11th slow game wishlist

For topics that do not fit in another sub-forum.

Moderator: Oberlus

Message
Author
User avatar
LienRag
Space Dragon
Posts: 300
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 5:03 pm

Re: 11th slow game wishlist

#31 Post by LienRag »

Querens wrote: Sat May 30, 2020 2:47 pm
And I hate to see that shields mean nothing right now.
This.
Fighters are a very interesting addition to the game (I began to play before they were added, so I can tell) but by getting rid of the interest of shields they also removed an important part of the game...

Maybe making them cost much more Production Points ? Especially make Launch Bays cost more, so having more hangars than Launch Bays would be a viable strategy ? Right now they are no-brainers.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 3176
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: 11th slow game wishlist

#32 Post by Oberlus »

Querens wrote: Sat May 30, 2020 2:47 pm And I hate to see that shields mean nothing right now. I invested heavily in fleet with shields( this is the first game since a long time, I wouldn't do that anymore) and that was pure dumping of resources because everybody builds hulls with fighters and no shields for 30-40% cheaper while fighters work just like common hull fully armed and ignore shields(!). Yeah, you blow them up with 1 hit, but hey, they are free and unlimitied!
I saw you didn't research fighters and got shields so I didn't invest much on shields.
I would have invested in some shields otherwise (i.e., if I could not see your researched techs or scout your fleet composition).

The shields you chose cost 40 PPs, same as two flak cannons. You could have used cheaper hulls (organic) to get more ships and more RIS effect for the same investment, or cheaper shields (the ones that give you 5 defense).

Fighters ignore shields, yes, but can be destroyed so they do less damage than cannons vs no shields.
Fighters ignore shields, yes, but cannons ignore flaks.
Fighters are not free, any hangar+launch bay is more expensive than early and mid game shields. They are as "free" as shields in that sense.
Fighter can be resupplied, yes, but not out of supply (which is a pain in the ass when you attack without clear superiority to destroy full enemy fleet in a single turn, because then you have lost your weapons for next turn and must retreat), and most fighters can't attack planets.

But you are welcome to not use shields at all. My defenses would have destroyed one or two ships in that case.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 3176
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: 11th slow game wishlist

#33 Post by Oberlus »

ThinkSome wrote: Sat May 30, 2020 2:38 pm Revamp stealth and you can blow carriers out of the sky before they can launch.
Let's get real: even without stealth, carriers launch fighters before they are detected and targetted from first bout (launch first, shoot weapons then), so removing stealth would make no effect.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 3176
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: 11th slow game wishlist

#34 Post by Oberlus »

Voker57 wrote: Sat May 30, 2020 2:29 pm I actually would like to remove fighters. They make shields obsolete, and don't introduce any interesting new challenges except pain in the ass to figure out how much flaks you need.
I will not play without fighters.
I respect your opinions, but they are just wrong.
For me, it would be boring to know that I don't have to think anything about weapons and defenses, just get the best weapon and the best shield.

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 1814
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: 11th slow game wishlist

#35 Post by Ophiuchus »

Querens wrote: Sat May 30, 2020 2:47 pm
And I hate to see that shields mean nothing right now.
They mean less than they did three(?) years ago. They are definitely a tradeoff and not a no-brainer anymore, you definitly need to adjust your gameplay (Oberlus gave some hints I think).

We are in the process of making shields relevant again. We just added a weapon which can be quite good - just not against shields and made shields cheaper.
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Look, ma... four combat bouts!

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 1814
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: 11th slow game wishlist

#36 Post by Ophiuchus »

Btw. anybody actually employing the Arc Disruptor?
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Look, ma... four combat bouts!

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 3176
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: 11th slow game wishlist

#37 Post by Oberlus »

Ophiuchus wrote: Sat May 30, 2020 7:49 pm Btw. anybody actually employing the Arc Disruptor?
Yes, a lot.

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 1814
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: 11th slow game wishlist

#38 Post by Ophiuchus »

Oberlus wrote: Sat May 30, 2020 12:56 pm
Ophiuchus wrote: Sat May 30, 2020 11:38 am Because the base is a different one. You need to compare it main weapon damage to put it into context.
What's main weapon damage?
I meant ship weapon damage.
Oberlus wrote: Sat May 30, 2020 11:10 am
Ophiuchus wrote: Sat May 30, 2020 10:17 am comparing against max damage is not really valid
Why not? That's how I do it always. Just in case: I mean maximum full-combat damage for the whole "weapon" (so the whole set of fighters from an hangar), I'm not talking about damage per shot.
If you up the bouts from three to four, ship weapon maximum combat-damage increases by 33% which gets evened out by increasing structure. For fighters it maximum combat-damage increases by 50% while structure evens out only 33%. So if a fighter survives the same number of bouts, it does that 33% less effective damage. If it survives to the fourth bout, it does more effective damage than it would in three bouts (the difference between 50% and 33%).
So if want to compare fighter 3-bout-min-damage/3-bout-max-damage to 4-bout-min-damage/4-bout-max-damage you have to normalize it first.
Oberlus wrote: Sat May 30, 2020 12:56 pm
Ophiuchus wrote: Sat May 30, 2020 10:17 am we could double the fighter damage if that theory is valid (so a 6-2-1-2).
it would make PD defense mandatory since un-countered bombers would be wreaking havoc like no other weapon. If any fool would not mount PD, you could send bombers for 1/4 of the cost of the enemy fleet and destroy everything.
I think it is ok to expect the enemy to some bring anti-fighter weapons (flak, interceptors, strikers, or arc disruptor) if one comes with fighters and be severely punished when not doing so. But this does not mean that full PD is necessary - if one launches six bombers in the first bout one a single average 2-shot flak takes those out in three bouts, so bomber-damage would be reduced from 30 (6*5) units to 12 (6+4+2) units - so even better than a 50% shield. The main problem i see here is related to the doom-stack problem - while there are sensible counters (i think) once the enemy has superiority this becomes uncounterable.
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Look, ma... four combat bouts!

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 3176
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: 11th slow game wishlist

#39 Post by Oberlus »

Ophiuchus wrote: Sun May 31, 2020 7:29 am If you up the bouts from three to four, ship weapon maximum combat-damage increases by 33% which gets evened out by increasing structure. For fighters it maximum combat-damage increases by 50% while structure evens out only 33%. So if a fighter survives the same number of bouts, it does that 33% less effective damage. If it survives to the fourth bout, it does more effective damage than it would in three bouts (the difference between 50% and 33%).
So if want to compare fighter 3-bout-min-damage/3-bout-max-damage to 4-bout-min-damage/4-bout-max-damage you have to normalize it first.
I see. So, fighters compared to cannons, more bouts means worse results for fighters if countered but better results if not countered, and so it's not a net nerf, there's a trade-off. OK.
Ophiuchus wrote: Sun May 31, 2020 7:29 am I think it is ok to expect the enemy to some bring anti-fighter weapons (flak, interceptors, strikers, or arc disruptor) if one comes with fighters and be severely punished when not doing so. But this does not mean that full PD is necessary
But it means that at least some PD is necessary, while some shields are not. In turn, that means less open choices in ship design, an so less expected variety in the game: give preference to fighters and PD over cannons and shields.
We have players complaining of that already, so teking measures to make it even worse is a bad idea.

Well, we agree we have to test out four bouts. Let's get conclusions after that and see then if we want more bouts or four are enough.

User avatar
labgnome
Juggernaut
Posts: 833
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: 11th slow game wishlist

#40 Post by labgnome »

Something I would like to see is more people play-testing out the FOCS only missiles that got created. As I only have a limited time to do so with working form home.
All of my contributions should be considered released under creative commons attribution share-alike license, CC-BY-SA 3.0 for use in, by and with the Free Orion project.

User avatar
Voker57
Space Kraken
Posts: 131
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2016 4:46 pm

Re: 11th slow game wishlist

#41 Post by Voker57 »

labgnome wrote: Mon Jun 01, 2020 7:50 pm Something I would like to see is more people play-testing out the FOCS only missiles that got created. As I only have a limited time to do so with working form home.
Playtesting is not something done with slowgames.
Team S.M.A.C.: destroying dreams of multiplayer 4x since 2017.

User avatar
L29Ah
Space Squid
Posts: 81
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2016 3:19 pm

Re: 11th slow game wishlist

#42 Post by L29Ah »

My wishlist:

* one winner
* free diplomacy
* no monsters, honeycomb, ruins
* any server changes require unanimous decision of all non-eliminated participants (so the rules don't change mid-game for no compelling reason)
* the resigning empire preserves its technologies (or better given to an AI)
* expulsion for missing five turns in a row
* any of the aforementioned rules could be changed mid-game with an unanimous decision of all non-eliminated participants
Team S.M.A.C.: play multiplayer with us!

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 3176
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: 11th slow game wishlist

#43 Post by Oberlus »

L29Ah wrote: Fri Jun 26, 2020 11:46 pm My wishlist:

* one winner
* free diplomacy
* no monsters, honeycomb, ruins
* any server changes require unanimous decision of all non-eliminated participants (so the rules don't change mid-game for no compelling reason)
* the resigning empire preserves its technologies (or better given to an AI)
* expulsion for missing five turns in a row
* any of the aforementioned rules could be changed mid-game with an unanimous decision of all non-eliminated participants
I like all those.

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 1814
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: 11th slow game wishlist

#44 Post by Ophiuchus »

L29Ah wrote: Fri Jun 26, 2020 11:46 pm * no monsters, honeycomb, ruins
no honeycomb, no ruins cant be set with vanilla freeorion (until somebody implements this).

as a quickfix o01eg could maybe remove those specials from FOCS on galaxy generation
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Look, ma... four combat bouts!

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 1814
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: 11th slow game wishlist

#45 Post by Ophiuchus »

Voker57 wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 3:33 pm
labgnome wrote: Mon Jun 01, 2020 7:50 pm Something I would like to see is more people play-testing out the FOCS only missiles that got created. As I only have a limited time to do so with working form home.
Playtesting is not something done with slowgames.
But of course it is. The slow game multiplayer is basically the current freeorion QA department.
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Look, ma... four combat bouts!

Post Reply