SMR2 -> Mines

Post by **OmegaRenegade** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 1:14 pm

Just wonderin what role mines will play in SMR2. If there is going to be a change so we dont see galaxy wide mine fields or not?

Post by **MrSpock** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 1:43 pm

travdans forumla seems reasonable.

Post by **OmegaRenegade** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 2:05 pm

Well I personally dont think it will work, but without a real test we cant be sure

Post by **MrSpock** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 2:30 pm

thats another point. what i can't and will not do is to work on a certain feature to implement and then you say nah. thats not cool. so work on it before coding (theoretically)

Post by **OmegaRenegade** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 2:42 pm

I seem to be the only one who doesnt think it will work, I was just voicing my own opinion, everyone else likes it so I say lets try it

LotuS · Post by **LotuS** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 3:53 pm

What exactly is wrong with the mine forumla now?

Post by **OmegaRenegade** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 11:56 pm

Not the formula itself, its use, galaxy wide mine fields

Travdan · Post by **Travdan** » Tue Nov 16, 2004 4:16 am

PLATFORMS

<Travdan> so, if people *can* increase their minefield, they will
<OmegaRenegade> ya
<Travdan> What OR suggested was that we concentrate the effect of minefields into smallest area possible
<Prince_Valiant> so it increases damage the radius of the field
<OmegaRenegade> Travdan's got it
<RandyOrsolo> I understand that. These platforms would be used instead of mines around planets?
<OmegaRenegade> if we set them up right yeah
<Travdan> "Platforms" right now is a completely vague term which corresponds to no physical idea yet.
<Prince_Valiant> we donâ€™t need another degree of damage
<RandyOrsolo> I don't like 'em, but I wouldn't go that far. Why is that, PV?
<Travdan> so feel free to change the nomenclature to make it sound more pleasing to you =)
<Travdan> In OR's idea, mines would still play a crucial role in defense, **but only active defense**
[16:42] <Travdan> so you have the platforms, which are essentially the static part of your defense
[16:42] <RandyOrsolo> my problem with this is twofold. 1) This does nothing to address the supposed problem with mining a CA
[16:42] <Travdan> then you have players, which are the dynamic part of your defense
[16:43] <Travdan> let me clarify - mines would have a much shorter lifetime (far less than a day)
[16:43] <OmegaRenegade> even large stacks
[16:43] <RandyOrsolo> if we do it to larger stacks we'd be killing defensive mining entirely
[16:44] <Travdan> Hold on guys --
[16:44] <Travdan> Think about it this way
[16:45] <Travdan> Mines are being replaced by "platforms" (or whatever you want to call them) as the static defense in a galaxy. It would be almost entirely similar to mines except it would be concentrated. Think this: same number of turns, money, effort, etc. to create a "platform" which would have the same effect as a certain sized minefield.
[16:47] <OmegaRenegade> the point is, you take away all the mine fields and squish them down into a small area
[16:47] <OmegaRenegade> then the endurance of mines is reduced drastically so they arenâ€™t left for days everywhere
[16:48] <RandyOrsolo> giving planet busters something else to hit before they take the planet. I'd still need to see some numbers on how you'd make this happen
[16:48] <Travdan> Ok... hmm... OR, would you agree that the point is that mines are too widespread. The only way to increase the potency of a minefield is to increase its area. Soon you start to have minefields that bog down entire galaxies and neutral galaxies. If you squish the minefield, you keep the exact same effect, except it doesn't bog down entire galaxies.
[16:48] <OmegaRenegade> yeah
[16:48] <Travdan> RO, absolutely. Like I said, this is a very enigmatic idea.
[16:49] <Travdan> There would absolutely be very intensive number crunching
[16:49] <RandyOrsolo> it is original, to be sure
[16:49] <Travdan> But it's something I'm willing to do.
[16:49] <RandyOrsolo> the only numbers I want to crunch are planet related
[16:49] <Prince_Valiant> ya
[16:49] <Travdan> Right
[16:49] <OmegaRenegade> I'll help anyway I can
[16:49] <Prince_Valiant> good point
[16:50] <Travdan> Here would be the goal of the analysis:
[16:51] <Travdan> represent the current dynamic and static properties of minefields of a radius r. Then design "platforms" with this team's ideas in a way where at a certain radius r (which requires x number of turns, y amount of money, and z amount of effort) to equal that of platforms of a strength 'p'
[16:52] <Travdan> by looking at the new dynamic and static properties with the change in mines and addition of platforms
[16:52] <OmegaRenegade> now, will platform strength increase in relation to planet size?
[16:52] <Travdan> That would have to be determined later OR
[16:52] <OmegaRenegade> made sense to me
[16:52] <Prince_Valiant> alot of gobbledy gook
[16:52] <Prince_Valiant> but I got it
[16:53] <Travdan> Ooo!
[16:53] <Travdan> I just thought of a good analogy
[16:53] <Travdan> here it is:
[16:55] <Travdan> consider current galaxy defense to be represented by a linear function. platforms would just plot that function on a logarithmic scale, and that's how it would appear in game, though the actual function isn't changing
[16:55] <Prince_Valiant> ok I understand
[16:56] <Prince_Valiant> I just donâ€™t like adding a totally new aspect to the game
[16:56] <Travdan> PV, we can make platforms as familiar as possible if we can think of a design

Discuss =)

Post by **RandyOrsolo** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 11:27 pm

Maybe we should just keep mines but lower the expire time so that a galaxy-wide mine-field is impossible to maintain. I know we would've lost a lot of mines already if the expire times were 8 or 16 hours for a full stack. Hell, even just a day.

Platforms are an idea, but the proposed changes to mines might be a little too harsh. I'd like to see a few more options.

Post by **OmegaRenegade** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 11:31 pm

like what?