What are the most important balance issues in the core?

cashto · Post by **cashto** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 5:58 pm

Botzman wrote:QUOTE (Botzman @ Jan 28 2011, 09:08 AM) Can we make CC closer to "rock-paper-scissor" model?

No.

I used to believe this was a good idea too, but now I believe any techpath should be able to stand on its own against any other techpath (faction strengths/weaknesses allowing, of course).

IOW I think it's unfair that, in every game, one side is going to have to dual-tech, because they played scissors to someone else's rock.

Jersy · Post by **Jersy** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 8:19 pm

Indeed, for RPS to work with techbases, their role and the way they work would have to be changed. It would have to be a matter of fully free choice, rather than random astaroid placement and stuff, and some other factor would have to be considered as well.

As was stated before, if RPS, then on the ship-to-ship level.

However, in that regard, Allegiance is a bit impaired, as it is rather difficult to think about what should represent rock, what should be paper, and what should be scissors...

All we have now is "Fighter beats Bomber beats Station", but this is not RPS, those are merely different tactical roles of ships.

True RPS would require tech specific "game-winning-ship" (bomber, stealth bomber, troop transport) and three different combat ships (ship A beats ship B beats ship C beats ship A) for establishing space-superiority.

One way to do this would be different armor and damage categories. Ship A would have hull A and counter-B weapons, etc (just like utility hull is quite tough to anything but UtilCannon, CapShip hull is weak to Dis, station hull is weak to GalvBlaster), and all those ships would have to be equally accesible... There would have to be a version in each techpath for each faction.

But now even this wouldn't seem sufficient and the need for more ships would arise (as everyone would just make sure that the whole ABC is present, so they are not caught off-guard, etc... And why am I evemn talking about it, that article KGJV mentioned on his blog deals with the issue in an excellent manner)...

cashto · Post by **cashto** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 9:21 pm

Jersy wrote:QUOTE (Jersy @ Jan 28 2011, 12:19 PM) And why am I evemn talking about it, that article KGJV mentioned on his blog deals with the issue in an excellent manner)...

Because you're new and you're working this out for yourself for the first time.

Which is cool and all, but perhaps it can be done in a different venue than this one.

Elzam_ · Post by **Elzam_** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 9:28 pm

How I see this conversation starting to go is a bad path imo. Jersy, are you literally suggesting that games should be like Pokemon?

"Oh, they seem to have gone TF Tac! We can win by using Belt Sup as stated in the Great Type-Chart (similar to that which they have in Pokemon games)

This was already addressed I think, but making one techpath the "weakness" of another is also a bad idea. Why? See above.

Right now, I don't think the balance is in the core, but the players. Are you trying to adjust the core to the abilities of the players?

link120 · Post by **link120** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 9:36 pm

buff ints plz

OTDT_Hunter · Post by **OTDT_Hunter** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 9:46 pm

Is there a chance people could stop writing Sabertooth posts and just make them 3-4 sentences :/

RealPandemonium · Post by **RealPandemonium** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 11:30 pm

Icky wrote:QUOTE (Icky @ Jan 28 2011, 09:28 AM) You aren't making any sense, still.

Do you somehow get to fly 15 ships as tac or sup and I have missed it the past 5 years?

I'm happy to hear you have nothing else to say, though!

Jersy · Post by **Jersy** » Sat Jan 29, 2011 8:31 am

Elzam V. Branstein wrote:QUOTE (Elzam V. Branstein @ Jan 28 2011, 10:28 PM) How I see this conversation starting to go is a bad path imo. Jersy, are you literally suggesting that games should be like Pokemon?

"Oh, they seem to have gone TF Tac! We can win by using Belt Sup as stated in the Great Type-Chart (similar to that which they have in Pokemon games)

This was already addressed I think, but making one techpath the "weakness" of another is also a bad idea. Why? See above.

Right now, I don't think the balance is in the core, but the players. Are you trying to adjust the core to the abilities of the players?

Oh no, not at all. But I admit that all those "woulds and coulds" in the posts of mine might confuse some into thinking so...

First, of all, all I said about RPS principle on techbase level (TAC beats SUP beats EXP beats TAC), was that for it to work, the way techbases, their significance and other factors would have to be reworked, so during the couse of game, either commander would need to have the possibility to freely go from one tech to another.

It's nothing but a statement pointing out what - in my opinion - would have to be done, if RPS principle on a techbase level was to be ever implemented.

Similarily with my other statements. They are simply meant to point out some things that WOULD have to be done IF it ever came to implementing RPS.

In the end, my posts were supposed to point out the obstacles that stand in the way of implementing the RPS principle, so that people wouldn't think it's something easier done than said.

Not to mention the fact that - as your analogy made a valid point - it would turn the game into pokemon (They fly Ships A! Get into Ships B!).

It's like I tried to point out - simple RPS with only three dogfight ships representing rock paper scissors for each factiontech wouldn't even satisfy people and would seem stupid, until it was made more complex...

Which brings us back to the fact that true RPS for Allegiance would be no easy project.

No suggestions in there, merely some thought material, for those that think it's just as easy as nerfing one tech and perking other one.

sono · Post by **sono** » Sun Jan 30, 2011 11:47 pm

The concept of balancing against a reference standard is well understood and works perfectly - for simple factorials like faction perks, e.g. ship hull and damage and simple economy influences like miner speed or yield.

However, allegiance is unfortunately so complex that no accurate model can conceivably be created to estimate the influence of different categories. As others have stated, to many factors are at play. Just for as a hypotethical example, try balancing one factions miner hull perk of 1.2 into such a model and balance it against another factions interceptor ammo capacity of 1.4. Good luck!

However, that does not mean the concept must be dismissed. Unfortunately, it is only useful for basic considerations regarding faction modifiers...

I would like to offer one simple idea i have offered some time ago:

Change interceptor boosters to their own booster class.
This booster class does not get refills. Once it has run out, no more boosting until you dock. (does this require a code change?)
EDIT: I have had a long hard stare at ICE and i don't believe this change is possible. There is only one type of fuel all boosters use; retro booster is implemented by defining a negative consumption therefore not requiring fuel. So, it is not possible to define a "solid rocket" style booster. Therefore, the whole thing goes out of the window, unfortunately.

Now, balance the boost time available on the IntBoost1 to make it possible to roughly boost one sector, allow for some combat activity, and boost back home, or boost two sectors, some combat activity, and float. IntBoost2 could offer as much as two sectors and one sector back, but not much more.

This might force expansion to actually expand. Ints are not broken; mini is not broken; not even PP is broken. It's the capacity for deep strikes with ints that should be the field of tac, and to some extend sup (carriers). Exp should lose this capability. Simply put, if you want to project force as exp, you should need to push an op (i.e. expand), or walk.

LANS · Post by **LANS** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 1:01 am

sono wrote:QUOTE (sono @ Jan 30 2011, 06:47 PM) Change interceptor boosters to their own booster class.
This booster class does not get refills. Once it has run out, no more boosting until you dock. (does this require a code change?)

Now, balance the boost time available on the IntBoost1 to make it possible to roughly boost one sector, allow for some combat activity, and boost back home, or boost two sectors, some combat activity, and float. IntBoost2 could offer as much as two sectors and one sector back, but not much more.

This might force expansion to actually expand. Ints are not broken; mini is not broken; not even PP is broken. It's the capacity for deep strikes with ints that should be the field of tac, and to some extend sup (carriers). Exp should lose this capability. Simply put, if you want to project force as exp, you should need to push an op (i.e. expand), or walk.

There is no need to separate int and fig boosters. Such an idea prevents some things you can currently do with ints - swapping ammo for fuel (or reverse), picking up fuel from destroyed enemies, getting reloads from friendlies who packed extra, etc. It also means that ints always carry 5 racks of ammo - this could be balanced by reducing clip size but then you have to consider reload time. You also eliminate all need for reloading fuel mid-fight with an int, which knocks out the need to time your reloads.

A better fix to accomplish the same goal is simply to reduce int fuel and speed, as was done in 1337core. Making a whole different booster class is only practical if you want to change the speed and acceleration ints boost at.