|
|
6 Dec 2005, 21:07
|
#1
|
PA Team
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,449
|
Future Combat System
This is what the combat engine should be able to do. We may well not use the options in future public rounds, but if the code is being used by alliances wishing to play against each other, these settings can be used and allow a much higher rate than currently of customisation, as they won't be allowed direct code access.
Ability for any given ship to have N target classes (e.g. T1, T2... T(N)), and for the different target classes to have different damages as a percentage of the T1 damage,
ability for ships to target all classes.
multiple damage types - kill, EMP, steal, subvert, structure kill, asteroid capture, resource stealing,
the ability to have different options for what a cloaked ship is cloaked again - e.g. show 0 ships, show no ships on different types of "scans", (note, ships can be cloaked and do EMP / steal damage),
have the ability to have emp resistance and/or weapon speed and agility,
the ability to have standard PDS,
the ability to have N races,
the ability to have N ticks of attacking and M ticks of defending,
the ability to have N fleets, and the ability to set restrictions on different fleets e.g. only allowed in galaxy travel,
the ability to have ships that are fleet specific (i.e. ships that can only go in the in-galaxy fleet),
the ability to have fleet specific attributes e.g. damage multipliers, armour multipliers, roid cap multipliers, structure kill cap multipliers (in the event of cap multipliers, max cap is determined by fleet value ratios),
the ability to fake any mission,
the ability to set max prelaunch amount on a per mission type basis,
the ability to support fleet launch costs (formulae?) and overburn defence,
the ability for structures to effect attributes on home fleets e.g. damge and armour multipliers,
the ability to turn initiative on/off,
the ability to have variable salvage, depending on whether the fleet is at home or not,
the ability to change roid armour and structure armour,
the ability to time-delay asteroid return after combat to when the fleet returns,
the ability to turn on / off astropods + structure killers dying when they cap roids / kill structures respectively,
the ability to turn on / off steal ships dying by either a value or armour ratio between ships, and the ability to change salvage distribution depending on %value of total defending ships lost or %value of total ships
Basic overburn cost: something like 5% of fleet resources [only overburn def, -1 ETA advantage]
Basic fleet launch cost: 0.05% of the fleet value in all resources * number_of_launches_in_last_24_ticks (or similar)
Salvage formulae are still being discussed, both dependant on relative attacking / defending fleet values and depending on the ratio between the planet and the universe average. A mix of variable and fixed salvage is also being discussed for home defence against defending at other planets.
Discussion of possible extra damage types, the launching cost and overburn cost, and the salvage in particular are appreciated.
__________________
r8-10 RaH r10.5-12 MISTU
Last edited by Appocomaster; 6 Dec 2005 at 21:23.
|
|
|
6 Dec 2005, 21:21
|
#2
|
For Crowly <3
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Luton, England
Posts: 1,391
|
Re: Future Combat System
* Multiple target is bad mmmmkay
* Resource stealing will ROCK if for all resource types (I seem to remember the last time it was implemented you could only steal eonium - if this were to say the same it would unbalance race ship purchasing
* Cloaked ships should be cloacked - get them off unit scans
* EMP resistance would unbalance the Cath advantage
* PDS ftw!!
* Caps should be put in place for defending / attacking to prevent hardcore (Forest) bashing
* 3 fleets prove suffice for most players
* Fake for defence and attacks would prove helpful
* Noooooooooooooo for fleet launch costs unless you make eonium the galactic fuel again
* Dont really understand the point of turning roids off, unless at that point they cant be capped but then that could lease to abuse easily
Just my thoughts, some good ideas thou
__________________
[14:53:26] * Keiz`afk has joined #support
[14:53:36] <Keiz`afk> THE SMUDGE CHEERLEADING TEAM HAS ARRIVED
|
|
|
6 Dec 2005, 21:26
|
#3
|
PA Team
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,449
|
Re: Future Combat System
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smudge
* Multiple target is bad mmmmkay
|
Why?
Quote:
* Resource stealing will ROCK if for all resource types (I seem to remember the last time it was implemented you could only steal eonium - if this were to say the same it would unbalance race ship purchasing
|
Yes, it'd be for all resources
Quote:
* Cloaked ships should be cloacked - get them off unit scans
|
That's possible from the specification.
Quote:
* EMP resistance would unbalance the Cath advantage
|
Why?
uh huh. We didn't say we'd ever use it :P
Quote:
* Caps should be put in place for defending / attacking to prevent hardcore (Forest) bashing
|
Yes, I forgot that
Quote:
* 3 fleets prove suffice for most players
|
What about an extra galaxy fleet? I know not everyone is happy with it (if anything, it makes strong galaxys stronger..) but it's a nice idea.
Quote:
* Noooooooooooooo for fleet launch costs unless you make eonium the galactic fuel again
|
Why? It's to limit attack/recall tactics, hence the multiple of number of launches per day.
Quote:
* Dont really understand the point of turning roids off, unless at that point they cant be capped but then that could lease to abuse easily
|
fixed I meant astropods
__________________
r8-10 RaH r10.5-12 MISTU
|
|
|
6 Dec 2005, 21:30
|
#4
|
Insomniac
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,583
|
Re: Future Combat System
oh dear. - the dreaded PDS
as a coded ability I agree it should be included for completeness, but its not an option I would personally welcome activated in a round.
my main worry is : will all this be coded in time?
it sounds like an awful lot of things to do
as for extra damage types, theres limited scope for things.
perhaps a 'damage' that temporarily delays the firing of another ship for x init points, possibly dependant on the numbers sent as to the scale of the delay along with the number of ships affected
a damage which increases the eta for the fleet to return to base if a certain percentage of the fleet is affected by value?
launch cost is somewhat tricky. Would it be restricted to eonium only or depending on the race - the resource most in demand?
If so , with xan would it be an equal mix of all resources?
perhaps a cost of 2-5% of the fleet value to launch it?
|
|
|
6 Dec 2005, 22:58
|
#5
|
Acid
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Uppsala
Posts: 11
|
Re: Future Combat System
i dont post very often but this shuld be a good time to.
all the things looks good, no point in suggesting what is good and what is bad to have in the new engine as you dont have to actually use them in real PA rounds, just the fact that they can be used during some fun-round or ally-round or something is very promising tbh. :xmas:
but during speedgame last round you had some "you decide for 1 night" thread. there I asked for a flexible ship. in other words: we, the planet dictators, decide what class our ship has, what it targets, how powerful weapon, how thick armor, (no need to elaborate further, i cud go on forever, since this wud have potential to go anywhere. you know where i wanna go, since uve prolly had ppl asking for these things b4)
there u replied to me that it wasnt working with current combat engine or how the code was written.
now u have recoded.
why havent the possibility, im not saying that it has to b used in next round, im just asking why the possibility hasnt been implemented in this future combat system.
a system like this prolly has to be tested for ages just to find a balance between races and all the possibal mixes of ship-types, but if u wud have taken this into consideration while creating this new combat system, and looking at a little longer perspective, if u wud have implemented it, testing cud commence kinda soon so it cud b ready in future rounds.
there is prolly reasons why and why not to take that huge step in the future, but i c no reasons why it shudnt have been coded already.
PS.
GFJ PA crew ;D
__________________
ALL I WANNA SAY IS THAT THEY DONīT REALLY CARE ABOUT US
|
|
|
6 Dec 2005, 23:04
|
#6
|
For Crowly <3
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Luton, England
Posts: 1,391
|
Re: Future Combat System
Multiple targeting would be confusing for new players (in my opinion)
If you go for getting rid of the EMP resistance then you'll have to have some facility to scan Xan fleet scans and build anti-Steal ships, or give each type of ship to all races
Bring back Eonium ship costs would hit scanners big time
And call me nostalgic but 3 fleets are one of few things which have remained constant
__________________
[14:53:26] * Keiz`afk has joined #support
[14:53:36] <Keiz`afk> THE SMUDGE CHEERLEADING TEAM HAS ARRIVED
|
|
|
6 Dec 2005, 23:20
|
#7
|
I see you!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In any girl
Posts: 2,825
|
Re: Future Combat System
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smudge
Multiple targeting would be confusing for new players (in my opinion)
|
Wasn't confusing before round 10 and surely won't be now, unless the newcomers are mostly kids or pretty, yeah, dumb.
|
|
|
6 Dec 2005, 23:26
|
#8
|
For Crowly <3
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Luton, England
Posts: 1,391
|
Re: Future Combat System
Its harder to organise defence for as you need to get multiple types of ships in
__________________
[14:53:26] * Keiz`afk has joined #support
[14:53:36] <Keiz`afk> THE SMUDGE CHEERLEADING TEAM HAS ARRIVED
|
|
|
6 Dec 2005, 23:36
|
#9
|
Inactive peon
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,050
|
Re: Future Combat System
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smudge
Bring back Eonium ship costs would hit scanners big time
|
scanners will be dealt with in the next thread we post. but when i wrote the fuel cost stuff i meantit to be the cost would be based on whats in the fleet e.g. if the fleet cpst 1000m, 2000c, 1000m - people would pay the proportional amounts of each resource.
|
|
|
7 Dec 2005, 00:19
|
#10
|
Jolt's best friend
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,101
|
Re: Future Combat System
have you given any thought to how the combat system will deal with multiple games? will you have seperate code for each one, or have one ticker, which loads a game's configuration as it ticks it.
also, will you allow for the ticking of certain planets, or groups of planets? i can see this being useful as it would allow the use of a partial rollback, possibly in case of error or cheating.
__________________
<Karmulian> subtle as a kick in the nuts as always
|
|
|
7 Dec 2005, 00:21
|
#11
|
Im Back :)
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London
Posts: 189
|
Re: Future Combat System
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smudge
* Cloaked ships should be cloacked - get them off unit scans
|
That would be quite crap...otherwise everyone would end up suiciding
__________________
Awaken by the terror of a thousand wars,a vision of the coming invading force.
RD13 - IRON|APA
RD14 - APA
RD15 - InSomnia|Violent Saints HC
RD19 - Subh|ROCK
RD20 - Insurrection|Solo
RD21 - LOST|Subh
RD22 - Subh DC
RD30 - Redemption
|
|
|
7 Dec 2005, 00:58
|
#12
|
LDK
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Norway
Posts: 2,220
|
Re: Future Combat System
Quote:
Originally Posted by Death666
That would be quite crap...otherwise everyone would end up suiciding
|
Hardly. This is how it was in the good old days.
- Bring back scanning for roids.
- Multiple targetting on ships. and t3 * (target all on some ships) Like good old days again?
- Toolbar at bottom of page which is always there. Here u can scan without opening -wave- and here u can send fleets if u r short on time.
Something like this:
Type of scan - coords- Fleet1:mission: coords Fleet2:mission: coords Fleet1:mission: coords
Seen this in some speedgames of khansmyphppa.... And is a nice feature imo.
__________________
[Omen]
Quote:
Originally posted by Newt
I would give me right testicle to be in a gal with you wishmaster!!! wonder if thatd be enough to bribe spinner with hmmmm
|
<JC`> i sent him a msg saying Wishmaster 0wns, so he recalled
|
|
|
7 Dec 2005, 01:03
|
#13
|
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: ******
Posts: 2,326
|
Re: Future Combat System
Most of the suggestions are just ways to make really bad suggestions modular. I don't get that.
For example, PDS is a shit idea, and the public game should never have it. What's the point of wasting time coding something that's never going to get used?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Appocomaster
the ability to fake any mission,
|
Puh-leeze make this on permanently. I'd rather shove bamboo shoots under my fingernails than try to explain to a newbie galmate why they can't find 'fake defense' under missions, and then try in vain to get them to be on in 5 hours to recall, only to cry in sympathy when their ships die a horrible, messy, salvage-donating death.
Please. For the love of consistency. Hardcode this as on as fake attacks, it's much more useful.
Quote:
the ability to support fleet launch costs (formulae?) and overburn defence
|
Fleet cost is imbalanced, as I've explained to Kal and you many, many times. It's a bit like shitting on carpet stain to hide it.
Quote:
the ability to change roid armour and structure armour,
|
Technically these should both be one-liners now
Quote:
the ability to turn on / off steal ships dying by either a value or armour ratio between ships, and the ability to change salvage distribution depending on %value of total defending ships lost or %value of total ships
|
Quote:
Basic fleet launch cost: 0.05% of the fleet value in all resources * number_of_launches_in_last_24_ticks (or similar)
|
This is stupid. The winning alliance will always have more roids, thus more resources, thus more launches. You're actually increasing the difference in exponential growth with this
A lot of these changes seem to be 'just because we can'. If this much coding time is going to be stupidly wasted on PAN it'll be a few dozen rounds before we actually play it. Make sure you keep a copy of the PAX code around, you'll need it.
|
|
|
7 Dec 2005, 01:09
|
#14
|
I see you!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In any girl
Posts: 2,825
|
Re: Future Combat System
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smudge
Its harder to organise defence for as you need to get multiple types of ships in
|
We learned how to do it years ago and I'm sure everyone else will be able to aswell. Don't underestimate todays youth, they're not that stupid... or?
|
|
|
7 Dec 2005, 03:01
|
#15
|
Flash in the PAN
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Birmingham, Romania
Posts: 554
|
Re: Future Combat System
The ally v ally thing sounds stupid tbh, but a highly customisable combat engine is definitely required to power both speedgames, special rounds, stat changes, and general game progression/development.
While it might seem like it'll take ages as Phil^ says - it takes very little extra time to code everything so that it can work up to N parameters than it does to hard code everything in.
Seeing as its all being coded from scratch it should be very easy.
|
|
|
7 Dec 2005, 07:35
|
#16
|
Insomniac
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,583
|
Re: Future Combat System
adapting pre-existing code so it can do up to n things is easy and I agree will be fairly quick comparatively.
im on about adding things which are completely new that will take the time.
remember that this is just proposals for the combat engine, theres a lot more things to code for pa-n as well
coding something from scratch isnt as easy as adapting pre-existing code to do what you want it to do. yes it may be a 'cleaner', better implementation but it takes longer to do.
Since, last I heard, PA-N was going to be redone in another language - its a lot of things to recode from scratch. even trivial things which arent going to change will have to be recoded
|
|
|
7 Dec 2005, 08:24
|
#17
|
deserves a medal
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,211
|
Re: Future Combat System
Why not add the ability to increase/decrease research speeds
__________________
"I have with me two gods, Persuasion and Compulsion."
|
|
|
7 Dec 2005, 09:37
|
#18
|
Inactive peon
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,050
|
Re: Future Combat System
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banned
Most of the suggestions are just ways to make really bad suggestions modular. I don't get that.
For example, PDS is a shit idea, and the public game should never have it. What's the point of wasting time coding something that's never going to get used?
|
allowing for "ships" that cannot move is hardly a difficult coding process
|
|
|
7 Dec 2005, 09:43
|
#19
|
Inactive peon
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,050
|
Re: Future Combat System
one thing with the combat engine is that the first version doens't neccessarilyl have to support everything - one of the key points about the recode is making things easier. For example the current way fleets are strucutred in the game makes it very veyr difficult to change the number of fleets, simply changing the strucutre will allow for quicker adaptions etc.
similarly allowing for multi tick combat etc is not hard - its not even really a change in the combat engine itself, just the ability to have ships stay at a planet.
The only hard stuff is multiple level targeting and ability to have per fleet multipliers - that involves some real thought from kloopy, but it is the stuff that we reall really really want
|
|
|
7 Dec 2005, 09:48
|
#20
|
Inactive peon
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,050
|
Re: Future Combat System
Quote:
Originally Posted by mist
have you given any thought to how the combat system will deal with multiple games? will you have seperate code for each one, or have one ticker, which loads a game's configuration as it ticks it.
also, will you allow for the ticking of certain planets, or groups of planets? i can see this being useful as it would allow the use of a partial rollback, possibly in case of error or cheating.
|
each game iteration will have separate code and db most likely simply becuase it makes it easier to do tweaks between games if they happen to require code changes. While the intention is to db-ise as much as is possible it may be for example that a combat engine supporting all of this ends up being to slow for a speedgame for example.
I think partial ticking would end up being quite messy - in essence you would have to do a db backup (or record an sql statement that does the opposite of what just happened) after each planet/group has ticked, I think this would hurt tick times a lot myself. Obviously in combat the outcome is recorded so we ca allways manually redo it on a case by case basis. I think roll backs should be done the way they allways have been - use the last good consitant full db backup.
|
|
|
7 Dec 2005, 10:26
|
#21
|
Inactive peon
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,050
|
Re: Future Combat System
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banned
This is stupid. The winning alliance will always have more roids, thus more resources, thus more launches. You're actually increasing the difference in exponential growth with this
|
the winning alliances also have bigger fleets and hence higher launch costs and are also mor elikely to use launch-recall-launch tactics and thus have even higher launch costs.
|
|
|
7 Dec 2005, 11:01
|
#22
|
The Original Terran
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Afghan atm
Posts: 1,633
|
Re: Future Combat System
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal
allowing for "ships" that cannot move is hardly a difficult coding process
|
But an awful idea...
Noobs will buy them and loose them thinking there actually useful.
We all know PDS is a bad idea and we can all aargue against it no problem check the suggestions forum Kal even you know its bad...
__________________
introduction-Gramma
The following is a list of problems found in various places throughout the manual and game. We love you Noah!
Written by Kloopy Wed Mar 16 22:06:43 2005
Retired just for a bit....
Proud to have been 1up, SiN, Wolfpack, Bluetuba and the leader of ARK.
|
|
|
7 Dec 2005, 11:16
|
#23
|
The Original Terran
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Afghan atm
Posts: 1,633
|
Re: Future Combat System
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal
the winning alliances also have bigger fleets and hence higher launch costs and are also mor elikely to use launch-recall-launch tactics and thus have even higher launch costs.
|
Using fuel costs is going to hit Terrans hardest then as they have the bigger ships slowest time as it is, if it stays the same then we will be attacking once a week and if they get defence where gonna be slightly miffed off.
A lot of ppl are going to be more likely to n00b bash so they can actually land on someone especially Xans as they will send a nice cheap small FI fleet saving a lot of resources they can build defence ships for.
Or
A lot of ppl just wont attack trade with the fund constantly and just build ships for the rest of the round getting bored and not bothering with PA again.
__________________
introduction-Gramma
The following is a list of problems found in various places throughout the manual and game. We love you Noah!
Written by Kloopy Wed Mar 16 22:06:43 2005
Retired just for a bit....
Proud to have been 1up, SiN, Wolfpack, Bluetuba and the leader of ARK.
|
|
|
7 Dec 2005, 11:19
|
#24
|
The Original Terran
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Afghan atm
Posts: 1,633
|
Re: Future Combat System
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smudge
Its harder to organise defence for as you need to get multiple types of ships in
|
Agreed.
I hate multiple ship targeting its a pain in the backside and with fuel costs also maybe making an appearance (hopefully not) making it even harder to land an attack.
__________________
introduction-Gramma
The following is a list of problems found in various places throughout the manual and game. We love you Noah!
Written by Kloopy Wed Mar 16 22:06:43 2005
Retired just for a bit....
Proud to have been 1up, SiN, Wolfpack, Bluetuba and the leader of ARK.
|
|
|
7 Dec 2005, 11:36
|
#25
|
The Original Terran
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Afghan atm
Posts: 1,633
|
Re: Future Combat System
Quote:
Originally Posted by appocomaster
+ structure killers dying when they kill structures.
|
Wahoo.
__________________
introduction-Gramma
The following is a list of problems found in various places throughout the manual and game. We love you Noah!
Written by Kloopy Wed Mar 16 22:06:43 2005
Retired just for a bit....
Proud to have been 1up, SiN, Wolfpack, Bluetuba and the leader of ARK.
|
|
|
7 Dec 2005, 11:51
|
#26
|
Inactive peon
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,050
|
Re: Future Combat System
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah02
But an awful idea...
Noobs will buy them and loose them thinking there actually useful.
We all know PDS is a bad idea and we can all aargue against it no problem check the suggestions forum Kal even you know its bad...
|
I'm hugely against PDS yes, but for example we may at some point want to run a free "classic combat" round - one of the ideas behind the FCS is to be able to reproduce old combat models etc
|
|
|
7 Dec 2005, 11:53
|
#27
|
Inactive peon
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,050
|
Re: Future Combat System
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah02
Using fuel costs is going to hit Terrans hardest then as they have the bigger ships slowest time as it is, if it stays the same then we will be attacking once a week and if they get defence where gonna be slightly miffed off.
A lot of ppl are going to be more likely to n00b bash so they can actually land on someone especially Xans as they will send a nice cheap small FI fleet saving a lot of resources they can build defence ships for.
Or
A lot of ppl just wont attack trade with the fund constantly and just build ships for the rest of the round getting bored and not bothering with PA again.
|
thats surely a question of making the cost low enough? The idea is to make the launch/recall tactic ineffecitve without having to do things such as limit the number of launches per day
|
|
|
7 Dec 2005, 12:00
|
#28
|
Registered Awesome Person
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,676
|
Re: Future Combat System
I agree with coding it all in, as long as you don't use most of the things you've listed.
Jester - frankly I'd get rid of both fake attack and fake defence instead.
__________________
Finally free!
|
|
|
7 Dec 2005, 12:00
|
#29
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Swansea
Posts: 798
|
Re: Future Combat System
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal
thats surely a question of making the cost low enough? The idea is to make the launch/recall tactic ineffecitve without having to do things such as limit the number of launches per day
|
whats wrong with launch/recall? its a valid tactic to get through on a target isnt it?
__________________
In Elysium till the end.
Former [1up]
Current [Spore]
Returned under the IRC nick BenSwansea
|
|
|
7 Dec 2005, 12:01
|
#30
|
Inactive peon
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,050
|
Re: Future Combat System
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stifler
whats wrong with launch/recall? its a valid tactic to get through on a target isnt it?
|
it favours activity over skill
|
|
|
7 Dec 2005, 12:02
|
#31
|
Inactive peon
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,050
|
Re: Future Combat System
Quote:
Originally Posted by furball
I agree with coding it all in, as long as you don't use most of the things you've listed.
Jester - frankly I'd get rid of both fake attack and fake defence instead.
|
fake attack and fake defence are useful for thoose people who can't allways be as active as they would like to be.
|
|
|
7 Dec 2005, 12:06
|
#32
|
CRASHING BEATS 'N FANTASY
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cold Country.
Posts: 1,912
|
Re: Future Combat System
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal
it favours activity over skill
|
What's wrong with being active? I can even play launch recall if I can check in for only 2 minutes every tick for a maximum of 6 ticks a day.
__________________
Iā! Iā! Munin F'tagn! - [*scendancy]
|
|
|
7 Dec 2005, 12:23
|
#33
|
For Crowly <3
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Luton, England
Posts: 1,391
|
Re: Future Combat System
Quote:
Originally Posted by furball
Jester - frankly I'd get rid of both fake attack and fake defence instead.
|
Well either you have both or you dont have both. I personally dont understand why they didnt code fake defence when they were doing fake attack to balance things out.
__________________
[14:53:26] * Keiz`afk has joined #support
[14:53:36] <Keiz`afk> THE SMUDGE CHEERLEADING TEAM HAS ARRIVED
|
|
|
7 Dec 2005, 12:26
|
#34
|
Registered Awesome Person
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,676
|
Re: Future Combat System
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smudge
Well either you have both or you dont have both. I personally dont understand why they didnt code fake defence when they were doing fake attack to balance things out.
|
Well, I would code them both in for completeness. However, I wouldn't use either - as covered in this thread. Let's not take this thread off topic.
__________________
Finally free!
|
|
|
7 Dec 2005, 12:38
|
#35
|
[Vision]
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 897
|
Re: Future Combat System
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal
it favours activity over skill
|
isn't it a skill to make ur target go mad by recalling resending the entire day on him(be it with fake & real waves or only real ones)? Whats the point in playing for active ppl if even the most inactive noob can pass them in rank just because the system benefits inactives more, i think activity should be rewarded instead of being portrait as a problem.
__________________
[Vision] in a lost dream, contributing to The 5th Element at present
Last edited by Wandows; 7 Dec 2005 at 12:48.
|
|
|
7 Dec 2005, 12:53
|
#36
|
Jolt's best friend
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,101
|
Re: Future Combat System
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal
I think partial ticking would end up being quite messy - in essence you would have to do a db backup (or record an sql statement that does the opposite of what just happened) after each planet/group has ticked, I think this would hurt tick times a lot myself. Obviously in combat the outcome is recorded so we ca allways manually redo it on a case by case basis. I think roll backs should be done the way they allways have been - use the last good consitant full db backup.
|
not quite sure how you arrive at that conclusion...
as far as i'm aware, at tick time there's combat - which you record the results of anyway
fleet movement - which you can reconstruct from fleet orders, which you record anyway
resources - which you can reconstruct from 'roids, which you record anyway
ship production - can be reconstructed from ship purchases, which if you don't log wouldn't be thegreatest hardship in the world and wouldn't be at tick time anyway.
incedentally, are you planning to tick by planet or by 'phase' (ie, do all combat, then do all resources, etc)?
obviously, if the game goes down and everyone is affected then a full rollback is on the cards, however it seems a little harsh grounding everyone's fleets, ruining perfectly good attacks etc when the game seemed to be running perfectly fine for most people concerned.
__________________
<Karmulian> subtle as a kick in the nuts as always
|
|
|
7 Dec 2005, 13:00
|
#37
|
The Original Terran
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Afghan atm
Posts: 1,633
|
Re: Future Combat System
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal
it favours activity over skill
|
Luanch/recall is a skill.
If your not very active you not gonna have much skill cept pre launching.
Aint much skill in this game tbh mostly luck on landing wether they get defence or not.
__________________
introduction-Gramma
The following is a list of problems found in various places throughout the manual and game. We love you Noah!
Written by Kloopy Wed Mar 16 22:06:43 2005
Retired just for a bit....
Proud to have been 1up, SiN, Wolfpack, Bluetuba and the leader of ARK.
|
|
|
7 Dec 2005, 13:17
|
#38
|
Cherry Colored Funk
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: 4AD Label
Posts: 137
|
Re: Future Combat System
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah02
Luanch/recall is a skill.
If your not very active you not gonna have much skill cept pre launching.
Aint much skill in this game tbh mostly luck on landing wether they get defence or not.
|
So you lied to me when you said (way back when i still play this game)!!! :
<Noah02> Another awesome finish mate, youre way above this game no mattter what race you play
On topic: Interesting changes. This totally new code will start next round right? I kinda like how more stuffs can be tuned on a planet, but the activity factor is very vital bit isn't appealing.
__________________
Soft as snow but warm inside
Penetrate you cannot hide
Feeling lost forever
Really need you
-- My Bloody Valentine
|
|
|
7 Dec 2005, 13:49
|
#39
|
Commander in Briefs!
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 783
|
Re: Future Combat System
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah02
But an awful idea...
Noobs will buy them and loose them thinking there actually useful.
We all know PDS is a bad idea and we can all aargue against it no problem check the suggestions forum Kal even you know its bad...
|
They were not that useless in R3 :P
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banned
This is stupid. The winning alliance will always have more roids, thus more resources, thus more launches. You're actually increasing the difference in exponential growth with this
|
Well create a formula which includes higher costs per roid, and tell them, extra fuel is needed to escape the larger gravity well created by the higher roid quantity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smudge
Multiple targeting would be confusing for new players (in my opinion)
If you go for getting rid of the EMP resistance then you'll have to have some facility to scan Xan fleet scans and build anti-Steal ships, or give each type of ship to all races
Bring back Eonium ship costs would hit scanners big time
And call me nostalgic but 3 fleets are one of few things which have remained constant
|
Targetting: PAX is so watered down, that its nothing more than a puddle of its former glory, and needs to increase in complexity, for all the egg heads. You could just decrease each target class damage by a percentage e.g. T1=100%, T2=80%, T3 (ALL perhaps) = 50%, but i think apoc suggested this above, in a round about way.
EMP: Agreed with that comment, leave it in.
Fuel: Create a fourth resource called fuel, which could be created through a roid and refined through a structure.
__________________
<Kila> WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH MY PRECIOUS FORUMS
<Zeyi> 24h forum closure
<Zeyi> all posts recalled
"he's got a proven track record when it comes to showy art composition" - Tommy
<Sigi> Light: can I ask u how many open internet-windows u always have?
<MrLobster|PM> i have 2, the pa page, and the website for naked light pictures
<Ave> both has bad gfx
|
|
|
7 Dec 2005, 13:59
|
#40
|
Jolt's best friend
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,101
|
Re: Future Combat System
i thought that fuel was abandoned way back when because it was a pain?
that said, the mention of a 4tyh resource type for fuel leads to the question: will you be tied to 3 resources, or will this also be variable?
__________________
<Karmulian> subtle as a kick in the nuts as always
|
|
|
7 Dec 2005, 14:03
|
#41
|
Inactive peon
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,050
|
Re: Future Combat System
Quote:
Originally Posted by mist
i thought that fuel was abandoned way back when because it was a pain?
that said, the mention of a 4tyh resource type for fuel leads to the question: will you be tied to 3 resources, or will this also be variable?
|
i woudln;t have thought adding a 4th resource to even the current code was particularly hard dpeending on what one wnated to do with it. So I don't see why we couldn't have more and mroe resources if we wanted to - however in games I have played that went that route I got so confused looking at things I gave up before doing anything and quit the game.
|
|
|
7 Dec 2005, 14:15
|
#42
|
Commander in Briefs!
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 783
|
Re: Future Combat System
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal
i woudln;t have thought adding a 4th resource to even the current code was particularly hard dpeending on what one wnated to do with it. So I don't see why we couldn't have more and mroe resources if we wanted to - however in games I have played that went that route I got so confused looking at things I gave up before doing anything and quit the game.
|
I agree, if you look in at the FERI0N game (well the last time i checked) the 6 resource types, which could be combined to form new ones was a little over complicated.
But i think 4 isnt too many, considering the 4th is used in launchs only. think of it as a maintainance feature.
__________________
<Kila> WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH MY PRECIOUS FORUMS
<Zeyi> 24h forum closure
<Zeyi> all posts recalled
"he's got a proven track record when it comes to showy art composition" - Tommy
<Sigi> Light: can I ask u how many open internet-windows u always have?
<MrLobster|PM> i have 2, the pa page, and the website for naked light pictures
<Ave> both has bad gfx
Last edited by MrLobster; 7 Dec 2005 at 14:59.
|
|
|
7 Dec 2005, 14:33
|
#43
|
Jolt's best friend
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,101
|
Re: Future Combat System
i'd not have thought it was too complicated to add another type of resource (assuming that you're referencing DB columns by name rather than position), although integrating it in to the game would require quite a lot of databases to be changed.
however, it does mean that you'd probably want to be able to take fuel from all resources, so rather than requiring 10 eonium to launch, a ship would need to requite 0 metal, 0 crystal and 10 eonium?
it would also have an impact on the mining researches and constructions which someone should probably be thinking about.
__________________
<Karmulian> subtle as a kick in the nuts as always
|
|
|
7 Dec 2005, 15:11
|
#44
|
Commander in Briefs!
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 783
|
Re: Future Combat System
Quote:
Originally Posted by mist
i'd not have thought it was too complicated to add another type of resource (assuming that you're referencing DB columns by name rather than position), although integrating it in to the game would require quite a lot of databases to be changed.
however, it does mean that you'd probably want to be able to take fuel from all resources, so rather than requiring 10 eonium to launch, a ship would need to requite 0 metal, 0 crystal and 10 eonium?
it would also have an impact on the mining researches and constructions which someone should probably be thinking about.
|
That has just given me an idea,
Using a structure you can convert the same amount of each res into a fourth res type, to be used for fuel.
100m + 100c + 100e = 100 fuel. This will be produced every tick, by each fuel refining structure. The structure might also have the option to stop prodution of fuel.
Manual Desc: Molocules from each resource are needed to create fuel.
You might see that i am trying to intergrate structures more in to the game
__________________
<Kila> WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH MY PRECIOUS FORUMS
<Zeyi> 24h forum closure
<Zeyi> all posts recalled
"he's got a proven track record when it comes to showy art composition" - Tommy
<Sigi> Light: can I ask u how many open internet-windows u always have?
<MrLobster|PM> i have 2, the pa page, and the website for naked light pictures
<Ave> both has bad gfx
|
|
|
7 Dec 2005, 15:25
|
#45
|
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: ******
Posts: 2,326
|
Re: Future Combat System
Quote:
Originally Posted by furball
Jester - frankly I'd get rid of both fake attack and fake defence instead.
|
Quote:
Hardcode this as on as fake attacks, it's much more useful.
|
As on as meaning 'both or none'.
|
|
|
7 Dec 2005, 17:32
|
#46
|
Jolt's best friend
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,101
|
Re: Future Combat System
is there a point to tying them together? it would seem to be removing an option for the sake of it, and be counter to the goal of being able to replicate as many previous rounds as possible.
__________________
<Karmulian> subtle as a kick in the nuts as always
|
|
|
7 Dec 2005, 18:20
|
#47
|
Registered Awesome Person
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,676
|
Re: Future Combat System
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banned
As on as meaning 'both or none'.
|
Ah, my bad
__________________
Finally free!
|
|
|
7 Dec 2005, 19:05
|
#48
|
no
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: in a chair
Posts: 329
|
Re: Future Combat System
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal
it favours activity over skill
|
heh, skill and activity should be both required to end in the top imo
recall/relaunch is a very usefull tactic to drain def when you go at war with an alliance, atm the best bet to win wars is to stress out your oppononet DC imo, get em tired, and they will fall
there is NO skill atm required to play this game... should chance imo and activity should be awarded and not killed by (imho) game admins which try to think for the best of game and adding features that are no good, i can see the point in a lot of stuff for the new combat engine and i greatly applaud any work done to make this game better, i even do like the launch cost, but not if you say its ment to tune down activity for "skill" that reason just sucks... ohw well... my 3 cent
|
|
|
7 Dec 2005, 19:19
|
#49
|
Jolt's best friend
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,101
|
Re: Future Combat System
Quote:
Originally Posted by SepH
i even do like the launch cost, but not if you say its ment to tune down activity for "skill" that reason just sucks... ohw well... my 3 cent
|
why do you like it?
__________________
<Karmulian> subtle as a kick in the nuts as always
|
|
|
7 Dec 2005, 21:34
|
#50
|
The Original Terran
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Afghan atm
Posts: 1,633
|
Re: Future Combat System
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocteau
So you lied to me when you said (way back when i still play this game)!!! :
<Noah02> Another awesome finish mate, youre way above this game no mattter what race you play
On topic: Interesting changes. This totally new code will start next round right? I kinda like how more stuffs can be tuned on a planet, but the activity factor is very vital bit isn't appealing.
|
Pah your excellent at PA and I dont know why.
Round 13 you where as active as I am now and was still top 15 would have been top 10 if it wasnt for me but you went out with a blast instead hehe.
__________________
introduction-Gramma
The following is a list of problems found in various places throughout the manual and game. We love you Noah!
Written by Kloopy Wed Mar 16 22:06:43 2005
Retired just for a bit....
Proud to have been 1up, SiN, Wolfpack, Bluetuba and the leader of ARK.
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 17:36.
| |