View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | Date Submitted | Last Update | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0001947 | AI War 1 / Classic | Suggestion - Balance Tweaks | Dec 9, 2010 12:30 pm | Jan 3, 2011 11:44 am | |
| Reporter | Toll | Assigned To | Chris_McElligottPark | ||
| Status | closed | Resolution | won't fix | ||
| Product Version | 4.046 | ||||
| Summary | 0001947: Snipers and damage reduction while under FFs | ||||
| Description | I think it would be nice if the sniper turrets (and possibly all other units that can fire through FFs) to not be affected by the 75% reduction in firepower. This is becoming a growing need for sniper turrets with the advent of more and more units with radar dampening, meaning sniper turrets are losing many of their targets. Being able to fire from under a forcefield unimpeded would likely help them survive far better on the front lines. | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| Internal Weight | |||||
|
|
Well, as mentioned in the other mantis-record I just quadrupled their health ;) Kind of playing off the idea that maybe there should be a motivation for including some in the normal turret clusters closer to the front. More durability can be added, if desired. These things certainly cost enough that they can stand to take more than 1 or 2 shots. |
|
|
I would do it so they can shoot raid starships better with the recent change rather than survivability reasons. 8000 is a fairly short range and could lead to some issues with mk 3 shields and sniper turret placement if I am not mistaken. |
|
|
In 4.048, half a cap of sniper turrets should be able to insta-pop a Raid MkI. If that's not sufficient additions can be made. The idea is that you have other stuff shooting at them too, etc. |
|
|
You have more than one planet to defend, unless you're not going to use snipers to keep planets clear of random small bits of trash. 5 snipers on every planet is still a bit slow and ends up with dead harvesters from 5-6 mk 3 ships coming in unless you use either more than that or missile turrets in addition. There's also going to be another 2000+ ships behind that raid starship looking to blow you up that the sniper turrets could be firing at first (not a big deal since it is a few quick clicks, but it is something you have to actually notice). The concern I brought up with the last note though was that mk 3 shields may have a large enough radius where the sniper turrets being placed even just barely outside the FF makes them entirely unable to hit a raid starship blowing up your home command center from certain directions unless you very specifically place them in a ring (and thus dilute their damage). I don't know exactly how far 8k is though in comparison to a mk 3 FF. If 8k is more than the radius of the mk 3 FF + raid starship range it doesn't matter ever probably. |
|
|
Well, it may be necessary to up the dampener from 8000 to (say) 12000 to avoid problems like that in general, as other turrets would have the same issue and we don't want to make them all immune to the 75% damage reduction. Do you think snipers need more of a bonus against raids (so, say, a 1/4 cap or a 1/6 cap can insta-pop a raid mkI), or would it suffice to bring spider turrets up to the same level of counter-raid (and damage in general, since you're paying good K for them)? And yes, if you have a big invasion going and raids slip through during the reload cycles, that's just how it goes. It's probably necessary to have some combination of: 1) Border worlds to hold off the other invaders. 2) Snipers near the command station to peck at the raids that come close before the rest of the invasion gets to that planet. 3) Grav Turrets (possibly under forcefields) to keep the raid starships still while your other turrets and whatnot kill them. |
|
|
I usually place 5 or 10 snipers near the CC on every planet (depending on how many planets I intend to claim) and 10 missile turrets in the center that cover all (or at least the most pathy) wormholes as a defense vs trash so I am not continually being annoyed by the sound of harvesters exploding. All other turrets are generally on a single dedicated defense world. If I get a backflow wave that is usually in lane to my dedicated defense world and thus will die. If something big happens elsewhere, I sic the fleet after it and rebuild any planets that explode. Spiders being up to sniper damage would do fine in my opinion, since those would go more on trash defense duty (engine damage = less dead harvesters) and actually be able to destroy things that aren't bombers in a more reasonable timeframe if they slip out of missile turret range before dying. Spiders are worth having against counterposts too since each shot at the start is sort of an instakill and sometimes I unlock them just for that. You still potentially have the ringing issue though. By my estimates it would probably only really come into play with mk 3 FFs unless you use the auto-kiting (if that works right) where it could happen all the time. I get the impression making them ignore the firing from under the FF penalty would either be non-trivial or a performance drain though. This still leaves the problem of them taking forever to kill by mobile military early game. Fighting one on an enemy planet = time to go read the web for a few minutes. If even that were fixed it would be more of a non-issue. |
|
|
Sorry, I should have been clear that I was referring to the 75% reduction to damage of stuff firing while protected by a forcefield (except module-generated or sb/ssb forcefields). The max reduction from armor is 80%, which hopefully makes it feasible for massive turret clusters and/or fleet to kill raid starships by sheer arithmetic. It's fine cpu-wise and code-wise to make the snipers immune to the ff-damage-penalty but I'd rather not go that path. Just increased the sniper turret bonus vs ultra-light to 6 (it's 1 in 4.047, was 4 briefly in the working build), so a third of a cap of sniper turrets will insta-pop a raid mkI. A full cap will insta-pop a raid mkIII (health is linear by mark with those). Also set the health, attack power, and bonuses of spider turrets to be the same as sniper turrets. |
|
|
Early game it still takes a minuteish to kill a single mk 1 raid starship with just mobile military unfortunately, unless you start with munitions boosters or maybe snipers or autocannons, even on normal cap blitz. They die, it just takes a while. After you get your full fleet blob going, it's not too big a deal though. I usually sit around until I have near a ship cap of all the important stuff to start attacking anyway so it doesn't affect me personally much unless there is a first wave raid starship, but I can see someone playing more casually having issues with it. |
|
|
The reason that ships (including turrets) aren't allowed to fire out from under force fields with full firepower is that boosts their health something terrible, and leads to potential unassailable-turret-ball situations. |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 9, 2010 12:30 pm | Toll | New Issue | |
| Dec 9, 2010 12:36 pm | keith.lamothe | Note Added: 0005796 | |
| Dec 9, 2010 1:47 pm | Suzera | Note Added: 0005810 | |
| Dec 9, 2010 1:47 pm | Suzera | Note Edited: 0005810 | |
| Dec 9, 2010 1:52 pm | keith.lamothe | Note Added: 0005812 | |
| Dec 9, 2010 2:05 pm | Suzera | Note Added: 0005813 | |
| Dec 9, 2010 2:06 pm | Suzera | Note Edited: 0005813 | |
| Dec 9, 2010 2:07 pm | Suzera | Note Edited: 0005813 | |
| Dec 9, 2010 2:08 pm | Suzera | Note Edited: 0005813 | |
| Dec 9, 2010 2:13 pm | keith.lamothe | Note Added: 0005814 | |
| Dec 9, 2010 2:29 pm | Suzera | Note Added: 0005815 | |
| Dec 9, 2010 2:39 pm | Suzera | Note Edited: 0005815 | |
| Dec 9, 2010 2:39 pm | Suzera | Note Edited: 0005815 | |
| Dec 9, 2010 2:40 pm | keith.lamothe | Note Added: 0005816 | |
| Dec 9, 2010 2:52 pm | Suzera | Note Added: 0005817 | |
| Dec 9, 2010 2:52 pm | Suzera | Note Edited: 0005817 | |
| Dec 15, 2010 8:34 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0006283 | |
| Dec 15, 2010 8:34 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Status | new => resolved |
| Dec 15, 2010 8:34 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Resolution | open => won't fix |
| Dec 15, 2010 8:34 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Assigned To | => Chris_McElligottPark |
| Jan 3, 2011 11:44 am | Chris_McElligottPark | Status | resolved => closed |
