Settings and activity
11 results found
-
53 votes
Finn
supported this idea
·
-
1 vote
An error occurred while saving the comment -
25 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Finn
commented
The newer versions of Phost do amazing things with experience that really enhance gameplay. But it is also complicated. Experience in NU only affects ion storms.
I am the person who recommended left/right be random as a simple solution. The difference (or something like it) is necessary to add an important level of randomness to combat. It prevents combat from becoming a simple mathematical exercise.
-
8 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Finn
commented
I would be upset if there was ever a change that prevented me from using Unload All Freighters on a Merlin. The question is whether it is worth messing with the game mechanics to alleviate an inconvenience. I am not sure.
You can give them to an ally I suppose. On that note, the only time I ever use Unload All Freighters is with allies as it gets you the resources a turn earlier.
-
1 vote
An error occurred while saving the comment Finn
commented
Well, the multiplier is great except that it rewards all players equally for the win. It seems to me that the hard work has been done in creating it in the first place. You could have a player's own personal score be weighed against the multiplier inversely thereby granting a larger bonus for weak players beating stronger ones.
-
9 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Finn
commented
Snork, we have lots of problems with players quitting very early in the game. A feature like this would go a long way to reducing this behavior while improving - yes improving - the experience overall.
We are not going to all agree on where to draw the line between a useful change and the kind of change that hurts the fun of what made the game great in the first place. But this one really seems like a no-brainer.
An error occurred while saving the comment Finn
commented
Baer, could you elaborate? I can't imagine what you mean.
An error occurred while saving the comment Finn
commented
I do not like the idea, as I think it is boring any time you change an unknown feature of your opponents to a known. You don't really know WHAT they have - and that is a key feature of the game.
BUT
I like the idea of a bell curve, as I have mentioned somewhere before. Right now, all planets are determined randomly for all aspects. What I propose is to use a different engine for determining planets within 81 LY of each player's homeworld.It works like this:
The chances of getting 8 planets within 81 LY and of getting 0 planets within 81 LY of your homeworld are both zero. But 1 or 7 is a small chance. 2 or 6 is a greater chance, and so on, with 4 planets being the most likely - or some variation of this. Do the same with everything else too, but only on these first planets. Everything can be measured, so you curve the likelihood of natives - not on an individual planet, but as the first group as a whole. First, the master program determines how many planets you have within 81 LY. Then, if you have, say 5 planets, there is a zero chance of no natives on any of your planets or all having natives, followed by a relatively small chance of 1 or 4 having natives, and a better chance of 2 or 3. Do the same with government, minerals, and temperature. Native race is almost a wash, so I don't care about this. Then, once the initial planets are determined, the master program goes to its usual algorithm for figuring the other planets. I bet there will be some issues with planets immediately surrounding the initial zone, but nothing that can't be handled. The only problem I see is if Joshua and company wrote the master program in such a way that it can not spot spacial zones of this sort. It may have to be rewritten nearly from scratch. -
4 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Finn
commented
I have experienced this myself. It is an inconvenience only. But it seems like it would be relatively simple to make this work more intuitively. I can see how a new player would not be able to figure out why his transfers are not working. I know that we had to basically experiment until we figured it out. Heck, I had no indication in the game that me ally's ship was even cloaked.
2 is interesting to me because the game does not actually tell us when allied ships are cloaked. This would be a bandage sort of way to find out and looks unseemly. It would have to be accompanied by some other mechanism to see if an allied ship is cloaked to seem finished imo.
-
21 votesFinn
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment Finn
commented
"bum", "btf", etc. were not in the original code. Tim added the ability to beam-transfer things years later in this fashion because he did not want to rework the interface. I can't blame him. But this is certainly a place where NU can improve - not just change - without mucking around with balance issues if you do it the way TL is advocating.
-
4 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Finn
commented
This is a good idea.
On this note, I do not want the game changing my friendly code to HYP every time I click that button. HYP circles give a lot of information, and it is not a safe bet that I am clicking it only because I want to jump. The way things are now, there is no notification that the game changed my FC except the dotted line. This is not sufficient by a long shot. And if I am beaming up fuel to bring the tank above 50 (a common occurrence), there is no indication at all.
Clicking on the HYP link the second time could revert the FC to what it got changed from when the circle is removed. Or better yet, disable this feature. I am OK with my ships getting sent to the middle of nowhere when I make the mistake. But when the game does it to me, I am very unhappy. -
7 votesFinn
supported this idea
·
Finn
shared this idea
·
-
11 votesFinn
shared this idea
·
One thing seems sure. Your ship was not cloaked. How could he have even selected it if it were?