View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | Date Submitted | Last Update | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0002579 | AI War 1 / Classic | Suggestion - Balance Tweaks | Jan 20, 2011 11:00 am | Aug 4, 2012 10:17 pm | |
| Reporter | TechSY730 | Assigned To | keith.lamothe | ||
| Status | assigned | Resolution | open | ||
| Product Version | 4.072 | ||||
| Summary | 0002579: Bombers too good at their jobs for a basic (triangle) ship | ||||
| Description | This holds true for when they are in the hands of AIs or humans. Because I am currently typing this on my phone (and because I am lazy), I'm not summarizing the discussion that lead me to post this report, but instead I will direct you to some of the later comments in issue 0002572. Make sure you read those first, as some of the reasons why bombers are imbalanced and a few suggestions for rebalancing have already been made there. Two points I would like to reiterate 1. bombers can one-shot missile frigates, but missile frigates and standard fighters take 3 shots to take out a bomber. Even considering reload times, that is pretty skewed. 2. bomber armor bonus multipliers are too high right now. IIRC, their bonus vs. structural is 10x. On top of the high base damage they have, that is insane. Strucuteral armor bonus is the worst offender, but the other bonuses need some rethinking as well. Before you say that they are more or less in line with the other triangle ships' bonuses, IMO, all of the bonuses of the standard triangle need a little rethinking. Up to you guys to decide whether the balance is off enough to deserve risking a delay for 5.0. | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| Internal Weight | |||||
| related to | 0002572 | assigned | keith.lamothe | 1 Hour, 105 AIP, Wave: 700 Bombers. |
| related to | 0007867 | considering | Balance distribution of hull types (especially Heavy, Ultra Heavy, and Command Grade) | |
| related to | 0002707 | resolved | keith.lamothe | Cost reduction for the missile frigate? |
| related to | 0009122 | considering | Balancing the Triangle - A New Approach |
|
|
I don't even know how to go about re-balancing this anymore. There are too many factors, one of which is the player's need for them. Its like the raid starship all over again. |
|
|
The real problem is that bombers have 95% of the jobs in the game. Just between triangle fleet fights in isolation they are balanced fine though. Fighters shoot three times faster than bombers, so fighters taking three shots for 4s each or 12s total to blow up bombers that blow up frigates in 1 shot per 12s is fine. |
|
|
Good point Suzera. And why I no longer build frigates. Frigates die so quickly to AI bombers that they never take out the AI fighters (percentage wise) nomming my bombers, so I skip the middle step. |
|
|
Sorry for updating the description so much, but I keep noticing stuff I missed. |
|
|
Oh I see what you are saying. The structural and heavy armor hull types are given to too many units. |
|
|
And Ultra-Heavy and Command Grade. Some of the more common special planet things are UH and CG too. If you micro a vanilla triangle fight vs the AI, you can actually do it so the AI will never get bonus damage against you. |
|
|
If you're not building frigates you are missing out though. There are far more than just triangle ships out there. What else are you going to do with the resources anyway? If you're overflowing might as well build frigates too. |
|
|
And now we get into the difficulty with making bonuses based on a small number of hull types rather than per ship vs per ship. There are less numbers to deal with, bit any change in multipliers or hull type can effect damage to and damage taken from things that had nothing to do with the motivation to change it in the first place. Plus, only a few hull types make sense to give heavy, tough targets (light armor for something tough, while it may improve balance, does not make much sense given the name). As tough targets are the things you tend to fear the most, things that are good against the hull types that fought things tend to have become disproportionally usefull. |
|
|
Idea. Let the bombers keep a structural and ultra-heavy bonuses, but give the command grade and heavy bonuses to some other triangle ship. This won't stop even a small wave of bombers from ripping through player forcefielss like butter, but it would help to reduce their centrality to taking out stuff that needs to be taken out. Maybe standard fighters can get the command grade bonus, and frigates get the heavy bonus, or vice-versa. |
|
|
> If you're overflowing might as well build frigates too. Lol. Overflowing. Doesn't happen until mid game, at which point I do build frigates. Early game though they're a complete waste [b]and[/b] I'm running a deficit. |
|
|
Interesting, as the unit I probably lose least is the frigate. Fighters die in bulks, but rebuild as easilly as they get killed. Bombers last a bit longer but are painfully weak to certain defences. Frigates outrange it all and when used properly are last to be hit. Stats for my current game: frigates: 1845 build, 34799 kills by bombers: 2641 build, 21576 kills by Do I need to say more? :D Uploaded a screenshot with the stats incase someone doubts me. |
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, comparing something that kills at 3 shots at 4 seconds per reload is not equal to something that takes 1 shot at 12 seconds per reload. Take 100 bombers and 100 fighters in a vacuum and have them start attacking at the same moment. The bombers will one-shot all the fighters on their first shot, whereas the fighters will get off one shot before dying that leaves the bombers at 2/3 HP. (assuming they all shoot different targets, but work with me here, it's a simplified example) Sure the bombers have to wait 12 seconds before they shoot again, but that's not a big deal when all their enemies are dead. Maybe this is causing some of the disparity? Edit: Good point down below... I should have just said 'ship A' and 'ship B' instead of fighters and bombers for this example since they don't work on a 1 to 1 basis in game. Oh well, the point is still there, if muddled. |
|
|
Except the bombers are one shotting frigates, after the frigates have one or two shot a bunch (if not all if you're doing it right) the fighters. If you just fight moving away from the AI in a triangle fight while the AI advances you come out way ahead though, and you can even do far better than that with just a couple extra clicks. It takes bombers quite a few shots to kill fighters. |
|
|
Yes, kiting can be quite effective with regards to kill counts. I've been toying with an RTS unit generator in that regard. It's [i]really[/i] hard to find a happy medium between "kiting = win" and "kiting = lose." |
|
|
Fun, had a whole post written and only get an error posting. :| Anyway, in short. For me the current balance is more or less as follows: -fighters: cheap trow away unit mostly usefull to keep things occupied while the others kill it -bombers: your offensive workhorse, it kills big things and likes chewing through buildings -frigates: your defensive workhorse, it kills anything from a distance, use speed to your advantage and they never die This doesnt mean that defending vs a wave bombers are useless or frigates are on the offensive .. far far from it. Frigates keep away anything while bombers nuke the heavy targets, fighters keep you frigates alive while the frigates keep the bombers alive. Use speed and defenses when outgunned and you should at least let your frigates get good kill-ratios. If you take away bombers or frigates I rather have you take away bombers, not because they are too good, but because I can easilly replace them with an other unit (bomber starships), which I can not do with frigates (only thing that comes close is the siege starship and I would not put that vs a single fighter :)). So if you ask me if bombers are too good for their job, my answer will be 'absolutelly not'. If you ask me if frigates are too good at the job of being a good general defensive units, they might be. If bombers are too good it probably means you just need Chris and Keith to push you more into a defensive position where you may learn to apreciate the power of the frigate more :) |
|
|
-fighters: cheap trow away unit mostly usefull to keep things occupied while the others kill it -bombers: your offensive workhorse, it kills big things and likes chewing through buildings -frigates: your defensive workhorse, it kills anything from a distance, use speed to your advantage and they never die Therein lies the issue. Triangle units aren't supposed to be categorized like this. Or they shouldn't be. |
|
|
Fleet vs fleet that is. I dont play with just bombers, just fighter or just frigates :) One vs one/cap vs cap is a different story. But I still do not see any issue as they have diffent uses and different costs. A single fighter should not be able to take down a single bomber, 3 shouldnt take down a bomber, 4 perhaps (cant recall their respective cost atm :)). Fighters are the so called counter to bombers, but if this would be 1 on 1 there is a serious issue with cost-balance of these units. |
|
|
On the other hand, if it takes 4 fighters to take out 1 bomber, then how do 44 fighters take out 200 bombers? |
|
|
Frigates :) |
|
|
*Head-desk* That is not how balance works. |
|
|
Now there is an interesting point. If standard fighters are supposed to be weaker, more fragile, cheaper, and used in great numbers compared to the other triangle ships, why do they have the same ship cap as the other triangle ships? |
|
|
Because the presupposition is incorrect. They aren't really that much weaker or more fragile currently. They also rebuild really really quickly too. They just aren't what is most important for any of the REALLY hard standout features like bombers. Frigates just take loads of micro to use very well. |
|
|
(reposted from the omgwavesize thread) If we're going to talk about how powerful bombers are we do have to look at the rest of the triangle to see how it stacks up. If I recall, bombers actually take a long time to kill compared to the other two, let me see. Mark I ships, cap vs cap, around the triangle, normal caps, epic speed, 4.072: Fighters vs Bombers: 108s Frigates vs Fighters: 60s Bombers vs Frigates: 60s Normal speed: Fighters vs Bombers: 56s Frigates vs Fighters: 30s Bombers vs Frigates: 36s Blitz speed: Fighters vs Bombers: 56s Frigates vs Fighters: 30s Bombers vs Frigates: 36s |
|
|
Bomberchat should probably go here and the difficulty stuff go there anyway. Pasting: There's a problem with armor not scaling vs damage that evens that out more for normal/blitz speed too. Fighters vs bombers still stands out slower though, just not as much. |
|
|
Looks like fighters need a higher cap or some other buff vs bombers based on those numbers. If they're really supposed to counter bombers it seems like they are failing in that job. Sounds like a cap of all 3 types fighting versus the same setup would end with all the fighters dead first, then the frigates, and then the bombers left vs bombers. |
|
|
That's pretty much what happens. Which is why I skip the frigates (early game). The fighters are cheap, but do at least provide a buffer against a pure bomber fleet. (Also: fighters on FRD will go after frigates in system that are closer than bombers farther away). |
|
|
I would highly disagree, I do not think bombers are unbalanced or too powerful. If I had to make an assessment, it's that fighters do not kill them fast enough, and that's an issue with the fighters. Then again, I'm usually scrambling mk1 and mk2 fighters vs mk2+ bombers from the start of the game, so the numbers are a bit skewed for me. At least for me, bombers are the last triangle ship I go for - fighters are first because of their versatility/ease of replacement, then frigates (and my frigates last a looooong time). Bombers are relegated to helping with massive enemy waves, or taking out heavily fortified targets, because of my preception of their ineffectiveness and their expense/time to replace (since I find they die more often than frigates). |
|
|
idk if anyone has said this or not, but Frigates are weak to Bombers in the Triangle balancer. So yes, they are supposed to be easy to kill by bombers. King |
|
|
King missed the point. Just because bombers are strong against frigates doesn't prove that they're TOO strong against frigates (or force fields, or other things). |
|
|
Oh so that's what we are arguing. Ok, if not bombers, who should get the bonuses against the other structures? |
|
|
See 0002579:0009353 Idea. Let the bombers keep a structural and ultra-heavy bonuses, but give the command grade and heavy bonuses to some other triangle ship. This won't stop even a small wave of bombers from ripping through player forcefielss like butter, but it would help to reduce their centrality to taking out stuff that needs to be taken out. Maybe standard fighters can get the command grade bonus, and frigates get the heavy bonus, or vice-versa. |
|
|
...if fighters were 1. faster and 2. better at doing damage to, in particular, bombers and raid starships, I think we'd feel a little safer. Bombers as is are exactly as fast as fighters, which means that they can kite fighters - and most other ships - along behind them while engaging their primary targets (on human offense, anyway). I've sent bombers /alone/ against heavily defended AI Eye planets, and they've come out successful because they just can't be stopped in time. Meanwhile, raid starships, being immune to tractors and force fields /and/ being more than twice as fast as fighters, can in themselves snipe command stations in a few short seconds, all while being caught up to only by other raid starships. Fighters being able to catch them too on defense would greatly improve survivability. |
|
|
Agreed. I think this discussion has shown the bombers ship type's dominance has less to do with the bombers' power, but rather more to do with its intended standard counter, the standard fighter, being too weak. For the standard fighter, a boost in speed and firing rate seems to be called for. As fragile as they are compared to the other two triangle ships, I am fine with that, because they are so cheap. EDIT: I still do think that the bomber has too many important bonuses, but the standard fighter seems to be playing a pretty big role in this balance question as well. EDIT2: Sadly, I don't think the standard fighter is going to be tweaked anytime soon, as many, many "zergling style" or anti-bomber ships are balanced based on its stats, and thus would need re-looking as well. |
|
|
--On the other hand, increasing the speed of fighters can make them leave frigates in the dust, letting them chase whoever they want without fear of getting too close to the primary anti-fighter stuff. |
|
|
They always have left Frigates in the dust before. Frigates used to have speed 12 compared to the fighter's roughly 30 (that's two and a half times as fast). |
|
|
I think fighters are plenty good against everything else. Tweaking their damage against Polycrystal up a little bit could solve the problem without requiring any other major tweaking. As for raid starships - toss up some sniper turrets. 5 Sniper turrets should alpha strike a mk1 raid starship, and won't take too much longer against mk2 and mk3 raid starships. Fighters have never been intended to be good against raid starships. |
|
|
Some significant changes in for 5.001 on this. Hopefully not too significant, but didn't want to make changes that didn't change anything. When 5.001's out, please let us know what you think. |
|
|
Um, is it okay if bombers and frigates keep the same total cost, just with mirrored resource costs? I kind of like that about them now; it makes it easier to plan my economy. |
|
|
You mean shifting the bomber and/or missile-frigate costs so that the total m+c cost of building 1 bomber AND 1 missile-frigate is 50% metal and 50% crystal? |
|
|
I believe that is what he meant, yes. |
|
|
Yes, that is what I meant. I like that sort of symmetry. |
|
|
Btw. Keith. If you are wondering a major odd reason this suddenly became an issue. Bombers before ya folks linearized ship damage had SEVERELY substandard damage on Mk I bombers. It is notably being furthered by other matters. Just. Mk I bombers used to be disproportionately less of a threat XD... Well see how things work out in 5.001 |
|
|
So, do people feel that bombers are no longer quite so game-breaking (especially in the early game) in 5.001? Or do you think further shifting around is needed? |
|
|
They'll still eat a planet, but things are better. Though that might be partially due to 0002577 more than anything. Haven't played enough games to really know for sure, but my one game got a one-two punch of bombers (both AIs waved the same planet with 250+ bombers) and once the command station was dead it was just mop-up as those bombers never tried to go anywhere. |
|
|
i feel that yes they are less of a threat however they are still over the top in effectiveness. i dont want them nerfed to where they dont fill their role. my suggestion is that at their current damage they are effective and that this is more a of a numbers concern. that for their firepower their ship cap might need to be adjusted rather than only looking at their dps. not sure but it seems to me that lowering their ship cap would affect the ai waves wince they are scaled to this and resolve many of their game breaking effects. only conccern is then how this makes fortresses more of a pain than they already are. |
|
|
I don't want ship cap scaled either, I can never have enough bombers! |
|
|
@motai So are you saying that maybe the AI should have a slight wave multiplier penalty for them (leading to less of them per wave should the AI choose to use them for a wave)? Or are you saying that their ship cap should be reduced for everyone? |
|
|
I'd be up for a 0.75 multiplier to "anything with structure bonus" for the AI. It would still lead to waves that are "significantly stronger" but not overpoweringly so. Also, spire I Can't Believe They're Not Starships need to be treated like starships (but in addition to starships) for waves. So no more "50 Spire Stealth Battleship" waves (no really, 50 of them). |
|
|
Me neither, especially considering it is a triangle ship. And the idea to make the AI use less of them on average compared to other ships was shot down (Though I did reopen it as there was what I felt an important question that still has not been addressed by Kieth or Chris, see 0002785) |
|
|
And about the "almost-starship" tier of fleet ships, yea, they need caps for planets, guard posts, and a wave multiplier penalty, just less severe than the full fledged "starship like" tier. EDIT: Oh you were talking about the actual "starship like" tier of fleet ships. Yes, these need actual hard caps in waves, as they are basically starships in everything but name. A more elegant solution would be to make them actual starships, but I'm not sure how much hacking of the code would be needed to move them to the actual starship class and to create the logic for bonus starship types. |
|
|
A doublt-cap of bombers is bad enough, but a double cap of stealth battleships is almost as bad as 3 raid starships. |
|
|
Just posted the idea to give the "starships in all but name" fleet ships hard caps in waves like starships. 0002869 Vote up or down as desired, I guess. |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 20, 2011 11:00 am | TechSY730 | New Issue | |
| Jan 20, 2011 11:01 am | TechSY730 | Relationship added | related to 0002572 |
| Jan 20, 2011 11:04 am | Draco18s | Note Added: 0009334 | |
| Jan 20, 2011 11:10 am | TechSY730 | Description Updated | |
| Jan 20, 2011 11:10 am | TechSY730 | Description Updated | |
| Jan 20, 2011 11:23 am | TechSY730 | Description Updated | |
| Jan 20, 2011 11:29 am | Suzera | Note Added: 0009339 | |
| Jan 20, 2011 11:34 am | Draco18s | Note Added: 0009340 | |
| Jan 20, 2011 11:34 am | Draco18s | Note Edited: 0009340 | |
| Jan 20, 2011 11:41 am | TechSY730 | Note Added: 0009344 | |
| Jan 20, 2011 11:41 am | TechSY730 | Description Updated | |
| Jan 20, 2011 11:44 am | TechSY730 | Note Added: 0009347 | |
| Jan 20, 2011 11:47 am | Suzera | Note Added: 0009348 | |
| Jan 20, 2011 11:57 am | Suzera | Note Added: 0009351 | |
| Jan 20, 2011 11:58 am | TechSY730 | Note Added: 0009352 | |
| Jan 20, 2011 12:09 pm | TechSY730 | Note Added: 0009353 | |
| Jan 20, 2011 12:11 pm | TechSY730 | Note Edited: 0009353 | |
| Jan 20, 2011 12:21 pm | Draco18s | Note Added: 0009356 | |
| Jan 20, 2011 2:09 pm | Red Spot | Note Added: 0009367 | |
| Jan 20, 2011 2:10 pm | Red Spot | Note Edited: 0009367 | |
| Jan 20, 2011 2:11 pm | Red Spot | File Added: Screenshot_2011_01_20_20_17_12.png | |
| Jan 20, 2011 2:21 pm | BobTheJanitor | Note Added: 0009370 | |
| Jan 20, 2011 2:33 pm | Suzera | Note Added: 0009373 | |
| Jan 20, 2011 2:33 pm | Suzera | Note Edited: 0009373 | |
| Jan 20, 2011 2:34 pm | Suzera | Note Edited: 0009373 | |
| Jan 20, 2011 2:42 pm | BobTheJanitor | Note Edited: 0009370 | |
| Jan 20, 2011 2:46 pm | Draco18s | Note Added: 0009376 | |
| Jan 20, 2011 2:58 pm | Red Spot | Note Added: 0009377 | |
| Jan 20, 2011 3:01 pm | Draco18s | Note Added: 0009380 | |
| Jan 20, 2011 3:15 pm | Red Spot | Note Added: 0009384 | |
| Jan 20, 2011 3:17 pm | Draco18s | Note Added: 0009385 | |
| Jan 20, 2011 3:26 pm | Red Spot | Note Added: 0009386 | |
| Jan 20, 2011 3:28 pm | Draco18s | Note Added: 0009387 | |
| Jan 20, 2011 3:39 pm | TechSY730 | Note Added: 0009388 | |
| Jan 20, 2011 3:46 pm | Suzera | Note Added: 0009389 | |
| Jan 20, 2011 3:47 pm | Suzera | Note Edited: 0009389 | |
| Jan 20, 2011 3:47 pm | Suzera | Note Edited: 0009389 | |
| Jan 20, 2011 3:48 pm | Suzera | Note Edited: 0009389 | |
| Jan 20, 2011 3:49 pm | Suzera | Note Edited: 0009389 | |
| Jan 20, 2011 3:52 pm | Vornicus | Note Added: 0009392 | |
| Jan 20, 2011 3:57 pm | Suzera | Note Added: 0009393 | |
| Jan 20, 2011 3:58 pm | Vornicus | Note Edited: 0009392 | |
| Jan 20, 2011 5:08 pm | BobTheJanitor | Note Added: 0009394 | |
| Jan 20, 2011 6:16 pm | Draco18s | Note Added: 0009397 | |
| Jan 20, 2011 8:44 pm | Sunshine | Note Added: 0009415 | |
| Jan 22, 2011 12:32 pm | kingisaaclinksr | Note Added: 0009545 | |
| Jan 22, 2011 12:32 pm | kingisaaclinksr | Note Edited: 0009545 | |
| Jan 22, 2011 1:21 pm | Draco18s | Note Added: 0009547 | |
| Jan 22, 2011 1:40 pm | kingisaaclinksr | Note Added: 0009548 | |
| Jan 22, 2011 1:45 pm | kingisaaclinksr | Note Edited: 0009548 | |
| Jan 22, 2011 1:54 pm | Draco18s | Note Added: 0009549 | |
| Jan 22, 2011 9:54 pm | Vornicus | Note Added: 0009564 | |
| Jan 22, 2011 9:58 pm | TechSY730 | Note Added: 0009565 | |
| Jan 22, 2011 10:03 pm | TechSY730 | Note Edited: 0009565 | |
| Jan 22, 2011 10:04 pm | TechSY730 | Note Edited: 0009565 | |
| Jan 22, 2011 10:06 pm | TechSY730 | Note Edited: 0009565 | |
| Jan 23, 2011 5:11 am | Vornicus | Note Added: 0009578 | |
| Jan 23, 2011 9:52 am | Draco18s | Note Added: 0009589 | |
| Jan 23, 2011 11:14 am | Sunshine | Note Added: 0009591 | |
| Feb 1, 2011 11:27 am | Draco18s | Relationship added | related to 0002707 |
| Feb 8, 2011 11:41 am | keith.lamothe | Note Added: 0010125 | |
| Feb 8, 2011 11:41 am | keith.lamothe | Assigned To | => keith.lamothe |
| Feb 8, 2011 11:41 am | keith.lamothe | Status | new => feedback |
| Feb 8, 2011 8:44 pm | TechSY730 | Note Added: 0010163 | |
| Feb 8, 2011 8:44 pm | TechSY730 | Status | feedback => assigned |
| Feb 8, 2011 8:53 pm | keith.lamothe | Note Added: 0010165 | |
| Feb 8, 2011 8:57 pm | Draco18s | Note Added: 0010166 | |
| Feb 8, 2011 9:06 pm | TechSY730 | Note Added: 0010167 | |
| Feb 15, 2011 4:46 pm | RogueThunder | Note Added: 0010365 | |
| Feb 18, 2011 7:54 pm | TechSY730 | Note Added: 0010475 | |
| Feb 18, 2011 8:01 pm | Draco18s | Note Added: 0010478 | |
| Feb 19, 2011 12:09 am | motai | Note Added: 0010481 | |
| Feb 19, 2011 12:21 am | Draco18s | Note Added: 0010483 | |
| Feb 19, 2011 12:22 am | TechSY730 | Note Added: 0010484 | |
| Feb 19, 2011 12:25 am | Draco18s | Note Added: 0010485 | |
| Feb 19, 2011 12:27 am | TechSY730 | Note Added: 0010486 | |
| Feb 19, 2011 12:29 am | TechSY730 | Note Added: 0010487 | |
| Feb 19, 2011 12:33 am | Draco18s | Note Added: 0010489 | |
| Feb 19, 2011 12:35 am | TechSY730 | Note Edited: 0010487 | |
| Feb 19, 2011 12:47 am | TechSY730 | Note Added: 0010491 | |
| Jul 11, 2012 11:46 am | Moonshine Fox | Relationship added | related to 0007867 |
| Aug 4, 2012 10:17 pm | TechSY730 | Relationship added | related to 0009122 |
