Doesn't bother me! 

Slow? Maybe, pair it with some of my mini support ships which have Fleet Speed Boost? The latter speed boost comes with a boost of 3 movement per ship for the fleet! So, make support escort ships with one of those, add it's own engine to the CORE CRACKER ship. In formation, add 2-4 of those fasst escorts, and the fleet will move faster than your own fleet! 

Defending itself? Send it with escort fleets. Make sure they are on the stepping stone planets the Core Cracker must traverse through before it gets there! If you design those escort ships with speed boost properly, than they can also defend the Core Cracker as well as boost it's speed! If you design the Core Cracker efficiently, Reduce targeting, extra Armor/shield, recharge shields etc... than it will take far more firepower to even scratch it than just simply adding the Core Cracker Weapon... Pair with escort ships? Design escort ships with "HIT ME" modules, extra armor, etc... and the Cracker has "DOnt hit me" modules.... firepower is now 20+ % more likely to hit those escorting... now Add fighting weapons to those escorting? 

Sounds like a lot of work?

Than maybe you don't need a core cracker!? Look, I know the feeling... I was shocked when I first discovered the same thing. But I come to realize... one can NOT have one ship that can fight ALL and invincible... I build 3 designs to the Carrierr ship, 2-3 more designs to the mid class attack ships, 1-2 designs to the mid class support, and same ratio for the small class attack and support ships... to make my fleet... I don't build one ship to do everything. THIS game was not made for that! I don't want it to be! 

IT's all about strategy... their is NO strategy in ONE mega ship who can kill everyone in space only to arrive a bring DOOM on a planet!! No strategy at all!! 

Broaden your horizons! Open up your boundaries! Think more strategically!! 

Hi,

That's an interesting debate! We certainly tried to have both approaches in the game: play to win or play to experience.

We're currently working on content that necessitated a few tweaks on core crakers modules, more info as soon as we can!

Best,

Suis3i wrote:
By your logic, a lot of things shouldn't be included in the game if the intention was to just win and then start another game.  

No. My logic is that if something is unbalanced it needs a rebalance, not removal. In the case of T5 techs in general one possible solution would be for the victory to be achieved much later, so there's a time frame within a match where the T5 techs aside from victory techs see actual use.

I don't understand how you've come to the weird conclusion that game mechanics being balanced or being something you can play around with in sandbox or after victory are somehow mutually exclusive. Why can't they be both? 

I also don't understand how making core crackers more relevant in the context of a match where you play to win would reduce replayability and fun, on the contrary it would be the opposite if siege or manpower modules and core crackers were actually a meaningful gameplay decision rather than the last one being a plain useless vanity project. Either you make do with supposedly inferior normal siege and manpower modules or you pay a big opportunity cost to pour your time, science and industry into building more powerful super weapons that you can use later much more effectively. The problem is cracker's in their current state aren't powerful superweapons, they are just plain inferior in achieving the thing they're supposed to excel at, considering the opportunity cost is way too high compared to returns they provide.

It would introduce the fairness and equity you yourself talked about, and frankly I don't understand how you apply those ideas to all the other parts of the game but specifically not core crackers for some reason. Why shouldn't a late game super weapon that requires massive time and resource investments also be much more powerful? Many other higher tier ship modules and buildings are straight upgrades to lower tier ones speficially because they're unlocked later and they're more expensive, and that's fine.

If core-crackers, for example, were not balanced to be a tier 5 tech, that is incredibly expensive and quite vulnerable, and let's say, made tier 4, not as expensive and able to defend itself, it would be unbalanced and too viable an option to end the game earlier. It would further reduce the path to a victory by simply making it "unlock the core-cracker and go to town on these bitches".

You're thinking black and white. No one is asking for core crackers to become a cheap and overpowered end all weapon that beats everything and has no counter or have all the benefits suggested in this thread as that would only make them unbalanced in the exact opposite direction, just that they need something, anything to make them a worthwhile investment: a buff to ship's combat capability, cheaper cost or some other balance change in the game itself that makes core crackers and T5 techs in general more useful. 

As has been said many times already, due to how late-game and expensive core crackers currently are if you're having your planets consistently blown up it means your opponent is just playing around with you, they could've easily won the game and destroyed you multiple times over with a combination of regular and sieger / manpower fleets.

Also some concrete numbers for the heck of it. Lets compare the alternative to core crackers:

Unfallen Large Carrier with nothing but Core Cracker module (no engines)

Science requirement: T4 tech and T5 tech

Cost: 18500 Industry - You could almost build one victory wonder for this cost (20000 Industry), though admittedly it also requires many more strategic resources.
Effect: 5 turns to destroy ONE planet in a system, so fully destroying a system with 4 planets will take 20 turns, or 25 turns for a 5 planet system.

Unfallen Small Protector with nothing but Siege Modules and one Engine module

Science requirement: Few T2 techs and one T3 tech

Cost: 455 Industry - Compared to Core Cracker Carrier cost you could build 40 of these ships in the time takes to build one core cracker ship with no other modules.
Siege Power in one ship: 45
Total siege power for the cost of one core cracker: 40 x 45 = 1800 (plus a little more due to all ships coming with small siege power), which is enough to siege ENTIRE SYSTEMS down in one turn.

Needles to say that building multiple core crackers won't solve the speed issue either, because you could just be building more siegers and normal combat ships to solve the problem much earlier. Point is buffing core crackers to more usable level wouldn't make "wars end too early" or "break the balance" because they're ALREADY inferior to mass produced sieger ships in every single way imaginable.

hera35 wrote:

Oh, I did read it. Point is denying one opponent FIDSI with core crackers is irrelevant because by that point in the game it's much more useful to focus on beelining for your chosen victory type rather than building ridiculously expensive ships, and if you desperately needed to deny opponent FIDSI and other resources ASAP, simply building normal fleets and siegers is both much faster and cost-effective. Hence why core crackers need to be made useful in some way, either through changes on a more general level so there's a reason to use them to deny opponent resources like you said, or by buffing the core cracker ships themselves.

Also I'm not buying your "you don't have to play to win so it's okay for the game to be unbalanced" stance. By that train of logic there is no reason to balance anything because "it's optional and doesn't have to be useful", which quite obviously isn't the case because the developers are still balancing and making changes to make the game more enjoyable for 4X players who love to experiment with different strategies and also look to challenge themselves, and that requires for the startegies to actually be viable rather than a vanity project. 

Core crackers are just one more item in a list of things that need more balancing, I don't really see how they're any different to balancing say other ship modules, government types, factions and other various aspects of the game. Same thing with balancing of different things regarding game speed: people have pointed out unbalance of certain mechanics that varies between game speed and they've been fixed.

If you're just playing to win, then you almost never need to get to the tier 5 tech level, even on Endless speed and Endless difficulty, it's completely possible to win w/o unlocking a majority of the tech in tier 5, unless you want to unlock it before winning or you're attempting to grab a certain technology, or you only go to the tier 5 tech level b/c you're aiming for a science victory. There would almost be no point in including a tier 5 tech level except for the science victory if the DEVs intended for the purpose of the game to be just winning. Furthermore, why are you still allowed to continue the campaign after winning or losing, and the option to shut off all victory conditions if the intended purpose of the game is to just win ? By your logic, a lot of things shouldn't be included in the game if the intention was to just win and then start another game. 

The game would still be balanced regardless if the intention is to win or just to play. Otherwise, it wouldn't be as fun to play as some factions over others, due to the difficulty of playing a certain faction being increased by others being stronger than the intended faction. Or by certain parts of the game not being as enjoyable due to lack of balancing. Balancing is not centered around winning, it's centered around making everything fair and equitable in order to have an equally enjoyable experience as all factions and with all parts of the game. If core-crackers, for example, were not balanced to be a tier 5 tech, that is incredibly expensive and quite vulnerable, and let's say, made tier 4, not as expensive and able to defend itself, it would be unbalanced and too viable an option to end the game earlier. It would further reduce the path to a victory by simply making it "unlock the core-cracker and go to town on these bitches". 

One of the cores to having fun in a video game, especially a strategy, 4x game is to not have certain aspects of the game far superior or more powerful than other aspects. On top of that, it's more fun to have everything balanced equitably so that the game is replayable and fun. Hence why the factions are buffed/nerfed or why certain modules have been nerfed in order to increase the choices a player has and thus make the game more enjoyable and replayable. 

Balancing also occurs for another reason, completely unrelated to whether or not one plays to win, or if one plays not to win. If a game isn't balanced properly, and, for example, a particular faction is far stronger than the others, there would be little reason for people to continue to play, and if someone isn't playing as much then they are less likely to recommend the game to others as a fun, replayable game, and less likely to buy DLCs that would be assumably less powerful than the unbalanced portions of the game, all of which, would result in a loss of profit for the developers. 

Now should core crackers be buffed, well maybe ? There isn't really a necessity to having one if your intention is to win, as one of the victory types isn't "blow up x amount of worlds", is there ? Maybe they're not as relevant as they should be, but last time I checked, the Empire wasn't churning out Star Destroyers, Galaxy Guns, Sun Crushers, Eclipse-class Star Destroyers (at the rate it was for standard Star-Destroyers) within the span of a few years (that link is for the flow of time in the Endless Universe). So the time to build one, eh, probably more done for balancing (to discourage players from building too many) and realisticity. 

But in all honesty, there aren't many things wrong with how the core-cracker is right now, it's an extremely powerful weapon, used to blow up planets. Like MAYBE it should be viable in space-battles as a one shotter, in order to defend itself, but then again, that's still broken in many ways. 

And lastly, of all the things that need to be balanced, it's really far down there on the list.
 

Oh, I did read it. Point is denying one opponent FIDSI with core crackers is irrelevant because by that point in the game it's much more useful to focus on beelining for your chosen victory type rather than building ridiculously expensive ships, and if you desperately needed to deny opponent FIDSI and other resources ASAP, simply building normal fleets and siegers is both much faster and cost-effective. Hence why core crackers need to be made useful in some way, either through changes on a more general level so there's a reason to use them to deny opponent resources like you said, or by buffing the core cracker ships themselves.

Also I'm not buying your "you don't have to play to win so it's okay for the game to be unbalanced" stance. By that train of logic there is no reason to balance anything because "it's optional and doesn't have to be useful", which quite obviously isn't the case because the developers are still balancing and making changes to make the game more enjoyable for 4X players who love to experiment with different strategies and also look to challenge themselves, and that requires for the startegies to actually be viable rather than a vanity project. 

Core crackers are just one more item in a list of things that need more balancing, I don't really see how they're any different to balancing say other ship modules, government types, factions and other various aspects of the game. Same thing with balancing of different things regarding game speed: people have pointed out unbalance of certain mechanics that varies between game speed and they've been fixed.

@hera35

I completely agree with your point that, for standard games, using a core cracker is unfeasible due to the requirement that one extends the game through delaying victory conditions, however, victory conditions are not the point for this game. It's a 4x game, made by Amplitude, and last time I checked, only DotE were about really winning. The game is about exploring and creating new things, about just playing, the victory conditions are secondary (hence why you can turn them off). So yeah, for people just playing to win, the core-cracker is practically pointless, since you'll usually win before the tech is unlocked. BUT, as I mentioned, that is not the point of the game, it's to have fun and enjoy, and do new things, and explore quests, etc, etc. So that's where the core-cracker comes in. 

And I think when you quoted that one paragraph I wrote, and then responded to that paragraph by effectively stating siege modules are more effective when conquering a system, due to the science/industry cost of the planet-cracker equipped ship, you may have forgotten to look at my other paragraph when responding, in which I stated:

one of the most efficient ways of defeating an enemy would be to literally destroy the planets, since FIDS production outweighs everything else in the game. 

But you may say conquering them is more efficient, and in some ways, it is, however, once you conquer a new system, that's more territory to defend, and the opposing player (or AI) has the chance to reclaim that system, which then requires you to either reconquer it, or put resources towards defending it. On another note, planet crackers are extremely good and destroying high priority systems, such as ones with a large army on the surface, important buildings (wonders, trade companies, etc), and/or home planets. 

In regards to your points in the last paragraph, I'll say this:

1. Matches are longer, hence the speed changes, playing on Endless speed allows you to get core-crackers w/o worrying over abstaining victory conditions. Now you may say that more people play on standard, or that you prefer standard, but that is your (and their) decisions, and it's the price you pay for wanting to use core-crackers w/o abstaining from winning the game. Furthermore, reiterating my previous point, you can always disable victory conditions in the galaxy generation menu and just play for the sake of having fun and trying something new w/o the intent or the worry of winning. 

2. I don't believe that the DEVs would attach the core-cracker to another technology specifically to allow other players in, let's say standard matches, to unlock it before victory conditions are met. Nor would this make sense, as the ability to destroy a world would be an extremely difficult technology for a faction to unlock and wouldn't be unlockable with other "lesser" techs. 

3. Core-crackers achieve a different (sometimes better) result than siege modules, as stated in the quote above, and thus are not equivalent to said modules. Furthermore, combat capability could lead to the planet-cracker being too relevant and thus not a doomsday styled weapon, that would only be used in dire situations. Moreover, I already stated why, for balancing reasons, carriers equipped with core-crackers cannot be equipped with other weapon modules. 

Although it would be better if one of the DEVs answered these concerns 

Lastly, choosing to not read someones entire post simply b/c they play on a a different game speed than you, and then assuming they made an assumption directed at you, is well, pretty rude. If you didn’t read my entire post then your response is lacking content, since you missed an important part of my post (at the time of your response) 

Point is, don’t not read someones entire post when they took the time to respond to you. 

MasterofMobius wrote:

I din't read all your post Suis3i sorry because you play on endless speed I play on standard, so were playing different games, I know from playing civ 6 on the slowest speed that its much easier to unlock everything on the slower speeds. Balance will be completly different.

So in that case can I see a situation where everyone had fleets filled with planet cracker weapons and are just spamming them? Yes 

But on standard speed I really dont see that happening.

And no I dont want a ship that does everything I want a ship that can at least eqiup some flak guns to keep strike craft and missiles away honestly i'd be happy with that. I dont like the insinuation I'm a meat head that just wants to throw super powerful ships without thought, I always build balanced fleets with multiple designs and I lament that the small ships lose there effectiveness late game, so please dont make those assumptions.

I also play on Endless difficulty, which, if anything, makes it far more difficult, b/c on that difficulty the AI does spam planet cracker equipped carriers, something that would be terribly unbalanced if they also were able to serve the role of a standard capital ship 

The point is, the DEVs purposefully chose not to enable planet cracker equiped ships to also equip other weapon/fighter/bomber modules, for very relevant, and appropriate balancing reasons. Afterall, as a strategy game balancing so that it is fair for ALL players is practically a requirement. 

And I’m sorry for any insinuations or assumptions that it appears to you that I may have made that you’re “a meat-head that just wants to throw super powerful ships w/o thought”. However, it appears that you’re taking this quite personally. I did not, in any way, shape, or form, assume that is what you want (this is why you read someones entire post). I did, however, make the assumption that when given the choice to equip planet cracker ships with other weapon/fighter/bomber modules, many players would take the choice to do so, afterall, that would give players more ability and reason to use (or abuse) the planet cracker module. Furthermore, this wasn’t just stated toward players but the AI would also make widespread use of the planet cracker module, and it would make it far more difficult dealing with an AI (or AIs) that has planet crackers that are also fully equiped carriers.  

I din't read all your post Suis3i sorry because you play on endless speed I play on standard, so were playing different games, I know from playing civ 6 on the slowest speed that its much easier to unlock everything on the slower speeds. Balance will be completly different.

So in that case can I see a situation where everyone had fleets filled with planet cracker weapons and are just spamming them? Yes 

But on standard speed I really dont see that happening.

And no I dont want a ship that does everything I want a ship that can at least eqiup some flak guns to keep strike craft and missiles away honestly i'd be happy with that. I dont like the insinuation I'm a meat head that just wants to throw super powerful ships without thought, I always build balanced fleets with multiple designs and I lament that the small ships lose there effectiveness late game, so please dont make those assumptions.

Personnally i just want to exterminatus filthy Xenos.

Sounds like a lot of work?

Than maybe you don't need a core cracker!? Look, I know the feeling... I was shocked when I first discovered the same thing. But I come to realize... one can NOT have one ship that can fight ALL and invincible... I build 3 designs to the Carrierr ship, 2-3 more designs to the mid class attack ships, 1-2 designs to the mid class support, and same ratio for the small class attack and support ships... to make my fleet... I don't build one ship to do everything. THIS game was not made for that! I don't want it to be! 

IT's all about strategy... their is NO strategy in ONE mega ship who can kill everyone in space only to arrive a bring DOOM on a planet!! No strategy at all!! 

Broaden your horizons! Open up your boundaries! Think more strategically!! 

Yeeessss, exactlyyyy 

The thing is very expensive, late game, slow to fire and inefficient (you can invade and conquer planets much faster by that stage of the game) 

But then to top it all off its not allowed any weapons? I was hoping to build one brimming with all the best weapons I had and make it a defacto flagship to lead my main fleet but thats been dashed. Who would build a ship that expensive and make it completley defenseless? It cant even have flak guns to keep missiles and strike craft at bay. The Death Star that this seems to be inspired from had plenty of hanger bays and turrets to protect it. 

I dont think balance is a legitmate reason given the many problems with core crackers already there are already many more better ways to beat your opponents than to slowly knock out their planets one at a time. 

So what does everyone think about the core cracker and do you think it should have weapons?

That's not the point, I've played Endless speed games where @ turn 400 we had massive fleets full of carriers and we had the resources and tech to be chucking around planet crackers, but as pointed out in (either) that forum (or another forum), one of the most efficient ways of defeating an enemy would be to literally destroy the planets, since FIDS production outweighs everything else in the game. 

But you may say conquering them is more efficient, and in some ways, it is, however, once you conquer a new system, that's more territory to defend, and the opposing player (or AI) has the chance to reclaim that system, which then requires you to either reconquer it, or put resources towards defending it. On another note, planet crackers are extremely good and destroying high priority systems, such as ones with a large army on the surface, important buildings (wonders, trade companies, etc), and/or home planets. 

Typically, unless you fell really far behind in colonization and management of your planetary infrastructure, you shouldn't be far off from unlocking planet cracker tech if someone else has (if you guys are unlocking most tech types/stages and not just focusing on the military and ship tech). Now you could say they rushed tier 4 ship tech and tier 5 weapons tech, but that means that their economy is extremely weak, and they should be an easy opponent. 

And just b/c your ships have an 'edge' of some sorts doesn't mean that planet cracker equipped carriers should (for balancing reasons) be able to place additional weapon modules. With that logic, I'll just have 3 carriers with straight up weapon/fighter/bomber modules, and then a planet cracker carrier that is only down one heavy mount. That disadvantage can be easily alleviated with support ships and modules like the "nano-bot swarm" (tier 5 repair module, 15% health + per battle phase). That means my fleet can go toe-to-toe with standard carrier fleets, with the added bonus that I can destroy high priority targets with the planet cracker. This is especially true if I have the Science/Military party and both their tier 5 laws unlocked, giving me an even larger bonus since I doubt everyone uses that combo in multiplayer and the AI certainly does not in single. 

And you definitely do not always see opposing fleets inbound, and although the 5 turns make it "you should be able to respond in that time-frame", your fleets could easily be held up in other systems, or too far away, possibly invading the enemies ally. 

And much more efficient methods ? Using a bunch of Titanium manpower-killers to besiege the system into submission makes the other ships extremely weak since they're lacking in a lot of space-battle oriented modules and thus can easily be destroyed by an equal or weaker defensive fleet. Furthermore, that way takes time as well, as certain populations, and system improvements make that strategy highly risky and inefficient later in the game. 

Just invading the system is also risky, because, if you invade, let's say, a Vaulter/Sister of Mercy planet, you're likely to suffer heavy losses, and even if it was a population like the Lumerians, who don't have defensive bonuses of any kind, heavy losses to your ships manpower is something you don't want to suffer from, as it harms the ship's capability in ship-to-ship combat. 

Planet crackers on the other hand, if the DEVs hypothetically allow players to place weapon/fighter/bomber modules on the designated planet-cracker, only take up one heavy module, don't drain your own manpower, and barely deduct the defensive or offensive capability of your carrier ship. 

Suis3i wrote:

YertyL wrote:

There's been a pretty similar discussion before: https://www.games2gether.com/endless-space-2/forums/65-general/threads/29366-planet-crackers?page=1

IMO planet crackers need to be able to do damage, possibly as an upgrade to the blast effect battery, to elevate the tech to "situational" from "RP purposes only".

I remember that discussion ! 

I don't necessarily want to reiterate everything I said then but as for the reasons it doesn't have weapons, it's literally just a gameplay thing. I sure as hell wouldn't want to be playing multiplayer (or even single player) and accidentally get invaded by a fleet/fleets full of planet crackers AND they can also defend themselves; carriers are already the strongest ship type in the game, without the ability to blow up an enemies homeworld. That's straight up OP as fuck. 

So yes, from a non-gameplay, more lorewise point of view, there is no reason for planet cracker ships should not have weapon/fight/bomber modules. From a balancing/gameplay perspective, there is every reason that ships containing the planet cracker should not also be able to defend themselves. 

If you're homeworld gets invaded by a load of gun toting planet cracker ships and you're not able to respond to them in 5 turns something has already gone very wrong. The other player could have easily destroyed you by now using much more efficient methods. 

Basically if someones throwing out planet crackers they have already won, they could have swarmed in earlier and done one better and take your homeworld for themselves.  By that point you should have your own carriers and if you dont have planet crackers youl have an extra heavy slot for a weapon and have the edge, and you certainly should have seen those ships coming long before they arrived at your home planet.  

SuperMarloWorld wrote:

YertyL wrote:

There's been a pretty similar discussion before: https://www.games2gether.com/endless-space-2/forums/65-general/threads/29366-planet-crackers?page=1

IMO planet crackers need to be able to do damage, possibly as an upgrade to the blast effect battery, to elevate the tech to "situational" from "RP purposes only".

Im just imaginating the core cracker firing during a space battle....missing the ship he target... and shoot at the planet just behind.

Ooops !

Ha! Alternatively it misses your planets too and just flys off into the cosmos until it hits whatever unfortunate thing that happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

YertyL wrote:

There's been a pretty similar discussion before: https://www.games2gether.com/endless-space-2/forums/65-general/threads/29366-planet-crackers?page=1

IMO planet crackers need to be able to do damage, possibly as an upgrade to the blast effect battery, to elevate the tech to "situational" from "RP purposes only".

Im just imaginating the core cracker firing during a space battle....missing the ship he target... and shoot at the planet just behind.

Ooops !

YertyL wrote:

MasterofMobius wrote:

YertyL wrote:

There's been a pretty similar discussion before: https://www.games2gether.com/endless-space-2/forums/65-general/threads/29366-planet-crackers?page=1

IMO planet crackers need to be able to do damage, possibly as an upgrade to the blast effect battery, to elevate the tech to "situational" from "RP purposes only".

Yeah the only reason I built one was for the Vodyani quest line that needed me to destroy 2 hot planets. (!!! craziest faction quest i've done yet, that wasnt even the last step!)

I just dont really understand the need to not let them use weapons, you already have to sacrifice a heavy weapon slot to fit the core cracker so its already lost firepower that seems like a cost enough.

Same for me -- unfortunately, currently the only reason to build planet crackers is to do the Vodyani faction quest, and the onyl reason to do  the Vodyani faction quest is to see how it ends. I still remember when I was at that point of the quest line, I had already won, and then was like "OK, it's turn 150, I've finally researched the tech and built the carrier and found some pointless planet to blow up. Wait, I have to wait five turns?? And then wait another five turns for the second planet??" I think in the end the reward is a building that gives you 10 influence on one planet or something...I felt a little trolled at that point :-D Only good side is that otherwise I would have never got to see the pretty cool animation.

Yeah the building is a let down considering how advanced your factions needs to be to complete the quest. You're obviously alot better than me as I did not get there till over 200 turns but I won streight after (I always try to complete the quests before I win, but it seems that was unessecary)

The animation is quite excellent I was not expecting anything that good, the thread you mentioned gives me hope that perhaps the developers will review the core cracker honestly I'd be content if I could give it additional weapons, I dont think it would do much to make it more viable in a typical game or anything but it would make it cooler to add to your fleet because it could fight.