Fractal Softworks Forum

Starsector => General Discussion => Blog Posts => Topic started by: Alex on December 21, 2017, 02:37:51 PM

Title: Colony Management
Post by: Alex on December 21, 2017, 02:37:51 PM
Blog post here (http://fractalsoftworks.com/2017/12/21/colony-management/).
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Bribe Guntails on December 21, 2017, 03:12:02 PM
All these new additions brought by colonies sound so exciting! Establishing yourself as a faction and executing your own agenda is going to feel so much better.

You merely hinted about the drawbacks of using AI cores, but I can easily imagine that, aside from the difficulty in acquiring, they can draw more trouble to your colonies and whole faction.

Salaries aren't too significant what with lowered costs of logistic commodities, but I bet other players are happy that's been lifted from mods. Also breathes more life into the game.

What I want to know more is how colonies and such are managed. Your character has a limited management capacity for Colonies and administrators, who each can manage 1 Colony.
Using the current implementation of ships in a fleet, each Colony is essentially a ship that REQUIRES an officer (or player character) to commandeer, right?
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Alex on December 21, 2017, 03:18:05 PM
You merely hinted about the drawbacks of using AI cores, but I can easily imagine that, aside from the difficulty in acquiring, they can draw more trouble to your colonies and whole faction.

Without commenting on specifics, that would certainly be in line with the general idea of "more power = more trouble" :)


What I want to know more is how colonies and such are managed. Your character has a limited management capacity for Colonies and administrators, who each can manage 1 Colony.
Using the current implementation of ships in a fleet, each Colony is essentially a ship that REQUIRES an officer (or player character) to commandeer, right?

Yep! If you unassign an admin, the colony automatically goes back to your direct control. There's no such thing as a player-controlled colony without an admin, whether that's you or someone else.

Or you can assign an Alpha Core, of course.

Core markets might not all get admins - i.e. something like Jangala would either have a special admin, or "no admin" (i.e. that portrait you get when a ship has no officer), which may be less confusing than assigning it a random unskilled admin. Will have to see, though, need to work that out.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Destructively Phased on December 21, 2017, 03:28:30 PM
Quote
Alpha Core can be assigned to govern an outpost. It has all 3 skills maxed, draws no salary, and is not subject to the normal administrator limit. An option that makes all the other choices terrible in comparison, with no apparent downside? Seems like poor design, if you ask me.

So...........

Risk-reward, yeah an Alpha core is great for running a colony, but might try and start the 3rd AI war.

1 question: do these things have an easy-to-reach off button?

And is it call an “Onslaught”?
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Alex on December 21, 2017, 03:45:59 PM
All very good questions indeed.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Nanao-kun on December 21, 2017, 04:27:40 PM
Every blog post I read seems to be just as good if not better than the previous. Nice work Alex. Looking forward to seeing this in the game.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Wyvern on December 21, 2017, 04:29:54 PM
So what I'm getting from that picture is that Alpha cores are susceptible to some combination of theft and/or flight...  ("What happened to the Alpha Core that was supposed to be running this place?"  "...As near as we can tell, it hacked its own security system, got itself installed on a newly-built cruiser, and took off for parts unknown."  Cue bounty mission to hunt the thing down again.)
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: TheDTYP on December 21, 2017, 05:25:34 PM
"Voltaire Collective"

Don't think I'd let that Expanse reference slip by
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Histidine on December 21, 2017, 05:51:34 PM
Ooooh @ ending

Questions/comments:

- Is the level cap being raised to accommodate the new industry skills available to the player? (I suspect such a thing would mainly serve to make pure combat players even stronger, but I like to dabble in all the skill trees)

- Can we put officers in storage to temporarily reduce salary costs, if we don't need them right now? (For that matter, how are crew in a Storage submarket handled?)

- What happens if the player becomes insolvent?

- Is that colony in the second screenshot on a decivilized world? I guess the -10 stability effect went away.
Is there a benefit to building a colony on planets with one of the Ruin conditions?

- The tooltip of other factions' markets with storages in the list could stand to include the rental fee.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: intrinsic_parity on December 21, 2017, 05:58:53 PM
First of all, this is pretty much exactly what I've been hoping for since I bought the game. Super excited!

But I also had a question:

Are there going to be other ways of obtaining survey data besides surveying planets yourself? In the current version of the game, it feels like a lot of planets that have compelling resources require level 3 surveying skills and that an unskilled player can't really survey anything beyond barren worlds. If you could just buy or steal some surveying data though, I think that would be a reasonable way to extend the content to players who don't choose to take surveying skills without invalidating the skills.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Cyan Leader on December 21, 2017, 05:59:57 PM
Interesting stuff, but I've noticed you still haven't touched on military markets or manufacturing ships.

Is something like a blueprint mechanic planned for ships? That would be one of my in-game goals in establishing markets to be honest.
Also, can I assume that selling/buying from local markets will incur no tariff from our own stations?
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Alex on December 21, 2017, 06:43:24 PM
So what I'm getting from that picture is that Alpha cores are susceptible to some combination of theft and/or flight...  ("What happened to the Alpha Core that was supposed to be running this place?"  "...As near as we can tell, it hacked its own security system, got itself installed on a newly-built cruiser, and took off for parts unknown."  Cue bounty mission to hunt the thing down again.)

<scribbles a few notes> Oh who what where? No totally unrelated to this do carry on.


"Voltaire Collective"

Don't think I'd let that Expanse reference slip by

Good to know the reference was not in vain :)


Ooooh @ ending

!!!

- Is the level cap being raised to accommodate the new industry skills available to the player? (I suspect such a thing would mainly serve to make pure combat players even stronger, but I like to dabble in all the skill trees)

I have some thoughts about a minor refactoring of the skill system. Stuff in spoiler because it might not happen or it might happen differently or, well, anything.

Spoiler
Basically reducing the total number of skills per aptitude to 6 or so, and compressing some skills (such as Salvaging + Surveying = Exploration) and strenthening some others (such as the remaining Combat skills, where I have some further thoughts), and probably reducing the level cap to 30. Overall reducing the number of skills from 32 to 24, which roughly matches going from 40 to 30 for the level cap. (Only roughly because of the impact of aptitudes.) But, again, this is tentative at this point.

I'd like to eventually add a few character points as rewards for major campaign things happening, but we'll see.
[close]

- Can we put officers in storage to temporarily reduce salary costs, if we don't need them right now? (For that matter, how are crew in a Storage submarket handled?)

Can't put officers into storage. Crew will cost the 1% storage fee, same as cargo, no salary.

- What happens if the player becomes insolvent?

Currently nothing, but I'd like to add a chance of crew/officers leaving if you're in debt for a few months, and of course anything major relying on a steady tick of credits coming in would fail, too.


- Is that colony in the second screenshot on a decivilized world? I guess the -10 stability effect went away.
Is there a benefit to building a colony on planets with one of the Ruin conditions?

If you colonize a deciv world, that condition gets converted into "Decivilized Subpopulation", which increases hazard, reduces stability, and increases population growth.


- The tooltip of other factions' markets with storages in the list could stand to include the rental fee.

Good call, added to todo list.

First of all, this is pretty much exactly what I've been hoping for since I bought the game. Super excited!

:)

Are there going to be other ways of obtaining survey data besides surveying planets yourself? In the current version of the game, it feels like a lot of planets that have compelling resources require level 3 surveying skills and that an unskilled player can't really survey anything beyond barren worlds. If you could just buy or steal some surveying data though, I think that would be a reasonable way to extend the content to players who don't choose to take surveying skills without invalidating the skills.

Well, you can already get survey data from derelict probes and such, which is pretty much exactly the point. But also, the benefit of the surveying skill is to give you a wider range of options of what to colonize - if too much of that data was available otherwise, I think it *would* invalidate the skills. They should provide an endgame benefit to be worth putting the points in. I'm open to adjusting the range of what the player can survey w/o skill, though - I'd been thinking that it might be a bit too low at the moment.


Interesting stuff, but I've noticed you still haven't touched on military markets or manufacturing ships.

Is something like a blueprint mechanic planned for ships? That would be one of my in-game goals in establishing markets to be honest.

That's very likely, though I still need to nail down the details. Planning to get into this aspect of it in the near future. If all goes to plan, then finding blueprints would be a major part of how salvaging/exploration feeds into stronger colonies.

Also, can I assume that selling/buying from local markets will incur no tariff from our own stations?

I mentioned this in the blog post - briefly, if you build a "Commerce" industry, there'll be an independent Open Market you can trade with, with tariffs. Not having tariffs would incentivize the player to only sell stuff at their own market and that'd be annoying to always have to do. Plus it'd just break a lot of stuff as far as prices and what's profitable.

On the other hand, you can take stuff the colony produces for free, from the Local Resources submarket.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Troika on December 21, 2017, 07:53:36 PM
Concerning providing colonies with the resources they need-- is it possible for colonies to draw supplies from other player colonies in or nearby a system?

EG, let's say I colonize a planet that needs rare ore, then a different planet nearby that mines the stuff. Will the second planet be able to export it's surplus to the first planet without my intervention, or will it require a connection to an NPC market?
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Techhead on December 21, 2017, 08:04:28 PM
Also, can I assume that selling/buying from local markets will incur no tariff from our own stations?

I mentioned this in the blog post - briefly, if you build a "Commerce" industry, there'll be an independent Open Market you can trade with, with tariffs. Not having tariffs would incentivize the player to only sell stuff at their own market and that'd be annoying to always have to do. Plus it'd just break a lot of stuff as far as prices and what's profitable.

On the other hand, you can take stuff the colony produces for free, from the Local Resources submarket.
Do outposts have Black Markets at any point? If so, when you buy from or sell to a Black Market on one of your own outposts, does that incur the ire of your own faction? Or is it a just a way to turn stability into some extra money? Or is it forbidden altogether? (Who's gonna sell illegal drugs to the President? Gotta be a trap.)
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Alex on December 21, 2017, 08:37:34 PM
Concerning providing colonies with the resources they need-- is it possible for colonies to draw supplies from other player colonies in or nearby a system?

EG, let's say I colonize a planet that needs rare ore, then a different planet nearby that mines the stuff. Will the second planet be able to export it's surplus to the first planet without my intervention, or will it require a connection to an NPC market?

Yeah, they'll do that automatically if they're within reach of each other. "Local Resources" is a mechanism for converting cargo-units into economy-units and vice versa, basically, if that makes sense.


(Who's gonna sell illegal drugs to the President? Gotta be a trap.)

Yep, that - I'm sure they've got black markets, but what kind of fool is going to tell you about it?
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Thaago on December 21, 2017, 09:42:46 PM
My crude chemical explosives ares ready. :P

This all looks awesome! Do you have any plans to have missions to acquire exotic components for industries? I've had this longing to hunt down a domain era mothership, scavenge its autofactory, install it on a super rich world, and crank out battleships. For... humanitarian purposes. Kind of like hunting down Redacted's for mutinous death robots helpful AI buddies, only requiring a large cargo capacity.

I've always imagined that alpha AI cores would be quite subtle and long term in their thinking. For example, if there is a system within range with a REDACTED REDACTED in it, perhaps it syphons off some of the outpost's shipping and diverts resources there - suddenly the Redacted are spreading! (Wait a minute, didn't that outpost used to make more money?)

Also, how will you deal with battles involving player outposts and the player not being there? It can take a good number of weeks to cross from one side of the sector to another after all... perhaps invading fleets are loath to engage planetary defenses, so sieges are relatively common? With the player either attempting to run a blockade or break the siege.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: TaLaR on December 21, 2017, 09:48:03 PM
- Can we put officers in storage to temporarily reduce salary costs, if we don't need them right now? (For that matter, how are crew in a Storage submarket handled?)

Can't put officers into storage. Crew will cost the 1% storage fee, same as cargo, no salary.

Can we get at least some form of going over Officer capacity (storage, or just unlimited number of *unassigned* officers). They are narrowly specialized and having to fire and re-train new officers when you want to change fleet composition (no carriers <-> carriers, high tech <->armor based, kiter <-> aggro) is wildly suboptimal.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Embercloud on December 21, 2017, 11:43:34 PM
Do you need to be in range of a comm array to assign construction tasks for you colonies?
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Soychi on December 22, 2017, 12:05:40 AM
*Fist Pump* Cause I'm pumped! Also, called the solstice timing! Thanks for the update Alex, looks fantastic!
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: arcibalde on December 22, 2017, 01:16:36 AM
Wait a minute, are you telling us that AI took 'ur jobs as administrator as well? When will this stop!



 :P


Anyway i'm glad that this little gem of a game getting more better and completed. 
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Cycerin on December 22, 2017, 02:22:13 AM
I can now look back, reading this, and think about all the initial exploration I did when 0.8 had just come out and how satisfying it would be to tie it together through starting an outpost/faction. It makes me feel hyped up.

This is going in the right direction, for sure. I'm really curious as to how deep you are going to sink your fingers into the whole Nexerelin style "faction warfare" with this update, too. Stuff like random events and news between factions, faction alliances, factions invading markets and waging war, stuff like that.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Histidine on December 22, 2017, 04:01:47 AM
Will something to keep the player from just snapping up all the "pre-surveyed" planets in the core systems be needed? Like the existing factions already claiming them and getting mad at squatters.
Perhaps they're simply economically marginal; would explain why the big factions haven't already settled them.

Not having tariffs would incentivize the player to only sell stuff at their own market and that'd be annoying to always have to do. Plus it'd just break a lot of stuff as far as prices and what's profitable.
I was thinking that this actually won't be true in most cases, because of fuel costs. Even if a player-held market is close to/inside the core worlds, it may not have enough demand for the right commodities to compete with other nearby markets.

Once the player conquers the major markets, though...
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Megas on December 22, 2017, 04:53:07 AM
From the sounds of Alpha cores administrators, that sounds like "Wish: More XP (and money)" that will result in a fight with major demons or something.  In other words, if player wants a fight (or more rare loot), stick an Alpha Core admin in a colony that outlived its usefulness (because player found better), let it take over, then farm the never-ending streams of Remnants for rare items and/or destroy its battlestation.

Can we get at least some form of going over Officer capacity (storage, or just unlimited number of *unassigned* officers). They are narrowly specialized and having to fire and re-train new officers when you want to change fleet composition (no carriers <-> carriers, high tech <->armor based, kiter <-> aggro) is wildly suboptimal.
That has prevented me from trying Pilum spam fleet.  I could not be bothered to train ten Timid officers for the purpose of assigning them to Pilum Vigilances, then fire them for more replacements later.

So far, I use generalist officers I can plug into any ship.  As for carrier skills, all I want for officers is Carrier Command 3 and Wing Commander 1, and given the way carrier skills are forced, I need to delay getting them until level 16 (due to game forcing nothing but carrier skills as soon as officer gets one).
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Regoso on December 22, 2017, 09:03:01 AM
Would be awesome if then None AI admins had a chance of going rogue (turning into a pirate/independent outpost) if things are going too well for your outpost(you have a lot of money being made from a black market and weak and or strong defenses(pirate) or going too bad from mismanagement (colony thinks it can do better on its own because of a lack of admin and there is a over abundance of defenses and or money(Independent).
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Techhead on December 22, 2017, 10:03:52 AM
From the sounds of Alpha cores administrators, that sounds like "Wish: More XP (and money)" that will result in a fight with major demons or something.  In other words, if player wants a fight (or more rare loot), stick an Alpha Core admin in a colony that outlived its usefulness (because player found better), let it take over, then farm the never-ending streams of Remnants for rare items and/or destroy its battlestation.
Alternatively, it might *** off the signatories of the Second AI War Treaty and have them knocking on your doorstep.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: LazyWizard on December 22, 2017, 10:09:21 AM
"Local Resources" is a mechanism for converting cargo-units into economy-units and vice versa, basically, if that makes sense.
On the other hand, you can take stuff the colony produces for free, from the Local Resources submarket.

Economy units go up by orders of magnitude, right? Is it possible to make a market big enough that you could "borrow" enough resources to supply your fleet without tanking the colony's economy?


(Who's gonna sell illegal drugs to the President? Gotta be a trap.)

Yep, that - I'm sure they've got black markets, but what kind of fool is going to tell you about it?

I don't know what you're talking about. I am but a simple merchant. (https://i.imgur.com/m8Asiri.png)
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Alex on December 22, 2017, 10:38:35 AM
This all looks awesome! Do you have any plans to have missions to acquire exotic components for industries? I've had this longing to hunt down a domain era mothership, scavenge its autofactory, install it on a super rich world, and crank out battleships. For... humanitarian purposes. Kind of like hunting down Redacted's for mutinous death robots helpful AI buddies, only requiring a large cargo capacity.

Not necessarily for missions as such, but, yeah, hunting down a Domain mothership is like a player-driven mission, right? That's been sort of the point behind the breadcrumbs the probes/survey ships leave. And it would make a lot of sense for high-end exploration content (such as the mothership) to provide high-end colony-building rewards.


I've always imagined that alpha AI cores would be quite subtle and long term in their thinking. For example, if there is a system within range with a REDACTED REDACTED in it, perhaps it syphons off some of the outpost's shipping and diverts resources there - suddenly the Redacted are spreading! (Wait a minute, didn't that outpost used to make more money?)

:-X

Also, how will you deal with battles involving player outposts and the player not being there? It can take a good number of weeks to cross from one side of the sector to another after all... perhaps invading fleets are loath to engage planetary defenses, so sieges are relatively common? With the player either attempting to run a blockade or break the siege.

With enough caveats to fill half the Sector - yeah, sieges or something like. There are layers of planetary defenses and the idea is that reducing them takes time, and some layers *have* to be reduced before certain actions can be taken, but I really don't want to get into the detals just yet.


Can we get at least some form of going over Officer capacity (storage, or just unlimited number of *unassigned* officers). They are narrowly specialized and having to fire and re-train new officers when you want to change fleet composition (no carriers <-> carriers, high tech <->armor based, kiter <-> aggro) is wildly suboptimal.

Hmm. So oddly enough, I'd just added the ability to go over capacity in both officers and admins, but the reason for that is so you can still find them in sleeper pods while exploring. The over-max admins/offices can't be assigned until some are dismissed, so it wouldn't quite work for this situation.

Let me think about it. I'm not entirely sure that changing fleet compositions drastically is a thing that needs to be supported with maximum flexibility. At this point, there's no real time pressure, so you *can* do it by dismissing and re-training, but if that changes, then that may be less of an issue since it won't be as practical in the face of continued demands on your fleet.


Do you need to be in range of a comm array to assign construction tasks for you colonies?

You don't, no. Presumably you can send orders by courier or you had the foresight to leave sealed orders or something.

I'm also reconsidering exactly how comm relays factor in to comms - I think some aspects of them are neat, but having to be near one to get certain information is becoming increasingly troublesome.


*Fist Pump* Cause I'm pumped! Also, called the solstice timing! Thanks for the update Alex, looks fantastic!

:)

Wait a minute, are you telling us that AI took 'ur jobs as administrator as well? When will this stop!

Hah! Also, "this colony's entire infrastructure has been repurposed to mine bitcoin, sorry, no power left over for life support."


I can now look back, reading this, and think about all the initial exploration I did when 0.8 had just come out and how satisfying it would be to tie it together through starting an outpost/faction. It makes me feel hyped up.

Cool! Yeah, the whole point of exploration - from the start - has been to connect up to colonizing. But it just wasn't in place, and I'm super excited that finally some of these larger pieces can fit together the way they're supposed to.


I'm really curious as to how deep you are going to sink your fingers into the whole Nexerelin style "faction warfare" with this update, too. Stuff like random events and news between factions, faction alliances, factions invading markets and waging war, stuff like that.

I'm not entirely sure myself. Some amount of "this fleet is coming to wreck your colony and you really ought to consider stopping it" needs to be in place, but given the sheer amount of other things that need to be done, I'm not sure how much time there'll be to elaborate on that.


Will something to keep the player from just snapping up all the "pre-surveyed" planets in the core systems be needed? Like the existing factions already claiming them and getting mad at squatters.
Perhaps they're simply economically marginal; would explain why the big factions haven't already settled them.

Probably? Maybe? Was thinking about faction "claim beacons", or maybe they just wait a bit and then come claim it for themselves once it's doing well. Since some of those planets are randomly generated, they may or may not be desirable in the first place. But yeah, it'd be weird if the Hegemony was ok with you colonizing and building up militarily right next to Coatl, etc.


I was thinking that this actually won't be true in most cases, because of fuel costs. Even if a player-held market is close to/inside the core worlds, it may not have enough demand for the right commodities to compete with other nearby markets.

Once the player conquers the major markets, though...

I see what you mean, yeah. But it just seems like asking for trouble in various scenarios if things deviate at all from an ideal path where it's not an issue.

From the sounds of Alpha cores administrators, that sounds like "Wish: More XP (and money)" that will result in a fight with major demons or something.  In other words, if player wants a fight (or more rare loot), stick an Alpha Core admin in a colony that outlived its usefulness (because player found better), let it take over, then farm the never-ending streams of Remnants for rare items and/or destroy its battlestation.

No comment!

Ok, I will comment that putting AI cores into admin roles would generally speaking be a valid choice, not a *straight up* trap. I mean, I may be mean, but I'm not *that* mean, am I? Or am I?



Would be awesome if then None AI admins had a chance of going rogue (turning into a pirate/independent outpost) if things are going too well for your outpost(you have a lot of money being made from a black market and weak and or strong defenses(pirate) or going too bad from mismanagement (colony thinks it can do better on its own because of a lack of admin and there is a over abundance of defenses and or money(Independent).

Hmm, we'll see. I've got a list of potential difficulties for you to run into; just a question of turning it into something cohesive. Explicitly taking an outpost away without considerable forewarning seems quite harsh, though.


Economy units go up by orders of magnitude, right? Is it possible to make a market big enough that you could "borrow" enough resources to supply your fleet without tanking the colony's economy?

The "order of magnitude" thing is only in theory. In practice, it's currently linear-ish, and likely to stay close to that. (size 1 = 0.2, 2 = 0.3, 3 = 0.5, 4 = 1, 5 = 2, 6 = 3, etc)

Actual order-of-magnitude numbers get waaaaay out of hand too quickly, even if it's base 2. That said, I'd like the player to be able to eventually grab enough resources without tanking the economy, yes. Hopefully I'll be able to make the numbers work there.

Btw, taking stuff out of "Local Resources" - at least, as of this writing - won't negatively impact the economy. It's really just "surplus + skimming off the top" that gets used when there are shortages, but the player can take stuff out at any time without consequence. Buying on the open market, though *can* impact the economy some.

I don't know what you're talking about. I am but a simple merchant. (https://i.imgur.com/m8Asiri.png)

Hah, that's awesome!
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: AspirantEmperor on December 22, 2017, 12:06:19 PM
Will we be able to kill the smugglers who come to our planet without loosing reputation with the independent? Because as it stands, the independent are one of the best ways to get capital ships, given they don't require a commission. And I like having capital ships, but I don't like allowing criminals to undermine my own markets.

Also, I am looking forward to this so much. There's something slightly painful about floating above a needle-in-a-haystack, completely-habitable, resource-rich world and thinking "yea, survey data on you will be worth a few hundred thousand to the right buyer, and then I'll never come back here again... what a waste." That'll completely change once this is added.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Midnight Kitsune on December 22, 2017, 12:31:10 PM
I will admit that while much of this stuff excites me, some of it worries me quite a bit, specifically salaries and the start of the game, Alpha core trap options and the ever increasing need for the player to become the "bard" of the game (gives everyone all the buffs while they do all the fun stuff)

-Salaries and newbies: SS already has a BRUTAL start, even with the tutorial that no one ever takes. And now with salaries, I feel like it is going to cause even more death spirals because now the new player is going to have TWO monthly supply drains to worry about at least. Many times I read about players that struggle to make ends meet. Now they are gonna have to worry about packing enough supplies, fuel and now credits.
Alot of these changes add difficulty to the whole game but only add content to the later game. One thing that I would suggest is adding on to the current tutorial and basically have the PC work for the Indies or Heg for a bit before being given full rights to the Abandoned Station in Corvus, along with the ability to turn it into a "mini outpost" that doesn't take up an outpost spot but can't grow beyond a certain size nor take on very many or certain industries but it would also give them a small but constant income. This way the player would be taught how to set up and run outposts in the early game and would have some cashflow offsetting the salaries
Also, how will salaries and monthly income be payed out? Per day? Week? Month? I would suggest that both of these be given at once and at the same interval so that newbie players don't screw themselves by spending all their money on supplies and fuel and ships and not saving for when that monthly paycheck comes due

-Alpha Cores, The Expensive Trap: Even with how little you have mentioned about ACs and their negative effects, I still can't help but see them as a trap option with your comments and the fact that they not only have all three admin skills but also have no salary to pay and are SUPER rare. (seriously, cores became stupid rare after .81) And tying this in with the previous part of my post, this could lead to: *** off some of the most powerful and numerous factions, tons of micromanagement and or comparing monthly incomes to see if something is different/ wrong and or the loss of a high level ship or hell, the whole outpost! Any one of these could send the newbie player into a death spiral.
Example: Install Alpha as admin in one of my few or only outposts, oops I *** off the Heg, oops I got attacked/ sieged / blockaded, oops I prepared at nearby market to stop said attack/ blockade only now due to the lower stability I have negative income and I am bleeding credits, oops now I just lost a high level officer (and the possibility of a ship and or cargo) and some crew and oops now don't have the combat strength to drive the Heg away and oops, now I death-spiral my way into poverty, despair and boredom. 0/10 would not recommend.

-Skills and the battle between combat fun and being able to run an empire fun: While I agree that some skills need to be condensed into other skills, shrinking the level cap is going to hurt us even more, especially with aptitudes being a tax that NO ONE ELSE pays. With the purposed changes of a level 30 level cap and no other changes, this would shrink the amount of skill points the player has by almost exactly 9% (12/42 versus 12/32) and while this might be addressed somewhat by the possibility of Character Points being rewards, it still doesn't address the fact that aptitudes are still BS point taxes that no one else has to pay and they just further take away from the fun. Just give them skills that 95% of the players take (coughbonusOPcough)

Also, I am looking forward to this so much. There's something slightly painful about floating above a needle-in-a-haystack, completely-habitable, resource-rich world and thinking "yea, survey data on you will be worth a few hundred thousand to the right buyer, and then I'll never come back here again... what a waste." That'll completely change once this is added.
Copy the seed for that sectorgen and store it in a document someplace safe so that you CAN come back to it later!
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Megas on December 22, 2017, 02:35:00 PM
Re: Skills.  I really dislike aptitudes, and I really dislike being forced into being a support role.  Currently, in 0.8.x, if I want to play warrior, either as a loner or a champion of my army, my skilled ship is barely better than one piloted by an unskilled character, but if I play buffer or squishy puppet master and let my four or more officers get the combat skills while I ignore them, my character is much stronger.  Meanwhile, I look at my officers' ships with great envy and wish I can pilot them, but cannot because only I am allowed to take the critical buffer skills and not my officers.  (And if I do not and get skills like an officer, my character is much weaker.)

The main thing I am concerned about is skill changes.  There are not enough skill points now, and we will get even less later?!  The aptitude tax is awful, and as Midnight says, no one else gets to pay it.  Thanks to the tax, player character barely has more points than max level officer.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Gothars on December 22, 2017, 03:14:49 PM
I don't have much to add, I think it sounds all rather wonderful :) The beautiful artwork for the structures&industries deserves special mention!


Maybe it's worth some thought to implement a mechanic that discourages exchanging administrators too frequently. Without that, I imagine there would be some scenarios where you had to switch them around for every minor shift in military thread or economic potential, if you want to play optimally. Something like a small "settled in" stat bonus that admins get after some time would help with that, as would a severance benefit you'd have to pay them for re-assignment.

Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: naufrago on December 22, 2017, 03:29:42 PM
Yo, been a while since i've said anything, but I've been keeping tabs on the development. Game is looking better than ever, and shaping up to be a game i've always wanted to play.

Anyway, i'm curious whether you'll implement some sort of measures to prevent players from scooping up some of the surplus, then selling it directly back to the market. Would you consider that viable, or would you try to act against that behavior? Didn't see any mention of that sort of thing in your blog posts, so i though i'd bring it up.

EDIT: wow, just looked and it's been over 4 years since i last posted. hard to believe it's been that long.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Alex on December 22, 2017, 04:10:04 PM
Will we be able to kill the smugglers who come to our planet without loosing reputation with the independent? Because as it stands, the independent are one of the best ways to get capital ships, given they don't require a commission. And I like having capital ships, but I don't like allowing criminals to undermine my own markets.

At this point, I'm not even sure that killing smugglers would have a positive effect. I do want to take another look at how reputation works especially re: independents and pirates, though.

Also, I am looking forward to this so much. There's something slightly painful about floating above a needle-in-a-haystack, completely-habitable, resource-rich world and thinking "yea, survey data on you will be worth a few hundred thousand to the right buyer, and then I'll never come back here again... what a waste." That'll completely change once this is added.

More than you think, I wouldn't expect to be able to sell the survey data for very much anymore :)


@Midnight Kitsune: I mean, no matter the design, even if it's absolutely amazing, there are still ways to screw it up in the execution. I'll do my best to avoid the various pitfalls!

-Salaries and newbies: SS already has a BRUTAL start, even with the tutorial that no one ever takes. And now with salaries, I feel like it is going to cause even more death spirals because now the new player is going to have TWO monthly supply drains to worry about at least. Many times I read about players that struggle to make ends meet. Now they are gonna have to worry about packing enough supplies, fuel and now credits.

Hmm, I strongly disagree here. Anecdotal evidence suggests lots of people do the tutorial and that it - alongside other things - has helped *massively* with the early game difficulty. Of course, some people still have trouble, but that fraction of people that does seems to be far less.

Also, how will salaries and monthly income be payed out? Per day? Week? Month? I would suggest that both of these be given at once and at the same interval so that newbie players don't screw themselves by spending all their money on supplies and fuel and ships and not saving for when that monthly paycheck comes due

It's monthly, both for income and expenses.


Copy the seed for that sectorgen and store it in a document someplace safe so that you CAN come back to it later!

Seeds from 0.8.1 are super unlikely to produce the same results in the next release, btw. That process is extremely fragile by nature and even a slight difference in Sector generation will cause the same seed to diverge completely from what it used to do.


... especially with aptitudes being a tax that NO ONE ELSE pays.
The aptitude tax is awful, and as Midnight says, no one else gets to pay it.

Hmm - I have to be honest, I don't really get the "no-one else has to pay it" sentiment - they're just different mechanics. Maybe the reason for a level cap of 20 is to represent that they do have to invest in aptitudes etc behind the scenes, but it's not something the player needs to be bothered with. But even that I think isn't a great way to look at it because, again, just entirely different mechanics. Apples and oranges, you know?


The main thing I am concerned about is skill changes.  There are not enough skill points now, and we will get even less later?!

I don't want to talk about it too much, but the reduction of skill points alongside reducing the number of skills and the increase in the relative power of combat skills would be a very substantial buff to combat skills, which is part of the reason for the (potential) changes. Just seeing "less points" without thinking about how it relates to the other changes is going to give the wrong idea. I mean, if the reduced number of points gives you more or similar power across the board because you can get more per point, then that's an important part to consider.

It would also, naturally, result in a lower level cap for officers, since a cap of 20 would be kind of absurd at that point, both in terms of power relative to the player and in terms of absolute power.


Meanwhile, I look at my officers' ships with great envy and wish I can pilot them, but cannot because only I am allowed to take the critical buffer skills and not my officers.  (And if I do not and get skills like an officer, my character is much weaker.)

Yeah, that's part of the driver for the changes. I'd like to make combat more appealing and fix a few cases where non-combat skills feel too must-have (such as Salvaging if you want to salvage, for example).


Maybe it's worth some thought to implement a mechanic that discourages exchanging administrators too frequently. Without that, I imagine there would be some scenarios where you had to switch them around for every minor shift in military thread or economic potential, if you want to play optimally. Something like a small "settled in" stat bonus that admins get after some time would help with that, as would a severance benefit you'd have to pay them for re-assignment.

Was thinking about this, yeah! Or something like an ETA of a month or so before the admin's bonuses start to apply. Don't want to do it until there's a problem to solve, though, if that makes sense.

I don't have much to add, I think it sounds all rather wonderful :) The beautiful artwork for the structures&industries deserves special mention!

I have to say, I'm quite a fan of those myself :) (Don't tell anyone, but there are several variations for a number of these, depending on market size and a few other factors.)


Yo, been a while since i've said anything, but I've been keeping tabs on the development. Game is looking better than ever, and shaping up to be a game i've always wanted to play.
...
EDIT: wow, just looked and it's been over 4 years since i last posted. hard to believe it's been that long.

Hey, welcome back (and thank you)! ... has it been that long, really? Doesn't feel like it.

Anyway, i'm curious whether you'll implement some sort of measures to prevent players from scooping up some of the surplus, then selling it directly back to the market. Would you consider that viable, or would you try to act against that behavior? Didn't see any mention of that sort of thing in your blog posts, so i though i'd bring it up.

I think that'd be viable, yeah - if the LR market gives you stuff, then can't exactly prevent you from selling it. The key would be to make sure the player doesn't miss out on anything by not constantly going around to pick up and sell the surplus - so, either make sure it accumulates, or gets sold off at market value and produces more income if there's local Commerce, or something along those lines.

Also, if a market is producing much surplus, it means that the price will be lower.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Igncom1 on December 22, 2017, 04:38:44 PM
I'm certainly excited to be able to give it a go.

I was just playing today and found a nice water world with moderate amounts of resources and a breathable atmosphere right next to another system with a large jungle world.  Currently that's just some nice money if I get surveying skills and such, but soon stuff like that will be the seed of my own interstellar empire!

I like fighting the fleet battles, but I am going love building something for a change as well.

Can we colonize worlds in the name of, or for, a faction? Or is it always as a new faction?

How will factions feel about me setting up colonies? Will that be based upon my relations with them before I start playing Dictator?

Will other NPC's found their own factions?
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: bowman on December 22, 2017, 04:45:19 PM
I'm gonna go ahead and ask the question I'm sure we are all wondering: Can we make food illegal? (more seriously, are illegal goods limited to the ~5 that exist for all other factions right now or can we make any good in the game we happen to feel like illegal for our faction?)

At any rate, looking forward to more about colonies and starsector in general. Your blog posts are crack to me, love the way you analyze and plan any mechanic you add to the game: something I think a lot of developers could learn from.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Inventor Raccoon on December 22, 2017, 05:07:29 PM
I'd probably recommend adding a grace period at the start of the game where you don't have to pay salaries (or add a temporary source of income like the inheritance you mentioned, that runs out after a couple of months)
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Alex on December 22, 2017, 06:12:03 PM
I like fighting the fleet battles, but I am going love building something for a change as well.

Yeah, hopefully it'll be a nice change of pace.

Can we colonize worlds in the name of, or for a faction? Or is it always as a faction?

I don't know - that sort of thing would make sense in the context of a commission, but fleshed-out commissions themselves aren't all that important to making all this work, so they're more of an optional extra than a base necessity.

How will factions feel about me setting up colonies? Will that be based upon my relations with them before I start playing Dictator?

I think that'll probably depend on the faction and on what you're doing, but no specifics just yet :)


Will other NPC's found their own factions?

Almost certainly not.


I'm gonna go ahead and ask the question I'm sure we are all wondering: Can we make food illegal? (more seriously, are illegal goods limited to the ~5 that exist for all other factions right now or can we make any good in the game we happen to feel like illegal for our faction?)

Hah! No way, that'd be weird. Illegal stuff would be limited to a predetermined set. To be honest, I'm not sure how big an impact it's going to have - right now that's entirely unimplemented, and the widget you see in the market screen is just a mockup.

At any rate, looking forward to more about colonies and starsector in general. Your blog posts are crack to me, love the way you analyze and plan any mechanic you add to the game: something I think a lot of developers could learn from.

Thank you!

(I'd bet most developers think about things in much the same way, pretty much anything that ends up in almost any game probably ended up that way for a reason and after some deliberation. I mean, I'm sure there are exceptions, and the lack of time can be a real issue, but still, I don't think there's anything particularly unique about the way I approach things.)


I'd probably recommend adding a grace period at the start of the game where you don't have to pay salaries (or add a temporary source of income like the inheritance you mentioned, that runs out after a couple of months)

Yeah, we'll see. Like I said in the blog post, it might be more than balanced out by the reliable - and lower - prices of supplies and fuel. But it could be a nice way to make the early game more forgiving, regardless.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Originem on December 22, 2017, 07:00:25 PM
All things well done!
But, how about the optimization? There is too much OOM now while playing game with lot's of mods. (have to restart the game regularly to prevent savings's failure) If added more new features, the memory is at risk.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Alex on December 22, 2017, 07:29:03 PM
All things well done!
But, how about the optimization? There is too much OOM now while playing game with lot's of mods. (have to restart the game regularly to prevent savings's failure) If added more new features, the memory is at risk.

Should be better, actually - none of the stuff here has a large memory footprint, and the new economy is not prone to having more data to keep track of as time goes on, like the old one was.

That said, if a particular mod has a memory leak, then that's not something I can do anything about. So it's a question whether having X amount of mods adds up to being "too much" (in which case stuff I do can/will make a difference) or whether one of the mods has an issue (in which case, nothing I can do that would help).
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Drokkath on December 22, 2017, 08:18:28 PM
I'm just hoping that concept of colony element to the game remains as an extension to the base game because over the years my will to play strategy and do math has withered almost to zero. I have more fun in SS when I steamroll over fleets of ships with one modded-in god-like commando ship than looking at pages and pages of micromanagement that'll drive me insane sooner or later.

If anything I'll probably still will just set up one colony for my own in-game fellow aliens and hopefully keep it going with Console Commands plus some light modding to make it all as much stressless for my brain as I can. Too much strategy has only driven me away from doing strategy to point of hating the very idea of strategy and use a proverbial sledgehammer to nuke the opposition and call it even. x_x


I'd love to have robots and/or custom (alien) crew on my ships instead of the regular human crew. Currently I treat human crew as an element that is supposed to be robots and/or fellow aliens on my ships. The closest I can get to alien element without changing crew sprites currently is turning that human crew into Mutons in my mind and treat both crew and marines as two-in-one unit.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Midnight Kitsune on December 22, 2017, 10:32:13 PM
@Midnight Kitsune: I mean, no matter the design, even if it's absolutely amazing, there are still ways to screw it up in the execution. I'll do my best to avoid the various pitfalls!

I understand and respect that. It is just that I've always been a bit of a perfectionist and pessimist and I try to see things from the newer players perspectives.

-Salaries and newbies: SS already has a BRUTAL start, even with the tutorial that no one ever takes. And now with salaries, I feel like it is going to cause even more death spirals because now the new player is going to have TWO monthly supply drains to worry about at least. Many times I read about players that struggle to make ends meet. Now they are gonna have to worry about packing enough supplies, fuel and now credits.
Hmm, I strongly disagree here. Anecdotal evidence suggests lots of people do the tutorial and that it - alongside other things - has helped *massively* with the early game difficulty. Of course, some people still have trouble, but that fraction of people that does seems to be far less.

Oh I do agree that many players were helped by the tutorial however for every one or two that might have issues here, there are 4, 5 or 10 on other forums (4chan, Something Awful, Discord) that have issues as well. And in many of these places you can post anonymously and it allows people to be quite a bit more open and forthcoming, if a bit crude and crash. I see many complain about the early game and many modders also agree that the early game is quite brutal and that the game has an inverted difficulty curve (that is no doubt caused by in part the game's incompleteness)

... especially with aptitudes being a tax that NO ONE ELSE pays.
The aptitude tax is awful, and as Midnight says, no one else gets to pay it.
Hmm - I have to be honest, I don't really get the "no-one else has to pay it" sentiment - they're just different mechanics. Maybe the reason for a level cap of 20 is to represent that they do have to invest in aptitudes etc behind the scenes, but it's not something the player needs to be bothered with. But even that I think isn't a great way to look at it because, again, just entirely different mechanics. Apples and oranges, you know?

That's the issue though: Officers are basically slightly weaker PCs that get to pick the fun skills. Their effective level is 30 (because no aptitudes and the bonus starting skill) and are able to get 7 of the 15 possible skills, spread out across 3 trees of skills. Meanwhile the player's effective skill level is anywhere between 36 (min. 2 aptitudes minus the two bonus points) to 30! which is EQUAL to that of the officers! Combine this with no player respec (can respec officers by spacing them and getting another) and HALF the skill tree being filled with three trees of worth of fleet boosting skills that only the player can pick. And even IF aptitudes were removed, players can't pick all of the fleet based skills... Not just this but ENEMY fleets also don't have to deal with this stuff
I don't know, it just never made sense to me that not only were aptitudes stripped of their skills but the player was given a level cap AND officers (not to mention enemy fleets) don't care about alot of stuff that the player has to (now with salaries being another nerf to the player)
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: RickyRio on December 23, 2017, 02:36:59 AM
A potential skill system rework might involve splitting different disciplines into their own pools of points, perhaps more like a talent tree system with 2-3 trees (combat, non combat, or combat, fleet, industry) that have trade offs WITHIN the tree itself. so you could gain "combat exp" to gain points to spend on combat skills, with possible trade offs between focusing on low-tech ships or high-tech ships or carriers, fleet points could be focused on the trade off of small fleets of high skilled ships (officers) vs the supply cost reductions to make larger fleets work. Industry could be a trade off of mantaining a huge fleet or focusing heavily on outpost construction.

Whats sorta coming to mind is a skill system like solder abilities in XCom and XCom 2 where at each level up you have one of two choices. But I really think combat and non-combat skills need to be decoupled otherwise the opportunity cost trade off leaves the player with an extremely sour choice.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Carabus on December 23, 2017, 03:17:02 AM
Another idea is to split player skills into "Officer skills" (the same skills officers have) and player-only skills and then only allow to spend 20 points on each group. This would make player equal to officers when it comes to Combat skills, and prevent the situation where either combat or fleetwide/industry skills have to be sacrificed by player.
To make player completely equal to officers, aptitudes would have to be free/removed (or added to officers), and there needs to be some ability to respec.
As for respec my idea would be that both player and officers can gain levels infinitely, but every level above level cap gives one "respec point" insteat of skill point. Respec point when activated converts one level of selected existing skill into a skill point to be spent elsewhere. This would allow the characters to evolve as they level up, but with a cap of 20 points spent on skills at any time, although the selected skills may change.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: HELMUT on December 23, 2017, 03:25:08 AM
I'm really exited for this, the outpost system will open quite a few new possibilities. I'd be curious to see how far a player faction can grow and what would be the effects on the global economy. While it seems unlikely the player will be able to reach something the size of the Hegemony or the League by fair means, i'd like to see the effects of some console command induced growth just for the hell of it.

As for the early game "nerf" that MK is talking about, whether or not the salary drain will have a noticeable effect on the actual gameplay, it will definitely add an intimidation factor for beginners. On the other hand, maybe commissions will give the player a monthly salary to offset that. It's too early to tell anyway, and can be subject to change afterwards if needed.

About the skills, fusing a bunch of them is probably the better option, especially for the "not so fun" ones. Even more so since those will probably become increasingly handy with outpost management. As for the aptitudes points that doesn't bring "anything", while i'm personally not really bothered by that issue, i can understand what Megas and MK are saying here. The aptitudes points are not pointless, but they do "feel" pointless which would explain the problem. An easy solution would be giving the aptitudes points a small bonus, similar to the old skill tree. Even a small percentage increase in whatever feels like progression to the player, instead of a "tax". That's also the occasion to condense further some of the current skills.

Oh also... Can i offer AI cores to other factions in the hope they'll cause mischief? Gifting murderbot magnets should totally be a thing.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Gothars on December 23, 2017, 04:10:51 AM
So, could you talk a little about what kind of challenge colony building provides for the player, Alex? The blog post gave me the impression you can either do a good or bad job at it, but right now I don't quite see how you could mess it up. Base building challenge is typically dependent on thoughtful placement of stuff, even if just abstractly on a grid. From what I see positioning of does not seem to be a factor here. Other cases I can think of where positioning is irrelevant (like Heroes of Might and Magic) use bases more as a externalized "skill tree" where you just have to decide what to upgrade first. Aside from AI-core shenanigans, can a colony fail in any way?
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Techhead on December 23, 2017, 06:08:55 AM
Hmm - I have to be honest, I don't really get the "no-one else has to pay it" sentiment - they're just different mechanics. Maybe the reason for a level cap of 20 is to represent that they do have to invest in aptitudes etc behind the scenes, but it's not something the player needs to be bothered with. But even that I think isn't a great way to look at it because, again, just entirely different mechanics. Apples and oranges, you know?

That's the issue though: Officers are basically slightly weaker PCs that get to pick the fun skills. Their effective level is 30 (because no aptitudes and the bonus starting skill) and are able to get 7 of the 15 possible skills, spread out across 3 trees of skills. Meanwhile the player's effective skill level is anywhere between 36 (min. 2 aptitudes minus the two bonus points) to 30! which is EQUAL to that of the officers! Combine this with no player respec (can respec officers by spacing them and getting another) and HALF the skill tree being filled with three trees of worth of fleet boosting skills that only the player can pick. And even IF aptitudes were removed, players can't pick all of the fleet based skills... Not just this but ENEMY fleets also don't have to deal with this stuff
I don't know, it just never made sense to me that not only were aptitudes stripped of their skills but the player was given a level cap AND officers (not to mention enemy fleets) don't care about alot of stuff that the player has to (now with salaries being another nerf to the player)
Your "30 player level = 30 officer level" has some fallacious math in it. As you have it:

The comparison is either 30 vs 42, or 21 vs 30-36. Stop counting the aptitude points twice against the players.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Cyan Leader on December 23, 2017, 07:20:39 AM
This got me thinking, once this gets added wouldn't the game reach its 1.0 stage? What other major feature would be left after Colonies/Late game?
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Megas on December 23, 2017, 07:27:09 AM
As I see it, it is officers' 21 vs. player's 30.  There are too many must-have player-only skills that exceed the nine point advantage player has over officers.  This is why player who want to be the best and/or have various QoL or exploration features locked behind skills, feels forced to play what Midnight calls "bard".  Player who wants to match officers' combat skill power really cannot without sacrificing too much power.  I am anticipating administrator envy on top of that with dread.

Combat:  Combat Endurance 1 is a must, due to AI stalling so much.  If player wants to use fighters (including gunships with Converted Hangar, which is a top-tier power option), then Helmsmanship 3 is a must to keep speed up while fighters are busy doing their thing.  That is three into Combat already, or one if forsaking fighters.

Leadership:  Multiple skills, but for me, Fleet Logistics 3 and Fighter Doctrine 3 are a given for every optimal character.  If I neither Salvage nor play mods, the Fighter Doctrine 2 is a must to get Converted Hangar.  Already three into Leadership already.

Technology:  Loadout Design 3 is a must, especially for extremely OP hungry carriers.  Even for non-carriers, it gets tiring mounting the same spartan loadout of open market weapons, high-to-max vents, and DTC/ITU on everything due to stingy OP budget.  Also, Electronic Warfare 1 to stay even with late-game enemies and maybe Navigation 3 for some people who dislike campaign obstacles.  Already three into Technology.

Industry:  This is must-max if player wants to play the exploration game.  Even if player does not want to play explorer, some of the other skills are nice QoL features.  Safety Procedures is also a decent combat buff.

That is a very likely nine point tax minimum into aptitudes.  If I want to explore, then twelve points will be sunk into aptitudes.

If the next iteration of the skill system keeps must-have level 3 perks scattered in at least three trees, such that the way to specialize (or generalize) is to cherry-pick the very best skills, then aptitudes will continue to remain viewed as taxes because player will need to spend nine or more points into aptitudes, and much of the tax is paid early when player is at his weakest.  Today, it is optimal to spend at least nine points on aptitudes for any character.  Later, if there will be fewer skills points, aptitudes will be an even bigger tax, despite condensed skills.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Megas on December 23, 2017, 07:39:40 AM
As for tutorial, I do it mainly for the early (random) heavy blaster and/or railguns.  Those weapons are rare enough that I am almost willing to start-scum the tutorial for them if I do not find them.  Also, having a ready-to-go starter kit is convenient.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Alex on December 23, 2017, 09:59:53 AM
I'm just hoping that concept of colony element to the game remains as an extension to the base game because over the years my will to play strategy and do math has withered almost to zero. I have more fun in SS when I steamroll over fleets of ships with one modded-in god-like commando ship than looking at pages and pages of micromanagement that'll drive me insane sooner or later.

If anything I'll probably still will just set up one colony for my own in-game fellow aliens and hopefully keep it going with Console Commands plus some light modding to make it all as much stressless for my brain as I can. Too much strategy has only driven me away from doing strategy to point of hating the very idea of strategy and use a proverbial sledgehammer to nuke the opposition and call it even. x_x

Fair enough :) Hopefully not much math would be required in the first place.


Oh I do agree that many players were helped by the tutorial however for every one or two that might have issues here, there are 4, 5 or 10 on other forums (4chan, Something Awful, Discord) that have issues as well. And in many of these places you can post anonymously and it allows people to be quite a bit more open and forthcoming, if a bit crude and crash. I see many complain about the early game and many modders also agree that the early game is quite brutal and that the game has an inverted difficulty curve (that is no doubt caused by in part the game's incompleteness)

Thanks for the info, I appreciate it. It's hard to draw exact conclusions (i.e. what fraction of people just don't say anything and are fine? vs don't say anything and have problems?) but the good thing is that I'm definitely seeing a *lot* less less people come to me with "getting started" issues (though of course many people have trouble getting off the ground, and I'm not trying to minimize that), and watching a few new players go through the game (via a few streams I've managed to catch), it's been a totally different experience than before due to the tutorial. As you say, though, it's not a cure-all.

Also, yeah, the end-game is easier because there's not too much of it. And it's another question - the early game is going to be more difficult for a new player than the late game because of the learning they'll do along the way, right? So the difficulty curve of a campaign playthrough looks different for a new player vs a more experienced one. Tuning too much for the former may lead to a worse experience for the latter, though I suppose that's where difficulty modes can come in.


That's the issue though: Officers are basically slightly weaker PCs that get to pick the fun skills. Their effective level is 30 (because no aptitudes and the bonus starting skill) and are able to get 7 of the 15 possible skills, spread out across 3 trees of skills. Meanwhile the player's effective skill level is anywhere between 36 (min. 2 aptitudes minus the two bonus points) to 30! which is EQUAL to that of the officers! Combine this with no player respec (can respec officers by spacing them and getting another) and HALF the skill tree being filled with three trees of worth of fleet boosting skills that only the player can pick. And even IF aptitudes were removed, players can't pick all of the fleet based skills... Not just this but ENEMY fleets also don't have to deal with this stuff
I don't know, it just never made sense to me that not only were aptitudes stripped of their skills but the player was given a level cap AND officers (not to mention enemy fleets) don't care about alot of stuff that the player has to (now with salaries being another nerf to the player)

Slightly dodge math aside, all I was really questioning there is the "no-one else has to pay" aspect of the argument. I will say that combat skills are definitely viable already - there's solid proof of that in being able to play through the game without *any* skills, so any skills you get are really gravy. A decent buff would probably bring them more in line with the rest, but it's already something you can invest in and be successful with.



I'm really exited for this, the outpost system will open quite a few new possibilities. I'd be curious to see how far a player faction can grow and what would be the effects on the global economy. While it seems unlikely the player will be able to reach something the size of the Hegemony or the League by fair means, i'd like to see the effects of some console command induced growth just for the hell of it.

That would be fun to see, if only to figure out what it takes to make the economy simulation crawl.


As for the early game "nerf" that MK is talking about, whether or not the salary drain will have a noticeable effect on the actual gameplay, it will definitely add an intimidation factor for beginners.

Hmm, that's a fair point.

An easy solution would be giving the aptitudes points a small bonus, similar to the old skill tree. Even a small percentage increase in whatever feels like progression to the player, instead of a "tax". That's also the occasion to condense further some of the current skills.

Ahh, that makes sense - there's more room for a minor bonus here if skills overall increase in power. Made a note to consider this. The one thing I don't like about it is it muddies the water as far as it being apparent what the function of aptitudes is. I mean, I can totally see "buff the Combat aptitude please, it's really bad compared to the skills" threads pop up.

Oh also... Can i offer AI cores to other factions in the hope they'll cause mischief? Gifting murderbot magnets should totally be a thing.

Mmmmmaybe.


So, could you talk a little about what kind of challenge colony building provides for the player, Alex? The blog post gave me the impression you can either do a good or bad job at it, but right now I don't quite see how you could mess it up. Base building challenge is typically dependent on thoughtful placement of stuff, even if just abstractly on a grid. From what I see positioning of does not seem to be a factor here. Other cases I can think of where positioning is irrelevant (like Heroes of Might and Magic) use bases more as a externalized "skill tree" where you just have to decide what to upgrade first. Aside from AI-core shenanigans, can a colony fail in any way?

Good question! I thought about doing a terrain grid with some ways to have a better or worse performing outpost depending on how well the player does. Ultimately, though, that feels too much like a mini-game, and I'm generally not a fan of those. So the idea is that you shouldn't be able to mess up the basic effectiveness of the things you build - i.e. you can add Mining, but you can't mess it up (or, on the flip side, do an extra good job with it). Well, you *can*, but that would be a higher-level decision of doing Mining on a mineral-poor world, let's say. Whether this mining operation will be successful will depend on outside-colony-internals factors.

What I was talking about in the blog post is, as far as doing a bad job of something - let's see, a couple of examples.

- Building a bunch of stuff on a high-hazard world, resulting in upkeep far outstripping income
- Building for the future but too early, again upkeep > income (or, just unneeded upkeep, really)

So, basically, it comes down to building stuff you either can't afford to maintain or don't need or both.

(Side note, related to your comment on the previous blog post: totally considering nuking reach now, and re-purposing waystations a bit. It's just such a pain in terms of conveying to the player.)


This got me thinking, once this gets added wouldn't the game reach its 1.0 stage? What other major feature would be left after Colonies/Late game?

There's stuff - content, and possibly a few mechanics that won't make it into the next release, because it's kind of massive.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Megas on December 23, 2017, 10:01:11 AM
From the sounds of Alpha cores administrators, that sounds like "Wish: More XP (and money)" that will result in a fight with major demons or something.  In other words, if player wants a fight (or more rare loot), stick an Alpha Core admin in a colony that outlived its usefulness (because player found better), let it take over, then farm the never-ending streams of Remnants for rare items and/or destroy its battlestation.
Alternatively, it might *** off the signatories of the Second AI War Treaty and have them knocking on your doorstep.
Missed this, but...

Eventually, assuming the game will support faction elimination as in Nexerelin, it does not matter if they get angry at me using cores because they will get angry anyway when I start invading and destroying them around endgame.  (Seizing their markets or planets to make my faction even richer is optional.)  Who cares when they are angry if they are dead shortly after war starts and my faction rules supreme?

None of the major factions are sypathetic.  Just tools to be used when useful, then destroyed when they outlive their usefulness and become competition.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Megas on December 23, 2017, 10:22:55 AM
Quote
Ahh, that makes sense - there's more room for a minor bonus here if skills overall increase in power. Made a note to consider this. The one thing I don't like about it is it muddies the water as far as it being apparent what the function of aptitudes is. I mean, I can totally see "buff the Combat aptitude please, it's really bad compared to the skills" threads pop up.
The reasons Combat is bad...

* None of the skills are significant game-changers, except Helmsmanship 3 for a carrier, and maybe Combat Endurance 1 to let a ship with lots of peak performance outlast an enemy in a stalling game (or let a ship with normally low peak performance stay in battle as long as other ships).  Before 0.8, a max-skilled Wolf could destroy an unskilled Onslaught (while unskilled Wolf simply died), and skilled Onslaught could solo simulator-sized fights.  Today, Medusa with Combat skills struggles against an Eagle almost as much as an unskilled Medusa.  Similarly, my slower bigger ships still cannot catch up to smaller ships and engage.  In other words, combat skills are minor enhancements, but do not let my ships do anything they could not do while unskilled.  Helmsmanship 3 is an exception that it lets my carrier flagship kite from everything while fighters kill everyone.

* Some of the bonuses (like more max CR) are set when a ship burns in.  For those, it is more cost effective to get more max officers from Officer Management, train one or both of the two for those skills they can take, then transfer to their ships for their set bonuses.

* In few cases, Leadership provides better bonuses for the same cost.  For example, Combat Endurance 3 gives +15% CR for one ship (and player or officer must get the lemon called Combat Endurance 2).  Fleet Logistics 3 gives +15% CR to everyone (and the previous Fleet Logistics levels are all great), but only the player can take it.  Also, one of the Damage Control perks lets the player always recover a ship in battle, but if player gets Fleet Logistics (and it is one of the best skills at all levels), then Damage Control 1 becomes useless aside from prerequisite to Damage Control 2 (which is nice).  Simply put, Combat does not give enough bang for the buck, and with many other highly rewarding skills akin to Fleet Logistics and Loadout Design that tend to help the fleet elsewhere, player who wants power must get the buffer skills and play "bard".
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Igncom1 on December 23, 2017, 10:33:32 AM
The reach for one colony to trade with another, doesn't that depend on the trader more then the location? Small trader NPC's who don't have any fuel tankers are much more limited in fuel range for travel then a massive salvager fleet with strategic level fuel tankers.

So wouldn't reach or range from one colony to another just affect the volume of traders willing to make the trip rather then some kind of yes/no value?

Not to mention travelling a long way only for the destination port to have no fuel, which is a mistake I frequently make.

I would suppose way stations might be more like a fuel depot where weary travellers can resupply and refuel before continuing their journey. Which would need a source of fuel, local or import in order to act as a reach extender.

Connecting to the central fuel refineries of the sector might be enough for a fuel leap frogging scheme for the players faction to encourage traffic down their interstellar highway. But a player owned source would likely be so much cheaper as to be a viable source of income from sales. All before you set up the space tourist traps.

Assuming I am making any sense whatsoever.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Alex on December 23, 2017, 10:53:53 AM
Today, Medusa with Combat skills struggles against an Eagle almost as much as an unskilled Medusa.

Hmm - I think you may want to take another look, maybe you're assuming a few things about what's optimal that no longer quite hold up? A max-combat-skilled "Attack" Medusa variant (let alone one that includes the tech skills as well) easily mauls an unskilled Eagle while taking no hull damage. A loadout with Heavy Blasters etc has a lot more trouble, though, but that one is more of a "team player".

I mean, I think you definitely have a point as far as forcing engagements etc, but the Medusa/Eagle thing just doesn't seem at all accurate.


Spoiler
The reach for one colony to trade with another, doesn't that depend on the trader more then the location? Small trader NPC's who don't have any fuel tankers are much more limited in fuel range for travel then a massive salvager fleet with strategic level fuel tankers.

So wouldn't reach or range from one colony to another just affect the volume of traders willing to make the trip rather then some kind of yes/no value?

Not to mention travelling a long way only for the destination port to have no fuel, which is a mistake I frequently make.

I would suppose way stations might be more like a fuel depot where weary travellers can resupply and refuel before continuing their journey. Which would need a source of fuel, local or import in order to act as a reach extender.

Connecting to the central fuel refineries of the sector might be enough for a fuel leap frogging scheme for the players faction to encourage traffic down their interstellar highway. But a player owned source would likely be so much cheaper as to be a viable source of income from sales. All before you set up the space tourist traps.

Assuming I am making any sense whatsoever.
[close]

Well, reach mechanics on the colony/campaign level should be all about what makes things work right as far as UI/gameplay/mechanics/etc. I'm not sure that starting from "what would make sense" is necessarily very productive here - a lot of things might make sense depending on the economics and assorted in-fiction details, but what we really want is something that's easy for the player to digest and to interact with.

Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Megas on December 23, 2017, 12:36:38 PM
Today, Medusa with Combat skills struggles against an Eagle almost as much as an unskilled Medusa.

Hmm - I think you may want to take another look, maybe you're assuming a few things about what's optimal that no longer quite hold up? A max-combat-skilled "Attack" Medusa variant (let alone one that includes the tech skills as well) easily mauls an unskilled Eagle while taking no hull damage. A loadout with Heavy Blasters etc has a lot more trouble, though, but that one is more of a "team player".

I mean, I think you definitely have a point as far as forcing engagements etc, but the Medusa/Eagle thing just doesn't seem at all accurate.
I did, and you are right.  Not only Attack Medusa, but also a couple custom configurations I use for the 0.8.x environment.  Actually, two Heavy Blasters and Railguns does not have much more trouble, Medusa just does a bit more hit-and-run and venting, but the Eagle is dead very fast.  What I like to use is Needlers, one Heavy Blaster, and one Ion Beam.  Needlers for shield damage, Ion Beam for piercing, and Blaster as a finisher, and that works too.  (Without skills, Eagle was too hard.  Almost got it with the Needler, Blaster, and Ion Beam combo while unskilled once, but one mistake on unresponsive shields blew that attempt.)

Later, I tried skilled Medusa against SIM Onslaught then SIM Paragon.  Onslaught was dead soon enough, but Medusa was overpowered by Paragon.  (I did not spend too much time trying to kill capitals.)

It is likely that either I used a more 0.7.2 style loadout, tested it against a different ship, or I did not have all of the Combat skills when I did that first test long ago.

That is the thing.  For my flagship to have that much Combat power, I need to give up everything else - fleet, carrier-and-fighters, exploration, and various QoL, including all-powerful Loadout Design 3.  My combat monster is a one-trick pony, and unlike pre-0.8.x, my combat monster is not all-powerful.  (I also remember trying full combat Paragon against the simulator, and Paragon was helpless against frigates due to them refusing to engage until thirty or so could swarm and attack at once; no way Paragon can defend against that many assailants.)  I do not need to make such a sacrifice with other archetypes like carrier specialist.  With a carrier specialist, I might not be able to get everything to qualify as a generalist, but at least have few leftover points to grab exploration, QoL, or some combat skills to round out a bit more.

The main problems with Combat or personal-only skills is it costs too much to get enough to matter (unless player can avoid junk perks) and more officers can probably do much of that job instead of player.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Drokkath on December 23, 2017, 01:36:15 PM
I'm just hoping that concept of colony element to the game remains as an extension to the base game because over the years my will to play strategy and do math has withered almost to zero. I have more fun in SS when I steamroll over fleets of ships with one modded-in god-like commando ship than looking at pages and pages of micromanagement that'll drive me insane sooner or later.

If anything I'll probably still will just set up one colony for my own in-game fellow aliens and hopefully keep it going with Console Commands plus some light modding to make it all as much stressless for my brain as I can. Too much strategy has only driven me away from doing strategy to point of hating the very idea of strategy and use a proverbial sledgehammer to nuke the opposition and call it even. x_x

Fair enough :) Hopefully not much math would be required in the first place.

Thanks, I'm most likely in the very minority here with this but I felt like responding still just in-case.

To clarify what I meant a bit more is that I'm still able to do minor amounts of strategy more than math aka I guesstimate instead of doing math so essentially when it comes to math I think of numbers as tetris blocks. In strategy games, usually somewhere at late early-game to stressful mid-game to (especially) infuriating end-game are all risky areas where my proverbial fuse gets shorter due to stress and inability to play any further. Hence why I can't never finish 90% of the mission campaigns in SS still because by the time I find something that gets me further a bit I'm just too unstable to progress any further as that part of the game becomes exercise in extreme frustration.

So yeah... that is pretty much why I don't bother playing SS like everyone else and instead resort to doing some modding and cheating to turn things in my favor ten-fold because I like a lot how the combat feels in the game, especially when things are in my favor. Mind you, as far as difficulty goes I'm not suggesting an easier way to play here as I already know how to mod in an altered ship and a few super weapons for it to feel awesome playing in normal difficulty. It's just the upcoming colony system that got me wondering about how it could affect me. :-\
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Mr. Nobody on December 23, 2017, 03:06:59 PM
So, since we can assign cores to manage colonies, when can we expect the ability (or the APIs) to bolster up our ships capabilities by having wAIfu Cores manage certain components of the ship? Like, i dunno, the flux conduits or the engines?

Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Coriantumr on December 23, 2017, 05:19:00 PM
Would love it if alpha cores had identities (unique serial numbers) and simple personalities consisting of a solitary trait (their level of submissiveness/rebelliousness) which determines the likelihood/intensity of their subversive actions. The player would have to learn, perhaps through trial and error alone, which alpha cores could be trusted. Would also love to see AI cores installed in ships, especially if it means a rebellious ai might abandon you in mid-battle by speeding off with one of your ships. Hunting down that AI to recover it, and the ship it stole, would be a fantastic player-driven mission.

I don't find the early-game to be too difficult (although I haven't been a brand new player for a long time), but I agree that the game becomes too easy in the mid-late game. I'm hoping that, with the advent of faction-building, growing your faction quickly draws negative attention from existing factions. I'd even like to see most/all factions uniting against the player faction as the player becomes too powerful in the very late game. I think the player should have to plan carefully in order to survive the hostility they will face when they start claiming planets and drawing immigrant populations away from other factions.

In other words, I'd like to see the npc factions 'playing to win' which should mean that they try desperately to stop anyone else (especially the player) from winning (dominating the sector). I think that would result in an appropriate progression in difficulty.

Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: AspirantEmperor on December 23, 2017, 06:52:51 PM
Just want to chime in, as a new-er-ish player, the most challenging part is the information dump. It takes you time to learn about the world. You need to see how tariffs make trade-based profit difficult, and then how food shortages, etc, provide opportunities to profit anyway. You need to learn from hard experience that unnecessary, reward-less combat is a bad thing. You need to realize how important it is to keep that last 5-10k in the bank and not spend it on a new ship. You'll need it for repairs, fuel, product for trade, etc, before you make more. The tutorial helps massively with teaching you some basics, and for telling you what you can do. And it leaves you in a much better starting place than you'd be in without it. But you still need to learn what you should do on your own. Once you know that, Starsector's start - even sans tutorial - isn't that bad. I've started 6 games now (most haven't gone far), and I'm now quite confident I can get up and running.

So yea, introduce wages if you want; it won't stop me. And for the completely new player, I think a bigger concern is not "how do we avoid intimidating them" but more "how do we help them feel there's something clear and useful they can do to overcome it."

When it comes to skills, I think compressing each branch to six skills will probably help combat, since combat has the most skills to compress down. But may I propose a solution I haven't seen here yet? You could nerf officers. I was really surprised when I saw they could learn up to 7 skills (I was expecting 4 or 5), because with 7 an officer is as good at their job as anyone could be (barring player skill). And you could make an argument that combat skills are more valuable on the player than on officers because player skill acts as a multiplier, but a player comparing the stats of their ship under their command to under their officer's won't feel that way. Besides,

1) As the game goes on, fights tend to get larger. And as fights get larger, the player's ship becomes a smaller part of the overall fleet, and skills that benefit only their ship become less valuable.

and 2) As ships get larger, they become less mobile. Less mobility means less ability to capitalize on an opportunity, and so player skill becomes less important (not worthless, just less important). Personally I think this is a good thing; I like that there's an incentive a player might fly a cruiser or maybe a top-notch destroyer even when a fight has capital ships. However, it does mean that officers become more powerful relative to the player as the game progresses and ships get larger.

As the game goes on, a combat-focused player will probably feel progressively weaker. An officer has seven skills, which is more than just a noticeable improvement over an officer-less ship; it's enough to get everything relevant to the officer's role. Even a player that gets more combat skills than the officer won't feel stronger, because the additional skills they have are ones that wouldn't benefit the officer much anyway. It gets even worse for a player who wants to build half-and-half combat and utility, because if he does want to fight he's still outclassed by officers and if he's never going to fight, he may as well have picked up more utility instead.

By comparison, Fleet Logistics and Fighter Doctrine stay steady in power, no matter how large the fleet. Loadout Design may even become better as ships become more specialized and ordinance points allow that (10% better overall becomes ~20% better at your job & no change in irrelevant stuff). I expect these will keep a non-combat player relevant even if the officer level cap is lower.

But I've gone on longer than I meant to. I just wanted to say that for a combat build (or half-and-half build) to be useful, a player must be able to out-perform an officer at their own job (or tie them, in the case of half-and-half). If we move to a system with 8 combat skills (6 in the combat tree and the 2 currently under technology) I'd be worried if an officer could learn more than 3.

But, believe it or not, that was just preamble because I wanted to talk about colonies and ways to fail. I can think of two ways a colony could fail - emigration and a slow (or not-so-slow) dying out, and conquest. (Also revolution, but I don't think there's going to be enough internal management of the planet to make that fair.)

If you have immigration numbers, and those numbers can be negative, then I'd expect there's a way for a population to fall (or not, that might get tricky). If it can fall, and it falls below 3, it makes sense that the population might just disband and abandon the world. It might be difficult to get immigration numbers that low, but I'd hope that it would happen if the planet had no supply - local, stockpile, or traded - of a basic good (food, fuel, supplies, maybe domestic goods). That alone should doom any colony on the edge of space without waystations, though I could also see it happening if a player went to war with their only supplier of something.

This may not be intended, but I would personally love the challenge of setting up 2 or 3 colonies at the same time in deep space such that they each produce what each other needs. Though I guess it might produce overly-profitable player trade routes since there would be two completely isolated sets of markets. Of course, I expect this to be a non-starter because the player won't be able to produce fuel anywhere. (That all seems to come from dominion-era tech. Though, two-birds-one-stone, a dominion antimatter fuel assembly would be a hell of a thing to loot from a dominion mothership. Also, if you did loot one, there's almost no way the other factions wouldn't take interest in your colony and its valuable, irreplaceable strategic resource.)

Which leads to the next threat: conquest. I'd imagine a new, lightly-equipped colony would be a prime target for small pirate fleets, at least until its first defenses came online. That would mean you could only establish a colony once you had the ability to fight for it. And I'd imagine the fighting is harder the closer you are to the core worlds (and by extension, most pirates). This is the trouble that replaces stretched trade - which is not a problem so close to core worlds. Though I picture pirate raids largely dying out once the colony has some way to defend itself. You wouldn't want to make the player stay there forever.

Of course, other parties might become interested. The Hegemony may want to preempt a strong faction that might side with the Persean League (because that went so well last time.) The Ludds might take issue with heavy industry, doubly so on a Terran or other god-given wonder-world. I think it's just a reality that having a prosperous planet means you'd need to defend it once in a while, even if it can handle any non-noteworthy threat itself. I just hope it's not frequent enough to make the long travel time to go defend remote settlements feel like a drag.

So, how's that for a second comment? Please excuse me while I never type again.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Alex on December 24, 2017, 11:59:07 AM
I did, and you are right.  Not only Attack Medusa, but also a couple custom configurations I use for the 0.8.x environment.  Actually, two Heavy Blasters and Railguns does not have much more trouble, Medusa just does a bit more hit-and-run and venting, but the Eagle is dead very fast.  What I like to use is Needlers, one Heavy Blaster, and one Ion Beam.  Needlers for shield damage, Ion Beam for piercing, and Blaster as a finisher, and that works too.  (Without skills, Eagle was too hard.  Almost got it with the Needler, Blaster, and Ion Beam combo while unskilled once, but one mistake on unresponsive shields blew that attempt.)

Later, I tried skilled Medusa against SIM Onslaught then SIM Paragon.  Onslaught was dead soon enough, but Medusa was overpowered by Paragon.  (I did not spend too much time trying to kill capitals.)

It is likely that either I used a more 0.7.2 style loadout, tested it against a different ship, or I did not have all of the Combat skills when I did that first test long ago.

That is the thing.  For my flagship to have that much Combat power, I need to give up everything else - fleet, carrier-and-fighters, exploration, and various QoL, including all-powerful Loadout Design 3.  My combat monster is a one-trick pony, and unlike pre-0.8.x, my combat monster is not all-powerful.  (I also remember trying full combat Paragon against the simulator, and Paragon was helpless against frigates due to them refusing to engage until thirty or so could swarm and attack at once; no way Paragon can defend against that many assailants.)  I do not need to make such a sacrifice with other archetypes like carrier specialist.  With a carrier specialist, I might not be able to get everything to qualify as a generalist, but at least have few leftover points to grab exploration, QoL, or some combat skills to round out a bit more.

The main problems with Combat or personal-only skills is it costs too much to get enough to matter (unless player can avoid junk perks) and more officers can probably do much of that job instead of player.

I wonder how many of the skills are really necessary to make a difference. For 1v1s, the defensive skills may be important if you can't outrange, but in a fleet setting, I think just getting the offensive skills may be enough to get most of the benefit, and that starts to be more affordable point-wise.

Not saying that Combat isn't a bit weaker overall - I think it is, and the various arguments as to why hold water - but I do think its viability is underrated. (Also, side note, it *should* be somewhat weaker in terms of total fleet strength, since it's also cheaper.)

One other thing I was thinking about for a skill revamp is adding an extra "mastery" effect to all the combat skills, unlocked at level 3 for each skill, that would apply to all ships in the fleet (including the flagship). It wouldn't add up to anywhere near having an officer on board, but it'd be something the player can't get without investing into the skill personally.

Again, though, entirely undecided on changes as of yet, just mulling these things over.


To clarify what I meant a bit more is that I'm still able to do minor amounts of strategy more than math aka I guesstimate instead of doing math so essentially when it comes to math I think of numbers as tetris blocks. In strategy games, usually somewhere at late early-game to stressful mid-game to (especially) infuriating end-game are all risky areas where my proverbial fuse gets shorter due to stress and inability to play any further. Hence why I can't never finish 90% of the mission campaigns in SS still because by the time I find something that gets me further a bit I'm just too unstable to progress any further as that part of the game becomes exercise in extreme frustration.

So yeah... that is pretty much why I don't bother playing SS like everyone else and instead resort to doing some modding and cheating to turn things in my favor ten-fold because I like a lot how the combat feels in the game, especially when things are in my favor. Mind you, as far as difficulty goes I'm not suggesting an easier way to play here as I already know how to mod in an altered ship and a few super weapons for it to feel awesome playing in normal difficulty. It's just the upcoming colony system that got me wondering about how it could affect me. :-\

Yep, I gotcha. My patience for certain types of games is also more than a bit low. The important part is to have fun, and I'm glad the mods let you do that.


So, since we can assign cores to manage colonies, when can we expect the ability (or the APIs) to bolster up our ships capabilities by having wAIfu Cores manage certain components of the ship? Like, i dunno, the flux conduits or the engines?

I doubt it, tbh. I mean, I could see some sort of system where a specific hullmod requires an AI core to install or whatever, but that's such a side thing.



So, how's that for a second comment? Please excuse me while I never type again.

Ha! Welcome to the forum, by the way :)

Just want to chime in, as a new-er-ish player, the most challenging part is the information dump. It takes you time to learn about the world. You need to see how tariffs make trade-based profit difficult, and then how food shortages, etc, provide opportunities to profit anyway. You need to learn from hard experience that unnecessary, reward-less combat is a bad thing. You need to realize how important it is to keep that last 5-10k in the bank and not spend it on a new ship. You'll need it for repairs, fuel, product for trade, etc, before you make more. The tutorial helps massively with teaching you some basics, and for telling you what you can do. And it leaves you in a much better starting place than you'd be in without it. But you still need to learn what you should do on your own. Once you know that, Starsector's start - even sans tutorial - isn't that bad. I've started 6 games now (most haven't gone far), and I'm now quite confident I can get up and running.

Thank you for the feedback here, always great to get more info from a new-player perspective.


Spoiler
When it comes to skills, I think compressing each branch to six skills will probably help combat, since combat has the most skills to compress down. But may I propose a solution I haven't seen here yet? You could nerf officers. I was really surprised when I saw they could learn up to 7 skills (I was expecting 4 or 5), because with 7 an officer is as good at their job as anyone could be (barring player skill). And you could make an argument that combat skills are more valuable on the player than on officers because player skill acts as a multiplier, but a player comparing the stats of their ship under their command to under their officer's won't feel that way. Besides,

1) As the game goes on, fights tend to get larger. And as fights get larger, the player's ship becomes a smaller part of the overall fleet, and skills that benefit only their ship become less valuable.

and 2) As ships get larger, they become less mobile. Less mobility means less ability to capitalize on an opportunity, and so player skill becomes less important (not worthless, just less important). Personally I think this is a good thing; I like that there's an incentive a player might fly a cruiser or maybe a top-notch destroyer even when a fight has capital ships. However, it does mean that officers become more powerful relative to the player as the game progresses and ships get larger.

As the game goes on, a combat-focused player will probably feel progressively weaker. An officer has seven skills, which is more than just a noticeable improvement over an officer-less ship; it's enough to get everything relevant to the officer's role. Even a player that gets more combat skills than the officer won't feel stronger, because the additional skills they have are ones that wouldn't benefit the officer much anyway. It gets even worse for a player who wants to build half-and-half combat and utility, because if he does want to fight he's still outclassed by officers and if he's never going to fight, he may as well have picked up more utility instead.

By comparison, Fleet Logistics and Fighter Doctrine stay steady in power, no matter how large the fleet. Loadout Design may even become better as ships become more specialized and ordinance points allow that (10% better overall becomes ~20% better at your job & no change in irrelevant stuff). I expect these will keep a non-combat player relevant even if the officer level cap is lower.

But I've gone on longer than I meant to. I just wanted to say that for a combat build (or half-and-half build) to be useful, a player must be able to out-perform an officer at their own job (or tie them, in the case of half-and-half). If we move to a system with 8 combat skills (6 in the combat tree and the 2 currently under technology) I'd be worried if an officer could learn more than 3.
[close]

Yep, I get what you're saying here. I think there's some nuance and future details that may affect how this adds up.

For example, suppose that you're able to fight alongside fleets launched by your colonies. That changes the equation drastically - all of a sudden, personal skills matter a lot more, because your allied ships have their own officers/fleet skills etc, and what you'd take wouldn't affect them anyway. So you could either fight alongside them with a fleet (sharing limited deployment points), or contribute your maxed-out flagship (which would make the overall force potentially much stronger).

Also, while the general point of "as battles get larger, the player's ship matters less" makes sense, I don't think in practice it holds up quite as well. The larger ships are slower, but some have mobility systems (the Onslaught in particular can really get around), and even the Paragon can make half-decent time with Helmsmanship 3 - and it's got extra range to help it out. Larger ships also do the work more quickly when they get there, and battles involving larger ships tend to be slower overall, giving you more time to work with. So, yeah, in a hypothetical infinite-sized battle, the player won't matter much, but with the sizes we have to work with, I think player influence can scale pretty well.

(But, to your main point - officers are probably a bit too good, though I don't think by very much.)


(That all seems to come from dominion-era tech. Though, two-birds-one-stone, a dominion antimatter fuel assembly would be a hell of a thing to loot from a dominion mothership. Also, if you did loot one, there's almost no way the other factions wouldn't take interest in your colony and its valuable, irreplaceable strategic resource.)

That would be fun, wouldn't it?


Which leads to the next threat: conquest. I'd imagine a new, lightly-equipped colony would be a prime target for small pirate fleets, at least until its first defenses came online. That would mean you could only establish a colony once you had the ability to fight for it. And I'd imagine the fighting is harder the closer you are to the core worlds (and by extension, most pirates). This is the trouble that replaces stretched trade - which is not a problem so close to core worlds. Though I picture pirate raids largely dying out once the colony has some way to defend itself. You wouldn't want to make the player stay there forever.

Of course, other parties might become interested. The Hegemony may want to preempt a strong faction that might side with the Persean League (because that went so well last time.) The Ludds might take issue with heavy industry, doubly so on a Terran or other god-given wonder-world. I think it's just a reality that having a prosperous planet means you'd need to defend it once in a while, even if it can handle any non-noteworthy threat itself. I just hope it's not frequent enough to make the long travel time to go defend remote settlements feel like a drag.

I don't find the early-game to be too difficult (although I haven't been a brand new player for a long time), but I agree that the game becomes too easy in the mid-late game. I'm hoping that, with the advent of faction-building, growing your faction quickly draws negative attention from existing factions. I'd even like to see most/all factions uniting against the player faction as the player becomes too powerful in the very late game. I think the player should have to plan carefully in order to survive the hostility they will face when they start claiming planets and drawing immigrant populations away from other factions.

Yep, this more or less matches up with how I'm thinking about this. Let's see how it pans out :)
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Igncom1 on December 24, 2017, 12:02:43 PM
Well, less fun and more !FUN! if you catch my drift.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Alex on December 24, 2017, 12:07:04 PM
Potato, poTAHto.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Megas on December 24, 2017, 01:56:01 PM
Quote
I wonder how many of the skills are really necessary to make a difference. For 1v1s, the defensive skills may be important if you can't outrange, but in a fleet setting, I think just getting the offensive skills may be enough to get most of the benefit, and that starts to be more affordable point-wise.
Combat is viable because no skills is viable (at least in 0.8 ) given a sufficiently large fleet.  In a fleet setting, combat is less important.  Combat for the flagship is probably most useful for players who want to solo fights against enemies with traditional gunships.

Outranging enemies helps, but that alone is not enough if the enemy is faster and has the numbers to overwhelm the defender.  If AI was not so cowardly, max-skilled Paragon could probably slaughter everything.  As is, Paragon hits a brick wall once only (a swarm of) frigates are left.  This is why I use abuse fighters because nothing outspeeds all fighters.

There are not too many offensive perks.  The best ones (for gunships) are in Technology (Gunnery Implants and Power Grid Modulation for some loadouts that need the flux bonuses to work).  As for Combat itself, Ordnance Expert 3 is good, but gated behind two junk levels/perks, making it too high an opportunity cost.  Ordnance Expert 3 is a classic case of just getting two more officers from Officer Management and let them get that Combat skill instead of you.  One point for two guys that can get it, a great bargain, instead of player spending three points for his ship alone.  Repeat this for several skills and this is how player may feel forced to be the cleric or bard if he wants the most power.


Re: patience
This is why I like fast leveling in Starsector, and I like how most ships are relatively easy to obtain with recovery.  (I wish the game could handle speeds greater than 2f without things breaking, though; 1f is much too slow for comfort, 2.5f to 3f would be ideal, except sounds do not always play at the right time.)  I probably would be annoyed if I need to spend hours, days, or even months grinding enough XP for one level or replay a fight many times before a rare and powerful item drops.  ...Or if I need to play long enough to check off a list of numerous frivolous achievements before I unlock desirable game features.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: AspirantEmperor on December 24, 2017, 02:03:22 PM
Great to hear what you're thinking. And yea, I hadn't thought about what it'd be like fighting with allied fleets from your faction.

Actually, now I'm really looking forward to that. Some of my favorite fights are joining patrols vs pirates/other factions. If I own a fleet and am facing one three times my size I should really run, because fighting will cost me dearly. But if an ally is fighting 3 to 1 and I have a couple of frigates nearby I can give my best shot at turning it around. Not to be callous to my allies, but when I'm not directly paying for their replacements, a brutal fight that can come down to only a handful of survivors per side can still be something I gain from, where if I did own the whole fleet, the best case scenario would still cost a fortune to rebuild from. I'm hoping this means we get more fights like that.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Thaago on December 24, 2017, 07:36:19 PM
We already have two skill tracks: individual ship boosting skills (those officers can take) and fleet boosting/ability adding skills(those officers can't take). I propose chopping the skill system apart along those lines.

I think its fundamentally unsatisfying in a game focused on flying our spaceship and blowing up enemies for the individual ship boosting skills to be suboptimal - the player should not be worse than the officers at boosting their own ships unless the officer is higher level than the player. "Officer Envy" is real and bad.

At the same time, if the single ship boosting skills are too powerful it skews combat greatly towards just deploying ships with officers, max combat skills, and then always picking the same few 'must have' other skills (see .7.2 skill balance). Finding the sweet spot between 'super ships away!' and 'strong fleet, weak player' is a difficult design job that changes with any new feature. (Not to say you can't do it, but hard is time consuming.)

With that in mind, I think the skills system should have two types of points. Officers get individual ship boosting skills. The player gets both an individual and a fleet-wide each level. I'm on the fence about aptitudes - I get that they are supposed to make player specialization more optimal, but I don't think they work as they are right now.

A huge advantage of two types of points is that it separates the balance between the two skill categories. Individual ship affecting skills can have different power levels from fleet wide skills and it doesn't matter, because they no longer compete for points (Combat Endurance 3 vs Fleet Logistics 3 wouldn't be a problem). The balance between officer/non-officer combat ships can be tuned easily without messing with anything else.

UI wise, you could recycle the current look by turning the aptitude area into the number of points available for that type of skill.

Its also an extensible system: Maybe there is another point type for colonies that has the administrator skills? Maybe the different types of points are tracked separately, and you level each with different activities?

Well that turned a bit long. :P
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Drokkath on December 24, 2017, 07:36:45 PM
Yep, I gotcha. My patience for certain types of games is also more than a bit low. The important part is to have fun, and I'm glad the mods let you do that.

Thank you, especially for making it possible to mod the game with ease. :)

I probably would be annoyed if I need to spend hours, days, or even months grinding enough XP for one level or replay a fight many times before a rare and powerful item drops.  ...Or if I need to play long enough to check off a list of numerous frivolous achievements before I unlock desirable game features.

Oh dear, yeah. *shudders* I hear ya as I feel the same way about it. To like-minded people (aka us in a sense), it is both torture and horror in a digital form.
I'd rather face a biomechanoid from an unknown derelict ship on LV-426 alone with only one harpoon gun with no spare harpoons other than what is already loaded in the gun while not trying to disturb or even get close to leathery objects in stasis.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Thaago on December 24, 2017, 07:39:12 PM
More on topic of far flung outposts, I think it would be cool if there were a few small, independent colonies strung out in the outer systems that the player could find. I often see groups of scavengers all mining the same resources in a far off system, so if they had some hidden base that I could tail them back to and then trade with it would be really cool. And then it would be on my map to plan future expeditions around.

It would make things feel a bit more alive. On the other hand, it would upset that "far away from any civilization" feel the outer sector has at present.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: intrinsic_parity on December 24, 2017, 08:27:11 PM
You need to see how tariffs make trade-based profit difficult, and then how food shortages, etc, provide opportunities to profit anyway. You need to learn from hard experience that unnecessary, reward-less combat is a bad thing.

This is very true. I think the biggest obstacle for new players is going to be their experience with other games. There are a significant number of things in starsector that seem like they should be profitable but aren't (trade, general combat, and selling ships specifically). In other games, these things would be the main way to make money, but in starsector, they are actually money sinks. I would say the game can be very deceptive in that way. New players will try to make money in the way they would in other games only to find that they have lost money. I can see how this could become frustrating very fast.

We already have two skill tracks: individual ship boosting skills (those officers can take) and fleet boosting/ability adding skills(those officers can't take). I propose chopping the skill system apart along those lines.

I strongly second this suggestion. I think as long as the skill system is comparing player ship skills to fleet wide skills, it will struggle to be balanced. If a player ship skill is strong enough to justify taking it over a fleet wide skill, then it causes a bigger increase in player power than buffing every (or maybe a subset of) ship in the fleet. This seems like it will inherently lead to either overpowered player ships and officers or underpowered combat skills. I don't like the idea of combat skills as a sub optimal choice in a combat focused game. I really think that separating the types of skills will make balance much easier.

An alternative suggestion for the skill system is to add logistics officers that the player can use to gain qol and other necessary fleet wide skills while personally focusing on combat effectiveness. This could also add significance to the loss of officers.

More on topic of far flung outposts, I think it would be cool if there were a few small, independent colonies strung out in the outer systems that the player could find. I often see groups of scavengers all mining the same resources in a far off system, so if they had some hidden base that I could tail them back to and then trade with it would be really cool. And then it would be on my map to plan future expeditions around.

It would make things feel a bit more alive. On the other hand, it would upset that "far away from any civilization" feel the outer sector has at present.

I personally think finding small pockets of civilization far out in the empty expanse is the single most exciting thing to have in an exploration game. As long as they aren't all over (I think 1-3 per map) this would be amazing. Also finding a secret tritach research base with cool tech would also be really cool. Basically the feeling of stumbling on something secret and valuable in the middle of nowhere is incredibly intriguing.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Techhead on December 24, 2017, 08:50:17 PM
More on topic of far flung outposts, I think it would be cool if there were a few small, independent colonies strung out in the outer systems that the player could find. I often see groups of scavengers all mining the same resources in a far off system, so if they had some hidden base that I could tail them back to and then trade with it would be really cool. And then it would be on my map to plan future expeditions around.

It would make things feel a bit more alive. On the other hand, it would upset that "far away from any civilization" feel the outer sector has at present.

I personally think finding small pockets of civilization far out in the empty expanse is the single most exciting thing to have in an exploration game. As long as they aren't all over (I think 1-3 per map) this would be amazing. Also finding a secret tritach research base with cool tech would also be really cool. Basically the feeling of stumbling on something secret and valuable in the middle of nowhere is incredibly intriguing.

I would love to see some of this. From secret research bases and remote pirate hideaways to simple backwater colonies struggling to get by.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: TaLaR on December 24, 2017, 09:30:45 PM
At the same time, if the single ship boosting skills are too powerful it skews combat greatly towards just deploying ships with officers, max combat skills, and then always picking the same few 'must have' other skills (see .7.2 skill balance).

Unless personal/officer skill are nerfed into complete oblivion, deploying unofficered ships is always a wrong choice (unless your fleet is just random salvage and you have no control over it's composition whatsoever).
Correct fleet composition starts by taking battlesize and dividing it by amount of available Officers, maybe with some left-over in reserve (including CR bench-warmers).

10 officers limit completely invalidates compositions like frigate swarm (unless battlesize is ridiculously low). Considering that officers will cost upkeep in next version, even removing limit won't fix this problem (1 officer per Onslaught is way more efficient, than 1 per frigate). Synthetic solution could be giving single Officer's skills (including player character) to a pool of ships (A capital/cruiser + frigate/DE + DE or 2 frigates/ 4 frigates), but it seems hard to justify in fluff.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Megas on December 25, 2017, 05:29:58 AM
I'm on the fence about aptitudes - I get that they are supposed to make player specialization more optimal, but I don't think they work as they are right now.
When the best build maxes all (or spends more than nine points into) aptitudes, and the suboptimal ones spend less, aptitudes do not work for their intended purpose.  Instead, aptitudes serve as a tax, they suck up enough aptitude points that player is inferior to officers after player invests points into few fleetwide and/or QoL skills.

As for current officers, they are not so powerful that ships without them are invalidated, unlike 0.7.x.  However, it has done so by making Combat unattractive enough to the player, due to skill balance.  (e.g., one point into Officer Management instead of three into Combat Endurance or Ordnance Expert.)

I like the two skill idea, although with administrators coming, that could be bumped into three.  Especially if player administrates three and his employees administrate one.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Althaea on December 25, 2017, 10:27:12 AM
Some personal input on combat skills: they are more viable than a lot of players give them credit for. To me, the difference between flying a ship with no skills and with even just a few points invested in Combat is fairly noticeable. It's not that I'm looking to solo enemy fleets or neglect the rest of the fleet in favor of my flagship. Rather, Combat helps me dive into the thick of battle and direct its flow, protecting allied ships and killing enemy ones quicker and more easily. However, the game can be quite punishing to the reckless. I would speculate that a large part of Combat's reputation is that new players tend to get bitten badly while trying it, as a bunch of major stat boosts won't keep a new player from fluxing out their Wolf on kinetic damage and being annihilated by harpoons, while more experienced players who understand the game better tend to go for more optimal builds, which a combination of leadership/technology certainly is.

I certainly think a change to the skills system is warranted. I'd been wondering whether I should post a thread in the Suggestions forum about perhaps reducing the level cap to 30 while giving 2 points per level instead (which might also help with the whole "aptitude point" empty levels thing, if that's desireable). Nearly halving the number of skills in each aptitude while making each skill stronger amounts to something fairly similar, though.

I like the notion of "masteries", or something of the sort. Something like, a fleet commander who used to be (and still is) an excellent captain can make use of that knowledge to revise fleet SOP or train his subordinates and their crews accordingly?
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Starasp on December 25, 2017, 10:45:59 AM
Alex, would it be possible to add a feature allowing you to rename Officers and Admins? I always had fun doing things like that in DF and Rimworld and naming various sims and dorfs after my online friends and whatnot, thought it'd be fun here too.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: intrinsic_parity on December 25, 2017, 10:57:10 AM
Some personal input on combat skills: they are more viable than a lot of players give them credit for. To me, the difference between flying a ship with no skills and with even just a few points invested in Combat is fairly noticeable. It's not that I'm looking to solo enemy fleets or neglect the rest of the fleet in favor of my flagship. Rather, Combat helps me dive into the thick of battle and direct its flow, protecting allied ships and killing enemy ones quicker and more easily. However, the game can be quite punishing to the reckless. I would speculate that a large part of Combat's reputation is that new players tend to get bitten badly while trying it, as a bunch of major stat boosts won't keep a new player from fluxing out their Wolf on kinetic damage and being annihilated by harpoons, while more experienced players who understand the game better tend to go for more optimal builds, which a combination of leadership/technology certainly is.

I don't think anyone is saying combat skills don't make the player ship more effective. The complaint people have is that the fleet wide buffs make the players fleet far more powerful than buffing just the flagship. For this reason, experienced players can't justify taking combat skills since it leaves their fleet weaker, even if it is more fun.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Rbrx on December 25, 2017, 01:32:57 PM
I've only lightly browsed through the previous pages of comments on the last few colony posts, and didn't see the question on ship/equipment construction raised.
Will we be able to build a shipyard of sorts on these colonies, to construct various ships and weapons? One of my biggest gripes with the mid game is after raising your reputation and killing a few pirate bounties, going from planet to planet to see if they've got any new weapons you can use, or in one unfortunate run no one was selling sunders. It would be great to invest in your colonies to being able to craft ships and equipment, to have some better control over the fleet you use.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: intrinsic_parity on December 25, 2017, 02:52:17 PM
At this point, I'm not even sure that killing smugglers would have a positive effect. I do want to take another look at how reputation works especially re: independents and pirates, though.


http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=13018.0

an idea for how a new reputation system could work
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: PixiCode on December 25, 2017, 02:53:22 PM
I've been reading up on the conversations here for a little while and didn't have anything to add, up until now at least. Particularly pertaining to Megas and Alex's conversation about character skill points particularly. Not so much officer, I have nothing to really add there that's worthwhile.

Firstly, I want to ask - when Alex says Combat should be weaker because it's cheaper, he means the idea that you would use less ships because you rely on your flagship more, correct? If that's the case, I don't think that's correct. I enjoyed Starsector before the combat skill changes and I still thoroughly enjoy the game! However, as it stands now I wouldn't call a combat path cheaper. If you want to face end-game fleets, it's impossible to do a combat-focused player build without investing in a large fleet or investing in a very long, drawn out battles. Like Megas said, the AI is usually pretty cautious with a few odd outliers who like to be suicidal. This means if you're playing a combat-heavy ship and playing a 'cheaper' game AKA less ships, you're going to have a huge range disadvantage as well as a numerical disadvantage when the AI clumps up waiting for its moment to strike. If you don't want to die, you'll need a fast ship. Ships that are incredibly mobile usually seem to lack the power to actually do serious damage quickly, and if you're not incredibly mobile the AI will swarm you once it has proper numbers to wreck your day. A medusa can solo an onslaught, but not it can't solo the onslaught's fleet in good time. This means you'll either run out of CR before you kill the fleet and have to retreat, suicide several flagships to do damage or field a larger fleet to support your flagship. The CR one means you're investing much more time into the battle than you otherwise would, while the latter two incur a larger credit investment, which have their own time investment of course. Then of course you might need to have a duplicate flagship or several flagships to deal with CR problems if you're stuck fighting many battles or need another flagship to pursue enemies for whatever reason, which also adds to the cost.

Then there's also the ECM mechanic which completely requires you to deploy more ships to overcome, if only to act as ECM buoys. Or use the ECCM hullmod, which reduces what your combat ship would be capable of otherwise. I'm not trying to argue anything above needs a huge change, I'm just saying that as it's currently designed I think calling combat 'cheaper' is not true. Even if it costs you less credits, it costs you more time per battle, especially with the more cautious AI. All I care is so long as it's all still fun.



Also I'd like to mention to Megas' side of the argument, I feel like it's a little silly to expect frigates to suicide into a paragon. I understand you're probably arguing purely from the fun side of things, which is fair enough. I think it's more fun to expect the frigates to be smart and overcoming it by deploying another flagship if there's only frigates around, like a destroyer or cruiser that would deal with thirty frigates more effectively. But I do see the fun in having a paragon wipe out a fleet of frigates too, and how frustrating it is to have ships just... stand there outside of anyone's range, waiting, yet not retreating.

I had that happen a lot when playing as the Knights Templar using only those Crusader cruisers, trying to save on supply costs by only deploying a cruiser. There would only be like two frigates and one destroyer left, but they would refuse to fight until their CR got low. That was a pretty special case, what with playing a mod not even designed to be played by the player, but yeah it's really frustrating.

EDIT: I forgot the Crusader was a destroyer, but come on. That thing is basically a cruiser!
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Embolism on December 25, 2017, 05:15:20 PM
One other thing I was thinking about for a skill revamp is adding an extra "mastery" effect to all the combat skills, unlocked at level 3 for each skill, that would apply to all ships in the fleet (including the flagship). It wouldn't add up to anywhere near having an officer on board, but it'd be something the player can't get without investing into the skill personally.

I think this is the best way to balance Combat skills without complete separation of player and officer skills. A benefit of this is there's already precedence: some Combat skills unlock hullmods for fleetwide use which an officer with the same skill won't provide.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: AspirantEmperor on December 26, 2017, 07:12:05 AM
Personally I'd be against splitting the skills into two trees that you earn points for independently. I don't know if this undercuts what I said about combat builds earlier, but I'm almost exclusively a support/utility player. I'm the sort who actually likes the idea of an operations center heron flagship (fast enough to get around the battle, tough enough to not die to a stray frigate or missile volley, cheap enough to deploy alongside my actual threats, and comes with a small band of fighters to quickly support whatever looks like the weakest link at the time).

When you say "I want to have separate trees for combat and fleet skills," I hear "I want a combat skill build but I'm going to choose the best build available to me, and that build's a support/utility role with officers doing the actual fighting. So can you please force us to get some combat skills so that I can play how I want to without feeling like I'm using a sub-optimal strategy." But for me, a support player by choice, that sounds like being forced to take half of a build that I really enjoy and put it toward a playstyle I don't much want.

One more thing: as a support build, I expect to have a weaker fleet than a combat build. After all, I salvage more ships after a fight. Part of my repairs are completed for free. My sensor range allows me to better choose what fights I want to take. And soon I'll have more colony fleets to fight alongside for important battles. I won't even count Fleet Logistics and Loadout Design because they're so good that combat builds feel they have to get them anyway (though I've already invested the aptitude points for them). If I get all this and the stronger fleet, something feels wrong.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Mr. Nobody on December 26, 2017, 08:06:05 AM
What about sprinkling fleetwide stuff across the trees?
I remember the Combat tree having in the previous version a skill that directly reduced the OP cost of weapons, just as an example.

Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: DatonKallandor on December 26, 2017, 08:45:12 AM
Just remove the combat skills for the player and let us put an officer into the flagship. No more bad skills being taken at the expense of objectively better ones because there's no more overlap between player and officer skills. And for the people that still want to fly a cool stronger-than-usual flagship, they can just plop an officer in there and get the benefit.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Gothars on December 26, 2017, 09:52:22 AM
How about a stat like "intimidation" or "reputation" that grows with each point invested into combat skills. It would give a bonus to certain negotiaion related things like bounties, probability of smuggled goods being found or even prices of fuel and supplies.

It even makes sense that personal combat/badass skills that are not directly related to your qualification as a leader are still recognized. Just think of Teddy Roosevelt.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Megas on December 26, 2017, 10:05:00 AM
@ AspirantEmperor:  The problem is support (or unarmed carrier-specialist flagship kiting from everything while killer fighters kill all) is far more powerful than direct combat, and support cannot be delegated to officers like combat can, because officers can take the same combat skills as you, but they cannot take the support skills only you can take.  If I can get more combat power (not for me, but for my wingmen) for less by getting Officer Management or Fleet Logistics, something is wrong.  Also, since 0.8.1, Electronic Warfare 1 and maybe a few skills are mandatory if player does not want to fight with a permanent handicap against late-game fights.  Once again, only my character can take those critical support skills, not my officers.

If your fleet needs various roles, this is like forcing the cleric "band-aid" role to the player.  Your party mates are incapable of being anything other than warriors (warships) or pack mules (freighters and tankers), and adding one more warrior (you) is much less useful than adding a force multiplier role (cleric, bard, mage, whatever) to the party.

This is a similar problem in the game Endless Sky as well.  I want to pilot the fast and sleek warship (of various types) and blast things, but I end up piloting the slow and clumsy Bactrian (colony ship) because I need its capacity to board and plunder enemy ships (which is very rewarding for most of the game, and only the flagship can do it), while my fleet of warships (like Shield Beetles or Korath automatons) swarm and kill everything else.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: intrinsic_parity on December 26, 2017, 10:43:32 AM
It seems like the best solution us just to add support officers so that the player can choose the roll he/she wants to play and then can fill the other rolls with officers.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Alex on December 26, 2017, 11:56:52 AM
Skills etc: this is starting to get a bit off-topic in that it's dominating the discission in this thread. Lots of stuff to consider here, but it's also re-treading some familiar ground, so I'll cherry-pick a few things to respond to and ask that we keep the rest of the thread more on track :)


... But if an ally is fighting 3 to 1 and I have a couple of frigates nearby I can give my best shot at turning it around. Not to be callous to my allies, but when I'm not directly paying for their replacements, a brutal fight that can come down to only a handful of survivors per side can still be something I gain from, where if I did own the whole fleet, the best case scenario would still cost a fortune to rebuild from. I'm hoping this means we get more fights like that.

Yep, exactly.


I think its fundamentally unsatisfying in a game focused on flying our spaceship and blowing up enemies for the individual ship boosting skills to be suboptimal - the player should not be worse than the officers at boosting their own ships unless the officer is higher level than the player. "Officer Envy" is real and bad.

I think the main thing here is "officer envy". Which gives me some other ideas, but in the name of not contributing to derailing the thread further...


I like the notion of "masteries", or something of the sort. Something like, a fleet commander who used to be (and still is) an excellent captain can make use of that knowledge to revise fleet SOP or train his subordinates and their crews accordingly?

Yep, that would be the notion, if that's the way "masteries" went.


More on topic of far flung outposts, I think it would be cool if there were a few small, independent colonies strung out in the outer systems that the player could find. I often see groups of scavengers all mining the same resources in a far off system, so if they had some hidden base that I could tail them back to and then trade with it would be really cool. And then it would be on my map to plan future expeditions around.

It would make things feel a bit more alive. On the other hand, it would upset that "far away from any civilization" feel the outer sector has at present.

Yeah, I've been thinking about that too. Could be really neat to find an existing colony - either one you can govern yourself, or just reconnect to the core worlds.


Alex, would it be possible to add a feature allowing you to rename Officers and Admins? I always had fun doing things like that in DF and Rimworld and naming various sims and dorfs after my online friends and whatnot, thought it'd be fun here too.

I'll keep it in mind! Not a priority item but might be able to work it in at some point.


Will we be able to build a shipyard of sorts on these colonies, to construct various ships and weapons? One of my biggest gripes with the mid game is after raising your reputation and killing a few pirate bounties, going from planet to planet to see if they've got any new weapons you can use, or in one unfortunate run no one was selling sunders. It would be great to invest in your colonies to being able to craft ships and equipment, to have some better control over the fleet you use.

I would imagine so, to some extent, but the specifics are very much TBD. I could see something like "you find a blueprint for X and now your heavy industry/orbital works can produce it", for example, but no commitments on the details.

http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=13018.0

an idea for how a new reputation system could work

Hey - yeah, I did see that! In brief: I get the idea, but I think it suffers from "makes sense behind the scenes, total pain to actually convey to the player" issue. You know what I mean? "Your Hegemony reputation in Corvus may or may not change by a couple of points in one or the other direction in a few days, which may or may not be enough to enable|stop you from being able to buy a ship that requires a certain reputation level" etc.

(Ironically, my first internal stab at the reputation system design looked very much like this.)


Firstly, I want to ask - when Alex says Combat should be weaker because it's cheaper, he means the idea that you would use less ships because you rely on your flagship more, correct? If that's the case, I don't think that's correct. I enjoyed Starsector before the combat skill changes and I still thoroughly enjoy the game! However, as it stands now I wouldn't call a combat path cheaper. If you want to face end-game fleets, it's impossible to do a combat-focused player build without investing in a large fleet or investing in a very long, drawn out battles.

Ah - what I mean is it's cheaper when it's smaller scale, and if it was also cheaper on a larger scale, than that would be its own problem. So, we're pretty much saying the same thing.


I had that happen a lot when playing as the Knights Templar using only those Crusader cruisers, trying to save on supply costs by only deploying a cruiser. There would only be like two frigates and one destroyer left, but they would refuse to fight until their CR got low. That was a pretty special case, what with playing a mod not even designed to be played by the player, but yeah it's really frustrating.

Yeah, I've got a TODO item somewhere to help address this. It's a gradual process, weeding out these special cases - it's gotten better than it was before, and hopefully it'll get better still.



When you say "I want to have separate trees for combat and fleet skills," I hear "I want a combat skill build but I'm going to choose the best build available to me, and that build's a support/utility role with officers doing the actual fighting. So can you please force us to get some combat skills so that I can play how I want to without feeling like I'm using a sub-optimal strategy." But for me, a support player by choice, that sounds like being forced to take half of a build that I really enjoy and put it toward a playstyle I don't much want.

I think that's really well put and nails down why I'm not a fan of the "two skill pools" idea - it makes a hard assumption that the non-direct-combat skills aren't fun, and that's a subjective evaluation, even before you consider how having those indirectly changes your combat experience.

How about a stat like "intimidation" or "reputation" that grows with each point invested into combat skills. It would give a bonus to certain negotiaion related things like bounties, probability of smuggled goods being found or even prices of fuel and supplies.

It even makes sense that personal combat/badass skills that are not directly related to your qualification as a leader are still recognized. Just think of Teddy Roosevelt.

I've thought about stuff like that, or even tying that into aptitudes. It's just hard to think of that as a balancing factor, because "certain things" seems like it would inevitably end up as "a few random things here and there that are hard to properly consider as a whole", if that makes sense. It could be a neat element of the combat skills (or of something else, such as just winning battles when outnumbered), but, again, hard to see as a balancing factor, especially as it'd be tough to convey to the player beforehand, i.e. when they're making their skill choices.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: orost on December 26, 2017, 01:35:50 PM
With regards to the reputation system... I've always thought the system used in Paradox strategy games would work very well in Starsector. Here's a random example off google images:

Spoiler
(https://i.imgur.com/JbtLr7r.jpg)
[close]

Relations are tracked as a list of separate factors, each with their own cause, caps and decay or expiration behavior. The sum of them is the final relations score. It's very powerful in creating consistent, reasonable behavior while also being easy to understand and keep track of, because everything that's going can be seen at a glance. My favorite aspect of it is that it rewards learning of and trying as many ways to improve the relations score as possible, because no individual factor has a huge effect, but they all stack with each other. The higher you want to go, the larger the variety of activities you have to engage in. While in Starsector's current system, as your reputation increases, lesser options close off even if you've never done them, and reaching the cap is about picking one thing that works all the way up to 100 and repeating it a lot.

(I thought about posting this in suggestions, but "copy this from that game" seems not quite substantial enough to create a thread for, and since there's already a conversation about it here...)
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Alex on December 26, 2017, 01:41:29 PM
This is really neat, thank you for posting that. It's interesting - there's already a similar system in Starsector for stability (complete with gradually expiring modifiers), but I hadn't considered a similar approach for reputation. Hmm.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: intrinsic_parity on December 26, 2017, 02:04:50 PM
Hey - yeah, I did see that! In brief: I get the idea, but I think it suffers from "makes sense behind the scenes, total pain to actually convey to the player" issue.

I get that, but I think there are some decent ways of conveying the information to the player. The player doesn't actually need to know how the system works specifically, just how it works in practice. Something like a 'reputation map' that shows player reputation with a faction in each system would give the player all the information they need to know. I also think the idea that the people who saw you do the bad thing would care more than the people who didn't is a fairly intuitive concept. I'm pretty sure escape velocity nova did reputation in a similar manner and it worked very well.


You know what I mean? "Your Hegemony reputation in Corvus may or may not change by a couple of points in one or the other direction in a few days, which may or may not be enough to enable|stop you from being able to buy a ship that requires a certain reputation level" etc.

This is more a problem with how purchasing power is tied to reputation than with the reputation system itself. Currently you can get rng scanned and lose a few points of reputation which makes you unable to buy stuff. Or if you fail a mission, that could prevent you from buying stuff. It's just the nature of having a discreet cutoff for being able to buy stuff.

Also, I'd rather accidentally lose the ability to buy stuff sometimes than instantly go hostile in all systems when I mis-click engage after getting scanned. The 'instantly hostile with all planets' system also makes piracy and harassment much less viable. This could be especially important with the new update where you might want to harass an outpost to destabilize it, but now you are hostile with all the outposts of that faction. I guess for me, the positives far outweigh the negatives in terms of how it changes interactions with factions and what gameplay opportunities it creates.

Additionally, If you don't like the 'central government' bit, that can be eliminated or changed so that it isn't tied to a specific system and is only affected by missions and political events and maybe the net average of all systems or something like that. I think there are a lot of iterations of the idea you could come up with to solve specific problems.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Madao on December 27, 2017, 06:56:53 AM
My pc goes out of commission for a week and I miss some of the best news I've read in a while... Late to the party but wow this looks great! Looking through the thread I have nothing to add that hasn't been said already.. I will just say that I am extremely pumped  ;D
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Megas on December 27, 2017, 10:01:02 AM
Quick question:  If we build a military base, does the colony get a military market (for us to buy ships) or is such hardware (if produced) for Local Resources?
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Igncom1 on December 27, 2017, 10:13:43 AM
Can you build a colony in a REDACTED system?
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Alex on December 27, 2017, 09:59:33 PM
My pc goes out of commission for a week and I miss some of the best news I've read in a while... Late to the party but wow this looks great! Looking through the thread I have nothing to add that hasn't been said already.. I will just say that I am extremely pumped  ;D

:D

Quick question:  If we build a military base, does the colony get a military market (for us to buy ships) or is such hardware (if produced) for Local Resources?

I can't say exactly right now - not sure. I'd expect at least some of this production to be more or less freely available, though. Possibly something like letting you buy it for the "sell" cost, or with some other way of making sure that you don't have to clear it out and sell yourself every so often to get the most out of it.

Can you build a colony in a REDACTED system?

I'd imagine so, though you'd probably have to deal with the neighbors, or the trade fleets at the very least would have issues and that reflects on the market pretty heavily.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: MattD on December 28, 2017, 07:06:34 AM
Question, is there any notion of having a "capital world" for the player faction, or are all player-owned markets equally "colonies"?

I'm not necessarily advocating that there should be such a notion, as we could legitimately say that the player's fleet is the executive and administrative center of the faction. But it could be interesting for both roleplay and gameplay to have the option of naming a market as the faction's capital.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Alex on December 28, 2017, 09:00:27 AM
Question, is there any notion of having a "capital world" for the player faction, or are all player-owned markets equally "colonies"?

I'm not necessarily advocating that there should be such a notion, as we could legitimately say that the player's fleet is the executive and administrative center of the faction. But it could be interesting for both roleplay and gameplay to have the option of naming a market as the faction's capital.

There's the notion of building a "high command" (an upgrade from "military base") which would be that, but I have no idea what it would actually do and whether it'll actually stick around. So: maybe?
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: xenoargh on December 28, 2017, 10:25:23 AM
This is really looking great, Alex!  I like pretty much everything I see in these changes and I am really looking forward to seeing how the "combat funnel" gets implemented :)

A few (OK, about a page, lol) thoughts, based on my latest playthroughs:
Spoiler
1.  The level cap and leveling in general are going to need to get looked at, I think.  I'm in agreement with Megas there.  We're already squeezed to the point that players got pushed into some pretty squirrel-case builds, and I think that's significant.  I'd prefer a return of the soft-cap, both for players and Officers (or at least let Officers fill out their skill-bars).

2.  I certainly agreed with everything you said in defense of the improved early-game experience vis-a-vis the "Tutorial" scenario. 

However, I think a couple of things might be improved. 

A.  The early-game power-curve needs to be faster, so that players don't hit a wall quite so fast. 

In the private build I play, I have the experience at roughly 8X normal right now, which demonstrates this in a way that I think you might want to playtest (essentially, unless you're an expert player, you go from, "I'm barely powerful enough to take down weak Pirates" to  "I cannot possibly take down the generated Bounty encounters unless I am not only expert but am thoroughly cheesing in every way". 

Then, when you're past that plateau, it becomes Easy Street; there's a definite tipping-point right now where I feel like players get a huge hand up about when they can start affording Capitals and have collected enough of the least-balanced weapons, which, depending on how badly you abuse the Factions (especially the Perseans and Tritach) leads to some seriously-amusing power imbalances (a really optimized fleet tears through Pirate bounties very very efficiently because they don't improve other than numbers and remain squishy, while the Deserter fleets remain relevant until later in the curve, among other issues).

In Vanilla, this is considerably easier to reach (the balance changes I've made generally make this a lot harder on the player, because there aren't a lot of things that can be easily abused, now that I've adjusted Variants to take advantage of the changed things). 

I don't think any of what I'm saying here applies to Average Joe Player, mind you.  Based on what I've seen on streams lately, there aren't that many people doing this kind of thing well; sometimes I wish I had enough spare time to make videos on How To Break Things.  But be aware that if the game's played right, the power-curve is still not quite tuned right in late-game. 

I'd recommend, at the least, having Pirates get a big upgrade somewhere around Level 30 that gives them new Variants that aren't quite so squishy, or a plethora of highly-leveled Officers, or both, so that it's not quite so easy to amass giant fortunes through Bounties once we're past the middle game. 

I'd also recommend that any serious attempt to take over the Sector result in big enough fights that the player won't want to try it until end-game.

To keep the mid-game plateau much more reasonable, I'd suggest a pretty modest reform:  increase the System Bounties by enough that a player can actually make a living and make progress by taking them down.  They simply don't pay enough right now to be worth doing, and whether or not it's "obvious" to long-time players like me that you're not supposed to do that, I strongly suspect that's what most players will do anyhow (and they'll get frustrated when they cannot make progress into midgame).  Perhaps this should use a scalar curve so that the payouts get smaller as the player's power grows, but it probably doesn't have to; when we reach the point where we want to go to the next level, we're talking about enough difference in payout ($250K bounty-head vs., say, a $50K System Bounty for a Pirate "armada") that players will gravitate that way anyhow (at least, that was the effect over here; there's a point where earning $30K is nice if I want to buy Supplies / Fuel, but is almost irrelevant to making progress towards end-game).

B.  Late-game, the problem is largely that the player has resources, and nothing to spend it on.  I know we're about to see big changes to that, and I'm glad, but I think I should maybe make it clear where the issue is.  It's not just "my income vastly outpaces my expenses"; it's also, far too often in Vanilla, "my income has absolutely nothing worth being spent on"; when we pass through the midgame, it's suddenly a game of waiting, fruitlessly trying every Market in the entire Core to buy <insert minor power tool>, etc., which is a real drag now and will be worse if we need a million-plus credits in monthly income to deal with endgame economic expansion, etc., etc. 

My last run of pure-Vanilla, I had somewhere on the order of a million Credits by the time I hit Level 30 and there was literally nothing worth buying with it, because too many of the things I actually wanted were behind various walls or were simply not available at all (I mean, really... I have a million credits, can I not simply bribe some Tritachyon corporate officer to let a few things fall off a truck?). 

I'm not really a fan of the current system, where we shop endlessly in RNG hoping that something we actually want will drop.  It lacks that nice feel Blizzard achieved with Diablo II, where you might have those problems with the shops, but you had the Gems to keep pushing you forward, etc.

One of the few things I actually liked about SPAZ 2 was their "ordering" system, whereby players could buy whatever they needed, including customized gear that put them into a new place on the power-curve.  I would like you to perhaps consider having some "+1, +2" etc. mechanics and Uniques that can be gotten by players by doing <insert very difficult thing>.  Maybe you could consider making these kinds of things one of the ways AI Cores can be spent?

While I fully expect that Crew pay-as-a-drain will help this impression a lot, I suspect it'll be not nearly enough, and we'll have the same problems Mount and Blade did: the player has resources that cannot get used, efficiently or not.  The problem there was that, due to relative power imbalances with troops and putting the best troops behind leveling pay-walls, it became an issue of the level-grinding your troops over and over again to have end-game power worth mentioning.

Here the issue is that with the strict caps on Officers and fleet scales, we can have ideal fleets pretty early and then there's no ceiling to break through.

One idea that I'd like to propose is that non-combat (i.e., stat-only-unless-Iron-Mode) ships aren't subject to the fleet cap at all, and that the cap of 30 be made soft, rather than hard. 

The no-fleet-cap-for-civvies idea has a lot of appeal to me, because it gives the player a lot more room to grow and also encourages the player to try doing improbable things with the civvie stuff that might as well not really exist right now.  For example, it's amusing to think about players throwing out a fleet of Prometheus tankers with hangers as a desperation move, after their main fleet's lost its CR in a big fight and the enemy has just a few weaker ships to hold the field left.

One good way to limit soft-cap fleet expansion might be to dial back fleet speeds at best-Burn, rather than simply gearing up costs; if you want a fleet of 60 giant capital ships, maybe you can do that, but you're limited to Burn 14 at best speeds, for example, just like the old model for Burn.  This is more-or-less how Mount and Blade handled this issue and it largely worked out.  We're already fighting against AI fleets larger than us and there's no reason that can't be pushed out further to keep this from feeling ridiculous, in terms of player power.  I'd expect, if trying to invade Jangala, for example, to meet a fleet of 200 ships, so I'm OK with players having to juggle 60 they've maxed out and fighting out a battle that takes an hour (over here, I see scenarios like that play out, and so long as performance doesn't tank due to the stuff we've talked about before, it's quite epic and feels utterly satisfying, win or lose).

One thing I do not like about the current optimal strategies for play is how Missile reloading as a CR trade has become such a popular late-game tactic.  I feel like that has pushed players into very un-natural and silly builds for fleets.  I don't do it, personally (I feel pretty strongly it's still sub-optimal play and Megas is largely right about where balance shifted) but whenever I see that in a stream, I cringe; it feels like an exploit and it illustrates pretty perfectly why limited ammo has been such a problem for sane discussion of balance in the game.

3.  The one big worry I have, given the outlines of the current system as you're developing it, is that AI Cores sound like a show-stopper resource.  Please, tell me that, if we're willing to spend outrageous amounts of money, we can get more, even if all of the Domain stuff is scraps and every single Remnant has been hunted down?  I really dislike the idea that we'll be purposefully farming Remnants in late game just to get Cores because it's the only way; I can <shudders> imagine having to build a Core Farming operation where I've built powerful defensive bases in all the nearby Systems just to keep the Factions away.

Honestly, where the Remnants are concerned, I'd really rather that they go exponential sometimes if nobody keeps them in check and can't be totally eradicated; it'd be much less frustrating if they aren't a resource I carefully farm, but are an occasional major threat that (however briefly) unites the Sector and presents major problems to a player whose mini-empire is in their path.  I like the idea that they're the "barbarian horde" at the high end; right now they largely feel like an easy resource target that I have to husband carefully if I want to keep getting Cores.  I realize that, for a lot of players, they're considered a Boss Fight, but I really haven't had much trouble beating even fully-operational Stations and I'd honestly like to see them get scarier and much less limited (I have had multiple runs where I can't even find a single Station, too; it'd be really nice if there were reasonable ways to get hints about where they are, like the Domain hints).
[close]
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: DatonKallandor on December 28, 2017, 10:52:53 AM
On the topic of cores being used for everything, having some sort of player-triggered endgame that provides lots of access to cores would help with both the endgame being kind of stale once you've got a bigger fleet than the factions do and the core-drought of the endgame. Maybe we reopen the gates and oh-no remnants pour out? Something that would challenge a player who's reached his outpost cap, has a big fleet and is generally on top of the sector - while still paying out with some kind of reward that the player can actually use.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: FooF on December 28, 2017, 11:35:39 AM
Been out of town but wanted to chime in and say this was an enjoyable read. I've only skimmed the comments here so hopefully I'm not retreading on old ground.

So colonies/outposts are adding a more strategic layer to Starsector and some of the administrator/AI core usages seem oddly familiar (http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=13008.msg219902#msg219902), but better implemented!

With the addition of all this monthly income/expenses, how is the overall economy (from the player's standpoint) being affected? Are bounties relatively unchanged? I know that if I want to level up and score the most credits, named bounties are the quickest way for me. I can easily get hundreds of thousands of credits and 20 levels in rapid fashion. Is this going to translate into "easy" colony building for me since I have the start-up capital early or are there other factors, beyond sheer credits, that will slow down my empire building? Once the colonies are up and running, will I need to supplement my income with bounties, etc. to continue making money or will good colony management be "enough" to fuel further expansion?

TL;DR: Will colonies provide enough income (not just credits but ships, weapons, etc.) to begin focusing on other stuff down the road? At what point, if ever, will a player be self-sufficient?

The artwork is really amazing, too and I've loved the attention to detail thus far.

Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Alex on December 28, 2017, 05:46:36 PM
This is really looking great, Alex!  I like pretty much everything I see in these changes and I am really looking forward to seeing how the "combat funnel" gets implemented :)

Thank you!

B.  Late-game, the problem is largely that the player has resources, and nothing to spend it on.  I know we're about to see big changes to that, and I'm glad, but I think I should maybe make it clear where the issue is.  It's not just "my income vastly outpaces my expenses"; it's also, far too often in Vanilla, "my income has absolutely nothing worth being spent on"; ...

Right. See: immigration incentives; the idea is to have other things as well that let you spend a virtually unlimited amount of credits for somewhat diminishing returns.

I'm not against the idea of an "ordering" system of some sort, but that has to be approached carefully or every playthrough would become potentially very similar. Making do with what's available can be a source of variety.

I'm not really a fan of the current system, where we shop endlessly in RNG hoping that something we actually want will drop.  It lacks that nice feel Blizzard achieved with Diablo II, where you might have those problems with the shops, but you had the Gems to keep pushing you forward, etc.

... and it can also be a source of that. I feel like that's also at least in part due to not having much to do in the endgame beyond perfecting your fleet, though. If you've got five fires to put out, you're going to be less inclined to do this sort of thing.

In any case, though, the current situation is less a "system" and more a "long-term placeholder". I'm sure it'll change to some extent once blueprints are in the picture; specifics TBD.


3.  The one big worry I have, given the outlines of the current system as you're developing it, is that AI Cores sound like a show-stopper resource.  Please, tell me that, if we're willing to spend outrageous amounts of money, we can get more, even if all of the Domain stuff is scraps and every single Remnant has been hunted down?  I really dislike the idea that we'll be purposefully farming Remnants in late game just to get Cores because it's the only way; I can <shudders> imagine having to build a Core Farming operation where I've built powerful defensive bases in all the nearby Systems just to keep the Factions away.

Not sure exactly how it'll play out, but "farming" Remnants certainly isn't great and I have some REDACTED thoughts on the matter :)


With the addition of all this monthly income/expenses, how is the overall economy (from the player's standpoint) being affected? Are bounties relatively unchanged? I know that if I want to level up and score the most credits, named bounties are the quickest way for me. I can easily get hundreds of thousands of credits and 20 levels in rapid fashion. Is this going to translate into "easy" colony building for me since I have the start-up capital early or are there other factors, beyond sheer credits, that will slow down my empire building? Once the colonies are up and running, will I need to supplement my income with bounties, etc. to continue making money or will good colony management be "enough" to fuel further expansion?

TL;DR: Will colonies provide enough income (not just credits but ships, weapons, etc.) to begin focusing on other stuff down the road? At what point, if ever, will a player be self-sufficient?

Can't say with certainty just now - haven't done a balancing pass, and not even that close to it. Ideally, I'd expect the colony *building* to be fairly eay regardless, and the colony *defending* to present a challenge. As far as income, the general idea is that you get some pretty easily, but getting (and keeping) a stronger income is where things get progressively more difficult.

Not sure what you mean by "self-sufficient" - it it's in economic terms, as far as "all of the colony needs are met by your colonies", then that ought to be possible, depending on what kinds of planets you cultivate and whether you aim for that.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: FooF on December 28, 2017, 06:38:04 PM
Self-sufficient meaning, "My colonies are creating all the supplies, ships, weapons, etc. without being beholden to another faction." I guess it's my hope that there will come a point where "getting more stuff" takes a backseat to some end-game shenanigans and it would be possible to strike out without the backing of the other major factions, if your colony management was up to snuff.

Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Alex on December 28, 2017, 06:49:02 PM
Ah - in that case, yeah, that ought to be possible.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: xenoargh on December 28, 2017, 06:53:17 PM
Quote
If you've got five fires to put out, you're going to be less inclined to do this sort of thing.
Hmm.  The Mount and Blade experience says otherwise; people eventually figured out how to break the economy, spent literally weeks playing out years of time building up millions of denars to spend, and then spent aons building up the huge forces of optimized Huscarls needed to win.  

Don't underestimate the sheer monotony of endgame when the minmaxers play it and monotony's the only way forward that works.  

Me, I can see myself sharpening the fleet I'm going to use to win until it's pretty much a perfect weapon before I even bother with Outposts, unless there's some really good reason not to, but we're in total agreement here; I'd rather feel like I don't have that kind of time.  

So... thoughts on that:  the Pirates and REDACTED might drive players forward, warfare between the Factions might, perhaps there are other things that could push the timetable and force players into a sharper tension between time and tools.  

This seems like it might be the best way to frame the final experience, rather than complicated RPG trappings and quest-lines (as much as I really do like what was done with the Tutorial scenario, because it was such a good intro to the complexity of the game).  

One of the few failings of Escape Velocity was that the quest-line was static and there weren't any dynamic forces at work, pushing the players to get on with things.  If you minmaxed and cheesed, you could blow through all of the quests easily simply through being over-leveled (in that game, over-capitalized).  

That's one of the things that both Master of Orion and Star Control got largely right; if you sat around collecting too long, the game moved on and crushed you.  This whole 4X element, which we're all looking forward to as a way to finally be a part of the Sector's dynamics in a meaningful way, also offers the opportunity to put in some sort of element that makes the dynamics destabilize.  

I know you're busy working on the framework issues at the moment, but that's sort of the grand scenario I think might work best in the end; nothing's forced (and perhaps, on the easiest settings, it never happens and you just play in a sandbox) but one way to give Hard a meaning is that you'll have to build an empire to handle what's coming; your heroic fleet will not be enough.  It would provide a way to avoid the boredom trap Mount and Blade fell into, by writing their Factions to remain largely static (which I suspect you'll have to do, in the end, so that players don't get hosed by weird RNG).
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: mehgamer on December 28, 2017, 07:21:05 PM
In Vanilla, this is considerably easier to reach (the balance changes I've made generally make this a lot harder on the player, because there aren't a lot of things that can be easily abused, now that I've adjusted Variants to take advantage of the changed things). 

I don't think any of what I'm saying here applies to Average Joe Player, mind you.  Based on what I've seen on streams lately, there aren't that many people doing this kind of thing well; sometimes I wish I had enough spare time to make videos on How To Break Things.  But be aware that if the game's played right, the power-curve is still not quite tuned right in late-game. 
I mean... have you seen my videos on your modpack?  Your rebalances are INCREDIBLY abusable and turn the game into a "nothing matters" arcadey explosion generator.

I don't really wanna be that guy - broken record, and all that - but seriously, using the rebalance mechanics you designed I literally beat Forlorn Hope without dropping shield or activating the paragon's ship system a single time, and that was using exactly 4 weapon slots out of the entire ship's arsenal.

I know that this is sort of off topic for the thread in question, but I feel it needs to be said when you make posts of that length trying to argue redesigning major elements of the game.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Alex on December 28, 2017, 07:33:30 PM
Hmm.  The Mount and Blade experience says otherwise; people eventually figured out how to break the economy, spent literally weeks playing out years of time building up millions of denars to spend, and then spent aons building up the huge forces of optimized Huscarls needed to win.

What I mean by "fires to put out" is situations where sitting around doing that lets them, to take the metaphor further, burn stuff down :) So, yeah, time pressure is the main component of that - i.e. if a pirate raid is coming to colony X, you don't have the time to go look for some light needlers, etc.


I mean... have you seen my videos on your modpack?  Your rebalances are INCREDIBLY abusable and turn the game into a "nothing matters" arcadey explosion generator.

I don't really wanna be that guy - broken record, and all that - but seriously, using the rebalance mechanics you designed I literally beat Forlorn Hope without dropping shield or activating the paragon's ship system a single time, and that was using exactly 4 weapon slots out of the entire ship's arsenal.

I know that this is sort of off topic for the thread in question, but I feel it needs to be said when you make posts of that length trying to argue redesigning major elements of the game.

Yeah, this is definitely off-topic and feels too much like an attack on the person rather than on what they're saying. Let's please not go down that road.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Ishman on December 30, 2017, 10:35:52 AM
I'd actually enjoy seeing some miniature text adventure games/decision trees related to colonizing extreme hazard areas.

Things along the lines of a floating armored orbital slab in which you have a small standing population supervising and remotely controlling a team of robots.

Maybe the world is in a close orbit a particularly violent star/gas giant/star cluster which has deposited an enormous and deep transuranic dust layer (which obviously also breaks down into the good stuff you mine nickel-iron asteroids for such as the platinum group metals, niobium, tantalum, rhenium - all things going into first through third generation superalloys). Exotic places with exotic resources, ranging the gamut from high energy atmospheres/environments that are suitable for producing lots of research components to sell to market (particle research or fancy batteries), deathworlds with fascinating biological products (medicines, drugs, food), etc.

This is where I'd enjoy roleplaying my faction's proclivities - instead of robots, do you send down waves of augmented 'humans' who are ever more adapted? (Revelation Space ultron style like Diamond Dogs), an army of corpses controlled by an AI (Ancillary Justice(Don't betray the AI, you won't like it when an unfeeling utterly rational entity gets stuck in a fleshly body and must take matters into its own hands)), or perhaps that's all too expensive for you and the number of lives lost in the mines is just an item on the expense report as you fuel the war machine keeping your unwashed masses safe from the terrors out there.

I love exploring the different solar systems and seeing all the neat stuff, looking forward to the next update, and thanks for the great work!

P.S. would like to be able to play a hard mode faction that ditches planetary bodies as anything but resource sources and colonizes space like in the maple syrup wars (Troy Rising by John Ringo)
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Megas on December 30, 2017, 02:25:06 PM
What I mean by "fires to put out" is situations where sitting around doing that lets them, to take the metaphor further, burn stuff down :) So, yeah, time pressure is the main component of that - i.e. if a pirate raid is coming to colony X, you don't have the time to go look for some light needlers, etc.
Unless the pirates themselves have light needlers on their ships.

Seriously, I get the point you made.

Self-sufficiency, as defined by FooF, would be one of my late-game goals.  Before I start destroying enemy factions, I cannot have them stop my war machine by pulling the plug.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Alex on December 30, 2017, 09:18:26 PM
Maybe the world is in a close orbit a particularly violent star/gas giant/star cluster which has deposited an enormous and deep transuranic dust layer (which obviously also breaks down into the good stuff you mine nickel-iron asteroids for such as the platinum group metals, niobium, tantalum, rhenium - all things going into first through third generation superalloys). Exotic places with exotic resources, ranging the gamut from high energy atmospheres/environments that are suitable for producing lots of research components to sell to market (particle research or fancy batteries), deathworlds with fascinating biological products (medicines, drugs, food), etc.

This is where I'd enjoy roleplaying my faction's proclivities - instead of robots, do you send down waves of augmented 'humans' who are ever more adapted? (Revelation Space ultron style like Diamond Dogs), an army of corpses controlled by an AI (Ancillary Justice(Don't betray the AI, you won't like it when an unfeeling utterly rational entity gets stuck in a fleshly body and must take matters into its own hands)), or perhaps that's all too expensive for you and the number of lives lost in the mines is just an item on the expense report as you fuel the war machine keeping your unwashed masses safe from the terrors out there.

I can't fault your choice of literature, but this sounds a bit outside the scope for Starsector :) That said, I'd love to see some more minor interactions like the one at Beholder Station, and that's kind of along similar lines.

I love exploring the different solar systems and seeing all the neat stuff, looking forward to the next update, and thanks for the great work!

Thank you!

Self-sufficiency, as defined by FooF, would be one of my late-game goals.  Before I start destroying enemy factions, I cannot have them stop my war machine by pulling the plug.

That would be most unfortunate. Of course, there are many ways to pull the plug...
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Drokkath on December 31, 2017, 12:19:20 AM
-snip-

Things along the lines of a floating armored orbital slab in which you have a small standing population supervising and remotely controlling a team of robots.

-snip-

P.S. would like to be able to play a hard mode faction that ditches planetary bodies as anything but resource sources and colonizes space like in the maple syrup wars (Troy Rising by John Ringo)

I'm getting a picture of an outpost/base that is in space near a more hazardous celestial/colossal object which is something I'd choose over any planetary outpost/base/colony/village/town/city ever because the depths of space are my home not some rock and yeah the space station of sorts must orbit something but at least it's an artificial intricate object usually built/assembled by a space-faring sentient species.

Anyhow, what it all comes down to is basically being able to build something like this in SS:
Spoiler
http://homeworld.wikia.com/wiki/Research_Station
(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/homeworld/images/d/dd/Research_Station.png/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/1000?cb=20120710155657)
[close]
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: FeudalWulf on January 03, 2018, 08:22:34 AM
I believe that money from tariffs that the player receives from colonies should have customized tariff levels the player chooses from. So you can have no tariffs on a given market so the market will expand rapidly but giving the player no money for that given time. Or you can put on a level of tariffs that makes market growth low (or even start to lower market stability) but allowing the player to make super bank.

This can be completely separate from the laissez-faire described in the blog post. You can still allow pirates and other types that have "broken transponders" to trade, for the same tariff. Or have it be the normal system and have them be outright blocked from trading. Completely separate from tariffs. Unless of course they trade on the black market, in which case your nearby military fleet will have a few words for the pirates as is normal.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Alex on January 03, 2018, 08:33:28 AM
Hi, and welcome to the forum!

I think this sort of tradeoff - credits for population growth - makes a lot of sense. The "growth incentives" mechanic (described in this blog post (http://fractalsoftworks.com/2017/11/19/population-growth/), towards the end) should achieve about the same thing, the main difference being that you can also funnel outside money into the market to further fuel growth. So, yeah, I think we're on the same page here :)
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Sutopia on January 03, 2018, 02:56:44 PM
I wonder if it's possible to build a cluster of colonies that form a self sufficient circle outside of core world.
That is to say, your colonies basically fulfill their own need (and sometimes even some surplus product) by trading to each other and no trade to main factions.
Theoretically this can be done given you find a good place that you can obtain all kinds of resource in the limited numbers of planets.
You might not earn a lot of money doing this but your system(s) can be safer from hostile factions' invasion.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Alex on January 03, 2018, 03:27:54 PM
I wonder if it's possible to build a cluster of colonies that form a self sufficient circle outside of core world.
That is to say, your colonies basically fulfill their own need (and sometimes even some surplus product) by trading to each other and no trade to main factions.
Theoretically this can be done given you find a good place that you can obtain all kinds of resource in the limited numbers of planets.

Yep, and ...

You might not earn a lot of money doing this but your system(s) can be safer from hostile factions' invasion.

... possibly.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Histidine on January 06, 2018, 12:44:54 AM
It occurs to me that the player faction doesn't get the shortname that ordinary factions have (or at least there's no input field shown). Should it have one, for brevity in UI elements?
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Alex on January 06, 2018, 07:10:56 AM
It's more that the player faction doesn't get a longname :)
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Megas on January 06, 2018, 08:27:37 AM
Can the player establish multiple instances of the same industry at a market?

I noticed some markets in current releases had something like Light Industry (2).  I guess that the market had two of the same, and it was compacted to indicate that it had more of the same production.

It would look silly on the management screen, much like that one image with twelve Population and Infrastructure, but... if that what it takes to exploit an abundant resource, well... then it gets done.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Alex on January 06, 2018, 08:43:04 AM
Can the player establish multiple instances of the same industry at a market?

I noticed some markets in current releases had something like Light Industry (2).  I guess that the market had two of the same, and it was compacted to indicate that it had more of the same production.

It would look silly on the management screen, much like that one image with twelve Population and Infrastructure, but... if that what it takes to exploit an abundant resource, well... then it gets done.

Can't do that, no. Having multiple conditions like that was necessary to get some kind of balance for the economy, but that's not the case anymore.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Kasau on January 06, 2018, 07:43:12 PM
Can we order colony defending fleet fighting alongside us
Sr my english is bad
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Arkiuz on January 07, 2018, 04:07:53 PM
Can we order colony defending fleet fighting alongside us
Sr my english is bad

I imagine that doing this is a bad idea.  If that fleet is traveling with you, who is defending the colonists on the planet?

On topic, I'm rather excited.  It's going to be a pretty cutthroat experience when you're developing a planet and some pirates come along to loot it.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Kasau on January 07, 2018, 06:36:10 PM
I mean 1 colony may have 2 or 3 defending fleet and who will order all fleet going ti battle leave the colony for pirater loot
And i think we may have more than 1 main fleet
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Alex on January 08, 2018, 08:19:21 AM
Can we order colony defending fleet fighting alongside us

Maybe? Haven't figured out exactly how fleet mechanics will work here. It's a good question and definitely something I'm thinking through.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Kasau on January 10, 2018, 07:00:33 PM
I think simple the colony wild have maximum fleet thay have when they level up thay will have more fleet
Like lv1 colony will have 2 fleet basic
1 for defen pantrol detach etc
1 is convoy for trading suply
The Administrators will control the fleet if they don't have order from us
I think if you can do a Admiral for fleet leader is so good
I think we will use some of colony fleet like reserve fleel and to battle in faction total war like order 2 or 3 fleet attack 2 or 3 enemy colony or outpost
And i don't understand what different between colony and outpost
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Clockwork Owl on January 21, 2018, 07:53:48 AM
Can we drop the station from orbit to devastate the planet below
Jokes aside, will we be able to build our battlestations?
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: TheEndstoneGolem on January 25, 2018, 07:55:29 AM
ALEX!!!!

THIS LOOKS AMAZING.

Artwork, mechanics and the thought that's gone into the past 6 months of development looks brilliant. :)

Couple of questions:

1. Will other factions be able to establish outposts, or is this really involved in terms of coding for AI.
If so, could surveying planets and then selling on the data create interest in the planet (e.g. a planet with rich volatile deposits and Class IV Survey data would encourage the Hegemony to setup an outpost there?)

2. Will there be a way to 'secure' AI cores. In the case of Alphas, remove certain autonomy from them at the expense of some of their benefits to reduce the chances of them going rogue? OR is the tech to complex to cha... *goes into how Domain tech is too advanced for current sector scientists and other lore related thingies* ;)

3. Will comms and intel be changed in anyway? For example can the player setup their own comm relays to provide communication for outposts in the far reaches of the sector? Or taking more CivilisationV-esque, in the far future of Starsector, can we deploy agents/diplomats into markets of other factions to get live intel on certain things, such as Invasion fleets etc.

4. I'm assuming that outposts are in the form of colonies on the surface of planets or am I wrong. Following on from the above post, can we construct shipyards and the like and orbital dockyards for extreme resource cost? Or are they simply too bug and too complex such that they would take a few cycles to build.

Thanks Alex, you da best :)
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Alex on January 25, 2018, 08:39:22 AM
And i don't understand what different between colony and outpost

Nothing, really - early on, I was calling these "outposts", but all things considered, I think it makes more sense to call them "colonies" now. So, switching to doing that, but will certainly slip and say "outposts" instead now and again :)


Can we drop the station from orbit to devastate the planet below
Jokes aside, will we be able to build our battlestations?

No comment :-X

(But probably.)



@TheEndstoneGolem: thank you, glad you like how it's shaping up :)

1. Will other factions be able to establish outposts, or is this really involved in terms of coding for AI.
If so, could surveying planets and then selling on the data create interest in the planet (e.g. a planet with rich volatile deposits and Class IV Survey data would encourage the Hegemony to setup an outpost there?)

Probably not - I could see this happening as a one-off "special event", maybe, but I don't want to have factions acting as if they were playing a 4x game, actively colonzing and so on. This is more about the player carving out their spot.

2. Will there be a way to 'secure' AI cores.

I wouldn't imagine so. The uncertainty about whether something might happen (and what, if it does) is part of the charm of using AI cores.

3. Will comms and intel be changed in anyway?

Probably, but I can't speak as to exactly how right now - still undecided on some points.


4. I'm assuming that outposts are in the form of colonies on the surface of planets or am I wrong. Following on from the above post, can we construct shipyards and the like and orbital dockyards for extreme resource cost? Or are they simply too bug and too complex such that they would take a few cycles to build.

(See above re: outposts vs colonies.) As far as shipyards and such - yeah, you'll be able to construct them. The cost and time to do that are up in the air, pending actual playtesting.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: TheEndstoneGolem on January 25, 2018, 08:59:07 AM
@TheEndstoneGolem: thank you, glad you like how it's shaping up :)
No, thank you!

Probably not - I could see this happening as a one-off "special event", maybe, but I don't want to have factions acting as if they were playing a 4x game, actively colonzing and so on. This is more about the player carving out their spot.
I guess that makes sense, plus Nexelerin will likely pick up on it too so that we have the choice as I imagine this would be fairly CPU-heavy :).

I wouldn't imagine so. The uncertainty about whether something might happen (and what, if it does) is part of the charm of using AI cores.
D:

Probably, but I can't speak as to exactly how right now - still undecided on some points.
Can't speak because teasing or just generally unsure as to which direction to head in with them? ;)

(See above re: outposts vs colonies.) As far as shipyards and such - yeah, you'll be able to construct them. The cost and time to do that are up in the air, pending actual playtesting.
Will you be able to customise what they produce? Or is it again something to be found in settings and files and things.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Alex on January 25, 2018, 09:04:42 AM
Can't speak because teasing or just generally unsure as to which direction to head in with them? ;)

There's really no "sure" until something is done, and even then it can change, so I try to avoid talking about things until I have what feels like a reasonable degree of certainty. It's too easy to get excited about speculative things, and I really don't want someone getting excited about something that might not happen. I mean, ultimately a lot of things I present will change anyway, but I still want to keep that to a minimum.

(The flipside is if someone *doesn't* like a potential approach, and in that case a likely discussion about it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but would probably happen anyway...)

So, basically: I know roughly what direction I want to take it in. I don't know whether it will work out when, as they say, the rubber meets the road.

Will you be able to customise what they produce?

Yes, to some degree.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: TheEndstoneGolem on January 25, 2018, 09:20:40 AM
Yes, to some degree.

Oh man the troll capabilities in a multiplayer version would be endless xD.
Seriously though this is cool.

In regards to shipyard production customisation, will this also include (in the future) overall fleet customisation? Or does fleet composition depend from colony to colony which I guess makes more sense because a colony could only field what it produces. I'll bet the 'to some degree' is hinting at the fact it'll be Low, Mid, High tech choices with those choices affecting production time and resources consumed? For example, an Enforcer will require a lot more metal than a Medusa but takes less time to build?

There's really no "sure" until something is done, and even then it can change, so I try to avoid talking about things until I have what feels like a reasonable degree of certainty. It's too easy to get excited about speculative things, and I really don't want someone getting excited about something that might not happen. I mean, ultimately a lot of things I present will change anyway, but I still want to keep that to a minimum.

(The flipside is if someone *doesn't* like a potential approach, and in that case a likely discussion about it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but would probably happen anyway...)

So, basically: I know roughly what direction I want to take it in. I don't know whether it will work out when, as they say, the rubber meets the road.
Yeah I guess this makes sense, especially seeing as it is going to become a more important game mechanic?

Oh man I'm so excited.
I don't want to ask the question, but I have to....

Current progress towards next release? :3
I'm gonna guess 6-9 months, which I'm totally fine with, still need to explore the rest of these proc-gen worlds!
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Alex on January 25, 2018, 01:01:39 PM
In regards to shipyard production customisation, will this also include (in the future) overall fleet customisation?

To some extent :)

I don't want to ask the question, but I have to....

Current progress towards next release? :3

Haha, take everything I said about not wanting to talk about features prematurely, and multiply it by 10 million.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Scar on February 08, 2018, 03:30:17 AM
This has probably been explored already, but what if...

What if officers could gain all skills, and not just the combat ones? This way, a combat player could settle with slightly less powerful officers that take care of the "macro" buffs. One could even keep non-combat officers, for the salvage skills and such, at the trade-off of other officer skills.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: TaLaR on February 08, 2018, 04:41:35 AM
This has probably been explored already, but what if...

What if officers could gain all skills, and not just the combat ones? This way, a combat player could settle with slightly less powerful officers that take care of the "macro" buffs. One could even keep non-combat officers, for the salvage skills and such, at the trade-off of other officer skills.

Unless single non-combat skill on officer costs like 10 or more combat ones, offloading your non-combat skills to officers is a no-brainer.
Since you can get 2 extra officers per player skill point, officers have to be truly abysmal at non-combat skills to make me consider having them on main character under such system.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Megas on February 08, 2018, 05:22:14 AM
What if officers could gain all skills, and not just the combat ones? This way, a combat player could settle with slightly less powerful officers that take care of the "macro" buffs. One could even keep non-combat officers, for the salvage skills and such, at the trade-off of other officer skills.
It would make Officer Management the no-brainer must-have skill, much like Loadout Design 3 and Electronic Warfare 1 are today.  One point for two officers?  That is like spending one point for a net gain of up to thirty-nine more points.

On the other hand, it would certainly fix the "must play force-multiplier buffer/cleric/bard to get the most power" problem.  Currently, Combat is weak enough that it is best to outsource that to officers while you focus on things officers cannot have.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: xenoargh on February 08, 2018, 08:43:01 AM
Unless you got to pick their skills, this would be pretty useless; if they were distributed randomly like they are now, you'd have tons of Officers you'd have to dismiss, frankly, because they'd get useless skill lines.  Not to mention that staying in the current 20-level cap would mean the vast majority of them would become one-trick-ponies.

I think it'd be best if we had a Mount and Blade-styled system, where the player has complete control over where their stuff gets allocated when they level up and the highest level of <party-wide thing> gets used, if that's how it would work; then we could build our Bards and Clerics with reasonable allocations; one Officer might get a single Industry 3 skill and Combat / Tech, another might get one fleetwide Carrier buff as well as the personal Carrier skills, and so forth.

But, without the ability to direct that, other than saying, "nah, not that <insert terrible random thing>" it'd be untenable, imo; your distributions would be hugely capricious and you'd be dismissing anybody who didn't fit the desired patterns constantly.  It would be very unpleasant micromanagement; kind of like getting the best-possible soldiers in XCOM by hiring 20 and firing 19 (after carefully labeling the lucky 20th) was.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Megas on February 08, 2018, 09:30:01 AM
Unless you got to pick their skills
You can with save-scumming, unless officer already knows a carrier skill and there are more left, such that there is always a carrier skill to pick (which is why I do not let my generalist officers learn carrier skills until level 16, when I want to choose only some carrier skills instead of all - to avoid junk carrier perks).  Level up officer, and if the next level-up has something I want, save.  If not, reload and try again.  Repeat for every level.  Scumming like this gets annoying, and I sometimes do not bother leveling up officers due to the hassle, but it is faster than leveling then firing and replacing officers.

Selecting skills for officers like players do for themselves (within the officers' subset) would be much nicer and eliminating the hassle of save-scumming.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Drokkath on February 08, 2018, 12:31:48 PM
Selecting skills for officers like players do for themselves (within the officers' subset) would be much nicer and eliminating the hassle of save-scumming.

Aye, indeed. That's pretty much why I haven't bothered with officers that much just yet because of the lack of control over where their skills go. So yeah, I'm in strong agreement with having a screen/sub-screen where to allocate their skills.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Scar on February 09, 2018, 12:58:47 AM
On the officer skills building: we could rewrite it like this. Suppose at each level officers get to pick one of five options (since they now have a much wider array of possible skills). If they already have any skills of a particular aptitude, then they are guaranteed a skill of that aptitude. Then, to fix officer firing and rehiring, maybe allowing to leave them in storage like ships, and have them not count towards the limit, would be useful.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Embercloud on February 13, 2018, 03:54:26 AM
Will it be possible to alter the appearance of your ships?

For instance, the wolf exists in various different sprites (TT, hegemony, neutral, damaged to various degrees and pirate)

Will you be able to swap between these or alter the appearance of your ship sprites somehow?

A color variable area on ships would be nice so that you can change the color by a palette
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Kirschbra on February 16, 2018, 01:24:21 PM

I have some REDACTED thoughts on the matter :)


was that a joke, lol
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: uzsibox on January 08, 2019, 07:56:48 AM
What is the markets under ai controll counter at the management screen? Can you assign ai  cores as admins? If yes how?
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: Megas on January 08, 2019, 10:00:39 AM
Alpha cores (and only alphas) may be assigned as administrators like human ones.  They become sticky cursed after they govern for a while.  In which case, only use them if you want to keep that colony forever.
Title: Re: Colony Management
Post by: th3boodlebot on June 01, 2021, 08:42:14 AM
.....second ai uprising