Talk:Feature Requests - Host
From PlanetsWiki
Contents |
[edit] Humanoid and Ghipsodal cries for help
Since the humanoids and ghips send out messages to hurry and build them a pod launcher due to Cyborg proximity, why not have them voluntarily join your base if in fact you do reach them and build a pod launcher. Presently humanoids do join but the ghips still require kerria crystals to join. Have the all the ghips and humanoids join the base as soon as a pod launcher is built.
I like this. Fairly easy to accomplish.
PSUEDO-CODE
IF Humanoid or Ghips see Borg hull
Send Distress Call
IF non-Borg base with Pod launcher on their planet
Chance to Join increased by 25%
Note that the reason I didn't make it so that 100% of the natives join the base immediately was because this would make it way to easy for a Borg ally to scoop up these natives. For example:
- Build Base with Pod Launcher.
- Have Borg ally arrive with Probe.
- All natives jump in the base.
- Pod natives to Borg King in 100k chunks.
While this would still be possible with the 25% chance, it will take longer, and everyone else will be getting the distress signal for that longer period of time. Amaranthine 19:12, 2 November 2006 (CET)
1 Victory Point per million prisoners
Very good idea.
[edit] Happiness only helps breeding if there is some stress around too
I think a % of ships should also give the growth bonus. Not only ground attack.
Lord Lancelot 23:03, 18 November 2006 (CET)
[edit] Minefield Cloak vs. Active
- your referring to having minefields active and cloaked at the same time?. to be honest there times ive wished this were the case too. but then theres been other times, with like the CoM that i glad it dont exist. however, there could be some workarounds. for example. minefields can be cloaked and active until such time as they trespasses upon. lets say i place a grav mine at some open point in space. oblivious to everyone its active and cloaked. but now your planning a huge hyperjump accross the galaxy, the field brings you opf hyperspace about through your jump. you get a message," brought out of hyperspace do to an active grave fieldat co-ordinates (X,Y)"this contitutes a tresspass. and since your race has tresspassed upon the field, its visible to you for the remainder of the game. or until its depleted of ord. this means even if i recharge it continously and keep it cloaked. you be able to detect its growth, ord and density for the remainder of the game, because you trespassed upon it. however if another race has not tresspassed upon it, then they cant see it until they do. but if he is your ally then of course he too can see it. [cut]
[edit] MineSweeping
- The Thing I do not like (and many other players I spoken about this) is how come a minelayer lay mine under an enemy warship from up to 30ly ? whitout the enemy warship doing anything about it.
- my argument for this : the ship couldve done something about about it, how close does the minelayer have to get, before he turns on auto intercept?. and if was already in an intercept mode with the minelayer, then he wasnt that close at the begining of the turn to begin with in order to make that claim. when i play this game, anything that comes closer than 100lys is considered a challenge. if being challenged i have two options, 1)respond with deadly force or 2)withdraw. sitting there and allowing the challengee to approach and lay a minefield is not one of the options i would chose. thus the arguments response is : why did you let em get that close?
- When laying mines you have to move around and lay them so you should be in combat range = the size of the minefield your laying.
- Minefields in Planets are circles dropped at the end of the turn - at a single point in time and at a single location. As the minefield shouldn't be a dot, it must cover an area. Probably more realistic, a minefield would be dropped along the way that the ship is travelling, resulting in a mined corridor. Jochen 22:27, 18 July 2007 (CEST)
- That would be a very good idea. Lord Lancelot 22:48, 18 July 2007 (CEST)
[edit] Issue with Ground Combat (protect AA Guns)
This is in regards to the feature request on the article page.
If this is not optional (and only way with out client changes would be via the command code on the attacking base) it would make harder one tactic i have been using in a recent game. Enemy with baseshield and troop size far to vast to destroy via GA. Presently can send in one of more smaller suicide Ground assaults to kill off the AA guns, then send in the space based fighters to kill off the base shield, so the base can be taken out from space.
[edit] Host support of player Destruction
In the beginning of a game where a player quits, or never puts in any turns it can be extremely unbalancing for the game. It gives any prisoner races a major advantage if they can capture an entire enemy population early on at no risk to themselves, simulally for hacker races that get easy access to any built ships.
This suggestion is that the host has the option to remove a player from the game completely (e.g. In the ideal case separate options to remove: All Player Ships, All Player Bases, All Player Pods, All Player Minefields, All Player Prisoners owned by other races). To save host complexity this could be a config file passed to the host rather than ui changes (autohosting tools could then add an interface to game hosts if required).
Finally if this is being done what about doing to as part of the following, host can process scripts at any time to modify running games (e.g. accept a (modified?) master script to make changes to an existing universe, adding resource, ships, minefields, stress) included in this could be the ability to delete any objectid, where the settings above are effectively a list of all the objectid's of a certain type belonging to a player. This allow vast flexibility for specially scripted games as host can set both a start script and submit a extra script to run with each turn.
I would really like to give hosts a way to alter the universe and personally I have no fear that my host would abuse this - still other people think different. So maybe there should be an option allow host side scripts YES/NO (probably this would have to be set when mastering). Jochen 15:31, 10 November 2007 (CET)
