Character balance?

[JetJaguar2000]

Jet - The specialties are definitely out of balance, there's no doubt about that. As it stands it doesn't matter what I make the resources costs as Traders will always have more resources and access to build the same ships (other than the highest tier) so whether I make a battleship cost 50 RO or 500 RO doesn't really matter in terms of specialty balance. As it currently stands Traders will always be able to build proportionately more units, faster than anyone else because they'll always have more resources and faster build times.

So, I agree the specialty balancing does need to be addressed but it's a separate issue. I think I probably just confused things by cross posting the new ship balancing spreadsheet in this thread.

The fact that the specialties are unbalanced does not mean you should give up making costs reasonable. Cruisers, for example, level the playing field. There is no imbalance in ships that only require CO, since CO is effectively unlimited for any speciality. While Traders can build faster, in practice it will also come down to how many factories each side can put to use, etc.

If you increase the RO cost of everything, that's what shuts out non Traders and slows down the game. If anything, more ships should cost CO only. There is a HUGE difference between not being able to build the same ships at quite the same rate as a Trader and not being able to build those ships at all, to say that it just doesn't matter since Traders build faster is an oversimplification.

And by the way, if you ask me, th current cost of the Planet Killer is grounds for an emergency patch. I truly believe it is impossible for a non-Trader to reach 440k RO right now (let alone multiple times if their Planet Killer is destroyed), which means it is currently impossible for a Warlord to win the game. If you can refute this, I'd love know how it can be done.

[Parsons]

It's late and ive already ranted enough, but one idea for the trader imbalance may be a shift in how rare ore is come by. Say we take away the ability for them to get more rare ore from mining. Everybody would get the same amount from that route. We shift the ro to what traders are supposed to be good at, trading. Say something like trading with a trader class generates the bulk of the in the market. Both sides would get an equal amount during the trade, still let it be effected to some extent by the trader skill tree. Say for every x amount of co traded y amount of ro is created and included in the trade. Sure its kinda something from nothing but we could come up with a reasonable way to explain how to break a fundemental law of nature.

[Leedot]

Jet - I wasn't trying to say that we're giving up on making costs reasonable. In the previous sheet the high end ships are dramatically cheaper then they currently are in the game. When I was working through those numbers I was more focused on the high end and keeping the costs proportional which left the low end winding up higher than it was previously. I've since pulled everything down proportionately so it's closer to the games current numbers on the low end since you're definitely right in saying that making the early game units cost more would slow the game down.

I think where we differ is I think the Trader's near monopoly on RO is an issue that needs to be resolved separately (even if it's integrated into the game at the same time) so I'm more focused on having the RO costs be in balance with the full RO output of a planet than the 0-27% output non traders tend to have access to.

Yoda - That's a good thought, if nothing else I think shifting away from Trader's having vastly superior access to RO is the way to go. It's something that needs a bit more internal discussion but I think it should be doable.

[Royce]

I think where we differ is I think the Trader's near monopoly on RO is an issue that needs to be resolved separately (even if it's integrated into the game at the same time) so I'm more focused on having the RO costs be in balance with the full RO output of a planet than the 0-27% output non traders tend to have access to.

I don't know why you would focus on putting costs in balance with RO wealth available to 1/3 of players. If you mean you want to focus on balancing costs for maximum possible wealth, okay (though focusing on average would make more sense to me), but you'd better fix the RO imbalance before increasing RO costs. An even bigger issue than the 27% vs 100% difference IMO is the 0% that non-traders start with, and the snail's pace at which it increases. Charging RO for cruisers will prevent non-traders from having access to any useful ships for quite a while from the start of the game, and I believe will prevent non-traders from being able to get a foothold in the universe at all.

[Leedot]

I don't know why you would focus on putting costs in balance with RO wealth available to 1/3 of players.

That's my focus because I'd like to see -all- the players have access to that kind of RO wealth one way or the other.

[Balian]

Frankly I have no issue finding ample RO as a warlord, stop the qq people, a perfect balance does not exist in life or games.

[JetJaguar2000]

Frankly I have no issue finding ample RO as a warlord, stop the qq people, a perfect balance does not exist in life or games.

Worthless post is worthless. If you don't have anything constructive to contribute, don't bother posting.

[Balian]

^nice job doing exactly what you claim I'm doing. Tell me, how worthless are all of your posts? Perhaps you should show faith and trust in the Devs experience, wait and see how the game progresses before jumping ship? Do you really think that the devs haven't come across these ideas before? Have you not realized that even assuming that they haven't come across said ideas during the long, hard processes of creating the game that this thread and topic has been explored via membership since before beta? I don't know about other people but I don't consider qq about game balance when the game is brand new constructive, I call it needless complaining.

[Royce]

I don't know about other people but I don't consider qq about game balance when the game is brand new constructive, I call it needless complaining.

Well I think you're in the minority. Nobody expects a new game to be balanced, but why on earth would you be opposed to healthy discussion of balance? It's absolutely constructive, and an important discussion to have.

[Balian]

^ I do not have a single issue with constructive, respectful discussion on such a topic, but I do think that numerous posts in this thread were simple complaints and in my opinion most of these complaints are pure speculation seeing as the game is just so young. Besides should not this thread be in the suggestions section or at least in the game section?