The significance of being present at the update

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: The significance of being present at the update 

I like AK's idea of breaking the mobility updating accumulation techniques
between units/planes/ships and sectors, so that only sectors get the
incremental/etu updates.

Another idea would maybe to have a hybrid of MOB_ACCESS and non mob-access,
where you get half the mobility as a lump sum at the update, the the other
trickles along per etu. This then makes the micro-all-day-long tweakers get
less benefit from camping on their keyboards.

-Doug



"Markus Armbruster" <armbru.RemoveThis@pond.sub.org> wrote in message
news:87irpuiwhh.fsf@pike.pond.sub.org...
> "Akorps@aol.com" <Akorps.RemoveThis@aol.com> writes:
>
> > There is a mod that does that already, mob_access I think.
>
> Yes, this is option MOB_ACCESS.
>
> > Probably ships (and planes?) mobility should only be updated at the
> > regular update times. I screwed up that part, not realizing it was only
> > sector mobility that needed to be updated in real time each etu. Its a
> > really good scheme in theory but isn't popular unfortunately, maybe
> > because of that screwup I made with ship mobility, or maybe for other
> > reasons.
>
> In my limited experience with it, it makes it somewhat less important
> to be online at the update, and significantly more important to be
> online at all other times.
>
> Whenever you gain the stuff you need to do something useful, you want
> to be online to do it, especially if your enemy is offline at that
> time. Conversely, you want to be online whenever your enemy gains the
> stuff he needs.
>
> Without MOB_ACCESS, stuff is gained at the update.
>
> With MOB_ACCESS, mobility is gained all the time. Players calculate
> when they'll have enough and set their alarm clocks. Somebody who can
> play all the time can exploit this much better.
>
> > I hope someone can figure this out because it does solve the update
> > problem very nicely, if it can be done in a way which is popular with
> > the players.
> >
> > Sorry about that ...
>
> A solution would be nice, but I haven't been able to think of anything
> useful there.
 >> Stay informed about: The significance of being present at the update 

The bigger factor, by far, is the just being online when you are being
attacked, whether at an update or not. Granted while missing an update
can double the pain, a well planned attack against anyone who is
offline is a lot more likely to be successful.

There is no substitute or reasonable way to balance the game between
the attacker who is online and the defender who is at work, playing
with his kids, dropping the kids off at the pool, or just enjoying some
sleep. Thus the crux of an interactive online game. It'd be great if
we could all agree to an hour a day, have everything happen then and
then freeze the game, but we all know that isn't gonna happen.

So we discuss trickle versus lump sum accumulation of resources,
neither will work for the reasons already stated. Those of us with
lives (or in my case soon to have a life again) away from the keyboard
will ALWAYS be at a disadvantage to the players or conglomerates who
can man the keyboard nearly 24/7.

While its a hell of a lot more fun to fight mano-a-mano it seldom
happens. The attacker stalks his prey, build up the necessary mobility
(whether slowly or lump sum) and waits for his prey to be AFK. At that
point he runs a few ships near waits to see if the fort fires more then
once and if not proceeds with the attack. Should resistance be
encountered, wait.

Realistic, Nope. Part of the game, yep. Answer, there is none.

Enjoy the game for what it is and accept that short of trying to get
some way to play quicker, smaller, ondemand type games where parties
are there the whole time, that while you are enjoying your life,
somebody is gonna try to kill ya.

The only other way is to limit the time frames where attackes CAN
happen, but that is logistically not feasible with a global game.

In the end, Empire is never gonna be balanced between the player who
wants to dabble a 1/2 hour to an hour a day, and the player or group of
players willing to invest significantly more time.
 >> Stay informed about: The significance of being present at the update 

Bungholio wrote:
> I like AK's idea of breaking the mobility updating accumulation techniques
> between units/planes/ships and sectors, so that only sectors get the
> incremental/etu updates.

This should definitely be the way mob_access works by default, if
someone is willing to do the hard work of reworking that code.
 >> Stay informed about: The significance of being present at the update 

Carl Spackler wrote:

> There is no substitute or reasonable way to balance the game between
> the attacker who is online and the defender who is at work, playing
> with his kids, dropping the kids off at the pool, or just enjoying some
> sleep.

Actually there is a way. There is almost always some mathematical trick
you can use to get what you want if you are clever enough.

One idea is to double some of the defender's combat stats if he has
been offline for awhile. I was thinking about that today, say if the
defender has been offline 10 minutes, doubling his combat odds, and
doubling the amount of che generated if one of his sectors is captured.
Other stats could be altered in the defender's favor also if desired.

Of course, this has to be examined for possibilities of abuse, I don't
have a proof it is correct.

"Doubling" is mainly something I use as the fastest practical way to
converge to the optimal solution. Obviously at some point if you raise
the combat odds for the defender it is better to be offline. Where the
ideal point is is uncertain, but binary search is easiest in practice
(keep doubling until the advantage switches to the offline defender,
then go back down to the midpoint between current and previous levels)
 >> Stay informed about: The significance of being present at the update 

> This shouldn't be too hard to code, as it's mostly about throwing away
> the MOB_ACCESS special case in various places.
>
> Anybody objecting to such a change, please speak up.

I am currently playing a game with MOB_ACCESS turned on.

The layout of the world has a lot of sea sectors with main islands and
expansion islands a minimum of 10 sectors apart. This has made the
game quite unit orientation so far.

The game has favoured the defender based on MOB_ACCESS and other game
settings.

If MOB_ACCESS only worked for sectors, it would change this game
signficantly.

I do not have problem with spliting the option into two options but I
would prefer not
to remove the ability to have MOB_ACCESS for units. It adds an
interesting twist to the game.

Ron K.
 >> Stay informed about: The significance of being present at the update 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: The significance of being present at the update 

Doug

I am thinking I would like to try building/repairing to be incremental
like the mobility gain is under the MOB_ACCESS flag. This would mean
that the update would have mimimal impact on units assuming resources
and money are in place.

The one affect that will be a big difference is that resources and
money will be consumed on a regular rate rather then at only at update
time. The other issue is the budget command.

You would be interesting in trying this approach if I can code it?

Ron K.
 >> Stay informed about: The significance of being present at the update 

<Akorps.DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1143889586.031302.176560@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Bungholio wrote:
> > I like AK's idea of breaking the mobility updating accumulation techniques
> > between units/planes/ships and sectors, so that only sectors get the
> > incremental/etu updates.
>
> This should definitely be the way mob_access works by default, if
> someone is willing to do the hard work of reworking that code.
>

One of the cons about the current MOB_ACCESS implementation is that you need to
do all your unit/plane/ship builds shortly after the update, so that they will
accumulate as much mobility as possible and be ready to go right after the
update, as mobility is the most precious resource in empire. But then in order
to do this, then you have to commit all the $ and cms far in advance and have
10/10/20% vulnerable stuff sitting around. Yet on the other side of the coin,
it is not realistic for someone to build a bunch of stuff seconds before the
update, then have it have a full update's worth of mobility 5 seconds later.
Here's where maybe the hybrid_access might be a viable solution, where half of
the mob trickles on, and the other half you get at the update. If anyone's
willing to code it, I'll run it. As I've had success with my other hybrid
solutions with land units only gettting half the standard mobility to limit
their penetration depth, and my semi-hidden mod to mask the 2% (or whatever)
precision in the standard power yet not be totally hidden.

-Bungy
 >> Stay informed about: The significance of being present at the update 

Akorps RemoveThis @aol.com wrote:

> One idea is to double some of the defender's combat stats if he has
> been offline for awhile. I was thinking about that today, say if the
> defender has been offline 10 minutes, doubling his combat odds, and
> doubling the amount of che generated if one of his sectors is captured.
> Other stats could be altered in the defender's favor also if desired.

Actually rather than increasing the odds for the defender when he is
offline, how about an algorithm which alters the odds in proportion to
the ratio (how much time the attacker spends on line) / (how much time
the defender spends on line), up to a certain limit (maybe 50%). This
also throws an added unknown into the calculation for the attacker, as
he wouldn't know how much time the defender has been online.

This might reflect the troops digging in more or maybe even being able
to fight better because they have more autonomy, rather than having an
overbearing ruler look in on them all the time! This would also be a
way of penalising big countries who would by neccessity spend more time
on line managing their economy and thousands of units. Not a bad thing,
as there have been some threads previously about how this can happen.

Would have to be careful of course that we don't alter the odds too
much. Can't let somebody who is hardly ever there to look after his
country have unbeatable defensive odds.

Wahbit
 >> Stay informed about: The significance of being present at the update 

Bungholio wrote:
> This sounds like a micro-update game, having things build continuously.
> Otherwise, it would be pretty abusable, by having players time things to be
> built and used without having to pay their mainenance/build costs at the big
> updates.
>
Yes

It is an experiment toward micro-update game.
I was planning on charging build costs as they occurs.
I could charge maintenance costs continously as well.

Ron K.
 >> Stay informed about: The significance of being present at the update 

This sounds like a micro-update game, having things build continuously.
Otherwise, it would be pretty abusable, by having players time things to be
built and used without having to pay their mainenance/build costs at the big
updates.

-Bungy



<rkoenderink.RemoveThis@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1143910086.313424.281040@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Doug
>
> I am thinking I would like to try building/repairing to be incremental
> like the mobility gain is under the MOB_ACCESS flag. This would mean
> that the update would have mimimal impact on units assuming resources
> and money are in place.
>
> The one affect that will be a big difference is that resources and
> money will be consumed on a regular rate rather then at only at update
> time. The other issue is the budget command.
>
> You would be interesting in trying this approach if I can code it?
>
> Ron K.
>
 >> Stay informed about: The significance of being present at the update 

AK presents an interesting idea. Some type of defense adjustment
for being offline, or more correctly, not always online can make
3am attacks less painful. However, we will have to be very careful.
Much effort has already been invested in balancing the offense and
defense of the game. It is already cheaper and simpler to defend
than to attack. We do not want to make the gameplay degenerate
into a global stalemate.

Most players that are taken out early in the game with a swift
stroke are inexperienced and have not set up even a minimal
defense. This is obvious from their position in the power report
and technology level. Novice players need to learn to grow their
economy, build tech and then appropriate items (ships, planes, land
units, guns, shells, etc.) for defense. They then need to equip
sectors with these items, and apply orders if appropriate, so that
an automated defense will slow down an attack.

The most precious, and limited, commodity in this game is not in
the game itself. It is the player's time. I understand that if you can
get a large enough block of time and you have prepared your
invasion with exquisite perfection, any attacker can break through
an automated defense. The difference here is does it take 30
minutes or 5 hours.

Additionally, we who attack know that we make mistakes - part of
the fleet is short mobility, shells end up on the wrong sectors /
ships or our intelligence is poor and the defense is not as expected,
etc. This causes a lot of hardware to be stranded in a risky
position until the next update. If the defender has reserve forces,
all of the attackers forces might be destroyed.

Novice players should not look for a crutch to survive. They need
to learn how to manage the economy and how to attack and defend.
Doug offers training sessions to get players started. However, he
has had very low response. If we grow the talent pool, less novices
will be frustrated. It is also an expectation issue - novices need to
understand that they will be crushed a few times as they gain
experience. If they fight back, and study the strategies used by the
attacker, they will start making it to the end-game and possibly to
the winner's circle.

Tom
(aka Ski)
 >> Stay informed about: The significance of being present at the update