Warp-In Penalty Tweak

posted on January 27th, 2011, 10:48 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.

thats bull crap.... the most comon warp in is 2 excells, losing those two crap fragile ships will cost 46 supply.... its too much for these ships. That costs more than building 2 better ships that wont die the moment they enter combat.

posted on January 27th, 2011, 11:04 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.

not so, the most common use of a descent is defensive for its special. ive never ever seen somebody kamikaze a descent on somebody's mining.

expensive yes, but dying in defence of a fed base is common fed stuff. dying on a suicide raid isnt lol.

the point of the supply cost was to make it less atttractive to suicide them on your enemy mining as free ships. which works well for normal warpins.

it also gives a strat for the enemy to target warpins first to cause supply pain. nobody targets the descent first cos of high defence.

posted on January 27th, 2011, 11:07 pm

@ Kestrel...

What can I say?

Play better?  :woot:

 I said you'll never lose more than 70 and that's even in the impossible (note that part, please ) event of 3 Excel's.  Think of it this way:  A KBQ costs 24 supplies whether it dies or not.  That's the same supply cost as a FREE Excel I ASSUMING you lose the Excel 1.  If you don't, it's just free .

 Play moar against Feds and tell me they need a lower supply loss.  Play ME moar and tell me they need a helping hand up from the horrendous pit of nerfdom they've sunk into.  Play against nothing but Mayson Feds and tell me that Warpins are just too nerfed ...

 PLEASE.

posted on January 27th, 2011, 11:19 pm

not so, the most common use of a descent is defensive for its special. ive never ever seen somebody kamikaze a descent on somebody's mining.

expensive yes, but dying in defence of a fed base is common fed stuff. dying on a suicide raid isnt lol.

the point of the supply cost was to make it less atttractive to suicide them on your enemy mining as free ships. which works well for normal warpins.

it also gives a strat for the enemy to target warpins first to cause supply pain. nobody targets the descent first cos of high defence.

The common use you've seen in games, but you haven't played everyone who has the game. Probably not even close, so that's really judging by a minority. Not really a very good thing to base observations on, it it?

Doesn't matter that it's common fed stuff to protect the base, the loss of a ship like that is still not going to go down well with the brass. The crew will get a good memory, the person they loaned the ship to will still be in trouble.

I know what the idea is, but the Descent is still a valid ship to send into a fight considering it shares the same 'deploy anywhere' method of moving and can take a lot of turret-fire.

The last 2 paragaphs seem to be saying 'supply cost for Descent is irrelevent'? Are we arguing 'less supply loss' or no supply loss'?

posted on January 27th, 2011, 11:39 pm

I kind of have to agree with boggz on this, I played a team game against boggz once and he was taking out my warpins the entire beginning of the game and even after losing a bunch of ships i only had to buy supplies once, while he being klingons had to buy supplies twice i think and even after that i still used the fed roll. The fed roll works 

posted on January 27th, 2011, 11:44 pm

The common use you've seen in games, but you haven't played everyone who has the game. Probably not even close, so that's really judging by a minority. Not really a very good thing to base observations on, it it?

But shouldn't game balance be based on sensible game play?

IMO, the only one that really needs to be tweaked is the loss for an Excel. That one might be a tad high considering the fragility of the ship.

[Tyler]

posted on January 27th, 2011, 11:58 pm

Last edited by Tyler on January 28th, 2011, 12:00 am, edited 1 time in total.

Nothing non-sensible about attacking with a Descent, though. It's tough enough to soften up any stationary defences to reduce the potential losses, and durable enough to leave the battle alive.

Excelsior has an unusually high supply penalty because of the ADAI passive, so the supply cost shold be increased along with the appropriate destruction penalty. It's fragile, but can hurt people with the extra torpedo launcher.

posted on January 28th, 2011, 12:01 am

The common use you've seen in games, but you haven't played everyone who has the game. Probably not even close, so that's really judging by a minority. Not really a very good thing to base observations on, it it?

nobody has played everyone who has the game. i have played many games as feds and vs feds, and i have never seen a descent used as a kamikaze. nobody has ever described such an event to me, nor has a replay shown it as far as i can recall. i think thats a strong indication that people dont use descents as kamikaze, especially since they arent that great harassing due to dealing most of their damage via torps which miss miners.

Doesn't matter that it's common fed stuff to protect the base, the loss of a ship like that is still not going to go down well with the brass. The crew will get a good memory, the person they loaned the ship to will still be in trouble.

I know what the idea is, but the Descent is still a valid ship to send into a fight considering it shares the same 'deploy anywhere' method of moving and can take a lot of turret-fire.

why didnt starfleet get angry at sisko for losses in his battles?
the answer is that he wasnt suiciding them or using them stupidly and risking their lives for raids doing suicide runs and stuff. starfleet wouldnt be upset enough to punish you if they sent a ship to help and it died defending you from an enemy. they would be extremely upset if you took their ships and knowingly sent them to their death just to get a miner kill for free when they werent looking.

thats the reason i think the cost was put in, to make warpins less offensive. warpin's purpose is to give a defence force that starfleet gives to help its bases out. a helping hand in times of need. losing a ship in a fleet like that isnt likely to be as severaly punished.

thats why im for a reduction in cost over time. and an extra cooldown to balance it.

The last 2 paragaphs seem to be saying 'supply cost for Descent is irrelevent'? Are we arguing 'less supply loss' or no supply loss'?

no i think there should always be a penalty for losing any warpin, as you did lose something, just for the descent it shouldnt be as high as now. descents were never the op part of warpin anyway. since 1 ship is still only 1 ship lol. it was never great at hurting mining.

  I said you'll never lose more than 70 and that's even in the impossible (note that part, please ) event of 3 Excel's. 

2 galaxies and 1 excel cost over 80

posted on January 28th, 2011, 12:10 am

why didnt starfleet get angry at sisko for losses in his battles?
the answer is that he wasnt suiciding them or using them stupidly and risking their lives for raids doing suicide runs and stuff. starfleet wouldnt be upset enough to punish you if they sent a ship to help and it died defending you from an enemy. they would be extremely upset if you took their ships and knowingly sent them to their death just to get a miner kill for free when they werent looking.

That was full fleet battles, so 'suicide squad' doesn't apply there. He wasn't sending 3 or 4 ships to attack entire fleets and outpost.

Picard lost the rickety old barge of a Stargazer and almost got court-marshalled for it, even after getting most of the crew out alive.

thats the reason i think the cost was put in, to make warpins less offensive. warpin's purpose is to give a defence force that starfleet gives to help its bases out. a helping hand in times of need. losing a ship in a fleet like that isnt likely to be as severaly punished.

thats why im for a reduction in cost over time. and an extra cooldown to balance it.

What it's meant for and what people use it for are not always the same.

no i think there should always be a penalty for losing any warpin, as you did lose something, just for the descent it shouldnt be as high as now. descents were never the op part of warpin anyway. since 1 ship is still only 1 ship lol. it was never great at hurting mining.

1 expensive and rare experimental ship is still a rare and expensive experimental ship. As I mentioned in the last post, it's good for softening up defenses; wakening any turrets so they can be taken out by the fleet with less chance of losses.

As long as it doesn't go lower than a Nebula Refit, I can live with it though.

posted on January 28th, 2011, 12:14 am

@ Myles:  Oops, didn't realize the Galaxy was 28.6 .  All the more reason to protect them!



  @ Anyone trying to understand the rationale for a supply cost using Star Trek Lore:  This is a video game and has to be balanced to remain fun.  Free ships are free ships and this was one of several conceivable options for making free ships not be disposable cannon fodder that pile up and Fedroll people.

  Get over it.

posted on January 28th, 2011, 12:29 am

That was full fleet battles, so 'suicide squad' doesn't apply there. He wasn't sending 3 or 4 ships to attack entire fleets and outpost.

exactly my point, i agree with penalties for suicided warpins. a descent in a fleet shouldnt cost you a fortune if it dies, since you didnt waste it with stupidity. it died a valiant meaningful and understandable death. yes you should pay something, just not too heavily.

@ boggz, yes this cost is for balance, thats why it should stay . but the descent was never op, thats why i think its supply cost shouldnt be so drastic. ive never heard anyone complain about getting descent rolled

i definitely like the idea of the timer going up if your warpins die. it fits very well with the idea of warpin. starfleet arent gonna be rushing any more ships to help you if you demonstrate you dont value their brave lives.

posted on January 28th, 2011, 12:32 am

If you lose a free ship with 74 defense and a special that completely restores it's shields .... you deserve to lose 45 supplies ....

posted on January 28th, 2011, 12:34 am

If you lose a free ship with 74 defense and a special that completely restores it's shields .... you deserve to lose 45 supplies ....

if the enemy is that far ahead that they can kill it the game is most likely over. but also it shows that you dont need to be penalised even more.

[Tyler]

posted on January 28th, 2011, 12:36 am

Last edited by Tyler on January 28th, 2011, 12:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

exactly my point, i agree with penalties for suicided warpins. a descent in a fleet shouldnt cost you a fortune if it dies, since you didnt waste it with stupidity. it died a valiant meaningful and understandable death. yes you should pay something, just not too heavily.

You're assuming it'll always be used that way, and that no-one will ever use it stupidly. Free-ship + Anywhere on the map + lack of Warp-In experience = Inefficient use of Descent. It's unique place in the Warp-In roster makes it tempting to use for anyone who doesn't know how to use it.

Maybe losing less if it's less that a certain from a Starbase? If it's too far from a Starbase, it's unlikely it's being used for defence.

posted on January 28th, 2011, 12:42 am

well if they use a descent on a stupid mining raid i think the punishment of not accomplishing much is enough really. they didnt actually get anything out of it, so there is no need to punish them.