Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
v0.9 General Feedback
02-11-2014, 03:39 PM
Post: #11
RE: v0.9 General Feedback
(02-11-2014 12:43 PM)rocco Wrote:  
(02-11-2014 12:18 PM)VanderLegion Wrote:  It would be nice if, when a game ended, it showed up under Your Turn one last time so you actually got the Victory or Defeat screen. Right now it just goes straight to completed games as soon as the game ends, so if the opponent took the last action, you don't even get notified the game ended, you only know/find out the results if you actually go look in the completed games.

Hmm... has that been a problem in SO? Or is it just that those games end much less frequently.

I honestly don't know. As you said, SO games don't end as frequently (unless you have enough going). Maybe?

GC ID - VanderLegion, GMT-9. Sandbox GC ID (Beta) - VanderLegion
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2014, 04:49 AM
Post: #12
RE: v0.9 General Feedback
I'm with VL: game ends don't seem to be as much a problem with SBO, but games there take 1-2 months for the ones I've been playing, and I am only juggling 10 games or so at a time. When one ends, I know to look for it.



The ships list armor and hull, but in reality they are only listing armor on one side (so max armor on a side). I think total armor might be better to display (add up all four sources).



Ship add-ons are too expensive (or too weak). I only use them if i can't buy an entire ship. +100 pts armor for 20 points, or +50 hull. Realistically, that won't keep a ship afloat through even a single barrage, since most hits do well over 100 damage.

I recommend cutting the price of all add-ons. Maybe 5 pts for the armor/hull additions. Allow armor/hull to stack, too (I don't recall if they do).

For the forward/aft guns, even with 3 or 4 14lb guns, they won't do too much. Think about cutting the cost to 20 or 25.

I'd like to make the hard choice between outfitting the stock ships so they are better, or buying another ship. Right now it just isn't a question.

Alternatively, make the items 20 points, but make them really add value.

Another issue is that the amount added is not scaled to the ship size. 20 points buys you 100 armor on the biggest and the smallest ship. Percent (add 10% to armor) would fix this. But cost would then also need to be scaled. 10% armor on a big ship should cost more than 10% armor on a small ship.



It would be nice to add an extra sail/wider sail for +1 movement. Maybe "scraped and painted hull" to get rid of those barnacles for 20 points?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2014, 05:16 AM
Post: #13
RE: v0.9 General Feedback
(02-12-2014 04:49 AM)Diebo Wrote:  Ship add-ons are too expensive (or too weak). I only use them if i can't buy an entire ship. +100 pts armor for 20 points, or +50 hull. Realistically, that won't keep a ship afloat through even a single barrage, since most hits do well over 100 damage.

I recommend cutting the price of all add-ons. Maybe 5 pts for the armor/hull additions. Allow armor/hull to stack, too (I don't recall if they do).

For the forward/aft guns, even with 3 or 4 14lb guns, they won't do too much. Think about cutting the cost to 20 or 25.

I'd like to make the hard choice between outfitting the stock ships so they are better, or buying another ship. Right now it just isn't a question.

Alternatively, make the items 20 points, but make them really add value.

Another issue is that the amount added is not scaled to the ship size. 20 points buys you 100 armor on the biggest and the smallest ship. Percent (add 10% to armor) would fix this. But cost would then also need to be scaled. 10% armor on a big ship should cost more than 10% armor on a small ship.

Generally, I agree. The balance will be hard to get right. I think I lean in the direction of making them more potent.

What I don't want to happen is for you to trick a ship out of its archetype. For example, making a Bounty as beefy as a Constance. But I think I got enough tools in place to ensure that doesn't happen (like number of config slots and whatnot).

We can do a big rev after we got more people in.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2014, 05:43 AM
Post: #14
RE: v0.9 General Feedback
(02-12-2014 04:49 AM)Diebo Wrote:  I'm with VL: game ends don't seem to be as much a problem with SBO, but games there take 1-2 months for the ones I've been playing, and I am only juggling 10 games or so at a time. When one ends, I know to look for it.

Also, in SO it's obvious whether you're going to win or lose. In ship game, that might not always be the case. For instance if the game ends due to round 40 and the point totals are close, who got the last shot on the pirate, etc.

GC ID - VanderLegion, GMT-9. Sandbox GC ID (Beta) - VanderLegion
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2014, 05:59 AM
Post: #15
RE: v0.9 General Feedback
(02-12-2014 05:43 AM)VanderLegion Wrote:  
(02-12-2014 04:49 AM)Diebo Wrote:  I'm with VL: game ends don't seem to be as much a problem with SBO, but games there take 1-2 months for the ones I've been playing, and I am only juggling 10 games or so at a time. When one ends, I know to look for it.

Also, in SO it's obvious whether you're going to win or lose. In ship game, that might not always be the case. For instance if the game ends due to round 40 and the point totals are close, who got the last shot on the pirate, etc.

Ding ding ding! Yup, that's the difference. I ALWAYS know if I am winning or losing SBO.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2014, 06:20 AM (This post was last modified: 02-12-2014 06:25 AM by bmike.)
Post: #16
RE: v0.9 General Feedback
Some feedback on the a97 build sorry for lots of ideas at once - I meant to get these here sooner...

- change the no suitable players dialog. (ask player to opt in to the system - I had that off BTW) maybe mention "chat" to find opponents
- change "Galley" to "Scuttlebutt" as that's what sailors call the place where you meet to shoot the breeze so to speak.
- change "Cabin" to "Wardroom" as that's where Officers meet, relax, discuss the day's events, etc...
- we should have sail improvement add-ons and crew improvement add ons. You can keep them in your pocket for 2.0 or to help rebalance things. I still haven't done a spreadsheet on the ships - but will post it if I do.
- what if a ship could have armored rudder / redundant steering or reinforced rigging that negated / nullified the captain cards? You could have countermeasures either intrinsic and paid upgrades or defensive cards (again - save for 2.0 unless needed now to balance the gameplay - make there be more guesswork on the outcome)

Check Wikipedia and other sources on the two terms I suggest. Much more nautical flavor.

The wardroom is the mess-cabin of naval commissioned officers above the rank of Midshipman. The term the wardroom is also used to refer to (metonymically) those individuals with the right to occupy that wardroom, meaning "the officers of the wardroom".[1]

Also - the bosun pipe - it would be cool to play sides when you challenge or start a game with a higher ranked officer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boatswain%27s_call and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sideboy and http://www.sccheadquarters.com/Data/Site...ec2011.pdf and http://www.navyband.navy.mil/Anthems/boatswain.htm

You would pipe the side boy when the senior officer boards (perhaps entering the room or entering the game) and then add viers at the and of the basic sound for increasing rank. You could have the admiral of the fleet get eight side boys. Six for Vice Admiral, 4 for rear, commodore 2 and captain no viers.

You could sprinkle sounds in as well. Pipe (play the sound) all hands on deck just before one ship attempts to board another. Pipe

Last piece of "old salt" I would love it if the chat room robot would play ships bells accurately for the time GMT. and the robot could announce the "watch changes" at the proscribed times. I bet people would start arranging games to start on the the first watch, dog watch, whatever.

I'd suggest the traditional watches be used with a single dog watch (we don't really need to shuttle people in and out of dinner time which is why that watch is split in reality): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchstandi...tch_system

So from 0000 GMT/CUT - Middle -> Morning -> Forenoon -> Afternoon -> Dog -> First

You could run the bells according to the table following the watch or just keep dog watch in the normal pattern (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 - adding a bell every 30 minutes).
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2014, 06:27 AM (This post was last modified: 02-12-2014 07:04 AM by VanderLegion.)
Post: #17
RE: v0.9 General Feedback
I would argue that Cabin works. You're not going to the cabin to socialize with other officers. It's where you view your own status (and other players ranks, but you don' talk to em there, so...).

You could actually argue that the Galley would actually be the Wardroom. It only takes relatively few EP to make it to midshipman, then everything from then on is officer rank.
Something else that would be useful is a button in game to replay the last turns shots/movement. There's been a lot of times that I'll load up a game but not be paying attention during the replay, so I have to back out and reload it to see what happened.
How is the estimated damage determined when targeting an enemy? We discussed this some int he game that just finished, but figured I'd bring it here for other people as well.

So far, i don't know that I've ever seen a ship do MORE than the estimated damage, only less (sometimes a lot less, as happened in that last game that made me bring it up). For those that weren't in that discussion, you have a 10% chance per ball to hit sail instead of hull/armor, then another 10% chance if that doesn't happen to hit crew. I had like 5 shots hit crew, plus some sail, so the actual damage done was significantly less than the estimate.

Rocco talked about changing that to a 10% chance to miss, then an even chance to get sails or crew (I'm assuming 10% chance to hit something not armor, then if so it randomly determines which it hits?)

Either way, I'd like to see the estimated damage show an average it should do for the shot, where you could theoretically hit for more or less depending on the RNG. So take the total damage you could do with a full broadside, and reduce that by the average miss/mishit chance to get the average damage a broadside should do, leaving it to either do more or less damage depending if youhave more or less than average mishits/misses.

GC ID - VanderLegion, GMT-9. Sandbox GC ID (Beta) - VanderLegion
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2014, 12:36 PM
Post: #18
RE: v0.9 General Feedback
(02-12-2014 06:20 AM)bmike Wrote:  - change the no suitable players dialog. (ask player to opt in to the system - I had that off BTW) maybe mention "chat" to find opponents

On this topic, I just had a (radical) idea to change random matchmaking.

Right now it is similar to SO; player wants to play a game, they don't know anyone, so they choose "Quick Game" and (hopefully) get matched with someone that cares. This can be problematic, as:

1) Everyone is opted-in by default in SO, so you might get matched with someone that does not want to play a game

2) Even if you get matched to someone who is opted-in, they might have more matches than they currently really want to play.


My idea is to remove the concept of tapping "Quick Game" completely. Replace it with a slider called "Find Me Games" with values like 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 (defaulting to zero). When you switch this to a number other than 0, it signifies the minimum number of games you want to be playing at any time. When your number of current active games is less than this number, the system will automatically match you to another player waiting in this "match-making" pool. This method would exhibit several properties:

1) It is opt-in (as the default would be 0). As such, you would only be matched with someone expecting it.

2) You would only ever be matched up to a maximum number of games that you set.

3) I think its rather neat way to always have a game going; finish one game, another one will start for you.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2014, 02:57 PM
Post: #19
RE: v0.9 General Feedback
(02-12-2014 12:36 PM)rocco Wrote:  
(02-12-2014 06:20 AM)bmike Wrote:  - change the no suitable players dialog. (ask player to opt in to the system - I had that off BTW) maybe mention "chat" to find opponents

On this topic, I just had a (radical) idea to change random matchmaking.

Right now it is similar to SO; player wants to play a game, they don't know anyone, so they choose "Quick Game" and (hopefully) get matched with someone that cares. This can be problematic, as:

1) Everyone is opted-in by default in SO, so you might get matched with someone that does not want to play a game

2) Even if you get matched to someone who is opted-in, they might have more matches than they currently really want to play.


My idea is to remove the concept of tapping "Quick Game" completely. Replace it with a slider called "Find Me Games" with values like 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 (defaulting to zero). When you switch this to a number other than 0, it signifies the minimum number of games you want to be playing at any time. When your number of current active games is less than this number, the system will automatically match you to another player waiting in this "match-making" pool. This method would exhibit several properties:

1) It is opt-in (as the default would be 0). As such, you would only be matched with someone expecting it.

2) You would only ever be matched up to a maximum number of games that you set.

3) I think its rather neat way to always have a game going; finish one game, another one will start for you.

Sounds like an awesome idea.

GC ID - VanderLegion, GMT-9. Sandbox GC ID (Beta) - VanderLegion
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-13-2014, 01:20 AM
Post: #20
RE: v0.9 General Feedback
(02-12-2014 12:36 PM)rocco Wrote:  On this topic, I just had a (radical) idea to change random matchmaking.

+1, sounds great. Would work for SBO too, I'd think.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Contact Us | Starbase Orion | Return to Top | Return to Content | Lite (Archive) Mode | RSS Syndication