Forums » Suggestions
Faction redux: avoid feature creep
Do the simplest things (e.g. net neutral faction maximum for Itan/Serco eliminating multiple POS) without all the bells and whistles (e.g. multiple opponent assists calculations). Otherwise, changes will take forever.
DivisionByZero
Do the simplest things (e.g. net neutral faction maximum for Itan/Serco eliminating multiple POS) without all the bells and whistles (e.g. multiple opponent assists calculations). Otherwise, changes will take forever.
Actually, from a software design perspective, you DO want to consider the roadmap of all the changes you want to make, otherwise any changes after the initial ones will take forever, since you'll be constantly tearing all the code apart and rebuilding it for new additions.
However, once mapped out, start with the most basic changes with a focus towards what features will lead to allowing others in the roadmap.
Do the simplest things (e.g. net neutral faction maximum for Itan/Serco eliminating multiple POS) without all the bells and whistles (e.g. multiple opponent assists calculations). Otherwise, changes will take forever.
Actually, from a software design perspective, you DO want to consider the roadmap of all the changes you want to make, otherwise any changes after the initial ones will take forever, since you'll be constantly tearing all the code apart and rebuilding it for new additions.
However, once mapped out, start with the most basic changes with a focus towards what features will lead to allowing others in the roadmap.
DBZ wins thread with FLAWLESS VICTORY!
+1 to DBZ
-1 to Keller's transparent attempt to hold onto a broken/exploited faction system.
-1 to Keller's transparent attempt to hold onto a broken/exploited faction system.
Cute dbz...
Keller is right - The replacement for the faction system needs to be "right" or it will end up becoming as broken as this one and a complete waste of the devs time.
Keller is right - The replacement for the faction system needs to be "right" or it will end up becoming as broken as this one and a complete waste of the devs time.
Yes - Keep it simple. It's a game.
-1 to both Lector and Ryan's completely clueless knowledge of SDLCs
I didn't say keep the old one you brainless turds. You just have to map all the features you DO want, or you end up with a system which you cannot maintain, no matter how "simple" you start it out.
Really, morons. Try reading occasionally. Your complete lack of breadth isn't astounding; it's not even humorous anymore. Now it's just sad.
In any SDLC, you map out the features you want to avoid scope creep, which I'm assuming is something you'd prefer? This isn't about whether you'd like a simple or complex system. It's about process; something which has been lacking a bit lately, given all the distractions with Tablet and Phone ports and all.
Were I Inc etal., I'd record all the requests that have been posted for a new faction system, and then determine which features they'd like to keep (which would hopefully include the ones most requested). They should then lay out the list of features they are keeping in a logical order (starting simplest to most complex is only one way to do it. Another common approach is to build core features first, then each dependency in turn). This is the roadmap. The dev team follows that roadmap to complete development of the system.
Got it?
I didn't say keep the old one you brainless turds. You just have to map all the features you DO want, or you end up with a system which you cannot maintain, no matter how "simple" you start it out.
Really, morons. Try reading occasionally. Your complete lack of breadth isn't astounding; it's not even humorous anymore. Now it's just sad.
In any SDLC, you map out the features you want to avoid scope creep, which I'm assuming is something you'd prefer? This isn't about whether you'd like a simple or complex system. It's about process; something which has been lacking a bit lately, given all the distractions with Tablet and Phone ports and all.
Were I Inc etal., I'd record all the requests that have been posted for a new faction system, and then determine which features they'd like to keep (which would hopefully include the ones most requested). They should then lay out the list of features they are keeping in a logical order (starting simplest to most complex is only one way to do it. Another common approach is to build core features first, then each dependency in turn). This is the roadmap. The dev team follows that roadmap to complete development of the system.
Got it?
Which is no different than what DBZ is suggesting, or what I and dozens of others have suggested in the past... we simply didn't feel a need to outline the entire process as we assumed it was a given.
You clueless brainless turd moron.
You clueless brainless turd moron.
Evolving the idea from another post, directly related:
-The friend of my enemy is my enemy. The Friend of my friend is my friend.
Basic concept:
-Standing are tied to allied and opposing nations/factions standing
-Everyone have enemies
1. Every single nation and faction must have at least one enemy, or more, and other factions are classified as allies, friendlies, neutrals, dislikes and enemies. Two major axis: Itani/Serco and UIT/Corvus.
2. Standing gains (+increase) to any given faction also affects standing with allied, disliked and enemy factions. Reductions (-decrease) are not ried direcly. PoS with one nation/faction results in limiting enemy faction standing to 'hate'.
Examples:
Scenario A: UITplayer doing UIT missions, receives +10 standing points. His stats changes as:
UIT +10 , TPG +1 , Ineubis -1, Corvus -10 ; remaing factins unchanged.
-> When same player loses -10 points with UIT, only his UIT standing is affected.
-> UITplayer reaches UIT PoS and decide to raise Itani standing. Then he reaches Itani PoS his Serco standing gets limited to "hate"
Scenario B: SercoPlayer doing Serco border missions, receives +100 standing points. His status changes:
Serco +100 , Aeolus +10 , Biocom -10 , Itani -100
-> Same player become Serco PoS, resulting Itani Hated. He starts doing Biocom mission. When Biocom standing raises, he loses Serco PoS.
So, major political change here is UIT remains neutral regarding Serco/Itani conflict, but becomes enemy of Corvus, and dislike XX/Ineubis/Tunguska. Then Serco and Itani need few allies.
Then, a first draft for VO's political axis can become:
SERCO + Aeolus ~ Orion // Tunguska ~ Biocom + ITANI
UIT+TPG ~ Ineubis ~ Axia // Valent ~ Xang Xi + CORVUS
So, flames and replies?
-The friend of my enemy is my enemy. The Friend of my friend is my friend.
Basic concept:
-Standing are tied to allied and opposing nations/factions standing
-Everyone have enemies
1. Every single nation and faction must have at least one enemy, or more, and other factions are classified as allies, friendlies, neutrals, dislikes and enemies. Two major axis: Itani/Serco and UIT/Corvus.
2. Standing gains (+increase) to any given faction also affects standing with allied, disliked and enemy factions. Reductions (-decrease) are not ried direcly. PoS with one nation/faction results in limiting enemy faction standing to 'hate'.
Examples:
Scenario A: UITplayer doing UIT missions, receives +10 standing points. His stats changes as:
UIT +10 , TPG +1 , Ineubis -1, Corvus -10 ; remaing factins unchanged.
-> When same player loses -10 points with UIT, only his UIT standing is affected.
-> UITplayer reaches UIT PoS and decide to raise Itani standing. Then he reaches Itani PoS his Serco standing gets limited to "hate"
Scenario B: SercoPlayer doing Serco border missions, receives +100 standing points. His status changes:
Serco +100 , Aeolus +10 , Biocom -10 , Itani -100
-> Same player become Serco PoS, resulting Itani Hated. He starts doing Biocom mission. When Biocom standing raises, he loses Serco PoS.
So, major political change here is UIT remains neutral regarding Serco/Itani conflict, but becomes enemy of Corvus, and dislike XX/Ineubis/Tunguska. Then Serco and Itani need few allies.
Then, a first draft for VO's political axis can become:
SERCO + Aeolus ~ Orion // Tunguska ~ Biocom + ITANI
UIT+TPG ~ Ineubis ~ Axia // Valent ~ Xang Xi + CORVUS
So, flames and replies?
My apologies to DBZ then, Ryan, as I likely then misunderstood his initial point. MY point is that you can't just go about coding then thinking, which is what you and Lector keep suggesting with your constant ranting about simplicity as though by setting up only very simple logic rules it would somehow speed up the process. If it's not thought through, someone (likely you amongst others) would undoubtedly complain that the faction system is still broken.
Nevertheless, you and Lector turned what should have been a perfectly reasonable, rational, and polite discussion into an attempted flame fest with more of your sophomoric idiocy. Do either of you actually HAVE an original idea, or is all you are capable of doing is trashing (and not even well at that) anything anyone else says? All I did was to clarify a point with my first post, and your first remark was not only off topic, but completely nonconstructive. What a loser you are. Please just keep your posts in the RP forum where your lack of wit and creativity will no doubt be appreciated.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alloh, what you might want to do is to model what the political relationships are between the factions in UIT space before trying to set up arithmetic models. Your suggestions are usually long on examples and short on how those examples are related. If you'd pull together their commonalities, they'd make more sense. I'm sure they do to you, but even I didn't really follow that post as well as I'd like. Nonetheless, I believe the point you're making is that faction interaction will affect player standing. It's best to define the effect of our actions in terms of the relations between factions, so that if those relationships change, the faction system remains unaffected.
I did follow the draft alignment of relations between factions. I would avoid cementing any relationship other than the Serco/Itani one.
Nevertheless, you and Lector turned what should have been a perfectly reasonable, rational, and polite discussion into an attempted flame fest with more of your sophomoric idiocy. Do either of you actually HAVE an original idea, or is all you are capable of doing is trashing (and not even well at that) anything anyone else says? All I did was to clarify a point with my first post, and your first remark was not only off topic, but completely nonconstructive. What a loser you are. Please just keep your posts in the RP forum where your lack of wit and creativity will no doubt be appreciated.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alloh, what you might want to do is to model what the political relationships are between the factions in UIT space before trying to set up arithmetic models. Your suggestions are usually long on examples and short on how those examples are related. If you'd pull together their commonalities, they'd make more sense. I'm sure they do to you, but even I didn't really follow that post as well as I'd like. Nonetheless, I believe the point you're making is that faction interaction will affect player standing. It's best to define the effect of our actions in terms of the relations between factions, so that if those relationships change, the faction system remains unaffected.
I did follow the draft alignment of relations between factions. I would avoid cementing any relationship other than the Serco/Itani one.
"Do either of you actually HAVE an original idea"
Yes... both of us have many. Several of which you can find as features that have been implemented in VO.
I'm sorry if you feel my opinion/perception of your idea constitutes... "an attempted flame fest with more of your sophomoric idiocy"... but that and your hostility towards unflattering opinions about your idea really has more to do with your own insecurities.
Yes... both of us have many. Several of which you can find as features that have been implemented in VO.
I'm sorry if you feel my opinion/perception of your idea constitutes... "an attempted flame fest with more of your sophomoric idiocy"... but that and your hostility towards unflattering opinions about your idea really has more to do with your own insecurities.
I believe I can summarize this entire thread with the following:
http://xkcd.com/386/
http://xkcd.com/386/