Re: Slow boat to China |
Sun, 12 April 2015 01:10 |
|
bklooste2 | | Crewman 3rd Class | Messages: 7
Registered: April 2015 | |
|
Take it target starbase is allowed
[Updated on: Sun, 12 April 2015 01:11] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Slow boat to China |
Sun, 12 April 2015 02:05 |
|
neilhoward | | Commander | Messages: 1112
Registered: April 2008 Location: SW3 & 10023 | |
|
bklooste2 wrote on Sat, 11 April 2015 22:10Take it target starbase is allowed
Target SB is a valid tactic whether fighting AR or not. I might recommend disallowing target SB before 2440, when it is most crucial for AR. Everybody wants more AR in the game (at least for the early to mid-game). Thoughts?
Also, 11 players now confirmed. With the remapping I suggest, players would have ~300 ly between HWs (supposing 11 players).
[Updated on: Sun, 12 April 2015 03:29] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Slow boat to China |
Mon, 13 April 2015 15:16 |
|
neilhoward | | Commander | Messages: 1112
Registered: April 2008 Location: SW3 & 10023 | |
|
12 players now confirmed.
[Updated on: Mon, 13 April 2015 15:16] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Slow boat to China |
Mon, 13 April 2015 15:18 |
|
neilhoward | | Commander | Messages: 1112
Registered: April 2008 Location: SW3 & 10023 | |
|
neilhoward wrote on Sat, 11 April 2015 13:31
Race Restrictions and Penalties
Joat: No NAS, 80 points set to defenses.
IT: 40 points set to defenses.
HE: No F, 30 points set to defenses.
CA: A number RW points set to defenses and MPGR such that the growth rate may be increased 5%.
I just caught a typo.
HE should read "No -F, 30 points set to defenses".
Factoryless might also want clarification, such as settings no worse than 10/10/10. Idk
[Updated on: Thu, 16 April 2015 18:24] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Slow boat to China |
Sun, 19 April 2015 12:22 |
|
XAPBob | | Lt. Commander | Messages: 957
Registered: August 2012 | |
|
neilhoward wrote on Sat, 11 April 2015 21:31We have 14 players interested and 8 confirmed at the time of this posting. 16 players would be great. I am waiting on confirmation from XAPBob on the following:
Universe and Game Parameters
Galaxy remapped to a circle. Players roughly equidistant with as close to 30 stars per player as I can get. 8 players get 240 stars for 30 each, 9 get 288 for 32, 10 get 288 for 28.8, 11 get 360 for 32.7, 12 get 384 for 32, 13 get 384 for 29.5, 14 get 384 for 27.4, etc. Density will be dense after remap (2.5 stars/10kly^2). Radii of remapped circle will equal the square root of number stars over density, all over π and rounded to the nearest multiple of four, e.g. for 8 players: r= √ (240/2.5*10000)/ π) =552. This way it does not matter how many players we have for race design considerations.
Acc BBS is on. Arbitrary game parameters will be set very high in order to keep public score from activating before 2500 (or never). Victory is by acclaim (i.e. when there is no longer active opposition). Host is not playing.
Race Restrictions and Penalties
Joat: No NAS, 80 points set to defenses.
IT: 40 points set to defenses.
HE: No F, 30 points set to defenses.
CA: A number RW points set to defenses and MPGR such that the growth rate may be increased 5%.
Schedule
0600 GMT T/W/Th/F/Sat through at least 2430. After 2430, vote may reduce schedule to max 50 hours, through at least 2470. After 2470, vote may be called to change to max 67 hours.
Rules
Single Race Victory
No pregame alliances
Player Exploitable Bugs / "Features"
Allowed: Chaff, Split Fleet Dodge, ISB trumps IT gate scanning (because I am not banning the PRT or the LRT), Repair after gating loophole, Mine Damage Dodge & Mine Damage Allocation (because I don't want to police it).
Banned: The rest found here.
Send race files to damarae1 at gmail and please include "SBTC race file" in the subject line.
Happy with most of the above...
Victory by acclaim - if people want to share they can, won't be particularly happy with a 5 player shared victory...
No victory conditions set - let's not have PPS at any point. Information is valuable and needs scouting/diplomacy.
Id rather not have people exploiting the damage dodge - I can appreciate that it is hard to police - so read up on it and exploit it in this game, everyone else will be!
Kill SB orders always grates with me, you can't target capital ships after all... And they always count as armed ships if they are there. I'd therefore rather have the order banned (and it is my game). If someone can PM me a good reason against that restriction then I'll consider it...
Schedule is as per the title 'slow boat to China', yes we want to move at a reasonable pace early, but I'm explicitly not looking for minimum pace at any specified game stage.
Quote:Schedule would be relaxed - after a reasonably paced start I'd expect it to drop to a couple of turns a week relatively soon, and maybe further if needed.
I did say tomorrow for races, but I've been out of touch for a while. Funeral was on Friday, so maybe the 25th?
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Re: Slow boat to China |
Sun, 19 April 2015 16:32 |
|
Epic | | Crewman 3rd Class | Messages: 9
Registered: April 2015 | |
|
XAPBob wrote on Sun, 19 April 2015 09:22Schedule is as per the title 'slow boat to China', yes we want to move at a reasonable pace early, but I'm explicitly not looking for minimum pace at any specified game stage.
I like Neil's perspective. Without some kind of forcing function, the game is more likely to languish. Most of us signed up for the game with this published schedule:
Quote:Schedule
0600 GMT T/W/Th/F/Sat through at least 2430. After 2430, vote may reduce schedule to max 50 hours, through at least 2470. After 2470, vote may be called to change to max 67 hours.
BTW, I'm not suggesting anyone would drop from the game if we changed the schedule. My point is that we (at least implicitly) agreed to this schedule when we signed up, so it ought to be viable outside of the rare exception.
Just one guy's opinion, though. I'll defer to what the host decides.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Slow boat to China |
Tue, 21 April 2015 00:40 |
|
dlrichert | | Chief Warrant Officer 1 | Messages: 136
Registered: January 2012 Location: US | |
|
[quote title=Epic wrote on Sun, 19 April 2015 16:32]XAPBob wrote on Sun, 19 April 2015 09:22Schedule is as per the title 'slow boat to China', yes we want to move at a reasonable pace early, but I'm explicitly not looking for minimum pace at any specified game stage.
I like Neil's perspective. Without some kind of forcing function, the game is more likely to languish. Most of us signed up for the game with this published schedule:
Quote:Schedule
0600 GMT T/W/Th/F/Sat through at least 2430. After 2430, vote may reduce schedule to max 50 hours, through at least 2470. After 2470, vote may be called to change to max 67 hours.
While I agree the game is more likely to languish at Xapbobs pace it should be his call. Not sure how you reached the conclusion that most signed up for the schedule posted by Neil. When Xapbob listed schedule on the first page: "Schedule would be relaxed - after a reasonably paced start I'd expect it to drop to a couple of turns a week relatively soon, and maybe further if needed."
What if Xapbob can not commit to the proposed schedule change? Should he be denied access? That would be a game hijack. Better to let him decide. If he sets the wording and not enough players join then that would be a different situation.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Slow boat to China |
Tue, 21 April 2015 11:59 |
|
ludek | | Crewman 1st Class | Messages: 23
Registered: December 2009 | |
|
I would like to play, can I still join?
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Slow boat to China |
Tue, 21 April 2015 13:49 |
|
neilhoward | | Commander | Messages: 1112
Registered: April 2008 Location: SW3 & 10023 | |
|
Welcome. We now have 14. As for the schedule, I do not care what it is, so long as it is specifically defined and agreed to before the game starts. That does not mean it has to be strict, so long as the method of leniency is spelled out.
[Updated on: Tue, 21 April 2015 13:50] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Slow boat to China |
Wed, 22 April 2015 16:06 |
|
ludek | | Crewman 1st Class | Messages: 23
Registered: December 2009 | |
|
Use VirtulalBox, And make Windows XP (32bit) Virtual Machine.
Or Install Linux (as VM or not) and run stars in Wine (witch works almost perfectly) as I do .
Look at http://wiki.starsautohost.org/wiki/Stars_vs_OS
there is at the end of page link to Windows 98 VM image.
[Updated on: Wed, 22 April 2015 16:21] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Slow boat to China |
Wed, 22 April 2015 22:27 |
|
|
Hawkeye,
I had a similar issue a while back. In my research, the 64bit is a major problem running Stars - luckily I had another machine still with 32bit to use. If I had to use the 64bit machine, I had pretty much resigned myself to using VMWARE virtual machine with a 32bit OS.
If you find a better way than a VM, please let me know!
Hope it helps!
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|