SE4 Stock Balance Mod

[tesco samoa]

will you adjust the cost of ppb.

as the cost of ppb is the current balance on it.

PPB fleets are expensive to maintain. Hence where the MB has some equalness....

If your going to adjust the stats then perhaps the cost should be adjusted as well.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
will you adjust the cost of ppb.

as the cost of ppb is the current balance on it.

Well, I think the prevailing opinion seems to be that the cost as it is does not do enough to balance it.

[spoon]

Originally posted by geoschmo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by spoon:
[qb]That said, however, I would much prefer there to be choices at each stage of the game rather than a simple formula to follow.

Well, I cetainly can see your point, I just disagree with it. In my mind having several basically equal weapons to choose from at any one time isn't really important. Yes it gives you a choice, but which choice you make is irrelevant. Since each one is more or less equal, they become interchangeable.

---

Heh, that is so much the opposite of my point, I am forced to put one of those eyeball-rolling guys in my post... In fact, it appears that you say you want balance and choices, but your suggestions don't really live up to that. You want minor tweaks and the game to stay basically as is. There is nothing wrong with that, but don't try to sell it as a "vision of balance".

With the type of balance I am suggesting you still have choices. Any of the mainline weapons could be valid options at the end of the game, but they wouldn't be equal on a one for one basis.

No, you are suggesting that the PPB is fine as is, but that you would put up with a minor change as compromise. The game, as it is, does not give you significant strategic choice. You have PPBs for the mid game, and APBs for the late game.

Different weapons would require different stratagies to take advantage of their strengths. One better at short range, one at long. One good for small fleets of powerful but expensive warships. One better for massive fleets of cheap, expendable "cannon fodder". I'll admit my vision of balance would be much harder to acchieve, but in my opinion it lends for a richer game.

This is what I have been arguing for when I mention giving each weapon a role or a niche. I am glad we can agree on that! However, in order to do that, you have to be willing to make more changes than you seem willing to concede. Again, that is a fine approach, and if this mod wants to lean in that direction, that is fine, but don't fool yourself into thinking you are addressing the main issues of game balance.

If you guys want to have a discussion about whether or not the PPB should have remained a niche weapon in SE4, I may end up agreeing with you. But the fact is it is not a niche weapon for SE4, and hasn't been for almost three years now. It's asking a lot to get people to accept totally nerfing the weapon now at this late date.

This does seem to be the way SJ is leaning as well. I disagree with it, and think the game would be better without such a dominant mid-game weapon. However, if you want to avoid doing any major changes, then, yeah, tweak it a little and see if it makes a difference. Always room for iteration, I suppose.

Not to mention any of the stock AI's that are designed aroung the PPB as a mainline weapon, I believe there are at least a couple, will have to be totally reworked, research and designs.

This is the best reason to leave the PPB only slightly diminished in power. It's a good one, but it makes me think that perhaps we need a Human-Only Balance Mod as well, since so many good changes that have been suggested (for QR, Talisman, etc) won't work well with the AI. It is proving to be too much of a limiting factor, I think, to make the current mod as useful as it could be.

[spoon]

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
From what I've seen and heard here, ISTM that most of the weapons are actually quite reasonably balanced. The ones being discussed, at least.

From what I've heard, there is still a lively debate...heh

[spoon]

Originally posted by geoschmo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
will you adjust the cost of ppb.

as the cost of ppb is the current balance on it.

Well, I think the prevailing opinion seems to be that the cost as it is does not do enough to balance it.

---

I think what he is saying is that MM used the high rad cost to balance the PPB, so if you don't think it is balanced now, just raise the rad cost to a higher level.

Very good idea.

Current cost is 300 rad (lvl 5). maybe raise it to 500 (equal to its min cost) and leave everything else as is (well, maybe reduce it's lvl 1 and lvl2 ranges, as suggested earlier...)

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by spoon:
Heh, that is so much the opposite of my point, I am forced to put one of those eyeball-rolling guys in my post...

Well forgive me if I have misinterpreted your comments, but even now it appears that is what you are saying. From my point of view you are saying that my understanding of your ceomments is incorrect, and then restating the same thing I just said. I guess we have some different definitions of some words or something.

Originally posted by spoon:
In fact, it appears that you say you want balance and choices, but your suggestions don't really live up to that. You want minor tweaks and the game to stay basically as is. There is nothing wrong with that, but don't try to sell it as a "vision of balance".

Ok, well up till now this has been a fairly calm, frank and impersonal discussion. I am probably reading too much into this but you apperar to now be accusing me of somehow misrepresenting my true opinion on the matter and persuing some hidden agenda. If that is what you are saying I resent it. If it is not what you are saying I would appreciate it if you would choose your words more carefully in the future.

I have made no pretentions about my opinion that the game as is is acceptable in it's current form. I don't deny that. But I also have never pretended that the game is any way what I would call "perfect". The reason I brought all this to the front, I was the impetus for this thread after all even if I didn't make the first post, was that I was frankly tired of the constant complaining about the perceived lack of balance and the perceived lack of support on the part of Malfador to do anything to resolve it. My goal was to motivate some of you that have been at the forefront of complaining about the problem to actually do something about fixing it rather then waiting for soemone else to do it.

Originally posted by geoschmo:
With the type of balance I am suggesting you still have choices. Any of the mainline weapons could be valid options at the end of the game, but they wouldn't be equal on a one for one basis.

Originally posted by spoon:
No, you are suggesting that the PPB is fine as is, but that you would put up with a minor change as compromise. The game, as it is, does not give you significant strategic choice. You have PPBs for the mid game, and APBs for the late game.

If I was suggesting the PPB is fine as is why would I have bothered to make the numerous and detailed suggestions I have made in this very thread to change it. The way I see it we both think the PPB needs some changes. We just have a difference of opinoin as to how much it needs changed. You really need to get to where you can disagree with me without accusing me of misrepresenting myself Spoon.

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Different weapons would require different stratagies to take advantage of their strengths. One better at short range, one at long. One good for small fleets of powerful but expensive warships. One better for massive fleets of cheap, expendable "cannon fodder". I'll admit my vision of balance would be much harder to acchieve, but in my opinion it lends for a richer game.

Originally posted by spoon:
This is what I have been arguing for when I mention giving each weapon a role or a niche. I am glad we can agree on that! However, in order to do that, you have to be willing to make more changes than you seem willing to concede.

No, I don't agree with this. I have stated I agree with the concept of niche weapons. I merely disagree that we should take the PPB, a weapon that has a clear history in SE4 of being a mainline weapon and turning it into yet another niche weapon. How does that give you more choices? I think that you can acchieve choices in different ways. You just have to be willing to accept different interpretations of what balanced is.

Originally posted by spoon:
It's a good one, but it makes me think that perhaps we need a Human-Only Balance Mod as well, since so many good changes that have been suggested (for QR, Talisman, etc) won't work well with the AI. It is proving to be too much of a limiting factor, I think, to make the current mod as useful as it could be.

I have no objection to that, and have said as much several times during this thread and others. I even tried to make one myself, the "Art of War Mod". But that is outside of the limited scope of what we are trying to accomplish here. The primary stated objective is to do the balance changes Malfador does not have the time or incentive to do and try to get them included in the stock game. Massive game altering, or AI crippeling changes will make that objective impossible to acchieve.

Geoschmo

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by spoon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by geoschmo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
will you adjust the cost of ppb.

as the cost of ppb is the current balance on it.

Well, I think the prevailing opinion seems to be that the cost as it is does not do enough to balance it.

---

I think what he is saying is that MM used the high rad cost to balance the PPB, so if you don't think it is balanced now, just raise the rad cost to a higher level.

Very good idea.

Current cost is 300 rad (lvl 5). maybe raise it to 500 (equal to its min cost) and leave everything else as is (well, maybe reduce it's lvl 1 and lvl2 ranges, as suggested earlier...)

---

What I got from his post, and from previous conversations he has been involved in, was that he disagrees with both of us and thinks it's balanced sufficently as it is by the higher mineral and rad values. And that if we decrease the combat strength of the weapon we should also decrease the costs accordingly. I think most people would feel that combination of changes would be at best neutral.

Geoschmo