SE4 Stock Balance Mod

[Loser]

Originally posted by oleg:
Shield point on WP and fighters are part of structure. PPB does NOT skip unit's nonphased shields.

Is this so?

I thought the PPB skip didn't work only on Units for which Phased Shield are not provided in the game, Fighters and Troops, as opposed to Weapon Platforms, Satellites, and Drones, for which Phased Shields are provided.

[edit:

Originally posted by geoschmo:
This is a good question. One worthy of it's own discussion. I will start a new thread...

Oh... right... cut-and-paste time.]

[ July 25, 2003, 16:17: Message edited by: Loser ]

[Slick]

Originally posted by oleg:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Loser:
...If Weapon Platforms are hit in order of placement, and I believe they are, then putting a few cheap 100% Armor WPs on a planet means the badum has to dish out serious damage before the shooting WPs or Relic/Sensor WPs are even touched. Shield WPs do the same, but are so much more expensive (take longer to build). I think it takes the third level of Phased Shielding to beat out Armor for protection/kilotonne.

And on Units, unless I am mistaken, Armor piercing is a moot point. The unit is not impaired until all its components are destroyed, so the Armor piercing still has to deliver the whole sum of the damage, while Shield piercing does not. Since the components do not need repair, the Armor could be said to recharge, just like Shields, and the only advantage to Shields over Armor in a Unit is the greater protection/kilotonne offered by higher level shielding, which is expensive and takes a long time to get.

I'm not sure on what the dividing lines are, but I'm thinking that it's Late Game before I'm putting Phased Shields on Weapon Platforms.

No, WP are destroyed more or less starting with weaker one, with some element of randomness. There were some Posts with detailed results as I remember. Shield point on WP and fighters are part of structure. PPB does NOT skip unit's nonphased shields. Neither does NSP. Planetary shield is more like "normal" shield and is skipped by PPB, IIRC.

---

Here's my post from a while ago where I tested the order of Weapon Platform damage:

I started a new high tech game with 2 human controlled empires, turn based. On homeworld A I built Weapon Platforms. On homeworld B I built 2 dreads with heavy mounted APB's. I conducted tactical combat at homeworld A using 1 weapon at a time, checking for surviving WP's after each shot.

Series 1
On Homeworld A I built 6 WP's as follows:
1 small WP with only WP computer core
1 medium WP with only WP computer core
1 large WP with only WP computer core
1 small WP with WP computer core and filled with APB's
1 medium WP with WP computer core and filled with APB's
1 large WP with WP computer core and filled with APB's

Result: the first shot would always kill the 3 empty WP's then the remaining would be successively killed in order from small to large. 20 tries, exact same result in all cases.

This result is what might lead one to believe that WP's are destroyed from weakest to strongest since there usually is a significant difference in WP hitpoints in real games. And at first, I thought I proved it worked this way.

But then I started wondering if my test method was valid. After consideration I realized that randomly applied damage would still show the same results. This is because a small amount of damage would destroy a weak WP while it would "accumulate against" the strong WP without destroying it. So this test series didn't really prove anything.

Series 2
On Homeworld A I built 10 WP's as follows:
1 small WP with WP computer core
1 small WP with WP computer core and 1 PDC 5
1 small WP with WP computer core and 2 PDC 5
1 small WP with WP computer core and 3 PDC 5
1 small WP with WP computer core and 4 PDC 5
1 small WP with WP computer core and 5 PDC 5
1 small WP with WP computer core and 6 PDC 5
1 small WP with WP computer core and 7 PDC 5
1 small WP with WP computer core and 8 PDC 5
1 small WP with WP computer core and 9 PDC 5

The idea here is that there is only 20 kt difference between successive WP's.

Result: 20 runs. The WP's were NOT destroyed in order from weakest to strongest. Weaker ones TENDED to be destroyed before stronger ones. But there were several cases where the stronger WP's were destroyed before weaker ones. This validates the "random damage" position. If you randomly apply damage, you would expect this result.

Conclusion: WP's are not destroyed randomly but are damaged randomly; WP's with less hit points tend to be destroyed first because it takes less random hits to destroy them. [edit] This makes the idea of "shield platforms" interesting. Shield WP's will help absorb random hits to keep your weapon WP's alive longer, but only so far as they add more targets for the random damage - NOT that they get hit before or after other WP's.

Slick.

[macjimmy]

If even the basic armor was improved some in HP, maybe by 10hp/level, then this also might help guns like MB, since the space they take up is 10kt less than APB or PPB leaving room for armor. Point of this is to make armor competitive in the late game, when all it is really used for is defense bonuses. If you made unused weapons like GHB or maybe high level torpedoes armor skipping, it would increase the values of all these underused techs, without having to mess too much with everyone's favorite guns. Emmisive armor would also have to be adjusted to keep it up with regular armor.
Also, would it be possible to increase the cloaking amount on stealth armor at its highest level to preventing EM active/passive 2? I saw someone pointing out that Hyper-Optics was too cheap, and this might help out.

Macjimmy

[oleg]

Originally posted by Loser:

quote:

---

Originally posted by oleg:
Shield point on WP and fighters are part of structure. PPB does NOT skip unit's nonphased shields.

Is this so?

I thought the PPB skip didn't work only on Units for which Phased Shield are not provided in the game, Fighters and Troops, as opposed to Weapon Platforms, Satellites, and Drones, for which Phased Shields are provided.

---

I am pretty sure about this. See, the "blue bar" for a satellite, same as for the fighter, is a decoration. When you add a shield to the unit, its "red bar" - structure, jumps by the same amount of points as the "blue bar". Does not matter, phased or not. Same for the planet with WP. I might be wrong of course and I did't check it for drones.

[Suicide Junkie]

Any other comments on the Hellbores, Torpedoes and High energy weapons?

[spoon]

Geo -

Before I go into nitpicky detail to explain myself, let me assure you I never meant my comments as a personal affront, and apologize if I came off sounding that way.

Originally posted by geoschmo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by spoon:
Heh, that is so much the opposite of my point, I am forced to put one of those eyeball-rolling guys in my post...

Well forgive me if I have misinterpreted your comments, but even now it appears that is what you are saying. From my point of view you are saying that my understanding of your ceomments is incorrect, and then restating the same thing I just said. I guess we have some different definitions of some words or something.

---

I think this earlier post sums up my position, so I don't see how you can say my goal is to have generic weapon non-choices:

I think every weapon should have its role - and that is where the problem comes in for SE4 - too few weapons fill up too many roles. The APB has both great range and a great damage ratio. The PPB both skips shields and has a great damage ratio.

Might be a valid approach for this mod to seperate each weapon into its own niche, and then balance it from that perspective.

Next:

Originally posted by spoon:
In fact, it appears that you say you want balance and choices, but your suggestions don't really live up to that. You want minor tweaks and the game to stay basically as is. There is nothing wrong with that, but don't try to sell it as a "vision of balance".

Ok, well up till now this has been a fairly calm, frank and impersonal discussion. I am probably reading too much into this but you apperar to now be accusing me of somehow misrepresenting my true opinion on the matter and persuing some hidden agenda. If that is what you are saying I resent it. If it is not what you are saying I would appreciate it if you would choose your words more carefully in the future.

I'm not accusing you of Dark Hidden Agendas or Devilish Endeavors. (though I do have my tinfoil hat just in case). What I am saying is I like your goal, but not the method you choose to achieve that goal. The suggestions you had made up until this point had consisted mainly of minor data tweaks, which I don't believe is enough of a change to achieve balance.

Originally posted by geoschmo:
With the type of balance I am suggesting you still have choices. Any of the mainline weapons could be valid options at the end of the game, but they wouldn't be equal on a one for one basis.
Originally posted by spoon:
No, you are suggesting that the PPB is fine as is, but that you would put up with a minor change as compromise. The game, as it is, does not give you significant strategic choice. You have PPBs for the mid game, and APBs for the late game.

Originally posted by geoschmo:
If I was suggesting the PPB is fine as is why would I have bothered to make the numerous and detailed suggestions I have made in this very thread to change it.

I was basing my claims on these two comments that you made earlier in this thread:

I disagree with "nerfing" the PPB. I like them as a frontline weapon. I would prefer jsut a smoothing out of their progression and slowing down their research a tad.

and

Remember this mod is all about concensus and compromise. Six months ago I was insisting that PPB were fine as they are and didn't need changed. Part of me still believes that, but in the interests of actually getting something accomplished I am attempting to reach a middle ground

So, I don't think you can blame me if I got your position confused

Next:

Originally posted by geoschmo:
The way I see it we both think the PPB needs some changes. We just have a difference of opinoin as to how much it needs changed. You really need to get to where you can disagree with me without accusing me of misrepresenting myself Spoon.

If you want to balance the PPB, and you think that by reducing the range at lvls 1-2 and increasing research by 5k will do it, then I will have to call you stark raving mad. (disclaimer - I don't really think you are stark raving mad, but I don't think your suggestions (up to that point) adequately addressed the problems of the PPB).

Originally posted by geoschmo:
I have stated I agree with the concept of niche weapons. I merely disagree that we should take the PPB, a weapon that has a clear history in SE4 of being a mainline weapon and turning it into yet another niche weapon. How does that give you more choices?

Making the PPB a niche weapon gives you more choices by giving the weapons that it had previously dominated over some breathing room. Since all weapons are interconnected, reducing the strength of the PPB will increase the strength of all the other weapons that are competing with it in the mid-game. Double true if we up the power of torps, HEDs, and others.

I think that you can acchieve choices in different ways. You just have to be willing to accept different interpretations of what balanced is.

I believe I am willing to accept that for most weapons, but the PPB is a menace, so I'm a little more adamant about it.

[Suicide Junkie]

What I am saying is I like your goal, but not the method you choose to achieve that goal. The suggestions you had made up until this point had consisted mainly of minor data tweaks, which I don't believe is enough of a change to achieve balance.

In order to stand a chance of becoming the stock mod, minor data tweaks are all we can allow.