Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]

Author Topic: Balancing Change Ideas  (Read 4718 times)

ubuntufreakdragon

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 186
    • View Profile
Re: Balancing Change Ideas
« Reply #45 on: December 09, 2020, 10:07:51 AM »

Respec Officers.
Better Distress Call Rewards(you are risking a pirate trap so a fleet offering you a nice ship for you help or something like that would be nice)
Rapid firing burst weapons like heave Needler could get their alternating fire fixed.
Option to stockpile resources at colonies.
No sat bombing independents.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2020, 07:30:04 PM by ubuntufreakdragon »
Logged

ubuntufreakdragon

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 186
    • View Profile
Re: Balancing Change Ideas
« Reply #46 on: January 10, 2021, 01:02:19 AM »

Odyssey could use another shipsystem, Plasma burn may be nice in Player hands, but it's a press to suicide button for the AI, Maneuvering Jets, Phase Skimmer or Phase Teleporter would perform better in AI hands. Also a buildin surveying equipment would fit the Odyssey.
Broadside Ships AI should be fixed in Combination with frontshield hullmod.
14Legion could get it's large turret changed to composite.
Missile Autoforge could regain a charge by consuming a destroyed ship.
Selling blueprints to official markets could allow this faction to use said blueprint.
Conquest could use a slightly larger shield arc.
Idea for a new fleet size limit:
Military ships cost 2,3,5,8 fleetpoints by size civilian 1,2,3,5, you have ~150 fleetpoints to spend (numbers are based on the fibonacci series, which is often a very good fit for balancing),
this way you could use e.g. 30 military cruisers or 75 military frigates or 18 battleships, if speed reduction in nebulas would be based on average speed of the fleet this would make small ships way more interesting.
Respecing officers for storypoints in both skills and personality would be nice, you often find good offices with personality not matching skills (e.g. rekless + carrier skills).
A tactic screen allowing to define rules for the AI when to do what would be nice: (Dragon Age Origins is a nice example)
1 Enemy Overloaded -> Fire Harpoons
2 Enemy combinedflux > 90% -> Fire Tachion Lances
3 hard flux < 25% -> close in
4 hard flux > 75% -> goto 7
5 combinded flux > 75% -> activate fortess shields
6 allied flux > 75% -> shield it
7 hard flux > 75% -> retreat form frontline
Officer lvl could increases the max length of the ships tactics.
Offset Pather interest by -LP Reputation.
Additional Commission effects: Tri Tach friendly Remnants Hege Licenced AI Use (no checking expedition AI doesn't dare to go rouge) LC lower Pather interest ...
Factions that don't offer commissions shouldn't sat bomb on territory conflicts.
Autofire should respect alternating fire settings.
Dispatch hardflux at 10% rate with active shields could be changed to convert hardflux at 10% dissipation rate to make it more useful when still firing weapons.
Time between deterioration and decivilization should be increased.
Armed Timer for Sabots to make them less useful as a dagger.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2021, 10:52:02 PM by ubuntufreakdragon »
Logged

Flying Birdy

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 165
    • View Profile
Re: Balancing Change Ideas
« Reply #47 on: January 10, 2021, 11:50:41 PM »

Odyssey could use another shipsystem, Plasma burn may be nice in Player hands, but it's a press to suicide button for the AI, Maneuvering Jets, Phase Skimmer or Phase Teleporter would perform better in AI hands. Also a buildin surveying equipment would fit the Odyssey.

I'm going to have to disagree with this one. Odyssey is amazing fun to pilot. We shouldn't alter a defining feature for a ship simply because the AI can't handle it.

I think it might be better to make it less punishing for the AI to use. For instance, getting rid of the collision flameout would help with some of the suicidal burns. Or maybe add like a temporary shield strength buff for the duration of the plasma burn to give a slight boost to survivability. Or, even better, Alex could just change the AI; plasma burn only in low-risk scenarios.

Quote
Time between deterioration and decivilization should be increased.

I think this is interesting in that the player might actually want a shorter deciv timer. On the one hand I hate pirates decivilizing the core and making me babysit every planet and would like more time to respond to the notification. On the other, decivilizing Chalcedon (and kanni and olinadu) and then colonizing it makes for an excellent core system base.

A nice middle ground could be a system used by Nex, where AI sends out stabilization fleets that the player can intercept. If AI were set to always do this when the notification hits, then the player could be essentially confronted with a decision - either ignore it and let the planet be stabilized or intercept the fleet. This way, the pace in which a planet decivs due to pirates is extended but the player can shorten it again with some aggressive fleet piracy. Alex should in general adopt some of the AI faction fleet mechanics used by Nex - the stabilization and expedition fleets that kill pirate bases do an excellent job of protecting the core.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2021, 12:04:53 AM by Flying Birdy »
Logged

Sandor057

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 147
    • View Profile
Re: Balancing Change Ideas
« Reply #48 on: January 11, 2021, 03:03:21 AM »

Odyssey does need some work. Although mildly funny when it suicide burns into the middle of the enemy ships, the damage caused is usually superficial. Also, quite an expensive tactic to maintain. The way the AI handles the ship currently a different system would be the easiest fix for this, yet I must admit I'd prefer an AI that can handle Plasma Burn better.

I'd second the suggestion of increasing decivilisation timer. Once you get the notification about the deterioration of a planet you are basically unable to do anything, unless you're right relatively close to the planet with the right resources readily available. In the same regard I much prefer the Nexerelin planet invasion method to the "workaround" of decivilising a planet and then recolonising what remains. It always bugged me, that in vanilla (in the perspective of the player) you can either:
1. Bomb the everliving cr*p out of the planet and its populace
2. Raid and pillage until all semblance of civilization is dissolved, then rebuild on top of the ruined cities of the former inhabitants

But to turn back to the original point, I think decivilisation timer should be increased. Or alternatively, timer can stay the same, if the factions can muster a more effective defence (have defence fleets spawn quicker, or simply make them stronger, or something similar), hence making deterioration less likely to occur.

Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12156
    • View Profile
Re: Balancing Change Ideas
« Reply #49 on: January 11, 2021, 09:07:39 AM »

I do not use Odyssey because AI kills itself with it if I give it mostly hard flux weapons (and it barely stays away from the mob with mostly missiles and beams).  It is worse than Onslaught and Burn Drive because Odyssey lacks the defenses to withstand a mob from multiple directions.

Plasma Burn is great for playership, but terrible for AI.  It is almost like Accelerated Ammo Feeder on Hammerhead before 0.8a, when it also increased flux use.  It is tolerable on Shrike because it is cheap, but Odyssey is too expensive to be a suicide ship.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]