taken from

Only registered users can see links on this forum! Register or Login on forum!

Dragonia wrote:

well, since now that I looked at the other thread, there is one thing I want to bring back up that I think needs mentioning: Mapmaker wrote: I assume Veldez's comments are now null with repair drones. But I'll throw in another. Can Darklight be allocated based on the points value of the defeated ship. So, if I have 3 ships with a point value of 150, and I defeat a 390 point opponent then... ... This will also negate part of the advantage 'big' ships have over 'small' ships. this still brings up a valid point even now. if I send in 10 small fighters and over power a single mauler, all I get for my trouble is a single point of DL... if on the other hand the mauler defeats all 10 fighters, it gets a whopping 10 DL for that one battle. another point is that you get the same exact reward whether the enemy flees or dies... would it be possible: 1: a ship will gain DL based on difference of ship size (fighter [1] beats mauler [7] so the fighter gains [7-1=6] DL) this will, at the least, even it up to where both sides have something (almost) equal to fight over. not sure of any other -easy- way to do it... ... another way to do #1, is to set up a fraction, where a ship can have x/y (y being the size of the ship) max DL. this figure, however, is invisible and only the whole number is used in determining a ship's max DL (10 2/7 max DL will only show 10) this way if a mauler kills a fighter, it will get 1/7 and must kill 6 more fighters before gaining a DL. if it defeats a destroyer and a cruiser, it will get (3/7 + 4/7 = 1) a point of DL. if, on the other hand, a fighter destroys a mauler (or is simply the closest) it will get (7/1 = 7) 7 DL. this would mean the larger the ship will mean directly how much harder it is to gain DL. by keeping the 1 point of DL lost if it leaves (just how you have it) you can keep it important not to just run away if it's a fighter. I hope I didn't get to confusing

I wanted to pull this out of the thread where it was originally proposed to encourage it being read and getting a proper review/consideration from the peanut gallery (and notable others). I thought it was a smashing idea at the time and every time I review it I find it more appealing and to make more sense.

the one concern I have was raised by Dragonia, though they presented an interesting view on it;

Dragonia wrote:

this would also raise another interesting concept: with the ability to gain DL MUCH faster the lower the ship's size, it could put small ships back on the map as a 'training ship' where the player will purposely use small fighters to do destroy a large target. after receiving the 2-3 DL, you would then build them up to mauler size.

[/url]

heh thx, I try to help where I can ^_^

it's funny you mention it but this is somewhat like what I suggested in another game and it helped a lot there as well (was put in almost exactly like I suggested to... )

comparing between the two (as much as possible) it will allow each ship to gain rewards based upon just what they are killing...

however now that you mention it, there is one other problem:

race a has mauler 'freedom' and 2 x class fighters
race b has mauler 'avenger'
(names just to give example some readability as an actual situation that coul happen)

race a's freedom, with it's 2 fighters manages to fend off race b's avenger
however, an x class fighter was closer to the avenger when it jumped, so gains the entire 7 dl even though it was a team effort

basically, by making each ship receive based on what is killed... the reward could actually change based solely upon what is closest, not what actually did the damage but this shouldn't nearly be as big a problem as a mauler getting huge dl rewards off of small fighters.

your just gonna have to remember to add in a decimal point how much max dl a ship can have.

that issue is already true though- I've seen (had) ships entirely uninvolved in combat recieve DL because someone shifted just so.

Also, fighters tend to pick up DL more than larger ships because they've got so little range to their weapons.

yes, but what I was saying was that was under the strict 1 dl lost 1 dl gained... if it were changed it would not be just one but anywhere from 2-5 dl gained for almost nothing on the count of that ship... and it may not even be yours if there's more then 2 races...

anyway, though, as I said, I don't think this will be as much of a problem as it will fix.

--edit:
also, by putting ina decimal place ships in the top 10 list will be able to be grouped more accurately

Dragonia wrote:

yes, but what I was saying was that was under the strict 1 dl lost 1 dl gained... if it were changed it would not be just one but anywhere from 2-5 dl gained for almost nothing on the count of that ship... and it may not even be yours if there's more then 2 races...

generally, most of the DL transfer I've had has gone to the least involved ships. Honestly, I wish there was a way to mark a ship "non-combat; does not recieve DL" at least temporarilly. I swear, I've had more colony ships and junk ships gain DL that ended up being completely wasted than actual warships.

Dragonia wrote:

anyway, though, as I said, I don't think this will be as much of a problem as it will fix.

I don't know if I'd go for "fix" so much as "improve," but otherwise; that's my feeling.

I have been thinking about DL - and I love the concept, but dislike much of (my) initial impementation.

Players have suggested several changes in this area, and I am tending towards:

1) Starting DL of 2 (ish)
- effect, if you lose 2 combats with a ship then it's 3rd combat it must either win, or die from (can't jump with 0 dl).

2) Ships become Epic at 10.

3) Adding a Flagship.
Each system can have a flag ship - this will by default be the first to jump in. The flag can be transferred very simply.

Flagships gain all DL from combat. Why? To encourage Epic vessels, and side step pretty much all of the issues above.

DL will be gained by the FLAGSHIP of the race with the closest ship to the departing/dieing. So being close is still vital.

4) Some sort of channeling. (only available to paying players)

"The DarkHeart of your flagship Nervana calls out to the people of Halcion VI. They respond with meditation and love and the Dark Heart grows..."

Populous worlds can channel to a fleet. This channel always goes to the flagship, and gives it an effective epic level of +1. I guess this would be automatic - ie any planet of size 15 or more can channel, or something. And only local in-system flag ships gain the benefit.

Possibly there is a 2 turn delay before channeling starts when a flag is transferred. But probably not.

5) A new metric - showing how your fleet performs. ie number of ships ever made *2 is your level. Total current fleet DL vs your level gives your performance.

This metric would be the primary measure of your worth as a player. To work I'd guess ship size should probably also matter?

GameAdmin wrote:

I have been thinking about DL - and I love the concept, but dislike much of (my) initial impementation.

This seems to be a general feeling- great concept, however the implementation has simply not kept pace with the rest of the game.

GameAdmin wrote:

Players have suggested several changes in this area, and I am tending towards: 1) Starting DL of 2 (ish) - effect, if you lose 2 combats with a ship then it's 3rd combat it must either win, or die from (can't jump with 0 dl).

2) Ships become Epic at 10.[/quote]I've been saying for some time that I think that the starting DL needs reduced- the current DL of 10 raises the following issues for me;
1) creates a situation where new ships have more DL than they stand to ever gain (non-paying; I will always assume the majority of the player base is non-paying, even dispite evidence to the contrary, because that's how you encourage growth/new players).
2) Creates "DL Inflation" that is just as bad as the current credit inflation and harder to simply create "sops" for {which we still need more credit sops implemented- seperate discussion}.

I would make Epic possible at 10 or 11, allow non-payers to reach 10 (but, of course, not become epic, even if 10 is the "normal" elagibility) to address the factor that will keep non-paying players from ever worrying about DL.

GameAdmin wrote:

3) Adding a Flagship. Each system can have a flag ship - this will by default be the first to jump in. The flag can be transferred very simply. Flagships gain all DL from combat. Why? To encourage Epic vessels, and side step pretty much all of the issues above. DL will be gained by the FLAGSHIP of the race with the closest ship to the departing/dieing. So being close is still vital.

I like this a lot. Don't force the flag though- if someone want's a "free flow" then allow them to. Not that I can think of a reason they would- but the option should be there.

GameAdmin wrote:

4) Some sort of channeling. (only available to paying players) "The DarkHeart of your flagship Nervana calls out to the people of Halcion VI. They respond with meditation and love and the Dark Heart grows..." Populous worlds can channel to a fleet. This channel always goes to the flagship, and gives it an effective epic level of +1. I guess this would be automatic - ie any planet of size 15 or more can channel, or something. And only local in-system flag ships gain the benefit.

This sound fantastic. I *might* make it total system pop so a player with a full system of 3-planets stands a chance- given that some of us seem to get fewer habitable planets than others.
make it like (system pop)/20 round down.

I might also demystify the "channeling" quote some- it fits the Shaman, but the Demos would laugh.

GameAdmin wrote:

Possibly there is a 2 turn delay before channeling starts when a flag is transferred. But probably not.

Actually, I think a 1 or 2 turn delay is entirely appropriate.

GameAdmin wrote:

5) A new metric - showing how your fleet performs. ie number of ships ever made *2 is your level. Total current fleet DL vs your level gives your performance. This metric would be the primary measure of your worth as a player. To work I'd guess ship size should probably also matter?

I'm not sure I understand this. The main concern I have is that a player who builds new "experimental" ships to test designs and resell them will look like someone who can't keep ships flying. Also, a "high level" target is usually someone who is a threat.
modifications/ideas;
1) total ship component currently available- roughly equals the ability of the fleet (though small ships are still less threat per component than large ships).
2) total ship components ever built- idea of productivity, not power or performance. possibly components built minus components sold would be closer to the metric you're trying to discribe- though a DL calculation {indicating losses} would also be appropriate.
3) killed ships - this is more the "how the fleet performs" metric.



I also still think the DL uses need reviewed. There are some really cool ones, and some that need a little more power. I think there is also space for new uses that would make DL far more valuable- all of which is by way of saying "DL sops"- the main use now seems to be doubling movement (which is very DL expensive compared to benefit gained) or bumping drone racks.

The reduction of initial DL stems from player comment. So quodos to everyone.

The final thing about a metric can be ignored for now, ie it's not really worth thinking about, so lets not.

Which leaves as issues;
paying vs non-paying: pretty irrelevant since I'm never covering costs.

Epic level: an edge condition, and one easily tweaked.

So, in summary:
All ships lose 8 DL, and new ships are born with 2.

Epic status is gained at 10 (say), it may be lower/higher in future.

Channeling to flag ships: I'm going for simplicity. ie you always have it and no delay. A delay could be added later. Also channeling itself can be added later.

These few tweaks will add risk and epic vessels.

(also they may not happen, but I think this small change is a good one)

what about the transfer rate?
(yes, I'm still looking for small-ship love)

It'sa problem with symetry. Anything that works in one situation fails in another.

Which is why keeping things simple works the best for me.

Actually, I just had a really really good thought.

Flagships:
Any ship of the fleet that jumps out causes the FLAGSHIP to lose DL. Any enemy ship that jumps out causes the FLAGSHIP to gain DL.

Hmmm. Small ships....hmm. UM.
Maybe, ships are imune to the entire DL loss thing if there is no enemy ship of the same, or 1 class higher in the system. That is kinda simple,and means a fleet of tiny ships attacking one large ship can gain DL and never lose it. It works for me.

BTW, server is now off.But I guess you know that

Jonathan

the only problem I see with that is then when fighters and such go against a large ship... the large ship has literally nothing to gain, yet still something to lose.

perhaps DL los can only be given to ships in that same range, fighters can't get dl off of a mauler either... either way not pretty

GameAdmin wrote:

It'sa problem with symetry. Anything that works in one situation fails in another. Which is why keeping things simple works the best for me.

I'm not sure I followed that; how does the above fail in a situation? I understand keeping it simple (which, admittedly, this is not), however I think it effectively covers the necessarry situations without adding extra player difficulty.

GameAdmin wrote:

Actually, I just had a really really good thought. Flagships: Any ship of the fleet that jumps out causes the FLAGSHIP to lose DL. Any enemy ship that jumps out causes the FLAGSHIP to gain DL.

I don't like that. Especially for fleets that field lots of fighters its going to completely screw the flagship.

GameAdmin wrote:

Hmmm. Small ships....hmm. UM. Maybe, ships are imune to the entire DL loss thing if there is no enemy ship of the same, or 1 class higher in the system. That is kinda simple,and means a fleet of tiny ships attacking one large ship can gain DL and never lose it. It works for me.

Maybe. I think this stands to fall apart sooner than the shifting scale- especially if it becomes SOP to simply include a single pointless fighter to close the hole.

GameAdmin wrote:

BTW, server is now off.But I guess you know that

actually, I had no idea. I use the "new post" color changed flags to see that there's a post in a forum. Apparently that doesn't work with the locked announcement forums.

Dragonia wrote:

the only problem I see with that is then when fighters and such go against a large ship... the large ship has literally nothing to gain, yet still something to lose.

Mauler's have the destruction of a small ship to gain. Every attempt I've made with a fleet of small ships has left me wishing for more maulers (which I promptly field).

Dragonia wrote:

perhaps DL los can only be given to ships in that same range, fighters can't get dl off of a mauler either... either way not pretty

I actually like this less than god's "low gate" suggestion. this means that not only do maulers have nothing to gain from fighters, and fighters have a damnable time even injuring maulers, but fighters have no gain in even trying.

which actually why I said, and I say again... either way it's not to pretty...

but as it stood without it, you could simply field fighters against a mauler and never have to worry about losing anything, really. because as it stood to reason... with no one to gain the DL, the fighter would not lose it.

Dragonia wrote:

but as it stood without it, you could simply field fighters against a mauler and never have to worry about losing anything, really. because as it stood to reason... with no one to gain the DL, the fighter would not lose it.

you stand to loose fighters. I think you have the consideration backward; fielding fighters against a mauler the mauler has nothing to gain. regardless, a fighter loosing DL is nothing compaired to a mauler doing the same- part of why I liked your original idea so much- it expressed both the relative power of the ships, and somewhat corrected that discrepancy.

I really liked my original idea to... but afaik from my (very) limited coding experience, going between the straight 1, 2, 3 of the DL right now to the 1.1-1.9 that would be required could be impossible, since right now it could be an integer variable, and the new system would require it to be a different kind of variable altogether... of course, it depends on how he coded it in the first place... but I'm guessing it's integer because that would defenitely be reason enough not to do it (to much work... I wouldn't even wanna do that, lol)

but as I said, right now when it comes to coding I am below newb, lol.