View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | Date Submitted | Last Update | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0015366 | AI War 1 / Classic | Suggestion - Balance Tweaks | Jun 3, 2014 4:29 pm | Jun 18, 2014 6:07 am | |
| Reporter | giftgruen | Assigned To | keith.lamothe | ||
| Status | considering | Resolution | open | ||
| Product Version | 7.033 | ||||
| Summary | 0015366: Mk I-III Turret energy tweak unnecessary | ||||
| Description | As stated in the title, with the turret rework (which was the right step in my opinion), you raised energy consumption of Mk I-III turrets too high, I think. Because when before we had one bulwark with (maximum) 96 * 3 * <energy consumption of the turret> and some anti-border-aggression turrets with 48 * <energy consumption of the Mk V turret> per border planet, we now have one bulwark with 96 * <energy consumption of the Mk V turret> plus (maximum) 48 * 2 * 3 * <energy consumption of the turret> for every border planet (including our bulwark, but I left that out in the example below). I don't recall if the Mk V version needs more energy than the Mk I-III versions, but both for the ratio 1:1 and every 1:n > 1, the new energy requirements are higher even with just one additional border planet, and rising from there with six times (ratio 1:1) or 6/n times (ratio 1:n) the gradient it had before (my assumptions here were that you have unlocked all Mk II and III turrets and conquered all the Mk V controllers and actually build all the turrets you can on all the border planets, but I think you would get similar results as long as the ratio of conquered controllers and unlocked turrets remains similar to this example). So what I think is that the doubling of the energy requirements of Mk I-III turrets is unnecessarily raising the energy needed for a functional stationary defense - into levels that can easily reach 2-3 times those you would have needed before the patch. Combined with the fact that 1 Mk V turret is generally better than 1 of each Mk I-III, I'd suggest changing the energy requirements back to how they were before patch 7.032 . Sorry for the wall of text, but I wanted to write down all the thoughts that lead to this suggestion. | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| Internal Weight | |||||
|
|
needler: 400 (19200 for 1 cap) laser: 600 (28800 for 1 cap) MLRS: 400 (19200/cap) Missile: 400 (19200/cap) Flak: 800 (19200/cap) Lightning: 1600 (38400/cap) Sniper: 700 (33600/cap) Spider: 700 (33600/cap) these costs remain the same for all marks of their respective turret lines (unsure of mkV, don't have a turret controller in the game I loaded to check costs) ONE full cap of all listed turrets: 211,200 energy. this means that unless you are running a mk2 or better econ station, you are losing power. even if you cut out the flak and lightning turrets, it's still 153600 for one full cap. that means that for every 3 planets held this way, 1 needs to be an econ 1 station to hold even on energy. my personal setup per planet is caps (or close to it) of the basic 3 turrets with a half cap sniper and a half cap spider. as I have mk2 of the 3 basic turrets, I am not operating ANY mk 1 versions of them anywhere because there is no place that needs that many guns right now. This defensive setup runs me 100,800 energy per planet and accounts for over 40% of my empire's overall energy spending*. If I had not unlocked econ 2 and built a couple it would be over 50% of my energy usage (I wasn't comfortable with running that close to 0, one collector down and issues abound!) so far.. this request seems reasonable to me, because all I did when I bought mk2 was ensure that I wouldn't waste energy on mk1 turrets of that type at all. *my current game is on a grid map with no (non-home) planets not bordering ai space, so no back lines where turrets are not needed. in a more traditional map type things might be different thus my holding out on hitting support for this at time of posting. (this review caused me to notice 10 mk1 MLRS. dang mis-clicks now all I gotta do is find the darn things and replace or eliminate.) |
|
|
This is a complicated enough issue to warrant additional feedback on the forums. |
|
|
Not sure - I don't generally deploy a full mark of turrets on outlying worlds if I don't have to. At the current patch, I'm running with 20x snipers, 20x spiders, and 1xFF (over log command)* to fully leverage defense in depth, and then fully fortify two chokepoint worlds with spire cities for the two main entrances. *On about 8 border worlds because fallen spire. 2 more border worlds have half-cap of several other turrets. |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 3, 2014 4:29 pm | giftgruen | New Issue | |
| Jun 3, 2014 4:59 pm | giftgruen | Category | Suggestion - Game Mechanics => Suggestion - Balance Tweaks |
| Jun 4, 2014 9:52 am | malkiel | Note Added: 0038437 | |
| Jun 6, 2014 5:51 pm | TechSY730 | Note Added: 0038467 | |
| Jun 16, 2014 12:07 pm | keith.lamothe | Assigned To | => keith.lamothe |
| Jun 16, 2014 12:07 pm | keith.lamothe | Status | new => considering |
| Jun 18, 2014 6:07 am | zharmad | Note Added: 0038525 |
