View Issue Details

IDProjectCategoryLast Update
0002459AI War 1 / ClassicSuggestion - Balance TweaksJan 17, 2011 12:35 am
ReporterPrezombie Assigned ToChris_McElligottPark  
Status resolvedResolutionfixed 
Product Version4.066 
Fixed in Version4.069 
Summary0002459: Support structure caps cause micromanagement instead of limiting fronts.
DescriptionThe AWS is turning out to be very useful, if not vital, to wave defence tactics. It's cheap across the board from Knowledge to Building, but the tiny cap is rather pointless, causing someone with too many fronts to scrap and rebuild them where they're needed. I'd guess the same case is true if you're using decloakers.

Part of me wants to say this is a subtle message to keep the number of fronts down, but if so, it's far too subtle, the kind of player who gets that many open fronts is too stubborn (or inexperienced) to pull back, and instead micros so they can focus defense effectively everywhere. I really think the cap should be removed, and have this encouragement be less subtle, and more painful to ignore.
TagsNo tags attached.
Internal Weight

Activities

TechSY730

Jan 16, 2011 10:22 am

reporter   ~0008693

Last edited: Jan 16, 2011 10:23 am

Hmm, this is a fundamental game design you are questioning. From my understanding, ship caps have always been one of the most important tools to prevent a huge number of fronts from being practical. Could this be made a little more clear in the tutorial, the wiki, tool-tips, or something? Probably, but I'm not sure if rebalancing the game, changing something that has been around a long time, just to make something a little clearer is a good idea.

TechSY730

Jan 16, 2011 10:26 am

reporter   ~0008694

Plus, if you are capable of "artificially" extending the number fronts you have by micromanagement, shouldn't you be rewarded for that? Again, your point that this should be clearly optional rather than implicitly encouraged is valid, but I don't think that trying to remove this incentive completely is the right idea.

Sunshine

Jan 16, 2011 10:46 am

reporter   ~0008695

AWS are not strictly necessary, and are intended as a tool for newer players to not be completely overwhelmed. If you really feel you need them, Logistics Command Stations mk1-3 provide AWS, as do Sentinel Frigates.

BobTheJanitor

Jan 16, 2011 11:36 am

reporter   ~0008702

I think the point is that there's never a time that you'll need all your AWSes at once, so if you have a lot of planets you just end up hunting around for one to scrap and rebuild every time a wave warning pops up. I can see how that would be annoying since you only have 9, which does seem arbitrarily low for something that you would otherwise just put on every planet whenever a wave hits there.

TechSY730

Jan 16, 2011 11:46 am

reporter   ~0008707

@BobTheJanitor

Good catch there. I have a tendency to look at the "broad" complaint, rather than the issue that sparked the complaint in the first place. I do support increasing the ship cap of AWSs, but my position on the issue presented by the title stands.

Prezombie

Jan 16, 2011 1:01 pm

reporter   ~0008727

@TechSY730

Sorry for the confusion, it was specifically a consideration of the AWS units, and how the minor feature is useful, but only once, scrapping loses no information you already have, so in a situation like that, there's no reason something should prompt it being scrapped.

Chris_McElligottPark

Jan 17, 2011 12:35 am

administrator   ~0008821

Thanks!

* Advanced Warp Sensors now have a ship cap of 50, and no longer act as scouts.

Issue History

Date Modified Username Field Change
Jan 16, 2011 8:49 am Prezombie New Issue
Jan 16, 2011 10:22 am TechSY730 Note Added: 0008693
Jan 16, 2011 10:23 am TechSY730 Note Edited: 0008693
Jan 16, 2011 10:26 am TechSY730 Note Added: 0008694
Jan 16, 2011 10:46 am Sunshine Note Added: 0008695
Jan 16, 2011 11:36 am BobTheJanitor Note Added: 0008702
Jan 16, 2011 11:46 am TechSY730 Note Added: 0008707
Jan 16, 2011 1:01 pm Prezombie Note Added: 0008727
Jan 17, 2011 12:35 am Chris_McElligottPark Note Added: 0008821
Jan 17, 2011 12:35 am Chris_McElligottPark Status new => resolved
Jan 17, 2011 12:35 am Chris_McElligottPark Fixed in Version => 4.069
Jan 17, 2011 12:35 am Chris_McElligottPark Resolution open => fixed
Jan 17, 2011 12:35 am Chris_McElligottPark Assigned To => Chris_McElligottPark