twimpix wrote:

True. Then it just says to me that the way it is now is the right way. As far as I'm concerned, the ability to rely on taxi fleets should never have been an option in the first place. If we think that not being able to use them ruins the game then I think the issue is something else.

Your opinion isn't fact. It is clearly not in the right place because people are complaining and because several factions are built around the existence of fleet accelerator modules that are somewhat useful (eg : riftborn, horatio).

Kuma wrote:

twimpix wrote:

True. Then it just says to me that the way it is now is the right way. As far as I'm concerned, the ability to rely on taxi fleets should never have been an option in the first place. If we think that not being able to use them ruins the game then I think the issue is something else.

Your opinion isn't fact. It is clearly not in the right place because people are complaining and because several factions are built around the existence of fleet accelerator modules that are somewhat useful (eg : riftborn, horatio).

Never said it was fact. Also, I wasn't aware that some factions are built around the existence of accelerator modules. It should not be the case.

twimpix wrote:

Never said it was fact. Also, I wasn't aware that some factions are built around the existence of accelerator modules. It should not be the case.

They really aren't. These people just don't want to put multiple engine modules on their ships until they get better ones.

Kuma wrote:

twimpixwrote:

Never said it was fact. Also, I wasn't aware that some factions are built around the existence of accelerator modules. It should not be the case.

You're doing it again.

Slashman wrote:

twimpix wrote:

Never said it was fact. Also, I wasn't aware that some factions are built around the existence of accelerator modules. It should not be the case.

They really aren't. These people just don't want to put multiple engine modules on their ships until they get better ones.

Tell me, how are we supposed to put multiple engines on riftborn ships when they only have one support module slot and you probably want to use that one for something else (like an enhancer module)? It's not just mindless whining because fleet taxis were nerfed into oblivion, the game was built around it and this change wasn't properly thought through as it unjustly nerfs factions that really didn't need to be changed, in fact, I was one of the biggest advocates for a nerf of fleet engines, but this is just not the way it should be done.

Holy Buddha! How does me expressing how it shouldn't be the case equal stating it as fact? You, on the other hand, state that the game "was built around it". If that is the case, I concede. I had no idea. I thought taxi fleets were an exploit.

Slashman wrote:

They really aren't. These people just don't want to put multiple engine modules on their ships until they get better ones.

Care to explain, how you put multiple engine modules on Riftborn Hunter?

Researching the additional modules on Hunter doesn't give you more slots?

Kuma wrote:

twimpix wrote:

Holy Buddha! How does me expressing how it shouldn't be the case equal stating it as fact? 

I'm attacking your way of phrasing it, you are free to think the game shouldn't be built around the existence of fleet accelerators and express your opinion,  but you word it like the game should catter to your vision regardless of the developpers' intention.

On the other hand, I was just stating the fact that some factions (namely RB and Horatio) were created with fleet accelerators in mind and were clearly made different from other factions because of that :

-RB Hunters are glass cannons that need support ships to move around

-Horatio ships have a lower amount of slots but more omni slots on average so using fleet accelerators gives them a nice tradeoff of strategic resources for utility.

Fleet taxis were never an exploit, it's just the stacking of them to absurd levels that broke the game because it made distance meaningless, and as such, removed the impact of the map topology on Strategy.

I did not intend to mean the game should cater to my particular taste but even if it was the case, this whole forum is built upon people expressing their desires towards how they want the game to be. So I do not think that's something to be attacked. I've been following this forum since the baby steps of ES2 and nowhere have I ever read that the intention was that certain races' fleets are supposed to be taxied around. This is why I had the idea that this was an exploit rather than something intended. But as I mentioned above, I concede the point if that was the case.

I liked the idea of restricting them to starlanes but then what. Gazillion movement speed fleets will still be possible. Raise the price even more?

Sublustris wrote:

Slashman wrote:

They really aren't. These people just don't want to put multiple engine modules on their ships until they get better ones.

Care to explain, how you put multiple engine modules on Riftborn Hunter?

You don't. So?

Sublustris wrote:

 

So, it invalidates his argument.

Yes it does, but he has a point. Just look at his "opponent".

Kuma wrote:

Tell me, how are we supposed to put multiple engines on riftborn ships when they only have one support module slot and you probably want to use that one for something else (like an enhancer module)? 

> 8 guns

> enhancer

> ship too slow :((

twimpix wrote:

I did not intend to mean the game should cater to my particular taste but even if it was the case, this whole forum is built upon people expressing their desires towards how they want the game to be. So I do not think that's something to be attacked.

I'm not attacking you for expressing your opinion (which is why those forums were made) but your phrasing. You were basically stating an opinion but wording it as if it was a fact without adding any argument to it, and since it's not possible to debate against opinion (unless you make it confrontational by attacking the person directly, but this isn't why the forums are here), it makes the discussion sterile. It's perfectly fine to think the current state is fine, but please word it that way (just using "imho" or "I think" would be enough).

 I've been following this forum since the baby steps of ES2 and nowhere have I ever read that the intention was that certain races' fleets are supposed to be taxied around. This is why I had the idea that this was an exploit rather than something intended. But as I mentioned above, I concede the point if that was the case.

I liked the idea of restricting them to starlanes but then what. Gazillion movement speed fleets will still be possible. Raise the price even more?

I don't think using the stuff that was made available to move faster is exploiting, the whole design of these modules was to have support ship help the fleets move around faster. The problem is their drawback wasn't big enough (the strategic cost) because ES2 floods you with tier 1 strategics, if they changed it so that drawback was indeed something you need to think about, the modules would fall back in line once again.

Inwaves wrote:

I'd suggest you refrain from trolling here, this is not 4chan.

Kuma wrote:

twimpix wrote:

I did not intend to mean the game should cater to my particular taste but even if it was the case, this whole forum is built upon people expressing their desires towards how they want the game to be. So I do not think that's something to be attacked.

I'm not attacking you for expressing your opinion (which is why those forums were made) but your phrasing. You were basically stating an opinion but wording it as if it was a fact without adding any argument to it, and since it's not possible to debate against opinion (unless you make it confrontational by attacking the person directly, but this isn't why the forums are here), it makes the discussion sterile. It's perfectly fine to think the current state is fine, but please word it that way (just using "imho" or "I think" would be enough).

 I've been following this forum since the baby steps of ES2 and nowhere have I ever read that the intention was that certain races' fleets are supposed to be taxied around. This is why I had the idea that this was an exploit rather than something intended. But as I mentioned above, I concede the point if that was the case.

I liked the idea of restricting them to starlanes but then what. Gazillion movement speed fleets will still be possible. Raise the price even more?

I don't think using the stuff that was made available to move faster is exploiting, the whole design of these modules was to have support ship help the fleets move around faster. The problem is their drawback wasn't big enough (the strategic cost) because ES2 floods you with tier 1 strategics, if they changed it so that drawback was indeed something you need to think about, the modules would fall back in line once again.

I thought my argument was pretty clear throughout my posts from the beginning of this thread but I understand how in that one particular post in the middle of it might have sounded as if I was stating a fact instead of pointing back to what I said before, which was my intention, I concede the point. I will pay more attention in the future.

But let's talk business.

What do we think would be a big enough drawback? I don't remember how much FAs cost when they tried raising their prices but, as you said it and I pointed it out too if you're not playing on rare resources setting you have no problem whatsoever paying for them. Would like 50 hyperium be a big enough price to keep things on an acceptable level? I'm against introducing caps like "only 5 FAs taken into account per fleet" or something like that. I've always said that this has to be organic and a higher price tag is quite organic for me. I want to know what the rest of the player base thinks.

With vanilla ES2 not offering much dumps for tier 1 strategics during late game (or even mid game) you always tend to get flooded with hyperium at some point anyway, even moreso on high resources settings, so I don't think only tweaking the cost will really fix the issue. 

I put a lot of thoughts on this problem while I was working on my overhaul mod and the only good drawback I could find was to create way to use your strategics that actually boost your economy, so spending your precious resources to make your fleets faster requires you to sacrifice economical strength (and also, the flood of strategics doesn't happen even in abundant settings because they naturally get spent).

Regarding the modules themselves and for something that could be applied to vanilla ES2, the modules also got some more changes :

-Price increase (actually, this was ported to vanilla with the patch).

-Added an increased chance to be targeted on those ships so they get killed first and then your fleet loses its mobility, so you might want to mix the modules with aggro reduction (or add more aggro modules on other ships).

-Changed the way the effect is applied so only one of your ship in your fleet applies its effect on movement speed, in a similar fashion to how the MP of the fleet is based on your slowest ship, this time only the one with the highest effect gets applied. This results in a soft cap that's organic, because it's directly tied to your ship's module slots, and if you want a flavour justification, you can just say the modules helps the fleet find coordinates faster or something, so having more that one ship is meaningless.

Imho, it introduces a more organic cap than just something like "only +20MP maximum" or "only x modules per fleet", it's easy to understand and calculate the effect once you get the logic and it could be ported to vanilla easily. I'm not trying to advertise the mod here, but if you want to try it out for yourself here's a link.

I like the idea of it being tied to only one ship, that way you just put a tugboat or two (if you need a spare) into your fleet, without getting an insane boost. Especially if it would be combined with increased aggro on those ships. Just teach AI to do that for a roleplay value of fleets relying on the tugboats to move around :)

I just think that the way it was 'balanced' now it's just moving the OP-ness to hero skills that allow fleets to zip around, widening a gap (that was somehow negated by how many additional movement points you could accumulate anyway) between those who can do it and those who can't. Bonus points if the hero bonus is tied to their ship, so that they just replace the tugboat in the above situation, not complement it.

I love it, when there is some proper senseless drama brewing, but it seems that besides fleet accelerators, and the actual realization of previous hissho nerf,

 we are overlooking the fact that cravers can no longer work so well under saints and sinner nerf! Let's look at and talk about that!

Going to talk from MP perspective.

The fleet acclerator nerf was probably the best change that have been made to balance in this game.

The massive stacking of FA was just borderline idiotic to the point that you could zap your fleets across the entire map in one turn, all move speed modules and upgrades were all deemed pointless and had no value.

All you need to do is to scout the enemy capitol, mass a fleet and just rush the enemy capitol in one turn with no chance of him having any warning or time to react.

Creating forward bases as you progress your war to pump fleets was also pointless.

The nerf to FA brought back the importance of fleet mobility, modules and everything that comes with it and ressurrected a long time dead strategy layer back into life.