Re: CA Balance |
Fri, 02 April 2004 12:20 |
|
Steve1 | | Officer Cadet 2nd Year | Messages: 240
Registered: January 2003 Location: Australia | |
|
Quote: | One additional problem: CAs cannot build terraforming, so if you remove instaforming, you have to give them back the ability to build it. That probably won't happen if you just hack the check for instaforming.
|
That might not be so bad. At least then they could utilise their own OA's.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Re: CA Balance |
Fri, 11 February 2005 20:14 |
|
Sotek | | Chief Warrant Officer 2 | Messages: 167
Registered: November 2002 | |
|
PricklyPear wrote on Fri, 11 February 2005 19:52 |
Sotek wrote on Thu, 01 April 2004 20:31 |
Speaking as a programmer, I'm going to laugh in your face now.
You have no idea how hard that kind of debugging is if you HAVE the source.
|
Funny. I read this post and decided to investigate. 20 minutes later, I have a patched version (changing CA PRT starting advantage points to -300).
People often make the mistake of believing that if they cannot do something, then nobody can.
|
*clap* *clap*.
Yes, you can change that number.
That's easy.
Can you turn off CA instaform?
Because, you see, that's what I said was hard.
Changing the numbers, yes, that's not tough.
Disabling the instaform? That's MUCH harder.
Reading comprehension. You, it seems, don't have it.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: CA Balance |
Fri, 11 February 2005 20:29 |
|
PricklyPea | | Lieutenant | Messages: 534
Registered: February 2005 | |
|
Sotek wrote on Fri, 11 February 2005 20:14 |
*clap* *clap*.
Yes, you can change that number.
That's easy.
Can you turn off CA instaform?
Because, you see, that's what I said was hard.
Changing the numbers, yes, that's not tough.
Disabling the instaform? That's MUCH harder.
Reading comprehension. You, it seems, don't have it.
|
Actually, I found disabling the Instaform easier. That was a 1 minute job
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: CA Balance |
Sat, 12 February 2005 03:49 |
|
iztok | | Commander | Messages: 1210
Registered: April 2003 Location: Slovenia, Europe | |
|
Hi!
PricklyPear wrote on Sat, 12 February 2005 05:34 | I've currently disabled insta-terraform for CA and made the OA weigh 160kt and cost 500 resources (minerals unchanged).
|
IMO 500 res for an OA is an overkill. Remember that CA can not do normal terra. They'd need to invest 3000 res into 6 clicks of terra other races would do for 600. And those 3000 res are usually the sum of all terra costs one race does on a planet in a game. I'd say removing instaforming is enough. Leave OAs as they are, CA will still need to bring them to every new planet, and that's quite a nasty task.
Since you can also change the RW points for a race then I'd suggest the following settings:
PRT RW diff. comment
PP +60 +97 to buy better mine eff.
AR +40 +67 to buy ISb
HE +35 +45 they're a bit too weak
SD +35 -18 a bit to cheap for their strenght
SS +25 +63 need better econ
WM +20 +32 need a bit better econ
IS +10 -26 a bit to cheap for all what they get
CA 0 0 same, already lost instaforming
IT -35 +22 a bit too expensive
JoaT -50 -75 so they take NAS without too much additional points
Most econ races lost their RW points, JaoT the most. OTOH those weak/least played races got some improvement, PP the most, as IMO it NEEDS more minerals to use packets. If I could change code I'd leave its RW points the same, but 'd give it built-in 10% or 20% better mine eff.
Well, I may forget something, but at least those points are the first approximation to start with.
BTW would you mind posting the way you did those changes? There are many coders in our community that could surely use that with great benefit to the rest of us.
BR, Iztok
[Updated on: Sat, 12 February 2005 04:11] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Re: CA Balance |
Mon, 14 February 2005 21:27 |
|
|
iztok wrote on Sat, 12 February 2005 19:49 |
Since you can also change the RW points for a race then I'd suggest the following settings:
PRT RW diff. comment
PP +60 +97 to buy better mine eff.
AR +40 +67 to buy ISb
HE +35 +45 they're a bit too weak
SD +35 -18 a bit to cheap for their strenght
SS +25 +63 need better econ
WM +20 +32 need a bit better econ
IS +10 -26 a bit to cheap for all what they get
CA 0 0 same, already lost instaforming
IT -35 +22 a bit too expensive
JoaT -50 -75 so they take NAS without too much additional points
|
I like the idea of a few of these, but I think reducing the cost of the popular (read powerful) PRT's is not such a good idea - HE and IT are both strong already without getting more points. I agree that PP, SS, AR, WM could do with a little help, but not too much. It'd make sense to try to keep the average RW cost the same as before, or else play style will change (if we all had more RW points then maybe -f would become less effective, for example)
This'd be a fun topic in the bar!
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Re: CA Balance |
Sat, 16 July 2005 20:03 |
|
|
interesting thought...rather than GR which is counter-intuitive...what about ARM? would be a nice opposite to OBRM
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|