Part Stats Balance

[Tridus]

Or I didn't understand how it was actually working, which is probably more likely. The numbers still feel too high to me though, compared to the reduction numbers. The "normal" situation doesn't have you getting shot for several turns in a row in my experience, because in that situation I tend to hit stealth and try to turn things more to my liking, so regen is usually working.

On everyone chiming in on the reduce-power-consumption-of-all-parts-in-this-system stat: thanks, it's helpful feedback to know that the stat actually matters   I'm not looking to just cut tons of stats (there's one more that's going to get combined into another shortly, none others planned for the chopping block) but I didn't want to leave in any ones that really weren't carrying their weight.

Anyway, on that reduction stat: any point in making it apply to all parts in the exo instead of just the parts in that system?  The high-end of the numbers probably needs to come down for that to not be OP, dunno.  Or is it just more interesting as a system-specific stat?

I ask partly because it's the last system-specific stat left that isn't on a weapon (which has attack, range, splash, and ammo), and the UI is a lot easier to understand without system-specific stats.  But just the one isn't too bad, and is already handled decently iirc.

If it applied to all parts in an exo, wouldn't the value have to be really small?  Epic exos have over 20 part slots, don't they? One slot reducing power on all of those would either need to be very small numbers, or it's going to completely trivialize power.

It should work either way, but if it's exo wide I'd probably never slot in in anything that I care about. So stuff like the pistol would be jammed with three of those, whereas if it's system specific you might put one or two there to make it cheap, then put something else.

[orzelek]

I can comment on c) - it works correctly from my observations on 0.911.
I was getting hit for 1... and it was cumulating. Sadly DiamondBot has low ammo count.

As for regen and damage reduction - I'm playing on normal and numbers seem quite ok.
If you stack damage reduction you get nice tank (unless it's your own grenade ouch) and regen helps to heal up between smaller shots.
It's hard to tell for me if one of those is better. My idea of tank is always to take less damage first

[Pepisolo]

Anyway, that means that a MkI legendary part is as good as a MkVIII common part in terms of stats, with mark-one power consumption.

Sounds like what I'm looking for. Next time I play I'm gonna be purely messing around with loot to see what's what. I'm still pretty newbie in the game, so maybe I'm not appreciating some of the loot for what it is.

Oh, forgot to say. I really appreciate the rarity mechanic explanation. Thanks!

[orzelek]

Actually rarity is one mechanic I had strange experiences with.
Not sure how it will work after stat updates but I had Mk II parts with same base stat then freshly found Mk X ones. Mk X one had one or two more stats but nothing that would make it valuable.

It seemed for me that rarity is to powerful at start of the game - huge difference between normal and rare items there. And later it's getting less valuable - levels explanation would match that if I understood it correctly.

1 item level is losing it's value as you level. It can boost item heavily at low levels but not add to much power at high ones.
It could be better if rarity would modify overall stats of item instead of adding power levels to it. It could have reverse approach (10-25% buff at low levels would have smaller effect on numbers) but it would mean that rare/legendary remains constantly more powerful.

After I run some command center missions that give legendaries... none or almost none of them was really useful. I started around 25 days left.

[keith.lamothe]

1 item level is losing it's value as you level. It can boost item heavily at low levels but not add to much power at high ones.

That's why so many stats use exponential growth, so that +1 item level is 10% (or whatever) than the one below it, no matter where you are.  In practice not all stats can use that pattern of growth, though.  It tends to make the early stages feel like there's not much growth in power.

It could be better if rarity would modify overall stats of item instead of adding power levels to it. It could have reverse approach (10-25% buff at low levels would have smaller effect on numbers) but it would mean that rare/legendary remains constantly more powerful.

So basically have rarity add +X levels to each effect on the item, rather than +X to the total levels it has to spend?  This would tend to make rare items that simply have more effects (because they picked a variant type, a prefix, and/or a suffix) simply better, though that may not be a bad thing.

[chemical_art]

On the dtone vs regenerate thing, i find the current combat model inherently favors regenerate.

Would it be possible damage over time for weapons at this stage? If so that could favor armor.

[keith.lamothe]

Would it be possible damage over time for weapons at this stage? If so that could favor armor.

It's possible but we're not really looking to add new mechanics pre-1.0 unless there's a big need for it.  And given how happy people are with the game currently, it doesn't look like there's a big need.

Regen and Damage-Reduction need work, but I think it's largely a matter of making sure they work right and then tweaking numbers.  New mechanics would probably move us further away from a pleasing balance, rather than towards it.

[chemical_art]

Gotcha . i suppose making some attacks strike two or even three times would be off the same Vien of new mechanics?

[keith.lamothe]

Gotcha . i suppose making some attacks strike two or even three times would be off the same Vien of new mechanics?

Hmm, to some extent.  But we could have it simulate a 3-round burst pretty easily, if that's what you're getting at.  But all hitting the same square, and firing as one projectile.

But in terms of sim math damage reduction would apply 3 times to it, and it would take up 3 separate numbers of the regen window.

[Winge]

What's this about Regen OR Damage Reduction?

[keith.lamothe]

What's this about Regen OR Damage Reduction?

Sickening.



Bravo

[Winge]

Don't worry, this game is pre- .912, so some of those stacks may be more...boosted...than typical.

[chemical_art]

Regen stacks per attack? Id change it to that it only refreshes but not stacks, so regenerate is better for skirmishes but armor helps in surviving multiple attacks at once.

[keith.lamothe]

Regen stacks per attack? Id change it to that it only refreshes but not stacks, so regenerate is better for skirmishes but armor helps in surviving multiple attacks at once.

Regen doesn't stack per attack; kind of the opposite actually.  if you take 1 hit for 100 you have 5 turns to regen that 100, but if you take 5 hits all at once for 20 each you've only got 1 turn to heal the oldest hit before it becomes permanent damage.  Either way if you have 20 regen you're probably ok, but if you take 6 hits all at once the first can't be regen'd at all no matter how good your regen is.

So if some bot shot 3 round bursts that would be a lot harder to tank via regen than via damage-reduction.

[chemical_art]

Regen doesn't stack per attack; kind of the opposite actually.  if you take 1 hit for 100 you have 5 turns to regen that 100, but if you take 5 hits all at once for 20 each you've only got 1 turn to heal the oldest hit before it becomes permanent damage.  Either way if you have 20 regen you're probably ok, but if you take 6 hits all at once the first can't be regen'd at all no matter how good your regen is.

So if some bot shot 3 round bursts that would be a lot harder to tank via regen than via damage-reduction.

In that case yes, I would go by the original idea of having some enemies take advatage of multi-attacks, with the spirit of it being damage reduction would be superior then regen in repelling such attacks, with the larger goal being no one defense strategy is effective against all enemies.