Session Start: Wed Mar 25 17:40:42 2009
Session Ident: PM mz // Heartless
2009-03-25 17:40:57 <mz> man, you got me thinking about the whole geography thing again
2009-03-25 17:41:55 <mz> it's an interesting concept for pa, imo, and would pretty much turn the game upside down
2009-03-25 17:43:52 <Methedrine> I know
2009-03-25 17:43:59 <Methedrine> thing is
2009-03-25 17:44:16 <Methedrine> the current setup with having planets, galaxies and alliances will never work out fine
2009-03-25 17:44:30 <Methedrine> planets is cool - that's a single person's representation in the game
2009-03-25 17:44:49 <Methedrine> but having two instances of cooperation which cause issues with each other is simply damaging
2009-03-25 17:45:06 * mz nods
2009-03-25 17:45:09 <Methedrine> so I rather eliminate the smaller instance of the two
2009-03-25 17:45:19 <mz> another reason why rob's private galaxy idea is so good
2009-03-25 17:45:30 <mz> actually wait
2009-03-25 17:45:35 <mz> no, that makes no sense
2009-03-25 17:45:37 <Methedrine> it's not. how does new blood get in.
2009-03-25 17:45:49 <mz> he wanted private galaxies without alliances and random galaxies WITH alliances
2009-03-25 17:45:53 <Methedrine> ah right
2009-03-25 17:45:57 <mz> but for the latter of the two, the conflict still exists
2009-03-25 17:45:59 <Methedrine> yeah, that was the ultimate concensus.
2009-03-25 17:46:06 <Methedrine> and yes it does
Session Close: Wed Mar 25 21:55:59 2009
Session Start: Thu Mar 26 22:57:49 2009
Session Ident: PM mz // Heartless
2009-03-26 22:57:49 <Methedrine> let's revisit the sphere
2009-03-26 22:58:14 <Methedrine> first of all, offering a way for friend to start in the same area of the sphere
2009-03-26 22:58:31 <mz> aye
2009-03-26 22:58:38 <mz> you agree that random distribution is a bad idea?
2009-03-26 22:58:39 <Methedrine> we could do it like travian, i.e. suggest 4 quadrants for placement and then have the algorithm place planets somewhere in there
2009-03-26 22:58:50 <Methedrine> yeah, totally random distribution _is_ a bad idea ;)
2009-03-26 22:59:22 <Methedrine> actually travian offers you 5 choice: one of the four quadrants or random
2009-03-26 22:59:28 <mz> I've never played travian
2009-03-26 22:59:35 <mz> I'm not sure what you mean by quadrants
2009-03-26 22:59:38 <Methedrine> it's world is somewhat like a sphere's surface
2009-03-26 22:59:45 <mz> literally quarters of the universe?
2009-03-26 22:59:46 <Methedrine> so you can tile it into 4 quadratic zones
2009-03-26 22:59:48 <Methedrine> yeah
2009-03-26 23:00:01 <Methedrine> obviously, for 3d you'd have 16 of those zones
2009-03-26 23:00:07 <mz> 8?
2009-03-26 23:00:21 <Methedrine> right
2009-03-26 23:00:28 <Methedrine> too late for maths ;p
2009-03-26 23:00:31 <mz> :P
2009-03-26 23:00:46 <Methedrine> those 4 hours of programming test for ccp have been pretty exhausting right there
2009-03-26 23:01:04 <Methedrine> anyway, your opinion?
2009-03-26 23:01:23 <mz> what happens when ascendancy (strong alliance) ends up in the same quadrant as orbit (farms)?
2009-03-26 23:01:41 <Methedrine> the same as what would happen with the current universe: orbit would be farmed like hell.
2009-03-26 23:01:56 <Methedrine> unless other alliances at the ascendancy's borders would turn up to try to farm ascendancy
2009-03-26 23:01:59 <mz> but orbit planets in ascendancy galaxies aren't usually farmed
2009-03-26 23:02:03 <mz> so what's different
2009-03-26 23:02:32 <mz> I'm thinking variable travel times are to blame
2009-03-26 23:02:47 <Methedrine> time travel would have been my next topic ;p
2009-03-26 23:03:40 <Methedrine> we could have something similar to the real life's "timezones". except that there's a base eta.
2009-03-26 23:03:58 <Methedrine> so traveltime would be: base eta (let's say 7) + class eta penalty + amount of timezone
2009-03-26 23:04:31 <mz> timezone being the number of quadrants a planet is away?
2009-03-26 23:04:35 <mz> for example
2009-03-26 23:04:45 <Methedrine> the advantage would be that a stronghold could not penetrate all the universe equally, leading to the rise of several "local" leader alliances
2009-03-26 23:04:56 <Methedrine> that's a good example, yeah
2009-03-26 23:05:13 <mz> that depends
2009-03-26 23:05:19 <mz> sooner or later, brute force is going to prevail
2009-03-26 23:05:22 <mz> despite long tt
2009-03-26 23:05:32 <Methedrine> indeed. but it's rather later than sooner.
2009-03-26 23:05:52 <Methedrine> because even if one stronghold should arise pretty fast, due to higher traveltimes it becomes less mobile thus more vulnerable again
2009-03-26 23:06:27 <mz> ok, so let's go back to our ascendancy/orbit example
2009-03-26 23:06:37 <mz> I think it's a bad thing that orbit gets farmed by ascendancy
2009-03-26 23:06:59 <mz> there should be some way that orbit can make itself less attractive
2009-03-26 23:07:05 <mz> planet movement?
2009-03-26 23:07:26 <Methedrine> maybe. but I don't think that solves the issue, really.
2009-03-26 23:07:47 <Methedrine> it's an interesting point your brought up there, though: "how can smaller alliances make themselves less attractive"
2009-03-26 23:07:56 <mz> not just smaller alliances
2009-03-26 23:08:00 <mz> new players too
2009-03-26 23:08:10 <Methedrine> yeah
2009-03-26 23:08:26 <mz> actually, I don't think new players can make themselves less attractive by location
2009-03-26 23:08:31 <mz> only by having few roids
2009-03-26 23:08:36 <Methedrine> small alliances cannot either
2009-03-26 23:08:55 <Methedrine> actually, how do we want to define unattractive for a start?
2009-03-26 23:09:10 <Methedrine> "not a good target" would be suitable as a definition, no?
2009-03-26 23:09:15 <mz> yeah
2009-03-26 23:09:19 <Methedrine> so we would just have to work out what make a "not so good" target
2009-03-26 23:09:29 <mz> depends on your race
2009-03-26 23:09:36 <mz> for ziks, anyone can be a good target if they're inactive
2009-03-26 23:09:53 <mz> for anyone else (or anyone without steal ships, more generically speaking), it's the roids that matter
2009-03-26 23:09:54 <Methedrine> true
2009-03-26 23:10:13 <Methedrine> and in case of cathaar even the amount of ships is rarely a matter ;p
2009-03-26 23:10:32 <mz> yeah
2009-03-26 23:10:52 <Methedrine> hm. this really makes me ponder, I don't have an easy answer to this.
2009-03-26 23:11:08 <mz> (I think more variable strategies could be used for races btw, but that's a different subject)
2009-03-26 23:11:17 <mz> I'm not sure there is one
2009-03-26 23:11:19 <mz> actually
2009-03-26 23:11:21 <mz> maybe there is
2009-03-26 23:11:28 <Methedrine> there is not in the current set up
2009-03-26 23:11:31 <mz> how do we define farming, in the loose sense of the word
2009-03-26 23:11:45 <mz> "big planets hitting small planets that can't defend themselves"?
2009-03-26 23:11:47 <Methedrine> repeatedly grabbing cheap roids from a given planet
2009-03-26 23:11:58 <Methedrine> so your suggestion would fall into that more generic description, yeah.
2009-03-26 23:12:16 <mz> and what we need to do is to make it less attractive for big planets to attack small planets
2009-03-26 23:12:23 <mz> what makes small planets attractive is roids
2009-03-26 23:12:28 <mz> so we can either reduce their roids
2009-03-26 23:12:32 <mz> or reduce the cap
2009-03-26 23:12:53 <Methedrine> reducing the cap might be an idea. but it should certainly not be done by fleet value.
2009-03-26 23:12:58 <mz> there used to be a formula that compared the attacking fleet value to the defending fleet planet
2009-03-26 23:13:04 <mz> which ruins big teamups on big planets
2009-03-26 23:13:16 <mz> but comparing attacking planet value to defending planet value could work
2009-03-26 23:13:28 <Methedrine> indeed
2009-03-26 23:13:36 <Methedrine> that's a good idea.
2009-03-26 23:13:41 <mz> this works on all levels too
2009-03-26 23:13:48 <mz> ascendancy -> orbit as well as orbit -> newbie
2009-03-26 23:13:53 <Methedrine> yep
2009-03-26 23:14:44 <Methedrine> so, assuming that it's getting less and less profitable for bigger planets to hit smaller planets we'd actually make bigger planets start looking for more profitable markets again
2009-03-26 23:14:55 <mz> assuming they can't cheat their value
2009-03-26 23:14:57 <Methedrine> outside their near-by travel times. resulting in making them more vulnerable again.
2009-03-26 23:15:07 <Methedrine> yeah value should not be hideable.
2009-03-26 23:15:21 <mz> nice kiss solution: value in prod counts.
2009-03-26 23:15:22 <Methedrine> at least not without a penalty of some sort (stock piling -> bank hacking)
2009-03-26 23:15:28 <Methedrine> yeah, totally agree on that
2009-03-26 23:15:37 <Methedrine> never understood why they introduced this in first place
2009-03-26 23:15:55 <mz> I kind of like the production system as it is now
2009-03-26 23:16:05 <mz> but yeah, they should've given it a bit more thought, heh
2009-03-26 23:16:14 <Methedrine> with the exception of prod hiding it's really neat
2009-03-26 23:16:21 <mz> it always takes 3-10 rounds before a new feature works as intended
2009-03-26 23:16:37 <Methedrine> well ok, prod hiding is OK as a tactic, but it has no penalty which makes it superior to most other available tactics
2009-03-26 23:16:51 <mz> I have no issue with prod hiding per se
2009-03-26 23:17:20 <mz> (there is a penalty though, but it's shared by your entire alliance, thus people don't care)
2009-03-26 23:18:28 <Methedrine> and it is not really a penalty unless your alliance could do with those ships
2009-03-26 23:18:40 <mz> which half the time it doesn't, true
2009-03-26 23:19:29 <Methedrine> right, let's keep the value based capping then. :-)
2009-03-26 23:20:02 <Methedrine> I am currently pondering if score should be included there, too
2009-03-26 23:20:07 <mz> me too :P
2009-03-26 23:20:10 <mz> I'm thinking no
2009-03-26 23:20:17 <Methedrine> that was my first thought as well
2009-03-26 23:20:37 <Methedrine> yeah, I agree. that could be an option if value only does not play out as intended
2009-03-26 23:21:06 <mz> it's tweakable anyway
2009-03-26 23:21:11 <Methedrine> indeed
2009-03-26 23:21:12 <mz> and really, an implementation detail
2009-03-26 23:21:40 <Methedrine> same with the amount of time to add to traveltime for each timezone and ship class ;-)
2009-03-26 23:21:54 <mz> even the mechanism itself
2009-03-26 23:22:04 <mz> quadrant-based tt has its downsides
2009-03-26 23:22:19 <Methedrine> I don't really take it as "quadrant based" though
2009-03-26 23:22:27 <Methedrine> it's more like making 24 slices all around the sphere
2009-03-26 23:22:55 <mz> I toyed with abandoning ticks altogether for a moment
2009-03-26 23:23:00 <mz> for true continuity in tt
2009-03-26 23:23:09 <mz> but I think that's taking it a step too far
2009-03-26 23:23:27 <Methedrine> ticks are still worth it.
2009-03-26 23:23:29 <mz> pa being a tick based scifi browser game
2009-03-26 23:23:42 <Methedrine> travian has no ticks but is real time, and that really makes a mess for organizing defense and attacks and all that
2009-03-26 23:23:48 <Methedrine> http://www.netspeed.com.au/minnah/TimeZonesGS.GIF <-- some sphere slicing like that
2009-03-26 23:24:20 <Methedrine> actually that's a shit picture
2009-03-26 23:24:24 <mz> we could slice it up however we want tbh
2009-03-26 23:24:33 <Methedrine> yeah
2009-03-26 23:25:43 <mz> but it is an interesting topic
2009-03-26 23:26:02 <mz> assuming I'm on the edge of the sphere
2009-03-26 23:26:19 <mz> we could just use distance to 'me' to divide it up
2009-03-26 23:26:33 <mz> while for someone else, the distances (and slices) would be completely different
2009-03-26 23:27:09 <mz> <mz> assuming I'm on the edge of the sphere <- that assumption is not even needed
2009-03-26 23:27:47 <Methedrine> travian uses the euclidian distance between two points
2009-03-26 23:27:57 <mz> right, yeah, that's what I meant :P
2009-03-26 23:28:23 <Methedrine> actually that's an interesting idea. take a base eta of, let's say, 7 ticks for examples sake, and add distance / speed of slowest unit
2009-03-26 23:28:33 <Methedrine> and ships would get a fields per hour value indicating their speed
2009-03-26 23:28:42 <Methedrine> (that's so travian, but meh!)
2009-03-26 23:29:03 <mz> well, ticks are a limitation here
2009-03-26 23:29:10 <mz> we can't make it continuous
2009-03-26 23:29:32 <mz> so there's going to be 2 slices at eta7, 3 more at eta8, another 3 at eta9, etc
2009-03-26 23:30:43 <Methedrine> obviously it has to be rounded to nearest, lowest or highest tick that results from the distance / fields_per_hour. that way we do auto-slicing.
2009-03-26 23:31:13 <mz> do we want it to be so closely dependent on location though?
2009-03-26 23:31:32 <mz> or would simply creating a number of zones be a better approach?
2009-03-26 23:31:55 <mz> (I have to admit, I kind of like the travian-steal idea)
2009-03-26 23:32:27 <Methedrine> it's actually the only thing I like about travian (world layout and, too a far lesser degree, travel times)
2009-03-26 23:33:32 <Methedrine> I am unsure to be honest
2009-03-26 23:33:41 <Methedrine> both have their impact on how player interaction would happen
2009-03-26 23:34:01 <Methedrine> if it's a number of zones then it would be fairly easy to gather up with all your alliance in exactly one zone, making it harder to penetrate
2009-03-26 23:34:17 <Methedrine> location dependant means more scattering, making alliances a bit more vulnerable
2009-03-26 23:34:29 <mz> *making the edges of alliances more vulnerable
2009-03-26 23:34:34 <mz> which I really really like
2009-03-26 23:34:35 <Methedrine> yeah
2009-03-26 23:34:38 <Methedrine> dito
2009-03-26 23:34:52 <mz> "Things to think about would be how wars would be fought, if planet stealing/destroying/moving should be possible, how safe planets in the center of the sector can support war planets on the borders of sectors"
2009-03-26 23:35:32 <Methedrine> I am against moving
2009-03-26 23:36:15 <Methedrine> destruction is also bad, unless you also have expansion
2009-03-26 23:36:17 <mz> it was mostly the first and last parts I meant to paste, but it's something to think about anyway
2009-03-26 23:36:38 <mz> I know travian allows people to have multiple settlements
2009-03-26 23:36:42 <Methedrine> in my opinion the game should finally make universe wide trading available
2009-03-26 23:37:13 <Methedrine> where I can offer X units of resource A to be traded for Y units of resource B
2009-03-26 23:38:02 <mz> as I said before, I would like to see more varied strategies in pa
2009-03-26 23:38:18 <mz> beyond mass FCs or mines
2009-03-26 23:38:38 <mz> trading, stealth play, fortress mode, piracy..
2009-03-26 23:39:07 <mz> races could play a bigger role than they do now
2009-03-26 23:41:20 <mz> wb
2009-03-26 23:41:45 <Methedrine> ty, connection fucking around ><
2009-03-26 23:41:47 <Methedrine> right, what was my last sentence?
2009-03-26 23:41:51 <mz> 03-26 23:37:13 <Methedrine> where I can offer X units of resource A to be traded for Y units of resource B
2009-03-26 23:41:51 <mz> 03-26 23:38:02 <mz> as I said before, I would like to see more varied strategies in pa
2009-03-26 23:41:51 <mz> 03-26 23:38:18 <mz> beyond mass FCs or mines
2009-03-26 23:41:51 <mz> 03-26 23:38:38 <mz> trading, stealth play, fortress mode, piracy..
2009-03-26 23:41:51 <mz> 03-26 23:39:07 <mz> races could play a bigger role than they do now
2009-03-26 23:42:01 <Methedrine> [23:38:48] <Methedrine> to prevent abuse of trading you could have something like "market places" at your planet as construction, allowing one trader per market place, which has a limited capacity of carrying resources
2009-03-26 23:42:02 <Methedrine> [23:39:05] <Methedrine> or make it a ship or something that carries a limited amount of resources
2009-03-26 23:42:28 <Methedrine> well, next point would certainly be races
2009-03-26 23:43:06 <Methedrine> I want to get rid off them as they are and get something like in master of orion: a race has certain perks. while there is a universe-wide tech-tree each race could research
2009-03-26 23:43:39 <Methedrine> the perks would be bonuses / maluses on things like firepower, armour, production costs, trade interests etc pp
2009-03-26 23:44:02 <mz> I have no particular objection to races as they are now
2009-03-26 23:44:12 <mz> in any case, that system already exists, to a certain extent
2009-03-26 23:44:26 <mz> http://game.planetarion.com/manual.php?page=2
2009-03-26 23:44:56 <Methedrine> yes, so it would mainly boil down to re-uniting the ships available and mixing the tech-tree again
2009-03-26 23:44:57 <mz> it would perhaps be more interesting to not have races as a set of predefined perks
2009-03-26 23:45:05 <mz> bur rather a number of perks you can choose from, freely
2009-03-26 23:45:09 <mz> or a combination of the two
2009-03-26 23:45:30 <Methedrine> or you can mix that: have a few pre-defined races and offer the ability to create a custom one
2009-03-26 23:45:33 <mz> this would also allow people to delay their choice until after they've actually signed up
2009-03-26 23:45:36 <mz> yeah, that's what I meant :)
2009-03-26 23:46:34 <mz> you could call them classes and it'd be dnd
2009-03-26 23:46:45 <Methedrine> ;)
2009-03-26 23:47:19 <Methedrine> anyway, for a start I guess "enable trading" and "make the universe sphere-based and kick galaxies" are the most vital changes here
2009-03-26 23:47:33 <Methedrine> vital as in: offering most game play profit for players
2009-03-26 23:47:45 <Methedrine> increasing the amount of options available
2009-03-26 23:47:46 <mz> minor changes include: fix prod hiding, fix capping
2009-03-26 23:48:11 <mz> both are needed to create a more healthy roid flow
2009-03-26 23:48:12 <Methedrine> this are actually not minor when changing to that sphere based universe ;-)
2009-03-26 23:48:26 <mz> yeah, I was just thinking that, heh
2009-03-26 23:48:46 <Methedrine> actually it could be done iteratively: first do that prod hiding and capping fix
2009-03-26 23:48:55 <Methedrine> then do that trade market
2009-03-26 23:48:57 <mz> that would already resolve a lot of issues
2009-03-26 23:49:02 <Methedrine> and then switch to that sphere based universe
2009-03-26 23:49:22 <mz> indeed, the sphere is the long term goal
2009-03-26 23:49:34 <mz> well, the long term means, more accurately speaking
2009-03-26 23:49:42 <Methedrine> it's in my opinion the ultimate fix to the "galaxy problem" but it's one that really takes time
2009-03-26 23:49:58 <Methedrine> because it touches a very foundation of current pa
2009-03-26 23:50:00 <mz> it's a lot of coding, in pa-terms
2009-03-26 23:50:03 <mz> and there's that
2009-03-26 23:50:08 <mz> resistance from the community ahoy
2009-03-26 23:50:28 <Methedrine> I don't think there'll be many good arguments against it
2009-03-26 23:50:42 <Methedrine> actually I cannot think of any except for "but that's something new we would have to get used to"
2009-03-26 23:50:58 <mz> many features boil down to that
2009-03-26 23:50:58 <Methedrine> and that's not even good
2009-03-26 23:51:01 <mz> and personal preference
2009-03-26 23:51:15 <mz> people resisted the landing scan
2009-03-26 23:51:33 <mz> until pa team came up with this halfbaked piece of shit compromise :\
2009-03-26 23:51:35 <Methedrine> people always resist to change
2009-03-26 23:52:08 <Methedrine> yeah well, the landing scan was something ... strange anyway. there is a big issue with how scanning works in pa, that is true.
2009-03-26 23:52:36 <Methedrine> but that's something fundamental that should be fixed later on, I think
2009-03-26 23:52:49 <Methedrine> f.e. it could work with "drones"
2009-03-26 23:52:59 <Methedrine> you build drones and these only fight against each other
2009-03-26 23:53:08 <Methedrine> (oops, that's the scout system from travian - not bad there either!)
2009-03-26 23:53:08 <mz> the first part of this posts is the easiest short term solution, I think
2009-03-26 23:53:08 <mz> http://pirate.planetarion.com/showpost.php?p=3159661&postcount=2
2009-03-26 23:53:24 <mz> basically give people a personal jgp and cloak scan
2009-03-26 23:53:30 <mz> within 12/24 hours
2009-03-26 23:54:00 <Methedrine> yeah, interesting idea
2009-03-26 23:54:26 <Methedrine> right, at that to the first milestone stuff
2009-03-26 23:54:32 <Methedrine> s/at/add
2009-03-26 23:54:37 <mz> under the 'easy as fuck' header
2009-03-26 23:54:50 <Methedrine> the first milestone should be nothing else
2009-03-26 23:55:09 <Methedrine> anyway ... I am off to bed now first, though
2009-03-26 23:55:45 <mz> I should do the dishes
2009-03-26 23:55:49 <mz> off to belgium tomorrow
2009-03-26 23:55:57 <mz> don't want to come back to a moldy kitchen :\
2009-03-26 23:56:10 <Methedrine> indeed
2009-03-26 23:56:19 <Methedrine> enjoy your work. I'll write down a nice forums post tomorrow or so
2009-03-26 23:56:30 <Methedrine> with a well laid out argument for the changes we discussed
2009-03-26 23:56:46 <mz> I look forward to reading it :)
Session Close: Mon Mar 30 03:09:32 2009
Session Start: Mon May 04 11:28:24 2009
Session Ident: PM mz // Heartless
2009-05-04 11:28:25 <mz> around?
2009-05-04 11:30:53 <Methedrine> yeah
2009-05-04 11:30:55 <Methedrine> somewhat at least
2009-05-04 11:31:07 <Methedrine> watching some game trailers as well ;p
2009-05-04 11:31:10 <mz> I've been thinking a bit about the removing galaxy idea
2009-05-04 11:31:25 <mz> atm, galaxies are the best place for newbies to get into the community
2009-05-04 11:31:33 <mz> what would happen if they were removed?
2009-05-04 11:31:44 <Methedrine> actually I consider galaxies to be the opposite
2009-05-04 11:31:44 <mz> and np, I'm not in a hurry
2009-05-04 11:32:11 <Methedrine> because if those other people in the galaxy do not want to cooperate or communicate with you, then you are doomed
2009-05-04 11:32:38 <mz> I'm not actually sure how many people help their new galaxy mates and how many just exile them
2009-05-04 11:32:41 <Methedrine> you get exiled around (+maybe even bashed before to reduce exile costs), and probably end up in a dead galaxy
2009-05-04 11:35:37 <mz> but I take it youthink most galaxies just exile?
2009-05-04 11:36:30 <Methedrine> most active galaxies
2009-05-04 11:36:37 <Methedrine> those which would be suitable to build up a new playerbase
2009-05-04 11:37:35 <mz> ok, but how would removing galaxies help in that department?
2009-05-04 11:38:48 <Methedrine> do you still have the log files from when we discussed this first?
2009-05-04 11:38:58 <mz> yeah
2009-05-04 11:39:00 <Methedrine> Appocomaster is bringing up a lot of the things we discussed back then already
2009-05-04 11:39:00 * /run: unable to open 'D:\Documents\mIRC_logs\2009\.log' (line 120, aliases.ini)
2009-05-04 11:39:07 <Methedrine> maybe just forward the log files to hin ;-)
2009-05-04 11:39:09 <Methedrine> *him
2009-05-04 11:39:37 <Methedrine> right, removing galaxies would help because you are no longer limited to relying on 10 to 15 or so people in your primary interaction pool.
2009-05-04 11:39:52 <Methedrine> instead, your primary market (or pool) for new contacts is only limited by reasonable eta range
2009-05-04 11:40:22 <Methedrine> let's say for simplicity that the primary market would now be clusters
2009-05-04 11:40:30 <Methedrine> (from a size point of view)
2009-05-04 11:40:52 <Methedrine> let me sketch something up
2009-05-04 11:41:27 <mz> where does he bring it up?
2009-05-04 11:41:53 <Methedrine> he pm'd me about 5 minutes after you
2009-05-04 11:42:09 <mz> ah
2009-05-04 11:42:09 <mz> http://pastebin.ca/1411963
2009-05-04 11:43:38 <Methedrine> there's the first pm missing ^^
2009-05-04 11:43:57 * /run: unable to open 'D:\Documents\mIRC_logs\2009\heartless.log' (line 120, aliases.ini)
2009-05-04 11:44:07 <mz> nope
2009-05-04 11:44:11 <mz> that's all I have
2009-05-04 11:45:15 <Methedrine> ok, I'll check at home
2009-05-04 11:46:20 <Methedrine> back to your question, though
2009-05-04 11:46:35 <Methedrine> let's keep in mind that ETA is organized like timezones in my model
2009-05-04 11:46:44 <mz> uh-huh
2009-05-04 11:46:58 <Methedrine> this means, that in theory, everyone within your timezone + neighbour zones would be a suitable candidate for cooperation
2009-05-04 11:49:21 <mz> yeah
2009-05-04 11:50:04 <Methedrine> granted, it means that a player has to be more proactive in seeking cooperation
2009-05-04 11:50:06 <Methedrine> but that's cool
2009-05-04 11:50:22 <mz> I was going to ask about that :P
2009-05-04 11:50:37 <mz> the nice thing about galaxies is that it places a clear boundary
2009-05-04 11:50:47 <mz> when you click the button, you see 10-20 people that you should be cooperating with
2009-05-04 11:50:58 <mz> without that, many people may just simplanet it out
2009-05-04 11:51:07 <mz> and subsequently leave, because that shit is boring
2009-05-04 11:51:30 <Methedrine> I do agree on that point, but that does happen right now as well
2009-05-04 11:51:48 <Methedrine> so is nothing that can be used to counter my model in a way that its not worth it.
2009-05-04 11:52:09 <Methedrine> I think the current approach has the advantage of having "auto contact" mechanisms, i.e. welcome mail and stuff like that
2009-05-04 11:52:29 <Methedrine> this could, however, be replaced by ingame mechanics
2009-05-04 11:52:33 <Methedrine> i.e. the mail you get on sign up
2009-05-04 11:52:50 <Methedrine> maybe even introduce quests that can only be solved by cooperation
2009-05-04 11:52:55 <mz> oo
2009-05-04 11:53:20 <Methedrine> there are already tutorial elements which point into cooperation direction, just go that road a step further
2009-05-04 11:53:52 <Methedrine> if there'd be a trade market implemented you could have a quest where it says "sell x of any resource" or "buy x of any resource"
2009-05-04 11:54:06 <Methedrine> "establish a trade route with one of your neighbours"
2009-05-04 11:54:40 <Methedrine> one of the issues right now is that you can be useful in only one way towards your galaxy. once we manage to have multiple ways to usefulness the game gets more addictive and automatically enforces more cooperation
2009-05-04 11:57:04 <mz> I have to admit I wasn't sold on the idea of a trade market earlier either
2009-05-04 11:57:09 <mz> I don't really see how much it'd add
2009-05-04 11:57:17 <mz> why would I trade? for what? with whom?
2009-05-04 11:57:38 <Methedrine> because I need some of resource X while I have to much of resource Y
2009-05-04 11:57:49 <Methedrine> someone else might need Y and has too much of X
2009-05-04 11:57:56 <Methedrine> would be just perfect to trade there
2009-05-04 12:01:57 <mz> imo that'd require an overhaul of the resource system as a whole tbh
2009-05-04 12:02:09 <mz> as the 2% of my income that I trade in the galfund is quite insignificant
2009-05-04 12:05:05 <mz> lets put this on hold for a bit :P
Session Close: Mon May 20 12:06:00 2009
Session Start: Mon May 04 11:58:01 2009
Session Ident: #sphere_galaxy mz // Heartless // Appocomaster
2009-05-04 12:03:32 <Methedrine> since I had both on you in pm, where to continue? :p
2009-05-04 12:03:38 <mz> :P
2009-05-04 12:03:43 <mz> I had both of you in pm as well /o\
2009-05-04 12:03:47 <Appocomaster> idneed
2009-05-04 12:03:47 <mz> proper threesome
2009-05-04 12:03:49 <Appocomaster> *indeeed
2009-05-04 12:03:52 <Methedrine> yeah
2009-05-04 12:04:00 <Methedrine> and appoco needs a better spellchecker
2009-05-04 12:04:04 <Appocomaster> indeed
2009-05-04 12:04:15 <Appocomaster> well
2009-05-04 12:04:52 <Appocomaster> I just have enough issues with it :(
2009-05-04 12:05:15 <Methedrine> understandable, it's a complete overhaul of the game. basically throwing away most of what is existing
2009-05-04 12:05:47 <Appocomaster> I agree that exile and disband are not the answer
2009-05-04 12:07:14 <Appocomaster> but I think galaxies offer enough support
2009-05-04 12:07:54 <Methedrine> why?
2009-05-04 12:09:03 <Appocomaster> when you join you have a group of people, however artifical, there
2009-05-04 12:09:21 <Appocomaster> if you're willing to learn and get on irc, the galaxy probably educates more than the manual
2009-05-04 12:09:58 <Appocomaster> there is an issue with inactive planets
2009-05-04 12:10:21 <Appocomaster> there is a 'flow' of asteroids, and the smaller players are at the base and basically have to provide them
2009-05-04 12:10:39 <Appocomaster> as there's so few, they're generally picked on until alliance politics kick off
2009-05-04 12:11:18 <Appocomaster> in that respect, I almost want smallish bot planets replicating them to provide a wider 'base' for the asteroid flow
2009-05-04 12:11:23 <mz> the fact that there are so few tells me the current system is failing
2009-05-04 12:11:39 <Appocomaster> so few inactive planets?
2009-05-04 12:11:43 <mz> especially considering that there used to be quite a lot of them
2009-05-04 12:11:53 <Appocomaster> well, the game goes
2009-05-04 12:12:01 <mz> we lost about 65% of them in the last 15 rounds
2009-05-04 12:12:22 <mz> as a result, I see jgps that show 6 waves on planets with 200 roids
2009-05-04 12:12:23 <Appocomaster> sign up => be active => join alliance => attack regularly (say 3+ times a week)
2009-05-04 12:12:31 <mz> indeed
2009-05-04 12:12:34 <Appocomaster> or
2009-05-04 12:12:37 <mz> the issue is between sign up and be active
2009-05-04 12:12:40 <Appocomaster> sign up => not be active => exiled lots into c200
2009-05-04 12:12:48 <Appocomaster> => quit
2009-05-04 12:12:52 <mz> because in the game we're currently seeing, no one gets to the point where they WANT to be active
2009-05-04 12:13:38 <mz> they sign up -> dont understand it -> no one helps -> exiled before they get to like it -> quit
2009-05-04 12:14:05 <Appocomaster> and how will they understand it if they sign up and get dumped in the universe and lots of incomings?
2009-05-04 12:14:09 <Appocomaster> and no one to even talk to
2009-05-04 12:14:26 <Appocomaster> quests at least drive them on to the forums
2009-05-04 12:15:02 <Methedrine> which, let's face it, are rarely used
2009-05-04 12:15:08 <Appocomaster> it's a start!
2009-05-04 12:15:12 <mz> my gal forum is empty
2009-05-04 12:15:22 <Methedrine> the next downside of your argumentation is the requirement of IRC for communication
2009-05-04 12:15:43 <Methedrine> we do have simple ingame mechanics which could work, but most galaxies refrain from using them because they don't suit their needs
2009-05-04 12:16:09 <Methedrine> so its somewhat risky to rely on the existing things
2009-05-04 12:16:14 <Appocomaster> there's 845 threads in total
2009-05-04 12:16:35 <Methedrine> how many of them with more than one reply?
2009-05-04 12:17:48 <Methedrine> anyway, there's still the issue that you are forced into a group of people which might not want to cooperate with you, or which don't know how to
2009-05-04 12:17:51 <Appocomaster> 3678 posts total
2009-05-04 12:17:54 <Methedrine> keep in mind people in different timezones etc
2009-05-04 12:17:58 <Appocomaster> yes
2009-05-04 12:18:08 <Appocomaster> but the alternate is not having anyone
2009-05-04 12:18:09 <Methedrine> interesting. less than 5 posts per thread
2009-05-04 12:18:21 <Appocomaster> this is for galaxy forums :p
2009-05-04 12:18:43 <Appocomaster> alliance forums is 785/2058
2009-05-04 12:18:46 <Methedrine> no, the alternate is to tell people: "here, you can cooperate with everyone within this area, because they are considered as nearby from a travel time point of view, choose with whom you want to play by yourself"
2009-05-04 12:19:05 <Appocomaster> how?
2009-05-04 12:19:10 <Appocomaster> how do they meet people?
2009-05-04 12:19:13 <Appocomaster> how do they talk?
2009-05-04 12:19:17 <mz> it removes the element of rejection
2009-05-04 12:19:18 <Appocomaster> how do they get support from defence etc
2009-05-04 12:19:26 <Appocomaster> it removes the element of support
2009-05-04 12:20:26 <mz> the quest/tutorial system can play a bigger role here
2009-05-04 12:20:45 <mz> 'get defence from someone who is 6 or less hours away from you'
2009-05-04 12:20:46 <Appocomaster> do you know how hard that is to maintain?
2009-05-04 12:20:52 <Appocomaster> how/
2009-05-04 12:20:56 <Appocomaster> how are they going to do that?
2009-05-04 12:20:59 <Appocomaster> mail random planets?
2009-05-04 12:21:03 <Methedrine> yeah
2009-05-04 12:21:05 <Appocomaster> "hi, could you send me defence please?"
2009-05-04 12:21:05 <Methedrine> exactly like that
2009-05-04 12:21:14 <Appocomaster> would *ANYONE* respond to that?
2009-05-04 12:21:16 <Methedrine> how do you think real world contacts establish
2009-05-04 12:21:26 <Methedrine> certainly not by sitting at home and waiting for your neighbours to phone you up
2009-05-04 12:21:37 <Methedrine> you go out to the pub, to the disco, to somewhere and meet people
2009-05-04 12:21:48 <Methedrine> you have to be pro-active on that side
2009-05-04 12:21:56 <mz> so what is the equivalent of the pub for pa?
2009-05-04 12:22:25 <Methedrine> right now, there is nothing, imho. well, maybe the forums. which is outside the game, keep that in mind, a lot of people won't go there because it does not influence their game play experience.
2009-05-04 12:22:28 <Appocomaster> irc
2009-05-04 12:22:33 <Methedrine> irc is also outside the game
2009-05-04 12:22:40 <Appocomaster> but it's the pub equilivent
2009-05-04 12:22:58 <Methedrine> interesting line of reasoning.
2009-05-04 12:23:01 <mz> ingame universal forums?
2009-05-04 12:23:10 <Appocomaster> or Pete's facebook-type chat thing he wanted :/
2009-05-04 12:23:23 <mz> make threads readable for everyone at eta x or lower?
2009-05-04 12:23:25 <Appocomaster> which I'd prefer to move to IRC, tbh
2009-05-04 12:23:31 <Appocomaster> what? lol :/
2009-05-04 12:23:35 <Methedrine> why is everyone so fucking obsessed with IRC
2009-05-04 12:23:36 <Appocomaster> talk about hardcoding
2009-05-04 12:23:50 <mz> 'hey guys, I have fi/co incoming at eta7, can anyone defend me?'
2009-05-04 12:23:53 <Methedrine> IRC is a protocol, yeah it's neat, but 99% of all internet users do not use it
2009-05-04 12:24:01 <Appocomaster> so?
2009-05-04 12:24:02 <mz> set it to visible for eta7 and go with it
2009-05-04 12:24:05 <Appocomaster> as long as it's easy to use for them
2009-05-04 12:24:06 <mz> 'so?'
2009-05-04 12:24:07 <mz> lol
2009-05-04 12:24:14 <Methedrine> Appocomaster: you are ruling out 99% from the internet from your possible playerbase?
2009-05-04 12:24:21 <Appocomaster> no
2009-05-04 12:24:24 <mz> yes
2009-05-04 12:24:27 <Appocomaster> I'm saying that that 99% isn't a hardcoded figure
2009-05-04 12:24:41 <Appocomaster> it's not that they will *never* go on IRC
2009-05-04 12:24:45 <Appocomaster> it's that they currently don't use it
2009-05-04 12:24:47 <Appocomaster> it's like drugs
2009-05-04 12:24:53 <Appocomaster> we start them off on the soft stuff -qwebirc
2009-05-04 12:24:54 <Methedrine> yeah and what should magically make them use it?
2009-05-04 12:25:07 <Appocomaster> and then we slowly get them into harder stuff - mirc, bitchx, etc
2009-05-04 12:25:11 <Methedrine> if they want to chat with the people they know they use ICQ, or MSN, or GTalk, or something else
2009-05-04 12:25:31 <Appocomaster> that's fine, as alliances go
2009-05-04 12:25:31 <Methedrine> or one facebook they use facebook messages
2009-05-04 12:25:33 <Methedrine> or twitter
2009-05-04 12:25:37 <Appocomaster> twitter lol
2009-05-04 12:25:39 <Appocomaster> :D
2009-05-04 12:25:45 <Appocomaster> "help I have eta 7 incs"
2009-05-04 12:26:12 <mz> I have no issue with a twitter-like interface inside of pa
2009-05-04 12:26:21 <mz> sounds like a pretty interesting idea, in fact
2009-05-04 12:26:53 <Appocomaster> I'm going to introduce one for some things
2009-05-04 12:27:02 <mz> but the problem we're seeing here is that appoco thinks that many people who do not currently use irc would when asked
2009-05-04 12:27:02 <Appocomaster> but for general reporting of incomings?
2009-05-04 12:27:16 <mz> and heartless and me think the reliance of pa on irc is bad because many people won't
2009-05-04 12:27:32 <Appocomaster> I'm saying that if they login and have the ability to go on IRC
2009-05-04 12:27:41 <Appocomaster> they won't be like "oh, IRC, no, I won't go there it's terrible"
2009-05-04 12:27:48 <Appocomaster> if they have a "click here to talk to your gal mates button"
2009-05-04 12:27:53 <Appocomaster> IRC isn't really rocket science
2009-05-04 12:27:56 <Appocomaster> I learnt it when I was 13
2009-05-04 12:28:10 <Methedrine> same here, but then again we are both geeks.
2009-05-04 12:28:12 <Appocomaster> admittedly, I did keep blowing people up with my worms popup scripts :/
2009-05-04 12:28:18 <Appocomaster> I wasn't a geek then
2009-05-04 12:28:24 <Methedrine> yeah and most aren't now
2009-05-04 12:28:33 <Methedrine> I do agree that a better chat interface based upon irc might be ok
2009-05-04 12:28:46 <Methedrine> there still is the problem of people in different timezones, and not being online 24/7
2009-05-04 12:29:09 <Methedrine> considering that you do not transmit a backlog of what was said in the channel when you open the ingame chat, that pretty much makes it seem like a dead place
2009-05-04 12:29:21 <Methedrine> especially when there are only 15 possible people to interact with
2009-05-04 12:29:33 <Appocomaster> so we join them to #planetarion at the same time
2009-05-04 12:29:55 <Methedrine> yeah, because the offtopic ramblings there so help new players
2009-05-04 12:30:09 <Methedrine> and especially because the people in #planetarion are in a position to actually help you
2009-05-04 12:30:11 <Methedrine> "neat"
2009-05-04 12:30:15 <Appocomaster> some do
2009-05-04 12:30:17 <Methedrine> sorry for the sarcasm there
2009-05-04 12:30:34 <Methedrine> yeah but it doesn't help the newbie who has eta 5,6,7 incs
2009-05-04 12:30:49 <Appocomaster> no, but his galaxy would
2009-05-04 12:30:57 <mz> #planetarion is pretty overwhelming
2009-05-04 12:30:57 <Methedrine> not if he cannot contact it
2009-05-04 12:31:07 <Appocomaster> if he's willing to go on irc
2009-05-04 12:31:17 <Methedrine> and, let's face it, the chance that out of 15 people there are enough online and willed and able to help you in such a situation is quite slim
2009-05-04 12:32:04 <Appocomaster> so you're ditching the eta 5 defence then?
2009-05-04 12:32:40 <Methedrine> not necessarily. I admit that the whole eta time slicing system is not really that well designed yet, it's mainly been finding a mechanism that would provide help
2009-05-04 12:33:00 <Methedrine> it could work that you say defense fleets within your timeslice have eta 5, outside it's eta 5 + distance + class modifier
2009-05-04 12:33:18 <Appocomaster> so defence is going back to pre r10
2009-05-04 12:33:23 <Appocomaster> of being faster than attack in general?
2009-05-04 12:33:27 <Methedrine> while attacking is still eta 5 + distance + class modifier
2009-05-04 12:33:40 <Methedrine> and allow multi-tick defense again
2009-05-04 12:33:57 <Appocomaster> I don't know that that will help
2009-05-04 12:34:30 <Methedrine> well, it works pretty much like the current system?
2009-05-04 12:34:41 <Methedrine> except that we have it a bit more finegrained
2009-05-04 12:34:44 <Methedrine> we now have only 2 slices
2009-05-04 12:34:48 <Methedrine> galaxy and universe
2009-05-04 12:35:07 <Methedrine> while galaxy lives without modifications, universe lives with base + shipclass - ttresearch
2009-05-04 12:35:15 <Appocomaster> yes
2009-05-04 12:35:29 <Methedrine> considering that we now have a use slice of the universe instead of a galaxy, we would also want to enable attacking again
2009-05-04 12:35:38 <Methedrine> within the same slice that it
2009-05-04 12:35:48 <Appocomaster> I'm not sure this will help :(
2009-05-04 12:35:57 <Methedrine> I am, it greatly increases the chances for defense
2009-05-04 12:35:58 <Appocomaster> what will stop planets not just attacking when someone is under attack?
2009-05-04 12:36:09 <Appocomaster> "you have incs eta 8? I'll attack eta 7!!!"
2009-05-04 12:36:10 <Methedrine> nothing, but where's that different from what is happening now?
2009-05-04 12:36:17 <Appocomaster> you can't do that in gal
2009-05-04 12:36:33 <Methedrine> yeah well, agreed, there's probably more risk involved
2009-05-04 12:36:41 <Methedrine> but then again it's also opening up a lot more chances
2009-05-04 12:36:54 <Methedrine> + you know that when someone did that to you that this is someone y ou don't want to interact with
2009-05-04 12:37:20 <Methedrine> while now it is actually actively happening that people in your galaxy organize bashings on you if they want to exile you
2009-05-04 12:37:22 <Appocomaster> I'm not sure still it's a great idea :(
2009-05-04 12:37:27 <Appocomaster> mm
2009-05-04 12:37:28 <Appocomaster> maybe
2009-05-04 12:37:32 <Appocomaster> I like more interaction
2009-05-04 12:37:40 <Methedrine> the points I try to address
2009-05-04 12:38:30 <Appocomaster> I have to go out in a sec :/
2009-05-04 12:40:28 <Appocomaster> I still think there's a lot of questions to be answered tbh :/
2009-05-04 12:40:36 <Methedrine> not disagreeing there are a lot of questions
2009-05-04 12:41:03 <Methedrine> however, what I want to address is a) allowing more interaction and b) allowing a bigger market for interactions to increase the chance of meta-game interactions
2009-05-04 12:41:27 <Methedrine> right now you're stuck with attacking/defending/cov opping, of which only one is constructive gameplay
2009-05-04 12:41:38 <Methedrine> and destruction is only fun if you are on the causing end
2009-05-04 12:41:45 <Methedrine> the recieving end will always be frustrated
2009-05-04 12:41:46 <Appocomaster> this game is about destroying
2009-05-04 12:41:49 <Appocomaster> and someone will always be fucked
2009-05-04 12:41:54 <Appocomaster> unless you have someone else to gangrape
2009-05-04 12:41:57 <Appocomaster> hence bot planets
2009-05-04 12:42:04 <mz> defending is much more fundamental to this game than attacking
2009-05-04 12:42:11 <mz> defending is what keeps people playing
2009-05-04 12:42:19 <Methedrine> err, no, with introducing XP the game was no longer about destruction
2009-05-04 12:42:42 <Methedrine> actually, while a lot of people will agree that destroying something is fun, it's also the most frustrating factor
2009-05-04 12:43:01 <Methedrine> why should I play a game for weeks when it only takes a few hours or minutes to destroy all the value I built up in that time?
2009-05-04 12:43:12 <Appocomaster> sometimes the user does it themselves
2009-05-04 12:43:21 <Appocomaster> but we do have salvage /
2009-05-04 12:43:42 <Methedrine> which is worthless
2009-05-04 12:43:50 <Methedrine> because you always lose too much
2009-05-04 12:43:50 <mz> s/all/80% of/
2009-05-04 12:43:59 <Appocomaster> I have to go
2009-05-04 12:44:04 <Appocomaster> but I'll be back later :(
2009-05-04 12:44:36 <Methedrine> I have to say, it's interesting to discuss this with you, appoco
2009-05-04 12:44:50 <Appocomaster> well, lets say that directly motivating me makes it more likely to happen :/
2009-05-04 12:44:57 <Methedrine> it was so much easier with mz because we both were so bored by the game and its fundamental flaws that we already were at the point to wanting to change things
2009-05-04 12:45:00 <Appocomaster> it's not a great way to run a game, but unless Cin and I really want to do something
2009-05-04 12:45:08 <Appocomaster> it's a lot harder for it to be done
2009-05-04 12:45:18 <Methedrine> its not your fault
2009-05-04 12:45:19 <mz> I'm not as convinced now as I was the last time we spoke, meth :P
2009-05-04 12:45:26 <Appocomaster> goo!
2009-05-04 12:45:27 <Appocomaster> *good
2009-05-04 12:45:32 <mz> lots of blanks that I want to see filled in
2009-05-04 12:45:36 <Methedrine> mz: might be, more time to think about it means there is more problems to see
2009-05-04 12:45:48 <mz> especially regarding communication and defence/attack eta
2009-05-04 12:45:50 <Methedrine> yeah, that's cool. that's how game design works.
2009-05-04 12:45:54 <mz> as well as where alliances fit in
2009-05-04 12:46:17 <Methedrine> we should always keep in mind that I have the hypothesis that this game is limiting the player too much to make him feel comfortable in this game.
2009-05-04 12:46:20 <Appocomaster> anyway bbiab
2009-05-04 12:46:33 <Appocomaster> Methedrine: yes but if the player doesn't feel happy and comfortable they'll leave
2009-05-04 12:46:33 <mz> o/
2009-05-04 12:46:48 <Appocomaster> most players don't think "oh well, I just got assraped but they're probably a better player and I deserved it"
2009-05-04 12:47:00 <Methedrine> Appocomaster: indeed
2009-05-04 12:47:08 <Appocomaster> anyway afk!
2009-05-04 12:47:29 <Methedrine> mz: let's start with the ETA system, shall we?
2009-05-04 12:47:44 <mz> alright
2009-05-04 12:47:52 <Methedrine> what we could do is do this:
2009-05-04 12:48:14 <mz> some of the things I like about the current system: you have 4 hours to check your landing. you can sleep 7 hours a night without dying.
2009-05-04 12:48:22 <mz> I think we should preserve both those things
2009-05-04 12:48:27 <Methedrine> indeed, I agree
2009-05-04 12:49:20 <Methedrine> preserving the 4 hours to check is easy
2009-05-04 12:49:29 <Methedrine> lowest possible traveltime would be 5 for defense
2009-05-04 12:49:29 <mz> no defence below eta5
2009-05-04 12:49:31 * mz nods
2009-05-04 12:49:40 <mz> both are easy tbh
2009-05-04 12:49:42 <Methedrine> so, how to create the 7 hours a night without dying
2009-05-04 12:49:44 <mz> no attacking below eta7
2009-05-04 12:49:48 <Methedrine> exactly
2009-05-04 12:49:58 <Methedrine> so we could say that travelling means
2009-05-04 12:50:09 <Methedrine> defense base = 5, attack base = 7
2009-05-04 12:50:19 <mz> sounds good
2009-05-04 12:50:33 <Methedrine> unvierse travel time = base + (distance / (slowest ship in fleet speed))
2009-05-04 12:50:46 <Methedrine> where distance is the euclidian distance between two coordinates
2009-05-04 12:50:59 <Methedrine> rounded to the nearest tick
2009-05-04 12:51:07 <Methedrine> i.e. if it's 7.6 hours traveltime it is actually 8
2009-05-04 12:51:10 * mz nods
2009-05-04 12:51:11 <Methedrine> while 7.4 would be 7
2009-05-04 12:51:30 <mz> pretty straightforward
2009-05-04 12:51:31 <mz> yay kiss
2009-05-04 12:51:34 <Methedrine> indeed
2009-05-04 12:51:42 <mz> max eta?
2009-05-04 12:51:49 <Methedrine> universe size?
2009-05-04 12:51:57 <Methedrine> divided by slowest ships speed
2009-05-04 12:52:11 <mz> yeah, I was wondering if we should prevent travel times from getting too high
2009-05-04 12:52:17 <Methedrine> I don't see a reason for an artificial upper limit
2009-05-04 12:52:19 <mz> an eta30 attack fleet is pretty pointless
2009-05-04 12:52:24 <mz> yeah, I think I agree
2009-05-04 12:52:25 <Methedrine> maybe early on
2009-05-04 12:52:28 <mz> if it's pointless, don't do it
2009-05-04 12:52:33 <Methedrine> maybe it is pretty useful once the big alliances start fighting
2009-05-04 12:52:51 <mz> that brings us to our next point
2009-05-04 12:52:52 <mz> alliances
2009-05-04 12:53:18 <Methedrine> alliances basically are simply a comfort function for people which want to play together
2009-05-04 12:53:38 <Methedrine> give them a defense status, attack organizer, shared scans / ally-only market
2009-05-04 12:53:50 <Methedrine> and a tag of course.
2009-05-04 12:54:16 <mz> defence eta bonus?
2009-05-04 12:54:24 <Methedrine> I don't see a reason for that
2009-05-04 12:54:55 <mz> put them close together?
2009-05-04 12:54:57 <Methedrine> well it might be worthwhile actually so that more people use it, but it's not necessarily a requirement
2009-05-04 12:55:11 <Methedrine> nah, putting them close together should be up to alliances
2009-05-04 12:55:19 <mz> how would they do that?
2009-05-04 12:55:20 <Methedrine> if they want to spread out across the universe, let them
2009-05-04 12:55:29 <Methedrine> on sign up they choose north, east, west, south or random? :p
2009-05-04 12:55:57 <mz> I'm not sure if I like how literal we're taking the term 'quadrant'
2009-05-04 12:55:59 <Methedrine> as it says in the log, people can choose to be placed in the same quadrant
2009-05-04 12:56:16 <mz> I would rather have sometihng like 'place me close to planets of alliance x'
2009-05-04 12:56:16 <Methedrine> well, there'll of course be variation in this by the placing algorithm
2009-05-04 12:56:36 <Methedrine> hm
2009-05-04 12:56:39 <mz> or even
2009-05-04 12:56:40 <Methedrine> hmmm
2009-05-04 12:56:42 <mz> join alliance
2009-05-04 12:56:49 <mz> tick box 'put me close to planets of my alliance'
2009-05-04 12:56:54 <Methedrine> I don't like that
2009-05-04 12:57:09 <Methedrine> simply because most pro-players will go and say "put me close to planets of alliance x"
2009-05-04 12:57:15 <Methedrine> where x is orbit etc
2009-05-04 12:57:32 <mz> yeah, that's why I came up with the second suggestion
2009-05-04 12:57:39 <mz> cant be abused
2009-05-04 12:57:47 <Methedrine> yeah but forcing someone to join on sign up to be placed in their region is somewhat harsh as well
2009-05-04 12:57:57 <mz> we have geography now, and we should make use of it
2009-05-04 12:57:59 <Methedrine> also, what if an alliance decides they want to spread out across the universe?
2009-05-04 12:58:02 <mz> not forcing
2009-05-04 12:58:05 <mz> I have a planet
2009-05-04 12:58:08 <mz> I join alliance X
2009-05-04 12:58:19 <mz> on the alliance page, a checkbox saying 'put me close to planets of my alliance' is placed
2009-05-04 12:58:26 <mz> I can choose to tick it
2009-05-04 12:58:30 <mz> or not, of course
2009-05-04 12:58:50 <Methedrine> err, so you could sign up, play until you are battle-ready, then tick the box?
2009-05-04 12:59:17 <mz> I was thinking this would be taken into account by the tick 36 shuffle
2009-05-04 12:59:32 <Methedrine> yeah so after tick 36 I could no longer decide where to be placed?
2009-05-04 12:59:36 <mz> for late signups, an alliance code could be used
2009-05-04 12:59:36 <mz> ;)
2009-05-04 12:59:45 <mz> nick/pass/alliance_code
2009-05-04 12:59:59 <Methedrine> sounds interesting, but I am still not convinced.
2009-05-04 13:00:23 <mz> for what reason?
2009-05-04 13:00:34 <Methedrine> I am not sure if we should force alliance placement that way
2009-05-04 13:00:40 <Methedrine> it is an artificial limit
2009-05-04 13:00:44 <mz> I'm not forcing anything *shrug*
2009-05-04 13:00:55 <mz> you can choose to be near your alliance or not
2009-05-04 13:00:59 <Methedrine> yeah but what about people which say "I want to play in that region of the universe"
2009-05-04 13:01:11 <Methedrine> "because there might not be my alliance but some other people I know"
2009-05-04 13:01:37 <Methedrine> especially, an issue we run into, is when an alliance is spread out across the universe: how to define a "place near by" position?
2009-05-04 13:02:09 <mz> well, you'd give each alliance a central point, around which 'near to' is focussed
2009-05-04 13:02:31 <Methedrine> and then? radial distribution around that center?
2009-05-04 13:03:00 <mz> you could just put everyone that wants to as close to the center as possible
2009-05-04 13:03:08 <mz> considering that each planet takes up some non-zero room
2009-05-04 13:03:30 <mz> or to destribute them randomly, with a lower chance of placement the further away from the center we go
2009-05-04 13:03:43 <Methedrine> but putting everyone around a center, and as close to it as possible, prevents inter-alliance battles, or makes them extremely hard
2009-05-04 13:04:01 <mz> the issue with the latter is that everyone not in the alliance who is in their neighbourhood gets killed the first week
2009-05-04 13:04:28 <mz> that's a result of geography though
2009-05-04 13:04:44 <mz> you end up with combat zones on the border between two alliances
2009-05-04 13:05:08 <Methedrine> of course
2009-05-04 13:06:26 <mz> <Methedrine> "because there might not be my alliance but some other people I know" <- this is the basis of the whole galaxy vs alliance problem we've been having
2009-05-04 13:06:41 <Methedrine> yeah
2009-05-04 13:08:21 <mz> on the issue of combat zones
2009-05-04 13:08:24 <Methedrine> well, I am still a bit puzzled about this alliance centric view regarding unvierse placement
2009-05-04 13:08:25 <mz> now that we have geography
2009-05-04 13:08:32 <mz> no never mind
2009-05-04 13:08:45 <mz> we should agree on this issue before we move on the the next
2009-05-04 13:09:09 <Methedrine> which one?
2009-05-04 13:09:14 <Methedrine> placement or battle zones?
2009-05-04 13:09:17 <mz> placement
2009-05-04 13:09:21 <Methedrine> yeah
2009-05-04 13:10:02 <mz> actually, I am going to move forward a little ;(
2009-05-04 13:10:13 <mz> if we allow alliances to focus around a central point
2009-05-04 13:10:18 <mz> then wars become border disputes
2009-05-04 13:10:31 <Methedrine> yeah, like in real world with country borders etc
2009-05-04 13:10:31 <mz> and it starts making sense to allow planet cleansing
2009-05-04 13:10:37 <mz> ie, killing the player completely
2009-05-04 13:10:43 <mz> game over, start over, etc
2009-05-04 13:10:57 <mz> which presents an opportunity for recruitment
2009-05-04 13:11:07 <mz> because the victorious alliance now has an empty planet on its borders
2009-05-04 13:11:11 <mz> whch should be settled
2009-05-04 13:11:15 <mz> ..by a new player
2009-05-04 13:11:24 <mz> = incentive to recruit people
2009-05-04 13:11:59 <mz> on the other hand, this also means they'll be the ones to die first, becuase they're on the border :(
2009-05-04 13:12:56 <mz> no, you know what, let's stay away from that for a bit
2009-05-04 13:13:04 <mz> just introduces more questions
2009-05-04 13:13:09 <Methedrine> yeah
2009-05-04 13:13:21 <Methedrine> haha, now I know why I like free markets so much
2009-05-04 13:13:32 <Methedrine> you can simply ignore the questions and do what the fuck you want to do
2009-05-04 13:14:38 <mz> that's the issue with trying to design something perfect :P
2009-05-04 13:14:40 * Retrieving #sphere_galaxy modes...
2009-05-04 13:14:53 <Methedrine> there is no such thing as "perfect"
2009-05-04 13:14:57 <mz> hence, trying
2009-05-04 13:15:16 <Methedrine> right, have to do a phone call, hang on
2009-05-04 13:16:24 <mz> ok
2009-05-04 13:16:30 <mz> let's go with 8 sectors then
2009-05-04 13:16:49 <mz> and people can choose 'random' or 'sector x'
2009-05-04 13:19:10 <mz> should we allow people to change sector? if so, as often as they want or only a certain number of times? randomly or specifically?
2009-05-04 13:25:43 <Methedrine> let them choose but then they have to live with that
2009-05-04 13:25:56 <mz> so no exiling
2009-05-04 13:25:56 <Methedrine> so it is a one-time-decision
2009-05-04 13:26:01 <Methedrine> yeah
2009-05-04 13:26:27 <mz> I would maybe allow people to change it during the first x ticks their planet exists
2009-05-04 13:26:41 <mz> x<protection
2009-05-04 13:26:44 <Methedrine> not sure, what about just allowing it on planet reset?
2009-05-04 13:27:04 <Methedrine> planet reset, imho, is the option to start a new without having to signup again
2009-05-04 13:27:13 <Methedrine> so it would fit in perfectly right there
2009-05-04 13:28:19 <mz> I'm not actually sure what I'm trying to achieve by allowing people to move
2009-05-04 13:28:45 <mz> which means it's probably a bad idea
2009-05-04 13:28:51 <Methedrine> probably
2009-05-04 13:28:59 <Methedrine> I would, however, see a reason to allow it on resign up
2009-05-04 13:29:03 <Methedrine> so, err, reset
2009-05-04 13:29:21 * mz nods
2009-05-04 13:29:37 <mz> if they can choose at sign up they should be able to choose at reset
2009-05-04 13:29:57 <Methedrine> yeah
2009-05-04 13:31:23 <mz> alright, I think I'm out of questions
2009-05-04 13:31:29 <mz> re placement that is
2009-05-04 13:31:57 <mz> I can assume you agree with the removal of tag limits?
2009-05-04 13:32:16 <Methedrine> yeah
2009-05-04 13:32:50 <Methedrine> actually, I had an alternate suggestion for this
2009-05-04 13:33:06 <Methedrine> where the alliance has to invest into its infrastructure in order to recruit more members
2009-05-04 13:33:18 <mz> explain
2009-05-04 13:33:27 <Methedrine> like, for each embassy a member built you can have three members in your alliance
2009-05-04 13:33:51 <Methedrine> this would mean that you can recruit as many as you want, as long as you are willed to pay a bit for it
2009-05-04 13:34:17 <Methedrine> it's not ruling out kick ass huge alliances, but it means you won't have to fight a big alliance right from tick start.
2009-05-04 13:34:32 <Methedrine> basically prevent early round stagnation by too dominating alliances
2009-05-04 13:34:34 <mz> that's exponential growth though
2009-05-04 13:34:46 <mz> takes only a few iterations to get the entire world into your alliance
2009-05-04 13:35:03 <Methedrine> it's a question of pricing ;-)
2009-05-04 13:35:11 <Methedrine> f.e. costs for the embassy could also grow
2009-05-04 13:35:22 <Methedrine> have it as an alliance wide building, for instance.
2009-05-04 13:35:30 <mz> ally fund
2009-05-04 13:35:36 <Methedrine> for example
2009-05-04 13:35:52 <Methedrine> the infrastructure costs X resources per member and tick
2009-05-04 13:36:12 <Methedrine> taxes would finally be more useful than just providing scanners with support ;-)
2009-05-04 13:36:12 <mz> I was just wondering about a tax of sorts
2009-05-04 13:36:36 <Methedrine> I think tax system should stay as is
2009-05-04 13:36:42 <mz> I think this is a separate idea from the sphere based universe though
2009-05-04 13:36:48 <Methedrine> yeah
2009-05-04 13:36:56 <Methedrine> and nothing really important right now anyway
2009-05-04 13:37:05 <Methedrine> so, for the sake of simplicity, let's stick with "no ally limits" for now
2009-05-04 13:37:10 <mz> ok
2009-05-04 13:37:18 <mz> in fact
2009-05-04 13:37:24 <mz> even alliance limits aren't really relevant
2009-05-04 13:40:40 <Methedrine> so, anything else?
2009-05-04 13:41:05 <mz> we still need some mechanisms by which new players get in touch with people
2009-05-04 13:41:06 <mz> but
2009-05-04 13:41:16 <mz> I've got to go work in 5 minutes
2009-05-04 13:41:19 <Methedrine> np
2009-05-04 13:41:20 <mz> so it'll have to wait
2009-05-04 13:41:23 <Methedrine> I am at work anyway :p
2009-05-04 13:41:46 <Methedrine> and I hope we don't have to discuss again why the limitation proposed by galaxies is bad
2009-05-04 13:42:08 <mz> I agree that the limitation is bad
2009-05-04 13:42:09 <Methedrine> it's a tiresome argument, and really not understood if you do not play the game and make the experiences yourself.
2009-05-04 13:42:17 <mz> but galaxies also give people an idea what to do
2009-05-04 13:42:27 <Methedrine> not disagreeing on that one
2009-05-04 13:42:30 <mz> those parts we should keep
2009-05-04 13:42:45 <Methedrine> we should keep the part that tells people what to do, indeed
2009-05-04 13:42:50 <mz> or preferably replace by better mechanisms
2009-05-04 13:42:57 <Methedrine> but it should not be centered around an artifical limit on your cooperation options, or on IRC
2009-05-04 13:44:08 * mz nods
2009-05-04 13:46:26 <Methedrine> clearly it is vital to provide useful communication mechanisms, but those things are just tools to reach your goal, not goals.
2009-05-04 14:50:16 <Appocomaster> man this is long :(
2009-05-04 15:17:56 <Methedrine> indeed
2009-05-04 15:18:02 <Methedrine> but that's how good discussions go
2009-05-04 15:37:10 <Appocomaster> I think you're still wayyyyy into the theor
2009-05-04 15:37:11 <Appocomaster> y
2009-05-04 15:37:24 <Appocomaster> and an ideal state for hardcore active players
2009-05-04 15:37:35 <Appocomaster> rather than what is practical and would work
2009-05-04 15:56:46 <Methedrine> That's fair to think
2009-05-04 15:57:02 <Methedrine> however, I base my theory upon what is successful in other games (travian, civilization, master of orion, ascendancy)
2009-05-04 15:57:42 <Methedrine> and no, it is not about hardcore active players
2009-05-04 15:57:50 <Methedrine> it is about pro-active players
2009-05-04 15:58:17 <Methedrine> why should we not reward people when they start to try to gain advantages
2009-05-04 15:58:57 <Methedrine> the key to success in every game is rewarding the player. of course the more powerful something is, the more it must cost, or have a different counter effect
2009-05-04 15:59:22 <Methedrine> + keep in mind that mz and myself did actually play planetarion a lot and talk with people about its mechanics
2009-05-04 15:59:31 <Methedrine> not just hardcore players, but also newbies in ascendancy galaxies
2009-05-04 16:00:35 <Methedrine> but, feel free to come up with better solutions that address the problems raised on PS, for example. Or the problems we pointed out in our discussions
Session Close: Mon May 04 16:01:00 2009
Session Start: Mon May 04 18:16:00 2009
Session Ident: #sphere_galaxy mz // Heartless // Appocomaster
2009-05-04 18:16:30 <Methedrine> you think my comment regarding "at least we played the game" was too harsh?
2009-05-04 18:16:43 <Methedrine> it's some sort of "knock out" argument, I know.
2009-05-04 18:48:24 <mz> it's not unreasonable
2009-05-04 18:49:13 <Methedrine> I am somewhat sorry but I find it quite stupid to accuse us of working on pure theory while we actually have experience in our hands
2009-05-04 18:49:49 <Methedrine> it's undoubtly a huge step and yes it is a lot of theory, but it is based upon what happened to us when we played, so heh.
2009-05-04 18:50:11 <mz> 2009-05-02 12:00:41 <mz> starcraft developers also aren't allowed to play it
2009-05-04 18:50:11 <mz> 2009-05-02 12:00:43 <mz> true fact.
2009-05-04 18:50:30 <Methedrine> interesting
2009-05-04 18:50:33 <mz> regarding the fact that cochese cant play with asc any more because he's now doing some work for pa
2009-05-04 18:50:46 <mz> (that quote was sarcasm)
2009-05-04 18:51:01 <Methedrine> well, I know that in my current company people are urged to play the game to find places where they can improve it
2009-05-04 18:51:17 <Methedrine> and I do also know that at CCP people do play - even though they are not allowed to reveal their identity
2009-05-04 18:55:58 <mz> yeah
2009-05-04 18:56:02 <mz> my point was
2009-05-04 18:56:13 <mz> it's retarded to prevent your staff from playing the game
2009-05-04 18:56:21 <mz> because THEY SHOULD be playing the game
2009-05-04 18:56:33 <mz> how else are they going to improve it :\
2009-05-04 18:56:38 <mz> ie, pa team are idiots lol
2009-05-04 18:56:50 <mz> they've lost all touch with the game
2009-05-04 18:56:55 <Methedrine> harsh to say so, but yes I agree
2009-05-04 18:57:03 <mz> and as a result are forced to ask people to say what needs changing
2009-05-04 18:57:07 <mz> which is entirely the wrong order of things
2009-05-04 18:57:10 <Methedrine> at least I was celebrating innerly when Kal announced his stepping down
2009-05-04 18:57:14 <mz> no wonder they dont have a vision :/
2009-05-04 18:57:28 <Methedrine> well and those which have a vision are called theorists and get ignored ;p
2009-05-04 18:57:41 <Methedrine> I am going to give Appoco a day or so to come up with a different suggestion
2009-05-04 18:57:54 <mz> I don't think he will
2009-05-04 18:58:00 <mz> I like appoco, I really do
2009-05-04 18:58:05 <mz> he's a good guy and he's done a lot for the game
2009-05-04 18:58:13 <mz> but game development isn't his forte
2009-05-04 18:58:17 <Methedrine> yeah
2009-05-04 18:58:19 <mz> and don't even get me started on cin
2009-05-04 18:58:20 <mz> :(
2009-05-04 18:58:33 <Methedrine> don't worry.
2009-05-04 18:58:54 <Methedrine> what I had actually in mind was sketch up a little proof-of-concept or even the core engine for a game based upon what I have in mind
2009-05-04 18:59:11 <Methedrine> i.e. database tables and logic code, no presentation of the stuff
2009-05-04 18:59:24 <Methedrine> and just hand it over
2009-05-04 18:59:50 <Methedrine> but I somewhat doubt that they'd appreciate such a thing
2009-05-04 19:00:07 <mz> it'll be viewed as a 'see, we can do it better than you'
2009-05-04 19:00:12 <mz> which it is, I guess
Session Close: Mon May 04 19:01:00 2009
Session Start: Mon May 20 16:01:00 2009
Session Ident: #sphere_galaxy mz // Heartless // Appocomaster
2009-05-20 16:01:51 <Methedrine> actually
2009-05-20 16:01:57 <Methedrine> I am much in favour of scraping the timezones idea
2009-05-20 16:02:01 <Methedrine> and making it really dynamic instead
2009-05-20 16:02:52 <Methedrine> so it is eta = MAX(5;euclidian distance between two planets divided by slowest ship in fleet)
2009-05-20 16:03:15 <mz> the timezones idea is useful to place planets in the universe though
2009-05-20 16:03:21 <Methedrine> for that it is
2009-05-20 16:03:23 <Methedrine> but not for eta
2009-05-20 16:03:28 <mz> agreed
2009-05-20 16:03:57 <Methedrine> with the euclidian distance this means that players got a full circle of possible planets to play with
2009-05-20 16:04:37 <mz> not exactly a circle, but I wont be a pedant :(
2009-05-20 16:04:43 <Methedrine> hm, we could actually do a real sphere :-D
2009-05-20 16:04:56 <Methedrine> well, a circle in non-euclidian geometry ;D
2009-05-20 16:05:11 <Appocomaster> Methedrine: how does this make it more fun+easy to play?
2009-05-20 16:05:11 <mz> the problem with a filled sphere is that it's quite hard to get a good image of it
2009-05-20 16:05:19 <Methedrine> I agree mz
2009-05-20 16:05:54 <Methedrine> Appocomaster: it does not make it more difficult to play, but the fun arises from the change inside the game's dynamics:
2009-05-20 16:06:03 <Appocomaster> fun for people who do maths
2009-05-20 16:06:06 <Methedrine> 1) there's no more loyalty issue between a galaxy or a planet
2009-05-20 16:06:16 <mz> this has nothing to do with maths
2009-05-20 16:06:22 <Methedrine> err, seriously, if you cannot calculate the distance between two 2d vectors then you deserve to be hung really high
2009-05-20 16:06:32 <mz> *3d
2009-05-20 16:06:35 <mz> hmm
2009-05-20 16:06:36 <mz> nvm
2009-05-20 16:06:45 <Methedrine> mz: with the sphere 3d, with its surface, 2d ;D
2009-05-20 16:06:47 <Methedrine> anyway
2009-05-20 16:06:48 <Appocomaster> I think a good 1/2-2/3 of the playerbase can't
2009-05-20 16:07:00 <mz> that really doesnt matter
2009-05-20 16:07:14 <Methedrine> exactly, as the game should show you traveltime calced somewhere anyway
2009-05-20 16:07:22 <Methedrine> 2) alliance warfare will drastically change
2009-05-20 16:07:36 <Appocomaster> because it'll be a lot harder to co-ordinate
2009-05-20 16:07:43 <Methedrine> I am presuming that alliances will try to gather their members within the same region of the universe
2009-05-20 16:07:44 <mz> what? no
2009-05-20 16:07:48 <Appocomaster> and you'll have cluster-raping-style stuff
2009-05-20 16:08:18 <mz> ok I'll shut up and let meth do the talking :P
2009-05-20 16:08:25 <Methedrine> so the first stage in such a situation would be what you describe as cluster raping
2009-05-20 16:08:45 <Methedrine> but that's happening anyways early on because it is profitable
2009-05-20 16:09:00 <Methedrine> (hint: here we need value based capping to make it get non-profitable really fast)
2009-05-20 16:09:28 <Methedrine> the less profitable your immediate neighbours turn, the further you'll have to travel for decent return-on-investment
2009-05-20 16:09:59 <Methedrine> thus alliances start travelling further, creating "cluster vs. cluster" wars so to speak
2009-05-20 16:10:38 <Methedrine> which means, for alliance ranking dynamics, it's not so easy to have a single dominating alliance any longer
2009-05-20 16:11:15 <Methedrine> because there can be multiple strong clusters, which would have to wage war against each other in order to overtake each other
2009-05-20 16:11:30 <mz> alliance x may be strong in one sector while alliance y is strong in another
2009-05-20 16:11:38 <Methedrine> which in turn means that people within a cluster can start catching up again
2009-05-20 16:11:46 <mz> if the difference isn't quite significant, they would not be able to take each other out
2009-05-20 16:12:02 <Methedrine> because alliances will start stretching their fleets to defend on all borders and stuff
2009-05-20 16:13:00 <mz> (would allowing planets to be moved at a slow rate be interesting?)
2009-05-20 16:14:24 <mz> (they could move outwards and 'conquer' certain areas or inwards to switch places with a better planet to defnd the border)
2009-05-20 16:14:43 <mz> (would need a limit on how many planets can exist in a certain area)
2009-05-20 16:16:39 <Appocomaster> 14:09 <Methedrine> (hint: here we need value based capping to make it get non-profitable really fast)
2009-05-20 16:16:44 <Appocomaster> I already said this is done!
2009-05-20 16:16:56 <Appocomaster> though I forget what the other thing I said I was going to do is
2009-05-20 16:16:57 <Methedrine> cool :D
2009-05-20 16:17:03 <mz> what's the formula?
2009-05-20 16:17:16 <Appocomaster> mz: I posted it on the forums and you even replied to my thread!
2009-05-20 16:17:19 <Methedrine> mz, keep in mind, we said movement only on planet rest originally
2009-05-20 16:17:37 <mz> yeah your post says nothing about value based capping
2009-05-20 16:17:41 <mz> which is what I said in my reply
2009-05-20 16:18:16 <mz> max cap rate = 25*(formula)
2009-05-20 16:19:45 <mz> meth, I know, but we defined movement as instant relocation
2009-05-20 16:19:50 <mz> at least, I did, in my head
2009-05-20 16:20:05 <mz> I'm trying to find a replacement for taking over an opponent's planet
2009-05-20 16:20:19 <mz> you'd get a game in which everyone starts totally randomly
2009-05-20 16:20:32 <mz> and over the course of the next 200-400 ticks alliances form strongholds
2009-05-20 16:21:08 <Methedrine> well
2009-05-20 16:21:10 <mz> the next 200-600 ticks would be dedicated to encroaching on other alliances' strongholds by expanding the zone your alliance controls
2009-05-20 16:21:21 <Methedrine> with a real 3d universe we could try to introduce something like universal drift
2009-05-20 16:21:25 <Methedrine> that shifts planets around
2009-05-20 16:21:26 <mz> proper border skirmishes
2009-05-20 16:21:30 <Appocomaster> mz: but before that I said what the formula is
2009-05-20 16:21:34 <Appocomaster> it's your ^1.5 one
2009-05-20 16:21:39 <Methedrine> much like gravitation
2009-05-20 16:21:43 <mz> oh
2009-05-20 16:21:48 <mz> you said you thought it was too harsh
2009-05-20 16:21:58 <Appocomaster> yeah but I still implemented it :p
2009-05-20 16:22:02 <Methedrine> actually that might be working with 2d coordinates as well, hoozah :D
2009-05-20 16:22:46 <mz> unversal drift, as in, random?
2009-05-20 16:23:28 <Methedrine> not necessarily random
2009-05-20 16:23:35 <Methedrine> uh, well, why not :-D
2009-05-20 16:24:02 <Methedrine> I do really like the idea, sounds cool. We just need to find a way that it does not lead those sign up zones ad absurdum
2009-05-20 16:24:19 <mz> well, I like the strategic aspect of deciding which alliance to attack next
2009-05-20 16:24:27 <mz> would also reintroduce proper wars
2009-05-20 16:24:41 <mz> "We just need to find a way that it does not lead those sign up zones ad absurdum" <- what do you mean?
2009-05-20 16:24:45 <Appocomaster> 14:24 <mz> would also reintroduce proper wars
2009-05-20 16:24:54 <Appocomaster> you told me that my war idea was non-essential
2009-05-20 16:25:12 <mz> no, I told you that formalising wars ingame without adding anything is non-essential
2009-05-20 16:25:19 <Appocomaster> I was giving bonuses
2009-05-20 16:25:25 <Appocomaster> and making wars in general more visible
2009-05-20 16:25:38 <mz> ok, maybe I misunderstood
2009-05-20 16:25:42 <Methedrine> ad absurdum should be a commonly known term :o
2009-05-20 16:25:43 <mz> in any case I'm not against war
2009-05-20 16:25:52 <mz> war = good
2009-05-20 16:25:59 <Appocomaster> I was suggesting more xp, higher cap rates, and visible lists of alliances declaring war on other alliances
2009-05-20 16:25:59 <Methedrine> if not, err, it's like ... if the drift makes people drift too far away from each other
2009-05-20 16:26:05 <Appocomaster> and a possible war scoring system
2009-05-20 16:26:14 <Methedrine> war scoring should be done via xp
2009-05-20 16:26:17 <Methedrine> anyway
2009-05-20 16:26:23 <Appocomaster> based on roids capped / xp gained from the enemgy during war
2009-05-20 16:26:34 <mz> <Methedrine> if not, err, it's like ... if the drift makes people drift too far away from each other <- why is that bad?
2009-05-20 16:26:34 <Appocomaster> *enemy
2009-05-20 16:26:46 <mz> distance = bad defence = vulnerability
2009-05-20 16:26:54 <Methedrine> mz: because you might end up with a situation where people say: "oh we cannot play together anymore, screw this game"
2009-05-20 16:27:03 <Appocomaster> they say that anyway :(
2009-05-20 16:27:14 <Methedrine> vulnerability yes, but not making people unable to play together
2009-05-20 16:27:17 <mz> I don't understand
2009-05-20 16:27:25 <mz> say I'm in an alliance
2009-05-20 16:27:31 <mz> I have a stronghold area
2009-05-20 16:27:34 <Methedrine> let's say we both sign up in the northern sector, and we are like 10 fields away from each other
2009-05-20 16:27:42 <mz> and we decide to encroach on another alliance's area
2009-05-20 16:27:52 <Methedrine> now the drift makes us both drift into different directions, so after 400 ticks or so we're suddenly 50 fields away
2009-05-20 16:28:11 <mz> not if we dont want to drift away from each other
2009-05-20 16:28:23 <mz> I dont think I understand your idea of universal drift
2009-05-20 16:28:26 <mz> it's forced?
2009-05-20 16:28:42 <mz> I took it to be a conscious decision people could take
2009-05-20 16:28:53 <Methedrine> universal drift would be an algorithm shuffling planets around
2009-05-20 16:28:57 <mz> 'I want to be closer to my alliance mates' or 'we want to attack alliance X'
2009-05-20 16:29:17 <mz> 'oh fuck I'm surrounded by enemies, I need to get out of here'
2009-05-20 16:31:04 <Methedrine> ok, maybe get rid off the idea of managing a planet
2009-05-20 16:31:09 <Methedrine> what about managing a space station
2009-05-20 16:31:10 <Methedrine> or something
2009-05-20 16:31:17 <mz> that would be more realistic
2009-05-20 16:31:20 <mz> but lol realism :(
2009-05-20 16:31:32 <Methedrine> so you could move your space station (really slow) with the penalty of being unable to get any income / moving any fleets while travelling
2009-05-20 16:31:45 <Methedrine> on the upside, it would also mean you'd not be attackable during that time
2009-05-20 16:31:59 <Methedrine> hm. like current exile :|
2009-05-20 16:32:04 <Methedrine> hm. no. not quite
2009-05-20 16:32:07 <mz> exile/vacation mode
2009-05-20 16:32:37 <mz> I think freezing the game while moving is not a good idea btw
2009-05-20 16:32:55 <mz> "oh I can't do anything for a week, fuck it, I'm out of here"
2009-05-20 16:33:19 <mz> anyway I think moving should be encouraged
2009-05-20 16:33:24 <mz> not punished
2009-05-20 16:33:34 <Methedrine> problem is
2009-05-20 16:33:35 <Methedrine> fleet movements
2009-05-20 16:33:40 <mz> shipjumping would be totally awesome too
2009-05-20 16:33:48 <Methedrine> hm. not really a problem.
2009-05-20 16:34:05 <mz> fleets just have ETAs that are decided at launch
2009-05-20 16:34:10 <mz> eta0 = home
2009-05-20 16:34:13 <Methedrine> when we do fleet tracking based upon planet id instead of coordinate, and check every tick whether a fleet reached its destination, then it's cool.
2009-05-20 16:34:20 <Methedrine> so you might end up shortening / prolonging your eta
2009-05-20 16:34:21 * mz nods
2009-05-20 16:34:31 <mz> oh
2009-05-20 16:34:36 <mz> that's the opposite of what I thought
2009-05-20 16:34:43 <mz> I launch now, I'm eta8
2009-05-20 16:34:48 <mz> that eta doesn't change
2009-05-20 16:35:02 <mz> I land in 8 ticks and I return in 8 ticks, no matter how much I or my target move
2009-05-20 16:35:19 <mz> *return in 16
2009-05-20 16:35:29 <mz> I'm cool with both options though
2009-05-20 16:37:10 <mz> hrm
2009-05-20 16:37:19 <mz> fleet tracking allows for all kinds of cool things though
2009-05-20 16:39:11 <Methedrine> "some of your ships had a misfunction nav computer and crashed into each other... blah blah blah"
2009-05-20 16:39:26 * mz nods
2009-05-20 16:39:29 <Methedrine> "your ships discovered some left over containers with useful resources... blah blah blah"
2009-05-20 16:39:38 <mz> then again, random events in a pa-like game are pretty bad
2009-05-20 16:39:47 <mz> what with the obsession with calcing everything
2009-05-20 16:39:59 <Methedrine> I think the calcing obsession is what makes it boring.
2009-05-20 16:40:04 <mz> oh I agree
2009-05-20 16:40:16 <Methedrine> so I would love to introduce a little less prediction
2009-05-20 16:40:26 <mz> being able to predict exactly what will happen 4 ticks from now sucks
2009-05-20 16:40:30 <Methedrine> give people value ranges they can expect, but not a final solution
2009-05-20 16:40:43 <mz> odd
2009-05-20 16:40:52 <mz> I would expect a german to be in favour of final solutions :(
2009-05-20 16:41:40 <Methedrine> :-D
2009-05-20 16:41:55 <mz> I agree though
Session Close: Mon May 20 16:42:00 2009
Session Start: Mon May 24 23:05:00 2009
Session Ident: #sphere_galaxy mz // Heartless // Appocomaster
2009-05-24 23:05:17 <mz> this is TT in a surface-of-a-sphere universe
2009-05-24 23:05:17 <mz> http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/4618/unbenanntb.gif
2009-05-24 23:06:35 <Amphetamine> *clicky*
2009-05-24 23:07:01 <Amphetamine> ya
2009-05-24 23:07:18 <mz> credit to dec for that one, btw
Session Close: Mon May 24 23:08:00 2009