A thought on the Talisman / Live on Pay-Per-View: Geo vs. Fyron [Archive]

View Full Version : A thought on the Talisman / Live on Pay-Per-View: Geo vs. Fyron

Spoo

July 11th, 2003, 06:27 AM

Make it so that the Talisman is only available to bases, weapon platforms, and satellites (i.e. for defensive purposes only).

[ July 16, 2003, 00:26: Message edited by: Spoo ]

Atrocities

July 11th, 2003, 06:39 AM

Did I miss something? It sounds like you are replying to a post about the Talisman.

What you have suggested can be done easily but why? It give such an unfair advantage to us religious freaks who use it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Krsqk

July 11th, 2003, 07:05 AM

My favorite fix is to make it a mount (even one with +100% to hit). That way (at least in SE4), you have to decide between big damage and total accuracy.

Spoo

July 12th, 2003, 06:55 AM

but why? It give such an unfair advantage to us religious freaks who use it. As it stands you can already put talismans on bases and weapon platforms (not sure about sats). What I'm proposing is to remove them from ships.

It would also discourage people from dropping aggressiveness all the way when they take the Religious trait.

Krsqk

July 12th, 2003, 07:09 AM

I think he was asking why you would want to take away their advantage. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Fyron

July 12th, 2003, 07:14 AM

Because it is an unfair, unbalancing, illogical, unrealistic advantage.

teal

July 12th, 2003, 07:14 AM

Originally posted by Krsqk:
My favorite fix is to make it a mount (even one with +100% to hit). That way (at least in SE4), you have to decide between big damage and total accuracy.That's not a fix. Anyone in their right mind would take 100% hit chance over big damage (unless in a situation where the big damage guns hit quite a bit, which as a talsiman player fighting only at maximum weapon range is not bloody likely). Althought I suppose it does weaken the talisman somewhat.

Krsqk

July 12th, 2003, 07:34 AM

What it does is take away the biggest advantage of large ships--the ability to far out-damage small ships. A BB can equal the damage of two LCs with less tonnage and lower cost. The big numbers also help 1) chew through emissive/crystalline armor effects, and 2) wear down enemy ships faster. Add the talisman, and it's even more uneven. This way, the BB would be more equivalent to the two LCs--it would probably even be 1 combat MP slower. It's almost like having a "big little" ship.

[edit]And if the weapons are the standard APB/PPB (which attenuate with range), a choice between 100% hit at max range/minimal damage and 60-70% hit at closer range/max damage/multiplied damage isn't so clear. It takes a lot of unmounted APB hits to destroy a BB.

[ July 12, 2003, 06:45: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

July 12th, 2003, 07:36 AM

Why not just increase the size of the talisman to 100, 200kT or whatever you feel "balanced"? Why not increse the cost of the racial trait religious? IMHO there will never be a general concensus over balance especially if it comes to racial technologies. So I believe we should use the simple solutions to balance the game as we individually like it. But we already had this discussion for the allegiance subverter.

Phoenix-D

July 12th, 2003, 08:23 AM

"Because it is an unfair, unbalancing, illogical, unrealistic advantage"

Everything except unrealistic you can argue for. But when we're running around in ships that don't eat, and run the engines off the same stuff they SHOOT, I thing realism is already getting stretched a bit. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Fyron

July 12th, 2003, 09:04 AM

I (and everyone else) can certainly argue about the realism.

tesco samoa

July 12th, 2003, 09:14 AM

i am not real....

p.s. as a mount is a good idea....

As then it comes down to choices... Do I go for range and damage or do i go for the auto hit...

Fyron

July 12th, 2003, 09:17 AM

Of course you aren't Tesco. You are just a bot made by that British supermarket chain.

Loser

July 14th, 2003, 02:47 PM

I like the idea of making the Talisman make ships easier to hit. Or make the thing terribly expensive, as that will inflict cost during construction but also cost during usage.

Hell, you could make the thing make every ship in the fleet easier to hit, every ship in the system if you wanted to. It is possible to penalize the Talisman, but will that ever balance it?

And I don't think realism (http://www.shrapnelgames.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=009494) is worth much, other than an interesting issue to argue about.

spoon

July 14th, 2003, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by Spoo:
Make it so that the Talisman is only available to bases, weapon platforms, and satellites (i.e. for defensive purposes only).I think that would make it more or less useless, since defensive structures play a fairly small role in the game by the time you would have the Talisman...

I'd balance it by increasing size (100k+ ???), and cost (2000,2000,2000???).

As it is, though, against experienced players, taking the Religious trait is more of a liability, since it gives the other players a reason to band against you. Lowering your Aggressiveness is just a nail in your coffin.

Sort of funny how that works. In most games, the Talisman will give you Uncontestable Power. But in others, it will bring about your Certain Downfall.

Gozra

July 14th, 2003, 06:58 PM

Is it possible to make the talisman only usable once or twice a combat turn?

And I don't think the talisman is a huge boogyman just a medium sized one. I have found in this game there are counters to everything.

And BTW one satillite armed with one talisman allows all the other Sat's stacked with it to use the 'Effect'. Talisman is a tough trait to fight but not impossible.

Fyron

July 14th, 2003, 10:00 PM

Used correctly, the Talisman is an impossible trait to defeat.

geoschmo

July 14th, 2003, 10:06 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Used correctly, the Talisman is an impossible trait to defeat.No, that is not correct. Because the other players can still gang up on you and overwhelm you even if you play the theoretical "perfect game" for using the talisman. You can do everything right but your opponents still have to not do everything right for you to win.

Geoschmo

EDIT: Not to mention the randomness of the start could have a significant impact on your ability to do everything "correctly". Even in a one on one game the tailsman player can do everything right and lose if he get's a sucky start or his opponent is skilled and fast enough to knock him out.

[ July 14, 2003, 21:12: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Fyron

July 14th, 2003, 10:16 PM

If you allow them to rush you early on or you allow the other players to all gang up on you, then obviously you have not been playing very well at all. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

rdouglass

July 14th, 2003, 10:19 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
If you allow them to rush you early on or you allow the other players to all gang up on you, then obviously you have not been playing very well at all. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif IF, sometimes I am totally amazed at the logic you use to justify your position. It doesn't matter what you say, you CAN do everything perfectly and still lose with the Talisman. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/blush.gif

What does the things you do have to do with whether the other players are going to gang up on you or not? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

geoschmo

July 14th, 2003, 10:20 PM

You cannot control your opponents. You can play a perfect game with the talisman and still lose.

geoschmo

July 14th, 2003, 10:22 PM

Originally posted by rdouglass:
IF, sometimes I am totally amazed at the logic you use to justify your position. It doesn't matter what you say, you CAN do everything perfectly and still lose with the Talisman. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/blush.gif
I have a feeling that his statments aren't based on logic this time. Perhaps this is one of those times he's playing the devil's advocate. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif
Geoschmo

gravey101

July 14th, 2003, 10:25 PM

Well, you can try to buy time with diplomacy as I've done myself a few times, but I would argue that that only works with inexperienced players or with players who aren't really in it for the win. I guess it's also easier to do on a map with lower player density. If I'm playing in a game where I want to compete I will do everything I can possibly can to bring down a religious player before he gets the Talisman, and have generally found it easy to assemble/encourage coalitions and knock those zealots off early.

[ July 14, 2003, 21:27: Message edited by: gravey101 ]

Fyron

July 14th, 2003, 10:37 PM

IF, sometimes I am totally amazed at the logic you use to justify your position. It doesn't matter what you say, you CAN do everything perfectly and still lose with the Talisman. I never once said that having the Talisman guarantees victory. But, playing well (with fast expansion and such) combined with the Talisman does guarantee victory in most game situations (except when you get the other players to ally against you, which is nowhere near playing well at all, as diplomacy is a big part of a MP game). Playing well requires expanding faster than your neighbors and then being able to overwhelm them. Otherwise, it is not playing well, but at best playing adequately. Even expanding as fast as them means you will still most likely be able to win with the Talisman because all else being equal, the Talisman ships will win in combat. You just have to form your own alliance and not get them to gang up on you. If you expand slower than them, you are certainly not playing well.

There is a certain point of no return that once you reach, victory is pretty much guaranteed. The Talisman makes reaching this point a lot easier, as your ships are extremely overpowered in combat.

What does the things you do have to do with whether the other players are going to gang up on you or not? You can talk to them and use diplomacy to get some of them on your side. This prevents you from getting ganged up on by a bunch of enemies, as they will have to fight your allies too. So, if you make no effort to gather allies, you aren't playing the game very well, as no matter what, you will fall, talisman or no. Don't let them ally against you. Don't be an overly aggressive evil overlord, and you greatly increase your chances of not being seen as a huge threat. Now, if they still irrationally gang up on you and you never do anything in the game to threaten them, it is probably not a group of players you should play with again, as they are not interested in fair play, only winning at any cost.

spoon

July 14th, 2003, 10:54 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
[QUOTE] Now, if they still irrationally gang up on you and you never do anything in the game to threaten them, it is probably not a group of players you should play with again, as they are not interested in fair play, only winning at any cost.If the talisman more or less guarantees a win for the talisman player unless his is ganged up on, it is not irrational to gang up on him. Nor is it "unfair" to do so - in fact, it should be expected.

geoschmo

July 14th, 2003, 10:56 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
I never once said that having the Talisman guarantees victory.Correct, and noone here said you said it did. Why bring in unrelated comments like that at all? They just clutter up the discussion. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif
Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
But, playing well (with fast expansion and such) combined with the Talisman does guarantee victory in most game situations (except when you get the other players to ally against you, Well now, this is a few orders of magnitude less of an absulute statement then "Used correctly, the Talisman is an impossible trait to defeat." It is difficult to have a debate if you change your position in the middle with no warning. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
which is nowhere near playing well at all, as diplomacy is a big part of a MP game). Playing well requires expanding faster than your neighbors and then being able to overwhelm them. Otherwise, it is not playing well, but at best playing adequately.You are still going to have to explain to me how you can control the speed your opponent expands, excepting contested systems of course. You can play the best game you have ever played in your life, in fact you can play the second best game in the history of SE4 and still be behind you opponnent. And this somehow you define as not playing well? that makes no sense at all. Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

Even expanding as fast as them means you will still most likely be able to win with the Talisman because all else being equal, the Talisman ships will win in combat.Again correct, and again no one made this claim. But getting into fights against a tailsman player where all else is equal is suicide. The same could be said of anything in the game.
All else being equal, the player with dreadnaughts will defeat the player with frigates every time.
Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
You just have to form your own alliance and not get them to gang up on you.As Gravey said, you can try. But you can't guarantee this. It depends on the experience of your opponents. If they are aware of teh effectivness of the Tailsman you will have an alliance of one, and that ain't gonna get you too far.
Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

If you expand slower than them, you are certainly not playing well.See above.
Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

There is a certain point of no return that once you reach, victory is pretty much guaranteed. The Talisman makes reaching this point a lot easier, as your ships are extremely overpowered in combat. Can't disagree with this, but I don't think anyone here was trying too. And it's again a far cry from your earlier unconditional declaration.
Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

You can talk to them and use diplomacy to get some of them on your side. This prevents you from getting ganged up on by a bunch of enemies, as they will have to fight your allies too. So, if you make no effort to gather allies, you aren't playing the game very well, as no matter what, you will fall, talisman or no. Don't let them ally against you. Don't be an overly aggressive evil overlord, and you greatly increase your chances of not being seen as a huge threat.Again you are talking about things totally out of your control and saying that you aren't playing well. That makes no sense. Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Now, if they still irrationally gang up on you and you never do anything in the game to threaten them, it is probably not a group of players you should play with again, as they are not interested in fair play, only winning at any cost.And what's irrational about ganging up on the Tailsman player? If you intend to even try to win it's irrational not to gang up on them and get them out early because as you said yourself allowing them to Last till the point of no return is a pretty sure way to guarantee you will lose. Allying with the tailsman player is a sure way to guarantee second place at best. And who want's to be second? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Geoschmo

[ July 14, 2003, 22:01: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Fyron

July 14th, 2003, 11:34 PM

Again, diplomacy is a very big part of the game. Have you ever heard of the team victory? The talisman player does not have to destroy everyone. His allies can very well win too. Your statements about the players all wanting to defeat the talisman so they do not lose is incorrect because if they ally with the talisman player, they will be quite capable of winning the game (assuming their alliance emerges victorious). They do not have to fight their allies later on.

It has nothing to do with controlling the other players, it has to do with using diplomacy to get some of them on your side. Failing on the diplomatic front means you are not playing well, as diplomacy is a big part of playing the game.

Well now, this is a few orders of magnitude less of an absulute statement then "Used correctly, the Talisman is an impossible trait to defeat."No, that is exactly the same as what I said before because it is illustrating correct usage.

You are still going to have to explain to me how you can control the speed your opponent expandsNo I am not, as I never said nor implied that you could.

You can play the best game you have ever played in your life, in fact you can play the second best game in the history of SE4 and still be behind you opponnent. And this somehow you define as not playing well? that makes no sense at all. That is not what I said at all. I never said nor implied that you can not lose if you are playing well. Since you are missing my point and instead focusing on the term "playing well" instead of the actual content of the argument, let us replace it with "playing better" in this instance.

If the best game of your life leaves you far behind the competition, you need more practice.

Again correct, and again no one made this claim. But getting into fights against a tailsman player where all else is equal is suicide. The same could be said of anything in the game.
All else being equal, the player with dreadnaughts will defeat the player with frigates every time.That is a rather contrived example, as the difference in magnitude is far greater than that between talisman vs. non-talisman.

As Gravey said, you can try. But you can't guarantee this. It depends on the experience of your opponents. If they are aware of teh effectivness of the Tailsman you will have an alliance of one, and that ain't gonna get you too far.Only if you fail to convince anyone to ally with you. Awareness of the effectiveness of the Talisman will also allow them to be able to see that the talisman player would be a strong ally, as long as you tell them this. And, I never said you could guarantee getting allies.

Again you are talking about things totally out of your control and saying that you aren't playing well. That makes no sense.No, what you say to other players is entirely within your control. It is entirely possible to gather allies in any game, if you are persuasive enough and if they have not already agreed to band together before you start trying to convince some of them to ally with you. If that happens, then either you have not met them yet and there is no chance of convincing them after they have already formed an alliance, or you are not doing very well with diplomacy, which relates back to not playing the game very well.

And what's irrational about ganging up on the Tailsman player? If you intend to even try to win it's irrational not to gang up on them and get them out early because as you said yourself allowing them to Last till the point of no return is a pretty sure way to guarantee you will lose.The other rational possibility is to ally with the talisman player. You will only lose if you are their enemy. Being their ally will allow you to win (assuming the alliance wins). SE4 is not a one on one slugfest, you know (unless a game is specifically set up that way, which is well beyond the scope of this discussion).

Allying with the tailsman player is a sure way to guarantee second place at best. And who want's to be second?
Those that do not have such a huge ego that they only consider being in 1st place as worth their time for winning. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ July 14, 2003, 22:36: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Jack Simth

July 15th, 2003, 12:48 AM

Originally Posted by Imperator Fyron on July 14, 2003 21:37:
I never said nor implied that you can not lose if you are playing well. Are you sure about that? Especially considering: Originally Posted by Imperator Fyron on July 14, 2003 21:00:
Used correctly, the Talisman is an impossible trait to defeat.Considering that if you aren't using your stuff correctly, you aren't playing well, that sure sounds like you are implying you can not lose if you are playing well with the Talisman - you are almost saying it outright.

I suspect I'm not the only one who reads the excerpt from Fyron's post at 21:00 that way - would someone confirm this suspicion?

Fyron

July 15th, 2003, 12:50 AM

Obviously you are confused about my statements. Nothing I have said implies that it is impossible to lose if playing well with the talisman.

Jack Simth

July 15th, 2003, 01:03 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Obviously you are confused about my statements. Nothing I have said implies that it is impossible to lose if playing well with the talisman.I'm willing to entertain the notion that I am confused; why don't you explain how the 21:00 quote I dug up doesn't imply that it is impossible to lose if playing well with the talisman, rather than just outright contradicting my observation?

Spoo

July 15th, 2003, 02:40 AM

I think that would make it more or less useless, since defensive structures play a fairly small role in the game by the time you would have the Talisman...
Ah, but how useless is a planet full of large weapon platforms that never miss? Of course, it would work better in a mod that increases storage space on plants. In Proportions or AIC, for example, defensive structures play a big role throughout the game (especially for homeworlds).

geoschmo

July 15th, 2003, 03:31 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Again, diplomacy is a very big part of the game. Have you ever heard of the team victory? The talisman player does not have to destroy everyone. His allies can very well win too. Your statements about the players all wanting to defeat the talisman so they do not lose is incorrect because if they ally with the talisman player, they will be quite capable of winning the game (assuming their alliance emerges victorious). They do not have to fight their allies later on.Obviously my comments were directed towards a game in which only one person is the ultimate winner. I said as much when I said that allying with a tailsman player is a good way to guarantee second place at best. In a game with a team victory it would not be nearly as difficult for the tailsman player to find allies, and in fact he may find that he has his choice of who to ally with as everyone will want to have him on their team.

But your initial statment that I am objecting to made no such qualification. You did not say "Used correctly, the Talisman is an impossible trait to defeat in a team game." To add that qualification now after the fact changes the whole dynamic of the discussion.

Fyron, I am not arguing that Tailsman isn't powerful, or even in need of balancing. I am simply trying to get you to admit your oringinal comment was a gross overstatment.
It has nothing to do with controlling the other players, it has to do with using diplomacy to get some of them on your side. Failing on the diplomatic front means you are not playing well, as diplomacy is a big part of playing the game.But diplomacy is just as important in a Last man standing game and in such a game you will find it tough going finding allies among experienced players, no matter how well you play that part of the game. You said it's about using dimplomacy to get them on your side. That is in effect controlling them. You are getting them to do what you want are you not? If you can somehow manipulate a player to do something that is counter to his interests in the game he has made a critical error. You cannot force him to make such an error. Not being able to do so is by no means an indication of poor play or a failure on your part. You can try and manipulate him to do so, but in the end it depends on how well how plays his game. And please do not respond to this by saying in a team game it's not against his interests to ally with the tailsman player. We have already covered that point and I think we agree on it.
Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
But, playing well (with fast expansion and such) combined with the Talisman does guarantee victory in most game situations (except when you get the other players to ally against you, Well now, this is a few orders of magnitude less of an absulute statement then "Used correctly, the Talisman is an impossible trait to defeat." Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
No, that is exactly the same as what I said before because it is illustrating correct usage.No it is not. Not to any reasonable logical thinking person. It is the difference between a flat, unequvocal statment and one with conditions and qualifications. My objection is to the unequvocal nature of your post, and so on that basis the two statments are worlds apart. If you hadn't way over stated your case originally and weren't too proud to admit it now you would would say you agree with me. If you don't you are not making an honest statement, because I know you are to smart to think that.

You are still going to have to explain to me how you can control the speed your opponent expands

No I am not, as I never said nor implied that you could.Of course you didn't. But by saying you can beat the opponent by playing well without making any reference to your opponents level of play makes an assumption that you are playing better then your opponent. Since you cannot control how well your opponent plays how can you be sure you are going to play better then them?

You can play the best game you have ever played in your life, in fact you can play the second best game in the history of SE4 and still be behind you opponnent. And this somehow you define as not playing well? that makes no sense at all.

That is not what I said at all. I never said nor implied that you can not lose if you are playing well. Since you are missing my point and instead focusing on the term "playing well" instead of the actual content of the argument, let us replace it with "playing better" in this instance.
Are you actually going to sit here now and say what you really meant was that if you play better than the other guys and have the Tailsman you will win? Fyron, if you play better then your opponent you will win without the tailsman. What exactly is the point of that stetment? Another post-comment qualification to misdirect attention away from your obviously exagerated intital statement.

If the best game of your life leaves you far behind the competition, you need more practice.You don't have to be far behind the competition. You can simply be facing several opponents allied against you all of which individually are no better then you. That is exactly my point.

Again correct, and again no one made this claim. But getting into fights against a tailsman player where all else is equal is suicide. The same could be said of anything in the game.
All else being equal, the player with dreadnaughts will defeat the player with frigates every time.

That is a rather contrived example, as the difference in magnitude is far greater than that between talisman vs. non-talisman.Is it now? By what basis do you make this statment? I think you need to recheck your facts. The Tailsman costs 825,000 research points. The Dreadnaught costs 1,015,000 research points. Not a contrived example at all, and not even that much difference. But if you wish, make it escorts vs battleships. Battleships cost less in research (695,000) then tailsman and will have similer levels of success against escorts as tailsman vs non-tailsman, all else being equal. So my example was only slightly exagerated and is quite a bit more accurate then your original comment.

As Gravey said, you can try. But you can't guarantee this. It depends on the experience of your opponents. If they are aware of the effectivness of the Tailsman you will have an alliance of one, and that ain't gonna get you too far.

Only if you fail to convince anyone to ally with you. Awareness of the effectiveness of the Talisman will also allow them to be able to see that the talisman player would be a strong ally, as long as you tell them this. And, I never said you could guarantee getting allies.No, you did not. What you said was, "Used correctly, the Talisman is an impossible trait to defeat." a statment which fails to even mention allies which means according to your statement allies are irrelevant.

Again you are talking about things totally out of your control and saying that you aren't playing well. That makes no sense.

No, what you say to other players is entirely within your control. It is entirely possible to gather allies in any game, if you are persuasive enough and if they have not already agreed to band together before you start trying to convince some of them to ally with you. If that happens, then either you have not met them yet and there is no chance of convincing them after they have already formed an alliance, or you are not doing very well with diplomacy, which relates back to not playing the game very well.Once again Fyron, you can sweet talk them all you want, but if they want to win they won't ally with you. Not unless you limited your comment to allied victory games, but you made no such qualification until after the fact. Their chances will be much better by eliminating you first and then fighting it out with the non-tailsman players in a Last man standing game.

And what's irrational about ganging up on the Tailsman player? If you intend to even try to win it's irrational not to gang up on them and get them out early because as you said yourself allowing them to Last till the point of no return is a pretty sure way to guarantee you will lose.

The other rational possibility is to ally with the talisman player. You will only lose if you are their enemy. Being their ally will allow you to win (assuming the alliance wins). SE4 is not a one on one slugfest, you know (unless a game is specifically set up that way, which is well beyond the scope of this discussion).
It is not out of the scope of this discussion at all to talk about a Last man standing game. You know that. In fact your comment isn't even correct for a team game, because you still may be unable to get them to ally with you for whatever reason. That's my point. You can't make the other players do anything. Even in a team game where it may make perfect sense for them to ally with the tailsman player they may not want to for some reason.

Allying with the tailsman player is a sure way to guarantee second place at best. And who want's to be second?

Those that do not have such a huge ego that they only consider being in 1st place as worth their time for winning. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif In a Last man standing game it's not an ego thing to want to be the Last man standing. It's the name of the game. Why play if you don't want to win? And if you aren't trying to win, why take the tailsman?

[ July 15, 2003, 02:40: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Taera

July 15th, 2003, 03:40 AM

only ways of winning against a religious raceagainst an equal or better player, as it seems to me is:
*luck with start
*luck with planets
*better racial setup (SO rare, given they get 50% aggressiveness)
*a mistake from their side

Roanon

July 15th, 2003, 04:09 AM

Is there a point in arguing if the talisman can't be defeated at all "if used correctly", or if the talisman only can be defeated if a lot of luck is involved?
Either way, taking religious seems to be the only option if you want to win, barring some exotic setups. That reduces the options and variety of the game in an unfavorable way and therefore should be changed somehow.

Discussing diplomatic options and possibilities is irrelevant, as too many players are content with a sure 2nd place instead of having an uncertain shot at being the winner.

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
[QUOTE][...] it is probably not a group of players you should play with again, as they are not interested in fair play, only winning at any cost.So, the player taking religious is NOT someone only interested in winning at any cost? Strange argumentation here...
Or is being interested in winning generally unfair - as long as is someone ELSE who wants to win? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ July 15, 2003, 03:09: Message edited by: Roanon ]

tesco samoa

July 15th, 2003, 05:10 AM

all i know is that due to the time invested in playing a pbw game the talisman is either bull or bear....

I think it ruins a game in stock... but in mods where there is adjustments then i have no problem...

But it can be countered you just need 20 % and greater forces to do it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I personally do not like the talisman in stock. I perfer it as a mount with no damage or range bonuses. Or if its size and hit points are increased by 100 or 150 and its cost is tripled http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

But there are the counters to it... the Temporal Space Yard. The Replicant centre. They are unbalancing in their own ways but not as popular in the dicussions of unbalancing racial techs... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

P.S. I do not hunt down and kill taliman lovers every game.... Only if I know that I think I have a chance in the mid game to get clobbered if i do not. Then i decide if it is worth the investment in the game.....
I have never played religous in a pbw game in my life... I have in solo games.... I always found the facilites to great to build right away ( their good but cost too much at the beginning of a game... so it kills my production as i just go click happy on them )

If there is ever a rth2 i will try one... as it makes sence in that game

Taera

July 15th, 2003, 09:35 PM

I still think that the religious tech tree is an awesome economical tech tree on its own, even without the talisman in it. Wouldnt it be better off with replacing the talisman with something less combat-related?

Fyron

July 15th, 2003, 09:51 PM

Obviously my comments were directed towards a game in which only one person is the ultimate winner.That is not how the vast majority of PBW games are, so you are specifically narrowing down the realm of possibility. Any non-team game can end if only the members of a particular alliance are left, and they agree to end it. They are all the winners in that event.

You said it's about using dimplomacy to get them on your side. That is in effect controlling them. You are getting them to do what you want are you not?That is the goal of diplomacy, yes. It does not require any direct controlling of them though.

If you can somehow manipulate a player to do something that is counter to his interests in the game he has made a critical error. You cannot force him to make such an error. Forming alliances is not an error.

Basically, you need to stop limiting the game to the specific free for all format where there is no possibility for allied victory, as that is the only context in which most of your arguments on the diplomacy issue make any sense at all. In the more general sense, forming alliances is a standard part of the game. Noone has to stand alone unless they want to or get really really unlucky. I have formed tons of alliances in all sorts of games, and there has never been anything forced about them. I never had to control them into allying with me. It was simply "want to ally?" and "Sure!" (usually more verbose than that, but that is the basic idea).

It is the difference between a flat, unequvocal statment and one with conditions and qualifications. My objection is to the unequvocal nature of your post, and so on that basis the two statments are worlds apart. My initial statement was not a flat, unequivocable statement. It very clearly has a conditional qualifier on it, "used correctly". Those two words make all the difference. It may not be the qualifier you want to hear, but it is indeed there.

geoschmo

July 15th, 2003, 10:12 PM

I am not narrowing the realm, your initial comment contained no such qualification. It made no comment to the fact of allies or not. Therefore the allies must be irrelevant for your statement to be correct.

My initial statement was not a flat, unequivocable statement. It very clearly has a conditional qualifier on it, "used correctly". Those two words make all the difference. It may not be the qualifier you want to hear, but it is indeed there.Please, really. You need to get a grip on your own arguments Fyron. Are you really expecting us to believe that by "used correctly" you meant to include a choice to only use it in games in which team victory is an option? What you meant was clear and well understood by everyone that read it. "used correctly" infers skill, and preformance in the game itself. It says nothing to anyone about a selective decision in game settings prior to the game start.

And by what basis do you claim the vast majority of games are not Last man standing? Have you been in the vast majority of PBW games? I think I might have somehting of an educated opinion on this subject, seeing as how the PBW server just happens to be sitting in my garage at the moment. I have been in scads of games and the large majority of them have had one of two endings. Either one person prevailed alone, or the game pretty much petered out and everybody lost interest in it. Of course their have been a lot that have had "team victories", wether offically or unofficially. I will grant that my personal experience may be slightly affected by my own personal predillection away form team games. But I am involved in many more games as owner and as PBW admin then I actually play in, so I think I can claim to know what I am talking about here. The claim that the vast majority of games are not Last man standing is a particularly ignorant one to make.

Geoschmo

geoschmo

July 16th, 2003, 01:21 AM

I am no fan of the Tailsman myself. I used to think it was no great deal because of the research cost involved to get it, but too many people have learned more efficent colonization and research techniques now for that to still be true.

The biggest problem is not that it is undefeatable, because it is not undefeatable. But it takes a lot of effort to defeat. Personnaly I like to play the diplomacy game. I don't like big coaliitions early in the game. I like to have different alliances with different people over the course of the game and try to play one against the other. And I like to pick my allies and enemies on a geographical basis which I think is mroe natural for a strategy game. But having a tailsman player in a game takes that element out because you are forced to make alliances with everyone else and go all out to get them.

What has ended up happening to me in several games is we are able to knock off the tailsman player, but their presence has forced me to cooperate with a player that in a more natural game would have been my enemy. And allowing them to expand while I concentrate on the tailsman player ends up biting me anyway.

It doesn't bother me at all when the players in my games vote to ban the religious tech. I think the game is better without it.

Geoschmo

Soulfisher

July 16th, 2003, 09:32 AM

But diplomacy (for the purpose of creating allies for you, the religious-tech player) will only work if you can find another player who is willing to ally with you -and- win the game with you as their ally (in other words, they are willing to share the victory with you). If all the players in the game want to be the sole victor, they may gang up on you to destroy you, then fight each other. Or they may ally with you against others, but then prove themselves backstabbers and attack you once your allied victory is assured.

Fyron

July 16th, 2003, 09:42 AM

In that case you might be screwed. But, I never said that you are guaranteed to be able to make allies.

Just so you know, Geo and I took the discussion to MSN a while ago (and he had to leave before we could finish it)...

Taera

July 16th, 2003, 11:00 AM

so the only real way of effectively exterminating the talisman player is ganging up on him? doesnt sound too good to me.

Baron Munchausen

July 16th, 2003, 04:27 PM

We've suggested several fixes for the Talisman in the Beta forum. MM is busy with Starfury right now, and might just go on to SE V when he's done with it. But if he's willing to make one more patch for SE IV we could still get him to make it only work with certain weapons or only at intervals (every X turns instead of every turn) so as to limit its power.

geoschmo

July 16th, 2003, 05:26 PM

What about making the tailsman only work for one weapon each combat turn?

tesco samoa

July 16th, 2003, 06:21 PM

baron if that is a hard code it is a horrible idea....

why not just leave it to the modders...

Slynky

July 16th, 2003, 06:37 PM

Why not make it simple and just set it so it adds 50% chance to hit (or whatever percentage you think makes it a component to be reckoned with but not 100% chance to hit)?

atari_eric

July 16th, 2003, 06:42 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
What about making the tailsman only work for one weapon each combat turn?Sounds like then you'd huge/super/spinal/whatever mount the biggest, meanest single weapon in the game, fill the rest of the space with shields/armor/enignes/ECM/etc, and crank them out like pennies.

atari_eric

July 16th, 2003, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
baron if that is a hard code it is a horrible idea....

why not just leave it to the modders...I think what he needs to do is essentially make the "official" talisman (in data/components) like one of the modded tal's. Effectively mod his own thing and make it the new official base configuration.

geoschmo

July 16th, 2003, 06:48 PM

One hard code change I would like to see is the ability to turn off the tailsman at game setup without turning off the entire religous technology branch. That way you wouldn't need a mod to remove it from the game and still let people build the facilities.

Geoschmo

[ July 16, 2003, 17:54: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

July 16th, 2003, 06:54 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
One hard code change I would like to see is the ability to turn off the tailsman at game setup without turning on the entire religous technology branch. That way you wouldn't need a mod to remove it from the game and still let people build the facilities.

GeoschmoYou don't need a hard code change or an entire mod. Just set the tech level requirement for the talisman to 10 and leave everything else as it is. Then you won't be able to get it.

Loser

July 16th, 2003, 07:06 PM

Originally posted by Q:
You don't need a hard code change or an entire mod. Just set the tech level requirement for the talisman to 10 and leave everything else as it is. Then you won't be able to get it.See, I think that's the kind of modding Geo was talking about avoiding.

geoschmo

July 16th, 2003, 07:14 PM

Exactly right Loser. Q, I was suggesting a method to eliminate modding as a solution period. Of course your solution is very simple, but for the purposes of PBW play it would require something other than stock data files which is what I was trying to avoid. You can do it now by simply turning off the whole tech area, but some people think the economic facilities alone are enough of a reason to take the religious racial trait.

Geoschmo

Loser

July 16th, 2003, 07:19 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
some people think the economic facilities alone are enough of a reason to take the religious racial trait.Yeah. They rock.

Though if the Talisman were to be pulled, even those excellent facilities would not be worth the price one would pay for the whole Organic tech tree. (Mmmm... replicants... in tailer parks....)

Taera

July 16th, 2003, 07:33 PM

no, i think the religious facilities are worth 1500 racial points on their own. and the talisman doesnt make sense. perharps maintenance-reducing components might do the religious comp trick?

LGM

July 16th, 2003, 07:35 PM

You can certainly mod the Talisman to be weaker in some way. However, most games appear to use the base data files, which means the Talisman will dominate most games.

Gannging up on a Religious player does not work very well when 1/3 to 1/2 of the players are Religous. At least one of them will survive to get to the Talisman.

The relgious shrines are a nice help on the road to the Talisman. It is hard taking out systems that have pluses to damage and defense. The early game system bonuses give them a strong economy to defend with as they research to the Talisman.

How many widely played mods out there have a weakened form the the Talisman?

I created a Mod and made the Talisman act as 10KT armor so that it gets taken out right away without shields, or relatively soon if shields are stopping attacks. None of the players in that game took the Religious trait with that change. However, I also made some advanced traits cheaper so that lured them there.

At this point I will most likely only join games where the Mod reduces or eliminates the Talisman or Religous is turned off. I feel it is hard to design a race that is competitive with Religous without taking that trait. Organic races come close, but seekers are not a good counter as Point Defense can deal with them quite well. Ramming is hard gainst an enemy that hangs out at max range. Give the Religious player repulser beams and he will fling your ships away after he damges them, unless you use a bigger hull, which means you are to slow to catch them.

I have played a Religious race several times and really dominated and I have played against them several times and been really frustrated.

I think that Religious should be excluded from most PBW games until the base mode weakens the trait somehow.

Slynky

July 16th, 2003, 08:16 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Exactly right Loser. Q, I was suggesting a method to eliminate modding as a solution period. Of course your solution is very simple, but for the purposes of PBW play it would require something other than stock data files which is what I was trying to avoid. You can do it now by simply turning off the whole tech area, but some people think the economic facilities alone are enough of a reason to take the religious racial trait.

GeoschmoI'm not sure I would. And, IMHO, a particularly offensive-prone player would lose a lot of the benefits by leaving his systems. Big deal with the event stuff---hardly anyone plays it in the games I've looked over. So, the best you are left with is added resource production if you lean toward an offensive game. (I'll confess I'm not a "student" or "expert" of the Religious trait, I've just played it a few times)

[ July 16, 2003, 19:18: Message edited by: Slynky ]

Fyron

July 16th, 2003, 08:24 PM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
baron if that is a hard code it is a horrible idea....

why not just leave it to the modders...It needs to be fixed in the unmodded game.

Originally posted by Geoschmo:
But basically he had come to the realisation his original statement was an exageration, he is just too proud to admit it publicly.
That has nothing to do with it. I still had some more to say, you just left prematurely.

[ July 16, 2003, 19:29: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

tesco samoa

July 16th, 2003, 09:19 PM

gee thanks fryon http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif I never would have guessed that....

perhaps you can toss out one of your ideas that you have on it. :-p

Personally I think it should remain the same for the seiv game. As there are ways to deal with the unbalancing of the talisman by the modders and game setup.

SEV it should be resolved in concept before the game is released.

It is just one of those things that do not work. We all have learnt to live with the talisman.

Suicide Junkie

July 16th, 2003, 09:41 PM

It needs to be fixed in the unmodded game.Players need to be less hung up on using unmodded games.

Fyron

July 16th, 2003, 09:47 PM

Only a small portion of those playing the game use mods (even on PBW, most games are unmodded). Using mods is not a problem, but mods are for different game styles and such. They should not be required to fix fundamental flaws in a game (such as the Talisman).

tesco samoa

July 16th, 2003, 10:47 PM

I disagree with you there.

The talisman concept in the stock mod may be flawed.

That is all.

The game itself is not flawed because of the talisman.

Playing the game under normal conditions it is not a problem.

But when you factor in fqm maps , changing the default systems to greater than 100 then yes it becomes a problem

but then your not playing stock. and your playing a modified Version of stock.

Simply put there is no way to fix it without creating other balance problems.

So why not leave it as is since we can deal with it.

This will most likely be the Last patch... Do we want effort spent in this area when we ourselves can change it ???

And there are other aspects of the game that should be looked at.

Unless of course you have a solution you would like to share with us that balances the talisman once and for all http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Fyron

July 16th, 2003, 10:58 PM

There are a lot of ways to balance the Talismans out. Make it a mount, make it not have 100% guaranteed to hit, have it make the ship it is on easier to hit, etc. That is what the beta testers are for, to test these things out before they go public.

And yes, the Talisman issue makes the stock game flawed, as does the DUCS/PPBs/APBs (though esp. the PPBs), mines, fighters, PDCs/missiles, armor, etc. There are a lot of problems that are not hard to fix and should have been fixed in a patch for the game a long, long time ago. If you do not agree with a particular balance fix, you can always go and change it back. But for the rest of us that appreciate efforts to balance the game, the changes will have been done already and not require extra modding to make it better. Again, modding is not for fixing balance problems, but for creating whole new styles of play (ie: Pirates and Nomads, Proportions, Adamant's physical/magical/organic races, sci-fi mods, etc.). And of course you will never get 100% agreeance on any balance fix. But, that is irrelevant. MM does not have to please everyone. The lack of any attempts at balance changes is IMO more displeasing overall than not having them fixed in the way you want them fixed.

geoschmo

July 16th, 2003, 10:59 PM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
The game itself is not flawed because of the talisman.

Playing the game under normal conditions it is not a problem.

But when you factor in fqm maps , changing the default systems to greater than 100 then yes it becomes a problem
That is an excellent point Tesco. When I think about the few games that I have had problems with a talisman player, they have all been games with something unusual involved. A denser then normal map like FQM that allows the player to get established quicker, or a high tech start. In a regular stock game you just need to find the player and attack him as soon as you find him really. Cause there the research thing becomes a big deal.

The ideal is when you catch them just as they get to talisman, becasue they are normally way behind in other tech areas and haven't got the talisman fully emplyed yet. You don't even need a gang then. You could do it by yourself.

Geoschmo

geoschmo

July 16th, 2003, 11:00 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
MM does not have to please everyone.Only you, right? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Fyron

July 16th, 2003, 11:08 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
MM does not have to please everyone.Only you, right? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif <hr /></blockquote>I am sorry for suggesting that MM operate as 90% of the industry that releases frequent update patches does in regards to those patches. Most games get frequent balance fixes in patches. Se4 has only had one or two of them, which just sucks.

Erax

July 17th, 2003, 01:10 AM

I say, leave the Talisman the way it is. The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

geoschmo

July 17th, 2003, 01:15 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Just so you know, Geo and I took the discussion to MSN a while ago (and he had to leave before we could finish it)...But basically he had come to the realisation his original statement was an exageration, he is just too proud to admit it publicly. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Originally posted by Taera:
so the only real way of effectively exterminating the talisman player is ganging up on him? doesnt sound too good to me.No, it's not the only way, but it is the most effective. The Talisman is powerful, probably too much so. A single player can beat him but it takes healthy helpings of skill and aggressivness, and a little luck too. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif There is no simple counter for it like there is for so many other things in the game. It takes a complete all around effort.

Geoschmo

Gozra

July 18th, 2003, 09:03 PM

I have seen and been a part of Talisman disscusions over the years I have been playing SE. I have also watched space empire discussion evolve amoung a group of friends that I play SEIV face to face. I won't forget that one time I said what do you need extra cargo space for and my friend agreed that the cargo faclity was useless. Well now that I have played more I find that the cargo Faclity is very useful. I have also found that the game is very well blanced. The talisman is not the uber weapon that a lot of people imply. It can be defeated in many ways. I have found also that for every advantage there is a counter to that advantage.
I would suggest that Fryon play 5 people in ten games each player would get to be the Talisman player alternatly and see what type of win stats Fryon could rack up.

Cheeze

July 18th, 2003, 09:57 PM

Without the Talisman, the Deeply Religious tech tree is interesting but not up to being a racial tech equal to the others. Given the component size, and generally in conjunction with the decreased Aggressiveness that many Religious players and races have, it goes down pretty quickly in a fight and leaves that ship next to useless. If the talisman is replaced by some component that works as an enhanced combat sensor, then the Religious tree needs other additions. I would suggest some mix of "religious" weaponry: a converter (works as Allegiance Subverter, perhaps with the same weakness or one that works on the master computer), a superior weapon destroyer (some sort of "pacifist hippie" device..hee hee) or reload limiter, and maybe a wormhole-beam style weapon or tractor/repulser. That Deeply Religious comes with no special weapons is an inherent weakness in the trait, but it also does not give that player the option having to research that tech line, and instead focus on the more standard options.

That being said, I enjoy playing with the Religious trait, irrespective of the Talisman. I do like the Religious facilities, the Nature shrine being perhaps my favorite. I love watching all my planets' resource values go up 3% on the .1 turn of the year!! I think the Time Shrine should boost more than resource production in that system. Given its description, it should raise research and intel as well!

Fyron

July 18th, 2003, 11:22 PM

Gozra, I have played plenty of games, and I know the effects of the Talisman very well.

Can you honestly tell me that a situation in which 30 ships armed with Talismans (I forget the size of the ships) managed to defeat over 200 max-tech Dreadnoughts with only 5 losses is a well-balanced system?

[ July 18, 2003, 22:36: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Baron Munchausen

July 19th, 2003, 12:45 AM

One possible 'mod' of the Talisman is to make it really HUGE (100kt or more) and expensive and make it an 'area' effect device rather than only the ship it's on. Do the facility combat modifers work on components? For a whole fleet? In other words, a 'portable' death shrine. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif That would make the 'Talisman' essentially area effect ECM/ECCM. This would let you have some advantages, but balanced with a vulnerability (if the enemy gets to that one ship and poofs it, you're advantage is gone.)

July 19th, 2003, 07:58 AM

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
One possible 'mod' of the Talisman is to make it really HUGE (100kt or more) and expensive and make it an 'area' effect device rather than only the ship it's on. Do the facility combat modifers work on components? For a whole fleet? In other words, a 'portable' death shrine. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif That would make the 'Talisman' essentially area effect ECM/ECCM. This would let you have some advantages, but balanced with a vulnerability (if the enemy gets to that one ship and poofs it, you're advantage is gone.)I made the suggestion to increase size and/or cost of the talisman several times but some people apparently want a change of the standard SE IV game for reasons I never really understood (which is certainly my problem). I would prefer to leave the talisman as it is.
Facility abilities as the death shrine abilities will not work on components (with few exceptions). If this could be changed it would open up huge new modding possibilities.

Taera

July 19th, 2003, 08:30 AM

*lightbulb* why cant the talisman be the same as the Neural Net Computer, but cheaper, smaller and racial??

Fyron

July 19th, 2003, 09:58 AM

Facility abilities as the death shrine abilities will not work on components (with few exceptions).Yes they do. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

July 19th, 2003, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Facility abilities as the death shrine abilities will not work on components (with few exceptions).Yes they do. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif <hr /></blockquote>I can't believe that I did not see this. You are right the death shrine ability seems to work on components. Not my day today. However on the bright side this opens up some very interesting possibilities for new components. Thank you for correcting me Fyron.

[ July 19, 2003, 13:31: Message edited by: Q ]

geoschmo

July 19th, 2003, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by Q:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Facility abilities as the death shrine abilities will not work on components (with few exceptions).Yes they do. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif <hr /></blockquote>I can't believe that I did not see this. You are right the death shrine ability seems to work on components. Not my day today. However on the bright side this opens up some very interesting possibilities for new components. Thank you for correcting me Fyron.<hr /></blockquote>Actually you are both sort of right. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif The Death Shrine ability apparently works, but it is one of the few exceptions. It would be very nice if every facility ability would work on a componernt and vice versa.

Geoschmo

Taera

July 19th, 2003, 11:08 PM

noone notice my idea? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

oleg

July 20th, 2003, 03:22 AM

But neural combat net (or whatever is the name ) is not a very useful tech. - if you get experience from training facilities, most likely all you ships in the fleet will have same level. If it is from battle, that is very rare in SEIV, you need a very tough ships that survives several battles and killed a lot of enemy ships on the way. That may work in some other game, but SEIV is not about an invincible Enterprise or Avenger, but about big fleets with no regards to any individual ship survivor.

Taera

July 20th, 2003, 04:26 AM

it could come with the very first tech, be only 10kT large and cost 1/2 as much. Then their fleets would have 45% experience when you'd have 20%. Combat experience is slow, but when you gain experience for EVERY SHOT DONE in combat, well, it moves fast. You just need some good weapons and good sensors. Thinking about it, you'd just need 125% agg, berz and sensors 1 to be very powerful early on.

Gozra

July 20th, 2003, 04:08 PM

I am in a game right now where a player claims to have 200+ experience points. Two other players in the game have the talisman. I chose the middle route and I am the largest player in the game. So far in the titanic struggle everyone is holding their own. Ad for fryon's example of 30 to 200 well I have found your tactics can have a lot to do with how battles turn out also formations who fires first etc. I have found in this game that it is uppredictable and balanced. And SEIV is set up so that you can balance it in a multiplayer game very easily. I will also point out that a great deal of winning a game is dependent on starting position and surrounding systems. Give me a good start position and you a bad one and you can have the talisman.

oleg

July 21st, 2003, 01:59 AM

I think experience go up only when you kill enemy, not when you shot and hit !

oleg

July 21st, 2003, 05:11 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by geoschmo:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
MM does not have to please everyone.Only you, right? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif <hr /></blockquote>I am sorry for suggesting that MM operate as 90% of the industry that releases frequent update patches does in regards to those patches. Most games get frequent balance fixes in patches. Se4 has only had one or two of them, which just sucks.<hr /></blockquote>That is not true ! Let see what play balance issues have been addresed in patches as I remember: missile speed, APB damage, ionic dispersor, allegiance subverter, organic armor, mines, range mounts for WP and satellites, order of firing. Might be many more.

Fyron

July 21st, 2003, 08:56 PM

Gozra, I think experience is limited to 50 points per ship and 50 per fleet...

Oleg, almost all of those are not balance changes, but hardcode bug fixes. Balance changes are tweaking some values in the data files. Make Phased - Energy Weapons cost more, for example. Only missile speed, APB damage (wasn't it PPB damage, not APB?) and range mounts qualify as balance fixes. So, 3 instead of 1 or 2. Same difference. But either way, they are relatively minor changes, and most of the important balance issues have not been addressed.

[ July 21, 2003, 19:57: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Loser

July 21st, 2003, 09:18 PM

AS vs. MC.

Fyron

July 21st, 2003, 09:30 PM

Again, that is a hardcode change, not a simple balance change. The point that balance changes are few and far between is still quite valid.

geoschmo

July 21st, 2003, 09:51 PM

Most games get balance changes? I don't play many other games, so I will have to accept this contention at face value Fyron. But most games do not allow the players to make simple data file changes and tweak the balance to their hearts content the way that SEIV does. So one could make a valid point that Malfador has made all of the balance changes you want, by giving you the tools to do it yourself.

Claiming that most people don't play mods is completely irrelevant. Most people that buy a game don't even bother to download patches for them. What does that prove?

The simple fact is that balance is subjective. No, Malfador doesn't have to make everyone happy. It wouldn't even be possible even if they wanted to. But if the result of a change is a just a different group of unhappy people what's the point of the change? Especially when you consider anyone that is unhappy with it in the first place can change it themselves.

But I will tell you again what I have told you before. A lot of things could be changed and would be improvments, I will totally agree with that. But if you have something like that you'd like to see changed, whining about it in the forum isn't going to help. Send the suggestion to Malfador. Not just a "balance this" gripe, but actually do the change yourself and do the real work and playtest it. Send your playtest results to Malfador along with comments from the players involved in your playtests, if there are any.

Make a clear and convinvcing case for a "simple" change and I would be suprised if it didn't get done. Especially if you can hand him the text and all he has to do is proofread it and paste it into the data files. It worked for you before on the formations problem didn't it?

Of course whining is a lot easier.

Geoschmo

[ July 21, 2003, 20:52: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Erax

July 21st, 2003, 10:58 PM

Malfador doesn't have to make everyone happy. It wouldn't even be possible even if they wanted to. But if the result of a change is a just a different group of unhappy people what's the point of the change? Like we say down here, "You can't please the Greeks and the Trojans."

Phoenix-D

July 21st, 2003, 11:01 PM

"Again, that is a hardcode change, not a simple balance change. The point that balance changes are few and far between is still quite valid. "

No, it was a balance change that required hardcode doing. Same with the ID vs shields; I doubt it was a bug that made it skip shields, since other "kills x" weapons do.

Fyron

July 21st, 2003, 11:14 PM

Most games get balance changes? Please reread my statement. Games that get frequent patches (as SE4 does) generally get frequent balance fixes.

whining about it in the forum isn't going to help. I have seen no whining here Geo.

P-D:
AS vs MC was a bug. It was not supposed to convert ships with a damaged MC, but it did. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

From History.txt:
2. Fixed - "Crew ConVersion" damage type will fail against a ship with a Master Computer (regardless if that component is damaged or not). It does not matter if there is a Bridge on the ship. Note how it says "Fixed" and not "Changed"? This shows that it was meant to fail against ships with a damaged MC.

7. Changed - Engine Damaging Weapons no longer skip shields. That one was a balance change. So that makes 4. Still not very many.

[ July 21, 2003, 22:21: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Gozra

July 21st, 2003, 11:53 PM

SEIV is as blanced a game as any. The ablity to modifify the starting set up allowes players of varying ablity to play fairly equally. (See set up page on PBW for Cluster command) There are way to many other variables in SEIV to say that this or that racial trait allows someone to win more often. We have no stastical data to base these statements on. I do have a gut feeling that this game from the outset has more balance than most games.

spoon

July 22nd, 2003, 01:05 AM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Most games get balance changes? I don't play many other games, so I will have to accept this contention at face value Fyron.
They don't. Most GOOD multiplayer games, however, do receive additional balancing tweaks after release.

Claiming that most people don't play mods is completely irrelevant.
If he was talking about single player games, yes, it would be. But making a mod has an impact on the number of people you can play against, so it is an important consideration. Decreasing the pool of available players can lead to stagnation.

Most people that buy a game don't even bother to download patches for them. What does that prove?
That most people aren't hardcore gamers.

The simple fact is that balance is subjective.
Not strictly true, I think it is quantifiable to a point. However, MM doesn't track multiplayer games so it doesn't collect the data it would need make an informed decision on balance tweaks. However, some of the balance issues are big enough that I'm surprised they haven't been addressed.

No, Malfador doesn't have to make everyone happy. It wouldn't even be possible even if they wanted to. But if the result of a change is a just a different group of unhappy people what's the point of the change?
Art for art's sake, maybe? The game isn't perfectly balanced, though , so a lot of the choices that you appear to have aren't valid (in a competitive game). Making more choices available makes the game more robust, and therefore "better". If the happiness quotient stays the same, as you argue, then why not strive for perfection?

geoschmo

July 22nd, 2003, 01:48 AM

Originally posted by spoon:
Art for art's sake, maybe? The game isn't perfectly balanced, though , so a lot of the choices that you appear to have aren't valid (in a competitive game). Making more choices available makes the game more robust, and therefore "better". If the happiness quotient stays the same, as you argue, then why not strive for perfection?Why not? Frankly because there is no incentive for Malfador as a business to strive for perfection. I can't deny perfection as a noble goal. However, I think giving players the tools to make their own view of perfection is a perfectly acceptable method of acchieving that goal.

When you get down to it Malfador is a business. If the game was so hopelessly flawed that I did not feel I had gotten my money's worth out of it I could totally agree with you and even Fyron. But frankly I have gotten much more then I could or should expect to get out of a game I paid 40 bucks for. Even 80 if you count the Gold Version.

If something about the game bothers me enough I try to make a case to have it changed. Either it does or it doesn't get changed. Fortuntly at least for me the flaws I see with SEIV are not game stoppers. Even parts that are as goobered up as intel and mines are playable. They just aren't as deep as I would like. The weapon balance issue I see as such a non-issue. Mainly because I don't think it's that bad, and also because it's so user customizable.

The kind of changes I would like to see done are more fundamental then could be done in a simple balance tweak. A lot are more extensive then could be expected even in a patch. They require a new Version entirely. So for me it's more of a priority that Malfador start on SE5 then get tied up on an endless, and ultimatly futile search for perfection.

You say it's more of a factor for multiplayer games. I am sorry I don't get this at all. For me playing against a human isn't at all about what weapons I choose, but about the tactics and execution, building an empire, and then watching it get destroyed, or destroying my enemies if I am able. To me it's almost irrelevant what weapons are used.

I guess I have a little brain cause for me it's all I can do to maintain my empire at it's peak. If I had to think too hard to decide what guns were best to put on my ships... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

But hey, here's an idea!

Why don't you and Fyron take it upon yourself to acchieve the perfection? Make the mythical "Balance Mod" that so many have started, and noone has finished. Get suggestions from the forum, make the changes, and play test them thouroughly. Heck, I even have some suggestions and will help play test it. But I don't have the time or energy to lead the effort.

Keep it simple though. Don't get off track on new ideas. Just deal with the exsisting weapons, find the problems, suggest and implement simple changes solutions. "Small moves Ellie." http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif No hard code changes. Just stuff that we can change ourselves in the data files and test. And try to form a consensus opinion on everything. If a comromise can't be reached, no change is better then a bad one.

Once you have it ready we can go to Aaron and try with all our might to encourage him to implement them in the next patch lock stock and barrel. That is why I say keep it simple. The simpeler the better. The less possibility for conflicts with other parts of the game the better the chances he will do what we ask.

Worst case he won't add them and you will have what could end up being the standard balance mod for Se4. Combine it with TDM for improved AI and we might be that much closer to what we all think this game can be.

I am not saying "Put up or shut up." because you are free to do nothing and say anything you want. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif But people take you more seriously if you put some action behind your words.

Geoschmo

minipol

July 22nd, 2003, 01:52 AM

Geoschmo,

is it me or do you lately mold your sentences into bullets? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
Anyway, nicely put about the mod but such a mod would be impossible to make. Everybody has different ideas of game balance. What you think is balanced could tick me off and vice versa. But making a mod to balance out the major points of discussion like the talisman should be possible.

Fyron

July 22nd, 2003, 01:57 AM

Adamant already has a lot of balance fixes... I have put up. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif But a balance mod is not a bad idea. Maybe for after camping trip...

geoschmo

July 22nd, 2003, 02:24 AM

Originally posted by minipol:
Geoschmo,

is it me or do you lately mold your sentences into bullets? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
Eh? I don't understand. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Adamant already has a lot of balance fixes... I have put up. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif But a balance mod is not a bad idea. Maybe for after camping trip...Yes, I know. But if I recall correctly it also has a lot of stuff that isn't strictly balance oriented, but is new ideas.

I wasn't trying to say noone had ever added certain balance tweaks to their mods. Certainly many have. But the idea of a balance mod is that it could be inserted into the stock files with little or no unintedded consequences, or at the very least be a mod standard such as the TDM mod. and thus get very wide play in the community. Such a focused scope mod has been attempted before, but never completed.

Geoschmo

PvK

July 22nd, 2003, 03:31 AM

Actually, people mostly seemed to agree with the changes I put in my balance mod. I just never posted a completed Version, but most of the hard stuff was figured out. I should probably take the time to finish it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

PvK

Originally posted by minipol:
Geoschmo,

is it me or do you lately mold your sentences into bullets? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
Anyway, nicely put about the mod but such a mod would be impossible to make. Everybody has different ideas of game balance. What you think is balanced could tick me off and vice versa. But making a mod to balance out the major points of discussion like the talisman should be possible.

spoon

July 22nd, 2003, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by PvK:
Actually, people mostly seemed to agree with the changes I put in my balance mod. I just never posted a completed Version, but most of the hard stuff was figured out.


Geo's point about compatiblility is a good one:
But the idea of a balance mod is that it could be inserted into the stock files with little or no unintedded consequences, or at the very least be a mod standard such as the TDM mod. and thus get very wide play in the community.Since you mostly balanced the empire setup Characteristic and Trait costs, would this have an impact on modded races?

What else is important to consider? For example, would changing the size of a component mess with how an ai designs ships?

I suspect for components, messing with the tech tree and comp sizes would be a no-no. Anything else?

I should probably take the time to finish it.
Yes, yes you should http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

PvK

July 22nd, 2003, 07:33 PM

AI races, even the included ones, would be affected by a mod which only changes the empire creation costs.

All empires designed with the old point system would be likely to come out slightly differently with a new point system. Except for 5000-point empires, though, they might tend to come out better balanced than before, because the AI selects abilities until it runs out of points (or out of things on its shopping list).

AI empires which are set to capitalize on underpriced advantages in the unmodded game won't get to have as many of them, while AI empires designed to use overpriced advantages will get more of them, until they run out of things they are programmed to try to get, at which point they'll just lose their extra points.

Changing component sizes would affect AI designs. Not necessarily for the worse, though.

I think the main point of a balance mod is to help PBW games between humans, however - the AI impact isn't particularly important, it seems to me.

PvK

geoschmo

July 22nd, 2003, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by PvK:
I think the main point of a balance mod is to help PBW games between humans, however - the AI impact isn't particularly important, it seems to me.

PvKThe objective I stated was to come up with a balance mod general enough to have a chance of being implemented by Malfador into the stock game. So AI performance is quite important. Effect on exsisting mods and custom AI's should be considered, but not be a critical issue. If it becomes the stock they can be adjusted accordingly after the fact by the authors or others. But the stock AI's will have to be adjusted as part of the blance mod itself if any changes are made that affect them.

I am not saying any balance mod has to meet these objectives, but if it doesn't it won't have much of a shot of becoming part of the stock game.

Geoschmo

[ July 22, 2003, 18:55: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

minipol

July 22nd, 2003, 11:53 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Eh? I don't understand. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif
Bad explaining on my part. What i meant was that it was a nice, to the point, witty remark.

edit: zpellinks

[ July 22, 2003, 22:54: Message edited by: minipol ]

PvK

July 23rd, 2003, 02:03 AM

Oh I see Geo, thanks. I hadn't read that part. Well, you could include modded AI empire generation and stock EMP files to use the balanced starting point costs... that'd be my suggestion.

PvK