Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.97a is out! (02/02/24); New blog post: Simulator Enhancements (03/13/24)

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 11

Author Topic: Blueprints, Doctrine, and Production  (Read 61332 times)

Kyuss11

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 71
    • View Profile
Re: Blueprints, Doctrine, and Production
« Reply #60 on: February 13, 2018, 02:32:43 PM »

I can't freaking wait for this update,I'm so excited. I didn't see anything on actual construction needs for stuff besides credits.
Will there be resources needed like metal plates or ore for construction of ships,weapons etc?
Will we need to feed our colonies with food and fuel them with energy?
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23986
    • View Profile
Re: Blueprints, Doctrine, and Production
« Reply #61 on: February 13, 2018, 02:40:51 PM »

Perhaps anything that is a small enough fraction of monthly production (say total purchases no greater than than 5%) are always available instantly, either as a case of being trivial to manufacture (HMG's, low complexity fighter LPC's) or ubiquitous to the point of spares always being on hand for requisition (Hounds and Buffalos). This would avoid waiting long periods for trivialities like filling that one weapon slot on your recovered flagship or picking up a quick replacement frigate whilst keeping the realism of waiting for a complex order of many weapons, or that spiffy new astral you ordered.

Yep, something like that sounds like it might work. Would just have to work out the details. Or, possibly, a "rush order" button that doesn't cost anything, can only be used for orders below a certain percentage, and can only be used once a month.

This sounds like a good time to (re)suggest an option that lets the player wait at a colony - whether it's to let a pirate fleet go away, or just pass the time until their new flagship is finished building.

Yeah, I see what you mean. It's a bit of a crutch design-wise, though, isn't it? And having it in-game tells the player that they're supposed to be waiting around. Stuff like "wait out pirates" could be entirely gotten around by, say, a station being able to assist you in combat (and pirates therefore avoiding stations in the first place). And waiting for other things might be less of an issue if there's time pressure.

The other issue, though, is that a speedup beyond 2x (and even 2x, on occasion, really) is not very doable while maintaining a reasonable framerate.


1. Can we say "I don't need any phase ships, gimme more other stuff" and set it a category to 0?

You can't, no. For very small fleets, a setting of 1 will likely result in none of those types of ships being added, but for larger fleets, it's more likely that it'll be a mixture to some degree, though, again, a setting if 1 makes it fairly likely not to have any ships of that type. It just doesn't rule it out completely.

2. Ships like the Venture and Odyssey have fighters but aren't especially fighter-focused. Are they slotted into Warships or Carriers?

Warships.

3. Warships feels like a huge category compared to the other two, but I also know it a hard thing to draw the line down the middle of. Best delineation I came up with was separating out support ships like that aren't really one-on-one fighters.

3a. Examples of ships that popped into my head when I was thinking of "Support" ships: Vigilance, Sunder, Buffalo Mk.II, Mudskipper Mk.II, Omen, Kite, Gryphon

Hmm - I'm not sure that it needs to be a balanced breakdown in terms of "number of ships in each category".


I can't freaking wait for this update,I'm so excited. I didn't see anything on actual construction needs for stuff besides credits.
Will there be resources needed like metal plates or ore for construction of ships,weapons etc?

From a previous reply:

Does availability of ship parts, metals, etc. affect capacity?

Inasmuch as these shortages affect "Ship Hulls & Weapons" production - "production capacity" is based on that.


Will we need to feed our colonies with food and fuel them with energy?

You'll need to make sure those are available - i.e. there are accessible markets to import those from, whether someone elses or yours. Generally this means 1) building a spaceport and possibly 2) building a waystation somewhere along the way, for markets on the far fringes.
Logged

Voyager I

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 353
    • View Profile
Re: Blueprints, Doctrine, and Production
« Reply #62 on: February 13, 2018, 03:00:36 PM »

So it looks like even a minor manufacturing center is enough to provide a lifetime supply of Light Needlers and other premium weapons.

Frankly, that's a pretty big game-changer for ship loadouts.
Logged

Morgan Rue

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 142
    • View Profile
Re: Blueprints, Doctrine, and Production
« Reply #63 on: February 13, 2018, 03:09:24 PM »

Will we be able to make our own "goal" variants for our colonies fleets?
Logged
Dauntless.

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23986
    • View Profile
Re: Blueprints, Doctrine, and Production
« Reply #64 on: February 13, 2018, 04:11:55 PM »

So it looks like even a minor manufacturing center is enough to provide a lifetime supply of Light Needlers and other premium weapons.

Frankly, that's a pretty big game-changer for ship loadouts.

While I'm pretty sure there'll be a balancing pass on weapon costs, yeah, I wouldn't expect that to change drastically. Of course, one still needs to acquire the blueprint somehow. Ideally, which blueprints you end up with early would add some variety to the early/mid game.

Will we be able to make our own "goal" variants for our colonies fleets?

Player fleets have a decent chance to use one of the "goal" variants for that ship in autofit, so some custom variants can end up there, but it's not something you can explicitly control. That'd be far too much micromanagement for my liking.
Logged

funkycaribou

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Blueprints, Doctrine, and Production
« Reply #65 on: February 13, 2018, 04:24:06 PM »

Sorry if this has been asked, but what is the in-universe explanation for blueprints being difficult or impossible to copy? I can understand them being valuable and protected, but presumably they are just information, in a universe with access to digital technology.
Logged

Dri

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1403
    • View Profile
Re: Blueprints, Doctrine, and Production
« Reply #66 on: February 13, 2018, 04:50:52 PM »

I do hope there will be an option to observe player-made fleets when they engage in battle. Things are quite a bit more personal now that your own colonies can build fleets, so hopefully there'll be something like a "Remote Battle Feed" type option to see their battles play out properly, if you so choose.
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23986
    • View Profile
Re: Blueprints, Doctrine, and Production
« Reply #67 on: February 13, 2018, 05:03:35 PM »

Sorry if this has been asked, but what is the in-universe explanation for blueprints being difficult or impossible to copy? I can understand them being valuable and protected, but presumably they are just information, in a universe with access to digital technology.

Probably some form of DRM, employed by the Domain as part of its policy to keep developing Sectors dependent on central authority. Also, I wouldn't necessarily make the assumption that they're just information.

I do hope there will be an option to observe player-made fleets when they engage in battle. Things are quite a bit more personal now that your own colonies can build fleets, so hopefully there'll be something like a "Remote Battle Feed" type option to see their battles play out properly, if you so choose.

Wasn't planning on this sort of thing, to be honest. It seems like asking for trouble in various ways, design-wise. (Just one quick example: suppose watching the battle usually makes it play out more favorably than autoresolve, due to the specifics of ships and loadouts. Oops, now you have to watch every battle.)
Logged

Dri

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1403
    • View Profile
Re: Blueprints, Doctrine, and Production
« Reply #68 on: February 13, 2018, 05:40:30 PM »

Well on the other hand having your fleets go snap, crackle and pop and then disappear like everything else would be quite an underwhelming letdown. When one of your more impressive allied fleets gets into a big battle, you'd probably want to watch it anyways, yeah? For battles that are more ones-sided you'd still autoresolve.

Seems like a real missed opportunity to not allow the player to see these fleets engage in real battle, again, if they choose to.
Logged

Sendrien

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 265
    • View Profile
Re: Blueprints, Doctrine, and Production
« Reply #69 on: February 13, 2018, 05:41:27 PM »

Wasn't planning on this sort of thing, to be honest. It seems like asking for trouble in various ways, design-wise. (Just one quick example: suppose watching the battle usually makes it play out more favorably than autoresolve, due to the specifics of ships and loadouts. Oops, now you have to watch every battle.)

Yes, what you say is true, for a small segment of players who are trying to get optimized results in their games. Very likely, those guys will save-reload to get a result. However, you have to balance that with the joy that the average player will have just watching his faction's ships at work. Also, don't forget that being able to watch the battle grants the player a LOT of important information about how to improve their fleet.

In this case, I think the pros outweigh the cons, Alex. Please reconsider this. Thanks!
Logged

Morgan Rue

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 142
    • View Profile
Re: Blueprints, Doctrine, and Production
« Reply #70 on: February 13, 2018, 06:14:59 PM »

Would be cool to watch a "simulated" fleet go against a "simulated" enemy. A "run in Simulator" button by the "Typical Heavy Patrol" thing would be very cool. Doesn't let you change the outcome of anything, but does let you test your theoretical AI fleet against an AI enemy and see how they preform.
Logged
Dauntless.

Sendrien

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 265
    • View Profile
Re: Blueprints, Doctrine, and Production
« Reply #71 on: February 13, 2018, 06:28:07 PM »

On a separate note about blueprint groups, now that you have an easy way of grouping which factions use which equipment, I'd like to point out something I've noticed in my multiple playthroughs over the years. In all this time, despite the steady increase of new factions, I've always felt there were only three "real" factions in the game: Tri-Tachyon, Hegemony and Independent.

The reason is actually quite simple: each of these three factions have a faction-unique technology tier. Pirates are a weak fourth, if you count damaged tech as a "tier". All the other factions seem like a slapdash hybrid of these three(four) factions.

I'm not suggesting that you create a tech tier for each new faction, but there are certainly some ways to improve uniqueness and faction identity. And now that there are blueprints that group technologies together, it opens the door for a logically consistent way to differentiate factions, and give each one something iconic, in the same way that the Paragon is iconic of TT, and the Onslaught is iconic of Hegemony.

A lot of blueprint groups can be common to multiple factions, for instance, a low-tech frigate and destroyer blueprint group can be shared across all the factions which use them as their workhorses. But you could also add a single rarer blueprint for the same faction with a ship that ONLY that faction uses, whatever kind of ship it may be. In fact, it need not even be a ship. It could be a weapon, or a hull-mod (although this is less visible in combat).

Therefore, with the addition of only a few new ship/weapon blueprints that are unique to each faction, you could give combat against each faction a very unique identity and feeling.
Logged

Drokkath

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 281
  • Xenophilic Mutant Commando
    • View Profile
Re: Blueprints, Doctrine, and Production
« Reply #72 on: February 13, 2018, 06:45:10 PM »

Nice upcoming features. I'm still not that excited about being a leader of a faction despite spending time in SS with Nexerlin. But, however; the idea of having a small quiet faction of my own just so I have a hideout, a vault, an auto-factory and a storage all-in-one and have it highly guarded seems worth the effort and then some.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2018, 06:48:09 PM by Drokkath »
Logged
For I dipt in to the future, far as my gazer eye could see; Saw the vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be.

Goumindong

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1886
    • View Profile
Re: Blueprints, Doctrine, and Production
« Reply #73 on: February 13, 2018, 07:23:48 PM »

Wasn't planning on this sort of thing, to be honest. It seems like asking for trouble in various ways, design-wise. (Just one quick example: suppose watching the battle usually makes it play out more favorably than autoresolve, due to the specifics of ships and loadouts. Oops, now you have to watch every battle.)

Yes, what you say is true, for a small segment of players who are trying to get optimized results in their games. Very likely, those guys will save-reload to get a result. However, you have to balance that with the joy that the average player will have just watching his faction's ships at work. Also, don't forget that being able to watch the battle grants the player a LOT of important information about how to improve their fleet.

In this case, I think the pros outweigh the cons, Alex. Please reconsider this. Thanks!

No more information than you already have from watching your own fleet perform.
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23986
    • View Profile
Re: Blueprints, Doctrine, and Production
« Reply #74 on: February 13, 2018, 07:35:46 PM »

Well on the other hand having your fleets go snap, crackle and pop and then disappear like everything else would be quite an underwhelming letdown. When one of your more impressive allied fleets gets into a big battle, you'd probably want to watch it anyways, yeah? For battles that are more ones-sided you'd still autoresolve.

Seems like a real missed opportunity to not allow the player to see these fleets engage in real battle, again, if they choose to.
Yes, what you say is true, for a small segment of players who are trying to get optimized results in their games. Very likely, those guys will save-reload to get a result. However, you have to balance that with the joy that the average player will have just watching his faction's ships at work. Also, don't forget that being able to watch the battle grants the player a LOT of important information about how to improve their fleet.

In this case, I think the pros outweigh the cons, Alex. Please reconsider this. Thanks!

I feel like being able to join the battle alongside your allies is about as far as this should go. Being able to remotely watch battles your faction fleets are involved in raises the question of why you couldn't participate in it; I'd like to keep the feeling of the player being in a specific place, rather than entirely omniscient. In addition, ship AI is designed with one ship being piloted by the player in mind, so "you can watch AI vs AI battles" is not a feature I want to explicitly push. That's not an experience the game is made for.

Finally, this is very much something that affects most players, not just a small subset that really want to optimize. How much it affects any given player is going to be variable, but the rules of a game naturally shape the way the game is played. Putting in rules that encourage one thing and then expecting the player to do something else that's actually fun is bad design, period; thinking that this only affects the hyper-optimizer style of player is imo a fallacy. It's a pretty well known fact that given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out. (I'm not saying that there's nothing like that already in the game or that its design is perfect, but those are things to fix, not add more of.)

So, for several reasons, I strongly feel this would be a bad idea. Apologies! :)


Would be cool to watch a "simulated" fleet go against a "simulated" enemy. A "run in Simulator" button by the "Typical Heavy Patrol" thing would be very cool. Doesn't let you change the outcome of anything, but does let you test your theoretical AI fleet against an AI enemy and see how they preform.

Hmm, yeah. I'd been half thinking about that already; mostly it's just a pain (i.e. could be time-consuming) to implement. But something like "your flagship plus the sample fleet, vs the simulator" could be fun.


On a separate note about blueprint groups, now that you have an easy way of grouping which factions use which equipment, I'd like to point out something I've noticed in my multiple playthroughs over the years. In all this time, despite the steady increase of new factions, I've always felt there were only three "real" factions in the game: Tri-Tachyon, Hegemony and Independent.

The reason is actually quite simple: each of these three factions have a faction-unique technology tier. Pirates are a weak fourth, if you count damaged tech as a "tier". All the other factions seem like a slapdash hybrid of these three(four) factions.

I'm not suggesting that you create a tech tier for each new faction, but there are certainly some ways to improve uniqueness and faction identity. And now that there are blueprints that group technologies together, it opens the door for a logically consistent way to differentiate factions, and give each one something iconic, in the same way that the Paragon is iconic of TT, and the Onslaught is iconic of Hegemony.

A lot of blueprint groups can be common to multiple factions, for instance, a low-tech frigate and destroyer blueprint group can be shared across all the factions which use them as their workhorses. But you could also add a single rarer blueprint for the same faction with a ship that ONLY that faction uses, whatever kind of ship it may be. In fact, it need not even be a ship. It could be a weapon, or a hull-mod (although this is less visible in combat).

Therefore, with the addition of only a few new ship/weapon blueprints that are unique to each faction, you could give combat against each faction a very unique identity and feeling.

Hmm, I see what you mean. But if one faction was the only one that (say) had access to the Apogee - it wouldn't even be guaranteed to show up in every fleet, right? The Onslaught/Paragon stand out because they're the pinnacle of power and so they matter because they *will* show up in the most powerful fleets and will matter there. Smaller ships seem unlikely to have the same impact unless they're prevalent. Still, it won't hurt, and it's more or less how I'm going about things in revamping what blueprints are available to what factions. If the Apogee was the main Persean League cruiser, that might be enough to help them stand out a bit more.

I'm also hopeful that the doctrine settings will help differentiate the factions more. For example, if the Hegemony and the Luddic Church have access to mostly the same kinds of ships, but the Church favors larger numbers of smaller and lower-quality ships, with a higher proportion of carriers, that should be very distinct despite them potentially sharing most of the hulls.

Also: this is a small thing, but I think "low-quality ships" will feel a lot more distinct in the next release, because the orangy-red bars that show the number of d-mods are now shown in more places. In particular in the fleet tooltip, the interaction dialog, and in the combat map, so it'll be extremely visually apparent.

Nice upcoming features. I'm still not that excited about being a leader of a faction despite spending time in SS with Nexerlin. But, however; the idea of having a small quiet faction of my own just so I have a hideout, a vault, an auto-factory and a storage all-in-one and have it highly guarded seems worth the effort and then some.

*thumbs up* I'm personally partial to the idea of having my own hideout somewhere, and being able to crank out some equipment there really makes it feel more useful, doesn't it?
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 11