That aside, though, yeah, this is a bit of a problem. I almost wonder if throwing objectives into the mix might not be a good idea. Something like, "if one side controls the middle of the map, the other side's peak time ticks down no matter what, including reserves" might work. The center would then be something you have to hold to win the CR war - you either hold it and fight, don't hold it and still fight, or lose by CR. Seems like it would have no effect on smaller battles, where everything ticks down anyway. Plus, it would provide an opportunity to clarify the mechanic, through the objective's text.
Hmm. Thoughts on this? Any exploit potential I'm missing?
That aside, though, yeah, this is a bit of a problem. I almost wonder if throwing objectives into the mix might not be a good idea. Something like, "if one side controls the middle of the map, the other side's peak time ticks down no matter what, including reserves" might work. The center would then be something you have to hold to win the CR war - you either hold it and fight, don't hold it and still fight, or lose by CR. Seems like it would have no effect on smaller battles, where everything ticks down anyway. Plus, it would provide an opportunity to clarify the mechanic, through the objective's text.
Hmm. Thoughts on this? Any exploit potential I'm missing?
Hmm. Thoughts on this? Any exploit potential I'm missing?I thought about boring and hidden "if DP disparity between sides is bigger than 30% (bigger fleet's DP/smaller fleet's DP), then CR depletion speed is multiplied by disparity ratio".
What about fights against MUCH larger fleet (like 10x yours)? You start with elite units and manage to hold center - ticking down *whole* enemy reserve in process. Then swap to a few reserve ships (since they didn't lose CR) for mop up. Something that would probably not happen under current system (CR death due to endless reinforcement waves).
Especially since player can reduce combat size to fit his current fleet.
Makes fleet size disadvantage much less important, as long as you have really good first wave.
I only resort to outlasting the enemy as a last resort. (e.g., I cannot safely attack and win against an overwhelming force any other way.) Waiting that much is not very fun. (That is the real reason Remnants are overpowered in player hands, they have more peak performance than most ships and can outlast them if their weird loadouts make it too hard to win conventionally.)
If reserves start to tick down (or I foresee that coming), I probably would call full retreat to end battle as soon as possible. If some ships are too slow, say Mora on my side, I might shoot my own slow pokes (only instead of more XP exploit, simply to get them off the map now). I would also be more hesitant to join battles as allies.
Also, that would make CR drain intolerably huge as during early 0.6. I hated CR back then, and unlimited ballistics (plus other minor tweaks) made the CR more tolerable. If CR ticking down in combat for all is a thing, thing CR costs would need to be lower so that player does not lose 50% for the whole fleet in one battle, but that may encourage full retreats more for perhaps other reasons like reloading missiles.
On the other hand, if I am winning a battle, I might order my allies to avoid a crippled ship so that the CR of enemies in reserve ticks down all the way down to zero. Let that enemy ship live long enough to cripple everyone else.
I thought about boring and hidden "if DP disparity between sides is bigger than 30% (bigger fleet's DP/smaller fleet's DP), then CR depletion speed is multiplied by disparity ratio".
Any exploits? Don't know, but it might potentially make early game harder.
(A cruiser can't tick down a capital unless it's a carrier - which, really, I should probably change - that's a holdover from before the new fighter mechanics, iirc.)
That aside, though, yeah, this is a bit of a problem. I almost wonder if throwing objectives into the mix might not be a good idea. Something like, "if one side controls the middle of the map, the other side's peak time ticks down no matter what, including reserves" might work. The center would then be something you have to hold to win the CR war - you either hold it and fight, don't hold it and still fight, or lose by CR. Seems like it would have no effect on smaller battles, where everything ticks down anyway. Plus, it would provide an opportunity to clarify the mechanic, through the objective's text.
Hmm. Thoughts on this? Any exploit potential I'm missing?
Also, to clarify: I wasn't thinking that *CR* would tick down for reserves; just peak time. Not super relevant for this particular point, but thought I'd mention it.
Taking out ways to abuse the enemy by smart understanding of combat mechanics is probably bad.
What about fights where we underdeploy strategically, or when are reserves are already CR damaged? And what about civilian ships?
...
I have often been in the situation when getting chain ganked by remnants that my main combat ships are starting to be in CR trouble from repeated deployment. I start to deploy less of my fleet, sometimes down to just the bare minimum of ships I think can scrape a win. If the reserve is being CR damaged, then I can't do that, which I think would be a shame: These tense battles are some of the best fights.
I don't deploy frigates in large fleet actions as they are too vulnerable, but keep a few around for chases. If I'm in a tough battle where I don't hold the center that much, but manage to win in decent time with my destroyers starting to tick down, then my chase frigates will be completely wiped.
What stops the player from harassing the enemy fleet to CR exhaustion with a few ships, full retreating to end that combat round, then crushing the enemy in a new round? Same effect, just a little more waiting.
Instead of (or in addition to) making the enemy readiness timer tick, the center objective stops your own. This still allows for legitimate hit and run strategies against a larger AI, such as using your own fast ships in one wave to deal with the enemy fast ships, then deploying heavier ships, but removes the CR advantage element of it. It is a slower tempo correction though, which might be bad.
Another suggestion: One AI change that would really alter game flow: have the AI retreat when they start taking CR damage. And if this leaves the forces left too small, have them retreat as well. This would make engagements have more "rounds" and be more punishing and expensive, so there would be balance consequences. However, it would stop the 'corner hiding' cheese because the player would take the full CR hit each time.
Taking out ways to abuse the enemy by smart understanding of combat mechanics is probably bad.
Well, it's good or bad depending on whether the gameplay this engenders is fun or not, right. Here, we're talking about something that occasionally creates gameplay that's very obviously not fun.
...
Hmm - so "no CR ticking down for reserves" mostly does take care of this, right? If you strategically under-deploy and win, you're fine. If you lose, you either still have enough peak time on reserves, or you retreat and redeploy.
...
Do you mean chase frigates for the separate pursuit phase? (If so, then naturally we're good since peak time would be reset for that.)
...
Also, what happens if I push the enemy back to their side of the map? I play very aggressively and usually end up near their spawn about 2/3rds through the fight.
Though one issue with the retreat/redelpoy at low CR: it would be really boring to fight against, but is it really that much better to play? Because its a pretty optimal player strategy.
Here's another issue I just thought of: max battle size and deploying replacements for lost ships. If the replacements have had their peak time depleted, then deploying them is a trap, and the player never had the choice to deploy them or not.
On the flipside: I can hold the center, and then deliberately not kill the enemy for a while, taking out the peak performance time of not only their current ships, but all their reserves. Tedious, but I can imagine a hardened subsystems force where the optimal play is to hold and wait.
So the central idea here is that you *can't* do that, because how can you deliberately not kill the enemy and hold a fixed location at the same time? Or can you, somehow, and I'm just not thinking of a way?
The problem with infinite space idea is the playing field has walls, and ships solo better while hugging the walls. When I attempt simulator grinds with Paragon or Astral, I abuse the walls. AI ships often back away from walls. I slowly creep toward the middle to draw them in, retreat back toward the wall and pick off more ships, repeat. If Paragon tries to stay in the open, while fast and small ships are on the field, it will get surrounded then die. Skilled astral might get away being in the open with wing spam, but it is still better to hug the walls as insurance against being surrounded. Even when I use smaller ships, I sometimes use the walls as sanctuary because I know the AI avoids the walls to some extent.
Actually no, I don't go for objectives as 80% of the time, they don't matter due to the fact that I fight in close in ranges and two of the three objectives give only positive boosts. (CP regen and CM percentage) The only time I somewhat care about objectives is when there is sensor buoys as they can hurt me. But even then I might ignore them if the enemy fleet is small enoughAlso, what happens if I push the enemy back to their side of the map? I play very aggressively and usually end up near their spawn about 2/3rds through the fight.
I'd assume you'd be entirely unaffected since you'd have control of the point(s), similarly to how you likely control the objectives now in the same scenario, if they're present.
... but how about making an exception for these two?
A simple line like "due to <world reason>, this ship cannot reap the benefits of <insert name> beacon" under their hullmods would be enough. I think that's much less likely to cause problems and it'd alleviate the current balancing issue.
I'm sure I'm missing some so considering this method, what are the downsides? Are there any exploits or gameplay problems that you can think of?
The AI currently mass deploys, since it doesn't have to care about supplies.
I somewhat miss the old system where the AI deployed only a few ships to match yours ( problem was : to easy to solo ) -> but it gave me the feeling of AI had to care about resources, too
... but I don't think this would benefit short PPT ships significantly since, unless the battle is already very lopsided, the objective will usually be neutral.
Eh, that one's probably too silly and/or hard.
7. Because ships can be brought back into a battle, but Missiles won't be reloaded if the entire fleet Retreats, there aren't any good reasons to leave in the middle of a battle you can win, nor, with the other changes, any good reasons to loiter outside the AI zone. Your own AI ships won't leave the zone, either.
... but I don't think this would benefit short PPT ships significantly since, unless the battle is already very lopsided, the objective will usually be neutral.
Hmm, interesting point. Still feels dangerous, though - something like say a large group of SO ships rushing the field, overtaking (and thus holding) the center, and then abusing that to pressure the enemy deployment zone with all of SO's advantages and unlimited peak time.
I think a bigger concern is a 2000+ range Paragon parking on the objective and scaring all the AI out of the capture area. The capture range would have to be very large to counter that. I wonder how many SO ships it would take to keep all enemy ships out of a 3000 radius area.
I think a bigger concern is a 2000+ range Paragon parking on the objective and scaring all the AI out of the capture area. The capture range would have to be very large to counter that. I wonder how many SO ships it would take to keep all enemy ships out of a 3000 radius area.
Well, if they can't to anything about a Paragon parked in center of map with single objective (not edge-camping!), then Paragon deserves to win, obviously. Why would this need to be explicitly countered?
The Paragon is simply the most extreme (and easily tested) example. If a small number of elite ships can easily keep an otherwise stronger enemy fleet out of the center then that could be an I Win button.
I don't know if it would be a problem in practice, but it's something to watch out for and an extreme capture range is an easy counter.
Keep in mind: this center objective stuff is to penalize edge-camping; creating a new camp-to-win location, even if it's in the center, would be shooting ourselves in the foot.
If we could not refresh peak performance between rounds, then ships should start with a lot more of it and have CR decay more slowly. It would also help if AI became brave as they used to be. I get tired of their stalling Spathi dance (which is part of the reason my fleet is fighter heavy).I agree with all of that. I think one of the biggest problems with CR as a system is that, while it fixed some serious problems- notably, using endless kite to defeat infinite enemies- it also took a lot of Fun out.
Part of the reason I do not use frigates and most destroyers in endgame fights is their peak performance is too short. It is a pain leaving enough CR aside to retreat ships that are running out of gas individually instead of as a group.
That said, I could attempt retreat then re-engage in another encounter to refill peak performance and missiles... but then I would need to defend at least one tanker (probably a Phaeton or Prometheus) and lose all accumulated loot (and XP if not at level cap). At least if I went bounty or Remnant hunting. If simply grinding factions in core worlds, I would not need tanker, and if I avoided killing ships with rare weapons, then fleeing and re-engaging could be an option.
Here's an idea.
1. There should be capturable points that influence CR decay, and points that gradually reload Missiles. This would hugely encourage players to not kite battlefield edges and use a fleet.
2. Retreating should not reload Missiles, ever, but it should allow the ship to return to the battlefield later. I.E., retreating a badly-damaged Cruiser just puts it back into the Deployable list; it doesn't take it off the playing field, for the player or the AI.
3. Retreating or entering the battlespace should involve turning on the Travel Drive. This means ultra-fast movement (think a blurring motion until it cuts off). Travel Drives should take between 15 and 45 seconds to warm up; hitting Retreat on a ship means surviving for a while and then escaping rapidly if you survive that long.
4. The battlespace should be essentially infinite, but the AI should not stray outside a zone encompassing the Objectives, unless Retreating, other than Fighters.
5. Player ships taken out of this zone should be allowed to do so, but if the AI captures the points that drain CR, this won't work out.
6. Ships that have reached zero CR outside the zone should be Disabled, further penalizing attempting to escape the AI.
7. Because ships can be brought back into a battle, but Missiles won't be reloaded if the entire fleet Retreats, there aren't any good reasons to leave in the middle of a battle you can win, nor, with the other changes, any good reasons to loiter outside the AI zone. Your own AI ships won't leave the zone, either.
So, that would solve most of these problems. I don't have any issue with the player sending a damaged ship out of the fight and entering a new one to fight. The issue here is that corner-kiting, wall-hugging, abusing the Retreat system to reload Missiles or recover CR, etc., etc., are all boring and reward cheesing rather than fighting. Merely making sure that a player who refuses to fight will lose their ship to CR degradation will keep players in the zone; if players can get Missile reloads by holding points, then Missile-heavy fleets are viable without resorting to an abuse of the game-mechanics. And the Travel Drive and a large circular zone means no more "Oh, I just killed the first wave, and now the second wave magically enters the fight and crashes into my fleet that's chased them to the edge of the battlespace"- ships should arrive in groups, but groups scattered around a 90-degree arc of the zone, so that that artificial issue quits influencing gameplay.
I think it's still possible to test this stuff out, but meh, I have no idea whether my custom-battlefield code from Vacuum is still even vaguely serviceable, so it's probably not trivial to set up a test for these ideas. I think this solves most of the current problems, though; it gets rid of the invisible-wall issues pretty much for good, makes enemy reinforcement waves arrive in unpredictable places, quits rewarding players for using Retreat All by magically reloading their weapons, etc., which are all things I think we can agree aren't great for gameplay.
4. When the ship has Retreat orders, it swiftly turns and then engages the Travel Drive, leaving rapidly.
I feel like this is an over kill fix for an issue that already has a fix. Plus it feels very arbitrary and gamely
1. Until the ship get the Travel Drive started, it's still vulnerable, so if it's forced to Vent or Overloads, it can't flee.During TD warmup: can a ship move (is inertia instantly nullified if no)? use weapons? use shields? use systems(like fortress shield...)? does warmup itself cost flux?