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  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Weapon balance for the future - 5/7/2010 5:03:10 AM   
Fishman

 

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

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 91
RE: Weapon balance for the future - 5/7/2010 5:40:23 AM   
Dadekster

 

Posts: 141
Joined: 4/18/2010
Status: offline 		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

(in reply to Fishman)
Post #: 92
RE: Weapon balance for the future - 5/7/2010 6:28:53 AM   
Fishman

 

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

(in reply to Dadekster)
Post #: 93
RE: Weapon balance for the future - 5/7/2010 9:27:08 AM   
taltamir

 

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

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Fishman)
Post #: 94
RE: Weapon balance for the future - 5/7/2010 2:21:00 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Fishman)
Post #: 95
RE: Weapon balance for the future - 5/7/2010 4:48:10 PM   
Rustyallan

 

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

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 96
RE: Weapon balance for the future - 5/7/2010 5:05:29 PM   
Fishman

 

Posts: 795
Joined: 4/1/2010
Status: offline 		As far as they're concerned, it *IS* a miracle from the heavens.

(in reply to Rustyallan)
Post #: 97
RE: Weapon balance for the future - 5/7/2010 6:08:47 PM   
Gargoil

 

Posts: 389
Joined: 1/6/2008
Status: offline
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?

< Message edited by Gargoil -- 5/7/2010 6:09:25 PM >

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 98
RE: Weapon balance for the future - 5/7/2010 6:15:50 PM   
taltamir

 

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

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Gargoil)
Post #: 99
RE: Weapon balance for the future - 5/7/2010 6:19:17 PM   
Rustyallan

 

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

(in reply to Gargoil)
Post #: 100
RE: Weapon balance for the future - 5/8/2010 3:11:11 AM   
GeneralBT

 

Posts: 2
Joined: 4/10/2010
Status: offline 		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...

(in reply to Rustyallan)
Post #: 101
RE: Weapon balance for the future - 5/8/2010 8:21:16 AM   
taltamir

 

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

_____________________________

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

(in reply to GeneralBT)
Post #: 102
RE: Weapon balance for the future - 5/8/2010 12:22:37 PM   
Kruos


Posts: 129
Joined: 5/5/2010
From: France
Status: offline 		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. ^^

< Message edited by Kruos -- 5/8/2010 12:24:32 PM >

(in reply to taltamir)
Post #: 103
RE: Weapon balance for the future - 5/8/2010 3:24:18 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline 		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).

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Kruos)
Post #: 104
RE: Weapon balance for the future - 5/8/2010 3:26:13 PM   
Rustyallan

 

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

(in reply to Kruos)
Post #: 105
RE: Weapon balance for the future - 5/8/2010 3:34:30 PM   
Bartje

 

Posts: 308
Joined: 4/27/2010
From: Netherlands
Status: offline 		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




< Message edited by Bartje -- 5/8/2010 3:36:34 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Rustyallan)
Post #: 106
RE: Weapon balance for the future - 5/8/2010 3:41:18 PM   
Rustyallan

 

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

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 107
RE: Weapon balance for the future - 5/8/2010 3:55:37 PM   
Bartje

 

Posts: 308
Joined: 4/27/2010
From: Netherlands
Status: offline 		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".

(in reply to Rustyallan)
Post #: 108
RE: Weapon balance for the future - 5/8/2010 4:27:19 PM   
Rustyallan

 

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

(in reply to Bartje)
Post #: 109
RE: Weapon balance for the future - 5/8/2010 5:18:32 PM   
Bartje

 

Posts: 308
Joined: 4/27/2010
From: Netherlands
Status: offline 		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


(in reply to Rustyallan)
Post #: 110
RE: Weapon balance for the future - 5/8/2010 6:10:23 PM   
Fishman

 

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

(in reply to Bartje)
Post #: 111
RE: Weapon balance for the future - 5/8/2010 6:20:41 PM   
Rustyallan

 

Posts: 193
Joined: 4/27/2010
Status: offline 		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... And for the record, Fishman, I agree with a lot of what you're saying in regards to advancing tech.

< Message edited by Rustyallan -- 5/8/2010 6:23:22 PM >

(in reply to Bartje)
Post #: 112
RE: Weapon balance for the future - 5/8/2010 6:23:44 PM   
Fishman

 

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

< Message edited by Fishman -- 5/8/2010 6:26:19 PM >

(in reply to Rustyallan)
Post #: 113
RE: Weapon balance for the future - 5/8/2010 6:36:54 PM   
Rustyallan

 

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


(in reply to Fishman)
Post #: 114
RE: Weapon balance for the future - 5/8/2010 6:38:53 PM   
Fishman

 

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

< Message edited by Fishman -- 5/8/2010 6:40:55 PM >

(in reply to Rustyallan)
Post #: 115
RE: Weapon balance for the future - 5/8/2010 9:42:43 PM   
Bartje

 

Posts: 308
Joined: 4/27/2010
From: Netherlands
Status: offline 		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)

< Message edited by Bartje -- 5/8/2010 9:43:05 PM >

(in reply to Fishman)
Post #: 116
RE: Weapon balance for the future - 5/8/2010 10:03:02 PM   
Dadekster

 

Posts: 141
Joined: 4/18/2010
Status: offline
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

(in reply to Bartje)
Post #: 117
RE: Weapon balance for the future - 5/8/2010 10:35:30 PM   
Rustyallan

 

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

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...

(in reply to Dadekster)
Post #: 118
RE: Weapon balance for the future - 5/8/2010 11:24:05 PM   
taltamir

 

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


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

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Rustyallan)
Post #: 119
RE: Weapon balance for the future - 5/9/2010 1:13:11 AM   
Shark7


Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline
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).

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Bartje)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Distant Worlds 1 Series >> RE: Weapon balance for the future Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   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

0.734