Home World Forum
Stars! AutoHost web forums

Jump to Stars! AutoHost


 
 
Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Bar » Unofficial patch...
Re: Unofficial patch... Mon, 13 March 2006 13:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kelzar is currently offline Kelzar

 
Master Chief Petty Officer

Messages: 112
Registered: January 2006
Location: Ohio, US
I just thought about a possible way to ease the CA instaforming imbalance that could probably be easily patched.....
rather than just assigning a blanket value to select the CA PRT have the costs for growth percentage for CA increased.

CA seems to be, by design, the econ king right? My feel is that they still should be but by a much smaller margin.

I would suggest running testbeds for "identical" JoAT and CA for a variety of LRT/hab/econ/research settings with the only difference being in the growth percentage. When the CA growth curve is very similar to the JoAT of identical make, then approximate additional costs for that step of growth percentage for CA is determined. If many of us post our own suggested offsets and we all could help shape CA as a viable unbanned race.

CA keeps instaforming, and OA exactly as they are, but it will cost them more to climb higher up in growth percentage.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Unofficial patch... Sat, 01 April 2006 00:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
multilis is currently offline multilis

 
Lt. Commander

Messages: 789
Registered: October 2003
Location: Edmonton, Canada

Second weakest/most underused PRT[ 22 votes ]
1. HE 3 / 14%
2. SS 4 / 18%
3. WM 6 / 27%
4. AR 9 / 41%

I think most of us agree that PP PRT is the weakest.

But which one is next? I have heard WM claimed to be weakest, but I am seeing more WM than HE myself.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Unofficial patch... Sat, 01 April 2006 14:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
crr65536 is currently offline crr65536

 
Chief Warrant Officer 3

Messages: 180
Registered: June 2005
Kelzar wrote on Mon, 13 March 2006 13:07


CA seems to be, by design, the econ king right? My feel is that they still should be but by a much smaller margin.



*Not* by design. I doubt they were originally intended to be any stronger, economically, than JOAT. However, when the concept of "monster" races was developed, CA was found to be much more powerful than originally intended. Remember, the CA PRT was made and then given instaforming with just a couple months, before they had seriously evaluated how balanced it would be.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Unofficial patch... Sat, 01 April 2006 17:53 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kotk

 
Commander

Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003
multilis wrote on Sat, 01 April 2006 08:09

I have heard WM claimed to be weakest, but I am seeing more WM than HE myself.

AR is quite unplayable in most smaller games.
WM needs good ally.
SS is also weak.
HE is quite strong. It is banned like CA in current game i am playing in.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Unofficial patch... Mon, 03 April 2006 16:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message
wizard is currently offline wizard

 
Officer Cadet 3rd Year

Messages: 279
Registered: January 2004
Location: Aachen, Germany
I would have voted AR for being the second weakest... if possible.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Unofficial patch... Mon, 03 April 2006 21:53 Go to previous messageGo to next message
multilis is currently offline multilis

 
Lt. Commander

Messages: 789
Registered: October 2003
Location: Edmonton, Canada
AR added. Of course special case because of mineral fountain.

IMO most of us playing "no acc-bbs" (instead skip some turns in beginning) would make for better games/race variation and help AR.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Unofficial patch... Tue, 04 April 2006 01:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
iztok is currently offline iztok

 
Commander

Messages: 1202
Registered: April 2003
Location: Slovenia, Europe
Hi!
wizard wrote on Mon, 03 April 2006 22:43

I would have voted AR for being the second weakest... if possible.

But AR becomes stronger with the time, and that's exactly opposite to WM. You can include the SS here too. It peaks in mid-game, then its advantages lose on strenght. IMO Kotk said it all what's needed.
BR, Iztok

Report message to a moderator

Re: Unofficial patch... Wed, 05 April 2006 12:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
PricklyPea is currently offline PricklyPea

 
Lieutenant

Messages: 534
Registered: February 2005
Kotk wrote on Sat, 11 March 2006 18:36


IFE - would often pay 10 points more for it
ARM - would substract at least 10 points to make it worth considering
GR - would like to get ~20 points more from it
UR - would consider it if it costed ~20 points less
MA - maybe if it costed 30 points less or gave access to some unique gadget
NRSE - would probably take even for 10 points less
CE - lot more pain than NAS so ~20 points more would be fair
OBRM - really gives at least 20 points more than should
NAS - gives lot of points but i still often play without it. 10 points less would be OK
LSP - gives OK points more or less
BET - not sure if i took it if it gave 30 points more
RS - its too cheap or even gives points i always have it



I actually agree with a lot of your RW suggestions above. For BET, what if we create a Tech 27 level so that there is no double cost nubian problem?

What do you think of making fuel mizer W10 efficiency same as current W9 efficiency but making W7-9 expensive (i.e. you can go W10 fast, but you take the 10% risk?).

GR, I would increase the research bonuses. e.g. 50% main field 20% in remaining fields (150% total research).

NRSE, RS and NAS I change in crabby by making scoops, penscanners and armour more attractive.


[Updated on: Wed, 05 April 2006 12:32]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Unofficial patch... Thu, 06 April 2006 02:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
iztok is currently offline iztok

 
Commander

Messages: 1202
Registered: April 2003
Location: Slovenia, Europe
Hi!
PricklyPea wrote on Wed, 05 April 2006 18:30

What do you think of making fuel mizer W10 efficiency same as current W9 efficiency but making W7-9 expensive (i.e. you can go W10 fast, but you take the 10% risk?).

It wouldn't change much for me. The time I use FM the most is in expansion phase, and there I can not afford losing 10% of pop and ships just to travel warp-10 (what I already can anyway).
BR, Iztok

Report message to a moderator

Re: Unofficial patch... Thu, 06 April 2006 11:11 Go to previous messageGo to next message
LEit is currently offline LEit

 
Lt. Commander

Messages: 879
Registered: April 2003
Location: CT
He was suggesting making w7-9 cost more fuel then w10. So you can go warp 10 with fairly affordable fuel costs, or spend more and be slow and safe.


- LEit

Report message to a moderator

Re: Unofficial patch... Thu, 06 April 2006 13:12 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kotk

 
Commander

Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003
PricklyPea wrote on Wed, 05 April 2006 19:30

I actually agree with a lot of your RW suggestions above. For BET, what if we create a Tech 27 level so that there is no double cost nubian problem?

Maybe it is hard to do by hacking? Rolling Eyes Tech is a factor in lot of calculations and places. Tons of things may go broken. Nod
Quote:

What do you think of making fuel mizer W10 efficiency same as current W9 efficiency but making W7-9 expensive (i.e. you can go W10 fast, but you take the 10% risk?).

FM is actually only *slightly* too good engine at warps 8 and 9. Change too lot and IFE is not worth the points anymore. Easy to do like you say but sounds too major change from gaming perspective, it turns IFE quite pointless LRT to take.
Quote:

GR, I would increase the research bonuses. e.g. 50% main field 20% in remaining fields (150% total research).

GR-s current problem is that early about one third of that 125% total feels going into at least two wrong fields (one you plan to buy and other you dont need at all). Later, extra goes into maxed out fields. So it is bigger disadvantage than it seems at first. Wink
+50% to overall research however sounds too lot Rolling Eyes ... it turns what was meant as a slight disadvantage into an advantage i feel. Very Happy Who cares if one third of 150% goes into wrong fields... it is free anyway. 50%/17% (or 60%/15%) would probably stay as a slight disadvantage (135% total) like meant.
Quote:

NRSE, RS and NAS I change in crabby by making scoops, penscanners and armour more attractive.

It is hard to avoid breaking the balance in other direction by changing lots of things.
Penscanners are already quite good. If you make them better then you give more advantage to NAS guy who is buying these. Wink
Scoops are also quite good already ... P6 Ram is slightly too weak and P12 Ram slightly too expensive. As i said ... feels that people get ~10 RW points too lot from NRSE, so it is easy to overreact there.
About armor ... i have not calculated. Right now i dont take RS only if it is forbidden. Laughing I use armor only on orbitals and as weight on overcloakers. Rolling Eyes Maybe i overestimate the weakness of armor. Do you make all armor 30% cheaper and half lighter?


[Updated on: Thu, 06 April 2006 13:18]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Unofficial patch... Thu, 06 April 2006 14:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
PricklyPea is currently offline PricklyPea

 
Lieutenant

Messages: 534
Registered: February 2005
>Maybe it is hard to do by hacking? Rolling Eyes Tech is a factor in lot of calculations and places. Tons of things may go broken. Nod

Well, let's assume it can be done Smile

FM is actually only *slightly* too good engine at warps 8 and 9. Change too lot and IFE is not worth the points anymore. Easy to do like you say but sounds too major change from gaming perspective, it turns IFE quite pointless LRT to take.

You really think 10% chance is that bad? I would still take it.

>>>+50% to overall research however sounds too lot

do you think so? you will still have wasted research (bio, prop, maxxed out techs) and you will never win the race to jihads, or nubians, or arms etc.

>Penscanners are already quite good. If you make them better then you give more advantage to NAS guy who is buying these. Wink

provide a worse version earlier when it is useful for early scouting.

>Scoops are also quite good already ... P6 Ram is slightly too

again, the change is the timing of when these available (e.g. p6 made much earlier tech but not improved).

>Do you make all armor 30% cheaper and half lighter?

No, I make some lighter and increase dp on some. I also add a non-RS only armour (ultralite armour, that is very light but only 100dp and an armour with shield component).

Report message to a moderator

Re: Unofficial patch... Thu, 06 April 2006 16:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kotk

 
Commander

Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003
PricklyPea wrote on Thu, 06 April 2006 21:57

Well, let's assume it can be done Smile

Then it sounds like good idea indeed.
Quote:

You really think 10% chance is that bad? I would still take it.

It is not 10% chance, it is 90% chance to survive *one* year of travel. Usually one wants to travel within 200ly range(19% chance) or 300ly range(27% chance). Sounds terrible. Especially if it does not take too big investments to travel without IFE anyway.
Quote:


do you think so? you will still have wasted research (bio, prop, maxxed out techs) and you will never win the race to jihads, or nubians, or arms etc.

Bio is not so wasted for SD or SS or any TT race. Prop is quite OK tech, especially if you make scoops better and turn FM useless. Wink I rarely build unbalanced designs like (Jihad DDs). 50% boost is quite a candy especially in a slow tech game.
I have found that GR is not so bad if allies do pop drop trade and have some use for bio. Nod

Report message to a moderator

Re: Unofficial patch... Thu, 06 April 2006 17:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Marduk is currently offline Marduk

 
Ensign

Messages: 345
Registered: January 2003
Location: Dayton, OH
Kotk wrote on Thu, 06 April 2006 16:17

PricklyPea wrote on Thu, 06 April 2006 21:57

You really think 10% chance is that bad? I would still take it.

It is not 10% chance, it is 90% chance to survive *one* year of travel. Usually one wants to travel within 200ly range(19% chance) or 300ly range(27% chance). Sounds terrible. Especially if it does not take too big investments to travel without IFE anyway.

I'm with Kotk on this one. My last playtest with a CE race (last night, so very clear in my memory) had my first 11 ship movement orders fail. That's five years of the starting scout not moving, two years of the starting colony ship not moving (after tiring of waiting for the scout), and two years of two more scouts not moving (built after three years of the first scout failing to go). CE has the same '10%' chance of failure as W10 travel, so I wouldn't go with this option myself.

And I totally reaffirmed my hatred of CE. No idea why I even bothered considering it again.

Quote:

Quote:

you will still have wasted research (bio, prop, maxxed out techs) and you will never win the race to jihads, or nubians, or arms etc.


You'll win the race if you have twice the resources of your opponents - you won't have to detour to pick up those few levels that you need in other techs. One of those 'great plan, hard to implement' things, I know.

For Prop 26, add a wormhole generator. Generates a wormhole within some distance of the planet you build it on, and the other end randomly determined. Are wormholes prevented from landing on planets, by the way? Would you have to worry about having your ships sucked away, or perhaps wake up to find your homeworld in the middle of the enemy empire?

Bio 26, the Wave Motion Gun. As I recall, the Yamato stole their enemy's goddess to power this thing - so that's like Bio tech, right? Actually destroying the planet is perhaps a bit unbalanced, but maybe have it damage like a 250kT W20 packet attack. Or act as a super-bomb or something like that.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Unofficial patch... Thu, 06 April 2006 19:04 Go to previous messageGo to next message
crr65536 is currently offline crr65536

 
Chief Warrant Officer 3

Messages: 180
Registered: June 2005
If you make a high tech bio gadget, it will just strengthen races like SD that have other uses for Bio in the meantime. I think instead it would be good to just make TT cheaper.

A high Prop tech gadget seems nice though - might make for more variety in that there would be a small incentive not to make a IFE/NRSE/Prop expensive race designed to stop at tech 12.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Unofficial patch... Thu, 06 April 2006 19:34 Go to previous messageGo to next message
PricklyPea is currently offline PricklyPea

 
Lieutenant

Messages: 534
Registered: February 2005
crr65536 wrote on Thu, 06 April 2006 19:04

If you make a high tech bio gadget, it will just strengthen races like SD that have other uses for Bio in the meantime. I think instead it would be good to just make TT cheaper.

A high Prop tech gadget seems nice though - might make for more variety in that there would be a small incentive not to make a IFE/NRSE/Prop expensive race designed to stop at tech 12.



There's already a high tech bio gadget... AMT! Surprised

Report message to a moderator

Re: Unofficial patch... Fri, 07 April 2006 03:38 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Marduk is currently offline Marduk

 
Ensign

Messages: 345
Registered: January 2003
Location: Dayton, OH
PricklyPea wrote on Thu, 06 April 2006 19:34

There's already a high tech bio gadget... AMT! Surprised


Yes, and it's as much of a joke as my suggestions were. Smile Though I do kind of like the wormhole generator idea. It occured to me while reading the bit about being able to create and modify wormholes. Maybe it would have to be implemented as some expensive component that does nothing - when you build one and scrap that ship, the host modifies the files to add the wormhole.

By the way, as long as I'm writing again in the 'Unofficial patch' thread, change the low-end gravity numbers so each click has it's own value. The duplicate numbers are extremely annoying to me!

Report message to a moderator

Re: Unofficial patch... Fri, 07 April 2006 08:13 Go to previous messageGo to next message
PricklyPea is currently offline PricklyPea

 
Lieutenant

Messages: 534
Registered: February 2005
Marduk wrote on Fri, 07 April 2006 03:38

By the way, as long as I'm writing again in the 'Unofficial patch' thread, change the low-end gravity numbers so each click has it's own value. The duplicate numbers are extremely annoying to me!


Yes. I would like to change them both to a scale of 1-100 Smile

Report message to a moderator

Re: Unofficial patch... Fri, 07 April 2006 15:05 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
PricklyPea wrote on Fri, 07 April 2006 14:13

Marduk wrote on Fri, 07 April 2006 03:38

By the way, as long as I'm writing again in the 'Unofficial patch' thread, change the low-end gravity numbers so each click has it's own value. The duplicate numbers are extremely annoying to me!


Yes. I would like to change them both to a scale of 1-100 Smile


That would somewhat ruin the effect of having "gravity" values displayed. Razz

I'd bet there must be a way to tweak the clicks-to-grav formula to yield unambiguous values even after rounding. Trouble is, patching the beast in the binary might be quite difficult. Confused



So many Stars, so few Missiles!

In space no one can hear you scheme! Deal

Report message to a moderator

Re: Unofficial patch... Sat, 08 April 2006 13:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Marduk is currently offline Marduk

 
Ensign

Messages: 345
Registered: January 2003
Location: Dayton, OH
The limit on number of minefields is a balancing issue, but is itself unbalanced. I expect this is beyond the scope of a patch, but here's the idea: tie the limit on number of minefields to universe size and maybe density. You're allowed too many for a tiny universe, and not enough for a huge.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Unofficial patch... Tue, 11 April 2006 12:40 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
Marduk wrote on Sat, 08 April 2006 19:29

The limit on number of minefields is a balancing issue, but is itself unbalanced. I expect this is beyond the scope of a patch, but here's the idea: tie the limit on number of minefields to universe size and maybe density. You're allowed too many for a tiny universe, and not enough for a huge.


I'd guess it should be relatively easy to decrease max number of minefields for the smaller universes. Teleport Increasing said max number for the biggest universes could be a lot harder if there's some memory-allocation-imposed limit. Wall Bash



So many Stars, so few Missiles!

In space no one can hear you scheme! Deal

Report message to a moderator

Re: Unofficial patch... Tue, 11 April 2006 15:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
LEit is currently offline LEit

 
Lt. Commander

Messages: 879
Registered: April 2003
Location: CT
The biggest obstacle to increasing limits is the files are bit packed, so the code that writes and reads them would need to be changed.


- LEit

Report message to a moderator

Re: Unofficial patch... Wed, 12 April 2006 00:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Madman is currently offline Madman

 
Officer Cadet 1st Year

Messages: 228
Registered: November 2003
Location: New Zealand
m.a@stars wrote on Sat, 08 April 2006 07:05

I'd bet there must be a way to tweak the clicks-to-grav formula to yield unambiguous values even after rounding. Trouble is, patching the beast in the binary might be quite difficult. Confused

Also, if you make a minor change to something like that so that the numbers are a little different, it leads to great confusion when people describe or publish races (is that the old 17% grav or the new one?). The current system is at least unambiguous for race design, as a hab must always be an even number of clicks wide.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Unofficial patch... Wed, 12 April 2006 00:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Madman is currently offline Madman

 
Officer Cadet 1st Year

Messages: 228
Registered: November 2003
Location: New Zealand
LEit wrote on Wed, 12 April 2006 07:09

The biggest obstacle to increasing limits is the files are bit packed, so the code that writes and reads them would need to be changed.

I'm not sure where it is, but I read a huge post on the newsgroup a while ago about how Stars! was designed. A lot of the limits are there to fit things into a 64K segment (or is that 32K? I never used segmented programming) on a Windows 3.1 machine.

Such limitations are kind of ludicrous on today's hardware, but complete redesign would be required to change some of that.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Unofficial patch... Wed, 12 April 2006 09:25 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
m.a@stars is currently offline m.a@stars

 
Commander

Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left
Madman wrote on Wed, 12 April 2006 06:45

m.a@stars wrote on Sat, 08 April 2006 07:05

I'd bet there must be a way to tweak the clicks-to-grav formula to yield unambiguous values even after rounding. Trouble is, patching the beast in the binary might be quite difficult. Confused

Also, if you make a minor change to something like that so that the numbers are a little different, it leads to great confusion when people describe or publish races (is that the old 17% grav or the new one?). The current system is at least unambiguous for race design, as a hab must always be an even number of clicks wide.


Quite the contrary. Many published race designs are ambiguous thanks to Grav Shocked, and need resorting to clicks to avoid confusion. That would indeed be one of the reasons to make Grav truly unambiguous. Very Happy Nothing would be lost, and much confusion would be avoided. Cool

The only ones who would pay the penalty of "is that new-grav or old-grav?" should be those already ambiguous races, anyway. Razz

One possible change would be:
current values: 0.12, 0.12, 0.13, 0.13, 0.14, 0.14, 0.15, 0.15, 0.16, 0.17 Confused

unambiguous: 0.07, 0.08, 0.09, 0.10, 0.11, 0.12, 0.13, 0.14, 0.15, 0.16 Cool

Here, the only "net loss" would be the original 0.16g which was not ambiguous in fact. Too bad.

I'd rather worry about how to insert the new "grav display formula", whatever form it finally took, into the old code. Sherlock


[Updated on: Wed, 12 April 2006 10:25]




So many Stars, so few Missiles!

In space no one can hear you scheme! Deal

Report message to a moderator

Previous Topic: Playing GalCiv 2
Next Topic: Do I need RC4?
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Fri Mar 29 08:48:20 EDT 2024