A.Miner Starbase Discussion

OP 22/08/2010 · 05:52 AM #1

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

I Infernal

27/08/2010 · 10:21 PM #255

imo, just imo okay. but, first UWs was encouraged. now, UW is discouraged it seems.
that to me seems to be the tone of things here.
again, everything i post is just my opinion, entirely negligible if you want to

S ShatterdDreams

27/08/2010 · 07:59 PM #254

ok people the reason the range is so low, and the fez shield is so weak is so that it can be easily killed by all races from pretty far under.... pyth can not beat this ship at 100% pyth actually gets wiped on every mode. look down and see for yourself.....and the ships that do beat it can beat it from pretty far below, which is what we wanted with the design which makes spamming it in it`s pure form pretty uselss because as soon as someone knows what you got it`s game over, a guard comes along and completely wipes you from 1/3rd pr

the think is it`s made to be utilized with the hoko.

R Ragnarok

27/08/2010 · 07:53 PM #253

Or, in terms of their current design, decrease hull and shields and increase firepower. If something has 10 range, it should also be flimsy like P Zeus.

One idea would be to decrease range to 9 and decrease missile shileds to something more drastic in order to make it weak to the long range missile ships (or missile heavy cap ships like lyth).

R Ragnarok

27/08/2010 · 07:50 PM #252

Also, I said this already in another thread but bears repeating here. The reason both SBs make a great choice for UWing is because of range and hull advantages. If you want to nerf these ships as uw ships (which is, I sense the primary motivation), then I would suggest increasing the range back to what it originally was and decrease the hull and take away no retal. Since people tend to spam lakko anyways, increasing firepower would not have have any effect since the aggressor ship would die. But the net effect would be that more lakko would die in the COUNTERATTACK vs cap ships. Decreasing shields might also have an impact as well.

When doing tests, do it with 100 turns of X ship verses 4000 turns of lakko and look at the results. Right now, even the best terran ships vs the lakko or hoko would kill fewer hoko/lakko turn for turn. If you can make it so that 100 turns of say nirv kills say 150 turns of lakko on aggressive (for the COUNTERATTACK value), then this would be an improvement.

R Ragnarok

27/08/2010 · 07:33 PM #251

Of course, if you want to make them non-transferable, you need to take them away from people who already UWed and took the ship and let them have another miner ship in exchange.

R Ragnarok

27/08/2010 · 07:31 PM #250

Lets hope this radical redesign of the Lakko doesn`t turn into the MOW in its original form, or into something relatively useless. People scoffed at that base, as well as the brig, because the range for both was so low. Little did they know how overpowered both ships were, and I was among the early collectives to exploit the overpowered brig against caps. Even in their current state they`re still awesome even though they`re significantly toned down since their rebalancing. =P

My suggestion is that if such radical changes are made, that you give people who took the lakko as their UW reward to either keep the ship or take another miner ship instead. People choose a particular ship in a UW because of the overall strategy they have for that ship in relation to their current race. In the case of minor changes (no pun intended), this shouldn`t be necessary. However, if a change was drastic enough I might feel a little upset (or ecstatic depending on the changes).

If, after a certain amount of time (1-3 months to give time for rebalancing to occur), there is no response, then they`re stuck with their current UW choice until that same ship is drastically redesigned again.

H HAL9000

27/08/2010 · 07:17 PM #249

range 6 is fair

W WhiteDragon

27/08/2010 · 07:14 PM #248

Yes implement the new SB`s, but make them non transferable by UW`ers as well.

T Thief

27/08/2010 · 07:11 PM #247

how about doing the lakko range 6? still loses tto all fez and most caps on agressive but cant be ruby or pyth spammed??

S ShatterdDreams

27/08/2010 · 06:24 PM #246

just as useless as everyone else bases... it building fast doesn`t help it in battle, it just makes it quicker to run away, and if people want that then they have the kyro

D DrunkenMasters

27/08/2010 · 06:04 PM #245

On a side not, if lakko`s build rate is dropped to 4 or 3, try it against all the caps on all stances per turn, let everybody see exactly how useless these bases will be.

S ShatterdDreams

27/08/2010 · 06:01 PM #244

so fez can kill it, that`s why you still have the hoko to use in conjunction with it....mix the two up, ones a careful flanker...the other is an all out aggressive range ship...mix and match and watch the fun just pour in..

I Ishamael

27/08/2010 · 03:31 PM #243

Edited by BadWolf on 2010-08-27

A Archaeoptyrex

27/08/2010 · 01:42 PM #242

yes okay -- I agree that the new lakko looks good against cap ships. I was just being biased.

I still think -95% straf is too much. -65 or -75% would be better imo ... and maybe only +20% to energy or ECM

G GradualIncline

27/08/2010 · 09:24 AM #241

that`s true, the originals looked so much differently than the current reincarnations, that changing them this time would just be silly. Same as changing the names of any other ship that`s gotten an overhaul from their originals.

S ShatterdDreams

27/08/2010 · 07:05 AM #240

we don`t rename ships just because they go through extreme changes or else they wouldn`t be called the Hoko or lakko in the first place because they don`t look anything like the original lakko or hoko.

N NiHiLiM

27/08/2010 · 01:57 AM #239

if the specs will change that much; i`d suggest to adapt the name as well for the ship :)
no?

Y YATYAS

27/08/2010 · 01:41 AM #238

Looks good here SD. Still potent, but no longer the hands down UW champ.

I Islander Admin

Admin 26/08/2010 · 10:43 PM #237

Kelti - It gives up nearly all it`s range, takes some hefty shield tolls, slows it`s build rate and jumps it`s upkeep up a ton, in exchange for that.

K keltikelti

26/08/2010 · 09:46 PM #236

there is no way that lakko should change from having nearly 1/3 the weapon to power ratio to basically 1:1 weapon/power ratio ...

Reply