SE4 Stock Balance Mod

[spoon]

Originally posted by Rollo:

Here is another proposal for PPB. Similar to Geo's, but with range reduction. Btw, this is copied from the DevnullMod data files. I consider this quite balanced.

...

Weapon Damage At Rng := 60 55 55 55 50 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

With stats like those, why ever choose the Meson BLaster? Compare PPB V to MB VI, adjusted for size:

PPB: 60 55 55 55 50 50
MB: 52 52 52 52 52 52

Adjusted cost is:
PPB: 500 mineral, 300 rad
MB: 450 mineral, 180 rad

The PPB is significantly better at point blank, and about the same at max range. And the PPB skips shields This is a huge advantage in the mid game.

Maybe increase the Rad cost even more for the PPB, or reduce the damage some at level 5. As is, it just out-powers everything else in the mid-game by a very large margin.

[geoschmo]

[quote]Originally posted by spoon:

With stats like those, why ever choose the Meson BLaster? Compare PPB V to MB VI, adjusted for size:

Yes but you are ignoring cost and research in that comparison. Well, maybe not ignoring cost, but discounting it for sure. By increasing the research costs for the PPB as most people are suggesting you allow the MB player to get to the upper level weapon much sooner then the PPB player. Even as it is now the MB player will have MB 2 to 4 before the PPB player even starts researching PPB because of the extra research involved in getting Physics 2. Raising the research costs and lowering the range of the eraly PPB pushes them back into thte late mid game before they start becoming a factor. Which gives the MB more time to be a decent weapon choice.

In retrospect perhaps Malfador should have pushed the energy stream weapons to Physics 2 and the Phased energy weapons back to physics 3. Making a change like that now though would cause some problems with the AI research files for sure.

In the end though yes the PBB catches and passes it on a damage per KT space ratio. I don't think that is neccesarily a bad thing. Even then though it's a more expensive weapon, so the MB player should be able to build more ships then the PPB player. The cost difference doesn't seem much, but multiplied by the number of weapons per ship it can make a significant difference in fleet size.

There are other ways to acchieve balance besides damage/Kt ratio and range.

Geoschmo

[ July 24, 2003, 17:55: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[spoon]

Originally posted by geoschmo:

Yes but you are ignoring cost and research in that comparison. Well, maybe not ignoring cost, but discounting it for sure. By increasing the research costs for the PPB as most people are suggesting you allow the MB player to get to the upper level weapon much sooner then the PPB player.

Much sooner? More like 2-3 turns earlier, which is why I discounted it. Mid game research is generally around 100k, no?

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by spoon:
Much sooner? More like 2-3 turns earlier, which is why I discounted it. Mid game research is generally around 100k, no?

Well, I guess that depends on who is playing.

Geoschmo

[Pax]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
You could, but would you need to? The point of my comment that you quoted is that the stock AI's would work quite well with no changes at all. At least for these two changes.

Geoschmo

Well, if the Talisman is supposed to be +100 in addition to Combat Sensors, then, using Talisman without those sensors (uniformly, rather than in special cases) would produce a sub-optimal result.

[Rollo]

Originally posted by spoon:
With stats like those, why ever choose the Meson BLaster?...

Yes indeed. Why choose Meson BLaster at all? *shrugs*

Personally, in unmodded SE4 I never do. It dead ends too soon and has a very narrow window of usefulness IMO. But just because Meson BLaster is underpowered, doesn't mean that PPB should be as well. That would leave only APB as king.

I think Mesons should be upped in some way. Double damage to shields, perhaps? Or increase damage, range, lower cost, whatever.

Rollo

[spoon]

Originally posted by Rollo:


I think Mesons should be upped in some way. Double damage to shields, perhaps? Or increase damage, range, lower cost, whatever.

Rollo

This is what I'd do:
Increase range to 8, Give it +10% to hit, and reduce the rad cost from 120 to 40. The reduced rad cost will help it compete against the PPB, and the increased range will help it against the APB.

Conversely, if the PPB is significantly weakened, the Meson BLaster wouldn't have to change as much, and the APB can be tuned down a little.

At some point, we should probably go weapon by weapon, since balance is so inter-connected.

[Krsqk]

Originally posted by Pax:
Well, if the Talisman is supposed to be +100 in addition to Combat Sensors, then, using Talisman without those sensors (uniformly, rather than in special cases) would produce a sub-optimal result.

Make the Talisman a +125 to hit in the same family as the standard Combat Sensors. Then, it still gives an additional 60%, the AI would automatically use it when available, and humans couldn't double-dip with a CS-Talisman combo.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Pax:
Well, if the Talisman is supposed to be +100 in addition to Combat Sensors, then, using Talisman without those sensors (uniformly, rather than in special cases) would produce a sub-optimal result.

I don't think the objective was to make the AI use both. The 100% talisman by itself would be superior to a ship with only normal combat sensors. But not as superior as the current never miss talisman is. I think that was the objective.

Although if we you wanted the AI to use both, you are correct it would be a minor change and we could even include it with the mod.

Originally posted by Rollo:
But just because Meson BLaster is underpowered, doesn't mean that PPB should be as well. That would leave only APB as king.

I think Mesons should be upped in some way. Double damage to shields, perhaps? Or increase damage, range, lower cost, whatever.

Rollo

I think we need to make the PPB a little weaker and teh MB a little stronger. Either by itself doesn't address the problem. Changing either one drastically causes new problems.

The following is an editorial comment... Of course this is only opinion and anyone is free to disagree with me.

I like the idea of different weapons being superior to others at different times in the game. I think that was the intention of Aaron from looking at the files. The DUC in the early game, then torpedoes, then Meson BLaster, then PPB, and Lastly APB. Each should have it's own particular time during the game when it is the superior weapon choice, based on the time it takes to research it.

It's not a problem for me that the early game weapons are ultimatly outclassed on a one for one basis. Although there should be a cost factor there that allows them to still be at least partially competitive if you can take advantage of it by presenting your enemy with a superiority of numbers.

The problem is in the execution. For whatever reason it's clear that the PPB comes into it's own too early in the game. Thus making the Torps and MB pretty much irrelevant during the time in the game when they should rule. And the PPB and APB are too strong, or not expensive enough to allow the early game wepons to retain even an advantage in numbers at the end.

By tweaking all four of these ( I think the consensus is the DUC's are pretty good as they are) we should be able to acchieve a balance like this.

The remaining direct fire weapons would be your "niche" weapons, good for ceratin situations, but not the basis of your military, and your seekers which are different classes alltogether.

Of course everyone else idea of balance may be totally different then mine and they are free to think I am nuts.

Geoschmo

[ July 24, 2003, 19:36: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[Fyron]

I go away for a couple of days and look what happens...

Time for some reading!