Free Allegiance Forums

Not sure ?? is in response to. I think you understood my point and responded to it in your first message.

The issue is that there are nine factions and they should all play somewhat differently, or else what's the point? I'm tempted to agree that Allegiance has too many factions and there are not, in fact, nine fun ways to play and win. But Bios is among one of the most distinctive factions, and I think it's important to make the idea work if at all possible. By "work" I mean that there should be a number of Bios matchups which are 50/50 outcomes assuming teams of equal skill -- so that superior skill has a way to distinguish itself.

I think also, as a core designer, it is your job to figure out what's "fun", but keep in mind the danger of having too heavy-handed an approach. The community undoubtedly has more diverse opinions of what is 'fun', and if something doesn't match your personal preference, that may still be OK. Bios is a choice. Seldom is removing choices make a more interesting game -- or minimizing the impact of such choices, which amounts to the same thing. There is a type of player that enjoys the challenge of starting at a distinct disadvantage and digging their way out (especially if the game conspires to support them if they manage to hold out long enough). Plucky band of rebels beats the empire through shear tenacity.

And in case of a legitimately unfun game that goes on too long, I'm told that the player base has ways of shutting that whole thing down (*cough* #resign *cough*).

cashto wrote:QUOTE (cashto @ Jan 4 2017, 07:12 PM) Not sure ?? is in response to. I think you understood my point and responded to it in your first message.

You said it doesn't make sense to make bios weaker in the early game, then suggested I make bios weaker in the early game.

QUOTE The issue is that there are nine factions and they should all play somewhat differently, or else what's the point? I'm tempted to agree that Allegiance has too many factions and there are not, in fact, nine fun ways to play and win. But Bios is among one of the most distinctive factions, and I think it's important to make the idea work if at all possible. By "work" I mean that there should be a number of Bios matchups which are 50/50 outcomes assuming teams of equal skill -- so that superior skill has a way to distinguish itself.[/quote]
Bios already has that, and I really don't have a problem with bios being underpowered: *some* faction has to be underpowered.

QUOTE I think also, as a core designer, it is your job to figure out what's "fun", but keep in mind the danger of having too heavy-handed an approach. The community undoubtedly has more diverse opinions of what is 'fun', and if something doesn't match your personal preference, that may still be OK. Bios is a choice. Seldom is removing choices make a more interesting game -- or minimizing the impact of such choices, which amounts to the same thing. There is a type of player that enjoys the challenge of starting at a distinct disadvantage and digging their way out (especially if the game conspires to support them if they manage to hold out long enough). Plucky band of rebels beats the empire through shear tenacity.[/quote]
Exactly. The problem is, Bios right now is toxic to gameplay. Most factions operate under the "we mine to advanced tech, then an end game tech, then win the game." Bios operates under "we mine to a techbase, then payday to end game tech, then win the game." That inevitability is *great,* the problem comes when there's no counterplay to it at all, or when there's only one counterplay option available. Most factions you have the option between "kill their miners" and "bomb them" (even if bombing a rix mini2 team is not the brightest idea, it could still work if you're, say, Belters). Bios *erases* one of those options. That's not good. It's not ok to replace that option with "but they're really weak to bombing."

The goal isn't to take away anything that makes Bios Bios. I still want their early game to be something of a scramble (hard fought against long odds, etc.), but I want it to *feel* different. I love that plucky band of rebels thing: and what does a plucky band of rebels do? Sends three scouts deep into enemy territory to sabotage mining.


QUOTE And in case of a legitimately unfun game that goes on too long, I'm told that the player base has ways of shutting that whole thing down (*cough* #resign *cough*).[/quote]
Honestly, this is... not a good stance to take. Games should have a natural conclusion aside from one side walking away from the table in boredom. How the game ends is just as important as whether it ends: if the end of the game is close and narrow and hard fought, people are more likely to ask for a rematch. If the game lasts 2.5 hours and people are just bored, they'll resign and log out. It's one of the "if wishes were fishes" that if I was on the design board for Allegiance originally, Prox 3 and Mini 3 would be in different tech trees and neither would be nearly as effective as they are at styming late game bomb and HTT runs. Tac's reliance on Hunter 3, the mechanics around countermeasures, and Prox 3 hvy int camps are the three main failings I see in Allegiance as an overall designed game, but they're such a big part of its history I can't really change them.

What I *can* do is take away the "just give up on punishing Bios unless you're able to do it in the first five minutes" part.

(And believe me, the sheer number of people who've tried to "show" me that you can just beat Bios by attacking miners early only to fail repeatedly is a big part of why I've reached this conclusion.)

bumping up con/miner build time could help. one of the reasons early miner o doesn't work is the 1 minute build time it takes to replace them

phoenix1 wrote:QUOTE (phoenix1 @ Jan 5 2017, 12:47 AM) You said it doesn't make sense to make bios weaker in the early game, then suggested I make bios weaker in the early game.

Oh, I see what you're saying. And you're a little right, but also that's a bit different than what I said. I said "it doesn't make sense to first say the problem is Bios is too weak in the early game, and then weaken them further". My point was that Bios being weak in the early game is not a problem per se. They SHOULD be weak in the early game. In fact the real problem we've identified is that if Bios picks up mini2, they're not weak anymore, that breaks how they were designed. So we should fix THAT. 25k techbases is a big hammer that applies to all techpaths (besides the one we want to fix) and has a lot more risk of introducing unintended balance issues than does removing mini2.

I don't want to go the Vir route and remove treasures altogether, but IMO mini2 is significantly more valuable than any other piece of floating tech, and I submit that exp is overplayed -- partly because ints are fun (which is not a problem), but also because exp is easy relative to the other two techpaths (which is).

QUOTE Exactly. The problem is, Bios right now is toxic to gameplay. Most factions operate under the "we mine to advanced tech, then an end game tech, then win the game." Bios operates under "we mine to a techbase, then payday to end game tech, then win the game." That inevitability is *great,* the problem comes when there's no counterplay to it at all, or when there's only one counterplay option available.[/quote]

I agree. Bios can payday tech too easily. Its miners are almost there for decoration; killing them doesn't hurt them like it hurts other factions. Two factors go into that. One, they get half price tech but the same paydays and (to a lesser extent) cashboxes as everyone else. Two, they don't have to pay for a techbase upgrade. In theory that is balanced by an additional 5k up front cost on the con, and the possibility that if your miners do die, you get stalled tech and so everything gets pushed out -- but realistically, you just have to finish up heavy ints and mini3 and then payday the rest eventually, so it's not really a perfect tradeoff, esp for exp.

So I enthusiastically support nerfing Bios paydays, and I think we should maybe look at their tech costs too.

QUOTE Most factions you have the option between "kill their miners" and "bomb them" (even if bombing a rix mini2 team is not the brightest idea, it could still work if you're, say, Belters). Bios *erases* one of those options. That's not good. It's not ok to replace that option with "but they're really weak to bombing."[/quote]

I don't completely agree that this is a bad thing. Tac has the exact same issue. It's accepted wisdom you don't beat tac economically, you beat it by getting agressive, pushing, and bombing. I don't think there's anything wrong that a strategic choice that throws down the gauntlet and says "you have 30 minutes to beat us with your advantage, or else we win by default". It works OK for tac. The problem is that Bios reduces it to "you have 10 minutes to beat us with your advantage, or else we win by default (very very slowly)".

QUOTE It's one of the "if wishes were fishes" that if I was on the design board for Allegiance originally, Prox 3 and Mini 3 would be in different tech trees and neither would be nearly as effective as they are at styming late game bomb and HTT runs.[/quote]

I think there is a general problem that defensive tech is too good, so turtling becomes too easy. Solving that is a whole other discussion, but I think in general -- so long as you have enough money, you should be able to buy tech capable of almost trivially rolling over a team which has maxed out its defensive capability. I always imagined SY as supposed to be filling that role, and have always viewed attempts to make it a standalone techpath as horribly misguided. I think we need more games where neither team can defend, so the only way to win is for your attack to succeed first, so the game comes down to a mad rush of two simultaneous offenses rather than one offense trying to grind down an entrenched defense.

cashto wrote:QUOTE (cashto @ Jan 5 2017, 11:59 AM) Oh, I see what you're saying. And you're a little right, but also that's a bit different than what I said. I said "it doesn't make sense to first say the problem is Bios is too weak in the early game, and then weaken them further". My point was that Bios being weak in the early game is not a problem per se. They SHOULD be weak in the early game. In fact the real problem we've identified is that if Bios picks up mini2, they're not weak anymore, that breaks how they were designed. So we should fix THAT. 25k techbases is a big hammer that applies to all techpaths (besides the one we want to fix) and has a lot more risk of introducing unintended balance issues than does removing mini2.

I haven't identified Bios picking up mini2 as the problem. The problem is that Bios simply turtles from minute 7 until about minute 27. Mini2 just makes it that much easier for them to turtle, a strategy that should realistically work either way.

QUOTE I don't want to go the Vir route and remove treasures altogether, but IMO mini2 is significantly more valuable than any other piece of floating tech, and I submit that exp is overplayed -- partly because ints are fun (which is not a problem), but also because exp is easy relative to the other two techpaths (which is).[/quote]
Exp is less overplayed now than it has been in the past.

Generally speaking, when I look at modern Allegiance I see the "big three" factions and then the "pretty good" factions and then a bit of jank in the tailings. The "big three" imo are Giga, Rix, and Belters (not necessarily in that order, though I do suspect Giga reigns supreme). Of those three, Belters never goes Exp, Giga only rarely goes Exp, and Rix starts with a sup rush. I think exp is overplayed not because of anything fundamentally wrong with the balance between the techpaths but rather because a) ints are "more fun" to fly (subjective, though I do like a good dakka dakka) and b) it's really hard for a team to $#@! up playing expansion. Is that a bad thing? Eh. As a commander I'll admit I gravitate towards expansion, but I do so because doing so attracts the better players (because ints are more fun to fly) and because actually getting a sup team to do what it needs to do to win is a pain in the ass. That's a playerbase problem though, and one that really demonstrated itself during the last squad tournament (where most games were variations on rix, belters, and giga duking it out).

Really what Allegiance needs is a pro scene. I bet if we were able to put up prizes for squad tournaments, turnout would jump back up Quick, Cashto, go win the lottery.


QUOTE I agree. Bios can payday tech too easily. Its miners are almost there for decoration; killing them doesn't hurt them like it hurts other factions. Two factors go into that. One, they get half price tech but the same paydays and (to a lesser extent) cashboxes as everyone else. Two, they don't have to pay for a techbase upgrade. In theory that is balanced by an additional 5k up front cost on the con, and the possibility that if your miners do die, you get stalled tech and so everything gets pushed out -- but realistically, you just have to finish up heavy ints and mini3 and then payday the rest eventually, so it's not really a perfect tradeoff, esp for exp.

So I enthusiastically support nerfing Bios paydays, and I think we should maybe look at their tech costs too.[/quote]
You missed a huge third factor. The time it takes for them to develop tech. I know it doesn't *seem* like that makes a difference on the surface, but trust me: it does. Try commanding TF and get a feel for how much money you think you have and then realize that by any real definition their econ is trash tier. At the same time, Dreg and Rix often feel like they're strapped for cash. Part of it is because a big deal is getting tech on time. If $5000 comes in for Bios over 10 minutes, that's 2 pieces of tech that are "on time." If $5000 comes in for Rix over 10 minutes, that's 0 pieces of tech that are "on time."

Also, it's worth noting that their econ isn't actually that godly compared to others. They pay 6700 more over the course of a 30 minute game than the cheapest advanced tech in the game (which is Omicron Hive, fyi). They're pretty close to middle of the pack, with only Dreg and Draconium needing to mine more rocks to pay for advanced tech... in 30 minutes. The problem isn't that their tech is cheap, the problem is that their tech is *unstoppable.* And tech shouldn't be unstoppable since tech should be the driving factor in winning a game. Delaying them by weakening their early game (and perking them by giving them the ability to survive that early game) is a perfect solution that does what you want it to do.


QUOTE I don't completely agree that this is a bad thing. Tac has the exact same issue. It's accepted wisdom you don't beat tac economically, you beat it by getting agressive, pushing, and bombing. I don't think there's anything wrong that a strategic choice that throws down the gauntlet and says "you have 30 minutes to beat us with your advantage, or else we win by default". It works OK for tac. The problem is that Bios reduces it to "you have 10 minutes to beat us with your advantage, or else we win by default (very very slowly)".[/quote]
First, Tac can be beaten by attacking their economy. It's just *easier* to do it by bombing, but really there's nothing that stops you from killing all of a tac team's miners and then paydaying, protecting your miner, and winning from there. That's the big difference. If you don't have bbrs against tac and all of your miners are dead, you can at least slow down the tac team before they can get their sniper2/hunt3/sig3 adv sfs, buying time for you to get your bbrs up. Against bios, you don't have that option.

Second, Tac has that issue because defending against bomb runs in SFs is challenging. Defending against bomb runs in Ints? EVEN if they're mini1? Not nearly as challenging.

QUOTE I think there is a general problem that defensive tech is too good, so turtling becomes too easy. Solving that is a whole other discussion, but I think in general -- so long as you have enough money, you should be able to buy tech capable of almost trivially rolling over a team which has maxed out its defensive capability. I always imagined SY as supposed to be filling that role, and have always viewed attempts to make it a standalone techpath as horribly misguided. I think we need more games where neither team can defend, so the only way to win is for your attack to succeed first, so the game comes down to a mad rush of two simultaneous offenses rather than one offense trying to grind down an entrenched defense.[/quote]
The problem there is games are way too small for me to really create a good SY. It's a shame, really. If I were making Allegiance 2, SY would literally be unlocked by having advanced tech, and basically be unstoppable except by more advanced SY.

How's this for an option: Pull lt ints (and lt sfs) from Bios. Then we can look at perking them from there by doing things like giving their figs more fuel/less mass.

phoenix1 wrote:QUOTE (phoenix1 @ Jan 2 2017, 11:31 AM) Bios is a problem faction but in order to fix them, well, yeah. Lowered research time would just make them even more of a headache... really the problem is they're dead in the water unless they find mini2, but if they find mini2 they become insanely powerful.

phoenix1 wrote:QUOTE (phoenix1 @ Jan 5 2017, 04:09 PM) I haven't identified Bios picking up mini2 as the problem. The problem is that Bios simply turtles from minute 7 until about minute 27. Mini2 just makes it that much easier for them to turtle, a strategy that should realistically work either way.

It was like literally the first thing you said that was wrong about Bios, and that without mini2, they are "dead in the water". Having mini1 lt ints up till minute 15, and mini2 reg ints until minute 25, really does make turtling a challenge. (As it should be).

QUOTE Exp is less overplayed now than it has been in the past.

Generally speaking, when I look at modern Allegiance I see the "big three" factions and then the "pretty good" factions and then a bit of jank in the tailings. The "big three" imo are Giga, Rix, and Belters (not necessarily in that order, though I do suspect Giga reigns supreme). Of those three, Belters never goes Exp, Giga only rarely goes Exp, and Rix starts with a sup rush.[/quote]

Yeah, all of that is true. I guess when I say "exp is overplayed", what I really mean is, I overplay exp when I comm. But I think that's also because I'm simultaneously trying to avoid picking overplayed factions too. :-D

QUOTE Also, it's worth noting that their econ isn't actually that godly compared to others. They pay 6700 more over the course of a 30 minute game than the cheapest advanced tech in the game (which is Omicron Hive, fyi).[/quote]

Right, but OH adv tech is worth exactly what you paid for it (apart from their SBs, which are godly). I'm not sure what OH is supposed to be, but I think it's supposed to be an inverse Bios (strong / quick early game, but lousy over the long run).

QUOTE Delaying them by weakening their early game (and perking them by giving them the ability to survive that early game) is a perfect solution that does what you want it to do.[/quote]

Again I think we're in violent agreement here.

QUOTE First, Tac can be beaten by attacking their economy. It's just *easier* to do it by bombing, but really there's nothing that stops you from killing all of a tac team's miners and then paydaying, protecting your miner, and winning from there. That's the big difference. If you don't have bbrs against tac and all of your miners are dead, you can at least slow down the tac team before they can get their sniper2/hunt3/sig3 adv sfs, buying time for you to get your bbrs up. Against bios, you don't have that option.[/quote]

Right, you don't have that option with Bios right now, but that can be improved on, in ways we've already discussed. In the end, Bios can be more like tac, where there is a definitely a preferred way you should deal with them (and that's fine), but killing miners will also be more than just spitting in the wind, as it is today.

QUOTE The problem there is games are way too small for me to really create a good SY. It's a shame, really. If I were making Allegiance 2, SY would literally be unlocked by having advanced tech, and basically be unstoppable except by more advanced SY.[/quote]

If SY is meant to be unstoppable by any number of light ships, then the scaling problem goes away, actually. It no longer matters if you have five dis3 figs or twenty-five.

But then maybe SY would be a bit of a prosperity win button. It would exist solely to make sure no game ever lasts more than 90 minutes -- but that end might be a bit unsatisfying (well, we fought hard, we bombed bases, we started climbing out of a hole, but then their Death Star came out and it was gg).

Here's another idea: let's reduce the whole menagerie of capships to just one: the attack carrier. It's a piloted ship, but it is essentially unkillable (it can be bombed, however). You can push through any camp. Never runs out of energy. Ints can't rip to it, of course, so you have to be smart about running back and docking before you get podded. Rather slow (needs to be slower than bomber if it's bombable), but can rip around the map as needed. No turrets, because getting turret camped by an unkillable ship is no fun (it would be base turrets on steroids).

The adv attack carrier? It's the same thing, but large rip. No capship can kill a base by itself -- the game still requires a big bomber/htt/sb/figbee furball at the end. Kinda like a tp2, but better. And available to any techpath.

QUOTE How's this for an option: Pull lt ints (and lt sfs) from Bios. Then we can look at perking them from there by doing things like giving their figs more fuel/less mass.[/quote]

Meh. I guess that could work (keeping rix srs out would be a bitch though). But I'd rather just nerf their light ints than remove them, and IMO not having mini2 until the 15 minute mark is nerf enough. I've not yet heard a good argument why we shouldn't remove mini2 from treasures.

(Lt sfs are not an issue and I think your reason for removing them is just symmetry, Bios gets no lt anything).

Yeah, removing lt sfs would be for symmetry, and symmetry is more important than you give it credit for (which is the main reason I don't want to pull mini2 off the treasures list).

Another big reason is it's a fairly sizeable stealth perk to belters

cashto wrote:QUOTE (cashto @ Jan 5 2017, 10:13 PM) It was like literally the first thing you said that was wrong about Bios, and that without mini2, they are "dead in the water". Having mini1 lt ints up till minute 15, and mini2 reg ints until minute 25, really does make turtling a challenge. (As it should be).

Not sure how different it is to turtle with mini1 lt ints than gat1/seeker1 mine-dropping figs tho Get better at fig flying!

QUOTE Yeah, all of that is true. I guess when I say "exp is overplayed", what I really mean is, I overplay exp when I comm. But I think that's also because I'm simultaneously trying to avoid picking overplayed factions too. :-D[/quote]
Giga is critically underplayed because flying their ships is kind of a pain. It's one of the downsides of this game being exclusively pug with no real ranked motivation. Like I said, fix it by making a viable pro scene

QUOTE Right, but OH adv tech is worth exactly what you paid for it (apart from their SBs, which are godly). I'm not sure what OH is supposed to be, but I think it's supposed to be an inverse Bios (strong / quick early game, but lousy over the long run).[/quote]
I mean, their bbrs have incredible ram boxes and their hvy ints are very strong. Plus they multitech for free.

They're supposed to be IC on steroids and be focused on mid game domination. They do that pretty well, tbh. The early game factions are Giga, Rix, and Belters. (Giga's weird because they have the most trash tier midgame, but that's another discussion).

QUOTE Right, you don't have that option with Bios right now, but that can be improved on, in ways we've already discussed. In the end, Bios can be more like tac, where there is a definitely a preferred way you should deal with them (and that's fine), but killing miners will also be more than just spitting in the wind, as it is today.[/quote]
Changing Bios tech costs won't change whether or not they'll eventually get to adv tech after getting their techbase up. The only thing that opens up Bios to miner offense is by delaying the time it takes to get out that techbase.


QUOTE If SY is meant to be unstoppable by any number of light ships, then the scaling problem goes away, actually. It no longer matters if you have five dis3 figs or twenty-five.

But then maybe SY would be a bit of a prosperity win button. It would exist solely to make sure no game ever lasts more than 90 minutes -- but that end might be a bit unsatisfying (well, we fought hard, we bombed bases, we started climbing out of a hole, but then their Death Star came out and it was gg).

Here's another idea: let's reduce the whole menagerie of capships to just one: the attack carrier. It's a piloted ship, but it is essentially unkillable (it can be bombed, however). You can push through any camp. Never runs out of energy. Ints can't rip to it, of course, so you have to be smart about running back and docking before you get podded. Rather slow (needs to be slower than bomber if it's bombable), but can rip around the map as needed. No turrets, because getting turret camped by an unkillable ship is no fun (it would be base turrets on steroids).[/quote]
I mean the whole SY thing is just a can of worms we don't really need to open right now with game sizes struggling to reach 10v10 at SGT sundays.

QUOTE Meh. I guess that could work (keeping rix srs out would be a bitch though). But I'd rather just nerf their light ints than remove them, and IMO not having mini2 until the 15 minute mark is nerf enough. I've not yet heard a good argument why we shouldn't remove mini2 from treasures.[/quote]
I know I said it before, but I'll say it again: mini2 shouldn't be removed from treasures for consistency reasons. The game should be generally predictable, and that means "all of the mk2 tech is available as treasures." I'd rather pull a Virulence and remove them entirely (which I wouldn't want to do because a smattering of variance is important to make games fun) then start haphazardly picking and choosing which mk2 techs are available as treasures.

I mean we could also let Bios ints have 3 guns, for example, but it'd just be weird: interceptors don't have 3 guns, *hvy* interceptors have 3 guns. It changes the way the ship works in a way that's not consistent. When consistency like that is broken, it has to be carefully chosen. Miners don't rip, except for IC, which is a critical part of the way their faction works (no refs, etc.). Rix basic figs used to have 3 guns, which is a critical part of the way their faction works (no missiles). It's a kludge, a way of balancing that shouldn't really be encouraged.

Pulling Mini2 out of the treasure lineup simply because *bios* has a problem (a problem exacerbated, not caused, by mini2 being a treasure) not only do we fail to address the issue of Bios, but every other expansion techpath is substantially nerfed making a fairly sizeable nerf to, just off the top of my head, Draconium and Omicron Hive.

Then we still are left with what we had before: a terrible faction that needs to be perked. It gets perked, and suddenly we're back to where we started with Bios being this obnoxious, no-real-counterplay faction, only now no one gets to pick up mini2.

*Bios* is the problem, and *Bios* needs to be fixed. Unfortunately, any fixes to bios would be moderately drastic (seriously, doubling probe and prox capacity will more than make up for an additional $10k in techbase cost, and both are huge changes) and require either the kind of beta environment we don't have to fine tune or a sufficient core of talented and dedicated-to-winning pilots willing to do what it takes to win with Bios and give me feedback.

P.S. this was all easier waaaay back in the day when it was 20 v 20 and Bios could have been sufficiently nerfed by halving paydays (which I had suggested back in 2008) while being allowed to retain their skycap gunships. But payday nerfs would have worked then for a reason they wouldn't work now: XRM TP2 would be heavily nerfed by a payday drop. Hard to save up for 10 $800 bbrs and a $500 probe when your paydays are $300 apiece.

Since it is easily reversible how about trying to lower Bios research time from 12 to 10 minutes? (I think it's 12 minutes??????)
See how it goes and if it doesn't work change it back or leave it but lower payday.
There are quite a few options available.
I want to see Bios played more and not get slaughtered early game.
They are a great faction that hardly ever gets used anymore.

Has anyone ever considered giving Bios light sfs as a starting ship, instead of a fig? Would fit with their stealthy game, and could give them a chance to slow down the enemy in getting bombers. Might be op with the con killing ability, dunno.