Welcome aboard Visitor...

Daily Screenshot

Server Costs Target


9% of target met.

Latest Topics

- Anyone still playing from a decade ago or longer? »
- Game still active. NICE! »
- Password resett »
- Darkspace Idea/Opinion Submission Thread »
- Rank Bug maybe? »
- Next patch .... »
- Nobody will remember me...but. »
- 22 years...asking for help from one community to another »
- DS on Ubuntu? »
- Medal Breakpoints »

Development Blog

- Roadmap »
- Hello strangers, it’s been a while... »
- State of DarkSpace Development »
- Potential planetary interdictor changes! »
- The Silent Cartographer »

Combat Kills

Combat kills in last 24 hours:
No kills today... yet.

Upcoming Events

- Weekly DarkSpace
05/11/24 +4.9 Days

Search

Anniversaries

15th - Rise

Social Media

Why not join us on Discord for a chat, or follow us on Twitter or Facebook for more information and fan updates?

Network

DarkSpace
DarkSpace - Beta
Palestar

[FAQ
Forum Index » » Staff Announcements » » Nitty-gritty Game Balance Issues
 Author Nitty-gritty Game Balance Issues
Selvarian {IMC}
Cadet

Joined: August 18, 2001
Posts: 1242
From: GA, USA
Posted: 2001-10-09 23:58   
Nitty-Gritty Game Balance Issues
  1. It was suggested (by observation ONLY) that the primary methodology behind performing game balance in DarkSpace was mostly to entirely subjective. IE, making changes based solely on player feedback, suggestions, complaints, gripes, etc, rather than mathematical/statistical analysis of the game content data, or a little of both. This style of balance generally leads to games constantly making changes to their rules as one side or another complains that they "can't compete with x ship now because the other side got y ship with its new uber-ability". This form of "balancing" thus goes on forever and everyone gets a chance to bellyache about it at some point. Primarily this is from the standpoint of the methodology used for the overall game balance, and not regarding specific areas of the game by themselves.
  2. A call for comments on this topic was made. Further clarification will be made by Selvarian.
  3. It was asked if there was an issue with getting prestige in scout ships.
  4. It was proffered that one of the major balance issues revolves around the "historical" backgrounds of the ICC and UGTO. Both seem very similar, except for certain weapon/defence differences which are designed primarily to alter the specific tactics for each faction, without giving one faction any more of an edge than the other. The factions need to be balanced so that each faction has more "unique" ships with some unique weaponry, instead of having the same weapons on all similar classes of ships for all factions.
  5. A suggestion was made that the moderators should participate in a series of [unrestricted? -Ed] games together and analyze all aspects of gameplay based on a set of objective criteria.
  6. In addition, other specific game balance issues were brought up:
    1. ICC Dreadnoughts are available to players sooner than other factions' Dreadnoughts.
    2. Arc radius of weapons; specifically, too many ships have a 360° weapon arc; instead there should be more ships with port/starboard/bow arcs and very few ships should have aft weapon arcs.
    3. There should be some sort of "bonus" or "reward" at the end of a Scenario. This would instill a greater sense of teamplay, instead of everyone just doing whatever they can to get prestige as fast as they can. In too many cases, players are not helping their team at all, but instead just doing their own thing.
    4. The rank requirements for the Ssilver Combat Badge ships should be set to Captain as many people reach First Rear Admiral before they get the Silver Combat Badge. It was suggested that the Silver Combat Badge is impossible for a Captain to obtain at this point [i.e., players will always(?) reach First Rear Admiral before they get their Silver Combat Badge -Ed].
    5. It was suggested that a large UGTO fleet is required to take out an ICC 400A Dreadnought.
    6. It was also suggested that the UGTO needs a better Bomber ship; something similar to the ICC M190B. The ICC M190B tends to be significantly better versus UGTO planets than the UGTO bomber is against ICC planets.
    7. A previously suggested idea concerning giving UGTO the capability to build a more effective Planetary Defence system or giving existing UGTO Defense Bases more point defense beams was reintroduced. It was preferred over giving the UGTO the capability to build Shield Generators. Also, faster planetary point defense laser recharge times may ameliorate this issue.
    8. Conversely, it was suggested that the UGTO and ICC defenses were very close to balanced now, requiring only minimal tweaks.
    9. A (probably jocular) suggestion was made that Players who build Defense Bases should get credit for kills accrued by said bases.
    10. A suggestion regarding the addition of mercenaries was brought up. They would not be part of any faction and could aid/attack/defend anyone they choose at any time.
    11. A point stating that it would be "boring" if all sides had the same ship configurations was made.
    12. A point regarding reducing the Supply/Support Badge requirements was made. The suggested values were 50 for Bronze, 250 for Silver, and 500 for Gold.
    13. Regarding the planet defense versus bomber issue for each side, a simple comparison was made to illustrate the point more clearly. Paraphrased: Planetary Defense Bases cost 500 resources to build and Planetary Shields cost 250; at the beginning of a scenario, the player cannot estimate how many times the ICC M190B Bomber will visit UGTO planets and attack them. Thusly, the ICC with start out with more resources which allows the ICC access to better ships quicker so, while the UGTO is scrambling for resources, the ICC will have a significant edge over the UGTO sooner.



_________________
Selvarian
Prime Engineer
Caitian Defense Corps
Founding Member - Interstellar Mercenary Corps

  Email Selvarian {IMC}   Goto the website of Selvarian {IMC}
Deleted
Cadet

Joined:
Posts: 0
Posted: 2001-10-10 13:38   
That was no joke...I want my credit for my defense base kills!
*player* was killed by Defense Base ([DI]DeathSniper)
_________________


Vinco
Fleet Admiral
Galactic Navy


Joined: August 31, 2001
Posts: 939
From: Too Close for Comfort
Posted: 2001-10-10 22:14   
Regarding the d-base kills count idea... What would happen if a player logs off? Same question regarding mines. I'm not sure if this belongs here, so delete it if you want.
_________________




Vinco

In Another Place



Honor is all.

Bumblebee
Cadet
Mercenaries of Andosia

Joined: May 31, 2001
Posts: 2256
From: Switzerland
Posted: 2001-10-11 04:56   
well - sniper - i think this one is not so easy to implement

- and in my oppinion not needed (sorry)

[MoA] Bumblebee
Mercenaries of Andosia
MOD of the cleanest Forum in town
_________________


  Email Bumblebee
Radarrider
Cadet

Joined: June 02, 2001
Posts: 121
From: Land of Lincoln
Posted: 2001-10-11 09:33   
Test
_________________


  Goto the website of Radarrider
Deleted
Cadet

Joined:
Posts: 0
Posted: 2001-10-11 04:31   
Hey I do agree. Actually if the player's in the game while the defense base was built by him, he'd get the credit for the kill and maybe 1/4 of the prestige for normal hull damage. If the player disconnects, the defense base switches to regular (no one). Anyways yep it's not needed, nor is it important, just something I'd like
Since I love building up planets
_________________


Page created in 0.016838 seconds.


Copyright © 2000 - 2024 Palestar Inc. All rights reserved worldwide.
Terms of use - DarkSpace is a Registered Trademark of PALESTAR