View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | Date Submitted | Last Update | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0004777 | AI War 1 / Classic | Suggestion - Balance Tweaks | Oct 10, 2011 11:46 am | Apr 2, 2013 1:15 am | |
| Reporter | TechSY730 | Assigned To | |||
| Status | considering | Resolution | open | ||
| Product Version | 5.019 | ||||
| Summary | 0004777: Fortress damage adjusting to a less "grindy" setup | ||||
| Description | In a forum thread* I talked about how fortresses seemed to be a grind due to having such a ridiculously hard counter in the form of bombers (and polycrystal stuff in general) (Main issue ends here, one possible suggestion begins here) As such, I propose the following, -Reduce fortress DPS by a [b]large[/b] amount, enough so that even non-polycrystal stuff has a good chance of firing more than one shot before dieing. -Increase the Fortress' multiplier against polycrystal. Thanks to the damage nerf, bombers will still be a good counter and will last a good chunk of time against it, but just not be a brain-dead good counter. Something that would have to be decided is to figure out how to reduce the Fortress' DPS. This could be done by reducing the number of shots per salvo, reducing the damage per shot, or some of both. Also, there is the issue of how high to raise their multiplier against polycrystal such that they are no longer helpless against them but still leaving bombers as a good counter. If fortresses prove to be underwhelming with this change, maybe they can get an HP buff. See the forum thread for more ideas. This is meant to be an alternate proposal to the reduce AI version's HP suggestion, though I still think the AI version's HP multiplier could be brought down a tad. *http://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php/topic,9291.0.html | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| Internal Weight | Feature Suggestion | ||||
| related to | 0004667 | considering | Reduce AI Fortress Health |
|
|
One, could someone think of a better title to this? Two, I was thinking maybe something like this can be done: Double the number of bullets per salvo, but quarter the amount of damage per bullet. This way, it still gets an effectively halfed DPS, but it can still really spread out damage. |
|
|
I think care needs to be taken here. If we lower there damage too much, they are just bigger Missile Guard Posts. Annoying, but nothing special. Right now they require special handling, and I don't know how easy it will be to find the right balance. Maybe make them unable to double-up shots, so they still crush fleet ships, but are countered by starships. I'd also make them not immune to antimatter. That would mean Bombers, Antimatter and Lights would be ideal for taking them out. It might even be worth it to bring Raid starships. |
|
|
@Hearteater 100% agree on the removing anti-matter immunity. The only issue I can see is that zenith bombards and anti-matter starships out-range AI fortresses. However, I do NOT agree on the removing the ability for fortresses to focus fire. One thing I like about fortresses is that they can inflict a decent amount of damage to a large number of targets or a large amount of damage to one target, and anywhere inbetween. This should stay IMO. |
|
|
I think fortresses do what they should and just reducing their health a bit should be enough to make them less boring. |
|
|
@Kittens Then vote up the related issue, as that is basically what you just suggested |
|
|
Or alternatively, reduce raw DPS only some, but give them a more interesting set of bonuses. |
|
|
Just to give you an idea of how ridiculous the current situation is, a cap of Mk. I bomber fleet ships can win against an AI superfortress. Yes, the Mk. I bombers will have only about 3% of their numbers left, but they will still win. That seems like a stupidly strong counter. o_O |
|
|
Just to let you guys know, after the Superfortress buffs, a cap of Mk. I bombers can no longer take out the superfortress (human or AI). For the (possibly AI only) superfortress, neither can a cap of Mk. IIs. Only starting at a cap of Mk. IIIs can they take on an AI superfortress without backup. |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 10, 2011 11:46 am | TechSY730 | New Issue | |
| Oct 10, 2011 11:46 am | TechSY730 | Relationship added | related to 0004667 |
| Oct 10, 2011 11:48 am | tigersfan | Internal Weight | => Feature Suggestion |
| Oct 10, 2011 11:48 am | tigersfan | Status | new => considering |
| Oct 10, 2011 11:56 am | TechSY730 | Note Added: 0016365 | |
| Oct 10, 2011 2:25 pm | TechSY730 | Note Edited: 0016365 | |
| Oct 10, 2011 4:23 pm | Hearteater | Note Added: 0016378 | |
| Oct 10, 2011 6:20 pm | TechSY730 | Note Added: 0016380 | |
| Oct 11, 2011 1:15 am | Kittens | Note Added: 0016390 | |
| Oct 11, 2011 1:17 am | TechSY730 | Note Added: 0016391 | |
| Jul 6, 2012 12:59 am | TechSY730 | Note Added: 0026366 | |
| Jul 28, 2012 10:07 pm | TechSY730 | Note Added: 0027178 | |
| Jul 28, 2012 10:17 pm | TechSY730 | Note Edited: 0027178 | |
| Apr 1, 2013 1:05 pm | TechSY730 | Summary | Fortress damage adjusting => Fortress damage adjusting to a less "grindy" setup |
| Apr 1, 2013 1:07 pm | TechSY730 | Description Updated | |
| Apr 2, 2013 1:15 am | TechSY730 | Note Added: 0031439 | |
| Apr 2, 2013 1:16 am | TechSY730 | Note Edited: 0031439 |
