Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

Remove PPB's phased concept, making them and Phased shields pointless (except for Phased Shield V)?

Like many of the ideas, it would be an interesting mod variant, but it's a design change rather than a balance adjustment.

The phased/unphased shield feature is a good one, I think. The problem is not that feature - it's that the PPB, designed as a counter-measure to normal shields, is so good that it's a counter-measure to everything. That's a balance problem.

What I get from the wish for PPB and MB to compete with APB, is that these are three of the best all-around weapons, and players do want to have a variety of non-racial ROF 1 main weapons, with trade-offs at different ranges. Again, seems to me that the answer to this is:

* PPB must have a phased effect. Otherwise you're throwing out an interesting game element to get a generic weapon, and will have to re-do the shield components. That's not balance - it's redesign (and ill-considered, IMO).

* PPB should have some disadvantage compared to all weapons that don't skip normal shields. This could be in the form of significant expense, reduced firepower, or reduced accuracy.

* If you think MB needs to be improved, then I don't think you've run enough cost/effect analysis of other weapons which are harder to get, such as racial normal-damage ROF 1 weapons.

* If there is a strong desire for a slightly better MB-like weapon, or an unphased weapon that's otherwise like the PPB, I'd suggest looking at some of the Racial tech weapons which already fit into these categories. They tend to be not so efficient as-is, and their racial requirement somewhat justifies them having some advantage over non-racial weapons.

PvK

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">YES! Ever hear of the Hirogen? There are dozens of races in Star Trek alone that use NO SHIELDING and have very strong armor, providing better defense than shields!

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Bah. If you do not want to do what is necessary to create a balance mod, you need to rename this thread to "Minor Tweak Mod" or something like that.

[ July 26, 2003, 00:23: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Drones can get 50% because they are a separate class in the ship sizes file and can be given an ability. Seekers are not. As Fyron said you can change the seeker combat defense modifier in settings.txt but it will be a flat change to all seekers and all levels. There is no way to gradiate that. You could change the weapon seeker
damage resistance. That wouldn't make them harder to hit, but harder to destroy.

Geoschmo

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This is an interesting way of approaching the PPB problem, but I do not think it will accomplish what you are trying to do. That's not to say that shield/armor balance shouldn't be considered. But frankly few people use normal shields now because of the prevalence of PPB. And the PPB is such a strong weapon on a cost to weight ratio even against unshielded targets. So making armor isn't going to make them less likely to use PPB.

Geoschmo

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">YES! Ever hear of the Hirogen? There are dozens of races in Star Trek alone that use NO SHIELDING and have very strong armor, providing better defense than shields!</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">In fact, in the tabletop (not computer) game "Star Fleet Battles", very often a small blockof Armor was considered a very storng point, bringing an otherwise sub-par ship into the realm of being viable, or making a viable but otherwised undistinguished ship desireable.

Even in cases where the ship HAD shields.

And then there're things like the Defiant -- federation ship, very strong shields, but also solid armor plating, too.

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well if you would take a moment and read the earlier Posts in the thread, particularly the ones that describe the objective, you will see this isn't intended to be a true balance "mod" in the sense that you mean it. The primary objective is to make changes that will improve the balance but still be acceptable enough to have a chance at being taken by malfador and implemeted into the stock game.

The only reason we are calling it a mod at all is for brevity. And if the changes are not accepted by malfador they will be the start of a decent balance mod, not neccesarily the finish of one.

Fyron, you of all people should be happy about this. It was your incessant complaining that was the primary reason for this project being suggested in the first place. If you cannot compromise on any point and will not accept any changes that fall short of your narrow definition of balance and prefer to do nothing constructive and simply continue complaining you are free to do that. We only ask that you do it in another thread and let those of us that are more reasonable alone to actually try to get something done.

Geoschmo

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

That was a rather condescending and offensive post Geo...

As we can see, I have posted plenty of constructive things in this thread. I have shown absolutely no unwillingness to compromise anywhere...

[ July 26, 2003, 03:35: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

hmm geo, i actually havent read your first post http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/blush.gif

for more basic changes, we just need to fix the wrong things - thats the talisman, the torpedo, the ppb and the pdc. thats about it? others are changes for mods, i'd say.

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

SJ, how about stating some boundaries that this project should not cross/things we shouldn't touch. This may streamline the debating a bit more.

For instance, in regards to weapons, what fields are ok to tweak (ie range) and not to tweak (ie resource costs).

I think one of the earlier Posts which listed each of the weapons we're considering adjusting in a neat little table to be a good starting point. How about we list every weapon in the game (excluding missles, tractor/repulsor), even the ones we aren't planning to adjust, and start from there, tackling each weapon one at a time.

Sorry if this is redundant, but I like what SJ is proposing and want to see it come through smoothly.

Geo, Fyron, think happy thoughts. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, I think you are right on that. But it was interesting discussion. Not a good idea for this though.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I am in pretty much agreement with this as well. A long time ago I did some detailed analysis using actual in game tests, not just math on paper, and compared ships using APB, MB and PPB. I didn't do a one for one test but factored in different sized fleets to account for the various cost of the weapons. Not suprisingly the PPB pretty much dominated the other two, but the APB and MB were suprisingly even. The APB did have somewhat of an advantage as it should from looking at the difference in damage. But the MB fleets did fairly well what with the greater number of ships in a fleet that could be built in the same amount of time. It was close enough that a MB player could win decisivly with an advantage in some other area such as training, tactics, or a stronger economy which would allow even mroe ships then would be accounted for by the difference in weapon cost.

I really think most of the MB's perceived problems are just from an unfair comparison to the PPB.

Geoschmo

P.S. Katchoo. Hommmmm, Hommmmmm.. I'm going to my happy place.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ July 26, 2003, 04:29: Message edited by: geoschmo ]