How do we make Destroyers and Cruisers more desirable in the late game?

[Sir Roderick]

@LazyName

I can't quote your last message, but I think I said that evasion is capped at 90 and corvettes can easily get it and even with all tracking and chance to hit bonus battleships still have less than 50% chance to hit corvettes?

 

[Lazy Name]

@LazyName

I can't quote your last message, but I think I said that evasion is capped at 90 and corvettes can easily get it and even with all tracking and chance to hit bonus battleships still have less than 50% chance to hit corvettes?

As I said, I was not arguing about what is in the game currently, but with your assertion that larger ships should be inherently better then smaller ships due to realism. You stated that "battleships only fleets are realistic in stellaris because they are the best." I'm arguing that that could be false.

(quotable message)

 

[Aspiretothestars]

You mean 2220? Also that's early you can't have much alloys then, but after you can.



Why is lack of diversity a bad thing?


Yes that's right, they're just pretending that Stellaris ships can do everyting WWII-Modern ships can do, ignoring that there is different and more advanced technology in Stellaris, and that there are tiers of technology and weapons.

Are you aware that developers also has the position that the destroyers and cruisers are broken? THEY want those ships to be more utilized.

Battleships, especially at its peak, comes from that era. That is why we are using the term "battleship." It has historical weight and invokes such ideas in people's heads. Otherwise you could call it "ooga booga."

 

[Farbros]

Are you aware that developers also has the position that the destroyers and cruisers are broken? THEY want those ships to be more utilized.

Battleships, especially at its peak, comes from that era. That is why we are using the term "battleship." It has historical weight and invokes such ideas in people's heads. Otherwise you could call it "ooga booga."

Then we should start by giving it a real role. For example: corvette can be equipped with low range weapons only. Destroyers with torpedoes only. Cruisers with hangars only. Battleships with large weapons only. Each class would have a role. But creating a carrier with 1 helicopter and naming it carrier, or creating a battleship with 1 machine gun and tons of interceptors and still calling it battleship, makes no sense.

 

[Sir Roderick]

Are you aware that developers also has the position that the destroyers and cruisers are broken? THEY want those ships to be more utilized.

Battleships, especially at its peak, comes from that era. That is why we are using the term "battleship." It has historical weight and invokes such ideas in people's heads. Otherwise you could call it "ooga booga."

Nevermind, I meant that battleship in stellaris do their old role and that other small ship roles are superflous since stellaris tech is more advanced

Then we should start by giving it a real role. For example: corvette can be equipped with low range weapons only. Destroyers with torpedoes only. Cruisers with hangars only. Battleships with large weapons only. Each class would have a role. But creating a carrier with 1 helicopter and naming it carrier, or creating a battleship with 1 machine gun and tons of interceptors and still calling it battleship, makes no sense.

And how would it work? Large weapons only are better.

 

[Cordane]

You forgot about matter replicators, they areeven in star trek, so youdon't actually need spares, just enough energy to make them up.
Also it's wheter not weather.
You can get free everything when you get to the point of exnihilo energy.

<snip>

They are still obviously torpedos, because launchers need to launch something, like rocket launchers, and they are still torpedoes, they are just made of neutrons so they are not targetable by PD.

Please don't correct people's English on a forum filled with those that don't read/write English as a first language, especially when misspelling "whether" and "torpedoes" when doing so (along with forgetting some spaces). I also won't ding you for not italicizing the Latin ex nihilo, as that's more a requirement of formal writing, which forum discourse has no requirement to be.

 

[Silens]

Are you aware that developers also has the position that the destroyers and cruisers are broken? THEY want those ships to be more utilized.

Let's not exaggerate here. There is a vast difference between "Destroyers and Cruisers are underutilized compared to what we would like to see" and "Destroyers and Cruisers are broken and need to be fixed". While the former is true, the latter is not.

 

[Farbros]

Actually, I just noticed Imad e a typo, I meant can't, not can. Fixing now.


And how would it work? Large weapons only are better.

Yes, it was more like an irony, because I can't understand the logic they use. In the military, they use the name for the ship size + weapons. So a carrier is a ship with interceptors and minimum weapons. So a cruiser can't have interceptors, because it's not a cruiser then. In Stellaris cruiser can have any weapons and even interceptors. So it's not a cruiser any more, it's just a ship, who someone mistakenly named cruiser. It's a small carrier, so why would I build a small carrier if I want to build a big carrier, or how you call it a "battleship"?
Why should small carrier be different from big carrier, if they both are carriers? And why do you call them cruiser and battleship, if they both are carriers?

 

[Sir Roderick]

Please don't correct people's English on a forum filled with those that don't read/write English as a first language, especially when misspelling "whether" and "torpedoes" when doing so (along with forgetting some spaces). I also won't ding you for not italicizing the Latin ex nihilo, as that's more a requirement of formal writing, which forum discourse has no requirement to be.

Those were typos, but a lot of people actually think weather and wheter are the same thing, or alot is a lot, necessary is written nessicary, or tenet is tenants, I think my keyboard doesn't register some space, also why you didn't answer the other thread?

 

[Sir Roderick]

Let's not exaggerate here. There is a vast difference between "Destroyers and Cruisers are underutilized compared to what we would like to see" and "Destroyers and Cruisers are broken and need to be fixed". While the former is true, the latter is not.

That's true.

Yes, it was more like an irony, because I can't understand the logic they use. In the military, they use the name for the ship size + weapons. So a carrier is a ship with interceptors and minimum weapons. So a cruiser can't have interceptors, because it's not a cruiser then. In Stellaris cruiser can have any weapons and even interceptors. So it's not a cruiser any more, it's just a ship, who someone mistakenly named cruiser. It's a small carrier, so why would I build a small carrier if I want to build a big carrier, or how you call it a "battleship"?
Why should small carrier be different from big carrier, if they both are carriers? And why do you call them cruiser and battleship, if they both are carriers?

I see what you mean now.

 

[GOLANX]

Yes technology obsolescence.




Yes but there are tachyon lances and sensors too.



That's true micro is bad and mixed fleet are only for rp, also in order for corvettes or strikecraft to get powerful as battleships they should be like this:

Oh so you want corvettes to 1v1 battleships? Oh man my fleet of 260 corvettes are going to make a mockery of your fleet of 32 battleships. Why would you ever build a battleship if you could beat it with just 1 corvette? The game is designed for that to be an 8v1 balance or a 2v1 between BBs and Cruisers,

 

[Aspiretothestars]

Let's not exaggerate here. There is a vast difference between "Destroyers and Cruisers are underutilized compared to what we would like to see" and "Destroyers and Cruisers are broken and need to be fixed". While the former is true, the latter is not.

Not really. "Destroyers and cruisers are underutilized compared to what we would like to see" implies that things are broken. Broken may be used in the context of something extreme and hyperbolic or simply broken with milder connotations. Either they need a boost or something needs to be nerfed. Regardless, they don't like the state of the game in relation to destroyers and cruisers not being utilized. They imply by "looking at different solutions [and feedback on here]," they're going to try to fix what they perceive as a problem.

 

[Sir Roderick]

Oh so you want corvettes to 1v1 battleships? Oh man my fleet of 260 corvettes are going to make a mockery of your fleet of 32 battleships. Why would you ever build a battleship if you could beat it with just 1 corvette? The game is designed for that to be an 8v1 balance or a 2v1 between BBs and Cruisers,

I actually meant strikecraft. Because in shoot'em up games like G-Darius and R-Type strikecraft destroy battleships and titans and juggernauts.
Also because corvettes have much less hp, they should bring back hull repeatables. Anyway if you don't want to power up smaller ships, what you're going to do?

 

[Silens]

Not really. Destroyers and cruisers implies that things are broken. Broken may be used in the context of something extreme and hyperbolic or simply broken with milder connotations. Either they need a boost or something needs to be nerfed. Regardless, they don't like the state of the game in relation to destroyers and cruisers not being utilized. They imply by "looking at different solutions [and feedback on here]," they're going to try to fix what they perceive as a problem.

Broken implies that something isn't working, which isn't the case here. The system is a bit flawed at best, but it works just as it was designed.

Where I disagree with you even more is here: "Either they need a boost or something needs to be nerfed". How would that solve anything? All you do is just change the type of monofleet, not the reason people use it in the first place. Changing the fleet composition to a mixed meta would need a rework of huge proportions: from ships, modules and their roles to how fleet/fleet and fleet/starbase combat works, from weapons to all underlying mechanics and everything inbetween. Not to mention the increase in micro you'd get.

And let me tell you, such a huge amount of work for such a miniscule 'problem' isn't worth it. I'd rather the devs work on more pressing issues, since there are still too many that actually affect far more people negatively.

As the old saying goes: if it ain't broke don't fix it.

 

[Sir Roderick]

Broken implies that something isn't working, which isn't the case here. The system is a bit flawed at best, but it works just as it was designed.

Where I disagree with you even more is here: "Either they need a boost or something needs to be nerfed". How would that solve anything? All you do is just change the type of monofleet, not the reason people use it in the first place. Changing the fleet composition to a mixed meta would need a rework of huge proportions: from ships, modules and their roles to how fleet/fleet and fleet/starbase combat works, from weapons to all underlying mechanics and everything inbetween. Not to mention the increase in micro you'd get.

And let me tell you, such a huge amount of work for such a miniscule 'problem' isn't worth it. I'd rather the devs work on more pressing issues, since there are still too many that actually affect far more people negatively.

As the old saying goes: if it ain't broke don't fix it.

That's true, they could fix performance and AI and other stuff like bugs before they move to this, and other things like qol features like an army planner or branch office planner.

 

[Aspiretothestars]

Broken implies that something isn't working, which isn't the case here. The system is a bit flawed at best, but it works just as it was designed.

Where I disagree with you even more is here: "Either they need a boost or something needs to be nerfed". How would that solve anything? All you do is just change the type of monofleet, not the reason people use it in the first place. Changing the fleet composition to a mixed meta would need a rework of huge proportions: from ships, modules and their roles to how fleet/fleet and fleet/starbase combat works, from weapons to all underlying mechanics and everything inbetween. Not to mention the increase in micro you'd get.

And let me tell you, such a huge amount of work for such a miniscule 'problem' isn't worth it. I'd rather the devs work on more pressing issues, since there are still too many that actually affect far more people negatively.

As the old saying goes: if it ain't broke don't fix it.

This is clearly semantics which I'm not gong to get into. We could get into a whole discussion on the meaning of the word "broken" and what it means for something "not to work." "Not to work" could mean it doesn't work entirely or that doesn't work as intended in certain ways. So I'll agree to to disagree.

 

[GOLANX]

I actually meant strikecraft. Because in shoot'em up games like G-Darius and R-Type strikecraft destroy battleships and titans and juggernauts.
Also because corvettes have much less hp, they should bring back hull repeatables. Anyway if you don't want to power up smaller ships, what you're going to do?

I figured as much, that's not the kind of game Stellaris is.

Armor and shields should be the bulk of a Ship's HP, the fact that they aren't without repeatables is odd to me, if they fixed the base equation for shields and armor I'd be happy with Health repeatables. And i would solve it by buffing base armor and shield values.

Start with not considering it a 1 on 1 fight, there should be things the cruiser is good at but the Battleship is not and vice versa.

Broken implies that something isn't working, which isn't the case here. The system is a bit flawed at best, but it works just as it was designed.

Where I disagree with you even more is here: "Either they need a boost or something needs to be nerfed". How would that solve anything? All you do is just change the type of monofleet, not the reason people use it in the first place. Changing the fleet composition to a mixed meta would need a rework of huge proportions: from ships, modules and their roles to how fleet/fleet and fleet/starbase combat works, from weapons to all underlying mechanics and everything inbetween. Not to mention the increase in micro you'd get.

And let me tell you, such a huge amount of work for such a miniscule 'problem' isn't worth it. I'd rather the devs work on more pressing issues, since there are still too many that actually affect far more people negatively.

As the old saying goes: if it ain't broke don't fix it.

Everybody's endgame fleets look the same with monofleets of the exact same ship, that isn't working as intended, and intent matters in game design. They painstaking added a RPS mechanic with armor shields energy weapons and kinetics, and all that work is worth squat with monofleets.

Increasing micro? So you go to your fleet manager and add a new ship type to your fleet and press + till you get the number you want and reinforce, that was too many button presses, best to just manually build battleships from 50 different starbases and order them to merge, soo much less micro.

 

[Carl_Bar]

You forgot about matter replicators, they are even in star trek, so you don't actually need spares, just enough energy to make them up.
Also it's wheter not weather.
You can get free everything when you get to the point of ex nihilo energy.

there is no evidence matter replication exists, everything in game involves either normal manufacturing techniques, grabbing stuff from other dimensions, or nanites. And the other dimensions one is largely unique to the fallen empires, (dimensional portals on a planet can let player empires do it on a very limited scale for a more limited selection of resources).

Incidentally even in star trek they need matter, what type of matter varies with the source. Some say just electrons, proton's and neutrons, (which they pull from the EPS thats also feeding them power), others they need all the molecules in storage somwhere and the replicator is doing simple molecular scale assembly of the elements and compounds into specific forms.

Yeah, that the point. Carrier has a specific role, it can only carry interceptors. The cruiser has a role, it can carry nuclear weapons. Every ship in Stellaris don't have this role, because cruiser just like battleship can carry regular weapons or torpedoes or interceptors. That why I don't understand why people want to have them to be so different, if the ship type only determinate, how many weapons it would have. Want more hp and weapons for higher price and less mobility? Pick battleship. Faster ship with less price? Pick Cruiser. Because both can carry Interceptors, both can carry torpedoes, both can carry regular weapons. This why I don't understand why people want to build ships with less hp and fewer weapons to be viable in the late game? Why everyone sees every ship type as something totally different, if they are just a simple tier of the same ship, where it would get more hp, more armour, more weapons with every next tier?

Yes, it was more like an irony, because I can't understand the logic they use. In the military, they use the name for the ship size + weapons. So a carrier is a ship with interceptors and minimum weapons. So a cruiser can't have interceptors, because it's not a cruiser then. In Stellaris cruiser can have any weapons and even interceptors. So it's not a cruiser any more, it's just a ship, who someone mistakenly named cruiser. It's a small carrier, so why would I build a small carrier if I want to build a big carrier, or how you call it a "battleship"?
Why should small carrier be different from big carrier, if they both are carriers? And why do you call them cruiser and battleship, if they both are carriers?

Actually this does exist in stellaris. It's literally right there in the stats of weapons. Large weapons are not meant to be good at hitting anything smaller than a cruiser, (XL and L+ being best against BB's and up, M's vs DD's, and S vs corvettes). Battleships struggle to carry M and S class mounts in a cost efficient manner. They also struggle to carry PD and can't carry any missiles. Cruisers on the other hand are very efficient at carrying medium mounts, either alone or in combination with other stuff. Destroyers are very good at mixing small and other mounts, but especially small + PD. And corvettes excel at carrying guided missiles.

None of this matters by the time your normally getting battleships because there are several sources of tracking that are available that are not nullified in any way by sources of evasion because either there's no evasion equivalent of the item, or the equivalent is much less strong than the sources of tracking. But if you could build all hull types at the start of the game you'd quickly discover BB's are far from the best option in all circumstances.

Please don't correct people's English on a forum filled with those that don't read/write English as a first language, especially when misspelling "whether" and "torpedoes" when doing so (along with forgetting some spaces). I also won't ding you for not italicizing the Latin ex nihilo, as that's more a requirement of formal writing, which forum discourse has no requirement to be.

Actually i'm a native English speaker, i'm just dyslexic so i rely heavily on spellcheckers to catch spelling mistakes, and somtimes that causes grammar errors i miss as well.

 

[Nevars]

Easy, reducing XL and L accuracy and tracking or uncap evasion and change it to cap effective evasion instead.

When your fleet of battleship, the supposely most inaccurate in the bunch that should have trouble against corvette can annihilate more than half of max evasion fleet of corvette before they can even fire a single shot we have massive balance problem.

 

[FlyingPhoenix]

Easy, reducing XL and L accuracy and tracking or uncap evasion and change it to cap effective evasion instead.

When your fleet of battleship, the supposely most inaccurate in the bunch that should have trouble against corvette can annihilate more than half of max evasion fleet of corvette before they can even fire a single shot we have massive balance problem.

It's the obvious solution, however the devs have long had an aversion to solutions they perceive to be too clear, simple and wrong..