PBW PvK Proportions Game #2 - Page 11

PvK · #**101** August 24th, 2004, 09:56 AM

Heh, ok.
I'm going to be on trip till Friday.
See 3.0 thread in this forum - new Version available.
I will do a 3.1 shortly thereafter which we can upgrade to.

Game#3 will have six players exactly, because I made a map for exactly 6, somewhat balanced.

PvK

AMF · #**102** August 24th, 2004, 10:29 AM

Will we need to redo our empires for the new proportions games with this release or (as you indicated earlier) are they good as is (if made with the beta of this Version)?

Thanks,

Alarik

Quote:

PvK said:
Heh, ok.
I'm going to be on trip till Friday.
See 3.0 thread in this forum - new Version available.
I will do a 3.1 shortly thereafter which we can upgrade to.

Game#3 will have six players exactly, because I made a map for exactly 6, somewhat balanced.

PvK

PvK · #**103** August 27th, 2004, 04:16 PM

They're good for 3.0.

Shoe however pointed out a bug I'll need to fix somehow... but I think/hope I can figure out a way that this will actually work without having to re-do any EMP files.

PvK

PvK · #**104** August 28th, 2004, 08:13 PM

I got the bug fixed and the 3.0.1 patch released to the Proportions web page.

Only players who have chosen the same shipset as someone else will need to change their EMP files.

PvK

PvK · #**105** August 28th, 2004, 09:05 PM

Both games are pretty much ready to start. I'm just waiting on PBW to make 3.0.1 available as a game Version.

PvK

Ed Kolis · #**106** August 28th, 2004, 09:41 PM

It is possible to run the turns offline until PBW has the mod set up, you know... not like I'd force you to do that or anything, I just thought maybe you forgot

Hippocrates · #**107** August 28th, 2004, 10:00 PM

Hey PvK,

I still think you should join in on at least one of the games (if you want to, that is). What better way for you to see how 3.0 does, and know what needs fixing / works just right? On a map as mall as has been discussed, I don't think you'd have a big advantage, and hosting games you don't play in could be a drag, no?

-Hippo

PvK · #**108** August 29th, 2004, 02:46 AM

Ok, good suggestions, both.

Apart from being so busy, I sort of thought that someone is probably going to drop out of both games at some point, and from experience in the #1 game, sometimes no one takes up the empty spot, so taking over someone else's spot seemed like a bright idea, and would provide some extra challenge.

Hmm.

I won't join the #3 game since it's a six-player map (well, I could be silly and make a race that starts in the cut-off limbo zone, which would only appear if someone eventually opened a warp point there).

I guess I will start the #3 game on manual hosting. It hadn't occurred to me before.

PvK

csebal · #**109** August 29th, 2004, 06:36 AM

A possible change.. i was thinking about it for quite some time, and i think it could fit in:

the starliner ships have no maintenance reduction. This leads to the somewhat odd situation, where using medium transports as starliners is more viable economically.

i think starliners could use at least the same ammount of maint. reduction as transport ships get, or even a bit more. After all, their 'only' advantage over transports is that they are there right from the start (the small starliner i mean). Other than that, they are smaller and slower than medium transports.

What do you think?

PvK · #**110** August 29th, 2004, 02:20 PM

Yes, improving the starliners is actually on my "to do" list. The reason they are the way they are is that the first starliners are the low-tech solution to moving population before Medium Transports are available. Similarly, Large Starliner is designed as an early but not cheap solution to moving more than 1M at a time. I agree it would good to have some better starliners. I have been meaning to keep the existing ones while adding some higher-tech ones which provide lower maintenance and/or higher speed, so there will be good reasons to use them for population transport instead of ordinary transports.

PvK