HuntingX HuntingX

1.03 Balance, Design, Concept, and Discussion

1.03 Balance, Design, Concept, and Discussion

I would prefer if Frogboy would respond

I'm not going to sit here bashing 1.03.

It's unconstructive, and despite my personal beliefs, that's not the purpose of this thread.

This thread is simply to understand the basis for the changes.

I think we can all agree that some of the changes were clearly mistakes and unintended.

The accidental change on ally speak, for instance, is incredibly annoying, but clearly a mistake.  The devs will fix that asap.  This is not an issue.

The devs have NOT yet admitted that the Black Market fix is a mistake.  Let's go over in detail why it is:

It is now essentially a 1 resource economy.  To quickly see why, note how easy it is to produce credits (independent of allegiance), compared to other resources.  Further, consider that the ability to buy endless quantities at the base price essentially puts credits at 3-1 vs minerals, and everything else equal, you should have at least 5 or 6-1 credit to mineral income.  This is even more exacerbated by the decrease in extractors for the asteroids and neutrals.  By doing so, credits becomes even more dominant as the source of income.

Consequently, from a role playing/single player perspective, stardock has "dumbed down" the game to a point that it's no longer an rts or a 4x hybrid.  It's simply some mass credits mission.  This is a silly design feature, that must be changed.  The idea of a slow rise to counter mass crystal buy spam at the start is fine for the first 30 seconds - 1minute.  Then simply revert back to the old black market.   Or however the devs want to fix this major issue, that's fine by me.

In my personal opinion, I think the devs are a bit out of touch with game balance.  This may sound elitist, but I have a very good grasp of game balance.  Consider, for instance, seige frigates.  The nerf was simply due to the computer spamming too much, making the game unenjoyable.  An easy fix would be to lower the computer's reliance on such annoying tactics, and make it fight normally.  Instead, the dubious decision was made to nerf a useless unit.

In fact, siege frigates are utter crap.  To see why, note that you can rebuild your colony for the cost of a SINGLE siege frigate.  If you lose even a single siege frigate, you're breaking even on an asteroid.  If you lose 2, you're breaking even on a larger planet.  Infrastructure is 90% of the planet's value, not the planet itself.

Consequently, the nerf on siege frigates was both unnecessary and ridiculous.  If anything, they should be buffed (a lot).  Reduce their frequency in single player to compensate.  As has been already stated, it's now more efficient to make capital ships to bomb planets than it is to use siege frigates.  That's clearly a ridiculous situation.

The changes to long range frigates were for the most part alright.  I believe they WERE overpowered, and deserved a nerf.  However, the nerf to illuminators was short-sighted and somewhat ignorant.

There has been too many posts by clueless players claiming illuminators are good.  I have definitively showed multiple times that illuminators are a terrible unit.  And yet, they got nerfed harder than any other unit (with their crystal cost hike).  How is this balancing?  Please don't listen to people when their arguments are:

OMG 30 ILLUMINATORS QQ I QUIT.

I'm not saying to listen to those that scream the loudest.  On the contrary, listen to those that don't scream at all.  I believe that all my points are valid and based on sound reasoning.  If you feel a reason is wrong, please correct me.

Further, none of the points I made are specific to multiplayer or single player.  They are universal.  While I would prefer certain issues fixed, this is not the time nor place to do so.

There are large balance issues AND enjoyment issues that need to be fixed.


I will discuss the issue more in detail if/once the devs get back to me, but I would like for them to hear out the more reasonable and educated members of the community, instead of relying on raw data.

I'm again NOT saying we should only listen to the "elite" or whatever.  If there is a good sound argument for making a change to the benefit of the single player or casual crowd, but all means we should do so.

But if there's a BETTER idea that works for everyone, why not?
60,725 views 29 replies
Reply #26 Top
I love this. 'Elitists' are bad and should be ignored even when they explain things in detail, but 'SP and MP balance being different is just a fact logic'. What is a double standard of proof?

Some of the worst balance changes are made simply because the AI sucks. From a certain perspective, they're killing MP (even LAN or friendly casual games) just because the SP AI sucks. This is backwards and should not be encouraged.

Sorcereress, what do you consider changes that would be made only to benefit a small section of the community? For instance, having both useful seige frigates and AI that can use them properly is surely better than nerfing seige frigates into oblivion. Most of the changes mentioned in threads I participate in seem equally beneficial in both SP and MP: it's not like fixing the market (even just a econ 101 model that makes sense) will somehow ruin SP - I find the market extremely irritating even in SP games. I don't blanket support any and all balance 'complaints', but some posters on this forum get dogpiles with 'elitist' nonsense regardless of how valid their concerns are. I get the impression the entire concept of forum feedback regarding balance has already been poisoned - it appears almost impossible to even mention a balan issue without being pigeonholed, mocked as an 'elitist' and ignored.

It seems to me to be an anti-intellectual attitude: I've never really thought about the balance between the different LRMs, for instance, but if someone suggests with info and replays that one is better/worse/whatever, I don't instantly condemn them just because they put more thought into it than I did.
Reply #27 Top
I don't understand this whole MP and SP balance differentiation. Balance is balance. If the AI is doing bad things, you don't nerf the things the AI is building...You change the AI to use the units properly! Fix the problem, don't change the world to lessen the problem. I agree that the AI's use of siege frigates is annoying, but its still annoying in 1.03 even if its a bit less effective. On the other hand, siege frigates are now useless by any decent metric. I'll simply make another cap ship...Not only does it cost less than 4 siege frigates in supply, but it can fight in battles, level up, can bombard planets about as well as 4 siege, and has useful abilities! All for 10 less supply.

Regardless, since AI use of siege is still annoying, I would not say that change was made for SP at the cost of MP balance. I would simply say it was a badly thought out decision. Just like much of 1.03 =p. Not that I totally dislike 1.03, they are "moving" in the right direction in many ways...it was just...unfinished and not properly tested IMO.
Reply #28 Top
That's the way of patching, though, it's not intrinsically bad. The game is very new and by a small team: it's not surprising that it's going to get good and bad changes until it's somewhere a little better all over. SD has an excellent record in this regard, so I'm pretty optimistic.

I'm actually quite curious to hear what people think of when they talk about balance changes that would help 'elite' (ie, evil and bad) MP players but hurt casual SP play. I can't think of any - the worst 'elite' stuff I can think of is very slight unit tweaking, which would probably go unnoticed by most casual players. None of the stuff in innociv's mod 'ruins' SP, for instance.
Reply #29 Top
I've also been a long SD fan and I have faith IC's (frankly tiny) development staff will get things right in the end.

Regarding innociv's mod (and his post), hes a friend I talk with frequently on the sins IRC channel... I agree with 95+% of his changes, so yeah...I'd like to know what in that mod breaks SP...