Topic: Klingon v.s. Romulan Cloaking Device, Klingon v.s. Federaton Photons

[Cmdr. Krotz]

It might be worth one's while to consider the relative power outputs of the various races when debating the subjective "efficiency ratings" of their weapons- klingon power planets put out roughly 80-85% of the equivalent fed one, roms are around 90-100% of fed warp core output...polarons, for instance, while they utilize 1 less point of power than the advanced fed torp, the quantum, the polaron is a greater relative stress on klingon power systems; this also somewhat diminishes the overload potential of k-photons (still well balanced against f-photons though).

The numbers posted thus far heavily weigh damage-over-time, which does have some serious weaknesses to consider: first, just because a weapon that can fire more often, does not mean it will always be in position to fire as soon as it is ready, and even if it is, it may not be hitting the same place (relevant to shielded targets), so that the actual damge being done over time may often be short of the full potential of the weapon. Another thing to consider as well is the fact that crunch power isn't really considered in these figures- weapons dependent on doing damage over time naturally tend to have less punch per shot, but the big, slow weapons can often take a shield down and do significant hull damage in one salvo (which might especially such if the ship with fast weapons has a bunch of it's weapon systems damaged/destroyed/stunned). I have to admit though, I don't have much of an idea on what would make a good formula for computing a useful "crunch power" value for weapons (plus it wouldn't be much value when considering the borg as one's target, after all, they haven't got any shields).

Just a couple things to consider when one looks at those efficiency numbers.  

[SirWilliam]

Quote:
It might be worth one's while to consider the relative power outputs of the various races when debating the subjective "efficiency ratings" of their weapons- klingon power planets put out roughly 80-85% of the equivalent fed one, roms are around 90-100% of fed warp core output...polarons, for instance, while they utilize 1 less point of power than the advanced fed torp, the quantum, the polaron is a greater relative stress on klingon power systems; this also somewhat diminishes the overload potential of k-photons (still well balanced against f-photons though).

The numbers posted thus far heavily weigh damage-over-time, which does have some serious weaknesses to consider: first, just because a weapon that can fire more often, does not mean it will always be in position to fire as soon as it is ready, and even if it is, it may not be hitting the same place (relevant to shielded targets), so that the actual damge being done over time may often be short of the full potential of the weapon. Another thing to consider as well is the fact that crunch power isn't really considered in these figures- weapons dependent on doing damage over time naturally tend to have less punch per shot, but the big, slow weapons can often take a shield down and do significant hull damage in one salvo (which might especially such if the ship with fast weapons has a bunch of it's weapon systems damaged/destroyed/stunned). I have to admit though, I don't have much of an idea on what would make a good formula for computing a useful "crunch power" value for weapons (plus it wouldn't be much value when considering the borg as one's target, after all, they haven't got any shields).

Just a couple things to consider when one looks at those efficiency numbers.  

Excellent points all.  

When considering "race-relative" power output however, using the (Yield/Energy = Efficiency)would work because energy consumed by a given weapon is a set number, not subject to the variations in warp power output of various engineering plants.

The chief weakness of this forumla is as you stated; it doesn't take into account chance to hit (a pretty big if) nor does it consider special weapon abilities (i.e. shield puncture.)  I simply submit it for using as a tool for figuring out how much firepower (as a function of energy output) can potentially be put on a target for a given weapon mass.

I would not even attempt to come up with an all-inclusive formula to determine relative effectiveness of all weapons in the game.  Maybe that guy in "A Beautiful Mind" could do it though.  

[Whiplash]

I absolutely like the Klingon weapons better. They fit they Klingon fighting style best. The Fed photons still feel a lot like the stodgy, power-piggish things they did in earlier SFCs. I don't like'em.

W.
 

[Cleaven]

Quote:


Excellent points all.  

When considering "race-relative" power output however, using the (Yield/Energy = Efficiency)would work because energy consumed by a given weapon is a set number, not subject to the variations in warp power output of various engineering plants.

The chief weakness of this forumla is as you stated; it doesn't take into account chance to hit (a pretty big if) nor does it consider special weapon abilities (i.e. shield puncture.)  I simply submit it for using as a tool for figuring out how much firepower (as a function of energy output) can potentially be put on a target for a given weapon mass.

I would not even attempt to come up with an all-inclusive formula to determine relative effectiveness of all weapons in the game.  Maybe that guy in "A Beautiful Mind" could do it though.    

On the contrary, I think a theory of everything would have been attempted in the development phase. Without it, or at least an approximation, you would just be guessing at the play balance. The alternative is a very lengthy and man power intensive trial-and-error process of testing and modifying parameters until the desired balance is achieved. Removing seeking weapons should have simplified the equation, but AMM's have complicated it a little bit.    

[SirWilliam]

Quote:



On the contrary, I think a theory of everything would have been attempted in the development phase. Without it, or at least an approximation, you would just be guessing at the play balance. The alternative is a very lengthy and man power intensive trial-and-error process of testing and modifying parameters until the desired balance is achieved. Removing seeking weapons should have simplified the equation, but AMM's have complicated it a little bit.    

I am absolutely convinced that there is indeed an equation known by Taldren alone that equates to "General Relativity" for SFC3.  I merely stated that I would not attempt it.  

[Cleaven]

Are you sure?  

[SirWilliam]

Quote:
Are you sure?  

I'm sure I don't know it!  

[Vertigo]

Quote:

Quote:



On the contrary, I think a theory of everything would have been attempted in the development phase. Without it, or at least an approximation, you would just be guessing at the play balance. The alternative is a very lengthy and man power intensive trial-and-error process of testing and modifying parameters until the desired balance is achieved. Removing seeking weapons should have simplified the equation, but AMM's have complicated it a little bit.    

I am absolutely convinced that there is indeed an equation known by Taldren alone that equates to "General Relativity" for SFC3.  I merely stated that I would not attempt it.  

I gotta say I'm absolutely convinced there is NOT such an equation.  This really isn't something that can be formally examined under game theory short of a full-blown thesis, and even then the determinations are not absolute.  They must include assumptions and simplifications.

More likely, they simply used the current SFC weaponset as a model, and extended those weapons logically.  SFB weapons are generally considered to be "perfectly" balanced, and thus serve as a good role model.

Play balance is considered a dark art, not a science.  I think this because I often read websites, articles, and magazines about video game design.  ("Postmortem" rocks!)  Some things I remember:

1st case: I remember a reading a short essay written by the programmer who had to balance SimCity 2000.  He said there were no magic bullets,  just a lot of tweak, test, and repeat.

2nd case: I remember that one of the news bits about Brood War was about the guy they brought onboard to balance StarCraft.  He had a talent for it, an intuitive gift.  I wish I remember his name.

3rd case:  The designers of Diablo II routinely stated that they had to spend a TON of time playtesting whenever they introduced new items, or altered item drop formulas.  Their approach was to create new characters from scratch every time, and play them all the way through to the higher levels.  No math shortcuts worked, apparently.

Math models are rarely worth the time, since they take too long to do, and are often wrong.  It's better and faster to throw stuff in and balance to the 80/20 rule.  Fine-tuning can happen only after a game has been in the wild for a while.

But, I could be wrong.