6
« on: January 05, 2015, 12:20:35 PM »
I've only read the first 3 pages of replies to this, but things usually repeat after that much time anyway, the only difference being that people start to get in fights over it. That said, I'd like to mention some things that don't seem to have been covered (in what little I've read).
This whole patch (or at least the part people are going crazy over) seems to revolve around balancing. There is an attempt here to make weapons more equal and remove obvious advantages. However, I think that this may not always be a good path to take. Right now, what I'm seeing is a bid to make all weapons viable by removing extraneous systems and simplifying groups of weapons. As an alternative, four in-game systems that can offer balance solutions are Credit cost, OP cost, CR/Logistics, and scarcity/rarity.
Cost in credits:
If we're going to make all weapons equally effective, then shouldn't they all cost the same? Why even bother with pricing? I think that there is room for ineffective and overpowered weapons if prices reflect that. Maybe the zomglaz0r is far more powerful than the failcannon, but if I can only afford failcannons then I will equip them. Later, if I have lots of money, I'll have the choice between buying a new ship, weapons, and crew for it, or a zomglaz0r for my flagship. I should be able to buy power. At some point, if I'm rich enough, I should be able to afford the best. It wouldn't make much sense if I was fabulously wealthy and my famous fleet had the same mediocre weapons as every pirate rabble in the system.
Cost in Ordinance Points:
People occasionally bring up OP when discussing balance, but it doesn't seem to be much of a focus. I think OP is another fantastic way to balance weapons while maintaining diversity. If the zomglaz0r costs 25 OP to mount and the failcannons cost 4 each, then I'll have to make another choice. Do I equip a single super weapon to my ship and use it to punch out enemy ships, or do I equip several smaller weapons to provide more coverage or defense? OP is the great equalizer because if you want top-of-the-line weapons then you can't have as many hullmods or vents or capacitors or what have you. On the other hand, you could have a ship with loads of bonuses but only average weapons. If your weapons are well balanced in regards to OP, then you should have good balance overall because nobody is going to leave OP unused. They will always to so some purpose.
CR/Logistics:
"It would be un-balanced if you could crush everyone with those superior weapons!" Thanks to CR and logistics, I can't have too many battles in a row without suffering a lot. CR is a good way to rein in players and prevent aggression without consideration for consequences. Maybe objectively better weapons could have additional upkeep supply cost. If I don't keep those superconductive quantum-plasma diffuser matrices oiled, we're going to have some problems firing the zomglaz0r. Or maybe they cause ships to use more CR on deployment. Those dilithium crystals provide extra power, but they need longer to recharge. When CR was first introduced, Alex made a point of how it would provide a tie-in between the campaign and individual battles. By causing equipped weapons to have an effect on CR, you can further tie player choices into this system and make them feel the effects of their decisions. The greatest fleet in the universe would need lots of logistical support to keep things running smoothly, after all.
Scarcity:
If a weapon is considered unusually powerful compared to others, don't dumb it down or raise everything else, make it rare! I can't create an unstoppable fleet outfitted with ultimate disintegration blasters if I can't find more than two of them. I remember when Tachyon Lances were terrifying and a Paragon would make me think twice. Now the TL is situational at best and the Paragon is no longer as scary. The TL got "balanced", you see, and now it's not worth using. It was considered overpowered, and now it's nothing. It was exciting back then because it was powerful and if I wanted one, I'd have to shell out a ton of money for the only one in stock or go toe-to-toe with a Paragon and hope I lived long enough to have it drop one.
Everyone seems concerned with how these changes in 0.65.2a will affect things/ruin the game forever, but I think that these changes may be an overcomplicated attempt to bring balance without instead utilizing some of the great mechanics which are already in the game. Don't homogenize things in an attempt to bring balance, embrace diversity! Use OP and Credit costs to balance superior weapons. I don't want to play a game where my "superweapon" is as lackluster as a pirate's pop-gun. I enjoy the early-game when I don't have enough money for light autocannons so I have to buy arbalests and hope for the best. Make things unequal and force me to improvise! Make me work hard for better rewards so that they are truly rewards.
Every single faction's banner is a circle in the middle except for pirates. Not complaining, just noticing. Also blah blah, great post, new stuff blah. I'm really excited about it, actually, just don't have much to add to the discussion.