The next generation - spin off thread

posted on June 3rd, 2012, 9:55 pm

Hi,

A red message said me i should start a new thread

I read this old news lately:
//www.fleetops.net/component/option,com_smf/Itemid,3/topic,11116.0/

And that defensive ships become autotargeted first with the next patch

I fear now that, like MrXT (//www.fleetops.net/component/option,com_smf/Itemid,3/topic,11116.msg181563/#msg181563) FO could become a click adventure

I will explain, currently the weakest ship will be attacked first, so that damaged or small ships usually fall first, but with this feature, without manual targeting, the enemy fleet will be reduced ineffective, wich means constantly adjusting the targets your own fleet fires on

It just will work the best to target the offensive vessels first, like brels, they fall fast, and their offensive value get lost, if your own game engine works against you and does the opposite, that wouldnt be a strategy game any more

Just my opinion

posted on June 3rd, 2012, 10:26 pm

Also look at it the other way . When you fight someone, you can guarantee now that it's not a liability to use the weakest defensive ships. You choose which ships tank for the rest of your fleet, rather than having to think "ok, what's the strongest ship passive-wise, with the weakest defensive value". Aka, why the K'beajQ, Monsoon, Leahval, work well for so many instances -> they have relatively weak defensive values compared to many other ships of their respective fleets, and have some passive or ability that grants them superior resilience.

Also notice that you stated "usually": that implies it's not always working that way. For instance, a Borg with Dodes doesn't want those ships firing at Monsoon if there are tasty Intrepids nearby. At the same time, a Klingon player with B'rels and K'beajQ near some Dodes and Scout Cubes won't want to play if the B'rels are always going to be auto-targeted first. In 3.2.5 Fleet Ops, predicting which ship will best tank for the fleet, and what happens when that tank disappears is not under the direct control of the player.

In most RTS games it is up to the player to decide which units he or she chooses to attack. If you have vessels that are good against one class, and not versus another, you want to pick the preferential targets, regardless of the initial hitpoints that are there.

posted on June 4th, 2012, 10:38 am

The mechanic as it is now makes many small ships either hard to play or even useless since they die to autotargeting. The best example is the B'rel, which has been discussed over and over again. I'm looking forward to the new mechanics with B'rels, Shrikes, Veqlaraghs, Serkas' etc. worth their costs.

posted on June 4th, 2012, 10:55 am

it will be really useful against the A.I.

but what about the swarm fighters? will they now be ignored and target the carrier instead?

posted on June 10th, 2012, 5:04 pm

if i just imagine the best way to play this game, it would look like this, if two fleets engages, the worser way would be to let your ships fire on the defensive vessels, because they can be gotten away quite easily, I just don't like the fact that the better way of play will be intentionally complicated

posted on June 10th, 2012, 5:26 pm

What makes you think they will be retreated much easier than other ships? If you're talking Monsoons vs Sabers, sure (due to passives), but any torpedo wielding ships will cut Defensive vessels to shreds rather quickly .

posted on June 10th, 2012, 10:16 pm

On the other hand, at the moment it's pointless for eg the Federation to warp-in Descents, as while their high defence value suggests it'll be a great tanking ship, it's ignored for precisely that reason and it doesn't have enough firepower to warrant the four warp-in slots.

posted on June 10th, 2012, 10:23 pm

On the other hand, at the moment it's pointless for eg the Federation to warp-in Descents, as while their high defence value suggests it'll be a great tanking ship, it's ignored for precisely that reason and it doesn't have enough firepower to warrant the four warp-in slots.

The true power of the Descent is not acting as a tank itself (though it has the bulk to do so) but its ability to allow fleets to magically survive. 4 slots vs a lost fleet.

If anything a defensive profile will make the descent a lot riskier to use because it'll be the first thing to be targeted. Safest thing would be to keep it in the rear until needed otherwise it would need to withdraw before getting the chance to use its awesome special.

posted on June 10th, 2012, 10:32 pm

The Descent's Shield Reset ability is too short-ranged, too supply-intensive, and has too long a recharge for it to be any good at "allow[ing] fleets to magically survive".

Edit: But this is a divergence from the point. The Descent is clearly meant to be a defensive monster, but it can't be used that way because of the current autotargeting priorities. As such, a lot of its potential is wasted.

posted on June 10th, 2012, 11:16 pm

The Descent's Shield Reset ability is too short-ranged, too supply-intensive, and has too long a recharge for it to be any good at "allow[ing] fleets to magically survive".

Edit: But this is a divergence from the point. The Descent is clearly meant to be a defensive monster, but it can't be used that way because of the current autotargeting priorities. As such, a lot of its potential is wasted.

I think there are some videos to prove the opposite. Fact is that in a tight battle the descent can turn the battle.

The descent is a support(ing) unit and although it has a huge defense, i think it's premature to assume it will receive a defensive profile. Given its current support role i believe it is far more likely that it will get a support profile.

posted on June 10th, 2012, 11:38 pm

I've watched pretty much every Fed video, and I've not seen Shield Reset used where it makes a difference to a battle.

posted on June 11th, 2012, 12:01 am

I've watched pretty much every Fed video, and I've not seen Shield Reset used where it makes a difference to a battle.

It allows fleets to hang into combat longer or allows ships to escape unfavorable situations without unacceptable losses. Either way, the fact that the Descent has a high defensive value and strong shields doesn't mean it'll get a defensive profile. As i mentioned previously considering its current supporting role it is a real possibility that it will receive a support profile.

Is the Descent worth the slots and should the cost/range of its special be changed is a debate which pops up every now and then. One thing is for sure and that is that the usage of the Descent is situational.

For me i can say the descent saved my bacon a few times.

posted on June 11th, 2012, 12:06 am

I'm pretty sure a video had it used for base defence, it can be good for keeping expansions alive until a fleet arrives.

posted on June 11th, 2012, 1:58 am

Before I say more about the Descent, I've got to say that, Andre27, you've missed my original point entirely. I used the Descent as an example of a ship with strong defences that a player would love to have tank, but at present it won't because of the current autotarget priorities -- and that under the new system, it very well might get to shine in that respect. We may disagree as to the ship's role (I think it's clearly meant as a defensive monster of a battleship based on its stats, while you think it's meant as a support ship based on an expensive, hard-to-use, and slow-recharging ability), but that discussion really is out of the scope of this thread.

I've watched pretty much every Fed video, and I've not seen Shield Reset used where it makes a difference to a battle.

It allows fleets to hang into combat longer or allows ships to escape unfavorable situations without unacceptable losses.

I'm finding it really hard to accept this, as Shield Reset is terrible as a defensive ability. Again, I must remind you that it's very short ranged (dogfight means it hardly hits anything unless you delay using it to macro a group of ships into a tight group, in which time there's a good chance you'll lose what you're hoping to preserve), expensive (20 supply is a significant hit for the Feds, and all your enemy needs to do is pop an E1 or two and you might have to buy supply before you can use it), and slow to recharge (3 minutes is an eternity in Fleet Ops).

I'm pretty sure a video had it used for base defence, it can be good for keeping expansions alive until a fleet arrives.

Personally, if I was the attacking player in that situation and I saw a shield reset, I'd either kill miners or go all out to try and kill the Descent before the fleet gets (turning the 20 supply loss into a 65 supply loss (quarter of a buy)), and come back to the expansion later.

Also, stationing a 35 offence battleship at a base seems like a waste of a powerful mobile asset.

posted on June 11th, 2012, 9:41 am

The reason why the discussion shifted to the role of the descent is because of your false assumption that it is a defensive vessel. It's a support vessel which happens to have large defense.

We can argue some more about the effectiveness of the Descent or we can put it to rest. The Descent is like the Phalanx: incredibly useful in certain situations. To continue i'd say dig up on of the old debates in this section.

For what role/profile it'll receive in the next patch i guess we'll have to wait and see, but it's shortsighted to assume a defensive profile due to its bulk while the special screams support.

Support vessels will get higher defense in the new patch, but (although not yet revealed) i can imagine that they will be targeted easier due to high energy output.

I can see the Descent shine in both (defensive and support) profiles to be honest, but perhaps the devs will pull a rabbit out of a hat which will change the descent forever. Perhaps adding a 2nd special which directs all the energy from those massive shields into a OHKO borg cube killer weapon. Let's wait and see.