A.Miner Starbase Discussion

I remember it`s always been a team collaboration and I know that some of the staff/game guides aren`t as active as of late :S. I have a feeling it will be tough redesigning the lakko and balancing all the expectations that people have expressed in these posts. Just my ways of saying thanks for caring about the game :)

Ship-------Upkeep/PR

A.Hoko 0.145801911<--------old ship
M.Lakko 0.212466125<------old ship
M.Hal 0.217391304
A.Hoko 0.449974862<--------new ship (using the numbers in the first post of the thread)
M.Calcite 0.565549677
A.Kyro 0.598547525
M.Lakko 0.649954833<-----new ship (using the numbers in the first post of the thread)
M.Illite 0.714285714
M.Flysch 0.726593832
M.Chlorite 0.778317152
G.Lictor 0.781585838
M.Epidote 0.790598291
M.Alium 0.804347826
G.Sapphire 0.92487517
M.Chlor 1.147342995
A.Aragonite 1.188083416
G.Livid 1.598337729
M.Lyth 1.732756325

Edit on request of the poster.

Edited by ShatterdDreams on 2010-08-24

this is an interesting idea SD...diversifying the lakko/hoko and making them unique ships. One to be relatively stronger against cap ship spams, and the other to be relatively stronger against destroyers/cruisers.I think this is a step in the right direction. Will be tough designing the ships though, but you have my support.

pls review all my points guys, if you want to see a redesign of the lakko, i will do it tomorrow when i have more time. but for right now i have homework that needs attention, so please look over eveyones post, please post your opinion and everyone stop trying to one up one another with remarks, please keep it civil, and if you post an opinion with some reasons, please show some proof or effort that you looked into it, it will help others when making their decisions, also never just trust anyones word on something, even my own, go check it out for yourself and confirm it.

night guys please remain civil

that way miners will have something to counter small ships.. which would be the hoko with the current suggested br and upkeep, though should it start being abused it will be back to the nerf board....

the lakko to be more anti capital, the the kyro as the giant running for your life starbase

i offer you all a deal, i will rebuild lakko, to be more useful against capital ships, it won`t be godly, but it will be more useful...but that means a complete rebuild....if you think that`s what miners need something that builds around 35-40k pr with reasonable range and that can better with stand capital attacks...

SD: ??? I don`t understand...you are saying that it`s fine for 3buildrate lakko to get mercilessly owned by every cap ship out there? This leads me back to my original statements...nerf the bases if you want to make them obsolete.

I`d like to point that chiron has a capture feature as well, which the lakko does not...so the upkeep obviously needs to reflect this :P

ship attack %ages can be estimated by their build rate since i used 500 turns of each ship. For example, nirv/lakko build rate will be very similar...so the attacker will be hitting around 100%

You bring up good points when talking about how lakko is more of a cruiser/destroyer buster, and I couldn`t agree more...with thees changes that`s what the lakko is probably going to be good for. However - Nobody uses destroyers/cruisers on TB! and even if someone was stacking destroyers/cruisers...and saw someone basing up, they probably would be smart enough to move their stacks so that their cap ships are at the top to hit the bases with :P

chrion`s br is 36,964 and it`s upkeep is also .5, which means it is slower than lakko and more expensive ..vastly more to a race that on average makes quiet a bit less than any miner....virals are also a paid race as well... though of course i never said chiron would or wouldn`t be changed, though if any one has problems with chrion i wouldn`t know because i`ve yet to see a pm about someone wanting something done about them.

i`ve never said lakko are or were super ships, their BR makes them hard to take down and the current upkeep is ridiculous, i still think the BR should be brought to about 3 because yes even though those caps you test against it do beat it it still doesn`t make it balanced, and we`re not touching the performance of the ship at all...but i`m keeping the upkeep still fairly modest at .64

my honest opinion is that lakko should have an upkeep of .8 and hoko of .7, we all know it`s not really going to hurt a miners wallet any...but i didn`t suggest those and i still won`t because i`m willing to settle with .64 if people want i could list all the upkeep ratios of all miner ships to make a comparasion? i`m trying to make them balance in line with the rest of the miners ships. now what i`m getting at is if the BR remains 5 then the upkeep should be increased even higher to compensate... i gave everyone a choice of 3 or 4 br you can choose 4 i`m willing to settle for 4, i still think it`s much to high personally but w/e happy mediums and all that.

just because a ship gets beat by another one ship doesn`t means it was ever meant to beat that ship...lakko and hoko are definatly more useful for destroying destroyer/cruiser stacks and spams... which is probably what it was designed for which means it`s BR shouldn`t be nearly 5x of those ships BR...

i thank you for testing them and posting data, but it would be nice next time if you post the % of loss for those ships, the attack modes and if the ships were at 100% of one anothers pr (which i assume they were) but again thank you for posting the similarities as well.

Edited by ShatterdDreams on 2010-08-24

bah, last sentence should read:

Still think the old/new lakko are OP?

SD: thanks for bringing chiron to the discussion table. I will use the chiron as a comparison SB to the lakko. Everyone likes comparisons, right?

So, I went and simmed some ships (cap ships from various races) against the chiron. Here are the ships that beat chiron:
Nirv, Arag, pyth, li, flourite and quartz.
Here are the ships that lost to chiron:
Herc, Tyr, Lyth, Angel, Topaz

This seems pretty fair. Every race simmed here (once again, sorry colls not even gonna bother) has at least 1 ship that beats chiron and 1 ship that losses to it. I conclude that the chiron is well balanced. Guardians have the most antichiron ships, but then again...guards are just awesome at everything. Okay - next we have the lakko!

I ran the simulation on the proposed buildrate of 3 using the same ships.

Here are the ships that beat the lakko:
herc, nirv, tyr (w), lyth (w), arag, pyth (w), angel, li, flourite (w), topaz, quartz (w)
Here are the ships that lose to the lakko:
none.

The (w) stands for a wipeout hit, meaning ALL the lakko died. You can see how incredibly crabpy the lakko gets on an equal basis if it has a BR of 3.

It`s interesting to note that arag/angel are only two ships that would LOSE against the the current 5build rate lakko.

So what do we have here? For the old lakko...all three of the terran cap ships, and all of the guardian ships beat it. And for the old lakko, one cap ship from aminer/maru fail to beat it. For the new lakko...not only do all the ships simmed beat the lakko...5/11 of those ships wiped the lakko out completely.

I chose specifically to use cap ships because as primarily a TB player, I think I can only speak for TB for these issues. The assumption here is that building destroyers are simply not effective for control of the server on TB (you can do it when your fedmates control the ranks or if you are just trying to have fun at lower ranks without really caring about controling the ranks)

Still think the old/new lakko are OP?

Edited by BadWolf on 2010-08-24

yeah... good move SD... i`ll keep it to myself next time... now this is one of the reasons i don`t care much SFGC lately... i`m not going to waste my time to create another thread when at the end, it will end up as the same fate...

(go ahead SD or any of the GMAs... delete or edit as you all please... i`m wasting my time to care for this game when the authority couldn`t be bothered to listen at all...)

also...go take a look at ships with similar prs as the lakko and hoko and tell me why should these bases have a way higher BR then them.

pls keep it on topic mate, i appreciate the zeal but if you want to start a suggest you can create a new thread.

Edited by ShatterdDreams on 2010-08-24

I forgot that you`d have to do the lists and fleets individually BadWolf, that`s a good point. That being said, I really do still want another missile ship :P Miners have way too many useless energy weapon ships as it is. I wouldn`t mind tossing one out for a new missile ship.

nice suggestion mazuku, though i`m still going to argue for more than just double upkeep, since they need to be on par with the rest of the miner ships...

here`s the percentages

currently lakko is .21% upkeep to pr

hoko is .14%

the changes would make lakko .65%

and hoko.45%

miners avg upkeep is about .7...the more useful the ship the higher the upkeep, like lyth is 1.5. chlor which is a good ship is 1.1 Alium on the other hand which is a ship most regard as useless is .53 so hoko is well below the avg, and lakko is below the avg as well, which makes them perfectly fair at the upkeep suggested. lets say if lakko had no retal it would get bumped up to 1.1 easily ...or even something as simple as 10% increase in hull should bump it up to .75 at the least.

Edited by ShatterdDreams on 2010-08-24

i like modest amounts of change. id support dropping the build rate of the two bases by 1 and doubling the upkeep. That seems pretty conservative in my mind and only dropping the BR by 1 for each of them won`t kill anyone unless your spamming them for longer periods of time. Boosting the upkeep shouldn`t hurt...I don`t see many miners going bankrupt >.>

I am one, that does not like change, but the change would be for the better, and would sure make things more interesting, i like how you guys would like to nerf the bases, while tune up the destroyers Aminers are deadly enough =)