+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Discovery Development (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Forum: Discovery Mod General Discussion (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=37)
+---- Forum: Discovery Mod Balance (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=31)
+---- Thread: The great VHF comparison, a viable approach to balance? (/showthread.php?tid=88455)
RE: The great VHF comparison, a viable approach to balance? - Coin - 11-09-2012
@OP: stellar work sandor, well done.
@thread: this is not the place for the discussion of combat tactics, but VHF comparisons. I'm aware that its very hard to separate the two, but sandor has provided an OBJECTIVE method of VHF comparison for balance, and y'all are determined to take the discussion onto a subject plane. (did you see what i did there? did ya?)
RE: The great VHF comparison, a viable approach to balance? - Ivan - 07-29-2013
Titan's the simpliest ship ever.
RE: The great VHF comparison, a viable approach to balance? - Karst - 07-30-2013
Interesting comparison for sure, obviously some factors are hard to quantify by numbers, especially regarding the shape of a ship and how hard it is to hit.
As an example, the Courbe has the lowest size score but due to its long, thin wings and fins is actually a lot better at dodging shots than the overall size suggests, because to dodge a shot that would hit a thin part of a ship the ship only has to move a tiny amount.
Question: What is the special column? It seems to have something to do with the number of guns, in which case the Courbe needs to get some points as it has seven forward firing guns.
Overall, I certainly don't think it's the worst VHF like this table suggests, but eh, I'm biased.
Also, I think it would make sense to factor in the number of repairs in some way. Seems relevant.
A lot of the positions of ships in the ranking of course seem wrong to me, but that's mostly a matter of "feeling" - as an example, the Sabre and Raven's Talon being in the same league, the Nyx being well above average or the Blossom being one of the best.....but anyway. It's certainly a good basis.
Edit: Overall the results strongly favor lighter ships, and I'm not sure this reflects reality.
Of course it's true that the Eagle, Katana or Wraith are top notch fighters, but I don't see ships like the Titan, the aforementioned Courbe (which is actually very much like a Titan, both in shape and stats), or the Prosecutor performing as badly as this table suggests.
Aside from the shape aspect which is really hard to put into numbers (somehow measure how spread out they are? I don't know), I think weighting might be shifted a bit more towards hull from agility.
RE: The great VHF comparison, a viable approach to balance? - Durandal - 07-30-2013
(07-30-2013, 12:08 PM)Karst Wrote: Interesting comparison for sure, obviously some factors are hard to quantify by numbers, especially regarding the shape of a ship and how hard it is to hit.
As an example, the Courbe has the lowest size score but due to it's long, thin wings and fins is actually a lot better at dodging shots than the overall size suggests, because to dodge a shot that would hit a thin part of a ship the ship only has to move a tiny amount.
Sure, the chart doesn't take into account how often a certain part of the ship is going to be facing the enemy, and as such it isn't always an accurate indicator. The Prosecutor or Lhotse is fat from pretty much all sides, even though their total surface areas are less than that of the Courbe.
Still though, there really isn't any way to do it otherwise, given that the side that faces the enemy most is entirely dependent on the skill/styles/combat situations that the ship and pilot are placed in.
(07-30-2013, 12:08 PM)Karst Wrote: Question: What is the special column? It seems to have something to do with the number of guns, in which case the Courbe needs to get some points as it has seven forward firing guns.
No idea.
(07-30-2013, 12:08 PM)Karst Wrote: Also, I think it would make sense to factor in the number of repairs in some way. Seems relevant.
This is intertwined with the amount of HP a ship has, and how many nanos it takes to restore it.
(07-30-2013, 12:08 PM)Karst Wrote: A lot of the positions of ships in the ranking of course seem wrong to me, but that's mostly a matter of "feeling" - as an example, the Sabre and Raven's Talon being in the same league, the Nyx being well above average or the Blossom being one of the best.....but anyway. It's certainly a good basis.
Sabre is much smaller than the Raven's Talon from most angles despite having a significantly larger overall surface area. The same issue as with the Courbe. As for the Nyx, it is well above average, being able to turn extremely well and having exceptional reaction speed. The Blossom scores the way it does for such a tiny profile and great turning, but it takes skill to fly due to the low armor it has.
RE: The great VHF comparison, a viable approach to balance? - Karst - 07-30-2013
(07-30-2013, 12:18 PM)Durandal Wrote:(07-30-2013, 12:08 PM)Karst Wrote: Also, I think it would make sense to factor in the number of repairs in some way. Seems relevant.
This is intertwined with the amount of HP a ship has, and how many nanos it takes to restore it.
Sure, but that doesn't mean all ships have the same bots/hit point ratio. At the very least the Collector is affected greatly by this.
(07-30-2013, 12:18 PM)Durandal Wrote: Sabre is much smaller than the Raven's Talon from most angles despite having a significantly larger overall surface area.
Yeah, what I'm suggesting is that the Sabre is significantly better than RT, as well as generally underrated in this chart.
(07-30-2013, 12:18 PM)Durandal Wrote: As for the Nyx, it is well above average, being able to turn extremely well and having exceptional reaction speed. The Blossom scores the way it does for such a tiny profile and great turning, but it takes skill to fly due to the low armor it has.
I'd say the Nyx scores better than it should because of its roughly cylindrical shape that's fairly easy to hit from all sides, but eh. Subjective.
The Blossom.....I don't really know. I've rarely fought them, but they also seem easier to hit than the size thing suggests. I just don't see them being third place from the top.
RE: The great VHF comparison, a viable approach to balance? - Durandal - 07-30-2013
(07-30-2013, 12:40 PM)Karst Wrote: Sure, but that doesn't mean all ships have the same bots/hit point ratio. At the very least the Collector is affected greatly by this.
I know, it's just something people don't usually consider.
(07-30-2013, 12:40 PM)Karst Wrote: Yeah, what I'm suggesting is that the Sabre is significantly better than RT, as well as generally underrated in this chart.
It is, but there's no real tangible way to measure it.
(07-30-2013, 12:40 PM)Karst Wrote: I'd say the Nyx scores better than it should because of its roughly cylindrical shape that's fairly easy to hit from all sides, but eh. Subjective.
Shape doesn't matter much as long as it isn't absolutely enormous with giant wings or something, and it can easily stay behind most other VHFs in a duel. Really it'd only have problems with something like a Wraith that has better stats and can keep up. In group fights the reaction speed makes it very difficult to hit if you're moving around correctly.
(07-30-2013, 12:40 PM)Karst Wrote: The Blossom.....I don't really know. I've rarely fought them, but they also seem easier to hit than the size thing suggests. I just don't see them being third place from the top.
Bad pilots.
RE: The great VHF comparison, a viable approach to balance? - Rodnas - 07-30-2013
@Karst: the first collums are a representation of my personal views with a bit of a influence of some other peeps that voted on the importance of factors that make up our VHFs.
The special collum is indeed the +- one gun of the sabre/wraith or the increased strafing of the sabre and such. I don't know if i should have valued them more heavily, i am open for input on this.
As stated, the gun mounts and the faction guns also have a big impact on ships but are completly left out, same for the "form factor" - to be honest i don't think i am knowlegable enough to give fair judgements on these....yet again- community input is very welcome!
If you want to use the table for yourself, you can rely on the "hard" data- and change the subjective formulas at teh beginning to fit your personal needs and preferences...as i said right now it is my input+the one from another thread, and as Duvelske said, it is very hard to account for shape which is more or at least equally important as the total size...
RE: The great VHF comparison, a viable approach to balance? - Durandal - 07-30-2013
(07-30-2013, 03:10 PM)Rodnas Wrote: as Duvelske said
But I'm not Duvelske ._.
RE: The great VHF comparison, a viable approach to balance? - Rodnas - 07-30-2013
Sorry... D equals D names names names
who has time to read names nowadays if you could look at ship stats instead.....my apologies
RE: The great VHF comparison, a viable approach to balance? - Narcotic - 07-30-2013
If people would just write as much roleplay as they write about PvP balance - one could almost call Discovery a RP game.
However, it doesn't matter how much we discuss about fighter balance, since in the end, the balance devs will decide. And they surely don't give any interest into what you say. Which is actually fine, since people will just pick the most op fighter they'll find - no matter which it'll be - there'll always be op and up ships, because a perfect balance is not possible.
/edit: Just noticed this thread being 10 months old.
