426

(304 replies, posted in Balancing)

Line wrote:
Hunter wrote:
Line wrote:

They can't answer such questions so stop asking them.

Наша лина как росина smile

Best post ever.

Any Hunter post in a language I can't read is pretty awesome tbh smile

427

(304 replies, posted in Balancing)

Alexadar wrote:
Dazamin wrote:

There is of course the obvious issue there that a SOLO Heavy SHOULD be vulnerable to a number of small bots

Do you have official balance statement where all this "should" described?
Again, without official dev balance statement, we cant say precisely about balance rules, we can only suggest.

Simple example: how many lights should kill a heavy? I have N1 numbers, Dazamin have N2 numbers, Hunter have N3 numbers, where N1, N2 and N3 are not correlating numbers.

Conclusion: we should only guess what balance should be.
The other question, what reimbursements should be for dramatic balance change?

As to exact balance, like the how many lights should kill a heavy, we can argue over the numbers sure, but as a general principle, a larger bot should be vulnerable to a number of smaller bots. If they are not, then what is the point of smaller bots (there is none). I mean if we continue on that line of thought, why should a group of small bots be able to kill a solo Kain? Or a solo Termis? A guy got caught solo, in a Heavy Mech, not fitted to deal well with small bots (This fit is an option for him) and died, that seems fairly well balanced to me.

In terms of skill reimbursements, my opinion would be that this only happens if a skill no longer does anything in the game, things should be balanced on a regular basis, and giving reimbursements because people don't like the way it was done is not necessary.

As a side question, does anyone think that stacking penalties would be a better solution to dealing with those builds that stack for example x number of Rep Tunings, rather than simply nerfing the module itself? As far as I can see, the module wasn't the problem, stacking it was.

428

(304 replies, posted in Balancing)

Hunter wrote:
Dazamin wrote:

As I said before, you don't balance by cost, eg. if it costs 10x more it should be 10x better. "Upgrades" should always follow the principle of diminishing returns, ie, you pay larger and larger amounts (NIC, Mats, Whatever) for the same or smaller bonus as you move up the ladder. There is of course the obvious issue there that a SOLO Heavy SHOULD be vulnerable to a number of small bots, that is a legitimate counter to the Heavy Mech, if Heavies were effectively invulnerable to anything smaller, then why bother having other bots? Getting a Heavy is not winning Perpetuum, its just another bot with its own set of strengths and weaknesses, one of which is being vulnerable if caught solo by a bunch of bots to small for it to hit effectively.

It is possible. As variant, consumption of accumulator can depend on the size of the enemy. For example, if demobilizers can consume battery like maskers, then small robot will not stop the heavy robot. The same with neutraliziers and ECM.

Actually many ways for balancing.

If I understand what you're saying, and I apologise if I'm wrong, you're arguing for Light Bot mods to be LESS effective against a Heavy Mech? Thats not balancing. Solo Heavy Mech being taken down by multiple Light Bots, Balanced. Solo Heavy killing all Lights easily, Not Balanced. Heavy Mech pilot bringing a friend or two and owning the 7-8 man light squad, Again Balanced.

429

(304 replies, posted in Balancing)

As I said before, you don't balance by cost, eg. if it costs 10x more it should be 10x better. "Upgrades" should always follow the principle of diminishing returns, ie, you pay larger and larger amounts (NIC, Mats, Whatever) for the same or smaller bonus as you move up the ladder. There is of course the obvious issue there that a SOLO Heavy SHOULD be vulnerable to a number of small bots, that is a legitimate counter to the Heavy Mech, if Heavies were effectively invulnerable to anything smaller, then why bother having other bots? Getting a Heavy is not winning Perpetuum, its just another bot with its own set of strengths and weaknesses, one of which is being vulnerable if caught solo by a bunch of bots to small for it to hit effectively.

430

(304 replies, posted in Balancing)

Yes you do catch up to a large extent, because of the way extensions scale, and I would argue that for good balance gear should scale in much the same way, diminishing returns. In "the other game" at the top end of gear you find a huge price tag for a fairly small bonus in a lot of cases, you want your edge? you pay for it. This, unlike WoW or WAR or whatever is not a level based game, and I would say any player who wants that would be better off playing those games. Here, everyone plays together, there isn't lvl 20 content, level 30 content, etc, theres just content, new players have to coexist with veteran players, and if you shut new players out from being able to compete in ANY way, then they will just leave. The central point of this game is PvP and territory control, so just locking players out of that completely for six months is a bad idea. As for gear specifically, why as a vet player would you need your gear to be so much better than any new player? You already have EP advantages, NIC and experience on your side, wheres the fun in just pwning stuff? Isn't genuine competition more fun?
Also, getting into a Heavy Mech for example isn't "levelling up" its just another option available to you as a player, something different that performs a different role, that is the real advantage of being a vet, versatility.

tl:dr This isn't WoW, and if you want to be uber top level guy with epic weapons, there are plenty of those games around.

431

(304 replies, posted in Balancing)

What you're doing here is talking about two very different concepts and then talking as if they're the same thing. If corps and players choose to stockpile equipment to have an advantage, should that be nerfed? Of course not, the fundamental idea of a game like this is player actions have consequences. You still take note of how the players play the game and make changes to make sure your game world is an exciting place where things CAN change. But this was not what people were talking about in this thread, the question here was balance at the equipment level, and I can't believe anyone would seriously think some kind of balance there was a bad thing. Thats kind of the point of a sandbox game like this, ultimately PLAYER ACTIONS make the difference not gear. As a new player should I be able to grab ten others and take over beta? No, but I should be able to go and PvP (still with a disadvantage in EP and gear) and through the use of tactics and player skill have a shot at doing something useful.

432

(304 replies, posted in Balancing)

Medved wrote:

This not counter-strike with short rounds or any-stupid-mmo-x1kk-pvp-server. Remember about ecenomic, time spent, etc. I cant just run away from per to ur eve, form corp, complete level 0 missions and start to hunt down Titans in lowsec.
Newbies must suffer. Want to make game more friendly to novices? Make it not by nerfing oldfags. If im spending year in game and billion nic i want to see my benefits. Not +0.002% hurr durr dps, but well tanked big mech with mastercrafted weapon and armor.
If devs dont give this oldfag feeling to us, vet would leave the game. After month or two neewbies would leave too coz them dont want to reach crap endgame.

So basically you want the game to be completely imbalanced so you can WTFPWN anyone who hasn't been in game as long as you? A Heavy Mech is in no way comparable to a Titan in Eve, those kinds of things don't exist yet, vets are going to continue to get their new toys as larger robots are added to the game. Yes, this isn't counter-strike, etc. It's also not WoW where you have to get to level one million or whatever and farm purple gear to be awesome in battlegrounds, the endgame in a sandbox type game is based around sucessful player corps doing whatever it is they want to do, not collecting uber gear.

433

(23 replies, posted in Balancing)

Can someone explain how balance changes, whether they are effective or not, dumb down the game?

In general the change was needed, the problem is now that magnedart is just a little too similar to the other ammos. -75% was too much with explosion dmg, but there must be a point between that and the current -20% which would allow there to still be a real close range, high dmg ammo.

435

(304 replies, posted in Balancing)

Well that is the issue, and what makes balancing so tricky, EP and Gear should give an edge without being too overpowering. If they are overpowering, then experience, or tactical awareness become irrelevent. Tactical awareness is one area where reasonably new players can compete with "some" older players if they have put some effort in to learn how PvP works, but if the gear gap is too large they don't get the chance to use it.

436

(304 replies, posted in Balancing)

To stick to the original topic of the thread, perhaps, when there was an influx of new players, the Devs realised that the balance was completely screwed and favoured veteran players far too much, and fingers crossed they will continue to balance stuff. The power gap between anything else and T4 is still far too large, and the ten level skill system obviously allows for more imbalance than the five level skill system it was "inspired by". As for bots themselves, the same problems exist, and if you seriously believe that one guy in a Heavy Mech shouldn't die to 7+ guys in pretty much anything (given enough time to kill him) then I really don't know what to say to you.

Arilou wrote:

My main complaint (which I've either mentioned here or elsewhere) is that what PvE-only types consider to be an improvement to PvE is inevitably something that moves it closer to the feel of PvP but without it actually being PvP.

stEVE examples would be Sleepers and incursions: PvEers were begging CCP for rats that acted with more tactical intelligence, appeared in less-static and less-predictable forms, appeared to have motivations beyond standing around waiting to be killed, were occasionally overpowering, dropped better loot, represented a greater risk, etc. etc.

Every single one of those things is already and automatically there in PvP. There is just (among certain people) some massive psychological wall such that getting all this from an AI is heaven, and getting it from other players is total hell. In the meantime, devs end up spending countless person-hours recreating something the game already has. Then I have to wait yet another year for devs to get around to sprucing up graphics, expanding the world, and improving on the actual gameplay.

@Johnny/Arga: I've no problem at all with there being safe spots. But they shouldn't be places you can spend your whole game life without being bored to tears.

Where is my + rep button sad

438

(40 replies, posted in General discussion)

New Alpha content isn't going to bring in more PvPers to create that content. A good system for fighting over and controlling beta islands and making controlling them worthwhile is much more likely to bring in players who want to PvP, get involved in player corporations and build their own robot empire.

439

(40 replies, posted in General discussion)

Solo farming NPCs in an MMO is not that rewarding? What a shock. The best kind of content in a sandbox game will alwys be that created by players, which is why the focus is (rightly imo) on creating a good beta environment for people to fight over. New shiney stuff is nice, but the biggest thing for a sandbox game is to create a system where players are rewarded for creating their own content, not for killing X number of NPCs.

440

(131 replies, posted in General discussion)

Syndic wrote:

I don't see why its a big problem to cut into internal corp markets. Make an alt, join a corp, buy stuff from that corp. Problem solved, and the best part is rates are usually somewhat better then the normal market. Win-win situation. lol


My app will be in shortly. You commies have cheaper stuff than us right?

441

(28 replies, posted in Balancing)

Annihilator wrote:

before you start talking further about fitting requirement drawback in this topic:

have you ever looked at how much CPU/Reactor a LWF needs??

standard: 5 TF + 2 RP,
T4 7 TF + 3 RP

and those are lowered by certain extensions.

I wasn't suggesting that the T4 frame was balanced, simply that the way it scales is in line with other modules. I agree it needs changing.

I'd love all these, I'd also love if I could have nuetral agents show up in landmarks with a color rather than the same white used for outposts and teleporters, so neutrals could get a grey background the same as the positive and negative backgrounds, maybe a couple for corp member and squad member would be nice too, would make distiquishing ppl on your overview on PvP Ops easier.

Warhammer Online used a collision system that effectively only switched on for combat, you would know enemies were near when your gang started bumping into each other. I guess for a game like Perpetuum you would put collision detection on at all times on beta (for players only, not NPCS) and PvP flagging would switch it on on Alpha, but it would only apply between PvP flagged players, nothing would change for non flagged players. As to the technical feasability of something like that, I have no idea.

444

(28 replies, posted in Balancing)

Being a poor noob myself I have no idea if what Aeon is saying is true, but if it is, that is an issue. The Drawback of T3/T4 is higher fitting requirements, part of the purpose of those higher fitting requirements is to restrict full T4 fits, forcing you to make a decision on what to downgrade, if that doesn't happen then T4 is just straight out better, its 'Drawback' is meaningless. Unfortunately, Sabre is probably right, if you nerfed bots CPU / Reactor, noobs would have a problem fitting anything, due to the high number of secondary fitting skills (Far too many imo, but thats another thread), you could however further increase the fitting reqs for T4 gear to obtain the same result.

In regards to the way LWF scales through the tech levels, I think it fits with everything else, higher fitting / better performance. In the Armor Rep example the OP used, the higher AP usage would be viewed as part of the 'Fitting Drawback' which is CPU, Reactor and Accumulator Usage. If a module is passive like a LWF it just gets a CPU and Reactor Drawback, all other stats would be improved.

@Sabre, I don't see why everyone would crosstrain to blue if LWFs were nerfed, everyone would be in exactly the same position as they are now, just slightly slower. For PvP the issue is not absolute speed, but your speed relative to the speed of the people you are fighting with and against. Your Chameleon would still be faster than anything else, it would be slower, but so would the mech you were chasing down to tackle. I would be interested to see how the game would change if the LWF was nerfed to a level where it became a real choice of whether to fit one or not. Maybe it wouldn't work, and further game play changes would have to be made, but I think everyone would agree that fitting for speed shouldn't be the only way to PvP