Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
v1.1.3 Weapon Damage Modifiers Feedback
04-13-2012, 01:44 PM
Post: #11
RE: v1.1.3 Weapon Damage Modifiers Feedback
(04-13-2012 01:31 PM)Bruin Wrote:  One quick thought on Starbases with unlimited design costs is that it seems like it might be a helpful element for an alternative racial build that has to rely a little more on defense, such as a research build, but I couldn't speak on the matter with any degree of certainty as I haven't played a multiplayer game long enough yet to fully appreciate the potential of a nasty Starbase.

My only real concern is heavy armor and reinforced hull I think; if starbases have no design cost limit, then they circumvent the stacking penalty. Not sure that's horrible, starbases are not meant to be puny.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-13-2012, 02:07 PM
Post: #12
RE: v1.1.3 Weapon Damage Modifiers Feedback
I don't think there should be a limit. If you can pay for 6x armor II, then you deserve it.

GC: Elph -=- GC Sandbox: Elph
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-13-2012, 04:27 PM (This post was last modified: 04-13-2012 04:30 PM by VanderLegion.)
Post: #13
RE: v1.1.3 Weapon Damage Modifiers Feedback
(04-13-2012 12:29 PM)rocco Wrote:  
(04-13-2012 12:09 PM)VanderLegion Wrote:  Granted. That did help. Just a bit...And just think, those weren't even complete yet. You attacked too early for my real loadout Sad

On that topic: should starbase configurations have a maximum design cost?

The starbase wasn't what I was worried about not being complete, the battleship was. The starbase was just a bonus Tongue
(04-13-2012 02:07 PM)elph Wrote:  I don't think there should be a limit. If you can pay for 6x armor II, then you deserve it.

I think the point is that if it's on a starbase, than it's not a matter of being able to pay for 6x armor 2, it's the same cost regardless, meaning there's no penalty for stacking.

I would say there shouldn't be a limit on starbases. being able to stack armor over what a ship could makes starbases more powerful again, closer to what they were before 1.1.0, as opposed to being almost useless as they are currently.

I kinda lean toward the side of starbases should be really powerful. That's part of the point of building a stationary starbase as opposed to just making ships. And it'd be easier to armor a giant starbase than it would a ship.

GC ID - VanderLegion, GMT-9. Sandbox GC ID (Beta) - VanderLegion
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-13-2012, 06:19 PM
Post: #14
RE: v1.1.3 Weapon Damage Modifiers Feedback
If we made SB stronger, then they should cost more. Then we would also need a tech or something else to get a few more CP.

GC: Elph -=- GC Sandbox: Elph
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-14-2012, 10:55 PM
Post: #15
RE: v1.1.3 Weapon Damage Modifiers Feedback
I love starbases just as they are right now. They are extremely useful for a defender which I think will make many people happy that prefer longer games, maybe, jut maybe the Easter bunny makes it too goodSmile (3 burrows instead?)

In overall I am in love with 1.3 weapon balance.

Seems that nukes 3 are back... Maybe make them somewhat more expensive or laser 3 cheaper. Just fine tuning...

Cheers!
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-15-2012, 02:42 AM
Post: #16
RE: v1.1.3 Weapon Damage Modifiers Feedback
I still think gauss is under powered. It needs a little bit longer distance. Maybe start dropping off mid way through medium range. It could also be instead of not being effective at range that it's probability to hit decrease with range.

*****
Though we are not now that strength that in
Old days moved earth and heaven
That which we are, we are
One equal temper of heroic hearts
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield
-------
GC: engineeredguy2 GCS: StandAlone-SB
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-15-2012, 04:09 AM
Post: #17
RE: v1.1.3 Weapon Damage Modifiers Feedback
(04-14-2012 10:55 PM)General_Grr Wrote:  I love starbases just as they are right now. They are extremely useful for a defender which I think will make many people happy that prefer longer games, maybe, jut maybe the Easter bunny makes it too goodSmile (3 burrows instead?)

In overall I am in love with 1.3 weapon balance.

Seems that nukes 3 are back... Maybe make them somewhat more expensive or laser 3 cheaper. Just fine tuning...

Cheers!

Really nukes aren't spectacular until you get the fast launchers, and preferably stockpiled ordinance as well, which means you need at least 5 tech to make them really good, maybe more depending on what research racials you have. Before you get the fast launchers, they're easily countered with PDS, which is an early level tech that cna be easily obtained before your opponent even has nuke 3.

Realistically, nuke 3 should be just as good in 1.1.2 as it is in 1.1.3 - nothing was changed for nukes to my recollection, I just never used them cause there's too much to research and stacked ECM is a really good counter. I just decided to try em out in 1.1.3 when I went with the research race and they worked. Really well. The three ECM make them a lot less effective (well, think I was on torpedoes by then...), but they still did really well.

I suppose I should probably go start testing the other weapons now...

GC ID - VanderLegion, GMT-9. Sandbox GC ID (Beta) - VanderLegion
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-15-2012, 07:14 PM
Post: #18
RE: v1.1.3 Weapon Damage Modifiers Feedback
I agree that gauss should have a bit more range to make them competive with the others, but yes, weaker at the longer range.

GC: Elph -=- GC Sandbox: Elph
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-17-2012, 04:33 AM
Post: #19
RE: v1.1.3 Weapon Damage Modifiers Feedback
(04-15-2012 07:14 PM)elph Wrote:  I agree that gauss should have a bit more range to make them competive with the others, but yes, weaker at the longer range.
Posted this in the 1.1.3 tournament thread, figured I'd copy it over here and add a bit:

Quote:I've been testing some of the other weapons in the PnP Test Game. In a 3v3 match between battleships, 1 side with the aforementioned proton torpedo build, the other with 4 ecm, 1 bulkhead, the 3 shield tech, and 8 plasma launchers, the plasma wins (torpedo ships set to charge close to minimize plasma damage, plasma ships set to keep long range to maximze plasma damage). Don't remember if 1 or two ships survived.

Doing 8 gauss with auxillary thrusters, combat engines, 4 ecm and some bulkheads lost against the same torpedo ships. Haven't tested the gauss vs Plasma, but I'm pretty sure with 8 plasma vs 8 gauss (as opposed to a mixed set of weapons), the plasma will win hands down due to shields and gauss's horrid damage vs them.

I need to start testing some mixed weapon builds.

With regards to the gauss vs torpedoes, the gauss actually wins 1v1 with the 4 ecm, loses out in the bigger fight.

I was looking at the various weapon options and realized something - there's not a single weapon that does bonus damage vs armor. Gauss ignores armor and goes straight to hull, but other than that everything is weak against armor (excepting nukes/torpedoes).

The main problem I see is that you can't build a ship with some weapons good against everything to be balanced. You can do plasma or lasers to burn down shields, you can do ion cannons to burn through hull, but all of them are weak against armor. The only thing not, as I pointed out, is gauss, but that doesn't help if your goal is to burn through the armor so that your IPC3 can take out their hull.

I also wonder if ECM needs to be nerfed a bit. With 4 ECM, you evade a LOT of torpedoes/nukes. It makes them almost useless (buncha torpedo battleships vs a starbase 2 or 3 with ECM and I barely killed it). Add another ECM or two to the mix (on a starbase 2+ or battleship+) and you'll pretty much never hit it with missiles. Given that there's no ECCM in the game atm, I'm wondering if ECM either needs to be reduced to a lower chance to evade per unit, or perhaps given a stacking penalty like HAP and RB. Then you could still have 4 of them on your ship if you want, but you have use more production to do so (still wouldn't help against starbases, but at least you might not run into fleets with 5 ecm on every ship).

GC ID - VanderLegion, GMT-9. Sandbox GC ID (Beta) - VanderLegion
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-17-2012, 04:59 AM
Post: #20
RE: v1.1.3 Weapon Damage Modifiers Feedback
Could be we just change gauss from piercing to be +150%. Or laser to +125% armor, but drop structure to +80%.

As far as torps / nukes, any thoughts on if they should stay +100% across the board?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Contact Us | Starbase Orion | Return to Top | Return to Content | Lite (Archive) Mode | RSS Syndication