Number Tweaks for Battleship Viability

    • Fleet, Defense and Combats

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Number Tweaks for Battleship Viability

      Backstory:
      Back when I first played there was a rule that nothing could have RF against a Battleship but somehow Battlecruisers made their way anyway with a rather high RF against the battleship. Eventually everything was tuned a bit and people [those who didn't quit ogame] were satisfied with the balance. However, there is still one glaring balance problem; One that totally invalidates the viability of battleships in total as well as Bombers; Fuel Costs.

      In the early to mid games of a universe Battleships and to a very small niche extent, Bombers, can be used in conjunction with Battlecruisers to help maintain a healthy fleet composition.

      In the late game, Battleships become unviable and Bombers become useless at their original job. Fleet compositions shift from Battleship backboned fleets to Cargo, LF, CR, BC heavy fleets while battleships stay long and forgotten; totally replaced by battlecruisers - a big no no.


      The Solution:
      FUEL COSTS
      Battlecruiser 250 => 250
      Battleship 500 => 300
      Bomber 1000 => 600
      Heavy FIghter 75 => 60

      These changes are a simple number tweak that could be easily done in about a minute and the result would be that building more battleships vs battlecruisers is a tactical decision in combat strength not a farewell due to deuterium costs.
      It would also bring some quality of life adjustments to HF and Bombers so that HF could cross a Galaxy at 100% speed without needing cargos and Bombers would actually have some value as turtle crackers/battleship hybrids like they were before battlecruiser invalidated both of them with it's low fuel cost.

    • Hello Mylil,

      over the years that I've spent in OGame I encountered a lot of "balancing-related" discussions. Most of them saying either that deathstars and battle cruiser are overpowered or that battleships and heavy fighters are too weak. First of all I want to point out that I liked the way you approached a possible solution by adjusting the fuel costs. However when talking about balancing severel things come into play.

      Before I get started I want to state out how balancing can be compared:
      - How do you measure a ship's value? By the points per ship or by the MSU ( metal standard units - calculated by using a given ratio ) spent on the ship? I personally do not see a point in comparing ship values by the points they give. At least since the introduction of the dark matter trader all that really matters when comparing ships is their MSU-cost.
      - Do you compare them in active use and if so, what do you think they should be used for?
      - Do you compare them evenly? Same MSU-cost on both sides or in uneven situations like in a normal attack on a weaker target?

      Depending on what your answers to these questions are, you will get to a completely different result wether or not a ship needs to be buffed or "nerfed".

      Maybe we can start of with why many players tend to use a lot of small cargo, LF, CR, BC fleets. These fleets are mainly used to attack idleing targets, because they are fast and compareably cheap in usage. This doesnt mean that these fleets are performing well in an even battle. You can actually break nearly all of these small cargo, LF, CR, BC combinations with a well designed LF, HF, CR, BS combo, however this doesnt mean that these ships would be better in generel. If I want to crash fleets that are smaller than my BCs alone, why would I ever add another ship type? I simply do not need it and that is why many fleets result in these combinations.

      Battleships and HF can be of great use, you just need to know when and what to use them for.

      All in all I'd be careful to change fuel costs for the BS and the HF.

      Concerning the bomber, I can only say: Yes, this ship is rather useless due to it s really specific field of use. This ship is expensive to build, expensive to use and can only really stand out against weaker defenses WITHOUT plasma throwers. => highly specifed, not good for s.b. who wants to make use of as many different targets as possible. Maybe a lower fuel cost would make them more viable, but to be honest, I personally wouldnt increase their numbers in my fleet that much.
      BC can be used for everything as long as you have so many, that you can solo your target with them => more general in usage.

    • I agree with @Lord_ that if we are to change this we should be like treading on eggshells, it's not an easy task.

      In any case, to add some more spice to the pot, we can have something in mind: there was a reason for battlecruisers.

      Originally, battlecruisers were introduced to make merchants more common. By giving a majestic ship to the players, which needed more crystal than it was ever possible to acquire, GameForge made a publicity stunt to favour the merchant (it was introduced at those times). Right now the amount of dark matter spent by the players doesn't really correlate / depend on the battlecruisers: the merchant is common, and used by many, and dark matter is spend mostly on other areas rather than in merchants (remember that at those times there was, IIRC, only merchants and commander, so the move on battlecruisers was relevant to the overall money GameForge got).

      So, while it's true that we should not change lightly ships and fight mechanics, the case of battlecruisers was not really a “battle induced decision” but a “business induced decision” and is not that fragile. Personally I don't think that it's that problematic in today's business to reduce the power of battlecruisers in favour of battleships (by reducing their deuterium consumption).

      Of course, I don't have the internal memo of GameForge, but I think it's important to take into account the origin of battlecruiser (and their direct relation with merchants at those times), so I personally think that it wouldn't be that problematic to change the deuterium consumption of battleships. May be not reduce to 300 (that I'm not discussing), but I'm definitely open to a reduction.

    • I measure a ships value by it's strategic diversity and uniqueness that it brings to the table. All in all the combat values of all the ships present are great.

      The pressing issue that I see, and have pointed out, is that by the implementation of the Battlecruiser's cheap fuel cost it actually change the diversity and forced 3 ships into roughly the same boat on one grounds.

      Destroyer's are big, slow, death machines that are designed to be destroyers of fleets [but mostly defenses] and fit the juggernaut archtype.

      Bomber's are big, slow, death machines that are designed to be destroyers of defenses / battleship hybrids.

      Battleships are fast, cheap, heavy hitting, anti-capitalship ships whose job is to hit a target hard after a hole is made.

      Then you add the Battlecruiser.
      Battlecruisers are fast, expensive to build, cheap to fly, fleet eviserating anti-fleet, anti-battleship ships whose job is massacre fodder and everything [except fighters] weaker than it right off the bat.

      The new added dimension that is glaringly problematic can be one of two things; Cheap to Fly OR Anti-Battleship. Now, being anti-battleship really isn't a problem because it's primary purpose is to be anti-fleet and has relatively low damage for cost and specializes in taking out unprotected fleets [those that lost or lack fighters]. So the real problem is cheap to fly.

      If you re-evaluate ship roles when you consider flight cost as a dimension for capitalships you run into a problem.

      Destroyers are already in this niche in the first place so they are fine.

      Bombers are big, slow, expensive to fly death machines; flight cost invalidates use as profit is lost with fuel cost.
      Battleships are big, slow, expensive to fly anti-capital ships. flight cost invalidates use as profit is reduced or even lost with fuel cost.
      Heavy Fighters now have an major rapidfire threat and so are invalidated by cost compared to SC and LF.


      OGame isn't about even battles. It's about defeating your opponent and making money doing so.
      You said so yourself. Battlecruiser's can be used for almost anything while battleships and heavy fighters are for niche problem solving.

      You can launch your fleet multiple times until you hit a target for profit. Where then is the value in battleships if the fuel costs are so high that simply giving up on them and building BC's is not only better for your cost in the long run, but far outperform what you can do with battleships at cost.

    • Like you say, you are comparing the values for uneven battles...obviously there are only two things relevant: Fuel cost and speed. Both high on the battlecruiser. What you do not take into account is, that the battlecruiser can be defeated easily by a number of ships, when combined correctly. Even bombers outmatch the battlecruiser in a 1v1 situation.

      If you have 10 times your enemie's fleet size balancing doesnt really matter at all and therefore should not be discussed in said situation ;-).

    • Lord_ wrote:

      Like you say, you are comparing the values for uneven battles...obviously there are only two things relevant: Fuel cost and speed. Both high on the battlecruiser. What you do not take into account is, that the battlecruiser can be defeated easily by a number of ships, when combined correctly. Even bombers outmatch the battlecruiser in a 1v1 situation.

      If you have 10 times your enemie's fleet size balancing doesnt really matter at all and therefore should not be discussed in said situation ;-).
      No what I'm saying is.
      If you have an even amount of resources spent in your fleet and it employs battleships while theirs do not, your deut costs are going to reduce profit.

      If you have 10x's someone's fleet size you're going to use Battlecruisers anyway because bombers and battleships eat into your profit.

      So when you plan it all out, you look at the battleship and bombers say. Sorry buddies, you're too expensive to use so you've been replaced by something much cheaper than you that's more effective at making me money.


      I am a huge proponent of Battleship strength in combat. I am fully aware that an at cost correctly built comp can beat a SC:LF:CR:BC spread using LF:HF:CR:BS only. The problem is, this 'counter' strat has a better alternative.

      If you put all your BS cost into CR's for the fight and go straight up LF:HF:CR it not only goes beyond a tie, but overwhelmingly dominates the enemy.

      BS are supposed to be the cheap power house backbone that stabs at the enemy capitalships after you clear fodder but instead, because of BC's low cost, they are outclassed in price and by choosing to use them en mass over BC you will lose a ton of profit in the long run.

      Now the only good thing they are good for is hunting RIP's and you don't need that many to do so.

    • I guess what I'm saying is that Battleships originally were not intended to be counter ships. They are supposed to be backbone ships used in most fleet comps and the invention of battlecruisers bullied them out.

      Now Battlecruisers are the backbone and far too effecient compared to the BS where the BC users can generate a lot of profit over their longevity while BS users end up eating a lot of their profit in the form of deuterium [because you trade metal and crystal for deut] so in the end Battleships are a niche counter build that you aren't supposed to build a lot of while you can build Battlecruisers all you want and have near unlimited use. The only thing causing this problem is fuel costs.

      So if you buff Battleships through fuel cost you'll see more tactical use of them and Battlecruisers would become more of a niche counterpick where the builder will still get excellent use out of them regardless of how many they choose to build and can plot to overthrow BS based fleets and not the other way around.

      Like it was originally intended.

      :Edit:
      My complaint isn't that battleships are weak or that battlecruisers are too strong.
      My complaint is that battleships are not viable later in the game because of fuel costs from a strategic standpoint.
      If you would like, I can provide maths demonstrating how long it [or short] it takes for battlecruisers to easily outperform battleships in effectivity and show future projections of prolonged use.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Mylil ().

    • The long tl;dr
      Battleships and Battlecruisers are perfectly balanced initially cost wise. Combat is fine. Rapid fire is fine. Damage is fine. Role is fine.

      Battleship fleets [despite being half the cost of a BC in TU for initial build] consume 4 times as much deuterium in a 1:1 scale [2 BS vs 1 BC]. Battleships will surpass cost to build + cost to fly individually vs a single battlecruiser in about 12 flights. If you use a battlecruiser more than 12 times [total launches period not just successful attacks] you will have overcome the cost threshold.

      Therefore; Battleships are outclassed and niche because it takes 2 battleships to catch up to the relative power of a single battlecruiser but it literally Costs more money to build and use.

      The problem is the cost exception [considering initial and use costs] is met too quickly. In a perfect world, Battleships and Battlecruisers would have identical costs for flight thereby maintaining original balance and keeping Battleships viable through all stages of the game.

      Currently it's not a matter of if battleships get replaced by battlecruisers. It's when, and based on current costs and low threshold to pass, you can ignore battleships exist and do better than anyone who builds them.

    • Fuels costs seem last resort really for interest of a Battleship, but in regards just think Rapidfire is still base 1 principle when say the worth of its' dynamics is really of multiple conjecture.

      Given, say attack is attack, but say attacking with attack would say multiple ways to attack would change attacking for any attack, and essentially would be not but say for any amounts. Big, small, fast, slow, and even alot or little would have no value but for any variable for say an amount.

      Rapidfire seems to me to offset to say given any one Value a two variable place. As such for the worth of restrictions to say validate the difference, any amounts would also increase say despite the rate given the worth of value.

      I know there is a better way to say that, actually quite standard really. But it is a linear regards on say least parallel problems for dynamic response with perhaps still static input at best for even the free-ride debate without an equivalency, against say dynamic input for dynamic output. Which Rapidfire would be used as such for. But at a time due to linear means, Rapidfire is not and essentially at some point in time, the regards would say equal out.

      Essentially anything say 50-50 would say at most be only worth 60-40 and anything otherwise 60-40 can not be 60-40 and so forth and so on.

      Usually what is just a new unit and/or building or weapon or item or the like would be say to offset the difference and be fine as such say for, but given say any prior placed establishment probably would not be as worth of means of one but for one. As such, usually any one thing already can always be changed, even if it wasn't for say something before as long as it isn't anything else when it does.
      Fairly reasonable really, but still.

      I like the interest of idea but eventually I think is across to many 50-50 areas and what is currently is the say 3 out 5 worth of such, against perhaps the 2 out of 5 before.

      Perhaps something gets done, but till then is not and the place otherwise still isn't, even if it was before.

      It would be nice to find some momentum say take a place for this topic, but I don't know.


      Thanks,

      Kellogen

    • I have considered all the issues mentioned in this thread. What each has said is valid but I would like to consider a possible solution; allow the space dock to upgrade ships.
      With the space dock able to provide upgrades to already built ships' ; speed, efficiency, shielding, and rapid fire at a cost in metal/crystal/deuterium, it would do two things. The first it would be possible to customize vessels to suit a particular player's needs/wants. The second would be to add uncertainty to our current use of sims for combat since we might know that ships have been modded but we would not know how.
      I have not done a complete study but different mods for different ships would become available based on space dock level and tech levels relevant; laser tech might be needed higher than 12 for some weapon mods or hyperspace above 8 for some mods. I tend to like the Idea of the different tech having effects.

    • I like the interest but without say further breakdown, other than mid-way achievements to the say prospective regards and/or interests, the upgrades would tend to lead where things are probably now just with bigger numbers.

      Of course, times things will out number the numbers to say of course, but still without numbers to have.

      For Honor Points' Level is difference the shift might not be say radical enough for the advantage-disadvantage then but say still highlight Fighters versus Cruisers of course at a time or two, but again, given, if increase speed equally in regards to not day upgraded the difference on the opposing side for yourself, would essentially be a 50-50 for eco Stall breaks by adding additional means to further spending allowing interests for additional income.

      Which in return could say, yes, Beef out Battleship before Battlecruiser and Destroyer but Ultimately lead to the samething without say bonuses for worth of outcome.

      But say in the end, what else is there suppose to be??

      At a time if thought about the Space Dock can be said for being under-utilized but on a lateral worth to a linear means would say suggest the interest of idea included as well for place of what is already does, but say hence would add to the additional interest to what Rapidfire is and the limits in which it would add against what could say of been for interest of the samething.
      But again though, I'm fairly certain you don't gain say half-ships though to use to fully suggest the worth of the Space Dock as I've said, but essentially left to that worth otherwise as well.

      To some regards to say would not be much, but on a Deathstar scenario would probably still be formidable to a worth of Destroyer, let alone Battlecruisers and Battleships.

      An alternative perhaps as such with the ideas of mods, is that any damaged ships are inclined for such, say for an additional expense before auto-servicing to say all means, can add an interest of mods, to where like a most might be for like 10-20% max capabilities, but realizing would that incline say Rapidfire shifts for say additional cover for ships say mainly not found before to have for a ship when in terms against another, even if it losses a worth against another?? But, yet sustain say an overall gain against anything else still even without Rapidfire for say the 10-20% though??

      The idea initially say prior my post is a good interest, but alot of 50-50s again about things, which is fine, but say taking the fork in the road to add a highway between for a long travel for say a Super Fork in the Road later, not so sure if say for better compromise or settle, but the make due in the meantime could be highly rewarding against the ends of other times.

      To me adding some additional ideas for say a one thing would seem more apt for the difference of outcome just for one to say, but the cost would be questionable for the outcome to place that wouldn't cost as much for the interest being a better cost still. But would seem to pull the samething off, but perhaps further away, which should lead to the same fork in the Road at a time, but realize the one Fork in the Road still shouldn't have to go away if it still just ends even on a different road.

      But I'm not going to smash the ideas together anytime soon.


      Thanks,

      Kellogen