Possible proposals

[Marmu23]

 A couple things i've been thinking about since I've played this game quite a bit recently, I'm curious to see if others think the same.

 When I recently introduced another friend to this game I had trouble explaining why some force fields have penalties while some dont. I guess if there wasnt it would be a no brainer to put turrets under force fields, but would that really be a bad thing? Possible proposal 1: remove penalties from all force fields.

 Having to capture and keep fabricators/factories to build adavnced stuff is cool, but then having to shuffle engineers around and mess around with waypoints/gates to get stuff built and where i want it is not. Possible proposal 2: as long as fabricators/factories are captured, their build options are added to basic stardocks/starship constructors.

 I'm always annoyed when I play with golems with their attrition, having to turn them off while moving around and then turn them on to fight is a reason why i dont play with them most of the time. Possible proposal 3: remove golem self attrition, make them weaker if needed to compensate.

 Exo waves are all or nothing, and are the other reason why i dont play much with golems. Either i get lucky with their composition and where they strike and no problem, or they are one super big clump with hunter killers at 3-4h and crush me unless i play a boring game with all turrets and 1-3 chokepoints. Possible proposal 4: instead of exos for golems, add 1 golem to every wave for each golem that was activated during the game.

 Shield bearers completely change the game. If I have them the difficulty of the game is reduced almost by half. If the AI have them the game is 1.5 to 2 times as hard. They are also super extra fun. Possible proposal 5: make shield bearers always available to players, maybe also always available to AI, hopefully they can be better balanced, or at least everyone gets to share in the huge fun of having them.

 Opinions?

[contingencyplan]

Possible proposal 1: remove penalties from all force fields.

Honestly, I don't see where this would be such a bad thing. Fortresses and other uber-powered defenses could possibly stay hampered by forcefields, but what would the other implications on balance be? Are turrets really that powerful (which I know the subject is being discussed elsewhere), especially considering the AI's default options for negating forcefields (Raid and Plasma Siege for subversion, Bomber and Spire for direct assault)? Obviously this would require a buff to lightning and flak, but I don't tend to put them under forcefields anyways --- perhaps I'm doing it wrong, but I tend to have more important things to protect, especially since I play with Exos on.

Possible proposal 2: as long as fabricators/factories are captured, their build options are added to basic stardocks/starship constructors.

This reduces to one of the potential new hacking mechanics that Keith mentioned before, which seems the best way to handle this (given the differences of opinion on destructible capturables and the like).

Possible proposal 3: remove golem self attrition, make them weaker if needed to compensate.

This is what prompted me to reply, because I was just thinking about that (again). If the purpose of the attrition is to require a constant resource cost for "maintenance," then why not just place a direct resource cost on Golems? The attrition doesn't seem to be steep enough to be have a significant strategic impact --- yes, it does have one, but you can usually take your Golems about as far as you'd want to go without having to worry about not making it back through the systems you decimated, at least in my experience.

The current mechanic strikes me as a lesser version of the "making change for a dollar" system that prompted the energy remake.

Possible proposal 4: instead of exos for golems, add 1 golem to every wave for each golem that was activated during the game.

I don't think that getting rid of Exos entirely is the solution, and adding Golems to waves will only end in pain.

I remember when I brought up only starting the exos after capturing Golems, one of the counters was that it encourages waiting till the endgame, capturing "ALL THE GOLEMS!" and proceeding to curbstomp the AI before it could respond. However, maybe it would be possible to do something like the Champion Nemeses, where the homeworlds receive a Golem when one is captured. You could heavily play with the system, including things like respawn frequency, behaviors, etc. to make it balanced without the treadmill effect. All in all, the superweapons appear due for a rebalance due to the SS buffs (though shifting the core ships down is certainly another way of doing it); it may be worth considering non-numeric balancing options as well, instead of continuing on the treadmill of constantly increasing numbers.

Possible proposal 5: make shield bearers always available to players, maybe also always available to AI, hopefully they can be better balanced, or at least everyone gets to share in the huge fun of having them.

I'll leave this one to people with more experience in ship-vs-ship balance. Personally, I think that shield bearers seem to be fine as non-automatic ships, and there's plenty of other ships that the "fun times all around" argument would apply to.

Though I still think that fixing the 16-ship-limit in the UI and having an option for "all ships unlocked" would definitely be fun. (I've still never figured out how Cinth games the system to work around the UI, other than queuing up the ships before they disappear.)

[Fluffiest]

Addressing just the golem attrition issue here: It occurs to me that a better option that removing golem auto-attrition would be to have golems only suffer attrition while they're actually doing something. For the Artillery, Armoured, Botnet, Widow and Cursed, this would be attrition per shot fired (possibly attrition per second per paralyser beam for the Widow, but I don't know how those work). For the Regen golem, it would be attrition per unit regenerated. For the Hive, it seems like every second spent building wasps (and possibly every second spend with wasps flying about doing stuff) should cost health.

[TechSY730]

Addressing just the golem attrition issue here: It occurs to me that a better option that removing golem auto-attrition would be to have golems only suffer attrition while they're actually doing something. For the Artillery, Armoured, Botnet, Widow and Cursed, this would be attrition per shot fired (possibly attrition per second per paralyser beam for the Widow, but I don't know how those work). For the Regen golem, it would be attrition per unit regenerated. For the Hive, it seems like every second spent building wasps (and possibly every second spend with wasps flying about doing stuff) should cost health.

Seems similar to 8904: Make Golems self damage upon firing a weapon, instead of by simply being on, though that one only talks about firing while this new idea talks about any sort of action other than moving.

[TechSY730]

A couple things i've been thinking about since I've played this game quite a bit recently, I'm curious to see if others think the same.

 When I recently introduced another friend to this game I had trouble explaining why some force fields have penalties while some dont. I guess if there wasnt it would be a no brainer to put turrets under force fields, but would that really be a bad thing? Possible proposal 1: remove penalties from all force fields.

I still don't like the idea. It would encourage "turret balls of death" a bit too much IMO.
However, if it goes though, it could do some interesting things to the metagame. It might make single chokepoint defenses even more viable compared to multi-chokepoint defenses. Or it may only help single chokepoint defenses marginally and greatley help out multi-chokepoint defenses.

The "uber-defenses" like forts should probably keep this damage reduction though.


I will say that it does feel unfair that AI forcefields do not inflict damage reduction. Yea, I know that AI forcefields lose repairability by engineers in return, but it still feels unfair, and I think it contributes to why forcefields in AI hands tend to produce such grindy situations.

Having to capture and keep fabricators/factories to build adavnced stuff is cool, but then having to shuffle engineers around and mess around with waypoints/gates to get stuff built and where i want it is not. Possible proposal 2: as long as fabricators/factories are captured, their build options are added to basic stardocks/starship constructors.

Two things.
1. The logistics problem is part of their balance. Though granted, not in a way that simply waiting longer, aka, "grind" can't just overcome.
2. That could cause some weird things if the acquired thing is in a queue and then the capturable is lost and then the ship type is lost.

I'm always annoyed when I play with golems with their attrition, having to turn them off while moving around and then turn them on to fight is a reason why i dont play with them most of the time. Possible proposal 3: remove golem self attrition, make them weaker if needed to compensate.

Already gave my statement on this above.

Exo waves are all or nothing, and are the other reason why i dont play much with golems. Either i get lucky with their composition and where they strike and no problem, or they are one super big clump with hunter killers at 3-4h and crush me unless i play a boring game with all turrets and 1-3 chokepoints. Possible proposal 4: instead of exos for golems, add 1 golem to every wave for each golem that was activated during the game.

Exo waves are in a rather awkward position right now, and this has been acknowledged by the devs. Hopefully, we will see an exo-wave cost rebalance soon, so it doesn't feel so "hit or miss" but more consistent in difficulty.

Shield bearers completely change the game. If I have them the difficulty of the game is reduced almost by half. If the AI have them the game is 1.5 to 2 times as hard. They are also super extra fun. Possible proposal 5: make shield bearers always available to players, maybe also always available to AI, hopefully they can be better balanced, or at least everyone gets to share in the huge fun of having them.

The OPness or not of shield bearers has come up several times in the relatively recent past; you're not to notice that the can sometimes seem to be an order of magnitude more useful than most other bonus ship unlocks; both for human and AI.
Then again, we are also getting reports of them, though pulling their weight, not radically changing the game or seeming substantially more useful than other unlocks, which complicates matters in determining their current balance.

[Zeyi]

Golems could just be given ongoing resource costs, but i do like the idea of them being old broken and in need of constant repair. I think it fits well with their story...

I think the forcefield idea is just adding something open to way too much abuse and I think controlling fabricators and advanced production facilities is important in that logistics play an important role, (so make a logistics route from those planets or utilize warp gates for a paralysis penalty. I'm against the idea of making them rebuildable so I'm also against this. I love the level of difficulty in AIWAR and part of that for me personally is destructible production facilities and superweapons. If you can capture something then build it anywhere that just doesn't sit right me. ARS' do that, the advanced facilities and core fabricators are powerful enough to need thought putting into their best utilisation.

Shield bearers are just like any bonus ship, allowing them every game would be massively OP.. let's just stick the to the triangle ships I think.

[Trandrin]

Be fun to get shield bearer as a mercenary with same or slightly reduced cap. You would pay out nose to have it, but it is there. I get happy when I see shield Bearers under AI command. They are not immune to reclamation.

[Marmu23]

 Other reason why I would prefer this possible proposal over current golem exos is that I usually get 1 exo before i get golems, so challenge without benefit, and once I have 2 golems, waves are usually mostly irrelevant unless AIP goes over 300, so then there is no challenge unless exo-time or homeworld assault. Proposal of adding 1 golem to each wave for each golem activated (could even be the same as player got) means small challenge happens constantly, which can build up to big challenge if not dealt with.

 For most other possible proposals, they are mostly to deal with personal annoyances, and I guess we have different annoyances. Except for shield bearers which are so completely out of line in terms of multiplying power. Try to pair them with repair stations for offense. Try to put them over turrets/forts for defense. And try not to pop an AI carrier that contains 500 shield bearers and 500 bombers for calmness. Perhaps like someone said adding them to mercenaries would be a good idea, then with them getting more exposure someone sometime might figure out a way to better balance them.