Notes on 0.4.1 RC1

[Zireael]

1) Growth techs still have "Improves Population" or "Improves Health". This WILL be confusing to people who are told that there's no Population or Health now...
2) Deep Mining tech is still in, with the caption "Useless: Does nothing". Wouldn't it be better to remove it?

[eleazar]

1) Growth techs still have "Improves Population" or "Improves Health". This WILL be confusing to people who are told that there's no Population or Health now...

No Population?!? That's still in the game. But the health part, good catch. That's what we're looking for. Health isn't as a meter anymore, though may be part of the fluff technobabble.

2) Deep Mining tech is still in, with the caption "Useless: Does nothing". Wouldn't it be better to remove it?

It is a prerequisite for the advanced neutronium techs, and some some mining techs may get converted to producing production directly-- when i recalibrate production. Still it is confusing as it is. I relabeled it as a theory, named "Tectonic Minerology"

revision 5062
"fixing some holdout text strings refering to health, and 'core mining' proper descriptions for a theory, and to avoid making it look like a mining tech. Other minor tech cleanups."

[Vezzra]

I've also done some play testing, and add my comments here:

• On the design screen, left side, list of hull types: the standard hull is smaller than the basic medium hull. That's a bit counter-intuitive.
• It has already been noted elsewhere: Can we change the hull type of the predefined colony and outpost ship designs to basic small hull? I find myself replacing them each game with my own, doing exactly that (because it makes absolutely no sense to spend the extra PP and production time for the standard hull, if the basic small hull is sufficient...)
• Production screen: the producible items list is reset to top whenever you doubleclick an item to add it to the production queue. This gets (very) annoying as soon as you want to enqueue an item multiple times that you have to scroll down to get to.
• Something that has been bothering me for a while now: To refuel a fleet you not only have to stop at a system within fleet resupply range (which is ok), but spend an entire turn sitting there. That's not so much an issue at the start of the game where you have very few ships, but get's increasingly tedious later on, when you have a lot of ships flying around. I rely heavily on the sitrep messages to tell me which fleets have arrived at their destination and need further orders. Whenever a fleet needs to refuel, I have to wait for the next turn, however, as I'm not going to receive a sitrep message telling me the fleet has been refueled, I repeatedly forget those fleets (mostly scouts) and they end up sitting uselessly around until I remember them. Suggestion: To refuel a fleet it's necessary to stop at a system (so it can't happen by just flying through), but you don't have to wait an extra turn. Waiting an extra turn doesn't add much in terms of "strategic value", but adds unnecessary micromanagement IMO.
• The way how it is determined if a combat takes place doesn't feel right to me ATM. To trigger combat you have to declare war and set your fleet to "agressive". As we currently only have two states for diplomatic relations as well as for fleet agressiveness, there is not much choice than to handle combat triggering this way. However, that leaves me no choice but to declare war on every empire if I want to prevent them from happily flying through my territory and probably planting colonies there. Your choices of interaction are very limited by that. I don't want an overly complex or complicated system of game mechanics dealing with diplomatic relations and fleet agressiveness, but a bit more flexibility definitely would be nice (and much more fun I think). At least a third "state", that is something in between treating another empire like an ally or an enemy, or, regarding fleet agressiveness, in between "shoot first, ask questions later" and "do nothing at all".
• The description of the tech "Orbital Construction" claims to increase resource supply range by one, but it doesn't. I think that's because it raises infrastructure only by 10, but resource supply range only increases when infrastructure is raised by 20. I haven't checked, but maybe the same problem applies to other resource supply range enhancing techs too. So either change the description to "increases infrastucture by 10" or let the tech increase infrastructure by 20. I'd prefer the latter, because an application tech should actually change stats in a way that have tangible results. Just raising infrastructure by an amount that doesn't have any real effect doesn't do this.
• I've noticed that the AI does send outpost ships, but they apparently don't actually create any outposts. They just sit at a system (where they could make an outpost, and very obviously have been sent there to do that) forever and don't do anything. Yeah, I know, I probably should look into that issue myself...
• Exobot colony ship: You get a sitrep message when the "Exobot colony origin" building has been completed, which is nice, but you don't get a notification one turn later when you actually need it, because then the colony ship is created and can be sent somewhere. That said, the whole process seems awkward to me anyway. I think these would be more intuitive solutions: 1.) Instead of the "Exobot colony origin" building you get a "exobot colony pod" ship part. Colony ships with this ship part create exobot colonies. 2.) To get an exobot colony, you first have to create an outpost. There you can build the "exobot colony origin" building (maybe rename that to "exobot factory" or something like that), which turns the outpost into an exobot colony. 3.) The "exobot colony origin" building doesn't create a colony ship and removes itself, but instead each colony ship produced at a planet which has the "exobot colony origin" building gets exobot as species instead of the colony's species.
• "Sentient Automation" tech: the description claims that it will raise industry on all colonies by 5, the actual increase is 0.03. Which btw is a bit low, really. That gives you a whopping 0.3 industry in total for 10 colonies, and 3 for 100 colonies. I'd make that 0.1 at least (1 industry in total for 10 colonies doesn't seem to be too much IMO).

[eleazar]

On the design screen, left side, list of hull types: the standard hull is smaller than the basic medium hull. That's a bit counter-intuitive.

Fixed revision 5069

Production screen: the producible items list is reset to top whenever you doubleclick an item to add it to the production queue. This gets (very) annoying as soon as you want to enqueue an item multiple times that you have to scroll down to get to.

Agreed.

The way how it is determined if a combat takes place doesn't feel right to me ATM. To trigger combat you have to declare war and set your fleet to "agressive". As we currently only have two states for diplomatic relations as well as for fleet agressiveness, there is not much choice...
or, regarding fleet agressiveness, in between "shoot first, ask questions later" and "do nothing at all".

Sure, more diplomatic states are planned, this is just the first baby step.
Regarding fleets, the labeling is probably a bit misleading. It is more like "Open" or "Stealthy"

The description of the tech "Orbital Construction" claims to increase resource supply range by one, but it doesn't. I think that's because it raises infrastructure only by 10,

BigJoe likes to change effects more than he likes to change string tables.

Exobot colony ship: You get a sitrep message when the "Exobot colony origin" building has been completed, which is nice, but you don't get a notification one turn later when you actually need it, because then the colony ship is created and can be sent somewhere. That said, the whole process seems awkward to me anyway. I think these would be more intuitive solutions...

I'm not sure your solution is possible, but it also requires the player to jump through more hoops. I just added in the sit rep message for when the ship is built. revision 5070

"Sentient Automation" tech: the description claims that it will raise industry on all colonies by 5, the actual increase is 0.03. Which btw is a bit low, really. That gives you a whopping 0.3 industry in total for 10 colonies, and 3 for 100 colonies. I'd make that 0.1 at least (1 industry in total for 10 colonies doesn't seem to be too much IMO).

See here and following for what BigJoe was trying to do in general. I expect because of this nearly all production techs/buildings don't match their descriptions. Which made no sense for this particular tech, so i reverted it to matching the description. revision 5070

[Geoff the Medio]

Some good suggestions, but any game mechanics or nontrivial UI functionality changes will have to wait until after the release...

[Panpiper]

I think something must be broken with regard to asteroid hulls, or at least they are not working the way they used to.

I have researched all necessary techs, I have built a basic shipyard, orbital drydock and an asteroid processor at an asteroid belt in my home system. The asteroid belt was 'colonized' by an outpost, because doing so with a 'colony' was forbidden. And yet, I am unable to build any of the asteroid hulled ships I have designed. Indeed, I am not able to build 'any' ships there. If I activate the 'unavailable' tab so the designed ships appear, hovering the mouse over the designed ship reveals that all requisites are 'passed'.

I strongly suspect that the bug is caused by the asteroids having no population due to the requirement that they be settled by an outpost.

[eleazar]

I think something must be broken with regard to asteroid hulls, or at least they are not working the way they used to...

Yeah, looks like you are right.
I think the current restrictions are a bit extreme anyway. I'd like to see asteroid shipyards be build-able in any system that includes asteroids. The asteroid hulls should then be build-able at any asteroid shipyard.

Somebody else want to script this fix?


Workaround: Exobots can currently colonize asteroids.

[Bigjoe5]

I think the current restrictions are a bit extreme anyway. I'd like to see asteroid shipyards be build-able in any system that includes asteroids. The asteroid hulls should then be build-able at any asteroid shipyard.

Even if the asteroid belts are owned by an enemy empire?

We could use
Or [
Not OwnedBy AnyEmpire
OwnedBy [TheEmpire AllyOf] Source.Owner
]

[Geoff the Medio]

OwnedBy [TheEmpire AllyOf] Source.Owner

AllyOf doesn't actually work at present; it doesn't yet know about diplomatic status. Also, in case it was meant as a literal condition write out and to avoid confusion, I don't think you can list multiple affiliations in [] brackets like that; you need a separate OwnedBy condition for each.

[eleazar]

I think the current restrictions are a bit extreme anyway. I'd like to see asteroid shipyards be build-able in any system that includes asteroids. The asteroid hulls should then be build-able at any asteroid shipyard.

Even if the asteroid belts are owned by an enemy empire?

Good point.
Then build-able in any system in which that empire controls an asteroid belt. Outposts count. We can worry about allies when they exist.

[Vezzra]

...Regarding fleets, the labeling is probably a bit misleading. It is more like "Open" or "Stealthy"

Maybe, but the labeling isn't the real problem here. Even with "Open"/"Stealthy" you still have just two states, and that limits your options too much IMO. You obviously need a state telling your fleet to act agressively/offensive (to carry out attacks), and you obviously need a state telling your fleet to act passive/stealthy/evasive (for all fleets you don't want to get involved into combat, if it can be avoided). But when I also want the option to tell my fleet to act "defensively", as in: don't initiate combat, but if an enemy acts offensive, don't run or hide, but fight back - I don't see how that could be achieved with only two states. And it will limit your strategic options severely if you don't have that third option.

As I said before, I fully understand and agree that the game mechanics concerning fleet agressiveness/openess and the rules determining when/how combat is initiated shouldn't be too complex. However, IMO a third state doesn't add that much complexity, but enhances your options significantly.

I'm not sure your solution is possible, but it also requires the player to jump through more hoops.

Which one are you referring to? I offered three alternatives. I admit, the second one is potentially problematic, but what problems do you see with #1 and #3? Personally I'd prefer #1.

"Sentient Automation" tech: the description claims that it will raise industry on all colonies by 5, the actual increase is 0.03. Which btw is a bit low, really. That gives you a whopping 0.3 industry in total for 10 colonies, and 3 for 100 colonies. I'd make that 0.1 at least (1 industry in total for 10 colonies doesn't seem to be too much IMO).

See here and following for what BigJoe was trying to do in general.

Yeah, I followed that discussion.

I expect because of this nearly all production techs/buildings don't match their descriptions.

Well, looks like BigJoe has fixed that

Which made no sense for this particular tech, so i reverted it to matching the description. revision 5070

You mean, you raised the bonus to industry back to 5? Isn't that a bit much, considering the recalibration of industry and PP costs you did a while ago...? I was thinking of a bonus of 0.5 or maybe 1.

What do you think about my suggestions concerning changing the hull type of the predefined colony and outpost ship designs to basic small hull, and the change to the refuel mechanic? Do these make sense...?

[Vezzra]

Some good suggestions, but any game mechanics or nontrivial UI functionality changes will have to wait until after the release...

Of course. This has been my first serious playtesting in a while, so I wrote down everything I came across, not only those things that should be fixed pre-0.4.1.

[eleazar]

But when I also want the option to tell my fleet to act "defensively", as in: don't initiate combat, but if an enemy acts offensive, don't run or hide, but fight back - I don't see how that could be achieved with only two states. And it will limit your strategic options severely if you don't have that third option.

"Aggressive" ships only attack enemy ships
"Passive" ships only refrain from attacking enemy ships when they are undetected.

Am i correct describing things, Geoff?

Any more fine-grained control of when a ship is considered an enemy should IMHO be empire-level, and part of diplomacy.

I don't think there is or should be any attempt to replicate the MoO3 possibility of having mutually visible enemy fleets sit around in the same system without fighting. That just drains the tension out of the situation, and increases the number of sit-reps.

[Bigjoe5]

I don't think there is or should be any attempt to replicate the MoO3 possibility of having mutually visible enemy fleets sit around in the same system without fighting. That just drains the tension out of the situation, and increases the number of sit-reps.

MoO3 and MoO2. I never saw the advantage of the MoO1 method of forcing two enemy fleets to fight if they're in the same system.

What do you think about my suggestions concerning changing the hull type of the predefined colony and outpost ship designs to basic small hull[...]? Do these make sense...?

Yes, but what I think makes even more sense is removing that internal slot from the small hull. It's reasonable that at least in the early game, the tradeoff for getting the extra functionality of an internal ship part should be significant.

...and the change to the refuel mechanic...

I agree with this as well. I always find myself losing track of ships if I need to leave them lying around for a turn.

[Vezzra]

"Aggressive" ships only attack enemy ships

If by "enemy" you mean "empire which I'm at war with", then yes, that should be correct (from what I've seen in my recent playtest). Meaning I can't stop any other fleets from passing through my defensive positions. What if I want to block passage through a system to all but fleets from allied empires, without outright declaring war on everyone else? That's not an uncommon scenario...

"Passive" ships only refrain from attacking enemy ships when they are undetected.

When I set a fleet to "passive", I want it to avoid combat. If they are detected, they should try to retreat/evade (not possible with the current implementation of combat, but once that becomes possible, that's what I want a "passive" fleet to do), not turn around and attack. Fighting back should be the last resort for a "passive" fleet (if it can't hide from/outrun the enemy).

Any more fine-grained control of when a ship is considered an enemy should IMHO be empire-level, and part of diplomacy.

The problem here is that this kind of control applies equally to all your fleets. No possibility then to apply this kind of more fine-grained control to individual fleets differently. Which I feel is unecessary restrictive.

I don't think there is or should be any attempt to replicate the MoO3 possibility of having mutually visible enemy fleets sit around in the same system without fighting. That just drains the tension out of the situation, and increases the number of sit-reps.

I see where you want to go, but that's exactly what I want to be able to: Have the option to not be forced into combat, as long as the enemy (or maybe just a none-allied) fleet also doesn't want to attack. Why do you think that this will drain tension out of the situation? I don't see how two not passive, not allied fleets in one system being forced to engage in combat adds to tension (at least in a way that's fun), to me that's rather annoying than fun. I've to agree with BigJoe here, I don't see the advantage of that system. And why do you think this would increase the number of sit-reps?