|
|
Post by Gravedust on Feb 6, 2012 17:46:33 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. Ah well cool. Something that actually turned out more or less like I intended for a change.  Aaand upon further reflection the resetting sig thing might not work out that well, since a lot of the time you'd just see the same values over and over again, which would probably just get static and boring, but more importantly it wouldn't make players adjust their playstyle according to sig levels like I wanted. ...If I reduced the range of missiles you could play a game of only having to worry about your sig when a missileer is close enough to blow you up, but I'd also have to lower the range on missiles... *trails off and mumbles for 45 minutes* ...but the bottom line is it's not as workable as I would have liked. So Eh. Hopes, fleeting, all that. |
|
|
|
Post by captainfoo on Feb 6, 2012 18:49:40 GMT -8
I honestly have no idea what you're going on about there.
|
|
captainbravo
Full Member
Vhiki readies Flame Breath!
Posts: 140
|
Post by captainbravo on Feb 6, 2012 19:04:23 GMT -8
Well, now I'm kind of wishing I hadn't deleted the page and a half of hacking ideas I had typed out. Lemme see if I can condense those into the big three suggestions I had:
1. General Hacks work off a new formula: Instead of setting a DC to achieve, use a modified melee formula for skill hacks. Also, expand the hacks to include melee. So you can nerf an opponents skills by firing off an Evasion hack that then does (d100+Y.S.+Y.D-E.S.-E.D.)/5 worth of skill damage for the next turn. It prevents that stupid "Miss on an 85% chance", and provides a much smoother sliding scale of effects.
2. Support Software: Upgrade hacking decks with a piece of software that allows you to enhance a teammate's pod. Same formula, just a little steeper, maybe (d100+-)/10. This would also open the door to things like maybe adding in Sig Dump software, and hacking an ally pod to dump x-amount of signature.
3. Booster Racks: Depending on how many software racks you give to each hacking deck, have a specialized rack that allows you to give a boost to one, specific hack. So, if you didn't want to have to spend the skills and points necessary to make an effective hacking rig just to nerf an enemy's evasion, or accuracy, or something, you could still take a small deck with an Accuracy Hack Booster Rack, that gives you a flat bonus to that one, specific kind of hack. Obviously, you'd have to handwave away it not being able to work on things like capacitor dumps and full shutdowns, but it would be another step towards allowing people to not only specialize in one thing, but also let mid-range hackers still have a forte in something.
The biggest thing, though, is I think the modified hacking checks. Making it more like melee, where you've got a damn good chance to hit, just not a great chance at actually doing much, would go a long way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gravedust on Feb 6, 2012 19:05:01 GMT -8
I honestly have no idea what you're going on about there. Eh, some stuff I was talking about in my previous post regarding a possibility for the sig system involving resetting sig to 0 at the start of every round, and then only your actions that round determining what your sig was for that round. Turns out I don't like it as much as I thought I did. |
|
|
|
Post by captainfoo on Feb 6, 2012 19:09:20 GMT -8
what
the
fuck
Sorry you don't understand probabilities man
|
|
captainbravo
Full Member
Vhiki readies Flame Breath!
Posts: 140
|
Post by captainbravo on Feb 6, 2012 19:16:12 GMT -8
I understand probabilities fine, I'm saying that I don't like them with hacks. With a gun, I'm able to influence my firing solutions based on movement, cover, height, and even with autocannons, how many bullets I fire. With hacking, I don't get any of that. I have a base bonus, he has a base bonus, and I'm given a choice of DC's. When I have no other input but to choose a number, and still roll low with an 85% chance to hit, it feels like bullshit.
Just look at all the minor hacks we were flubbing last game. Shoot for the stars with a 60/70/80% chance to land a whole 5 points of skill hacking, and then still fuck it up completely. My proposition doesn't remove the element of chance, and if you're going up against someone with a ton of hack you're still going to have a hard time landing anything at all. But against minor opponents, even a bad roll will get you something. When you've got a system, like Hacking, with such limited options for affecting your chances on the field, I just feel like a sliding scale similar to how melee damage is handled would provide for greater player enjoyment.
Edit: And, most of all, in order to get those 85% hit chances, you've got to choose a much, much lower possible effect. It all ties back into pods that aren't completely focused on hacking having barely any ability to do much at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by shalcar on Feb 6, 2012 19:28:39 GMT -8
Well bravo, you have solved a problem that doesn't exist in a manner that completely defeats several key interations of the underlying combat system.
I could write pages upon pages breaking down why it's a bad idea, but just assume I'm still as good at analysis as I have been the last dozen pages and trust me on my cliff notes version:
This is terrible.
Do not do this.
Seriously.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainfoo on Feb 6, 2012 19:29:14 GMT -8
I understand probabilities fine, I'm saying that I don't like them with hacks. With a gun, I'm able to influence my firing solutions based on movement, cover, height, and even with autocannons, how many bullets I fire. With hacking, I don't get any of that. I have a base bonus, he has a base bonus, and I'm given a choice of DC's. When I have no other input but to choose a number, and still roll low with an 85% chance to hit, it feels like bullshit. It's not.Just look at all the minor hacks we were flubbing last game. Shoot for the stars with a 60/70/80% chance to land a whole 5 points of skill hacking, and then still fuck it up completely. My proposition doesn't remove the element of chance, and if you're going up against someone with a ton of hack you're still going to have a hard time landing anything at all. But against minor opponents, even a bad roll will get you something. When you've got a system, like Hacking, with such limited options for affecting your chances on the field, I just feel like a sliding scale similar to how melee damage is handled would provide for greater player enjoyment. There's six possible hack types, and even with lower skill there's still four viable hack types. All from a single deck; hacking is literally more versatile than anything else on the board so I don't know what you're complaining about with limited options.Edit: And, most of all, in order to get those 85% hit chances, you've got to choose a much, much lower possible effect. It all ties back into pods that aren't completely focused on hacking having barely any ability to do much at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Gravedust on Feb 6, 2012 20:19:31 GMT -8
 P.S: This song. It will get you laid.Probably too early for kittens, but let's all just chill for a minute just in case. Let's not gang up on C.B., he's a cool guy and I appreciate the input. I like talking about stuff like this because it either reminds me of why I made the decisions I made, exposes flaws in my work and/or makes me think about alternatives, even if I have to discard them later. Above all this ought to be a friendly thread, everybody'll have a better time that way, even if we disagree. |
|
|
|
Post by Gravedust on Feb 6, 2012 23:36:47 GMT -8
==========================================================================================================
1. General Hacks work off a new formula: Instead of setting a DC to achieve, use a modified melee formula for skill hacks. Also, expand the hacks to include melee. So you can nerf an opponents skills by firing off an Evasion hack that then does (d100+Y.S.+Y.D-E.S.-E.D.)/5 worth of skill damage for the next turn. It prevents that stupid "Miss on an 85% chance", and provides a much smoother sliding scale of effects.
==========================================================================================================
That's similar to a 'soft critical' system I worked into one of my last projects. It was something like:
100 = hit
110 = Hit +1 damage
120 = Hit +2 damage
Etc etc. I used a ton of similar rolls in my steampunk game.
There are a couple of problems that I see with using it in this scenario however...
1. It only works with effects that have a sliding scale (which is to say Disrupts, Mobi hacks and sig spikes) the disrupts and all else are all boolean, they either succeed or the fail, and that system won't help in those cases do we'll still be stuck on a difficulty tier for those. That doesn't mean we can't use it for the effects it does work for though.
2. It interrupts the risk/reward setup I had instituited. The original hacking system was meant to force a choice between going for a greater effect with a greater chance of failure, or a lower effect with a better chance of succeeding. Each player could decide on what risk vs. reward level they were comfortable with. In a soft system you can only fail if your result is so low that you fall off the chart, so with sufficient points its never a question of "will I fail" its a question of "how well will I succeed", which the player doesn't have any real control over, (aside form how many skill points they bought) it's all up to the dice.
To me is a lot less interesting than the choice between a -20 disrupt with a 60% chance of success, and a -30 disrupt with a 40% chance of success, or a -15 disrupt at 100% or whatever. When it's all or nothing it's more of a make-or-break situation, which makes you (ideally) really think about what your chances are of landing your debuff.
You'll notice that even at 150 skill it's still possible to fail a lot of the higher-end hacks, so this betting game is perpetuated all through the system, your tailor your risk/reward to what you think is appropriate.
The original version of the hacking system DID have a sliding effect like you propose for disrupts, with some differences. You would indicate how big an effect you wanted to try for and the difficulty was set based on that (I think it was [effect magnitude x 3] or something else considerably too low) so you'd say what you wanted to go for and then if you didn't manage to hit the difficulty you failed. It had both the betting aspects and utility at the low range (Still not capable of great effects at low skill, but you could do -something-)
It's possible we could go back to instituting something like that, with a cap at the high end to keep the 150's from going too crazy with it.
Actually: Difficulty = [Effect magnitude x 7] might suit our purposes pretty well for Disrupts, possibly with no cap required since anything over -35 is impossible. (diff 250+)
-10 only is 70 Difficulty and -15 is 105 Diff which are pretty doable without a ton of hack.
Mobility though is a bit less straightforward, I'm not sure it'll sit appropriately on a sliding scale. Likewise Sig spike, but that's sort of in flux anyway, it's final form will depend a lot on how the changes to Sig go, and that work is just not in place yet.
============================================================================================================
2. Support Software: Upgrade hacking decks with a piece of software that allows you to enhance a teammate's pod. Same formula, just a little steeper, maybe (d100+-)/10. This would also open the door to things like maybe adding in Sig Dump software, and hacking an ally pod to dump x-amount of signature.
============================================================================================================
This is something to consider... I might want to differentiate it from hacking though, call it command and control or data-sharing software or whatever. ("Let me feed you targeting data from my vantage point...") which could create an actual niche for a C&C pod whose job is to buff the rest of the team, basically an anti-hacker. A key aspect of this would have to be that it cannot buff itself, only other units. (One problem being keeping track of those buffs... I guess they could occupy the STATUS bar like negative effects do.) Actually I can see it being more a facet of the Assembler, since in a sense it -is- your C&C center and its job is to support the pods. (while the pods in turn protect it.. It's not really meant to survive on it's own) Allowing it to buff the pods by a small amount might give it more to do when the Lance isn't up. Finding a way to do that while keeping the voting simple-ish might be a bit difficult though.. In any case this has potential, but I might hold off implementing it till the game is up and on it's feet.
============================================================================================================
3. Booster Racks: Depending on how many software racks you give to each hacking deck, have a specialized rack that allows you to give a boost to one, specific hack. So, if you didn't want to have to spend the skills and points necessary to make an effective hacking rig just to nerf an enemy's evasion, or accuracy, or something, you could still take a small deck with an Accuracy Hack Booster Rack, that gives you a flat bonus to that one, specific kind of hack. Obviously, you'd have to handwave away it not being able to work on things like capacitor dumps and full shutdowns, but it would be another step towards allowing people to not only specialize in one thing, but also let mid-range hackers still have a forte in something.
===========================================================================================================
I'm actually really fond of this idea, especially this version of it. It 'feels' right for the game, and I'd like to use it, but as I mentioned I can forsee some trouble with it.
Here is what I like about this idea:
+It's a great way to make hybrids effective in one or two areas by boosting one or two hacks to useable levels.
+It fits right in with the modular/slot system for weapon design
+It makes hacking feel more personalized by allowing the player to choose the effects they wants to specialize in.
On the downside...
- Since Spec. slots would need to boost the specialization bonus by a considerably higher margin than the 'general' bonus on a per-slot basis, meaning that filling a component with 2-3 specialist slots would often be a better choice than building a generalist deck. This effect is magnified when multiple decks are involved, allowing enough spec.slots to cover most of the desirable hacking categories that are available. This could probably be countered by allowing only 1 spec. slot per deck however.
- Though limiting the effects to lower level ones (acc/eva/sens disrupts etc.) allows easier debuffing at low levels, it would carry the same effects at high levels, (assuming a +20 specialist bonus, a 150 hacker could have a 50% chance of landing a -30 disrupt instead of a 30% chance, and a 70% chance of landing a -25, and so on.) Rules could be added to prevent the effectiveness of the Spec.slots at high levels, but this does add complexity.
- Requires extra space on hacking section the unit card to indicate the presence of a specialist slot, and this must also be taken into account by the players who now must remember which units have what bonuses when considering their moves.
So as I see it it has some major wrinkles that would need to be ironed, and in the end the system that is already in place ought to perform most of the same function, and a little more simply, albeit with a bit of special tailoring to make it more attractive and useable at a lower total skill level.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainfoo on Feb 7, 2012 3:51:07 GMT -8
If you have to put an artificial cap on something it means it isn't balanced within your framework and is a Bad Design Idea.
|
|
captainbravo
Full Member
Vhiki readies Flame Breath!
Posts: 140
|
Post by captainbravo on Feb 7, 2012 4:32:20 GMT -8
On the downside... - Since Spec. slots would need to boost the specialization bonus by a considerably higher margin than the 'general' bonus on a per-slot basis, meaning that filling a component with 2-3 specialist slots would often be a better choice than building a generalist deck. This effect is magnified when multiple decks are involved, allowing enough spec.slots to cover most of the desirable hacking categories that are available. This could probably be countered by allowing only 1 spec. slot per deck however. - Though limiting the effects to lower level ones (acc/eva/sens disrupts etc.) allows easier debuffing at low levels, it would carry the same effects at high levels, (assuming a +20 specialist bonus, a 150 hacker could have a 50% chance of landing a -30 disrupt instead of a 30% chance, and a 70% chance of landing a -25, and so on.) Rules could be added to prevent the effectiveness of the Spec.slots at high levels, but this does add complexity. - Requires extra space on hacking section the unit card to indicate the presence of a specialist slot, and this must also be taken into account by the players who now must remember which units have what bonuses when considering their moves. So as I see it it has some major wrinkles that would need to be ironed, and in the end the system that is already in place ought to perform most of the same function, and a little more simply, albeit with a bit of special tailoring to make it more attractive and useable at a lower total skill level. I understand the objections and problems with my first suggestion, but that was more a personal thing. I'm just not a fan of the "risk/reward" system as currently instituted on Hacking, so that's why I suggested a new one. But, as you've said, that goes against what you were trying for with Hacking, so I'm not too heartbroken that it's not going to get it's time to shine. As for the booster racks thing, I was thinking on it, and I've come up with (what I think) an elegant solution for it. Booster racks require extra resources. If you want to get the +20, +50, +whatever bonus, it costs energy and has a sig boost, to correspond to the additional hardware being used. In fact, you could even tie those into the deck's actual hacking bonus. This would mean that a top-of-the-line +50 deck would require a ton of extra energy to get any boost from a booster rack, and cause a huge sig spike, while a meager +20 deck would require much more modest energy consumption. Also, if you go with the Hacking Deck Software Rack idea, then it naturally limits people from being able to just fill it full of booster racks, since all the good hacks are going to require software upgrades that fight for space with those booster racks. |
|
|
|
Post by Gravedust on Feb 7, 2012 11:06:48 GMT -8
If you have to put an artificial cap on something it means it isn't balanced within your framework and is a Bad Design Idea. Well, I disagree. I'd say that without caps of some nature, this game would be unbalanceable. The entire last system is filled with caps. Armor caps at 500 Mobility caps at 1000 Energy damage caps at 30 Rail damage caps at 50 Shield strength caps at 100 Capacity caps at 100 There are hidden caps inside the hacking system. There is no -5 to movement, even though there is room on the scale for it. The list keeps truckin', and there are reasons for those caps to be where they are. So if you to consider the design of the entire game to be bad then that's fine I guess. But if it's a difference between: Saying that Shields cost 2 per point and 100 is your max shield strength. Or Making sure that shields can't go over 100 via design limitation (increasing their cost to 7 per point, so you run out of points before you get to what I consider is the unbalanced extent.. but now a 30-shield costs 210) Or Uncapping shields altogether and watching people drop armor in favor of 300-strength shield generators which perform approximately the same function but are cheaper and smaller than the equivalent amount of armor, with the prerequisite that you bring enough of a defensive deck to make shield dumps unlikely to succeed. Or some other unexpected use that's outside of the design intention. Shields aren't the best example of this because there are counters in place to deal with large shields, but imagine this same effect with uncapped Mobility or something similar. I think the first option is both the simplest and most effective, especially given that most pods won't reach or want 100 shields anyway under normal circumstances. I do think caps are unideal, and like I mentioned I do try to avoid them or make them 'invisible' (unreachable under non min-maxed situations) but in some for, or other they are probably necessary in order to achieve balance in a reasonably controllable manner. ================================================================== I understand the objections and problems with my first suggestion, but that was more a personal thing. I'm just not a fan of the "risk/reward" system as currently instituted on Hacking, so that's why I suggested a new one. But, as you've said, that goes against what you were trying for with Hacking, so I'm not too heartbroken that it's not going to get it's time to shine. ================================================================== Yeah, that's just the way I happen to like it and I think it adds a bit to the strategery, so I do want to keep it in. ================================================================== As for the booster racks thing, I was thinking on it, and I've come up with (what I think) an elegant solution for it. Booster racks require extra resources. If you want to get the +20, +50, +whatever bonus, it costs energy and has a sig boost, to correspond to the additional hardware being used. In fact, you could even tie those into the deck's actual hacking bonus. This would mean that a top-of-the-line +50 deck would require a ton of extra energy to get any boost from a booster rack, and cause a huge sig spike, while a meager +20 deck would require much more modest energy consumption. Also, if you go with the Hacking Deck Software Rack idea, then it naturally limits people from being able to just fill it full of booster racks, since all the good hacks are going to require software upgrades that fight for space with those booster racks. ================================================================== The immediate concern is that the stats for the increased energy used and sig generated would need to be recorded somewhere on the unit card, and hacking's card is already pretty crowded. I also still have concerns over whether the added complexity of the proposed system is worth its effect, or even if I really like the effect (Hybrids become more effective, but they're stuck spamming the same hack because they'll probably only invest enough into their deck to make those 1 or 2 specialized hacks of choice effective.) The rest of the low-level hacks would probably be out of their ability to land successfully. To me this is the major unwanted symptom of the proposed system. The other thing is that the units that would need to use the boosters (Hybrids, theoretically) would be doing so at a reduction of their overall effectiveness (Increased sig gen and energy consumption) then Pureblood hackers. If the point is to elevate Hybrids to the point where they can land hacks with fewer points invested, this may not accomplish that goal, since it adds penalties elsewhere (the necessity of a larger reactor to handle increased power costs, or the loss of options because their deck consumes more power than normal.) For instance lets say you land the hack but now you have less energy left to fire or recharge shields. If you're running a 'lean' (just enough energy to run your hack system) pod then you need to increase your reactor and capacitor to accommodate the energy draw, which costs points. The added Sig limits the effectiveness as well, though to a lesser extent. The magnitude of the penalties becomes a serious sticking point. Too light and the Purebloods will use them anyway, too heavy and they'll outweigh the benefits they provide to hybrids. |
|
|
|
Post by captainfoo on Feb 7, 2012 12:47:31 GMT -8
Actually, I must have missed this. This is much better than artificially limiting the amount of effect you could go for. It feels more like a natural outgrowth of the system, and its a consequence of getting your balance closer to correct. If you had the magnitude factor set too low (e.g. 3) and it's too powerful at the higher level, then it makes sense to increase the factor so it becomes capped by the rest of your system mechanics (d100 roll, max skill, deck bonus) than by an arbitrary cap (maximum magnitude selection).
For the record, I'm not sure I like this system any better than one with designated hack levels, but I wanted to draw attention to the differentiation between arbitrary mechanical cap and caps that are natural outgrowths of the system.
Well you have to have some sort of framework. Right now the basics are Cost (Max 700) Armor (Max 500) and Mobility (Max 1000). Frankly, the mobility system needs some serious reworking, and I think that was going to be included in your pod class setup. Armor may not need to have a cap, depending on how the new design mechanics work out - it's no use being a solid wall of armor if you can barely move or shoot. And I know weapons are up for a redesign anyway.
The only cap that is probably strictly necessary is the cost cap; that's a pod's basic descriptor, and the mechanic which everything else works off of. Now, other caps (such as weapon damage/range, armor, capacity, etc.) may improve gameplay. But maybe not, and I'd like to see the edge cases in an uncapped system and see if the underlying mechanics can be adjusted in ways that make everything work out as desired.
You may not, I suppose. But the system will feel more natural and less clunky if what caps do exist are derived from more basic system parameters, rather than artificial caps on certain mechanics.
|
|
|
|
Post by bruceski on Feb 7, 2012 14:06:00 GMT -8
I haven't really thought about this enough to chime in with technical issues, but I like the idea of support hacks. Right now Gravedust does have to worry about managing a whole team of pods, but a hacker really lives or dies via communication with teammates, and that can add a different complication. "I want to help Bob's accuracy so I need to find out what he's shooting so I can hack it. Ok, he's shooting brown 3 so I'll hack brown 3. Now Joe's crunched some numbers and says we should shoot brown 4 instead, but both Bob and I are waffling about the switch because deadline's in an hour and we don't know if the other guy will switch too in time..."
If a hacker could, for example, have the option to say "hack the evasion on Bob's cannon target" and be done with it, that would simplify things. It would need to be simple, allowing qualifiers like "hack any target in range getting shot by 2 or more other people" makes more work for Gravedust, which isn't the point.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainfoo on Feb 7, 2012 15:47:41 GMT -8
doublepost, see below
(worst snype ever)
|
|
|
|
Post by captainfoo on Feb 7, 2012 15:48:15 GMT -8
Bruceki, that's a pretty good option for asynchronous play (like a forum!) It doesn't have a lot to do with the fundamental rules of the game though, and is pretty much up to whoever's running the game - in this case, Gravedust - what level of fuzziness they will allow in their orders.
|
|
captainbravo
Full Member
Vhiki readies Flame Breath!
Posts: 140
|
Post by captainbravo on Feb 7, 2012 19:23:47 GMT -8
Also, support hacks would work more as adding breadth to your choices. So if Blue 4 is under fire from four different pods, instead of hacking the accuracy out of one, or disabling one's guns, you can instead apply an evasion boost to Blue 4, and get the same effect.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainfoo on Feb 8, 2012 6:41:54 GMT -8
Also, support hacks would work more as adding breadth to your choices. So if Blue 4 is under fire from four different pods, instead of hacking the accuracy out of one, or disabling one's guns, you can instead apply an evasion boost to Blue 4, and get the same effect. So you're effectively able to replace four an arbitrary number of hack decks with one. That's something that needs to be very carefully looked at. |
|
|
|
Post by istvun on Feb 8, 2012 10:58:00 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) I think the big problem with missiles is that the sensor skill is just flat-out bad at making missiles hit. If you're a railgun pilot and you're putting 100 points into accuracy, for example, you'll basically always be hitting the other guy. Sure, there's evasion and there's no anti-sensor skill, but either the entire other team dumped their points into that or you can't not miss them, especially since the size/distance vs. signature bonuses to hit seem generally favor gunnery. It almost seems like a dedicated missile boat is best served by slapping one giant missile onto the best hacking suite they can afford and putting all their points into hacks. Without sig-spiking, there's essentially no way that you'll ever be getting above maybe 45% to hit, from what we've seen, and by the second turn of sig-spiking, you're probably around that range, with the odds of success only getting better from there. |
|
|
|
Post by captainfoo on Feb 8, 2012 11:56:04 GMT -8
From SA:
I think I know what you're doing with this, (sig/resolution + constant) but realize that for every other component system in the game, bigger numbers are better. Damage, Signature Reduction, Energy Reduction, Recoil Reduction. Having a wart like that is un-necessary and ugly. I think the concept is good, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by disastranagant on Feb 8, 2012 18:34:35 GMT -8
Honestly, if you want people to care about their sig you should make some flavor of that targeting gadget standard equipment. Such a mechanic only matters when riding the snake is a really bad idea unless you're dead anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainfoo on Feb 8, 2012 19:22:32 GMT -8
Honestly, if you want people to care about their sig you should make some flavor of that targeting gadget standard equipment. Such a mechanic only matters when riding the snake is a really bad idea unless you're dead anyway. Agreed. |
|
|
|
Post by Gravedust on Feb 8, 2012 23:07:33 GMT -8
============================================================================================================================================
If a hacker could, for example, have the option to say "hack the evasion on Bob's cannon target" and be done with it, that would simplify things. It would need to be simple, allowing qualifiers like "hack any target in range getting shot by 2 or more other people" makes more work for Gravedust, which isn't the point.
==========================================================================================================================================
Yeah the cooperation between hackers and the other team member is a little strained, since people aren't always available to respond to one another immediately.
I do automatically arrange the order of play so that hackers go first no matter what order their orders are in, so the others don't miss the benefits/openings created by a hack... So it's possible for a hacker to slip their orders in just before deadline or once it's been decided what everyone else is going to be doing.. So far it seems like this is working out okay.
Conditionals I try to minimize for this game, because it sometimes results in me having to make judgement calls for the players, (For instance with the one above, what if there were 2 targets being shot by multiple people, who do I then apply the hack to?) which puts me in a tough spot sometimes because I have insider knowledge on the enemy's battle plan and it's easy to suspect/accuse me of choosing based on what would benefit my side.
But yeah, making calls for the players is sort of a no-win so I try to avoid it (like the plague) whenever possible.
=========================================================
Also, support hacks would work more as adding breadth to your choices. So if Blue 4 is under fire from four different pods, instead of hacking the accuracy out of one, or disabling one's guns, you can instead apply an evasion boost to Blue 4, and get the same effect.
((and related comments))
-=========================================================
I do like the concept of buffs, but they're going to need to be implemented with a lot of care. I'm not going to even start to work into specifics just yet, there's still a lot that needs to be done to get the system as it is working. I'll consider this more seriously later, but for now it's at the bottom of a very long To Do list.
============================================================================================================
I think I know what you're doing with this, (sig/resolution + constant) but realize that for every other component system in the game, bigger numbers are better. Damage, Signature Reduction, Energy Reduction, Recoil Reduction. Having a wart like that is un-necessary and ugly. I think the concept is good, though.
==================================================
Ja, I know, and do I try to avoid stuff like that. I even call out the fact that Sensitivity is different than normal stats in the explanation. But I went with it because it was the cleaner way to do it compared to something like:
[Sig/5] x [Sensitivity]
Or to be fair:
[Sig/10] x [Sensitivity]
(and have the sensitivity scale go to 10)
I actually had considered doing it that way.
But division gives us a 1 step vs. a 2 step equation. Inconsequential in the short run but if you're dealing with a lot of them over a game it adds up, and the Targeter equation would be part of every direct shot fired by every pod with one. It was my feeling that bucking the general trend of bigger = better was worth not adding extra work when it comes to game time.
But, you might be pleased to note that for the newer system I was thinking of abstracting targeter mechanics since everything else is going to be simplified anyway. We aren't going to be concerned with the level of detail that we once were, and the division method actually becomes more precise than we need.
Sens would go from 1-10 and the equation isn't an equation anymore; it becomes an instruction:
"Round Sig down to the nearest 10 place (69 = 6) then multiply by Sensitivity."
((edit:: Bollocks that's not correct, as written. I need a cleaner way to put that, but you see what I mean, 64 sig becomes 6 then you multiply by your sens. 6 x 5 = 30, or whatever. I'd fix it soit looks nice but I need sleeep...))
Very close to the method I mentioned earlier. It's back to a two-step which I don't like but at least it's one people can do in their heads most of the time, (multiplying two single digit numbers) and it maintains the bigger = better status quo.
Anyway, the point was that I do try to keep things consistent, the fact that every other component follows bigger = better is no accident. It's just that sometimes the benefits of doing things differently in one or two cases outweigh the value of keeping everything uniform at all costs.
So I agree that it's not ideal. But I think its choosing the lesser to two evils. (Single exception to the norm where stats are concerned vs. increased PITA during gameplay) It will probably change anyway, so we'll see how it goes.
=================================================================================================
Honestly, if you want people to care about their sig you should make some flavor of that targeting gadget standard equipment. Such a mechanic only matters when riding the snake is a really bad idea unless you're dead anyway.
=================================================================================================
Mm-hmmn. I've considered that too. I'm trying it as a separate component first, since I don't want to add more work to every direct fire (hereafter called DF) roll if I don't have to. If it's still not enough then enemy sig will just become a permanent part of the DF roll, no special gadgets required. But I'm hoping that between the missile changes and the targeters the problem will take care of itself.
The positive aspects of a sig-including DF roll would be it would put a higher emphasis on sig management at the podbuilding and piloting levels, to a greater or lesser extent depending on what we set the bonus as. Targeters could still be present under that system as well but instead of adding the sig bonus feature to DF rolls they would just be enhancing it. (Normal effect x2, x3, etc.) Missiles would lose a bit of favorability as their role is now partially shared with most other weapons, though they handle Sig a lot more effectively at a base level and have the advantage of not being effected by shooting rules so they shouldn't be totally eclipsed.
It's not a bad substitution at all, except for adding extra work to the DF rolls and removing a bit of the nuance out of squad makeup. (As some measure of anti-sig is now inherent, there's a lesser need to make sure you have sufficient anti-sig units to prevent your enemies from being able to ignore sig management while you still have to observe it, which was a factor of the old system. You also needed to prevent the enemy from eliminating all your anti-sig units, as this would again allow them to ignore sig control while you still had to observe it. The unfortunate side effect of making missiles easier to mount is that eliminating all anti-sig on one side should become far more difficult, which negates the usefulness of that particular hat-trick.) But I'll still try to get things to work with missiles and targeters before resorting to the blanket solution.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainfoo on Feb 9, 2012 12:18:12 GMT -8
Nimby on SA posted: Seeing as getting damaged by energy weapons/cannons/artillery and all should pretty much heat up a pod, could taking damage increase sig? Would make missiles more dangerous when combined with other pods, they deal the damage to weaken an enemy and increase his sig, the missiles take care of the runners? It makes thematic sense, no idea if it'd make gameplay sense. Something to consider... E: And the response from Gravedust: |
|
|
|
Post by captainfoo on Feb 10, 2012 10:14:27 GMT -8
To address this point: Why not, say, double the accuracy per sig for missiles? That way, given an ideal pilot (giving 33% base accuracy), you'd only need 34 more sig to guarantee missile strikes?
After typing that out, it seems too powerful, given the amount of sig currently generated - some pods could easily put that out in a single turn. On the other hand, it might lead to a re-jiggering of the sig generation numbers, so that overall sig generation is lower, but noisy weapons are a bigger deal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gravedust on Feb 10, 2012 14:05:26 GMT -8
Looks like you kind of answered your own question, but to elaborate:
Imagine a gun in Halo (or your FPS of choice) that has a 70% chance of hitting you regardless of where you are or what you're doing.
Kind of lame because it doesn't matter what you do, dude's gonna hit you if he has that gun. 70% is 70%. All the guy has to do is pull the trigger, there's no skill required at all on his end.
Missiles are basically that, except how high the % chance that you're going to be hit is ultimately up to you, the pilot. The skill required is on -your- side, to keep your sig reasonable so you don't become missile bait.
Missiles are specifically designed to be ineffective against people at the low sig range, their job is punish people who fail at not being missile bait by letting themselves get too hot.
So it's a question of how hot is 'too hot', and when do we start punishing people?
Personally I'd shoot a small missile anytime I can, just because they're cheap enough to waste on a 30% chance or even less.
I'd shoot a bigger missile (40-50 damage) at around 50% (that's 20 Sig if you're max sensors)
At 70% or higher I'd throw anything I've got. (that's 40 sig with max sensors)
Obviously the old rate of sig gain was too low for the faster online missions. Doubling the sig gain/decay means that sig should build up twice as fast. (Not entirely true, 2 x 0 = 0, but I'll cover that later)
Let's look at some missions to see who hits what rate when. I haven't got a lot of time so I'll just use the last round of the missions we've seen so far. I wouldn't call any of these an ideal case for analysis for various reasons, but it's better than pure guesstimation. You can always mock up sig rate averages for different pods on your own if you want to do your own comparison.
MISSION 1: (6 rounds)
Not going to bother tracking the MizCo units. they don't really live long and they have light weapons which generate very little sig naturally anyway. But I'll do normalized rates bases on each pod firing it's usual
weapons once per round.
Revanche: 18
Goblin: 12
Ravager: 0-24 (depending on burst size)
-----
UNIT 1: (Will o wisp) : 47 Sig <-- anomalous, decks generated 8 sig each,)
UNIT 2: (Arclite): 35 Sig
UNIT 3: (Soverign) 33 Sig
UNIT 4: (Selkis) 19 sig
UNIT 5: (Melee) 10 Sig
UNIT6: (Melee) 4 Sig
With doubled sig rates in effect these sig levels would be reached at round 3. (This is of course a gross approximation, but it should be accurate-ish.)
=========================================================
MISSION 2 (7 rounds)
RED1: (danmaku) 3 Sig
RED2: (balthezar) 8 sig
RED3: (Reaper) 20 Sig
(These results somewhat anomalous, most of these units did a lot of maneuvering and little shooting, with the exception of R3.)
UNIT1: (Vesuvius) 35 Sig
UNIT2: (Danmaku)60 Sig
UNIT3: (DoG) 9 Sig
UNIT4: (Fatman) 78 Sig
UNIT5: (Selkis) 48 Sig
UNIT6: (Reaper) 38 Sig
Under doubled rates these results occur on round 4 (You'd better believe I was aching to put a missile unit on the map, but the reinforcement roll was merciless)
=========================================================
MISSION 3 (13 rounds)
Again we run into the problem with tracking MizCo Pods that are always getting killed but mleh. let's use the average and assume they were out the whole time and shot every round:
Revanche: 39
Goblin: 26
Ravager: 0-52 (depending on burst size)
((Hmm I might need to adjust my preheating average for reinforcements…))
The RED pods spent a lot of time sitting around, the Culverin is capable of shooting it's artillery compliment without ever actually gaining sig, (and did) but the Gladius managed to work up 15 sig in the couple of rounds of combat it was in.
UNIT1: (Krab) 0 sig (just got on the board, had a low-sig cannon)
UNIT2: (NNWAV) 90 Sig (+12 per turn)
UNIT3: (Arty/hacker) I forget but it was in the 80's I think (+15 per artillery shot, I remember that)
UNIT4: (Soverign 2) 95 Sig (+15 per turn)
UNIT5: (Gladius) 39 per turn (Decently sig efficient, fought the whole time)
UNIT5: (Bluescreen) 40 Sig
BLACK1 ignores normal mechanics
BLACK2: (Achilles) Sig 11 (didn't do much, jumped a bit)
BLACK3: (Arclite) 0 Sig (Didn't do much)
BLACK 4:(Reaper)45 Sig (jumped a lot and shot most turns)
So these rates would be reached at around Round 7. This isn't a great example though since a lot of the player pods ran really hot. But again I couldn't capitalize on the sky-high sig because only MizCo was allowed reinforcements and the only missile unit they have is the Goblin which mounts a very light one.
===================================================================================
Anyway.. Long story short, it appears that most units will hit their missile-usability threshold around Round 4 or so, which ought to be fast enough to have missiles to have an effect but not overwhelmingly quickly. I do expect missions to be getting longer from here on out by the way…
So I think it should be fine to keep the sig efficiency how it is… at [Sig x 2] it would take in some cases only 2 rounds before a unit hits its 70% hit threshold, (and even 10 sig gives a 53% chance of a hit) which I feel is too soon. One or two rounds of hard fighting/maneuvering should be okay, but keeping that pace up for long should be dangerous and require a pilot to back off a little.
It probably also needs to be said that zero-sig weapons will be an impossibility under the new system. That's part of the reason I said that the double gain/decay wouldn't be a total solution. Pods with a surplus build sig twice as fast, but pods that are ninja (bleed of more sig than they generate on the average round) will be able to camp at zero. That creates a big divide between the two and actually puts -too much- emphasis on sig management on the design side, having weapons that generate >10 sig in total would be a very large benefit.
Achieving a ninja pod will probably still be possible in the new version, but limited to light weapons and at significant cost elsewhere since those weapons would have to be inefficient in terms of energy and power/range/recoil/focus/etc. to fit in the required sig reduction. Ideally more of a niche.
While we're on the subject I -am- considering the option to allow an action that increases sig dissipation, (No actions that turn = Double sig reduction) but my fear is that backline units who can better afford to strategically sit out a turn (since they aren't always under attack) could make far better use of it than frontline units who have to maneuver for better cover or to avoid hostile units.
A counter to this would be to make weapons that backline units favor (Hacking/missiles/arty) generate a LOT more sig then they presently do in order to 'force' units using them to stealth-rest every few turns to avoid ludicrously high sig. I do actually like that idea.
This could be achieved by having the 'heavy' versions of those weapon classes generate an extraordinary amount of sig while the medium and light versions are more reasonable.
BUT. This has to be done very carefully to prevent the dilution of these weapons usefulness/damage output if they can only be fired 2/3 or even 1/2 of turns, which could lead to a 'sledgehammer' effect (basically requiring them to do way more damage than originally intended in order to keep up with the fact they can't be used as often) which might not be appropriate for those weapon systems.
Once I get more into the building system I can see how viable it actually is.
Depending on the feasibility of the 'resting' mechanic for backline units I could introduce a hardpoint component (EM dissipator or whatever.) that can be used via an Action to lower some amount of Sig. It would be an option for frontline units that can't afford to spend a turn doing nothing. It would have limited charges.
Also the 'buff' system proposed earlier could have an effect that lowers Sig by a certain (reasonable) amount every round when used on a friendly unit.
Anyway. All things for the future…
Dammit I've been typing when I should have been working on the mission map.
*sigh*
|
|
|
|
Post by captainfoo on Feb 10, 2012 16:29:58 GMT -8
<snip> Achieving a ninja pod will probably still be possible in the new version, but limited to light weapons and at significant cost elsewhere since those weapons would have to be inefficient in terms of energy and power/range/recoil/focus/etc. to fit in the required sig reduction. Ideally more of a niche. While we're on the subject I -am- considering the option to allow an action that increases sig dissipation, (No actions that turn = Double sig reduction) but my fear is that backline units who can better afford to strategically sit out a turn (since they aren't always under attack) could make far better use of it than frontline units who have to maneuver for better cover or to avoid hostile units. A counter to this would be to make weapons that backline units favor (Hacking/missiles/arty) generate a LOT more sig then they presently do in order to 'force' units using them to stealth-rest every few turns to avoid ludicrously high sig. I do actually like that idea. This is probably a bad idea, nobody likes being forced to not do their 'cool thing.' I know I'd try to lean off the BattleTech comparisons, but: I can't think of a single mech that will start overheating if it fires its main gun every turn (or even a couple of them at higher heat capacities). Often a 'Mech must choose between one of several "main" systems, or one big gun vs a variety of smaller guns, or some such. But 'Mechs can mount an arbitrary number of weapons, and Pods can mount four at most and fire three independent systems every turn at most. So there's a bit of a difference.This could be achieved by having the 'heavy' versions of those weapon classes generate an extraordinary amount of sig while the medium and light versions are more reasonable. Regardless of the specific sig mechanic I would assume this to be the case.BUT. This has to be done very carefully to prevent the dilution of these weapons usefulness/damage output if they can only be fired 2/3 or even 1/2 of turns, which could lead to a 'sledgehammer' effect (basically requiring them to do way more damage than originally intended in order to keep up with the fact they can't be used as often) which might not be appropriate for those weapon systems. While I don't agree with forcing people to not fire their big gun every round, I really disagree with your contention that the "sledgehammer" damage is a bad thing. DPS is generally a decent way of balancing damage output.Once I get more into the building system I can see how viable it actually is. True.Depending on the feasibility of the 'resting' mechanic for backline units I could introduce a hardpoint component (EM dissipator or whatever.) that can be used via an Action to lower some amount of Sig. It would be an option for frontline units that can't afford to spend a turn doing nothing. This is probably a better idea than "do nothing" = "cool down."It would have limited charges. I would assume a Countermeasures component would have an ammo cost, just like everything else that you have limited use of.Also the 'buff' system proposed earlier could have an effect that lowers Sig by a certain (reasonable) amount every round when used on a friendly unit. Maybe, but I'd look long and hard at buffs in general. As explained above, they can easily have a multiplicative effect |
|
|
|
Post by Gravedust on Feb 10, 2012 18:37:12 GMT -8
Yarr, if it makes you feel any better I am leaning away from any kind of 'enforced rest' kind of a setup.
The part I like about double sig reduction on no action was the need to make your pod vulnerable in order to gain an extra effect, as a bit of added strategery, but the part where it'd be more useful to backline units than frontline units I don't like very much. Backline units need -more- to worry about, not less, generally, they're pretty safe most of the time. So the tweaks needed to make it work probably aren't worth it when more or less the same effect can be gotten in other ways.
And yep, the amount of reduction and the number of charges would be variables in a countermeasure unit.
It's really tough to talk about the buff system in detail since so little work has been done on it so far, but I can say the overall intent is for it to be more 'band-aid' than 'tourniquet'. Something that is a minor benefit over a number of turns, rather than a sudden 'pull your bacon completely out of the fire' thing. It would definitely not have the same scale of positive effects as hacking does negative. (I am considering it as a different class than hacking, by the way.)
It's worth noting also that the effect that reduces sig from one unit would definitely generate sig in the unit giving that effect. (or any other buff for that matter) so a 'helper' unit would find itself building up sig/aggro quickly. Other restrictions such as having to have line-of-sight to your intended aid target, or having to be within a certain distance (a'la ETK's Beowulf bonus) could make things more interesting as well by requiring helpers be closer to the front line and/or exposed to fire. I think with the right balance it could be a fun role to play. Balance will be key though, I think it could be one of those things where the line between 'useless' and 'overpowered' could be pretty thin.
But anyway, I really don't want to get into it much at all since there's so much that needs to be done before we even start on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainfoo on Feb 12, 2012 18:20:31 GMT -8
It's actually the greater of the two; you're actively violating one of your design goals by making that decision.
You made a design decision based on "what's slightly more convenient on the back-end" rather than on "what's consistent with the system." Needless math is bad, in this case it's necessary.
|
|
