spidernl

Spittnacid, you missed that ever since this thread was made, Tempest's range was dropped by 20%, its DPS by 50%, and its minimum range was increased (making it easier to find a blindspot).

No. Turrets will never ever be counted as a seperate thing for flaggames. They're supposed to be balanced as items for the ship. Just like I'm not going to count Antideath, Summoner, Mounts, Guns, whether-or-not-someone-has-Salvo, etc. seperately. If Turrets generally are more advantageous to have than other items, then that takes balancing - not strange balancing logic.

Read the post above your own.

I think experience should have a much less prominent 'position', really. It was originally intended to prevent players of say the same squad from feeding one of their players experience, and thereby getting a ship many times more powerful than one built by a player building theirs using only their own money. Therefore, I think shareexp isn't the right tool for the issue at hand, which is that experience can be a little too hard to earn. Only the most 'exotic' of items should really have high experience requirements, in my opinion. A lot more should be available at low experience.

He did.

I agree that there should be a much greater variety in items available at low experience. I'll figure out how to best go about making it that way.

Tough luck.

SSDs certainly have their advantages. It's just that up until recently they were awfully expensive. I still have to say I'm happy I set up a RAID several years back. It's quite convenient to be able to just "hotswap" should one of the drives break down.

Not a bad idea. I haven't really looked into color-coding chat, to be honest. Not sure what's "available".

It is certainly trash talk, however.

The original concept simply handed out a set number of ticks from when the first flag was taken. As soon as those were up, teams would be shuffled, a new base would be selected, and things would start over.

Very impressive bit of Wikipedia-mining. However, anyone sane will tell you that today's SSDs are in no way the same as those back then. SSDs worth getting for consumers are a recent development. In fact, I'm still tempted to go with a HDD (hardware) RAID setup over a few SSDs. Both are fast enough for my purposes, and RAID stores my data much more safely than an equally priced non-RAID SSD setup.

Given how much a good one makes, I bet lawyers are paid by the page.

You must have assumed a lot of things to be so sure about that, no?

I'm already planning to change balling, mostly centered around killing people with the ball to up its 'value' and then scoring to cash in. I do not however agree with people here who feel this is a drastic change that requires very different bases. The reasoning for having multiple flags is that both flagging teams could hold a number of flags, making it worthwhile to keep going. Right now - even if teams are competitive - it's game over if all the flags are (nearly) dropped and the defenders hold most of the base. Can't really blame people for giving up at that point. And yes, I'm aware of the fact that spreading out flags will stimulate teams clearing eachother or flanking to hold as many flags as possible. I don't see that as a bad thing. The fact that this stimulates people to use every tool at their disposal to destroy the enemy team as effectively as possible is positive, in my book. If there are glaring imbalances that make it so that a team using all the tools available to it is unstoppable, then those imbalances are present right now, too. If anything that demonstrates the current system's weaknesses. Teams are stimulated to try "just enough" to make as much money as possible. Instead, they should have to try as hard as they possibly can if they want to cash in the maximum amount of cash per unit of time.

Look at most of the main game developers. Many just ignore their communities. Others take minor bits and pieces of feedback here and there from their communities. They still sell their games. Now look at indie developers, which have a tendency to take a -lot- of feedback from their communities. They are, however, still indie. For a reason. If they were truly successful, they would either no longer be worth calling indie, or would have been bought up by some publisher. There are exceptions, of course. No need to point that out.

The true problem is that you have no clue what the word 'assumption' means. You seemed awfully convinced that if we let you use Silverchat, you would be able to bypass a netban through it. The way you said it indicated you really believed that. If you really believed it, that requires you to have made a number of assumptions. The other scenario: If you were just randomly spouting nonsense you didn't believe in yourself, then that makes you an even more useless individual. Your choice.

That's not an explanation why turf needs multiple-entranced bases. I could make the same statement about any other kind of basing and it'd make as much (or little) sense.

Please explain why.

Silverchat uses chatnet protocol to communicate with ASSS servers. The entire connection part - which is where you'd be bypassing a netban - is chatnet. Therefore, chatnet is very much relevant to this discussion. Chatnet protocol also has absolutely nothing to do with java. You can write a client in any language, really. As long as said language has sockets. Edit: Congratulations. I accidentally typed "Silverlight" instead of "Starlight". That clearly makes the rest of my post irrelevant.

That might be the biggest amount of stupid I have ever seen in a post that short.

Chatnet works entirely differently. Again, you know so little of the subject you're not even aware that by comparing Starlight to Chatnet you're comparing apples to oranges.

There are a few ways to do the actual system. My initial idea was to have a set number of "dings", that is to say, for a set period, teams would be rewarded depending on the number of flags held. At the end of this period, teams would be shuffled and a new base for the next game would be (randomly) selected. A few players, however, noted that the current sense of urgency would be gone, which is a valid point. Therefore, I thought of a new system: grant teams points for the number of flags held every ding instead. Whichever team makes it to a certain amount of points first wins a jackpot - more similar to the current system. The latter system lacks an inherent advantage of the first, however, in that multiple payouts per game would reward those who played longest more. On the other hand, the jackpot for the second system could be individual, too, perhaps based on time spent and even "effectiveness" (damage done and such). DISCUSS!

Not quite true. The default value for "active shrap protection", as you call it, is 600. Therefore, -95 shrapdamage reduces damage by about 1/6th for all levels. Mind you, that value is used as a multiplier: divide your ship's 'shrap damage' (default @ 600) by 1000. Then multiply that 'fractional' value by the amount of damage a bullet of the same level as the shrapnel would do to your ship.

Consider reading the OP of the thread you're posting in before you post. Also, you're only making yourself look like more of a fool trying to talk your way out of this. You posted without any prior knowledge of the subject. In fact, you just assumed a whole lot of things instead. Chatnet clients can use biller commands just fine, show up in ?chat like any normal biller-connected client, etc. Conclusion: If you want to not look like a moron, read up on whatever you're posting about first if you don't know anything about it. Unfortunately for you, this means that you'll have to read up on a lot of things.