Ok, I only have a few minutes, but the init_items is ceretainly NOT in need of the overhaul Grey Roger supposes, and indeed to do so at this stage would scrap much of the experiments.
First,
@Grey Roger , you describe me as "quite insistent." I moved the stats for tizona halfway between your prefereed and my prefered values, and gave you exactly what you want on light tizona's price (despite me hating that change). If that is "quite insistent", I'd hate to hear what you'd call a "fair compromise."
And if your storyline is unbalanced by a measly +2 to damage on one sword, then you have the most subtle balancing I've ever seen in a game.
As for the blacksmith costs, they are in characterutilite, and easy to tweak. Again, sword costs themselves should not be returned to the old inconsistent values, and should NOT be increased. Swords are finally in a reasonable relation to ship prices and each other, moreover, the player now gets to loot armor.
Probably what Grey Roger is most noticing is NOT the effects of the experiment, which mostly brought sword costs into line with the reasonably priced swords (ie, there were always swords of great caliber with similar prices, this just made all swords consistent with those), but the effects of the 50% reduction in sword cost that we ALL discussed and agreed to about a month ago, because land loot was found too profitable. Anyone else remember that? We all discussed it and agreed land loot was too profitable. So, adjust blacksmith stats, but don't mess with the now reasonable and consistent prices.
@Levis @Pieter Boelen the problems Grey Roger complains of are not problems, they are the express purposes of the experiment.
Purpose 1) "tightened weapon tiers" to explore the idea Pieter proposed of having less dramatic differences between sword stats.
Grey Roger asks that the swords be "returned to their proper stats" and describes how he hasn't looked at my items file and so is unaware of what I might have done to the other poor, helpless swords. Well, I described it explicitly in my detailed post above, explaining all my changes and the principles behind them so that I wouldn't have to take time off from working to answer the same objections over and over.
Low tier swords were given around a +4 to damage and some boost to block and piercing, mid-low tier got about half that, by upper tier no changes unless needed to correct something (ie Kilij had crazy low stats for min level, venetian cutlas needed to be distinguished a bit from boson's choice and give the cutlas line a slightly better upgrade)
This is by design. So when I am "quite insistent" to keep some of the changes to the tizona stats, and still compromise to give Grey Roger half of the change he is asking for, I am making sure the tizona remains in line with the new balance. The Tizona originally had a slightly higher boost to fill a niche role in the straight swords, that has been entirely reverted per Grey Roger's request, it is now exactly as before just in the new tightened weapon tiers, which REQUIRE a slight boost to stats to maintain its position.
A new balance that works GREAT in playtests. I fought for over a week all over with it, the weapon variety is great, the sword stats are fully reasonable. That they are changed in a systemic, sensible way to tighten differences a tiny bit (not much, really), does not make the old stats "proper" and demand a return. It also does not unbalance anything, the differences are too small to mess up storylines.
2) balance the addition of armor.
Does anyone care to guess what would happen if AI armor were introduced into the game, often used by high level opponents, and nothing else was done? The single largest increase in game DIFFICULTY perhaps in years is what would result.
So the experiments want to AVOID that, which means thinking up a creative solution that avoids unbalancing combat. Since higher level opponents would be most likely to have armor, and will take less damage, it makes sense to reduce their damage dealing a bit.
Which becomes an OPPORTUNITY, because before sword variety was little, go up in levels a few times and they disappear. So instead, we can keep all the swords around, by giving high level AI both a chance to get srmor and a chance to get a lower level sword, by removing the min cap. So on both ends equipment variety increases, which is GREAT.
However, the nerf would be too much, so we need to tighten the weapon tiers a bit to account for this. Hence, above changes.
The end result is the perfect union of two goals, achieving integration of ai armor, balancing against that, expanding weapon variety, etc.
Now, will there be room for tweaking? Certainly. Maybe the lowest tier swords deserve an additional slight bonus, if it is found combat against higher level opponents is getting easier. Or their armor chance could be increased, which is the same result.
But going back to the old "proper" stats as they are called would be a mistake, and defeat the purpose of two major aims.
Ok, so I probably sound a bit frustrated. I am. Not because of disagreement or people not liking a change, but because at this point it is complaining of change for anti-changes's sake, without considering the detailed description I wrote several posts above where I explained the governing philosophy behind all of this.
And most importantly, without viewing this as what it is--an experimental rebalance aimed at specific goals. Very interesting goals that could work out, and be great for the game. And should be tested and played and enjoyed to see if it can work on its own terms, rather than just disgareed with because hey look the stats have changed.
So if you want to even try having AI armor, expanded weapon variety at all levels, and the before discussed goal of pushing some differences from weapons into skills, then this should be tried out.
Look, my work is crazy right now. I fully expect someone else to tweak and rebalance. But to propose a total overhaul done right now without first understanding the reasons behind these changes, just hack away because someone took a look at the item stats and doesn't like them with no attempt to understand why, that is disheartening to say the least.
If someone wants to do a total overhaul with the items file and change how the weapon tier tightening works, then they should do what I did--carefully examine the armor tables for levels in LAi-equip that I made, think about the chances of certain high level opponents rolling certain swords based on the formulas in there, figure out what would keep balance while maintaining interesting stats, spend hours upon hours changing and reediting them, and then spend a week testing to see if balance has indeed been maintained and tweaking in response.
Because that is the level of thought that has gone into this balance.
Or, what makes more sense to me, don't propose an instant total overhaul of a well-thought out system, instead play, see if maybe sword A should get a boost here, or sword B there, and make the thing work better.
Part of fair game design to modders should be trying out things, and not taking one look at something expressly marked experimental without trying to understand it and saying "nah, revert basically everything."
I am sure some people will say my above description is unfair. Yet I am certain anyone who reads the full text of what has been posted will understand where I am coming from.
The way this has been received from some is quite sad to me--the knee-jerk reaction and proposal to immediately overhaul an experiment without trying to understand it--and it is unfair to the huge amounts of time I spent trying to achieve this new balance. With my current work schedule, I can't afford to take hours away from my sleep to come here and feel bad about things. I'm going to steer clear of the board until at least my project is done.
