Possible Balance Adjustments

[mrdirty]

THIS IS A LONG POST

THE DEVELOPERS HAVE CREATED A SUCCESSFUL GAME IN THERE CREATIVE IMAGE AND I AM ONLY SUBMITTING SUGGESTIONS THAT I FEEL COULD BENEFIT THERE PRODUCT SHOULD THEY FEEL SO INCLINED TO INDULGE IN COMMUNITY IDEAS. I HAVE ZERO EXPECTATIONS. I SIMPLY WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE COMMUNICATION THAT MAY BE A USEFUL CONCEPT TOOL FOR THE TALENTED DEVELOPERS TO UTILIZE AT THERE PREROGATIVE.

This post will cover one possible way to adjust game balance, with what I hope is minimal adjustments to the underlying mechanics of the game. There are two lists. The first, a synopsis of perceived balance issues. The second, a list of interconnected adjustments aimed at making as many "tools" in the game as desirable as possible in all game modes. Without further ado. . .

Perceived issues:

There are 3 core issues at play, and each has a spiderweb effect on the desirability of specific ships, munitions, and support craft.

The first is the damage output and usefulness of the various munitions in a variety of scenarios. Torpedo's have been the topic of many a post, and in many game experiences, torpedo's have been the go to choice for a number of reasons. Damage per salvo, total damage possible due to number of torpedo's per munitions slot, and ability to utilize torpedo's effectively in numerous situations.

The second, the effectiveness(or lack thereof) of support craft abilities towards capital ships, and the ability of capital ships to appropriately defend themselves against the same threats.

The final issue is the perceived threat levels of capital ships with regards to the ship cost/performance relationship.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Suggested Solution(s):

Munitions:

Mines/PCM - Increase the total number of mines(only mines) available per slot, and allow multiple mines/pcm's to be launched per cool down (3 per cooldown is my suggestion). Being able to set up a complete minefield in a turn or 2 without devoting the entire munitions capacity of the fleet group to purely mines would allow for mines to provide significant area denial or standoff potential. Gunship heavy fleets, as an example, could be completely countered by this capability unless outfitted with specific tools such as wardrivers and raptors for disarming. With regards to PCM's, they would become nearly as useful as a sweeper, yet not be overpowered due to having limited munitions. Additionally, make all mines/PCM's effect fields and launch animations invisible to the opponent(unless detector craft such as wardrivers or raptors have been fielded and deployed.) The effects would be a strong desire to bring wardrivers and raptors to both detect and counter the threat, and with mines able to effectively buy time at range, target identification can be acquired and utilized with multiple turns for increased damage from missiles before gun range(or a hit point advantage from an early brawl due to mine damage.)

Nukes/Missiles/Torpedo's/Armor Piercing - I believe torpedo's are fine as they are. They can be dodged, and blocked(especially if the PCM changes listed above are implemented). Nukes are expensive for what they do but already have a useful/unique roll. The damage output and limited usefulness of the other 2 options are what drive the torpedo's popularity. The proposed changes would be to allow missiles and armor piercers to be fired at unidentified targets, and increase there rate of travel to 75% of a torpedo's current rate of travel. If however, missiles and armor piercers are fired at an unidentified target a 25% reduction in damage is applied. The effects of these changes are 1) an increase in usefulness of the mines mentioned above. . . to buy time to empty other munitions at range, and 2) a desire to bring more plentiful munition defenses such as the above mentioned PCM's, wardrivers, and sweepers. The damage reduction would serve to motivate players to identify targets for full damage, and to provide a meaningfull decision in accepting lesser resulting damage from a limited supply of munitions when fired before identification.

Guns:

Ships all have the same basic weapon range despite caliber and fire rate. Few exceptions such as minotaurs and berserkers are only minor exceptions. I suggest standardizing/diversifying gun stats. Rotating large heavy things takes more effort and time than smaller lighter things. The same applies for moving/loading heavier ammo vs lighter ammo. Tracking and fire rate would be affected. Tracking impacts accuracy. The following demonstrates a simplified stat set that provides more specific roles and advantages for each capital ship type.

Battlestar Artillery - Range 5,000m/RoF Low/Accuracy Low
Heavy Turret - Range 4,500m/RoF Low/Accuracy Low
Medium Turret - Range 3,500/RoF Medium/Accuracy Medium
Light Turret - Range 3,000/RoF High/Accuracy High
Point Defense - Range 2,500/RoF Very High/Accuracy Very High

When adjusting subsystems or posture the gun affects should be limited to range and RoF. Accuracy should be unaffected. This will have 3 effects. 1) Assuming posture and subsystem adjustments are uniform, a 20% increase to the range of 5k vs 3k gives us 6k vs 3.5k(1,000 increase vs only 500). Larger guns can further out range smaller guns based on posture. 2) Ship diversity based on armament. (Ex. The adamant can be a lethal threat, but only if it can get in range without being raked by too much fire on the way in as this setup buffs its weaponry to near game launch numbers but only at a very close range.) 3) Ships with lighter more accurate guns may have some trouble getting in range, but due to the accuracy become more effective at providing a fighter screen (Even when set to defensive posture or subsystem strength with accuracy unaffected by posture/subsystem).

You can further specialize ship strengths and weaknesses with your current system of bonus's, penalties, and posture/subsystem scaling inequality.

Support Craft

The only thing support craft do especially well is shoot each other. The Viper Mk II is the king of this. Once fighter superiority is attained they do meaningful(yet not overwhelming) damage to capital ships. I propose increasing the threat the specialized abilities of support craft can supply.

Give a blanket 50% increase to every ability that targets a capital ship, namely hacking, boarding, rockets, jamming, etc. Make them truly terrifying threats from each individual unit. Fighters will do what fighters do, and shoot each other. But the real prize will be shooting the specialty support craft that can single handedly bring a capital ship to its knees.

A blanket reduction to the health of all support craft units by 30% ish . Remember those short range highly accurate light artillery on adamants and those very high accuracy point defense guns. Support craft should fear being near them for any length of time. Unless they can hack the fire control quickly or board efficiently or fire rockets and recall.

If you read this extremely long post, you have earned the right to throw your spears. Thoughts?