Ore Degeneration?

[jcj94]

I belive that I can set a watch for maps, that allow us to check and see how long a mine has been in a specific place.  That way, we might be able to "trick" op2 into thinking the ore grade went down.  That or just spontaniously destroy and rebuild the mine, but change the bar number to -1 from its current (unless it is a one, then It'd just stay there.)

No matter if it can be done ore not, would you guys like it?



I'm sorry if I put in ORE instead of OR.  It's not my fault I can't sleep.  It's this game that I found, called Outpost 2.  Yeah its addicting.

[Spikerocks101]

actually, ore does degrade on its own, untill it hits a minimal point

[jcj94]

actually, ore does degrade on its own, untill it hits a minimal point

I mean like huge physical bar sizes.  Not like yeild ammounts.

[CK9]

Personally, I found it rather boring that ore hit a minimum and continued on forever.  It took away from the concept that there were only enough resources for one starship in my opinion.  If you do go ahead with the idea, make a test map for everyone to try out (multiplayer would probably be faster than a single player map).  That way, we can see if it adds or detracts from the game overall.

[Spikerocks101]

Is it possible to make the process just more extreme? I.e. the starting amount (when you first find it) stays the same (be it around 100 ore), and it just goes up to an amount twice as high (be it 500+ ore), but it just has a super long decay to 0 ore.

[TH300]

I think that ore degradation would drastically change gameplay (probably in a positive way). And it would fit better to the novella. Tactics like mass-produce-tigers would no longer work, people couldn't stop getting new mines at some point and maybe building 3 smelters per mine would no longer pay off. It could even lead to battles for ore locations. I also imagine missions like Dangerzone, where there would be a point in building on ore mines near the blight spawning point, because the ore is urgently needed.

On the other hand I like the original Outpost2 without such modifications. I'm just used to it, I played the campaign in that game and that means a lot to me. If you want degrading ore, please make a campaign with it first and allow me to get used to it.

[Zardox Xheonov]

if it means no mass produce tigers and no triple smelter... then im all for it.
 

[Arklon]

Changing the yield of the beacon underneath a mine after the mine has been built may or may not change the output from the mine. If not, then you'll need to do some hackery to get it to work.

[evecolonycamander]

I think, that when i start recoding the op2:eom project i will implement this into it. though, i can easily achieve the same effect with the mines.txt all i have to do is make the truckloads variable a high number and lower the lowest ore point to 5(so a mine still has SOMETHING to provide

[TH300]

I think, that when i start recoding the op2:eom project i will implement this into it. though, i can easily achieve the same effect with the mines.txt all i have to do is make the truckloads variable a high number and lower the lowest ore point to 5(so a mine still has SOMETHING to provide

You could change these values and the game would change accordingly. But that would be a general change for all missions. There is no way to load different sheets for only one mission (unless some of the coders around here add it to the game).

[evecolonycamander]

good point. hmm... well IF i could figure out how i could try to force the .DLL to load a separately named sheet. BUT that is well beyond my current abilities right now.

[jcj94]

The thing is,

How fast do we want the ore?
   Every 150 marks?
   Every 300 marks?
   Maybe every 500 marks, for REALLY long LoS games?

And My idea would drop it down only to a one bar after so long, but eventually you would want to move on to try and get more ore.


I need these inputs in order to make the Trial multiplay map.

   1: You guys' opinion on how fast to degrade
   2: Myself testing what happens if you change the ore bar underneath the mine
   3: People to be on mIRC so that I can call for problems, naimly TH300 and Spikerocks, and everyone once in a while ECC
    4: for you guys to hopefully learn how to do it so we can revamp some colony game with this style of work

Note that, if this is succesful, I won't put an AI in it.  This isn't to say that I don't wan't an AI, I just don't want it to mess with things.
 

[evecolonycamander]

no, not after marks, after truckloads. that insures that a 3bar mine made at mark 499 dosn't get downgraded right after construction

i say after about 100 truckloads it go's down. trust me when i say it can only fill about 3 smelters with that many truckloads. though i still need to actually TEST that.
 

[jcj94]

Is there even a way to count truckloads?

I mean, if the trucks aren't special in anyway, then they're is no way of telling.. is there?

 

[evecolonycamander]

actually, if you where to read the mines.txt you would find that in fact the game counts truckloads and ore degenerates to a percentage of some in-game variable.
op2 is amazing for the shear fact that it keeps track of more data then many of us even realize. that and how easy it is to modify it EVEN without the source code.

[Sirbomber]

i say after about 100 truckloads it go's down. trust me when i say it can only fill about 3 smelters with that many truckloads. though i still need to actually TEST that.

Yes, let's just pick arbitrary values and hope for the best.  Also, we should take your word for it, even though you're not sure of it yourself?  What?

Anyways, hasn't this idea been discussed 14135 times, and nobody wanted it because last time I checked this isn't Starcraft?  If you want to play around with resource expansions go play that game.

[Zardox Xheonov]

i say after about 100 truckloads it go's down. trust me when i say it can only fill about 3 smelters with that many truckloads. though i still need to actually TEST that.

Yes, let's just pick arbitrary values and hope for the best.  Also, we should take your word for it, even though you're not sure of it yourself?  What?

Anyways, hasn't this idea been discussed 14135 times, and nobody wanted it because last time I checked this isn't Starcraft?  If you want to play around with resource expansions go play that game.

that is a good point, what really makes a difference between op2 and sc is the fact that resources do not completly dimminish (at least not entirely) over time.

But another arguement is the fact that minerals and ores do infact deminish and arent renewable.

So what will it be? Keep op2 realistic or keep to our old themes?

I also know most of our veteran members have harsh relationships to change. Im guessing they want to preserve the game they value.

But whoms to say we can't keep both copies like we do with different release versions of the game?

If sombody with alot of experiance could answer these questions, we might be seeing results.

[evecolonycamander]

renegades was developed with the idea of pushing players to their limits. i want to do the same but from another angle.

[Spikerocks101]

i say after about 100 truckloads it go's down. trust me when i say it can only fill about 3 smelters with that many truckloads. though i still need to actually TEST that.

Yes, let's just pick arbitrary values and hope for the best.  Also, we should take your word for it, even though you're not sure of it yourself?  What?

Anyways, hasn't this idea been discussed 14135 times, and nobody wanted it because last time I checked this isn't Starcraft?  If you want to play around with resource expansions go play that game.

When playing LOS or LR, then yeah, people don't have time to expand, but when playing Space Race or Suriver, even thou people usually need to relocate cause of blight, this could also encourage them to go about doing this. Non the less, if it's been talked about 2^20 time, why hasn't there ever been a map made?

[evecolonycamander]

i say after about 100 truckloads it go's down. trust me when i say it can only fill about 3 smelters with that many truckloads. though i still need to actually TEST that.

Yes, let's just pick arbitrary values and hope for the best.  Also, we should take your word for it, even though you're not sure of it yourself?  What?

Anyways, hasn't this idea been discussed 14135 times, and nobody wanted it because last time I checked this isn't Starcraft?  If you want to play around with resource expansions go play that game.

When playing LOS or LR, then yeah, people don't have time to expand, but when playing Space Race or Suriver, even thou people usually need to relocate cause of blight, this could also encourage them to go about doing this. Non the less, if it's been talked about 2^20 time, why hasn't there ever been a map made?

simply put?
A) requires more coding then most people are willing to add to a mission
B) most of the coders willing to make extended code are usualy agaist ideas such as this
C) humanity is based around self image. we usually go with the crowd. this particular crowd says no.

that sum up why?

[BlackBox]

Doing this for a particular mission probably wouldn't be that difficult. There is a counter for "number of truckloads" as well.

I wouldn't suggest that it be done for every mission though, just certain ones. (That could be interesting).

[evecolonycamander]

such as doing it after the story line says 'limited ore in this region' ?

[jcj94]

That AND spacerace/ survivor missions.  I also am working on an IDEA for a larger map that, because of ore decreasing, will force the players to move to the middle to fight for some ore and get the Wreckage.  

I have often wonderd, if you were allied, would their be a way to set a trigger so you can share that tech with allies?  I mean, you are all fighting for the same thing, why not give your team that kind of advantage?

[evecolonycamander]

COULD be done but it would lead to ply-eden teams pairing and becoming unstoppable. also, newbies would end up on the losing side by not learning HOW to get that thors tech and such. another downfall would be one player dose all the research in a game then allies with other people JUST for the technological leap
EDIT: that was the cons. here are the pros:
I teach new players. having this kind of thing in a select multiplayer game would allow me the slowly teach them the basics at a pace i can bare. when i was working with shadow(subbed74) i had MUCH difficulty in telling him what to do to get what results. this would quicken the process and allow for a slightly higher member influx. another pro is that a new strategy would be born between players allowing ply-eden colonies to finally be matched by themselves. YES i realize that ply-eden already exist, but four player matches are dieing at the moment.

my two cents

[jcj94]

my two cents

and a constructive two cents at that...

but I have a sixth cents that people aren't going to like the ore degeneration.

I just want them to realize that:

BUT CHANGE == GOOD || BAD

otherwise proggramming speak for Change can equal good or bad.  It depends on several factors.

1:  The map itself
2:  The number of players
3:  How many beacons are on the map.
4:  What type of beacon degrades.  Just common?
5:  How many truckloads does it degrade after?
6:  How many people "ore hover" and guard ore deposits
7:  How many people like "superhuge" bases
8:  How many people like to "multibase"

Those factors, and disasters on, would make it a bit more realistic to the story line as I read it.

In my opinion I think something similar should have been done with MOST of the Land Rush maps.  Just think about it, your rushing for the best ore deposits, but this would add not just the best, but the MOST ore deposits.