|
Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
[quote]Originally posted by geoschmo:
Quote:
remember we did this in DNM http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif . Rollo |
Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
here is a suggestion: add bogus tech level requirements to Armor III. This way the AI will not use the unwanted scatter armor.
|
Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
Sheesh, see how hard it is to make even simple changes? LOL
Anyone out there still want to complain about the lack of balance now? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif |
Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
Question.
Do we really care about the ai ??? Most of us here are Online players. I am just wondering if it is worth the time as we all have our own opinions on what a balance is. |
Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
Quote:
Geoschmo |
Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
Quote:
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well depending on how good you make the higher levels, even as a human I might still deploy MB range 6 rather than the range 8 Versions in late-game, because unless I have racial skill superiority, often it's much easier to hit at range 6 than at range 8. This will be particularly true for AI's which aren't maxed out on Aggressiveness, which describes pretty much all of the stock AI races. For them, range 8 weapons could be a disadvantage, at least if they use Max Weapons Range strategy. Again though, you are suggesting taking a way a good existing weapon and making more like another existing weapon. If you want another range-8 weapon, I'd rather you add one than change/take away a good range 6 weapon. Quote:
Quote:
If you give MB range 8, they wouldn't be so much an alternative to APB as the nearly the same thing as APB. If you're interested in that slight variation, I suggest adding a weapon, but not taking away the existing MB. MB are already interesting by being faster to research to a good level than APB, yet not having quite as good range or damage ratios at the high end. That's interesting. Unmodded MB are also one of the best weapons in the game, even in late-game. It's the APB that stands out as being the most powerful at level XII. Tweaking the MB to be more powerful would still leave all the other weapons in the game far behind the APB. If you're focusing on APB vs. MB in late-game, it seems to me the thing to change would be to reduce the appeal of APB somehow. PvK |
Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
Double Ugh! Why does everyone keep saying to make torpedoes better with a to-hit modifier! This makes no sense! A beam weapon like APB is almost instantaneous to strike it's target which can't really evade it, while a torpedo is moving fairly fast and won't be able to make quick sharp turns if the target makes a sudden move, so is more likely to miss than the beam.
It just needs to have more range and maybe a little more umph in the power department! |
Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
PvK, there is logic to your post, but adding a weapon would either require rewriting all the AI research and design files, or we'd end up with a weapon that the AI never uses. I am not sure I like either of those.
Kwok. We are simply trying to find a good way to give the torps more value since they are pretty consistantnly regarded as a poor weapon. Giving them a better chance to hit is a way to give them a little disticntivness as well and some "non-traditional value". More damage/more range being the only answers to the questions gets boring after a while. It doesn't have to make sense. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Geoschmo [ July 23, 2003, 22:06: Message edited by: geoschmo ] |
Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
Quote:
[ July 23, 2003, 22:10: Message edited by: spoon ] |
Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
I think it is a question to be answered.
As my opinion of stock balance differes greatly from some of the stuff posted here. Example Weapons that have a reload of 1 should have the least amount of damage and range and as the reload time increases so should the base range and / or damage So max range for a 1 reload would be within the 1 to 3 range ( exception would be the tractor/ repulser ) 2 reload would be the 2 to 5 range 3 reload would be the 3 to 8 range Plus mounts seekers stay at their current ranges and when you get to the Last level the reload time should decrease to 2 PD damage decreases on range and increase the size of the pd by 10kt and triple the cost of the pd reserach. I think that missles should decrease in fire rate , and the size should get smaller on the high end ones. Advanced military science at 50000 a level removes the cheap cloaking counter. and finally advanced storage racial trait should be 1500 This to me adds balance. Some will agree some will disagree. And what is the prereq for when an item is agreed upon. 100 % or 75% of the posters agree to the change. Then would we weight our items and agree on the weight as well ?? These ideas need to be figured out as well. |
Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
Quote:
We can make up anything we want to and make it sound plausible. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Geoschmo |
Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
Quote:
Geoschmo |
Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
Quote:
Quote:
Of course, if PPBs are nerfed more than a little, then MBs (as is) become more viable as a mid-game weapon. Quote:
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It would still be less effective than the APB for Point Blank strategies, and would only be worthwhile for people pursuing a Max Range strategy. I don't think it diminishes the tech tree at all. Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
Quote:
Quote:
And it has very little resemblance to unmodded SE4, so it can't really be applied to this project. |
Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
Quote:
Since changing the comp size is also bad, and Geo pointed out that greatly increasing the cost might drive the ai bankrupt, what options do we have to balance these two items? Is there anything about what the ai does that human players don't that we can take advantage of? For example, does the AI tend to build way too many farming facilities? (I have no idea). If they did, we could safely increase the organics cost of these components without have to worry about ai bankruptcy... That wouldn't be the ideal balance, but it would be something... |
Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
I would like to propose only 3 modifications be put up for a vote.
1 Weaken pdc's. This helps fighters and missles 2 Increase the cost of the Talisman by a factor of 5 3 Reduce the warp opener range the max needs to be 150 LY or less I also might add from some of the comments that a few of you have not been in any huge end games. With lots of ships and planets and big production many of the blance problems are minimized. I am in turn 170 of a game and watched 3 Groups of my fighters take out 3 dreadnoughts in a small fleet battle. Every weapon can be used to advantage at the end game. The only reason to 'Balance' the game is to help new players have fun. |
Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
Quote:
Other traits that could use attention: Advanced Power Conservation: 50% less power usage (instead of 25%)? Hardy Industrialist: 120% SY rate (instead of 125%)? |
Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
Quote:
As for explaining why it would do this in the first place, lets all just assume that the torp is fitted with an anti-matter explosive that gets more volitile the longer it's encased in the torp shell. Doable? |
Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
"This makes no sense! A beam weapon like APB is almost instantaneous to strike it's target which can't really evade it, while a torpedo is moving fairly fast and won't be able to make quick sharp turns if the target makes a sudden move, so is more likely to miss than the beam."
The torp may well have a proximity charge and/or a limited ability to seek. That, and why would a beam weapon be almost instant? These aren't lasers; the APB is just a stream of anti-particles, no difference from a DUC slug except that when it hits matter, it makes a bigger boom. |
Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
Summary
Unsorted Issues </font>
</font>
</font>
[ July 23, 2003, 23:39: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ] |
Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
Quote:
|
Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
Ok, "should count as"
|
Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
Quote:
General Espionage Force Concentrations: Lower cost -- 2,000 Queue Concentrations: Lower cost -- 2,000 Ship Blueprints: Lower cost -- 5,000 Covert Recon: Lower cost -- 2,000 Census Thefts: Lower cost -- 2,000 Technological Espionage: no change (150k) Embassy Taps: Lower cost -- 2,000 Empire Star Charts: Lower cost -- 5,000 Empire Archives: Lower cost -- 10,000 Unit Blueprints: Lower cost -- 5,000 Tech Reports: no change (20,000) General Sabotage Economic Disruption: Increase cost -- 30,000 Resource Procurment: Increase cost -- 30,000; Decrease effect to 5k of each resource (instead of 10k) Technological Sabotage: Increase cost -- 50,000 Intelligence Sabotage: Lower Cost -- 15,000 Planet Sabotage Weather Disruptions: Increase Cost -- 30,000 Ground Contamination: no change (20,000) Food Contamination: Decrease effect to killing 5M population (instead of 100M). Or increase cost to 100,000. Anarchy Groups: Increase Cost -- 20,000 Puppet Political Parties: Remove, or increase cost to 1,000,000 Cargo Maint. Trouble: (no change) Industrial Sabotage: no change (25,000) Political Disruption Trade Distruption: Remove, or increase cost to 400k Comm Taps no change (15,000) Comm Mimic: Remove, or increase cost to 500k Comm Interceptors: no change (10,000) Ship Sabotage Ship Bomb: no change (10,000) Engine Damage: Lower cost -- 5000 Fuel Leak: no change (10,000) Crew Insurrection: Remove, or increase cost to 100k Crew Rotation: no change (5,000) Cargo Bomb: Increase cost -- 7,500 Order Snafu: Lower Cost -- 5,000 [ July 23, 2003, 23:54: Message edited by: spoon ] |
Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
Quote:
If someone wants a range-8 weapon which competes with APB at max-tech, yet is slightly different (no range attenuation), then I think that niche should either be filled by some other weak weapon (torpedo? a new weapon?), or probably better, the APB should be made weaker (how about making APB a "half damage versus shields" weapon???). By reducing the all-around superiority of the APB, all the other weapons in the game would be more interesting in late-game, rather than just an improved MB. PvK |
Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
Quote:
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Heh, for some reason, when PvK said "new weapon" I thought he meant one of the underpowered weapons we hadn't really addressed yet, like the hellbore or incinerator. But, yeah, we can't add any new weapons... Quote:
You can't really lower the APB too much - otherwise the MB and PPB overpowers it. |
Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
Quote:
Spoon, regarding you intel suggestions. I would merely point out that because of the hinkiness of the current intel system increasing the cost of an intel project makes a project harder to defend against as well. Quote:
Since changing the comp size is also bad, and Geo pointed out that greatly increasing the cost might drive the ai bankrupt, what options do we have to balance these two items? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">After a little digging I think the problem here is not as serious as we thought. The stock Norak AI has a call for combat sensors. This makes sense as you wouldn't want the ships at a severe disadvantage prior to the discovery of the talisman. If we make the talisman a more powerful Version of the combat sensors it will still be used on their designs. It will simply be placed on the ship through a different design call. We won't even have to make a change to the files. The call for the always hit ability will simply be ignored since there will be no component that can satisfy it. EDIT: Although it appears that the UF specifically do not have the design call for combat sensors. I am not sure for the reason behind this, but being that the custom AI's are not as high a priority for this as teh stock AI it's not a deal breaker I don't think. The custom AI's can always be revised. It's not uncommon for this to need done after a new patch anyway. The same principle applies for the quontum reactor. All the AI stock ship designs that I looked at have a call in them for supply storage. (EDIT: I shuld have said "Attack ships" here. Not all ship designs have a call for supply storage, but the attack ones do.) If the QR is simply a hign value supply component it will get used and the QR design call will be ignored. I think these options are much preferable to any sort of increase in cost because of the reasons already stated. Geoschmo [ July 24, 2003, 00:38: Message edited by: geoschmo ] |
Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
Quote:
|
Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
In the APB vs MB arena, I just looked up the stats... MB have a very slight power advantage for range 6 only.
I originally had the impression that MB was really weak, but from the comments and a fresh look at the stats, it does seem decent. To me, knocking off only 5 points of damage from the APB would be reasonable. --- As for PPB, perhaps an accuracy penalty to reduce the effectiveness and add a bit of flavour at the same time? ---- Intel: The economic procurement sounds like a very good, and almost trivial change. The AIs pick randomly AFAIK, so it won't be an issue for them. Food contamination seems OK to me... Its quite effective on small colonies, but to larger planets its only a turn's worth of population growth. PPP and Comm Mimic are definitely overpowered, but increasing the cost will cause the AIs to get stuck on such projects when they do try 'em. Trade disruption and crew insurrection aren't too bad. The trade rebuilds on its own, and a ship or two rarely makes much of a difference. perhaps 60k or 75k each would be more than enough, IMO |
Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
APB at half-damage to shields would use that now-unused ability, and give an interesting disadvantage to the game's most efficient weapon. Shields can be largely countered with Shield Depleters, anyway, so it isn't nearly as crippling a change as it might seem. If that's not a popular idea, then maybe -5 to-hit for APB?
BTW for torpedoes, I'm of the camp that would rather see them do more damage than have a to-hit bonus, for aesthetic reasons. However I think it would do more for balance to give them a to-hit bonus, so I don't mind either way. I'd give more damage to incinerators, and probably to Ripper Beams too. SE3 Ripper Beams were about twice as powerful as SE4 RB's, but always range 1. Of course, in SE3 this made them almost useless unless defenders, due to the funky movement sequence (defenders could always move to range 2 if they had speed 2+, before the enemy could fire). However, do we have any indication that MM would ever make the default game to have all these widespread tweaks to weapon performance? I've no doubt most of them would be good for balance, but I'll be surprised if MM will change the default performances much if at all at this point. PvK |
Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
Quote:
Geoschmo [ July 24, 2003, 00:55: Message edited by: geoschmo ] |
Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
Yeah, it seems like a worthwhile thing to do, even if it doesn't get included in a patch.
PvK |
Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
Problem with the half damage to shields, is the humans could abuse the Shield depleter/APB combo and use more armor, while the AIs would be left in the cold.
Unless there is a very convincing case for it, I doubt that we can use those damage types here. |
Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
Quote:
Quote:
I really think these should be nerfed so that they are only really good against ships that use unphased shields. As it is, unphased shields are only good for preventing ships capture and engine killers because of the prevalence of PPBs in the mid game. It would be nice to see them in the game as actual damage soakers. If PPBs weren't as good a general utility weapon, you might risk putting 4-5 shield V's on your battleships. Changing reload to 2 or reducing it's damage across the board is easier for me to see what the impact would be than giving it a to-hit penalty - though that is still a very interesting idea... Quote:
Quote:
So I'd suggest raising their cost as high as you think you can before "getting stuck" becomes an issue. 1M doesn't seem that high for PPP, (250% increase). Comm Mimmic - maybe at 100k? Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
I disagree with "nerfing" the PPB. I like them as a frontline weapon. I would prefer jsut a smoothing out of their progression and slowing down their research a tad.
My suggestion: Make them a level cost of 10000 instead of 5000. And change teh weapon damage from Weapon Damage At Rng := 30 25 25 25 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Weapon Damage At Rng := 45 40 40 40 35 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Weapon Damage At Rng := 50 45 45 45 40 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Weapon Damage At Rng := 55 50 50 45 45 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Weapon Damage At Rng := 60 55 55 55 50 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 to Weapon Damage At Rng := 30 25 25 25 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Weapon Damage At Rng := 35 30 30 30 25 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Weapon Damage At Rng := 40 35 35 35 30 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Weapon Damage At Rng := 50 45 45 45 40 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Weapon Damage At Rng := 60 55 55 55 50 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I didn't change the level 1 or 5, but smoothed out the big jump from level 1 to level 2. This isn't an original idea I am sure, but I think it's a good one. Geoschmo [ July 24, 2003, 01:16: Message edited by: geoschmo ] |
Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
I am curious as to why you fellows are proposing such wide spread changes? It would seem to make sense to make a few changes and see how they work out.
One thing I noticed Is there does seem to be a common thread for changes and that means changing weapons. Which I do not understand why it is so necessary to change weapons? Making them all the same sounds boring. And also Do the proposed changes have anything to do with your own style of play? Or can you 'prove' that there are improvements in play balance? [ July 24, 2003, 01:46: Message edited by: Gozra ] |
Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
Yes, Geo's APB change sounds fine to me. It'll still be the "best" late-game weapon to many players' eyes, but it'll take longer to achieve. More incentive to try to put the research into something else and use a weapon that's easier to research.
PvK |
Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
Quote:
You could just reduce the maximum researchable tech level for Applied Intelligence to 3. Then the no one will be able to research PPP. I was thinking it'd be interesting to move practically all of the "attack" intel missions into a new (racial?) tech area, which players could then turn off when they set up their games, if they wanted to. Then intel would be used for actually gaining information, instead of for performing ultra-mischief. PvK |
Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
Quote:
Geoschmo |
Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
Quote:
I think though that there are a few issues which are pretty clearly broken (mostly those in SJ's list below). Some of what is being discussed though are more debateable, or ideas some players would just like to see changed. There are a few players who think torpedoes are good weapons, and even one who likes the Graviton Hellbore (for warp defense, but still... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif ). So not everyone agrees with such suggestions, and there you can see we have some differences about the details, and how far it makes sense to go in a "simple" balance mod. However there does seem to be a pretty strong consensus on a number of points that would make gameplay more interesting. I don't think there is much argument to make things more similar, but to try to make some of the things commonly regarded as "nearly useless" to have some effective use (and, a different use from the other things). PvK |
Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
Oh! Oops. Well, in that case, I think it addresses the "PPB II is the best one" issue, and helps a wee bit with the "OMG it's only 5000 points" issue, but it doesn't address the "not much point in unphased shields" issue. Since you want to avoid impacting the AI, maybe make it 50000 research points (even level 1 and 2 are good weapons against pre-phased shields under your table) and/or -10 to hit.
PvK Quote:
Geoschmo</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> |
Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
Quote:
|
Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
Quote:
|
Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
I think that if we actually want to get any of this accepted by MM then we should try to stick with the 'change as little as possible' idea. That means leaving talismans and quantum reactors with their original abilities. The chances of MM effectively removing them from the game are pretty close to nil. Besides, they are not really unbalancing (well not the QR at least). The QR is really just a time saver. You can either equip every ship in your fleet with a supply pod and individually activate them every turn (to be repaited by the fleet shipyard), or you can equip those ships with QR's and save yourself a headache.
As far as the unbalancing supremacy of the talisman is concerned, that (and effective countermeasures) has been discussed in other threads and is interesting considering that it is the only "weapon" in the religious racial tech. In short, the abilities should stay (cause I'm sure that they aren't going anywhere). We already have sensors and supply storage, we don't need super sensors (that the AI cannot propperly take advantage of) or big fat supply tanks. If you wqant to balance them make them harder to get, not impossible to use. Increase the research cost so that their acquisition requires a significant investment. By how much? I'm not sure yet. |
Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
or change shields to have phased from the get go...
|
Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
Re PPB:
Quote:
High-Energy Discharge Weapons are much more expensive because they require Propulsion 7 (which isn't really needed until late-game) AND have 10-12 levels to research. So, if for this mod we don't want to curtail the abilities of PPB, or to increase the number of tech levels to get the good Versions (in Proportions, I increased the cost and made the tech area 12 levels with the best Versions only at the end of the tech tree), it seems to me that having an expensive research cost even to get the low levels of the weapon. You have to research Energy Pulse Weapons to level what... 5? ... before they have range 6. PPB starts out at range 6 immediately, and with comparable damage that ignores unphased shields. If level 2 is already a good weapon, and it only takes 6 levels to complete, it seems to me the base cost should be quite high. PvK |
Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
I see your point. I might also go for cutting lvl 1 down to range 4, and lvl 2-3 down to range 5.
|
Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
Quote:
Note: The list you quoted was compiled from all the suggestions mentioned on the first 5 pages of this thread, and all are not nessesarily going to be included. |
Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
Regarding PPB, I hadn't thought about the range before Pvk. If someone else mentioned it in the myriad of discussions about it I missed it. Actually decreaseing the range of the early levels might be a decent solution. It would be a fairly AI friendly change as well. This would definetly make them less powerful in the mid game where they currently dominate without neutering them at the end game.
Geoschmo |
Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
INcrease the AI in use of using Intell, some races don't use it or are very weak in this area, needs to be boosted in regards to AI use, makes it to easy for human player to beat on AI, IMHO only, increase intell for AI's
In regards to ftrs, how about increasing their capacity/size, in order to put more shields & armor on them at least at the med and large levels, thus making them somewhat stronger to take out? just some ideas Mac [ July 24, 2003, 04:06: Message edited by: mac5732 ] |
Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
Quote:
Quote:
Making these comps higher research cost is good, but making them too high can cause problems as the AI will still research them when it always has and could fall behind in other areas because of it. That might require adjustments to the ai reasearch files. Of course that's only a problem if we go really high on those. Geoschmo |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:17 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.