"Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races

[dumbluck]

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

[spoon]

Originally posted by capnq:

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

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.

[spoon]

Originally posted by Pax:

quote:

---

Originally posted by spoon:
- Having three ship-training facilities on a sector is better than having only one.

And is a disadvantage, because it means you want to move your ships there, rather than to various dispersed locations, for training.

---

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...

Call me crazy, but I think there SHOULD be a single "this is the best choice" weapon at any given stage of the game.

Why do you feel that way? Lack of choices makes weapons research decisions pointless.

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

No it won't. Defense is useless against the Talisman. And doesn't matter much for seekers either (granted, seekers-vs-PDC is also kinda unbalanced, but ... *shrug* ...).

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.

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

I disagree, somewhat; it's *an* advantage, but not a *huge* advantage ... because the points spent for +10% maintenance,might have gone elsewhere instead.

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.

And besides which, Maintenance reduction is easily modded for clearer balance (see P&N).

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.

[Phoenix-D]

"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

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by spoon:
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.[/QB]

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

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
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[/QB]

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.

[spoon]

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:


No, they aren't. Have you tried?

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...

Compare the 10 points in maitance to 10 points in, say, Minerals.

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?

[Phoenix-D]

"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

[spoon]

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

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.

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by spoon:
[/qb]

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.