Fundamentals and Gamey

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by couslee:
Banding together? I thought KOTH was one on one with no AIs.

Other PBW games are of course a different story, I guess.

You are correct for KOTH. But Taera's concern seems to be that these min/max strategies will become widespread and used in all SEIV games.

Originally posted by Taera:
geo, my major point is MIN/maxing. i know what you are saying, but then again - something that requies early kill, special strategies, banding together isnt too good. at all.

Taera, every strategy requires something to counter it. And not every strategy is good against every other strategy. What exactly would you like to see happen? It is not clear from your comments.

Geoschmo

[Stone Mill]

I agree with Taera's frustration somewhat, as I have posted in the thread I started (KOTH: Attack of the clones). But I don't think it is cheating.

I don't think it is right to keep beating the wind out of newbies who get discouraged because their ships can't hit. But most players here are top notch and don't mind giving out strategy tips, and telling them why they are doing poorly.

I'd rather it weighed more heavily on the tactics and decisions you made during the game, and not so much on how you made your race. And it's a shame that an "average race" (without the fundamentals, so to speak) would get pounded 99% of the time against a 20/20/berserker.

Originally posted by Geo:

But would a 110/110/merchant? Could his concentration in economics make up the difference? Possibly, if he is a skilled player.

Hmm. I would qualify that "possibly" as very slim against a 20/20/berserker. The math is still extremely unfavorable in your example.

[javaslinger]

Taera,

I've been trying to test those settings you listed in the thread. However, you appear to have 2 too many of them. Which of them are redundant or am I missing something?

Thanks,

Ken

[PvK]

Sounds like I need to finish my balance mod.

[Fyron]

PvK, my Adamant Mod borrowed a lot of ideas from the Balance Mod.

[Taera]

// WARNING! LONG MESSAGE AHEAD! //

In order.

(if you're too lazy to read it all, you can skip and go to the next comment)
Geo: what i see is - there is already one thing that requies early wipe out -- talisman. Early wipe out is not a strategy but sometimes the only choice. Then it becomes not as much a strategy already. With MIN/maxing, which i suspect is already widespread in PBW (judging from TDM, comments on this forum and some other sources i cant recall), and with top-notch players all around, to simply have a chance to win one must take those MIN stats down. back to the topic though - there is already one racial setup out there requing early wipe out, as almost the only chance, and another one which would be difficult (no matter how many ships you have, 1% to hit opposed to much higher numbers isnt good. 1% is still 1%. what i mean, no guarantees you would be able to actually wipe the target out) to even wipe out together and early on, it no longer becomes a strategy game with a wide variety of races and players but a plain tournament who plays better, without the variety offered by racial setup.

To make long story short, this seems to be a common practice and it removes an important part of the game - racial setup and characteristics. Counter... the only counter is a mad early attack which is almost doomed to failure (unlike talisman, this player has the advantage all along). I know the value of counters, this one simply doesnt look too well.

Javaslinger - i've been using 3k, my favorite setup and as it seems also common inbetween the other players.

Now to clarify my point, as i seem to have been misunderstood. I do not talk against MAXING, what i dont like (easy words) is the MINNING (which i've been highlighting all along). Read my first post, i've talked about 50%'s. And i do not say, and did not have the intention to say, that min/maxing is cheating. I do see it as an abuse to a certain degree but i do not press that point. The pararel to cheats was drawn because like the cheats, you have four options - die, do the same, be a real genius, quit.

I dont think that there are many people here that would figure a way to make ships hit more with a base -20% (considering 110/merchant) and to be hit less, with same disadvantage. If the 125/125/berzerk player is even a little smart he'll go for things that increase his bonuses - ecm/sensors early and stealth/scattering armors.

Now once again. I know that most of the people here tend to disagree with most of my points, but i just bring my points of view on a matter that had not been actively discussed before.

[couslee]

Look for other games that have more racial limits. I read somewhere using a zero racial points, and at least one advanced trait is a real challnge. Other options would be to put design limits like "none over 120, none under 80" and flexability would be determined by the starting points you get. KOTH is just type of game. If it does not suit your taste in game play, don't play it. If you want to test your metal against a 125/125 bezerker, join in and give it your best shot. That goes for any MP competition. When you have games like SEIV and Stars! that have a very wide choice of race settings, your going to have a wide variety of challanges available. An unlimited settings game is not any more wrong or right than a limited settings game.

Don't get wrong, I can certainly understand your frustration and POV. Perhaps what is needed is more of a variety of restricted settings games. I am not playing any PBW games yet, so I don't the make-up of the majority of available games. You could always host one yourself, and set it up anyway you like.

[Grandpa Kim]

I think we do read you Taera. Its a question of balance. When Aaron first designed the game, I'm sure he did his best to balance the various traits. Only after much play could we observe inequities.

For instance, you can reduce strength, resistance, repair and organics (except for organic races) to 50% with no effect at all on your chances of winning! At the same time, you have all these extra free points to apply elsewhere. Almost everything else (exception: reproduction) you can safely reduce to 80%. And those you do choose to reduce, again free up points to use elsewhere.

But you don't dare reduce aggressiveness, defensiveness or maintenance. Points freed up by reducing these will not give you enough bang in the other areas. You will never overcome the deficit you've created. I'm sure Aaron didn't intend this imbalance, in fact he's probably more disappointed in the result than we are.

Also I'm not saying reducing certain traits is the best thing. What I'm saying is reducing most traits will not hurt your chances of winning the game. For instance setting minerals 80%, organics 50% and rads 80% will not hurt my chances of winning. To compensate I can take an extra advanced trait and still have high numbers in the three key areas and most of the others.

But perfect balance is not there. Nor do I even think "perfection" is possible. But it could certainly be better than the current set up. I have played Proportions and PvK has done much work trying to balance these. I applaud the effort. At first I wanted to scream! He was taking away all my favorite selections. But I calmed down and realized he was changing the balance for the better. How close to the ideal it is I don't know, but I'll bet PvK is always thinking about ways to tweak it.

In effect, Taera, we agree with you, but we enjoy this game too much to quit, so we work with what we have.

Kim

[DavidG]

change "no effect at all" to "almost no effect" and "You will never overcome the deficit you've created." to "you will have difficulty overcoming..." and I would agree 100%

I think one of the great things about Se4 is you can win with a large variety of strategies. Taking a negative or no bonus in attack and defense does not guarantee a loss.

[ February 02, 2003, 16:55: Message edited by: DavidG ]

[geoschmo]

Basically, the question is the difference the players skill or the racial setup? The question is not an easy one to answer. And Taera, even if I don't agree with you I think it's great that people bring up these points. I have been arguing similer arguments for almost two years now on these forums, and I have played a LOT of games. My actual experience is a strong factor in my opinion.

I lose more than my fair share of games. I have a reputation as a great player, and that's really not justified. I think I have just been around long enough that people think I must be good.

But I have lost a lot of games to players that had lower agg/def stats than me, and I have beaten plenty of players that had higher.

Your list of characteristics, racial choices, and research priorities would make a good solid combination in a game. But by no means an unbeatable one. You could program an AI that would do all the things you suggest, and it would still lose to even an average skill level player.

But in a game with players of fairly equal tactical skill, it could very well make the difference. I don't see this as a problem however. It's part of the game. Something has to make the difference.

Geoschmo

[ February 02, 2003, 16:58: Message edited by: geoschmo ]