6/7/2017
Topic:
Longer names for ships/units/facilities
Hutton
|
I think you could accommodate apostraphes without risking obscene art. You can't properly use contractions or possessive tense without them. |
6/13/2017
Topic:
Event tweaks, Kaiju, Geobooster, Supervirus,
Hutton
|
I'm sure Gylvir the Unflayed wishes these changes were implemented in the last beta.
Speaking of which, the tweaks you made in the last beta to prevent out of control and over powered players doing to much harm to populations probably spilled over into causing Kaijus to do less damage to populations as well, which detracts from the drama of a Kaiju attack. Have you considered increasing their power proportionally or giving them a hidden boost to population damage?
Once more worlds open up, especially when a new sector opens up, it will probably became very tempting to start hurling super viruses at planets too far away to retaliate. The only counter I can think of is for someone, the planet's ruler perhaps, to preemptively deploy their own super virus and then reimburse their constituents. Noticing an A5 Cybertronic enroute though would require more vigilance than is practicable, I imagine. And even if you did it that, I assume the attacker's A5 isn't consumed and they can deploy it again after. The emperor could also station a defense force at 12:12 attacking the area, but transports are bound to wander into the restricted area all the time.
Politics will provide effective deterrent to some extent. Emperors and Star Lords will presumably coordinate to keep the peace because they won't want bad actors inviting retaliation on their own constituents. They might decide to crush the deployer to dissuade the target system from deploying scorchers and viruses on their own planet.
But raider corporations, (which I think will add depth to the game and shouldn't be balanced out with punishing mechanics), that stay off of settled systems and move around will be harder to deter.
It's not a front burner issue, but in the back of your mind you should maybe start thinking about a counter mechanic to scorchers and viruses in case they start to get out of control when the map gets bigger. |
6/13/2017
Topic:
Event tweaks, Kaiju, Geobooster, Supervirus,
Hutton
|
For super viruses, perhaps you could allow an A5 artifact to initiat a 100 turn event that consumes and negates any superviruses deployed. Or maybe even captures the A5 Cybertronic for the corporation that initiated the protective event. |
6/14/2017
Topic:
Event tweaks, Kaiju, Geobooster, Supervirus,
Hutton
|
Right now, the defense is deterance. Deterance with the threat of swift annihilation. That seems to be working so far, which is why I think this is a back-burner issue. (Everyone knows the OBSIDIAN Church is just itching for a reason to crush anyone that gives them an excuse). But it might become a sudden, serious, balance threatening issue 25,000 turns from now, (or whenever the first new sector opens up). So I think it's worth sparing a thought for it. |
6/16/2017
Topic:
(AX) Cybertronics
Hutton
|
This point was just driven home to me when I just got 3 AX Cybertronic as from an AX Mystery quest. No doubt the most disappointing quest reward you can possibly receive in the game. I would have been less dispointed with a single A5 Mystery reward. |
6/16/2017
Topic:
(AX) Cybertronics
Hutton
|
The thing with the AX is that you obviously choose the Battlemech, (because why would anyone want a Reapercraft?), and the Battlemech is objectively inferior to the Gunsuit, an A5 special unit. Their stats are nearly identical except that the Battlemech is slightly less powerful, is much slower, and is twice as big a target. The Battlemech has a slightly faster upgrade time.
Yes, I got three of them with my AX quest, but I could have gotten 5 A5 Mysterious artifacts for the same investment. And there isn't a single A5 Mysterious unit I wouldn't trade either a Battlemech or a Reapercraft for. Hell, I would trade them in for Heroic Infantry or Mercenaries.
I've said in another thread the puzzle and randomness don't justify making the Mysterious Units more powerful than Cybertronic unless the intention is that Cybertronics are only supposed to be researched for Nanoswarms or superviruses, (which makes the AX even more useless than the A1 and A5) and are supposed to be a whammy when you get them from a Mysterious quest. And they do successfully add a little suspense to Mysterious quests because your praying the whole time that you don't get a Cybertronic artifact.
The appropropriate balance would be, for scout ship for example, to be an average of the A1 Mysterious Scout ships. Not as useful as any one of them, but the next best thing to all of them. If it was an A1 unit itself, that is. If it's an A5 it should be just as good as all of them put together.
The Terminators and Cybercommandos should be less powerful than Heroic Infantry and Elite Commandos, but have twice the hitpoints and cost two or three times the upkeep. They would still be less useful, but that's one way you could give them a reason to exist in the first place.
The Battlemech could likewise be given a a lot of hitpoints and increased upkeep to reflect its size. Then it would serve a purpose as a damage sink that actually absorbs a lot of fire because of said size. (Maybe even make it size 3 so it's more interesting than just being an inferior Neotank).
I honestly can't think of a way to make a Reapercraft worth owning, even if it was an A1 unit. There aren't a lot of reason to own corvettes at all once you are doing well enough to be researching artifacts. I use level 1 corvettes as scout vehicles and mining ships, but that's about it. |
6/17/2017
Topic:
(AX) Cybertronics
Hutton
|
It seems to me that Destroyers trump Corvettes as fighter/bomber defense by a wide margin. Corvettes do give more bang for your buck, I'll concede, but by the time you have enough cash to field a Dreadnought you are going to be more concerned about an efficient use of military logistics than than the measily $4 million it costs to build a destroyer. |
6/17/2017
Topic:
(AX) Cybertronics
Hutton
|
I'll grant you a benefit under those specific circumstances, but who puts together a fleet of just Destroyers or Corvettes. And how often do you face bombers without a fighter escort If i'm putting together an attack group I'm going to have bombers of my own that I want protected. If I'm putting together a fleet to attack a specific site that I know has bombers and no fighters then corvettes might make sense, but that seems like an unusual defense tactic. If I am putting together a taskforce to deal with the unexpected it is going to have bombers of its own that need protecting from fighters.
Maybe the scenario of facing bomber groups by themselves is more common than I realize, but I start off from a place of thinking capital ships aern't a terribly effective military investment to begin with so that might color my perception. |
6/18/2017
Topic:
Longer names for ships/units/facilities
Hutton
|
Vulpex wrote:
NYC he made it very clear.
Doctor Dread wrote:
I can't do that!
He said he can't make them longer, and that he won't allow "@#$%^&*'/<>" to prevent penis art. And I am pointing out that apostraphes should be categorized with ",.?!" as essential punctuation that is necessary to right unambiguous sentences rather than optional punctuation that lends itself to obscene art. |
6/19/2017
Topic:
(AX) Cybertronics
Hutton
|
Yeah, that was harsh. I know I said that I don't think that capital ships are terribly effective investment, but that was meant as a comment on my play style and a concessions that that might be coloring my view in the corvette vs. destroyer debate. And I was specifically thinking of my preference for choosing to build a fleet of frigates loaded with bombers and fighters (which didn't get nerfed) instead of capital ships. Which itself is probably a reflection of my lack of interest in projecting power off of Earth so far.
Back on the original topic, the fact that I'm not insulted by OBSIDIAN's offer should speak volumes about the problem with Cybertronic artifacts. But I think i'm going to pass because those units flow like water and it won't be worth the pain of kicking myself if something useful to do with Cybertronics gets introduced even a year from now. (Like using an AX to counteract hostile events). |
6/19/2017
Topic:
Assets Page, City expansion, unit balance
Hutton
|
I am really skeptical about this. I would have been more enthusiastic if if damage was cut both ways. I Don't think fleets should be capable of succefuly attacking cities without ground support unless they outpower them by an order of magnitudes. I agree that it makes sense that Battleships shouldn't be threatened by infantry or tanks of equivalent power without Ion Cannons, but I also think it should take days (100's of turn) for a power equivalent fleet to ground down a big army of ground units without ground support of their own. Monoliths not withstanding.
I've said before that I think the space superiority game should be like the first half of the battle. Space superiority should be a modifier on the ground game, but the ground game is the end game. And if the ground game becomes an after thought I will be very disappointed in the direction we have taken.
On the flip side, one way that ground troops have an inappropriate effect on the space battle is the way they can act as damage sinks for fleets. If you have a few Dreadnaughts taking on a few Cruisers, you would expect the dreadnaughts to make short work of the cruisers. But if the cruisers have a couple of level 10 infantry on the planet below, those dreadnaughts are barely going to touch the cruisers before the cruisers grind them down.
What if we had a mechanic where ships don't spread their fire to ground units (except aircraft) while enemy capital ships are present in the same square? The space superiority battle happens separately before capital ships drop into low orbit to support the ground battle. Would that be hard to code? |
6/19/2017
Topic:
Assets Page, City expansion, unit balance
Hutton
|
An example of depth that last suggestion would add to tactics:
Suddenly Duranium Warbirds are a big boon part of city defense, because a bunch of them will screen your inferior fleet. And you will want a few frigates, at least, with armor leveled up. Because every turn you can keep your last Frigate alive is one more turn before the invader's Monolith joins the fray bellow. So each turn your fleet can last before retreating or being destroyed is a turn you have to kill off the attacking Commandos before their fire gets combined with a Monolith and your's gets further diluted by the size of the fleet fighting above your city.
It also means attacker might wipe out the defender's fleet while not taking the city. A split victory becomes possible where one side loses their army and the other loses their fleet. |
6/19/2017
Topic:
Longer names for ships/units/facilities
Hutton
|
But the Comms is harder to read without apostraphes. An apostrophe isn't a crazy character. It's presence or absence changes the meaning of words. |
6/19/2017
Topic:
Assets Page, City expansion, unit balance
Hutton
|
I was talking about warbirds screening capital ships as part of a last ditch effort to delay a large fleet from begining its orbital bombardment. It's not something I'm doing now. It was something that I hypothesized would be useful if a mechanic were implemented that required space superiority be achieved before orbital bombardment could start.
Let me rephrase my concerns. I think large capital ships should be nigh invulnerable to regular ground units. I think that capital ships in orbit should be able to pound away with relative impunity if their are no Ion Cannons and once the air cover has been dispatched. But the opportunity cost of that safety should be time. The way ground forces counter a siege is to break the siege with reinforcements. Bringing in your fleet or enlisting an ally. From a balance perspective that means the player with the strong army needs time to reach out to allies and time for allies to respond to have a chance against the stronger fleet.
Maybe that balance is still there, I'm just a little apprehensive about talk that the time it takes for capital ships to kill ground units might get cut in half after they have just been made twice as safe in orbit.
On a seperate note, for immersion reasons I think it makes sense that Corvettes and Cruises do faster damage to ground units. Lighter vessels presumably skim lower into the atmosphere to take the fight directly to the ground forces. |
6/20/2017
Topic:
Assets Page, City expansion, unit balance
Hutton
|
I see that logistical advantage ground units as an important balance feature between ground and space units. (And it's important to note that that logistical efficiency does not translate into cost efficiency, which is going to be the limitation you hit first more often than not. A level 100 infantry unit is no more cost efficient than 100 level 1 Infantry units). An attacker is going to choose the battlefield and bring all the forces they can to bear at a moment of their choosing. The defender has to spread their forces between their stratigic holdings. When you choose between building ground or space forces you are choosing between efficiency and mobility. There is a reason that it requires a lot of investment to add hanger capacity to your fleets to shuttle big armies of ground units around.
(On that point, I wonder if the recent tweaks to to hanger capacity might have succefully addressed balance issues between ships but inadvertently buffed ground units by making it so much easier to project their power to foreign planets. My invasion of Mars early in the game required a slow build up of forces on Deimos that required several trips with the only Carrier I could afford to build at that point. It wouldn't have required nearly as much preparation after the hanger capacity buffs we have now. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but something to keep an eye on in the next war. That could undermine the stratigic role of capital ships in bad way. You might consider increasing the size of carriers or something if it seems like it is too easy to land legions of ground forces on enemy planets in the future; which would make them both consume more logistics to balance their increased capacity and make them need more picket ships to protect them from direct attack). |
6/20/2017
Topic:
Guide: Artifact List
Hutton
|
Are Pirate Battlecruisers unabotainable? |
6/20/2017
Topic:
Reaching 10 mil pop should open 2 new star systems
Hutton
|
I think another point of this suggestion would be that not every system will need to get developed if we open two at a time. It would make for a more interesting game boarded if some systems remain relatively undeveloped because of poor resources. Pirate Corporations need uninhabited systems to operate out of! |
6/20/2017
Topic:
Guide: Artifact List
Hutton
|
There's something that bugs me about getting a Pirate Marauder and not being able to get a Pirate Battlecruiser to complete the set.
Atmosphere-wise as well, it just feels off kilter. I wouldn't think twice if it were just impossible to capture MAK ships. But once a hundred diferent corporations have succefully captured and reprogrammed MAK ships it starts to feel really weird, from a narative perspective, that they are all the exact same type. |
6/20/2017
Topic:
Longer names for ships/units/facilities
Hutton
|
Ahh, I see. |
6/20/2017
Topic:
Assets Page, City expansion, unit balance
Hutton
|
Tahujoe wrote:
What if: Certain units (not necessarily limited to ships, artillery for example) had a minimum size they could hit? That is, say a dreadnought would always spread its damage over at least 100 size. That's still full damage to a single level 10 (ground) defender, but a mix of lower level units (say 2 or 3 at level 5, no armor, bringing us up to size 60) would be missed simply by the shots going wide (40% of the firepower being wasted, in the prior case). Of course, some may start demanding that units start to shrink while they take damage.
Regarding commandos damaging capital ships: Think of it from the carrier perspective of launching assault shuttles and dropping off teams skilled in sabotage and demolition on what is essentially a massive building with engines on it.
Regarding your first suggestion, that would work really well with a suggestion that had previously been floated that ground units should auto-downgrade when heir hitpoints drop below the max of the next level down. Someone had objected because of the lost time investment of upgrading units. At the time it made sense because we were playing a beta that only went on for a couple of thousand turns and we were itching for war. The time investment doesn't seem like that big a deal anymore. To me at least.
Regarding the damage that ground units do to spacecraft, it does make sense that a large enough force of ground units can take down a ship. Ground units are, I presume, measured at a stratigic level. They represent divisions, not squads. Divisions have headquarters and support brigades. An infantry division is mostly guys with rifles, but it also has a few companies of anti-air guns, a battalion of artillery, a regiment of grave-diggers, a couple of pontoon bridges, a commissary, meteorological team, and a bunch of other random crap under their command. Some of which can score a couple of pot-shots on a cruiser when it orbits over their position. Not something that would normally threaten a capital ship. But remember that a level 10 infantry is not a better equipped or better trained division. It is 100 divisions of the same quality. So 100x as many pot-shots. And I presume even transport divisions represent a lot of bureaucracy and support units as well, not just a fleet of thousands of identical trucks.
I don't know that a level one unit is supposed to represent a division sized unit. Maybe that's a level 5 unit. But my point is that the ground units don't represent tactical scale units, so you expect them to have at least one experimental surface to space missile on hand.
Regarding commandos, I think dread actually mentioned once that something that sets commandos apart from infantry, aside from damage aoutput, is that they can fight in space battles from hangers.
Regarding the point about making ships better against ground units without just bumping up their damage and nerfing ground units, do it by approaching their damage output as a ratio to each other instead of independent values. Then nerf both, but nerf ground unit little bit more. Capital Ships beat ground units that have no Ion Cannons or Bombers, but it takes forever. Both sides suffer attrition at a glacial pace. Because it's not a battle, it's a siege. If your not in a hurry, you lay siege for 300 turns and pound them to dust. If you think they'll be able to muster the cavalry before then, then you bombard for 100 turns to soften them up enough that your invasion army can finish the job. If 100 turns isn't long enough, or the reinforcements get their in 50, then better luck next time. You can't win them all.
If you like this take on ship vs ground, then I suggest buffing the damage commandos do to shields and Ion cannons specifically. A fleet might want to send in a daring raid with their ground forces just long enough to take down the anti-orbit defenses before breaking off the attack and retreating to the safety of orbit. (Then that same inavasion force can repair while the defenders get bombarded over the next 100 turns). |