✦ GC FORUM Galactic Conquest
Sign in
Back to the Game
Forum Index › General Discussion › A.Miner Starbase Discussion

A.Miner Starbase Discussion

Started by BadWolf · 22/08/2010 · 05:52 AM · 394 replies · 5 reads
BadWolfOP
OP 22/08/2010 · 05:52 AM
Ok people it`s time to vote on these idea`s if you would pls submit all your votes to the empire PollMeister on RT. this will decide which or all of these shall go through. just copy paste the format below with your choices


1) Lakko Version one, with BR of either 4 or 3.
Lakko version two
or Lakko the Redesigned Concept.

2) kyro upkeep reduction (y/n)

3) Livid upkeep reduction (y/n)

4) lyth upkeep reduction (y/n)

5 Chlor build rate reduction and Epidote build rate increase (y/n)


in a format similar to this pls
1) lakko version two
2)Yes
3)No
4)No
5)No

*note the changes to hoko will go through, and Chlor and epidote is a package deal, you can`t get either or.

also only one vote per person, not account, if we find you voted with multiple accounts all your votes will be discounted for wasting our time. Also for those of you that have taken the Lakko as part of a UW Reward, you will have the option to choose another ship.
------------------

These are the current changes proposed by the staff, please discuss them in a constructive manner, feel free to also pm feed back directly to us.

Lakko version one

upkeep is increased from 2,352 to 7,195

Build rate, dropped from 5 to 4 or 3
which means instead of 55,350 pr a turn it`s now 44,280 or 33,210 pr a turn

or

M.Lakko redesign concept
Energy Damage 11,500
Missile Damage 24,000
Hull 55,000
Range 3
Scanner rating 623
Power rating 36,666
1 turn produces 1
Ship upkeep 32,999

Ship Specials
No retaliation
Ships attacked by this ship cannot return fire.

Energy Shield +40%
Absorption Shield -60%
ECM +40%
Ionized Hull -95%

Or..

M.Lakko Ver. 2
4,000 Total Damage
1,500 Energy Damage
1,500 Kinetic Damage
1,000 Missile Damage
Hull 15,000
Scanner 900
Range 8
Power Rating 11,061
1 turn produces 5
Ship upkeep 6,032

Ship Specials
No defense
This ship can`t return fire if attacked.

Energy Shield +30%
Absorption Shield +30% Was +15%
ECM -40% Was -30%
Ionized Hull +40%

Hoko

upkeep increased from 1,450 to 4,475

build rate dropped from 6 to 5
which means instead of 59,670 pr a turn it`s now 49,725 pr a turn

Kyro

upkeep reduced from 45,000 to 32,328

Lyth

upkeep reduced from 52,052 to 41,154

Livid (r)

upkeep reduced from 20,000 to 15,641

Chlor

build rate dropped from 10 to 8

Epidote

build rate increased from 10 to 12

Edited by ShatterdDreams on 2010-08-28

Edited by BadWolf on 2010-08-29

Edited by BadWolf on 2010-08-29

Edited by BadWolf on 2010-08-29

Edited by ShatterdDreams on 2010-08-29
A Aacra
23/08/2010 · 04:58 AM
It could be suggested that the build rate not be nerfed, but the increasing the cost to something like that of the zues (2:1)or greater considering the current build rate, so that it becomes futile to build more than 60-100mil of them. I think that this would help to limit their use during UW`s and not really affect the the person who is trying to base up a bit cause of their high base pr. You could still spam up fast if you need to.. and what is "Safe PR" im not really getting exactly what that is. Is that the place that if your allies own the ranks that your enemies won`t come and get you cause your with the pack?? Cause on ultra the more I base up the less safe it is, lol.
I Islander Admin
Admin 23/08/2010 · 04:52 AM
Ned - If your going to post, don`t flame other players, make accusations or any of that crab.
This is a discussion about some proposed changes. Post your opinion on those and nothing else, don`t be a smart-alec and don`t whine.

Even you must agree the lakko and hoko need to be more expensive - Though maybe you don`t want it as drastic as the proposed changes here, which is exactly what the point of this discussion is.
C CaptainCharisma
23/08/2010 · 04:51 AM
the TB players can blame other servers then

the truth is it has been suggested different ship stats Br`s per server to adjust for the turns difference on ultra compared to slow however stephen wont or cant do it so were stuck with nerfing virals got nerfed heavy miner get to be rich and are meant to be poor fighters because there rich so yes suck it up
N nedflanders
23/08/2010 · 04:33 AM
yeah, and killing the build rate so much won`t help big tax empires get to a safe PR range when they are wiped on TB servers.
A Aacra
23/08/2010 · 04:25 AM
Well, if your base pr is 3 mill pr, you only need 15-20mil bases to make your base pr near to negliable. With my income I can afford to build zues to 20mil pr with out being adversly affected, with a 2:1 upkeep/pr ratio, and a terrible build rate. An A. Miner should be able to afford that with a ship with a good build rate. Not that I`m pushing for a 2:1 upkeep for bases, I`m just pointing out that you dont need that much pr to offset the difficulty of fighting with a high base pr
N nedflanders
23/08/2010 · 04:18 AM
I like how you said: "we`re" gonna nerf the bases.

Fine, if this is a joint effort by the admins and certain influential players in the PB who just want to kill certain elements of the game that they don`t like, I guess none of my logic and arguments are going to work here.

Here`s a suggestion for revamping the lakko:

increase upkeep from 2352 to 11070
decrease build rate to 1 (hey, if it has 11 range and feels like a destroyer, why not give it the build rate of a destroyer??)

get rid of missle dmg, so guardians can pwn it even more with K class...and make it super vunerable to kinetic like all other miner ships so we can beat miners down even more.

This should be challenging enough for my boundary stretching style of gameplay.
N nedflanders
23/08/2010 · 04:12 AM
so your advice to miners who have 2-3 mil + base PR on say a server like ultra where you can only build with 100 turns at a time: just suck it up? This is only gonna make the stronger feds stronger...and the weaker feds weaker then.

That`s funny, because my advice for you not being able to kill lakko UWs can easily be: just suck it up, as well :S
H HoneyBucket{HH}
23/08/2010 · 04:07 AM
I think game changing is what`s necessary at this point. And ned you don`t need wonderful defensive bases just because you have a high base pr... most tax miners can make an excellent income and still be able to explore, so the base pr isn`t a big deal, if you can`t explore then that is your choice and you then have to adapt the way you play the game. Just look at this as another challenge for you and your "pushing the limits of the game" style.

Plus the changes being made are hardly going to effect those basing up a few mil because they have a high base pr... you are blowing this out of proportion. Save these arguments for when we move to nerf the shields.
N nedflanders
23/08/2010 · 03:56 AM
@aacra: why do terrans need bases?

miners need bases because tax miner is one of the best income paths for miner and it comes with a high PR, thus you need good bases to build in DP bases to get to an appropriate PR to defend yourself.

tax terran is not really very feasible form of income, and agri/commerce terrans have low PR so why do you guys want better SBs.

SBs got nerfed hard...this is game changing: it`s going to change the way I play the game as an miner on 3/5 servers.
A Aacra
23/08/2010 · 03:52 AM
Terran`s need reworked a bit, I`ll agree with that, try chasing a basing A. Miner with Nirvana, upkeep 22,000, pr 18,030. keep in mind that with max cash you can only build 400-450mil pr nirv, i`ts probably less than that I`m just ballparking it. I think the changes to A. miners are appropriate. Terran base upkeep is 1/2pr, and our bases suck in comparison and for the most part we make less cash than A. miners. The changes proposed will not be game changing to those who were not abusing the current version of the A. miner bases.
C cobra
23/08/2010 · 03:09 AM
I like all all the suggested changes, especially lyth upkeep decrease. :)
I think the starbase updated is great but also think that it wouldnt be needed so much if vm building didnt get abused so much. Nice work guys, willing to give any new changes a shot. :)
H Hiddendragon
23/08/2010 · 12:55 AM
I like the changes, even though i`m a miner. The increased upkeep on the lakko and hoko is fine by me as long as the kryo and lyth upkeeps are decreased.
N nedflanders
23/08/2010 · 12:35 AM
SBs aside: I am REALLY against any change to reduce lyth upkeep. The lyth is such an amazing spam ship, it does not need to be made anymore appealing.

the +BR to epidote is cool though, encourages stacking!
G grantweep
23/08/2010 · 12:25 AM
pyth now absolutely dominates miner SBs.

but I guess that`s what people wanted. Nerf the miners for being defensive. I guess CC will just be stronger on RT, and the individual feds in control of each TB server will be stronger as well.

UWs will also be much harder to pull off as miner.

Scorpian is now a better ship UW ship than lakko.
BadWolfOP
23/08/2010 · 12:15 AM
Save for the fact miners are also the richest race in the game..

To begin with i can think of no valid arguments for there upkeep being so low..

So to start with let`s go over A.Miners Average income vs unchanged on these.

Tax Miner with food at 10 50k land and 50 infra (Perfectly doable in a reasonable amount of time on new empires.)

A.Hoko - 55,000,000+ power rating before the A.Miner loses cash on an easily obtainable income...

M.Lakko 35,000,000+ Power Rating Before the A.Miner loses cash.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed upkeep examples

A.Hoko - 15,000,000+ power rating before the A.Miner loses cash.

M.Lakko - 11,000,000+ Power Rating before the A.Miner loses cash.

Income used in the example was of course only 8 million.. 50 infra and 100 planets as Mineral Miner adds up to roughly 6 million per turn if minerals sell at 1,000 each (but this discussion isn`t about miner income paths now is it?)

You may be arguing that miners are supposed to be defensive well i hate to break it to you but upkeep and defensive nature have nothing to do with each other..

As for the buildrate nerf if you look at lakko and hoko in there buildrates Vs how good they are there`s really not much that compares all other starbases which are in the same league as hoko defense wise happen to be half there buildrate as of current.. Sure you may argue that miners are defensive but things are still meant to be balanced lowering the buildrate allows for them to be more balanced in there buildrate them before (Please also keep in mind this is still on par/above about all caps Buildrates. so arguing that it`s too slow isn`t holding any weight with me... if you want a fast ship that is what kyro is for.. and if you look over at terrans they also have one called the scorp :P)

So basically as i see it we can either level the playing field for all races with the Starbases entirely or just balance there Buildrate/Upkeeps out to what they should and should have truthfully been when added in 07... Anyway i wont comment on the others as the only points i felt like making are about the Starbases

Edited by BadWolf on 2010-08-23
I Infernal
23/08/2010 · 12:10 AM
oh and, no i dont intend to give any input :P
im just gonna be that old grouch thats just unhappy at everything that happens!
...except a terran rework. they need some love
I Infernal
23/08/2010 · 12:07 AM
so raise upkeep *and* drop BR?
at the risk of sounding like a typical whiner, but thanks for screwing up the miners? *shrugs*
i wont say anymore about this matter. ill just keep playing till i get bored or really not bothered
E EMC2
22/08/2010 · 11:50 PM
What people have to remember about adjusting the SBs, no matter how, is that these changes affect the economically weak empires more than the stronger ones. This applies to both UW and non-UW situations.

Those suggested combined changes on lakko make it about 4-5 times more expensive.
N nedflanders
22/08/2010 · 11:49 PM
So, overall nerf to miners?

tripling upkeep and nearing 1/2ing BR in return for 20% off lyth upkeep seems like a pretty harsh slap in the face for miners.

Either change the upkeep or change the BR of the bases in my opinion and KEEP the lyth upkeep the same...aminers are a defensive race ffs and the lyth is like the single most offensive ship in the game.
E EMC2
22/08/2010 · 11:40 PM
I think it`s overkill to both triple upkeep and reduce build rate.

I agree that livid upkeep should to be reduced, but not necessarily the lyth. It`s probably the strongest attacking ship in the game, and reducing upkeep only allows it to be spammed easier.

Chlor/epidote: minor tweak, although remember that epidote does have the +1 range. I couldn`t care less though.
Page 19 of 20

Reply

⚠
You must sign in before you can reply.
Sign in to the game and come back — the forum uses your game account.