Fwd: Re: CXP???

[Elijah Meeks <elijahmeeks@yahoo.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 180 bytes --]


Note: forwarded message attached.



		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 1390 bytes --]

From: Elijah Meeks <elijahmeeks@yahoo.com>
To: Eric McDonald <mcdonald@phy.cmich.edu>
Subject: Re: CXP???
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 22:09:42 -0700 (PDT)

I have yet to see a unit gain experience from a
fire-action, except in cases where the unit it's
firing on is adjacent.

> P.S. It should be noted that the defender can gain
> cXP just being 
> attacked or fired upon, and it gains the same amount
> as if it was the 
> attacker. Defenders also gain experience from being
> captured and 
> resisting capture (as seen in the above code). Both
> of these cases seem 
> a bit odd to me.
> 

I think, barring seperate tables for cxp-per-attack,
cxp-per-hit, cxp-per-defend, cxp-per-capture and
cxp-per destruction, I say keep it all as cxp for each
attack and keep it two-way.  You should get experience
for surviving certain attacks but, of course, it would
seem more realistic if you were able to tailor them. 
Surviving an assault may not be as much experience as
making it, and in some cases it may be more.

> 



		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail