Game Balance DISCUSSION

    Lecic

    Convicted Lancake Abuser
    Joined
    Apr 14, 2013
    Messages
    5,101
    Reaction score
    1,219
    Make hull and armors lighter. Perhaps half the weight. I think their weight creates too large of a penalty for the benefit.
    I think half would be far too much of a mass nerf. Armor is already VERY effective. A slight nerf (perhaps a mass reduction of .25 for standard and advanced?) would be nice, though.
     

    Keptick

    Building masochist
    Joined
    Sep 26, 2013
    Messages
    4,030
    Reaction score
    1,779
    I think half would be far too much of a mass nerf. Armor is already VERY effective. A slight nerf (perhaps a mass reduction of .25 for standard and advanced?) would be nice, though.
    Don't you mean a buff? Reducing armor mass would buff it, not nerf it.
     

    Keptick

    Building masochist
    Joined
    Sep 26, 2013
    Messages
    4,030
    Reaction score
    1,779
    It's a nerf to the object's mass :p
    Uh... your use of the term is slightly confusing (and wrong). Nerfing implies making something less effective/powerful/good. The reduction of a value doesn't automatically qualify as a nerf. In armor's case, reducing mass would be a buff, since it makes it more efficient.
     

    Lecic

    Convicted Lancake Abuser
    Joined
    Apr 14, 2013
    Messages
    5,101
    Reaction score
    1,219
    Nerfing implies making something less effective/powerful/good.
    No, nerfing implies reduction. Do you think that "nerfing X's cost" is an incorrect way of wording something as well?
     

    Keptick

    Building masochist
    Joined
    Sep 26, 2013
    Messages
    4,030
    Reaction score
    1,779
    No, nerfing implies reduction. Do you think that "nerfing X's cost" is an incorrect way of wording something as well?
    "In video gaming, a nerf is a change to a game that makes something less effective or desirable. The word can be used as a verb to describe that change" That quote is from wikipedia, but definitions from other sources state the same thing.

    Nerfing something's cost generally implies a price increase. Depending on the context, using that sentence could be wrong, yes. For example the NPC price of an item in an MMO being increased would be a nerf, not a buff, since it's disadvantageous for players.

    But seriously, this is completely off-topic. You just used a word wrong, it's no big deal. I was just pointing it out because your post was confusing af. You can keep arguing if you want, but it's not an argument you'll win.
     
    Last edited:

    Lecic

    Convicted Lancake Abuser
    Joined
    Apr 14, 2013
    Messages
    5,101
    Reaction score
    1,219
    Ion defensive formula currently scales off of ship's mass. Instead it should scale off of total shield blocks. So a 6000 block industry ship with 6000 shield capacity(50 blocks) doesn't need to have 300 ion modules for a useful system. Also so that all ships that have any interior or extra detail, aren't also forced to have more ion modules then their corresponding doomcube counterparts with equivalent shield size.
    You are failing to account for the fact that those 300 ion modules provide more protection than 300 shield caps would.
     
    Joined
    May 24, 2016
    Messages
    14
    Reaction score
    3
    You are failing to account for the fact that those 300 ion modules provide more protection than 300 shield caps would.
    I'll check my math. ~98 per sheild cap module.
    98*300=29,100 hit points.

    you need 5% of the ships mass to achieve the full 60% bonus from ion systems. so its 6000 blocks. thats about 300 for 5%.
    That's the full 60% bonus! The ship has 6000 shield. So 60% of 6000 would be 3,600.

    Conclution:
    300 Cap modules. +29,100
    300 Ion modules +3600

    I know that rechargeres make the math a lot more complicated. But here is the simple version.
    The ship has a 50 module shield system. 300 ion modules give it a 60% bonus. Because of its large mass.
    The ship has a 50 module shield system. 300 cap modules give it a 650% bouns. It's now a 350 shield system. 7 times larger.

    In any case, The issue of 300 caps or 300 ion being better will always exist regardless of whether the formula uses mass or number of shield modules. Having the ion formula effect shields, but be based on something entirely different creates strange cases where it effects the shields too much or two little. The only reasons I can imagine they choose mass rather than shield modules is because, one it was rushed and easier since they use that same formula on most effects., two, less likely, they want armor ships to struggle to gain more shield through ions than an equivalently sized standard hull ship. I say that is less likely, because if they wanted it to scale off armor HP they would have choose to use armor HP instead of mass.

    Unless I've mistaken the purpose of the ion system and it's only meant for low mass, fast moving, high shield ships(doomcubes) to combat sluggishly powerful armor ships that are dominating the PVP scene. (I know nothing about pvp as I hate doomcubes) In which case, i'd like to know and would happily withdraw the proposal. But I am dead set on a useful slowing offensive system utilizing the useless effect, Stop.
     
    Last edited:

    Lecic

    Convicted Lancake Abuser
    Joined
    Apr 14, 2013
    Messages
    5,101
    Reaction score
    1,219
    I'll check my math. ~98 per sheild cap module.
    98*300=29,100 hit points.

    you need 5% of the ships mass to achieve the full 60% bonus from ion systems. so its 6000 blocks. thats about 300 for 5%.
    That's the full 60% bonus! The ship has 6000 shield. So 60% of 6000 would be 3,600.

    Conclution:
    300 Cap modules. +29,100
    300 Ion modules +3600
    Alright, first off, shield caps run off this formula. Shields = CapacitorCount * 0.9791797578 * 110 + 220. Which means that your 50 shield caps are actually 5605 shields.
    Secondly, that's not how the math for ion works. You don't take 60% of your shield capacitor number. You multiply the shields by the inverse of the armor. So, 5605 * (100/60) = 9,341.
    Which means the "conclution" is really...
    300 Cap modules. +32,532
    300 Ion modules. +3,736


    Now that that's out of the way. What your problem is is that you have way too few capacitors on your ship. 50 capacitors on a 6000 block ship is only 0.8% of the blocks! I don't think any of my armor tanks have such incredibly low %s. Ion is not meant to be used on ships with such incredibly low %s of shield caps.
    Let's look at a ship of the same size with a more reasonable shield capacitor count. How does 10% of the ship, 600 blocks, sound? That's 64,845 shields by default.
    Now, let's add up ion vs shields.
    300 Cap modules. +32,532
    300 Ion modules. +43,230

    Would you look at that. It's almost like your ship was poorly designed for use with ion.

    Ion is better than shields, block per block, except at incredibly low shield capacitor to mass ratios, and it only gets better as you add more shields to your vessel.

    Unless I've mistaken the purpose of the ion system and it's only meant for low mass, fast moving, high shield ships(doomcubes)
    Yes, you have definitely mistaken the purpose of the ion system. However, it is not meant only for a class of ship you have insultingly implied can only be doomcubes. It is useful on any ship that isn't a pure armor tank.

    Learn how systems work before you try and change them.
     

    Master_Artificer

    Press F to pay respects
    Joined
    Feb 17, 2015
    Messages
    1,588
    Reaction score
    611
    I think we should remove the power softcap on stations.
    And remove the ability to have swarm logic on them. (build turrets damnit!)

    Might bring us spaceforts that are viable and super tanky without being super laggy.
    Shoot just forgot you cannot have passive effects on stations.

    COUNCILORS, FIX THAT!
    Then we can talk about stations that can actually defend stuff.
     
    Joined
    Jun 27, 2013
    Messages
    894
    Reaction score
    161
    Reduce effectiveness of warheads against stations and docked ships entities.

    Rationale: A single, low effort power stick below 500 mass can easily incapacitate an entire station's turret by ramming it with a 200m long prod of warheads while their users are offline with no counterplay. (As warheads do not declare war, and stations cannot scan to reveal the enemy)
    Counterproposal: Buff warheads to actually make them useful, and implement countermeasures for the stated use case; ie.
    • declare war upon being hit by a warhead (or just detecting an active warhead within scanner range)
    • make scanners work on stations/with logic activation
    • implement better station protection mechanics
    There have been multiple threads for each and every one of these suggestions.
    [DOUBLEPOST=1466002714,1466000928][/DOUBLEPOST]With kind permission I'll replicate this private conversation here:

    -----------

    Mortiferum said:
    A large scale mechanics change is much harder to get than a bandaid which I proposed. (ESPECIALLY in that thread where large changes will be pushed back infinitely)

    The bandaid will make stations usable, at least in the short run before better alternatives can arrive.
    Undeniably so, you're right about the short term bandaids, but I think it's better not to move in the wrong direction first, even only as a bandaid, because these are basic gameplay issues that need to be addressed, and soon.

    -----------

    Mortiferum said:
    True, my real gripe is that all efforts of a faction to make a defensive station is rendered null and void by a 300m long cattle prod. :/
    I understand your frustration, but since it's not within the scope of a simple config change to selectively disable warheads against stations, I think a full-on approach with a broad scope is required to address the underlying problems.

    In the meantime I'd suggest discussing this with the respective server owner(s) and see if they will nerf or completely disable warheads if that is a common issue on your server(s).
     

    Master_Artificer

    Press F to pay respects
    Joined
    Feb 17, 2015
    Messages
    1,588
    Reaction score
    611
    So what are councilers opinions and stuff they are pushing for right now?
     

    Lecic

    Convicted Lancake Abuser
    Joined
    Apr 14, 2013
    Messages
    5,101
    Reaction score
    1,219
    Maybe more...
    Imagine.


    But seriously that sounds stupid high.
    Wrong thread, dude.

    Anyway, no, it's not really that high, since one tick can only break one armor block, and it's still got the same DPS, just spread out more.
     

    Master_Artificer

    Press F to pay respects
    Joined
    Feb 17, 2015
    Messages
    1,588
    Reaction score
    611
    Wrong thread, dude.

    Anyway, no, it's not really that high, since one tick can only break one armor block, and it's still got the same DPS, just spread out more.
    But the game struggles when people use explosive cannon cannon waffles, this will still create issues.

    We need a different mechanic like on how beams work.
    Maybe when they hitscan an object, they count out how many blocks they drew a line through and divide the beams damage equally amoung blocks touched by it, no ticks just one raycast.
    It would certianly give the feel of beams slicing through ships.
    Issue arising that it would just totally be overpowered but its somethin'.
     

    Lecic

    Convicted Lancake Abuser
    Joined
    Apr 14, 2013
    Messages
    5,101
    Reaction score
    1,219
    But the game struggles when people use explosive cannon cannon waffles, this will still create issues.

    We need a different mechanic like on how beams work.
    Maybe when they hitscan an object, they count out how many blocks they drew a line through and divide the beams damage equally amoung blocks touched by it, no ticks just one raycast.
    It would certianly give the feel of beams slicing through ships.
    Issue arising that it would just totally be overpowered but its somethin'.
    Considering how the game can handle dozens to hundreds of salvage beams all ticking at 40 ticks per second at once without issue, I think we'll be fine.
     
    Joined
    Feb 1, 2016
    Messages
    299
    Reaction score
    84
    Considering how the game can handle dozens to hundreds of salvage beams all ticking at 40 ticks per second at once without issue, I think we'll be fine.
    I don't know what kind of NASA computer you are using, but when I mine my fps is almost always cut to a quarter.
     

    Master_Artificer

    Press F to pay respects
    Joined
    Feb 17, 2015
    Messages
    1,588
    Reaction score
    611
    I don't know what kind of NASA computer you are using, but when I mine my fps is almost always cut to a quarter.
    Huh, my craptop doesnt have any fps issues when mining unless it is like a planet eater
     
    Joined
    Mar 15, 2014
    Messages
    235
    Reaction score
    68
    Game balance, eh? This is really easy...

    1) let the players tweak it however they want.
    2) fix beams
    3) fix NPC / AI factions outside just -1 and -2
    4) let the players tweak it however they want

    See how easy that was?