Messages

1861

AI War / Re: An added idea to give "oomph" to the MK IV nenzul enclave

« on: June 05, 2012, 10:18:38 AM »

With the way loop build works, you'll find that if you queue multiple unit types, it won't starve any one unit type a turn no matter how many of the other kinds it can build due to not hitting ship cap.

Like if you set it to loop build and queue up 5 of each unit, then after it tries to build 5 of the first type, it will always check to see if it can build second type in the queue, even if some of the 5 of the first type die before it gets to the second unit type.
This hinges on queuing up smallish numbers of each unit type though. If you queue up, like, 500 of each type, you may start starving other types in the queue, but then that is your own dang fault.

1862

AI War / Re: An added idea to give "oomph" to the MK IV nenzul enclave

« on: June 05, 2012, 10:07:09 AM »

Chris/Keith, don't listen to any of us until you push out this next version and we've had a honest go at using these "drones" of yours.

This.
We are just discussing more ideas, but I don't think any of them should be put in until this upcoming version of the enclaves is tested.

1863

AI War / Re: An added idea to give "oomph" to the MK IV nenzul enclave

« on: June 05, 2012, 09:43:47 AM »

Given it can only produce one unit at a time, it may be that a Youngling player doesn't really have much use for drones (they are always rebuildings Younglings with no time to produce drones).

Um, the enclaves can have a queue of multiple units, just like normal shipyards. They can even loop build like normal shipyards.

1864

AI War / Re: Does anyone use Spirecraft Shield Bearers?

« on: June 04, 2012, 09:23:57 PM »

Okay but doesn't wasting game time like that having consequences of its own?

Look, you're on such a low difficulty that you can continue fast forwarding the game in 2-4 hour increments after every big battle, then you don't need the shields to begin with.

If you can play AI War fast-forwarding the game that much, then your auto-progress is too low.  Doesn't seem like a problem to me.

I agree, but I'm not the one who made the call. 

1865

A Valley Without Wind 1 & 2 / Re: AVWW Post-Release 1.049 "Yet More Polish" Released!

« on: June 04, 2012, 09:17:02 PM »

Looking good, except that summoned rhinos seem to be broken

Also, any chance at looking at 7461: When a direct spell keybind is set to a mouse button, it still triggers in menus, or is that too much of a "edge case" of a control mapping to really be a big deal?

1866

AI War / Re: Does anyone use Spirecraft Shield Bearers?

« on: June 04, 2012, 09:12:42 PM »

I don't understand why they don't auto-repair.

Immune to repair, auto-repair over like 15-30 minutes.  Then you still have to use them sparingly, but they aren't useless after one use.

That was discussed previously (EDIT: in fact, I suggested it IIRC, but I said like 2-4 hours...), but the verdict was no because that would encourage people to just go to +10 speed and wait for the shields to heal up, thus largely defeating the point of what they were there for.

1867

AI War / Re: Does anyone use Spirecraft Shield Bearers?

« on: June 04, 2012, 08:41:40 PM »

About the Spirecraft HP thing,

5565: Spirecraft Shield Bearer HP

1868

AI War / Re: Does anyone use Spirecraft Shield Bearers?

« on: June 04, 2012, 07:02:34 PM »

I do.
I stock up on them as extra defense quite often. Also, unlike normal forcefields, they are immune to EMP, meaning that they can buy you precious time in the horrid case where an EMP guardian manages to sneak into you planets.
Also, they don't require supply, so they can defend things when deep striking. EDIT: And also add extra defense to shard recovery

I do think that they could use at least some sort of an HP buff to make up for their non-repairability, and also a minimum forcefield radius.

1869

AI War / Re: An added idea to give "oomph" to the MK IV nenzul enclave

« on: June 04, 2012, 05:40:29 PM »

Maybe this rather hackish way to implement the dynamic buildability of Mk. IV fleet ships:

Make Mk. IV fleet ships dynamic in cap, starting at 0x cap. Each Mk. IV fabricator, Mk. IV fabricator foldout, or Mk. V enclave gives 1x to the cap, with a maximum of 1x. (1x scaling with the number of homeworlds, of course)
That way, Mk. IV enclaves can build Mk. IV fleet ships, but not without something else to provide that cap.

This does introduce one possible oddity, a Mk. IV enclave can build Mk. IV fleet ships if a Mk. V enclave is built (in addition to allowing it if a Mk. IV factory is owned)
But other than that, this implements the split suggested, with few additional mechanics added.

1870

AI War / Re: An added idea to give "oomph" to the MK IV nenzul enclave

« on: June 04, 2012, 01:25:57 PM »

I think the point is for the Enclave Mk IV to be a choice between capturing the factory or trying to skip it. The turrets are an added bonus to make the ship just a touch more survivable. This scheme seems workable now and I'd like to see it implemented as Keith has it.

Agreed. Despite my "griping", I would love to see how it is now. After that, we can see if any further adjustments are needed.

1871

After Action Reports / Re: The AI 9 through 10 run

« on: June 04, 2012, 11:04:51 AM »

Man, seeing those 3.x screenshots made me realize how much I miss the minimap and the score/player list display.
I can sort of understand why the minimap was removed though. It turned out to be a major performance hog, right?

1872

AI War / Re: An added idea to give "oomph" to the MK IV nenzul enclave

« on: June 04, 2012, 10:33:34 AM »

In reference to my post here (http://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php/topic,10767.msg107013.html#msg107013), I still think it would be best if the MKIV Enclaves didn't force you to pay the cost of a factory - simply that they couldn't build without a captured factory somewhere in the galaxy. 

Forcing you to pay the ridiculous knowledge cost of these, to replace a function which you probably already have, doesn't seem worth it to me.

I think there should be a MK5 Enclave if you want to skip factories altogether, which would justify its high knowledge cost.

Ooh, I like that idea. Make Mk. IV enclaves only able to build Mk. IV ships when you have at lease one advanced factory (or an advanced factory foldout), but give it a much saner knowledge cost. Then make Mk. V able to build Mk. IV without an advanced factory, and give it the insane knowledge cost (basically, current Mk. IV cost - new Mk. IV cost)
I would vote this up if we could vote up individual forum posts.

1873

AI War / Re: An added idea to give "oomph" to the MK IV nenzul enclave

« on: June 04, 2012, 10:07:51 AM »

I really like this change.  It almost makes me want the Enclave ship to just be able to make drones (give it a basic drone that requires no turret unlocks just so it can always make something).  If we really need an Adv.Factory replacement, I could see something else fitting that role.

Um, these new ship options are on top of their existing functionality (a mobile shipyard).

However, I would also like to see a basic drone. Maybe make it even more pathetic than the unlocked drones, with no bonus to any hull type, but doesn't require any knowledge.

EDIT: Oh wait, yea you stated that you would like to maybe refactor these things to be about these drones, and remove the shipyard functionality. Sorry, misread that.
I don't support removing their mobile shipyard ability, but I still support the basic drone idea.

1874

A Valley Without Wind 1 & 2 / Re: Traps!!!!

« on: June 04, 2012, 08:49:38 AM »

Is it possible to destroy traps? They just seem to fill Lieutenant towers now and make them a real chore. Not sure I like procedural traps they just seem too random.

So even with the latest batch of changes to make them spawn far less aggressively and less densely, unreasonable looking situations still occur?

BTW, no you cannot destroy traps, but someone found that clever usage of deployed boxes can push them around.

1875

After Action Reports / Re: The AI 9 through 10 run

« on: June 04, 2012, 08:25:54 AM »

You flipped the direction of the upgrade for the Tech improvements I'd had in mind, but this still looks like it could be interesting.  In particular that's going to get NASTY going through Tech II to Tech III... errr, wait, no not really, the Tech III boost is WAY the heck out further.  That should be fun.  I assume 10/10 still has the 300/800 III/IV limits.  Out of curiousity, did you plan on dropping that kind of granularity down to the 7.x spread as well, or do you not forsee a need?

Not sure if this type of mechanic would be appropriate for 7.0, but maybe for >=7.3 or >=8.0 or >=8.3