Thanks GoaFan... The only change error in there is that animosity lvl 3 grants 60%, not 80% damage reduction...this change was made in v0.41 and I failed to include it in the change log, my bad... Also, there is this thread... [MOD] Project Equilibrium v1.0 (Which is essentially v0.41 but with a fixed change log) is linked there...as other components of this mod are completed
All changes in Project Equilibrium serve one of two goals: Balance the power between the 3 factions Encourage diverse strategies by balancing various elements within SoaSE What does this mean? <sp
Since this seems to more or less be coming to a close, I am releasing what will likely be the last update for this mod... Below is a change log that addresses differences between v0.40 and this most recent update... v0.41 -- Released 7/25/2010 Capital Ship Changes -Kol --Flak Burst ---Range decreased from 3000/3600/4200 to 3000/3300/3600 -Radiance --Energy Absorption ---Damage converted to antimatter percents rev
[quote]So, to recap: * TEC/Vasari hangers get 0.45 antimatter regeneration, Advent gets 0.65. * Phasic Traps gets a target cap of 50 and keeps its antimatter of 50 and duration of 45/60 with cooldown of 75[/quote] I'm going to try this out...will require making it an instant action instead of a periodic action to enforce the target cap but that should be fine...
[quote]the Hoshiko's Demo Bots ability needs to be omni-directional.[/quote] I concur... [quote]Secondly, your calculation is off, because TEC carriers build two squads at once, so they're actually using 1.5 antimatter per second. Discounted for regeneration, that's 1.1 per second. Your full 400 antimatter will last you 360 seconds, or six minutes, a far cry from your 20 minutes.[/quote] Forgot about that...well, let me ask this...are carriers really seen as that wea
Eh, I don't think we want to make carriers more powerful... But, I do like the most direct approach of working with the armor types...a .05 or .10 change may be enough...
[quote]Its not really about causing damage but almost negating repairing buffs.[/quote] And from that perspective it means it does help FFing...since there is the possibility of malice (a very good possibility) I think I agree with you...this ability is probably fine as is...
In general, I agree with UE_Carbon and HerrPinguin...a slight buff to LFs while nerfing LRFs vs Caps I think could work out real well... [quote]Also a change in rebuild time and AM cost for the Bombers squads may help keep them suppresed.[/quote] What if the combat penalty to construction rate was increased and made even more severe? That way, you have the same shock value you do now with bombers...but it would be much easier to kill them off and suppress them...
[quote]Distortion Field, Give it a Target Cap. So a Vasari player can still use them to shut down entire fleets but will have to invest in more ships. I dont thing this really will affect most players as they usually make a crap ton of these things if they use this troublesome tactic.[/quote] Target cap is not a bad idea...I really don't know a good number for it yet but I like the idea...would preventing this ability from structures be a good idea? Right now it can disable repa
[quote]Just making fighters more effective will in fact make starbases tougher because they are usually covered by hangar defenses (if they don't have fighters of their own). If we just reduce their damage against capital ships bombers are still the same against HCs and starbases and thus still are very valuable units to have. Besides if we make fighters too powerful no one will use bomber, as was the case in Sins 1.1 I believe (whatever the carrier patch was).[/quote] Hmmm...didn't t
[quote]And to be clear about my comment on redundancy: My argument wasn't based on any specific numbers or comparison to Adaptive Forcefield. I wasn't suggesting that the 1/2/3 or 1/3/5 armor bonus from EA is enough of a defensive bonus for the ship.. I'm just pointing out that we have two damage reducing bonuses on two abilities for the same ship. One could argue that it might make more sense to give one of those abilities all of the damage reducing power (however much we think is needed),
[quote]Alright, I second just removing capital ships from repulses target target type.[/quote] I'm thinking this is the way to go as well...I'm going to look into seeing if there's another way to get this ability to work so this isn't an issue, but I'm not hopeful... [quote]I don't know how we can make an ability that targets a friendly ship decrease the accuracy of all other ships for embolden[/quote] I don't know either, but damage reduction would more or less have t
[quote]So probably around 50 individuals is the right number to target.[/quote] A good point and good analysis...that is 10 TEC bomber squadrons and 7 Advent bomber squadrons, which I think is a very appropriate number... So, if there is a cap of 50, then we have to address the issue of implementation...since this ability currently is a periodic action, the best way to solve this issue is to simply make it an instant action...like animosity, the periodic action really isn't as
[quote]You didn't mention my suggestion of setting the SC max # of targets to infinite; do you think that's overpowered?[/quote] With damage reduction? Yes. Without damage reduction? I'm not sure... [quote]I like the idea of it affecting SC more than I care about any of those other factors, so if we're worried about it being overpowered then I'd be happy to see us trade the ability to affect SC with another component.[/quote] In a way I agree...SC are
This is true...in most nearly every game I've played I hardly ever exceed more than 6 fleet supply upgrades (I believe that is 1360 fleet supply)...so that is maybe 80 squadrons... I think your value of 10 squads is pretty good...that is about 70 command which is quite a bit for a hangar, I agree...so, that leaves us from 30 SC to 90 SC, which is a very large range...I would be inclined to go with a lower number, somewhere between 30 and 50...
I usually don't put capital ships in any fleet or hotkey...I select them from the empire tree...I make fleets based on ship types... When I need to select lots of ships at once (like to retreat) I will simply select all ships with a click and drag over my fleet or I'll zoom out and click on the planet to select all my ships...
[quote]If you're Advent and there are Vasari in the game, research carriers immediately.[/quote] This is one of those situations where you better do some really good scouting and make certain that you will be fighting a Vasari player....if you rush carriers and put fighters on them, you'll be in good shape for fighting skirantras...but if you end up having to fight TEC or Advent, expect to see a lot of LFs and Flak just waiting to pound on your carriers and fighters...
[quote]I think the best approach is to give it a target cap. That way it doesn't matter if you can keep the SC out of combat forever, it's only going to be a small number of SC. No matter how many hangers an opponent has, there will always be a point at which you'll have enough SC to overwhelm them.[/quote] Okay good point...so let's say we go for a target cap, what value should we pick? Even with full fleet supply, I'd say it'd be unlikely to see much more than 100 or so sq
Since it seems to be the most overpowered, I'm going to try and tackle Phasic Trap first... Right now this ability has two levels (both need to be researched)... At both levels the antimatter cost is 50 and the cooldown is 75... The range is 7000/8000 and the duration is 45/60...so, even at lvl 1, just two of these things can keep SC disabled forever... I agree with Darvin...antimatter cost needs to be lowered (I'd go even so far as to eliminate the antimatter
[quote]If we're going to nerf bombers further, I'd do it indirectly by buffing the fighter.[/quote] Hmmm...you know the more I think about it, the more I like this instead of buffing flak...
The purpose of this thread is to find ways to balance the abilities on pretty much everything other than capital ships...this includes frigates, structures, and starbases... Balance Patch - Frigate & Structure Abilities v0.30 (updated 7/30/2010) v0.30 Change Log (7/30/2010) @ post 42 <a href="https://fo
Sins Forums
Maybe, I'm not sure...but it wouldn't really matter much anyway...refinery ships never have to go more than one jump away from the planet with the refinery...at best, a phase stabilizer will just allow them to move through phase space faster, but one jump is still one jump...
[quote]This is the very problem. Capital ships do nothing but kite and run.[/quote] I don't like this element either...but I don't know if LRF speed is going to help...reducing the speed of LRFs makes it easier for caps to run away, but it doesn't prevent them from running away in the first place... I think if bombers were easier to kill, that would be a start...making flak better against bombers would certainly help the situation...sure, they could still FF on a starbase or
[quote]If you take away their hitting power what will be the TEC play against a mothership-centred battleball?[/quote] That is a rather specific concern that is very valid...but, Repulsion could be fixed to deal with this, still allowing changes to be made to LRFs in general...I think repulsion is fine as is for now , but if we do change LRFs then repulsion inherently will have to be looked at... [quote]Heavies against LRF seems more dubious. Anyone got the figures fo
[quote]how would you counter the skirantra rush?[/quote] Prayer...if that doesn't work...Skirantra's of your own... In all seriousness though, if you aren't Vasari... As TEC, two Sovas with just fighters is a start...though it ain't perfect, a dunov with magnetize (and even EMP) will work but its a big risk and probably won't work if the enemy has even a decent amount of kanraks... As Advent, two Halcyons with Adept Drone Anima and Telekinetic Push are the way