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: Oliver D. B. <oli...@ma...> - 2003-01-20 11:43:33
|
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 08:01:47
|
Will experience stay the same? 1 experience point for 1K credits? (1K experience points per 1M credits) -----Original Message----- From: ope...@li... [mailto:ope...@li...] On Behalf Of Oliver Due Billing Sent: January 19, 2003 4:56 PM To: ope...@li... Subject: [Openme-developers] Construction formula.. setting a limit but still draining money :) Ok I revised a little formula for construction. Since I am no math genious its a little silly. I made a graph so you can see how it works on shield gens, turrets and drone hangars The formula is $price= $base_price * $constructionNumber ^ ($constructionNumber / 98) Anyway you can see how it grows on this graph http://www.advancedpowers.com/me_old/docs/constructiontest.php Feedback please Middy |
|
From: Michael v. D. <mi...@ci...> - 2003-01-20 07:54:43
|
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 |
|
From: Michael v. D. <mi...@ci...> - 2003-01-20 06:52:36
|
It looks fine to me, around 75 turrets before the prices get rediculous -----Original Message----- From: ope...@li... [mailto:ope...@li...] On Behalf Of Oliver Due Billing Sent: zondag 19 januari 2003 22:56 To: ope...@li... Subject: [Openme-developers] Construction formula.. setting a limit but still draining money :) Ok I revised a little formula for construction. Since I am no math genious its a little silly. I made a graph so you can see how it works on shield gens, turrets and drone hangars The formula is $price= $base_price * $constructionNumber ^ ($constructionNumber / 98) Anyway you can see how it grows on this graph http://www.advancedpowers.com/me_old/docs/constructiontest.php Feedback please Middy |
|
From: Oliver D. B. <oli...@ma...> - 2003-01-19 21:56:12
|
Ok I revised a little formula for construction. Since I am no math = genious its a little silly. I made a graph so you can see how it works = on shield gens, turrets and drone hangars The formula is=20 $price=3D $base_price * $constructionNumber ^ ($constructionNumber / 98) Anyway you can see how it grows on this graph http://www.advancedpowers.com/me_old/docs/constructiontest.php Feedback please Middy |
|
From: Angelo S. <ang...@oo...> - 2003-01-19 19:08:50
|
This is funny -- and well thought out --, and the different starting relations make sense to me. 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...> - 2003-01-19 17:16:37
|
MessageNot a type.. currently a di8 gives about 6 times it will give 5,6 = now and a di of 50 will give 11 times. An alliance that controls an = entire galaxy including all ports and all possible upgrades?, so their = DI never drops. Well if they manage I would think they deserve the 50 DI ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Michael van Dongen=20 To: ope...@li...=20 Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 4:16 PM Subject: RE: [Openme-developers] Announcement to players -revision 0.1 -Distance index extended to a limit of 50=20 Is this a typo ? Either the DI cost increase curve is very low or jump trading will = become 6 times better then normal trading ? This pretty much means that Alliances will try to claim whole galaxies = to get a safe DI of 50=20 |
|
From: LJC. v. R. <va...@wa...> - 2003-01-19 15:56:13
|
<html> Also in next game,<br> =B0 Ship mountable devices can be produced on base, in a special, new construction: Technology Center<br> =B0 New technology to defeat the DSS-mark II<br> =B0 Deficit goods for construction/production of goods are shown in red<br> =B0 and new research-topics to expand the functionality of bases, and ships...<br> <br> <blockquote type=3Dcite cite><font face=3D"arial" size=3D2>Please read the l= ist and see if I added somethign we dont do or missed something. Also add details.</font><br> <br> <font face=3D"arial" size=3D2><b>Game Set up for 4th generation:</b></font><br> <font face=3D"arial" size=3D2>-12 galaxies average size of 50 X 50.. some bigger</font><br> <font face=3D"arial" size=3D2>-Distance index extended to a limit of 50</font><br> <font face=3D"arial" size=3D2>-Amount of Lux ports lowered, price of lux lowered pirce of food raised</font><br> <font face=3D"arial" size=3D2>-Mines+combat drone price raised to 10.000</font> <br> <font face=3D"arial" size=3D2>-new ship list</font><br> <font face=3D"arial" size=3D2>-new weapon list</font><br> <font face=3D"arial" size=3D2>-XP for construction lowered</font><br> <font face=3D"arial" size=3D2>-Construction price rise faster at the end</font><br> <br> <font face=3D"arial" size=3D2><b>Features redone:</b></font><br> <font face=3D"arial" size=3D2>-ship to ship combat code. Its now one to one and no auto return fire. Combat code made 10 times faster</font><br> <font face=3D"arial" size=3D2>-Ship versus forces code, works the same way just faster</font><br> <font face=3D"arial" size=3D2>-Jump drive, works the same way just faster</font><br> <font face=3D"arial" size=3D2>-Base busting code reworked.</font><br> <font face=3D"arial" size=3D2><x-tab> &nb= sp; </x-tab>-Defender: A bigger chance of someone dying on his base</font><br> <font face=3D"arial" size=3D2><x-tab> &nb= sp; </x-tab>-Attacker A chance of "wearing the base" down. Chance for destroying structures</font> <br> <font face=3D"arial" size=3D2>-Ship technology code made smoother and faster</font><br> <br> <font face=3D"arial" size=3D2><b>New features:</b></font><br> <font face=3D"arial" size=3D2>-Racial abilities </font><br> <font face=3D"arial" size=3D2>-Critical hits in combat system</font> </blockquote></html> |
|
From: Michael v. D. <mi...@ci...> - 2003-01-19 15:17:15
|
-Distance index extended to a limit of 50 Is this a typo ? Either the DI cost increase curve is very low or jump trading will become 6 times better then normal trading ? This pretty much means that Alliances will try to claim whole galaxies to get a safe DI of 50 |
|
From: Stephen L <ste...@ho...> - 2003-01-19 14:53:47
|
Zycklirg Hordes:- A spiritual race, that has lived in peace with all races for a millennium. They have spent their time building up a strong protecting their resources, social order and most importantly their Queen. They have researched many ways to save energy, whether it is construction or on travelling though the vast universe. Their peace was shattered over 500 years ago when their spiritual home of Gebela was invaded and destroyed by the KEA and the then Queen Gnaden was killed. With this crime against their way of life, their society the angry of the Zycklirg army was unleashed. With no experience in war the Ritua Generals called on the Secretive and ancient order of the Zyckcon to seek revenge for their Queens death. The Zycklirg Hordes where formed for this purpose. They are highly trained warriors who in a short period of time grew in to a fast, numerous and deadly warriors. The Zycklirg Hordes massed the largest fleet of ships ever seen to drive the KEA out. The battle of Gebela was not won by either side and cost the lives of 250 million Zycklirg Hordes. Following the battle the Ritua Generals order that all Zycklirg shall serve in the Zycklirg Hordes and that research in warfare be the main focus until this KEA threat be removed for once and for all. Now a new Queen has come of age and she is determined that the KEA pay for their crimes. You have read about it in the history books, now you must answer the call and make history too and defend your Queen. Are you up to it? If you are a ship awaits you! Kallan Emporium Acquisitions:- (K.E.A). The Kallan Emporium race has only lived above the surface of their planet for the last 200 years. Their advances however have been fast. Their ships being able to hold vast amounts of much needed cargo. They have spent most of their resources and now search the universe in the search for worlds to mine and strip of all natural minerals. During their travels they have made many enemy, but now they are at peace with all but the Zycklirg. This war has raged now for 5 decades with neither side willing to talk peace. The war started over the mining of Gebela, a planet rich in minerals but also an ancient spiritual home to the Zycklirg and the unfortunate death of Queen Gnaden . The first major battle taking place in the Gebela sector and resulting in the death of 200 million Kallan Emporium Acquisitions and the lost of 900 billion oraim energy crystals. The years of war and mining have taken their toll on their social. Everything is now focused towards the claiming of resources with young Kallan Emporium being forced to enlist in the Emporium Acquisitions . The Emporium Acquisitions are made up of traders and warriors, ready to fly to any part of the universe to claim a planet and remove resources that they find there. Now you have reached the age of enlistment. The Emporium Acquisitions require your services to maintain the supply of goods and riches. Are you ready to make a profit? Paragon:- The Paragon race was once a great and powerful race spanning many solar systems. They prided themselves in their knowledge and technology. This quest for knowledge and advancement had compelled them to research and explore the galaxy. During there many years of research they discovered the technology for genetic engineering and created a race of warrior slave that they called Mawlors. This lead to many years of high productive due to conquest and many advances in technology. But no one could imagine the cost on the Paragon society. Things started to go wrong, as the Mawlors started think for themselves. The Mawlors secretly plotted their escape and their numbers grew as did the concern of the council. Weeks before a planned reductions in the Mawlor numbers they took over several key facilities. Many Mawlor died as they tried to escape but a few of them did. Many years had past and many Mawlor had been de-activated, the search for those that remained had been stopped. A new danger to our way of living had immerged. A few scientists had notice the Veis star getting larger and larger. As its brightness grew so the planets environment began to shift from one extreme to the other. The Paragon decided they had no other choice but relocate their whole population to a distant galaxy. As they left the star imploded into a SuperNova destroying the whole galaxy and now nothing remains in that part of space but dead space. Now you must help to rebuild the Paragon empire and to hunt down the remaining Mawlors who still haunt the memories of your people. Are you ready to help your race succeed in their new home and in their quest. Mawlor Royal Guard :- Having been engineered and breed only a few decades ago the Mawlor have as yet not discovered much of the universe. What they have discovered they have had to fight for. The Mawlor where engineered 72 years ago by the Paragon. They where breed for the sole purpose of defencing the Paragon way of life from the Xollians. Their creators frequently sent many thousand Mawlor to their death on suicide missions in there search for knowledge. After 47 years of this way of life the first Mawlor (Talut) gained the ability of independent thought. This was kept secret for a further 5 years as Talut help many other Mawlors to achieve the level of independent thinking. As time past the Mawlors increased in number and in their desire for freedom. The secret council of the Mawlors planned their escape even though they knew would cost many lives. They took over several key Paragon starbases, including the Nemimus Centre (Paragon starship research centre). They held these facilities for almost a week while they prepped their starships for their escape. The time came to make their new ships (including some experiential jump ships) out though the Paragons fleet that they new was waiting for them. Many Mawlor where lost as they broke though the Paragon fleet including Talut. But escape they did. Now you the latest and most advanced Mawlor have been engineered, you have been granted the honour of being assigned to the Mawlor Mantis. It is your duty to find a new area for your race to populate. Xollian Mantis Xollians have been around for centuries. They are the charismatic holy warriors of Eachthiarna who fool many people into thinking they are being helped, when in fact the Xollians are only helping themselves. Overall, Xollians seek glory and prestige. They do not care how it is obtained, but they wish to be recognized by large amounts of people for their skill and prowess. If they achieve this by helping the poor, so be it. But often times they will make deals on the side with the enemy in case things don't pan out, or to enhance the perceived glory they get for the "valiant rescue". In the end, it comes down to looking out for number One. The home of the Xollians originate from the planet Xolli, which lies on the edge of the delta quadrant. However Xollians have for the last thousand years been a nomadic race who roamed the universe constantly looking for new challenges and excitement. Their one turning point was when they took part in a great race war. Even though they were extremely skilled in combat, the Xollian armies were greatly outnumbered at the Battle of Basheba Prime and were defeated. The remaining Xollian factions gathered their families and fled for the very survival of their race, contrary to the very nature of their being. The structure of Xollian society is largely based on a warrior-like code of honor and relationships between families. Honour, pride, and trust are the foundations on which Xollian society is based. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of their society is that there are very few written laws and no one has the sole position of enforcing them. When young Xollians reach a certain age they are required to swear on their families honour that they will do their best to respect their own kind and protect that honor. Lying, stealing, cheating, and other such acts are simply considered to be beneath them. Any Xollian who has proved him or herself to be dishonorable will be punished mercilessly by their peers. Now you have come of age and as the eldest member of your house it is your honour to join the Mantis and seek to honour your house. With this sort of history/background to each of the races it would be possible to start each race with different Global relations levels. For Example For Zyck (lower relations with races and their supporters, possible higher relatins with races they feel have suffered or they thing are honourable) KEA -180 Paragon -50 Mawlor 50 Xollian 100 For KEA (low relations with race that it has been at war with and race that would hunt them. Good relations with race that they may supply goods to) Zyck -140 Paragon 175 Mawlor 0 Xollian -95 For Paragon (as a race that has built its self on the quest for knowledge it would have made a few enemies, especially its former slaves. However they would be like traders due to the resources that would be needed for their research) Zyck 0 KEA 220 Mawlor -190 Xollian -150 For Mawlor (as a warrior race and their struggle to gain an area for themselves they would have bad relations with most other races) Zyck 50 KEA -80 Paragon -220 Xollian -70 For Xollian (as hunters they would not be popular with the traders or races they have fought with, they would however respect the spiritual race) Zyck 120 KEA -90 Paragon -140 Mawlor -190 FEED BACK WOULD BE NICE, UNTIL THEN I LEAVE THE DESCRIPTIONS ALONE!!!!! If you want a long history then say so and i see what i can dream up. _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus |
|
From: Michael v. D. <mi...@ci...> - 2003-01-19 14:25:48
|
XP gain for kills lowered to 10% ?
Return of Hyperspace ?
Changes to racial kill bounties ?
-----Original Message-----
From: ope...@li...
[mailto:ope...@li...] On Behalf Of
Oliver Due Billing
Sent: zondag 19 januari 2003 13:46
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.
Game Set up for 4th generation:
-12 galaxies average size of 50 X 50.. some bigger
-Distance index extended to a limit of 50
-Amount of Lux ports lowered, price of lux lowered pirce of food raised
-Mines+combat drone price raised to 10.000
-new ship list
-new weapon list
-XP for construction lowered
-Construction price rise faster at the end
Features redone:
-ship to ship combat code. Its now one to one and no auto return fire.
Combat code made 10 times faster
-Ship versus forces code, works the same way just faster
-Jump drive, works the same way just faster
-Base busting code reworked.
-Defender: A bigger chance of someone dyign on his base
-Attacker A chance of "wearing the base" down. Chance for destroying
structures
-Ship technology code made smoother and faster
New features:
-Racial abilities
-Critical hits in combat system
|
|
From: Michael v. D. <mi...@ci...> - 2003-01-19 14:22:20
|
I'm gonna think like a newby here (aka normal) : New features: -Critical hits in combat system See this ? Why not extend it to Base Busting too ? Turrets can do critical hits for extra damage Ships can do critical hits for destroying turrets and/or shield generators I wouldn't recommend critical misses though cause I don't see many benefits in that. -----Original Message----- From: ope...@li... [mailto:ope...@li...] On Behalf Of Oliver Due Billing Sent: zondag 19 januari 2003 14:08 To: ope...@li... Subject: [Openme-developers] base busting I read both suggestions from Hawklan and aos. Both of them fufill goal 2. That is an increased chance of casualities. Hawklans is with a hardcoded constant of 3 so each merchant can be hit by 0 - (#OfTurrets / #ofAttackers)+3, turrets. Aos is an approach where the turrets are distributed on ships and the "first" ship in line is the most damaged. I lean towards aos's here since its more dynamic of nature. But it also seem abit harsh, seems like #1 ship always goes down. Hawklans suggestion dosent fufill goal 1 though, since he wants the base to be intact. Well a turret dont stop firing when it looses it shields, why would it?, and when point giant weapons at a base and fire. Somethign is going to be damaged. We must do away with the all or nothing strategy, since it should be possible to attack a few round. Come back the next day and all your work is not gone. This way I am sure more bases will be busted(more fun). So in regards to goal one I think that aos suggestion is the best, so far. You might take some losses but it will be worthwhile if U stick out a few round. Then U start to wear the shields thin. Remember its supposed to be one big shield with each SG adding to its strength so its logical that some shots might penetrate. I also think that we should not destroy base when its defenses are down. but it does require a new feature. So lets wait a bit with that. Comments? Middy |
|
From: Angelo S. <ang...@oo...> - 2003-01-19 14:21:21
|
Hi, I think there should be a way for sorting ships in current sector. A) busters might want to determine who is first in the line of fire B) sector combat with one on one fire creates a disadvantage for the one on top of the list of ships in current sector. If the ships are sorted in reverse order of last move date(this is allready recorded in the ship record) the ship entering sector latest is on top. This should be the first in a bust, IMHO. So reverse entering order is bust order for ships. The same order should apply to current sector listing, as this has the effect that a ship on which is fired might be dropping in the current sector list when furhter ships enter. Suppose we have a fleet battle, 10 of each kind. The guy on top of the list might be attacked by 3 or more enemies, next combat round he is still on top of the list: BAD!! All see him imediatly and fire again on him. Better: if more ships enter those get to the top. The attacker has to "look" for his victim to fire again. If no one enters in the meantime .... bad for the victim. As far as I know only a ORDER BY 'movetime' (DECREASING?) needs to be added to the sQL statement for cs display. 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 :-) 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...> - 2003-01-19 14:11:04
|
Hi, > Oliver Due Billing wrote: > > Comments? > I think a weared down base(all shield lost) might be conquered. Probably for each further combat round, which would only cause damage, you have a 1% chance per ship that it lands and conquers the base? If you do it like I proposed in the previous mail, that only armor damage capable weapons cause damage to structures, the attacker could even switch weapons to increase his chance of conquering, with the drawback of getting still damage. A further dimension to game. Hawklans proposals to be able to conquer a base gives also a further dimension to the game. IMHO thats good. The "explode" feature is also nice. Of course this feature can be delayed. Regarding my proposal for the appoinging of turrets to targets, you can adjust the hardcoded divide by two. You can multiply with any number in range of 0.5 to 1.0. So you shift more turrets to the upper range. Indeed we could have this value user configureable on the base, similar to the drone squad feature in BryanME. aos ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML Ang...@oo... Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVA Fax: +49 721 9812467 |
|
From: LJC. v. R. <va...@wa...> - 2003-01-19 13:44:03
|
>Our goal would be to > >1. Add a way for the attacker to more easily harm a base. Eg give up with >the old everything or nothing method. A method of wearing a base down. >2. Add a way so the defender have a chance to at least take some of his >attackers with him(without the defender being logged on). Eg gie up on the >easy calculations. If we are 10 ships we will never die...so lets be 10 ships > >This should be done simple with simple formulaes, and as little add-on to >teh current modules as possible. 1. Attacks to bases should be in two phases, shields first, the rest of the constructions once the protecting shield has been destroyed. Attacking the shields is currently aimed at taking down the actual shields. We should redo this to also destroy the shieldgenerators themselves, next to taking down the shields. In current design the hitpoints/damagepoints is 250points per SG. The armor damage of weapons could then be used to reduce these points. Any 250points of weapons damage would take out 1 SG. This would mean that Turrets and DroneHangars would not be damaged by attacks as long as the base has SGs and shields.. Also having ONLY shield weapons for busting will no longer do, since you cannot take out Turrets or DroneHangars with those weapons. We would have to add the damagepoints to the base_structures table and add a couple of lines of codes to check for damage dealt, plus removing destroyed SG when the check tells us so. 2. To damage bases more easily each attack, even by a single player, should have a similar success/fail chance for the attacker's survival. If this is done, there would basically be no more difference between multiple single attackers or a fleet, all firing at once in a single attack. I feel this chance should be dependent on the manouverability of the vessel, and accuracy of the turret. The first one would determine how many turrets would actually take aim at the ship, the second one would then determine hit or miss. I suggest we have a formula wherein the big warships have a chance of eg. 1 in 5 (20%) to get aimed at and the small warship eg. 1 in 10 (10%). With the turret max. at 100 a single large warship attacking would have 20 aimed at it. With turret accuracy at 33%-40% it could survive the attack, but be heavily damaged. The smaller warship would have 10 aimed at it. The odds would be the same for both and with sufficiently high aim/hit ratio the casualties among attackers would rise. |
|
From: Oliver D. B. <oli...@ma...> - 2003-01-19 13:08:25
|
I read both suggestions from Hawklan and aos. Both of them fufill goal 2. That is an increased chance of casualities.=20 Hawklans is with a hardcoded constant of 3 so each merchant can be hit = by 0 - (#OfTurrets / #ofAttackers)+3, turrets. Aos is an approach where = the turrets are distributed on ships and the "first" ship in line is the = most damaged. I lean towards aos's here since its more dynamic of = nature. But it also seem abit harsh, seems like #1 ship always goes = down. Hawklans suggestion dosent fufill goal 1 though, since he wants the base = to be intact. Well a turret dont stop firing when it looses it shields, = why would it?, and when point giant weapons at a base and fire. = Somethign is going to be damaged. We must do away with the all or = nothing strategy, since it should be possible to attack a few round. = Come back the next day and all your work is not gone. This way I am sure = more bases will be busted(more fun). So in regards to goal one I think that aos suggestion is the best, so = far. You might take some losses but it will be worthwhile if U stick out = a few round. Then U start to wear the shields thin. Remember its = supposed to be one big shield with each SG adding to its strength so its = logical that some shots might penetrate. I also think that we should not destroy base when its defenses are down. = but it does require a new feature. So lets wait a bit with that. Comments? Middy |
|
From: Oliver D. B. <oli...@ma...> - 2003-01-19 12:45:42
|
Please read the list and see if I added somethign we dont do or missed =
something. Also add details.
Game Set up for 4th generation:
-12 galaxies average size of 50 X 50.. some bigger
-Distance index extended to a limit of 50
-Amount of Lux ports lowered, price of lux lowered pirce of food raised
-Mines+combat drone price raised to 10.000=20
-new ship list
-new weapon list
-XP for construction lowered
-Construction price rise faster at the end
Features redone:
-ship to ship combat code. Its now one to one and no auto return fire. =
Combat code made 10 times faster
-Ship versus forces code, works the same way just faster
-Jump drive, works the same way just faster
-Base busting code reworked.
-Defender: A bigger chance of someone dyign on his base
-Attacker A chance of "wearing the base" down. Chance for destroying =
structures=20
-Ship technology code made smoother and faster
New features:
-Racial abilities=20
-Critical hits in combat system=20
|
|
From: Farid K. <Far...@ro...> - 2003-01-18 23:34:02
|
Base building and base busting should both be risky businesses... all bases no matter of size should be bustable, and no bust should go without casualties. At a base's highest level, losing one ship per round is feasible; if you want it you will pay for it. I also think that once shields are gone, a base's defenses should be considered breached. News item: 1/18/03 - Morgana Comglomerate breached the defenses on base Castle Kindred, owned by Hawklan of Fear The Vampires in sector 8008. Battle Report sent to alliance: The defense on base "Castle Kindred" in sector 8008 were breached at 02:00 on 1/18/03 by Morgana Conglomerate. You have lost this base. Base DOES not need to be destroyed. It will have all of its buildings, hangars, research etc. intact. When you land and claim it, all merchants on base get booted and, we assume, will be podded. Now the base with its turrets, shields gererators, drone hangars, is intact, but has no shields. The attacking alliance can now decide to: 1- Keep and reshield the base 2- Destroy it (self-destruct). This could be timed, consider it building a self-destruct mechanism (building), once the building is complete, it causes the bases deletion. Let's for argument sake, needs as much explosives that the storage can hold, i.e. if the storage has 600 capacity then 600 explosives, if however, the owners got to storage to 1000 units, then it would need 1000 units of explosives to build... It takes 30 minutes to build, once it finishes, the base gets deleted, only the owner can start that building... The previous occupants can still re-take the base before the base goes... if they claim, the owner can cancel the self-destruct building... 02:30 1/18/03 - Fear The Vampires retook their base in sector 8008 or if they can't... 02:45 1/18/03 - Morgana Conglomerate self-destructed a base in sector 8008 Imagine the havoc you can create if you can bust and hold a base deep in enemy territory... They would have to spend resources and money to get it back, call in favours from other alliances... etc. This would not be hard to do, no additional tech required, other than the self-destruct mechanism... But, back to the busting code... I think that randomness of turrets can be achieved without too much code. Who says that all the turrets HAVE to fire? We can divide up the turrets between the attackers, add 3 to that number, then pick a random number of turrets between 0 and that number. So there is a chance that 0 turrets targeted that merchant, or 8 turrets So... A base with 50 turrets being attacked by 10 merchants, so, divide up 50 turrets by 10 ppl, so 5 turrets, add 3 to that, you get 8, get a random number between 0 and 8, and that is the number of turrets that fire... So if you have 10 and it goes like: Ship 1 gets 6 turrets Ship 2 gets 3 turrets Ship 3 gets 0 turrets Ship 4 gets 8 turrets <- if he isn't in a big ship, then he is probably dead :) Ship 5 gets 4 Ship 6 gets 4 Ship 7 gets 7 Ship 8 gets 2 Ship 9 gets 5 Ship 10 gets 3 Total turrets that fire: 42 Total turrets that missed/did not fire: 8 It will also so work out if the first 8 or 9 use up all 50 turrets then the 10th and maybe 9th won't get fired on any turrets... If when it reaches the end of the list and there are no more turrets, then the last person is just lucky. Drones can be the same, start with a percentage of available drones, then a +/- percentage increase, and fire those drones at an attacker, if you run out of drones by end of round then the last few people are lucky again. If we go back to old base building 970 turrets SGs at 100 shields), then shield damage to shield on base are slashed to 1/5th of their power... But shields die the regular way, just deduct them... I want to be able to include MAP alliances in BB, I don't care how long it takes for it to choose who will fire on it, in a realistic sense, coordinating fire from 10 ships should take time. This way, when you see 3 TA, 4 FT and 3 CE online, you can't know they are busting... better than seeing 10 Widowmakers and KNOWING they are up to something.. All that needs to be determined is how big a base can be, because that will determine how big the fleet can be to kill it. If bases can't get too big, then we can limit the number of ships IS. What do you all think? I think it is doable within the timeframe... Hawklan |
|
From: Angelo S. <ang...@oo...> - 2003-01-18 18:45:26
|
> Oliver Due Billing wrote: > > Well since the code is being reworked anyway I feel we should add a few changes, simple changes due to our time need. > > Our goal would be to > > 1. Add a way for the attacker to more easily harm a base. Eg give up with the old everything or nothing method. A method of wearing a base down. > I would make it dependend on amount of ships and total constructions(only SG/DH and turrets). Variables: totalShield # fill status of shield generators attackerCount # number of ships attacking totalConstructions # see below totalConstructions = turretCount + sgCount + dhCount; Then I would divide totalShield by number of attacking Ships. Suppose we have 5000 shields installed and 10 attacking ships ... then in the first round we assign 500 shield to each ship: totalShield / attackerCount. Lets call this: shieldPerAttacker. If a ship has done shieldPerAttacker damage, the remaining HPs(if any) destroy constructions (if they have armor damage). Very likel yin the first combat rounds there is more than 500 shield per ship, so the first combat rounds won't damage the base. When shield goes down at some point we will have shieldPerAttacker smal enough so that the first 1 or 2 or 3 shots remove that shield and the remaining 2 or 3 shots might hit a construction. Basicly you only need to calculate shieldPerAttacker at start of combat round, to change the firering of weapons to stop making shield damage, when the summed up damage exceedes shieldPerAttacker, and then call your new fucntion with the remaining weapons to fire on constructions. > 2. Add a way so the defender have a chance to at least take some of his attackers with him(without the defender being logged on). Eg gie up on the easy calculations. If we are 10 ships we will never die...so lets be 10 ships > > > This should be done simple with simple formulaes, and as little add-on to teh current modules as possible. > Init: numTargets = attackerCount; // ### numTurrets = base.turrets; numCDs = base.CDs; numCDTargets = attackerCount Loop: firingTurrets = numTurrets / 2; Distrubute firingTurrets on numTargets; fire! numTurrets = numTurrets - (numTurrets / 2); numTargets = numTargets - (numTargets / 2); goto loop; Do the same with CDs. The result is you have at least one turret on every target as long as you have enough turrets. The more in front of the line a ship is, the more turrets fire on it. For 20 turrets and 10 ships it looks like this: s s s s s s s s s s t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t This is when you round downwards in the / 2 calculations above. If you round upwards it is: s s s s s s s s s s t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t <<< t t The CDs could fire on the upper half of the attacker fleet, using a similar approach, or of course, also on the lower part. > For goal 1 I am thinking of a simple damage formula, for every X points of damage pr round there is a chance of destroying a turret/shield gen/drone hangar. > > For goal 2 The simple round-robin way eg 10 attackers each get 1/10 of the defense is not good enough. Our ecperience has shown that a completely random way is not good either(noone will bust). But how and why is my question > > So lets open teh discussion and keep in mind, use what we have know. Dont add 100 imaginary features, cause I can gurantee you it wont be implemented. Think as the attacker AND as the defender. > > Middy Anyway, I hope this is easy enough :-) Its a simplified version of my proposal for base/fleet combat which I had made in phorum some year ago. 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...> - 2003-01-18 17:04:38
|
Well since the code is being reworked anyway I feel we should add a few = changes, simple changes due to our time need. Our goal would be to 1. Add a way for the attacker to more easily harm a base. Eg give up = with the old everything or nothing method. A method of wearing a base = down. 2. Add a way so the defender have a chance to at least take some of his = attackers with him(without the defender being logged on). Eg gie up on = the easy calculations. If we are 10 ships we will never die...so lets be = 10 ships This should be done simple with simple formulaes, and as little add-on = to teh current modules as possible. For goal 1 I am thinking of a simple damage formula, for every X points = of damage pr round there is a chance of destroying a turret/shield = gen/drone hangar. For goal 2 The simple round-robin way eg 10 attackers each get 1/10 of = the defense is not good enough. Our ecperience has shown that a = completely random way is not good either(noone will bust). But how and = why is my question So lets open teh discussion and keep in mind, use what we have know. = Dont add 100 imaginary features, cause I can gurantee you it wont be = implemented. Think as the attacker AND as the defender.=20 Middy |
|
From: Angelo S. <ang...@oo...> - 2003-01-17 12:34:26
|
Hm, what about having two timers? One for standard weapon relaod time, I fire on a target and my weapon need time to cool/reload/aim what ever, this is similar to TFP but a shorter delay, probably 15 seconds. And a second timer for automatic return fire, which has the same reload time as the one above. This allows me to fire only once BACK during a given period of time. If I get attacked by several ships I fire also only once back in a given period of time. 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...> - 2003-01-17 09:34:27
|
That dosent make sense wiz
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Danny Froberg=20
To: Ope...@li...=20
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 12:58 AM
Subject: Re: Spam Alert: [Openme-developers] re: auto return fire
So now when you listed all the positive sides of removing AutoFire =
anything negative that comes to mind? :)
At 23:51 2003-01-16 +0000, Dar...@kn... wrote:
Woah I'm surprised and encouraged that I agree with BRUTICUS.
=20
Auto return fire CONS
=20
- The game is ruled simply by who has the faster connection.=20
- In this game you design your ship to fight for you, you don't =
fight for your ship. Your ship ceases to fight for you.=20
- Will -flood- the server with page refreshes from the paranoid or =
the cautious
- We're supposed to be helping newbies fight back not totally =
removing their ability to return fire
- ME ridiculously becomes a button bashing game
- You lose a heap of players
- You get a tonne of complaints
- Combat becomes an elitist thing only for those in elite countries =
with expensive connections rather than in-keeping with one of the games =
premises of being free for -all- to enjoy equally.=20
- Tips the scales towards people who do not need the scales tipping =
towards them
- Makes us all look extremley stupid for putting in such a =
ridiculous feature. Remember combat is not just one on one or fleet vs =
fleet. There are other situations. Cream off a base for example, they =
aren't online to press attack. Pursuit, trying to run away. Need ship to =
fight for you while you're doing that or buying shields.=20
=20
PROs=20
=20
- cant think of any.=20
=20
Among the players only a few ppl who see themselves profiting from =
it will ever think disabling auto return fire a good thing.=20
|
|
From: Michael v. D. <mi...@ci...> - 2003-01-17 09:21:36
|
Well the activity in the irc channel has dropped considerably again due to lack of official info and updates. I suggest we make a short list of things that have already been completed and will be definately be in the next game so we can release bits of info to keep the interest up. I know I'd sure like some info had I not been working on the game myself, especially given the delay. |
|
From: Danny F. <da...@fr...> - 2003-01-17 00:06:14
|
So now when you listed all the positive sides of removing AutoFire anything negative that comes to mind? :) At 23:51 2003-01-16 +0000, Dar...@kn... wrote: >Woah I'm surprised and encouraged that I agree with BRUTICUS. > >Auto return fire CONS > >- The game is ruled simply by who has the faster connection. >- In this game you design your ship to fight for you, you don't fight for >your ship. Your ship ceases to fight for you. >- Will -flood- the server with page refreshes from the paranoid or the >cautious >- We're supposed to be helping newbies fight back not totally removing >their ability to return fire >- ME ridiculously becomes a button bashing game >- You lose a heap of players >- You get a tonne of complaints >- Combat becomes an elitist thing only for those in elite countries with >expensive connections rather than in-keeping with one of the games >premises of being free for -all- to enjoy equally. >- Tips the scales towards people who do not need the scales tipping >towards them >- Makes us all look extremley stupid for putting in such a ridiculous >feature. Remember combat is not just one on one or fleet vs fleet. There >are other situations. Cream off a base for example, they aren't online to >press attack. Pursuit, trying to run away. Need ship to fight for you >while you're doing that or buying shields. > >PROs > >- cant think of any. > >Among the players only a few ppl who see themselves profiting from it will >ever think disabling auto return fire a good thing. |
|
From: <Dar...@kn...> - 2003-01-16 23:49:04
|
Woah I'm surprised and encouraged that I agree with BRUTICUS. Auto return fire CONS - The game is ruled simply by who has the faster connection.=20 - In this game you design your ship to fight for you, you don't fight = for your ship. Your ship ceases to fight for you.=20 - Will -flood- the server with page refreshes from the paranoid or the = cautious - We're supposed to be helping newbies fight back not totally removing = their ability to return fire - ME ridiculously becomes a button bashing game - You lose a heap of players - You get a tonne of complaints - Combat becomes an elitist thing only for those in elite countries with = expensive connections rather than in-keeping with one of the games = premises of being free for -all- to enjoy equally.=20 - Tips the scales towards people who do not need the scales tipping = towards them - Makes us all look extremley stupid for putting in such a ridiculous = feature. Remember combat is not just one on one or fleet vs fleet. There = are other situations. Cream off a base for example, they aren't online = to press attack. Pursuit, trying to run away. Need ship to fight for you = while you're doing that or buying shields.=20 PROs=20 - cant think of any.=20 Among the players only a few ppl who see themselves profiting from it = will ever think disabling auto return fire a good thing.=20 |
2 messages has been excluded from this view by a project administrator.
