|
Post by slightlyrandom on Jan 15, 2012 20:49:40 GMT -8
I really love the idea of making energy weapons cost a fairly massive amount of energy to fire, with the upside of them being small/cheap. This would give pods with big reactors/shields some way of putting teeth on there, too.
Overall, I agree that damage seems a mite high. If this is lowered, shields of course become better.
Is making a spinoff spreadsheet to explore the consequences of some of these changes a good idea? Compile a list of things that seem reasonable, check what it'd lead to.
|
|
|
Post by disastranagant on Jan 15, 2012 20:55:02 GMT -8
Honestly, what needs to happen is the creation of 4-6 weapons in each category that are substantially different from one another, fill different roles and have been individually considered and stick the weapon formulas in the circular file. The formulas may be a useful place to get seed numbers, but they're never going to be exactly right and they're way too spergy for most any player to enjoy working with, the difference between 9 sig generation and 8 does not make for meaningful decision making. This would go a long way toward making the build process easier to understand and greatly reduces the number of variables everyone has to juggle.
|
|
|
Post by Gravedust on Jan 15, 2012 21:50:37 GMT -8
Too lazy to do multiquotes so I'm just gonna do it this way: ===================================== >>I really love the idea of making energy weapons cost a fairly massive amount of energy to fire, with the upside of them being small/cheap. This would give pods with big reactors/shields some way of putting teeth on there, too.You can kind of do this with lasers as they are now. Just grab a 30 damage or 2 and save yourself some size/cost by not giving a damn about Energy Reduction. [Energy] [####NAME#####][Damage:30][Focus:15][Energy:15][Signature:5] - [SIZE: 23][COST: 115] - Description: Do not look at the operating end of the device. - [Damage: 30 (1-30)][Signature Reduction:5(0-10)][Energy Reduction:0(0-10)] [Focus Extension: 3 (1-3)][Minaturization: 00 (0-10) =============================================================== Saves you 1-10 Size and 10-100 Cost Depending on how much EnRed you give up. 'course it cuts down on your ability to both regen shields AND shoot. 15 energy going through your laser is 15 energy that's not going to your shields. It's I guess up to the designer/player to determine if that's worth the Money and Size saved. ====================================== ====================================== >>Honestly, what needs to happen is the creation of 4-6 weapons in each category that are substantially different from one another, fill different roles and have been individually considered and stick the weapon formulas in the circular file.
That is basically what the Stock Lists are supposed to do. (I've been trying to make completing them a higehr priority but I've been getting jammed doing other things. ) I'm making a number of weapons that fill the major roles that will be copypasta-able for people's pods. There is nothing stopping people from swiping the weapons or components other people make and use on THEIR pods, either. That's why I pushed Kirenski to disassociate the cost of ammo from the weapons on his spreadsheet. If you like a gun you see on somebody else's pod, just copy it from their build sheet and slap it on yours. Add X amount of ammo and you're good to go. Same with reactors, shields, everything. This is one of the reasons that while I love the Spreadsheet and I'm intensely appreciative of the work that Kirenski has put into it, I still do everything by hand and save my buildsheets as a plain text file. (well, also because OpenOffice doesn't seem to like it very much. ) The formulas are intended for people who are spergy enough to want to work out their pod to the nth decimal. If you don't want to then you shouldn't have to. But for now I plan to leave the formulas in and active, despite the fact that they make the game extremely difficult to balance (as we've all seen, though a lot of the problems have been due to shortsightedness on my part) The game was built around the idea of being able to custom-craft pods to your specifications to suit the mission needs and your playstyle and it's sort of it's hallmark so I wouldn't want to remove it. Basically I had 3 tiers of players in mind: 1: People who just like to stomp around and shoot things (Grab a stock pod or something someone else built) 2: People who are interested enough to want their own pod but hate math. (Grab components from the stock lists or swipe from other pods.) 3: The kind of people who hang out on ElitistJerks and are Very Interested in decimal points and maximum efficiency. (Work the formulas and experiment with different part combinations to get exactly the pod they want, or as close at least as they can get under the rules.) Anyway.. Once the stock lists are up it should be a lot easier/faster for people to build pods without using the formulas. (Otherwise they can "shop" from others' build sheets) This week may all be half rounds so I can get that done.
|
|
|
Post by disastranagant on Jan 15, 2012 22:12:46 GMT -8
Catering to group 3 just makes it impossible to work things out (group 2 is already likely to be a vanishingly small subset of the community). "Stick the formulas in the circular file" is not an optional part of having a fleshed out set of stock weapons, because you will always get better results if you roll your own to fit the exact space your particular pod has. There will always be room to break something with that much room for fine tuning.
After spending way too long messing around with it, I've finally gotten to a point where I can sit down with a goal in mind and generate a pod that fits that goal relatively quickly. Seldom are there meaningful decisions to be made once I've picked out my movement profile and the damage/range of the guns I want. The rest is just mindless fiddling til the mobility/jump stats line up right and I've fit every last armor plate I can and still keep my movement and cost. 9 sig generation per shot vs 10 is not an interesting design decision, it just bogs down the process with busy work.
|
|
|
Post by shalcar on Jan 15, 2012 22:56:51 GMT -8
Grave, I have waited a few games before committing my thoughts because I wanted to see a wide range of situations and see emerging traits and problems with the system.
Firstly, I would like to say that your world building is top notch. You create simple and easy to get into worlds that are accessible to new players as well as having enough complexity to engage existing players and make them want to find out more. This obviously takes a lot of effort on your behalf and I commend you for that.
I would like to state that I am a Process Engineer by trade and as someone who both designs systems and uses them I hope you find this system breakdown useful. I will do my utmost to explain everything and to provide alternatives for investigation. I understand exactly how painful and confrontational it can be to have something you pour your heart and hours of intellectual effort into being carved up and paraded around, so please don’t take any of this as anything other than helping you make your system the absolute best it can be.
Firstly, we must understand exactly what we want the system to do and make sure that all changes we implement are made with this objective in mind.
The objective for any game is “To be fun for the players (hopefully the GM too)”.
I’ll break this document down into three separate sections: Tactical Updates, Ingame and Pod Building.
Tactical Updates: This section of your game is the most robust and needs little, if any, changing. Players have the opportunity to have an impact on the game world while at the same time having a limited but sensible number of options. Players do not feel constrained and are not overwhelmed. The solid world building helps make this section engaging and fun. This is the closest to freeform roleplaying, all game mechanics are hidden from the players except general risk levels making this entire section feel natural and accessible to new and experienced players.
Ingame:
Currently, the interrelation between combat and pod building is muddying the waters, but I will try to keep the issues as separate as possible. For the sake of brevity in this section, I consider weapon ranges, damage and shielding to be something that is to be addressed in Pod Building. This section is to be used for the actions pods can undertake and the impact of those actions upon the game.
This section of the game suffers from several issues that make it difficult to balance and play. The first issue is the level of mathematical complexity that each player must undertake when calculating shots. Each player must calculate shot chances on various targets from various positions to which they can move with each of their weapons to determine an optimal play. Most players don’t find this fun and indeed don’t calculate their odds at all. While the formula would be suitable for a computer game which could easily tell you your odds at a glance, having to break out a calculator for each turn is not something that many players would find fun.
The ability for players to be able to quickly and intuitively understand and observe the chance of the success of any action they can undertake is important to a smoothly operating game that is fun. I propose a system by which accuracy for direct fire weapons is simplified to roughly:
“(Maximum Range-Target distance)/Maximum Range” for an average sized pod. Cover counts as being at an extra square per cover density and height differences can push the distance either way as well.
So you end up with something like a distance 10 shot on a range 10 weapon being about 10%, distance 5 at 50%, distance 5 and light cover 40% etc.
This is easy for players to understand and also to quickly mentally calculate within around 10%. Accuracy and Evasion can easily be factored in. This appearance of simplicity (even if the underlying math is reasonably complicated) allows players to not feel that they have to break out a calculator for every shot they take. Pod size can be abstracted out into large, medium and small pods (with size brackets) which either add or subtract a distance of one square(so +-10%). This simplification allows size to have an impact in the game while not making it impossible to mentally calculate with reasonable accuracy.
Hacking seems reasonably difficult unless a specialist and doesn’t really need any adjustments. It’s not perfect, but it fills its role and is fun, so it doesn’t need to be touched.
Artillery having perfect aim is currently reasonable (We have been attacking a lot of fixed positions which is overblowing artillery’s strengths) although having a small amount of drift (1 or 2 squares) based on the users (lack of) sensors would give sensors some more use as well as making it dangerous to operate in an area being shelled. Small amounts of randomness can add to the fun of a mission, but it’s important that this randomness doesn’t feel arbitrary or else users will resent it. The drift formula should be simple and easily understood.
Signature is another mechanic that is too extreme in it’s implementation. Namely, it has too little effect at low levels and too large an effect at high levels.
Currently, there is basically no reason to not fire unless you have no enemies in range. Obviously this is not intended as Signature is meant to act as a deterrent to always running weapons hot or for using large weapons. However, the low sig of most weapons means that by the time sig has built up to dangerous levels, the fight is more often than not concluded unless it’s an enemy reinforcements map. However, such a map means that missiles are useless for the hero team as the new pods all run low sig and don’t survive long enough to get reasonable sig. The heroes, on the other hand, tend to be exceptionally vulnerable to missiles, but enemies have so far brought such paltry missile power as to mean that the mechanic is basically ignored by the players.
Sig should have more of an impact on the players action and there are several ways to do so. The first possible way is to double or even triple sig generation and also increase sig recovery by the same factor. This means that alpha strikes or pods that run a little over sig cap each turn will be at risk of missiles enough to factor into consideration. It will also give players a reason to not fire their weapons in order to “cool off”. Currently losing 5% from being hit with missiles isn’t worth getting another full round of weaponry into an enemy pod.
Another option is to make signature recovery something that a pod must purchase like speed, so players must balance cost and benefit.
Many of the issues with combat are in fact derived from pod construction, which I will now cover.
Pod Construction:
This is the section of the game that has the largest number of problems, both for the player and for the game designer.
This section of the game is exceptionally complex, to the point where it is still exceptionally difficult even with a spreadsheet designed specifically to calculate all the mundane figures for you. This is not only exceptionally difficult and tedious for players, but it is difficult to manage and administrate in a reasonable manner. Streamlining of this section will not only enable players to make interesting pods, but will enable the designer to balance and create new campaign pods on the fly without extensive rule changes and trying to test unintended consequences.
The first item that must be tackled is the needless complexity that exists within the pod building system. This complexity is impossible to comprehensively test and as such often throws out pods that are “broken” and perform far beyond the expected pod metrics. The first task is the creation of a system that allows flexibility of pod creation while minimizing the paperwork required to create and test a pod.
I suggest that the pod construction system be modified to be a modular system wherein pods attach modules from a pre-generated list and customize via this system.
This approach has several benefits:
Firstly, it massively reduces the paperwork required for a designer or new player to create a pod. This enables a faster and more efficient method of playing the game.
Secondly, this means that each module can be generated from the existing algorithms but then hand modified to alleviate any balance concerns. Small weapons could be made more expensive or bigger or heavier sig, for example. This helps deal with the “sweet spot” that some formulae have (See Railguns at 20 dam).
Thirdly, This enables new rewards inside the campaign of extra modules or the creation of a super pod that is limited, unlike the current system where such rewards are impossible.
Lastly, The system will help prevent analysis paralysis where you have dozens of levers to modify in order to squeeze the absolute best out of a pod. This should bring player pods more in line with GM pods.
It has been stated that Grave expects pods to output between 30-40 damage a turn sustained. However, current weapons enable even inexpensive pods to do substantially more than that. This has a dramatic impact on the effectiveness of shields to the point where shields are basically wasted points once the cost and size of the extra capacitor, generator and shield are factored in compared to adding extra armour.
This problem is due mainly to the concentration of fire that each pod is exposed to from enemies all over the map, as well as the concentrated fire that the heroes can unleash.
The root cause of this problem is that weapons, which originally had individual niches, now overlap to the point where it is difficult if not impossible to tell where one niche ends and another begins.
It is my understanding that the weapons are intended to operate according to the following method:
Melee weapons: Melee Range Cannons: Short range Railguns: Medium range Lasers: Long range Missiles: Support Range (Extra Long) Hack: Support Range Artillery: Support Range
However, the current system does not support this design brief, as combat past 15 squares is effectively impossible due to the chance to hit calculations (For missiles see Signature concerns in previous section). This has the effect of making lasers a weaker version of railguns, rendering them somewhat limited in use.
Even the short range weapons, Cannons, operate at ranges of around 10 squares. Given the context of most maps being 30x30, this is an enormous range for “close” weapons at 2/3rds of the effective range of the long range weapon.
It is suggested that Cannons be reduced to 5 squares, railguns to 10 and lasers to 15. This leaves 20 for support range weapons. While simple, this defines the weapons and gives them a role, while leaving them open for modification into different modules.
Each weapon needs a niche that is obvious to both the player and to the designer for balance reasons. Using the modular method, it would entail creating 3-4 different variants of each weapon. Examples include Regular version, ER version, low sig version, extra damage version.
This gives players the ability to create their planned pod in a simple and straightforward manner (“I want a long range railgun with low sig rockets”) that encourages less of a “boating” philosophy (As stacking of one type would give you a big drawback, maybe the extra range weapon is high Sig or the extra damage is high cost etc).
If reactors, shields and capacitors etc were created in the same modular way, it would be simple to create a pod while still retaining the depth that the existing pod system has while still enabling tweaks without major overhauls.
That’s the end of my breakdown. I hope you found it useful.
If you wish to do testing without interrupting the existing campaign, why don’t you have Alina take us on a “training” exercise to test out new changes without dropping it into the context of the existing campaign. Then changes can be made and assessed without having to work it into the world you are building and while still engaging the players. A separate “test pilot” list can be made so people don’t lose their spots on the roster by playing the testing “Wargames”. This enables you to both test out new systems or modifications while not ruining your campaign.
Best of luck.
|
|
|
Post by Gravedust on Jan 16, 2012 0:55:31 GMT -8
Whoa.. that's a big one. First off, thank you. I can tell this is a very well thought out assessment. I appreciate it immensely and I do indeed find it very useful. I am going to defend some of my decisions, but that's mostly a tool to further discussion, I do carefully consider everything that is said. I encourage you to add your insight on top of what I've written. Interesting proposal for a rebuild direct fire rules.. I'll have to run some tests on it but it seems clean and fairly simple, which is promising. The only thing that makes me somewhat twitchy is the size brackets, (I'd rather not see people start basing designs around exploiting size 'ledges') The only other thing I'm not entirely sold on is that the formula changes slightly with every weapon, (since weapons can have different ranges, you will in most cases have to at least look at the weapon's range to start your calc) and I'd rather keep things uniform. If part of your plan for simplifying podbuilding was to standardize weapon ranges by type then that ameliorates that somewhat. But in any case I'll try it out to see how it performs. Perhaps it's because I've been working with it for so long but I never had much of a problem with figuring out the %hit to with a reasonable percentage in my head.. Start with Accuracy (let's say 60) and lop off the target's evasion (let's say 20) giving us 40% They're a level higher than us, so take off another 10, giving us 30% Inside 10 cover, that's another -10, so we're down to 20% Size is always a positive modifier, so the only real question is how much it'll add. If the range is around 10 that's easy to figure out. Size 150 = ~15 Size 200= ~20, etc. If the range is a lot over 10 the bonus is likely to be <10, If you want the exact % you'll need a calculator of course (as will you to add up all the numbers once your roll is made, unfortunately) But like I said I will fiddle around with your proposal till I get a better understanding of it. The plan I have for artillery, as discussed, is a basic difficulty roll, right at the moment based solely on the maximum Range of the launcher. D100[+Sensors] Vs [Max Range] (likely to be between 15-30) Mostly this is to make a mild skill split necessary. Scatter will probably be a D100 to determine direction (N,NE,E,SE,S,SW,W,NW) and then [D100 / 20] to determine offset. Re: Sig I think some of the problems you're observing with this mechanic is because it is being represented poorly by the missions. The bread and butter of the system is supposed to be pod-on-pod battles rather than assaults, and we only really had that in mission 1 so far. Mission 2 featured no missiles whatsoever. Mission 3 definitely exhibits the symptoms you mentioned however and for the reasons you mentioned. A lot of the pods on the Heroes' side have built up absurd amounts of sig, (most likely because they don't perceive being high-sig as being a threat, as you mentioned) which the Evildoers don't have the missile resources to really capitalize on. In part this is because of a deliberate attempt on my part to slowly increase difficulty and introduce mechanics one by one. (Same reason I put a very light artillery pod on the map this round) Next mission I was going to put a pod with at least a 40-damage missile on the board. Unfortunately I have been noticing that this method engenders some false conceptions about how the game works. (In this case namely that sig doesn't matter at all) One other thing I'm planning on introducing (at the end of this mission actually, as the bonus reward if they don't blow up any of the labs) is a component that translates Target signature into increased accuracy for Direct weapons. I do think your idea of increasing the rate of gain and decay for Sig is an interesting one, though. My initial idea for Sig was that it wouldn't come into play till later in the matches, burst firing for several turns wouldn't hurt you immediately but later as your sig crept up you would find yourself getting closer and closer to being missile food. The idea is that EVERYONE's sig would eventually rise to the point that they would be in danger of eating missiles,since it would be nearly impossible to contribute meaningfully to the battle without generating sig of some kind. (sort of an escalator to oblivion) Not firing in order to lose sig was less important that choosing the shots you -did- take carefully, so you would get to the critical 'gets killed by missiles' envelope later. (Not so much dispersing it as much as not getting it in the first place) Sig was also designed to effect backline units (hackers/ heavy arty) more quickly than close combat units. So it wasn't your actions in the short term that mattered so much as the overall long term. Of course in the featured missions there -is- no long term, generally, so that warps the mechanic and leads to the problems you describe.. Increasing Sig gain/decay would make the repercussions of your actions more immediate, but also dissipate faster, which sounds like the way to go given the shorter mission times we've been seeing. Not so much of an escalator as a roller coaster. I can get behind that. Weapons and all else I'll cover tomorrow because.. Yeah, it's late.. -_- Feel free to comment on what I've written in the meantime.
|
|
|
Post by shalcar on Jan 16, 2012 2:08:47 GMT -8
I had a thought while coming home from work as something I didn't consider, namely, volley fire.
Now don't crucify me for this, but I think it's the cause of quite a few "boating" problems and needs to be removed.
Let me explain my thought process.
There are 4 weapon slots but only 2 actions allowed per turn and volley is designed so that you can sacrifice flexibility (mounting a different weapon type) for extra damage by mounting extra weapons of the same type and linking their fire. It's a simple specilization vs flexibility tradeoff.
However, it doesn't fit with the current pod building system due to the way the weapons are costed and sized. Weapons as they currently are work on a sliding scale where a bigger weapon is more than proportionately bigger than their direct damage increase. This means that a 20 damage weapon costs less than half of a 40 damage weapon. It seems to be intended to make flexible builds possible (with a bit of everything being fairly cheap) but it instead works against the stated goal by meaning that larger weapons are not worth taking as you get the best damage possible by stacking as many small weapons into a pod (4 usually) and firing them in a volley allowing damage as per a much larger weapon while retaining a smaller size and cost. The multicannon pods and railgun pods are good examples of this.
In order to fix this, I propose that volleys be removed from the game. However, this results in the loss of a "maximum damage" sort of ability. I propose that to replace volleys an ability is added : "Goon Strike" (or whatever you want to call it).
Here is how I picture it working:
A full strike costs 2 full actions. All weapons (excepting maybe arty and hacking) are fired at the targetted pod. This means that you get the choice of trading defence (maybe using jets for example) for offence (all weapons). It doesn't penalise flexible pod builds or single weapon builds while leaving single weapon (x4) pods with a disadvantage to offset their large cost/size advantage relative to other more flexible pods.
Ok, now to discuss the earlier post from Grave:
I completely expect you to defend your choices! If you couldn't articulate why certain things are the way they are, we would have a problem.
Firstly, it was part of my plan to standardise ranges of weapons within classes, with maybe one ER variant per class, so it would be fairly simple to calculate by sight.
I will wait for you to run some numbers and play a little more with my direct fire suggestion, as it's the sort of thing that takes more time than an evening to assess.
I find your arty suggestion to be reasonable, but I'm concerned the drift is simply too extreme (Up to 5 squares!) and is likely to feel unsatisfying to the people using it. After all, the long range pods tend to not do much other than lob arty and maybe the odd hack, so having their arty land anywhere and feel like a hindrance more than a help is likely to be very unfun.
I think the liklihood of going off course is about right although I would make it (Max Range x 2), but I would say the distance it should miss by should be determined by something closer to 3-(Sensors/20) with the parenthesis rounded down. This means a 60 sensor pilot (Which is about your max when you consider that some hack defence is pretty much expected) would always be bang on but a 0 sensor pilot could put it 3 squares away (which is a serious distance!).
As for Sig, the reason I consider a more "roller coaster" approach (Although pods that always run hot will still build up like you want) is that pod lethality seems to be reasonable for both the heroes and hostiles. If fights are to be longer, it either means a meatgrinder (in which case sig won't really be built up!) or lots of low level mooks being thrown at the heroes basically just to slow them down (which isn't fun and they ALSO wouldn't generate much sig on account of being blown up a lot). On the current battlefield, the life expectancy of a pod under fire is about 2 rounds, which I feel is an issue with weapon range and the capacity to mount firepower. While if your 30-40 damage attacks were happening we would expect longer fights and more sig build up, we would also be looking at 2-3 weeks per mission with current pod health/shield totals=p
The other problem with sig build up and slow bleed off is that a newer player can get screwed by not really having a feel for how high his sig should be and suddenly he becomes the target for the missile pods. He now has pretty much zero options for keeping himself alive from choices he made quite a few turns ago, which isn't a whole lot of fun. Bigger spikes not only mean that it's something that you consider when you go loud, but the faster bleedoff means that it becomes a "Must stay alive for 2 rounds" which opens up options for his allies to say, hack the enemy missile weapons for a round to buy him some time.
It also means that if a pod goes big and loud and in someones face (Like a quad cannon pod) he's going to get serious counterattack which encourages a more measured approach to combat (or at least forces a risk/reward calculation).
|
|
|
Post by Gravedust on Jan 16, 2012 2:48:43 GMT -8
Well I totally can't sleep.
Quick note to re-explain artillery... Essentially of you bring a sensors skill that is equal to the range of you arty unit, you will never miss. It's D100[+sensors] vs. [Range] If the range is 30 and you've got 30 sensors you can never fail. (Well, unless someone hacks your sensors, but it's easier to just turn off your launcher if it comes to that) If you want to make a calculated effort to shortchange your sensors skill and live with a 5 or 10 percent chance of missing your arty roll in favor of putting those points wlsewhere then you can. 5 might be a bit wide, we can always adjust the offset to be like [D100/25] or lower, but I like clean numbers. 33.3333 = Bleh.
The real reason I'm requiring at least a little skill be put into Arty is because pure arty or arty/hybrid pods have nowhere to put their skill points really.. Going arty, putting on a hacking deck and sticking a full 100 points in to Hack or something is too easy a choice, provided there's somewhere on the map to hide. Arty/hackers should still be viable, but they'll be in the hybrid range. (Tho 50deck)(+60 hack) still ain't bad)
My plans to discourage boating (going into effect at the end of the mission, potentially) are simply to slap an accuracy penalty on volleying.
2 weapons -10 3 weapons -20 4 weapons -30
The -10 is significant but not horrible, and it makes for a viable choice if you're run/jump/shooting with 2 guns. If you've got 3 weapons, you can Move, volley 2, and fire 1 regular. Etc etc. It doesn't alter the rules, it's just one more thing to remember for the firing solution. 4-gun pods are pretty much limited to at least a permanent -10 if they want to unload all their firepower, but they can still get by with 3 full accuracy shots, as can 3-gun pods so long as they don't move. 3-4 gun volleys are still viable at closer ranges... Though 2 good cannons ought to be able to outdamage most other weapons at close range, busted rails aside.. This mechanic of course makes cannon volleying even worse, but it's already pretty terrible and I'm fine if it becomes a nonoption.
I'm with you on the faster sig gain/decay. (^.^)b
Anyway, more later, we'll see how the insomnia holds up.
|
|
|
Post by shalcar on Jan 16, 2012 3:02:08 GMT -8
Yeah, I edited the sensors thing to be Max Range x 2, so a full 60 sensors means you always hit on a range 30 arty, which makes it a bit more of a tradeoff.
If you want to keep volley but are going to increase sig by the proposed margins, then I'm not sure that volley is going to be a problem, because it's going to light your pod up like a Christmas Tree.
If current pods gain 8 sig per volley and lose 5, making it so they gain 24 sig and lose 15 suddenly means that it won't take many volleys before they are glowing white hot. They would need to drop to half firepower to even be making headway against the Sig. I actually kind of like it because it adds options and reduces something that's overbalancing.
Of course, if the pod building is changed to modules, there are other ways of bringing it under control, but I actually like the idea of the many small weapons being hot. If they are used for low level firepower (say 2 of them) you won't really light up, but if you use a full 4 and boat then you will be hot in no time.
|
|
|
Post by Gravedust on Jan 16, 2012 4:04:00 GMT -8
Mmmmodules.
I have kind of an idea.
As an example:
Cannons are now broken up into 3 categories:
Light cannons
Medium cannons
Assault cannons
Each category has base stats:
Light Cannon [Damage: 15][Range:15][Recoil:3][Sig:2] [Size:15][Cost:80]
Medium Cannon [Damage: 20][Range:12][Recoil:5][Sig:3] [Size:25][Cost:125]
Assault Cannon [Damage: 24][Range:8][Recoil:7][Sig:4] [Size:35][Cost:160]
Each category also has Slots.
Light Cannon [Damage: 15][Range:15][Recoil:3][Sig:2] [Size:15][Cost:80] - [slot1][slot2][slot3][slot4]
Medium Cannon [Damage: 20][Range:12][Recoil:5][Sig:3] [Size:25][Cost:125] - [slot1][slot2][slot3][slot4]
Assault Cannon [Damage: 24][Range:8][Recoil:7][Sig:4] [Size:35][Cost:160] - [slot1][slot2][slot3][slot4]
Each category has a number of accessories (or whatever) that go in those slots.
+Light Cannon:
[Muzzle Brake] Decreases recoil by 1 [Smoothbore] Increases Range by 2 [Caseless Ammo]Decreases Sig by 1 [High velocity] Increase Damage by 1
And you can jam them in any combination onto the weapon to change the stats:
Light Cannon [Damage: 15][Range:19][Recoil:2][Sig:1] [Size:15][Cost:80] - [Muzzle Brake][Muzzle Brake][Smoothbore][Caseless A.]
Is that what you're talking about or what? If it's not then please explain what you mean.
|
|
|
Post by shalcar on Jan 16, 2012 4:33:41 GMT -8
Yeah, that's not quite what I was getting at, although the principle is similar, but less complicated.
Basically, there would be a parts list for Cannons like : Reg Damage : 20 Range : 5 (Range Extension : 0) Recoil : 10 (Recoil Adjust : 16) Sig : 4 (Sig Reduction : 0) Size : 26 Cost : 120
ER Damage : 20 Range : 10 (Range Extension : 5) Recoil : 10 (Recoil Adjust : 16) Sig : 4 (Sig Reduction : 0) Size : 36 Cost : 145
Low Sig Damage : 20 Range : 5 (Range Extension : 0) Recoil : 10 (Recoil Adjust : 16) Sig : 2 (Sig Reduction : 2) Size : 28 Cost : 128
Heavy Damage Damage : 25 Range : 5 (Range Extension : 1) Recoil : 10 (Recoil Adjust : 20) Sig : 5 (Sig Reduction : 0) Size : 35 Cost : 155
Low Recoil Damage : 20 Range : 5 (Range Extension : 0) Recoil : 8 (Recoil Adjust : 20) Sig : 4 (Sig Reduction : 0) Size : 30 Cost : 140
Or as you would see them on the your sheet:
Assualt Cannon [Damage:20][Range:5][Recoil:10][Signature:4] - [SIZE: 26][COST: 120]
ER Cannon [Damage:20][Range:10][Recoil:10][Signature:4] - [SIZE: 36][COST: 145]
Silenced Cannon [Damage:20][Range:5][Recoil:10][Signature:2] - [SIZE: 28][COST: 128]
Heavy Cannon [Damage:25][Range:5][Recoil:10][Signature:4] - [SIZE: 35][COST: 155]
Stabilized Cannon [Damage:20][Range:5][Recoil:8][Signature:4] - [SIZE: 30][COST: 140]
Players would then only be able to add those items onto their pods. They dont get to custom tweak it so there are 5000 different types of cannon. Their ammo would be seperate, but as each cannon has the same damage except for the heavy cannon, there would only be two types of ammo you could load "Regular and Heavy".
This approach has several benefits. For one, it makes pod building fairly straightforward. People know they want to add a short range weapon (cannon) and simply pick it off a list with the attribute they want (with the default weapon being small/cheap). This makes pod building and checking a LOT less intimidating. You could approve pods in no time at all.
The other Weapons, Reactors, Capacitors and Shields would be done in a similar manner. The bit where you can "fill in" your points is in armour and mobility, which remain in the same granular manner they are currently in.
In addition, special equipment could be added in the same way, like your "Advanced Targetting Array" which increases direct weapons accuracy with enemy Sig or anything else you can think of.
The primary benefit of this approach is that you can modify the numbers of individual components without causing ripple effects down the entire line. Say for example you think the "Low Recoil" version is too innaccurate for the price. You simply reduce the recoil on the module and now it's more accurate without this causing knock-on effects for every other type of cannon.
It enables fine control of pod equipment and presents it in an intuitive and easier to understand way.
"Do I want the big loud cannon or the accurate cannon or the cheap cannon" is a meaningful choice for players, while "Do I want sig reduction 2 or 3" isn't, when you consider the enormous number of variables they currently have to mentally juggle.
|
|
captainbravo
Full Member
Vhiki readies Flame Breath!
Posts: 140
|
Post by captainbravo on Jan 16, 2012 11:34:49 GMT -8
As much as it pains me to say this, since I really, really love twinking the fuck out for a couple hours to build a gamebreaking pod, that seems like a great idea.
Also, it would tie directly back in to something that you've said you want, and that's player rewards. Sure, more points, or a rare special gun are nice, but when you can add in direct rewards in the form of demonstrably better weapons, it really gives the feeling of progress in a campaign that the tac map, while great, doesn't excel at.
Still, it's a hard pill to swallow. It'll effectively remove one of the three methods of play you set out to create, and it will drastically change a lot of elements of the game. But I think it could work out pretty well. And it would give you a lot more control over the elements that you're struggling so hard to weed out.
|
|
|
Post by xelada on Jan 16, 2012 12:11:48 GMT -8
Some possible ways of preventing type 3 dominance from the brain of Xelada: - A limited "Memory" for Pods, so only a certain amount of different Pods can be made before it becomes full and you need to either find ome way of increasing the Memory or somehow remove some from the list.
- A similar idea with components, probably with seperate "folders" for each type.
- You start off with very few compants, by doing stuff you can salvage some new ones, gain randomized schematics so you might get a useless piece of junk that is very similar to something that practically everyone wants; or in choice places, the ability to make one themselves, using the formulae of course
The modular idea is very interesting, plus leaves plenty room to expand with adding new and interesting accessorie with varied abilities; like Knee Capper: Any Pod hit loses one move on it's next turn. Or Depleted Uranium Rounds: +1 Recoil +1 Sig +5 damage.
|
|
|
Post by Gravedust on Jan 16, 2012 14:57:00 GMT -8
Yeah, that's not quite what I was getting at, although the principle is similar, but less complicated. In practice that seems identical to choosing parts off a stock sheet (since that's essentially what it is) It also seems identical to: Which is something I wanted to avoid. Not Mechwarrior specifically, but I wanted a system that was MORE customizable than "you got ## weapons to choose from, pick whatever ones you think will go best, then stick on armor and go-power" There are MANY games that offer that level of customization, I wanted a game that exceeded it. The modular weapon system I proposed earlier is really the MINIMUM amount of component interactivity I would consider acceptable for the design I set out to accomplish. I think you are partially correct that a game that only used stock parts would be easier to balance. But the issue there is that the balance now centers entirely around what parts are chosen to be available to the players. Size/Cost is actually less easier to manage effectively because your components are given to you in unchangeable 'blocks' of size/cost, and an advantage will be had by designs that arrange those blocks to most effectively fill up their size/cost totals. New 'sweet spots' will arise, except that they'll be centered around certain combinations of weapons and components that push the closest to 700 without going over. As an example, let's say you want 2 30-damage rails on your pod. You stick them on, add a minimum amount of ammo, do everything else, and you wind up at 710 points. Your options at that point are: (Decrease Armor) Fairly easy to be honest, not much to lose here, aside from you have 20 less armor. (Lose ammo) Not a bad option, but the ammo comes in blocks of 4 Cost. If you drop 2 you're still at 702 and now you're down 6 ammo total out of the 12 per gun you started with or whatever. (Decrease Mobility) Sticky, as Mobility needs to be added in big blocks to get from 1 move rating to another, and anything other than an exact fit is a waste in some way or other. Probably not the best option. (Lose/downgrade another component) could be tricky as you'll have to balance between potentially wasting some cost if your amended parts don't have just the right cost total. You could end up needing to reshuffle a bunch of components on your pod to get close to the cap again. And what if the difference was only 705? or 702? It's a 10 point problem that potentially requires fading around with your entire pod, and then it's still possible you won't get be able to get the exact pod you want because the compromises you have to make between set-in-stone components might be too big to accommodate the exact niche you want. If you're free to modify components your solution is actually simpler: • Sacrifice 1 square of range from each of your cannons to make the cost an even 700. (Odds of finding a 14 range railgun in the stock lists are probably very low) • Lose 3 points of total shield strength (In a far off, future land when shields are worth something) for 699 cost. (odds of finding a shield in the stock lists with strength that isn't a multiple of 5 is also probably very low) • Pick a component, Lose 3 points of miniaturization on it. Increase your mobi to maintain the same speed, and you're at 699 cost for no change to your pod's stats except to be negligibly easier to hit at close range. Solutions are even more myriad if you consider other two or 3 step changes. The problem I see with the idea of a stock-only list is there would need to be at least dozens of variations on each weapon category to get into the cracks that would need to be covered, and that obfuscates the clarity you seem to be going for with your proposal of fewer but more archetypal weapons. If you don't account for those cracks you will almost inevitably wind up with people finding certain combinations that do slot in nicely and which would then become prevalent. The end result is a narrower range of 'effective' pods as pods that are only marginally un-ideal cannot be made ideal without larger than necessary changes (making them un-ideal again, just in the other direction) Now, if we tossed out all reference to the formulas altogether and just assigned stats freehand in order to manually balance weapons, we could potentially ameliorate this issue somewhat. But I always find that balancing is a lot harder to achieve via guesswork and intuition than via a weighted formula (indeed this is why I started using formulas in the first place, to quickly generate balanced stats for various weapons/machines in a previous game. Later I decided to make it open to the players.) But again when size/cost is hardcoded and all the pieces have to fit together as well as possible, the difference between Cost 100 and Cost 105 is a hell of a lot more than 5 points. And I can see how you could get stuck between rocks and hard places juggling an item's appropriate value when you have to deal in cost blocks of 5 or 10 or more in order to give the best possible chance for any given component so slot with another without leaving an ugly remainder at the end. Cost 685 pods suddenly become the bane of everyone's existence when there are no components useful to a pod that cost 15 points. With a more flexible system you can fill in these points with incremental improvements to various systems. It may not make a huge difference, but at least you'll be getting your money's worth if you're willing to put the time in. Anyway. Stock lists will be rolling out at some point hopefully soon, and at that point people will have the ability to build pods without ever having to look at the formulas if they don't want to. This should have the exact same effect of the system you propose of stock-only. Once the lists are complete we can all test out the proposed system by building pods entirely with stock parts. I figure that would make for a good proof of concept one way or another. However unless the results of a stock-only system are overwhelmingly good I most likely will not be removing the availability of the formulas for the people who want to go to the extra time and effort to learn how to use them. If they gain a benefit that's not available to stock-part builders by doing so then that's fine by me. Increased effort should be met with increased reward. And of course there's nothing to stop anyone from reusing the pod others create later and benefiting from their work. My official stance on the building system is that it's there if you're interested, but if you aren't then it's entirely optional. You don't ever need to touch it to enjoy the game, there are plenty of pods and if the complexity of the build system scares players away from it then the game will be all the more balanced, because I'll be designing everything. Distra cited the impossibility of balancing the build system, but I don't think it's impossible at all. Harder than doing it the other way, absolutely, but not at all impossible. If anything the main problem with the build systems is me, specifically. I simply did not test it to the extents that were required. I built a number of pods to test the system, but foolishly didn't bother to check the extremes completely, or examine the weapons when compared with one another or with multiples of the same type. I was lax and it came around to bite me directly in the ass. Understand that I'm coming from behind, and really my only question is not whether I can fix the game, but WHEN I can do so while causing the fewest problems. If we can limp across the finish line of this campaign without having to resort to the next version that would be ideal. But if not then I'll try to find an opportune time to pull over and crack open the hood to set things right. The other problem I see with implementing a stock-only part system is, as I said, the balance of the game will shift according to the parts that are made available and how well they do or do not work together in certain combinations. So we'll be trading a system of interrelations that we at least understand the problems with- (Armor too cheap/easy to add, railguns too cheap, lasers suck, shields suck. These are all things I can fix and would have fixed already if it wouldn't make everyone recalc their pods) -for one that we don't understand at all. Unless we do comprehensive testing on the different combinations before we even release the lists, there is a good chance we'll wind up with a system that's just as borked as the one we're currently experiencing, just in different ways. (As an example Lasers become too good because they are small/cheap while the other weapons are larger and don't fit together as nicely and suddenly quad 15 damage low-energy laser builds rule the battlefield because they average 60 damage and have room for a bigger reactor, where other builds only average 40 due to weird component sizing.) Yes you can tweak numbers on individual components to eradicate sweet spots when you find them, but in the process you invalidate every pod that uses that part, even ones that weren't exploiting that one setup. It's not as sweeping a change as what happens when you alter a formula, but it's not inconsequential either. Plus going to the stock system would require that everyone redo all their pods anyway, since most of the parts for the pods in service would get invalidated. So we wouldn't be able to roll out the new system without the exact same hassle that altering the formulas entails. *deep breath* For my money, using a stock list provides exactly the same benefits as a stock-only list, except maintaining the formulas alongside them allows for minor defects in stock builds to be corrected with actually less work than rearranging a bunch of less-flexible stock parts. OR can be used to make an entirely custom pod from the ground up if desired. To the people who dislike having to type a lot of numbers into a spreadsheet to get components I make this suggestion: Make a nice gun or whatever component you like. Save it's stats to a text file. Next time you need that gun for a build, just paste the stats into your new build sheet. Viola. No pesky formula-ing, it was already done, just add up the Cost and Size. The main drawback to the spreadsheet as I see it is that you're stuck entering a lot of numbers just to replicate work you've already done when you could just copypasta.
|
|
|
Post by captainfoo on Jan 16, 2012 17:41:27 GMT -8
"if the complexity of the build system scares players away from it then the game will be all the more balanced, because I'll be designing everything."
I really, really don't want to sound like an asshole, but look what happened on your SA game - pretty much nobody uses your stock pods because the ones people came up with running your system are better. Now, either the "stock" pods need to be brought in line with the higher-quality customs, or something else needs to give. Because otherwise you're giving people with the time and inclination to examine the build system an unquestioned and permanent advantage on the tabletop.
If you are convinced that player pods need to be optimal, then give up your own designs and allow the optimized customs to be the new stock.
Giving a permanent advantage to entrenched players outside of their skill on the board itself is a terrible idea for drawing new players in. Let the skill gap manifest itself in play, not in outside-the-game advantages (i.e. pod design)
|
|
captainbravo
Full Member
Vhiki readies Flame Breath!
Posts: 140
|
Post by captainbravo on Jan 16, 2012 17:47:23 GMT -8
If they gain a benefit that's not available to stock-part builders by doing so then that's fine by me. Increased effort should be met with increased reward. While I agree with most everything you've posted, I do feel this needs to be addressed. Customization should not be met with a mechanical benefit. It's the exact same reason that you took down all the sheets when errors were found, instead of just handwaving it away as stock parts having slightly better stats. Sure, there might not have been much difference, but it's still a mechanical benefit that favors one playstyle over the other. Customization should lead to a better-tailored pod to your playstyle. If you put in the effort to go through the dense number crunching, you should be rewarded with a pod perfectly suited to exactly how you want to play. But you should not be rewarded with a pod that's demonstrably better than other pods. System Mastery is fun, hell I love to do it from time to time, but when you have a game that rewards system mastery with mechanical benefit, you just start tipping things towards unbalance. I mean, I haven't really seen that here, and you seem pretty good about cracking down on it, but I still think that's something that needs to be said.
|
|
|
Post by shalcar on Jan 16, 2012 17:50:08 GMT -8
Not wanting to go too badly off topic during a mechanics discussion, but I feel the power gap between the custom pods and the predesigned pods are caused less by poor design choices and more due to the fact that Grave builds the pods with his designer hat on, that is, they are built under the assumption that all the pieces of the system lock together in the way he intended them to interact.
However, the system doesn’t fit together in the way that he intended (See Shields, for example) and so the pods he created are fairly heavily behind the power curve.
Players don’t have any preconceived notions of how the system “should” work, so they approach with pure mathematical rigor (Which is basically required with a system this complex) and turn the exercise into a selection of optimization problems (“How do I get the most damage dealt at range 8” or “How do I survive the longest under sustained fire”) and then fill the pod in from there. This means they tend to find something that is broken in their specific operational niche and then spam the hell out of it.
The fact that the system allows hyper-specialized pods means that they will always outperform the by necessity more generalized pods that the GM creates, especially given the current weapon system specs.
|
|
|
Post by Gravedust on Jan 16, 2012 18:50:59 GMT -8
Just s few quick notes before I (Hopefully) pass out for the night. Vis a Vis the stock pods: They are absolutely obsolete. Which was anticipated. Pod design is as much evolution as anything else, you learn to work the system better, and more importantly your base your designs on what will defeat the designs that are already out there. The stock pods were the first ones built, and they were the ones I built as I was learning my own system. Plenty of mistakes were made, excessive ammo loads as commonly pointed out, for instance. There are other issues as well. I've never found the time (or need) to update them, so of course the are lagging behind in build quality and game theory. I never held the stocks up as the pinnacle of pod design, they are literally prototypes. If I was to design the stock pods all over again tomorrow they're be totally different, and incorporate the things that I've learned from my own experimentation and from what I've seen others do. I don't give a rusty shit if anyone uses them or not, honestly. I use for Shezari pods actually because they -are- inferior to the pods most other people are producing nowadays. I can fight in them and expect to be beaten. (again, my objective at the GM is to lose by a narrow margin and in the most entertaining manner possible) when I need a 'scary' pod that won't die immediately I design a new one, like the Khamsin. I don't want to sound like an asshole either, but I do find it funny that out of the entire essay that I wrote up there, you pick the one sentence with a in it and decided to take it seriously. ------------------ >>Giving a permanent advantage to entrenched players outside of their skill on the board itself is a terrible idea for drawing new players in. Let the skill gap manifest itself in play, not in outside-the-game advantages (i.e. pod design) There is NOTHING to stop a new player from taking an expertly-designed pod made by an experienced, veteran player, so I don't see where this 'permanent, entrenched advantage' is coming from. If a pod is in play it's been approved, and if it's been approved then it's in the Pod Database, and if it's in the Pod Database it is Free Game. The stocks were there in the beginning because there were no other pods to play with. Now there are over 5 times as many custom as the original ones I started with. I don't even mention or recommend the stocks when I ask people to deploy. In fact the entire reason I designed the Vesuvius was because the Arclite sucked so hard (ssssooooo haaaarrrrrddd -_-) and people kept trying to take it. ======================================================================== >>>>Customization should not be met with a mechanical benefit. It's the exact same reason that you took down all the sheets when errors were found, instead of just handwaving it away as stock parts having slightly better stats.Just to make sure everyone is on the same page here, the 'benefit' I'm talking about is basically the difference of using stock parts to get to 690 cost and saying "Ehh..that's good enough" and calling it a day, because you are out of options for switching prebuilt components around, versus getting into the formulas a bit and optimizing in such a way that you round out at a full 700. the benefit in that case, is.. well, it's exactly 10 points. Formulas are not magically going to produce stats than stock parts. The stock parts are built from the exact same damn formulas. The sole difference is the work was already done for you by someone else. And if you choose to instead do that work yourself, (by tweaking the formulas, you can get a part that fits EXACTLY the need you have rather than 'pretty close to' the need you have. That is the only advantage.
|
|
|
Post by slightlyrandom on Jan 16, 2012 21:21:27 GMT -8
I'm gonna side with Grave here, and say that the current customizability is fun, and worth sacrificing a wee bit of fairness for.
That said, I think the components have to be simplified a bit. There are, I think, a few too many knobs to turn on each weapon, but given a bit of time and testing, I don't think this is insurmountable. Pigeon-holing them a bit more might go a bit of a way to levelling the playing field, or at least making options viable.
|
|
|
Post by shalcar on Jan 17, 2012 0:55:40 GMT -8
I’m going to respond to your points in the order you posted them.
Firstly, just because only some points were addressed, doesn’t mean that your other points are being ignored. It simply means they have not yet been addressed. It may be due to a lack of time or lack of analysis on others part. It’s to be expected that the initial criticisms of any particular position or system will be the simplest components, because they are often the easiest to challenge.
You may feel that the stock pods don’t matter and we should be worried about other things, but I feel that’s trying to sweep the glaring problem under a rug. Namely, every single Type 1 player is disenfranchised by the weakness of the stock pods. The underlying theme that players should “toughen up and roll their own or else suck it up” appears fairly endemic to several design decisions that seem designed specifically to provide a penalty to those unfamiliar with the system.
If the system was trivially easy to understand, this flaw would be perfectly reasonable, however the pod system is exceptionally complex, such that new players have no way of knowing what is and is not good. They would be completely unable to articulate why the stock pods are bad other than someone who is familiar with the game told them that they are so.
For the same reason, the fact that users can pick a pod from the database is flawed, as a new player has no way of identifying which one of the dozens of pods is actually useful in the current situation without an experienced player basically picking them a subset which is suitable. Many pods are designed from a technically valid system but are now exceptionally weak due to changes to game rules since they were designed (See the Fatman and the nerf to cannons with recoil for one example), many pods suffer from similar problems to the premade pods (Excessive shielding or not a defined enough role) and many pods are simply poor at their designed role.
From this giant list of pods, players who are unfamiliar with the system, armed with only the information in the OP, will want to try to work out which pod they want to pilot. They may decide to take a laser heavy pod because they want to play at long range, unaware that the accuracy rules and specific weaknesses of lasers make railguns the better choice for long range direct combat. They may decide to take a pod with missiles under the assumption that enemy pods will run hot or take a low level hack deck in the assumption that they could perform basic hacks (As a lot of the pre hacking change pods do).
All this combines to give rise to a common co-operative game problem known as “Multiplayer Solitaire” wherein one knowledgeable person basically tells everyone else in the game how to play. This is not much fun for the new players and tends to cause friction when new players perform actions that are poor, often simply so they feel they have some control over their situation.
In this case, it’s basically a design decision that in order to be able to contribute at their best, a new player is required to have a custom pod built or chosen for them. That is the consequence of the idea that “Increased Effort leads to Increased Reward” when applied to pod construction.
To respond to your next point, the idea of “Permanent entrenched advantage” exists in pod design due to the nature of the game itself. Players are given a view of not only the battle map, but of the initial enemy pod deployment and some outlying rules. This information is of enormous value to players who are experienced with the game, as they take this and design pods that are tailor made to the conditions inside that particular battlefield. Players without this knowledge are forced to draw from a stock pod or a pod that is previously built for a more general role or different battlefield, leaving them at a comparative power disadvantage.
Assume for a second that the battlefield has a large number of heavy enemy missile users and was a “Storm the base” style mission. An experienced user will design a pod that runs very low sig, while a new user might select a loud assault pod that was meant to be used on a no missile map and as such runs very hot and relies heavily on shields. It is entirely possible that no low-sig assault pods exist and so no amount of “Pick the best pod from the database” will cover that, the player is then required to create a new pod from scratch.
The experienced player will always be able to use the information given better than the new player and as such will be in a pod less suited to the battlefield, giving an entrenched advantage to the veteran player.
You noted that everyone kept trying to take the Arclite despite the fact that it is a walking deathtrap and this perfectly illustrates my point. People look at the pods available and rightly assume that the Arclite is the long range specialist. They don’t have the knowledge to know that the defence is woefully inadequate and that the missile means it has basically no way of doing anything useful other than lob artillery. This is because they work on the assumption that the stock pods represent a good middle of the road all situations choice. The fact you can make a pod 3 times better by even opening the pod construction sheet shows how few people actually go into pod construction.
Finally, it’s important to note that the “benefit” we are talking about is not the 10 points (Which a modular system can fill rather easily anyway, armour or jets and quite a few weapons have a less than 10 cost difference to add) that the custom builder gets, but the fact that his pod is able to ignore certain map specific game mechanics that the more general pods cannot, often to an exceptional degree. Since each map has either been different conditions to the previous ones or operating under a different ruleset, the use of old predesigned pods is still at a noticeable disadvantage.
In conclusion, while it is important to note that I am not calling for a full redesign of the stock pods right this instant, the issue of the poor state of the current stock pods is actually quite important with regards to the game as it stands. In order for the game to be accessible and enjoyable to the newer player there needs to be more transparency in the operation of pods and player expectations need to be more closely catered to.
It is also important to note that the weapons systems need a complete rationalization in order to bring performance more in line with initial design goals and provide more clarity to the player.
I would like to note that I am not avoiding your other points and they will need to be addressed, as will several of my points, but this is as good a place as any to get into the high levels of coupling between game components.
|
|
captainbravo
Full Member
Vhiki readies Flame Breath!
Posts: 140
|
Post by captainbravo on Jan 17, 2012 3:41:18 GMT -8
Yeah, Shalcar basically said everything I was trying to. The reason I only addressed the one point is because I agree with everything else you've written. And, I know that you've been trying to work on the System Mastery angle and prevent Type 3 players from being too powerful vs. Type 1 players, but I still think that it's just something we all need to be reminded of from time to time. Even if we already know it, it's still valuable to have it written down every once in a while, you know what I mean?
|
|
|
Post by captainfoo on Jan 17, 2012 4:09:59 GMT -8
I wanna hop back in for a minute and discuss the issue of system mastery, briefly. You can't eliminate it entirely, nor would you want to. Given a wide array of decently balanced pods over a gamut of niches, the experienced player is more likely to choose an effective set of pods for a given map than a new player - this is to be expected.
To note the role of custom designs, I turn to BattleTech. Note I do not turn here as a paragon of balance, just as another system with which I am familiar. There are robust 'Mech building rules - and in friendly matches, customs are often not allowed! Partially this is a consequence of there being a wide variety of 'Mechs already in existence, but also because very few of the stock mechs are strictly optimal. In ongoing campaigns, customization of mechs is usually allowed at some significant cost - again, because many custom mechs are much better than their stock relatives. I know the BattleTech designers often design canon mechs with problems (i.e.) the stock mechs are not strictly optimal because that reduces the amount of viable options. Also note that optimal mechs are often considered boring to play both as and against.
I realize I am somewhat arguing against my own point, that if you are going to maintain the highly complex interdependent build system that you should find the optimal pods and create them as stock.
I guess, in the end, I don't agree with having such a brutally complicated system that you then go ahead and subvert entirely with boss modules, where boss modules would fit right into a more modular design system.
|
|
|
Post by captainfoo on Jan 17, 2012 5:53:45 GMT -8
I'm gonna side with Grave here, and say that the current customizability is fun, and worth sacrificing a wee bit of fairness for. That said, I think the components have to be simplified a bit. There are, I think, a few too many knobs to turn on each weapon, but given a bit of time and testing, I don't think this is insurmountable. Pigeon-holing them a bit more might go a bit of a way to levelling the playing field, or at least making options viable. I also agree that customization is fun - it gives a player more "ownership" of the pod they choose to take to battle. But like you said, there are a lot of knobs to tweak. This is not inherently bad, but the everything interacts - it makes it very hard to establish a baseline to work off of and creates the problem that you cannot tweak anything without completely invalidating any pod that uses it. Let's look at cannons: Range = [100 / Damage] + [Range Extension] Recoil = [Damage x8 ] / [Recoil Adjust] Signature = [Damage / 5] - [Signature reduction] Size = [Damage / 2] + [Range extension x2] + [Recoil Adjust] + [Signature reduction] Cost = [Damage x2] + [Range extension x 5] + [Recoil Adjust x5] + [Signature Reduction x4] Nothing is fixed. I understand that entirely - it makes sense! But the cascade of design decisions that you have to make if you want to alter the balance make the system extremely difficult to playtest. Let's take a very basic issue, raw damage. Say we want to double cannon damage across the board. It's impossible to play a quick game with doubled cannon damage. You have to redesign every single pod that has a cannon! Sure, the range, recoil, and signature all change, that's not really the problem; if we are trying to isolate the effects of increased damage that's not particularly helpful. The real problem becomes that your size and cost change dramatically as well. Now the size goes up - that probably means your pod loses a point of movement because there's no reason to spend any extra on mobility points than needed. More directly, though, the cost of the cannon goes up as well - so far every pod build has been very close to 700 points, which means that something else has to give in each pod design. So in order to test something fairly simple like "what if we double cannon damage," look at all the knock-on effects you have! In effect, with the pod design rules as they are you have a system that is impossible to effectively playtest. You certainly can test and identify problems, but then you have to start the pod design metagame from scratch every single time you tweak something, and I think that's something that's likely to burn even dedicated testers out. Again, going back to my BattleTech comparison: say I wanted to test the effects of increasing Medium Lasers by one damage. That's all I have to do. As long as I concede the weight and space as fixed, I can tweak the system to my heart's content and use every single existing design without issue - a far more robust system. I would like to finish by reiterating the point that I offer critiques because I really like the idea and world you've created here, and want to see a brilliant idea succeed.
|
|
|
Post by Gravedust on Jan 17, 2012 8:28:35 GMT -8
*yawn* Hello again. I was feeling a little cranky last night on account of being extremely tired, hope you'll forgive me for that. I don't have a lot ot time so I'll try to summarize as quickly as I can, please pardon the brevity.
======================================================================= You may feel that the stock pods don’t matter and we should be worried about other things, but I feel that’s trying to sweep the glaring problem under a rug. Namely, every single Type 1 player is disenfranchised by the weakness of the stock pods. ======================================================================= Every pod in the Database is in effect a 'stock pod'. some of them are pretty bad, (including the original 10 I made,) but the newer ones are better.
======================================================================== For the same reason, the fact that users can pick a pod from the database is flawed, as a new player has no way of identifying which one of the dozens of pods is actually useful in the current situation without an experienced player basically picking them a subset which is suitable. ========================================================================= Reading the OP should give a new player some inkling of how a pod stacks up, reading the previous missions should further cement an idea of what is effective in a given situation.
=========================================================================== They may decide to take a laser heavy pod because they want to play at long range, unaware that the accuracy rules and specific weaknesses of lasers make railguns the better choice for long range direct combat. ============================================================================ Lasers and rails are identical in terms of accuracy, and the differences in their damage methods are explained in the OP.
=============================================================================== They may decide to take a pod with missiles under the assumption that enemy pods will run hot or take a low level hack deck in the assumption that they could perform basic hacks (As a lot of the pre hacking change pods do). =============================================================================== The point about missiles is valid. (though a calculation of enemy sig levels once the map and opposition has been displayed should be easy to do) The updated hacking rules are in the OP.
=============================================================================== In this case, it’s basically a design decision that in order to be able to contribute at their best, a new player is required to have a custom pod built or chosen for them. That is the consequence of the idea that “Increased Effort leads to Increased Reward” when applied to pod construction. ================================================================================= I think this is an exagerration. The time between a new player joining and actually getting in a round is on the order of several weeks, which is long enough for them to examine and experiment with the build system if they want to, and since the results of the previous missions are spelled out for them in the updates that is a useful source of knowledge as well.
================================================================================= Players are given a view of not only the battle map, but of the initial enemy pod deployment and some outlying rules. This information is of enormous value to players who are experienced with the game, as they take this and design pods that are tailor made to the conditions inside that particular battlefield. Players without this knowledge are forced to draw from a stock pod or a pod that is previously built for a more general role or different battlefield, leaving them at a comparative power disadvantage. ================================================================================= This is the benefit of experience. The system is complex but not infinitely cryptic. New players will eventually catch up, if they haven't already by the time they get to play.
================================================================================= It is entirely possible that no low-sig assault pods exist and so no amount of “Pick the best pod from the database” will cover that, the player is then required to create a new pod from scratch. ================================================================================= They could also (potentially) quickly cobble together a pod from the available stock parts and not have to build one from scratch.
================================================================================== The experienced player will always be able to use the information given better than the new player and as such will be in a pod less suited to the battlefield, giving an entrenched advantage to the veteran player. ================================================================================== Again, this is the benefit of experience.
================================================================================== This is because they work on the assumption that the stock pods represent a good middle of the road all situations choice. The fact you can make a pod 3 times better by even opening the pod construction sheet shows how few people actually go into pod construction. ================================================================================== Again, the stock pods don't exist in a vacuum, you can use the work that others have done. I do agree with you though in that the stocks do need to be revamped, I just lack to the time to do so with everything else I need to do. They -will- absolutely be rebalanced for the next version.
================================================================================== (Which a modular system can fill rather easily anyway, armour or jets and quite a few weapons have a less than 10 cost difference to add) ================================================================================== Can it? I'm looking at in a pessimistic light, while you're looking at it in an optimistic one. If you're intent on proving that it works, then I can make the stock sheets that I've done so far available and you can fill in what I haven't done with reasonable variants of the weapons or whatever else. Then you can test to see how well it actually does work or not. This is the exact test I planned to make once I finished the stock lists anyway, as I mentioned, But if you have the time and care that much it can be accomplished sooner.
---------------------------------------------------------
======================================================================= I guess, in the end, I don't agree with having such a brutally complicated system that you then go ahead and subvert entirely with boss modules, where boss modules would fit right into a more modular design system. ======================================================================= I understand that this is just a shard of your overall argument, but whaa? In either case the boss stats would be calculated in exactly the same way.
|
|
|
Post by captainfoo on Jan 17, 2012 9:16:35 GMT -8
======================================================================= I guess, in the end, I don't agree with having such a brutally complicated system that you then go ahead and subvert entirely with boss modules, where boss modules would fit right into a more modular design system. ======================================================================= I understand that this is just a shard of your overall argument, but whaa? In either case the boss stats would be calculated in exactly the same way. If you have a highly complex set of build rules and then throw things at players that violate those rules it feels rather...bogus, I guess. If you have a system with less interdependencies, then it feels less like cheating. Again, let's go with the stock cannon example. Range = [100 / Damage] + [Range Extension] Recoil = [Damage x8 ] / [Recoil Adjust] Signature = [Damage / 5] - [Signature reduction] Size = [Damage / 2] + [Range extension x2] + [Recoil Adjust] + [Signature reduction] Cost = [Damage x2] + [Range extension x 5] + [Recoil Adjust x5] + [Signature Reduction x4] Now, let's take a look at your proposed modular cannon: Medium Cannon [Damage: 20][Range:12][Recoil:5][Sig:3] [Size:25][Cost:125] - [slot1][slot2][slot3][slot4] (incidentally I really like this idea, but I digress) I understand that the Medium Cannon is built off of the above cannon-building rules, but now you have a fixed weapon, the canon medium cannon. If you want to make a boss-grade medium cannon, just up the damage on it to, say, 25. Or drop the recoil to 2. Or something. And with the basic module, you don't have to alter the size or cost or anything else. "But that breaks the rules just the same." Yet it doesn't, it's just a strictly better gun. Because you have canon modules this way, you can work off of them. When players are presented with the full build system and are told"this is how pods are designed" and then rule-breaking weapons come out, it feels a little...off-putting. But if you keep the complicated rules invisible, and provide a series of interchangable modules, to create high-tech weapons all you have to do is create a different set of numbers that doesn't invalidate everything else. It's a subtle distinction, and I hope I'm articulating my point.
|
|
|
Post by Gravedust on Jan 17, 2012 10:20:12 GMT -8
================================== (incidentally I really like this idea, but I digress) ============================== I like it too. It comes from my new(er) game project, has a limited but effective amount of customization that's not as prone to weird bullshit at the outer edges and without a reliance on math. See, I do learn. But implementing it for B-pod would basically entail remaking a big chunk of the game. ===================================== But if you keep the complicated rules invisible, and provide a series of interchangable modules, to create high-tech weapons all you have to do is create a different set of numbers that doesn't invalidate everything else. ======================================= Actually for bosses I just tend to give them new weapon systems. Levi's lasers are almost stock, or could probably at least be achieved within formula parameters. (expensive as hell, but bosses ignore cost anyway.) The Beam Cannon obviously is unique, as is the Lash, as is the Mass Hack system. (Notice how it's a big radius? It hacks EVERYTHING in that radius.) Players probably won't be upset that they can't achieve the same effects, because their equipment is demonstrably different. (The other function of boss equipment is to test it in-game for the potential to become player equipment (obviously scaled down in terms of effectiveness) So first you see it, then you (potentially) get to use it later. Aaanyway… I'm definitely aware that the design is a nightmare to balance and playtest. I was aware of that from the start and I never had any illusions otherwise. But at the end of the day it's the design that I want to work on, precisely BECAUSE it's a challenge. And BECAUSE it's something that most other people wouldn't attempt. That's just the way I am. The same way people describe feeling pride in completing a nice pod that works well, I feel pride in developing the system that allows that to happen. (Yes I know it's fucked up right now, and I kick myself int he head every day for not working it better to begin with) It's a fuckload of work to design and balance and rebalance, but that's okay because I'm okay with doing a fuckload of work. This is a hobby for me, they're supposed to take time. I enjoy doing it in the same way I enjoy writing or drawing. Anyway. The way I see it, reducing the options I've already hashed out to something simpler would drop it back into the pile of other games that allow the same range of customization. As stated, I wanted something that exceeds that. As a response to one of Shal's earlier suggestions: I don't want to simplify the weapons any further than they already are because the interrelation of weapons is part of what gives the games it's balance and strategery. (Yes, I'm still aware that the balance was flubbed, don't worry. I'll explain more about how I intended the weapons to work in a bit here, hopefully. Few of them are intended to only cover one role. Mostly I'm afraid that gutting the build system and simplifying weapon niches / component options will make the game easier for new players to understand immediately, at the cost of lower strategic depth overall, which is what makes veteran players (in my experience) stick around.
|
|
|
Post by captainfoo on Jan 17, 2012 10:51:26 GMT -8
Mostly I'm afraid that gutting the build system and simplifying weapon niches / component options will make the game easier for new players to understand immediately, at the cost of lower strategic depth overall, which is what makes veteran players (in my experience) stick around. As long as you don't end up with a single dominant design or tactic, you should be fine, almost regardless of your build system complexity (see: e.g. chess)
|
|
|
Post by Gravedust on Jan 17, 2012 12:05:37 GMT -8
================================ As long as you don't end up with a single dominant design or tactic, you should be fine, almost regardless of your build system complexity (see: e.g. chess) =================================
True, but limiting the design choices narrows the range of pods that can be made ideal, and that makes it more likely that a dominant design will emerge. Not necessarily "one pod to rule them all!" but rather 2-3 Very Good designs in any given category (direct fire, artillery, etc) or you will wind up with 'cookie cutter' builds such as "2 rails and a #####, where #### is whatever happens to fit in the space that's left over.
2 Rails and More Shields 2 Rails and More Armor 2 Rails and Jets 2 Rails and a teeny cannon 2 Rails and a laser 2 Rails and Melee
So you'll have 5 or 6 similar variants circling around a central design, because the base of that design happens to synergize really well, and other designs with less synergy (be it cost/size or whatever) can't be massaged to get to be on par.
Basically what I'm saying is If we're limiting all players to the same 12-15 parts in a category, we're going to have to be EXTREMELY careful to make sure they work together well… But not TOO well, and all across 13 categories.
Yes having modular parts makes it easier for a developer to alter those parts globally later, but the formulas allow the PLAYER to just say. "Whoops I'm 5 points over cost. Don't want to touch armor, so let's knock 1 point of sig Reduction off my gun and call it good." and compensate for it themselves without the devs having to mess with anything at all.
Anyway. Here is how I approach podbuilding personally:
• Figure out what the hell I want.
• Look through the premade parts I've already done (I save the ports off pods I've already built) to find the already-completed components that match what I need. If nothing I've already built suits what I want very closely (Let's say my ideal reactor output needs to be like 17 or whatever) I'll make a new part via the formulas (and then save it to my list of premade parts so that the next time I need it I'll already have it stated out and ready to go.
• Tally up everything and see whether I'm over size/ over cost, under size, under cost, whatever.
• If the pod is unideal (usually is on the first try, I think I've only nailed 700 once.) I may swap components from my prebuilt list until I'm closer to my goal. From there if I'm still not where I want I can make minor alterations to 1 or 2 components in order to hit it exactly.
I do not have to enter numbers into every field on the spreadsheet for every component to build a pod, because I just save parts that I find useful and often reuse them. The Goblin and the Revanche have the exact same laser, for instance. (We're just gonna call energy weapons lasers in the next version by the way, because fuck it, less typing.) I didn't build it twice, I just copied it from one sheet and pasted it to the other. (4 times, in fact…)
---------------------------------------------
I guess here's my stance on the whole thing:
• Prebuilt lists are great, they're an easy way to bang out pods quickly for people who don't want to take the time to mess with formulas. That's why I had them in the first place. I took them out because many of them had incorrect stats. Soon they'll be back in.
• The effect of building from a stock list but with the formulas still available for minor tweaking is functionally identical to building from a rigid set of available parts. If you aren't interested in the formulas you can pretend they don't exist and get along just fine. But in cases when people care enough, they can make adjustments to the components of their pod to fit exactly, which widens the range of pod builds that can be made ideal and therefore lessens the chance of 'cookie cutter' pods appearing, which I see as an advantage over fixed lists.
• Yes this system I'm using is harder to balance and manage. I enjoy the challenge. My only regret is that me screwing with it while a game is ongoing jerks the players around. (But by that same coin, a modular system would do the same thing, albeit on a smaller scale.) Next time I am going to test the shit out of everything with rigor and verve, and I'll ask others to help if they want. As I've mentioned before my previous attempts at balancing were ridiculously lax.
|
|
|
Post by captainfoo on Jan 17, 2012 13:13:17 GMT -8
I'm gonna think more on some other points, but I just wanted to discuss this:
700 points just means all available points have been used, not that the design is ideal. Let's take a look at the Arclite. I think everyone agrees that it's a terrible pod. But that's not because it's not close to 700 points (I assume, I haven't calculated it but it was one of your stocks). It's because it's 700 points are spent on things that suck.
Another point:
You can't get effective playtesting by yourself. Like Shalcar said,
And as I said before,
Nothing breaks a robustly designed system like actual users. If you want a balanced system you need external testers.
|
|
|
Post by Gravedust on Jan 17, 2012 13:21:39 GMT -8
Next time I am going to test the shit out of everything with rigor and verve, and I'll ask others to help if they want. As I've mentioned before my previous attempts at balancing were ridiculously lax. Looks like we agree.
|
|