View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | Date Submitted | Last Update | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0001855 | AI War 1 / Classic | Suggestion - Balance Tweaks | Dec 6, 2010 1:39 am | Jan 3, 2011 11:45 am | |
| Reporter | Suzera | Assigned To | Chris_McElligottPark | ||
| Status | closed | Resolution | won't fix | ||
| Product Version | 4.045 | ||||
| Summary | 0001855: Reduce fleet ship tech knowledge cost | ||||
| Description | It will make advanced research stations more valueable since you may actually have the knowledge to unlock the ships they give, particularly if the underpowered ships are all brought up to par. Maybe 2k for mk 2 and 3k for mk 3 for a start at least. It currently takes 2.5 planets of knowledge to get a ship to mk 3, and the triangles are going to come before almost any of the others, and then you're probably going to pick up turrets on top of that to defend against the mounting wave sizes to keep power costs down or to slow non-tractorable ships and such. That's a lot of knowledge in necessities to go through before even considering getting any of the unnecessary (maybe their niche role doesn't exist in that particular game) or outright weaker-than-triangles bonus ships. | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| Internal Weight | |||||
| related to | 0001860 | resolved | Chris_McElligottPark | Suggestion: ARS Capture Unlocks MKII Ship Type |
|
|
thats how they were back before you got 3k knowledge/planet. |
|
|
There's more stuff to unlock now in competition with them. It's also apparently a big enough problem that being forced to take ARS is seen as an extraordinary punishment by many. I personally don't care too much either way because I am effective enough with just default ships. It's just an idea to maybe help out ARSes. |
|
|
I suppose.. There always were the same starships, we get more free turrets and starships now.. er.. yeah im not seeing it :\ |
|
|
If I'm not mistaken, the turrets genreally cost more now, MRS cost more now, bases are more useful now and so are more of the starships. Fortresses were buffed a bit at some point, more of them were added, and so were advanced transports. Beam cannons are new and the damage type modifiers has made only a few turrets generally very useful thus inspiring more deep than wide unlocks which takes more knowledge. Some of the fleet ships used to be godships, like space planes used to be in the shields era who you could easily and quickly win a game with by building nothing else because they broke through bomber shields and were cheap as paper, or eyebots due to, again, extremely cheap cost, turret wrecking back when turrets were everywhere and firing through shields. Right now, triangles are just outright better than most of the bonus ships. You also overall lost knowledge when old style research raiding was taken out unless you're taking half the map, 2000 to 3000 knowledge per planet instead or not. It used to be you could take planets with many warp links out in the middle of AI territory (such as, say, planets with an ARS on them) for efficient AIP:knowledge ratio if you wanted some knowledge but that's not as feasible an option timewise anymore. |
|
|
I hardly even bother with Mk3, the exponential price increase vs the linear power increase makes them uneconomic. Starships are crazy expensive to unlock though, especially compared to the benefit of getting another cap full of fleet ships. |
|
|
The linear power thing is temporary -- a factor of us being in the process of converting over a LOT of old data during beta. And it's not really exponential as a price increase, but it is multiplicative. So too will power be, coming up. |
|
|
And it already is for the core fleet ships, FYI. Just not the bonus ones yet, aside from a few like bulletproof fighter, tank, etc. |
|
|
The core fleet ships are all linear power for exponential cost. If mk 1 is 1 power, 1 price, mk 2 is about 2 power 2 price, mk 3 is 3 power 4 price, mk 4 is 4 power 8 price, and mk 5 is 5 power for 16 price. Roughly. Except for the actual energy cost which is always the same. The only ships I know of off the top of my head that break this trend are Shield Bearers, Space Tanks and maybe MRLS that are roughly exponential/exponential. The triangles are all roughly linear power for exponential price. I only ever build mk 2 and 3 of anything except for some outlying cases to roll the overpowering firepower advantage to keep a huge K:D. Mk 1 is too weak for the energy amount it takes up usually, and mk 4 is generally too pricey and doesn't bump the K:D to steamroll the AI with up that much. |
|
|
Oh, that's right, I did make the price exponential. Forgot about that. |
|
|
Anyway, going in favor of 0001860 on this one. |
|
|
Right, but keep in mind that mk 5 stuff is not commonly available (basically just a reward for capping a fabricator) and that mk 4 stuff is a reward for either capping and advanced factory or teching up to a mk 4 enclave starship (or using parasites liberally). If you were paying knowledge to unlock individual mk 4 ships I'd see that differently. So 1 : 1 : 1 2 : 2 : 2 3 : 3 : 4 Doesn't sound _that_ bad. Not to say it couldn't be improved, of course. And I think it would be good to reduce energy costs on mk1 ships to encourage their use to shore up lower-priority points, etc. |
|
|
The reason I went with 3 : 3 : 4 is also because of two other reasons: 1. Sometimes the "first mover" advantage is absolutely more immense than would be shown by stats alone. Being able to one-shot a lower-level ship, or close, can be more beneficial than stats might show. Depending on relative ranges, the other ship may not even get off a shot at all, leading to a kill where you take no damage. 2. The older stuff is intended to be useful, and having the lower tiers be a significant cost advantage is a big advantage for them. I scaled up the player economy tremendously, so I think of it not as a penalty of increasing cost of the higher-mark ships, but rather as a bonus of making the lower-mark ships relatively way cheaper. The relative cost of the higher-mark ships isn't that much higher than it ever has been, relative to how much crazy income players now have. Except for mark V, of course. Those are always intended to have a poor cost-to-benefit ratio, as their abilities can be just rather devastating. |
|
|
Yeah, I didn't necessarily say it was bad. I actually think it very good from a balance perspective that they are linear power/exponential cost, though maybe mk4 and mk5 could use a bit of loving. I'll leave that issue for another time for now though, since they are more useful now and the game has changed quite a bit towards that end. I'd probably be more inclined to use mk 1 ships if they had a reduced power requirement. As another plus, it could speed up the early game start a bit since you wouldn't have to kick in the mk 3 power so quickly. That -40/-40 is a pretty large chunk of your income right at the start with 1 HW. |
|
|
Yeah, I decided to reduce 4/5 a bit: * The metal/crystal costs of ships by mark level has been reduced from 1x/2x/4x/8x/16x to 1x/2x/4x/6x/8x. Gives a bit of a break on the upper end, and makes the mercs not quite SO expensive, too (60x the base cost instead of 80x). |
|
|
That's cool. I'll probably take an advanced factory for that. |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 6, 2010 1:39 am | Suzera | New Issue | |
| Dec 6, 2010 1:41 am | Lancefighter | Note Added: 0005345 | |
| Dec 6, 2010 1:42 am | Suzera | Note Added: 0005346 | |
| Dec 6, 2010 1:43 am | Suzera | Note Edited: 0005346 | |
| Dec 6, 2010 1:43 am | Suzera | Note Edited: 0005346 | |
| Dec 6, 2010 2:18 am | Lancefighter | Note Added: 0005348 | |
| Dec 6, 2010 8:02 am | Suzera | Note Added: 0005354 | |
| Dec 6, 2010 8:03 am | Suzera | Note Edited: 0005354 | |
| Dec 6, 2010 8:04 am | Suzera | Note Edited: 0005354 | |
| Dec 6, 2010 8:04 am | Suzera | Note Edited: 0005354 | |
| Dec 6, 2010 3:51 pm | KDR_11k | Note Added: 0005408 | |
| Dec 6, 2010 3:52 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0005411 | |
| Dec 6, 2010 3:53 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0005412 | |
| Dec 6, 2010 4:38 pm | Suzera | Note Added: 0005428 | |
| Dec 6, 2010 4:38 pm | Suzera | Note Edited: 0005428 | |
| Dec 6, 2010 4:39 pm | Suzera | Note Edited: 0005428 | |
| Dec 6, 2010 4:39 pm | Suzera | Note Edited: 0005428 | |
| Dec 6, 2010 4:42 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0005430 | |
| Dec 6, 2010 4:44 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Relationship added | related to 0001860 |
| Dec 6, 2010 4:44 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0005431 | |
| Dec 6, 2010 4:44 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Status | new => resolved |
| Dec 6, 2010 4:44 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Resolution | open => won't fix |
| Dec 6, 2010 4:44 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Assigned To | => Chris_McElligottPark |
| Dec 6, 2010 4:46 pm | keith.lamothe | Note Added: 0005432 | |
| Dec 6, 2010 4:51 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0005434 | |
| Dec 6, 2010 4:55 pm | Suzera | Note Added: 0005436 | |
| Dec 6, 2010 4:56 pm | Suzera | Note Edited: 0005436 | |
| Dec 6, 2010 4:57 pm | Suzera | Note Edited: 0005436 | |
| Dec 6, 2010 5:16 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0005440 | |
| Dec 6, 2010 5:27 pm | Suzera | Note Added: 0005442 | |
| Dec 6, 2010 5:28 pm | Suzera | Note Edited: 0005442 | |
| Jan 3, 2011 11:45 am | Chris_McElligottPark | Status | resolved => closed |
