A.Miner Update Discussion

D DeilocheOP

OP 15/07/2009 · 09:33 AM #1

Constructive criticism ONLY. If you don`t like something, say why. If you do like something, also say why. Useless posts are unacceptable.

Changes courtesy of: EphemeralEternity, BrokenSwordS, Deiloche

G.Lictor
ES: 80 > 40
KS: 40 > 80

Concept behind this change is to give A.Miners a strong anti kinetic ship, which is something severely lacking in the race. It still a big meat shield, but at least it will be able to soak up damage from some of the more powerful kinetic ships.

Lyth
Upkeep: 170% > 135%
OR
Upkeep: 170% > 120%
PR: 30kish > 50kish
BR: 2 > 1
OR
Upkeep: 170% > 120%
PR: 30kish > 25kish

120% puts the lyth in similar range with nirvana, tyr, aragonite, and the chlor for those familiar with fighting with those ships. But at 120% that is too low of an upkeep for a 60k BR. So the idea would be to lower it to a 50k BR, either by changing the BR to 1 and making the ship bigger, or making the ship smaller. Stats would maintain themselves relative to PR, so ratios would not change but actual values would.

G.Livid (r)
Upkeep: 160% > 120%

A good niche ship, the livid is massively underused largely due to it`s excessive upkeep.

A.Hoko
Upkeep: 14.6% > 35%

The A.Hoko is not a huge powerhouse except in UWs, but even in regular usage the upkeep on this ship is far too low, especially for a race as wealthy as A.Miners.

M.Lakko
Upkeep: 21.2% > 40%

The M.Lakko is a pretty good defensive ship and as it`s better than the Hoko it needs more upkeep. However, in maintaining with the standards of the defensive A.Miner race, this ship will maintain a low upkeep.

A.Kryo
Upkeep: 60% > 30%

The kryo is the weakest miner SB and costs way too much. Hence... upkeep reduction ftw.

Edited by BrokenSwordS on 2009-07-15

C collective1

16/07/2009 · 07:54 AM #27

lol Slavyzz i would take u up on that bet. try doing the math or simming
*hugs galleon

D DeilocheOP

16/07/2009 · 07:53 AM #26

You missed my point and kept missing my point. Not my fault you were trying to argue with me without understanding the argument... ^^;

S Squaks

16/07/2009 · 07:50 AM #25

see thats my point we are arguing about completely different sujects atm so i`m getting rather confused :)

D DeilocheOP

16/07/2009 · 07:48 AM #24

My point wasn`t about guards. It was that a.miners are considered food for kinetic ships. :P

S Squaks

16/07/2009 · 07:37 AM #23

umm..... i never said that k class are strong in kin damage so maybe you should read mine again and realize i am talking about how changing the resists on the lictor will not affect us guards much because we have k class that cam still kill it easy. My first statement is how your saying the miner are guard food but in my past few hits to a miners lyth or lictors were generally spammed

D DeilocheOP

16/07/2009 · 07:29 AM #22

...

K.Class? K.Class is NOT strong in KINETIC damage... Read what I said please? Thanks.

S Squaks

16/07/2009 · 07:28 AM #21

your also missing the fact they ever a miner generally has lyths spammed or high in thier fleet vs guards, but the lictor will still be completely useless vs k class, now that we have the new Zen :)

D DeilocheOP

16/07/2009 · 06:56 AM #20

Traditionally, A.Miners are considered guardian food because of all the delicious kinetic (and not even high kinetic) firepower in the guardian fleets. The fairly low resistance to kinetic coupled with a lack of firepower actually makes kinetic the a.miners biggest weakness. The chlor is a counter, to an extent, to this. Hence why a lot of a.miners started spamming chlors. :P But the chlor is a strong counter to almost everything. :P It`s quite the powerful ship.

If everybody really has that big of a problem with the change to the Lictor, it won`t happen. It`s not a necessary change. It`s just something that has been offered to give you a reason to use the Lictor, rather than it`s completely pointless nature right now, especially after livids go down in cost.

S Slavyzz

16/07/2009 · 06:41 AM #19

I think what arch is trying to say is that Aminer already has ships that are "good" against kinetic. Probably wondering why you intend to make the lictor "great" against kinetic when there isn`t an overall need for such an advantage.

Obviously no one has a problem with it becoming more useful, but is this really the best path for that ship? Kinetic is supposed to be a potent attack force, and miners already have answers for it. I would not bet money on galleons against chlor unless the odds were very very bad.

D DeilocheOP

16/07/2009 · 06:14 AM #18

So... your argument is... that... you don`t want the lictor to become useful? ^^; Okay... Uhmmm... Lol. That`s kind of the opposite of what we`re intending. ^^; So, we`ll ignore your objection since it has no solid ground to stand on. ^^;

J JJtheJetPlane

16/07/2009 · 06:00 AM #17

i dont see how its much of an advantage if miners have a SINGLE ship all but immune to kinetic...i mean its just 1 ship. the other ships u mentioned are good against kinetic but are far from immune.

A Archaeoptyrex

16/07/2009 · 02:50 AM #16

I don`t mind the lictor ES at 80%

I *do* mind the lictor KS at 80%. I refer to my point about why terrans/virals/guards have this subtle, but very useful advantage.

To rephrase, I think miners become unfairly unbalanced in strength if they get a kinetic-immune ship.

D DeilocheOP

15/07/2009 · 09:29 PM #15

Alright. Understandable argument. Do you have a reason to KEEP the lictor mod at 80? All I`ve seen is why you don`t think it`s really needed to change it, but you haven`t given a single reason why to keep it there.

Just because a.miners are wealthier it does NOT mean that all their stuff should cost more. If we wanted to make all the races cost the same amount compared to their income, every race would make the same amount and all upkeeps would be the same. :P A.Miners are a defensive race and therefore get a very large bonus to their starbases.

A Archaeoptyrex

15/07/2009 · 08:35 PM #14

sorry, dunno why I typed in argo -- but my point stands.

The point here is about defense vs kinetic
Indeed I see agreement that chlor, flysch, lictor and hoko are good defense (remember also have chlorite calcite decent first strike defense). I agree they`re not godly defense but my question is why this is a "severely lacking" issue.

Why *should* miners have a ship capable of neutralising kinetic? If you want that go terran (herc) or viral or guard (various). I thought that the herc was the major + point of going terran or viral. Why should miners need more?

Finally, just what are these "powerful kinetic ships"?
ruby (no more tourm!)
pinnace + galleon

Isn`t that it? I don`t think you can count pyth, nirv, angel, hammerhead, pike ... They`re not primarly kinetic, and miners can already defend against all of them.

J JJtheJetPlane

15/07/2009 · 08:08 PM #13

erm...arag have a negative kinetic sheild mod not a postive one...and chlor and flysch, while they do have a pos kinetic sheild, its not wat the lictor is supposed to be. flysch and chlor wont get annihilated by a strong kinetic ship, but they wont necessarily win either. the lictor is meant to give miners something that will virtually neutralize the kinetic attack..instead of simply not getting wiped.

also, i dont know about u, but i really dont use sb`s that much when i`m actually attacking people....mostly cuz they are a waste of space :P

about the lyth, i like the idea of it having a lower upkeep, but i also like the current build rate. i`d say lower the upkeep to 135% and keep the build rate. miners are wealthy and while lyth was just excessive and needs a reduction in upkeep, i dont think it needs one to the point where the build rate will have to be lowered also :P

A Archaeoptyrex

15/07/2009 · 07:47 PM #12

I disagree with lictor.

The real race that can`t defend against kinetic is marauder (ever tried defending against galleons? although maybe the paid-ship Thresher helps)

Miners already have flysch, chlor, lictor, hoko, argo which all provide decent +abs shield.

If you want a kinetic shield ship, I suggest giving kryo a boost of +90% or + 80% abs shield. It gives that ship *some* purpose to life.

Lyth: miners have lots of high build rate ships (good ones) now -- whereas before lyth was only half-decent high build rate

Now have lyth lictor argo hoko lakko (+ moderate livid, flysch, sapphire, chlor) -- that`s more in number (though not quality) than terrans.

drop to 25k pr.

YES to livid cost.

Finally! to SB upkeep -- I would even go higher personally. Allows much advantage to building in dp. The rubbish chimaera + scorpion are at about 40% -- surely the *good* miner SB`s (+ miners are rich) should be higher? I would bump `em up to 50%, at least.

D DeilocheOP

15/07/2009 · 02:19 PM #11

When story interferes with balance, we say, screw the story.

The story sucks anyways.

A AshyLarry

15/07/2009 · 01:53 PM #10

I like all of the ship changes because it is useful. However, the introduction of the G.Sapphire really bothered me because of the negative energy shield. I noticed the suggestion to bring the Lictor ES down to 40%. G.class are ships supposedly from the same Guardian G.class. Guardian G.class always has really good energy shields. While the ships are getting better, it just feels like that we are drifting further and further from the story Stephen created.

D DeilocheOP

15/07/2009 · 11:54 AM #9

Sorry, the lyth upkeep is being brought down to standard levels while starbases are being brought up to cost me. This is NOT a cause to make the a.miner income less. That is not one of the options. And about lowering the max price of minerals, no. Not happening. As for small ships... patience.

P PistolPete

15/07/2009 · 11:49 AM #8

Keep the buildrate of lyth at 2 as this makes it easier to stack with it at low PR. I think lowering the upkeep is a good idea, as virals will have an easier time stacking with the lyth then. But i think the miner income needs to be nerfed slightly then. Maybe lower the max price of minerals to 800?

Another suggestion would be to tweak the m.hal. Make it almost immune to ecm (95%), make it no retal and lower the kinetic resistance to 0%. I think this would make this ship useful in stacked fleets at lower positions.

Reply