Ring and Sphereworlds - Page 3

Kagetora · #21 January 1st, 2001, 02:08 AM

Lintman, I will tell you what my problem is. It is pre pubescent little idiots like you that spend more time trying to figure out how to cheat than to play the game correctly. That spend more time bragging about doing something totally useless and pointless in a game situation just because you think it is cool or something. Well I personally and I don't think I am a minority in this are looking for information and strategy that will allow us to play fairly and without exploiting the system against the AI and more importantly against humans in multiplayer. Not only did his post nor yours for that matter do this but now the programmers will have to fix this exploit. Which these guys seem like they will keep up on but I have seen other games in which such exploits were never fixed and totally ruined multiplayer. Which would not matter in the slightest if idiots didn't spend their time looking for them and posting them in the first place.

apache · #22 January 1st, 2001, 04:17 AM

Well, I think thats a really interesting procedure myself. I also think that it is something that should not be able to be done. I am not saying that you should not be able to retrofit your way to a ring/sphere world, or anything else for that matter, that is perfectly logical and feasible.
However, the real problem here is that retrofits are instantaneous. With retrofits, you can produce components with more total cost than a shipyard can actually produce in one turn. I think that retrofitting a vessel should take time, not be instantaneous. Perhaps that time should be based on the time it takes to make those new components or the difference of cost between the old components and the new components.
Either way, retrofitting should just not be instantaneous, especially if its a starbase undergoing a massive retrofit or something. If some sort of system were put into place that cost more time for bigger refits, then sphere/ring worlds and other things could not be built faster than normal.

LintMan · #23 January 1st, 2001, 05:53 AM

quote:
Originally posted by apache:
Well, I think thats a really interesting procedure myself. I also think that it is something that should not be able to be done. I am not saying that you should not be able to retrofit your way to a ring/sphere world, or anything else for that matter, that is perfectly logical and feasible.
However, the real problem here is that retrofits are instantaneous. With retrofits, you can produce components with more total cost than a shipyard can actually produce in one turn. I think that retrofitting a vessel should take time, not be instantaneous. Perhaps that time should be based on the time it takes to make those new components or the difference of cost between the old components and the new components.
Either way, retrofitting should just not be instantaneous, especially if its a starbase undergoing a massive retrofit or something. If some sort of system were put into place that cost more time for bigger refits, then sphere/ring worlds and other things could not be built faster than normal.

I think a simple and reasonable fix would be for retrofits to be limited to one per turn for a given ship/base, which is apparently how it already works in simultaneous turn mode. Then you couldn't build a cheapie ship or base and then go through 20 upgrades in a single turn to super quickly make an expensive ship or base. You'd probably still might be able to make it a bit faster than normal with retrofits, but you'd have to start with a more expensive (and longer to build) ship to minmize the number of turns you spend upgrading, so it wouldn't be a big advantage.

Joda · #24 January 1st, 2001, 01:38 PM

I totaly agree that this kind of procedure should not be possible, and that it should take longer to retrofit a ship.
I would never use this method to cheat against a human or AI player, since that would make a possible victory less sweet. My reason for using this procedure was that in the game I was playing I was already winning (had accidently missed setting the AIs to max. difficluty

) and I wanted to se what a RW looked like before terminating the game. As LintMan pointed out, this method is ****EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE**** and I would not be able to afford this unless I already had conquerd many of my AI neighbours and taking their worlds, or by first growing that big by my self. But in the time it takes to grow THAT big you can construct mayby 2-3 ringwords the right way, so I would NOT call this cheating.
Mayby my original post is usless because of the extreeme cost of the procedure, but I thought mayby someone else in an similar situation just wanted to see that next level of technology implemented before playing a _real_ game. Anyway it has been posted, use it or don't, and if you do, let your own conscience (or the rules by wich you and your fellow gamers play) guide you.

Kagetora, I sense much anger in you, and anger leads to the dark side,
and the DARK SIDE leads to suffering. (sorry, I could not resist)

I also respect your stand in this matter but there is no need for harsh words.

DirectorTsaarx · #25 January 2nd, 2001, 05:06 PM

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....

Kagetora · #26 January 2nd, 2001, 09:01 PM

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.

dmm · #27 January 2nd, 2001, 10:42 PM

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!

Puke · #28 January 2nd, 2001, 11:02 PM

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)

dmm · #29 January 2nd, 2001, 11:02 PM

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).]

Kagetora · #30 January 2nd, 2001, 11:45 PM

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.