Proposal for 1.82: equipment balancing and choices

[Redspear]

It would need to be after 9 times for the ship's cat

[mossfoot]

I was thinking of a pie chart or a linear graph, but a generic "Mamba-type", "Cobra-type" and "Boa-type" pic would work too.

Yeah, just something to help generally visualize available equipment and cargo space in an abstract way. In effect it would still be a graph, just presented differently. Good place to start?

[Falcon777]

I feel as if I need to speak up again. Much of what has been mentioned changes the core game mechanics dramatically. Looking back to the original post, the "issue" was a lack of "balancing" among oxp equipment. That is contradictory to what I believe to be the nature of oxps. Oxps are there to change the game. If you don't want one, you don't have to download it. However, altering the core game in an attempt to balance something that is OPTIONAL doesn't make sense. Shouldn't it be up to the player to decide how much he wants to alter his own game? By adding restrictions like equipment space and energy drain, you end up changing the core game in a way that goes against the spirit of equipment oxps. Is it perhaps a little more realistic? Maybe, though I have always viewed all newly purchased ships to be very empty, waiting to be filled and fitted with equipment that there's plenty of room for.

Honestly, it's not an idea that I like. I personally don't think that oxps necessarily need balancing, at least not a balance between themselves. Instead, the player has to use his judgement about how much he wants to change the game. Warning players about how drastic a particular oxp may change his game is one thing. Actually changing the core game to fit a debatable idea of balance is quite another.

[Switeck]

A couple of mine
- repeated repairs of equipment make it more fragile until it is breaking all the time - need to be replace with a new one
- uber equipment available at specific star systems - say one per galaxy, e.g. have to travel to galaxy 8 for a prototype energy unit with twice the power for half the size at four times the cost

So changing the distances that the player can jump does affect the game considerably...

Yep. Starting the player with 5ly is the way to go.

Perhaps it is. Some random thoughts :
there could be 4 types of unit available 5,6,7 & 8 LY - affecting cost and size
older / smaller ships have a 5LY unit at start e.g. an Adder that could be upgraded to a 6. Or the ANA could add 1LY to a drives capabilities.
a Cobra Mk I starts with a 6LY drive, a MK III with a 7LY thus keeping it in line with the existing game and giving a fair start to a new player

Shorter max-range jumps leave the starting players with too few options. Even with a 6 LY max you're harder-pressed to reach relatively safe systems.

As for longer-ranged jump drives...even increasing the current max jump range from 7 LY (actually 6.8 LY) to 7.2 LY changes things a surprising bit. Certain inaccessible systems can be reached with little difficulty. But if max jumps stay limited to 7 LY, having a slightly bigger fuel tank isn't so imbalancing. Even with a 9 LY fuel tank topped off, a 6.8 LY jump that accidentally ends up being a misjump is a death sentence without outside help. Hitchhiking on an NPC's wormhole is arguably more powerful in 1 way -- letting you make a 6-6.8 LY jump while saving all your fuel. You can even cross the Great Void in Galaxy Chart 7 doing that, although it's really cruel to do to NPC ships.

I have a few unfinished, unreleased, and overpowered OXPs that gives other means of travel -- some so overpowered that I can go to unreachable systems for free, just taking time and wear-and-tear on my ship to do so. They were loosely derived from ideas/methods in OneWayTicket2Oresrati, Link7, and Long Range Scanner. They're deep into broken game balance/cheating zone, so don't expect to see them on the autoupdate list. I use them strictly for testing stuff like missions and jump routes.
One that reprograms the Galactic Hyperdrive much like some existing OXPs do. It can be considered somewhat game-balanced through high price coupled with being tied to a 1-shot item.
And lastly, a simplification of sorts of yet another existing OXP...a wormhole bomb. It makes 1 small, short-lived wormhole to a nearby system (7 LY limit of course). The catch is it's expensive -- 3,000 credits because it carries a 1-shot hyperdrive, an energy source to power that jump, and enough of a navigational computer to reliably "hit" its target system...all in a tiny package. Game-balance wise, the ancient fuel tank OXP that gives you 3 LY fuel tank pods that "fire" like a missile/bomb are easily more affordable and potentially more versatile.

Ordinary missiles are almost worthless. Either your target has an ECM or injectors or so tough that they can take a hit from the missile and not even be throwing sparks. The extra price for a "hardhead" ECM-resistant missile proves even less useful except as an extreme measure. I've expended 2 missiles in a row on a single ship, seeing both score solid hits and not kill it.

A simple balance fix for the Beam Lasers is to reduce their rate of fire so they're not almost a magnitude better than Pulse Lasers. Don't touch damage or heat build-up. Problem solved.

I don't like the idea of ships just being lots of empty space that you can fill with "whatever" equipment fits, for reasons already mentioned -- the huge cargo haulers can become like slow battleships while the Asp is stuck unable to add much of anything. Compatible equipment has to do with how it interfaces with the ship. If there wasn't an option in the ship's design to accept military shield upgrades, it's not simply a lack of space that prevents you from adding it! Cutting holes in the ship's armor for extra launch ports for missiles, chaff, etc...cannot be good for the ship's resale value.

[Venator Dha]

A couple of mine
- repeated repairs of equipment make it more fragile until it is breaking all the time - need to be replace with a new one
- uber equipment available at specific star systems - say one per galaxy, e.g. have to travel to galaxy 8 for a prototype energy unit with twice the power for half the size at four times the cost

So changing the distances that the player can jump does affect the game considerably...

Yep. Starting the player with 5ly is the way to go.

Perhaps it is. Some random thoughts :
there could be 4 types of unit available 5,6,7 & 8 LY - affecting cost and size
older / smaller ships have a 5LY unit at start e.g. an Adder that could be upgraded to a 6. Or the ANA could add 1LY to a drives capabilities.
a Cobra Mk I starts with a 6LY drive, a MK III with a 7LY thus keeping it in line with the existing game and giving a fair start to a new player

Shorter max-range jumps leave the starting players with too few options. Even with a 6 LY max you're harder-pressed to reach relatively safe systems.

I am more suggesting enabling it so that an OXP could do this, not a change to the core to be so.
Some people (well me at least ) find the most enjoyment starting new ships with different starting conditions (Hard Adder Start, etc) and seeing where they go. An OXP that meant that it only had a 5LY range would be an added challenge.

[cim]

However, altering the core game in an attempt to balance something that is OPTIONAL doesn't make sense.

It depends how you look at it. Ship OXPs are optional, but we give OXPers tools so that they can make ships which are weak by the standards of the core game, similar to the standards of the core game, or stronger than the standards of the core game. Players can then download the ship OXPs they want for NPCs, and purchase the ship they want for themselves, to tune the game as they wish.

Mission OXPs are optional, and OXPers can make missions ranging from the really easy and well paid to the really difficult and badly paid - players can play which they want.

Equipment OXPs are optional, and we give OXPers tools so that they can make equipment which makes player ships better than before. But we don't - currently - give OXPers tools so that they can make equipment which makes player ships as good as before, but in a different way. So there's lots of scope for OXPers and players to make a universe where the Ultimate Cobra is one with about five hundred pieces of equipment - but there's very little scope for them to make a universe where the Ultimate Cobra is a matter of serious debate in crowded space bars. To allow that, we need to introduce into the core game other ways in which equipment can be balanced out - but this doesn't stop the current sort of Equipment OXP being written, installed, etc. just as before with the effect on game balance they previously had.

If you give a ship 100,000 points of equipment space, then even OXP equipment designed to use significant space will fit without you ever needing to care about it. I fully expect a lot of ship OXPs -especially the more powerful ones - will end up with that sort of "don't need to care" size.

(Probably for compatibility existing equipment OXPs should have default size of 0, and existing ship OXPs should get a large enough equipment space to hold all core equipment and then some by default)

A simple balance fix for the Beam Lasers is to reduce their rate of fire so they're not almost a magnitude better than Pulse Lasers. Don't touch damage or heat build-up. Problem solved.

The way laser fire is drawn means that it's actually easier to halve the damage+heat per shot than it is to halve the rate of fire (assuming we want to keep the 'beam' visual), even though the effect on weapon power is basically identical.

An OXP that meant that it only had a 5LY range would be an added challenge.

Easy enough to do - just stick this in a worldscript (untested).

Code: Select all

this.playerBoughtEquipment = this.shipScoopedFuel = this.playerStartedJumpCountdown = function()
{
 var fuelLimit = 5;
 if (player.ship.fuel > fuelLimit) { 
   player.ship.fuel = fuelLimit; 
 }
}

I expect a friendly OXPer will at some point wrap purchasable hyperdrives with variable limits around it, and so on.

[Venator Dha]

An OXP that meant that it only had a 5LY range would be an added challenge.

Easy enough to do - just stick this in a worldscript (untested).

Code: Select all

this.playerBoughtEquipment = this.shipScoopedFuel = this.playerStartedJumpCountdown = function()
{
 var fuelLimit = 5;
 if (player.ship.fuel > fuelLimit) { 
   player.ship.fuel = fuelLimit; 
 }
}

I expect a friendly OXPer will at some point wrap purchasable hyperdrives with variable limits around it, and so on.

thanks for the information, I'll try and have a play with it.

I would be happy if an OXPer takes up the challenge

[Diziet Sma]

It would need to be after 9 times for the ship's cat

<filed away in the upgrade notes>

[Wildeblood]

An OXP that meant that it only had a 5LY range would be an added challenge.

Easy enough to do - just stick this in a worldscript (untested).

Code: Select all

this.playerBoughtEquipment = this.shipScoopedFuel = this.playerStartedJumpCountdown = function()
{
 var fuelLimit = 5;
 if (player.ship.fuel > fuelLimit) { 
   player.ship.fuel = fuelLimit; 
 }
}

I expect a friendly OXPer will at some point wrap purchasable hyperdrives with variable limits around it, and so on.

It's not that simple at all. There would need to be a way to control the way the long-range chart with ANA is drawn.
But for anyone who wants to make the OXP cim suggests, you'd need to reset PS.fuel whenever the short range chart is viewed, too.

[mossfoot]

To address a concern raised earlier regarding this version being too different from 1.77/1.80 - would it be possible to set things up to create an option of playing bot 1.80 (or 1.77) configuration. Sort of a variation of the "Strict settings" option? That would allow people uncertain about 1.82's direction to go back and forth to test and get used to it rather than having two versions installed.

Would that be a huge headache to implement?

I know we can't always make everyone happy (and trying to do so can result in things stagnating rather than moving forward) but I thought I'd at least float the idea in case it wasn't difficult.

[cim]

To address a concern raised earlier regarding this version being too different from 1.77/1.80 - would it be possible to set things up to create an option of playing bot 1.80 (or 1.77) configuration. Sort of a variation of the "Strict settings" option? That would allow people uncertain about 1.82's direction to go back and forth to test and get used to it rather than having two versions installed.

In practice "two versions installed" is the way these things get tested, but it's easy to have both the last release and the nightlies installed.

The way I tend to do major features - especially ones where it's uncertain they even work
- It'll start off in a development branch (not even getting built into nightlies, but compilable yourself if you know how) so that other testing and development taking place in the nightlies doesn't get disrupted.
- Once the major features are complete, it's not clearly unplayable, and it's not clearly a bad concept, it gets merged into the main branch and starts being built in nightlies (it's now available for testing without compiling).
- Further testing and refinement occurs in the main branch until release.

[Diziet Sma]

To address a concern raised earlier regarding this version being too different from 1.77/1.80 - would it be possible to set things up to create an option of playing bot 1.80 (or 1.77) configuration. Sort of a variation of the "Strict settings" option? That would allow people uncertain about 1.82's direction to go back and forth to test and get used to it rather than having two versions installed.

Would that be a huge headache to implement?

Since cim didn't quite address the direction your question was heading.. yes, it probably would be a headache. Two sets of default settings to maintain, two sets of code to maintain, and a way to switch reliably between them, and quite a few conflicting bits and pieces, I'd imagine as well.. think of a car with both a carburettor and fuel injection, two different sets of wheels, a manual and an automatic transmission, and both a steering wheel and a joystick fitted, and having a single switch to select between one complete set, or the other.. it might be do-able, but it would be something of an engineering nightmare.

Basically, all Strict Mode does, now, is disable all OXPs. In the past, it was a little like what I described above.. a whole bunch of duplicate-but-different code that very few people actually used. The only reason it wasn't a bigger hassle to maintain was because it had already been done way back at the beginning, and it didn't need much tweaking from one new release to the next. Having complete 1.77 and 1.80 code (or 1.80 and 1.82 code) in the same executable would be much gnarlier to get working smoothly, and result in a considerably larger file to download.

[Disembodied]

It's perhaps better to think of "equipment space" in terms of not just physical space, but also all the power couplings, circuit fuses, coolant pipes, cabling, ventilation, access panels, voids or ballast needed to avoid messing up the handling, internal armour so if your injectors get shot out while you're using them the explosion doesn't take out half your ship, etc. ... which we abstract to a single number for gameplay purposes because it's the job of the mechanics in the shipyard to worry about that, not the pilot. So if you want for game balance to make something take up more or less space than it might plausibly physically need, there's plenty of room to handwave it.

With this in mind, is it possible that some items of equipment - e.g. the Extra Energy Unit - might give the player a net gain on their "equipment space"? Physically, it takes up about as much room as, um, a pedal bin, but - by boosting the capacity of the ship's power grid - it allows more items to be connected in without overloading things.

This would mean that the "equipment space" value of individual items would be an abstracted combination of their physical size and their power consumption. So for example, an ECM could be thought of as physically quite small, but with a hefty energy demand.

[Disembodied]

Thinking about this some more, might it be possible to introduce dependencies for certain high-powered items, e.g. the military laser? So that, for example, you can't fit a military laser to a ship unless you have Naval Power Couplings installed first? I don't know what would happen in such circumstances if your Naval Power Couplings got damaged ... having the laser cease to work at all would be a real pain. Maybe it would just downgrade to a beam laser? (Of course, it's possible that a "military laser" isn't actually a physically different weapon from a pulse or beam one - it might be the same piece of kit, just with a lot more juice running through it.)

One thing I've noticed, starting a new Jameson, is that the beam laser stage doesn't last very long (or didn't, in my case, anyway). I think I maybe made about five or six trips, tops, armed with a beam laser before I could afford to fit a military one. My pulse-laser days lasted a lot longer.

[Cody]

One thing I've noticed, starting a new Jameson, is that the beam laser stage doesn't last very long (or didn't, in my case, anyway). I think I maybe made about five or six trips, tops, armed with a beam laser before I could afford to fit a military one. My pulse-laser days lasted a lot longer.

<nods>