Warp-In Penalty Tweak

[Kestrel]

posted on January 28th, 2011, 5:00 pm

Last edited by Kestrel on January 28th, 2011, 5:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

@ 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.

a KBQ can cloak and is fast, an excell is weak, slow and fragile and cannot hide.

Your head is too far up your ass atm to continue talking to you, when you have unplugged it we can talk again, your not that great....

also if you have trouble understanding english i can speak russian for you perhaps you would understand that better, i did not counter what you said about losing a max of 70 supply i just said losing over 40 for just 2 excells is too much.

posted on January 28th, 2011, 5:10 pm

kestrel, thats a really unfriendly post, i think you should write with less anger.

hopefully boggz wont reply to this and this thread can just die off.

posted on January 29th, 2011, 5:55 am

Yup, please keep it friendly guys - attack ideas, not people 

[Tyler]

posted on January 29th, 2011, 11:56 am

Last edited by Tyler on January 29th, 2011, 11:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

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.

If they send a regular Warp-In and achieve nothing, how about that costs nothing, as no-achievement should punish them enough in your words. It's no different for them.

A slap on the wrist and a stern glance isn't going to teach anyone.

posted on January 29th, 2011, 12:05 pm

If they send a regular Warp-In and achieve nothing, how about that costs nothing, as no-achievement should punish them enough in your words. It's no different for them.

A slap on the wrist and a stern glance isn't going to teach anyone.

the thing is a suicidal normal warpin could clear out several miners before the fleet killed the warpin ships. thats what the penalty is for. stopping people doing kamikazes. a descent cant really kamikaze miners very well. the point of the cost is to introduce balance, the descent was never really a problem for balance.

if there was a way to tell between suicidal warpins and not suicidal wastes of life then it would be great, and the cost could only apply to the suicidal ones. but computers cant tell the difference like a human can. the only way to distinguish is to look at the most common use of the warpins, and the most common use of a descent isnt for stupid suicide runs, its for normal fleet activity and defence.

posted on January 29th, 2011, 12:16 pm

A Descent can easily kill at least 1 miner, I've done it before (Warp-In, kill miner, run like hell); it's all about how lucky you are with the torps. Less effective, but still capable with more luck required.

Regardless of whether it kills something, it's sent on a suicide mission. Who cares if it killed anything or not, they just sent it into a stupid suicide mission, and the Descent should not be exempt from the penalties.

You keep talking about balance, but the cost is to give people a reason to not squander Warp-Ins pointlessly (you said that, then changed to balance?). The 'Descent can't kill anything, so doesn't need a cost' is just daring people to try it. Win or lose; that approach doesn't cost them anything.

There's a reason I suggested the 'more supply if too far away' for the Descent; close to base is likely defensive death, far away is more likely to be attacking.

posted on January 29th, 2011, 12:22 pm

You keep talking about balance, but the cost is to give people a reason to not squander Warp-Ins pointlessly (you said that, then changed to balance?). The 'Descent can't kill anything, so doesn't need a cost' is just daring people to try it. Win or lose; that approach doesn't cost them anything.

if people are silly enough to warpin a descent to enemy mining they probably have lost anyway cos they arent clever. daring people to do pointless things doesnt give these things a point. it may not cost them directly, but its not imbalanced.

i think descents should cost less when dying.

posted on January 29th, 2011, 12:33 pm

Less when dying in the base, yes. Dying attacking an expansion, current cost. Balance isn't affected by the Descent penalty, it's not used enough for the loss to affect you.

You assume only people who've lost or are desperate would do that. Imagine you're a new player or someone who doesn't bother with Feds/Warp-In normally. You see the Descent; a large battleship with multiple torp launchers, what does it say to you? Is it: "Hmm, that thing's massive with several weapons firing multiple times per shot; must be a defensive ship not made to attack."

posted on January 29th, 2011, 6:35 pm

the point of the cost is to introduce balance, the descent was never really a problem for balance.

Exactly .


  There were a few considerations for balancing the warpin:  One was the fact that they are free Cruisers/Battleships, one was that they were just cannon fodder, and the other was that they can be used as a "Goblin Grenade" , sacrificing it to destroy a shipyard, a mining station, or even just a few miners.

  It's just a balance thing , Tyler.  In online play there needs to be both an incentive to use warpins cautiously as well as a way to prevent the ever-present build up and Fedroll.

[Tyler]

posted on January 29th, 2011, 6:39 pm

Last edited by Tyler on January 29th, 2011, 6:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Descent costing less was never given a balance reason, only a 'it doesn't make sense' reason. If you want a balance reason, try making one. The cost is to make people less likely to waste them stupidly, it doesn't effect balance.

The Descent thing is just people thinking Starfleet would charge less for losing it because it's defence-focused. There's no balance issue.

posted on January 29th, 2011, 6:46 pm

Less when dying in the base, yes. Dying attacking an expansion, current cost. Balance isn't affected by the Descent penalty, it's not used enough for the loss to affect you.

there's no way to tell those apart. if it was possible then i'd love for the cost only to happen when the warpins are kamikazed. for all warpin ships. having the death cost lower over time is a start. but for the descent its best just to go with the most common use. and its not debatable that the most common use for the descent by any average experienced player isnt kamikaze raids.

You assume only people who've lost or are desperate would do that. Imagine you're a new player or someone who doesn't bother with Feds/Warp-In normally. You see the Descent; a large battleship with multiple torp launchers, what does it say to you? Is it: "Hmm, that thing's massive with several weapons firing multiple times per shot; must be a defensive ship not made to attack."

if a new player uses the descent for something its not for then they need to read the guide. and they dont really need punishment since what they were doing wasnt op. the point of the cost was to make op/annoying things less attractive. if a new player warps in a descent to my mining i will laugh at them and thank them for the rankup

posted on January 29th, 2011, 6:57 pm

there's no way to tell those apart. if it was possible then i'd love for the cost only to happen when the warpins are kamikazed. for all warpin ships. having the death cost lower over time is a start. but for the descent its best just to go with the most common use. and its not debatable that the most common use for the descent by any average experienced player isnt kamikaze raids.

I suggested 'radius from Starbase' as a possible method. If a Descent goes too far from the base, it's unlikely that it's being used for defense and would get the attacker penalty. Especially if it's chasing a fleeing attacker, which is retaliation rather than defense.

I didn't debate that it wasn't the most common use, I debated the idea that no-one does it. If it's possible, it's been done.

The Devs have probably made bigger changes.

if a new player uses the descent for something its not for then they need to read the guide. and they dont really need punishment since what they were doing wasnt op. the point of the cost was to make op/annoying things less attractive. if a new player warps in a descent to my mining i will laugh at them and thank them for the rankup

If the nhumber of new players asking simple things on the forum is anything to go by, a fair number of people don't notice the small 2-word link to the guide and haven't read it. Not including the people who've never even been to the site, who obviously would be unlikely to know of any guide.

Descent isn't OP in attacking mining frieghters, but sticking it in their base to hit the turrets while your raiders get by isn't going to help the defenders. They're still wasting a Warp-In foolishly, which is a big part of what the cost is for.

posted on January 29th, 2011, 7:10 pm

radius from starbase isnt helpful since what if it is defending an expansion? its difficult for a computer to tell if a descent is being suicided or not. if a computer could figure it out then i'd be happy with kamikaze descents being charged.

posted on January 29th, 2011, 7:13 pm

Well Tyler I see the point you're making, but I guess I just have to say that the Feds have the lowest Supply-cost per ship already and get free ships from SFC.  I don't recall seeing you on Tunngle but in online play it makes a HUGE difference to be getting free ships whether they are the full warpin or a Descent.  Part of the supply cost for a Descent is to keep it on par with the other warpins.  There always has to be a cost associated with constantly warping in free ships and the Descent can't be exempt from that .

  I dunno what else to tell you.  Get Fedrolled a couple times and you'll be begging for more penalties on the Feds

posted on January 29th, 2011, 7:16 pm

Begging for more penalties? I'm supporting the cost on a Descent, not opposing it. Sounds like a slight misreading there.

radius from starbase isnt helpful since what if it is defending an expansion? its difficult for a computer to tell if a descent is being suicided or not. if a computer could figure it out then i'd be happy with kamikaze descents being charged.

I said as a possible method, it wouldn't necessarily have to be limited to the Starbase. If it could be done, making it work with any other station you wanted it to shouldn't be too much harder.