An Improvement to Corvettes

This is where the best suggestions are moved to, so discussion can carry on with moderation and be more easily read by the volunteers and development team.

Moderator: Support Moderators

Forum rules
Opening new topics in this forum is not possible, you may only reply to existing topics.

Only users with 50 or more posts can reply to topics.

This forum is moderated, so any posts will have to be approved by a moderator before being published.
User avatar
Carolus Rex
Addicted Member
Addicted Member
Posts: 4778
Joined: Sat 02 Feb, 2008 12:44
Reputation: 111
Guild: A : TTS
A : X.ORG
Galaxy: Alpha

Re: An Improvement to Corvettes

Postby Carolus Rex » Sat 26 May, 2012 13:53

The One wrote:I'd like to know if the devs are even considering this, I have been building my vetts up in anticipation. I think it's good, however, What about the destroyer? Speaking logically, A destroyer should have hangar space, especially if it's twice as costly as the vett. giving the destroyer 2 hangar space though... Hmmm.... Heavy bombers away!


Giving DE hangars would kill FR speccers. Atleast CVs cant shoot bigger HC stacks effectively.

Simcity
User avatar
Ron Burgandy
Silver Member
Silver Member
Posts: 728
Joined: Fri 02 Jul, 2010 14:11
Reputation: 12
Guild: Ceti:ASG
Galaxy: Ceti

Re: An Improvement to Corvettes

Postby Ron Burgandy » Thu 07 Jun, 2012 23:25

Ancient Emperor wrote:
Giving DE hangars would kill FR speccers. Atleast CVs cant shoot bigger HC stacks effectively.

no it wouldn't, vettes attack is higher than HC shields. The first unit to be able to shield rape vettes are battleships.

Having said that, vettes with hanger spaces is a terrible idea.

...lol plus why should i tell you?? your the one who wants to jump in and bite the lion on the nuts
I may not be active, but I am watching ... Always watching :twisted:
User avatar
Wlerin
Addicted Member
Addicted Member
Posts: 19405
Joined: Mon 08 Dec, 2008 23:35
Reputation: 584
Guild: L:[USSV]
P:[AKB48]
A2:[(-o-)]
Location: Gondolin

Re: An Improvement to Corvettes

Postby Wlerin » Thu 14 Jun, 2012 16:18

Base vette attack is equal to HC shields. While Laser will nearly always be higher than shielding, HC are still going to be resilient to attack from vette stacks unless dramatically outnumbered. HC can "rape" vettes in the same way Cruisers can "rape" fighters, given enough of a tech and size difference.

Having said that, yes, Battleships are the first unit to be able to effectively rape corvettes, just as Dreadnoughts are the first to be able to effectively rape Frigates. As I've said before in this thread, an increase in the number of corvette fleets in use would lead to a surge in the popularity of battleships, just as the surge in frigate use eventually led to an increase in dread specs.

And if battleships become more popular, the dominance of cap fleets in blob wars might be lessened. Might be.

User avatar
ViG90
Addicted Member
Addicted Member
Posts: 7798
Joined: Mon 16 Feb, 2009 06:25
Reputation: 193
Guild: SHLD
Galaxy: Alpha
Location: 0010110001100110101

Re: An Improvement to Corvettes

Postby ViG90 » Mon 29 Oct, 2012 08:46

cool idea but i would be shocked to see it done. not cuz it is a bad idea but change seems to be very difficult to implement around here

~diplo of SHLD~
Image
Uncle Ben wrote:ViG90. Notorious conversation killer since 1981.
User avatar
crusaderknight
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 105
Joined: Fri 24 Jun, 2011 18:11
Reputation: 3
Guild: NeM on Delta
Galaxy: Delta

Re: An Improvement to Corvettes

Postby crusaderknight » Wed 31 Oct, 2012 03:07

ViG90 wrote:cool idea but i would be shocked to see it done. Not cuz it is a bad idea but change seems to be very difficult to implement around here

The only reason that things seem to be "very difficult to implement" is due to the fact that they go through a rigorous process and are looked over multiple times.
Code has to be written, fixed, written again and so on. (Don't quote me on that) but it seems like A.E. does what's best, but each idea has to be implemented one step at a time. And we can't forget that there is not just one F.R. being looked at right now. There are a couple things being chosen for the betterment of the game at one single time.

On this vette matter, however, I kind of like "not" having fighters on them. They are fast and small. Implementing a fighter would just seem to add to an already specifically used ship. In great numbers, "GREAT numbers" they can be useful for fast action response and fighters would just allow their use to be spread even more. I just feel like this would give the vette to much power. Just my opinion though. :mrgreen:

Thanks,
Crusader
User avatar
Sandcastle Smasher
Addicted Member
Addicted Member
Posts: 5237
Joined: Fri 20 Mar, 2009 00:23
Reputation: 179
Guild: L: [USSV]
O: [DNA]
Location: Bulgaria

Re: An Improvement to Corvettes

Postby Sandcastle Smasher » Mon 04 Feb, 2013 15:54

Curious to know if this would cause imbalance at the start of the server.

Server starts are usually
Rush a few CV until you can get FR
Then rush FR (until you can get CA - Optional)

I know that they would not replace FR (FR stay useful in killing defenses up to photon even after you stop using them as carriers) but would it not making profiteering at the start of the server even more well.... profitable?
When making a hit you would usually lose maybe... 10 CV you would lose half of that and some FT. If im not mistaken it would be 5 CV and 10FT rather than 10CV, credit difference being 150/200. It doesn't sound like a lot but that means you have 5 more CV to use right after that hit. When one of the only limiting factors at the start of the server is how fast you can replace your CV after each hit it would make repeated hits far far easier. Sounds like a good thing until you realise it can mean that players are effectively taken out of the running if hit multiple times in the first few hours with more hits and profit going to the attackers.

I hate to make the point but couldnt this unbalance the game at the start of the server on the side of the more experienced players far far more than it already is? Only chance the lower level players have is being too unprofitable to hit allowing them to get the hang of the game but if you can hit for 75% less losses and as everyone knows that profit on this game is nigh on exponential it would just further increase the gap between the newer players and the older ones.
Before the "well new players should try older servers first" argument, everyone has to do a newstart server at some point if they ever want to advance into more professorial company.

Sammael wrote:I wish I were allowed to just straight up ban people for no reason
Typhus wrote:So braver is moe?
BaNeth wrote:You silly vacation seldon ;)
TheVoice wrote:In Communist Lyra, Seldon blame you
User avatar
Bruskie
Volunteer
Volunteer
Posts: 3925
Joined: Wed 31 Oct, 2007 20:45
Reputation: 171
Guild: [Bruskie]
Galaxy: Alpha

Re: An Improvement to Corvettes

Postby Bruskie » Mon 04 Feb, 2013 20:16

Somewhere in this thread I saw some mention of 0.5 hanger CVs - which would be kind of neat (or I'm remembering a different thread completely), but I'll address the question raised by SCS.

While you are correct in saying the losses would equate to 150 instead of 200 credits you did not factor in the fact that total fleet size has now increased by 25% (10 FTs + 10 CV to carry) for a 25% decrease in losses (you had said 75% fewer losses but I expect this was simply poorly worded and you meant your losses were reduced to 75% or 'original').

You have now netted out at +5 CVs, this is correct, but in order to continue to gain the loss decrease you need to not only produce, but also collect, FTs from your bases. I believe this will mitigate most of the concern that you are raising of people getting hit too often at the start of a server to grow/play/learn.

the broken wrote:go back to planning to back stab someone else, ur guild should never have been trusted or allowed to rebuild to where they are now

Callum wrote:This thread is Bruskie's fault. Backstabbing whore.

~Soiling threads since 2012~
User avatar
Sandcastle Smasher
Addicted Member
Addicted Member
Posts: 5237
Joined: Fri 20 Mar, 2009 00:23
Reputation: 179
Guild: L: [USSV]
O: [DNA]
Location: Bulgaria

Re: An Improvement to Corvettes

Postby Sandcastle Smasher » Tue 05 Feb, 2013 08:46

Bruskie wrote:Somewhere in this thread I saw some mention of 0.5 hanger CVs - which would be kind of neat (or I'm remembering a different thread completely), but I'll address the question raised by SCS.

While you are correct in saying the losses would equate to 150 instead of 200 credits you did not factor in the fact that total fleet size has now increased by 25% (10 FTs + 10 CV to carry) for a 25% decrease in losses (you had said 75% fewer losses but I expect this was simply poorly worded and you meant your losses were reduced to 75% or 'original').

You have now netted out at +5 CVs, this is correct, but in order to continue to gain the loss decrease you need to not only produce, but also collect, FTs from your bases. I believe this will mitigate most of the concern that you are raising of people getting hit too often at the start of a server to grow/play/learn.



Yes i did mean only 75% as much fleet lost compared to the norm...... Ive worded that badly again T_T
.... well yes you know what i mean.

At the start of the server everyone has fighters on their bases anyway to protect their trades and bases from CV hits so making extra fighters is not much of an issue.
I know that you still have to refill your hanger as you always would but well, look at this little scenario.

You have 50cv carrying 50fighters. You see 2 bases in the same system, both profitable but both with say... missile defense.
Normally you would hit with your 50cv on one of the bases, lose 25 of the CV and not be able to hit the second base.
With the New CV you can hit the first base, lose 12 CV and 25 fighters (losing only 365 compared to 500) and then still have 38cv and 25ft left to hit the second base again for a 12cv loss and 25ft loss. leaving you with 26cv and another 365 loss.
So assuming you are getting a 1k pillage.
Vanilla CVs give 1k profit for 500loss = 2:1 profit
New CVs give 2k profit for 730loss = 3:1 profit
Not only are you making an entire factor more in profit, but you have 1CV extra left over (which sounds like nothing but can add up at the start of the server) your fleet can be put back into fighting shape faster than normal CV (just add FT and they are ready for one more hit. In the scenario given if there were 3 bases all the same in that system the CV/FT could maybe hit all 3 while naked cv could only hit the first).

Now normally a new player would be safe if he put 2 levels of missile on his bases (500loss for 1 missile, 2 missile = 1k loss negating the profit from the hit) but when the loss would only be 730 for a 1k pillage then they would still be profitable unless they put a 3rd level of defenses up. Making less experienced players have to turtle more at the start of the server and further increasing the gap between the fleet rushing pro's and the defensive "noobs".



Now i dont think this is a point that will sink the entire thread but it does seem to be an issue that no one has really brought up. Perhaps at the same time there could be changes made to some of the most basic defenses?
Most players skip barracks and laser turrets because they are completely ineffective compared to Missile turrets. If laser turrets could be given a small boost in damage (just to reset it so CV/FTv LT = same loss as vanilla CV v LT) that would probably negate the change at the start of the server and like the point of the thread, also add a use for a practically unused structure (like previous points about OS and scouts, Barracks are still made for the lulz, there is no love for the laser turret).

Sammael wrote:I wish I were allowed to just straight up ban people for no reason
Typhus wrote:So braver is moe?
BaNeth wrote:You silly vacation seldon ;)
TheVoice wrote:In Communist Lyra, Seldon blame you
User avatar
Khamul Nazgul
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Posts: 2360
Joined: Mon 08 Sep, 2008 10:36
Reputation: 107
Guild: [«o»]
Galaxy: Alpha

Re: An Improvement to Corvettes

Postby Khamul Nazgul » Tue 23 Apr, 2013 15:13

/signed

- Retired Vice Leader of Mordor.
- Retired Guild Master of CRUEL.
User avatar
Tasman
Silver Member
Silver Member
Posts: 652
Joined: Tue 14 Dec, 2010 01:55
Reputation: 23

Re: An Improvement to Corvettes

Postby Tasman » Fri 03 May, 2013 11:13

Just noting, as I realized no one has mentioned this before, CV speed is faster than RCs, so much of the speed advantage would be negated by the need to wait for the RCs to catch up. Of course you can still make the hit quicker, but that would risk leaving the depleted CV fleet sitting on a pile of Derbs waiting for the now "slow assed" RCs. As CVs are used now, the speed difference isn't a big deal, because CV usages are usually not profiteering in nature.

Although for those who think that the concept is overpowered, this might be enough of a disadvantage to slightly rebalance the new CVs.

And I Haven't got the faintest idea about what I'm talking about.
User avatar
Wlerin
Addicted Member
Addicted Member
Posts: 19405
Joined: Mon 08 Dec, 2008 23:35
Reputation: 584
Guild: L:[USSV]
P:[AKB48]
A2:[(-o-)]
Location: Gondolin

Re: An Improvement to Corvettes

Postby Wlerin » Sun 06 Oct, 2013 01:02

I've updated the OP to call for 0.5, rather than 1, hangars, as well as some additional reasoning for it. Should have done this a long, long time ago, but eh.

Avaqian
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 144
Joined: Sun 01 Sep, 2013 18:25
Reputation: 2
Guild: [RL]
[Crack]
Galaxy: Alpha

Re: An Improvement to Corvettes

Postby Avaqian » Sun 06 Oct, 2013 02:11

I don't know if anyone has thought of this before, but this could turn into an anti-cap spec. Ion Bombers. As the update is, even with .5 hangar per corvette, it is still the same cost/hangar ratio as frigates[Edit, no it's not, I can't do math] and corvettes have a better power/cost ratio. Just drop some corvettes on the meatshield (if any is present) of a fleet, then lay down the ion bombers and watch them go to work on capital ships. If you can't find any capital ship specs to eat, you can always have just fighters (or HBs, but if you are doing the above you probably want to keep the amount of techs you have to research to a minimum)

Now, I'd ask to add a change of my own. Not to corvettes (directly), but to recyclers- bump their speed up to 6 or 7. Corvettes still have the option to snipe them, but now aren't so bogged down to have to wait up for recyclers and thus lose speed advantage.

That being said, /agreed

User avatar
Wlerin
Addicted Member
Addicted Member
Posts: 19405
Joined: Mon 08 Dec, 2008 23:35
Reputation: 584
Guild: L:[USSV]
P:[AKB48]
A2:[(-o-)]
Location: Gondolin

Re: An Improvement to Corvettes

Postby Wlerin » Fri 07 Feb, 2014 20:15

Extremely belated:

felipeconqueso wrote:well the author of this thread has obviously never seen a CV swarm. vettes are the second best swarm unit behind FT and with their unmatched speed you can do incredible amounts of damage with enough of them. And giving vettes hagars would make frig stacks useless.

I've now seen a second CV swarm, and as such had reason to run slightly more practical calculations for CV and FR+FT. It is in fact FR+FT which are (currently) the second best swarm spec, as long as they don't run out of fighters. Pure CV are several percent less efficient.

Obviously this change would alter that dynamic.

User avatar
fd4ruleall
Silver Member
Silver Member
Posts: 706
Joined: Fri 23 May, 2008 04:30
Reputation: 17
Guild: N: [WKYSB]
Galaxy: Nova
Location: In yo nightmares. With Bacon

Re: An Improvement to Corvettes

Postby fd4ruleall » Sun 09 Feb, 2014 21:19

Wlerin wrote:Extremely belated:

felipeconqueso wrote:well the author of this thread has obviously never seen a CV swarm. vettes are the second best swarm unit behind FT and with their unmatched speed you can do incredible amounts of damage with enough of them. And giving vettes hagars would make frig stacks useless.

I've now seen a second CV swarm, and as such had reason to run slightly more practical calculations for CV and FR+FT. It is in fact FR+FT which are (currently) the second best swarm spec, as long as they don't run out of fighters. Pure CV are several percent less efficient.

Obviously this change would alter that dynamic.


Out of curiosity and a little bit of laziness, how would your proposed change have the corvettes fall in terms of efficiency?

Theta Xi 'til I die.
User avatar
Xrael
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 352
Joined: Mon 30 Jul, 2012 22:41
Reputation: 30
Guild: [-Min-]
Galaxy: Alpha
Location: In a chair somewhere
Contact:

Re: An Improvement to Corvettes

Postby Xrael » Sat 04 Oct, 2014 06:19

I myself have seen several fleets of capable size in CV to be called a CV swarm. Certainly, it is true that their speed capability is thrown out the window 90% of the time due to needing a slower unit to accompany them (needing CA or better to bring along), However, that's the same in the case of FT/DE specs, which are not only much more common, but have the exact same problem in needing CA/FC to bring along FT to be capable of improving their ratios.

Considering that (I have yet to do the actual math on the ratio performances of what is better) it does not really matter when you say that it is the second, third, or fourth best swarm; there's equal reasoning to make the same change to the DE, which would in fact make at least a little more sense to adding hangar to them. So why the CV should get a hangar is really dumbfounding, as I can't pull up much more than this against your reasoning, but CV's serve their purpose already, and I personally view them as mobile Bombers. Effective at doing two things, their job to kill what unshielded units they can, and improve ratios against bases.

I'm against this idea, as though it would create more specs and thus widen the capabilities of game play, it would be an ineffective change that only serves to make something better than it is for that purpose alone. It would probably be better to suggest a power/armor change.

My two cents.

Disclaimer: I did not proofread my post, so try to understand it if something doesn't make sense. Oh and don't take offense >_>

[-Min-] Tech whore.

"A true soldier fights not because he hates what's in front of him. But because he loves what's behind him"

Return to “FR Workshop”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests