Arcen Games

Games => AI War II => Topic started by: x4000 on September 21, 2016, 03:10:43 PM

Title: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
Post by: x4000 on September 21, 2016, 03:10:43 PM
I've not put this on the design document yet, but I wanted to go ahead and move this into the main forum with a new image and set of terminology as a starting point for discussion.  I've put the image in here twice so you don't have to scroll so much to see it.

The names here are not 100% final, but honestly I'm liking these a huge amount.

(http://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=19169.0;attach=10271)

Some explanatory notes:

1. "Starships" would no longer be a separate thing, but rather would be one third of the core triangle on their own.  This makes a lot of sense to me, because usually you want some big thing guarding your smaller things.

2. Bombers have been moved out of the core triangle, because frankly you're not bombing stuff that moves.  That's shooting something, not bombing it.  Bombers are specialists that are after structures, so they are a separate group outside of the main trio

3. Black Ops, on the other hand, are for taking down otherwise-unsassailable targets.  At least being a key component of that.  They can also really mess up the balance of an otherwise even battlefield (parasites, anyone?) in unexpected ways... but they aren't going to win with just them versus any of the core triangle ships.  They exist as a sort of force multiplier, if that makes sense.

4. All structures, even turrets and guard posts and such, would have the class of Structure.

5. If it moves and comes after you and is bigger than a capital ship, then that's a leviathan class ship.  Golems, guardians, and so on.  Send in the black ops, sure, but you're going to take heavy losses from a leviathan no matter what.  Black ops just make the losses less bad (potentially substantially less so).

6. Tactical superiority lives up to its name, because it literally wins against everything except for the giants of the game: capital ships and leviathans.  Realizing that this is what needed to happen (sparked by a comment from chemical_art) is what led me to move capital ships into the core triangle.  I couldn't figure out a logic third thing to be in there if you take bombers out, which really needed to happen.

7. I complained about the term Siege for a while because that sounds like it is trying to attack something fortified.  And you know what... it is, at this point!  Since those are your "capital ship busters," that name works well for me.

8. When it comes to turrets and guardians and so forth, those are always just "structure" or "leviathan," so they aren't part of any of the major triangle stuff.  However, various of them would have special bonuses against certain core triangle ships, or much more rarely even against demolition or black ops ships.  Basically something like a laser turret might be good in general, but particularly bonused against capitol ships.  Or whatever.  It would clearly state what it is getting a bonus against, though, and it would only be one class.

(http://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=19169.0;attach=10271)

When it comes to the roles of the various ships:
- If you're attacking a fortified position or whatever place that has structures, then bring demolition units.
- When you go anywhere, bring tactical superiority to guard them.
- If you want to really anchor your forces in general, and counter enemy tac-sup units without taking like-for-like losses, then take capital ships.
- If the enemy has capital ships, you'll definitely want siege unts since the capitals are the one thing that will eat your tac-sups for lunch.
- Since siege units have a larger range in general, keeping them in your mix in general can be good, but they need to hang back while tac-sups screen them.
- Black ops are in general good to mix in to your fleets, as they will yield unexpected and varied positive results for you.
- If you are against a leviathan class, then really start spamming the black ops more than anything else, but still throw everything at it in general.
- When you build turrets, create a mix of them that specialize against what you think you might be facing.  Or some of each, depending.

And that's the new design, at least for the moment, very provisionally.  Commentary welcome. ;)

Added Notes: Offensive Vs Defensive Classes
I don't want to make this unduly complex, but in a few cases this is going to be required -- specifically for capitol ships and turrets.

Normally every ship just as "a class" and that's that.  It determines what it gets bonuses against, and what gets bonuses against it.  You see in the tooltip "the bomber is class demolition."  End of story.  Yay, simple!

However, in some cases we need a bit more nuance than that.

Turrets:
- For a lot of the turrets, they need to be specialized at killing specific other classes.
- The easiest way to represent that is simply to say "defensively they are a Structure, but offensively they are a Siege" or whatever you like.
- This is not a necessity for turrets honestly, because there are other ways to represent that same idea.  But for capitol ships...

Quote from: Cinth
The Bomber SS is an expert bomber, the Raid SS is an expert assassin, Flagship is an excellent fighter, Plasma Siege makes a great ranged attacker, and the Cloaker seems like it's a handy force multiplier (something I'd throw in Blitz).

In short, Starships (low end Capitols) are representative of the fleet.  Upper echelon Capitols are most definitely generalists (and could fit a LN category).

These are good points.   We have some starships that are basically "half and half" in the original AI War.  They are starship-sized (now capital ships), but they act like a "super bomber" or whatever the case may be.

For these, in AI War II, it makes sense that they would still defensively act like Capitol Ships, though, in terms of what part of the triangle they are in.  You'd need some Siege units to come in and take them out.

Therefore, for these, we'd have "defensively a capital ship (always), but offensively class x".  The biggest capital ships would just be simply a generalist capital ship.  But there's that middle-tier that are kind of smaller than most of the big capital ships, but still HUGE compared to fleet ships, and those would have a split class like that.
Title: Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
Post by: Sestren on September 21, 2016, 03:43:50 PM
So, just to clarify a couple of points, the archetypal capital ship now would be the flagship, with stuff like the zenith starship and the riot control ship filling out the category? As examples of course with balance subject to change.

Its clear how 'Black Ops' would act as force multipliers in conventional fights (unconventional attack styles) but how does a parasite or a melee unit get a bonus against a leviathan? That particular link seems kinda forced. If demolition ships are no longer triangle ships, it might make more sense to let them retain their current anti-leviathan duties. Less variety that way, but it seems to make a better sort of intuitive sense.

There's still a few more iterations of naming to go through here too.

I don't like the term black ops, especially when cloaking is a mechanic. Black ops doesn't communicate the idea of 'force multiplier' to me, it sounds more like espionage and sabotage (I guess sabotage could thematically work vs a leviathan?). Frankly while I'm not a terribly big fan of specialist, if the category is outside the core three, I think that name does a much better job.

That said, I do like the other names a lot more than the previous set. Although if 'Tactical Superiority' might suffer from the issue of being very long. Its a good description, but given the role you might consider cribbing the term 'fleet ship' because its shorter.

How do we name large ships that are not involved in the fleet oversight and combat role? Specifically, you have stuff like the plasma siege starship and the bomber starship, both of which are essentially just 'very big bomber'. They of course don't need to exist in exactly their current forms, but there will probably still be a useful niche for 'very big bomber'. Its obviously a demolition ship, but you still need to come up with a meaningful name for the unit itself that doesn't accidentally make the player misclassify it when they see it. Or maybe restrict them to just the spire and that solves itself, I dunno.
Title: Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
Post by: Draco18s on September 21, 2016, 03:58:01 PM
This is a very interesting dynamic setup.  Three different triangles (even if two of them are weakly associated).
Title: Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
Post by: Wingflier on September 21, 2016, 04:11:22 PM
One question, how are you going to classify these ships in the game. Will these new Archetypes become revised Hull Types, or will you be balancing them through stats?

I think the idea of Archetypes is definitely the way to go, as it makes things easiest to balance and easiest for the player to understand, but how you implement the archetypes is also very important!
Title: Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
Post by: x4000 on September 21, 2016, 04:13:30 PM
Added Notes: Offensive Vs Defensive Classes
I don't want to make this unduly complex, but in a few cases this is going to be required -- specifically for capitol ships and turrets.

Normally every ship just as "a class" and that's that.  It determines what it gets bonuses against, and what gets bonuses against it.  You see in the tooltip "the bomber is class demolition."  End of story.  Yay, simple!

However, in some cases we need a bit more nuance than that.

Turrets:
- For a lot of the turrets, they need to be specialized at killing specific other classes.
- The easiest way to represent that is simply to say "defensively they are a Structure, but offensively they are a Siege" or whatever you like.
- This is not a necessity for turrets honestly, because there are other ways to represent that same idea.  But for capitol ships...

Quote from: Cinth
The Bomber SS is an expert bomber, the Raid SS is an expert assassin, Flagship is an excellent fighter, Plasma Siege makes a great ranged attacker, and the Cloaker seems like it's a handy force multiplier (something I'd throw in Blitz).

In short, Starships (low end Capitols) are representative of the fleet.  Upper echelon Capitols are most definitely generalists (and could fit a LN category).

These are good points.   We have some starships that are basically "half and half" in the original AI War.  They are starship-sized (now capital ships), but they act like a "super bomber" or whatever the case may be.

For these, in AI War II, it makes sense that they would still defensively act like Capitol Ships, though, in terms of what part of the triangle they are in.  You'd need some Siege units to come in and take them out.

Therefore, for these, we'd have "defensively a capital ship (always), but offensively class [x]".  The biggest capital ships would just be simply a generalist capital ship.  But there's that middle-tier that are kind of smaller than most of the big capital ships, but still HUGE compared to fleet ships, and those would have a split class like that.


Edit: Cinth ~ Fixed, Thanks Draco18s
Title: Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
Post by: chemical_art on September 21, 2016, 04:19:42 PM
This is moving rapidly, but I will say this:

My greatest complaint is that the "black ops" class is simply too vague to define a specific role it can do. Specialized offense is not enough of a defined term to really mean anything. I can easily imagine a rag tag group of units fighting of levitians. I cannot see how both parasites and melee ships both have an advantage against them when other forces do not.

I would rename the class "specialist" and say they all effect the other units in different ways. They are the joker, the wild card, in that they are all unified in different ways. Each wreck a specific group in a unique way, but none fit into the the standard class group. That, in the process, makes leviathans feel unique. There is no one class that beats them, but rather a sub set that might beat them. It makes every role more unique.
Title: Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
Post by: Draco18s on September 21, 2016, 04:20:53 PM
Therefore, for these, we'd have "defensively a capital ship (always), but offensively class [x]".  The biggest capital ships would just be simply a generalist capital ship.  But there's that middle-tier that are kind of smaller than most of the big capital ships, but still HUGE compared to fleet ships, and those would have a split class like that.

Fixing the BBCode jumble.  I didn't know that [x] was a valid tag!
Title: Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
Post by: Cinth on September 21, 2016, 04:24:42 PM
Therefore, for these, we'd have "defensively a capital ship (always), but offensively class [x]".  The biggest capital ships would just be simply a generalist capital ship.  But there's that middle-tier that are kind of smaller than most of the big capital ships, but still HUGE compared to fleet ships, and those would have a split class like that.

Fixing the BBCode jumble.  I didn't know that [x] was a valid tag!

Fixed!
Title: Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
Post by: x4000 on September 21, 2016, 04:39:28 PM
Okay, now responding to what people actually said in this thread -- the other bit was a response to an email from Cinth (he's doing a huge amount of the ship organization/design work right now), and I wanted to just get that in there first.

Quote
So, just to clarify a couple of points, the archetypal capital ship now would be the flagship, with stuff like the zenith starship and the riot control ship filling out the category? As examples of course with balance subject to change.

Well, things like the zenith and spire starships would not longer exist in anything like their current form, actually.  Now that you get to choose your race, the zenith and spire starships would be folded into their respective races, not the human ones.  There might be some that fill the same sort of fleet-level role in the human ranks, it's hard to say right off hand, but overall we're trying to make all the races play notably different from one another (this is what Cinth is up to).

Basically the Spire are more designed around the Imperial Fleet than anything else, so when you play as them you're really just coming through as a sledgehammer in general... but of course that also draws more notice than usual, too.  So that's a pretty wildly different way to play, but entirely consistent with what we've seen of the "true spire" in the past.  The AIW Classic version of the spire starship was kind of generic and underpowered by comparison, so whether it evolves, dies, or stays as a kind of baseline small unit I don't know.

In the grand scheme some of those notes about specific ships don't matter, because we can change those during alpha and during early access with quite a bit of ease; adding and removing and splitting and combining ships as needed based on player feedback and testing.  We're trying to come up with a compelling and sensible first draft, but definitely you should expect it to shift a lot once it hits serious playtesting.  And of course it's the sort of thing you can shift yourself with mods, too, if you like!

Quote
Its clear how 'Black Ops' would act as force multipliers in conventional fights (unconventional attack styles) but how does a parasite or a melee unit get a bonus against a leviathan? That particular link seems kinda forced. If demolition ships are no longer triangle ships, it might make more sense to let them retain their current anti-leviathan duties. Less variety that way, but it seems to make a better sort of intuitive sense.

Ignoring the specific ships, the concept of black ops to me is basically those sort of people that sneak in and do dangerous crazy things that often ends in an explosion or a dead dictator or an airstrip in enemy territory or who knows what.  Obviously that's a pretty Hollywood-ized version of it, and the one former army ranger I know probably would not be thrilled with that description, but still.

Anyway, I feel like "things that are great at knocking down buildings" and "things that are awesome at sabotaging or countering giant leviathan threats" should be different ships.  Ultimately I might have to rescind that in the name of clarity, but I hate that bombers can so often be the answer to _everything_.  "Is it big and scary?"  "Yeah."  "Get the bombers."  Bleh.  I mean, that might be how it needs to be, but at the moment I'm not feeling the fondest of that.

Quote
There's still a few more iterations of naming to go through here too.

I'm down with that.

Quote
I don't like the term black ops, especially when cloaking is a mechanic. Black ops doesn't communicate the idea of 'force multiplier' to me, it sounds more like espionage and sabotage (I guess sabotage could thematically work vs a leviathan?).

That's kind of what I meant.  Honestly these things are not pure force multipliers all the time... though some of them would be.  Generally these are causing some sort of chaos in the enemy ranks, such as a ton of AOE damage from an electric shuttle, or turning friend on foe in the enemy ranks, or whipping in close and "sucking your blood," etc.

I'm cool with something other than black ops, but I do like the espionage theme here... probably.  That was intentionally done, at least.

Quote
Although if 'Tactical Superiority' might suffer from the issue of being very long. Its a good description, but given the role you might consider cribbing the term 'fleet ship' because its shorter.

I think that the term fleet ship would still be used to mean "everything moves that is smaller than a capital ship."  Abbreviating that as TS, or tac-sup, seems like it would be okay.  We use ARS and whatnot all the time for really long names.  I do see your point, though.

Quote
How do we name large ships that are not involved in the fleet oversight and combat role? Specifically, you have stuff like the plasma siege starship and the bomber starship, both of which are essentially just 'very big bomber'. They of course don't need to exist in exactly their current forms, but there will probably still be a useful niche for 'very big bomber'. Its obviously a demolition ship, but you still need to come up with a meaningful name for the unit itself that doesn't accidentally make the player misclassify it when they see it. Or maybe restrict them to just the spire and that solves itself, I dunno.

That was something Cinth brought up from a mechanics standpoint, and you've brought it up from a naming one as well.  Hopefully the mechanics bit is now addressed for both of you via the above post of mine.  From a naming standpoint, Bomber Starship would probably become something like Demolition Capital Ship or something?

Quote
This is a very interesting dynamic setup.  Three different triangles (even if two of them are weakly associated).

Interesting good? ;)  Hopefully this is straightforward enough to understand, versus the craziness that results from everything being related to everything else.

Quote
One question, how are you going to classify these ships in the game. Will these new Archetypes become revised Hull Types, or will you be balancing them through stats?

I think I addressed this on the document, but if I didn't then please let me know and I will.  Basically it would work like this (with further clarity now that offense and defense are split on a few ships):

Offensively ship A is a...
- Tac-Sup, so it gets 2x damage against Demo, BO, and Siege
- Cap-Ship, so it gets 2x damage against Tac-Sup.
- Siege, so it gets 2x damage against Cap-Ship.
- Demo, so it gets 4x damage against structures and 2x against cap-ships.
- BO, so it gets 4x damage against leviathans and 2x against siege.
- Structure, so it gets no special bonuses.
- Leviathans, so it gets no special bonuses (but just wrecks stuff in general from high stats).

And then part 2, defensively ship A is a...
- Tac-Sup, so it gets 0.75x incoming damage from Demo, BO, and Siege.
- Cap-Ship, so it gets 0.5x incoming damage from Tac-Sup.
- Siege, so it gets 0.75x incoming damage from Cap-Ship.
- Demo, so it gets 0.75x incoming damage from Cap-Ship.
- BO, so it gets 0.5x incoming damage from Siege.
- Structure, so it gets no special protections.
- Leviathans, so it gets no special protections (but lives long anyway because of high stats).

This is hopefully a lot more clear, given the updated stuff in general.

Quote
I think the idea of Archetypes is definitely the way to go, as it makes things easiest to balance and easiest for the player to understand, but how you implement the archetypes is also very important!

Agreed.  Thanks!

Quote
My greatest complaint is that the "black ops" class is simply too vague to define a specific role it can do. Specialized offense is not enough of a defined term to really mean anything. I can easily imagine a rag tag group of units fighting of levitians. I cannot see how both parasites and melee ships both have an advantage against them when other forces do not.

This is a good point.  Potentially nothing gets a bonus against leviathans, and potentially these get no bonus against siege, either.  Maybe they are not part of any triangle, but they are just out there to do... stuff.  They aren't JUST force multipliers, but they do various random stuff.  Perhaps no lines go to or from them.  And perhaps they are then specialists.

And perhaps then leviathans just need you to throw as much crap at them as you can. ;)
Title: Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
Post by: x4000 on September 21, 2016, 04:43:27 PM
Okay, so this?  This still has specialists getting a bonus against siege, and tac-sup getting a bonus against specialists, which in the end might be good.  It just renames black ops to specialists and removes anything from having a bonus against leviathan.

(http://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=19169.0;attach=10291)
Title: Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
Post by: Cinth on September 21, 2016, 05:13:15 PM
Okay, now responding to what people actually said in this thread -- the other bit was a response to an email from Cinth (he's doing a huge amount of the ship organization/design work right now), and I wanted to just get that in there first.

Well, that cat is out of the bag!
Title: Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
Post by: Captain Jack on September 21, 2016, 05:26:23 PM
Okay, so this?  This still has specialists getting a bonus against siege, and tac-sup getting a bonus against specialists, which in the end might be good.  It just renames black ops to specialists and removes anything from having a bonus against leviathan.

(http://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=19169.0;attach=10291)
Hm! Very interesting. Depending on where the units fall here I might suggest inverting the triangle... but I like how they're good against most everything.

I do like splitting demolitionists out, I advocated that a while ago, and it still makes sense.

Also, while Leviathans sound cool, they also imply size, which is sizist against the Hunter-Killer. I'd go with "Superweapons".
Title: Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
Post by: Draco18s on September 21, 2016, 05:28:25 PM
Hm! Very interesting. Depending on where the units fall here I might suggest inverting the triangle...

I respectfully disagree.  Wouldn't make much sense for siege units to be good against infantry. ;)
Title: Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
Post by: Tridus on September 21, 2016, 05:29:18 PM
Looks good!

Also, while Leviathans sound cool, they also imply size, which is sizist against the Hunter-Killer. I'd go with "Superweapons".

But that's part of what makes H/Ks so terrifying. They have Leaviathian power packed into a Capital Ship size frame!
Title: Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
Post by: Captain Jack on September 21, 2016, 05:32:38 PM
Hm! Very interesting. Depending on where the units fall here I might suggest inverting the triangle...

I respectfully disagree.  Wouldn't make much sense for siege units to be good against infantry. ;)
Hence: "depending on the units". Grapeshot is a siege weapon and does horrific things to infantry.

Looks good!

Also, while Leviathans sound cool, they also imply size, which is sizist against the Hunter-Killer. I'd go with "Superweapons".

But that's part of what makes H/Ks so terrifying. They have Leaviathian power packed into a Capital Ship size frame!
Exactly!  :D
Title: Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
Post by: Cinth on September 21, 2016, 05:33:56 PM
Hm! Very interesting. Depending on where the units fall here I might suggest inverting the triangle...

I respectfully disagree.  Wouldn't make much sense for siege units to be good against infantry. ;)

Mechanically, Siege is likely to be a decent anti structure unit also (Not to the point Bombers are).  Some Siege units might even get some AoE.


Looks good!

Also, while Leviathans sound cool, they also imply size, which is sizist against the Hunter-Killer. I'd go with "Superweapons".

But that's part of what makes H/Ks so terrifying. They have Leaviathian power packed into a Capital Ship size frame!

There is going to be a LOT of power variance in the Leviathan category.
Title: Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
Post by: TheHive on September 21, 2016, 06:04:52 PM
Okay, so this?  This still has specialists getting a bonus against siege, and tac-sup getting a bonus against specialists, which in the end might be good.  It just renames black ops to specialists and removes anything from having a bonus against leviathan.

(http://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=19169.0;attach=10291)

The problem with this, as I understand it is that Demolition > Siege. Demolition and Siege both are good against capital ships, and lose to Tactical Superiority, but Demolition is also good against structures. Demolition also probably would have better defense against structures than Siege. Also, Demolition isn't weak to Specialists while Siege is.

Essentially, Demolition has one weakness and two strengths, while siege has two weaknesses and one strength. Siege kind of seems like Demolition's little brother no-one likes.

More abstract things like "long-range" are harder to factor in, as are extent of multipliers (all that could be figured out later). Still, the note kind of implies that Demolition normally is weaker than Siege, which could balance it out, but I feel like the Siege category and Demolition category from this build aren't really distinct besides "we want them to be."

While this sort of goes against the Leviathan isolation idea, having Siege be good against Leviathans gives it a unique role (although its possible that that is done is a less "damage multiplier" type way but instead longer range+kiting or something makes them strong).
Title: Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
Post by: Cinth on September 21, 2016, 06:25:45 PM
The problem with this, as I understand it is that Demolition > Siege. Demolition and Siege both are good against capital ships, and lose to Tactical Superiority, but Demolition is also good against structures. Demolition also probably would have better defense against structures than Siege. Also, Demolition isn't weak to Specialists while Siege is.

Essentially, Demolition has one weakness and two strengths, while siege has two weaknesses and one strength. Siege kind of seems like Demolition's little brother no-one likes.

More abstract things like "long-range" are harder to factor in, as are extent of multipliers (all that could be figured out later). Still, the note kind of implies that Demolition normally is weaker than Siege, which could balance it out, but I feel like the Siege category and Demolition category from this build aren't really distinct besides "we want them to be."

While this sort of goes against the Leviathan isolation idea, having Siege be good against Leviathans gives it a unique role (although its possible that that is done is a less "damage multiplier" type way but instead longer range+kiting or something makes them strong).


Stats aside, making the Siege and Demo units different is a design issue.  But let's take that and make an example out of it?

Lets Compare the Z Electric Bomber and the Z Bombardment Ship.

The Z Bomber is a Demo ship.  That's easy enough.  Now lets look at the Zombard.  It's a long ranged unit that's great at tearing stuff up.  That's a Siege unit.  Yeah, they can do the same sorts of things and are countered by the same sorts of things, but the Siege unit should be better at fighting counters than the Demo.  If the Demos are like bees (sting once and die), the Siege units can be wasp (full of fight until the end). 
Title: Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
Post by: Vyndicu on September 21, 2016, 07:01:01 PM
Where do the neinzul if any form of them come back (especially stuff like NCC/Enclave carrier, neinzul railgun) fall on this current triangle? All into Specialist? That would be difficult to work with if you ever plan to turn neinzul into a full fledge player race if tactical superiority will always win.

I supposed you could always give neinzul enough capital ships to make up for that.



What about units that has some indirect bonus against specific Leviathan classes? Otherwise we might be tempted to field ONLY tactical superiority (against demolition) and Leviathan for everything else! All while pretending capital ship and siege don't exist as a build-able option.

Example: units that are immune to reclamation damage against botnet golem? armor rotter against armored golem? etc... While one on one they will lose badly but with enough of them you lose less.

Perhaps a third triangle build around countering Leviathan class to a lesser degree than the core triangle?
Title: Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
Post by: kasnavada on September 21, 2016, 07:06:55 PM
Errrr... I'm going to be the bitching guy, again. Sorry if I hurt feelings here.

Starships / capital ship / whatever the name being their own category makes no sense to me. It's not because it's bigger that it's role have to be to kill small stuff... and that's it. And, that category will be feeling very, very empty after a short while. There is not going to be a billion ways to kill fighters.

It's probably going to sound dumb, but the concept of the triangle is good, just... this category should be called "Anti-air" or something. It's sooooo limiting to have them as starships only. And my opinion is that starships should be whatever they want, demolition, specialists... They're going to be all over the place anyway. I don't care if they're copy-paste of fighters with "kill fighters" bonus only, like them being faster... but there's a limit to what can be done for triangling stuff. The usual is cavalry / archery / infantry. That comes back to them being blitzers.


I'm also concerned about Demolition bomber having the same arrow toward Siege, because it DOES make them strictly superior to anything in the siege territory. Given the choice, as a player, I know I will need something that takes care of every category, including structures. Given the choice, I'd take some tac-sup, some demolition, and "cap ships".

But if I do so what's above, there is a distinct lack of roles for other things in the triangle... let's move the arrow back to "killing big stuff".

Last, specialists.
Arrows there are also annoying me from a conceptual point of view. Specialist may or not have a counter depending on what they are, but tying their strengths & weakness to a category... does not feel right to me. Actually, I think that in practice, the designs there will ignore the arrows in practice. My opinions is therefore: let's remove them.

So... that would change the triangle to... the image in copy.


PS: If there is an acronym you want the explanation to, the answer probably is: Anti-Space Superiority. 'Cause, as I envision it, it's the stuff that'll rush you first as you try to take a planet.
PS2: now that I see the graph in addition to cavalry / infantry / archer above, maybe the arrows in the triangle needs reversing. And blitz kill big stuff. ::)
Title: Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
Post by: Cinth on September 21, 2016, 07:33:01 PM
Where do the neinzul if any form of them come back (especially stuff like NCC/Enclave carrier, neinzul railgun) fall on this current triangle? All into Specialist? That would be difficult to work with if you ever plan to turn neinzul into a full fledge player race if tactical superiority will always win.

I supposed you could always give neinzul enough capital ships to make up for that.

Neinzul is still on the drawing board, but I have an interesting concept to work off of there.  They will fit into whatever the "finalized" unit triangle is though.

Quote
What about units that has some indirect bonus against specific Leviathan classes? Otherwise we might be tempted to field ONLY tactical superiority (against demolition) and Leviathan for everything else! All while pretending capital ship and siege don't exist as a build-able option.

Example: units that are immune to reclamation damage against botnet golem? armor rotter against armored golem? etc... While one on one they will lose badly but with enough of them you lose less.

Perhaps a third triangle build around countering Leviathan class to a lesser degree than the core triangle?

You'll run out of fighters before to long ;)  You're going to want Capitols and Siege units are likely to be some of the best non-Tac-Sup units.
Leviathans are going to require a combined arms approach in all likelihood.  Unless you play as the Spire.

Title: Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
Post by: x4000 on September 21, 2016, 08:29:42 PM
Quote
Essentially, Demolition has one weakness and two strengths, while siege has two weaknesses and one strength. Siege kind of seems like Demolition's little brother no-one likes.

The numbers would have to be shored up, but basically my intent was to make demolition superficially good against capital ships so that they have a bit of a role outside of just bombing structures.

But bombing structures is IMPORTANT, so letting demolition just have those alone (and not the capital ship bonus as well) would make more sense.  It would just declutter things in general, too.

Quote
More abstract things like "long-range" are harder to factor in, as are extent of multipliers (all that could be figured out later).


Agreed.  I had planned on that being the differentiating factor, but it just isn't something that can be easily grasped at a high level, which makes it pretty much a Bad Idea.

Quote
While this sort of goes against the Leviathan isolation idea, having Siege be good against Leviathans gives it a unique role (although its possible that that is done is a less "damage multiplier" type way but instead longer range+kiting or something makes them strong).

I'm so tempted to give them a role against leviathans in general, but I think that would make the leviathans less scary and potentially put too much weight on certain types of army composition when leviathans are around.  I want your general fleet mix to not be too dependent on a big baddie showing up, but instead based around the generalized battlefield.

Quote
Where do the neinzul if any form of them come back (especially stuff like NCC/Enclave carrier, neinzul railgun) fall on this current triangle? All into Specialist? That would be difficult to work with if you ever plan to turn neinzul into a full fledge player race if tactical superiority will always win.

I supposed you could always give neinzul enough capital ships to make up for that.

They also won't be part of what you can just unlock as part of the main human faction.  They MAY be their own faction that you can play after all, but either way you'd be able to get their stuff as a reward for interacting with them as a minor faction in certain ways.  So basically it becomes some of those "lower frequency but over-powered" ships that you can get through gameplay, and lose access to through gameplay, rather than a core staple like they used to be (possibility of playable Neinzul aside).

Quote
What about units that has some indirect bonus against specific Leviathan classes? Otherwise we might be tempted to field ONLY tactical superiority (against demolition) and Leviathan for everything else! All while pretending capital ship and siege don't exist as a build-able option.

Aheh.  To be clear, you won't really be having much in the way of leviathan class yourself.  If you do, it's something you found or bartered for (think golems).

Also, you'd never be tempted to field just any one unit, because of ship caps.

Quote
Example: units that are immune to reclamation damage against botnet golem? armor rotter against armored golem? etc... While one on one they will lose badly but with enough of them you lose less.

Those sorts of things are basically specialists inside whatever their larger role is.  So you might find that the armor rotter is very very good about some specific leviathan class ships... but mainly in terms of opening that up for the rest of the forces of yours to actually do damage.  That would likely be a specialist, but theoretically special abilities from any of the triangle areas could be used to skew things in special ways.

Basically that's looking at the design higher up, where we see "okay this one ship has a special ability that would be useful in this specific circumstance," which is a key part of AI War and not going anywhere.  That's a layer up, though, and is basically when someone goes "above and beyond their general role."  It's basically your accountant makes an awesome pizza, which is really irrelevant most of the time, but during pizza day at the office suddenly he's a hero.  But normally you think of him as the accountant, not the pizza-maker-guy.

That analogy was odd, but hopefully it makes sense. ;)

Quote
Errrr... I'm going to be the bitching guy, again. Sorry if I hurt feelings here.

You're not hurting my feelings by stating a contrary point of view, and a lot of people (including you) change my mind all the time.  Multiple times today, in fact.  That doesn't mean it's going to happen every time, though.

Quote
Starships / capital ship / whatever the name being their own category makes no sense to me. It's not because it's bigger that it's role have to be to kill small stuff... and that's it. And, that category will be feeling very, very empty after a short while. There is not going to be a billion ways to kill fighters.

We're talking about the most base level here, not getting into larger powers and so forth.  Usually capital ships are going to be some sort of force multiplier themselves, or have something else special about them.  Them not feeling epic is really not something I'm worried about.

Thinking about space movies, in particular Star Wars in this particular case, there's a lot of precedent for the bigger centerpiece ships having a more central role in general combat.  This will open up a lot of interesting things for us to do above and beyond their base abilities (refer to the accountant pizza guy above to see what I mean by that).

Quote
It's probably going to sound dumb, but the concept of the triangle is good, just... this category should be called "Anti-air" or something. It's sooooo limiting to have them as starships only.

It's really not limiting at all.  It makes perfect sense, since the starships would actually wreck a whole lot of things outside the core triangle.  I just realized that's not really reflected on the chart (fixed that in this post now).  But these things are expensive centerpieces, and have a much bigger role than just anti-air.  The tactical superiority role really is very superior, in that it takes some expensive hunks of junk from you or the enemy to counter them without taking heavy losses.

Quote
Last, specialists.
Arrows there are also annoying me from a conceptual point of view. Specialist may or not have a counter depending on what they are, but tying their strengths & weakness to a category... does not feel right to me. Actually, I think that in practice, the designs there will ignore the arrows in practice. My opinions is therefore: let's remove them.

I had been mulling the same thing, and you're right.  Those are too oddball to get any special bonuses or penalties.  Graph in this post is updated to show that.

(http://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=19169.0;attach=10295)
Title: Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
Post by: chemical_art on September 21, 2016, 10:18:36 PM
Okay, so this?  This still has specialists getting a bonus against siege, and tac-sup getting a bonus against specialists, which in the end might be good.  It just renames black ops to specialists and removes anything from having a bonus against leviathan.

(http://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=19169.0;attach=10291)

This chart I feel is a better explanation of the various combat triangles. Tac sup is strong against all but capital and leviathans. Siege as a class meant to counter capital ships. capital ships exist to counter tac sup.

There are a few nuances to the graph I might add. Both siege and specialist could have a dashed arrow toward levithian, for I could feel a few ships in both classes could counter that group. Zenith devastator as a siege unit and impulse emitter as a specialist unit. Do I expect those units exactly to fit into AIW2, no. (I will plead the devastator to make a comeback. It is my baby. I do know some babies must be killed though.) But I do think they are examples of how siege unit may always counter capital ships, but sometimes mix into the leviathan class as well.

Regarding structures as a design philosophy I imagine we are on the same page but for clarity I will say this: For their cost they are stronger in almost any category aside from movement compared to any ship (perhaps except a leviathan, but in that difference in power it is a moot point.) However, they all specialize in a different way to deal with any class [including leviathan]. They are jack of all trades as a structure but certainly not mediocre because of it.
Title: Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
Post by: kasnavada on September 22, 2016, 01:42:19 AM
Quote
    Starships / capital ship / whatever the name being their own category makes no sense to me. It's not because it's bigger that it's role have to be to kill small stuff... and that's it. And, that category will be feeling very, very empty after a short while. There is not going to be a billion ways to kill fighters.

We're talking about the most base level here, not getting into larger powers and so forth.  Usually capital ships are going to be some sort of force multiplier themselves, or have something else special about them.  Them not feeling epic is really not something I'm worried about.
Thinking about space movies, in particular Star Wars in this particular case, there's a lot of precedent for the bigger centerpiece ships having a more central role in general combat.  This will open up a lot of interesting things for us to do above and beyond their base abilities (refer to the accountant pizza guy above to see what I mean by that).

Ummm, Star Wars is kinda of the center piece for "big ships are useless against small ones", to the point that the biggest space station ever doesn't even have flak cannons. Another HUGE design issue (ignoring the torpedo window install kill thingy). The most epic fights I had though would have been Freespace & Freespace 2. Both of which, incidentally, also figure into the "large ships can't hit small ones, we need to keep scores of fighters for safety". Sorry there, I'm not getting the same vibe.

Thing is, I keep rereading this comment from Pumpkin in my head during the entire night, and I think he's right.

Quote
I'm sorry, Chris. Every time you come up with a new role-space splitting, I don't understand it.
"Tactical superiority"? "Black ops"? What are those roles? What is their strength? What will be their average stats?
Could you, for example, rate with -, = and + the average stats (range, speed, damage, health) and give some emblematic perks for your proposed classes?
To which you answered...
Quote
That has no relevance to anything at all, for the most part.

Now, I may be out of place speaking for Pumpkin, but I think his point was to remove damage bonus to give more "natural" superiority to ships themselves. In order to make their base stats the triangle rather than relying the "damage multiplier" thingy. Coming back (again) to cavalry / infantry / archers...

Let's say infantry has a base 100.
Cavalry ships would have 75 damage, 75 hit points, 300 speed => They naturally lose to infantry if rushing in.
Archer units would have 300 range, 50 damage, 50 life and kite behaviour => Naturally win to infantry, get rushed by cavalry and die.
(nitpicker alert: numbers subject to be balanced)

=> By itself, ships that respect those guidelines by a rather large margin (possibly up to 25% ?) will fit in different roles, which is a triangle in itself.
=> How it works is very intuitive, and provides guidelines for modders.
=> Basically those could even be templates added to ships, "reducing / augmenting" the number of ships (could be a bad idea, Misery would probably hate me for this one if in the game).

PS: let's not bring in Mongols in here, mounted archery are superweapons.
PS2: probably other "triangles" could work.


PS3 : Anti-leviathan ? I thought the arrow to counter those made sense there. But it's true that basically a player will throw anything he can at it, if only in the hope that its non-specialized ships get shot instead of the ones that have the bonus against it.
Title: Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
Post by: chemical_art on September 22, 2016, 01:53:34 AM
Quote
    Starships / capital ship / whatever the name being their own category makes no sense to me. It's not because it's bigger that it's role have to be to kill small stuff... and that's it. And, that category will be feeling very, very empty after a short while. There is not going to be a billion ways to kill fighters.

We're talking about the most base level here, not getting into larger powers and so forth.  Usually capital ships are going to be some sort of force multiplier themselves, or have something else special about them.  Them not feeling epic is really not something I'm worried about.
Thinking about space movies, in particular Star Wars in this particular case, there's a lot of precedent for the bigger centerpiece ships having a more central role in general combat.  This will open up a lot of interesting things for us to do above and beyond their base abilities (refer to the accountant pizza guy above to see what I mean by that).

Ummm, Star Wars is kinda of the center piece for "big ships are useless against small ones", to the point that the biggest space station ever doesn't even have flak cannons. Another HUGE design issue (ignoring the torpedo window install kill thingy). The most epic fights I had though would have been Freespace & Freespace 2. Both of which, incidentally, also figure into the "large ships can't hit small ones, we need to keep scores of fighters for safety". Sorry there, I'm not getting the same vibe.

Thing is, I keep rereading this comment from Pumpkin in my head during the entire night, and I think he's right.

Quote
I'm sorry, Chris. Every time you come up with a new role-space splitting, I don't understand it.
"Tactical superiority"? "Black ops"? What are those roles? What is their strength? What will be their average stats?
Could you, for example, rate with -, = and + the average stats (range, speed, damage, health) and give some emblematic perks for your proposed classes?
To which you answered...
Quote
That has no relevance to anything at all, for the most part.

Now, I may be out of place speaking for Pumpkin, but I think his point was to remove damage bonus to give more "natural" superiority to ships themselves. In order to make their base stats the triangle rather than relying the "damage multiplier" thingy. Coming back (again) to cavalry / infantry / archers...

Let's say infantry has a base 100.
Cavalry ships would have 75 damage, 75 hit points, 300 speed => They naturally lose to infantry if rushing in.
Archer units would have 300 range, 50 damage, 50 life and kite behaviour => Naturally win to infantry, get rushed by cavalry and die.
(nitpicker alert: numbers subject to be balanced)

=> By itself, ships that respect those guidelines by a rather large margin (possibly up to 25% ?) will fit in different roles, which is a triangle in itself.
=> How it works is very intuitive, and provides guidelines for modders.
=> Basically those could even be templates added to ships, "reducing / augmenting" the number of ships (could be a bad idea, Misery would probably hate me for this one if in the game).

PS: let's not bring in Mongols in here, mounted archery are superweapons.
PS2: probably other "triangles" could work.


PS3 : Anti-leviathan ? I thought the arrow to counter those made sense there. But it's true that basically a player will throw anything he can at it, if only in the hope that its non-specialized ships get shot instead of the ones that have the bonus against it.

Please rephrase this in a more succinct way please. There are a lot of tangents and arbitrary numbers that distract from what you mean I feel.
Title: Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
Post by: Pumpkin on September 22, 2016, 02:03:54 AM
I'm out.
Title: Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
Post by: chemical_art on September 22, 2016, 02:07:22 AM
I'm out.

Please, do not. I do not mean to be a cheerleader. But in previous endeviours with Arcen I always thought to myself "This is not for me" and I later regretted it. Everyone's input is valuable.
Title: Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
Post by: Cinth on September 22, 2016, 02:09:36 AM
Let's say infantry has a base 100.
Cavalry ships would have 75 damage, 75 hit points, 300 speed => They naturally lose to infantry if rushing in.
Archer units would have 300 range, 50 damage, 50 life and kite behavior => Naturally win to infantry, get rushed by cavalry and die.
(nitpicker alert: numbers subject to be balanced)

Actually, Archer beats both.
Title: Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
Post by: chemical_art on September 22, 2016, 02:13:13 AM
Let's say infantry has a base 100.
Cavalry ships would have 75 damage, 75 hit points, 300 speed => They naturally lose to infantry if rushing in.
Archer units would have 300 range, 50 damage, 50 life and kite behavior => Naturally win to infantry, get rushed by cavalry and die.
(nitpicker alert: numbers subject to be balanced)

Actually, Archer beats both.

I really hate the archer term, for it is so vague.

95% of the time archers lose to cavalry.

Yet cavalry seem to be such a vague term that you would think archers beat them.

I would rather ditch both names entirely.
Title: Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
Post by: Cinth on September 22, 2016, 02:16:29 AM
I really hate the archer term, for it is so vague.

95% of the time archers lose to cavalry.

Yet cavalry seem to be such a vague term that you would think archers beat them.

I would rather ditch both names entirely.

Names are rather important in his example. 

Names aren't as important for the "classes" right now as everyone makes them out to be.  Figuring out a natural progression to things is however.
Title: Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
Post by: kasnavada on September 22, 2016, 02:20:54 AM
Let's say infantry has a base 100.
Cavalry ships would have 75 damage, 75 hit points, 300 speed => They naturally lose to infantry if rushing in.
Archer units would have 300 range, 50 damage, 50 life and kite behavior => Naturally win to infantry, get rushed by cavalry and die.
(nitpicker alert: numbers subject to be balanced)

Actually, Archer beats both.

Kinds of why I put the nitpicker alert =). Pretty sure the numbers were off. And... please don't base a game balance against "reality" =), if that's what you're trying to do. Because I'd feel like I'd have to be noisy about limited number of arrows and pikemen dominating battlefields until firearms were in, but that would be useless and distracting and I don't want that.

I'm out.
Please, do not. I do not mean to be a cheerleader. But in previous endeviours with Arcen I always thought to myself "This is not for me" and I later regretted it. Everyone's input is valuable.
+1 to that one, but in my case, I value your posts more than other persons from the forum.

Please rephrase this in a more succinct way please. There are a lot of tangents and arbitrary numbers that distract from what you mean I feel.
I'm building on the quadrangle idea, only with a triangle. I don't like the bonus to damage that were put there to have the quandrangle working. I think it's doable by respecting some archetypes, like it's done in most strategy games via cavalry, infantry and archery.

I don't understand the "cap ship" category - I'd have to get examples, because currently it's concepturally empty to me, whereas the "fighter" category has about half the stuff AI War classic had. So I don't build on that one.
Title: Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
Post by: Pumpkin on September 22, 2016, 02:23:16 AM
I'm out.

Please, do not. I do not mean to be a cheerleader. But in previous endeviours with Arcen I always thought to myself "This is not for me" and I later regretted it. Everyone's input is valuable.
If I answer I'll answer emotionally. I'll try to keep it as objective and concise as I can.
1) Include notions of average range, speed, firepower and tankyness in your class descriptions.
2) Give classes emblematic (or even reserved) perks. AoE, cloaking, evasion, engine damage, etc.
3) Bag of perks is bad. I keep saying that. Kill "specialists" (or spec ops or whatever).

Overall, I'm tired of this. Emotionally tired. I'll just be out of that class discussion and be back post-KS with an implementation.
Title: Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
Post by: Vyndicu on September 22, 2016, 08:40:37 AM
Well you somewhat misunderstood me from yesterday a little. Nothing bad about that.


Right now I am running a multi-superweapon fallen spire campaign running into 8 hours. I am playing on a x with 90 planets so far I only have taken a few systems due to subcommander being tougher to take out (both AI troop accelerator tucked under shield). I am already rolling with two golems (botnet meh, cursed golem awesome!) and I am barely taking space enough for two cities.

At version 1 it may not be a huge problem. But later on it could skewed the balance one way or another as more expansion/superweapon get added.

It would feel weird that the "only way" to fight Leviathan is another Leviathan and what if you have something equivalent like hive golem (nevermind that it take a WHILE to build up firepower) which only can "tickle" another Leviathan? See where I am going?
Title: Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
Post by: x4000 on September 22, 2016, 10:58:54 AM
Whew, okay:

1. Sorry to anyone I have offended here.  I understand that my last post or two were pretty brief (on individual responses to points, not overall length), and may have come off as dismissive.  That was not my intent, but if you see the latest topic today about the schedule and so on perhaps that will give some more insight into my own state of my mind.

2. At any rate my intent is not to stymie discussion and most definitely not to hurt anyone's feelings, though I realize I may have done so.  But we're passing a point where I think we are at "good enough for a first pass, and I bet things change during the alpha quite a bit, as is only natural."

3. When it comes to things like the leviathan class being only weak to other leviathans or whatnot, bear in mind that basically any class can defeat any other class... but it's dependent on how much you wind up throwing at it.  If you have 5x as many bombers as a tac-sup group, you'll absolutely wreck the tac-sups by sheer numbers alone... and take some heavy casualties in the process.  It wasn't efficient, but hey you got the job done.  If you outnumber tac-sups 20:1 with bombers against them, you might have so much overwhelming firepower that you just demolish them before they have much time to even do anything.

What this chart represents is "like for like" combat.  Think of this as "serving size" in food.  You can get far more calories from lettuce than a Big Mac if you're willing to eat that much lettuce.  But eating one serving of each leads to incredibly more calories from a Big Mac.  If you are dead-set on eating only lettuce as your primary source of calories, then you could certainly do so, but it would be inefficient (and I'm obviously ignoring vitamins and whatnot that you'd need from elsewhere -- just talking raw calories).

4. The artificial bonuses are something that people have argued about back and forth for seven years now, and the conclusion for years has been that it doesn't work without them.  Basically if you take away the artificial bonuses of types versus other types, then pretty much every ship suddenly has a relationship to every other type of ship.  It gets to be a bit nuts, and is a balance nightmare, because even the most basic of tac-sup ships couldn't possibly be good against all the other things without also being too good against what it is supposed to be weak against, and/or having lots of strange exceptions.  The natural non-bonus-based approach works super elegantly when the number of units is very small and can be polished to perfection, but in something like AI War (or many other RTS games) it gets to be a nightmare.

5. Star Wars as a great example of big ships being ineffective against little ones is a good point, when it comes to Death Stars, though that was largely a design flaw issue more than anything else.  I was thinking more of Star Destroyers, and in particular how those are portrayed in some of the strategy and space sim games.  Going a bit off the road of movie canon there I guess.

6. Trying to limit things too far down in terms of things like "all siege weapons are long range and {insert whatever general trait for them}" also artificially reduces variety.  Going medieval, you have things like the trebuchet that is long range but has to be unpacked.  You have battering rams that are incredibly short range and also slow, but powerful.  You have catapults that are middle-range and middle speed.  And so on.  This is very interesting, because it's several different sub-ways to solve the same overall problem.  I don't want any triangle to get in the way of the ability for these sorts of things to exist.

7. The limitations of things like special perks to just some classes also goes against that to a large degree.  Keeping the "bag of perks" to a minimum is a good goal, I think, though.  But there has to be a "miscellaneous" category, in my opinion.  That may well disappear in alpha during testing, so I'd just leave it for now, because the proof will be in the pudding.  I'll be plenty happy to be proved wrong if there's a better model, but overall people seem to be reacting pretty positively to this one, and so this one seems to be a good one to organize around for the moment. 

8. I think that all the major arguments that the majority of people have had have been addressed, though there are still some specific arguments from specific people about some parts of it; with something like this that is still an on-paper issue, and that is under a time constraint, I think that's honestly the best I can hope for.


If there's anything incorrect in my perception there, please do let me know.  To be clear, this is the model I'm referring to:

(http://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=19169.0;attach=10295)
Title: Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
Post by: Vyndicu on September 22, 2016, 12:16:40 PM
Yes I have no problem with the model as it is now except for Siege having only one damage bonus.

It just feel odd that Siege only has ONE thing it is particular good at and could benefit from a second if weaker bonus against Leviathan. While everyone else within the core triangle has two strength. By weak bonus I meant Siege gets 8x damage vs capital ships while it get 2x damage bonus vs Leviathan. Otherwise we may be able to stack a few leviathan and "make meal" out of the core triangle and use tactical superiority against everything else. Numbers are not finalized and depends on how number are balanced.

For example: In AI War Classic there are AI type that uses nothing but super weapons (Golemite, Spireling etc...). All they have to do to completely lock you down is bring lot of tactical superiority if we backward port this balance triangle.

I have no problem with specialist not having any particular bonus against Leviathan like it did in earlier model.

Without knowing the exact detail of everything that will go into day 1 version of AI War 2. Crystal ball anyone? I can only use examples from AI War Classic to articulate what I feel about AI War 2 core triangle.

TD;LR: Don't make the Leviathan all about "who shoot first" and raw firepower. Artillery golem vs artillery golem anyone?
Title: Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
Post by: Orelius on September 22, 2016, 12:22:15 PM
I don't really get why we need to rename the basic archetypes of ships from AI War Classic.  The Fighter/Bomber/Frigate triangle did make lots of sense by invoking real-life parallels to aircraft and ships.  Fighters are air superiority fighters, and they beat bombers but lose to frigates (ships with AA guns).  Bombers lose to fighters but are better at destroying slow-moving ships.  Frigates can shoot down fighters with their AA guns but are vulnerable to being bombed.

Instead of moving bombers out of the triangle and capital ships in, why not just merge the starship/capital ship and frigate/corvette classes into one?  Then we'd just have the fighter>bomber>capital ship > fighter triangle that makes some intuitive sense and carries over from the original.  Of course, that would make bombers some of the best ships in the game but that's okay in my opinion.  Just make bombers expensive but vital and include economic bonuses or incentives for making the other ships, such as fighters being really cheap to replace, capital ships leaving wrecks that allow for easily reclaiming and repairing, or other related things.

Specialist ships in general seem to force multipliers - they make a fleetball stronger with utility(medic frigates, boosters), covering up weaknesses(redirectors/scapegoats), or being able to generate more ships(parasites/shredders), but aren't as useful on their own.  I think it would be interesting to make some sub-classes of specialist to further define what exactly they do.  Specialist ships really shouldn't participate in the triangle though, in my opinion.  They're meant to be weak on their own already, so why not just make them consistently weak against all other ships?  Additionally, I think most melee ships (aside from maybe shredders) should be considered to be fighters, because what they excel at is chasing down small important things and killing them.  The most expensive small ship that would come to mind are bombers.

As for superweapons, I'm of the opinion that they should be sub-classified within the triangle even if they don't have the built in bonuses or maluses, just because it would make intuitive sense.  For instance, an artillery golem might be classified as a bomber superweapon, since it can take durable structures apart.  A regenerator golem would be a specialist superweapon, an armored golem might be considered a capital superweapon, etc.


Title: Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
Post by: Draco18s on September 22, 2016, 12:23:03 PM
Yes I have no problem with the model as it is now except for Siege having only one damage bonus.

It just feel odd that Siege only has ONE thing it is particular good at and could benefit from a second if weaker bonus against Leviathan. While everyone else within the core triangle has two strength. By weak bonus I meant Siege gets 8x damage vs capital ships while it get 2x damage bonus vs Leviathan. Otherwise we may be able to stack a few leviathan and "make meal" out of the core triangle and use tactical superiority against everything else. Numbers are not finalized and depends on how number are balanced.

I kind of agree with this.  Siege is still going to lose the fight, but compared to any other group they'll perform better.  You'd still need a whole frakton of ships to deal with a leviathan, but giving Siege an extra bit of kick would be nice.

I don't really get why we need to rename the basic archetypes of ships from AI War Classic.

There have been a few threads, but the TL;DR is this:
Title: Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
Post by: x4000 on September 22, 2016, 12:27:23 PM
In terms of the core triangle and the reasons for that change, there has been an incredibly large amount of discussion about that, and my rationale has been explained through there.  I really don't intend this to be a brush-off and please don't take it that way, but it was a long conversation and I can't really summarize it here while keeping up with my other work.

Yes I have no problem with the model as it is now except for Siege having only one damage bonus.

It just feel odd that Siege only has ONE thing it is particular good at and could benefit from a second if weaker bonus against Leviathan. While everyone else within the core triangle has two strength. By weak bonus I meant Siege gets 8x damage vs capital ships while it get 2x damage bonus vs Leviathan. Otherwise we may be able to stack a few leviathan and "make meal" out of the core triangle and use tactical superiority against everything else. Numbers are not finalized and depends on how number are balanced.

I kind of agree with this.  Siege is still going to lose the fight, but compared to any other group they'll perform better.  You'd still need a whole frakton of ships to deal with a leviathan, but giving Siege an extra bit of kick would be nice.

All right, in the end I'm sold on that one.  So, now:

(https://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=19169.0;attach=10297)
Title: Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
Post by: chemical_art on September 22, 2016, 04:20:48 PM
This thread is a great example of what I mean in that an idea has a short leash but is allowed to wander. Now I feel this issue, in my eyes at least, is pretty clear where before it all started I was so confused I had no idea how to tackle it.

The current chart is great. It is not perfect (both demolition and specialists are hit upon two of the three triangle ships. For demolition that is ok but poor specialists are really going to be finicky) but I would consider it a vast improvement over what we started with.
Title: Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
Post by: Draco18s on September 22, 2016, 04:34:13 PM
The current chart is great. It is not perfect (both demolition and specialists are hit upon two of the three triangle ships. For demolition that is ok but poor specialists are really going to be finicky) but I would consider it a vast improvement over what we started with.

I think that aspect can be balanced once we've got something to actually play with.  I figure its in the same vein as siege being good against leviathans.  It's not like you're going to take out a golem with a full cap of z-bombs.

Instead, the specialist ships mix into your fleet, and while individually less effective against the enemy, do "strange and wonderful things."
Title: Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
Post by: chemical_art on September 22, 2016, 04:42:52 PM
The current chart is great. It is not perfect (both demolition and specialists are hit upon two of the three triangle ships. For demolition that is ok but poor specialists are really going to be finicky) but I would consider it a vast improvement over what we started with.

I think that aspect can be balanced once we've got something to actually play with.  I figure its in the same vein as siege being good against leviathans.  It's not like you're going to take out a golem with a full cap of z-bombs.

Instead, the specialist ships mix into your fleet, and while individually less effective against the enemy, do "strange and wonderful things."

I agree. But I am in this weird position where I think "this matter, pre kickstarter, is settled. Therefore it should be closed." It is arrogant for me to think such a thing. But that point in logic must come, for there are tons of matters still floating around and the discussion needs to be funneled to those issues. Which means "solved" ones are closed.
Title: Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
Post by: Captain Jack on September 22, 2016, 06:05:00 PM
The current chart is great. It is not perfect (both demolition and specialists are hit upon two of the three triangle ships. For demolition that is ok but poor specialists are really going to be finicky) but I would consider it a vast improvement over what we started with.

I think that aspect can be balanced once we've got something to actually play with.  I figure its in the same vein as siege being good against leviathans.  It's not like you're going to take out a golem with a full cap of z-bombs.

Instead, the specialist ships mix into your fleet, and while individually less effective against the enemy, do "strange and wonderful things."

I agree. But I am in this weird position where I think "this matter, pre kickstarter, is settled. Therefore it should be closed." It is arrogant for me to think such a thing. But that point in logic must come, for there are tons of matters still floating around and the discussion needs to be funneled to those issues. Which means "solved" ones are closed.
Shelved, not closed. This is an Arcen game.  :P
Title: Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
Post by: kasnavada on September 23, 2016, 01:34:26 AM
6. Trying to limit things too far down in terms of things like "all siege weapons are long range and {insert whatever general trait for them}" also artificially reduces variety.  Going medieval, you have things like the trebuchet that is long range but has to be unpacked.  You have battering rams that are incredibly short range and also slow, but powerful.  You have catapults that are middle-range and middle speed.  And so on.  This is very interesting, because it's several different sub-ways to solve the same overall problem.  I don't want any triangle to get in the way of the ability for these sorts of things to exist.

Minor nitpick there, but all weapons you're putting in this post are in the demolition category =). More seriously, I see your points about "hybrid" units.
My opinion is that they're potential balancing headaches, but it's true they can fill a niche.
Title: Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
Post by: Mánagarmr on September 23, 2016, 03:31:14 AM
Been following this discussion without putting much input in, but it's been moving in the direction I've wanted anyway so I felt it unnecessary to add clutter. Now, however, I feel I need to add my

+1


Looks good now.
Title: Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
Post by: PokerChen on September 23, 2016, 02:03:38 PM
Seems good to go for the KS.
Title: Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
Post by: x4000 on September 26, 2016, 10:53:59 AM
Sweet!

This thread is a great example of what I mean in that an idea has a short leash but is allowed to wander. Now I feel this issue, in my eyes at least, is pretty clear where before it all started I was so confused I had no idea how to tackle it.

The current chart is great. It is not perfect (both demolition and specialists are hit upon two of the three triangle ships. For demolition that is ok but poor specialists are really going to be finicky) but I would consider it a vast improvement over what we started with.

This sums up my own feelings pretty perfectly, too. :)
Title: Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
Post by: x4000 on September 26, 2016, 01:00:33 PM
Okay, I've actually updated the document to include all this stuff now.
Title: Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
Post by: Aeson on September 27, 2016, 08:16:15 PM
Quote
2. Bombers have been moved out of the core triangle, because frankly you're not bombing stuff that moves.
I don't particularly care what the anti-capital ship role is called, but I think "bomber" is more appropriate than "siege;" there's plenty of historical examples of bombers being used to make bombing attacks against mobile targets using traditional unguided bombs, and there's plenty of historical examples of bombers designed to use traditional unguided bombs to attack mobile targets. Siege equipment, by contrast, is a category of equipment which is almost exclusively intended for use against immobile targets such as fortifications, and often suffers from a severe lack of mobility and significant issues hitting anything mobile due to the cumbersome nature of the weapons.
Title: Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
Post by: Chthon on September 27, 2016, 08:36:48 PM
Wait! Siege? We have catapults now? What about trebuchets? Will we anchor them on a planet? Do they have enough force to escape the planetary pull? Will we be able to launch anomalous objects into the sun?
Title: Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
Post by: Vyndicu on September 27, 2016, 09:37:20 PM
Wait! Siege? We have catapults now? What about trebuchets? Will we anchor them on a planet? Do they have enough force to escape the planetary pull? Will we be able to launch anomalous objects into the sun?

There is always the magnetic railgun version of siege!

http://science.howstuffworks.com/rail-gun1.htm
Title: Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
Post by: Chthon on September 27, 2016, 10:22:49 PM
Wait! Siege? We have catapults now? What about trebuchets? Will we anchor them on a planet? Do they have enough force to escape the planetary pull? Will we be able to launch anomalous objects into the sun?

There is always the magnetic railgun version of siege!

http://science.howstuffworks.com/rail-gun1.htm
Bah, you can't go medieval with that and yell, "Into the giant fiery orb with ye!" :/
Title: Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
Post by: Vyndicu on September 27, 2016, 11:18:29 PM
Wait! Siege? We have catapults now? What about trebuchets? Will we anchor them on a planet? Do they have enough force to escape the planetary pull? Will we be able to launch anomalous objects into the sun?

There is always the magnetic railgun version of siege!

http://science.howstuffworks.com/rail-gun1.htm
Bah, you can't go medieval with that and yell, "Into the giant fiery orb with ye!" :/

Just think of it as a modern crossbow using magnetic energy.

Beside using medieval analog weapons in space isn't practical as you think to be honest with you.

Most medieval siege weapons are designed to hit a stationary target fairly close up.

Nevermind the problem most medieval siege weapons would have with recoil plus other issues. The Russia tested-fire an essentially "rifle" in space and it shake the entire space station.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salyut_3#On-board_gun

I won't go too much into other reason why medieval siege weapons won't work in space like air drag and gravity giving you the projectile arc you want.

I totally get what you are saying. I just happened to be a space tech nerd.
Title: Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
Post by: Diazo on October 01, 2016, 01:27:39 PM
Unfortunately I missed this thread when it was created and realize the discussion has moved on, but having read through it I do have one thought.

Basically, why is Specialist it's own hull type?

(Following unit names/abilities from AI War Classic, not as used in the Design Doc.)

The Parasite? That should be a Tac-Sup hull that trades it's damage for the Parasite ability.

The Flagship (basic starship) would be a Capital Ship hull that again gives up some damage for the munitions boost ability.

Zenith Bombardment (maybe not actually a Specialist) is a Siege Hull with a long-range, slow ROF shot.

There is already the split hull/attack type in place for Captial Ships/turrets, just extend this so that "specialist" ships have a Base Hull Type and then an 'attack' of whatever their specialist ability is?

D.

Title: Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
Post by: Draco18s on October 01, 2016, 02:45:09 PM
Basically, why is Specialist it's own hull type?

It's not a hull type, it's a role.  "Fighter" not "Adamantine Plate Mail"
Title: Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
Post by: Diazo on October 01, 2016, 03:05:15 PM
Well, using Hull Type is perhaps a carry over from AIWC, but I though it made my point.

In short, the role chart on the first page is already acknowledged as something that is more of a guideline then a set in stone requirement with the split attack/defense roles that capital ships and turrets are going to have.

So take that a step farther, 'specialist' is not a valid defensive (hull type) role, only an offensive role.

So something like a Swallower would be a Capital Ship defensively, but offensively would be a Specilist and probably would not even have an Impact (attack) stat as it's actual attack is swallowing smaller ships.

(I am aware swallowers have been removed, I'm illustrating my point.)

D.
Title: Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
Post by: Cyborg on October 02, 2016, 11:48:25 AM
Well, using Hull Type is perhaps a carry over from AIWC, but I though it made my point.

In short, the role chart on the first page is already acknowledged as something that is more of a guideline then a set in stone requirement with the split attack/defense roles that capital ships and turrets are going to have.

So take that a step farther, 'specialist' is not a valid defensive (hull type) role, only an offensive role.

So something like a Swallower would be a Capital Ship defensively, but offensively would be a Specilist and probably would not even have an Impact (attack) stat as it's actual attack is swallowing smaller ships.

(I am aware swallowers have been removed, I'm illustrating my point.)

D.

Welcome back.
Title: Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
Post by: Diazo on October 02, 2016, 01:29:15 PM
Welcome back.

Thank you.

Things are finally settling down after everything that's happened recently (my second daughter joining us, my older daughter starting preschool, moving to a bigger house, just life really) and I am going to actually have gametime on my computer again when I booted up AIWC to play a game and saw the AIW2 news.

I'm going to contribute what I can, I'm catching up on all the other threads right now, but haven't found something else yet that I felt I could contribute to.

One thing I haven't seen yet is a thread on is early/mid/late game differences. This would perhaps be the biggest thing I was to discuss, but I'm not sure development is at a point where that discussion can happen.

Yikes, just checked my profile, over 2 years since I've been active here.  :'(

D.
Title: Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
Post by: Cinth on October 02, 2016, 01:51:43 PM
Glad you're sticking around D.  I'm sure you'll be a great help in getting stuff balanced.

If there is something you feel is worth talking about, start a thread.  Get the conversation started.  It can only really help things in the long term :)
Title: Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
Post by: Cyborg on October 02, 2016, 02:08:47 PM
Welcome back.

Thank you.

Things are finally settling down after everything that's happened recently (my second daughter joining us, my older daughter starting preschool, moving to a bigger house, just life really) and I am going to actually have gametime on my computer again when I booted up AIWC to play a game and saw the AIW2 news.

I'm going to contribute what I can, I'm catching up on all the other threads right now, but haven't found something else yet that I felt I could contribute to.

One thing I haven't seen yet is a thread on is early/mid/late game differences. This would perhaps be the biggest thing I was to discuss, but I'm not sure development is at a point where that discussion can happen.

Yikes, just checked my profile, over 2 years since I've been active here.  :'(

D.

Do you have all the expansions for classic? You may not remember, but we played multiplayer before with Spikey. It would be fun to try one of the newer campaigns.
Title: Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
Post by: Diazo on October 02, 2016, 03:39:29 PM
@Cinth Plan to stick around as long as I can.

I'll certainly comment where I think it's meaningful, why I made my first comment here where I'm using my AIWC experience to directly make my point. It's been a couple years so I'd like to get a game or two back under my belt before I get too detailed.

@Cyborg I've got up to Destroyer of Worlds which I'm pretty sure is the last expansion. (?)

As for getting a game going I'm not going to put myself out there for it yet, my schedule may have eased up so I have playtime, but I don't have anything resembling a schedule and my playtime is all over the place. (And usually short notice.)

D.
Title: Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
Post by: Cinth on October 02, 2016, 03:47:04 PM
Good!

I'm sure a sound whipping by the AI will have you up to speed I have no time ;)
Title: Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
Post by: Diazo on October 02, 2016, 04:00:50 PM
Welllll........

If I've got a full Fallen Spire fleet on my side, it's not that easy!

Although I've never actually finished a Fallen Spire campaign before, one of my foilbles is that I only play realistic type maps and that increases the difficulty tremendously.

D.
Title: Re: From Chris: A Revised Revised Ship Triangle (With Extensions)
Post by: Cinth on October 02, 2016, 04:03:19 PM
If it was easy, it wouldn't be fun.