View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | Date Submitted | Last Update | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0001424 | AI War 1 / Classic | Balance Issue | Nov 17, 2010 8:51 am | Dec 23, 2010 6:33 pm | |
| Reporter | themachineissentient | Assigned To | Chris_McElligottPark | ||
| Status | resolved | Resolution | fixed | ||
| Product Version | 4.035 | ||||
| Fixed in Version | 4.055 | ||||
| Summary | 0001424: fortresses need buff | ||||
| Description | level I 4 million HP 8000x30 attack 3000 knowledge Level II 8 million HP 14,000x40 attack 4000 knowledge level III 12 million HP 20,000x50 attack 5000 knowledge in comparison, a Mark one flagship has: 4,875,000 HP 12,000x9 attack 2000 knowledge For practical game experience, the fortresses are dying quite quickly. Because they have sheltering capabilities, I wouldn't mind seeing the HP boosted by at least 30% of what they are now to become more fortress-like. The zenith starship and the spire starship have higher HP. With the recent wave changes and events, could use fortresses but would rather have starships right now to defend. A Mark one transport has as much HP as a fortress and costs no knowledge. | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| Internal Weight | |||||
|
|
With an HP increase, probably should also have a resource cost increase. |
|
|
I would like to see it become modularized to fit the kind of enemy it need to take on. |
|
|
Modularity would indeed be nice, but for the time being just generally buffing HP and maybe Attack slightly would do wonders. I've noticed I've used Fortresses less these days, though still occasionally do. Looking at the stats closely though, it doesn't seem quite as tempting anymore. |
|
|
As they have long range the amount of HP seems ok to me. The attack strength seems low to however. |
|
|
Modularity sounds like a very good idea! I'd also like to see them slightly boosted, but I think around 20% would do the trick. |
|
|
* Fortresses have been significantly buffed: ** Fortresses mark I-III now fire flame waves rather than missiles (superfortresses already did). This lets them now hit ships that are immune to missiles, obviously, but it also increases the movement speed of their shots from 54 to 178: a tremendous boost to their ability to wreak a lot of havok on ships that are fast and/or distant. ** Fortresses mark I-III now have 10x more health (superfortresses already had way more), making them much more substantial in terms of their own surviability. ** The attack power of fortresses and superfortresses have all been increased 10x, making them a lot more formidable again. ** Superfortresses are now 2.5x more expensive than they were before. ** Regular fortresses are now 10x more expensive than they were before. ** Fortresses mark I-III now cost 3x more energy than before, and cannot be put in low-power mode. ** Superfortresses now cost 15x more energy than before, and cannot be put in low-power mode. |
|
|
Did you make sure that the AI version of the Mk. III fortress does not have more HP than the superfortress (or the AI version of the superfortress, if they have it)? It would be kind of annoying to have to reopen that bug report I made several version ago. |
|
|
Sigh, ok: * To be consistent with the other fortresses, there is now an AI superfortress with 5x more health than the human counterpart. |
|
|
Sorry to be nitpicky, but I am a big consistency buff. Again, sorry if I am being annoying or rude. I'm just trying to help. |
|
|
Oh, and is it okay if superfortresses are formally considered the Mk. V version of the fortress, rather than its own ship class? |
|
|
That wasn't a sigh of annoyance, I'm actually just as nitpicky and quite grateful you caught it. As for making them mark V fortresses, that's not something I'm keen to do yet, though. |
|
|
Yea, from what I can tell, ships of the same class must have the same side-bar and thus same far zoom icons, which superfortresses have a different one, so I can see why you don't want to do it yet. |
|
|
I will most certainly unlock mk 1 fortresses now, but they scale ATROCIOUSLY compared to turrets and ships because of the huge reduction in ship cap. Mk2 is only slightly better per ship cap than mk1, where pretty much everything else is about twice as good per cap in mk 2 vs mk 1. Mk 3 cap is just flat worse than mk 1 cap AND costs far more knowledge. They aren't even exploitable for AE like Lightning Turrets that also get tremendously inefficient at mk 3 (but still might be great because they hit 2000 things each shot). I suggest moving the ship cap to at least something like 5/4/3, which puts it close to a linear power increase per cap per mk like the ships are getting balanced to. |
|
|
Good point. * The ship cap of fortresses has been moved to 5/4/3. |
|
|
Question: Does SuperFortresses being unable to be put in low power mode include while they are under construction? If so, I don't think I'll ever be building one again as with their cost plopping one down would be consigning my economy to oblivion until it finished (or am I the only one who uses the strategy of throwing one of these up, leaving it low power until I have some money saved, burning 500k into it, and then putting it back into low power?). That said, glad to see Fortresses get some real teeth. I look forward to using them (and more commonly groaning in agony when I see them on an AI world :p ). |
|
|
Anything can be put in low power while under construction, no worries. |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 17, 2010 8:51 am | themachineissentient | New Issue | |
| Nov 17, 2010 8:53 am | themachineissentient | Note Added: 0003804 | |
| Nov 17, 2010 10:06 am | ArcDM | Note Added: 0003813 | |
| Nov 17, 2010 10:07 am | ArcDM | Note Edited: 0003813 | |
| Nov 17, 2010 10:21 am | HitmanN | Note Added: 0003814 | |
| Dec 5, 2010 9:52 pm | shugyosha | Note Added: 0005338 | |
| Dec 6, 2010 10:04 am | ShdNx | Note Added: 0005358 | |
| Dec 23, 2010 2:56 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0006876 | |
| Dec 23, 2010 2:56 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Status | new => resolved |
| Dec 23, 2010 2:56 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Fixed in Version | => 4.055 |
| Dec 23, 2010 2:56 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Resolution | open => fixed |
| Dec 23, 2010 2:56 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Assigned To | => Chris_McElligottPark |
| Dec 23, 2010 2:59 pm | TechSY730 | Note Added: 0006877 | |
| Dec 23, 2010 3:13 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0006878 | |
| Dec 23, 2010 3:19 pm | TechSY730 | Note Added: 0006882 | |
| Dec 23, 2010 3:20 pm | TechSY730 | Note Added: 0006883 | |
| Dec 23, 2010 3:22 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0006884 | |
| Dec 23, 2010 3:23 pm | TechSY730 | Note Added: 0006886 | |
| Dec 23, 2010 3:24 pm | TechSY730 | Note Edited: 0006886 | |
| Dec 23, 2010 3:59 pm | Suzera | Note Added: 0006901 | |
| Dec 23, 2010 3:59 pm | Suzera | Note Edited: 0006901 | |
| Dec 23, 2010 3:59 pm | Suzera | Note Edited: 0006901 | |
| Dec 23, 2010 4:05 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0006902 | |
| Dec 23, 2010 6:32 pm | MaxAstro | Note Added: 0006974 | |
| Dec 23, 2010 6:33 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0006976 | |
| Apr 14, 2014 9:29 am | Chris_McElligottPark | Category | Gameplay - Balance Issue => Balance Issue |
