Poll

Which would you prefer?

Make attrition pulse total damage equal to a percentage of the health of all the enemy units that have died on the planet since the last pulse.  Percentage goes up by mark level.  Death by attrition doesn't add to the next pulse.
12 (38.7%)
Add normal guns and an aoe on-death effect that varies by mark level.  Specifically mkI: tachyon burst, mkII: armor damage, mkIII: engine damage, mkIV: paralysis damage, mkV: (if balanceable) reclamation damage.
1 (3.2%)
No Change.
1 (3.2%)
Majorly buff attrition damage, make it self-damage too, majorly buff hp, make non-repairable on all spirecraft-minor-faction variants.
1 (3.2%)
Make attrition pulse only affect units that just came to the planet (by wormhole or newly spawning), but do a percentage of target health in damage (percentage increasing with mark level).
1 (3.2%)
Add Grav-turret-like-effect with a moderate range and mild (severe for high mark level attritioners) speed cap.
5 (16.1%)
Buff the damage, nothing else.
10 (32.3%)

Total Members Voted: 0

« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down

Author Topic: Poll: Potential Spirecraft Attritioner changes  (Read 5403 times)

Offline keith.lamothe

  • Arcen Games Staff
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,505
Poll: Potential Spirecraft Attritioner changes
« on: September 21, 2011, 12:09:07 pm »
Original discussion was here: http://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php/topic,9036.0.html

I'll let this run til Saturday sometime, since Saturday is when I tend to do a few AIW changes as a break from the AVWW firehose.
Logged
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 Trandrin

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
Re: Poll: Potential Spirecraft Attritioner changes
« Reply #1 on: September 21, 2011, 01:00:11 pm »
The damage=stuff killed sounds good if the pulses last longer. Would do terrible terrible damage to large waves with fleet on fleet action going on. Just what the doctor ordered. :)
Logged

Offline TechSY730

  • Core Member Mark V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,570
Re: Poll: Potential Spirecraft Attritioner changes
« Reply #2 on: September 21, 2011, 01:05:38 pm »
Oh dear, with this many options, I fear we may get a tie or near tie (statistically insignificant differences between each option) situation, and be right back where we started when the original thread was made.
Logged

Offline keith.lamothe

  • Arcen Games Staff
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,505
Re: Poll: Potential Spirecraft Attritioner changes
« Reply #3 on: September 21, 2011, 01:08:24 pm »
Quote from: techsy730 on September 21, 2011, 01:05:38 pm
Oh dear, with this many options, I fear we may get a tie or near tie (statistically insignificant differences between each option) situation, and be right back where we started when the original thread was made.
And you were the one who asked for the last one to be added! Bwahahaha! ;)

A tie would still provide useful info, though.
Logged
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 zoutzakje

  • Hero Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,052
  • Crosshatch Conqueror
Re: Poll: Potential Spirecraft Attritioner changes
« Reply #4 on: September 21, 2011, 03:08:20 pm »
I voted for the 4th option. I actually like the 1st one better, but I believe that should be a completely new unit, instead of changing the current attritioner.
Logged

Offline zebramatt

  • Master Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,574
Re: Poll: Potential Spirecraft Attritioner changes
« Reply #5 on: September 21, 2011, 03:40:46 pm »
I've gone for the grav effect for now but I might change my vote to the self-attrition mechanic if that picks up much interest!
Logged

Offline Huaojozu

  • Newbie Mark III
  • *
  • Posts: 38
Re: Poll: Potential Spirecraft Attritioner changes
« Reply #6 on: September 21, 2011, 06:27:23 pm »
You can take the top two options, if they end up with very similar number of votes, and make another poll with only those two options. Though I would agree that #1 should become a new Spirecraft (since Spirecraft in general could use more interesting options) and old Attritioners should get a gravity well effect.
Logged

Offline Entrenched Homperson

  • Full Member Mark II
  • ***
  • Posts: 183
  • @#%$&*$#@*-&$@##
Re: Poll: Potential Spirecraft Attritioner changes
« Reply #7 on: September 22, 2011, 01:40:50 am »
Just damage! I use these in SP like crazy! I don't want them to become to specific in use!
Logged
Options are deadly.... :O :O :O

Offline Nice Save

  • Jr. Member Mark II
  • **
  • Posts: 76
Re: Poll: Potential Spirecraft Attritioner changes
« Reply #8 on: September 22, 2011, 06:35:34 pm »
I want to see what happens when you kill an avenger or hunter-killer with option 1.

I went with option 1, but I think the idea to make that a separate ship and just buff the damage has merit too.

Also, have you thought about making a spirecraft that's just a straight combat ship with no obscure abilities? Kind of like a spire starship on steroids, then add an order of magnitude. Or does that break with the spirit of the spirecraft? I suppose the siege tower kind of fits.
Logged

Offline Toll

  • Sr. Member Mark III
  • ****
  • Posts: 452
Re: Poll: Potential Spirecraft Attritioner changes
« Reply #9 on: September 22, 2011, 06:52:11 pm »
Personally, I kindof like the attritioners the way they are. Put a capful of all marks on a planet, and ships start going down pretty quickly.

Having them take a percentage of health to all ships would majorly conflict with the implosion spirecraft. It'd also absolutely wreak havoc on the larger ships. If they need changing, I'd say just buff their damage a bit.
Logged

Offline Entrenched Homperson

  • Full Member Mark II
  • ***
  • Posts: 183
  • @#%$&*$#@*-&$@##
Re: Poll: Potential Spirecraft Attritioner changes
« Reply #10 on: September 22, 2011, 10:09:55 pm »
I honestly was too lazy to put that into words. But I like the grav option. It makes themf more
intresting. Adds some flavor. I'd love to see the first option a new ship.
Logged
Options are deadly.... :O :O :O

Offline Nethris

  • Newbie Mark II
  • *
  • Posts: 22
Re: Poll: Potential Spirecraft Attritioner changes
« Reply #11 on: September 23, 2011, 01:09:28 am »
Quote from: Toll on September 22, 2011, 06:52:11 pm
Personally, I kindof like the attritioners the way they are. Put a capful of all marks on a planet, and ships start going down pretty quickly.

Having them take a percentage of health to all ships would majorly conflict with the implosion spirecraft. It'd also absolutely wreak havoc on the larger ships. If they need changing, I'd say just buff their damage a bit.

The only percentage option I'm seeing (the first one) isn't percentage of target health, it's percentage of health of enemies that died to something other than attrition.  So it wouldn't conflict with the implosion spirecraft, in fact having a pile of implosion spirecraft helping your fleet focus fire the highest health target present would work with that version of attritioners pretty well.  Not sure how well picking up a cap of as many of the attritioner marks as possible could be balanced with that idea though, seems like if the individual ones are doing anything that isn't completely non-trivial you might be able to get up to 10% or so, at least 5% - setting your options to focus fire for all ships and only having to kill 10-20 of a shiptype to kill an entire wave of them may be a bit much.  Certainly will scale a bit strangely with epic ship caps, though attrition probably does so now.  I'd at least like to see it in action - I'm really hoping they at least keep some base damage if that idea isn't turned into a new ship though, freeing an entire planet worth of ships just by entering is a useful thing to have.

Grav or more damage is probably more likely to end up balanced though.
Logged

Offline Huaojozu

  • Newbie Mark III
  • *
  • Posts: 38
Re: Poll: Potential Spirecraft Attritioner changes
« Reply #12 on: September 23, 2011, 07:40:43 am »
Why not do all these things at once?

Make #1 a new type of Spirecraft - it would help variety and give people something else to build with the most common asteroids.
Combine the last two options into the new Attritioner by buffing damage all around and only adding Grav Effect to higher marks (say III+ or even IV+).
Logged

Offline Trandrin

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
Re: Poll: Potential Spirecraft Attritioner changes
« Reply #13 on: September 23, 2011, 12:49:37 pm »
If the attritioner had the first options of stats I would consider them part of my standard attack fleets instead of defense only. but I must admit would be nice to have one or two more reptite spire craft to build now that the martyr is no longer there, if they decide to make a new ship. I don't really spend most of my reptite in my current games, unless I really need a ram or I somehow lost a siege tower. Probably make the strong pulse wave attritioner/ship cap out on stuff it can hit across a planet like the lightning ships. So you don't get situations were one attrioner blasts an entire attack wave out of existence once you kill say a attacking golem.
Logged

Offline rchaneberg

  • Newbie Mark III
  • *
  • Posts: 35
Re: Poll: Potential Spirecraft Attritioner changes
« Reply #14 on: September 23, 2011, 11:55:45 pm »
Are there currently any units immune to attrition?

I really like the idea of being able to clear systems just by killing the largest units (golems, spirecraft, etc.) if you have spent the time and resources it takes to build a full or nearly full cap of attritioners.  Of course I tend to play on 80-120 planet snake maps with all three exo-generating options on, and i think these would make the chokepoints I build literally impossible for the AI to defeat, instead of only nearly impossible (darn EMP guardians).

I do think that the change to proportional attrition would make them more useful in an offensive role, but it may make them seriously (seriously) overpowered in chokepoints and maybe when using them defensively period.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up
« previous next »