Possible Solution for Overpowered SCs » Forum Post by weissengel86

Strike Craft should not be replacable while in battle. 15 seconds in game time is not that long, esp when big battles can take up to several minutes! Also, its not like the SC cost anything.

The Carrier which is faster than Caps and HCs is can lead you on a wild goose chase around the system while he waits for those 15 seconds, meanwhile the 10 other SC that is NOT dead will be hitting you silly.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Bobucles,

reply 25

"I see squadrons replaced instantaneously." Since when? Individual ships take around 10-15 seconds to rebuild.

Every time I play the game, I see an effect where a strikecraft goes down, and another one instantly "flies" from the carrier and jumps right back into the squadron. Almost like a teleporting effect, but not quite. It is NOT the microphasing aura from the vasari cap carrier, because I never build those. So what effect am I seeing?

As far as everything else you said, it is all well-written and seems to make fine points. But at the end of it all I am hard-pressed to figure out your "bottom line." Should "fully countered" strikecraft still be flying around on the field of battle, causing damage? On the one hand you seem to say "yes," but on the other hand you still seem to issue a lot of complaints about carriers. You seem to say "let strikecraft roam around and kick face" while at the same time saying "I don't like being kicked in the face."

Which brings us to flak. You seem to have opinions about them. But I'm confused on exactly what that opinion is. You say that it isn't made to counter "such and such?" Well what is it made to counter? You've heard of the movie "The World According to Garp?" Well I want "The World According to Bobucles."

TWO QUESTIONS: 1) We have a flak unit in the game, and we pay money for it. What role should this flak unit play? What should it do? You say it shouldn't totally take out strikecraft in a "fully countered" situation. Then what should it do... just thin them a bit? 2) In playing this "role" you prescribe for flak (whatever that role may be), how should the flak be made to be "worth it?" For instance, let's say that you hypothetically answer question #1 as "the role of flak according to Bobucles is to thin the air a little bit of strikecraft." Question #2 then becomes "how do you make the flak 'worth it'?" Why would I pay what I am currently paying to "thin the air a little bit of strikecraft?" What would you say to make me believe the flak is "worth it" in this role? If someone tells me that the prescribed role of flak is to "counter carriers," and that they play that role well, I'm sold, I already think it's "worth it," and I'm ready to buy and deploy them. I would like you to tell me 1) what the role of flak should be, according to Bobucles, and 2) why I should give a crap about that role and want to pay money for it?

Successfully updated karma reason!

1) what the role of flak should be, according to Bobucles, and 2) why I should give a crap about that role and want to pay money for it?

Ooh, I like this! But you forgot one important question: What I think the role of Carriers should be, since that directly ties into how I think flak should be.

First off, I think carriers should be an antimatter using support unit. My ideal for the carrier role is to hit hard and furious during the critical early stages of the fight, and to provide light support for the rest of the fight. I don't think they should be a primary raiding unit, though their nature makes them good at it. I think they should remain long range. I think strike craft should remain fastfastfast. I think careful control of their damage output(keeping craft alive) is essential for this role. However, as an antimatter wielding support unit, the carrier is the only one that isn't reliant on having antimatter available to perform its role. I think this is the big flaw with them.Why? Because a carrier that jumps in with 0 antimatter is just as lethal as a carrier with max.

This is abused repeatedly for the hit+run strategy. Dry carriers jump in, launch everything, and can even maintain full strength for a minute or so before jumping away.

If dry carriers couldn't wield their full strength, the strategy(hit+run) would disappear. For example, if dry carriers can only field squadrons at partial strength, they'd be in serious trouble when it runs out. Most of the damage output that makes carriers so great will be gone. Without antimatter losses can't be replaced, and with fewer SC on the field they're easily wiped out. Carriers that jump dry, stay dry, compounding their loss.

Okay, now dry carriers are limping along, where before they were still fierce. What does the flak role become, then? Dry them out, wipe them out. This is most difficult if the carrier is at full AM. The carrier can stay at full strength for a long time against a flak screen, when it has a large resevoir ready to rebuild. This is fine, because carriers do need to be able to sustain some level of usefulness, even against their counters. Their role is to do the highest damage, and they need some time with max SC to do that. However, every SC loss cuts into the time that carriers can STAY at full strength. Pretty soon, the numbers start tricking down, and at 0AM the carrier is no longer the king of damage. By that time the SC have done their damage, they've turned the tide of battle, and the dedicated combat ships move in to clean up.

How does this change things? The biggest difference is in the initial punch of a quick raid. If carriers spam their phase engines to stay at a constant 0AM, they're screwed. The raid will fail so fast and so hard against flak, it won't become viable without waiting for a full load of antimatter. Good, that's the biggest complaint about carriers. In a quick fight, with full AM, carriers are unaffected against flak, so full AM carrier raids are still dangerous and viable, and the carrier remains viable as "high power short term" damage. A player who has nothing but carriers is going to be crushed soon after the AM drops to nothing, leaving the carriers vulnerable to everything.

In a long fight, with full AM, every flak frigate fielded becomes useful. Every killed SC puts a dent in the time that carriers can stay at full strength, so you no longer need to reach critical mass. The more flak, the stronger the counter. Flak wins because it when it knocks a carrier down, it can KEEP a carrier down. Fleeing carriers will keep losing antimatter in the phase jump, so they'll have a hard time truly recovering from a counterpush that is leaded by flak.

However, I just noticed another potential issue. Strike craft wipe out strike craft in a matter of seconds. This is far faster than carriers can rebuild them, or flak can kill them. Carriers will still counter carriers pretty damn hard, but in this case both sides are crippled.

TLDR edition: Highlighted in bold.

Successfully updated karma reason!

burrrpp

Successfully updated karma reason!

Why not a small change..

In earlier versions, with 1 squad, light carriers sucked. In the newer versions with two squads, they rule. Why not have LC's start with one squad, and allow them to tech to two squads ? Every other unit has buff's that can be researched, why not LC's ? As an example, basic Kodiaks are nice, but nothing compared to max armor, max shield, max hull, max auto-cannon engines of slaughter.... Now, THAT's a kodiak !

Nothing else needs to be changed. Just require a level 5 or 6 tech that allows a light carrier to support an extra squad. It would take a while to get, and a while to build, and could be negated if you raided enemy labs.. no complex rule sets about anti-matetr use, repairs/replacement in battle, etc.

Further, early game flak would be a hard counter, and late game a softer one. Might work, and easy enough to add.

Successfully updated karma reason!

That sounds like a fair enough idea, BUT won't it still cause the problem of carrier spam ownage in the late-game?

I'd still want Carrier's not being able to replace Strike Craft in an enemy grav well, and make Strike Craft cost a small amount of resources to replace. (30 credits, 15m/c)

Also I wouldn't want the Carrier upgrade to be further behind than about 5 labs. This idea could actually shealth buff the capital carrier because now they'll be more important to a carrier force! (If the developers get some sense and let the Carrier Cap start with 4 SC, then it'll be a real powerhorse which is a good thing compared to spamming just light carriers. )

Successfully updated karma reason!

burrrpp

Can't say I don't blame ya for not reading that all! I did make some effort to ease the pain, but thanks for the bump.

Why not have LC's start with one squad, and allow them to tech to two squads ?

That's a 50% buff to a ship. 50% is a monumental increase in power, for just one research topic. That'll lead to issues where carriers are worthless without the research, and excellent with the research. Also, LCs already have an existing research option that increases the endurance of their squadrons. It's the antimatter research. The more antimatter they have, and the faster it recharges, the more strike craft they get on the field.

My points are: Carriers actively have NO USE for antimatter unless a player attempts to counter them. Uncountered, they have maximum long range damage at zero AM or max, making carriers easily the most versatile lethal force in the game. Even when countered, carriers have free reign until they run dry, and then only after the squadrons die out. Most of the complaints about how carriers function can be addressed by changing how antimatter ties into air superiority, as the most common "abuse" of carriers happens at very low antimatter levels. Players would no longer be able to push carriers beyond their AM capability.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I agree with Bobucles, he seems to be an honest upstanding guy unlike some of the demagogues on these forums who lurk in the shadows.... ready to strike.

A reduction in the number of strike craft would be a 50% nerf, which is too much. I see the case where people wouldn't bother to get carriers until they can immediately get the research where we have the same problem again.

Somehow getting Anti-matter into the solution is a good idea, but there should also be a slight research cost for REPLACED fighters. Let carriers get their inital SC for free, then pay money for any that must be replaced.Replacing a dead Strike Craft should at the bear minimum take 40 seconds. Not the 10-15 seconds it is now.

In WW2 or Battlestar Galactica do you see dead strike craft being replaced in the field in the short time span of a battle? NO

Furthermore, I'd like to see a slight nerf to their shields and hull points so that FOR GOD SAKE's let a Kiodiak HC which is higher up in the research tree have more shields/hp than a non-melee support ship. Carriers should also be slowed down slightly so they can't jump out instantly when they come under attack.

This is all after a general 10-15% buff to Flak.

Successfully updated karma reason!

um i mostly play single so most problems dont apply to me but are the defense vessles really that bad?

i mustly just spam advent defense vessals and illumys cus they multi target and do a decent job against frigets and crusers as well but that usually takes care of most SC granted i play large fleets so i have like 30-40 DV in my...well one fleet since i dont micro manage very well but still... the SC arnt really a problem and its rather annoying trying to spam carriers when theyre 20 supply each tho again since i play single against mostly easy and normal bots things alot of the problems dont effectme

if it helps i suggest letting crusaders vengance effect strikecraft since the non-stacking 1.5 dps doesnt do much otherwise...unless they updated that

oh btw doesnt letting carriers just sit at the edge just make them easy targets for other strikecraft... not to mention that they also wont benifit from things like concentration aura that way

Successfully updated karma reason!

. Let carriers get their inital SC for free, then pay money for any that must be replaced.Replacing a dead Strike Craft should at the bear minimum take 40 seconds. Not the 10-15 seconds it is now.

No way. Carrier damage is tied DIRECTLY to their squadron strength, which is why you can't go dicking with their ability to sustain it(as long as they have AM). A carrier doesn't need a whole lot of permanent strike craft casualties before the long range simply doesn't do enough damage, and the carrier loses its viability over other ships. This suggestion means that carriers will be hard countered (I.E. made completely inept) by 1/3 of the current flak requirement, which is a huge change in how carrier damage can be directly stopped.

Also, CREDITS DON'T SCALE. The growth of income is directly opposed by the cost of upkeep. The presence of any decent amount of flak will bankrupt players HARD and without remorse. You may as well call reclassify flak ships as "pirates who destroy a player's economy by killing their strike craft.". I just don't see that as being a viable role, as is, without causing a huge amount of problems on the side.

The #1 reason why expensive SC is a BAD IDEA is because players won't see the hit on their economy(as fighters auto rebuild) until it is too late.
#2 is that any system to address SC expenditures adds to micromanagement, but not the good kind. it's the "filling out paperwork" kind.
#3 is that players who don't waste valuable micro to pay up have units who are suddenly lumps of dead weight, taking up fleet space but with zero capability.
#4 is that the only recourse for dead weight is to scuttle it.
#5 is WHY field a unit that ends up being dead weight?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Bobucles,

reply 10

. Let carriers get their inital SC for free, then pay money for any that must be replaced.Replacing a dead Strike Craft should at the bear minimum take 40 seconds. Not the 10-15 seconds it is now.No way. Carrier damage is tied DIRECTLY to their squadron strength, which is why you can't go dicking around like it doesn't matter. A carrier doesn't need a whole lot of permanent strike craft casualties to lose its viability over other ships. This suggeestion means that carriers will be hard countered (I.E. made completely inept) by 1/3 of the current flak requirement, which is a huge change in how carrier damage can be directly stopped.
Also, CREDITS DON'T SCALE. The growth of income is directly opposed by the cost of upkeep. The presence of any decent amount of flak will bankrupt players HARD and without remorse. You may as well call reclassify flak ships as "pirates who destroy a player's economy by killing their strike craft.". I just don't see that as being a viable role, as is, without causing a huge amount of problems on the side.

The #1 reason why expensive SC is a BAD IDEA is because players won't see the hit on their economy(as fighters auto rebuild) until it is too late.
#2 is that any system to address SC expenditures adds to micromanagement, but not the good kind. it's the "filling out paperwork" kind.
#3 is that players who don't waste valuable micro to pay up have units who are suddenly lumps of dead weight, taking up fleet space but with zero capability.
#4 is that the only recourse for dead weight is to scuttle it.
#5 is WHY field a unit that ends up being dead weight?

I'm man enough to admit you're right.

Credits really don't scale. I guess making SC replacement cost resources might be too big of a hit. I now believe Anti-matter is the way to go. Along with a general nerf to the huge shields/hp and a speed nerf to the carrier.

The most important thing about Anti-matter is making sure CARRIER's will feel the pinch whenever they lose Strike Craft, and honestly strike craft do not drop like flies in a battle and are actually pretty durable. This would mean the Anti-matter costs for replacing a SC would have heavy and the build time better not be a mere-15 seconds...

Successfully updated karma reason!

um me and my 30-40 defense vessals + 3-4 halycons using push find that the enemy strikecraft do tend to drop like flies... but i usually play against bots so...

Successfully updated karma reason!

ShadowMastiff2468

Join Date 08/2008

+67

ULTIMATE STRIKE CRAFT COUNTER!!!

Don't give them an antimatter cost to be regenerated but a MONETARY COST! So opposing player FEELS it when he loses them.

And I'm not talking huge amount...just something like 10 credits and 5 of both resources for each strike craft (but remove the one at a time creation of the squadron..Ie. You pay, you get 'em all).

OR!!! Each carrior can only spawn in time a certain amount! Ie. 10 squadrons max for each carrier..once their out, its useless.

OR!!!! To be realistic with nowadays...make the carriers WEAK AND SLOW! If what their holding kicks ass, make the carriers slower (come on imagine a modern aircraft carrier going faster then a coastal scout vessel) and give it hell less hp...come on lets be realistic here...Speed + Strenght + damn good regen.....hum seems liek a cap in the wrong building tab to me!

HE HE HE!

+1

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Bobucles,

reply 7

That's a 50% buff to a ship. 50% is a monumental increase in power, for just one research topic. That'll lead to issues where carriers are worthless without the research, and excellent with the research. Also, LCs already have an existing research option that increases the endurance of their squadrons. It's the antimatter research. The more antimatter they have, and the faster it recharges, the more strike craft they get on the field.

My points are: Carriers actively have NO USE for antimatter unless a player attempts to counter them. Uncountered, they have maximum long range damage at zero AM or max, making carriers easily the most versatile lethal force in the game. Even when countered, carriers have free reign until they run dry, and then only after the squadrons die out. Most of the complaints about how carriers function can be addressed by changing how antimatter ties into air superiority, as the most common "abuse" of carriers happens at very low antimatter levels. Players would no longer be able to push carriers beyond their AM capability.

I understand the point in keeping AM tied to SC, but I am also trying to think of a way to keep it simple ( and therefore included in a patch or expansion ). I don't think we're getting a re-write. Nerfing the whole carrier idea is bad, I think we can all agree with that. Dropping back to one squad is bad, we tried that and never used LC's. So we're left with .....

1: bumping flak. Not a bad idea, give it a little more teeth. Having to show up with 50+ flak to have a hope of countering 25 LC's kind of annoys me. I have to spam, to stop a spammer.. but I also don't think it's a good idea to allow a ship that costs less then half of another to be a hard counter. Maybe a slight buff.

2: limiting AM recharge. This might work. It would allow them to a good initial attack, that weakened over time. Maybe, maybe not. Depends on how hard it would be to work out. Is the current AM recharge different from ship to ship ? A programming/CPU overhead hassle probably won't get done, but hey, who knows ?

3: Dropping LC AM max. Might solve the ever flowing assembly line of SC, but would make LC's useless for deep strikes into enemy territory. Essentially making them moble hangars or one hop attack forces. And, you can tech for faster re-charge times and a better max. Maybe a slight adjustment.

4: Cutting LC stats ( speed/shield/hull ). This might make them a bit easier to kill, which is a real issue. When they can jump out, rebuild thier SC, and jump back before my HC's can repair themselves, you gotta wonder WTF ? I don't think anyone thinks SC by themselves are an issue, it's that even if you get close the them, you can't do enough damage to the LC's to finish the job. Those things are tough. I could see a slight change here.

5: Bumping SC build time/limiting building while in combat. Maybe a slight tweak here, slowing them down a bit would limit the vast amounts of SC in the initial wave. This is essentially a Flak buff, since damage done by flak would have a longer lasting effect. Maybe not. Limiting SC regeneration during combat ? Define combat.. does this mean if I have one LF in your system 40 LC's can't build SC ? Dangerous to mess with this one..

6: Buffing cap carriers with more and/or elite squads. Not sure this doesn't compound the problem of someone just spamming cap carriers with better SC's in a much harder to kill container.

Maybe we need to come to an agreement on what we're trying to limit/fix ? For me, it's two things A: Huge never ending waves of SC. it just seems silly to kill them like bugs, and there is an inexhaustible supply, coming from somewhere. And B: A fleet capable of hopping in, devestating a fleet/system, and hopping out before a direct fire fleet can even close ? I think for me, I don't like the idea that my fleet of 25 HC's will get TOASTED by a fleet of 25 LC's, hands down. You'll never catch them, and therefore never touch them. At least against LRM's, you weren't getting hammered from across the entire gravity well. HC's have to close. Same for Caps. So your best bet is to have 15 HC's, and 30 flak, try to close, and hope you can eventually run him down ? I mean, this is supposed to be a 'space opera' genre game. If it's just killing as effieciently as I can, hell with fleets, I'll just turtle until I get novaliths and then nuke your worlds out from under you ( not really feasible, I know, but you get the idea.. ).

Successfully updated karma reason!

1: bumping flak. Not a bad idea, give it a little more teeth. Having to show up with 50+ flak to have a hope of countering 25 LC's kind of annoys me.

50 flak is still half of the fleet cost of 25 light carriers. I think the issue here is more... psychological.

Most ships in the game counter each other pretty solidly given a 1:1 ratio. LRFs, LFs, and HCs kill each other in relatively similar numbers. However, flak is 1/4th the fleet size of a Light Carrier (and 1/5th the advent LC!). In terms of balance, it's unreasonable to allow 100 supply worth of flak to dominate 500 supply of carriers, and it makes sense when you look at things from the strict numbers point of view. But what players SEE, on the field, is that 50 flak is getting steamrolled by 50 carriers, when they should have had 250 flak to stage an equal strength counter. Players reply: "How can I lose to carrier spam I built lots of flak!", when in REALITY, they got stomped by a fleet 5 times their size!

In this respect I do think that carriers need a nerf, and flak a buff. But it's not because flak is too weak, or carriers are too strong. It's because the design is to have a handful of carriers be countered by a bushel of flak, which doesn't exist in the rest of game balance. I think if the ships countered each other in a less lopsided fashion (like a 2:1 or 3:1), you'd see a dramatic "improvement" in balance, simply because 50 flak would hold its own against 50 carriers. What I'm saying is basically that players are bad.

Successfully updated karma reason!

well i think that the anti matter thing could be fixed but other than that i think its best to try to work with what we have to try to counter the current balancing

i know its a lot easyer to complain and ask for nerfs but how bout just trying to come up with a stratagy

i for one find that having 20 or so advent DVs in a fleet set to tight formation while also having one or 2 halycons pushing helps alot

Successfully updated karma reason!

Lets see how the buff for Anti-SC goes from the beta 3 in entrenchment. Hopefully it will address these issues. I notice that carriers have a SC build penalty when enemy ships are around.

Successfully updated karma reason!

how about having the carrier supply cost changed from 20 to 40 that way theyed cost way to much and nowbody would bother with them anymoar

or have them cost less supply and have a lot moar SC so that theyed cause the game to crash before anyone can complain

Successfully updated karma reason!

It may have already been mentioned, but if SC were to cost some anti-matter to produce, even a token amount would limit the numbers, and as battles heated up and caps started using their abilities more, it would mean a smaller portion of antimatter applied to SC replenishment, which would amount to downtime, but it would be variable.

Moving into a grav well, with enemies at a distance would launch SC fairly quickly, but if the well is heavily populated, then the carriers would be forced into using their abilities and again reducing the anti-matter for strikecraft. Adjusting antimatter as a cost for sc can be done in the entity files now, not having to be implemented with an auto dock feature which i believe would have to be implemented from the dev side.

Anyway, we can test it, i can test it as well, though im not as good at evaluating its effectiveness as perhaps some of the people that play online may be.

-Teal

Successfully updated karma reason!

i though they did cost antimatter to produce just not enough anti matter to make a differance

well im pretty sure it costs antimatter for hangers at least though i dont know about carriers

Successfully updated karma reason!

.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Anyone know what the current state of the situation is?

I hope the developer's don't forgot to fix such a massive source of displeasure for a lot of people in this game.

Successfully updated karma reason!

instead of one flak to counter one squad

make it one flak to counter 1.5 squads

at the same time increase the antimatter required to build SC

member flak is designed not to counter carriers but SC

Successfully updated karma reason!

thats a few nice ideas.....

fuel would actualy change the strike-craft into a Support-unit as it would require timing when to launch them, and when to withdraw

having strike-craft docked b4 the carriers are allowed to jump would also be a mayor improvement

(altough an extra command should be added that toggles between jumping AFTER all strikecraft have been docked and the.. more cruel, leaving them behind "at wich.. ofcourse.. the jump-after-dock should be standard.... tough that is optional")

Cruisers "except the Heavy-equivalant" are supposed to be Support-ships by providing positive and negative buffs and effects, or in the carrier's case, providing an exra way of dealing damage "bombers" and a way to counter enemy extra-damage "fighters"

so i agree... fuel/ammunition would seriously limit strikecraft as a primary unit.. but still be worthwile as a Support-unit "late game due to cost, and not being as usefull in smaller battles"

and a dock-b4-jump option would make it both realistic, and increase the micromanagement needed, wich is common among support-cruisers

at the moment it is being used as an all-purpose unit... squads can attack anything, from anywhere within the grav-well, and all you lose is antimatter... near-perfect unit... if not for unending games if the tactic is applied by both sides...

the common quote: "just counter them" the only effective way of doing this is by building your own strikecraft... wich wil result in a loop... no to few losses will occur... in the end more then 200 squads will be participating in the same battle picking off eachother whilst carriers slowly build more.... when the battle does finaly end, and one side has the upper-hand.. the losing side flees, only to get more strikecraft as time passes.... and again in the next battle 200 squads will be flying about... i've only managed to get out of this loop a few times.... a few of wich i won.. a few of wich i lost... and most of wich i just left due to boredom "6 hours straight get's my eye's all squarely"

Successfully updated karma reason!

Well, this is a more drastic solution than just fine tuning some statistics;

How about giving flak a similar ability to the Vasari hanger's "Freeze" Ability? Instead of freezing ships in a local radius, they would slow down SC maybe by 25% or half. They way you could at least have a 'fighter screen' ahead of your forces. The issues here are:

It may be calculation intensive

It's tough to balance the exact ratios of radius and speed

Do more flak frigates in a grav well slow down more?

Another idea is to reduce the capacity of damaged carriers to hold squadrons- perhaps squadrons released by a damaged carrier are also damaged. IE, if the carrier is at half health, it's squadrons are as well.

I would go so far to say that this would be a great idea to implement over ships universally to stop focus firing (Something shield mitigation was supposed to do) but I think that might be like...a way radical change.

Successfully updated karma reason!