|
Good OP chap, cheers. Another five hundred pages of interminable definition discussion awaits!
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2017 15:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 00:14 |
|
|
frank.club posted:if I'm still learning EU4 will this game be as complex to grasp as that is? I know 4X's are a different breed and I've played some before. This is a lot easier than EU4, and if you've played both that and any 4Xs you should be fine.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
Wiz posted:There is exactly 0% chance that the ship designer is ever getting cut. Asides from the fact that I personally enjoy it, it's both a 4x staple and something that a lot of people want (we have metrics on this). This is reassuring, thank you. If anything, I agree with the poster up the thread - go full SOTS on it and force the player to design around techs they haven't rolled.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 13:26
|
|
|
Hezzy posted:I'm playing my 4th game and I've yet to complete any of the precursor quest chains. They're always bugged or broken. I think the First League one has always been broken, tbh. Even if another empire had surveyed it before you, you should've got a popup telling you that. I submitted a bug report ages ago.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 13:58
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:It kinda seems like caste system is better in all ways than slavery from a pop happiness and micromanagement reduction perspective. This depends on how it interacts with the new ethos system - all free non-collectivist pops will almost certainly be in favour of freeing slaves of their own species. If you enslave them all, you only need to worry about malcontent slaves.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 14:09
|
|
|
To be fair, the last patch went some way to having clearer fleet roles, but what's missing are things like formations and greater active command of battle to make those choices more meaningful. I wouldn't look at the ship designer itself, but rather how it interacts with other game systems like tech availability and tactical combat. I'd like to more clearly define how a given ship should act in battle as part of a fleet.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 14:48
|
|
|
Wiz posted:Nah, combat behaviour and the lack of small slots means that battleships have some inherent limitations that can be exploited. Some people swear by only battleships and destroyers, but the only ships I've heard anyone say you can get by with only using is cruisers, and I'm skeptical that you couldn't wreck an all-cruiser fleet with enough long-range firepower. As far as I know, there isn't even an established meta that is simply always best since 1.3 came out, and that was several months ago now. The reason why people are saying that might be that cruisers don't currently have a strongly defined role, except possibly as an anti-picket ship platform which is rendered slightly irrelevant by missiles being less effective than other options. Being quite good at lots of things makes them decent against over-specialised fleet compositions. I would think about changing their role to smaller, faster battleships used for small raiding or patrol fleets, leaving battleships as the mainstay of the main fleet. Giving them an FTL speed buff (or equivalent for wormholes) when in fleets without battleships could achieve this.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
Coolguye posted:seriously loving this. i can only think that people saying the ship designer isn't helpful have never fought an AE or played on hard/insane AIs. you will almost always be punching above your weight class and proper analysis and counter-design of your opponents is absolutely crucial for operating on those levels. Apparently it's a 'simply optimisation problem' or something. I agree; counter-designing isn't necessarily straightforward. That said, there are some balance issues: - Plasma is too good, possibly because shields are too weak. - Lasers are outclassed by plasma almost totally. I would give lasers greater range and reduce that of plasma - making the latter knife-fighting weapons would give them a clear role without making them The Best in most situations. - I would give shields a small buff to regen across the board. - Afterburners could really do with adding more speed. They should be an option for countering long-range weapons, not just something to stick on torpedo corvettes if you have spare energy. - Missiles are, as everyone knows, only worthwhile in the very early game. - Flak is a hard counter to fighters of all kinds. I would tone down its effectiveness somewhat; only a mixed fighter/flak screen should prevent everything getting through. It's rumoured there's a combat logic issue whereby weapons will always be fired against a ship against which they'll do the most damage. This means that a fleet with only shield-piercing weapons will methodically remove the shield from every opposing ship before attacking hull. I'm not sure whether this is true, but it would explain why shield-stripping weapons seem to perform less well than their stats would suggest. If this is true, balance changes should only come after it's fixed.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
Are orbitals going to function as though they were colonies? Interesting approach to going tall if so. Of course, they're fundamentally more vulnerable than colonies, so you'd also require them to give you naval capacity too.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2017 14:52
|
|
|
Tbh even with the Space Marine flavour, there doesn't seem much point in having a detailed ground game unless you're going all the way towards having a tactical minigame, which would probably break the flow of the space game too much.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:One really easy flavor injection: the tile clearance techs could use real names. Right now they just say what they do. Mountain Removal should be 'Operation Ploughshare'.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2017 22:24
|
|
|
Make the window circular and have isometric squares like Ascendancy or use hexagons. Planets just aren't square.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
Terraforming Mars is loving ace. Hoping that terraforming from barren progresses to one of the drier world types first for worlds like Mars and to one of the wetter types from an iceball world. Also, there should be some sort of weapon that can strip the atmosphere from a planet and revert it to a Mars-like state. Planetary engineering is the best.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2017 13:21
|
|
|
YES will now be majorly disappointed if stealing air from pacifists is not an option ingame.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Nah that's not necessary, considering all the techs really do is make planets larger by a couple tiles. Expediting tile blocker removal would just make rapid expansion in the early game even more dominant.  We already have that; habitability dramatically affects pop growth rates and caps happiness.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2017 00:04
|
|
|
I hope you can combine that with other options, so you can render a species blissfully happy while it's being eaten. Can't have sad food running away, after all.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2017 15:10
|
|
|
What will be interesting is the impact on population allocation orbitals will have. You'll have planets feeding food and minerals to orbitals producing research and energy, ultimately meaning that you'll probably want different species living in space to those living on planets. I can see a xenophobic empire breeding slaves to suck resources from polluted worlds, while the founder race pursues an intellectual life high above, effectively on their backs. I think I'll call this race 'Space Ancient Greece'.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2017 15:59
|
|
|
Wiz posted:You need both terraforming resources to make Gaia worlds in 1.4. There's more ways to raise storage capacity in 1.5. Orbital space batteries confirmed.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
Enslave their entire species and only suppress malcontented slaves. Boom, you've just cut your influence costs in half.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2017 14:09
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Martin_Anward/status/824651685679300608 gently caress habitats, this is the main feature of 1.5.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
Looks like the Enigmatic Fortress. Might get some stronger star bases?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2017 11:14
|
|
|
Libluini posted:The style reminds me a bit of this weird playable AI-shipset mod. Someone made an entire group of robot races, including a shipset. With the exception of the missing neon-colors, this looks a lot like a better version. So maybe playable AI? We know that'll be an ascension perk, so it very well could be. Alternatively it could be a souped-up AI rebellion, or a robotic FE.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2017 12:02
|
|
|
Expansion looks fantastic. Having massive vanity projects that stir up diplomacy in the late game will be tremendous fun. The Sentry looks incredibly handy - ringworlds look so much less attractive by comparison.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2017 17:34
|
|
|
Both tradition trees we've seen so far seem to have really nice buffs. Will be interesting to see how many trees you can pick up over the course of a normal game. Also, Coolguye, you should go for exclusively Cruiser fleets with only armour and sections picked to maximise small slots. Lasers in small slots, missiles in medium. Begin engagement at max distance if possible.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2017 14:16
|
|
|
That Psi event is cool. It looks like they're taking a lot of material out of the tech tree and distributing into other avenues you can pursue. This is good - it avoids the end-game situation where you've got amazing psychic powers, space marines and xenomorphs AND super-robots because you've run out of other techs to research. More empire specialisation is a good thing.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2017 12:57
|
|
|
Getting on the menu scrolling sucks bandwagon.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
That's actually a really strong buff for the very start of the game, when building a couple of research stations can double your output. I suspect a good early game will involve mixing and matching from the Exploration and Expansion trees, possibly dipping into Prosperity for the mining station buff.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2017 12:09
|
|
|
Another spectacular nerf to trading star charts, right there.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2017 13:59
|
|
|
Hoping that's a new way of summoning the Unbidden to stop them being the default crisis when some bugger gets jump drives.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2017 15:58
|
|
|
Yeah - or the three directions of travel fighting for dominance and when one looks like it's getting on top its respective crisis arrives.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2017 16:18
|
|
|
Or just being attracted by the sheer genetic diversity you've managed to create. Assuming the Prometheus pathway allows you to create Gaia worlds, you could set their trigger for a certain number of them.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
Yeah, the Exploration tree looks like one you'll get the opener for and then the left branch, then leave the rest until later in the game.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2017 12:45
|
|
|
Seemingly, they've taken the really dark note from Horizon Signal and just ran with it. I am so hyped right now. Apocalyptic magic geckos are a go.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2017 16:18
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Apparently Observation Stations have a new "Indoctrinate" button... Does this mean I can now convert primitives to my ethics before uplifting them? Ace.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
Assume it's called that because Exterminatus was taken. Also, tomb world habitability just got a buff. My HyperRoaches will live in irradiated remains of the homeworlds of Fallen Empires.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
Races that only eat plantoids should automatically acquire the 'Weak' modifier and be palette-swapped with paler versions of the same race. On a less trolly subject, the Supremacy tree is pretty loving baller and is probably going to be the second or third pick in all my games that involve combat, which is all of them. Get Indirect Democracy and its upgrade and you'll have five star admirals out of the gate.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
I think 'Only materialists can avoid an AI rebellion, everyone else has to take the risk' makes sense as an ethics perk. You can think of it as materialists installing behaviour inhibitors if it makes you feel better.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 10:17
|
|
|
I assume it's difficult to get AI to follow complex chains because their impacts can be quite wide-ranging. For example, the Horizon Signals event chain involves multiple benefits and disbenefits, and assessing the right choice in context to make is quite difficult without having an AI value that is effectively, "SEE MORE OF ALEXIS KENNEDY'S AWESOME WRITING" with a 90% weighting.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 15:38
|
|
|
The Muffinlord posted:It just seems weird that you give us these name lists and don't let us draw from them. You can draw from them by hitting the randomise button in the ship designer / colonisation interface, but if you don't do that it'll pick for you. Or name your planets something like, "Fatstar Prime," rather than the carefully crafted list of animeworlds you'd put in. It's a bit annoying, especially as when the game first came out random names were the default. Wiz, any chance of an option in 1.5 to go back to defaulting to random colony names?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 00:14 |
|
|
On weapons tech: the game could do with secondary effects on weapons that are more interesting than +/- shields/armour, and some interactions between secondary effects to create more choices. For example, some kind of 'gluon' cannon that reduced enemy ship speed plus aoe torpedos, countered by afterburners, would be positive.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2017 23:01
|
|