Home World Forum
Stars! AutoHost web forums

Jump to Stars! AutoHost


 
 
Home » Stars! Clones, Extensions, Modding » VML lounge » Albemuth Mod (Jan 2005 start)
Albemuth Mod (Jan 2005 start) Sat, 15 January 2005 21:21 Go to next message
Coyote is currently offline Coyote

 
Lt. Commander

Messages: 906
Registered: November 2002
Location: Pacific NW

I'm working on a better modification recently called Albemuth, with the help of Gakl and Sotek.
When we're satisfied that it's not horribly broken like my previous projects I'll post it or something.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Viper mod Sun, 16 January 2005 05:01 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ptolemy is currently offline Ptolemy

 
Commander

Messages: 1008
Registered: September 2003
Location: Finland

If you guys want some help with your Albemuth mod I'd be happy to do some of the work with it. I can change some of the ship or starbase graphics also.

Ptolemy

Emperor of a Thousand Suns




Though we often ask how and why, we must also do to get the answers to the questions.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Viper mod Sun, 16 January 2005 19:20 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Coyote is currently offline Coyote

 
Lt. Commander

Messages: 906
Registered: November 2002
Location: Pacific NW

Wow, thanks. If you stop by on IRC usually one of us at least will be on...
I guess balancing it is the first priority, which means testbedding and stuff. If you have the battlesim pack it makes things easier, that's what we've been using to try to rebalance conventional torpedoes with beams and cap missiles. Right now they seem to be pretty close to par, at least, a lot closer than they were before.

Ship hull changes are also something we'll need to work on. Capital ships are more flexible but less mobile, relying more on fuelers. Small and medium freighters are honestly freighters now, while privateers are utility/skirmisher ships like they were intended to be.

http://empires.falldowngoboom.org/Albemuth.STM

http://empires.falldowngoboom.org/AlbemuthStars!.exe


[Updated on: Sun, 16 January 2005 19:21]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Viper mod Mon, 17 January 2005 00:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ptolemy is currently offline Ptolemy

 
Commander

Messages: 1008
Registered: September 2003
Location: Finland

If you want to use new graphics, we should be able to use all the ship and component graphics ForceUser did for the Freestars client I've been oh so slowly working on. It will also give me a chance to see how they'll look in the user interface.

Ptolemy





Though we often ask how and why, we must also do to get the answers to the questions.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Viper mod Mon, 17 January 2005 05:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
iztok is currently offline iztok

 
Commander

Messages: 1195
Registered: April 2003
Location: Slovenia, Europe
Hi!
Coyote wrote on Mon, 17 January 2005 01:20

Ship hull changes are also something we'll need to work on. Capital ships are more flexible but less mobile, relying more on fuelers. Small and medium freighters are honestly freighters now, while privateers are utility/skirmisher ships like they were intended to be.

I've checked hulls. Some comments:
- DD is supposedly a warship, but it can mount only 2 weapons; Confused
- 2 general slots on Super minelayer. With its amount of armor you got one pretty cheap sweeper, that can also lay mines and scan, or an awesome overcloaker;
- no armor or shield slots on Large freighter. Quite often I put cheap shield(s) on late game LFs, to protect a fleet of them from single minehit;
- Scout has only mechanical slot - problem with tech trading by scrappers;
- FF is far away in tech tree (bio 15 Question ), probably mentioned as a fighter. Since Scout can't mount weapons, what hull will be chaff? Confused
BR, Iztok

Report message to a moderator

Re: Viper mod Mon, 17 January 2005 19:34 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Coyote is currently offline Coyote

 
Lt. Commander

Messages: 906
Registered: November 2002
Location: Pacific NW

iztok wrote on Mon, 17 January 2005 02:27

Hi!

I've checked hulls. Some comments:
- DD is supposedly a warship, but it can mount only 2 weapons; Confused



It can also shield-stack like a frigate but with 200 base armor. Smile

Quote:


- 2 general slots on Super minelayer. With its amount of armor you got one pretty cheap sweeper, that can also lay mines and scan, or an awesome overcloaker;



Indeed. Now there's a reason to use this hull.

Quote:


- no armor or shield slots on Large freighter. Quite often I put cheap shield(s) on late game LFs, to protect a fleet of them from single minehit;



Yes. You should be more careful about them mines.

Quote:


- Scout has only mechanical slot - problem with tech trading by scrappers;



Scout may become simply an engine and a general purpose later on, depending on whether we like them to carry weapons or not. Right now it's meant as a scouting ship and not a fighting ship. I actually wasn't thinlking about tech trade at the time, but I'm sure we can find a workaround Smile

Quote:


- FF is far away in tech tree (bio 15 Question ), probably mentioned as a fighter. Since Scout can't mount weapons, what hull will be chaff? Confused



Chaff is not as useful anyhow because capital ships - and even cruisers to a better extent - can carry very good ECM systems now. You can still find a way to build chaff if you want, but it's intentionally deprecated.

There's a different rock-paper-scissors dynamic, it's no longer beam / missile / chaff, but just as dependent on the electronics you use as your weapon systems. So far we haven't found any big lumps in the Rule of Counterdesign, if you do lemme know. Smile

Report message to a moderator

Re: Viper mod Mon, 17 January 2005 21:11 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ptolemy is currently offline Ptolemy

 
Commander

Messages: 1008
Registered: September 2003
Location: Finland

I have a few comments;

1. I do not see the point of reducing the mini-miner hull to having only 1 remote mining slot. OBRM as it is makes remote mining an extremely expensive proposition without the necessity of making it cost even more. Of course, it hurts the CA since it reduces the orbital adjuster abilities.

2. Modifications to the cruiser hull are not compensated by an equal addition to the battle cruiser hull for the WM thereby making the WM ships comparitively weaker - an unfair handicap to WM races.

3. Forcing the large freighter to only be able to use mech slots removes the ability of the IT to add the anti matter generator to his freighters - all in all not a major disaster but, freighters should have the ability to mount some form of defenses anyway. I agree that freighters should be able to suport shields or jammers. I notice that the IS player is not restricted to mech only slots on his super freighters.

4. I do not see the purpose of requiring elec 11 (along with the rediculously high bio and con cost) to acquire frigates. By that late in the game nobody will bother to build them much anyway unless they want to use them for chaff - or SD mine layers

5. I also agree that the general purpose x2 slot on the super mine-layer must go - it should be a mech or mech/elec/scanner slot. Allowing it to be general purpose is much too much advantage to the SD player which is already one of the strongest PRT's. In fact, all the mods I've mentioned just make SD overbalanced. Frigates become super cheap mine-laying hulls with more mines, corvettes are very good for mine layers as well. One would suspect that the guys making these mods have SD as their favorite PRT. It's the only PRT the mods don't seem to hurt.
- Loss of the privateer cargo space hurts IS
- Loss of the frigate hurts everyone except the SD since the SD doesn't have to be concerned with the extra sweeping capacity of frigates.
- Loss of the shield / elec slots on freighters is an advantage to the SD - freighters can't survive mines at all.
- One remote mining slot on the mini-miner cuts CA orbital adjuster power by 50% per ship.

Ptolemy






[Updated on: Mon, 17 January 2005 21:16]





Though we often ask how and why, we must also do to get the answers to the questions.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Viper mod Mon, 17 January 2005 22:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kotk

 
Commander

Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003
Yeah. SS transport cloak was the main problem of vanilla stars. Too dreaded powerful stuff indeed. And see ... here its solved! No ship accepts it. Laughing

Report message to a moderator

Re: Viper mod Mon, 17 January 2005 22:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Coyote is currently offline Coyote

 
Lt. Commander

Messages: 906
Registered: November 2002
Location: Pacific NW

Ptolemy wrote on Mon, 17 January 2005 18:11

I have a few comments;

1. I do not see the point of reducing the mini-miner hull to having only 1 remote mining slot. OBRM as it is makes remote mining an extremely expensive proposition without the necessity of making it cost even more. Of course, it hurts the CA since it reduces the orbital adjuster abilities.



Reducing the ubiquitousness of OBRM. It's too common, and too powerful for what it gives (+10% econ AND pile of points to improve planet mining with).
The other mining hulls are all a little better.

Quote:


2. Modifications to the cruiser hull are not compensated by an equal addition to the battle cruiser hull for the WM thereby making the WM ships comparitively weaker - an unfair handicap to WM races.



Yes it is. Look again, the same improvement was done to them both.

The rogue is a better warship too, so is the minimorph to a lesser extent.

Quote:


3. Forcing the large freighter to only be able to use mech slots removes the ability of the IT to add the anti matter generator to his freighters - all in all not a major disaster but, freighters should have the ability to mount some form of defenses anyway. I agree that freighters should be able to suport shields or jammers. I notice that the IS player is not restricted to mech only slots on his super freighters.



Hm. I suupose the large freighter could use an elect/mech slot for that reason. As an IT I usually only put antimatter generators on bombers, though. I'll consider that though.

Quote:


4. I do not see the purpose of requiring elec 11 (along with the rediculously high bio and con cost) to acquire frigates. By that late in the game nobody will bother to build them much anyway unless they want to use them for chaff - or SD mine layers



The frigates are designed to be useable as a horde warship in the battleship era. Whether this is viable or not will be determined by testing. If you really don't like it, blame Gakl.

Quote:


5. I also agree that the general purpose x2 slot on the super mine-layer must go - it should be a mech or mech/elec/scanner slot. Allowing it to be general purpose is much too much advantage to the SD player which is already one of the strongest PRT's. In fact, all the mods I've mentioned just make SD overbalanced. Frigates become super cheap mine-laying hulls with more mines, corvettes are very good for mine layers as well. One would suspect that the guys making these mods have SD as their favorite PRT. It's the only PRT the mods don't seem to hurt.



Interesting perspective.
However, the SD does not need any small minelayer hulls (FF and PVT) since they already have a better one by default.
I will talk with the others about the SML hull and see what they think.

Quote:


- Loss of the privateer cargo space hurts IS



Huh? How? They can use the MF can't they?

Quote:


- Loss of the frigate hurts everyone except the SD since the SD doesn't have to be concerned with the extra sweeping capacity of frigates.



Frigates can't take mine hits though.

Corsairs (PVTs) can make decent sweeper/layer hulls since they're cheap and flexible.

Quote:


- Loss of the shield / elec slots on freighters is an advantage to the SD - freighters can't survive mines at all.



Shouldn't be much of an issue, but I'll talk about this, possibly boosting base armor on freighters.

Quote:


- One remote mining slot on the mini-miner cuts CA orbital adjuster power by 50% per ship.



This is bad?

If I could nerf CA in a substantial way I would.



[Updated on: Mon, 17 January 2005 22:41]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Viper mod Mon, 17 January 2005 22:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Coyote is currently offline Coyote

 
Lt. Commander

Messages: 906
Registered: November 2002
Location: Pacific NW

Kotk wrote on Mon, 17 January 2005 19:03

Yeah. SS transport cloak was the main problem of vanilla stars. Too dreaded powerful stuff indeed. And see ... here its solved! No ship accepts it. Laughing





Haaa!!!!


Okay, then, the next incarnation will have elect/mech slots on LF's.

Also, the scout can probably be made to accept it if it has an elect/mech slot too - this would be kinda nice to SS.

Can't believe I forgot about that.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Viper mod Mon, 17 January 2005 22:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ptolemy is currently offline Ptolemy

 
Commander

Messages: 1008
Registered: September 2003
Location: Finland

That's one point among many.

I've been going through all the changes..

Eagle Eye scanners now are available at elec 12 instead of elec 14. No point in using Cheetahs. Obviously this is intened to help people using NAS. I don't see the need or the point of it. I don't see the point of most of the scanner modifications. There really hasn't been a need to increase the range of the Robber Baron or decrease any of the scanner research costs. If anything, the pick pocket should have a slightly higher range and the chameleon could be available a little sooner to the SS (as has been done). Everything else could stay the same.

Orbital Adjusters have been given a mass of 480 - that's fine, helps cut down the CA advantage a little. I'ld like to find a few other ways of cutting down the CA some - as well as the JOAT.

The Fuel Mizer has been given way too high fuel usage over warp 7. This would be better if it more closely matched the RHRS after warp 6. Agreed that the necessity here is of cutting down the power of the fuel mizer but, it doesn't have to be so drastic. Another alternative is to have it start using fuel at warp 4 and only give it a free ride to warp 3 (which the Verker mod did).

Dropping the prop requirement for the Trans Star 10 down to 19 kind of negates the purpose of the engine - making NRSE races need to research higher. I could see dropping it down to 22 maybe from 23 but, not lower.

If Kelarium has a mass of 50, then Fielded Kelarium should also have the same mass - it's the same material. If fact, the shielding component should add 1kt to it. It should also be available at the same construction level as kelarium - not adjusted higher - and, can have an energy requirement but, since it has only been increased by 20 dp overall, the energy requirement should not be above energy 6 - 60 dp shields are available at energy 6 ...

I'm not against changes to mass driver costs for PP's but, there is such a thing as overkill. The costs have been reduced too much. I'ld prefer to see the resource and mineral costs closer to the original values. Dropping them a percentage makes some sense as does perhaps reducing the mineral costs a little - but not much change is necessary.

I would like to see IT stargates restricted some. IT is the one race that should be hurt a little but isn't getting touched at all.

I don't agree with reducing the AMP to weaps 25 - there needs to be a reason to research to weaps 26.... In fact, I'ld like there to be reasons for researching ALL fields to level 26. And, while on the subject of weapons, it seems to me that the Anti-Matter torpedo does way to little damage for it's high bio cost. I'ld put the bio requirement down to 10 or 12 and give it 60% or so more damage - around 95 dp.


I also would give the orbital fort a small 25-50kt space dock capacity - this way it re-fuels ships and makes not taking ISB a little less painful - it can also put basic scouts together. Starbases overall should be a little harder to kill than they are in the original game anyway.

my my 2 cents
Ptolemy




Though we often ask how and why, we must also do to get the answers to the questions.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Viper mod Mon, 17 January 2005 23:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ptolemy is currently offline Ptolemy

 
Commander

Messages: 1008
Registered: September 2003
Location: Finland

Quote:

If I could nerf CA in a substantial way I would.



I agree here - one way is making the TT terraforms REALLY costly. Unfortunately that would hurt any PP trying to use it but, it would be a bitch to the CA.

Ptolemy




Though we often ask how and why, we must also do to get the answers to the questions.

Report message to a moderator

Albemuth mod Mon, 17 January 2005 23:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Coyote is currently offline Coyote

 
Lt. Commander

Messages: 906
Registered: November 2002
Location: Pacific NW

I think this is getting enough momentum to get thrown into its own thread.
Moderator? A little help here? XD

Report message to a moderator

Re: Viper mod Mon, 17 January 2005 23:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Coyote is currently offline Coyote

 
Lt. Commander

Messages: 906
Registered: November 2002
Location: Pacific NW

Ptolemy wrote on Mon, 17 January 2005 20:03

Quote:

If I could nerf CA in a substantial way I would.



I agree here - one way is making the TT terraforms REALLY costly. Unfortunately that would hurt any PP trying to use it but, it would be a bitch to the CA.

Ptolemy




Not really. It'd hurt any TTer just as much. We don't see TT enough in non-CA races anyhow.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Viper mod Mon, 17 January 2005 23:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Coyote is currently offline Coyote

 
Lt. Commander

Messages: 906
Registered: November 2002
Location: Pacific NW

Ptolemy wrote on Mon, 17 January 2005 19:58

That's one point among many.

I've been going through all the changes..

Eagle Eye scanners now are available at elec 12 instead of elec 14. No point in using Cheetahs. Obviously this is intened to help people using NAS. I don't see the need or the point of it. I don't see the point of most of the scanner modifications. There really hasn't been a need to increase the range of the Robber Baron or decrease any of the scanner research costs. If anything, the pick pocket should have a slightly higher range and the chameleon could be available a little sooner to the SS (as has been done). Everything else could stay the same.




Honestly, I don't remember some of the reasoning behind the scanner tweaks. i'll ask Sotek about this.

The Robber Baron, we agreed was just too expensive. We wanted to help SS scanning.


Quote:


The Fuel Mizer has been given way too high fuel usage over warp 7. This would be better if it more closely matched the RHRS after warp 6. Agreed that the necessity here is of cutting down the power of the fuel mizer but, it doesn't have to be so drastic. Another alternative is to have it start using fuel at warp 4 and only give it a free ride to warp 3 (which the Verker mod did).



It's still a lot better than the lh6. Originally I had it nerfed even more viciously.

Quote:


Dropping the prop requirement for the Trans Star 10 down to 19 kind of negates the purpose of the engine - making NRSE races need to research higher. I could see dropping it down to 22 maybe from 23 but, not lower.



Well, at least NRSE races can actually get it now. Smile It's more of a cheaper IS10.

Quote:


If Kelarium has a mass of 50, then Fielded Kelarium should also have the same mass - it's the same material. If fact, the shielding component should add 1kt to it. It should also be available at the same construction level as kelarium - not adjusted higher - and, can have an energy requirement but, since it has only been increased by 20 dp overall, the energy requirement should not be above energy 6 - 60 dp shields are available at energy 6 ...



I guess...

Quote:


I'm not against changes to mass driver costs for PP's but, there is such a thing as overkill. The costs have been reduced too much. I'ld prefer to see the resource and mineral costs closer to the original values. Dropping them a percentage makes some sense as does perhaps reducing the mineral costs a little - but not much change is necessary.



Packets are still expensive. This will just make the PP more of a Lernaean beast, as soon as you kill one driver another springs back up in its place.
Factoryless PP especially.

Quote:


I would like to see IT stargates restricted some. IT is the one race that should be hurt a little but isn't getting touched at all.



We talked about this and didn't implement it yet. We might.
A side effect of finite stargate range is that cloaking starbases would have a purpose.

Quote:


I don't agree with reducing the AMP to weaps 25 - there needs to be a reason to research to weaps 26.... In fact, I'ld like there to be reasons for researching ALL fields to level 26. And, while on the subject of weapons, it seems to me that the Anti-Matter torpedo does way to little damage for it's high bio cost. I'ld put the bio requirement down to 10 or 12 and give it 60% or so more damage - around 95 dp.



There is a reason. BET. Smile

The antimatter torpedo does suck, yeah. It's cheap though. Razz Yeah, we can improve this.

Quote:


I also would give the orbital fort a small 25-50kt space dock capacity - this way it re-fuels ships and makes not taking ISB a little less painful - it can also put basic scouts together. Starbases overall should be a little harder to kill than they are in the original game anyway.



I was thinking 1kt dock so it can refuel but not build. Possibly raising the capacity of the Space Dock a little too.
Bigger starbases have a bit more armor - the death star has 10,000 base dp., the space station and ultra station are tougher too.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Viper mod Mon, 17 January 2005 23:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ptolemy is currently offline Ptolemy

 
Commander

Messages: 1008
Registered: September 2003
Location: Finland

Yes, I have seen the starbase changes. Making them harder to kill is one thing - along with that, they could use a little more firepower.

I have wanted to see the space dock with a little higher dock limit but, that was because I wanted to build some cruisers that were 204kt. All in all, I wouldn't want to see cruiser construction at space docks - doesn't seem logical. Space docks are designed for building small ships. Ideally, you should be able to build:

Scouts
Small freighters
Medium Freighters
Privateers (or whatever name we're going to give them)
IS Fuel transports
Destroyers
Frigates
Mini-bombers
mini-mine layers
midget miners (and maybe mini-miners)
mini colony ships
colony ships


Anythig else should just be too big for the dock. So, there are 2 ways to do this - make all the other hulls have a base kt size that puts them over space dock capacity once you add anything to them or reduce the kt of the hulls above and the dock limit so that only these ships will work.

If you go with option one then you need to increase the capacity of the 300/500 gate to probably a 450/500 gate to compensate for the additional hull weights. The 300/500 gate should be tweaked a little anyway to help compensate against the IT. Also, removing all /any distances is a good idea. Make the /any's /1600's or something.

Ptolemy






Though we often ask how and why, we must also do to get the answers to the questions.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Albemuth mod Tue, 18 January 2005 06:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Micha

 

Messages: 2341
Registered: November 2002
Location: Belgium GMT +1
Coyote wrote on Tue, 18 January 2005 05:07

I think this is getting enough momentum to get thrown into its own thread.
Moderator? A little help here? XD


I'm sorry, my powers don't work here Grin else I would have split this off sooner. You'll have to bug OWK or Ron,

mch,
kryptonized mod

Report message to a moderator

Re: Viper mod Tue, 18 January 2005 13:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
SinicalIdealist is currently offline SinicalIdealist

 
Chief Warrant Officer 3

Messages: 184
Registered: October 2003
Location: North-left US

Ptolemy wrote on Mon, 17 January 2005 19:58


Eagle Eye scanners now are available at elec 12 instead of elec 14. <snip scanners>



I'm not sure about all the scanner changes here. I've only vaguely touched upon them. I've been more concerned w/ the ship design changes and changes to make PRTs such as SS a little more competitive.

Ptolemy wrote on Mon, 17 January 2005 19:58


Orbital Adjusters have been given a mass of 480 - that's fine, helps cut down the CA advantage a little. I'd like to find a few other ways of cutting down the CA some - as well as the JOAT.



Agreed. Nerfing CA and JoaT should be a reasonably high priority. However, you need to give people a reason to continue to play these PRTs. There is currently one reason for both: Comparatively high resources, compared to other, potentially more fun PRTs. Perhaps nerf the PRTs' resource strength, but enhance their other utilities. ie. Can we mod the JoaT ship scanning to not change over time, but start high and not get any better?
[/quote]

Ptolemy wrote on Mon, 17 January 2005 19:58


<snip on FM to free only at warp 3.>


I like this idea.

Ptolemy wrote on Mon, 17 January 2005 19:58


Dropping the prop requirement for the Trans Star 10 down to 19 kind of negates the purpose of the engine - making NRSE races need to research higher. I could see dropping it down to 22
maybe from 23 but, not lower.



I think I have to agree with this after some reconsideration. TS10 should be a bit higher than P19.

Ptolemy wrote on Mon, 17 January 2005 19:58


If Kelarium has a mass of 50, then Fielded Kelarium should also have the same mass - it's the same material. If fact, the shielding component should add 1kt to it. It should also be available at the same construction level as kelarium - not adjusted higher - and, can have an energy requirement but, since it has only been increased by 20 dp overall, the energy requirement should not be above energy 6 - 60 dp shields are available at energy 6 ...


I like this idea. Right now fielded kelarium is a little-used tech item.

Ptolemy wrote on Mon, 17 January 2005 19:58


I'm not against changes to mass driver costs for PP's but, there is such a thing as overkill. The costs have been reduced too much. I'ld prefer to see the resource and mineral costs closer to the original values. Dropping them a percentage makes some sense as does perhaps reducing the mineral costs a little - but not much change is necessary.



That was my fault. I didn't feel like doing the math, so I pretty much recommended: "####, just make it free." On the other hand, this would make the PRT a lot more usable.

Ptolemy wrote on Mon, 17 January 2005 19:58


I would like to see IT stargates restricted some. IT is the one race that should be hurt a little but isn't getting touched at all.


Honestly, IT likely been nerfed the most. The ship hulls will, at the very least, reduce the strength of IT significantly. The goal of this little mod-project were to make unused game or race settings more appealing. IT shouldn't be changed too much, but the FF hull will naturally reduce the ITs strength. The FF was sorta my idea to nix the standard chaff model, replace early warships w/ something half-FF and half DD and add a whole new mid-game ship that would spice things up a bit. Theory behind the FF was, super-high init, low mass, low dp, low strength. The idea is to create a new element into the standard rock-paper-scissors. Play testing will be essential to balancing it properly, however.

Keep in mind that this ship would be very easily produced in large quantities at any stardock. They would match (or exceed) BBs in fire-first capability and would be able to always move last (very important for low-dp ships). This makes the ship into a sort of fighter. The ship-fuel changes were designed to increase the importance of fuel in the game. The fighters were to have minimal fuel (requiring the use of a fueler).

Ptolemy wrote on Mon, 17 January 2005 19:58


<snip tech 25 + AMT>



The tech 25 thing is debatable, whether it's worth making BET more important. AMT *can* be relatively useful. Just needs a little more power. Like the idea of improving it. Could make TT a little more appealing to the non-CA as well.

Ptolemy wrote on Mon, 17 January 2005 19:58


I also would give the orbital fort a small 25-50kt space dock capacity - this way it re-fuels ships and makes not taking ISB a little less painful - it can also put basic scouts together. Starbases overall should be a little harder to kill than they are in the original game anyway.



I disagree on the orbital fort as a dock idea. Reduces the usefulness of ISB too much. ISB is one of those traits that is used about as often as is expected (relatively close to 50% of the time in my experience). Little should be done to change the appeal vs. cost of ISB. Giving forts fueling and docking abilities greatly changes the dynamic. Fueling and small ship production is the whole reason for taking ISB, arguably. It's greatest advantage is aiding expansion. Give this to standard forts, and ISB is close to useless unless you're AR.

As previously agreed, upping all base armor on SB and above was essential to diminish the strength of kill-SB orders.

Gakl on #stars!



g.e.
====

"When the newspapers have been read, the TV sets shut off, the cars parked
in their various garages. Then, faintly, I hear voices from another star.
(I clocked it once, and the reception is best between 3:00 A.M. and 4:45
A.M.). Of course, I don't usually tell people this when they ask, "Say,
where do you get your ideas?" I just say I don't know. It's safer."
-P. K. Dick

Report message to a moderator

Re: Viper mod Thu, 20 January 2005 17:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
SinicalIdealist is currently offline SinicalIdealist

 
Chief Warrant Officer 3

Messages: 184
Registered: October 2003
Location: North-left US

So I'm piggy backing this updated mod here. Shooting for something relatively conservative. Some changes probably should even be scaled back in this version, IMO.

Some of the changes are the same or similar to coyote's albemuth version, but for the most part the changes here are relatively conservative.

While playing w/ various mods, I thought I'd try my own hand, starting from scratch w/ some more modest corrections.

The most dramatic changes you'll find are the changes to terraforming costs. This has been altered overall to both increase the usefulness of TT for non CAs, and to decrease the utility of CAs. Below is a list of every single change to the version.

I call this Stars!Gmod v. .1

=================================
=================================

Global Changes:

Terraforming Costs (Nerfs CA instaforming)
Reduced terraforming resource costs.
Standard: Reduced from 100 Res to 80 Res
TT: Reduced from 70 Res to 50

Parts: All PRTs
Fuel Mizer:Warp % changes
W4 0 to 1
W6 120 to 100
W7 175 to 160
W8 235
W9 500
W10 550.

TS10:
Tech levels
P23 to P22


Torpedoes:
All Torp Damage increased by 13%

Omega:
Res 18 to 14
Damage 316 to 363
Range 5 to 7

Upsilon:
Mass 25 to 20
Res 15 to 11
Damage 169 to 194
Range 5 to 6

Rho:
Res Mass 25 to 20
12 to 8
Damage 90 to 103

Epsilon:
Mass 25 to 20
Res 10 to 7
Damage 48 to 55

Delta:
Mass 25 to 20
Res 8 to 5
Damage 26 to 29

Beta:
Mass 25 to 20
Res 6 to 4
Damage 12 to 14

Alpha: Mass 25 to 20
Res 5 to 3
Damage 5 to 6

Anti Matter Torpedo:
Res 50 to 35
Damage 60 to 100
Range 6 to 7
Bio 21 to 19.

Armor:
Carbonic Armor:
Bio 4 to 7
Mass 20 to 15
Dp 100 to 175.

Organic Armor:
Bio 7 to 13
Mass 15
175 to 300.

Superlat:
Res 100 to 85
Iron 25 to 20.

Ship Hulls: ALL
BB:
Mass 222 to 190.

FF:
Resources 12 to 14
Base Armor 45 to 60.

Starbases:
DS:
Base Armor 1500 to 20000
Initiative 18 to 28
50 shield slots to shield/armor slots.

US:
Base armor 1000 to 3000
Initiative 16 to 20

SB:
Base Armor 500 to 1500
Initiative 14 to 16.

SD:
Base Armor: 250 to 500
Initiative 12 to 15.

OF:
Base Armor 100 to 250
Initiative 10 to 12.

PP-Specific
Lowered PP-specific MD costs.
MD 5: Res 140 to 70
MD 6: Res 288 to 144
MD 7: SAME
SD 8: Res 512 to 256
SD 9: Res 648 to 324
UD 10: SAME
UD 11: Res 968 to 484
UD 12: Res 1152 to 576
UD 13: Res 1352 to 676, N24 to N23

WM-Specific
DN:
Initiative 10 to 12
Mass 250 to 190

BC:
Resources 120 to 115
Initiative 5 to 8

IS-Specific
Croby Sharmor:
Tech Reqs. N7 to N6

Fielded Kelarium:
Tech Reqs. C10 to C9
Resources: 28 to 26
Iron 10 to 9
Dp 175 to 180
Mass 50 to 51.

CA-Specific
Orbital Adjuster:
Bio 6 to 7
Mass 80 to 100
All Minerals 25 to 30.

HE-Specific
Meta Morph:
Cargo 300 to 0
Base Armor 500 to 750
Old Slots:
3Eng
4 GP-2s
1GP8
1GP
New Slots:
3Eng
1GP-6
3 GP-3s
3GP-2s.

SS-Specific:
Rogue:
Armor 450 to 600
Iron 80 to 50
1 scanner to 1 scanner/mech/elect
2 Elecs to mine/elec/mech.

Ulta Stealth Cloak:
Tech Reqs. L12 to L11.

Stealth Bomber:
3 Elect to 3 Shield/L/Mech

Shadow shield:
Dp 75 to 90

Depleted Neutronium:
Mass 50 to 45.

Robber Barron:
Range 220 to 340.

Pick Pocket scanner:
Range 80 to 180.


Future considerations:
May make an overall armor cost adjustment or dp adjustment in order to make Armor a more appealing option.

MT devices? Will they have to be adjusted to keep them more useful than altered normal devices? Perhaps it's better to decrease the power of random devices?

From Kotk: Making nubs and range 2 weapons one tech level lower and 5% more expensive. That will make BET lot more useful LRT.


=================================
=================================



g.e./Gakl

Edits:
Updated to readable format.
Added "Future Considerations"
Updated Future Considers 1/21/05 9:45pm PST
Reordered Change list to make more sense 1/21/05 9:45pm PST


[Updated on: Sat, 22 January 2005 00:43]




g.e.
====

"When the newspapers have been read, the TV sets shut off, the cars parked
in their various garages. Then, faintly, I hear voices from another star.
(I clocked it once, and the reception is best between 3:00 A.M. and 4:45
A.M.). Of course, I don't usually tell people this when they ask, "Say,
where do you get your ideas?" I just say I don't know. It's safer."
-P. K. Dick

Report message to a moderator

Re: Viper mod Fri, 21 January 2005 11:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kotk

 
Commander

Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003
SinicalIdealist wrote on Fri, 21 January 2005 00:27

So I'm piggy backing this updated mod here. Shooting for something relatively conservative. Some changes probably should even be scaled back in this version, IMO.


Overall I like this mod the best, since its conservativeness. Smile

I think you improved torpedoes too lot. About 35% better? Then that late torpedo range. 8 at orbital? That makes Omega kinda too must-to-have thing. "Missile" just sounds like thing that has best range. Maybe make torpedo tech requirement 1-2 tech lower instead of making them cheaper and dont improve their range?
Say: alpha 0, beta 4, delta 8, epsilon 12, rho 16, upsilon 20, omega 24. Also maybe raise missile tech requirement by one.

You got the changes sorted/grouped in bit strange order, superlatanium is not under armors for example, but i like the general idea to make armors more useful. Currently RS is simply no-brainer.

Other ideas not present that i have liked were:

Idea Making IT gates bit less powerful. Especially that oo/300. It is out of balance. IT can get it ~ turn 15-20 it is ultimate gate for small game and it costs next to nothing.

Idea Making all the terra tech a bit higher. Say... just by one tech level. VML did it bit too lot, but the idea itself is good. That will shift some of the terraforming cost from planet ques to research pane and so tunes CA down further.

Idea Making nubs and range 2 weapons one tech level lower and 5% more expensive. That will make BET lot more useful LRT.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Viper mod Sat, 22 January 2005 00:36 Go to previous message
SinicalIdealist is currently offline SinicalIdealist

 
Chief Warrant Officer 3

Messages: 184
Registered: October 2003
Location: North-left US

Kotk wrote on Fri, 21 January 2005 08:49


I think you improved torpedoes too lot. About 35% better? Then that late torpedo range. 8 at orbital? That makes Omega kinda too must-to-have thing. "Missile" just sounds like thing that has best range. Maybe make torpedo tech requirement 1-2 tech lower instead of making them cheaper and dont improve their range?



Maybe range 8, lower damage? Ultimate defensive weapon, perhaps. Then again, torps are supposed to be short range offensive weapons. In reality, torps would probably do the double damage to armor and be short range. Still, I'm not really comfortable w/ making that huge of a change. It would unbalance things a bit. Much prefer the idea of long range, low damage, short range, high damage.

[/quote]

Kotk wrote on Fri, 21 January 2005 08:49


Say: alpha 0, beta 4, delta 8, epsilon 12, rho 16, upsilon 20, omega 24. Also maybe raise missile tech requirement by one.


I think that's too radical of a change. I think other areas should be tested first.

Kotk wrote on Fri, 21 January 2005 08:49


You got the changes sorted/grouped in bit strange order, superlatanium is not under armors for example, but i like the general idea to make armors more useful. Currently RS is simply no-brainer.



Yeah, that was a brain fart. Maybe I'll fix it this evening. RS is *almost* always a no brainer. Not so w/ IT or AR.

Kotk wrote on Fri, 21 January 2005 08:49


Other ideas not present that i have liked were:

Idea Making IT gates bit less powerful. Especially that oo/300. It is out of balance. IT can get it ~ turn 15-20 it is ultimate gate for small game and it costs next to nothing.



I don't think IT gates are too powerful. I think small tweaks to certain other hulls can offset this pretty effectively. It'll also keep the hulls fun. W/ the initial Albemuth stars!, it was starting to look like IT would be seriously diminished in strength due to hull changes. I think modest changes are for the best. I think it's wise to keep the game as close to the original as possible, but with improved balance to increase the breadth of traits you can realistically get away w/ using.

Kotk wrote on Fri, 21 January 2005 08:49


Idea Making all the terra tech a bit higher. Say... just by one tech level. VML did it bit too lot, but the idea itself is good. That will shift some of the terraforming cost from planet ques to research pane and so tunes CA down further.



I'm not sure changing the terra tech is a wise idea. Increasing the costs overall will just reduce the importance of terraforming overall. You will worry more about short term expenditures such as ship building, and not have to balance w/ the need for longer term growth. I think keeping terra tech research important is for the best.

Kotk wrote on Fri, 21 January 2005 08:49


Idea Making nubs and range 2 weapons one tech level lower and 5% more expensive. That will make BET lot more useful LRT.



This could make this much more interesting too. Something to consider.

g.e./Gakl



g.e.
====

"When the newspapers have been read, the TV sets shut off, the cars parked
in their various garages. Then, faintly, I hear voices from another star.
(I clocked it once, and the reception is best between 3:00 A.M. and 4:45
A.M.). Of course, I don't usually tell people this when they ask, "Say,
where do you get your ideas?" I just say I don't know. It's safer."
-P. K. Dick

Report message to a moderator

Previous Topic: Viper mod
Next Topic: VML-mod v1.1 based on Stars! 2.6j rc4 finished
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Tue Jun 22 10:34:54 EDT 2021