Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SeriousConcentrate]

I will attest that for Pyro. He's been handy explaining things to me when I didn't understand what he meant.

[Radio Controlled]

Hm. If you're not tired and annoyed by this yet, perhaps the more technical OOC thread would be better to discuss it.

Deal.

and as far as I know the balancing committee tends to, through inherent goodwill for their fellow man, err on the side of decreasing usefulness rather than increasing potential danger (also known as the boring way of balancing). I could be wrong, certainly, since I am admittedly less than well read on the subject, only being aware of the committee's rebalancing of the electrocrystal machinegun. Now, if the balancing committee started introducing fun flaws rather than nerfing existing capabilities (and increasing token prices to eliminate said flaws with more added elements), then we'd be in business.

Yeah, you kinda got to remember the council is a purely advisory body with no real executive power. It's basically like PW's second brain he can consult when he's unsure of technical feasibility or game balance ramifications and such. If we started randomly inserting flaws (and not in a way that the designer just has to find a solution for them) it'd be hugely overstepping our bounds.

Also, no offense Harry, but have you ever actually designed anything in VR? And not a small mod or so, but a real project to create something wholly new? If not, then it might be hard for you to grasp the effort that can go into it to make sure things at least sounds plausible on paper and try to attain a fair balance. Having random crap cropping up do to no flaw on your own, just bad luck, would be really annoying and unfair (if this kinda thing had been there from the beginning, sure, but putting that in now would mean things just got a whole lot more luck based instead of skill based, and that new players won't have had a 'danger free' designing time).

Also, you say I use confusion and technical work to suspend your disbelief and get things through the GM, but as I think Radio and SC can attest, I make things as plain as I can and can clarify if someone wants to know something.

Sure, though I do kinda wonder why you'd pick me as an example, since I haven't really ever had problems with most designs. Or are you referring to something else?

[PyroDesu]

Also, you say I use confusion and technical work to suspend your disbelief and get things through the GM, but as I think Radio and SC can attest, I make things as plain as I can and can clarify if someone wants to know something.

Sure, though I do kinda wonder why you'd pick me as an example, since I haven't really ever had problems with most designs. Or are you referring to something else?

You're one of the few who actively takes part in designs, conversing (and on occasion, arguing) with creators about the merits and how it works. Moreso with Sean and Syv than me, but the point still stands - for the most part, it seems I (and others) write plainly enough that you can understand, without being such a specialist as we might be. SC was more an example of clarification if asked.

[Harry Baldman]

Yeah, you kinda got to remember the council is a purely advisory body with no real executive power. It's basically like PW's second brain he can consult when he's unsure of technical feasibility or game balance ramifications and such. If we started randomly inserting flaws (and not in a way that the designer just has to find a solution for them) it'd be hugely overstepping our bounds.

Also, no offense Harry, but have you ever actually designed anything in VR? And not a small mod or so, but a real project to create something wholly new? If not, then it might be hard for you to grasp the effort that can go into it to make sure things at least sounds plausible on paper and try to attain a fair balance. Having random crap cropping up do to no flaw on your own, just bad luck, would be really annoying and unfair (if this kinda thing had been there from the beginning, sure, but putting that in now would mean things just got a whole lot more luck based instead of skill based, and that new players won't have had a 'danger free' designing time).

I didn't obviously state this yet, but yes, actually randomly inserting flaws in designs is not ultimately desirable, and your second paragraph hints at why I was suggesting it in the first place, and that's because I have a much less invested attitude to Tinker, since the few times I've used it I've largely gotten slightly bored, discovered my intended design is impossible to do in an interesting way or something of that nature. As such, I can't really speak for professional attitudes in Tinker, but in considering their viewpoint to a degree, I must say that I see their point on this and generally agree now.

However, now I've jumped over to being a proponent of additive rather than subtractive balancing, where OP technologies should be balanced with additional flaws rather than with decreasing capabilities. Not random flaws, mind you, and I do feel the need to stress this once again. Flaws that may logically follow from unexplained bits, and that may be averted with additional expenses. For instance, taking as an example the clearest case of inmate equipment I know of, allowing the Testament to remain OP in offensive qualities and available for 4 or 5 tokens, but adding other things to the mix like occasionally unusual crystal flight paths in the presence of an atmosphere due to irregularly-shaped crystals and low projectile mass, needing to keep the weapon perfectly steady to prevent multiple crystals forming from the same dab of crystal solution, then being simultaneously fired and detonating in the barrel from contacting one another, occasionally forming electric crystal glitter instead of shards, that sort of thing. And then maybe a set of 2-5 token mods for it addressing the more urgent problems in the design with more elaborate mechanisms and materials. I feel it'd make trying to break the game more fun in principle, at least, and give new techs more of an identity than just nerfing them would. Possibly even allow the same tinker to come up or at least suggest sensible, fun flaws to work with. Would that really be overly problematic?

[Radio Controlled]

So kinda how like Sean choose to have his weapon have the inherent chance of shooting backward if not allowed to cool down enough, rather than limit it to be more safe (and less potent) by design?

Or more generally, if something is unbalanced, one can either lower it in power to keep it the same or have it keep the power but add risk. But the designer can actually influence it and make a choice, it's not just random. Like this?

[PyroDesu]

Yeah, you kinda got to remember the council is a purely advisory body with no real executive power. It's basically like PW's second brain he can consult when he's unsure of technical feasibility or game balance ramifications and such. If we started randomly inserting flaws (and not in a way that the designer just has to find a solution for them) it'd be hugely overstepping our bounds.

Also, no offense Harry, but have you ever actually designed anything in VR? And not a small mod or so, but a real project to create something wholly new? If not, then it might be hard for you to grasp the effort that can go into it to make sure things at least sounds plausible on paper and try to attain a fair balance. Having random crap cropping up do to no flaw on your own, just bad luck, would be really annoying and unfair (if this kinda thing had been there from the beginning, sure, but putting that in now would mean things just got a whole lot more luck based instead of skill based, and that new players won't have had a 'danger free' designing time).

I didn't obviously state this yet, but yes, actually randomly inserting flaws in designs is not ultimately desirable, and your second paragraph hints at why I was suggesting it in the first place, and that's because I have a much less invested attitude to Tinker, since the few times I've used it I've largely gotten slightly bored, discovered my intended design is impossible to do in an interesting way or something of that nature. As such, I can't really speak for professional attitudes in Tinker, but in considering their viewpoint to a degree, I must say that I see their point on this and generally agree now.

However, now I've jumped over to being a proponent of additive rather than subtractive balancing, where OP technologies should be balanced with additional flaws rather than with decreasing capabilities. Not random flaws, mind you, and I do feel the need to stress this once again. Flaws that may logically follow from unexplained bits, and that may be averted with additional expenses. For instance, taking as an example the clearest case of inmate equipment I know of, allowing the Testament to remain OP in offensive qualities and available for 4 or 5 tokens, but adding other things to the mix like occasionally unusual crystal flight paths in the presence of an atmosphere due to irregularly-shaped crystals and low projectile mass, needing to keep the weapon perfectly steady to prevent multiple crystals forming from the same dab of crystal solution, then being simultaneously fired and detonating in the barrel from contacting one another, occasionally forming electric crystal glitter instead of shards, that sort of thing. And then maybe a set of 2-5 token mods for it addressing the more urgent problems in the design with more elaborate mechanisms and materials. I feel it'd make trying to break the game more fun in principle, at least, and give new techs more of an identity than just nerfing them would. Possibly even allow the same tinker to come up or at least suggest sensible, fun flaws to work with. Would that really be overly problematic?

See, if the player who makes it gets to choose stuff like that, that I'm perfectly fine with. It was making designing weapons a gamble that I was so vehemently against - remove the dice and make it player (and GM and player council) choice and I've no problem.

It was also you insinuating that anyone designing stuff that the GM doesn't understand himself should automatically be hit with a dice roll that also really annoyed me. I mean, surely PW made me head of Hephaestus for a reason, and one probably very good one is he knows I can distinguish things he can't in that realm. Same with why he brought in a player council to help with balance, though that one isn't in character.

[Harry Baldman]

So kinda how like Sean choose to have his weapon have the inherent chance of shooting backward if not allowed to cool down enough, rather than limit it to be more safe (and less potent) by design?

Or more generally, if something is unbalanced, one can either lower it in power to keep it the same or have it keep the power but add risk. But the designer can actually influence it and make a choice, it's not just random. Like this?

That would be an adequate compromise, yes.

I probably should read the Hephaestus thread in full, I think.

See, if the player who makes it gets to choose stuff like that, that I'm perfectly fine with. It was making designing weapons a gamble that I was so vehemently against - remove the dice and make it player (and GM and player council) choice and I've no problem.

It was also you insinuating that anyone designing stuff that the GM doesn't understand himself should automatically be hit with a dice roll that also really annoyed me. I mean, surely PW made me head of Hephaestus for a reason, and one probably very good one is he knows I can distinguish things he can't in that realm. Same with why he brought in a player council to help with balance, though that one isn't in character.

I tend to assert what I'm actually only considering as an exercise in defending the idea, which I understand may be somewhat irritating when I intellectually dishonestly defend an idea in the face of mounting evidence of its terribleness, like an asshole's advocate. In any case, with the rolling I was really trying (and failing) to argue more for the principle of the thing (lack of knowledge realistically bringing in random chance, basically the core reason probabilities are even a thing) rather than it being necessary for inclusion or particularly relevant. I have this unfortunate tendency of getting way off track in arguments. I'll try not to do that in the near future.

[sambojin]

Meh. I made a nitrogen-gas-rocket propelled kinetic amp sledgehammer in Tinker for my first project. It worked fine. It created a shockwave strong enough that it would kill you (the user) if you weren't wearing a battlesuit or AoW. Other people close to you as well I assume. Probably clocked in at 4-5 tokens. Working as intended.

I guess what I'm saying is, things can be absurdly powerful, using sciencey ER stuff, but be balanced in many ways. It's not only cost or reliability, you can balance it by other things being necessary or their function/cost/reliability being changed as a result of the tinker "thingy" you made.

Awesome pseudo metal geneclaws should be possible, but bye-bye suit if a fear reflex sets them off. Medical kits might have a hard time working on you as well if the regen gets added. Not to mention un/con weapon difficulties, because combat is inherently stressful.

By all means have regen and wolvie claws. But everything can be balanced, it's not just the price or the item in question to consider for this. There's heaps of ways.

[Persus13]

Has any weapon/equipment in ER jammed on a mission or otherwise malfunctioned on its own? If yes, then there should definitely stuff like that on player-made weapons.

I don't know if this is something that's already be discussed, but I like the idea of small random flaws for stuff that needs adjustment, and have PW go "We had to make this with substandard metal because of blah blah blah, so it has a slight chance of overheating after every second shot."

[Harry Baldman]

Has any weapon/equipment in ER jammed on a mission or otherwise malfunctioned on its own? If yes, then there should definitely stuff like that on player-made weapons.

I don't know if this is something that's already be discussed, but I like the idea of small random flaws for stuff that needs adjustment, and have PW go "We had to make this with substandard metal because of blah blah blah, so it has a slight chance of overheating after every second shot."

Best if that's elective for players on a project-by-project basis. For instance, going for substandard materials to ensure cheapness in tokens, not substandard materials being there for kicks. That's basically what's been established in the past few pages, since people really dislike the idea of luck-based elements in tinkering.

[Dorsidwarf]

For example, my nuke mortar, which was basically a bit of piping with modified thermonuclear cannon rounds dropped in.

That would be as accurate as a soviet opinion poll, and as reliable as a "Grungy Jim"'s auto-repair shop.

[Hapah]

I just popped back today and there's been a million new posts in this thread. Someone want to put together the Cliff Notes version of what's been said?

[Unholy_Pariah]

Blablabla what people want for christmas, yadda yadda were gettin evil mystery potions.

Blablabla how to balance tinker porjects, yadda yadda everyone hates randomly generated flaws.

Also just out of curiosity, and most definitely not an invitation for an official balancing session, how do you guys imagine my kin-amp gauss piledriver being balanced?
I kinda see it as being perfectly safe to use under general combat conditions, but highly likely to maim or kill everyone around you if used near confining obstacles.

[SeriousConcentrate]

U_P forgot the part where everyone in the conversation felt the need to quote - in their entirety - every 5000 word wall o' text previous to theirs just to make it hell on people trying to read the thread from a phone.

[Dorsidwarf]

Yeah, ERians need to learn the way of the -snip-