Admin Table - September 12

Discussions about everything, SMR related or not.
jouldax
Newbie Spam Artist
Posts: 582
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 3:38 pm

Admin Table - September 12

Post by jouldax »

[16:02] <@Jouldax> There are 3 focuses for today's admin table
[16:02] <@Jouldax> 1. The initial start of the game will be delayed due to server maintenance
[16:02] <@Jouldax> 2. The planned changes for reversion to classic
[16:03] <@Jouldax> 3. Our thoughts on the future of SMR, featuring Astax' plans and ideas as new beta head coder

[16:03] <@Jouldax> to begin with 1.
[16:03] <@Jouldax> I'd like to turn the floor over to mr-spock
[16:03] <@Jouldax> just to cover what's going on currently
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[16:03] <@MrSpock> Thank you.
[16:04] <@MrSpock> First of all i would like to thank RCK and GD for their work and time
[16:05] <@MrSpock> and congratulate Jouldax and Bouncer to promotion! :D
[16:05] <@Jouldax> ty
[16:05] <@Incognito> thanks
[16:05] <@MrSpock> If the java and internet gods are in my favor i have to take down the server this weekend to do some needed software upgrades.
[16:06] <@MrSpock> unfortunatly it all depends on that fu* dell DRAC interface
[16:07] <@MrSpock> anyway. as soon as i get it working i will start. i was hoping to get it done between games
[16:07] <@MrSpock> i will keep you guys updated in chat and webboard.
[16:07] <@MrSpock> thats about it.
[16:07] <@MrSpock> back to you
[16:08] <@Jouldax> thank you mr-spock
[16:08] <@Jouldax> particularly for maintaining and keeping this game running in the background
[16:08] <@Jouldax> I know a lot of people don't see you visibly
[16:08] <@Jouldax> before I get into the deeper points here
[16:08] <@Jouldax> please note that the channel has been set to +m
[16:09] <@Jouldax> so, if you have questions
[16:09] <@Jouldax> please PM JJ
[16:09] <@Jouldax> and he will pass them along to me
[16:09] <@JettJackson> i will post them in here
[16:09] <@JettJackson> as i get them in order
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[16:10] <@Jouldax> alright, without further ado
[16:10] <@Jouldax> we are considering making a game in the beta realm depending on the server downtime
[16:10] <@Jouldax> there will be an announcement should that take place
[16:10] <@Jouldax> the downtime isn't expected to last long
[16:10] <@Jouldax> so it will likely be some iteration of semi wars
[16:11] <@Jouldax> now, for the main topics of business
[16:11] <@Jouldax> the impending reversion to smr
[16:11] <@Jouldax> let's begin with probably the biggest change
[16:11] <@Jouldax> which would be a reversion in ships
[16:12] <@Jouldax> JJ has proposed the following, and as an admin team, we believe this is a good starting point for discussion:
[16:12] <@Jouldax> Changes to ships: Personally I would like to keep all neutral trade ships as how they are, this gives players many options for trading and none of the ships are strong like the old PSF. I would however revert all racial ships and good/evil ships back to a configuration like this http://web.archive.org/web/200801201516 ... p_list.php from back in early 2008. This would include all hardware/speed/cost.
[16:12] <@Jouldax> so, trade ships stay, racials and aligned ships revert
[16:12] <@JettJackson> jouldax quick point
[16:13] <@Jouldax> go ahead JJ - it's your initial thought
[16:13] <@JettJackson> that link doesn't work, give me a moment to post the correct one
[16:13] <@Jouldax> after you post, if you'd like to add any additional insight to your thought process
[16:13] <@Jouldax> go ahead as well
[16:14] <@JettJackson> http://web.archive.org/web/200801201516 ... p_list.php
[16:14] <@JettJackson> I picked this date because it goes back to SMR 1.2.1 however it does have inclusions of Nijarin ships
[16:15] <@JettJackson> I also chose a weapon list from around the same time as well
[16:16] <@Jouldax> we'll get into weapons in a moment
[16:16] <@JettJackson> http://web.archive.org/web/200712050753 ... n_list.php
[16:16] <@Jouldax> for those of you that are here
[16:16] <@JettJackson> ok ya i was just getting the correct links
[16:16] <@Jouldax> please take a moment to peruse the proposed ship changes
[16:16] <@Jouldax> and if you have any thoughts or feedback
[16:16] <@Jouldax> please send your comments and questions to JJ
[16:17] <@JettJackson> the main thing I wanted to propose was putting the hunters/warbirds back to original configuration
[16:17] <@JettJackson> as many have been calling for that change since it occurred
[16:18] <@JettJackson> the reasoning for keeping the traders as current configuration was due to reasoning that it allows for multiple trade options vs an overpowered PSF and IST as the only options in previous SMR versions
[16:19] <@JettJackson> I felt the different configurations we have currently allows more choice by the players and allows for trade ships to not be unkillable tanks without losing trade potential.
[16:19] <@Jouldax> JJ - with ships reverting to the previous pricing as well, do you think the current iteration of traders and historical versions of racials and aligned ships is balanced, or would we have to consider making cost changes?
[16:19] <@JettJackson> Is the FU price going to be the same or lowered. 43mill seems a bit much opposed to other ships.
[16:19] <@JettJackson> this question was presented
[16:20] <@Jouldax> I'd like to hear your opinion
[16:20] <@JettJackson> the answer is yes the FU/DC will go back to original prices as well
[16:20] <@Jouldax> as it mirrors my question
[16:20] <@Jouldax> and your thoughts on my inquiry?
[16:20] <@JettJackson> the reason being it allows for the ship to have more meaning vs everyone and their mother flying them
[16:21] <@JettJackson> although on the flipside, money is a bit easier to get now compared to previous versions, with upping of trade profit and port raids being profitable.
[16:22] <@JettJackson> one exception to prices compared to original configuration would be ikky ships
[16:22] <@Jouldax> as a point of information - there are no changes planned to ports/port raids at this time
[16:22] <@JettJackson> as drones are currently 1000 per drone, and unless we up the price on drones we will need to keep ikky ships at current prices
[16:22] <@Jouldax> we'll discuss that in a bit
[16:22] <@Jouldax> or bring it up a bit later
[16:22] <@Jouldax> but that is a valid point
[16:23] <@JettJackson> if we do decide to up the drone price, we will change the ship prices accordingly in fairness to other races
[16:23] <@JettJackson> i don't believe i have any more points about ships, are there any further questions?
[16:24] <@JettJackson> oh i didn't see jouldax's question
[16:25] <@JettJackson> I think the current prices of the neutral trade ships can remain in place, they are fair compared to racial prices
[16:25] <@JettJackson> note any neutral hunter though, will go back to original price/configuration
[16:25] <@JettJackson> this include the BC and medium carrier
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
[16:26] <@Jouldax> alright, let's move on to weapons
[16:26] <@Jouldax> JJ, can you repost the link plz?
[16:26] <@JettJackson> http://web.archive.org/web/200712050753 ... n_list.php
[16:26] <@Jouldax> the floor is yours again
[16:26] <@JettJackson> ok
[16:28] <@JettJackson> the reason why i chose this time, is again it is around the 2008 time frame with the ships, this weapon list does include the wq shield vaporizer the neutral photon torpedo and the thevian shield disperser's acc boost
[16:28] <@JettJackson> i felt this is the fairest weapon list out there and included those additions in later versions of classic
[16:29] <@JettJackson> are there any questions about the weapon list, note this isn't final and we will be creating a thread to discuss the reversion to classic on the web board for more ideas and concerns of the players who may not be here tonight
[16:30] <@seldum> I like the new weapons gives a lot more arming options, then the previous 3-4 standard set-ups
[16:30] <@JettJackson> the current weapons?
[16:30] <@seldum> yes
[16:30] <@JettJackson> that is a valid point as well
[16:30] <@JettJackson> and I do agree
[16:30] <@seldum> the 2008 list you have hhg, cbd semfc combo, nuke tsd or wqsv, hpt combo
[16:30] <@seldum> with minor variations of each
[16:30] <@JettJackson> yes
[16:30] <@seldum> and obviously nijarin setup
[16:31] <@seldum> with the current weapons Ive seen a lot of really odd but effective set-ups
[16:31] <@JettJackson> we can discuss this further and maybe put it to a vote with respect to weapons as it does allow for more options with the current weapon list. I think the bigger hang up for players and the admin team was the ship list
[16:31] <@JettJackson> more so than the weapon list
[16:32] <@Jouldax> Damage output will be slightly down vs. classic with the new weapons, I believe
[16:32] <@Jouldax> but with reverted ships
[16:32] <@Jouldax> you'll have more HPs
[16:32] <@JettJackson> we certainly do want player input on this discussion as we are for what the playerbase wants
[16:32] <@JettJackson> yes
[16:32] <@JettJackson> and smaller warbirds in most situations
[16:33] <@JettJackson> except for wq/thevian
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[16:33] <@JettJackson> just going back for a moment to the ships
[16:33] <@JettJackson> we will be reverting alskant back
[16:33] <@JettJackson> as part of the racial ships being reverted back
[16:34] <@Jouldax> and what implications does that have?
[16:35] <@JettJackson> well it gives alskant a strong trade race but it doesn't make them the absolute best, I feel all their traders are much stronger compared to the rest, I am not married to this change though.
[16:36] <@Jouldax> alright - let's keep that open for discussion
[16:36] <@Jouldax> and move on
[16:36] <@Jouldax> we'll likely poll for weapon changes as well
[16:36] <@JettJackson> we could always adjust their ship size while keeping their trade potential too
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[16:37] <@Jouldax> shifting to cloak
[16:37] <@JettJackson> as alskant ships are pretty huge, even their beginning ship is a /8 at full hardware
[16:37] <@Jouldax> it has been recommended that cloak no longer cost 1 turn to activate
[16:37] <@Jouldax> I think most of the admin team is ok with that change

[16:37] <@Jouldax> laying forces will still drop cloak
[16:37] <@Jouldax> does anyone have any thoughts on this possible change?
[16:38] <@JettJackson> Yes, the reasoning for that is cloak is already penalized severely and the turn cost is just over the top
[16:39] <@Jouldax> since we're talking about hardware changes
[16:39] <@JettJackson> We will leave the cloak experience based though, because previously level 50 was a level where the person could cloak and not be decloaked even with someone higher exp
[16:39] <@Jouldax> yes
[16:39] <@Jouldax> that's a good point
----------------------------------------------------------------
[16:39] <@Jouldax> drone scrambler - Drone scrambler probably should go back to the original configuration with 3/4 drone damage but not 1/2 mine damage.
[16:39] <@Jouldax> JJ's suggestion

[16:40] <@Jouldax> which I think seems reasonable
[16:40] <@JettJackson> Yeah, that would also help boost the power of mines a bit and make federal ships have more meaning to them
[16:40] <@seldum> this is a giant nerf to Nijarrin
[16:41] <@JettJackson> right now a couple nijarin ships could mow down an entire mine field
[16:41] <@JettJackson> at low costs compared to the mines themselves
[16:41] <@seldum> as we will be dropping Fury's defenses and taking this buff away too
[16:42] <@JettJackson> It isn't finalized but I do think the mine damage is too huge for an entire race to have
[16:43] <@JettJackson> I am interested in your opinion as to why you do think nijarins should retain that ability though seldum
[16:43] <@seldum> Well they are not useful for anything but OP'ing so why not make them the clear cut best OP race
[16:44] <@JettJackson> Well in that situation I would make the damage they take from mines 3/4 then, as 1/2 is overpowered especially with a 7 hardpoint ship
[16:44] <@seldum> probably a better solution

[16:44] <@Jouldax> ok
[16:45] <@Jouldax> that seems a fair compromise
[16:45] <@JettJackson> that compromises the situation and allows for federal ships to have their 1/2 still[16:45] <@JettJackson> someone note that in the thread lol, i will forget
[16:45] <@Jouldax> we'll post logs
[16:45] <@Jouldax> I'll parse through all of this
[16:45] <@JettJackson> ok
-----------------------------------------------------------
[16:46] <@Jouldax> since we're talking about drones
[16:46] <@Jouldax> as you brought up earlier
[16:46] <@Jouldax> drone prices probably need to be raised
[16:46] <@JettJackson> i don't have any questions currently on hardware, does anyone else have questions?
[16:46] <@Jouldax> the compromise point was 5k
[16:46] <@seldum> Jump drive
[16:46] <@Jouldax> hold on, seldum
[16:46] <@Jouldax> that's a good topic
[16:46] <@Jouldax> as JJ mentioned
[16:47] <@Jouldax> if we raise drone prices, we will make sure other ships are comparable
[16:47] <@Jouldax> it's nice to include drones in mine stacks
[16:47] <@Jouldax> without breaking the bank
[16:47] <@Jouldax> but the MS would have been too cheap
[16:47] <@JettJackson> yes
---------------------------------------------------------------
[16:47] <@Jouldax> alright - jump drive
[16:47] <@Jouldax> seldum, go ahead
[16:48] <@seldum> mothership with old drone cost came out to 10.2 mil or something which is a bit lower than other wbs but needs to spend that 4 mil if they lose all drones again
[16:48] <@JettJackson> yeah
[16:48] <@JettJackson> we would adjust fairly
[16:48] <@JettJackson> for sure
[16:49] <@seldum> I had nothing to go ahead with I was just wondering if the jump drive would go back to the 15 turn per jump and only able to jump through 1 warp or retain the current dynamic system
[16:49] <@JettJackson> ok
[16:49] <@JettJackson> the reason why i would keep it as is
[16:50] <@JettJackson> is because going back to original configuration would require a rewrite of that particular code section
[16:50] <@JettJackson> plus with smaller maps there really aren't many 15 sector jumps anymore

[16:50] <@JettJackson> it made sense years ago when the maps were 2000-5000 sectors
[16:51] <@JettJackson> but now we have maps of 800-1400
[16:51] <@JettJackson> so essentially reverting back to the 15 sector one gal model would make the jump very ineffective
[16:51] <@seldum> when I have jump drive I routinely make 30-40 sector jumps
[16:52] <@JettJackson> plus the current system allows for distance modification where cost is built in
[16:52] <@JettJackson> yes but you also miss by several sectors
[16:52] <@seldum> anyway I like jumping across the whole map
[16:52] <@Jouldax> lol
[16:52] <@Jouldax> Alright
[16:52] <@JettJackson> with humans having the weaker ships of many races, i think keeping the dynamic system allows for a fairness to them
[16:52] <@Jouldax> and again
[16:53] <@Jouldax> if you have any comments or questions
[16:53] <@Jouldax> please direct them to JJ
[16:53] <@Jouldax> even if it's related to a topic we've moved on from
[16:53] <@JettJackson> my phone lines are empty
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
[16:53] <@Jouldax> next topic:
[16:53] <@Jouldax> Hotkeys
[16:53] <@Jouldax> I think most are in favor of keeping
[16:53] <@Jouldax> but with a reversion to classic, it at least deserved a mention

[16:54] <@JettJackson> Yes, it is a fundamental improvement on the game that doesn't necessarily change the game's dynamic
[16:54] <@seldum> what would you have me do with my freehand otherwise?
[16:54] <@Jouldax> no one answer that
[16:54] <@JettJackson> no comment
[16:54] <@Jouldax> Icons and missions also fall into that category
[16:54] <@Jouldax> I think most people like them

[16:55] <@Jouldax> adds a little color to the game
[16:55] <@Jouldax> and a bit of ease for trading
[16:55] <@JettJackson> yes, both are positive additions with no negative backlash
[16:55] <@seldum> well the *mission* really boosts the speed of starting
[16:55] <@Incognito> And hopefully, missions will be expanded upon in the future
[16:55] <@Astax> I have an option to revert to classic icons in a patch that hasn't been uploaded
[16:56] <@Astax> for some people with real nostalgia issues

[16:56] <@JettJackson> which would allow people the option as well
[16:56] <@Jouldax> Alright - I think that pretty much wraps up the reversion discussion
[16:56] <@Jouldax> I'll open it up to you guys if I missed anything
[16:56] <@JettJackson> seldum that is true, but with a limited playerbase i think it isn't a bad problem to speed things up a hair at the beginning
[16:56] <@Jouldax> I suspect he meant that in a positive way
[16:57] <@seldum> its a double edged sword
[16:57] <@seldum> starting phase taking less than a day means hunters on day 2 means wbs on day 4 and we reach midgame by first week
[16:57] <@seldum> obviously no one likes the grind of opening day trading in a semi
[16:57] <@JettJackson> we may have in the current game but that was with massive teams
[16:58] <@seldum> or racial starter I think we start with now
[16:58] <@JettJackson> factor it to 15-20 man alliances and it slows some
[16:58] <@Astax> I need to go soon so if u need me to speak better do it soon. A lot of stuff being discussed now actually seems more like after open table stuff
[16:58] <@Jouldax> yeah
[16:58] <@Jouldax> like I said
[16:58] <@Jouldax> let's move on
[16:59] <@Jouldax> I think we've covered most of the reversion topics
[16:59] <@Jouldax> and I'll post a list of open issues after I browse the logs later
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[16:59] <@Jouldax> moving on to the future of SMR
[16:59] <@JettJackson> yes, we will post a thread about that topic more and people can include stuff there
[16:59] <@Jouldax> Astax has graciously agreed to become head coder for the new "beta"
[16:59] <@Jouldax> I'll give him the floor to share his thoughts and what we might expect

[17:00] <@Astax> Thank you
[17:00] <@Astax> To open this up, I'm going to be brief
[17:00] <@Astax> what I wish to do for the game is add more variety and more interactivity
[17:01] <@Astax> there will be opportunities to make choices while playing, and time to do so. It will not be the kidn of game where you mash the F button
[17:01] <@Astax> and pray....
[17:01] <@Astax> 1 v 1 you will have option to fight or run, likewise if someone runs you will be able to chase them effectively without guessign and dropping mines
[17:02] <@Astax> in team fights you will need to coordinate your actions with your team
[17:02] <@Jouldax> can you elaborate a bit more on your vision? I hear it will be graphics-based...
[17:03] <@Astax> I plan on creating a new way to view what is going on, not just the crappy list of players
[17:03] <@Astax> you will actually see ship icons, alogn with icons representing shield strength and armor
[17:03] <@Astax> you will be able to fire from this view
[17:03] <@Astax> without need to go into examine view
[17:03] <@Astax> but you will no longer fire for the whole team
[17:04] <@Astax> so when you see a list of enemy ships you and your teammates better be all firing at the same one
[17:04] <@JettJackson> nice flood jouldax :p
[17:04] <@Astax> if that is your trategy
[17:04] <@Astax> but I will also work to add items to ships that will work to heal allies
[17:04] <@Astax> instead of damaging enemies
[17:05] <@Astax> and firing will be based on cooldown so you have to wait before firing back to back
[17:06] <@Astax> essentially your team will only have certain amoutn fo firepower over certain amount of time, and you have to allocate it wisely
[17:06] <@Astax> also to make this work accuracy may be increased but that is not absolute yet
[17:06] <@Astax> to compensate there may be damage boost to higher level players since they will not benefit from accuracy as much
[17:07] <@Astax> but that too is tenative
[17:07] <@Astax> anyway the combat revision is the main focus of the next 3 months as I will have some help from other coders which I am recruitting on wednesday
[17:07] <@Astax> some other revisions I'll also put in as time permits
[17:08] <@Astax> but we are likely to be focusing on adding new graphics and redoing combat
[17:08] <@Astax> do we have any Qs so far JJ?
[17:08] <@Astax> I have to leave shortly so I want to address anything that needs addressing
[17:09] <@Astax> goey asked if there are # in fleet fights...
[17:09] <@JettJackson> i have no questions currently
[17:09] <@Astax> like I said goey
[17:09] <@Astax> you will no logner trigger blindly for your team
[17:10] <@Astax> if you want ten players to fire then 10 players will have to fire
[17:10] <@JettJackson> i do like hearing these changes though it could be a very interesting change for the game
[17:10] <@Astax> but you no logner fire from examine screen
[17:10] <@Astax> so it is easier to trigger
[17:10] <@Astax> even for slower players
[17:10] <@Astax> and the information you have before firing will be substantially better than what you have now so you can target the proper players in enemy fleet

[17:11] <@Astax> there will be changes to movement also, these I am keeping under wraps for now
[17:12] <@Astax> but suffice to say those that want to play SMR all day will be allowed to do so, without getting ahead too much
[17:12] <@Astax> and those who only play few hours will be able to do so without feeling useless
[17:12] <@Astax> and falling behind
[17:12] <@Jouldax> did you mention return fire?
[17:13] <@Astax> return fire will nto take place unless you enable it, as return fire will trigger cooldown probably for weapons
[17:14] <@Astax> some balancing will take place but most likely you will want to return fire on your own
[17:15] <@Jouldax> I know this is a lot for everyone to process
[17:15] <@Jouldax> ultimately, once we have a plan nailed down, we will be asking for beta volunteers
[17:15] <@Astax> yes I know there are lingering questions like what happens after PB and people go to space
[17:15] <@Astax> suffice to say that will also be addressed
[17:15] <@Jouldax> I didn't mean to cut you off Astax
[17:15] <@Astax> that is fine
[17:15] <@Astax> my time is almost up
[17:15] <@Astax> please continue
[17:15] <@Jouldax> I had a feeling
[17:16] <@Jouldax> First off
[17:16] <@Jouldax> I'd like to thank you in advance
[17:16] <@Jouldax> for taking this on
[17:16] <@Jouldax> an in game announcement will go out regarding volunteers
[17:16] <@Jouldax> but I'd like to post at least an initial plan within the next week
[17:16] <@Jouldax> for people that couldn't be here
[17:17] <@Jouldax> of just ideas that we'd like to incorporate
[17:17] * Astax is now known as Astax_afk
[17:17] <@Jouldax> Astax - if anyone wants to help code
[17:17] <@Jouldax> before you go
[17:17] <@Jouldax> how would that work?
[17:18] <@Jouldax> think I might have missed him :)
[17:18] <@Jouldax> we'll post details to that as well
[17:18] <@JettJackson> yeah :P
[17:18] <@Jouldax> alright
[17:18] <@Jouldax> If anyone has been able to absorb that mass of information
[17:18] <@Jouldax> and has any feedback or comments or questions
[17:19] <@Jouldax> now would be the time to speak up
[17:20] <@Jouldax> alright - please don't be shy about this going forward
[17:20] <@Jouldax> the more input we get
[17:20] <@Jouldax> the better this game can be
[17:20] <@Jouldax> I don't believe I have any more topics for today
[17:21] <@Jouldax> does anyone else on the admin team have something they wish to address
[17:21] <@Jouldax> or any player in here have something they'd like the admin team to address
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[17:22] <@Jouldax> one thing Bouncer wanted me to bring up:
[17:22] <@Jouldax> I have brought up the possibility of a rule revision/rewrite
[17:22] <@Jouldax> I think many of us feel the old rule system is both a bit punitive and archaic
[17:23] <@Jouldax> I don't have anything specific to share with you at this time
[17:24] <@Jouldax> But do know that we're considering everything from tweaks to a major overhaul

[17:24] <@JettJackson> any rewrite of the rules will be fair to the players, the admin team does not like to have to punish players it is never a good time for both parties
[17:24] <@JettJackson> we will insure fairness in any changes though
[17:26] <@Jouldax> alright
[17:26] <@Jouldax> on that note
[17:26] <@Jouldax> I believe the open portion of the admin table has come to a close
[17:26] <@Jouldax> thank you all the participated today
[17:27] <@Jouldax> I hope you guys are at least a little more excited if not informed about the direction of the game
[17:27] <@Jouldax> And as always
[17:27] <@Jouldax> please don't hesitate to reach out to any of us
jouldax
Newbie Spam Artist
Posts: 582
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 3:38 pm

Re: Admin Table - September 12

Post by jouldax »

Items still for discussion:

1. Ship cost balancing assuming drones go to 5k/drone
2. Alskant ships – revert or not
3. Weapons Poll – current weapons (more arming possibilities), old weapons (4 or 5 classic setups), or a hybrid of current + revert level 5 to previous levels
4. DS = ¾ mine damage vs. ½
JettJackson
Fledgling Spam Artist
Posts: 3572
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 12:38 am
Location: Eastpointe MI

Re: Admin Table - September 12

Post by JettJackson »

Some opinions for the items still requiring discussion:
For 1. we need to decide if we are going to 5k/drone if so then I will come up with some price adjustments for the ikky ships, I think we should consider maybe a slightly lower price for FU/DC though too as they are drone dependent ships, maybe 38 mill for FU and 25 for DC. Would be a fair compromise.

The Alskant ships I would keep their trade potential the same except for ATM I would make the ATM have 150 holds for utility purposes but not good trade potential while leaving the same hardware including the Drone Scrambler. For the other 3 alskant ships the Trip Maker is the cheapest ship they have so I would make it very weak something like 250 Shield 150 armor. The Deal Maker is the fast cloaker so I would also make that smaller maybe 250 shield 175 armor 30 drones. Deep spacer is their Jumper I would probably make that 350 shield 250 armor 50 drones, this would be comparable to the ACV/IST but with drones/mines/scouts vs none with ACV and quicker than IST.

The purpose for these changes is it allows for the Alskant race to remain the top traders but also make the great trade potential come with a cost of defense.

As for weapons I would go with option #3, keep the current weapons except for the level 5 weapons.

The drone scrambler mine damage to 3/4 would give Nijarin ships a remaining boost while not overpowering their clearing capabilities especially with the Fury going back to 7 hardpoints.
These points can still be refined though.
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: Admin Table - September 12

Post by jouldax »

yes to 5k drones. I'll run a cost:trade power analysis later

Interesting idea with skant - I like having a super trader race at the cost of more defense. They can't be TOO squishy tho. Think the /ratings need a little more balance

I also agree with the weapons change; just revert the level 5s

I think we all agree with the DS changes, I just listed it here for confirmation.
JettJackson
Fledgling Spam Artist
Posts: 3572
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 12:38 am
Location: Eastpointe MI

Re: Admin Table - September 12

Post by JettJackson »

I made the defenses close to the neutral traders but they keep their higher trade potential compared to the neutral ships. I think it is a fair compromise, as keeping them as high of defense now makes them too overpowered especially with hunters going back to smaller ships with less hardpoints.
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
XDemonX
Newbie Spam Artist
Posts: 657
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2002 4:28 am
Location: Highland
Contact:

Re: Admin Table - September 12

Post by XDemonX »

Thanks for taking the time to post the admin table jouldax. Sucks I had to miss it.

One big point I haven't seen addressed(unless I missed it) is the coding of the game being reverted also? Meaning, combat code ect. Back in the good ol days a skilled hunter could maintain experience pace with the top trader by killing. If I remember correctly, the DC was initially nerfed because the combination of the experience gain from killing and the DC being a /15 people like Orca and Sergei could clean house with most the game.

I would personally like to see the experience gains from killing go back to how they use to be. Trading is boring and takes little to no skill but yet it rewards the most experience. Hunting takes a lot more time and is much more difficult. I know some people (pointing at you JJ) think that people shouldn't be rewarded for spending a lot of time on the game. I think people should be rewarded. Every single decent game is setup that way. The more time you spend daily on the game, the better your character will be at that game. There is no logical reason that a person that spends 10-20 minutes a day as someone that spends hours a day at the game. Activity is good for the game and not activity that only exists for a small timeframe in the day. One of the most fun things i can remember is getting a DC and hunting like mad trying to stay high enough so you could logoff cloaked. I am willing to discuss this point so if you disagree please explain why you disagree and don't just respond with a half answer please.

Next about the changes is with cloak. Is cloak being reverted back to raw experience or level based again. I personally loved level based. Same level can't see same level. It adds another aspect to the game with trading to a certain level and decloaking people.

Next, How about the ranking system? Are we reverting to how it use to be? Master player = 500 kills and 2.5m exp traded? or are we sticking to user score.

Next, is jump drive going back too? Meaning it was 15 turns no matter how far but it was based on experience for % success and you could only jump through max 1 warp.

I guess it might be easier to answer these questions if you just say what you are brining from current game. Are you guys just taking all the old code from way back when then maybe adding little snippits?
Last edited by XDemonX on Wed Sep 17, 2014 11:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
This is a beat, you just can't touch.....
Image
JettJackson
Fledgling Spam Artist
Posts: 3572
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 12:38 am
Location: Eastpointe MI

Re: Admin Table - September 12

Post by JettJackson »

I would be for killing experience going back to the original style where exp loss was larger and exp gain was larger as well. It made killing matter, compared to how it is now.

As for the cloak, the current style makes more sense just from a rational standing. Keeping the cloak experience based vs level based would make the most sense especially since level differences beyond 80k are 10k or more per level. You shouldn't have a 10k cushion of safety or in the case of level 50, unlimited safety of being decloaked. The cloak is already getting something back with the removal of a turn for cloaking.

The scoring system would probably remain as is, as that would require a rewrite of the hall of fame and scoring.

The jump drive is probably going to stay as is due to the reasoning of the smaller games we have right now. There aren't many 15+ sector 1 galaxy jumps any more because of the maps are smaller compared to previous instances of SMR. Thus reverting back to 15 1 galaxy max jump would render the jump drive ineffective.

The idea of reverting back to classic is to use the current code but revert back several specific entities back to classic style, while keeping some things that everyone likes, such as the multitude of new trade options with neutral ships or the hotkeys for examples.
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
XDemonX
Newbie Spam Artist
Posts: 657
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2002 4:28 am
Location: Highland
Contact:

Re: Admin Table - September 12

Post by XDemonX »

Page's combat code will be used? Not old style combat code?

Well the cushion with cloak is where the strategy comes into play. Trading to a certain point so you can logoff in game is a luxary not many have. You know if you trade to just 111k you got a small 9k gap before next level so you are probably safe to logoff and stuff.

Very few get to level 50 and become unseeable. I honestly don't remember a time where someone got to 50 and had enough time to actually use the cloak to be useful in being unseeable.
This is a beat, you just can't touch.....
Image
JettJackson
Fledgling Spam Artist
Posts: 3572
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 12:38 am
Location: Eastpointe MI

Re: Admin Table - September 12

Post by JettJackson »

XDemonX wrote:Page's combat code will be used? Not old style combat code?

Well the cushion with cloak is where the strategy comes into play. Trading to a certain point so you can logoff in game is a luxary not many have. You know if you trade to just 111k you got a small 9k gap before next level so you are probably safe to logoff and stuff.

Very few get to level 50 and become unseeable. I honestly don't remember a time where someone got to 50 and had enough time to actually use the cloak to be useful in being unseeable.
It makes more sense to do it by experience, it would give cloak more of a risk if they want to log off at a certain exp, knowing they could be passed vs being able to log off knowing they won't be passed with an entire level needed. 9k isn't exactly a small gap it is actually very large.

Page's combat code will be used but with the 10v10 currently in place, the old style of combat code isn't fundamentally sound and had issues with it. Not to mention it had double deaths in it vs the current combat code having a specific winner in the fight if it goes to the death.
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
XDemonX
Newbie Spam Artist
Posts: 657
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2002 4:28 am
Location: Highland
Contact:

Re: Admin Table - September 12

Post by XDemonX »

Could you spark a discussion with other admins and deep dive into the cloak issue a bit more?

I think this is something that doesn't need to be just quickly decided and then move on.

Having cloak be level based made people pay attention to levels more than just raw experience. It gave them a tangible reason to get to certain levels. I like consistency in coding. Right now, the combat code is based off level correct? So should cloak. If not, then combat code should be based off raw experience and we should just do away with levels all together. In combat, it only makes sense to trade to a certain point because beyond that the level gap is just too high. I can confirm the "sweet spot" for combat is around 120k-140k.

Another point of this being, this will get more people out of fed. We are always pushing to promote gameplay out of fed and being able to cloak and have somewhat of a bubble in exp to be sort of safe is fun. You have never really been a cloak hunter JJ so it is hard to explain to you. I can remember countless times where I hunted all day knowing I needed to make atleast 7k experience that day to get me to the next level so I didn't have to dearm that night. Or the countless times I cloaked in open knowing only a couple people could see me. These level gaps make sure a huge difference in it. Now that DC is coming back to it's fighting form, i'd like to see cloak switched back to level based. Again, a discussion with the admin team would be greatly appreciated than just having one person make the decision. We are still some time before the classic release, the more discussion the better.
This is a beat, you just can't touch.....
Image
Post Reply