Suggest - Features and Improvements

A forum for chatting about in-development game features.

Moderator: luciderous

User avatar
Arioch
Posts: 1282
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2015 12:56 am
Location: San Jose, California
Contact:

Re: Suggest - Features and Improvements

Postby Arioch » Thu Feb 11, 2016 6:50 am

bjg wrote:Is it possible to learn a new technology by scrapping a ship?
Why buying a marauder doesn't give you his technologies?
Is it planned to learn things from a captured planet (if there are new buildings there for example)?

We plan to do a number of things to allow technology to trade hands, but this will mostly likely be implemented after or as part of the diplomacy system.

bjg
Posts: 629
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2016 10:55 pm

Re: Suggest - Features and Improvements

Postby bjg » Fri Feb 12, 2016 8:37 pm

A (solar) system wide shipyard, so all planets in the system can build (very) big ships together.

mharmless
Posts: 235
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2015 11:11 pm
Location: Washington State

Re: Suggest - Features and Improvements

Postby mharmless » Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:47 am

bjg wrote:A (solar) system wide shipyard, so all planets in the system can build (very) big ships together.


This might fit well with doing something to spruce up gas giants. As it is, they are basically ignored unless you require an outpost for expansion. Some kind of mega project like such a shipyard, requiring placement in orbit of a gas giant, would increase the desirability of systems that contain a giant.

User avatar
Arioch
Posts: 1282
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2015 12:56 am
Location: San Jose, California
Contact:

Re: Suggest - Features and Improvements

Postby Arioch » Sat Feb 13, 2016 8:32 am

It makes sense to be able to channel the output of multiple planets to a single shipyard, and this ability exists to a certain extent with the ability to pool and channel metals from multiple worlds, but I'm not sure that it would be worthwhile either in terms of programming systems or in terms of player management capital to add system-wide production.

I think it works best in most cases to simplify such things whenever possible, so I think it's usually best to either standardize on system-level production or planet-level production. I'm in favor of the latter.

bjg
Posts: 629
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2016 10:55 pm

Re: Suggest - Features and Improvements

Postby bjg » Mon Feb 15, 2016 6:57 pm

Why can't a planet concentrate on metal or food (production) the same way it concentrates on research or trade?

User avatar
Arioch
Posts: 1282
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2015 12:56 am
Location: San Jose, California
Contact:

Re: Suggest - Features and Improvements

Postby Arioch » Mon Feb 15, 2016 7:18 pm

bjg wrote:Why can't a planet concentrate on metal or food (production) the same way it concentrates on research or trade?

Depending on how you look at it, the Research and Trade production targets represent either the reallocation of factory output from building a specific item to manufacturing trade goods or performing R&D, or movement of the workforce from one task to another. In either case, it's not clear how this change or movement would increase farm or mine output.

The output of a farm or mine is mainly limited by the available infrastructure rather than the number of people working it; adding more workers to a farm won't increase the yearly food yield (assuming it's already fully staffed). Commerce and research are less limited by infrastructure; adding more sellers to a market will increase trade, and people can engage in trade anywhere.

bjg
Posts: 629
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2016 10:55 pm

Re: Suggest - Features and Improvements

Postby bjg » Mon Feb 15, 2016 8:24 pm

People can start cultivating personal gardens (or chlorella tanks) or go hunting. ;)
Mining is more complex, but with the appropriate technology (need to research) you might be able to build micromines (like microbreweries).

User avatar
sven
Site Admin
Posts: 1569
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2015 10:24 pm
Location: British Columbia, Canada
Contact:

Re: Suggest - Features and Improvements

Postby sven » Mon Feb 15, 2016 8:51 pm

bjg wrote:People can start cultivating personal gardens (or chlorella tanks) or go hunting. ;)
Mining is more complex, but with the appropriate technology (need to research) you might be able to build micromines (like microbreweries).


Yeah, giving you more options "with appropriate technology" is something that's on my list of stuff to look into when we have time to do some more balancing of the late game techs.

Specifically, I think things like a matter-replicator (turn production into metal) or a food replicator (turn production into food) certainly make sense as late-game possibilities.

Another item I've been thinking about along these lines is a tech that would dramatically decrease the cost of buying improvements and/or ships using money. The theory, basically, being that once you have a protoss-style matter transmission network in place, quickly setting up infrastructure on new worlds becomes much more viable, which could give you a lot more strategic flexibility.

bjg
Posts: 629
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2016 10:55 pm

Re: Suggest - Features and Improvements

Postby bjg » Mon Feb 15, 2016 11:49 pm

Lieutenants need to grow in rank and (some of) their bonuses should grow too. Perhaps depending on the empire's population.

User avatar
Arioch
Posts: 1282
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2015 12:56 am
Location: San Jose, California
Contact:

Re: Suggest - Features and Improvements

Postby Arioch » Mon Feb 15, 2016 11:57 pm

We'd love to have a more robust hero system, but I think it's unlikely that we'll have time to do it before the initial release.

bjg
Posts: 629
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2016 10:55 pm

Re: Suggest - Features and Improvements

Postby bjg » Tue Feb 16, 2016 1:16 am

Really missing refit to an existing design. Fleets are huge.

bjg
Posts: 629
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2016 10:55 pm

Re: Suggest - Features and Improvements

Postby bjg » Fri Feb 19, 2016 4:14 pm

Is there a (serious) reason the tactical battlefield isn't bigger? There is no (really) space for maneuvers (specially behind the initial formation). Any ship needs to be able to move 5-10 times (turns) in each direction, but it's only 2-4 now. Could you make the battlefield bigger?

bjg
Posts: 629
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2016 10:55 pm

Re: Suggest - Features and Improvements

Postby bjg » Tue Feb 23, 2016 2:34 am

The option to fire_to_immobilize rather than fire_to_destroy. For example fire_to_destroy only if firing at immobile target (destroying would usually require firing twice).

User avatar
sven
Site Admin
Posts: 1569
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2015 10:24 pm
Location: British Columbia, Canada
Contact:

Re: Suggest - Features and Improvements

Postby sven » Tue Feb 23, 2016 3:22 am

bjg wrote:The option to fire_to_immobilize rather than fire_to_destroy. For example fire_to_destroy only if firing at immobile target (destroying would usually require firing twice).


This is actually a feature that we had in the alpha, and which I decided to take out. The problem, basically, is that boarding is a very strong mechanic.

Capturing enemy ships, stealing their technology, and, maybe, in certain situations, playing space-Admiral Nelson and turning your enemies's fleets against them is a lot of fun. But, we don't want boarding actions to be the the one dominant tactic.

A "fire to immobilize" option makes capturing enemy vessels much easier than it is otherwise, and that, I think, makes boarding too strong.

bjg
Posts: 629
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2016 10:55 pm

Re: Suggest - Features and Improvements

Postby bjg » Tue Feb 23, 2016 4:00 pm

sven wrote:
bjg wrote:The option to fire_to_immobilize rather than fire_to_destroy. For example fire_to_destroy only if firing at immobile target (destroying would usually require firing twice).


This is actually a feature that we had in the alpha, and which I decided to take out.
...
A "fire to immobilize" option makes capturing enemy vessels much easier than it is otherwise, and that, I think, makes boarding too strong.

Than, please, return the ability to fire gun_by_gun (not the group_by_group). Otherwise you are just artificially crippling the players choices (for the sake of balance, but totally unjustifiable).


Return to “Testing”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests