Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Bar » Unofficial patch...
| |
Re: Unofficial patch... |
Sat, 01 April 2006 14:44 |
|
crr65536 | | Chief Warrant Officer 3 | Messages: 180
Registered: June 2005 | |
|
Kelzar wrote on Mon, 13 March 2006 13:07 |
CA seems to be, by design, the econ king right? My feel is that they still should be but by a much smaller margin.
|
*Not* by design. I doubt they were originally intended to be any stronger, economically, than JOAT. However, when the concept of "monster" races was developed, CA was found to be much more powerful than originally intended. Remember, the CA PRT was made and then given instaforming with just a couple months, before they had seriously evaluated how balanced it would be.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | |
Re: Unofficial patch... |
Mon, 03 April 2006 21:53 |
|
|
AR added. Of course special case because of mineral fountain.
IMO most of us playing "no acc-bbs" (instead skip some turns in beginning) would make for better games/race variation and help AR.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: Unofficial patch... |
Wed, 05 April 2006 12:30 |
|
PricklyPea | | Lieutenant | Messages: 534
Registered: February 2005 | |
|
Kotk wrote on Sat, 11 March 2006 18:36 |
IFE - would often pay 10 points more for it
ARM - would substract at least 10 points to make it worth considering
GR - would like to get ~20 points more from it
UR - would consider it if it costed ~20 points less
MA - maybe if it costed 30 points less or gave access to some unique gadget
NRSE - would probably take even for 10 points less
CE - lot more pain than NAS so ~20 points more would be fair
OBRM - really gives at least 20 points more than should
NAS - gives lot of points but i still often play without it. 10 points less would be OK
LSP - gives OK points more or less
BET - not sure if i took it if it gave 30 points more
RS - its too cheap or even gives points i always have it
|
I actually agree with a lot of your RW suggestions above. For BET, what if we create a Tech 27 level so that there is no double cost nubian problem?
What do you think of making fuel mizer W10 efficiency same as current W9 efficiency but making W7-9 expensive (i.e. you can go W10 fast, but you take the 10% risk?).
GR, I would increase the research bonuses. e.g. 50% main field 20% in remaining fields (150% total research).
NRSE, RS and NAS I change in crabby by making scoops, penscanners and armour more attractive.
[Updated on: Wed, 05 April 2006 12:32] Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | |
Re: Unofficial patch... |
Thu, 06 April 2006 13:12 |
|
Kotk | | Commander | Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003 | |
|
PricklyPea wrote on Wed, 05 April 2006 19:30 | I actually agree with a lot of your RW suggestions above. For BET, what if we create a Tech 27 level so that there is no double cost nubian problem?
|
Maybe it is hard to do by hacking? Tech is a factor in lot of calculations and places. Tons of things may go broken.
Quote: | What do you think of making fuel mizer W10 efficiency same as current W9 efficiency but making W7-9 expensive (i.e. you can go W10 fast, but you take the 10% risk?).
|
FM is actually only *slightly* too good engine at warps 8 and 9. Change too lot and IFE is not worth the points anymore. Easy to do like you say but sounds too major change from gaming perspective, it turns IFE quite pointless LRT to take.
Quote: | GR, I would increase the research bonuses. e.g. 50% main field 20% in remaining fields (150% total research).
|
GR-s current problem is that early about one third of that 125% total feels going into at least two wrong fields (one you plan to buy and other you dont need at all). Later, extra goes into maxed out fields. So it is bigger disadvantage than it seems at first.
+50% to overall research however sounds too lot ... it turns what was meant as a slight disadvantage into an advantage i feel. Who cares if one third of 150% goes into wrong fields... it is free anyway. 50%/17% (or 60%/15%) would probably stay as a slight disadvantage (135% total) like meant.
Quote: | NRSE, RS and NAS I change in crabby by making scoops, penscanners and armour more attractive.
|
It is hard to avoid breaking the balance in other direction by changing lots of things.
Penscanners are already quite good. If you make them better then you give more advantage to NAS guy who is buying these.
Scoops are also quite good already ... P6 Ram is slightly too weak and P12 Ram slightly too expensive. As i said ... feels that people get ~10 RW points too lot from NRSE, so it is easy to overreact there.
About armor ... i have not calculated. Right now i dont take RS only if it is forbidden. I use armor only on orbitals and as weight on overcloakers. Maybe i overestimate the weakness of armor. Do you make all armor 30% cheaper and half lighter?
[Updated on: Thu, 06 April 2006 13:18] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Unofficial patch... |
Thu, 06 April 2006 14:57 |
|
PricklyPea | | Lieutenant | Messages: 534
Registered: February 2005 | |
|
>Maybe it is hard to do by hacking? Tech is a factor in lot of calculations and places. Tons of things may go broken.
Well, let's assume it can be done
FM is actually only *slightly* too good engine at warps 8 and 9. Change too lot and IFE is not worth the points anymore. Easy to do like you say but sounds too major change from gaming perspective, it turns IFE quite pointless LRT to take.
You really think 10% chance is that bad? I would still take it.
>>>+50% to overall research however sounds too lot
do you think so? you will still have wasted research (bio, prop, maxxed out techs) and you will never win the race to jihads, or nubians, or arms etc.
>Penscanners are already quite good. If you make them better then you give more advantage to NAS guy who is buying these.
provide a worse version earlier when it is useful for early scouting.
>Scoops are also quite good already ... P6 Ram is slightly too
again, the change is the timing of when these available (e.g. p6 made much earlier tech but not improved).
>Do you make all armor 30% cheaper and half lighter?
No, I make some lighter and increase dp on some. I also add a non-RS only armour (ultralite armour, that is very light but only 100dp and an armour with shield component).
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: Unofficial patch... |
Thu, 06 April 2006 17:35 |
|
Marduk | | Ensign | Messages: 345
Registered: January 2003 Location: Dayton, OH | |
|
Kotk wrote on Thu, 06 April 2006 16:17 |
PricklyPea wrote on Thu, 06 April 2006 21:57 | You really think 10% chance is that bad? I would still take it.
|
It is not 10% chance, it is 90% chance to survive *one* year of travel. Usually one wants to travel within 200ly range(19% chance) or 300ly range(27% chance). Sounds terrible. Especially if it does not take too big investments to travel without IFE anyway.
|
I'm with Kotk on this one. My last playtest with a CE race (last night, so very clear in my memory) had my first 11 ship movement orders fail. That's five years of the starting scout not moving, two years of the starting colony ship not moving (after tiring of waiting for the scout), and two years of two more scouts not moving (built after three years of the first scout failing to go). CE has the same '10%' chance of failure as W10 travel, so I wouldn't go with this option myself.
And I totally reaffirmed my hatred of CE. No idea why I even bothered considering it again.
Quote: |
Quote: | you will still have wasted research (bio, prop, maxxed out techs) and you will never win the race to jihads, or nubians, or arms etc.
|
|
You'll win the race if you have twice the resources of your opponents - you won't have to detour to pick up those few levels that you need in other techs. One of those 'great plan, hard to implement' things, I know.
For Prop 26, add a wormhole generator. Generates a wormhole within some distance of the planet you build it on, and the other end randomly determined. Are wormholes prevented from landing on planets, by the way? Would you have to worry about having your ships sucked away, or perhaps wake up to find your homeworld in the middle of the enemy empire?
Bio 26, the Wave Motion Gun. As I recall, the Yamato stole their enemy's goddess to power this thing - so that's like Bio tech, right? Actually destroying the planet is perhaps a bit unbalanced, but maybe have it damage like a 250kT W20 packet attack. Or act as a super-bomb or something like that.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Re: Unofficial patch... |
Wed, 12 April 2006 09:25 |
|
m.a@stars | | Commander | Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004 Location: Third star to the left | |
|
Madman wrote on Wed, 12 April 2006 06:45 |
m.a@stars wrote on Sat, 08 April 2006 07:05 | I'd bet there must be a way to tweak the clicks-to-grav formula to yield unambiguous values even after rounding. Trouble is, patching the beast in the binary might be quite difficult.
|
Also, if you make a minor change to something like that so that the numbers are a little different, it leads to great confusion when people describe or publish races (is that the old 17% grav or the new one?). The current system is at least unambiguous for race design, as a hab must always be an even number of clicks wide.
|
Quite the contrary. Many published race designs are ambiguous thanks to Grav , and need resorting to clicks to avoid confusion. That would indeed be one of the reasons to make Grav truly unambiguous. Nothing would be lost, and much confusion would be avoided.
The only ones who would pay the penalty of "is that new-grav or old-grav?" should be those already ambiguous races, anyway.
One possible change would be:
current values: 0.12, 0.12, 0.13, 0.13, 0.14, 0.14, 0.15, 0.15, 0.16, 0.17
unambiguous: 0.07, 0.08, 0.09, 0.10, 0.11, 0.12, 0.13, 0.14, 0.15, 0.16
Here, the only "net loss" would be the original 0.16g which was not ambiguous in fact. Too bad.
I'd rather worry about how to insert the new "grav display formula", whatever form it finally took, into the old code.
[Updated on: Wed, 12 April 2006 10:25]
So many Stars, so few Missiles!
In space no one can hear you scheme! Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon May 13 02:45:56 EDT 2024
|