|
20 Mar 2009, 12:50
|
#1
|
Commander in Briefs!
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 783
|
Production in combat *Split*
Production included in combat
This one may get people annoyed, but its just a suggestion.
I dont like hidden prod and no I havent been splatted by hidden prod.
If your attacking a planet and see a fleet of ships being built, you would also attack them too.
So I'm suggesting that all ships being built are involved in combat, but do not fire.
Being "built" are the currently completed amount.
This i think would be a little harder to add to the code, however I dont believe you should be able to hide production.
__________________
<Kila> WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH MY PRECIOUS FORUMS
<Zeyi> 24h forum closure
<Zeyi> all posts recalled
"he's got a proven track record when it comes to showy art composition" - Tommy
<Sigi> Light: can I ask u how many open internet-windows u always have?
<MrLobster|PM> i have 2, the pa page, and the website for naked light pictures
<Ave> both has bad gfx
|
|
|
20 Mar 2009, 14:42
|
#2
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: Production in combat *Split*
I'm assuming your goal is to prevent people from using hidden production, and while I applaud the effort, I think this is the wrong approach to take. The punishment (huge value loss) seems out of proportion with the rather minor 'offence' of prod hiding.
Theam (I think. I might be wrong) posted an idea to make ships in production count towards your current value, even before they come out. This seems like a cleaner solution, which also happens to be beautifully KISS (must be a coincidence!). You can either go for a 50% contribution to your value throughout the production process, or you can increase it from 0% to 100% as the production nears its end (or even from 66.7% to 100%, in line with the value increase you get from converting resources into ships).
Cin's sort-of implemented solution (you can only add a class of ships to an order once, the second time it won't work) works as well, though I don't particularly like the arbitrarity of it.
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
|
|
|
20 Mar 2009, 15:24
|
#3
|
The BOFH
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 463
|
Re: Production in combat *Split*
Something tells me this would involve rather large changes in the combat engine. Lots of code being added which would obviously end up having to adjust all the production values during and after combat. Whilst I can see the idea behind it, the time spent on it could be spent on loads of other improvements.
Preventing people from repeatedly adding to production is a much more simple solution.
|
|
|
20 Mar 2009, 15:45
|
#4
|
PA Team
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,874
|
Re: Production in combat *Split*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk
Cin's sort-of implemented solution (you can only add a class of ships to an order once, the second time it won't work) works as well, though I don't particularly like the arbitrarity of it.
|
erm...
The system that is coded, but not used, allows for adding the same way it is now, just that once the order has progressed you can't add a new type to it.
If you have fi/co in the order you can add as much fi/co you want to it through out the whole production period.
If you got cr/bs in the same order you can add as much of that as you like as well, but if you cancel one of them, you can't readd that type.
Nor can you add fr/de to the order if it has progressed.
Non progressed order: Add anything
Progressed order: Add of any type that current exist in the order.
__________________
Requested: 1,000 kilometres of fulcrum cable, 1 Mark 5 ECM unit, one low yield nuclear weapon.
Purpose: Surprise party for foreign dignitary
|
|
|
20 Mar 2009, 16:26
|
#5
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: Production in combat *Split*
Right, yeah, that's what I meant.
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
|
|
|
20 Mar 2009, 20:22
|
#6
|
;D!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,810
|
Re: Production in combat *Split*
Making a proportion of the value count towards your total is KISS and does the job, if you believe prod hiding is a bad thing.
I prefer that idea to this one because this would involve far more code, be more complex and the potential punishment is (IMO) way too high.
__________________
[ND]
Kicked from Ascendancy
Proud to have been a Dark Lord Rising.
|
|
|
20 Mar 2009, 21:02
|
#7
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: Production in combat *Split*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gate
if you believe prod hiding is a bad thing.
|
That's a whole different matter.
I have to admit that I'm not entirely sure what I think about prod hiding, it has its good sides and bad sides. However, if the powers that be wish to kill off prod hiding, they should at least do it properly.
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
|
|
|
21 Mar 2009, 02:43
|
#8
|
idle
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 968
|
Re: Production in combat *Split*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cincinnatus
erm...
The system that is coded, but not used, allows for adding the same way it is now, just that once the order has progressed you can't add a new type to it.
If you have fi/co in the order you can add as much fi/co you want to it through out the whole production period.
If you got cr/bs in the same order you can add as much of that as you like as well, but if you cancel one of them, you can't readd that type.
Nor can you add fr/de to the order if it has progressed.
Non progressed order: Add anything
Progressed order: Add of any type that current exist in the order.
|
so i order 100k fi and 1 frigate and 1 battleship, and can always add more fr/de and also more bs/cr
guess hiding loads of stuff will still be possible then
why not just remove the add to another order stuff ?
__________________
m0rph3us formerly known as Bugz
"Itīs not about how hard u hit, its about how hard u can get hit and still keep moving forward! How much u can take and still move forward!"
|
|
|
21 Mar 2009, 04:38
|
#9
|
PA Team
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,874
|
Re: Production in combat *Split*
Quote:
Originally Posted by M0RPH3US
so i order 100k fi and 1 frigate and 1 battleship, and can always add more fr/de and also more bs/cr
guess hiding loads of stuff will still be possible then
why not just remove the add to another order stuff ?
|
The amount of resources you would eventually need to just increase the time slightly would be pretty high.
Granted with 3 factories in the same order you could alternate, but still there would be a point where you'd no longer be able to add no more than 1-2 ticks and you'd have no real chance of gaining enough resources per tick to keep up.
To address the other points, the idea of including prod ships in combat isn't a really workable one. It will require quite a bit of changes, and there's also quite a few problems regarding it. Like how much armor they'd have, would a 10% done prod order be any different from a 50% done, would "multi factory" orders where one is done still just be target practice or would they actually be able to use the guns they clearly have, as they are fully built.
Then the idea of making prod add to value a simpler and much more feasible, as that would pretty much just be to decide how much it would contribute.
But as mz has pointed out, prod hiding has good and bad sides, as with everything else, personally i don't really see the bad outweighing the good.
There hasn't really been much complaints regarding it either
__________________
Requested: 1,000 kilometres of fulcrum cable, 1 Mark 5 ECM unit, one low yield nuclear weapon.
Purpose: Surprise party for foreign dignitary
|
|
|
21 Mar 2009, 10:51
|
#10
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: In bed with your mum.
Posts: 664
|
Re: Production in combat *Split*
Pffft, KISS is sh*t, Led Zeppelin is way better.
As for a way to counter prod hiding, hmmmm. Prod hiding is a tactic used by the games more talented players . As much as i dislike it for the fact that its over powered, (I mean this in the sense that 200 million prod res will deter every ship class, not just what the ships thoese resources are spent on actually target, based purely on expecting worst case scenario), i feel its a part of the game that keeps our more skilled players playing.
I would like to see hidden production continue to be part of the game, as i feel it adds another facet to it, but on the same token, i feel its unevenly balanced in favour of large t20-50 planets.
Perhaps one solution is limiting the amount of resources able to be produced per factory, or per order?
What i would like to know, what is it exactly that we dont like about prod hiding, that we wish to remove from the game?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
Can people please stop pretending they have no chance of winning at tick 300, you just end up looking retarded later.
|
^^^^ Can you blv that sh*t?
|
|
|
21 Mar 2009, 15:21
|
#11
|
idle
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 968
|
Re: Production in combat *Split*
Quote:
Originally Posted by [JungleMuffin]
What i would like to know, what is it exactly that we dont like about prod hiding, that we wish to remove from the game?
|
i am not sure if i am the only one who likes to see it removed, however i want it removed to the following reasons
1) planets can hide their real value/score and hit much smaller "easier" targets, and therefor can gain easier roids then their big neighbours
yes if you hit a big planet u can cap more roids, but the chances you have to recall are 10 times higher then the amount of roids you cap
2) also those planets donīt contribute to their gals/alliances like they should, while they still soak up defence (problem of the gals/alliances i know)
3) those planets can not be hit by the very big guys (though they actually should be able to be hittable by those) - thats quite some XP and roid targets removed, while it takes a load of fleets for smaller guys to meet the worse case scenario + possible defence and still be able to land
4) itīs forcing me to play like that and hide everything in production in the coming rounds, and i rather wouldnīt play like that (yes i dont have to, but i feel like those planets have better chances to end good in the ranking, and i am really sick of ending 80 - 100)
yes i need to use those kind of strategies if they are available, cause i am no top10 player (sadly) and i feel like someone else is playing a raceing game with a car with 1k more PS then mine.
i donīt say "hiding" needs to be removed alltogether , but it shouldnīt happen in a way like it does atm (200 million+ hidden).
the allready coded version (but not (yet?)) implemented) seems to solve that issue somehow, while it still allows to hide production, you run out of ressources at some point to keep things hidden.
and if it doesnt, my suggestion stays to just remove the possibilities of adding diffrent ships to an existing order (no fr/de/cr/bs to fi/co order possible) and it would be solved also...
may the flameing begin
__________________
m0rph3us formerly known as Bugz
"Itīs not about how hard u hit, its about how hard u can get hit and still keep moving forward! How much u can take and still move forward!"
|
|
|
21 Mar 2009, 16:45
|
#12
|
Commander in Briefs!
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 783
|
Re: Production in combat *Split*
Yeah I think the idea of adding production to current value is better than mine.
__________________
<Kila> WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH MY PRECIOUS FORUMS
<Zeyi> 24h forum closure
<Zeyi> all posts recalled
"he's got a proven track record when it comes to showy art composition" - Tommy
<Sigi> Light: can I ask u how many open internet-windows u always have?
<MrLobster|PM> i have 2, the pa page, and the website for naked light pictures
<Ave> both has bad gfx
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 20:31.
| |