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

I don't like the Talisman because I don't think anything should be 100% guaranteed. If it had isntead something like a +50% to hit bonus (stacks with Combat Sensors), it would be much better for gameplay.

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Charts and formulae are the proof. Actual gameplay results are anecdotal, at best. I agree with you that there is no Guaranteed 100% Formula for Success in SE4. However, there do exist things that can give you an edge. It's like blackjack - counting cards can give you the long-term edge to beat the house, but you are still going to lose some hands and some money in the short-term.

- Having three ship-training facilities on a sector is better than having only one.
- Using PPBs in the midgame is better than using anything else.
Having 125% defense + bezerker will make you unbeatable against people unaware of how combat works.
- Having 110% Maint Reduction is a huge advantage over people who don't realize how broken Maint Reduction is.

-spoon

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So now you're going to accuse Aaron of "coded god-moding"? The component works fine as it is, it provides an EXCELLENT balance against players who use YOUR strategies(Berzerker+Aggressiveness+Defensiveness) . Perhaps you complain because the Talisman takes away the combat advantage you get from your standard empire setup?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Definitely, gaining all the way up to 20% experience in only 3 turns instead of 7 is a major advantage. However, the experience bonuses are not a MAJOR advantage per se because there are other options which give an advantage roughly analgous to that of having 20% experience bonus

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
I would say that PPBs are probably the best all-around weapon in SE4. They can target anything but seekers, do major damage compared to other direct fire weapons with the same fire rate, and they are fairly inexpensive when compared to other, more powerful, weapons.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
This is a definite advantage and one that is in many cases used as an exploit to quickly defeat newbies. However, combine this advantage with multiple ship training facilities per sector and the religious talisman and you have ships which are virtually invincible, but skilled players have a way of making cocky arrongant SOBs(*tries to look innocent on both counts*) who use a multiple advantage to try and gain a major edge $h1t themselves in surprise when they pull a suprisingly effective new strategy out of their @$$ and use it to defeat such a multiple advanatge.

[quote][QB] - Having 110% Maint Reduction is a huge advantage over people who don't realize how broken Maint Reduction is.[quote][QB]
I'm not familiar with this one as I have never actually played with Maintenance Reduction as a characteristic. What is the problem with it?

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, I agree it's not "the ultimate weapon" - it won't beat everything in all circumstances, especially if you include coalitions and strikes before the things are developed.

However, I do think it's pretty close to the most powerful device. Like Fryon, I also dislike that it's 100% (I prefer what I did in Proportions, which is to make it offer bonuses that slowly get better but also more expensive, and only a massive research effort will get the always-hits ability).

Getting ganged up on is more powerful, though, especially if it happens before the device is developed!

Quote:

As far as Furball 3 is concerned though, it was a high tech start and six of the twelve races were religious races. Those two factors should have compensated for the two biggest weaknesses of the tailsman. It's cost to research and the tendancy for players to gang up on religious races. But despite this the Religious races are all but dead.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I never said the talisman guaranteed victory. I just said it was extremely powerful.

I imagine in this game they fought each other, and/or were ganged up on, and/or they got smashed before they could deploy the talisman effectively, and/or they didn't use proper taliman tactics or designs.

Quote:

In the DimX2 game I faced an opponent who was highly skilled and used the Tailsman to it's utmost potential. For a short time he was effectivly holding off a four empire coalition. But I believe Mark to be a highly skilled player and believe he would have done very well in the game even if he had chosen another racial trait.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Sure. It's very possible to be awesome without the talisman, and the talisman doesn't guarantee victory. All I said is it's extremely powerful device. Something worthy of ganging up against, or launching preemptive strikes against.

PvK

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

this is just sillyness. everything can be countered by something else, there is no fixed way to win. there are some things that are not so usefull, but there are no things that are always best to use.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">in general yes, but not when you need the facility space for something else, or when you already have a significant advantage without training. this is the only item that i will come close to conceding.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">unless someone has APBs in the midgame, or unless someone has phased shields in the midgame, or unless on person was slowed down researching mines when the other was not, or unless null space weapons are used to effect, or unless missile swarms catch someone without PD off guard. the "PPBs are the best" statement is old, tired, and just plain silly.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">ANYTHING is unbeatable against people unaware of how combat works. high defensive bonuses can be countered with the talisman, training, weapons with to hit bonuses, seekers, ramming (okay, maybe ramming isnt so good), or any number of other things.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">god, its so broken. it gives you an advantage in huge games, is worthless in small games, and is somewhat valueable to drop some points on in midsized games. I HATE those attributes that are worth spending points on, i wish spending points on maintenance reduction either did the same thing in any sized quadrant (or limited ship number, or short/long fixed-length game) or just didnt give you any benefit at all! DARN.

i appologize for my inflamitory remarks. i am a very small person. please moderate me down.

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Uh, spoon. The gameplay results are the reason for playing! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif It's what makes this a game, and not just a spreadsheet or a ship design program. It's the only thing that can keep someone interested in this game for going on two years now.

You plan and strategize and think you have it all worked out and then still get beat anyway, and badly. Or you think you don't have a chance and something happens in the game and you end up on top. It makes me want to play that much more and figure out why it didn't happen the way I expected.

If this is what you really believe, I feel sorry for you. Because you are missing the beauty and the challange of the game.

It's not about the end. It's not about finding the best course form point A to point B, or the most efficent ways of killing the other guy. It's finding out what you are made of, and what your opponent is made of.

I don't disagree with you about your list of things that are smart choices. But they aren't the only choices. There are so many variables in this game that no one strategy can win every time, you said it yourself. And even a very good strategy is only as good as the paper it's printed on.

What separates the losers from the winners in this game is not the ones that design the best startegies. It's the ones that counter their opponents strategies the best. And that's not something you can plan. Unless you are playing against someone that plays the same way everytime. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Now, on to the specifics:

- Having three ship-training facilities on a sector is better than having only one.
Well, duh! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif But is it better than what you could have used those extra facility spots for? Depends on the spefic game, but I can think of several cases where it wouldn't be.

- Using PPBs in the midgame is better than using anything else.
Slightly maybe. You might be able to design an PPB ship that would defeat an equal size and tech cost ship in one on one combat. But what would it prove in a real game? Not much. Very few combats are one on one involving empires with exactly equal levels of technical development.

Having 125% defense + bezerker will make you unbeatable against people unaware of how combat works.
If you are playing against someone that doesn't understand how combat works, you are already unbeatable, combat bonuses or no. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

- Having 110% Maint Reduction is a huge advantage over people who don't realize how broken Maint Reduction is.
See previous answer.

Geoschmo

EDIT: Dang it puke. You stole all my answers. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ December 21, 2002, 22:04: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It is not god-moding because it isn't insurmountable. I also do not like the abiltity to cheaply max out both aggressiveness and defensiveness. They should cost a lot more. That would create much more varied empire designs, and would be better than the current situation where 125% agg and def + berzerker is a must (unless you have talisman, then you only need that for defense).

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Oh yes they are. A lack of training will get your ships slaughtered by weaker forces. And it is not a 20% advantage, it is a 40% advantage (ship + fleet training). No one says you have to train the ships and the fleet at the same place.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">They are until you get APB XII + Shield Depleters. APBs are much stonger, because they get a range of 8 isntead of 6 (and do more damage at all ranges (except range 6, IIRC)).

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It isn't an "advantage", it is a necessity. And what sort of surprisingly effective new strategy would that be? Combine the training, racial bonuses, etc. with skilled expansion techniques, and how are you going to defeat that by not using similar tactics? Sure, you can go with 120 traits to save 1000 points, and not see a noticable difference. But that really isnt a surprising new tactic.

<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)

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Definitely, gaining all the way up to 20% experience in only 3 turns instead of 7 is a major advantage. However, the experience bonuses are not a MAJOR advantage per se because there are other options which give an advantage roughly analgous to that of having 20% experience bonus
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, my objections to the moon training are mainly that 1) It makes no sense, and 2) it prevents me from modding an absolute limit of 1% per turn maximum rate, which I want for Proportions mod.

As for other options giving an analagous advantage to training, that's not valid in the standard set, particularly with faster than High research costs, because it doesn't take long to research to the max, and since the advantages stack additively, any 20% stacking advantage that your opponent doesn't get (and you can get another 20% with fleet training) is a MAJOR advantage, which can turn the tide of battles, and which in this case costs no maintenance or design space.

Quote:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> - Using PPBs in the midgame is better than using anything else.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
I would say that PPBs are probably the best all-around weapon in SE4. They can target anything but seekers, do major damage compared to other direct fire weapons with the same fire rate, and they are fairly inexpensive when compared to other, more powerful, weapons.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I agree PPBs are somewhat too cheap, too easy to research, and too potent. However, I don't think they're necessarily the best. For one thing, many players never deploy unphased shields, leaving PPB Users with overly expensive weapons limited to range 6. Unless your opponents are using a lot of unphased shields, APB or MBs are generally more efficient, for example.

PvK

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I understand your objections, and don't disagree it's gamey and should be fixed. I wouldn't even try to make the point that 20% training isn't tremendous, almost a requirement at some points in the game. The only point I was trying to make was simply that the 4 turns you save getting to the 20% isn't all that critical in most circumstances.

As far as your desire to mod that 1% maximum, why not eliminate the sector training facilities and allow all races access to the system training facility the psychic races have in the stock game. IMHO it makes more sense for training to be system wide anyway, and you can limit those to one per system effective.

Geoschmo

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

okay, i admit, the moon training thing is really annoying. not so much in the standard game, but more so in games with more moons. like FQM games. when you have 5 or 7 moons in one sector, you can train ships to full in a single turn. THAT could be abusive. I would indeed like a per-sector limit on training. or even an optional per sector limit, in the form of another ability, or a variable, or somesuch.