Home » Stars! Clones, Extensions, Modding » FreeStars » Random Ideas
Re: Random Ideas |
Fri, 01 September 2006 01:24 |
|
craebild | | Lieutenant | Messages: 568
Registered: December 2003 Location: Copenhagen, Denmark | |
|
m.a@stars wrote on Thu, 31 August 2006 19:47 | Then you select a planet and Queue it (ala Genesis Device) or tick a checkbox in the Research Pane (ala Generalized Research) and "point" it to your pet WH.
|
The idea was for a ship mounted item, the suggestion was to put it in a mining robot slot. Ships can be shot down, and mining ships have poor defenses.
One setup for it I would find fun is this:
WH Stabilizer fixes that WH endpoint as long as it is there with "mining" orders. The other endpoint is unaffected (to keep both endpoints in place would require a ship with a WH Stabilizer at both ends).
When a WH Stabilizer stops stabilizing a WH endpoint, then the WH destabilizes two stages PLUS whatever natural destabilization would have occurred during the time the WH was stabilized, and if the new stage is one where an endpoint jump is possible, then an endpoint jump is certain. This means that it can also be used to destabilize a WH endpoint, the user just has to "stabilize" the endpoint one year, then leave the WH Stabilizer off the next. IIRC about WH stages, that means that to remove a "Rock solid" WH would require four years.
Med venlig hilsen / Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Christian Ræbild / Christian Raebild
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Random Ideas |
Wed, 13 September 2006 19:16 |
|
|
I've got an idea. Reduce capital missiles to range 5 maximum and let torpedoes go to range 6. That way there's a more interesting interaction between them - torpedoes having weak firepower but both longer range and lower weight...
Another thing I would like to try is re-introducing area effect torpedo type weapons as in early Stars! versions. Or, as per my idea in my still uncontsructed mod, a range 4 beam-like weapon class called Electromagnetic Gun (var. Railgun, Gauss Cannon, Wave-Motion Gun, etc...) that's heavier and more expensive than a typical beam weapon but can interact interestingly with cap missiles and conventional beams. With the power of having a brand new ruleset, though, you could give them fun effects, such as bypassing shields completely and dealing damage directly to armor (take that, RS!)... Effect: Equipped armor would have more effect than simply slowing your ships down. RS would be a riskier move. Might make Crobies overly strong.
One more thing that'd be cool - I think this idea originally came up in discussions of Supernova - is to make point-defense beams, a la gatlings, that have a chance of destroying torpedoes that enter their weapon range (not necessarily having to be targeted at the equipped ship). This would allow the use of a "destroyer screen" to protect your capital ships.
Oh, and before I forget, make Depleted Neutronium stong enough that a full slot can cloak a SS BB to 98%
[Updated on: Wed, 13 September 2006 19:21] Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: Random Ideas |
Thu, 14 September 2006 11:36 |
|
Kotk | | Commander | Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003 | |
|
Coyote wrote on Thu, 14 September 2006 02:16 | I've got an idea. Reduce capital missiles to range 5 maximum and let torpedoes go to range 6. That way there's a more interesting interaction between them - torpedoes having weak firepower but both longer range and lower weight...
|
...and bigger accuracy. Such modding can be done without coding, item range and what not can be modded.
Quote: | Another thing I would like to try is re-introducing area effect torpedo type weapons as in early Stars! versions. Or, as per my idea in my still uncontsructed mod, a range 4 beam-like weapon class called Electromagnetic Gun (var. Railgun, Gauss Cannon, Wave-Motion Gun, etc...) that's heavier and more expensive than a typical beam weapon but can interact interestingly with cap missiles and conventional beams.
|
Area effect missile takes some additional coding. Probably not so simple to make it to look convincing at VCR. Beams range can be altered without coding but there are 3 types of beams, ordinary, gatling or sapper.
Quote: | With the power of having a brand new ruleset, though, you could give them fun effects, such as bypassing shields completely and dealing damage directly to armor (take that, RS!)... Effect: Equipped armor would have more effect than simply slowing your ships down. RS would be a riskier move. Might make Crobies overly strong.
|
And sappers overly pointless. Such weapon type takes also coding.
Quote: | One more thing that'd be cool - I think this idea originally came up in discussions of Supernova - is to make point-defense beams, a la gatlings, that have a chance of destroying torpedoes that enter their weapon range (not necessarily having to be targeted at the equipped ship). This would allow the use of a "destroyer screen" to protect your capital ships.
| It is possible to add base jamming to some hulls and jammer component to beams is possible (or even bomb component like to multi contained munition). However to let a token to jam for other tokens takes whole new feature of item (or hull) or new weapon type and effect takes coding.
Quote: | Oh, and before I forget, make Depleted Neutronium stong enough that a full slot can cloak a SS BB to 98%
| Thats also possible without coding.
Heh... what we got to do is to code already existing properties and effects (no fancy new ones) so we can advance it from pre-alfa stage. What i am already worried about is that xml-based battle report will probably take quite lot of room.
[Updated on: Thu, 14 September 2006 12:17] Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: Random Ideas |
Wed, 20 September 2006 16:10 |
|
|
tgellan wrote on Tue, 19 September 2006 14:35 |
Allow an option for deleting/marking outdated scanner reports of planets. In that way one could immediately see spots in the galaxy that need the scanner informations to be renewed...
|
Or just a map mode that colours the planets according to the age of their reports. Bright green = current, dark red = last scanned over x turns ago, fading between the two. I put together a utility that did this based on planet report data a while back and it was quite useful, but I've since lost it.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Random Ideas |
Sat, 30 September 2006 19:02 |
|
|
Kotk wrote on Thu, 14 September 2006 08:36 |
Area effect missile takes some additional coding. Probably not so simple to make it to look convincing at VCR.
|
It worked fine when it was implemented in the older versions of Stars! - but instead of balancing these weapons they were removed outright. Sad. More options generally make for more fun.
Quote: |
Beams range can be altered without coding but there are 3 types of beams, ordinary, gatling or sapper.
Quote: | With the power of having a brand new ruleset, though, you could give them fun effects, such as bypassing shields completely and dealing damage directly to armor (take that, RS!)... Effect: Equipped armor would have more effect than simply slowing your ships down. RS would be a riskier move. Might make Crobies overly strong.
|
And sappers overly pointless. Such weapon type takes also coding.
|
Sapper + capital missile combo is powerful. As long as capital missiles are around, sappers will be too. Against the capital missile/sapper combo, simplistically speaking each point of shield DP is worth 4 points of armor DP. When your shields give out, you die, and throwing on additional armor is a waste of iron and resources and slows your ships down besides. Armor is of marginal worth at best even against a pure beam fleet because it slows your ships down and leaves them vulnerable to range advantages.
I would like to see armor become something that can actually confer an advantage in proportion to its cost and mobility drawbacks. The EM gun dealing damage directly to armor and bypassing shields would add one more fulcrum to the tactical balance. The other option is to improve armor.
Even disregarding all that, I still would like to see an intermediate-range weapon class.
Quote: | It is possible to add base jamming to some hulls and jammer component to beams is possible (or even bomb component like to multi contained munition). However to let a token to jam for other tokens takes whole new feature of item (or hull) or new weapon type and effect takes coding.
|
Yes, but it would add fun behavior. And it should not function just like jamming - there should be an upper limit to how many torpedoes can be intercepted, say, each round the stack can only intercept as many torpedoes as there are PDW's in the stack. The PDW's would intercept an absolute percentage of incoming missiles before jamming is calculated, improved by any battle computers on the hull. The effect could have a range of either 0 or 1 square. Now if these are on lighter hulls than the capital ships, they can follow the capital ships around and give them a PDW screen - but this may require a new battle order behavior (Provide Cover?) Also, if your enemy is gonna attack your starbase (with Attack Starbase orders) you can gate in some PDW destroyers that'll sit there and intercept incoming missiles while your starbase fires back.
This would make chaff obsolete.
Speaking of battle behavior - we should be able to set different battle orders for each ship class in a fleet. Also, "target capital ships" and "target escort ships" options... Targeting capital ships is obviously useful, but targeting esort ships would have you destroy the PDW screen before attacking the capital ships. (I'm assuming it would be rather difficult to achieve a capital ship rating with PDWs.)
[Updated on: Sat, 30 September 2006 19:08] Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: Random Ideas |
Sun, 01 October 2006 15:05 |
|
|
Yeah. Armor needs to drop in cost/DP quite a bit. Even if the cost per dp is better than for shields, it's still heavy.
Hull Notes (from things I've tried in Star Ed)
Also, why bother putting shield/armor slots on freighter hulls? If you want a freighter that can take mine hits, cut the galleon down to three engines and use that.
Reduce the germanium cost of med freighter and possibly boost its cargo/fuel capacity. Reduce cargo capacity of privateer to 50kt and decrease Iron cost - it can fill the role of a utility ship or alternative warship.
Privateer
---------[_______]
---------[gen-p_1]----[_shield]
---------[_______]----[elect__]
[________][//////////][mech_1_]
[engine_1][cargo 50kt]--------
[________][//////////][armor__]
---------[_______]----[scanner]
---------[gen-p_1]----[el_mc 1]
---------[_______]
Turn the Destroyer's Armor 2 slot into a Shield/Armor 2. Maybe switch the Destroyer and Frigate tech levels.
The result of these changes would affect the feel of the early warfare - if DD/FF techs are reversed, you'd start out having to choose between the quick agile frigate or the tough and flexible but heavy privateer or wait for the destroyer.
The privateer could also take over the frigate's utility role, ie, as minelayer, minesweeper, etc. The frigate would still make a better fast scanning ship though. And freighters would actually be freighters!
[Updated on: Sun, 01 October 2006 15:13] Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | |
Re: Random Ideas |
Sun, 01 October 2006 21:08 |
|
|
Maybe it's an idea better suited for a different game. I don't know. It could be fun to experiment with sometime.
One thing that could be nice is to make the battleboard significantly bigger - say, 24x24? With a larger battleboard, the time needed to escape should increase as well.
Another thing is to make the maximum number of designs for each player adjustable as a game option. Let's say, you can pick between 10, 16, 24, or 32 designs allowed. Either that or have it tied to universe size.
Or, have it a variable in race design! If you can live with 10 designs, you get points - if you want a full 32, be prepared to pay.
[Updated on: Sun, 01 October 2006 21:16] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Random Ideas |
Sun, 01 October 2006 21:17 |
|
|
Kotk wrote on Sun, 01 October 2006 18:03 |
AR real weaknesses are that it cant pop drop nor can build much fleet up to 2460 meanwhile it feels -F so wants lot of planets.
|
They should start with more midget miners, say, 12. That would help their speed.
[Updated on: Sun, 01 October 2006 21:17] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Random Ideas |
Mon, 02 October 2006 11:11 |
|
|
imo AR needs a weakness. Mineral fountain is very powerful late game.
AR is stronger in non Acc-BBS games
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: Random Ideas |
Tue, 03 October 2006 12:35 |
|
|
Kotk wrote on Mon, 02 October 2006 12:53 |
multilis wrote on Mon, 02 October 2006 18:11 | imo AR needs a weakness. Mineral fountain is very powerful late game.
AR is stronger in non Acc-BBS games
|
And HE needs its weakness.
HE is stronger in smaller games.
|
Mineral fountain could be nerfed by using a diminishing returns formula for remote mining - say, a logarithmic progression instead of linear, so each additional mining bot per planet is slightly less useful.
On a side note, perhaps ARM should slow down mineral depletion from remote mining. That would be nice.
HE's weaknesses are more than just lack of stargates - combine that with slow shipbuilding per planet and it takes them a long time to get fleets to the front. Also, their planets are really vulnerable to popdrop before the defenses are up. I've noticed that it's difficult to make a HE with a high growth rate that can manage to export colonists by 30% capacity. Higher growth rates end up being a waste of points and in contradiction to the name they simply can't expand very quickly, compared to, say, IS.
[Updated on: Tue, 03 October 2006 12:41] Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: Random Ideas |
Sun, 21 August 2011 17:50 |
|
TRSMMaiden | | Crewman 2nd Class | Messages: 14
Registered: May 2011 Location: Birkenhead, UK | |
|
Not sure if this has been suggested previously or not and just something I like the sound of but maybe others would not. Also I dont know how easy or difficult it would be to implement. There may be reasons why it would not work that I have not thought about.
I like the idea of being able to take over an enemy ship instead of destroy it. I have no idea about the nitty gritty / details etc I am not a computer wiz only a general idea say for example you win a battle and the other fleet has some unique ships (maybe a CA's terraforming ships or well whatever it might be) some kind of order to be able to attempt to take over the ship instead of kill it (kind of a forced transfer of ownership).
Up The Irons!Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: Random Ideas |
Mon, 22 August 2011 09:04 |
|
BlueTurbit | | Lt. Commander
RIP BlueTurbit died Oct. 20, 2011 | Messages: 835
Registered: October 2002 Location: Heart of Texas | |
|
How about another MT type. Instead of special MT toys, it gives race-specific items, like maybe Robber Baron, or Orbital Adjuster tech, or Any gate type, or many of the other techs only available to certain races.
BlueTurbit Country/RockReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Random Ideas |
Mon, 22 August 2011 12:05 |
|
m.a@stars | | Commander | Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004 Location: Third star to the left | |
|
BlueTurbit wrote on Mon, 22 August 2011 15:04 | How about another MT type. Instead of special MT toys, it gives race-specific items, like maybe Robber Baron, or Orbital Adjuster tech, or Any gate type, or many of the other techs only available to certain races.
|
Me likes!
Balance could become a problem, tho, if some race/item combinations became too powerful.
So many Stars, so few Missiles!
In space no one can hear you scheme! Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Random Ideas |
Tue, 23 August 2011 17:11 |
|
|
An expansion of the MT toy list in itself could be fun - with some items more useful than others, and some items at lower/higher tech levels than others, and some items with truly odd properties that you may or may not find an interesting use for depending on how you use them.
What about procedurally generated MT items that will be different in every game, and don't declare what their properties are so you have to experiment with using them to find out?
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | | |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon Jun 10 08:15:32 EDT 2024
|