Frustration (balance)
 

Was messing around with making the ships tougher, and I ended up creating a balance problem. Or so I thought.

See, I made two ships. Identical except one had APBs, the other Wave-Motion guns. Always, 100% of the time, the WMG ship lost. Strategies didn't help.

Tried the same thing with a capital ship missle ship. It died as well.

CSM vs. WMG resulted in a draw; the WMG's point defense killed enough of the CSM's missles that it wasn't able to do enough damage to kill, and the WMG ship rarely if ever got in range.

The APBs and the WMG have identical max ranges as max tech. At max range, the APB is *barely* outdamaged by the wave-motion, while at minimum range the anti-proton beam does much more damage. And you can fit two APBs for every WMG!

What is up with this thing, anyway? I'd change it, but that's not the point of this mod (techmod's that one)

Phoenix-D

Re: Frustration (balance)
 

if i understand, the question is "why does the WMG suck in contrast with the APB?"

Re: Frustration (balance)
 

Well, there's a problem with balance in general between single turn fire-rate weapons and slower weapons. The intent is that you pay for the greater damage per hit by the slower fire rate. But, if you do the math you will quickly see that the slower firing weapons end up doing far less damage 'average per turn' than the once per turn weapons. Supposedly this is balanced by the greater damage that can be done quickly by the more poweruful hits of the slower weapons, but in practice it rarely works out that way. Increasing their power further can often result in catastrophic events in combat that seem just as unrealistic as the problem you are trying to correct.

Edit: As noted in a later post, Emissive Armor is plainly meant to improve the distinction between frequent firing lower damage weapons and slower firing high damage weapons, but it doesn't work like it's supposed to.

I think we need a much finer 'resolution' in all the ship acounting areas. That is, larger numbers for smaller gradients. Weapons ranges need to be much larger, movement needs to be more per turn (both strategic and combat), the system and combat screens need to be far larger. It's too easy right now for small mistakes to have disproportionate consequences. This would help quite a bit with the various 'balance' problems.

[ 20 December 2001: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]</p>

Re: Frustration (balance)
 

More like "why is the ABP so powerful?!" (the PPB too, to a slightly lesser extent.

Phoenix-D

Re: Frustration (balance)
 

The game balance could be better, but I don't think it is all wrong.

WMG loses when compared to APB when all the other ship components are same. But if WMG ship has more movement points than APB ship it can stay out of range when it is reloading its weapons. That way WMG has an advantage. That isn't very bad strategy because WMG has minimum accuracy of 30% and APB has 0%.

Also if it is clear that your ships are going to be destroyed, you can do more damage with WMG than with APB in that one combat turn your ships survive.

Almost all weapons in SE4 have some qualities that makes them useful in certain situations.

Re: Frustration (balance)
 

One thing that gives advantage to slower weapons is crystaline armor. APB for example needs a lot of time to get throught crystaline armor because of the shield regenerative effect. Slower and more damaging weapons are a lot more effective.
Too bad that emissive armor is broken, because it would make the game balance better.

Re: Frustration (balance)
 

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Zarix:
One thing that gives advantage to slower weapons is crystaline armor. <hr></blockquote>

I think the main thing that gives advantage to any slow firing weapon is superior speed over the enemy ships - contra-terrene engines/ the afterburner thingammyjig/race speciality are a must

Re: Frustration (balance)
 

Play balance in games is a must, but sometimes hard to accomplish without many hrs of play time.
Weapons that fire every turn should hit at longer distance but do less damage, Larger weapons that do more damage fire less often, In my opinion, I think the problem is more in the amount of damage done at the various ranges. But you also have to take into consideration the defenses on your enemies ships/planets. They are intended to minimize the amount of damage, therefore defense is also thrown into the equation.

On a side note, has anyone noticed in 1.49 SP play that ftrs usage by the AI has become almost non existant? I mean, I've played a number of games of 1.49 and the AI doesn't seem to use CV's like it use to. I haven't had a major ftr battle with the AI like before (it would have a number o CV's and 30-80+ ftrs in a fleet) The only time I now see ftrs is on the AI planets and usually 5-10. This is a balance question if true. I know changes to ftrs were made but did we go to far and made them basically worthless in SP play? Or is it the same but that I just havn't seen it yet?

just some ideas mac

Re: Frustration (balance)
 

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by mac5732:
On a side note, has anyone noticed in 1.49 SP play that ftrs usage by the AI has become almost non existant? mac<hr></blockquote>

Mac, you are scaring the bejeebers out of me.

I am only on my first game (1.49 patch) but the Chryslonite are throwing carriers by the fleet at me, together with swarms of fighters (cue escort destroyer design).

If this is the position on the 1.49 patch, I really am not sure I wanted to try any Version before that if this one is light on fighters!!

Re: Frustration (balance)
 

mac5732 ,
I've only played 6 games so far in SE IV, and not to completetion. I have run into CV's with fighters but the planets seem to be defending with Sat's and CAPs. I have even seen PdCs on panets.

[ 20 December 2001: Message edited by: Gryphin ]</p>

Re: Frustration (balance)
 

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>The APBs and the WMG have identical max ranges as max tech. At max range, the APB is *barely* outdamaged by the wave-motion, while at minimum range the anti-proton beam does much more damage. And you can fit two APBs for every WMG!<hr></blockquote>I believe that the whole WMG crappiness is due to a copying error from SE3, just like the Shield Regenerator V bug, which was just recently officially fixed.
In SE3, WMG's did 14 damage at range 8, and were size 7 spaces.
In SE4, WMG's do 140 damage, size 70, range 8.
All the other weapons got a similar treatment, BUT, all of the other weapons got about a 2 space range increase, while the WMG was neglected completely.
In P&N, I've given WMGs range 9,10 & 11 at the three levels.

Re: Frustration (balance)
 

It might be just me, I was so used to fiting off ftrs prior to 1.49, I used to see 100+ ftrs at a time, now its been rare. But I have been tinkering with editing some of the starting races, (not Modding but using original edits) plus those generated by computer, I just wonder if that has something to do with it. Current game have all the nasties except crystals and phong but only seen 1 CV with no ftrs. (16 total races + me),Past turn 1000, game almost won now, no CV's, same in the game prior in regards to CV's and ftrs???? hmmmmm I'll have to see what my next game shows. strange

just some ideas mac

Re: Frustration (balance)
 

"WMG loses when compared to APB when all the other ship components are same. But if WMG ship has more movement points than APB ship it can stay out of range when it is reloading its weapons."

The problem with that both these ships were going at the maximum speed (non-Propulsion experts) allowed in standard SE4. No way to make the WMG ship faster.. and in my experience at least people tend to make a ship size go as fast as it can go. So the only way would be to stick to Battlecruisers while your opponent goes Dreadnaughts or higher.

Phoenix-D

Re: Frustration (balance)
 

SJ, I apoligize, I havn't played your P/N yet, but plan to, but on your increase in range for the WMG, is the damage the same at all ranges or less at max distance and more at less?

just some ideas mac

Re: Frustration (balance)
 

Mac did you edit the ai construction vechicles.txt

If you changed that one around, it will affect the number of fighters and carriers you encounter.

I have not noticed any difference in the fighter numbers.


On the topic of weapons balancing

If I remember correctly this has been an outstanding problem for some time now.

I hope it gets resolved in the tcpip game.

Has this been play tested in the tcpip game ???

Re: Frustration (balance)
 

Tesco, I don't believe I changed the construction txt, but I'll have to go back and check, tks http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

just some ideas mac

Re: Frustration (balance)
 

The WMG is already one of the weakest weapons out there, so no, I did not reduce the damage at extreme range.

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>The problem with that both these ships were going at the maximum speed (non-Propulsion experts) allowed in standard SE4. No way to make the WMG ship faster.. and in my experience at least people tend to make a ship size go as fast as it can go. So the only way would be to stick to Battlecruisers while your opponent goes Dreadnaughts or higher.<hr></blockquote> Just one of the big problems that is solved by Quasi-newtonian propulsion!
Under QNP, the fastest you can go is by putting an MC on top of a big stack of engines.
A P&N escort can get going at 26 movement per turn that way, but is completely useless except as a scout (since it has only an MC & Quantum Engines). And it's range is not especially good either. It will burn up all its fuel (5200) in two or three turns, covering three systems out & coming back to resupply.
At best, A cruiser hull with MC, one WMG, and maxed out Quantum Engines could get 24 movement.
It also costs a fortune in radioactives (19,000 just for the engines) just to carry a single WMG http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
In the end, you'd probably aim for just 1 or 2 MP faster than your opponent, and save money.

It will be interesting to see an "arms race" applying to engines & shipspeed, only for the slow ships to come out ahead again when the fast guys get too weak. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: Frustration (balance)
 

Yep weapons (and other components) aren't perfectly balanced.
IMHO WMGs should be more powerful to be again the superweapon it used to be in se2 and se3, APBs are ok or maybe a little weak, and PPB should definitely be weaker and only good weapons when the enemy doesn't have phased shields and you can take advantage of their special ability.

Newbies haven't probably seen the list with all damage Ratings ((Damage/reload time)/tonnage) that have been posted several times in these forums. Can anyone post a copy here?

I also received a few emails from Piotr Konieczny, another semi-newbie who's worried about balance. He saw my email in my site, I suggested him to take a look and post a message in these forums, but haven't seen him here yet.
He's working on a comparison chart between weapons.
Although the XLS files he sent me are a little confusing.
They're based in Hadrian Aventines's Ultimate Mod, and not in standard components. I think that's a mistake, since IMHO that mod isn't very good improving balance.
And I think some of the formulas he uses have to be changed, but it's kind of hard to find the right formulas, because there are many other factors that determine the "value" of a weapon besides their damage rating. Things such as range, special damage types, supply usage, cost, research cost, etc. and the different relative importance of each one.
And of course that copying data of every weapon is another part.

And once it's done he proposes to create a "balance mod", that instead of adding new stuff only modifies damage, cost and other values to improve balance.
Of course that would affect AI, especially the most carefully made fan-made AI that are designed to take advantage of existing unbalances.

Re: Frustration (balance)
 

"APBs are ok or maybe a little weak"

*weak*? I'd say they're overpowered, myself. Maybe the research cost balances it out a bit, but comparing them to any other weapon, the other weapon seems to get left in the cold.

Phoenix-D

Re: Frustration (balance)
 

Okeydokey. Here are the damage Ratings for various weapons, at max tech.

APB XII: 2.1 - 1.5, normal
CSM V: 0.8, seeker
MB: 1.75, normal
AMT V: 0.625, normal
QT V: 1.25, normal
PM V: 1.0 - 0.27, seeker
PDC V: 3.25, pointdefence, +70%
PPB V: 2.0 - 1.67, phased
RB IV: 2.5, normal
IB III: 0.9, normal, +10%
WMG III: 0.67, normal, +30%
TPC V: 0.375 - 0.188, Weapons only
ID V: 1.3, engines only
IPM V: 0.625, engines only, seeker
PN V: 15.0, planets only
NB V: 5.0, planet population only
GHB V: 1.21 - 0.33, normal
SD V: 7.5, shields only
DUC V: 1.33, normal
PC V: 1.33 - 1.0, normal, organic
HPB V: 1.67 - 1.0, normal, organic
ED III: 1.5 - 0.5, normal, organic
LR III: 2.0 - 0.5, normal, organic
SP V: 1.0, seeker, organic
AG V: 0.56, normal, organic
EAG V: 1.25, normal, organic
SC X: 1.17, skip armor, crystalline
HEM III: 0.917, normal, crystalline
TDB V: 1.0 (4.0), quad2shields, temporal
TS III: 0.33, skips all, temporal
TKP V: 1.75, normal, psychic
CW III: 6.0, warhead
MSD: 10.0, one shot, RuinsTech
MID: 5.0, one shot, RuinsTech
NSP: 0.4, skips all
CT V: 0.45, ships armor, seeker
SA V: 9.0, shields only, temporal
TC III: 1.2, normal, temporal, +10%
MSG III: 0.68, normal, psychic, +20%

Acronyms expanded in order:

Anti-proton Beam, Capital Ship Missile, Meson BLaster, Antimatter Torpedo, Quantum Torpedo, Plasma Missile, PointDefence Cannon, Phased Polaron Beam, Ripper Beam, Incinerator Beam, Wave Motion Gun, Tachyon Projection Cannon, Ionic Disperser, Ionic pulse missile, Planetary Napalm, Neutron bomb, Graviton Hellbore, Shield Depleter, Depleted Uranium Cannon, Plasma charge, Hyperplasma bolt, Electric Discharge, Lightning gun, Seeking Parasite, Acid Globule, Enveloping Acid Globule, Shard Cannon, High Energy Magnifier, Time Distortion Burst, Temporal shifter, Telekinetic projector, Cobalt Warhead, Massive Shield depleter/Ionic disperser, Null-spaceProjector, Crystalline torpedo,Shield Accelerator ,Tachyon Cannon ,MentalSingularityGenerator

Re: Frustration (balance)
 

The item I always thought that was way outta wack was the temporal space yards.

Once you have them build them first on your planet and everything builds quickly after that.

Were talking facilities, ships and units.

Re: Frustration (balance)
 

The balance mod idea might work pretty well. There should be some disadvantage when using weapons that fire every turn. Emissive armor would be pretty good answer early in the game, if it would work like it should. Later it wouldn't help because of the large mounts.

Another solution could be to make some weapons cheap to research but not very effective and others very effective but also very expensive to research. That way every weapon in the game would be useful at least for a while.

I hope we aren't going to balance the game to the point where only differences between weapons are name and picture. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Frustration (balance)
 

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by tesco samoa:
The item I always thought that was way outta wack was the temporal space yards.

Once you have them build them first on your planet and everything builds quickly after that.

Were talking facilities, ships and units.<hr></blockquote>

Well, that's the point. Taking the Temporal trait is supposed to be an advantage. (I'm a bit biased here, since I always take the Temporal racial trait). The other racial traits have a number of bonus-granting facilities, after all. I'd also like to point out that the Temporal yards require at least the 4th level of research in Temporal tech, which requires the first level of Temporal Studies. So that's 50,000 research points for Temporal Studies, then 50,000 points for first level of Temporal Tech & then 3 more levels of Temporal Tech, cost of which varies depending on tech costs chosen for the game. And then it costs 20,000 minerals to build (10 turns on a colony without population bonuses; twice as expensive as a standard space yard). So it isn't always best to build the temporal yard first; the first two levels of resource facilities build in one turn without bonuses or better yards, so why wait 10 turns to start producing? If you're planning to build monoliths, it may be better to put the temporal yard on first for the construction bonus, but other than that you'd have to think about how many turns of construction you really save versus time required to build the yard in the first place.

Anyway, I think the temporal space yard is the second most useful advantage for temporal trait. The temporal vacation service is the most useful, as it provides twice the happiness bonus of the generic happiness facility. Very easy to keep populations jubilant.

And finally, the other racial traits have items that seem unbalancing at first: the talisman for religious trait (weapons never miss); some of the organic weapons (particularly their seeker weapon); organic armor; the crystalline tech facility that reduces maintenance; the psychic subverter weapon (that one REALLY makes life difficult until you start using master computers). So, I think the temporal space yard isn't unbalanced once you compare it to the other racial techs. I will agree that the racial techs may be unbalanced by themselves - maybe they should be more expensive. Any other opinions?

Re: Frustration (balance)
 

IMHO the temporal space yards and the special racial technologies are quite well balanced. If you take one of this special racial technologies you spend not only quite a few racial points but you must invest many research points to get this technology. So in the early games races with special technologies are rather weak compared to races that spent their racial and research points on standard technologies. Only in the later game the special technologies pay off, if the race survives to that point. In a crowded galaxy this may indeed be not the case. And in my experience races that have two special racial technologies are doomed in a game with low starting tech levels due to this factor.

[ 26 December 2001: Message edited by: Q ]</p>

Re: Frustration (balance)
 

While I realize this thread is about the balance between various SE IV game "components", I feel it is also necessary when weighing them to take into consideration the "Play Style" of the Human Players.
By Play Style I mean:
The over all nature of the choices a human player makes. Some players seem to promote a "conservative" play style, others a more risk taking aproach. I know I choose racial traits that compliment my thought process and priorities. (I won't say what they are as to avoid tipping my hand to the Honorable Growltigga). I expect others do as well. Exploiting these traits is then up to me. If I find I can't do it, I take my beating and try a different approach in the next game. "Live and Learn, or Crash and Burn"
To sum up: Some of the racial traits that may seem unbalanced are balanced by the play style of the Human Player. I have now idea how the Computer Players handle it.
I hope this makes sense. If not, please let me know.

* corrected typos *

[ 26 December 2001: Message edited by: Gryphin ]

[ 26 December 2001: Message edited by: Gryphin ]</p>

Re: Frustration (balance)
 

One of the things that's *really* missing from the play balance. . . imho. . . is that, unlike in MOOII, higher levels of the same tech aren't *smaller* than their originals. Yeah, I know that isn't strictly realistic(modern tank cannons are far larger than their forebears in WWI, to defeat today's armor with additional mass).
This simple change to the current guns, plus a few *minor* tweaks to damage and range, and a significant change to research cost(I'd make all weapon techs cost about 2-300% more to research) would give older weapons a LOT more legs. Imagine being able to mount huge numbers of the starting guns, or mounting the same hardware as yesterday, but with addtional armor all of a sudden. . . just a thought.

Re: Frustration (balance)
 

I think someone did a mod along these lines once. If not it wouldn't be that hard to do.

You can't go on infinitly, but your only limitation would be the number of components allowed in the Components.txt data file. 64,000 or something like that IIRC.

Geoschmo

Re: Frustration (balance)
 

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>One of the things that's *really* missing from the play balance. . . imho. . . is that, unlike in MOOII, higher levels of the same tech aren't *smaller* than their originals. Yeah, I know that isn't strictly realistic(modern tank cannons are far larger than their forebears in WWI, to defeat today's armor with additional mass).<hr></blockquote>High-tech weapons can be seen as smaller:
A PPB I does 30 damage in a size of 30KT
A PPB V does 60 damage in a size of 30KT

So, you can replace 6 PPB I's with 3 PPB V's and get the same amount of damage (at pointblank range)
So, PPB V's can be viewed as half the size of PPB I's!

Re: Frustration (balance)
 

True. . . but on the other hand, if you worked out the pure damage levels(and since this game, like MOOII, only has pretty weak "if damage doesn't exceed X, then has no effect" defenses, this is a fair way of looking at things) in MOOII a ship loaded to the gills with, say, Gauss Cannons(a midgame weapon) was more effective than a ship using Phasers(a late midgame weapon) for quite awhile, simply because it could dish out far more damage:

20 Heavy Gauss Cannons @ 24 damage apiece = 480 damage/turn max
10 Phasers @ up to 30 damage =300 damage/turn max

Now, this didn't Last very long- eventually, you ended up being able to mount *almost* as many Phasers as Gauss Cannons, and the Phasers, with their inherently higher max damage(plus mods like Heavy, Auto, and others) did more damage by far. But for awhile. . . with just about every gun. . . there was a period where the newest gun was decidedly inferior to each new one. . . until you ponied up the research points to improve it.

Anyhow, just a thought.

Re: Frustration (balance)
 

The different approach is because of the different design systems. In MOO you could get a 'reward' for making a ship less than the max weight. It could be a bit faster and more maneuverable. In SE there is no difference in the ship's maneuvarability if it has less than the absolute maximum amount of equipment that can be stuffed into it. So, while you could re-arrange the tech fields in SE to work more-or-less like they do in MOO -- giving smaller Versions of the same tech instead of more powerful Versions at the same size -- you would not get the same rewards even then. It would be interesting to see AIs cram more & more weapons into their ships, though. With missiles this could either become unbalancing, or it might correct the balance problem vs. PDC. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

You know, I think the MOO style is better because it doesn't encourage you to 'hold back' on using your latest tech until you get some more levels. You get full performance of your new tech right away, it just uses more space.

Re: Frustration (balance)
 

Actually(and I'll have to check now that you've mentioned it) in MOOII movement bonuses were purely based on engines(and mods to them) and ship size. A strange thing about MOOII is that you had a sharp trade-off point, however. . . when you reached the smaller sizes, you simply couldn't mount all of the specialized gear(mainly concerned with shooting things) that made the larger ships much more effective for their size. SE:IV duplicates this trend, although to a FAR lesser degree. . . the main way that larger ships are better, imho, is that they can mount far more armor and shields.

My play thus far has revealed another annoying tendency- instead of firing your weapons one at a time, and auto-switching to the next available target, Strategic combat ships don't seem to do that right, so big lumbering hulks can only kill single opponants per round. . . I still need to experiment with this, of course, to make sure that this is right, but if it is. . . that's going to strongly effect how I play PBW games. I've noticed that the Targeting instructions seem to get around this, so maybe I'll just experiment with that a bit and get ships working in Strategic combat a bit better.

Re: Frustration (balance)
 

Others have mentioned this. I haven't been able to confirm it. Athough honsetly I haven't tried very hard.

You are adding multi-plex tracking to your ships right? They aren't supposed to be able to shoot at more than one ship per combat turn without multiplex-tracking.

Geoschmo

Re: Frustration (balance)
 

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>You know, I think the MOO style is better because it doesn't encourage you to 'hold back' on using your latest tech until you get some more levels. You get full performance of your new tech right away, it just uses more space.<hr></blockquote>That just dosen't make sense.

What is the difference between a MoO like system and the SE4 way?
MoO: Weapon does 10 damage, starts at size 10, ends up at size 5.
SE4: Weapon is size 10, starts at 10 damage, ends at 20 damage.

Both weapons double in usefulness from start to maxtech.
SE4's way just makes it more convienient when upgrading ships, since the upgraded components fit perfectly, just like the old ones.

Re: Frustration (balance)
 

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by suicide_junkie:
That just dosen't make sense.

What is the difference between a MoO like system and the SE4 way?
MoO: Weapon does 10 damage, starts at size 10, ends up at size 5.
SE4: Weapon is size 10, starts at 10 damage, ends at 20 damage.

Both weapons double in usefulness from start to maxtech.
SE4's way just makes it more convienient when upgrading ships, since the upgraded components fit perfectly, just like the old ones.<hr></blockquote>

It does make sense. Your 'new' weapon in SE is almost always weaker than the old one. Less damage per hit and less range. What sort of 'technological advance' is that? Especially when you consider emissive armor this is not good at all. In the MOO system, your new weapon IS better, it just uses more space and so the total damage a ship can deal out is less. You get better range and better damage per hit immediately.

SE numbers -- ship sizes and component sizes -- are too small or rather in too large a gradient http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif . With larger numbers to allow for smoother cost/benefit curves the system could be as easy to use in the MOO style as MOO itself. I don't have the time but if someone were to take the time to multiply all the numbers by 20 or so and then re-design the weapon families (and maybe some other components like engines) to use a single performance level and then smoothly reduce in size as they got higher level it could be quite nice.

[ 29 December 2001: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]</p>

Re: Frustration (balance)
 

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>It does make sense. Your 'new' weapon in SE is almost always weaker than the old one. Less damage per hit and less range. What sort of 'technological advance' is that?<hr></blockquote>

Pardon me? What weapons gets less effective with higher classes?

Re: Frustration (balance)
 

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by [K126]Mephisto:


Pardon me? What weapons gets less effective with higher classes?<hr></blockquote>

Nearly all of them. APB and MB I are much less powerful than DUC V in both damage and range. PPB I is much less powerful than APB level for level, though it has a special ability. The racial tech weapons are the same. ED and PB start out less powerful than the weapons that get abandoned.

So, if you are concerned about combat effectiveness you have to sit on your 'new' technology for several levels until it is up to the level of your old technology. This is a bit silly. I think the MOO system that gives each weapon a fixed performance level and varies the size/cost of the component is more logical.

Re: Frustration (balance)
 

Ah, now I see what you mean. Personally, I think that this is ok. It is new technology after all and you have to do some research before it comes to be as effective as your established systems.

Re: Frustration (balance)
 

That’s the point of having a complex tech tree. You can choose to research DUCs and have a good weapon early or research APBs and have a better weapon later.
If you want every new weapon better than the previous and worth using in a new design, you’d have to put all of them in the same technology and get one after the other.
And stop with that. You don’t have to compare damage per hit, compare damage ratios. A bigger weapon is a way to hide it’s worse. You’ll be forced to put less weapons in you ship and your firepower will be REDUCED. You still have to wait to get a smaller one.

There is a balance problem in research, some weapons are really hard to research but are not so good (IPM), and some are very good and too easy to get (PPB). Some others are well balanced and worth every research point you put on them (APB).

I made a XLS file to compare weapon usefulness with its cost. I’ll post it later.

Re: Frustration (balance)
 

I think that balance should be a very high priority. Total Annihilation and Starcraft are two excellent RTS games. The TA community did an amazing job modifying the game for more variety. Starcraft was tweaked for balance differences. I think that in the end, Starcraft was the more enduring game because of the attention paid to balance.

I would be interested in helping out an effort to create a balanced tech tree. Such an effort would most likely be finished if it only included the original techs.

Thu

Re: Frustration (balance)
 

http://se4kdy.cyberwars.com/text/balance.htm

I just posted the XLS I made and the one I had been sent.
It should be a good source to balance different weapons.

Re: Frustration (balance)
 

I took a look at the html file and I understand how damage rating and balance, but I'm not sure about the other factors ot the right of the damage rating.

The table looks like it would be very helpful to any balancing effort.

Thu

Re: Frustration (balance)
 

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Range Mod, Supply Mod, ToHit / Seeker, Factor Target, Type Factor <hr></blockquote>Those are apparently personal opinions on the value of each trait, mulitplied by how much of it the weapon has.

My preferred method of balancing things is the Rock-Paper-Scissors method, and/or the gotta-have-em-all approach (where each is best in a small range of situations).

[ 03 January 2002: Message edited by: suicide_junkie ]</p>

Re: Frustration (balance)
 

Yes they are personal opinions.
I agree that weapons with different are usable in different situations, but I just needed a way to compare them.
Some things may need to be corrected, but you'd agree that for example some special damage types will improve the ability to do damage and others will limit it.

Re: Frustration (balance)
 

I absolutely agree that some types (ignore armor, ignore shields) are definite advantages.

I used to play cardboard crack (i.e. Magic the Gathering). During some of the releases of new cards, the main question was "Will this unbalance the game?" Later it became more of "Will someone want to play with this?"

I feel that SE IV has too many weapons that were designed not to rock the boat. The Tachyon projectors (those direct-fire wapons that target weapons) for instance are a bit too slow firing (1 per 4 rounds) and short ranged. The Massive unique weapons are too short ranged and inaccuarate for their size.

Thu

Re: Frustration (balance)
 

I tend to go for two things when outfitting a ship with weapons:

1. Damage per turn (which means DUC, MB and APB's at the appropriate tech level)

2. Damage per kT.

Note, I can pick one over the other. Right now I am using Quantum Torpedo Vs supported by Meson BLaster VIs and doing some serious damage. The torpedo has a lower rate of fire, but it can do 30damage/kT more than the Meson bLaster in one hit. Since that 30kT of damage can be things like weapons, I have a chance of destroying a ship's weapons before it can fire at one of my ships.

Basically, I call it the "It dies NOW" philosophy. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

(I do tend to keep a few pure DUC/MB/APB designs, but there's nothing like a few sledgehammers here and there. Now, to try to mod the Incinerator Beam/WMGs so they are actually nasty for their size.)

Re: Frustration (balance)
 

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Now, to try to mod the Incinerator Beam/WMGs so they are actually nasty for their size.)<hr></blockquote>Incinerator beams might be better off with a slight damage boost, but the WMGs would not.
The WMGs should have a range of 12-14 according to a comparison with SE3.
The WMG nastyness comes due to the fact that you can loose TWO sledgehammer blows before the enemy can get close enough to fight back. Of course, if you have a higher (or equal) speed than your opponent, you can keep it up until you hit the edge of the map. Once the enemy closes, they are outclassed by any other gun, but at max range they rule.
Artillery in beam form http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: Frustration (balance)
 

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by suicide_junkie:
Incinerator beams might be better off with a slight damage boost, but the WMGs would not.
The WMGs should have a range of 12-14 according to a comparison with SE3.
The WMG nastyness comes due to the fact that you can loose TWO sledgehammer blows before the enemy can get close enough to fight back. Of course, if you have a higher (or equal) speed than your opponent, you can keep it up until you hit the edge of the map. Once the enemy closes, they are outclassed by any other gun, but at max range they rule.
Artillery in beam form http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif <hr></blockquote>

I'll consider it, though I must say I do like the effects of one Quantum Torpedo V (heavy mount) smashing through the shields of an enemy ship, then chewing on the armor and maybe an internal system.

Then the second torp hits. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Still going to stay in tactical combat since there isn't a "Has Intact Null-Space Weapons" choice in the targeting priorities. No, I don't care about the ship w/weapons 1 square away I want that N-S ship out of my sky.