Or, from a game mechanic point of view, the game is set up on the principle that stellars are a limiting factor. If it didn't cost anything to have an operative perform actions, these things would be happening all over the place, and there wouldn't be any agents anywhere. Plus, of course, it would give free reign to those existing affiliations who have access to veterans to create the operatives from, while any new player / new affiliation would be in trouble due to lack of veterans.
Richard
AFT
Problem with this game is anyone whos been around a while can buy what ever they want. Maybe thats realism but its a game.
If starbases have a low security, any just-off-the-streets numpty operative should be able to succeed in a large variety of tasks...but if the base is properly secure, you should need a high-skill operative to do anything that is remotely difficult. Either way though, the cost will be the same, merely the chance of success differing.
Flooding a base with operatives until one of them gets lucky is an option - but it's a very costly one and can be dealt with if the starbase owner knows what they're doing. But is there some kind of tenmporary increase in security when operatives are caught? It feels like there should be if there isn't already, and it will make the op-flooding option a bit less palatable
Dan
Its like that idiot millionaire in real life who kept hot air balooning around the world till he got it right. Money. Not skill. The skills change when the job does. This doesn't make sense. Star base security should be taken into consideration but then it comes back to money again. Recently I had an operative with 100%chance to close a complex with 0 chance of getting caught. The job in question had good security. Whos to say it costs 5000 stellars for this info? Maybe my op figgured it out on his own. Especially if an agent can do the same thing for the same money?
Dan, Tony H. recently has been talking about "power gamers" and people who are only interested in conquest and war, which doesn't give a new person a chance to enjoy the game. Time in the game might mean somthing to a person who's been playing 10 years but ifI'm in front of you in check out line and pay 1 british pound for an item, should I get it cheaper just because I've been in line longer? Maybe a discount is in order...THAT..I could understand. But when we're paying the same then we should have the same in-game rights. When our skills are counteracted by the amount of money we have, then we are forced to simply drive stupid ships around from one starbase to another, unless in real life we can afford lots of special actions to find new products. I enjoy the game but when you take the skill out of it, it sucks. Hey, appreciate your time and interest though! <g> still your friend, clif
for the stellars cost, I agree that a degree of randomness would be more realistic - vut it would also be true for just about every "fixed" stellar cost in the game. Those are there as a game mechanic (stellars as the ultimate limit as to what you can do) and as such the balance between "reality" and playability/game balance doesn't always fall down on the side of reality
Most of the game is based on the premise that by doing the normal/obvious, you can do alright for yourself - but that you can do a fair bit better through inspired and detailed concentration on an area. Trade is like that, so is research, combat, and espionage. I have no doubt that the infrastructure improvements will follow the same general theme in this regard. The goodies you can get by discovering and researching new items are mainly via SA, but that is true of every new item (uniques, non-espionage items). Their effect is also in the main proportional to the effort put in and how difficult it is to research them.
Affs have been around a long time, and new arrivals who want to go it alone are swimming upstream to catch up (the FEL are still doing so, having started several years after the originals...) - but some of the new arrivals will be Bill Gates to an established aff's.
There are a few elements where the game approximation is a bit 'weak' I think. Here's one, just as an example, that I mentioned a couple of years ago: It seems odd that the orbit/takoff/landing speeds are exactly the same for all orbital bodies. It should be based on base speed multiplied by the gravity rating of the body - this would give a much better feel for the difference between small low-g / large high-g planets / asteroids, for instance. It was, I'm told, discounted as 'too complicated' for the players to work with. I think, with the combat options and permutations escalating to such esoteric levels I cant even follow them any more, this might bare looking at again?.. Sorry, off-topic.
This one is tricky... I would say that I see your point Clif, but would live with it for now; A little more variation in the price might be a nice 'tweak', but it has to be kept high to keep agent actions 'special' and at a realistic level, but within a set range such that politicals might inadvertantly bankrupt themselves...
My particulualar forte being off-the-cuff game redesign proposals; I'd propose the following, for the particular instance of 'close complex', for instance: Cost = 1,000 stellars per complex , multiplied by the security level of the starbase as a percentage. Is it 500 stellars or 5,000 at the moment - prices have gone up if the latter.
TonyH
| QUOTE (Jumping_Jack @ Oct 16 2005, 09:08 AM) |
| My name is invoked... I hear and manifest myself... There are a few elements where the game approximation is a bit 'weak' I think. Here's one, just as an example, that I mentioned a couple of years ago: It seems odd that the orbit/takoff/landing speeds are exactly the same for all orbital bodies. It should be based on base speed multiplied by the gravity rating of the body - this would give a much better feel for the difference between small low-g / large high-g planets / asteroids, for instance. It was, I'm told, discounted as 'too complicated' for the players to work with. I think, with the combat options and permutations escalating to such esoteric levels I cant even follow them any more, this might bare looking at again?.. Sorry, off-topic. |
strangely enough i raised the same idea as part of the playtest....suggesting that it should be a factor of thrust and the planetary bodies G rating
| QUOTE |
This one is tricky... I would say that I see your point Clif, but would live with it for now; A little more variation in the price might be a nice 'tweak', but it has to be kept high to keep agent actions 'special' and at a realistic level, but within a set range such that politicals might inadvertantly bankrupt themselves... My particulualar forte being off-the-cuff game redesign proposals; I'd propose the following, for the particular instance of 'close complex', for instance: Cost = 1,000 stellars per complex , multiplied by the security level of the starbase as a percentage. Is it 500 stellars or 5,000 at the moment - prices have gone up if the latter. TonyH |
again, not unreasonable...but if it was a big job to code (i have no idea - some things seem simple but are complex to implement) it would come some way down the list of priorities. in the long run the level would undoubtably be set so that the stellar cost was approximately the same on average in the long run, or the role of stellars as limit would be weakened for agent actions
Dan
| QUOTE (Dan Reed @ Oct 16 2005, 11:14 AM) | ||||
strangely enough i raised the same idea as part of the playtest....suggesting that it should be a factor of thrust and the planetary bodies G rating
again, not unreasonable...but if it was a big job to code (i have no idea - some things seem simple but are complex to implement) it would come some way down the list of priorities. in the long run the level would undoubtably be set so that the stellar cost was approximately the same on average in the long run, or the role of stellars as limit would be weakened for agent actions Dan |
Hi Dan Reed, this is about your gravity/take off stuff. I agree with you completely. I don't see any comlications. I mean whats complicated about pure old in grade school science? (other than extreme exceptions) A ship can lift off a smaller planet, easier and faster than a bigger planet. Lower gravity, higher lift off, etc.
Twice I have landed and couldn't get off the ground. The gravity was greater than my ships lift, so heres where knowlege of thrust engines and landing engines comes in. Dan, I am no mechanic but even I can figure that out. And even now, I'm still careful where I land if my ship is real big and heavy and so is the planet. I don't think it would be hard to figure out. I suppose the hardest part would simply be (simply?) programming the computer program to include this stuff. Nice Letter Dan. clif
I would think that the Landing/Takeoff times would be based upon a 1G standard. Using that assumption, you should be able to multiply the gravity of a planet by the amount of time it takes to Land on a 1G planet and get the results you're looking for.
IE: Takeoff time of 20 TU's at 1G (Baseline printout time)
would be 2 TU's at .1G
and 100 TU's at 5G's
You could then factor in advanced kit into the equation (KAS Landing Software, etc...)after that and set a minimum number of TU's. It's still rather simplistic compared to RL Orbital Mechanics, but I don't want to have to use a supercomputer to figure out my movements...
That being said, irregardless of how easy the above change may be to code, I'd like to see it put at the end of the queue until such time as the Infrastructure Update comes along (and has been debugged) and existing logged bug issues have been addressed.
Cheers,
Rich Fanning
aka
Lord Lawrence Scrimm
CIA Intelligence Director
| QUOTE (Lord Scrimm @ Oct 25 2005, 06:33 PM) |
| Although treading dangerously off-topic... *** Snip *** Rich Fanning aka Lord Lawrence Scrimm CIA Intelligence Director |
In total agreement.
| QUOTE (Lord Scrimm @ Oct 26 2005, 12:33 AM) |
| Although treading dangerously off-topic... I would think that the Landing/Takeoff times would be based upon a 1G standard. Using that assumption, you should be able to multiply the gravity of a planet by the amount of time it takes to Land on a 1G planet and get the results you're looking for. IE: Takeoff time of 20 TU's at 1G (Baseline printout time) would be 2 TU's at .1G and 100 TU's at 5G's |
Also in perfect agreement.
You should submit that somewhere under proposals where people are likely to actually see it though.
I imagine this will be very easy to code in and could be done with the next upgrade.
However, it will mean that cargo transfer options such as highport, teleporters and shuttle ports become even more valuable. I think they're too powerful already because they can handle too much cargo and cannot be intercepted. Highports cannot be closed down and cannot be destroyed as easily as they could in BSE.
But that's another story I've been pursuing for a long time and for which most other players will simply hate me... :-)
| QUOTE (Lord Scrimm @ Oct 25 2005, 06:33 PM) |
| IE: Takeoff time of 20 TU's at 1G (Baseline printout time) would be 2 TU's at .1G and 100 TU's at 5G's |
Actually,using the square root of the gravity rating of the body being taken off from, gives a nicer feel; using the figures quoted, a 0.1 G body would be 6TU's, and a 5g one, 45 TU's.
Highports USED to be major undertaking - hundreds of modules? Too late to change back...
Can we have this OT thread put into 'Game mechanics proposals' please?
TonyH
They are very easy to close down. All you need to do is drive a ship into them. The Wimbles proved that at an AFT starbase some time ago.
Richard
AFT
| QUOTE |
| My particulualar forte being off-the-cuff game redesign proposals; I'd propose the following, for the particular instance of 'close complex', for instance: Cost = 1,000 stellars per complex , multiplied by the security level of the starbase as a percentage. Is it 500 stellars or 5,000 at the moment - prices have gone up if the latter. |
Only got around to reading this thread!
In my opinion the stellar cost for the various operative/agent actions are too high for what they achieve or don't achieve.The costs don't encourage this area of play.
$5000 stellars to close down a complex for example is way too high.
Say that I had a base that shares a planet with another aff and I wanted to increase the income form my merch complexes for a week or so and aren't scared to use operatives to close down the my rivals merch complexes to get that extra income.
If the operative was succesful my base may be lucky to earn an extra couple hundred stellars,but it's just not worth trying due to the $5000 stellar cost.
Even looking at the option of trying to destroy my rivals merch complexes with explosives is too costly.
A variable cost is a good idea,but the starting cost should be lower,say in the order of only 10% for what it is now.
I know some will say that will make it to easy for operatives.I agree.But on the flipside the more times an operative is used the more chances the base has of capturing them.The controlling player has to way up the chances of whether it's worth risking that one extra action or not.
I feel this is a neglected part of the game(yes I know the CIA are very active
)but this is only down to the prohibitive stellar cost of the actions.
| QUOTE (Ted @ Dec 31 2005, 07:11 AM) |
| I feel this is a neglected part of the game(yes I know the CIA are very active ) but this is only down to the prohibitive stellar cost of the actions. |
Nice to see we agree on SOMETHING
Seriously though, it is difficult to hash out Operative issues on a board such as this. A LOT of the gripes I have about Operatives arise from specific examples that would be 'impolitic' to disclose. Further, as Dan has mentioned earlier in this thread, the game is geared towards doing fairly well for yourself if you just put a basic level of effort into each area. When someone puts in an extraordinary amount of effort into one particular area, they tend to be loathe to divulge the fruits of that effort to everyone else as it makes that effort the new 'baseline' for all future actions.
Cheers,
Rich Fanning
aka
Lord Lawrence Scrimm
CIA Intelligence Director