37 replies to this topic

[feld]

What does the line in Palpatine's bio about "inspiring and motivating the empire he rules" mean? Does this mean that he reduces build times? I don't think things cost less when he's around...maybe that's just because I've often got him and Pestage at the same location?
r/
feld

[Kitkun]

Appears to be a 25% health and shield bonus in space, 25% health bonus on land, and a 25% percent production speed bonus in galactic.

[feld]

Appears to be a 25% health and shield bonus in space, 25% health bonus on land, and a 25% percent production speed bonus in galactic.

Thank you very much!

[coinich]

Appears to be a 25% health and shield bonus in space, 25% health bonus on land, and a 25% percent production speed bonus in galactic.

Is this simply from having him exist, or does he need to be attached to a fleet for these bonuses to take effect?

[Kitkun]

Looks like he has to be at the planet for the effect.

[Pred the Penguin]

I wouldn't call him "Inspiring and motivating"

But then again, the grunts that never see him probably wouldn't mind that he's a Dark Lord of the Sith.

[Phoenix Rising]

I wouldn't call him "Inspiring and motivating"

Literal interpretation of his in-game abilities.

I want to do a bit of an overhaul on heroes though, because the actual numbers are really arbitrary. That basically means devising a ratings system to determine just how Ackbar stacks up against Thrawn, or anyone else. Is rank a good enough quantitative indication of rating? I'm open to ideas...

[Kitkun]

I suppose, in general, rank would indicate ability. However, there are also some that are renowned despite their rank, have no rank, or refuse promotion.
Also, if there is a specific example of one hero vs another, perhaps that would help clarify where they stand.

[X4ldin]

You also have the Grand Admirals, half of them were poor commanders, some gained the title from their experience in research or even political standing. Perhaps you could use the good vs./bad vs. bar across the bottom of their tooltip to indicate who beats who.

[Phoenix Rising]

I left a few points out. The idea would be that their combat bonus would improve with upgrades, so it'd just be a sort of canonical snapshot of a certain point in their career. I suppose I'd still have to tweak special cases in order to get an "effective" rank though.

Also, for the record, I would be making a distinction for what the bonuses cover based on their branch: Army (infantry, vehicle), Starfighter (air, utility-transport), Navy (freighter-dreadnaught). High-level heroes like Mon Mothma could get a blanket morale bonus however.

Let's just say that, for cases like the Grand Admirals, the rank allots you a certain number of points to spend on abilities, which may not necessarily be combat-related. So someone like Il-Raz might be incredibly good at recruiting infantry, or some such thing, but otherwise terrible at commanding a fleet.

I haven't really worked out a mechanic for non-military heroes, other than to just do them on a case-by-case basis as they are now.

[feld]

That basically means devising a ratings system to determine just how Ackbar stacks up against Thrawn, or anyone else. Is rank a good enough quantitative indication of rating? I'm open to ideas...

This is a great opportunity to make each hero unique just like you've done with the ships.

Recommend first deciding which heroes you want in the game, looking at their backstory, and deciding which powers you want each hero to have. Then make a list of heros for each power or special ability. This will simplify your rating process because you'll be asking more specific questions:
Instead of:
"So, who is better, Ackbar or Thrawn?"
You ask:
"Ok, so I've decided that Ackbar, Bel Iblis, and Thrawn extend the sighting range of their ships...of the three of them, who is best at it?"

In my naval career (which may not mean anything at all: the Republic/Imperial Navies are more like 1700s British Navy than modern American Navy) I'd say, ability actually has little to do with rank. The person's experience is a better way to tell. So once you decided what powers you wanted each hero to have, I'd look at their backstory to do the actual comparisons.

r/
feld

edit: deleted unecessary lengthy example

Edited by feld, 18 January 2009 - 10:48 PM.

[Phoenix Rising]

In my naval career (which may not mean anything at all: the Republic/Imperial Navies are more like 1700s British Navy than modern American Navy) I'd say, ability actually has little to do with rank. The person's experience is a better way to tell. So once you decided what powers you wanted each hero to have, I'd look at their backstory to do the actual comparisons.

Hmm. Yeah, but rank is one of the few non-disputable measurements that's generally going to be known for everyone. It would be difficult for me to say "hero x gets health +15%, speed +10%, and sight +25%" without it being somewhat arbitrary (I still have yet to settle on what those bonuses actually mean in a leadership context). It's fine to do an extensive point-by-point comparison of Ackbar and Thrawn (assuming that's how you want to spend your time), but most characters simply don't have the kind of extensive history where you'd be able to do that.

I would agree that rank isn't the best indication of skill, but is there a better one that can be ordered? More importantly, is there any other one? The only alternative I can think of would be RPG stats, but those aren't nearly as ubiquitous. I would like to eventually phase out the generic commanders in favor of named ones (much of the reason I went public with the icons), so I'm not just talking main characters here.

Speaking of hero upgrades etc., it is possible if you have Thrawn, for a planet to glow red to say that attacking there would be a good move??? SInce I think the game engine really does lack Thrawn's abilities

Nope.

[Tropical Bob]

I think that a general basis of ability bonus measurement should be rank, but each officer should be rated within their rank. Maybe something like each rank has a range of percentages that overlap. So an exceptional Captain would be more effective than a poor Commodore (Or whatever is above Captain).

If I'm making any sense, of course...

[feld]

I would agree that rank isn't the best indication of skill, but is there a better one that can be ordered? More importantly, is there any other one?

Heh. Generally...no. Welcome to the real-life leadership pain in the tail that is the Navy "Fitness Report"...but that's another topic...we're talking about the mod.

I would like to eventually phase out the generic commanders in favor of named ones (much of the reason I went public with the icons), so I'm not just talking main characters here.

OK, I understand...you're looking at dramatically increasing the number of named heroes meaning lots of research. Rank is a decent way to discriminate if you don't have time or backstory. You could come up with "generic" Captain, Admiral, Moff, etc "stats" (lists of bonuses) a la Tropical Bob's post above. A given rank in a military service should mean that the character is able to do some things to a given standard. Maybe a Captain level character increases the damage resistance of his favorite ship type and gives a limited sighting range bonus. An Admiral level character might increase damage resistance for his whole force and get a bigger sighting range bonus. A Grand ADM might get max damage resistance, sighting range, and give all units increased attack damage. Or something like that. Then modify them for characters with unusual talents (like Thrawn).

Another way of doing it would be to pick the "end" of a spectrum for a given ability or bonus. For instance, let's say that you decide that Thrawn is the best tactician in the Galaxy for the period under consideration. So decide (from a gameplay perspective) what you want the max possible benefit to the player for having him is and scale everyone else down from Thrawn's "perfect" ability.

This is an exciting idea you've got here. I'd be happy to help with the analysis.

[X4ldin]

Perhaps you could have a ranking system based on the commanders speciality with eiter attacking or defending in each type of combat but with a speciality for each to make them individual, for example:

Starships -
Lv 2 Attack - Thrawn (Find weakness - Frigates)
Lv 1 Attack - ...
Lv 2 Defense - Pellaeon (Double sight)
Lv 1 Defense - ...

Starfighters -
Lv 2 Attack - Soontir (Double movement)

You get the point...

Makes it balanced between the factions but allows each commander to have an edge in certain situations.

EDIT: I was writing this before the guy above posted so I hope it doesnt appear like i've stolen his idea :(

Edited by X4ldin, 19 January 2009 - 05:05 AM.

[Tropical Bob]

Speaking of hero upgrades etc., it is possible if you have Thrawn, for a planet to glow red to say that attacking there would be a good move??? SInce I think the game engine really does lack Thrawn's abilities
Also, I believe the only one that would of been able to stand up against Thrawn would be Nek Bwua'tu, though we will never now, since all he faced was a Thrawn Simulator afterall....also that might be a good thing to add Nek Bwua'tu and Traest Kre'fey into the game also....we need more Bothans

Heh, just saw this. I think Bwua'tu would give Thrawn a run for his money, but I doubt he could win. He could hardly take on the Killiks, from what I can remember.

Not sure if we're gonna see them in the mod, since they were both introduced after the time frame of PR. And while they were in the military before they were first mentioned (Obviously), there are no canonical instances of ships or events beforehand.

Another way of doing it would be to pick the "end" of a spectrum for a given ability or bonus. For instance, let's say that you decide that Thrawn is the best tactician in the Galaxy for the period under consideration. So decide (from a gameplay perspective) what you want the max possible benefit to the player for having him is and scale everyone else down from Thrawn's "perfect" ability.

I think that this is a very good idea. I'd throw in whoever is considered to be the worst commander to be the low end of the spectrum as well.

[X4ldin]

There is quite abit about Thrawn before the Thrawn Trilogy set during 0ABY to 4ABY, his promotion from Vice Admiral after defeating Zaarin etc. he has enough history, ships under his command and battles to be included IMO.

[feld]

There is quite abit about Thrawn before the Thrawn Trilogy set during 0ABY to 4ABY, his promotion from Vice Admiral after defeating Zaarin etc. he has enough history, ships under his command and battles to be included IMO.

Yeah...but if PR wants to get rid of all the generic minor heroes and go for named ones...he'll need stats and backstory on quite a few people.

[SpardaSon21]

There is quite abit about Thrawn before the Thrawn Trilogy set during 0ABY to 4ABY, his promotion from Vice Admiral after defeating Zaarin etc. he has enough history, ships under his command and battles to be included IMO.

Don't forget Commander Thrawn of the Springhawk.