Scripting & Balancing • Re: Are carriers too cheap?

...

I think Wobbly's point (Wobbly, correct me if I am wrong) was that comsats-for-chaff are no longer a concern and there is no point on pondering how rebalancing flux lance could break that.

if comsats-for-chaff are no longer a concern, i think the discounted approach for better flux tech is valid (although i am not sure we support valuerefs for ship part cost yet). also, orthogonal to that one could make it heavier (more damage/more PP)

adding a lance to a hulls with weapons would probably fall out of fashion with the different parts-types design simplicity anyway.

here's the original reasoning for the RP costs; oberlus upped those to accomodate for influence scaling (insert link here)if the cheap upgrades are the problem - how about upping research cost for 2nd fighter tech to about halfway to laser-3 ? something like 120-160 RP? and the other levels accordingly fighter 3 500RP; fighter 4 2.3k; That is about 50% more expensive to research. I dont think the first tech needs to be more expensive - mass drivers come already unlocked. And 2xMD4 + 1 flak is better combat value than 2 basic strikers hangars and 3 launch bays (and the same PP price).

Re adjusting fighter damage: screws the balance in the later game(plasma/DR) where they are balanced(probably?, maybe?). I suspect you'd have to increase the steps at fighter 3 and 4 for this.

Hm I think you suggested upping the price? That also changes balance for early game as well as late game.

Maybe you could describe the problem more thoroughly? Like which level of fighters is the biggest problem

Statistics: Posted by Ophiuchus — Tue May 07, 2024 12:12 pm

---