1 (edited by Alexander 2011-08-30 21:13:25)

Topic: Balance game choices better or remove them...

Anything that increases something should have a negative effect in other places. Sometimes these balanced are not what I would call balanced. An example of bad balance would be simply adding higher fitting requirements to allow longer range tackles or superior tanks. I am in no way saying balance is an easy job but if you're trying to have a balanced game that doesn't require constant changes (Almost impossible) then the current system is not going to work.

Range extenders are great for some people but when used correctly they cause much whining. Demob ranges go from a new player only able to reach 120m to a pro player with special fittings reaching 250m with the same module. (Even further with a T4 module!)

If anything this game currently has a FOTM balance system currently in place where once players lock onto what they consider "The best thing" a balance change is needed to force imagination of new fittings despite them already being possible.

Perhaps there is too many module choices now and not enough robots? Fittings make very little visual difference to robots so there isn't any reward for non-PVP players to play with fittings (As anything that shoots can usually PvE rather well no matter who's using it.)

It's a matter of optimization, alts and specialising. Most new players won't get a chance to do this unless they save their free reset for many months and then specialise (Which us older players got to do many times).

Strip the game back to its core and it's a lot of fun! It lacks a lot of choices then but it's damn fun when modules don't effect a chain of other modules. I am not saying this should be gone as it's very much an extreme but right now there are more modules and fitting options than there are players..

Re: Balance game choices better or remove them...

Okay, I'm confused.  You're saying there are too many module choices and not enough robots, so the devs should make more different robots?  But you're also saying that the game should be stripped to its core and even though it lacks choices it's a lot of fun.

Primary Laptop:  NEC Ready 120LT - Cyrix Media GXm @ 200 MHz, 128 MB EDO DRAM
NeoMagic MagicGraph 128 ZV+, 6 GB Hitachi 4200 RPM HDD, 24x CD-ROM, PCMCIA WiFI
Slackware Linux 8.1 - Framebuffer 640x480 Command Line Interface Only (No wimpy GUI)
-Delicious Raspberry Pi- http://www.raspberrypi.org/

Re: Balance game choices better or remove them...

Johnny EvilGuy wrote:

Okay, I'm confused.  You're saying there are too many module choices and not enough robots, so the devs should make more different robots?  But you're also saying that the game should be stripped to its core and even though it lacks choices it's a lot of fun.

More robots should probably be kept to another thread. It was mainly I wanted more visual effects from fittings changes apart from just medium modules.

But basically this game is a LOT of fun when it's down to its underwear..

4 (edited by Arilou 2011-08-30 15:52:18)

Re: Balance game choices better or remove them...

The maximum increase in performance with a particular stat will be in moving from:
minimal extensions, T1 main mod, no boost mods
to:
max extensions, T4 main mod, max number of T4 boost mods

For example, using the same bot and gun class, considering DPS alone, how does:
player with only the extensions required to fit the equipment, and T1 guns only
compare to:
player with maxed DPS extensions, T4 guns and a full rack of T4 tuners?

I suggest AO should set specific goals for how widely a given stat can differ between these two extremes. The numbers Alexander posted on demobs show a 108% increase without even maxing out on the tech level. Decide whether that's acceptable or whether you'd rather it be closer to a (e.g.) 50% maximum possible increase. This will help put boundaries on extremely focused fits and help ensure that a variety of mixed-focus fits are reasonable options.

Caveat: It's only for bots of similar class and specialty. Obviously EW bots should have meaningful EW advantages over mining bots. And this would help most in balancing specific stats against themselves, which isn't the whole of balancing. But I do think it would still go a long way in preventing other balance points from getting too out of hand.

5 (edited by Johnny EvilGuy 2011-08-30 18:40:49)

Re: Balance game choices better or remove them...

Alexander wrote:

More robots should probably be kept to another thread. It was mainly I wanted more visual effects from fittings changes apart from just medium modules.

But basically this game is a LOT of fun when it's down to its underwear..

Right, I get it now!  Thanks for the extra infos.  *note to self - stay away from the forums early in the morning when reading comprehension skills are lacking*

More distinctive visuals would be nice.  I'm not totally stuck on graphics, but this would combine well with the telescopic zoom idea in another thread.  Scouts peeking at opponents from a distance to get an idea of loadout comes to mind right away.

Primary Laptop:  NEC Ready 120LT - Cyrix Media GXm @ 200 MHz, 128 MB EDO DRAM
NeoMagic MagicGraph 128 ZV+, 6 GB Hitachi 4200 RPM HDD, 24x CD-ROM, PCMCIA WiFI
Slackware Linux 8.1 - Framebuffer 640x480 Command Line Interface Only (No wimpy GUI)
-Delicious Raspberry Pi- http://www.raspberrypi.org/

Re: Balance game choices better or remove them...

well, we would get notable visual differences if EWAR modules would be chassis-slot modules,
Active hardeners could also visually change the appearance of robots (like displayed on their icon)

but i dont think this is the main thing of the topic either.

*Disclaimer: This post can contain strong sarcasm or cynical remarks. keep that in mind!
Whining - It's amazing how fast your trivial concerns will disappear