The Command Project - Fleet commanders

[SirEmi]

Fleet commander battle report test (boarding commander lvl 20)
Attached (commanded) to commanded fleet for identification.

Test report for Thr Command Project => understanding how it will work / balance.

Invader g (#5)

Engaged Units
Fleet Name                   # of Units    Attack          Defence       Hitpoints
Xander V.23 (commanded)    12        0+             0+       6.488.786.062
Xander V.23                      12    1.361.649.499+    0+    3.244.393.031
Xander V.23                      12    1.361.649.499+    0+    3.244.393.031
Xander V.23                      11    1.361.406.866+    0+    3.240.397.473
Xander V.23                      8    1.360.678.972+    0+    3.228.410.799


Defender Unidentified Fleet (#)


Engaged Units
Fleet Name    # of Units    Attack    Defence    Hitpoints
Sea's Serpent MK 12    1.053    381.338+    0+    1.131
Areabots Of Venus MK 4    9.927    49.926+    0+    5.457

Our long range scanners report 5,245,857 enemy fleet power!


Engage

Fleet commander Benjamin Franklin is commanding Xander V.23 (commanded).

Assault Note


g(#5)'s Xander V.23 (commanded) fleet engaged Unidentified Fleet(#)'s Sea's Serpent MK 12 fleet on the battlefield.
=> Fleet commander Benjamin Franklin evaded some of the enemy damage... <=
=> Fleet commander Benjamin Franklin penetrated the enemy shields... <=
=> Fleet commander Benjamin Franklin disabled the enemy weapons... <=

The fleet Xander V.23 (commanded) did 0 damage to fleet Sea's Serpent MK 12.
g(#5)'s Xander V.23 (commanded) attack failed.
The fleet Sea's Serpent MK 12 did 0 damage to fleet Xander V.23 (commanded).
Unidentified Fleet(#)'s Sea's Serpent MK 12 attack failed.

Transporter stuff in boarding... let's say it didnt make it...

g(#5)'s Xander V.23 fleet engaged Unidentified Fleet(#)'s Areabots Of Venus MK 4 fleet on the battlefield.
The fleet Xander V.23 did 54.171.639 damage to fleet Areabots Of Venus MK 4.
g(#5)'s Xander V.23 fleet destroyed 9.927 of Unidentified Fleet(#)'s Areabots Of Venus MK 4 fleet.
The fleet Areabots Of Venus MK 4 did 35.684.309 damage to fleet Xander V.23.
Unidentified Fleet(#)'s Areabots Of Venus MK 4 attack failed.

Note: Third fleet attacks first enemy fleet and destroyed it. First enemy fleet is unaffected by the first attack on the commanded fleet, however it does suffer a penalty to accuracy because of second shot.

g(#5)'s Xander V.23 fleet engaged Unidentified Fleet(#)'s Sea's Serpent MK 12 fleet on the battlefield.
The fleet Xander V.23 did 1.190.943 damage to fleet Sea's Serpent MK 12.
g(#5)'s Xander V.23 fleet destroyed 1.053 of Unidentified Fleet(#)'s Sea's Serpent MK 12 fleet.
The fleet Sea's Serpent MK 12 did 7.227.881 damage to fleet Xander V.23.
Unidentified Fleet(#)'s Sea's Serpent MK 12 attack failed.


Compliments to the designers of Xander V.23 
Tributes to Benjamin Franklin on his birthday on 17 January 

[SirEmi]

I'm not one to give away trade secrets. I'm sure the other strategic players out there see the potential for ruin. Commanders are a fun idea however, but I wouldn't make them as powerful as you are suggesting. I think +/- 1% per Fleet Commander level would be more in line with the game progression thus far. Allowing variables in any given formula to be set to 0% by the opponent is bad.

And keep the Commander Level cap at 20.

Then private message me on the forum with the trade secrets, I won't tell I promise     

[basill]

Unless I read it wrong you said that you could have 2 marine commanders in one fleet would that also include the ability to use 2 differnt types of commanders on a fleet like 1 marine and 1 acu ?
Also i think if you are going to do this the cap on commander abilities should be a little lower otherwise it will be the superfleet problem but even worse. And if i were to design a ship with 99% abs would that counteract part of the commander ability used against me by 19% ? Lastly please let us use the test server to try this at least a month before you go live with it to find problems and to really see if it upsets the game bad.

[SlayerX]

hmmm i dont know about this idea it will need to be balanced and needs about a month of testing.

the boarding commander needs a big tweek i think if i get my hands on a few of those i will be the fox with a glock in the hen house waiting for the farmer 2 show up.

i will wait for the complete list of commanders you can buy before i can give anymore comments.

[jessiedog]

how about instead of directly affecting your opponents ships, just affecting your opponents bonuses? commander, mothership, and item

they could take off a percentage of that, or simply negate all bonuses your and you enemy's for the battle.

[Silence444]

ehh then you never know what your going to get. also, it makes zero sense to have a commander modify the enemy ship in any way. they control their ships, not the enemy's. idk how it will be possible to balance all of these bonuses in such a way that everyone will be happy so instead i propose commanders yield special abilities that players may choose between before or durring each battle which are gained at predetermined levels such as 1, 5, 10 and 20 with the only constant bonus being something like +1-3%/lvl to the commander's chance to escape. an example set of abilities in corresponding order for the marine commander would be: Med-Evac, Proximity Jump, Spec Op and Combined Assault

Med-Evac = -X% to casualties weather commander is attacking or defending (default defense action)

Proximity Jump = X% chance to warp in directly next to target fleet and board before first combat round and if failed has Y% chance to mis the combat altogether and Z% chance to somehow take extra damage

Spec Op = X% chance to go completely undetected for the combat duration (undetected = not getting shot at) but suffers a Y% penalty to number of marines in boarding party which increases with ship size

Combined Assault = the ability to focus the boarding parties of the commanded ship after the first round of normal combat onto w/e fleet the player chooses (note that this ability would require the player to choose before the final combat resolution)

some alternative abilities are:

Second Wave = an offensive ability that allows a ship to send an additional wave of boarders after the initial standard combat. the second party suffers penalties so size because it now draws from a smaller pool of marines and also suffers an X% additional decrease in size because of moral/logistics. (note that if the ship was captured/destroyed in the first go, the second wave would target the next logical target that ship would otherwise engage)

Counter Offensive = another defensive marine ability which would allow any defending fleet which has been boarded X% chance to launch its own boarding party after a successful defense (note that this definitely mixes things up for attackers that previously never had to worry about their ships being captured in a boarding action)

Fighter Pods = marines are deployed in small armed insertion pods that double as missiles doing damage at 100% acu = to the number of marines deployed before boarding their target (note that this damage may destroy the fleet in which case X% of marines are recovered)

*Note* none of these ideas are refined or tested but i think that for the most part they provide a healthy solution to avoid giving players ridiculous % bonuses and penalties plus they mix things up and add additional strategic elements (which, unless i'm mistaken, is emi's goal). idk, lemme know if any of u guys like this idea, i've got plenty more where these came from.

[FTP]

Emi I would just get that commander on a strong ship keep hitting very weak encrypts till I have a decent lvl (when ships turn immortal) and I will have an immortal fleet........

And doing this will just ruin the entire thought of getting rid of the need of grinding, as only by grinding you can train your commander.

When you make a boarder with no attack and accuracy (the real boarders) no matter how much acu or attack you gonna drain it wont have any effect.

Still against this. Worst update so far in my eye's

[jessiedog]

i didn't really understand the first part, but about the thing of a boarder with no atk, acc. maybe a ship has to have them, like for ever 1 bil atk, u gain equal hp + X%, X being the commander level. that way in order to use the bonuses, u cant just design a pure boarder.

[Silence444]

right... well i guess my ideas weren't a big hit. w/e i'm happy as long as things get "spiced up"

[al3xazz]

this is directed at anyone that thinks that commanders will unbalance things

-> gain exp in battles (100.000 exp for each level.  10 exp for lost battle, 35 exp for won battle)

to get your commander youll have to do (20*100.000)/35=57.143

and this is only if u win every single mission

if it takes about 6-7 seconds for a single contract it will take you lots of time to get a single commander to lvl20- and if u want to get more than one to lvl20 youll have a few weeks of grinding on your hands

now back to my gunner
i know it seems hes a bit overpowered or something but i think it could be posibble to produce more commanders by using the same name

for example :

Rookie Gunner
Bonus / penalty / level: +0.25% to fleet attack, +0.25 to accuracy, -0.25% from fleets hp
Special Abilities (when this fleet is attacking or is attacked. Penalty goes to the paired enemy fleet):
   -> Level:5    Name:Fast shooting(rookie)        Action: 2% attack bonus
   -> Level:10   Name:Sniper(rookie)   Action: 4% accuracy boost
   -> Level:20   Name:Gun mastery(rookie)      Action: has 25% chance to do 1.5x damage

Experienced Gunner
Bonus / penalty / level: +0.5% to fleet attack, +0.5 to accuracy, -0.5% from fleets hp
Special Abilities (when this fleet is attacking or is attacked. Penalty goes to the paired enemy fleet):
   -> Level:5    Name:Fast shooting (Experienced)       Action: 4% attack bonus
   -> Level:10   Name:Sniper (Experienced)  Action: 6% accuracy boost
   -> Level:20   Name:Gun mastery (Experienced)     Action: has 50% chance to do 1.5x damage

Veteran Gunner
Bonus / penalty / level: +1% to fleet attack, +1 to accuracy, -1% from fleets hp
Special Abilities (when this fleet is attacking or is attacked. Penalty goes to the paired enemy fleet):
   -> Level:5    Name:Fast shooting (Veteran)       Action: 6% attack bonus
   -> Level:10   Name:Sniper (Veteran)  Action: 8% accuracy boost
   -> Level:20   Name:Gun mastery (Veteran)      Action: has 25% chance to do double damage

Elite Gunner
Bonus / penalty / level: +1.5% to fleet attack, +1.5 to accuracy, -1.5% from fleets hp
Special Abilities (when this fleet is attacking or is attacked. Penalty goes to the paired enemy fleet):
   -> Level:5    Name:Fast shooting (Elite)        Action: 8% attack bonus
   -> Level:10   Name:Sniper (Elite)   Action: 10% accuracy boost
   -> Level:20   Name:Gun master (Elite)     Action: has 50% chance to do double damage

i admit the bonus/penalty values could use a bit more tweaking- but this was only meant as an example of what could be done with a single blueprint for a commander

oh and the more experienced commander the bigger the starting bid - as in rookie starts at lets say 50mill, experienced at 150mill, veteran at 300mill and elite at 500mill(only an example)

[Tzarkoth]

I did the math al3xazz. There is no thinking involved, Fleet Commanders as postulated above would be a complete disaster. As a side note, what do you mean, 'only if you win every single mission' ??? People fail missions ? Odd ... but ok.

We introduced the Mission Multiplier so people would not have to sit at the computer for 5 hours a day mindlessly grinding missions to stay competitive. Now you want to introduce a mechanic that makes people have to do that .... Not a good idea.

If you based Fleet Commander XP on time rather than missions it would be better.

I'd even consider dropping the adv/disadvantage Fleet Commanders can give to a max +/- 10% on any one stat. So your looking at 0.05% per level.

[al3xazz]

oops- my bad

my suggestions go only towards the main server- and it would be quite teribble to add comanders that can give huge advantage for a player on wars- and yes i agree with Tzarkoth that on wars server commander xp shouldnt depend on completing missions- it should be more like xp gain for players- a set ammount every day- then players will just have to keep their commanders around long enough to get them to lvl20 (lets say 10k exp per day- that means lvl20 will be reached in 200days)

[TheMerchant]

nice, alex. i think 200 days will work for the wars server.

and i think this would make things interesting. i dont see how it would mess up the game in the long run or "ruin the game"... ^_^ i just click the button that says attack, and occasionally use items, with high percentages...

[MeGuaRen]

Specialty: Energy Physicist
Bonus / penalty / level: -5% Travel-Time Turns, -1.5% Accuracy, -1.5% Marines from everything besides the Marine System
Special Abilities:
   -> Level:5    Name:Super Lubricant        Action: There is no reduction for specific attack (Regular, Board, Scout, Raid)
   -> Level:10   Name:Upgrade                 Action: Your Shields are boosted 5%
   -> Level:20   Name:100% Efficiency      Action: No reduction for multiple fleet attacks. No turns are used to travel about the galaxy. Sadly you lose 30% of your accuracy, because the "Engine's efficiency is key" according to Le Franz.

[FTP]

Last commander will be put on a decoy to get rid of the penalty's bad idea