View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | Date Submitted | Last Update | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0005528 | AI War 1 / Classic | Bug - Gameplay | Jan 30, 2012 2:14 pm | Jan 30, 2012 5:24 pm | |
| Reporter | Spikey00 | Assigned To | keith.lamothe | ||
| Status | new | Resolution | open | ||
| Product Version | 5.022 | ||||
| Summary | 0005528: Repair restrictions still apply on Spirecraft HARD | ||||
| Description | Contrary to the faction description of Spirecraft HARD which indicates that there are no repair restrictions unlike EASY or MEDIUM, several Spirecraft are still immune to being repaired: rams, martyrs, [and more importantly] shield bearers. | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| Internal Weight | Fix Before Major Release | ||||
|
|
Yes, it's referring to all of them except these. |
|
|
In that case, could the description be clarified a bit? |
|
|
Yea, the description needs to be clarified for sure. The rational behind those three types being non-repairible is that they are balanced for one-shot uses, great at what they can do, but can only do it once. If they were allowed to be repaired, you could pull off their gimmick more than once, and thus they become broken. What's that you say? The Spirecraft shield bearer doesn't seem balanced for a one-shot use? You are correct, and there has been a long time debate about how to fix them. It is very difficult to get them to be balanced for offense, defense, and still be a viable and worth-while "one-shot" (can't be repaired) shield. |
|
|
I can see that one-use apply to martyrs and shields, but rams don't fit that category as they have no function beyond their one-target destruction. As for the shields, yeah, I think that's definitely a tread-on-lightly situation. I think ultimately they need to be repairable but reduced in cap (maybe) and overlapping invulnerability, because you'd never use them in normally winnable situations whereas during the occasion you need them they often don't provide enough benefit before being destroyed. I'll post this in another suggestion thread, but perhaps the shield bearer themselves need to be immune to forcefields so the AI can target them regardless of the number you have, and be affected by the "one damage" mechanic. |
|
|
Having super-shields that you can repair is definitely a bad thing -- there's just no way to balance that without making them useless in the first place. Ship cap is irrelevant in many cases, because if you can just build a replacement every time one dies, then it doesn't matter. The bottlenecks of doom are really game breaking, and super-shields fit into that. Super-shields that can't be repaired don't fall prey to that for the simple fact that they only last but so long. I really can't ever see making those repairable, unless you could only get them from mark V equivalent asteroids or something. And that would make them so rare that it's not worth it. I think they're working pretty well as they are, they just aren't like other shields -- and isn't that the point of new units, anyway? |
|
|
@x4000 I'm with you, their current function is fine. I still think that due to their situational use though, and how many things at the 2nd tier are not, Spirecraft shield bearers, IMO, could be brought down an "asteroid tier" requirement. |
|
|
Also, how are the Spirecraft shield bearer's HPs compared to normal FF HPs? The Spirecraft shield bearer needs a good deal amount more HP to be worth the non-repairibility. |
|
|
Yep, Keith had the same plan of lowering them down an asteroid level -- I agree on that. |
|
|
There are a finite amount of asteroids you could use to rebuild the shield bearers, and their costs do amount to replacing a good chunk of your fleet or 2-3 starships. There are other ways to accomplish what you want with the shields other than investing in them: transport baiting, starship raiding, baiting them into your planet, martyrs, simply going head-to-head for attrition, etc. |
|
|
@Spikey00 Wait, 2-3 starships in resource cost? That seems a bit high. Somewhere around 1-2 starships in resource cost (of the corresponding MK. level of course) seems better. EDIT: I mean, if this is true, that the resource costs of bearers in the game needs to go down. I did not mean to say that Spikey00's estimate was wrong. |
|
|
Assuming a III bearer (42m HP), which is the equivalent of four I bearers (56m HP). An II forcefield has 40m HP, but those themselves don't last a long time under duress so 1-2 I bearers are often not enough in cases where you need them. Edit: 16 000 metal, 30 000 crystal for I bearer (14m HP) 64 000 metal, 120 000 crystal for III bearer (42m HP) |
|
|
What is the Human Mk. I forcefield HP? Also, how much does a Spirecraft Shield bearer Mk. I have in HP? (If I read your post right, it would be 14m) Also, see the edit I made to the previous post. |
|
|
A request then. Even if they're not repairable, don't have them shrink. Nothing worse then going up and finding your fleet dead that you thought was protected because nothing ever actually KILLS the shield bearer, just makes it useles. |
|
|
@GUDare, that would actually make them survive less time, as was shown with the original implementation of the armored forcefields. However, as the shrinking thing is a way to give FF a chance to survive and thus be repaired later, and of course Spirecraft shield bearers cannot be repaired, this nice gesture backfires. So either don't have them shrink, or a compromise, give it a minimum radius > 1. |
|
|
Regular FFs are linear; 20 => 40 => 60m HP. Maybe them being shields is simply too problematic and is eventually going to turn up again as a problem. My prospective on the matter is that yeah, back when they could be repaired they were definitely unbalanced in large groups, but if they could be focused on at any time, be decreased in total cap, and probably cost a proportionately high upkeep cost (either direct resources per second or energy) then this could balance the benefit. Have any other ideas on what shield bearers could be, i.e. purely flat damage % mitigation buff ships? |
|
|
@Spikey00 I think just adjusting their asteroid requirements, cost, and making sure each Spirecraft shield bearer Mk. has more HP than their corresponding human normal forcefield Mk. are excellent starting points. However, this has already gotten severely off topic, so I'm going to post any further suggestions on this topic in a new report. |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 30, 2012 2:14 pm | Spikey00 | New Issue | |
| Jan 30, 2012 2:22 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Internal Weight | => New |
| Jan 30, 2012 2:22 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0018395 | |
| Jan 30, 2012 2:22 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Status | new => closed |
| Jan 30, 2012 2:22 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Assigned To | => Chris_McElligottPark |
| Jan 30, 2012 2:22 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Resolution | open => no change required |
| Jan 30, 2012 2:22 pm | tigersfan | Internal Weight | New => Fix Before Major Release |
| Jan 30, 2012 2:22 pm | tigersfan | Assigned To | Chris_McElligottPark => keith.lamothe |
| Jan 30, 2012 2:22 pm | tigersfan | Status | closed => new |
| Jan 30, 2012 2:22 pm | tigersfan | Resolution | no change required => open |
| Jan 30, 2012 2:34 pm | Spikey00 | Note Added: 0018396 | |
| Jan 30, 2012 3:27 pm | TechSY730 | Note Added: 0018401 | |
| Jan 30, 2012 3:28 pm | TechSY730 | Note Edited: 0018401 | |
| Jan 30, 2012 4:21 pm | Spikey00 | Note Added: 0018406 | |
| Jan 30, 2012 4:25 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0018407 | |
| Jan 30, 2012 4:38 pm | TechSY730 | Note Added: 0018408 | |
| Jan 30, 2012 4:39 pm | TechSY730 | Note Added: 0018409 | |
| Jan 30, 2012 4:40 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0018410 | |
| Jan 30, 2012 4:41 pm | Spikey00 | Note Added: 0018411 | |
| Jan 30, 2012 4:44 pm | TechSY730 | Note Added: 0018412 | |
| Jan 30, 2012 4:46 pm | Spikey00 | Note Added: 0018413 | |
| Jan 30, 2012 4:48 pm | Spikey00 | Note Edited: 0018413 | |
| Jan 30, 2012 4:53 pm | TechSY730 | Note Edited: 0018412 | |
| Jan 30, 2012 4:55 pm | TechSY730 | Note Added: 0018414 | |
| Jan 30, 2012 4:56 pm | GUDare | Note Added: 0018416 | |
| Jan 30, 2012 4:57 pm | Spikey00 | Note Edited: 0018413 | |
| Jan 30, 2012 5:04 pm | TechSY730 | Note Added: 0018418 | |
| Jan 30, 2012 5:13 pm | Spikey00 | Note Added: 0018419 | |
| Jan 30, 2012 5:14 pm | Spikey00 | Note Edited: 0018419 | |
| Jan 30, 2012 5:24 pm | TechSY730 | Note Added: 0018420 |
