XDemonX's Map

JettJackson
Fledgling Spam Artist
Posts: 3572
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 12:38 am
Location: Eastpointe MI

Re: XDemonX's Map

Post by JettJackson »

jouldax wrote:I think this should be moved to a separate discussion, but I've personally been enjoying the 3v3 combat code very much. I like being able to hop into a sector with 10 of you and have a chance to escape even if you get 1 trigger. I also like the fact that it rewards the more active fleet with more triggers, allows for more tactics during the battle (more chances to run along with the option to focus on certain targets), and removes some of the randomness associated with the old fleet battles.

If it was 10 on 10 before, whoever fired first had the major advantage because their whole fleet would fire and usually kill one ship, putting the balance immediately in their favor. 10v10 is also just a combination of luck and exp since both fleets will probably have 1 or 2 fast triggers. It was amusing for half a second and then it was over. I'd never want to go back to that style.

The only really valid point I think you made was about faster triggers dying sooner. I'd be ok with changing the code so that return fire is completely random (shouldn't be that hard). Frankly, I wanted to do away with return fire, but that would put newer/slower players at a serious disadvantage, and we don't have the player base to support that kind of game yet.
I'd never be in favor of removing return fire, that gives a massive advantage to the smart/skilled players.
Lead: Sesame Street, Rogue Squad

Co-Lead: Suckas, Black Sun Ascending, Wraith Squadron, Fool's Errend, Team Poker, The Phantom Order, Toxic #5

Member of: Team Pup and Suds, Nintendo Power, System Failure, Crusaders, new dawn, Cereal Killers, Armory, Armory V2, _-=`Perfection`=-_, The Guild, Ragnarok, Heimdall, United Rebels, ilLegitimate Basterds

I've seen and done it all
JettJackson
Fledgling Spam Artist
Posts: 3572
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 12:38 am
Location: Eastpointe MI

Re: XDemonX's Map

Post by JettJackson »

Upon looking over the map specs I decided 2 planets per planet gal is fine, that puts it at 4 planets to take total. If possible I would consider maybe starting the planets at level 20 that way someone cant just take all the planets immediately but you still have to build them to be deadly something like 10/45/5 to start out Gens/Hangers/Turrets. Lemme know what you guys think?
Lead: Sesame Street, Rogue Squad

Co-Lead: Suckas, Black Sun Ascending, Wraith Squadron, Fool's Errend, Team Poker, The Phantom Order, Toxic #5

Member of: Team Pup and Suds, Nintendo Power, System Failure, Crusaders, new dawn, Cereal Killers, Armory, Armory V2, _-=`Perfection`=-_, The Guild, Ragnarok, Heimdall, United Rebels, ilLegitimate Basterds

I've seen and done it all
jouldax
Newbie Spam Artist
Posts: 582
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 3:38 pm

Re: XDemonX's Map

Post by jouldax »

Clearly, JJ, that's why we can't implement no return fire. I said as much in my post.

I'm ok with pre-building rocks, and maybe 2 per galaxy are enough, although if there's enough pb activity, 3 might be more fun. I could go either way.

I think the only unresolved issue is regarding the racial/arming issue - I'm still open to having 2 separate galaxies for racials, but I still don't know if I like the shield vs armor arming impediment. I know your thought process is to focus on getting players out of fed, but that rarely happens in a draft game, and I don't really want to hurt op chances because of long arming routes. A draft game should be all about action and pb's, and if you put fed far enough away from the pgals, I think you'll have done enough to prevent a fed fleet from playing the game without adding a ton of extra turns for arming.
Asppy
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 10:21 pm

Re: XDemonX's Map

Post by Asppy »

Yes they have to be pre built imop. but will they be inhabitable ?
Post Reply