feedback wanted on a few possible code changes

juckto · Post by **juckto** » Tue Aug 05, 2008 8:31 pm

QUOTE Knowing whether something is currently "eyed" or not is not something we have ever had in allegiance, so why start now?[/quote]
... the enemy team /huh.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":huh:" border="0" alt="huh.gif" />

takingarms1 · Post by **takingarms1** » Tue Aug 05, 2008 8:32 pm

In the context of the minimap.

Post by **pkk** » Tue Aug 05, 2008 8:35 pm

ImmortalZ wrote:QUOTE (ImmortalZ @ Aug 5 2008, 07:28 PM) Well, that's a nice idea. Add a fog of war in F3!

Fog of war in Allegiance?! This doesn't work.

You don't spot everything within scanrange (sig below 100%)... You can even spot stuff out of your scanrange (sig above 100%).

So tell me how the fog of war should work. /wub.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":iluv:" border="0" alt="wub.gif" />

juckto · Post by **juckto** » Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:38 pm

At the moment when you lose eye on an enemy ship they disappear.

When you lose eye on an asteroid it should change texture and/or stop rotating.

Lykourgos · Post by **Lykourgos** » Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:50 pm

I am good with #s 1 and 2, dubious about #3. Allowing comms to rush whatever tech they like from the beginning of the game would have a pretty significant impact on balance (I'm thinking about tac). It would also results in quite a few games where one team was completely $#@!ed from the beginning because they bought a tech base they didn't have a rock for.

I'm not 100% against it, I'm just hesitant about making code changes that have a large effect on balance instead of code changes that improve functionality.

Andon · Post by **Andon** » Tue Aug 05, 2008 11:05 pm

I like all 3. Perhaps have the 3rd a checkbox on the 'game settings' screen somehow

aarmstrong · Post by **aarmstrong** » Wed Aug 06, 2008 12:25 am

I'm fully against all points. I use them heavily to determine what is going on in the game and let my guys know where the enemy is mining and to keep track of what things are building and where (the spheres, especially). I figure that if you're on the ball enough to see where bases build, then more power to you. I'm also constantly glancing on "G" for a techbase count and to know whether ours built before theirs. And while we can usually guess where the enemy is mining, dropping HE levels confirms the suspicion (and the rock that miner is on).

It's been this way for years, do we really need to change it now?

spideycw · Post by **spideycw** » Wed Aug 06, 2008 12:30 am

aarmstrong wrote:QUOTE (aarmstrong @ Aug 5 2008, 08:25 PM) where the enemy is mining and to keep track of what things are building and where (the spheres, especially). I figure that if you're on the ball enough to see where bases build, then more power to you. I'm also constantly glancing on "G" for a techbase count and to know whether ours built before theirs. And while we can usually guess where the enemy is mining, dropping HE levels confirms the suspicion (and the rock that miner is on).

It's been this way for years, do we really need to change it now?

How does it make sense in any way shape or form that you can directly determine where the enemy is mining or building with no probes? This is the same thing that made exp overpowered forever. I think this is an awesome change is it makes scouting valuable instead of my knowing everything on f3 without scuoting

cashto · Post by **cashto** » Wed Aug 06, 2008 12:47 am

I really like #3. It's hilarous when a comm blindly builds a replacement tech base only to discover the only remaining rock for it is in the enemy's home. Need more hilarity!

Also, if tech rocks stop disappearing unless a scout spots the new base, F5 may think that a rock is available when it's already been built on. (But this isn't too different from the case where two teams send their cons to the same rock, it's just that the "orphan tech con" problem will happen more often this way).

I really doubt #3 will affect faction balance. I doubt anyone will intentionally use it. The risk of not having a specific rock (or not having a good rock) is too high, and comms shouldn't be rushing tech bases anyways. But I'm always in favor of opening up options. Who knows, maybe someone will figure out how to use it to their advantage, in which case we've just added to the gameplay. /mrgreen.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="mrgreen.gif" />

FWIW I'm also in favor of the other two items too. Being able to see things in a sector you have no ships in strains credulity.

Badger · Post by **Badger** » Wed Aug 06, 2008 12:52 am

aarmstrong wrote:QUOTE (aarmstrong @ Aug 5 2008, 08:25 PM) I'm fully against all points. I use them heavily to determine what is going on in the game and let my guys know where the enemy is mining and to keep track of what things are building and where (the spheres, especially). I figure that if you're on the ball enough to see where bases build, then more power to you. I'm also constantly glancing on "G" for a techbase count and to know whether ours built before theirs. And while we can usually guess where the enemy is mining, dropping HE levels confirms the suspicion (and the rock that miner is on).

It's been this way for years, do we really need to change it now?

Just because it has always been this way does not mean it shouldn't be changed. We have the means and people willing to modify and improve the game, this is a feature many have expressed a desire to change. By allowing you to get around the fog of war, being able to see where bases build and which sectors are being mined, that is a serious bug.

The games would be more interesting by not seeing any of this without scouting. It means you have to use your head more to figure out what is going on. That will make things more fun imo.

#1 and #2 are definitly steps in the right direction.