Planetarion Forums

Gate · 30 Jul 2006, 16:46

This whole idea of boredom with the stats has made me interested in the possibility of fundamental changes that could be interesting, but not ruin the foundations of the game.

An idea I've been toying with is that of ships having varying strengths in attack and defence. This needn't be large scale (although it could expand to things like weapon power or armour), perhaps just different initiatives. When messing around with stats before, particularly when attack fleets target each other (examples could be vsharrak vs tzen, or r14 terran CR/BS vs ghost/peacekeeper), having a single absolute initiative can block off various potential routes. For example; giving the initiative advantage to one side means that the other side's attack fleet won't be able to touch them at all, and can lead to less options in the stats.

An example this round could be that the brigand has initiative 5 when attacking but 6 when defending. In this manner, ziks would not be able to achieve such immunity against FI (as atm, they can be exceedingly difficult to roid, even without many stolen ships), but the brigand would still be able to persuade xands to run their ships effectively.

How to people feel about this?

Phil^ · 30 Jul 2006, 17:11

are you proposing a blanket +1 initiative change on ships that are attacking, certain races only or certain ships only?
you would need to take into account how the combat engine currently works - varying the ships's attack/defence on a race or individual basis could get extremely complicated, extremly fast when it comes to distributing the damage and kills.

Gate · 30 Jul 2006, 17:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil^

are you proposing a blanket +1 initiative change on ships that are attacking, certain races only or certain ships only?
you would need to take into account how the combat engine currently works - varying the ships's attack/defence on a race or individual basis could get extremely complicated, extremly fast when it comes to distributing the damage and kills.

I'm suggesting that every individual ship will have different initiatives for when it attacks and when it defends. Ok, so most will probably be the same, but if it were an option, it would at least allow a few more avenues when developing stats.

jian_yee · 30 Jul 2006, 22:01

i quite like the way this idea is going but will the combat engine be able to handle it

Veedeejem! · 31 Jul 2006, 00:01

the combat engine needs to be upgraded anyway in the near future i think, pa-team should really start developing PAX and add cool features to it that might attract new ppl, make the game more fun, ...

On-Topic: I like your idea alot Gate

Mek · 31 Jul 2006, 00:08

i thought with PA:N they were remaking the combat engine anyway? or did i imagine that?? o_O

Gate · 31 Jul 2006, 08:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mek

i thought with PA:N they were remaking the combat engine anyway? or did i imagine that?? o_O

I thought PA:N was a joke, like Duke Nukem Forever?

Anyway, I'm going camping today; if I have any boring moments, I might try to mock up a set of stats or two to see if this works on paper...

Veedeejem! · 31 Jul 2006, 11:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gate

I thought PA:N was a joke, like Duke Nukem Forever?

So sad really... i can remember talks about a complete recode of pa since r13 or something.
r18 now and still same old same old

Shiprex · 3 Aug 2006, 11:25

I suggested this idea a while back but then low init defenders will rule the roost and for higher inits it would be pointless attacking and the only use would be to defend.

However if it were held that only the ATTACKED planets ships had a reduced init then perhaps that may be a solution. Makes sense tbh since you are the one who knows all the hiding places and ambush sites to an incoming hostile force.

Razgriz · 3 Aug 2006, 11:31

Like the idea, just wanted to ask if the +1 initiative etc would be in effect by default or would a player need to research it or perhapes build a certain new structure?

Mighteh · 3 Aug 2006, 15:05

its gotta be certain races.

I see cath and terr that being inplemented to,
Zik couldcare less in current ruleset tbfh, maybe even welcome it, coz most killships are defence.

And it would completly annihilate Xan as a leftover of once powerfull race it used to be...

And that topic brings up the old convo about balancing out races.

Imo, init.+1 is a possible balancing tool tho

Gate · 3 Aug 2006, 16:43

The whole idea I've been playing with is an overall balance thing.

For example, xandathrii and terrans, being aggressive races, could have low init when attacking, but higher when defending, meanwhile, cathaar, being pacifists, have lower init when defending to increase their defensive power but prevent powerful aggressive assaults.

This would also add an aspect when performing fleetcatches; ships which are good at defending vs a certain fleet may be piss poor at fleetcatching it.

Clogg · 4 Aug 2006, 01:00

Just a thought, but maybe you can combine it with double inits aswell. For example beetles shoot init 2 and 5. Would complicate things again and thus might add an extra dimension. Just a thought

Ultimate Newbie · 4 Aug 2006, 09:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gate

How to people feel about this?

Almost exclusively, i would yell and scream "NEVER EVER STUFF WITH INITIATIVE", for a huge variety of reasons which you know of by now and thus i wont be bothered to repeat.

However, coming from you, you have some clue as to actually how the whole thing works - if you can prove that a set of stats exists where there isnt a problem with alternating iniatives between attack and defence, then i will actually support it.

I just find it unlikely to occur.

But go nuts

.

Gate · 4 Aug 2006, 10:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ultimate Newbie

Almost exclusively, i would yell and scream "NEVER EVER STUFF WITH INITIATIVE", for a huge variety of reasons which you know of by now and thus i wont be bothered to repeat.

However, coming from you, you have some clue as to actually how the whole thing works - if you can prove that a set of stats exists where there isnt a problem with alternating iniatives between attack and defence, then i will actually support it.

I just find it unlikely to occur.

But go nuts

.

You're such a pessimist, and I'm so lazy. But I will get round to mocking something up soon, I promise.

JonnyBGood · 4 Aug 2006, 10:43

What's that you say? A lazy man and a pessimist in charge of developing PA? What could go wrong!

Appocomaster · 4 Aug 2006, 13:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

What's that you say? A lazy man and a pessimist in charge of developing PA? What could go wrong!

Well, I managed to get here...

I'm not sure if the added complexity and confusion is worth it. I'm sorely tempted go back to making sure there's no 0 loss stealing, and if we want a change to bring back old xan + mil scans, which I know won't be hard to do.

The main plus I can see from this idea is that it would allow more diversity, but it'd obviously be harder (in some ways) to balance, and be more complicated.