Menu
▾
▴
openme-developers
|
From: Justin S. <jus...@ho...> - 2003-01-25 00:52:59
|
What is Max DI going to be? If it is going to be 50 then I have to change something with Jump Trading in my ship price formula (and hence rebalance those ships). You say you aren't reworking the formula much. So we are switching to 1 sector trading is good for money then? Will you increase it so that Long Distance Trading is for EXP then? BTW by making Short Distance Trading better then Long Distance you really cut the heart out of Zyck and the 'faster' races trading Ability. Basically it will be Mawlor all the way. As I told you, if you are having DI 50 then to make it worth travelling 50 sectors overland you have to have it increase by alot. ie DI 50 being approximately 35-50 times the unit price of DI 1. It is simple math. The formula the way you had it made worse money/turn the higher the DI. Add 2 lines on your graph. EXP/turn and Money/Turn. Then just make sure as DI goes up that EXP/turn goes down and Money/Turn goes up. Use 3 TPS, 300 Cargo, 2 turns/trade for your calculations. So DI 1 = 300 Cargo & 10 turns = 30 Cargo/Turn * UnitPrice(DI1) & DI 50 = 300 Cargo & 304 turns = 0.987 Cargo/Turn * UnitPrice(DI50) Therefore as you can with that example for DI 50 to be just equal to DI 1 it needs a unit price of 30.4 times higher. And that would just be to have an straight line (no change in price/turn with DI). We would want price/turn to increase as DI goes up so it would basically have to be at least 40 (to compensate for the better EXP over shorter distances). Are you really ready to have UnitPrices of ~16K? If you are then Jump and Gate Trading will slaughter. If you are not prepared to have Unit Prices that high then you are faced with limiting DI and really I think max should be closer to 10-20 (20 at the extreme). Please do the math for yourselves so you understand it. Carnaugh _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail |
|
From: Justin S. <jus...@ho...> - 2003-01-25 23:56:31
|
Middy my messages about DI and Trading were not Flaming, I was just making sure you guys knew the facts about the Formula you had presented. I agree with most of your 'theory' about trading. People should have a choice in which strategy they wish to make money. Overland (long or short), Jump, Gate trading. Obviously Gate will be the best and then probably Jump trading but we should still have Overland trading as a viable option. Especially because new players to the game won't be able to Gate trade from the start (nor probably Jump trade safely). I think I know what you mean about the higher DIs sort of being there for Gate and Jump Trading and I guess I can go with that (since there are few of them). If I may suggest I think a formula for trading that has Money/Turn increase as DI goes up to DI 8 or 10. Then After that DI (8 or 10 or whatever) the unit price still raises but the money/turn either stays equal or decreases (as you had it). This way Overland trading would still be viable at the low DIs and be 'worth it'. Then as you go above this (say) DI 10 it is more for Jumpers and Gaters although an Overlander could still go that far without losing out. Doing this would also keep the Trading Ships more balanced. Also people won't be shocked by such a sudden change in the trading system (ie going farther = less money). I also think Gating should use 20 turns (not 10). With DI increasing and being able to gate with 600 Cargo ships we really need Gating to use more turns. Otherwise Gate Trading not only destroys Overland but Jump Trading also. Carnaugh - Can't believe he and aos agree on some issues! _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 |
|
From: Oliver D. B. <oli...@ma...> - 2003-01-26 09:30:58
|
I agree completely, i'll raise gate trading to 20~25 turns and tweak the formula. The 25 turns is based on the fact that gate trading allows any ship size , no risk of misjumping, and that jump ships do not have veyr big cargo holds. Correct me if this is wrong ----- Original Message ----- From: "Justin Stedman" <jus...@ho...> To: <ope...@li...> Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2003 12:56 AM Subject: [Openme-developers] DI and Trading > > Middy my messages about DI and Trading were not Flaming, I was just making > sure you guys knew the facts about the Formula you had presented. > > I agree with most of your 'theory' about trading. People should have a > choice in which strategy they wish to make money. Overland (long or short), > Jump, Gate trading. Obviously Gate will be the best and then probably Jump > trading but we should still have Overland trading as a viable option. > Especially because new players to the game won't be able to Gate trade from > the start (nor probably Jump trade safely). I think I know what you mean > about the higher DIs sort of being there for Gate and Jump Trading and I > guess I can go with that (since there are few of them). If I may suggest I > think a formula for trading that has Money/Turn increase as DI goes up to DI > 8 or 10. Then After that DI (8 or 10 or whatever) the unit price still > raises but the money/turn either stays equal or decreases (as you had it). > This way Overland trading would still be viable at the low DIs and be 'worth > it'. Then as you go above this (say) DI 10 it is more for Jumpers and > Gaters although an Overlander could still go that far without losing out. > Doing this would also keep the Trading Ships more balanced. Also people > won't be shocked by such a sudden change in the trading system (ie going > farther = less money). I also think Gating should use 20 turns (not 10). > With DI increasing and being able to gate with 600 Cargo ships we really > need Gating to use more turns. Otherwise Gate Trading not only destroys > Overland but Jump Trading also. > > Carnaugh - Can't believe he and aos agree on some issues! > > _________________________________________________________________ > Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online > http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > 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: Angelo S. <ang...@oo...> - 2003-02-04 13:23:40
|
Hi! Oliver Due Billing wrote: > > I agree completely, i'll raise gate trading to 20~25 turns and tweak the > formula. The 25 turns is based on the fact that gate trading allows any ship I dont think that gating should use the same or even more turns than jumping. For gates you have an hughe investment of money to get a gate established, you have a base on both ends, you need to stock them, its your own territory more or less, you are less flexible than in jumping. For slow connections its the only way to play the game anyway ... by cutting the amount of trades one can make in a day, down to 50% or even less in relation to a jumper, seems not appropriated to me. > size , no risk of misjumping, and that jump ships do not have veyr big cargo > holds. Correct me if this is wrong Some races have no jump trade ship at all. Missjumping is a low percentage chance anyway. If you like to tweak on turns lower the turn consumption of jump traders, probably TD dependend or cargo dependend. Also there is still the idea floating to reduce missjump likelyhood in case you have a base or a drones close to the destination .... Well, it makes no sense to me to increase turn max every game, turns per hour every game and then to increase turn consumption just to increase turn max etc. again a game later :-) I don't think it will be popular to increase turn consumption for gates ... aos ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML Ang...@oo... Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVA Fax: +49 721 9812467 |
|
From: Oliver D. B. <oli...@ma...> - 2003-01-25 02:17:01
|
I am dont want to start a flame war about this subject, but I feel my goals need to be said. Trading in ME is very slow and tedious, and with close area trading you quickly end up with 1000 of trades if you want to make it. This is fun for some but not for many. It takes too long and can be tremendiously boring. Many online players do not have the time nor the will to sit for hours and click, rather mindlessly. Last game with the prolonged life of a stargate a new strategy appeared called stargate trading and also jump trading became a big thing. The intend of the high DI is to promote this way of playing. To give the players who do not wish to click endlessly an easier way to gain money fast, and also support this new strategy. This opens up for alliances that do not have "half of Mawlor" or 1st quadrant of "KEA", but have distributed bases connected by gates. Also I am hoping to see a bit more fighting over the good spots. A way to support it is by higher DI, this will make stargate trading much more profitable. But it shouldent be as profitable that overland trading will go away as a viable strategy. It should be a choice of strategy. Remember that even stargate traders will need to upgrade their local ports too. A nice side effect would hopefully be less territory needed for alliances, but thats hard to tell. Now logicaly its completely correct that a di 50 should be better in turns/sector than a lower DI, if we assume that the player travels all the way. But that is not the intention as described. Basicly the close quarter traders should gain more XP, while the long distance traders(by gate) should gain money a bit faster. Now the question is if the DI limit is too much and the effects. When I redo the formulaes i'll look over my test galaxy and try to rigure it out. I'll prolly end up with the conclusion that they are :)... |
|
From: Angelo S. <ang...@oo...> - 2003-01-25 16:18:05
|
Oliver Due Billing wrote: > > Now logicaly its completely correct that a di 50 should be better in > turns/sector than a lower DI, if we assume that the player travels all the > way. But that is not the intention as described. Basicly the close quarter > traders should gain more XP, while the long distance traders(by gate) should > gain money a bit faster. > I have a 1.5kB DSL line. On my usual ME comp, thats an 200MHz Pentium, year 1996, a page load is 8 seconds. Often slower. Going up to 15 seconds(that is looking up the server plus opening the connection plus downloading the page plus rendering, while rendering is lightening fast in Opera) On my other comp, a 1.4GHz Athlon, a page load is about 6 to 7 seconds, so the speed of the machine is not the matter. As it takes 3 seconds to look up and another 2 or 3 to connect to the server I think my limited upstream of 128KBit is the problem. Last game I played FT. Basicly 4 active players and in the start of the game 2 further players and some players which joined in the middle and went inactive. What do I want to say? You ask :-) None of us made overland trading. Exception: Foolio. None of us made jump trading(except for Vaar, selling weapons at a weapon dealer), a 240 holds jumper is not suitabel for trading(in terms of XP/turns or money/turns) I would estimate we spend 500M on gates for trading. We earned via trade aproximately 2 giga of cash. All via gates. As soon as the DI is greater than 4 we have built a gate. Why? Because overland trading is so freaking slow(the moving, not the trading), and with a gate you are allways over your base and can land in case of a BR. Furthermore: a gate takes 10 turns to pass, if the distance is > than 3 its cheaper to gate than to move overland. The only overland movements we did are for final 2k goods to finish an upgrade, for shield buying, for base stocking for getting a raw good needed in research and so on. I support Middies view completely. However, Carnaugh is in so far right as the way of older games: trade for XP *or* for money, and not simply: the farer the more money AND more XP should be reestablished. Well, before you start flaming: this is again an aos way of playing .... :-) However, Carnaugh, I do not mind if it is done the way you propose. I only want to say: my next alliance plans to trade ONLY via gates, even the local upgrades. Instead of taking energy from 2 sectors away we take it back via the gates. aos ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML Ang...@oo... Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVA Fax: +49 721 9812467 |
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X