I think the tile is discriptive enough.
But for those of you who like to be specific ....
What new features do you want to see in Gal Civ 3?
Is there something that you want to see from Gal Civ 1 or Gal Civ 2, only you want it to be better?
Do you want it to have Real-Time, Control Your Warships, Space Battles?
Etc.....
So please respond.
ROCK ON!!!
-Flat defensive bonus: You have to my knowledge already complained that any value SD would assign wouldn't be enough, although you may not have said it so succinctly. In any case, I would tend to agree with that conclusion.-Fleeting all ships in orbit: It's in TA, we've already had this discussion, and you complained about that.-Something else entirely: Oh, screw it, we know you'll complain about that, too.
I would take issue with:-The insufficient information provided about the design of 3, 4, & 5.-Possibly even 10 due to the idea that anomalies fit within GC2's storyline and are not as simple to remove as you'd prefer.-11 because I think you're setting the bar too low. But we probably need to get rid of this x^1.1 nonsense.-17 is lacking details, particularly for those of us who have never played Civ IV. It also requires further elaboration since it is somewhat in conflict with your idea that the rich should not get richer while the poor get poorer.-20 is technically in TA if you consider the no tech brokering option. I could've sworn I commented on this before, but it deseves mentioning, although maybe it shouldn't be in the list.-26. Willy corrected you on influence, or so I thought. Those who use influence don't use influence starbases. If anything you should be complaining that influence starbases are useless, not that the current system needs change. But you seem to think that the current system is influence starbases, so maybe that's what you thought you meant.-27. If the AI were smarter, gaming it would be a good idea.
That would be in addition to the 6 you've mentioned, so out of 32 we have 14 or 15 (counting 22, because you don't want tactical battles but you don't want more=better on ships, not counting 20) that I would say fall into that category, although some do so only for lack of details.
I'd say half is a fair characterization of 14 or 15 of 32.
-
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I do not want GC3 to be like Sins. GC2 and Sins are both good games (largely). I like them both (largely). But I'd much rather they not bleed into each other. And so when I see a laundry list of changes that reminds me of Sins, I'm disinclined to agree with them.
You're losing me, Alfonse -- a single player TBS game such as GC2 interacts with a Human to declare pertinent information while an algorithm is a gameplay process that reproduces AI behavior as virtual opponents against that Human; the code takes these decisions already & we're simply unaware of Victory gaps until we click on the provided screen to look at the numbers (TA sixth box of growth bars to compare, that is!) or instinctively figure out the situations are becoming hopeless.
The big Resign (on for me, the windowed close-X!) is enough for anyone to give up.
Funny you should mention it, i HAVE been pushing for a true Econo Victory condition for eons. As for Military, i prefer the term Conquest since it is described as such on the UI.
Well, i'll be damned... we CAN agree on something this much fundamental.
The problem with those mechanics is their effectiveness at doing what was asked for. Once you set a goal for a mechanic, you are then able to objectively judge whether any particular form of that mechanic actually accomplishes the stated goal.
In this particular case, specifying the mechanic for defensiveness first requires a specific combat model to base the mechanic on. Do we just assume that GC3 should use GC2's combat model? That produces a completely different set of mechanics than if they use a different combat model. Further, the idea for a combat model should likewise have facilities to incorporate outside bonuses, so that it would actually be possible for outside factors to provide an advantage.
Things like that is partially why talking about detailed mechanics too soon is meaningless.
Take the "288 tile" idea as a counter-example. It has no goal whatsoever; it is without imperative or explicit gameplay purpose. So no objective value judgements can be made about it. Everything's just subjective opinion: Person A likes bigger numbers, Person B doesn't, Person C likes layering, etc. Until it is known what the goal of the idea is, it cannot be effectively judged. It's just an idea thrown on the wall.
It's their design mantra. Civ games used to have things that would punish you while rewarding you. Like Democracy used to give you lots of trade and take away that nasty corruption, but a military unit outside a city would cause you 2 unhappy people. The idea was that the negative aspect would keep the powerful positive aspect in check.
With CivIV, they removed the negative aspects of things like that (and also balanced the positive aspects accordingly). Democracy, Communism, etc all just give you a bonus of some kind. None of the bonuses are as good as CivII-style Democracy, but there were no penalties either.
Not the way I described it. The inability to build on the tech you get was important, as well as not being able to trade techs that aren't in your tree. Also, there was the part where people with different trees get special things that they can trade.
No. Making the AI play stupidly should never be part of a game. The AI is an opponent, not a game mechanic.
No, the discussion wasn't "Which ones you don't agree with," but "which ones you think are just remove feature X," without adding anything. 10 explained why it should not be replaced. 11 has nothing to do with feature removal; it is a general gameplay methadology. It is change, not removal. 17 also doesn't ask for removing anything. 20 isn't removal either. And while you may not like the reasoning behind 26, it does clearly explain what the replacement system ought to be doing. 27 explained why Diplomacy had to go and nothing like it should fill its spot.
I would also dispute 3 and 5. They both clearly explain what the replacement system should do. How it works? That's something that can be discussed. But before any meaningful discussion can take place, there must be agreement that the goal of the replacement system is reasonable.
I never supported that. I'm fine with 72, other than it being a strange number; I'd just prefer that planets have more room to build on those 72 and that planets in general be higher quality-which doesn't necessarily have to relate to tiles, either. This would also seem to be in line with your idea about all planets eventually being colonizable.
I'm not allowed to use different words?
I even tried in my earlier post to be more polite about it-you simply don't have any idea of what you want to replace these systems. The ones I've quoted almost certainly fall into this category, which is my main complaint about your "input" in this thread.
How is 27 "making the AI play stupidly"? The (primary) goal of the diplomacy stat is for the AI to offer you (and itself) better deals; while there are other functions it happens to serve, such as being able to rape it via this due to having a ridiculous military, this is not a bad idea in and of itself, and doesn't necessarily need to be removed, particularly since, as we have already discussed, the military ranking formula needs to change, period.
11 is removal of formulas you can't write and compute blindfolded while underwater. It should be limited instead to formulas you can do in your head, which is not as far down as 5th grade math.
No, 3 isn't clear at all.
I'm going to continue suggesting that you go play Sins just so you can see how the changes you're suggesting would probably be implemented (plus or minus-IC did have a number of SD devs collaborating) until you do. And if you have better ideas, then for God's sake, man, provide details.
You said that the game should, when your opponent is in a commanding position of the game, give you a popup that allows you to decide that the game should end with that player claiming victory. My question was that, when you are in such a position, should the AI have the similar option of not simply accepting the inevitable? And if you don't think the AI should have that opportunity, why not?
A victory based solely on economy is essentially proving your ability to gain money and/or build stuff, depending on how you define economy. Using mostly GC2 mechanics, such a victory could be reasonably achieved by having, say, half your worlds produce some expensive wonder (that doesn't take up a tile). Obviously there would need to be some minimum number of planets, so that the guy with 3 planets can't just have one do it.
Well 20 pages away in a past and now, i know...
I stopped at number 1. GC2 is not & never will become Civilization IV no matter how many ways we, you, i, him, her or (more importantly) devs (that ARE reading us all) could ever find to change, replace, enhance, modify (pet peeve of mine, btw), create, design other similar or entirely new features for it.
We can always recommend this & that & what else and hope the message sticked in a brain somewhere... in the meantime, IMHO - their innovation plans & our gameplay balance experience(s) is a volume cranked up on your mp3 players that even the deaf could hear miles away.
33. Tactical interactive combat in space (ala- X-Wings) & on planet surfaces (ala- X-Com); MY ship laser weapon button directed at opponent ship (#3 in a fleet) shields defense array currently damaged & rapidly dropping, from sabotaged capitals to demolished factories. Bring the pilots in a cockpit & firefighters repair missions.
I've been in a conference board meeting and sat in the 12th chair of a rectangular table and here's how it works;
1- Everybody expresses their opinions in respect & in the interest of the whole project.
2- Discussions for & against, check marks on a chalk board erased and re_re_checked multiple times over.
3- Consensus MUST be reached after much or less debate before a final decision is taken BY common agreement.
4- Development continues.
Skip any steps, you'll definitely fail.
Stuck on anything, repeat 1 to 4 until final compile & release date.
Cross fingers the result is reasonably stable & that all 12 chairs above puts their final check marks on the now-non-erasable board.
Serious, really.
You just answered your own question: offering you deals that aren't in its best interests is playing stupidly.
That's called "Moving the Goalposts," so no, you're not allowed to use different words. A debate about the quality of my ideas is quite different from saying that all of my ideas are just throwing stuff in GC2 out without adding something in return.
Also, I would point out that, while you may not like my ideas, I have had a reasonable quantity of support for most of them over the lifespan of this thread.
No, it's replacing them with formula you can. You may not like it, but it isn't removing without adding.
Wait: you're actually arguing against GC3 having a decent UI? I don't understand where that comes from.
Am i still being misunderstood about the 288 tiles?
Lemme TRY a clearer explanation then;
12x6 = 72 **SQUARES** this is now.
12x6 = 72 **TRIANGLES**, this is later ---- but, add 3 more layers of 72.
72x4 = 288. Not squared -- but still adaptative enough for some incredibly variable shapes of polygons.
dare i insist - RE-look at the linked image (sure it is BIGGER, but i needed the room to drop every situations). Until you realize the old surface grid is nowhere near the new grid. In total, in maths & in additional features possibilities.
(EDIT, PS... the triangles may or may not be smaller than the squares above -- according to a proportional modulo equation. On the left side, there IS a Starport which takes up more than 6 triangles, btw and the triple set of farmlands is another indicative of possible variations.)
Oh com'on, i am not talking about the UI - at all.
Cumulative BCs and not nerfed by the current 50,000 barrier penalty limit.
Not spent, in a virtual bank. 75% (speculative figure only) more of a total than the nearest AI opponent still standing but only when any of other winning conditions are close enough to declare a clear winner within 10 turns. Meaning - gimme the choice.
Yes, they should deny being enforced into a defeat *declared* by my answer to a popup... but if i decided to continue, doesn't it make it obvious to the AI and to the code itself since the game goes on.
So if i clicked YES, they must resign or prove to me *logically* that what they have is sufficient to stop my decision from being a clear winning status to the code. Again, this is a loop contradiction simply because the code WOULDN'T offer me the win popup if certain conditions aren't met.
1: Better UI. Civilization IV should be the minimum standard.13: Game-changing techs. Gunpowdered in Civilization changed everything.
15: Develop a planet quality system that ensures that every planet is viable. This isn't Civilization,17: Follow the Civilization IV design mantra: reward instead of punishing.19: Ditch the UP. Instead, institute a more generic system, where various factions can set up unions among themselves.20: Tech trading. Allow the ability to trade the fruits of a tech instead of just the tech itself...22: No tactical battles.23: Ditch the gampaign. Instead, integrate the game's storyline into the gameplay. Look at Alpha Centauri and how they integrated that plot into the normal game...26: Ditch influence. Replace it with a better alternative-planet-capture mechanism that isn't dependent on being able to militarily protect StarBases while the computer rolls dice to see if a planet flips.27: Ditch diplomacy. The stat, not the concept. Replace it with nothing, as gaming the AI is a fundamentally bad idea.31: Avoid techs that are "What you had before, only with a +1 bonus." Instead, develop a resource model that allows later "manufacturing" techs to improve manufacturing in different ways. Not just a better building that does the same thing only slightly more.
All of the above directly refer to Civ-IV gameplay and not the UI only. Put Cities in #26 for Planets, etc.
Doesn't mean i agree OR disagree about everything else and/or/if not quoted above, Alfonse.
Wait, so the AI has to show you, via some unspecified means, that it deserves to continue the game? In the situation where the AI is dominant, do you have to somehow show that you deserve to continue the game?
Um, #1 clearly is UI only, since that what it said: the UI.
Have you actually played CivIV? I'm rather familiar with the game, and most of that stuff isn't in it. For example, CivIV doesn't feature: 15, 19, 20, 23 (Alpha Centarui is not CivIV), 26, and 27. And 17 is just good game design principles; it no more belongs to CivIV than "balanced gameplay" belongs to StarCraft.
Now yes, those are different things from what GC2 had. And there are some ideas that I took from the Civilization series. But just because something is different doesn't mean that it is from CivIV.
If I were really suggesting turning GC3 into CivIV, the first thing I would have suggested is ditching the economic model for one that directly links resource generation to population growth. That is the thing that most separates Civilization from GalCiv.
Notice I haven't said anything of the kind. There's a reason for that.
Stating that you want x removed without providing for a y to replace and stating that you want x removed while providing such severely limited details about y that someone could almost design a y equal to x are almost equivalent.
Don't pretend I'm changing what I said; I'm not.
Just so long as we can agree that you're attempting to dumb it down too much, I don't give a damn what you call it.
What reason might that be?
I actually like quite a few of them. I just think you're providing inadequate detail. There are of course plenty that I don't like, but that's beside the point; you're providing inadequate or zero detail on them as well.
And hence they can't really be called ideas.
While we're on the subject, I don't want an auto-defeat screen, or an auto-win screen, or whatever you want to call it. Although this conflicts somewhat with attempting to balance out the rich get richer and poor get poorer mechanic, at some point where one civ has a clearly overwhelming advantage it should become drastically easier to finish the game...but the other civs would still have a chance. The influence condition is a decent example of this kind of mechanic, albeit far from perfect.
The way that Sins does this, for instance, if one can call it that, is not how I'd like to see it in GC3. There's absolutely no reason for me to continue playing a game after the AI is defeated, as nice of a feature as it is.
Civ 1,II & III actually and plenty more TBS stuff over the years. What i quoted is soooooo similar, or as anyone should interpret such close relations, to Civ IV (or less) that it's all quite obvious that your favorite gameplay (IN general) is picked right off Sid Meier's ruleset philosophy.
We're Wardell followers. Fanatics (How strange!) of a satisfactory system of principles & features that DO an excellent job within its premise; 4X in space with a slick Sci-Fi tone and planets and, and, should i?
Sure, we can always improve upon the basics or the essential concepts by ADDING supplemental elements, Ockham's razor dictates otherwise. Balance is at stake, heck even RTS is hiding behind the curtains and would jump at the prospect of rearing its ugly head to a GC3 function or two. Bugs, errors, updates, all of that opera sings in tandem for the blind & the freaks and US; Research, Social, Manufacturing off a few sliders choices.
Build a destroyer & a submarine, throw in a few horseriders, drop a road, put some walls around cities and offer a camel to trade are ALL in a GC2 game, too.
But you won't find the same galactic nebulas on isometric tilings of the Inca, you won't even build Seti overhere. If i need a lesson in history, i'll re-civilize a map but if i want to pick a fight with the Yor by throwing fleets of BlackHoleEruptors i'll stick around these brownish fogs of an insufficient sensor range, thank you.
So am i. Surprising comment, isn't it? Wanna know why? Cuz we already have 5 of those in TA.
A winning condition is a goal, how it is deployed and brought to your attention is context.
There is basically no difference between an AI & human opponents as long as a ruleset considers (important term if there is ever one, btw) them equal. Introduce advantages (hidden or otherwise) in the algorithmic applications of these same rules, then you are creating the proverbial jack-knife against any human driven capacity to counter measure up to IT **in order** to reach a goal first or in a more strategic manner than the AIs.
Win-Lose, once more. I progressively discover the "auto-screens" all by myself just as much as certain situations dump numbers & values on the statistic total(s) of my opponents for me to stare at.
Thalan has 125 planets, i've got 25... and they don't have more than 74% influence over the last 150 turns worth of twisting and turning.
But on these 25 planets, i've got a packed house of a deck load of lethal invasions ready.
Should they or *I* surrender?
See?
Bang, i reach Tech-Vic in 5 turns and ooops they up their research focuses 125 times over and match IT at 6.
Who wins, clearly?
Auto! Because, after all, the intelligent AI would surrender to me if that's what they *can* decide to do.
(But, i should stress on the fact that i never play my games with Surrenders ON, i'll let you decide or figure out why!)
Alf, if you say you want something removed, but do not provide a replacement, everyone who reads your posts will come to the conclusion that there is no replacement. And I read this post. It does not include alternatives.
I don't know if this has been mentioned already (i don't have time to read 28 pages hehe) but i've alwasy thought its odd that as soon as you've met a race, you instantly know their full economy, research, military, population, influence via that little graph at the bottom, maybe this should be tied into espionage?
sqwalnoc,
I certainly was expecting the Enhanced Espionage we got with versions 2.01 of DA & TA to be somehow exactly (although we do have some of these already, indirectly through the usual statistic screens) such as what you just suggested at least. Maybe i've misinterpreted SD plans for that specific upgrade (Fixes, tweaks, whatever suits your definitions of enhanced), but it doesn't matter anymore since we received passive spying & other great encoding work from devs we respect.
Features and gameplay changes in a stable compile is a different beast & who am i to be critical against THEIR design decisions or planning steps. I can wish, we can all share our 'hopes', they either listen or use their solidly proofed patterns of good encoding.
There was a huge list of Espionage tweaks many people wrote about in the 'Please slam my game...' thread back in May - have a look (https://forums.galciv2.com/311121), it might be worth everyone's attention again if only to prove there is still truly a common need for a "better' espionage concept - i'd tie the side-bar content (planets & ships listing) with *it* & use some new diplomacy principles to deepen yet even more, but that's just me.
Really, this is getting asanine. If you're not going to back up your statements with any actual facts, then please stop making them.
Here are some facts:
15: Planet viability has nothing to do with Civilization. For two reasons: 1, not all cities in Civ are equally viable either, so I clearly cannot have taken the idea from there. And 2, the reason I want planet viability is precisely because the game is in space. The random-number-generator is what dictates how many planets you can get, not your choice of terrain. You can't do the kind of fudging you do in a Civ game to make the best of bad terrain; a PQ4 is a PQ4. As such, you need to make sure that all planets can be reasonably useful.
19: Civilization IV doesn't have any collective unionization of the kind I described. It has something similar to the UP, which I arged against. So in fact, this change would be moving it away from Civ.
20: Tech trading in CivIV and GC2 work exactly the same. Therefore, this idea would be moving away from Civilization.
22: Neither Civilization nor GalCiv have ever had tactical combat. And I want to keep it that way. I guess that's technically making it more like Civ, but that's a pretty poor argument.
26: Civilization does not have a robust alternative planetary/city conquest mechanism of the kind I describe.
27: That Civilization doesn't have a gameplay-sanctioned way to dominate the AI doesn't mean that removing GC2's mechanism is intended to move it towards Civ. There are plenty of reasons to remove Diplomacy on its own merits, and this thread has outlined them in detail.
So yes, your comment is entirely nonsense.
Good game design should be taken wherever it is found. And ignoring CivIV's incredible advancements in User Interface out of some sense of pride is just stupid.
BTW, I would point out that it is clear that Wardell has not followed your advice of ignoring the competition. The UI of Elemental clearly shows that he has learned the lessons of CivIV's UI.
Note that a good game mechanic idea can be bad for your specific game if it does not fulfill what you want that mechanic to accomplish. That's why you should look at other games and evaluate what works for your game and what you should rightfully ignore.
And to answer Sole's question, that is why I didn't propose changing the resourcing model to look like Civ's; because it works against the goals of a GalCiv production model.
The details don't matter. What matters is what the eventual mechanic should accomplish.
For example, GC2's resourcing and production model rewards local specialization (planets have a specific function: money generation, production, etc) and global generalization. Compare this with Civilization, where local specialization is mostly discouraged; every city of a particular size ends up looking for the most part like every other city (with the possible exception of factories). It is that (among other things) which gives each game its unique feel, not the specific mechanics that create these effects.
We aren't designing the game here (and if we are, we're going about it the wrong way). If I were to provide what I would consider relevant details to how to develop some of my ideas, I would effectively be designing the game. It would involve the creation of a multi-hundred page document, detailing interdependent mechanics and so forth.
Describing how production should work is meaningless without knowing also how combat works. Or how influence or any such replacement would work. Mechancis are interdependent, so talking about one in the absence of the rest is not useful.
What is useful to a game designer is not what a specific mechanic should be, but what a specific mechanic should do. The process of game design is to take a set of goals and to build the mechanics that fulfill those goals. Taking that process halfway doesn't interest me; either stop at goal setting or take it to the level of a full design.
The thing about space is that it's... space. It's open and empty. It's hard to stop someone from just wandering wherever they want.
I would say that whatever mechanic gets used should be fairly trivial. Probably not on first contact, but it should not be too difficult to get basic statistics from another race. Likewise, it should be quite difficult to prevent someone from getting basic statistics.
However, what might be interesting is the ability to, if you invest in espionage in some way, lie to someone. Not like Diplomacy or the Spin Control Center; I mean a real lie. If they have been relying only on basic espionage, you should be able to invest more in espionage and be able to feed their "agent" (not that I'm suggesting it be based on DA's agent system; it's just a general term) specific misinformation. That way, you can actually have a espionage war: they have to spend resources to make sure they're getting accurate information, while you can spend resources to keep them from getting that information.
That's not how it works. A victory condition is a special rule of game design; it is what defines that the game should end.
You don't have the choice not to surrender the game when you are in Checkmate; it is a mathematical fact in accordance with the rules. You lost.
Similarly, if the clock runs out in a sport, the game is over (unless it is a tie and the rules have something to say about that); you don't get to choose whether you should surrender if you have fewer points than your opponent.
What you were talking about originally was if you're close to a victory condition and essentially assured of victory, but not having achieved a victory condition. You said that, at that point, you should be given the opportunity to automatically win, and presumably the enemies should be given the opportunity to play on. And further, if your enemies want to keep playing, they have to justify it to the victor in some way.
You're talking about a fundamentally silly rule. Chess has rules for this because it's entirely mathematical; you can prove that you've won, even if the other player isn't checkmated yet. As I pointed out, and as you agreed, there is no mechansim to do that in a TBS game. So the entire foundation of the rule collapses.
Whatever our differences over complexity, I have to agree with Alf here. Having the AI surrender when it looks like you are going to win is fundamentally absurd. There are too many random and human factors involved to be able to call a hopeless situation hopeless, and in any event, it takes away the whole point of the victory conditions AND exacerbates the rich-get-richer problem. However, one thing that would be good is, after winning a victory, you can still continue to play the game if you so desire, like in Civ 4.
This isn't exactly true.
Everyone "knows" this, but it's simply not true. Individually, except in the instance where a planet doesn't have a high enough PQ to support the necessary population, and given a mean population that is relatively close to the mode, it makes no difference if I have two stock markets on one planet and one on another or three on one and none on the other. Pop growth needs to be taken into account, such that planets in the heart of your empire serve better as economic planets until pop is maxed, but the more planets you have, the more the statement you've made is untrue.
In addition, the lowest class you'll find in DA/TA is class 5+3 terraforming tiles=class 8, which can support a 14B population, albeit not a 20B population. But a class 9 (6 before terraforming) will support 20B population, although neither it nor a class 10 gets the +10% approval bonus for high quality, so it's almost irrelevant.
It's true that clustering research tends to be a good idea, because of the few (with TA) research +% improvements, but clustering industry isn't as good of an idea because if you have 150 military production on a planet and you build a ship that costs 100BC you spend 150BC in production (assuming no bonuses, so none of it free) to build it-the overflow is wasted, so it's useless to have more than you need. And there really aren't too many research +% buildings, nor are they fairly early on in the tree.
The optimal planet in GC2 has enough factories to build whatever you're building at the moment and filled out with economic buildings, obviously a farm, and a morale improvement if necessary. On the other side of the coin, labs is more complicated, but it's probably around an average of 3 economic buildings per class 10 planet (may change slightly dependent on version). You'll lose something by generalizing, of course, but it will be less than you otherwise would due to the initial colonies, and it should be very minimal. I don't feel like creating figures or running the math, but you're more than welcome to if you'd like.
So you're technically correct that, for a small number of planets, specialization is rewarded, but the reward is a lot smaller than anyone thinks it is.
For what it's worth (to you, probably not much), I generalize my planets.
Scout, I just said Sins has that and as nice of a feature it is, I'm not sure I want it. I don't think I'd ever use it.
That sounds like fun.
If what I say right now has already been said, do tell me, but not to vehemently. I didn't have the time to read lately, and I got stuck 100 replies back.
We all know how population caps in RTS games suck Hydralisk Gonads right? Well why not bring that system into GalCiv3. I mean it. It sounds like a completely stupid thing to do, but it would actually solve the Defense/Attack crisis that was (and I think still is) on everybody's minds. Of course setting the cap to 100 is just plain idiotic in the GalCiv style, so let's set it to 500 at the least (take that Starcraft, you think that a cap of 200 is something, then check this shit out). Of course this might have a chance of being turned into Logistics. Giant hulls will take up a cap of 10, and it will decrease from there, where Tiny hulls are worth 1.
But in order for the system to be even more effective, there will have to be ship class bonuses (such as Tinys are good against Giants, etc.). If that system isn't adopted, my idea is fucked. And come to think of it (I am thinking up this shit right at this very moment), why not put a cap on weapons and defenses? It would prevent them from being overused, and it will help you save room for engines and all that jazz. But in order for this to be even more effective, attack and defenses should be equalized. All in all they should have the same amount of power, but the number of defenses you have should be matched equally in attack. So let's say that defenses cap out at 500 along with attack. You put a defense onto your ship that gives +10 defense. You now MUST put a weapon (or an equal amount of weapons) in order to balnce it all out. Let's say all you have is Laser 5's, you now have to put 10 of them onto your ship, or else your design won't be accepted by the game's programming. So by the time you are done, your ship has 30 attack and 30 defense, and 2 engines take up the rest of the space. But they each give a speed of +15 so that your ship moves 30 parsecs. In other words meaning that ships should also have a speed cap.
So the ship I just described above has a (let's call it for now) "bonus cap" of 90. Defenses, Attack, and Speed must be equalized all at the same time. So a possible combo for this ship would be: +10 Missile Attack, +10 Missile Defense, +10 Laser Attack, +10 Laser Defense, +10 Mass Driver Attack, +10 Mass Driver Defense, +30 engines. The ratio for Speed, Attack, and Defense (if you can't see it) is 1:3.
Please, don't let your Conservative thinking take over just to brush this idea away. Just give it some time to take root, and if necessary, you can either pull it out at your leisure, or nurture it a little more just to see where it takes us.
Till next time........
DON'T DRINK THE KOOL-AID!!!!!
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
