Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: SC4P: Ah hoy

Expand Messages
  • delhart
    ... I agree. Here s a quick overview of the tech changes I m thinking about. Jumpship - Personal jumpgate, possible br reduction upon usage Decoy - Create
    Message 1 of 17 , Nov 1, 2004
      --- In stellarcrisisclub@yahoogroups.com, backstabber_sc
      <no_reply@y...> wrote:

      > So the challenge with any new ship is to offer something truly new to
      > the gameplay (in a positive fashion). As you consider new ships,
      > think hard about how they might make a positive addition to game
      > strategy.


      I agree. Here's a quick overview of the tech changes I'm thinking about.

      Jumpship - Personal jumpgate, possible br reduction upon usage
      Decoy - Create illusion of more ships than are really present.
      Tractor Beam - Gate in reverse, affects all ships in target system.
      Interceptor - Negates gates, jumps, and tractors in the system that it
      is in.
      Pirate - Hit and run on opponents support ships.

      All except the pirate have been implemented.


      There are also a couple of gameplay changes. One is that the techs
      are mix and match. A ship can have multiple capabilities, for example
      you could have a cloaking minesweeper, or a science jumpship colony.
      This would be another series configurable setting.

      One change I am considering is moving from the all-or-nothing to
      individual expertise levels. The tech level would be the same, but
      the effective level of a technology would no longer be the ship
      strength. It would be the minimum of the ship strength and the
      expertise level of in a particular tech. For example a br 5 colony
      would only settle 4 colonists if the player only had a colony
      expertise level of 2.

      A player would gain expertise points that they could spend on
      whichever techs they wanted. Different techs would have different
      costs associated with them to raise the level. So raising colony
      expertise might cost 1 point while raising stargate expertise might
      cost 3 points. Not everything would have levels, for example
      exploration is fairly binary. There are some other details, but
      that's the general idea.

      The goal of using expertise levels would be to provide more choices
      and allow greater variety in game play. Expertise levels would be
      optional on a series level, but I think it would be interesting.
      Expertise points would be given everytime a player reached a new tech
      level, perhaps something like double the tech level.

      Back to the ships.

      I thought that 2.8 was too heavily weighted towards defense, between
      sats and mines it was relatively easy to hold off a stronger opponent
      indefinitely. Carriers were meant to go through satwalls, builders
      around, and jumpgates over. Morphers just seemed neat. I didn't
      envision using builders for creating huge economy farms, nor jumpgates
      for wormholes.

      In this round of tech, the interceptors and tractor beams are meant to
      take the sting out of having your homeworld explored. Tractor beams
      might have some interesting offensive applications also. Jumpships
      will allow greater movement, which usually makes things a bit more
      interesting. Decoys could provide for more subterfuge since the ships
      will show up on both the systems screens and the mil rating. Pirates
      were meant to add another wrinkle and to attack backfield ships. It
      probably needs more work though.

      That's pretty much it. There are a few others in the wings, such as a
      salvage ship to help with repairs and a flagship for specialized
      non-homeworld games, but they are on a back burner for now.

      Del
    • backstabber_sc
      ... jumpgates ... This is why I suggest being careful with new ships. They might be less than effective at what they re proposed for (carriers) or produce
      Message 2 of 17 , Nov 2, 2004
        --- In stellarcrisisclub@yahoogroups.com, delhart <no_reply@y...>
        wrote:
        > ...Carriers were meant to go through satwalls, builders
        > around, and jumpgates over. Morphers just seemed neat. I didn't
        > envision using builders for creating huge economy farms, nor
        jumpgates
        > for wormholes.

        This is why I suggest being careful with new ships. They might be
        less than effective at what they're proposed for (carriers) or
        produce unforseen changes to gameplay (jumpgates, builders). Someone
        will find unexpected uses for every new ship or feature. Hopefully
        none that are too detrimental to play. Given the number of changes
        coming in the new version, expect the unexpected.

        BackStabber, hoping to be a SC4 tester
      • empire_ah
        A few random comments from the Ah gallery... ... it ... I strongly second backstabber s warning about thinking the ships through. A problem you a compounding
        Message 3 of 17 , Nov 2, 2004
          A few random comments from the Ah gallery...

          > Here's a quick overview of the tech changes I'm thinking about.
          >
          > Jumpship - Personal jumpgate, possible br reduction upon usage
          > Decoy - Create illusion of more ships than are really present.
          > Tractor Beam - Gate in reverse, affects all ships in target system.
          > Interceptor - Negates gates, jumps, and tractors in the system that
          it
          > is in.
          > Pirate - Hit and run on opponents support ships.

          I strongly second backstabber's warning about thinking the ships
          through. A problem you a compounding with the variable order of
          processing idea. (Consider what can happen, or more specifically not
          happen, if tractor beams take effect before planets are nuked. Or
          colonized. Or... )

          I would start by clearly defining why you think each of these ships
          will benefit the game. You don't have to make that definition public,
          but you should then ask others what *they* think the ships will bring
          to the game. If the definitions don't line up, you will want to think
          about why.

          As a recurring theme in the club has been how to make SC more
          popular, I would also encourage people to think about how changes
          might accomplish that. (Though, honestly, unless we can add full
          motion video and sound, the odds of gaining a significant following
          are probably pretty long.... :-)

          > There are also a couple of gameplay changes.... [cut from my
          > reply for the sake of brevity]

          All of which sounds interesting-- indeed, I have had some similar
          thoughts-- but I would suggest that the game you are creating is
          becoming so far removed from SC that you are doing it a disservice
          calling it SC 4.0.

          > Back to the ships.
          >
          > I thought that 2.8 was too heavily weighted towards defense, between
          > sats and mines it was relatively easy to hold off a stronger
          > opponent indefinitely.

          Not true.

          Sats and mines can be very useful to buy some time to do something
          else, but they will never hold out against a good player in superior
          position (nor an equal position for that matter). Several of you can
          testify to this. ;-) Though I will admit it can take some patience.

          -Ah
        • orion_empire
          just a minor nit-picking point about the proposed Pirate Ship concept. i admittedly skimmed the discussions. it seems to me the Pirate Ship is built as a Tech
          Message 4 of 17 , Nov 2, 2004
            just a minor nit-picking point about the proposed Pirate Ship
            concept.

            i admittedly skimmed the discussions.

            it seems to me the Pirate Ship is built as a Tech Choice by a
            player. Pirate ships are managed by one player as part of their
            strategy. as such, i do not believe the term "Pirate" is
            appropriate. Pirates are kinda like the "barbarians" running around
            the Civilization franchise of games. the term is more appropriately
            used for "independent" adversaries aligned against all players
            uniformly and allied with no side.

            for Stellar Crisis Game, i wish to propose the term "PRIVATEERS".

            historically, Privateers were privately owned and fitted sailing
            ships given official permission by one side to wage war on other
            side for their outifitter's profit (giving a cut of profits back to
            their patrons, of course). legalized mercenaries. the official
            permission (letters of marque) distinguished them from piracy. if
            captured, they would be P.O.W.s and not automatically strung up and
            hung from the yardarms.

            regards,
            Scott
            aka Orion
          • Paul Iveson
            I have missed the entire thread of this discussion; Am I right to assume that someone is developing SC4 and if so when and where (Lugdunum,Falcon etc...?) Oh
            Message 5 of 17 , Nov 2, 2004
              I have missed the entire thread of this discussion;

              Am I right to assume that someone is developing SC4
              and if so when and where (Lugdunum,Falcon etc...?)

              Oh and some of those hips sound interesting, but what
              will the maps be like, similar etc?

              I would not mind testing this if it is available?

              Paul (UJ)




              --- orion_empire <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

              ---------------------------------

              just a minor nit-picking point about the proposed
              Pirate Ship
              concept.

              i admittedly skimmed the discussions.

              it seems to me the Pirate Ship is built as a Tech
              Choice by a
              player. Pirate ships are managed by one player as
              part of their
              strategy. as such, i do not believe the term "Pirate"
              is
              appropriate. Pirates are kinda like the "barbarians"
              running around
              the Civilization franchise of games. the term is more
              appropriately
              used for "independent" adversaries aligned against all
              players
              uniformly and allied with no side.

              for Stellar Crisis Game, i wish to propose the term
              "PRIVATEERS".

              historically, Privateers were privately owned and
              fitted sailing
              ships given official permission by one side to wage
              war on other
              side for their outifitter's profit (giving a cut of
              profits back to
              their patrons, of course). legalized mercenaries.
              the official
              permission (letters of marque) distinguished them from
              piracy. if
              captured, they would be P.O.W.s and not automatically
              strung up and
              hung from the yardarms.

              regards,
              Scott
              aka Orion






              Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              Get unlimited calls to

              U.S./Canada


              ---------------------------------
              Yahoo! Groups Links

              To visit your group on the web, go to:
              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stellarcrisisclub/

              To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              stellarcrisisclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
              Terms of Service.






              ___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
            • Greg Nord
              ... Yes. Del Hart and a lot of college students under his charge, to be specific. And where it will be implemented? Well, i know Andy is certainly willing to
              Message 6 of 17 , Nov 2, 2004
                --- In stellarcrisisclub@yahoogroups.com, Paul Iveson <psi30uk@y...>
                wrote:
                > I have missed the entire thread of this discussion;
                >
                > Am I right to assume that someone is developing SC4
                > and if so when and where (Lugdunum,Falcon etc...?)

                Yes. Del Hart and a lot of college students under his charge, to be
                specific. And where it will be implemented? Well, i know Andy is
                certainly willing to set up Beta testing under the general Lugdunum
                umbrella. i would assume he would start a new, separate server for
                that.
                >
                > Oh and some of those (s)hips sound interesting, but what
                > will the maps be like, similar etc?
                >
                > I would not mind testing this if it is available?
                >
                > Paul (UJ)

                Just for your information Paul, this thread starts at about Message
                #21056, and is fairly constant through the messages inbetween.

                And...

                Beer didn't make any city in Wisconsin famous until after the Chicago
                fire. That wiped out the burned cities big breweries. Joseph Schlitz
                shipped a boatload of brew down from Milwaukee, and pretty soon,
                everybody knew that milk was not Wisconsin's only drink.
              • delhart
                ... Eh, they ll all be optional, so it ll be easy enough just to discard anything that does not work. ... I ll put you down on the list. The plan is to start
                Message 7 of 17 , Nov 3, 2004
                  --- In stellarcrisisclub@yahoogroups.com, backstabber_sc
                  <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                  >
                  > This is why I suggest being careful with new ships. They might be
                  > less than effective at what they're proposed for (carriers) or
                  > produce unforseen changes to gameplay (jumpgates, builders). Someone
                  > will find unexpected uses for every new ship or feature. Hopefully
                  > none that are too detrimental to play. Given the number of changes
                  > coming in the new version, expect the unexpected.

                  Eh, they'll all be optional, so it'll be easy enough just to discard
                  anything that does not work.

                  > BackStabber, hoping to be a SC4 tester

                  I'll put you down on the list. The plan is to start beta testing
                  around December/January.

                  Del
                • delhart
                  ... I have thought about, and am concerned with not overloading players with choices and worrying about how the game works. Mainly I m hoping to address it by
                  Message 8 of 17 , Nov 3, 2004
                    --- In stellarcrisisclub@yahoogroups.com, "empire_ah" <empire_ah@4...>
                    wrote:
                    >
                    > A few random comments from the Ah gallery...

                    > I strongly second backstabber's warning about thinking the ships
                    > through. A problem you a compounding with the variable order of
                    > processing idea. (Consider what can happen, or more specifically not
                    > happen, if tractor beams take effect before planets are nuked. Or
                    > colonized. Or... )

                    I have thought about, and am concerned with not overloading players
                    with choices and worrying about how the game works. Mainly I'm hoping
                    to address it by strongly organizing series into similar mechanics.
                    The tried and true series available and in some sense the default.
                    The more esoteric ones available, but not something that would be
                    stumbled into.

                    > I would start by clearly defining why you think each of these ships
                    > will benefit the game. You don't have to make that definition public,
                    > but you should then ask others what *they* think the ships will bring
                    > to the game. If the definitions don't line up, you will want to think
                    > about why.

                    I agree, that's part of why I'm doing this series of articles. To get
                    some feedback about what is happening.

                    > As a recurring theme in the club has been how to make SC more
                    > popular, I would also encourage people to think about how changes
                    > might accomplish that. (Though, honestly, unless we can add full
                    > motion video and sound, the odds of gaining a significant following
                    > are probably pretty long.... :-)

                    This has actually been one of the goals of this system. To achieve
                    that goal though I wanted a very flexible system. For instance,
                    although allowing variable ordering can add complexity, it also allows
                    the creation of tutorial series. These tutorial series have
                    simplified mechanics, I'll do a more detail write-up of them later,
                    but one way that the first tutorial is simplified is that combat is
                    simply a comparison of who has the most ships at a system.

                    I don't think that this server will be hugely popular, I envision it
                    more of a tutorial server and experimental server. I would expect
                    that most games would still be played at the existing servers.
                    Perhaps eventually collaborating with the other servers on xml data
                    served so that the user interfaces would be interchangeable.

                    > > There are also a couple of gameplay changes.... [cut from my
                    > > reply for the sake of brevity]
                    >
                    > All of which sounds interesting-- indeed, I have had some similar
                    > thoughts-- but I would suggest that the game you are creating is
                    > becoming so far removed from SC that you are doing it a disservice
                    > calling it SC 4.0.

                    Somewhat, it is more of a game building framework. Eventually it
                    might branch out into other games, but for now I'm using SC. Plus, as
                    a project for students, the requirements of SC are relatively well
                    defined, which makes for better projects. Although I have students
                    working on it, their goal is learning software engineering practices
                    and adding to the game is more of a side effect. Most of the core
                    development I've done, mainly to let all of their pieces work
                    together. Also I've been working on it cause this was the version I
                    wanted to create way back when, but I just didn't have the time. Not
                    that I have the time now, but I have a reason to work on it other than
                    just person gratification.

                    > > I thought that 2.8 was too heavily weighted towards defense, between
                    > > sats and mines it was relatively easy to hold off a stronger
                    > > opponent indefinitely.
                    >
                    > Not true.
                    >
                    > Sats and mines can be very useful to buy some time to do something
                    > else, but they will never hold out against a good player in superior
                    > position (nor an equal position for that matter). Several of you can
                    > testify to this. ;-) Though I will admit it can take some patience.

                    And there was my problem, I did not have the patience to want to see
                    it to the end. A long, mechanical endgame sapped the fun out of many
                    games for me.

                    Del
                  • delhart
                    ... Privateer sounds good to me. Del
                    Message 9 of 17 , Nov 3, 2004
                      --- In stellarcrisisclub@yahoogroups.com, orion_empire <no_reply@y...>
                      wrote:
                      >
                      > just a minor nit-picking point about the proposed Pirate Ship
                      > concept.

                      Privateer sounds good to me.

                      Del
                    • delhart
                      ... That would be me, and I m using SC4 as the working title. ... Currently the maps suck, but I ll probably add the standard map generation before beta
                      Message 10 of 17 , Nov 3, 2004
                        --- In stellarcrisisclub@yahoogroups.com, Paul Iveson <psi30uk@y...>
                        wrote:

                        > Am I right to assume that someone is developing SC4
                        > and if so when and where (Lugdunum,Falcon etc...?)

                        That would be me, and I'm using SC4 as the working title.

                        > Oh and some of those hips sound interesting, but what
                        > will the maps be like, similar etc?

                        Currently the maps suck, but I'll probably add the standard
                        map generation before beta testing begins.

                        > I would not mind testing this if it is available?

                        I'll put you down on the list. The plan is to start beta
                        testing sometime around December/January.

                        Del
                      • delhart
                        ... I ll probably do the beta site on a machine that I have here. Mainly for simplicity and because there is a bunch of performance tuning that I need to do
                        Message 11 of 17 , Nov 3, 2004
                          --- In stellarcrisisclub@yahoogroups.com, "Greg Nord"
                          <life.incarnate@v...> wrote:

                          > Yes. Del Hart and a lot of college students under his charge, to be
                          > specific. And where it will be implemented? Well, i know Andy is
                          > certainly willing to set up Beta testing under the general Lugdunum
                          > umbrella. i would assume he would start a new, separate server for
                          > that.

                          I'll probably do the beta site on a machine that I have here. Mainly
                          for simplicity and because there is a bunch of performance tuning that
                          I need to do on it. Although if anyone else wants to play around with
                          it, that's no problem.

                          Del
                        • Marian McKillop & Allen Couroux
                          Just a thought of the Tractor beam idea........If it would suck all ships from a targeted system, would this sort of make sats and minefields a thing of the
                          Message 12 of 17 , Nov 3, 2004
                                Just a thought of the Tractor beam idea........If it would "suck" all ships from a targeted system, would this sort of make sats and minefields a thing of the past. I will admit, I am not a great player but I do try to understand the game and do try to get better. If this is going to be possible by a Tractor Beam Ship, would not sweeps become obsolete in games where the Tractor Beam Ships are also included?
                                With regards to the Pirate Ships idea, which I do like. There should be no designation as to which emp they belong to. A ships colours, (yes I am Canadian) were only run up the flagpole before battle, and sometimes it was not the correct flag. In order for a ship to run a different flag, a ship of the pirate ship will have had to taken over a ship from that particular empire. The more ships that the ship takes over, the more emp flags it can hoist, or just run up a skull and cross bone........no identification. Would like to try the new version but this is the first time any of you have heard from me.
                             
                            TRIAXX
                             
                            a.k.a.           Allen
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                            -----Original Message-----
                            From: delhart [mailto:no_reply@yahoogroups.com]
                            Sent: November 03, 2004 3:34 PM
                            To: stellarcrisisclub@yahoogroups.com
                            Subject: [Stellar Crisis Club] Re: SC4P: Ah hoy


                            --- In stellarcrisisclub@yahoogroups.com, "empire_ah" <empire_ah@4...>
                            wrote:
                            >
                            > A few random comments from the
                            Ah gallery...

                            > I strongly second backstabber's warning about
                            thinking the ships
                            > through. A problem you a compounding with the
                            variable order of
                            > processing idea. (Consider what can happen, or more
                            specifically not
                            > happen, if tractor beams take effect before planets
                            are nuked. Or
                            > colonized. Or... )

                            I have thought about, and am concerned with not overloading players
                            with choices and worrying about how the game works.  Mainly I'm hoping
                            to address it by strongly organizing series into similar mechanics.
                            The tried and true series available and in some sense the default.
                            The more esoteric ones available, but not something that would be
                            stumbled into.

                            > I would start by clearly defining
                            why you think each of these ships
                            > will benefit the game. You don't have
                            to make that definition public,
                            > but you should then ask others what
                            *they* think the ships will bring
                            > to the game. If the definitions don't
                            line up, you will want to think
                            > about why.

                            I agree, that's part of why I'm doing this series of articles.  To get
                            some feedback about what is happening.

                            > As a recurring theme in the club has been how to
                            make SC more
                            > popular, I would also encourage people to think about how
                            changes
                            > might accomplish that. (Though, honestly, unless we can add
                            full
                            > motion video and sound, the odds of gaining a significant
                            following
                            > are probably pretty long.... :-)

                            This has actually been one of the goals of this system.  To achieve
                            that goal though I wanted a very flexible system.  For instance,
                            although allowing variable ordering can add complexity, it also allows
                            the creation of tutorial series.  These tutorial series have
                            simplified mechanics, I'll do a more detail write-up of them later,
                            but one way that the first tutorial is simplified is that combat is
                            simply a comparison of who has the most ships at a system.

                            I don't think that this server will be hugely popular, I envision it
                            more of a tutorial server and experimental server.  I would expect
                            that most games would still be played at the existing servers.
                            Perhaps eventually collaborating with the other servers on xml data
                            served so that the user interfaces would be interchangeable.

                            > > There are also a couple of gameplay changes.... [cut from my
                            > >
                            reply for the sake of brevity]
                            >
                            > All of which sounds
                            interesting-- indeed, I have had some similar
                            > thoughts-- but I would
                            suggest that the game you are creating is
                            > becoming so far removed from
                            SC that you are doing it a disservice
                            > calling it SC
                            4.0.

                            Somewhat, it is more of a game building framework.  Eventually it
                            might branch out into other games, but for now I'm using SC.  Plus, as
                            a project for students, the requirements of SC are relatively well
                            defined, which makes for better projects.  Although I have students
                            working on it, their goal is learning software engineering practices
                            and adding to the game is more of a side effect.  Most of the core
                            development I've done, mainly to let all of their pieces work
                            together.  Also I've been working on it cause this was the version I
                            wanted to create way back when, but I just didn't have the time.  Not
                            that I have the time now, but I have a reason to work on it other than
                            just person gratification.

                            > > I thought that 2.8 was too
                            heavily weighted towards defense, between
                            > > sats and mines it was
                            relatively easy to hold off a stronger
                            > > opponent
                            indefinitely. 
                            >
                            > Not true.
                            >
                            > Sats and mines
                            can be very useful to buy some time to do something
                            > else, but they will
                            never hold out against a good player in superior
                            > position (nor an equal
                            position for that matter). Several of you can
                            > testify to this. ;-)
                            Though I will admit it can take some patience.

                            And there was my problem, I did not have the patience to want to see
                            it to the end.  A long, mechanical endgame sapped the fun out of many
                            games for me.

                            Del




                          • delhart
                            ... suck all ... minefields a ... games ... Yes and no. Tractor beams currently are immobile, so constructing one will typically occur over a builder. And
                            Message 13 of 17 , Nov 7, 2004
                              --- In stellarcrisisclub@yahoogroups.com, "Marian McKillop & Allen
                              Couroux" <spilky@g...> wrote:
                              > Just a thought of the Tractor beam idea........If it would
                              "suck" all
                              > ships from a targeted system, would this sort of make sats and
                              minefields a
                              > thing of the past. I will admit, I am not a great player but I do try to
                              > understand the game and do try to get better. If this is going to be
                              > possible by a Tractor Beam Ship, would not sweeps become obsolete in
                              games
                              > where the Tractor Beam Ships are also included?

                              Yes and no.
                              Tractor beams currently are immobile, so constructing one will
                              typically occur over a builder. And it probably not an easy decision
                              to suck huge enemy fleets or mines over your own builder. If you
                              pulled a mine and did not have a sweep, then it would explode, taking
                              out your tractor and reducing your builder's stats.

                              Now it could be useful when making a push, but gates will typically
                              occur after moves, so you would still need to wait until next turn to
                              move to the newly vacated world, in which time the enemy could build
                              more sats/mines.

                              Lastly I expect that the costs will be higher and/or range shorter on
                              tractor beams. So, you could use them to clear mines, but there won't
                              make sweeps obsolete.

                              > With regards to the Pirate Ships idea, which I do like. There
                              should be
                              > no designation as to which emp they belong to. A ships colours, (yes
                              I am
                              > Canadian) were only run up the flagpole before battle, and sometimes
                              it was
                              > not the correct flag. In order for a ship to run a different flag, a
                              ship of
                              > the pirate ship will have had to taken over a ship from that particular
                              > empire. The more ships that the ship takes over, the more emp flags
                              it can
                              > hoist, or just run up a skull and cross bone........no
                              identification. Would
                              > like to try the new version but this is the first time any of you
                              have heard
                              > from me.

                              I can put you on the list and I'm still hoping for a Dec/Jan time
                              frame to start beta testing.

                              As far as running flags up. That probably wouldn't be too hard,
                              basically the messages would not indicate whose pirates/privateers
                              they were.

                              It also makes me wonder how interesting it would be to allow decoy
                              ships to pretend to create illusions of enemy ships....

                              Del
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.