flak on bombers anyway. Still, perhaps the hit % could be upped on bombers. In theory, bombers move slower and wouldn't be as hard to hit (Battle of Midway and the torpedo bombers anyone?), so giving a 100% hit rate against bombers would help offset the damage reduction I'm proposing against bombers.

3. I'd upp the anti-heavy armor bonus that light frigs get by 25%.

4. Leave flak as is against fighters. Something needs to be able to crush fighters. This is the only thing that counters them. Fighters are made for free and at the cost of antimatter. Something has to be able to do it. Perhaps nerf flak slightly, but do it too hard and carrier spam will become popular again.

5. Up repulses cost for antimatter per second to 12-15 antimatter per second.

My main point is #1. I realize that to do that fix, this game would need a series of rebalances, but then again, the game isn't exactly balanced as is (as exemplified by the fact that no one uses light frigs). I've never understood why lrf's are so tough. When the devs saw the Illum was weak way back in 1.03 or 1.04, whatever it was, they didn't bring the other lrfs down to it. No. They brought the Illum up. Up so far it crushes just about anything. I'm going to be testing to see if that anything includes enforcers.

TAKE THREE

For a second round of redunancy: REPULSE

If there was a way to force the guardian to stay and not break the "channeling ability", it'd be fine. One use of repulse would take 210 antimatter. As is the unit can break the channel at any time and save 150 100 antimatter ish and 7-8 can fire indefinitely. So....

IT STILL NEEDS FIXING

The Random Map Generator use of "Random - any"

Go to the map creator. You'll notice that there is a planet type called "Random - any". I think this is overly used in the random map generator. This is where the complete randomness of the maps come from and is the source of my hatred for about 20% of the maps we play. Anything can end up here, and what you see is that by having too many randoms, people can get boned by the map and not have any planets or neutrals near them.

Clarification - Vasari Starbase

I want to revise my sentiment here. I think the construction rate of this should be the same as Advent and TEC starbases, and that in enemy grav wells it should get a -25% build rate penalty. Maybe 50%. What I'd really like is to have the armor taken away from it while being constructed. Why is a target that's under construction getting the full defensatory bonus it would get only if fully up and running?

 

TAKE TWO

For redunancy: REPULSE

Its still pisses me off.

The Vasari In General

Anyone else notice that with Vasari you're crossing your fingers for neutrals? This race is a gamble to pick in my mind, because how effective you are is pretty much linked to how many neutrals you find. Assailants are weak and only good at taking out capital ships. The enforcer is the worst HC. The Skirmisher does 10 dps, as much as a cobalt, but still takes up 2 extra ship slots. The Scout is the worst for combat purposes. You need the $$$ to offset this loss, and if there aren't neutrals, your job gets a lot tougher.

Add in the wrench of the starbase. This thing to me is a gigantic glorified frigate. The Vasari frigates aren't strong enough. The starbase is too strong and too easy to tech. You can't use Ogrovs against it as effectively cause they gotta move...stopping them from firing. Guess my biggest quarrel is how effective they are early game. The only thing that can have a prayer to fight off a starbase in the first 20 min is Advent bombers (because tier 2), or long range frigates. That's it. They are too tough and construct too quickly in enemy grav wells.

Quick construction in friendly grav wells? Absolutely. In enemy grav wells? Cut it to half the rate of the construction a TEC or Advent one. It's too powerful otherwise in early games.

One Phase Lane Homeworld Starts

This actually is very VERY disadvantageous and needs to be addressed in the random map generator. For lack of better words, getting boned by the map aint right. Getting a ton of magnetic clouds and neutrals instead of planets is one thing. Having fewer phase hurts in two ways. First, you lose tactical options. Instead of expanding in one of several directions, you can only expand in one way....which sucks. Second, your eco is hurt. Badly. Essentially you're eco takes a 10% hit because instead of having 90% and 80% allegiance planets, you get 80% and 70% allegiance planets because everything is now further from your homeworld.

Randomness of Neutrals

Two things with this. 1, I'm sick of maps that are completely loaded with neutrals. The only way you can hand the Vasari a game even more is to hand them a stuffed human (normal or with psionic ability) with an apple in its mouth. In the random map generator, I'd like it if fewer planets were completely random and could instead be set to be.....sound the trumpets....planets. Don't take away all the neutrals, but sometimes there are just simply too many.

2. There can be anywhere from 0-3 neutrals in a grav well. That's a bit lopsided don't you think? I realize most times maps randomize and actually stay pretty fair, but about 25% of the time it feels like my opponent has 3 grav wells with 3 neutrals per well, and meanwhile I've got three magnetic clouds all saying "Screw You Amish Guy".

No Allegiance on Neutrals

There is no allegiance on neutrals......yeah...that makes sense. Ok, maybe playing all fast in multiplayer screws with this perspective. It seems neutrals either are nonexistent or completely give the game to a player. I'd really like to see them reworked. You could lower their income or up their income but give them an allegiance factor. Either way, I know I don't like what the game has now. I've had a map with Vasari where I had 21 metal per second without taking  single lava planet or buildng a single refinery. It aint right. Just plain wrong.

Magnetic Clouds

Have you guys ever actually fought in a Magnetic Cloud? I know I haven't. Taking a fight here is an act of desperation rather than an act of tactics. I don't think I've ever had the opportunity to fight an Advent in a magnetic cloud. He just jumps out and waits for me elsewhere so he can use his abilities. As of the moment, Magnetic Clouds are nothing more than glorified space wasters that just add more time for your scouts to explore. You shouldn't be happy if you see these within the first 2 jumps of ur homeworld. It aint fun.

 2 mine Ices and Lavas

Ever had that night where you're playing sins and the map just doesn't wanna give you a break? Not only are you boned by the map, but you also get to expand to a lava that has.....TWO mines!

I like the randomness of mines on planets. I do. 2-3 on Terrans and Deserts makes sense. These planets offer more population, so the emphasis here isn't minerals. It's credit income. Especially with the extra logistic slots.

I don't get why Lavas and Ices can have from 2-4. It should be 3-4. The WHOLE POINT of an ice or lava is to get extra income of ONE type of mineral. I can not tell you the number of times games get more frustrating because I have 3 of these 2 mine suckers, and meanwhile my opponent has a lava and an ice with 4 mines a piece. It's like being a he man taking a pitchfork to the back of the head but the pitchfork doesn't do brain damage. You're just gonna keep going and try to muscle through it, but in the back of your head, something aint right.

Take One

The Uselessness of Light Frigates

I'm probably not giving anyone a revelation with this one, but thanks to long range frigates, light frigs can't get anywhere near support crusiers to do their job. Really, if you think about it, the only time it would ever make sense to make a large contingent of light frigs in your fleet is if your opponent spammed flak. Even then, the damage multiplier LF's get against heavy armor is only +50%, which just isn't enough for the meaty flak and all of it's health. I'd like the multiplier to be increased to something in the ballpark of 200% at least, maybe even higher. Seriously. Right now if you see someone making a ton of cobalts, you just laugh.

The way it should be is you see light frigs coming for your support cruisers and ur reaction is "Oh Crap, get them out of there"

The OP of Repulse

Not going into detail, as it's not news. I'd like light frig abilities to outrange repulse. That'd help....a little. You could fix repulse by either upping the delay between uses (to say....like 30 seconds to a minute), or by upping the antimatter costs. Personally, I'd like the latter so someone can't abuse it insanely, but either'd work.

The OP of Illums

Not going into detail either. It's not news.

  Hull Armor Shields Damage Ship Slots used
Kodiaks 6300 5 3600 108 60
Crusaders 4650 4 4950 114 60
Enforcers 5875 4 3500 100 60
Illum 6200 2 5500 166 60
Assailant 6000 2 3600 130 60
LRM 7000 1 4200 165 60

What I don't grasp here is why the Illum's health is so high. It should be TEC health = highests, Vasari Middle Man, Advent third. This is the theme of the races that sets them apart. For some reason though, the Illum's health is very very high. It should be around 5000 for 10 illums, or 500 health for each Illum. That might help some of the problems with Illums. The DPS is ok. It should be the highest for all the races considering it's Tier 3. It should not have 620 health and 2 armor. It should be lowered to 500 health and 1 armor. That'd help with balance.

Assailant Weakness

On a related subject, why is the assailant the worst for shields overall? Shouldn't that be TEC?

Starbase Spamming

This is a wierd wierd phenomenon I've seen. You typically see this on 5v5 maps where there are 3-5 allies bunched on one side of the map and the feeder has all the time in the world to get a monster eco going. This person, instead of getting a fleet, will put a starbase at EACH and EVERY system, including neutral sites, and support purely with econ and starbases at each planet. Oh, and they'll probably mix in the superweapons.

I figured out this is something that a large contingent of bombers can cure, but it's just wierd to see. You spend all your money on a "fleet" of stuff that either can't move (TEC/Advent), or is stuck in one system (Vasari). Ok, with the TEC, each starbase gets red button, so any one starbase can destroy a fleet, and Advent get meteor and Mass Disorient, so that's nasty too. For the record, I get why it's not a bad idea. You keep a high eco and your empire is well defended with strong buildings. I get it.

I just liked it better back in vanilla where my fleet could just keep rolling on through cause aint no one gonna stop me. Just nostalgia I guess.

The Enforcer/Skirmisher Nerf

Each of these ships gets reintegration. In exhange for this though, the devs nerfed the damage these do. JJ has already shown that the enforcer is the relatively weakest HC. I say the enforcer get's reintegration, so it makes the issue "fuzzy". What I don't get is why the skirmisher does 10 dps and the enforcer does 20. The enforcer should arguably be doing 24 dps, but I think I like the idea of 22 better.

The skirmisher takes up 7 ship slots and does 10 dps. The Cobalt takes up 5 and 10 dps. The disciple takes up 4 and does 8 dps. The pattern is 2 dps per ship slot. So why does the skirmisher only do 10 dps? I know it gets reintegration, so giving it 14 dps would be unfair, but jesus, a 30% nerf in damage to compensate for reintegration is excessive. I'd like to see it upped to 12 dps.

The Advent Culture Cannon

This superweapon is just overall odd. Vasari and TEC superweapons are direct and to the point. 2 Novalith shots take out 1 planet. The Kotsura cannon, although expensive, requires no pre-research to get and gets a discount with slave labor, and with 3-4 you can disamantle enemy fleets, plus, it opens up a phase lane for phase stabilizers. Sounds good to me.

The way I think it could work is if the culture would last a little longer. I think the right amount of time would be so that I could fire at the area, fire somewhere else, and then fire there again, and the culture from the first shot would still be there when the third shot got there. That'd help because then your opponents would ACTUALLY be forced to do something about the culture cannon. As of the moment, it's too easy to just get media hubs and spread a few more than you usually would around your empire to counter it.

Fighter Futility

Flak are very strong against them. So strong to the point that I'd say that this counter is just as strong as using lrf's against lf's. If light frigs could dismantle flak quickly, we might have a solution, but at the moment, it's reeeally hard to make an arguement for fighters when you're going to lose them so quickly to flak. Upping the antimatter regen rate of the carriers might help with this. (just a suggestion)

The Wave Tree

Why are these upgrades at tier 4,5, and 7? Why? They need to be waaaaay lower. Tier 2,4, and 5 respectively.

The Capital Colonizing Bonus for TEC and Vasari

The Vasari bonus seems a little iffy. 20% faster build for some time. 20? Just 20? Advent get 20% discount per level, and the vasari just quicker build times? This might help for rushing, but this needs to be a bit more drastic than that. I'd say go a minimum up to 50%. Up the build rate and how long it lasts with the up of colonize. At the moment, there's absolutely no incentive to bother with level 2 colonize until the egg reaches level 9.

The TEC bonus perplexes me even more. The bonus is 0,1,2 extractors built for free. So no bonus at level 1 for TEC? That seems a bit unfair. Shouldn't it be something like 1,2,3. What I'd like is for it to be 1, 2, 4.

Terran Upgrade is linked to Desert Upgrade for Advent

Tier 1, you must tech desert before you tech terran. Why? The Vasari are ALIENS and can up their terran pop % at level 1.

Culture Killing Rate

I think my beef here is that you up your own % by .10%/s, but only take down your enemy by .07%/s max. I'd like for the two values to be the same.

Quick Start in Online Matches

This might be nostalgia talking, but I don't like quick start. Like, at all. I know, quick start takes probably about 15-20 minutes out the game, but that's what made rushing so annoying now, and has brought Illums to the forefront of being OP.

What I miss is that you could build 3 scouts, have them explore, and you'd actually have about a 10 min warning of if your opponent is rushing. Now....you just know your opponent is gonna be rushing if he's at least slightly experienced. Takes the fun out of the game when you can't go out and get some planets before the big fight.

Just miss the olden days. That's all.

 

 

That's all I got for now.

 

 

 

71,812 views 167 replies
Reply #51 Top

because guardians dont? they are 50 to fighters AND bombers. nice try.

Reply #52 Top

was gonna say....guardians have a ridiculous amount of shields and take forever to kill (1800 shields on a frigate). You attack with fighters which do ballpark 10 dps per squad and you get a 50% multiplier so every fighter squad does 5 dps to a guardian. You can try bombers, but they get the 50% multiplier too. Subs have half the total combined shields/health, so it's a little quicker, but they have heavy armor as well.

Reply #53 Top

The other matter wiith subverters is that they have to come to you, whereas guardians force you to come to them.  It's easy to keep guardians flanked by flaks and lrf, so even without repulse it's very hard to take down a guardian without taking severe fire from other units nearby.  Subverters, by their very nature, have to get into range of your guns to work, which is why they're so vulnerable.

 

I'll reiterate what I've said in other threads: I think the problem right now is that it's too easy to keep units clumped up into a huge force.  If there were mechanics to penalize tightly packed armies like this, then there wouldn't be that huge wall of guns ready to rip any sub that gets too close, nor would there be that huge wall of guns to protect the guardian.

Reply #54 Top

@ Mr. Haze

Your LF didn't survive because they were stronger, it's just that I hotkey my flak to run around illums, and shift-target caps then illum with the kodiaks. I target LF last since they're weakest so they escaped =p. If I've already switched to HC, there's no point in getting fighters to counter many LF/LRF, since a proportionally smaller ammount of resources spent in flak negates your fighters. Flak/kodiak/hoshiko is the best counter to an Advent who isn't using guardians (otherwise unfortunately you have to mass LRM/hoshiko/cluster upgrade and hope your econ is better).

-RaptorJesus

Reply #55 Top

why the hell is it that people always present the "subverters die easy to fighters" argument and no one ever brings up the "guardians die easy to strike craft" argument?

Because they die easier then guardians by a long shot to SC - they are a level 5 ship with a level 6 ability that are needed to counter a level 3 ship with a level 5 ability and they are 1/2 the strength and if the SC don't get them as soon as they arrive in the grav well, the illums will. I have not built them for active use in a Vassari fleet since 1.05/1.1 days - that is for 6 months+...

Reply #56 Top

you kidding bro? if i see advent battle ball ill spam subs out and bash the shit out of that bb. its still hard but it still works nonetheless.

Reply #57 Top

Quoting crashmatusow, reply 25
why the hell is it that people always present the "subverters die easy to fighters" argument and no one ever brings up the "guardians die easy to strike craft" argument?

Because Guardians don't die easy to strikecraft. They have LOADS of shields and a hull comparative to an illuminator's. If you aren't Vasari with your phase missiles upgraded, Guardians aren't going down easy. PLus they're tier 3 as opposed to tier 5.

Reply #58 Top

Yet another reason why Subs need more health. Distortion Field should also get a longer range.

Reply #59 Top

Quoting shnome, reply 4
@ Mr. Haze

Your LF didn't survive because they were stronger, it's just that I hotkey my flak to run around illums, and shift-target caps then illum with the kodiaks. I target LF last since they're weakest so they escaped =p. If I've already switched to HC, there's no point in getting fighters to counter many LF/LRF, since a proportionally smaller ammount of resources spent in flak negates your fighters. Flak/kodiak/hoshiko is the best counter to an Advent who isn't using guardians (otherwise unfortunately you have to mass LRM/hoshiko/cluster upgrade and hope your econ is better).

-RaptorJesus

Ah well, I never said they were stronger, just that it was nice to see them do their job without being wrecks within the first 30 seconds of a battle. Also yeah, in retrospect, I should have gotten Guardians out before I actually went against your fleet, then again, I panicked and made a few stupid mistakes leading up to that fight.
ie. Grabbing a Starbase instead of aforementioned Guardians(which I already had researched, I believe) and a general increase in fleet size, but mistakes are to be expected in any game. I'm not the greatest player, I just try to learn from mistakes, and I'd say I learned quite a bit from that game, so thank you.

Reply #61 Top

The map in general dictates a lot of times who wins and who loses especially in skilled games.  Even small differences in layout or the militia defense can mean a win or a loss.  Randomness is a good thing because it makes you adapt to the condition but it doesn't make you feel any better when you lose because of it.  A vasari player hinges on how many neutrals there are on a map indeed.  It would be nice if people played more preset maps rather than random so the map-screwing would be decreased but most seem to have no interest plus there is a lack of many single system 5v5 maps anyways.

I will agree with you about the vasari in general.  At present they are great for taking down caps, neutrals and for their SB.  The SB is entirely too easy to get and too hard to take down when its there.  The antistructure/SB ships are generally crap when taking down the Vasari SB and you are 99% of the time better off with bombers which are more versatile and can do their damage while the carriers run away from the SB rather than getting run over.  The ogrov and the starfish cost too much, take up too much supply, and are too fragile to be worth it generally.

On repulse, the only thing I will say it needs has to do with caps not being able to turn or run away if facing toward the push.  It may need some sort of small adjustment(slight increase in AM needed for push maybe) but in general I would hesitate to do much to it.  Advent depends on its fleet and synergies because it has neither neutrals with vasari or TEC trade/econ to support it. 

 

[_]-Greyfox

Reply #62 Top

I tend to agree about the Vasari. Neutrals hand out too much resources in general compared to planets. The abundance / absence of neutrals have too big an impact on the match.

And the Starbases.. ever had your fleet immediately attack the colony ship and then watch it transform into a Starbase when it has 10 hull left? All damage done erased. Early game fleets have little choice but to let them build after the transformation. Same applies to TEC and Advent bases but you can just ignore them because they don't hunt you down and claim the system like the Orkulus does.

Starbases under direct attack should get a big construction and upgrade penalty. Or a penalty related to the amount of DPS they are receiving.

Reply #63 Top

The map issue is something that hasn't been addressed as much on this forum but it really does decide a lot more games than it should.   I think random map is definitely more desirable and interesting than having some prearranged map that some of the players might know in advance.  However the randomness of the random map settings is just too extreme for several reasons that will often decide games (particularly between skilled players).  Here's a few examples:

1.  The classic screwed start.   I played a random map the other day where the star player on my team had his homeworld only have 1 phase lane out, that lane led to a well defended ice planet, with only 1 more lane out from there to... a magnetic cloud!  The map generator should do a basic check before the game starts.  Does every homeworld have a starter asteroid, and preferably two lanes leading out from it.  If the check fails the map should be thrown out and a new one generated until the map meets this condition for all players.  Any minor delays in game start as a result of this would be well worthwhile.

2.  The overpowered starter asteroid.   Say you start out and go to you starter asteroid and guess what, it came with two crystal and 1 metal mine and your asteroid got not one, but two of the random mining bonuses (frequent meterorites, etc).   This needs to stop as well, the starter asteroid should *always* have the same number of extractors for all players, maybe just 1 of each type.  Additionally, there should be no bonuses that come free of planet exploration.  These can really swing the early game.

3.  The asteroid fields.  Asteroids are the single best thing to get on the map near your homeworld.  They always have the least, most laughable to clear militias.  They only have one development upgrade needed to get out of the negative credit penalty (this is huge early game).  Finally, they usually have just as many or more extractors than any other planet.  This allows a player to just gobble 2-3 of them up in the same amount of time it would take to get another kind of planet.  I think asteroids need some kind of nerf to put them more in line with the other planets as far as desirability for colonization.  Options would be to increase the militias around them somewhat.  Reduce their extractors (1 of each type, never more).  Or perhaps increasing their development cost somewhat (no atmosphere!).  As it stands they are just too good.  If one player starts with 5 asteroids next to his homeworld, and his opponent starts with a bunch of heavily defended ice/volcanics, victory is pretty much assured.

4.  Militia strength.  Militia strength is just too inconsistent, particularly on the terran and desert worlds where there can be as few as 5 ships (easily solo'd by a cap), to as many as a dozen or more sometimes with 3 heavy cruisers among them (dead cap!) and up to 4 siege ships (no rapid colonize, gotta clear those sieges first).  This could be a little more consistent.

 5.  Unresearched planet bonuses/penalties.  A few of these are really strong (massive glaciers for 25% trade bonus) for not requiring any planet exploration.  Personally I'd like to see more bonuses from planet exploration (make them more common so planet exploration is actually worthwhile) and less of the default free bonuses.  In most multiplayer games it's extreme rare to see anyone doing planet exploration as it just doesn't pay out (espescially in the early game).

Reply #64 Top

Wow...  My grammar has been horrible lately...  Its amazing how a new keyboard can screw with your head...

 

Anyways, yes.  Only these assailants would be far better.  Omnidirectional Phase Missiles would trump three beams any day...

Reply #65 Top

@Valkya

I have to disagree about having a lot of asteroids being unfair. There is a distinct disadvantage to them. Asteroids are horrible in the long run. I mean god awful. No credit income from planet. Only 12 logistics slots. If you have 2-3 near you, yes, they're great.

These things are GREAT in the short run, but a smart player knows if he can somehow stop the rush that the man roids would encourage, he'll be fine. I'll take the start with 1 roid and 4-5 normal planets over the start with 3 roids and 2-3 normal planets.

Not to mention they're easy to take. 1000 health unupgraded. 2500 upgraded. 2500 may stall a progen, but it won't stall a marza.

Reply #66 Top

The only thing that can have a prayer to fight off a starbase in the first 20 min is Advent bombers (because tier 2), or long range frigates. That's it.

Nanos can also kill a starbase, since it ignores both mitigation and armour, leaving a starbase with little more health than a regular turret.  Guardians + SR backing up illums can also beat a starbase with few casualties (what cant it beat?).  Otherwise, yes, the Vasari SB is a beast with all too few counters early on.


Totally agree with you on the rest of your points.  These are subtle but important issues.

 

 

Reply #67 Top

ah yes, right, forgot about the nanos. I was getting at the REALLY early stages where guardians aren't even out yet.

Reply #68 Top

I was getting at the REALLY early stages where guardians aren't even out yet.

While you won't get the same decisive results, illums with SR will also get the job done if the starbase is unupgraded.

Reply #69 Top

I was thinking about repulse and possible fixes and IMO it would be difficult to appropriately balance repulse through AM/recharge changes alone. I don't know if its been suggested before but how about a clause whilst repulse is active causing all incoming damage (or perphaps a certain % of it)  to bypass the shields, this would allow long rage frigates and strikecraft a chance to take out guardians with the required speed making it difficult keep up a constant repulse shield or block phase lanes for extended periods. It would have to be accompanied with an increase in recharge times, or perhaps an increase in the initial AM cost (or both) in order to prevent rapid cycling of multiple guardians through off/on repulse states as fast the enemy switches targets.

IMO the big problem with repulse is its sustained use to trap escapign fleets/cap ships and of course to neutralise enemy HC's and flak - a state which can currently easily be maintained for the duration of entire battles.

Reply #70 Top

The point I was making is that the early econ advantage of asteroids has a snowball effect on the early game allowing you to get more if the real planets even faster.   So say you're the guy with 1 asteroid and 5 ice/volcanic.  In the time it took you to gobble that up, your opponent with the 3 asteroids, also might have managed to get 4 ice/volcanic.  Under these circumstances the guy with more asteroids typically always has the stronger economy and is going to be significantly faster on explansion/fleet building.  Yes they do suck for logistics, bombardment survivability and tax income, but these are mostly later game concerns at which point the advantage they have provided should have already paid off.

Reply #71 Top

The worst case I ever had was where I had only one planet adjacent to my homeworld.  It was a two-rock ice.  Beyond the ice was a massively defended two rock desert and an empty neutral.  I had to go three jumps to find my first asteroid, plus a volcanic.  My opponent had three asteroids and a desert within two jumps of his homeworld.  It was over from the word "go".

Reply #72 Top

Guess my biggest quarrel is how effective they are early game. The only thing that can have a prayer to fight off a starbase in the first 20 min is Advent bombers (because tier 2), or long range frigates. That's it. They are too tough and construct too quickly in enemy grav wells.

Quick construction in friendly grav wells? Absolutely. In enemy grav wells? Cut it to half the rate of the construction a TEC or Advent one. It's too powerful otherwise in early games.

This is exactly what I said and some people went off the hook.I said make aussalt special only 1 level instead of 2.It constructs way to fast and is to tough early on.You basically have to rush a fleet out from the start and have it 1 jump away to kill it before it constructs.It annoys me that there is no warning when an enemy sb is construcing in your well.Like no one would notice a massive space station constructing in orbit of the planet.

I agrre with most things you say and 100% agree about 2 mine planets.Heres the thing.Random is great and makes things interesting but it can only be so random.Things have to equal out or only be slightly lop sided.

Reply #73 Top

A thought on Magnetic Clouds-

What if they offered some benefit to players (like stars) such as, I don't know, maybe increased shield regeneration, this way you have to give something up (Abilities disabled) but get a little something in return. Another thought would be to make phase jumping out of a magnetic clouds take 2 or 3 times longer, so that fleeing from a fight in one carries some costs.

Random is great and makes things interesting but it can only be so random.Things have to equal out or only be slightly lop sided.

I'll reiterate something I've said many times before, the in-game map designer will allow you to control how many different planet types there are and their distance from the center star while still keeping the randomness of a random map. You can also make random maps without pirate bases, magnetic clouds, and dead asteroids. It takes a little tinkering to get used to how it works, but its a great tool. Also on these maps you're much less likely to be map screwed by having no adjacent asteroid or only one attached phase lane.

Sure its not as 'easy' as just selecting one of the pre-made random maps and starting a game, but until the Devs decide to tweak the those maps, the map designer is your best option for getting a fair and balanced game.

Reply #74 Top

But shield regen would do nothing to help.  In fact, it contradicts you idea about a time-lag.  I could see some benefit, but I don't see the point in regen increase...

Reply #75 Top

I love quickstart because it does nto force rush. it gives you more oppertunity to get 2 civic and not get totally rammed by a rush.  If anythign ti promotes more strategies. Before quickstart you hardly would consider taking ice or volcanic even if your opponent was 6 jumps away.  Now if he is 6 jumps away and goes military you can go econ and still pull it off.