Carriers: Is perfect balance a bad idea?

from Sins Forums

After some long thought about the carrier and strikecraft, I have come to the conclusion that perhaps we should leave well enough alone for now.  This is why.

This assumption *IS* debatable, but for the sake of argument, let's say that carriers are currently "slightly OP" (many would say they aren't, and that's fine).  This is why I have concluded that it's actually desirable:  It doesn't make good sense to *PERFECTLY* balance a game like Sins which has multiple tech levels, because there is no incentive to risk going up the tech tree if there is perfect balance.

For instance, let's take SIns, but with NO tech tree.  Then you can try to have perfect balance amongst the units, with no one unit "slightly OP."  In this circumstance, a light frig can counter a carrier, which can counter a long range frig, which can counter a light frig.  Your opponent spams long range missle frigs?  Fine, you spam carriers with fighters.  Everything equal, everything balanced.

Now, re-introduce the tech tree.  The units are still perfectly balanced.  However, to get carriers to combat lrm frigs, you now have to drop labs and tech up.  This costs money.  It costs time.  It is a risk, period.  In an objective evaluation, you simply don't do it.  So you counter his lrm frigs with your own lrm frigs.  If he ever goes carriers, you go light frig, and you counter him without ever having to tech up yourself.  He put all his money into expensive units (drone hosts), which means if he loses 1, he loses a significant chunk of change.  You put your money into cheap, expendable units.  If you lose 1, you don't care.  He dropped labs and paid for research.  You didn't.  He took all the risk, he made all the hard choices, while you made none.  This is a recipe for no one ever teching to higher tier units.  It is a recipe for lrm and light frig spam exclusively.  It is a recipe for BOREDOM.

The point is, higher tech units should be a little "OP" compared to lower tech units.  It should be harder to counter higher tech units with lower tech units.  Otherwise there is no incentive to tech up.  Where there is risk, there should be reward.  If you take the risk of teching up, and you succeed, there should be potential reward.  This doesn't mean that you just get to wipe the map.  But it might mean you should have a little edge.

Going on this rationale, it probably makes more sense to "truly" counter higher tech units with other higher tech units.  In other words, the "good" counter to carriers should perhaps be heavy cruisers, or other types of cruisers (I'm not saying this is currently the case, I'm saying perhaps it SHOULD be the case).  Now, there should still be a "poor man's counter" - the light frigate.  It just shouldn't be as easy or effective a counter as a higher tech counter.

If the carrier is currently "OP," I submit that it is probably close to that "sweet spot" of being "slightly OP."  It certainly is not grotesquely OP.  If a nerf is forthcoming due to all the complaints, it will likely knock the carrier off the "sweet spot," and may even knock it off of "usable at all."

Discussion question:  Does it make sense that higher tech units should be "slightly OP" over lower tech units?  Let some of the smarter people answer here.  Tell me how I'm right or wrong.

Poll question:  Should carriers be left alone for the time being?  Should a "truce" be declared on any potential nerfs until a good deal more thought has gone into the matter?

8,932 views 13 replies
Reply #1 from Sins Forums Top

Hey Agent - interesting thoughts there.

As far as your discussion question, that seems to make sense to me.  Higher tech units should be a little "OP" compared to lower tech ones.  Or, at least they should provide some capability that lower tech ones don't.  I can't find anything wrong with this logic, currently.

On the poll question, I'll vote on "moratorium to nerfs" until a good deal more thought and play testing has gone into the matter.

Reply #2 from Stardock Forums Top

However, to get carriers to combat lrm frigs, you now have to drop labs and tech up. 
End of quote

but for advent atleast isnt the long range friget a tier up from the carrier

TouchTasks - Access tasks with ease on Windows touchscreens.
Reply #3 from Sins Forums Top

Discussion question: Does it make sense that higher tech units should be "slightly OP" over lower tech units? Let some of the smarter people answer here. Tell me how I'm right or wrong.

Poll question: Should carriers be left alone for the time being? Should a "truce" be declared on any potential nerfs until a good deal more thought has gone into the matter?
End of quote

Higher tech should be OP to low tech. I would like to look at leaving the carriers powered as is but maybe, maybe, maybe adjusting where it is on the tech tree. Perhaps bump it up a bit. No one complains about the Novalith Cannon but if it were a tech 4 or 5 instead of tech 8 and a whole bunch of research then people would.

I hope we can wait a bit on any adjustments. I'd like to see some dev experiments with the carriers to truly test if they are as OP as some are thinking.

IMO carriers should be fast. Carriers were some of the fastest ships in WWII. Carriers SC should have powerfull DP because carrier airpower is what made battleships obsolete. I do not know what the HP or shields should be to make it comparable but they were not weak ships. Some took temendous damage. WWII carriers did have many AAA guns so it would not be out of the question to give them flak guns.

But that's all speculative. I say truce.

Now I know why the devs refuse to put carriers in Galactic Civilizations II. :D

Reply #4 from Sins Forums Top

I don't complain against carrier like they are in entrenchment then it's ok for me..:)

Reply #5 from Sins Forums Top

How long would this "Twlight Period" be?

I think its a excuse to never change the Carrier at all. Do the research now and get it done. People need to seize the day and ATTEMPT to solve the problem. I would agree with Agent if we were talking about major changes to the carrier but we're not.

-A 15% decrease in shields and hull points - A speed decrease of 20% -Increase the build time for replaced SC from 10/15 sec (it is now) to 45 seconds

Start with that, it is perfectly reasonable way to start. 

Reply #6 from Sins Forums Top

Are you asking for ALL those changes?  Or just giving examples of some?  Because if you're saying all of them, that's a BIG nerf to the carriers.

But I don't play MP so I don't know what goes on there.

Reply #7 from Sins Forums Top

Obviously just some. 

Reply #8 from Stardock Forums Top

Does it make sense that higher tech units should be "slightly OP" over lower tech units?
End of quote

In my opinion, no.

Or, at least they should provide some capability that lower tech ones don't.
End of quote

That's better.

Personally, I much prefer games that find ways to keep units useful at all stages of a given game and Sins tries, I think effectively, to do that by adding abilities in the tech-tree to lower tier units.  If units are simply left to a scale of X is better than Y, then spam ensues and I don't think anyone wants that to be the norm. 

Should carriers be left alone for the time being?
End of quote

I have my feelings on the way that flaks and carriers interact with each other (for a ship that exists solely to mitigate the damage of carriers, I don't think it does an effective enough job) but yes.  I think there's a lot of knee-jerking going on with the reactions around here and some more time for actual data parsing probably should be allowed.  How much?  Damned if I know.   

Reply #9 from Sins Forums Top

Obviously.

Just list the changes and the readers will just know that I don't mean all of the counters I listed, just some of them. You know, the ones I believe are actually required. Which isn't actually all of them, even though Isaid "Start with that..."

Seems LOGICAL to me....

Reply #10 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting CreditSuisse, reply 5
How long would this "Twlight Period" be?

I think its a excuse to never change the Carrier at all. Do the research now and get it done. People need to seize the day and ATTEMPT to solve the problem. I would agree with Agent if we were talking about major changes to the carrier but we're not.

-A 15% decrease in shields and hull points - A speed decrease of 20% -Increase the build time for replaced SC from 10/15 sec (it is now) to 45 seconds

Start with that, it is perfectly reasonable way to start. 
End of CreditSuisse's quote

CreditSuisse - don't know if you know this or not, but the new Entrenchment has some nerfs to carriers.  One is something to the order of 50% reduction in speed of building strikecraft when enemies are around (I tried a test game and saw the penalty functioning when I clicked on a ship).  If there are to be nerfs (and my contention above is that there should be a moritorium on them at this point), then this is they way to go.  Nothing drastic, just a slight tweak to see what happens to balance.  All the nerfs you listed above would be too drastic to do all at once, I think.

 

Reply #11 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting Agent, reply 10

Quoting CreditSuisse, reply 5How long would this "Twlight Period" be?

I think its a excuse to never change the Carrier at all. Do the research now and get it done. People need to seize the day and ATTEMPT to solve the problem. I would agree with Agent if we were talking about major changes to the carrier but we're not.

-A 15% decrease in shields and hull points - A speed decrease of 20% -Increase the build time for replaced SC from 10/15 sec (it is now) to 45 seconds

Start with that, it is perfectly reasonable way to start. 
CreditSuisse - don't know if you know this or not, but the new Entrenchment has some nerfs to carriers.  One is something to the order of 50% reduction in speed of building strikecraft when enemies are around (I tried a test game and saw the penalty functioning when I clicked on a ship).  If there are to be nerfs (and my contention above is that there should be a moritorium on them at this point), then this is they way to go.  Nothing drastic, just a slight tweak to see what happens to balance.  All the nerfs you listed above would be too drastic to do all at once, I think.

 
End of Agent's quote

I believe the reduction was 75%, but the skrimish lasted so short that I wasn't sure if the 'host under attack' effected stacked on top of it or if it's the 'enemy present in the well' effect alone.

Reply #12 from Stardock Forums Top

i think its best if some units are moar OP in certian situation

that makes it so that players can find what works and works best for them making it so that things are intresting

however it should be limited or harder to accoplish atleast otherwise you still get people all doing the same thing again

Reply #13 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting Shadowhal, reply 11

Quoting Agent of Kharma, reply 10
Quoting CreditSuisse, reply 5How long would this "Twlight Period" be?

I think its a excuse to never change the Carrier at all. Do the research now and get it done. People need to seize the day and ATTEMPT to solve the problem. I would agree with Agent if we were talking about major changes to the carrier but we're not.

-A 15% decrease in shields and hull points - A speed decrease of 20% -Increase the build time for replaced SC from 10/15 sec (it is now) to 45 seconds

Start with that, it is perfectly reasonable way to start. 
CreditSuisse - don't know if you know this or not, but the new Entrenchment has some nerfs to carriers.  One is something to the order of 50% reduction in speed of building strikecraft when enemies are around (I tried a test game and saw the penalty functioning when I clicked on a ship).  If there are to be nerfs (and my contention above is that there should be a moritorium on them at this point), then this is they way to go.  Nothing drastic, just a slight tweak to see what happens to balance.  All the nerfs you listed above would be too drastic to do all at once, I think.

 
I believe the reduction was 75%, but the skrimish lasted so short that I wasn't sure if the 'host under attack' effected stacked on top of it or if it's the 'enemy present in the well' effect alone.
End of Shadowhal's quote

just for correction: I was wrong there. it does not reduce by 75% but to 75%. those 75% get further reduced by 50% if the host carrier is under attack, making it stuck at 38% build rate (at least in the infocard, it's probably rather 37.5%). only light carriers are affected, starbases, hangars and capships only suffer the 50% penalty when being attack, which was in place beforehand anyway.