Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It would be better if a 10% reduction actually reduced the maintenance paid by 10%, not the % of ships cost to pay as maintenance. Currently, 110 makes you pay 15% maintenance instead of 25% maintenance. A better system would be where 110 makes you pay 22.5% instead (which would actually be a 10% reduction in maintenance costs). Multiplication instead of addition (or subtraction)</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I posted this earlier today.

Hmm... I don't think I have ever quoted myself before...

[ December 22, 2002, 07:38: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

Thanks Imperator,

I knew that the calculations were non intuitive. I agree that it would make more sense to talk about the numbers the way you suggest.

I am also aware (unless I am wrong) that there is a hardcoded 5% minimum value.

When someone said 'broke', I thought that there was something wrong in how the effects were applied by the program.

It seems to me that the complaint is more one of balance (i.e. cost of changing the trait) rather than execution (i.e. the function does not work as intended).

In that light, I understand your comments about how it behaves differently based on the size of the map. However, it seems to me that most of the racial traits and ability adjustments are more or less cost effective in light of the rules package in place. For example, spending points to improve research ability is useless if you are playing with max tech.

One of the biggest 'wake up calls' I have gotten while learning to play this game was finding out how you could go in tampering with the abilities. For example, running cunning (ability to run intelligence missions) down very very far when you are not allowing intelligence.

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

Puke spoke about the map size, not me.

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ok, I'll take:
research 120
construction 120
defense 120
offense 120
minerals 120
maint reduction 110
Advanced Storage
Hardy Industrialist
Ancient Race

You get 80's in all those, and let's have at it!</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This is a good point. I'd say fine, if we use Proportions mod, where I balanced the point costs. The listed advantages in Proportions cost 12000 racial selection points. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

This can actually (barely) be acquired in a 5000 point start, for instance with the following disadvantages:

Slow Builders
Cursed
Supply Guzzlers
Physical Strength 50
Repair Aptitude 50
Cunning 60
Environmental Resistance 60
Political Savvy 60
Farming 56
Refining 60
Reproduction 91
Happiness 60

That is, almost completely maxed down in everything else. In Proportions, you'd be hurtin'! Probably your population would riot pretty quickly, and then maybe your homeworld would split in half. That might make it hard to win.

My guess is that other 5000-point choices would tend to find they had reasonable compensating advantages. For one thing, the 10% maintenance reduction is only going to actually get you 10%, not 40%. Buying up to 40% in Proportions would cost an additional 1570 points, which can't be paid off - with everything at minimum (three at 25%), there would still be a 254 point deficit.

Which is a long way of saying (again) that yeah, the point costs in the unmodded set aren't very well balanced in many ways. They can be modded for balance, though.

PvK

(edited typo)

[ December 22, 2002, 11:23: Message edited by: PvK ]

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Spoon, I think that your position in total is fairly reasonable. You don't appear to believe that there is one "Uber weapon" or that there is "One way" to win at SEIV. Although others in the past have tried to make that claim. Please pardon our zealousness if we felt as if that is what you were saying at the begining.

I still don't accept the idea that these things you speak of are "gamey". They are part of the game. These are choices, either in empire setup or in game tactics. If you choose one you likely are not choosing something else that may help just as much, or nearly so. So it's all about tradeoffs and what makes you the most confortable.

Every game depends heavily on decisions you make before the game, or very early in the game. People don't claim that taking the center square in tic-tac-toe is gamey because it gives the player an advantage do they? Gaining an advantage is what games are all about. SEIV just gives you a lot more ways than the average game to do that. And it gives you ways to overcome disadvantages and poor decisions more than just about any game I have ever played.

There are two dozen things or more that you can do at game startup to get an advantage over an opponent. If you do all of them it will require a lot of racial points, even in the stock game. If you do them though and your opponent doesn't, you will have a big edge. That much is frankly undeniable. I would be an idiot to claim otherwise.

What I reject is the idea that any one of them makes you unbeatable. So you didn't make that claim, many have at one time or another.

Here's how it goes. Someone steps up and says, "PPB are unbalenced uber weapons!". I chime in and say, "Bah, there are no UBER weapons. The skill of the player is what matters most." Then the PPB cultist and I have a long discussion about why someone usign PPBs can or can't be beaten. In the end the person is always saying, "Well if you do this and that and this AND have PPB, you will be unbeatable.", at which point I simply laugh because the player that has the skill to do the "this and that and this" will do well regardless of weapon choice. That's was my point to begin with. They all come around to it in the end, wheether they know it or not. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Geoschmo

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And you are a good man for fixing it. I guess my only complaint towards MM is that they don't do enough in the way of post-release balancing. And that's not much of a complaint, since the game is still so enjoyable without it...

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

Quote:

Spoon, I think that your position in total is fairly reasonable. You don't appear to believe that there is one "Uber weapon" or that there is "One way" to win at SEIV. Although others in the past have tried to make that claim. Please pardon our zealousness if we felt as if that is what you were saying at the begining. I still don't accept the idea that these things you speak of are "gamey". They are part of the game. These are choices, either in empire setup or in game tactics. If you choose one you likely are not choosing something else that may help just as much, or nearly so. So it's all about tradeoffs and what makes you the most confortable.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ah, good, then we are just down to semantics. I consider min-maxing a "gamey" thing, and that's what you have to do to get the optimal race set-ups. The characteristics I listed earlier (research, ship combat, mining, construction, maint., Adv Storage, HI, Ancient Race) are so important, that you don't have any points left over (in a standard 2k game) to tweak the lesser traits too much. PvKs solution (balance the costs) leaves you, I think, with a lot more in the way of Choice, since you can no longer simply choose Everything That Matters. In fact, the biggest choices bow seem to be between choosing between Propulsion Experts, Defensiveness, and some Racial Tech. And if to choose Warrior, Bezerker, Engineer, or Merchant. And if to push Construction to 125 somehow, and if to drop Political Savvy to 80% or lower. (see, not denying that there are still hard choices to make - just that I don't think there are enough of 'em)

Also, I don't consider "gamey" to be a bad thing, either. (except maybe for role-playing). Playing with the numbers is great fun, to me.

-spoon

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Heh, you must spend too much time hanging around with programmers and other such literalists...
Anyway, by "broken", I meant "does not work the way you think it does" (both undocumented and counterintuitive) and "is also out of whack balance-wise" (shouldn't be able to spend 500 points to get a 66% fleet size advantage)

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

The only truly equitable situation would be for players to have to start with the same set up - sort of like Chess. But what fun is that?

Personally I think any strategy, tactic, or component that beats my playing style should be patched out.

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually it might be interesting for a change of pace once in a while. Sort of an IROC SEIV. We had the neutral challage game awhile back. That was kind of like that.

Geoschmo

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I have a chess scenario, and its pretty cool. An 8x8 grid of systems, a resource-generating king (if he dies, you lose because your ships get scrapped) A powerful queen, Heavily armored Rooks, repairship bishops, fast & powerful knight cruisers, and a bunch of pawn destroyers.

Hunt down the enemy king, while protecting your own!

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Only if they are accurate, and the person you're trying to convince understands them well enough to interpret them and verify that they are accurate.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- Mark Twain

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

Why are agressiveness and defensiveness (combat only bonuses) being considered very important? Just wondering as I have never touched them. Yes, I know exactly how they work, so is it not just a personal choice for either more ships or better ships? Sorry, I can't seem to find who originally posted on this...

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not 20%, not 40% but 80%!

Take two identical, opposing ships. Set them at a distance from each other so that they each have a 50% chance to hit. In this situation its a crap shoot.

Now, give full training to one ship. Suddenly he gets 20% for ship training and 20% for fleet training. That modest 50% has leapt to a staggering 90%! But don't stop there. His defense has increased by the same amount causing his opponent's chance to hit to drop from 50% to an abysmal 10%! 'Nuf said. (Note that warrior and berserker status, aggressiveness and defensiveness have similar, though less compounded effects.)

In several spots in this thread, Geo said that its the player's skill that matters. I couldn't agree more! This game is so complex that it is player skill in using this complexity, that more than any other factor, win's the day.

[ December 22, 2002, 20:34: Message edited by: Grandpa Kim ]

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It is because of how the combat system works. Any difference in to hit chances makes a huge difference in the results of combat. Take 125 agg and def, and Berzerker. You opponent does not. That gives you an automatic 35% to hit and defense bonus. That means that a lot fewer enemy shots hit your ships, and a lot more of your shots hit enemy ships. You destroy his ships much faster, and then even fewer of his shots hit. It is a snowball effect.

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

Yeah, the whole combat system would be a lot more balanced and less easily lopsided if the to-hit factors were actually factors (that multiply) instead of additive stacking modifiers. I've ranted and explicated that to MM until I finally gave up.

Anyway, I'll make a balance mod that only affects the racial point costs in the otherwise-unmodded game. Not that there would be only one way to do it, but I think I can come up with something pretty reasonable, or at least a big improvement. I'll start a new thread soliciting opinions. Then people can re-argue all the balance issues. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Oh, and as for MM not fixing the balance in patches, I think he's tried to limit changes to the basic game except where really necessary, because of the effects on existing games, and in breaking people's favorite tactics. Even with what little has been changed, there have already been some players who got bothered by some of the changes to the system.

PvK

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

Yes, it's very difficult for Malfador to do balancing tweaks when we can't agree on how much they should be changed, or even if they need changed to begin with. A lot of those issues he ticks off as many people with the fix as he makes happy, so why bother? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Geoschmo

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

Not to mention that changing racial characteristic/trait costs makes all previous AIs and EMP files obsolete. That would really tick off some people.

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

I guess it's a matter of perspective. I'd rather he perfect his game. Modders are a small minority of people, whereas there are likely 100,000 people who don't know what a mod is.

Do you think Blizzard waits until there is some sort of concensus before they balance their games? Nope. Do people get pissed off? Yes. Are their games better because of it? Yes.

-Spoon

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

How do you define the game as better Spoon? If an equal number of people are upset by the change as made happy by it, sounds like no net improvement to me.

edit: And I am not talking about stuff like the maint reduction here. Those sorts of things could be changed and I doubt anyone would complain too much. And he does change those sorts of things. It may just be a matter of enough people complaining to him about it. I don't know about Blizzard specifically, but I doubt they put out more patches for their games and are more responsive to the players than Malfador. I don't think anyone is.

But stuff like the PPB, where a legitimate case can be made for both sides. It's tough there to make changes without ticking people off. Those that don't think there is anything wrong with it anyway.

Geoschmo

[ December 23, 2002, 14:40: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

Moon Training helped a lot in one game. I also had 2 space stations with repair bays at the same location. It was next door to a contested system.
I brought in an old, large fleet of LCs and retrofitted them in two turns. They gained 18% experience in two turns. 18% is good enough!!! I then transfered fleet experience from a training escort, adding another 20% for a total gain of 38% in attack and defense in two turns.

Of course not every system will have a planet with two moons. It is chance that it is located somewhere usefull.

BTW: I agree with Fyron on most all of his points.

My own PBW experience has really drove home the importance of Attack and Defense bonuses, however you can get them. My ships have survived attacks by larger fleets and swarms of SATs with little damage and delivered killing blows with just moderate firepower.

I like NONE atmosphere races. I capture or trade for them the first chance I get.

[ December 23, 2002, 16:48: Message edited by: Wardad ]

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I define it by balance, depth, and enjoyment. Balance is just numbers, depth is availability of significant choices, and enjoyment is subjective. In your example, I would say that there would be an improvement- to balance and depth, at no net cost to enjoyment.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Those are exactly the things I am talking about. If MM does address these issues, it is pretty rare, and usually a more drastic code-based change as opposed to simple data tuning (eg, Engine Destroyers no longer skipping shields, Bases no longer "fleetable"). PPBs certainly aren't on the top of the "needs tuning" list, and I know you love your PPB, but ask yourself this: would you still use them if they did 10 pts less damage? What about 5 points less? If you answered "yes", it could probably use some tuning.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Blizzard is probably the best of the Big developement houses as far as game quality and support goes. Still, MM outshines them by far, which is all the more amazing given that MM is just one (possibly cloned) guy. (Or maybe that is the reason. I don't know.)

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm still waiting to hear that legitimate case. And what kind of person gets ticked off if PPBs start doing slightly less damage? Does he really have to cater to that type of person? He's the developer. He allowed to step on a few toes.

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Including your toes.

You're making the totally unwarranted assumption that Aaron's idea of perfection exactly matches your own.

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

Originally posted by spoon:
PPBs certainly aren't on the top of the "needs tuning" list, and I know you love your PPB, but ask yourself this: would you still use them if they did 10 pts less damage? What about 5 points less? If you answered "yes", it could probably use some tuning.
Actually I am not particularly in love with the PPB. I rarely if ever use them. So few people use standard shields because of the threat of PPB's that they have lost their real edge IMHO. Typically I will research DUCs to the limit and then switch over to APB's. Although that's simply habit. There are others that work just fine.

I'm still waiting to hear that legitimate case. And what kind of person gets ticked off if PPBs start doing slightly less damage? Does he really have to cater to that type of person? He's the developer. He allowed to step on a few toes.True enough. But why should he make a change and step on their toes when he can do nothing and step on yours. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

If you haven't been convinced by the myriad of discussions we have had on this forum, I won't waste your time or mine. But that's ok. You don't have to agree with me that PPB's are balanced. My point is only that a lot of people do agree with me. And since maybe as many people agree they are that think they are not, and because they can be "fixed" anytime by anyone in a mod, why should Malfador bother?

The maint thing is different, cause it really would require a hard code change. Unless you do the fancy thing SJ added to his mod. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

It's all about priorities and available time. Everybody has their own pet projects that would "Only take a few minutes", but if you add all those up He'd be working on the game till the end of time.

I don't set Aarons schedule, so I don't pretend to know how much time he has available. I assume his time is finite, so I prefer if he is going to make changes it be in areas that we cannot mod. Adding more of that depth you talked about by adding abilities to the game that modders can take advantage of, and tweaking the remaining annoying bugs like the mine thing that was squished in the Last patch.

But I don't suggest my priorities are the best ones. If you have a suggestion, especially a data fiel change that can be easily done, my suggestion is to make the change and send it to Malfador in an email. He does respond to those from time to time. Just ask Fyron. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Geoschmo

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And is a disadvantage, because it means you want to move your ships there, rather than to various dispersed locations, for training.

A centralised training center that can get you to 18% fleet-and-ship in two turns is nice, but also count the travel time to the sector from where a ship is bult, and thenf rom that sector to where the ship is needed.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Call me crazy, but I think there SHOULD be a single "this is the best choice" weapon at any given stage of the game.

[quote]Having 125% defense + bezerker will make you unbeatable against people unaware of how combat works.[quote]

No it won't. Defense is useless against the Talisman. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif And doesn't matter much for seekers either (granted, seekers-vs-PDC is also kinda unbalanced, but ... *shrug* ...).

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I disagree, somewhat; it's *an* advantage, but not a *huge* advantage ... because the points spent for +10% maintenance,might have gone elsewhere instead. And besides which, Maintenance reduction is easily modded for clearer balance (see P&N).

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Crazy! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Well, IMO, players should be torn between various weapons at all stages.
Do I use a P&N Polaron beam to nail anybody with a heavy shield generator, or non-polaron beams to do more damage to phased shields?
Do I use a P&N Torpedo so I can hit the slippery aliens (+15% to +25% accuracy), or do I use particle weapons for higher damage?
Do I use bombardment missiles to penetrate PD and shields, or regular CSMs to do more hull damage?
DO I use shields to protect against boarding and ion weapons and have faster repair, or armor to get more hitpoints for cheaper?

IMO, All the weapons should have thier own niche, and be worth using in a balanced range of circumstances. Preferably enough to get players to put more than one type of weapon on their ships! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">!!! Remember - This is like Rock/Paper/Scissors !!!

1) Who am I Fighting?

2) What composes their fleet now?

3) What will beat them now?

The answer will change from enemy to enemy and also from turn to turn (if your opponent is sly).

For every ship, there is an anti-ship.
For every tactic, there is an anti-tactic.

The key to success is being able to manage that reality.

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hehehe http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Yeah, the next patch should include a little something that will help solve one major problem with the combat system. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

I agree with SJ, I like having to make the choice between weapon types, and potentially choosing more than one. It adds a nice element of strategy to the game vs. "who can generate the most ppb light cruisers"

Having multiple viable weapons choices encourages using recon/intelligence to find the composition of other players fleets. Again, more depth to that sort of game.

Then again, I'm also all for leaky shields/leaky armor http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What? That laughter sounds most unfair. I hope you do not immediately upgrade our current game.

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

Fyron: So, um, what's this change that you instigated?

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Am I? Seems like a peculiar belief! I think what I am really assuming is that I he cares about the game (since he keeps patching it...) And given that assumption, I find it odd that he hasn't addressed some of the balance issues, since they are fairly easy to fix.

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And is a disadvantage, because it means you want to move your ships there, rather than to various dispersed locations, for training.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You don't have to move your ships there if it is important for them to be somewhere else, and you aren't prohibited from building more training centers elsewhere...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Why do you feel that way? Lack of choices makes weapons research decisions pointless.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You can't choose Talisman after-the-fact. If your enemies fleets are unbeatable because you are getting a -60% to hit them, it is too late.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, the advantage is huge. It essentially increases your (max) fleet size by 66%. Well worth the points, even in small galaxies with 0 racial points.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's not a good excuse for leaving it unbalanced in the core game. Mods aren't played by a lot of people, and, I suspect, even fewer people would play a "balanced" mod.

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

"And given that assumption, I find it odd that he hasn't addressed some of the balance issues, since they are fairly easy to fix."

No, they aren't. Have you tried?

"No, the advantage is huge. It essentially increases your (max) fleet size by 66%. Well worth the points, even in small galaxies with 0 racial points."

Compare the 10 points in maitance to 10 points in, say, Minerals. Or in ship yards, or..you get the picture? I've lost many a game because I couldn't get ships out fast enough. My coffers were full, I was getting thousands of extra resources per turn..and it didn't matter.

Phoenix-D

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">They are balance issues in your opinion. In the opinion of others they aren't.

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">My problem has never been a lack of minerals, it has always been a lack of construction capacity to use those minerals fast enough. If you are building max size fleets then you aren't being aggressive enough to keep their and your fleet sizes down.

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes. Increase things that are too low. Lower things that are too high. Test. Repeat.

It is the "test" that takes time, and he has people that test for him...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">what about Repair, Resistance, Strength, Organics, etc? Maint. Reduction is at least in the top 3 most important characteristics, and it's cost should be weighted to reflect that (or maint reduction should be made to work differently). Or are you going to tell me that 10 points is maint reduction is equivalent to, say 50 points in Tolerance, or 50 points in Repair?

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

"Yes. Increase things that are too low. Lower things that are too high. Test. Repeat"

Ever notice how people disagree on which is which, and how it needs to be fixed either way?

"Maint. Reduction is at least in the top 3 most important characteristics, and it's cost should be weighted to reflect that (or maint reduction should be made to work differently)."

No, it shouldn't. IIRC it already costs more, and it's a reduction in -maintaince-. That doesn't directly correlate to production, mainly because there are other things production can be used for.

"Or are you going to tell me that 10 points is maint reduction is equivalent to, say 50 points in Tolerance, or 50 points in Repair?"

Tolerance is a -weird- trait. I'm not claiming that everything is perfectly balanced, but it isn't quite as simple as you think either. Used to be that the main balance complaint was about the APB, not the PPB.

Phoenix-D

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

Quote:

They are balance issues in your opinion. In the opinion of others they aren't.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Who is claiming there aren't balance issues? I think there is agreement there. What those balance issues are, and how significant they are, and how difficult it is to fix them, are, I think, the topics of debate.
If there is someone who claims the game is balanced, please compare:
Mechanoid Race Vs Advanced Storage (each cost 1000 points)
Repair vs Maint Reduction
Torpedoes vs. DUCs or PPBs.

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">what about Repair, Resistance, Strength, Organics, etc? Maint. Reduction is at least in the top 3 most important characteristics, and it's cost should be weighted to reflect that (or maint reduction should be made to work differently). Or are you going to tell me that 10 points is maint reduction is equivalent to, say 50 points in Tolerance, or 50 points in Repair?[/QB][/quote]
120 maintenance aptitude costs 2500 points, which makes it the single most expensive trait there is.
That's the equal of 140 in just about every other Category other than aggressiveness and defensiveness. Personally, I'd much rather have 140 construction than 120 maintenance, because your ships don't Last that long in a way anyways.

The game should not be perfectly balanced, because then it becomes nothing more than a paper/rock/scissors matchup. That reduces all strategic decisions to the point where your ability as a player no longer matters. All that matters is that you play the game, because every decision is just as good as every other decision.

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
... <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No.

Rock/Paper/Scissors is IMO a really bad term to express the idea that every tactic should have some sort of counter-tactic. I say this because Rock/Paper/Scissors is so pointless that IMO I almost wouldn't even call it a game. It's only about trying to intuit your opponent's pattern. It seems like this term is causing some real confusion, because here for instance you are equating "balance" with the pointlessness of rock/paper/scissors.

At its best, SE4 is about offering an extremely wide range of options, and a logic for how they interact. Players are free to develop interesting and novel strategies, and then to meet, observe, and try to counteract enemy strategies in ways that make sense. The more options available, the more they make sense, and are useful and viable, the more interesting the game. When some options tend to be the best in all circumstances, or some options are almost always inferior, the game becomes less interesting.

PvK

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

"Who is claiming there aren't balance issues? I think there is agreement there. What those balance issues are, and how significant they are, and how difficult it is to fix them, are, I think, the topics of debate."

Thank you for repeating my point. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

"If there is someone who claims the game is balanced, please compare:
Mechanoid Race Vs Advanced Storage (each cost 1000 points)"

This would depend on how often your opponent uses plague bombs! (or how high your random events are) Mechanoids is a very specialized trait.

"Repair vs Maint Reduction"

The only issue here is the weakness of armor in the standard game, combined with the lethality of fleet vs fleet action. In other words you don't often have much to repair! (see minerals vs organics..). Repair is MUCH less expensive than maintance reduction.

"Torpedoes vs. DUCs or PPBs."

Torps, at max:
1.25 damage/ton/turn
DUC V:
1.33 damage/ton/turn

Torps have the first-strike advantage, DUCs have a better damage over time (slightly). DUCs are cheaper to research since it requires half as many levels to get there (the initial mil sci is irrelevent because 99/100 you want that anyway). Torps have a longer range with no damage falloff. Neither has a to-hit bonus.

Cost is about the same, per ton, with the torps costing more radiactives.

Phoenix-D

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

I don't see any problem with maintenance. It helps a lot in long games but in short ones it is totally useless. For example if you meet a race with high maintenance reduction it only means that you have to attack fast so the race doesn't have time to benefit from the low maintenance cost.

The balance problems aren't an issue to me. There has to be some bad tactics and some good ones. If the game were in perfect balance it would be much less interesting.

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I aim to please!

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It's not useless, by any means, but it is not as good as any of the Big Four (Adv. Storage, HI, Propulsion, Ancient Race). If it was cheaper - say 500 points - then it would see more use (but still not be ubiquitous)

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Repair is not cheap enough, given the issues you list above. Maint Reduction is only really expensive above 110%. +10% (500 pts) of Maint Reduction is very much more valuable than +20% repair (500pts).

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So why would you take Torps over DUCs? They cost more to research, do less damage, and are more expensive. The increase in range is too slight, and setting Torp Ships to Max Range is probably a recipe for disaster. Give those puppies a bonus to hit or increase their range or make them cheaper. Something. They are almost a redundant tech.

Now, compare torps to PPBs. Thank you.

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I agree. Calling it Rock/Paper/Scissors isn't supposed to imply that it removes all strategy, but that all strategies are valid and can be countered.

Balancing the game, in my opinion, just gives you more valid strategies to choose from.

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This leaves you vulnerable to mid-game attacks. The amount of research you save by not getting PPBs is trivial, and your opponent can use Shield V's to great effect.
If you aren't putting shields on your ships, you are even in bigger trouble, as you make yourself vulnerable to ship capture and engine destroyers.

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, it still helps in short games - you can expand more quickly, and you can support bigger fleets. This is always advantageous. The only time it might not help is if you get rushed. But that is pretty rare, since rushing tends to hurt the rusher...
Everyone should take Maint Reduction to 110%. And you can't attack everyone you see on sight.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I disagree. Balance doesn't take away strategic options, it gives you more. What you want are tactics that are good in situation 'X', but not so good in 'Y'.

[ December 26, 2002, 20:59: Message edited by: spoon ]

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

"No, it still helps in short games - you can expand more quickly, and you can support bigger fleets. This is always advantageous."

You can only expand more quickly with maintance reduction if your maintance is causing you to run out of resources. Unless and until the non-reduction player's shipyards have to sit idle for lack of cash, the player with it has no advantage.

Phoenix-D

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If you aren't running out of cash, you aren't expanding quickly enough (or you have a very nice starting position chock full of mineral planets (which I hear are best...)

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
 

List of variables that will affect the outcome of a given Strategy
For both Yourself and Opponents
Experience
Starting Location
Intelligence and creativity
Allies, (this is influenced by starting location)
Any others?

I never try to “rationalize” a Feature / Limitation / Advantage that does not make logical sense. I use take advantage of it or not. I am open to a gentleman’s agreement not to take advantage of a feature in the game. Against the AI I do it all the time.
In my Opinion
Game Balance? Like Geo and others have mentioned:
Rock, Paper, Scissors