|
I wish they made federations a thing a player would actually want to be part of 
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:33 |
|
|
Talkie Toaster posted:I hope hope hope to god that they don't have this ascension path be 'You are actually in a simulation!'. That was the thing that soured me the most on No Man's Sky. from what i understand they intend to have an entire rest of the game to enjoy outside of this small flavor. actually no man's sky did that too
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
The psionic path looks cool as hell. I'm a sucker for anything that turns wizards into space magicians. 1.5 is really gonna shake things up for the better. Can't wait to see the other two paths and what they bring.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
[talkie toaster finishing smb2] ah what an enjoyable romp of platforming and peril. now to watch the ending and be validated that my adventure was 100% real and good
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 17:13
|
|
|
Talkie Toaster posted:I hope hope hope to god that they don't have this ascension path be 'You are actually in a simulation!'. That was the thing that soured me the most on No Man's Sky. It's just a silly little reference.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 17:16
|
|
|
Personally I'm most hype for a smoother transition between meat and robot. The current way is extremely inefficient.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
I am so incredibly excited for this update.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 17:19
|
|
|
CommissarMega posted:If they do go for the 'psionics are the real magic' angle, it'd be nice to have that reflected in the weapons and technologies mounted on one's ships. I do remember there being a brief moment in the stream when Wiz pointed out that cknoor's starting station looks different from his, so this kind of thing might be in.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
Truga posted:Speaking of typos: Right here baby, it's been fixed
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 17:21
|
|
|
LordMune posted:Right here baby, it's been fixed  GunnerJ posted:I do remember there being a brief moment in the stream when Wiz pointed out that cknoor's starting station looks different from his, so this kind of thing might be in. I think that was just having your ship colours based on flag colours, the models looked samey to me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
Another Diplomacy option, this one that caught my eye previously because wow, that's nice. https://twitter.com/dmoregard/status/828642191627132929
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
I'm looking forward to finding out where Purity moved to. Maybe the same place psionics did? They're both ethics based unlike the Traditions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
Wiz, would you consider giving Prethoryn-infested planets that have been bombarded into a barren state the 'Terraforming candidate' modifier? Since I assume that certain essential life-enabling assets such as a magnetic field or underground water deposits would still be there. That way, these worlds could eventually be reclaimed at great cost, instead of having stretches of the galaxy completely removed for the rest of the game.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
Gimmick Account posted:Wiz, would you consider giving Prethoryn-infested planets that have been bombarded into a barren state the 'Terraforming candidate' modifier? Since I assume that certain essential life-enabling assets such as a magnetic field or underground water deposits would still be there. Sure.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
How about an event where it turns out some of them survived, or just eggs hidden underground, and now you've got some unpleasant ground forces for your colonist to deal with too? Better not let them build up enough to form and launch a queen into space. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
wiz can you add a star named Oddium that is very cool and good 😄
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
Wiz posted:Sure. Danke~ 
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 18:34
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I wish they made federations a thing a player would actually want to be part of I like this Diplomacy Tree, for I can rest easy knowing I will never want to pursue it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 18:44
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Gimmick Account posted:Danke~ He considered it. DENIED. You have to play through 10,000 years before they are terraformable again. Speaking of that sort of thing, one of my minor bugbears is that event where you can try and terraform an unstable planet for 100 energy with a 50% success rate and when you fail it says you cant try again for 100 years, but 100 years later you can't try again 
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
Wasn't there some goonpack of custom alien races with backstory et al? I remember that being a thing at some point, and I'm kinda tired of every single game of mine having the Chinorr Stellar Union and Scyldari Confederacy and all that poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
oddium posted:[talkie toaster finishing smb2] ah what an enjoyable romp of platforming and peril. now to watch the ending and be validated that my adventure was 100% real and good "the lovely ending soured me on [thing]" is a perfectly normal sentiment you weirdo
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
Drone posted:Wasn't there some goonpack of custom alien races with backstory et al? I remember that being a thing at some point, and I'm kinda tired of every single game of mine having the Chinorr Stellar Union and Scyldari Confederacy and all that poo poo. GlyphGryph posted:Goon Species Pack v1.0
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
Jeb Bush 2012 posted:"the lovely ending soured me on [thing]" is a perfectly normal sentiment you weirdo yeah it really betrayed the interesting story beats that procedural sandbox game No Man's Sky presented, like "what is?? gotta move forward" and "what is?? gotta move forward"
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
I'd still love there to be something between a vassal and a sector. So you could "build tall" by just having your little core systems, and then treat all your other colonies a bit like EU4 colonial nations. There could be all sorts of fun interactions with them, and you'd have to balance how much you want to squeeze out of them economically vs militarily vs keeping them loyal and happy and there's be all sorts of controls and options for how much autonomy you give them and they could generated "colonial factions" agitating for more autonomy or empire policies they like. Maybe one of your colonial nations has become militaristic vs your pacifist because it's been on the winning front line for so long. That could make them want more autonomy since "different ethos than master" but you could please them by making your own nation more militaristic. You could also spend points to "enforce ethos" on colonial nations that are drifting away not unlike "force religion" but at a big trust/loyalty hit and would see that colonial nation change its official ethos and internally try to sway its population that way. Vassals taken by war could also fall under the same mechanics. You've got 3 systems full of aliens but they're similar ethos to you and near your core systems so you basically make them an integral part of your empire as a subject-nation with the lowest autonomy. But those 4 planets you took full of totally ethos-opposite aliens will probably chafe heavily under anything but the highest autonomy but you also don't want them growing so you set their energy and mineral taxes to 0, relieve them of any military obligations, but forbid them from colonizing. Basically I'd just love more subject-ruler interactions and would pay top dollar for a diplomacy and subject relations DLC, maybe also add some cool federation options where you can agree on a voting system and what levels of powers the president has and all sorts of poo poo so it feels more like being HRE emperor. Maybe when you found your federation you have the president decided by federation-wide popular vote, knowing that by having the biggest population you will almost certainly dominate it (but this gives a federation loyalty penalty to all members with less than X% of your population). Or maybe agree to a full round-robin system which pleases smaller members but upsets the biggest member. Or have it based on one vote per country like the HRE so it's key to be on very good terms with your fellow members and earn their favour. Have federations evolve organically by passing various laws and reforms. A federation of pacifist countries might vote in some "official ethos" law that gives federation-wide ethos drift towards pacifism. A federation of theocracies might end up establishing an official religion and maybe some powerful member would pass enough reforms to unify the federation and turn into the Covenant or something like that. Just want to see all sorts of different types of federations organically form and grow based on its members and internal politics.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
oddium posted:yeah it really betrayed the interesting story beats that procedural sandbox game No Man's Sky presented, like "what is?? gotta move forward" and "what is?? gotta move forward" It was less story and more than it was a final kick in the tooth to the poor fuckers who had bought into the hype and then stuck with the big pile of poo poo that was NMS.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
More dumb newbie question: Why shouldn't I just build fleets consisting of {biggest_ship}? I've been reading stuff and people are talking about how they've got corvettes in with their battleships and I don't understand why  it seems like big ships are just a flat upgrade, given they have more damage per unit of fleet strength
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
If you bought the hype based on what a vague mushmouth was saying along with the manipulated preview setpiece of BALARI V then Chris Roberts has some spaceships you may be interested in. It was very obviously overhyped crap of questionable quality.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
ChickenWing posted:More dumb newbie question: Big ships have fewer mount points for weapons that can easily hit small ships. Meanwhile, small ships can mount torps that do big damage to relatively immobile targets. That's the theory, anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
My current fleet composition is destroyers with kinetic artillery and flak, cruisers with two kinetics and flaks and battleships with lances and lots of artillery. It works surprisingly well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
ChickenWing posted:More dumb newbie question: At lower tech levels this is basically what you want to do. In the middle game Destroyers are basically just better than Corvettes, and Cruisers are better than Destroyers. The paradigm shifts a bit once you approach the top of the tech tree; battleships are great because you can fill them with Large mount weapons with huge ranges, but then if you fight someone with a lot of Destroyers and Corvettes (which Large weapons are terrible at hitting), then you need support ships around. That said, you can definitely get away without corvettes, and all-Cruiser setups can be very effective as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
certain enemies also have certain quirks about this sort of thing as well. like i said in my last awakened empire update, my SPECIFIC class of cruiser that was mounting strike bombers was getting hit disproportionately often because the AE's ships were prioritizing dudes that carry strike craft. the one fight they caught me without these cruisers (i still had the other one that was optimized for longer ranged broadsides) the bastards went straight for my battleships. the corvettes and destroyers that were getting comparatively ignored could then pair together to do a one-two takedown of their larger ships with a disproportionate amount of fire power. when i finally bagged a titan, it was the corvettes and the destroyers that did the lion's share of the work. that said, up until climactic battles like that, you are fighting enemies that are not developed enough to deploy more than one or two tricks in battle, and it makes sense to simply counter-design that one trick. this frequently means just deploying a bunch of your heaviest ship with the correct armaments and calling it a day. Coolguye fucked around with this message at 20:06 on Feb 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
ChickenWing posted:Why shouldn't I just build fleets consisting of {biggest_ship}? You totally can, but see below. GunnerJ posted:Big ships have fewer mount points for weapons that can easily hit small ships. Meanwhile, small ships can mount torps that do big damage to relatively immobile targets. Some numbers, from an endgame save I had, battleships versus torpedo corvettes with ratio notes: pre:Battleship: Cost: 1830 Maintenance: 7.32 / 7.32 Hull: 2400 Armor: 90% Shields: 420 DPD: 99.48 (1 large kinetic artillery, 2 large plasma cannons, 2 small autocannons, 2 advanced bombers, 2 precision point defense, all level 3) Corvette: Cost: 325 Maintenance: 1.3 / 1.3 Hull: 300 Armor: Shields: 210 DPD: 16.72 (small autocannon, torpedo, both level 3) Fleet capacity: 8 corvettes to 1 battleship. Cost: 5.6 corvettes to 1 battleship. Maintenance: 5.6 corvettes to 1 battleship (scales with cost). DPD: 5.9 corvettes to 1 battleship. 6 Corvettes: Cost: 1950 Maintenance: 7.8 / 7.8 Hull: 1800 Shields: 1260 DPD: 100.32
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
I found that building nothing but Battleships is not a very good idea. While they are tanky and good against other Battleships, they really cannot deal with smaller ships.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
ulmont posted:You totally can, but see below. One other stat worth thinking about is build time, which is also an 8-to-1 ratio. Considering that you can build several corvettes in parallel if you have enough shipyards, losing corvettes is much easier to recover from than losing battleships. They are more survivable, but when one goes down it is a much bigger deal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Considering that you can build several corvettes in parallel if you have enough shipyards. You can build several battleships in parallel as well (about 10-11 of those guys without mineral silos).  EDIT: and no loving way would I ever queue up the equivalent 60-80 corvettes in parallel.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
Bholder posted:I found that building nothing but Battleships is not a very good idea. it is very possible to load them up such that they are. broadside bow/hangar core will give you 4 small weapon hard points and 2 strike craft hard points (and strike craft are good against any size ship, really only screwed up by point defense). however, cruisers can get up to 6 small weapon hard points (with a whopping 3 torp hard points in that load out), and mineral for mineral you're still basically looking at just spamming anti-corvette corvettes to really do that job right.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
ulmont posted:You can build several battleships in parallel as well (about 10-11 of those guys without mineral silos). But we're comparing one battleship to its "pound-for-pound" equivalent in corvettes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
Isn't flak and the like actually pretty good against corvettes too?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:But we're comparing one battleship to its "pound-for-pound" equivalent in corvettes. Are you really building 60 corvettes in parallel?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:33 |
|
|
We really shouldn't need huge discussions and spread sheets and testing reports to know these things. The game should make it all much more clear, and if it can't, simplify/remove those things.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 22:44
|
|