Agent of Kharma

Capships vs. illums/lrm/assailants

Capships vs. illums/lrm/assailants

Okay, what I'm about to say isn't a new problem, it is old, and is something everybody has seen and experienced:  I think caps are too vulnerable to masses of illums/lrm/assailants.

caps = expensive, not spammable
cap killers (illums, etc) = cheap (relatively speaking), spammable

You see the problem?  Herds of relatively cheap spammable units vs. a couple expensive caps?

The problem is this.  Caps are supposed to support the fleet.  Or, if you are a "new school," cap-heavy kind of guy, fleet is supposed to support the caps.  But under most circumstances, you simply can't put caps in the same grav well with a mass of illums and have them do anything but die.  And if you can't put caps in the same grav well where the action is taking place, how are they supporting anything (or conversely, being supported by anything)?

I don't think caps should be immune from death by any means.  I think caps should be counterable and killable.  But I also believe they exist for a reason besides running around colonizing planets or rushing.  They are supposed to be able to support a fleet in battle (or have a fleet support them, whichever you prefer).  But they can't do that if they just die to a wall of illums or assailants or lrms.

Does someone want to tell me that the current balance between caps and masses of cap killers is fine?  If so I will listen.  Otherwise, I propose some mechanism to balance it out.  Something like a "diminishing returns" on the attack of cap killers after you hit a certain number of them (i.e. all cap killers after 20 do 70% damage to caps, all after 30 do 50% damage to caps, etc).  I mean, I don't really care what the mechanism is, there just needs to be something.

117,347 views 81 replies
Reply #76 Top

For what its worth, we've fixed a bug in the damage code that was screwing things like Illums up (anything with beam damage where the damage duration was equal to or greater than the update period of the damage system). This will be included in the upcoming patch for Sins, Entrenchment and will also be included in the Diplomacy base code.

Reply #77 Top

Yay!!! thank you blair!!!!

THanks for still updating entrench while diplio is being made

_|~Uber

Reply #78 Top

Thanks, I hope that you're not discouraged- and also that we can have a patch before the beta is completed?

On the beta- there is a story that when Tallulah Bankhead encountered the Salvation Army she observed that it had been a hard winter for Spanish dancers and tipped them a $20 note.  It's been a hard winter for Spanish dancers, but perhaps it might be more dignified for TEC to achieve parity with Advent by some other and more fittingly military method...?

Reply #79 Top

For what its worth, we've fixed a bug in the damage code that was screwing things like Illums up (anything with beam damage where the damage duration was equal to or greater than the update period of the damage system).

Interesting news!

Reply #80 Top

Quoting Blair, reply 76
For what its worth, we've fixed a bug in the damage code that was screwing things like Illums up (anything with beam damage where the damage duration was equal to or greater than the update period of the damage system). This will be included in the upcoming patch for Sins, Entrenchment and will also be included in the Diplomacy base code.

 

ah good job blair... can you release as a hot fix?

Reply #81 Top

"For what its worth, we've fixed a bug in the damage code that was screwing things like Illums up (anything with beam damage where the damage duration was equal to or greater than the update period of the damage system). This will be included in the upcoming patch for Sins, Entrenchment and will also be included in the Diplomacy base code."

 

:grin:  Thank you IC!