View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | Date Submitted | Last Update | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0021951 | AI War 2 | Suggestion | Oct 26, 2019 12:34 am | Mar 10, 2020 9:44 am | |
| Reporter | Ranakastrasz | Assigned To | RocketAssistedPuffin | ||
| Severity | tweak | ||||
| Status | closed | Resolution | fixed | ||
| Product Version | 1.002 ARSes, Instigators, and Tech Vaults, Oh My | ||||
| Summary | 0021951: Bomber Antisynergy | ||||
| Description | The Bomber's Damage modifier, gaining +50% or more damage, triggers on the target having 50% or more shield remaining. This has an unfortunately anti-synergy with pretty much everything else, such that attacking such a target with your whole fleet makes it MORE durable. I suggest changing it to "Target has greater shield than Hull". This will alter balance somewhat, but will also make bombers better team players, and gain a bonus vs their natural targets (High shield low hull) while losing a bonus vs targets they aren't as good vs (High hull low shield) | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
|
|
The bonus is so they attack things with enough shields left to be worth bypassing automatically. If they didn't have it I'd probably just up the base damage to match, but they'd be dumber. I don't think changing the bonus will solve much I think, they will always inherently have anti synergy with most ships, simply because those ships do not bypass shields. If I took a giant blob of units and started attacking Guard Posts, the shields would be taken down before the Bombers take out the hull, thus defeating the point of shield bypass entirely. Doing that change would make them a bit better in a fleet ball, but they're just...inherently not really meant to go in one. I kind of like that actually? But that's me. |
|
|
I suppose that makes sense. Still, as long as the fleet system makes splitting a fleet a hassle, I don't think antisynergies like this are a good idea. And yes, I prefer not having them in a fleet ball, but the fleet system makes it kinda hard not to. |
|
|
it's pretty trivial to move all your fusion ships into a separate fleet. In fact, the fleet mechanics makes it trivial to split up your forces such that fleetballing is discouraged Fusion bonus as is encourages you to use your bombers differently than other ship types. This is already in a good condition IMO |
|
|
I know @x4000Bughunter wants to move in a direction where you don't need so much to split fleets to make certain ship work - the raiders boosting everyone's speed was done for this reason, and he specifically mentioned in a forum thread that he loved that kind of synergy and wanted more of it. I think @Ranakastrasz's suggestion is aligned with this idea. I think we should stop using the word "fleet ball" when it's a single fleet. "fleetballing" is when you lump multiple fleets together and don't bother to control where anything goes. @zeusalmighty I don't agree that it's trivial within the current mechanics. You have to create a custom fleet, which takes up a valuable visual slot on the galaxy map, and until last patch it was costing 7000 energy, and takes up a whole number hotkey to itself (which can't be changed on-the fly, you need to go to the fleet panel) if you want to be able to recall its selection individually. Personally I mostly value a game that's internally consistent. If the fleet is the main command unit, then let's focus on making fleets interesting - having to take things out of the fleet so they work is a bit iffy in that regard. On the other hand if we really want fleet lines that we need to micro around so they're efficient, let's adapt the game interface and control methods around that (control groups, anyone?). Currently it feels like the blanket is being pulled in multiple directions at the same time. |
|
|
Yeah, I was going to file this as it bothers me too. It's OK if adding a ship type to my fleet doesn't help, but adding a new ship type to my fleet should never hurt. |
|
|
I mean. I make "Fusion One X" fleets all the time. Grouping every fusion I can get my hands on, with a raider or dagger if possible. You can still have synergy with jammer/paralyzer ships. Fusion ships don't go well with some ships like Stingray, but then nothing force you to have them fight in the same area of a planet or even the same planet. I don't think the antisynergy is a big deal. Maybe just swap the one raid ship with fusion damage, because if you aren't running fusion that one is kind of annoying? |
|
|
I'm probably not going to do anything for this. The only thing I'd do currently is put that bonus to 1.1x then up the base damage so they keep the behaviour. Even then due to the nature of Fusion, combining Fusion units with non-Fusion will always have a bit of anti-synergy. Changing units entirely because of anti-synergy will just get weird I think. What about Spiders and Snipers? They interfere with each other. Warbird Frigates and Tesla Corvettes? No point jamming weapons if they're paralysed. Brawlers/Translocator Turrets with Tractors? Tractors prevent you from knocking them back. Crusher Turret with Tractors? Can't pull things in if they're being held by Tractors. |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 26, 2019 12:34 am | Ranakastrasz | New Issue | |
| Oct 26, 2019 7:40 am | RocketAssistedPuffin | Note Added: 0054003 | |
| Oct 26, 2019 10:51 am | Ranakastrasz | Note Added: 0054018 | |
| Oct 26, 2019 12:11 pm | ZeusAlmighty | Note Added: 0054025 | |
| Oct 28, 2019 1:08 am | Asteroid | Note Added: 0054056 | |
| Mar 10, 2020 2:53 am | corfe83 | Note Added: 0056439 | |
| Mar 10, 2020 6:00 am | ArnaudB | Note Added: 0056443 | |
| Mar 10, 2020 9:44 am | RocketAssistedPuffin | Assigned To | => RocketAssistedPuffin |
| Mar 10, 2020 9:44 am | RocketAssistedPuffin | Status | new => closed |
| Mar 10, 2020 9:44 am | RocketAssistedPuffin | Resolution | open => fixed |
| Mar 10, 2020 9:44 am | RocketAssistedPuffin | Note Added: 0056447 |
