When talking about giving buffs to the underdog

QQ to your hearts content and we'll take a look at its legitimacy.

Re: When talking about giving buffs to the underdog

Postby Flatlander » Tue Feb 04, 2014 11:19 am

In the alpha (infiltrator server) I will be attempting to abuse the hell out of anything and everything I can possible abuse.

Because once this game goes live all of those issues need to be fixed.

So if it is possible to abuse ZoCs to make my army or my alliances win every battle, unless the enemy abuses them in the same way. I will be using that abuse until it is fixed.
Flatlander
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:09 am

Re: When talking about giving buffs to the underdog

Postby Lord Tyrius » Tue Feb 04, 2014 11:45 am

Yes please! Thats what Infiltrators do!
Make Sypheria do overshifts trying to make exploiters suffer!
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Need anything or have any questions? Drop me a message! (Click)
Follow me on Twitch|YouTube|Twitter
- Cheers!, Tyrius
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Lord Tyrius
User avatar
 
Posts: 2211
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 9:54 am
Location: Forums Ancient & Developer Meat Shield

Re: When talking about giving buffs to the underdog

Postby Flatlander » Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:51 pm

Lord Tyrius wrote:Yes please! Thats what Infiltrators do!
Make Sypheria do overshifts trying to make exploiters suffer!


Haha the goal isn't to cause Sypheria to die from sleep deprivation or anything.

I have thought of how cool a "MMO RTS" would be, but in my mind there was no way to make it fair and balanced.
There are basically 3 HUGE problems.
  1. Players Being Offline
    It would be unfair if the offline player was invincible, but it would also be unfair if the offline player lost everything.
    Your solution is to make Force Fields and offline losses be cheaper to replace
  2. Power Abuse
    This has always been a problem in MMOs, where more powerful players or groups pick on weaker players or groups.
    Your solution is Zones of Control, which even out individual battles and CR to limit fleet size.
  3. Bad Starting Locations
    Where you start in an RTS is probably the most important single thing in the game.
    In an MMORTS, you may be forced to start in an undesirable position, and moving your base on any RTS is equivalent to "starting from scratch".
    I guess this is some-what solved by FTL traveling to find a new base, but I assume moving your home planet would be expensive
Flatlander
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:09 am

Re: When talking about giving buffs to the underdog

Postby firespier » Tue Feb 04, 2014 1:03 pm

i dont rly see a problem with the points you stated except the 3rd point but if you just started changing location shouldnt be THAT much of a problem in terms of time investment
1. Everything which can go wrong will go wrong
2.Never underestimate human stupidness
Image
firespier
User avatar
 
Posts: 249
Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 10:29 am
Location: Cookie God

Re: When talking about giving buffs to the underdog

Postby Flatlander » Tue Feb 04, 2014 1:16 pm

firespier wrote:i dont rly see a problem with the points you stated except the 3rd point but if you just started changing location shouldnt be THAT much of a problem in terms of time investment


Well, they may not be huge issues but I can name a quick one for each that I think is currently possible in Novus AEterno.
1. Players Being Offline
Since a offline player replaces their fleet for free, and you have to be online to attack, it is like punching a brick wall. The wall takes no damage and you only succeed in hurting yourself.

2. Power Abuse
I could theorize about ways to break the ZoC system all day, but since I haven't actually attempted it yet none of them would be "factual abuses".

3. Starting Location
This is also all theory since I don't know how hard it would be to oppress a player and keep them with just their force field worlds. Or how hard it would be to find a new group of worlds to move to and start a new life. Also as a new player you might not know how bad your starting location is until you learn more about the game, and what types of players you have started near.
Flatlander
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:09 am

Re: When talking about giving buffs to the underdog

Postby firespier » Tue Feb 04, 2014 1:20 pm

as said before nomerous times
your goal isnt to destroy the enemy fleet as a militaristic player
your goal is to win which means take away his planets, destroy his industrial base and make life as miserable for him as you can
1. Everything which can go wrong will go wrong
2.Never underestimate human stupidness
Image
firespier
User avatar
 
Posts: 249
Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 10:29 am
Location: Cookie God

Re: When talking about giving buffs to the underdog

Postby Flatlander » Tue Feb 04, 2014 3:08 pm

firespier wrote:as said before nomerous times
your goal isnt to destroy the enemy fleet as a militaristic player
your goal is to win which means take away his planets, destroy his industrial base and make life as miserable for him as you can


Let me clarify,
I am a hardcore Gamer, as are most of my friends. When we play a game, we attempt to develop strategies that will get us the farthest fastest.
So when I am thinking about how to utilize my units to their maximum in any RTS, the goal is simple. Be as Cost Effective as possible.
If you can use 500 resources to destroy 5000 resources, that is a good move. If you use 5000 resources and destroy 500 resources, that is a bad move.

But if you go into specifics for NA:
  • Your fleet defends your industrial base and planets.
  • Your planets and Industry allows you to build your fleet.

So if we converted this to normal RTS terms:
Fleet = military
Planets = resources

So logically:
  • If you lose your fleet, you cannot defend your planets and industrial base. (No military to defend resources is bad)
  • If your industry is damaged, you cannot replace your fleet as quickly. (slower resource gain is even worse)
  • Snowball effect.

So using the above logic, I attack an offline player with my entire fleet, and kill half his fleet, the only one that "truly" lost anything is me (since he gets his fleet back for free). BUT if I kill his entire fleet, and then attack his planets, THAT is the only way to cause real lasting damage.
So if both of our fleets cost 10,000 resources (generic number). It means I will have to kill his entire fleet, then attack his planet and cause at least 10,000 resources worth of damage before I am EVEN, then after that it is a profitable mission.

I know in all honesty even talking about balance or being cost effective in a game that isn't yet complete is ridiculous because the actual rules of the game haven't even been created fully yet.
So everything above is just theories that may or may not be true in Novus AEterno, they are simply concerns of an RTS player.

I love the idea of this new Genre and I hope this game succeeds beyond imagination
Flatlander
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:09 am

Re: When talking about giving buffs to the underdog

Postby PerfectDeath » Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:27 pm

When we implement more HP systems into the game, losing a fleet will be a decisive victory and the loser could end up having to negotiate with the attacker and come to terms.

After the terms, both sides can rebuild to approximately equal level again, the previous victor would have a larger industrial base (which will be disrupted from the population's unrest). Having a greater industrial base would mean they can replenish losses quicker which could make it more difficult to bring them to the table to talk. Dropping soldiers on his planets or intercepting his transports will hinder their replenishment.

But most players will have to find ways to retain their fleet by withdrawing out of the ZoC if things are going badly for them. Their units can be repaired in space, but it will only repair their Systems Integrity while their Hull Integrity will be unrepairable until the unit docks for repairs. This creates a risk, if a player continues to fight with low HI, they can run the risk of their ship exploding and being unrepairable. Losing SI results in the ship being a repairable hulk.

A decisive victory is when you can either force many of his ships to explode in regards to your own, or you can disable the enemy fleet's SI and overrun the fleet to seize the ship hulks for your own repairs or salvage.

So a snowball victory is possible, but it will require some effort to not just push their fleet back, causing both sides to withdraw, repair, and fight again.
Image
support@taitale.com - kickstarter@taitale.com
I try to be on our Steam Chat as often as possible.
PerfectDeath
User avatar
Lore Master
 
Posts: 1641
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 4:09 pm
Location: Everytime an infiltrator masterbates, Sypheria crashes the server.

Re: When talking about giving buffs to the underdog

Postby Flatlander » Thu Feb 06, 2014 10:59 am

PerfectDeath wrote:When we implement more HP systems into the game, losing a fleet will be a decisive victory and the loser could end up having to negotiate with the attacker and come to terms.

After the terms, both sides can rebuild to approximately equal level again, the previous victor would have a larger industrial base (which will be disrupted from the population's unrest). Having a greater industrial base would mean they can replenish losses quicker which could make it more difficult to bring them to the table to talk. Dropping soldiers on his planets or intercepting his transports will hinder their replenishment.

But most players will have to find ways to retain their fleet by withdrawing out of the ZoC if things are going badly for them. Their units can be repaired in space, but it will only repair their Systems Integrity while their Hull Integrity will be unrepairable until the unit docks for repairs. This creates a risk, if a player continues to fight with low HI, they can run the risk of their ship exploding and being unrepairable. Losing SI results in the ship being a repairable hulk.

A decisive victory is when you can either force many of his ships to explode in regards to your own, or you can disable the enemy fleet's SI and overrun the fleet to seize the ship hulks for your own repairs or salvage.

So a snowball victory is possible, but it will require some effort to not just push their fleet back, causing both sides to withdraw, repair, and fight again.


Sounds fun, it still doesn't solve the "I attack you while you are offline and your ships are rebuilt for free" issue.
Because if ships have more health and killing fleets would be a deciding victory, then killing an offline fleet would be no victory at all.

I hate being the asshole to sit here and contradict you guys, but it's in my nature.

1) My proposition would be either 1 = make offline fleets have special ZoCs that have different rules, but killing their fleet IS STILL a decisive victory.

2) Or each CR you lose while offline will apply a buff the next time you log on, where you get huge buffs to resources and production.

This could be similar to how, if a country is attacked in the real world, usually all it's citizens are emotionally invested in the war, so they all donate and work harder for the war effort. Real World examples would be wives making musket bullets in the civil war, or all the companies that switch from making commercial cars and planes during times of peace switch over to making war machine parts.
Flatlander
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:09 am

Re: When talking about giving buffs to the underdog

Postby Veqlargh » Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:09 pm

I'm not sure how either of those options is viable. Neither will do what they are trying to accomplish.
the AI fleets are not going to be much of a challenge to a live player at the helm. Either the special ZoC is such that a human player couldn't defeat the AI because it has more ships or what ever you mean by "special" or it is buffed up a little bit but still easy to beat by a live human on the opposing side.

option 2 is under the right situation perfectly laughable, hey i just logged on and i'm getting a nice buff to my resource production....too bad i can't use it because all but 2 of my 100 planets can't do anything for me because the military has been overrun while i was offline.

no matter what we/they do not everyone is going to be 100% satisfied with what is delivered. Hopefully once we're infiltrator and they start implementing systems we can help hone them into something that will work for everyone.

They are trying to make a game that people will want to log in and play over the course of years, if a new player logs in and has no chance of expanding or holding their own they wouldn't be logging in for long. So they are trying to implement systems for a more balanced game. Just means you'll have to try harder and be better then the next guy. Or at least cause him to want to come to the negotiating table and see your side of things :)
Veqlargh
 
Posts: 77
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:51 am

PreviousNext

Return to Balancing

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests