A thought on the Talisman / Live on Pay-Per-View: Geo vs. Fyron - Page 9

oleg · #81 July 21st, 2003, 01:59 AM

I think experience go up only when you kill enemy, not when you shot and hit !

oleg · #82 July 21st, 2003, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

quote:
Originally posted by geoschmo:

quote:
Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
MM does not have to please everyone.

Only you, right?
I am sorry for suggesting that MM operate as 90% of the industry that releases frequent update patches does in regards to those patches. Most games get frequent balance fixes in patches. Se4 has only had one or two of them, which just sucks.

That is not true ! Let see what play balance issues have been addresed in patches as I remember: missile speed, APB damage, ionic dispersor, allegiance subverter, organic armor, mines, range mounts for WP and satellites, order of firing. Might be many more.

Fyron · #83 July 21st, 2003, 08:56 PM

Gozra, I think experience is limited to 50 points per ship and 50 per fleet...

Oleg, almost all of those are not balance changes, but hardcode bug fixes. Balance changes are tweaking some values in the data files. Make Phased - Energy Weapons cost more, for example. Only missile speed, APB damage (wasn't it PPB damage, not APB?) and range mounts qualify as balance fixes. So, 3 instead of 1 or 2. Same difference. But either way, they are relatively minor changes, and most of the important balance issues have not been addressed.

[ July 21, 2003, 19:57: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Loser · #84 July 21st, 2003, 09:18 PM

AS vs. MC.

Fyron · #85 July 21st, 2003, 09:30 PM

Again, that is a hardcode change, not a simple balance change. The point that balance changes are few and far between is still quite valid.

geoschmo · #86 July 21st, 2003, 09:51 PM

Most games get balance changes? I don't play many other games, so I will have to accept this contention at face value Fyron. But most games do not allow the players to make simple data file changes and tweak the balance to their hearts content the way that SEIV does. So one could make a valid point that Malfador has made all of the balance changes you want, by giving you the tools to do it yourself.

Claiming that most people don't play mods is completely irrelevant. Most people that buy a game don't even bother to download patches for them. What does that prove?

The simple fact is that balance is subjective. No, Malfador doesn't have to make everyone happy. It wouldn't even be possible even if they wanted to. But if the result of a change is a just a different group of unhappy people what's the point of the change? Especially when you consider anyone that is unhappy with it in the first place can change it themselves.

But I will tell you again what I have told you before. A lot of things could be changed and would be improvments, I will totally agree with that. But if you have something like that you'd like to see changed, whining about it in the forum isn't going to help. Send the suggestion to Malfador. Not just a "balance this" gripe, but actually do the change yourself and do the real work and playtest it. Send your playtest results to Malfador along with comments from the players involved in your playtests, if there are any.

Make a clear and convinvcing case for a "simple" change and I would be suprised if it didn't get done. Especially if you can hand him the text and all he has to do is proofread it and paste it into the data files. It worked for you before on the formations problem didn't it?

Of course whining is a lot easier.

Geoschmo

[ July 21, 2003, 20:52: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Erax · #87 July 21st, 2003, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Malfador doesn't have to make everyone happy. It wouldn't even be possible even if they wanted to. But if the result of a change is a just a different group of unhappy people what's the point of the change?

Like we say down here, "You can't please the Greeks and the Trojans."

Phoenix-D · #88 July 21st, 2003, 11:01 PM

"Again, that is a hardcode change, not a simple balance change. The point that balance changes are few and far between is still quite valid. "

No, it was a balance change that required hardcode doing. Same with the ID vs shields; I doubt it was a bug that made it skip shields, since other "kills x" weapons do.

Fyron · #89 July 21st, 2003, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Most games get balance changes?

Please reread my statement. Games that get frequent patches (as SE4 does) generally get frequent balance fixes.

Quote:

whining about it in the forum isn't going to help.

I have seen no whining here Geo.

P-D:
AS vs MC was a bug. It was not supposed to convert ships with a damaged MC, but it did.

From History.txt:

Quote:

2. Fixed - "Crew ConVersion" damage type will fail against a ship with a Master Computer (regardless if that component is damaged or not). It does not matter if there is a Bridge on the ship.

Note how it says "Fixed" and not "Changed"? This shows that it was meant to fail against ships with a damaged MC.

Quote:

7. Changed - Engine Damaging Weapons no longer skip shields.

That one was a balance change. So that makes 4. Still not very many.

[ July 21, 2003, 22:21: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Gozra · #90 July 21st, 2003, 11:53 PM

SEIV is as blanced a game as any. The ablity to modifify the starting set up allowes players of varying ablity to play fairly equally. (See set up page on PBW for Cluster command) There are way to many other variables in SEIV to say that this or that racial trait allows someone to win more often. We have no stastical data to base these statements on. I do have a gut feeling that this game from the outset has more balance than most games.