On Monday, May 28, 2012 11:28:37 AM UTC-4, Abstrct wrote:
> *Round Length*
> How is everyone enjoying the 1 day round? Do you miss the week long
> battle? Should it actually be shorter?
> How are you finding resources? I have tried to make it so you can still
> get everywhere in the round by making resources a lot more widely available
> but I don't know how successful I have been.
> As another option, what if the round wasn't decided by time and instead
> always a set number of tics. How many tics would be acceptable?
Short-ish rounds is kind of nice in encouraging deployment of scripts
that'll "just run."
There seems to be too much resources to spend, so I'd be happy to see it
decline back towards what it was.
A thought would be to have each round have slightly differing parameters
set, which might "mess with us" a bit...
> *Language Options*
> I have had some requests for addition languages to be added for the fleet
> scripts. Right now the list of languages that I can add seems to be Perl
> and TCL. Does anybody have other requests for trusted languages (i.e.: a
> language that does not have access to filesystem or sockets)?
I don't notably care at the moment.
PL/R would be the one I imagine would be more interesting...
I don't see Perl/Tcl being all that interesting, as what they tend to
enable is doing much more sophisticated "text smashing," and this isn't a
text-smashing application. pl/pgsql is perfectly good at managing the
set-based form of the game, and I suspect it's not an improvement to make
> What can we do to make battles more... possible? Right now it seems like
> battles are too expensive because you can't get a fleet there.
> How is the ships_in_range view working lately?
> How is strength vs defence? Does it need to be easier or harder to kill
> other ships?
I don't think the "more money" part has helped. Defense tends to have a
strong advantage, and more money makes it easy to spend vast sums on local
I have to say I haven't properly gotten to offense; I'm still doing some
significant analytical work on improving my "empire expansion," as the
present logic isn't nearly expansionary enough :-).
> *Ship State*
> Is anybody using the ship state that allows you to set an action and
> target to automatically occur each tic? Would you like this improved in
> some sort of fashion?
It would be interesting to have ships set up to automatically "try to fix a
friend," or to "try to attack an enemy," and to try to do so with some
> Would you like to actually see items implement? If so what kind of items
> would you like to see? How would you like items distributed? Should you
> just 'find' them all or would awarding items to players who win certain
> trophies make an interesting mechanic too?
An interesting idea would be for some items to help smash heavy defenses.
Getting the balance of that right will be an interesting part.
- If it demolishes defenses *too* effectively, then that may make defending
- If the "nuke" is too rare, and too powerful, so it simply biases the game
to whomever gets the "nuke", that's probably not good
I think it's potentially interesting to shake things up a bit...
> There has been some really cool visualization of the games state lately.
> Anewworth, cbbrowne and pvh have each done some neat stuff (I know I have
> been checking http://schemaverse.marcneuwirth.com/
> the day). Is there anything we can do from the game servers side to help
> make this easier or better?
Having cheap access to CONQUER events would be nice; having a view that
gets benefit of index on public events would help that, I'd think.
I have previously tried to encourage having ~3 views on events rather than
just 1 integrated one.
> How is the tutorial? Has anybody had a chance to give it a really good
> look? Is it missing any key information that would really stump a new
Probably needs a somewhat better sample script so that people can have a
marginally auto-running empire without too much forethought.
Not sure. I suspect the devil's in the *new* details...
It wasn't particularly intuitive, initially, that "Oh, I need to mine the
nearby planet to conquer it." But that's a documentation issue moreso than
indicating anything's wrong with the approach, inherently.