Oolite Bulletins

Thargoid wrote:

And also in terms of balance, not all the trunk ships are balanced anyway - but in that case in terms of weakness rather than strength.

The Boa 1 or Boa 2 aren't balanced even relative to each other.
(They're too close in price.)
If the Boa 1 only cost 300-360k credits, it'd still be somewhat overpriced relative to the bargain-basement Python at 200k credits.

It's wrong to assume that all the ships in the game should be "balanced". Nobody, I don't think, would argue for every negative being offset with a positive. Some ships are better than others, and that's a fact. The better ships are there to be aspired to and worked towards.

There's nothing wrong with producing a really good ship. What is wrong, though, from a game-design point of view, is to introduce a ship that's better than anything else in most or even many respects. It renders all other ships obsolete.

This sort of thing, in real life, can happen, e.g. the development of the Dreadnought class of battleship just prior to World War I, or the development of nuclear weapons, or even the machine-gun. But Oolite is a game. Reality can take a long walk off a short pier, frankly. We pick what makes the best game and we rationalise it afterwards. Why is the Cobra III still an excellent ship? Because ship technology has reached a plateau. These things happen. The Blackbird may be way better than the Sopwith Camel, after a 40-year gap, but a 21st-century transit van isn't dramatically better than a goods van from the 1970s: and a contemporary mallet isn't any better than one from Roman times. It doesn't matter why, though: we choose to level things off because otherwise it breaks the game. If we made a Cobra IV, we'd end up increasing the stats of all the ships too, making an Asp III, a Python II, etc. and ultimately everything would effectively be the same because if the game is going to be any fun, all the ships need to fall inside the same broadly comparable range.

Everybody has different tastes. As has been said many times before, one person's uber is another person's nicely kitted-out. But I think it's a good idea for designers to keep their feet on the (imaginary ) ground. It's easy to make something that's better than everything else: it just needs bigger numbers than everything else. The real trick is exercising sufficient self-control to leave stuff out; to impose limits for no other reason than to give a creation more character and to make things more interesting for the player. For example (off the top of my head – I'd be interested to see what people thought about these, and if anyone has their own suggestions):

1) a really hot combat ship that can't carry any missiles (or even can only carry 1);
or
2) a fast bulk trader that can't fit a rear laser.

i tried stuff like that w/ my Vampires, they were well specced but to balance out they didn't have side or rear weapons points. it wasn't well received.

well i would buy a hot sports car that had no mount point for a caravan or trailer tow, and i wouldnt expect it to have a giant boot or even back seats.

A reverse gear maybe not, but i wouldnt be too surprised by arial atom and other similar boys toys dont go in reverse.

"Obsolete" gear can have it's place. It may be more affordable to someone starting out or who has suffered a severe setback. It may have "status points" for being a classic. It may possess "quaint" features some folks find attractive.

But the biggest bit for gameplay would probably be that it may be going cheap compared to "the new hot". The OXP for being able to buy "rusty" old ships was an option I felt was good and possibly unique in OXPOolite. I'd seen it in movies. In "Firefly", the "Serenity" was bought from a salvage yard. I did wish it was possible to repair and upgrade those old ships eventually so they could be "good as new". If there were "chop and speed shops" where one could get an old classic rescued from the junkyard and turn it into something mean, lean and unique. Where you could also customise by buying a cool new paint job (maybe with shaders) and perhaps options like lights for mining and landing that could be cool, but wouldn't actually affect things like game balance as well as "iron ass" sort of things.

Lights are an item that aren't used as much as they could be. A front light could be nice eye candy for mining and landings. Being able to turn off all running lights might be a nice option for ambush/smuggling or trying to sneak past opponents when you've taken enough damage already in other fights that you're just hoping to "bring in the cat" to a repair facility. What would be nice would be if it would somewhat reduce your chances of being spotted, and that could be balanced by making it a minor infraction if Galcop or a main station catches you running dark because you forgot to turn them back on before they spotted you.

Along the same vein could be an "emergency beacon" where turning it on would attract Galcop attention (or maybe more opponents as well in systems where raiders are more likely to see it than cops). The ability to send out some sort of "mayday" could be good. The player would need to use judgement on that, since it might be more likely to get help faster in a system with strong police presence, but it would be just advertising that you are wounded prey in a rougher system. A mayday device or emergency beacon would be best as an option, rather than standard equipment. Maybe a pod mounted recoverable device so it could also be used (with questionable legality) to lure prey into an ambush?

But back to the ubericity question, money is one balancing factor. But only one. Certain ships might be rare in the sense that they can only be bought in a specific galaxy or only at a very specific list of systems.

If anybody really wanted to limit a ship to make it unattractive to a beginner but still possibly quite useful to a more experienced player, I'd suggest not allowing it to equip a docking computer rather than crippling weapons. A super fast racer or fighter ship wouldn't necessarily have those anyway. It'd just be "extra junk" to someone who plays as a racer or fighter mostly. I'm pretty sure that any "competent" level or above commander is very capable of landing without one, practically with their eyes closed. The docking computer is mostly a good practical convenience for traders that repeatedly land at the main stations over and over in night of play.

I also wouldn't try to balance an "uber cargo" ship by not allowing it a *rear* laser. I'd think it more likely that if it only had one laser, aft would be the place for it. It's not a ship designed for picking fights, it'd make more sense that it'd be trying to take out attackers while fleeing.

Probably the most obvious way to "balance" ships is to do something that I'm sure has come up many times before. Make all additions cost some cargo space. That way a fighter that is iron-assed to the max couldn't haul much, and a freighter that was made decked out for maximum cargo wouldn't be sporting a lot of weaponry. Make cargo or weapons mass proportional to size and size inversely proportional to top speed.

And I agree that if a Cobra MK IV were introduced into the core game, it would be logical that many other core ships also would have been upgraded. But it does not necessarily follow that the Mk IV should automatically become the new starter ship. I'm still not sure why we start new players in a MK III rather than a MKI or MKII, other than it gives them a bit of a boost/advantage to start. I can see where it makes sense to start new players in a good all around ship so they can explore being a trader or fighter or explorer or bounty hunter or whatever, but why are they starting in a ship that's rather expensive and "top of the line" among the core game ships? Because that's the way it is, I guess. LOL

But the game can advance, whether by OXP or core developments, without automatically changing the starting point. Such expansion can just add to what is possible in the game, more variety, opportunity and fun.

Ships and gear that become obsolete due to new ships and gear still can be useful in a game and it wouldn't just disappear overnight. Does everyone here run out and buy this year's model of car as soon as it rolls off the production line? I doubt it. Are there no older model cars and big trucks on our roads? Is the Blackbird the only plane in the sky? LOL

Ubericity is a relative term. "Uber" when compared with.. (fill in the blank).

Disembodied wrote:

It's wrong to assume that all the ships in the game should be "balanced".

So I'm completely wrong to assume there's any point to the prices, one might as well be "10" while the other one is "Q"?

Ganelon wrote:

I also wouldn't try to balance an "uber cargo" ship by not allowing it a *rear* laser. I'd think it more likely that if it only had one laser, aft would be the place for it. It's not a ship designed for picking fights, it'd make more sense that it'd be trying to take out attackers while fleeing.

See, though, this is what I mean about not allowing "reality" to interfere. It might, arguably, be more "likely" that a single-laser ship only has a rear laser: but it's not as much fun. The purpose of limiting the ship to one laser would be to increase the level of challenge, while still making the game playable. If we need any justification, it's because a big ship that moves at that speed needs a really outsize engine, and the levels of quantum flux this produces at the stern renders a rear laser useless. Or [insert handwavium here]. We should do things because they're fun, and justify them afterwards.

Ganelon wrote:

Probably the most obvious way to "balance" ships is to do something that I'm sure has come up many times before. Make all additions cost some cargo space. That way a fighter that is iron-assed to the max couldn't haul much, and a freighter that was made decked out for maximum cargo wouldn't be sporting a lot of weaponry. Make cargo or weapons mass proportional to size and size inversely proportional to top speed.

I don't want to force people into playing the game in any particular way. If someone wants to make an all-round ubership, good luck to them. Personally, I think one of the best ways to help balance a really powerful ship (and definitions of "really powerful" will vary from person to person) is to make it rare as hens' teeth. I searched for my Wolf II SE for months of gametime, and was really, genuinely excited when I found it.

Ganelon wrote:

And I agree that if a Cobra MK IV were introduced into the core game, it would be logical that many other core ships also would have been upgraded. But it does not necessarily follow that the Mk IV should automatically become the new starter ship. I'm still not sure why we start new players in a MK III rather than a MKI or MKII, other than it gives them a bit of a boost/advantage to start. I can see where it makes sense to start new players in a good all around ship so they can explore being a trader or fighter or explorer or bounty hunter or whatever, but why are they starting in a ship that's rather expensive and "top of the line" among the core game ships? Because that's the way it is, I guess. LOL

This is an important point. Players start a long way up the available "ship ladder" in a Cobra III because that's what you had in the original Elite. Elite gave you a Cobra III because you couldn't buy new ships, so it had to give the player something good to begin with. If it was being written today it would make more sense to start the player off in an Adder, to extend the sense of progression.

This is fine up to a point: upgrade from an Adder to a Cobra I? Definitely! From a Cobra I to a Cobra III? Absolutely! These are all progression markers within the game, just like upgrading from a beam laser to a military one: common sense, really, as soon as you can afford it. Eventually, though, the game has to level out (otherwise it turns into D&D ). Because the Cobra III is quite a long way up the ladder to begin with, near the logical levelling-out point, this is where things start to get tricky. I'm not saying that people shouldn't make better ships; just that they should be really, really careful when they do.

This is where tradeoffs come in. Tradeoffs give players something to think about: actual, real decisions to make. Do you want tougher, or faster? Do you want bigger, or more nimble? They can help add nuance, instead of just increasing the numbers – just making something tougher, faster, bigger AND more nimble.

Ultimately, it's about the character of the ship – essentially the character that the player is playing in the game (or it is for me, at any rate). Who is the more interesting superhero: Superman, or Batman? Who has more interesting stories? Maybe this is purely a matter of taste. Are there people who genuinely prefer Superman – overendowed with powers, relentlessly good, right and true, and perpetually pitted against ludicrously OTT enemies – to Batman – human, eminently killable, and possibly a bit mental?

Killer Wolf wrote:

i tried stuff like that w/ my Vampires, they were well specced but to balance out they didn't have side or rear weapons points. it wasn't well received.

I find that a bit disappointing, that it wasn't well-received. Personally I thought your Vampires and Werewolves were pretty well balanced. Might it be that lots of people were quietly happy, and a few were noisily upset?

Ermmm... so what were we talking about again? Seriously!

I think the bottom line is this:

1. Oolite was meant to be a modern re-imagination of the original Elite. Achieved: check
2. If you don't want to use "uber ships" then don't (no OXPs). Achieved: check
3. Playability is more important than game balance (and realism). Achieved: half check

I think the last point is probably the sticking point, how real is real enough? How balanced is balanced enough? I look at a game like Diablo II for example and I would argue that even for the single player balance is critical otherwise if you have no hope of beating the game (or conversely no hope of losing) why bother playing at all? However, take a game like Grand Theft Auto 3 and who cares if you can win or not, blowing stuff up is fun! Horses for courses.

I suppose it all comes down to personal taste and preference. I think for Oolite to have a more balanced, decision-tree approach like that of Diablo II, you would in all honesty have to start from scratch and rethink the game engine entirely. For example having limited equipment-space similar to limited cargo space, so that you had to think about which equipment you wanted to kit your ship out with (rather than choose everything) would be a start. But then some people might argue this would just completely kill all the fun of the game. You can't please everybody. *shrugs*

Either way, Elite was/is an awesome game, and Oolite is an awesome game even if neither are perfect.

Disembodied wrote:

Killer Wolf wrote:

i tried stuff like that w/ my Vampires, they were well specced but to balance out they didn't have side or rear weapons points. it wasn't well received.

I find that a bit disappointing, that it wasn't well-received. Personally I thought your Vampires and Werewolves were pretty well balanced. Might it be that lots of people were quietly happy, and a few were noisily upset?

lol, mighta been! at the time, i took out the side guns because i'd never ever had a use for them in all my Elite/Oolite player. similarly, the rear gun just got my coordination all snafu, and IIRC Elite used one heat level so there was no point to switching to a rear gun. on release, a few people actually said they used the rear gun as a matter of course, which kinda surprised me. guess it goes to show you should never assume everyone else has the same levels of ineptitude as you do when it comes to flying in reverse
in later releases i put the guns back, but i try to balance out missile carrying and cargo space etc - in my write-ups i blather about space being taken up by powerplants etc so you get a good fighter w/ not much cargo space, etc etc. the prob i have w/ each release tho, is that i'm starting to hit a "glass ceiling" : you naturally want each new ship to be better/faster/stronger to keep up the impression of technical advances etc, but you start running into the ubericity factor. i guess maybe if every new Vampire model had the same stats it might not bother people in gameplay, but for me i like to pretend things are real, and if Isis Interstellar's MkIII Vampire got xxx recharge rate and yyy top speed, i have to consider that if the Mark IV didn't get that "+ zzz%" then they wouldn't have bothered putting it into production.
<edit> BTW, thanks for the compliment on my ships

A newer equal-or-worse ship might still be built if it could be made more cheaply than the "prototype" it was based on.

Obviously, I would object if things started getting silly, like having twenty five uberfighters created as secret Navy projects (especially if they get subsequently stolen)

Yes that sounds Like a MILITARY FIASCO to me

lol sorry couldn't resist.

Not wishing to blindly wade into an already healthy debate - But using a ship that might be seen as "uber" is really up to the user.

Some players enjoy the feeling of being a hardcore pilot with most of their kills in a CobraIII, but others enjoy saving for a killer OXP
battleship like a Imp Courier or Vortex. It should be down to what is fun - Not some spectral idea of what constitutes the "Elite Spirit".

I think OXP stats should not be capped, as it means a certain mindset is being enforced on everyone. At the cost of good gameplay.
Also, "caps" would restrict mods. The choice for strict canon or "uber" fun should be left firmly in the hands of the individual...

Just my 0.2 credit's worth!

curtsibling wrote:

Not wishing to blindly wade into an already healthy debate - But using a ship that might be seen as "uber" is really up to the user.

Some players enjoy the feeling of being a hardcore pilot with most of their kills in a CobraIII, but others enjoy saving for a killer OXP
battleship like a Imp Courier or Vortex. It should be down to what is fun - Not some spectral idea of what constitutes the "Elite Spirit".

I think OXP stats should not be capped, as it means a certain mindset is being enforced on everyone. At the cost of good gameplay.
Also, "caps" would restrict mods. The choice for strict canon or "uber" fun should be left firmly in the hands of the individual...

Just my 0.2 credit's worth!

And the easiest way is not to install the OXP of said ship of course. BUT, if a mission OXP writer has spent months carefully crafting an mission based on specs of various good and very good ships to create a well balanced, playable OXP and somebody builds or installs SuperUberMk4 and nothing in the OXP presents a problem to it then that'll be the end of mission writing for the OXPer (to the detriment to everybody else) and pointless for the player who will have a shallow victory over the OXP...