SE4 Stock Balance Mod

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Oh, so going by what an even smaller number of people think is a better idea? Hardly. Is not the goal to make it acceptable to the largest number of people possible?

I did not suggest that a group of four or five people is more representative of the wider SE4 audience then a forum poll would be, but you cannot claim that it is less so. Just because a poll would get a larger result does not mean it would be a more accurate result. The fact is that statistically the difference between a small handful of people and a slightly larger handful that would answer a forum poll question is insignificant when compared to the wider Se4 audience. And when you consider that the personality of a player that frequents the forum is very likely different then the average Se4 player, the results are not likely to be representative at all for either handfull.

Since we cannot get an accurate sampling of the wider Se4 audience we must make assumptions. By the level of sales, the relative lack of complaint and widespread and generally positive feedback about the game we can assume that the general attitude among the wider Se4 audience is a positive one. Making radical changes to the stock game late in it's life without a compelling basis in customer disatisfaction is not wise.

Some changes can be done without risking a general backlash among the players. That is what we are trying to accomplish. Moving the game more towards what we in the forum believe is a point of balence in the game, without tipping it so far that we tick off the larger population of players that doesn't have a big problem with the game as it is now.

I don't disagree with all of your ideas. Many of them are ones I wish had been done in Se4 from the begining and are on my personal list of wishes for Se5. But I believe many of them are too large of changes to make this late in the stock Se4. That is what user mods are for.

Geoschmo

[PvK]

Supply is kinda weird in that it looks less efficient in terms of space than engines, and also in that it costs more than most weapons do. A tanker ship tends to be more expensive than a warship, at least before the final most expensive weapons are developed, and sometimes even then.

However those are not really balance issues. They are perception issues and "does it make sense" issues.

There is sort-of a balance issue in that it doesn't get you much to choose supply storage instead of engines, but since there is a max number of engines per design, it doesn't keep supply from being useful.

In fact, I suspect the reason supply components are as limited and expensive as they are, is an intentional balance design so that fleet range can only be extended at significant expense.

PvK

[Asmala]

After reading many Posts about the supply storage component I've to say it wasn't good suggestion to make it bigger. As stated it isn't a balance problem. However I think supply storage should count as cargo. If I'm going to build a tanker ship a transport ship sounds the most obvious choice.

Would it be too big change to give some bonuses to transports? At this time the only advantages to choose a transport instead of normal ship is the fact that it's few hudreds cheaper than corresponding normal ship and sometimes the transport is the biggest ship you have.

[Captain Kwok]

Regarding supply storage as cargo - airplanes don't carry our luggage in the fuel tank do they?

[PvK]

How is that a meaningful analogy?

[ August 01, 2003, 22:46: Message edited by: PvK ]

[Captain Kwok]

Originally posted by PvK:
How is that a meaningful analogy?

Umm? Supplies are basically fuel/power in SE4 and so supply storage would be like a fuel tank or 'battery' unit and not empty space like a cargo hold - so is my analogy not accurate in that case?

[Pax]

Originally posted by Captain Kwok:
Regarding supply storage as cargo - airplanes don't carry our luggage in the fuel tank do they?

Let's continue your analogy. Let us say that the planes the US military uses for cargo transports -- C141's, C5A's, etc -- count as "transport hulls" -- but let's assume the SE4/stock concept of supply NOT counting as cargo holds true.

Explain the air tankers used for mid-air refuelling. That ain't their wings they're drawing fuel for the fighter from!

FWIW, I too think Transports might need a bit of a boost; perhap a slight maintenance discount? Or somewhat bigger hull sizes (400/800/1200 maybe) ... ? The problem is in tyring to make transports attractive for what they do, while not making them more attractive as carriers than the actual carrier hulls (since fighter bays count as cargo ...).