Im new and im clueless...
why do we need a starting point? could someone tell me whats wrong with fresh, new and innovative?
please dont eat me, im sure plenty of nOObs could do with the answer =)
First Official Post
if by fresh, new and innovative you mean unbalanced, unfamiliar and cheesy, then i am not sure what you are trying to say (basically most custom features have never been balanced according to some people, and that's all there is about the different cores (except those who bring completely different gameplays, like star wars or bsg, the other cores have more or less the same factions but are balanced differently)
Classifiable up to Trolleomorphism.
well unfamiliar, would BE the point of 'fresh, new and innovative', as to cheesy, well that would depend on who thought up the new ship and weapon types.
and as to unbalanced, well all games need thorough play testing to get things balanced, most software houses do this long before it hits joe public, but a community project will always have to be balanced off the cuff.
Some simple guidelines would help the balancing if taken from a point of logic rather than a touchy feely tweaking (fine tuning can be done later).
for example.
Stations: no single ship should be able to take out a station in less than 60 seconds, 120 seconds for main style stations, e.g garrison.
Cap ships: 20 stock fighters take 60 seconds to destroy a stock cap ship, 10 stock bombers for same time unit,
Bombers: 2 stock fighters take 60 seconds to destroy a bomber( 4 stock bombers can kill a stock fighter in 60 seconds)
Now obviously, im not claiming these numbers are at all game balancing, but im sure you can see the kind of logic going into it. once the core balance team has formulated these kind of figures then they can play test to tweak them to a fine point.
Im just of the opinion, that if the community IS gonna take on this task, then it should be a monumental task with a nearly unlimited time budget. Going back to the drawing board and designing from scratch, the very best core that the community can think of making based on the limitations of the game itself and not the limitations of other 3rd party cores.
and as to unbalanced, well all games need thorough play testing to get things balanced, most software houses do this long before it hits joe public, but a community project will always have to be balanced off the cuff.
Some simple guidelines would help the balancing if taken from a point of logic rather than a touchy feely tweaking (fine tuning can be done later).
for example.
Stations: no single ship should be able to take out a station in less than 60 seconds, 120 seconds for main style stations, e.g garrison.
Cap ships: 20 stock fighters take 60 seconds to destroy a stock cap ship, 10 stock bombers for same time unit,
Bombers: 2 stock fighters take 60 seconds to destroy a bomber( 4 stock bombers can kill a stock fighter in 60 seconds)
Now obviously, im not claiming these numbers are at all game balancing, but im sure you can see the kind of logic going into it. once the core balance team has formulated these kind of figures then they can play test to tweak them to a fine point.
Im just of the opinion, that if the community IS gonna take on this task, then it should be a monumental task with a nearly unlimited time budget. Going back to the drawing board and designing from scratch, the very best core that the community can think of making based on the limitations of the game itself and not the limitations of other 3rd party cores.
noir balanced according to win ratio, which is quite logical if you ask me, the problem was that buffs and nerfs were arbitrary. If you check the last faction stats dump you will see it was quite even for every faction except technoflux (which suffered a major nerf of 1/5 damage to PE guns, being their only viable mountable weapon (not counting srp or plasgens) ).
besides, the balance discussion is and always has been about factions, not about ships (and all factions use the same ships! exception GT and phoenix)
besides, the balance discussion is and always has been about factions, not about ships (and all factions use the same ships! exception GT and phoenix)
Classifiable up to Trolleomorphism.
Dear newbie, you appear to have mistaken the point of this project. We are not trying to build the ultimate core here, we are trying to make sure that there is a core that most people like that gets updated fairly frequently. We are trying to do this because the current most popular core hasn't been updated in about a year and needs to be. Attempts to build the ultimate core have failed many times in the past and will again in the future- which isn't to say that someone shouldn't be trying, just that the community core isn't about that.
thanks for the answer Lykourgos, but as you can see i didnt actually mistake the point of the project, i was asking for the point, however you have cleared it up nicely =)GiGaBaNE wrote:QUOTE (GiGaBaNE @ May 2 2008, 01:26 AM) Im new and im clueless...
why do we need a starting point? could someone tell me whats wrong with fresh, new and innovative?
please dont eat me, im sure plenty of nOObs could do with the answer =)
Well, i havnt played all the cores yet, but anything with technoflux in would be great..
Last edited by GiGaBaNE on Sat May 03, 2008 3:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
fuzzylunkin1
Sooooooo wrong. Balancing by win ratio is a fail fail system. Let me explain.Evincar wrote:QUOTE (Evincar @ May 2 2008, 07:38 PM) noir balanced according to win ratio, which is quite logical if you ask me
If you balance a core using just the win ratio of the faction you are seeing yes this faction is winning alot or the faction is loosing alot. What you really need is a list of Faction Vs Faction stats and Tech Path vs Tech Path stats to use that kind of method in balancing, of course we dont get them stats so balancing must come down to experience. Knowledge of the game and knowledge of possible outcomes of the balance tweaks.
It's not an easy task and a core will never truely be perfectly balanced not with a game as complex as allegiance. But we can strive to obtain a more balanced game.
apochboi wrote:QUOTE (apochboi @ May 3 2008, 10:40 AM) Sooooooo wrong. Balancing by win ratio is a fail fail system. Let me explain.
If you balance a core using just the win ratio of the faction you are seeing yes this faction is winning alot or the faction is loosing alot. What you really need is a list of Faction Vs Faction stats and Tech Path vs Tech Path stats to use that kind of method in balancing, of course we dont get them stats so balancing must come down to experience. Knowledge of the game and knowledge of possible outcomes of the balance tweaks.
It's not an easy task and a core will never truely be perfectly balanced not with a game as complex as allegiance. But we can strive to obtain a more balanced game.
ASGS keeps a record of which tech path(s) a team chose. I'm sure TE will be able to knock somethign up if ya ask nicely....
Granary Sergeant Baker - Special Bread Service (Wurf - 13th Oct 2011)