Warp-In Penalty Tweak

posted on January 29th, 2011, 8:41 pm

tying it to all stations might be possible, but its probably a lot of work but not for much benefit. the point of the penalties was to balance the game, to stop suiciding warpins and to add a weakness to warpins in general, to prevent easy fedrolling as boggz puts it. if u target the warpins first then they will have less supply for building ships. it gives a weakness to all warpin use, but especially to kamikaze warpins.

the descent never fedrolled anyone cos it is way better at def than off. and random ships from other races will easily repel a descent, they may be tough tanks but they cant put out enough dps to win the fight. they are tanks for your normal fleet if u can get the enemy firing on it. but 3 warpins are nearly always more useful. in defensive situations a descent can be handy though.

posted on January 30th, 2011, 1:37 am

Yeah, the point of my suggestion was just to get more use out of the Descent, since people still go for the normal warp ins, even with the threat of losing supply.  I'd like to see it be a more even choice.  Of course, I don't want to see the Descent become the new "throw away ship" either.  Ah, balancing.

posted on January 30th, 2011, 9:05 am

Yeah I agree .  I'd like something to be more attractive about the Descent but I have to say that I often times find them to be very useful against not only the Borg but also against a faction making use of larger ships.  The torpedo firepower is nice and it will allow you some interesting tactical choices through the use of Shield Recharge.

posted on January 30th, 2011, 11:00 am

if i were to use a descent i would most likely use it against a non cloaking race and when i knew exactly where the battle was gonna be. so if i was attacking, and i knew their fleet was there, i would put the descent out in front, let it's huge shields tank loads of fire. then do shield reset and run away the descent. its not exactly slow for a big ship, so if they let it go, their fire was all wasted, if they chase it, they have to chase through my fleet and away from any yards they have.

posted on January 30th, 2011, 12:11 pm

I always thought the Decent made a good flagship for an E2 fleet.

Back on topic: Here's a thought, how about putting the supply loss on a timer? If you lose a warp-in within x amount of time you lose supply, once the timer runs out you don't. Or even a two stage timer, lose a ship during the first and pay a heavier supply fine (more than now), during the second lose less (equal to now), once the both timers run out lose none. While neither one of these would prevent suiciding the ships after the timer(s) runs out it would certainly discourage the most common warp-in suicide, that of warping into an overwhelming dangerous location.

posted on January 30th, 2011, 12:18 pm

descents and e2 are similar, both are torp spammers (more than feds in general). i would put a descent with non torp spammers on the attack to balance things out.

the timer suggestion has already been said, have the warpins take less supply over time. but i think they should always take some.

i think that the starting cost should be higher than it is now, as starfleet are gonna be super angry if u kamikaze their warpins. but should get lower over time until about 60%-70% of current. as starfleet will still be miffed you lost their ships.

balance wise it would make it really stupid to do suicide runs on mining with warpins. and still makes targeting warpins first a good tactic.

posted on January 30th, 2011, 12:23 pm

Persoanlly, I wouldn't mind Warp-In cost decreasing when they gain the Battle Bridge passive since they're not really Warp-Ins anymore.

posted on January 30th, 2011, 12:43 pm

Persoanlly, I wouldn't mind Warp-In cost decreasing when they gain the Battle Bridge passive since they're not really Warp-Ins anymore.

i could certainly live with that. when they stop counting towards the warpin cap we could give a lore explanation of: they are now part of your fleet and arent emergency help anymore. they have stayed and joined your fleet.

posted on January 30th, 2011, 3:12 pm

i could certainly live with that. when they stop counting towards the warpin cap we could give a lore explanation of: they are now part of your fleet and arent emergency help anymore. they have stayed and joined your fleet.

(emphasis mine)
Wouldn't that same explanation also suit the timer suggestions?
While I think that removing the supply loss when the ship no longer counts against the warp-in cap isn't a bad suggestion the problem with it is that it doesn't balance well across the warp-in ships themselves. In other words, its a lot easier to rank up an Ambassador or a Galaxy than it  is a sensor Neb or E1.

i think that the starting cost should be higher than it is now, as starfleet are gonna be super angry if u kamikaze their warpins. but should get lower over time until about 60%-70% of current. as starfleet will still be miffed you lost their ships.

This is probably the way to go and, thinking about it, you're right, there should always be some cost. I just think that the current costs are a touch out of whack, an E1 costs more supply than an Ambassador? Really?

posted on January 30th, 2011, 4:09 pm

its based on ship cost. excelsior has ADAI which means it took more supply to build the excel than it did an ambas. thats why it costs more.

posted on January 30th, 2011, 4:21 pm

its based on ship cost. excelsior has ADAI which means it took more supply to build the excel than it did an ambas. thats why it costs more.

Oh I understand that that's the "game" logic behind it, I'm just saying that it doesn't make sense.

posted on January 30th, 2011, 4:26 pm

Excelsior is older and not as capable in terms of weapon and defense, but the advanced computer is more supply-intensive. The ADAI tooltip explains it as the complex computer being more expensive.

posted on January 30th, 2011, 4:39 pm

Oh I understand that that's the "game" logic behind it, I'm just saying that it doesn't make sense.

in canon it doesnt make sense, but in canon supply (in the fleetops sense) doesnt exist lol.

fleetops has its own story, in which excel costing more supply makes sense as thats how the devs wrote it.

it doesnt really contradict canon, since canon never mentioned costs of these ships.

posted on January 30th, 2011, 5:36 pm

Oh noes!! Its the "game balance vs. canon vs. logic" conundrum!!
Of course in this context, "game balance" must win, and for the most part FO does a good job.

posted on January 30th, 2011, 6:06 pm

Excelciors were, at the time they were build, much more expenseve. They were the battleships of their day, and are still cruisers (albiet light ones) in firepower..

The ADAI refit makes them more relevent than they would be otherwise, but it is time consuming to produce it as it requires connectings for much older systems, however the refit prolonged the life of an old vessel that is in service in significant number, this making it more efficient.

The Ambas needs less supply to maintain, because it is in comparison much newer, and it's systems can use standard use material.


There ya go, game and trek logic combined.

:p



My two cents for how to fix it: Starfleet command gains an option to purchase additonal reinforcements.

Your inital 10 warpin's are 'free'. After they die or rank up you have to spend resources (in trek terms, they're to show you can maintain the vessels long term) to be able to call in more.

It gives the flexability of that early heavy hit, BUT also makes it were you cant just KEEP using it for free, and also removes the silly ship dies THEN you pay for it aspect.