View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | Date Submitted | Last Update | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0015364 | AI War 1 / Classic | Suggestion - Game Mechanics | Jun 3, 2014 1:08 am | Jun 16, 2014 12:10 pm | |
| Reporter | gullgotha | Assigned To | keith.lamothe | ||
| Status | closed | Resolution | no change required | ||
| Product Version | 7.033 | ||||
| Summary | 0015364: Mark I-IV restructure | ||||
| Description | This idea i have been playing around in my head for a while now, its not a criticism and the game may of been specifically designed this way and i just don't "get it" My idea is when you upgrade from a mark 1 to a mark 2 ship all your mark 1 ships are now obsolete and half of the mark 1 ship cap is added to the mark 2 cap, and so forth down the line when upgrading to mark 3 and 4. I don't feel i am explaining this properly so let me list it as i see it in my head 1. I am not 100% sure on this but from my understanding, a mark 2 ship is exactly the same as the mark one ship but with all the values doubled, hits twice as hard, takes twice as much damage, so why not take the middle man out and just take half of the number of currently build-able mark one ships and add it to the cap of the mark two ships and make the mark one ships obsolete, you could even have the mark one ships as relics still using resources and usable, but your builders wont make them anymore once they are destroyed. 2. This makes sense in real life, once a better version of the product is available, they discontinue/mothball the old line, the old version is still around but they don't produce it anymore. Why would they? they have a better product to produce. Even the AI does this in a way, once you reach a certain AI progress, it upgrades all of its ships to mark 2 or 3 or more and doesn't even produce the lower tier anymore 3. It would be less resource intensive on your computer, say you have 100 mark 1 ships and 100 mark two ships, in the new system you would just have 150 mark two ships, that's 50 less ships to render and handle, but basically the same damage output/health 4. less micromanagement/ui elements. Everyone has encountered the same thing with fleet balls with many marks and many different types of ships, the bottom right hand corner produces a large list and it can be hard to find the ship you need or even what is in the list. Also instead of having to make Mark I-IV ships in your space docks you just click on the bomber button and it makes the latest version available be it mark 1,2,3,4 I do realize it is not as simple as i am laying it out, some differences in ranks of ships comes with bonuses that would make so many ships imbalanced but with any big change there is always teething problems for balance, and the strategic difference between mark IV and mark V ships is considerable, what happens if the mark V constructor is destroyed, do all current mark 5 ships get downgraded, do they stay the same and now you can only construct mark 4 ships again and also with a lesser number of ships in your fleet there are less targets to shoot at, less cannon fodder for you to use. I also realize that this could be applied to turrets/facilities as well, but with structures that's a whole different kettle of fish anyways for the TL:DR crowd When you research mark II ships, you cant make mark I ships anymore but half the cap is added to the cap of mark II ships you can make, The currently created redundant ships stick around sucking up energy/resources but cannot be replaced once destroyed (why create an inferior version) I am not heavy into maths but the basic theory is this Old system example | New system example Mark 1 ships 100 | Mark 1 ships 100 Mark 2 ships 100 | Mark 2 ships 150 (Mark 1 ships no longer buildable) Mark 3 ships 100 | Mark 3 ships 175 (Mark 1 and 2 ships no longer buildable) Mark 4 ships 100 | Mark 4 ships 200 (Mark 1,2 and 3 ships no longer buildable) so instead of having 400 ships of varying marks, you have 200 ships but they are all the highest mark of ship | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| Internal Weight | New | ||||
|
|
I mean no offense, but your math at the end is indeed flawed. should go like this: 100 mk1 150 mk2 200 mk3 250 mk4 this is not what you originally posted for numbers, but it is a) cleaner than the correct numbers and b) keeps the power scaling by mark intact all the way up. upsides: -simplifies build ques for fleet ships(why have seperate marks, just tell it "fighter" and it goes with best mark you have and upgrades on the way when you do -reduces cpu load short version of issues: -no sacrificial crap ships for mine duty and ion cannon rushing, etc. -certain ships with unique abilities would not benefit from this change properly, either gaining or losing power by leaps and bounds due to non linear mechanics. reclamation, I'm looking at you. also firefly, medic, scapegoat, shredder, etc. - some AI methods are based on numbers of your ships, this would skew them. -reclamation of lower marks makes them possibly a renewable resource if you can get it set up right -energy costs tend to stay the same for mk2-4, with recent work on making energy a viable resource again this might ruin that hard work. the rest of this note is specific issues before I decided to rewrite as a tl;dr version. on to the long version of issues with this: -ion cannon mk4... I am not above bum rushing these with mk1 ships to save costs, those like me who use low marks as suicide mission ships due to cheapness of replacement would get charged more. -AI "eye" things wouldn't be as potent since your ship count would be lower, making them less likely to trigger. -would this mess with swallowers? -tractor stations would become an even bigger annoyance since your fleet is now smaller but they have the same number of beams. also there'd be no more putting mk1s in front of the mk2s when receiving a wave to "soak" etherjet tractors with cheaper ships.(never thought of that before now tbh) -possibly increases the power of the cloaker starship line -would be a form of nerf to ai area attacks, but those are not all that common.. mostly firefly, plasma siege, and sabatour(sp?) in my current game. -ships with low caps and unique abilities, like Z medic, would suffer from this. -energy savings due to higher marks often costing same (mk2-4 specifically) risks countering recent efforts to turn energy back into a more viable form of resource. - people like me who farm raid engine fleets with leeches and merc parasites would have a possible renewable source of lower mark ships, skewing the power balance in our favor. -zenith paralyzer would need a slight nerf on number of shots per volley to account for smaller fleet sizes -neinzul scapegoat actually works on the exact reverse of this concept, would it's sacrificial abilities become more powerful (in practice) when surrounded by an all mk 4 fleet? (have never used it myself) I know regen golem is best with mk3 and 4, I imagine this would be the same -lastly.. minefield soakers. I can't be the only one who send their mk1 fighters to FRD an enemy system and soak the mines so the "real" fleet can get by safely? |
|
|
I just wanted to post about the same as malkiel already did, so I'll just add that especially the conversion to Mk V ships would be very hard to figure out right, and that gullgotha was actually about right with the ships' caps: Mk I: 100 | 100 Mk II: 200 | 100 + 0.5 * 100 = 150 Mk III: 300 | 100 + 0.5 * 150 = 175 Mk IV: 400 | 100 + 0.5 * 175 = 187.5 because a Mk I is only 1/4 or 0.25 times as good as a Mk III and only 0.125 times as good as a Mk IV. However, I still think the idea that even a crappy ship is still of use in the endgame (which was one of the concepts of AI War after all) is too good (and already too well-implemented and balanced) to just scratch it now and do the standard technology-tree-like progression which we already had in a ton of games before. |
|
|
Sorry guys, i should put more thought into my suggestions and get the numbers and maths right before i throw out suggestions. I was just in the mood to throw out ideas not really get the specific numbers, but that is flawed thinking, the maths is just as important as the idea itself so ill be more on the point in the future But yeah thanks for the feedback guys, its good to know that my suggestions are being critiqued and not just ignored, its nice since this is my first time throwing out suggestions in a game i love so much. Malkiel you are on the spot with your Tl;DR version of the idea, if i figure out how to edit my post ill include your points since they are more well thought out then my original ones giftgruen you are on the money with the math, its much better then the math i used for the suggestion, thanks for clearing it up. I can see you point about the fact that there are uses for the lower tier ships in respect to mine fields and cannon fodder and i do realize that there would be many, many balancing issues and if one of the developers like keith said that they would be interested in this idea if it was more thought out i would be more then happy to go thought each and every unit (yeah i am that crazy) and figure out the balancing issues. also i can see some units becoming more useful and some units becoming more useless with this implementation but that is half the fun, figuring out what is now more effective, maybe finding out new uses for units, i guess my point here is that although you can find uses for the "crappy" low tier ships even at endgame and it is currently well balanced that doesn't mean we can improve or try out new systems and see if they are better for the game, i dunno that's just my point of view on that |
|
|
fighter stats by mark 1: attack 40, hp 1650, armor 2, AP 7 2: attack 80, hp 3300, armor 6, AP 15 3: attack 124, hp 4960, armor 8, AP 22 4: attack 164, hp 6600, armor 12, AP 30 for ease of math, am rounding cap to 100 for all calculations. for more precise numbers simply multiply mine by .96 to arrive at actual under normal cap mark 1 firepower: 4000 mark 2 firepower: 8000+4000 from mk1 = 12000 mark 3 firepower: 12400+12000 from lower marks = 24400 mark 4 firepower= 16400+24400 from lower marks = 40800 under proposed changes using original ship counts for suggestion: mk1: 4000 mk2: 12000 175 mk3: 21700 (2700 below current) 200 mk4: 32800 (8000, or 20%, below current) at higher marks, significant loss of dps. my numbers where not wholly accurate as I did not account for the fighter scaling a bit better at mk3 than 1 or 2 but are close enough in this example: mk1: 4000 mk2: 12000 mk3: 24800 (400 higher than current) mk4: 41000 (200 higher than current) as mk5 is only available from fabricators I do not feel this suggestion should include them in any way. in summation, I stand by my suggested numbers regarding this proposal. remainder of post is health analysis on the various proposals vs. current using same convention of rounding to 100 cap from 96 actual. mk1 165k for all proposals mk2 495k for all proposals mk3 Current: 991k Gulgotha's numbers 868K Malkiel's numbers 992k mk4 Current: 1651k Gulgotha's numbers 1320K Malkiel's numbers 1650k the armor and armor piercing portions would have to be accounted for on ships that have exceptional values in one or both, but such in not the case with the fighter. edit for formatting of hp math |
|
|
Note that this is a deliberate design choice the way things are set up in this regard. One of the devs explicitly stated in a forum post that this is seen as part of the strategy. The relatively low caps of ships mean that the one of the strategic choices you have to make is how do you split your ships up? It also means the Mark I stay (somewhat) useful even into the end game as you simply don't have enough high mark ships to go around and so plug the holes with the low-mark ships. Note that the forum post in question is quite old, but I don't see something this fundamental changing. |
|
|
Firstly Malkiel thank you so much for doing the math on this, its something i should of done in the first place but it was very awesome of you to do it for the fighters, i think i might do a similar thing for the Triad (fighters/bombers/frigates) and then move this proposal to the forums for a much wider audience to look at and talk about. Dazio i could understand where that point of view is coming from and for all i know when the game was being made the dev's were using something similar to my system of ship caps but then went with the current design and the current design isn't broken in anyway i have played the game with the current design and enjoyed it immensely. That being said, this game has evolved, this game is still evolving, that is the greatest if not the greatest part of this game and sets it above any other strategy game i have ever played. For instance one day i updated the game and crystals are no long a currency, that blew my mind, that seemed like such a fundamental part of the game, finding a balance in your crystal/mineral expenditure, looking over systems to see if they are rich in crystal asteroids so i can increase my production and BOOM, one day that is just gone. At first i was like, how the hell is this going to work but as i played a few games i saw it was just evolving, i didn't need that aspect anymore, the devs were streamlining the resource system, they were making it more efficient and i for one think the game is much better for the change. I am not saying that my new proposal is the perfect way that ships should be handled from now on, the more i think about it the more i think of how much work would have to be done to make it happen, how maybe the change should happen only to ships that humans start with, not bonus ships or mk.5 fabricated ships (much like malkiel mentioned in his last post) What i am saying is that this suggestion makes sense to me for the evolving game. making it more streamlined in both game play and less resource intensive on computers. Just because i don't have lower tier ships to plug up holes doesn't mean i am going to loose every time, i means i have to rethink my tactics, instead of just sending all my mk.1 ships to plug a hole i will have to send parts of my main fleet, how much will i weaken it? will it be enough? should i leave some in reserve to help out at either end? Instead of 300 ships i only have 175, every decision i make with those numbers is much more important, every super weapon against me is so much more deadly because i don't have the cannon fodder i used too. I think the problem here is that i came into this half-cocked. I didn't do this game justice. I threw out a suggestion that would change a major mechanic of this game and i didn't even do the math behind it properly. I mean think of it from a Dev's point of view, looking at my suggestion they might laugh thinking "f**k that" that's going to shift the game way to much in a direction i don't want it to go, but if i gave it the proper detail, if i put the math in front of them, they might take it a bit more seriously, it might even change their mind on the matter, hell it might inspire them to go in a completely different direction and evolve the game in a different way all together (which i am cool with as well). I think i need to sit down and do the work here guys and i think i need to shift this proposal over to the forums for a wider audience to see and have their say on as well. Thanks guys, you have inspired me to do better on this matter... even though i know the dev's might look at it and be like "hahaha, no!" |
|
|
@malkiel: Sorry, I still somehow thought that the ships would double their firepower and other stats from one Mk level to the next, however, it is simpler than that, because you just have to multiply the Mk level number with the stats of the Mk I ship. So a Mk III ship is three (not four) times as good as a Mk I ship, and four instead of the eight I calculated with on Mk level IV. @gullgotha: I am also worried about how you would be able to build up a big throw-away fleet by just stockpiling all the lower level mark ships once they are not buildable any more so that you have 100 Mk I ships, 150 Mk II, 200 Mk III and 250 Mk IV ships piled up when assaulting the first AI homeworld simply because you unlocked the next Mk levels after having built all the ships of the lower mark and then stockpiled them on your homeworld until you need a REALLY big fleet for one big blow against the AI. In total I still do not understand why you want to exchange an innovative (or at least a lot less common than the "replacing" techtree) and functioning system that gives you more perspectives in terms of strategy (do I split the stacks into homogenous parts or into one quality- and one quantity-oriented part?) and tactics (do I need more firepower/ability to take a beating or more individual missiles/shots, to aim with the same damage at more weak targets at once?) with one that would (as I see it) only help performance and clearness. And as I recall we didn't even take into account that starships behave very differently in this account, because the bonus of two Mk I flagships in completely different parts of the galaxy can't be outweighted by a stronger bonus from one single flagship. More examples would be cloaker and scout starships (and scouts in general as the main intention you unlock them is to have MORE scouts, not necessarily stronger ones), and how would you do with the 1 Zenith and Spire starships? Make one or two Mk II starships on this type buildable? And if you now think that we can also leave the starships as they are, together with the Mk V ships, the experimental ships, unique ships like the scapegoat etc.: then why should we even implement another rule into this already complex game that only applies to the "basic" ships and not the more exotic ones, which would then give an only minor boost to performance (due to only small reduction in numbers as most of the ships are still as before) and clearness (at least in the middlegame you should have unlocked enough "special" ships to clutter your main fleet's selection window regardless) while overthrowing the whole game balance. And I think the game balance is one of the best I have ever seen in games of this complexity and strategical level. TL:DR version: I just wrote down a long series of arguments that cannot be expressed in one sentence in any way. |
|
|
I appreciate the suggestion but as pointed out the per-ship, per-mark caps are pretty core to the design and while there are some advantages to a "just upgrade the one type" design it's just not the one this game uses. Ultimately I don't see nearly enough of an advantage to justify that kind of upheaval. |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 3, 2014 1:08 am | gullgotha | New Issue | |
| Jun 3, 2014 2:14 pm | malkiel | Note Added: 0038423 | |
| Jun 3, 2014 4:49 pm | giftgruen | Note Added: 0038428 | |
| Jun 3, 2014 7:26 pm | gullgotha | Note Added: 0038430 | |
| Jun 4, 2014 8:50 am | malkiel | Note Added: 0038436 | |
| Jun 4, 2014 8:55 am | malkiel | Note Edited: 0038436 | |
| Jun 4, 2014 9:19 pm | Dazio | Note Added: 0038439 | |
| Jun 4, 2014 11:13 pm | gullgotha | Note Added: 0038440 | |
| Jun 5, 2014 5:27 pm | giftgruen | Note Added: 0038443 | |
| Jun 5, 2014 5:29 pm | giftgruen | Note Edited: 0038443 | |
| Jun 16, 2014 12:10 pm | keith.lamothe | Internal Weight | => New |
| Jun 16, 2014 12:10 pm | keith.lamothe | Note Added: 0038517 | |
| Jun 16, 2014 12:10 pm | keith.lamothe | Status | new => closed |
| Jun 16, 2014 12:10 pm | keith.lamothe | Assigned To | => keith.lamothe |
| Jun 16, 2014 12:10 pm | keith.lamothe | Resolution | open => no change required |
