It is currently Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:27 pm


"Fixing" the game

Tell the world your Dropfleet related trials and tribulations!
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

brandothecommando

  • Posts: 20
  • Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 10:51 pm

Re: "Fixing" the game

PostTue Nov 07, 2017 11:42 pm

Admiral JCJF wrote:While I agree with basically all the points made here, I don't think this means the game it'self needs "fixing".

For a startoff we're talking about things that are OP or UP within a pretty narrow band, with a handful of exceptions. While some units are better and some units are worse you CAN win games without the better ones and with the worse ones.

Now, I've been pretty vocal in calling for change in some cases myself (to surprising resistance of unusual kinds in some cases) so I've got a lot of sympathy for your cause.

But the issue isn't Dropfleet, just individual ships within it.


Absolutely agree Admiral: hence why I quoted fixing the game...I think the game is fabulous and love it. Just wish that every ship was a bit more "competitive" in its choices.

I honestly don't like the argument of "you can win games without the better ones." I do completely agree, but I don't want to have "better" options than others and feel like I'm handicapping myself in some way by taking them...I want every option to be a viable/difficult choice. Is it possible, probably not, but we can certainly look at the balance and make some tweaks to help that, no?
Offline
User avatar

Admiral JCJF

  • Posts: 160
  • Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2017 9:12 pm

Re: "Fixing" the game

PostWed Nov 08, 2017 12:01 am

brandothecommando wrote:Absolutely agree Admiral: hence why I quoted fixing the game...I think the game is fabulous and love it. Just wish that every ship was a bit more "competitive" in its choices.


Fair enough, I just wanted to say it out loud.

And I agree.

brandothecommando wrote:I honestly don't like the argument of "you can win games without the better ones." I do completely agree, but I don't want to have "better" options than others and feel like I'm handicapping myself in some way by taking them...I want every option to be a viable/difficult choice. Is it possible, probably not, but we can certainly look at the balance and make some tweaks to help that, no?


Indeed, it's a rubbish case to make against change. But my point is that things aren't TOO bad (with a couple of pointed exceptions) and it's mostly internal balance and competition rather than inter-faction balance (which would have a far worse effect on the game as a whole).

That doesn't mean we can't and shouldn't push for change to make things better 'though.
Why would we waste words on Prey?
Offline

Takxis

  • Posts: 11
  • Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2017 7:57 am

Re: "Fixing" the game

PostWed Nov 08, 2017 5:02 am

hi i have been playing a few games now and apart from the comments already said one thing really stands out for me. the imbalance between space and ground. quite a few of the games i have had result in someone winning because they hold nearly all the ground assets but have no fleet left in space. i can see how this results in a strike carrier spam as it can give you easy victory. the strategic fact that ground forces with no fleet control of space are useless, i think is not shown in the points score. to me the way i think the balance can be restored is to give critical locations the same value as the ground asset they cover not just a blanket 2. this also reduces the corvette spam as they cannot add to critical location holding.
thoughts?
Offline

Shikatanai

  • Posts: 140
  • Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2017 7:54 pm

Re: "Fixing" the game

PostWed Nov 08, 2017 7:37 am

Lordprinceps wrote:The Azurite is "okay" as far as light cruisers go; it hasn't got the best weapon, but it's the cheapest one out there, and vectored really is nice as far as special rules go, especially with its weapon being spinal.

I do agree that the charged air thing shouldn't really be changed, but the voidgates should certainly be a bit more expensive and a bit less durable against the things that are actually trying to kill them. Preferably, voidgates should be in ratio with motherships, with maybe just one or two extra for redundancy, rather than the absolutely stupid "three motherships twelve gates" or "four motherships sixteen gates" lists that float around.

I have actually recommended linking the 4200s on all UCM ships before, and it's overall just a good idea, not just for the sanfran, but for everything!
It doesn't make most UCM ships all that much better, especially the gun cruisers, since they're only useful if you've got a thing on either side you want to plink at and are likely to be killed by that single turret (like Scourge frigates on 1 hull, for example).
Likewise for the beam ships, but a tad more useful.
It doesn't provide any added benefit on WF.
But what it does do is actually give the San Fran, the Madrid, and the New York some decent firepower on standard orders.


The Azurite is complete crap... you pay nearly the same price for a mothership that does the same damage wise, is more durable and drops and you do not need to field it 2+... there is nevery ever any case where I would consider an Azurite.

Concerning Voidgatespam: If costs are increased it needs to be done really slowly AND the survivability should not change. Otherwise you'll quickly reach a point where the thing goes the other way round where Shaltari can not play any reasonable game anymore. Keep in mind that 4 MS and 16 gates already cost half of your fleet and you definetly need roughly 1 spare gate for each mothership (actually this would lead to 4 MS to be nearly unplayable and a generic 3 MS gate would be set forever)... another possibility might be to make them even more expensive but give them more survivability (would fit for a rather elite Faction as well). It will be quite difficult to balance it out without destroying Shaltari imho... e.g. Scourge right now is very even with Shaltari in this matchup as they have the necessary tools in comparison to e.g. UCM.
I also like the Charged Air suggestion as it is another mechanic that actually needs decisionmaking instead of brainless rolling.

I think linking the Massdrivers is not the way to go. I'd rather give any Massdriver another shot. You'll get much more out of WF while still being able to dish out a little bit more damage on any other order. Again forces decisionmaking and some planning. UCM already has enough "no-brainer" ships where you basicly do not have to think about Arcs at all as you never want to go WF.
Offline
User avatar

Lordprinceps

  • Posts: 272
  • Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2016 6:25 pm
  • Location: Dallas, Texas

Re: "Fixing" the game

PostWed Nov 08, 2017 9:22 am

Shikatanai wrote:The Azurite is complete crap... you pay nearly the same price for a mothership that does the same damage wise, is more durable and drops and you do not need to field it 2+... there is nevery ever any case where I would consider an Azurite.

Yeah, you're right. I was trying to think of an argument, but the only thing worse than the Azurite, light cruiser wise, is probably the Aquamarine. A shame, considering how nice the Shaltari light cruisers look.

Shikatanai wrote:Concerning Voidgatespam: If costs are increased it needs to be done really slowly AND the survivability should not change. Otherwise you'll quickly reach a point where the thing goes the other way round where Shaltari can not play any reasonable game anymore. Keep in mind that 4 MS and 16 gates already cost half of your fleet and you definetly need roughly 1 spare gate for each mothership (actually this would lead to 4 MS to be nearly unplayable and a generic 3 MS gate would be set forever)... another possibility might be to make them even more expensive but give them more survivability (would fit for a rather elite Faction as well). It will be quite difficult to balance it out without destroying Shaltari imho... e.g. Scourge right now is very even with Shaltari in this matchup as they have the necessary tools in comparison to e.g. UCM.
I also like the Charged Air suggestion as it is another mechanic that actually needs decisionmaking instead of brainless rolling.

I agree on the voidgates needing only one change at a time, to see how it goes, but making them even more durable just seems like a terrible idea. They're already heavily resistant to ships dedicated to killing them, and they've got numbers on their side too. If the ratio of voidgates to motherships ranges between 4:1 and 3:1, then it should err more towards 3:1. In my opinion, redundancy with voidgates should be a luxury, and they should be balanced around the ratio 3:1 being the norm.

Shikatanai wrote:I think linking the Massdrivers is not the way to go. I'd rather give any Massdriver another shot. You'll get much more out of WF while still being able to dish out a little bit more damage on any other order. Again forces decisionmaking and some planning. UCM already has enough "no-brainer" ships where you basicly do not have to think about Arcs at all as you never want to go WF.

I'm going to have to disagree on that one. The beauty of linking massdrivers is that they actually don't buff anything except the San Fran, Madrid, and New York.
The only cases where linking mass drivers would directly improve the ship is for UCM beam ships, and only when their target is within 90 degrees of heading (so that it can be hit by a front arc (with both turrets firing at the same target) after turning), but more than 56 degrees of heading (so that it can't be hit by the narrow arc (and thus the beam) after turning).
Even in that case, the Berlin/Pete is chucking 4 4+ shots, which is pretty much negligible (being less than 1.6 damage on average against all armors), while the Avalon/Perth is throwing 8 4+ shots as a single target (which is less than 3.2 damage on average against all armors); a more significant weapon, but vastly inferior to the main gun it wants to be using.

As for giving an extra attack to 4200s to make WF that much better, I have two problems with that. You suddenly have stuff like the Avalon throwing 12 4+ attacks in addition to its main beam, and everything else throwing 6 4+ attacks, when most everything else doesn't need the buff.

As for WF on the Madrid and San Fran, you're not going to be going WF on such critical ships for a 2 damage average output. Even for the New York, that's 4 average damage on weapons free. I guarantee you, no one will ever go WF for such pitiful damage, considering the penalties involved.
Meanwhile, consider linked turrets. They get 4 4+ attacks in their front arc, split otherwise, and the New York can actually be somewhat useful on standard orders with 8 4+ attacks in its front arc. Even though those ships have no reason to go weapons free now, its fine, because they never had any reason to go weapons free before in the first place.
Offline

Shikatanai

  • Posts: 140
  • Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2017 7:54 pm

Re: "Fixing" the game

PostWed Nov 08, 2017 12:31 pm

Concerning making Voidgates more durable: sorry I was not specific enough for this. What I wanted to say is that imho there would be the option to make them more durable / Buff them on the one Hand but increase their costs by a larger amount on the other hand. That way it gets much more costly to supply voidgates to any cluster but makes them more stable with no need for a lot of replacement.
I actually do not think that the number should be more like 3:1 as the biggest downside of Shaltari will grow to an immense problems e.g. especially against scourge as you definetly need gate networks to keep your Motherships alive long enough to stand a chance.

Giving massdrivers one more shot accross the board has one giant advantage: Every massdriver ship would be buffed and to be honest every massdriver ship needs a buff. Across the Board Massdriver based ships just suck and are outperformed by their BTL relatives. If a Moscow can fire 10 3+ and 6 4+ Shots suddenly it get's on another level for example. BTL ships do not need a huge advantage for going WF as they are quite potent anyway - still they would be in a place where a WF is worth the effort some times if it is even possible without loosing the lasershot.
The Madrid and Frisco also benefit as usually spikes will come in / do not matter anyway when they are where they belong to and the arcs pretty much favor WF orders. We use WF a lot on Friscos as they are targeted anyway and are spiked anyway - it basicly does not matter often (and it is not as important - it still sees more table time compared to all other Massdriver ships).

Concerning the Avalon: Yes this might be a problem but that could also be fixed relatively easy by just combning the side turrets on each side into one weapon profile (isn't that the case already?! Thought it was 4shots with one profile per side already.
Offline
User avatar

Lordprinceps

  • Posts: 272
  • Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2016 6:25 pm
  • Location: Dallas, Texas

Re: "Fixing" the game

PostWed Nov 08, 2017 3:25 pm

Shikatanai wrote:Giving massdrivers one more shot accross the board has one giant advantage: Every massdriver ship would be buffed and to be honest every massdriver ship needs a buff. Across the Board Massdriver based ships just suck and are outperformed by their BTL relatives. If a Moscow can fire 10 3+ and 6 4+ Shots suddenly it get's on another level for example. BTL ships do not need a huge advantage for going WF as they are quite potent anyway - still they would be in a place where a WF is worth the effort some times if it is even possible without loosing the lasershot.
The Madrid and Frisco also benefit as usually spikes will come in / do not matter anyway when they are where they belong to and the arcs pretty much favor WF orders. We use WF a lot on Friscos as they are targeted anyway and are spiked anyway - it basicly does not matter often (and it is not as important - it still sees more table time compared to all other Massdriver ships).

Concerning the Avalon: Yes this might be a problem but that could also be fixed relatively easy by just combning the side turrets on each side into one weapon profile (isn't that the case already?! Thought it was 4shots with one profile per side already.


Ohhh, you're talking about buffing both the 6400's and 4200's equally by adding +1 attack to each. I hadn't realized that, sorry, but I've been talking about -just- the 4200's. I'm not sure how I feel on giving the 6400's even more power, since they're at the "main ship gun" level of firepower equivalent to the Oculus array and the disintegrator battery. The differences being, of course, that the 6400's strength is superior arcs; the array's having scald; and the disintegrators having improved range from Shaltari scan.

Going back to improving the 4200's, and only the 4200's, rather than just linking them, my argument still stands. Improving just the 4200's actually helps the beam ships more than it helps the gun ships, since the latter will always have 6400's in arc against whatever the 4200's could shoot at anyways, and even with the 4200 buff the 6400's would be superior. However, for beam ships, their auxilliary weapons that they do sometimes use (since their beam isn't always within turning arc of a target) suddenly get just a bit better; especially on the Avalon/Perth, which can now put out 6 attacks per side.
Sure, it helps the San Fran, Madrid, and New York too, but it also helps ships that just don't need the help.

Meanwhile, as in my previous post, linking the 4200's does all that without providing as much of a benefit to beam ships.

And yes, the Avalon already has its 4200's combined into two banks of 4 attacks each, similar to the battleships; I'm assuming those two banks would be linked together, same as for the battleships.
Offline

Shikatanai

  • Posts: 140
  • Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2017 7:54 pm

Re: "Fixing" the game

PostWed Nov 08, 2017 8:20 pm

Lordprinceps wrote:
Shikatanai wrote:Giving massdrivers one more shot accross the board has one giant advantage: Every massdriver ship would be buffed and to be honest every massdriver ship needs a buff. Across the Board Massdriver based ships just suck and are outperformed by their BTL relatives. If a Moscow can fire 10 3+ and 6 4+ Shots suddenly it get's on another level for example. BTL ships do not need a huge advantage for going WF as they are quite potent anyway - still they would be in a place where a WF is worth the effort some times if it is even possible without loosing the lasershot.
The Madrid and Frisco also benefit as usually spikes will come in / do not matter anyway when they are where they belong to and the arcs pretty much favor WF orders. We use WF a lot on Friscos as they are targeted anyway and are spiked anyway - it basicly does not matter often (and it is not as important - it still sees more table time compared to all other Massdriver ships).

Concerning the Avalon: Yes this might be a problem but that could also be fixed relatively easy by just combning the side turrets on each side into one weapon profile (isn't that the case already?! Thought it was 4shots with one profile per side already.


Ohhh, you're talking about buffing both the 6400's and 4200's equally by adding +1 attack to each. I hadn't realized that, sorry, but I've been talking about -just- the 4200's. I'm not sure how I feel on giving the 6400's even more power, since they're at the "main ship gun" level of firepower equivalent to the Oculus array and the disintegrator battery. The differences being, of course, that the 6400's strength is superior arcs; the array's having scald; and the disintegrators having improved range from Shaltari scan.

Going back to improving the 4200's, and only the 4200's, rather than just linking them, my argument still stands. Improving just the 4200's actually helps the beam ships more than it helps the gun ships, since the latter will always have 6400's in arc against whatever the 4200's could shoot at anyways, and even with the 4200 buff the 6400's would be superior. However, for beam ships, their auxilliary weapons that they do sometimes use (since their beam isn't always within turning arc of a target) suddenly get just a bit better; especially on the Avalon/Perth, which can now put out 6 attacks per side.
Sure, it helps the San Fran, Madrid, and New York too, but it also helps ships that just don't need the help.

Meanwhile, as in my previous post, linking the 4200's does all that without providing as much of a benefit to beam ships.

And yes, the Avalon already has its 4200's combined into two banks of 4 attacks each, similar to the battleships; I'm assuming those two banks would be linked together, same as for the battleships.


Well, the thing is that Occulus Beams / Arrays and Desintegrators are played as normal cruisers provide double the shots compared to a UCM one on WF which is a crucial parts with all those great arcs. So actually a Amber or Sphinx has roughly the same firepower as an Moscow for ~ 2/3 of the points invested. There is a reason why all those Massdriver ships are not seeing tabletime in maxed fleets while Occulus and Desintegrator ships do ;) Much more important to buff them instead of the Madrid or the Frisco imho.

Concerning the Avalon my point was that it would not be 12 shots on 4+ as you stated before but 10 on 4+ instead of the 8 that it has now. Not what I would call gamebreaking while it would help a lot of the other ships that are indeed subpar.
Online
User avatar

Cry of the Wind

Hawk Talon

  • Posts: 1019
  • Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2015 12:27 pm
  • Location: Airdrie, Alberta, Canada

Re: "Fixing" the game

PostWed Nov 08, 2017 8:44 pm

I've always been a fan of linking all the 4200s on UCM ships for all the reasons above and in previous talks. As for San Fran vs other troopships, I think it could use a small points drop while PHR/Shaltari could get a points increase. Not sure about the Chimera as its speed can be very useful even if it is the most fragile and largest sig since its points are more reasonable.
Offline
User avatar

Lordprinceps

  • Posts: 272
  • Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2016 6:25 pm
  • Location: Dallas, Texas

Re: "Fixing" the game

PostWed Nov 08, 2017 9:48 pm

Shikatanai wrote:Well, the thing is that Occulus Beams / Arrays and Desintegrators are played as normal cruisers provide double the shots compared to a UCM one on WF which is a crucial parts with all those great arcs. So actually a Amber or Sphinx has roughly the same firepower as an Moscow for ~ 2/3 of the points invested. There is a reason why all those Massdriver ships are not seeing tabletime in maxed fleets while Occulus and Desintegrator ships do ;) Much more important to buff them instead of the Madrid or the Frisco imho.

Concerning the Avalon my point was that it would not be 12 shots on 4+ as you stated before but 10 on 4+ instead of the 8 that it has now. Not what I would call gamebreaking while it would help a lot of the other ships that are indeed subpar.


True, but consider what it would be be like if the mass drivers were buffed!
Functionally, the +1 attack 4200 is identical to the Toulon's gun, which as we know, is functionally identical to the Topaz's bank or the Harpy's beam, which are each worth exactly half of their bigger versions.
Thus, even just with the 4200's being buffed, the Moscow now has two main guns, and two half guns, making it exactly equivalent in overall average damage (ignoring Scald) to the Shenlong and Onyx.
If you were to buff the 6400's with +1 attack, each pair of turrets now becomes equivalent to the Beijing's 6400 battery (which becomes even more powerful, mind you); just the buffed 6400's alone on the Moscow makes it equivalent to the Shenlong and Onyx, and with (unbuffed!) 4200's it's superior. With buffed 4200's and 6400's, the Moscow would be roughly equivalent to some hypothetical ship with four pairs of unbuffed 6400's, or four occulus arrays, or four disintegrator batteries.
Considering the Rio, with both buffed 4200's and 6400's, it becomes identical in overall power to the Sphinx and stronger than the Amber.

And mind you, this doesn't even solve the problem with the San Fran, Madrid, or New York. You've functionally given the former two a Toulon gun, butyou they're still never, ever going to go weapons free to use the second gun. I personally consider it bad design if a ship can gain something from going weapons free (unlike ships like the Bellerophon or Wyvern, for example, which can use their full firepower on standard orders), but the cost of going weapons free will ALWAYS outweigh the benefits of doing so. If that is the case, then it's just best to link their weapons up (as linking 4200's would do)
For the New York, with buffed 4200's, you're basically giving it a pair of 6400 turrets on its shoulders (as 4+ lock, 3 attack, 1 damage is equivalent to 3+ lock, 2 attack, 1 damage on the average). Even though that's good, the costs of going weapons free on a battleship are even greater than they are on smaller ships, so I don't see the New York necessarily taking advantage of that either.
PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests