Return to “Suggestions”

Post

Re: Squaring the "Vertical Progression" Circle (maybe)

#76
McDuff wrote:Yeah that's cool, and that's how I could envisage it working.

The only problem is at some point weapons start gaining values that begin to look ridiculous.

The mechanism stops it mattering when guns do 100,000 dam and shields absorb 10,000,000, because everything's still in scale. But it is the bit of this that grates on my sense of aesthetic.

There are also, problematically, some nodes that it simply doesn't make any sense to extend "infinitely" anyway. Range, for example.
Well just make it 10k and 10,000k ?
LT Wiki | IRC | REKT Wiki
Image
Idiots. Idiots everywhere. ~Dr. Cha0zz
Post

Re: Squaring the "Vertical Progression" Circle (maybe)

#77
McDuff wrote:
ThymineC wrote:
McDuff wrote:I don't see the "dog eat dog" proposals, for example, making it so that people who want an easy coast through the game amassing loads of ships and shiny things can get that easily.
In general, such a feature would be desirable though, for the reasons you gave here, right? It'd put limits on how large and powerful corporations would get and all the warfare would help maintain a constant demand and supply of goods.
I see "letting people get powerful then stomping on them" as being less intrinsically flexible than building in systemic instabilities that work across the general range of scenarios.

I agree that you can have more than one system at work to try and keep NPCs from having runaway success and shutting out the player.

The question is, for the players who want a lighter game, does that mechanic "switch off" easily to let them be the big bad boss, if they want to be? Perhaps making faction aggression towards the player independent of aggression towards other NPCs?
That solution could work - however, it does compromise on player-NPC parity a bit. An alternative solution would be to increase the tendency of NPCs towards aggression by modifying the distributions that the aggression trait values of NPCs are sampled from. The player's sole advantage (from his perspective) over other NPCs is that he can perma-respawn whereas NPCs cannot. If NPCs become more aggressive, they are more likely to try to displace one another through more combat-related tactics than, say, espionage or political maneuvering (as a more intelligent NPC might). The greater the proportion of displacement tactics that rely on agents killing one another, the more advantaged the player is over everyone else. The Many-Worlds death mechanic preserves player-NPC parity at the objective level and this would be based on that, so it would also preserve parity at that level.

The player would still be targetted quite frequently, but he should still be able to continue to progress, and over time this could give him a large enough advantage to simply steamroll over everyone if that is how he would prefer to play.
Post

Re: Squaring the "Vertical Progression" Circle (maybe)

#78
There really isn't a right answer to that question, it's a matter of trade offs. If player flexibility is the priority then one solution is preferable; if player-NPC parity is the priority then it's another one.

Like with other intractable problems, Josh is just going to have to make a call. I'd probably favour player flexibility simply from a pragmatically commercial point of view, to let everyone Build Their Own Limit Theory as much as possible, but at the end of the day it's not really a problem that can be solved in isolation from knowledge about which aspects Josh thinks are more important than others.
Post

Re: Squaring the "Vertical Progression" Circle (maybe)

#79
Regarding the silly numbers problem, I think there are two solutions.

Solution 1, as per Cha0zz's suggestion, whereby we simply use scientific notation. This means you can see that your latest gun is x10^6 as opposed to x10^3 (or just use the metric prefixes mega, giga, terra etc.). We've already seen scientific notation raise it's head in Scanner 2.0.

Solution 2 is to map the tech level of every item in the game to the visible light spectrum (from violet (low level) to red (high level)). The in-game items with the max damage/defence ratings set the range, and then colour of each item can be determined. As new items appear with higher numbers the colour of your item would move down the spectrum. No numbers need be involved.

The more I consider it the more I think Solution 2 would be the way to go. This has the nice impact of removing the need for tech levels altogether since the spectrum is continuous rather than discrete (though there'd be no reason why it couldn't be binned if we prefer that). It also means that we'd probably need a "garbage collection" cycle every "n" in-game time units to determine a new lower bound and mark items below it as "obsolete" or something like.

Of course I still haven't seen an discussion of the process that sees you jump from researching within one set of concentric circles to another. I still believe it would be good to distinguish between incremental research on the items you already have - which can result in multiple fast but small changes - and large "breakthroughs" that shift the entire thing onto a new base set of circles (i.e. increased tech level).
Post

Re: Squaring the "Vertical Progression" Circle (maybe)

#80
There are a couple of ways you could go up a level or a circle, that I can see.
  • You could perform different operations on a blueprint.
    • Mutate just changes the balance and leaves X alone.
    • Breed combines two blueprints.
    • Advance leaves the ratios as they are and increases X.
    • Push takes a given node and advances it, giving a small increase in X.
  • Or, every operation could have a random chance to increase X, based on the universal constants.
  • Or, every operation by default slightly advances X, so positives are always marginally better than negatives, which accumulates over time.
Or, something else could happen. :) But those are the initial ideas I have.
Post

Re: Squaring the "Vertical Progression" Circle (maybe)

#81
mcsven wrote:Regarding the silly numbers problem, I think there are two solutions.

Solution 1, as per Cha0zz's suggestion, whereby we simply use scientific notation. This means you can see that your latest gun is x10^6 as opposed to x10^3 (or just use the metric prefixes mega, giga, terra etc.). We've already seen scientific notation raise it's head in Scanner 2.0.
Word of caution: If your numbers cross even one order of magnitude you get balancing problems. 2 orders and you're constantly jury-rigging this or that broken system.

I went through that with X, tinkering with the (OOS) balance for about 2 weeks until a 500 dps and a 30000 dps laser could be used in the same battle without either being useless.

Yah, it's fun to be ahead... but it's not much of a game when you are. =P

Cornflakes_91 wrote:nah, as i understand it would not scale down your weapons stats but only serve to denote your relative level of power to the other weapons available.

for example:
you buy a class 10 weapon which does 600 damage

some time passes

your weapon is now class 6, but still does 600 dam.
so why did your weapon fall in its level?
because the new level 10 weapons do 1000 damage
McDuff wrote:The only problem is at some point weapons start gaining values that begin to look ridiculous.

The mechanism stops it mattering when guns do 100,000 dam and shields absorb 10,000,000, because everything's still in scale. But it is the bit of this that grates on my sense of aesthetic.
This problem would go away if your research earned you literally a temporary bonus while all weapon stats stayed the same...
You don't have to scale a number that doesn't change.


As long as you heavily invest in research you "stay ahead" by having several temporary boni to this or that.
When you reduce funding, the technology spreads and others "catch up", resulting in you losing that edge.
The base balance never changes. =)


If you want more "engagement" in the system then such a bonus could last several days, maybe a week.
If you manage to ferret out what exactly your enemy's laser range bonus does, you can research a counter in far less time.
All it does is nullify this particular bonus if one of your ships is in the system.
(tactical combat would be a royal mess if a bonus like speed or range applied only vs one particular ship out of a 3-way battle)
You could
There is no "I" in Tea. That would be gross.
Post

Re: Squaring the "Vertical Progression" Circle (maybe)

#85
Exactly.

We've been mulling it over with Josh in IRC. I don't think there's a clear and obvious solution (although there are a few ideas knocking about). But there's definitely a need - or at least a desire - to have something act as an "anti-research" force. Whether temporary bonuses is the way forward, I don't know, but it's a ponder somewhat along the lines of where things are going.

And it's certainly a radical idea.
Post

Re: Squaring the "Vertical Progression" Circle (maybe)

#86
ok, here is why I don't like temporary research bonuses;
  • They break immersion, If I invent something new, that knowledge is permanent, I don't forget it after 2 months, you write it down, share it,... so permanent
  • I don't like the idea that I have to make use of my new researched thingy because the bonus only applies for that long (so if I didn't used it in the bonus period my money would be basically wasted)
LT Wiki | IRC | REKT Wiki
Image
Idiots. Idiots everywhere. ~Dr. Cha0zz
Post

Re: Squaring the "Vertical Progression" Circle (maybe)

#87
If you research a new weapon and never use it until the other side has already implemented a better shield, the same thing happens.
Your invention becomes obsolete.
If you don't use it during this period your money would be basically wasted.

A faction who invests a lot of money into research will be (and stay) ahead in many fields.
Without permanently becoming untouchable.
Another faction might concentrate on the economic angle and punch out "good enough" ships in larger quantities.
This could even be turned around by you building a "cheap knockoff" of a weapon that is much cheaper to build but has a (permanent) malus or two.
There is no "I" in Tea. That would be gross.
Post

Re: Squaring the "Vertical Progression" Circle (maybe)

#88
Gazz wrote:If you research a new weapon and never use it until the other side has already implemented a better shield, the same thing happens.
Your invention becomes obsolete.
If you don't use it during this period your money would be basically wasted.
The difference is: It is not a given that the other side will spend time on research/ research that stuff, making an invention possibly better for a longer time (if you don't use it/ let enemies know about it, there won't be a direct need for better shielding) while with a time limit you always will lose your bonus.
LT Wiki | IRC | REKT Wiki
Image
Idiots. Idiots everywhere. ~Dr. Cha0zz
Post

Re: Squaring the "Vertical Progression" Circle (maybe)

#89
That's not a difference.
If you spend money on weapon research and the other side does not invest in shield tech, you will stay ahead.
The details may change here and there and shake tactics up a bit... which I don't see as a bad thing.

I simply skip the entire mudflation spiral (with it's known side-effects) and go straight to the end result.
There is no "I" in Tea. That would be gross.
Post

Re: Squaring the "Vertical Progression" Circle (maybe)

#90
Gazz wrote:That's not a difference.
If you spend money on weapon research and the other side does not invest in shield tech, you will stay ahead.
The details may change here and there and shake tactics up a bit... which I don't see as a bad thing.

I simply skip the entire mudflation spiral (with it's known side-effects) and go straight to the end result.
there is a difference, if I research something I could keep it a secret, this wouldn't cause the enemies to research stuff because I kept mine a secret.
Now if that research isn't bound to a time mechanism, then I can keep it and use it when I need it (at whatever time I want), while when it is bound to a time limit it could mean that my need for it would only rise when the time limit is reached and thus making my investment in research useless.

And it would also be a huge immersion breaker for me.
LT Wiki | IRC | REKT Wiki
Image
Idiots. Idiots everywhere. ~Dr. Cha0zz

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests

cron