Stardock

VL and Strip to the Core still ridiculous...

By on July 12, 2012 8:17:15 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Seleuceia

Join Date 01/2008
+202

So here's the problem:  Strip to the Core

The issue is not that it is too easy to get....the issue isn't even really the amount of resources that you get...the problem is that once planets are double stripped to asteroid belts, everyone else is hosed...

Multiple games now I have seen a VL player able to drag games on forever even when massively outnumbered and out done in economy...so long as they have enough fleet to deal with a fully upgraded SB (which is not that hard), all they have to do is jump to a world, eat it, and move on before they get caught...eat it again, and no one can ever colonize it....

Last night I played a 5v5 where 3 of our players got wiped...yet the game still continued for about 6 hours because one of our two players was VL...even with wormholes and 5 fleets in 5 different locations, the other team struggled trying to catch the VL fleet...even with no kostura, the VL can just keep moving moving moving, eating planets and avoiding fleets like none other...

The concept of this strategy is actually quite cool....it is unique, and I think it should stay...the problem is that 2 players can take on 5 will relative ease...

The VL eats planets while the other player just survives...since the VL can be anywhere rather quickly, it is exceptionally hard to wipe the 2nd player...even if 3 or 4 players team up on them, they'll be facing an entrenched player with titan + SB and the VL's orky...oh, and the VL can jump back at any time to assist...if the 5 man team doesn't try to break the entrenched player, they'll just waste time chasing the VL fleet of doom that can be anywhwere, anytime...

Having been on both sides of the issue (facing VL pulling this crap and being allied to VL doing this), I find that it is extremely difficult to counter, especially if players drop....more to the point, any other factions (so not Vasari) stuck in a 2v5 would never come even close to being as succesful as the VL planet eating strategy...when you are the only faction that can handle a 2v5, I think it is fair to say you are OP...and heavne forbid if 2 VLs tagged teamed and stripped the galaxy...

So, how does this get fixed?  I think the solution is actually quite simple: Stripped to the core does not remove the ability to colonize...

I suggest that when a planet is stripped (Terran, desert, ice, volcanic, moon), it becomes an asteroid (not dead)...if an asteroid, dead asteroid, or pirate base are stripped, the entity simply stays the same....this is extremely easy to implement and requires no engine changes, just entity file changes...if you remove the effect and give no resources, "Stripping" an asteroid, dead asteroid, or pirate base basically is just like normal disbanding (only difference is a string saying you are stripping)...

How does this solve the problem?  Well, the players still have asteroids to colonize, and therefore still can stay in the game just fine...since the VL won't be able to guard each and every asteroid, the attrition strategy doesn't work out when seriously outnumbered...when the teams are equal, Stripping is still an effective strategy...if slighlty outnumbered, stripping can really wittle the enemy down via attrition and pull an underdog victory...but if the game keeps dragging on, the VL can eventually be brought down since the enemy will always be able to have something to colonize and build structures on...

As a last comment, I think it is crucial planets strip to asteroid instead of dead asteroid...right now the dead asteroid is basically almost as bad as asteroid belts (though it still makes it hard to actually wipe a player) and furthermore, it seriously biases the late game against Advent...TEC have development mandate and can build units via SBs, but Advent can't do anything....

92 Replies
Search this post
Subscription Options


Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
July 12, 2012 10:26:04 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Anyway you are all missing the point here...the issue is that Stripped is still OP, and I'm providing a solution that is easy to implement, requires no engine changes, and doesn't make the ability worthless....

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
July 12, 2012 10:31:11 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

I am aware that you didn't win, as I said. Ideal conditions is what I am talking about here. In florida 70 mph does not always 70. Its standard. In an ideal environment you all would of expanded evenly with the same planet types, with the same amount of extractors, with a perfectly balanced matchup. And Advent player who sees that he is against a VL should be able to prepare I am aware that the other team may not have stood a chance but the magic of RTS is skill takes a huge part in this game.

 

Unfortunately this game never has ideal matchups because of the nature of random maps.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
July 12, 2012 11:34:40 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

I understand the point. SttC still OPed. But now at least it doesn't come until the endgame, after players have a chance to gang kill the VL player first. I believe the Devs know this already too.

I would not mind it if some races were better then other in the endgame, if another was better early game. Regardless, it does seem there are now with the SttC moved to tier 8 more options on limiting the VL -- he can't get OPed until the end. Same story with the VR I would think.

I would approve of your suggestion though. Other possible alterations to your idea, Planets do get stripped to extractors or dead asteroid, but regular asteroids/pirates can never be stripped (or rather stripped but no income no planet type change). Or planets go to asteroids, asteroids stay as asteroids, and dead/pirates goes to extractors (which is what VL love).

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
July 12, 2012 11:55:47 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting CoronalFire,
I understand the point. SttC still OPed. But now at least it doesn't come until the endgame, after players have a chance to gang kill the VL player first. I believe the Devs know this already too.

It was not end game when I got Strip. 7 labs is not that difficult to get if you pressure right.

Quoting CoronalFire,
I would not mind it if some races were better then other in the endgame, if another was better early game. Regardless, it does seem there are now with the SttC moved to tier 8 more options on limiting the VL -- he can't get OPed until the end. Same story with the VR I would think.

This may or may not be apparent to all but it takes 7 physical labs to get SttC assuming you still have your free capital ship alive with a tier 8 cost.

Quoting CoronalFire,
I would approve of your suggestion though. Other possible alterations to your idea, Planets do get stripped to extractors or dead asteroid, but regular asteroids/pirates can never be stripped (or rather stripped but no income no planet type change). Or planets go to asteroids, asteroids stay as asteroids, and dead/pirates goes to extractors (which is what VL love).

I'm ok with stripping to regular asteroids and not allowing these to be stripped further to dead or asteroid belts. I still feel SttC should be reduced by fleet supply making the opportunity cost of increasing fleet supply an actual consideration.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
July 13, 2012 6:35:36 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Firstly, I second any change that makes SttC-income subject to taxation.

Secondly, another proposition: Instead of changing the "residual planet type" of stripped asteroids to avoid the problem of denying everybody its resources, I would take a different route.

Stripping normal planets is more or less fine, an Asteroid is still something one can put some stuff on and mine its resources. (Are both asteroid types stripped down to belts, btw?)

Asteroid Belts are the real problem. Changing the planet type to Asteroid Belt without changing the extractors to be capturable is what denies everyone else their resources.

It's a lot of guessing from my side now, but I'd say if everyone was able to capture those neutral extractors the VL would be hard pressed to deny the other players access to all those resources. He could choose to send scouts everywhere and recapture them but those could easily be intercepted. If he sends more than scouts, all the more reason for his enemies to intercept (or evade?) him. 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
July 13, 2012 7:15:53 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting vyolin,
Firstly, I second any change that makes SttC-income subject to taxation.

I actually am strongly against this...taxing the income would make SttC falll apart as a viable strategy late game...now, maybe the amount of resources you get is too much, but I don't think it should be taxed...

Making it harder to strip (maybe it takes longer or something) I am okay with, because then you at least have to hold the planet while it strips instead of running and moving on while the 60 second countdown to oodles of resources ticks....

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
July 13, 2012 9:02:34 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting Seleuceia,


I actually am strongly against this...taxing the income would make SttC falll apart as a viable strategy late game...now, maybe the amount of resources you get is too much, but I don't think it should be taxed...

Making it harder to strip (maybe it takes longer or something) I am okay with, because then you at least have to hold the planet while it strips instead of running and moving on while the 60 second countdown to oodles of resources ticks....

 

I second that.  Taxation should not occur on the striped resources. I think planets going down to a minimum of an asteroid is a fine idea.  It prevents the galaxy from turning into a dead zone.

 

 

Oh, and Sel, you missed the reason it worked for your 2v5... you had a zombie doing what zombies do best 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
July 13, 2012 9:20:59 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Firstly, if you are only looking for a solution with minimal effort involved I second your suggestions. 

 

In the long run, though...

I would prefer it if SttC would be available much earlier, say T2, with 20-30% of its current income. At T4, T6, T8 I would increase salvaging returns by 20% each. Thus SttC would be viable at any stage of the game. Additionally I would like to see the income and scuttle time be proportional to planet health. (Lore justification: Some sort of infrastructure needs to be in place before efficiently running such an operation. Blah.)

In addition to this I would like the Asteroid Belts created by SttC to be fixed, as stated above. So SttC leaves either an Asteroid with minimum production capabilities or an Asteroid Belt with high extractor income, as the standard ones have. Correcting this would do a lot to help fixing this imbalance, I think. 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
July 13, 2012 10:00:03 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting vyolin,
Firstly, if you are only looking for a solution with minimal effort involved I second your suggestions. 

 

In the long run, though...

I would prefer it if SttC would be available much earlier, say T2, with 20-30% of its current income. At T4, T6, T8 I would increase salvaging returns by 20% each. Thus SttC would be viable at any stage of the game. Additionally I would like to see the income and scuttle time be proportional to planet health. (Lore justification: Some sort of infrastructure needs to be in place before efficiently running such an operation. Blah.)

In addition to this I would like the Asteroid Belts created by SttC to be fixed, as stated above. So SttC leaves either an Asteroid with minimum production capabilities or an Asteroid Belt with high extractor income, as the standard ones have. Correcting this would do a lot to help fixing this imbalance, I think. 

Worst idea ever. And I'm not even trolling.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
July 13, 2012 10:12:08 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting Mecha-Lenin,

Worst idea ever. And I'm not even trolling.

Care to elaborate? 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
July 13, 2012 10:25:41 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting vyolin,

Quoting Mecha-Lenin, reply 35
Worst idea ever. And I'm not even trolling.

Care to elaborate? 

This whole topic has been discussing how just the planet-denial components makes Strip OP, and you're suggesting to make it available earlier with no limitations on that part.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
July 13, 2012 11:04:48 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

You did read on after this, didn't you? It's not like I didn't propose any means to balance it out...

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
July 13, 2012 11:26:12 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting Seleuceia,

Quoting vyolin, reply 31Firstly, I second any change that makes SttC-income subject to taxation.

I actually am strongly against this...taxing the income would make SttC falll apart as a viable strategy late game...now, maybe the amount of resources you get is too much, but I don't think it should be taxed...

Making it harder to strip (maybe it takes longer or something) I am okay with, because then you at least have to hold the planet while it strips instead of running and moving on while the 60 second countdown to oodles of resources ticks....

 

I strong disagree with your strongly against and raise it with an explanation. 

Consider the games earn rates aren't statically set to what they are now when STTC observes fleet upkeep. The original values for STTC where actually 33% higher than they are now. 

Also assuming STTC and Civilian Evacuations are affected by income speeds the values would be much lower on slow game speeds and comparable to what they where on faster game speeds. Normal STTC values would need to be decreased quite a bit more, but the faster 75% modifier should put the strip values somewhere between where they are currently and what they used to be basically. Also evacuations would probably end up in the 3.5 range again on faster.

Also consider most Vasari players do NOT go full mobile during the game. This means they are drawing capital planet income, extractor income, Evacuations income and stripping income. 

By having STTC affected by fleet upkeep players would need to account for fleet size when determining their stripping strategy. Considering most MP games end up with fleets around the 4-6 lab slots this would result in a taxation of 38/47/56%. 

Having STTC observe fleet upkeep would add "skill" to the equation by adding more variables to consider. It also does NOT make STTC fall apart as a viable late game strategy. You would need to consider simply if fleeting up to the full 2000 supply is worth the opportunity cost to future stripping to MAINTAIN that fleet level (75% upkeep). 

This is an important balance mechanism of the game that should be taken into account for stripping.

 

Also, the idea of stripping down to asteroids only makes Vasari Loyals earning potential even more problematic. Dead asteroids is probably the better option so the VL player can't plop down 3 trade ports after stripping the planet.

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
July 13, 2012 11:31:22 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Not saying this is the fix but doesn't culture prevent SttC? Couldn't you use that to slow it down and catch the VL fleet or pressure them to move on?

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
July 13, 2012 11:33:06 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting vyolin,

Quoting Mecha-Lenin, reply 35
Worst idea ever. And I'm not even trolling.

Care to elaborate? 

 

He can't. Otherwise he'd lose his reputation as a troll.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
July 13, 2012 11:41:33 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting SteelFin,
Not saying this is the fix but doesn't culture prevent SttC? Couldn't you use that to slow it down and catch the VL fleet or pressure them to move on?

No, culture can't prevent SttC. It doesn't even really delay it currently because most VL players have LOTS of capital ships which repel culture in neutral gravity wells.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
July 13, 2012 11:42:18 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting SteelFin,
Not saying this is the fix but doesn't culture prevent SttC? Couldn't you use that to slow it down and catch the VL fleet or pressure them to move on?

 

Only in theory, since a VL normally has enough capitals to overcome culture. 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
July 13, 2012 11:47:38 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting SteelFin,
Not saying this is the fix but doesn't culture prevent SttC? Couldn't you use that to slow it down and catch the VL fleet or pressure them to move on?

Much of the VL gameplay centers on large amounts of cap ships. And since each cap ship repels culture, a mobile VL fleet essentially acts as a giant battalion of culture generators that only effects the gravity well that it's located in. 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
July 13, 2012 12:27:42 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting ZombiesRus5,

Quoting Seleuceia, reply 32
Quoting vyolin, reply 31Firstly, I second any change that makes SttC-income subject to taxation.

I actually am strongly against this...taxing the income would make SttC falll apart as a viable strategy late game...now, maybe the amount of resources you get is too much, but I don't think it should be taxed...

Making it harder to strip (maybe it takes longer or something) I am okay with, because then you at least have to hold the planet while it strips instead of running and moving on while the 60 second countdown to oodles of resources ticks....

 

I strong disagree with your strongly against and raise it with an explanation. 

Consider the games earn rates aren't statically set to what they are now when STTC observes fleet upkeep. The original values for STTC where actually 33% higher than they are now. 

Also assuming STTC and Civilian Evacuations are affected by income speeds the values would be much lower on slow game speeds and comparable to what they where on faster game speeds. Normal STTC values would need to be decreased quite a bit more, but the faster 75% modifier should put the strip values somewhere between where they are currently and what they used to be basically. Also evacuations would probably end up in the 3.5 range again on faster.

Also consider most Vasari players do NOT go full mobile during the game. This means they are drawing capital planet income, extractor income, Evacuations income and stripping income. 

By having STTC affected by fleet upkeep players would need to account for fleet size when determining their stripping strategy. Considering most MP games end up with fleets around the 4-6 lab slots this would result in a taxation of 38/47/56%. 

Having STTC observe fleet upkeep would add "skill" to the equation by adding more variables to consider. It also does NOT make STTC fall apart as a viable late game strategy. You would need to consider simply if fleeting up to the full 2000 supply is worth the opportunity cost to future stripping to MAINTAIN that fleet level (75% upkeep). 

This is an important balance mechanism of the game that should be taken into account for stripping.

 

Also, the idea of stripping down to asteroids only makes Vasari Loyals earning potential even more problematic. Dead asteroids is probably the better option so the VL player can't plop down 3 trade ports after stripping the planet.

 

 

Yeap that's what I was thinking about taxing it. If after taxation it is overall too weak, bump it up as previous levels were.

Good point about the asteroid, hadn't thought of that. Sel was pointing out that if all you essentially had were dead asteroids, it's no good to Advent but still somewhat good to TEC with development  mandate and SBs that produce frigates. Basically, the Advent are far more addicted to planets then even the TEC.

The extractors on belts aren't captureable?! That's just weird.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
July 13, 2012 1:55:36 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Zombie: good point regarding the VL still being able to place trade ports.

Here's a stipulation that might help: stripping requires the presence of friendly culture at the planet.

Perhaps even make the planet have to be at it's maximum allegiance before allowing stripping.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
July 13, 2012 2:43:22 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

I dont like the whole idea that one player can make so drastic permanent changes to the game map, to the point of basically ruining it.

 

If its going to be kept, then it needs to be a channeled ability with enough time to make it possible for others to stop it, and there should be a warning that would highlight the planet when SttC is initiated.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
July 13, 2012 2:43:24 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Don't care for that allegiance idea. Then VL would have to start stripping their own worlds.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
July 13, 2012 3:24:23 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Well, I made my case. 

The game mechanic is already in place to have income speeds and fleet upkeep. It's not anything really new and would be understandable by most players. The idea that it would falter as an end game strategy is flawed too as you are denying players of key assets and destroying any remaining infrastructure, plus getting credits and resources for a planet you might not have been able to keep. It also adds skill as more of a factor on determining when and what to strip and how big you should get during the process.

Don't forget Vasari don't need protection when Stripping! This means most of Vasari's stripping tips get put into ships and research.

It's a simple change that could really help balance out a faction that is much closer to balance than the VR is currently.

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
July 13, 2012 3:24:55 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Since we seem to be making suggestions now, I might as well link to my original topic: http://forums.sinsofasolarempire.com/427264

 

Most relevant would be the combination of increased time and about 50% planetary HP reduction & no HP regen.  For a newly colonized world in enemy territory, this would mean you just have to get ships into siege range to decolonize, since it would only have 25-150 HP.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
July 13, 2012 3:34:34 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting Tohron,
Since we seem to be making suggestions now, I might as well link to my original topic: http://forums.sinsofasolarempire.com/427264

 

Most relevant would be the combination of increased time and about 50% planetary HP reduction & no HP regen.  For a newly colonized world in enemy territory, this would mean you just have to get ships into siege range to decolonize, since it would only have 25-150 HP.

I just don't like ideas that require me to reach around my head to scratch my a** to make it work.

I do think strip time needs to take longer than the current time to scuttle though. It should at a minimum take long enough that a player can bomb a newly captured planet before STTC completes.

I'd prefer a unit or structure be required to perform the strip so it's evident and counterable, but I'm working towards what the devs might be able to do versus what I'd like at this point. 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Stardock Forums v1.0.0.0    #108433  walnut3   Server Load Time: 00:00:00.0001016   Page Render Time:
Facebook Twitter YouTube Google+