Variable Spell and Op morale cost

As an alternative to Restore the old limit on spells and ops, we can change individual spell and op morale costs to be dependent on size similar to the calculations done for triggering fleets.

3 Likes

MMM. So jumping low size players as oppers comes back again…

Rather give me back the opp limit

1 Like

I’d suggest also having a variable number of units die on failure compared to the current fixed amount. More for offensive ops, less for passive. Say 2% for something like a vision/spy and 10% for a failed nuke or e-storm.

2 Likes

This, failing a vision shouldn’t kill 10% of your wizzard fleet, but failing somthing like a nuke or hypno? That’s fair.

1 Like

Good idea to change. But striking balance is difficult (i.e. between size and what not).

My suggestion is to first introduce a phased approach. Right now, the problem is having ‘hard’ ops being able to do too many times. The quick fix in the first instance is either:

  • Bring back the 7 ops limit (as previous thread)
  • Increase the morale required for the hard ops, like Hypno, Estorm, Nukes

If the latter is chosen (which is also fine), then we have to consider the balance of opping vs attacking, since it is the same resource being used.

Bear with me, my brain has been working overtime.

I hate to come to conclusions based on limited data (in my case, MW64 and Infinitum) but spec ops do indeed seem to be a much larger part of the game than many eons ago. From what I have witnessed, Partaxians and spells are far and away the largest source of such actions. That alone leads to this theory:

  1. Due to Partaxians’ magic bonus they have an unfair advantage. Not because they have a bonus, but because there is no counter to it. You can’t research a Magic Bonus, whereas you can research an Attack/Defense bonus.

  2. Agent ops are not as prevalent IMO because there is no bonus for them at all, hence the higher ratio of spells to ops.

Now with spec ops having become an integral part of the warfare playbook, there may be cause to reconsider their damage and frequency. Not so much a neutering of them, but a balancing instead.

If I send 100k figs to attack someone, the damage they inflict and losses suffered will vary based on the amount of figs and lasers the defender has. This is not the case in spec ops though. Maybe it should be on multiple levels, such as:

  1. No matter if a spec op is successful or not, some losses of agents/wizards could occur on both sides. This actually has a purpose in fleet attacks as in it gives you some data points that can be used to calculate the target’s fleet. Whereas no such data is provided in spec ops at this time. The 10% death rate for unsuccessful spec ops definitely could vary between soft, medium and hard spec ops.

  2. Successful spec ops could not be a fixed number anymore, i.e. a nuke will not necessarily destroy 15% of buildings, nor will kill scientists kill exactly 3% nor will a portal forcefield last exactly 10 hours. The results would vary based on the ratio of wizards/agents on the attacker’s and defender’s side.

  3. Variable morale is indeed an option, also could be variable cost based not just on own wizards/agents but opponents size/NW. (Not really a fan or this at first glance, but throwing it out there as part of the discussion.)

  4. Quantums, or another race, could have an Agent Ops bonus. Since Quantums are tech based they seem like the logical choice to me.

  5. Bonuses for agents ops and wizard spells could become researchable for all, Whether it is the same research, or separate research categories, is debatable.

  6. Getting far out in left field, but there could be a spell to kill agents, and an op to kill wizards.

1 Like

This I like.

I would hate to agree with you given our opposite viewpoints but I can agree on the magic bonus point, due to the fact it can’t be researched that is OP, a magic bonus Nerf I could agree with.

Lots of great ideas and thoughts here