| Author |
The Metaverse vs Scenario Server |
Shigernafy
Admiral
Joined: May 29, 2001
Posts: 5726
From: The Land of Taxation without Representation
|  Posted: 2007-09-21 03:20
If we want a "limit-it-to-one-specific-developer-determined-type-of-planets" system, the easiest way would be to add a variant of the Terran planets (or variant of Arid or whatever each faction likes) which comes with, say, 100 pop by default. And then make the SY require 300 pop to run. Basically, you can't do it on a normal planet..
The trick is balancing the need to defend such a planet with the need to make it unique.
I guess you could just make it 400 on the planet, 500 for the SY or something - a few domes, but otherwise its still open for defense and other structures.
There's likely a way to add some flag or resource or something to various planets, but I think the population route would be the easiest to add.
With a tweak to blockade code, then, you could add a SY-capable planet in a backsystem or two (or a few, even) and then one in the middle... so you have to do some traveling to get too far. Plus the middle one would theoretically become a target for invasion and thus a focal point for combat.
It might be valuable to add other strategic points to draw attention - the lone SY in the middle of the map has some utility as a staging point and being able to toss more forces into enemy systems more quickly, but there's not a whole lot else to grab them. And with JGs, it can still be bypassed, just with a bit more time required (though if you toss in Kanman's idea of smaller systems, that would be reduced.. or clustering the JGs would also help, if we wanted).
Is there something else we could add that would be valuable to capture? I was thinking something like super-planets, since I've made those before.. but the problem is that they're generally only capturable by bombing... which rather defeats the point (well, unless you have monitoring scripts and all that to rebuild, but that just sounds like a pres farm to me). I guess we could have their ownership tied to the ownership of other planets - that's easily scriptable.
In fact, we could setup a "guard planet" with super defenses or somesuch on it and have its ownership tied to some other script-checkable value.. then have it revolt to fit whatever conditions we impose. This could be inferno's guarding gates.. inferno's with SYs.. uh.. (just using infernos because they're not player-buildable and can thus be used as the script deems best).
Course then we need to make sure scripts survive resets and restarts...
Anyway, just some rambling. Keep up the good work..
_________________
* [S.W]AdmBito @55321 Sent \"I dunno; the French had a few missteps. But they're on the right track, one headbutt at a time.\"
|
BackSlash
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 23, 2003
Posts: 11183
From: Bristol, England
| Posted: 2007-09-21 12:22
Once platforms come out, I believe there's some code we can abuse to allow platforms with ship models, so we can just put them in space, with infinate HP, and have them as mass resupply or damage 'platforms'. This gives factions targets to capture ie : - "That would be handy for our fleet - lets go capture it!". It'd take 10 or so minutes and require a certain number of points (point system for ships and blockade system stuff still to be done).
If you include this kind of thing with a few shipyard planets that are quite valuable, there's plenty for the player to do!
_________________
|
Fattierob
Vice Admiral
Joined: April 25, 2003
Posts: 4059
| Posted: 2007-09-22 12:34
Quote:
|
On 2007-09-10 07:01, Drafell wrote:
Planet building isn't being dumbed down.
We are streamlining some of the content to make it more intuitive and easier to learn, and also to help ease future expansion. Adding complexity to a game is all very well, but it must not be necessary for every player to learn these intricate systems and relations in order to be competitive.
With regards to planet construction, we are considering ways to implement and upgrade feature for buildings.
|
|
Removed the separate resource types, resources now only come in one type. Added build flag requirements for structures, ships, and devices which still may require certain resource or structure flags on a planet.
>
Oh, so, you know, giving planets more strategic value by making them have different kinds of resources is "streamlining", not "dumbing down". And learning things - ha! Whatever were we thinking. Skill required to build? nono, thats a problem that needs a fix.
Above me, Shig and Backy were debating about making shipyard planets "special" or something or other.....all I know is, *every* planet in the MV can be a shipyard planet now...because all you need is one resource: Metal. So yeah, I guess we should create aritifical constructs to fix a problem that doesn't exist because we're fixing a lag problem which makes no sense to me(but I don't know anything, so i'm probably just not informed enough)
In fact, since bombing is becoming harder (or is it streamlined?), why not just make every planet a shipyard planet. It's not like defence bases shoot down bombs anyway
Quote:
|
The simplest method will likely be to use the same code as we do for the new ship modding system when in the F3 Planet Management menu. When right-clicking on a structure, you would see a list of alternatives that it can be upgraded (or downgraded) to. Structures that are available would be indicated by white icons, and grayed/red icons would indicated that the Resource flags or Technology levels are not currently sufficient to enable the upgrade to that structure.
|
|
I actually like this idea...
Quote:
|
Upgrading structures in this manner would NOT give any prestige gain by default, and the structure being upgraded would be inactive until it is fully completed. To gain prestige, players would need to manually target and activate their drones on the structure to accelerate construction.
|
|
That makes no sense to a noob. Thats not streamlined enough.
Quote:
|
There is potential for us to go beyond tier three buildings, up to and including structures which take several days to complete, although there are potential abuse issues with AFK builders just camping a single structure for two days, and gaining a few thousand prestige in the process.
|
|
what? Are you honestly telling me you think a ship can stay *anywhere* uncloaked for more then 3 hours without dying? Unless you also streamline ship combat....
Quote:
|
This could be potentially remedied by adding a timer to the build device, so that it only activate for one to two minutes at a time before automatically switching off to recharge.
|
|
That also makes no sense to a noob. Would he need to go get his build drowns resupplied now? Are we also streamlining resupply?
Quote:
|
These are just a few thoughts on where we could go... nothing is set in stone as yet.
|
|
What exactly is set in stone about planets? what directions are you guys taking these streamlines........planets?
_________________
|
BackSlash
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 23, 2003
Posts: 11183
From: Bristol, England
| Posted: 2007-09-23 13:04
Oh, you're so wrong.
Metals and such are still there, they just translate into resources, and is far easier for database tracking. It also means some resources are actually used now, whereas before, some would go un-used and just rack up until it hit a hard-coded limit.
They're still there, but for database tracking and such, moving them over to resources is much easier. You may not be able to see them, but they're there (for instance, 500 metals = 500 resources, and 500 heavy metals = 1500 resources (just examples)).
_________________
|
Fattierob
Vice Admiral
Joined: April 25, 2003
Posts: 4059
| Posted: 2007-09-23 22:37
Quote:
|
On 2007-09-23 13:04, BackSlash *Jack* wrote:
They're still there, but for database tracking and such, moving them over to resources is much easier. You may not be able to see them, but they're there (for instance, 500 metals = 500 resources, and 500 heavy metals = 1500 resources (just examples)).
|
|
so...........how does the database know how many heavy metals it has, then? how does it know it just doesn't have flat out 1500 metals?
thats my point - you're now using one number to track how many "resources" a planet has - you can't pull out 9 numbers with some kind of uber algorithim (please prove me wrong so I can shut up).
_________________
|
Shigernafy
Admiral
Joined: May 29, 2001
Posts: 5726
From: The Land of Taxation without Representation
| Posted: 2007-09-24 07:54
Fattie: as to non-existant problems, I wasn't necessarily saying that anything I wrote in that post should be implemented. I was only speaking as a semi-knowledgeable player musing about ideas bandied about earlier in the thread. At first it was a simple matter of implmentation methods, then I sort of let my imagination run with the idea.
That said, I personally feel that there is no harm in creating artificial focus points for combat or bombing or whatever. As it stands, there's very little reason to attack one area over another, with how easily SYs can be built, resource propagation via starports, and the like. About all we get is the desire to take over everything, arbitrary strategic points (which shift as territory does, and is about the best we have for battle lines and strategery) and home systems, which is generally pointless but good for taunting and morale purposes. Also, run-on sentences are cool. So having some more high-value targets adds a bit more to the game, in my opinion, by helping not only to limit spawn points (which is of debateable benefit; it slows things down by requiring more travel but then adds more relevance to fleet movements and jumpgate interdiction) but to also focus player and fleet efforts on those targets.
So yes, perhaps it is an unncessary change, but I don't think it would necessarily be a harmful one... but combinations of changes are hard to guage. If, however, you feel it is a horrible idea, feel free to explain why.. or at least state that so we (I) can have new things to think about and feedback to affect the flow of our (my) thoughts..
_________________
* [S.W]AdmBito @55321 Sent \"I dunno; the French had a few missteps. But they're on the right track, one headbutt at a time.\"
|
Drafell
Grand Admiral
Mythica
Joined: May 30, 2003
Posts: 2449
From: United Kingdom
| Posted: 2007-09-24 13:19
The old Metal/Heavy Metal resources still exist, but only as a flag on each planet. This flag then adds a certain amount per turn to the Resources generated by mines. For example, Metals are a 1x multiplier, Heavy Metals may use a 3x multiplier (3 Resources per tick), and with Dark Matter as perhaps a 15x multiplier, and so generates 15 Resource per tick. In addition, these "Material" flags also affects what can be built and produced on that planet; a shipyard will require a certain set of Material flags to be present in order to be built, the same for some other specialized structures.
This will enable us to have a much tighter degree of control over where shipyards can be built, and how easy they are to maintain. It will also enable us to specify certain planets as being the only ones capable of supplying specific modifications. It does devalue a part of the current economic system, but I hope most people are aware of just how broken it already is in 1.483. And in return for this sacrifice you get much greater strategic game-play.
All players will see when buying/swapping an item is the Item Cost, Resource cost, and the required Material flags. The actual Resource cost calculation should be something like:
BR = Base Resources
(BR * Metal_Multiplier) + (BR * HeavyMetal_Multiplier) + (BR * CyroMetal_Multiplier) + etc...
and the Item Cost should be a credit value related to this.
This is not currently scheduled to go live in 1.484 though. 1.484 will be a very simple system that simply works until we can tweak exactly what values we need. The primary focus for now is that people can just grab a ship and shoot the enemy and to bring back some of the more basic elements of strategy that have made DarkSpace so fun to play in the past.
"Superplanets" are another possible option, but my personal preference here is that they would be largely player constructed through a building upgrade system. The longer a faction retains control of a planet, and the more effort is put into upgrading the structures, the tougher it should become. This gives other factions a reason to regularly try to attack deep into faction territory, and to organize large scale or covert raids, simply to take down those few heavily defended worlds that could slow down future advances. It also gives the defenders a reason TO defend. You won't get those Superplanets unless you can prevent the enemy from destroying them.
Quote:
|
Upgrading structures in this manner would NOT give any prestige gain by default, and the structure being upgraded would be inactive until it is fully completed. To gain prestige, players would need to manually target and activate their drones on the structure to accelerate construction.
|
|
That statement is actually negated by my later suggestion of an activation timer on the build device. It wouldn't require ammunition, but it would only stay active for a certain period before the player needs to manually reactivate it on the target. This is purely a method to prevent AFK farming and is likely to be carried over to Reloads anyway to prevent the same kind of exploits. It is far too easy to have a station sit in orbit, getting hit by missiles form that other planets which is 1.5k away, and have a couple of Supply Ships sitting under it gaining prestige ad-finatum while being AFK. We need to stop exploits which are so simple to do, and the Dev team are quite prepared to implement such features to aid the Moderation team who otherwise have to try and monitor it manually.
_________________
It's gone now, no longer here...Yet still I see, and still I fear.rnrn
rnrn
DarkSpace Developer - Retired
|
Enterprise
Chief Marshal
Joined: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2576
From: Hawthorne, Nevada
| Posted: 2007-09-24 17:13
Perhaps one of the most frustrating parts the past version is a lack of drive. There really hasn't been a system in place yet that makes each and every planet and system worth the time and effort to capture them.
A battle is just a battle, a planet is just a planet, a system is just a system, you get the point. Thers no value there, they only offer a focal point for fighting.
And while fighting is nice, I like a little uh.. reason.
I'm not sure how it could all be done, to make EVERY planet matter to some extent. Devices being limited is all well and good, but they can be lived without. Shipyards being rare brings some value, but thats only three or four planets in the MV. But what about the rest?
Just useless lumps.
Why bother having them? Thats the point. They just sit there, if its taken its no big deal or if its bombed it can just be rebuilt, theres no desire to defend or attack except for the sake of combat, and no battle tips the scale for victory, no planet destroyed gives any reward, unless you count prestige.
And thats just a number.
What I'm saying is, there needs a drive, a goal, something for every faction to attain. Whats the point of capturing a system? Why bother trying to take over the MV? What is there to gain beyond simply saying you did it? Since its going to become much harder to do all that stuff, it would be nice to have a reason to.
Combat is all well and good but EvE has something going for it that we don't: When 600 people get together and beat the crap out of each other its for a damn good reason. In the context of a game of war, there needs to be something beyond prestige to gain.
-Ent
_________________
|
Drafell
Grand Admiral
Mythica
Joined: May 30, 2003
Posts: 2449
From: United Kingdom
| Posted: 2007-09-25 12:35
Sadly, Enterprise, we cannot do everything at once.
Planet value should be further enhanced once we can start implementing parts of the fleet economy and advanced diplomacy systems.
Fleets might earn a 'tax' from each planet they own which can be shared between the players for purchasing various upgrades, as a form of wage, perhaps. But there would also be potential drawbacks to this system. Certain events would actually be a drain on fleet resources, thus keeping an emphasis on planets being properly maintained and controlling issues such as plagues and low morale.
Fleets could potentially trade planets, so that they own specific systems or area's of space, and in addition get a cost reduction on any upgrades purchased from planets they own. They could also gain a portion of the income from upgrades purchased by people outside of their fleet. As a balance, fleeted players might pay slightly more for upgrades from non-fleeted planets, and another small cost increase for items purchased from planets which are owned by other fleets.
You could bring alliances into this so that 'allied' fleets don't pay additional fee's, etc. There are a lot of directions in which we could go.
We need to make sure, however, that the average player can ignore these systems and simply get on with the fun combat and simply playing the game.
_________________
It's gone now, no longer here...Yet still I see, and still I fear.rnrn
rnrn
DarkSpace Developer - Retired
|
Reason
Cadet
Joined: April 14, 2002
Posts: 156
| Posted: 2007-09-26 05:54
Darkspace Mapping History (Beta-1.481)
Added this to the OP.
Just something to take into consideration when developing future map variations for the MV as to where things have been. Keep this in mind when developing MV Conceptual Layouts to help support what you are developing for the MV as a whole.
- |2eason -
_________________
- |2eason -
|
Axianda The Royal
Fleet Admiral
Terra Squadron
Joined: November 20, 2001
Posts: 4273
From: Axianda
| Posted: 2007-09-28 08:23
gotta admit seeing those old MV's sure brings back memory's 
still what i also would like to see is more use of the old style rescources,
like a nebula that negates a cloak or ECM... * making it very useless for Kluth but very nice for Humans. of a planet surrounded by roids making the approach more hostile.
hell where are the gaifens, Crystal entitty's and energy suckers?
perhaps 3 more planet classes that are "breeding" planets for those.
_________________
- Axi
|
Supertrooper
Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: March 18, 2004
Posts: 1895
From: Maryland, U.S.A
| Posted: 2007-09-28 14:53
Damnit |2eason. (Good work though)
_________________
|
Jim Starluck
Marshal
Templar Knights
Joined: October 22, 2001
Posts: 2232
From: Cincinnati, OH
| Posted: 2007-10-19 09:04
I dunno about anyone else, but I really miss the 1.480 Metaverse. The current one is so small by comparison... 14 star systems as opposed to 23. It doesn't have some of the classic systems that have been in the game since the very start, like Cygnus and Epsilon Eri.
Personally, I wouldn't mind a return to that MV, with perhaps a minor change to help prevent the UGTO from always getting caught between the ICC and K'Luth. Maybe rotate the K'Luth systems around so they connect through Barnard's Star insted of Epsilon Eri.
_________________
If at first you don't succeed, get a bigger space battleship and try again.
|
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
