|
|
|
 |

January 2nd, 2001, 05:06 PM
|
 |
Major
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Northern Virginia, USA
Posts: 1,048
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Ring and Sphereworlds
Beck:
Thanks for the info; I hadn't reached that population level yet (obviously), so I hadn't discovered the bug. What a pain. I'll send in to MM. They're almost off holiday now...
Maybe they just don't like the 200% production bonus? Or maybe one could add an extra level (the 13th), set to 200B population and 210% bonus... hmmmm....
__________________
L++ Se+++ GdY $++ Fr C+++ Csc Sf Ai AuO M+ MpTM S Ss RRSHP+ Pw- Fq->Fq+ Nd+++ Rp G++ Mm++ Bb---
|

January 2nd, 2001, 09:01 PM
|
Corporal
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 77
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Ring and Sphereworlds
Lintman you are not twice as old as me unless you happen to be 80. In any event exploits like this could hurt in a multiplayer situation. If I don't know about such an exploit and by using intelligence or ships I discover the ringworld being built and I plan an assault against it based on the time is should take to build it and some exploit makes my plans wrong. I could lose whole assault fleets attacking. Just because it is very expensive doesn't mean somebody won't do it and as all exploits do they will aid the foolish in beating those that are clever. You can't make proper strategy unless things are both consistant and known by you.
__________________
Kagetora
|

January 2nd, 2001, 10:42 PM
|
 |
Captain
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 806
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Ring and Sphereworlds
Off the subject, but...
I thought Joda's post was excellent (and hilarious). That's exactly the sort of loophole that needs to be exposed publicly. It will generate good debate about how upgrades are handled. Personally, I don't like the current limit based on comparative cost. It seems very artificial. Why can't I pull out cruddy old level one DUCs, and replace them with my latest expensive superweapons, as long as they're also direct fire and the same size? That should be easier than replacing them with storage or engines or even missiles. In Tina Turner's words, "What's [comparative cost] got to do with it?" So I definitely WILL use Joda's idea, for all my upgrade needs. (But only when playing against AIs and like-minded humans, or when I might lose. HeHeHe!)
While I'm ranting, the construction system is also very artificial. The limit of one spaceyard per planet is a good example. Only allowing one project in a planetary build queue is another example. Spaceyards should have their own queues. Requiring a minimum of one turn per facility is another example. It is bizarre that a world with 8 B will take as long to build a farm as a world with 1 M. Facility construction should be like unit construction. Actually, ship construction should also be like unit construction! Or, more simply, apply unused "construction points" to the next item in the queue, just like the research queue.
OK, the ranting is over. I will regain my composure by reciting the mantra: Flawed but still fun. Flawed but still fun. Flawed but still fun. OMMMMH!
__________________
Give me a scenario editor, or give me death! Pretty please???
|

January 2nd, 2001, 11:02 PM
|
 |
Lieutenant General
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: california
Posts: 2,961
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Ring and Sphereworlds
quote: Originally posted by dmm:
Why can't I pull out cruddy old level one DUCs, and replace them with my latest expensive superweapons, as long as they're also direct fire and the same size?
the construction system is also very artificial. The limit of one spaceyard per planet is a good example. Only allowing one project in a planetary build queue is another example.
wow, I think you just sparked two really good and easy to implement solutions to two long standing problems. The game is setup to recognize things as being from one Category or another, which is how it is able to summarize things into the 'show only latest' views. easy answer, allow any size of upgrade, but only allow upgrading components within the same family. (weapons for weapons, shields for shields, etc).
and the construction queues, holy cow that irks me. they say its just to hard to implement interface-wise. bull-pucky. put on a 'divide points evenly' button and there you go. make it just like research or intel, the code is obviously there. and there was a bug (feature, if ya ask me) in the demo where you could build multiple construction yards on a planet and get increased points (no multiple queues, jut the points) from them. build 3 construction yards on a world, and have them divide points between 4 different projects. If it seems to abuseable, maybe adding multiple construction yards will give diminishing returns (X-(#of yards)% increase rather than a flat +X construction points)
__________________
...the green, sticky spawn of the stars
(with apologies to H.P.L.)
|

January 2nd, 2001, 11:02 PM
|
 |
Captain
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 806
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Ring and Sphereworlds
I forgot to add that I also think that one should be able to have multiple shipyards at a planet all work together on the same massive project. So rather than giving each shipyard its own queue, give each planet a "shipyard queue" with construction points depending on # and type of shipyards and on population. Also give each planet a "facility queue" and a "unit queue" with their own construction points. Each of these planetary queues would work exactly like the empire-wide research queue. A planet's population would get spread among the 3 queues and facilities, and population bonuses should be awarded based on the number of people on a job, not just on overall population. So your research and resource production bonuses would go down if you had people working on construction projects. And, conversely, you could increase your construction bonuses by turning off facilities. (OK, that's a little artificial too, because people aren't instantly interchangeable [Hello, corporate executives, did you catch that?], but it is better than the current system.)
Does this make sense to anyone else?
[This message has been edited by dmm (edited 02 January 2001).]
__________________
Give me a scenario editor, or give me death! Pretty please???
|

January 2nd, 2001, 11:45 PM
|
Corporal
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 77
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Ring and Sphereworlds
Well of course a whole planet only being able to build one thing at a time is artificial. However as with any game it doesn't matter so much what is realistic it matters what is playable and fun. It might be more realistic to have to have 20 elements and combine those all into alloys and then those into components but then we would be playing a ship building game and not a space 4X game. The limits in the game now are arbitrary but necessary for playability. If you can build alot in one place it benefits you more to have a few good planets than alot and makes expansion less necessary.
__________________
Kagetora
|

January 3rd, 2001, 12:10 AM
|
 |
Sergeant
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 295
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Ring and Sphereworlds
quote: Originally posted by Kagetora:
Lintman you are not twice as old as me unless you happen to be 80. In any event exploits like this could hurt in a multiplayer situation. If I don't know about such an exploit and by using intelligence or ships I discover the ringworld being built and I plan an assault against it based on the time is should take to build it and some exploit makes my plans wrong. I could lose whole assault fleets attacking. Just because it is very expensive doesn't mean somebody won't do it and as all exploits do they will aid the foolish in beating those that are clever. You can't make proper strategy unless things are both consistant and known by you.
Heh - fortunately I'm not 80 years old! (I was just guessing based on the average age of gamers I see on the net).
To clarify: my point about the ringworld speedup being extra expensive was that in a close game all those resources and production capacity you might use to build that ringworld would instead be better used to build an incredibly massive fleet that would annihilate your enemy. As they are now, ringworlds and sphereworlds seem to be in almost all cases, completely impractical to ever build, unless victory is assured and you just want to build them for the heck of it. Speeding up their construction just doesn't seem like it would ever matter in a real game.
I really do sympathize with your concerns about multiplayer cheats. I play an Online FPS called TFC where you play on public servers and have little control over who you play with, and cheating is a major concern there as well.
At one point, there was discovered a method in TFC to do a "quickdet" which gave certain players an advantage. It was mostly unknown for a very long time, (with the developer not reacting to reports of the method), but some players had discovered and used it from the beginning, while others were completely unaware and so were at a big disadvantage. Then the method was exposed, and the community was able to debate on it and was pretty split. About half thought it was fair, and about half thought it was an abuse. (In the quickdet case there are valid arguments for both sides).
While quickdet went into widespread use after that, at least everyone was on level ground that everyone knew about it, and people knew what to look for if someone was using it. That let the assorted leagues rule on its legality (most leagues allowed it) but allowed other leagues and servers to disallow and sanction those that used it there. (Eventually the developers issued a patch that removed the quickdet ability, deciding the issue for good.)
Anyway, my point is that with widespread knowledge of the quickdet method, players could then adjust their play to expect it, or could seek out players and leagues that rejected it.
Above, you say "You can't make proper strategy unless things are both consistant and known by you.". I totally agree, which is why I think exposure of these abuses is better. I'd rather know about a possible abuse that could be used against me, and so be able to look for it/prepare against it, than be surprised by it by a player who got it off some "cheats" web site.
Blah blah blah - enough yapping from me!
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
|
|