Meta beta framework

@scole @joekgbx

Hi,

I’d like to lay out a few ideas for this beta in a beta that is being planned so participants all have a proper understanding of what is changing, what needs to be tested, and how to make suggestions and provide proper feedback. But first a few questions.

  1. How long will each mod run before new changes are implemented? Will we get a full week? 2 weeks? Or would we get daily changes?

  2. How long do you expect the full meta beta to run (or how much time do we have to accomplish this?)

  3. How large will each group of changes be per mod change? There are pros and cons to each. Small changes allow for faster testing and rapid iteration, while large changes allow for more things to be tested at once, but need more time for testing in general and risk making iterative changes to the big beta harder.

  4. How will changes be committed to big beta? Will we iterate the meta beta until it is a finished deliverable to be updated all at once? Or will each iteration be committed to the big beta.

And finally some suggestions on communication, idea submission, and feedback/new bug.

This part I would love suggestions to, and depends a lot on answers to the questions above, but regardless of method, I think the following format would be a good way to keep topics separate, organized, and trackable.

  1. Create a master Meta Beta thread (would be best if a mod or dev could do this, but I will if you do not have time). The top post of this thread would serve as a table of contents to threads relevant to the meta beta and track progress and decisions, plus server as a history to why changes were made.

  2. Agree on a common language of change category, I was thinking something along the lines of Research, Production, Performance, Misc.

Research would be anything tech tree related including pre-requisites, time, and cost.

Production would be anything build related including time, cost, and where from it’s built.

Performance would encompass the most to include changes to ship statics (HP, DMG, Speed, AI, Flight patters, etc) I assume we will spend the most time on this.

Misc. is the catch all for whatever doesn’t fit in the above.

The master thread would then look something like this:


Meta Beta Master Thread


Description/instruction on how to participate in mod on steam, and how to submit suggestions and feedback within this framework

Research Balance Threads

  • link to thread - HC and Carrier research take too long [change implemented and being tested]
  • link to thread - Ion should be a pre-req for destroyers [Feedback closed, no change implemented]

Production Balance Threads

  • link to thread - Reducing cost of research ship by x [More feedback required]
  • link to thread - List of small cost tweaks for corvettes [Feedback closed, implemented into Big beta]

Performance Balance Threads

  • link to thread - HW1 fighter flight path adjustment suggestions [More feedback required]
  • link to thread - Increased armor suggestion for HW1 frigates [Change implemented and being tested]
  • link to thread - Hig BC vs Vaygr BC range [Change scheduled for next iteration]

Misc

  • link to thread - This framework sucks I like big argumentative mega threads [more feedback required]
1 Like

In terms of the particulars of the beta, how it’s working, it’s length, and any other info relevant to the beta itself, I’ll defer to @Burly and @BitVenom on that. It bears mentioning though, that since things can change throughout the development process, the amount information could be somewhat limited and is certainly subject to change.

As for the thread itself, I think this would be a great thing for you as a community member to curate. After all, this is a beta primarily because we want the community’s involvement in helping to put the pieces together, so to speak. I think your ideas for format are great and would recommend checking out some of the Borderlands community guides for some inspiration as well.

If we can help you in any way or you have any questions, let us know and we can just go from there. Looking forward to seeing the thread get started and let me know when it’s at a point where you’d like me to pin it for you. :smile:

Just to be clear, I’m not asking for details around the entire beta (well maybe some) but details around the balance mod/meta beta so that we the testers can prepair test and best provide feedback.

Ah, copy that. I can see where I misunderstood you. Sorry about that! My remarks above are directed at the actual beta itself and not necessarily any community mod betas.

Ok then, over to the community. Time to spam inboxes:
@innociv, @Alpha_1, @Kadeshi, @Cloaked, @ynvaser, @Ursa_Major, @knowledgeseeker, @paradoxnrt, @AOHNH, @Aged,

Thoughts on the above format for keeping an index of balance topics? If I build and maintain this, will you support it?

Btw if I left your name off the list above, don’t take offense, those are just the folks who I see as outspoken in these discussions or I believe have an interest. And I can only mention 10 users in a single post.

1 Like

This is really @Scole’s domain - I imagine he’ll share when he’s ready/able. I’m doing Mod-support and code-support in general for it, but not involved in the day-to-day or structure of things.

I fear too many direct comparison threads and narrow viewpoints when I look at the big picture of things. :confused:

I think the only reason there should be some “urgent” thread that devs are bugged over is for things like that uncounterable bomber rush on research vessels and collectors I showed.

Other things are just so subjective, like the Vaygr BC having too long range. So many flinging back and forth. So many people with this view of “well, Vaygr is worse, so why not let a unit they never get because they should loose nearly 100% of the time before they even tech to it be better?” Even though I agree its range should be shortened for better parity, it’s still such a crazy subjective thing that I can’t say it’s the one and only way to fix it if there even is a problem, even though I think there is… (Like maybe making it stop to charge for half a second and fire is better. Then it can’t reverse permanently out of range shooting, but then it also maybe can’t chase and hit something fleeing unless it works well enough that it’ll fire out of range once it’s gotten in range to target. Theirs lots of possibilities, on top of changing nothing at all)

Often times people don’t look at, or aren’t able to consider, how one change can drastically change many other things that don’t really seem related to it.

And I think it’s hard to then say “here’s a topic for this issue, and it should be this way”. Says who, when it’s full of differing opinions? Some opinions may be better than others, but still.

2 Likes

I think we are going to the right direction Scole already nailed down the key points of balance (really great job!), like lengthening engagements, time to get carrier in HW1 and Frigates resemble HW1 and such, i’m very happy with this kind of focus, things that are pretty clear and evident, instead of the “this is op change it”.

And yeah it gets really subjetive, like the defenders, people keep saying they are OP, i kinda disagree, they are strong, but OP!? humm nah, i never lost a game to a defenders spammer, and people tried to pull that out on me, ohhh they tried.

There are also some game changing points, like redo/rebalance of supports and formations, the formation thing kinda scary me a little, if we get the full potential back it might be the new GOD of HW, forget about cruisers, swarm freaks like me and HW1 vets will dominate using the old school manuevers, that are kinda too strong for the game now, or… maybe not, things like that can be coutnered with EMPs and such, I can see a d-ball getting eliminated by an EMP, well we gonna need some testing, good thing that we are getting the mod for testing ground.

And agree, we need to look the big picture, it is the only way to proper balance the game.

1 Like

I’ll help as I can and while I’m still hopeful about the direction of the game. I’ll point out this thread to Bluehair.

1 Like

I’m not sure if your post is in agreement or disagreement. On the surface, it looks like you disagree, but all of your points:

Are exactly why I suggest and individual thread for an individual issue. It gives the opportunity for the if/thens to be expressed. The BC vs BC is in a way both a good example of this. I personally have only owned 1 BC ;), so for the most part I’ve stayed out and defered to the experts.

In my personal opinion, a .1% decrease in range sounds reasonable to the problem of ‘2 equally skilled players both playing a trump card that statistically should tie does not’. But if the argument that ‘this is balanced due to the number of subjective situations were the other is at a greater advantage’ wins, then so be it. Cloaked’s solution seems to negotiate a distance that still gives the advantage to the current victor in the situation, just increases the skill involved to achieve it, maybe a split difference (500m or 400m range decrease) is the best answer.

Point is that by following the threat I was able to form an informed opinion of the situation. An issue was raised, a solution was offered, multiple people of multiple levels of experience weighed in with multiple subjective yet relevant scenarios. Best of all, the conversation stayed on topic. In my opinion, this is how a balance discussion should work.

What I aim to do here is organize all the single discussions into a one stop shop index of them all so that the ‘big picture of things’ you describe can be seen without having to comb the entire forum for separate points to common issues that may exist in multiple threads of the same topic.

1 Like

Second reply, and I still can’t tell if this is a yes or no to an index and tracking thread. The suggestion here IS a way to look at the big picture.

I absolutely agree on @Scole’s direction! Just not keen on removing one of the research techs to accomplish it if the intent can be accomplished other ways. Imagine a year from now someone starting this game and looking at fighter chassis, corvette chassis, capital ship chassis, and wondering why the developers forgot super cap chassis. Then we have to explain “oh we removed it for multiplayer balancing reasons”.

And the same with HW1 Frigates. When a HW1 frigate comes out I want the enemy to go ‘crap, frigates’ not ‘lolfrigates’ but I don’t want folks to lose sight of the potential of support frigates to throw HW1 vs HW2 balance completely out of whack to the point where HW1 players look at HW2 players and go ‘loldestroyers’.

My point is agreeable to your point that these things need careful consideration and testing. I’m looking only to help organize and streamline the process. Both defenders NOT being OP, and your predictions of the Cries of OP old swarm tactics, vet walls, and Battle/Death-balls would bring are perfect examples of why discussions need to exist. All were counterable in HW and I see no reason why they shouldn’t be counterable w/ HW2 units. The counters may just need to be pointed out in the beginning.

Thanks, @BlueHair_OMO was one of about 15 people I originally tried to call out that was sacrificed to the 10 mention limit. No Offense BlueHair!

2 Likes

Innociv, I definitely agree that looking at the big picture is important. That said I believe that Vaygr BC’s range should only be made closer to Hiig’s, if its resource collection rate rate is also made closer to Hiig. These two simple changes, will make both races relatively balanced on all maps in my humble opinion.

For more discussion, lets take the conversation here

1 Like

Count me in. I have been playing as much as possible and trying to replicate and document all the little quirks and perceived(by me) imbalances.

1 Like

I do approve sir :smile:

1 Like

I for one love the format you proposed. It’d allow in-depth discussion of every change made. The whole balance mod could have it’s own sub-board with the index as a sticky to avoid flooding other boards. I’d say this is definitely the way to go.

1 Like

Hey Blue, ratamaq has some ideas about beta testing feedback. You should check it out. :blush: