0002386: Spire Maw - Swallow - Arcen Idea Tracker (Bugs and Features)

Notes
(0008273) TechSY730 (reporter) Jan 11, 2011 4:36 pm	This is actually an oddity with transporters in general. Transports have this same abusable quality.

(0008274) x4000 (administrator) Jan 11, 2011 4:36 pm	That's the nature of maws -- the strategic challenge is to figure out how to deal with that. For instance: you need a sizable fleet so that you can take down the maws and get your stuff back. If you go up against maws with just a few ships, even awesome ships, you'll lose.

(0008286) lyravega (reporter) Jan 11, 2011 5:07 pm	It's not just that. Any ships that were being swallowed doesn't have any order when the maw is destroyed, and they pop right within the enemy fleet - an instakill for them most of the time, since tractor beams were holding most of them out of range. It's ok for smaller ships, but bigger ships (well, starships) end up next to 100 bombers/etc that are trying to get away from tractor beams, just an example. Or they swallow MRS and etc that are under forcefield. I was wondering where the hell were my MRS.s and apparently they ended up in another system due to maw "abduction". Are raid starships immune to swallow? If not, that'd be another thing if maws reside next to something that needs to be taken down by raiders, another example :P And instead of a sizeable fleet, I prefer hit and run tactics, deep strikes and deep colony acquisations, etc... using cloaker starships most of the time for that matter. Seeing my force being chewed while I'm trying to destroy the eye or guard posts (and slowly, I might add, since FF-bearing ? guard posts have 400m HP aswell), is just annoying :P Also, since snipers aren't able to pick targets inside forcefields, that makes the problem(s) above much worse.

(0008287) x4000 (administrator) Jan 11, 2011 5:09 pm	Raid starships are indeed immune to being swallowed. Everything else is working more or less intended there. Your desire for a specific type of fleet is irrelevant: you have to adapt to the situation at hand. I don't mean that in a negative way, I just mean that preferences have no real place in determining if something is balanced. When the AI uses something specific, you need to use something in the range of counters against that thing. In the case of maws, it's one of the few that encourages larger fleets when dealing with them, rather than starships.

(0008294) MaxAstro (reporter) Jan 11, 2011 6:17 pm edited on: Jan 11, 2011 6:20 pm	That does sound like it would make any system with an AI Eye and a large number of Maws a rather lose-lose situation, though. Not sure how common of an issue that would be... A "perfect" fix, IMO, would be if starships took up more than one "slot" inside the Maw - this would also be a convenient way of balancing the ease of transporting starships vs. fleet ships. I'm thinking along the lines of Starcraft, where a Dropship can hold 8 marines, but only 2 siege tanks. Not sure how much of a nightmare that would be to code... EDIT: Ya know what I should do? I should make a new ticket for this. xD

(0008296) lyravega (reporter) Jan 11, 2011 6:24 pm edited on: Jan 11, 2011 6:26 pm	Good idea imo MaxAstro. Starships taking up 25-30 space, or maybe even more to prevent MKI's from swallowing starships... Sounds nice. It can also be applied to low cap / big ships aswell, introducing a new attribute, ship size, or something like that. Maybe lower mark maws cannot swallow ships bigger than X size, etc... However, AI carriers and barracks might get affected due to that. Fast barracks placement leading to many, many more carriers for example. Although, since they'll be carrying fewer ships, but there'll be more carriers to deal with.

(0008297) x4000 (administrator) Jan 11, 2011 6:25 pm	I'm not keen on that sort of thing, multiple slots and all. I don't think the current model is really that particularly bad. If you run into maws and an AI eye, then you have to get creative: raiding the guard posts with raid starships (or the maws, for that matter); EMPing the system for a bit and then using your starships against the maws and guard posts; or a host of other things. There are always options!

(0008299) TechSY730 (reporter) Jan 11, 2011 6:29 pm	Yes, but always ask yourself this. Do those options put you at a severe resource disadvantage unavoidably, and are those options "fun" (or rather, do those options ruin fun)?

(0008305) x4000 (administrator) Jan 11, 2011 7:02 pm	I always ask myself if it's fun. I think that varied tactics with sideways solutions are the very epitome of thus. It's not like here are mass innevery game. And it's really not like maws and ai eyes are always together. Difficult does not mean un-fun.

(0008306) TechSY730 (reporter) Jan 11, 2011 7:03 pm	Okay, as long as you thought of it. BTW, I was not insinuating it wasn't fun, but those are important questions to ask yourself whenever new tactics become almost mandatory.

(0008309) x4000 (administrator) Jan 11, 2011 7:34 pm	Yes, I'm familiar with the idea of game design... may have some experience there. ;)

(0008313) TechSY730 (reporter) Jan 11, 2011 7:45 pm	Sorry, I just realized I was preaching to the choir. It is just that many games these days either lose sight of the "fun factor", or forget that difficulty does not necessarily lead to lack of fun, and thus dumb things down too much. From what I have seen from you guys, you are at no risk of "dumbing things down" anytime soon. :D

(0008314) x4000 (administrator) Jan 11, 2011 7:49 pm	It's all good. It's certainly a tough call in a lot of circumstances, and in some ways this one is borderline because there are a limited number of counters, but in the end I decided that didn't mean it was invalid. For one, new counters will develop over time. And for two, variety is really, really good: breaking people from always just using their same pet strategies is a primary goal of mine, as I think that's the path to critical thinking in a strategy game (not always doing the same 'ol standby). That's why I'm really not too fussed about the fact that when the AI has a specific one unit (maws) out of a possible 54 that it might have, that certain strategies are required in certain circumstances.

This issue is already marked as resolved. If you feel that is not the case, please reopen it and explain why.
Supporters:	No one explicitly supports this issue yet.
Opponents:	No one explicitly opposes this issue yet.

Issue History
Date Modified	Username	Field	Change
Jan 11, 2011 4:35 pm	lyravega	New Issue
Jan 11, 2011 4:36 pm	TechSY730	Note Added: 0008273
Jan 11, 2011 4:36 pm	x4000	Note Added: 0008274
Jan 11, 2011 4:36 pm	x4000	Status	new => closed
Jan 11, 2011 4:36 pm	x4000	Assigned To	=> x4000
Jan 11, 2011 4:36 pm	x4000	Resolution	open => no change required
Jan 11, 2011 5:07 pm	lyravega	Note Added: 0008286
Jan 11, 2011 5:09 pm	x4000	Note Added: 0008287
Jan 11, 2011 6:17 pm	MaxAstro	Note Added: 0008294
Jan 11, 2011 6:20 pm	MaxAstro	Note Edited: 0008294	View Revisions
Jan 11, 2011 6:24 pm	lyravega	Note Added: 0008296
Jan 11, 2011 6:25 pm	x4000	Note Added: 0008297
Jan 11, 2011 6:26 pm	lyravega	Note Edited: 0008296	View Revisions
Jan 11, 2011 6:29 pm	TechSY730	Note Added: 0008299
Jan 11, 2011 7:02 pm	x4000	Note Added: 0008305
Jan 11, 2011 7:03 pm	TechSY730	Note Added: 0008306
Jan 11, 2011 7:34 pm	x4000	Note Added: 0008309
Jan 11, 2011 7:45 pm	TechSY730	Note Added: 0008313
Jan 11, 2011 7:49 pm	x4000	Note Added: 0008314

Relationships