Print

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

[AdmiralGeezer]

You are probably right about the Death Ray, have to think about nerfing that one. Only problem is the possible backlash from the community if we do it 

We will release Battlestation: Harbinger on Steam February 24th! We have a new cool trailer as well:

http://store.steampowered.com/app/396480/

[ragnar119]

You are probably right about the Death Ray, have to think about nerfing that one. Only problem is the possible backlash from the community if we do it 

We will release Battlestation: Harbinger on Steam February 24th! We have a new cool trailer as well:

http://store.steampowered.com/app/396480/

Well they are all beta testers, that should point out the balance problems, and I am sure they will not have problems with it. Better fix it before the release, than after it, when you will really get a community.

[AdmiralGeezer]

You are probably right about the Death Ray, have to think about nerfing that one. Only problem is the possible backlash from the community if we do it 

We will release Battlestation: Harbinger on Steam February 24th! We have a new cool trailer as well:

http://store.steampowered.com/app/396480/

Well they are all beta testers, that should point out the balance problems, and I am sure they will not have problems with it. Better fix it before the release, than after it, when you will really get a community.

The PC version isn't the problem. It's the 2000 daily players on mobile But it wasn't too bad last time we nerfed, just a couple of 1 star ratings and a few major rage mails in the inbox.

[ragnar119]

You are probably right about the Death Ray, have to think about nerfing that one. Only problem is the possible backlash from the community if we do it 

We will release Battlestation: Harbinger on Steam February 24th! We have a new cool trailer as well:

http://store.steampowered.com/app/396480/

Well they are all beta testers, that should point out the balance problems, and I am sure they will not have problems with it. Better fix it before the release, than after it, when you will really get a community.

The PC version isn't the problem. It's the 2000 daily players on mobile But it wasn't too bad last time we nerfed, just a couple of 1 star ratings and a few major rage mails in the inbox.

Hmm, i dont know about the mobile mentality as I am not a iSO/android player, but does the PC and mobile  version need to have same balance? Can they be different?

[AdmiralGeezer]

You are probably right about the Death Ray, have to think about nerfing that one. Only problem is the possible backlash from the community if we do it 

We will release Battlestation: Harbinger on Steam February 24th! We have a new cool trailer as well:

http://store.steampowered.com/app/396480/

Well they are all beta testers, that should point out the balance problems, and I am sure they will not have problems with it. Better fix it before the release, than after it, when you will really get a community.

The PC version isn't the problem. It's the 2000 daily players on mobile But it wasn't too bad last time we nerfed, just a couple of 1 star ratings and a few major rage mails in the inbox.

Hmm, i dont know about the mobile mentality as I am not a iSO/android player, but does the PC and mobile  version need to have same balance? Can they be different?

I some sense I suppose they could, but just to keep our sanity developing the game I think it would be better to keep the versions the same. Otherwise we have to keep track of two separate version, and the balance of them. Creating a good balance for a game like this is very hard.

[jocan2003]

I have an idea, isnt the death ray a drop weapon? If so, just make it more rare? It adds to the rogue-like element of the game while still being powerfull just need a really lucky drop? This way everybody wins?

[sambojin]

Real-time space battle games are immensely hard to balance if there's any real options for multiple ships and customization in load-outs. Sometimes what's "good", becomes "uber-fantastic" in multiples. Not even a specific weapon, just types of weapons, or ones with unforeseen advantages or too low of a cost.

Then there's the "inverse squared" effect of firepower and range, where once a certain threshold of safe damage is reached, it becomes a gimme to win with it. But weapons usually get more damage, range, fire rate, or all three as you progress/unlock certain things. But where's the tipping point?

There's also the fighter-swarm effect, with similar thresholds, where the little autonomous buggers make it a disengagement effort for your main ships after you've reached a critical mass of fighters. Running away for dominance isn't sound as a fun strategy for winning.

There's also the "lots of cheap firepower" effect, where something in mass numbers removes any need for further research/progress, because a small lvl1 weapon is "good enough" even with damage and casualties taken into account, letting you just concentrate on repairs/numbers sustain without ever utilizing any of the other "funky weapons/shields/armours" that were so painstakingly created for you to discover.

You also don't want it to boil down to a very simplified rock-paper-scissors game, where no amount of forethought could prepare you for a particular battle unless you had prior knowledge of the enemy's makeup. And even then, you don't want it to be a counter-design chore, because that's not really a challenge, just some knowledge of game mechanics and a click-fest.

2d RT space battles are one of the hardest types of games to make. You sort of want a bit of all the above things, while not making any one or two of them overpowered. Options to focus in one of them and succeed, but options to spread out your types of weapons/ships as well, depending on play-style and playthrough.

Lots of options/add-ons and ship types is one way. But then there's also the "smeared across the RNG" effect to consider, where while you're making the best of what's offered to you, sometimes it feels that no matter what you did you never truly stood a chance.

Good luck guys. I could give an example or two of each downfall in the "genre", but at least you guys are trying to not leave them be, and are willing to take the occasional 1-star griper or poor comment simply to make the game better for all. Sometimes you have to listen to your players, but sometimes you have to be firm with your vision and make the best and most balanced game you can. Keep it up.

(ps. It'll never be balanced, but you've got to try your best).

[ragnar119]

I have an idea, isnt the death ray a drop weapon? If so, just make it more rare? It adds to the rogue-like element of the game while still being powerfull just need a really lucky drop? This way everybody wins?

The problem with this is, the weapons will still be OP, even if drop is rare so it doesnt fix it. A weapon that doesnt have any negative sides, good range, good shield and hull dmg and cannot be interrupted is just broken,  and lowering drop rates will not change that. Enemies can also have that weapon and if you jump to a system where there is maybe 3 ships where every one of them has one of it, you will die in a second if they shoot at you at the same time.

A good balance is when every weapon has a role and positive and negative aspects/sides. While its ok to have just simple linear upgrades for a weapon (like going from human versions to alien ones) its important to keep different weapons with different characteristic and not have weapons that have it and without negative sides.

[AdmiralGeezer]

Real-time space battle games are immensely hard to balance if there's any real options for multiple ships and customization in load-outs. Sometimes what's "good", becomes "uber-fantastic" in multiples. Not even a specific weapon, just types of weapons, or ones with unforeseen advantages or too low of a cost.

Then there's the "inverse squared" effect of firepower and range, where once a certain threshold of safe damage is reached, it becomes a gimme to win with it. But weapons usually get more damage, range, fire rate, or all three as you progress/unlock certain things. But where's the tipping point?

There's also the fighter-swarm effect, with similar thresholds, where the little autonomous buggers make it a disengagement effort for your main ships after you've reached a critical mass of fighters. Running away for dominance isn't sound as a fun strategy for winning.

There's also the "lots of cheap firepower" effect, where something in mass numbers removes any need for further research/progress, because a small lvl1 weapon is "good enough" even with damage and casualties taken into account, letting you just concentrate on repairs/numbers sustain without ever utilizing any of the other "funky weapons/shields/armours" that were so painstakingly created for you to discover.

You also don't want it to boil down to a very simplified rock-paper-scissors game, where no amount of forethought could prepare you for a particular battle unless you had prior knowledge of the enemy's makeup. And even then, you don't want it to be a counter-design chore, because that's not really a challenge, just some knowledge of game mechanics and a click-fest.

2d RT space battles are one of the hardest types of games to make. You sort of want a bit of all the above things, while not making any one or two of them overpowered. Options to focus in one of them and succeed, but options to spread out your types of weapons/ships as well, depending on play-style and playthrough.

Lots of options/add-ons and ship types is one way. But then there's also the "smeared across the RNG" effect to consider, where while you're making the best of what's offered to you, sometimes it feels that no matter what you did you never truly stood a chance.

Good luck guys. I could give an example or two of each downfall in the "genre", but at least you guys are trying to not leave them be, and are willing to take the occasional 1-star griper or poor comment simply to make the game better for all. Sometimes you have to listen to your players, but sometimes you have to be firm with your vision and make the best and most balanced game you can. Keep it up.

(ps. It'll never be balanced, but you've got to try your best).

Yeah, you nailed it. It really seems to be a never ending process, every new weapon has to be carefully considered. Only one week to go now until release, it's quite nerve wracking. I know the game isn't perfect, but I really am proud of what we've accomplished.

[Tiruin]

Real-time space battle games are immensely hard to balance if there's any real options for multiple ships and customization in load-outs. Sometimes what's "good", becomes "uber-fantastic" in multiples. Not even a specific weapon, just types of weapons, or ones with unforeseen advantages or too low of a cost.

Then there's the "inverse squared" effect of firepower and range, where once a certain threshold of safe damage is reached, it becomes a gimme to win with it. But weapons usually get more damage, range, fire rate, or all three as you progress/unlock certain things. But where's the tipping point?

There's also the fighter-swarm effect, with similar thresholds, where the little autonomous buggers make it a disengagement effort for your main ships after you've reached a critical mass of fighters. Running away for dominance isn't sound as a fun strategy for winning.

There's also the "lots of cheap firepower" effect, where something in mass numbers removes any need for further research/progress, because a small lvl1 weapon is "good enough" even with damage and casualties taken into account, letting you just concentrate on repairs/numbers sustain without ever utilizing any of the other "funky weapons/shields/armours" that were so painstakingly created for you to discover.

You also don't want it to boil down to a very simplified rock-paper-scissors game, where no amount of forethought could prepare you for a particular battle unless you had prior knowledge of the enemy's makeup. And even then, you don't want it to be a counter-design chore, because that's not really a challenge, just some knowledge of game mechanics and a click-fest.

2d RT space battles are one of the hardest types of games to make. You sort of want a bit of all the above things, while not making any one or two of them overpowered. Options to focus in one of them and succeed, but options to spread out your types of weapons/ships as well, depending on play-style and playthrough.

Lots of options/add-ons and ship types is one way. But then there's also the "smeared across the RNG" effect to consider, where while you're making the best of what's offered to you, sometimes it feels that no matter what you did you never truly stood a chance.

Good luck guys. I could give an example or two of each downfall in the "genre", but at least you guys are trying to not leave them be, and are willing to take the occasional 1-star griper or poor comment simply to make the game better for all. Sometimes you have to listen to your players, but sometimes you have to be firm with your vision and make the best and most balanced game you can. Keep it up.

(ps. It'll never be balanced, but you've got to try your best).

Yeah, you nailed it. It really seems to be a never ending process, every new weapon has to be carefully considered. Only one week to go now until release, it's quite nerve wracking. I know the game isn't perfect, but I really am proud of what we've accomplished.

I have a review draft in the works (no thanks RL issues :I) but sambo got the gist of it. I pondered on whether to poke on that giant death ray or the megaplasma cannon (basically a bigger range/bigger damage version, MUCH BETTER than the Nuclear Missile since it can't be point defense'd and instantly wipes out shields) but when rechecking the thread, I'll just add that as a footnote.

But the review is basically optimistic about the game :3 I've enjoyed it and thus far really enjoy it on replayability (just that I've to argue that the one ship with 4 hanger/2 turret slots is a *BIT* [or a lot] undervalued compared to the ones with more turret slots, due to the difficulty of balance between upgrade costs of fighter bays//turrets, and how 'predominant' a weapon plays out).

I've found that later game fighter bays, even considering the most expensive one [missile fighter-bombers] are ineffective in the context of damage dealing compared to the staple weapon you're receiving [and it feels like FTL in a way--by which you can only get weapons in specific times considering the progress of the mission system {4 maps in total}], though they ARE VERY EFFECTIVE in soaking up that orange-plasma-particle-that-I-forgot-the-name-of since the review is on another computer.

Otherwise, I'm very happy to say that I've particularly enjoyed my role as a beta tester :3 (though for some reason have NOT been able to access the forum due to...reasons?), and particularly lack the money to buy the extended edition -.-

Keep going AdmiralGeezer; I've seen many developers in my recent ~5-ish years with both the positive attitude with the community AND the passion to keep the game going (and not going into a monetizing hole). Big cheers to you, from halfway around the world here.

Yep, the Philippines is approximately halfway around the world from most of Europe, the Americas, and the Netherlands.

[AdmiralGeezer]

Real-time space battle games are immensely hard to balance if there's any real options for multiple ships and customization in load-outs. Sometimes what's "good", becomes "uber-fantastic" in multiples. Not even a specific weapon, just types of weapons, or ones with unforeseen advantages or too low of a cost.

Then there's the "inverse squared" effect of firepower and range, where once a certain threshold of safe damage is reached, it becomes a gimme to win with it. But weapons usually get more damage, range, fire rate, or all three as you progress/unlock certain things. But where's the tipping point?

There's also the fighter-swarm effect, with similar thresholds, where the little autonomous buggers make it a disengagement effort for your main ships after you've reached a critical mass of fighters. Running away for dominance isn't sound as a fun strategy for winning.

There's also the "lots of cheap firepower" effect, where something in mass numbers removes any need for further research/progress, because a small lvl1 weapon is "good enough" even with damage and casualties taken into account, letting you just concentrate on repairs/numbers sustain without ever utilizing any of the other "funky weapons/shields/armours" that were so painstakingly created for you to discover.

You also don't want it to boil down to a very simplified rock-paper-scissors game, where no amount of forethought could prepare you for a particular battle unless you had prior knowledge of the enemy's makeup. And even then, you don't want it to be a counter-design chore, because that's not really a challenge, just some knowledge of game mechanics and a click-fest.

2d RT space battles are one of the hardest types of games to make. You sort of want a bit of all the above things, while not making any one or two of them overpowered. Options to focus in one of them and succeed, but options to spread out your types of weapons/ships as well, depending on play-style and playthrough.

Lots of options/add-ons and ship types is one way. But then there's also the "smeared across the RNG" effect to consider, where while you're making the best of what's offered to you, sometimes it feels that no matter what you did you never truly stood a chance.

Good luck guys. I could give an example or two of each downfall in the "genre", but at least you guys are trying to not leave them be, and are willing to take the occasional 1-star griper or poor comment simply to make the game better for all. Sometimes you have to listen to your players, but sometimes you have to be firm with your vision and make the best and most balanced game you can. Keep it up.

(ps. It'll never be balanced, but you've got to try your best).

Yeah, you nailed it. It really seems to be a never ending process, every new weapon has to be carefully considered. Only one week to go now until release, it's quite nerve wracking. I know the game isn't perfect, but I really am proud of what we've accomplished.

I have a review draft in the works (no thanks RL issues :I) but sambo got the gist of it. I pondered on whether to poke on that giant death ray or the megaplasma cannon (basically a bigger range/bigger damage version, MUCH BETTER than the Nuclear Missile since it can't be point defense'd and instantly wipes out shields) but when rechecking the thread, I'll just add that as a footnote.

But the review is basically optimistic about the game :3 I've enjoyed it and thus far really enjoy it on replayability (just that I've to argue that the one ship with 4 hanger/2 turret slots is a *BIT* [or a lot] undervalued compared to the ones with more turret slots, due to the difficulty of balance between upgrade costs of fighter bays//turrets, and how 'predominant' a weapon plays out).

I've found that later game fighter bays, even considering the most expensive one [missile fighter-bombers] are ineffective in the context of damage dealing compared to the staple weapon you're receiving [and it feels like FTL in a way--by which you can only get weapons in specific times considering the progress of the mission system {4 maps in total}], though they ARE VERY EFFECTIVE in soaking up that orange-plasma-particle-that-I-forgot-the-name-of since the review is on another computer.

Otherwise, I'm very happy to say that I've particularly enjoyed my role as a beta tester :3 (though for some reason have NOT been able to access the forum due to...reasons?), and particularly lack the money to buy the extended edition -.-

Keep going AdmiralGeezer; I've seen many developers in my recent ~5-ish years with both the positive attitude with the community AND the passion to keep the game going (and not going into a monetizing hole). Big cheers to you, from halfway around the world here.

Yep, the Philippines is approximately halfway around the world from most of Europe, the Americas, and the Netherlands.

I live in Finland myself Thank you for the kind words, we try our best. It really is quite awesome to make games, but of course it can be really intense and stressful at times as well. Already watched our fellow indie game developers close down after working 2 years side-by-side. Time will tell where we end up, but I'm going to do my darnest for us to survive and continue working on great games.

What does the forum login say?

[Tiruin]

What does the forum login say?

The same as always.

Your IP ({Yep}) has been flagged for potential security violations. Please try again in a little while...

[AdmiralGeezer]

What does the forum login say?

The same as always.

Your IP ({Yep}) has been flagged for potential security violations. Please try again in a little while...

Ahh Yeah, dang it. Don't know what is going on there to be honest. Oh well, at least I can find you here!

[Neonivek]

I have an idea, isnt the death ray a drop weapon? If so, just make it more rare? It adds to the rogue-like element of the game while still being powerfull just need a really lucky drop? This way everybody wins?

The problem with this is, the weapons will still be OP, even if drop is rare so it doesnt fix it. A weapon that doesnt have any negative sides, good range, good shield and hull dmg and cannot be interrupted is just broken,  and lowering drop rates will not change that. Enemies can also have that weapon and if you jump to a system where there is maybe 3 ships where every one of them has one of it, you will die in a second if they shoot at you at the same time.

A good balance is when every weapon has a role and positive and negative aspects/sides. While its ok to have just simple linear upgrades for a weapon (like going from human versions to alien ones) its important to keep different weapons with different characteristic and not have weapons that have it and without negative sides.

I think it is more that sometimes there is no price great enough to justify something's existence.

Which is something some people forget.

[AdmiralGeezer]

I have an idea, isnt the death ray a drop weapon? If so, just make it more rare? It adds to the rogue-like element of the game while still being powerfull just need a really lucky drop? This way everybody wins?

The problem with this is, the weapons will still be OP, even if drop is rare so it doesnt fix it. A weapon that doesnt have any negative sides, good range, good shield and hull dmg and cannot be interrupted is just broken,  and lowering drop rates will not change that. Enemies can also have that weapon and if you jump to a system where there is maybe 3 ships where every one of them has one of it, you will die in a second if they shoot at you at the same time.

A good balance is when every weapon has a role and positive and negative aspects/sides. While its ok to have just simple linear upgrades for a weapon (like going from human versions to alien ones) its important to keep different weapons with different characteristic and not have weapons that have it and without negative sides.

I think it is more that sometimes there is no price great enough to justify something's existence.

Which is something some people forget.

Indeed. Will have to try to balance things further based on feedback. Already done some modifications.