carriers are exactly the example of things working like i mentioned, with how ordnance works they are only really good in overwhelming numbers
Which again is not good. A strategy game that requires you to only play 1 trick pony and limits you is not a game worth playing at all. Games become predictable and stale.
if you make them good enough to have a use for only a few of them they will be unstoppable if you spam em
Not true. Cause carriers have weaknesses.
- Long Cool downs
-Unreliable Damage Output that can be influenced by the enemy player with both tactics and ordnance of their own
- generally suck at close range
how do you make 10 bays good while not killing everything with 20
If ordnance becomes better people will start bringing a carrier or 2 themselves. A single well played carrier can easily soak up enemy ordnance by a decent chunk. And the rest will still have to make it through AA batteries.
back in the days of "nid carrier op" corrosive clutch devourers could only use their 10 bays to herd, almost never kill
Yeah orks and nids had OP ordnance because they had alot of it. The game and its . Doesnt mean that carriers in general were OP. Chaos and imperial carriers were still junk.
the shift in bays becoming usefull for killing things happened at 14 and after that it just became exponentially better with every bay above that
Carriers are only good at killing things if your opponent doesnt bring counter measures, or doesnt know how to deal with them.
the way ordnance works there is not really a way to make 4 bays in a fleet useful for anything other then a speedbump compared to a ordnance swarm fleet
If a player brings 4 bays they are bringing them for utility. Im not saying that they should deal insane gobs of damage.
You can have good ordnance without forcing everyone to have to spam them.
It may actually be a reasonable idea to lower the crit chances all across the board for weapons only.
Half the crit chance for every weapon, quartering could be too much.
Yeah Reduce Weapon crits would be good but keep Lightning and traditional boarding (ordnance included) Same. Would make HP mean something again.
Or the prices for BBs and GCs could also see some increase to discourage from picking BB/GC only fleets.
I like That idea better than adding artificial deminishing returns to BC n up. But a price increase would be good.
To that end, I believe someone has already given this idea somewhere (no idea who or where though) that the ship prices could increase for every next ship of the same class. As in: second cruiser or battleship or whatever would cost some additional points, third even more etc.
BB/GC could have a significantly higher penalty for every ship after the first or second, while lighter vessels (cruisers/ light cruisers) would only get such penalty after 4th or 5th ship, or even not at all.
I believe such solution would keep the heavies viable and very much sought after, while discouraging players from making rosters composed solely of them, as they would be losing overall fleet effectiveness compared to more balanced enemy fleets.
I prefer the price increase of large cruisers would be better and easier and keep fleet building simple. The deminishing returns is just a over complication when you can just ramp up the price of BBs by maybe 10-15% (wich often is the difference between fielding an extra BB anyway...
People Should have the option to spam big ships if they want to but it should come with the weakness of often being out numbered.
thing is you would need to heavily penalize things
and then you would just end up with people winning all fights with ramming again
No they dont have to penalize anything. We got So many different ships with unique charecteristis out there that could make great fillers. And could promote more variation and openings for other builds. For example carriers. Improve them to a certain degree and now people can build around that. The meta changes and now players have to either know how to deal with it with the build they got by adopting tactics for those scenarios and clumping (like full macros or full lance) or bring a carrier of their own to mitigate ordnance damage until you can close the gap.
only reason you would really ever want to mix macros with lances would be if lances would be really really shit at popping voids
things like lances doing 1/8 damage to voids but have -70ap while armor goes to something like 70/85/99 so that macros are shit at hitting hull but great at popping voids
I dont think they need to change much on macros and lances. Lances need to just focus fire to bust shields where macros need to get close to be effective. Good trade off.
only if you do something as drastic like that would you really need both
only then would you need macros alongside crits
and even then you would need to rework crits as even the slightest bit of damage can kill a ship in a single hit thats lucky
and that rework would slow the game down so a sudden crit instakilling a ship would be even more drastic then they already are
Im sure there are ways of tweaking crits to be less RNG heavy and more controllable. Crits in its current state is alright i think. Perhaps a way to tweak crits is to put each weapon system in perspective. Macros should become worse at dealing crits by a long shot but get a considerable boost in alpha strike. While lances retain their criting power.
and if you somehow succeed at finding the balance there, wtf do you do with torps, boarding, ramming
Torps, ramming and ordnance are burst damage. So balance them around that. The games gotta have a balance between the importance of Modules and Hull. You can have all the modules in the world but if your ships about to die they wont do you any good.
Boarding should be just as important as alpha if you take out a module you just weakenes the enemy ship. Now that ship is dealing less damage or has become easier to kill.
I think the devs can eventually find the sweet spot where neither of them are over powering but are equally important depending on the situation.
you would just need to start over and make a new game
They dont even have to do that.
the games basic mechanics are binary, so you focus on one so you have the greatest chance to get the yes instead of the no
Thats not how Strategy games should play. Thats why unused ships in the rosters need a Role. Strategy games are based around units and their roles. In this case for example with BFGA we have something like that. But the problem is that some of these roles just arent effective enough to warrant their use or to build around it.
Here are the roles we got for units in bfga.
A.Escorts (scouts/Fodder/ troop transfer)
B Light Cruisers (Scout/ Flanker/ Fire Support)
C. Dedicated Macro ships (brawlers)
D. Dedicated Lance ships (Snipers, AV, critter)
E.Carriers (Artillary/ Defender)
F. Hybrids ( Jack of all trades master at Non primary design of this unit is as a plug in your weaknesses without having to forgo what you want to build around its min maxing tool)
If the devs can define these roles better and make unused ships better we will start seeing more variety. The options to go 1 trick pony are still there and should still work but there should be an option for players to dabble with some other tools and still stay competetive.
If this doesnt happen we will just kerp playing the stale 1 trick pony fleets until BFGA 2 or its players die of boredom.
These roles interact with each other and each role will have its strengths and weaknesses. Players can play to these pros and cons even use weaknesses to their advantage.