Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Amoebka]

Well, yes, Hyperion should just be deleted from the game. Regardless, though, your suggestion doesn't solve the fundamental issue of the skill only encouraging the use of the highest-DP frigates. Your wolfpack tactics boils down to "10 officers in scarabs, + 20 more scarabs" (assuming Hyperion gets the bullet).

[Morrokain]

I don't think there would that huge an issue of "exploits" by having an uncapped boost. After all even a frigate dealing +60% damage is still a frigate. It would hardly swing a battle like an officer on a capital would, and you'd need to have all 10 officers assigned to frigates to get there.

I think you are missing the fundamental reason for the cap. It isn't about relative power but rather min/maxing concerns pigeonholing players into too strict of a playstyle because of player psychology. I mean, its certainly arguable that officered capital fleets would still be straight up better than a wolfpack fleet, but that's sort of a different issue altogether to me. A cap doesn't make a player not want to put officers in frigates past the cap because they still benefit from the other skills the officers have. However, uncapped bonuses would probably make players sort of feel like they are wasting the potential of skill whether or not that is actually true from a pure mathematical standpoint.

That said, I do think that +60% damage is too much even for frigates.

[intrinsic_parity]

It's not just hyperions, 60% damage is massive for any frigate. You essentially make all your weapons much more efficient and you also make all your weapons much more effective against armor/hull by increasing hit strength, it's not just a linear increase in effectiveness. I think 60% is a lot even for a frigate. Even just the 20% from wolfpack is very strong. I think it should have a Cap of some sort, either a soft DP cap or a hard maximum.

[Tartiflette]

Well, yes, Hyperion should just be deleted from the game. Regardless, though, your suggestion doesn't solve the fundamental issue of the skill only encouraging the use of the highest-DP frigates. Your wolfpack tactics boils down to "10 officers in scarabs, + 20 more scarabs" (assuming Hyperion gets the bullet).

You could make the argument that the sole concept of having officers in ships at all means they have the largest impact when placed in the largest possible ship. That incentive was created by the ship limit, not the skill in itself. At least if all frigates are affected rather than just the ones with officers, then you are rewarded for using everything you find until hitting the 30 ships limit rather than just the best.

I think you are missing the fundamental reason for the cap. It isn't about relative power but rather min/maxing concerns pigeonholing players into too strict of a playstyle because of player psychology. I mean, its certainly arguable that officered capital fleets would still be straight up better than a wolfpack fleet, but that's sort of a different issue altogether to me. A cap doesn't make a player not want to put officers in frigates past the cap because they still benefit from the other skills the officers have. However, uncapped bonuses would probably make players sort of feel like they are wasting the potential of skill whether or not that is actually true from a pure mathematical standpoint.

That said, I do think that +60% damage is too much even for frigates.

There is a cap: the number of officer is capped, I'd balance the skill assuming some players will want to make the most of it instead of adding an artificial limit. I'm not sure +60% damage when having all your officers in frigates is that ludicrous, but that's just balancing: If you think +2% per officer is more suitable, let's go with that.

 Having a cap means on the contrary that you limit your fleet comp to that number of officers in frigates and the rest in other ships. I don't see that as a desirable incentive either. Besides, the skill would feel just as wasted if you had a frigate fleet with 7 or 8 officers and the bonus was capped at 5.

Plus once the player outgrow their wolf pack, they can respec for a very cheap SP price.

[SCC]

The majority of the incentive to put officers on biggest ships stems from officers themselves being limited (unless you get mercenaries, which is a PITA), with the ship cap providing being more of an afterthought.

[Morrokain]

Having a cap means on the contrary that you limit your fleet comp to that number of officers in frigates and the rest in other ships. I don't see that as a desirable incentive either. Besides, the skill would feel just as wasted if you had a frigate fleet with 7 or 8 officers and the bonus was capped at 5.

Fair enough. I guess I just don't really see how this is true. Personally, I'd feel worse as a player if I felt I had to put all of my officers in frigates to get the most bonus rather than not getting additional bonus past a certain number of officers. I don't think I would feel discouraged from putting additional officers in frigates after the cap was met since their skills are still relevant and it wouldn't take anything away to do so. Conversely, not putting all 10 officers in frigates or destroyers (but really, frigates, because the original proposal indicates frigates have a higher bonus than destroyers) when taking Wolf Pack Tactics is actually taking something away. That doesn't feel good to me.

I'm sure not all players would necessarily feel that way, but I'd be willing to bet it would come up. Just as saving the skill for Hyperions was the point of the suggestion in the first place.

Just generally, I don't think that having something artificial really matters one way or the other though. Tons of things in the game are artificial for a various number of reasons. What's more important is how the game feels despite those artificial limitations. I'm of the opinion that player constraints are very necessary to facilitate fun. So in this instance, the constraint is important simply because the absence of one would make me feel discouraged from not building my fleet around one skill.

[intrinsic_parity]

The carrier and phase skills already have DP caps. I don't really see how this is different. It's just trying to prevent overspecialization from being optimal so that people don't feel forced into niche builds when they use those skills.

[Tartiflette]

The carrier skill are the WORST! If you want to specialize in carriers, don't get the carrier skills because you'll get more out of the other skills than a paltry +10% repair rate. At the very least those should get a floor at half the max value, but this is another topic.

[Thaago]

Off topic true, but I think the carrier skills are excellent game design.

Spoiler

They discourage carrier monofleets in general - pure anything fleets are always less interesting than mixed fleets - while also solving multiple carrier specific problems: Converted Hanger spam being way too good on top of a carrier fleet, the marginal utility of larger as opposed to multiple smaller carriers, and the cost/benefit of putting an officer on a battlecarrier (the carrier skill boost of the officer is now on top of the regular skills! No more malus from a battlecarrier wanting all the regular skills + carrier skills on top!).

If getting a 10% bonus, that implies 40 bays in the fleet, at which point a +10% rebuild speed is still a good use of a skill point because all that carriers need is to 'stay afloat' and as a whole group have their replacements exceed the number being shot down. With that many bays the fleet is almost certainly just swarming the enemy anyways and won't have a stressed replacement like happens when the fighters are much more outnumbered. Fighter Uplink does get much more marginal though as a universal speed bonus of 4% is just not that great (the presence of a swarm doesn't ameliorate speed problems the way it does replacement).

[close]

[Tartiflette]

IMO it would be a much better design with no ceiling at all, and possibly a floor, instead of railroading the player in certain fleet formations.

"Reduction of replacement time by 50%, minus 1 point per flight decks in the fleet"
or
"Reduction of replacement time by 25%, with a further 25% minus 1 point per flight decks in the fleet"