This sounds very defensive. But sure, both have their merits, however, both compliment each other way better than just one or the other.
Both experience and knowledge of game mechanics can be misleading.
Let me tell you a little story. In Freespace 2, there is a flyable ship called the Artemis, and a bonus ship you get as a reward from a special mission called the Artemis D.H. According to the ingame tech description, the DH is supposed to be a faster and more maneuverable experimental variant.
Years after the release, even the most experienced players could have sworn upon their dead mothers that the DH was indeed faster and more agile.
When the modding community started unpacking the game files, they discovered that due to an oversight, the base Artemis and DH stats are exactly copy-pasted (which is only one among many such oversights in Freespace 2). They are both identical, except for a minor model change and a paintjob.
Another story. In the few first days after HWRM released, modders started extracting the new files from the .big files, and I dug around HW1 ships stats. One of the things I noticed was that defender actually had worse dps and accuracy against fighters than the interceptor does. It also has lower speed, costs more and require more research to be built, leading me to the very obvious conclusion that it was an inferior craft.
What I didn’t take into account was that the attackstyle and turret coverage of the defender let it keep its guns poited at targets at all times, whereas interceptors do attack runs where the guns are not on target about half the time, when it has to come around for another pass. This makes the defender LARGELY superior to the inty, and I didn’t realize it until someone pointed that out on the forum and I tried it out for myself ingame.
tl;dr: watch out for the damn confirmation bias. Game experience alone or reading .ship files alone won’t save you from metaphorical blind spots.
Innociv, please, you beat me once in a test for a research ship snipe. I may be an OK player, but even I need more that a game or two to develop a counter on the fly. Had you stuck around for a third test, which would’ve been early fighter production BTW, you probably would not have succeeded. I’ve asked for a third test from you multiple times and each time met with “I work 7 days a week and don’t have time”. I’ve ran the same test from both sides with other players and proved counters also.
While I agree that the research ship is week and could probably use a slight buff, I fully disagree that that weakness makes then “woefully imbalanced”. The reality is the HW races are exceptional rushers and very difficult to beat on small maps, they deserve a weakness in the research ship, this is a balance.
You are welcome to prove me wrong, if you get a day off or whatever. But the examples you continuously bring up which were two games, first where you point out the weakness, second where I try a frig rush to attempt to get a support frigate out to repair, and third “no I don’t have time but instead I will take these two as fact and post them on the forums over and over” cannot be taken as fact that HW races are under powered. At best it’s and arguement for buffing the research ship a little, just as easily and arguement for the HW races to protect their research ships better.
Yeah but… why couldn’t I also get better to where you learning that “counter” wouldn’t matter?
I say things usually assuming better people are playing. Someone better than me, than you.
A lot of people like to swing their phallus shaped space ship around because they won a tournament against other people that also make tons of mistakes in a game that isn’t that hard. I don’t really see how that amounts to too much.
On the same token, yeah if making the game perfect for some hypothetical better players, like if all the SC pros left to play HWRM, would ruin it for just the “good” players, that’s not good. Just like it’s not good for it to be ruined for casual players, because of what the “good” players say.
The thing is, okay maybe you can stop it now and people you played against just don’t do it as well (Which… I don’t really buy), it’s still going to cost you so much that you would lose to the followup, having invested so much in countering that while executing would cost me so little.
What position would you be in, even if you could stop that one thing from ending the game right there for you if someone theory crafted as well as I did but was equally well practiced mechanically? I would think you’d still lose handedly, and so would any HW1 player.
I could be wrong. Absolutely. I just things are often way too quickly discounted because it’s not what they’ve organically come to see, or becomes of confirmation bias.
Everyone was confident I was wrong until I showed what I said should happen would happen. I don’t really get why other people couldn’t have just done what I said and saw for themselves, or seen it in their own mind, but whatever.
And I’ve always contended that HW1 races do have some advantages. It’s just that their weaknesses are extremely exploitable. I definitely did overbuff them a bit in my mod (better to make something too strong so it gets used to be examine how to renerf it, than to just make it ‘good enough’ and it seems too weak because everyone thinks it still sucks), but they weren’t “autowin” like I still think HW2 vs HW1 is for the HW2 player if he’s equally skilled.
And don’t get me wrong, when I said “Game knowledge can account for quite a lot and experience doesn’t always mean that much.” yes, the opposite can also be true.
It was my lack of experience not knowing about that salvage attack bug. Lack of expensive not knowing how strong mobile refineries are against fighters. Lack of experience not knowing a single EMP stops marine/infiltrator frigates capture. LAck of experience not knowing research times are faster than they appear in files. Yeah, can’t know all that stuff without playing since it’s not in the files and there is not a good wiki for HW, sadly.
You can contact me as innociv on irc.quakenet.org and I’ll do a game and see how this new counter works, if you want? I’m not saying you’re wrong, I could be. Absolutely. I just don’t like taking anecdotes as fact. I just feel it’s probably the HW2 player not really knowing what they’re doing, or you’re talking about some super specific maps where HW1 maybe has an advantage.
Making blanket statements about race balance is not really the right methodology - in this case the effect of the map and initial strategy has a large effect which is difficult to filter.
It takes a LOT of testing to figure out what you guys have been debating - I am all for helping out but please stay civil. Remember that the balance is not meant for better players, but for the average player. Gearbox has to fix the game for them first, then work on addressing balance at higher levels.
I respectfully disagree. Balance is meant for a better game.
I can’t agree with that.
No race should be autowin against one another on a certain map. That means there are major balance problems.
Advantages? Sure. Maybe some certain timing works on one map, or spawn, but not another. But it shouldn’t be an autowin.
I never implied a race should have that level of advantage, just that it is hard to balance the game in such a way that the map choice does not have some effect on what races/strategies are most viable. Unless we want cloned races there will be some variation present.
How much do you think scouts cost? And if you get better so that my counter to your counter doesn’t matter then it will be on me to get better to counter your counter to your counter’s counter right? I thought this was how the game was played. Not, I beat you once, it must be broken.
That reminds me, did you or anyone ever find or duplicate that bug you claimed with Torps unable to target salvage vets attached to capitals? I never did see that again.
Sure, want to do it now? I can get online. My steam ID is ratamaq. I also pinged you on quakenet
I saw it - they can hit them sometimes but refuse to fire quite often when bandboxed.
Here is a tip to force attack a unit specially salvage corvettes that are hard to pick at. Use and hold buttons alt+shift to target individual ships. This will allow you to force attack a unit. Also, when you ban box a target make sure that your ship is on agressive tactics so the ship will prioritize a specific target that you are targeting. Check your control functions and get to know how they function to assist you against online pvp deathmatch games. It’s a must if you want to learn how to manage your units effectively and efficiently.
I think this beta tester is done testing the current release of the game. I’ll be back when the patch is released.
I thought actual beta testing is a more organized endeavor on the part of the developer and testers.
Has what we have been doing consider true beta testing? I am not sure or I just don’t understand the process.
Every time you post feedback about something thats not working correctly, a bug, balance opinions or suggestions that’t you being a beta tester. That’s what you agreed to when you typed BETA into the launcher the first time you went into the beta MP. Everyone that plays the MP and posts feedback is a beta tester.
I see. Thanks. I guess I was thinking about closed betas then.
Yup those come with NDA’s more often than not. Although there are also paid for closed betas in the free 2 play gaming market.
The meaning of a beta test is extremely flexible these days. Even in closed betas far from all participants give meaningful feedback.