Alright, this type of back and forth in this thread is not to the benefit of anyone. Keep the discussion to the topic at hand, ship design and the ship design developer diary. Everyone is free to agree or disagree and to plead their case, but I'm not going to tolerate back and forth accusations.
This goes for everyone. This type of situation can get out of hand very quickly and lead to a hostile and unusable environment that is not beneficial to the game or this community.
Hot posts in thread: ISG Dev Diary #2: Ship Design
Page 2 of 5
-
-
I don't know what you mean when you accuse me of a "transparent ploy".
I think there has been a misunderstanding somewhere? -
-
If this is related in keeping with the "less but more important ships" strategy, or in other words an attempt to keep a certain scale and state of forces during the game, why not do it through shipyards instead?
Here's the idea.
Many slots available
Shipyards similar to 2056 where the size of ships that can be built is related to the size of the shipyard.
High maintenance costs for shipyards rising exponentially to abstract and reflect the cost of on hand materials and trained personnel.
Prototype costs as the Devs describe
No penalty or bonus on older designs
(It would be a bonus if shipyards can be targeted in battle and another bonus if targeted through espionage as well)
The result would keep with the "less but more important ships" strategy without feeling artificial at all.
Sorry, I was in a rush, need to edit.
Construction rates would now depend on hull size (with tech possibly involved)
This would spell the end of titans being constructed in 3-4 turns and be far more realistic, trust me, you can only have so many workers on a dock. For the Devs, the combination should give the desired results well.Last edited: Jan 18, 2017- Helpful x 2
- Agree x 1
-
Moo1 had limited design slots requiring you to scrap your old ships when you created a new design. This was not something players liked, thus Moo2 had near unlimited (240?) design slots, so you never had to worry about that again. People loved this and it was a much lauded feature and improvement over the original. I for one loved that improvement, and game reviews at the time mentioned it as well, always in a positive way. So why are we going backwards? Why are we removing a much loved feature? Why are you making a game design decision that will be lambasted in game reviews giving you negative press?
I have never read a review of a game that said "There are too many design slots available and now i have no strategic decisions to make. so i am giving the game a lower score." LOL, that would be the stupidest thing you ever read in a game review. But this game will get it mentioned in every review in a negative way. Even the old Space Sector website would have mentioned it in its game reviews.- Agree x 1
-
- Helpful x 2
-
Just getting back to the design limit issue again another important factor is the modability of the game. For me a 5 design limit would be nowhere near as much of a problem if I knew I could just change it to 8 or 15 or 100 by spending 30 seconds editing an XML file. On the other hand if the variable is hard-coded into the .exe then it suddenly becomes a rather big negative. An impassable roadblock to enjoying the game, not a very big one, but a continual annoyance which can never be addressed.
Paradox games are big proponents of modability with almost all important variables and even scripting easily open to tweaking via mods. I have bought Paradox DLC and even entire games based solely on the knowledge that certain mechanics that I dont like or find utterly ridiculous can be easily and quickly modded out to my exact preference ("shattered retreat" in CK II comes to mind as a good example). So basically what I'm saying is that if you plan to make the game easily moddable then this whole 5 slot design limit becomes far less of an issue, for me at least.Last edited: Jan 18, 2017- Agree x 2
-
In the 80s the USN re-commissioned the Iowa class Battleships. The cost of recommissioning one Battleship was equivalent to building a single Perry class Frigate from scratch. We are both aware the difference between a Battleship and Frigate and as such there is no way I would find it plausible that a refit is more expensive than a new build.
Look at it this way, there are many things that you do not need to do with a refit that save time and money such as actually laying down the keel etc.
Prototypes you are spot on, same for new hull types never before used.
So I guess this would be a partially agree from my part- Agree x 1
-
Just a reminder that we need to keep the discussion to the topic at hand. I realize many of us feel very passionate about it, and that's appreciated as a healthy discussion/debate can definitely lead to the birth of new ideas and certainly a better, more enjoyable game. It can also lead however to a situation that feels hostile and personal, and this will lead to nothing but arguments and negativity. What I don't want to do is stifle creativity and discussion, but to do that we need to refrain from personal attacks and name calling.
As to the design limits:
I'm remaining open minded about the design limit. Maybe it just needs to be higher, or maybe it doesn't need to exist at all, but without all the facts I don't think we can say for sure. My initial reaction was that it sounded too restrictive, but when I think about it I rarely have more than 5 active designs in a 4X game. In fact, I typically only have 1 or 2 designs I'm actively building, so it may not matter for me personally.
I do think a prototyping or initial design fee is a great way to influence a player's decision to constantly refine or design new ships. Perhaps this would be enough of a limiting factor on its own, if the fees were high enough. I don't think all fees should be created equal though. I'd charge a much higher prototype fee for the first ship design with a new, never used before, ship hull. I'd also charge a higher fee the first time a newly researched or discovered module is used in a ship. New ship designs using previously used hulls and modules should still have a fee, but it should be much less since these parts are already proven and manufacturing processes to create them have already been established.
Maintaining older ships is a harder question for me to tackle. I'd agree that there should be ample supply available for quite some time after the design is replaced. However, eventually, the costs could rise once the available supply of materials to maintain them dwindles. It's not uncommon for parts for (much) older equipment to be far more expensive than parts for new equipment. For instance, I've seen older electrical systems use fuses that were so difficult to find that they cost absurd amounts of money. This lead to complete electrical system replacements in these older buildings as the cost to maintain the older system was no longer economically sensible. Perhaps, given enough turns had passed, this would make sense when it comes to star ships as well.
Overall though, increased maintenance costs may be an overly complex solution to a non-existent problem. Older designs will become useless by their very nature. No one wants to fly around with laser I's and steel armor when laser III's and tritanium are all the rage. What if we passed this cost onto a refit penalty rather than a maintenance one? Advantage of a refit is you get an upgraded ready to use ship faster than you could build a new one. Disadvantage is it cost you more credits than just building a new one would.- Helpful x 1
-
A good, solid analysis, needless to say I agree with almost all of it. About the only point I'm not yet totally sold on is penalties for older designs, although this argument you presented….
Actually now that I think more about it I'm not even sure it makes sense from a pure realism / immersion perspective. Most navies in the world - including the U.S. - are not composed primarily of new ships in fact its quite the opposite. If it were more expensive to maintain an older navy then you would expect most navies to be pretty new as expensive old ships are quickly retired to save costs. Make that 85% convinced.
I especially agree with your logic in the following quote……
On the other hand I can fully understand why the devs might be committed, they're not looking only from a player's perspective, they are looking to make the game as interesting as possible by striking the best balance between hard game choices and player freedom. If only that particular hard choice made any sense I wouldn’t have any problem with it.
Your idea of variants makes sense.
Expensive prototyping costs for new ships make perfect sense.
An entire space empire being limited to only 5 designs…… not so much.- Agree x 1
-
I spent some more time thinking about this issue yesterday and to be honest it doesn’t sit well with me. Even though the opinion expressed by possibility in comment no 50 was entirely bereft of tact it was essentially correct. Mark also expressed himself quite vehemently on the subject and has too many valid points to ignore as I assure you that Mark is not a minority of one.
Let me see if I can explain this fairly and impartially. I took the time to examine how this mechanic of forced limited designs and penalties for older designs would impact a player and I submit two hypothetical scenarios for your consideration.
Scenario one
The player is doing well, perhaps not a powerhouse but certainly not threatened. In this scenario the player would shrug off the effects as a minor nuisance as he/she could easily absorb the costs of older designs in the field while newer designs are being cranked out. Certainly not a game breaking issue, at best completely ignored and at worse an irritating nuisance.
Scenario two
The player is not doing well and may even be hanging on for dear life. News comes that a new design is available which offers a glimmer of hope during these dark times. The player quickly designs a new class of ship and is instantly penalized by increased costs for his older designs that are in the field. The player can’t scrap the older designs as that would spell certain collapse but at the same time cannot afford the penalty incurred. Game over.
What I see here is that the mechanic as proposed by the Devs does not only fly in the face of reality but could actually hinder a player even more. In fact, the worse you are doing the more detrimental this mechanic becomes.
I understand the desire for hard choices but at the same time a game like Moo2 is already full of them. Do I focus my industry on colony ships to gain territory quickly but at the cost of not being able to put up effective defenses if needed early? Should I crank out a dozen small ships quickly or build a single large ship? Do I develop my world as a priority over my fleet or the other way around.
These are just some examples of hard choices that are inherent in the game and not forced or contrived, these add fun and not frustration.
Then there is a far more pragmatic issue.
Limited designs will upset those that want more
More designs will not upset those that want less.
This as we say in my neck of the woods is a no-brainer, take the path that will please more players and not less.
As I stated in post no 62, it is unrealistic to incur additional costs for obsolete designs that are still operational, if anything it should be reduced costs. Unfortunately, with the way Devs are tying this to the limited number of slots available it would be too easy to exploit. Create a design that you wish to field, build x number of ships and then create a bogus design to instantly get a discount for the first design.
Sorry, no matter how I look at this, it is in my opinion a high risk low reward mechanic. My recommendation is to remove any penalty or bonus for obsolete designs which will instantly make the limited number of design slots less of a factor. In other words if you wish to change the mechanic from the way it played in Moo2 this is not the way to do it.
A final point here is something that Mark said about reviews. It is quite possible that reviewers will extend some professional courtesy to Adam Solo and treat him kindly. However, human nature being what it is, it is far more probable that they will hold him to a higher standard. It would indeed be unfortunate to read that he of all people should have known better.
Anyway gents, my apologies for the long scrawl but I really feel strongly about this, If the mechanic is introduced as proposed thus far, I and others of like mind would find it to be a serious negative.- Agree x 1
-
I never ignored your "explanations" in support of a 5 design slot hard limit, I pointed out on multiple occasions that your reasoning simply seemed like desperate mental contortions to explain an inherently illogical game mechanic at any cost. I know one or two others have found your explanations satisfactory, good for them but they most certainly don't work for me. So not ignored, examined and dismissed. Several times.
Either way I'm not really interested in descending to your level where you have apparently made this intensely personal and hostile for no reason that I can easily understand (or frankly care about). The devs have asked for feedback and I have provided feedback, namely that I don't believe one of their ideas is going to work well because the specific "hard decision" doesn't make any sense in the context of the game universe. Several others have agreed with me so I'm far from alone in this opinion.
This is the type of feedback that devs find very useful, especially in the early planning stages of a game. That's why they keep continually asking us for feedback, not just positive feedback that agrees with every single thing they propose, but any opinion on the current or future state of the game. Whether they decide to act on that feedback is entirely up to them and thankfully not you.Last edited: Jan 17, 2017- Agree x 1
-
Considering the language that a (thankfully small) minority of posters have been using - that the OP was "stupid", "retarded", and responsible for "a con" - I'm extremely impressed that MalRey has responded as professionally as that. No-one should have to put up with that kind of abuse tbh.
So in the interests of ACTUAL DISCUSSION...
So your new design could, on completion, end up with traits like "Especially Sturdy" (Hull Bonus) or "Surprisingly Quick" (Speed Bonus) or even "Looks Really Cool" (crew morale bonus).
Of course, you might end up with design niggles like "Eats Fuel" or "Turns Like a Pig" (though hopefully not negative enough to deter the player from using it entirely).
Over time, the ship in that design slot could work through and remove its negative traits, as well as acquiring some context-sensitive new ones. Build a lot of one type, it could become "Fleet Backbone" (production discount). If you run with that idea there are lots of ways that designs could become unique, and it rewards a player for sticking with tested models and running a more efficiently-designed fleet. The player that indulges in design spam would end up with less-well-engineered models, which is extremely plausible in my book.- Disagree x 2
- Agree x 1
-
I think it would be a mistake to underestimate your player's ability to detect (and loathe) game mechanics that are purely there to force artificial, "gameplay choices" which make little to no sense in the context of the game universe. I understand that MOO 2 did it but MOO 2 didn't really have a choice with the memory limitations of the time so I doubt that reviewers of your game will allow you that as an excuse. I fear that a 5 slot limit will almost certainly be seen as a needlessly restrictive and archaic design flaw by almost everyone.
Either way I'm not really going to lose any sleep but I've been a big fan of Space Sector for years and would like to see the game succeed, so when I see an obvious problem coming from a mile away I feel compelled to point it out. Thanks again for responding to this thread and clearing up where you currently stand.- Agree x 1
- Disagree x 1
-
Just a quick FYI,
A penalty for an older design that is not active but still in service would be counter-factual. Just going from ship building experience here, it was never a problem to find material for older ship classes during the cold world, especially in the opening phase of a ship class being deemed obsolete. Many vendors even considered lowering their prices for certain materials until they could be certain that said materials would be used in future designs as they already were tooled to produce them and often had stocks on hand.
The decision is yours ultimately, however you would be closer to realism (and incur less work for yourselves), if you discarded the penalty for older operational designs. (Just the ship being an older design is a penalty in and of itself)- Agree x 2
- Helpful x 1
-
First of all, it's good to see that many of you are interested in discussing what would be the best solution to the ship design slots criteria. It's definitely a tricky one, and we think both views (limited and unlimited) have their merits. We understand that. That's why we would like to emphasize and clarify this topic by stressing the above quote from the dev diary. Basically, we're not sure yet on the final solution for the slots, so everything is still possible.
Our strategy since the beginning has been to start from the MoO2 baseline, in all aspects of the game, and then evolve that into a more detailed, refreshed or derived version of it. With the ship design slots it was the same. We began from the 5 design slots, and then, taking into account how the game progresses, we could add +1 slot, possibly for the later stage of the game. We're trying to link this limited designs aspects to the refit/upgrade process. It could be +1 slot or more. We'll be evaluating that during our playtesting sessions which are already happening and will keep happening throughout the following months, till release.
Just to clarify our mindset, when we think of ship designs we think in everything that is necessary to put the ship into orbit. From the blueprints themselves, from the factories assembly, testing process and finally the deployment in space. We would like to give the designs slots number a complex meaning. We would like to emphasize the sensation that having a ready-to-build design is not as simple as picking up from the shelf. Having an expensive first prototype, as suggested by the community, can be a step in the right direction. Everything that helps boost the connection with the ships, to give them more character and make them feel more special is good in our book.
So, we think having less design slots, with potential penalties for older designs (that are not active but still in service) can be a good way to maximize the significance of creating a design. However, we understand that there's a balance between that and the player's creative freedom, so we'll be assessing both aspects to finally understand what will be the best solution and possible compromise, together.
We thank you again for the discussion regarding this and other issues, and remember that each 'post' you post is helping us shape up a better solution in the end !- Agree x 2
- Helpful x 2
-
-
-
Yes, the unit slots in EL could be retrofitted and upgraded, leading to a numbered variants system. Genuine question - have the Devs actually said that the unit slots won't be allowed to upgrade?
(It might be my "rose colored glasses", but I prefer to actually understand how a still-being-playtested feature works, before making grand pronouncements that it should be scrapped) -
Hmm, let me offer a different perspective here, a possibility (no pun intended... well maybe).
It is possible that this mechanic is already implemented and that the developers do not wish to undo it as it would require other aspects of the overall game design to be altered as well. When one considers that a 4 man dev team for a project such as this is rather small it does make sense to assign more motives to the decision. This line of reasoning motivated my suggestion on variants (post 42) as that could be the easiest way to both retain the original decision and upgrade it at the same time.
Bear in mind that I am quite neutral on this as I have yet to find limited designs to be a serious drawback so I am looking at this from a detached perspective without bias.
Page 2 of 5