Home World Forum
Stars! AutoHost web forums

Jump to Stars! AutoHost


 
 
Home » Stars! Clones, Extensions, Modding » FreeStars » make PP what they are suppose to be
Re: make PP what they are suppose to be Tue, 07 February 2006 05:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Micha

 

Messages: 2341
Registered: November 2002
Location: Belgium GMT +1
rowenstin wrote on Mon, 06 February 2006 17:57

Later in the game, with warp 10 engines and warp 13 mass drivers a fleet could travel a mind numbing total of 225 Ly in a single year; ...

Imagine a fleet with such a speed coming to a full stop in a minefield. Smile Would sound like the Big Bang all over again. Cool

mch

Report message to a moderator

Re: make PP what they are suppose to be Tue, 07 February 2006 19:53 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kotk

 
Commander

Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003
rowenstin wrote on Mon, 06 February 2006 18:57

Ok, just another crazy idea. What if PP races could “fling” ships, giving them a 1st year speed boost? It could work this way: A fleet that leaves that year a planet with a mass driver has an Effective Warp Speed (EWS) of ((Fleet “nominal” speed)*(mass driver speed))/(Fleet speed+driver speed), rounding down.
If fleet contains different engines... for example fuelers with FM and the rest with IS-10 ... how that "nominal" speed is calculated?

If such a flinged fleet hits some planet it crashes to a ground as mineral packet of same weight? Laughing Or it may be (partially)caught by drivers? Laughing Laughing

Report message to a moderator

Re: make PP what they are suppose to be Wed, 08 February 2006 07:20 Go to previous messageGo to next message
rowenstin is currently offline rowenstin

 
Crewman 1st Class

Messages: 38
Registered: December 2005
Hey, I said it was a crazy idea, maybe illogical, but not as illogical as the connection between having the ability to breed like rabbits and build powerful capacitors, or being pacifist and being able to reproduce in freighters.

The “nominal” warp speed is the speed you set for the whole fleet. It´s only connection with the actual engine is the fuel you spend (and the possibility of failure if you go at warp 10). It would just give a boost to the fleet´s speed for 1 year, nothing else; if you reach a planet, if just means you arrive there faster.

Report message to a moderator

Re: make PP what they are suppose to be Thu, 09 February 2006 05:24 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kotk

 
Commander

Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003
Crazyness aside but we are free to make even new special kick fleet mass drivers for PP, new PRTs and LRTs, new whatever. One day it happens! Smile Feature idea that takes game mechanics changes need to be better described so they may be of some use that one day. Nod
rowenstin wrote on Wed, 08 February 2006 14:20


The “nominal” warp speed is the speed you set for the whole fleet.

Okay... so lets try to describe the event of kicking a fleet on example:
1) You got mass driver 13 with fleet kick ability on orbit. Do you have new UI things like "Set fleet to kick" buttons or whatever?
2) You merge your Santa Maria with small freighter you just built. Fleet is "Santa Maria+ #2".
3) You set "Santa Maria+ #2" destination 150ly away "Stinky Socks" warp 9.
4) You put a "kick Santa Maria+ #2" into que? Any other ways? The que is blocked by other items before it does Santa Maria+ #2 fly away at warp 9? Is the item removed then because you cant kick it anymore? What that kick item costs? Resources only? How many? Is cost related to fleet+cargo mass? If its 0... may you put more than one "kick fleet" items into que per year? May you throw packets same year? Mass driver is occupied and directed whole year if you toss packets with it. How is the thing displayed in fleet waypoints list now?
5) All goes well and said "Santa Maria+ #2" flies away at warp 14(=9+117/22) for one year. Since warp 14 range is 196 it reaches Stinky Socks with one year. Or ... it runs out of fuel? What is the fuel consumption of the fleet first year (current fuel tables give consumptions only up to warp 10)? If the achieved warp is over 9 do you get overwarp failures? If the achieved warp is over 6 do you get cheap engine failures?

Lots of questions and answers raise probably some more. Without answers to these all no one can add such feature. Wink Cool
The formula you use there must be probably duned down because 225 ly range for warp10 & MD10 sounds like a game breaker there.
Maybe so:
MD5,6,7 +1warp
MD8,9,10 +2warp
MD11,12,13 +3warp


[Updated on: Thu, 09 February 2006 05:53]

Report message to a moderator

Re: make PP what they are suppose to be Thu, 09 February 2006 06:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Madman is currently offline Madman

 
Officer Cadet 1st Year

Messages: 228
Registered: November 2003
Location: New Zealand
Micha wrote on Tue, 07 February 2006 23:59


Imagine a fleet with such a speed coming to a full stop in a minefield. Smile Would sound like the Big Bang all over again. Cool

There is no sound in space, so no-one hears you explode messily Smile

Report message to a moderator

Re: make PP what they are suppose to be Thu, 09 February 2006 06:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Madman is currently offline Madman

 
Officer Cadet 1st Year

Messages: 228
Registered: November 2003
Location: New Zealand
Kotk wrote on Thu, 09 February 2006 23:24

Feature idea that takes game mechanics changes need to be better described so they may be of some use that one day. Nod

As long as we don't get so busy thinking of new features that we forget to work on FreeStars 1.0 Laughing
Quote:


Okay... so lets try to describe the event of kicking a fleet on example:
1) You got mass driver 13 with fleet kick ability on orbit. Do you have new UI things like "Set fleet to kick" buttons or whatever?

Well there's two ways of looking at this - each mass driver can 'kick' one fleet per turn (maybe at some resource cost, perhaps related to the mass of the fleet), or it kicks all fleets for free each turn automatically (the second is easier to implement, as you don't need a new queue entry, but perhaps that would be a smaller kick for game balance). Maybe this only works in years when you aren't launching packets from that driver.

Here's how I'd do it for fuel, engine failure, etc:
You set the speed of the kicked fleet (say to warp 9), but the 'kick' make it go warp 13 instead for instance. The easiest way of doing this is to have the fleet pay the fuel cost of moving 169 ly at warp 9, but does it in one year. Engine failure, cheap engines etc. are done on the initial warp of 9, as that is all the work the engines are doing. The only exception I'd make is for minefields - you'd use warp 13 for that Smile

That approach has the 'unrealistic' thing that ships can't move any further at a particular warp before they run out of fuel - they just get there faster. An alternative approach would be that the fleet moves 169 light ly but pays for only 81 ly (or part of 81 ly pro rata if the total trip is shorter than 169 ly) of fuel. That way, the extra 84 light years is 'free' as far as fuel is concerned and provided by the mass driver.

Quote:

The formula you use there must be probably duned down because 225 ly range for warp10 & MD10 sounds like a game breaker there.
Maybe so:
MD5,6,7 +1warp
MD8,9,10 +2warp
MD11,12,13 +3warp


Maybe tone it down a little, but too much - all the PRTs have really nice stuff, so it _should_ seem quite powerful. You don't want to weaken it so much that it just becodes a curiousity. I think it would take implementation and playtesting to get the balance right (if you release it and either everyone starts playing PP or no-one plays PP that wasn't already, the balance is wrong).

Report message to a moderator

Re: make PP what they are suppose to be Thu, 09 February 2006 12:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kotk

 
Commander

Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003
Madman wrote on Thu, 09 February 2006 13:30

Maybe tone it down a little, but too much - all the PRTs have really nice stuff, so it _should_ seem quite powerful. You don't want to weaken it so much that it just becodes a curiousity.
Why i rarely play mods is that modders usually lose control in their desire to add "cool" and "powerful" things. Confused We are talking about powerful feature so Shame no need to make it into most powerful feature in whole game. Even making it as most powerful feature of PP is wrong, on that case better make new PRT... speed blinkers or something. +1 warp kick means ~20ly range increase, it often feels but does not break game. +3 warps kick with MD5 is +63ly range. Surprised PP expands quicker than IT with it. Also you didnt talk about cost of kick. Is it free then??? Rolling Eyes

People play PP. Yes, its weak PRT but starts quite OK thanks to 2 planets. I have seen them in 1/3 games, at moment i play in a game where are two PP-s.

Report message to a moderator

Re: make PP what they are suppose to be Thu, 09 February 2006 16:13 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Madman is currently offline Madman

 
Officer Cadet 1st Year

Messages: 228
Registered: November 2003
Location: New Zealand
Kotk wrote on Fri, 10 February 2006 06:16

Why i rarely play mods is that modders usually lose control in their desire to add "cool" and "powerful" things. Confused We are talking about powerful feature so Shame no need to make it into most powerful feature in whole game.

Good point. Better underpowered than overpowered, as underpowered just means underplayed, overpowered wrecks games.

One think I've noticed in the thread on weakening CAs though is that some people seem to want to really sink the boot in and cripple it, seeming to forget that it should still be able to do some nice things.

Report message to a moderator

Re: make PP what they are suppose to be Tue, 01 August 2006 05:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sober Council is currently offline Sober Council

 
Crewman 1st Class

Messages: 24
Registered: January 2005
Location: High Peak, Derbyshire, UK

The only things PP really needs to make it competetive are:

- Slighty lower PRT cost
- Cheap mining options on the RW
- Cheaper packet-forming

And maybe ignoring a portion of planetary defences for bombardment purposes, although this could easily make PP too powerful if not done carefully.

Personally, I rather like PP just for the ability to manipulate my planets (wether they're mine yet or not), even though it's hugely expensive.

Report message to a moderator

Re: make PP what they are suppose to be Wed, 02 August 2006 09:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
tgellan is currently offline tgellan

 
Chief Petty Officer

Messages: 75
Registered: May 2006
Location: Luxembourg
Hi,

A change I'd consider, is to completely revisite packets...
Add a new hull type for packets, which can be equipped with a defined number of equipment (weapons?). The hull defines the minimum mass driver required to fling it and the cargo for minerals they can hold. Then treat them as ships, but they need mass drivers to be launched/received. Decomposition due to overflung packages damages the hull in addition to minerals lost... and the hull defines the max. speed the package stands before decomposition start, not the mass driver... There's no engine, nor fuel consumption, colonists die on them instantly, but they could transport (unmanned) ships, so ships can only move again once they arrive on destination. Transport could still load minerals, and interceptors could shoot them down (maybe armorvalue based on loaded minerals?).
Packets would then be similar to bases. Transported ships are stacked to it as sitting ducks too, but their weaponsystems are desactivated!!!
Flinging a package would then cost nothing at all, PP are able to fling a package hull 4x as heavy as any other race using the same mass driver.
These packages would be hurt by mines too Wink, but not stopped, only reducing the hull value, and mineral load... Maybe allow to hit mines more than once on the same turn? Hm Speedtrap mines could actually slow then down Surprised
The owner of the planet, the package hull is orbiting becomes also the owner of the package hull and of all it's content, so you may transfer ships with it...
Packet bombing a planet, damages the hull to a certain degree, eventually destroying it. Think about bombing a planet with a packet filled to the brim with Nubians, and the receiver just built an Mass Driver in time Laughing or you're waiting for your Nubian reinforcement via Packets, and the Mass Driver gets shot down Twisted Evil

And then I'd consider a portable Mass Driver that may be equipped on ships, that do reduce the speed of a package by 1-2 warps. But a package may only be slowed down once per year. Independent of the number of ships or portable Mass Drivers in place. Eventually allow acceleration too? For example, you manage to bring a package to a stop, then you may fling it in space to a new destination...

This has to be fine tuned with stargates of course, but it would be a nice complement to stargates, especially for HE's...

So, what do you think about that one?

Tgellan

Report message to a moderator

Re: make PP what they are suppose to be Wed, 02 August 2006 16:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kotk

 
Commander

Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003
tgellan wrote on Wed, 02 August 2006 16:42

So, what do you think about that one?

You forgot to explain why such packet hulls are cool? Surprised Is it required for all packets? Is it enough if i put 10 kt of boranium as "packet" cargo or one scout or whatever? Does it sit at place like orbital in battle? Does it stack with other "packet" hulls on orbit? How ships carried by such packet occur/act in battle? What becomes with rest of the crap in packet if the packet hull is destroyed?

My impression from description you gave is that:
1) For transporting unmanned ships (with non-HE) i would use gates like now. Nod I see slight idea there for HE, if over warp 10 packets are possible lot earlier than now ... but probably MM as well (new UI equiping ships into other ships). Also there may be idea for non-IT if it can fit missile BB-s. Rolling Eyes
2) For transporting minerals i would use large freighters like now i do (with a non-PP). The difference is that i would start to probably use large freighters with PP as well with such a change unless the package ship is dirt cheap to build and faster than now and so on.
3) For mineral bombing opponent planets i would use packets lot more rare if the packets cant be without hulls and minefields affect them and so on.
4) For PP scouting i would avoid it as well if it is not dirt cheap and minefields affect it and so on.
5) I would not probably use the packet ship as missile warship platform in defense unless it is more cost efficient warship than BB or cruiser. Was your idea to make efficent defense fleets? Yep ... but strange?!? Shocked Even better if it stacks. Load all unneeded minerals into them if it increases their armor/shield value by lot. Confused
6) I would not probably use such packet hull for delivering attack fleet because opponents driver (if present) would probably refuse to receive them and warsips stand duck in package and the minefield crap you described and so on ... too lot of pain. Wink

So say again? Whats cool? Surprised Probably i didnt get the idea what you told, because sounds real crap and some aspects are outright strange? Rolling Eyes

Report message to a moderator

Re: make PP what they are suppose to be Thu, 03 August 2006 04:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
tgellan is currently offline tgellan

 
Chief Petty Officer

Messages: 75
Registered: May 2006
Location: Luxembourg
Kotk wrote on Wed, 02 August 2006 22:27


You forgot to explain why such packet hulls are cool? Surprised Is it required for all packets?


Yes, the idea is to completely switch to that definition of packets, else there's no need for it... As you advance in CON, you get either larger packet hulls, or ones with more slots, and of course miniaturisation... I'd say on con0 you get a basic packet capable of holding +-1000kt, but with only a mech. slot or even none at all. (Don't nail me down on the capacity, that would have to be evaluated) That would be the very basic packet, PP would have a specific "scanning" package hull with integrated penetrating scanners in them, similar to JOAT in small hulls... At con26 I could imagine a packet hull with slots similar to a nubian, base capacity of 30Mt++ and requiring a mass driver 13 to be flung Twisted Evil , thus a PP only hull

Kotk wrote on Wed, 02 August 2006 22:27


Is it enough if i put 10 kt of boranium as "packet" cargo or one scout or whatever?


You could even send the empty hulls, or fill it up to it's maximum capacity, see these hulls as freighters, but once set on course, you can't any change speed/course and you can't transport colonists.

Kotk wrote on Wed, 02 August 2006 22:27


Does it sit at place like orbital in battle? Does it stack with other "packet" hulls on orbit?


Yes, definitively sitting there as orbitals, battle orders can't be set, they are exactly as orbitals. In space, or orbiting an empty planet they are not owned by anyone, thous neutral, or third party in battles. And they would stack with identical designs, yes.

Kotk wrote on Wed, 02 August 2006 22:27


How ships carried by such packet occur/act in battle?


As the crew is killed during packet transportation, any carried ship would either occur in battle, but shutdowned meaning battle movement 0, weapons and shields desactivated. Or as an alternativ not showing at all, and having damage assigned to them as to the packet hull. Eventually killing ships similar to stacked tokens... Eventually consider as an exeption to this rule, if the package was caught that turn by a mass driver, the station manages to man the ships before battle occurs, thus they would operate in starbase battles similar to a fleet passing through a stargate...

Kotk wrote on Wed, 02 August 2006 22:27


What becomes with rest of the crap in packet if the packet hull is destroyed?


Well BOUUUM Fire bounce , you just created a fast expanding gas cloud Twisted Evil

Kotk wrote on Wed, 02 August 2006 22:27


My impression from description you gave is that:
1) For transporting unmanned ships (with non-HE) i would use gates like now. Nod I see slight idea there for HE, if over warp 10 packets are possible lot earlier than now ... but probably MM as well (new UI equiping ships into other ships). Also there may be idea for non-IT if it can fit missile BB-s. Rolling Eyes


Yeah, the ship transportation should happed only at the time stargates become available, and as the first packages (now) are sent at warp7, these packages could travel already "safely" at warp 10, but damaging the ships in the progress... Later on you'll have ships getting transported at warp 13. Eventually adding a packet hull/component that will reduce the damage taken by the overflung packages for HE & PP only?
Kotk wrote on Wed, 02 August 2006 22:27



2) For transporting minerals i would use large freighters like now i do (with a non-PP). The difference is that i would start to probably use large freighters with PP as well with such a change unless the package ship is dirt cheap to build and faster than now and so on.


Well the idea was that the con0 hull should cost around the additional price a package of size 1000kt costs now, but doubled. So that should be about 2x100 res and about 2x100 mins or a quarter of that for PP... Maybe giving PP specific hulls, that do cost far less instead of having different prizes for different PRT on the same hulls.
Besides, currently I don't use many packets in any of my games, mainly due to the 10% loss on building them. But with this change, you have to build the hulls only once, as for freighters, so they become more interesting... Hm, just thinking about adding waypoint tasks to them, hm, that way one can use them to balance minerals in the way one uses freighters currently... Of course that works only as long as you have mass drivers on each waypoint...

Kotk wrote on Wed, 02 August 2006 22:27


3) For mineral bombing opponent planets i would use packets lot more rare if the packets cant be without hulls and minefields affect them and so on.



I don't know, consider that the mines will only damage the flung package, but not stop it! And I didn't say anything about the size reduced by a mine hit... but I consider a huge amount of iron stacked into a container weighting about 10MT hitting a mine, can't think that it will be damaged so much?
Ok, speed traps could stop them eventually, but a package of W13 will have to hit them 13 (!!!) times. On the other hand, as the hulls will have electric slots too, you can eventually create 98% cloaked packages. Immagine these babies for package bombing Twisted Evil Hm, maybe packages should be capped on cloaking to a value similar to starbases, thous 75% ???
Not to forget about mine sweeping / crash mine sweeping with them... So do you still think you wouldn't use them for attacks Twisted Evil

Kotk wrote on Wed, 02 August 2006 22:27


4) For PP scouting i would avoid it as well if it is not dirt cheap and minefields affectsd it and so on.


Could be solved by a PP individual hull, costing 10res, holding only +-50kt and having an integrated penetrating scanner. Of course, if that package is caught, the receiver gets the benefit of having ONE of these too...

Kotk wrote on Wed, 02 August 2006 22:27


5) I would not probably use the packet ship as missile warship platform in defense unless it is more cost efficient warship than BB or cruiser. Was your idea to make efficent defense fleets? Yep ... but strange?!? Shocked Even better if it stacks. Load all unneeded minerals into them if it increases their armor/shield value by lot. Confused


No, the idea was to have very restricted defense possibilities on packages, in order to defend inspace against weak skirmishers...
Loading minerals to boost defense is true, but consider the costs... 1kT of minerals for 1dp of armor or such... Rolling Eyes What I want to say by this, is that the damage to the package effectively destroys that amount of cargo...

Kotk wrote on Wed, 02 August 2006 22:27


6) I would not probably use such packet hull for delivering attack fleet because opponents driver (if present) would probably refuse to receive them and warsips stand duck in package and the minefield crap you described and so on ... too lot of pain. Wink


LOL, even worse, he will thank you heartly, as he still controls the planet, he becomes the owner of the package and all it's content Laughing Laughing Laughing

Kotk wrote on Wed, 02 August 2006 22:27


So say again? Whats cool? Surprised Probably i didnt get the idea what you told, because sounds real crap and some aspects are outright strange? Rolling Eyes


Does it sound better now?

Report message to a moderator

Re: make PP what they are suppose to be Thu, 03 August 2006 10:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Nibor is currently offline Nibor

 
Crewman 3rd Class

Messages: 9
Registered: March 2006
Location: Thunder Bay
Heres some ideas for the mentioned stuff.

Why not make the ship based MD cost fuel to send a packet?

and

For the ship fliger allow the MD to fling the ship at the MD's rated speed with no fuel cost. It won't make it too powerfull just extend your range a little bit.

Report message to a moderator

Re: make PP what they are suppose to be Thu, 03 August 2006 15:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kotk

 
Commander

Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003
tgellan wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 11:16

Does it sound better now?
What I think that concept makes packet complex and multi-stepped thing ... design packages, build drivers, build packages, fill packages, throw packages ... unneccessary complexity i fear. I got mass driver and i got minerals i want or i even need to throw these but cant, got to design package and build some.


Surprize attack victim cant emergency evacuate most of his minerals with drivers unless he has abundant packages lying around. That makes the sole non-PP peaceful packet feature is turned off. Rolling Eyes

There is two step warning with packet attack now: opponent may scout drivers built, opponent may scout package hulls built so opponent has one year more time to build his defenses. Rolling Eyes Warp 13 thing hits speed-traps ... 13 times? Happens averagely during 46 ly travel. That makes SD less need to build defenses where he got trap field up. SD and IS are strong PRTs anyway. Other fields also damage packets, so easier to shoot it down. Rolling Eyes

PP packets did cost 0 overhead minerals (all went into packet) now they cost some. 1/4 of others but still some. Confused
I think this concept makes packets and drivers less appealing and does dump PP farther to where it isnt supposed to be dumped. Laughing

Report message to a moderator

Re: make PP what they are suppose to be Fri, 04 August 2006 03:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
tgellan is currently offline tgellan

 
Chief Petty Officer

Messages: 75
Registered: May 2006
Location: Luxembourg
Well, I never used packages in order to evacuate surface minerals, always used freighters, as in general my production queue is filled with emergency buildings in that case, but I see the idea...
What would be needed is a way to have the building queue handle the packages in the same way as now, meaning you add a package to the queue and can chose already at that moment what it should hold...
One advantage to this setting is, that you are able to send as many packages to any number of destinations per turn as you like. Though with the production queue package it would still be only one...

Hm, on the speed traps, you've got a point there, so there should be a max on speed reduction due to mines per turn...
Though other fields damage the package, it won't shoot them down. Consider a medium package of 5Mt with 1dp per kt gives an armor value of 5kdp and the average minefield damage is about 500dp/hit resulting in 10% damage... But this is without the base value for the hull, nor does it include shields/armor on the package hull. In addition to that, I now just took the damage of small mines on regular engines, though I said previously that the amount of damage had yet to be defined... What I could imagine, is that transported ships get more damage than mineral packages. As example, minerals add their weight to package armor as 1dp per 1kt, but ships just add their effective armor to it. Thus simulating that the ships are more complexe and easier to destroy than a heap of minerals. In that way, minefields would affect transported ships more. But still I'd consider that the mines do only a very small amount of damage to the packages, then halve damage due to shields, and other things yet to come up with...

I stand corrected with PP building packages...

I like the idea of ships holding mass drivers, and using fuel in order to fling the package

Report message to a moderator

Re: make PP what they are suppose to be Fri, 07 September 2007 04:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Machalot is currently offline Machalot

 
Crewman 1st Class

Messages: 20
Registered: September 2007
Location: Santa Clara, California
Why not just require that a ship with a hull mass driver must be in orbit around a planet in order to fling packets? It really makes more physical sense, since a mass driver is a huge orbital facility that theoretically uses the planet's gravity field as a slingshot.

Make flinging mineral packets a waypoint-zero task, so you have to be there for at least one year beforehand like remote mining or minelaying. Require the minerals it flings to come from the surface, such as from a friendly colony or from mining robots, rather than from fleet cargo. And don't allow it to target the planet it is orbiting. Maybe allow it to receive mass packets as well in order to give fledgling colonies a mineral boost without having to spend fuel transporting them in freighters.

That way, it serves most people's desired function, which is to return minerals from a remote mining outpost, but it doesn't become a portable doomsday weapon. And you don't have to add all kinds of caveats and special gimmicky rules like "negative cloaking" and "recoil" to make it "fair".



Peace Through Superior Firepower and Immediate Retaliation

Report message to a moderator

Re: make PP what they are suppose to be Fri, 07 September 2007 19:56 Go to previous message
Coyote is currently offline Coyote

 
Lt. Commander

Messages: 906
Registered: November 2002
Location: Pacific NW

Yes.




Hopefully if Nova has a race traits editor stuff like this can be experimented with. Some things will have to be hardcoded I'm afraid but if the concept is good then the necessary hooks can be added in first, and after playtesting balance can be adjusted in the race traits editor.

Flexibility, man, flexibility!


[Updated on: Fri, 07 September 2007 19:57]

Report message to a moderator

Previous Topic: Stars using Celestia
Next Topic: freestars server completion
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Sun May 19 04:18:15 EDT 2019