Shut down the Server ?

[Warmonger]

Don't worry, I already started the project (at about 5000 lines of code now) and analyzed the packet structure, it is completely known to me. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LntWpXufoxs
I only need to get behind the cryptography (some minor problems) and there are no more problems except the quantity.

It shouldn't take no where near 500 lines of code to do everything you have. I could code an entire WONLobby server within 5000 lines with everything supported and running native on Windows, Linux, and even OS X. If you got that many lines of code, than you already have a mess.

[herik]

Don't worry, I already started the project (at about 5000 lines of code now) and analyzed the packet structure, it is completely known to me. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LntWpXufoxs
I only need to get behind the cryptography (some minor problems) and there are no more problems except the quantity.

It shouldn't take no where near 500 lines of code to do everything you have. I could code an entire WONLobby server within 5000 lines with everything supported and running native on Windows, Linux, and even OS X. If you got that many lines of code, than you already have a mess.

little late bud, his already done it lol

[Jodocus_]

You must be a real clever guy. You have absolutely no clue what complexity is behind the WON system and estimate a code length for it? I reused even lots of the old codes (about 1,5k lines) in order to safe time. In 500 lines you do a shit, you may do the config file parser and the basic interface with it (if any).
The packet parsers must be written real carefully, no time for needless premature "code length" optimizations at the costs of security and bugs.
No thanks, I don't need smart asses thinking they have uber skills in software development.

[Lancelot5]

Hi,

Never underestimate how hard it is for people to press a few buttons. The patcher in the lobby client will add/remove the patch in 2 button clicks and a few seconds

If it would just be pressing 2 Buttons i think players wont have that much trouble with it. But its not really the case. Often the Installer just add half of the patches. Then depending of the EE ressource u have installed it cant remove all. And when u not have used like C:/Sierra direction there is also some trouble with auto install etc etc... . I mean its not that hard to find out what to do when u have done some researches. But I dont think that players likes spent their time for it. They just want to start the game and play. For new players its not that simple.

A second server pair will run the new advanced patch series, the successor of the alpha patches if you want. Within this server environment, I will try to balance EE and experiment stuff (like 9 cits on resources, yes, RealForce made it possible).

I really like that u put so much effort in gettin EE running. Also that u offer to do some changes for balancing and gameplay is to my mind a great Idea. I really think the game partly need some changes. I must say that i just can spoke in a view of Pre player.

• Since already some reply to the 9 citz idea. Here just my thoughts about that.
  
  The example Idea with the 9 citz on ressources would be bad for Pre. In Midgame
  (copper/bronze - ww1/ww2) its already the case that simple booming and sitting in base partly is more rewarded than being active and trying to attack. With that change u have to put like 24-30 additional citz on ressources while u also have to add more citz on farms too. Because the proportion between ressources and food need to be the same as before for a good boom.Then u would have to use always iron / gold as bonus in civ. Aggressive civs with like hunting / iron which are already hard to play in lategame wouldnt have any chances. All in all it would increase the strength of booming which is already to strong in Pre. That makes the game for me borring because if the fight starts in ww1 ages i can simply start at that age and save some time.

If u really get the Server running and u going to realease some patches would be the community involved ? So that they can make some suggestions, or a kind of discussion before. Here, althought we had a vote for patch, I feelt like the community werent really involved into the progress of changes what i really disliked.

[Omega]

If u really get the Server running and u going to realease some patches would be the community involved ? So that they can make some suggestions, or a kind of discussion before. Here, althought we had a vote for patch, I feelt like the community werent really involved into the progress of changes what i really disliked.

There's actually a whole hidden sub-board in the patches board here, where a lot of beta and alpha testers for all of the patches except the first one had access to. Except for the one time, we never did a public beta test, but that was mainly because people *did not want* to experience such changes if they weren't going to be final and well-balanced. I even had the lobby bot up for awhile at one point, advertising for beta tester volunteers, and got very few takers from it outside of the people who had already volunteered or had been volunteered.

[Captain Nemo]

Because the proportion between ressources and food need to be the same as before for a good boom.Then u would have to use always iron / gold as bonus in civ. Aggressive civs with like hunting / iron which are already hard to play in lategame wouldnt have any chances. All in all it would increase the strength of booming which is already to strong in Pre.

Sry for going a little bit off topic here but have to correct this. If u have 9 cits on each mine gold/iron mining civs will be WEAKER as the very reason you choose gold/iron is because those ress are limited, unlike wood/food (copper+) where u can put as many cits as u have pop for. Having gold/iron less limited will make it less necessary to have gold/iron in the civ.

Not that I want 9 cits mining in a future patch tho

Edit: At second thought I don't really play pre but that just seems like logic to me. If Im wrong I'd like to hear the explanation

[Omega]

Because the proportion between ressources and food need to be the same as before for a good boom.Then u would have to use always iron / gold as bonus in civ. Aggressive civs with like hunting / iron which are already hard to play in lategame wouldnt have any chances. All in all it would increase the strength of booming which is already to strong in Pre.

Sry for going a little bit off topic here but have to correct this. If u have 9 cits on each mine gold/iron mining civs will be WEAKER as the very reason you choose gold/iron is because those ress are limited, unlike wood/food (copper+) where u can put as many cits as u have pop for. Having gold/iron less limited will make it less necessary to have gold/iron in the civ.

Not that I want 9 cits mining in a future patch tho

Edit: At second thought I don't really play pre but that just seems like logic to me. If Im wrong I'd like to hear the explanation

We can do math to find comparative strengths/weaknesses....

Citizens each mine iron/gold at rate r, where r is in units of resources per time per citizen.

6 citizens on a mine means your resource income per unit time is 6*r.
6 citizens with a 15% mining bonus means your income per unit time is 6*1.15*r = 6.9r

6.9r/6r = 1.15 = 15% income rate advantage

9 citizens on a mine? 9r
9 citizens with 15% mining bonus? 9*1.15*r = 10.35r

10.35r/9r = 1.15 = 15% income rate advantage

So, the rates are the same, and the differences in the rates are also the same, regardless of their situation.

The only real difference is that the total income is larger in both cases (50% more citizens on a mine is a greater rate bonus than a 15% mining bonus). Everything else remains entirely proportional, just entirely proportional with larger numbers, ignoring food as a rate limiting agent. Obviously though, food is a rate limiting agent here as far as mining income as well as future army and citizen production.

You could do more complicated analysis and figure out how this might effect things, but I'm too lazy at the moment. Part of the reason I'm too lazy to do it is because I'm 90% certain that you'd find an extremely slight advantage in favor of iron mining. Once food is no longer necessarily limiting (i.e. copper+), then iron mining is a clear win, especially given that advancing allows further gathering upgrades in sort of a feed-forward mechanism.

Pretty sure Lance is right on this one.

[Captain Nemo]

pop limit limits the amount of iron/gold it actually makes sense to gather in a game situation. if u have 9 on each mine. On another note I have tested the 15% iron/gold bonus in civ to actually be 25% bonus.

[Omega]

pop limit limits the amount of iron/gold it actually makes sense to gather in a game situation. if u have 9 on each mine. On another note I have tested the 15% iron/gold bonus in civ to actually be 25% bonus.

That'd just make those bonuses turn out slightly better still

Anyway, this is pre we're talking about. The feed-forward nature of pre and advancing is *huge*. 50% increased gathering (due to increased citizens) is going to make that feed-forward mechanism even more powerful. You advance so that you can advance sooner, and advancing allows you to have greatly more powerful units (meaning, you can increase your power in the field even with *less* units in total) and faster advancing (in the form of increased gathering bonuses, and also, in the event you go with less military units to allow for more citizens, which obviously makes sense if you can increase gathering by 50%).

Also, don't forget that towers are majorly powerful (even further still by advancing), and don't cost any population.

[Captain Nemo]

Well Im greatly handicapped by not playing the set in this discussion. But your entire argument builds upon the assumption that more gold/iron = faster aging.

My argument is of a different nature, of course Im not saying that gold/iron isn't an advantage cause it is, but it's whether that advantage is bigger with 9 cits on each or 6. My humble opinion is that one who has gold/iron wont actually need any more mines than the ones he has cause it balances his economy with his food income, and increasing his entire eco with more gold/iron and more food would infact tip the balance with eco/army to being too much eco. Infact it might actually make more sense to get farming instead of gold in such a situation (excluding the obvious advantage of gold mining before copper ). More workers are needed for farming, and if gold is not limited farming will make more sense.

My entire argument lies on the "limited ress" point which u haven't addressed and I'd of course like to know if u have gold/iron AND it was 9 cits on each mine, would u infact in a large 4v4 game be using all your mines fully?

[herik]

Wow im glad i won't be palying eec when this new game comes out, AOC ftw, have fun ruining the other setts in eec lenny boy, you are now the most hated player in the game well done

[Lancelot5]

Hi,

"My entire argument lies on the "limited ress" point which u haven't addressed and I'd of course like to know if u have gold/iron AND it was 9 cits on each mine, would u infact in a large 4v4 game be using all your mines fully?"

The point is that in Pre when there is an Ishtar set up u nearly can play the entire midgame withouht any army. So i think that u can make there enough farms to have a good food production that fits with the additional ressources income. If u want to do some good attack in midgame without gold/iron in civ it will be more risky / harder with that change as it already is. Because first u have to spent the ressources to form a decent army. then due to the limitation of population u wont have that much pop to put 9 citz on each ressources or have that much citz on farms. While emeny that focus the whole time on a boom will age up that much faster so your units would be outdated. The point is that Attacking will require like 30-50 Population while defending with Ishtar needs like 3-5 citz walling.
Its already the case that its not worth to produce any Army from bronze-imp vs a good pocket. It will just slow u down.

But your entire argument builds upon the assumption that more gold/iron = faster aging

And even if u have to much ressources it will be still a nice deal in lategame. It would allow u to spam bombers in ww ages which are pretty good in Pre because of the lake in the middle of the map where no AA could be setup. Also just seen from the Population it also could allow u to have like 15 (if its really 25% increased gatherrate) more Pop then the enemy while still have the same boom. Putting this into Armysize will result in a like 20% more units as the enemy which is good since precivs dont have any upgrade for lategame units (except bomber speed or some litte stuff) so that only the amount of units matters.
Pre games are balanced on early game so i would use a weak earlygame civ with farming/iron/gold in it. Its actually really weak but if u lose a few times early u will get a stronger wing and the civ will work well.
All in all i think the result will be more booming. For me pretty bad cause it borring. I think pre should be changed in that way that attacking becomes more attractive. Have some real crazy ideas how it could be done like.

Except for the one time, we never did a public beta test, but that was mainly because people *did not want* to experience such changes if they weren't going to be final and well-balanced

Ahh ok i didnt know about that. I think it was the time where i just started to play Empire Earth and was new to Lobby. But when see now that here maybe some changes for Lobby are planned the community got no informations.

[Arntzen]

About 9 citizens on each mine in P2N:

1. If you can have 9 citizens on gold/iron/stone/forage it will be easier to defend since you'll use (at least in start) less mines. Aka your base will be better protected.
2. If we can have 9 citz on each mine I wouldn't use a gold/iron civ. It would definitly be a wc+farm+ccr civ because (as Nemo already said) it would not be as limited anymore.
3. Because of point 1 I'd have less army and more citz for boom.
4. 9 on each forage would mean it's less important to get hunt tho.
5. 9 on each mine also means 9 on each stone mine which will definitly mean a more defensive meta-game.
6. 9 on each mine will make TC-starts better, it will allow wings to only defend one iron and this will again, result in a more boom oriented game.

When it comes to the Isthar argument Lancelot is talking about, I see what he's saying but I'm not a fan of the Isthar wonder at all (meaning I get it in like 1/100 games). Reason is it's to me a waste of resources. I'd rather save those and be forced to use more citz on walling (if it's a boomgame). OR get Zeus and actually do something. (Once you're in ww2 and beyond, Isthar is great).

Also what you're saying lance, about "loose early game so you will get a better wing" to me is wrong. I mean, players like mintberry (who's incredibly bad early game, compared to his late game). Does not get a better wing normally. It's all about balancing the wing vs wing and pocket vs pocket. Normally it's mintberry+the best pocket in the room vs 2 other pockets.

If you're talking about Isthar in the game with the best 8 players in EE, then I can agree with you, because those 8 would not "forget" to wall sea or wall wood and whatever, and therefor be defending a lot better. But, today you'll have 4 decent, 2 experts and 2 below average players in the room and therefor there is a ton of time where you actually can hurt the booming pocket. I think if you wait for him to get isthar and be 1-2 ages ahead, it's already too late.

Bottom line, my opinion still is: 9 on each mine is stupid, and don't touch the Isthar.

[herik]

with this 9 cits thing kaz, u can get iron bonus, and then all you'de need is to live off that 1 irom tc'd mine, you woulnt even need 2nd iron LOL (at start)

[Arntzen]

That's exactly what I said at point number 6.