Archive through June 03, 2013
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: Star Fleet Battles Online:
SFB Online Client:
Programming Priorities (Bug Fixes & Enhancements):
Archive through June 03, 2013
Ok here is a new one.
The Radius ring feature is great but the only downside to using it is that it masks hex numbers.
In my BPoA campaign there are quite a few rings and we use radius rings to represent them.
Is it possible to have the hex numbers show in hexes covered by a radius ring?
Hey Paul,
Here's my begging for a feature.
Could we have a "Reveal Info" option for the remaining damage points?
The only way to "reveal" that to your opponent now is to reveal the type, which also reveals the G/L/R status of that drone. That reveals information you're opponent doesn't have right-by-rule to know that could be tactically useful (determining if you could have a MW drone left on board, for example).
Doesn't really matter for tourney as there's only two types and they're clearly distinguishable.
Mike,
I will look into it. But I do not see this as a high priority. The biggest issue is the amount of work required to calculate how much damage a drone can receive. And actually it doesn't matter how many different points remain, after the drone hits.
Can you tell me when this would be needed? Because it was kind of impact it doesn't matter. What matters is that the drone hit and the remaining damage points. And it is during a lab information gathering, that exposes all the information about the drone.
Isn't the "damage taken" field public by nature?
I don't see a situation in which the current behavior isn't correct. If your opponent has identified the drone, he's entitled to all the information anyway. If he hasn't identified the drone, he's not entitled to know how many damage points remain on it.
William,
It is. The problem is this. You're in a Lyran CW dueling against a Kzinti CM. The Kzinti has a slab of drones headed your way and you kick up the ESG. The drones are staggered and the first one hits the ESG.
There's currently no way to tell him that it's a 6 point drone. Was that a IV-XM, IV-MWM or was it a I-dr? One sucks up only G resources, but double rack space, one sucks up 2 spaces and a limited slot and one's one space and half space of restricted. If you're in a tight battle, counting empty racks and limits could be meaningful.
Currently, you can do the reveal and let go of that tactical intelligence, but the rules just say you have to reveal the amount of damage it is off the ESG. You could just tell your opponent, but I could also just tell the player that they got hit by a IV-RR every time I hit an ESG. The point of the reveal is to avoid those arguments.
For the calculation it's not too bad:
Total = Fr + Ar - Dam
Fr = frame (1-3 = 4, 4-5 = 6, 6 = 2)
Ar = armor modules 2/r, 4/R
Dam = the current value of the damage taken
Mike,
Yes there is a way for him to know those six point drone. The matter is for you to tell him. There is just no way to verify what you are telling you it is true until the scenario is over. In which case then you can dual reveal info on all the drones that are in the discard pile.
If you're playing against a Lyran, you could record the hit points of each drone under Special Instructions, and then just reveal that.
[Deleted as dup]
Paul, Tried that, and that's what lead to the feature request. I see the Lyran side to it, with now nearly 100 drones fired in this battle and few internals so far, rolling back the clock at the end to figure out if your opponent had a counting error and then replaying from there is just not reasonable.
I cede it's a corner case, but one that has reasonable arguments on both sides of it. Do you take volunteer programmers?
Andy, I like your idea. You have to consistently reveal the SI, but it'd work.
Hmm,
I don't see that this is any different from what would happen in a face to face game. You just tell your opponent that the drone did six points of damage to the ESG. Drones are not identified by ESG impact. The opponent knows how much damage was done by (and to) the ESG, but he has to wait until the end of the scenario before he can inspect the drone records. This situation is no different from what happens if you shoot a drone with phasers, or if a drone gets hit by a mine explosion, or whatever. While some players choose to reveal drones when they have been destroyed, there is no requirement to do this until the end of the game. See FD1.54.
It seems like a sportsmanship issue more than anything else. To effectively play SFB, everyone needs to trust each other to some extent, which is true online as well as in person. The full records are not going anywhere.
All that said, drone damage points are very easy to calculate (you gave the formula, except that type-VI drones are 3 damage) and I don't really see that it would be hard to do. The client already knows what the drone frame type is and how much armor is on it. There are many other kinds of drone-like objects, of course: Andorian drones, atomic missiles, death bolts, X-drones, hyperdrones, mass drivers, type-H drones, scud missiles, plus whatever is in Omega. So there is a little more to it, but basically it's all just frame strength + armor points. But I can certainly think of other features that, IMO, would have a much larger impact on the ease of gameplay.
Also note that there are no "half spaces" for purposes of availability calculations. A drone with a mixed payload rounds half-spaces up for availability purposes. For example, a type-IV drone with a 1-space swordfish module, half a space of armor, and half a space of explosives (an unusual, but legal, drone) would count as one space of limited and one space of restricted, even though the explosive half-space is general. See FD10.66.
You could put wrong information into the special instructions just as easily as you could say the wrong number in the chat.
I do see the point, though, since this is the sort of thing that could save player effort by being done automatically. Like, I remember agitating for the drone targeting arrows, even though live games don't have them, so I can't really say that this feature is unnecessary because it's not in a live game.
Another option is to edit the name of destroyed (or revealed, even) drones with the revealed hitpoints. This has the advantage that it can be done at the time of destruction, and only for drones that actually hit ESGs. You might not want to show this information for drones that got blown up by mines, for instance.
There might be some advantage to using special instructions from a convenience perspective in terms of being able to figure the hitpoints once when you launch the drone instead of on the fly whenever you need it. I don't think I would bother, myself, but it would be a matter of personal preference.
Sheap,
I see what you're saying, and I cede that it can be perceived as a "trust" issue. If part of the client isn't to avoid having to trust each other, why is there a reveal at all? I could just tell my opponent what the drone/plasma/mine is and that'd be a lot less coding. That said, I don't personally feel that it's either a high-priority fix, nor that it's a matter of bad sportsmanship. The client exists to simplify a lot of the things that are tracking nightmares and this is at first blush, see below, seemed fairly simple to calculate in my mind.
I would also hold that it could be a math issue as I clearly cannot be trusted to calculate myself without looking it up some days ... like yesterday. ;)
I have to admit, I had not considered all of the alternate drone-like-substance types, but I agree most of them are as simple to deal with. Probably the worst would be the TMs.
On the Special Instruction option, if you ALWAYS reveal the SI, it quickly becomes apparent to your opponent when a drone hits or is labbed whether he's got a opponent trying to play a fast one on him. That, agreed, only works if its actual malicious intent and not a fundamental ability not to do maths some days.
When a player reveals the "Target" of a manned (or otherwise) shuttle when there is no entry the client reports "Target is You". This is a misleading statement. I have witnessed more than one missunderstanding due to this convention. A report of "Target is No Entry" would be technically more correct.
This is a holdover from the ancient 2.x client's behavior. Since the "target" is not meaningful for a manned shuttle I am not sure how confusion could arise. However, I think it is still possible to launch a seeking shuttle without specifying a target. The current behavior is (usually) correct in the common case of a suicide shuttle launched in a tournament game.
If there is really a desire to change the wording, how about "undefined" or "none" rather than "no entry," which is grammatically incorrect.
In a FTF game, writing "Target is You" for a suicide shuttle or SP could be construed as meaning "your ship", taking the role playing point of view that you are sitting on the bridge of your TCC.
One can enter "suicide shuttle strength 18" in special instructions, but mission is "manned". Then reveal either mission or special instructions with "target is you" depending on whether you want a manned or SS at time of explosion/reveal.
No, I am not creative enough to make that exploit up. It works better at 2am than you might think.
Finally a monitor setup with enough screen real estate to properly play SFBOL...
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8328/8081778208_dd5236ae23_z.jpg
I just downloaded the new update and realized I'm a Lieutenant! 
Logged in in Demo mode and it shows Cadet this is an interesting enhancement.
I assume at some point there will be a list of changes/additions for this latest client version, I was just wondering what the ranks are based on? Cadet is pretty obvious but the higher ranks could be based on anything from time you started playing on the client to player ratings or something else entirely.
So will the documentation for this update have information on what the ranks mean and how one advances in rank?
There is nobody online at the moment but me so Its hard to get an idea of what other ranks players have.
Anyway it looks really cool, great work Paul.
Josh, A bunch of us were on yesterday and we ranged from a Cadet to Admirals. I think it is based on player ratings, but it could be longevity. I'm an Ensign.
Some thought that it might intimidate some folks into not wanting to play an Admiral for example, but I'd rather get my butt kicked by an Admiral than an Ensign. ;)
The new update is quite cool !
The rank must be some thing to do re NK, WL and or Tourney game results ?
I also noticed the phaser caps are now automatically entered at start of a battle ?
Never was like this before, another cool feature !!
Well done Paul !
Cheers
Frank
Nice feature list. What does "player ranking" mean?
Paul, when you log on now each player has a rank next to their name. I have seen Cadet, Ensign, Lieutenant, Commander, Captain, Admiral and Fleet Admiral. Sure there are some I have not seen yet.
Interesting. Do you know on what those titles based?
No, but speculation is leaniing towards SUPR ratings.
The phaser capacitor feature is really cool. I had a tendency to sometimes forget it.
Yes, the titles are based on SUPR ratings.