Results 1 to 10 of 20
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
  1. #1

    Lightbulb Robocraft's Parts List - Both FreeJam's and Avestron's Takes on Them.

    It was not my wish to post this on the forums so soon - but for some reason players and staff on other mediums are mostly quite reluctant to offer comment.

    The source sheet is available here. <<< Version 1.25 Complete

    This is a set of sheets that outlines:

    - Full stats for parts in Robocraft currently implemented as of early December 2018* (Thanks to CobaltTank for being a massive help with populating this)

    - Full stats for parts in Robocraft as implemented in every version since December 2018

    - An alternative full list of stats for parts in Robocraft that 'could' be (in a post-boosts Robocraft). Its near enough a ground-up re-imagining of Robocraft as it could be.

    - A sheet explaining the various re-balances and new parts mentioned in the second sheet.

    ( * Even if you're not interested in the alternative sheets - its nice to have a one-stop-reference for all the parts in game)

    /\/\/\

    What I would really like to hear from people is their views on the re-balances - and also the new parts outlined. Speculation on how the game could turn out following these changes would also be sweet. :c)

    It'll be especially great if players who spot issues with the reasoning or particular stats could point such out - or raise any concerns that may come to mind. Other thoughts also.

    Finally I will state here that this is one player's re-imagining of Robocraft. Regardless of how great or how poor these proposed re-balances may be - it will take community feedback to get FreeJam to acknowledge its existence, let alone take inspiration from it.
    Last edited by Avestron; 02-07-2019 at 03:55 PM. Reason: Update.

  2. #2
    24 hours later....

    ...I knew that I should have included scandals, hot chicks, welfare stamps and explosions.

    Edit: If you are not a big fan of numbers then you could do worse than to check the commentary sheet. It describes that which is going on in some detail!
    Last edited by Avestron; 02-07-2019 at 03:56 PM. Reason: Update

  3. #3
    Looked through some of the changes, and they seem interesting to say the least. I agree with most of them and I like the new part ideas, expecially the rotary foils but I doubt they'll be added.

    The only thing I have an issue with is the protoseeker change with less energy per shot, I feel that something with autoaim should have drawbacks of some kind and maybe the reduced energy per shot could be countered by a shorter range?

    Overall a cool reimagining of balance, and also a great resource for part stats.
    *Thumbs up*

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Avestron View Post
    24 hours later....
    ...I knew that I should have included scandals, hot chicks, welfare stamps and explosions.
    Pretty much all good feedback falls astray of this lol.

    And it looks good to me. My brain has shrunk due to holiday and stuff tho.

  5. #5
    Yay! Feedback! :c)

    @NathanPhillis

    Oh I am aware that it is very unlikely that any of this will make its way into Robocraft... but hey - maybe someday somebody will say "If FreeJam had implemented..." and make my day. ^_~

    Protoseeker stats have changed a fair bit - and there are definite drawbacks to using it over lasers (so much so that I rename it a 'protolaser' to help set it apart from missile launchers).

    @SteelFlux

    Spending a week (make that over a month) reworking stats does make one eager for feedback. And since this was my last ditch for a little exposure - I did feel the burn of the silence.

    Thanks for the feedback!
    Last edited by Avestron; 02-07-2019 at 03:59 PM. Reason: Update

  6. #6
    Not to shit on the work but i'd much rather have algorithms deal with balance rather than some arbitrary numbers picked by someone based on their thoughts and feelings picked at a fancy, not even the devs should be doing that which they are.

    I personally want proper balance that's fully accountable instead of arbitrary. The only arbitrary values should be what the highest and lowest min and max value of any attribute should be. So basically just setting the game limits and everything is balanced within those limits via algorithms.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by mikelaw View Post
    Not to shit on the work but i'd much rather have algorithms deal with balance rather than some arbitrary numbers picked by someone based on their thoughts and feelings picked at a fancy, not even the devs should be doing that which they are.
    I appreciate the feedback.

    It is true that I do not adopt algorithms to come up with my numbers - and I would be had pressed to say that my numbers are not arbitrary.

    That being said - the numbers that I have come up with were included with 'consistency' and 'measure' in mind.

    Are the values completely consistent? No, but they are a lot more so than the values that we know today.

    While I could not undo the break-from-consistency that mega-weapons and parts bring to the table - I have sought to distribute the costs and power levels a lot more proportionally to their costs. Likewise I took parts that were too closely grouped and provided them with a more paced power-level gain per tier.

    No its not algorithmic - but I do personally believe such to be a significant step forward for Robocraft.

    I personally want proper balance that's fully accountable instead of arbitrary. The only arbitrary values should be what the highest and lowest min and max value of any attribute should be. So basically just setting the game limits and everything is balanced within those limits via algorithms.
    Algorithms sound very nice at face value. However it seems to me that such is a lot simpler said than done.

    You mention the setting of game limits. Would you also give an example of how an algorithm might be applied to any aspect of Robocraft?

    I ask this as I genuinely want to consider the ways in which my work can be improved.

  8. #8
    When i look at balance between things like speed vs health for example. I think you need to look at what are the highest possible values of each going to be in comparison to one another.

    So for instance i set the lowest possible speed for the minimal investment in anything that gives speed, then the highest possible speed based on the most investment that can be made. There's my min max for speed no player should be able to exceed these limits. Then i would do the same for health.

    So put simply....

    The highest speed will be matched to the lowest health and the lowest speed matched to the highest health. An investment in speed will have a direct correlative effect on health. So a 10% investment in speed will mean a 10% reduction in health. This means that making a 10% investment in speed will mean there will be 10% you can NOT invest in health but you still have 90% left to invest.

    This assumes that there is a set CPU level all bots should adhere too. So every player has a 2000 CPU bot for example meaning at 2000 CPU you have 100% investment spread across bot stats. So simply the fastest bots will automatically be the weakest. It's simpler than using forces etc... but either way even adding forces you can still apply into an algorithm.

    It's not half as hard to create balance as people think, you just have to remove the stuff and ideas that make things imbalanced in the first place. For example things like 500CPU bots, shouldn't even exist, there should only be max CPU bots using 100% investment spread in the way they like to play. LMHC is there to create diversity between bots so bots of all shapes and sizes can be made at 2000CPU. Diversity is not an excuse to keep a useless system that creates imbalance.

    You can't balance 500 CPU bots against 2000 CPU bots and you should never try too. Just set the limits the player is bound by, it doesn't prevent diversity. Metas prevent diversity due to the imbalance that gets exploited that makes them the flavour of meta at the time.

    You can't just use 500 CPU at like a 25% investment then expect some arbitrary damage boost to make up for the fact that you only built 1/4 of a bot. It doesn't account for much of anything.

    Anyway my point is that if you want balance you need to correlate all the stats of all the parts and create an algorithm that automatically sets those stats based on a couple values given at it's conception. Something like you set the size and CPU value for an armour piece. The algorithm then decides how much it should weigh and how much health it has for example. These stat values shouldn't be picked out of thin air based on a feeling or opinion because it just doesn't work, forever tweaking numbers to sorta make it work is just too dumb for me and ultimately a bigger waste of time trying to get it right when everything can instantly change when you add a new thing. In the long run you're just creating more work for yourself the bigger the games assets grow.

  9. #9
    I see.

    I would generally agree that a higher CPU bot should be more effective (although differences in build technique will mean that not all 2K bots are created equal).

    I would quite agree also with the concept of a maximum speed for movement parts.

    /\/\/\

    The thing is that my take on the matter for the most part removes boosts 'and' steps away from % gains entirely.

    Your take on algorithms sounds a lot like you are aiming for consistency and in truth, again, my figures aim towards that goal.

    Perhaps however I may be misunderstanding how an algorithm is supposed to produce values for a bot in a non-arbitrary fashion without also making it counter-intuitive for builders who no longer have a static arbitrary value per part to keep in mind.

  10. #10
    Cool actually... And yes it should feature explosions