"Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races

[Wardad]

Moon Training helped a lot in one game. I also had 2 space stations with repair bays at the same location. It was next door to a contested system.
I brought in an old, large fleet of LCs and retrofitted them in two turns. They gained 18% experience in two turns. 18% is good enough!!! I then transfered fleet experience from a training escort, adding another 20% for a total gain of 38% in attack and defense in two turns.

Of course not every system will have a planet with two moons. It is chance that it is located somewhere usefull.

BTW: I agree with Fyron on most all of his points.

My own PBW experience has really drove home the importance of Attack and Defense bonuses, however you can get them. My ships have survived attacks by larger fleets and swarms of SATs with little damage and delivered killing blows with just moderate firepower.

I like NONE atmosphere races. I capture or trade for them the first chance I get.

[ December 23, 2002, 16:48: Message edited by: Wardad ]

[spoon]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
How do you define the game as better Spoon? If an equal number of people are upset by the change as made happy by it, sounds like no net improvement to me.

I define it by balance, depth, and enjoyment. Balance is just numbers, depth is availability of significant choices, and enjoyment is subjective. In your example, I would say that there would be an improvement- to balance and depth, at no net cost to enjoyment.

edit: And I am not talking about stuff like the maint reduction here. Those sorts of things could be changed and I doubt anyone would complain too much. And he does change those sorts of things. It may just be a matter of enough people complaining to him about it.

Those are exactly the things I am talking about. If MM does address these issues, it is pretty rare, and usually a more drastic code-based change as opposed to simple data tuning (eg, Engine Destroyers no longer skipping shields, Bases no longer "fleetable"). PPBs certainly aren't on the top of the "needs tuning" list, and I know you love your PPB, but ask yourself this: would you still use them if they did 10 pts less damage? What about 5 points less? If you answered "yes", it could probably use some tuning.

I don't know about Blizzard specifically, but I doubt they put out more patches for their games and are more responsive to the players than Malfador. I don't think anyone is.

Blizzard is probably the best of the Big developement houses as far as game quality and support goes. Still, MM outshines them by far, which is all the more amazing given that MM is just one (possibly cloned) guy. (Or maybe that is the reason. I don't know.)

But stuff like the PPB, where a legitimate case can be made for both sides. It's tough there to make changes without ticking people off. Those that don't think there is anything wrong with it anyway.

I'm still waiting to hear that legitimate case. And what kind of person gets ticked off if PPBs start doing slightly less damage? Does he really have to cater to that type of person? He's the developer. He allowed to step on a few toes.

[capnq]

I'd rather he perfect his game.
[...]
Does he really have to cater to that type of person? He's the developer. He allowed to step on a few toes.

Including your toes.

You're making the totally unwarranted assumption that Aaron's idea of perfection exactly matches your own.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by spoon:
PPBs certainly aren't on the top of the "needs tuning" list, and I know you love your PPB, but ask yourself this: would you still use them if they did 10 pts less damage? What about 5 points less? If you answered "yes", it could probably use some tuning.
Actually I am not particularly in love with the PPB. I rarely if ever use them. So few people use standard shields because of the threat of PPB's that they have lost their real edge IMHO. Typically I will research DUCs to the limit and then switch over to APB's. Although that's simply habit. There are others that work just fine.

I'm still waiting to hear that legitimate case. And what kind of person gets ticked off if PPBs start doing slightly less damage? Does he really have to cater to that type of person? He's the developer. He allowed to step on a few toes.True enough. But why should he make a change and step on their toes when he can do nothing and step on yours.

If you haven't been convinced by the myriad of discussions we have had on this forum, I won't waste your time or mine. But that's ok. You don't have to agree with me that PPB's are balanced. My point is only that a lot of people do agree with me. And since maybe as many people agree they are that think they are not, and because they can be "fixed" anytime by anyone in a mod, why should Malfador bother?

The maint thing is different, cause it really would require a hard code change. Unless you do the fancy thing SJ added to his mod.

It's all about priorities and available time. Everybody has their own pet projects that would "Only take a few minutes", but if you add all those up He'd be working on the game till the end of time.

I don't set Aarons schedule, so I don't pretend to know how much time he has available. I assume his time is finite, so I prefer if he is going to make changes it be in areas that we cannot mod. Adding more of that depth you talked about by adding abilities to the game that modders can take advantage of, and tweaking the remaining annoying bugs like the mine thing that was squished in the Last patch.

But I don't suggest my priorities are the best ones. If you have a suggestion, especially a data fiel change that can be easily done, my suggestion is to make the change and send it to Malfador in an email. He does respond to those from time to time. Just ask Fyron.

Geoschmo

[Pax]

Originally posted by spoon:
- Having three ship-training facilities on a sector is better than having only one.

And is a disadvantage, because it means you want to move your ships there, rather than to various dispersed locations, for training.

A centralised training center that can get you to 18% fleet-and-ship in two turns is nice, but also count the travel time to the sector from where a ship is bult, and thenf rom that sector to where the ship is needed.

- Using PPBs in the midgame is better than using anything else.

Call me crazy, but I think there SHOULD be a single "this is the best choice" weapon at any given stage of the game.

[quote]Having 125% defense + bezerker will make you unbeatable against people unaware of how combat works.[quote]

No it won't. Defense is useless against the Talisman. And doesn't matter much for seekers either (granted, seekers-vs-PDC is also kinda unbalanced, but ... *shrug* ...).

- Having 110% Maint Reduction is a huge advantage over people who don't realize how broken Maint Reduction is.

I disagree, somewhat; it's *an* advantage, but not a *huge* advantage ... because the points spent for +10% maintenance,might have gone elsewhere instead. And besides which, Maintenance reduction is easily modded for clearer balance (see P&N).

[Suicide Junkie]

Call me crazy, but I think there SHOULD be a single "this is the best choice" weapon at any given stage of the game.

Crazy!

Well, IMO, players should be torn between various weapons at all stages.
Do I use a P&N Polaron beam to nail anybody with a heavy shield generator, or non-polaron beams to do more damage to phased shields?
Do I use a P&N Torpedo so I can hit the slippery aliens (+15% to +25% accuracy), or do I use particle weapons for higher damage?
Do I use bombardment missiles to penetrate PD and shields, or regular CSMs to do more hull damage?
DO I use shields to protect against boarding and ion weapons and have faster repair, or armor to get more hitpoints for cheaper?

IMO, All the weapons should have thier own niche, and be worth using in a balanced range of circumstances. Preferably enough to get players to put more than one type of weapon on their ships!

[SamuraiProgrammer]

Originally posted by Pax:
Call me crazy, but I think there SHOULD be a single "this is the best choice" weapon at any given stage of the game.

!!! Remember - This is like Rock/Paper/Scissors !!!

1) Who am I Fighting?

2) What composes their fleet now?

3) What will beat them now?

The answer will change from enemy to enemy and also from turn to turn (if your opponent is sly).

For every ship, there is an anti-ship.
For every tactic, there is an anti-tactic.

The key to success is being able to manage that reality.

[Fyron]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
But I don't suggest my priorities are the best ones. If you have a suggestion, especially a data fiel change that can be easily done, my suggestion is to make the change and send it to Malfador in an email. He does respond to those from time to time. Just ask Fyron.

Hehehe Yeah, the next patch should include a little something that will help solve one major problem with the combat system.

[Dralasite]

I agree with SJ, I like having to make the choice between weapon types, and potentially choosing more than one. It adds a nice element of strategy to the game vs. "who can generate the most ppb light cruisers"

Having multiple viable weapons choices encourages using recon/intelligence to find the composition of other players fleets. Again, more depth to that sort of game.

Then again, I'm also all for leaky shields/leaky armor

[Wardad]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Hehehe Yeah, the next patch should include a little something that will help solve one major problem with the combat system.

What? That laughter sounds most unfair. I hope you do not immediately upgrade our current game.