Menu
▾
▴
openme-developers — OpenME Developers
You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2002 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
(8) |
Dec
(42) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2003 |
Jan
(111) |
Feb
(14) |
Mar
(6) |
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
(2) |
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
|
From: Justin S. <jus...@ho...> - 2003-01-25 23:56:31
|
Middy my messages about DI and Trading were not Flaming, I was just making sure you guys knew the facts about the Formula you had presented. I agree with most of your 'theory' about trading. People should have a choice in which strategy they wish to make money. Overland (long or short), Jump, Gate trading. Obviously Gate will be the best and then probably Jump trading but we should still have Overland trading as a viable option. Especially because new players to the game won't be able to Gate trade from the start (nor probably Jump trade safely). I think I know what you mean about the higher DIs sort of being there for Gate and Jump Trading and I guess I can go with that (since there are few of them). If I may suggest I think a formula for trading that has Money/Turn increase as DI goes up to DI 8 or 10. Then After that DI (8 or 10 or whatever) the unit price still raises but the money/turn either stays equal or decreases (as you had it). This way Overland trading would still be viable at the low DIs and be 'worth it'. Then as you go above this (say) DI 10 it is more for Jumpers and Gaters although an Overlander could still go that far without losing out. Doing this would also keep the Trading Ships more balanced. Also people won't be shocked by such a sudden change in the trading system (ie going farther = less money). I also think Gating should use 20 turns (not 10). With DI increasing and being able to gate with 600 Cargo ships we really need Gating to use more turns. Otherwise Gate Trading not only destroys Overland but Jump Trading also. Carnaugh - Can't believe he and aos agree on some issues! _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 |
|
From: Oliver D. B. <oli...@ma...> - 2003-01-25 20:40:26
|
I'lll be away the next few days.. but will continue to monitor the list, = but dont exspect to see me on IRC :) |
|
From: Angelo S. <ang...@oo...> - 2003-01-25 16:28:13
|
I think most is allready decided and implemented :-) However, see below. Justin Stedman wrote: > > My Answers to these Questions (for those that care). > > Things that need to be settled once and for all : > > Base racial kill bounty at 10% [yes / no] > Yes > YES > Base xp gain/loss from kills [variable based on lvls / 10%] > EXP Gain (from Kill): (10 - LevelDifference/4)% (10% Max) NO, (10 - LevelDifference) (10% Max) suites me better. > EXP Loss (from any Death): 10% > YES > Half EXP Gain for Force, TFP, Base kills. NO No XP gain from a forces kill, except if the forcs owner is in sector, probably. Full XP gain with a TFP kill. Why the heck you like to treat that different than an ordinary kill? A TFP hit is far more difficult, you rely on scout reports, I need two screens to fire on you while you can move away in the time I open one screen. XP gain for base kills as you like. If you turn it that definitly one is dying per round ... then lower XP gain even more. > > Racial abilities [keep last version / keep tweaking] > Bruticus' with my #s and modifications > YES, besides weapon production for KEA and Mawlor is imbalanced IMHO. > Base Busting [keep old version / develop completely new version] > Base Busting has to be capable to do with whatever MAP and Alliance Size > settings we have. > NEW version. > Auto return fire [yes / no] > Prefer it to be Yes, but if not then the solutions Hawk and I have come up > with for Weapon Delay etc. Also add in Auto Return Fire for when your > Merchant is Offline as a feature. Possibly also added in Auto-Return Fire > after X time Idle. > I support Carnaughs position, besides I do not know Hawks implementation :-) > Weapon delay for firing [yes / no ] > See above YES ... or Tiger fires every 3 seconds and I fire every 8 to 10 seconds, not relay fair. > > Race description [use Tigers version / use Bruticus' version / developn > other version] > Saruman's Version No idea. I think the team is assigned by Middy, so let teh team do it and others who like to help join them. > > Alliance size [20 / 25 / other] > 25, unless MAPs aren't working then 50 > No limit. 50 is not a limit worth to implement ... (100 bases for the alliance :-) ) > Treaty limits [limited / unlimited] > Unlimited Limit wars, with 50 or no alliance limit, its not necessary to make sister and doughter alliances. > > Add current sector sorting [yes / no] > Random Current Sector Sorting > Sort by reverse entry date. This gives more tactical possibilities, and is for free to implement. (I suggested that allready for fleet battles in the old way as it also had given nice tactical opertunities) > Carnaugh - I've been told to Shut up! > Probably I'm as well told to shut up, but I missed that mail though. aos ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML Ang...@oo... Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVA Fax: +49 721 9812467 |
|
From: Angelo S. <ang...@oo...> - 2003-01-25 16:18:05
|
Oliver Due Billing wrote: > > Now logicaly its completely correct that a di 50 should be better in > turns/sector than a lower DI, if we assume that the player travels all the > way. But that is not the intention as described. Basicly the close quarter > traders should gain more XP, while the long distance traders(by gate) should > gain money a bit faster. > I have a 1.5kB DSL line. On my usual ME comp, thats an 200MHz Pentium, year 1996, a page load is 8 seconds. Often slower. Going up to 15 seconds(that is looking up the server plus opening the connection plus downloading the page plus rendering, while rendering is lightening fast in Opera) On my other comp, a 1.4GHz Athlon, a page load is about 6 to 7 seconds, so the speed of the machine is not the matter. As it takes 3 seconds to look up and another 2 or 3 to connect to the server I think my limited upstream of 128KBit is the problem. Last game I played FT. Basicly 4 active players and in the start of the game 2 further players and some players which joined in the middle and went inactive. What do I want to say? You ask :-) None of us made overland trading. Exception: Foolio. None of us made jump trading(except for Vaar, selling weapons at a weapon dealer), a 240 holds jumper is not suitabel for trading(in terms of XP/turns or money/turns) I would estimate we spend 500M on gates for trading. We earned via trade aproximately 2 giga of cash. All via gates. As soon as the DI is greater than 4 we have built a gate. Why? Because overland trading is so freaking slow(the moving, not the trading), and with a gate you are allways over your base and can land in case of a BR. Furthermore: a gate takes 10 turns to pass, if the distance is > than 3 its cheaper to gate than to move overland. The only overland movements we did are for final 2k goods to finish an upgrade, for shield buying, for base stocking for getting a raw good needed in research and so on. I support Middies view completely. However, Carnaugh is in so far right as the way of older games: trade for XP *or* for money, and not simply: the farer the more money AND more XP should be reestablished. Well, before you start flaming: this is again an aos way of playing .... :-) However, Carnaugh, I do not mind if it is done the way you propose. I only want to say: my next alliance plans to trade ONLY via gates, even the local upgrades. Instead of taking energy from 2 sectors away we take it back via the gates. aos ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML Ang...@oo... Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVA Fax: +49 721 9812467 |
|
From: Oliver D. B. <oli...@ma...> - 2003-01-25 09:46:30
|
I want to feed the players with a bit mroe information(they are getting = bitchy). So if you can tell anything specific about the parts. Remember = that if you havent made a final decision we dont publish it. Hawklan/ChrisN: combat system: -delay time after firing -other specifics base busting: -base busting limit (max 10 persons)? -attack algorithm -Critical hits -other specifics Bruticus/Carnaugh/Tiger/Saruman -story -abilities -other specifics just mail them here and i'll update the preliminary list. I will do that anyway with alliance size of 25 (and yes MAP should = work, mostely in BB), and also galaxy setup specifics Middy |
|
From: Justin S. <jus...@ho...> - 2003-01-25 02:19:49
|
My Answers to these Questions (for those that care). Things that need to be settled once and for all : Base racial kill bounty at 10% [yes / no] Yes Base xp gain/loss from kills [variable based on lvls / 10%] EXP Gain (from Kill): (10 - LevelDifference/4)% (10% Max) EXP Loss (from any Death): 10% Half EXP Gain for Force, TFP, Base kills. Racial abilities [keep last version / keep tweaking] Bruticus' with my #s and modifications Base Busting [keep old version / develop completely new version] Base Busting has to be capable to do with whatever MAP and Alliance Size settings we have. Auto return fire [yes / no] Prefer it to be Yes, but if not then the solutions Hawk and I have come up with for Weapon Delay etc. Also add in Auto Return Fire for when your Merchant is Offline as a feature. Possibly also added in Auto-Return Fire after X time Idle. Weapon delay for firing [yes / no ] See above Race description [use Tigers version / use Bruticus' version / developn other version] Saruman's Version Alliance size [20 / 25 / other] 25, unless MAPs aren't working then 50 Treaty limits [limited / unlimited] Unlimited Add current sector sorting [yes / no] Random Current Sector Sorting Carnaugh - I've been told to Shut up! _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus |
|
From: Oliver D. B. <oli...@ma...> - 2003-01-25 02:17:01
|
I am dont want to start a flame war about this subject, but I feel my goals need to be said. Trading in ME is very slow and tedious, and with close area trading you quickly end up with 1000 of trades if you want to make it. This is fun for some but not for many. It takes too long and can be tremendiously boring. Many online players do not have the time nor the will to sit for hours and click, rather mindlessly. Last game with the prolonged life of a stargate a new strategy appeared called stargate trading and also jump trading became a big thing. The intend of the high DI is to promote this way of playing. To give the players who do not wish to click endlessly an easier way to gain money fast, and also support this new strategy. This opens up for alliances that do not have "half of Mawlor" or 1st quadrant of "KEA", but have distributed bases connected by gates. Also I am hoping to see a bit more fighting over the good spots. A way to support it is by higher DI, this will make stargate trading much more profitable. But it shouldent be as profitable that overland trading will go away as a viable strategy. It should be a choice of strategy. Remember that even stargate traders will need to upgrade their local ports too. A nice side effect would hopefully be less territory needed for alliances, but thats hard to tell. Now logicaly its completely correct that a di 50 should be better in turns/sector than a lower DI, if we assume that the player travels all the way. But that is not the intention as described. Basicly the close quarter traders should gain more XP, while the long distance traders(by gate) should gain money a bit faster. Now the question is if the DI limit is too much and the effects. When I redo the formulaes i'll look over my test galaxy and try to rigure it out. I'll prolly end up with the conclusion that they are :)... |
|
From: Justin S. <jus...@ho...> - 2003-01-25 00:52:59
|
What is Max DI going to be? If it is going to be 50 then I have to change something with Jump Trading in my ship price formula (and hence rebalance those ships). You say you aren't reworking the formula much. So we are switching to 1 sector trading is good for money then? Will you increase it so that Long Distance Trading is for EXP then? BTW by making Short Distance Trading better then Long Distance you really cut the heart out of Zyck and the 'faster' races trading Ability. Basically it will be Mawlor all the way. As I told you, if you are having DI 50 then to make it worth travelling 50 sectors overland you have to have it increase by alot. ie DI 50 being approximately 35-50 times the unit price of DI 1. It is simple math. The formula the way you had it made worse money/turn the higher the DI. Add 2 lines on your graph. EXP/turn and Money/Turn. Then just make sure as DI goes up that EXP/turn goes down and Money/Turn goes up. Use 3 TPS, 300 Cargo, 2 turns/trade for your calculations. So DI 1 = 300 Cargo & 10 turns = 30 Cargo/Turn * UnitPrice(DI1) & DI 50 = 300 Cargo & 304 turns = 0.987 Cargo/Turn * UnitPrice(DI50) Therefore as you can with that example for DI 50 to be just equal to DI 1 it needs a unit price of 30.4 times higher. And that would just be to have an straight line (no change in price/turn with DI). We would want price/turn to increase as DI goes up so it would basically have to be at least 40 (to compensate for the better EXP over shorter distances). Are you really ready to have UnitPrices of ~16K? If you are then Jump and Gate Trading will slaughter. If you are not prepared to have Unit Prices that high then you are faced with limiting DI and really I think max should be closer to 10-20 (20 at the extreme). Please do the math for yourselves so you understand it. Carnaugh _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail |
|
From: Justin S. <jus...@ho...> - 2003-01-25 00:32:32
|
As I had said before Saruman is doing a full ME Story and Racial Descriptions they will go with the Traits/Abilities and Ships and all fit together. _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail |
|
From: Justin S. <jus...@ho...> - 2003-01-25 00:31:09
|
<< Thanks for the numbers Carn, most look good but the 110% building cost for Paragon is a bit too much for that race, especially considering what people think about their ships. So I lowered it to 105%. >> DOH!!!!! Don't just do something like that. If you are lowering that you raise Research to 90%. Otherwise if you think there is a problem with the 1:2:10 Building:Researching:Producing Ratio then say. And we can change that ratio and reblance the #s. Doing things in crements of 5% is to make the numbers come out better, it avoids less rounding issues and makes for nicer #s. Carnaugh _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus |
|
From: Angelo S. <ang...@oo...> - 2003-01-24 21:05:08
|
Well, se below. Justin Stedman wrote: > > Treaties... > I say no limit on any of the treaties. As Forge points out too many > problems. It would also be nice (when MAP works fully) to have lots of > little alliances (5 man cells) in the game. If we want lots of small > alliances lets not make limits so people have to be in big alliances to get > the treaties they need. > > Randomness... > aos, this game is random. In fact people have asked for more randomness and But not in every aspect, e.g. if I go through a star gate I reach the desired destination. > more variation so it is less predictable (we are adding Critical hits and I > started out by lowering overall gun accuracy). I can understand desiring Critical hits are a nice idea, and not "random" in the sence as random order of ships. > more control (I am the same way), but we have to have busting be Random. If > we don't then it promotes multing (even though we like to pretend there are > no multis the truth is there are). And people would just bring their multi Both approaches promote multiing in the same order. With the approach of randmizing the ship order, people who would agree with my wish, are provoked to multi ... more ships, less damage per ship, less likely that I'm number one. With the approach of fixed order, I only can place the same "throw away" character into the bad position, and that will be noticed by everybody. I have no idea which things promote multiing ... but I know we have absolutely no data how a single game aspect influences player behaviour or game balance, as we do not collect and evaluate data. > to a bust a have them use a Fighter and be the person who takes the most > turrets every round. It is unfair to the base owner to have it so in favour > of the attackers for the attackers to know who is going to get hit with what > each round. There is risk in everything in the game, I am just saying don't > make the risks outrageous (but don't take them away either). > If playing the game is the risk ... why should I play then? Playing is about making plans and doing them and chearing for joy if it worked. Its not about, closing the eyes and running blindly through a maze ... > Carnaugh > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML Ang...@oo... Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVA Fax: +49 721 9812467 |
|
From: Michael v. D. <mi...@ci...> - 2003-01-24 20:11:32
|
Thanks for the numbers Carn, most look good but the 110% building cost for Paragon is a bit too much for that race, especially considering what people think about their ships. So I lowered it to 105%. The 5% increments look a bit too generic they will do for this game. If there no more objections this list will be final Zyck'lirg: PB) 95% xp change upon Death (9.5% if 10% base EXP switch) PN) 95% xp change upon Kill (9.5% if 10% base EXP switch) BM) 90% Building Cost PM) 125% Production cost RM) 115% Research cost SM) -50 Global Race Relations (all other Races) Xollian: PB) Does Not Pay Local Tax on Selling of Goods PN) 450 Maximum Alignment BM) 105% Building Cost PM) 75% Production Cost RM) 95% Research Cost SM) -50 Alignment KEA: PB) Unaffected by Negative Global Race Relations PN) 50% Military Payment (5% if 10% base) BM) 95% Building Cost PM) 150% Production Cost RM) 100% Research Cost SM) +50 Alignment Paragon: PB) 550 Maximum Alignment PN) 400 Maximum Personal Race Relations (all Races) BM) 105% Building Cost PM) 100% Production Cost RM) 80% Research Cost SM) +50 Personal Race Relations with all other Races Mawlor: PB) 105% xp change upon Kill (10.5% if 10% base EXP switch) PN) 105% xp change upon Death (10.5% if 10% base EXP switch) BM) 100% Building Cost PM) 50% Production Cost RM) 110% Research Cost SM) -50 Personal Race Relations with all other Races |
|
From: Stephen L <ste...@ho...> - 2003-01-24 12:58:15
|
All the guides that i put on the forum i have now saved to pdf format which i will send to Middy or else put them on the system. _________________________________________________________________ MSN Messenger - fast, easy and FREE! http://messenger.msn.co.uk |
|
From: Stephen L <ste...@ho...> - 2003-01-24 09:55:08
|
Right more waffle from yours truly, well anyway i find it amusing and tried to make it as interesting as i could while not trying to write too much. A long long time ago, the Mython Empire spanned many solar systems. It was made up of many species covering thousands of worlds. The society was controlled by 4 major races that shared power on a council of all the space going races. These races where Gornfrez, Hyven, Wicben and Jyess. All had developed into major powers within the universe for many hundreds of years by utilising their strengths, whether it was being highly skilled in trading, construction of planets, building of ports or the ability to travel great distances fast and efficiently. A thousand years earlier the racial leaders had agreed to live in peace and had former the council in order to maintain the peace between the races. These times where happy times, populations grew fast and merchants enjoyed trouble free trading with all space capable races. Peace had last for over a thousand years partly due to the introduction of the Imperial Navy. Following a fierce council meeting over the ownership of the Zeta galaxy, a galaxy rich in resources, many races withdrew from the council promises that they would make the Zeat galaxy theirs. This also had effected the their support of the Imperial Navy leaving it a spent force, unable to patrol the vast area of the Empire due to lack of ships and partly due to exclusion zone of races that no longer supported the Imperial Navy. The Imperial Navys final act was a heroic effort to save a fleet of merchants on route to Nova 7 with emergency medical supplies. The merchant fleet had come under attack by 6 pirate ships and had sent out an SOS to all ships in the area. The last two Imperial Navy ships (Shadow & Lighting Strike) had responded to the SOS call for help. They arrived to see one of the merchant ships being destroyed. They knew that this would not be a battle that they could hope to win, but as members of the Imperial Navy it was their duty to try. The engaged the pirates taking them by surprise destroying one warship almost immediately. Now that the pirates where alert to their presence it was going to be the Imperial Navy ships that would have to fight for their lifes. The battle did not last long. The Imperial navy ships maintain formation for as long as they could, targeting one pirate ship at a time. The pirate however where less organised randomly hitting each of the Imperial Navy ships. The Imperial Navy ships had destroyed 3 pirates ships before the captain of the Lighting Strike give the order to abandon ship. This left a badly damaged Shadow with two pirate ships. With luck and fine captaincy the Shadow managed to destroy one of the remaining pirate ships but had left itself crippled. With power failing, shields down, weapons offline and engines malfunctioning the caption of the Shadow give the order to set self destruct sequence and for engineering to prepare to give him all the power the engine could muster. As the pirate ship came in for another attack the Shadow engaged her engines at maximum impulse ramming into the bridge of the pirate ship. Shortly after that the Shadow exploded taking with it the last pirate ship and allowing the merchants to complete their supply run to Nova 7. As the years went by attacks on peaceful merchants increased, as did the racial mistrust. Each race accusing another race of being behind the attacks on its traders. As the tension grew so did the possibility of an all out war. In one final bid to prevent all out war was a peace summit of the leaders of all the races was called. The leaders of the four races met at Orten central a name that would forever live in the history books. It was a small peaceful planet belonging to a small space going race called the Ventran. Each racial leader arrived in a warship escorted by two of their top warships. The summit went on for more than a week. Heated words where exchanged as sides vented their angry and frustration for the past years loses. All seemed to be going well peace was starting to look possible, but alas to no avail. The peace talks broke down and all the leaders headed back to their ships. What started the following events is unknown, what is certain is that it started the bloodiest conflict known to this day. Within minutes of the racial leaders boarding their ships a battle occurred, who fired first and why, are unknown. What is known is that within a few minutes the wreckage of 11 great warships was slowly drifting in space their hulls smashed to pieces, their crews dead at their stations and the all out war had been started. War raged for 8 long years, all sides making gains as they saw it, but in fact losing as much as they gained. As the major racial powers fought more and more small space going races where drawn into the conflict. These smaller races did not have the resources or the technology to stand up to the major fleets of ships. One by one these races where exterminated. As the war continued the major alliances formed treaties with each other until the races had formed into two sides. Several major battles soon followed with neither side able to claim victory from these battles. Each side launched massive attacks on their enemies home worlds all but wiping the races out. With resource low and populations all but gone, one final great battle occurred at Archzan. The battled raged for 2 days, resulting in the deaths of over one billion. What happened at the end is unclear, what is known is, as the battle drew to a close few ships remained. It is rumoured that an ancient and very secretive race known as the Nimda appeared and with one stroke they removed all of the remaining ships for existence. No one remained from these warring factions, they where wiped for existence. Their worlds no longer had any sign of the society. All that remains to provide evidence of their being, is rumour or written in a book detailing the history of the universe. Now some 2000 years following the final battle of Archzan, 5 races have gained the ability to travel though space and are each strive to take control of the univerise. These races are:- Zycklirg, Paragon, Xollian, Mawlor and Kallan. Now it is your time to right the history for your race and the universe. But a word of warning to avoid and aggression against the Nimda, who may not been seen often around the univerise, but may still be around!!!!!!!! _________________________________________________________________ Stay in touch with MSN Messenger http://messenger.msn.co.uk |
|
From: Oliver B. <oli...@ma...> - 2003-01-23 21:52:54
|
OK... I have looked through the stuff and here is how we will do it. Racial stuff: Forge,Bruticus and Tiger you stick your head together and fix racial descri= ptions along with racial abilities (cause they are the same). Remember you = are working for a common goal here so work together. You are responsible fo= r that part and i'll keep yoou responsible. They need to be done before gam= e start and I hope that can be in a two weeks time. Base busting: I have put Hawklan and ChrisN on the job(ChrisN just dont know it yet). Haw= klan has done such a tremendous job with battle code I am sure he will cont= inue. He is also responsible for battle code, so he decides the settings. H= e has been given the design specs of base busting as discussed previously. They will together with ragnora define a way for bases to be taken over by = enemies.. eg captured. that will be a feature we add after the start of the= game. Combat code including auto return fire and delay: look above..Hawklan is in charge.He has already implemented som values so w= e probably keep them. XP gain loss: We will use the new formula devloped by kevkev and hawklan you can see it o= n tiki. Base racial kill bounty is set at 10% for this game. trading formula and such, me and kevkev is reworking it together But it wil= l probably not change too much unless we get some realy nice ideas. Thats all : Middy |
|
From: Darth D. <Dar...@kn...> - 2003-01-23 20:35:45
|
Regarding race descriptions, BRUTICUS kindly bundled together everything we have on races and sent it to me in an E-mail which I printed off the other day. I'm working on new race descriptions, should have em out in a day or two as work and school permits. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael van Dongen" <mi...@ci...> To: <ope...@li...> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 4:49 PM Subject: [Openme-developers] Final decision list > Things that need to be settled once and for all : > > Base racial kill bounty at 10% [yes / no] > > Base xp gain/loss from kills [variable based on lvls / 10%] > > Racial abilities [keep last version / keep tweaking] > > Base Busting [keep old version / develop completely new version] > > Auto return fire [yes / no] > > Weapon delay for firing [yes / no ] > > Race description [use Tigers version / use Bruticus' version / developn > other version] > > Alliance size [20 / 25 / other] > > Treaty limits [limited / unlimited] > > Add current sector sorting [yes / no] > > > > Discussions are taking up too much time so settle as many as possible. > These are all I could think of in 10 minutes so if you have any more > then send them to me so I can add them to the blog asap > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.NET email is sponsored by: > SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! > http://www.vasoftware.com > _______________________________________________ > Openme-developers mailing list > Ope...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openme-developers > |
|
From: Andrei G. <and...@ho...> - 2003-01-23 20:14:54
|
a transporter ... _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus |
|
From: Michael v. D. <mi...@ci...> - 2003-01-23 16:50:21
|
Things that need to be settled once and for all : Base racial kill bounty at 10% [yes / no] Base xp gain/loss from kills [variable based on lvls / 10%] Racial abilities [keep last version / keep tweaking] Base Busting [keep old version / develop completely new version] Auto return fire [yes / no] Weapon delay for firing [yes / no ] Race description [use Tigers version / use Bruticus' version / developn other version] Alliance size [20 / 25 / other] Treaty limits [limited / unlimited] Add current sector sorting [yes / no] Discussions are taking up too much time so settle as many as possible. These are all I could think of in 10 minutes so if you have any more then send them to me so I can add them to the blog asap |
|
From: Oliver D. B. <oli...@ma...> - 2003-01-23 07:36:58
|
Take it somewhere else please :) A Word (or Two) About Flaming Simply put: resist the urge to start or participate in a flame war. Nobody likes being attacked or embarrassed in public and will therefore respond in kind. When you include personal attacks in your posts, the intelligent exchange of viewpoints gets lost in an emotional exchange of hostility. Flame wars accomplish nothing but dividing the community into opposing sides. The "discussion" follows a fairly predictable path and often results in the participants appearing very childish: "You're lying"/"No, you're lying", "If you bothered to read my post, that is not what I said", etc. Here are some suggestions to avoid a flame war: 1) Use emoticons to help the reader better understand your intended meaning. This is especially important when using humour, sarcasm, or other subtle word play. An "obvious" bit of humour to the writer may not be so obvious to the reader. Keep in mind that to many people here at the Guild, English is a second language. 2) In a disagreement, focus on the issue, not the individual. For example, "The problem I see with that idea is..." is much better for constructive dialog than is "Are you really stupid enough not to see the problem with your moronic idea?" 3) If you need to vent your anger, do so in an email to a friend or post it in a private clan forum, but remain civil in your posts at the Guild. Think of it as a high tech way of screaming into a pillow. 4) If you absolutely must confront an individual, do so via email, chat, another forum, or some other form of communication. First, people are more civil when they are not concerned about saving face in public or strutting for an audience. Second, the vast majority of the Guild members don't care to be involved in or even read flame exchanges. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Justin Stedman" <jus...@ho...> To: <ope...@li...> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 8:06 AM Subject: [Openme-developers] Building vs Production > Come on aos, I'm not a moron. Building Cost is Base Construction, > Production Cost is for Producing Guns. A small part of the game and that is > why it is possible to have high and low #s in those areas. I explained the > 1:2:10 ratio (Building:Researching:Producing). > > Maybe I should ask if you read? ;-) > > Carnaugh > > > << > Does anybody even read the numebrs? > Justin Stedman wrote: > > > >Mawlor: > >PB) 105% xp change upon Kill (10.5% if 10% base EXP switch) > >PN) 105% xp change upon Death (10.5% if 10% base EXP switch) > >BM) 100% Building Cost > >PM) 50% Production Cost <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > >RM) 110% Research Cost > >SM) -50 Personal Race Relations with all other Races > This is the key factor of the game. Giving one race a 50% advantage > seems not appropriated to me. > Bad enough that KEA has a -50% weapon production malus, which does not > seem sound to me as well. But a 50% benefit on base constructions, > turrets, SGs, DHs ... that looks odd. > aos > >> > > _________________________________________________________________ > MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Scholarships for Techies! > Can't afford IT training? All 2003 ictp students receive scholarships. > Get hands-on training in Microsoft, Cisco, Sun, Linux/UNIX, and more. > www.ictp.com/training/sourceforge.asp > _______________________________________________ > Openme-developers mailing list > Ope...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openme-developers > |
|
From: Justin S. <jus...@ho...> - 2003-01-23 06:14:27
|
Treaties... I say no limit on any of the treaties. As Forge points out too many problems. It would also be nice (when MAP works fully) to have lots of little alliances (5 man cells) in the game. If we want lots of small alliances lets not make limits so people have to be in big alliances to get the treaties they need. Randomness... aos, this game is random. In fact people have asked for more randomness and more variation so it is less predictable (we are adding Critical hits and I started out by lowering overall gun accuracy). I can understand desiring more control (I am the same way), but we have to have busting be Random. If we don't then it promotes multing (even though we like to pretend there are no multis the truth is there are). And people would just bring their multi to a bust a have them use a Fighter and be the person who takes the most turrets every round. It is unfair to the base owner to have it so in favour of the attackers for the attackers to know who is going to get hit with what each round. There is risk in everything in the game, I am just saying don't make the risks outrageous (but don't take them away either). Carnaugh _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail |
|
From: Justin S. <jus...@ho...> - 2003-01-23 06:06:58
|
Come on aos, I'm not a moron. Building Cost is Base Construction, Production Cost is for Producing Guns. A small part of the game and that is why it is possible to have high and low #s in those areas. I explained the 1:2:10 ratio (Building:Researching:Producing). Maybe I should ask if you read? ;-) Carnaugh << Does anybody even read the numebrs? Justin Stedman wrote: > >Mawlor: >PB) 105% xp change upon Kill (10.5% if 10% base EXP switch) >PN) 105% xp change upon Death (10.5% if 10% base EXP switch) >BM) 100% Building Cost >PM) 50% Production Cost <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< >RM) 110% Research Cost >SM) -50 Personal Race Relations with all other Races This is the key factor of the game. Giving one race a 50% advantage seems not appropriated to me. Bad enough that KEA has a -50% weapon production malus, which does not seem sound to me as well. But a 50% benefit on base constructions, turrets, SGs, DHs ... that looks odd. aos >> _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus |
|
From: Farid K. <Far...@ro...> - 2003-01-23 03:01:13
|
I think that is weapons production, not base building costs. -----Original Message----- From: ope...@li... [mailto:ope...@li...] On Behalf Of Angelo Schneider Sent: January 22, 2003 9:02 PM Cc: ope...@li... Subject: Re: [Openme-developers] Racial Traits and Other Stuff Does anybody even read the numebrs? Justin Stedman wrote: > > Mawlor: > PB) 105% xp change upon Kill (10.5% if 10% base EXP switch) > PN) 105% xp change upon Death (10.5% if 10% base EXP switch) > BM) 100% Building Cost > PM) 50% Production Cost <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > RM) 110% Research Cost > SM) -50 Personal Race Relations with all other Races This is the key factor of the game. Giving one race a 50% advantage seems not appropriated to me. Bad enough that KEA has a -50% weapon production malus, which does not seem sound to me as well. But a 50% benefit on base constructions, turrets, SGs, DHs ... that looks odd. aos ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML Ang...@oo... Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVA Fax: +49 721 9812467 ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Scholarships for Techies! Can't afford IT training? All 2003 ictp students receive scholarships. Get hands-on training in Microsoft, Cisco, Sun, Linux/UNIX, and more. www.ictp.com/training/sourceforge.asp _______________________________________________ Openme-developers mailing list Ope...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openme-developers |
|
From: Angelo S. <ang...@oo...> - 2003-01-23 02:03:09
|
Does anybody even read the numebrs? Justin Stedman wrote: > > Mawlor: > PB) 105% xp change upon Kill (10.5% if 10% base EXP switch) > PN) 105% xp change upon Death (10.5% if 10% base EXP switch) > BM) 100% Building Cost > PM) 50% Production Cost <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > RM) 110% Research Cost > SM) -50 Personal Race Relations with all other Races This is the key factor of the game. Giving one race a 50% advantage seems not appropriated to me. Bad enough that KEA has a -50% weapon production malus, which does not seem sound to me as well. But a 50% benefit on base constructions, turrets, SGs, DHs ... that looks odd. aos ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML Ang...@oo... Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVA Fax: +49 721 9812467 |
|
From: Angelo S. <ang...@oo...> - 2003-01-23 01:59:42
|
Justin Stedman wrote: > > Just use 2000 Credits/EXP point for all Building/Researching. Keep that a > standard # throughout the game. So although we may want to increase the > cost of building the last few turrets make sure we keep that Ratio of 2000:1 > (double the cost from last game). Last game there were some research > projects that were better then 1000:1 (very wrong). I know Research EXP was > based on Research Time, but we can use both. Keep the 2000:1 Credit:EXP > Ratio and use the 1:100 Build Time:EXP ratio also. Now my only question > is...if your race has 110% Build Cost do you spend more money for the same > EXP or do you gain more EXP? And do Zyck (for example) gain the same EXP > for less money? If so (and it should probably be that way) we should add in > the 2000:1 Ratio for producing guns. It will only be a minor benefit (since > guns are so cheap to produce), but it will make up for the disparity that > will occur with some races having their main bonus be producing weapons. I dont want to argue about teh numbers. The code principle makes absolutely sense. It will make it far more easy to add further options in game which take tiem and money and have XP as side effect. I mean: instead of defining: this research yields X XP and this building/fabrication Y, use a general formular and take races ability as XP enhancer/decreaser into account just like Carnaugh proposes it. > Carnaugh > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML Ang...@oo... Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVA Fax: +49 721 9812467 |
|
From: Angelo S. <ang...@oo...> - 2003-01-23 01:56:26
|
Justin Stedman wrote: > > We do need a random Current Sector sorting process for ships. So every > refresh comes out different. Same for busting (we can't have the last ship > in be the one 'on top' that takes the brunt). We can't know who is going to > take the most turrets each round. If we did, we have that person be the > lowest EXP person in the bust and we put them in a Fighter to fly. As you wont bust(like you posted in a other mail) when you have to fear a 40% XP loss, I wont bust if my positin is random. When I'm commanding I want to choose what my warriors do. If the opponent breaks my descissions, than its fine, but if the universe (the ME code) suddenly starts to behave random, then I avoid all situations which might be costly to get invloved in. Anyway: reverse sorting is easy to code, more or less for free, random sorting not. > Carnaugh > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML Ang...@oo... Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVA Fax: +49 721 9812467 |
2 messages has been excluded from this view by a project administrator.
