Poll: Potential Spirecraft Attritioner changes

[keith.lamothe]

Well, looks like we have a winner(s)   12 to 10 isn't an overwhelming victory so I'll take both into account.

[Entrenched Homperson]

If the first change happens the Attritioner should be renamed. There not consistent with other Attritioner ships, like the AI one.

[keith.lamothe]

If the first change happens the Attritioner should be renamed. There not consistent with other Attritioner ships, like the AI one.

Then let me ask you this: should the Spirecraft Ion Blaster be renamed because its Ion weapons now work differently than the AI ones?  There's already a variety of technologies in the game where the human, zenith, and spire variants vary in some respects (compare human heavy beam cannons vs zenith "heat" beams vs imperial-spire continuous-fire beams, for example).

If the Spirecraft Attritioners normal attrition damage were to be entirely removed I would agree with you, but given the poll results I think it's appropriate to at least try an approach where it keeps the current attrition damage and gets this extra effect on top of that; that way it's useful in both short fights and long fights.  Balancing the numbers will probably take a few iterations but I don't see why it wouldn't work.

[Huaojozu]

How about the "make new ship for Reptite out of #1" and just raise regular Attritioner's damage?

[TechSY730]

Then let me ask you this: should the Spirecraft Ion Blaster be renamed because its Ion weapons now work differently than the AI ones?

Wait what? How is the Ion blaster different than the Ion cannons? (other than being mobile of course)

[keith.lamothe]

Then let me ask you this: should the Spirecraft Ion Blaster be renamed because its Ion weapons now work differently than the AI ones?

Wait what? How is the Ion blaster different than the Ion cannons? (other than being mobile of course)

And limited range.  And in 5.018 (change has been in there for about a week, just haven't done the release since busy with AVWW alpha) it's getting the ability to be at least mildly effective against stuff it doesn't insta-kill (an idea we'd batted around here not too long ago).

Edit: actually, mildly effective against stuff that it doesn't insta-kill so long as that thing isn't actually immune to ion weapons in general; i.e. it's still helpless against starships and such.

[TechSY730]

Then let me ask you this: should the Spirecraft Ion Blaster be renamed because its Ion weapons now work differently than the AI ones?

Wait what? How is the Ion blaster different than the Ion cannons? (other than being mobile of course)

And limited range.  And in 5.018 (change has been in there for about a week, just haven't done the release since busy with AVWW alpha) it's getting the ability to be at least mildly effective against stuff it doesn't insta-kill (an idea we'd batted around here not too long ago).

Edit: actually, mildly effective against stuff that it doesn't insta-kill so long as that thing isn't actually immune to ion weapons in general; i.e. it's still helpless against starships and such.

Hmm, just read the patch notes. Looks cool. I know this is off topic, but this doesn't seem big enough to merit a new thread.

Just to make it seem like the Zenith don't fail miserably at making ion weaponry, how about letting the zenith ion cannons inflict engine damage, and remove the engine damage from the ion blasters? This way, they each have their own seperate niche in addition to insta killing, and not make the cannons look 100% obsoleted by the blasters.

[keith.lamothe]

Just to make it seem like the Zenith don't fail miserably at making ion weaponry, how about letting the zenith ion cannons inflict engine damage, and remove the engine damage from the ion blasters? This way, they each have their own seperate niche in addition to insta killing, and not make the cannons look 100% obsoleted by the blasters.

I don't mind taking the engine damage off those at some point, but it's entirely normal for the "superweapon" minor faction ships to eclipse some of the ships in the core game.  In this case I don't think the engine damage is a huge part of the cannon's usefulness but I could be wrong there.

[TechSY730]

Just to make it seem like the Zenith don't fail miserably at making ion weaponry, how about letting the zenith ion cannons inflict engine damage, and remove the engine damage from the ion blasters? This way, they each have their own seperate niche in addition to insta killing, and not make the cannons look 100% obsoleted by the blasters.

I don't mind taking the engine damage off those at some point, but it's entirely normal for the "superweapon" minor faction ships to eclipse some of the ships in the core game.  In this case I don't think the engine damage is a huge part of the cannon's usefulness but I could be wrong there.

Actually, upon rereading the release notes, the ion blasters have a significantly shorter range than the cannons. This seems like a fine distinction, the Zenith went for range, the Spire went for power. I guess ignore my engine damage suggestion.

[Entrenched Homperson]

If the first change happens the Attritioner should be renamed. There not consistent with other Attritioner ships, like the AI one.

Then let me ask you this: should the Spirecraft Ion Blaster be renamed because its Ion weapons now work differently than the AI ones?  There's already a variety of technologies in the game where the human, zenith, and spire variants vary in some respects (compare human heavy beam cannons vs zenith "heat" beams vs imperial-spire continuous-fire beams, for example).

If the Spirecraft Attritioners normal attrition damage were to be entirely removed I would agree with you, but given the poll results I think it's appropriate to at least try an approach where it keeps the current attrition damage and gets this extra effect on top of that; that way it's useful in both short fights and long fights.  Balancing the numbers will probably take a few iterations but I don't see why it wouldn't work.

To a point, but I think the change in this case is a little more significant. It's changing from a Damaging role to a Support role. The effects aren't differently balanced, there just different.  In the case of the Ion weapons, their job is the same: instant kill offense. However if one of them was changed to have a 1 second reload time and could target ships with 10% health, the role would change to instant kill support. The effects are similar but unrelated, and having them share names with ships whose behavior is so different could be potentially confusing, even if only as a give it a second look after you build you're first one kind of thing.

[TechSY730]

OK, now that I see the changes to the Attritioners, may I revisit the whole "make sure Zenith don't look like they fail at making special stuff" thing again?

What advantage should the stationary Zenith attritioners have over the Spire ones? For the ion cannons, the stationary ones have something important that the mobile ones don't, range. No such differentiating factor exists for the stationary ones.
Right now, they are less durable than a Mk. I attritioner (200,000 HP vs. 800,000 HP), only slightly more powerful (400/s as opposed to the 300/s of the Mk. I spirecraft, which is VERY quickly overwhelmed by the higher marks).

Maybe a buff to the stationary one is in order? Maybe just a buff to its damage, instead of giving it a new mechanic? Maybe even splitting it into separate Mk. levels?

[Coppermantis]

I agree that the stationary one needs a buff in general, not necessarily in comparison to the mobile ones. Attritioner is labled as a Hard AI Type but doesn't seem like it. My attacks are over quickly enough that the attritioner is often irrelevant. There are only certain situations where it's tough, and that's when I need to have my fleet wait around and/or spend a lot of time taking out a Mk. IV/Core world.

[TechSY730]

I agree that the stationary one needs a buff in general, not necessarily in comparison to the mobile ones. Attritioner is labled as a Hard AI Type but doesn't seem like it. My attacks are over quickly enough that the attritioner is often irrelevant. There are only certain situations where it's tough, and that's when I need to have my fleet wait around and/or spend a lot of time taking out a Mk. IV/Core world.

My idea is that the Zenith stationary ones would be better at raw attritioning (like, around that of a Mk. IV spirecraft attritioner good), but does not have the extra effect the spirecraft ones now have. This would give the Zenith and Spire versions their own pros and cons, as opposed to nothing but cons the stationary ones now have.

[keith.lamothe]

OK, now that I see the changes to the Attritioners, may I revisit the whole "make sure Zenith don't look like they fail at making special stuff" thing again?

I didn't say anywhere in there that the AI's attrition emitter was based on Zenith technology, just that the Ion Cannons were

And there's nothing contra-story about the extant Spire artifacts (or however the humans are learning how to make Spirecraft from asteroids) in the Milky Way being more advanced in some areas than the Zenith ones, or ones from any other given civilization.  Remember, the Zenith fell apart, the Spire largely did not.

[TechSY730]

OK, now that I see the changes to the Attritioners, may I revisit the whole "make sure Zenith don't look like they fail at making special stuff" thing again?

I didn't say anywhere in there that the AI's attrition emitter was based on Zenith technology, just that the Ion Cannons were

And there's nothing contra-story about the extant Spire artifacts (or however the humans are learning how to make Spirecraft from asteroids) in the Milky Way being more advanced in some areas than the Zenith ones, or ones from any other given civilization.  Remember, the Zenith fell apart, the Spire largely did not.

Oops, got my Mythos mixed up.

Well, in any case, the stationary ones could use a bit of a buff.