|
Post by disastranagant on Jan 24, 2012 13:17:24 GMT -8
Khamsin also cheats a fair bit so it's not really worth discussing. And its buddy the Culverin is both crappy and 60 points over cost, mostly from the inexplicable reactor minaturization needed to get to 215 size for no apparent gain and the hilariously excessive ammo stores.
|
|
|
Post by Gravedust on Jan 24, 2012 14:46:56 GMT -8
Ffffffffffuck, you are right about the Khamsin. I'll refund you 15 armor. I'm actually kind of happy you caught that because I was sort of thinking that it was too fast for that kind of damage. (Though apparently not thinking about it enough to actually check the formula)
Looking at it again I do have the Culverin as oversize/overcost, but only by size by 5 and cost by 15. ..I'm not sure where you're getting the minaiturization though since the Culverin doesn't have any anywhere as far as I can tell. (I guess that counts as inexplicable though) Are we talking about the same pod?
|
|
|
Post by disastranagant on Jan 24, 2012 14:54:38 GMT -8
Ffffffffffuck, you are right about the Khamsin. I'll refund you 15 armor. I'm actually kind of happy you caught that because I was sort of thinking that it was too fast for that kind of damage. (Though apparently not thinking about it enough to actually check the formula) Looking at it again I do have the Culverin as oversize/overcost, but only by size by 5 and cost by 15. ..I'm not sure where you're getting the minaiturization though since the Culverin doesn't have any anywhere as far as I can tell. (I guess that counts as inexplicable though) Are we talking about the same pod? I should have posted both of those when the mission started, but I figured they were semispecial and didn't really care. I'll post the spreadsheet for the Culverin in just a minute, my figures show it 60 cost over to match the exact figures shown and 24 cost over if I don't use 8 minaturizations to get the size to work out. The Khamsin as written is 5 points over cost, but that'll go away once the cannon is corrected (it also has an inexplicable capacitor that costs exactly 5... maybe you thought the cannon breakpoint was 166?). ================================================ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::BUILD SHEET:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ================================================ ====================================== BATTLEPOD STATS:: ====================================== [NAME:: Culverin as displayed in thread ] [Armour:: 250 ] [Shields:: 0 ] [Size:: 215 ] [Move:: 4 ] [Jump:: 0 ( Sig: 0 )] [Energy:: 0 ] [Regen:: 5 ] [Signature:: 0 ] [Stealth:: 5 ] - Weapons: [Autocannon] [Damage: 15 ] [Ammo: 40 / 0 ] [Range: 16 ] [Recoil: 10 ] [Signature: 3 ] - [Artillery] [Damage: 20 ] [Radius: 1 / 1 ] [Ammo: 26 ] [Range: 20 ] [Signature: 2 ] - [Artillery] [Damage: 20 ] [Radius: 1 / 0 ] [Ammo: 26 ] [Range: 20 ] [Signature: 2 ] - ::::COST::::[ 760 ] ================================================ :::::::::::::::::::::::::REQUIRED COMPONENTS::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ================================================ [Name: Culverin as displayed in thread ] [Description: ] ======================================== [Armour] [Name: ] [Amount: 250 ] [Size: 50 ] [Cost: 125 ] ======================================== (Size = Armor/5) (Cost = [Armor/2]) ======================================== ======================================== [Mobility] [Amount: 860 ] [Cost: 172 ] ======================================== ======================================== [Reactor] (Reactor must generate at least 5 energy) [Name: ] [Generates: 5 ] [Size: 7 ] [Cost: 50 ] [Description: - [Generates: 5 ] [Miniaturisation: 8 ] ======================================== Size: [Generates x 3] - [Miniaturisation] Cost: [Generates x 2] + [Miniaturisation x5] ================================================ :::::::::::::::::::::::::OPTIONAL COMPONENTS::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ================================================ [Capacitor] [Name: ] [Capacity: 0 ] [Size: 0 ] [Cost: 0 ] [Description: ] - [Capacity: 0 ] [Miniaturisation: 0 ] ======================================== Size: [Capacity /2] - [Miniaturisation] Cost: [Capacity] + [Miniaturisation x5] ======================================== ======================================== [Shield] [Name: ] [Strength: 0 ] [Size: 0 ] [Cost: 0 ] [Description: ] - [Strength: 0 ] [Miniaturisation: 0 ] (May not be reduced below 1) ======================================== Size: [Strength /2] - [Miniaturisation] Cost: [Strength x2] + [Miniaturisation x5] ======================================== ======================================== [Jump Jets] [Name: ] [Jump: 0 ] [Signature: 0 ] [Size: 0 ] [Cost: 0 ] [Description: ] - [Jump: 0 ] [Signature Reduction: 0 ] [Miniaturisation: 0 ] ======================================== Size: [Jump/15] + [Signature Reduction x2] - [Miniaturisation] Cost: [Jump/10] + [Signature Reduction x2] + [Miniaturization x2] Signature: [Jump/10] / [Signature reduction] ================================================ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::WEAPONS::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ================================================ [Autocannon] [Name: ] [Damage: 15 ] [Ammo: 40 ] [Range: 16 ] [Recoil: 10 ] [Signature: AMMO PACK: [Amount: 8 ][ [Ammo per pack: 5 ] [Cost per pack: [Size: 38 ] [Cost: 135 ] Description: - [Damage: 15 ] [Range Extension: 9 ] [Recoil Adjust: 12 ] [Signature Reduction: 0 ] [Ammo Pack](x 8 ) [Size: 8 ] [Cost: 24 ] ================================================ 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] + [Recoil Adjust x5] + [Range extension x 5] + [Signature Reduction x4] ================================================ [Artillery] [Name: ] [Damage: 20 ] [Radius: 1 ] [Ammo: 26 ] [Range: 20 ] [Signature: AMMO PACK: [Amount: 13 ][ [Ammo per pack: 2 ] [Cost per pack: [Size: 43 ] [Cost: 75 ] Description: - [Damage: 20 ] [Radius: 2 ] [Signature Reduction: 3 ] [Range: 20 ] [Ammo Pack](x 13 ) [Size: 13 ] [Cost: 52 ] ================================================ Range = [Range] Radius = [Radius] Signature = [Damage / 4] - [Signature reduction] Size = [Damage/2] + [Signature Reduction] + [Range] + [Radius X5] Cost = [Damage] + [Signature Reduction x5] + [Range x2] ================================================ [Artillery] [Name: ] [Damage: 20 ] [Radius: 1 ] [Ammo: 26 ] [Range: 20 ] [Signature: AMMO PACK: [Amount: 13 ][ [Ammo per pack: 2 ] [Cost per pack: [Size: 43 ] [Cost: 75 ] Description: - [Damage: 20 ] [Radius: 2 ] [Signature Reduction: 3 ] [Range: 20 ] [Ammo Pack](x 13 ) [Size: 13 ] [Cost: 52 ] ================================================
|
|
|
Post by disastranagant on Jan 24, 2012 15:04:43 GMT -8
Just the stat block since it's a minor and obvious change. New post for clarity or something. Looks like I've uncovered a spreadsheet bug (the arty radii are correct in the figures but not the stat blocks), but that might have been fixed by now since I'm using a slightly old version. ====================================== BATTLEPOD STATS:: ====================================== [NAME:: Culverin without minaturization ] [Armour:: 250 ] [Shields:: 0 ] [Size:: 223 ] [Move:: 4 ] [Jump:: 0 ( Sig: 0 )] [Energy:: 0 ] [Regen:: 5 ] [Signature:: 0 ] [Stealth:: 5 ] - Weapons: [Autocannon] [Damage: 15 ] [Ammo: 40 / 0 ] [Range: 16 ] [Recoil: 10 ] [Signature: 3 ] - [Artillery] [Damage: 20 ] [Radius: 1 / 1 ] [Ammo: 26 ] [Range: 20 ] [Signature: 2 ] - [Artillery] [Damage: 20 ] [Radius: 1 / 0 ] [Ammo: 26 ] [Range: 20 ] [Signature: 2 ] - ::::COST::::[ 726 ]
|
|
|
Post by Gravedust on Jan 24, 2012 15:13:23 GMT -8
Ah gotcha gotcha.
Yeah if you catch anything like that let me know so I can fix it. : / The only pods that get a free pass in the calc department are Command pods.
I'm not going to bother fixing the Culverin right at the moment.. I'd probably just dump some ammo anyway and it'll probably never live long enough to dump it's full compliment, so mleh.
|
|
|
Post by disastranagant on Jan 24, 2012 15:24:15 GMT -8
Exactly, it's so badly built that it wasn't worth bringing up in terms of the current mission. Dropping the ammo down to reasonable values (30 cannon, 16 arty, still on the high side) gives it room to jam on 40 more armor and generally get people cranky about changes. The cannon was the bigger issue, since it was flat not possible, as opposed to something that could be handwaved with fluff.
|
|
|
Post by Gravedust on Jan 24, 2012 15:44:01 GMT -8
Ja. The originals were build around my playtesting, which took a lot longer round-wise since the objective was always just to kill the pods on the other side. They carried a big ammo load for that purpose even, but then when the missions were sped up for the online version to keep player turnover high it made it so ammo loads that big went from 'a bit extra' to 'a waste of points.' Which they certainly are in the current context.
So yep. I know it's too much ammo, but my time machine broke so I haven't been able to go back to November of last year and fix it.
|
|
captainbravo
Full Member
Vhiki readies Flame Breath!
Posts: 140
|
Post by captainbravo on Jan 24, 2012 15:50:59 GMT -8
Well when you fix it, let me know. I've got a date with 1989's Paula Abdul and I'm already kind of late.
|
|
|
Post by Gravedust on Jan 24, 2012 16:02:33 GMT -8
Well when you fix it, let me know. I've got a date with 1989's Paula Abdul and I'm already kind of late. Roger wilco.
|
|
|
Post by captainfoo on Jan 26, 2012 5:08:18 GMT -8
One thing that strikes me about ammo-loads is that in any match that has an assembler, artillery pods in particular should probably under-value ammunition. I say artillery in particular because those pods are the most likely to be able to effectively hang back and recycle at a point where they don't lose combat effectiveness in the thick of things or be forced to turn back when they could still be fighting.
|
|
|
Post by Gravedust on Jan 26, 2012 11:16:46 GMT -8
Hmmn… Yeah, that's pretty true. There's a mild downside in that you do technically lose ~175 supply every time you recycle (or rather you only gain back 75% of the original cost) but so long as you kill one pod the cost mostly makes up for itself.
I may actually have to adjust the value people get back from recycling pods and from pod salvage; as it is it seems like there's more than enough points from salvage and recouped points from recycling in the average round that supply is mostly a nonfactor. May change recycled pods to 50% and salvage to 10% at some point in the future.
But anyway, if somebody spawns and is happy chilling near the assembler, firing off their ammo and then heading back in, then that's fine if it's what makes 'em happy. If It happens a lot and I start seeing a ton of pods that are just a couple of huge artillery shells on legs then that may need to be addressed. >.> But I guess the hope is that people will favor different playstyles enough to make it not be a persistent issue.
Actually, I've been meaning to ask; how did you like the arty-shooting you experienced? The presence of the SS and TD meant you had to bomb them a lot so it wasn't exactly a great representation of things as a whole, but it looked like you were getting a little creative to hit both the base and some secondary targets as well.
|
|
|
Post by captainfoo on Jan 26, 2012 12:57:15 GMT -8
It went rather well. I was pretty happy with having both fixed targets to hit (so I could be guaranteed of doing something useful) and mobile targets (so I wasn't just shooting the same hexes over and over again). It's hard to guarantee hits against mobile units, and it could have gotten frustrating, but I didn't spend much time whiffing. Something to consider, and it may not fit the system, is a target designator to tag enemy pods with to increase the chance of a direct hit.
|
|
captainbravo
Full Member
Vhiki readies Flame Breath!
Posts: 140
|
Post by captainbravo on Jan 26, 2012 21:09:17 GMT -8
Yeah, I liked having arty as a backup, it's nice to have something that you don't have to waste skill points on for good, pinpoint, AoE damage. Not looking forward to that nerf, though.
In other news, fooling around a bit, I've been trying to come up with fixes for some of the micropods to get them over the 80-size minimum. To start with, I crunched the numbers on Bruceski's 'Virus' pod. You can keep all relevant stats the same by merely bumping move to 800, decreasing mini on the reactor by 8, and making new jumpjets that are 320/8/30. This brings it to an even 700 points, and preserves every other aspect of the pod, while bumping it up to 80 size.
|
|
|
Post by Gravedust on Jan 26, 2012 22:58:21 GMT -8
Oh. Damn I forgot all about the Virus. Any other pods that're under 80 that you know of? (besides the blatant minis) I guess I can have a look tomorrow and see if I can find others... In most cases though it should be possible to lose a bit of mini and what have you to and get your size up a bit, so hopefully it shouldn't screw too many of them over. I'm hoping the arty nerf won't hurt things too badly.. With your pod for instance you'd only need 15 points in sensors to assure 100% accuracy... And even with no points you'd still hit spot-on 85% of the time. So you could go short the points and consider it a calculated risk I guess.. It's really meant to be an issue for the pods that shoot in the 25-30 range, and much less so for shorter-ranged 'assault' launchers. In any case nothing is set in stone. If it turns out horrible we can always reverse the changes or do something else at a later date.
|
|
captainbravo
Full Member
Vhiki readies Flame Breath!
Posts: 140
|
Post by captainbravo on Jan 26, 2012 23:07:43 GMT -8
Any other pods that're under 80 that you know of? Just the Shrike, the Dwarf, the Mosquito, and the Bantam. Dwarf should be easy enough to scale up, Mosquito and Bantam will be a bit more interesting. I'm flat-out not going to be able to scale up the Shrike. The entire reason I was able to pack so much melee damage and hacking power into the Mk. III was because of the feedback loop I found where I actually gained points by adding extra mini to stuff. Every extra pound that I add to the Shrike is going to cost me points, and those will probably come out of it's weapon. Expect the 80-size version, if I even bother making one, to be far, far inferior. (Much like the current size-100 Mk. II is now.)
|
|
|
Post by captainfoo on Jan 27, 2012 6:45:03 GMT -8
...what arty nerf? Did I miss something?
|
|
|
Post by Gravedust on Jan 27, 2012 7:55:54 GMT -8
It was discussed a couple of pages back I think.. Really all that's happening is Arty will have a mild dependence on Sensors skill in order to ensure 100% accuracy.
Basically the roll is D100 + [Sensors] vs. [Maximum range of launchers]( so ~10-30, really)
If the roll is failed the shot goes to a scatter table that can offset it by 1-4 squares.
The main reasons for this are because it makes a bit of a skill split to use arty, whereas pure arty pods beforehand had a ton of points and nothing useful to do with them really, and a hacker/arty pod could just dump 100 points into Hacking if they planned to stay as far back as their launcher range allowed them to, which makes a hacker/arty combo a little more effective than I wanted it to be.
Arty/missiles still has good synergy, but in most cases at the current sig generation rate, they won't come into play till later, and as noted earlier they're less useful for players than the bad guys on reinforcement maps since reinforcements come in at zero sig.
(actually what I'm thinking of doing is 'preheating' enemy reinforcements based on how long the mission has been going, in order to make missiles more useful to the player side. Something like #rounds x 1.5 or whatever corresponds roughly with what the bad guy side's sig buildup has been. )
Anyway, as with most changes its provisional, if it turns out not to work we can always scrap it or go w/ something different.
|
|
|
Post by captainfoo on Jan 27, 2012 9:31:48 GMT -8
hm. Would I be allowed to respec my pilot? because right now he's built to take advantage of the rules as written when I launched (i.e. no sensor skill)
|
|
|
Post by Gravedust on Jan 27, 2012 9:34:20 GMT -8
Yeah you can have a free pass.
|
|
|
Post by captainfoo on Jan 27, 2012 12:53:40 GMT -8
Okay, I'll see what things look like when it's my turn again -- but we derail.
|
|
captainbravo
Full Member
Vhiki readies Flame Breath!
Posts: 140
|
Post by captainbravo on Jan 28, 2012 15:42:51 GMT -8
Ok, looking at the Dwarf, looks like it came out better in the deal. Since it wasn't fully utilizing the size/cost glitch, by bumping it up to an even 80 size it actually gains 80 points. Give it 800 mobility, make the new jumpjets 480/9/30, and strip off extra mini from various parts gives you a size 80 pod, with all other attributes preserved, and an extra 80 points to fool around with and enhance its survivability with. Personally, I would suggest better armor.
Edit: Alternatively, if you're suicidal, you can use those points to bump up 10 more damage to the axe. Make the hacking deck an even 20-bonus, and you'll have just barely enough points to add some more mini and round it out with a little extra armor. Your call.
|
|
captainbravo
Full Member
Vhiki readies Flame Breath!
Posts: 140
|
Post by captainbravo on Jan 28, 2012 15:51:46 GMT -8
Bantam was pretty simple too, came out with an extra 43 points for it.
|
|
captainbravo
Full Member
Vhiki readies Flame Breath!
Posts: 140
|
Post by captainbravo on Jan 28, 2012 15:59:42 GMT -8
T-T-T-TRIPLE POST:
Gravedust, do we round up on a .5 for size calculations? If not, I think I've actually found a way to make the Shrike Mk. III slightly more effective while bringing it up to the size 80 requirements. (Turns out the trick I had found wasn't quite as overpowered as I thought it was, and I ended up managing to squeeze some extra points out during the scaling-up process!)
|
|
|
Post by Gravedust on Jan 29, 2012 11:45:42 GMT -8
Yeah, .5 should get rounded up where size is concerned.
|
|
|
Post by shalcar on Jan 29, 2012 20:34:08 GMT -8
Ok, I’ve finally had a chance to get all the real life things out of the way and now I have a week of pod talk to catch up on!
First off, thank you for making a list of design goals, it will make giving specific feedback much easier for everyone.
I noticed I used your old design goals rather than your updated ones. Ignore the comments about priorities of goals where you have already moved them. Sorry about that.
• Primary design goal: (1) -For the players to have fun that is enhanced by this system I’m partial to this one, it’s a good goal =p
• Secondary goal (if you'll allow, but my desire to keep devoting my time to the project does hinge on it.) (1) -To provide a stimulating mental and artistic exercise for the designer (This goal will cease being relevant once the game has reached a 'finished' state) Agreed.
• What are the stated design goals of the pod building system? (1) -To ensure that no pod design is unfairly superior to all (or most) others. “Unfairly” – How much extra power should be derived? 5%, 10%, 300%? Should this be the highest priority of the pod building system?
(2) -To allow a greater level of unit customization that is present in most other games. This should be “Meaningful customization” in order to be considered a goal that works with the Primary Design goal. Consider the maxim of well designed golf courses: “Looks hard, plays easy”. Note that this does not apply to the tools used to work on the course! (golf clubs)
(3) -To allow the creation of Pods that most closely match a creator's intent. (As the 'truest' expression of the Pod designer's creativity) This is a nice goal to have and to strive towards. However, it is important that when this goal and any other design goal clash, that this be considered second to system design goals. Some people will want “broken” pods as their vision, but for the good of the game this can’t be allowed.
(4) -To present a system that is easy to grasp initially, but with enough depth to avoid an immediate plateau in the learning curve. This should be pod design goal priority one, not four. This is the most harmonious with the Primary design goal and is also the design goal that is currently least satisfied. It’s also the absolute hardest goal to meet in the entire system.
• What are the stated design goals of the combat system? (1) -To present an environment where success is dictated more by strategy than luck.** I agree absolutely “Where player actions have a meaningful impact on the odds”. Making a difference (or at least feeling like it!) is highly conducive to the PDG.
(2) -To contain enough sensitivity to make most pod design choices (and pilot skill choices) relevant. Critically important to supporting (1) above and the PDG.
(3) -To present an environment wherein pods cannot succeed on their individual merit. (Teamplay/cooperation increases the chance of success.) If pod design is suitably implemented, this will follow due to the interconnected nature of the elements. Ideally the pod power curve will be tight enough that this follows on.
(4) -To present a system that is easy to grasp initially, but with enough depth to avoid an immediate plateau in the learning curve. As in the pod design goals, this should be a higher priority goal. It is a good and clear goal to strive for.
(5) -To present a system where as few rules as possible need to be 'looked up' (The information is either readily available or easily remembered.) Having to look up rules is a flow breaker that should ideally be avoided by having simple and intuitive rules. This is an important goal, not for its own sake, but that a system that is simple enough to be remembered yet complex enough to do what you want is an exceptionally well designed one.
• What are the stated design goals of the strategic update system? (1) -To tie the missions together in a comprehensible manner and add weight and meaning to the individual missions. Great.
(2) -To allow for gradual advancement in terms of the players' capabilities. (Pod design options, Assembler upgrades, Alliance bonuses) A good goal.
(3) -To allow the telling of an overall narrative. Agreed.
(4) -To offer a variety of possible choices for the next mission. I approve.
The goals are good and I approve of them. They are a great place to start in order to improve the design of the system.
I’ll now move on to your later posts in response to foo.
Pod Construction:
The issue with how you go about pod construction is that I find there are TOO MANY LEVERS. It’s just too much to deal with in a realistic and intelligent manner. Instead, I find that I am forced to pick (almost at random) certain levers to freeze in place (I want 20 shields, or I want 500 armour, or I want 3 x 20 damage rails) and then work everything else around that initial state. If I find the pod is unworkable, I have to scrap the entire thing and restart from a new held state. If it is somewhat workable, then it’s mainly filling in the edges with mobility and armour, since changing the other items tend to have too many knockon impacts and cause cost overrun.
This is a common design misnomer, that is, a simple system has less lasting appeal than a more complex system. It’s also completely false. Chess is an exceptionally simple game, as is Go. Yet the emergent interactions of the simple and easily understandable rules and simple states make for an exceptionally complex and deep game. It will also be played long after Advanced Grognard Combat v8.1672 has ceased being played.
This is because Chess or Go understands that the purpose of the game is to play the opponent, not play the game. It’s a ruleset that is simple to understand, yet hard to master. Simple isn’t bad, simple is GOOD. However, it has to be interacting simple in order to avoid what you are concerned about. In a system as heavily interconnected as yours is, that’s not something we have to worry about.
The problem, as I see it, is that there is still a fundamental question that is not answered yet.
Which one of these systems is the primary system?
That is, is the combat system an add-on so that you can use the items the pod design system creates, or is the pod design system there to add depth and complexity to the combat system?
Which system should yield in the event of a system flaw? At the moment, the combat system is accepting the brunt, if not all, of the balance changes and it is losing simplicity and elegance because of it.
A good example is the artillery nerf. Previously, artillery was very simple to understand, you fired it and a round later it came crashing down where you put it. It is area denial with a bit of damage thrown in. It was overused mainly due to the other two non line of sight weapons (missiles and hacking) not meeting the role requirements and the mission parameters being very favourable to this form of combat. Assuming it needed to be reduced in power, it could have been raised in cost in a myriad of ways that would reduce its prevalence. However, it was instead the combat system that was impacted, adding pretty much pure randomness to the artillery, another new rule for people playing the game to remember.
Right now it looks like the combat system is something that exists so your created pods can do something, which is a real shame because the combat system is actually by far the better designed of the two systems.
With the SA fight coming to an end, it might be worth considering locking the next match or two to the stock pods so that you can see the system play out (With pods as you feel they should be, powerwise) without the boating outliers to see if certain systems are still flawed and to also give you a chance to see how goons take them for a spin.
Handwave it away with fluff, “The assembler took a lot of damage that fight and our pod construction facility is damaged, we have to rely on our existing stocks of default pods for the next few days” or whatever. It’s an important design exercise and will let us test some of the system assumptions in a live fire exercise. It’s also likely to get me killed =p
Anyway, that’s more than enough text at the moment, I need to get back into the feel of the discussion. Let me finish by quoting a game designer:
|
|
razorwind1101
New Member
Thanks for letting me borrow this Gravedust
Posts: 8
|
Post by razorwind1101 on Jan 30, 2012 3:26:41 GMT -8
heya, a newbie throwing 2 cents into the ring here,
considering i'm sitting looking at the build sheet and thinking, what the hell am i doing, I quite liked the suggested stock parts stuff with the optional slots for tweaking.
I know a lot of those building custom pods enjoy tweaking the formulas but my aversion to maths is possibly starting to get in the way of me building what i'd like.
Having stock parts would at least give me somewhere to start. (I know you're reworking them hence they aren't up right now)
|
|
|
Post by Gravedust on Jan 30, 2012 7:46:00 GMT -8
However fortunately:
Hm.. To get back to both Shal and Razor's posts;
As of ... Eh, I think some point last week I decided that I failed at what I originally set out to do.
I can probably tighten up the build rules to the point that I need in order to ensure good balance under most circumstances. But while I did so I'd be eliminating great swathes of available choices which pretty much defeats the entire purpose of what I was trying to do.
So I'm halting development and the game thread.
... Nah just kidding. Since it looks like I can't do what I set out to do, and since people seem to like the game but hate the build system I'll probably just get rid of the current build system and slip in a much simpler version in it's place. It won't have the same freedom of the current version, but nobody seems to really give a shit about that. (Including me anymore, since I can't achieve what I wanted, it seems.)
This means rebuilding the game to a certain extent, so I'm gonna do that. The rules and gameplay will be preserved, which shouldn't be too difficult. Certain aspects will get simplified since they won't need to be as detailed. I spent a couple hours this weekend figuring out how I want things to work in a basic sense.
I expect reworking the game might take anywhere between 1 - 1.5 months. While this is going on I plan to keep the SA game rolling under the current system because I'm still learning things from it. Restricting everyone to the stock pods is probably a good idea for balancing, but I have a sneaking suspicion it will make people go apeshit so I'm a little hesitant.
Once the new version is ready-ish I'll probably host it here for testing so people can fiddle with it. If/When it gets to be stable I'll move it over to the SA thread in-between missions or whenever.
|
|
|
Post by disastranagant on Jan 30, 2012 8:37:03 GMT -8
I expect reworking the game might take anywhere between 1 - 1.5 months. While this is going on I plan to keep the SA game rolling under the current system because I'm still learning things from it. Restricting everyone to the stock pods is probably a good idea for balancing, but I have a sneaking suspicion it will make people go apeshit so I'm a little hesitant. Better than moving the goalposts every game.
|
|
|
Post by captainfoo on Jan 30, 2012 8:44:18 GMT -8
Wow. Good on you for realizing that the original design failed, that's not always easy to do. If I may make a few suggestions going forward:
1) Write up your goals first. I think you've already done that, so I'd be curious to see what the new design framework looks like based on your experiences and the suggestions you've been given.
2) I don't think you can just "slip a new build system into place." Whatever build system you choose is going to take a lot of careful work. My personal suggestion you've already outlined earlier in the thread, but I'll reiterate it here; a moderate variety of stock parts with modular slots for customization. Remember Shalcar's point though, you will need to reduce the number of levers.
3) In regards to the SA game, I would lean towards selecting a number of pods as "stock," coming from both your original stock pods and those that have been approved. That way, you don't antagonize people that have built pods but you don't limit people to your original pods - which, as discussed, are often not as good as SA-built pods.
3a) The SA thread will certainly remain a useful test of your strategic system.
|
|
|
Post by shalcar on Jan 30, 2012 19:40:09 GMT -8
First off Grave, I just want to say I seriously respect the fortitude and determination it takes to make a choice like that. It’s never easy and you will second guess yourself a lot, but I feel that we can really make something amazing out of this opportunity.
I think the build system can be implemented in a way that satisfies your wishes without sacrificing simplicity and usability. It won’t look very much like the current build system, but I think it will be a lot closer to the spirit of the system than what you might feel like it will be.
I’ve been talking with foo and dis in the chat and we have been throwing around some ideas and we all agree that we want to keep the essence of the build system that you devised. In order to do that we need to look at the primary system in isolation and then work out how to correctly integrate the secondary systems in a rational and intuitive manner.
It is my belief that the combat system is the primary focus of the game. It is the lynchpin that holds all the other modules together and it is through this system that the players interact in a way that facilitates fun. The build system exists to add depth, complexity and spice to the combat system. Due to the interconnected nature of these systems, it is almost impossible to work on one without impacting the other in a meaningful way. This is both a blessing and a curse. It is a curse in that it makes small changes to the battle system have large impacts in the build system. However, it is a blessing in that a correctly built combat system will have a sort of dampening effect through the metagame on any minor build system problems. Provided suitable counter systems exist for all pod weapons and types, it is easy to steer the game away from any “boating” or “spam” through the deployment of the equivalent counter weapons or tactics. As such, a slower cycle of modifications can be undertaken for ruleset testing.
Currently the combat system isn’t quite as tight as it could be, so counter weapons tend to veer from useless to unstoppable (see missiles).
Basically, weapons and the associated formulae need to be critically assessed to ensure that they are behaving in an expected manner (Combat at past 5 squares being basically impossible barring large accuracy or height disparities, missiles being either useless or overpowered etc).
Personally, I feel more consistent but lower damage would help the combat section, but we can go on about that at length another time.
Once we have a tight and working combat section, we can then work on build.
All build systems need a baseline, in this systems case we use cost. This metric is perfectly reasonable and I recommend remains unchanged.
However, we have too many available metrics to adjust and this becomes confusing. Instead I posit that we reduce the number of choices to a more manageable number initially, but then blossom out with choices for weapon loadout.
*ALL VALUES ARE TO BE CONSIDERED AS ROUGH GUIDES ONLY*
Pods come in 3 different sizes : Small, Medium and Large. Medium pods get the expected amount of points, Small pods get a reduced number (percentage or flat?) and Large pods give you a bonus to your points.
Small pods are size 50, medium pods 100 and large pods 200. The principle behind this is that a small pod is twice as hard to hit as a medium pod, while a large pod is half as hard to hit, all other things being equal.
This gives an immediate choice to players and makes them take an active step in building their pods, namely, the evasion/stuff their pod has. This then sets an immediate framework for the remaining pod construction.
Through this we eliminate miniaturization from the components and instead bring it to the pod level. Call points “Tech Points” or something similar and explain it as the assemblers fabricators can only produce items of a certain complexity, so big and powerful or small and weak or small and fast or whatever.
Removing this eliminates a fine grain lever, but starts to give pod building a framework for players to build on.
As sizes are now fixed, mobility packages are available for a fixed price. They buy their speed with their points, an engine model as it were. The benefits of this is that players now have a simple and obvious set of choices to make with their pod as well as the ability to easily change their choices without enormous recalculation.
In a similar manner to mobility packages, shielding packages can be bought if required. These come with both reactors as well as shielding. It is, however, likely to be the least elegant system to be selected, but I think with some thought it could work out well. Caps are separate and fixed price packages.
Now we turn on the complexity tap, as the real meat of the pods is the vital statistics (weapons and armour). These we can make more complicated, as they will act as our fine grain controls.
Weapons come in standard models, one (three?) for each type. Each one of these weapons can be given a modification slot which fits one of a list of standard mods by weapon type. Additional modification slots can be purchased at (increasing?) cost up to a maximum of 3.
Finally, the fine grain control is armour, which has the same level of granularity as the existing system. Maybe consider weighting armour cost according to pod size (small expensive armour, large cheap?).
The beauty of the system is that all the sections interact via cost, which makes adjusting one a simple and pleasant task without the need for excessive recalculations on any minor changes. It also means that balance changes don’t have enormous knockon impacts, instead it only affects the submodule that contains the modified component.
You also get the balance ability to modify individual components that prove too powerful or not powerful enough (although this should hopefully not be required after initial testing).
Basically, the build system performs like so:
Size -> Speed -> Energy Systems -> Weapons -> Armour
However, you can jump in at ANY SECTION (with the exception of speed since this is pod size dependant) and fill in the other sections at will. Minor changes are easy and simple to implement and also allows people unfamiliar with the system to create pods in an easy and straightforward manner. Veterans can optimize to their hearts content with the modularized weapons and different armour/package combinations.
This also means that new rewards can be added throughout the campaign as rewards for the players. There should also be a manageable number of components in this system as vast permutations do not need to be calculated. Instead, these are abstracted away to the subsystem level leaving a manageable number of components.
While the numbers are purely guesstimates on my behalf and I’m sure others can see some changes, I feel this system would help keep the system of the old highly customizable system while being much easier to both create pods for new players and also make approving and running pods a lot easier!
Anyway, that’s rather a lot to take in at once, so I’ll leave it here for comment.
|
|