So, turret balance

[Kahuna]

Serious idea: Replace Forts with Space Tennis Ball Machines. The player could build these Machines on top of wormholes. When AI ships come trough that wormhole the Machine shoots them back to the AI Home world. AI ships shot by the machine could collide with other AI ships dealing terrible terrible damage.

Another serious idea: Replace turrets with Space Laser Sharks! Space Sharks wearing a laser turret on their back! These sharks would be like human versions of AI Guardians and totally awesome! I mean Laser Sharks! Come one! Add nao!

[Mánagarmr]

Serious idea: Replace Forts with Space Tennis Ball Machines. The player could build these Machines on top of wormholes. When AI ships come trough that wormhole the Machine shoots them back to the AI Home world. AI ships shot by the machine could collide with other AI ships dealing terrible terrible damage.

Another serious idea: Replace turrets with Space Laser Sharks! Space Sharks wearing a laser turret on their back! These sharks would be like human versions of AI Guardians and totally awesome! I mean Laser Sharks! Come one! Add nao!

This (and incidently this) is why you should never drink and post on forums.

[Aeson]

Thoughts on Hearteater's changes:
I don't like the cap-reduction of Sniper turrets, since Snipers are my go-to turret for non-fortress world defenses. I want to be able to have highly variable amounts of them present on any given world based on my perception of what is and isn't worth defending and what is and isn't at risk. Increasing the power density of the turret reduces my ability to vary the level of defense I put on any given world, even if it makes the turret 'better' over-all.

I really don't like the change to Spider turrets. These are the only upgrade you can get to sniper turrets, so why is it a problem that they are the "Sniper Turret+". My use for spiders is to slow things that are on the planet, not kill them, and if I want short-range slowing potential I already have gravity turrets and tractor beams. Snipers and Spiders are long-range stall weapons, Gravity and Tractor turrets are short-range stall weapons, and most of the rest are short-range kill weapons. Why do Spiders need to move into the short-range stall/kill group?

Tractor Turrets - changes here don't really matter to me as long as the total number of tractor beams remains the same, although keeping higher mark tractor turrets longer ranged helps for grabbing parts of passing groups of ships without taking fire from the full group.

Gravity Turrets - if the range of the higher-mark gravity turrets are reduced to the value in Hearteater's table, those become less useful. Don't really know that that's a particularly bad thing, though.

For the rest, I don't really care either way. I don't really like reducing the total available number of turrets from a firepower granularity perspective, because I can more easily fine-tune defenses if I have 100 turrets to play with than if I have 75, but the firepower bonus is nice.

Honestly, though, I think the only real problem with current turrets is that the knowledge cost is a little too high. Bringing the Laser/MLRS/Lightning/Flak turrets down to something like 1000/2000 for Marks II and III and bringing Missile II/III down to 1500/2500 or 2000/3000 (because its range is so much greater than that of any of the other turrets) would in my opinion make combat turrets with their current stats reasonably worthwhile. Flak and Lightning turrets could perhaps be made even cheaper, or they could be made more durable, since they are low in number and have to be closest to their targets. As for utility turrets like tractor beams, gravity, and counter-(weapon), I'm only going to unlock those if I need extra tractor/gravity coverage beyond what my current turret caps give me, and counter-(weapon) turrets if there's something threatening enough that I feel a need for them.

[keith.lamothe]

Serious idea: Replace Forts with Space Tennis Ball Machines. The player could build these Machines on top of wormholes.

Up to this point I was ready to say we've already got this: space docks + autobombs/nanoswarms/fireflies.

But then you ruined it.

Well, actually, knockback-through-wormhole would be really amusing, particularly with collision damage.  But oh the poor cpu.

[orzelek]

I would actually support adding Sniper II's and branching spiders separately.
It would allow us to buy more of them to cover more planets or for the inclined to put 2 caps of snipers on one planet.

Spiders then could be modified to keep their engine damage but have different bonuses/damage.

[Hearteater]

@Keith:
Important note, the caps I used were for a Normal game, NOT high caps.  So double those caps for High cap games.

@Aeson:
I think an unlockable Mark II Sniper would solve all your concerns.  I too put Sniper turrets on all my systems.  It's super effective.  It is also lazy and cheap.  It requires nearly no thought because it works 95% of the time (only Sniper Immune bonus ships are an issue).  Worse, Snipers are also the counter to probably the most dangerous (non-super) weapon the AI has: Raid Starships.

So having a 1000 K unlock to get another cap of Sniper turrets to do this would be reasonable.  Doing this from game start at no cost isn't very interesting.  They just do everything, and I understand it is hard to make a change to something like that.  But the goal is that the increased diversity will promote healthier game play.

Also, I made no changes to Gravity/Tractor other than making their caps a multiple of 8.  And Gravity as it turns out don't need that change.  The ranges and other effects of those turrets wouldn't change.

[Toranth]

Also, I made no changes to Gravity/Tractor other than making their caps a multiple of 8.  And Gravity as it turns out don't need that change.  The ranges and other effects of those turrets wouldn't change.

Can I ask about the mysterious 1.7% nerf to HBC damage?

Why the reduction in turret count from 96 to 72 for the non-Basic core turrets?

While I agree that a Sniper Mk II is better for more Snipers than just unlocking Spiders, I don't think I like making Spiders upper-medium ranged.  15,000 range is greater than almost all fleetships, but not by that much.  Something like 15-20% of units have a range of 10,000 or more, and thus could make it into range to attack the Spiders without too much difficulty.  If they were going to become expendable that way, I'd expect something (other than just DPS) to compensate for the loss of ED that'd occur.  Maybe make them doe AOE ED, like the Plasma Siege shots, but without the damage?  That may be too powerful, though.

And finally, yes, while a Sniper Mk II would provide for more Sniper turrets for those wanting them, I don't think cutting the number of Sniper turrets available per cap by 60% is good.  A Mk I + Mk II Sniper set would still have few turrets than a player currently does. 

[Hearteater]

Can I ask about the mysterious 1.7% nerf to HBC damage?

Just to get the numbers lined up.  HBCs are insanely good right now.  1.7% isn't going to kill them, and it gets their CapDPS number  a little bit more into the same range as the rest of the turrets.  Those DPS numbers don't even take into account the HBC's anti-overkill AOE.  They would still be plenty awesome.  I really considered pulling their AP since they really don't need it, but settled for bringing their damage down just a shade to a nice "even" number.

Why the reduction in turret count from 96 to 72 for the non-Basic core turrets?

Mainly I wanted Basic Turrets to be more like the meat shields of turrets without making them mini-forts.  This meant a lot of them.  Rather than upping Basics to some stupidly high number, I just toned done the rest of the turrets from 96 to 72.

I don't think I like making Spiders upper-medium ranged.  15,000 range is greater than almost all fleetships, but not by that much.  Something like 15-20% of units have a range of 10,000 or more, and thus could make it into range to attack the Spiders without too much difficulty.  If they were going to become expendable that way, I'd expect something (other than just DPS) to compensate for the loss of ED that'd occur.  Maybe make them doe AOE ED, like the Plasma Siege shots, but without the damage?

The new Spiders fire faster and have more shots.  They effectively AOE engine damage as a result.  While some units will be able to reach them, keep in mind those units are likely to be targeting something else closer instead.  If Spiders get Mark II stats instead (so 2000K to unlock, but double damage and health) I could see them getting Radar Damping 10,000 like other Mark II turrets.  That would be a pretty nasty and interesting combo.

And finally, yes, while a Sniper Mk II would provide for more Sniper turrets for those wanting them, I don't think cutting the number of Sniper turrets available per cap by 60% is good.  A Mk I + Mk II Sniper set would still have few turrets than a player currently does.

But they do more work.  Unless you have more than 72 spots to put Mark I Snipers, you still get nearly the same effectiveness.  I understand the reduced coverage of Snipers+Spiders with their insanely high caps is a nerf, but I don't think it is a negative on the depth of the defensive game.  Also consider the possibility that Mini-Forts might be turned into an unlock line.  I think that's vastly more interesting on defense than just a horde of unlimited range, armor ignoring, radar damping ignoring, super turrets.

[Radiant Phoenix]

Moving turrets? Big no no.. that would remove all the strategy in defense. Since they're immobile you actually have to think how and where you place them so you get the most out of them.

Part of the reason I proposed what I did was because I don't like having to do that. (Fortresses, Sniper, Spider, and Missile turrets are fine because I don't have to decide, and turrets with obvious placement like Tractor, Grav, and Tachyon are also okay)

I can understand the appeal, so something like that could perhaps remain, but I would prefer if it wasn't essentially a required part of the game.

[KDR_11k]

I always assumed there were no Sniper IIs specifically because Snipers are already very powerful and sniper DPS should be a fairly restricted resource.

Snipers are nice because they're just as capable as mobile defenders and they do the mandatory job of cleaning up stray threat. Of course miniforts can do that too but snipers are quicker to build.

Sins of a Solar Empire has the Hangar Defense for a similar role, it sends out fighter wings that can strike targets in the entire gravity well. It's not going to stop as much aggression as the shorter ranged turrets but it prevents enemies from parking in your systems.

For me turrets are anti-stray defenses because they're inadequate for dealing with actual armies (in a non-chokepoint scenario) so a drone hangar "turret" would probably do what I want the best.

[Nodor]

I use a lot of turrets specifically for "anti-hull" purposes. 

Snipers are THE turret for dealing with polcrystal hulls.   Getting rid of Spider Sniper turrets would be a serious buff to the mad bomber AI. 

I would really like turrets balanced against Super Terminal forces.  How this is to be determined could use discussion, but right now, if you are able to set up a whipping boy, unlock 50K  knowledge worth of turrets/forts, you can run a Super Terminal for a very long time.
 

I should find some screenshots.    I'll continue this later.

[Aeson]

@Hearteater:
If I'm understanding your numbers and the current numbers for Sniper Turrets, a Mark II version of your variant of the Sniper Turret would end up roughly tripling the sniper firepower I put on a planet, assuming I went for an even mix of Sniper Is and Sniper IIs and put down roughly as many total sniper turrets as I currently do, and I think that current Sniper Turrets are already good enough. What I mostly don't like about your idea is that the firepower of the turrets becomes less granular - with only ~50 sniper turrets to play with as opposed to the current ~120 (normal caps), I'm placing more than twice the firepower per turret that I usually would, which means that I can't adjust the firepower balance between my worlds as much to compensate for having more roaming threat or something around one area of the galaxy than around another.

As for the spider turrets, I like them as long-range stalling weapons, and I'm willing to pay their current knowledge costs for them if I decide to get them (all things considered, it's relatively cheap for what you get), and I already have plenty of short-range things to slow enemies - gravity turrets and tractor turrets come free of charge and will stop or severely slow the majority of fleetships, and EMP mines are a cheap stun weapon at the wormhole. Having a 15,000-range engine damage weapon doesn't do much of anything for me that EMP mines, tractor turrets, and gravity turrets don't. Plus, Spiders are more of a weapon for delaying wandering threat and random ships that slip through the defenses, and they won't do that if they can't cover much of the planet.

@KDR_11k:
I kind of like the idea of a drone hangar turret. Seems kind of funny: "Okay, George, load the next Slicer Drone into the cannon - we've got another wave of targets coming into range."

[Radiant Phoenix]

Normally I'm not going to want to divide my turrets between more than five planets. Thus, as long as there are at least twenty turrets, the granularity is probably fine.

I think I'd still really like to be able to use guardians instead of turrets, though.

[Hearteater]

@Radiant Phoenix
I think the Guardian idea is neat, and would have no problem with it, although not as a Turret replacement.  Very expansion worthy though.

If I'm understanding your numbers and the current numbers for Sniper Turrets, a Mark II version of your variant of the Sniper Turret would end up roughly tripling the sniper firepower I put on a planet, assuming I went for an even mix of Sniper Is and Sniper IIs and put down roughly as many total sniper turrets as I currently do, and I think that current Sniper Turrets are already good enough.

Basically, except don't forget Spiders are out.  If you compare Sniper+Spider to Sniper I+SniperII, you get only 50% more DPS.  Which is still a nice chunk of extra DPS which straight up does not exist in turrets right now, so Mark II Snipers increase total turret offense.

What I mostly don't like about your idea is that the firepower of the turrets becomes less granular - with only ~50 sniper turrets to play with as opposed to the current ~120 (normal caps), I'm placing more than twice the firepower per turret that I usually would, which means that I can't adjust the firepower balance between my worlds as much to compensate for having more roaming threat or something around one area of the galaxy than around another.

Check out your saves and see if you have any planets with less than 3 Snipers because otherwise the granularity wouldn't prevent you from covering the same number of systems.  The lower cap does make you place your Snipers with more care, but I think that's a good think.  You shouldn't be placing them without even paying attention to their cap which honestly is how I use them right now.

As for the spider turrets, I like them as long-range stalling weapons, and I'm willing to pay their current knowledge costs for them if I decide to get them (all things considered, it's relatively cheap for what you get), and I already have plenty of short-range things to slow enemies - gravity turrets and tractor turrets come free of charge and will stop or severely slow the majority of fleetships, and EMP mines are a cheap stun weapon at the wormhole. Having a 15,000-range engine damage weapon doesn't do much of anything for me that EMP mines, tractor turrets, and gravity turrets don't. Plus, Spiders are more of a weapon for delaying wandering threat and random ships that slip through the defenses, and they won't do that if they can't cover much of the planet.

I'm not surprised you like one of the best turrets in the game.  They are really a bit overpowered right now.  There is literally no time you'd want to build a Sniper Turret when Spiders are available.  They are better in every way.  That's not really great design because there is no trade-off.  Given the 96 cap of the proposed Spiders and their range, you can very easily cover multiple Warp Points fairly easily, but not mindlessly.  You are rewarded for good placement by the increased engine shredding power of the new Spider Turrets.  Obviously I can't say for certain they are perfect without trying them out, and maybe they need a few more shots, but I think they do a good job of providing long-term shut down.  For example:

@Nodor:
These Spiders would wreck Bombers quite well.  They out-range them handily and one-shot their engines.  Here is the math: It takes a Bomber V 9 seconds to close into range of the Spider Turrets.  During that time, the Spiders get 3 volleys of 3 shots each.  That's 9 shots x 96 Spiders, or 864 shots.  Each shot "permanently" reduces a Bombers speed to 0.  So against a wave of up to 864 Bomber Vs, 96 Spider Turrets win.  That should do just fine against the Mad Bomber.  And that's assuming no Gravity Turrets or Tractors.  Add either of those and even more Bombers get permanently disabled.

[Cinth]

Don't like the proposed sniper/spider change.  I use the spiders as a second cap of snipers, the ED is icing on the cake.  When you are faced with having to kill obscene amounts of AI Raids up to numerous MK Vs (pretty early in my games btw), in the space of a single system, you need all the snipers you can get.  Raids are the only AI ship that have cause me numerous losses outside of flat out getting rolled.  Must not reduce the amount of stuff I have to handle those (unless you want to give me MK III snipers). 

As you have Spiders now, I'd never need to use them.  You don't really need ED @ 15K when you have gravs and tractors to operate within your other turrets ranges.