"Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races [Archive]

geoschmo

December 20th, 2002, 03:53 PM

Rock/None is no advantage. It is not gamey. It is not cheating by any definition. It has advantages and disadvantages over other choices. It depends on your play style. Do you like lot's of little planets spread around, or a few huge ones? Are you a player that prefers a more centralized or a more diffuse empire?

When I lose a game, which I do quite often, rather than look for some reason why the other guy was cheating to explain my loss I try to learn from his tactic and devise a counter to it.

Since I have been on this forum the following have tried to claim the "Uber-tactic" crown.

Gas Giant Races
Fighter Races
Berzerker Culture Races
Phased Polaron Races
Religios Races

I have played a lot of games. I have lost to players using all these tactics, and I have won games agaisnt players usign all these tactics.

Three words.

Rock, Paper, Sizzors.

Geoschmo

spoon

December 20th, 2002, 07:42 PM

Whereas I agree that there is no Ultimate Unbeatable Race Style, you have to admit that a warrior/bezerker religious race weilding PPBs (midgame) and APBs (late game) is more likely to win than an Artist/Gas Giant race that refuses to use those weapons...

I'm not saying the poor Artisans have no chance, but if you had to bet, I'd put my money on the bloodthirsty religious zealots.

Fortunately, teaming up with all your neighbors to defeat a power-hungry despot remains as the ultimate balancing factor...

-spoon

SamuraiProgrammer

December 20th, 2002, 07:52 PM

One tactic I have seen used / abused works like this:

Choose Ancient Race.

Claim the entire Galaxy.

Trade your claim of empty systems that you will never use because they are far, far away to naive computer races for home planets.

Watch your score climb like a rocket.

Make trade-savvy races surrender because your score is so much higher than theirs.

Enjoy unbeatable advantage over other human players.

This tactic is so unbalancing, we have actually outlawed ancient races and surrender in some of our games.

This is only a problem because the computer players were willing to make these ridiculous trades. Oh well, you can't have everything.

gravey101

December 20th, 2002, 08:30 PM

I don't think I've ever played in a PBW game with computer players.

I did see a player once take advantage of a another guy who missed a turn by geting the AI to trade him some his planets and grab his population. It was 'clever', but not the way the game should be played IMO, and I haven't played with the guy since.

I agree with Geo that none of these things are unbeatable. Especially planet/atmosphere combos. Talisman can be real tough, but they tend to attract anti-religious coalitions pretty quick. Having a good starting position always seems more important to me. I.e. room to expand, some good planets, a weak neighbour with different colonization/atmosphere breathers.

PvK

December 20th, 2002, 09:09 PM

Originally posted by spoon:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by PvK:

However, building multiple training facilities in the same sector does seem to me like an obvious bug exploit.
PvKReally? The facility text says, "only one effective per planet." If it was a bug exploit, I would think that text would read, "Only one facility effective per sector."

Definitely "gamey", though...<hr /></blockquote>I think it's so obviously senseless, that it counts as a bug. There is no reasonable explanation why moons should multiply the training rate. At best, it's an "idiotic design exploit", but I think it's actually kinder to call it a bug. I guess it's a good thing to discuss in the game introduction so players know whether it's not allowed, or if they should go hunting for moons... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

As for the talisman, it's a massive advantage, only balanced if the other players in the game realize it and organize to prevent it from ruling the quadrant before it's too late.

I would agree that the cultures and traits are not all well balanced in terms of cost, although this can be corrected in a mod (e.g., Proportions). Has no one made a mod that corrects this balance problem for the standard set?

PvK

Arkcon

December 20th, 2002, 10:06 PM

Originally posted by PvK:
There is no reasonable explanation why moons should multiply the training rate. PvKTo avoid arguments, I don’t do this anymore. However, I do see it as plausible from a role-play point of view. Either it's non-stop intensive training, or the crew is split up into Groups so they all get a crack at the training. The end result is more rapid training -- not better training.

Training facilities is a technology a militaristic race would love. If Klingon's actually existed, I'm sure there'd be training facilities on every moon. Non-stop training, yeah.

[Insert you favorite Kligonese statement here]

Puke

December 20th, 2002, 10:46 PM

gee, i always wondered what trading systems was for, or what it did.

planet types dont unbalance a thing. i used to have a huge advantage playing gas, because no one else did. then everyone started taking it. now its more of an even mesh, and i usually pick a planet type at random.

geoschmo

December 20th, 2002, 10:50 PM

The multiple training facility thing is an exploit yes, but it's not a tremendous advantage. I am not positive that on balance it's much of an advantage at all. The player doing it has to waste extra facility spots, and the only benefit is faster training. It only take 7 turns as it is to fully train a ship or fleet, for the cost of two extra facility spots (6 extra if you want ship and fleet training facs) you get your crews trained in 3 turns. But the max training is still 20%. That 4 turns isn't going to turn the course of a game.

Do I wish the game would not allow it? Sure. It's kind of hinky, and the game isn't clear on what the rule should be. Any time you have stuff like this it can cause problems between players and I hate that. It's like the mines per sector thing was. Is it a major concern that would cause me to go hunting a players moons? Not a bit.

It's just not that big a deal.

Geoschmo

geoschmo

December 20th, 2002, 10:56 PM

Originally posted by PvK:
As for the talisman, it's a massive advantage, only balanced if the other players in the game realize it and organize to prevent it from ruling the quadrant before it's too late.
Balderdash. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif If the tailsman were such a tremendous advantage, how come out of 6 original tailsman races in Furball 3, only 1 is still a viable empire and he is in trouble? And that was a ten planet high tech start. If ever a game was tailor made for the supremacy of the tailsman this was it. And they have performed dismally. No offense intended to the players that chose it. Just calling it as I see it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Come up with all your reasons and explanations, but in practice they just don't hold up.

Geoschmo

spoon

December 20th, 2002, 11:11 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
The multiple training facility thing is an exploit yes, but it's not a tremendous advantage. I am not positive that on balance it's much of an advantage at all. This from the person who claims PPBs are balanced. Out with it, Geo, you're really Aaron, aren't you.

rextorres

December 20th, 2002, 11:21 PM

Actually I think Religious has become a disadvantage because every game I've played in the Last six month has had the religious player suffer a coalition against him.

LostCommander

December 21st, 2002, 12:03 AM

I agree with the "almost a disadvantage" PoV. The games I play are always with "Can only colonize atmosphere type." option in the game setup (which obviously affects my PoV). This means that there are NO gas giants I can colonize (yes, I am still trying to eek out a living amongst the moons) and production can be seriously hampered (the population production / construction bonuses are NICE) unless I am lucky with the map. Great use of units and the proliferation of SS construction yards in my empire nicely balances it though. If one does not mind utilizing units extensively, the extra moons (which often outnumber the possible gas giants with a breathable atmosphere for other races) are perfect. Also, with one or two trustworthy allies, moons can make great supplemental defences for an ally's planet.

geoschmo

December 21st, 2002, 12:13 AM

Originally posted by spoon:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by geoschmo:
The multiple training facility thing is an exploit yes, but it's not a tremendous advantage. I am not positive that on balance it's much of an advantage at all. This from the person who claims PPBs are balanced. Out with it, Geo, you're really Aaron, aren't you.<hr /></blockquote>No, I am not Aaron. I just play a lot of games on PBW so I don't jump on the bandwagon every time someone claims to find the super secret formula for SEIV success. I have learned they all have their weaknesses. To me actual proof is worth a lot more than any theory or scads of charts and formula. If PPB, tailsman, or multiple training facilities were the nirvana they all were claimed by various people, then everybody would be doing them, or at least everybody that won games would be doing them. And I can tell you from experience everybody doesn't do them, and those that do them don't always win.

I never said PPB are perfectly balanced. I think they might be a little cheap to research, and at level 3 they are a bit strong IIRC. But overall they aren't the uber waepon that people claim them to be. They are simply too short ranged and too expensive to be the ultimate weapon. Those are huge weaknesses that are easily countered.

Geoschmo

[ December 20, 2002, 22:17: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Pax

December 21st, 2002, 01:09 AM

Originally posted by PvK:
However, building multiple training facilities in the same sector does seem to me like an obvious bug exploit.

PvKWhy?

LGM

December 21st, 2002, 02:49 AM

I would say the None races, with Rock/None being generally better the Ice/None, have little advantage over other races, unless you play the players can only colonize their own atmosphere type (None). In this case, they have more potential sites for building shipyards than any other races (other races will need more orbital shipyards). However, the None player will have very few worlds that can utilize planet bonuses, because what good is +20% bonus if you have to give up one of your 5 facilities to get it. None worlds are smaller and thus easier to take out (fewer weapons platforms possible).

[ December 20, 2002, 12:50: Message edited by: LGM ]

1FSTCAT

December 21st, 2002, 07:48 AM

Well, to get back to the original topic...

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I guess I was in a bad mood Last night. I also hadn't considered how a Rock/None race would deal with getting the Gas/None and Ice/None techs. I can see where that's their counter-balance, now. They give a good start, but beyond that...

Thanks for the perspectives, guys. I see it in a totally different light, now.

--Ed

capnq

December 21st, 2002, 10:41 PM

Religious isn't nearly as big an advantage when more than one player takes it, either. In one of my PBW games, we've got 3 Religious races and 1 Ancient race, out of 5 players. I remember another PBW game where the first three empires I met lived on Gas Giants.

Things go in and out of fashion, as opponents find countermeasures, and people get tired of playing the same race every game.

PvK

December 21st, 2002, 10:54 PM

Originally posted by Arkcon:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by PvK:
There is no reasonable explanation why moons should multiply the training rate. PvKTo avoid arguments, I don’t do this anymore. However, I do see it as plausible from a role-play point of view. Either it's non-stop intensive training, or the crew is split up into Groups so they all get a crack at the training. The end result is more rapid training -- not better training.

Training facilities is a technology a militaristic race would love. If Klingon's actually existed, I'm sure there'd be training facilities on every moon. Non-stop training, yeah.

[Insert you favorite Kligonese statement here]<hr /></blockquote>Well, except that there is no reason why having a moon would help training at all. Being able to build more training facilities in one spot is one thing, but that's not allowed... unless you have a moon. Makes zero sense. Also, since moons are also (unrealistically) rare, it also nonsensically limits the systems where this nonsensical technique can be done. It also can't be done until the race has enough colonization tech to colonize both the planet and the moon in a particular sector. None of that has any sensible explanation. I don't object to the idea that you could build more extensive training facilities in one place and get better training, but the restrictions on where this can or can't be done make zero sense, and also introduce a silly reason for trying to get a moon (or better, two moons) and its planet colonized together. It just doesn't make any sense.

PvK

PvK

December 21st, 2002, 11:01 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by PvK:
As for the talisman, it's a massive advantage, only balanced if the other players in the game realize it and organize to prevent it from ruling the quadrant before it's too late.
Balderdash. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif If the tailsman were such a tremendous advantage, how come out of 6 original tailsman races in Furball 3, only 1 is still a viable empire and he is in trouble? And that was a ten planet high tech start. If ever a game was tailor made for the supremacy of the tailsman this was it. And they have performed dismally. No offense intended to the players that chose it. Just calling it as I see it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Come up with all your reasons and explanations, but in practice they just don't hold up.

Geoschmo<hr /></blockquote>Probably because the players didn't manage to develop it or exploit it. As I think I said, it's only a huge advantage once it gets to that point. But at that point, it is a huge advantage. Especially in an unmodded game in the late-tech stage, where most people have access to the same things, and hitting at long range is fairly difficult, except for talisman players, who hit all the time. The players have to be skilled enough to realize how to take advantage of it well, which isn't all that hard, and they do have to surivive to that point. But once there, it's a massive advantage. Not always insurmountable. The real counter, as I and others have written before, is coalitions against them. Diplomacy is often the most powerful part of the game, perhaps second to skill vs. newbie-ism.

PvK

geoschmo

December 21st, 2002, 11:15 PM

You are correct Pvk, but you are proving my point. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif It's the skill of the player that makes the difference, not the uber weapon or tactic. I don't agree it's unbalenced. I used to, but after some success against it recently I am no longer convinced.

I am not saying it's not a nice thing to be able to hit every time, of course it is. I am simply saying it's not the ultimate weapon. If it were then a less skilled player could use it and be victorious.

As far as Furball 3 is concerned though, it was a high tech start and six of the twelve races were religious races. Those two factors should have compensated for the two biggest weaknesses of the tailsman. It's cost to research and the tendancy for players to gang up on religious races. But despite this the Religious races are all but dead.

In the DimX2 game I faced an opponent who was highly skilled and used the Tailsman to it's utmost potential. For a short time he was effectivly holding off a four empire coalition. But I believe Mark to be a highly skilled player and believe he would have done very well in the game even if he had chosen another racial trait.

Geoschmo

[ December 21, 2002, 21:18: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Fyron

December 21st, 2002, 11:22 PM

I don't like the Talisman because I don't think anything should be 100% guaranteed. If it had isntead something like a +50% to hit bonus (stacks with Combat Sensors), it would be much better for gameplay.

spoon

December 21st, 2002, 11:31 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
To me actual proof is worth a lot more than any theory or scads of charts and formula. If PPB, tailsman, or multiple training facilities were the nirvana they all were claimed by various people, then everybody would be doing them, or at least everybody that won games would be doing them. And I can tell you from experience everybody doesn't do them, and those that do them don't always win.Charts and formulae are the proof. Actual gameplay results are anecdotal, at best. I agree with you that there is no Guaranteed 100% Formula for Success in SE4. However, there do exist things that can give you an edge. It's like blackjack - counting cards can give you the long-term edge to beat the house, but you are still going to lose some hands and some money in the short-term.

- Having three ship-training facilities on a sector is better than having only one.
- Using PPBs in the midgame is better than using anything else.
Having 125% defense + bezerker will make you unbeatable against people unaware of how combat works.
- Having 110% Maint Reduction is a huge advantage over people who don't realize how broken Maint Reduction is.

-spoon

Thei R'vek

December 21st, 2002, 11:46 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
I don't like the Talisman because I don't think anything should be 100% guaranteed. If it had isntead something like a +50% to hit bonus (stacks with Combat Sensors), it would be much better for gameplay.So now you're going to accuse Aaron of "coded god-moding"? The component works fine as it is, it provides an EXCELLENT balance against players who use YOUR strategies(Berzerker+Aggressiveness+Defensiveness) . Perhaps you complain because the Talisman takes away the combat advantage you get from your standard empire setup?

Originally posted by spoon:

- Having three ship-training facilities on a sector is better than having only one.Definitely, gaining all the way up to 20% experience in only 3 turns instead of 7 is a major advantage. However, the experience bonuses are not a MAJOR advantage per se because there are other options which give an advantage roughly analgous to that of having 20% experience bonus

- Using PPBs in the midgame is better than using anything else.

I would say that PPBs are probably the best all-around weapon in SE4. They can target anything but seekers, do major damage compared to other direct fire weapons with the same fire rate, and they are fairly inexpensive when compared to other, more powerful, weapons.

- Having 125% defense + bezerker will make you unbeatable against people unaware of how combat works.
This is a definite advantage and one that is in many cases used as an exploit to quickly defeat newbies. However, combine this advantage with multiple ship training facilities per sector and the religious talisman and you have ships which are virtually invincible, but skilled players have a way of making cocky arrongant SOBs(*tries to look innocent on both counts*) who use a multiple advantage to try and gain a major edge $h1t themselves in surprise when they pull a suprisingly effective new strategy out of their @$$ and use it to defeat such a multiple advanatge.

[QUOTE][QB] - Having 110% Maint Reduction is a huge advantage over people who don't realize how broken Maint Reduction is.[QUOTE][QB]
I'm not familiar with this one as I have never actually played with Maintenance Reduction as a characteristic. What is the problem with it?

PvK

December 21st, 2002, 11:52 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
You are correct Pvk, but you are proving my point. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif It's the skill of the player that makes the difference, not the uber weapon or tactic. I don't agree it's unbalenced. I used to, but after some success against it recently I am no longer convinced.

I am not saying it's not a nice thing to be able to hit every time, of course it is. I am simply saying it's not the ultimate weapon. If it were then a less skilled player could use it and be victorious.
Well, I agree it's not "the ultimate weapon" - it won't beat everything in all circumstances, especially if you include coalitions and strikes before the things are developed.

However, I do think it's pretty close to the most powerful device. Like Fryon, I also dislike that it's 100% (I prefer what I did in Proportions, which is to make it offer bonuses that slowly get better but also more expensive, and only a massive research effort will get the always-hits ability).

Getting ganged up on is more powerful, though, especially if it happens before the device is developed!

As far as Furball 3 is concerned though, it was a high tech start and six of the twelve races were religious races. Those two factors should have compensated for the two biggest weaknesses of the tailsman. It's cost to research and the tendancy for players to gang up on religious races. But despite this the Religious races are all but dead.
I never said the talisman guaranteed victory. I just said it was extremely powerful.

I imagine in this game they fought each other, and/or were ganged up on, and/or they got smashed before they could deploy the talisman effectively, and/or they didn't use proper taliman tactics or designs.

In the DimX2 game I faced an opponent who was highly skilled and used the Tailsman to it's utmost potential. For a short time he was effectivly holding off a four empire coalition. But I believe Mark to be a highly skilled player and believe he would have done very well in the game even if he had chosen another racial trait.
Sure. It's very possible to be awesome without the talisman, and the talisman doesn't guarantee victory. All I said is it's extremely powerful device. Something worthy of ganging up against, or launching preemptive strikes against.

PvK

Puke

December 21st, 2002, 11:57 PM

this is just sillyness. everything can be countered by something else, there is no fixed way to win. there are some things that are not so usefull, but there are no things that are always best to use.

Originally posted by spoon:
- Having three ship-training facilities on a sector is better than having only one.in general yes, but not when you need the facility space for something else, or when you already have a significant advantage without training. this is the only item that i will come close to conceding.

Originally posted by spoon:
- Using PPBs in the midgame is better than using anything else.unless someone has APBs in the midgame, or unless someone has phased shields in the midgame, or unless on person was slowed down researching mines when the other was not, or unless null space weapons are used to effect, or unless missile swarms catch someone without PD off guard. the "PPBs are the best" statement is old, tired, and just plain silly.

Originally posted by spoon:
Having 125% defense + bezerker will make you unbeatable against people unaware of how combat works.ANYTHING is unbeatable against people unaware of how combat works. high defensive bonuses can be countered with the talisman, training, weapons with to hit bonuses, seekers, ramming (okay, maybe ramming isnt so good), or any number of other things.

Originally posted by spoon:
- Having 110% Maint Reduction is a huge advantage over people who don't realize how broken Maint Reduction is.god, its so broken. it gives you an advantage in huge games, is worthless in small games, and is somewhat valueable to drop some points on in midsized games. I HATE those attributes that are worth spending points on, i wish spending points on maintenance reduction either did the same thing in any sized quadrant (or limited ship number, or short/long fixed-length game) or just didnt give you any benefit at all! DARN.

i appologize for my inflamitory remarks. i am a very small person. please moderate me down.

geoschmo

December 22nd, 2002, 12:01 AM

Originally posted by spoon:
Charts and formulae are the proof. Actual gameplay results are anecdotal, at best.Uh, spoon. The gameplay results are the reason for playing! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif It's what makes this a game, and not just a spreadsheet or a ship design program. It's the only thing that can keep someone interested in this game for going on two years now.

You plan and strategize and think you have it all worked out and then still get beat anyway, and badly. Or you think you don't have a chance and something happens in the game and you end up on top. It makes me want to play that much more and figure out why it didn't happen the way I expected.

If this is what you really believe, I feel sorry for you. Because you are missing the beauty and the challange of the game.

It's not about the end. It's not about finding the best course form point A to point B, or the most efficent ways of killing the other guy. It's finding out what you are made of, and what your opponent is made of.

I don't disagree with you about your list of things that are smart choices. But they aren't the only choices. There are so many variables in this game that no one strategy can win every time, you said it yourself. And even a very good strategy is only as good as the paper it's printed on.

What separates the losers from the winners in this game is not the ones that design the best startegies. It's the ones that counter their opponents strategies the best. And that's not something you can plan. Unless you are playing against someone that plays the same way everytime. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Now, on to the specifics:

- Having three ship-training facilities on a sector is better than having only one.
Well, duh! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif But is it better than what you could have used those extra facility spots for? Depends on the spefic game, but I can think of several cases where it wouldn't be.

- Using PPBs in the midgame is better than using anything else.
Slightly maybe. You might be able to design an PPB ship that would defeat an equal size and tech cost ship in one on one combat. But what would it prove in a real game? Not much. Very few combats are one on one involving empires with exactly equal levels of technical development.

Having 125% defense + bezerker will make you unbeatable against people unaware of how combat works.
If you are playing against someone that doesn't understand how combat works, you are already unbeatable, combat bonuses or no. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

- Having 110% Maint Reduction is a huge advantage over people who don't realize how broken Maint Reduction is.
See previous answer.

Geoschmo

EDIT: Dang it puke. You stole all my answers. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ December 21, 2002, 22:04: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Fyron

December 22nd, 2002, 12:04 AM

So now you're going to accuse Aaron of "coded god-moding"? The component works fine as it is, it provides an EXCELLENT balance against players who use YOUR strategies(Berzerker+Aggressiveness+Defensiveness) . Perhaps you complain because the Talisman takes away the combat advantage you get from your standard empire setup?It is not god-moding because it isn't insurmountable. I also do not like the abiltity to cheaply max out both aggressiveness and defensiveness. They should cost a lot more. That would create much more varied empire designs, and would be better than the current situation where 125% agg and def + berzerker is a must (unless you have talisman, then you only need that for defense).

Definitely, gaining all the way up to 20% experience in only 3 turns instead of 7 is a major advantage. However, the experience bonuses are not a MAJOR advantage per se because there are other options which give an advantage roughly analgous to that of having 20% experience bonusOh yes they are. A lack of training will get your ships slaughtered by weaker forces. And it is not a 20% advantage, it is a 40% advantage (ship + fleet training). No one says you have to train the ships and the fleet at the same place.

I would say that PPBs are probably the best all-around weapon in SE4. They can target anything but seekers, do major damage compared to other direct fire weapons with the same fire rate, and they are fairly inexpensive when compared to other, more powerful, weapons.They are until you get APB XII + Shield Depleters. APBs are much stonger, because they get a range of 8 isntead of 6 (and do more damage at all ranges (except range 6, IIRC)).

This is a definite advantage and one that is in many cases used as an exploit to quickly defeat newbies. However, combine this advantage with multiple ship training facilities per sector and the religious talisman and you have ships which are virtually invincible, but skilled players have a way of making cocky arrongant SOBs(*tries to look innocent on both counts*) who use a multiple advantage to try and gain a major edge $h1t themselves in surprise when they pull a suprisingly effective new strategy out of their @$$ and use it to defeat such a multiple advanatge.It isn't an "advantage", it is a necessity. And what sort of surprisingly effective new strategy would that be? Combine the training, racial bonuses, etc. with skilled expansion techniques, and how are you going to defeat that by not using similar tactics? Sure, you can go with 120 traits to save 1000 points, and not see a noticable difference. But that really isnt a surprising new tactic.

I'm not familiar with this one as I have never actually played with Maintenance Reduction as a characteristic. What is the problem with it?It would be better if a 10% reduction actually reduced the maintenance paid by 10%, not the % of ships cost to pay as maintenance. Currently, 110 makes you pay 15% maintenance instead of 25% maintenance. A better system would be where 110 makes you pay 22.5% instead (which would actually be a 10% reduction in maintenance costs). Multiplication instead of addition (or subtraction)

PvK

December 22nd, 2002, 12:06 AM

Originally posted by Thei R'vek:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by spoon:

- Having three ship-training facilities on a sector is better than having only one.Definitely, gaining all the way up to 20% experience in only 3 turns instead of 7 is a major advantage. However, the experience bonuses are not a MAJOR advantage per se because there are other options which give an advantage roughly analgous to that of having 20% experience bonus
<hr /></blockquote>Well, my objections to the moon training are mainly that 1) It makes no sense, and 2) it prevents me from modding an absolute limit of 1% per turn maximum rate, which I want for Proportions mod.

As for other options giving an analagous advantage to training, that's not valid in the standard set, particularly with faster than High research costs, because it doesn't take long to research to the max, and since the advantages stack additively, any 20% stacking advantage that your opponent doesn't get (and you can get another 20% with fleet training) is a MAJOR advantage, which can turn the tide of battles, and which in this case costs no maintenance or design space.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
- Using PPBs in the midgame is better than using anything else.

I would say that PPBs are probably the best all-around weapon in SE4. They can target anything but seekers, do major damage compared to other direct fire weapons with the same fire rate, and they are fairly inexpensive when compared to other, more powerful, weapons.
<hr /></blockquote>I agree PPBs are somewhat too cheap, too easy to research, and too potent. However, I don't think they're necessarily the best. For one thing, many players never deploy unphased shields, leaving PPB Users with overly expensive weapons limited to range 6. Unless your opponents are using a lot of unphased shields, APB or MBs are generally more efficient, for example.

PvK

geoschmo

December 22nd, 2002, 12:15 AM

Originally posted by PvK:
Well, my objections to the moon training are mainly that 1) It makes no sense, and 2) it prevents me from modding an absolute limit of 1% per turn maximum rate, which I want for Proportions mod.I understand your objections, and don't disagree it's gamey and should be fixed. I wouldn't even try to make the point that 20% training isn't tremendous, almost a requirement at some points in the game. The only point I was trying to make was simply that the 4 turns you save getting to the 20% isn't all that critical in most circumstances.

As far as your desire to mod that 1% maximum, why not eliminate the sector training facilities and allow all races access to the system training facility the psychic races have in the stock game. IMHO it makes more sense for training to be system wide anyway, and you can limit those to one per system effective.

Geoschmo

Puke

December 22nd, 2002, 12:15 AM

okay, i admit, the moon training thing is really annoying. not so much in the standard game, but more so in games with more moons. like FQM games. when you have 5 or 7 moons in one sector, you can train ships to full in a single turn. THAT could be abusive. I would indeed like a per-sector limit on training. or even an optional per sector limit, in the form of another ability, or a variable, or somesuch.

PvK

December 22nd, 2002, 12:24 AM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by PvK:
Well, my objections to the moon training are mainly that 1) It makes no sense, and 2) it prevents me from modding an absolute limit of 1% per turn maximum rate, which I want for Proportions mod.I understand your objections, and don't disagree it's gamey and should be fixed. I wouldn't even try to make the point that 20% training isn't tremendous, almost a requirement at some points in the game. The only point I was trying to make was simply that the 4 turns you save getting to the 20% isn't all that critical in most circumstances.
<hr /></blockquote>I agree. It's not a big balance problem. It's mainly annoying. It is a valuable thing to do if it's allowed, it tends to reduce the interesting need to spend time and maintenance resources training a fleet, and it doesn't make any sense and smacks of munchkinism. So, I'm simply saying I'd be well pleased to see it fixed, and I'd usually prefer to have a house rule in games I play to not do it. That's all. No big deal. I'm only posting repeatedly because some people said they didn't understand why it made no sense, etc.

As far as your desire to mod that 1% maximum, why not eliminate the sector training facilities and allow all races access to the system training facility the psychic races have in the stock game. IMHO it makes more sense for training to be system wide anyway, and you can limit those to one per system effective.Good idea, although I kind of like the difference, and the need to sit in a particular sector while training, mainly because it's an interesting tradeoff during play (to move to a more tactical position, or two train up). So I think I'll just mention that I recommend players not use the exploit (if they're playing Proportions, presumably they are wanting more realism, and will be happy to comply), and hope it eventually gets patched out.

PvK

Thei R'vek

December 22nd, 2002, 12:49 AM

Originally posted by Puke:
okay, i admit, the moon training thing is really annoying. not so much in the standard game, but more so in games with more moons. like FQM games. when you have 5 or 7 moons in one sector, you can train ships to full in a single turn. THAT could be abusive. I would indeed like a per-sector limit on training. or even an optional per sector limit, in the form of another ability, or a variable, or somesuch.I think I may do something about this in the USEF MOD. Make the training facilities one-per-sector effective and the psychic one-per-system effective and then making the psychic ones more expensive as all the racial techs have been moved into the standard tech tree in the USEF MOD.

spoon

December 22nd, 2002, 01:49 AM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Uh, spoon. The gameplay results are the reason for playing! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif It's what makes this a game, and not just a spreadsheet or a ship design program. It's the only thing that can keep someone interested in this game for going on two years now.Agreed! But here we are in the Forum -- not playing the game, but discussing the game. When discussing the game, having statisitcs is better than having gameplay results, I'd argue.

If this is what you really believe, I feel sorry for you. Because you are missing the beauty and the challange of the game.
I have to like the game for the same reasons you do? That's a peculiar stance... Before you tell me more, I'll admit that I do in fact enjoy the game for the same reasons you list. However, I don't let my enjoyment of the game cloud my analysis of the game.

I don't disagree with you about your list of things that are smart choices. But they aren't the only choices. There are so many variables in this game that no one strategy can win every time, you said it yourself. And even a very good strategy is only as good as the paper it's printed on.
You were asserting that these sort of things didn't matter because they could be countered. I was claiming that they gave you an edge that could be difficult to overcome.

What separates the losers from the winners in this game is not the ones that design the best startegies. It's the ones that counter their opponents strategies the best.
True. However, having a strong race design is still significant, and a poor race design can all but guarantee failure.

- Having three ship-training facilities on a sector is better than having only one.
Well, duh! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif But is it better than what you could have used those extra facility spots for? Depends on the spefic game, but I can think of several cases where it wouldn't be.
hehe, yeah, obviously you don't want to squander facility spots on training in backwater regions of your empire. I meant on strategically important sectors, where having a triple spaceyard/fleet training/ship training configuration can be pretty important.

- Using PPBs in the midgame is better than using anything else.
Slightly maybe. You might be able to design an PPB ship that would defeat an equal size and tech cost ship in one on one combat. But what would it prove in a real game? Not much. Very few combats are one on one involving empires with exactly equal levels of technical development.
Not sure what your point is here. I say PPBs are better than any other mid-game weapon. You agree(sorta), but say there are other factors. Of course there are other factors. I never tried to claim otherwise.

Having 125% defense + bezerker will make you unbeatable against people unaware of how combat works.
If you are playing against someone that doesn't understand how combat works, you are already unbeatable, combat bonuses or no. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

- Having 110% Maint Reduction is a huge advantage over people who don't realize how broken Maint Reduction is.
See previous answer.
Hehe. True, true. Thing is, there are a LOT of players that don't realize this... and that it can be discouraging to play a game for six months only to lose because you didn't realize the significance of race design options. I'd rather these sort of tactics be downplayed, and that a newish player can learn from his mistakes in time to make a difference in his current game(s).

-spoom

Fyron

December 22nd, 2002, 01:55 AM

Hehe. True, true. Thing is, there are a LOT of players that don't realize this... and that it can be discouraging to play a game for six months only to lose because you didn't realize the significance of race design options. I'd rather these sort of tactics be downplayed, and that a newish player can learn from his mistakes in time to make a difference in his current game(s).That all depends on who you play against. I've won some PBW games with really crappy empire designs. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

geoschmo

December 22nd, 2002, 04:29 AM

Originally posted by spoon:
Agreed! But here we are in the Forum -- not playing the game, but discussing the game. When discussing the game, having statisitcs is better than having gameplay results, I'd argue.
There's logic in this. However I would contend that there are simply too many variables in this game to do a strict apples to apples comparison between techs. To do this what standard do you use? Damage to tonnage ratio? Or damage to cost? Or maybe damage to research cost? PPB doesn't come out on top with all three I know that. And there are other factors to consider. How far apart are your empires at game start? What is the political situation with the other empires? All of this has great impact and cannot be adequatly planned for in every instance, and does not fit easily into raw spreadsheet analysis.

I have to like the game for the same reasons you do? That's a peculiar stance...
Not what I am saying at all. One of the greatest things about this game is that it has so many different things to offer. My point was only that a person that approaches the game from a strict cost/benefit/efficency analysis perspective is not likely to enjoy it for as long. Not that they wouldn't enjoy it just as much while they do.

You were asserting that these sort of things didn't matter because they could be countered. I was claiming that they gave you an edge that could be difficult to overcome.
On the contrary. If I ever asserted these things didn't matter, I didn't intend to. Of course they matter very much. But they aren't the only thing that matters. I am simply saying that there is no formula for success in SEIV that you do A then B then C and you will win. If there was then the AI could kick all our butts all the time. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif You appear to agree with me on that point. Not everybody does. Not everything I have said in these Posts is intended directly for you.

True. However, having a strong race design is still significant, and a poor race design can all but guarantee failure.
Can't argue with that. Good planning is crucial to victory. It's hard to overcome poor planning. But my contention is there are other plans that could be equally as effective as yours. A lot depends on a persons style of play. You need a plan that meshes well with your personality.

I'd rather these sort of tactics be downplayed, and that a newish player can learn from his mistakes in time to make a difference in his current game(s).
Nah, let 'em learn the hard way. The way we all did. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

EDIT: By the way, why not put these theories to the test Spoon and join the King of the Hill league. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Geoschmo

[ December 22, 2002, 02:32: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Skulky

December 22nd, 2002, 05:00 AM

why don't the ppl thinking that there is a solution, or several indispensible traits, go for those, and then several others take the opposite and play a game, then we will see

spoon

December 22nd, 2002, 06:00 AM

Originally posted by Skulky:
why don't the ppl thinking that there is a solution, or several indispensible traits, go for those, and then several others take the opposite and play a game, then we will seeOk, I'll take:
research 120
construction 120
defense 120
offense 120
minerals 120
maint reduction 110
Advanced Storage
Hardy Industrialist
Ancient Race

You get 80's in all those, and let's have at it!

geoschmo

December 22nd, 2002, 06:05 AM

Originally posted by spoon:
Ok, I'll take:
research 120
construction 120
defense 120
offense 120
minerals 120
maint reduction 110
Advanced Storage
Hardy Industrialist
Ancient Race

You get 80's in all those, and let's have at it!Laf, so basically Spoon your point is that setup a game with you good at everything and the other guy bad at everything and you will win?

You were right, there is a way to guarantee victory in SEIV! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Geoschmo

spoon

December 22nd, 2002, 06:53 AM

(oops messed up the quotes, sorry about that...)

Originally posted by Puke:
this is just sillyness. everything can be countered by something else, there is no fixed way to win. there are some things that are not so usefull, but there are no things that are always best to use.
Well, that is the point I'm trying to make. There are "gamey" things you can do to give you an edge. I guess I have to repeat this in every post, but I never claimed that there was a way to guarantee a win. That's silly.

Originally posted by spoon:
- Using PPBs in the midgame is better than using anything else.unless someone has APBs in the midgame, or unless someone has phased shields in the midgame, or unless on person was slowed down researching mines when the other was not, or unless null space weapons are used to effect, or unless missile swarms catch someone without PD off guard. the "PPBs are the best" statement is old, tired, and just plain silly.
[/qb][/QUOTE]
If you have either APBs or Phased shields in the mid-game, you have pretty much used ALL of your research to get there. Those two components don't usually appear until the late game. Null Space weapons are less effective midgame, since Light Cruisers are the dominant ship, and don't have enough room for significant armor and shields (the latter being skipped by PPBs anyway). And using PPBs doesn't preclude using your own missile swarms as a surprise maneuvre.
PPBs are the best, but not overwhelmingly so. Other weapon choices will still work, but just not as well.

Originally posted by spoon:
Having 125% defense + bezerker will make you unbeatable against people unaware of how combat works.ANYTHING is unbeatable against people unaware of how combat works. high defensive bonuses can be countered with the talisman, training, weapons with to hit bonuses, seekers, ramming (okay, maybe ramming isnt so good), or any number of other things.
[/qb][/QUOTE]

Bezerkers aren't prevented from researching those things either. In the end, unless you purchased some Aggressiveness, you will be at -65% to hit (or whatever the amount is). PDCs defeat seekers and fighters, which are your next best option, and ramming, well, good luck!

Originally posted by spoon:
- Having 110% Maint Reduction is a huge advantage over people who don't realize how broken Maint Reduction is.god, its so broken. it gives you an advantage in huge games, is worthless in small games, and is somewhat valueable to drop some points on in midsized games. I HATE those attributes that are worth spending points on, i wish spending points on maintenance reduction either did the same thing in any sized quadrant (or limited ship number, or short/long fixed-length game) or just didnt give you any benefit at all! DARN.

i appologize for my inflamitory remarks. i am a very small person. please moderate me down.[/QB][/QUOTE]

hehe. I disagree with your conclusion that Maint Reduction is worthless in small games and only ok in medium games. It lets me support 5 ships to your 3. Unless I take Merchant. Then I get 5 ships to every 2 of yours. Tough to overcome those odds.

I think a game with balanced choices is better than a game with lopsided choices.

-spoon

[ December 22, 2002, 04:56: Message edited by: spoon ]

SamuraiProgrammer

December 22nd, 2002, 09:32 AM

OK... I'll bite

How is maintenance reduction broken. I have tried searching for threads on the subject and have not found anything interesting.

I found some other interesting things though....

Fyron

December 22nd, 2002, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />I'm not familiar with this one as I have never actually played with Maintenance Reduction as a characteristic. What is the problem with it?It would be better if a 10% reduction actually reduced the maintenance paid by 10%, not the % of ships cost to pay as maintenance. Currently, 110 makes you pay 15% maintenance instead of 25% maintenance. A better system would be where 110 makes you pay 22.5% instead (which would actually be a 10% reduction in maintenance costs). Multiplication instead of addition (or subtraction)<hr /></blockquote>I posted this earlier today.

Hmm... I don't think I have ever quoted myself before...

[ December 22, 2002, 07:38: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

SamuraiProgrammer

December 22nd, 2002, 09:57 AM

Thanks Imperator,

I knew that the calculations were non intuitive. I agree that it would make more sense to talk about the numbers the way you suggest.

I am also aware (unless I am wrong) that there is a hardcoded 5% minimum value.

When someone said 'broke', I thought that there was something wrong in how the effects were applied by the program.

It seems to me that the complaint is more one of balance (i.e. cost of changing the trait) rather than execution (i.e. the function does not work as intended).

In that light, I understand your comments about how it behaves differently based on the size of the map. However, it seems to me that most of the racial traits and ability adjustments are more or less cost effective in light of the rules package in place. For example, spending points to improve research ability is useless if you are playing with max tech.

One of the biggest 'wake up calls' I have gotten while learning to play this game was finding out how you could go in tampering with the abilities. For example, running cunning (ability to run intelligence missions) down very very far when you are not allowing intelligence.

Fyron

December 22nd, 2002, 09:59 AM

Puke spoke about the map size, not me.

PvK

December 22nd, 2002, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by spoon:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Skulky:
why don't the ppl thinking that there is a solution, or several indispensible traits, go for those, and then several others take the opposite and play a game, then we will seeOk, I'll take:
research 120
construction 120
defense 120
offense 120
minerals 120
maint reduction 110
Advanced Storage
Hardy Industrialist
Ancient Race

You get 80's in all those, and let's have at it!<hr /></blockquote>This is a good point. I'd say fine, if we use Proportions mod, where I balanced the point costs. The listed advantages in Proportions cost 12000 racial selection points. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

This can actually (barely) be acquired in a 5000 point start, for instance with the following disadvantages:

Slow Builders
Cursed
Supply Guzzlers
Physical Strength 50
Repair Aptitude 50
Cunning 60
Environmental Resistance 60
Political Savvy 60
Farming 56
Refining 60
Reproduction 91
Happiness 60

That is, almost completely maxed down in everything else. In Proportions, you'd be hurtin'! Probably your population would riot pretty quickly, and then maybe your homeworld would split in half. That might make it hard to win.

My guess is that other 5000-point choices would tend to find they had reasonable compensating advantages. For one thing, the 10% maintenance reduction is only going to actually get you 10%, not 40%. Buying up to 40% in Proportions would cost an additional 1570 points, which can't be paid off - with everything at minimum (three at 25%), there would still be a 254 point deficit.

Which is a long way of saying (again) that yeah, the point costs in the unmodded set aren't very well balanced in many ways. They can be modded for balance, though.

PvK

(edited typo)

[ December 22, 2002, 11:23: Message edited by: PvK ]

geoschmo

December 22nd, 2002, 03:51 PM

Originally posted by spoon:
Well, that is the point I'm trying to make. There are "gamey" things you can do to give you an edge. I guess I have to repeat this in every post, but I never claimed that there was a way to guarantee a win. That's silly.Spoon, I think that your position in total is fairly reasonable. You don't appear to believe that there is one "Uber weapon" or that there is "One way" to win at SEIV. Although others in the past have tried to make that claim. Please pardon our zealousness if we felt as if that is what you were saying at the begining.

I still don't accept the idea that these things you speak of are "gamey". They are part of the game. These are choices, either in empire setup or in game tactics. If you choose one you likely are not choosing something else that may help just as much, or nearly so. So it's all about tradeoffs and what makes you the most confortable.

Every game depends heavily on decisions you make before the game, or very early in the game. People don't claim that taking the center square in tic-tac-toe is gamey because it gives the player an advantage do they? Gaining an advantage is what games are all about. SEIV just gives you a lot more ways than the average game to do that. And it gives you ways to overcome disadvantages and poor decisions more than just about any game I have ever played.

There are two dozen things or more that you can do at game startup to get an advantage over an opponent. If you do all of them it will require a lot of racial points, even in the stock game. If you do them though and your opponent doesn't, you will have a big edge. That much is frankly undeniable. I would be an idiot to claim otherwise.

What I reject is the idea that any one of them makes you unbeatable. So you didn't make that claim, many have at one time or another.

Here's how it goes. Someone steps up and says, "PPB are unbalenced uber weapons!". I chime in and say, "Bah, there are no UBER weapons. The skill of the player is what matters most." Then the PPB cultist and I have a long discussion about why someone usign PPBs can or can't be beaten. In the end the person is always saying, "Well if you do this and that and this AND have PPB, you will be unbeatable.", at which point I simply laugh because the player that has the skill to do the "this and that and this" will do well regardless of weapon choice. That's was my point to begin with. They all come around to it in the end, wheether they know it or not. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Geoschmo

spoon

December 22nd, 2002, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by PvK:
This is a good point. I'd say fine, if we use Proportions mod, where I balanced the point costs. The listed advantages in Proportions cost 12000 racial selection points. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
And you are a good man for fixing it. I guess my only complaint towards MM is that they don't do enough in the way of post-release balancing. And that's not much of a complaint, since the game is still so enjoyable without it...

spoon

December 22nd, 2002, 04:31 PM

Spoon, I think that your position in total is fairly reasonable. You don't appear to believe that there is one "Uber weapon" or that there is "One way" to win at SEIV. Although others in the past have tried to make that claim. Please pardon our zealousness if we felt as if that is what you were saying at the begining.

I still don't accept the idea that these things you speak of are "gamey". They are part of the game. These are choices, either in empire setup or in game tactics. If you choose one you likely are not choosing something else that may help just as much, or nearly so. So it's all about tradeoffs and what makes you the most confortable.
Ah, good, then we are just down to semantics. I consider min-maxing a "gamey" thing, and that's what you have to do to get the optimal race set-ups. The characteristics I listed earlier (research, ship combat, mining, construction, maint., Adv Storage, HI, Ancient Race) are so important, that you don't have any points left over (in a standard 2k game) to tweak the lesser traits too much. PvKs solution (balance the costs) leaves you, I think, with a lot more in the way of Choice, since you can no longer simply choose Everything That Matters. In fact, the biggest choices bow seem to be between choosing between Propulsion Experts, Defensiveness, and some Racial Tech. And if to choose Warrior, Bezerker, Engineer, or Merchant. And if to push Construction to 125 somehow, and if to drop Political Savvy to 80% or lower. (see, not denying that there are still hard choices to make - just that I don't think there are enough of 'em)

Also, I don't consider "gamey" to be a bad thing, either. (except maybe for role-playing). Playing with the numbers is great fun, to me.

-spoon

spoon

December 22nd, 2002, 04:36 PM

When someone said 'broke', I thought that there was something wrong in how the effects were applied by the program.
Heh, you must spend too much time hanging around with programmers and other such literalists...
Anyway, by "broken", I meant "does not work the way you think it does" (both undocumented and counterintuitive) and "is also out of whack balance-wise" (shouldn't be able to spend 500 points to get a 66% fleet size advantage)

rextorres

December 22nd, 2002, 05:10 PM

The only truly equitable situation would be for players to have to start with the same set up - sort of like Chess. But what fun is that?

Personally I think any strategy, tactic, or component that beats my playing style should be patched out.

geoschmo

December 22nd, 2002, 05:57 PM

Originally posted by rextorres:
The only truly equitable situation would be for players to have to start with the same set up - sort of like Chess. But what fun is that?
Actually it might be interesting for a change of pace once in a while. Sort of an IROC SEIV. We had the neutral challage game awhile back. That was kind of like that.

Geoschmo

Suicide Junkie

December 22nd, 2002, 07:16 PM

The only truly equitable situation would be for players to have to start with the same set up - sort of like Chess. But what fun is that?I have a chess scenario, and its pretty cool. An 8x8 grid of systems, a resource-generating king (if he dies, you lose because your ships get scrapped) A powerful queen, Heavily armored Rooks, repairship bishops, fast & powerful knight cruisers, and a bunch of pawn destroyers.

Hunt down the enemy king, while protecting your own!

capnq

December 22nd, 2002, 08:45 PM

Charts and formulae are the proof. Only if they are accurate, and the person you're trying to convince understands them well enough to interpret them and verify that they are accurate.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- Mark Twain

LostCommander

December 22nd, 2002, 09:44 PM

Why are agressiveness and defensiveness (combat only bonuses) being considered very important? Just wondering as I have never touched them. Yes, I know exactly how they work, so is it not just a personal choice for either more ships or better ships? Sorry, I can't seem to find who originally posted on this...

Grandpa Kim

December 22nd, 2002, 10:31 PM

quote:

Definitely, gaining all the way up to 20% experience in only 3 turns instead of
7 is a major advantage. However, the experience bonuses are not a MAJOR
advantage per se because there are other options which give an advantage
roughly analgous to that of having 20% experience bonus

Oh yes they are. A lack of training will get your ships slaughtered by weaker forces. And it
is not a 20% advantage, it is a 40% advantage (ship + fleet training). Not 20%, not 40% but 80%!

Take two identical, opposing ships. Set them at a distance from each other so that they each have a 50% chance to hit. In this situation its a crap shoot.

Now, give full training to one ship. Suddenly he gets 20% for ship training and 20% for fleet training. That modest 50% has leapt to a staggering 90%! But don't stop there. His defense has increased by the same amount causing his opponent's chance to hit to drop from 50% to an abysmal 10%! 'Nuf said. (Note that warrior and berserker status, aggressiveness and defensiveness have similar, though less compounded effects.)

In several spots in this thread, Geo said that its the player's skill that matters. I couldn't agree more! This game is so complex that it is player skill in using this complexity, that more than any other factor, win's the day.

[ December 22, 2002, 20:34: Message edited by: Grandpa Kim ]

Fyron

December 22nd, 2002, 10:43 PM

Originally posted by LostCommander:
Why are agressiveness and defensiveness (combat only bonuses) being considered very important? Just wondering as I have never touched them. Yes, I know exactly how they work, so is it not just a personal choice for either more ships or better ships? Sorry, I can't seem to find who originally posted on this...It is because of how the combat system works. Any difference in to hit chances makes a huge difference in the results of combat. Take 125 agg and def, and Berzerker. You opponent does not. That gives you an automatic 35% to hit and defense bonus. That means that a lot fewer enemy shots hit your ships, and a lot more of your shots hit enemy ships. You destroy his ships much faster, and then even fewer of his shots hit. It is a snowball effect.

PvK

December 23rd, 2002, 12:28 AM

Yeah, the whole combat system would be a lot more balanced and less easily lopsided if the to-hit factors were actually factors (that multiply) instead of additive stacking modifiers. I've ranted and explicated that to MM until I finally gave up.

Anyway, I'll make a balance mod that only affects the racial point costs in the otherwise-unmodded game. Not that there would be only one way to do it, but I think I can come up with something pretty reasonable, or at least a big improvement. I'll start a new thread soliciting opinions. Then people can re-argue all the balance issues. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Oh, and as for MM not fixing the balance in patches, I think he's tried to limit changes to the basic game except where really necessary, because of the effects on existing games, and in breaking people's favorite tactics. Even with what little has been changed, there have already been some players who got bothered by some of the changes to the system.

PvK

geoschmo

December 23rd, 2002, 12:48 AM

Yes, it's very difficult for Malfador to do balancing tweaks when we can't agree on how much they should be changed, or even if they need changed to begin with. A lot of those issues he ticks off as many people with the fix as he makes happy, so why bother? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Geoschmo

Krsqk

December 23rd, 2002, 06:29 AM

Not to mention that changing racial characteristic/trait costs makes all previous AIs and EMP files obsolete. That would really tick off some people.

spoon

December 23rd, 2002, 06:45 AM

I guess it's a matter of perspective. I'd rather he perfect his game. Modders are a small minority of people, whereas there are likely 100,000 people who don't know what a mod is.

Do you think Blizzard waits until there is some sort of concensus before they balance their games? Nope. Do people get pissed off? Yes. Are their games better because of it? Yes.

-Spoon

geoschmo

December 23rd, 2002, 03:37 PM

How do you define the game as better Spoon? If an equal number of people are upset by the change as made happy by it, sounds like no net improvement to me.

edit: And I am not talking about stuff like the maint reduction here. Those sorts of things could be changed and I doubt anyone would complain too much. And he does change those sorts of things. It may just be a matter of enough people complaining to him about it. I don't know about Blizzard specifically, but I doubt they put out more patches for their games and are more responsive to the players than Malfador. I don't think anyone is.

But stuff like the PPB, where a legitimate case can be made for both sides. It's tough there to make changes without ticking people off. Those that don't think there is anything wrong with it anyway.

Geoschmo

[ December 23, 2002, 14:40: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Wardad

December 23rd, 2002, 06:00 PM

Moon Training helped a lot in one game. I also had 2 space stations with repair bays at the same location. It was next door to a contested system.
I brought in an old, large fleet of LCs and retrofitted them in two turns. They gained 18% experience in two turns. 18% is good enough!!! I then transfered fleet experience from a training escort, adding another 20% for a total gain of 38% in attack and defense in two turns.

Of course not every system will have a planet with two moons. It is chance that it is located somewhere usefull.

BTW: I agree with Fyron on most all of his points.

My own PBW experience has really drove home the importance of Attack and Defense bonuses, however you can get them. My ships have survived attacks by larger fleets and swarms of SATs with little damage and delivered killing blows with just moderate firepower.

I like NONE atmosphere races. I capture or trade for them the first chance I get.

[ December 23, 2002, 16:48: Message edited by: Wardad ]

spoon

December 23rd, 2002, 11:59 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
How do you define the game as better Spoon? If an equal number of people are upset by the change as made happy by it, sounds like no net improvement to me.
I define it by balance, depth, and enjoyment. Balance is just numbers, depth is availability of significant choices, and enjoyment is subjective. In your example, I would say that there would be an improvement- to balance and depth, at no net cost to enjoyment.

edit: And I am not talking about stuff like the maint reduction here. Those sorts of things could be changed and I doubt anyone would complain too much. And he does change those sorts of things. It may just be a matter of enough people complaining to him about it.
Those are exactly the things I am talking about. If MM does address these issues, it is pretty rare, and usually a more drastic code-based change as opposed to simple data tuning (eg, Engine Destroyers no longer skipping shields, Bases no longer "fleetable"). PPBs certainly aren't on the top of the "needs tuning" list, and I know you love your PPB, but ask yourself this: would you still use them if they did 10 pts less damage? What about 5 points less? If you answered "yes", it could probably use some tuning.

I don't know about Blizzard specifically, but I doubt they put out more patches for their games and are more responsive to the players than Malfador. I don't think anyone is.
Blizzard is probably the best of the Big developement houses as far as game quality and support goes. Still, MM outshines them by far, which is all the more amazing given that MM is just one (possibly cloned) guy. (Or maybe that is the reason. I don't know.)

But stuff like the PPB, where a legitimate case can be made for both sides. It's tough there to make changes without ticking people off. Those that don't think there is anything wrong with it anyway.I'm still waiting to hear that legitimate case. And what kind of person gets ticked off if PPBs start doing slightly less damage? Does he really have to cater to that type of person? He's the developer. He allowed to step on a few toes.

capnq

December 24th, 2002, 12:39 AM

I'd rather he perfect his game.
[...]
Does he really have to cater to that type of person? He's the developer. He allowed to step on a few toes. Including your toes.

You're making the totally unwarranted assumption that Aaron's idea of perfection exactly matches your own.

geoschmo

December 24th, 2002, 12:53 AM

Originally posted by spoon:
PPBs certainly aren't on the top of the "needs tuning" list, and I know you love your PPB, but ask yourself this: would you still use them if they did 10 pts less damage? What about 5 points less? If you answered "yes", it could probably use some tuning.
Actually I am not particularly in love with the PPB. I rarely if ever use them. So few people use standard shields because of the threat of PPB's that they have lost their real edge IMHO. Typically I will research DUCs to the limit and then switch over to APB's. Although that's simply habit. There are others that work just fine.

I'm still waiting to hear that legitimate case. And what kind of person gets ticked off if PPBs start doing slightly less damage? Does he really have to cater to that type of person? He's the developer. He allowed to step on a few toes.True enough. But why should he make a change and step on their toes when he can do nothing and step on yours. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

If you haven't been convinced by the myriad of discussions we have had on this forum, I won't waste your time or mine. But that's ok. You don't have to agree with me that PPB's are balanced. My point is only that a lot of people do agree with me. And since maybe as many people agree they are that think they are not, and because they can be "fixed" anytime by anyone in a mod, why should Malfador bother?

The maint thing is different, cause it really would require a hard code change. Unless you do the fancy thing SJ added to his mod. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

It's all about priorities and available time. Everybody has their own pet projects that would "Only take a few minutes", but if you add all those up He'd be working on the game till the end of time.

I don't set Aarons schedule, so I don't pretend to know how much time he has available. I assume his time is finite, so I prefer if he is going to make changes it be in areas that we cannot mod. Adding more of that depth you talked about by adding abilities to the game that modders can take advantage of, and tweaking the remaining annoying bugs like the mine thing that was squished in the Last patch.

But I don't suggest my priorities are the best ones. If you have a suggestion, especially a data fiel change that can be easily done, my suggestion is to make the change and send it to Malfador in an email. He does respond to those from time to time. Just ask Fyron. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Geoschmo

Pax

December 24th, 2002, 01:00 AM

Originally posted by spoon:
- Having three ship-training facilities on a sector is better than having only one.And is a disadvantage, because it means you want to move your ships there, rather than to various dispersed locations, for training.

A centralised training center that can get you to 18% fleet-and-ship in two turns is nice, but also count the travel time to the sector from where a ship is bult, and thenf rom that sector to where the ship is needed.

- Using PPBs in the midgame is better than using anything else.Call me crazy, but I think there SHOULD be a single "this is the best choice" weapon at any given stage of the game.

Having 125% defense + bezerker will make you unbeatable against people unaware of how combat works.[quote]

No it won't. Defense is useless against the Talisman. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif And doesn't matter much for seekers either (granted, seekers-vs-PDC is also kinda unbalanced, but ... *shrug* ...).

[quote] - Having 110% Maint Reduction is a huge advantage over people who don't realize how broken Maint Reduction is.I disagree, somewhat; it's *an* advantage, but not a *huge* advantage ... because the points spent for +10% maintenance,might have gone elsewhere instead. And besides which, Maintenance reduction is easily modded for clearer balance (see P&N).

Suicide Junkie

December 24th, 2002, 06:52 PM

Call me crazy, but I think there SHOULD be a single "this is the best choice" weapon at any given stage of the game.Crazy! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Well, IMO, players should be torn between various weapons at all stages.
Do I use a P&N Polaron beam to nail anybody with a heavy shield generator, or non-polaron beams to do more damage to phased shields?
Do I use a P&N Torpedo so I can hit the slippery aliens (+15% to +25% accuracy), or do I use particle weapons for higher damage?
Do I use bombardment missiles to penetrate PD and shields, or regular CSMs to do more hull damage?
DO I use shields to protect against boarding and ion weapons and have faster repair, or armor to get more hitpoints for cheaper?

IMO, All the weapons should have thier own niche, and be worth using in a balanced range of circumstances. Preferably enough to get players to put more than one type of weapon on their ships! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

SamuraiProgrammer

December 24th, 2002, 07:31 PM

Originally posted by Pax:
Call me crazy, but I think there SHOULD be a single "this is the best choice" weapon at any given stage of the game.!!! Remember - This is like Rock/Paper/Scissors !!!

1) Who am I Fighting?

2) What composes their fleet now?

3) What will beat them now?

The answer will change from enemy to enemy and also from turn to turn (if your opponent is sly).

For every ship, there is an anti-ship.
For every tactic, there is an anti-tactic.

The key to success is being able to manage that reality.

Fyron

December 24th, 2002, 09:17 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
But I don't suggest my priorities are the best ones. If you have a suggestion, especially a data fiel change that can be easily done, my suggestion is to make the change and send it to Malfador in an email. He does respond to those from time to time. Just ask Fyron. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Hehehe http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Yeah, the next patch should include a little something that will help solve one major problem with the combat system. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Dralasite

December 24th, 2002, 11:18 PM

I agree with SJ, I like having to make the choice between weapon types, and potentially choosing more than one. It adds a nice element of strategy to the game vs. "who can generate the most ppb light cruisers"

Having multiple viable weapons choices encourages using recon/intelligence to find the composition of other players fleets. Again, more depth to that sort of game.

Then again, I'm also all for leaky shields/leaky armor http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Wardad

December 25th, 2002, 12:06 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Hehehe http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Yeah, the next patch should include a little something that will help solve one major problem with the combat system. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif What? That laughter sounds most unfair. I hope you do not immediately upgrade our current game.

dumbluck

December 25th, 2002, 10:18 AM

Fyron: So, um, what's this change that you instigated?

spoon

December 26th, 2002, 04:11 AM

Originally posted by capnq:

You're making the totally unwarranted assumption that Aaron's idea of perfection exactly matches your own.Am I? Seems like a peculiar belief! I think what I am really assuming is that I he cares about the game (since he keeps patching it...) And given that assumption, I find it odd that he hasn't addressed some of the balance issues, since they are fairly easy to fix.

spoon

December 26th, 2002, 04:25 AM

Originally posted by Pax:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by spoon:
- Having three ship-training facilities on a sector is better than having only one.And is a disadvantage, because it means you want to move your ships there, rather than to various dispersed locations, for training.<hr /></blockquote>You don't have to move your ships there if it is important for them to be somewhere else, and you aren't prohibited from building more training centers elsewhere...

Call me crazy, but I think there SHOULD be a single "this is the best choice" weapon at any given stage of the game.Why do you feel that way? Lack of choices makes weapons research decisions pointless.

Having 125% defense + bezerker will make you unbeatable against people unaware of how combat works. No it won't. Defense is useless against the Talisman. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif And doesn't matter much for seekers either (granted, seekers-vs-PDC is also kinda unbalanced, but ... *shrug* ...).You can't choose Talisman after-the-fact. If your enemies fleets are unbeatable because you are getting a -60% to hit them, it is too late.

- Having 110% Maint Reduction is a huge advantage over people who don't realize how broken Maint Reduction is. I disagree, somewhat; it's *an* advantage, but not a *huge* advantage ... because the points spent for +10% maintenance,might have gone elsewhere instead.No, the advantage is huge. It essentially increases your (max) fleet size by 66%. Well worth the points, even in small galaxies with 0 racial points.

And besides which, Maintenance reduction is easily modded for clearer balance (see P&N).That's not a good excuse for leaving it unbalanced in the core game. Mods aren't played by a lot of people, and, I suspect, even fewer people would play a "balanced" mod.

Phoenix-D

December 26th, 2002, 05:04 AM

"And given that assumption, I find it odd that he hasn't addressed some of the balance issues, since they are fairly easy to fix."

No, they aren't. Have you tried?

"No, the advantage is huge. It essentially increases your (max) fleet size by 66%. Well worth the points, even in small galaxies with 0 racial points."

Compare the 10 points in maitance to 10 points in, say, Minerals. Or in ship yards, or..you get the picture? I've lost many a game because I couldn't get ships out fast enough. My coffers were full, I was getting thousands of extra resources per turn..and it didn't matter.

Phoenix-D

Graeme Dice

December 26th, 2002, 05:12 AM

Originally posted by spoon:
Am I? Seems like a peculiar belief! I think what I am really assuming is that I he cares about the game (since he keeps patching it...) And given that assumption, I find it odd that he hasn't addressed some of the balance issues, since they are fairly easy to fix.[/QB]They are balance issues in your opinion. In the opinion of others they aren't.

Graeme Dice

December 26th, 2002, 05:13 AM

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
Compare the 10 points in maitance to 10 points in, say, Minerals. Or in ship yards, or..you get the picture? I've lost many a game because I couldn't get ships out fast enough. My coffers were full, I was getting thousands of extra resources per turn..and it didn't matter.
Phoenix-D[/QB]My problem has never been a lack of minerals, it has always been a lack of construction capacity to use those minerals fast enough. If you are building max size fleets then you aren't being aggressive enough to keep their and your fleet sizes down.

spoon

December 26th, 2002, 05:39 AM

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:

No, they aren't. Have you tried?
Yes. Increase things that are too low. Lower things that are too high. Test. Repeat.

It is the "test" that takes time, and he has people that test for him...

Compare the 10 points in maitance to 10 points in, say, Minerals.
what about Repair, Resistance, Strength, Organics, etc? Maint. Reduction is at least in the top 3 most important characteristics, and it's cost should be weighted to reflect that (or maint reduction should be made to work differently). Or are you going to tell me that 10 points is maint reduction is equivalent to, say 50 points in Tolerance, or 50 points in Repair?

Phoenix-D

December 26th, 2002, 05:43 AM

"Yes. Increase things that are too low. Lower things that are too high. Test. Repeat"

Ever notice how people disagree on which is which, and how it needs to be fixed either way?

"Maint. Reduction is at least in the top 3 most important characteristics, and it's cost should be weighted to reflect that (or maint reduction should be made to work differently)."

No, it shouldn't. IIRC it already costs more, and it's a reduction in -maintaince-. That doesn't directly correlate to production, mainly because there are other things production can be used for.

"Or are you going to tell me that 10 points is maint reduction is equivalent to, say 50 points in Tolerance, or 50 points in Repair?"

Tolerance is a -weird- trait. I'm not claiming that everything is perfectly balanced, but it isn't quite as simple as you think either. Used to be that the main balance complaint was about the APB, not the PPB.

Phoenix-D

spoon

December 26th, 2002, 05:53 AM

They are balance issues in your opinion. In the opinion of others they aren't.Who is claiming there aren't balance issues? I think there is agreement there. What those balance issues are, and how significant they are, and how difficult it is to fix them, are, I think, the topics of debate.
If there is someone who claims the game is balanced, please compare:
Mechanoid Race Vs Advanced Storage (each cost 1000 points)
Repair vs Maint Reduction
Torpedoes vs. DUCs or PPBs.

Graeme Dice

December 26th, 2002, 06:32 AM

Originally posted by spoon:
[/qb]what about Repair, Resistance, Strength, Organics, etc? Maint. Reduction is at least in the top 3 most important characteristics, and it's cost should be weighted to reflect that (or maint reduction should be made to work differently). Or are you going to tell me that 10 points is maint reduction is equivalent to, say 50 points in Tolerance, or 50 points in Repair?[/QB][/QUOTE]
120 maintenance aptitude costs 2500 points, which makes it the single most expensive trait there is.
That's the equal of 140 in just about every other Category other than aggressiveness and defensiveness. Personally, I'd much rather have 140 construction than 120 maintenance, because your ships don't Last that long in a way anyways.

The game should not be perfectly balanced, because then it becomes nothing more than a paper/rock/scissors matchup. That reduces all strategic decisions to the point where your ability as a player no longer matters. All that matters is that you play the game, because every decision is just as good as every other decision.

PvK

December 26th, 2002, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
...
The game should not be perfectly balanced, because then it becomes nothing more than a paper/rock/scissors matchup. That reduces all strategic decisions to the point where your ability as a player no longer matters. All that matters is that you play the game, because every decision is just as good as every other decision.No.

Rock/Paper/Scissors is IMO a really bad term to express the idea that every tactic should have some sort of counter-tactic. I say this because Rock/Paper/Scissors is so pointless that IMO I almost wouldn't even call it a game. It's only about trying to intuit your opponent's pattern. It seems like this term is causing some real confusion, because here for instance you are equating "balance" with the pointlessness of rock/paper/scissors.

At its best, SE4 is about offering an extremely wide range of options, and a logic for how they interact. Players are free to develop interesting and novel strategies, and then to meet, observe, and try to counteract enemy strategies in ways that make sense. The more options available, the more they make sense, and are useful and viable, the more interesting the game. When some options tend to be the best in all circumstances, or some options are almost always inferior, the game becomes less interesting.

PvK

Phoenix-D

December 26th, 2002, 08:53 AM

"Who is claiming there aren't balance issues? I think there is agreement there. What those balance issues are, and how significant they are, and how difficult it is to fix them, are, I think, the topics of debate."

Thank you for repeating my point. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

"If there is someone who claims the game is balanced, please compare:
Mechanoid Race Vs Advanced Storage (each cost 1000 points)"

This would depend on how often your opponent uses plague bombs! (or how high your random events are) Mechanoids is a very specialized trait.

"Repair vs Maint Reduction"

The only issue here is the weakness of armor in the standard game, combined with the lethality of fleet vs fleet action. In other words you don't often have much to repair! (see minerals vs organics..). Repair is MUCH less expensive than maintance reduction.

"Torpedoes vs. DUCs or PPBs."

Torps, at max:
1.25 damage/ton/turn
DUC V:
1.33 damage/ton/turn

Torps have the first-strike advantage, DUCs have a better damage over time (slightly). DUCs are cheaper to research since it requires half as many levels to get there (the initial mil sci is irrelevent because 99/100 you want that anyway). Torps have a longer range with no damage falloff. Neither has a to-hit bonus.

Cost is about the same, per ton, with the torps costing more radiactives.

Phoenix-D

Zarix

December 26th, 2002, 12:30 PM

I don't see any problem with maintenance. It helps a lot in long games but in short ones it is totally useless. For example if you meet a race with high maintenance reduction it only means that you have to attack fast so the race doesn't have time to benefit from the low maintenance cost.

The balance problems aren't an issue to me. There has to be some bad tactics and some good ones. If the game were in perfect balance it would be much less interesting.

spoon

December 26th, 2002, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:

Thank you for repeating my point. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
I aim to please!

"If there is someone who claims the game is balanced, please compare:
Mechanoid Race Vs Advanced Storage (each cost 1000 points)"
This would depend on how often your opponent uses plague bombs! (or how high your random events are) Mechanoids is a very specialized trait.
It's not useless, by any means, but it is not as good as any of the Big Four (Adv. Storage, HI, Propulsion, Ancient Race). If it was cheaper - say 500 points - then it would see more use (but still not be ubiquitous)

"Repair vs Maint Reduction"

The only issue here is the weakness of armor in the standard game, combined with the lethality of fleet vs fleet action. In other words you don't often have much to repair! (see minerals vs organics..). Repair is MUCH less expensive than maintance reduction.
Repair is not cheap enough, given the issues you list above. Maint Reduction is only really expensive above 110%. +10% (500 pts) of Maint Reduction is very much more valuable than +20% repair (500pts).

"Torpedoes vs. DUCs or PPBs."

Torps, at max:
1.25 damage/ton/turn
DUC V:
1.33 damage/ton/turn

Torps have the first-strike advantage, DUCs have a better damage over time (slightly). DUCs are cheaper to research since it requires half as many levels to get there (the initial mil sci is irrelevent because 99/100 you want that anyway). Torps have a longer range with no damage falloff. Neither has a to-hit bonus.

Cost is about the same, per ton, with the torps costing more radiactives.

Phoenix-DSo why would you take Torps over DUCs? They cost more to research, do less damage, and are more expensive. The increase in range is too slight, and setting Torp Ships to Max Range is probably a recipe for disaster. Give those puppies a bonus to hit or increase their range or make them cheaper. Something. They are almost a redundant tech.

Now, compare torps to PPBs. Thank you.

spoon

December 26th, 2002, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Equating Se4 to Rock/paper/scissors is a compliment for Se4, not a criticism. It demonstrates that every strategy you could choose in SE4 will beat some strategy, and lose to some other strategy. There is no perfect strategy.
I agree. Calling it Rock/Paper/Scissors isn't supposed to imply that it removes all strategy, but that all strategies are valid and can be countered.

Balancing the game, in my opinion, just gives you more valid strategies to choose from.

spoon

December 26th, 2002, 05:58 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Actually I am not particularly in love with the PPB. I rarely if ever use them. So few people use standard shields because of the threat of PPB's that they have lost their real edge IMHO. Typically I will research DUCs to the limit and then switch over to APB's. Although that's simply habit. There are others that work just fine.This leaves you vulnerable to mid-game attacks. The amount of research you save by not getting PPBs is trivial, and your opponent can use Shield V's to great effect.
If you aren't putting shields on your ships, you are even in bigger trouble, as you make yourself vulnerable to ship capture and engine destroyers.

spoon

December 26th, 2002, 06:03 PM

Originally posted by Zarix:
I don't see any problem with maintenance. It helps a lot in long games but in short ones it is totally useless. For example if you meet a race with high maintenance reduction it only means that you have to attack fast so the race doesn't have time to benefit from the low maintenance cost.No, it still helps in short games - you can expand more quickly, and you can support bigger fleets. This is always advantageous. The only time it might not help is if you get rushed. But that is pretty rare, since rushing tends to hurt the rusher...
Everyone should take Maint Reduction to 110%. And you can't attack everyone you see on sight.

The balance problems aren't an issue to me. There has to be some bad tactics and some good ones. If the game were in perfect balance it would be much less interesting.I disagree. Balance doesn't take away strategic options, it gives you more. What you want are tactics that are good in situation 'X', but not so good in 'Y'.

[ December 26, 2002, 20:59: Message edited by: spoon ]

Phoenix-D

December 26th, 2002, 06:55 PM

"No, it still helps in short games - you can expand more quickly, and you can support bigger fleets. This is always advantageous."

You can only expand more quickly with maintance reduction if your maintance is causing you to run out of resources. Unless and until the non-reduction player's shipyards have to sit idle for lack of cash, the player with it has no advantage.

Phoenix-D

spoon

December 26th, 2002, 07:10 PM

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:

You can only expand more quickly with maintance reduction if your maintance is causing you to run out of resources. Unless and until the non-reduction player's shipyards have to sit idle for lack of cash, the player with it has no advantage.
If you aren't running out of cash, you aren't expanding quickly enough (or you have a very nice starting position chock full of mineral planets (which I hear are best...)

Gryphin

December 26th, 2002, 10:40 PM

List of variables that will affect the outcome of a given Strategy
For both Yourself and Opponents
Experience
Starting Location
Intelligence and creativity
Allies, (this is influenced by starting location)
Any others?

I never try to �rationalize� a Feature / Limitation / Advantage that does not make logical sense. I use take advantage of it or not. I am open to a gentleman�s agreement not to take advantage of a feature in the game. Against the AI I do it all the time.
In my Opinion
Game Balance? Like Geo and others have mentioned:
Rock, Paper, Scissors

Grandpa Kim

December 27th, 2002, 12:07 AM

Balance doesn't take away strategic options, it gives you more. What you want
are tactics that are good in situation 'X', but not so good in 'Y'. And that is the secret. Choosing a high construction rate should cost me something of equal value whether it be research speed, happiness or to hit probability. Determining that "equality" is the rub. For instance:

but it is not as good as any of the Big Four (Adv. Storage,
HI, Propulsion, Ancient Race). In my opinion, you can drop Ancient Race and give me Natural Merchants. Does this mean you are wrong, Spoon? No, it may mean we have wildly different styles! Or perhaps one is better than other. I don't know... but I will continue using Natural Merchants while not even considering Ancient Race.

If we had all of the several hundred regulars on this board set down on paper, their "perfect" balance, we would not get two the same. Simple differences in style and outlook would overrun the "perfection". ... But we would discover a dozen or more things that everyone thinks are too strong or too weak. Perfection is unattainable but improvement is very possible.

geoschmo

December 27th, 2002, 02:08 AM

Equating Se4 to Rock/paper/scissors is a compliment for Se4, not a criticism. It demonstrates that every strategy you could choose in SE4 will beat some strategy, and lose to some other strategy. There is no perfect strategy.

It's a good analogy and is particularly appropriate for a discussion about balance in the game.

Of course Se4 has a multitude of strategies and techs to choose from, and RPS only has three. But it's an analogy. It's finding a common point between two things that appear different and using their commonality to demonstrate a particular point. Nobody is trying to say they are the same game, or should be.

For me this discussion about balance always ends up being a disagreement over semantics. I think different people have different things in mind when they say balance. Because to me balancing SE4 would mean that you could choose any weapon and have a chance of beating any other weapon in a straight up fight. I don't think that is something we should strive for. If balance means something other than that to you, then we may not be disagreeing, even though we think we are cause one of us wants balance and the other doesn't. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Weapons have strengths and wealnesses in different areas that make a damage per KT comparison difficult at best, and meaningless at worst. Cost to research and cost to construct and maintain particularly.

So weapon A can't beat weapon B in a straight up fight, but it can beat C. And C loses to A, but it beats B. Rock/Paper/Scissors.

But most of the differences in weapons don't even have to do with that tiny example. It isn't about beating some opponent in a straight up fight. It's about using your weapons choices advantages to put your self in a posiiotn where you aren't in a straigh up fight. Cause you have more ships than he does in a particular place.

Victroy doesn't go to who has the better ships. Victory goes to whichever one destroys all the other guys ships first, by whatever means nessecary. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Geoschmo

[ December 26, 2002, 12:21: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

SamuraiProgrammer

December 27th, 2002, 05:19 AM

I think part of the challenge is finding a way to make the most of what you have. A good player can win with one set of racial traits and then take the losing race and beat you again.

This is due to the ability of finding the best way to use what you have.

PvK

December 27th, 2002, 06:47 AM

Well, I have great contempt for the game "rock/paper/scissors", for people who waste their time for it, and I am dumbfounded by people who see it as a principle of game design. The principle I see as worthwhile is that no one approach should dominate all others, and every technique should have weak points and counter-tactics. I would never call that "rock/paper/scissors" though, because what "rock/paper/scissors" stands for to me, is thoroughly pointless game design, where the elements are superficially labelled as something interesting, but in fact are all exactly the same. I guess it's just a semantic pet peeve of mine, rather than a real disagreement with the actual concepts involved.

At least, most of the time. I have however noticed that often (not necessarily in connection with SE4) that people who do talk use the expression "rock/paper/scissors" as if it were a fundamentally good concept, also tend to come up with some game design ideas that I really don't enjoy. Especially, games designed with really obvious artificial balance techniques that don't make any sense but make it clear to unsophisticated players what the strengths and weaknesses of each element are.

Ah well,

PvK

[ December 27, 2002, 04:52: Message edited by: PvK ]

Thei R'vek

December 27th, 2002, 07:54 AM

Originally posted by Grandpa Kim:
Choosing a high construction rate should cost me something of equal value whether it be research speed, happiness or to hit probability. Determining that "equality" is the rub.Then play a 0 Racial Point game.

Suicide Junkie

December 27th, 2002, 08:16 AM

Well, I have great contempt for the game "rock/paper/scissors", for people who waste their time for it, and I am dumbfounded by people who see it as a principle of game design.There is also the card game of "War", and betting on coin flips.
Rock/Paper/Scissors can be useful, too; not as a game in itself, but as a random number generator for "SE4 on Paper" during a car ride, it works well. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

To the point:
The RPS analogy can validly be used to describe the idea that there should be no UberTech.

That dosen't nessesarily mean the speaker wants to make a pointless RPS mod. Don't get too upset over the use of RPS in a non-derogatory sentence http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Fyron

December 27th, 2002, 09:02 AM

Originally posted by Thei R'vek:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Grandpa Kim:
Choosing a high construction rate should cost me something of equal value whether it be research speed, happiness or to hit probability. Determining that "equality" is the rub.Then play a 0 Racial Point game.<hr /></blockquote>That doesn't address the issue of determining what is relatively more valuable than what (ie: what should cost more, what should cost less). All it does is give you fewer points to spend.

tbontob

December 27th, 2002, 09:31 AM

Originally posted by PvK:
Well, I have great contempt for the game "rock/paper/scissors", for people who waste their time for it, and I am dumbfounded by people who see it as a principle of game design. The principle I see as worthwhile is that no one approach should dominate all others, and every technique should have weak points and counter-tactics. I would never call that "rock/paper/scissors" though, because what "rock/paper/scissors" stands for to me, is thoroughly pointless game design, where the elements are superficially labelled as something interesting, but in fact are all exactly the same. I guess it's just a semantic pet peeve of mine, rather than a real disagreement with the actual concepts involved.
I agree with you that RPS is not a principle. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif If we think about it, it is only an example of how the principle operates.

You describe the operative principle well when you say "The principle I see as worthwhile is that no one approach should dominate all others, and every technique should have weak points and counter-tactics."

However, we humans are such lazy creatures. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif It is so much easier to say "RPS" to identify the principle rather than have to describe the operative principle over and over again in the way you have done above.

Tomorrow, "RPS" may lose favour and we may use something else to identify the principle. Maybe it will be something like FWS (fire, water, sponge). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Gryphin

December 28th, 2002, 02:56 AM

Pvk, Suicide Junkie, Thontob,
You all say it so much betterer than me.
Thinking back, I have played games simulating warfare since 1975. I can only think of a few exceptions where there was not in effect some form of a Play Balancing System.
Rock, Paper, Scissors component selection
In a WWII game the main elements were Infantry, Armor, Artillery. I�m over simplifying here. Each had distinct advantages and each disadvantages. It really came down to selecting the right units for the job and deploying them correctly.
I can also remember the endless "competitive discussions" on whether this or that was "Realistic". Since many of the games were "real world" simulations such as WRG's Ancients or their WWII (forget the name) miniatures game there was a strong emphasis on making them �more realistic�. So we changed the rules or added more. In SEIV we don�t have many options to change the hard code. We can Mod and make Gentleman�s Agreements on restricting the use of a perceived exploit.

SamuraiProgrammer

December 28th, 2002, 07:34 AM

WRG Ancients

Talk about problems with game balance.

Try taking the sea people vs Alexander's Macedonians (1500 points each).

(Actually I loved WRG ancients. It just took toooooo long to paint those lead suckers.)

[ December 28, 2002, 05:35: Message edited by: SamuraiProgrammer ]

PvK

December 28th, 2002, 12:35 PM

Originally posted by Gryphin:
Pvk, Suicide Junkie, Thontob,
You all say it so much betterer than me.
Thinking back, I have played games simulating warfare since 1975. I can only think of a few exceptions where there was not in effect some form of a Play Balancing System.
Rock, Paper, Scissors component selection
In a WWII game the main elements were Infantry, Armor, Artillery. I’m over simplifying here. Each had distinct advantages and each disadvantages. It really came down to selecting the right units for the job and deploying them correctly.
I can also remember the endless "competitive discussions" on whether this or that was "Realistic". Since many of the games were "real world" simulations such as WRG's Ancients or their WWII (forget the name) miniatures game there was a strong emphasis on making them “more realistic”. So we changed the rules or added more. In SEIV we don’t have many options to change the hard code. We can Mod and make Gentleman’s Agreements on restricting the use of a perceived exploit.See, realistic WW2 combined arms tactics (another gaming obsession of mine) is a great example of something I would never describe as "rock/paper/scissors". Yes, any one element alone is going to have exploitable handicaps, but the relationships between them are detailed and make sense, and it is not a case of A beats B beats C which beats A. Some things are better than others in different circumstances, and different elements' strengths and weaknesses can complement each other IF used in ways that make sense. That's VASTLY more complex, interesting, and sensible than "rock/paper/scissors" - by many orders of magnitude.

OTOH, I won't ever forget talking with a game developer gushing about his latest RTS and proudly mentioning the "rock/paper/scissors" "principle", and the frequently-mentioned an utterly idiotic set-up (no doubt from some wretched old game theory textbook written by a non-gamer academic, and/or the 80's game The Ancient Art of War) where there are spearmen, swordsmen, and bowmen, and spearmen beat swordsmen who beat bowmen who beat spearmen. Which, as a fan of realistic and interesting ancient/medieval tactical games, I would say is utter bunk, not to mention being completely uninteresting.

Ooops, I'm ranting in the middle of the night about my pet peeve again. 'scuze me. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

PvK

[ December 28, 2002, 10:36: Message edited by: PvK ]

SamuraiProgrammer

December 28th, 2002, 04:35 PM

I am one of the people who have used the Rock/Paper/Scissors analogy. I would like to clarify the statement by saying it this way:

This game is about figuring out what your opponent is up to and countering it.

geoschmo

December 28th, 2002, 04:37 PM

PvK, you are taking the RPS thing way too seriously. It's an analogy. Nobody is saying SEIV is just like RPS in all ways. There are no RPS forums. There is no PBW for RPS. There are no RPS Mods.
RPS balance mod: See if I hold my hand like this, it's a stapler. Stapler beats paper. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Geoschmo

[ December 28, 2002, 14:38: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Fyron

December 28th, 2002, 09:13 PM

I think you are missing the point of an analogy. It does not say that A is B, it says that A is similar to B in some way. There is a huge room for difference between A and B. SE4 is not RPS, it is just vaguely similar in one single way, in that there is no uber-tactic. All tactics have counter-tactics, but it is not as simple as RPS. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

PvK

December 28th, 2002, 10:20 PM

Yeah, you guys are basically right - I'm bemoaning the term, which has the wrong associations for me, and nothing you folks are intending. So, this is not the best forum for whining about it.

The expression "Rock/Paper/Scissors" can be interpreted so many ways, that it's nearly meaningless unless accompanied by a more specific discussion, which here it almost always is. I guess it mainly bugs me because I have seen so many game industry professionals who seem to be dumping millions of game dev bucks into lame repetetive designs according to moronic adherence to formulae. Formulaic RTS + primitive RPS = crapware from heck, more often than not.

PvK

Thei R'vek

December 29th, 2002, 12:36 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Thei R'vek:
Then play a 0 Racial Point game.That doesn't address the issue of determining what is relatively more valuable than what (ie: what should cost more, what should cost less). All it does is give you fewer points to spend.<hr /></blockquote>I will admit that it gives you fewer points to spend but it also forces you to make some tough decisions about what is most valuable to you since you MUST take a lower ability in one or more areas to get a bonus in one or more areas.