0007867: Balance distribution of hull types (especially Heavy, Ultra Heavy, and Command Grade) - Arcen Idea Tracker (Bugs and Features)

ID	Project	Category		Date Submitted	Last Update

0007867	AI War 1 / Classic	Suggestion - Balance Tweaks		May 16, 2012 3:30 pm	Jul 11, 2012 11:46 am

Reporter	TechSY730	Assigned To
Status	considering	Resolution	open
Product Version	5.034

Summary	0007867: Balance distribution of hull types (especially Heavy, Ultra Heavy, and Command Grade)
Description	This has been mentioned several times, but I thought it would be good to make an explicit post about it. Right now bombers are disproportionately useful compared to the other triagnle ships. Upon reviewing armor types, I found that this was in part a symptom of a deeper balance issue, an extremely lopsided distribution of armor types. If you were to count up the number of units types using each hull type, you would find that, for example, Heavy has around 110 unit type with it, and Ultra heavy has like 50, compared with the average of around 25 for the other armor types. (TODO, get exact values) Also, merely getting numbers even isn't enough, what has each hull type is also very important. Like very, very little has command grade armor, but it is still a great bonus to have because some of the things that do have it (Command stations and hunter-killers) are very, very important things to kill. Having a ultra-heavy bonus is valuable not just because so many units use them, but because many of the units that do use them are big things that are durable and you need bonuses to help take out. This can also work against usefulness of hull type bonuses. Like the Light hull type doesn't have a bad distribution count, but the things that have it tend to be so fragile that you don't need bonuses to take it out effectively. Thus, this cheapens the usefulness of light armor bonuses. I know this distribution count and armor type bonus usefulness are not easy things to balance, especially when you try to keep both balanced relative to each other, but it just seems like a better job could be done than it is now.
Tags	No tags attached.

Internal Weight	Feature Suggestion

TechSY730 May 16, 2012 3:32 pm reporter ~0024341	Not an easy task, and not something I expect to get done until AI war becomes the focus again, but I thought it would be good to at least have around until this can be worked on.

Dazio May 16, 2012 5:26 pm reporter ~0024353	I get the feeling at the moment that we are looking at a pretty comprehensive rebalance to the game in the spin up to the next expansion pack. There have been lots of specific, small balance tweaks recently but it has been long time since there has been anything done game wide balance wise really. But with how major that undertaking is, we won't see anything until the work begins on the next expansion pack.

Hearteater May 18, 2012 10:14 am reporter ~0024430	I don't see that hull distribution in general needs to be balanced (especially among fleet ships). There isn't anything wrong with hull types that are fairly rare, or unusually common. They actually make damage modifiers more unique. If there are 20 of each hull type, then x4 for one hull type is the same as x4 against any other. The biggest issue would probably be hull type distribution on critical targets so that there isn't one "best" damage multiplier. I'm not certain things are so bad as to need a complete rework, but some tweaking in that area would certainly help. And I don't think all hull types need to be represented among critical targets.

TechSY730 May 18, 2012 10:35 am reporter ~0024432	@Hearteater That is sort of what I was getting at in the OP. What ship types each hull type is distributed to may be more important than the absolute count of ship types with each hull type. As mentioned, my biggest concern is with the current distribution of heavy and ultra heavy hulls, and to a lesser extent, command grade. Structural is also spammed very frequently, but given what it is supposed to be, I suppose it makes sense that it is.

Wingflier May 19, 2012 11:09 am reporter ~0024488 Last edited: May 19, 2012 11:55 am	I think this and armor mechanics are the two things that will probably be heavily reworked during the preparation time for the next expansion. I agree with Hearteater though that quality of redistribution is definitely more important than quantity. If there's just 20 of each hull type it really destroys the flavor of the game, and just makes you want to build a balanced fleet all the time. I think we could come up with more interesting mechanics/combinations than the ones currently in place. To give an example of (what I consider) a bad mechanic - that fortresses do massive damage to everything and almost nothing to bombers. Really, there's got to be something more innovative than that. I think it would be better of Frigates killed all of the smaller/cheaper ships (Fighters, Melee ships, Younglings, Raiders, etc.) Fighters killed Bombers and most of the Starship types. Bombers killed buildings, shields, and huge units like Golems. Starships would counter frigates, as well as being good against most things (no other bonuses). Guardians would be ships you'd have to find bonus types for to deal with properly. In other words, the "triangle" ships wouldn't cover all bases. You'd kind of be reliant on bonus ships to balance out your fleet and give you expanded coverage (or just to give you the extra firepower necessary to overwhelm them). Also, nerf Fortresses and make them good against everything (no bonuses). Just my opinions. edit: Also I think Guardians being resistant to standard human technology fits pretty well into the storyline, as Guardians were specifically make to counter and destroy the humans. It would make sense that those ships were built to be resilient to human weapons.

Date Modified	Username	Field	Change
May 16, 2012 3:30 pm	TechSY730	New Issue
May 16, 2012 3:31 pm	TechSY730	Summary	Balance distribution of armor types (especially Heavy, Ultra Heavy, and Command Grade) => Balance distribution of hull types (especially Heavy, Ultra Heavy, and Command Grade)
May 16, 2012 3:31 pm	TechSY730	Description Updated
May 16, 2012 3:32 pm	TechSY730	Note Added: 0024341
May 16, 2012 5:26 pm	Dazio	Note Added: 0024353
May 17, 2012 8:10 am	tigersfan	Internal Weight	=> Feature Suggestion
May 17, 2012 8:10 am	tigersfan	Status	new => considering
May 18, 2012 10:14 am	Hearteater	Note Added: 0024430
May 18, 2012 10:35 am	TechSY730	Note Added: 0024432
May 19, 2012 11:09 am	Wingflier	Note Added: 0024488
May 19, 2012 11:13 am	Wingflier	Note Edited: 0024488
May 19, 2012 11:55 am	Wingflier	Note Edited: 0024488
Jul 11, 2012 11:46 am	Moonshine Fox	Relationship added	related to 0002579