Easier balance for TRUCE AMONG ROGUES (TAR)

I'm going to have to say I'm against this, only because I feel it would push everyone into playing the same way, regardless of race, the only difference would be Rebel or Loyalist.

With regards to the Advent, I liked the idea of them getting access to their culture buffs (cheaper platforms/natural spread) faster in order to choke out TAR rushing.

Vasari, no idea.

Actually that is what exists RIGHT NOW with economy player's lack of options.  People spam trade ports, people already play the same way.  TAR would provide another important choice to have an economy based on planets first, instead of spamming trade ports to victory.  This would only improve replayability, because as it stands economy players have a dull "must achieve maximum resource efficiency to get strongest economy first" repetitive play style.

my idea would just allow eco players more options about when/if to go for planets early, based upon the randomized layout of the map.  This gives YOU the player the choice, and by making this choice you will be having a lot more fun.

I agree...TAR makes the TEC rebels unique, and giving such a bonus to other factions is only going to make them less unique...if everyone has TAR, all you've done is replace one bland strategy (trade port spamming) for another...and to be honest, I don't see how TAR really prevents trade port spamming...

Tar doesn't prevent trade port spamming, it gives rebel players another option besides trade port spamming.  You aren't really reading/thinkingabout the details of the idea, which i would strongly suggest you do.

the TEC faction will still feel unique, and here is why.

It will have a very cheap quick access to tar.  This will allow them to far more effectively spread out throughout the map then any other rebel race.  They will still feel unique, even if other races can use TAR.  The TEC rebels will feel like they are everywhere, more so then the other rebel factions.

this is a different way of thinking about the problem, so naturally i am not surprised i'm meeting initial resistance.  I'm quite confident that once people really start to think about the idea it will come to them as quite good.  I'm focused on the long term replayability of the game more so then the impact of a potential initial change.

I was talking about players in general, not just the one or two guys in an eco spot, if there even is one.

Yes i understand Mr. Haze.

I'm trying to balance better for having a TAR player in the eco spot though.  As it stands, a competent player in the eco spot using tar will own about half the map in short order.  THE ONLY BALANCE TO THIS IS TO HAVE A GOOD CHANCE THAT YOUR ECO PLAYER ALSO HAS T.A.R.!!!!!! So increasing the likelihood of playing a match with T.A.R. means there will be balance.

As it stands, TAR is a fundamental imbalance in the game, that would become apparent the longer more players play the game.  Developers will try to balance this later on and be up against a wall because of a lot of other factors.

In fact, this is so game breaking as to justify tar being removed or severely hampered to the point of it becoming almost irrelevant.

Why get rid or marginalize a good idea, when in fact you can just implement it differently?

To reiterate, most players online use random maps, by increasing the % chance close to 50% for players having a TAR eco spot you will have more games balanced overall. Also, the developers could instead give multiplayer games on ICO the option to choose starting locations (without seeing the rest of the map, naturally).

Games with balanced economy allow for player skill to shine through.  Right now the TEC economy is imbalanced, it is far too good.  It has TAR.  It has the best economy options of any faction.  

This will mean that your TEC opponent always has the resources it needs and overcomes any unit vs. unit balances in the game, making most things in the game irrelevant.  The TEC is balanced around a certain level of economic superiority.  Yet, any time this is exceeded the TEC will easily roll on through.  TAR makes the ability to exceed the economic balance a certainty, not random chance.

I am thinking about it, and I don't think things will pan out the way you think they will...

TAR at tier 3 means rush colonizing is clearly the superior choice to not rush colonizing and instead building only trade ports...when one option is clearly better, that's not really a "choice" anymore...it's like saying you have a choice between spamming trade ports and spamming refineries...sure, you technically have a choice but for all intents and purposes there is only one good choice, and hence, no choice....

Your idea is equivalent to giving all Loyalist factions the ability to automatically spawn culture from planets, or giving 3 of the six factions the ability to have their Titan be their HW, or giving 3 factions the ability to have superweapons at tier 6...it takes an advantage that made one faction unique and gives it to three factions, making it less unique...game balance aside, you are promoting less variety...

I disagree...that's like saying the TEC are unique because they get trade ports at tier 2 instead of tier 3...while it may be an advantage, it is not unique...in the end, all 3 factions spam trade ports, TEC simply can do it slightly earlier...the only way you can make a universal trait somehow unique is if a faction gets that advantage significantly earlier...for example, if TEC got TAR at tier 2 but the other factions got it at tier 5, then you would have grounds to call it unique...

The issue here isn't that people don't like TAR...its that you are taking a very cool concept, a very unique technology, and making it no longer unique...

TEC = credits.

Vasari = resources.

Advent = culture.

I think they balance each other nicely and from what I've tested TAR just makes one TEC faction better at what it's already good at.

From what I've read here one Advent get better culture and I suspect one Vasari faction get better resources. If so then I don't see a problem.

This is unfortunately a true statement....however, fundamental changes to TAR could make it viable...for example, it affects militia but not pirates, or somehow the player can destroy militia units even if they have TAR...

The Advent culture thing is very high level and has lots of prereqs (and they aren't even useful pre-reqs)...no confirmation on what Vasari will get that is comparable to TAR...

If the TEC Loyalists and Advent Rebels had something comparable to TAR in terms of power, and the Advent Loyalists automatic culture came earlier, then people may not have a problem with TAR as is...

exactly, because it would be EVEN COOLER to add more diversity to economic options for all rebel players.  TAR isn't just a "good idea for unique gameplay for a faction", its a GREAT idea to mix up the entire game, simply, easily. 

I also think that pirates need a buff, and controlling pirates is a very cool unique way of adding to the rebels "uniquely cool" aspect.  Developers should focus on this to make this a better idea, a better part of the game overall.  Then being unique won't be an issue, because the TEC rebels will be essentially, pirates.  ARRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!

Fair enough point.  I agree that tier 3 with no research prerequisites was kinda OP.  I am using this as a base balance though, to move onto the main idea.  Naturally if this needed to be changed because it gives the TEC rebels TOO MUCH of an advantage then it would be OP and get switched.  TAR at tech level 4 for TEC and tech level 5 for every other rebel faction provides more balance, no?

Oh I agree, and i've made a response similar to this idea.  I'm just saying i think i've found a better solution then even this, one that would benefit the game even more.

TEC ARE unique because they get trade earlier...playing and experiencing the game shows how unique they really are, and all strategies surrounding their earlier trade ports make them a force in the game.

SO YES, TEC ARE UNIQUE even though technically all races can have access to trade ports.

Major point incoming:

What is important is that the player's EXPERIENCE playing the game is unique, not necessarily whether or not they can build the same structures.  This is where sins rocks, and other games fail.

The player's experience is majorly altered by having TEC trade ports occur earlier, because having a strong economy is the #1 path to victory in this game.  Truce among rogues has proven itself to be strong enough to be a #1 path to victory in the game all by itself.

Why keep it in one faction when the idea is obviously bigger then one faction?

Another problem with this is that Insurgents (that tier 8 civilan research Rebels only need to research for the next step to get more free reinforcements) will become even more useless or even hurtful. If all rebel factions were immune to it all you do by researching it is reinforcing the enemy defenses, and as is now the research is already only helpful if the insurgents happen to land on an unprepared gravitywell.

Unless you want to make "spamming insurgents until the rebel players computer gives in" a new strategy.

I'm also not fond of the idea to make the rebel factions similar to each other. Advent are about culture, Vasari about phasejumping related abilites and TEC about fast unit-prodution. Truce amongs rogues fits the TEC well, the various new advent culture researches fit the advent factions well, and I'm sure the new Vasari techs will fit them well, too. Why trying to break that up by giving one clearly faction-specific research to other factions?

@ mcintire

Hmm spamming insurgents is impossible, the insurgents appear with increasing frequency at low loyalty worlds at random intervals....nothing OP about this at all. at worst you have a 50% chance for this ability to be effective or not at all, so depending upon the game you adapt and overcome and proceed as the situation dictates...

Rebel factions being more resistant to insurgents is logical, because rebel factions are hard as hell to infiltrate...using a modern case and point, alkaida...lol(if we could have infiltrated alkaida, we would have..).  So naturally if you are facing a rebel opponent you wouldn't be so quick to tech for max level insurgency... In fact this makes the TEC rebel faction seem more like rebels anyways...

There currently is nothing that ties in the rebels as rebels, the loyalists as loyalists.  These currently are just empty names, with hints of storyline to justify them.  The military aspect of rebels being rebels, and loyalists being loyalists isn't even touched in this game.

Dear Devs: Storyline has never been this games strong point, please don't start making up a story to justify design decisions and pull a blizzard pls.

@ ravagus  You're oversimplifying things

Taking "Loyalist" and "Rebel" too literally there Sareth.

Loyalists are sticking to the original doctrine.
TEC: Survive, hold space, protect their people
Advent: Assimilate or destroy
Vasari: Steal resources, run away.

The "Rebels" are rebelling against the ways of the main faction.
TEC: "Lash out", exterminate all non-TEC, peace be damned.
Advent: Seeking the ways of the pre-exile Advent and abandoning the vengeance in favour of soul searching and peace.
Vasari: No more running, get everyone to stop in-fighting, cooperate and make a stand.

If you want to make an argument for Advent Rebels and Vasari Rebels having TAR style abilities from a plot point of view, it would be because they aren't complete tyrants like they're Loyalist counterparts. Though I'm still against this and am convinced there's a better way of balancing TAR that doesn't involve killing variety.

Edit - Oh, and here's food for thought Sareth, someone suggested recently that local militia be changed so that not all planets have TEC militia, there would be Advent and Vasari militia out there as well.

This would cut the effectiveness of TAR and would mean the TEC Rebel in the eco slot would still have to have at least some planet clearing capabilities since they could only make peace with the TEC militias.

Edit 2 - You know what, I'm going to expand on that some more.

Asteroids - Random (Doesn't matter what kind of light and siege frigates are there really anyway, they can already be captured with a single Protev.)
Terran - TEC
Desert - Advent
Volcanic - Vasari
Ice - Random

The idea being that each race's "favoured planet" has the corresponding race guarding it, Ice doesn't have a race that favours it though, so it's left out in the cold (ho ho) and would have to be random, or perhaps just TEC by default.

@ mr. haze

Yet you fail to see how variety is actually being increased by changing the player experience.  Eco players benefit from a balance of planet acquisition and trade port construction(which hasn't ever been the case..you build trade ports and thats it, normally).  This gives them 2 things to do instead of one, making economic strategy far more versatile to accommodate the random aspect of the map.  This fits well with ALL the rebels, because rebels are a weaker force splintering off from a stonger established force, a smaller force which adapts better to the changes in random map placement then the loyalists.  This is a great way to give the player the "feel" of being more resourceful and adaptive as a rebel then being a loyalist.  Its all about the player experience, not what it looks like on paper.  The entirity of brain chemistry, to my knowledge, hasn't been codified.  Until then, we'll have to go with good ol' fashioned gut feeling.

Also you are using storyline to justify game mechanics, while I am using game mechanics to justify storyline.  This is important to distinguish because there is no actual "feeling" inherent in the game design itself that gives the player a feeling that "hell ya i'm a rebel!!!"  Or..."i'm a fricken loyalist baby, rebels be damned".  There is no unique aspect in these factions aside from some small storyline elements and the titles themselves.

I am proposing a change in thinking, that a change in TAR could provide this feeling masterfully, and still allow all factions to remain unique.

edit:

Tar is a bigger idea then that though, all by itself it can be a welcome relief to add some diversity to economic play.  Trust me if you were to play the game as I have outlined it would provide a better experience as an economic player while taking away from nothing else.  If you haven't noticed, I spend a lot of time thinking about this beta. 

Where did I say anythig about OP? If anything the ability gets worthless, that's the whole point.

There is a distinctive difference between rebels and terrorists, al-Qaida is not a rebel oganization (even if it may have been in the past). Truce amongs rogues is actually quite the un-rebel like ability. Bribing neutral factions into sitting still while you fight a war on their their territory is more of the way a government (or in this case, the loyalists) would work.

The Rebels actually got quite the rebel like abilites. If I see it right every rebel faction gains quite a boost from bombing enemy planets, which I would equivalent for raiding a governments facilites for weapons or loot that can be turned into money to support their cause.

@ mcintire

the enemy of my enemy is my friend.  Pirates by definition are the enemy of the government, pirates would more likely ally with rebels over the existing government that made them outlaws.  This line of thinking is inherent in the meaning of what it is to be a pirate, and a long bloody history that is associated with the term.

You didn't say anything about me, this is called defending your position in a debate, the reader will decide who has the stronger position.

@ Seleuceia
Ah. Well I didn't have enough time this weekend to play much so I missed that the Advent culture thing is a late tech. Doesn't sound like it's that useful then.

@ sareth01
I am simplifying for a reason. It's easy to get stuck in thinking about various changes for something that might be imbalanced while losing track of what the other factions are good at to compensate.

@ Mr.Haze
I've also thought about having more variety in faction troops that guards unclaimed wells.
Though I haven't gone so far as to categories them as you did. methinks that would add a lot of variety.

yet this simply is not occuring.  It is easy for people who have little experience playing the game of sins to fall into this trap, yes i would agree.  I would say that based upon my time playing this game and never seeing you play online, I have a bit more experience in this matter then you do(the AI isn't going to be able to exploit truce among rogues like a player can...). 

All I know of is that in a consensus of actual live real Ironclad Online players beta testing this game, Truce Among Rogues is going to be fundamentally broken(many were advocating full removal!!!), unless the idea is marginalized or everything else is improved.  These big changes will throw off balance in many other areas, causing a "wall of crap" that the developers won't be able to deal with.

I don't want to see this occur, so rethinking how Truce Among Rogues is implemented is a great time saver that doesn't mean the ability has to be marginalized or just plainly kicked out of the game.

The reason I say it would cut variety is that if I'm understanding your proposition right, not only would the eco players be rushing for TAR... every Rebel in the game would, every Rebel would all be about "get TAR, spam colony frigates, hope you don't get rushed."

Then the Loyalists would all have to spam whatever they have that counters all the TARing, I'm also just going to point out that cheaper siege frigates doesn't come close to being enough here, since the Loyalists have to fight through the Rebel player's ships AND all the free militia guards he's been given before they can even think about planetary siege.

I can see how it would add diversity to the guys in the eco slot, but it would also just lump everyone else into one strategy, I feel you're focusing too much on that one slot to consider what this would do to say, the poor sap in the suicide spot who has two Rebel factions next to him, for example.

Finally, if I'm understanding you right, this idea came about because of the fact that if, in a 5v5 game, one side got a TEC Rebel in the eco slot, they had a huge advantage over the other side. However, even with this idea... what happens if one side gets a TEC Rebel in an eco spot and the other gets a Vasari Loyalist? The same problem still occurs.

The reason I kind of like the idea of diversifying milita as a way of balancing TAR (besides the part where StarClad already need to set up a system that would work like this regardless, due to the occupation planet) is that it still gives TEC Rebels incentive to go for TAR (some free planets out there, maybe even free terrans 100% of the time) but doesn't allow them to do nothing but send out colony frigates, since there are still going to be militia out there that want them dead.

Its not so cut and dried, remember how random maps ensure that no strategy ever will be the only key to victory. So your opponent decides to use the strategy you just outlined.  You Spam cheaper siege frigates to blast the crap out of rebel planets (man I would feel like a loyalist doing this!!!! LOL).  all you need is 1 siege frigate to put up pressure on a rebel world, so smart players would pressure as many worlds as possible so that the rebel faction can't defend all the planets.  This would force rebel players to limit their truce among rogues exploitation, or in other words "self balance based upon the needs of the moment.  In this case  the "moment" is being under attack at all points with siege frigates.  The rebels would build a fleet to kick the crap out of these lil planet bombers (and/or turret spam) to protect their assets.  In this way the insanity of rebels owning everything is going to be SELF limited, based upon their economic choices.  FYI, this is also the same line of thinking that real world economists use to control and manipulate the economy.

So at this point, this is where the cheap siege frigates are so crucial to the counter.  You will start to lose siege frigates as the loyalists, so you will have to build more fleet to blow up the opponents fleet, or you will have to build more siege frigates and bomb harder.  Either way, cheaper frigates ensure that this is a viable counter, since as is siege frigates are overpriced to be really useful, and the attrition of losing siege frigates without a reduction in cost would cause you to just outright lose the fight against the rebels.  The rebels can colonize as much as they have antimatter, you can bomb as much as you have planet bombers.

balance maintained.  Considering you would likely have (in the law of large numbers) about an even 50/50 split of loyalist vs. rebel players you would overall have balance.

would some games be imbalanced at the start? YES.  This already occurs.

Yes the vasari player will be limited by having to get many neutrals in the beginning and teching for metals and crystal, and focusing on trade.  The vasari in the eco spot is actually extremely strong and will remain so, because vasari starbases are so cost effective its rediculous.  Vasari loyalists would make up the difference...frankly i'm more scared about WHO the vasari player in the eco spot is, not the vasari capability to be the eco spot...lol

 You have a good idea, it would marginalize TAR though. Also, who knows what programming this would take (i don't know).  If this can't be done with the existing game engine then its a moot point ya? Defining something in programming is one of the hardest parts of doing the job, at least from what i know...so it sounds like an engine change (which probably won't happen).

This is where a programmer who knows the sins engine comes in with a really good reasonable response.

I don't play online no. But I have played Sins extensively on Lan and in singleplayer. Do not think that all that matters are online competitive play. Many gamers don't want the grief you get playing online and I have seen many a game suffer from the fact that the online competitive players think that they are the only gamers that matter. So tone it down will you.

The only thing I suggested was that concentrating on TAR only is not the only answer there is.

And yes. I agree that TAR need to be tweaked or the other factions to be balanced to counter this somewhat. But I'd rather have this conversation after we have tested the other factions for a while. We simply do not know how they will play yet. Stardock might already have fixed this internally for all we know.

@ ravagus

I agree tar isn't the only answer there could be, but it could be a GREAT answer, not just a "good" answer.

Playing competitively against other players is where the game balance needs to occur.  The single players can have a lot of fun long term and not need a single one of these changes, it is true.  The reason for these changes is to allow the multiplayer community to have fun by not having to face untold numbers of imbalances that hurt the enjoyment of the game long term(multiplayer sins is very fun!!!).  Long term enjoyment of an RTS allows you to have a game as popular as starcraft, something I think the developers of this game are ambitious and capable enough to achieve(even if everyone realizes it might not ever be quite as popular as starcraft, because these developers have chosen to cater to a different target market).  They could still get rich off this target market though, and i've given my dollars freely.

actually the time to have this conversation is RIGHT NOW, because the developers aren't done designing the nuances of the factions yet, and there is still plenty of time to beta test a change of reasonable magnitude.  Truce among rogues isn't buggy, its simple, which makes it all the easier to implement bug free.

The developers were smart and gave themselves time...we are working with really good developers guys, just realize this !!! 

@ sareth: I don't think you quite understood what I was implying in my first post, neither did you understand what I stated in the following posts...

I state that truce among rogues will become less useful or even hurtful to the player using it. The reason behind this is simply that insurgents will stack up on rebel planets (ignoring the faction) and reinforce their defenses. In a game with mixed factions/allegiances this can be quite annoying, especially if the tech would have helped against another non-rebel player (thanks to weakly-defended/undefended planets).

Your answer to this is that truce among rogues will not become overpowered because it cannot be spammed (which I never talked about).

I ask you where I claimed that the ability becomes overpowered and you tell me that I didn't talk about you? I'm not quite sure you're actually trying to understand what I have been saying...

I find it intriguing you pull the "I'm online more so I have more experience" card here, since I for one play online a lot, too, but just don't use the ICO system at all. Jumping to assumptions is going to get you killed in war.

"HEY, one cheap siege frigate is enough to bomb a planet, just counter spam with them and the tech will balance itself" Great idea, just a slight problem with it: How the heck am I supposed to get my lone siege frigate into range when that desert planet right at the border is being guarded by 15 to 20 neutral militia ships? Okay, I could send in a capship and mop up first, but that'd kinda break your whole idea, right? Any ideas from your side?

I'm also wondering why you're riding the economy horse so much, I have always liked how each faction in Sins advertized it's own playstyle, despite the similar (at first glance) set of ships and structures. Why push the rebel factions closer together with this research when each rebel faction has it's own merits already? From my brief experience playing the Advent rebels they don't really lack this ability, nor would their playstyle benefit much from it. I'm sure it's similar for the Vasari.

Edit: btw, I like how you tell us to trust the great developers but you don't seem to trust them at all, since after getting your hand on the TECs you already claim that truce among rogues is the one techonology all rebels will need. Why not a little trust on your side and see how the other two factions play out before jumping the horse? Even if they are finished outlining the Advent and Vasari after the release that doesn't mean that they'll ignore player input afterwards. I'm sure if people felt that such a change is needed they will have no problems just adding it.

Edit 2: fixed some typos

@ macintire

I'm online right now in sins beta, come 1v1 me and see where your skills are.  I was looking at your forum join date as a rough interpretation of how much experience you have.  If i am in error lets let the game decide.

If you are confused please just reread and think about it.

great point!  the point is that as it stands cheap bombers in themselves are also overpowered.  So, you would have to clear planets of their militia's and the loyalists would be rushing a fleet to deal with these nuisances.  A strongly defended world would have to be bypassed, its true.  But, a rush fleet + capital ship would deal with these ships easily enough, all the while the rebels are losing planets to ever increasing numbers of planet bombers.  The time it takes for the TAR spammer to react to this would mean that they have already lost a few planets.

Edit, you can also use scouts to lure defense units to one side of the grav well and just assault with pure siege frigates (as long as you have like 10 or so) and lose maybe 1 before a low HP planet is bombed out.

A rebel player who chooses to build up a rush fleet themselves is choosing not to exploit truce among rogues to the fullest and therefore the game balance isn't ruined because of the choice that is made.

Also, remember everyone has a free capital ship to support their fleet

because economy is one of the two important strategies in the game.  "hold the line so i can make money to overwhelm my opponent" or "blow the crap out of my opponent faster then he blows the crap out of me".  both are great paths to victory, focusing on economics is prudent because it is so easy to imbalance the economics of the game.  You would have to increase damage a lot from all units to imbalance the military side, and that probably won't happen.

Making a suggested game change implies that I trust the developers are actually capable of doing so...if I thought otherwise I wouldn't waste my time.  Hence the discussion, we need to demonstrate by having a discussion so that they can observe and make whatever changes they deem worthy.  This is how participation in a beta works, this is how you can "communicate" to the developers.

I clearly trust the developers, because I have played this game for so long and invested in 4 copies of trinity, and pre bought the rebellion expansion, plus my original purchase of sins, sins entrenchment, and sins diplomacy.  My money is where my mouth/keyboard is.  I also clearly state that I trust them.  The point is, we the players and the developers both agree that a game needs a BETA TEST because no person is a perfect game designer.  It takes a team.  Players become in a small way a part of that team by participating in a beta test.  Teams need good communication.  This is an attempt at good communication.  I assume with some people I will fail...its life.  I hope I succeed with the developers though.

I can tell you right there that I suck pretty bad (since me and my friends aren't competetive players and often take our time setting up before bashing our heads in), saves us both two hours of playtime we could have used more intelligently.

The forum join-date has barely any worth at all, I've been playing for two years before joining, the beta was what actually made me end up here. Also skills can be decieving. Even if you are good at playing the game, predicting how new game-mechanics will affect new factions is another deal.

The way you talk about how you trust the devs and try to prove it by having bought xyz copies of their previous products sounds like a teenager showing off his new gaming console... If anything it shows you have lots of money to waste.

The beta will not end once the other races are unlocked, the real beta-work, fine-balancing the factions with each other, will start right there. The only reliable way for us players to judge if truce among rogues is a good ability to give to all rebel factions is to actually playtest the other rebel factions and provide feedback based on that. Telling the devs that they should scrap their concept of the other races in favor of that one ability before even trying out the finished versions of the races is... retarded. What we know aobut the other two races comes from half a day of leaked beta and modded versions of rebellion that have even less finished versions of the races.