Hard Light Productions Forums

General FreeSpace => FreeSpace Discussion => Topic started by: TrashMan on October 06, 2005, 03:59:11 pm

Title: Battles too short?
Post by: TrashMan on October 06, 2005, 03:59:11 pm
I was playing Freespace 1 again some time ago and I recall one of the best misions there - Clash of the Titans.

There is somethig really neat about capships duking it out while you're flying all over the place. That sadi, in FS2 the feel is completely different.

Capship battles are over in a single salvo or two - and that's a big problem when naming capship missions as it leaves the player too little time to react.
And when I say capship I mean the big guns - destroyer.

When you pit two corvettes against eachother, or two cruiser, you get a battle of respectable length. but when you do hte same with with 2 destroyer - UGH.

so what's hte problem there? For one - the hull.
An Aeouls has 45000 hull, while a Orion has 100000. Now look at the size difference. Something screwy? I'll say it is - a destroyer should have at least twice as many HP.
teh second problem is the weapons - their power varies greatly.

Trying to actually balance  all ship clases might be a very difficult endaveour, but I want to try it.....
Title: Battles too short?
Post by: CP5670 on October 06, 2005, 04:22:35 pm
It depends on the mission, but I generally find corvette fights to last the optimal amount of time. I always script destroyer battles manually so that recharge times between beam salvos are much longer. This basically solves the problem.

Changing the destroyer strengths is also a good idea, but only on a per-mission basis. If your objective is to blow up a destroyer with Cyclops bombs, the existing strengths work well, so dramatically changing the global values isn't a good idea.
Title: Battles too short?
Post by: StratComm on October 06, 2005, 04:27:01 pm
Quote
Originally posted by CP5670
It depends on the mission, but I generally find corvette fights to last the optimal amount of time. I always script destroyer battles manually so that recharge times between beam salvos are much longer. This basically solves the problem.

Changing the destroy strengths is also a good idea, but I only do that on a per-mission basis. If your objective is to blow up a destroyer with Cyclops bombs, the existing strengths work well, so dramatically changing the global values isn't a good idea.


Manual scripting FTW.  The entire point of a SEXP-driven mission is to allow a huge scripting potential, so for those times when "beam-free-all by default" makes the battle too short it's a pretty good indication that the mission isn't designed well.
Title: Battles too short?
Post by: CP5670 on October 06, 2005, 04:34:29 pm
I don't think I've ever used beam-free-all for destroyers actually, except in goofy test missions. Repeating fire-beams is the way to go. Although at the moment this doesn't work too well due to the repeat count bug (http://lore.maxgaming.net/~scp/mantis/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0000082&nbn=12#bugnotes).
Title: Battles too short?
Post by: TrashMan on October 06, 2005, 05:00:32 pm
That's a way around the problem but doesn't solve the problem itself.. the ship class imbalance.

Increasing destroyer HP is really no problem for the player...Helios warhead anyone?

I'll have to throw together a table that will show the HP of ship with the damage they can do per minute (total and on a single target) and work from there...
Title: Battles too short?
Post by: CP5670 on October 06, 2005, 05:18:21 pm
The Helios is something of a special weapon; it's supposed to be reserved for only the super critical missions, stuff like Bearbaiting, because of its production costs. Most missions should not be using it at all.

As for the beam table, Zylonbane made something like that years ago, back in the VBB days, but I have no idea if it's still available now.
Title: Battles too short?
Post by: Galemp on October 06, 2005, 05:22:25 pm
Quote
Originally posted by StratComm
Manual scripting FTW.  


Sorry to hijack the thread, I've seen you use FTW before. What does it mean?
Title: Battles too short?
Post by: Nuclear1 on October 06, 2005, 05:28:54 pm
I'll really don't see why redoing the entire capital ship section of the table is absolutely necessary. Even a competent FREDer can make a decent capital ship duel last long enough with good SEXP work, as CP said. Big capital ship duels that are even the least bit important can be made to last for a while to show a stalemate between forces, or be quick to show an obvious superiority of one side over another.

The fire-beam SEXP was made for a reason. In a few of my missions, I find that regulating fire-beams between capital ships can balance out a mission well. Also, it's not as if equals have to be fighting: you can easily set a Sobek to beam-free-all and set its waypoints around a destroyer while using fire-beam to adjust the destroyer's fire against the corvette.

Just take a look at any one of V's big beam fests: King's Gambit, Sicilian Defense, and Endgame are the best examples of how a well-balanced battle sequence can go about being made. King's Gambit is designed to be a fast mission involving destroying large ships within a short period of time, and therefore the rapid-fire, powerful Mjolnir cannons, coupled with the Typhon's BVas cannons, are designed to deliver heavy damage in a short amount of time.

Sicilian Defense, works in somewhat a similar fashion, though in not as rapid or desperate a scenario. Instead of being pressed for time as much as King's Gambit, Sicilian Defense uses a single corvette and bombers to attack the NTF fleet. While it may seem slightly unbalanced at points, it can easily be fixed with player intervention--destroying the Vindicator's portside beam cannons before the Hyksos arrives can prevent an early destruction of the corvette, for example. The rest of the mission involves a corvette and a weakening force of bombers attacking smaller capital ships--a corvette, then a couple of cruisers.

Finally, Endgame is one of the best-balanced and well-orchestrated missions I've ever played. Almost the entire mission is based around intercepting fighters and bombers while the larger capital ships duke it out. With swarms of fighters all around, the player almost seems to never notice how quickly the NTC Loyola gets torn up by the Monitor, for example. The battle can also be quickened, thanks to the ability to command the allied capital ships in the mission. The Fortune can aid in the destruction of the Loyola and the Danton, and, while its beam is not too powerful, it fires rapidly enough to be a factor.

If you want to look at a drawn-out capital ship battle that is involving, fun, and long-lasting, I would suggest playing Derelict--specifically the mission "The Stars Are Right". That whole mission is an excellent example of how a battle with several capital ships in a mission can be drawn out and still entertaining for the player. The same goes for the Derelict finale.
Spoiler:
The way in which the Khefrem in the final mission attacks the Nyarlathotep uses up enough time for the Cypher to get out of range of the Shivans. Two BVas turrets attacking the million point HP Nyarlathotep, with a single LRed returning fire on the less-durable Hatshepsut balances out the damage just enough that the Khefrem does appreciable damage and lasts long enough before being annihiliated by the Shivans.


Competent FREDing can more than make up for issues of a battle being too quick or too short. I still suggest this than to completely reorganizing the tables, which, honestly, can be a pain on FREDers, especially if they're not regularly updated with the new information. I speak from experience, too--GTI Rebellion has gone through dozens of table changes, and, as a result, many missions are currently going through rebalancing to match the final set of tables.

A little SEXP headache now is a whole lot less painful than a table headache later.

Quote
Sorry to hijack the thread, I've seen you use FTW before. What does it mean?


FTW= For the Win. Something "FTW" is the way to go.
Title: Battles too short?
Post by: FireCrack on October 06, 2005, 05:30:08 pm
For The Win

It comes from celebrity squares or somthing, when a player was picking his last awnser to win he would say that, not quite sure of that though....
Title: Battles too short?
Post by: IceFire on October 06, 2005, 05:40:01 pm
Personally....

Mission designers always have control on how long the battle lasts.  Yes capitalship battles go much quicker (if you let them) in FS2 and that was largely regarded as a good thing.  The greatest disappointment I had in FS1 was that capital ship battles were pretty mundane at best.

The most fun you could have was a GTC Fenris against an PVC Aten...they both went down pretty quickly and they had some good bits of firepower coming from each of them.  But as soon as you introduce shields and the like...they are pretty wussy.

FreeSpace 2 ups the ante on all counts.  Destroyers absolutely pummel other capital ships and can defend themselves adequately from fighters and bombers on their own with no other defense.  But the really great battles are with the destroyers duking it out while fighters and bombers fly in between them battling for the win.

As a mission designer...you have ultimate authority to create a realistic and fun situation.  You can script the beams as much as you want...and you should script it to some extent if you want it to carry out a certain way.
Title: Battles too short?
Post by: BlackDove on October 06, 2005, 05:58:53 pm
No there isn't anything wrong with canon. Stop trying to change it. Please.
Title: Battles too short?
Post by: CP5670 on October 06, 2005, 06:10:55 pm
Well, I wouldn't say there is nothing wrong with the defaults. There are a few obvious bugs: the strengths of two of the Hecate's turrets are switched around, the Mentu needs to have an SVas or two given the tech description, the Rahu should be designated SG Rahu rather than SSG Rahu, and some other things. Several ships could also use wider firing arcs. This particular issue with the battle lengths doesn't warrant changing anything though, at least not in ships.tbl.
Title: Battles too short?
Post by: TrashMan on October 06, 2005, 06:20:30 pm
But Nuk,e all those solutions, while they make he mission work, are basicly cheats and anyone who plays the game knows it. The player KNOWS a ravana can tear a Hecate apart. When the opposite happens you nkow something is wron - you know it's beams aren't fireing as fast as tehy should.

It just makes the whole ting look fake - and that kills immersion for me.

FS1 never had problems with BOE mission becouse of this - you really needed no coordinating and manipulting ship battles to the second, as tehy allways were a close match and lasted long enough for players to affect things...
ture, the ship there were pathetic and I played with modified tables (wiht big plasma guns for all sides),  and those battles I enjoyed more then any other...
Title: Battles too short?
Post by: Hudson on October 06, 2005, 06:32:04 pm
Quote
Originally posted by FireCrack
For The Win

It comes from celebrity squares or somthing, when a player was picking his last awnser to win he would say that, not quite sure of that though....


Offtopic

For the Win is a planetside thing I believe, Everyone who plays planetside know what ftw is or ftL.  Hell theres even an outfit named FTW :P

Srry for hijack
Title: Battles too short?
Post by: Nuclear1 on October 06, 2005, 07:53:38 pm
Quote
Originally posted by TrashMan
But Nuk,e all those solutions, while they make he mission work, are basicly cheats and anyone who plays the game knows it. The player KNOWS a ravana can tear a Hecate apart. When the opposite happens you nkow something is wron - you know it's beams aren't fireing as fast as tehy should.

It just makes the whole ting look fake - and that kills immersion for me.

FS1 never had problems with BOE mission becouse of this - you really needed no coordinating and manipulting ship battles to the second, as tehy allways were a close match and lasted long enough for players to affect things...
ture, the ship there were pathetic and I played with modified tables (wiht big plasma guns for all sides),  and those battles I enjoyed more then any other...


Not if you do it right. Who says that a Ravana and a Hecate have to go mano-a-mano, charging at each other with beams firing? Let's just assume that you can make a Freespace ship commander have an ounce of brain and actually do something to affect the battle--such as maneuvering out of the Ravana's firing arc or possibly destroying the beam cannons before they have a chance to do any significant damage. This also adds some goals and immersion for the player--that the player can disarm the enemy capital ship before it tears apart his own fleet, or can destroy the enemy warship.

Honestly, what's more realistic? A 500,000-HP Orion barely getting scratched by a capital-ship-killing Deimos's forward beams, or having the Orion nail the Deimos in the bow before it gets torn up by the forward slashers? Just because FS2 ships hardly use any strategy when they're set loose on their own doesn't mean that the FREDer can't make a reasonly-intelligent battle. Frankly, I see adjusting the ship HP just because an unscripted beam cannon fight is over too quickly is just a way to get out of challenging FREDing. It destroys the good feeling that a FREDer can get once he looks at an exciting capital ship duel and realizes that he made it all happen.
Title: Battles too short?
Post by: IceFire on October 06, 2005, 07:58:49 pm
Quote
Originally posted by CP5670
Well, I wouldn't say there is nothing wrong with the defaults. There are a few obvious bugs: the strengths of two of the Hecate's turrets are switched around, the Mentu needs to have an SVas or two given the tech description, the Rahu should be designated SG Rahu rather than SSG Rahu, and some other things. Several ships could also use wider firing arcs. This particular issue with the battle lengths doesn't warrant changing anything though, at least not in ships.tbl.

Which turrets on the Hecate?
Title: Battles too short?
Post by: CP5670 on October 06, 2005, 11:25:13 pm
It's actually three of them, turret02, turret03 and turret06. The strength values are obviously wrong if you look at the positions of these turrets and compare their strengths to what the others have. The stronger 1.875 values are supposed to be for the big cannons on the top while all the other turrets should be 0.625. You must have noticed how the Hecate's rearmost big flak cannon is much weaker than the other three, which is because of this.
Title: Battles too short?
Post by: Roanoke on October 07, 2005, 05:26:20 am
Quote
Originally posted by TrashMan
That's a way around the problem but doesn't solve the problem itself.. the ship class imbalance.

Increasing destroyer HP is really no problem for the player...Helios warhead anyone?



I tried to make a mission a little harder by giving Shivans Helios instead of the equivilant cyclops but it was actually easier because of the Helios being much slower & easier to shoot down.
Title: Battles too short?
Post by: TrashMan on October 07, 2005, 07:37:42 am
Quote
Originally posted by nuclear1
Honestly, what's more realistic? A 500,000-HP Orion barely getting scratched by a capital-ship-killing Deimos's forward beams, or having the Orion nail the Deimos in the bow before it gets torn up by the forward slashers? Just because FS2 ships hardly use any strategy when they're set loose on their own doesn't mean that the FREDer can't make a reasonly-intelligent battle. Frankly, I see adjusting the ship HP just because an unscripted beam cannon fight is over too quickly is just a way to get out of challenging FREDing. It destroys the good feeling that a FREDer can get once he looks at an exciting capital ship duel and realizes that he made it all happen.


Escape from challenging FREDing? Hardly.. Every tried UNNEEDED FREDing? It should be there.
Giving them a few waypoint to simulate inteligence (since tehy AREN'T inteligent) is one thing, but scripting every beamshot is another. The fact that you have to do that to have an interesting battle shows just how unrealistic (unbalanced) battels are..

The fact reamins that ship classes are inherently unbalanced and you have to use scripting to dance around the issue.
Now, for Chapter 1 I'm not going to do any experimenting as I have a lot of big battles allready done and re-balancing it all would just be a pain...but for Chapter 3 I wil have a go at a complete weapons/ship re-balance.

Quote
Well, I wouldn't say there is nothing wrong with the defaults

Aeolus 45000, Orion 100000.. Nothing rong there? oooookaaay...
Title: Battles too short?
Post by: StratComm on October 07, 2005, 08:40:06 am
You're free to do whatever you want in your campaign, just don't expect anyone else to use it.  And if you're just doing it for your own gratification, there's no point in arguing it ad nasuiam.
Title: Battles too short?
Post by: Dark RevenantX on October 07, 2005, 10:01:33 am
I say that beam weapons are too strong against destroyers, superdestroyers, and juggernaughts.  Cruisers should die if a beam thats bigger than it blasts at it.  Destroyers, however, are huge compared to beam cannons.  I don't see how a destroyer could die if just a few little holes popped up on its hull.  Destroyers need a property that makes them less suseptable (sp.) to beam damage.
Title: Battles too short?
Post by: StratComm on October 07, 2005, 10:42:04 am
Armor.tbl.  Once it works correctly, it'll be exactly the way to accomplish that without affecting anything that doesn't use it.
Title: Battles too short?
Post by: aldo_14 on October 07, 2005, 11:45:30 am
Quote
Originally posted by TrashMan


Escape from challenging FREDing? Hardly.. Every tried UNNEEDED FREDing? It should be there.
Giving them a few waypoint to simulate inteligence (since tehy AREN'T inteligent) is one thing, but scripting every beamshot is another. The fact that you have to do that to have an interesting battle shows just how unrealistic (unbalanced) battels are.


There's not a snowballs chance in hell of someone rewriting FSOs code solely to suit your campaign, nor adding features to automatically do things that can already be done within FRED.
Title: Battles too short?
Post by: Black Wolf on October 07, 2005, 01:40:13 pm
Quote
Originally posted by aldo_14


There's not a snowballs chance in hell of someone rewriting FSOs code solely to suit your campaign, nor adding features to automatically do things that can already be done within FRED.


Indeed. TBH, I'm nmot entirely sure why you made this thread. You seem to want to make a lot of changes to canon stuff, make threads or posts about it, then argue with people who disagree wioth you? If you're not going to be swayed from your position, why not just go ahead and do it, release it and see if people play it?
Title: Battles too short?
Post by: TrashMan on October 07, 2005, 04:46:01 pm
Quote
Originally posted by aldo_14


There's not a snowballs chance in hell of someone rewriting FSOs code solely to suit your campaign, nor adding features to automatically do things that can already be done within FRED.


Who said anything about rewriting the FSO code?
Allright, AI is one thing that evertyone would like t osee getting better but that's not what I was talking about.

Seriously, I fail to see what this thread has to do with changing or re-writing the FSO? Since it is a table/ship design thing - not a code thing.

I started tis thread to see how people feel about large destroyer battles - to see how much I should change the balance.

There's no question about it - I will make these changes for the later chapters and I can make the FS2 era changed tables available too if anyone wold want them.

oh..Aldo, Stratti - cool down a bit. A guy can't start a poll and discussion thread without you two suspecting some alterior cannon/FSO destroying motives :D
Title: Battles too short?
Post by: aldo_14 on October 07, 2005, 05:01:10 pm
I never said the motive was ulterior.
Title: Battles too short?
Post by: Nuclear1 on October 07, 2005, 08:20:43 pm
I still think there is no real need to go changing the tables just because a few things in the game seem a little frustrating. Sure, an Aeolus has nearly half the HP of an Orion. The Orion should have more, but keep in mind that the Aeolus has its weaknesses too: it's meant for dealing with enemy fighters, which its reinforced hull and anti-fighter turrets allow it to do. It has two SGreen turrets to deal with capital ships, but the 45-second recharge on the turrets balances it out so that it's not too powerful.

The Orion is a different case. The Orion is designed to jump in, blast away a cruiser or corvette using its fighter/bomber complements as support when things heat up. The ship has several powerful BGreen turrets and several TerSlash as well, which allows it to deliverh heavy damage quickly and effeciently, hopefully crippling the enemy capital ship before it can return fire.

FS2 ships should be looked at in the same light that the fictional Terrans and Vasudans who designed them did. The Deimos concentrates most of its firepower in the forward firing arc with support in its rear. This can mean that the Deimos was designed to get in, do damage on the charge and support itself from the rear and sides while it made its attack. The Sobek, however, is completely different: it's designed for a head-on attack against a capital ship, while it's turrets give it coverage as it dives under a capital ship to avoid the beam turret coverage of say...the Lucifer?

When FREDing big battle sequences, FRED smart. Look at the ships like they're supposed to; use them like they were designed to be used. A Deimos broadsiding a Demon or an Orion charging head-on against a Hecate isn't a smart way to coordinate a ship battle--assume that the ship commander knows something about his vessel. Make an Orion broadside a ship, while a Leviathan or an Aeolus provide some anti-beam cannon fire support and anti-fighter cover. Have the Iceni exploit its speed and maneuverability to keep it out of the firing arcs of bigger opponents, while exploiting its powerful beams to tear apart the adversary.

The tables don't need to be changed at all. They're fine the way they are, and though some of :V: 's decisions may not seem great at times (i.e. Maxim, Hecate turrets), you can trust that they managed to make an enjoyable campaign with entertaining and involving capital ship duels--if they could, so can you.

Hmm... *gets new idea for article relating to FS2 capital ship design philosophy*

:nervous:

*runs off to writes*
Title: Battles too short?
Post by: CP5670 on October 08, 2005, 12:54:50 am
Quote

Aeolus 45000, Orion 100000.. Nothing rong there? oooookaaay...


:rolleyes: um...did you even read what I said or the context I said it in?

What exactly are looking to do with this thread? If this is for your own missions, there is obviously nothing wrong with changing the tables as you see fit. I made hundreds of minor changes and gameplay tweaks for my now defunct campaign and all my missions use these modified tables. I didn't mess with the capital ship hull strengths specifically, or at least not by any significant amount, and can see various downsides to doing that (as I said, I would recommend modifying the beam damage values instead), but if you think it will enhance your missions or cut down on the design time, go for it.
Title: Battles too short?
Post by: TrashMan on October 08, 2005, 07:39:21 am
What [V] captial ship batles? When did you see two destroyers slugging it off in the FS2 campaign?

And if you want to know in hte mission I'm making I'm not scripting the battle - I just make sure the ship starting position and facing makes sense (I.E. - Orion tries to jump in beside it's target a Deimos/Sobek try to go above/below, etc..)

So like I said - setting their arrival paths and facing is one thing, but scripting every beam cannon is another.
suffice to say, that when  I said re-balancing capships that included their weapons too.

The forumula is rather simple - total firepower per minute projected by a capship should be consistant with it's size, armor and function (for instance, the Moloch cant't be as powerfull as a Deimos, as it sacrifices some of it's internal space for the fighterbay).

I'm 100% sure I can make a far better balancing act that [V] did. I've been modding for years and I've done dozens of balancing packs for dozens of games (and all those packs were rated excellent) - suffice to say I have a knack for it :d
Title: Battles too short?
Post by: Nuclear1 on October 08, 2005, 11:21:51 am
Quote
Originally posted by TrashMan
The forumula is rather simple - total firepower per minute projected by a capship should be consistant with it's size, armor and function (for instance, the Moloch cant't be as powerfull as a Deimos, as it sacrifices some of it's internal space for the fighterbay).


And it isn't now? A Moloch isn't as powerful as a Deimos--there is no way (without some serious modifying or smart FREDing) that a single Moloch with only two SReds would face down a Deimos with four powerful TerSlashes without bomber support. Every ship already is balanced as you said--the Orion and Hatshepsut, obviously designed to be more offensively-based destroyers, have large amounts of anti-capital ship beam power directed towards a target. Hecates and Typhons, which serve more of a carrier role, have more anti-fighter/bomber defenses with some anti-cap defenses. The Aeolus has 45000 HP so that it can withstand fighter and bomber attacks, and it's bristling with flak and AAA beams, which makes it well-suited for the role of escorting convoys.

There's nothing wrong with the way :v: balanced the capital ships. They kind of assumed that the FREDer would not try to force large fleets to engage at the same time, but in smaller battles. Destroyers are meant to capitalize on their size and firepower--how many times have we seen destroyers warp in, blast a corvette or cruiser, and then hang around to clean up with its fighters and bombers once it's all said-and-done? Now, how many times have we seen two destroyers go at it? Very rarely--the few times that it's happened, one ship gets waxed quickly (i.e. Delacroix, Khefrem, Ignatius). The weaker hull of the destroyer's is part of :v:'s balancing to allow the player to be able to conduct bombing runs under fire (ala "Slaying Ravana" or "Sicilian Defense") and still achieve their goal.

If you feel the need to rebalance the entire capital ship battle sector of the game, then I think you're looking at FS2 battles the wrong way.

Quote
I made hundreds of minor changes and gameplay tweaks for my now defunct campaign and all my missions use these modified tables.


Speaking of which, CP, is there a chance of the public having the chance to play those PI missions which are finished? :D
Title: Battles too short?
Post by: TrashMan on October 08, 2005, 04:08:03 pm
I don't thnik I'm looking at them the wrong way, rather that you and me have a different idea of what is balanced

Of course that a distinction has to be made between a Orion/Hatsephut and a Hecate/Typhon, as their roles are different.

Increasing a destroyer HP somewhat (not too much..200000 max)and reducing the damage done by larger beam cannons (the difference between a BGreen and the second most powerfull capship weapon is redicolous) should keep it well balanced.

destroyer battles will last longer, and a destroyers will reamain effective against smaller ships (allthough it will take it a tad longer to kill a cruiser, the cruiser itself will do less damage becouse of increased armor)

The only difference will be the ease with which the player attacks destroyers - which again can be restored by either more wingman or more powerfull warheads.
Title: Battles too short?
Post by: Nuclear1 on October 08, 2005, 05:22:59 pm
Quote
Originally posted by TrashMan
destroyer battles will last longer, and a destroyers will reamain effective against smaller ships (allthough it will take it a tad longer to kill a cruiser, the cruiser itself will do less damage becouse of increased armor)

The only difference will be the ease with which the player attacks destroyers - which again can be restored by either more wingman or more powerfull warheads.


Apparently you're missing the point of a destroyer. The very type implies that is able to cause heavy damage quickly and effectively. Cruisers shouldn't be able to stand up to the kind of firepower that a destroyer puts out. I'm sure that the Terrans and Vasudans realized this--why do you think corvettes were born? The GTVA needed something to combat larger ships but not have a heavy price tag.

Where in the main campaign has a single cruiser gone offensively against a destroyer? When has that cruiser ever succeeded in taking out its target? Cruisers are better suited for either blockade or escort purposes, simply because they bristle with anti-fighter capabilities. Corvettes have the hull to withstand destroyer attacks and return the damage quickly and effectively. That's why TerSlashes have such a quick recharge time.

Cruisers are not meant to take on destroyers. If a cruiser attacks a destroyer, chances are that the destroyer will win. Only in desperate situations such as the attack on the Ravana will a cruiser actually go offensively against a destroyer. Don't punish destroyers for being capable to destroy vessels that are far less powerful than itself. The game doesn't need balancing. The issue here is how to use the ships in the game.
Title: Battles too short?
Post by: TrashMan on October 08, 2005, 05:46:57 pm
I said it will take him a TAD longer to wax smaller ships.. cruisers will still go down VERY fast.

nobody is punishing destroyers.. ther effectivnes against smaller target will reamain the same - it's the destroyer-destroyer battles that interest me. That's what I want to change.
Title: Battles too short?
Post by: CP5670 on October 08, 2005, 06:13:44 pm
Quote
Speaking of which, CP, is there a chance of the public having the chance to play those PI missions which are finished? :D


I suppose I could release them as an unfinished package if anyone is interested. I basically have 10 out of 16 missions from an old backup that more or less work fine, although they are considerably outdated versions. I'm actually not too happy with some of these old versions; I had rewritten the third one from scratch and made lots of changes to most of the others, and the next two in particular were much better and probably my best works, but these old copies are decent. My webspace isn't big enough to upload the whole thing though.
Title: Battles too short?
Post by: Nuclear1 on October 08, 2005, 06:21:16 pm
Quote
Originally posted by CP5670
My webspace isn't big enough to upload the whole thing though.


Not big enough to hold ten or so >100KB files?

I'd definitely be interested in playing them, if something can be arranged. Hippo or MatthewPapa would definitely have some spare space at either GTD Bastion (http://www.woodentoyandgift.com/forums) or Game Warden (http://www.game-warden.com/forum).
Title: Battles too short?
Post by: CP5670 on October 08, 2005, 06:24:12 pm
I mean with all the mods and crap thrown in. I think it would come out to around 25mb, although I'll need to check.

I guess I might as well throw them out on the internet, since it's very unlikely I will do anything further with them. I suppose they make decent standalone missions even if the story ends just where it starts to get interesting. :p
Title: Battles too short?
Post by: Nuclear1 on October 08, 2005, 06:25:40 pm
Right. Check your PMs.
Title: Battles too short?
Post by: Dark RevenantX on October 08, 2005, 09:52:53 pm
Beams are supposed to cut up whatever it hits.  Cruisers are small and nimble.  A beam twice its width should be able to completely vaporise that part of it.  Then, I will see a cain survive a BGreen and a TerSlash when it should either blow it up or reduce it to a worthless pile of space junk.  Though, i have seen an Orion get hit by a couple TerSlashs and two BGreens, and its hull integrity was severely compromised.  Destroyers and Juggernaughts are huge in comparison to the beams that kill them.  Shouldnt the beams do less damage to them since the damage area in relation to the ship itself is tiny? YES!  Luckily, hit points for the ships do not need changing.  The armor.tbl should make the cruisers get creamed by beams, while bigger ships like destroyers and juggernaughts be more resiliant to beams.

Another harder-to-fix thing is the proportioned damage.  I saw a Sobek die from a BFRed that barely hit it on the tip of one of its fins.  The fin would obviously be annihilated, but why does the whole ship go nova?  The little tip wouldn't house the reactor or anything like that!  Mabey the self-destruction button is there...
Title: Battles too short?
Post by: psycho_fergo on October 09, 2005, 04:42:57 am
haha, i agree with you dark reverantX

a new addition to FSO would be sectional damage, it would be so awesome.

i can see it now, a beam just toatally snapps a sobek in the fin, and it just breaks off/some kind of hollowness happens.

this is probably pretty hard to do, but i think if someone could do this, then FSO would get so much better...balance would then be stuffed a bit, but it would be so awesome. i suppose the whole percentage meter of a ships hull would be usless, and you would probably have to do proprtionate damage to different sections.

another idea for that would be to have a more "strategic" place to hit on different ships. for instance, there is a weak point in a deimos, so where do you try to place your bombs? where will the beams be aimed? in the weka points..da daaa...

i dunno, im tired so im not explaining any further..u guys can go off that..

and on the origonal topic, i think that the battles should be longer. but there is no way to do it and make everyone happy.
Title: Battles too short?
Post by: TrashMan on October 09, 2005, 06:24:16 am
I should say than my terran ships are currently stronger than retail versions..with Terran Huge Turrets and all..
A Orion without any beams can wax a Fenris in one salve from it's 5x3 turrets.

that siad I have to repeat that I won't nerf destroyer compared to cruisers or corvettes. The power of ship classes against eachother will remian the same - only destroyer-destroyer balance will be changed.

I'm quite familiar with the armor thingy, but it's currently still in imphant stages and well..I like balancing things :D
Title: Battles too short?
Post by: StratComm on October 09, 2005, 08:00:10 pm
Quote
Originally posted by TrashMan
oh..Aldo, Stratti - cool down a bit. A guy can't start a poll and discussion thread without you two suspecting some alterior cannon/FSO destroying motives :D


When it's the same guy posting (or forcing the splitting off of) half a dozen threads at the same time that all say how much better said guy thinks his ideas are over the :v: canon, then we've got EVERY right to be critical.  And it smacks of ulterior motive.  I'm still quite unsure on exactly what "your campaign" entails (other than it being the TrashManverse that was used to describe how balance works in your head) but it shouldn't be prefaced with massive changes to stock ships without regard to where that's going to get used.  Every thread I've seen you ask for a change has been very inspecific as to how overarching it is, with the only clarification coming when you're presented with insurmountable evidence against actually implimenting it across the board.

I guess my point is this.  If you're making your own campaign, then make it however YOU want to make it (since apparently you're not taking criticism of any kind in these threads) and stop pestering the greater community with the details that you've apparently already decided on.  If you want to change something across the board, whether in your mind you want it to become "official" or just want to  put it out there, then you'd better be prepared for all of the criticism that comes with it.  So far, you're not meeting either criteria.

And for the record, nowhere in this thread did I actually accuse you of trying to destroy canon.  I'm just saying that you're proposed redesign of the game balance is very one-dimensional and ultimately very lazy, but that stands on its own.  You're dragging me in to this argument as though it was something personal, when in reality it hasn't been anything of the sort before now.
Title: Battles too short?
Post by: TrashMan on October 10, 2005, 04:27:37 am
You can't accuse me of destroying cannon balance since the re-balancing will be done for Chapter 3... in the futuire after Capella, with new ships and all :D

Chapter 1 only has a few minor table tweaks, the ship balance is still on the [V] level..

Oh..and theres a big difference between proposing changes or commenting them and REQUESTING they be imnplemented. I never tried to force my way...YET.
Title: Battles too short?
Post by: Galemp on October 10, 2005, 10:52:06 am
For goodness sake. Just do them and stop telling us about it. Bare-bones table mods aren't very interesting anymore.
Title: Battles too short?
Post by: WMCoolmon on October 10, 2005, 07:49:25 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Galemp
For goodness sake. Just do them and stop telling us about it. Bare-bones table mods aren't very interesting anymore.
Title: Battles too short?
Post by: Goober5000 on October 11, 2005, 12:03:32 pm
Closed for truth.