Bios paydays changes

Icky · Post by **Icky** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:02 pm

Malicious Wraith wrote:QUOTE (Malicious Wraith @ Jan 31 2011, 11:59 AM) I heard that Adept asked Dasmiter to put gigantic phallic objects on all of the scouts.

He said yes.

"Let's play 'ram the bomber' again..."

Malicious Wraith · Post by **Malicious Wraith** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:48 pm

Icky wrote:QUOTE (Icky @ Jan 31 2011, 01:02 PM) "Let's play 'ram the bomber' again..."

Its no secret that when I am running a Federal Bomb Train, I instruct the scouts to ram my ass.

Spunkmeyer · Post by **Spunkmeyer** » Tue Feb 01, 2011 1:50 am

Shizoku wrote:QUOTE (Shizoku @ Jan 31 2011, 12:49 AM) Funny thing is that guass isn't "dn crap", it was around before dn existed. If Spunk remembers, correct me if I'm wrong, but it was most likely included in A+ when Onion created GT.

Edit: now that I think about it, GT was created even early than that.

GT is indeed created jointly by me and Orion (he did the models, I did all the tech and balancing) when Alleg Plus was the main core around here... I think DN existed then but was very new. This is about the middle of Plus lifecycle, not earlier.

But DN GT and Plus GT are quite different other than the basic structure, for better or worse. For example, Gauss:

The way I originally designed it, Gauss does 42 damage per shot. In DN/CC it does 62.5 damage per shot. Fire rate is the same (once every two seconds), so it was a damage boost of about 50%. CC 11b makes this half direct-hit, half-area, which should make overall damage pretty close to the original, unless you have awesome aim (and the server doesn't screw you)

Funny enough, I had absolutely nothing to do with the nerf

DasSmiter · Post by **DasSmiter** » Tue Feb 01, 2011 5:36 pm

Jesus effin Christ you ponces

I've deleted some of the crap sniping between Sono and Masta and some wildly off topic @#(! from TC and maybe some others

If you think that somehow THE BALANCE IS RUINED and you have STRONG OPINIONS about the CC team stemming from your APPARENTLY COMPLETE LACK OF KNOWLEDGE please consider posting in the Rants forum (shockingly enough I read some of those topics there). A thread about Bios econ changes is not the place to soapbox about how you think that Dorjan and Brood can't hold back the Adept and XC is somehow the perfect thing wah wah sucking on dicks and such

Anyways back on topic

Yes I think that the payday nerf may have been coming at the issue from the wrong direction. I'm not sure that is has had as much of a horrible effect on stuff as you seem to imagine though. Halving the price of the miner leaves Bios able to recover from a complete wipeout while still stopping them from popping cons out like octomom or keeping a reasonable tech progression going on paydays alone.

The original issue the payday nerf was to address was Bios' seemingly blatant disuse of miners. They could keep going on any tech path (and actually get 2 techs going at once on sup) once they got the tech base and they were able to fairly easily replace the home tp off of paydays once they started pushing out on the map a little bit (usually after galvs kill the surrounding outposts and teleports).

I'd like to agree 100% with Masta that Bios should just hang on to a miner and deal with it if they lose them all, but I think they should have the same ability to replace a dead miner as any other faction payday wise

Malicious Wraith · Post by **Malicious Wraith** » Tue Feb 01, 2011 5:48 pm

DasSmiter wrote:QUOTE (DasSmiter @ Feb 1 2011, 12:36 PM) I'd like to agree 100% with Masta that Bios should just hang on to a miner and deal with it if they lose them all, but I think they should have the same ability to replace a dead miner as any other faction payday wise

Then, as I said, reduce miner cost and decrease yield to compensate.

sono · Post by **sono** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 12:50 am

DasSmiter wrote:QUOTE (DasSmiter @ Feb 1 2011, 09:36 AM) Yes I think that the payday nerf may have been coming at the issue from the wrong direction. I'm not sure that is has had as much of a horrible effect on stuff as you seem to imagine though.

Neither am i. It was more a matter of principle, as this is exactly the kind of changes that if left going on, will completely obliterate consistency in your balancing. It has side effects literally in every aspect of the econ... They might not be a huge issue but the point remains they are side effects. If this accumulates you will end up with a warped balance model that becomes increasingly harder to control.

Also if you want to make BIOS a faction that relies on keeping a miner, that is great!
But that's an entirely different goal and needs different considerations... e.g. one could have just made their enh. miners stronger (in whatever way) instead of making miners cheaper. Obviously i have not thought this through - however all i really wanted to say is take care in what you are doing and why and think hard before you change very fundamental parameters with many implications by so much as 50% just to influence one of the many implicated secondary parameters

That is all

Cable · Post by **Cable** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 3:46 pm

This should eb the bassis for all balance efforts

While I appreciate People who tinker in cores, balancing the core should be based on empiricle data. Gather data... analyze data, come up with an intelligent change, test change, stress test change, impliment change, review change and see if results were as expected. Back out change if intended results are not .

How about we table opinions and talk about some facts. I would like to understand how you arrived at the decsion that appears to conflict with the win loss data on the faction. Bio's is and has been the most losing faction overall. Why would you nerf it. It makes no sense to me. I have never understood why some people make balance change decsions and not back up there thoughts with facts. It is my opinon people get a wild hair up there ass and because they can tweak a setting they do so .

What is the basis for changing Bios in a negative manner and not giviing it a perk. The Stats show Bios as the most losing faction. We took out XRMS becuase bios appeared to be crushing late game with it. I do not know how that stood up against stats since than. But my opinion is people hated the fact that Bios could turrtle and then come back and win after getting there ass kicked the whole game. Now I can see where guys like spidey can dominate a game and lose it to some newbie like me and it would piss him off. But hey, Bios players suffer thru getting poded and owned until their tech comes up. It is what the facition has always been. A lsow annoying burn that is hard toi stamp out if you don't obliterated it. That is what makes the faction unique .

Opinions and beleifs.. are the reason we kill in the name of loving god. Let's balance technical stuff using scientific method.

It seems to me a bunch of canky ass vets are mad because it is thoeretically harder to finish off Bios. Well... if thats the case why is it's win loss percentage so sucky.

At least with Noir I would engage in dialogues and he always backed up a change with a fact. Why make a change at all if the data does not prove out your opinion.

My data is off the main page. What's the basis for this change or any of the others.

Cable

Elzam_ · Post by **Elzam_** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 8:27 pm

That data is cc10

spideycw · Post by **spideycw** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 8:34 pm

Cable wrote:QUOTE (Cable @ Feb 3 2011, 10:46 AM) But my opinion is people hated the fact that Bios could turrtle and then come back and win after getting there ass kicked the whole game. Now I can see where guys like spidey can dominate a game and lose it to some newbie like me and it would piss him off. But hey, Bios players suffer thru getting poded and owned until their tech comes up. It is what the facition has always been. A lsow annoying burn that is hard toi stamp out if you don't obliterated it. That is what makes the faction unique .

I'll address this bit.

With bios you had a faction that could lose all their miners 6 minutes in and not give a damn. You could fund all your tech off nothing more than paydays and cashboxes after your tech base was up and send your ENTIRE TEAM ON MINER O, and when podded they would come instantly back home. Your team could roam the map in heavy scouts and if a miner was undefended for 30 seconds it would die to something that hasnt been eyed once since it first undocked. They are out there dropping probes that see more than other factions. They have the ultimate end game tech.

Bios was a faction where you didn't need to worry about miner d AT ALL which is not very fun for the other team. When I was commanding bios all I did was say "$#@! our miners" just go kill theirs. Lesser comms would end up with game where both teams had no miners and people were just waiting on the bios countdown clock as their paydays came in with cash boxes.

Bios, not having the need to defend any miners could literally sit their whole team on either miner o, or base d without having anything to do for the 20-30 minutes they are partialing @#(!.

Also horrible newbie comms with voob teams should not be able to beat XT by going beachball and choosing a specific faction and tech path.

Also I laugh at the idea that bios players suffer by getting "owned" Huh?? I don't think I've ever been in a game where bios got owned as long as they had a tech base up.

Cable · Post by **Cable** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 8:54 pm

Thanks for the reply Spidey... and while you make logical sounding points. It does not answer my question . I know I can be thick headed on occassion.

Why the faction that losses so much would need a nerf and not a perk. My main point being "why balance down a faction that is not winning?" based on the win loss stats. I understand your passion about bios miners and the faction but in my opinion I do not see that most people play bios the way you suggest. If that were the case , I would think we would see a higher not lower game win percentage. I do not see that the faction was winning more games because of it. My thought on a balance change would be to make a faction that was not doing so hot get more play time.

The proposed change makes bios less playable. How is that a good balance change . ?