RE: Weapon balance for the future (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Distant Worlds 1 Series



Message

Fishman -> RE: Weapon balance for the future (5/7/2010 5:03:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

If real physics were at play, the Sluken and Zenox could get into a battle, and end up destroying one of my freighters half a galaxy away...realistic, but not fun.
The odds of that happening would be astronomically unlikely and it would take 40000 years, so given that the game begins sometime in....2450, the stray bullets should show up sometime in 40000, in a grim future where there is only war.



Dadekster -> RE: Weapon balance for the future (5/7/2010 5:40:23 AM)

Don't forget Hello Kitty!! That has to be in the future...it just has to be!! I was gonna put mine next to my DeathOrayDestructor3000XL [sm=00000055.gif]



Fishman -> RE: Weapon balance for the future (5/7/2010 6:28:53 AM)

[image]http://cats.moreawesomethanyou.com/hk40k.jpg[/image]



taltamir -> RE: Weapon balance for the future (5/7/2010 9:27:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fishman

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

If real physics were at play, the Sluken and Zenox could get into a battle, and end up destroying one of my freighters half a galaxy away...realistic, but not fun.
The odds of that happening would be astronomically unlikely and it would take 40000 years, so given that the game begins sometime in....2450, the stray bullets should show up sometime in 40000, in a grim future where there is only war.


true... but if they get into a fight inside the same SYSTEM, then they would be hitting a bunch of targets within that system...



Shark7 -> RE: Weapon balance for the future (5/7/2010 2:21:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Fishman

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

If real physics were at play, the Sluken and Zenox could get into a battle, and end up destroying one of my freighters half a galaxy away...realistic, but not fun.
The odds of that happening would be astronomically unlikely and it would take 40000 years, so given that the game begins sometime in....2450, the stray bullets should show up sometime in 40000, in a grim future where there is only war.


True, but its also true that it will eventually hit something, somewhere, and sometime. [;)]



Rustyallan -> RE: Weapon balance for the future (5/7/2010 4:48:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7


quote:

ORIGINAL: Fishman

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

If real physics were at play, the Sluken and Zenox could get into a battle, and end up destroying one of my freighters half a galaxy away...realistic, but not fun.
The odds of that happening would be astronomically unlikely and it would take 40000 years, so given that the game begins sometime in....2450, the stray bullets should show up sometime in 40000, in a grim future where there is only war.


True, but its also true that it will eventually hit something, somewhere, and sometime. [;)]


40k years later, taking out some two-bit dictator. The rebel forces claim it's a miracle from the heavens since there was a flash of light that left a crater where the dictator had been...



Fishman -> RE: Weapon balance for the future (5/7/2010 5:05:29 PM)

As far as they're concerned, it *IS* a miracle from the heavens.



Gargoil -> RE: Weapon balance for the future (5/7/2010 6:08:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7


quote:

ORIGINAL: Fishman

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

If real physics were at play, the Sluken and Zenox could get into a battle, and end up destroying one of my freighters half a galaxy away...realistic, but not fun.
The odds of that happening would be astronomically unlikely and it would take 40000 years, so given that the game begins sometime in....2450, the stray bullets should show up sometime in 40000, in a grim future where there is only war.


True, but its also true that it will eventually hit something, somewhere, and sometime. [;)]


Does anyone here realize that zipping through our solar system alone at this very second are are countless trillions and trillions particles, all traveling a 1000s of km an hour? Every one of them could destroy a spacecraft?



taltamir -> RE: Weapon balance for the future (5/7/2010 6:15:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gargoil

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fishman

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

If real physics were at play, the Sluken and Zenox could get into a battle, and end up destroying one of my freighters half a galaxy away...realistic, but not fun.
The odds of that happening would be astronomically unlikely and it would take 40000 years, so given that the game begins sometime in....2450, the stray bullets should show up sometime in 40000, in a grim future where there is only war.


True, but its also true that it will eventually hit something, somewhere, and sometime. [;)]


Does anyone here realize that zipping through our solar system alone at this very second are are countless trillions and trillions particles, all traveling a 1000s of km an hour? Every one of them could destroy a spacecraft?


an unarmored and unshielded spacecraft ;p.
And most are actually far to small to destroy a craft, they will just go in one side and come out the other leaving a tiny hole that needs patching.



Rustyallan -> RE: Weapon balance for the future (5/7/2010 6:19:17 PM)

quote:


Does anyone here realize that zipping through our solar system alone at this very second are are countless trillions and trillions particles, all traveling a 1000s of km an hour? Every one of them could destroy a spacecraft?


Yep. Lots and lots of ancient stray bullets out there. Which is what shields are to deflect... and point defense would be used for the larger pieces when not taking on missiles and torpedoes.



GeneralBT -> RE: Weapon balance for the future (5/8/2010 3:11:11 AM)

I know this skimps on the realism some, but what about adding a third weapon type and a third defense type, and adopting a rock-paper-scissors weapons arrangement? Some weapons are susceptible to shields, others ECM, others the third type, with varying costs/size issues to balance things out? It'd add another layer of depth for those of us who make our own ship designs, especially if certain AIs have preferences to certain weapons/defenses, etc. You might want to deploy ECM heavy ships against missile loving Boskara, and beam heavy ships against armor-loving Teekan, etc...



taltamir -> RE: Weapon balance for the future (5/8/2010 8:21:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GeneralBT

I know this skimps on the realism some, but what about adding a third weapon type and a third defense type, and adopting a rock-paper-scissors weapons arrangement? Some weapons are susceptible to shields, others ECM, others the third type, with varying costs/size issues to balance things out? It'd add another layer of depth for those of us who make our own ship designs, especially if certain AIs have preferences to certain weapons/defenses, etc. You might want to deploy ECM heavy ships against missile loving Boskara, and beam heavy ships against armor-loving Teekan, etc...


I hate it... not because of any "realism" concerns but because rock-paper-scissors are a PITA to manage. I want my big ship to blow up smaller ships. Its simple... shields vs damage.



Kruos -> RE: Weapon balance for the future (5/8/2010 12:22:37 PM)

I agree with taltamir, 'GalCiv2 like' rock-paper-scissors balancing suck!

Concerning weapon balance, I am fine with it for the moment, but I have not played much also.

The only thing the game lack a lot, I think, is fighters. Fighters able to disturb and hit where it hurt, intercept missile and/or bombard planet to support invading troop would add some great depth to the combat. Remember the MOO2 fighters! And as far as I understand how combat are actually designed, it does not seem so difficult to integrate them. Add some components (fighters bay, etc..), add some combat behavior 'carrier oriented', add some 2D sprite (very very small ships in formation), add some animations routine for them (once on target move and rotate the sprite like monsters already does for example), give them special abilities and constraints to differentiate them from classical weapons (need to refuel/resupply at carrier after one/two raids, and/or ability to penetrate shield, and/or hit them very bad, etc..), etc etc...

Yes I know, easy to say, not so easy to realise... but considering the huge good work and support already done, I am sure that for such talented developpers it's only a matter of one two months. Ok, I give you three months for the summer holidays, I am kind. ^^



Shark7 -> RE: Weapon balance for the future (5/8/2010 3:24:18 PM)

Simplicity is the most fun. I don't like the rock-paper-scissors approach either.

If anything, I'd rather see some limits on the chassis via a hardpoint system (which I also don't like much, but I don't dislike it as much as rock paper scissors).



Rustyallan -> RE: Weapon balance for the future (5/8/2010 3:26:13 PM)

Totally ignoring the whole fighter-is-a-missile-with-a-squishy debate, the problem I have with fighters in DW is hyper.

Fighters are *very* localized.  Ships use hyper to go between planets.  Sometimes even to go to the other side of a planet to get at their target.  Fighters are small and lack hyper capability.  I don't see any reasonable way to make them work within the game setting as anything other than as a non-hyper escort.  Carriers?  fine.  They're still not going to be fast.  It's going to take time to deploy and retrieve fighter squadrons.  Carrier needs to escape?  The fighters will get left behind if they're not close enough to dock before it runs.

Would I use fighters if they're implemented?  Sure.  I just don't see a need for them other than as flavor and a number of headaches in their use.  There's another thread discussing fighters and how they might be implemented.  You might want to find that and add your thoughts on it.  I need to do the same...



Bartje -> RE: Weapon balance for the future (5/8/2010 3:34:30 PM)

Remote controlled Fighters:

- Cheap

- Cost Effective

- Swarm effect

- Kamikaze potential

- Need not be retrieved; though cost to replace

- Allows the carrier to stay out of harms way

- Draws a paralel to other strategy games and contemporary history





Rustyallan -> RE: Weapon balance for the future (5/8/2010 3:41:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Simplicity is the most fun. I don't like the rock-paper-scissors approach either.

If anything, I'd rather see some limits on the chassis via a hardpoint system (which I also don't like much, but I don't dislike it as much as rock paper scissors).


Rock-paper-scissors would probably put the game in the circular file for me.

I'm torn on hardpoints still. I don't want hardpoints since I like how open-ended the designs can be. But I'm seeing a need for hardpoints to limit some of the crazy designs we all love and help establish a baseline for balancing. "Hardpoints" could be implemented via a percentage limit on each ship class as we've seen in other designs already. Perhaps with numeric limits on superweapons. I'll even like it as long as modders get the ability to change the limits.

And an advanced game option to ignore "hardpoints" if they're added...



Bartje -> RE: Weapon balance for the future (5/8/2010 3:55:37 PM)

Hardpoints would be something of a radical shift in game design philosophy. I don' think they're going to fundamentally rewrite the game that way.

Adding to it yes; correcting flaws, sure. But a rewrite sort of implies the game is crap. Which it isn't. :)

Besides it just feels "artificial" to have hardpoints. Enhancing the current system just seems like a better option than to start all over with another system.

The current system just feels like it offers more "freedom".



Rustyallan -> RE: Weapon balance for the future (5/8/2010 4:27:19 PM)

quote:

Hardpoints would be something of a radical shift in game design philosophy. I don' think they're going to fundamentally rewrite the game that way.


They're already implementing hardpoints in a way. Certain designs require that xx% of the design consist of certain types of components. Sometimes require certain components while other times components are disallowed. The mechanics are already in place and in use so "hardpoints" are not so much a rewrite as an expansion on that theme.

quote:

The current system just feels like it offers more "freedom".

I agree 1000% and like it as is. If percent-based limits are implemented to assist with balance, I want a way to turn that off in some games whether it's by toggle in options or modding the templates/formulas.



Bartje -> RE: Weapon balance for the future (5/8/2010 5:18:32 PM)

Thats a good point and I concur!

All we need now is Fishman's blessing for the changes ahead and the galaxy will erupt in cheers and festivities.

Sadly this seems farther away now than ever [:'(]

[:D]



Fishman -> RE: Weapon balance for the future (5/8/2010 6:10:23 PM)

At this point we're stuck with crazy percentage limits that seem to be entirely arbitrary and bear no actual resemblance to the functioning of the ship. For instance, a construction ship does not need some insane percentage of construction equipment on it, simply because a construction ship is only capable of building a single object at a time, and these components do not increase in size significantly. By late game, when these components make up a smaller portion of a functional ship, it's impossible to actually design a new construction ship because any attempt to use the newer parts and abilities you have gained since then results in an impossible design now. Installing dozens of manufacturing components serves no purpose because the construction ship is still limited by the rate of its one functional shipyard component, as a construction ship can only build a single object at a time. Every other improvement to construction speed comes from bigger engines to get the damn thing there faster!



Rustyallan -> RE: Weapon balance for the future (5/8/2010 6:20:41 PM)

Blessings?  I can't wait to see his rant on the idea...  The change to resupply ships touched a nerve I'd say.  Although being able to tick a checkbox and ignore the restrictions would make it easier to accept.

[edit] I didn't have to wait after all... [8D] And for the record, Fishman, I agree with a lot of what you're saying in regards to advancing tech.



Fishman -> RE: Weapon balance for the future (5/8/2010 6:23:44 PM)

The resupply ships change basically makes them totally useless. On a whim I tried to design one just to see what I could make, only to find even filling a basic resupply ship hull was impossible to make as a functional design because it demanded I install hundreds of cargo bays for no particularly useful purpose. Those limits may have made sense back in tech-1, but it becomes ridiculous when I'm expected to install either hundreds of cargo bays or dozens of docking bays...why do I need 30+ docking bays anyway? My entire FLEET only has 10 ships! I'm building a resupply mothership, not a spaceport! The alternatives of "installing dozens of gas extractors" similarly serves no purpose: It's a resupply ship, not a gas mining ship! If I put 20 gas extractors on it, I may as well be using it to stripmine gas giants...or would, if were possible to UNLOAD the cargo afterwards, as opposed to simply sucking up gas until the ship explodes from all the unusable Caslon.



Rustyallan -> RE: Weapon balance for the future (5/8/2010 6:36:54 PM)

That depends on your definition of functional... what did you feel it needed to have that took up so much space which caused the demand for so many cargo bays?




Fishman -> RE: Weapon balance for the future (5/8/2010 6:38:53 PM)

Engines? Shielding? Weapons? All the basic staples that a resupply ship would have and need? I really don't see why having enough cargo bays to simultaneously service my entire fleet and enough cargo holds to haul more fuel than I'd ever want to use is not acceptable as a resupply ship: Why the hell would I need enough cargo bays to carry so much fuel that I could resupply every single ship in the entire game for life? Clearly there should be some sort of limitation. What's wrong with having 30K cargo space? Shouldn't this be enough for anyone? The demands for space should cap out at some point, say "30% OR 30K". Otherwise it simply doesn't scale with the technological advancement of the mid-to-later game. When I have mega-cargo-bays, I need only half as many cargo bays as I previously did, but the game isn't going to be satisfied with this as an answer.



Bartje -> RE: Weapon balance for the future (5/8/2010 9:42:43 PM)

I completely Agree!!

Seems like you've hit a design bug! [:)]



On the topic of weapons

The consensus is currently this I believe:


-We want Fighters / Smaller mobile ships (squadrons / corvettes whaterver makes sense)

-We want more weapons

-We want plausible weapons

-We want the AI to use weapons well, design intelligently and fight smart

-We want the system to "work" (in the sense that there is no ultimate weapon per se, just an ultimate weapon in a certain role)



Dadekster -> RE: Weapon balance for the future (5/8/2010 10:03:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bartje

I completely Agree!!

Seems like you've hit a design bug! [:)]



On the topic of weapons

The consensus is currently this I believe:


-We want Fighters / Smaller mobile ships (squadrons / corvettes whaterver makes sense)

-We want more weapons

-We want plausible weapons

-We want the AI to use weapons well, design intelligently and fight smart

-We want the system to "work" (in the sense that there is no ultimate weapon per se, just an ultimate weapon in a certain role)


Think that pretty much sums it up tbh with the 'plausible' thing being open to debate. Using the word 'plausible' in a space game leaves a lot of possibilities. I mean we haven't even talked mind weapons [;)]



Rustyallan -> RE: Weapon balance for the future (5/8/2010 10:35:30 PM)

quote:

I mean we haven't even talked mind weapons


How would we balance MPS vs DPS anyway? Where's taltamir when we need someone to run the numbers? [:D]

On the topic of weapons... is fairly well summed up. This thread was about balancing the weapons though and I hope codeforce has been able to use the ideas generated, no matter how wild and implausible or sane and realistic.

I'm pretty confident the game will improve regardless.

Actually though, we forgot the spork. It's a potent weapon that should never be underestimated. And I want a forklift launcher too...



taltamir -> RE: Weapon balance for the future (5/8/2010 11:24:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rustyallan

quote:

I mean we haven't even talked mind weapons


How would we balance MPS vs DPS anyway? Where's taltamir when we need someone to run the numbers? [:D]


I have finals until may 11th :)
I can only skim a few threads here and there during small breaks in studying. But thanks for the vote of confidence :P



Shark7 -> RE: Weapon balance for the future (5/9/2010 1:13:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bartje

I completely Agree!!

Seems like you've hit a design bug! [:)]



On the topic of weapons

The consensus is currently this I believe:


-We want Fighters / Smaller mobile ships (squadrons / corvettes whaterver makes sense)

-We want more weapons

-We want plausible weapons

-We want the AI to use weapons well, design intelligently and fight smart

-We want the system to "work" (in the sense that there is no ultimate weapon per se, just an ultimate weapon in a certain role)


I would add to this list that I want some system to keep me from completely over-powering the AI with my designs and I would actually be whole set against the 'ultimate weapon in a certain role' addition (that is too much like rock paper scissors).



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.5