It is currently Sat Sep 25, 2021 8:51 am


The forum is READ ONLY. Please direct any future discussions to our Facebook page


 Page 5 of 6 [ 85 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Current Main Discussion around in game issues
PostPosted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 8:56 am 
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 12:17 pm
Posts: 2619
InstinctSage wrote:
Okay, Galaxy arm and Planetary support + 5 random alphanumerics.

I won't argue the usefulness of galaxy arm and Planetary support being given to the player on a sector before actually scanning or visiting the sector.
I'm just putting the feelers out on a naming convention change. Possible? Pointless? Cause any headaches for the system?
it's obviously not the most dramatic change, but I'd like it.


The biggest reason that we got away from numeric was people could sequential search. But your right the last part could be a random word, its just much easier to program a random letter sequence that a random word generator.

One way to help you track the sectors is to use the built in sector notes functions. I dont think i could live with out them.
Naming your own sectors in an SG can be dangerous as with the current system its a dead giveaway that it is an SG.



_________________
My Blog: http://tarnusharten.aatraders.com
My Tech Blog: http://www.bswebdev.com
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Current Main Discussion around in game issues
PostPosted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 9:36 am 
AA Warrior
AA Warrior

Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 3:20 pm
Posts: 532
Yes, what Tarnus said is the case.

What exactly do you mean? Do you suggest sectors named things like T4pontificate or Q3foray? That'd be really weird, but I don't see any obvious negative consequences. It'd be a little easier to remember where stuff is, but sector notes would still be necessary, and if you're using sector notes, you don't really need it. But I guess it wouldn't do any harm... Maybe even a source of amusement, looking for weird names.



_________________
Image
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Current Main Discussion around in game issues
PostPosted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 10:48 am 
Developer
Developer
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 6:07 pm
Posts: 2930
About the most information you are ever going to get is the galactic arm and number of planets the sector can support.

Anything else would be too indicative of where the sector might be located. People have used that information in the past to easily locate all sectors a player in that area might own. Even when we made it HARDER some players took extra time and effort to do this and kept wiping out new players easily. Sure it took them an huge amount of time and effort to do this but the casual players who weren't online 24/7 were at a huge disadvantage and seriously being hurt.

So we decided to make the other alpha-numerics in the name random. They are about as random as you can make them under PHP and they never duplicate. So don't look for the naming convention for sectors to ever change in the future.

As a side note we kind of stole the naming convention from Stargate SG-1. ;)



_________________
PJ's Annoyingly Useless Blog
ADOdb Lite
Template Lite
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Current Main Discussion around in game issues
PostPosted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:14 pm 
AA Warrior
AA Warrior

Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 3:20 pm
Posts: 532
lol, that was one of the better Sci-Fi shows.

I'm just posting to remind everyone that we were looking for fixes to exploits with this thread. Not trying to nag, but there are issues that need to be addressed.



_________________
Image
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Current Main Discussion around in game issues
PostPosted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 10:54 pm 
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 12:17 pm
Posts: 2619
Well another issue is the build kill. Those poor new players are constantly finding themselves dead. My thoughts are that the planets should not only have to be based, but be established planets. Whats an established planet you ask? An established planet is one that has settled into its settings and has revealed what the commodity percentages are.

The entire point to being able to shoot a player in a sector owned by you was to catch them attacking your planets. It was never intended to be used to kill new players like it is now. I also discount a kill count that was built with build kills. Doesn't really prove your a good player, just proves that you can take advantage of a new player. Build kills are for sissies :)

A thought on a different topic. Was chatting wit Moon earlier today, and what if you had the ability to return fire on someone that took a potshot at you. Say if someone sector missiles you or tries to attack your ship, you have 15 minutes to return fire. Now this doesn't include planets, only the ship. Now PJ is going to poke holes in it. But to quote Moon.. If Iran took a shot at us, we wouldnt just stand there and take it, we would shoot back :)



_________________
My Blog: http://tarnusharten.aatraders.com
My Tech Blog: http://www.bswebdev.com
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Current Main Discussion around in game issues
PostPosted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 11:04 pm 
Forum Roamer
Forum Roamer

Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 3:03 am
Posts: 98
The need for sectors to remain randomly named is imperative. I'm getting the hang of sector notes (Originally I was just using a notepad file on my desktop but that's hardly as convenient or organised). This is more a cosmetic/user friendliness change than an actual gameplay suggestion.

If it's an issue of programming convenience only, then I think it could be a minor change that bring a relatively major difference. You could get a list of several thousand unique entries and either jumble the list when the server creates the game, or pick randomly from it. The only issue I can see is if the list isn't big enough. If that puts it in the too hard basket then it'd be a shame, but I understand it's not really priority issue.

You could keep the 2 char prefix for Arm/Planets and just throw in a dash so it doesn't look as strange if people want to hang on to those. On further thought I was thinking city/town names would have been a good base to work on. Plenty of those, I'm sure there's a list out there, and people naturally make a mental association with placenames, even if their actual location is not known.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Current Main Discussion around in game issues
PostPosted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 7:01 am 
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 12:17 pm
Posts: 2619
The other issue that comes into play with the sector naming is the fact if you make the names too long it really messes with the interface. Using a AlphaNumeric sequence we can have alot of sector numbers in a short area. Once you look at changing to words the sector name lengths become cumbersome with the interface. What would happen if you had a game with 100,000 sectors or more (this has been around in the past).



_________________
My Blog: http://tarnusharten.aatraders.com
My Tech Blog: http://www.bswebdev.com
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Current Main Discussion around in game issues
PostPosted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 9:55 am 
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 6:31 pm
Posts: 48
Tarnus wrote:
Well another issue is the build kill. Those poor new players are constantly finding themselves dead. My thoughts are that the planets should not only have to be based, but be established planets. Whats an established planet you ask? An established planet is one that has settled into its settings and has revealed what the commodity percentages are.

The entire point to being able to shoot a player in a sector owned by you was to catch them attacking your planets. It was never intended to be used to kill new players like it is now. I also discount a kill count that was built with build kills. Doesn't really prove your a good player, just proves that you can take advantage of a new player. Build kills are for sissies :)

A thought on a different topic. Was chatting wit Moon earlier today, and what if you had the ability to return fire on someone that took a potshot at you. Say if someone sector missiles you or tries to attack your ship, you have 15 minutes to return fire. Now this doesn't include planets, only the ship. Now PJ is going to poke holes in it. But to quote Moon.. If Iran took a shot at us, we wouldnt just stand there and take it, we would shoot back :)


I agree that the build kill scenario is just wrong, it allows for unexperienced players to be turned away from the game. On the other hand, there is the thrill of the hunt and the kill. I'll admit that I like tracking players and podding them. Its like the score, people compete for number 1. Just because a player manages to stay alive long enough to have a planet thats established doesn't make them a better or more experienced player. It means they were just lucky enough to have survived that long. Build kills aren't just for sissies, they do play an important part of the game. sometimes its the only way to retaliate against someone. The add another level of competition to the game. I do feel that there is a way to have some middle ground on this, a way to make all involved happy.

people should know who it is that they are attacking, and then make a choice. Do I or don't I fire? As you said it, in real life there are consequences to your choices. You choose to do something you either succeed or you fail in the attempt. Failure in the attempt usually leads to some sort of negative result. I feel a measured response would be appropriate. If you step into the ring with Mike Tyson, you got to be prepared to have an ear bitten off.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Current Main Discussion around in game issues
PostPosted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 10:00 am 
AA Warrior
AA Warrior

Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 3:20 pm
Posts: 532
I don't have anything against what Sage is suggesting. It doesn't sound bad really, but if the Dev team sees problems with it, I don't have a problem with how things are run now either. The whole sector naming thing has never been a problem to me with sector notes.

Quote:
My thoughts are that the planets should not only have to be based, but be established planets. Whats an established planet you ask? An established planet is one that has settled into its settings and has revealed what the commodity percentages are.


That sounds like an excellent fix to me. The initial purpose remains intact, and only the exploit is cut out. That's the kind of fix we need more of.

Quote:
I also discount a kill count that was built with build kills. Doesn't really prove your a good player, just proves that you can take advantage of a new player. Build kills are for sissies


Well, actually, if you did this fix, it's probably not going to be just new players that you're getting. It's not going to be exploited with this fix, so I would still count it. Yeah, it does mean the player is smaller than you if you need the planets not to get a bounty, but it's not just going to be really little guys. Why not count it? That way, people can see how many would be attackers have died trying to take your planets, and they may be scared off ;)



_________________
Image
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Current Main Discussion around in game issues
PostPosted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 3:49 pm 
AA Trader
AA Trader
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 3:20 pm
Posts: 207
Location: US.
Man... the build kill is easily avoided too by just building up the planets slightly more and ACTUALLY deploying some sector defense. Once you put the SD. and change zone laws, all that the biggest players in the game can do is maybe cloak and go into your sector (Being nosy). Thats it.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Current Main Discussion around in game issues
PostPosted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 10:02 pm 
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 6:31 pm
Posts: 48
A-Blitz wrote:
Man... the build kill is easily avoided too by just building up the planets slightly more and ACTUALLY deploying some sector defense. Once you put the SD. and change zone laws, all that the biggest players in the game can do is maybe cloak and go into your sector (Being nosy). Thats it.


Thats the type if thing that experienced players and players who have learned a little know.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Current Main Discussion around in game issues
PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 6:11 pm 
AA Trader
AA Trader
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 3:20 pm
Posts: 207
Location: US.
Yeah I would think it goes without saying but obviously it needs said to some people. Personally I dont see how even a complete Noob wouldnt be able to figure out that you need to stay in fed space at beginning and atleast put up some type of defenses if your ship is in a sector. What you said in a blog ,
Madmardigan wrote:
It's easier though, to start a game when everyone is already playing. It's harder to start at the same time as everyone else.


Is not true. To start a game late means you have to deal with some lower ranked (bounty players) who you can't attack ATM. It takes alot of planning and time to hit players on both sides of the alignment in order to make sure your not an easy target for players #1-10 or whatever.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Current Main Discussion around in game issues
PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 8:43 pm 
Forum Roamer
Forum Roamer

Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 3:03 am
Posts: 98
Just a thought on credit sharing...

Currently planet drops are used as a way of passing credits for all reasons since the IGB limits transfers. I guess I don't understand why IGB transfer limits were set. If it was to prevent credit sharing, then its not doing its job as intended. But you can't stop planet drops as they have legitimate uses as large credit transfers for payments on a wide range of services within the game.
But Planet drops can't really be controlled (in terms of admin rules), whereas IGB transfers can. Seems to me like encouraging people to use IGB transfers instead of planet drops, and using the IGB transfer rules to curb unwanted credit sharing practices would be a more manageable solution. Instead of setting a cap on transfer sizes that applies to everyone, why not make it similar to the IGB loan system?

Players can only transfer up to a percentage of their net worth to other players.
Players may only receive a transfer of up to a percentage of their net worth.

The first rule prevents players donating everything before purging their account (A safety against multiple accounts or collusion). It's not expected a player will have a good reason to transfer an amount that essentially cripples their growth.

The second rule prevents players getting too much of a leg up. It might be tricky to balance, particularly for players who rely on large payments for their services. (Any spy players able to give an indication of the highest percentage of their net worth they'd conceivably earn in one drop for their services at any point in the game?)

This way, large players are free to make the big transfers they need to to form alliances, pay for information, etc. with the big players. What they can't do is give some small player an infinite credit line, since a smaller player might only be able to receive a few hundred million. Maybe enough to buy a few upgrades, but its not going to get them an attack ship that unbalances play to a great degree.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Current Main Discussion around in game issues
PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 9:38 pm 
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 12:17 pm
Posts: 2619
That wont prevent a planet drop. I know were it me, I would say IGB costs me too much, I will drop a planet. PJs ideas have some real merit. We will just have to see how they play out.



_________________
My Blog: http://tarnusharten.aatraders.com
My Tech Blog: http://www.bswebdev.com
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Current Main Discussion around in game issues
PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 10:35 pm 
Forum Roamer
Forum Roamer

Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 3:03 am
Posts: 98
Well I can't wait to hear what PJ comes up with.

I will say I find it odd that you'd say the IGB transfer is too expensive, even though it's a setting you guys can change yourselves. I think a transfer fee is fair and sensible so long as it doesn't become prohibitive at large amounts. I understand planet drops are a bit of a workaround at the moment, but the whole process seems a little underhanded to be something one would promote.


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 5 of 6 [ 85 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

cron