|
Wrong.
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 13:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 01:56 |
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:FTL drives removable and making up the vast bulk of the cost of a smaller ship, making the construction of system defense fleets viable and desireable. And also loading a ship with powerful energy weapons on a budget. Oddly, that's my favourite part about that list. I feel like that makes ships feel way more distinct, too - you have a class of ships that just stay at home and patrol because they can't go elsewhere, and they're just hugely gunned up because of it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 14:10
|
|
|
You'd need a way to deal with fleet cap though. Like if you can't make them cost 10% of a normal ship's fleet cap, I still wouldn't find them worthwhile.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 14:12
|
|
|
Wiz posted:We're not going to tear out half the game to satisfy the wishes of one Something Awful poster, relax. What you COULD do though is push that little utopia release forward a week because I'm jonesing for some fuckin' cyborgs and better robot growth techs
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 14:16
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:You'd need a way to deal with fleet cap though. Like if you can't make them cost 10% of a normal ship's fleet cap, I still wouldn't find them worthwhile. Easy fix - never make offensive warships, ever. Load all your home systems with insanely powerful ships and let them come to you. Sure, wars will take a long time, but as long as you never start them they're the ones wasting money.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 14:22
|
|
|
Yeah, I guess that would make it the option for dedicated pacifists/isolationists/tall builds.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 14:24
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Wrong. Thanks for the discussion, I'm looking forward to seeing what is clearly going to be a fantastic overhaul of Stellaris combat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 14:27
|
|
|
I'm really liking the primitive map icons. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 14:32
|
|
|
Kitchner posted:Thanks for the discussion, I'm looking forward to seeing what is clearly going to be a fantastic overhaul of Stellaris combat. GlyphGryph posted:Its gonna wind up terrible somehow though
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 15:00
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:You'd need a way to deal with fleet cap though. Like if you can't make them cost 10% of a normal ship's fleet cap, I still wouldn't find them worthwhile. I wonder if there's a way to make them just not count at all... that might end up favouring defense TOO heavily though. But still, these ships would be more powerful for their fleet cost so it's still a trade off worth considering. I'd also really like to do away with fortifications and make dropships to be able to ignore being in space combat and land anyway so a dropship-rush through a big furball becomes a genuine viable strategy, but that's probably even further beyond my abilities than the stuff I already listed so it probably won't go in.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
Psychotic Weasel posted:Why are people still yammering on about nothing when there is a new dev diary to read? Guess as we get closer to the release of the expansion they're running out of things to talk about but I'm sure at least one of you will be happy. Going through the list of pre-FTL species was SO frustrating. Dwesa fucked around with this message at 15:15 on Mar 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 15:12
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:I wonder if there's a way to make them just not count at all... that might end up favouring defense TOO heavily though. Well, fleet cap is defined by ship size (i.e., the basic classes like destroyer or construction ship, etc) so recreating that is a very inelegant route. Alternately, maybe the "No FTL" part can be modded to expand fleet cap such that every ship you build like that "pays off" its cost. Dunno if you can even attach fleet cap modifiers to ship parts though. quote:But still, these ships would be more powerful for their fleet cost so it's still a trade off worth considering. The tradeoff here is that you're sacrificing the ability to defend any system in your space or enter other empires' systems for the ability to defend one system. I just dunno about that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 15:48
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:You'd need a way to deal with fleet cap though. Like if you can't make them cost 10% of a normal ship's fleet cap, I still wouldn't find them worthwhile. It's funny you mention this, because something like that has come up with a recent mod: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=885722613 quote:Originally I wanted to avoid changing as much as possible by making fighters and bombers take up 0.25 and 0.5 fleet capacity repectively, however it seems when the AI does the calculation for how many of each kind of ship it should build, it crashes if there are fractions in that calculation. That's an...odd....quirk.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 15:51
|
|
|
Makes a certain amount of sense. The fleet cap system seems to be based on limiting you to a discrete, countable number of ships, so what would "half a ship" really mean in that, if your fleet cap were 40.5 out of 41 or something. Does make it hard to have a unit of measure smaller than a corvette though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 15:57
|
|
|
Half a ship is still a ship!!
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 16:02
|
|
|
Non-FTL system defense ships sound like a micro-management nightmare to me. Military station strike craft getting a gently caress-off massive buff in damage, hitpoints and coverage radius would be a better option I think.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 16:18
|
|
|
Yeah I guess for the in-system defense fleet to be viable there'd need to be some "move to attack if needed" automation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 16:24
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:The tradeoff here is that you're sacrificing the ability to defend any system in your space or enter other empires' systems for the ability to defend one system. I just dunno about that. It might only be something defensive players do at the beginning of the game, or something you do with a handful of patrol ships to tie up enemy invaders rather than a major portion of your fleet Anyway if it doesn't work meaningfully it would be easy enough to ignore, still interested in seeing how it plays out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:It might only be something defensive players do at the beginning of the game, or something you do with a handful of patrol ships to tie up enemy invaders rather than a major portion of your fleet If Wormhole worked more like that, it'd be interesting- but the different timescale for the game sort of precludes it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
Dwesa posted:Oh yes, ship colors and primitve civs icons I never quite understood why ship colours were something people were clamoring for so much... most of the game world is so dark that you probably won't be able to tell some of the colours apart and I find the different coloures trails to be rather ugly. I'm all for more detailed models but unless you plan on having people zoomed all the way in it just seems like a wasted effort. Glad they are slowly introducing more ways for people to sort the map though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Yeah I guess for the in-system defense fleet to be viable there'd need to be some "move to attack if needed" automation. What if top-tier defense fortresses had a replacement for the Hangar slots that gave them a small amount of "Local Fleet Capacity"? So instead of loading up the fortress with weapons itself, you could stock the station with a small number of FTL-less ships, up to that cap, and they'd attack anything hostile within the fortress' support aura radius? Essentially making fortresses into spaceports that aren't tied to a planet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
GotLag posted:Non-FTL system defense ships sound like a micro-management nightmare to me. Well System Defense Boats would have be automated for the most part. You design them, then you and the sector AI can build them - but you don't control them. There's already a "hunt all enemies in this system" stance that would be perfect for these.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
I do like strategy games that let you build essentially garrisons and it handles all the actual unit staffing for you so you just have a cheap self-organizing fleet to play with with a single click. Even better if you could have sectors call in fleets from across the sector to defend areas. Would be a nice bonus for using sectors rather than them being a strict downgrade in terms of functionality that you just have to use for sanity's sake and because you run out of core worlds. I'm not just saying this because I would then have an excuse to call one of my sectors "Gothic"
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
First off I disagree with the whole ripping out half the game stuff, I'm more of a fan of finding ways to align the content that is there with the game over time, as this expansion is doing. I do feel that the whole two levels of presentation is a very odd choice. My particular complaints are just a bit different: 1. Can you name one time that something interesting happened on the system view? I can't. Not saying that to be glib. The main view has interesting stuff, I can look at systems and resources. The system view is pretty much never where I want to be. Picking a particular planet for a mining station? Dull. Playing whack a mole with an enemy fleet? Dull. Picking stuff to scan? Not what I want to be doing. Approaching ~60 hrs and I still don't have a consistent map experience by the way. Sometimes I click a ship from the panel and it takes me to the galaxy view with that ship selected, and then I have to hit spacebar to get into the system. Other times it takes me into the system but it doesn't seem the ship is selected? I have to re-click it to get the camera to focus on the ship. Whatever is the intended navigation system where you naturally and smoothly press the buttons that take you to the screen you want to be in, I still fight the UI constantly. 2. Why is positioning fleets a consideration when it doesn't actually matter? This kinda goes back to the 'interesting things' point, but,it ties into the differences between this game and say, sword of the stars. In sword of the stars if I'm a hiver I can put my fleet wherever I want. Most races have 2-3 fleets on various ends of their empire to respond to threats and attack enemies. There is a tactical battlefield when the map loads where you can lay mines and do cloaky stuff and run around. The system view feels like a kinda / sorta approximation of that, except you can't do much with it. It feels like the tactical map from SOTS was copied over, except Stellaris doesn't have a tactical combat system, so instead it's just kinda there. The systems are fleshed out for no gameplay advantage. Having the planets be represented as objects doesn't impact the game. Having resources and building stations doesn't translate into meaningful gameplay stuff. So you do this elaborate positioning with the fleets, and when you are finished and a fight actually happens, it just switches to EU4 style "two fleets are fighting here are the numbers, you can retreat after a certain point." The thing is, all of this is related to subsequent development stuff. Just like I don't particularly care about the ethics system right now pre Utopia, I'm not too concerned about this warfare stuff pre Warfare expansion. These issues are so present, and serious, that they gotta get dealt with. One of the things that seems like a big problem is managing multiple "system" views at once. If I have interesting things happening in 2-3 systems on opposite ends of my empire, it's quite difficult to deal with. I guess being able to assign hotkeys to a particular system would help, but just imagine microing 2 simultaneous battles on opposite ends of your empire if your micro was actually required to win the engagement. So maybe the system view has to be simplified? But then what do you do in it? Welp. So basically: The system map needs a purpose, since the work has already been done Space needs to matter Ships probably need to have more interesting roles The way combat relates to the system map needs to be rethought It would be cool if there would be ways that having a tech advantage would expand your options to mess with your neighbors
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
The system map is for looking at your pretty tracts of space much like the ME1 system maps  It needs work but I think I'd prefer it to the very abstracted view of stars only. I want to feel this is my system, not my resource counter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
More development of the system map especially as regards combat would be nice though. Really I think a big thing would be seriously modifying how FTL works because at the moment it's near impossible to interdict people without an FTL jammer that only works in one system.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
Need the ability to blow up all these fancy new mega structures and orbital habitats too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
The system map exists to look pretty, and turns the game into something more interactive and interesting than a glorified spreadsheet. Does it interact with combat perfectly? No, obviously not, which is why that whole aspect of the game is getting an overhaul at some point. But taking it out of the game is basically ripping all the soul and immersion out. If I wanted to watch numbers on a spreadsheet change I'd play Aurora.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
Honestly, the idea of ripping the system map out of Stellaris is probably the single worst suggestion I've heard for the game, and that's saying something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
Psychotic Weasel posted:I never quite understood why ship colours were something people were clamoring for so much... most of the game world is so dark that you probably won't be able to tell some of the colours apart and I find the different coloures trails to be rather ugly. I'm all for more detailed models but unless you plan on having people zoomed all the way in it just seems like a wasted effort. Funny you mention this, from the very first day I kept wondering why something so basic like ship colours were missing. Different strikes for different people, I guess. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
When I read the suggestion to rip the system map out of stellaris it ripped something from me: my ability to pointlessly click a lot, but also my ability to feel human. Replace the system map with nato counters.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
Wiz posted:Honestly, the idea of ripping the system map out of Stellaris is probably the single worst suggestion I've heard for the game, and that's saying something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
Psychotic Weasel posted:I never quite understood why ship colours were something people were clamoring for so much... most of the game world is so dark that you probably won't be able to tell some of the colours apart and I find the different coloures trails to be rather ugly. I'm all for more detailed models but unless you plan on having people zoomed all the way in it just seems like a wasted effort.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Replace the system map with nato counters. That physiclly hurt to read. I think one of my testicles just tried to escape it actually hurt.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
Rakthar posted:One of the things that seems like a big problem is managing multiple "system" views at once. If I have interesting things happening in 2-3 systems on opposite ends of my empire, it's quite difficult to deal with. I guess being able to assign hotkeys to a particular system would help, but just imagine microing 2 simultaneous battles on opposite ends of your empire if your micro was actually required to win the engagement. So maybe the system view has to be simplified? But then what do you do in it? Welp. Yeah, this is one of the big problems. When the whole game happens in real time and there can potentially be multiple fights happening at once in addition to having an entire empire to manage, I'm not really sure there's room for any kind of compelling tactical battle game. If we're going to stick with the more detailed modeling of systems instead of just "System = Province, if two fleets are in the same system there's a battle" there definitely needs to be a lot more automation of fleet actions and a way to view the situation from the galaxy map instead of having to zoom in on each system individually to see how the fights are going or make sure your fleet is actually doing anything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
We are rapidly approaching Poe's Law but for Stellaris changes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
The point of the system map is to provide a visual aid for the player with regards to resources and goings-on in said system as opposed to simply a bunch of numbers and pop-ups on a map because Stellaris is a Space4X with an emphasis on being pretty and not a screensaver with spreadsheet elements or cookie clicker. A large number of players enjoy watching spaceships fly around and do things, like fighting that kick rear end space dragon you can also see in your system view. This isn't rocket science.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
Wiz posted:The 3D city screen was removed in Divine Wind, the same expansion that added far more buildings to build. In fact, the 3D screen was removed precisely because there were simply way too many buildings for it after all the ones added in DW. I always like to imagine you are reading this thread in the exact pose from your avatar.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
the system map is good but really boring. more space's fault really
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 01:56 |
|
|
oddium posted:the system map is good but really boring. more space's fault really That's easily solved, though: Just spice up Stellaris with random crashes, generated whenever you accidentally click beside what you wanted to click on. Also, having all information ready to read is just boring old poo poo. A player should have to go through multiple submenus to select what they want to know, and then have the game send them the information via space email. And suddenly, space is far more interesting! Another feature the game should have: Immortality drugs. And every leader who uses them immediately drops dead and turns to dust if you stop giving them their fix.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 20:37
|
|