Little disturbing things

[HTG]

Hello,

Idle ships list:
Again and again I stumble over ships, which are in building process, but when they are at 40%+ they cannot be distinguished from other idle ships.
So why not have a different approach like for example:
1.) implement a progress bar (Would be great)

progress bar

Distant Worlds 2_Progress Bar.jpg (48.44 KiB) Viewed 1088 times

2.) keep the red background color in the Icon until the ship has been finished
3.) remove ships, which are still in construction, totally from the list of idle ships

Abandoned Stations cannot be investigated:
I did encounter some abandoned stations which cannot be investigated if you choose not to investigate in the initial displayed dialog. After the initial dialog of the event is closed I tried to investigate using my Explorer but I got no option to investigate this stations, like for several other stations.
For example:

station

Distant Worlds 2_Station orbiting black whole.jpg (17.47 KiB) Viewed 1088 times

The station is inside an asteroid field:

station detailed view

Distant Worlds 2_Station orbiting black whole_details.jpg (93.62 KiB) Viewed 1088 times

With this station I had this problem - I had to load a save game to investigate this station.

Command queuing for individual ships:
I really don't like the concept of a general queue für construction ships, I would like very much more, to have a queue per ship (not only construction ships) to store a many commands as I want for any ships I can control.

Component upgrades:
Playing as Humans, I was able to acquire "Crystal Sensors", which are a notch better than "Enhanced Sensors". Unfortunately, the automatic upgrade did choose the "Enhanced Sensors" over the "Crystal Sensors", so that I have to correct this for several ships every time I do an automatic upgrade.
I really like that mechanism, which let me choose which is the next ship to upgrade to. Can we have something similar on component level?

Best regards,
Tom

[Jorgen_CAB]

Component upgrades:
Playing as Humans, I was able to acquire "Crystal Sensors", which are a notch better than "Enhanced Sensors". Unfortunately, the automatic upgrade did choose the "Enhanced Sensors" over the "Crystal Sensors", so that I have to correct this for several ships every time I do an automatic upgrade.
I really like that mechanism, which let me choose which is the next ship to upgrade to. Can we have something similar on component level?

Best regards,
Tom

All of your concerns and ideas are pretty good quality of life updates.

When it comes to what components the AI decide to use is a rather complicated thing. I have worked with the AI and design templates to get the AI to build better designs and the way the AI decide to use components at times are a bit frustrating to be honest. Using the design templates there is not even a way to get the AI to use short range sensors at all, which is strange. Luckily short range sensors are not really a needed components to have anyway and it is easy to just mod targeting sensors to have a short scanning power instead.

When it comes to choose the best components it should generally be straight forward if the components that is compared have the same values but one is just better, but even here the AI will on occasion fail. If two components does not have the same values it is quite difficult for the AI to understand what is the "best" component" to use, now there need to be some priority system. There could be a priority system set by the game and one that the player can override in the game. This way modders can play with the priority of modules and the player can decide to prioritize some modules over others.

The other thing is using components that it does not really need over more expensive modules. Using fuel modules that hold 150 fuel over one that holds 175 but cost Hexadorium can very well be better for you if the range that the 150 fuel cell give is plenty enough.

[MaximKI]

Thanks for the feedback and suggestions. We'll consider these for future improvements to the game.

Order queueing is a much-requested feature that is definitely on our list of improvements we'd like to make to the game.

Regarding the components - the auto-designer technically is supposed to utilize the best components for ship designs. However, we've received reports that racial tech stolen by other factions is technically better than the baseline, the auto-designer doesn't really take these better techs into account. This is an area we intend to improve upon in the future.

[StormingKiwi]

The other thing is using components that it does not really need over more expensive modules. Using fuel modules that hold 150 fuel over one that holds 175 but cost Hexadorium can very well be better for you if the range that the 150 fuel cell give is plenty enough.

I absolutely agree with this. Hexodorium is so rare that the ~20% boost to fuel capacity per tank is not worth it in my opinion. Better to go other routes to increase range (reactor efficiency, better hyperdrives, etc.) than continue researching down the fuel tank line. I believe the capacities are 120 and 150 respectively for fuel tanks v2 and large fuel tanks.

Regarding the components - the auto-designer technically is supposed to utilize the best components for ship designs. However, we've received reports that racial tech stolen by other factions is technically better than the baseline, the auto-designer doesn't really take these better techs into account. This is an area we intend to improve upon in the future.

Unless I'm very much mistaken, the auto designer uses the highest tech component as the developer assumes that component is always the best, which is a reasonable assumption most of the time. It isn't racial vs baseline necessarily.

However, Jorgen speaks of another case, which I would classify as an edge case, where the player's trade-off isn't the same trade-off the developer incorporated into the game logic. In this case, the Hexadorium using component is more expensive than the alternative of a higher tech level, leading the player to desire the component that performs worse purely on a cost basis.

For example, in my current game I had only one Hexadorium source in my empire when my spies stole the large fuel tanks technology, and I want to spend hexadorium on larger hulls later. Hexadorium is rare enough that a cheaper and on paper "worse" component is the better component in reality.

[Ax]

For now, the best way to upgrade custom designs that have any kind of special parts, is to use Copy As New instead of the Upgrade button. All the racial and lower level parts stay on, and even the serial number gets updated.

I could imagine a checkbox for each slot that would lock its part out from upgrading, this would be very useful for things like the mega fuel cell which stay relevant for a long time. But obviously that's a whole new feature.

[StormingKiwi]

For now, the best way to upgrade custom designs that have any kind of special parts, is to use Copy As New instead of the Upgrade button. All the racial and lower level parts stay on, and even the serial number gets updated.

I could imagine a checkbox for each slot that would lock its part out from upgrading, this would be very useful for things like the mega fuel cell which stay relevant for a long time. But obviously that's a whole new feature.

"For now, the best way to use the auto designer to upgrade custom designs that have any kind of special parts, is not to use the auto designer".

Yes, we get that, but that's not the point of the posts.

[Ax]

Well that was a truly pointless interjection

The current ship upgrade model either follows the AI path or gives you complete freedom. Everything else including my suggested component checkmarks will lead to a lot more complications and spending of limited development time.

[Omnius]

I agree with HTG about ships building over 40% look too much like active ships. I love his idea of having ships show they are still building until 100$ done and to show construction progress in their name as HTG showed.

Abandoned stations should be ready to investigate even if a player declined initially.

[StormingKiwi]

Well that was a truly pointless interjection

The current ship upgrade model either follows the AI path or gives you complete freedom. Everything else including my suggested component checkmarks will lead to a lot more complications and spending of limited development time.

Yes, your interjections are pointless.

Correct. However, Matrix have indicated several times in various forum posts that they are considering investing that limited development time in this area.

"Just use full manual play" has never been a valid response to someone constructively critiquing the existing automated systems.

[Nightskies]

If the ship is a custom design, they aren't exactly relying on automation, are they?

[StormingKiwi]

If the ship is a custom design, they aren't exactly relying on automation, are they?

Who said anything about relying on automation?

Automatically upgrading individual components is a useful quality of life tool for players using manually designed ships, I use it all the time. It does exactly what automation can do well, by saving mindless busywork, it improves productive gameplay.

It is also essential for the AI to upgrade components properly. The AI doesn't have a human player to correct errors made by itself.

[Nightskies]

I'm probably the last person who should say it, but I think someone should. I would remind you that in the past, you've been dismissive of other people's experiences and thoughts without merit. It seems as though the way you're actively interpreting what he is saying in a way that invalidates his opinion that does not support your view. This isn't constructive.

There is valid cause to say,
"I could imagine a checkbox for each slot that would lock its part out from upgrading, this would be very useful for things like the mega fuel cell which stay relevant for a long time. But obviously that's a whole new feature."
followed up by,
"The current ship upgrade model either follows the AI path or gives you complete freedom. Everything else including my suggested component checkmarks will lead to a lot more complications and spending of limited development time."

which, in other words, is to say that the current system, while not perfect, is sufficient given the way many other aspects of the game functions. He's not saying the critique is pointless, or wrong, just that it ought to be a low priority.

Such unspoken priorities being things like an order queue, a search function, cleaning up the UI, improving the notification system, improving fleet and ship logic, expanding empire level automation settings (invade independents y/n), making bombardment weapons worthwhile (especially for the AI), improving diplomacy, completing the other race's power creep, making population control less click intensive, etc.

Creating a system to allow the player to fine-tune the automation in upgrading ships- *especially manually designed ships* (hence why *I* mention the reliance on automation)- is a minor QoL improvement compared to the above and many more.

[StormingKiwi]

I'm probably the last person who should say it, but I think someone should. I would remind you that in the past, you've been dismissive of other people's experiences and thoughts without merit. It seems as though the way you're actively interpreting what he is saying in a way that invalidates his opinion that does not support your view. This isn't constructive.

Nightskies, I appreciate this message, and I respect you for saying it and expressing your perspective. I think perhaps the conversation would be better in PM. However, let's not pretend that robust and vigorous debate is unconstructive.

There is valid cause to say,
"I could imagine a checkbox for each slot that would lock its part out from upgrading, this would be very useful for things like the mega fuel cell which stay relevant for a long time. But obviously that's a whole new feature."
followed up by,
"The current ship upgrade model either follows the AI path or gives you complete freedom. Everything else including my suggested component checkmarks will lead to a lot more complications and spending of limited development time."

which, in other words, is to say that the current system, while not perfect, is sufficient given the way many other aspects of the game functions. He's not saying the critique is pointless, or wrong, just that it ought to be a low priority.

Such unspoken priorities being things like an order queue, a search function, cleaning up the UI, improving the notification system, improving fleet and ship logic, expanding empire level automation settings (invade independents y/n), making bombardment weapons worthwhile (especially for the AI), improving diplomacy, completing the other race's power creep, making population control less click intensive, etc.

Creating a system to allow the player to fine-tune the automation in upgrading ships- *especially manually designed ships* (hence why *I* mention the reliance on automation)- is a minor QoL improvement compared to the above and many more.

Selectively quoting, yet you accuse me of motivated reasoning?

The full quote is:

"For now, the best way to upgrade custom designs that have any kind of special parts, is to use Copy As New instead of the Upgrade button. All the racial and lower level parts stay on, and even the serial number gets updated."
"I could imagine a checkbox for each slot that would lock its part out from upgrading, this would be very useful for things like the mega fuel cell which stay relevant for a long time. But obviously that's a whole new feature."
followed up by,
"The current ship upgrade model either follows the AI path or gives you complete freedom. Everything else including my suggested component checkmarks will lead to a lot more complications and spending of limited development time."

The either-or is a false dichotomy. There is a third way: using the upgrade button and curating the design.
I am not alone in the critique of the system, nor am I alone in believing it should be improved.

While I agree there are other possible potential QoL improvements, I disagree with the community being dismissive of people's wishes and suggestions on the basis that those are unfavourable and, therefore, should be low priority because some other ones are preferred. It is up to Matrix and CodeForce to decide how they spend their development time, and they've already indicated this is an area they are considering how to improve.

[Nightskies]

Quotes merely clipped for brevity about the subject I highlighted with no other intention there (it is right there, after all).

If we were to agree that it is irrelevant to comment on the perceived importance or value of suggestions when we thought they weren't very valuable, then we ought to be quiet about the relative value of these suggestions:

Going back to DW:U ship design
Multiplayer
Be like Stellaris with mix-and-match sub-hulls
Achievements
Freeform 1st person camera from inside the bridge of a ship
Alternative form of an invasion that exclusively kills population and doesn't capture colony nor damage quality or buildings
Machine learning for AI empires
Moving objects (namely planets)
Be like Stellaris with a custom race designer

...and many more.

I don't think there's much validity to invalidating someone's measure of the value of a suggestion provided the opinion isn't based on erroneous thinking or a lack of information. It helps to give an idea of what's important to players overall and what is a niche desire.

[Jorgen_CAB]

Could the upgrade be better and smoother, sure yes it could be. Perhaps they will do something there eventually. I would just be happy if I had the option to automatically obsolete the copied model after I copied a hull and edited with a new components. Now I have to manually obsolete the old model.

I'm sure they will improve on this eventually but I must say it is not a high priority on my list of things I want for the game.

[StormingKiwi]

Could the upgrade be better and smoother, sure yes it could be. Perhaps they will do something there eventually. I would just be happy if I had the option to automatically obsolete the copied model after I copied a hull and edited with a new components. Now I have to manually obsolete the old model.

I'm sure they will improve on this eventually but I must say it is not a high priority on my list of things I want for the game.

You can do that. Use the upgrade button, then edit the components you need changing.

I don't think there's much validity to invalidating someone's measure of the value of a suggestion provided the opinion isn't based on erroneous thinking or a lack of information. It helps to give an idea of what's important to players overall and what is a niche desire.

Reading between the lines of the negative reviews, it seems that what is important to players overall are: performance, player-agency, game design, and UX.

[Nightskies]

I'd argue against game design being a problem for the majority of DW2 players, but that's not important here.

Generally pointing out that negative reviews covers those things doesn't reinforce that this specifically is something important.

[StormingKiwi]

I'd argue against game design being a problem for the majority of DW2 players, but that's not important here.

Generally pointing out that negative reviews covers those things doesn't reinforce that this specifically is something important.

I'm not trying to develop the upgrading designs point, nor am I arguing for or against whether this specifically was something worthwhile of development time. On that, I've said my piece.


Game design is a consistent theme of the negative reviews.

A perspective of the issue aiming to answer the question of "What is a problem for most DW2 players?" is survivorship bias.

As DW2 has only an average of 79 daily players in the last 30 days, I would be willing to bet what is critically important to even the overwhelming majority of die-hard forum-goers is unlikely to be at all important to the overall customer base.

[Nightskies]

This is unbelievable.

"A perspective of the issue aiming to answer the question of "What is a problem for most DW2 players?" is survivorship bias."

It suggests that I, and others who still play or grace the forums from time to time, don't have a fair idea of what players want because we aren't average players. (again with the invalidation attempt)

Personally, I've been interacting with many players over the course of my 'surivorship'. The bias I would have is that the opinions I've spent a lot of time around are largely from Steam forum users. A platform which is known for its player's toxicity toward games- though thankfully in the case of DW2, its nowhere near as bad as its reputation. That alone says something.

Touching on this:
"I would be willing to bet what is critically important to even the overwhelming majority of die-hard forum-goers is unlikely to be at all important to the overall customer base."

And why would you think that those with the most experience in the game wouldn't have the best understanding among gamers regarding what would have the most positive impact on the game itself?

Otherwise, then we're horribly overdue on getting that female leader image- not the Securans, just female leaders. That would be important if that's the case, wouldn't it? (nevermind that the customer base probably doesn't care about that, its the point I'm trying to get across)

DW2 is decidedly NOT on board with that line of thought and its because of that, in part, that I am a supporter.


If concerning ourselves now with what the most common MAJOR problems is for DW2 players, it is clearly 2 things.

1. Player Agency
I made a lengthy post draft just about this. Not to drag it down of course, but more of a fair warning to potential players. A hope that they'll go into the game knowing that some things that they might want to control- namely, many behaviors of the automation- is out of their control. Aye, even through modding. Personally, I'm fine with it as is, not to say it couldn't be improved, nor that it shouldn't. It needs attention- especially in fleet control.

Why? There's little more frustrating than experiencing losses that are due to actions of your units that defy expectations. While there are a lot of unreasonable expectations by players, and its difficult to establish what they should expect (who knew automation would disband *my entire invasion army* for conquering the enemy capital), but that's part of the problem. Players don't know what to expect and have to make assumptions- many of which are fair, and they're being punished for it.

2. Performance
Self-apparent.


The UX complaints that make it out to be a big deal are insubstantial- ESPECIALLY THE ONES WHO SAY DWU WAS BETTER. Yes, its not great, but anyone who spends a little time to figure it out will see that it serves its purpose fine. A review that trashes UX can be ignored. They can be invalidated. They're unreasonable.

Game design is such a broad stroke that it's pointless to bring up as a general statement. That could mean performance. It could mean diplomacy. It could mean the balance between the Lance Heavy Missiles and the Super Laser. It implies that the entire game needs more skill in designing. If I could disagree with a megaphone here, I would.

There are many parts of DW2 that are simply brilliant.

[StormingKiwi]

This is unbelievable.

"A perspective of the issue aiming to answer the question of "What is a problem for most DW2 players?" is survivorship bias."

It suggests that I, and others who still play or grace the forums from time to time, don't have a fair idea of what players want because we aren't average players. (again with the invalidation attempt)

Personally, I've been interacting with many players over the course of my 'surivorship'. The bias I would have is that the opinions I've spent a lot of time around are largely from Steam forum users. A platform which is known for its player's toxicity toward games- though thankfully in the case of DW2, its nowhere near as bad as its reputation. That alone says something.

Touching on this:
"I would be willing to bet what is critically important to even the overwhelming majority of die-hard forum-goers is unlikely to be at all important to the overall customer base."

And why would you think that those with the most experience in the game wouldn't have the best understanding among gamers regarding what would have the most positive impact on the game itself?

Otherwise, then we're horribly overdue on getting that female leader image- not the Securans, just female leaders. That would be important if that's the case, wouldn't it? (nevermind that the customer base probably doesn't care about that, its the point I'm trying to get across)

DW2 is decidedly NOT on board with that line of thought and its because of that, in part, that I am a supporter.


If concerning ourselves now with what the most common MAJOR problems is for DW2 players, it is clearly 2 things.

1. Player Agency
I made a lengthy post draft just about this. Not to drag it down of course, but more of a fair warning to potential players. A hope that they'll go into the game knowing that some things that they might want to control- namely, many behaviors of the automation- is out of their control. Aye, even through modding. Personally, I'm fine with it as is, not to say it couldn't be improved, nor that it shouldn't. It needs attention- especially in fleet control.

Why? There's little more frustrating than experiencing losses that are due to actions of your units that defy expectations. While there are a lot of unreasonable expectations by players, and its difficult to establish what they should expect (who knew automation would disband *my entire invasion army* for conquering the enemy capital), but that's part of the problem. Players don't know what to expect and have to make assumptions- many of which are fair, and they're being punished for it.

2. Performance
Self-apparent.


The UX complaints that make it out to be a big deal are insubstantial- ESPECIALLY THE ONES WHO SAY DWU WAS BETTER. Yes, its not great, but anyone who spends a little time to figure it out will see that it serves its purpose fine. A review that trashes UX can be ignored. They can be invalidated. They're unreasonable.

Game design is such a broad stroke that it's pointless to bring up as a general statement. That could mean performance. It could mean diplomacy. It could mean the balance between the Lance Heavy Missiles and the Super Laser. It implies that the entire game needs more skill in designing. If I could disagree with a megaphone here, I would.

There are many parts of DW2 that are simply brilliant.

Oh please, there wasn't any invalidation in that post. Benefit of the doubt goes a long way.

So using your experience, what then are the top four issues among gamers which would give most positive impact to the game itself?