XC03

From the Dark Nebula, a new star is born.
NightRychune
Posts: 3065
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 8:00 am

Post by NightRychune »

Adept: Everyone involved with CC seems to like "small balance adjustments" instead of "large gameplay changes." You cannot correct issues with gameplay by making adjustments to balance. It will never, ever happen. CC has been doing this since its inception, and if you compiled the changelogs for all eleven versions of CC they'd look pretty small. I think it's detrimental to Allegiance as a whole, to an extent and part of the reason why our playerbase has slowly gotten smaller over the last few years. Am I exclusively blaming CC for the fact less people play on average today than they did a few years ago? No. Do I think that having absolutely no gameplay progression for four years means people stop playing because the game stagnates? Absolutely. I'm sure there are some people who are okay with the fact that there has been absolutely no progression or essential change to Allegiance gameplay in such a long time. I'm not one of them.

Cashboxes didn't come out explicitly from econ perks to Bios.

Cashboxes came out so, as I continue to build future versions of the core, there are no random factors that will muck up game analysis. Same reason random tech spawns came out. After I look at a game, I don't have to go, "well, this team got 15k in cashboxes so they could buy x, x, and x..." I can look at a game, look at factions, look at tech paths, find out how many sectors or rocks were mined on what money settings and get an exact number - including paydays per minute - on how much money a team gained, how much it spent, and what it spent it on. It also slows the mid-game phase down in a pleasant way, I think.

Let's talk about an example for a moment. Your team wants to bomb early in the game. You buy bombers, and your team commits to bombing. Your bombers are eyed, the other team camps up stops you with mini1 ints or gat1 figs. Problem is, you haven't had any miner offense, and the other team just unloaded 30k from mining out a full sector. That team's commander is going to be inclined to spend a good chunk to buy Mini2/Boost2, or Gat2, DF2, Crs2 - tech that will help his team kill your bombers. Previously, his team could just find all that stuff and he didn't have to worry about it. He didn't have to spend any of that money on any kind of Mk2 tech aside from maybe enhanced fighters or stealth fighters or interceptors. He could have taken most of that 30k, clicked "upgrade expansion/supremacy/tactical." Five minutes later, he has heavy ints or advanced fighters and you are utterly $#@!ed because you spent all that time and money investing in bombers and you can't match the other team's tech. Research cost, per-unit cost, the time your team was out bombing and not on miner defense so you lost a few miners here and there. Buying all those Mk2 tech items? The other team just matched the cost of your bombers and, as a result, will probably have their advanced tech delayed by another 5-10 minutes, giving you more of a window to get that clutch bomb run to kill that pain in the ass enemy forward base.

Permaprobing other sectors? You should do that because they will kill you if you don't, not because OH A SHINY JUST SPAWNED IN THAT ENEMY SECTOR IMMA GO GET IT. Not having cashboxes means protecting your miners is more important for every faction. Not having cashboxes means you can win even more decisive victorious should you destroy all of the other team's miners. Not having cashboxes means that EVERY He3 rock you can mine is now more important - and so is expanding across the map to get access to more of them.

In a sense, this makes being Tac even MORE valuable. Just the act of having stealth fighters means the other team has to tie up people watching miners, which means they aren't attacking yours. I'm not even sure I like that facet of stealth, but it's a very difficult paradigm to address and there are more important things to address before I reanalyze the way stealth fighters work.

And yeah Hsharp, I may just kill powerups as well so there are no treasure shenanigans at all. :P

What I'm hoping for is that, removing alot of the random nonsense and raising the bar for acceptable commander performance, aspiring commanders will be more inclined to more thoroughly learn good habits (expanding well, managing miners, spending money intelligently), and pilots will need to perform better as well as they will need to be more protective of their miners and more aggressive against enemy miners, and not off wandering aimlessly around the map thinking "OH MAN MAYBE A CASHBOX OR TECH PICKUP WILL SPAWN IN THIS COMPLETELY EMPTY SECTOR FAR AWAY FROM WHERE ALL THE ACTION IS OH MAN I HOPE I CAN PICK IT UP"
Broodwich
Posts: 5662
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 3:48 am
Location: Raincity

Post by Broodwich »

if a dogfight does not involve a central target (miner, bomber, etc) then it really has no impact if some voobs dming turns into a powerup race. besides it already is since the ability to disengage is pretty easy assuming equal craft
QUOTE Drizzo: ha ha good old chap
Drizzo: i am a brit
Drizzo: tut tut
Drizzo: wankarrrrrr
Drizzo: i only have sex whilst in the missionary position[/quote] Fas est et ab hoste doceri - Ovid
SpaceJunk
Posts: 759
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 7:00 am
Location: Collision orbit

Post by SpaceJunk »

Tech and cash equalize games, which makes them more intense for pilots, at the cost of being more forgiving to comms.

Removing an equalizer means that the window for the point of no return becomes narrower. More games would be over at midgame due to "technical defeat", which is ok for comms but is retarded for pilots.

An alternative, if the code allows it, would be to put a maintenance cost on stations. If you outexpand the enemy and, as expected, run a better economy, you are ok. But if you spam useless stations and let your miners burn on the way to game ending tech, you'll have to sacrifice stations to the enemy (or use friendly fire) to afford FB spam.

(and before I get flamed, madpeople suggested it first :P )
madpeople wrote:Another option is to have ops and teles have a small negative payday (like an upkeep cost [tell people giga pays the staff...]), and give giga a bigger payday, as giga builds more bases they get less total payday, but as they lose them they get more money to replace them (and hopefully the system will tend to an equilibrium of having a some bases, but not loads and not none - and if they have none, they get more money to come back with).
Image
Broodwich
Posts: 5662
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 3:48 am
Location: Raincity

Post by Broodwich »

because he is who we go to for balance suggestions
QUOTE Drizzo: ha ha good old chap
Drizzo: i am a brit
Drizzo: tut tut
Drizzo: wankarrrrrr
Drizzo: i only have sex whilst in the missionary position[/quote] Fas est et ab hoste doceri - Ovid
NightRychune
Posts: 3065
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 8:00 am

Post by NightRychune »

i don't think i need to go quote some of spacejunk's idiot suggestions in the CC forum to point out why his feedback is entirely invalid here

and, no, negative paydays or "maintenance" on bases is a terrible idea. i'm not sure why anyone would ever want to make a change that encourages playing a longer game and turtling in a handful of sectors the entire time.
Last edited by NightRychune on Wed Feb 23, 2011 1:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
cashto
Posts: 3165
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 5:40 am
Location: Seattle

Post by cashto »

I guess I'm back to commanding Bios TP2 heavy bombers w/ XRM again.
Globemaster_III wrote:QUOTE (Globemaster_III @ Jan 11 2018, 11:27 PM) as you know i think very little of cashto, cashto alway a flying low pilot, he alway flying a trainer airplane and he rented
NightRychune
Posts: 3065
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 8:00 am

Post by NightRychune »

Go for it. Let me know how that goes with nothing but gat1 figs for the first 15 minutes of a game.
cashto
Posts: 3165
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 5:40 am
Location: Seattle

Post by cashto »

NightRychune wrote:QUOTE (NightRychune @ Feb 22 2011, 05:22 PM) Go for it. Let me know how that goes with nothing but gat1 figs for the first 15 minutes of a game.
... and gunships at eight minutes.
Globemaster_III wrote:QUOTE (Globemaster_III @ Jan 11 2018, 11:27 PM) as you know i think very little of cashto, cashto alway a flying low pilot, he alway flying a trainer airplane and he rented
NightRychune
Posts: 3065
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 8:00 am

Post by NightRychune »

With skycaps that are quite poor at long ranges - while every fighter has an increased capacity to close on said gunships and spend less time before engaging, on top of their already inherent weakness to ints.
Archer14
Posts: 936
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 9:58 am
Location: Osijek, Croatia

Post by Archer14 »

Are you putting in the different types of powerups? :D
ryjamsan wrote:QUOTE (ryjamsan @ Mar 1 2011, 07:07 PM) Spidey let it go, I have reformed MW and taken him under my wing:)
phoenix1 wrote:QUOTE (phoenix1 @ Nov 16 2014, 05:12 PM) I'll make sure to never make you a commander again :P
Post Reply