Home World Forum
Stars! AutoHost web forums

Jump to Stars! AutoHost


 
 
Home » Stars! Clones, Extensions, Modding » FreeStars » What might be fixed in a "new" clone game?
What might be fixed in a "new" clone game? Mon, 28 July 2008 01:31 Go to next message
stranger is currently offline stranger

 
Crewman 2nd Class

Messages: 16
Registered: November 2003
Location: Oregon, USA
I was poking around with Nova, and a couple of the other Stars! clones and clone-toolsets.

Now I'm a competent programmer, but my real job is being a Game Designer. And as such, simply copying Stars! in a 1:1 fashion isn't exactly what I'm looking for...

I want to know if there is any consensus on what things might be "fixed" in a new Stars! clone, if any? For example:

* Change the race wizard cost of RS, UR, TT.
* Change BET such that it doesn't force lvl 26 items to remain double cost forever?
* Adjust the game to change the way that chaff works?

Besides Stars! my other 4x poison of choice is the Space Empires series - currently at 5. But SEV was pretty unbalanced when it was released, but a few folks got together and put together a "Balance Mod" for the game, which changes some tech items, build costs, and the like. It's probably used by 80% of the SEV games played, so it's basically the default rulset for PBEM.

I would love to see something similar done for Stars!

Has this topic come through much yet? I've seen a few posts shot down with a comment like "Since nobody is going to change it, we should just accept this."

Ideally, a new clone would include data-driven parameters, such that it would be easy to adjust these things. Then we'd need an army of veteran Stars! players to beta-test each rule tweak. Would the community implode? Who can say?

I have much more than a passing interest in this.

--Mr. Strange

Report message to a moderator

Re: What might be fixed in a "new" clone game? Mon, 28 July 2008 09:12 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adacore is currently offline Adacore

 
Chief Warrant Officer 2

Messages: 156
Registered: February 2005
Location: Shanghai
I was vaguely hoping/assuming that the current clones would, once (if) they make a perfect replica, begin addressing balance issues like RW points. Perhaps not the more fundamental stuff you mentioned though.

Report message to a moderator

Re: What might be fixed in a "new" clone game? Mon, 28 July 2008 11:24 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Effluviant Walrus is currently offline Effluviant Walrus

 
Senior Chief Petty Officer

Messages: 91
Registered: May 2008
Location: New York, US
Some ideas:

  • Gameplay:

    • Implement a simple scripting language or something to give players more control over their ships' targeting algorithms. This would make chaff much less effective though.
    • Write a decent AI.
    • Add more controls for universe generation, such as algorithms for generating galaxies in certain shapes. Some shapes could be a spiral galaxy, a barred galaxy, a ring, etc.... Rather than having Galaxy Clumping as an option, have a "clumping" variable that one could adjust with more precision. Put in a similar variable for each of the three minerals, so one could have a low-iron game or things like that.
    • Revamp the tech "tree" (well its not really a tree) to encourage researching fields other than Weap and Con to a high level. Also, make components require more techs; as in, beam weapons would require En tech as well as Weap; Missiles would require more Prop than the currently do, etc....
    • Electronics could allow better automatic data correlation features.
    • Biotech could allow bioweapons/plagues.
    • Nerf cloaking. Either give everyone a less-powerful version of the Tachyon Detector or cap it at 90% or so; 98% cloaking is just broken.
    • Make a small utility that merges .p files for teams/allies and alters a players history file/whatever holds the planet info in-game accordingly.

  • Race Design:

    • Rebalence PRT costs and LRT costs based on PRTs (as in, NAS should cost points for JoaT, etc...)
    • Rebalence the LRTs; UR could cost less, MA could be more effective and cost less, as well as allowing alchemy for a specific mineral, BET could allow a TL 27 to cheapen TL 26 components as well as be cheaper overall, and CE could cause all engines to kill pop like the RadRam and prevent miniturization/add mass instead of the annoying chance-of-failure for over W6.
    • Allow choices for starting tech, independent from tech costs.

    [/LIST]

    On an unrelated note, does anyone know how to avoid the second "[/LIST]" being visible when using nested lists?

    Report message to a moderator

Re: What might be fixed in a "new" clone game? Mon, 28 July 2008 12:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
LEit is currently offline LEit

 
Lt. Commander

Messages: 879
Registered: April 2003
Location: CT
I'll answer for what I've done/am planning on doing for FreeStars, the rules.xml file for Freestars has lots of room to modify how the game works, so most of this is done alreay (and a lot more). Also a lot of this is game balance issues, and I love how well balanced Stars! is, and am very hesitant to change that execpt in some obvious cases (CAs and JOATs mainly)
Effluviant Walrus wrote on Mon, 28 July 2008 11:24

Implement a simple scripting language or something to give players more control over their ships' targeting algorithms. This would make chaff much less effective though.

I've thought about this, but as you say, it would reduce the effect of chaff, so I've ruled it out for now.
Effluviant Walrus wrote on Mon, 28 July 2008 11:24

Write a decent AI.

In my opinion (and from a Freestars server point of view), the AI is just another player, and it's client would process the orders. I'm not planning on writing an AI for Freestars, but if some one wants to do it and have it run after the server has processed the turn it should be possible to package them together. Also, writing a decent AI is very hard.
Effluviant Walrus wrote on Mon, 28 July 2008 11:24

Add more controls for universe generation, such as algorithms for generating galaxies in certain shapes.

In Freestars the .hst file can be generated by some other program, and since the generation code is Free, anyone could write a different shape generator. Also, it can take a partial galaxy as input and fill in the missing details, so you could give it a (properly formatted) list of worlds with just names and positions. There are settings for how random some things are, so you could make a low-iron game pretty easily, but not have to specify the exact value everywhere.
Effluviant Walrus wrote on Mon, 28 July 2008 11:24

Revamp the tech "tree" (well its not really a tree) to encourage researching fields other than Weap and Con to a high level. Also, make components require more techs; as in, beam weapons would require En tech as well as Weap; Missiles would require more Prop than the currently do, etc....

All components can be modified, as can tech costs and max tech level.
Effluviant Walrus wrote on Mon, 28 July 2008 11:24

Electronics could allow better automatic data correlation features.

What's "automatic data correlation" mean?
Effluviant Walrus wrote on Mon, 28 July 2008 11:24

Biotech could allow bioweapons/plagues.

Easy enough if you want to just add a new bomb that kills pop and/or harms enviornment, not planned if you want a plague that lasts after the bombers are gone.
Effluviant Walrus wrote on Mon, 28 July 2008 11:24

Nerf cloaking. Either give everyone a less-powerful version of the Tachyon Detector or cap it at 90% or so; 98% cloaking is just broken.

Giving everyone a TD is easy. I don't think the cloak cap is in the rules file, but it would be easy to add.
Effluviant Walrus wrote on Mon, 28 July 2008 11:24

Make a small utility that merges .p files for teams/allies and alters a players history file/whatever holds the planet info in-game accordingly.

That's up to the client, but it's one of the reasons I've wanted to do Freestars.
Effluviant Walrus wrote on Mon, 28 July 2008 11:24

Rebalence PRT costs and LRT costs based on PRTs (as in, NAS should cost points for JoaT, etc...)

Possible, I won't do it in the default rules.xml, but the ability to do it is there.
Effluviant Walrus wrote on Mon, 28 July 2008 11:24

Rebalence the LRTs; UR could cost less, MA could be more effective and cost less, as well as allowing alchemy for a specific mineral, BET could allow a TL 27 to cheapen TL 26 components as well as be cheaper overall, and CE could cause all engines to kill pop like the RadRam and prevent miniturization/add mass instead of the annoying chance-of-failure for over W6.

UR easily done, MA cost and effect are easy, specified mineral not in there but probably not that hard to add later, BET tech to 27 is easy to add, CE killing pop would be a bit of a change to the code, or you could just add CE only engines that do that, and disallow standard engines for CEs, preventing miniturization is not a current option.
Effluviant Walrus wrote on Mon, 28 July 2008 11:24

Allow choices for starting tech, independent from tech costs.

Not in Freestars yet, but an intersting idea to add later.


[Updated on: Mon, 28 July 2008 12:10]




- LEit

Report message to a moderator

Re: What might be fixed in a "new" clone game? Mon, 28 July 2008 14:18 Go to previous messageGo to next message
m.a@stars is currently offline m.a@stars

 
Commander

Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left
Welcome to the melting pot! Cool

stranger wrote on Mon, 28 July 2008 07:31

I want to know if there is any consensus on what things might be "fixed" in a new Stars! clone, if any? For example:

* Change the race wizard cost of RS, UR, TT.
* Change BET such that it doesn't force lvl 26 items to remain double cost forever?
* Adjust the game to change the way that chaff works?


Keep poking and you'll find the endless threads (most here in the Freestars Forum but also at The Bar and elsewhere) about how about every aspect of the game could/should be changed. And no, there doesn't seem to be a lot of consensus... Twisted Evil

About your specific examples: the 1st two seem simple ruleset tweaks, while the 3rd would entail tweaking the Battle Engine, and since noone actually knows exactly how the Battle Engine works in the 1st place... Sherlock

Balancing the changes would be the tougher bit, of course. Whip



So many Stars, so few Missiles!

In space no one can hear you scheme! Deal

Report message to a moderator

Re: What might be fixed in a "new" clone game? Mon, 28 July 2008 14:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
m.a@stars is currently offline m.a@stars

 
Commander

Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left
Effluviant Walrus wrote on Mon, 28 July 2008 17:24

  • Implement a simple scripting language or something to give players more control over their ships' targeting algorithms. This would make chaff much less effective though.
  • Write a decent AI.
  • Add more controls for universe generation, such as algorithms for generating galaxies in certain shapes. Some shapes could be a spiral galaxy, a barred galaxy, a ring, etc.... Rather than having Galaxy Clumping as an option, have a "clumping" variable that one could adjust with more precision. Put in a similar variable for each of the three minerals, so one could have a low-iron game or things like that.
  • Revamp the tech "tree" (well its not really a tree) to encourage researching fields other than Weap and Con to a high level. Also, make components require more techs; as in, beam weapons would require En tech as well as Weap; Missiles would require more Prop than the currently do, etc....



Interestingly, I started a couple years ago with a "simple" Universe Generator that already includes these options (except clumping, as I don't seem to find the "right way" to do it). I'm currently trying to add some sort of scripting language to it for better and more complex starmap generation, which is why it's still far from finished. Hit Computer

But the nice part is that I believe the same sort of scripting would enable most of the listed ideas. Once you start tweaking race options and starting techs for game creation things seem to want to go in that direction anyway. Deal

Two of the areas that would most benefit from scripting should be logistics and the Battle Board. Which should lead to some sort of AI... but that's still in the dream phase. Rolling Eyes



So many Stars, so few Missiles!

In space no one can hear you scheme! Deal

Report message to a moderator

Re: What might be fixed in a "new" clone game? Mon, 28 July 2008 17:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Effluviant Walrus is currently offline Effluviant Walrus

 
Senior Chief Petty Officer

Messages: 91
Registered: May 2008
Location: New York, US
As for player-controlled targeting algorithms negating chaff, perhaps have something so if multiple tokens are on top of eachother, an fire directed at one of the tokens has a chance of hitting the other instead, based on the # of ships in each? So a player could use chaff by having the chaff stay in the same square as their other ships.

Also, if you want to change the way the game works, as I think the OP was getting at, you could try to rebalence missiles vs. beams. Perhaps put in an ammunition "resource" similar to fuel? It would be freely available at starbases and forts, but a ship would have a limited supply. Obviously, beams would require no ammunition. This could also add a logistical element to the game, with ammunition transports/fabricators accompanying large fleets.

As to "automatic data correlation" features, I mean the client or whatever (I'm not very knowledgeable about programming; I'm mainly speaking from a design standpoint) would calculate information from all the ships designs seen of an enemy race. Features could include calculating the minimum tech levels that race has to possess, or calculating the estimated fuel spent since detection and fuel costs to get places for an enemy fleet, given its mass and the designs of the ships in it, etc....

Report message to a moderator

Re: What might be fixed in a "new" clone game? Mon, 28 July 2008 17:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
LEit is currently offline LEit

 
Lt. Commander

Messages: 879
Registered: April 2003
Location: CT
Effluviant Walrus wrote on Mon, 28 July 2008 17:43

As to "automatic data correlation" features, I mean the client or whatever (I'm not very knowledgeable about programming; I'm mainly speaking from a design standpoint) would calculate information from all the ships designs seen of an enemy race. Features could include calculating the minimum tech levels that race has to possess, or calculating the estimated fuel spent since detection and fuel costs to get places for an enemy fleet, given its mass and the designs of the ships in it, etc....

If you mean analyzing the turn file to get more information from what Stars! gives you, for example a guess at the design of a ship based on hull and mass, although for nubians that wouldn't help much. But not having the server actually provide any more information then you currently get from Stars!, then that's up to the client, but is something I'd like to see.
Other race PRT/LRTs tech levels etc should also be summarized. It mostly seems like you're asking for additional analysis from the existing data, that's not something your tech level should have any impact on. Additional data, like perhaps what engines are being used, or perhaps a rough guess at how much fuel has been burned the last turn could perhaps be based on your tech.



- LEit

Report message to a moderator

Re: What might be fixed in a "new" clone game? Mon, 28 July 2008 19:18 Go to previous messageGo to next message
stranger is currently offline stranger

 
Crewman 2nd Class

Messages: 16
Registered: November 2003
Location: Oregon, USA
I think Construction, Weapons, Energy, and Propulsion have a good curve of items within them. I do think that Electronics and Biotechnology run out of items too quickly, and the only real "fix" there is to add a few more desirably elements at mid and high-range tech levels.

In one respect, I think it is dangerous to allow free-wheeling modifications of the data files that drive the game, because you can very easily splinter your playerbase. So I think there is a really strong motivation for developers to *not* change things whenever possible.

For example, I'd like to see the hab ranges assigned through a proper bell-curve distribution. But that would change tons of things regarding habitability - mostly for the worse. So I would never make a change like that part of the default rules - I might provide a checkbox, allowing "better hab distribution" or something of the sort.

I'm working through a list of the major systems in Stars! right now - I'll turn that into a list of things I believe work and don't work, and I'll put it up here for discussion.

--Mr. Strange

Report message to a moderator

Re: What might be fixed in a "new" clone game? Mon, 28 July 2008 20:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Effluviant Walrus is currently offline Effluviant Walrus

 
Senior Chief Petty Officer

Messages: 91
Registered: May 2008
Location: New York, US
That is a good point. The Stars! community is so small anyway that if it splintered, it might be microscopic Smile .

Report message to a moderator

Re: What might be fixed in a "new" clone game? Mon, 28 July 2008 22:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adacore is currently offline Adacore

 
Chief Warrant Officer 2

Messages: 156
Registered: February 2005
Location: Shanghai
stranger wrote on Mon, 28 July 2008 19:18

In one respect, I think it is dangerous to allow free-wheeling modifications of the data files that drive the game, because you can very easily splinter your playerbase. So I think there is a really strong motivation for developers to *not* change things whenever possible.

For example, I'd like to see the hab ranges assigned through a proper bell-curve distribution. But that would change tons of things regarding habitability - mostly for the worse. So I would never make a change like that part of the default rules - I might provide a checkbox, allowing "better hab distribution" or something of the sort.



I think so long as any new features are left as options it should be fine - people can advertise games listing any special rules much as they do now.

Report message to a moderator

Re: What might be fixed in a "new" clone game? Mon, 28 July 2008 23:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
stranger is currently offline stranger

 
Crewman 2nd Class

Messages: 16
Registered: November 2003
Location: Oregon, USA
Adacore wrote on Mon, 28 July 2008 19:30

stranger wrote on Mon, 28 July 2008 19:18

In one respect, I think it is dangerous to allow free-wheeling modifications of the data files that drive the game, because you can very easily splinter your playerbase. So I think there is a really strong motivation for developers to *not* change things whenever possible.

For example, I'd like to see the hab ranges assigned through a proper bell-curve distribution. But that would change tons of things regarding habitability - mostly for the worse. So I would never make a change like that part of the default rules - I might provide a checkbox, allowing "better hab distribution" or something of the sort.



I think so long as any new features are left as options it should be fine - people can advertise games listing any special rules much as they do now.


I agree that introducing a smallish (~12) number of new game options wouldn't be much of a problem. That seems better to me than simply leaving the data files open.

--Mr. Strange

Report message to a moderator

Re: What might be fixed in a "new" clone game? Mon, 04 August 2008 18:51 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Coyote is currently offline Coyote

 
Lt. Commander

Messages: 906
Registered: November 2002
Location: Pacific NW

Chaff is nothing more than a kludge for balance - it's effective, but ugly. I'd prefer to have the weaponry put in an intrinsic balance so such inelegant measures are unnecessary (and more combinations are viable). There's multiple ways this can be done.

Report message to a moderator

Re: What might be fixed in a "new" clone game? Tue, 05 August 2008 04:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
stranger is currently offline stranger

 
Crewman 2nd Class

Messages: 16
Registered: November 2003
Location: Oregon, USA
Here are three broad approaches I could imagine. Which would appeal to you best?

1 - adjust the targeting rules, such that "chaff" doesn't get priority the way it does now.

2 - adjust the "maximum one kill per missile" rule.

3 - Do both.

--Mr. Strange

Report message to a moderator

Re: What might be fixed in a "new" clone game? Wed, 06 August 2008 04:26 Go to previous messageGo to next message
m.a@stars is currently offline m.a@stars

 
Commander

Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left
stranger wrote on Tue, 05 August 2008 10:55


1 - adjust the targeting rules, such that "chaff" doesn't get priority the way it does now.

2 - adjust the "maximum one kill per missile" rule.


1 - Whatever priority formula you use, it's likely to have a "chaff" class. Rolling Eyes

2 - Definitely not. Shocked

3 - Create the means for missiles to, in some cases, avoid targeting chaff. Deal



So many Stars, so few Missiles!

In space no one can hear you scheme! Deal

Report message to a moderator

Re: What might be fixed in a "new" clone game? Wed, 06 August 2008 04:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adacore is currently offline Adacore

 
Chief Warrant Officer 2

Messages: 156
Registered: February 2005
Location: Shanghai
I'd suggest the simplest way to negate chaff would be to include the one missile one kill rule in the target attractiveness calculation. So if a missile will do more damage than is required to kill a ship, it is assumed only to do that much damage for the purposes of attractiveness, rather than its maximum damage.

This could create problems elsewhere though - I've not thought it through fully. It would basically mean any very lightly armoured ship wouldn't be targetted by the better missiles/torps unless it was the last thing on the battleboard your ships had orders to shoot at.

Report message to a moderator

Re: What might be fixed in a "new" clone game? Wed, 06 August 2008 05:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
m.a@stars is currently offline m.a@stars

 
Commander

Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left
Adacore wrote on Wed, 06 August 2008 10:32

I'd suggest the simplest way to negate chaff would be to include the one missile one kill rule in the target attractiveness calculation. So if a missile will do more damage than is required to kill a ship, it is assumed only to do that much damage for the purposes of attractiveness, rather than its maximum damage.

This could create problems elsewhere though - I've not thought it through fully. It would basically mean any very lightly armoured ship wouldn't be targetted by the better missiles/torps unless it was the last thing on the battleboard your ships had orders to shoot at.

Well, that would be interesting, the bigger ships would lug it out among themselves while the nimbler skirmishers danced around doing their bit, possibly killing Death Stars not really meant to defend against X-wings. Twisted Evil

Stars! Wars, anyone? Cool


[Updated on: Wed, 06 August 2008 06:08]




So many Stars, so few Missiles!

In space no one can hear you scheme! Deal

Report message to a moderator

Re: What might be fixed in a "new" clone game? Mon, 18 August 2008 17:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Coyote is currently offline Coyote

 
Lt. Commander

Messages: 906
Registered: November 2002
Location: Pacific NW

Adacore wrote on Wed, 06 August 2008 01:32

I'd suggest the simplest way to negate chaff would be to include the one missile one kill rule in the target attractiveness calculation. So if a missile will do more damage than is required to kill a ship, it is assumed only to do that much damage for the purposes of attractiveness, rather than its maximum damage.

This could create problems elsewhere though - I've not thought it through fully. It would basically mean any very lightly armoured ship wouldn't be targetted by the better missiles/torps unless it was the last thing on the battleboard your ships had orders to shoot at.


What? Making smaller ships useful later in the game? How... sensible! Smile
This could open up some interesting tactics - while small ships still couldn't replace larger ones per se, they could have a useful role on the battlefield.

One approach I haven't seen much mention of yet is to make jamming more useful, so capital ship missiles won't be so powerful.

Report message to a moderator

Re: What might be fixed in a "new" clone game? Fri, 22 August 2008 15:12 Go to previous messageGo to next message
stranger is currently offline stranger

 
Crewman 2nd Class

Messages: 16
Registered: November 2003
Location: Oregon, USA
I actually think that in most cases jamming / computing works out very well. Specifically, BB and Nubians (which have plenty of electrical slots) have a great relationship between Cap Missiles, Torpedoes, Jamming, and Computing.

However, jamming makes no sense on smaller ships, with fewer than three electrical slots available.

Actually, torpedoes / cap missiles are almost never used at all before BB's make a significant number of electrical slots available.

Perhaps small ships (DD, FF, CR) should have a lower cap on accuracy, to sort-of simulate innate jamming. Maybe accuracy of torpedoes / cap missiles can only reach a maximum of 50%, 60%, 75% on those classes of ships. That might give some really interesting effects, such as making beam DDs a useful counter to tricked-out missile BBs in the late game.

I quite like this notion, actually.

--Mr. Strange

Report message to a moderator

Re: What might be fixed in a "new" clone game? Fri, 22 August 2008 19:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
m.a@stars is currently offline m.a@stars

 
Commander

Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left
stranger wrote on Fri, 22 August 2008 21:12

Perhaps small ships (DD, FF, CR) should have a lower cap on accuracy, to sort-of simulate innate jamming. Maybe accuracy of torpedoes / cap missiles can only reach a maximum of 50%, 60%, 75% on those classes of ships. That might give some really interesting effects, such as making beam DDs a useful counter to tricked-out missile BBs in the late game.

Interesting! It could be done by just including some "base jamming" in the hulls themselves. Twisted Evil



So many Stars, so few Missiles!

In space no one can hear you scheme! Deal

Report message to a moderator

Re: What might be fixed in a "new" clone game? Sun, 24 August 2008 21:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Coyote is currently offline Coyote

 
Lt. Commander

Messages: 906
Registered: November 2002
Location: Pacific NW

You still need to bear in mind that while capital ship missiles by themselves are not especially overpowered, they are much moreso combined with strong shield-sapper backup.

Report message to a moderator

Re: What might be fixed in a "new" clone game? Mon, 25 August 2008 02:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sulpholobus is currently offline Sulpholobus

 
Petty Officer 1st Class

Messages: 62
Registered: December 2004
Location: Hotwater

m.a@stars wrote on Sat, 23 August 2008 09:58

stranger wrote on Fri, 22 August 2008 21:12

Perhaps small ships (DD, FF, CR) should have a lower cap on accuracy, to sort-of simulate innate jamming. Maybe accuracy of torpedoes / cap missiles can only reach a maximum of 50%, 60%, 75% on those classes of ships. That might give some really interesting effects, such as making beam DDs a useful counter to tricked-out missile BBs in the late game.

Interesting! It could be done by just including some "base jamming" in the hulls themselves. Twisted Evil


Or even jamming that improves with el tech just like a JoaT's scanners.

Heck, if we could do that how about fuel efficiency not only improving with engine but prop level too?

If your propulsion system powers your energy weapons, perhaps they should be able to be more powerful with propulsion level and engine type upto a maximum capacity of the weapon. That way you may rush to W22 to get MegaD's but they won't be much more powerful than Colloidals because you don't have the propulsions systems to provide sufficient power. In a similar vein then, the IT's antimatter generator should also improve your weapons capability too.

I'm sure you could come up with similar interactions with other technology types to make it much more likely that you have more balanced research. May even make GR more appealing too.

Sulpholobus.

Report message to a moderator

Re: What might be fixed in a "new" clone game? Mon, 25 August 2008 10:14 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Downsider is currently offline Downsider

 
Crewman 1st Class

Messages: 35
Registered: June 2003
Location: Derbyshire, England
Coyote wrote on Mon, 04 August 2008 23:51

Chaff is nothing more than a kludge for balance - it's effective, but ugly.


Absolutely. Missiles kill beamers, beamers kill chaff, chaff kills ... nothing.
This makes chaff useless on it's own and is a break in the otherwise very well balanced rock / paper / scissors model that Stars uses.
I would propose fighters; a new hull type tailored to kill missile ships and soak up missiles without dying too much, but still being vulnerable to beamers.
Think 'FF horde' with higher init, moves and jamming and you're on the right tracks Razz

Sulpholobus wrote on Mon, 25 August 2008 07:21

m.a@stars wrote on Sat, 23 August 2008 09:58

Interesting! It could be done by just including some "base jamming" in the hulls themselves. Twisted Evil


Or even jamming that improves with el tech just like a JoaT's scanners.


That would work very well with the fighter idea, helping to ensure fighters keep up with the latest battle comp tech. Init could be controlled in this way too.



"Violence is the last resort of the incompetent" - Salvor Hardin

Report message to a moderator

Re: What might be fixed in a "new" clone game? Tue, 25 November 2008 14:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
johng316 is currently offline johng316

 
Chief Warrant Officer 3

Messages: 177
Registered: November 2002
Location: Indiana, USA
Adacore wrote on Wed, 06 August 2008 04:32

I'd suggest the simplest way to negate chaff would be to include the one missile one kill rule in the target attractiveness calculation. So if a missile will do more damage than is required to kill a ship, it is assumed only to do that much damage for the purposes of attractiveness, rather than its maximum damage.

This could create problems elsewhere though - I've not thought it through fully. It would basically mean any very lightly armoured ship wouldn't be targetted by the better missiles/torps unless it was the last thing on the battleboard your ships had orders to shoot at.


Could you program battle orders that are more complex? Example: Target priority. 1. Capital Ships, 2. Combat Escorts, 3. Bombers, 4. Transports? Right now there is primary and secondary targeting, but being able to list priorities and having more ways of describing targets could be a simple solution.

Something like this where you could establish targets in order of priority, even something like "target in ascending or decending combat rating" or something like that.



All Your Base Are Belong To Us.

Report message to a moderator

Re: What might be fixed in a "new" clone game? Tue, 25 November 2008 19:30 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Coyote is currently offline Coyote

 
Lt. Commander

Messages: 906
Registered: November 2002
Location: Pacific NW

Being able to set different orders for each hull type in a fleet would be nice too. As well as being able to target specific enemy ship designs, if you so choose.

Also, I'd like to see more useful tactic choices than what we have now - the only ones really worth using are Max Damage Ratio and Disengage. I suppose Max Damage is useful if you have a reason to close to point-blank though.

Report message to a moderator

Previous Topic: Thoughts for UI improvements
Next Topic: help a newb
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Thu Mar 28 17:16:14 EDT 2024