Soldak Home   Drox Operative   Din's Curse   Depths of Peril   Zombasite  

Go Back   Soldak Entertainment Forums > Drox Operative > Invasion of the Ancients
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #12  
Old 01-05-2015, 06:06 PM
Red-XIII's Avatar
Red-XIII Red-XIII is offline
Amateur
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 8
Default

This mechanic exploit has been bugging me for a while, though I used to dismiss it as exploit, and was expecting it to be ignorable as any other exploit should be (if not removed, that is).

Now this thread have finally pushed me over the worried limit. It's shouldn't be a standard practice to use an exploit. It's bad enough that it exists, but the game should be AT LEAST built around the idea of NOT using it.

Ships for 460 points out of 500 are definitely NOT there for exploitless gameplay.

I hope that the developers will address this. It's not even THAT hard to deal with either.

First, to deal with the "core" of the problem.

This'll probably be the most work-heavy part.

Implement a downscaling debuff that reduces the core efficiency of a module (armour for armour plating, damage for weapons, shield strength and shield regen for shields etc.) as long as it's requirements are not met.

Quote:
used_component_stat = base_component_stat * Min{(((ships_current_CP - component_CP_requirement)*scaling_const_1 + component_CP_requirement) / component_CP_requirement) , 1}
This method means that a ship using crew (or crew modules) as a supplement to it's base abilities would only be slightly harmed by having it's crew disabled (which it should be, shouldn't it?), but a ship trying to "crewswap" it's way "from nothing to high level modules" will not be getting more than what it's "natural" crew points would allow it.

After this you might as well stop the equipment restrictions altogether. Which gets me to an optional derail. A natural evolution of this concept, which I'm not really suggesting, just mentioning while we're at it, would be to allow the module efficiency to scale upwards as well.

Quote:
used_component_stat = base_component_stat * Min{(((ships_current_CP - component_CP_requirement)*scaling_const_1 + component_CP_requirement) / component_CP_requirement) , 1} * Max{(((ships_current_CP - component_CP_requirement)*scaling_const_2 + component_CP_requirement) / component_CP_requirement) , 1}
In which case what used to be equipment requirement transforms into equipments "complexity level" indicating an proximate "skill" level of a specialist required to effectively and efficiently handle this piece of equipment. Corresponding to the fact that an under-skilled specialist could still try to handle and maintain it, but the result would lack effectiveness due to not being able to maintain the module in proper condition or operate it properly, while an over-skilled specialist could provide better handling (or "overclock" it, or reinforce the critical spot in the plating) and subsequently stronger effect, but would still be better off handling a more complex module.

But going that far would probably require extra balanceing, and we don't really need to go that far anyway. Just downscaling should be enough.

If it's too hard to implement on component level, a general debuff (something similar to the current debuff we get for going over the power limit) should do the trick too.

Quote:
Debuff_percentage = Max{(CP_total_required - CP_total), 0} / CP_total_required
Were CP_total_required is the sum of the highest requirements of all the existing types among all the fitted modules and CP total is the sum of all the CP allocated to CP types used by requirements. Important part here is that CP used on command should NOT help against the downscaling. The Idea is that going 10% below the total requirements should equally debuff a ship that goes for less of better modules (low command) and a ship that goes for more of worse modules (high command), however a ship that has lost 20 out of 100 tactics that has other requirements at 50s shouldn't be penalised the same as a ship that has lost 20 out of 100 tactics while keeping the other requirements at 100s. So we count all the CP types that are used for requirements as a reference to the ships "module tier" including the ones that have their requirements met, but do not count the command, as it doesn't actually represent the quality of the modules, only the quantity.

Second, once the exploit itself has been dealt with, we will need to deal with the game balance itself. And the easiest way to do that would be to increase the number of crew points per level (and, maybe, some command requirements tweaking is due along with it), to compensate for the impact that the exploit had on the balance. It's not a 1 for 1 trade-off, obviously, as the added crew points also mean added stats (such as damage from tactics), so this WILL need some extra balancing to get the rates right, and/or to tweak the stats, but I believe that it's easier than to rebalance the whole CP requirement table (along with command requirements) for exploitless gameplay.

And if anyone is wondering "why not just leave it alone and accept it as a part of the game" the answer is:

First - because it's too inconvenient to be accepted as a gameplay mechanic. Swapping crew around every time you need to equip a module is by itself crazy enough to warrant a need to dispose of this mechanic.

Second - because it's too counter-intuitive to be accepted as a mechanic.

Third - because there should really be a balance between going for better modules VS going for more modules, and that balance can only rely on ONE CP requirement table. You can't make it balanced for the ships that don't "crewswap", and for the ones that do, both at the same time. Point is - a point of CP "redirected" from command to modules or the other way around does not have the same "worth" for a ship that relies on 500 total crewpoints as it does for a ship that relies on "fake" points effectively brining it's limit over 500 and it's "module tier" above what's normal for the same amount of CP left for modules. So, deciding to go for less modules without exploits means a lot more for your "module tier" than it does with the exploit.

The way I see it, the game should let the player decide which CP types to get above average, and which ones to get below average. So both the module requirements and the "command" requirements should end at "somewhat unreasonably high looking levels". AND at the same time it should balance these decisions in a way that, while not guaranteeing effectiveness of every possible combination, should guarantee that ALL possible CP types can receive more focus or less focus without making the ship steer far from "competing builds" in efficiency.

In other words if there's a type of CP presented to player, be it tactics or command or structure, the player should be able to redirect at least some points from that CP type to a different type, or from a different one to this one without falling behind the best builds. Doesn't have to be ANY type, but has to be at least one build per CP type "direction", should be on the same level of balance as all the other efficient buids, IE at least one build with decreased "tactics" and at least one with increased "tactics".

This is what proper balance is about, and this is something that "crewswapping" exploit stands in the way of.
Reply With Quote
 


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2007 - 2016 Soldak Entertainment, Inc.