Poll: which basic human unlocks need a buff?

[Winge]

I mostly agree with Faulty on the buffs.  Raids definitely need a K reduction, now that Gravity Guardians, Missile Guard Posts, and MLRS Guard Posts lurk the AI planets.  I would give Transport IIs Radar Dampening (~10,000?) instead of more health.  Instead of Enclave K costs, I was thinking add in a few more drone types (Heavy Beam Drone & Sniper Drone ).  The Mk II Enclave is in kind of a rough spot because of the Mercenary Enclave--it's rather hard to justify that extra K cost, when I have one for a 'renewable' resource.  Turrets could use a K cost reduction as well.  I would say standardize, but there are a lot of differences between turret types (range and multipliers being the big factors) that make standardization unfeasible.

Scout Starships: I'm dying to know who unlocks scout starships unless he/she was going for galactic-wide scouting with impunity early on for planning strategy purposes?  Other than getting a perma-cloaked unit without needing a factory, are there any realistic reasons to unlock scout starships mkII or mkIII when the regular scout unlocks have way more use?  I haven't found any yet (unless I am missing something. )

Counter Spy AI.  You will need them.

On Zenith Space-time Manipulators: I normally would never consider using these given that I get logistics command stations for free unless I was on a X or snake, etc. type map.  Their benefits on any other than the above-mentioned map types are supplemental in a very minor way (unless I am missing something...again  ) especially if you are making use of logistic command stations, and also the benefit decreases as your empire grows.  Thoughts?  If these are changed, can they be changed to be worthwhile on most maps without making them super OP on the X/snake type maps?

Good for high-AIP games, as you may need to book it between defensive worlds.  Not enough K for low-AIP games.

The mini-fort questions: Do these require too much 'babysitting'?  I'm only implying a small tweak of some sort.  My game play indicates that they seem to only be able to hold small amounts of border aggression by themselves.  This doesn't usually give me very much benefit although their k cost is quite cheap.  I don't play with them terribly often.  Are they specifically intended to be used in conjunction with some turret defenses?  And if not intended specifically with turrets, then a small buff, enough that you don't have to run over there with your fleet anyways as you would if the mini-forts weren't there?  The nemesis champions with their tag alongs kinda eat mini-forts for breakfast...

Well, the nemesis are a response to your superweapon (champion), so they should eat a few things for breakfast.  I wouldn't use them unless I was playing a very high AIP game.  They do act as defensive MRS stations (I suppose you could build one on offense if you could secure a portion of the area).  This has the added benefit of attracting reclaimed ships if you have the rally option enabled--very handy for securing your new toys.  I am a bit underwhelmed with them as well.

[Zeyurn]

Mini-forts get a lot better in multiplayer where everyone has them (And energy is plentiful).  We have 6 miniforts at every planet just in case something slips in and it does great.  But they're never ever trusted to stop an actual attack.

[TechSY730]

Yea, mini-forts are not that great...

But then again, that's why they only cost 1k in knowledge, and they are call mini-forts. Seems fair to me.

Though if there was a Mk. II version of it that still had the same sort of per-planet caps but much closer to being able to stand on its own stats, but cost like 3k-4k in knowledge, I would seriously consider getting it too.

[chemical_art]

Mini forts for me have three uses for me.

1) If combined with a military comm station, you prevent threat from really knocking out a border world. They don't generate enough threat that the ai ships typically build up enough to smash this combo. In addition, this combo causes a disproportionately large amount of damage without needing anything more then maybe 3 of each turret around the military station. In other words, you can save your turrets elsewhere with just using a militrary and mini fort together, as they both delay and destroy.

2)In addition to the above, the function as effective MRS. They are handy if when engines are told to make military low priority so during combat my engines keep at pumping out reinforcements while the minifort is used to repair between battles without micro.

3) With unlimitted caps, you can make them everywhere if you don't use other high energy things. This tends to make rogue threats not really threatening, so I can save my shields / turrets from traditionally being used in small amounts in inner worlds to not being used at all, so more go to the outer worlds.


These are little conviences for me, and for 1K, they are a good value.

[Faulty Logic]

Okay, looks like our winners are:

Raid Starships
Enclave Starships
Transport IIs

With honorable mentions to:

Turrets in general
Station upgrades
And mobile repair stations

Now how do we want these buffed?

I would like:

raid starships to be reduced to 1000/3000 for mkII-III
enclave starships to be reduced to 1000/2000/2000/12000 for mks II-III-IV-V
Transports IIs to be reduced to 2000 k and their health doubled.

Turrets to get an across-the-board k cost decrease, of ~500 for mkIIs and ~1000 for mkIIIs
No idea on the station upgrades, maybe remove their caps, or concentrate their benefit into ~two stations
Mobile repair stations to cost something in the 2000-3000 range.

Last call: any objections/refinements?

[KDR_11k]

Is the Enclave IV/V split even in yet?

[Faulty Logic]

No, those are all suggestions, unless you mean in mantis, in which case it's right here.

[Toranth]

Turrets to get an across-the-board k cost decrease, of ~500 for mkIIs and ~1000 for mkIIIs

Last call: any objections/refinements?

Re: Turrets.
Again, I think that your idea still leaves turrets all over the place, and generally too expensive.

I think turret Mk IIs should be 750K, same as the Basic Turret Mk II currently is.  This includes Tractor turrets (currently VERY expensive).
Mk III should be 2000K, for all turrets including the Basic Mk III (more expensive than current).
Spider Turret should be 2000K, as it's not really a Mk II.
Missile turret needs a 10-15% damage nerf to bring it inline with the other turrets.

And I suggest adding Mk IV turrets at a cost of 3000K.

[Faulty Logic]

I think that would be too cheap.

Turrets compensate for their immobile nature with vast firepower (about 3x what a cap of fleetships has). They do add to your offensive capacity, directly through drones, and indirectly through your fleet not having to defend.

Would you be happy with:

Basic            keeps its price and "cheap turret" moniker.
Spider to      2000 (extra cap of snipers +engine damage is still pretty good)
Missile to     2500-3000 (expensive, but better than other turrets on a per-unit basis)
MLRS to       1500-2000 (one of my least favorite turrets)
Flak to         750-1500 (almost-honorable mention, and rarely contribute full DPS)
Lightning to  1000-1500 (same, but are a bit more powerful best case)
Laser to       1750-2250 (bit better than MLRS because it counters bombers)
Counter-whatevers unchanged.
Tractors to   1000-2000
Gravity        unchanged (grav effects still quite useful)
HBC            unchanged (have you seen their DPS?)

MKIV turrets sound fine, though I would rarely use them.
Apathetic toward drone level adjustment.

[chemical_art]

I think that would be too cheap.

Turrets compensate for their immobile nature with vast firepower (about 3x what a cap of fleetships has). They do add to your offensive capacity, directly through drones, and indirectly through your fleet not having to defend.

Would you be happy with:

Basic            keeps its price and "cheap turret" moniker.
Spider to      2000 (extra cap of snipers +engine damage is still pretty good)
Missile to     2500-3000 (expensive, but better than other turrets on a per-unit basis)
MLRS to       1500-2000 (one of my least favorite turrets)
Flak to         750-1500 (almost-honorable mention, and rarely contribute full DPS)
Lightning to  1000-1500 (same, but are a bit more powerful best case)
Laser to       1750-2250 (bit better than MLRS because it counters bombers)
Counter-whatevers unchanged.
Tractors to   1000-2000
Gravity        unchanged (grav effects still quite useful)
HBC            unchanged (have you seen their DPS?)

MKIV turrets sound fine, though I would rarely use them.
Apathetic toward drone level adjustment.

Any research that costs more then around 1.5k for the first MK II I won't use, because at that point I'll spend 2.5k to have mk II defenders that can react to enemy threats in a much more flexible manner, with higher multipliers, and have better offense.

[Kahuna]

Good stuff! I'd use Mark IV Turrets! Add nao!

[chemical_art]

**3x damage may sound impressive, but remember this

If you have two fronts, turrets work with dealing 1.5x damage across fronts
If you have three fronts, turrets are dealing 1x damage across fronts
Mobile ships provide 1x damage across fronts if blobbed

Triangle ships have 6x multipliers, turrets have 2.4x multipliers, so max dps of turrets is less then 1.5 that of triangle ships

[PokerChen]

 As it stands currently, without fallen spire, I would unlock only Basic II, Spider, Grav I and HBCs. Fleetships have more flexible defense in open maps. Spare 2500 contributes towards extra mark-III unlocks, which should be accounted for as ~2500 for markIII and ~3500 for mark-IV. You only unlock mark-II of 4 fleetships, so these are more likely comparisons at 2500 Knowledge:

 "Is this turret-II more useful than a fleet-III?"
 "Is this turret-II more useful than a starship III & IV?"

I notice significant power-creep underway.

 - - -
 A note on raid-starships: I think they demand a big premium for being the fastest ships that comes with FF-immunity. I would consider paying 1500/4000.

[Toranth]

Turrets compensate for their immobile nature with vast firepower (about 3x what a cap of fleetships has). They do add to your offensive capacity, directly through drones, and indirectly through your fleet not having to defend.

3x DPS, but less HP.  They also cost more energy, and almost twice as much in resources.  And while you are correct that they free up units for offense, they cannot contribute directly.  I can always move my defensive mobile units to the front when needed, then back when needed (and ususally do).  But being unable to move at all, even within system, really hurts the turret's ability to do full damage.

Would you be happy with:

Basic            keeps its price and "cheap turret" moniker.
Spider to      2000 (extra cap of snipers +engine damage is still pretty good)
Missile to     2500-3000 (expensive, but better than other turrets on a per-unit basis)
MLRS to       1500-2000 (one of my least favorite turrets)
Flak to         750-1500 (almost-honorable mention, and rarely contribute full DPS)
Lightning to  1000-1500 (same, but are a bit more powerful best case)
Laser to       1750-2250 (bit better than MLRS because it counters bombers)
Counter-whatevers unchanged.
Tractors to   1000-2000
Gravity        unchanged (grav effects still quite useful)
HBC            unchanged (have you seen their DPS?)

MKIV turrets sound fine, though I would rarely use them.
Apathetic toward drone level adjustment.

Missile turrets are currently about 15-25% more powerful than the other 3 common-type turrets (Basic, Laser, MLRS, Missile).  I think they should be nerfed a bit.  That way, each of the four is roughly comperable, just with different specialties.  (I'd also suggest doing a rename, Basic->Needler, again to match the Guardpost and ModFort/Champion module names).

Then, I ask, if Basic turrets are OK where they are (750K/1500K) doing 470,000 cap-DPS with very useful multipliers against Heavy, Ultra-Heavy and the triangle Artillery...
Why should Missile, Laser, and MLRS all be 50-100% more expensive, while doing as much as 20% less DPS and no better multipliers?

Flak turrets get a lot of... grief... around here, but as long as they can hit 3 targets, they're as good as any other common-type turret.  If they can hit all 5, that's 850,000 DPS for the Mk I.  Even under FF, that's over 600,000 DPS.  Pretty good damage, if you're defending at the wormhole.

If that's fine at 750K/1500K, why does that make the other turrets too cheap?

HBC            unchanged (have you seen their DPS?)

Yeah, should have been explicit - HBCs are fine.  I'd love to see the Mk II and Mk III cost come down by 500K each, but the Mk II is still a regular unlock for me as is.

[KDR_11k]

Yeah, the sparse firepower of turrets is their main weakness. They aren't sufficiently stronger than fleetships to work in low numbers and for the AI a single cap of units is pretty much a tiny force (and outside of waves the AI is usually around two marks above your units). So you're regularly putting fractions of your turret cap vs multiples of the fleetship cap. Turrets are only powerful when you've got a chokepoint, when you have an open empire and enemies can come from anywhere you can't stop more than a bit of border aggression with turrets. And this is even before we consider things like exos.

I think turrets will remain problematic because of the single chokepoints, it won't really be possible to balance them to not be overpowered in a chokepoint while remaining viable in a distributed empire except by adding per-planet caps.