Ship Balance - why do you care?

[Ziggy Stardust]

Because it factors into which ship you are going to buy/use. Every ship needs pros and cons to make that decision. Games need limitations to overcome, games need balance to make the decision relevant. You need to do a particular job, this defines your options for a ship. Without balance there's 2 ways to go. You either always go the the OP ship, or when all ships become jacks of all trade, you lose the gameplay mechanic.

It's not just combat situations where the need for balance kicks in.

 

[Jukelo]

Competitive games need balance, but not all games are competitive.

Although not every game has an element of competition between players, every game must have an element of challenge to it. And if there is a challenge to overcome, then you have to make decisions about balance. Even in the most simplistic games, you need to keep balance in mind to make sure the game is neither too trivial nor too hard.

In a game even slightly complex like ED, where the player has a choice of tools (ships and weapons) to overcome various challenges, and where the choice of tools is itself part of the thinking process making the game interesting, you need balance between all these elements otherwise there is no real choice to make.

True enough if a single ship is unarguable inferior to everything else, even diehard role-players like me are going to avoid it. Does it follow that if one ship is objectively better than everything else (I'm not claiming that is the case), that everyone will use it?

Virtually everyone who thinks for a second about it will.

 

[RamirezKurita]

For me, balance is also about actual choice. It's about giving players multiple options and paths to achieve similar outcomes, with said multiple options and paths being meaningfully different in implementation and execution. Players should be free to choose a style and method (within reason, obviously) that fits with them without being forced to choose between the best option and their favourite option - ideally there wouldn't ever be a universal "best" option, just a list of "good" options for players to choose the one that fits best with their play style.

 

[crushdepth]

There isn't any ship balance and there can't be.

Even for the same ship type, a trading build is never going to stand up to a combat build and so on, a fact that is exaggerated still further by engineers. When you start talking about different ship types on top of different builds and engineers the idea of balance is pretty much irrelevant. Just about every encounter is going to be asymmetric.

 

[zombieapocalypse]

Personally, I think balance should mean different ships for different roles or play styles. In a game where you can own and easily switch between multiple ships, using a single ship that can do everything well is boring and lacks variety. All ships should have strengths and weaknesses. However, I don't really see ED as a competitive game; so I don't worry too much about how player X is flying this ship/loadout meaning he can make more money than me, kill ships faster than me, or get to Sag A quicker, etc.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Could you elaborate on this point, please? In what way does the ship fit your cmdr's purpose?
??

Everything to do with the fact that its called the "Alliance Chieftain", and little to do with the characteristics of the ship (although the low price point was handy!) Its going to be used for a clandestine operation, not combat.

(I guess I should be asking for the DBX to be "balanced" to the be "Alliance DBX", because who wants to drag a ship with a 27Ly jump range out to California Nebula, right?)

 

[ilo]

I play the game to have fun, not to compare myself to others. Why I need a better ship? why a ship is worse? the scenario for this questions is just purely competitive, either against others or against yourself.

Do you need to deliver the max ton with the less cost being the most profitable in the less time? I don't.

 

[AbsinthSvK]

The answer is easy. If you want balance: Chess is your game. Stay away from computer games.

It doesnt make sense to call for balance in a game like Elite.

thats completely wrong,
multiplayer games needs balance, i dont mean all ships are the same, i mean balanced between roles/ weapons/counter weapons. Good luck with making unbalanced game where all uses one weapon because its OP.

Whats the point making complex game then? Only work when you have high imagination and some sort of self-confident to use worse ship because its "cool" or you like to play with worse ship. Not because you dont need make things better and effective but because you like to play like that.

you should stay away from computer games not players whos ask for balance.

 

[RexKraemer]

Balancing the ships as discussed in the other threads does not make sense for me for this game. This game is not about fair and equal ship against ship battles where only skill decides about win or loose. No, that is not our game! Balance is needed only for games where direct conflict between two parties is THE game. In E: D this is a very minor aspect and therefor needs no balance.

If ships were balanced it would affect the other play styles we have or, if not, it would all make ridiculous, because why should a cargo and trade ship be equal to a military battle ship?

I say no to balance. If you want balanced fights with equal chance, play CQC and balance this game.

 

[RamirezKurita]

TEven for the same ship type, a trading build is never going to stand up to a combat build and so on, a fact that is exaggerated still further by engineers. When you start talking about different ship types on top of different builds and engineers the idea of balance is pretty much irrelevant. Just about every encounter is going to be asymmetric.

I don't think anyone expects traders vs combat ships to be a fair fight in combat, but it wouldn't also be a fair race in trading - the point is to make the trader better enough at trading to rival how much better the fighter is at fighting. The point would be to make sure that all combat builds for combat ships, adjusted for price and investment, to be roughly on par with each other such that choice it comes down to player preference rather than performance.

 

[RexKraemer]

To add:

If a ship or a weapon is overpowered (op) we always could team up to counter. That would make sense, but not to nerf the op ship.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Balancing the ships as discussed in the other threads does not make sense for me for this game. This game is not about fair and equal ship against ship battles where only skill decides about win or loose. No, that is not our game! Balance is needed only for games where direct conflict between two parties is THE game. In E: D this is a very minor aspect and therefor needs no balance.

Balance is more than just pitting them against each other in combat. Balance also means ship choice when buying, module choice when outfitting.

 

[RexKraemer]

Another idea:

Instead of looking of overpowerness of single ships or weapons, FDev could have a look at statistics and ask themselve: "Why is this particular ship nearly not used by anyone? What can we do to it to make it more attractive?"

Doing this over longer period of time would create balance in a general way: all ships are of some use to some not insignificant number of players.

Balance is more than just pitting them against each other in combat. Balance also means ship choice when buying, module choice when outfitting.

Ninjad, see my idea here above.

 

[PanTast]

Thanks for this approach to the ships, OP.

I'm puzzled about how randomly some ships seem to be designed. Take the DBS. Its hull mass is six times higher than the max cargo load (the Hauler is at 0.6 times). The DBX is at 4.6, the ASP is at 2.19. Thats ridiculous.
If the DBS gets the internals of the DBX, it would be much better while still at 3 tons hull per ton max cargo. And it would be much more versatile. The distribution of the internals seems to be done quite randomly through all ships. Seems to be done by someone who never actually used those ships ...

I think every ship has to have at least one class 1 slot.

Another example is the FDL. A luxury bounty hunter. If the target high wakes away, you have the luxury to jump several times before you might be able to pick up the trace again ...

o7

 

[AbsinthSvK]

because why should a cargo and trade ship be equal to a military battle ship?

sorry but you completely misunderstand what balance in games mean. Balance is even that cargo ships have more cargo space then battle ships and battle ships have more dps then military ships.

Have you even play games?

 

[RexKraemer]

Have you even play games?

No, never played, where can I buy this? Do I need special shoes?

 

[Jukelo]

To add:

If a ship or a weapon is overpowered (op) we always could team up to counter. That would make sense, but not to nerf the op ship.

No, if somebody is using OP content, you don't 'team up' to counter it. Why would you do that, when you have access to the very same content (if you don't have access to that content, chances are that's part of the balance)? Just use the same weapon/ship, anything else would be an utter waste of effort.
And of course once a dev sees everyone using the same content (because it's the most efficient), they aren't going to buff everything else. If there's a dozen weapons and just one is being used, why go through the hassle of buffing the other 11 when they can just nerf the one that is problematic.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Ninjad, see my idea here above.

"all ships are of some use to some not insignificant number of players" now there's a sentence!

 

[zombieapocalypse]

Balance is more than just pitting them against each other in combat. Balance also means ship choice when buying, module choice when outfitting.

Exactly. It's about creating variety and challenge, about forcing interesting gameplay and roleplay decisions. As I said before, having a single ship that can do everything well is boring.

 

[DaveB]

To answer the OP's question, in an abstract sense I don't care at all. However, the game isn't served well by each profession or play-style having a "one true meta-build" which so radically outclasses everything else for that role. The greater the diversity in viable builds for a given role the richer the ED universe gets as players in those divergent builds interact, the more varied player tactics have to be to make use of those divergent builds differing characteristics. This necessitates some consideration of "balance" between the various ships although I put the word in quotes advisedly, because "balance" in ED may not exactly be the same kind of "balance" we're used to seeing in other games.

You could achieve the same end by having a huge diversity in the "professions" the game offers but while FD do try in this regard we can see that isn't easy and would be a much more unwieldy task to accomplish than balancing the ships.