|
Post by Gravedust on Jan 30, 2012 22:05:16 GMT -8
Yeah I figured you were in collusion, you agree too much. I spent some time over the weekend and I've already worked out a system, from what I've read it's a shade similar but different than yours. I was actually doing a writeup on it today but then work picked up and I couldn't finish. When I go back tomorrow I'll polish off the rest of the explanation, I'm in no condition to do so right now. In the meantime I oughta make some things clear. I didn't/don't actually want suggestions for the new system. If you do the work for me then it's not really my project. And if it's not my project then I don't see the point of devoting 20+ hours a week to it. This is my hobby, and this is what I do for fun. If I have people peeking over my shoulder constantly and poking me in the back of the head going 'do it this way' then it makes it not fun. If I have to argue with people it makes it not fun. That's exactly what work is like, actually, and I'm not getting paid to do this so I don't feel a very strong urge to put up with it. This is my dime and my time, so at the end of the day I'm going to do what appeals to me. The system I'm going to propose will be the one I want to work with, once I've finished deciding the exact form it will take. I do appreciate your input, you have given me some good ideas in the past and I know you're making these suggestions in the spirit of helpfulness. But at the end of the day it has to be my work for me to stay interested in it, and going with your proposed tack makes it very much not my work as I've already developed something different. Once I lay the ground rules you can analyze to your heart's content and let me know what you think might need to change, I'll listen as always. ...Now I'm going to sleep, I only got 4 hours of that last night.
|
|
razorwind1101
New Member
Thanks for letting me borrow this Gravedust
Posts: 8
|
Post by razorwind1101 on Jan 31, 2012 1:48:24 GMT -8
I know it's never a fun thing to change something you've invested time and effort into and i respect that you are able to. And if you need to restrict people to stock pods, you have said that anything already approved is stock so the sa players should be alright considering they still get to play with tweaked pods they've made.
I have since bashed my face on the keyboard and spat out a pod, but it does seem to be rather badly built so, eh.
But yeah, above all else, make sure it is your project, your ideas and something you want to invest your time in, everything else will follow that.
|
|
|
Post by shalcar on Jan 31, 2012 5:34:19 GMT -8
Yeah I figured you were in collusion, you agree too much. I spent some time over the weekend and I've already worked out a system, from what I've read it's a shade similar but different than yours. I was actually doing a writeup on it today but then work picked up and I couldn't finish. When I go back tomorrow I'll polish off the rest of the explanation, I'm in no condition to do so right now. In the meantime I oughta make some things clear. I didn't/don't actually want suggestions for the new system. If you do the work for me then it's not really my project. And if it's not my project then I don't see the point of devoting 20+ hours a week to it. This is my hobby, and this is what I do for fun. If I have people peeking over my shoulder constantly and poking me in the back of the head going 'do it this way' then it makes it not fun. If I have to argue with people it makes it not fun. That's exactly what work is like, actually, and I'm not getting paid to do this so I don't feel a very strong urge to put up with it. This is my dime and my time, so at the end of the day I'm going to do what appeals to me. The system I'm going to propose will be the one I want to work with, once I've finished deciding the exact form it will take. I do appreciate your input, you have given me some good ideas in the past and I know you're making these suggestions in the spirit of helpfulness. But at the end of the day it has to be my work for me to stay interested in it, and going with your proposed tack makes it very much not my work as I've already developed something different. Once I lay the ground rules you can analyze to your heart's content and let me know what you think might need to change, I'll listen as always. ...Now I'm going to sleep, I only got 4 hours of that last night. I'm not sure where the hostility in this post comes from, I'm going to assume it's the 4 hours sleep combined with work that's caused you to stray from your normally diplomatic self. I find it pretty insulting that any suggested changes are to be thrown under the bus because they are not yours or that my thoughts are based on some grand conspiracy between foo, dis and myself. If you had an existing replacement system in mind, it may have been useful to indicate that in some form with the information that the old system had been thrown out so that any suggestions could have been couched in terms of improvements or ideas rather than full systems crafted at substantial effort. Even if all that comes out of the rough plan was things you have already considered and fixed or don't have a satisfactory solution to yet, the people trying to help you wouldn't have been left trying to give you workable alternatives instead of using their time more productively. I too give up quite reasonable chunks of my free time to help you out because I see it as having great potential and it is also like the things I have to do at work but doing it unpaid so we have more in common than you think. Quite frankly I feel patronized and belittled when I have done nothing but shown you the utmost respect and have expended no small effort on my behalf to try to assist in the development and testing of your system. Honestly, I couldn't care less if my recommendations are not implemented as is, because that's not the spirit nor the intent of them. The purpose of the entire exercise is to present alternative ways of looking at the problems inherent in game design that perhaps you had hitherto not considered or had discarded as unworkable in a certain form. It's a fresh pair of eyes and a fresh approach to a known common problem, it's not meant to be a "This is how you do it" and it certainly doesn't warrent a "My way or the highway" response.
|
|
|
Post by captainfoo on Jan 31, 2012 9:44:29 GMT -8
Yeah I figured you were in collusion, you agree too much. I spent some time over the weekend and I've already worked out a system, from what I've read it's a shade similar but different than yours. I was actually doing a writeup on it today but then work picked up and I couldn't finish. When I go back tomorrow I'll polish off the rest of the explanation, I'm in no condition to do so right now. In the meantime I oughta make some things clear. I didn't/don't actually want suggestions for the new system. If you do the work for me then it's not really my project. And if it's not my project then I don't see the point of devoting 20+ hours a week to it. This is my hobby, and this is what I do for fun. If I have people peeking over my shoulder constantly and poking me in the back of the head going 'do it this way' then it makes it not fun. If I have to argue with people it makes it not fun. That's exactly what work is like, actually, and I'm not getting paid to do this so I don't feel a very strong urge to put up with it. This is my dime and my time, so at the end of the day I'm going to do what appeals to me. The system I'm going to propose will be the one I want to work with, once I've finished deciding the exact form it will take. I do appreciate your input, you have given me some good ideas in the past and I know you're making these suggestions in the spirit of helpfulness. But at the end of the day it has to be my work for me to stay interested in it, and going with your proposed tack makes it very much not my work as I've already developed something different. Once I lay the ground rules you can analyze to your heart's content and let me know what you think might need to change, I'll listen as always. ...Now I'm going to sleep, I only got 4 hours of that last night. Uh, yeah. I think Shalcar hit the nail on the head. I guess I'll have to give you the 4 hours of sleep, but come on. We spent a few hours last night discussing ways your system could meet your design goals as well as stay true to the essence of the system you were trying to build. We're working on this because we like BattlePod! And it's definitely your project - if I may paraphrase from the discussion, there was an exchange that went: "Okay, with a new ground-up system you can create a baseline weapon and work from there." "Great, what should that baseline be?" ... "That's for Gravedust to decide, not us." It's still your system. It looked like you were going to tear down and rebuild - there was no indication you already had something in the works, So we decided to go down the road we were suggesting, proposing an idea for you to work with. Consider it, just like everything else. That's all.
|
|
|
Post by Gravedust on Jan 31, 2012 10:45:03 GMT -8
I'm not sure where the hostility in this post comes from, I'm going to assume it's the 4 hours sleep combined with work that's caused you to stray from your normally diplomatic self. ============================================================================== It's a frank message, but it's not written out of hostility. Sometimes you can't dance around the issue and still send a clear message. I suppose it could have been worded a bit more neutrally, and that probably -is- due to sleep debt. -_- I do apologize sincerely for that.
The message basically is this:
I have to maintain control over the project in order for me to want to continue working on it. There comes a point where the weight of input by other people would make the project not be mine anymore, and the implementation of a new build system that was devised by other people would go a long way towards that. I could just politely nod at everything you've written and suggested and do my own thing anyway, but I figured it'd be better to just be up front about it. I'm happy to accept refinements or additions to what I've laid down, but in terms of overall direction, yes, it does have to be my impetus for me to really be satisfied with the result.
========================================================================================================= If you had an existing replacement system in mind, it may have been useful to indicate that in some form with the information that the old system had been thrown out so that any suggestions could have been couched in terms of improvements or ideas rather than full systems crafted at substantial effort. ============================================================================================================ This is true, the closest I got to discussing the new system was this: "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 figured there would be at least some discussion before you tried to assemble a replacement. If it had been discussed I would have indicated the tack I was interested in following and probably discouraged you from coming up with something because this was work that I wanted to do myself.
==================================================== Quite frankly I feel patronized and belittled when I have done nothing but shown you the utmost respect and have expended no small effort on my behalf to try to assist in the development and testing of your system. ===================================================== I am very sorry for that. Your help and insight are both very much appreciated, your outsider perspective and adeptness at communicating is invaluable and in general I think you are an extremely righteous dude. Since you seem interested with and adroit at game design I think working on a group project together would be pretty enjoyable, I wouldn't hesitate for a moment to ask you if I had the time, I'm still half-tempted to even though I -don't- have the time.
If you have a fault it's that you're offering more help than I want, which is really my fault since I didn't make clear exactly how much help I wanted until just now.
|
|
|
Post by Gravedust on Jan 31, 2012 11:19:23 GMT -8
This post was originally a response to Foo's earlier posting, which I didn't get to finish yesterday on account of ze vork.
====================================================================================================================================================== 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. ====================================================================================================================================================== I haven't gotten around to that quite yet since I just was doing a feasibility czech on the new system this weekend. …I have a sneaking suspicion it will look mostly the same as the old one just with a few things taken out.
Edit: I did work on it a little. Probably still needs adjustment/consideration. --------------------------------------------------- • Primary design goal: (1) -For the players to have fun that is enhanced by this system
• Secondary goal (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)
• 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. (2) - To allow pods to be produced that fulfill necessary aspects of gameplay. (3) - To allows a meaningful amount of pod customization. (i.e. a pod can be tailored towards a player's particular playstyle) (4) - To present a system that is easy to understand and use.
• What are the stated design goals of the combat system? (1) -To present an environment where success is dictated more by strategy than luck. (2) -To present an environment that encourages teamplay. (3) -To present a system that is easy to grasp initially, but with enough depth to avoid an immediate plateau in the learning curve. (4) -To be suitable for Online or Tabletop play. (Concessions for tabletop play should be considered, but not need not be enacted yet.) (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.)
((trimmed strategic system since nobody seems to have a problem with it.)) ---------------------------------------------------
================================================================================================ 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. ================================================================================================ What I have in mind isn't really a 'new' build system so much as a distillation of the old. It does most of the same things, just without most of the numbers.
The weapons will probably be done using a system like I posted way back in this thread, as mentioned. Each weapon class has a few flavors of 'base' weapon (Light, medium, heavy, etc) which has certain stats built in, and you can modify those by adding little modular bits into whatever number of slots the weapon has available.
For more control I'm probably going to introduce pod 'classes' (Scout, recon, commando, battler, heavy, assault, dandy, whatever, etc.) that similarly have base stats which can then be modified by allocating points to different areas from a general resource pool.
Let's say you've got 100 points to spend: You put 20 into increasing your Mobility, (Increasing Base Movement by 2 or what have you) 10 into Armor (Increasing Base Armor by 50 or what have you) 20 into a Reactor, (Increasing Base energy regeneration by 10 or what have you) etc. etc. etc. The cost of whatever weapons you are using will also be drawn from this point total. Weapons will have a more or less fixed cost (though they can be modded somewhat cheaper, probably)
If you decide you don't like what you have, reduce something or swap weapons and put those points in to something else. Size isn't effected and Cost is abstracted to those 100 points, so rebalancing should be easy.
Different classes can have different stat weights (20 points in Mobility might get a Scout +4 movement, But a Heavy only +1) (10 points in Armor might buy an Assault 20 armor but a Scout only 5) for tighter balance control. Stat weight and such will be listed on the appropriate build sheet, which will be segmented by class.
Different classes can also have different stat limits (Perhaps a heavy can be modified to have a maximum of +50 shields, whereas a Recon's Limit is +20) for tighter balance control. Stat limits will be listed on the build sheet, which will again be segmented by class.
Small mockup here: ====================================================== CLASS: EMBUGGERER
BASE STATS: Armor: 80 Reactor Output: 0 Capacitor: 0 ((this list is abridged obviously, but all available stats would be included here))
================================== ================================== _______________________ ARMOR Each point raises ARMOR by 2 <---These numbers vary by Class, as mentioned) Points: 4/20 <----- The maximum varies by Class, as mentioned. EFFECT: (+8 Armor) --------------------------------------------------- REACTOR: Each point raises Output by 1 Points: 4/15 EFFECT: (+4 Output) --------------------------------------------------- CAPACITOR Each Point raises Capacity by 5 Points: 4/10 EFFECT: (+20 Capacity)
((this list is abridged obviously, but all available stats would be included here)) ==================================== ====================================
TOTAL MODS: EFFECT: (+8 Armor) EFFECT: (+4 Output) EFFECT: (+20 Capacity)
ADJUSTED STATS: Armor: 88 Reactor Output: 4 Capacitor: 20
And that's basically it… More or less the same effect with fewer points to shift around and a minimum of recalculating required when you do need to make changes.
Pod checking becomes a 3 (and a half) step process: • Do the points spent add up to 100? • Did they correctly calculate the effects of the points they spent? • Did they correctly add the effects onto the base stats to get the adjusted stats? • (In the case of custom weapons, did they correctly add the effects onto the base stats to get the adjusted stats?)
=================================================================
Class will also determine what weapons/equipment is available to and the number of Hardpoints (for weapons and other misc non-weapon gear that's not system equipment) the pod can carry, again for tighter balance control. I.e. if we don't want a fast pod running around with a 25 damage cannon we simply restrict them from using the "heavy" cannon template while allowing them the 'Light' one.
Class will determine Size. (Which only effects how easy you are to hit as move/jump is now tied directly to point expenditure and Class base stats. This may or may not be modifiable by a global miniaturization stat. Leaning against it at the moment though.
So this is a large step away from the earlier 'everything goes' build system, it's more segmented and compartmentalized. Balancing features within a class (probably will be renamed to Chassis or something similar for flavor) should be fairly simple, the difficulty will be in balancing the chassis/classes against one another and preventing large overlaps or situations where one Chassis performs better in a given role than it was intended to.
The step I am working on now is trying to identify all the pod 'archetypes' that pop up in the current system so they can be converted into base Chassis types so they can be replicated under the new system.
If anyone wants to compile a list of pod archetypes with an examination of their characteristics and common stat levels (Armor, size, speed, etc.) that would be very helpful.
|
|
|
Post by captainfoo on Jan 31, 2012 13:28:41 GMT -8
No time to go over your mock-up system in depth, but my gut is that it works far better. I'm on board.
|
|
razorwind1101
New Member
Thanks for letting me borrow this Gravedust
Posts: 8
|
Post by razorwind1101 on Jan 31, 2012 13:38:54 GMT -8
From the layman's perspective, i like the more streamlined system.
You could always points buy in something like the perks that were suggested in another thread into a 'special' slot on the chassis or something.
And as suggested before, a system like this allows you to give a few more tangible rewards for victory in the campaign. Kill a boss, their special weapon becomes availible etc.
|
|
|
Post by Gravedust on Jan 31, 2012 16:11:49 GMT -8
And as suggested before, a system like this allows you to give a few more tangible rewards for victory in the campaign. Kill a boss, their special weapon becomes availible etc. It... Literally doesn't matter at this point since the old system is out, but I kept seeing this argument so I wanted to address it just because I never got a chance to rebut it since there were always other things under discussion. I could add new things to the old system perfectly well. For instance: (( ZOMG SPOILER ALERT ) ====================================================================== ====================================================================== ====================================================================== ACTIVE SHIELDS Active Shields are a protective envelope that can be turned on to protect the pod against all incoming damage, including melee, though at a high energy cost and signature generation rate. Activating the shield must be done manually, and as such consumes an Action. Active Shields occupy a Weapon Slot.
[Active Shield] [####NAME#####][Shield:##][Energy:##][Signature:##] - [SIZE: ##][COST: ##] - Description: ##################### - [Shield:## (10-30)] [Signature Reduction:## (1-10)][[Miniaturization: ## (0-10)] =============================================== Energy = [Shield] Signature = [Shield/2] - [Signature reduction] (May not be reduced below 1) Size = [Shield] + [Signature Reduction x2] - [Miniaturization] Cost = [Shield x3] + [Signature Reduction x 10] + [Miniaturization x 5] =========================================================
====================================================================== ====================================================================== ======================================================================
I just add that to the Component List and ~Le Bam~ . It's in the game. It will of course be shitloads easier to introduce new things under the new system, since It won't be required to work out the formulas, just how much it's 'worth', the acceptable stat ranges and what classes should be able to mount it. Some of the more outlandish boss weapons (and there are some horrible ones, (LOL SeekerSwarm or Grav Flux Generator) won't ever be made available to the players, but a lot of the other ones will. I had a mostly-working formula for a beam cannon, for instance. I'd post it but it's in my notebook at home somewhere. It is intended to be player equipment at some point. In part because it serves a purpose, but also because it's fun as hell. It's undodgeable AOE (like Artillery) BUT there are ways to evade it and/or block it, and disadvantages to using it. (Takes 1 round to charge and fires the next, Your EVA drops to 0 while you're charging and it's a huge sig spike, in effect a gigantic SHOOT ME NOW!! sign. Also it takes so much energy it'll probably be the only thing you'll be able to do that round, other than move into position.) The rules for using it may still need a bit of adjustment but I'm fairly happy with it so far. I have other plans as well, EVIL PLANS, but really I need to get the game as it is reigned in before I start adding more crap to it. : /
|
|
|
Post by shalcar on Jan 31, 2012 19:05:54 GMT -8
I must say, I quite like the idea and it’s much more likely to meet your design goals than the old system. Obviously it’s going to have quite a few rough edges so I won’t go giving any detailed thoughts just yet. There are a few things I would be curious as to the design rationale for, but obviously this is an exceptionally early draft and large amounts are likely to change, so I will save my questions for when you have a chance to write up something that you want exposed to more robust analysis.
Good work.
|
|
|
Post by Gravedust on Feb 1, 2012 12:50:08 GMT -8
Well if there's something odd that jumps out at you then go ahead and call it out, please. It's entirely possible I've totally neglected to think of something and the sooner it's brought to my attention the easier it ought to be to fix, before there's all sorts of things built around it. If you'd prefer to wait till things are more concrete though that's of course fine too.
|
|
|
Post by captainfoo on Feb 1, 2012 19:32:06 GMT -8
I'd look long and hard at this paragraph. Artificial design caps tend to be a symptom of "band-aid" balance. If there's some reason a certain pod design shouldn't carry a certain weapon, the system should be designed to meet that goal - if certain weapons are going to be "too big" for a pod to carry, the design of pods and the design of weapons should work together to support that goal.
A parallel example: should it be decided that big pods should not move fast, there's no need to say "big pods can't have more than 6 move." What should happen is that the design of speed ratings should make it either impossible (or at least prohibitive) to have a pod that big that fast. But artificial caps seem like an indicator of bad design.
Similarly, I don't think there's a reason to restrict hardpoints. A global four hardpoints seems to work well! If smaller pods can't handle four weapons for some intrinsic reason, that's one thing. But artificially limiting it seems odd.
|
|
|
Post by Gravedust on Feb 1, 2012 23:04:56 GMT -8
================================================================== Artificial design caps tend to be a symptom of "band-aid" balance. If there's some reason a certain pod design shouldn't carry a certain weapon, the system should be designed to meet that goal - if certain weapons are going to be "too big" for a pod to carry, the design of pods and the design of weapons should work together to support that goal. ================================================================== Well the last system was designed specifically to be as cap-free as possible and of course it wound up being very very abusable without a lot of little rules worked in, and the added weight of all those rules was beginning to make it so unweildy that I figured I might as well go with a system that was simpler but did more or les the same thing. The reason for weapon capping by class is that since Size is out of the equation there is no such thing as a weapon that is 'too big' for a pod to carry, only 'too expensive'. And unless we implemented different cost scaling for weapons by pod class (yuck, I'd rather not) if a weapon was too expensive for one class it'd be too expensive for another. (We could go with different point totals by class as suggested in the other system, but I like the uniformity of 100 points for everyone and it would make stat weight balancing marginally more difficult, Still, It is an option and I'll keep it in mind.) Under the old rules It's probably unreasonable to expect a size 80 pod to mount two 40 damage railguns, (and remain effective, anyway) but not so unreasonable for a size 200 pod. Since the reasons why a small pod can't (or shouldn't) carry huge weapons have been abstracted out of the new system ( the size of the weapons themselves, miniaturization costs to the support systems of the weapon (reactor+capa), ammunition size, low armor to keep size down, etc etc.) we have to maintain it by just saying they can't, rather than using the numbers to prove they can't (or is a bad idea) because those numbers don't exist anymore. It's that or recomplexify the system by adding variable Size back in. Anyway.. The new system is undoubtedly more restrictive than the last, but that's done in the interest of making the game as a whole easier to balnce, as the building system is now subordinate to the combat system rather than equal. We're going with whatever lets us make combat effective but not rule-breaking pods the easiest, and class-based weapon restriction seems to do that in a very simple and easy to control manner. ================================================================== A parallel example: should it be decided that big pods should not move fast, there's no need to say "big pods can't have more than 6 move." What should happen is that the design of speed ratings should make it either impossible (or at least prohibitive) to have a pod that big that fast. ================================================================== You are absolutely right, I'm not sure where my brain was earlier. What you just described is what should happen, and I'll try to have things set up that way (Where you run out of points before you hit the cap, or at least have so spend a majority of points (~80% or similar) to reach the cap) as much as possible. I'll be holding onto the cap as a fix-it in the case there happens to be some stat that can be overbought enough to become unbalancing on a particular class. I can't forsee any reason for that right now though but *le shrug* You never know. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The <4 hardpoint thing was just something I threw out as a possibility, I haven't thought really too much about it. If I was going to do something like that there'd have to be a good reason for it, and so far none has surfaced. It does seem to work well as-is. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Oh.. It also wasn't mentioned but with the change to sig gen/decay, I'm intendint to make Stealth a modifiable stat again, so you can spend points to shed sig faster if you want to. Whee. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- One other thing I've been thinking about lately: Having Jumpjets become a Hardpoint addon rather than a system component. If anyone has any thoughts on this I'd be interested to hear them. I think I'm leaning towards keeping it as it is for now, but it could make for more interesting loadout choices. In general I'd like to see more strategizing around hardpoint usage (once Targeters and some other equipment go in there will be more choices to fill hardpoints with besides weapons) but it's a minor concern overall.
|
|
|
Post by captainfoo on Feb 2, 2012 5:10:32 GMT -8
One thing that sort of occurred to me but I haven't given it much mechanical thought is that based on the way you've drawn pods in the past, it looks like each pod has 6 hardpoints on it. (So far) two are reserved for legs; these are the bottom hardpoints. Then you've got the top hardpoints where weapons have filled in first. Then the middle hardpoints, where decks have filled in first and weapons go secondary.
|
|
razorwind1101
New Member
Thanks for letting me borrow this Gravedust
Posts: 8
|
Post by razorwind1101 on Feb 2, 2012 11:41:28 GMT -8
you could always run the podbuilding with a weight system.
smaller pods have a lower weight allowance and simply can't mount the biggest guns around. or could mount a big gun, but cant to anything else, and a big pod could fill up his weight allowance on turbos to up movement but have to run with lighter weapons as a result.
|
|
|
Post by disastranagant on Feb 2, 2012 15:45:13 GMT -8
I think hacking should be broken up a bit. Decks should have an effect or two they can cause, better effects requiring bigger, more powerhungry hardware. chance to hit would have to be played with, but the current one stop shop for a sliding scale of misc effects is a bit much. It would be easier to balance and far less to remember at the table.
|
|
|
Post by Gravedust on Feb 2, 2012 18:03:04 GMT -8
Hmn. That might not be a bad idea at all. I'll see if I can work that in in a way that's simpler that the current thing...
|
|
captainbravo
Full Member
Vhiki readies Flame Breath!
Posts: 140
|
Post by captainbravo on Feb 3, 2012 2:17:16 GMT -8
Hell, just do it like you do weapons. Give a general slew of things that every Hacking deck can do, (like power down a weapon) and then allow players to spend points to add specialized software to their decks, like with the guns, that open up new hacking possibilities. (Reduce Movement, Sig Spike, etc.) So you can buy two decent power base decks, and be the all about varying enemy debuffs, or you can buy one powerful deck with specialized software, and be the undisputed master of spiking enemy signature.
|
|
|
Post by bruceski on Feb 4, 2012 22:33:06 GMT -8
In that case it may be best to figure out how to balance each of the specialized decks around the same point value (rather than Sig Spike X for Y1 points, Move reduction Z for Y2 points etc). That way if a map rolls out with a particular spec being useful the user doesn't need to get a new pod approved. "If he's bringing a missilepod I'll take the Hackermaster with a Sig Spec" for example, without needing to recalc point values from a Hackermaster with a Move Spec.
|
|
captainbravo
Full Member
Vhiki readies Flame Breath!
Posts: 140
|
Post by captainbravo on Feb 5, 2012 14:49:59 GMT -8
And it would also allow you to bump up Hacking values to actual decent amounts. Shutting down a weapon is good as-is, it has varying use depending on the defending pod, and it's a good backup plan for any hacker. Sig Spike, as it currently is, is completely useless. I know you've toyed with various options for messing with signature, but it would also be nice if you could just say "Ok, if you want, you can spend X build points to add on sig spike software to your hacking deck. You won't be able to use other specialized software in this deck, like movement intereference stuff, but it will give you the ability to make easy/medium/hard sig spikes, for 15/30/45."
It allows you to both streamline Hacking, minimize the amount of actual hacks that any one unit can do, and at the same time increase the actual power of those hacks. If you want to do everything, you can launch with 4 small hacking decks, each with a different software. Or, you can choose one thing to excel at, design a big deck around it, and be unstoppable at that one thing.
|
|
|
Post by Gravedust on Feb 5, 2012 22:57:44 GMT -8
Segmenting by hacking effects/difficulties seems like it would create more things to remember rather than less, and generally damage hacking's versatility. As Bruce brought up, different hacks are going to be more or less effective in different situations and different targets on almost a round by round basis. If hacking effects are built directly into the decks it means running the risk that a particular variant might just be useless on a particular battlefield, and in order to change it you'd have to basically build a new variant. Plausible (sort of) but inefficient. You also run into issues of redundancy when fielding identical variants.
Now if the hacking combos were done independent of the build (i.e you have a deck with say 4 effect slots and you decide what effects you want in there at the start of the mission) it would add a bit more versatility and probably be a better fit overall. But what you can/can't hack is still going to have to be recorded somewhere, and then you also have to analyze/remember who can hack what and how badly since everyone would be sporting different effects and difficulties, instead of using a single effect/difficulty list.
So it seems like we're adding complexity and things that need to be displayed on the unit cards while reducing the usefulness of a weapon class.
Before we go further; let's describe the problem we're trying to solve.
|
|
captainbravo
Full Member
Vhiki readies Flame Breath!
Posts: 140
|
Post by captainbravo on Feb 6, 2012 0:00:48 GMT -8
Now, I'm no big-city lawyer, but it seems like to me there's two issues here:
1 - Hacking Bloat. When you launch in a Hacker, you've got a list of about 20 things you can choose to do with your hacking deck. Not only do you have to choose between them, but you've also got to run numbers between your skill, your decks, enemy skills, and DC numbers for each thing, just to figure out what you can or cannot do that turn. Guy in a cannon pod decides who he can hit, who needs to be shot, how much to shoot. Guy in melee pod decides who he can reach, who needs to be stabbed, how far he can get get away after stabbings. Guy in hacking pod spends half an hour crunching numbers on all the other pods on the field to determine who's in range, who's got less hacking defense, cross-referencing hacking skills sheet with his skill, decks, and enemy defense to determine who can and needs to be hit with what, before finally taking an action that might possibly help a teammate.
2- The Great Hack Nerf. The nerf to hacking decks was two steps forward, one step back. It tuned down the overpowered Super-Hacks that were originally possible, but it just turned up the nozzle on Hack-bloat. In addition, it really gimped what a deck could do. By attempting to prevent decks from becoming godly instant-win buttons, you limited hacks all across the board, and kind of made hacking not really worth it. You took the one thing we had that could actually be used for support, and then cut it off at the knees.
In my opinion, the entire point of a support pod is that you're designed to work with, complement, and easily support your teammates. Current-generation hacking pods are just too bloated, and if you're running the numbers necessary to actually use some of the decent support hacks, you're usually just better off going for a full capacitor dump, or even full shutdown. Nobody uses Signature Spiking, despite it having the most point-effective method of increasing certain weapon's accuracy. (Although, to be fair, that's also in part due to nobody launching with Missiles, but still!) These options are there, but nobody takes them, because you can only use those options if you're high enough skill for them to be effective, and if you're at that high skill, you're better off just using something else.
After remembering that you're not really looking for someone to come up with an entirely new system, I went ahead and snipped all the stuff I wrote after this. It can basically be summed up as "Apply your idea for Weapon Augmentation Slots to Hacking Decks as well, and come up with some form of using Hacking Decks to directly assist teammates." If you think that's valid you're probably going to want to come up with your own interpretation for that. Hopefully you didn't read what I wrote before and get turned off of the whole idea!
|
|
captainbravo
Full Member
Vhiki readies Flame Breath!
Posts: 140
|
Post by captainbravo on Feb 6, 2012 2:49:25 GMT -8
In the meantime I oughta make some things clear. I didn't/don't actually want suggestions for the new system. If you do the work for me then it's not really my project. And if it's not my project then I don't see the point of devoting 20+ hours a week to it. Herp derp, shootin' myself in the foot because I'm a retard. Disregard the entire last post, then, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by captainfoo on Feb 6, 2012 10:12:36 GMT -8
Or, you can choose one thing to excel at, design a big deck around it, and be unstoppable at that one thing. Ugh. Being unstoppable was the entire problem with the previous iteration with the hack rules. A pilot with high skill and high bonus could literally never fail. Nobody uses Signature Spike because missiles are complete garbage without huge amount of sig being generated. A 200 skill roll with max skill and max deck has a 50% of succeeding if the target has no skill and no deck and increases the odds of a missile landing by 15%. The highest possible base-accuracy for a missile is 33% - that's with sensor skill 100 which cripples a pilot's ability to do anything other than use missiles. So in a best-case scenario a pilot would have a 48% to hit with a missile on turn 1. I'm going to write up another example: Your hacker has a setup with skill 50 and deck 25. Your missile pilot has sensor 66. The target is a Danmaku Mk 2 (as memory serves, this was one of the more popular stock pods). The pilot has no hack skill because it has no deck. The Danmaku is a fairly quiet pod; a single shot from each cannon will put it at +3 sig for the turn. Let's assume that after a few turns of maneuvering and firing the Danmaku is at 9 sig, and a big pod gets in its face. Danmaku volleyfires a three-round burst from each gun. It's your turn. The Danmaku has 28 sig. Your missile pilot has a 50% chance to hit. The best your hacker can do with his skill and deck would be a ten point spike, and that's with a perfect roll. Increasing the accuracy from 50% to 60% is not particularly good compared to the other 175 point options (and the comparisons are no better at 125 point options; an average roll). I think part of the root cause for this is the sig-sensor-missile mechanics are somewhat isolated. Consider: Accuracy - affects lasers/cannons/rails positively Evade - affects hostile lasers/cannons/rails negatively Hack - affects all six hacking actions, positively and negatively Sensors - affects missiles positively. The sig-sensor-missile mechanics are poorly balanced and too isolated from the rest of the system.
|
|
|
Post by Gravedust on Feb 6, 2012 13:26:47 GMT -8
GIGANTIC TAGER!!! POST THAT NOBODY WILL READ ALL OF!
========================== Herp derp, shootin' myself in the foot =========================== Nah. The difference there was the changes under discussion would have effected ~40% of the game overall and would have been the focus of a month of work. This is a much smaller issue involving much fewer changes to the overall system.
It's important to realize that most of what I'm doing when discussing ideas is playing devil's advocate. I point out what I see that may not work or causes difficulty with the plan as I understand it. Please don't take it as "I hate this idea and I hate you aaarrrgghh!!" I think it's a cool idea and it's tailored to fit in with the current system, which is a definite plus. But I think I can see some issues with having to implement it in terms of mechanics, and I'm not yet entirely convinced it'll really solve the problems it was meant to solve. But I do actually like it enough to be playing around with it, even though I should be doing something entirely different right at the moment. -_-
Anyway... want to address sig spike because it's come up a few times... Yep it's underpowered and difficult to use. This is because quite frankly, I don't like the idea of sitting across the map, boosting somebody's sig and then blowing them up. It is cheap as hell. (Not to mention boring) Sig performance is supposed to be a designer consideration (do I want to spend the points to make something really sneaky or would they be better spent elsewhere?) and a tactical consideration on the part of the pilot (I can jump for extra distance on this move but shit.. +9 sig. Should I or shouldn't I?) so if you allow hackers to increase Sig relatively easily and quickly it removes a lot of emphasis on Sig management. So I made it difficult and the effects aren't spectacular, and there's usually a better, more immediate option to use. It's the thing to use when there really isn't anything else you want to do, unless there is an emergent "That dude needs to explode now, sig bump him so we can kill him' situation. Sig is intended mostly to be a rope that players hang themselves on if they're not careful, basically just adding a consequence to their actions so they think a little before lighting off their jets or shooting a target when they've only got a 10% chance to hit.
With the updated sig stuff this will change a bit probably, as noted.
============================================================= Guy in hacking pod spends half an hour crunching numbers on all the other pods on the field to determine who's in range, who's got less hacking defense, cross-referencing hacking skills sheet with his skill, decks, and enemy defense to determine who can and needs to be hit with what, before finally taking an action that might possibly help a teammate. ============================================================== I'm gonna condense this down to: 'It takes a long time to figure out what to do"
Well, I've got my own views on that, it doesn't take me particularly long generally, Usually there are 2-3 candidates for immediate action and what needs to happen to them to limit their effectiveness is usually pretty clear. In my case it's a matter of first figuring out if I'm in range (but basically everybody has to do this) looking at enemy skills (since you generally remember your own) then cross referencing the effects I want to try and apply in order to figure out what my rough chance of succeeding is. Sometimes it's really easy: If I've got 80 total bonus and I want to pull off a difficulty 100 hack against someone with 20 hack defense: 60% chance of success. But often it's more complex.
You gotta remember that as GM I personally do about as much work as all the other players combined. I have to run the calcs on their actions AND I have a full team of 6-10 units of my own to figure out moves for. It's definitely in my interest to streamline things so they work faster and with less calculation.
But anyway I do agree with you, in the current system it is kind of a pain in the ass and I'll see what I can do to simplify it.
I quite honestly have no idea exactly how just yet. =P But I'll be thinking about it.
========================================================================================================= 2- The Great Hack Nerf. The nerf to hacking decks was two steps forward, one step back. It tuned down the overpowered Super-Hacks that were originally possible, but it just turned up the nozzle on Hack-bloat. In addition, it really gimped what a deck could do. By attempting to prevent decks from becoming godly instant-win buttons, you limited hacks all across the board, and kind of made hacking not really worth it. You took the one thing we had that could actually be used for support, and then cut it off at the knees. ========================================================================================================= Well let's have a look, at the high end: Let's assume 150 skill.
Diff 150: 100-80% (-20 disrupt)(-3 move)(disable jumpjets) Diff 175: 75-55% (-25 disrupt)(-4 move)(-Disable Capacitor)(+10 Sig)(-1 action)(Disable Shields) Diff 200: 50-30% (-30 disrupt)(+15 sig) Diff 210: 40-20% (Shutdown)
Those numbers are for 0 hack protection at the high end and 20 hack protection at the low end. If you throw a defensive deck on there you can drop those numbers by another 20 or 30 points at a cost of $42 - $62 (6% - 8% of a pod's total points) The absolute best def deck costs 102 (14%)
So.. There's still a lot that can be done, at high skill levels though of course the harder stuff is.. Harder. If you're up against someone with a higher hack resistance it just pushes you down the effect tier a bit. Instead of disrupting for 25 you might have to try 15.
There's not a lot you can do at low Skill levels, but that's pretty true across the board where a lot of Skills are concerned. 20 points in ACC won't get you much, really.
If anyone is using the last mission as a guidepost, the problem there is nobody on the player side really brought enough hack skill to the table to make their decks worth it, which was why the results weren't very good. C.Foo had a nice deck but he put 60 points into Eva (and then never got shot at except by missiles and artillery, IIRC) and Coker did something similar. So far as I can tell the underperformance in that category wasn't due to problems with hack difficulties but problems with skill allocation.
That said, I -do- have a problem with the current difficulty levels in that I think the investment needed to become effective as a hybrid hacker is still a little too high, (You need about 80-100 Hack bonus (combined deck and skill) to land most low-level (Diff 100) effects reliably, assuming average resistance. I think I'd want that down closer to 50-60 combined bonus..
Assuming you do a 50-50 split between skill and deck bonus:
Getting 80 hack costs: ~130 (18% of Total Cost) 60 Skill points left to distribute. ..actually not that bad, now that I think about it...
Getting to 60 costs: ~90 ~12% total cost 70 Skill point left to distribute. Which seems like an okay compromise if it lets you pull off -10 disrupts and -1/-2 move but a bit of regularity ~60% or so, which is about what I want hybrids or low-skill hackers to be able to do.
How am I gonna do that?
*elaborate shrug*
…Hell if I know. But I'll try to figure something out.
========================================================================== I think part of the root cause for this is the sig-sensor-missile mechanics are somewhat isolated. ========================================================================== Yep, this is part of the reason that Arty is having sensors incorporated with it, even though it's in mostly a perfunctory manner. (and also the targeting computer thing which ties sig to direct weapons as well…)
I was also messing with a component (Active Camo!) that adds an accuracy penalty (~10-20) to Direct shots made against the pod that has it. A small amount of Sensors would help negate that penalty.
Anyway, Sensors/missiles aren't quite cleanly separated from everything else though, since most of what you do generates sig and sig buildup is what allows missiles to hit you. Sensors Skill lets them start hitting you earlier.
One of the changes I intend to make while I'm re-doing the build system is to make missile launchers a lot cheaper and easier to fit in the leftover spaces of a pod. The ammo would be the main cost, really. This ought to make it easier for more pods to field missiles even if they aren't dedicated missile boats, in order to make the missile threat a bit more prevalent
|
|
|
Post by Gravedust on Feb 6, 2012 14:39:00 GMT -8
Also:
C.B. I am interested in your idea of using hacking to benefit your teammates rather than debuff your opponents. I'd be happy to hear your thoughts if you want to elaborate on it.
The closest I had to a 'support' pod was an earlier idea for an 'engineer' type pod where you could build fortifications (cover zones and walls and such) and make repairs on friendly pods. I was considering including a SA-TOSS operated mini-assembler into the current game that fulfilled sort of those same functions.
|
|
|
Post by captainfoo on Feb 6, 2012 15:02:18 GMT -8
I didn't address this before, but it looks like Gravedust got to it - nobody really built themselves as a hacker. In retrospect, I should have put way more points into hack and way less into evade - because my pod outranged everything on the board except for one missile launcher anyway. I would have been rather more effective had I done that. That being said, I never designed my pod with hacking as more than a secondary function anyway, and I think it worked okay.
I would caution, when looking at Gravedust's hack analysis:
Disregard the below, I was assuming skills could improve beyond 100. These numbers don't take into account deck bonus! That is an extremely high amount of hack, especially given that the absolute max it is possible to start with is 100. It's a good thing to analyze from both the top and bottom end. Nobody in the current game is going to approach that amount of hack any time soon, I don't think.
What is the upper limit of hack skill? Well, none, really. The way the skills are designed right now it's always an arms race, because hack rolls are directly opposed (and similarly for acc/eva). But, to guarantee a shutdown against the optimal rookie pilot, you need to be 210 over 150, or 310 hack skill (assuming that someone that focused on hack would take a 50 bonus deck). So there's your reasonable upper limit for hack skill. You can work your way down from there to find the "guaranteed" breakpoints.
This sets off all kinds of warning beacons, but you're actually addressing the point correctly. I can see how boosting sig and smacking down with missiles could be overpowered, especially because of how much range both of those systems have compared to most other weaponry. >EDIT: I still wouldn't see that as cheap - it has a countertatic i.e. weapon hacking. <Again though, as of right now, I don't think that is something that would happen even if you doubled the effectiveness of sig spiking. A hacker that can reliably spike sig can also effectively neuter enemy pods or cut down their evasion - which makes them vulnerable to the other three main types of fire. Thus:
That way you don't have to boat missiles, letting you bring far more versatile pods. However:
That would certainly help the "nobody brings missiles" issue. Still, the system really rewards focus so unless they are very cheap and small, and powerful for their weight, nobody's going to use them. Then, you run the risk of an actual missile boat being brutal. Balance is hard!
|
|
|
Post by captainfoo on Feb 6, 2012 15:41:33 GMT -8
Ran a quick thought experiment with dis and krab, and reached the conclusion that you don't have to worry about that. Consider a team of six pods, three of which are double-max decked pods with max hacking skill, and three of which are the Littleboy with 99 sensor skill (and 100 damage missiles).
To achieve 99% missile accuracy, you need to land four 15-point sig spikes out of six. Against a pod with no hack defense whatsoever, the probability of landing those four hacks is 0.34375. Against a pod with 20 hack defense, that probability falls to 0.07047. And those are the best possible hackers.
Running the numbers with 3 triple hackers gives you 4 needed chances of 9 for this: 0 defense, 0.74609375; 20 defense, 0.270340902)
|
|
|
Post by Gravedust on Feb 6, 2012 16:36:04 GMT -8
============= Balance is hard! ============= Yeah.. I've been noodling this.. Gonna think out loud for a bit here... The current missile system has the really light missiles (10-20 damage) and on up until you get to the "oh jesus" 60-100 range. 10-20's are really very cheap, the current use for them is to shoot them basically every round in the hope that they'll hit something. If they don't no big loss really. (this is how the Goblins were operating in Mission 1 and Mission 3, shoot every round, because the missiles are cheap, sort of the Bpod version of sandpaper damage (20 here and 20 there eventually adds up, but they're not going to be killing anything in a hurry, and in the cases of a shielded pod may just essentially bounce off entirely, save for a sig bump and the energy required to recharge.) …Unless you are boatin' it with 3-4 launchers, then you're up to a 20-80 damage a turn. Or 10-40 if you're using 10s. Under the old sig generation system missile boating probably wouldn't be too bad an issue (with slow sig gen, even with max sensors you're only looking at a 30-40% chance to hit for several rounds, (increasing by 2-5% average per round, or more if a target is really unstealthy/jumpy/active) and missiles generate a fair bit of sig themselves, (It'd be funny if the boaters wound up falling prey to heavier single-shot launchers that wait till 50+ sig or so before opening up with more expensive but harder hitting missiles instead of gambling with hitting at low sig with cheap ones.) People with faster sig gain would fall prey to these systems though a lot sooner, which is Working As Intended, I do want people to worry about their sig when they're doing stuff, and under the old system it was very hard to get rid of it once you had it. Under the system with faster gain/decay Missiles become more immediately effective (though they lose effectiveness almost as quickly) so boats can become situationally effective earlier, (Which I like because otherwise they wouldn't have anything to do other than sit around with their thumb up their nose for the first couple of rounds) but they lose that effectiveness once a pod goes quiet for a round or two. I'm not sure if that balances or not just yet, I guess a lot depends on how fast the sig gain/decay actually is. The presence of a missile boat on the map (or a number of non-boat missile carriers) would definitely make people consider their signature more, but on a round to round basis (Can I afford to end this round with 40 sig or is it going to get my ass shot off by everyone on the map that's got a free action?) rather than a mission-long basis like the old system: (This +9 sig I'm accruing by jumping is never going to go away so long as I remain in combat, and I know that once I get above a certain level I'm going to start eating missiles and never stop.) The new version allows more of a cat-and-mouse feel that I like, and it allows missileers to get into the fight sooner rather than later. What may need to happen is the introduction of anti-missile countermeasures? Perhaps a hardpoint add-on with 'charges' (like flares or something similar) that increases the chance that a missile will track something else that's not you. (If [Flare bonus] + D100/2 = Higher than your sig the missile hits it and not you)(?)(Kind of ugly but maybe has potential.) In any case a limited use 'get out of performing a high-risk maneuver without immediately eating a missile swarm' button. ORRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!! Make it so sig is not tracked continually but rather resets to 0 every round. The sig that you END with is the one that the enemy missile kids will have to play with, when your round starts again it's back to zero. That way you can play footsies with your actions that turn in order to finesse your chances of not getting blown up.. It would look sort of like this: (all numbers provisional of course, substitute wherever values you feel are reasonable. ) Fire a laser: +20 Sig Fire another laser: +20 sig Your total for that round is 40, and that's what the missile kids take into account with whether to blow your shit up or not. Next round it resets to 0 at the beginning for your turn. You Jump: +40 sig Fire a laser: +20 sig Fire another laser +20 Sig Your total is 80 and you are now essentially begging for it. Hmmnnn.. I'll need to think about that one, but I don't hate it so far. =P + Sig management still has a place in pod design (you laser generates 15 sig instead of 20) + Sig management is still up to the pilot, but the effects of the choices are immediate and temporary. + Gives missile kids something to do -immediately- depending on the opposition's actions. Anyway… to counter boaters, the quick and dirty method is to make multiple launchers generate more sig per damage than a single launcher. (Normalize sig rates, make them pay for reduction, a single weapon pays once, a boater pays 3-4 times.. I guess they already pay 3-4 times for range.) Or just in general make heavier launchers more efficient than multiple lighter ones. The old system was #$%^&* Terrible for this due the the way it was set up, and I'm going to try to avoid it like hell in the new one. Multiple weapons have their place (redundancy for hack protection for one thing) but I don't want them to be the clear choice over one big one (But neither do I want ONE BIG GUN designs, so the point is a bit sticky.) Still I'm kind of hopeful about the resetting sig idea. It'll need a lot of consideration first though... I'll have to think about that more, outside viewpoints welcome as well. And oops.. New addition while I was typing.. ============================================================================================ Ran a quick thought experiment with dis and krab, and reached the conclusion that you don't have to worry about that. ============================================================================================ Yerp, that's why I made the sig bump as crummy as I did. I really want players to essentially kill themselves by building up their own sig as a consequence of their actions. Sig bumps could help but not be the driving force. Really they're one of those things I could have taken out but didn't because I figured it might be situationally useful in some cases. The fun thing about missiles is that they work perfectly fine with 0 skill points invested, so they make a great hybrid weapon. You just have to wait a little longer before you start shooting effectively compared to somebody with some points.
|
|
|
Post by disastranagant on Feb 6, 2012 16:55:22 GMT -8
Just fyi, pods mounting multiple missile launchers are a pretty bad idea under the current build rules, except for maybe very sort ranges. At 20-30 range it is always cheaper to buy a 100 missile than 2 50s, and it's cheaper to take a 100 and a 40 than it is to take 2 70s. 4 20s cost as much as a single 100 and are nearly twice the size (including 10 turns of ammo for each launcher)
And 10 pointers are conspicuously absent from the component formulas.
|
|