Big fan of energy bar graphs in designer. Great job!

[Cubano]

I always thought the energy mechanic for ship design was more complicated than it needed to be and was hoping it would be streamlined in DW2.

However, the 2 horizontal bar graphs I saw in the vid really are a great idea. It should make it a LOT easier to design the energy component configuration of ships without having to rework the mechanic, which was cumbersome to optimize in DW1.

I'm really excited for the game. Can't wait.

[SirHoraceHarkness]

I'm stoked that the engine will now properly support huge maps and lots o stars and not lag out like in DWU if you had too many empires in play at once or even if you had a few when late game rolls around. Multi core and able to access more than 4 gigs system ram is going to go a loooong way to smooth games out.

[Galaxy227]

There's a lot of really neat improvements to how DW2's UI functions, energy bar graphs included, that I've mostly been picking up on through DasTactic's analysis series. I'm so far quite impressed with the work Code Force has invested into their UI's functionality, and am more than sure it will pay off when it comes to the game's success.

[Whiskiz]

I especially like how they distinguish energy consumption in a bar for hyperdrive and another bar for weapons use etc.

Since both energy levels are important but can't be used at the same time, unless they make FTL battles a thing [:'(]

[SilverCitadel]

DW:U already did this, they list Energy storage, excess energy output, static energy consumption , weapon energy consumption per second, cruise and maximum thrust energy consumption, and hyperdrive energy consumption. As far as I know thats all the info needed to make ships or stations. its like that one post about resource management improvements in DW2 when DW:U already did 2 of the 4 points they requested with expansion planner and galaxy map filtering...

what was DW:U missing regarding this??

yes weapon energy consumption didn't have its own pretty bar like thrust and hyperdrive in DW:U but it gave a clear number in the designer template in DW:U...

[zgrssd]

ORIGINAL: Cubano

I always thought the energy mechanic for ship design was more complicated than it needed to be and was hoping it would be streamlined in DW2.

However, the 2 horizontal bar graphs I saw in the vid really are a great idea. It should make it a LOT easier to design the energy component configuration of ships without having to rework the mechanic, which was cumbersome to optimize in DW1.

I'm really excited for the game. Can't wait.

As I keep saying:
DW1 was a very good game, held back by a poor UI.

There are so many minor changes that would have made the game more accessible...

[Cubano]

ORIGINAL: SilverCitadel

DW:U already did this, they list Energy storage, excess energy output, static energy consumption , weapon energy consumption per second, cruise and maximum thrust energy consumption, and hyperdrive energy consumption. As far as I know thats all the info needed to make ships or stations. its like that one post about resource management improvements in DW2 when DW:U already did 2 of the 4 points they requested with expansion planner and galaxy map filtering...

what was DW:U missing regarding this??

yes weapon energy consumption didn't have its own pretty bar like thrust and hyperdrive in DW:U but it gave a clear number in the designer template in DW:U...

The details of the mechanic wasn't obvious from just looking at the number for the first time. There was a detailed blog post from someone that gave you the info about how it all worked bt you had to find it on your own (nothing in game if I recall). It's been a while since I played but I remember having to math it for every design - I think especially to account for weapon energy needs? The info was there but I just felt it was more cumbersome than it needed to be. The graph makes it a lot clearer how all the energy storage, generation and consumption stack up, especially for new players looking at it for the first time.

[SilverCitadel]

ORIGINAL: Cubano

ORIGINAL: SilverCitadel

DW:U already did this, they list Energy storage, excess energy output, static energy consumption , weapon energy consumption per second, cruise and maximum thrust energy consumption, and hyperdrive energy consumption. As far as I know thats all the info needed to make ships or stations. its like that one post about resource management improvements in DW2 when DW:U already did 2 of the 4 points they requested with expansion planner and galaxy map filtering...

what was DW:U missing regarding this??

yes weapon energy consumption didn't have its own pretty bar like thrust and hyperdrive in DW:U but it gave a clear number in the designer template in DW:U...

The details of the mechanic wasn't obvious from just looking at the number for the first time. There was a detailed blog post from someone that gave you the info about how it all worked bt you had to find it on your own (nothing in game if I recall). It's been a while since I played but I remember having to math it for every design - I think especially to account for weapon energy needs? The info was there but I just felt it was more cumbersome than it needed to be. The graph makes it a lot clearer how all the energy storage, generation and consumption stack up, especially for new players looking at it for the first time.

1: I think the ingame encyclopedia or pdf game manual talks about it briefly enough for me to understand but my recent playthrough I didn't bother looking it up as I remembered how it worked.

2: I mean I don't know how to respond to this a lot of things in games you have to find on your own, some people could play age of empires 2 or Offworld trading company for years and never know like Select all barracks or Sell all was a command unless you went over the hotkey binding menu (which I usually do in a new game)

3: Arbitrary unless you want to expand on why "mathing" on the design (you come off as implying that its bad) is bad but I don't see people complaining about doing math on ground invasions, or deciding if a planet is worth colonizing (afterall using math is just an aide or tool to help make decisions) (or at least I haven't seen any). I mean after all you can just automate the design anyway if you don't want to make designs to met your personal parameters.

4: being cumbersome is to me pretty arbitrary unless expanded on, like how people say how Dark Souls 1 is clunky after playing 3 and somehow people universally agree while I don't resonate with at all when I just have to play it for an hour or so and I'll adjust.

5: And this is probably why I should avoid any discussion or topics about UI because I don't understand or see eye to eye on it ever.

[Cubano]

ORIGINAL: SilverCitadel

ORIGINAL: Cubano

ORIGINAL: SilverCitadel

DW:U already did this, they list Energy storage, excess energy output, static energy consumption , weapon energy consumption per second, cruise and maximum thrust energy consumption, and hyperdrive energy consumption. As far as I know thats all the info needed to make ships or stations. its like that one post about resource management improvements in DW2 when DW:U already did 2 of the 4 points they requested with expansion planner and galaxy map filtering...

what was DW:U missing regarding this??

yes weapon energy consumption didn't have its own pretty bar like thrust and hyperdrive in DW:U but it gave a clear number in the designer template in DW:U...

The details of the mechanic wasn't obvious from just looking at the number for the first time. There was a detailed blog post from someone that gave you the info about how it all worked bt you had to find it on your own (nothing in game if I recall). It's been a while since I played but I remember having to math it for every design - I think especially to account for weapon energy needs? The info was there but I just felt it was more cumbersome than it needed to be. The graph makes it a lot clearer how all the energy storage, generation and consumption stack up, especially for new players looking at it for the first time.

1: I think the ingame encyclopedia or pdf game manual talks about it briefly enough for me to understand but my recent playthrough I didn't bother looking it up as I remembered how it worked.

2: I mean I don't know how to respond to this a lot of things in games you have to find on your own, some people could play age of empires 2 or Offworld trading company for years and never know like Select all barracks or Sell all was a command unless you went over the hotkey binding menu (which I usually do in a new game)

3: Arbitrary unless you want to expand on why "mathing" on the design (you come off as implying that its bad) is bad but I don't see people complaining about doing math on ground invasions, or deciding if a planet is worth colonizing (afterall using math is just an aide or tool to help make decisions) (or at least I haven't seen any). I mean after all you can just automate the design anyway if you don't want to make designs to met your personal parameters.

4: being cumbersome is to me pretty arbitrary unless expanded on, like how people say how Dark Souls 1 is clunky after playing 3 and somehow people universally agree while I don't resonate with at all when I just have to play it for an hour or so and I'll adjust.

5: And this is probably why I should avoid any discussion or topics about UI because I don't understand or see eye to eye on it ever.

Of course it is arbitrary, it is an opinion. Unless memory fails me, I remember having to add up the weapon energy usage every time to determine if the energy components were sufficient which bugged me a bit. That's the math I was referring to. I personally found the presentation of the energy information could use work and thought maybe that the actual mechanic could be streamlined. But now they're presenting the information in a more digestible form, alleviating my issue. Isn't that a good thing - for everyone?

You state in your last point that you don't "ever" (your word) agree with other's opinions on the UI. Does that mean that you feel the original UI is fine and other people's complaints were unwarranted? If that's true, what is your position now that the devs have reworked it taking other people's feedback into account and the positive response from the community to those changes?

[SilverCitadel]

ORIGINAL: Cubano

ORIGINAL: SilverCitadel

ORIGINAL: Cubano



The details of the mechanic wasn't obvious from just looking at the number for the first time. There was a detailed blog post from someone that gave you the info about how it all worked bt you had to find it on your own (nothing in game if I recall). It's been a while since I played but I remember having to math it for every design - I think especially to account for weapon energy needs? The info was there but I just felt it was more cumbersome than it needed to be. The graph makes it a lot clearer how all the energy storage, generation and consumption stack up, especially for new players looking at it for the first time.

1: I think the ingame encyclopedia or pdf game manual talks about it briefly enough for me to understand but my recent playthrough I didn't bother looking it up as I remembered how it worked.

2: I mean I don't know how to respond to this a lot of things in games you have to find on your own, some people could play age of empires 2 or Offworld trading company for years and never know like Select all barracks or Sell all was a command unless you went over the hotkey binding menu (which I usually do in a new game)

3: Arbitrary unless you want to expand on why "mathing" on the design (you come off as implying that its bad) is bad but I don't see people complaining about doing math on ground invasions, or deciding if a planet is worth colonizing (afterall using math is just an aide or tool to help make decisions) (or at least I haven't seen any). I mean after all you can just automate the design anyway if you don't want to make designs to met your personal parameters.

4: being cumbersome is to me pretty arbitrary unless expanded on, like how people say how Dark Souls 1 is clunky after playing 3 and somehow people universally agree while I don't resonate with at all when I just have to play it for an hour or so and I'll adjust.

5: And this is probably why I should avoid any discussion or topics about UI because I don't understand or see eye to eye on it ever.

Of course it is arbitrary, it is an opinion. Unless memory fails me, I remember having to add up the weapon energy usage every time to determine if the energy components were sufficient which bugged me a bit. That's the math I was referring to. I personally found the presentation of the energy information could use work and thought maybe that the actual mechanic could be streamlined. But now they're presenting the information in a more digestible form, alleviating my issue. Isn't that a good thing - for everyone?

You state in your last point that you don't "ever" (your word) agree with other's opinions on the UI. Does that mean that you feel the original UI is fine and other people's complaints were unwarranted? If that's true, what is your position now that the devs have reworked it taking other people's feedback into account and the positive response from the community to those changes?

I don't ever agree because I never really played a game and felt the UI was the reason I didn't like the game. The UI to me something I'll figure out as I play like; keybindings , timing, or reactions not something I grade a game on. If the game is interesting or I like enough then I'll "deal" or "put up" with what people call "bad UI" I mean I played Distant Worlds universe to death, I played dwarf fortress and other games where the common consensus seems to be "oh this game is good but UI keeps me from playing". I mean before I even played Civ 4 when it came out when I was in middle school I read I think the 123 pages or so of the manual because thats just how I am.

[Cubano]

ORIGINAL: SilverCitadel

I don't ever agree because I never really played a game and felt the UI was the reason I didn't like the game. The UI to me something I'll figure out as I play like; keybindings , timing, or reactions not something I grade a game on. If the game is interesting or I like enough then I'll "deal" or "put up" with what people call "bad UI" I mean I played Distant Worlds universe to death, I played dwarf fortress and other games where the common consensus seems to be "oh this game is good but UI keeps me from playing". I mean before I even played Civ 4 when it came out when I was in middle school I read I think the 123 pages or so of the manual because thats just how I am.

I was about to graduate college when the very first Civ game came out and like you, I read every manual for every game (but now most don't have one, sadly). Damn, time goes by fast.

Most people will play and enjoy a game that they like, even if they aren't a fan of the UI, putting up with it as you do. But discussing it in forums and proposing ideas for change is how feedback gets back to the dev to make improvements - which thankfully he has. From your posts, it seems that you don't see much point of that, which I find odd.

Edit: I think actually Dwarf fortress is an exception to that. A lot of people get turned off by that UI and never give it a chance. I'm looking forward to seeing what the revised version on Steam looks like.