Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 2:05 am
Attach them to the SY flagNightRychune wrote:QUOTE (NightRychune @ Aug 2 2011, 06:46 PM) remove prox, caltrops, and sc towers from the game
problem solved
Free Allegiance Forums
Space battles since 2000
https://www.freeallegiance.org/forums/
One-sided aleph res?
Page 4 of 5
Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 2:07 am
done
Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 2:52 am
or have prox/caltrops affect only ships of the same size / tech level.
I never understood why a $#@!ing prox from a $#@!ing starting scout could affect a cruiser or even a regular bomber.
To widen the debate, if I may, the main issue I have with core devs and coring in general and this is since version 1 of ICE
is that you're all focused on 'balancing' numbers on existing objects instead of adding/removing objects.
It has been proven many times for years now, by maths, logic, good sens and what is done in other games that it's impossible to balance.
You cannot balance Allegiance. Period. so try other things may be ? you'll get code changes if you need to, I can promise that.
why DN was popular and took over when it launched? because of the tuned values here and there ? not at all. because it introduced NEW stuff, 1st it was dreg faction then Nix then carriers at start, etc. People get bored and leave if things don't change. Fine tuning a value isn't a change.
It's a game, it's supposed to be fun, it doesn't need 'perfection' in the numbers. you'll keep the game alive by adding/changing stuff not by fine tuning numbers here and there.
What make Allegiance "Allegiance" ? Is not the specific details of this tech or that ship, or even the existence of this or that. I could play an Allegiance without alephs or without ints or whatever.
What matters is the genre and the 'high level' gameplay : team rts/fps combo where players can dynamically choose and change ROLE (scouting, offense, defense, intel, support, command, etc). People who always fly the same ships (aka fulfill the same role) are killing this game.
And balance when needed should be between roles not between techs of same role (think RPS not the core but the game).
I mean, look at the most successful online game: World of Warcraft. Ok it's a MMORPG, time sink/crack addictive thing/whatever. But they kept it on top not by trying to balance the classes, they changed , added, removed tons of stuff over the various patches. They used a ' FoTM' feature to keep the competitive people playing. It's barely 6 years old and look at all the radical changes made in so few years.
We have no FoTM in Allegiance, Heavy ints are the FoTD of Allegiance, 'Flavor of The Decade'.
Radical changes don't make people leave, routine and boredom do.
oh well that's just my opinion anyway. It's your free time, you do what you want with it, I'm not judging in any way. It's just not what I like.
I never understood why a $#@!ing prox from a $#@!ing starting scout could affect a cruiser or even a regular bomber.
To widen the debate, if I may, the main issue I have with core devs and coring in general and this is since version 1 of ICE
is that you're all focused on 'balancing' numbers on existing objects instead of adding/removing objects.
It has been proven many times for years now, by maths, logic, good sens and what is done in other games that it's impossible to balance.
You cannot balance Allegiance. Period. so try other things may be ? you'll get code changes if you need to, I can promise that.
why DN was popular and took over when it launched? because of the tuned values here and there ? not at all. because it introduced NEW stuff, 1st it was dreg faction then Nix then carriers at start, etc. People get bored and leave if things don't change. Fine tuning a value isn't a change.
It's a game, it's supposed to be fun, it doesn't need 'perfection' in the numbers. you'll keep the game alive by adding/changing stuff not by fine tuning numbers here and there.
What make Allegiance "Allegiance" ? Is not the specific details of this tech or that ship, or even the existence of this or that. I could play an Allegiance without alephs or without ints or whatever.
What matters is the genre and the 'high level' gameplay : team rts/fps combo where players can dynamically choose and change ROLE (scouting, offense, defense, intel, support, command, etc). People who always fly the same ships (aka fulfill the same role) are killing this game.
And balance when needed should be between roles not between techs of same role (think RPS not the core but the game).
I mean, look at the most successful online game: World of Warcraft. Ok it's a MMORPG, time sink/crack addictive thing/whatever. But they kept it on top not by trying to balance the classes, they changed , added, removed tons of stuff over the various patches. They used a ' FoTM' feature to keep the competitive people playing. It's barely 6 years old and look at all the radical changes made in so few years.
We have no FoTM in Allegiance, Heavy ints are the FoTD of Allegiance, 'Flavor of The Decade'.
Radical changes don't make people leave, routine and boredom do.
oh well that's just my opinion anyway. It's your free time, you do what you want with it, I'm not judging in any way. It's just not what I like.
Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 2:59 am
you are reaaaaaaaally out of the loop
Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 5:12 am
DN took over because I left 
Seriously though, I agree new features attract players. With GT for example, my first goal was to cram as much new and useful tech I could into it and make it different. But this idea that you can balance by adding features is....half-baked at best.
Recall 2000 on vnboards...was anybody asking for new features? No, they all wanted better balance and less cheese. Now let's say once again IC tac is ridiculously overpowered and instead of re-balancing, what do you do, introduce some new tech to all the other factions that'd counter IC tac? Now you face the task of accounting for all the interactions of this new tech. You just increased complexity and potentially introduced all kinds of new coupling issues. Sure, maybe the new tech is fun and people loved it for a while, but is it a net gain if it causes more frustration down the road?
You can't just say "$#@! it" with regards to the balance either. If I'm going to get raped, I want to know it's because I sucked, not because the odds were stacked against me right from the start.
So IMHO, if you are talking about new features, the spirit must NOT be of adding to the game and increasing the level of complexity, NOT of feature creep, but one of improving it universally. Take chess. There are a lot of variants, but you don't see many that just pile on features. When done right (like Chess960, for example) they can be great, but what they do is to "improve" a few core mechanics.
Seriously though, I agree new features attract players. With GT for example, my first goal was to cram as much new and useful tech I could into it and make it different. But this idea that you can balance by adding features is....half-baked at best.Recall 2000 on vnboards...was anybody asking for new features? No, they all wanted better balance and less cheese. Now let's say once again IC tac is ridiculously overpowered and instead of re-balancing, what do you do, introduce some new tech to all the other factions that'd counter IC tac? Now you face the task of accounting for all the interactions of this new tech. You just increased complexity and potentially introduced all kinds of new coupling issues. Sure, maybe the new tech is fun and people loved it for a while, but is it a net gain if it causes more frustration down the road?
You can't just say "$#@! it" with regards to the balance either. If I'm going to get raped, I want to know it's because I sucked, not because the odds were stacked against me right from the start.
So IMHO, if you are talking about new features, the spirit must NOT be of adding to the game and increasing the level of complexity, NOT of feature creep, but one of improving it universally. Take chess. There are a lot of variants, but you don't see many that just pile on features. When done right (like Chess960, for example) they can be great, but what they do is to "improve" a few core mechanics.
Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 7:37 pm
1 sided aleph res has always interested me, just difficult to find the sweet spot between overpowered and useless
Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 6:41 pm
because it exists.NightRychune wrote:QUOTE (NightRychune @ Aug 2 2011, 11:19 PM) but how would any of those things be conducive to good (or better) gameplay?
Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 6:49 pm
Spunky, I wasn't talking about big obvious balance but about small tuning.
Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 7:57 pm
Res0 first plz.
Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 10:21 pm
Fair enough. I was pretty much done just bugfixing with R15 anyway, but it did take 15 iterations and 3 years to get there. It's not an endless process, but it just doesn't go as fast as you want it to.KGJV wrote:QUOTE (KGJV @ Aug 5 2011, 01:49 PM) Spunky, I wasn't talking about big obvious balance but about small tuning.
dj, res X (where X is 0, 2 or 3) is a bad idea because it hides information from you since you have no idea what has been just shot at you and it's the difference between life and death. Res 0 would be doubly bad because it'd be independent of "regular" res so you'd never know which is which. (I realize that's the whole point but it'd get old real fast.)
I'm warming up to the idea of one-sided expensive res though, as well as some changes that'd make the basic res more usable. A cost drop, first of all, so it'd at least be useful to stop the enemy from prox/towering everything in sight.