Not a member yet? Why not Sign up today
Create an account  

  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
 
V2.03 [Dev Test] CONTENT Update

#31
(2017-10-17, 10:01 AM)Hikari Wrote: yes you can change difficulty anytime you like in the campaign, change everything actually, even resource return from destroyed crafts when you're running low.

Perfect. In which case i'd recommend some form of the following.

Normal difficulty at 1 reinforce (30 min) -> expert difficulty at 2 reinforce (30 min) -> Godly difficulty at 3 reinforce.

And for those who really want to tempt fate, go ahead and declare war on the planet after that Smile. Did play around with going Godly + 3 reinforce + all faction war from the start, but as it turns out SD Godly and expert aircraft are capable of beating the DWG advance scouts if you do so.
-Do not bring forth an argument as fact that can be disproven with a 10 minute Google search.
Reply

#32
Anyone else getting a spaghetti ton of Redtunas on Godly? DWG has so many cool ships yet I get like 5 redtunas from a 60 zone.
Reply

#33
(2017-10-18, 03:13 PM)zitron Wrote: Anyone else getting a spaghetti ton of Redtunas on Godly? DWG has so many cool ships yet I get like 5 redtunas from a 60 zone.

That is an issue that ive had a hard time balancing.
Since Red Tuna is such a small unit with a small FP the AI thinks is a great choice to spawn.
AI seems to think, "Do I want 8 red tunas or 2 Morays" "8 is bigger than 2, duh"
I have the spawn chance set very low in comparison to the larger units I want to spawn more, yet the AI ignores my parameters.

Ill set it lower still, but at .05 relative chance theres not much lower I can go.
"Ask for the world and you'll get nothing, ask for something achievable and you might actually get it." -Majyst

"Im a leaf on the Wind, Watch how I soar" - 'Wash' Washburne

"Exaggerating just pisses me off" -Majyst

"Shiny" -Captain Malcolm Reynolds
Reply

#34
Unit limits could solve this to some extend Majyst, i would set Red Tuna max concurent instances to 5 or 6 to give space for larger designs if theres eneugh Tunas already.
Reply

#35
(2017-10-18, 03:32 PM)mrvecz Wrote: Unit limits could solve this to some extend Majyst, i would set Red Tuna max concurent instances to 5 or 6 to give space for larger designs if theres eneugh Tunas already.

it has a limit of 1, has for a while. either people are complaining about something that changed a while back and they havent noticed, or the limit doesnt work
"Ask for the world and you'll get nothing, ask for something achievable and you might actually get it." -Majyst

"Im a leaf on the Wind, Watch how I soar" - 'Wash' Washburne

"Exaggerating just pisses me off" -Majyst

"Shiny" -Captain Malcolm Reynolds
Reply

#36
Well then it doesnt work at all.
I think ? i know why, it only counts already existing non-territory spawned fleets like patrols or attack fleets so it doesnt generate more of it. But if you attack a territory the game spawns instantly at random without checking any rules
Reply

#37
Great Update! I just Joined the Forums to tell you "Devs" You Rock, Keep up the Amazing Job!
Reply

#38
I don't think its appropriate to suggest that if players find the hardest difficulty more difficult than they like that they need to reduce their difficulty. The possibility that both players are adapting poorly-- complaining that a design is cheap-- and that the design is unreasonable are not mutually exclusive. It may not even be an issue of the inclusion of some modules, just that these systems are either underestimated in balance calculations or that they generate too much value on the whole.

Some complaints I've seen about the PAC on the Perferator do come off as whining, but the fact that veteran players can outclass these ships (either legitimately or through exploits and loopholes in design) should not be taken as the ultimate sign that there is no issue, especially when a significant portion of the solution suggested is to fall back on the crutch of repair bots. Though I'm not at the point where I need to really concern myself with handling godly designs, I don't use repair bots in my builds; if this means I am explicitly excluded from the audience of this difficulty then I do not feel like I will miss the company.

There is no purpose in explicitly defending godly designs in purpose of thwarting and frustrating players. If there is counterplay, it may be more appropriate to advise on possible solutions. If there is not counterplay, then player frustrations should not be dismissed as whining. I look forward to challenging these builds in campaign, but my excitement is reduced somewhat if all I'll be doing is running the Red Queen's Race as balance is adjusted and designs are continually tweaked to apex efficiency. Designs can be challenging, but ultimately the goal should be for them to be challenging and fun to combat; otherwise it invites neurotic play on the part of players (if they continue to play at all).

Now when I get a moment I'm going to take a look at that missile. Countermeasures to that might be appropriate additions to my design's air defense. If it can catch and kill an anti-ship missile, maybe I can swat those pesky fliers out of the sky too...
Reply

#39
I skimmed but I always think I want reward after sinking godly or other.
Or, umm, what are design difficulty and BP? In other word, if both are strongness, what happens when a ship of certain design difficulty or BP was killed?

I don't think a dozen of Marauders are better than single Thyr. Therefore design difficulty would be strongness as well ans total strongness would be design difficulty times BP. But how are the rewards? You can decrease ONLY 60 of fleet points after killing Thyr and get same resources as long as you wasted same resource.

So Are the Godly is just a unlucy accident and give players stress? Some would be answer "Yes, you must have choosed it at the beginning". It may be true, but, as long as I think, I want more reward than just my emotion. ex. additional RP or damage to difficulty point other than fleet point.

- I posted wrong thread and moved now -
Reply

#40
(2017-10-28, 08:59 AM)NekoWaffle Wrote: I don't think its appropriate to suggest that if players find the hardest difficulty more difficult than they like that they need to reduce their difficulty.

I must disagree, this is the purpose of difficulty, to adapt the game to the player. The toughest difficulty should exist to challenge the most advanced players. If less advanced players feel it's too hard the right answer is not to make it 'easier' it's to tell them to lower the difficulty until they are at that advanced level. I will agree that combat must be 'fun' but i have yet to see any of these designs violate that. I'd also like to point out that give the game is in alpha, and still has some significant balance issues, high-lighting those is a good impetus to FINALLY get some balance changes to the systems (repair and shields for example) that desperately need it.

If the game is not able to challenge the top tier of it's players it runs a high risk of losing that population, and for a game like FTDs it is especially important to keep around a tier of engaged and very skilled players as they they perform some important functions
-generating cool content that will draw in new players
-testing and offering feedback as the game is patched, balanced, and new features are added
-guiding new players as they learn
-hosting tournaments
-In the case of FTDs we also rely on this top tier to update the campaigns designs and actively help further develop the game.
-Do not bring forth an argument as fact that can be disproven with a 10 minute Google search.
Reply



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)