Ship Building HOI style

For what's not in 'Top Priority Game Design'. Post your ideas, visions, suggestions for the game, rules, modifications, etc.

Moderators: Oberlus, Oberlus

Message
Author
Ranos
Dyson Forest
Posts: 234
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 6:24 am
Location: Northern Wisconsin

#166 Post by Ranos » Wed Nov 24, 2004 5:27 pm

@ Bastian, Kharagh and Geoff

Look back at utilae's arguements on pages 4 ,5, 6 and 7. He is the one who first made these arguements. If you also look at his last post, he is still making the same arguement. If weapons look the same, act the same and one just does more damage with a greater range, then they are the same. If I go to Walmart and buy a pack of 6 socks and I go to Target and buy another pack of 6 socks, I still have 2 packs of 6 socks. Maybe the socks are different brand names, maybe they had different prices, maybe one is all white and another has grey toes, but in the end, they are all socks, they all get worn on my feet and there is no difference.

Same with weapons. Lets say I have a Laser that costs 5, takes 5 space and does 5 damage at a range of 5 and every level of refinement increases those stats by 1. Then I research the Phasor which costs 10, takes 10 space and does 10 damage at a range of 10. What is the difference here? I refine Lasers 5 levels and they have identical stats to Phasors. The only difference is that I got Lasers at the start of the game and I had research a few techs before I got Phasors. That is the ONLY differance.

Now consider this, earlier in this thread, it was discussed that size should not change on refinements. If it did, the players would have to be redesigning their ships every time they got a refinement on a weapon. If the size stays the same and the damage, range, rate of fire, etc increase, then all that needs to be done is a refit. Using that and my above example, Lasers would always take 5 space, but their damage, etc would increase. Unless we make Phasors also take only 5 space, then Lasers will always be better.

@ utilae

I think weapons in each delivery type should work the same. Beams fire over a greater distance but do less damage. Bolts fire over a shorter distance but do more damage. Projectiles fire over a greater distance, do good damage, but have limited ammo. Missiles fire over even greater distances than Projectiles, do even more damage, but have even less ammo than Projectiles. Wave Emitters have a shorter range, do massive ammounts of damage but have a very long recharge rate.

Every weapon delivery type is different. Now, weapons within those types could be different from eachother. Ion Cannons could be either Beam or Bolt depending on what everyone wants but they would damage the electrical system instead of the armor. Graviton Beam could do damage the same as other beam weapons but could push the ship away from you. Subspace weapons could work the same as other weapons but they could possible tear rifts in space-time.

The main problem here is that I agree with both Bastian and utilae. I think that if a tech has a different theory behind it than other weapons that are identical to it, then it should be a completely different tech. I can also see that it is pointless for this to be because it is exactly like the other tech. Then throw in my own opinion that refinements should not be able to go on forever and that is how you get my refinements would lead to the new application idea.

@ Bastian

I never said refinement was a sublevel of applications. From what you said, Theories lead to applications which then get refined. Refinements should be dependant on applications to be able to go past a certain level. But then you imply that applications can't be dependant on refinements. Why can refinements be dependant on other applications but applications can't be dependant on refinements?

I don't want refinements to be able to go on forever because it is just ridiculous. It has no gameplay value whatsoever. You seem to think it would give different strategies. How? If refining weapon A from the start of the game all the way to the end allows you to do just as much damage as weapon Z at the same tech level, then how are they different strategies? With one, you have to be constantly researching refinements and researching new techs to allow you to refine further until you finally reach level Z and your weapon does lots of damage. With the other, you just research new techs until you get to level Z and then you get a nice shiney new weapon that does lots of damage.

Refinements should be nothing more than something to increase your power until you reach a new tech, then they should stop. That is what new techs are, replacements for old techs.

I honestly don't care whether refinements lead to new applications that are the same as the original application or whether those new applitcations are completely independant, as long as refinements can't continue on forever.

Another thought here is that cost, space, mass and power requirements could be major factors in making weapons unique, even if they are almost identical to others. Lasers and Phasors could be almost identical but Phasors could weigh less for the damage they do, they could take up less space, they could require less power or the materials could cost less. In this way, there are differences in any weapon.
200 and still a Wyrm!?! I don't want to be a Wyrm anymore. I've been a Wyrm for 100 posts now.

User avatar
utilae
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2175
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 12:37 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

#167 Post by utilae » Wed Nov 24, 2004 9:33 pm

Bastian-Bux wrote: YES, the job of all BEAM weapons is to deal damage via a pretty colorfull Beam. Thats what their name comes from.
But the technobabble behind this beam varies from weapon to weapon. Or game mechanical: they'll have different parent theories. All beam weapons will need beam focussing as one parent theory (or something like that), but then there is a second or even third one, which differs. So beam-weapons are half-brothers/sisters to each other.

And no, they aint redundant. While it might be possible with all of them to achieve the same dps (damage per second), they will need different levels of refinement to do so. AND, they will have different "sister applications". While the laser theory might wield lotsa morale boosting applications as well (CDs, holographics and so on), the graviton theory might on day lead to contra grav...
I actually have a better alternative to having sub weapons (eg laser and phasor) within the beam weapon category. The sub weapons vary slightly by stats, eg more damage, less range, etc. People want this, as it provides a bit of variation on weapons within the weapon category (eg beam weapon category). I have a more flexible way of achieving the same effect, which will be explained at the bottom half of this post.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refinement System-2
==============
1)[Theorys]Each weapon category is a theory. All weapon theorys are available early game. Of course we could decide to have some theory's available in the mid or late game.
eg
Beam, Bolt, Wave, Missile, Torpedo, Bomb, etc

2)[Applications]Each weapon theory has a number of weapons application techs within it, varying by the weapon style and how the weapon fits into the counter system. Differences in weapons such as more damage less range are not necesary as the tweak feature is a more flexible system. All weapon applications are available early game. Of course we could decide to have some applications available in the mid or late game.
eg
Beam
->Laser
(straight beam: 50 heat damage)
->Ion Beam
(straight beam: 50 system/power damage)
->Particle Beam
(straight invisible beam, 40 subspace damage, 5 shield piercing damage)
->Refract Beam
(straight beam, bounces from target to target, 25 kinetic damage, 25 corrosive damage)

3)[Refinements]Each weapon application tech can be refined forever, the only limit being research cost, and the cost of including it in your ship. Since there are no superior weapons that completely replace the weapon being refined, refining forever is not a problem.

4)[Mods]As a weapon is refined, the weapon learns mods. Mods can be applied to the weapon when designing a ship. Examples of Mods:
continuous, shield piercing, armor piercing, etc

5)[Tweak]When adding a weapon to your ship during design you can 'tweak' your weapon. The weapon has base stats. If you choose not to tweak the weapon, then the base stats are used. If you choose to tweak the weapon then you can adjust the stats to your liking, of course the total stats must not change.
eg
Laser Base Stats=Damage: 50 Range: 50 Total: 100

Tweak the laser
Laser New Stats=Damage: 25 Range: 75 Total: 100

Ranos
Dyson Forest
Posts: 234
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 6:24 am
Location: Northern Wisconsin

#168 Post by Ranos » Thu Nov 25, 2004 12:29 am

@utilae

From what you are saying, all weapon theories and techs would be available at the beginning of the game. Now, I am assuming that there would be one or two weapons already available to every player at the beginning of the game, am I correct? Next, all weapons are equal at the same levels, correct? If both of the last two questions are correct, why would I want to research a new weapon when I could refine one of the beginning weapons once or twice in that same ammount of time? All of your weapons are the same, one just has this little thing and another one has something slightly different.

Here's a better idea:

Lets just have one weapon. You can put any mod you want on the weapon. You can set the range at whatever you want. It can be any size you want. That way, we don't even have to research anything.

Come on. Part of the fun of the game is waiting for those new weapons to be discovered. There is the hope when you are on the verge of losing a war that you will discover the new and more powerful weapon or shield tech that will save you.

Why do you want everything to be the same? It doesn't add to strategy, it takes away from it. Having weapons be different from eachother is what makes strategy. You should have to research more powerful weapons as the game goes on. This means that the first empire to research the new weapons has a slight advantage over the others until they can get the new weapon or the new shield that will help protect them from the new weapon.

You complain about Phasor being the same as Laser only a different clor and does more damage, but then you come up with this idea where all weapons are the same, they just look different. They don't even do more damage. Then you tweak them to make them different.

I want to have some different weapons too, but you are attempting to take it to an extreme that is only resulting in the opposite, you are making all weapons the same.

Instead of attempting to make everything different and have 100 weapons that are all the same with the exception of this stat or that one, make each new weapon better than the one before it.

Laser is basic beam weapon. Phasor is a more advanced beam weapon. It does more damage and has a greater range but the materials used make it lighter on average than the laser so therefore, it is better.

You seem to have the opinion that more is better. More different kinds of shields, more different kinds of weapons. More is not better, it is clutter. More means more work and more complication. One is too few and too simple. If we have a couple dozen weapons that function in different ways and then have more advanced weapons that ar similar to those, we keep confusion down but still have lots of weapons to choose from.
200 and still a Wyrm!?! I don't want to be a Wyrm anymore. I've been a Wyrm for 100 posts now.

User avatar
utilae
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2175
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 12:37 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

#169 Post by utilae » Thu Nov 25, 2004 1:08 am

Ranos wrote: From what you are saying, all weapon theories and techs would be available at the beginning of the game. Now, I am assuming that there would be one or two weapons already available to every player at the beginning of the game, am I correct?
I said that all theorys/applications are available (meaning researchable) in the early game. Though I also said that some would be mid, some late. It depends on what we decide. Applications might not necesarily all be available early game, but theories may be if we want the player to pick from a few different weapons and then start researching them.
Ranos wrote: Next, all weapons are equal at the same levels, correct? If both of the last two questions are correct, why would I want to research a new weapon when I could refine one of the beginning weapons once or twice in that same ammount of time? All of your weapons are the same, one just has this little thing and another one has something slightly different.
First of all, there would be no new weapons, especially weapons that replace earlier weapons. Further more the weapons that you say are the same are different based on where they fit into the counter system. They were just examples though, we could make them far more different.
Ranos wrote: Here's a better idea:

Lets just have one weapon. You can put any mod you want on the weapon. You can set the range at whatever you want. It can be any size you want. That way, we don't even have to research anything.
Sarcasism I see.
Ranos wrote: Come on. Part of the fun of the game is waiting for those new weapons to be discovered. There is the hope when you are on the verge of losing a war that you will discover the new and more powerful weapon or shield tech that will save you.
But the newer and better weapon you are always going on about is basically a refinement. I am aiming for weapons that are different, so that when you go higher in the tree there are no *replacements*, just more weapons, that are different. Replacements are refinements. Different weapons are applications.
Ranos wrote: Why do you want everything to be the same? It doesn't add to strategy, it takes away from it. Having weapons be different from eachother is what makes strategy.
I do not want everything to be the same. You do. You say the next weapon in the tree replaces the other weapon. Well, if that is the case then it is just the same as chaing the color of the laser and renaming it to phasor. If the new weapon replaces the previous weapon in the tree, then it should be a refinement, therefore the previous weapon should be refineable up to this new weapon, and this new weapon should not even exist.
Ranos wrote: You should have to research more powerful weapons as the game goes on. This means that the first empire to research the new weapons has a slight advantage over the others until they can get the new weapon or the new shield that will help protect them from the new weapon.
You should be able to research replacement weapons, through refinements. Researching newer and different weapons is done through researching new applications. This is what we should be aiming for.
Ranos wrote: You complain about Phasor being the same as Laser only a different clor and does more damage, but then you come up with this idea where all weapons are the same, they just look different. They don't even do more damage. Then you tweak them to make them different.
The tweak feature would remove redundant weapons that are different only by having more damage but less range.
Ranos wrote: Instead of attempting to make everything different and have 100 weapons that are all the same with the exception of this stat or that one, make each new weapon better than the one before it.

Laser is basic beam weapon. Phasor is a more advanced beam weapon. It does more damage and has a greater range but the materials used make it lighter on average than the laser so therefore, it is better.
This is the same as:
Ranos wrote: Phasor being the same as Laser only a different color and does more damage
So you are doing what you are saying not to do. Also you are treating the newer phasor as an application, when it should be a refinement, because it is a refinement. In which case the laser should be refineable, to a point where it will be the same as the phasor (and beyond). But oh wait the phasor and the laser are the same. Well get rid of the phasor. Let's have a weapon that is completely different. Maybe a beam wepaon that does area effect damage (don't tell me that's not different, it's not better either, because the damage would be lower though hit more ships).
Ranos wrote: You seem to have the opinion that more is better. More different kinds of shields, more different kinds of weapons. More is not better, it is clutter. More means more work and more complication. One is too few and too simple. If we have a couple dozen weapons that function in different ways and then have more advanced weapons that ar similar to those, we keep confusion down but still have lots of weapons to choose from.
The clutter would be gone if all of the newer weapon applications that are replacements (like phasorin your example) are removed and we then allowed weapon applications such as the laser to be refined forever. Since there are no replacement applications, only unique ones that do not replace other applications there would be no problems with redundancy.

Ranos
Dyson Forest
Posts: 234
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 6:24 am
Location: Northern Wisconsin

#170 Post by Ranos » Thu Nov 25, 2004 2:16 am

[quote="utilaeI said that all theorys/applications are available (meaning researchable) in the early game. Though I also said that some would be mid, some late. It depends on what we decide. Applications might not necesarily all be available early game, but theories may be if we want the player to pick from a few different weapons and then start researching them.[/quote]

You should get two maybe three starting weapons and the theories that go with them. The rest should become available as the game progresses. If everything is available at the start of the game, there is nothing to look forward to.
utilae wrote:
Ranos wrote:Now, I am assuming that there would be one or two weapons already available to every player at the beginning of the game, am I correct? Next, all weapons are equal at the same levels, correct? If both of the last two questions are correct, why would I want to research a new weapon when I could refine one of the beginning weapons once or twice in that same ammount of time? All of your weapons are the same, one just has this little thing and another one has something slightly different.
First of all, there would be no new weapons, especially weapons that replace earlier weapons. Further more the weapons that you say are the same are different based on where they fit into the counter system. They were just examples though, we could make them far more different.
There should be new weapons like I said before. You also didn't answer my question. I added to what you quoted from my last post and put it in bold. Maybe you can answer it for me.
utilae wrote:
Ranos wrote:Here's a better idea:

Lets just have one weapon. You can put any mod you want on the weapon. You can set the range at whatever you want. It can be any size you want. That way, we don't even have to research anything.
Sarcasism I see.
Not sarcasm but an attempt to point out that your arguement about weapons being the same can be taken to an extreme. You say Laser and Phasor are the same because they do the same thing. Well all weapons do the same thing. If we had one weapon and gave it a mod called EMP damage or Electrical System Damage, then we don't need Laser and Ion Cannon, all we need is Laser with a mod.

Don't you see that all weapons are basically the same? This one has this characterstic and this one does this. New weapons of the same type don't have to be the same. I have given examples to make them different.
utilae wrote:But the newer and better weapon you are always going on about is basically a refinement. I am aiming for weapons that are different, so that when you go higher in the tree there are no *replacements*, just more weapons, that are different. Replacements are refinements. Different weapons are applications.
Not always. I don't want all weapons in the game to be available at the beginning of the game. Most weapons should become available as the game progresses. You also say that you are aiming for weapons that are different. How are they different? This one does more damage, this one has less range. How is that different? That is the same weapon with different damage:range ratios. Different is completely different effects. Ion Cannons are different because the don't damage armor but they damage the electrical systems. The problem you are having is you are trying to make different weapons like you tried to make different shields, all the same thing with minor variations. There are a couple of "new" ones in there, but most are not.

Replacements are not refinements as Bastian said. Replacements are based on different theories with differnet properties. They function in a similar manner but they have different qualities.
utilae wrote:I do not want everything to be the same. You do. You say the next weapon in the tree replaces the other weapon. Well, if that is the case then it is just the same as chaing the color of the laser and renaming it to phasor. If the new weapon replaces the previous weapon in the tree, then it should be a refinement, therefore the previous weapon should be refineable up to this new weapon, and this new weapon should not even exist.
Boring. Always having the same weapons through the whole game is boring. That is why there are new weapons popping up throughout the game in ALL other games of this type.

Lets look at another game type and put your example into it. Warcraft 2. There is no difference between Knights and Footmen. Knights are just Footmen with more armor, more hp and more damage so Knights should not have been in the game. Blizzard should have just put in Footmen and then made a hundred upgrades for them.

Or lets use Mechwarrior. Why are there a bunch of different weapons? Why are there SRM and LRM missiles? Why not just have the LRM since they shoot farther? Why are the Lasers and PPCs? PPCs do the same thing as Lasers they just do more damage and shoot farther.

Its all about flavor. Same thing all the time equals boring. There needs to be changes throughout the game or it becomes stale. Having to refine the same weapons through the entire game is stupid, dull and boring.
utilae wrote:You should be able to research replacement weapons, through refinements. Researching newer and different weapons is done through researching new applications. This is what we should be aiming for.
Replacements aren't refinements though. Refining something is to improve on an existing item to make it better. Replacing something is findin something new that is already better.
utilae wrote:The tweak feature would remove redundant weapons that are different only by having more damage but less range.
Tweaking would do nothing of the kind. The tweaking feature would only be changing existing stats on the already redundant weapons.
utilae wrote:
Ranos wrote: Instead of attempting to make everything different and have 100 weapons that are all the same with the exception of this stat or that one, make each new weapon better than the one before it.

Laser is basic beam weapon. Phasor is a more advanced beam weapon. It does more damage and has a greater range but the materials used make it lighter on average than the laser so therefore, it is better.
This is the same as:
Ranos wrote: Phasor being the same as Laser only a different color and does more damage
So you are doing what you are saying not to do. Also you are treating the newer phasor as an application, when it should be a refinement, because it is a refinement. In which case the laser should be refineable, to a point where it will be the same as the phasor (and beyond). But oh wait the phasor and the laser are the same. Well get rid of the phasor. Let's have a weapon that is completely different. Maybe a beam wepaon that does area effect damage (don't tell me that's not different, it's not better either, because the damage would be lower though hit more ships).
Now you are taking what I said out of context. Let me fix it for you. The words in bold are what you used in your second quote.
Ranos wrote:You complain about Phasor being the same as Laser only a different color and does more damage, but then you come up with this idea where all weapons are the same, they just look different.
You are the one saying Laser and Phasor are the same with no differences at all. I am saying they are almost the same but one weighs less for the ammount of damage it does. You want to make similar tweaks to weapons and call them different. What is the difference between a weapon taking less space and a weapon doing more damage?

The Phasor should not be a refinement because it is not the same technology. It does not function the same. It weighs less than Lasers do, therefore it is a new tech not a refinement.
utilae wrote:The clutter would be gone if all of the newer weapon applications that are replacements (like phasorin your example) are removed and we then allowed weapon applications such as the laser to be refined forever. Since there are no replacement applications, only unique ones that do not replace other applications there would be no problems with redundancy.
Not if you have 100 weapons that all function in slightly different manners, that are all available at the start of the game and that are usable through the whole game. With mine, there would be no clutter because one weapon would replace another weapon. With your's, no weapons would be replaced since they are all equal and can be used forever, therefore they would be clutter.
200 and still a Wyrm!?! I don't want to be a Wyrm anymore. I've been a Wyrm for 100 posts now.

User avatar
utilae
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2175
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 12:37 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

#171 Post by utilae » Thu Nov 25, 2004 3:33 am

Ranos wrote: You should get two maybe three starting weapons and the theories that go with them. The rest should become available as the game progresses. If everything is available at the start of the game, there is nothing to look forward to.
Ok, I agree with that. That's what I want too.
Ranos wrote: There should be new weapons like I said before. You also didn't answer my question. I added to what you quoted from my last post and put it in bold. Maybe you can answer it for me.
My answer to your questions is that 1)yes, there would be a few weapons available early game, 2)weapons are balanced at the same level, though they are different enough so that they are not the same, but do not replace each other. 3)The new weapon would be different enough to be used, even if the previous weapon in the tech tree was refined alot more.
Ranos wrote: Not sarcasm but an attempt to point out that your arguement about weapons being the same can be taken to an extreme. You say Laser and Phasor are the same because they do the same thing. Well all weapons do the same thing. If we had one weapon and gave it a mod called EMP damage or Electrical System Damage, then we don't need Laser and Ion Cannon, all we need is Laser with a mod.
Yes, we could seperate every element of a weapon into mods and do as I said in another thread about making custom weapons as apart of research. That idea is doable imo, though too out there for many people. The problem though is that you keep simplifying everything and taking the fun out of it, the flavor as you put it in a quote below somewhere.
Ranos wrote: Don't you see that all weapons are basically the same? This one has this characterstic and this one does this. New weapons of the same type don't have to be the same. I have given examples to make them different.
So you are saying that all weapons are the same. Then you say that new weapons don't have to be the same. Make up your mind.
Ranos wrote: Not always. I don't want all weapons in the game to be available at the beginning of the game. Most weapons should become available as the game progresses. You also say that you are aiming for weapons that are different. How are they different? This one does more damage, this one has less range. How is that different? That is the same weapon with different damage:range ratios. Different is completely different effects. Ion Cannons are different because the don't damage armor but they damage the electrical systems. The problem you are having is you are trying to make different weapons like you tried to make different shields, all the same thing with minor variations. There are a couple of "new" ones in there, but most are not.
I got rid of the damage:range ratio differences in weapons. People who want these differences can have them in the form of tweaking there weapon.
I use Ion Cannons in one of my examples. Differentiating them from lasers because they do damage only to electrical systems. Other weapons were different by what part of the counter system the fit into. We could naturally think up greater differences still, though the weapon would still not become a replacement and the weapon would still fit within the beam weapon category.
Ranos wrote: Replacements are not refinements as Bastian said. Replacements are based on different theories with differnet properties. They function in a similar manner but they have different qualities.
Whether the laser works this way and the phasor works a different way, if they look the same, act the same, phasors to more damage, are better in everyway and replace lasers, then they are refinements. In refining the wheel it went from stone, to wooden cart wheels to rubber tyre wheels. They are different, but are still basically refinements of the previous wheel.

We're talking game terms here, so if the phasor replaces the laser, and it would be the same as refining the laser to level 20, then sure we have two paths, which are really one path. The path of refining the beam weapon from a laser into a phasor.
This:
Laser-------------->Phasor
Is the same as this:
Laser1------------->Laser2

Unless the phasor differs by having all of its damage go to internals or having its damage spread through a splash effect, it is the same as the laser, so it should be part of the refinement system, rather than being another application.
Ranos wrote: Boring. Always having the same weapons through the whole game is boring. That is why there are new weapons popping up throughout the game in ALL other games of this type.

Lets look at another game type and put your example into it. Warcraft 2. There is no difference between Knights and Footmen. Knights are just Footmen with more armor, more hp and more damage so Knights should not have been in the game. Blizzard should have just put in Footmen and then made a hundred upgrades for them.
Let's take Moo2 as an example. Is the phasor a new weapon. Not it is just a refinement of a laser. Warcraft 2 as an example. Is the knight a new weapon. No it is a refinement of the footman. It is better in everyway, which is what a refinement aims for. See why would I go for the knight when I can build heaps of footmen that could kill the enemy knight by the time they researched and built him. But there is still a reason to have the knight (and not take it out of the game), because eventually you get the palidan which is healing and other magics.
Ranos wrote: Its all about flavor. Same thing all the time equals boring. There needs to be changes throughout the game or it becomes stale. Having to refine the same weapons through the entire game is stupid, dull and boring.
But that's what your system does. You research app lasers. refine to level 5. Research app phasors. Refine to level 5. Etc This would be the same as refining lasers forever, but having name changes to achieve the same effect.
Ranos wrote: Replacements aren't refinements though. Refining something is to improve on an existing item to make it better. Replacing something is findin something new that is already better.
Sounds like the same thing to me. The end result is getting something better than what you had.
Ranos wrote: Tweaking would do nothing of the kind. The tweaking feature would only be changing existing stats on the already redundant weapons.
People want their short range but high damage graviton cannon. Their long range but low damage lasers. The tweak feature saves all of those weapons from being put in the game as applications. So it does remove redundant weapons while catering to those who want those kind of differences in stats in their weapons.
Ranos wrote: You are the one saying Laser and Phasor are the same with no differences at all. I am saying they are almost the same but one weighs less for the ammount of damage it does. You want to make similar tweaks to weapons and call them different. What is the difference between a weapon taking less space and a weapon doing more damage?

The Phasor should not be a refinement because it is not the same technology. It does not function the same. It weighs less than Lasers do, therefore it is a new tech not a refinement.
If a new weapon is better in every way then the previous weapon (the previous weapon does not have any strengths that the new weapon doesn't have) and it replaces the previouse weapon (people will never use the previous weapon) then the new weapon is a refinement.
Ranos wrote: Not if you have 100 weapons that all function in slightly different manners, that are all available at the start of the game and that are usable through the whole game. With mine, there would be no clutter because one weapon would replace another weapon. With your's, no weapons would be replaced since they are all equal and can be used forever, therefore they would be clutter.
Yours
------
Beam weapons:
Laser lv1->lv2->lv3->lv4->Phasors lv5->lv6->lv7->lv8->lv9->Blaster lv10
Missile weapons:
Nuke missile lv1->lv2->lv3->lv4->Puson missile lv5->lv6->lv7->lv8->lv9->Ultimo missile lv10

Mine
-----
Beam:
Laser lv1->lv2->lv3->lv4->lv5->lv6->lv7->lv8->lv9->lv10
(available lv1, concentrated beam damage)
Ion cannon lv3->lv4->lv5->lv6->lv7->lv8->lv9->lv10
(available lv3, concentrated beam damage to electrics)
Explod Beam lv5->lv6->lv7->lv8->lv9->lv10
(available lv5, beam that spreads damage over splash area)

Missile:
Missile with warhead lv1->lv2->lv3->lv4->lv5->lv6->lv7->lv8->lv9->lv10
(available lv1, flies to target explodes)
Shuttle with troops lv2->lv3->lv4->lv5->lv6->lv7->lv8->lv9->lv10
(available lv2, flies to target deploys troops)
Missile with drone lv3->lv4->lv5->lv6->lv7->lv8->lv9->lv10
(available lv3, flies to target attaches and shoots enemy ships)

Ranos
Dyson Forest
Posts: 234
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 6:24 am
Location: Northern Wisconsin

#172 Post by Ranos » Thu Nov 25, 2004 5:13 am

Your's

What weapon are you using? I'm using the Laser.

100 turns later... What weapon are you using? I'm using the Laser.

100 turns later... What weapon are you using? I'm using the Laser.

100 turns later... What weapon are you using? I'm using the Laser.

100 turns later... What weapon are you using? I'm using the Laser.

Mine

What weapon are you using? I'm using the Laser.

100 turns later... What weapon are you using? I'm using the Phasor.

100 turns later... What weapon are you using? I'm using the Graviton Beam.

100 turns later... What weapon are you using? I'm using the Disruptor Beam.

100 turns later... What weapon are you using? I'm using the Death Ray.

With your's, its the same thing through the whole game never changing. With mine, its a different weapon. It functions in a similar manner but has different properties. The Phasor weighs less. It doesn't matter if it works the same as the laser or not. If we put in more than 2 energy types then it will work differently. Even with only two types, they could be different. Lasers are Basic Energy, Phasors are Advanced Energy. Graviton Beam slows down enemy ships. Disruptor Beam does damage to armor and internals. Death Ray only kills the crew and does no damage to electrical systems or other internals.

All of those are beams and they all function differently. More elaboration is required on them but I'm just giving you the basics. Not only do they function differently, but they work on different principals. Maybe the phasor is more stable to fire than the laser. Maybe it creates less heat. Basically, it is more efficient than the Laser.

We were also talking about having power as a factor in ship building. The Phasor may take less energy/damage than the Laser does.

No matter how you look at it, whether as fluff or as actual game mechanics, all of the above weapons are different and should be in the game and not refinements of eachother.

As for how the system would work, I came up with the system where refinements are required for more advanced applications for two reasons, one was to solve your problem of thinking everything is a refinement and also to restrict refinements. If you still think everything is a refinement then I revert to my original system where all weapons are new apps. Refinements should still be limited. Being able to use the same weapon for the whole game should not be allowed. It makes new weapons totally pointless. The point of new weapons is to make old weapons obsolete.

Want an example. Spears are one of the oldes weapons invented. We don't use them in combat anymore. Same with swords, axes, bows and arrows, pikes, etc. We still use some of these things in recreations and for hunting, but we don't use them in combat. There is no way for a bow and arrow to be able to be "refined" to the level of a rifle.

That is a realism point but it would seem really dumb and stupid to me to be able to use my early game weapons with the same effectiveness as my late game weapons.
utilae wrote:So you are saying that all weapons are the same. Then you say that new weapons don't have to be the same. Make up your mind.
I'm trying to make a point. You say Laser and Phasor are the same when they are different because of the science behind how they work. They function the same but one does more than the other. In my mind, they are different because of the science behind them. In your mind, they are the same. But I am trying to point out that if you look at weapons in a different way, all weapons are the same because they all get fired some how and they all do damage to the target.

I think that weapons are different because of how they work, not the way they work. You think weapons are only different if they work in different ways.
utilae wrote:Whether the laser works this way and the phasor works a different way, if they look the same, act the same, phasors to more damage, are better in everyway and replace lasers, then they are refinements. In refining the wheel it went from stone, to wooden cart wheels to rubber tyre wheels. They are different, but are still basically refinements of the previous wheel.
The problem here is that the wheel is the same. It functions in the same way as it always did. The laser works by focusing a beam of light through a gem of some kind which increases the intensity of the light causing it to do heat damage. Now I don't know the theory behind Phasors from the Trek series or from other games, but I am sure that they don't work like lasers do. Even if the math behind the way they work is the same, the way they are loaded onto a ship is different and the fluff explanation for them is different, therefore they are different.
200 and still a Wyrm!?! I don't want to be a Wyrm anymore. I've been a Wyrm for 100 posts now.

User avatar
utilae
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2175
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 12:37 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

#173 Post by utilae » Thu Nov 25, 2004 6:08 am

Ranos wrote: With your's, its the same thing through the whole game never changing. With mine, its a different weapon. It functions in a similar manner but has different properties. The Phasor weighs less. It doesn't matter if it works the same as the laser or not. If we put in more than 2 energy types then it will work differently. Even with only two types, they could be different. Lasers are Basic Energy, Phasors are Advanced Energy. Graviton Beam slows down enemy ships. Disruptor Beam does damage to armor and internals. Death Ray only kills the crew and does no damage to electrical systems or other internals.
So now your weapons are not replacements/refinements, but are different.
Now there is a reason to keep the death ray (kills crew), a reason to keep the graviton beam (slows ships), a reason to keep the disruptor beam (does damage to armor and internals).

This is what I am trying to achieve. Only difference is that you want to refine disruptor beam so far and then get Death ray, then refine that so far. I want to get disruptor beam refine it. Get Death ray. Refine disruptor beam some more. Refine Death ray some more.

Also with yours can the death ray be used as well as the disruptor (previous tech).
Ranos wrote: All of those are beams and they all function differently. More elaboration is required on them but I'm just giving you the basics. Not only do they function differently, but they work on different principals. Maybe the phasor is more stable to fire than the laser. Maybe it creates less heat. Basically, it is more efficient than the Laser.
Mine are different too.
Ranos wrote: We were also talking about having power as a factor in ship building. The Phasor may take less energy/damage than the Laser does.
If the phasor is better than the laser in everyway, but takes less energy then doesn't that give you the same problem as with making the weapon smaller as you refine it. Remember that problem, where it was decided that weapons should not get smaller.
Ranos wrote: No matter how you look at it, whether as fluff or as actual game mechanics, all of the above weapons are different and should be in the game and not refinements of eachother.
Yeah, well they should be in the game now, since you made them different. i was under the assumption that they were better than the previous weapon in everyway. If they are different, then they should not replace the previous weapon. You want to keep all of your different weapons.
Ranos wrote: As for how the system would work, I came up with the system where refinements are required for more advanced applications for two reasons, one was to solve your problem of thinking everything is a refinement and also to restrict refinements. If you still think everything is a refinement then I revert to my original system where all weapons are new apps.
This is the main difference between our systems. I do not like how refinements are limited and a required path that you have to take to get to the next weapon.
Ranos wrote: Refinements should still be limited. Being able to use the same weapon for the whole game should not be allowed. It makes new weapons totally pointless. The point of new weapons is to make old weapons obsolete.
New weapons will not be pointless if the new weapon is different. Let's say we have graviton beams (slow ship) and then get death ray (kills crew). The death ray does not make the graviton beam obsolete. I still want to ues the graviton beam to slow ships and also use the death ray to kill crew. I should be able to refine the graviton beam as much as I want and use it through out the game. Remember though, the death ray is a new weapon, which I want to use to kill troops, so I want to refine that as well.
Ranos wrote: Want an example. Spears are one of the oldes weapons invented. We don't use them in combat anymore. Same with swords, axes, bows and arrows, pikes, etc. We still use some of these things in recreations and for hunting, but we don't use them in combat. There is no way for a bow and arrow to be able to be "refined" to the level of a rifle.
Yeah but a bow&arrow is basically the same as a rifle. They both do the same thing, though one does it better. The rifle is a refined bow and arrow. The rifle has completely replaced the bow and arrow in combat.
Ranos wrote: I'm trying to make a point. You say Laser and Phasor are the same when they are different because of the science behind how they work. They function the same but one does more than the other. In my mind, they are different because of the science behind them. In your mind, they are the same. But I am trying to point out that if you look at weapons in a different way, all weapons are the same because they all get fired some how and they all do damage to the target.
In my mind they are the same because the phasor is just a better laser.
Ranos wrote: I think that weapons are different because of how they work, not the way they work. You think weapons are only different if they work in different ways.
'how they work'='the way they work'

If the weapon works differently in gameplay terms (not in description) then that is what we both want. But a weapon should only be replaced if the newer weapon is the same, but better (in which case this might as well be done through refinements).
Ranos wrote: The problem here is that the wheel is the same. It functions in the same way as it always did. The laser works by focusing a beam of light through a gem of some kind which increases the intensity of the light causing it to do heat damage. Now I don't know the theory behind Phasors from the Trek series or from other games, but I am sure that they don't work like lasers do. Even if the math behind the way they work is the same, the way they are loaded onto a ship is different and the fluff explanation for them is different, therefore they are different.
Yeah, but differences in weapons based soley on their description does not make the weapon different. The weapon has to be different in gameplay terms, the player will see that two weapons are the same, if the only difference is their description of how they work scientifically.

Ranos
Dyson Forest
Posts: 234
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 6:24 am
Location: Northern Wisconsin

#174 Post by Ranos » Thu Nov 25, 2004 7:22 am

utilae wrote:So now your weapons are not replacements/refinements, but are different.
That was the way I had stated it originally. I changed my system to the refinements lead to applications in an attempt to solve your problem with new weapons.
utilae wrote:Also with yours can the death ray be used as well as the disruptor (previous tech).
Going back to my original system (which works basically the same as MOO2/3 worked) yes.
utilae wrote:If the phasor is better than the laser in everyway, but takes less energy then doesn't that give you the same problem as with making the weapon smaller as you refine it. Remember that problem, where it was decided that weapons should not get smaller.
No. The arguement there was that refinements should not get smaller. Refinements getting smaller meant that you had to design a new ship to effectively use the refinement. New weapons should have their power and mass/space requirements change.
utilae wrote:This is the main difference between our systems. I do not like how refinements are limited and a required path that you have to take to get to the next weapon.
This was my attempted compromise system that you don't like either. Forget applications requiring refinements of a previous weapon.
utilae wrote:Yeah but a bow&arrow is basically the same as a rifle. They both do the same thing, though one does it better. The rifle is a refined bow and arrow. The rifle has completely replaced the bow and arrow in combat.
They are not the same. They work on completely different principals. The bow and arrow had nothing to do with the development of the gun. The bow and arrow work by somebody pulling back on the string and releasing the arrow. It requires strength to be able to successfully fire an arrow and even more strength to be able to do damage with it. The gun works by chemically propelling a projectile. Anyone can use it, even someone who barely has the strength to pull the trigger.

The gun is also not a refinement of the bow and arrow. A refinement completely replaces the previous version. The orignal bow and arrow were made from wood and stone. Later, the arrow was refined and the tip was no longer stone, but was made from metal. Within the last century, the bow and arrow was still getting modified by replacing the wood with synthetic materials.

The original gunpowder fired weapon, called an arquebus, was more like a cannon than our modern day guns. Over the centuries it was changed and modified. At some point, the musket was developed. It is not a refinement of the arquebus but a new weapon based on the same technology. The rifle is not a refinement of the musket but a new weapon based on the same technology. A refinement is taking a weapon and making it smaller or bigger depending on the purpose but it still the same weapon.
utilae wrote:'how they work'='the way they work'
Wrong. How something works is the mechanics behind the working. The way something works is the actual working of it. A laser works by focusing the energy, blah, blah, blah as I said earlier. How the phasor works is different. They both do the same thing though.

Does that make sense?

Arguements against refining forever.

Realism arguement

The original combat weapons were stones. When a human way back when made the first spear, the stone was used only in desperate situations, but the spear became the primary weapon of the day. As time progressed, new weapons were developed, including the axe, the sword, the bow and arrow, not necessarily in that order. Now each of these weapons is different in its own way. The spear can be used in hand to hand combat but it is better when thrown, making it a projectile weapon. The bow and arrow are also projectile weapons but they have a greater range than the spear and do less damage. The sword and axe function in similar ways but both were used in combat. The axe does more damage because of the way it is swung but means the person using it is more vulnerable to counter attack. The sword does less damage than the axe but is more agile making it useful for attacking while allowing the person using it to react quickly to a counter attack.

These weapons were refined over the centuries as new metals and new forging techniques became available. Other and different weapons were used like the pike, the mace and the maul. Then one day, somebody invented gunpowder only it wasn't called gunpowder. Nothing much changed until somebody else figured out that this stuff could be used to propell an object. The first gun was developed. Still, the weapons of war didn't change much because the gun was very bulky and not very acurate. Over the next couple of centuries, refinements were made to the gun and it slowly became the primary weapon of war. But is wasn't the gun anymore, it was the musket. But the musket wasn't a refinement on the original gun, it was a new weapon that used the same exact technology as the gun. All but the sword completely disappeared from the battlefield. The sword was relegated to a secondary role as a hand to hand weapon for the commanding officers of the armies. Bayonettes were also used in hand to hand combat.

A couple more centuries past and the musket was replaced by the rifle. Here again, the rifle was not a refinement of the musket but a new weapon using the same technology. More acurate and easier to load, the rifle quickly replaced the musket. A few decades passed and the machine gun was invented. Another new weapon using the same technology.

I could go on and on but you can see that new weapons using different technologies replaced old technologies and new weapons using the same technology as older weapons replaced those weapons.

Gameplay Arguement #1

Getting a weapon and having that same weapon through the whole game is boring. It is the same thing going on forever. New weapons mean new things to look forward to.

Gameplay Arguement #2

If all weapons can be refined forever then all weapons must be equally as powerful at the same levels. This means that even if the weapons work differently and have different characteristics, etc, they are all as equally usable and there is almost no point in researching new weapons. If refinements are limited until you research a new weapon, then what is the point of continuing to refine the old weapon?

Gameplay Arguement #3

Refining forever means all weapons must be the same size throughout the game and must cost the same. If the weapons aren't the same size and cost, then refining the starting weapons is going to be the only way to go. This is because you could fit more of that weapon into the same space for a cheaper price than you could the bigger weapon that does the same ammount of damage.

Gameplay Arguement #4

A player using the same weapon through the whole game takes away a huge aspect of the strategic part of space combat. Instead of having to change and adapt your strategies to new weapons that replace old ones, you can keep your same strategy.

Gameplay Arguement #5

A player using the same weapon throughout the game ruins the countering system that has been proposed. If you use the same weapon then all other players will know to use certain types of shields on their ship when they attack you. You would always be at a disadvantage.

Now the reason has been brought up that the reason for refining forever is to allow players to use good weapons all of the time. Similar weapons could be made as new techs that do basically the same thing. The Ion Cannon disables ships by shorting out their electrical system. Eventually, this weapon will become obsolete. Later on though, the Death Ray will be developed. Instead of shorting out the weapons, it kills the crew inside the ship but with the same result, the ship is disabled.

If anyone can think of good reasons why we should be able to refine weapons forever, please post them.
200 and still a Wyrm!?! I don't want to be a Wyrm anymore. I've been a Wyrm for 100 posts now.

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 12689
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

#175 Post by Geoff the Medio » Thu Nov 25, 2004 8:03 am

Ranos wrote:
utilae wrote:If the phasor is better than the laser in everyway, but takes less energy then doesn't that give you the same problem as with making the weapon smaller as you refine it. Remember that problem, where it was decided that weapons should not get smaller.
No. The arguement there was that refinements should not get smaller. Refinements getting smaller meant that you had to design a new ship to effectively use the refinement. New weapons should have their power and mass/space requirements change.
utilae was saying that having power requirements that change after refinement gives rise to the same sort of problem as having space requirements that change after refinement. In either case, you would be able to add more of the weapon after refinement, if the number you had prior to refinement was limited by the reduced requirement. So if you need 5 units of power per gun before refining the gun, and had 20 units of power to spend, but 4 units of power after refining the gun, but still 20 units of power to spend, you'd be able to add an extra gun after refining (assuming no other limitations)
utilae wrote:Yeah but a bow&arrow is basically the same as a rifle. They both do the same thing, though one does it better. The rifle is a refined bow and arrow. The rifle has completely replaced the bow and arrow in combat.
They are not the same. They work on completely different principals. The bow and arrow had nothing to do with the development of the gun.
Does this really matter? No. I suggest trying to focus on issue that do... (but feel free if you especially enjoy this discussion, I guess...)
utilae wrote:'how they work'='the way they work'
Wrong. How something works is the mechanics behind the working. The way something works is the actual working of it. A laser works by focusing the energy, blah, blah, blah as I said earlier. How the phasor works is different. They both do the same thing though.

Does that make sense?
... The degree of certainty with which you've stated your interpretation in a semantics argument is... boggling. I suggesting using "the effect of something" and "how something works". "the way" and "how" are not obviously different in this case.
...new weapons using different technologies replaced old technologies and new weapons using the same technology as older weapons replaced those weapons.
That weapons became less useful in practice doesn't mean they can't be / haven't still been refined. That we don't use catapults nowadays doesn't mean that we couldn't build a much better catapult today than we could 1000 years ago. (Whether artillery can be seen as a refinement of catapults is irrelivant. I'm talking a better modern spring-loaded rock flinger with today's materials and manufacturing technology)
If all weapons can be refined forever then all weapons must be equally as powerful at the same levels.
"equally powerful" and "at the same levels" are too vague for this to have any meaning. Please clarify.

Also, consider diminishing returns on refinement. There comes a point when it's more effective to research a whole new type of weapon (even if it's countering role was the same as the old one), that has a higher starting damage level, as the first few refinements are much cheaper / better than the latter refinements, which are all that you have left to research on the older weapons.
This means that even if the weapons work differently and have different characteristics, etc, they are all as equally usable and there is almost no point in researching new weapons.
What about the niches in the countering system that the new weapons might fill that the old ones did not? Same power / cost, but different strengths / weaknesses means both are useful.
Refining forever means all weapons must be the same size throughout the game and must cost the same.
The same restriction applies whether refinements are limited or not. A brand new weapon is needed to change the size; refinements don't alter size.
A player using the same weapon through the whole game takes away a huge aspect of the strategic part of space combat. Instead of having to change and adapt your strategies to new weapons that replace old ones, you can keep your same strategy.
This is entirely speculative. The ability to use the same weapons doesn't mean that it's necessarily strategically best to do so.
A player using the same weapon throughout the game ruins the countering system that has been proposed. If you use the same weapon then all other players will know to use certain types of shields on their ship when they attack you. You would always be at a disadvantage.
Why is this a problem? Countering gives a reason to use more than a single type of weapon, even if it might be desirable to keep the same weapon for non-countering reasons.
If anyone can think of good reasons why we should be able to refine weapons forever, please post them.
I don't imagine "forever" is really necessary... but a large number of refinements for any given weapon, such that a heavily refined early-generation weapon is better (absolutely, regardless of countering issues) than an unrefined later-generation weapon, with diminishing returns for each successive refinement, gives a nice tradeoff / choice issue for the player between refining what you have now for a short-term gain, or swallowing the expense and time to develop a whole new kind of weapon now and getting better results in the long term. Deciding when to refine and when to research to the next tier of weapon should be a difficult decision. That's a good thing.

User avatar
Kharagh
Pupating Mass
Posts: 97
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2004 12:51 pm
Location: Germany

#176 Post by Kharagh » Thu Nov 25, 2004 8:48 am

I don't imagine "forever" is really necessary... but a large number of refinements for any given weapon, such that a heavily refined early-generation weapon is better (absolutely, regardless of countering issues) than an unrefined later-generation weapon, with diminishing returns for each successive refinement, gives a nice tradeoff / choice issue for the player between refining what you have now for a short-term gain, or swallowing the expense and time to develop a whole new kind of weapon now and getting better results in the long term. Deciding when to refine and when to research to the next tier of weapon should be a difficult decision. That's a good thing.
That's exactly my thought. People are talking about balancing the weapons so they are equal on equal levels, but why should we do that?

Why not make the system in such a way, that you can never know so easyly, which weapon is the better one, or which will be the better one after you refine it.

It makes the system much more interesting IMHO, if you can take an entirely differrent path in reseaching weapons every time you play FO. Having to go the same path every time, because this weapon is better than that, and the next is better again makes the game kind of boring and also more predictable.

Also, because of the counter system, you will never be able to use only one weapon at a time. Your enemy will adapt, and u will be forced to use another weapon, only to use a much refined version of the first one again later, when your enemy is not prepared for it again.
The whole game will get more interesting.

User avatar
utilae
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2175
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 12:37 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

#177 Post by utilae » Thu Nov 25, 2004 9:15 am

Ranos wrote: This was my attempted compromise system that you don't like either. Forget applications requiring refinements of a previous weapon.
That would make our systems almost exactly the same. Although I would still like weapons to be refineable for some time. Forever is not really possible, but 'a long time' is.
Ranos wrote: Gameplay Arguement #1
Getting a weapon and having that same weapon through the whole game is boring. It is the same thing going on forever. New weapons mean new things to look forward to.
Kharagh wrote: Having to go the same path every time, because this weapon is better than that, and the next is better again makes the game kind of boring and also more predictable.
Sure, I want new weapons, but not new weapons that are the same as the previous weapon, only better in every way. If I want that I will refine the previous weapon. It's a better way to do things. There would still be newer weapons that you find in the tech tree, but they would be different enough to not replace old weapons and to be used as equally as any other weapon in the tech tree.
Ranos wrote: Gameplay Arguement #2
If all weapons can be refined forever then all weapons must be equally as powerful at the same levels. This means that even if the weapons work differently and have different characteristics, etc, they are all as equally usable and there is almost no point in researching new weapons. If refinements are limited until you research a new weapon, then what is the point of continuing to refine the old weapon?
If the weapon is equally usable as all other weapons, then the tech tree is balanced. Is that not what we are aiming for? Refinements would not be limited until you research a new weapon, that's not good. There is a point to research new weapons, because they are different, eg are kinetic instead of heat or affect 5 ships instead of 1 (obiously damage would have to be decreased to achieve balance).
Ranos wrote: Gameplay Arguement #3
Refining forever means all weapons must be the same size throughout the game and must cost the same. If the weapons aren't the same size and cost, then refining the starting weapons is going to be the only way to go. This is because you could fit more of that weapon into the same space for a cheaper price than you could the bigger weapon that does the same ammount of damage.
This is a balance issue. Besides your system would be equally as prone to this problem.
Ranos wrote: Gameplay Arguement #4
A player using the same weapon through the whole game takes away a huge aspect of the strategic part of space combat. Instead of having to change and adapt your strategies to new weapons that replace old ones, you can keep your same strategy.
There is no strategy in always using the better weapon. If there is no better weapon, then the strategy is there for sure.
Ranos wrote: Gameplay Arguement #5
A player using the same weapon throughout the game ruins the countering system that has been proposed. If you use the same weapon then all other players will know to use certain types of shields on their ship when they attack you. You would always be at a disadvantage.
The player would be forced to use different weapons, simply because the counter system exists.
Ranos wrote: Now the reason has been brought up that the reason for refining forever is to allow players to use good weapons all of the time. Similar weapons could be made as new techs that do basically the same thing. The Ion Cannon disables ships by shorting out their electrical system. Eventually, this weapon will become obsolete. Later on though, the Death Ray will be developed. Instead of shorting out the weapons, it kills the crew inside the ship but with the same result, the ship is disabled.
But if the death ray replaces the ion cannon, then isn't better and easier to refine ion cannon to level 2 or whatever. We are gonna have refinements in the tech tree. If we aren't gonna use refinements and just have heaps of applications that replace old applications, then why have refinements. You are using applications to do the jobs that refinements should be doing.

User avatar
Bastian-Bux
Creative Contributor
Posts: 215
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 6:32 am
Location: Kassel / Germany

#178 Post by Bastian-Bux » Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:48 am

OK, lets summ it up:

Humans invented the theory of ranged weapons at the very day someone throw a stone.

Many thousand years later they developed the sling, spear, crude bows. Lotsa fine applications. Most of them used simultaneously for different purposes. Even if all those weapons where the "same" bringing an onject to a sufficent velocity to harm another beeing.

Later they invented a weapon, following the same basic theory, but with a totally different mechanism to aquire velocity: the guns.

You remember our old ranged weapons? At the time of the development of the gun, they where refined to such a point, that they where superior to chemical propelled projectiles (ie guns) for severall hundreds of years still.
Though at some point guns where also refined to a point that they could replace muscular driven ranged weapons from most niches.

Well, today if we talk about ranged weapons we are mostly talking bout guns. Still most of us have used a bow or a spear at some time in their life. And interesstingly, modern bows are MUCH better then bows where at the time the gun was invented. So someone invested considerable time and ressources to refine those "outdated" weapons even after a "better" weapon was invented.

To putit bluntly: using the same weapon for the whole game may be boring for you. But well, who says that all FO races are "progressive" like the humans"? Some might be utterly conservative.

Others might change their weapon application more often then their slip.

User avatar
Sandlapper
Dyson Forest
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2003 11:50 pm
Location: South Carolina, USA

#179 Post by Sandlapper » Thu Nov 25, 2004 3:49 pm

@ Bastian-Bux
OK, lets summ it up:

Humans invented the theory of ranged weapons at the very day someone throw a stone.

Many thousand years later they developed the sling, spear, crude bows. Lotsa fine applications. Most of them used simultaneously for different purposes. Even if all those weapons where the "same" bringing an onject to a sufficent velocity to harm another beeing.

Later they invented a weapon, following the same basic theory, but with a totally different mechanism to aquire velocity: the guns.

You remember our old ranged weapons? At the time of the development of the gun, they where refined to such a point, that they where superior to chemical propelled projectiles (ie guns) for severall hundreds of years still.
Though at some point guns where also refined to a point that they could replace muscular driven ranged weapons from most niches.

Well, today if we talk about ranged weapons we are mostly talking bout guns. Still most of us have used a bow or a spear at some time in their life. And interesstingly, modern bows are MUCH better then bows where at the time the gun was invented. So someone invested considerable time and ressources to refine those "outdated" weapons even after a "better" weapon was invented.

To putit bluntly: using the same weapon for the whole game may be boring for you. But well, who says that all FO races are "progressive" like the humans"? Some might be utterly conservative.

Others might change their weapon application more often then their slip.

Excellent analysis,B-B!

Ranos
Dyson Forest
Posts: 234
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 6:24 am
Location: Northern Wisconsin

#180 Post by Ranos » Thu Nov 25, 2004 5:39 pm

Geoff the Medio wrote:utilae was saying that having power requirements that change after refinement gives rise to the same sort of problem as having space requirements that change after refinement. In either case, you would be able to add more of the weapon after refinement, if the number you had prior to refinement was limited by the reduced requirement. So if you need 5 units of power per gun before refining the gun, and had 20 units of power to spend, but 4 units of power after refining the gun, but still 20 units of power to spend, you'd be able to add an extra gun after refining (assuming no other limitations)
No. Read it again. I was talking about two weapons that do basically the same thing. One is much more advanced then the other. If there are two weapons that are researched independantly of eachother, then one can take less space than the other. If it is a single weapon that is being refined, then it should take less space because that would require designing a new ship just to upgrade your existing weapons.
Geoff the Medio wrote:... The degree of certainty with which you've stated your interpretation in a semantics argument is... boggling. I suggesting using "the effect of something" and "how something works". "the way" and "how" are not obviously different in this case.
Point taken. I'll rewrite it with that change. I think that weapons are different because of how they work, not the effect they have in game. You think weapons are only different if they have different effects in game.
Geoff the Medio wrote:That weapons became less useful in practice doesn't mean they can't be / haven't still been refined. That we don't use catapults nowadays doesn't mean that we couldn't build a much better catapult today than we could 1000 years ago. (Whether artillery can be seen as a refinement of catapults is irrelivant. I'm talking a better modern spring-loaded rock flinger with today's materials and manufacturing technology)
Bastian-Bux wrote:Well, today if we talk about ranged weapons we are mostly talking bout guns. Still most of us have used a bow or a spear at some time in their life. And interesstingly, modern bows are MUCH better then bows where at the time the gun was invented. So someone invested considerable time and ressources to refine those "outdated" weapons even after a "better" weapon was invented.
This is true. But lets compair how reserach works in the game and how it works in real life. In the game, we are going to have to select techs to be refined and it is going to take our RP to reserach that refinement. In real life, the governement finances a lot of research projects but there are also private companies that do this. Do you think that the US government, or any governments for that matter, funded the research to upgrade the bow and arrow? Did the goverment fund research on how to make a better catapult? No to both of those. Private industry funded the research on refining the bow. Advanced technology and better knowledge of physics is what would allow us to build a better catapult today.

Unless you want refining in the game to work in this same manner, then there should only be limited refining.
Geoff the Medio wrote:"equally powerful" and "at the same levels" are too vague for this to have any meaning. Please clarify.

Also, consider diminishing returns on refinement. There comes a point when it's more effective to research a whole new type of weapon (even if it's countering role was the same as the old one), that has a higher starting damage level, as the first few refinements are much cheaper / better than the latter refinements, which are all that you have left to research on the older weapons.
To clarify, weapon A is available at level 1. Weapon B is available at level 5. To make refining existing techs and new techs equally viable, weapon A must be equally as strong as weapon B at level 5. This also requires some kind of control on refinements to make sure that somebody can't refine weapon A past level 5 until after weapon B has been researched.

Diminishing returns are fine with me as long as those returns have diminished beyond usefullness by, at most, Mk15.
Geoff wrote:What about the niches in the countering system that the new weapons might fill that the old ones did not? Same power / cost, but different strengths / weaknesses means both are useful.
This is true, but how many niches is one person going to fill? If they can refine a weapon forever, then they will only research one or two weapons maybe three and refine those until the end of the game. If at some point refining a weapon becomes useless, pointless or impossible, then that would solve some of htat problem.
Geoff wrote:The same restriction applies whether refinements are limited or not. A brand new weapon is needed to change the size; refinements don't alter size.
Wait your confusing me here. First you say that the same restriction applies with either and then you say new weapons would be different sizes. I think you misunderstood me.

If weapons could be refined forever, then a weapon that is available at level 1 and gets refined to level 25, must be equal in size and damage to a new weapon that gets researched at level 25. Maybe the weapon that has been refined takes 5 space and 5 power and does 25 damage but the new weapon takes 25 space 25 power and does 125 damage.

With refinements going on forever, that is how everything would need to work. There must be some way that all weapons at some point are equal in every way.
Geoff wrote:This is entirely speculative. The ability to use the same weapons doesn't mean that it's necessarily strategically best to do so.
It may not be strategically best to use that same weapon throughout the game but allowing it to be used takes away from the strategy but not forcing you to change weapons.We are talking about two different terms here. It may be better for the player strategically to use a different weapon in combat is one thing. Forcing the player to change their strategy to use a new weapon is a different one.
Geoff wrote:I don't imagine "forever" is really necessary... but a large number of refinements for any given weapon, such that a heavily refined early-generation weapon is better (absolutely, regardless of countering issues) than an unrefined later-generation weapon, with diminishing returns for each successive refinement, gives a nice tradeoff / choice issue for the player between refining what you have now for a short-term gain, or swallowing the expense and time to develop a whole new kind of weapon now and getting better results in the long term. Deciding when to refine and when to research to the next tier of weapon should be a difficult decision. That's a good thing.
But then you run inot the problem I stated above. If your refined weapon is better than the new weapon, there is no point in researching the new weapon because you already have a good weapon. That is only if refinements go on forever.

If refinements stopped at some point, whether due to a hard limit or diminishing returns, then the problem would be solved. You would at some point have to abandon your old weapon for a new one.

What I don't want to see is people using the Laser effectively 300 turns into the game. By that time, a new weapon should have to be used.
Kharagh wrote:That's exactly my thought. People are talking about balancing the weapons so they are equal on equal levels, but why should we do that?
Because one of the people, utilae, seems to want all weapons to be refined forever. If this is the case, then weapons would need to be equal to make them all viable in the game. If weapons can be refined forever but they aren't equal, then it is either pointless to research the new weapon or it is pointless to refine the old one.

I don't want the weapons to be equal. I want weapon A to be stronger than weapon B but weaker than weapon C which forces you at some point to research weapon D to overcome the weakness. But at some point weapon D would be weaker than weapon E forcing you to research weapon F. That is the strategy I was talking about earlier in forcing players to research new weapons instead of being able to always use the same one or same few.
utilae wrote:That would make our systems almost exactly the same. Although I would still like weapons to be refineable for some time. Forever is not really possible, but 'a long time' is.

AND

Sure, I want new weapons, but not new weapons that are the same as the previous weapon, only better in every way. If I want that I will refine the previous weapon. It's a better way to do things. There would still be newer weapons that you find in the tech tree, but they would be different enough to not replace old weapons and to be used as equally as any other weapon in the tech tree.
If, at some point, weapon A becomes useless then you lose that aspect of the countering system. At some point after that, weapon G should become available which works with the countering system the same way weapon A did. It is not a refinement of weapon A it is a replacement. It works the same but because of refinement limits or diminishing returns, you are forced to abandon weapon A. Weapon G should not be available right when weapon A becomes useless but maybe 50 turns or so after that.

I have no problem with weapons being refineable for a while. But not to the middle of the game and certainly not to the end. I would like refinements to work for maybe a third of the game at which time you must get a new weapon because that one is obsolete.

Refinements don't need to end when you get the next weapon in the tech tree but they should end a few weapons later in the tree.
utilae wrote:If the weapon is equally usable as all other weapons, then the tech tree is balanced. Is that not what we are aiming for? Refinements would not be limited until you research a new weapon, that's not good. There is a point to research new weapons, because they are different, eg are kinetic instead of heat or affect 5 ships instead of 1 (obiously damage would have to be decreased to achieve balance).
The tech tree is not balanced it is the same. If one weapon is stronger, then you have to go after that weapon to get a more powerful weapon. This forces you to change your strategy to adapt to the new weapon. That weapon can be refined but at some point, that weapon will need to be replaced because a more powerful weapon is available.
utilae wrote:This is a balance issue. Besides your system would be equally as prone to this problem.
No it wouldn't because new weapons would be popping up to replace old ones. That is the point of new weapons, to be better. Now not all weapon will be better but all weapons need to have some usefulness in the game. This weapon does less damage than the one you have but it is corrosive which is something you need right now because your enemy is using armor that is vulnerable to corrosive attack. If weapons have some kind of benefit over another weapon even if they aren't equally as powerful, then they are still useful and will be used.
utilae wrote:There is no strategy in always using the better weapon. If there is no better weapon, then the strategy is there for sure.
Having to adapt your strategy to use a different type of weapon is strategy. Having to choose between a dozen weapons that are all the same except this one does this is nothing more than a choice, a preferance. If one weapon is stronger than another, you must adapt for that new weapon.
utilae wrote:But if the death ray replaces the ion cannon, then isn't better and easier to refine ion cannon to level 2 or whatever. We are gonna have refinements in the tech tree. If we aren't gonna use refinements and just have heaps of applications that replace old applications, then why have refinements. You are using applications to do the jobs that refinements should be doing.
No, becuase the Death Ray would not be available until some time after the Ion Cannon has become useless because of a limit or diminishing returns. If weapons can't be refined forever, then that means weapons that are very similar can be used, just at different points in the game.

Also, with the Ion Cannon, the electrical systems of the ship are damaged and it can't be used until repaired. Your space marines must also fight a battle to take the ship. If you use the Death Ray, all of the crew is dead so there is no battle and the electrical systems are still fully functional so you can use the ship immediately.
Bastian wrote:To putit bluntly: using the same weapon for the whole game may be boring for you. But well, who says that all FO races are "progressive" like the humans"? Some might be utterly conservative.
That's fine, but at some point, that weapon should become less powerful and eventually useless as the technology of the other races advances. Refinements should run out at some point, not be available forever.
200 and still a Wyrm!?! I don't want to be a Wyrm anymore. I've been a Wyrm for 100 posts now.

Post Reply