|
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Well, it would be relative. If each hull size has an experience 'value' and you get a bit extra on top of that value by destroying one ship with a smaller one, and a bit less if a larger ship takes out a smaller one. So, to answer your question, lets say each 100kT of ship gives 10 experience points. and you get 10% plus or minus for each 100kT difference between the hull types.
Therefore, it the case of your 1000kT vs 600kT, the ship destroyed has an experience value of 6000, but the victor is penalized 2400 pts (40% of 6000 since there's 400kT difference between the two) so it gets 3600 experience. In the case of the 300kT ship taking out the 500kT, the destroyed ship has an experience value of 5000, plus a 20% bonus for the difference in ship size=6000. Which makes sense, because it'd be a lot easier for a 1000kT ship to take out a 600kT ship than for a 300kT to take out a 500kT. |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Good compensation for sizes.
I read your post too fast and replied before I caught that line about penalities/bonuses. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Tracer or target-painting weapons... tracers do minimal or no damage, but if a tracer hits, all fire from the source ship to the target ship gets a bonus to hit for a short period of time as specified in the tracer weapon's component entry (maybe +10 to hit for 2 seconds). If a neural combat net or similar component is installed on the firing ship, the bonus applies to ALL similarly equipped ships firing on the target. Tracers could be any type of weapon, from direct fire to seeker to point defense to even ramming warhead. Since they would typically do little or no direct damage, they could even be area of effect or arc weapons without causing too much game imbalance http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif
Skirmish mode - much requested in Starfury, but maybe now that you've got the combat engine worked out, you could include a mode where a player chooses ships/planets/units/etc. of any tech level and chooses an enemy fleet and then runs a battle a la Starfleet Command. Perhaps even a multiplayer Online skirmish mode, and/or multiplayer Online tactical combat? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
If the game includes AI scripting, having user-defined variables and arrays could allow someone (Not me! Eep!) to create a learning AI.
|
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Quote:
If SEV would output information then it might be possible to have the AI "decide" to alter its tactics? |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
This has probably been said before, but I'd like some way to decouple component cost and build time, so that I can make a unit that costs a million resources, but only takes a turn to build as an extreme example. I'd also like to see the return of the separate facility and space build queues for planets.
|
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Someone will likely point out a way to do this but.. I would like to see a way to make a fleet use a component.
My example is that if you have a pile of individual ships with say, emergency propulsion, they can do it one by one but if assembled into a fleet they cannot even though they all have the capability. |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
How about a new racial trait. Pacifists (sp) Weapons are all non leathal.
|
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Quote:
|
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Could give you free race points, or special boarding/engine/weapon destroying weapons...
How about variable ship speeds like in Stars? In Stars if you had a warp-9 ship, it didn't have to always travel at warp 9 - it could travel slower with the advantage of reduced fuel usage. If adding a speed slider or emergency/slow move toggle is too much micromanagement, the supply usage can always be automatically reduced when the ship is fleeted with slower ships http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
I could see how an emergency slow/fast toggle might be a bit interesting. Emergency slow would cause your ship(s) to move at 1/2 speed, so a ship that normally had 8 moves would have 4, but the advantage is that you only use 1/4 the supplies. Might be a good for long range scout ships.
Emergency speed on the other hand would give you 50% more movement, so our 8 move ship would then have 12, but it would use double the supplies & run the risk of damaging or destroying engines. But it'd sure be helpful if you needed to get ships to the defence of another planet that was about to be attacked & said planet was just outside your normal range. |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
There advantage would most likely be in their subduing weapons. Instead of nuking a planet into submission they would simply use an allegance subverter on them. They would have a very high cultural advantage over other races and by that I mean other races populations would want to be more like them. So if they colonized a planet in a shared system the other planets in that system would grow unhappy with their own government and rebel. The planets would ask to join the pasifist race.
Their ship weapons would be shield depleters, weapon destroyers, engine destroyers, and advanced boarding and allegance subverters. |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
[Stars! joke]And their populations would grow at half the speed on a transport, allowing you to build up a potentially near-infinite population and over-run all the other races in the galaxy with colonists.[/joke]
|
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Hey! i loved to play Inner Strength races in Stars!
|
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Hey, Aaron said there would be space colonies... maybe that will be doable http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif
|
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Has anyone thought of a way to implament a crew. As in you would need to actually assign X number of crew\enlisted people to each ship and you could have certian building be like recuriting offices and the more advanced those become the more crew\people generated per turn. I mean you all can really think that the people on board ships come from no where. This would sort of be negated with the advent of the Master Computer for ships as they would no longer need a crew really.
|
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
I'd like to see some ships with 'innate abilities'. These would be things such as 'Comes equipped with 200kT of Cargo Space' or '500kT extra space for missiles only'. I don't think they'd come into play much in the stock game, except maybe in derelict ships you find as you explore, but it would open up a lot of interesting options for modders. Which is always a good thing.
|
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
There has been discussion about crew, but many feel that it adds an extra layer of confusion to the game.
|
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
You know, you could mod in crew right now to SE IV.
Make a new component, give it the crew quarter ability and require 5 for small ships, and more for larger ones. Then with the crew component, set it to like 1kt and have it use a lot of organics. Remove the Crew Quarters component as to avoid conflict. |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Quote:
Simple concept, no? Well, you all know which side of the fence I'm on. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
<font color="brown"> FIX THE ONE PER VEHICLE BUG </font> This is most annoying. when you set a restriction for a component with multiple abilities to ONE PER VEHICLE the AI should not add more than ONE.
This is a most annoying bug. |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
New Racial Trait:
Ancient Race Race has access to advanced weapons, components, ships, and facilities from game start, but has no access to what non Ancient Races have. Eventually None Ancient Races will surpass the Ancient Race in many technologies thus making this trait of limited value. The reason I suggest it is so that you can set up games where you have one race that is older than all the others and I know for a fact that many of us would love to play as the Vorlons. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif The trick would be to get set it so that when you play as an AR your have to make strong treaties because the number of ships you allowed to have is limited. So a non AR could eventually out produce you in ships and beat you. Even though your ships are far more powerful, the old saying the bigger they are the harder they fall comes to mind. One sting may not hurt you, but a 100 or more, well thats a differant story all together. This race would also have to start the game with at least one more world than all the other traits. |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Weapon idea: Neurodestructor. This dreadful device obliterates any and all forms of sapient life in the system and leaves colonies depopulated but physicaly untouched. It should be possible to capture 0M pop colony of course, else it would be useless.
Another WMD idea is an asteroid bombardment - so you could establish some monstrous device in the asteroid field and push the field toward a planet. |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Two little things. You should one be able to move small to medium astriod feilds. Also you should be able to create a planet artifically but not like a sphereworld but a regular world but you would need a mining ship that once it was filled you would take it to whereever you need.
|
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Need WMD ideas? How about Radiation Bombs that can be used against uninhabited planets as part of a "scorched earth" policy - if my empire can't use it because it's the wrong atmosphere or planet type, I'm gonna darned well make sure nobody else can get anything else out of it! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/evil.gif
Also, how about negative population growth for planets with Deadly conditions and/or races with horridly low Reproduction? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Quote:
Just had a little idea on changing something we've already got in SE4: Nebulae Destroyers. Instead of just blowing the neubula off to wherever they go, when you use a ND, you should be required to place the ship using it at the centre of the map, and when the ND is used, the nebula is collapsed, forming a new star surrounded by debries (asteroids) which you can then use to create planets. Quote:
Same thing with the ships. An Ancient race could build just as many ships as a younger race, if they could afford it. Ancient ships would of course cost WAY more to build than normal ships. Done this way, you'd have a race that would be reasonably powerful at the start, but not overwhelmingly so, since they wouldn't be able to pump out enough ships to do that much damage. They'd be weak mid-game, as younger empires surpassed them in technology, and would only really come into their own in the late-game, where their super-technology would allow them to maintain a pretty good sized fleet, which of course would be vastly superior to anyone else's similar-sized fleet. |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Good idea's AgentZero. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif
|
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Quote:
Another thing I'd like to add is that we need better victory conditions, and even default victory conditons. At the moment if you forget to set VCs, your only option is the genocide or enslavement of the entire galaxy. I think even a sort of campaign would be really cool as well. Nothing that would seriously constrain you like in many story-driven 4X games. Basically you're just given a series of missions that come along to slowly advance the story. The first mission would pop up as soon as you started a Campaign Game (we'd still have Free Play for those who couldn't be bothered), and subsequent missions would pop up at pseudo-random intervals. All I mean by pseudo-random is that each mission would pop up not less than X turns, but not more than Y after completing the Last one. So Mission 2 might come up 5-10 turns after M1, M3 might come along 15-20 turns later, and so forth. Not only would it make the stock game a bit more interesting, but it would make for all kinds of modding fun. |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
I have a new idea for systems
SYSTEM TYPE: Debree field. Basically at one point the system was home to either a very large constructed planet that blew up or a huge battle was fought here. Either way the system is littered with metal debre that can be mined for resources. This would be a system wide phenominon or even just a sector one. |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Quote:
|
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Fyron I really do hope that in some small way Aaron will get board with working on SEV for a day or so and address at least this one bug.
I know why he won't, and it makes me kinda sad to think about it. Oh well, will just have to live with it. |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Quote:
Hell, you could even get aqautic worlds. Thusly, a Land dwelling race would be able to colonise the land parts of a world, and you'd have population restrictions based on the availability of land. This means that while you could colonise practically any solid world, you'd be better suited to colonising those worlds that have a greater amount of land. In addition, subsequent research of Ice colonisation, and possibly aquatic colonisation would open up those areas of the worlds for habitation, thus increasing the population limit. Also, you could restrict the ocean, or surface areas for aquatic races, based on atmosphere, since aquatic life is going to need domes on the surface, but not undersea, and vice versa. Additionally, I would like to see domes removed for races not needing to breathe, since it makes no sense for an android race to be restricted to domes with no atmosphere in them because they can't survive in atmosphere. Regarding star system description, I think it should be flexible, depending on the state of the star system at the time. Also, again regarding planets, it would be nice for star systems to possess habitable bands, and for the worlds in these bands to have better planetary conditions than those outside of it. This should affect the planets themselves, too. Those planets further out should have more polar ice caps and land than water, as well as planetary conditions. Those planets closer to the star should have considerably worse planetary conditions but only land. So while land would indeed be abundant, it would be abundant in less hospitable places. Because of this, giving the planet a distance from the star(s) would be required. Also, giving the stars a strength factor, which of course increases the total system star strength, would be required to set the habitable band. Also, the description of a dyson sphere, which is what I assume sphereworlds are, is that it is a massive interlocking set of platforms, and while it wouldn't block out the sun completely, it should at least decrease its strength for the rest of the star system, meaning the habitable zone would be shifted inwards. To deal with the ramifications of this, you could in fact create multiple 'bands' based on how far the world is from the habitable zone, and the further it is, the worse the initial planetary conditions, and the faster any change in this will be over time. So although you could conceivably alter planetary conditions using climate control facilities for a world a stone's throw from the sun, getting rid of them to build other things would mean that this work would rapidly be undone by nature. In the same vein, you could increase the stars per system limit to 3, and it would be a good idea to limit their construction to be at the centre of the system, so it just doesn't look weird (also, creating a star at a distance of say, Mars, in an already existing system would destroy the system, which would be silly. Anyway, the 9 innermost sectors should be the space limited for this. Also, construction of more stars, while it would increase the effectiveness of solar collectors in that system, would rather dramatically shift the habitable zone, so while in a system with mostly distant worlds this would be a good thing, it wouldn't be so good for systems with worlds closer up to the habitable zone. On the worlds themselves, there would be gradual shifts in planetary conditions and in the amount of liquid water or ice. It seems strange that there can be ice worlds in a trinary star system where there are 3 intense stars. If anything, they should be barren desert worlds, possibly with the water locked in clouds that never rain, like Venus, but maybe without the poison. Also, through this, one could change an ice world to a rock and water world. Using terraforming facilities or ships, you could push for the species' ideal habitation type, though it would have to be kept there for all time, to stop nature from taking its course. Having a starbase in orbit that not only defends the planet but also keeps it snowballed sounds like an achievable tech. Also, in regards to Atmospheric percentages that were presented in the above quote, I would suggest that allowing a race to breathe the atmosphere if there is at least a 30 or 35% presence of their required atmosphere. For the hell of it you could throw in 'Atmosphere toxicity' as an attribute that could be resolved by the atmosphere convertors alongside the normal atmospheric makeup. For example, an atmosphere with say, 40% oxygen would be breathable by humans if it weren't for, say, the chlorine gas that makes up another 20%. Also, on a different subject, there needs to be a better reason to capture a planet, than there currently is. Right now, in SE4, it seems so much easier to just kill everyone and repopulate with your own people. I think this should be addressed. Also, if the combat is indeed going to be real time, may I suggest that Imperium Galactica 2 has an excellent method of doing this. It is fully 3D as well, and doesn't require extravagant system requirements to be this way, as the ships have low poly counts. Weapons have recharge times as well, and there are also fighters. Above a planet, the battlements on the planet are also capable of hitting the starships. And while I realise that the idea of having satellites and starbases orbit during the battle sounds a good idea, the reality is that the orbit speed suggested is likely to fast for the time period the battle supposedly occurs in. Perhaps a movement every couple of turns would be better representative of this. Wow, long first post. |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Long post indeed, and good suggestions in it! Welcome to the forums http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif
|
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Just some notes on astrophysics:
- If you break up one star into a binary, the energy output (after it settles from the action) will be dramatically lower. You'd be turning one yellow star into two dim red ones, or collecting massive amounts of hydrogen from somewhere. - Planets can easily be ice in a bright/multistar system, they'll just be farther away. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif - Orbits in multi-star systems will generally be unstable. Really close to one star, or really far from the group of stars, or locked into a resonance with a binary's orbital periods would work though. (Planets at the lagrange points of a pair of cool stars?) ----- As an extention to the breathing thing, perhaps a couple of classes of breathability: - Optimal - Filter/concentrator-Assisted (passive, gas-mask style) - Isolated-assist (active, scuba tank type stuff) - Fully Domed ("space suits" for outdoor activity) - Deadly (Just too nasty, people in domes still die off regularily) Some sort of piecewise curve for productivity/reproduction/death rate/pop maintenance costs You'd need to be in the first two categories to have no major penalties to population limits on that part of the planet, the first three to avoid major work penalties, etc. |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Talking about crew and such...
Maybe a flag or indicator for components that will designate a component as being able to carry crew (ie: small portion of population, or individual crew type units) like a cargo space would.... And if that component is destroyed, then the 'cargo'/'crew' would be destroyed and have to be replaced.... Kana |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Quote:
|
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
A dense atmosphere could also trap the heat, along the lines of Venus. Surface hot enough to melt lead.
|
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Quote:
Anyways I have a little Idea, Atmospheric Fighters:They would be able to enter the atmosphere of a planet and much more easily to take out space ports and such... also you could use them to help Troops |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Mayday, I quite like your ideas on planetary conditions. The idea of a habitable band within the solar system where the planets most suited to your race would be found would make a great addition to SE5. The only thing is that we would need more than just a little green star over a planet to let us know it's habitable if things as complex as atmospheric composition were taken into account.
I can think of two ways of adding this level of detail without making it too complex for new players. 1) A slight rework of the Conditions Category. Assuming a planet is roughly habitable, the Conditions will be compared against your homeworld to determine it's habitability. So a planet with a bit more sulpher in the atmosphere than Earth's might be Unpleasent, and so forth. If a planet doesn't match your race's requirements (ie: Methane atmosphere for a Oxygen race), the conditions will read Uninhabitable, though that wouldn't stop you from putting down a dome colony. 2) Underneath 'Planet Size' add 'Available Landmass Size' (ALS). This expressed as a percentage of the planet's 'normal' available space. So you would have 50%, 75%, 100%, 125% and 150%. For simplicities sake we could use Small, Medium, Average, Large and Huge, with the percentage in brackets. ie: 'Planet Size: Large' 'Available Landmass Size:' Small This would describle, for a terrestrial race a large planet made mostly of water, for example. This would of course require that a player pick whether they will be a Terrestrial or Aquatic race when creating their empire. One also have technologies that would eventually eliminate the penalties and increase the bonuses from ALS. Just for an example of the Large/Huge ALS, imagine a planet the size of Earth (considered to be Medium size), but covered mostly by land. That planet would have a lot more space for terrestrial races to build stuff, even though it was the same size as Earth. |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
1 Attachment(s)
I had a lot of free time at work today, so I came to thinking up this design for a 4X game... feel free to steal any of my ideas http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif
|
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
I'd like to add in a request for a bit of improvement when it comes to the AI Ship Design files when we're modding. At the moment it's pretty involved and it can be pretty hard to get the AI to do what you want.
I tried a little while ago to make a mod based on a universe of my own creation which ended rather badly. For example, in this universe, a Solarian Frigate starts out armed with a few Meson BLasters, then trades in a few for APBs, sticks with them for a while and ends with WMGs. Not the most brilliant ship design, I know, but I was trying to have the game fit in with the fiction I'd wrote, and vice versa. Also, I ran into the problem where if I wanted to set certain ship design requirements that were a bit different for each race, I had major problems. eg: The Solarians discovered the propulsion system that allowed them to power something as big as a Cruiser from their research into missiles, but their allies, the Untarii, used a completely different propulsion system derived from advanced shield tech. So, I figured if I created Solarian Cruiser designs with missiles on them, and Untarii Cruisers all needed phased-shields, then I wouldn't see Solarian or Untarii Cruisers until they'd aquired Missile tech (which was expensive and modded to require Military Science), and Phased Shields, respectively, right? Nope. The AI, apparently unwilling to wait until it had researched the techs needed to build the designs I specified for it, simply cobbled together it's own designs and started pumping them out... So really if the SE5 AI just does what we tell it to in it's AI files, I'd be pretty happy. |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
GAME PLAY IDEA
Research / Intel Points: When at war a race should get a bonus for research and intel. This is how it is in the real world. When we are at war we spend more on researching new weapons and defenses as well as intel operations. I think it would be a good addition to SE V if Aaron could empliment this into SE V. |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
I would like speialty high teck componets like sensor suites and command centers. These would be very large and expensive components that give bonuses to every ship in the fleet or combat with it. Also only one effective per sector.
This would lead to some unique command or support ships. |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Quote:
|
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Modding is half the fun of playing SEIV. Just be certain to copy the data files you intend to mod into a new folder before you make any changes. For modding help visit the mod works at www.spaceempires.net/home forums mod works.
|
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Quote:
Dosen't it already work that way a bit, though? When you're at peace, you're busy growing your economy and researching those advanced mineral miners and urban pacification centers, along with some military tech just to keep up with your neighbours. When war comes, you dump all your points into getting a military edge instead. Some sort of E-research and E-intel could be handy though. E-research could increase your research production while increasing the chances of unfortunate and destructive "side effects". E-intel could tend to deplete your trained agents, and you'd have to slow down later to get your agent quality back up. - Or perhaps just have a number of skill points generated by each facility, and the more projects you run, the more thinly you spread your skill points. (At peace you'd want to use just a few, so you keep your skill very high, and even if the project fails, you probably won't be IDed as the offending empire. At war, they'd be blaming you no matter what the outcome, so you can spread the skill out and run lots of projects that get IDed even when they succeed) |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
E-research's unpleasant side-effects should occur before the research project is complete. ie: No 'Sire, we have developed a new WMG' that ends up exploding when you use it in combat. Research in SE should encompass both the research and development.
Possible side-effects of e-research might be a chance the project will be reset to zero & you'll have to start over (Ooops, we blew up the lab) and the results of you research becoming available to other empires ('Did I post the results of the Phased-Poleron tests on the secure R&D forum, or on the SEMXVI forum?' E-intel would also have a higher chance to fail, since your skilled agents would be run ragged and/or you'd be fielding agents who weren't ready for covert ops.... |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
I don't want to have to mod them http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif
I would also like regular ship born weapons to have little effect on planet population and unit planetside. We have a whole teck level for the weapons that are supposed to do this, yet what is the point if normal weapons do this just as well. Would again require more depth in ship design. Would also make ground combat more nessecary. |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Quote:
Kana |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
While you're at it, the whole system for how planets take damage should be revamped. Yes, it's hard to miss something as big as a planet, but aiming for individual weapon platforms on that planet should be a lot harder. Normal weapon shots at a planet should have a moderate chance, modified by CS, ECM, experience, etc, of hitting a weapon platform. Shots that miss the weapon platforms should do most of their damage to facilities, and only a little to troops and population. There should also be a chance of hitting an area that has nothing of importance, effectively "missing" the whole planet, that goes down with greater development and population. Mass genocide should require special planetary assault weapons or an obscenely large amount of regular firepower.
On another subject, I know treaties will be much more customizable in SEV, but here are a few customization options that I don't think have come up yet: sharing physical charts of astronomical objects should be a separate option from sharing ship/colony locations and details; it would also be nice to be able to make exceptions to sharing ship and colony data on the basis of ship/colony's owner (friend, enemy, specific empire), ship's design or design type, colony type, location, cloaking status, and even individually, or any combination of these factors. Exceptions should be applicable and separately designatable both for the ship/colony being observed, and for the ship/colony doing the observing. This might be a little too detailed to be worth implementing fully, but it would be nice to have for players suspicious of other players' motives and plans. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:58 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.