Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2013 11:37 am
Posts: 401
Post Galaxy Assault Revamp Announcement
Discussion topic for post: http://www.starsonata.com/announcements ... ouncement/


Tue Jan 09, 2018 6:18 pm
Profile
Team: Aero
Rank: Officer
Main: PianoMan
Level: 3469

Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 1:36 pm
Posts: 6
Post Re: Galaxy Assault Revamp Announcement
3 out of the 4 design principles are actually design changes. Can you please share the more detailed design principles as well as requirements of BvB with us instead of this stitched together set of high level proposals/changes?

The current BvB mechanics go quite deep in the way they operate and this half a page document does very little in explaining what the actual requirement is in terms of BvB (explaining the what, and not necessarily the how).

Aside from the fact that I don't at all relate with your assumptions at the top (BvB is quite enjoyable for me and I find the mechanics different from regular gameplay to be rather refreshing) I would truly like to better understand how Star Sonata product management wants BvB to work. This shouldn't necessarily be based on one or a handful of people's perception but instead be based on the core design of this game.

I will go into detail in another post regarding the proposed changes, it would make this post too long. But frankly I have no idea based on this post whether these changes are supposed to encourage BvB and make it more lively and balanced, or abolish it altogether (I'm leaning towards the latter).


Tue Jan 09, 2018 7:58 pm
Profile
Team: Hiigaphiix
Rank:
Main: Fyuryus
Level: 3392

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 5:45 pm
Posts: 493
Location: Rockford, IL
Post Re: Galaxy Assault Revamp Announcement
Questions...

Quote:
"Unattached bases and permanent drones will be rooted when they take damage"

- Rooted as in unmovable? In all situations no matter if the galaxy is unowned or whatever the case may be?

Quote:
"Base resistances will be increased to compensate for the increased damage of base weapons. Base healing will be reduced. The upshot is that bases will individually be a lot tankier versus bases than before, but base healing will be less useful."

- Can you say if this gives an overall increase or decrease to the sustainability of a galaxy? Or do they cancel out rather evenly giving no real net change? Additionally, can you give any details on healing weapon nerfs? 20% loss, 30%? May very well be too early for this question but I gotta try.

Quote:
"Base and permanent drone target prioritization is revamped"

- While bases are prioritizing fighting the other bases could this give a way for players to PvB with little resistance? Players still have to contend with permanent drones, but they have their own drawbacks (limited range, low shields, some have low DPS, etc). Think along the lines of Anatolia and how drones can't keep it safe. Or a gunner sitting next to bases, firing core dumps while bases don't see him as a threat. This may not seem like that big of an issue, but when you have invested 100s of billions into a galaxy, only to see your bases targeting inefficiently (and sometimes with devastating consequences) it's frustrating. Secondly, will players get healed by their own bases/drones in combat? I've seen in the past bases prioritize keeping fire on enemies while largely ignoring a low health player. Wondering if we can expect the same.

Quote:
"Players will be afforded a small number of “assault slots” for permanent drones."

- Is there any mechanic we can expect that'll limit how many drones we can use in an assault? Or can I bring a bunch of teammates and deploy loads?

Quote:
"With no players in support, and no sun tanking or other unintended mitigation, it currently takes the attackers 1-1.5x more bases than the defenders to prevail. After the change, this figure should be somewhere around 3-5x"

- How exactly is it going to cost attackers 3-5x more kits compared to the defenders to win. A home-field advantage for the defenders? Because of the large resistance buffs to bases? I don't see why attackers are going to need 3-5x the investment

Lastly, a big takeaway I got from this was
A.) Base DPS increase
B.) Base Resistrance Increase
C.) Base HPS nerf

Ignore BvB for a moment and when you think of PvB both A & B are hugely important factors. Unless the HPS nerf is rather extreme I'd see this as a buff to bases that makes PvB even more difficult. In BvB this doesn't matter as much because both sides have these "OP" bases". Would you expect the same or am I off track?



All of that aside everything else seemed cool.


Tue Jan 09, 2018 8:21 pm
Profile
User avatar
Team: Star Revolution X
Rank: Operator
Main: Maxathron
Level: 2160

Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 11:16 am
Posts: 5776
Post Re: Galaxy Assault Revamp Announcement
If you use bases ONLY. Meaning 13-style bvb without player support or perma drones attackers can deploy, 3-5x investment. That tells me teams with more limited number of active people will be able to successfully attack the defenders.

Straight PvB with no bases supporting you in any way shape or form will be impossible, unless the defenders are using very low tech bases and somehow are in pvp range of all your T22/T23/T24 chars.

PvBing with endgame chars against a team fielding Platforms/Defenders/Assaults should still be pretty difficult, especially with their active defense and the upcoming splash nerfs.


Tue Jan 09, 2018 8:30 pm
Profile
User avatar
Team: Star Revolution X
Rank: Councilor
Main: DreadLordNaf
Level: 5219

Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 10:33 am
Posts: 669
Post Re: Galaxy Assault Revamp Announcement
This seems like a step in the right direction overall. Look forward to seeing these concepts progress and it will be nice for there to be more active things for players to do who aren't kit owners, especially since the one active thing you could do, tractor ships, was removed.

One thing not mentioned was BvB initiation. While you can do it legitimately by sneaking in a stealthed ship to enemy space and dropping a temp beacon, oftentimes cheese mechanics like team-leaving are used instead. Any change to this?


Tue Jan 09, 2018 10:32 pm
Profile
Dev Team
Main: doctor enk
Level: 0

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:47 am
Posts: 534
Post Re: Galaxy Assault Revamp Announcement
Naruto wrote:
3 out of the 4 design principles are actually design changes. Can you please share the more detailed design principles as well as requirements of BvB with us instead of this stitched together set of high level proposals/changes?

The current BvB mechanics go quite deep in the way they operate and this half a page document does very little in explaining what the actual requirement is in terms of BvB (explaining the what, and not necessarily the how).

Aside from the fact that I don't at all relate with your assumptions at the top (BvB is quite enjoyable for me and I find the mechanics different from regular gameplay to be rather refreshing) I would truly like to better understand how Star Sonata product management wants BvB to work. This shouldn't necessarily be based on one or a handful of people's perception but instead be based on the core design of this game.

I will go into detail in another post regarding the proposed changes, it would make this post too long. But frankly I have no idea based on this post whether these changes are supposed to encourage BvB and make it more lively and balanced, or abolish it altogether (I'm leaning towards the latter).


You are right; I got a bit off track when composing the list of design principles. I didn't want to mull over things too long and never get this document released. Here's another shot at it.

1) Players should be involved in BvB in ways that promote active gameplay (and consequently, enjoyment).

2) Inexperienced and/or casual players should be able to afford reasonably strong defenses in Wild Space, and the steps needed to accomplish this should be reasonably clear. Endgame players should still be able to do somewhat better, for a price.

In short, these are summaries of the two paragraphs of the introduction. The following are taken to be corollaries of the two design principles.

1) HPS-dominant defense configurations should no longer be optimal. This is for a couple reasons. Firstly, HPS-based defense is boring because it draws out the fight until the attackers either break through or have to pack. Secondly, it is less intuitive than DPS-based defense, making it hard for new players to carry out effectively. We aren't getting rid of HPS, so people who have done a lot of thinking and experimenting will still see the fruits of that labor, but we are going to tone it down for best play.

2) Pure BvB should take a lot more kits compared to the defense configuration, but player support should be able to more or less even the odds through the parasites they can inject. Of course, the players would have to stay alive against defending players and drones in order to achieve this. This gives players the ability to accomplish something during galaxy assault, but still requires bases to be used (for the reasons outlined in the original post). Moreover, the marginal benefit of players to a galaxy assault should be strongly sub-linear so that enormous teams don't get a proportional benefit to strength. They will still be stronger than smaller teams in this regard--just not many times stronger.

3) Base amp cost curve is revised so that large scale BvBs cost more than proportionally with scale. This is a relative late-comer to the project but one that (I feel) has a lot of merit. When we originally designed base amps, we had to keep the cost low enough for a new or inexperienced team to be able to afford them. However, we all know that endgame players are immeasurably wealthier than new players, so we were never too happy about having a 20-kit BvB cost only three times more than a 10-kit BvB to amp up. We haven't decided on the precise cost curve or implementation, but I see this measure as a much-needed adjustment to pricing that belongs under design principle #2 (new player experience).

_________________
Hi, I'm Anil, a long-time player turned developer. You may know me in-game as enkelin. I am Star Sonata's lead content developer, which means that I run weekly dev meetings and make sure that any proposed changes to the game receive proper review before going live.


Wed Jan 10, 2018 1:57 am
Profile
Dev Team
Main: doctor enk
Level: 0

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:47 am
Posts: 534
Post Re: Galaxy Assault Revamp Announcement
Fyuryus wrote:
Questions...

Quote:
"Unattached bases and permanent drones will be rooted when they take damage"

- Rooted as in unmovable? In all situations no matter if the galaxy is unowned or whatever the case may be?

They would not be able to move for some time, maybe 1-5 minutes.
It hasn't been decided whether this should hold in all situations or not. The critical situation would be when a BvB is taking place, and that can indeed happen even when the galaxy is unowned.


Quote:
"Base resistances will be increased to compensate for the increased damage of base weapons. Base healing will be reduced. The upshot is that bases will individually be a lot tankier versus bases than before, but base healing will be less useful."

- Can you say if this gives an overall increase or decrease to the sustainability of a galaxy? Or do they cancel out rather evenly giving no real net change? Additionally, can you give any details on healing weapon nerfs? 20% loss, 30%? May very well be too early for this question but I gotta try.

It depends on how many HPS bases you use, but assuming a sensible choice in this department, galaxies will be substantially tankier than before (more due to each base's effective shield regeneration than to healing). Healing weapons have to be nerfed anyway whenever base resistances are increased, since healing bypasses those resistances. However, we will nerf them even beyond this necessary measure and compensate by the increased effective shield regeneration of bases.

Quote:
"Base and permanent drone target prioritization is revamped"

- While bases are prioritizing fighting the other bases could this give a way for players to PvB with little resistance? Players still have to contend with permanent drones, but they have their own drawbacks (limited range, low shields, some have low DPS, etc). Think along the lines of Anatolia and how drones can't keep it safe. Or a gunner sitting next to bases, firing core dumps while bases don't see him as a threat. This may not seem like that big of an issue, but when you have invested 100s of billions into a galaxy, only to see your bases targeting inefficiently (and sometimes with devastating consequences) it's frustrating. Secondly, will players get healed by their own bases/drones in combat? I've seen in the past bases prioritize keeping fire on enemies while largely ignoring a low health player. Wondering if we can expect the same.

What is currently envisioned (and implemented in code) is something like a Star Wars scenario, in which multiple engagements play out relatively independently in the same assault. Players will indeed be able to PvB with little or no base resistance (which is good, since bases will pwn players now), but PvB itself will not be terribly effective (again, because bases will be more resistant). The way to be effective as a player force is to clear out the defenders' permanent drones and players with your own players and perma drones, then provide cover for capital ships who can apply debuffs to the defending bases. It may be frustrating for defending bases to prioritize players, but now you can do something about it by getting in your own ship and killing the players. You will no longer have to worry about getting killed by the attackers' bases. If you're unable to go toe-to-toe with the attacking players, then you should use a different defense configuration to be more capable to meet that threat. And yes, the targeting priority code applies to healing as well so you will not be able to rely on your bases for heals. This would throw off the PvP balance we are going for.

Quote:
"Players will be afforded a small number of “assault slots” for permanent drones."

- Is there any mechanic we can expect that'll limit how many drones we can use in an assault? Or can I bring a bunch of teammates and deploy loads?

They work the same way BvB slots do, so they're team-wide.

Quote:
"With no players in support, and no sun tanking or other unintended mitigation, it currently takes the attackers 1-1.5x more bases than the defenders to prevail. After the change, this figure should be somewhere around 3-5x"

- How exactly is it going to cost attackers 3-5x more kits compared to the defenders to win. A home-field advantage for the defenders? Because of the large resistance buffs to bases? I don't see why attackers are going to need 3-5x the investment

Because bases will be tankier (see above).

Lastly, a big takeaway I got from this was
A.) Base DPS increase
B.) Base Resistrance Increase
C.) Base HPS nerf

Ignore BvB for a moment and when you think of PvB both A & B are hugely important factors. Unless the HPS nerf is rather extreme I'd see this as a buff to bases that makes PvB even more difficult. In BvB this doesn't matter as much because both sides have these "OP" bases". Would you expect the same or am I off track?

Pure PvB has been a largely undesired mechanic since the original base rebalance several years ago. It's too spontaneous and difficult to balance.

All of that aside everything else seemed cool.

_________________
Hi, I'm Anil, a long-time player turned developer. You may know me in-game as enkelin. I am Star Sonata's lead content developer, which means that I run weekly dev meetings and make sure that any proposed changes to the game receive proper review before going live.


Wed Jan 10, 2018 2:09 am
Profile
Dev Team
Main: doctor enk
Level: 0

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:47 am
Posts: 534
Post Re: Galaxy Assault Revamp Announcement
dreadlordnaf wrote:
This seems like a step in the right direction overall. Look forward to seeing these concepts progress and it will be nice for there to be more active things for players to do who aren't kit owners, especially since the one active thing you could do, tractor ships, was removed.

One thing not mentioned was BvB initiation. While you can do it legitimately by sneaking in a stealthed ship to enemy space and dropping a temp beacon, oftentimes cheese mechanics like team-leaving are used instead. Any change to this?


Thanks for reminding me. I forgot to mention that this change will also be accompanied by the ability to mark an owned galaxy as "aggro" in exchange for a periodic cost deducted from team funds (cost depends on Danger Factor of the galaxy).

_________________
Hi, I'm Anil, a long-time player turned developer. You may know me in-game as enkelin. I am Star Sonata's lead content developer, which means that I run weekly dev meetings and make sure that any proposed changes to the game receive proper review before going live.


Wed Jan 10, 2018 2:11 am
Profile
User avatar
Team: Star Revolution X
Rank: Councilor
Main: DreadLordNaf
Level: 5219

Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 10:33 am
Posts: 669
Post Re: Galaxy Assault Revamp Announcement
yclepticon wrote:
dreadlordnaf wrote:
This seems like a step in the right direction overall. Look forward to seeing these concepts progress and it will be nice for there to be more active things for players to do who aren't kit owners, especially since the one active thing you could do, tractor ships, was removed.

One thing not mentioned was BvB initiation. While you can do it legitimately by sneaking in a stealthed ship to enemy space and dropping a temp beacon, oftentimes cheese mechanics like team-leaving are used instead. Any change to this?


Thanks for reminding me. I forgot to mention that this change will also be accompanied by the ability to mark an owned galaxy as "aggro" in exchange for a periodic cost deducted from team funds (cost depends on Danger Factor of the galaxy).


I see. Would that mean the galaxy bases would zap anyone who enter that isn't on the team? Seems good for wartime but i can see a lot of neutral players getting killed just /ap'ing through.


Wed Jan 10, 2018 3:53 pm
Profile
Team: Hiigaphiix
Rank:
Main: Fyuryus
Level: 3392

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 5:45 pm
Posts: 493
Location: Rockford, IL
Post Re: Galaxy Assault Revamp Announcement
Quote:
What is currently envisioned (and implemented in code) is something like a Star Wars scenario, in which multiple engagements play out relatively independently in the same assault. Players will indeed be able to PvB with little or no base resistance (which is good, since bases will pwn players now), but PvB itself will not be terribly effective (again, because bases will be more resistant). The way to be effective as a player force is to clear out the defenders' permanent drones and players with your own players and perma drones, then provide cover for capital ships who can apply debuffs to the defending bases. It may be frustrating for defending bases to prioritize players, but now you can do something about it by getting in your own ship and killing the players. You will no longer have to worry about getting killed by the attackers' bases. If you're unable to go toe-to-toe with the attacking players, then you should use a different defense configuration to be more capable to meet that threat. And yes, the targeting priority code applies to healing as well so you will not be able to rely on your bases for heals. This would throw off the PvP balance we are going for.



This was really the only part that concerned me. Well let's just assume for a moment that I want to attack an enemy Galaxy that has 10 ada kits in it. If I want to do this using only bases under your proposed system I need to deploy 30 to 50 kits. It's far too damn expensive and no Galaxy is worth it. Compared to the current system where to kill 10 kits I'm going to deploy slightly more than 10 kits or I'm going to deploy slightly better equipped kits. Costing me only a little more investment than the Defenders put in. You can see how both of these systems are at to extremes from one another.

Now, I'm sure as hell not deploying 30 to 50 kits. But I know that if I match the Defenders 10 kits with 10 kits of my own then they also need to deploy 30 to 50 kits if they ever want me to leave their Galaxy. Now I'm sure Defenders don't want to pay this ridiculous price, and in fact it's a lot smarter to just run out the BvB timer. Since no side has chance of denting the other.

And this is exactly what I expect most people to start doing. Is creating an environment where neither side can dent. Essentially these bases are only here to tank, and distract the enemies kits. I think this severely downgrades the role that basis will play in the future. They are less of a weapon and take on more of a distraction and tank roll. I think this also removes some of the skill that is required in bases. In today's system even a small difference in stats is enough to change the outcome of a BVB. This is why people go to great lengths to even get a small percentage boost on their bases. Using things like ada gear, spirit augmenters, Earth Force panels, and station tweaking. And more importantly of all is using the absolute best augment or setups. It just because all of these small boosts in stats matter. But under the proposed system bases will be so damn tanky that even if they were built poorly and using subpar equipment they're probably still capable tanking an enemy attack.

With bases being a distraction in BVB I think PVB support will become much more important to have. I'd go as far to say it's required to win under the proposed system. Especially when you want to kill enemy kits. However, with bases being so tanky pure player DPS may not even kill the kits. Instead I think core dumps will become much more important, including some of the new core dumps that are in the works. So, with that being said I believe whichever side can hold the PVP High Ground and can move players in range of kits to begin using core dumps will probably win the battle.

I don't very much like how bases would become a distraction and PVP becomes the deciding factor in a battle. In a fight that is called "Base V.S Base" (BVB), find it weird bases are getting such a downgraded role.


Wed Jan 10, 2018 4:44 pm
Profile
User avatar
Team: Star Revolution X
Rank: Operator
Main: Maxathron
Level: 2160

Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 11:16 am
Posts: 5776
Post Re: Galaxy Assault Revamp Announcement
I think it'd be better. Capital Ship battles in Star Wars aren't solely based between Star Destroyers and Mon Cal Cruisers. There are fighters, bombers, and gunships, and old fashioned boarding parties that help decide who ultimately wins.

This picture sums up what the dev team is going for:

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/starwars/images/d/d6/Lusankya_vs_Reaper.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20160926055646


Wed Jan 10, 2018 9:54 pm
Profile
Dev Team
Main: doctor enk
Level: 0

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:47 am
Posts: 534
Post Re: Galaxy Assault Revamp Announcement
dreadlordnaf wrote:
yclepticon wrote:
dreadlordnaf wrote:
This seems like a step in the right direction overall. Look forward to seeing these concepts progress and it will be nice for there to be more active things for players to do who aren't kit owners, especially since the one active thing you could do, tractor ships, was removed.

One thing not mentioned was BvB initiation. While you can do it legitimately by sneaking in a stealthed ship to enemy space and dropping a temp beacon, oftentimes cheese mechanics like team-leaving are used instead. Any change to this?


Thanks for reminding me. I forgot to mention that this change will also be accompanied by the ability to mark an owned galaxy as "aggro" in exchange for a periodic cost deducted from team funds (cost depends on Danger Factor of the galaxy).


I see. Would that mean the galaxy bases would zap anyone who enter that isn't on the team? Seems good for wartime but i can see a lot of neutral players getting killed just /ap'ing through.


The server would automatically set aggro galaxies to "/avoid" for off-team players.

_________________
Hi, I'm Anil, a long-time player turned developer. You may know me in-game as enkelin. I am Star Sonata's lead content developer, which means that I run weekly dev meetings and make sure that any proposed changes to the game receive proper review before going live.


Thu Jan 11, 2018 12:27 am
Profile
Dev Team
Main: doctor enk
Level: 0

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:47 am
Posts: 534
Post Re: Galaxy Assault Revamp Announcement
Fyuryus wrote:
So, with that being said I believe whichever side can hold the PVP High Ground and can move players in range of kits to begin using core dumps will probably win the battle.


This is exactly what we are going for. The PvP high ground would become more important in galaxy assault, but it would still be required to pony up the cost and logistics of bases in order to support the assault (or defend against it).

Fyuryus wrote:
I don't very much like how bases would become a distraction and PVP becomes the deciding factor in a battle. In a fight that is called "Base V.S Base" (BVB), find it weird bases are getting such a downgraded role.


There is a reason why we are mainly using the term "galaxy assault" instead of "BvB" to describe the new system.

_________________
Hi, I'm Anil, a long-time player turned developer. You may know me in-game as enkelin. I am Star Sonata's lead content developer, which means that I run weekly dev meetings and make sure that any proposed changes to the game receive proper review before going live.


Thu Jan 11, 2018 12:29 am
Profile
Team: Hiigaphiix
Rank:
Main: Fyuryus
Level: 3392

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 5:45 pm
Posts: 493
Location: Rockford, IL
Post Re: Galaxy Assault Revamp Announcement
I'm looking forward to when this all hits the test server. Although, for now i'm fundamentally opposed.

_________________
[IMG]http://i444.photobucket.com/albums/qq168/Spartan2529/SS%20is%20a%20collection%20of%20Bugs_zps3jpsx73s.png[/IMG]


Thu Jan 11, 2018 3:07 am
Profile
User avatar
Team: Eminence Front
Rank: Soldier
Main: Higaran Leader
Level: 2998

Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 2:12 pm
Posts: 292
Location: Hiigara
Post Re: Galaxy Assault Revamp Announcement
yclepticon wrote:
Fyuryus wrote:
Questions...

"With no players in support, and no sun tanking or other unintended mitigation, it currently takes the attackers 1-1.5x more bases than the defenders to prevail. After the change, this figure should be somewhere around 3-5x"

- How exactly is it going to cost attackers 3-5x more kits compared to the defenders to win. A home-field advantage for the defenders? Because of the large resistance buffs to bases? I don't see why attackers are going to need 3-5x the investment

Because bases will be tankier (see above).


I think you misunderstood him here. When bases are getting buffed, you did not mention if there would be a distinction between assaulting bases and defending bases.

Hence, what we are hearing is that "ALL" bases will be getting a buff. Meaning, the kits that the assaulting team lays will be no different than the defending team's bases. Essentially, you'll be adding a change that goes for both sides of the battle.

For example:
Then---Team A Base Power = 10, Team B = 10
"Let's beef up bases!"
Now:---Team A = 10+5, Team B=10+5
"Now it requires 3-5x more bases to kill defenders!"

See where I'm getting at here?

So, where or how does this exactly quantify as needing more than 1-1.5x the amount of bases to win the fight, when an attacker's bases are the same tankier kits being used the defenders. All other things equal, without including the player role of moving in to debuff bases, while keeping in mind that the defenders still carried the home field advantage before this consideration.

_________________
Never give in! Never surrender! We fight till the end! For the Hiigarans!


Last edited by Tron20 on Thu Jan 11, 2018 4:15 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Thu Jan 11, 2018 3:59 pm
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.