Posted by: Corey
« on: June 06, 2014, 02:00:22 PM »Alright, we have a good bit of feedback here. There seems to be some common themes, so I'll mostly address those instead of each individual instance.
Starting with...
You can't make a structure/ability/upgrade give or take away logistic or tactical slots; all you can do is techs which universally increase or decrease the value of those slots. We also can't add new types of specializations like those in Forbidden Worlds. However, the other option, which we are using, is the command station thing, where you build a military command structure as a logictic structure which adds military bonuses, and bonuses to military aspects of the planet while decreasing economic/cultural aspects. In the first version we probably will only have the military aspect of this (for the Remnant, at least) but we'll likely expand on it if it's successful.
Tactics in battle vs higher DPS
I think this came from a few different issues. One is firing arcs; there actually are better ways to position and move your ships, but it's not clearly indicated ingame so it's harder to take advantage of. This is something better handled through documentation. Ability usage tends to be limited to capital ships on autofire, and there's a lot more cookie-cutter, rock-paper scissors balancing so other than having the counters for something there, there's not much actual counter play. It's less a question of overall DPS than the actual type of DPS. Your enemy has a fleet of carriers, but you lack flak? You lose. Most of your important decisions are made before the battle starts, although certain ability usage and some use of other tactics can definitely affect the outcome. The fact that every ship is as effective when it's at 100% as at 1% also contributes to this, especially when capital ships and Titans are such a big factor. This is something we'd like to change towards favouring diverse fleet compositions, but also actions in the battle. Of course, this is really easy to say, not quite as easy to change.
This wouldn't be possible within the game, but there wouldn't be much change from distance other than accuracy; there isn't any deceleration occurring as they travel, so there wouldn't be any significant difference to impact strength closer as compared to farther away. If anything, the physical weapons tend to have propulsion systems that I'd imagine would speed up more as they went (to a point).
Never underestimate corvette/LRM spam. Either way, there's a key difference between Sins and Star Wars within this as well. There's such a hige gap between ship strengths that it's a little ridiculous. In Star Wars, it's less of a tier system and more of a scale. Yes, an ISD's gonna beat a Carrack every time, but a VSD poses more of a thread, and a group of 3 or 4 Carracks can do some serious damage. This has even tripped me up in my playtests with Ascendancy; I'm so used to base Sins where you build your free capital ship, five frigates, and send them gallivanting around to eliminate every single militia force in a matter of a few seconds while I go and get a drink. I tried doing that in Ascendancy, came back and a defense force of a few lancers, Carracks and a Dreadnaught had destroyed my ISD and the, in hindsight, insufficient accompaniment I gave it.
Starting with...
Quote
2 the ship limis are far to low i think the last logistics resserch should be expensive as hell but give unlimited pop for shipsFrom a technical standpoint, this would be impossible without the game crashing, becoming a permanent screenshot simulator from the lag, or making someone's computer catch fire. From a gameplay perspective, the game would solely be about who can outproduce the other player because there'd be no cap to the up-front DPS you can bring, and any losses would be meaningless. There's already a bit of that problem in Sins where you can almost immediately replace any assets you lose anyways, which Waffle Wagon touched upon. While we've been testing technical stuff, I've had the ships as being essentially free in the mod, and in all of my AI vs AI "play" tests, this has resulted in never-ending stalemates at individual planets, and with unlimited ships with lower costs you'd be staying within the same effect; individual ships become meaningless if you can spam them.
3 there cost lines are to high but ive always thought there patterns were solid.
Quote
Long, shared and redundant tech treesWe've talked about this pretty extensively, so we basically agree with everything everyone's said here. We're pretty confident in our changes in this area, although it'll take a ton of tuning. I'll just add that with very few exceptions, this isn't really a period with actual scientific breakthroughs; there's some definite technological improvements in some cases, like with Hapans being given better turboalser technology by the New Republic, or some of the Maw Installation things that the Empire id (yes Slornie, the phase shifter things are cool...). On the whole though, most of the techs we're doing are on what would be considered more "policy decisions," with the flat upgrades being less universal and more about emphasizing something within that faction.
Quote
2. The inability to specialize planets was a bit of a bummer for me (build a station and the planet gains more tactical/ logistic slots or trade/production/population while losing some of the opposite.
You can't make a structure/ability/upgrade give or take away logistic or tactical slots; all you can do is techs which universally increase or decrease the value of those slots. We also can't add new types of specializations like those in Forbidden Worlds. However, the other option, which we are using, is the command station thing, where you build a military command structure as a logictic structure which adds military bonuses, and bonuses to military aspects of the planet while decreasing economic/cultural aspects. In the first version we probably will only have the military aspect of this (for the Remnant, at least) but we'll likely expand on it if it's successful.
Tactics in battle vs higher DPS
I think this came from a few different issues. One is firing arcs; there actually are better ways to position and move your ships, but it's not clearly indicated ingame so it's harder to take advantage of. This is something better handled through documentation. Ability usage tends to be limited to capital ships on autofire, and there's a lot more cookie-cutter, rock-paper scissors balancing so other than having the counters for something there, there's not much actual counter play. It's less a question of overall DPS than the actual type of DPS. Your enemy has a fleet of carriers, but you lack flak? You lose. Most of your important decisions are made before the battle starts, although certain ability usage and some use of other tactics can definitely affect the outcome. The fact that every ship is as effective when it's at 100% as at 1% also contributes to this, especially when capital ships and Titans are such a big factor. This is something we'd like to change towards favouring diverse fleet compositions, but also actions in the battle. Of course, this is really easy to say, not quite as easy to change.
Quote
4. I feel like the combat system is underdeveloped two groups of ships sitting across from each other seems right, but what happens when they get up close and personal.
5. I'd like to see that the weapons do more damage up close and less from far away, after all, no one wants to be hit point blank with a mass driver.
This wouldn't be possible within the game, but there wouldn't be much change from distance other than accuracy; there isn't any deceleration occurring as they travel, so there wouldn't be any significant difference to impact strength closer as compared to farther away. If anything, the physical weapons tend to have propulsion systems that I'd imagine would speed up more as they went (to a point).
Quote
2. There does not seem to be a clear "early game" or "late game," the best capital ships are available right from the start. This fact, when combined with the high income and ease of expanding your pop cap means that there is almost no reason at all to build frigates or any kind of smaller combat ship, with the exception of anti-fighter units.
Never underestimate corvette/LRM spam. Either way, there's a key difference between Sins and Star Wars within this as well. There's such a hige gap between ship strengths that it's a little ridiculous. In Star Wars, it's less of a tier system and more of a scale. Yes, an ISD's gonna beat a Carrack every time, but a VSD poses more of a thread, and a group of 3 or 4 Carracks can do some serious damage. This has even tripped me up in my playtests with Ascendancy; I'm so used to base Sins where you build your free capital ship, five frigates, and send them gallivanting around to eliminate every single militia force in a matter of a few seconds while I go and get a drink. I tried doing that in Ascendancy, came back and a defense force of a few lancers, Carracks and a Dreadnaught had destroyed my ISD and the, in hindsight, insufficient accompaniment I gave it.
Quote
FightersFighters are a bit tougher to manage. We agree on the speed thing, for sure. They definitely hold a lot of sway, in a rock-paper scissors sort of way. However, this is another instance where the difference between Sins and SW can come into play. Fighters are almost untouchable in Sins, and when they are, they die. Almost every ship in Star Wars, on the other hand, has the means to handle them in some way, so there's a lot more interactivity there. Fighters also have some more variable roles.