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

#196 Post by utilae » Sat Nov 27, 2004 5:55 am

Prokonsul Piotrus wrote: I think that such diffrent weapons should be developed on the application level, not by refinement (i.e. the gatling special) BUT as long as they are from the same theoretical application, perhaps refining one (increasing its damage) could make it easier to refine another one?
All this arguing is tirying, but I guess it is logical for weapons to get more powerful as you get higher in the tech tree. Though I would also like to see weapons change more as you get higher. So if you get a laser, then much later you get a gatling laser, it is higher damage, but does the shoot twice thing or whatever makes it different. I guess we can make it so that before you can get gatling laser, you have to refine laser X levels to get it through refinements. But you can also move through applications to get it, but maybe it takes longer.
eg
Laser(a)---x levels--->gatling laser(r)...........|-------->tribeam(a)
.......|---------->rotating cannon(a)--------->gatling laser(a)

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

#197 Post by Ranos » Sat Nov 27, 2004 7:53 pm

For the moment, I am going to ignore most of the posts that have been made since my last one. I want to better define my arguments for why refining should be limited and why there should be weapons that are almost identical to other weapons. Last time I posted my arguments, I used a realism argument (not for a valid reason why, but to show that there was a realism reason) and an argument based on my opinion. I won't be using those again because they are not good arguments for anything.

Arguments for Limited Refinement

#1 Strategy

When I say 'strategy,' I mean the decision making process of deciding between different things. When I say 'a strategy' or 'your strategy' or 'their strategy,' I mean the end result of those decisions.

If refinements are not able to continue through the entire game, but run out for some reason, that means that players must research new weapons because the old ones will become obsolete. This forces players to adapt or change their strategy to use the new weapons.

The point in having a countering system is to have players making a strategy based on the weapons, armor and shields they use. If a player is allowed to use the same weapon/weapons for the whole game, it takes away from the strategic thinking. They no longer have to rethink how things will work because of having to use a new weapon. They develop one strategy and stick with it because they use the same old weapons.

If the player has to get a new weapon, they have to change the way their strategy works. Other players would also have to change their strategy because the player who just researched a new weapons would probably be using a different type which would mean the other players' strategies against that player wouldn't work any more.

Weapons being able to be refined forever means the player doesn't need to research new weapons and so doesn't need to change their strategy.

#2 Weapon Equality

If weapons can be refined forever, then all weapons must be equal. A level 1 weapon that gets refined to level 25 must be equal to a weapon that is new at level 25. If the weapons are not equal, then refining forever is pointless.

If instead, a refined weapon is more powerful than a new weapon, but will soon run out of refinements, then there is a reason to research that new weapon and begin refining it. It will quickly become better than the old weapon.

If different weapons have different strengths at the same levels, then there must be strategic thinking involved. "Okay, if I start researching this weapon now and then refine it, it will be ready to replace my old weapon which is just about out of refinements."

#3 Space/Mass, Cost and Power Requirements

This ties in with the last point. If all weapons can be refined forever, then they all must be equally strong and must therefore take up the same amount of space/mass, cost the same and require the same amount of power. If a level 25 weapon took up more space than a level 1 weapon that has been refined to level 25, there would be no reason to get the new weapon. If the level 25 weapon took up less space, then there would be no reason to continue refining the old weapon. Cost and power requirements are the same there.

#4 Refitting vs. New Construction

This depends on how refitting on ships is done. If refitting is free or costs less than new construction (which it should) then this is a valid argument.

Having to build new ships to replace obsolete ships is another big part of the game and ties in slightly with strategy. A ship becomes obsolete because the weapons and defenses it has can no longer compete with the newer enemy ships. This means the player must be building new ships to replace both the obsolete ships as well as the ships lost in combat.

If refining goes on forever, then so does refitting and ships never become obsolete. This means all a player has to do is replace ships lost in combat.

Arguments for Identical Weapons

#1 Refinements are Limited

Obviously this point is only valid if refinements do get limited.

If the player gets Laser at the start of the game, they can use and refine that until the refinements run out. Once that happens, the Laser is gone and is no longer useful. After 50 or 100 turns or a few levels in the tech tree, a new weapon could be put in that is the new laser.

It is not the Laser only better because it is a different weapon. It doesn't matter if it does the same type of damage in the same way, because the Laser became obsolete. So you have to change your strategy because you lose the weapon, but later on, you can get the same type of weapon back and change your strategy again. This would help keep your opponent on their toes.

#2 Not Having to Refine the Earlier Weapon

If refining never runs out, then you shut yourself off from certain weapons if you don't research and refine them right away. If Lasers are available at the start of the game, then you can use and refine those. But if you don't refine them right away, you will never be able to use them in the late game because it would take forever for you to get all of the refinements required to make them equal to higher level weapons. While you are refining them, your opponents will be refining their weapons and making them even stronger, which puts you behind in the arms race.

If, however, we make an identical tech to Lasers later in the game, then a player can choose to switch to that weapon without suffering the massive penalty of having to refine to catch up.

At the moment, those are the only two reasons I can think of for that point.

I am, as you can see, in favor of refinements running out at some point. Most, if not everyone, seems to be against a hard cap. Diminishing returns is what everyone seems to like. Geoff the Medio posted a great chart on it. I would like to get the diminishing return system set as best we can because that will determine much of the rest of the way refinements will work.
Geoff the Medio wrote:
Ranos wrote:I am assuming that at some point it would take two levels of refinement to see any benefit. Is that correct?
I hadn't really thought about it. This could be the way it's done, but IMO it'd be better to make all refinements do *something*, even if that something is small. We can make each individual refinement cost more, if we need to slow down the progress even more than the trends in the example suggested. And I don't expect those numbers to be at all accurate... they're just an example.
I have a system for Diminishing Returns that I think would work that is based off of my refining chart from earlier in the thread and on Geoff's diminishing returns. It shows how refining would work with diminishing returns and what the benefits of refining would be.

Weapon refinement: Research Cost. Damage, Construction Cost, Space/Mass Required, Power Required, Rate of Fire

Mk1 (tech application): Cost 500 rp. 20 damage, cost 5, space/mass 5, power 5, RoF 1
Mk2: Cost 100 rp. 20 * 125% = 25 damage, cost 6, space/mass 5, power 5, RoF 1
Mk3: Cost 100 * 105% = 105 rp. 25 * 120% = 30 damage, cost 7, space/mass 5, power 5, RoF 1
Mk4: Cost 105 * 110% = 116 rp. 30 * 113% = 34 damage, cost 8, space/mass 5, power 5, RoF 2
Mk5: Cost 116 * 115% = 133 rp. 34 * 112% = 38 damage, cost 9, space/mass 5, power 5, RoF 2
Mk6: Cost 133 * 120% = 160 rp. 38 * 108% = 41 damage, cost 10, space/mass 5, power 5, RoF 2
Mk7: Cost 160 * 125% = 200 rp. 41 * 107% = 44 damage, cost 11, space/mass 5, power 5, RoF 3
Mk8: Cost 200 * 130% = 260 rp. 44 * 105% = 46 damage, cost 12, space/mass 5, power 5, RoF 3
Mk9: Cost 260 * 135% = 351 rp. 46 * 104% = 48 damage, cost 13, space/mass 5, power 5, RoF 3
Mk10: Cost 351 * 140% = 491 rp. 48 * 102% = 49 damage, cost 14, space/mass 5, power 5, RoF 4

After Mk10, Research Cost would always be increased by 140%, Damage would always be increased by 102%, Construction Cost would always increase by 1 and Rate of Fire would always stay at 4.

Refinements could also activate modifiers to weapons like Long Range, Armor Piercing, etc.

Due to the large increases in later weapons (if a weapons base damage is 100 then it is going to be around 250 at Mk10) armor and/or shields should also be refined in a similar manner. That may have already been the plan but I wanted to make my view on that known.
Geoff the Medio wrote:A further wrinkle might be that after a while, additional refinements for heavily refined weapons starts to get more beneficial / cost effective again... so you'd have a long-term insentive to keep refining weapons, even though those refinements don't get you much benefit since you have another, currently better weapon available... But eventually, the refinements will pay off, giving you an extra-super powerful weapon. I'd be like a bonus at the end of the difficult costly refinement path.
I am against this because this is still being able to refine weapons forever. The point of the diminishing returns is to encourage the player, without forcing them, to research different weapons. Allowing an eventual increase in refinement benefit would pretty much erase that.
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

#198 Post by utilae » Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:56 pm

Ranos wrote: Arguments for Limited Refinement
#1 Strategy
If refinements are not able to continue through the entire game, but run out for some reason, that means that players must research new weapons because the old ones will become obsolete. This forces players to adapt or change their strategy to use the new weapons.
There is no strategy here. If players realise that refinements give them little reward compared to moving forward researching applications getting new weapons as well as the replacement laser application, then they will never go for refinements. If there is a path that is clearly superior, then players will always pick that path.
Ranos wrote: The point in having a countering system is to have players making a strategy based on the weapons, armor and shields they use. If a player is allowed to use the same weapon/weapons for the whole game, it takes away from the strategic thinking. They no longer have to rethink how things will work because of having to use a new weapon. They develop one strategy and stick with it because they use the same old weapons.
If the player sticks with a kinetc damage weapon throughout the entire game, continuosly refining it, and the enemy continues to use anit kinetic armor, then the player with the kinetic weapon will always loose, and will have to eventually go for a nother type of weapon that is good against anti kinetic armor. If the player still decides to stick with kinetic weapons, then it is the players fault they lose, not the game designers fault. This also has nothing to do with refinements, because a player can choose to get laser, refine laser, get application wave, refine laser, refine wave, get app missile, refine missile, refine laser, etc.
Ranos wrote: If the player has to get a new weapon, they have to change the way their strategy works. Other players would also have to change their strategy because the player who just researched a new weapons would probably be using a different type which would mean the other players' strategies against that player wouldn't work any more.
Such things occur based on what the player decides to do and has nothing to do with how the tech tree is designed (except obvious things like if the player chose refinements and were forced by the tech tree to keep choosing refinements for 10 turns before being able to choose apps).
Ranos wrote: Weapons being able to be refined forever means the player doesn't need to research new weapons and so doesn't need to change their strategy.
The player will decide there strategy, not the tech tree. There is reason why the player continues to get other weapons in the below example. Because the laser, missile, wave and torpedo are different. Plus the player can refine or research app and switch between both. The player does not need to stick to refinements because the tech tree forces them to.
eg
I get laser app. Refine laser. Research wave app. Refine wave. Refine laser. Refine wave. Refine wave. Refine wave. Refine laser. Refine laser. Get Missile app. Refine laser. Refine missile. Refine wave. Get Torpedo app, etc.
Ranos wrote: #2 Weapon Equality
If weapons can be refined forever, then all weapons must be equal. A level 1 weapon that gets refined to level 25 must be equal to a weapon that is new at level 25. If the weapons are not equal, then refining forever is pointless.
eg
Laser(app 1)->2->3->4->5->6->7->8->9->10->11->12
.....................Wave(app 5)->6->7->8->9->10->11->12
Laser level 5=Damage=50, Target=1 ship within range, Range=50
Wave level 5=Damage=100, Target=3 ships within range, Range=10

In the above example lasers application is researched at level 1 while wave application is researched at level 5. At level 5 both weapons are balanced (although in the example they may not be balanced). Now notice that one weapon does not replace another. Each are such different weapons that you can not throw one out and keep another. The laser is good for long range, though one ship at a time is hit. Wave does more damage hits more ships, though it has a much shorter range, meaning your ship needs to get closer to do damage, and while closter is more prone to weapons that do more damage at a shorter range.
Ranos wrote: If instead, a refined weapon is more powerful than a new weapon, but will soon run out of refinements, then there is a reason to research that new weapon and begin refining it. It will quickly become better than the old weapon.
If people realise that is better to not refine and just go for the new weapon, then they will always go that way. But in my wave laser example even if you refined laser heaps, you would still pick wave because it is such a different weapon. A different weapon has a higher impact on strategy then a weapon with higher damage, and other stats.
Ranos wrote: If different weapons have different strengths at the same levels, then there must be strategic thinking involved. "Okay, if I start researching this weapon now and then refine it, it will be ready to replace my old weapon which is just about out of refinements."
This is only one strategy. I would like to see more examples of different strategies that can be take before you can say there will be more strategic thinking involved.

Back to the wave laser example. Can you decide which one you would pick over the other. If you can then it is preference, or your play style, not because you think one is better. Not being able to decide means there is a balance in strategy, because there are equally viable strategic paths. This means that of all strategic paths, each is equally likely to be picked. But if one strategic path is more viable and is more likely to be picked, then the tech tree becomes unbalanced.
Ranos wrote: #4 Refitting vs. New Construction
Having to build new ships to replace obsolete ships is another big part of the game and ties in slightly with strategy. A ship becomes obsolete because the weapons and defenses it has can no longer compete with the newer enemy ships. This means the player must be building new ships to replace both the obsolete ships as well as the ships lost in combat.

If refining goes on forever, then so does refitting and ships never become obsolete. This means all a player has to do is replace ships lost in combat.
Are you saying that refining forever is like auto refit, because if you are then isn't that a good thing. People like auto refit, and many people don't like the hassle of refit, but want to refit.
Ranos wrote: Arguments for Identical Weapons
#1 Refinements are Limited
If the player gets Laser at the start of the game, they can use and refine that until the refinements run out. Once that happens, the Laser is gone and is no longer useful. After 50 or 100 turns or a few levels in the tech tree, a new weapon could be put in that is the new laser.
Refining forever achieves the same effect. In other words, what you say in the above quote is the same as refining forever except you cut out the middle levels of the refinements, eg laser lv1, 2, 3 skip laser lv50, 53, etc

Refining is a term I also use to describe the process of taking an application tech and increasing its level.
eg laser lv1 -> laser lv2
I can also achieve the same effect by having laser lv1 as an application. Then the next application is laser lv2. This achieves the same effect as refinements, though under disguised as appliactions.

So refining laser lv1, lv2, ..lv50 is also the same as laser lv1 (app), gauss cannon lv1 (app), etc, laser lv50 (app).

Really it comes down to which way we would like to do it. The reason I support refining up to level 50 instead of skipping a few levels and finding the level 50 laser application is because if you wanted a newer laser it is easier to get, just refine lasers by 1 level. The other way is more difficult if you wanted the newer laser, because you would have to research through a bunch of appliaction weapon techs before getting to laser level 50.
Ranos wrote: It is not the Laser only better because it is a different weapon. It doesn't matter if it does the same type of damage in the same way, because the Laser became obsolete. So you have to change your strategy because you lose the weapon, but later on, you can get the same type of weapon back and change your strategy again. This would help keep your opponent on their toes.
What strategy is there. Oh the laser, but more powerful. Kill ships faster. That's all the strategy. Also the tech race thing where you have to get a higher damage laser to beat there higher damage laser it simply necesity, because it is the only strategy. You have to get the better weapon, otherwise you die.
Ranos wrote: If, however, we make an identical tech to Lasers later in the game, then a player can choose to switch to that weapon without suffering the massive penalty of having to refine to catch up.
You will still have the same problem, because players will research the diminish returned lasers, then find the better lasers and realise they have wated their time refining. Next time they won't refine because getting the laser app is better.
Ranos wrote: Weapon refinement: Research Cost. Damage, Construction Cost, Space/Mass Required, Power Required, Rate of Fire

Mk1 (tech application): Cost 500 rp. 20 damage, cost 5, space/mass 5, power 5, RoF 1
Mk2: Cost 100 rp. 20 * 125% = 25 damage, cost 6, space/mass 5, power 5, RoF 1
Mk3: Cost 100 * 105% = 105 rp. 25 * 120% = 30 damage, cost 7, space/mass 5, power 5, RoF 1
Mk4: Cost 105 * 110% = 116 rp. 30 * 113% = 34 damage, cost 8, space/mass 5, power 5, RoF 2
Mk5: Cost 116 * 115% = 133 rp. 34 * 112% = 38 damage, cost 9, space/mass 5, power 5, RoF 2
Mk6: Cost 133 * 120% = 160 rp. 38 * 108% = 41 damage, cost 10, space/mass 5, power 5, RoF 2
Mk7: Cost 160 * 125% = 200 rp. 41 * 107% = 44 damage, cost 11, space/mass 5, power 5, RoF 3
Mk8: Cost 200 * 130% = 260 rp. 44 * 105% = 46 damage, cost 12, space/mass 5, power 5, RoF 3
Mk9: Cost 260 * 135% = 351 rp. 46 * 104% = 48 damage, cost 13, space/mass 5, power 5, RoF 3
Mk10: Cost 351 * 140% = 491 rp. 48 * 102% = 49 damage, cost 14, space/mass 5, power 5, RoF 4

After Mk10, Research Cost would always be increased by 140%, Damage would always be increased by 102%, Construction Cost would always increase by 1 and Rate of Fire would always stay at 4.

Refinements could also activate modifiers to weapons like Long Range, Armor Piercing, etc.

Due to the large increases in later weapons (if a weapons base damage is 100 then it is going to be around 250 at Mk10) armor and/or shields should also be refined in a similar manner. That may have already been the plan but I wanted to make my view on that known.
I like this. If I want to refine forever, then I can cause there is no level cap.
Ranos wrote: I am against this because this is still being able to refine weapons forever. The point of the diminishing returns is to encourage the player, without forcing them, to research different weapons. Allowing an eventual increase in refinement benefit would pretty much erase that.
It woud be ok, because there is a huge area where players are loosing out in the middle of the game (your refined weapons are lower the mid tech apps).

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

#199 Post by Ranos » Sun Nov 28, 2004 6:56 am

utilae wrote:There is no strategy here. If players realise that refinements give them little reward compared to moving forward researching applications getting new weapons as well as the replacement laser application, then they will never go for refinements. If there is a path that is clearly superior, then players will always pick that path.
Did you even read what I wrote before that?
Ranos wrote:When I say 'strategy,' I mean the decision making process of deciding between different things. When I say 'a strategy' or 'your strategy' or 'their strategy,' I mean the end result of those decisions.
Players must make decisions to come up with a strategy. Some of those decisions may be strategic, others may just be choices. Once they have made all of those choices, they now have a strategy. Lets say part of that strategy is to use weapons A, B and C. If weapon A becomes obsolete, then the weapon A part of their strategy is no longer there, and they must adapt their existing strategy to compensate for that. They could do that by only using weapons B and C or they could go and research weapon D to replace weapon A. In this sense, I am using replacement to refer to something taking the place of weapon A, not weapon D being identical to weapon A.

They will go for refinements because refinements will help them until they are able to research the newer weapons. Some people may not research refinements, others will. That is a choice and will become part of their strategy.
utilae wrote:If the player sticks with a kinetc damage weapon throughout the entire game, continuosly refining it, and the enemy continues to use anit kinetic armor, then the player with the kinetic weapon will always loose, and will have to eventually go for a nother type of weapon that is good against anti kinetic armor. If the player still decides to stick with kinetic weapons, then it is the players fault they lose, not the game designers fault. This also has nothing to do with refinements, because a player can choose to get laser, refine laser, get application wave, refine laser, refine wave, get app missile, refine missile, refine laser, etc.
Notice how I didn't just say weapon, I said weapons? Whether it is one weapon or a dozen, other players will come up with their own way of countering your weapons both through different defensive counters and through tactics. This means, and you even say it, that it is stupid to always stick with the same weapons through the whole game. If this is the case, then why even program the game to allow it?
utilae wrote:Such things occur based on what the player decides to do and has nothing to do with how the tech tree is designed (except obvious things like if the player chose refinements and were forced by the tech tree to keep choosing refinements for 10 turns before being able to choose apps).

Actually it has to do with both. A player can decide to use a new weapon and change their strategy based on that. But that is a choice and these games are always filled with choices. If we force players to research new weapons by basically rendering refitting useless after X number of refinements, then that is a limit which forces the player to adapt their strategy. This is also good.
utilae wrote:The player will decide there strategy, not the tech tree. There is reason why the player continues to get other weapons in the below example. Because the laser, missile, wave and torpedo are different. Plus the player can refine or research app and switch between both. The player does not need to stick to refinements because the tech tree forces them to.
eg
I get laser app. Refine laser. Research wave app. Refine wave. Refine laser. Refine wave. Refine wave. Refine wave. Refine laser. Refine laser. Get Missile app. Refine laser. Refine missile. Refine wave. Get Torpedo app, etc.
And the player can do that if refinements are limited too. The player will decide their own strategy but the tech tree having limitations of some kind will either force certain decisions or will just plain force a decision to be made.
utilae wrote:eg
Laser(app 1)->2->3->4->5->6->7->8->9->10->11->12
.....................Wave(app 5)->6->7->8->9->10->11->12
Laser level 5=Damage=50, Target=1 ship within range, Range=50
Wave level 5=Damage=100, Target=3 ships within range, Range=10

In the above example lasers application is researched at level 1 while wave application is researched at level 5. At level 5 both weapons are balanced (although in the example they may not be balanced). Now notice that one weapon does not replace another. Each are such different weapons that you can not throw one out and keep another. The laser is good for long range, though one ship at a time is hit. Wave does more damage hits more ships, though it has a much shorter range, meaning your ship needs to get closer to do damage, and while closter is more prone to weapons that do more damage at a shorter range.
But as you yourself have said, the player will still choose weapons even if they are weaker because of the countering system. If there is a beam weapon that does 25 energy damage with a range of 50 and there is a projectile weapon that does 20 kinetic damage with a range of 40, people will still have a choice. Do I use the stronger energy weapon or the weaker kinetic weapon? What kind of armor does your opponent have? Oh, it's armor that reduces energy damage by 15% but increases kinetic damage by 10%. The kinetic weapon is the choice.

You want weapons to be different. I do too, but you only want them to be different in their countering. If you lower range so you can increase damage, they are equal. If recharge time is increased so damage can be increased, they are still equal. Because of the countering system, we can have weapons that are clearly stronger because there will be no gaurantee that that weapon will be stronger against your opponents armor.
utilae wrote:If people realise that is better to not refine and just go for the new weapon, then they will always go that way. But in my wave laser example even if you refined laser heaps, you would still pick wave because it is such a different weapon. A different weapon has a higher impact on strategy then a weapon with higher damage, and other stats.
And what will change if refinements are limited and certain weapons are stronger than others? People will still have a choice. Use the weapon that does more damage at a shorter range or the weapon that does less at a distance? Use the kinetic weapon or the energy weapon? I am not talking about making all weapons the same but stronger than eachother, I am talking about having different weapons too.
utilae wrote:
Ranos wrote: If different weapons have different strengths at the same levels, then there must be strategic thinking involved. "Okay, if I start researching this weapon now and then refine it, it will be ready to replace my old weapon which is just about out of refinements."
This is only one strategy. I would like to see more examples of different strategies that can be take before you can say there will be more strategic thinking involved.
I think I understand what you are syaing there, but it isn't really clear. That is thinking ahead in that example. I can't come up with a bunch of strategies here because we are discussing how to make the game, not actually playing it. The strategies will develope in game.
utilae wrote:Back to the wave laser example. Can you decide which one you would pick over the other. If you can then it is preference, or your play style, not because you think one is better. Not being able to decide means there is a balance in strategy, because there are equally viable strategic paths. This means that of all strategic paths, each is equally likely to be picked. But if one strategic path is more viable and is more likely to be picked, then the tech tree becomes unbalanced.
But see that is it. When playing the game, you will have to decide. Is it a strategic decision, a preferance, or just saying, "I guess I'll choose this one?" The more variables you put into a choice, the more strategic the final decision will be. You want close range, lots of damage, multiple targets and damage type A vs. long range, little damage, single target and damage type B. I want all of those too. But when its long range, little damage, single target and damage type A vs. long range, little damage, single target and damage type B, then your decision can really only be based off of any knowledge about what your opponents defenses are.

If you change that to long range, little damage, single target and damage type A vs. long range, more than a little damage, single target and damage type B, then you throw in another variable. If your opponent uses armor that is strong against A and/or weak against B, then it is obvious that you pick B, but how would that be different if the two weapons did the same damage? If, on the other hand, your opponent uses armor that is strong against B and/or weak against A then you have to think whether you want to use a weapon that will do more damage against most types of armor, or one that will do more damage against your current opponent's type of armor.
utilae wrote:
Ranos wrote: #4 Refitting vs. New Construction
Having to build new ships to replace obsolete ships is another big part of the game and ties in slightly with strategy. A ship becomes obsolete because the weapons and defenses it has can no longer compete with the newer enemy ships. This means the player must be building new ships to replace both the obsolete ships as well as the ships lost in combat.

If refining goes on forever, then so does refitting and ships never become obsolete. This means all a player has to do is replace ships lost in combat.
Are you saying that refining forever is like auto refit, because if you are then isn't that a good thing. People like auto refit, and many people don't like the hassle of refit, but want to refit.
That isn't what I'm saying. Earier in this thread, there was talk about how refinements would work. Impaler made the suggestion that the term "refit" should be in referance to upgrading ships with refinements on existing technology and the term "overhaul" should be in referance to upgrading a ship with entirely new technology. If refinements go on forever without a limit of some kind, then you just keep on refitting the same ships and you need to build fewer new ships. You also never need to do overhauls because you just research a new weapon and build new ships with that new weapon.

If refinements are limited, then you can only refit until the refinements run out. Then you either have to overhaul the old ships, or build new ships with the new weapons.

If someone chooses to not constantly refine the same old weapons but uses new weapons as they come olong, then they are at a disadvantage. They now have to build new ships or completely overhaul old ones, both of which cost more than refitting does, while the person who chose to refine the laser forever gets to refit their ships faster and cheaper than the opponent.
utilae wrote:Refining forever achieves the same effect. In other words, what you say in the above quote is the same as refining forever except you cut out the middle levels of the refinements, eg laser lv1, 2, 3 skip laser lv50, 53, etc
As I said, point number one was valid only if refinements were limited. I have also heard what you say refining would do countless times.
utilae wrote:So refining laser lv1, lv2, ..lv50 is also the same as laser lv1 (app), gauss cannon lv1 (app), etc, laser lv50 (app).
Not if you would listen to what I am saying.
utilae wrote:Really it comes down to which way we would like to do it. The reason I support refining up to level 50 instead of skipping a few levels and finding the level 50 laser application is because if you wanted a newer laser it is easier to get, just refine lasers by 1 level. The other way is more difficult if you wanted the newer laser, because you would have to research through a bunch of appliaction weapon techs before getting to laser level 50.
Now I don't know if you read the first paragraph of #2 in Identical Weapons or not, but if you did, then you didn't understand what I was saying.

If refinements go on forever and there are no identical weapons and I choose not to refine Lasers because I want to use different weapon, then Lasers, and the way they do damage, are forever gone for me. I would lag behind the other empires in damage if I was forced to go back and refine Lasers all the way up to level 35.

Instead, if there is a weapon that is almost identical to Lasers that becomes available at level 35, then I have the option of researching that weapon and using it on my ships without lagging behind the other empires.
utilae wrote:
Ranos wrote: It is not the Laser only better because it is a different weapon. It doesn't matter if it does the same type of damage in the same way, because the Laser became obsolete. So you have to change your strategy because you lose the weapon, but later on, you can get the same type of weapon back and change your strategy again. This would help keep your opponent on their toes.
What strategy is there. Oh the laser, but more powerful. Kill ships faster. That's all the strategy. Also the tech race thing where you have to get a higher damage laser to beat there higher damage laser it simply necesity, because it is the only strategy. You have to get the better weapon, otherwise you die.
Yeah, see, the talk about strategy there was in referance to what I was talking about in #1 of Limiting Refinements. If I used Laser and chose to refine it to its limit, I would be forced to use a new weapon when Lasers ran out. That would force me to change my game strategy. If a new weapon like Lasers became available later in the game, I would have the choice of researching that weapon and going back to my old game strategy.
utilae wrote:
Ranos wrote: If, however, we make an identical tech to Lasers later in the game, then a player can choose to switch to that weapon without suffering the massive penalty of having to refine to catch up.
You will still have the same problem, because players will research the diminish returned lasers, then find the better lasers and realise they have wated their time refining. Next time they won't refine because getting the laser app is better.
That is pure assumption. Some players would do that. Others would refine lasers for a few levels and then stop. Still others would refine lasers as far as they could.

Here is the difference between us. You want refinements to be able to be a replacement for later applications. When I say replacement here, I don't mean for identical weapons but instead of researching brand new weapons. I am also not saying that people wouldn't research new weapons at all, but if the laser does Energy damage, then I don't need another energy damage weapon. They would still research weapons that would do the other types of damage and later they may research the more advanced delivery types, but not if they didn't want to because they could get most of the damage types early in the game.

I want refinements to be improvements on weapons until newer and more advanced weapons become available. People would still use refinements because it would give them an extra punch in their weapons until they got to the more advanced weapons.
utilae wrote:I like this. If I want to refine forever, then I can cause there is no level cap.
You can, but before too long, it would become very uneconomical to do so. The rp cost to refine the weapon another level would be very expensive and the increse in damage would be very low. The construction cost of the weapon would also increase. I ran the numbers up to Mk15 to show how high the numbers get.

Mk11: Cost 491 * 140% = 687 rp. 49 * 102% = 50 damage, cost 15, space/mass 5, power 5, RoF 4
Mk12: Cost 687 * 140% = 962 rp. 50 * 102% = 51 damage, cost 16, space/mass 5, power 5, RoF 4
Mk13: Cost 962 * 140% = 1347 rp. 51 * 102% = 52 damage, cost 17, space/mass 5, power 5, RoF 4
Mk14: Cost 1347 * 140% = 1886 rp. 52 * 102% = 53 damage, cost 18, space/mass 5, power 5, RoF 4
Mk15: Cost 1886 * 140% = 2640 rp. 53 * 102% = 54 damage, cost 19, space/mass 5, power 5, RoF 4

As you can see, to research the Mk15 refinement would cost more than 5 times what the weapon cost to research in the first place and you get an increase in damage of 1.
utilae wrote:It woud be ok, because there is a huge area where players are loosing out in the middle of the game (your refined weapons are lower the mid tech apps).
But the point in having the diminishing returns is to make it pointless to refine the weapon forever. I don't like it but if enough people are in favor of it, then it will probably get put in the game. If it does, then I would like the sudden jump to be reliant on some advanced tech. Like Lasers are pretty much useless but suddenly a new gem is developed that magnifies the light intensity by 1 million.

Another reason not to have this would be the fact that there are identical weapons later in the tech tree. That is of course dependant on which way that issue goes.
Last edited by Ranos on Sun Nov 28, 2004 5:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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
skdiw
Creative Contributor
Posts: 643
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 2:17 am

#200 Post by skdiw » Sun Nov 28, 2004 7:52 am

We should try focus on a generic system and duplicate it for the different weapon types instead of mixing them into the system, unless you want a moo3 like system. I see the different types of weapon developed in parallel rather in series.

How about making low tech weapons have a low mass requirment and higher tech have larger mass requirement. The higher tech is still powerful overall, but requires larger hull to equip it. The low tech weapons can be used as PD so players will still refine them. This way, both old and new techs are used throughout the game.
:mrgreen:

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

#201 Post by utilae » Sun Nov 28, 2004 9:00 am

Ranos wrote: You want weapons to be different. I do too, but you only want them to be different in their countering. If you lower range so you can increase damage, they are equal. If recharge time is increased so damage can be increased, they are still equal. Because of the countering system, we can have weapons that are clearly stronger because there will be no gaurantee that that weapon will be stronger against your opponents armor.
I want counter differences, but mainly weapon style/delivery system. Differences like how a wave expands like a ring and how a beam makes a line to the target and how a missile flies at the target and follows the target. I guess the way the weapons look, because this makes the weapon feel more different then increasing the damage would. I also would like the differences in very similar weapons like a beam weapon where the only difference is inc range, dec damage to be implemented in the form of the tweak part of ship design.
Ranos wrote: If someone chooses to not constantly refine the same old weapons but uses new weapons as they come olong, then they are at a disadvantage. They now have to build new ships or completely overhaul old ones, both of which cost more than refitting does, while the person who chose to refine the laser forever gets to refit their ships faster and cheaper than the opponent.
First of all I would get rid of the overhaul idea. Get rid of the idea where refinements auto upgrade weapons to the newest refined weapons (on a ship). Do a manual refit instead, just with a mass select ships, mass refit option, throw in rally point as well.
Ranos wrote: If refinements go on forever and there are no identical weapons and I choose not to refine Lasers because I want to use different weapon, then Lasers, and the way they do damage, are forever gone for me. I would lag behind the other empires in damage if I was forced to go back and refine Lasers all the way up to level 35.
Same problem if I choose to refine shields, and not weapons. I would fall behind in weapons, but not in shields. Also choosing lasers, and neglecting waves is similar, although here it makes it more interesting because one race may have more beam weapons, while another may have more wave weapons and faster ships (like in star trek where romulans have disruptors, federation has phasors).
Ranos wrote: Instead, if there is a weapon that is almost identical to Lasers that becomes available at level 35, then I have the option of researching that weapon and using it on my ships without lagging behind the other empires.
I don't like this because I would not bother refining lasers at all and just take the much improved laser later in the game.
Ranos wrote: Here is the difference between us. You want refinements to be able to be a replacement for later applications. When I say replacement here, I don't mean for identical weapons but instead of researching brand new weapons. I am also not saying that people wouldn't research new weapons at all, but if the laser does Energy damage, then I don't need another energy damage weapon. They would still research weapons that would do the other types of damage and later they may research the more advanced delivery types, but not if they didn't want to because they could get most of the damage types early in the game.
My thinking is like so:
-An application is a weapon that you keep and never lose. So a newer application does not remove an old application(refinements do this).
eg if you get laser1(app), then getting laser2(app) does not replace laser1.
-A refinement simply increases the level of an application, however only the most recent level of application is kept (eg can't have level1 laser if you have level2 laser).
-If researching application is going vertical in the tech tree, then refinements is going horizontal, eg
Laser->2->3->4->5->6
Next weapon
-This allows you to refine, next app, refine, next app, etc. Refinement research costs should be diminishing, but not too strong, because you still need an incentive to move forward in the tech tree, but refinements are not a short buzz, and then forget the weapon. They are 'this is an old car, but not forgotten, take care of it, etc la di da, our race likes this weapon, etc
-I think that certain weapon types (eg laser, wave) should guarentee a counter type or two and have a few counter types that are rarer, eg Beam would have more energy, but less explosive, but missile would have more explosive but less energy, etc.
-Each new application should be very different (looks, appearance, style). Not always stronger, but mostly stronger (as to move forward in the tech tree you expect better). There should be few duplicate weapons (eg higher level of laser, but stronger). Stat differences like inc damage, dec range should be implemented in the tweak feature in ship design.

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

#202 Post by Bastian-Bux » Sun Nov 28, 2004 1:37 pm

Ranos, you repeat, and repeat, and repeat. But what you fail to see is the mayor error in your strategy definiition:

Ranos wrote:
When I say 'strategy,' I mean the decision making process of deciding between different things. When I say 'a strategy' or 'your strategy' or 'their strategy,' I mean the end result of those decisions.
So to have a strategy, you need different possibilities to choose from. What you all the time are suggesting is to force the player on one path. But then their ain't choices -> no strategy.

As long as you don't gulp your "my strategy is the only right one, thus everything else should be reduced till the point it is no choice anymore" opinion, we won't get any further.

A strategy game lives from redundancies. You have to choose, what way to go: severall ways to deal the same amount of damage, each with its own strengths and weaknesses, but ultimatively achieving the same.

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

#203 Post by Ranos » Sun Nov 28, 2004 5:31 pm

utilae wrote:I want counter differences, but mainly weapon style/delivery system. Differences like how a wave expands like a ring and how a beam makes a line to the target and how a missile flies at the target and follows the target. I guess the way the weapons look, because this makes the weapon feel more different then increasing the damage would. I also would like the differences in very similar weapons like a beam weapon where the only difference is inc range, dec damage to be implemented in the form of the tweak part of ship design.
The only way you can have differences that are that extreme is for one weapon per delivery type. Using this, we currently can have about ten weapons. This is a far too limited number.

Weapons should be different based on a combination of Delivery System, Damage Type, Range, Damage, Space/Mass req, Power req, Construction Cost and maybe a couple of others. This allows for a very wide range of weapon possibilites, not just a handful. Weapons could be different based off of a single item above, two beam weapons, one does Energy damage, the other does Exotic damage, or they could be different based on all of the items.
utilae wrote:First of all I would get rid of the overhaul idea. Get rid of the idea where refinements auto upgrade weapons to the newest refined weapons (on a ship). Do a manual refit instead, just with a mass select ships, mass refit option, throw in rally point as well.
See that depends on what happens. If refinements can go on forever (without diminishing returns or a hard cap) then yes, get rid of overhauling. If refinements are limited in some way, then don't get rid of overhauling. Overhauling allows you to take a ship that has an obsolete weapon (due to refinements becoming far too costly), shield, armor, engine or whatever else, and replace it with new state-of-the-art equipment. This should be almost as costly as building a new ship.

I never once said refinements would auto-upgrade. I don't know where you got that from. That is a possibility but there are others. We could do it like Civ3, click on ship in fleet window or wherever and you can choose to refit that single ship or you can refit all ships. We could make it so the ship has to return to a shipyard to get a refit. That is a decision for a later time.

The point here is that continuous refining gives that player a huge advantage over the player who wants to refine a little and then get the next weapon.
utilae wrote:
Ranos wrote: If refinements go on forever and there are no identical weapons and I choose not to refine Lasers because I want to use different weapon, then Lasers, and the way they do damage, are forever gone for me. I would lag behind the other empires in damage if I was forced to go back and refine Lasers all the way up to level 35.
Same problem if I choose to refine shields, and not weapons. I would fall behind in weapons, but not in shields. Also choosing lasers, and neglecting waves is similar, although here it makes it more interesting because one race may have more beam weapons, while another may have more wave weapons and faster ships (like in star trek where romulans have disruptors, federation has phasors).
Yes and no. There is a differenece between refine weapon A, refine shield, refine weapon B, etc and having to refine a single weapon up 35 levels to get it to be equal with all of the other weapons. If you chose to refine a single weapon multiple times before refining something else, yes, you would fall behind in that area. If you evenly reine, then you have no problem. With either of those two, it is a choice. If I choose not to refine lasers right away, then the choice is taken away from me to be able to get lasers later because I would fall too far behind with the current techs if I tried to make lasers usable.
utilae wrote:
Ranos wrote: Instead, if there is a weapon that is almost identical to Lasers that becomes available at level 35, then I have the option of researching that weapon and using it on my ships without lagging behind the other empires.
I don't like this because I would not bother refining lasers at all and just take the much improved laser later in the game.
But that is a choice. If I chose to make laser one of my main early game weapons, then I would refine it to keep it competative and doing damage. When the diminishing returns ran out, I would stop refining it and research a new weapon to replace it. Later, when the identical weapon became available, I would have the option of researching it and going back to my previous strategy with the laser.

If you choose not to refine the laser because the identical weapon will be available later on, then you will be doing less damage to your opponents and could lose the game because of that. That is choice.
utilae wrote:My thinking is like so:
-An application is a weapon that you keep and never lose. So a newer application does not remove an old application(refinements do this).
eg if you get laser1(app), then getting laser2(app) does not replace laser1.
I never said a new application would remove an old one. Diminishing returns would do this by making it far too costly to continue refining a weapon beyond a certain level. Once that weapon become useless due to it not being competative anymore, then you need to replace it with a new weapon. This would be a weapon of your choice. The "laser2(app)" as you call it, would not replace the laser because it wouldn't even be available for another 50-100 turns. What ever weapon you choose would be the replacement.
-A refinement simply increases the level of an application, however only the most recent level of application is kept (eg can't have level1 laser if you have level2 laser).
I agree with this.
-If researching application is going vertical in the tech tree, then refinements is going horizontal, eg
Laser->2->3->4->5->6
Next weapon
-This allows you to refine, next app, refine, next app, etc. Refinement research costs should be diminishing, but not too strong, because you still need an incentive to move forward in the tech tree, but refinements are not a short buzz, and then forget the weapon. They are 'this is an old car, but not forgotten, take care of it, etc la di da, our race likes this weapon, etc
But if we use diminishing returns, then you would have to forget the weapon at some point. If the weapon starts out doing 20 damage, as in my chart above, by Mk10, the weapon does almost 250% of its original damage but further refinements only increase the damage by 1 while the increase in rp cost becomes huge. If you didn't forget the weapon at some point, you would be wasting tons of rp for insignificant gain.
-I think that certain weapon types (eg laser, wave) should guarentee a counter type or two and have a few counter types that are rarer, eg Beam would have more energy, but less explosive, but missile would have more explosive but less energy, etc.
I agree.
-Each new application should be very different (looks, appearance, style). Not always stronger, but mostly stronger (as to move forward in the tech tree you expect better). There should be few duplicate weapons (eg higher level of laser, but stronger). Stat differences like inc damage, dec range should be implemented in the tweak feature in ship design.
I want new apps to be different but limiting them with just those few ways would result in very few new apps.
skdiw wrote:We should try focus on a generic system and duplicate it for the different weapon types instead of mixing them into the system, unless you want a moo3 like system. I see the different types of weapon developed in parallel rather in series.

How about making low tech weapons have a low mass requirment and higher tech have larger mass requirement. The higher tech is still powerful overall, but requires larger hull to equip it. The low tech weapons can be used as PD so players will still refine them. This way, both old and new techs are used throughout the game.
My chart was just an example. The percentages in rp cost and damage increase could be used but the actual numbers were just examples to show how it would work.

I would like to see weapon mount sizes like MOO3 had. Using that, you can change the size and use of each weapon instead of forcing new weapons to be main combat weapons and old weapons being PD.
Bastian wrote:Ranos, you repeat, and repeat, and repeat. But what you fail to see is the mayor error in your strategy definiition:
And you do nothing more than come in here, attack a small thing that I say and then do nothing more. There is no error in my strategy definition, just your understanding of it.
Bastian wrote:So to have a strategy, you need different possibilities to choose from. What you all the time are suggesting is to force the player on one path. But then their ain't choices -> no strategy.
I am not suggesting that. Strategy is made from choices. You have the choice of what weapons to use. There should be dozens spread across the entire tech tree. If one weapon runs out, you have to choose a new weapon. But you still choose that weapon. In choosing that weapon, you are adding it as part of your strategy.

I am merely saying that by removing a weapon from use by diminishing returns on refinements, the player has to choose a new weapon to use, but it can be any weapon they want.
Bastian wrote:As long as you don't gulp your "my strategy is the only right one, thus everything else should be reduced till the point it is no choice anymore" opinion, we won't get any further.
I have never said my strategy is the only right one because there is no strategy here. The strategy is in the game. Here we are talking about where players will have choices, where they won't have choices and where certain choices will run out.

If you don't like my suggestions on how to do things then come up with some of your own instead of just attacking mine. You have come in here and attacked the way I said something without actually contributing anything to the topic. If you want something to change, then makes a suggestion, but quit attacking me and the way I say things, especially when you don't understand what I said.
Bastian wrote:A strategy game lives from redundancies. You have to choose, what way to go: severall ways to deal the same amount of damage, each with its own strengths and weaknesses, but ultimatively achieving the same.
Strategy games don't live on redundancies alone. Strategy is not just looking at multiple choices and picking which ones you want to use, its about being forced to make a choice about something too. "I need to take this planet because it is a key step in my path towards the enemy capital." Now you have to choose how you will take it, what you will use to take it and plan what you will do after that.

If you make strategy be only about making choices when you choose to, then you will get a game that isn't challenging. If you make strategy about making choices when you have to in addition to when you want to, then you will get a challenging game. Its like having another empire say, "Can we have this sytem because we need it to be able to get to your capital," and you saying, "Oh, sure. Here you go," vs. the other empire taking your planet and you having to figure out whether you want to take it back or whether you want to build up your defenses in the next system.
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

#204 Post by utilae » Mon Nov 29, 2004 8:37 pm

Ranos wrote: The only way you can have differences that are that extreme is for one weapon per delivery type. Using this, we currently can have about ten weapons. This is a far too limited number.
I want weapons to be different at those extremes, but at lesser extremes too, eg a laser(energy) and a laser with splash (explosive) would be different enough. We will think up weapons that are very different and very similar. We could keep a few similar weapons, but hopefully we will think up more different weapons.
Ranos wrote: Weapons should be different based on a combination of Delivery System, Damage Type, Range, Damage, Space/Mass req, Power req, Construction Cost and maybe a couple of others. This allows for a very wide range of weapon possibilites, not just a handful. Weapons could be different based off of a single item above, two beam weapons, one does Energy damage, the other does Exotic damage, or they could be different based on all of the items.
True. The tweak system I mentioned would not eliminate all the weapons that just have inc damage, dec range. It simply adds more flexibility in design to your weapon. eg you could have plasma (short range, high damage) and laser (long range, low damage). In design you can tweak them. Maybe you could alter plasma to have long range, but to do so you have to put the damage fall off rate up.
Ranos wrote: See that depends on what happens. If refinements can go on forever (without diminishing returns or a hard cap) then yes, get rid of overhauling. If refinements are limited in some way, then don't get rid of overhauling. Overhauling allows you to take a ship that has an obsolete weapon (due to refinements becoming far too costly), shield, armor, engine or whatever else, and replace it with new state-of-the-art equipment. This should be almost as costly as building a new ship.
Couldn't both overhaul and refit just be the same 'refit'. It would be on button not two (refit/overhaul), so it would be simpler. And it would still do the overhaul effect. If you replace the number of components to the point where it is like building a new ships, then the cost will naturally be very expensive.
Ranos wrote: The point here is that continuous refining gives that player a huge advantage over the player who wants to refine a little and then get the next weapon.
True, that is a problem. Hmmm I wonder what would it be like if instead of refining for a single weapon, eg refine lasers, you refine for multiple weapons, eg all energy counter type weapons or all beam weapons. Just an idea, but I'll throw it out there.
Ranos wrote: If you choose not to refine the laser because the identical weapon will be available later on, then you will be doing less damage to your opponents and could lose the game because of that. That is choice.
You might choose to get a different weapon after lasers and refine the different weapon. Then when the improved laser comes later on, you take that. there's always some path that is likely to be taken over another.

Post Reply