Matrix Games Forums

zgrssd wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 3:02 pm It is realy hard to make a discussion if the argument of the other side boils down to "I want it becasue I want it".

If there was at least a instrumental goal in any of that, we might have a basis for a discussion. Even better if there was a terminal goal.

The argument is that "I want the freedom to pursue my own design philosophies within the constraints of the ship and game" we already have plenty of constraints to form a groundwork for design. We have:
Size limit
Power and fuel systems
Essential crew systems
External hard points (which I'm ok with if done better)

The main thing people dislike, is the restriction of module types to a certain amount. Theres no reason I shouldn't be able to have more shield modules if space and power allows. I should be able to replace a weapon with a sensor, or add 2 extra engines and use a smaller hyperdrive. These are the sorts of design choices that allow you to design a ship for a role you choose. It might not always be the absolute best in terms of min-maxing, but the ability to determine such things is up to the player, and how they want their fleet cohesion

Different gameplay styles shouldn't be restricted for being less optimized

zgrssd wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 3:02 pm It is realy hard to make a discussion if the argument of the other side boils down to "I want it becasue I want it".

If there was at least a instrumental goal in any of that, we might have a basis for a discussion. Even better if there was a terminal goal.

Well, we are discussing/talkling about it right now. Let us argue what can be made better.
'You should see it from a different point of view.
Try to watch it from a different angle.
You look at it from a standpoint where you want to defend the status quo.

You do not have to defend it, there is no need for that.

It is always imperfect, everything, and it will always be. We are humans. Other space faring races fur sure too. There is always room to make it better.

So what I was trying to say is: You try to fight for that design but do not realize that we are not against something, we are for something.
Let us try to make it better for all of us. Nobody can argue against a design system that gives us the opportunity to design a ship like we want.

And this is not a multiplayer game where we could outsmart the opponent with a scout that has 15 XL Death Rays.
By the way, that is also what we are talking about. We want to make stpid design, at least I want that.
A scout that flies 1 m/s, shoot with a cannon that is bigger than the thruster. ok, well, physics are not implemented here. but maybe just a little more freedom.

rxnnxs wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 3:32 pm

zgrssd wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 3:02 pm It is realy hard to make a discussion if the argument of the other side boils down to "I want it becasue I want it".

If there was at least a instrumental goal in any of that, we might have a basis for a discussion. Even better if there was a terminal goal.

...
So what I was trying to say is: You try to fight for that design but do not realize that we are not against something, we are for something.
Let us try to make it better for all of us. Nobody can argue against a design system that gives us the opportunity to design a ship like we want.

And this is not a multiplayer game where we could outsmart the opponent with a scout that has 15 XL Death Rays.
By the way, that is also what we are talking about. We want to make stpid design, at least I want that.
A scout that flies 1 m/s, shoot with a cannon that is bigger than the thruster. ok, well, physics are not implemented here. but maybe just a little more freedom.

I think there still need to be important limitations to facilitate the use of more game mechanics. Players can't be expected to make all of their fun, they need to be directed towards more fun playstyles. There definitely needs to be some more freedom, but only so much

You are right, I was exaggerating.
A planet destroyer weapon would outsize a scout.
But it would be by nature still limited or lets say impossible to create even with less restrictions.
I think enough is said from my side and the direction is clear.

Almora wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 3:16 pm

zgrssd wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 3:02 pm It is realy hard to make a discussion if the argument of the other side boils down to "I want it becasue I want it".

If there was at least a instrumental goal in any of that, we might have a basis for a discussion. Even better if there was a terminal goal.

The argument is that "I want the freedom to pursue my own design philosophies within the constraints of the ship and game" we already have plenty of constraints to form a groundwork for design. We have:

That is why they spend a ton of resources on modding support.
Changing the XMl files should be trivial.

rxnnxs wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 3:32 pm

zgrssd wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 3:02 pm It is realy hard to make a discussion if the argument of the other side boils down to "I want it becasue I want it".

If there was at least a instrumental goal in any of that, we might have a basis for a discussion. Even better if there was a terminal goal.

Well, we are discussing/talkling about it right now. Let us argue what can be made better.
'You should see it from a different point of view.
Try to watch it from a different angle.
You look at it from a standpoint where you want to defend the status quo.

You do not have to defend it, there is no need for that.

It is always imperfect, everything, and it will always be. We are humans. Other space faring races fur sure too. There is always room to make it better.

So what I was trying to say is: You try to fight for that design but do not realize that we are not against something, we are for something.
Let us try to make it better for all of us. Nobody can argue against a design system that gives us the opportunity to design a ship like we want.

And this is not a multiplayer game where we could outsmart the opponent with a scout that has 15 XL Death Rays.
By the way, that is also what we are talking about. We want to make stpid design, at least I want that.
A scout that flies 1 m/s, shoot with a cannon that is bigger than the thruster. ok, well, physics are not implemented here. but maybe just a little more freedom.

Are saying "Stop trying to have a discussion with me, I can not be wrong"?
Because unfortunately that is all I can read out of that.

Also the game has a lot of resources spend on modding support.
So how about you go and mod the slots so they fit your dreams?
Then you can also show us how and why your idea is superior and should be the new default.

In a game that isn't based on reality as we know it (FTL, Aliens, Shielding etc...), a scout with a death ray is somehow out of bounds?

Retreat1970 wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 4:56 pm In a game that isn't based on reality as we know it (FTL, Aliens, Shielding etc...), a scout with a death ray is somehow out of bounds?

The game does have to be balanced, as if not, then players will often optimize the fun out of the game. Hence why ship design has to be approached carefully

zgrssd wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 3:02 pm It is realy hard to make a discussion if the argument of the other side boils down to "I want it becasue I want it".

If there was at least a instrumental goal in any of that, we might have a basis for a discussion. Even better if there was a terminal goal.

I want it, so my ship design can go a bit faster than the same design of everyone else at the same tech-level
So I can escape if I have to.

So I can Kite Overpowered Pirates with my god-awful tiny escort armed with crappy missiles.
Because Point Defense that can shoot down missiles is extreme more powerful than it was in DW:U

Because War is Always Logistics.
Having the faster ships is better.
Faster Hyperdrive, Faster Engines, if you can get there before the enemy you win.
If you can ressuply before the enemy you win.
If you can flee, you don't lose

I get your arguments that the single design you described got decent speed, but is it faster in comparison to the enemy ?
The AI cheats in every other aspect of the game, being all-knowing, able to react in an instant, getting research or ressource boni in accordance to the chosen level of difficulty.
So let me have my one thing I have over the AI. Smart Design.

rxnnxs wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 3:14 pm Everything you say makes 100% sense, but those snippets above were not talked about enough.
I have the same thoughs and many other think the same, I am sure, and others did not think of it but would welcome it, for sure.
All those components would have more place, when they could go down to the bottom, use the whole height so to speak. the next vertical line would be the place, the ship offers.
So you could drag all you want from left to reight. it would be the shortest way and it would be at the same height already.
If there would be more system than would fit in the vertical line, the systems should be closable.
the 3D-View in the middle is really not that helpful.
I try to let a screenshot speak:

Thank you.

zgrssd wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 4:53 pm

Almora wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 3:16 pm

zgrssd wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 3:02 pm It is realy hard to make a discussion if the argument of the other side boils down to "I want it becasue I want it".

If there was at least a instrumental goal in any of that, we might have a basis for a discussion. Even better if there was a terminal goal.

The argument is that "I want the freedom to pursue my own design philosophies within the constraints of the ship and game" we already have plenty of constraints to form a groundwork for design. We have:

That is why they spend a ton of resources on modding support.
Changing the XMl files should be trivial.

rxnnxs wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 3:32 pm

zgrssd wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 3:02 pm It is realy hard to make a discussion if the argument of the other side boils down to "I want it becasue I want it".

If there was at least a instrumental goal in any of that, we might have a basis for a discussion. Even better if there was a terminal goal.

Well, we are discussing/talkling about it right now. Let us argue what can be made better.
'You should see it from a different point of view.
Try to watch it from a different angle.
You look at it from a standpoint where you want to defend the status quo.

You do not have to defend it, there is no need for that.

It is always imperfect, everything, and it will always be. We are humans. Other space faring races fur sure too. There is always room to make it better.

So what I was trying to say is: You try to fight for that design but do not realize that we are not against something, we are for something.
Let us try to make it better for all of us. Nobody can argue against a design system that gives us the opportunity to design a ship like we want.

And this is not a multiplayer game where we could outsmart the opponent with a scout that has 15 XL Death Rays.
By the way, that is also what we are talking about. We want to make stpid design, at least I want that.
A scout that flies 1 m/s, shoot with a cannon that is bigger than the thruster. ok, well, physics are not implemented here. but maybe just a little more freedom.

Are saying "Stop trying to have a discussion with me, I can not be wrong"?
Because unfortunately that is all I can read out of that.

Also the game has a lot of resources spend on modding support.
So how about you go and mod the slots so they fit your dreams?
Then you can also show us how and why your idea is superior and should be the new default.

Well I would like to ask, for what reason do you believe module restrictions should remain in the base game? What do you think that system adds that isn't already covered by other systems? Why do you believe it shouldn't be removed? As I'm sure most players would appreciate 1 less restriction to make the designer more intuitive and fun

Almora wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 5:50 pm

Retreat1970 wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 4:56 pm In a game that isn't based on reality as we know it (FTL, Aliens, Shielding etc...), a scout with a death ray is somehow out of bounds?

The game does have to be balanced, as if not, then players will often optimize the fun out of the game. Hence why ship design has to be approached carefully

Then why have a ship designer at all? Leave it on auto and take the designer out. Problem solved.

Almora wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 5:50 pm The game does have to be balanced, as if not, then players will often optimize the fun out of the game. Hence why ship design has to be approached carefully

DW:U's ship mechanics were more open, and yet I don't recall myself 'optimising the fun out of the game'. In fact, I enjoy optimisation games.

Also, what concern is it to one player than another player 'optimises the fun out of the game'? It's not like how I play the game detracts from how you play the game. If the game allow varying play styles, then that's a success.

My issue with the new system is that even having played DW2 for over a year, I've merely come to Accept the new mechanics, but do not Enjoy the new mechanics. Others may (and do) feel differently.

MatBailie wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 6:07 pm

Almora wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 5:50 pm The game does have to be balanced, as if not, then players will often optimize the fun out of the game. Hence why ship design has to be approached carefully

DW:U's ship mechanics were more open, and yet I don't recall myself 'optimising the fun out of the game'. In fact, I enjoy optimisation games.

Also, what concern is it to one player than another player 'optimises the fun out of the game'? It's not like how I play the game detracts from how you play the game. If the game allow varying play styles, then that's a success.

My issue with the new system is that even having played DW2 for over a year, I've merely come to Accept the new mechanics, but do not Enjoy the new mechanics. Others may (and do) feel differently.

The main reason is because not everyone plays like that, and if you provide an easy way to win, many players will take it. Conversely though I think the designer is Too restrictive right now, and removes potential fun players can have. As long as its mostly balanced though, a more free/open system is better

Retreat1970 wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 6:00 pm

Almora wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 5:50 pm

Retreat1970 wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 4:56 pm In a game that isn't based on reality as we know it (FTL, Aliens, Shielding etc...), a scout with a death ray is somehow out of bounds?

The game does have to be balanced, as if not, then players will often optimize the fun out of the game. Hence why ship design has to be approached carefully

Then why have a ship designer at all? Leave it on auto and take the designer out. Problem solved.

Because designing your own ships is more fun? And it allows for greater replayability and gameplay styles. My only point is that it has to stay balanced enough with the rest of the game to not be overpowered (at least not in a normal playthrough)

Almora wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 5:53 pm

zgrssd wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 4:53 pm

Almora wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 3:16 pm

The argument is that "I want the freedom to pursue my own design philosophies within the constraints of the ship and game" we already have plenty of constraints to form a groundwork for design. We have:

That is why they spend a ton of resources on modding support.
Changing the XMl files should be trivial.

rxnnxs wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 3:32 pm

Well, we are discussing/talkling about it right now. Let us argue what can be made better.
'You should see it from a different point of view.
Try to watch it from a different angle.
You look at it from a standpoint where you want to defend the status quo.

You do not have to defend it, there is no need for that.

It is always imperfect, everything, and it will always be. We are humans. Other space faring races fur sure too. There is always room to make it better.

So what I was trying to say is: You try to fight for that design but do not realize that we are not against something, we are for something.
Let us try to make it better for all of us. Nobody can argue against a design system that gives us the opportunity to design a ship like we want.

And this is not a multiplayer game where we could outsmart the opponent with a scout that has 15 XL Death Rays.
By the way, that is also what we are talking about. We want to make stpid design, at least I want that.
A scout that flies 1 m/s, shoot with a cannon that is bigger than the thruster. ok, well, physics are not implemented here. but maybe just a little more freedom.

Are saying "Stop trying to have a discussion with me, I can not be wrong"?
Because unfortunately that is all I can read out of that.

Also the game has a lot of resources spend on modding support.
So how about you go and mod the slots so they fit your dreams?
Then you can also show us how and why your idea is superior and should be the new default.

Well I would like to ask, for what reason do you believe module restrictions should remain in the base game? What do you think that system adds that isn't already covered by other systems? Why do you believe it shouldn't be removed? As I'm sure most players would appreciate 1 less restriction to make the designer more intuitive and fun

Because limits make for mroe interestign designs with real tradeoffs.
While also not needing a degree in DW1 Ship design just to make something decent.

Retreat1970 wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 6:00 pm

Almora wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 5:50 pm

Retreat1970 wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 4:56 pm In a game that isn't based on reality as we know it (FTL, Aliens, Shielding etc...), a scout with a death ray is somehow out of bounds?

The game does have to be balanced, as if not, then players will often optimize the fun out of the game. Hence why ship design has to be approached carefully

Then why have a ship designer at all? Leave it on auto and take the designer out. Problem solved.

Is that a flase Dichotomy?
Because I think it is one!
https://xkcd.com/2592/

Almora wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 6:17 pm

MatBailie wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 6:07 pm

Almora wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 5:50 pm The game does have to be balanced, as if not, then players will often optimize the fun out of the game. Hence why ship design has to be approached carefully

DW:U's ship mechanics were more open, and yet I don't recall myself 'optimising the fun out of the game'. In fact, I enjoy optimisation games.

Also, what concern is it to one player than another player 'optimises the fun out of the game'? It's not like how I play the game detracts from how you play the game. If the game allow varying play styles, then that's a success.

My issue with the new system is that even having played DW2 for over a year, I've merely come to Accept the new mechanics, but do not Enjoy the new mechanics. Others may (and do) feel differently.

The main reason is because not everyone plays like that, and if you provide an easy way to win, many players will take it. Conversely though I think the designer is Too restrictive right now, and removes potential fun players can have. As long as its mostly balanced though, a more free/open system is better

If you think it is too restrictive, grab a XML editor and make your better version.

Show it to everyone on the forum - including the developers - and let that be your argument.

zgrssd wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 6:22 pm

Almora wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 5:53 pm

zgrssd wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 4:53 pm
That is why they spend a ton of resources on modding support.
Changing the XMl files should be trivial.


Are saying "Stop trying to have a discussion with me, I can not be wrong"?
Because unfortunately that is all I can read out of that.

Also the game has a lot of resources spend on modding support.
So how about you go and mod the slots so they fit your dreams?
Then you can also show us how and why your idea is superior and should be the new default.

Well I would like to ask, for what reason do you believe module restrictions should remain in the base game? What do you think that system adds that isn't already covered by other systems? Why do you believe it shouldn't be removed? As I'm sure most players would appreciate 1 less restriction to make the designer more intuitive and fun

Because limits make for mroe interestign designs with real tradeoffs.
While also not needing a degree in DW1 Ship design just to make something decent

I totally agree, restrictions breed creativity, and make more interesting fleet cohesion and gameplay. But my point is, we already have systems in place that provide such restrictions. As I said before we have size limits, crew requirements, power requirements, fuel, etc. There are already restrictions and trade offs to make. Hence my claim that additional module restrictions are arbitrary and unnecessary, as they don't add anything particularly new, and feel slapped on arbitrarily. I can understand external hard points and total module limits, but if I'm building a ship there's NO reason to restrict module type arbitrarily rather than have diminishing returns or unwieldy requirements.

So I ask again, what point do you see to this system, that has not already been provided for by many others?

Yeah, lets test the fun this non restrictive system in DW:2 has.

Given the great choice between one Ion drive or two Ion drives.

Who of you removes one drive to improve other aspects of the ship ?

Spoiler -The following is an asshole comment, which does not add to the current discussion, but I could not help myself. So read at your own peril --
Maybe sub-light speed is just less important in DW:2 because ships don't have to catch up to fast moving moons anymore.

Emperor0Akim wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 7:01 pm Yeah, lets test the fun this non restrictive system in DW:2 has.

Given the great choice between one Ion drive or two Ion drives.

Who of you removes one drive to improve other aspects of the ship ?

I never, ever, use maneuvering engines.

But I do often have fewer than the maximum allowance of main engines in order to allow enough space for reactors, shields, fuel, cargo, etc.

Retreat1970 wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 4:56 pm In a game that isn't based on reality as we know it (FTL, Aliens, Shielding etc...), a scout with a death ray is somehow out of bounds?

It is really more about internal consistency and coherency than "realism" as such, I would argue. The death ray has to be generated and the machine to do that is physically larger than the escort hull.

Sure, it's very weird that "escort" is apparently the same in both space spider and space doggie mentality, and obviously "death ray" is totally fictional and might as well be a "bananafier". But if the game argues that it's the size of London double decker bus then that's how big it is and that just doesn't fit into the frame of what an "escort" is in the game concept.

It's a bit of a deviation from DW1 where ship classifications were a lot more fuzzy and you could have enormous escorts and smaller cruisers. But it is the internal logic that E2 went with. I suspect part of that is also practicality. I'm not into graphics at all, but I imagine that rescaling 3D models based on a size ratio will look weird. But not scaling them would potentially leave a size 2500 escort looking the size of a fly next to size 1000 ships and that's just off. Simple solution? Limit max size for each hull type to something that makes sense for the model.

Menzoberranzan wrote: Sun Mar 13, 2022 2:30 am I like the size constraints on the different hull types. I loathe the equipment slots.

This ^^^

But to be fair I never played DWU. In fact, this is my 1st RTS. I usually play TBS and RPGs. Some of the RPGs turned based, some real time. Though I have watched some playthroughs of DWU.

Size constraints on hull sizes is the way it's always been, in every 4x space game I've played since Master of Orion 2. And it makes the most sense to me. Though the specialized equipment slots get on my nerves somewhat. Why can't I put a thruster in a fuel cell slot? Why can't I have 2 engines and a maneuvering thruster on an Escort? As long as I'm within weight and size limits, it shouldn't matter.

Answering the base question.

It means you can't accidently bankrupt the Private Sector with a huge set of Freighters. Good and bad.

It means research is more important than ever, and it was already important-you can't create something that can hammer someone more advanced than you, or with bigger ships.

It means you need more bases in terms of ship construction and in mining. Super-storage/super-mining/mass construction yards/super-research base isn't possible. Whether many bases or a single one is 'better' in terms of maintenance costs(Which are the devil, given it hurts your research and colony growth directly) is unclear to my stupid mind.

It's very different to the point where I'm not even sure they're truly comparable at all. I don't think you can say good or bad to this.

I'm more concerned about all the weapon types more than the ship designs, in truth. They've added a bunch of types and the differences and usefulness aren't clear.