Ship design woes

The Galaxy Lives On! Distant Worlds, the critically acclaimed 4X space strategy game is back with a brand new 64-bit engine, 3D graphics and a polished interface to begin an epic new Distant Worlds series with Distant Worlds 2. Distant Worlds 2 is a vast, pausable real-time 4X space strategy game. Experience the full depth and detail of turn-based strategy, but with the simplicity and ease of real-time, and on the scale of a massively-multiplayer online game.

Moderator: MOD_DW2

Jorgen_CAB
Posts: 861
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:53 pm

Re: Ship design woes

Post by Jorgen_CAB »

Almora wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 6:30 pm I sort of agree, but from a more story focused perspective, I want to be able to remove an extra fuel cell and armor in order to squeeze one more component into the ship. I don't like the limitation of certain types of parts because it feels unnecessary, does removing internal components not give space for another engine? does getting rid of shield generators not give space for an extra weapon? We already have better limitations in place than in DWU, but this extra system feels arbitrary and wholly unnecessary to preserving actual balance. Ship hull types already have bonuses and different size limits, which could be expanded upon a bit admittedly. but limited hardpoints doesn't make sense when I'm the one building the ships, making tradeoffs is something I want to do to a greater degree
The problem in my opinion with your reasoning is that we mostly can't use all the slots anyway, so the slots we can use is just the max slots of that type for that hull. You can't say that you want more internal space as there are no more internal space in the hull if you filled the slots. The engines does not really take up internal hull space in that sense.

We are limited to both a max size/mass and slots for different components. This obviously is a rather abstracted concept.. but each hull give bonuses in certain categories and these bonuses in turn limit how the ships can be designed. Just like there is huge differences between a speed boat and an Oil tanker there is a difference between the dimensions and components between an escort and a battleship.

The different bonuses of the hull to some degree decide the limitations of that hull. The amount of maximum engines you can fit is the maximum of stress to that type of hull you can use, more engines would need a different hull configuration. This is why we have many different hull types to choose from, even several within each hull type.
zgrssd
Posts: 5101
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2020 1:02 pm

Re: Ship design woes

Post by zgrssd »

Gilmer wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 3:02 pm Perfect example of my somewhat distaste for the new design method:

And maybe there's a way to get around this, I'm unsure.

I made 20 frigates to attack a pirate base. A fairly long way away, but doable with frigates with two fuel cells. I attacked and almost took it out. So....


I have ship design on auto and then I click the upgrade and save it. It SEEMED like that was going well, until I realized the ship design automatic method decided to upgrade my ships with something other than that 2nd fuel cell, so I noticed my 2nd fleet to finish the job off can't get there anymore. That was when I realized it had taken off my 2nd fuel cell.

Is there a way to not have this happen? Other than doing it manually, I mean. If I have to do it manually, then I'll do it, but that is a big pain in the rear, if you ask me.
Right now the only way is to do it manualy, and manually Upgrade it.
While watching that it does not mess up your weapon selection due to found technology.
The definition of technology lines and what can be considered a replacement for what needs a pass.

I keep reporting those issues, as those are indeed issues.
Almora
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2022 12:58 pm

Re: Ship design woes

Post by Almora »

Jorgen_CAB wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 9:14 pm
Almora wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 6:30 pm I sort of agree, but from a more story focused perspective, I want to be able to remove an extra fuel cell and armor in order to squeeze one more component into the ship. I don't like the limitation of certain types of parts because it feels unnecessary, does removing internal components not give space for another engine? does getting rid of shield generators not give space for an extra weapon? We already have better limitations in place than in DWU, but this extra system feels arbitrary and wholly unnecessary to preserving actual balance. Ship hull types already have bonuses and different size limits, which could be expanded upon a bit admittedly. but limited hardpoints doesn't make sense when I'm the one building the ships, making tradeoffs is something I want to do to a greater degree
The problem in my opinion with your reasoning is that we mostly can't use all the slots anyway, so the slots we can use is just the max slots of that type for that hull. You can't say that you want more internal space as there are no more internal space in the hull if you filled the slots. The engines does not really take up internal hull space in that sense.

We are limited to both a max size/mass and slots for different components. This obviously is a rather abstracted concept.. but each hull give bonuses in certain categories and these bonuses in turn limit how the ships can be designed. Just like there is huge differences between a speed boat and an Oil tanker there is a difference between the dimensions and components between an escort and a battleship.

The different bonuses of the hull to some degree decide the limitations of that hull. The amount of maximum engines you can fit is the maximum of stress to that type of hull you can use, more engines would need a different hull configuration. This is why we have many different hull types to choose from, even several within each hull type.
I think I didn't explain my point well, though I mostly agree with you

I like the size constraint, and I like the module limit as both make sense from balancing and logical perspective. You can only stick so many different components on, and the components can only take up so much space, it all works.

What I don't like is the module TYPE restrictions. Where you have 2 weapon and 2 defense slots for your earpy escort. The implication with the ship designer is that I'm designing my own ships, so I should be able to make the hull specialized to my needs. So if my doctrine for a game is slapping as many armor modules on and as practical, than i should be able replace a weapon slot or 2.

Like almost all of what we have, I just dislike how we are forced into certain doctrinal standards based on restricted module types. It feels unnecessary and hurts replayability for me, especially when we this form of restriction is redundant anyways.

Hull types of the same class feel rather lacking in difference right now (though I've only gotten so far) a heavy escort has the same size as a fast escort, and the only difference is the speed buff and I think a bit of armor. Specializing them a lot further would be nice, with size differences and more prominent buffs that really define the roles more than (slightly faster escort or slightly stronger escort) I think this is a topic in and of itself though
zgrssd
Posts: 5101
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2020 1:02 pm

Re: Ship design woes

Post by zgrssd »

Almora wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 1:30 pm
Jorgen_CAB wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 9:14 pm
Almora wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 6:30 pm I sort of agree, but from a more story focused perspective, I want to be able to remove an extra fuel cell and armor in order to squeeze one more component into the ship. I don't like the limitation of certain types of parts because it feels unnecessary, does removing internal components not give space for another engine? does getting rid of shield generators not give space for an extra weapon? We already have better limitations in place than in DWU, but this extra system feels arbitrary and wholly unnecessary to preserving actual balance. Ship hull types already have bonuses and different size limits, which could be expanded upon a bit admittedly. but limited hardpoints doesn't make sense when I'm the one building the ships, making tradeoffs is something I want to do to a greater degree
The problem in my opinion with your reasoning is that we mostly can't use all the slots anyway, so the slots we can use is just the max slots of that type for that hull. You can't say that you want more internal space as there are no more internal space in the hull if you filled the slots. The engines does not really take up internal hull space in that sense.

We are limited to both a max size/mass and slots for different components. This obviously is a rather abstracted concept.. but each hull give bonuses in certain categories and these bonuses in turn limit how the ships can be designed. Just like there is huge differences between a speed boat and an Oil tanker there is a difference between the dimensions and components between an escort and a battleship.

The different bonuses of the hull to some degree decide the limitations of that hull. The amount of maximum engines you can fit is the maximum of stress to that type of hull you can use, more engines would need a different hull configuration. This is why we have many different hull types to choose from, even several within each hull type.
I think I didn't explain my point well, though I mostly agree with you

I like the size constraint, and I like the module limit as both make sense from balancing and logical perspective. You can only stick so many different components on, and the components can only take up so much space, it all works.

What I don't like is the module TYPE restrictions. Where you have 2 weapon and 2 defense slots for your earpy escort. The implication with the ship designer is that I'm designing my own ships, so I should be able to make the hull specialized to my needs. So if my doctrine for a game is slapping as many armor modules on and as practical, than i should be able replace a weapon slot or 2.
The number of Defense Slots per Tier is strictly limited. That is because bigger ships do not get more yield from each defenses slot - only the number of defenses slots can improove survivability.

If you want more weapon or Armor slots, that is what the "Heavy" Hull variant is for.
If you want more engines, that is what the "Fast" and "Fleet" variants are for.

I found no issues using them like that.
Llamageddon
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2022 1:16 pm

Re: Ship design woes

Post by Llamageddon »

I read the original post a while ago and wasn't sure, but was amused it was such a contentious topic. Having played the game a while now, I am going to join in with the controversy and say I massively prefer the new system. For me, the different and more explicit constraints just add to the enjoyment of coming up with a good design and thinking up and executing interesting and well function fleet types and general naval doctrines. I can't wait to try out a different race for my next game and see what I can with the different ship layouts that I wouldn't have thought of before.

All games are designed with some set of rules or boundaries of what the player can and can't do, sometimes because it is necessary for the game to work, sometimes because subjectively, as a design decision, some limits and restrictions can actually add to the enjoyment and experience rather than take away from it. In this case, I am finding this a great example of the latter (though using 3D models and locational hard-points means some of the former comes into it too).

Just to add a caveat, and temper my championing of it though: With the new system, they could make a lot of improvements to the design options, particularly in relation to the autodesign, retrofitting and obsoleting side of things. For instance, the game will upgrade a numbered design and keep the name but increase the number; but they fell at the first hurdle there: I desperately need to be able to be able to set autodesign per-series if I want and not just per-role where it just arbitrarily messes with whatever the latest design happens to be and obsoletes the old one. To add insult to injury, there is no filter for obsolete designs, let alone obsolete but in-service designs, so I'm left to search for which of my multiple designs in a role the game decided to throw out.
User avatar
Emperor0Akim
Posts: 295
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 2:12 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Ship design woes

Post by Emperor0Akim »

Llamageddon wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 2:53 pm
Just to add a caveat, and temper my championing of it though: With the new system, they could make a lot of improvements to the design options, particularly in relation to the autodesign, retrofitting and obsoleting side of things. For instance, the game will upgrade a numbered design and keep the name but increase the number; but they fell at the first hurdle there: I desperately need to be able to be able to set autodesign per-series if I want and not just per-role where it just arbitrarily messes with whatever the latest design happens to be and obsoletes the old one. To add insult to injury, there is no filter for obsolete designs, let alone obsolete but in-service designs, so I'm left to search for which of my multiple designs in a role the game decided to throw out.
With the insult you are talking about the military ship tab and not the designer, right ?
Because the Ship Designer has filters for
Latest Designs
Latest Buildable Designs
Active Design
Latest Active Designs
All Designs ( which is sadly the only filter, that include obsoletes )

You can also filter by State and Civilian Ships and Bases.
In the ship tab you can filter by hull type and strength.

I can't quite follow you how you define a ship series.
But my guess would it is something I am activly promoting for DW2 as well.
Nameable Shiproles.

The current Role changes into Hull Type.

The Ship Name changes into Shipclass

And finally Ship Roles can be Named as well and are the variable the update and retrofit button gets to access
Constant DW2 Wishlist :
Sort build locations by Solar System
Cycle Idle Ships
ETA for Ships and Fleets
Messages for finished Ship Missions
Messages for Character Promotion ( Skills / Traits )
Llamageddon
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2022 1:16 pm

Re: Ship design woes

Post by Llamageddon »

I was probably sounding a bit more melodramatic than I intended. You are right, there is an "All designs" filter, but I find I have to spend almost as much time tidying up old designs to avoid having to spend that time sorting through all obsoletes to find what I am looking for, even with the ability to sort by role/time etc. As people have pointed out, it is probably just easier to switch off autodesign.

In this case, as the commonly suggested solution involves switching off a feature like that, it does raise questions about whether it is working as it should and isn't causing more problems than it is giving in benefits. I think with a little work it could be a real boon instead of something that many people propose turning off almost immediately after starting a new game.
Emperor0Akim wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 5:03 pm
I can't quite follow you how you define a ship series.
But my guess would it is something I am activly promoting for DW2 as well.
Nameable Shiproles.

The current Role changes into Hull Type.

The Ship Name changes into Shipclass

And finally Ship Roles can be Named as well and are the variable the update and retrofit button gets to access
To elaborate on the first thing you mention there, if you make a new design called, for instance, "Firestarter 1", or "Firestarter I" it will recognise it as a version number at the end of the design and if you click update it will automatically call the next one "Firestarter 2"/"Firestarter II". This is also the case if autodesign updates from one of your designs.

It's kind of cool, and I find interesting because it does imply the bare bones of some kind of automatic versioning/series system within roles is already there. It already does this somewhat erratically on other design names when you use the upgrade button by adding "v2" to the end, but is pretty weird that if the game has already made a "Destroyer II" with the autodesigner then you update it, it seems to want to call it "Destroyer II v2".

The ship design system seems to have some kind of memory of its own series design history. This makes me think there might be more than just the bare bones there working in the background, but just not fully implemented or simply half finished.

I like your general "Shiproles" ideas, is what I would like to see too, and I think we are thinking along the same lines.

An example of how I am using the idea of "series" with the current state of the designer (and it is quite possibly not in keeping with convention) would be with most of my military ships where I have an armament heavy HV variant, a main all-rounder FL version that works well in most fleets without needing too much planning and a "special edition" for specific niche roles which can often change dramatically between versions. Right now, I have them set up to all be nebula safe and for ship capturing, though the latter means they aren't much use for monster hunting, so not a great multi-role mix in that scenario.
Designs01.jpg
Designs01.jpg (262.78 KiB) Viewed 1084 times
As you can see, I've been trying to keep the designer's Auto Design series going at the same time, but other than satisfying my curiosity over what the game would design is really just far more trouble than it is worth as if I don't go forward a day and then Copy those as new and delete the old ones it will overwrite one of my designs, it also leads to a huge amount of old designs to delete/sort through when I need to look through the obsolete list.

As the game already recognises my series/ship roles for the purposes up of auto-updating and increasing the version number, it is particularly frustrating I can't just designate them as separate designs to be treated individually. Even though, for now, the auto design is so likely to do something very silly with my designs that I would rarely use it for any of them. But I have hope for future updates to the game, especially if they implement ideas along the lines of what you have described and what I have been talking about.

BTW, if you have any questions or suggestions about my amateur and off the cuff attempt at using ship series or would like to share your own ideas, I'd be interested.
User avatar
Emperor0Akim
Posts: 295
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 2:12 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Ship design woes

Post by Emperor0Akim »

I think we understood us perfectly.

Thats the way I handle my Ship Designs as well.
I think you set your Design and Retrofit Automation as good as possible.

The funny thing is, with the different possible Hull Types ( Fast Destroyer, Fleet Destroyer )
allready in the game, it should have been obvious to differentiate these role as a seperate entry.

Fleet Design is running into the same troubles, since you can only add the Main Classes to fleets and not the Sub-Classes.
Constant DW2 Wishlist :
Sort build locations by Solar System
Cycle Idle Ships
ETA for Ships and Fleets
Messages for finished Ship Missions
Messages for Character Promotion ( Skills / Traits )
Almora
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2022 12:58 pm

Re: Ship design woes

Post by Almora »

Emperor0Akim wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 8:15 pm I think we understood us perfectly.

Thats the way I handle my Ship Designs as well.
I think you set your Design and Retrofit Automation as good as possible.

The funny thing is, with the different possible Hull Types ( Fast Destroyer, Fleet Destroyer )
allready in the game, it should have been obvious to differentiate these role as a seperate entry.

Fleet Design is running into the same troubles, since you can only add the Main Classes to fleets and not the Sub-Classes.
I'm fairly certain that everyone would be at least mildly happy with the designer if the simple things like these were fixed, it has a good foundation, but the presentation/integration of it is a bit messy right now

also the ability to add folders to the ship design list would be amazing for organization
Almora
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2022 12:58 pm

Re: Ship design woes

Post by Almora »

zgrssd wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 1:53 pm
Almora wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 1:30 pm
Jorgen_CAB wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 9:14 pm

The problem in my opinion with your reasoning is that we mostly can't use all the slots anyway, so the slots we can use is just the max slots of that type for that hull. You can't say that you want more internal space as there are no more internal space in the hull if you filled the slots. The engines does not really take up internal hull space in that sense.

We are limited to both a max size/mass and slots for different components. This obviously is a rather abstracted concept.. but each hull give bonuses in certain categories and these bonuses in turn limit how the ships can be designed. Just like there is huge differences between a speed boat and an Oil tanker there is a difference between the dimensions and components between an escort and a battleship.

The different bonuses of the hull to some degree decide the limitations of that hull. The amount of maximum engines you can fit is the maximum of stress to that type of hull you can use, more engines would need a different hull configuration. This is why we have many different hull types to choose from, even several within each hull type.
I think I didn't explain my point well, though I mostly agree with you

I like the size constraint, and I like the module limit as both make sense from balancing and logical perspective. You can only stick so many different components on, and the components can only take up so much space, it all works.

What I don't like is the module TYPE restrictions. Where you have 2 weapon and 2 defense slots for your earpy escort. The implication with the ship designer is that I'm designing my own ships, so I should be able to make the hull specialized to my needs. So if my doctrine for a game is slapping as many armor modules on and as practical, than i should be able replace a weapon slot or 2.
The number of Defense Slots per Tier is strictly limited. That is because bigger ships do not get more yield from each defenses slot - only the number of defenses slots can improove survivability.

If you want more weapon or Armor slots, that is what the "Heavy" Hull variant is for.
If you want more engines, that is what the "Fast" and "Fleet" variants are for.

I found no issues using them like that.
well yes of course, its only natural to have more slots on bigger ships, just like I was saying. The problem is that the only difference is the type of slot. Give the "Heavy" variants more slots, take some away from the "Fast" variants, we already have speed modifiers and base hull armor so we can keep advantages of both, with the "Fleet" Variant being a nice middle ground (though I wonder if it could also be given a more specific niche). Every single aspect of balance covered by the Module category restrictions is already covered by, or easily can be covered by other systems (Module amount, size limit, Power Management, Fuel range, Ship requirements, balancing of all the other components you want) So thus I think it's an unnecessary restriction

Honestly I might be being a bit harsh on ship hulls, because I love the concept. I just wish they were more differentiated in practice (though maybe once I can make multiple designs on the same hull without AI marking some as obsolete it would be better) give a size difference between "Heavy" and "Fast" (tbh I wish that was renamed to "Light" but that's just me) of like 50 or more. Let "Fast" ships be cheaper to produce/maintain, and maybe a fuel use/jump speed buff as well? Make them feel not like slight variations, but like different purpose built ships

I'm probably a bit more passionate about this than I should, but I truly think these changes that (from my non developer perspective) don't seem that hard to implement, and would truly improve the gameplay experience, and replayability. You've made some good points yourself, and I think we agree on more than we realize, hearing your perspective is quite interesting if nothing else
User avatar
Emperor0Akim
Posts: 295
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 2:12 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Ship design woes

Post by Emperor0Akim »

Almora wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 3:18 am
Honestly I might be being a bit harsh on ship hulls, because I love the concept. I just wish they were more differentiated in practice (though maybe once I can make multiple designs on the same hull without AI marking some as obsolete it would be better) give a size difference between "Heavy" and "Fast" (tbh I wish that was renamed to "Light" but that's just me) of like 50 or more. Let "Fast" ships be cheaper to produce/maintain, and maybe a fuel use/jump speed buff as well? Make them feel not like slight variations, but like different purpose built ships

I'm probably a bit more passionate about this than I should, but I truly think these changes that (from my non developer perspective) don't seem that hard to implement, and would truly improve the gameplay experience, and replayability. You've made some good points yourself, and I think we agree on more than we realize, hearing your perspective is quite interesting if nothing else
I am with you here and like to add, like before,
I would also like if ship hulls were still improved when reaching higher research levels.

While all the other research subjects keep on improving over time, the older ship hulls are kept in stasis.

This Escort, it is the peak of perfection, even though we can now build moon sized space stations, there is no need to
improve this.
This is RTS thinking, and I always cringe a bit, when people keep calling DW2 an RTS instead of a 4x Game that happens to run in real-time. And I would not shed a single tear if Multiplayer never happened.
Last edited by Emperor0Akim on Tue Mar 22, 2022 12:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Constant DW2 Wishlist :
Sort build locations by Solar System
Cycle Idle Ships
ETA for Ships and Fleets
Messages for finished Ship Missions
Messages for Character Promotion ( Skills / Traits )
User avatar
rxnnxs
Posts: 618
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 10:25 am
Location: what goes on
Contact:

Re: Ship design woes

Post by rxnnxs »

Yes, yes and yes again to all what you have said.

But what was talked above, it can be condensed to:
The Subrole gets its own column in all overviews. Make the scrollable to the side, as there is coming more. or longer names.. DW1 was unable to side scroll in spreadsheets, do not make this fautl again.
The shipbuilder has to implement of course this subrole.

PLUS: thrust and vector components deserve their own compartments.
User avatar
Emperor0Akim
Posts: 295
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 2:12 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Ship design woes

Post by Emperor0Akim »

Amen.

While we are at it :

Oh woe is me, for I can't change the hull-size inside the editor.
creating new ships everytime I research an upgrade is really annoying, especially if everything is on manual
and I am wondering why my space port is not as big as my research says it is.
Constant DW2 Wishlist :
Sort build locations by Solar System
Cycle Idle Ships
ETA for Ships and Fleets
Messages for finished Ship Missions
Messages for Character Promotion ( Skills / Traits )
SgtBootStrap
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2016 3:34 pm

Re: Ship design woes

Post by SgtBootStrap »

This is a complete cop out with a few nice buzzwords.

Hard points are bad, lazy design that only frustrates players.
And when someone says things like that, the only thing one can ask is "When does your Game come to Market?" Because it will surely be a Best Seller... :(
"I made Sgt. by pulling up other slackers Bootstraps!"
Llamageddon
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2022 1:16 pm

Re: Ship design woes

Post by Llamageddon »

I don't get this, why are hardpoints considered such an apparently unforgivable design sin? It seems like a similar design principle to having equipment slots in an RPG or a selection of weapons to collect and cycle through in an FPS. I'm not saying just because it is trope it must be good, but I don't see why the oposite has to be true either.

Taking into account the realistic limitations of the average game development project, and whether a design decision is objectively bad, or might just be unpopular because it is different from prior expectations; Starting with the premise that it is a lazy cop out, could I get some elaboration of what is it a cop out from, and what the clearly better concept is?
zgrssd
Posts: 5101
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2020 1:02 pm

Re: Ship design woes

Post by zgrssd »

Llamageddon wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 11:43 pm I don't get this, why are hardpoints considered such an apparently unforgivable design sin? It seems like a similar design principle to having equipment slots in an RPG or a selection of weapons to collect and cycle through in an FPS. I'm not saying just because it is trope it must be good, but I don't see why the oposite has to be true either.

Taking into account the realistic limitations of the average game development project, and whether a design decision is objectively bad, or might just be unpopular because it is different from prior expectations; Starting with the premise that it is a lazy cop out, could I get some elaboration of what is it a cop out from, and what the clearly better concept is?
Based on this poll I made, these people are a realy loud 15% minority:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 1&t=380740
User avatar
Emperor0Akim
Posts: 295
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 2:12 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Ship design woes

Post by Emperor0Akim »

That's why I am not trying and finding new things to complain about :)

so concerning the ship roles, why can't I change the Basic Role while designing ships ?
at least the sub-roles in one size class would be nice.
Constant DW2 Wishlist :
Sort build locations by Solar System
Cycle Idle Ships
ETA for Ships and Fleets
Messages for finished Ship Missions
Messages for Character Promotion ( Skills / Traits )
Llamageddon
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2022 1:16 pm

Re: Ship design woes

Post by Llamageddon »

I agree, the game annoyingly doesn't count different sub-roles as different roles when deciding what the latest designs are, so it is doubly annoying that unlike everything else within a role you can change it won't let you change that. Worst of both worlds.
User avatar
rxnnxs
Posts: 618
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 10:25 am
Location: what goes on
Contact:

Re: Ship design woes

Post by rxnnxs »

Whatever, comes time, comes a mod. Those hardpoints do not limit us to more than only a visible turret gimmick.
I do not care if it shoots out of the bowel or from some edge of the ship. They are already shooting in a way that it really does not matter where the shot originates from.
So in a not so far away future, you will place components in the ship that does all we want.

Until then, and anyway, concerning all the other flaws that still persist like ship queues and bugs and such,
I for myself stand back and look into the game later.. lets say, in some weeks from now on.
If it is not done then, I wait again :-)
I can wait, again.. if it is neccessary, for years, for a dlc, for the second..

P.S.: If the game stands on a good base, of course I will myself look into modding the heck out of it.
Llamageddon
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2022 1:16 pm

Re: Ship design woes

Post by Llamageddon »

Yeah, I understand their choice of priority, but for the first time in my life, I wish AMD didn't exist, so the team could just focus on fixing other issues, rather than just display problems and crashes.

As for hardpoints, I actually like that they do limit me beyond outward visuals, in the sense that I don't just have 100 general slots to fill, and it makes more sense when I have PD missiles firing backwards out of my craft. I feel like otherwise, every hull would just basically a question of visual representation and how many slots it has, and there would be far less meaningful variation between different race's navies. But I know all of that has been talked to death by now. I understand why some people really don't like it, I'm just glad the dice landed in my favour and I have the system I would prefer.
Post Reply

Return to “Distant Worlds 2”