Are fleets with an active running Minesweeper immune to mines and may freely travel thru mined areas?
Minesweeper must be the flagship. Mine sweeper must be turned on. Mine detectors don’t count. You can entirely bypass mines with entire war armadas if you really feel like it* – split the armada up into chunks, each chunk fleeted with a minesweeper; run them all into the system; split them back apart and reform your group.
I once did that with 6 entire warfleets and blew someone out of a system. Took me like an hour and a half because I didn’t have enough sweepers on hand to do it all at once, so I had to shuttle them in. There’s some risk in this that the enemy can catch you doing it and then you have to hustle to either get out or regroup really fast.
(* – reason #15 that the whole mine laying/sweeping system in this game needs to be completely redesigned or removed)
Thats crazy, that explains why Ripchee fleets are so dangerous with its Flagship 12 corvetts.
Only the flagship can sweep but yes Ripchee’s strength in game is their ability to bring in 11 war ships under a vette flagship. But of course the war ships slow down the speed of the vette to their speed. Short sprints that could be W7 with 7/1 engines on the war ships or more likely a max of w5, or likely w3 when the war ships are using 3/5 engines.
And don’t forget that active skill becames disabled after battle. Which makes possible to spam-with-cheap-smth-untill-he -will-be-out-of-fuel (invisible corvettes 4example) tactic as countermeasure against sweepers.
cheap “suicide ships” solve a lot of problems in game like this.
If we had better tactical options overall we would not need such sledgehammer tactics
Heh, suicide-disruption, interesting “sledgehammer” countermeasure to minesweeper-led-fleets prancing thru minefields at engine speed, if you are online to observe the transit. @joe the minesweeper/minefield relationship in a 24/7 game like this might be better served if sweeper led fleets were slowed to some minimum speed (1-2 LY/hr or 1/2 speed) for the duration of transit in the field (not a new idea, a warp disruption effect has been mentioned in the huge thread on minefield issues). The attacker always has the pick-the-time-of-engagement advantage.
This just makes defence even easier, would make the few people who go to war hate their life.
I understand the need for systems balancing online vs offline play, but this would make fighting against an active defender extremely difficult.
This is basically what we are asking for with the “interdiction” / “warp scrambler” concepts. Just remove minefields as we think of them today and replace it with a straight up time-barrier for entering systems, in order to give offline defenders some chance and generally slow the pace.
Mines as they are today are, I think, meant to be a time barrier but they are wildly unreliable and unpredictable, depending on multiple unforeseeable factors.
As I believe it should be, particularly when it comes to solo and/or new players. I can’t speak for anyone hating their life, but I’ve been playing the game only for months now and my perspective is always being surprised by the views shared in forums. The game, again imho, is supposed to be long game. Having time to react in defense or planning an attack knowing the defender might act using the extra time afforded by a minefield slowdown just makes my spidey sense tingle more in the pre-planning stage, which then plays out. All good things in their own time.
There is a problem I see a lot (there ought to be a name for it) that goes like this:
The game (any game) has some problems.
The problems cause most people to quit.
You are left with a core group of veterans who actually likes the problems. They campaign in favor of keeping the problems and say you will ruin the game if you do anything about the problems. The people who didn’t like the problems don’t say anything because they already left.
I’m a bit worried that Outscape is already in this category. A lot of people seem to be against making changes and in favor of things that help them win battles against offline people and in favor of things that help a 16-hour-a-day player more easily beat a 3-hour-a-day player. The devs, not wanting to upset their core veterans, seem to listen and not make any drastic changes so the problems persist and the game has a hard time growing.
Having time to react is fine, but have you ever tried attacking a skilled player?
If we end up with ship slowing when attacking and sweeping, then even fewer people will dare go to war, few do already.
While a ship slowing system would help solo players against alliances, it would also make it near impossible to win an offenaive war solo, forcing people to join alliances just to be able to fight a war.
There is an element of ‘all things being equal’ that is frequently missing in hypothetical discussions, but the answer is no. Can you share an example or two?
I’m sorry, I don’t see how one relates to the other. There is I think a couple other threads with lively discussion about reasons to goto war. It’s just my opinion but I think excessive resource availability, the resolution of bring-a-friend-into-the-game, perhaps additional enforced treaty options, and maybe introducing other global competitive goals are much much larger issues that will effect where frictions and wars develop. As a relatively new (unskilled?) player I am interested in discussion of rebalancing the use of minefields. It seems there are some novel or perhaps unintended uses like building strings of them out into space.
Starting out as a solo player, the possibility of a benefit against an alliance sounds good to me. One of my neighbors is, from what I can gather, a mostly solo player that has fared remarkably well against the onslaught of 2 alliances, and minefield use was an integral part of his strategy. Not that slowing speed in a minefield would necessarily have made this players success more robust, but minefields were placed around strategically placed systems and from what I’ve seen there’s a powerful fleet force and I’m sure substantial planetary support to implement his will. While ‘all things being equal’ is usually a hypothetical and I generally think that hooking up with other players in this game is vital for long term participation, it is not necessary to successfully participate.
In all this, traveling thru a minefield at full speed mostly negates it’s intended purpose (you still have to reconfigure fleets on the other side, if you want to). Slowing speed is an incremental change with consequences that can be evaluated over time and adjusted or discarded without major consequence. Incremental differences in strategy make for interesting game play.
The defenders advantage is already so extreme that people can survive mass zerging from alliances.
If you make defence stronger then it becomes near impossible to wage war.
We need balancing specifically against alliances, not a system that buffs defence against both alliances and solo players.
I really don’t think that’s true. There is no defense advantage at all if you’re simply offline. Most of how I survived was on the backs of the lack of experience of my enemies. They did a lot of things wrong and really should have steamrolled me 2 months earlier.
For example, the most powerful ability which they almost never used is simply minefield bypass – split all your ships up into mini-fleets and bring them in with sweepers, then reassemble them. Their prime time was my offline hours so they could have done this at any time. There were a lot of cases where they showed up to a system with enough ships to crush it but simply dallied around outside for weeks. They could have done the minefield bypass and won a number of key systems away from me in 1 evening.
But that’s why I say there are no true “defender advantages” in fleet combat. It’s all online advantage vs offline disadvantage. As long as I’m online, I can prevent them from doing things like the minefield bypass. (You also get a big advantage in multiple fleet vs multiple fleet combat if your opponent is offline because you can pick out the fight proceeds.)
That’s why I think ultimately we have to look at solutions that are less about alliance vs solo or offense vs defense and more about equalizing online vs offline. Minefields, mine sweeping and any sort of bypass method should ideally work just about the same if either side is offline.
I’d be in favor of slowing down sweepers, btw, because sweeper vs layer gameplay right now is super dumb. You’re sweeping. We’re both online. Chasing your warp 9 sweepers around with my warp 9 chasers is largely a fool’s game. I also found the lazy man’s way to sweep was to simply park at the edge of the field with everything in a pile, ideally inside of my own minefield. You try to hit my sweepers and one of my warfleets pops out and tackles you first. You bring a bunch of warfleets out, I play the warp-9-sweepers-running-about game and you can’t kill any of them.
Slowing sweepers down would force the sweepers to either stack up for a fight or run away entirely.
I don’t really like the clickfest alternative we have today because it’s all about who can stay online the longest.
If we have to slow down sweepers, then they should not be slowed as much as originally suggested.
I could maybe see people accepting being slowed to warp 7 without making defenders too strong.
This in combination with something like the armada suggestion could potentially balance it.
I will ask only one thing. Does the defender slowed too in his own minefields? Or u trying to NEFR THE SABERS?
If we’re still talking about just slowing down minesweepers then no, since the defender isn’t sweeping his own field. If there are overlapping fields then I guess they are both slow.
Nerfing Sabers a little should be fine.
And I was the first who told this after they introduce scout engine.