View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | Date Submitted | Last Update | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0009122 | AI War 1 / Classic | Suggestion - New Features | Aug 4, 2012 2:56 am | Aug 9, 2012 6:23 pm | |
| Reporter | Wingflier | Assigned To | |||
| Status | considering | Resolution | open | ||
| Product Version | 5.050 | ||||
| Summary | 0009122: Balancing the Triangle - A New Approach | ||||
| Description | The triangle, and therefore the game focuses around the Bomber. A Fighter's sole reason for existing is to counter the Bomber. If Bombers didn't exist, there would never be any reason to upgrade Fighters past MKII (it's practically not even worth it as it is). Frigates have the advantage of having a long range, and therefore being good for defensive/escort purposes, even if their bonuses are pretty lackluster in most cases (they counter Fighters lol). Also, area of effect immunity is a huge bonus which makes them a lot more durable than even bombers in many situations. Balance-wise, it would work the best if Fighters were the focus of the triangle. Bombers would exist to destroy what Fighters couldn't, i.e. extremely high armor targets which would typically tear fighters apart, like in any self-respecting Science Fiction scenario. Frigates would be heavily armored, long-range, anti-Fighter escort ships, designed to protect your fleet from the ever-present threat. If Fighters were the focus of the Triangle, micromanaging them carefully could inflict grievous damage upon your enemy, which discourages blobbing and gives them a unique, important feel. Bombers would still be good against high armor targets like shields, fortresses, frigates, golems, and some guardians, but in terms of average DPS (against non-armored targets), they would be completely inferior to fighters. In this way, they would still be extremely IMPORTANT, but not ridiculously overpowered. A Frigate's sole reason for existence would be similar to the Fighter's now - to destroy the core Triangle ship (Fighters). However, Frigates are much more well equipped than Fighters for this role, because of their long range and inherent defensive power. I feel like this balancing method makes each Triangle ship's role much more important and defined. With Fighters becoming the focus of the triangle, they can be micromanaged like a scalpel upon your enemy, instead of a rather ineffective, cheap cannon fodder than you hurl at your enemies then quickly replace. Bombers counter extremely high-priority AI elements (force fields, fortresses, golems, hybrids, etc.) and the counter to the dreaded Fighters - Frigates. Frigates keep the fighters at bay while still being an important, long-range defensive powerhouse (in my iteration, Frigates would shoot salvos, not just single shots). The current balancing method just makes the triangle so homogenized, and makes Bombers the specialized high-priority target killers, but also the best against most targets in general. It makes "blobbing" the optimal strategy. New Fighter Attributes: -Very High DPS -Low Health -High Ship Cap -No Armor -Cheap/Cost Effective -Fast -Low Armor Piercing -Short Range New Bomber Attributes: -High Health -Medium DPS -High Armor Piercing -Expensive -Low Armor -Low Ship Cap -Medium Speed -Medium Range New Frigate Attributes: -Medium Health -High Armor -No Armor Piercing -Long Range -Low DPS - but shoots volleys (very efficient for taking out Fighters and other swarmers) -Slow Speed -Moderate Cost These changes to the Triangle ship types do more than simply make them counter each other by design, it gives them all unique attributes that further define them from one another. As an example, the ship caps, movement speed, health and armor values, costs, and attack ranges all give them their own unique feel and purpose. Changing the Triangle balance has obvious and instant implications on the bonus ship types as well, but I strongly believe that most of the current bonus ships could also be balanced simply by using in-game mechanics. That's not to say that hull types and bonus damages have to be taken out of the game, but hopefully can be relied upon to a much lesser extent. The main goal of this balancing revamp is to make the game much more intuitive, to give each "class" of ship a more defined role, and to dissuade the player from blobbing. I strongly believe that if Fighters became the fastest and most cost effective triangle ship, they would be used in their own squads for raiding, intercepting, and general assassination missions. Frigates would be used in an escort role for your expensive ships (like Bombers and Starships) to protect them from the deadly Fighter. Bombers would seek out high priority AI targets that only they could effectively combat, keeping their role intact. | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| Internal Weight | Feature Suggestion | ||||
| related to | 0002579 | assigned | keith.lamothe | Bombers too good at their jobs for a basic (triangle) ship |
| related to | 0009180 | considering | Another suggestion on how to tweak Fighters |
|
|
I am strongly in favor of Wingflier's idea here, and I agree it makes much more sense than the current mechanic. Bombers are definitely the most useful triangle ship - in fact they are the only triangle ship that you cannot live without. Barring Space Tanks, it is probably physically impossible to win the game without using bombers, which is not true of fighters or frigates. |
|
|
I'm interested in this idea, but I'm having some trouble understanding how the new balance will be different from the current balance --- specifically, what triangle ship you'll want to use for what jobs. So bombers will still be the best thing for killing fixed structures, I assume. Will they still be the best against all starships, or perhaps only against raiders? Frigates will be fighter-killers as well as, presumably, an effective way of taking down fighter-like bonus ships. So what is there left for fighters to kill? The remaining fleet ships plus the less armored starships? They could wind up with a few more effective targets but I'm afraid it might be quite close to their current use. Anyway, I don't mean to argue --- I'm sure I don't quite understand the issue and I'd love to be told why I'm wrong :) |
|
|
Fighters, with their huge DPS and humble amount of armor piercing will be good against just about everything but the most heavily armored targets (which Bombers are intended to counter). The Fighter's ROLE is to be a well-rounded, fast-responding, and versatile. In other words, to answer your question: Fighters are intended to kill just about everything (including bombers) which makes them such a big threat; they are the backbone of your fleet. However, their low health and fragility means that they can't simply be FRDed to the task, they must be properly microed for full effect. Bombers aren't necessarily used to killed fixed structures anymore, unless said structures have a ton of armor. Currently, most structures aren't heavily armored, they just have hull types that the bomber counters. In the new iteration, Fighters will do just fine against all but the most heavily armored structures and Guardians. |
|
|
Could you describe how this would be more fun than how it currently is? So far, I'm just seeing an argument of micro v. blobbing, and TBH, I'd rather not do very much micro. The phrase "micromanaging them carefully to inflict grievous damage" sets off alarm bells. Is it that the game is seen as very bomber-centric, and you'd like to see more intricate fleet battles? Is there really a problem with having bombers being so important, other than it offends your sense of balance? Also, a major problem you seem to have with fighters is that they don't fit your idea of what a fighter is, as it is portrayed in other forms of sci-fi lore and other video games. This alone isn't enough, IMO, to warrant much more than a name change: call them something other than fighters, then! I personally don't have any problem thinking of fighters as cannon fodder meant to clear a path and soak up damage so my bombers can do their assault work. I mean no offense here, but I'm offering a counterpoint to a change that seems like it would dramatically alter the game as it is. |
|
|
I'm sort of neutral on this, but I am wondering how bombers will be effective against normal forcefields if they don't structural multipliers anymore. Normal forcefields don't have any armor, just a ton of HP. |
|
|
No offense taken, I enjoy criticism as it gives a better chance to explain the strengths (and weaknesses) of the new design. "Could you describe how this would be more fun than how it currently is? So far, I'm just seeing an argument of micro v. blobbing, and TBH, I'd rather not do very much micro. The phrase "micromanaging them carefully to inflict grievous damage" sets off alarm bells." -Blobbing was never intended to be a major part of the game. The developers have made many design decisions to try to discourage blobbing (AI Eyes, case in point), but have still been relatively unsuccessful in general (from my understanding). Putting your fleet into a giant ball and group-moving them around is something a computer could do. It requires no skill and no strategy. With the current Triangle mechanics, even Fleet Composition requires little strategy, as the Bomber will always be the most important ship to have, and the rest are just along for the ride. Blobbing will still be possible with the new design, it just won't be the OPTIMAL strategy anymore. Fighters will never really be good for blobbing (you'd be wasting their speed and power, and they die quickly to their counters); but for example you could make a blob of high-tier bombers, frigates, and Starships, and still do pretty well (just not as well as if you used your Fighters too). Or you could just play on lower difficulties where micromanagement wouldn't be as big of an issue. Some bonus ships will also be decent in blobbing strategies as well (Spire Stealth Battleship and Anti-Armor Ship comes to mind). "Is it that the game is seen as very bomber-centric, and you'd like to see more intricate fleet battles? Is there really a problem with having bombers being so important, other than it offends your sense of balance?" I've tried to explain this the best I can, but having bombers be the core of the Triangle causes many balance problems, and encourages the blobbing we see today. It also makes Fighters and Frigates rather lackluster in comparison. I think it makes the game a lot better for all 3 Triangle ships to be useful and worth upgrading depending on the situation, rather than just having 1 that's always disproportionately useful. "Also, a major problem you seem to have with fighters is that they don't fit your idea of what a fighter is, as it is portrayed in other forms of sci-fi lore and other video games. This alone isn't enough, IMO, to warrant much more than a name change: call them something other than fighters, then! I personally don't have any problem thinking of fighters as cannon fodder meant to clear a path and soak up damage so my bombers can do their assault work." -In a typical Sci-Fi Universe, Fighters are the backbone of any fleet, yes. It makes no sense to even build Fighters if they aren't, because they WOULDN'T BE cannon fodder. By their very nature they die too quickly for that. Frigates or other medium sized ships sound like better candidates as cannon fodder than Fighters. By sticking with the established Sci-Fi norms, you appeal to a larger group of players and also make the game instantly more intuitive. The Sci-Fi norms exist because they make the most sense. |
|
|
"I'm sort of neutral on this, but I am wondering how bombers will be effective against normal forcefields if they don't structural multipliers anymore. Normal forcefields don't have any armor, just a ton of HP." -Normal Forcefields might become much more vulnerable to Fighters, where the Armored ones are basically immune to fighters but vulnerable to Bombers. It depends on what you're facing. Armored Forcefields may be the default type for the AI to have, to give them the same role as before. |
|
|
Another question. While I would agree about making hull multiplier less of a factor in matchups (IMO, anything beyond 4x or below .25x should be rare, which is most certainly not true at the moment), are you suggesting to remove hull multipliers from the triangle completely (aka, make them 1x against everything), or just reducing their magnitudes severely (like take bomber vs structural 5x down to 1.5x or something like that)? |
|
|
It's hard to say how much multipliers will be needed until any testing is done, but I'm certainly not against using them if necessary. I would rather just "balance by design" as much as possible if you know what I mean. |
|
|
Overall, I think the current balance is good. I think it could use some work, but not a complete overhaul. I think the optimal solution would be to give fighters a huge damage buff (3 to 5 times)and that would be it. The other requested tactical changes would happen in response to that. This nerfs bombers, but keeps their central, essential role intact. It makes fighters and frigates (because they counter a better unit) more effective. My reasons for opposing the idea as it is currently: Fighters will end up, not as microed terrors, but as suicide units. Low-cost, low-health, fast, high DPS= suicide unit. The current balance is very good, bombers only really dominate on offence, it is quite possible to never unlock high-mark bombers, and use mercs/warheads/other stuff for the final assault, and bombers are pretty weak on defence. Blobbing will not be solved with this, though it is one of the main stated goals (it is already suboptimal to tuck fighters into the fleetball). Blobbing is an entirely different, more fundamental issue. Blobbing: Needs widely-distributed soft counters. Perhaps a huge buff to AI defending ships while making them far more difficult to free. Additional hard counters like a Little Doctor Guardian would not go amiss either. |
|
|
"Needs widely-distributed soft counters. Perhaps a huge buff to AI defending ships while making them far more difficult to free." Isn't that similar to what I proposed in 0009079? |
|
|
Exactly. That is why your linked issue has my strong support. I had it in mind, but couldn't find the link. |
|
|
@Faulty Logic. In light of a complete overhaul, I agree with the proposed Fighter buff. "Fighters will end up, not as microed terrors, but as suicide units. Low-cost, low-health, fast, high DPS= suicide unit." -I'd say give them aoe immunity so that powerful aoe Guardians like Lightning and Laser wouldn't just kill them in swarms. Their biggest threat would be anything missile and salvo-based, which wouldn't be seeded EVERYWHERE. In other words, if you could kite the enemies that shoot missiles, or take them out with Bombers, you could overwhelm anything else. The idea is that your Triangle ships support each other: Bombers take out the Fighter counters, Frigates protect them from Fighters, then Fighters clean up the rest. THIS is what discourage blobbing - that your Triangle ships rely on one another to be effective. "The current balance is very good, bombers only really dominate on offence, it is quite possible to never unlock high-mark bombers, and use mercs/warheads/other stuff for the final assault, and bombers are pretty weak on defence." -If the current Bombers are WEAK on defense, then by your logic, Fighters are useless lol. |
|
|
That would make them *better* suicide units, but all the factors I listed make a suicide unit. Laser guardians are not aoe, they are salvo-based. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you are arguing against a bomber-only fleet, not a blob. A blob is when you have every ship you own, or at least a large group, in one fleetball, which you then group-move around. Having ships work best in mixed groups would not discourage blobbing, and in fact is a large part of what make the blob so effective. I just do not see the proposed overhaul solving the blob problem, nor am I convinced that bombers are overwhelmingly good even with the current, admittedly skewed balance. |
|
|
Well Fighters ARE fragile units, you are bound to lose some in pretty much any Sci-Fi scenario. However, the idea is that with highly-trained pilots you inflict much more damage than you take. Does this make them suicide units? I don't think so; it just makes them more expendable than the expensive ships. The Triangle I'm suggesting would not have your ships working best in mixed groups, that's what you seem to be missing. If you blobbed your Fighters in with your Bombers and Frigates, they would get eaten alive from afar. If you blobbed your Frigates and Bombers together without fighters, they would be vulnerable to enemy Bombers and Bomber-counterparts. Successful use of each Triangle type depends highly on the situation, and on player positioning - blobbing them all together will end badly. |
|
|
The problem here is insufficient AI defences, not the triangle. It is already suboptimal to blob, as you essentially forfeit fighter power, but it doesn't matter because the AI planets are so weak. I would definitely like to see these complex tactics become necessary, but I don't see how your rebalancing would achieve it. I would like to see the fighters given a big buff, which would indirectly discourage blobbing, but I don't think an overhaul would incur significant benefits. |
|
|
Linked an issue about a past discussion of bombers. Now things have gotten MUCH better balance wise then they were when that issue was first posted, but some relevant points in there still apply. |
|
|
Just thinking, if I understand how real air forces work (I don't, of course), the point of the triangle ought to be the bombers, and the fighters are indeed there mostly to provide interference so other fighters can't get to them. Is there anything we could do to make fighters more effective at running interference to keep other ships off bombers; then perhaps bombers could keep their effectiveness but become more glass cannon-y to make it more necessary? If possible, would that be fun? My first thought would be giving them a tiny bit of engine damage, but I suspect that that's an awful idea. |
|
|
@Faulty Logic Sorry, I didn't see your vote up until after I posted the link to my suggestion. Didn't mean to patronize you. |
|
|
No problem, no offense taken, and thanks for linking it. |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 4, 2012 2:56 am | Wingflier | New Issue | |
| Aug 4, 2012 2:57 am | Wingflier | Description Updated | |
| Aug 4, 2012 2:58 am | Wingflier | Description Updated | |
| Aug 4, 2012 3:03 am | Wingflier | Description Updated | |
| Aug 4, 2012 3:07 am | Wingflier | Description Updated | |
| Aug 4, 2012 9:19 am | MaxAstro | Note Added: 0027352 | |
| Aug 4, 2012 10:16 am | martyn_van_buren | Note Added: 0027353 | |
| Aug 4, 2012 10:52 am | Wingflier | Note Added: 0027357 | |
| Aug 4, 2012 10:53 am | Wingflier | Note Edited: 0027357 | |
| Aug 4, 2012 10:54 am | Wingflier | Note Edited: 0027357 | |
| Aug 4, 2012 10:54 am | Wingflier | Note Edited: 0027357 | |
| Aug 4, 2012 1:55 pm | doctorfrog | Note Added: 0027358 | |
| Aug 4, 2012 1:57 pm | doctorfrog | Note Edited: 0027358 | |
| Aug 4, 2012 3:12 pm | TechSY730 | Note Added: 0027359 | |
| Aug 4, 2012 3:13 pm | Wingflier | Note Added: 0027360 | |
| Aug 4, 2012 3:16 pm | Wingflier | Note Added: 0027361 | |
| Aug 4, 2012 3:17 pm | Wingflier | Note Edited: 0027361 | |
| Aug 4, 2012 3:23 pm | TechSY730 | Note Added: 0027362 | |
| Aug 4, 2012 3:36 pm | Wingflier | Note Added: 0027363 | |
| Aug 4, 2012 7:01 pm | Faulty Logic | Note Added: 0027366 | |
| Aug 4, 2012 7:13 pm | TechSY730 | Note Added: 0027367 | |
| Aug 4, 2012 7:14 pm | TechSY730 | Note Edited: 0027367 | |
| Aug 4, 2012 7:15 pm | TechSY730 | Note Edited: 0027367 | |
| Aug 4, 2012 7:49 pm | Faulty Logic | Note Added: 0027368 | |
| Aug 4, 2012 7:50 pm | Wingflier | Note Added: 0027369 | |
| Aug 4, 2012 7:51 pm | Wingflier | Note Edited: 0027369 | |
| Aug 4, 2012 8:24 pm | Faulty Logic | Note Edited: 0027368 | |
| Aug 4, 2012 8:32 pm | Faulty Logic | Note Added: 0027370 | |
| Aug 4, 2012 8:55 pm | Wingflier | Note Added: 0027372 | |
| Aug 4, 2012 8:55 pm | Wingflier | Note Edited: 0027372 | |
| Aug 4, 2012 9:57 pm | Faulty Logic | Note Added: 0027373 | |
| Aug 4, 2012 10:17 pm | TechSY730 | Relationship added | related to 0002579 |
| Aug 4, 2012 10:18 pm | TechSY730 | Note Added: 0027374 | |
| Aug 4, 2012 10:31 pm | martyn_van_buren | Note Added: 0027375 | |
| Aug 5, 2012 6:26 pm | TechSY730 | Note Added: 0027379 | |
| Aug 5, 2012 6:56 pm | Faulty Logic | Note Added: 0027382 | |
| Aug 6, 2012 9:26 am | tigersfan | Internal Weight | => Feature Suggestion |
| Aug 6, 2012 9:26 am | tigersfan | Status | new => considering |
| Aug 9, 2012 6:23 pm | Dazio | Relationship added | related to 0009180 |
