Author Topic: A two part question:  (Read 2141 times)

Offline Cyborg

  • Master Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,957
Re: A two part question:
« Reply #15 on: May 17, 2013, 05:46:12 pm »
I have grave concerns about this.
Kahuna strategy guide:
http://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php/topic,13369.0.html

Suggestions, bugs? Don't be lazy, give back:
http://www.arcengames.com/mantisbt/

Planetcracker. Believe it.

The stigma of hunger. http://wayw.re/Vi12BK

Offline TechSY730

  • Core Member Mark V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,570
Re: A two part question:
« Reply #16 on: May 17, 2013, 06:03:43 pm »
Considering the amount of work this is going to take, I think it is better that the values be lowered by 100, even if superweapons also need to be reduced by a smaller amount.

Keep in mind this whole thing was brought about because we are running out of ceiling for numbers. The advantage of reducing values by 100 over 20 or 25 is it gives 4 to 5 times the wiggle room for relative power.

Since the amount of work of going to 100 compared to 20 or 25, in the big picture, is about the same, better to do that value even if golems need their power reduced as well.

I mean reduce the superweapons by only 20x or 25x. The rest of the non-superweapons would still be reduced by 100x.

Reducing both by 100x would just leave things in almost the same relative place they are now, with superweapons only being "pretty good" instead of, you know, super.

Offline chemical_art

  • Core Member Mark IV
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,952
  • Fabulous
Re: A two part question:
« Reply #17 on: May 17, 2013, 07:27:42 pm »

I mean reduce the superweapons by only 20x or 25x. The rest of the non-superweapons would still be reduced by 100x.

Reducing both by 100x would just leave things in almost the same relative place they are now, with superweapons only being "pretty good" instead of, you know, super.

I understand now TechSY730, and I agree.


It is very key these values be reduced 100 fold for the weakest things, so there is room for relative power. Superweapons being reduced as well isn't bad. If nothing else, it lets for more super-super weapons  :)
Life is short. Have fun.

Offline nitpik

  • Newbie Mark III
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: A two part question:
« Reply #18 on: May 18, 2013, 12:01:45 pm »
The (mined from rocks) spire ships definitely feel too weak to me

The golems not so much. The buffs to guard posts and guardians have made the artillery golem even more useful (if that were possible??) because other things do it's job worse now. And they still 1-shot most starships, which is now more important because starships got buffed, etc....

A full Hive can still clear a system, Botnet still does it's thing (although might now count as less useful because the major threats now come from starships not fleetships??). Armored still seems tough, and  I haven't noticed a relative change (though I'm sure there is one).

I did notice since the last patch that the new Implosion artillery guardians will drop golem's health very, very fast. And an AI with them unlocked can have 5-7 in range when you warp into a system, all out of range of most of your fleet. Don't know if that's a balance problem or not though.

Offline chemical_art

  • Core Member Mark IV
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,952
  • Fabulous
Re: A two part question:
« Reply #19 on: May 18, 2013, 12:06:31 pm »
AI logic still focuses on golems.When 7 impolsion guardians attack your golem...its not very useful at all.
Life is short. Have fun.

Offline keith.lamothe

  • Arcen Games Staff
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,505
Re: A two part question:
« Reply #20 on: May 18, 2013, 12:08:28 pm »
AI logic still focuses on golems.When 7 impolsion guardians attack your golem...its not very useful at all.
Yea, aside from covering it with riot, shield bearer, or champ ffs, that's gonna shred anything up pretty good.

But if you can get the ffs to cover it, they're probably taking a lot less damage than the golem would.
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games? Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline Radiant Phoenix

  • Sr. Member Mark II
  • ****
  • Posts: 362
Re: A two part question:
« Reply #21 on: May 18, 2013, 02:40:13 pm »
The (mined from rocks) spire ships definitely feel too weak to me
Well, with my revision... (diminish non-superweapons by a factor of 10 relative to superweapons)
  • the Spirecraft Implosion Artillery could still do with having its damage improved to at least Implosion Guardian levels, possibly twice that.
  • the Siege tower is now pretty impressive (kills 20 triangle ships of up to mk*2 every 15 seconds)
  • Likewise for the Ion Blaster (even without insta-kill), except it's killing 4 triangle ships of up to mk*3 every 4 seconds instead
  • The penetrator would now be doing even more massive damage (why hello there AI fortress Mk3. I'm a mk2 Penetrator. Goodbye.)
  • A cap of mk1 attritioners now kills a cap of mk1 fighters in 11 seconds.
  • The martyr is now something that you basically only ever need to send one of (Mk1 kills just about any fleetship of any mark that's vulnerable to tractor beams)
  • The shield bearer is now almost as tough as a cap of mk1 force fields
  • The ram already does 'You die" damage to most non-superweapons, so that doesn't change much
Which leaves the scout and the jumpship, which are probably okay given that the jumpship is, "go anywhere" and the scout seems pretty good too