Ring and Sphereworlds

dmm · #1 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 · #2 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 · #3 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 · #4 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.

LintMan · #5 January 3rd, 2001, 12:10 AM

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!

dmm · #6 January 3rd, 2001, 01:39 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Kagetora:
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.

I hear what you're saying, but my suggested scheme wouldn't allow you to build a lot in one place unless you also had a ton of population. The way things are now, an airless moon is almost as "powerful" as a homeworld, in terms of building fleets. That takes away a lot of the strategic importance of homeworlds, and of population-building techs. Also, the way things are now, two airless moons with 10M pop are better for rapid expansion/conquest than a single huge planet with breathable atmosphere and 8B pop. At this point, expansion isn't just important, it is the ONLY important thing, and there's not much strategy to it. One planet's as good as another, if you're only after a forward construction base. But that's bogus. Life on an airless, poorly-populated moon should be HARD, and progress should be SLOW. Planets capable of supporting large pops should be jewels worth going to war over.

Nyx · #7 January 3rd, 2001, 06:27 PM

Dmm, Perhaps adding production penalties for colonies with populations below 100M, and more severely limiting the populations of domed colonies would solve the problem? If a domed colony could only hold 1/10 of an outdoor colony, instead of 1/5, a tiny world could only support 10M people. Any reasonable scheme of penalties would be harsh at a pop level of 10M if it took 100M to be 100%. Also, adding a conditions level of Deadly, that only occurs on worlds without your native atmosphere type should help some.

The 1/10 probably isn't balanced right, but the idea itself should be sound.

------------------
Compete in the Space Empires IV World Championship at www.twingalaxies.com.

[This message has been edited by Nyx (edited 03 January 2001).]