| Author |
Message |
|
Iceman
Admiral
Joined: 14 Jan 2009, 10:17
Posts: 2042
|
Matress_of_evil wrote: Well I can easily reduce the build costs then. You say 50% .Iceman, but that's with Construction ship II's. That means another 4 models for the Empires (Since the Feds already 1 have leaving 4), so to reduce the burden on the modellers for the time being lets just go for a pure construction cost reduction and add more construction ships and rejig the costs again later.
What sort of reduction would you suggest? 55%? 66%? 75%? And should the Feds get a smaller reduction since they already get a Construction Ship II? Notice I said 50% cost reduction (tentative number) AND WC 150 - that's 3x WC, and 1/2 cost, which amounts to 1/6 construction time. You can use the Is model for the time being, no need to go making new ones for now - unlesss they're creating more minors  We could just start with double WC for IIs (100 for the Feds which already is in place, 110 for Klingons, 120 for Dominion - I think I got that right), etc. And halve the costs. And see what happens. A SB costing 5x the respective OP seems reasonable, admitting the "era" cost increase.
|
| 06 Aug 2010, 16:16 |
|
|
|
Iceman
Admiral
Joined: 14 Jan 2009, 10:17
Posts: 2042
|
vjeko1701 wrote: I don't see why. You don't have to. You can always make your own version and present it to Mike. 
|
| 06 Aug 2010, 16:16 |
|
|
|
vjeko1701
Crazed Emissary of the Photoshop
Joined: 13 Mar 2009, 20:17
Posts: 2091
Location: Krapina, Croatia
|
The version that has my support is the current version.
|
| 06 Aug 2010, 16:18 |
 
|
|
|
Iceman
Admiral
Joined: 14 Jan 2009, 10:17
Posts: 2042
|
mstrobel wrote: It wouldn't be hard to scale fuel/sensor range with the size of the map. But since those values are all represented as integers (whole numbers), we'd have to adjust the map sizes so that there's a common denominator. Otherwise the values wouldn't scale uniformly. The fastest way to do this would be to scrap the 'tiny' size and adjust 'small' and 'medium' such that they are divisible by 20.
It wouldn't solve all problems though. Size 20 is too little for a galaxy. The top scanners have ~10 range, so one is enough to cover the whole *galaxy*. Even if it's scaled, the preceding ones will be useless, probably in the range of the colony's own scan range. Some late game ships have as much as 25 range / fuel - those two combined, you already know how I feel
|
| 06 Aug 2010, 16:21 |
|
|
|
Matress_of_evil
Evil Romulan Overlord of Evil - Now 100% Faster!
Joined: 02 Dec 2004, 01:00
Posts: 7392
Location: Returned to the previous place.
|
Here's a thought: what if scan range, ship speed and ship range were based on map size? Ships could have a percentage rating instead of a physical rating.
_________________"Anyone without a sense of humour is truly at the mercy of the rest of us."  
|
| 06 Aug 2010, 17:23 |
|
|
|
Iceman
Admiral
Joined: 14 Jan 2009, 10:17
Posts: 2042
|
Essentially the same thing as Mike proposed. Besides, the whole feeling of size is completely lost; and having a ship have range 5 in one galaxy size and 20 in another is kind of weird. Oh, and the canonicity of warp speeds... 
|
| 06 Aug 2010, 17:34 |
|
|
|
mstrobel
Chief Software Engineer
Joined: 11 Aug 2005, 01:00
Posts: 2688
|
.Iceman wrote: Essentially the same thing as Mike proposed. Besides, the whole feeling of size is completely lost; and having a ship have range 5 in one galaxy size and 20 in another is kind of weird. Oh, and the canonicity of warp speeds... Yeah, and I'm sure it would introduce a dozen other issues that none of us have thought of yet. Better to avoid it if we can.
_________________
Lead Developer of Star Trek: Supremacy
253,658 lines of code and counting...
|
| 06 Aug 2010, 18:14 |
|
|
|
Captain Bashir
Genetically Altered Manual Labourer
Joined: 17 Aug 2009, 01:31
Posts: 2083
Location: Passed out on the floor after math mistake discovered by Hawking
|
Since it is a turn-based game and savable, did anyone ever play BOTF I with anything but the largest galaxy size? I'm trying to think if I ever did. Bashir
|
| 07 Aug 2010, 14:49 |
|
|
|
vjeko1701
Crazed Emissary of the Photoshop
Joined: 13 Mar 2009, 20:17
Posts: 2091
Location: Krapina, Croatia
|
Sometimes I did when I wanted to fight ASAP, but not often.
|
| 07 Aug 2010, 14:57 |
|
|
|
Captain Bashir
Genetically Altered Manual Labourer
Joined: 17 Aug 2009, 01:31
Posts: 2083
Location: Passed out on the floor after math mistake discovered by Hawking
|
Good point. And the battles will no doubt be better in ours. Phaser Bashir
|
| 07 Aug 2010, 15:09 |
|
|
|
Iceman
Admiral
Joined: 14 Jan 2009, 10:17
Posts: 2042
|
Movement/expansion was completely different in BotF, I don't think you can compare.
|
| 07 Aug 2010, 17:48 |
|
|
|
Kenneth_of_Borg
Ship Engineer
Joined: 10 Jul 2006, 01:00
Posts: 5130
Location: Space is disease and danger, wrapped in darkness and silence!
|
Captain Bashir wrote: Since it is a turn-based game and savable, did anyone ever play BOTF I with anything but the largest galaxy size? I'm trying to think if I ever did. Bashir When playing online with live opponents we would us the smaller maps. We did not want to wait longer than need be. _________________
|
| 07 Aug 2010, 17:57 |
|
|
|
Captain Bashir
Genetically Altered Manual Labourer
Joined: 17 Aug 2009, 01:31
Posts: 2083
Location: Passed out on the floor after math mistake discovered by Hawking
|
.Iceman and Kenneth: Not to mention that with the new things we are adding to this game, each turn could be (much) longer. CB
|
| 07 Aug 2010, 18:08 |
|
|
|
Iceman
Admiral
Joined: 14 Jan 2009, 10:17
Posts: 2042
|
The smallish maps can make sense if you want a quick 1v1 or 1v2 - but the game currently doesn't support choosing number of empires.
|
| 07 Aug 2010, 18:21 |
|
|
|
