Home World Forum
Stars! AutoHost web forums

Jump to Stars! AutoHost


 
 
Home » Stars! Clones, Extensions, Modding » VML lounge » Experiences with the VML version?!?
Experiences with the VML version?!? Tue, 15 April 2003 10:57 Go to next message
FurFuznel is currently offline FurFuznel

 
Lt. Junior Grade
Stars! Nova developer
Stars! Nova developer

Messages: 437
Registered: November 2002
Location: New Brunswick, Canada
Hello everyone;

I was wondering if anyone has played a full game with the VML mod and has anything to report? Here is a brief synopisis of what I found when my wife and I played against the computer.

To begin I will just briefly describe the race that we were playing. It was an Inner Strength with Improved Fuel Efficiency, Generalized Research, Cheap Engines, and Only Basic Remote Mining. The gravity habitability was one click less than the default and the other habitabilities were at the default values. We had a 15% growth rate, and one resource per 900 colonists. Factory and mine settings were left at the default values except with factories cost 1kt less of Germanium to build. Energy and Biotech were set expensive and the rest left at normal levels.

When we started the game, one of the things that we noticed right away was that the smallest starbase that could be built (the gas pump) could build ships, which made us wonder why anyone would take improved starbases if they were not Alternate Reality.

As our tech levels grew and our empire slowly expanded we were content to colonize a small number of planets and build them up huge in our small universe. Then our dog jumped on the laptop and we had to control alt delte to stop the game from generating turns (but not before 121 turns had gone by).

The surprising thing about this was that we had not been killed. In fact it appeared that the computer players had knocked out most of our starbases but then left us alone and built defense, but never upgraded their ships. So we figured we might as well keep playing.

At this point we ran into one of the neat features of the VML version. We built some huge battleships using top of the line weapons etc. and then could not build them because the top of the line weapons each weighed more than the docking capacity of our starbases!!! It was at this point that we realized that those weapons were most likely meant to be built on the starbases.

The addition of the pocket battleship was quite welcome as it was much easier to build than the full size battleships while still having plenty of options to play with.

Many of the nuances of the VML version were lost on us as the 121 turns generated in the middle of the game skipped us right past them. Therefore, we were wondering what other people have to say about the VML version? What do you like or dislike about it?

Shadallark



Shadallark <==> FurFuznel
Mental anguish is for those who choose to think - FurFuznel
running Mac OS X 10.6.7

Report message to a moderator

Re: Experiences with the VML version?!? Wed, 16 April 2003 14:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Verker is currently offline Verker

 
Master Chief Petty Officer
VML mod guy

Messages: 99
Registered: January 2003
Location: Vienna, AUT
FurFuznel wrote on Tue, 15 April 2003 16:57


I was wondering if anyone has played a full game with the VML mod and has anything to report? Here is a brief synopisis of what I found when my wife and I played against the computer.
Shadallark


Hi there,

1st of all, I wish there were more reports than yours. Since I put it up, there have been nearly 500 players visiting my VML download source. I'd guess that most of them also downloaded and/or tried it. I had a few (positive) individual replies, but not as many as I hoped. Still, VML seems to be the most complete modfile for Stars! that exists until today - and it provides a very different gaming experience over a long game.

If I had to make a guess, reports are not as many mainly due to the fact, that you cannot play VML via AH. The Stars! community that survived until today has got used to AH comfort a lot. It also is a small community, in comparison. VML requires a lot of "new" learning, if you come from std Stars! and are very used to things. There are only a few players that consider an altered gaming experience worth investing the time to learn, and there are even fewer that do also accept the problems that might occur due to "old fashioned" hosting.

I am currently playing in 2 modified pbems, one of them being a VML game, 12 players. We had some trouble to get the game going, as we started out with 16 players. One forgot his PW, so we had to restart. There were 2 early, unmotivated dropouts and the replacements we got were not as commited as we had needed them. This was the 1st VML pbem ever, more an experiment than a game, and people took play far too serious, too tense. Being the host of that game, I decided to stop it, since I felt that I had stressed everybodies nerves too much as another player dropped out.

But then something positive happened: Eventhough the game was troublesome until the twenties when we stopped, 12 players decided they wanted to go for another restart. Someone else took over the hosting and we are in 2409 ATM IIRC.

BTW, concerning software, there wasn't a single problem so far.

FurFuznel wrote on Tue, 15 April 2003 16:57


Therefore, we were wondering what other people have to say about the VML version? What do you like or dislike about it?



Ok, I may not be the most representative person to answer this, but here's my top 3 likings/dislikings:

pro:
1) decent changes in shipline, that enhances depth of play. Some are very subtle, but once discovered seem rewarding. Not just a "race to Nubians".
2) whole new weapon allignment, a lot of "base only" items, chaff issues solved. The role of bases has been redefined as much as possible.
3) cool graphics

con:
1) changes to terraforming costs described in the helpfile (=CA balancing changes) do not work in games, as a planetary production queue will always override the cost given from the tech browser
2) cheaters: players can do nasty things by opening and saving gamefiles with different versions of Stars! and VML. Most of the time a host will notice that by seeing in game msgs that make no sense, but there's no guarantuee.
3) not enough players available to fill pbems, at least not without mixing skill levels

FurFuznel wrote on Tue, 15 April 2003 16:57


noticed right away was that the smallest starbase that could be built (the gas pump) could build ships, which made us wonder why anyone would take improved starbases if they were not Alternate Reality


Look at it from the other side: it is part of the concept, that starting shipyard capacity is very limited. You will not really notice that until PBs are out or you want to mount the heavies on a ship. ISB is pretty much a "must have" in VML games. That has a huge impact on balancing, IOW the AR PRT becomes "cheaper" compared to others, while other common LRTs become less desired due to becoming the 5th LRT in many cases. OTOH, a race renouncing ISB will have a greater RW point advantage over others than in normal games. And so on.

Besides, the gas pump is just enough to build colonizers and privateers with non-sophisticated engines. It is not a substitue for a dock.

There is a lot of other base related issues in VML, but I'll cut it here (post getting too long otherwise).

FurFuznel wrote on Tue, 15 April 2003 16:57

Many of the nuances of the VML version were lost on us as the 121 turns generated in the middle of the game skipped us right past them.


Very true, even for me who has developed VML. I more than keen to see things in a mid to late game, with pocket BBs, chaff shredders, pocket Nubs, combo shipslots and all the other stuff in full action.

BTW, there has been someone on rgcs been showing his will to host a VML game lately. I will support anyone who does every way I can. If anyone reading this is interested in participation, reply to his rgcs post or mail me.

I also have a strong feeling that once the first 2 or 3 pbems have been finished, players involved will try and start their own VML game. But it may be a year or a half until then. Time will tell.

Qs anybody?



Verker ||¬]

verker@iname.donotspamhere.com remove the obvious for mailing me

Report message to a moderator

Re: Experiences with the VML version?!? Thu, 17 April 2003 00:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Peptis is currently offline Peptis

 
Petty Officer 3rd Class

Messages: 45
Registered: November 2002
Location: Canberra, Australia

Verker wrote on Thu, 17 April 2003 04:15


If I had to make a guess, reports are not as many mainly due to the fact, that you cannot play VML via AH. The Stars! community that survived until today has got used to AH comfort a lot.


I know AH allowed Ron to use either RC3 or RC4 for hosted games. IIRC RC3 has been faded out and is not being used anymore. The capability is obviously there to use more than one version of Stars! on AH, so maybe you could convince Ron to run VML for some games.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Experiences with the VML version?!? Thu, 17 April 2003 07:01 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Verker is currently offline Verker

 
Master Chief Petty Officer
VML mod guy

Messages: 99
Registered: January 2003
Location: Vienna, AUT
Peptis wrote on Thu, 17 April 2003 06:08


I know AH allowed Ron to use either RC3 or RC4 for hosted games. IIRC RC3 has been faded out and is not being used anymore. The capability is obviously there to use more than one version of Stars! on AH, so maybe you could convince Ron to run VML for some games.


We did already talk it over, and no, there's no chance for VML games to be run on AH. This is not due to rc3 rc4 issues, but to the fact that VML requires another, edited exe. Jeff from MC does not like his exe to be modified very much, thus he will not give his permission to run VML on AH.

Ofc there are sites similar to AH, but I havent tried it there yet, since none of them comes really close to AH.

Btw, rc3 and rc4 are not both run on AH, it is just that you can host games with rc3 player files by using rc4. IIRC AH just runs rc4, thats it.



Verker ||¬]

verker@iname.donotspamhere.com remove the obvious for mailing me

Report message to a moderator

Re: Experiences with the VML version?!? Fri, 18 April 2003 12:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ron is currently offline Ron

 
Commander
Forum Administrator
Stars! AutoHost Administrator

Messages: 1224
Registered: October 2002
Location: Collegedale, TN
Verker wrote on Thu, 17 April 2003 07:01

We did already talk it over, and no, there's no chance for VML games to be run on AH. This is not due to rc3 rc4 issues, but to the fact that VML requires another, edited exe. Jeff from MC does not like his exe to be modified very much, thus he will not give his permission to run VML on AH.

Not quite... Jeff did not 'refuse to give permission'. He stated his dislike for exe file modification, and left the decision up to me. In my reply to Verker, I mentioned that if I allowed VML games to run on AutoHost, and VML really caught on, it would be hard to standardize on one version of VML for the sake of players. Therefore, I decided not to host VML games on AutoHost.

Quote:

Btw, rc3 and rc4 are not both run on AH, it is just that you can host games with rc3 player files by using rc4. IIRC AH just runs rc4, thats it.


All new games started on AutoHost since February or so use rc4. Any games started before the switchover time who did not request to be moved to rc4, are still using rc3. Each game's web page on AutoHost displays what version that game is using.

Correct that rc4 can host player files that use rc3. Rc4 is mostly server-side bug fixes.

Players would not (AFAIK) benefit any from using rc4 on their local computers instead of rc3.



Ron Miller
Stars! AutoHost

Report message to a moderator

Re: Experiences with the VML version?!? Sun, 18 May 2003 16:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ASword is currently offline ASword

 
Petty Officer 2nd Class

Messages: 57
Registered: May 2003
Location: Canada, Earth, Sol, minor...
I just played a quick game against a few computer opponents in a large galaxy. The mod definitely has some odd effects on the game balance. The most unexpected was that I could build "normal" capital missile ship fleets once I had the enigma pulsar from the MT. They were "limited" to warp8 but used zero fuel at that speed and once I had range 6 missiles the battles were hopelessly one-sided. Also, the "chaff-killer" weapons will kill anything rather effectively and at long range. Playing a full game against a human player might be interesting just to see the effects of the changes, but I think game balance may have been seriously compromised in a couple of ways.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Experiences with the VML version?!? Sun, 18 May 2003 16:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Verker is currently offline Verker

 
Master Chief Petty Officer
VML mod guy

Messages: 99
Registered: January 2003
Location: Vienna, AUT
ASword wrote on Sun, 18 May 2003 22:17

I think game balance may have been seriously compromised in a couple of ways.



I find this quite amusing. This is your 1st posting on this forum, you did a quick vs AI test, resulting in such a statement.

Have you read the VML helpfile? Just in case you did not, quoting from there: "the braindead AI won't be able to make the most of the changes. Expect weird ship designs from the AI. This mod was made for human (pbem) play!".

Concerning 0 fuel usage in general: You do understad the ramscoop concept of Stars! as such, do you?

I also would not judge balancing by using MT toys. There's only 2 engines, that allow W8 at 0 fuel usage in VML: One is at prop20, one is MT stuff. Other than that, you will be limited to W7 when mounting cap missiles on ships (remember: original Stars! does not limit cap missile mounting at all, and also does not address chaff support). Thus, you will go 49lys/turn, while other ships with regular weapons will go up to 100lys/turn on the map, plus(!) gating. This is part of the VML concept, and I cannot see how this could be worse balancing vs std Stars!

Chaff shredders: I suggest you try heavy shielding and/or armor vs chaff shredders. They cut through shielded scouts and frigates like butter, but even decently designed DDs will give them a hard time, not to speak of mainline warships: They will be twice as fast on the map, twice as fast on the battleboard. Besides, ships with chaff shredders will get nowhere, cant be gated etc. They only have one purpose (and they work well there): a defensive weapon, that will kill decent numbers of chaff before missiles are wasted by firing on them.

Even if I do not share your opinions: thanks for the feedback. If you think I am wrong, well, I'll give you a hard time in a 1vs1, if you want (without mounting any cap missile on a ship...).



Verker ||¬]

verker@iname.donotspamhere.com remove the obvious for mailing me

Report message to a moderator

Re: Experiences with the VML version?!? Mon, 19 May 2003 02:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ASword is currently offline ASword

 
Petty Officer 2nd Class

Messages: 57
Registered: May 2003
Location: Canada, Earth, Sol, minor...
[quote]
Verker wrote on Sun, 18 May 2003 13:50

ASword wrote on Sun, 18 May 2003 22:17

I think game balance may have been seriously compromised in a couple of ways.



I find this quite amusing. This is your 1st posting on this forum, you did a quick vs AI test, resulting in such a statement.



Heh, sorry -- my statement came out wrong. I wasn't basing it on the game against the AI at all, that was just the place I was exploring the modifications. I realize that the AI hasn't been modified to understand the mod and will behave rather oddly. As I said, it would be interesting to play a human with the mod to see how things really shake out. I have no doubt you could clean my clock quite easily. Smile

Quote:

Concerning 0 fuel usage in general: You do understad the ramscoop concept of Stars! as such, do you? ... I also would not judge balancing by using MT toys... This is part of the VML concept, and I cannot see how this could be worse balancing vs std Stars!


Yes, I understand scoops. I wasn't clear -- one issue I was concerned with was that normally catching one or two MT toys when your opponent does not has a minimal effect on things. If you happen to get the enigma engine, however, it seems like it would suddenly give you a much larger advantage than the MT normally conveys (i.e. faster missile battleships).

Quote:

Chaff shredders: I suggest you try heavy shielding and/or armor vs chaff shredders. They cut through shielded scouts and frigates like butter, but even decently designed DDs will give them a hard time, not to speak of mainline warships: They will be twice as fast on the map, twice as fast on the battleboard. Besides, ships with chaff shredders will get nowhere, cant be gated etc. They only have one purpose (and they work well there): a defensive weapon, that will kill decent numbers of chaff before missiles are wasted by firing on them.


They are still powerful and very long ranged beam weapons though and this just exaggerates the MT engine benefit further. In battle the slow speed won't matter a great deal due to the range of the beams, will it?

The "no ram scoops" minor racial trait looks much less attractive with this mod, no? The race I was using had this trait, perhaps without it the Enigma wouldn't have seemed such a big advantage.

As for not being able to gate these things, this does remind me of a bug I ran into, however, and that was fully loaded missile / chaff-shredder battleships with the Enigma engine were gateable through a 300kT/500ly gate. Probably an overflow bug, but I thought I had read that you had fiddled with the masses to avoid the problem. I downloaded the version from your website today.


Sorry if my message came off half-cocked, it wasn't my intention to come across as harsh (I was a bit rushed). It is an interesting mod, and obviously a major change to the way the game is played. Pity the Auto-Host won't host it.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Experiences with the VML version?!? Mon, 19 May 2003 08:37 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Verker is currently offline Verker

 
Master Chief Petty Officer
VML mod guy

Messages: 99
Registered: January 2003
Location: Vienna, AUT
[quote title=ASword wrote on Mon, 19 May 2003 08:17]
Quote:


In battle the slow speed won't matter a great deal due to the range of the beams, will it?


Ceartainly true. I meant a retreat fire tactic on the battleboard will be much less effective, than between ships of compareable weight. In general, one will want to design ships which are meant to counter "heavy weapons" around a "fast closing in" idea.

[quote title=ASword wrote on Mon, 19 May 2003 08:17]
Quote:


The "no ram scoops" minor racial trait looks much less attractive with this mod, no? The race I was using had this trait, perhaps without it the Enigma wouldn't have seemed such a big advantage.


The latter, yes. About NRSE - that depends. No one is forced to try "heavy items" on vessels, mind you. On the contrary: renouncing ISB and ramscoops will give a RW points advantage, that will make a significant economic difference. One of the things I am looking fwd to see in real (mid to end) games is how races going one or the other way behave vs each other. Not to speak of trade, since "heavy items" are cheap, just difficult to mount. Think more interesting alliances, and such.

[quote title=ASword wrote on Mon, 19 May 2003 08:17]
Quote:


As for not being able to gate these things, this does remind me of a bug I ran into, however, and that was fully loaded missile / chaff-shredder battleships with the Enigma engine were gateable through a 300kT/500ly gate. Probably an overflow bug, but I thought I had read that you had fiddled with the masses to avoid the problem. I downloaded the version from your website today.


Hmm, that sounds like a serious problem to me. Should not happen - in my tests, I got "attempted to use a stargate at nnn, but could not because ships of the type nnnn are too massive"-msgs regularly.

Are you a member of my VML-mailing list? If so, you already got my private e-mail address and could fwd me the files (if you still have them). In case you don't: what version (see naming of the zip package / exe file) of VML did you use? Are you absolutely sure you didn't run std Stars! the same time? What was the ship design exactly and did it show negative numbers anywhere? (thanks for your time, if you decide to answer these)

[quote title=ASword wrote on Mon, 19 May 2003 08:17]
Quote:


Sorry if my message came off half-cocked, it wasn't my intention to come across as harsh


NP, we have sorted that out already, havent we? Besides, I am happy about any sort of feedback. Sometimes the negative ones take you a lot further than anything else.

regards,



Verker ||¬]

verker@iname.donotspamhere.com remove the obvious for mailing me

Report message to a moderator

Re: Experiences with the VML version?!? Mon, 19 May 2003 14:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ASword is currently offline ASword

 
Petty Officer 2nd Class

Messages: 57
Registered: May 2003
Location: Canada, Earth, Sol, minor...
The battleship class had 4 enigma engines, all weapon slots held Armaggedon missiles (22 of them), 3 BattleNexus, 3 Jammer50, 6 SuperLatanium, and 8 Complete Phase Shields. Obviously a very late game ship. Smile

Normally a ship like this won't even try to use the stargates, but when I gave it orders between planets with gates it automatically selected to use the gates... I was surprised but it certainly let me get the fleet into action quick. Very Happy

I grabbed the latest zip from your website: VML_1.3.exe

I'm not on the VML list, but it should be easy to reproduce this problem in a testbed.

Report message to a moderator

icon9.gif  Re: Experiences with the VML version?!? Tue, 20 May 2003 11:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Verker is currently offline Verker

 
Master Chief Petty Officer
VML mod guy

Messages: 99
Registered: January 2003
Location: Vienna, AUT
ASword wrote on Mon, 19 May 2003 20:47

I'm not on the VML list, but it should be easy to reproduce this problem in a testbed.


Normally, I'd say someone who does provide feedback should get on that list. Just mail me your e-mail address if you want to get there (no catch, just infos, polls, game invitations, VML beta info and the like).

Yes, I can confirm this as a bug (I could gate it without any damage) - this is bad news for the VML concept, especially since the exe does no wrapping with the numbers in our test. Hence, one can build ships with *double* the weight of your BB Mk II in VML (DN, full heavy items >60000kts). So far, I did rely on the numbers concerning the gateability of ships, after I had verified that you would get a "too heavy to gate" msg after a certain point. Sigh. This will result in a lot of testing and overworking VML.

Thanks for discovering it anyway.



Verker ||¬]

verker@iname.donotspamhere.com remove the obvious for mailing me

Report message to a moderator

Re: Experiences with the VML version?!? Tue, 20 May 2003 13:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Verker is currently offline Verker

 
Master Chief Petty Officer
VML mod guy

Messages: 99
Registered: January 2003
Location: Vienna, AUT
Verker wrote on Tue, 20 May 2003 17:41

This will result in a lot of testing and overworking VML.


Ok, as far as I could test this in the short time given: "heavies" seem to work as I planned when trying to gate up to a weight of approx 32300kt ship weight (no matter which gates, or combo of gates one is trying to use). At a weight of approx 33900kt the exe seems to go nuts (though there is no wrapping of numbers) and allows gating without damage. Interesting enough, at 60000kt/ship, the exe shows "uncertain", but also gates without damage.

If all of the above was correct, I'd have to cut the weight of heavies about in half. Hmm, not sure if this is still consistant with my attempts in fuel usage / starbase dock size.

I'd need someone to verify these numbers, esp with all gate combos possible, to ensure this is not only a problem with my beta / my machine etc.

Please post here, if you could verify them. Thanks.





Verker ||¬]

verker@iname.donotspamhere.com remove the obvious for mailing me

Report message to a moderator

Re: Experiences with the VML version?!? Tue, 20 May 2003 13:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
LEit is currently offline LEit

 
Lt. Commander

Messages: 879
Registered: April 2003
Location: CT
Based on the numbers (30k and 60k), I'd guess that Stars! stores the size of a ship in a 16 bit signed integer. 16 bit makes sense because it's a 16 bit program. Signed isn't ideal for mass (which can't get negative, so why allow that), but signed is the default with most compilers, and as long as you don't exceed 32k there isn't any reason to worry about it.

So when the mass exceeds 32767 it goes negative, and can be gated. It probably doesn't affect fuel usage, becase that probably is added into a long (maybe even unsigned) for a fleet, and would have to exceed 2 billion kT to hit a signed long limit (which might be possible with enough huge ships), and 4 billion kT if it's an unsigned long.

When the mass gets above 65536 it will be treated as 0 for gates, and if it goes higher it'll start having a positive mass again. So for a 300kT gate, you will start having problems again when the mass is over 65836kT.

You should probably just take these numbers as numbers to test, in case my theory is wrong.



- LEit

Report message to a moderator

Re: Experiences with the VML version?!? Tue, 20 May 2003 17:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Verker is currently offline Verker

 
Master Chief Petty Officer
VML mod guy

Messages: 99
Registered: January 2003
Location: Vienna, AUT
ASword, LEit:

I just finished a new beta (VML v1.3b), that should take care of the problem (damn, I always knew I was fast, but *that* was fast) Wink. Ey Ron - errr, Admiral - what about a leap over a few military ranks? Very Happy

Quoting from the helpfile:

xxx discovered gating bug, that lead to the following changes:
015 changed weight of "heavy items" to 800kt, fixing a bug that let ships >32000kt use gates
016 rearranged stargate classes (mass and range), pictures, tech levels
017 changed FM W10 fuel consumption
018 BB Mk II now con17
019 DN Mk II now con20
020 renamed some starbase hulls
021 (ex)changed DS and ultra station to "boost" AR, altered tech requirements for both
022 downgraded DS shipyard
023 updated splashscreen
024 updated helpfile

(end quote)

If your mailboxes can take 1.2megs, mail me and I'll fwd you the files for testing (nearly 12pm now, no time to put up a download source tonight).



Verker ||¬]

verker@iname.donotspamhere.com remove the obvious for mailing me

Report message to a moderator

Re: Experiences with the VML version?!? Tue, 20 May 2003 23:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
The Taubat is currently offline The Taubat

 
Officer Cadet 3rd Year

Messages: 263
Registered: December 2002
OK there is one BIG problem with doing this with the DS, if you want heavies, ya gotta go down in 1,000,000 pop Sad this is very very bad, there would be no way an AR could sacrafice 1,000,000 pop just for heavies. if you could put the DS shipyard capacity up to like 5200 KT, course, an AR just take a small world that wasnt too good and put 2,000,000 pop on it, ya wouldnt lose that many rescourses.


Royal Sha'a'kar of the Taubat people

Report message to a moderator

Re: Experiences with the VML version?!? Wed, 21 May 2003 01:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Verker is currently offline Verker

 
Master Chief Petty Officer
VML mod guy

Messages: 99
Registered: January 2003
Location: Vienna, AUT
Wrong Taubat. With a 1600kt dock, you will be able to mount 1 "heavy item", like anyone else not using ISB. If you want to mount more (which you are not forced to, mind you), you take ISB and upgrade to the ultra. Since even AR can overpop it a lot, you will still be able to get decent resources for fitting ships ("heavy items" are not expensive, just massive). No need to upgrade everywhere, besides, using freighters the pop is not even lost, if you upgrade temporarily.

Concerning AR changes, I am *really* working hard on things to improve their performance, but there always is "one big problem", no matter what you do. Mind you, I have to live with the initial limitations of Stars!, even with VML.

Anyway, thanks for your remarks. Maybe we can even improve from here on. But may I suggest you try out the changes, before you judge just by a helpfile quote?



Verker ||¬]

verker@iname.donotspamhere.com remove the obvious for mailing me

Report message to a moderator

Re: Experiences with the VML version?!? Wed, 21 May 2003 02:19 Go to previous messageGo to next message
iztok is currently offline iztok

 
Commander

Messages: 1195
Registered: April 2003
Location: Slovenia, Europe
Hi!
The Taubat wrote on Tue, 20 May 2003 23:09

...if you want heavies, ya gotta go down in 1,000,000 pop Sad ... ya wouldnt lose that many rescourses.

It is exactly 513 resources decrease (En 26, 100% planet, from 2793 to 2280), and if you put those 1M pop to a RED planet you get 403 res back. Not so big loss IMO. You are even not forced to do that with every Deathstar. And remember, you get DEATHSTAR at around con 13, that will increase your pop threefold (2-fold with US) and res output by 73% (44%). That would happen in the time-frame other fac-based races start getting a lot of free resources from already built factories and would allow AR to stay competitive in a tech race.
BR, Iztok

Report message to a moderator

Re: Experiences with the VML version?!? Wed, 21 May 2003 10:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ASword is currently offline ASword

 
Petty Officer 2nd Class

Messages: 57
Registered: May 2003
Location: Canada, Earth, Sol, minor...
Wow -- don't you guys think that this is giving AR too much of an edge? AR might be hard to play, but if you're going to beat them you have to do so in the early-to-mid game because in the end game they become immensely strong. Here you are dramatically improving their mid-game by giving them the growth potential of the DS early. The (relative) inability to build ships carrying missiles, but the ease of mounting them on bases improves the AR defence capability further. Is there some other change that has weakened them in VML?

Report message to a moderator

Re: Experiences with the VML version?!? Wed, 21 May 2003 11:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Verker is currently offline Verker

 
Master Chief Petty Officer
VML mod guy

Messages: 99
Registered: January 2003
Location: Vienna, AUT
ASword wrote on Wed, 21 May 2003 16:50

Is there some other change that has weakened them in VML?


Yes, especially better remote mining for everyone and a lot higher TF tech requirements (which are meant to slow CA, but they also hurt std races, and ARs even more). Example: radiation TF +/-11 comes at weap 17, bio 3 tech.

Initially I tried to alter TF resource cost, but there is a bug in Stars! that overrides the value, when TF is in a production queue. I have asked Jeff to gimme a hand, but he does not like his exe to be edited, so he didn't help. Thus, later TF seemed the way to go, it should also slow CAs early advantage a bit. Unfortunately, it also hurts AR more than I thought.

The VML game I am playing in is currently 2430, and does not have the early DS change. I'm looking fwd to the next game with VML1.3b or whatever will be the next release, and look at AR players / enemies feedback.



Verker ||¬]

verker@iname.donotspamhere.com remove the obvious for mailing me

Report message to a moderator

Re: Experiences with the VML version?!? Wed, 21 May 2003 21:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ASword is currently offline ASword

 
Petty Officer 2nd Class

Messages: 57
Registered: May 2003
Location: Canada, Earth, Sol, minor...
Just thinking out loud here, perhaps there is another way to hurt CA without impact the rest of the races? It might not be limiting their strength (terraforming), but something else.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Experiences with the VML version?!? Wed, 21 May 2003 22:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
The Taubat is currently offline The Taubat

 
Officer Cadet 3rd Year

Messages: 263
Registered: December 2002
ok, how? they have free terraforming, making their OA higher tech wont work, just about nothing will but removing their free terraforming will work, and their is no way you can do that.


Royal Sha'a'kar of the Taubat people

Report message to a moderator

Re: Experiences with the VML version?!? Thu, 22 May 2003 03:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
iztok is currently offline iztok

 
Commander

Messages: 1195
Registered: April 2003
Location: Slovenia, Europe
Hi!
Limiting CAs? Well, then we'd need to limit JoaTs the next as they'd become too powerful, and then the ... Smile

There's a nice proposal that deals with that issue. When designing a race a player has to leave a certain amount of RW points unspent. You can find the scale for all PRTs in RGCS thread "An introduction to blitzing" under "Handicap rules".

AFAIK these rules were also used in PBEM games and I didn't find any complaints so far.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Experiences with the VML version?!? Thu, 22 May 2003 05:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
regiss

 
Petty Officer 1st Class

Messages: 65
Registered: November 2002
Quote:

Initially I tried to alter TF resource cost, but there is a bug in Stars! that overrides the value, when TF is in a production queue.


I think it's not a bug, but overriding value left intentionally
to make sure that terraforming isn't affected by miniaturisation.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Experiences with the VML version?!? Sat, 24 May 2003 10:27 Go to previous message
ASword is currently offline ASword

 
Petty Officer 2nd Class

Messages: 57
Registered: May 2003
Location: Canada, Earth, Sol, minor...
The Taubat wrote on Wed, 21 May 2003 19:27

ok, how? they have free terraforming, making their OA higher tech wont work, just about nothing will but removing their free terraforming will work, and their is no way you can do that.


They key to coming up with a new approach is to avoid ruling out the possibility in your first sentence.

iztok wrote:


There's a nice proposal that deals with that issue. When designing a race a player has to leave a certain amount of RW points unspent. You can find the scale for all PRTs in RGCS thread "An introduction to blitzing" under "Handicap rules".


The racial point cost must be in the executable somewhere -- has Verker gone looking for it yet?

Report message to a moderator

Previous Topic: new VML game
Next Topic: Any improvements to StarEd? (or my other software)
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Sat May 15 19:00:31 EDT 2021