Warp-In Penalty Tweak

posted on January 27th, 2011, 1:33 pm

I'm not sure if this has been brought up before, but I did a quick search and didn't see see anything, so wooooo, new topic.

The current supply penalty is in place to stop players using the Warp-Ins as a suicide squad. Awesome, that's not what it's for as Starfleet wouldn't throw ships away like that. I just think that the supply hit can be kind of overkillingly harsh. You loose a few Excelsiors and an odd Sensor Neb or two from your sensibly crafted, non-suicide fleet and suddenly you're deep in the supply hole and you're not going to be building much of anything for a while without a supply bailout. Also, if you waste the ships, Starfleet will still just send you more knowing full well that you're a sadistic crazy Admiral. (aren't they all, though?)

As far as I can tell, the destruction of any warp-in ship will always cost you even if it's much later in the game and you've integrated them into your fleet. (I could be wrong, then this whole thing is pointless)

I see two ways to lessen this ticking time bomb deal while still punishing sadistic Fleet Admirals:

1) Remove or decrease the amount of supply that Starfleet would take after a set amount of time has passed.

2) Remove the supply penalty entirely and replace it with a one-time increase in the cooldown time for more Warp-Ins. If a Warp-In ship is lost soon after being called in, the timer would reset and double. If one's lost after being integrated into your fleet a minute or so would be added to the timer. This wouldn't impact the rest of your economy, but would effectively make Starfleet take their ball and go home. I dunno, punishment fit the crime or whatever...


Anyway, maybe nobody thinks this is an issue that needs attention as the Feds are already pretty strong, but I kinda like number 2. 

posted on January 27th, 2011, 1:37 pm

Once the ship reaces an officer rank (5, I think), it no-longer counts as a Warp-In ship. It should be easy to remove or lower the cost of those ones.

posted on January 27th, 2011, 1:41 pm

Well, reduce the supply-cost with every rankup AND you may flag a ship to warp out IF not in combat. You still have to wait your time until the next warp-in, but you may take out the excelsior, if you think, you cant handle it or it will die too fast.

This is not "Well, the dice fell worse, I send you back and roll again" Its the same, as destroying the ship without supply cost, if its warping out.

If you send away two excels and let the ambassador there, then you have effectivly get only one ship, and you have to wait the full time for the next chance.

So this may be a valid option.

posted on January 27th, 2011, 2:01 pm

This is not "Well, the dice fell worse, I send you back and roll again" Its the same, as destroying the ship without supply cost, if its warping out.

If you send away two excels and let the ambassador there, then you have effectivly get only one ship, and you have to wait the full time for the next chance.

This could work, but I kinda like the fact that when you get sent a warp-in you didn't want, you just have to deal with it and integrate it into your fleet or assign it to guard something, otherwise nobody would keep their Excelsiors or Sensor Nebs. I just don't want them to take a bunch of my supply with them when they eventually get taken out.

As for the rank thing, Rank 5 is pretty high. Only my heavy combat action! action! action! ships ever get there. Maybe it's different online when you have to constantly vie for expansions with smaller ships.
I'd kinda like it to lessen, then lose the penalty at 2 silver bars then one gold one.

I'm still partial to the time limit one...

posted on January 27th, 2011, 3:07 pm

i think it should work on time only. Penalty could be made slightly more severe for first couple mins, but then slide down to about half after 10 mins. Then stop falling. As these ships are still on loan. I dont think the cost should go.

I like the idea of losing ships means longer timer. That would balance out the fact that over time the cost of death drops.

posted on January 27th, 2011, 3:31 pm

nobody would keep their Excelsiors or Sensor Nebs

Of all things, if it were possible to build sensor Nebula class vessels, I would build a lot of them and scout the enemy base faster than you can say boo.  Those sensor Nebula's have a high scouting value and I use them (usually).  And I preserve those sensor Nebula's.

posted on January 27th, 2011, 3:50 pm

I actually agree because you lose supply no matter how they are lost in combat and it can be harsh on supply, a longer cool down time would be ok or a slight decrease in the ammount of supply deducted, 19 supply i think it is for an old excell 1? a bit much for an obsolete destroyer.

posted on January 27th, 2011, 3:53 pm

The Excelsior loses you 23.4 supply, due to the ADAI increasing the supply cost.

posted on January 27th, 2011, 7:34 pm

What if ships didnt once a ship reaches rank 1 (single silver) it no longer costs supply if its destroyed. It not like most people knowingly waste ranked up ships.

posted on January 27th, 2011, 8:05 pm

I'm afraid I have to disagree.  Supply on death cost or not, they are still free when they come in.  Feds getting enough momentum and "Fedrolling" other races due to sheer numbers is still an issue so I am against this.

  You can't lose more than 70 supply per warpin (and that's assuming you impossibly got 3 Excels ) which is still a paltry sum to pay for 3 excellent ships.  It costs you no di or tri and your supplies are still on the cheapest end to buy.

posted on January 27th, 2011, 9:36 pm

One tweak I would want considered would be to remove the penalty (or reduce it) from the Descent.  It's a different kind of warp in, and no where near as powerful as 3 ships at once.  Perhaps a reduced cost on its penalty, to make it more enticing.  Also, perhaps reducing the penalty at the same time it gets field command, which is now at double gold I think.  Things like that shouldn't be too bad, although it's not like the feds need a whole bunch of goodies.

posted on January 27th, 2011, 10:18 pm

double galaxy and e1 costs over 80 supply.

pretty rare though to get 2 galaxies.

i think the cost per death should be slightly lower, get lower with time, although never go away. and warpin timer increases a lot to compensate. since starfleet wouldnt just take your money and say: "ok you paid your tab, here's more suicide squads of redshirts" they would wait a while before giving you more ships.

i agree descent should cost less on death as its never used as suicide lol.

[Tyler]

posted on January 27th, 2011, 10:25 pm

Last edited by Tyler on January 27th, 2011, 10:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The Descent is still a rare and experimental design, though. It's also expensive and has the largest redshirt count of any Starfleet ship. It's probably not used for suicide as much because it just isn't used as much in the first place.

If anything, they'd probably be even more pissed at it's loss than the other ships.

posted on January 27th, 2011, 10:30 pm

If anything, they'd probably be even more pissed at it's loss than the other ships.

true but the way you would lose it is most likely to be in defensive combat, exactly what helping friends is about. i dont think they would be pissed if the descent died while defending a base valiantly. but if a warpin dies after making a suicide raid they would be upset.

posted on January 27th, 2011, 10:36 pm

If it's used by someone who uses Warp-Ins as a free attack force, it's just as likely to be used to attack as defend. It's as combat-capable as the other Federation battleships.

The 600 crew, high cost of build and experimental tech they would be pissed by however it died. Those things ain't cheap.