Paradoxnt's take on patch 0.78.022

I've gathered you all here to bear witness my ultimate triumph over Schem, once and all proving that my goodly goodness can defeat his evil nastiness blah blah blah.

Oh right, the review.

1. Pirates

Unlike Pirates of the Caribbeans, SoaSE pirates keep getting better as time goes on.

Pros:
-they are no longer magically created from nothingness, but are situated at their own bases.
-they have their own planet/base that can be captured
-they can be wiped out of a star system permanently if you capture their base

Cons:
-they still don't hunt trade ships around stars like sensible pirates would do
-they still are suicidal when attacking defended planets
-they still don't focus fire on targets. Instead they will split up and do their own things = no real threat to any of your ships/structures.
-they still don’t prioritize their targets well (they will chase a trade ship across the gravity well while your light carriers decimate them).

Suggestions:
-make pirates prowl the trade routes around stars. This will force players to come out and deal with the pirates instead of hiding behind their defenses.
-pirate ships should be of a ‘raider’ design concept. By that I mean they should be lightly armored/low hullpoints, but be faster than normal ships = bigger threat against trade/refinery ships.
-pirate fleets should get some light carriers and a few more flak frigates. This would allow them to better counter player carrier fleets, as well as help pursue trade/refinery ships
-pirates that get enough bounty should also be able to purchase Raider capital ships (faster than normal, but lower armor/hull points as well).
-pirate bases should have hangar/gauss defenses, especially if they collect a lot of bounty.
-might want to get rid of some of the pirate ‘flag’ effects on the pirate base, as they seems a bit overdone (as if the pirates are trying to compensate for something).

2. Planet Specials/Exploration

Pros:
-It adds a lot more depth to planets and empire building.
-I love it

Cons:
-The 2 levels of exploration might need to be reconsidered

Suggestions:
-As it is, if you find a special with the first level of exploration, you will never find anything with the second level. This needs to be fixed.

3. Military/Civilian Research Labs

Pros:
-players have to make hard choices in the early game that will greatly effect their overall strategy = Perfect!

Cons:
-as is, you can still only research 1 area at a time.

Suggestions:
-Now that they are totally separate, you should be allowed to research military and civilian projects at the same time (if you have the resources to do so, of course).

4. Capital Ship Limit

Pros:
-players are now forced to use non-capital ships, getting rid of the capital ship only fleet cheese.

Cons:
-Players on huge maps will find the 16 limit too low.
-the research tree presently is using awful names for the actual Capital Ship Limit research levels.

Suggestions
-is it possible to make the top level allow you 16 cap ships PLUS 1 per in game star? If not, then make it infinite instead of 16 for top level. If somebody wants to make a capital ship only fleet, they will get a beat down when they face the same fleet point equivalent of a couple of capital ships/light carriers/Kodiaks/flak frigates.
-names for the different levels of cap ship limit research should make more sense. Something like "Elite Naval Technology Training" or "Advanced Ship Systems Engineering".


Here follows a list of other suggestions I have that might improve the game.

-‘Any star to any star’ travel is high on my wish list. It makes more sense, it shortens games, and it opens strategic possibilities up without the dreaded ‘whack-a-mole effect’. I think this is already scheduled for implementation (Yay!)

-AI needs to become more interested in taking other star systems once they gain total control of their own (or are allied with the other factions in their system)

-we should be able to research more advanced models of fighters and bombers in the research tree. These fighters and bombers could be faster, better armed, have shields, and so on. They should however take longer to build. Once these new advanced fighters and bombers are researched, carriers/hangars should be given new strike craft icons to build.

-planet based income should be lowered a bit to increase importance of trade. This will make pirates more of a threat, as well as encourage player attacks on trade instead of standard head on military versus military engagements.

-Capital Ships should spread some tiny amount of culture. They could help you capture planets far behind enemy lines. Maybe you could give the Culture ability choice to the Dunov so it is a bit more useful.

-I am fine with the reduction in power of Phase Inhibitors. I still hope that there are ships that come equipped with phase interdiction, as they will be hugely powerful in defending star systems that are entirely owned by players (enemies won’t be able to jump to any of your planets without destroying your phase interdiction ship, since you own all the planets in that system).

-Logistics, Tactical and Fleet slots could all be combined into 1 pool. I really don’t like the present system where you can only use so many resources to sustain so many logistical structures, so many tactical structures and so many ships. I understand gameplay is more important than realism, but this is pushing it. Sure, some people might spend all their ‘supply’ points to build up one system into a super stronghold. However, that isn’t necessarily stalemate inducing unbalanced, as they will be weak everywhere else.

-ships traveling between stars reach a point where they suddenly floor it at one end, and then slam on the brakes at the other end. It would make a lot more sense and be less visually disturbing if ships gradually increased speed and then at the halfway point slowly reduced speed between stars.

-the AI needs to be more aggressive when it sees you are weak. Let’s say for example, the AI has a big fleet only one jump away from my newly captured planet. It happens to send in a scout and sees I am weak. It should then attack immediately and with everything it has to try and take me out before I can build up.

-Last Flagship Standing games can’t be played with the present ‘buy your own’ flagship system. So, maybe it would be easier to setup ‘Last Capital Planet Standing’ games, where if you lose your capital, you lose the game. Suicide bombing attacks on Capital Planets would suddenly become a possible game winning strategy.


The rest here is about Bugs I’ve found (nothing that hasn’t already been mentioned)


-game sometimes won’t allow you to scroll by placing the mouse at the edge of screen
-ships sometimes disappear right before exploding, usually they experience some weird liquid metal/mercury like shield effect before disappearing
-anybody notice that civilian ships get their hullpoint bonus before the civilian hull upgrade research is even done?
-pathfinding problems include ships slowing down when given new orders as well as having trouble navigating around obstacles (they often get caught on obstacles)
-AI ship ‘ping pong’ still occurs when the AI can’t decide whether to continue an attack or do something else with its fleet. The AI really needs to learn that sometimes it is better to make a less than optimal decision AND COMMIT than it is to make no decision at all.

That's it for now. Let me know what you think.
61,264 views 26 replies
Reply #1 Top
Suggestions:
-As it is, if you find a special with the first level of exploration, you will never find anything with the second level. This needs to be fixed.


Incorrect, I have frequently found things on the second exploration after having found something with the first.

Best example is the kalanite deposits / expert miners connection. I don't remember which comes first, but you get one then the other (and they are always paired. And I've seen some other (random) occasions when I've gotten two items, but that is rare.

-names for the different levels of cap ship limit research should make more sense. Something like "Elite Naval Technology Training" or "Advanced Ship Systems Engineering".


But they do make a certain degree of sense -- they're focused on training and maintaining large crews of extremely focused skills.


-‘Any star to any star’ travel is high on my wish list. It makes more sense, it shortens games, and it opens strategic possibilities up without the dreaded ‘whack-a-mole effect’. I think this is already scheduled for implementation (Yay!)


its in, just not in the patch. (Alas)

-ships traveling between stars reach a point where they suddenly floor it at one end, and then slam on the brakes at the other end. It would make a lot more sense and be less visually disturbing if ships gradually increased speed and then at the halfway point slowly reduced speed between stars.


Eh, personally that system makes a great deal of sense (even if its really annoying).

You can travel one speed inside a limit related to the star, then can travel another outside it. Thing of it as the reduction in space dust / micrometeorites / space junk from being in interstellar space


-Last Flagship Standing games can’t be played with the present ‘buy your own’ flagship system. So, maybe it would be easier to setup ‘Last Capital Planet Standing’ games, where if you lose your capital, you lose the game. Suicide bombing attacks on Capital Planets would suddenly become a possible game winning strategy.


Known bug thats being fixed. Last capitol standing... bleh, preventing me from changing my capitol isn't going to be fun when I get interstellar!
Reply #2 Top
Very nice review - as always.

I have not played in some time due to work, worsktation and family issues however hopefully I'll be able to get back in the swing of things with Sins in short order again. This is a nice primer for what I missed over the past two months. It is good to be back.

By the way I happen to agree with your suggestions.

Spartan
Reply #3 Top
Suggestions:
-Now that they are totally separate, you should be allowed to research military and civilian projects at the same time (if you have the resources to do so, of course).


Strongly agree.

-Capital Ships should spread some tiny amount of culture. They could help you capture planets far behind enemy lines. Maybe you could give the Culture ability choice to the Dunov so it is a bit more useful.


Sounds like fun. Give the Dunov about 0.5 Culture/s which is more then a the building, but capitals are much more expensive then them anyway.

-ships sometimes disappear right before exploding, usually they experience some weird liquid metal/mercury like shield effect before disappearing


Yes, happens especially often with capital ships. Bad timing there.

Also the damage from bombarding is applied before the missiles hit the planet, ie. the planet is damaged when a ship shoots on it, not when it hits.

-pathfinding problems include ships slowing down when given new orders as well as having trouble navigating around obstacles (they often get caught on obstacles)


Yes, this is very annoying. Ships should continue with their top speed and change direction on the fly.

-Logistics, Tactical and Fleet slots could all be combined into 1 pool. I really don’t like the present system where you can only use so many resources to sustain so many logistical structures, so many tactical structures and so many ships. I understand gameplay is more important than realism, but this is pushing it. Sure, some people might spend all their ‘supply’ points to build up one system into a super stronghold. However, that isn’t necessarily stalemate inducing unbalanced, as they will be weak everywhere else.


Very strongly and absolutely disagree. This would be a very bad and imbalanced idea. You could fill a front line planet with hundreds of gauss cannons, fill your home planet with dozens of trade center, etc.
Reply #4 Top
Hey Vandenburg, I do get what you are saying about my comment on logistical, tactical and fleet slots. Sure, gameplay is more important than realism...but does the logistical, tactical and fleet point system have to be so absolutely contrived?
Reply #5 Top
Two of your suggestions were AMAZING...

"-we should be able to research more advanced models of fighters and bombers in the research tree. These fighters and bombers could be faster, better armed, have shields, and so on. They should however take longer to build. Once these new advanced fighters and bombers are researched, carriers/hangars should be given new strike craft icons to build.


-Capital Ships should spread some tiny amount of culture. They could help you capture planets far behind enemy lines. Maybe you could give the Culture ability choice to the Dunov so it is a bit more useful."

<3

Reply #6 Top
but does the logistical, tactical and fleet point system have to be so absolutely contrived?


No, if I knew of a better system, I would be all for it. You're right that the current system is very contrived, but I don't know of a way to make it better which doesn't add some serious balance issues.

If there were one pool for fleets, logistic and tactical empire wide, it would make it possible to build really large defenses at front line planets. With the current galaxy creator you usually have about 2 to 3 connections to your empire which you need to defend. So you usually only need to build defenses there, in 2 to 3 places. You could then use a substantial amount of your points to build impregnable defenses there, far outweighing the defenses currently possible. In every other rts this isn't that bad, since you don't have that much chokepoints that make turtling easy, but here we have very limited maps (very small gravfields usually) which can be easily overloaded with defenses.

Also if we're allowed to use tactical points for logistic points, we could really overbuild our planets with trade stations/refineries making this kind of resource generation imbalanced.

Imho this constraints directly follow from the small build space/grav fields that the game has. If it were possible, for example, to build and fly a bit outside of a grav field and to choose where exactly you're jumping in it wouldn't needed to be so restrictive. But with the current system, I don't see any choice, unfortunately.
Reply #7 Top
Well said, Vandenburg.

Sure, they might have gotten around the problems of super built up planets by making more phase lane connections (or used an open map), but then we would have had to deal with the 'whack-a-mole' stress issue of a 100% offense game. They might have also increased the size of gravity wells to compensate (and maybe even add in semi-randomized entry points into gravity wells), but then games would take longer to play.
We also found out in beta 1 that the earlier upkeep style system didn't prevent planetary superfortresses and defensive gameplay strategy.

Well then, it seems that Ironclad doesn't really have much choice in using the contrived Logistics/Tactical/Fleet Point system. They will just need to create tech/trasnportation game lore to make it sound plausible.

Maybe the game lore should be that planetary infrastructure powers/maintains orbital facilities. Different planets have a differing amount of civilian and military influence that compete for resources = differing balance of logistical and tactical structures allowed per different planets. The total # of structures is influenced by how developed a power grid the planet can develop.

Fleet Point Pool lore could be explained that each planet is only capable/willing to contribute so much resources to fleet maintenance above and beyond tactical/logistical structures.

*Hmmm, maybe unused tactical points could go towards fleet points, BUT not the reverse (as the planet power grid could not support it anyway). What do you guys think?
Reply #8 Top
*Hmmm, maybe unused tactical points could go towards fleet points, BUT not the reverse (as the planet power grid could not support it anyway). What do you guys think?


Hmm... why not? It wouldn't really be imba since you couldn't build more defenses, but just more ships. It could force you in a decision between ships or defenses a bit, which isn't bad.

Yeah, could be done.

Although I dunno if Ironclad wants to invest resources to make a change to the current system?
Reply #9 Top
Yeah, but tracking the drain from tactical towards fleet points (much less deciding how to allocate it) might be... difficult and / or annoying.

That said I do like the idea, just flesh it out.
Reply #10 Top
Each planet has tactical points. IF they are unused, they are added to the fleet point pool as a bonus. If tactical structures are built at a planet, the bonus points from that planet are removed.

This idea wouldn't be unbalancing since tactical structures require far less points compared to ships of similar power. So using your tactical points towards increased fleet size would yield a small percentage bonus, but would also result in the loss of a larger percentage of your defensive ability = hard strategic choices.
Reply #11 Top
good call~ didn't see this at first~ so I posted something similar elsewhere regarding this.
Reply #12 Top
Each planet has tactical points. IF they are unused, they are added to the fleet point pool as a bonus. If tactical structures are built at a planet, the bonus points from that planet are removed.


Or maybe just kill two birds with one stone--replace or complement the research-crews system with an orbital officer's academy structure.
Reply #13 Top
Hmmm, and so fleet points would be gained from orbital 'Military Fleet Supply Ports' (call it what you want) instead of planets?

So 'tactical' points could be used to either make orbital Military weapon systems (Guass and Hangar) OR Military Ports that add fleet points/supply so you can have larger fleets......
.
.
.
.
FREAKING BEYOND PERFECT!   

Not only is this still balanced, not only does it add a lot of strategic choice, it also isn't at all contrived like the present Logistics/Tactical/Fleet system (YAY!)
Reply #14 Top
Hmmm, and so fleet points would be gained from orbital 'Military Fleet Supply Ports' (call it what you want) instead of planets?


I think he was talking about the cap-ship "crew point" part, not the full up fleet points part.

That said, I do like the idea myself, of having both bonus "fleet" and bonus "capitol crew" points coming from tactical structures -- it makes the tactical points of all those rear-area planets that you don't need to bother placing defenses on actually useful.
Reply #15 Top
Yup, that was what I was thinking. It doesn't make sense that the resources used to maintain/run those backwater planet tactical structures couldn't be used for supplying a larger fleet instead.

The added bonus is that there is no risk of stalemating super fortress turtling strategies.
Reply #16 Top

Hmmm, and so fleet points would be gained from orbital 'Military Fleet Supply Ports' (call it what you want) instead of planets?


I think he was talking about the cap-ship "crew point" part, not the full up fleet points part.

That said, I do like the idea myself, of having both bonus "fleet" and bonus "capitol crew" points coming from tactical structures -- it makes the tactical points of all those rear-area planets that you don't need to bother placing defenses on actually useful.

just saw this idea from the roundup, man this is a great idea indeed
Reply #17 Top
Awesome Idea, you could justify a 1-1 ratio of tactical to fleet, because the structure would cost you something.
Reply #18 Top
That is a good idea, now what matters is if the devs are willing to add in two more buildings into the game.
Reply #19 Top
I didn't know a capital ships hard cap is in... I was hoping the game would limit them in other ways, like vunerabilities, upkeep etc..
Reply #20 Top
I was hoping the game would limit them in other ways, like vunerabilities, upkeep etc..


So was I!

But it looks like the devs are changing it from a research based hard cap to a building based "supply" camp (At least, a dev asked us to move that idea from its own thread to the gameplay thread for further and deeper developer consideration). Which would be an infinite system.
Reply #21 Top
Oh an I am glad to hear that they are considering it. It would be a much better system, not to mention less resource consuming.
Reply #22 Top
not to mention less resource consuming.


Um... I find that doubtful

Don't forget, you'd have to pay to build each of those buildings, probably at a cost close to the research station + development costs of each level tech. (AKA: balanced so you pay about the same to get to any given tech/capitol level, if possible).
Reply #23 Top
Don't forget, you'd have to pay to build each of those buildings, probably at a cost close to the research station + development costs of each level tech.


Yep. The intent isn't to make it cheaper though, just more flexible (and not hard-capped). Moot point either way though--Yarlen has vetoed all 'space farms'.   
Reply #24 Top


Yep. The intent isn't to make it cheaper though, just more flexible (and not hard-capped).


Isn't that what I said?

Moot point either way though--Yarlen has vetoed all 'space farms'.


Damn you Yarlen! Damn you!

Did he give any reasons?
Reply #25 Top
Did he give any reasons?


We got rid of the "space farms" before the betas started. We're not bringing them back (that's what your tactical buildings amount to).


The above is what he's said. No reason, just a flat no.

Dunno about why.