Shipwright Archive
Thread: Ship Blueprints: Rush Job or Search for Equality?
Page 1 of 2
1st_Viduus
Thu Nov 25, 2004 3:42 pm
#1
Hey all you shipwrights and *hats off* to the MSW - what a grind!
Anyhow I'm working my way up the shipwright tree, almost at 3-2-2-2 now... and it really seems odd to me that all the BP per tier are identical for resources, regardless of mass. Doesn't this sound odd to you?
Anyhow I'm working my way up the shipwright tree, almost at 3-2-2-2 now... and it really seems odd to me that all the BP per tier are identical for resources, regardless of mass. Doesn't this sound odd to you?
I mean, a ship that the Rebels get at Tier II has about the same stats as a ship that the Imperials get at Tier III - there's a huge cost difference here, for very little difference in hulls, other than aesthetics.
It just seems to me that it's odd, and that ship hulls/chassis' should have been "measured and weighed" to require resources equal to the end product. Anyone else think that the "per Tier" requirement system is flawed?
pervel
Thu Nov 25, 2004 3:59 pm
#2
Umm... I am a little confused as to what stats are you talking about here. Could you elaborate? What is BP?
Sinikal_Munkey
Thu Nov 25, 2004 4:17 pm
#3
Imperials have some of the lightest ships when compared to the Rebels and Neutrals. This is one of the reasons you don't see the heavier ships until the later tiers.I haven't compared the ship weights with its tier level and resource requirements. You do point out a very interesting observation though. I would think that regardless of the tier level, ships withcomparable massshould requireequal resources, and not be based on its tier level.
BP =blueprints. He's referring to the ship massa Rebel or Neutral gets at tier 2while Imps don't get a ship of equal mass until tier 3. His observation is why does the Imperial tier 3 ship with the mass of a Rebel/Neutral tier 2 ship require more resources? The current system is set up to require a certain amount of resources based on the tier in the SW profession. For instance, the TIE Opressor is 170k mass and a master level ship which requires 150k resources. The TIE bomber, a SW tier 3 ship with 190k mass, takes less than half the resources (60k I think, I'm not at home to look it up).
Message Edited by Sinikal_Munkey on 11-25-2004 03:29 PM
1st_Viduus
Thu Nov 25, 2004 4:30 pm
#4
Tier 2 Hull: LongProbe:
12k Steel
6k inert petrochemical
3k aluminum
3k iron
3k fiberplast
Mass Allowance: ~170,000
Tier 2 Hull: TIE/In
12k Steel
6k inert petrochemical
3k aluminum
3k iron
3k fiberplast
Mass Allowance: ~40,000
As you can see, the hulls are a drastically different size, yet each require the exact same amount of materials, thus can be sold for exactly the same price, regardless of the fact that it makes no sense.
Red-Dwarf
Thu Nov 25, 2004 4:40 pm
#5
You are only comparing one stat - mass. Chassis also affect how the craft moves in a fight. The TIE/In is a vastly more maneureavble craft than the y-wing and so there is balance.
Please note - the key component of balance is not that stuff is identical, it is that if two players both using the ships matching their playstyle they would be at a draw, it's not something you can just measure, you test it (like we did in beta and have been doing since then)
1st_Viduus
Thu Nov 25, 2004 4:56 pm
#6
I understand that. The A-Wing is comperable to a TIE_Advanced, makes sense they'd require similar resources.
The LongProbe is much more similar to an aggressor, makes sense they'd be similar in resources.
The LongProbe is much more similar to an aggressor, makes sense they'd be similar in resources.
The fact that all ships of a tier, regardless of SIZE require the same resources, simply makes no sense.
The TIE is more maneuverable because it has less mass... so how can 30k units of ores add up to different masses? 30k = 30k, see what I'm getting at?
The TIE is more maneuverable because it has less mass... so how can 30k units of ores add up to different masses? 30k = 30k, see what I'm getting at?
That's why the question: is this system a generic attempt at balance to keep prices for pilots similar at a tier regardless of faction? Sure seems that way.
Doesn't look to me like any effort was put into it at all - you know, less dense metals in greater quantities in a TIE, denser metals in greater quantities in a longprobe, et cetera et cetera....
Doesn't look to me like any effort was put into it at all - you know, less dense metals in greater quantities in a TIE, denser metals in greater quantities in a longprobe, et cetera et cetera....
While I'm not here to complain about it, I'd like to understand the reasoning behind it, since in every other aspect of the game I've seen there's at least some attempt to balance different things if the same class or type. This just seems.... slapped together.
Dextrix
Thu Nov 25, 2004 5:06 pm
#7
Sorry but the pitch yaw and roll do NOT make up for being 130k mass less in the same teir...
Some say the reason Imps got so low on mass is because the TIE's handle better, so compare the TIE Adv. to the A-Wing.
Same mass same pyr same resources needed, and what do ya know there on the same teir.
If you take the mas sacrifices into consideration on Imp fighters, they should be FAR superior in pyr.
But I'm tierd of beating that dead horse. Bottom line is the devs like rebs better...
\ Rua Ardan ~ Dantooine /
Sinikal_Munkey
Thu Nov 25, 2004 5:10 pm
#8
Red-Dwarf wrote:
You are only comparing one stat - mass. Chassis also affect how the craft moves in a fight. The TIE/In is a vastly more maneureavble craft than the y-wing and so there is balance.
Please note - the key component of balance is not that stuff is identical, it is that if two players both using the ships matching their playstyle they would be at a draw, it's not something you can just measure, you test it (like we did in beta and have been doing since then)
I disagree here. As 1st_Viduus stated, the tier 2 longprobe takes ~30k resources and has 170k mass. The Tie bomber, a tier 3 chassis at 190k mass, takes ~60k resources. Both handle the same, both have equivalent mass, yet the longprobe can be sold for considerably less than the bomber because it requires half the resources than the bomber.
We're not talking about handling characteristics in a dog-fight within the same tier.Maneuverabilityhas more to do with a players particular flying style. The exception for Imps would be the oppressor. It's a hybrid (of sorts) between the bomber and tie advance. It decelerates, has the mass, and manuevers much like the bomber. It accelerates and has the firepower of the advanced. It's not as fast as the advanced, but not as slow as the bomber. Should it take 150k resources to make a 170k mass ship? No. Should it be as cheap as the longprobe? No, because I think the longprobe should require the same amount of resources as the bomber. 150k resources is overkill for the oppressor. 60k resources for a 170-190k mass ship is fair.
Message Edited by Sinikal_Munkey on 11-25-2004 04:14 PM
1st_Viduus
Thu Nov 25, 2004 5:16 pm
#10
My point exactly.
It would seem to me that the oppressor for example, being of superior engineering, would be more expensive (thus keeping costs tier-relative) because it required advanced, lightweight materials and components for construction, whereas the longprobe, of more mass but inferior design (in theory), is less expensive because much of the hull is "just steel", a 3-5 cpu resource in most cases.
That would be more along the lines of "proper balancing" as it were, while attempting to maintain logic and continuity.
Claiming that 2 completely dissimilar ships in style, mass (read mass as density and size), and behaviors could use precisely the same materials is just... absurd.
P.S.:
You posted while I was typing, but thanks for the concession DexTrix. :}
You posted while I was typing, but thanks for the concession DexTrix. :}
Message Edited by 1st_Viduus on 11-25-2004 07:19 PM
Treychyyk
Thu Nov 25, 2004 7:31 pm
#11
You guys are forgetting the biggest example of this. The multiplayer ships. How can a vt-49 have 5 million mass and take the same amount of resources as the tie oppressor which has 170k mass and the firespray which has, I think, 210k?
1st_Viduus
Thu Nov 25, 2004 7:42 pm
#12
Treychyyk wrote:
You guys are forgetting the biggest example of this. The multiplayer ships. How can a vt-49 have 5 million mass and take the same amount of resources as the tie oppressor which has 170k mass and the firespray which has, I think, 210k?
Excellent example.
Niacia
Fri Nov 26, 2004 5:13 am
#13
Anyway, let us be glad, that it does not take 5 million resources to build an MP ship 
.
A few remarks:
Realism is one thing, game design another. While this decission might not be logical, it helps to keep ship prices for a tier the same. Which makes sense, as rewards are also the same.
And, the mass rating is not the mass of the ship. It is the amount of mass, you are allowed to add to a ship.
Otherwise, the mass of a ship would need top increase, if you equip a heavier reactor. And the mass would not be 0, when you remove all components.
This value is more of a payload rating. Therefore, it is conceivable, that those ships require about the same amount of resources.
Regards
Niacia
.A few remarks:
Realism is one thing, game design another. While this decission might not be logical, it helps to keep ship prices for a tier the same. Which makes sense, as rewards are also the same.
And, the mass rating is not the mass of the ship. It is the amount of mass, you are allowed to add to a ship.
Otherwise, the mass of a ship would need top increase, if you equip a heavier reactor. And the mass would not be 0, when you remove all components.
This value is more of a payload rating. Therefore, it is conceivable, that those ships require about the same amount of resources.
Regards
Niacia
Page 1 of 2