Nebula battles balancing

[Cinth]

I have found the first nebula very tedious recently, I don't like he mechanic where they get stronger as they lose bases, it doesn't seem to make sense but I can deal with it. It just feels they require WAY too much attention to win in any reasonable time. Although it was a lot easier when I enabled two champions but that's something I wouldn't want to do every time.

The first nebula scenario can be any one of four or five different scenarios, so you need to be a bit more specific here.
The reason they get stronger as you destroy more bases is so that you can't pop one or two and it becomes an immediate steamroll (how fun would that be?).   As for the amount of attention required on the players part, well, you shouldn't want to be able to sleep through the event.  Some are strictly timed (Dyson scenario is about 8 - 10 minutes) but most should run about 40 minutes of game time.

[Aquohn]

Hmm...I think what we all really want to know is, what are the rewards thresholds for nebula scenarios?

[chemical_art]

Hmm...I think what we all really want to know is, what are the rewards thresholds for nebula scenarios?

From my comparision, there is no thresholds.

More specificly, the better you do, the more you can, and the less well you do, it goes expodentially less till you hit the floor.

For me, the result is that until neb 9, my champ progress is not based on my needs, but on nebula needs. Which is why, in part, I feel nebula are a drag until I finally get my BB.

[Cinth]

There is an upper and a lower limit, but Keith didn't disclose those during beta (AFAIK).

[TechSY730]

I have found the first nebula very tedious recently, I don't like he mechanic where they get stronger as they lose bases, it doesn't seem to make sense but I can deal with it.

The reason they get stronger as you destroy more bases is so that you can't pop one or two and it becomes an immediate steamroll (how fun would that be?).   As for the amount of attention required on the players part, well, you shouldn't want to be able to sleep through the event.  Some are strictly timed (Dyson scenario is about 8 - 10 minutes) but most should run about 40 minutes of game time.

Yes, this is the intention. But often (NOT always, or even mostly, as there are many factors influencing difficulty and the enemy base strength and strength growth per base per base lost) it over compensates, instead of just keeping it from being a steam roll, makes it a grind. Like I can understand if the difficulty/risk is supposed to go down slowly with each enemy small base lost, as opposed to quickly like it would without that sort of thing. But keeping it the same difficulty all the way down makes it feel "grindy", and making it more difficult with each enemy small base lost feels grindy, unfair, and unreasonable.

Again, this "inversion" does not always happen, but it gets uncomfortably close often times, especially if it is the first time you have played a scenario.l

[Vyndicu]

Armor Polarizer or Doom Accelerator is the best anti-starbase small module, Missiles are the best large module (Plasma Siege only for Spire: Mk I Missiles do 150,000 DPS against Starbases, Plasma Siege only 100,000).

The problem with using Armor Polarizer or Doom Accelerator is that they are random rewards and you can't expect to get them on the first nebula attempt nor second etc... It would be nice to have a non-nebula way of getting additional modules something like a "cache" that a champion player can go and pop it or whatever to get another module.

[LordSloth]

Ultimately the Faction VS Faction missions reminds me of Mario Kart and rubber-band AIs, or Homeworld 2. Not a good thing, and not entirely intuitive. From a personal perspective, I'd love to see it go entirely - I don't play sp with champions any more as I just don't find those missions fun. From a design perspective, I see the necessity of some method of preventing the domino effect.

While it is outside the scope of easy and practical to implement, I think the compensating increase in production would best be replaced by (one-time, repeatedly?) spawning a mini-boss, a not-quite nemesis. Same theoretical spike of difficulty, but a feeling that you're not in the same place you were before, and nowhere near the same chance of being overwhelmed by spiteful RNG spawning the right thing for your guys and the wrong thing for the enemy.

Aside from ally AI, one of the things I find contributes to the sense of futility (but isn't responsible for it) if I've gone in with the wrong strategy and tactics is the fact my Champion is slower than everything else in the nebula. I often cannot make it quite in time to shield the few ships that make it to the base, or draw fire with my shields, or cover the starbase. I can wait for them to arrive somewhere, but I just can never catch up. I wouldn't even object to nerfing just allied nebula starship speed so I could keep up. It's an escort mission where you can't even keep pace with the unit(s) you're trying to protect. And you're not really capable of interception either.

I'm afraid I'm not really capable of considering everything that goes into balancing these scenarios, and I can see some of the things I can do to beat them a bit smoother- but I'm just not motivated to do some of these scenarios when even getting that first level or two outside of the first nebula doesn't smooth things particularly. If I can have a painful time even when I optimize my modules before hand, learning how to solve these scenarios in suboptimal conditions falls in the realm of netflix, but I have to pay attention.

[Radiant Phoenix]

Yeah, I definitely think that the champion should be able to be faster and have longer range than the normal ships in the nebula if the player so chooses.

[Vyndicu]

Yeah, I definitely think that the champion should be able to be faster and have longer range than the normal ships in the nebula if the player so chooses.

Just to be clear you want an optional speed boost + optional range boost? *Sound confused* I can see you getting decent range from missile module but speed boosting module? What do you mean by that?

[TechSY730]

The issue of the "tyranny of the RNG" with the modules has been discussed. It works well for a macro game (the main game), but not for the micro intensive champion play; some way to fallback and get some extra modules without the "catch-22" of needing good modules to beat the thing that gives you modules. The destroyable cache in AI space seems like a cool idea.

The issue of speed in the nebula sort of bugs me too. I get why the champion in slower in modules, but I feel that the champion should be able to match average speeds of the average ally, not be slower than it. The range also feels a bit short. Since the base speed and range of the champion is pretty decent, maybe the nebula units are OP with that, since they get the same "in nebula" penalties? Maybe bring the nebula units more "into line" (there seems to be reports of the nebula units being OP anyways), and then reducing the range and speed penalties that being in a nebula inflicts.

And finally, for the "anti-steamroll which often in practice turns out to be a rubber band AI" mechanicsm, a one-time burst of...something (mini boss, a large spawn of units, whatever) when an enemy small base goes down seems much less annoying and easier to balance (read, less likely to make "weakening" the enemy making things harder in what are proving to be quite common edge cases) than the current system. I'd vote for that.
Of course, it would have to be both ways; the allies would also get only a single burst of...whatever just like the enemies do when a allied small base goes down. Gotta keep it "fair" after all.

[Aquohn]

And finally, for the "anti-steamroll which often in practice turns out to be a rubber band AI" mechanicsm, a one-time burst of...something (mini boss, a large spawn of units, whatever) when an enemy small base goes down seems much less annoying and easier to balance (read, less likely to make "weakening" the enemy making things harder in what are proving to be quite common edge cases) than the current system. I'd vote for that.
Of course, it would have to be both ways; the allies would also get only a single burst of...whatever just like the enemies do when a allied small base goes down. Gotta keep it "fair" after all.

I absolutely agree. This sort of thing should be able to keep the nebula difficulty up without it feeling extremely stupid (which it does now; no offense to Keith).

From my comparision, there is no thresholds.

More specificly, the better you do, the more you can, and the less well you do, it goes expodentially less till you hit the floor.

What I meant was, it shouldn't be too much to ask from the devs for the criteria you have to fulfil to get two or three modules from a nebula.

[Cinth]

What I meant was, it shouldn't be too much to ask from the devs for the criteria you have to fulfil to get two or three modules from a nebula.

Last time I checked, you do get two rewards out of the nebula.

[Aquohn]

If your performance is terrible (i.e. taking 1 hour due to the blasted "adaptive difficulty"), then you gey only 1.

And I really want to know the exact formula by which the bonus exp is awarded.

[Cinth]

Might I ask how many levels you usually gain on completion?

[Aquohn]

1-4, if I'm not wrong. But I do recall the Dyson level consistently boosting me up about ten levels (e.g. from about 5 to 16).