Balance Idea

[GrimJahk]

Affix Warp, Shields, and AB to the battery.

 

Warp consumes 80% of your battery. If your battery is below 80% you cannot warp.

Shields strength is based on battery... You take a pounding... your battery depletes... you lose half your shields? You cannot warp away, you had best run... and hope they can't keep up...

Afterburners consume 5% of battery per second. This running action also deplete the Shield effectiveness...

 

 

Thoughts?

[LordMaddog]

I can see the thought process but it don't address the real issues this change would just poke at them. 

 

The big problems you are trying to fix are as follows.

 

1 If a player ever finds them self in trouble they can just boost away.

2 If a player ever finds them self in trouble they can just Jump away.

 

The first problem derives from the engines being able to pull for the almost infinite  battery pool.

 

The second come from there being no way for NPC's or players from stopping you from jumping.

 

Both are engine related, sorta.

 

I would like to see this change to engines

 

Afterburners: every engine according to its mass will have a certain amount of afterburners that the player can use and that recharge over time no longer will it directly suck energy from the batteries. This limitation will stop the first problem at its source.

 

Cruise mode: activating Cruise mode will shift all available energy from weapons and other nonessential components into the engines allowing for much faster travel. However activating and deactivating Cruise mode takes several seconds and can be disrupted by taking damage. The larger the mass of the combined engines the longer it takes to switch over.

On top of this hyperdrive should only be able to be activated while in cruise mode. IE: straighten out for your jump for too Hyperspace and don't get hit or your cruise mode will cut out and you wont be able to jump. This new implantation also fixes the second problem at its source.

[GrimJahk]

I can see the thought process but it don't address the real issues this change would just poke at them. 

 

The big problems you are trying to fix are as follows.

 

1 If a player ever finds them self in trouble they can just boost away.

2 If a player ever finds them self in trouble they can just Jump away.

 

The first problem derives from the engines being able to pull for the almost infinite  battery pool.

 

The second come from there being no way for NPC's or players from stopping you from jumping.

 

Both are engine related, sorta.

 

I would like to see this change to engines

 

Afterburners: every engine according to its mass will have a certain amount of afterburners that the player can use and that recharge over time no longer will it directly suck energy from the batteries. This limitation will stop the first problem at its source.

 

Cruise mode: activating Cruise mode will shift all available energy from weapons and other nonessential components into the engines allowing for much faster travel. However activating and deactivating Cruise mode takes several seconds and can be disrupted by taking damage. The larger the mass of the combined engines the longer it takes to switch over.

On top of this hyperdrive should only be able to be activated while in cruise mode. IE: straighten out for your jump for too Hyperspace and don't get hit or your cruise mode will cut out and you wont be able to jump. This new implantation also fixes the second problem at its source.

 

Actually, I think my math directly addresses both of those points... 

 

Once you have taken sufficient hits to your shield that you are worried, your battery is already below 80% so jumping away is no longer an option... additionally, if you have taken enough hits that your battery is @50% you only have 10 seconds of boost before you are drained.

 

With Jump, Shield, and Afterburners all tied to one pool, you have to plan strategically.

 

But Yes, this was an attempt to solve the "I can pick any fight and alway walk away" problem that is the meta now. I tried to minimize changing game mechanics, and just tie existing functions together in a different way...

 

 

I like your ideas as well, but some of that (changing Jump mechanics) might be a bit more challenging.  On a different thread about a week back I also suggested the "your ship must be damage free for xx seconds for the jump to be properly calibrated."

[Ohm is Futile]

But Yes, this was an attempt to solve the "I can pick any fight and alway walk away" problem that is the meta now. I tried to minimize changing game mechanics, and just tie existing functions together in a different way...

Call me a stickler for words, but it's not "the meta". It's not something players have to gear or prepare for, it's purely a flawed mechanic. Anyone can do it. You'd practically have to be flying an asteroid not to be able to get away from NPCs.

 

Anyways, I tend to prefer maddog's idea of afterburners. It never made sense to me that boosting would somehow continually use more and more energy each second of continued use. Afterburners make more sense and still limit a player's ability to just go "lol bye" at will for as long as their generator will allow.

 

I also like the idea of cruise mode. No need to scale the time to switch modes in my opinion though. If taking damage interrupts the process, there doesn't need to be an annoyance of having to wait after a fight to switch modes. One should be hard pressed enough as it is to avoid damage in a large ship even if only for 5 seconds.

 

I do find the limitation to jumping a bit harsh though. We might want a different way to prevent ships from jumping. You wouldn't want weapon fire to instantly prevent anyone from having a chance of running a way. All we want is for players to have to make concessions in order to have the option of running away rather than being able to do so pretty much anytime regardless of ship design.

[Guswut]

With Jump, Shield, and Afterburners all tied to one pool, you have to plan strategically.

 

Are you sure about that? The obvious (at least to me) way to handle a shared energy pool would be to build relatively-massive generators and absurdly-massive energy-containers. And with shield blocks no longer being required to handle my shield strength (assumably at least, more on that below) I can focus more on having a crazy amount of power storage and power generation (I like laser weapons so I usually have overly-robust power generation anyway).

 

How, exactly, would shield blocks even work in your suggested change? Would they function more like integrity field generator blocks, in that you just need to have one to cover your ship (or a few spread around if we take the integrity field generator block model further and make it so shield coverage requires spaced shield blocks)?

 

The change to having boost/afterburners use a flat percentage of your battery could surely change the way the game was played in PvP, but I don't think I've ever needed more than two or so seconds of boosted-fleeing-for-my-life speed before I was well outside of range of my enemies.

 

If the goal is to keep players from being able to flee as easily, wouldn't it make more sense to have more hyperspace inhibitor ships (I think they only show up with headhunters, not entirely sure on that but they certainly do show up) perhaps even by adding it as another block?

 

When activated (via the energy menu, possibly a hotkey) the hyperspace inhibitor would work like a hyperspace core except in reverse. All ships within range (or possibly a scaling distance to scaling effect within range) would get a reduced jump distance, recharge speed, and possibly even an outright jump restriction when within some sort of critical range. Energy usage should likely increase over time until you drain your battery completely (thus making a dedicated hyperspace inhibitor ship useful), or possibly a set time limit before the effect can no longer be continued.

 

For PvE, given that the only NPC I've found that will warp away was

Botton (the smuggler of great annoyance given the quest requirements which had me busy for a few hours hunting)

this would be relatively useless. But for PvP play this would give you a way to control the battlefield as far as disallowing warp jumps long enough to possibly finish off your enemies. Ideally, at some point in the future, NPC AI will start given them an option to try and jump away when they're being overpowered.

 

To handle boosting/afterburning away, how about having force turrets be able to disable afterburners (at least the pull-other version, I'd assume). This would give a good reason to use force turrets (in PvP, and if NPCs get an AI redux that allows them the try and boost away), and possibly even have a dedicated no-boost-for-you ship to lock down your enemy.

 

Imagine an NPC fleet having a few hyperspace inhibitor ships (which they cycle between to keep a state of total lockdown within range) as well as a few force turret ships designed to anchor fleeing prey. If you see them early enough you'd be able to outrange them, perhaps, but that could be handled by having them boost towards an enemy that is outranging them or by having a ship or two that is designed to handle ranged enemies. Of course we're talking about a couple of major changes to the game, and more importantly some much more complicated AI (which is far and away that hardest part of any possible solution), but something in that direction would likely be the way to go.

 

You no longer would be able to always know that you could escape any fight, and actually scouting/observing your enemies would be more important. I'd also say it's less of a change to the game's current mechanics (we're adding one block, adding functionality to a turret, and giving NPCs the AI/fleet design to use these to handle enemies) then making a pooled energy system for shields, warp, and boost.

 

This way we keep the importance of dedicated shield blocks, we also increase the importance of hyperspace cores (either disallowing warp inhibition, or reducing the time until the inhibition effect wears off) on fighting craft, and we add much greater possible complexity to battles which (with well done AI, or enough decent players on a server) can greatly increase the fun of combat.

 

Now, that said, there are still some easy ways to "beat" the above system (for example, a force turret with push other (or even push self, or both) on it which you'd use to push away any ships that get close enough to you to lock onto your ship with a force pull other turret which was locking down your boost) which is how any system will end up until the complexity is so great that you can no longer attempt to plan for all (reasonable) possibilities.

[LordMaddog]

 

I also like the idea of cruise mode. No need to scale the time to switch modes in my opinion though. If taking damage interrupts the process, there doesn't need to be an annoyance of having to wait after a fight to switch modes. One should be hard pressed enough as it is to avoid damage in a large ship even if only for 5 seconds.

 

I do find the limitation to jumping a bit harsh though. We might want a different way to prevent ships from jumping. You wouldn't want weapon fire to instantly prevent anyone from having a chance of running a way. All we want is for players to have to make concessions in order to have the option of running away rather than being able to do so pretty much anytime regardless of ship design.

 

1 I agree I thought it made sense but you are right. It just be a pain.

 

2 I don't know I am kind on the rocks for this one. On one hand I don't think it should be easy to run away but on the othere...

You know freelancer had cruise disrupter misses that the player could try to doge. Maybe something like that.

[Ohm is Futile]

With Jump, Shield, and Afterburners all tied to one pool, you have to plan strategically.

 

Are you sure about that? The obvious (at least to me) way to handle a shared energy pool would be to build relatively-massive generators and absurdly-massive energy-containers. And with shield blocks no longer being required to handle my shield strength (assumably at least, more on that below) I can focus more on having a crazy amount of power storage and power generation (I like laser weapons so I usually have overly-robust power generation anyway).

You missed the very important detail that he suggested that those systems drained your batteries in terms of percentage.......... (tip: the actual values don't matter anymore, you could have a battery the size of a sector, if it drains at a rate of 5% per second, it will be drained in 20 seconds regardless of actual power capacity)

 

EDIT @Maddog: Yeah, I remember those from Freelancer. Hmm. Well yeah we do need a system. I know Eve online does it with a module with limited range. You can either kill the one stopping you from warping, or you need to get out of their range first and then jump. I just don't know how that would be handled best in Avorion.

[GrimJahk]

With Jump, Shield, and Afterburners all tied to one pool, you have to plan strategically.

 

Are you sure about that? The obvious (at least to me) way to handle a shared energy pool would be to build relatively-massive generators and absurdly-massive energy-containers. And with shield blocks no longer being required to handle my shield strength (assumably at least, more on that below) I can focus more on having a crazy amount of power storage and power generation (I like laser weapons so I usually have overly-robust power generation anyway).

 

How, exactly, would shield blocks even work in your suggested change? Would they function more like integrity field generator blocks, in that you just need to have one to cover your ship (or a few spread around if we take the integrity field generator block model further and make it so shield coverage requires spaced shield blocks)?

<snip>

 

Batteries have mass. If you make a 5,000^3 battery, it will take massive thrusters to move and turn it...  And frankly, with other discussions going on about turrets (Hopefully using energy instead of Modules) Battery/Power management starts to be the glue that ties it all together...

 

Offense, Defense, and Movement - how you allocate your power will affect your ship. 33% all around... great balance... but if you bump up a slider in one area, SOMETHING will have to be sacrificed.

 

You want massive defense and damage output? Movement will suffer...

Nimble and dangerous? Not so much power remains for shields...

 

Shields change in no way from current system. What changes, is that your battery is tied to them... Right now, many are saying shields are broken... Once you pay the price to install them, they are a self repairing miracle of magic. By tying everything to a single finite source. You force the player to make decisions... have a plan...

 

 

Logically, my idea has all kinds of flaws... I won't pretend otherwise. But, from a balance, integration, and ease of use perspective... I think it's solid... not to mention that you can use modules to "improve" your situation. Modules that reduce battery consumption of AB, Module that lowers the percentage of battery consumed by a Jump. ETC.

[LordMaddog]

 

 

Shields change in no way from current system. What changes, is that your battery is tied to them... Right now, many are saying shields are broken... Once you pay the price to install them, they are a self repairing miracle of magic. By tying everything to a single finite source. You force the player to make decisions... have a plan...

 

 

Actually I would like shields to change as well for easy of balancing.

 

 

6 Shield generators:

The larger the mass of the shield generator the more energy efficient is. Just like with energy management shields should be able to be angled like in the old space games.

Once placed a new UI pops up that lets the player set the max strength and HP of the shield for a permanent power draw according to its efficiency.

Using the energy management system to shift energy to or from shields causes them to recharge faster or slower.

 

 

With this it be easy to build the whole game with the dameg to energy ratio in mind and make the DPS, Defense, and Mobility trade off the full on balancing circle. My suggestion for IFG also plays a part in that ratio as well.

 

But your right even if this was not change and the others were you would have that nice trinity it just be a tad harder to get the math right with out it. 

[cy414]

this could work well if tied to my idea about shields working similarly to ifg.

that way your shields size/coverage will be determined by the shield generator block(s), and the shield hp linked to energy reserve.

 

kinda reminds me of star gate atlantis to have shield hits draining energy like this.

[Ambaire]

Affix Warp, Shields, and AB to the battery.

 

Warp consumes 80% of your battery. If your battery is below 80% you cannot warp.

Shields strength is based on battery... You take a pounding... your battery depletes... you lose half your shields? You cannot warp away, you had best run... and hope they can't keep up...

Afterburners consume 5% of battery per second. This running action also deplete the Shield effectiveness...

 

Thoughts?

 

Ugh, no. This would be a horrible change. Are you trying to do 'pvp balance' or some nonsense? F*** 'pvp'.

[cy414]

Ugh, no. This would be a horrible change. Are you trying to do 'pvp balance' or some nonsense? F*** 'pvp'.

dross like that is neither constructive or useful. and i doubt welcome. also born from divisive mmorpg game designers using in-group bias to manipulate player loyalty.

 

game balance and functional mechanics are essential to longevity of a game.

since without it the game loses replayability and choice once a set optimum or best is identified.

ESPECIALLY for any game that is multi-player in anyway. and doubly important for a game like avorion where expression of player creativity is so important.

 

or people like yourself will be back to complain about 'false choices'.

[Brigadon]

Ugh, no. This would be a horrible change. Are you trying to do 'pvp balance' or some nonsense? F*** 'pvp'.

dross like that is neither constructive or useful. and i doubt welcome. also born from divisive mmorpg game designers using in-group bias to manipulate player loyalty.

 

game balance and functional mechanics are essential to longevity of a game.

since without it the game loses replayability and choice once a set optimum or best is identified.

ESPECIALLY for any game that is multi-player in anyway. and doubly important for a game like avorion where expression of player creativity is so important.

 

or people like yourself will be back to complain about 'false choices'.

 

Actually, I completely agree. Crippling escape options only makes sense from a PVP point of view. Claiming that this is 'balanced' as a way of justifying what is, in essence, PVP punishment is rather disingenuous.

 

"Balanced' would be allowing players to use warp interdictors, so that there could be a stern chase before escape, or altering shield mechanics so that larger ships have to have more 'coverage', to improve size ratios in fights. 'Balanced' would be less-expensive fighter mechanics or ways for multiple players to outclass single players.

 

 

This suggestion would boil down to creating another 'perfect PVP build' designed solely to give players no time between being atttacked and realizing that they cannot win the battle. Ambush mechanics are NOT fun, and discourage new and casual players.

 

"Battle cubes" in other words.

 

Look, I understand how much autistic nerds LOVE to minimax combat stats and create 'perfect builds', but in the process you ALWAYS strip creativity out of a game. This suggestion, while smart and well thought out, comes down to creating a path to Munchkin.

 

Longevity is based on challenge to reward ratio... not 'pvp balance'. And frankly, longevity is really only important to MMO's where people pay for microtransactions or a subscription fee. discouraging new and casual players with Ambush mechanics is NOT a way to encourage longevity or new players. And your comment about 'finding the optimal' while supporting the creation of a path to the optimal is...ironic.

 

Ambaire's comment is not well written or particularly comprehensible, but it is certainly relevant, and under that auspice, it is also useful... in kind of an 'emperor's new clothes' way. This game is, psychologically, more like Minecraft... and ambush PVP mechanics are NOT the path Minecraft took to maximising popularity.

[GrimJahk]

To be clear, I'm am not a PVPer. and frankly not all that interested in multiplayer.

 

My "balance" suggestion here is intended to improve long term playability of the game.

 

Longevity is based on challenge to reward ratio... not 'pvp balance'. And frankly, longevity is really only important to MMO's where people pay for microtransactions or a subscription fee. discouraging new and casual players with Ambush mechanics is NOT a way to encourage longevity or new players. And your comment about 'finding the optimal' while supporting the creation of a path to the optimal is...ironic.

 

 

Risk/reward is not there if there is no risk.

 

Currently, for me, there is no challenge to combat. That aspect of the game has become boring because I have monster shields, and OP weapons, and the ability to gleefully engage any opponent(s) with no fear of loss due to the propulsion and warp mechanics as they now sit.

 

People keep comparing this game as a "Sandbox" like Minecraft... in Minecraft you can die easily and rapidly if you make a mistake or get in over your head. That is not the case here. To die here you either need to play battering ram, or start a fight way over your head and then go AFK.

 

 

Ugh, no. This would be a horrible change. Are you trying to do 'pvp balance' or some nonsense? F*** 'pvp'.

 

Not a fan of PVP... correction... HATE PVP. 

 

Now, if you like to explain WHY this would be horrible, I'd love to hear your thoughts.

 

Without some sort of challenge (as I said above) this game will get dull and boring fast... Think "No Man's Sky"... beautiful to look at, interesting to play, but after a little while, repetitious ... and ultimately more of a slog than quality entertainment that keeps you challenged.

[cy414]

Ugh, no. This would be a horrible change. Are you trying to do 'pvp balance' or some nonsense? F*** 'pvp'.

dross like that is neither constructive or useful. and i doubt welcome. also born from divisive mmorpg game designers using in-group bias to manipulate player loyalty.

 

game balance and functional mechanics are essential to longevity of a game.

since without it the game loses replayability and choice once a set optimum or best is identified.

ESPECIALLY for any game that is multi-player in anyway. and doubly important for a game like avorion where expression of player creativity is so important.

 

or people like yourself will be back to complain about 'false choices'.

 

Actually, I completely agree. Crippling escape options only makes sense from a PVP point of view. Claiming that this is 'balanced' as a way of justifying what is, in essence, PVP punishment is rather disingenuous.

 

"Balanced' would be allowing players to use warp interdictors, so that there could be a stern chase before escape, or altering shield mechanics so that larger ships have to have more 'coverage', to improve size ratios in fights. 'Balanced' would be less-expensive fighter mechanics or ways for multiple players to outclass single players.

 

 

This suggestion would boil down to creating another 'perfect PVP build' designed solely to give players no time between being atttacked and realizing that they cannot win the battle. Ambush mechanics are NOT fun, and discourage new and casual players.

 

"Battle cubes" in other words.

 

Look, I understand how much autistic nerds LOVE to minimax combat stats and create 'perfect builds', but in the process you ALWAYS strip creativity out of a game. This suggestion, while smart and well thought out, comes down to creating a path to Munchkin.

 

Longevity is based on challenge to reward ratio... not 'pvp balance'. And frankly, longevity is really only important to MMO's where people pay for microtransactions or a subscription fee. discouraging new and casual players with Ambush mechanics is NOT a way to encourage longevity or new players. And your comment about 'finding the optimal' while supporting the creation of a path to the optimal is...ironic.

 

Ambaire's comment is not well written or particularly comprehensible, but it is certainly relevant, and under that auspice, it is also useful... in kind of an 'emperor's new clothes' way. This game is, psychologically, more like Minecraft... and ambush PVP mechanics are NOT the path Minecraft took to maximising popularity.

by your logic, the npc's should have their current hyperspace jammers removed.

there is little to no way to ambush anything in this game  as it stands,

your assinine attempt at namecalling, followed up with rpg character design terminology is completly off the mark, since i already used mmorpg as an insult.

 

now, here is the thing. there is little to no challenge past midgame in avorion, since by then you have a monstership and shields to stop ANYTHING hurting you. unless you design your ships with self imposed difficulty in mind.

the only thing going on is "go big or go home".

 

i already posted that i think shields should work like IFGs, since again, im thinking about functional mechanics "in this game" not "in this games pvX because pvY is evil and im against other peoples fun".

 

to compare avorion to minecraft is to completly miss the point about avorion already having a combat focuss that minecraft never did. even with king spook rip-offs spitting fireballs at you.

even creative in avorion still has all faction combat and diplomatic functions.

 

like your friend ambaire there, keep your in-group biases and associated spite about pvp vs pve on whatever mmorpg forums you frequent. been there, seen that, cringed and left already. those games deliberately designed their content (revoltingly badly) to create the pvp vs pve animosity you are expressing, so take it up with the forums of those other games you play.

[Brigadon]

wait, did you assume I was calling YOU an autistic nerd? No, I was simply referencing the fact that in games of this sort, there are always munchkin minimaxers.

 

You cannot escape them. and to play against them, or even in competition with them, you eventually have to adopt their 'optimization'. This problem was one of the biggest things that eventually turned me off of starmade... there were 'perfect' builds, and anything outside of that build was either 'art' or 'suck'.

[cy414]

fair enough. the thing with minmaxing is, its based on exploiting game mechanics, and is largely restricted to mmorpg games and their inherently and deliberately broken game balance.

 

all of which can be countered in understandable ways in a game like avorion.

want to minmax for dps? lose aoe, lose duration of fire

want to minmax for single shot? lose accuracy, lose rof

 

etc etc.

think of it this way, you could put a massive wall of MGs the size of yamato's turrets, but they will use all their ammo/overheat very quickly.

put a 50" gun on a cruiser, you wont hit jack due to recoil.

want to have armour protect you from all but the biggest hits? move so slow anything will hit you.

 

hence a thread i made about linking curtain weapon characteristics

http://www.avorion.net/forum/index.php/topic,2718.0.html

 

it lets the munchkins come, it lets them maximise what they want, but leaves them weak to anything outside what they specialise for. and both people and npc's could adapt to exploit their weaknesses. meaning the games environment would turn their minmax into just bad design

[Brigadon]

Look, I completely understand where you are coming from, but I just think that the idea of tying it all into your energy bar is a poor idea, especially tying it into your ability to Jump.

 

If the idea didn't include jumping, I might be able to understand or get behind it, but the idea of actually encouraging ambush mechanics leaves me utterly cold, because the same sort of 'stunlock' mechanics are what ruins most games... stunlock is, and will always be, a completely metagame concept to punish those who cannot defend against them. Even if you cloak it in psuedoscience and semilogic, it still comes down to a metagame mechanic.

 

A mechanic that is ESPECIALLY punishing when you consider how ridiculously difficult it is to replace large crews, and that the people most likely to be punished by these mechanics are people who really cannot afford to easily replace their ship... sure, insurance exists, but pre-avorion, losing capital amounts of materials, all of your hard-won, researched, and turret factory weapons, and basically getting reset to starter sector with nothing but a lump of cash can be BRUTAL.

 

Anything that lowers the amount of time to realize that you are screwed, and anything that prevents you from escaping when you DO realize you are hosed, is basically a huge newbie-breaker. I love this game, and the business model clearly looks like it's aimed at new players... thus, anything that discourages newbies is going to directly impact the popularity of the game.

 

 

Do I think there should be 'zones' where the NPC enemies are directly impacted by the size of your ship, and thus vastly harder than current endgame enemies? Absolutely. Do I like the idea of improving enemy AI? Without question. Do I think there should be a way to balance it so every endgame ship is not gigantic, hyper-fast, impossibly well armed, indestructible, and as agile as a butterfly? Of course.

 

But anything that impacts your ability to realize you screwed up and get the hell out of dodge is, in my opinion, a poor design decision.