multi player raid and scrap discussion

Come in here if you want to sign up for Multi player games.

Moderator: thunderchero

User avatar
Flocke
BORG Trouble Maker
BORG Trouble Maker
Posts: 2546
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:00 am
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Contact:

Post by Flocke » Tue May 19, 2009 5:22 pm

RSE_Chris wrote:Luckily, a 'mod' can be used as people see fit. If people don't like the changes made, don't use it.
Right and so I say lets test it out. Maybe we end on a compromise like 250% raiding being max, but currently raiding is main income and cause 1.0.3 made it being most important for income all the "don't try to balance 1.0.2" stuff doesn't count.
Call it my pighead, but as long as thunderchero hears at me I say change it! Basta! :P

You always can start a new mod.

User avatar
mickar
UDMIII tournament winner
UDMIII tournament winner
Posts: 338
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 2:00 am
Location: Surrey, BC Canada

Post by mickar » Tue May 19, 2009 5:34 pm

I just have one question then:

If u can't scrap for income and u can't raid for income what do u do for income? Or is that the point?

User avatar
Flocke
BORG Trouble Maker
BORG Trouble Maker
Posts: 2546
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:00 am
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Contact:

Post by Flocke » Tue May 19, 2009 5:47 pm

mickar wrote:I just have one question then:

If u can't scrap for income and u can't raid for income what do u do for income? Or is that the point?
You have to play the game the way it was intended, that's what it is about!
And raiding and scrapping will still give money, much money but not that colossal oversized.

User avatar
mickar
UDMIII tournament winner
UDMIII tournament winner
Posts: 338
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 2:00 am
Location: Surrey, BC Canada

Post by mickar » Tue May 19, 2009 5:59 pm

Just so I understand your reasoning.

You reduced the scrap amount because some players were 'abusing' this and you reduced the raid amount because some were 'abusing' this?

Seriously Flocke, this doesn't make sense to me. If the scrap and raid options are available to both players how can anyone be taking advantage of this?

If seems to me that a person's fleet size is now limited. Limited to the maintenance cost of the fleet. Say I do everything correctly. I maximize my build efficiency and make as many ships as I can as quickly as I can, you know, to destroy my enemy (the object of the game). There will come a point in the game where I can't carrry any more ships as my credits will be in the minus and I won't be able to scrap or raid my way to the positive. My fleet size has reached the maximum.

Was this the point? To limit players fleet size so every game will have the same number of ships when we battle?

Just trying to understand what your intentions are.

User avatar
Flocke
BORG Trouble Maker
BORG Trouble Maker
Posts: 2546
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:00 am
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Contact:

Post by Flocke » Tue May 19, 2009 6:17 pm

Abusement doesn't become better with all people abusing it the same way. It is still abusement and build-upgrade-scrap and raiding are two things you can abuse to death. It has never been fun to me to make income by building 50 colony ships only for upgrade scrap but I have done it previously many times and I didn't like raiding with 80 elite/legendary destroyers but I have done this cause vanilla required this previously to play it out at maximum.

Keep with it if you love it, 1.0.3 has begun changing this and the current tournament modification has been intended to carefully improve and balance it a little more especially for mp.

Only cause the original developers of botf have been incompetent or didn't have the time it luckily doesn't have to be a final state, especially with all the recent findings.

I think you only have become too compfortable with all these old abusement bugs, that's what I think about. ;)

User avatar
mickar
UDMIII tournament winner
UDMIII tournament winner
Posts: 338
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 2:00 am
Location: Surrey, BC Canada

Post by mickar » Tue May 19, 2009 6:19 pm

It's not abuse if both players do it. It's fair.

User avatar
Flocke
BORG Trouble Maker
BORG Trouble Maker
Posts: 2546
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:00 am
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Contact:

Post by Flocke » Tue May 19, 2009 6:21 pm

mickar wrote:It's not abuse if both players do it. It's fair.
Tell this your judge!

User avatar
mickar
UDMIII tournament winner
UDMIII tournament winner
Posts: 338
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 2:00 am
Location: Surrey, BC Canada

Post by mickar » Tue May 19, 2009 6:22 pm

Sorry, should have joined this with my previous post.....

You didn't respond to my observation about how a players fleet size is limited in your mod.

Don't take it personally Flocke, I'm merely trying to understand your mod.

User avatar
Flocke
BORG Trouble Maker
BORG Trouble Maker
Posts: 2546
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:00 am
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Contact:

Post by Flocke » Tue May 19, 2009 6:42 pm

mickar wrote:Don't take it personally Flocke, I'm merely trying to understand your mod.
I don't trust you cause than you would test it out instead of continuing this shit. Fleet size obviously will be less in general. Vanilla didn't have any upper limit, beside the crashes being caused, because you could get much much more credits by raiding than the ships did maintain and this isn't about to change, it will only be lowered.

Thunderchero is responsible for actually realizing the changes in the Flocke Tournament Mod and he told about current 1.0.3 already including changes to the raiding amount.
I will have to clarify with tc what his plans on the mod actually are, but with my name on I say raiding will get lowered, that's all.

Now I'm that tired of this discussion, I'm going asleep. :x

User avatar
mickar
UDMIII tournament winner
UDMIII tournament winner
Posts: 338
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 2:00 am
Location: Surrey, BC Canada

Post by mickar » Wed May 20, 2009 2:07 am

Ok, I downloaded 1.03 mod and have been testing it using fed at t5.

The only real difference between it and 1.02 is in 1.03 you will make less ships in less time and won't be able to maintain as big a fleet.

At turn 60 in 1.02 I made 54 fed hc. It took me till turn 85 to make the same in 1.03. I started with similar systems and had almost same number of minor. I didn't take any major, nor did I raid any. I just wanted to see how many ships I could make as fast as I could. I noticed that after turn 40 or so, in 1.03 it was difficult to increase ship production while in 1.02 it was still easy to pump out ships.

I'll continue testing but at t3 and t4. I did notice that ferg made raider which was nice to see. :wink:

User avatar
RSE_Chris
Commander
Commander
Posts: 320
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 2:00 am
Location: England, UK

Post by RSE_Chris » Wed May 20, 2009 10:36 am

mickar wrote:Ok, I downloaded 1.03 mod and have been testing it using fed at t5.

The only real difference between it and 1.02 is in 1.03 you will make less ships in less time and won't be able to maintain as big a fleet.

At turn 60 in 1.02 I made 54 fed hc. It took me till turn 85 to make the same in 1.03. I started with similar systems and had almost same number of minor. I didn't take any major, nor did I raid any. I just wanted to see how many ships I could make as fast as I could. I noticed that after turn 40 or so, in 1.03 it was difficult to increase ship production while in 1.02 it was still easy to pump out ships.

I'll continue testing but at t3 and t4. I did notice that ferg made raider which was nice to see. :wink:
The only game-changing difference between 103 and 102 is receiving 50% credits back from scrapping rather than the full 100%. Whilst I do miss this, I think it's a reasonable compromise - bearing in mind that less ships in battle = less chance of crashes (and let's be honest, it's not too big a change in ship amounts, and both players have to deal with this).

The advantages of 103, I feel, outweigh the loss of scrapping in the form of the many bug fixes. E.g. not being able to identify ships belonging to races you have not yet met, not being able to see enemy ship experience, range/phaser bugs, AI building decent ships etc.

The complete list of changes is in the 103 readme if you're looking to see what they are.

User avatar
mickar
UDMIII tournament winner
UDMIII tournament winner
Posts: 338
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 2:00 am
Location: Surrey, BC Canada

Post by mickar » Wed May 20, 2009 11:25 am

The advantages of 103, I feel, outweigh the loss of scrapping in the form of the many bug fixes. E.g. not being able to identify ships belonging to races you have not yet met...
I disagree. This is not a 'bug', it's called having scanners.

When the Enterprise, TNG, scanned something they hadn't encountered before, they didn't have to actually fly over it to identify it. Long range or short range scanners could scan the thing down to the molecular level.

Personally I liked this option, being able to hover over a ship you didn't fly over to be able to identify it. Not having this ability this takes away from the realism of having scanners.

IMHO!

User avatar
RSE_Chris
Commander
Commander
Posts: 320
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 2:00 am
Location: England, UK

Post by RSE_Chris » Wed May 20, 2009 11:57 am

mickar wrote:
The advantages of 103, I feel, outweigh the loss of scrapping in the form of the many bug fixes. E.g. not being able to identify ships belonging to races you have not yet met...
I disagree. This is not a 'bug', it's called having scanners.

When the Enterprise, TNG, scanned something they hadn't encountered before, they didn't have to actually fly over it to identify it. Long range or short range scanners could scan the thing down to the molecular level.

Personally I liked this option, being able to hover over a ship you didn't fly over to be able to identify it. Not having this ability this takes away from the realism of having scanners.

IMHO!
Whilst they could identify the type of ship, they would not know which race it was, since they had not yet met.

For me, not knowing what ship/race it is, is more fun by adding anonymity, thus not enabling me to avoid certain intel races early in the game quite so easily - it calls for more of a strategic decision.

Either way, it's only a small issue.

User avatar
mickar
UDMIII tournament winner
UDMIII tournament winner
Posts: 338
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 2:00 am
Location: Surrey, BC Canada

Post by mickar » Wed May 20, 2009 12:32 pm

Ya, you're right about the race name. Too bad you couldn't see the ship hull and shield strength. I hate having to fly totally blind.

User avatar
RSE_Chris
Commander
Commander
Posts: 320
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 2:00 am
Location: England, UK

Post by RSE_Chris » Wed May 20, 2009 12:46 pm

mickar wrote:Ya, you're right about the race name. Too bad you couldn't see the ship hull and shield strength. I hate having to fly totally blind.
Though many people could then deduce which race the ship belonged too (if a major). :)

Speaking of 103, want a game? I've played far too much UDM recently.

Post Reply

Return to “Multiplayer Games”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users