View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | Date Submitted | Last Update | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0002459 | AI War 1 / Classic | Suggestion - Balance Tweaks | Jan 16, 2011 8:49 am | Jan 17, 2011 12:35 am | |
| Reporter | Prezombie | Assigned To | Chris_McElligottPark | ||
| Severity | minor | ||||
| Status | resolved | Resolution | fixed | ||
| Product Version | 4.066 | ||||
| Fixed in Version | 4.069 | ||||
| Summary | 0002459: Support structure caps cause micromanagement instead of limiting fronts. | ||||
| Description | The AWS is turning out to be very useful, if not vital, to wave defence tactics. It's cheap across the board from Knowledge to Building, but the tiny cap is rather pointless, causing someone with too many fronts to scrap and rebuild them where they're needed. I'd guess the same case is true if you're using decloakers. Part of me wants to say this is a subtle message to keep the number of fronts down, but if so, it's far too subtle, the kind of player who gets that many open fronts is too stubborn (or inexperienced) to pull back, and instead micros so they can focus defense effectively everywhere. I really think the cap should be removed, and have this encouragement be less subtle, and more painful to ignore. | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| Internal Weight | |||||
|
|
Hmm, this is a fundamental game design you are questioning. From my understanding, ship caps have always been one of the most important tools to prevent a huge number of fronts from being practical. Could this be made a little more clear in the tutorial, the wiki, tool-tips, or something? Probably, but I'm not sure if rebalancing the game, changing something that has been around a long time, just to make something a little clearer is a good idea. |
|
|
Plus, if you are capable of "artificially" extending the number fronts you have by micromanagement, shouldn't you be rewarded for that? Again, your point that this should be clearly optional rather than implicitly encouraged is valid, but I don't think that trying to remove this incentive completely is the right idea. |
|
|
AWS are not strictly necessary, and are intended as a tool for newer players to not be completely overwhelmed. If you really feel you need them, Logistics Command Stations mk1-3 provide AWS, as do Sentinel Frigates. |
|
|
I think the point is that there's never a time that you'll need all your AWSes at once, so if you have a lot of planets you just end up hunting around for one to scrap and rebuild every time a wave warning pops up. I can see how that would be annoying since you only have 9, which does seem arbitrarily low for something that you would otherwise just put on every planet whenever a wave hits there. |
|
|
@BobTheJanitor Good catch there. I have a tendency to look at the "broad" complaint, rather than the issue that sparked the complaint in the first place. I do support increasing the ship cap of AWSs, but my position on the issue presented by the title stands. |
|
|
@TechSY730 Sorry for the confusion, it was specifically a consideration of the AWS units, and how the minor feature is useful, but only once, scrapping loses no information you already have, so in a situation like that, there's no reason something should prompt it being scrapped. |
|
|
Thanks! * Advanced Warp Sensors now have a ship cap of 50, and no longer act as scouts. |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 16, 2011 8:49 am | Prezombie | New Issue | |
| Jan 16, 2011 10:22 am | TechSY730 | Note Added: 0008693 | |
| Jan 16, 2011 10:23 am | TechSY730 | Note Edited: 0008693 | |
| Jan 16, 2011 10:26 am | TechSY730 | Note Added: 0008694 | |
| Jan 16, 2011 10:46 am | Sunshine | Note Added: 0008695 | |
| Jan 16, 2011 11:36 am | BobTheJanitor | Note Added: 0008702 | |
| Jan 16, 2011 11:46 am | TechSY730 | Note Added: 0008707 | |
| Jan 16, 2011 1:01 pm | Prezombie | Note Added: 0008727 | |
| Jan 17, 2011 12:35 am | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0008821 | |
| Jan 17, 2011 12:35 am | Chris_McElligottPark | Status | new => resolved |
| Jan 17, 2011 12:35 am | Chris_McElligottPark | Fixed in Version | => 4.069 |
| Jan 17, 2011 12:35 am | Chris_McElligottPark | Resolution | open => fixed |
| Jan 17, 2011 12:35 am | Chris_McElligottPark | Assigned To | => Chris_McElligottPark |
