Cruiser Command

slapshot wrote:

Dreadnought wrote:Energy....battlecruisers tend to die before energy+weapons cap runs out more often then not.

This is due to noobishness/not scouting/being unprepared/etc. - you should not balance the game based off of what occurs in shenanigans

if you die and you still have energy, your power guy sucked. Unless debris.

Im talking about your own power reserves when you kill an enemy BC

Battlecruisers die rather quickly, sometimes within 10-20 seconds. Its a shame building up for 20-30 minutes just to see it all be destroyed within mere seconds. Now making a fight taking forever might get boring (personally i enjoy it when both battlecruisers are out of energy, and are using every trick to get the upper-hand) and it can be boring wailing on a health bag for 3 minutes, but tweaking battles and numbers to favor longer engagements and use more tactics/mechanics to deal that damage and defend against it will promote teamplay.

A large amount of damage comes from lasers and a large amount of defense comes from shields. Shields soak up a lot of damage, and i feel they should just provide some relief to the hull, not be the mechanic that once it goes down, the hull goes down within seconds. I dont have numbers or anything, but im pretty sure that shields soaks more damage then the hull (at 10,000).

DinoChicken wrote:Battlecruisers die rather quickly, sometimes within 10-20 seconds.

lasers at max do 470 DPS, add broads in (but positioning for broads takes another 10 seconds or so) and it does 490, assuming all 5 hit (currently impossible) so just under 1k damage per second (add more if you want missiles/yamato/etc.) - shields start at 1k, and hull starts at 10k - so with max upgrades vs no upgrades (and no raising shields, shield boost, running away, anything), then that is the case - however, that's what you would expect to happen if a team does zero scouting, is caught completely unprepared, and is completely un-upgraded - why should it be any different?

as for shields soaking more damage than the hull, it depends on the energy mostly (excluding this like chroniton)

Okay, I think the big problem here is that I throughout the years have changed my opinion on the hull mechanics back and forth between "Being able to hull tank instead of shield tanking" and "Having longer battles because there is a lot more hull but it takes much longer to repair".

Unfortunately these two views oppose each other since being able to hull tank would mean that hull damage being persistent wouldn't really work since you would just repair it and no one would ever lose.

Unfortunately again, I've gone back and forth between these things with patches increasing max hull again and again (BCs used to have 1000 hull) and buffing repairs and damage.

There still needs something to be done to hull/shield tanking.
You can tank 10k/25k with hull/shields respectively in the beginning of the game and (10+x)k/37K with hardened shielding maxed.
A surprised team dieing within 10-20 seconds because they cannot raise shields and spend their energy in time makes for really unsatisfying BC battles.

Hence my idea for 20K hull and reduced shield regen/sec from shield gw.

Alternatively you could change the BC lasers base damage, maybe from 12/12 to 12/8 damage. Effectively reducing their hull damage by a third, making them less effective vs BC hull and small ships.

As for your two views: You could add a mechanic of repair kits healing a reduced amount of damage while in combat (or maybe rather the opposite, healing increased amounts of damage out of combat)
That way you can prevent having repairkits heal-tank the BC during an engagement while not having the hull damage be too persistent.

Degra wrote:change the BC lasers base damage, maybe from 12/12 to 12/8 damage.

You could add a mechanic of repair kits healing a reduced amount of damage while in combat (or maybe rather the opposite, healing increased amounts of damage out of combat)

I like these, I suggest implementing the "increased repair" at the cost of dropping shields (i.e. can access the outside of the BC hull easily, no shields in the way of repairs)

I wouldn't mind this one idea tossed around where engines would only drain 25% if no engines were used (and less amount between 0-100% thrusters). We could apply this to shields, if they are not regenerating the shields, then the drain would only be 25%. This would be helpful in the later game as you have energy lying around and usually already have about 100 into shields just in case of emergencies, and you end up raising it to 400 (or more) this way you could just cut down on all that time it takes to raise shields from 0 to 300+
~~Opponents can exploit that mechanic by firing from long range with say...a wraith, and forcing the shields to constantly jump to that 400 amount and drain all the energy

We still need to address the issue that battle-cruisers are very strong vs hangar ships. Like ships dont have that same 'weight' when it comes to damage. From DPS from corvettes vs lasers to burst damage from destroyers vs missiles. Ships are simply cut down by lasers if they aren't behind cover.

I wouldn't mind if we buffed broad-sides and nerfed lasers, so it puts more importance on broadsides being the main DPS against other battlecruisers. What I also like about broadsides is that they are quite skilled base "What DinoChicken? just fire in the the general direction and it will hit" Thats true...but its not optimal, against small ships they will most likely never take more then 1 hit (around 70 damage, as opposed to taking a full penta-burst volley which does easily more damage, even being partially hit), and battlecruisers the best is to get 4 projectiles to hit it, and that is quite difficult (it is possible to get 5 to hit, but you have to turn in the right way, and its very difficult, and throws off your next volley so its not optimal) and even getting 4 projectiles is difficult, you have to position right next to them, as opposed to laser bursts which have a nice range and its easy to get a full hit (even on small ships). Plus wouldn't that make kinetics more viable?

Cruiser command has so many factors you literally have to think of everything...why is it so hard to balance? lol

DinoChicken wrote:I wouldn't mind this one idea tossed around where engines would only drain 25% if no engines were used (and less amount between 0-100% thrusters). We could apply this to shields, if they are not regenerating the shields, then the drain would only be 25%.

post it here then:

http://www.cruisercommand.com/forum/vie ... ?f=8&t=937

this thread is cluttered enough as it is