View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | Date Submitted | Last Update | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0001883 | AI War 1 / Classic | Balance Issue | Dec 7, 2010 1:56 pm | Dec 23, 2010 3:32 pm | |
| Reporter | Moonshine Fox | Assigned To | Chris_McElligottPark | ||
| Status | resolved | Resolution | fixed | ||
| Product Version | 4.046 | ||||
| Fixed in Version | 4.055 | ||||
| Summary | 0001883: Lightning Warheads (and possibly others) underpowered | ||||
| Description | Original discussion: http://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php/topic,7814.0.html Basically, Lightning Warheads as it stands are pretty much a no brainer to not use. For the AIP and resource cost, a full cap of Mk I or Mk II can not even take out a single AI ship with their combined damage. The ships will just sit there at roughly 30-50% health and laugh at your +6 AIP. Back in the old days of AI War, a single lightning warhead would create a gaping hole in a blob of AI ships. Now they barely scratch the paint. In addition to that, all missile ranges have been shortened, it seems. Only the MK I has a range that is worth using, but does too little damage. The Mk III is decent in damage, but has a hilariously low range and can, at most, damage a single ship (which it most likely won't reach before getting shot to pieces by the AI). In short, Lightning Warheads are not worth using. They need some serious looking over, both to not make them OP, but also to make them a viable choice. You do pay a permanent AIP cost for using them, in addition to resources. They are also limited to blasting wormholes open, since they will inevitably be blown to bits 2 seconds after entering a moderately defended system. | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| Internal Weight | |||||
| related to | 0000964 | resolved | Chris_McElligottPark | Lightning Warhead health is 5x lower than intended |
| related to | 0002104 | resolved | Chris_McElligottPark | Armored Warhead has too weak damage for AIP cost |
|
|
I'll throw this onto the idea pile. I would have each MK of the missile be identical, AIP cost and everything, BUT each different mark has a massive boost to a certain multiplyer. For example MK1 has a 10 Neutron multiplier. MK2 has a Light Multiplier. This way you need to build the missile of choice to deal with certain ship types. A wave of bombers heading to your Home station? Last ditch effort you build the MK missiles that have a bonus vs their hull type. |
|
|
Not a bad idea, except that we have...what 11 hull types and only 3 Mks of warheads. That would be rather cumbersome. Also a 10 multiplier on a warhead would, while epic, be seriously OP :) Still it's not too shabby of an idea. |
|
|
I absolutely agree, lightning warheads definitely need to be buffed! Varone's idea above is not bad either, but I would certainly not leave the current damages and ranges as they are now. A compromise between the two would be ideal I think, i.e. significantly boost their damage and range, and also adding some bonuses. However, if we wanted to go to the multiplier-kind of idea Varone suggested, I think we better create multiple types of Lightning warheads, all with different bonuses. Lightning warhead mk2 and mk3 should have the same multipliers as the mk1. |
|
|
Yeah, perhaps having a few variants is the way to go, grouping by similar type. Have the default unlock be good against stuff you find around wormholes, and a few others good against shields, starships, and general fleet ships? Worthless against anything but the type it's designed to kill, but very strong vs. those the warhead specializes in. |
|
|
I rarely use warheads anyway as they can't be transported, which severely limits their usefulness, especially as you can't even scrap and rebuild them without AI Progress cost (which doesn't make much sense to me). Even if underpowered, a transportable warhead would be a lot more useful -possibly with a 60 second delay between unloading and arming to prevent them being dumped straight onto a target and detonated. |
|
|
We'll see how this change does, in 4.053: * The attack power of all the lightning warheads have been increased by 3x due to recent game rebalances. Additionally, their ranges have been increased by 0/250/250. In terms of AIP costs, those are one of the few things I'm not going to be willing to change, so it's a matter of figuring out how to make these balanced with the respective AIP costs. |
|
|
I used EMPs _heavily_ in a recent game to help deal with massive blobs of "stalking threat"; just stun them for a minute or two, send the fleet through and shred shred shred :) If anything, EMP warheads are a bit too useful in that case. First I tried lightning warheads, and found that mkIIs and mkIIIs didn't hit a large enough area to really make enough progress (even against the maximally blobbed AI units directly on top of the wormhole), and the mkIs still only got about half the radius I needed; though with this 3x damage boost I might have more use for them. |
|
|
I pretty much agree with Keith on this. EMP warheads are extremely useful so these really need no change. Even slightly overpowered, as it stands. The difference between lightning warheads and armored warheads is simply health and armor values, yes? Then perhaps the armored warheads need to be made substantially more sturdy to warrant the massive AIP cost. I'll be testing the new warheads as soon as you release the new version. Thanks for looking into this! |
|
|
@Moonshine: and 1/4 the damage. 0002104 |
|
|
* Armored Warhead attack powers have been increased 40x, making them significantly more awesome and perhaps actually strategically viable for once. * Lightning Warhead attack powers have been increased 2x to make them a lot more strategically tempting again, too. |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 7, 2010 1:56 pm | Moonshine Fox | New Issue | |
| Dec 7, 2010 4:08 pm | Varone | Note Added: 0005545 | |
| Dec 7, 2010 4:39 pm | Moonshine Fox | Note Added: 0005554 | |
| Dec 7, 2010 5:35 pm | ShdNx | Note Added: 0005557 | |
| Dec 7, 2010 8:19 pm | ShadowOTE | Note Added: 0005571 | |
| Dec 7, 2010 9:04 pm | Vinraith | Relationship added | related to 0000964 |
| Dec 11, 2010 1:48 pm | sarnian | Note Added: 0005960 | |
| Dec 20, 2010 6:22 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0006499 | |
| Dec 20, 2010 6:22 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Assigned To | => Chris_McElligottPark |
| Dec 20, 2010 6:22 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Status | new => feedback |
| Dec 20, 2010 6:26 pm | keith.lamothe | Note Added: 0006500 | |
| Dec 21, 2010 3:30 am | Moonshine Fox | Note Added: 0006588 | |
| Dec 21, 2010 3:30 am | Moonshine Fox | Status | feedback => assigned |
| Dec 21, 2010 5:45 pm | Moonshine Fox | Relationship added | related to 0002104 |
| Dec 21, 2010 5:49 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Status | assigned => feedback |
| Dec 22, 2010 1:03 pm | Draco18s | Note Added: 0006736 | |
| Dec 23, 2010 3:31 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0006894 | |
| Dec 23, 2010 3:31 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Status | feedback => resolved |
| Dec 23, 2010 3:31 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Fixed in Version | => 4.055 |
| Dec 23, 2010 3:31 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Resolution | open => fixed |
| Apr 14, 2014 9:29 am | Chris_McElligottPark | Category | Gameplay - Balance Issue => Balance Issue |
