Poll: Buff Spirecraft Health?

[Hearteater]

Personally, if a Siege Tower isn't at least putting out as much DPS as a Heavy Bomber, something is wrong.  Heavy Bombers are 150K DPS, so I might try Siege Towers at 200K DPS.

[keith.lamothe]

Personally, if a Siege Tower isn't at least putting out as much DPS as a Heavy Bomber, something is wrong.  Heavy Bombers are 150K DPS, so I might try Siege Towers at 200K DPS.

Heavy Bombers have a base (epic) cap-DPS of 150k, yes.  They have no bonuses, though.  On the other hand, Siege Towers only have (2x) bonuses vs Composite and Refractive, which is... odd.  I'd say the bonus could go up to 4x, and add structural (and maybe heavy and ultra-heavy, though I think a lot of folks feel those types are picked on ) to the bonus list.

Anyway, that would give the mkI Siege Tower a base dps of 20k and bonus dps of 80k (edit: sorry, it has a per-shot attack-power of 20k right now, but with 15-seconds-per-salvo and 20-shots-per-salvo it actually has roughly 26.7k dps).  Are you suggesting taking it up to base 200k (bonus 800k) or more like base 100k (bonus 400k)?

[chemical_art]

I'm now asking: how much base dps and bonus dps should an (individual) mkI siege tower have, compared to a cap of mkI starships?

I think they should be, at least, equal to the unit of the strongest unit (not cap) of a strongest starship.

The siege is the single most strongest brawler of spirecraft, so it should beat the strongest of the brawlers of starships. You can make unlimitted starships. For no extra cost. You cannot make unlimited spire craft, never mind the extra costs of non "easy" games.

So a single mk X siege should be able to beat any single X starship, sans  a starship that is meant to counter the spirecraft very specifically.

[chemical_art]

Heavy Bombers have a base (epic) cap-DPS of 150k, yes.  They have no bonuses, though.  On the other hand, Siege Towers only have (2x) bonuses vs Composite and Refractive, which is... odd.  I'd say the bonus could go up to 4x, and add structural (and maybe heavy and ultra-heavy, though I think a lot of folks feel those types are picked on ) to the bonus list.

In general, the hulls of composite and refractive aren't addressed by sieges. If you need refractives...hello lightning turrets. If composites are needed...hello frigates.

I don't unlock sieges because of their hull bonuses. I unlock them because they are brawlers. Is it so bad to just make them brawlers, with no hull bonuses but a high base dps?

[keith.lamothe]

I think they should be, at least, equal to the unit of the strongest unit (not cap) of a strongest starship.

Why comparing to a starship unit and not a starship cap?  In this case I think it's moot because the strongest unit starships are the 1-cap ones (iirc, at least it'd probably be wrong otherwise) but I'd think you'd want to balance vs a cap of the stuff where cap is more important than individual unit costs.

Anyway, when you say "at least equal", do you mean equal?  Or more like 2x as strong? or 1.5x? or 4x?

I don't unlock sieges because of their hull bonuses. I unlock them because they are brawlers. Is it so bad to just make them brawlers, with no hull bonuses but a high base dps?

Well, you don't unlock them at all, right?  In terms of K, I mean.

Making these just straight dps with no bonuses is fine, was mainly going off the name "siege tower" to infer that they should be good against fixed/heavy stuff as opposed to just all around mauling whatever.

[Radiant Phoenix]

I think they should be, at least, equal to the unit of the strongest unit (not cap) of a strongest starship.

The siege is the single most strongest brawler of spirecraft, so it should beat the strongest of the brawlers of starships. You can make unlimitted starships. For no extra cost. You cannot make unlimited spire craft, never mind the extra costs of non "easy" games.

So a single mk X siege should be able to beat any single X starship, sans  a starship that is meant to counter the spirecraft very specifically.

Problem: the strongest individual starship is probably one of the ones with cap of 1. Spirecraft Siege Tower 1s have a cap of 8, and can be replaced without a massive amount of effort.

I foresee this forming a vicious cycle. Instead, I think we should consider consolidating the caps of combat spirecraft and reducing the number of asteroids.

[keith.lamothe]

Problem: the strongest individual starship is probably one of the ones with cap of 1. Spirecraft Siege Tower 1s have a cap of 8, and can be replaced without a massive amount of effort.

Why does the cap of the siege tower matter in this case?  You don't spend K to unlock them, and building (or replacing) them costs asteroids.

With just about everything else my core assumption when balancing them is that you're paying K to get access to a refillable cap of them (for the already-unlocked mkI stuff it just follows the leads of the tiers you have to pay K for).  So I balance cap to cap.

With spirecraft you don't pay K and they're not infinitely refillable, so different approaches are needed.

[Cinth]

I've never considered the Spire Siege Tower a siege weapon.  I've always likened it to a fortress (because of its weapon).  It's pretty good at clearing out multiple weaker ships.

[keith.lamothe]

Hmm, ok, maybe it can be the "Spirecraft Flame Cannon" and the Ion Blaster can be morphed into the "Spirecraft Plasma Cannon"

[Radiant Phoenix]

Problem: the strongest individual starship is probably one of the ones with cap of 1. Spirecraft Siege Tower 1s have a cap of 8, and can be replaced without a massive amount of effort.

Why does the cap of the siege tower matter in this case?  You don't spend K to unlock them, and building (or replacing) them costs asteroids.

With just about everything else my core assumption when balancing them is that you're paying K to get access to a refillable cap of them (for the already-unlocked mkI stuff it just follows the leads of the tiers you have to pay K for).  So I balance cap to cap.

With spirecraft you don't pay K and they're not infinitely refillable, so different approaches are needed.

I suppose the reason I feel like I always have more asteroids is because I don't actually use the spirecraft because I don't like risking irreplaceable losses.

Actually, I think I'm flailing a bit.

[TechSY730]

About the spirecraft shield bearer having regen thing. I actually was a proponent of them getting a regen in the past. However, it was pointed out to me that the regen would basically make it almost like any other FF unit rather than a new tactical option if the regen was fast enough to be noticable, or encourage "Netflix" if the regen was set prohibitively slow.

Basically, you can't make it repairable or self-regen without ruining the whole idea of the unit or without just being an annoying time stall that doesn't add to fun.


Now, I actually think that the spirecraft shield bearers are in a good place right now ever since their latest asteroid "cost" reduction. I use them quite frequently.


And yea, I agree that the spirecraft seige tower is somewhat of a misnomer. The spirecraft flame wave tower or whatever sounds like a cool replacement name.

[LordSloth]

Since you seem a little uncertain what to rename the Spirecraft Siege Tower to, I decide to come up with a few ideas for you.

Space Napalm
Spirecraft Space Dragon?
Spirecraft Baconator (named after roger bacon and his rocket work, or the tasty meat product, you decide)
Spirecraft Inferno
Spirecraft Burninater
Spirecraft Trogdor
Spirecraft Prometheus
Spirecraft Salamander
Spirecraft Charizard

[chemical_art]

]Well, you don't unlock them at all, right?  In terms of K, I mean.

Making these just straight dps with no bonuses is fine, was mainly going off the name "siege tower" to infer that they should be good against fixed/heavy stuff as opposed to just all around mauling whatever.

Unless you are playing easy games, they still have "cost", via no repair or exo waves. Plus they are irreplacable. So they NEED to have great hp. All thje combat ones. Perhaps I need to emphasize it more. They NEED great HP, otherwise they are very, very micro intensive.

Micro heavy and irreplacable? That is DOA for me. Buffing HP would change both of those.

I mean, the siege starship is frailer then a raid starship (after armor)? Good grief!

As for the role, if you change its bonuses to structural and ultra heavy that would help too.

[chemical_art]

About the spirecraft shield bearer having regen thing. I actually was a proponent of them getting a regen in the past. However, it was pointed out to me that the regen would basically make it almost like any other FF unit rather than a new tactical option if the regen was fast enough to be noticable, or encourage "Netflix" if the regen was set prohibitively slow.

Basically, you can't make it repairable or self-regen without ruining the whole idea of the unit or without just being an annoying time stall that doesn't add to fun.

I guess its a matter of opinion. A feature that is annoying that at least lets me feel like I can (re)use the unit is better then me not using the unit at all. Because I consider it a one shot unit. A one shot unit that is irreplacable? That is matyr turf, and none can trump the matyr.

[Faulty Logic]

I think 1/2 hour regen would prevent both abuse and netflix. The other unit with this mechanic, the penetrator, doesn't seem to bother anyone.