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: Darth D. <Dar...@kn...> - 2003-01-22 22:00:30
|
Message>FMT: Limit to 12 (must be accepted by both sides)
MAP: Limit to 4 (must be accepted by both sides)
WAR: Limit to 4 (does not have to be accepted on each side, so an =
alliance can declare war on 4 alliances, but, they can have a whole lot =
more alliance declare war on them. <
Can I just say something about this. I'll use my Alliance as an example. =
With a limit of 25 people, the Alliance would have to be split into two =
Alliances (much like USSM and USSM ES in 2nd Gen). There would also be a =
third recruiting Alliance. Immediatley this uses up 2 MAPs. I then =
consider an ally to extend MAP to. I offer them a MAP, they accept. =
Being the same size as me, they have split into two Alliances also, and =
I must MAP with that offshoot. I have no more MAPs to MAP with their =
recruits alliance or any other Alliance in the game.=20
By the same sausage, I declare war on say Fear the Warriors. I then =
declare war on their sister Alliance which they have used to harbour =
their extra numbers. I then declare war on their recruits Alliance. I am =
now stuffed if I wish to declare war on anyone else, since I have only =
one more War treaty to offer to Alliances which most probably require =
three. They run around free of the affects of war, and everyone gets =
confused when they read Treaties: under the persons name.=20
I suggest that either restrictions are made on how many treaties may be =
established OR permissable numbers in an Alliance are restricted, not =
both. It might not be the hugest ever problem with war but its just =
silly when it comes to MAP. Out of the two options I personally think =
that it would be preferable for treaties to be restricted
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Farid Khan=20
To: ope...@li...=20
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 5:23 PM
Subject: RE: [Openme-developers] Alliance sizes?
Well, MAP is just that: Mutual Assistance. Since combat code is 1 on =
1, MAP is useful since it will remove the attack button from members =
that you have MAP with. In BB, I expect to use MAP to extend who can be =
in sector for attack; this way, numbers can remain hidden from CPL when =
an operation is underway. Minimize alliance hopping.
=20
MAP can be used for many things: using another alliances stargates, =
landing on ally bases etc. Of course, none of that needs to be =
addressed now, it is functionality that can wait.
=20
I was discussing how forces and FMT/MAP would work with ChrisN and =
others, I think by removing attack button on FMT/MAP stacks by allowing =
the removal of FMT forces in sectors your alliances have claimed, and =
adding/removing forces from MAP alliance stacks, would make things a lot =
more interesting.
=20
BTW, it has not been mentioned yet, but I believe that limits are in =
order for treaty types:
=20
FMT: Limit to 12 (must be accepted by both sides)
MAP: Limit to 4 (must be accepted by both sides)
WAR: Limit to 4 (does not have to be accepted on each side, so an =
alliance can declare war on 4 alliances, but, they can have a whole lot =
more alliance declare war on them.=20
=20
=20
-----Original Message-----
From: ope...@li... =
[mailto:ope...@li...] On Behalf Of =
Oliver Due Billing
Sent: January 20, 2003 11:02 AM
To: Michael van Dongen; ope...@li...
Subject: Re: [Openme-developers] Alliance sizes?
=20
Organise you mean base busts.. Well the whole point of redoing base =
busting is that you shouldent need 20 guys. You can have but its not =
nessesary, you can still inflict damage and thus we make the base =
busting feature avaliable to alliances with less then 40 people
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Michael van Dongen=20
To: ope...@li...=20
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 2:42 PM
Subject: RE: [Openme-developers] Alliance sizes?
=20
If MAP works now then I'd have no trouble with a max of 25. 20 is =
just bit too small to organize anything with your own alliance
=20
But if MAP doesn't work yet I won't be happy with anything less then =
40
-----Original Message-----
From: ope...@li... =
[mailto:ope...@li...] On Behalf Of =
Oliver Due Billing
Sent: maandag 20 januari 2003 12:44
To: ope...@li...
Subject: [Openme-developers] Alliance sizes?
What should the alliance sizes be set at?, as discussed previously =
more and smaller alliances would be nice. So how big should we set =
them?. I am personaly thinking about a max size of 20-25.
=20
Middy
|
|
From: Oliver D. B. <oli...@ma...> - 2003-01-22 14:55:20
|
I found a nice post at another community about flaming and masking posts = in general. I think we should try to follow this myself included. Its = hard to follow these things but we will get less irritated on each = others 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.=20 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. |
|
From: Justin S. <jus...@ho...> - 2003-01-22 06:44:27
|
There seems to be a problem with the DI formula, http://www.advancedpowers.com/me_old/docs/trade_simulator.php assuming that has the DI formula in it that we will be using... As it is now you'll make more money per turn doing 1 sector trading, and the money per turn steadily decreases as you go farther. Obviously this is wrong (unless we are going in a completely new direction). In general (as it has been) short distance trading is better for EXP/turn and Long Distance trading is better for Money/Turn. Money per turn should (in general) steadily increase as DI goes up. Here is some Math. I'll use my Planetary Scourge which is a good Long Distance Trader, ie it is BAD for 1 sector trading and GOOD the farther you go in it. Using Lux at 15k Demand and 500 Relations (those don't matter for this really) at DI 1 you get 490 per unit and at DI 49 you get 3413 per unit. So with 450 Cargo and 3.5 TPS at DI 1 you would make (450*490)/11 = 20k Credits/Turn and at DI 49 you would make (450*3413)/347 = 4.4k Credits/Turn. For ships that are Good at 1 sector trading (like the Duke) this becomes even worse. Why are players flying the extra 49 sectors (other then they have bought out all the DI 1 routes in the area)? If we want a player to make the same money at DI 50 that they would make at DI 1 we would need price per unit to be 5 times higher at that range (so in this example 17k per unit). Now obviously if we have Price Per Units that high Jump Trading and Gate Trading would slaughter overland trading. The truth of the fact is we can't have a DI that high. Unless we don't care that Jump/Gate trading should be dominant. And remember that is only making it even. Really DI 50 should make you MORE money/turn then a DI 1 route since you'll get ALOT more EXP on that DI 1 route (so probably somewhere between 5-10 times higher for DI 50 then it is now). Honestly I can't see anything above DI 10 working. Or if we have up to DI 50 and have a formula that works then we'll have to accept that controling that DI 50 Lux (or whatever) buyer will control the game (since I am guessing there won't be many) and the main source of money in the game will be Jump and Gate Trading. Carnaugh - Someone who does alot of Math _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail |
|
From: Farid K. <Far...@ro...> - 2003-01-21 21:24:57
|
Uhh Carn? It isn't 40% of TOTAL XP It is 40% of the XP to get from level 39 to level 40 Kev should have added a clearer explanation for you :) [00:17:15] <KevKev> take a look at the new numbers [00:18:35] <Hawklan> hmmm [00:20:02] <Hawklan> 40 2,553,600 Emperor [00:20:02] <Hawklan> 39 2,407,064 Commander in Chief [00:20:02] <Hawklan> 38 2,265,464 Dep. Commander in Chief [00:20:02] <Hawklan> 37 2,128,800 Imperial Fleet Admiral [00:20:02] <Hawklan> 36 1,997,064 Dep. Imperial Fleet Admiral [00:20:02] <Hawklan> 35 1,870,000 Galactic Fleet Admiral [00:20:29] <Hawklan> so? [00:20:33] <Hawklan> if I am level 33 [00:20:34] <ChrisN[gone]> heh. I was about to suggest a % of the XP difference between curlvl and next lvl [00:20:42] <Hawklan> and I kill and emperor [00:21:11] <Hawklan> that means what? 20% of 2.55Mil-2.4Mil [00:21:27] <KevKev> you get 20% of the XP required for you to go from 33-34 [00:21:37] <Hawklan> ohhhhhhh [00:22:06] <Hawklan> 35 1,870,000 Galactic Fleet Admiral [00:22:06] <Hawklan> 34 1,747,600 Dep. Galactic Fleet Admiral [00:22:06] <Hawklan> 33 1,630,132 Fleet Admiral [00:22:21] <ChrisN[gone]> lol thats like 24kxp [00:22:26] * ChrisN[gone] is now known as ChrisN [00:22:28] <KevKev> yup [00:22:35] <ChrisN> thats nothing. [00:22:40] <ChrisN> jacksquat [00:22:55] <Hawklan> and if I killed a lvl 40 [00:23:12] <Hawklan> he would lose 40% of 150K? [00:23:21] <KevKev> yup -----Original Message----- From: ope...@li... [mailto:ope...@li...] On Behalf Of Justin Stedman Sent: January 21, 2003 3:46 PM To: ope...@li... Subject: [Openme-developers] EXP Gain/Loss KevKev some problems with your formula... 40% loss of EXP is MORONIC!!!! ok, now that I got that out... I agree we should have a slight net loss in EXP from Killing/Dying. You should ALWAYS gain EXP for a kill, but it should become a smaller and smaller fraction as you get bigger and bigger, but never non-zero. I would still recommend 5% MIN (which really is only a token amount anyways for a big player killing a small one). As I said before you can't have dying on its own be too much of a penalty since the EXP loss is too great when you are doing things like Busting (which isn't really for personal gain). 15% was probably too high. I'm not going to risk dying on a bust with 1 million EXP especially if the code is near to 100% for someone dying/round. When you make #s to extreme you cause problems. We want to make a game that promotes action not sitting on your base (or on a Starbase) hiding because if you die with your 2 million EXP you'll lose 800K!!! Not to mention with your way a 1 million EXP player kills a 2 million EXP player (which won't be hard with everyone firing on the high exp person IS) and goes to 1.4 million and the 2 million EXP player drops to 1.2 million. Guys remember we are changing other parts of the game so think about how they all relate. We have 1 on 1 combat which in itself will work to even out EXPs (the highest exp people always being targetted if possible). We need less moronic things. 15% was too much. Lower to 10% MAX. Even a 2 million EXP player losing 200k is a horrible thing (now if using my #s will cost 400 million to buy that exp back). I guess we could have a variance between 1% and 10%, just make the increase for Dying move up faster then for killing which will result in a net loss of EXP. BTW I wouldn't consider 6 levels to be significantly above another player. 5 levels apart is really in the 'same class'. With your way a level 40 player gets nothing for killing a level 34 player, why???? Suggested New Rule: Try to think about impact on game before giving #s. EXP Gain: (10 - Level Difference/4)% (max of 10%) EXP Loss: 10% (always) Simple and to the point. How about we give no EXP gain for TFP, Forces and Base kills? Only EXP loss for those. Only way to gain EXP is a legitamate ship to ship kill. Carnaugh - The Ass of ME _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 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...> - 2003-01-21 20:46:09
|
KevKev some problems with your formula... 40% loss of EXP is MORONIC!!!! ok, now that I got that out... I agree we should have a slight net loss in EXP from Killing/Dying. You should ALWAYS gain EXP for a kill, but it should become a smaller and smaller fraction as you get bigger and bigger, but never non-zero. I would still recommend 5% MIN (which really is only a token amount anyways for a big player killing a small one). As I said before you can't have dying on its own be too much of a penalty since the EXP loss is too great when you are doing things like Busting (which isn't really for personal gain). 15% was probably too high. I'm not going to risk dying on a bust with 1 million EXP especially if the code is near to 100% for someone dying/round. When you make #s to extreme you cause problems. We want to make a game that promotes action not sitting on your base (or on a Starbase) hiding because if you die with your 2 million EXP you'll lose 800K!!! Not to mention with your way a 1 million EXP player kills a 2 million EXP player (which won't be hard with everyone firing on the high exp person IS) and goes to 1.4 million and the 2 million EXP player drops to 1.2 million. Guys remember we are changing other parts of the game so think about how they all relate. We have 1 on 1 combat which in itself will work to even out EXPs (the highest exp people always being targetted if possible). We need less moronic things. 15% was too much. Lower to 10% MAX. Even a 2 million EXP player losing 200k is a horrible thing (now if using my #s will cost 400 million to buy that exp back). I guess we could have a variance between 1% and 10%, just make the increase for Dying move up faster then for killing which will result in a net loss of EXP. BTW I wouldn't consider 6 levels to be significantly above another player. 5 levels apart is really in the 'same class'. With your way a level 40 player gets nothing for killing a level 34 player, why???? Suggested New Rule: Try to think about impact on game before giving #s. EXP Gain: (10 - Level Difference/4)% (max of 10%) EXP Loss: 10% (always) Simple and to the point. How about we give no EXP gain for TFP, Forces and Base kills? Only EXP loss for those. Only way to gain EXP is a legitamate ship to ship kill. Carnaugh - The Ass of ME _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus |
|
From: Justin S. <jus...@ho...> - 2003-01-21 20:15:57
|
"Well, probably in a later version of the game only ship name and alliance name is displayed in CS and not the pilot. The new combat code will cause a lot of ALL FIRE ON CARNAUGH kills, or all fire on AOS ... depending which side you are on :-)" Yeah I was concerned about that, but who would want to fire on me? 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. Carnaugh _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 |
|
From: Justin S. <jus...@ho...> - 2003-01-21 20:11:21
|
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. Carnaugh _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail |
|
From: <ke...@ne...> - 2003-01-21 16:09:13
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I have a writeup of a suggestion in my blog http://portal.advancedpowers.com/tiki-view_blog.php?blogId=13 Take a look and tell me what you think... KevKev -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (MingW32) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iEYEARECAAYFAj4s0LAACgkQDlDuICXyQTzddACeOiP/ICfq842h5C8T5SOPnBxh C+8An1xErsujvBR45W4h9ffRA2oVvFaV =/W0o -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------------------------------------ NEW - FREE Nettaxi 56kbs Dial-up INTERNET ACCESS with NO ADS or Ad Bars! http://www.nettaxi.com/isp/ |
|
From: Thomas R. K. <to...@gm...> - 2003-01-21 14:05:41
|
#### German translation by Thomas R. Koll <to...@to...> Leitfaden zum Bergbau <b>Einf=FChrung</b> Es gibt viele Taktiken um Ressourcen in Sektoren abzubauen, die folgende ist nur ein Beispiel wie man in einem Gebiet Bergbau betreibt. Wenn dein Heimatsektor, z.B. Allianzplaneten, benachbarte Sektoren usw., musst du sicher sein dass es genauso hart und gef=E4hrlich ist wie es m=F6glich ist dass feindliche Handels- und Kriegsschiffe deinen Weg kreuzen. Daher empfehle ich die folgende Stratgie zum Bergbau. <b>Bergbau in Allianzsektoren</b> Jeder Planet der Allianz sollte =FCberall wo es m=F6glich ist mindestens = 250 Minen und 100 Kampfdronen besitzen. (Jeder H=E4ndler sollte maximal je 50 in einen Sektor setzen, erzeugt eine gr=F6=DFere Verbreitung der Nachrichten). Jeder Sektor der neben dem Planeten liegt sollte 150 Minen und 50 Kampfdronen, der folgende Sektor 50 - 100 Minen und 50 Dronen besitzen. Die =FCbrigen Sektoren im Herrschaftsgebiet sollten 5 - 10 Mine= n haben zus=E4tzlich zu Scouts die von H=E4ndlern stammen sollten die in diesem Gebiet arbeiten. Kampfdronen sind in diesen entfernten Sektoren nicht zwingend n=F6tig. Wenn du einen weit entwickelten Hafen hast und nicht willst dass andere H=E4ndler diesen nutzen, dann kann du diesen Hafen nat=FCrlich auch schwe= r bewaffnen, genauso wie Routen zu anderen H=E4fen die du oft benutzt um dich vor Kriegsschiffen zu sch=FCtzen w=E4hrend du Handel betreibst. #### > All alliance planet sectors must have wherever possible at least 250 mi= nes,=20 > and 100+ Combat drones. (Each merchant may put a maximum of 50 of each = in a=20 > sector). I've added some explanation, I think "To spread news widely" should do it. --=20 Thomas R. Koll Totalverweigerer a.D verurteilt zu 4 Wochen Jugendarrest und 300! Sozialstunden http://www.tomk32.de -- just a geek changing the world |
|
From: Michael v. D. <mi...@ci...> - 2003-01-21 11:24:18
|
I'm missing a few things like Mining bottlenecks, warp points and how to mine when attacking a ship/base. And how about targetting mines ? -----Original Message----- From: ope...@li... [mailto:ope...@li...] On Behalf Of Stephen L Sent: dinsdag 21 januari 2003 11:00 To: ope...@li... Subject: [Openme-developers] Mining Guide - Mining Guide - <b>Introduction</b> There are many tactics used in the mining of sectors, the following is purely one example of how to mine areas. When mining home sectors, E.G. alliance planets, neighbouring sectors etc.. you need to ensure that it is as hard, and as damaging as possible to enemy warships/trade ships to get into our lines. Therefore I recommend the following strategy for mining sectors. <b>Mining Alliance Sectors</b> All alliance planet sectors must have wherever possible at least 250 mines, and 100+ Combat drones. (Each merchant may put a maximum of 50 of each in a sector). Then, and sector that is 1 sector awayfrom an alliance planet must have wherever possible at least 150 mines and 50 combat drones. 2 sectorsaway from alliance planets must contain 50 - 100 mines and at least 50 combat drones in the sector. Any other sectors that are within our space, but are more than 2 sectors away from an alliance planet should at least have 5 - 10 mines in each sector, along with scouts from all the merchants who work in that area, Combat Drones are optional in these sectors, but they must have at least one so that the sector can be claimed by the alliance. If you have a high level port that you do not wish anyone from another alliance using then of course you may also mine that port heavily, along with the route to the other port(s) that you use so as to protect you from any enemy warships coming after you while you are trading. _________________________________________________________________ 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: 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: Oliver D. B. <oli...@ma...> - 2003-01-21 10:17:13
|
Very cool guide... if U take this and make it to a nice PDF document.. we make a downloadable "quick guide" for ME... Download and print :) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen L" <ste...@ho...> To: <ope...@li...> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 10:59 AM Subject: [Openme-developers] Mining Guide > - Mining Guide - > > <b>Introduction</b> > > There are many tactics used in the mining of sectors, the following is > purely one example of how > to mine areas. > > When mining home sectors, E.G. alliance planets, neighbouring sectors etc.. > you need to ensure that > it is as hard, and as damaging as possible to enemy warships/trade ships to > get into our lines. Therefore > I recommend the following strategy for mining sectors. > > <b>Mining Alliance Sectors</b> > > All alliance planet sectors must have wherever possible at least 250 mines, > and 100+ Combat drones. (Each merchant may put a maximum of 50 of each in a > sector). Then, and sector that is 1 sector awayfrom an alliance planet must > have wherever possible at least 150 mines and 50 combat drones. 2 > sectorsaway from alliance planets must contain 50 - 100 mines and at least > 50 combat drones in the sector. > Any other sectors that are within our space, but are more than 2 sectors > away from an alliance planet should at least have 5 - 10 mines in each > sector, along with scouts from all the merchants who work in that area, > Combat Drones are optional in these sectors, but they must have at least one > so that the sector can be claimed by the alliance. > > If you have a high level port that you do not wish anyone from another > alliance using then of course you may also mine that port heavily, along > with the route to the other port(s) that you use so as to protect you from > any enemy > warships coming after you while you are trading. > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > 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: > 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: Stephen L <ste...@ho...> - 2003-01-21 09:59:45
|
- Mining Guide - <b>Introduction</b> There are many tactics used in the mining of sectors, the following is purely one example of how to mine areas. When mining home sectors, E.G. alliance planets, neighbouring sectors etc.. you need to ensure that it is as hard, and as damaging as possible to enemy warships/trade ships to get into our lines. Therefore I recommend the following strategy for mining sectors. <b>Mining Alliance Sectors</b> All alliance planet sectors must have wherever possible at least 250 mines, and 100+ Combat drones. (Each merchant may put a maximum of 50 of each in a sector). Then, and sector that is 1 sector awayfrom an alliance planet must have wherever possible at least 150 mines and 50 combat drones. 2 sectorsaway from alliance planets must contain 50 - 100 mines and at least 50 combat drones in the sector. Any other sectors that are within our space, but are more than 2 sectors away from an alliance planet should at least have 5 - 10 mines in each sector, along with scouts from all the merchants who work in that area, Combat Drones are optional in these sectors, but they must have at least one so that the sector can be claimed by the alliance. If you have a high level port that you do not wish anyone from another alliance using then of course you may also mine that port heavily, along with the route to the other port(s) that you use so as to protect you from any enemy warships coming after you while you are trading. _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus |
|
From: Stephen L <ste...@ho...> - 2003-01-21 09:58:03
|
Before a hunt is organised a leader of that fleet will be appointed and he/she will be responsible for arranging a hunt. This leader will organise the location of the hunt, who is to be involved, what sector/planet/starbase everyone will meet at. He/she will also inform people what sectors to move to, when to attack etc. Once the hunt starts one person will be appointed by the leader to take point. This means that person will remain one sector ahead of the hunting fleet to remove enemy scouts, mines and combat drones so that no damage will be done to the majority of the fleet, and the enemy will not know the strength of the fleet. This is key to the success of the hunt, this way the enemy will only see one warship on their scanners and may risk intercepting with one ship. Once a sector is cleared by the ship on point he/she will call the remainder of the fleet into that sector by saying (sector number) CLEAR. E.G. "1212 Clear". This is an indication for the fleet to join the ship on point in that sector and wait until the ship calls the next sector clear and so on.... Always ensure your ship is fully loaded with scouts wherever possible so you can place scouts down in the sectors that have been cleared so you can view any possible enemy coming from behind. If anyone in the fleet sees, or receives a scout report of an enemy ship/fleet nearby then immediately inform the leader of the fleet and he/she will make a decision as to the appropriate action to be taken. Do not leave the fleet without first informing the fleet leader. HINT: If you drop mines in a sector that the enemy is in, may not be able to leave that sector until all those mines are destroyed. AT NO STAGE GO OFF ON YOUR OWN. THE ENEMY WILL USE THESE SAME TACTICS TO TRY AND KILL YOU. ALWAYS MAKE SURE YOU HAVE AT LEAST 1M CREDITS WITH YOU WHEN YOU GO HUNTING TO REPLACE LOST SHIELDS AND ARMOUR. _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail |
|
From: Stephen L <ste...@ho...> - 2003-01-21 09:57:02
|
The Bust:
The actual bust is split up into many different phases:
<b>Organisation:</b> The organisation of a planet bust will be done by a
member of the council, usually the Alliance Leader, 2nd in Command or
Military Advisor. This will basically include working out the which planet
is the target, how many warships are required, how far to the nearest shield
refill, how many warships are required in a backup fleet etc..
<b>Preparation:</b> This is done by all members who are to be included in
the planet bust. The person in charge of the planet bust, Alliance Leader,
2nd in Command or Military Advisor (or someone else) will send a message to
the alliance asking for people with warships if they can make the planet
bust. Notice of at least 24+ hours is given enabling everyone to save up
turns. Usually 800+ turns are required for a high level planet.
Then everyone is to reply stating whether they can or cannot attend that
planet bust. If enough people are able to attend to cover the fleet that
will do the busting, and the backup fleet to patrol for any enemy
interceptions then the next part of the preparation can be done, otherwise
the leader of the bust will ask allies if they can send some warships to
help.
The next part of the preparation will take part with the leader of the bust
ensuring all those people who can carry mines in their warships do so, and
any other necessary equipment.
Usual planet bust set-up: Ships in bust must ensure their ships have as
close to 100% accuracy on their weapons either by their experience level, or
by Targeting computers. Some ships may also be required to carry scanners
and tri-focus plasma's. 3 - 4 Million credits to replace lost
shields/armour.
Ships who are in the backup fleet patrolling for enemy will be required to
have the same level of accuracy either by xp level, or by Targeting
Computers, Active Screens, and some may again require TFP's, scanners or
Tracking Devices installed. 2 - 3 Million credits to replace lost
shields/armour.
<b>Execution:</b> Usually about 1/2 hour - 1 hour everyone who is taking
part will be expected to meet at a certain pre-specified
sector/planet/starbase with their ships equipped to the leaders
specification ready to move out, only then will the target sector be passed
onto those members who are taking part in the bust. The leader will then
either send the backup fleet to clear the route to the planet and the shield
refill of mines, scouts, combat drones etc.. or the bust fleet will do it
themselves.
Like hunting, everyone will be required to drop scouts along the route so
they may watch for enemy movements in the vacinity of the bust. The backup
fleet will then stand by at the shield refill to make sure that enemy
interceptions do not attack the ships in the bust on their way to refill.
Each fleet will have its own leader who will call out sector numbers for
their respective fleets to move into. E.G. "1212 GO" this will mean that
everyone should then move to that sector. The leader will only call the
sector number of a neighbouring sector so that the fleet stays together and
does not split up. Once you are in that sector you should say that you are
there, e.g. "1212 in" or "IS" this means that you are in sector.
Once everyone is in the planet sector, those who have mines will need to
drop them all in the sector, the leader may also ask certain individuals to
drop some combat drones too.
When the actual bust commences the leader of the bust will do all the
attacking, other people are only required to be in the sector, when one
person from the alliance attacks, all persons from that alliance in the same
sector will automatically attack.
This is an example of how a planet bust is run:
Orbiting (no-one apart from the leader has a need to orbit the planet)
Attacking (At no time will you press attack)
Report (This means you should refresh your browser and report your shield
and armour status)
Leader: Orbiting
Leader: Attacking
Leader: Report
Merchant1: Shields: 600/600
Merchant1: Armour: 700/700
Merchant2: Shields: 163/600
Merchant2: Armour: 700/700
And so on until every merchant in the bust has reported their damage.
At any time the leader will call a refill so that those who are low on
shields/armour will go in a small pack to the refill point and refill their
shields etc..
DO NOT LEAVE THE FLEET TO REFILL UNLESS THE LEADER SAYS SO
Once all the planetary defences have been destroyed then ONLY the leader
will land and claim the planet, then the leader will call the sectors for
immediate retreat away from the area.
<b>2 Bust Organised by another alliance:</b>
Our alliance will usually only help another alliance with a planet bust if
we are allies, or we stand to gain something from it. They will probably
organise and execute their bust similar to us, but always ask before so you
know exactly how they do it, and any code words they use.
<b>3 Codes:</b>
To avoid to much saying in the channel, here are most used codes....
IS: In Sector, this means you arrived in the sector were you are asked to
be.
GTG: Good To Go, before each attack the leader will ask if you are GTG?, if
so reply with GTG.
Refill: You are stating that you require a refill of shields and/or armour.
OMW: On My Way, This states you are on your way to the destination.
Orbiting: No-one apart from the leader has a need to orbit the planet.
Attacking: At no time will you press attack, ONLY the bust leader will press
fire.
Report: This means you should refresh your browser and report your shield
and armour status.
ALWAYS ENSURE YOU DO NOT TRY A PLANET BUST ON YOUR OWN.
MAKE SURE YOU ALWAYS CARRY 3 - 4M CREDITS TO REPLACE LOST SHIELDS AND ARMOUR
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
|
|
From: Stephen L <ste...@ho...> - 2003-01-21 09:56:12
|
<i>This is an old game guide that i had on a website i have quickly looked over it and changed a few parts. I will put up the other guides to see if you think they would be of any use. </i> <b>1.Introduction to the game:</b> OpenME is a game about trading and killing. However, things are not quite as simple as just making money, and killing the bad guys. There area lot of other aspects of the game that need to be pointed out to everyone. <b>2. Beginning of the game:</b> When you first start the game you will end up by the Racial Government of the race you picked at the very beginning. You will start in a merchant tug, the smallest of all trading ships (with exception to Light Freighter, which you are given if you are killed). In this ship you will start with 40 cargo holds out of the maximum 120 allowable for this ship, few shields, few armour, and one laser.. With these 40 cargo holds your aim is to trade enough goods so you can make money to buy a further 80 cargo holds, and max out your shields and armour. <b>.General Flying:</b> When you fly about in open space, try not to spend too much time in the same sector, it makes you prone to enemy attacks. After a few weeks there are many people flying about in the top warships looking for new people to the game to kill, no matter how easy the kill may be. There are 2 types of protection you are entitled to, the 1st is newbie turns, you cannot be attacked, or attack if you have newbie turns left. The second is Imperial Protection. This is dependant on your alignment, and the attack rating of your ship. (please read alignment for further details) <b>4.Experience (xp):</b> The game is based around what is known as experience. This does not mean how long you have played this game before, or how little. Instead it is a number worked out according to what trades you have made, sectors you have explored, enemies you have killed, enemy forces you have destroyed, or building on planets. (Building explained later). Whenever you trade, you gain a certain amount of experience for the trade you have made, anything from 1xp all the way up to 250xp. Your aim is to trade as much as possible to increase you xp. (look in our Trading Guide for more details on how to trade). Whenever you move a sector there is a small possibility that you will gain 1xp, if the sector has not been explored by you, or an alliance member before then you will gain 1xp per unexplored sector. Should you be lucky enough to kill an enemy of your alliance, then you will be given 10% of their xp, and all credits that they had on them. This can be a very quick way to gain a lot of xp, but also an easy way of losing xp. Please read our Hunting Guide for more details on how to hunt. The last method of gaining xp is by killing enemy forces, the more you destroy, the more xp you gain. Be warned, whenever you destroy an enemy force, that person will receive a report of this and may come to attack you back, so do not spend too much time at once doing this unless you are with a couple of other people in warships. As you gain more experience you will also increase in level of your rank in the game, check rankings - requirements in the game for more details. As you increase your experience levels your accuracy on your weapons will increase by 1% per level. You will also be able to buy better ships. Currently in the game certain ships are locked until you have reached a certain experience level. <b>5.Alliances:</b> You will soon notice that there are many alliances in the game. These are a group of people who play the game together under the same alliance name (banner) for mutual profit and gain. Different alliance will offer different things. Some will just offer safe planets (explained later) to land on, others will offer access to the alliance funds. Some alliances will charge you tax. This can be anything to 1% - 50% of your earnings through trades. This percentage is automatically taken out of your earnings and placed into an alliance tax account. The majority of alliances will use this money to buy yourself and other members bigger ships later in the game, weapons for these ships, forces such as mines, combat drones and scout drones, and some may either use them to spend on building planets up. With the game being so much about people flying around in warships it is always best to be a member of an alliance. Being a member of an alliance will automatically entitle you to a few things. Treaties: Almost every alliance will treaties with other alliances of some sorts, being a member of the alliance means that these treaties will also apply to you. (read further on for more info on treaties) <b>6.Planets:</b> Planets play a major role in the game. They stand as a defence grid for individuals and alliances. They are also a place to store technology for others to use. There are many different screens on the planets page. These are: Construction, Attack, Defence, Ownership, Stockpile, Scan and Hanger. Status Screen: This shows a list of all current players landed on this planet. It also shows the maximum amount of shields and Drones that can be installed, How many are installed, and how many turrets are built. Construction Screen: This is where you build certain structures on the planets, Shields Generators, Drone Hangers and many more. It will tell you what goods you will require to build (check stockpile screen description), how long it will take to build, how much money it will cost, and how much experience you gain from constructing. Attack Screen: This page is not available until you build one or both of the following things: Tri Focus Plasma, or Disruptor Missiles. Tri Focus Plasma is a high energy weapon which you can target at a merchant up to 4 sectors from the planet. A Disruptor missile is a method of firing missiles at a planet in order to destroy some of their shields. You can build a maximum of 10, and each on if it hits will remove 250 shields. Defence Screen: This is where you install Shields or Combat Drones into the planet. Ownership Screen: Here you can claim ownership of an un claimed planet (you must have 700xp), or change the name of a planet. Stockpile Screen: Here you can see how much of each good is stored on the planet, the maximum is 600, 100 is added to the capacity for every goods storage you construct. Scan Screen: Like the attack screen this page is unavailable until you build something, in this case it is a scanner. You can scan the sector above the planet for enemy ships, mines drones etc.. Hanger Screen: Here you can access ships that are shared, technology that is shared, and technology/ships that you have in your personal space. If you own the planet you can have 3 stored ships, if you do not, then you can have 1 ship stored on the planet. <b>7.Allignment:</b> Your alignment allows you to do different things. It can range from -500 all the way up to +500. The major advantage of being evil is that once you reach a certain level you will be able to try and steal money from other merchants. The advantage of being good aligned is that you get a discount on the ships you buy. 1% discount per +10 alignment up to a discount of 50% at +500 alignment. If you are between - 300 to -500 alignment then you are not protected at imperial beacons or in imperial starbases. If you are -299 to +100 you are allowed to stay in Imperial sectors with an attack rating on your ship no greater than 1. +101 to +200 you can have an attack rating of 2. +201 to +300 an attack rating of 3. +301 to +400 an attack rating of 4. +500 and higher you can have an attack rating of 6. <b>8.Treaties:</b> One of the crucial parts in the game for alliances is to have treaties with other alliances. These can be seen under alliance - politics in the game. There are 3 main types of treaties you should be aware of: FMT - Free Movement Treaty. This means the alliance you have FMT with can move through your mines undamaged, and vice versa. MAP -Mutual Assistance Pact. - This means that we will help all alliances we have MAP with, and they will help us in wartimes. War. This means the alliance is at war with the other.. <b>9.Logging Off:</b> Whenever you log off, make sure you do it in one of 3 places. Imperial Space or Starbases (if you have the correct alignment), or on a safe alliance planet. This is an old game guide that i had on a website i have quickly looked over it and changed a few parts. I will put up the other guides to see if you think they would be of any use _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 |
|
From: LJC. v. R. <va...@wa...> - 2003-01-21 07:58:48
|
I agree with these, although I suggest a more gradual 5%+(level/2) XP-loss= =20 for #2, to reach the same effect, >1) attacker XP gain < defender XP loss > >2) I think a base XP loss should be set a level increments. >- Every 10 levels after that lose an additional 5%, so a level 40 >(Emperor) would lose 25% of their XP. (sounds harsh eh?) > >3) XP loss can then be enhanced by racial criteria, less of a loss for >one race, more of a loss for another=85 > >4) XP Gain; well, XP Gain from kills does not necessarily have to equal >the XP loss. It should NEVER be more, but can always be less. > >5) Dying to forces? From a base? Well I think XP loss shouldn=92t change >from what is set in item 2. > >6) XP Gain from people dying to your base? I think a 5% of the attacker >XP is reasonable. |
|
From: Farid K. <Far...@ro...> - 2003-01-21 03:22:28
|
/me is on drugs. =20 Thanks y'all for sending me the kind messages and not flaming me in the mailing list. I am grateful. But all I was trying to do was make it different and level dependant, I guess I went a little over board. Sorry Hawklan -----Original Message----- From: ope...@li... [mailto:ope...@li...] On Behalf Of Farid Khan Sent: January 20, 2003 2:32 PM To: ope...@li... Subject: RE: [Openme-developers] Announcement to players -revision 0.1 With regards to experience gain/loss from combat=85 So far, to combat code allows an experience gain providing you kill a more experienced merchant=85 And the Game Set up, says 10% experience gain=85 In chat, we were talking about a formula=85 Some ideas: XP =3D experience; :) 1) attacker XP gain < defender XP loss There is the idea that we don=92t =91make=92 XP when assigning XP gain, = it should be less than or equal to the XP loss (of the dead) 2) I think a base XP loss should be set a level increments. Make it less damaging for lower level merchants, and more damaging for higher level merchants. We can use level as an increment or set a percentage at certain levels For example: -Newbie level players lose NO XP when they get podded (after discussing it with vrm, this is the way I have it coded ATM, they also lose no money when they die) -Players level 10 and under lose 10% -Every 10 levels after that lose an additional 5%, so a level 40 (Emperor) would lose 25% of their XP. (sounds harsh eh?) Why? Why such a huge loss of XP at level 40? I think that having more merchants at the middling levels, and making level 40 (Emperor) a much harder target to reach, will extend the game life in later stages. Newer merchants won=92t be at the mercy of the high XP merchants with = the big damage low accuracy weapons. And it introduces more risk. 3) XP loss can then be enhanced by racial criteria, less of a loss for one race, more of a loss for another=85 4) XP Gain; well, XP Gain from kills does not necessarily have to equal the XP loss. It should NEVER be more, but can always be less. I think level increments in XP gain is good, make it more fruitful to hunt/kill more experienced merchants -Killing Newbie No XP Gain -Base set at 5% of defender XP=20 -No bonus for killing less experienced merchants -A 0.25% bonus for every level the defeated had on you=85 so a level 10 killing a level 20, would get him 7.5% of defender XP, a level 10 killing a level 40 would get him 12.5%, a level 20 killing a level 40 would get him 7.5%... and so on. A level 39 killing a level 40 get 5.25%... Less XP gain the higher up in XP you are. 5) Dying to forces? From a base? Well I think XP loss shouldn=92t change from what is set in item 2. 6) XP Gain from people dying to your base? I think a 5% of the attacker XP is reasonable. =20 Comments? Hawklan... -----Original Message----- From: ope...@li... [mailto:ope...@li...] On Behalf Of Oliver Due Billing Sent: January 19, 2003 7:46 AM To: ope...@li... Subject: [Openme-developers] Announcement to players -revision 0.1 Please read the list and see if I added somethign we dont do or missed something. Also add details. =A0 =A0 Game Set up for 4th=A0generation: =A0 -12 galaxies=A0average size of 50 X 50.. some bigger =A0 -Distance index extended to a limit of 50 =A0 -Amount of Lux ports lowered, price of lux lowered pirce of food raised =A0 -Mines+combat drone price raised to 10.000=A0 =A0 -new ship list =A0 -new weapon list =A0 -XP for construction lowered =A0 -Construction price rise faster at the end =A0 Features redone: =A0 -ship to ship combat code. Its now one to one and no auto return fire. Combat code made 10 times faster =A0 -Ship versus forces code, works the same way just faster =A0 -Jump drive, works the same way just faster =A0 -Base busting code reworked. =A0=A0=A0 -Defender:=A0A bigger chance of someone dyign on his base =A0=A0=A0 -Attacker A chance of=A0"wearing the base" down. Chance=A0for = destroying structures=A0 =A0 -Ship technology code made smoother and faster =A0 =A0 =A0 New features: =A0 -Racial abilities=20 =A0 -Critical hits in combat system=A0 ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: FREE SSL Guide from Thawte are you planning your Web Server Security? Click here to get a FREE Thawte SSL guide and find the answers to all your SSL security issues. http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?thaw0026en _______________________________________________ Openme-developers mailing list Ope...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openme-developers |
|
From: Darth D. <Dar...@kn...> - 2003-01-20 21:34:42
|
MessageIts true that it would be a measure aimed against the forming of =
larger Alliances however it won't stop them, because they will form =
'elite wings' and stick folk in there, and use multiple alliances. We =
have to remember too that this is a year long game supposedly. Longer =
than the last one. Because of recruiting, Alliances are naturally bound =
to grow larger.=20
Just my two pence.=20
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Oliver Due Billing=20
To: Darth David=20
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 9:31 PM
Subject: Re: [Openme-developers] Alliance sizes?
Well from what I have been following in the forums smaller alliances =
complain about the dominance of larger alliances. That you can only =
succed in ME with 40+ people?. Also with the number of players we have =
and the largeness of it, everything tends to focus on a few alliances.
The point of smaller alliances is more diversity, more individuality =
and less dominance from one fraction. Almost all games out there have =
some kind of limit, either its a size limit or some kind of limit on who =
you can attack.Why do they have these rules, well its obviously, to =
extend the playing experince to the many, and prevent a threat of human =
nature, namely to bash those smaller. So by lessening the size, we =
lessen the difference(hopefully)
We can also make the rule that alliances cannot attack alliances of =
half their size, but that seems a bit silly.
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Darth David=20
To: ope...@li...=20
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 9:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Openme-developers] Alliance sizes?
I've been talking to quite a few players since the reset. The =
extended reset time has led to the Alliance leaders I've spoken to =
having more time for recruitment - Indeed, I can think of even a brand =
new alliance which is looking at at the very least 35 people. It'd be =
worth taking that into account. Not just for base busts. From what I =
understand, we're moving away from fleet battles as we've known them? Is =
the number in an Alliance required to stay low? And yes, base busts is =
another thing. Even if MAP worked you kinda need everyone in the same =
Alliance for stargates, reshielding, and scaring ppl off through =
currently online. I think 45 people would be a good maximum.=20
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Michael van Dongen=20
To: ope...@li...=20
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 1:42 PM
Subject: RE: [Openme-developers] Alliance sizes?
If MAP works now then I'd have no trouble with a max of 25. 20 is =
just bit too small to organize anything with your own alliance
But if MAP doesn't work yet I won't be happy with anything less =
then 40
-----Original Message-----
From: ope...@li... =
[mailto:ope...@li...] On Behalf Of =
Oliver Due Billing
Sent: maandag 20 januari 2003 12:44
To: ope...@li...
Subject: [Openme-developers] Alliance sizes?
What should the alliance sizes be set at?, as discussed =
previously more and smaller alliances would be nice. So how big should =
we set them?. I am personaly thinking about a max size of 20-25.
Middy
|
|
From: Darth D. <Dar...@kn...> - 2003-01-20 21:28:38
|
Erm, I'm a writer through and through. Ignore the paper, my forte is prose. I'd be happy to apply any efforts that might be required when it comes to writing any kind of story thing or race description. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael van Dongen" <mi...@ci...> To: <ope...@li...> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 7:05 AM Subject: RE: [Openme-developers] Race Discriptions version 2 (Add feed back this time, please) > As I stated in the irc channel I think the descriptions are too > confining for an eventual storyline. The last sentence in each race is a > keeper though but I'd recommend putting more focus on trade in those > since that is what comes first in the game. > > As for the starting relations I'd save that for another day. It's not > yet worth having to redo the racial abilities to add those. > > As stated in my blog the race descriptions should contain ... > > > Race Description setup > > Goals : > > Provide background info > Provide basic element for role playing > Give info about race strengths/weaknesses (including ships) > Recommend playing style > > This setup should divide each race into 3 parts : > > 1) The background story > 2) The strenghts and weaknesses along with the possible playing style(s) > > 3) The translation into actual values for race abilities > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.NET email is sponsored by: FREE SSL Guide from Thawte > are you planning your Web Server Security? Click here to get a FREE > Thawte SSL guide and find the answers to all your SSL security issues. > http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?thaw0026en > _______________________________________________ > Openme-developers mailing list > Ope...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openme-developers > |
|
From: Angelo S. <ang...@oo...> - 2003-01-20 21:12:48
|
>> Well, MAP is just that: Mutual Assistance. Since combat code is >> 1 on 1, MAP is useful since it will remove the attack >> button from members that you have MAP with. In BB, I expect to >> use MAP to extend who can be in sector for attack; this >> way, numbers can remain hidden from CPL when an operation is >> underway. Minimize alliance hopping. >> Hm, MAT should work, or MAP if you prefare that naming. However, why remove the attack option? It is a coding efford (if we have NO MAP display attack ...) and it removes an dimension from the game. How to kill a spy if only the alliance leader of teh alliance he is in can kick him? Middy might remember "Silent Knight" and the question if LADS should kill him, I blindly denied that question as I still was unsure if he was a traitor. However he was. I would even go so far that alliance mates have an attack link ... MAP would be of course nice in busts if it would allow busts without alliance switching. If MAP is implemented to allow more, like busting (and like SG usage) then an alliance limit is useless. With shared tax accounts and interims alliances or strong relatinship between trader alliances and more war oriented alliances an alliance limit is useless coding work. With a low alliance limit and no MAP it gets boring as big bases are unbreakable then. Erm, basicly I do not rely care, my thoughts above ... keep the attack option on everybody regardless of alliance political state, however. aos ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML Ang...@oo... Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVA Fax: +49 721 9812467 |
|
From: Darth D. <Dar...@kn...> - 2003-01-20 20:34:33
|
MessageI've been talking to quite a few players since the reset. The =
extended reset time has led to the Alliance leaders I've spoken to =
having more time for recruitment - Indeed, I can think of even a brand =
new alliance which is looking at at the very least 35 people. It'd be =
worth taking that into account. Not just for base busts. From what I =
understand, we're moving away from fleet battles as we've known them? Is =
the number in an Alliance required to stay low? And yes, base busts is =
another thing. Even if MAP worked you kinda need everyone in the same =
Alliance for stargates, reshielding, and scaring ppl off through =
currently online. I think 45 people would be a good maximum.=20
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Michael van Dongen=20
To: ope...@li...=20
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 1:42 PM
Subject: RE: [Openme-developers] Alliance sizes?
If MAP works now then I'd have no trouble with a max of 25. 20 is just =
bit too small to organize anything with your own alliance
But if MAP doesn't work yet I won't be happy with anything less then =
40
-----Original Message-----
From: ope...@li... =
[mailto:ope...@li...] On Behalf Of =
Oliver Due Billing
Sent: maandag 20 januari 2003 12:44
To: ope...@li...
Subject: [Openme-developers] Alliance sizes?
What should the alliance sizes be set at?, as discussed previously =
more and smaller alliances would be nice. So how big should we set =
them?. I am personaly thinking about a max size of 20-25.
Middy
|
|
From: Farid K. <Far...@ro...> - 2003-01-20 19:32:03
|
With regards to experience gain/loss from combat=85 So far, to combat code allows an experience gain providing you kill a more experienced merchant=85 And the Game Set up, says 10% experience gain=85 In chat, we were talking about a formula=85 Some ideas: XP =3D experience; :) 1) attacker XP gain < defender XP loss There is the idea that we don=92t =91make=92 XP when assigning XP gain, = it should be less than or equal to the XP loss (of the dead) 2) I think a base XP loss should be set a level increments. Make it less damaging for lower level merchants, and more damaging for higher level merchants. We can use level as an increment or set a percentage at certain levels For example: -Newbie level players lose NO XP when they get podded (after discussing it with vrm, this is the way I have it coded ATM, they also lose no money when they die) -Players level 10 and under lose 10% -Every 10 levels after that lose an additional 5%, so a level 40 (Emperor) would lose 25% of their XP. (sounds harsh eh?) Why? Why such a huge loss of XP at level 40? I think that having more merchants at the middling levels, and making level 40 (Emperor) a much harder target to reach, will extend the game life in later stages. Newer merchants won=92t be at the mercy of the high XP merchants with = the big damage low accuracy weapons. And it introduces more risk. 3) XP loss can then be enhanced by racial criteria, less of a loss for one race, more of a loss for another=85 4) XP Gain; well, XP Gain from kills does not necessarily have to equal the XP loss. It should NEVER be more, but can always be less. I think level increments in XP gain is good, make it more fruitful to hunt/kill more experienced merchants -Killing Newbie No XP Gain -Base set at 5% of defender XP=20 -No bonus for killing less experienced merchants -A 0.25% bonus for every level the defeated had on you=85 so a level 10 killing a level 20, would get him 7.5% of defender XP, a level 10 killing a level 40 would get him 12.5%, a level 20 killing a level 40 would get him 7.5%... and so on. A level 39 killing a level 40 get 5.25%... Less XP gain the higher up in XP you are. 5) Dying to forces? From a base? Well I think XP loss shouldn=92t change from what is set in item 2. 6) XP Gain from people dying to your base? I think a 5% of the attacker XP is reasonable. =20 Comments? Hawklan... -----Original Message----- From: ope...@li... [mailto:ope...@li...] On Behalf Of Oliver Due Billing Sent: January 19, 2003 7:46 AM To: ope...@li... Subject: [Openme-developers] Announcement to players -revision 0.1 Please read the list and see if I added somethign we dont do or missed something. Also add details. =A0 =A0 Game Set up for 4th=A0generation: =A0 -12 galaxies=A0average size of 50 X 50.. some bigger =A0 -Distance index extended to a limit of 50 =A0 -Amount of Lux ports lowered, price of lux lowered pirce of food raised =A0 -Mines+combat drone price raised to 10.000=A0 =A0 -new ship list =A0 -new weapon list =A0 -XP for construction lowered =A0 -Construction price rise faster at the end =A0 Features redone: =A0 -ship to ship combat code. Its now one to one and no auto return fire. Combat code made 10 times faster =A0 -Ship versus forces code, works the same way just faster =A0 -Jump drive, works the same way just faster =A0 -Base busting code reworked. =A0=A0=A0 -Defender:=A0A bigger chance of someone dyign on his base =A0=A0=A0 -Attacker A chance of=A0"wearing the base" down. Chance=A0for = destroying structures=A0 =A0 -Ship technology code made smoother and faster =A0 =A0 =A0 New features: =A0 -Racial abilities=20 =A0 -Critical hits in combat system=A0 |
|
From: Farid K. <Far...@ro...> - 2003-01-20 17:23:21
|
Well, MAP is just that: Mutual Assistance. Since combat code is 1 on 1, MAP is useful since it will remove the attack button from members that you have MAP with. In BB, I expect to use MAP to extend who can be in sector for attack; this way, numbers can remain hidden from CPL when an operation is underway. Minimize alliance hopping. MAP can be used for many things: using another alliances stargates, landing on ally bases etc. Of course, none of that needs to be addressed now, it is functionality that can wait. I was discussing how forces and FMT/MAP would work with ChrisN and others, I think by removing attack button on FMT/MAP stacks by allowing the removal of FMT forces in sectors your alliances have claimed, and adding/removing forces from MAP alliance stacks, would make things a lot more interesting. BTW, it has not been mentioned yet, but I believe that limits are in order for treaty types: FMT: Limit to 12 (must be accepted by both sides) MAP: Limit to 4 (must be accepted by both sides) WAR: Limit to 4 (does not have to be accepted on each side, so an alliance can declare war on 4 alliances, but, they can have a whole lot more alliance declare war on them. -----Original Message----- From: ope...@li... [mailto:ope...@li...] On Behalf Of Oliver Due Billing Sent: January 20, 2003 11:02 AM To: Michael van Dongen; ope...@li... Subject: Re: [Openme-developers] Alliance sizes? Organise you mean base busts.. Well the whole point of redoing base busting is that you shouldent need 20 guys. You can have but its not nessesary, you can still inflict damage and thus we make the base busting feature avaliable to alliances with less then 40 people ----- Original Message ----- From: Michael van Dongen <mailto:mi...@ci...> To: ope...@li... Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 2:42 PM Subject: RE: [Openme-developers] Alliance sizes? If MAP works now then I'd have no trouble with a max of 25. 20 is just bit too small to organize anything with your own alliance But if MAP doesn't work yet I won't be happy with anything less then 40 -----Original Message----- From: ope...@li... [mailto:ope...@li...] On Behalf Of Oliver Due Billing Sent: maandag 20 januari 2003 12:44 To: ope...@li... Subject: [Openme-developers] Alliance sizes? What should the alliance sizes be set at?, as discussed previously more and smaller alliances would be nice. So how big should we set them?. I am personaly thinking about a max size of 20-25. Middy |
|
From: Oliver D. B. <oli...@ma...> - 2003-01-20 16:02:24
|
MessageOrganise you mean base busts.. Well the whole point of redoing =
base busting is that you shouldent need 20 guys. You can have but its =
not nessesary, you can still inflict damage and thus we make the base =
busting feature avaliable to alliances with less then 40 people
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Michael van Dongen=20
To: ope...@li...=20
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 2:42 PM
Subject: RE: [Openme-developers] Alliance sizes?
If MAP works now then I'd have no trouble with a max of 25. 20 is just =
bit too small to organize anything with your own alliance
But if MAP doesn't work yet I won't be happy with anything less then =
40
-----Original Message-----
From: ope...@li... =
[mailto:ope...@li...] On Behalf Of =
Oliver Due Billing
Sent: maandag 20 januari 2003 12:44
To: ope...@li...
Subject: [Openme-developers] Alliance sizes?
What should the alliance sizes be set at?, as discussed previously =
more and smaller alliances would be nice. So how big should we set =
them?. I am personaly thinking about a max size of 20-25.
Middy
|
|
From: Michael v. D. <mi...@ci...> - 2003-01-20 13:43:08
|
If MAP works now then I'd have no trouble with a max of 25. 20 is just bit too small to organize anything with your own alliance But if MAP doesn't work yet I won't be happy with anything less then 40 -----Original Message----- From: ope...@li... [mailto:ope...@li...] On Behalf Of Oliver Due Billing Sent: maandag 20 januari 2003 12:44 To: ope...@li... Subject: [Openme-developers] Alliance sizes? What should the alliance sizes be set at?, as discussed previously more and smaller alliances would be nice. So how big should we set them?. I am personaly thinking about a max size of 20-25. Middy |
2 messages has been excluded from this view by a project administrator.
