10-26-2012, 12:49 PM
[quote name='Three' timestamp='1351188457' post='284970']
So you could have base level one bullets do so much damage, then they increase in damage by an amount you set... right? In old SVS zones red bullets didn't do the same amount of damage blue ones did. Change base level from 212 to something much lower, find a desired amount of damage total per bullet for level 2, adjust that increment, and then add whatever difference there needs to be added for level 3 so level 3 damage stays at 212.
[/quote]
Yeah, as I was trying to say. You get to set level 1 bullet damage, which in SVS was about 90, then a +120 per level up to about 350 max damage per level three bullet.
The bullet levels themselves factored into the random range as well, 212 was derived from the average damage of a SVS level three I believe.
Anyways we could set it to something like base 148 and then 32 per level making it 180 for level 2 and the usual 212 for level 3. The numbers will be hard to get right here too, the costs would probably have to be the same.. and then there's the whole level 2 multibullet business. Either way, it's adjustable.
[quote name='Three' timestamp='1351188457' post='284970']
Can ship settings be changed in just one arena? Create a 4v4 test arena where settings can be tested in a game situation with two teams comprised of veterans. It's a given using random practices to try out ship settings isn't the best way.
Seasons have been ruined by a single person (Underlord) dictating ship setting changes by himself. He didn't even play pro league at the time when he instituted 20 thrust sharks and the spray and pray terriers.
A small group of elite players voting on matters would be much more adequate. Multiple active players who have many years of league experience should contribute and help decide. A Pro League council with people that are active and play on the highest level would be more constructive and balanced than what has been done in the past. You would have multiple viewpoints. Peoples "styles" may be different and they may see things in another way. Their concerns would be voiced and other "angles" would be seen.
[/quote]
Yes, but like with the maps and settings previously, nothing forces people to play there. Compiling such a group is harder than it sounds. And as far as I can tell, Underlord never asked anyone if terrier, leviathan, lancaster, spider or shark needed "fixing". He just made some rather insane changes. When I toned them back down it was mostly from the overwhelming feedback from just about everyone. StarFire Elite's players were fans of the 20 thrust shark at the time, everyone else thought it sucked. X-radar cost vs. Free cloak was also discussed many times, as the game slowing spider was becoming a must have standard. Leviathans and Lancasters, which were changed less, have still not been abused as hard as they could still be. Thank you for this <img src='http://www.subspace.co/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
I've tried to get a captains' council going a few times, no one ever really seems to care. The experts would have to be distributed over several squads, and if they change squads, should be replaced. Otherwise it'll just generally feel rotten. (I happen to know at least one person who finds it dubious for the league OP to be on the team that has won the league a few times... you people...)
[quote name='Three' timestamp='1351188457' post='284970']
I think removing multifire off of less agile ships or increasing the fire delay is a bad idea. We aren't trying to make ships with lesser rotation and thrust weaker. Those ships can and should be using multifire to cover ground so Warbird's can't get to the flanks so easily. Increasing cost across all levels and removing multi all together from the Warbird in my opinion would be a smart change to test.
What was the Javelin speed/rotation/afterburner around season 6? Those are the settings we should look into for the Javelin. Players like CookieM were able to hit and finish off good Warbird's back then. The Warbird settings were the same back then as they are today. I understand resolution plays into the effectiveness of the Javelin, but I feel like those settings were better for the Javelin. Maybe they weren't, but todays Javelin isn't up to snuff and needs to be looked at.
[/quote]
Well, yes. If all multibullets are weakened then the other abilities of the ships shine. Terrier's bullets mystically become a lot better, while the less agile levi and lanc can lob bombs without having to worry about a gazillion multis. But removing it from only the wb would naturally weaken WB in comparison (and possibly make people abuse lancasters).
I probably don't have S6 settings anywhere, nor are they archived anywhere. But they might be close to the "SVS-98" chaos settings. I don't actually have specific seasons' settings saved and documented anywhere.
So you could have base level one bullets do so much damage, then they increase in damage by an amount you set... right? In old SVS zones red bullets didn't do the same amount of damage blue ones did. Change base level from 212 to something much lower, find a desired amount of damage total per bullet for level 2, adjust that increment, and then add whatever difference there needs to be added for level 3 so level 3 damage stays at 212.
[/quote]
Yeah, as I was trying to say. You get to set level 1 bullet damage, which in SVS was about 90, then a +120 per level up to about 350 max damage per level three bullet.
The bullet levels themselves factored into the random range as well, 212 was derived from the average damage of a SVS level three I believe.
Anyways we could set it to something like base 148 and then 32 per level making it 180 for level 2 and the usual 212 for level 3. The numbers will be hard to get right here too, the costs would probably have to be the same.. and then there's the whole level 2 multibullet business. Either way, it's adjustable.
[quote name='Three' timestamp='1351188457' post='284970']
Can ship settings be changed in just one arena? Create a 4v4 test arena where settings can be tested in a game situation with two teams comprised of veterans. It's a given using random practices to try out ship settings isn't the best way.
Seasons have been ruined by a single person (Underlord) dictating ship setting changes by himself. He didn't even play pro league at the time when he instituted 20 thrust sharks and the spray and pray terriers.
A small group of elite players voting on matters would be much more adequate. Multiple active players who have many years of league experience should contribute and help decide. A Pro League council with people that are active and play on the highest level would be more constructive and balanced than what has been done in the past. You would have multiple viewpoints. Peoples "styles" may be different and they may see things in another way. Their concerns would be voiced and other "angles" would be seen.
[/quote]
Yes, but like with the maps and settings previously, nothing forces people to play there. Compiling such a group is harder than it sounds. And as far as I can tell, Underlord never asked anyone if terrier, leviathan, lancaster, spider or shark needed "fixing". He just made some rather insane changes. When I toned them back down it was mostly from the overwhelming feedback from just about everyone. StarFire Elite's players were fans of the 20 thrust shark at the time, everyone else thought it sucked. X-radar cost vs. Free cloak was also discussed many times, as the game slowing spider was becoming a must have standard. Leviathans and Lancasters, which were changed less, have still not been abused as hard as they could still be. Thank you for this <img src='http://www.subspace.co/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />I've tried to get a captains' council going a few times, no one ever really seems to care. The experts would have to be distributed over several squads, and if they change squads, should be replaced. Otherwise it'll just generally feel rotten. (I happen to know at least one person who finds it dubious for the league OP to be on the team that has won the league a few times... you people...)
[quote name='Three' timestamp='1351188457' post='284970']
I think removing multifire off of less agile ships or increasing the fire delay is a bad idea. We aren't trying to make ships with lesser rotation and thrust weaker. Those ships can and should be using multifire to cover ground so Warbird's can't get to the flanks so easily. Increasing cost across all levels and removing multi all together from the Warbird in my opinion would be a smart change to test.
What was the Javelin speed/rotation/afterburner around season 6? Those are the settings we should look into for the Javelin. Players like CookieM were able to hit and finish off good Warbird's back then. The Warbird settings were the same back then as they are today. I understand resolution plays into the effectiveness of the Javelin, but I feel like those settings were better for the Javelin. Maybe they weren't, but todays Javelin isn't up to snuff and needs to be looked at.
[/quote]
Well, yes. If all multibullets are weakened then the other abilities of the ships shine. Terrier's bullets mystically become a lot better, while the less agile levi and lanc can lob bombs without having to worry about a gazillion multis. But removing it from only the wb would naturally weaken WB in comparison (and possibly make people abuse lancasters).
I probably don't have S6 settings anywhere, nor are they archived anywhere. But they might be close to the "SVS-98" chaos settings. I don't actually have specific seasons' settings saved and documented anywhere.