Suggest - Features and Improvements

A forum for chatting about in-development game features.

Moderator: luciderous

Gavinfoxx
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2020 7:16 pm

Re: Suggest - Features and Improvements

Postby Gavinfoxx » Fri Mar 20, 2020 7:47 pm

Here's an idea, rather than planet construction per se, just be able to make Banks Orbitals or McKendree Cylinders or Bishop Rings in their slots.

User avatar
PrivateHudson
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:59 am
Location: Chelyabinsk, Russia

Re: Suggest - Features and Improvements

Postby PrivateHudson » Fri Mar 20, 2020 8:06 pm

Arioch wrote:Is that really science, or evolution? Either way, I don't think that sort of ascension is within the time scope of the game.

More like theology. Some researchers place technological singularity within 1-2 generations. Who knows? Neon Genesis Evangelion even stated exact date of the event - 2015.
Arioch wrote:It also seems kind of thematically counter to the whole play mechanic of the game. "Explore, expand, and build a mighty galaxy-spanning empire which you can then... abandon?" Doesn't really feel like a "victory" to me.

When it's end-game and the burden of managing galaxy-spanning empire accrues, it feels like the time to use it as a (discardable) booster to propel your people above and beyond. For those who don't really perceive this as a victory, there is enabled victory types in settings. But I agree that this 'turn the tables' moment will certainly fuzz battle-oriented focus of the game.

Gavinfoxx
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2020 7:16 pm

Re: Suggest - Features and Improvements

Postby Gavinfoxx » Sat Mar 21, 2020 8:00 am

I feel like there's room for a 'cheaper than mechs' option in the lategame. Perhaps if you manage to get androids, you get an option for war droids, which fit the niche of 'any species late-game replacement for maurauders or space marines'. The idea being -- cheap to produce, low upkeep, and have bonuses in 'peacekeeping' (hah...) and ship-to-ship operations. Maybe call them Battle Droids or War Droids or something like that? Maybe a base 1 point higher natural combat than space marines or marauders naturally, to show that they are a late game rather than early game choice? Also, should 'Militia', since it helps infantry, improve space marines and marauder's combat capability? Maybe put a blurb of how despite this training options more focused on mass troops, the extra logistical support does make specialized infantry units more effective?

Gavinfoxx
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2020 7:16 pm

Re: Suggest - Features and Improvements

Postby Gavinfoxx » Sun Mar 22, 2020 6:47 pm

Here's another suggestion: have, based off of EMP missiles, bombers that deliver EMP missiles to better disable enemy ships. Maybe also consider some of the ideas present in the DLC rebalance mod regarding differentiating weapon types -- especially those that enable more weapon types to be better at capturing or disabling, and then allow similar capture-capable interceptors that use those gun types (ion, neutron, etc., or whatever you decide to do) that are better at doing the emp/lethal thing, which can have dual use offensively and defensively. For that matter, what's the reasoning that Fighters don't use EMP weapons? They seem just as lethal, after a few hits, as non-emp ones! they just prioritize a certain type of damage over another, right?

Also, I'd like an option to, in the developer options menu, have a button that makes the various 'hidden' techs show up on the tech tree to be researched, so we can play around with them, test them, make sure they work appropriately, or just enjoy the options they enable without having to worry about luck!

Also, here's an idea: high morale should do something positive to your colonies! Like increase population productivity or research or whatnot.

Serenitis
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2020 10:09 am

Re: Suggest - Features and Improvements

Postby Serenitis » Tue Mar 24, 2020 8:50 am

With regard to weapons flagged with the lethal trait, it might be an idea to revisit thier mechanics.

Currently, any amount of armour on the target will block the lethal effects. I can see why it's been done like that, but it causes a problem in that many targets are on the fragile side and the 'lethal' effects of the weapons will only be present in the technical sense by way of the target being destroyed as soon as the armour fails.

What I'd like to suggest is that the armour present on the target still blocks the lethal effects, but only upto it's overall integrity.
So a target with 100% armour when hit by a tagged weapon will not suffer any lethal effects, same as now.
But if 15% of the armour is damaged in that attack, then the next attack will only block (100-15) 85% of the lethal effects. And so on.

There also is the option to have an equippable item, or a specific class/variant of armour that will raise the floor value of protection against lethal (or potentially other special) effects.

Obv. This is a potentially non-trivial amount of work for something which is a secondary concern at best.
But it's maybe worth considering eventually.

User avatar
sishelper
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2017 6:13 pm

Re: Suggest - Features and Improvements

Postby sishelper » Wed Mar 25, 2020 3:16 pm

Hmm,

Gavinfoxx wrote:Here's an idea, rather than planet construction per se, just be able to make Banks Orbitals or McKendree Cylinders or Bishop Rings in their slots.


I thought they were called O'Neill Cylinders but nevertheless totally agree

Gavinfoxx wrote:I feel like there's room for a 'cheaper than mechs' option in the lategame. Perhaps if you manage to get androids, you get an option for war droids, which fit the niche of 'any species late-game replacement for maurauders or space marines'


Strangely enough I always restrained of building Androids. I was too scared that if I build too much of them once I discover Artificial Sentience Technology a new Machine God Race will wake up on all my planets and Androids will start self-replicating with insane speeds. I was going to try and build lots of Androids and test this but never had the time. If that is not implemented - then what a pity for the missed opportunity. :)

Also I would like when a Race is extinct from the galaxy - the last species gone, to have a Genocide screen informing of the event and a relationship boost/minus for the responsible faction depending on race. I wish some races have a special ability to move Senile races to other planets , even if not their own - using them as bioweapons of sort.

Gavinfoxx
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2020 7:16 pm

Re: Suggest - Features and Improvements

Postby Gavinfoxx » Wed Mar 25, 2020 4:54 pm

sishelper wrote:I thought they were called O'Neill Cylinders but nevertheless totally agree


O'Neill Cylinders and Stanford Toruses are the LITTLE ones. The ones I mentioned are closer to the scale of a planet.

For reference, a Halo Ring is a smallish Banks Orbital or a largish Bishop Ring.

gaerzi
Posts: 116
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2019 1:30 pm

Re: Suggest - Features and Improvements

Postby gaerzi » Thu Mar 26, 2020 11:20 am

sishelper wrote:I wish some races have a special ability to move Senile races to other planets , even if not their own - using them as bioweapons of sort.

The Senile races can already be moved, they're the Ashdar, Gremak, and Humans. :P
Website wrote:The old races are the proud Ashdar, the nomadic Humans, and the ruthless Gremak.


(I know you meant the sessile races: gaiads, pell, viscids... The viscids can sorta fit the bioweapon angle, since any planet they land on needs to be sterilized in antimatter fire.)

User avatar
sishelper
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2017 6:13 pm

Re: Suggest - Features and Improvements

Postby sishelper » Thu Mar 26, 2020 7:13 pm

Yeah sorry my bad of course I meant Sessile. Senile is kind of funny

zolobolo
Posts: 1294
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2016 3:49 pm

Re: Suggest - Features and Improvements

Postby zolobolo » Sun Mar 29, 2020 3:35 pm

Idea: The insignia of the various factions could be cobined to look intesting and represent an alliance in the map or in diplomacy:
Alliance Logo.png
Alliance Logo.png (8.49 KiB) Viewed 3521 times


Does not seem to be an issue with 2 memebers (though some scaling of one party is usually needed to fit the broken lines of the other insignia nicely) but is likely much more difficutl for 3-4 memebers and inpracticaly for 4+ members

That being said, if you are thinking on new diplamic stances such as coalition, union, or just a way to convey if an empire merges with another this might work

Might even be rounded up by the olive branch around the merged insignia

Another option would be to put a tiny version of the assimilated empires log in the bottom of the dominant empire log (works only for assimilating other empires)

zolobolo
Posts: 1294
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2016 3:49 pm

Re: Suggest - Features and Improvements

Postby zolobolo » Mon Mar 30, 2020 7:29 pm

Boarding Modules are a very effective offensive weapon but the AI cannot currently make use of them due to the fact that its usage requires targeting decision before movement and hence they are also not utilized (correctly)

Since it has been established during AI modding that alterations to the movement logic of the AI script is not feasable, what if following change would be made?: Assign Boarding modules a range of 2-3 tiles and finite ammo.

This way:
1. AI script can use these exactly like it does with Shuttles so can be included into their designs
2. By using ammo, Boarding Modules would have some advantage over Shuttles as it does not matter if a salvo is shot down
3. Thier advantage is limited still though by ammo which can be supported with additional ammo and suddnely this later module also became more usefull :)
4. Shuttles would still have the range advantage but ideally would get back the invasion bonues they were originally planned to have to really have their own strong use-case
5. If further difference betwenn Boarding modules and shuttles is needed, shuttles can get a higher payload (ammount of troops per salvo) or increaed evasion against PD while Boarding Modules could get a near 100% hit chance
6. Player would not gain any real advantage of the change as it does not really matter for them if the module has a slightly longer range then the current 0 one
7. Exploits around Boarding Module would be eliminated (such as cloacked and shielded boarding module ships with only armor and marines, or capital ships with boarding modules in general)

Drawback: the modules would need to be animated in-flight

zolobolo
Posts: 1294
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2016 3:49 pm

Re: Suggest - Features and Improvements

Postby zolobolo » Tue Mar 31, 2020 1:42 pm

Propose for Science Stations to scale up their benefit with the hull size like other systems do (ammo, marines)

This would make this module viable even for medium sized ships: Most system options have difficulty keeping up with shields when it comes to usefullness but this would at least make science ships viable outside of naked science destroyers

Thinking on something like:
+2 for small hulls
+4 for medium (medium to heavy cruisers)
+6 for large (battleships, fleet carriers)
+8 for Super-heavy (super-dred and mobile planetoid)

Production could scale up as well accordingly with +20 wreench each category

This would still not make them throw off the research balance as a base lab provides 4-6 research depending on pop and withouth research. Meaning: if one lacks the pop to staff new research bases, it is viable to build the next cruiser with a lab as provides the same research as the understaffed lab would, and placing it on the nnext capital would even yield the same benefit as a fully staffed lab. Ships are of course crazy expensive now on top of everything so the tradeoff off an incredably usefull shield needs to be worth it all the more

Above would just make them considerable enoughfor those who dont really want to have fully combat oriented ships only (maybe the Star Trek crowd and a few more ;))

User avatar
Arioch
Posts: 1284
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2015 12:56 am
Location: San Jose, California
Contact:

Re: Suggest - Features and Improvements

Postby Arioch » Tue Mar 31, 2020 6:24 pm

I don't think I see a pressing need to scale up Science Station benefits, or a logical reason why a lab on a larger station should yield more science.

zolobolo
Posts: 1294
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2016 3:49 pm

Re: Suggest - Features and Improvements

Postby zolobolo » Tue Mar 31, 2020 8:13 pm

Arioch wrote:I don't think I see a pressing need to scale up Science Station benefits

The pressingness come from the likelyhood that none is using them: choise is good but it should be a valid choice not an obvious one. Trading off a shiled module to a science module is not a real decision under the current circumstances and thus the science module is jsut noise on a list that needs to be scrolled through

Arioch wrote:or a logical reason why a lab on a larger station should yield more science.

The logical reason is the same as for munition module which provides more munition, Marine quarter that provides more marines and shiled modules that provide more shielding on larger hulls: the larger the space available, the more staff and stuff can be put in there to produce/maintain the function

When a battleship has 3 system shlots we assume this does not mean that it only has 3 rooms the same sie of a destroyer room housing its shield. It jsut represents like 33% of the ships overall capacity that can be arranged for a type of function. It thus makes sense to scale up the effect of these modules and does not make sense for ceartant things not to do so: More lab space provides more room for staff, for equipment and if it is large enough you cna cram in a CERN or ITER in there as well which will provide scientific results nothing else can on a 2x2m space

zolobolo
Posts: 1294
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2016 3:49 pm

Re: Suggest - Features and Improvements

Postby zolobolo » Thu Apr 02, 2020 11:14 am

I think the turn limit on tactical battles can be reduced by 30% for sure to reduce processing time and deadlocked battles faster


Return to “Testing”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests