Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Ship Rental Prices - Evocati Leak

12346»

Comments

  • KefoKefo Member EpicPosts: 4,229
    newbismx said:
    IDK but I'm buying an Idris or three!!!!!
    Buy 7 and a few mantis’ cause need to keep funding CR’s terrible ideas
  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member LegendaryPosts: 7,612
    Kefo said:
    Right now you are arguing about balancing a game that has released a expansion and changed a bunch of stuff vs a game that has yet to leave alpha and getting the numbers horribly wrong
    Such hyperbole... SC is an alpha indeed, the inconsequential placeholder balance that gets tuned over time is not a problem, especially for a fresh new feature that requires the whole picture of a WIP economy to balance.

    SC already has templated metrics for the many aspects of the game, from an FPS weapon/armor to the ship stats, the mission payouts, etc... etc... So this sort of argument is not reasonable just because they didn't review the shop prices on the very first testing implementation.

    Not only is tuning easy for the programmer to do once they get feedback from who is assigned to balance, either that is QA or its own team (like they have now)... SC is one alpha, it only makes sense to make use of it by having initial implementations being balanced over time by both the telemetry they can do and the feedback they get.

    I think the process is used to tune the game is fine, the rebalancing will happen either way independent of the effort put on it up-front (pre-implementation), this is not a linear and simple game loop as far economy is concerned.
    rpmcmurphy
  • KefoKefo Member EpicPosts: 4,229
    MaxBacon said:
    Kefo said:
    Right now you are arguing about balancing a game that has released a expansion and changed a bunch of stuff vs a game that has yet to leave alpha and getting the numbers horribly wrong
    Such hyperbole... SC is an alpha indeed, the inconsequential placeholder balance that gets tuned over time is not a problem, especially for a fresh new feature that requires the whole picture of a WIP economy to balance.

    SC already has templated metrics for the many aspects of the game, from an FPS weapon/armor to the ship stats, the mission payouts, etc... etc... So this sort of argument is not reasonable just because they didn't review the shop prices on the very first testing implementation.

    Not only is tuning easy for the programmer to do once they get feedback from who is assigned to balance, either that is QA or its own team (like they have now)... SC is one alpha, it only makes sense to make use of it by having initial implementations being balanced over time by both the telemetry they can do and the feedback they get.

    I think the process is used to tune the game is fine, the rebalancing will happen either way independent of the effort put on it up-front (pre-implementation), this is not a linear and simple game loop as far economy is concerned.
    Lol keep digging
  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member LegendaryPosts: 7,612
    edited September 2019
    Kefo said:
    Lol keep digging
    Keep nitpicking following with exaggerated arguments :p 
  • TillerTiller Member LegendaryPosts: 10,230
    edited September 2019



    From years ago, still going




    Post edited by Tiller on
    Kefo
    SWG Bloodfin vet
    Elder Jedi/Elder Bounty Hunter
     
  • rpmcmurphyrpmcmurphy Member EpicPosts: 3,502
    MaxBacon said:
    No it does not make sense to me. One thing is areas where the general metric is established and re-used, this goes from ship stats to mission payouts to an fps weapon/armor. This is a whole new aspect on a wip economy on itself that requires looking at the whole picture to set a standard for it.
    Max, If I said ER was getting fat you would argue he's losing weight....
    MaxBacon said:

    Maybe it's because I'm more used to it, where the programmer does the first implementation with placeholder numbers because the most important next step is the testing of functionality, next feedback is given on stuff like the numbers getting updated.
    For a company that has allegedly been working on their economy for years and with the ships being the central part of the game you would think they would have better data to work with than making it up on the fly, if we talking about ammo prices then it would be totally different.

  • KefoKefo Member EpicPosts: 4,229
    MaxBacon said:
    Kefo said:
    Lol keep digging
    Keep nitpicking following with exaggerated arguments :p 
    I’m using my experience as a prealpha, alpha and beta tester. And no I didn’t have to buy my way into those like some games. 

    You’re trying to construct a straw man to draw attention away from the issue that CI doesn’t really know what the hell they are doing. Will they eventually get it right? Maybe but they are wasting man hours groping around in the dark.
  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member LegendaryPosts: 7,612
    edited September 2019
    For a company that has allegedly been working on their economy for years and with the ships being the central part of the game you would think they would have better data to work with than making it up on the fly, if we talking about ammo prices then it would be totally different.

    That expectation would only be realistic if the economy on this game was fleshed out enough so that a feature that depends on the whole picture of the economy would be expected to have a solid balance on implementation.

    It's inconsequential, stuff as that will continue being revisited as it develops independent on how much time is sunk on theorizing economy details pre-implementation.

    I wouldn't do it differently, having a running alpha like this with telemetry and constant feedback provides a more realistic approach to balance, which you can use to adapt your initial design.

    What should be gotten right at first, is the designed functionality.
Sign In or Register to comment.