Cliffskis knowledge of the true game mechanics does change alot, btw.
Also, nwhen balancing, where do you draw the line for individual skill? Do you keep nerfing tribe till even new players can kick any of their fleets asses with ease? If not, why not? If i cant beat your rebel fleet with a similar tribe fleet… is it cause i had a better setup? Or the races being close?
Also, mirror match modules mean nothing. Someome times one will win, other times, not.
Also be aware that not every engagement is equal. Fighting with spatial anomalies that prevent shields is a big kick in the face to the empire, and so on.
Nor should it be. If everything balanced out evenly, where would be the challenge?
Ask starcraft players. Also, using “inferior” tactics and winning. Like appraching a missile fleet with slow cruisers, and such.
Or a game i know better, competitve tf2. Everyone has access to the same options, anything deemed game breaking is removed. Its as challanging as hell.
Its why multiplayer games have the longest shelflife. Unless you are the best by a margin, you are always going to get a challange.
Bear with me here. There’s a lightbulb trying to turn on. I’ve just finished retyping this response 3 times. Every time I tried to put together my arguments for my case, I felt that something was wrong, so I would restate. I’m not sure how, but I think something deep down is screaming at me that the part of me that’s talking(typing) is wrong. Let me explain. (Having re-read this post after writing it, you might enjoy watching the thought processes I went through to turn the light on… Enjoy…)
I like logical things. I like things to equal other things, and when two things that do the same thing don’t have some sort of equality, I don’t like it. I don’t mind if thing A does something three times as well as thing B, but in my mind there’s a cost for thing A to be able to do that, and that cost should be roughly three times the cost that thing B pays to do it. Whenever this is not the case, I furrow my brow, and THEN I GET INTERESTED. Why is thing A so much more effective than thing B. What makes thing A the better tool? WHY? I MUST KNOW! And that’s what’s going on in my head. The cold logical side of me that wants everything to equal everything else, and all the A’s, B’s, and C’s identified, stamped, and stored in their proper buckets is demanding equality. The creative side of me is turned off until the inequality exists, and then it sits up and says “Hey look at this! I was sleeping because A and B were always the same, but they’re NOT. Things are different! Lets look at more thing A’s and B’s, and OOOH look! It’s a thing C! It’s like, WAAAAAAY different than thing A and B, but LOOK, it’s kinda similar to Z, except DIFFERENT! WHEE!”… You get the idea…
So where does that leave me… I still believe there needs to be some sort of underlying equality, but maybe that equality being nebulous is okay, as long as it’s there. If 1 shield penetration, and 1 armor penetration, and 1 damage all cost the same, then you end up with the same weapon over and over with different damage “payloads”. But when you mix it up, when the algorithms are truly different, the weapons are truly different.
This inequality, while interesting, needs to be somewhat controlled though. This is, after all, a game, and if the levels of inequality are too severe, then the fun dries up as well. Nothing should be impossible to handle. All races should be able to, say, handle fighter swarms without doing something extreme. The method of doing this can be different, but it should be possible. Race As answer to a problem can (and should) be different in some way to Race Bs, and race B might have to pay more to do it, but they should be able to do it. To put it in to gaming terms, given fighter swarm Z, Race A and B should both have solutions to the fighter swarm. I don’t care if Race A uses it’s armor bonus to hold out long enough for the AA to take them down, and Race B uses the super-AA-megablaster to destroy the swarms before they can do too much damage. That’s fine. It may cost them differing amounts, but as long as the differing amounts are not obscene, that’s okay. No. That’s preferable.
Yes. That’s it. I’ve talked my way through it. So how do you test for equality? No, I’m not going to use the word equality anymore. How do you test for balance? If I can figure this out, I’ll be a happy man… Anybody have a torch that could shed some light on this for me?
Its sort of simple of you have counters, and some manner of counter-counters. If someone uses lots of weapons with one counter (Say shield resistance) the relative value of that counter goes up. If someone mixies alot of weapons, with different counters, then the weapons should be different enough that there is something to exploit, lets say haning back at range so his lasers are useless, or the opposite.
How you test for this, though, is player testing. Statistics should also help. If there races were ment to be perfectly balances, lets say with counters to other races, and weak against each other, you expect the same result as above. If there are loads of rebel challanges and alliance are good against them, then you expect to see alliance numbers go up. And feds are good against alliance, you they should go up as their counter, etc.
Of course, its more complicated since the challanges are static, most likly people favourite race. I would expect, however, for the mosted posted race in a mature population of games to be the strongest.
But that mighnt apply here, due to the nature of the game. It if was real time match ups, id be more confident.
Those games all involve physical player involvement in the game. That’s simply not the case with GSB, which is purely intellectual.
The principles are still the same. You enact a strategy and try to execute it in game. Your real time input is redesigning your fleet composition to do the challenge better or successfully the next time.
They are not the same, simply because human physical attributes cannot be balanced like game mechanics can be. The longevity of first person shooters comes from the players’ nearly-limitless capacity to improve their physical attributes. Starcraft ultimately has the same issue. That simply doesn’t exist for GSB, which requires neither snap decisions nor physical dexterity. It’s not “real time.”
Which is fine. But it’s also distinctly different.
Any other comments on this?
I think that the only reasonable way is to field-test it with an AI or a bunch of human beta-testers. Genetic programming as a way of automatically breeding successful configurations springs to mind.
If you could analytically determine the balance, you could also analytically determine the best configuration, and then the game would not be any fun.
All right, I see what you’re saying. I misread the context of your response.
Also Starcraft is awesome: youtube.com/watch?v=jBakY-yMEv8
Traditionally, game balance is refined first in the development process, and then, at least for games with development that continues past the original release (pretty much anything with “expansion packs” or other additional material), it relies heavily on player response and feedback. If no one is using a particular bit of the game, the designer looks at why. This involves both direct player feedback (Why don’t you like this?) and analysis of observed play style (Everyone seems to like playing with X, and this piece is nothing like X).
So basuically, in the case of GSB, balance is being constantly tested by all of us playing and weighing in on the subject here in the forums. And balance will be achieved (or at least approached) by cliff listening in and responding to the major issues that come up (on which I think he does a fine job).
And a few small unbalanced bits (a module or two that no one chooses to use) won’t unmake the game by themselves, either. 
If anything, I think that instead of nerfing the Tribe, I think the weak races need to be strengthened. The Alliance and Empire both seem weak, both for different reasons. The Rebels and Federation appear to be on par with the Tribe on a good engagement (IE, no crippling spatial anomalies).
I’ll take a stab at this.
Test for balance by ensuring that each side can win and lose, that each has its tactical advantage and disadvantage, and that they’re generally on the same level. The only way to do this is to have a preprogrammed set of battle simulations of with many configurations and races, and then set the computer on “number crunch” mode for a few hours. Once a few thousand sets have been completed the statistics should be telling who is weak and who is strong. Tweak, crunch, repeat.
But that takes all the fun and humanity out of it, doesn’t it? So let’s try to make it more intuitive, rather than a boring statistical crunch-fest.
I think we need modules that can be restricted to multiple races. We need varied sets of modules for every race. And, in addition, we seriously need better hull bonuses for the ships. I’m thinking that a 10% bonus is too little, and should be 20-25% in general. Do the math to figure out how many hull plates it would take to get 1k armor on a cruiser; it’s roughly 9-10 of the ultra-heavy armor. So even with the 20% bonus, the ship will be too heavy to use and much to encumbered to even power its weapons.
I think that balance can be more easily achieved by bigger bonuses, as well as greater variety in modules available to the individual races.
Trial and error, anyone? It’s the only true way, even with the crunch-fest.
This is not a new idea among the player base. From the various threads I’ve read, Alliance seems to have a decent following of players who are into it, but Empire is the red-headed stepchild of GSB. I haven’t hit a stride with either one so far myself.
Again, a common idea that I think a lot of us are behind. Instead of the races all being slightly distinct from each other, why not give each of them some extremely distinct traits? I think this is the first mention I’ve seen of improving the original race bonuses; I can see a lot of value in this, provided that the increases are balanced to the utility of each bonus (e.g., the Rebel speed bonuses are pretty powerful as is). A careful bit of fiddling, that.
And it looks like the majority of us are agreed that a wider selection of race-specific modules is desirable, rather than the current handful of “variation-on-a-theme” weapons and the odd bit like the Tribal Repair modules.
Restricting to ONE race is possible, therefore, restricting to multiple races is as easy as making a race specific version for the races that should have the weapons. They can be identical, or just similar.
I think the differences between the races should actually be MORE striking, rather than subdued, now that I think about it. I guess I’m agreeing that we should bulk up the other races… Tribe may still need a bit of a Nerf though, but maybe not quite as much if we increase the other race bonuses.
Err, maintaining 4+ versions of a single module just to change its characteristics is a lot of data for the engine to maintain. Not to mention a huge amount of effort to hand tool, if you get what I mean. Even if cliffski automates half of it, these kinds of changes will still have to be hand-tweaked.
As a Rebel player myself, I can vouch for having tried both the Alliance and Empire and passing them by. I wanted to be an Empire player, because they seem cool, but the faction is, indeed, the red-headed stepchild. Except, it’s only that way because their advantages turn into disadvantages.
I think it’s a good idea to have a decent selection of modules that are universal. Then various modules designed to amplify a specific race’s play-style. While yes, we could do this with the present modding system … how do you reimagine the default races (omitting the tribe at this phase) and “solve” its problems? To do so is to make online play next to impossible. All present challenges and battles would have to be tweaked or replaced outright.
You are right. I still believe it’s necessary.
Empire is seriously broken; they are much less playable than the other races. Just off the top of my head:
How do we reimagine them? With bravery, patience, creativity, attention to detail, lots of work and abundant playtesting. Yes, it’s hard. No surprise there.
Your last point merits additional thought. As for scrapping challenges, it’s been done before en masse and it’ll certainly be done again in the unforseeable future. The challenges are a product of GSB. GSB is not a product of the challenges. As such, the challenges are an enhancement of the game, being an entertaining feature. The notion that an incomplete, problem-laden game should remain sealed in stasis with its flaws unrepaired so as not to disturb the convenience of the existing challenges is unrealistic and dangerous.
The rest of the very interesting points raised by you & others previously in-thread are worth expanding upon in a second post.
Apologies in advance if I sound like a roaring Bolshevik commisar, passionately orating to the troops from atop his soap-box during the Russian Civil War. I think that this post is my “Balance Manifesto”.
I have read numerous player requests for this very thing on other parts of the GSB forum, and I agree fully!
Ideally, each race should have its own set of entirely race-specific modules; both weapons as well as standard equipment. Make that the first arena in which to tweak away for the greater good of that race’s balance. Too many things are available to everyone, and it simply makes the game much too homogenous in overall flavor while also contributing to the magnification of existing racial imbalances!
Step back and take a good look at the big picture. Aside from a tiny handful of exceptions, everyone now has access to everyone else’s stuff. How is this supposed to promote racial favor and distinction, I ask you? It does not. It is far too much of a well-intentioned but misguided effort to achieve balance via means that are inherently too limited to solve the problem at hand, and also does signifigant collateral damage to the valuable & under-explored notion of the races’ tech bases being special & intrinsic to each. Only a really, really small assortment of items should be universal.
This lack of uniqueness is one of the greatest things I came to eventually loathe about playing Star Fleet Battles, that renowned grandfather of hardcore tabletop space tactics & strategy wargaming. It aggravated the effect of that game’s well-known complexity woes until further play become intolerable. I played SFB for over a decade, and I did indeed love that game, but when nearly all of the races were later sloshed around to the point where they were granted a good chunk of the others’ tech base, what the hell was the point of setting up the map any longer? To me it became “time wasted” and was a chore instead of a joy. I sure don’t want GSB straying down this disastrous path, believe me!
You want Empire to be the “shield race”? Then give them a set of truly amazing shield generators - perhaps even beyond what’s currently thought to be possible with the tech, like limited immunity to fighters getting inside their perimeter, and restrict them such that they are the only ones accessible to the Empire; conversely, no one else can use them, either! You want the Rebels to be the “speed race”? Do the same thing with regards to engines. Let them show the result of being the known galaxy’s greatest improvisational tinkerers, right?
Do this to every race. Be fearless here. It needs to be done.
The Tribe definitely needs this treatment. If the space hippies are the “kinetic/durable” race, then keep them from using non-Tribe weaponry and further develop the howitzer/autocannon technology further. No access to any non-Tribe shield and armor modules. At an extreme, have Tribe develop their own analogues of a handful of non-Tribe weaponry, but along signifigantly different performance specs that keep much of the Tribe racial flavor, even if it’s less Herculean in scope than the radical (and awesome, I add) kinetic guns.
If you want the Tribe to be hyper-durable without allowing them to play numbers games with existing shield and armor tech, them give the Tribe no shields or armor of their own. Yes, you read me correctly: none! If implemented, the existing negative bonuses to armor and shielding become unnecessary, too. Retain only the hull integrity bonus. Going forward from there, some other added racial bonus could then be considered. The sky’s the limit.
If each race is overhauled to greatly add to its alleged distinctiveness, there’s a very happy side effect. This process will also be a “kill 2 birds with 1 stone” solution to the problems detailed in the “Useless Weapons” thread, seen here. There are already a lot of weapon systems in this game, but the performance envelope of too many of them are either waaaaay too close to one (or more!) others…or the gun specs are simply too weak of a warhead, slow-to-track, or arming cycle too lengthy to be at all useful in any sort of battle. This cries out for attention, if the proposals under discussion are implemented, this set of problems will likewise be solved!
I may not be the most well-known or prolific GSB modder, but I’ve been slowly plugging away in the background at creation & balance of unique racial modules for everyone. It is not easy, I assure you. I’m doing this on my own because I believe 100% that the game is increasingly less fun and even “bent” (and eventually “broken,” I fear) from the lack of it. There are no shortage of modders who can create scary Herculean ships with module slots for more guns than you can possibly count. While I did create the first set of dreadnaught hulls for the game, I began to lose interest in that approach when I realized I wanted to mod smarter, not harder. That’s because I wanted the game itself to run smarter, not harder. Race-specific tech is the key.
Agreed again. Make this the second arena for tweaking racial balance further. An 8% performance above baseline is hardly making anyone faint with bliss!
I think the bonus values should be much greater on average. I’m open to routinely making the bonus range fall between 15% and 40%. That’s hefty enough to finally give incentives to choosing a given hull over any other given hull, instead of the miniscule bonus distinctions that too often make the choosing an example of “picking the best of a bad lot,” or sometimes just a pointless time-sink that adds nothing to game enjoyment when most or all of the available “sweeteners” are too small to have a noticeable effect to the human player in charge.
Let’s get back to our oft-cited gratuitous roots here, shall we? Something like a 3.5% difference in hull integrity or engine thrust between two ships is easily discernible to a computer, but for a human player two such hulls feel the same when played! They’re functionally identical, and that should not be the case. Increase the bonus values in absolute terms, as well as provide a wider minimax of values across that race’s hulls.
Make the really high-bonus hulls cost more and the low-bonus hulls cost less, of course, but at least bigger bonuses will be more human-perceptible in combat and, dammit, at least they’ll feel fun. Fun, IMHO, in this case has been overlooked to date. We’re here for thunderously explosive “space opera”-type combat, but not to arrive at that end by squinting ad nauseam at Excel sheets of actuarial tables like a department full of accountants would. I concede the pre-combat strategy of fleet composition, of course, but my fear is that we’re drifting slowly towards too much of a bloodless uninspiring clash of intangible numbers.
We need a little less of the latter in order to more fully enjoy the former. I believe that a full set of unique modules for each race’s exclusive use, in concert with a greatly revamped hull bonus system, is the way to finally realize this.
Stepping off of my Bolshevik soap-box now. Long live the revolution… the revolution for a better GSB!
While I am not even going to attempt a discourse as long and well-written as the venerable Archduke above, I think I will weigh in on a few points. Apologies for the butchery of the quote below, but I’m going to surgically remove a few things to make this post read a little better.
Now maybe … okay, probably … I’m more into the “flavor” of everything than most folks, and that would be my failing. But I would like to see basic tech available to all races in a more-or-less equivalent set of modules, one for each of these categories:
Engine (fighter, frigate, cruiser)
Armor (frigate, cruiser)
Shield (frigate, cruiser)
Laser (fighter, frigate, cruiser)
Missile/Rocket (fighter, frigate, cruiser)
Power Plant (fighter, frigate, cruiser)
That’s it, really. A single basic tech in each category. Now I would still want them to be race-specific, but all slightly adjusted off a common origin. Exceptions to that would be OK (Tribe basic shields could be very light), but overall, the idea is that most races when they first get into space have the same problems and the same solutions. It’s the relative advancements that then give the races their distinctiveness.
Exactly. Make every race have near super-modules in one area, fairly good in a few others, mediocre in most, and probably one area where each race flat out sucks. Then you just need to learn to use that race’s strengths to overcome its weaknesses. Kinda like real life. 
Absolutely! the problem with a lot of the so-called “useless” modules is that they are too similar to something else, giving you no real motivation to use one over the other. But if you have a choice (for example) of one laser with terrific range and penetration but low power, OR one with short range, mediocre penetration and enough wattage to cook a field of cows, that’s a choice to be made. One, the other, or a mix? Now we’re getting into a game.
Thank you for so eloquently putting words to the feeling I get when I read through one of these threads and read nothing but DPS over and over again. To me, the focus of GSB is some strategic thinking, rewarded by the spectacle of multitudes of spaceborne titans blowing each other to kingdom come. Not in digging into numbers and percentages etc. A surface understanding of the mechanics is sufficient to me.
-The opinions and view expressed in this post belong solely to the poster and are not meant to reflect those of other forum posters or the developer of Gratuitous Space Battles.