Author Topic: Question: balancing purpose of caps on high-energy defenses?  (Read 5275 times)

Offline chemical_art

  • Core Member Mark IV
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,952
  • Fabulous
Re: Question: balancing purpose of caps on high-energy defenses?
« Reply #60 on: April 12, 2013, 10:26:01 PM »
To me it's what the AI throws at you that makes some turrets better than others.  When you need to get rid of big stuff, the turrets that do best against the big stuff shine brighter.  When was the last time you actually needed your MLRS to kill swarmers??

When the AI I am fighting in my current game has managed to unlock Z viral shredders, cutlasses, and laser gattlings...
These are actually causing me some trouble, especially when trying to defend my more remote planets...

Gravity + Shields +flak sounds good to lock down. Military stations tear them up really bad too.

That said, MLRS and flak turrets feel alike. Maybe too alike.

« Last Edit: April 12, 2013, 10:27:34 PM by chemical_art »
Life is short. Have fun.

Offline TechSY730

  • Core Member Mark V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,562
Re: Question: balancing purpose of caps on high-energy defenses?
« Reply #61 on: April 12, 2013, 10:28:50 PM »
You guys do realize that Mk. I turrets, like Mk. I fleetships, are supposed to stink if used on their own for anything past the early game, right?
Mk II turrets cost as much as Mk II Fleetships, plus there are 8 types of turrets to unlock, vs 4 fleetship types that start at Mk I (assuming 1 HW).
And because turrets aren't mobile, the fleetships or starships are frequently the better chocie for 2500K.

Yea, I think I stated (indirectly albeit) that I think the knowledge costs need to be looked at.

Offline Cinth

  • Core Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,527
  • Resident Zombie
Re: Question: balancing purpose of caps on high-energy defenses?
« Reply #62 on: April 12, 2013, 10:29:40 PM »
MLRS > Flak everyday of the week.  The ability to get that first strike in and possibly a second strike before the enemy gets in range is huge.
Quote from: keith.lamothe
Opened your save. My computer wept. Switched to the ST planet and ship icons filled my screen, so I zoomed out. Game told me that it _was_ totally zoomed out. You could seriously walk from one end of the inner grav well to the other without getting your feet cold.

Offline chemical_art

  • Core Member Mark IV
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,952
  • Fabulous
Re: Question: balancing purpose of caps on high-energy defenses?
« Reply #63 on: April 12, 2013, 10:32:04 PM »

Mk II turrets cost as much as Mk II Fleetships, plus there are 8 types of turrets to unlock, vs 4 fleetship types that start at Mk I (assuming 1 HW).
And because turrets aren't mobile, the fleetships or starships are frequently the better chocie for 2500K.

Pretty much this. The total K cost is over 5 planets just to upgrade the turrets to II's. It is more K then getting Flagships, Zenith and Spire starships, plus 4 fleetships to II.

Also, since the turrets don't have that stellar bonuses, even picking one type of turret to counter the AI in a specific way doesn't act as a game changer.
Life is short. Have fun.

Offline chemical_art

  • Core Member Mark IV
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,952
  • Fabulous
Re: Question: balancing purpose of caps on high-energy defenses?
« Reply #64 on: April 12, 2013, 10:34:00 PM »
MLRS > Flak everyday of the week.  The ability to get that first strike in and possibly a second strike before the enemy gets in range is huge.

I agree. Plus it has no negative bonuses.

I really, really think the flak needs to be much tankier, and its explosion radius wider, then it would have a role. An upfront, in your face, beefy CC unit.
Life is short. Have fun.

Offline Cinth

  • Core Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,527
  • Resident Zombie
Re: Question: balancing purpose of caps on high-energy defenses?
« Reply #65 on: April 12, 2013, 10:39:27 PM »
I agree. Plus it has no negative bonuses.

I really, really think the flak needs to be much tankier, and its explosion radius wider, then it would have a role. An upfront, in your face, beefy CC unit.

Add lightning turrets to that as well.  Being stuck in melee range doesn't help these 2 at all.  If I decide to use these, they usually sit as the last line of defense.  That's how little I think of them (if something breeches the main line, I've probably lost anyway).
Quote from: keith.lamothe
Opened your save. My computer wept. Switched to the ST planet and ship icons filled my screen, so I zoomed out. Game told me that it _was_ totally zoomed out. You could seriously walk from one end of the inner grav well to the other without getting your feet cold.

Offline chemical_art

  • Core Member Mark IV
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,952
  • Fabulous
Re: Question: balancing purpose of caps on high-energy defenses?
« Reply #66 on: April 12, 2013, 10:41:37 PM »


Add lightning turrets to that as well.  Being stuck in melee range doesn't help these 2 at all.  If I decide to use these, they usually sit as the last line of defense.  That's how little I think of them (if something breeches the main line, I've probably lost anyway).

Lightnings do have a few benefits. Their changes in targetting makes it easier to take full advantage of their damage. And their very, very high refractive bonus DOES shut down enemy units. Hard.

That said, if flaks got the HP boost, I'd give lightnings more bonuses. And make both not cost so much energy.
Life is short. Have fun.

Offline Cinth

  • Core Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,527
  • Resident Zombie
Re: Question: balancing purpose of caps on high-energy defenses?
« Reply #67 on: April 12, 2013, 10:50:59 PM »


Add lightning turrets to that as well.  Being stuck in melee range doesn't help these 2 at all.  If I decide to use these, they usually sit as the last line of defense.  That's how little I think of them (if something breeches the main line, I've probably lost anyway).

Lightnings do have a few benefits. Their changes in targeting makes it easier to take full advantage of their damage. And their very, very high refractive bonus DOES shut down enemy units. Hard.

That said, if flaks got the HP boost, I'd give lightnings more bonuses. And make both not cost so much energy.
Maybe so, I find the lack of range hurts both.  I don't want anything sitting on a wormhole that is going to be streaming exo waves. 
Quote from: keith.lamothe
Opened your save. My computer wept. Switched to the ST planet and ship icons filled my screen, so I zoomed out. Game told me that it _was_ totally zoomed out. You could seriously walk from one end of the inner grav well to the other without getting your feet cold.

Offline chemical_art

  • Core Member Mark IV
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,952
  • Fabulous
Re: Question: balancing purpose of caps on high-energy defenses?
« Reply #68 on: April 12, 2013, 10:54:00 PM »

Maybe so, I find the lack of range hurts both.  I don't want anything sitting on a wormhole that is going to be streaming exo waves.

Both flaks and lightnings don't have the range to engage outside of shields, I agree.
Life is short. Have fun.

Offline Cinth

  • Core Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,527
  • Resident Zombie
Re: Question: balancing purpose of caps on high-energy defenses?
« Reply #69 on: April 12, 2013, 11:03:13 PM »
Now, I'm just saying that they don't fit in with my defensive schemes.  I'll say that just so I'm clear about why I don't like them. 
Quote from: keith.lamothe
Opened your save. My computer wept. Switched to the ST planet and ship icons filled my screen, so I zoomed out. Game told me that it _was_ totally zoomed out. You could seriously walk from one end of the inner grav well to the other without getting your feet cold.

Offline TechSY730

  • Core Member Mark V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,562
Re: Question: balancing purpose of caps on high-energy defenses?
« Reply #70 on: April 12, 2013, 11:18:56 PM »
I don't mind short range units. Up close combat has a place, and is a way to give a ship/structure "character".

However, it needs to either have enough HP to be able to make up for it, or enough damage to glassify as a "glass cannon", or some balance of those two. Right now, the flak turret has none of those. The lightning turret is fairing better, but it still needs a bit of help, or at least the lower marks do. (Also see, that other thread that is about turrets)

Offline Cinth

  • Core Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,527
  • Resident Zombie
Re: Question: balancing purpose of caps on high-energy defenses?
« Reply #71 on: April 12, 2013, 11:34:51 PM »
I don't mind short range units. Up close combat has a place, and is a way to give a ship/structure "character".

However, it needs to either have enough HP to be able to make up for it, or enough damage to classify as a "glass cannon", or some balance of those two. Right now, the flak turret has none of those. The lightning turret is fairing better, but it still needs a bit of help, or at least the lower marks do. (Also see, that other thread that is about turrets)

Agree on all counts.  I don't think you could make a good change so they fit well with my setups, and not completely change what they are or the character of the two.

I saw the other thread ;)  Talking of balance on the unit scale has far more impact on the 1 HW games than it does on mine, so I try to not detract from what sometimes ending up being a good discussion. 

Heh, yeah, this astrotrain has been derailed.
Quote from: keith.lamothe
Opened your save. My computer wept. Switched to the ST planet and ship icons filled my screen, so I zoomed out. Game told me that it _was_ totally zoomed out. You could seriously walk from one end of the inner grav well to the other without getting your feet cold.

Offline contingencyplan

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 147
Re: Question: balancing purpose of caps on high-energy defenses?
« Reply #72 on: April 13, 2013, 12:21:53 AM »
Heh, yeah, this astrotrain has been derailed.

Eh, I wouldn't say that. The question I asked got answered; past that has been brainstorming on things related to the implications of the answer, which in particular is related to ways of making non-chokepoint strategies more viable --- and I'll agree that would be a better approach than trying to nerf chokepoints. You can't fight the strategy used at Thermopylae, but that strategy's not always possible or viable.

However, if a new thread to continue the discussion would be better, let's start by figuring out exactly what specific, high-level question(s) we want to address. The turrets are already being discussed, and I'd agree that changing how existing Forts work would be too disruptive, especially given that K cost makes it easy (up to development time :) ) to add units / strategies.

IMO, our question of "make non-chokepoint strategies viable" is too vague, as people have many interpretations of what that means, plus different options have a heavy impact on it. Worse, our answers (mine included) tend to be too low-level in requesting specific changes to mechanics or units.


But, as much as love warheads, I think this would make better sense as a hack. 

This raised a question on hacking that I've asked here.


I'm currently okay with the current chokepoint balance... but if we were doing a sweeping overhaul of choke, turret, and fort balance? I feel we should aim for a different balance of power. Need to balance the Fallen Spire campaign? Don't shift the duty to forts, shift it to (new, defensive?) spire only buildables. Weight hard golem/spirecraft and exo-galactic strikeforces in the thematic direction, and if the golems given to you aren't sufficient counter, then perhaps they are scaling up too heavily.

As a "you know what would be COOL?" question, since some of the discussion is with respect to non-chokepoint Exo strategies, maybe have structures that get unlocked (or in the case of Spirecraft, that are buildable from asteroids?) when these superweapons are obtained (or enabled?), kinda how the Nebulae unlock additional ModForts.

Especially in the case of Golems, though they are powerful, they 1) cannot stand alone against an Exo (I know they're not supposed to, but they should form the bulk of the wall against them, though I don't think that's really the case at higher AIP) and 2) are very limited in number, which means that you can't make effective use of them to counter Exos coming in from multiple points. Spirecraft are similar, as their hulls seem to be made from wet tissue paper at times.


Offline Cinth

  • Core Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,527
  • Resident Zombie
Re: Question: balancing purpose of caps on high-energy defenses?
« Reply #73 on: April 13, 2013, 12:43:08 AM »
First off, i think you need to narrow the scope, as you mentioned.  What specific problem(s) are we trying to hash out here?
To be a little broad (and use Diazo's recent game as an example), it's threat build up, border aggression, and minor incursions made by the AI.  There isn't mush you can do about reinforcements building up on neutered  worlds except to personally handle it with your mobile fleet.  Border aggression and minor incursions, however, can probably be addressed reasonably.

So we have taken something broad, and narrowed it down somewhat.  Now, what kind of tools would be appropriate to handle this kind of problem that is not already available to the player?  What could be added to the players toolkit that would add stability and help shore up defenses in this situation?  What additional utility do you need?
Quote from: keith.lamothe
Opened your save. My computer wept. Switched to the ST planet and ship icons filled my screen, so I zoomed out. Game told me that it _was_ totally zoomed out. You could seriously walk from one end of the inner grav well to the other without getting your feet cold.

Offline KDR_11k

  • Hero Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 904
Re: Question: balancing purpose of caps on high-energy defenses?
« Reply #74 on: April 13, 2013, 01:56:09 AM »
Huh, did lightnings get a range nerf recently? Last time I've used them they had quite respectable range, at very least far exceeding that of the flak.

Miniforts do their job. The fact that you aren't seeing single ships stray into your systems is because of them. Without MFs you'll see single frigates or such come into your systems and snipe your undefended CS.