| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Seran Jinkar
Sanmatar Kelkoons
Minmatar Republic
214
   |
Posted - 2012.07.30 11:29:00 -
[1] - Quote
My Idea on how to improve the balancing procedure for weapons in this test.
To create a balance between the weapons the properties of said weapons have to be sharing the same numerical base.
The first step would be a Positive Unit that is represented by the area of a multiaxis web diagram of the wepon properties. I made a sketch so you can see what i mean. I used only 4 but the ingame weapons share quite some more properties.
Compairing the ROF, damage clip size and Accuracy the HMG has a higher Positive Unit than the Sniper Rifle.
So as a TLDR:
Every Positive Thing needs a negative thing to balance it out.
That's why the Positive Unit needs a balancing factor. We know them as ISK, Skill limits, PG and CPU. Another Measure is the Weapon Slot which is either H, L or S. With H having the highest limiting factor as it is limited to one class. If you put up another multiaxis web diagram of this you will end with another area representing the Negative Unit.
A balanced weapon would then always be the one where the area of the positive web is similar to the negative web. So you can either have a single shot rocket launcher for Scouts or a class restricted machine gun.
All it comes down to then is the actual scale of the axes (the mathematic, not the big metallic ones) which needs some testing until it feels right. but the BENEFIT would be:
If the balance feels wrong it is easier to address the damage or the ROF axis scale in an overall sense and not tweak on 40 screws at once, not knowing what will crack if you screw one too tight. |
Jonquill Caronite
Tronhadar Free Guard
Minmatar Republic
115
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 12:46:00 -
[2] - Quote
That doesn't actually balance the weapons though, it just creates the illusion of balance under the assumption that each of the 4 axises maximum are of equal value, which isn't always the case. Want to know how to tell if something is balanced? Look at the market, the most frequently bought and abused things should be reduced, and the least bought need a buff, with explicit exceptions being made for the familiar vs the unfamiliar, and what I mean by the latter is, assault suits with assault rifles should be expected to be the staple, and thus seeing them bought more frequently does not imply the need for reduction, they are fine, but only if there still is variety and specialization. What this means is an arbitrary decision must be made on what one expects the average battlefield compositon to be, and other compositions should be the exception to rule...
Now I don't like this idea of balance too terribly much, I personally am a strong believer in the art of continually escalating warfare, in this case, the way you balance is by reducing and increasing the requirements and strengths of more advanced gear and requirements to leveling up a specific specialty, and continually adding material faster then specialists can reach their theoretical caps... This means that ANY idea can be a good idea, so long as significant time and resources are applied. Will other ideas progress faster, and provide better results at parrallel stages of development? Of course, but the point is, you can still get better if you work at it and make any of your ideas work, which is more fun and encourages far more creativity in builds, and reduces min maxing.
A different method of balancing, which I've never seen employed in a game, and wouldn't like to see, is the concept of making all statistics for all guns the same as they currently are, but having them all have handicap modifiers. As the particular system does increasingly well as a whole in the game (Above average) the handicap modifer actively reduces its strength until it performs average once again, and as something continues to do increasingly poorer the handicap modifier actively increases its strength until once again it is on average. This of course would NOT be relative to kill to death ratio, but to ISK PROFIT to death ratio. This system would undoubtedly work in making ALL equipment and gear as balanced as is possible in the game at one time, and would make playing the game rather like playing the stock market in terms of gear selection where individual items are LITERALLY at times more OP then others dependent on the previous days performance. It would also make the game very aggravating at times as the only constant would be function, and you could come back to find your outstanding build was completely horrible because everyone and their mother copied you one week and dropped your average making everything you used below average for a time. Once again, a gaurenteed to work system, but also not recommended.
The final system is the one currently in use, which rough in game balances determined very quickly and indecisively in a laissez faire manner, which are then balanced not by the market, but by the composition of player bases. Namely Sagaris are OP one week then next week half of all teams are Forge Specialists, and Assault Classes specialize that week, then the next week Dropships become the new OP to counter all the Assault Classes on the rise, followed the next week by a Swarm counter in response to the Dropships, and around the food chain we go.... Rather each weapon is independently balanced or not no longer becomes an issue in this system, because in regular cycles each specialist comes upon periods in which he or she can't specialize because their counter is too overwhelmingly present in response to their previous good fortune, so the game balances in SPITE of some OP builds existing purely the team compositions changing in response to present dynamics. This sort of system works, but I would like to see some integration of the first two suggestions rather then purely relying on this. |
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
1849
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 12:53:00 -
[3] - Quote
You may need to consider more stats when comparing weapons.
Rate of fire, direct damage, splash damage, splash radius, clip size, reload speed, total ammo capacity, overheat rate, accuracy, projectile speed, optimal range...
There's a LOT to consider before you start saying any weapons are OP in comparison with others.
And another balancing factor you're ignoring with the HMG/Sniper comparison is fitting restrictions - at present, Heavies are the ONLY suit type that can equip the HMG, meaning you automatically have to face a HUGE speed restriction to carry the gun, Snipers can be equipped by EVERY current suit type. |
Seran Jinkar
Sanmatar Kelkoons
Minmatar Republic
214
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 13:11:00 -
[4] - Quote
Wow Textwall :) Okay, Yeah I get your point on this. But actually an increased prize or a reduced damage output is nothing different than a change to the axis scale or actual value of the specific weapon. You just add the idea of a dynamic market or balancing which is of course a way to integrate the scaling of the axes.
In the end it's still up to a determination of how well a positive function can be negated by a negative function. Let's say a strong and fast firing weapon is implemented and everyone and their mothers ( I love this ^^) uses it as you can beat everything from tank to scout with it. As you said it can be balanced by price in a dynamic market as with every use of the bpc the market value rises, or in a player economy every Copying station is running this weapon and still couldn't fill the needs of the market. So this sounds to me exactly like the value on the prize axis going up, increasing the negative unit of the weapon and balance it's use like it is right now supposed with the Sagaris.
But before this happens it will have forced everyone that wants to be able to compete with the supergun to either use it themselves (and pushing the price) or adapt with a tatic that counters it. In the end everything will just evolve around the supergun and the supergun countering. This doesn't sounds fun to me, but more like a stalemate without end.
The modification of the weapon damage scale is even worse as it counteracts the whole point of classes. Just look at the Creodon Breach Assault Rifle right now. Everyone with an L slot is on second place after the tanks. Now let your weapon adjustment work. The damage will reduce and the next best thing is chosen. Then the CBAR will rise above the other again and it will turn out as a stalemate between the two things again.
What I suggest is a balancing that goes away from the single weapon or value and creates a comparable positive and negative figure. In the end it's just about finding the similarities inbetween the weapons. And if there are non like it is with AR and lock-on wepons like the Swarm Launcher the lock on has to equalized based on tests. (Which we are here for.)
|
Seran Jinkar
Sanmatar Kelkoons
Minmatar Republic
214
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 13:11:00 -
[5] - Quote
Garrett Blacknova wrote:You may need to consider more stats when comparing weapons.
Rate of fire, direct damage, splash damage, splash radius, clip size, reload speed, total ammo capacity, overheat rate, accuracy, projectile speed, optimal range...
There's a LOT to consider before you start saying any weapons are OP in comparison with others.
And another balancing factor you're ignoring with the HMG/Sniper comparison is fitting restrictions - at present, Heavies are the ONLY suit type that can equip the HMG, meaning you automatically have to face a HUGE speed restriction to carry the gun, Snipers can be equipped by EVERY current suit type.
I know :) It's just a sketch to show what I mean with a multiaxis web diagram and the area of it. |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |