Ship design woes

[zgrssd]

I've literally just started playing, so I might feel differently once I have more tech unlocked, but I found the lack of wiggle room with my initial designs very disappointing. Especially in prewarp, when I'd like to toss some more engines on my ships, it just was NOT a real option, given the limits. I totally get having some limits, and I'm predisposed to like this new system better since I barely even understood the old one, but just a little more freedom in the designs, early on, might be warranted. Again, maybe the system opens up later. We'll see.

Pre-Warp is currently not realy a supported Playstyle. The goal is to get Skip Drive at least.

However tech does matter massively for having more wiggle room. My early colonyship needs 3 Reactors and 2 Crew Quarters, just to be able to fly at maximum range.
But with better Reactors, better crew Systems - and of course larger hulls - that changes a lot.

Also note the variant hullsizes. If I want a fast Escort, the Patrol one is better then the Heavy and the Default one.

[Crumplecorn]

If you need hardpoints so the weapons appear in the right place on the model etc, you can just make each hardpoint capable of holding 4 weapons. Or 10. And leave it to the player to decide how many weapons to actually put on the ship, as it was in DWU.

As for ship hull size limits, DWU limited the size of ship you could build too, it just didn't limit the labels. If you chose to build a battleship and call it an escort, that was on you.

I haven't played with the ship designer a huge amount, so I'm open to being corrected here, but it seems like it is designed to railroad the player into uncreative ship designs. Why do thrusters and main engines compete with each other for slots? And armor and shields? Want to build a super tanky ship that can barely move? Can't. Want to build a kiting ship that sacrifices defense in favor of speed and maneuverability? Can't. Blinged out freighters with the firepower of a military ship? Can't.

There's no kind of sense to it, it's just a dumbed down system designed to stop the player getting creative vs the AI, just like the lack of order queues, and the inability to queue builds without the resources available.

[Cauldyth]

I don't know, to me the new system just seems more realistic to me. All those examples of things the player can no longer do A) feel like cheese to me, and B) I never had any interest in doing because they felt like cheese. When a modern real world navy designs a ship, things like the main propulsion system, the weapons, and the bow thrusters are absolutely not swappable. They can't decide to halve the bow thrusters, halve the weapons, and then put 15 engines on the back so it goes ridiculously fast. I know there's a conceptual difference between space ships and real surface ships, but games like this already equate them pretty heavily in terms of design philosophy.

Anyway, it's just my opinion, and I know that just because I don't want to do something doesn't mean no one else should be able to. I'm no modder, but I suspect someone will quickly come out with modded ship hulls that simply double or triple the number of slots for everything, at which point ship designs are once again just constrained by total space, so players who want more freedom can have it. You'd be able to just select the biggest hull you've currently researched, and then fill it out as much or as little as your want for your desired role.

[Lunalis]

Screenshot_30.png (1.87 MiB) Viewed 1796 times

i wonder why not more bay modules are shown on the ship hull...
like here are so many defence slots, why is just one shown? why not make all points spread over the hull visible?

in theory they could even make armor appear on the hull... they have gfx for damage and construction already... they could make the hull look different depending on how many of the defence slots are filled with armor. i.e. 3 out of 6 slots would make around 50% of the hull have more armored look to it.
or if all 6 slots would be visible... the area around the slot could be look more armored.

[zgrssd]

Screenshot_30.pngi wonder why not more bay modules are shown on the ship hull...
like here are so many defence slots, why is just one shown? why not make all points spread over the hull visible?

What is show are "External" Slots. Which currently only mater for Graphics, not for any gameplay effect.

[Jorgen_CAB]

I haven't played with the ship designer a huge amount, so I'm open to being corrected here, but it seems like it is designed to railroad the player into uncreative ship designs. Why do thrusters and main engines compete with each other for slots? And armor and shields? Want to build a super tanky ship that can barely move? Can't. Want to build a kiting ship that sacrifices defense in favor of speed and maneuverability? Can't. Blinged out freighters with the firepower of a military ship? Can't.

Most of the thing you want to do is...

A: Just make the AI weak by exploiting loopholes.

B: Very gamey and not very realistic as in reality there are only so much design space for certain components in order to make things a coherent whole. That means that thrusters and vectoring would have to compete for space just as you do in reality in a plane or ship... the same goes for powerplants, energy distribution and shielding versus armor all of these system competes for space and function as a whole.

The current system might somewhat feel that it railroads you in a certain way, but that is intentional and make it a better simulation model and also the AI more competitive.

There still is allot of flexibility in designs as in almost all cases you can't use all the slots for each hull anyways.

[EpicD4ve]

I have played DW since the first game came out, buying every new add-on. I think DW1 is my all time #1 or #2 space 4x. After playing DW2 , DW1 is, sadly, still the king. You guys screwed the pooch on ship design, one of DW1s best features, even if imperfect. I'll keep trying to give 2 a chance, but geeze, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I must admit that when I first started playing DW2 beta this became quite a barrier for me to enjoying the new game.

DW:U and the complete freedom in ship design really made it the best 4x space game I've ever played, and I really wasn't sure that the trade off - 3d graphics with hard points vs 2d sprites with absolute freedom - was worth it. However, gradually as bugs were squashed and features added I've come to really apprciate DW2 and see the huge potential that this new game offers. I'll be honest there are some details I still really pine for from DW:U like the build order page showing how many ships of each type you already have rather than just a place to place an order - along with more freedom in ship design - but through expansions of DW2 or even mods a lot is possible going forward.

DW2 is a game worth wrestling with - especially for us DW:U die hard fans. Hopefully, it can only keep getting better!

[deMangler]

I haven't played with the ship designer a huge amount, so I'm open to being corrected here, but it seems like it is designed to railroad the player into uncreative ship designs. Why do thrusters and main engines compete with each other for slots? And armor and shields? Want to build a super tanky ship that can barely move? Can't. Want to build a kiting ship that sacrifices defense in favor of speed and maneuverability? Can't. Blinged out freighters with the firepower of a military ship? Can't.

Most of the thing you want to do is...

A: Just make the AI weak by exploiting loopholes.

B: Very gamey and not very realistic as in reality there are only so much design space for certain components in order to make things a coherent whole. That means that thrusters and vectoring would have to compete for space just as you do in reality in a plane or ship... the same goes for powerplants, energy distribution and shielding versus armor all of these system competes for space and function as a whole.

The current system might somewhat feel that it railroads you in a certain way, but that is intentional and make it a better simulation model and also the AI more competitive.

There still is allot of flexibility in designs as in almost all cases you can't use all the slots for each hull anyways.

Want to build a super tanky ship that can barely move? Can't. Want to build a kiting ship that sacrifices defense in favor of speed and maneuverability? Can't. Blinged out freighters with the firepower of a military ship? Can't.

None of those things seem gamey or unrealistic to me. I don't see how imagining these solutions is in any way related to exploiting loopholes or metagaming an AI. Just seems like reasonable fun directions that the game world would seem to intuitively contain.

Peraonally I am thinking that I will have to spend more time on fleet design to make up for the changes in ship design. However I will have to ignore what appear to be out-of-context limitations. I am being solution oriented here, for my own health. I have no doubt these changes are excellent from a gameplay point of view, however, I do find I resonate strongly with the above quoted wishes and the ways in which they are limited do appear an awkward fit for the rest of the feel of the game.

Edit I just checked out todays xkcd and it seems very appropriate to this thread...

[zgrssd]

It realy does not mater why they picked it.

They picked it.
Most people seem to prefer it.
Nothing realy left to say, other then maybe make a Poll to verify how many people dislike it?

[zgrssd]

And I made a poll for this:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 1&t=380740

[Lunalis]

if people want their "freedom of DW1 ship design" back:

later with modding you could probably turn every item into a "general" category item.
turn every slot on ships/bases into a general slot... or just add 50 general slots to every design... so people can build whatever they want again.

[Crumplecorn]

Most of the thing you want to do is...

A: Just make the AI weak by exploiting loopholes.

That's literally what you're doing every time you turn off automation and do something smarter. Yes, I want to be able to play smarter than the AI. No, I don't want to be railroaded into playing the same as the AI. I can turn on automation to do that.

B: Very gamey and not very realistic as in reality there are only so much design space for certain components in order to make things a coherent whole. That means that thrusters and vectoring would have to compete for space just as you do in reality in a plane or ship...

What the heck. The parts of planes that make them go absolutely do not compete with the parts that make them turn. They are separate systems on different parts of the plane. Same with ships. For a more relevant comparison, look at something like the space shuttle. You think if they wanted another main engine on it when they designed it, it would have gone where the RCS thrusters are, or vice versa?

[zgrssd]

Most of the thing you want to do is...

A: Just make the AI weak by exploiting loopholes.

That's literally what you're doing every time you turn off automation and do something smarter. Yes, I want to be able to play smarter than the AI. No, I don't want to be railroaded into playing the same as the AI. I can turn on automation to do that.

B: Very gamey and not very realistic as in reality there are only so much design space for certain components in order to make things a coherent whole. That means that thrusters and vectoring would have to compete for space just as you do in reality in a plane or ship...

What the heck. The parts of planes that make them go absolutely do not compete with the parts that make them turn.

Pretty sure that in the same size category, the parts that make a plane turn better absolutely conflict with the parts that make it go faster.

As a mater of fact, speed keept being downgraded to increase turning rate (which is defense for Planes) and other performance:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xo3arfoGbvc

[Crumplecorn]

Pretty sure that in the same size category, the parts that make a plane turn better absolutely conflict with the parts that make it go faster.

If you want to add another engine to an aircraft design, you do not have to remove an aileron.

[StormingKiwi]

How is it "gamey" or "cheese" to design a ship which is more effective than the ones that the AI has designed when you've explicitly been given those tools by the developer?

Playing the game is the point of the game. When I'm gaming I want to do something which is actively engaging, not just watch an interactive movie.

[zgrssd]

Remember that we have a poll for this:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 1&t=380740

Currently:
62% for the new system
22% against
17% undecided.

[ranik_sandaris]

Yeah i like it, feels more practical, and as some have said it lowers the learning curve a bit, but without fundamentally compromising what makes DW great.

[Jorgen_CAB]

Pretty sure that in the same size category, the parts that make a plane turn better absolutely conflict with the parts that make it go faster.

If you want to add another engine to an aircraft design, you do not have to remove an aileron.

There is ALWAYS going to be a balance between thrust and manoeuvrability on any flying object... in addition to anything else you want it to be able to do.

Just go ask any aviation engineer and they will explain it to you...

[MatBailie]

There is ALWAYS going to be a balance between thrust and manoeuvrability on any flying object... in addition to anything else you want it to be able to do.

Just go ask any aviation engineer and they will explain it to you...

I studied Avionic Systems Engineering. As well as the avionics, that included all of the core Aeronautical Engineering modules too.

As ONE "aviation engineer" I disagree with you.

Increasing thrust (more appropriately, the consequential increase in speed) or mass without increasing control authority does lead to a reduction in maneuverability.

Increasing thrust, however, does NOT require the removal of control authority systems. Even proceeding from a single engined vehicle to a twin engined vehicle does not require removal of control authority systems.

In DW terms, when compared to reality, adding engines shouldn't require the removal of vector engines.

Rather, if you have a design with two engines and a design with three engines, the three engined design would require more vector engines.

More pertinently, DW isn't a realism simulator. If it were, vessels wouldn't be infinitely upgradeable with new reactors, engines, weapons, etc. DW is a game, with abstractions and mechanics. I've played DW2 since the beta, and while I've come to Accept the new ship design mechanics, I don't Enjoy those new mechanics. But even that doesn't matter. The two most important factors are what the majority of the target audience enjoy, and Elliot's vision. As far as That goes, DW2 still has a long way to go, but is off to a far superior start than DW's first release. I enjoy DW2 and expect I'll enjoy it even more with each passing update and expansion.

[Almora]

It's a consequence of moving to 3D graphics. You can't really have the old design system and still have space battles look good with the increased graphical fidelity. The weapon effects have to originate somewhere on the model, so the game has to know where it is mounted. That leads, fairly inevitably, to hardpoints. In DW1, all weapons just came out of the center of the sprite.

You can still have external hardpoints without requiring them to be locked to certain module types, and that would be a lot better in my opinion