Nominations for target of the Nerfbat of Damocles (III)

[keith.lamothe]

Just getting back to this side after the last buff poll.

Explanation from first nerf-poll included for background:

I've hesitated on this one because the psychological impact of "my favorite unit just got worse!" is way different than anything else getting better.  But I think there are some outliers in terms of units being so useful to the player that they actually reduce the effective field of choice ("why use A, B, C, D, or E when X is always better?", etc).  On the other hand, I don't want to just wade in with the nerf bat, so player feedback is really helpful here.

So, the details:

1) There will be two polls: one for AI units, and one for Player units, so please specify if the nomination is for AI, Player, or both.

2) Both polls will have a "None of these need a nerf!" option and basically if any item on the poll has the same (or fewer) number of votes than the "None" option, then that particular item is not going to get nerfed as a result of the poll unless I'm really persuaded personally that it needs to happen.  This doesn't mean that everything above the "none line" gets a nerf, however, that has more to do with how many such things there are, how much time it takes me, etc.

3) I'll also probably solicit more direct feedback on precisely how to nerf the "winners" than I normally do with the what-needs-a-buff poll, to make it less likely that it's going to induce excessive rage   Though I imagine if it's a winner from the AI-side poll folks will be cheering instead

Anyway: what most needs a nerf?  Anything human-usable or AI-usable is fair-game this time around, though each poll will probably only have 2-3 votes per person.


For reference, previous winners (in the sense that they got nerfs/changes as a result) :
I (Player-Side) - Botnet Golem
I (AI-Side) - AI Eye, Spire Stealth Battleship, Spire Shield Guard Post
II (Player-Side) - Tackle Drone Launcher
II (AI-Side) - Autobomb Colony Ship (nebula scenario unit)
II (AI-Side) - Zenith bombard

=== Important Note ===

To make it less likely I'll miss your nomination while reading a bunch of posts, please put each nomination on its own line with the string "*Nomination:" in front of it (no double-quotes), so for example, if you were being silly, you might:

*Nomination: Tachyon Drone, Player-side

(not that it's ever used by the AI, but clarifying which side you mean helps me work faster when I put the polls together)

And feel perfectly free to include as much discussion/explanation of these as you like, just separate from those lines so I don't miss them.

Sorry if it feels like a silly format; it kind of is   But it saves me a lot of time when pulling the polls themselves together.

[Hearteater]

*Nomination: Harvesters, player side

Does anyone playing a serious game (something that actually challenges them) not take these?  I really feel they outclass Economy Command Stations straight off the bat, and have better scaling.  Maybe it is just a psychological thing, but they just seem too good to pass up.  I'd say buff Economy Command Stations, but honestly I think Harvester scaling (since you have unlimited) just out passes Harvesters too much.

[TechSY730]

*Nomination: Gravity units/structures (all of them), player side
*Nomination: Gravity units/structures (all of them), AI side

As I said in the past, it is more about their current slowing values than the mechanic itself, though a mechanic shift may help prevent this problem during feature balance shifts.

*Nomination: Zombie guardian, AI side

Too much DPS, even with its targeting restrictions.
My idea would be to make zombie reclamation obey the parasite damage "bonus" rules, and then tone down their DPS closer to that of normal reclaimer damage balance target adjustment.

*Nomination: Mini forts, player side
Too little knowledge cost for the benefits they give.


EDIT: @Hearteater Thanks for noticing that.

[Hearteater]

*Nomination: Zombie guardian, AI side
Just in case Tech doesn't notice the missing asterisk.

[TechSY730]

*Nomination: Ravenous Shadow, minor faction side (Nebula scenario)

Ridiculous DPS, which wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't faster than the champion units. http://www.arcengames.com/mantisbt/view.php?id=10155

*Nomination: Camouflage (the mechanic), AI side

This one would require a mechanics change for both the human and AI sides, but I listed the AI side as they abuse it the worst.
Basically, if the owner decides to never move or fire the unit, there is no direct counter. Especially bad when the unit that is camouflaged is also immune to AOE effects and/or nukes and/or EMP.

No idea how to fix though.

The Z Camouflager would need a buff in other stats accordingly though.

*Nomination: Paralysis (the mechanic), human side
*Nomination: Paralysis (the mechanic), AI side

Like EMP, Paralysis shuts down the ship, and is a "boolean" state (you are either fully paralyzed, are not at all). Unlike EMP though, there are several units that can inflict it.
Because paraylsis can shut down a ship, this makes normal combat almost irrelevant, and instead boils down to whoever gets to shoot first. Even Mk. I Z paralyzers can shut down a similarly sized detachment of Mk. V fleet ships, if you can get in range fast enough. That just isn't right.

I would propose either making paralysis a "scaled" effect (you can be partially paralyzed, and only if it builds up enough do you get fully paralyzed), or making paralysis disable movement but not weapons.
The Z paralyzer would need to be buffed accordingly though in its other stats.

*Nomination: Energy collectors, player side

See the energy discussion thread. One of the best proposals I have seen was to reduce energy collector output, but increase home command station and economic station energy outputs. This would prevent early game energy from getting nerfed too much, while not making energy a complete non issue by mid-game.

[Faulty Logic]

*Nomination: Harvesters, player side
Does anyone playing a serious game (something that actually challenges them) not take these?

Yes. Though it's either these or no econ upgrade, I never unlock econ II/IIIs.

*Nomination: Gravity units/structures (all of them), player side

Agreed, except the home forcefield.

*Nomination: Gravity units/structures (all of them), AI side

No, I like the potential nightmares these generate.

*Nomination: Mini forts, player side

No. At nine thousand energy, mediocre dps and only two million health, they don't protect against a single enemy enclave, preservation warden, 8 marauders, or any threatfleet over 40 or so (and far less with guardians).

*Nomination: Warp gate guardians, AI side.
These are supposed to be tough to kill. They aren't supposed to be able to trash system after system more effectively than any other guardian. Remove their guns.

*Nomination: Riot starships, player side.
Much as I love these, reduce their engine damage, tractor slots, by a factor of 2/3s (grav modules slow to 12 or 16 instead of 8), then add mkIV with ACS (no mkVs should exist). You get either 2/3s the current benefit, or 10/9s if you can preserve the ACS.

This isn't more of a nerf because though they are extremely handy, they cost 9000 k, and need shield bearer/champion support to not die really quickly.

*Nomination: Core Spire Shield post, AI side.
Almost as nasty as a brutal post. In some cases, causes even more pain. Tone it down from 200 million to ~75 million.

*Nomination: Inter-planetary munitions booster, AI side.
Makes an area of space terrible, and costs 20 AIP to remove. Tone down AIP, or remove it and make the structure really tough.

*Nomination: Alien modular forts, player side.
They are too good to be free. Reduce their health, dps, and economic costs by half.

[Hearteater]

I can already tell you, I'm not going to have enough votes for this one.

[Histidine]

*Nomination: Mini forts, player side
Too little knowledge cost for the benefits they give.

It goes completely against the idea of the poll, but it also addresses the issue as described, so... how about making them unlocked at start? ^__^

*Nomination: Wrath Lance, AI side
This thing still maims even the almighty Spire fleet. The reduced rotation rate helps in some situations (e.g. close-in Champion), but it's not much help when you're 25000 units away and moving at 56 speed. (Plus, I have this feeling it increases the damage a unit takes due to the beams remaining longer on target; is this the case?) I'd like to see a damage reduction for it.

*Nomination: Raid Engine/Core Raid Engine, AI side
I think no comment is necessary.

[keith.lamothe]

*Nomination: Wrath Lance, AI side
This thing still maims even the almighty Spire fleet.

It's the biggest gun in the galaxy, defending the final boss.  Of course it maims everything

But if it wins the poll, we'll see what we can do.

[Dichotomy]

Nomination: Faulty Logic, player-side. No * because joke
I don't know how, maybe you could install a "if profile_name ()" conditional somewhere in the code?

[Wingflier]

I don't think Harvesters need to be NERFED, as much as reworked, and Econ Stations reworked along with them.

The problem with Harvesters is that you can't sustain a game above difficulty 8 with on MKI Harvesters, which basically means a forced unlock.  Considering that there's no other unit or building in AI War (that I can think of), which the player is FORCED to unlock, something is terribly wrong with this picture.  Even on difficulty 7 and below, I get the feeling that trying to win the game with just MKI Harvesters would be quite miserable and boring, in which much of the time playing would be spent on Facebook.

With the current cost of units, MKII Harvesters are more or less the baseline for how many minerals you NEED in order to keep up army production within any kind of realistic timeframe.  MKI Harvesters just don't give nearly enough.  Econ Stations also do not give enough of a benefit to warrant replacing the much safer and more practical Military/Logistical Orbitals.

How to solve this problem?  I've mentioned it before:

Buff MKI Harvesters to current MKII production rates:  20->30 base.
Nerf MKII and MKIII Harvesters:  MK2 30->40.  MK3 40->55.

Overall, Harvesters have improved, but Harvester upgrades have been nerfed.

Econ Stations need to give a LOT of resources to make up for the massively lost utility or battle capacity that their two superior brothers give.  Right now, MKI Econ Stations only give EIGHT more resources per second than Military or Logistical Orbitals...WHAT?!  (24 vs. 32)

No, no no.  Let's make it 48, double the other two.  We could probably buff the higher levels of the Econ Stations as well.

But the most important thing Econ Stations need, as has been discussed many times before, to clearly define their role, is extra RESOURCE CAPACITY.

Rework the Harvester costs, buff the Econ Station income rates, and give the resource capacity utility, and *boom* problem fixed.

[Dichotomy]

The problem with Harvesters is that you can't sustain a game above difficulty 8 with on MKI Harvesters

Sure you can. I've won a 9/9 with no econ upgrades (or nebula income).

MKI Econ Stations only give EIGHT more resources per second than Military or Logistical Orbitals...WHAT?!  (24 vs. 32)

No, no no.  Let's make it 48, double the other two.  We could probably buff the higher levels of the Econ Stations as well.

Agreed.

extra RESOURCE CAPACITY.

No. No. Absolutely not. I vehemently oppose upping the resource caps, they're an excellent motivation to keep doing things.

[Wingflier]

Sure you can. I've won a 9/9 with no econ upgrades (or nebula income).

And how much of it did you sit around twiddling your thumbs, waiting for things to build?  I don't think that's a design goal.

I vehemently oppose upping the resource caps, they're an excellent motivation to keep doing things.

Seems kind of contradictory, doesn't it?

[Dichotomy]

And how much of it did you sit around twiddling your thumbs, waiting for things to build?

Virtually none. I raided lots of distribution nodes, accepting the tiny AIP penalties in return for saving 9000 k.

Seems kind of contradictory, doesn't it?

How so?

[Wingflier]

And how much of it did you sit around twiddling your thumbs, waiting for things to build?

Virtually none. I raided lots of distribution nodes, accepting the tiny AIP penalties in return for saving 9000 k.

Seems kind of contradictory, doesn't it?

How so?

Couple things wrong with your plan.

You're basically saying that if you want to win a high difficulty game with MKI Harvesters, you have to go around popping Dist. Nodes.

1. This is assuming you have Dist Nodes around you, which it happens all the time that I don't.

2. You're forcing yourself down a "Raiding Build", in which I'm assuming you would have to take upgraded Raid Starships, or start with some kind of Raiding Ship like a Space Plane in order to realistically accomplish this.

3. The player may not own Zenith Remnant (nor should he be required to in order to not sit on Facebook)

4. Your economy is now based heavily on luck (I have lost the distribution node gamble several times in a row before)

5. Do you play against Advanced Hybrids, Hard Golems, using Champions, and with 2 Hard AI Types?  Because I get the feeling this wouldn't be possible, even in the best case scenario, with the options that I use.