Star Conflict OBT v 0.8.2 Update # 1 Discussion

Mercenary Center Patch Discussion
201

JP, I think you’ve been living up on your pedestal too long.

 

I agree entirely that opening rank ships are crap and you shouldn’t judge balance of a tier based on their performance. I found out first hand in Tier 3 that just moving from 7 to 8 makes a surprising amount of difference.

 

But to suggest the only people who should be allowed to talk about balance are people flying the highest ranked ships in a tier using pure blue/gold and purple gear… frankly, that’s just insulting. It’s disgusting elitism, and it proves how woefully out of touch you are. You don’t balance a game solely for the maxed out players - you balance it for everyone!

 

Your right, I stepped over my normal boundarys. 

 

I honestly didnt mean that. I was talking on the persepective that a person that refuses to move up and see the differences in ships and modules cant constantly complain for there own short comings. Im sure hes a good player but constantly bitching will get you nowhere. You need to DO better. 

 

Again, I apologize if my point came across as mean or down right nasty. 

202

JP, I think you’ve been living up on your pedestal too long.

 

I agree entirely that opening rank ships are crap and you shouldn’t judge balance of a tier based on their performance. I found out first hand in Tier 3 that just moving from 7 to 8 makes a surprising amount of difference.

 

But to suggest the only people who should be allowed to talk about balance are people flying the highest ranked ships in a tier using pure blue/gold and purple gear… frankly, that’s just insulting. It’s disgusting elitism, and it proves how woefully out of touch you are. You don’t balance a game solely for the maxed out players - you balance it for everyone!

For all his bluntness there is a point: Essentially all successful games are balanced for top tier first, and everyone else a distant fourth if even that.

 

Examples: Starcraft (all of them), LoL, DOTA(2) etc.

 

Point being that if you balance for low and mid skill level first, the guys on the top will destroy those low and mid players by playing nothing but OP stuff when they actually want to win and get frustrated that they cannot outplay low and mid players when they are playing OP stuff in spite of playing much better. At the same time high end games with degenerate into “OP vs OP boredom” which is what we saw/are seeing with frigate balls.

203

StarCraft is a little different because it is primarily balanced as 1 vs 1. Games like Star Conflict are meant to be 8-12 vs 8-12, and should be balanced as such.

 

Also, in Tier 1 and 2 in particular, and Tier 3 if the Developers are to be believed about it being the “normal” gaming tier, you need to balance for the full spectrum. You need to balance it assuming the game contains people who are just starting in that tier, people who have maxed the tier, and people at various stages in between.

 

To use an example form Call of Duty, look at the Ace Tube. A low-level player with a Ace Tube can 1-hit-kill anyone. So… how come almost nobody uses it? Because better players have better options - not better as in “my ePeen 400 can 1-hit-kill without me needing Line of Sight!”, but better as in “This item is harder to use, but makes me a better player if used right.”

 

This is the main reason I get pissed off at Rank 4 and Rank 7 ships. These are dumbed down vessels with fewer modules, which in turn means you have fewer options in game. Not only that, but their stats are terrible - a problem compounded by the fact that their higher-tier rivals are adding more modules to boost their already superior stats.

 

In an ideal world, Rank 4 / 7 ships would be simplistic, but powerful. Rank 5 /8 and 6 / 9  ships would take away the direct power in exchange for indirect power. An example might be the old Disintegrators; the Iron Harpy might have a much more powerful Disintegrator than a Steel Harpy, but the Steel Harpy might cause Damage over Time as well as the initial hit. This is far more useful in the hands of a veteran pilot. Why? Because DoT means the target can’t cloak; they’ll become visible again straight away. Nor can they capture beacons until the damage runs out. A rookie pilot might not see the possibilities of that weapon and favour the more powerful Iron Harpy, but a veteran would likely pick the Steel Harpy every time.

 

This kind of balance is very difficult to achieve, but I honestly believe it is possible. I also believe, very firmly, that Star Conflict would be a much better game if such changes could be implemented.

204

The problem with all non “max of their tier” ships is that devs want a progression in the form of “weak ship, average ship, strong ship”. This philosophy is very evident in the lack of modules, implants and stats on these ships, while premium ships are all considered “max rank of their tier” for these features.

 

So it’s not about balance. If devs wanted a balance like that, they’d set low and medium rank ships like they did with premium ships - they’re granted max rank for their tier in terms of stats, slots and implant access regardless of their actual rank. It’s about game’s progression design and it’s very evident in the ship tree.

205

So it’s not about balance. If devs wanted a balance like that, they’d set low and medium rank ships like they did with premium ships - they’re granted max rank for their tier in terms of stats, slots and implant access regardless of their actual rank. It’s about game’s progression design and it’s very evident in the ship tree.

You know what was good? The old ship tree. That tree was perfectly fine with a few minor tweaks needed. Ships were in every rank (save one or two exceptions, mostly in T1s) and it was a fairly balanced rank system. Now we see 1 ship in T1, 2-4 in T2, 3-5 in T3 and 3-5 in T4. YES! Magnificently progressive tree!

206

You know what was good? The old ship tree. That tree was perfectly fine with a few minor tweaks needed. Ships were in every rank (save one or two exceptions, mostly in T1s) and it was a fairly balanced rank system. Now we see 1 ship in T1, 2-4 in T2, 3-5 in T3 and 3-5 in T4. YES! Magnificently progressive tree!

Low rank problem was just as bad in the old tree as it was in the new one. Actually worse because back then there were more “mandatory modules” and having 3 slots for them instead of 4 gimped you even harder then it does now.

 

Role change shifted some power from active modules to special module, which makes current tree actually marginally better for low rank for their tier-ships.

 

And then there’s the whole “old matchmaking system” can of worms that ensured that there was rarely anyone with lower rank ship then you in the games if you were flying a low rank for its tier ship. Right now, if you’re playing like sabre01, you get a lot of games where you get to smash poor T1 pilots in their queue if you perform badly enough. Old system would shove you into same queue as everyone on the same tier regardless of your success/failure rate, as only tier mattered for matchmaking back then.

207

Low rank problem was just as bad in the old tree as it was in the new one. Actually worse because back then there were more “mandatory modules” and having 3 slots for them instead of 4 gimped you even harder then it does now.

 

Role change shifted some power from active modules to special module, which makes current tree actually marginally better for low rank for their tier-ships.

No, no, I’m not talking about the module or slot layout. I’m talking about the ship tree. You can keep the stats and roles as they are now, I like it this way, but what I wanted to see was how the ships were ranked prior to this revamp, 3 ships per tier. The current ship rank system is relatively unbalanced. Some tiers give you 2-3 ships to choose from, some give you 5. I mean, honestly, what the hell…

208

No, no, I’m not talking about the module or slot layout. I’m talking about the ship tree. You can keep the stats and roles as they are now, I like it this way, but what I wanted to see was how the ships were ranked prior to this revamp, 3 ships per tier. The current ship rank system is relatively unbalanced. Some tiers give you 2-3 ships to choose from, some give you 5. I mean, honestly, what the hell…

Are you talking about role change and new roles? If so then you’re indeed correct.

209

Are you having problems understanding him Luckyo? it’s quite easy really…

pre 8.crap version the ship tree was good, now it isn’t

210

Ah, I remember back then, ppl fitted there ships how ever and when ever they wanted. 

 

I remember my interceptor which was a cross of ECM and Covert OPs, I was known to be called a frigate killer. 

211

Are you having problems understanding him Luckyo? it’s quite easy really…

pre 8.crap version the ship tree was good, now it isn’t

He still thinks I’m talking about the modules, slot layouts and roles or something weird like that…

212

This is the main reason I get pissed off at Rank 4 and Rank 7 ships. These are dumbed down vessels with fewer modules, which in turn means you have fewer options in game. Not only that, but their stats are terrible - a problem compounded by the fact that their higher-tier rivals are adding more modules to boost their already superior stats.

 

There is a small saving grace, however, for some of the ‘luckier’ rank 4 ships. Offhand the two examples I can remember is the Fox versus the Fox-M, and the Raptor Mk2 versus the Alligator-M. The Fox has better passive bonuses than the Fox-M (improved parameters as compared to reduced energy usage), which could be useful for newer players with poorer modules. The Alligator-M also has no passive bonuses to speak of at all, as opposed to the Raptor Mk2 which offered something (can’t remember what it was).

213

There is a small saving grace, however, for some of the ‘luckier’ rank 4 ships. Offhand the two examples I can remember is the Fox versus the Fox-M, and the Raptor Mk2 versus the Alligator-M. The Fox has better passive bonuses than the Fox-M (improved parameters as compared to reduced energy usage), which could be useful for newer players with poorer modules. The Alligator-M also has no passive bonuses to speak of at all, as opposed to the Raptor Mk2 which offered something (can’t remember what it was).

 

Reduced plasma and railgun spread. By 33%.

214

I would like to see ships in the same tier and role share the same number of hardpoints and base survivability. This way a rank 7 and a rank 9 have less of a gap.

 

Ships ranks then are differentiated by other attribute differences that complement their roles or class for eg.

  • AB energy use for interceptors

  • turning speed for frigates

  • Energy for command, Locking time for Tackler, AB speed for Gunships

etc

 

[edit]

[link](< base_url >/index.php?/topic/20027-tier-differentiation/#entry204303)

215

Kine because those bonusses definitly make up for the lack of ship slots right!! yeah…no

 

IMO they should make something for empire like: 

R1 gun ship - R3 gunship  - R4 gunship - R6 gunship -etc.

                   \  R3 Command ship - R6 gunship - etc.

 

it shows that the faction has more gunships and starts the next tier with it, but R2-5-8-11 ships would become quite rare i guess…But there is quite a big difference between R2/3 R5/6 R8/9 R11/12 in terms of ship slots…

You could put the command ships in R5 I guess, but the missing slots make a big difference…

216

because those bonusses definitly make up for the lack of ship slots right!! yeah…no

 

you misunderstand. all ships of the same tier and role share same number of slots and base survivability. they are differentiated in other ways.

217

you misunderstand. all ships of the same tier and role share same number of slots and base survivability. they are differentiated in other ways.

I must be imagining than that my T3 R8 inty has less slots than the T3 R9 inty… right? >.>

218

I must be imagining than that my T3 R8 inty has less slots than the T3 R9 inty… right? >.>

 

Yes 1 passiv slot is missing.

219

I read a lot of things on the forum lately.

 

And that’s not just my opinion on the latest patch, but the whole of what should have been done, was done, and that should come in the future.

 

 

I am for a global rebalancing.

And I said global!

 

Stop pandemic GUARDGINEERS!

Rebalancing the survivability of “Hydras 2” and “Cerberus 2” compared to the Engineers of the Federation!

 

But it should not be limited to one type of vessel, only one type of weapon, or a single game mode!

 

We need a real lobby before the game for players to see the ships chosen by each other to find a balance in each fleet!

We need the players can choose a strategy to put in place before the game, and for that, they must have the time to talk!

(Domination squads would be reduced and it will avoid the monstrous stomps)

 

We need a dynamic map! That allow players to seek support, or to establish a beachhead or a front line! To request a recognition mission! ect ect …

 

We need to improve the link between the vessels. It is necessary that frigate fleet be weaker than balanced fleet, and same for an interceptor fleet against ** balanced  **fleet , ect ect …

 

We need to increase the difference between the tier for a real feeling of progression.

BUT!

There must have less difference between rank! A “ship rank 4” must be competitive against a rank 6 of the same type!

Ship tree should be logical! It is not normal for a Guard Commander to be forced to buy Long Range for progress! It is not normal that a gunship pilot is forced to buy a Command!

 

It is not normal to have ships at max rank only available in premium!

And I’m talking of course frigates guards T2 and T3 tacklers !

No guard R6 or R9 Tackler other than premium!

Purchasing premium ship should be a sign of support for the Devs!

Not a requirement to be Able to play a kind of ship it with full potential.

 

You really want to balance your game?

Reduce the reputation and money necessary to get the better equipment!

The “4-7-10 ranks” are just empty! NOTHING! They just serve to force players to spend more time making contracts!

 

And if it was the game modes that were not balanced compared to roles of ships?

We always changed the ships since the patch bringing the roles and it still rumbles.

 

But we never touched the game modes !

So what do we do?

220

I am for a global rebalancing.

And I said global!

 

Stop pandemic GUARDGINEERS!

Rebalancing the survivability of “Hydras 2” and “Cerberus 2” compared to the Engineers of the Federation!

 

But it should not be limited to one type of vessel, only one type of weapon, or a single game mode!

 

We need a real lobby before the game for players to see the ships chosen by each other to find a balance in each fleet!

We need the players can choose a strategy to put in place before the game, and for that, they must have the time to talk!

(Domination squads would be reduced and it will avoid the monstrous stomps)

 

We need a dynamic map! That allow players to seek support, or to establish a beachhead or a front line! To request a recognition mission! ect ect …

 

We need to improve the link between the vessels. It is necessary that frigate fleet be weaker than balanced fleet, and same for an interceptor fleet against ** balanced  **fleet , ect ect …

 

We need to increase the difference between the tier for a real feeling of progression.

BUT!

There must have less difference between rank! A “ship rank 4” must be competitive against a rank 6 of the same type!

Ship tree should be logical! It is not normal for a Guard Commander to be forced to buy Long Range for progress! It is not normal that a gunship pilot is forced to buy a Command!

 

It is not normal to have ships at max rank only available in premium!

And I’m talking of course frigates guards T2 and T3 tacklers !

No guard R6 or R9 Tackler other than premium!

Purchasing premium ship should be a sign of support for the Devs!

Not a requirement to be Able to play a kind of ship it with full potential.

 

Global rebalancing? No, things just need some tweaking to work perfectly. We already had one global rebalancing and it was absolute chaos for the first 2 days.

 

Why should the devs rebalance the Hydras and Cerbs? They’re Imperial ships, their main focus IS armor tanking, unlike the Federation’s 50/50 tank. This also means they have more survivability? No, because Fed Frigates make up for it in speed and manoeuvrability.

 

There’s already a lobby, it’s the ~30secs BEFORE the match starts. If you don’t like what you see in the enemy’s composition, hit Esc -> “Leave Battle”.

 

Maps ARE dynamic. If you’re low on health, you’re meant to seek out a friendly Engie and glue to him, if you’re fully stocked on missiles, you’re supposed to go all out on objective completion, if you have full hp, go friggin kill something or tackle a Minefield. If you can’t play how the game is played by almost every pilot, then that’s your problem. But you’re right, it’s not right that a Gunship pilot is forced to buy a Command Ship. This goes back to the point I was making about the ship tree and ship classes on it. However, all Empires have 2 ships per class (2 types of Frigates, 2 types of Fighters, 2 types of Ceptors), which is still woefully unbalanced in the trees.

 

Why isn’t it normal to have full synergy on Premium ships? You’re paying for them, you should have a little bonus working in your favor. Generally, the fact that you’re PAYING for something in this game, means you’re skipping the ridiculously long grind the game forces on you. I’ve discussed about that on a thread in Miscellaneous, you should take a peek at it; there is just too much disparity for me to repeat everything here.