Nerf Miner Starbases

OP 22/08/2010 · 03:59 AM #1

Figured this has been mentioned enough to deserve it`s own thread and maybe we can get the the bottom of the problem once and for all.

Lately, every turn based uw and even some RT uw`s have been successful for pretty much one single reason, the miner starbases.

Firstly because they are very low in upkeep, even poorer races, that have kept a miner base from doing a UW can afford to build a huge spam of the base, as a relatively young empire on turn based servers.

Secondly, because they are considered, by most, "the ultimate uw ship." Not only because of the low upkeep but also because they hold up very well when in a large spam, better than any other ship for the most part; plus they build relatively quickly.

The fact that the miner bases have been used in so many uw`s, chosen over every other ship, is a huge sign that they are overpowered for the job. People should have to contemplate which ship\fleet to build for a uw... it should not just be a given that this particular ship is the only way to go.

As a result of this "ultimate uw ship," certain empires have chosen to uw as miner, they take the base with them and then can uw very easily as any race, doing this over and over again.

These bases have created a huge imbalance in the game, which is only getting worse over time. Something needs to be done to save the turn based servers and it needs to be done now.

I am not trying to complain here, just hoping to get an easy fix implemented in order to better the game play for everyone involved. Please no flaming, just suggestions and either, "I Agree," or "I Disagree," and "this is why," will do. Thank you.

N nedflanders

22/08/2010 · 06:34 AM #23

SD: VM building on RT really gets you nowhere, I`ve made my argument before...you miss out on so much turns by VM building and eventually you gotta come outta VM and you it`s easy for people to take you out...like I said in a diff post, the OPness of mineral miners play a bit of a role in the reason why VMing bases is so prevalent.

BadWolf: Of course, virals have lower economy, so in effect...the pyth upkeep is double that of the lakko. However, before doubling lakko/hoko upkeep, all I`m saying is that the starbases can`t attack, whereas pyths can. Perhaps the DP immunity is more of a problem on servers such as RT...but I can tell you that I`ve made a career dealing with starbasers on ultra, and I`ve developed strategies that have worked well to take down people who decide to base up.

The underlying flaw in basing up is that you can`t use SBs to attack others and thus become incredibly predictable (because ppl know you`ve been building in DP) and incredibly passive. I can chose to hit you only when I know that I can beat you :P

Go ask islander about that one time I took 4 colonies off him before giving him DP because he was basing up :D (Yes four, colonies...not a typo)

or ask cobra/aacra about the times I`ve taken out their bases because I knew the bases were coming and adjusted my fleet accordingly for it.

BadWolf

22/08/2010 · 06:22 AM #22

a few points i want to make to you atm ned..

first it`s impossible to change upkeep for one race this was established like years ago.. and brought up several times.. otherwise sure it`d be great for lakko as well and everything else would be balanced out for whatever races could get them through whatever methods...

Second miners also make far more - at least twice what virals can/do on average so your argument is that the race which has a higher potential income then virals can really dream of unless you get really lucky or food is really low (but the same thing applies to tax miners in that regard) should have starbases on par with the one of the cheapest ships a viral can have? and only if they remain on par with Virals pyth? im sorry but that argument just does not hold any weight with me especially when we look at virals income vs average upkeep..

Also to note after the past changes of pyth/Marus ship i`ve seen no real examples of maru ships on virals posing any sort of problem on any server at least no ones mentioned it to me personally and given me any examples or in the forum itself AFAIK (i don`t look back into every thread but if something is brought to my attention i would of course look into it..)

However looking at lakko it`s become the most abused ship on almost all of the servers in some way shape or form VM building for RT in the most impossible ways to combat unless you nirv/pyth spam which is really absurd.. to UW`s for example on ultra

Edited by BadWolf on 2010-08-22

S ShatterdDreams

22/08/2010 · 06:19 AM #21

well the problem is with the advent of the new miner base vm building has become more prevalent

N nedflanders

22/08/2010 · 06:18 AM #20

*assuming they didn`t VM ofc :P

N nedflanders

22/08/2010 · 06:17 AM #19

...extreme examples aside (600 mil PR in one day? rotfl :P)

when was the last time ANY miner (that wasn`t allied to the top feds at the time) sat in the top 5 spot with over 500 mil bases without being prompty owned and utterly destroyed moments/days later?

H HoneyBucket{HH}OP

22/08/2010 · 06:17 AM #18

Ned, I don`t see any huge pyth spam uw`s or virals building huge pyth spams every day on RT... i think you are getting sidetracked as to what this conversation is really suppose to concern.

S ShatterdDreams

22/08/2010 · 06:10 AM #17

you can also build lakko or hoko for 23 hours strait every day without fear of being hit, where as pyth the minute you build one your able to be attacked. i know it can`t attack, but you can UW with it and a miner on RT can build to 612 mil pr in the course of 24 hours (unpaid) in lakko, thats being able to build really high without ever comming out of dp. any miner with any decent research can also make money most of the way there. i know it`s not as extreme on TB but it`s still a problem

that`s why i`m suggesting also droping their BR by 1 each

N nedflanders

22/08/2010 · 06:08 AM #16

actually I disagree lol.

if you want to increase miner SB upkeep, then I suggest increasing pyth upkeep/build costs for virals as well. That would seem most logical to me, meh.

BadWolf

22/08/2010 · 06:05 AM #15

pretty much ned in anycase at the very least lakko/hokos upkeep is way too low which im sure no one will disagree with =p

N nedflanders

22/08/2010 · 06:03 AM #14

dunno, pyth is an offensive ship, you are supposed to attack with it or be wiped if someone hits you on agg. if it came down to someone with pure bases versus someone with pure pyth...i mean the guy with bases is just a sitting duck really.

as for upkeep, pyth is .19 ratio whereas lakko is .21 ratio. the hoko ofc is cheaper, but it`s also not as good of a base in comparison.

BadWolf

22/08/2010 · 06:00 AM #13

Also to note you cant build pyths in dp =P

Tho lakko cant attack... lol

Edited by BadWolf on 2010-08-22

BadWolf

22/08/2010 · 05:59 AM #12

@ned not trying to butt in but i want to point out pyths upkeep was changed and as of current pyth is actually higher upkeep overall then lakko..

also including the fact a pyth spam is easier to kill then a lakko spam but that`s beside the point i suppose...

N nedflanders

22/08/2010 · 05:57 AM #11

it`s not really abuse though because virals having pyth is ALSO unfair then by your logic :S

increase upkeep for viral pyth + miner bases then...but only increasing miner upkeep is dumb, it`s like punishing the miners for being a defensive race.

H HoneyBucket{HH}OP

22/08/2010 · 05:55 AM #10

Good points Admiral... the dig times are the main problem there, but there`s not much we can do, except all continue to bug stephen regularly.

But the bases are also a problem... in UW`s as well as regular play on RT.

A AdmiralSarek

22/08/2010 · 05:49 AM #9

I thought the problem with the turn based servers was the large power blocks that keep doing UW`s. Starbase spams are stopable, but not when half the servers players are on the UW side.

And the lack of artifacts for players who are in the wrong time zone (like me) means we have no turns to stop an UW.

These two reasons are why the turn based servers are having UW problems.

H HoneyBucket{HH}OP

22/08/2010 · 05:42 AM #8

So one race has the ability to combat, cheaply, the basing miner... that does not create balance over the server. Miners and terrans in particular have no effective way to combat these bases, in a reasonably inexpensive manner.

As for it being slightly unfair, taking advantage of anything that is at all unfair is abuse.

Oh and I know that these bases aren`t the perfect uw ship... but they are better than all the rest and I don`t think any one ship should be better then all of the others for a UW... which is the main reason I think the stats need to be altered.

Well let`s start by just increasing the upkeep so that miners cannot afford to base up daily to ridiculous pr`s and make money doing so... and so that poorer races and young empires on turn based servers can`t afford to build huge spams of them and uw. That would be a good start and then we could consider possibly altering other stats. I think that we can all agree that increasing the upkeep is going to do nothing except for create a little more balance?

N nedflanders

22/08/2010 · 05:32 AM #7

it`s not really abuse if they need it right? I really don`t consider it abuse, more of a game mechanic that is only slightly unfair (yes slightly). Viral empires have the potential to build HUUUUUGE pyth spams for cheap cheap cheap, which i have always argued is a strong and effective counter for a miner that bases up.

Let`s face it, miners base up to avoid getting hit...they cant actually hit anyone with their SBs, but SBs get owned pretty badly by a pyth spam.

and YES guardians need a better starbase, but I`ve never suggested this because the playerbase would NEVER vote to give guardians better SBs on the account that they are pretty dang good already now.

As for changing the stats of lakko...this is venturing into dangerous territory :P will need extensive testing in order to truly make it balanced.

H HoneyBucket{HH}OP

22/08/2010 · 05:25 AM #6

Ned,
Whether they have a need for it or not is not nearly as important as stopping the abuse.

And if your argument holds correct about tax miners needing the bases because of high pr, then guardians should get a better sb as well.... their sb builds quickly but is hardly worth building when it can easily be taken out from well below.

As for decreasing mineral generation, it`s a good idea but it would be murder to the already dying mineral miners on most turn based servers. I think this might be one case, where RT needs a different solution then turn based.

Omegian, I think that`s a very good idea, though I think that changing the upkeep and schematics is necessary. It needs to be more beatable when spammed in masses, by all races, as well as more expensive to spam so massively, yet still be good enough to be worth building.

O Omegian

22/08/2010 · 05:16 AM #5

If you nerfed the range, added hull and changed the mods it would be easier for all races to combat them effectively while not the sbs also getting murdered in the process. Upkeep is one thing, changing the skematics of the sb is another.

N nedflanders

22/08/2010 · 05:11 AM #4

I think miners need to have a decent SBs that builds quickly. This is because when you are a tax miner, you have a high base PR and if you are unexplorable + just had your fleet wiped, you must be able to build ships in DP to protect yourself.

The same goes for tax virals, which get the chiron, another amazing SB.

I guess to some, the issue of miners basing up to 300 mil PR is abuse...but in many ways it`s also due to the OPness of mineral miners on RT. In my opinion minerals should never sell for full price at any server because mineral miners is such an easy income path to setup.

So to recap: tax based miner empires that are unexplorable actually have a legit need for these bases, whereas mineral miners are just way too overpowered.

Perhaps if the mineral generation formula was decreased for miners from 1000%+ to like 500%+ or something then we`ll see less of these problems on RT, at least. (on TB going min mineral usually results in fail)

Reply