my thoughts on what's problematic in the game right now

Discussion / Announcement area for WeedCore development.
aptest
Posts: 133
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:47 am

Post by aptest »

hey.

I thought i'd just drop in to put on paper some thoughts i had with respect to what i didn't like about the game as it is now. I'm just trying to sum up some of the things that bother me so far, and that I feel are maybe not being handled because of the wrong reasons.

right now I feel there are two big issues with the game: (a) that sup is not fun enough for the bulk of the player base and (b) that games don't snowball well enough.

the problems with sup


I don't see it as sup being under powered. A lot of guys mentioned that they strongly prefer exp and I think that if people don't like playing a tech path it's a problem. When i try to figure out what people don't like about sup and conversely like about exp it's two things: 1. that ints can go places fast and 2. that they can @#(! on other crafts in the game.

now maybe we can give sup some of this medicine it'll be a good idea? Maybe it's making figs a little more towards ints, but maybe making the tech path more appealing to players is a design goal that is more important than preserving ints as the sole proprieties of "go fast, go long, kill all" game play?

what i had in mind is this: make the base speed of figs 150. i know it's a big change and very far from a 10% speed increase but I kind of think figs should be able to move about without having to 100% rely on a carrier.

while we are at it, why not make carriers more prolific in the game, but also a little easier to handle early on? what I thought about was moving carriers into sup tree, and puting light carriers that can be scrapped by 3-4 ints into the basic tech. that way you can get carriers early and have fun as early game sup, and these carriers can still be @#(!ted on by exp?

problems with the game as a whole

honestly i think it doesn't snowball well enough. you kill a few miners and end up with some tech advantage but not enough of a tech advantage to allow you to break through the enemy defenses. once exp/sup gets their enh tech, you can't bomb reliabely anymore, and once they get their adv, it's kinda hard to HTT/FB (even with tp2).

what im trying to say is that miner advantage doesn't translate well enough into tech advantage, and tech advantage doesn't translate well enough into win advantage.

so maybe making the end game techs a little harder to deal with (bigger shields/hull on HTTs, faster FBs with better reload times that also mount med shields, something that helps SBS get into a sector easier) would be a good idea?

the way I see it, getting the end-game stuff before your opponent needs to be rewarded by gaining a sector or two. if the turtle power of adv small craft is good enough to prevent this than what have you really gained by getting the tech?

anyway this is how i see things.
i hope you agree, i know it's a kinda confused way of writing things.
djrbk
Posts: 2341
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:51 am

Post by djrbk »

These are all terrible suggestions.

Your sup idea with respect to speed is F-- and would unbalance everything. If you want to go places with a fig for drone killing or whatever, you need to plan it out in advance and typically carry a good fuel reserve. I'm not against the return of something like Hvy Boosters, but that's at the end of their tech chain. Having all figs as fast as scouts at base speed + boosters across the board is game breaking.

You can get carriers early anyways and it is a common early strat with some fig factions, there is no point to make a extra 'lt carrier'. The bonuses that Carriers can get from sup include Hull GAs and reducing Ripcord time.

Making end games more OP just makes commanders hit a giant "WIN" button instead of relaying on any skill. To boot, I don't see any issue with the current state of various end game techs.

QUOTE if the turtle power of adv small craft is good enough to prevent this than what have you really gained by getting the tech?[/quote]

The entire map to mine while you get further upgraded ships, rainbow tech, multiple con pushes. That seems to be more of a lack of commanding skill problem you are experiencing if you are playing under people who cannot end game with their opponent down to one sector rather than a game mechanics problem.
Weedman
Posts: 2137
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 7:00 am

Post by Weedman »

I read your entire post

If you have read mine, you will see I am going to put small shield2+3, and shield GAs in supremacy, this makes scouts and fighters all around tougher.

I am against making fighters that are supposed to be -all- around, general superiority fighters, into super fast, ripcording, spike damage monsters. They already kill utility and miners as well as ints, if not better, their only "weakness" is they cannot sustain 300 mps while doing it, and that must remain so. Yes starting fighters are not great and were not meant to be. So get enhanced figs with gat2, dumb2, etc, plan your movements,


Also nan3 makes bombing viable. It can be done, I know it can. If you actually had hvy bombers, with ac3 and nan3, adv scouts or heavy scouts, it can be done.

Yes these things are expensive. Yes it would require teamwork. I think you will find teamwork generally decides what is viable or not. A full team nanned run is difficult to stop if done right. PLowing into a camp is not really teamwork.
Last edited by Weedman on Fri Feb 01, 2013 11:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
QUOTE Once engaged 13 and a half Dreg Heavy Ints (at the same time) with an IC Int and emerged in a heavy int with 2 mini 3 and 1 mini dis and all foes destroyed
--- QUOTE (spideycw @ Apr 1 2009, 01:53 PM) Definition of wtfpwn: Weedman in an int[/quote]
Lordus Weedicus II•Uses TS but can be difficult to understand due to the fact has never been sober•Expert int whore (without non-standard use of strafe buttons)•Gains skill increase when playing with Aarmstrong or former members of TRA•Expert miner D (ability to aim)•Can be trusted to run your economy•One of the half dozen or so game changers•Average Stacker
Narg
Posts: 474
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 8:00 am
Location: Israel

Post by Narg »

OH htts are too good for bombing. you got to lower the range on their ab. you can pretty much solo bomb any lt base with them. add 1 nan pushing and they are just too good.
Death's hounds feared me
aptest
Posts: 133
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:47 am

Post by aptest »

@weed,

I understand what you are saying and from a balance perspective I agree with you 100%. The problem that I wanted to highlight is not figs being weak or unbalanced, but commanders making a B-line to U-rocks and completely disregarding other tech paths unless they are forced to do so by the game's random sector generator.

Right now we're seeing exp VS exp (with a GA or two from another path here and there) games almost exclusively. That commanders and players don't consider other tech paths as an initial desirable strategy is a problem. It is not a problem of game balance - it is a problem of something in the other tech paths not being appealing enough to play for the player base. From reading your posts, my belief so far is that you're prioritizing game balance over tackling this issue in a meaningful way.

I guess the question is this: Do we want to have sup and tac as main strategies for commanders, or do we just want them to be secondary options for when you get a bad roll of the dice with the sector rocks?
Last edited by aptest on Sat Feb 02, 2013 7:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
raumvogel
Posts: 5910
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2003 7:00 am
Location: My lawn
Contact:

Post by raumvogel »

Tech is all about opening moves. If you want to lead with tac/sup...g/l.
Image
ChaoticStorm
Posts: 894
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 2:38 pm
Location: .

Post by ChaoticStorm »

aptest wrote:QUOTE (aptest @ Feb 2 2013, 07:07 AM) @weed,

I understand what you are saying and from a balance perspective I agree with you 100%. The problem that I wanted to highlight is not figs being weak or unbalanced, but commanders making a B-line to U-rocks and completely disregarding other tech paths unless they are forced to do so by the game's random sector generator.

Right now we're seeing exp VS exp (with a GA or two from another path here and there) games almost exclusively. That commanders and players don't consider other tech paths as an initial desirable strategy is a problem. It is not a problem of game balance - it is a problem of something in the other tech paths not being appealing enough to play for the player base. From reading your posts, my belief so far is that you're prioritizing game balance over tackling this issue in a meaningful way.

I guess the question is this: Do we want to have sup and tac as main strategies for commanders, or do we just want them to be secondary options for when you get a bad roll of the dice with the sector rocks?
One factor really that you have to think about is game size here. The more pilots you have the more viable sup is, (until you reach about 15v15 + where getting galvs means the other team has almost lost.) And tac is also less viable smallgames in the right situations sure a team can't defend its miners 5v5 but no pure tac team can stop a well done uneyed bomb run (unless the base is cripplingly far from the aleph, and i mean it cripples the team who owns the base since it can exert little sector control.)

EXP on the other hand thrives in a smallgame enviroment, a single int whore can make all the difference if he lives long enough. If he isn't the target he can kill fighters and to a lesser extent sfs 1:2 or even 1:3 before dying. Multiple ints with their speed and range(although nerfed) can exert control and kill miners over a large areas. (And probably kill the defense too.)

And if im gonna be honest. If you can aim exp is more fun to fly, after you've flown an int fighters just seem slow and less damaging (althhough they can make the same if not a greater impact with proper teamwork.) Fighters rarely beat interceptors of the same tech level unless they are flown defensively (making full use of the gats range and QF/Seekers aswell as mp to slow the ints advance). And you get a huge problem if people try to fly fighters like interceptors, (same with sfs) aptest EXP relies greatly on your ability to aim. Thats all a team needs to succeed in ints, kill the miners, pod the d and win.

I'm guessing my point is that players themselves have less experience with tac and sup, how to use their ships to their full advantage. The reason you see things like tacspan is because commanders use the strengths of one to cover the weaknesses of the other, (htts are more or less the weakest endgame while sbs can take small bases and map control with ease.) or in sups case to break an exp v.s exp stalemate by using the hull GA to get an edge on the other team. Until people are as good using sup and tac as they are exp then they will just stick with what they know and what the comm thinks his team can pull off. But just keep in mind not all teams can use ints right either and sup is definitely an option for them.
ChaoticStorm
Posts: 894
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 2:38 pm
Location: .

Post by ChaoticStorm »

aptest wrote:QUOTE (aptest @ Feb 2 2013, 07:07 AM) @weed,

I understand what you are saying and from a balance perspective I agree with you 100%. The problem that I wanted to highlight is not figs being weak or unbalanced, but commanders making a B-line to U-rocks and completely disregarding other tech paths unless they are forced to do so by the game's random sector generator.

Right now we're seeing exp VS exp (with a GA or two from another path here and there) games almost exclusively. That commanders and players don't consider other tech paths as an initial desirable strategy is a problem. It is not a problem of game balance - it is a problem of something in the other tech paths not being appealing enough to play for the player base. From reading your posts, my belief so far is that you're prioritizing game balance over tackling this issue in a meaningful way.

I guess the question is this: Do we want to have sup and tac as main strategies for commanders, or do we just want them to be secondary options for when you get a bad roll of the dice with the sector rocks?
One factor really that you have to think about is game size here. The more pilots you have the more viable sup is, (until you reach about 15v15 + where getting galvs means the other team has almost lost.) And tac is also less viable smallgames in the right situations sure a team can't defend its miners 5v5 but no pure tac team can stop a well done uneyed bomb run (unless the base is cripplingly far from the aleph, and i mean it cripples the team who owns the base since it can exert little sector control.)

EXP on the other hand thrives in a smallgame enviroment, a single int whore can make all the difference if he lives long enough. If he isn't the target he can kill fighters and to a lesser extent sfs 1:2 or even 1:3 before dying. Multiple ints with their speed and range(although nerfed) can exert control and kill miners over a large areas. (And probably kill the defense too.)

And if im gonna be honest. If you can aim exp is more fun to fly, after you've flown an int fighters just seem slow and less damaging (althhough they can make the same if not a greater impact with proper teamwork.) Fighters rarely beat interceptors of the same tech level unless they are flown defensively (making full use of the gats range and QF/Seekers aswell as mp to slow the ints advance). And you get a huge problem if people try to fly fighters like interceptors, (same with sfs) aptest EXP relies greatly on your ability to aim. Thats all a team needs to succeed in ints, kill the miners, pod the d and win.

I'm guessing my point is that players themselves have less experience with tac and sup, how to use their ships to their full advantage. The reason you see things like tacspan is because commanders use the strengths of one to cover the weaknesses of the other, (htts are more or less the weakest endgame while sbs can take small bases and map control with ease.) or in sups case to break an exp v.s exp stalemate by using the hull GA to get an edge on the other team. Until people are as good using sup and tac as they are exp then they will just stick with what they know and what the comm thinks his team can pull off. But just keep in mind not all teams can use ints right either and sup is definitely an option for them.
Mastametz
Posts: 4798
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 7:00 am
Location: Stanwood, WA

Post by Mastametz »

Exp is preferred because ints go fast. Exp is always fast-paced gameplay. Tac is slow as boring as $#@!. Sup is okay.

Weed should just do like a 20% speed increase to all ships/research, etc. Weedcore, now 20% faster.
Obviously there would be a lot of balance implications with that but he's an active core dev, he can handle it.
This game (especially non-exp) is just too slow for most people's attention span to be interested in, or to even stay interested in.

or just do like 5% speed increases across the board with every core revision and adjust things each revision to accommodate that
Last edited by Mastametz on Sat Feb 02, 2013 5:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
There's a new sheriff in town.
aptest
Posts: 133
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:47 am

Post by aptest »

Sheriff Metz wrote:QUOTE (Sheriff Metz @ Feb 2 2013, 01:05 PM) ...Exp is always fast-paced gameplay...
This game (especially non-exp) is just too slow for most people's attention span to be interested in, or to even stay interested in.
I think this is hitting the nail on the head. fast paced game play = fun for most players.
Post Reply