Hot posts in thread: Defending against Phasor stuns

For balance, I think that we should have a situation where the stun probability is a lot lower with larger ships and perhaps the duration a lot shorter.

Otherwise, we end up in a situation where once Phasors are deployed, they become a mechanic that makes ships larger in size uncompetitive.

 

I dont know if its true but Ive read somewhere else that in general, Total War games with fire weapons tend to be worse to play custom battles against AI since AI handle badly fire weapons, for example in Empire Total War. Well, what I actually read is that in general terms, Total War with melee battles are better to play against AI in custom battles since AI play better with melee weapons, this is more or less the idea I have read. Anyway, which is then the best Total War for custom battles against AI?

 

I agree with the statement from Konstantine.
But however we try to control the stun solution, I also agree the mentioning of impatient young people who will walk away from this game if it is not properly balanced.

But as our wise Konstatine says if you walk into a battle with a single ship then you should be punished. If you make a proper fleet to fight with then it shouldn't be a big issue.

 

I think I better clarify my position as I may be sending mixed signals

The player defending from a phasor stun becomes an acute problem if the player sends a single ship against the AI… and it should be a problem. For example, if the player sends a single titan to engage hostile forces, that Titan is, and should be more vulnerable than if it had escorts. Historically this is what happened to the Kriegsmarine in WW II when it sent some of its all too few capital ships out alone as commerce raiders. Today, any admiral that sent out a single carrier without its supporting battle group would be cashiered. In ISG, a single ship means the AI has a single target to focus on, if that target gets stunned the player is screwed.

If we nerfed the stun solely to accommodate that type of player, I am vehemently against it, but the truth is that it would only be a matter of time before players started exploiting the stun against the AI. In light of that, a fix is needed.

I lament the fact though that this has broader consequences. Yesterday I described a battle I lost because of the AI’s use of the phasor stun, with our fix now, it means I would have won that battle…

In short, I support the fix but for different reasons, I support the fix as it can become an exploit that unbalances the game. I support the fix to correct a broken system. I do not support the fix as a way to make the game easier for a player that prefers to use a single large ship in combat. MoO2 suffered from the end game being Titans only, and the poll I referenced yesterday may indicate that a lot of players didn’t care for that…but that is a matter of taste and subjective.

What isn’t subjective is that we need to have proper motivation for adjusting systems and weapons. If we are redressing an imbalance or an error, I am for fixes. If on the other hand, we fix or nerf systems because the AI is giving the player a hard time… then battles will become nothing more than target practice, that I can’t support.

 

Preferable over the previous solution you proposed... yet I'm still feeling that it is the AI that loses out more than the player.

I experienced what aReclusiveMind describes in his post. I entered a battle and had the AI target my flagship which was stunned on the first round. The first time this happened, I recall that I felt I was in trouble, something I rarely feel against the combat AI. I withdrew from the battle and almost lost the flagship as it was stuck for a while. A few turns later I came back and the AI now had a second Titan in the system. My flagship was the same Battleship that had fled a few turns earlier, this time though, it had far more numerous escorts. I beat them. But I did it by spreading out my SSPs over numerous ships versus one or two Titans.

Yes it was a harder fight and required that I control more ships, but in both those fights, I felt the AI had a chance to fight well and perhaps even win, due to the weapons they were using. It is not usual for me to feel that the AI can do well in combat, and we have now diminished that AI in the single area where it was most effective at the tactical level

You have my vote for the latest solution you just proposed, but I can't say that I feel great about how we have approached this. I mean what did we really just do? Did we just identify an area where the combat AI was giving the human player a problem (based more on a particular playstyle) and answer by diminishing the AIs ability to win a combat?

 

I just recalled a poll we took here

Perhaps letting the players deal with it in a more organic manner is an option after all? Nonetheless we agree here.

But I don't support arbitrary limits, yes it's a quick solution but one that I feel is lacking.

If this stun mechanic is such an issue, why not remove that effect from Phasors entirely? Why must this weapon, which has some of the highest number of modifications allowed, also have the ability to stun? Removing it would certainly mean it won't be exploited by anyone. Perhaps it could even be re-assigned (with it's reduced effectiveness) to a different weapon, One that requires much more space and can't be miniaturized easily.

 

Well, most people won't know your formula (though now I guess some do) and only extreme players will attempt to figure it out. So while there is potential for abuse, it may not be as great as you envision. I hate limits myself but sometimes they are needed. Against the AI, I already had my own solution, and to tell the truth it was satisfying. You presented a problem that I solved with tactics. Now you have reduced the chance to stun, in an attempt to satisfy the player that either can't or won't work through this. Not insulting anyone by the way, just stating the obvious, so for one segment of players, you reduced the satisfaction they could have gained by defeating the phasor stun on their own. Again just stating the obvious.

I don't disagree with what you have done by the way, as newer and younger players may be more impatient and not used to the way games like ISG work. But by doing this you have already addressed (and weakened) the AI on a tactical level, you must now redress the balance as a player can take advantage. The thing is artificial limits suck. So what to do?

Do you artificially restrict the number of banks?
Do you impose a further penalty if a number of banks are exceeded
Do you scrap the stun entirely?
Do you impose a limit of one stun per targeted ship per combat?
Do you impose a cooldown (on the stun only) in addition to the new numbers you have implemented?

I don't know the answer, but I do know that whatever you do now has to be fair to the AI. It is in manual combat where the AI is the weakest, you have just weakened it further, I feel you really need to think this through and redress the balance
Edit
Just to clarify, my "solution" was based on real life, there is a reason why an Aircraft Carrier is part of group and never sent out to hostile environs on it's own