 Poll
|
| Question: |
Do you feel like the cost values of ships must be re-calculated?
| Definitely! |
| Most, yes. |
| Some, yes. |
| Too few. |
| No way! |
|
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Cost balancing project (Read 24417 times)
|
Tiberian
*Smell* controller
 Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 335
|
All the "tests" have been done already past these 15 years. Melee experts (me and the others on #uqm-arena) don't have to play single matches to determine which ship is better than the other.
Also, "cost balancing" is not a good thing for tournaments, since the ship values are already balanced. Tweaking it would most likely result in a worse outcome.
Someone could now call out "but hey, ship A clearly has a too low value and ship B has too high value!" That is true, there are ships like A and B, but no matter what the values are, there will always be lots of players who feel the values are not correct. Since we, the "experts at #uqm-arena", and the developer team don't see a problem, I'm pretty sure there will be no changes.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Cedric6014
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 701
|
When PR3 and FF made SC, they did not have the time and resources to play a bazillion melee games to properly test the values they attributed to the ships. Whilst I think what they did was pretty spot on, it's subsequently evident by my experiences in PvP that some ships ARE overvalued and some ARE undervalued. And most good players, Tiberian included, would agree on which ships these are. The issue is to what degree are they over or underrated. Its not by much but it is enough to ensure that every player (if they want to win) picks an androsynth and no player picks an ilwrath. Despite my normal socialst tendencies, I say we let the market decide. Would people pick an ur-quan if we dropped it a couple of points?
I think online melee would be enhanced considerably if the full array of ships were used. I get sick of constantly battling kohr-ahs, orz and earthlings. Bring on the umgahs and chenjesus! Also, for some reason all the sucky ships are red, green or purple.
Anyway, like a said before, UQM shoudn't be changed as such but perhaps a mod could be used for competitive situations.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cedric6014
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 701
|
Hey that's a pretty fun idea.
Don't know if it would fly for competition purposes though
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Valaggar
Guest
|
Of course not. Everybody would choose the overvalued ships for the opponent etc. Then, the underused ships will become the overused ships. No change.
When PR3 and FF made SC, they did not have the time and resources to play a bazillion melee games to properly test the values they attributed to the ships. Whilst I think what they did was pretty spot on, it's subsequently evident by my experiences in PvP that some ships ARE overvalued and some ARE undervalued. And most good players, Tiberian included, would agree on which ships these are. The issue is to what degree are they over or underrated. Very well said. That's why we need a complete rewrite to fix those values. We'll then decide what to do with the other values.
Also, for some reason all the sucky ships are red, green or purple. Right on the spot. And they're my favourite colours... *sigh*
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Squisherxxx
Zebranky food
Offline
Posts: 44
|
Well meep eep brings up an interesting idea. Consider the following:
Perhaps we have been looking at the cost ballencing from an incorrect light. What if instead of looking at which ship beats which, we look strictly at ship selection. As each player has their own views and playing styles of ships, in the end they end up choosing ships which they feel are undervalued or ships which they are more proficient in. If it were possible to do statistical analysis on which ships are chosen, and simply re-ballence them due to supply and demand, it could produce something interesting. You would not need to take into account variables such as Avatar zap sats, pkunk respawning or VUX limpeting. Players would make their own analysis of this based on their ship selection.
Imagine a mod which lowers the cost of the 3 least used ships by 1 each month, and increases the cost of the 3 most used ships by 1 each month.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Valaggar
Guest
|
How is "underused ships becoming the overused ships" no change? Because what today is underused will then be overused. And what today is overused will then be underused. Of course, it IS something good, but it's still not the best.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valaggar
Guest
|
I’ve played with these rules several times. It can be quite fun for a match or two, but the teams always seem to boil down to the Rejects of the Hierarchy + Zoq-Fot & Supox and whatever else is deemed an easy kill.
An interesting novelty for sure, but I wouldn’t want it for tournament play. Thank you for supporting our cause, Angus!
Hmm...I like the idea of making a mod to test the adjusted prices, and then encourage people to play it. I'd try it. Well, it seems that my method, while good, can't be implemented so easily due to the lack of veteran players support (save for Angus). We'll try, however, to implement it.
Unfortunately, we can't get prices that balanced by simply stretching them, as the earlier part of the Best value ships Thread shows.
I must extend once again the call for expert help on my workbook (or you can make one from scratch, if you want).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Valaggar
Guest
|
OK, let's see what's wrong with the Syreen (it's got a way too high value in my mod, you know):
Syreen
Ur-Quan -1.5
Chmmr -2
Kohr-Ah -1
Chenjesu -2
Orz 2 ? 0
Yehat 1.5 ?
Utwig -2
Mycon 2
Pkunk 1.5
Mmrnmhrm 1.5
Melnorme -2
Spathi 2
Druuge -0.5
Slylandro -1
Supox 2
Arilou 0.5
Androsynth 1
Syreen 0
Earthling -0.5
VUX 2
Ilwrath 2
Zoq-Fot-Pik 2
Shofixti 0.5
Umgah 2
Thraddash 1.5
The values marked with "?" are unsure; others may be unsure too, but I don't see them right now.
The proposed new value is after the "?", with yellow.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
