What do you mean? look, GTTOP wants overheat to be added for corn shotgun. this will be removing fun, yes.
have fun stealing ideas and upgrade them.
2 Likes
And make WBP meaningless, yes
2 Likes
That’s not the problem. The problem is that it deals way more flat damage than any other weapon in the game.
Disregarding its weapon group, it has 20k DPS on 
10 and 25k on 20. Mainly due to having a 5/s manual fire rate on those levels. Note that even with popcorn it still has 20k on max power.
I don’t understand why it even has that. Automatic should be adjusted to have a smoother progression and manual should me made to match that.
I wasn’t going to propose any more weapon changes, as this is clearly a lost cause, but I guess I’ll do it.
NOTE: The firing periods for Corn 2.0 were measured by audio analysis, and may not be 100% accurate. Still, they’ll give you a pretty good idea of how CS 2.0 performs. True fire rate was calculated based off of these firing periods.
If anything, it’s a noob’s weapon… I can’t read, apparently.
It’s already meaningless. There is no “balancing” going on, just reworks. IA’s ideas to implement weapons with different numbers of power levels, as well as disregard for the balance in the competitive sphere of the game (as if it would negatively impact casual players) means that there will be no balance.
(EDIT: Not to mention these reworks. Corn and Laser are absolute disasters, Boron has a bunch of issues that Sufi already talked about, Photon needs to have its whole progression reworked becuase it’s too strong on low power and Hyper, to a lesser extent, will suffer from the same issue. I already talked about Positron, and I haven’t had much time to think about Lightning 2.0 and Riddler 2.0)
But hey, at least one user seems happy about this turn of events.
At most, we can try to salvage what we can. Galbatorix, I, and others who have been helping us with WBP 2.0 really have had enough, though.
13 Likes
Dude, noöne in their right mind ever though that perfect balance could be achieved. Every weapon will perform better or worſe in different ſituätions.
The WBP ſeems to have rendered ſome ſeemingly irrecoverable weapons uſeful, and moſt of what we’re ſeeïng now is
- people complaining about weapons they haven’t yet figured out how to uſe effectively,
- people complaining that ſome weapons makes it hard to uſe an excel table to figure out the beſt ſtrategy (this is why Boron was forced into the 11 level model),
- people complaining that ſome weapons need a firepower fix, generally uſing their excel table as evidence. Perſonally, I do not think that Corn is OP, ſimply becauſe it is a ſpread weapon with unpredictable volleys, meaning that you can never rely on it to get you out of a tough ſituätion. Alſo, becauſe its damage is ſpread, it’s ſlow to kill that 1 miniboſs that you really need to take out ASAP.
Given the kinds of complaints, I think that the WBP was largely a ſucceſs. I think ſome of the complaints can be put down to people complaining for the fun of it, and ſome can be attributed to medalhunters.
As for the remaining complaints, I would like to point out a great way to fine-tune everything. It’s not my idea, and when firſt ſuggeſted it went over like a lead balloon, but I think it is definitely worth reconſideration. I’m referring to this poſt by IA, ſuggeſting automatic buffs and nerfs baſed on weapon uſage. This would be very effective for fine-tuning, while alſo encouraging people to experiment every ſo often, as when a weapon goes out of faſhion (either becauſe it’s not great or due to pſychological and/or cultural factors) it’ll graduälly become better.
1 Like
Speak for yourself. Yes, “perfect” is a strong word, but at least we could’ve tried to make them perform on a similar level. Leave it up to the player what weapon they prefer to use, how they want to play.
You and IA have clearly shown us that that you’d rather have weapons perform differently. Not because they have to, but because you want them to.
So yes, I am now arguing just for the sake of arguing (not a medal hunter, though).
It’s funny that to you this is a matter of fitting a weapon into a table. Especially considering that we have been the ones working on them for months, we probably should be obsessed with them by now.
Well, I suppose at least we are aware of how weapons actually perform…
This gem from Strontiüm Spreader :
Maybe you should make some tables, too.
We’ve already expressed our opinion about this (different numbers of power levels) several times, and we now understand why we’re being ignored. Let’s continue.
I think you overestimate how much of an effect its RNG spread has, especially on high power. Either way, it does not justify it having 25k. Also, it technically doesn’t overheat. I have no idea why galbatorix originally gave it 19k, as that was clearly too much for a weapon with such a big advantage over others.
We’ve said it many times already, but I am going to repeat it once. Weapon popularity does not necessarily match their performance.
As a matter of fact, galbatorix has tested the weapon virtuosity bonus as of yesterday. Here are the results:
- Hypergun 9,8%
- Riddler 9,3%
- Boron Railgun 8,7%
- Laser Cannon 8,5%
- Corn Shotgun 7,6%
- Absolver Beam 7,1%
- Vulcan Chaingun 6,6%
- Positron Stream 5,9%
- Neutron Gun 5,2%
- Lightning Fryer 5%
- Ion Blaster 4,5%
- Plasma Rifle 4,1%
- Photon Swarm 0,6%
- Utensil Poker 0%
With Automatic Weapon Balancing™ Laser Cannon and Corn Shotgun, the two SS tier weapons in the game (Ion could arguably be added to that as well, because it seems like overheat rate has generally been overlooked in the earlier rework implementations) would get a damage boost. Meanwhile Photon Swarm sits right below Utensil, probably because “OMG Colorz!” and “ZOMG Homing!”.
4 Likes
I think that here you’ve gotten to the heart of the matter. What is your goal in balancing weapons?
In my opiniön, the goal is to avoid ſituätions in which ſome weapons are ſpurned by the majority of the community, while others are uſed the moſt by far. If weapon A performs better than weapon B, people are goïng to pick weapon A every time, once they’ve figured it out. I think that the balance of eaſe of uſe, ſatisfaction in uſe (i.e. the pſychological component), overheat, damage, fire rate, and ſo on is nigh on impoſſible to effectively model. Eventuälly, you juſt have to let the community to pick the beſt one.
p.s. Thoſe ſtats are moſt intriguing.
2 Likes
I can only speak for myself here. I would prefer if weapons generally performed at a similar level (taking into account factors such as ease of use, of course), so that the player would have a choice of what weapons to use, whether based on their performance or more subjective factors such as gameplay style and the audiovisual aspect. Let’s leave popularity/weapon usage out of this and just let the players use whatever they prefer, that’s my opinion on this.
Indeed, however I can’t say they’re enough to draw conclusions. I don’t know how often the virtuosity bonus resets (and when the most recent reset occurred), but it’d be worth measuring it a few more times to see how the reworks affect the weapons’ popularity.
Though if Photon stays this high, then something’s definitely up.
3 Likes
Why when the player enter a Wormhole orbit he goes to the back a little instead of to the front?
For some reason, the time ago thing does not update automatically, you have to click on it to see the new time:
this is before clicking it:
this is after clicking it:
1 Like
Yes, that’s becauſe it only updates when the liſt item is refreſhed ſhowing the newly calculated value.
Workaround:
Don’t take 6 minutes to decide on a miſſion.
2 Likes
No, you’ve got that backwards. Virtuosity is proportional to weapon UNpopularity. Utensil Poker is at 0% because it’s the most popular weapon. It would never get a damage boost. Damage boost (if ever implemented) would be directly proportional to virtuosity.
Sorry, misunderstanding. Yes, you’re right.
Reworks are only the first phase of balancing. Some of your own suggestions require changes to the mechanics, and these take iterations to get right. No one (hopefully) is assuming that the current state of weapons is anywhere close to being finalized.
Also, just because I can’t keep up with suggestions doesn’t mean they’re ignored.
I’ve just noticed an oversight in the way corn shortgun handles manual firing. This is a mistake more than anything else. From memory, laser is as close to the WBP suggestions as I could make it, but it’s possible I messed up something there, too. Will have a closer look.
Same with the other weapons. Don’t assume the worst. I’m not purposefully ignoring anything. Much like everything else, WBP is not immune to implementation bugs at my end.
I don’t see why you treat it as an attack on WBP if I want to have a couple of weapons in the game with non-standard power levels. Currently, all weapons (sans Absolver) have the same number, so I see it as an unreasonable (or at least premature) complaint. There’s plenty of existing weapons to choose from. I agree that an overpowered niche weapon can mess things up, but this is not the case now and, if it ever becomes the case in the future, it will be nerfed. There’s no reason to be preemptively offended.
Competitive is important, otherwise I wouldn’t have even tackled WBP in the first place. I know how competitive feels like, I was ranked #1 in the world back in my day. It’s a constant optimization battle and search for the dominant strategy. If you let it, it will destroy all enjoyment. But you can still have a competitive core (say, 10 weapons) while still leaving room for individual player expression. Or for those poor casual players that just want to have fun 
9 Likes
It has to do with wrong sizing of wormhole constellations. It’s already been fixed (I think) but it requires a galaxy regeneration.
3 Likes
You might want to take a look at its manual overheat.
It’s mostly a result of releasing frustration that’s been slowly growing for the past few weeks.
As far as introducing such weapons, the way I see it, balancing all weapons for the competitive sphere* will not harm casual players (Am I wrong?). I also can’t really imagine any case in which a weapon would have to use a different model than 0-10 + 20 due to its inherent design.
And if boron got 0-11 + 20 in CI4, why only add such weapons now? I could easily imagine Positron and Riddler having 0-20 and yet you didn’t do that.
I know we disagree on that, but I don’t view the number of power levels to be a part of a weapon’s character (referring to Absolver here). Audiovisuals and gameplay, absolutely.
*I should probably elaborate on what I actually mean by this. In my opinion, if weapons, taking into account how they are used (how much “skill” or care they require), can be judged as performing relatively equally on high (within reasonable bounds, anyway) difficulty, then they can be considered as balanced, or “competitive”.
I appreciate that, however resigned we may be. We were on the verge of cancelling this project several times before, and after the conversation about Boron (and the admittedly rather short-lived 11 upgrade on Vulcan), we decided it’s probably for the best to just leave it and let you and the rest of the community sort it out. We decided that we were getting nowhere and admitted failure (there died the DM and the weapon ideas).
When I talked about getting ignored, I wasn’t really talking about the reworks themselves, the raw values. Rather about your design philosophy (different numbers of power levels, damage stages instead of smooth ramping for Boron, powerups resetting Boron to 0% heat, and so on), which we know we disagree on. We have no reason to believe that we can change your mind about these things, and that’s okay. After all, it is your game and the final decision is yours. We tried to help, and at least we might’ve managed to make the weapon roster a little bit better.
I might stick around a little longer, if you’re interested in tweaking some stuff. I don’t know if I’ll end up making more elaborate posts like the Plasma/Positron and Absolver ones, though.
6 Likes
I will test to see whether Plasma rifle’s AOE is affected by damage amplifier or not
what if i want to add something to my name, I have to pay 90 keys can IA make it 45 keys instead of 90 keys (if i want to add something to my name not changing name)
1 Like
Add what for example? Adding is counted as changing.
1 Like
no no no i mean by changing delete the old name and write a new name
So you want the cost reduced? The cost is fine for me. also adding or these things are counted changing, so keep it like that.