Weapon Range
posted on July 13th, 2009, 11:38 pm
Right, as I was playing against AI today and my long range Defenders were being slaughtered by numberless medium range Warbirds and short range NeghVars I just had a thought that Id like to share with you all.
The current weapon range of long, medium and short is there to signify a tactical advantage. Because of precisely that, long-range ships tend to do less damage because they can outmaneur the short and medium range counterparts, in theory.
Now this is all nice and dandy in the beginning of the game when there are only a few ships on the battlefield and the lag is not as intensive, but when the game progresses to the battleship stage there are bound to be so many ships present for each player that they are all but impossible to control properly, which results in simple spam match.
Usually you just physically cant position the ships in such a way that they all fire and still have their range advantage, so either only the front row fires and the rest merrily watch them or everyone fires and the front rows get phaser in the face at the same time.
I thought of 2 pretty simple solutions:
a) intensify the range difference by some margin. For instance, if the short range stays as it is, the medium range would be 150% of the current medium range, and long range 150% of the current long range. This would make range matter a lot more in MP games IMO. This would actually make the positioning of your fleet important in a battle, because right now it does not.
Of course this would bring with it some other changes to the balancing. Short range ships would have to pack even more of a punch than they do now, so you'd actually be weary of letting them close you down.
In regards to the current NeghVar topic, imagine what kind of a puch a short range NeghVar would make if this balancing would be implemented? Surely it is supposed to be more of a heavy hitter than it is now
b) make range distance between different classes of ships different. What I mean by that is, for instance for destroyer class ships long range would equal the medium range of cruisers and short range of battleships.
Maybe this is more of an idea with regards to canon and real war, since bigger guns do tend to have longer range as well
I think this would intensify the difference between different ship classes and it would add a lot more strategy into the game IMO. Imagine your long range battleships blasting your enemy from very far away, while your destroyers would be dogfighting the enemy destroyers at noticably shorter range. It would seem a lot more realistic (at least to me) then the blobs of ships blasting at each other right now.
As with the previous idea, this would probably need balancing changes, probably even more than the previous one since this one would also differenciate between ship classes, which means that with regards to destryoers, battleships would be awesome. Maybe just as awesome as they ought to be in ST. What this would also mean that teching would give you a much bigger advantage than it does now, meaning that games wouldnt end up being just destroyer-spam fest and teching up and maybe turtling would become a viable strategy.
So thats it from me. I hope you can understand what I wanted to say, since its pretty late over here and Im damn tired
This thing just popped into my head and I wanted to write it down so I dont forget it tommorow hehe.
Also note to the team: I understand that this would be a bitch for you, to rebalance most of the stuff again. I just think that this would make more sense and it would add to the game in a positive way. Hopefully you'll like the idea
PS: If a similar thing has already been posted, please disregard this thread
The current weapon range of long, medium and short is there to signify a tactical advantage. Because of precisely that, long-range ships tend to do less damage because they can outmaneur the short and medium range counterparts, in theory.
Now this is all nice and dandy in the beginning of the game when there are only a few ships on the battlefield and the lag is not as intensive, but when the game progresses to the battleship stage there are bound to be so many ships present for each player that they are all but impossible to control properly, which results in simple spam match.
Usually you just physically cant position the ships in such a way that they all fire and still have their range advantage, so either only the front row fires and the rest merrily watch them or everyone fires and the front rows get phaser in the face at the same time.
I thought of 2 pretty simple solutions:
a) intensify the range difference by some margin. For instance, if the short range stays as it is, the medium range would be 150% of the current medium range, and long range 150% of the current long range. This would make range matter a lot more in MP games IMO. This would actually make the positioning of your fleet important in a battle, because right now it does not.
Of course this would bring with it some other changes to the balancing. Short range ships would have to pack even more of a punch than they do now, so you'd actually be weary of letting them close you down.
In regards to the current NeghVar topic, imagine what kind of a puch a short range NeghVar would make if this balancing would be implemented? Surely it is supposed to be more of a heavy hitter than it is now
b) make range distance between different classes of ships different. What I mean by that is, for instance for destroyer class ships long range would equal the medium range of cruisers and short range of battleships.
Maybe this is more of an idea with regards to canon and real war, since bigger guns do tend to have longer range as well
I think this would intensify the difference between different ship classes and it would add a lot more strategy into the game IMO. Imagine your long range battleships blasting your enemy from very far away, while your destroyers would be dogfighting the enemy destroyers at noticably shorter range. It would seem a lot more realistic (at least to me) then the blobs of ships blasting at each other right now.
As with the previous idea, this would probably need balancing changes, probably even more than the previous one since this one would also differenciate between ship classes, which means that with regards to destryoers, battleships would be awesome. Maybe just as awesome as they ought to be in ST. What this would also mean that teching would give you a much bigger advantage than it does now, meaning that games wouldnt end up being just destroyer-spam fest and teching up and maybe turtling would become a viable strategy.
So thats it from me. I hope you can understand what I wanted to say, since its pretty late over here and Im damn tired
This thing just popped into my head and I wanted to write it down so I dont forget it tommorow hehe. Also note to the team: I understand that this would be a bitch for you, to rebalance most of the stuff again. I just think that this would make more sense and it would add to the game in a positive way. Hopefully you'll like the idea
PS: If a similar thing has already been posted, please disregard this thread
posted on July 14th, 2009, 12:11 am
Last edited by wfs5519 on July 14th, 2009, 12:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
posted on July 14th, 2009, 12:14 am
It is a nice set of ideas, but like you said it would change some things enormously. Honestly, if the ranges were changed to be just a bit more than they are now it would work alright, but to completely revamp it would mean, for instance, that the Starbase could protect many main base structures right off the bat, and harassment in general would be come insanely difficult (imagine a long range turret protecting both moon pairs from medium or short range units). Turtling would become extremely viable as you suggested, but it would mean that you could no longer use, for instance, Klingons as a race at all (unless everything about them was rebalanced). I think a small increase would be nice and not truly affect balance, but to got any more would be ... terrifying
posted on July 14th, 2009, 3:16 am
posted on July 14th, 2009, 10:37 am
i was already thinking about redoing the weapon range system to give vessels a larger difference.. but thats not as easy as it sounds.. i'm currently considering simplifing the system by droping medium range, and extending the weapon rnage to some other sectors, as a "strategical capacity", but thats nothing final yet. I will take a closer look at it all
posted on July 14th, 2009, 10:57 am
posted on July 14th, 2009, 6:43 pm
Ah I see most of you are generally for the ideas, so its not just me thinking in this direction
Baddawng1234: I really like the idea of reverse thrusters. I think it would make a lot of sense for ships like the defender to have it, since it should always point towards the enemy ships.
Dom: Yeah, as I said a whole lot of rebalancing would be needed, but I think the rewards would really outweigh the minuses. I mean, a whole lot of new strategies would become viable in competitive MP matches, as right now, and you know this as well as I do, early rush and harrasment is the only way to go if you want to win against quality opposition. Why shouldnt turtling be an ok strategy? And why not teching up, I mean in real war (and in ST war) both are perfectly viable, the only problem would be to balance it properly.
About the base harrasment, I dunno mate, but usually the harrasment occurs at the expansion points of your enemy and not at his main base, since even now the outpost is pretty damn strong and has quite a long range, plus your at a big disadvantage to be fighting near an enemy shipyard... I dont see how the expansion harrasment would be in danger though. I mean I never mentioned turrets and how this would effect them. If they are properly balanced they could still have roughly the same effect as they do now.
But I know that the balancing part of my idea is a real bitch, as it would take a long time and would take a few tries to get it right...
Optec: Im glad you already thought about this, I hope (and I trust you will) you make the right adjustments to the game
Baddawng1234: I really like the idea of reverse thrusters. I think it would make a lot of sense for ships like the defender to have it, since it should always point towards the enemy ships.
Dom: Yeah, as I said a whole lot of rebalancing would be needed, but I think the rewards would really outweigh the minuses. I mean, a whole lot of new strategies would become viable in competitive MP matches, as right now, and you know this as well as I do, early rush and harrasment is the only way to go if you want to win against quality opposition. Why shouldnt turtling be an ok strategy? And why not teching up, I mean in real war (and in ST war) both are perfectly viable, the only problem would be to balance it properly.
About the base harrasment, I dunno mate, but usually the harrasment occurs at the expansion points of your enemy and not at his main base, since even now the outpost is pretty damn strong and has quite a long range, plus your at a big disadvantage to be fighting near an enemy shipyard... I dont see how the expansion harrasment would be in danger though. I mean I never mentioned turrets and how this would effect them. If they are properly balanced they could still have roughly the same effect as they do now.
But I know that the balancing part of my idea is a real bitch, as it would take a long time and would take a few tries to get it right...
Optec: Im glad you already thought about this, I hope (and I trust you will) you make the right adjustments to the game
posted on July 14th, 2009, 7:08 pm
In my opinion true turtling leads to turret crawling (play CnC3 or RA3 without patches and you may see what I mean).
Not sure what you meant about teching up though, as I always tech up. I just balance constant fighting with it.
Certain things that would definitely have to be changed would be that moon pairs would need to be further apart and farther from the Starbase to start with (as it is now, a Starbases range only covers a few freighters and maybe part of a shipyard or two, allowing relatively easy and unexpected harassment. It would be almost impossible to harass the Borg if you increased the range of the Starbase I should mention. Indeed of course if everything is properly balanced things would work out fine. I'm just a little nervous about how that could affect balance. I don't really want to see the introduction of "bunker buster" style units if turtling becomes incredibly useful (again, see CnC's explanation for why SuperWeapons were included). Maps might also need to become bigger I suppose...
The only thing I disagree with is that "early rush and harassment is the only way to go". There are a few strategies where you don't actually have to harass: merely defend against harassment and then push. I guess it depends what you define as an early rush (what is early: within the first 5 minutes, within the first 10.. or attacking before you have capital ships?). I'm sure that balancing will take everything into account, and I think I will leave it at that since I would like at least a slight range boost/differentiation--and I honestly believe that me stating these hypothetical problems in lieu of hypothetical balance is pretty silly.
Not sure what you meant about teching up though, as I always tech up. I just balance constant fighting with it.
Certain things that would definitely have to be changed would be that moon pairs would need to be further apart and farther from the Starbase to start with (as it is now, a Starbases range only covers a few freighters and maybe part of a shipyard or two, allowing relatively easy and unexpected harassment. It would be almost impossible to harass the Borg if you increased the range of the Starbase I should mention. Indeed of course if everything is properly balanced things would work out fine. I'm just a little nervous about how that could affect balance. I don't really want to see the introduction of "bunker buster" style units if turtling becomes incredibly useful (again, see CnC's explanation for why SuperWeapons were included). Maps might also need to become bigger I suppose...
The only thing I disagree with is that "early rush and harassment is the only way to go". There are a few strategies where you don't actually have to harass: merely defend against harassment and then push. I guess it depends what you define as an early rush (what is early: within the first 5 minutes, within the first 10.. or attacking before you have capital ships?). I'm sure that balancing will take everything into account, and I think I will leave it at that since I would like at least a slight range boost/differentiation--and I honestly believe that me stating these hypothetical problems in lieu of hypothetical balance is pretty silly.
posted on July 14th, 2009, 7:20 pm
posted on July 14th, 2009, 7:46 pm
Dom: Right now, 90% of the time, matches are decided in the early stages and so by destroyers and maybe early cruisers. Of course there are exceptions, but even you said a number of times on these forums (I think it was you anyway :S ) that you rarely get out battleships in MP games.
About strategies, of course others are viable as well, just not as successful IMO (dont take my word on that, as Im quite a bit rusty). Oh and about teching up, yeah of course you do it hehe, everyone should. What I ment by it is that one would build very few destroyers in early game and try to tech up to bigger guns right away and that that would be a viable strategy (its not right now as you get swarmed by destroyers and cruisers or battleships are not such an upgrade on destroyers so they die horribly ).
Now, I have nothing against turtling, if there is a proper way for each race to counter it. And by that I do not mean superweapons hehe. Well even now the borg, klingons, roms and dominion have big enough hitters to be able to crack these bunkers. Even the feds with their steamrunner are not too shabby lol, so I dont think it would ruin the game at all.
But anyways, it really is dumb to talk about imbalances for a fantasy situation lol. I think we can both agree that whatever changes they make, they should always be as balanced as possible
The only reason I suggested this in the first place is to bring a bit more positional strategy into play (think the Total War series) and because I got tired of seeing my great looking fleet reduced to the great balls of fire when engaging numerous enemies (its not canon and it effectivly makes range a meaningless stat)
) that you rarely get out battleships in MP games.About strategies, of course others are viable as well, just not as successful IMO (dont take my word on that, as Im quite a bit rusty
). Oh and about teching up, yeah of course you do it hehe, everyone should. What I ment by it is that one would build very few destroyers in early game and try to tech up to bigger guns right away and that that would be a viable strategy (its not right now as you get swarmed by destroyers and cruisers or battleships are not such an upgrade on destroyers so they die horribly ).Now, I have nothing against turtling, if there is a proper way for each race to counter it. And by that I do not mean superweapons hehe. Well even now the borg, klingons, roms and dominion have big enough hitters to be able to crack these bunkers. Even the feds with their steamrunner are not too shabby lol, so I dont think it would ruin the game at all.
But anyways, it really is dumb to talk about imbalances for a fantasy situation lol. I think we can both agree that whatever changes they make, they should always be as balanced as possible
The only reason I suggested this in the first place is to bring a bit more positional strategy into play (think the Total War series) and because I got tired of seeing my great looking fleet reduced to the great balls of fire when engaging numerous enemies (its not canon and it effectivly makes range a meaningless stat)
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests