Good game companies like blizzard are supporting their games for years - and every game they release become bestseller. Bad game companies like EA are releasing unfinished games and are canceling all support after few patches fixing the most critical stuff only - and EA had huge financial problems this year... Keeping game support for years is better option for both players and game companies. Of course it cost $$$, but happy players will reward company by buying sequels/addons/new games.
Proposed Capship changes (I made some updates, including removing supportcaps 5 squadrons): Global changes: - Damage taken by Caps from ANTI-MEDIUM (LRF) reduced to 50% (from 75%) - Damage taken by Caps from ANTI-HEAVY (LF) increased to 75% (from 50%) - CAPITAL damage vs LIGHT ARMOR (LRF) increased to 100% (from 75%) - Shield regeneration rate on all caps increased to 4/sec (from 3/sec) - Hull repair rate on all caps increased to 2/s
[quote]That way your LRF can still do decent damage vs structures but allow both Caps and HC to bear the brunt of a horde of LRF much better than they do now.[/quote] Yes, both HC and caps should roll over LRFs
I definitely prefer paper-rock-scissor system then LRF as "main damage dealers" (which mean counterng near everything) and rest of units working as enigmatic "support" (which mean "not really useful but you can build some to surprise enemy"). I'm ok with LRF being main damage dealers, but there is one question: where are LRF disadvanatges? In many RTS games artillery units can work as "main damage dealers" too, but they have significant disadvanatges: - very slow speed
Fighters, Bombers and LRF are already extremely viable Instead of buffing bombers vs LRF, underused units like HC and LF should be improved. And caps are too vulnerable to LRF. IMO effective counters to caps should be limited to Bombers, HCs and other caps. LRF should die to caps (especially to battlecruisers).
IMO there should exist something like "chain of counters": Flak > Fighters, Bombers, Scouts Flak = LRF at close distance (cost-to-cost equal vs each other) LF = Capital (cost-to-cost equal vs each other) LF > LRF at close distance, Scout, Flak HC > Capitals, LRF, Flak, Scout LRF at long disance > LF, Flak, Capital Scout > LRF Capital > LRF at close distance, Flak, Scout Fighter > Bomber
Agent, both examples are extremely specific situations. Ok, supports are useful (even gamebreaking) in some very specific situatons, but don't forget they cost the same as for example carriers, which are useful in every (or near every) situation (and are gamebeaking as hell...). And even situationaly useful, support caps are still weakest caps in game...
[quote]What!!! Some of the support caps have the most powerufll advantages. People just don't realise it yet.[/quote] Support caps are superpowerful units, 2 years after game release people just didn't noticed it (facepalm)
[quote]Support caps are such as they are meant to support OTHER CAPS primarily, whilst also SECONDLY supporting the fleets with powerful abilities. At least that what I always thought Support Class was purposed for.[/quote] But their support abilities are not good enough to justify all theair disadvanatges AND are significanlt weaker then non-support caps abilities... And what is the reason of building cap A to support cap B while you can just build second cap B and com
[quote]Who says their useless?[/quote] Who choose them as 1st cap? Who build them as 2nd cap? Who build them anyway outside sandbox-like games with friend? Support caps ARE weakest caps class in this game...
ATM Support capships are named "support" for no reason: - ALL capships are able to support fleet - other capships are better in supporting fleet then "support" capships. - because support capships also have relatively weak shields/dps/health they suck in other jobs too NOBODY USE THEM FOR A REASON. My idea is turning htem into support units in terms of many diferent minor skills making them vaible choice. Carriers will be still superior i
IMO LRF should be very effectively countered by LF, HC and Caps at close range. On the other hand, they should be effective against them at long range. In simple words - they should work like artillery/archers from "ground" strategies. Refited idea: - LRF get + 50% range - LRF damage vs caps reduced from 75% to 50% - LRF are 50% innacurate vs all targets at 33% of their range (eqivalent of 50% of their actual range) and below <div id=
IMO none of frigates/cruisers should be hardcounter to caps. Natural counter to cap should be another cap, and frigates/cruisers should be able to souftcounter them only. Agai - Caps role should be improved, not nerfed. I still think LRF should be far lest effective at close range... insted of being omni-counter to everything at rery range. Anti-heay damage vs capital armor increase - again, IMO caps should not be hardcountered by anything. Meybe slight bufff.... but not huge
Balance wise LRF should not be effective counter to everything at every range... IMO best counter to cap should be another cap (eventually with support). Using caps should be slightly more important part of the game.
[quote]Last version, carriers did have only 2 squads at level 1. The popular consensus from players was that this was too few, and they got an additional squad in the last patch. Your idea is basically to roll-back this change.[/quote] Only at lvl1 carriers cap. I don't want to change alredy existing maximum of available SC squads, I just want to transfer one SC squad from lvl1 Cariercap to one of the further cap levels. Something like: lvl1: 2 SC Squads</
Again: What do you think of reducing lvl1 carriercaps number of SC squads by 1 (without touching lvl10 max SC number)? IMO it will make cost effective countering carriercaps MUCH easier.
[quote]Problem is primarily early game with carrier caps.[/quote] Then there is very easy solution to this situation: Reduce number of Strikecrafts squads on lvl1 Carrier caps by 1 [without changing max number of squads on lvl 10 carer]. It will not afect mid-high level carriercaps, but lvl1 carrcaps will get Strikecrafts power reduced by 33%... [quote]As for LRF, range means very little in this game unless you're att
IMO near everything should be able to counter LRF at close range. LRF should be equivalent of artillery units from "ground-based" rts games - deadly and long ranged, but expensive and relatively easy to defeat by near everything able to get close enough. It is natural interaction, forcing players to micro their long range units and meatshield them by short-ranged, but more resistant stuff. Unfortunately LRF in this game are long ranged AND have good dps AND are spammable AND have relatively g
Well... If fighters/bombers are too game-dominating maybe we should think of buffing Flak Figates... And I am 100% sure LRF should be very effectively countered by HC, LF, Caps and fighters at close range I was always thinking long range units are supossed to be long-range fire support, not main attack units able to annihilate evrything at every distance (I still support idea of reducing LRF accurancy vs close targets).
Sins Forums