View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | Date Submitted | Last Update | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0002223 | AI War 1 / Classic | Suggestion - Balance Tweaks | Dec 31, 2010 6:57 am | Jan 28, 2011 10:36 am | |
| Reporter | RogueThunder | Assigned To | keith.lamothe | ||
| Severity | minor | ||||
| Status | assigned | Resolution | open | ||
| Summary | 0002223: Spire Teleport Leaches are ineffective--espeically for how expenisve they are. | ||||
| Description | Pretty much the summary, Spire Teleport leaches against the grand majority of ships struggle to be effective. This would be fine if their multipliers were good against a reasonable slice of ships... But Composite and Reflective are both uncommon, and often a feature of unreclaimable. Infact, the most common ones are only commonly used by 2 AI types. Experimental and Support-Corps. Furthermore, what ships they DO have a multiplier against have pathetic health to start... Or very low caps. Ships they have a bonus against that can be reclaimed: Composite: E. Shuttle, Z. Beam Frigate, Vampires Refractive: Munitions Booster, Etherjet, Raptor, Eyebot, Armor Booster Yeah, some of those are really fun things to parasite... But a short list of rare ships. The most common being either Z. Beam Frigates or Etherjets... The only ships on this list that the large 3.2x bonus is really useful against are Z. Beam Frigates, Etherjets and Vampires really. Beam frigates because they come in decent numbers. Etherjets because they are a pest... And vampires because few things so handily munch on them. Even so the latter two are not known to be the most durable to start... And Etherjets are already bad against teleporting units. I understand that balancing a ship that is so special-feature-heavy is hard to make it not out-awesome those that focus in its spesifics(parasites, teleport stations) but... At its VERY high resource cost. Poor ability to take advantage of teleporting. (firing every second means you cant drop payload and run) And doubly mediocre damage... with poor modifier types. Lots o ways to fix this. Theyre not FAR off balanced... Just... having troubles being worth their resources the majority of games I start with them... Not to mention having JUST MkI teleport leaches is barely useful in fringe cases. Seriously without MkII they struggle to have a purpose unless one of their narrow favored target list is an AI favorite. Their base damage seems either about right, or a little high if they get a particularly good new hull bonus btw XD Its a little below what they're a combination of... Which makes sense. | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| Internal Weight | |||||
|
|
Keith, have you worked on these since this report? I can't recall. |
|
|
There have been no changes to them since I posted this that have been released... |
|
|
Ok -- good to know, thanks. |
|
|
Curious what folks will think of them after 4.068, which fixes up a ton of stuff to the balance of anything that is a reclamator. |
|
|
This issue is definately still present... Though improved by the fix in reliability of their function. Their function is still reliant on rare ships or simply substandard. Especially considering their extraordinary resource cost and build time (5x the per cap of parasites) and low survivability. Not to mention poor-for-parasiting and poor-for-teleporting rapid fire damage... and prevous comments on their modifiers... Brought this to the forum. Looking to get more than me chiming in on it xD http://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php/topic,8138.0.html |
|
|
They probably need the 16x reclaim-bonus that Nanoswarms have. |
|
|
Lol. I don't think that'd be appropriate or helpful. Were talking about a ship that operates on its own primarily being a teleporter. Where is the damage to KILL the ships so they can reclaimed supposed to be coming from then? ^.^' Doesn't quite seem practical. Or sane really. Nanoswarms got that, as theyre a support ship. No damage really, but a huge stack of annoyances. (Nanoswarms: parasite, engine damage[barely], paralyze, armor damage and AOE... O.o... to keep said fair nanoswarms had to be given piddling damage and hence with the reclaimer rebalance had to somewhat disobey the normal reclaimer rules to be any use as one) |
|
|
Giving out those damage-reclaim multipliers would just muddy things up again, instead I'd suggest lowering the reclaim threshold globally (to 10%?). |
|
|
KDR: That's what I tried to get back when the threshold was introduced (hell, before it even came out). No go. Well, ok, not specifically, but I was worried about it. 0001868 (Oh, and just to point out how right I was, that was for v 4.046, and in 4.067 this was added: "The reclamation amount for determining 'is this reclaimed' and 'how much health does it get when reclaimed' [u]is now the sum of what various players have done, though the reclaimed ship still goes to the player with the highest individual reclamation amount[/u] against that target." Twenty whole versions after I was worried about multiple players with reclamation.) |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 31, 2010 6:57 am | RogueThunder | New Issue | |
| Dec 31, 2010 6:59 am | RogueThunder | Description Updated | |
| Jan 7, 2011 10:30 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0007864 | |
| Jan 7, 2011 10:30 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Assigned To | => keith.lamothe |
| Jan 7, 2011 10:30 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Status | new => acknowledged |
| Jan 8, 2011 12:03 am | RogueThunder | Note Added: 0007904 | |
| Jan 8, 2011 12:04 am | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0007905 | |
| Jan 16, 2011 2:58 am | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0008681 | |
| Jan 16, 2011 2:58 am | Chris_McElligottPark | Status | acknowledged => feedback |
| Jan 27, 2011 3:30 pm | RogueThunder | Note Added: 0009727 | |
| Jan 27, 2011 3:30 pm | RogueThunder | Status | feedback => assigned |
| Jan 28, 2011 1:03 am | Draco18s | Note Added: 0009753 | |
| Jan 28, 2011 3:29 am | RogueThunder | Note Added: 0009760 | |
| Jan 28, 2011 10:30 am | KDR_11k | Note Added: 0009764 | |
| Jan 28, 2011 10:36 am | Draco18s | Note Added: 0009765 | |
| Jan 28, 2011 10:39 am | Draco18s | Note Edited: 0009765 |
