Should the Triangle Fleetships be balanced with each other? Why or why not?

[Diazo]

Should the triangle fleetships be balanced against each other?

No.


Should triangle ships be average to above-average at fulfilling their design role without any special gimmicks?

Yes.


And this is the wide gulf that is making this argument so contentious, we have the position that fleetships should be balanced against each other as individual units that hard counter each other to the position that the actual triangle units don't matter, it is the roles in the game and how well they fulfill them that matter.

And then everyone thinks that the game balance should be on a different point between those two extremes.

So, because I come at this with the opinion that it is the roles that matter, I would have titled the thread "What should the roles of the triangle fleetships be?"

The problem is that this is now going to start going in circles again just like the last thread because I've asked that.

At this point, for this discussion to continue in any meaningful fashion one of the devs is going to have to decree some guidelines on their thoughts on how game balance should work so we have a common starting point to work from.

Until we get that common starting point, we are just going to keep going around in circles as we are really arguing different things.

D.

[Wingflier]

I think everybody's getting a little too worried, I'm not trying to pin anybody down here and this isn't an argument. I'm just taking a poll here to see how many people want the Triangle to be balanced. So far most people do, even if there is some minor disagreement over how.

We can work with that, we all just have to trust in each other a little more than we currently do.

The next thread I'm going to make is going to be taking suggestions on how to fix the current state of the Triangle, including those who don't believe it needs to change at all. We won't be arguing AGAINST each other in this thread, just laying out some ideas.

After that, I'll put up the most popular ideas into a poll and we can vote.

So I guess what I'm saying is relax, everybody. Nobody is arguing or fighting, we're all just expressing our opinions and there's nothing wrong with that. In the end a poll can be made and we can all vote on each other's idea in a civil way without getting into arguments.

Thanks for your participation so far, I really appreciate it.

[Kjara]

Was the game still fun when you could beat the game by taking ~5 planets via deep raiding, knowledge raid all of their neighbors, and beat the game at 9/9 with min AIP in 6 hours? 

Sure, but I still think its a better game today, even though this was probably my favorite strat for a while.

Do fighters currently have settings where they shine?

Sure, but its a much more limited set than either cruisers or bombers. 

I'm strongly in favor of increasing the role set of the fighter in some fashion, be it specific target kills, meat shielding, general killing or whatever.  Of course, this gets us back to what should be their role, where we all seem to disagree.  I think I'd be fine with a number of options here, I just think it should be expanded in some fashion.

[Wingflier]

Thanks for your support. I'll be starting a new thread for community brainstorming soon.

[Martyn van Buren]

Thanks for that, Wingflier; I was feeling rather intimidated by the previous threads.  I absolutely agree that a brainstorm/poll seems like the way to go from here.

[Wingflier]

Thanks for that, Wingflier; I was feeling rather intimidated by the previous threads.  I absolutely agree that a brainstorm/poll seems like the way to go from here.

Thanks, I never meant for that to happen.  All it really was a problem of communication, we all had ideas but we were focusing too much on our differences instead of our similarities.  I'm actually very open-minded about this, I'm willing to settle for whatever the community decides is best (even if that's nothing at all).  I think we just need to get those ideas out there in a peaceful manner first ;p

[eRe4s3r]

So depending on the role and game situation, bombers might be game winning or the most useless unit on the planet, they need to be comparable in anything to any other ship. Units need to have specific strengths or roles. And yes, they need to be balanced at least in such a way that the 3 start ships give a player a chance (with proper tactics) in 99% of all start situations.

Okay, so your answer is yes.  All 3 Triangle ships should be useful in different situations.

I'm just trying to get this community to agree on something so we can go forward with a discussion about possible options later.  Our problem is that we have no baseline, we all have completely different criteria for what constitutes "balance".

This is simple, all Fleetships are equally useful (more or less) in different situations, or in their particular role.  That seems like what you want too, so thank you for your input.

I am sorry, but I actually forgot the don't    ...bombers might be game winning or the most useless unit on the planet, they don't need to be comparable in anything to any other ship....

That said, the way you say it you have a point, fighters particularly seem to be the weakpoint...

[Martyn van Buren]

Cool.  Just thinking, the ideas people have had for the triangle are all over the place in terms of scale --- from little adjustments to hull types to full reworks --- so I suggest you set up the poll to allow people to vote for as many ideas as they like.

[Wingflier]

Okay, then we'll have a multiple choice poll, and may the best idea win.

[Giegue]

what exactly do you mean by "triangle fleet ships"?

[Wingflier]

Fighter, Bomber, and Frigate.  The question is:  Should the all be balanced and equally useful for their role?

[Hearteater]

Please don't forgot the bonus ships are supposed to be better than the triangle ships.  Like, 30% better.  The triangle ships are meant to fill in the gaps since you never know which bonus ships you will have.  But if the triangle ships can win you the game alone, they are clearly too good at what they do.  The Bomber is in an unfortunate position because it servers to make sure you can always kill Force Fields, Fortresses, and a few other key targets in a reasonable fashion.  So if in balancing the triangle we end up making the triangle any more prominent, the game will be worse for it.

[Wingflier]

Please don't forgot the bonus ships are supposed to be better than the triangle ships.  Like, 30% better.  The triangle ships are meant to fill in the gaps since you never know which bonus ships you will have.  But if the triangle ships can win you the game alone, they are clearly too good at what they do.  The Bomber is in an unfortunate position because it servers to make sure you can always kill Force Fields, Fortresses, and a few other key targets in a reasonable fashion.  So if in balancing the triangle we end up making the triangle any more prominent, the game will be worse for it.

In my personal balance changes, I don't intend to make the Triangle any more powerful, I simply wish to redistribute the power by buffing one ship and nerfing another.  This shouldn't affect the usefulness of bonus ships.

[relmz32]

I have been kinda holding off to see if Chris or Keith were going to weigh in, like a pillar of flame from the sky, to restore sanity to the masses or just shut down the conversation.

My idea of balance for the triangle ships:
In general, the general feel of rock-paper-scissors(and sometimes -lizard-spock with unlocks) must be maintained.

Why i think fighter buffs and/or bomber nerfs are unnessisary:
i do not feel the need for change because this rock-paper-scissor style IS maintained. Each of the 3 triangle ships has very distinct uses,  and i like that. The fact that bombers kill big things and fighters do not is not something that bothers me as much as it apparently does to some people. fighters and missile frigates are much better than most of people give them credit for.

[Wingflier]

I still don't understand what makes this community so averse to conversation over something.  If you don't like the conversation, just ignore it.

My idea of balance for the triangle ships:
In general, the general feel of rock-paper-scissors(and sometimes -lizard-spock with unlocks) must be maintained.

Why i think fighter buffs and/or bomber nerfs are unnessisary:
i do not feel the need for change because this rock-paper-scissor style IS maintained. Each of the 3 triangle ships has very distinct uses,  and i like that. The fact that bombers kill big things and fighters do not is not something that bothers me as much as it apparently does to some people. fighters and missile frigates are much better than most of people give them credit for.

The way the three Triangle ships behave towards one another is, in a vacuum, a pretty well defined Rock-Paper-Scissors combo.  However, AI War is a Universe filled with Scissors and other sharp metal objects.  The Bomber (Rock) is like a mosquito in a nudist colony, while the Fighter and Frigates struggle to maintain usefulness.  I don't think anybody is complaining about the state of Triangle as it pertains to itself, but as it pertains to (more importantly), the rest of the game.

The best solution is most likely a hull-type redistribution, but since Keith said that's not happening anytime soon, a smaller, more efficient change will have to suffice.  Whatever change does happen, it won't mess up the balance of the Triangle.  All of the major suggestions I've seen so far haven't really changed the Rock-Paper-Scissors nature of the current Triangle significantly or at all.

When the poll goes up within the next week, you'll have an opportunity to vote and keep things the way that they are.  I think everybody's input is equally important.