| Author |
Enhancements |
Ants
Chief Marshal
Joined: February 11, 2005
Posts: 315
From: Canada
|  Posted: 2011-09-28 11:21
Moved this to a new topic:
Quote:
|
On 2011-09-28 10:56, Kenny_Naboo[+R] wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2011-09-28 08:35, Fatal Ants (XO) wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2011-09-19 11:50, Kenny_Naboo[+R] wrote:
IMO, an acceptable tradeoff would prolly be +6% and -2%. I don't think a +6% and -6% will be very much liked. 
Of course, it would also be nice to have the effects and counter-effects be somewhat related or make some sense.
Eg: +6% def for -2% turn rate or speed
+6% weap multi for -2% energy efficiency
or +6% speed for -2% defense
|
|
This should be in a different form but ill continue here.
I like the +6, -6 idea and it should be in correlation to its counterpart.
Eg: +6% Defense for -6% Weapon (Weapon and Beam) damage "If you want to be a tank you do less damage"
+6% Multi, -6% Defense "You want to be a high DPS, you lack the defense"
+ 6% speed for -6% velocity
This way you buff one stat, and to keep the balance you must lose the same in counter to the buffed stat.
Its not really balanced or fair if you can increase your defense by 48% or have less damage done but still be able to pump out the same amount of damage.
|
|
Then those blue enh won't be worth 800 creds. Simple as that.
|
|
That can be classed as a matter of opinion. Based on the current enhancement model we have any tweak to them will not really make it worth the same mount of credits.
The question we have is how much does it unbalance a single ship that can and has already been brought up to mess up any balance in the game.
Great example, EAD with 40+% defense and -2% damage taken, it can and does taken on 3+ dreads and will fore a retreat or can own one or two of the dreads due to power loss.
That's only one EAD, you toss a few in there, it is totally unbalanced. even with the full multi's you can not do enough damage due to lack of power to take on the extra defense.
That is only Defenses.
Speed and velocity, ICC is a ranged faction and is already hard to hit anything smaller then a Station, add extra speed on to dreads and cruisers and not limit them they will dodge everything thrown at them.
If this game is balanced "which I am not saying its not" then the other side of the coin is making it balanced through the enhancements.
As for making the blues worth the the money there is many ways to change it up, like:
+6% def for trade of -3% weapons, -3% speed.
as an example. there are any ways to play it but it should equal to balance the enchantments.
This will also make the game better for the people that can not afford to pay and buy credits for the nice blue enhancements.
[ This Message was edited by: Fatal Ants (XO) on 2011-09-28 11:23 ]
_________________
|
CM7
Midshipman
Faster than Light
Joined: October 15, 2009
Posts: 1812
| Posted: 2011-09-28 13:16
yea.. i been saying this since before it was even part of the economy.
My fellow ICC pilots view that ICC is under powered can be directly attributed to unbalanced enhancement combinations on enemy ships.
Excerpt from FTL forums;
"The only thing i think needs addressing in game as far as balance goes, is Enhancements. They have the ability to take a faction strong point, and make it waaay over the top. UGTO armor, Kluth firepower. ICC shields."
Likewise, you can take a factions weak point and put it on the level with the other factions, and in some cases, surpass it.
UGTO- maneuverability, range, armor regeneration
ICC- Damage, ammo, hp
Kluth- defense, maneuverability, range
The most game breaking combos ar the moment are
UGTO + defense (with recent boons to armor HP, +49% actually boosts UGTO defense by 66.5%. not hard to see why thats out of hand no?)
Kluth + attack (With alpha strikes that far and away surpass their human counterparts, any adition to this force quickly negates the enemies ability to overcome the Kluths weak armor in any reasonable ammount of time. The best defense is a strong offense?)
ICC + maneuverability (could you guys imagine my Boarder cruiser with +48% turning? You whom fought me yesterday should know the answer)
Also to those defiant players, Enh gives players the ability to bypass devs attempts at balance by a 48% margin. Partly due to the fact that the devs only, or at least mostly seem to tweek things we as players have enh to adjust ourselfs.
If in trying to balance thigns, you boost X factions armor by 17.5% and reduce faction Y's main gun damage by 5%, most Y players will then respond by boosting their weapons by 24% and armor by 24%. Then balance is even more out of wack than when you started.
IMHO players should not have that kind of power, or the dev team needs to find a different approch to balance. One not counterable in game.
or the counter itself needs to be hit with the balance bat.
Yes, Changing enh will step on alot of players toes. I dont see where the dev team has a problem with stepping on peoples toes though. Currently the game is moving tword a model that only rewards paying customers at the bane of non paying ones. Im not really saying paying customers should not get rewards, but cosmetic rewards are as good as stat changing ones with the added benifit of no alienating new, and non subscribed players.
As for not wreaking the DS economy, offer exchanges and create enh and or other things that are cosmetic and non impacting on game mechanics.
examples (may be still in the dev forums)
Color of cannon fire
color of ship
color of trail
color of beams
color of torps
Custom emblems
Fleet slots
Color of text in game (like in lobby)
Then keep the enh that are in the store, but put a - stat with them that makes sense.
[ This Message was edited by: *XO*Defiance{CM7} on 2011-09-28 13:37 ]
_________________
Defiance and Opposition, a tribute to teamwork. I will remember always
339,144
|
Flux Capacitor
Marshal
Joined: July 30, 2010
Posts: 305
From: the place
| Posted: 2011-09-28 16:15
lemme give my opinion in an example:
u like to race cars, and after some searching and trying different tracks, u found a hidden track that totally rules to race on. Its a private race track maintained by a few enthousiasts in the weekends.
Usually the cars that race eachoter head to head, the rules where to have kinda the same horsepower, grip and earodynamics. one is better in something then the other, and vice versa.
The owners of the track allow other people to race on their tracks, the more the merrier if u like, but also point out that cleaning up after the races takes money. Without money to maintain the track, they'd have to close it.
Some racers started to pay the owners for little tweaks at the start of a race. It could b better tires, turbo, or a bodykit. They may have had better cars, but also the gain in respect was less after winning. poeple give less respect for an unfair fight.
Even though it was statistically clear who would win, sometimes the paying track users got challenged by freeloaders. It was to see if the freeloader had enough skill to beat the freeloader, or just for the laugh.
best way i could explain atm...
An enemy could fight ur stock ship with 48% bonus, and sure 1 on 1 it has better chances. still its a nice challenge to still try to get it dmged as far as u can, and also remember paying members support u playing the game, the "maintain the track", if u may.
Only argument poppin into my mind, is the noob-unfriendlyness. combine skill with enh vs a stock new player, and i dont think the new player will b happy. Free credits for starting up an account, or first ship of each new rank is fully enhanced at ur choice, would solve this. Just many ppl have multiple accounts and will prolly pass enhancements along...So this argument leads nowhere.
The goal was i think to make kills more fun, and to give costumisation ability back in a way different from the old system (next to the money argument)
PS: many people without money farmed elites. now its just any ai, and u prolly wont get any blues easily, but still shooting many ships can give a fully standard enhanced ship at least, improved/enhanced if u rlly go for it.
_________________
my signature is awesome
|
Whiterin
Fleet Admiral
Joined: November 15, 2007
Posts: 146
| Posted: 2011-09-28 16:19
[quote]
On 2011-09-28 11:21, Fatal Ants (XO) wrote:
Moved this to a new topic:
Quote:
|
On 2011-09-28 10:56, Kenny_Naboo[+R] wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2011-09-28 08:35, Fatal Ants (XO) wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2011-09-19 11:50, Kenny_Naboo[+R] wrote:
IMO, an acceptable tradeoff would prolly be +6% and -2%. I don't think a +6% and -6% will be very much liked.
Of course, it would also be nice to have the effects and counter-effects be somewhat related or make some sense.
Eg: +6% def for -2% turn rate or speed
+6% weap multi for -2% energy efficiency
or +6% speed for -2% defense
|
|
This should be in a different form but ill continue here.
I like the +6, -6 idea and it should be in correlation to its counterpart.
Eg: +6% Defense for -6% Weapon (Weapon and Beam) damage "If you want to be a tank you do less damage"
+6% Multi, -6% Defense "You want to be a high DPS, you lack the defense"
+ 6% speed for -6% velocity
This way you buff one stat, and to keep the balance you must lose the same in counter to the buffed stat.
Its not really balanced or fair if you can increase your defense by 48% or have less damage done but still be able to pump out the same amount of damage.
|
|
Then those blue enh won't be worth 800 creds. Simple as that.
|
|
Won't be worth 800 credits? Meh, it won't be worth anything! I buy enhancements... but I wouldn't buy these. Which, is the exact reason this won't happen. People buy enhancements to ENHANCE their ship, not trade one stat for another. This is the only source of income for the server. Make enhancements that add massive debuffs in exchange for, well anything, and you're going to have people stop buying them. No enh sold, no money for server costs, no game.
Now, if we had enhancements that did this, AS WELL AS the current ones... that might be interesting. Maybe be able to have enhancements, which are expensive; then have a second set which are "tweaks" which would be far far cheaper. Maybe have them act independantly as well. 8x enh, 5x tweaks or something along those lines.
I would personally love to see a wider variety of enhancements. Maybe even ship systems that you can equip as enhancements. I wouldn't mind paying 2k credits for oh say, a shield generator, or an extra fusion reactor. This could help add some customization to the game, as well as bring in extra income.
I honestly don't think that enhancements mess up the balance in the game TOO much. Especially since you get enhancements from making kills all the time. You can get 5% 25 durability enh from killing larger ships... which is pretty much just as good as the 6%/20 ones you buy.
If you feel people with the paid enh are too OP, then go out and make some kills and enh your own ships to close the gap.
_________________
|
CM7
Midshipman
Faster than Light
Joined: October 15, 2009
Posts: 1812
| Posted: 2011-09-28 16:52
I am a paying customer. I have 7 fully moded blue enh ships in garage. This does not change my view that EN are unballanced, and devs trying to balance ships using stats that can be changed by player by nearly 50% is just lOLZ
_________________
Defiance and Opposition, a tribute to teamwork. I will remember always
339,144
|
*FTL*Soulless
Marshal
Joined: June 25, 2010
Posts: 787
From: Dres-Kona
| Posted: 2011-09-28 17:13
Quote:
|
On 2011-09-28 16:19, Whiterin wrote:
Shortened for convience
|
|
Thats like telling ICC to equip Defence ehns to be on a more even footing with ugto. Ehns DO break the game, been said time and time again. Stock ships are where the game was tested, you don't test with ehns.
_________________
We are Back from the shadows.
|
CM7
Midshipman
Faster than Light
Joined: October 15, 2009
Posts: 1812
| Posted: 2011-09-28 20:09
im used to resistance to change.
You think i was happy go lucky when they reduced our shield hp 10%? 1.7y
You think i was happy when range was reduced? 1.5y
You think i was happy when planets became panzies? .9y
you think people were happy when depots were fixed? .2y
Think icc was thrilled with the +- weapon fix and +17.5-25% ugto armor buff?
When something is taken away in the name of balance, your going to step on some toes. This is one area, where there are many many many toes to step on, but i believe it must be done.
also, the +6 for -6 is a bit extream.
Id rather limit any one possible boon to 20%
or instate a +6% -2%
5 -2
4-2
3-1
2-1
1-0
Trade offs will make sense.
bonus to defense for negitive turning
bonus to speed for negitive defense
bonus to range for negitive damage
bonus to damage for longer reload time
Ect.
also this system works best if speed, manuverability, and acceleration are all combined into one stat called mobility.
_________________
Defiance and Opposition, a tribute to teamwork. I will remember always
339,144
|
Lithium
Chief Marshal
Joined: June 29, 2003
Posts: 109
| Posted: 2011-09-28 21:18
Removing Enhancements is possible, but we need another way to consume credit first.
_________________
|
Kenny_Naboo
Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: January 11, 2010
Posts: 3823
From: LobsterTown
| Posted: 2011-09-28 22:30
To clarify, I'm not against adding penalties to enh. I'm simply stating that IMO, the best balance for blue enh worth 800 would be +6% in one area, -2% in another area.
So, if it's gonna be +6% here and -6% there, then I won't pay 800 creds for those and would rather go without enh. Or simply get the lower end ones without penalties.
Multiply that by the number of ppl who feel the same way, and no one will see the point to buy credits anymore, simple as that.
I can do without enhancements.
If you have a +6% def and -6% turning rate ship, my non-enhanced ship can find a way to overcome your advantages and deficiencies. Trust me on that.
Repeat: I can do without enhancements.
But can the game survive without credits purchased?
[ This Message was edited by: Kenny_Naboo[+R] on 2011-09-28 22:32 ]
_________________
... in space, no one can hear you scream.....
|
Whiterin
Fleet Admiral
Joined: November 15, 2007
Posts: 146
| Posted: 2011-09-28 23:56
Quote:
|
But can the game survive without credits purchased?
|
|
No, which, again... is why this will not change. I personally don't mind enh. The fact that the majority of players have them, and those who don't can get SOME enhancements without spending money makes this whole arguement null and void in my opinion.
_________________
|
CM7
Midshipman
Faster than Light
Joined: October 15, 2009
Posts: 1812
| Posted: 2011-09-29 04:54
there is already one such enh in shop. makahr ship booster.
has + to mobility and a - to defense.
People buy the crap out of it.
(only it has no durability for some dumb reason.)
_________________
Defiance and Opposition, a tribute to teamwork. I will remember always
339,144
|
Kenny_Naboo
Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: January 11, 2010
Posts: 3823
From: LobsterTown
| Posted: 2011-09-29 08:52
Quote:
|
On 2011-09-29 04:54, *XO*Defiance{CM7} wrote:
there is already one such enh in shop. makahr ship booster.
has + to mobility and a - to defense.
People buy the crap out of it.
(only it has no durability for some dumb reason.)
|
|
No. You lie. 
Ppl do buy Makkars.
But ppl buy the crap out of Advance Def and Adv Multis.
Try not to skew the stats.
_________________
... in space, no one can hear you scream.....
|
Forger of Destiny
Chief Marshal
We Kick Arse
Joined: October 10, 2009
Posts: 826
| Posted: 2011-09-29 09:34
imo the enhs which are bought too much should be nerfed so that the average veteran player has equal interest in buying enhs of all types...
i havent seen beam coolers and accelerators in a lot of time...
neither weapon coolers or wep condensors.
and abso-total-lutely NEVER seen advanced engine boosters....
if you think about it, then these unused enhs are worth 800 credits, and the used ones are a big bargain at 800 credits. nerf the popular ones >:O
_________________
Forging legends and lives outside till naught remains inside.
|
Talien
Marshal
Templar Knights
Joined: May 11, 2010
Posts: 2044
From: Michigan
| Posted: 2011-09-29 10:19
Nobody buys (let alone uses) boosters because thrust is viewed as totally unimportant, all it does is make you accelerate/decelerate faster. The underused enhancements won't be made more popular by changing prices, they're underused simply because they don't have as much impact on battle as other enh do.
As far as +/- ratio on enh, it should be half the bonus as the penalty, like +6% attack/-3% fire rate, or +5% speed/-2.5% defense, or +4% turning/-2% speed. Really shouldn't be the same tradeoff for each type though, +attack/-defense and +defense/-attack would just result in people using a bunch of attack enh with a couple defense enh to make up for it. But really, a hard cap on the amount of bonus to each stat would be just as good, say 20-25%, that way enh wouldn't really need to be changed and we'd no longer see ships with close to 50% bonus in one stat.
_________________
Adapt or die.
|
Kenny_Naboo
Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: January 11, 2010
Posts: 3823
From: LobsterTown
| Posted: 2011-09-29 19:58
Quote:
|
On 2011-09-29 10:19, Talien wrote:
Nobody buys (let alone uses) boosters because thrust is viewed as totally unimportant, all it does is make you accelerate/decelerate faster. The underused enhancements won't be made more popular by changing prices, they're underused simply because they don't have as much impact on battle as other enh do.
As far as +/- ratio on enh, it should be half the bonus as the penalty, like +6% attack/-3% fire rate, or +5% speed/-2.5% defense, or +4% turning/-2% speed. Really shouldn't be the same tradeoff for each type though, +attack/-defense and +defense/-attack would just result in people using a bunch of attack enh with a couple defense enh to make up for it. But really, a hard cap on the amount of bonus to each stat would be just as good, say 20-25%, that way enh wouldn't really need to be changed and we'd no longer see ships with close to 50% bonus in one stat.
|
|
This makes more sense.
_________________
... in space, no one can hear you scream.....
|
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
