category Let's Discuss Game Balance

[Akame 4,698]

On 7/18/2026 at 10:25 AM, YourLovelyCrush said:

Medium Hull + DA + Protection + Defender => 22.8k HP ??? (Unless Defender's defense is calculated differently then idk really)


 

17400 effective hp

 

I don't like the way you're trying to complicate the protection module by converting it into a weird additive formula.

 

The game is reworking drones pretty soon, so do wait a bit more.

On 7/18/2026 at 10:25 AM, YourLovelyCrush said:

 

 

Benefits of proposed Change:-

• Augment Variety increases (People would be able to play the not so meta augments and combos, and still have fun)
• The dependence on Lifesaver/Excelsior augments decrease especially for light hulls
• The Gap between Newer augments and older/ even crystal augments decrease, allowing for easier balancing without butchering a turret
• MM becomes less reliant on being a rock-Paper-Scissor match with protection swapping (Which I assume the developers are trying with the 14min cool down on garage)

 

This as an idea allows infinitely more balancing options for drones, Augments, turrets' and hulls' base-kit stats


 

Augment meta choice would increase further if players, especially those ones who rely on their fav defender+prot combo.

As a result, dependency would increase for lifeguard and excelsior augments.

Gap between augs will always stay, the game will maintain the powercreep and power difference between a legendary and a rare augment.

I like that you want to balance protection modules, but this is not a standard way to go about it. Now if you said to simply cut module effectiveness from 50% protection to 25%, that would have been simpler. But the thing with this is, majority of the playerbase (that has spent a long time getting these expensive things maxed) will complain.

 

TLDR:

I'd say wait for the upcoming changes to suggest anything further. But imbalance in this game is pretty normal.

[THRN 29]

On 7/29/2026 at 10:40 AM, Akame said:

I like that you want to balance protection modules, but this is not a standard way to go about it. Now if you said to simply cut module effectiveness from 50% protection to 25%, that would have been simpler. But the thing with this is, majority of the playerbase (that has spent a long time getting these expensive things maxed) will complain.

Cutting ModuIe effectiveness from 50% protection to 40% wouId be more acceptabIe.

50% => 40%

25% => 20%

When it was onIy 3 ModuIes the totaI possibIe protection was 150 (50+50=50).

This wouId be 160 (40=40=40=40).

Devs couId aIso make it optionaI: lf you want your 50% you can onIy use 3; but if you want 4 ModuIes, then 40%.

5 at 30%, 6 at 25%. Just kidding... a IittIe. 

[Akame 4,698]

On 7/29/2026 at 8:23 PM, THRN said:

 

5 at 30%, 6 at 25%. Just kidding... a IittIe. 

Tbh it's a nice approach, but module slots are a thing, which also costs a lot of crystals now. Module slots have been hard locked away and seems events don't give them anymore as players complained so getting that 4th unlocked is a hard 500k crystals? Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is a super large sum for a new player heading into endgame.

[THRN 29]

On 7/29/2026 at 11:38 PM, Akame said:

Tbh it's a nice approach, but module slots are a thing, which also costs a lot of crystals now. Module slots have been hard locked away and seems events don't give them anymore as players complained so getting that 4th unlocked is a hard 500k crystals? Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is a super large sum for a new player heading into endgame.

You're right about the Siots. 

l'm not sure how the conversion couId be.

[Dumbledore6969 307]

On 7/18/2026 at 11:25 AM, YourLovelyCrush said:

 

Topic merged