Prerelease 3.088 (Efficiency/RAM improvements, auto-explore mode, bugfixes)

[keith.lamothe]

As for balancing of heavies - I think that removing them from Mk II's is very good idea.

Yea, I hadn't actually intended them to be on the "no-mark" planets at all, iirc.

please verify that they won't land under forcefields.. especially core or other high level ones. This will make them a bit OP I think given the hp boost from forcefield.

There's really no way to prevent them being placed under forcefields without retrofitting a ton of code, and honestly I don't see a need. A single MkI cannon should really, really, really not be that big of a deal.  If it is I'll just halve the stats and double the human ship cap for them or something like that (which I think some folks would like for human use anyway).  Of course, if you're rushing them with low health ships in clumps, those ships will die in alarming numbers.

A single MkII cannon under a core ff is a bit bigger of a deal, but those are only supposed to be on core/home worlds now.  Nothing a swarm of bombers can't take of.

PS A bit off topic - is it normal to have raid engine on Core planet and planetary cloaker on one next to it or I'm just very unlucky with map gen?

Hmm, I don't think there's any mapgen logic either encouraging or discouraging such placement.  Sounds painful

[Draxis]

Kieth, not sure if this is a bug or not, but in the game I attached for the CPA bug, there is a level IV planet called Esamir in the NW of the map, which has 3 tech II ion cannons on it (and Dyson Sphere is there too, if that makes a difference).

[x4000]

Kieth, not sure if this is a bug or not, but in the game I attached for the CPA bug, there is a level IV planet called Esamir in the NW of the map, which has 3 tech II ion cannons on it (and Dyson Sphere is there too, if that makes a difference).

That happens on the Core AI planets.  So, it must be right next to one of the home planets, I think.  Or, actually, I think that a few mark IV planets with some of the AI types are allowed to have multiple ion cannons, as well.  At any rate, not likely that one is a bug.

[Kjara]

On the topic of ion cannons, currently, every mkIII planet has an ion I cannon(besides the intitial neighbors of course) and every mkIV has an ion II.  Have you ever considered making it instead a bin type of assignment?  Say for a mkIII planet that it has a 70-80% chance of pulling a ion I, and fill that other 20-30% with other nasty ai specials(alarm posts, black hole gens, perhaps a heavy cannon at every wormhole/guardpost, etc).

Why? As it is currently, most mkIII and IV planets play out about the same once I get a good number of mkIII units, and since I keep the ai progress down where I see mostly mkI and occasionally mkII raids, being able to guarantee myself a ion cannon on capture makes defending these planets perhaps a bit too easy(and somewhat routine).  Basically I'd love for there to be a small but significant chance that each mkIII and IV planet wouldn't have an ion cannon, but would have something else nasty to replace it.

[Kalzarius]

In the early game I don't want too many heavy turrets as I tend to get stuck. In the middle and end game I would like there to be a lot of heavy turrets, because at this time they are a challenge, a source of attrition, and not something that you get stuck on. Therefore my comparison with Ion Cannons: In the very early game I leave those alone and go elsewhere, until I have built a decent fleet, then I return to take them out.

I believe most of my problems with heavies could be solved if there were some 'elsewhere' to go to, somewhere that was guaranteed not to have heavies installed. If the map had this kind of layout of weapons, with turret-free planets, I believe I would not mind at all if the planets that had heavies had more than one, perhaps evolving over time, up to four or five

OK, I can see how that would get frustrating fast. 

[FrostyThePyro]

I am personaly not having that big an issue with heavy cannons, but I am fond of bomber swarms, and they tend to do a number to heavy turrets (on a side note when I made the game to show riotsheild imunity and was cheeting like a madman, i noticed bomber starships do reduced damage to turrets, which felt odd).  However, instead of adding hard caps or what not, how about instead you make heavy turrets based on AIP.  So they could apear on markless planets, but only after the AI has reached III or IV.  IV and core worlds would of course be able to make them at any time.  Combined with droping the ratio in the "bag" this would prevent the big problem (making things that are supposed to be easy rediculously hard, especialy in early game), without removing the extra challange of deeply entrenched worlds. 

[Doddler]

On the topic of ion cannons, currently, every mkIII planet has an ion I cannon(besides the intitial neighbors of course) and every mkIV has an ion II.  Have you ever considered making it instead a bin type of assignment?  Say for a mkIII planet that it has a 70-80% chance of pulling a ion I, and fill that other 20-30% with other nasty ai specials(alarm posts, black hole gens, perhaps a heavy cannon at every wormhole/guardpost, etc).

Why? As it is currently, most mkIII and IV planets play out about the same once I get a good number of mkIII units, and since I keep the ai progress down where I see mostly mkI and occasionally mkII raids, being able to guarantee myself a ion cannon on capture makes defending these planets perhaps a bit too easy(and somewhat routine).  Basically I'd love for there to be a small but significant chance that each mkIII and IV planet wouldn't have an ion cannon, but would have something else nasty to replace it.

The bin idea is pretty good, I think they use that currently for turret selection during reinforcements.  It would also be interesting if the AI used mk III and mk IV beam cannons in the same way Ion Cannons are, placed at game start but never added in reinforcements.

[x4000]

New version: http://arcengames.com/forums/index.php/topic,4514.0.html