Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Weapon balance for the future

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Distant Worlds 1 Series >> RE: Weapon balance for the future Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Weapon balance for the future - 5/5/2010 1:00:56 AM   
Fishman

 

Posts: 795
Joined: 4/1/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: taltamir

your missile travels 50,000 to 75,000 km/s?
that is some fast fing missile!
These are not unachievable speeds in SPACE, where there is no air resistance, so you will continue to speed up as long as you have thrust. Although he is probably giving an overly high estimate, and a more reasonable flight time is on the order of minutes rather than seconds.

quote:

ORIGINAL: taltamir

BTW, is the very dangerous array a reference to schlock mercenary?
Yes, although I've actually performed such a strategy years before, in the old days of text games, where I would cover the galaxy in probe drones, and then when an enemy was sighted, crash the probe drones into him. Very Dangerous Array is such a catchy name for it, though.

(in reply to taltamir)
Post #: 31
RE: Weapon balance for the future - 5/5/2010 1:51:33 AM   
Dadekster

 

Posts: 141
Joined: 4/18/2010
Status: offline 		Dang, what happened to the laymans debate on weapon balancing? Getting a bit deep into the realm of realism over what would just be fun aren't we?

(in reply to Fishman)
Post #: 32
RE: Weapon balance for the future - 5/5/2010 2:13:15 AM   
Rustyallan

 

Posts: 193
Joined: 4/27/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dadekster

Dang, what happened to the laymans debate on weapon balancing? Getting a bit deep into the realm of realism over what would just be fun aren't we?


I kinda just sat back and watched a bit to see where it went... and wait for it to settle again before commenting further.

On the original topic with some input from the wild tangent...
And without adding anything new to the mix...

My current thoughts...

Increase the size/energy usage of torpedoes. Leave them be so that they can be used for long-range bombardment, but expect it to take longer or bring more friends.

Increase the speed/rate-of-fire for beam weapons. Can they be modified to actually shoot down torpedoes? I haven't seen that happen yet. Give equal-level beam/torp weapons parity in dps at the beam weapon's maximum range. Don't forget that both have damage loss over distance. (did taltamir's comparisons include damage loss at max rage? I'll have to go check again...)

You can sit back and bombard with torpedoes and take your time for the kill, or you can close in and tear the target apart.

Ideally, beams should have a longer effective range when the target is a stationary object, but I don't see that as a possibility without some changes to the game engine.

A higher inherent evasion for smaller/more nimble ships to make torpedoes less effective against them.

(in reply to Dadekster)
Post #: 33
RE: Weapon balance for the future - 5/5/2010 3:33:46 AM   
Fishman

 

Posts: 795
Joined: 4/1/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rustyallan

Increase the speed/rate-of-fire for beam weapons. Can they be modified to actually shoot down torpedoes? I haven't seen that happen yet. Give equal-level beam/torp weapons parity in dps at the beam weapon's maximum range. Don't forget that both have damage loss over distance. (did taltamir's comparisons include damage loss at max rage? I'll have to go check again...)
I checked it, but beams by the numbers lose out at any range. In order to be competitive as weapons, they need to be better at SOME range. Traditional balance is that short-range weapons always have better damage at the range they actually work at, because if they don't, they're useless. This is why no one fights with swords anymore.

(in reply to Rustyallan)
Post #: 34
RE: Weapon balance for the future - 5/5/2010 4:19:57 AM   
Rustyallan

 

Posts: 193
Joined: 4/27/2010
Status: offline
quote:

I checked it, but beams by the numbers lose out at any range. In order to be competitive as weapons, they need to be better at SOME range. Traditional balance is that short-range weapons always have better damage at the range they actually work at, because if they don't, they're useless. This is why no one fights with swords anymore.


I figured that would be the case. And I agree with you. Why use a weapon if it's not as effective as another.

One other thing I noted was how beam weapons alternate between a short/fast and long/slow weapon at each level. The Auto-design uses whatever is newer, even if the newer weapon is shorter-ranged and only does more dps at point-blank range. There really should be long/short beam weapon categories so that they can be properly mixed in the auto-design... AFTER some sort of balance is achieved.

What would be a good way of measuring effectiveness? There are a few factors to consider.
Max Damage
Max Range
Damage Loss
Cycle
Size
Energy Consumption.
(anything else?)

There's salvo damage, damage/second, damage@range, damage/size, damage/energy. DPS is the obvious choice for this, so now we have DPS/size and DPS/energy. My assumption on comparing DPS for two weapons should be done at the maximum range for the shorter-ranged of the two as well as point-blank.

(in reply to Fishman)
Post #: 35
RE: Weapon balance for the future - 5/5/2010 6:25:18 AM   
Fishman

 

Posts: 795
Joined: 4/1/2010
Status: offline 		With weapons, there are basically only two factors in DW to consider: DPS, specifically DPS-by-size, and range. DPS-by-energy is pretty much unimportant because reactors do not really make that big of a contribution to the ship's size in any event and the differences are unlikely to be enormous. Either you're trying to fight a stand-off, or you accept closing to knife range to varying degrees.

(in reply to Rustyallan)
Post #: 36
RE: Weapon balance for the future - 5/5/2010 7:12:19 AM   
taltamir

 

Posts: 1290
Joined: 4/2/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Fishman

With weapons, there are basically only two factors in DW to consider: DPS, specifically DPS-by-size, and range. DPS-by-energy is pretty much unimportant because reactors do not really make that big of a contribution to the ship's size in any event and the differences are unlikely to be enormous. Either you're trying to fight a stand-off, or you accept closing to knife range to varying degrees.



I think the old adage about bringing a knife to a gunfight applies...
And I agree that the only two factors that effectively matter in DW is DSP/size and range.

leave torpedoes as better range, give lasers better DPS/size.

_____________________________

I do not have a superman complex; for I am God, not Superman.

(in reply to Fishman)
Post #: 37
RE: Weapon balance for the future - 5/5/2010 8:12:46 AM   
Canute0

 

Posts: 616
Joined: 4/30/2010
From: Germany
Status: offline 		Thats we all agree at last :-)
We shouldn't alterate so much because the current Weapon/defence is ok beside Torpedos are to strong.

What do you think about Torpedos, since they arn't pure Energy weapons cut down the Energy use to 1/3(1/4) but increase the Volume by 4-5 times (Ammo Storage).  DPS should be lowered a bit too.
I think these 4-5 times increased volume would hit the ship design.

taltamir:
about the Speed of missiels at DW.
The fastest Laser are Maxos SL with 310, so 310 = Lightspeed
The fastest Torp. are Velocity HT with 150  = 48% Lightspeed.
With latest Tech, you can design a Ship with 200 Sprint.

(in reply to taltamir)
Post #: 38
RE: Weapon balance for the future - 5/5/2010 8:25:49 AM   
taltamir

 

Posts: 1290
Joined: 4/2/2010
Status: offline 		I don't think of any of those as being related to light speed... they are just "some numbers". Besides, its a game, hard science is irrelevant.

Game balance torpedoes currently have more DPS and more range... while torpedoes have more damage "drop off" due to range, at CLOSER range they deliver more damage, thus more DPS when its possible to shoot lasers.

the solutions can be:
1. decrease torp damage
2. increase laser damage
3. increase torp size
4. decrease laser size
5. increase torp cooldown
6. decrease laser cooldown.

And if the above are done, put more torpedoes on stationary targets like starbases.

_____________________________

I do not have a superman complex; for I am God, not Superman.

(in reply to Canute0)
Post #: 39
RE: Weapon balance for the future - 5/5/2010 8:38:58 AM   
Bartje

 

Posts: 308
Joined: 4/27/2010
From: Netherlands
Status: offline 		I never did quite understand why you cannot go faster than the speed of light? It has something to do with mass right???

Isn't light just energy traveling around? We use it to see things. Its not actually a required part of our body to keep living right? Just to see??

Why woudn't we be able to go faster then??? Why is it supposedly a hardline?


I would love DW even more with fighters & point defenses that also work versus torpedoes / missiles

(in reply to taltamir)
Post #: 40
RE: Weapon balance for the future - 5/5/2010 9:01:23 AM   
taltamir

 

Posts: 1290
Joined: 4/2/2010
Status: offline 		in DW you CAN go faster then the speed of light. with hyperdrive or whatever its called.

_____________________________

I do not have a superman complex; for I am God, not Superman.

(in reply to Bartje)
Post #: 41
RE: Weapon balance for the future - 5/5/2010 9:51:13 AM   
eljay

 

Posts: 2
Joined: 4/19/2010
Status: offline 		Hi Guys,

Been lurking here for a bit, not posted anything yet... so, here's a a first!...

I was thinking of an alternative way of balancing the weapons: with resources. Is a weapon uber-super-powered then why not make it require a bucket of some rare resouce? This would also make mining stations more valuable and add another strategic element. As Ruler of the empire, you'd have to think "eek, i need to secure a supply of Difficult-To-Obtainium". I suspect this would require an AI re-write though.

(in reply to taltamir)
Post #: 42
RE: Weapon balance for the future - 5/5/2010 9:58:28 AM   
taltamir

 

Posts: 1290
Joined: 4/2/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: eljay

Hi Guys,

Been lurking here for a bit, not posted anything yet... so, here's a a first!...

I was thinking of an alternative way of balancing the weapons: with resources. Is a weapon uber-super-powered then why not make it require a bucket of some rare resouce? This would also make mining stations more valuable and add another strategic element. As Ruler of the empire, you'd have to think "eek, i need to secure a supply of Difficult-To-Obtainium". I suspect this would require an AI re-write though.



Hi there, welcome to the discussion. please to have you on board.

Its not _A_ weapon... its ALL torpedoe weapons are good, and all lasers are crap.

this will be exceedingly difficult to manage though. especially for the poor AI... you could just make them require more of the same resources... aka, be much more expensive.
But that wouldn't solve the problem. since it will still be a superior weapon.

I listed 6 possible fixes:
1. decrease torp damage
2. increase laser damage
3. increase torp size
4. decrease laser size
5. increase torp cooldown
6. decrease laser cooldown.

There is a reason why price wasn't one of them, its just not an effective way to balance weapons. A gun costs ~300$+ IRL, a knife? a few dollars at most. Don't bring a knife to a gunfight... regardless of how much "cheaper" it is.
In DW as it is right now, lasers are knifes and torpedoes are guns. Don't bring lasers to a torpedo fight.

BTW, currently torpedoes DO require more resources / cost more. a torpedo costs about twice as much as a laser... but it takes less space, does more DPS, more initial damage, more DPS per space, more DPS per unit of energy, and has greater range

PPS. Sorry for the rough reception :P, your idea sounds good at first and I am glad you brought it up. but i don't think it will work

< Message edited by taltamir -- 5/5/2010 10:06:01 AM >

_____________________________

I do not have a superman complex; for I am God, not Superman.

(in reply to eljay)
Post #: 43
RE: Weapon balance for the future - 5/5/2010 10:16:33 AM   
Canute0

 

Posts: 616
Joined: 4/30/2010
From: Germany
Status: offline 		No increase the need of Resources arn't working. The Ship still got the same firepower doesnt matter if a ship cost 5000 or 25000. You maybe got a few ships lesser but you still got them.


Lightspeed:
to explain why nothing can be faster then Lightspeed would take to much time, try to google for Einstein and his theories.
But fact is, nothing at these Unisverse can be faster then Light. Ok we dont want talk about Tachyon's thats Quantummechanic, that even a bit high for me.
If you want be faster then Light you need to alternate the Universe around you (Warp bubble) or use another Dimension (Hyperspace,Warp Space) but both are just SciFi no real Science background.



(in reply to taltamir)
Post #: 44
RE: Weapon balance for the future - 5/5/2010 10:36:38 AM   
eljay

 

Posts: 2
Joined: 4/19/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: taltamir

quote:

ORIGINAL: eljay

Hi Guys,

Been lurking here for a bit, not posted anything yet... so, here's a a first!...

I was thinking of an alternative way of balancing the weapons: with resources. Is a weapon uber-super-powered then why not make it require a bucket of some rare resouce? This would also make mining stations more valuable and add another strategic element. As Ruler of the empire, you'd have to think "eek, i need to secure a supply of Difficult-To-Obtainium". I suspect this would require an AI re-write though.



Hi there, welcome to the discussion. please to have you on board.

Its not _A_ weapon... its ALL torpedoe weapons are good, and all lasers are crap.

this will be exceedingly difficult to manage though. especially for the poor AI... you could just make them require more of the same resources... aka, be much more expensive.
But that wouldn't solve the problem. since it will still be a superior weapon.


PPS. Sorry for the rough reception :P, your idea sounds good at first and I am glad you brought it up. but i don't think it will work


No worries taltamir;

Note, i didn't say it would be _THE_ fix for weapons; but it would:-
- add a bit more variety
- add a bit more depth
- help to add other non "numbers" based balance.

I think you're right though, *on it's own*, it'd not fix the fundemental issue. My fear is that even if you do perfectly balance torps vs lasers, you end up in a situation where it does not matter which you choose...since they're perfectly balanced :)

(in reply to taltamir)
Post #: 45
RE: Weapon balance for the future - 5/5/2010 11:14:33 AM   
taltamir

 

Posts: 1290
Joined: 4/2/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: eljay

quote:

ORIGINAL: taltamir

quote:

ORIGINAL: eljay

Hi Guys,

Been lurking here for a bit, not posted anything yet... so, here's a a first!...

I was thinking of an alternative way of balancing the weapons: with resources. Is a weapon uber-super-powered then why not make it require a bucket of some rare resouce? This would also make mining stations more valuable and add another strategic element. As Ruler of the empire, you'd have to think "eek, i need to secure a supply of Difficult-To-Obtainium". I suspect this would require an AI re-write though.



Hi there, welcome to the discussion. please to have you on board.

Its not _A_ weapon... its ALL torpedoe weapons are good, and all lasers are crap.

this will be exceedingly difficult to manage though. especially for the poor AI... you could just make them require more of the same resources... aka, be much more expensive.
But that wouldn't solve the problem. since it will still be a superior weapon.


PPS. Sorry for the rough reception :P, your idea sounds good at first and I am glad you brought it up. but i don't think it will work


No worries taltamir;

Note, i didn't say it would be _THE_ fix for weapons; but it would:-
- add a bit more variety
- add a bit more depth
- help to add other non "numbers" based balance.

I think you're right though, *on it's own*, it'd not fix the fundemental issue. My fear is that even if you do perfectly balance torps vs lasers, you end up in a situation where it does not matter which you choose...since they're perfectly balanced :)



1. torpedoes already cost twice as much with no effect on game balance (because they use 2x as many resources / rarer resources)
2. rare resources are easy to acquire.
3. this will be CRIPPLING to the AI but a minor hurdle for a human.

_____________________________

I do not have a superman complex; for I am God, not Superman.

(in reply to eljay)
Post #: 46
RE: Weapon balance for the future - 5/5/2010 11:59:35 AM   
Fishman

 

Posts: 795
Joined: 4/1/2010
Status: offline 		Like I keep saying, just double the refire rate on lazors and everything works again.

(in reply to taltamir)
Post #: 47
RE: Weapon balance for the future - 5/5/2010 1:52:19 PM   
Canute0

 

Posts: 616
Joined: 4/30/2010
From: Germany
Status: offline
quote:

Like I keep saying, just double the refire rate on lazors and everything works again.


No that dont help really. So long the Torp ship can be out of range it doesnt matter if you double or 10 times increase the RoF.
When you have the same ship class/Volume/Tech/Firepower,  the Laser ship need to be faster and need more shields then the Torp ship to have a chance.

Thats why Torps need much lesser DPS or much higher Volume.





(in reply to Fishman)
Post #: 48
RE: Weapon balance for the future - 5/5/2010 2:43:20 PM   
Rustyallan

 

Posts: 193
Joined: 4/27/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Canute

quote:

Like I keep saying, just double the refire rate on lazors and everything works again.


No that dont help really. So long the Torp ship can be out of range it doesnt matter if you double or 10 times increase the RoF.
When you have the same ship class/Volume/Tech/Firepower,  the Laser ship need to be faster and need more shields then the Torp ship to have a chance.

Thats why Torps need much lesser DPS or much higher Volume.


Doubling the refire rate of beam weapons effectively doubles their DPS though. That would make them competitive with torpedoes once you close to range.

Perhaps doubling torpedo size as well would be appropriate. Yes, you can still enter standoff and kill your target with torpedoes only then, but it will take longer because you have fewer available.

oh, and as for
quote:

Ok lets first forget the thing about seeking Energy Balls, no plasma ball or Static charge can be controlled. And if you could controll them you better turn these controlls against the enemy then to manipulate these Energy balls.
Torpedos are big missiels with home seeking abilities.


Read the game's description of a torpedo in the DW setting. It is a homing energy bolt. I agree with you and have a problem with that on many levels, but that's what the game says it is.

(in reply to Canute0)
Post #: 49
RE: Weapon balance for the future - 5/5/2010 3:03:19 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline 		Some good discussion here, just wanted to let you all know that we are following along.

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC



For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to Rustyallan)
Post #: 50
RE: Weapon balance for the future - 5/5/2010 3:10:21 PM   
Rustyallan

 

Posts: 193
Joined: 4/27/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Some good discussion here, just wanted to let you all know that we are following along.


I'm glad someone's able to follow along since I got lost somewhere in the middle and just kinda drifted with the flow til I could get back in.

Thanks for letting us know you're watching though!

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 51
RE: Weapon balance for the future - 5/5/2010 4:02:17 PM   
Litjan

 

Posts: 221
Joined: 3/27/2010
From: Butzbach, Germany
Status: offline 		I didn´t read every single post here, but regarding the problem of outranging +  outpacing:

There will always be ships that outrange the other one and are able to maintain that outranging distance. This will effectively prevent the one side from firing back.

So what is the result? Either the outranged party flees. Or the outranged party maneuvers in such a way that it can get within range (flanking with unengaged ships, etc.). Or the outranged party can tank (sustain) the longranged shots. Or the outranged party gets killed, it´s war after all. Think Gulf War. One side is outteched badly, it looses badly.

From a gameplay perspective this can be no fun - most onesided battles are no fun, not even for the winner. This is fine for real war (it´s not supposed to be fun), but not for a game. What is the solution?

Just nerfing the longrangeweapons can´t be it, otherwise let´s just restrict ourselves to one single weapon to keep it "fair" (sarcasm).

The effect of being outranged and outmaneuvred can be mitigated a bit by the effect that longrangeweapons are usually more prone to miss, take more space to mount and are more expensive. Add to this the necessity for the weapons platform (ship) to be able to outmaneuvre and outaccelerate the opponent, and you will be stuck with expensive and not very powerful (as in damage/second) craft. This will draw battles out, as neither side can hit decisevly. Maybe one side can bring in reinforcements? Maybe one side decides to disengage after a while.

We just have to accept that actually very few "fair and even" battles will take place. Sometimes one side has more ships, sometimes one side has a technological advantage. This is what tactics is all about, trying to create a situation where the other side has "no chance". Chivalry is dead, to obliterate the enemy without own losses is the ultimate goal.

Now I am all for making a game that is challenging. Teach the AI to make the best ships it can (with it´s current technology). Teach it to maneuver smartly (dragging enemy longrange ships into range of friendlies, flank the opponent, etc.). Teach it to counter one-sided enemy designs (analyze enemy designs and try to match/surpass it in range, firepower, maneuverability). Add some countermeasures (in the sense of the word) to certain "killer-designs", make lasers target torpedoes, whatever. This will bring more flavour to the game, although it will be really hard to program, I guess. Every single 4x space game has suffered from deficiencies in the tactical combat. Either is was abstracted to the point of being no fun (GalCiv2) or the AI was just plain stupid (MOO2) or didn´t work correctly (MOO3).

I love epic spacebattles, but I think in 80+% of the battles the outcome is already clear before the first shot is fired. This is just a reality of warfare, boring as it may be.

Sorry for the long rant, Jan


(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 52
RE: Weapon balance for the future - 5/5/2010 4:20:59 PM   
Fishman

 

Posts: 795
Joined: 4/1/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Canute

Thats why Torps need much lesser DPS or much higher Volume.
Higher DPS per volume is what we've already said. So we already agree. Changing the volume doesn't matter, it's all a question of DPS by space. Basic balance demands that an equivalent short-range weapon be superior in DPS to the longer-ranged equivalent, or else there is no purpose in it existing. The easy solution is to double the refire rate on lazors. Increasing their damage per shot would completely wreck armor, which is weak enough as it is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Litjan

There will always be ships that outrange the other one and are able to maintain that outranging distance. This will effectively prevent the one side from firing back.
Damn straight. People arguing in favor of "hardpoints" that make it so you can only mount so much engine power are first, attempting to destroy what makes DW interesting at all, and second, don't realize that doing this will simply make all ships the SAME speed so you can NEVER be outrun. Once you have confidently achieved max speed, you can be completely certain that no one will catch you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Litjan

So what is the result? Either the outranged party flees. Or the outranged party maneuvers in such a way that it can get within range (flanking with unengaged ships, etc.).
If you're outranged AND outrun, the moment you get engaged, you're dead. You can't run, because your attacker is faster than you and can therefore follow along after you continuing to pump shots at you UNTIL YOU DIE. You can't outmaneuver, because space has no terrain to hide behind or pin your opponent against. If you are caught in this position, YOU ARE COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY SCREWED. Make sure this never happens!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Litjan

From a gameplay perspective this can be no fun - most onesided battles are no fun, not even for the winner. This is fine for real war (it´s not supposed to be fun), but not for a game. What is the solution?
The solution is "don't design ships that are susceptible to this trap". This exists in basically every game. If you can build a ship that is as fast as your opponent, and outranges him, you cannot lose because you engage and fight at your convenience and your opponent can never catch you.

Just nerfing the longrangeweapons can´t be it, otherwise let´s just restrict ourselves to one single weapon to keep it "fair" (sarcasm).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Litjan

Maybe one side can bring in reinforcements?
More meat for the grinder. If the reinforcements are just as short-ranged, they will just as inevitably die or give up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Litjan

Maybe one side decides to disengage after a while.
Well, you can disengage with all but one sufficiently powerful opponent, but if you find yourself in this situation, you're gonna lose something. If everyone else runs, the last ship still in the fight is hunted to the death. If you all disengage and scatter, I chase one of you and kill you. If you disengage together as a unit, I chase all of you and kill you. Pick someone who's going to die.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Litjan

We just have to accept that actually very few "fair and even" battles will take place.
In a strategy game, there is never a fair and even fight, because such fights are STUPID. A smart opponent only attacks when he already knows he has won. Seek victory, then go to war, not the other way around.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Litjan

Now I am all for making a game that is challenging. Teach the AI to make the best ships it can (with it´s current technology).
The AI should really be much better at this than it presently is. Even if it just designs parroted knockoffs of your ships that kick its ass using the tech it has available.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Litjan

Teach it to maneuver smartly (dragging enemy longrange ships into range of friendlies, flank the opponent, etc.).
That requires that your enemy long-range ships be stupid. No matter which approach vector you choose, if my speed is equal or greater, I can choose an exit vector that will keep me out of your range, even if I have to change my victim.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Litjan

Every single 4x space game has suffered from deficiencies in the tactical combat. Either is was abstracted to the point of being no fun (GalCiv2) or the AI was just plain stupid (MOO2) or didn´t work correctly (MOO3).
GalCiv didn't *HAVE* tactical combat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Litjan

I love epic spacebattles, but I think in 80+% of the battles the outcome is already clear before the first shot is fired. This is just a reality of warfare, boring as it may be.
Of course it is. Why else would we be firing at all? Picking a fight when you aren't certain that you can win it is idiocy.

(in reply to Litjan)
Post #: 53
RE: Weapon balance for the future - 5/5/2010 4:29:52 PM   
AMF

 

Posts: 25
Joined: 3/31/2010
Status: offline 		Issues like this are *exactly* why moddability needs to be increased as much as possible. Ideally, every variable should be able to be modded, so that some enterprising group of players can come up with a balanced mod, or a mod that reflects their own (or a well established genre's) idea of what space combat should be like, and it could be extensively playtested and tweaked until it was perfect...

I know this might be off-topic a bit, but I keep coming back to Space Empires 4 and how it's moddability meant that while SE4 was a good game, it was really an excellent game because of all the mods that people created. I would DIE to have a Balance mod or a Proportions mod for DW...


(in reply to Fishman)
Post #: 54
RE: Weapon balance for the future - 5/5/2010 4:51:20 PM   
Litjan

 

Posts: 221
Joined: 3/27/2010
From: Butzbach, Germany
Status: offline 		Well, at least in the DW setting you can (almost) always hyperspace away if you find yourself outranged and outflown. I am not sure about these hyperspace denial devices, but maybe they can be limited in effective distance, so the capital ship they are mounted on can only deny the jump to ships in it´s vicinity (and they can scatter and mostly flee)?

Another option the AI should use to defeat long-range torpedoes is to turn away from the shooter, effectively making the torp run out of steam (propellant, steering gas) before it hits. They are fairly slow, so when it get´s fired near it´s maximum distance, a target could turn and run. This would also give it´s lasers (if they could target the torps) more time to kill them... just food for further tuning.

Since the battle takes place in a 2D-environment, there is certainly the possibility to "pincer" enemy ships. Ships could make a micro-jump to the other side of them (whats the minimum distance for hyperspace jumps?), and try to "squeeze" the longrange-ships in the middle. Same for reinforcements jumping in, just land them on the "other side" of the enemy.

Of course all this will add immensely on the CPU-requirements of battles, and I am not sure how it would pan out frame-rate wise if 100 ships battle and dance out at once.

Which brings me to another question, game mechanics-wise: Are battles always computed as in "close up view", or just the ones being watched by the player? In Falcon4.0 only battles within a certain distance from the player where actually "played out", while the other ones all over the battlefield where computed outcomes (taking into account propabilities of kill ratios and such). If we add too much CPU-computation to the battles, then we can´t afford to calculate many of them at once, and you will invariably see different outcomes between "viewed" and "abstracted" battles.

Jan


(in reply to AMF)
Post #: 55
RE: Weapon balance for the future - 5/5/2010 4:58:30 PM   
Bartje

 

Posts: 308
Joined: 4/27/2010
From: Netherlands
Status: offline 		Or balance torpedoes by allowing lasers to shoot them down.

Point defense vs torpedo's & potential fighters.

So: Either overwhelm the Point defense or duke it out close range with lasors!

Incidentally this would also add a new ship role in fleets: Point Defense

(in reply to Litjan)
Post #: 56
RE: Weapon balance for the future - 5/5/2010 5:07:41 PM   
Munchies

 

Posts: 43
Joined: 4/21/2010
Status: offline 		Torps shouldn't be nerfed in raw DPS. Just further diminish the damage that they do the farther they go.
They are suppose to be a ball of energy after all.

They have the ability to do tramendous damage at close range, similar damage (a little more/a little less/whatever) as lasers at medium range, and much less damage at long range. (How much depends on balance)
They still have the range advantage but at the cost of less damage.

And if you are fast enough, you can run the torp until it does 1 damage, so to speak.
And if they are still too powerful, slow them down a bit. Or too weak, speed them up...

Otherwise, just make all the weapons the same range..

Anyway, that is just one idea.. so with it as you wish.

(in reply to AMF)
Post #: 57
RE: Weapon balance for the future - 5/5/2010 5:08:48 PM   
taltamir

 

Posts: 1290
Joined: 4/2/2010
Status: offline 		no fighters please... fighters make absolutely no sense in space.
A manned fighter is limited by the squishy pilot and the need for life supported (VERY limited), an unmanned fighter is just a fancy missile you can ram into your enemy (while firing).

I guess you can call them drones, that would be better...

Anyways, that will also require a lot more work on the developers part.

Doubling the firing rate of lasers will move them from "a lot lower DPS" to "slightly higher DPS" than torpedoes. but they will still suffer a lot from range.

How about giving both torpedoes AND laser equal range... BUT, give lasers higher miss changes and higher damage, and torpedoes lower (to none) miss changes and lower damage?

< Message edited by taltamir -- 5/5/2010 5:10:17 PM >

_____________________________

I do not have a superman complex; for I am God, not Superman.

(in reply to Bartje)
Post #: 58
RE: Weapon balance for the future - 5/5/2010 5:24:54 PM   
alexalexuk

 

Posts: 139
Joined: 4/6/2010
Status: offline 		make the AI adjust to human custom design ships - is the most important thing here.


(in reply to taltamir)
Post #: 59
RE: Weapon balance for the future - 5/5/2010 5:30:37 PM   
taltamir

 

Posts: 1290
Joined: 4/2/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: alexalexuk

make the AI adjust to human custom design ships - is the most important thing here.


there is really no need. Combat is simple enough that you can come up with effective "generic" ships for the AI to build.

_____________________________

I do not have a superman complex; for I am God, not Superman.

(in reply to alexalexuk)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Distant Worlds 1 Series >> RE: Weapon balance for the future Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.892