Poll

What most needs attention for 6.0?

Balance: Another pass on champion modules
15 (3.4%)
Balance: buff Deflector Drones
3 (0.7%)
Balance: buff Electric Shuttles
5 (1.1%)
Balance: buff Etherjets
2 (0.5%)
Balance: buff Flak Turrets
10 (2.3%)
Balance: buff Grenade Launchers
4 (0.9%)
Balance: buff Infiltrators
5 (1.1%)
Balance: buff MkV Spiders
3 (0.7%)
Balance: buff non-core guard posts
9 (2.1%)
Balance: buff Raiders
2 (0.5%)
Balance: buff Teleport Raiders
4 (0.9%)
Balance: give more ships bonuses vs. Artillery (i.e. vs Missile Frigates)
2 (0.5%)
Balance: give Zenith Electric Bombers bonus vs Heavy
8 (1.8%)
Balance: Make 10/10 (somewhat) harder
8 (1.8%)
Balance: make human ships tractored by AI ships not trigger deepstrike threat or raid engines
14 (3.2%)
Balance: make hybrid plot-intensity affect maturity rate instead of (or in addition to) spawn rate
12 (2.7%)
Balance: make hybrids mature more slowly
5 (1.1%)
Balance: make MkV younglings attrition again, but be immune to warp gate paralysis
7 (1.6%)
Balance: Making multiple-ingress-points (including sattelite worlds) not so much less viable than singe-chokepoint
21 (4.8%)
Balance: nerf AI usefulness of zenith bombards
7 (1.6%)
Balance: nerf Area Mines
1 (0.2%)
Balance: nerf Medics
0 (0%)
Balance: nerf Munitions Boosters
0 (0%)
Balance: nerf Shield Bearers
0 (0%)
Balance: nerf Tackle Drone Launcher
3 (0.7%)
Balance: nerf Zenith Beam Frigate
0 (0%)
Balance: reduce Counter-Dark-Matter Turrets knowledge cost
7 (1.6%)
Balance: reduce Counter-missile-turret knowledge cost
7 (1.6%)
Balance: reduce MarkIII scout knowledge cost
13 (3%)
Balance: reduce Zenith Space Time Manipulators knowledge cost
11 (2.5%)
Fix: (Apparently rare) Human units showing up on far-distant AI worlds, possibly due to scapegoat regeneration.
5 (1.1%)
Fix: AI Engineers not repairing
11 (2.5%)
Fix: AI ships getting stuck and/or jumpy movement
11 (2.5%)
Fix: Auto-gather-knowledge units getting stuck (sometimes nebula-related)
5 (1.1%)
Fix: Auto-kiting units sometimes kite out of range
4 (0.9%)
Fix: Cloaked ships spawned by super terminal not attacking
8 (1.8%)
Fix: Human FRD ships not always regathering at FRD point
7 (1.6%)
Fix: Human ships sometimes autotargetting wormhole guard posts
1 (0.2%)
Fix: Intel Summary Wormhole Guard Post count is just called "Guard Posts"
5 (1.1%)
Fix: Making Hybrid preferred target doesn't seem to work
10 (2.3%)
Fix: Preservation Wardens not showing up
5 (1.1%)
Fix: Super Hybrids spawning despite there being nothing for it to do.
4 (0.9%)
Fix: Wave warning counts counting starships twice
4 (0.9%)
Mapgen: have separate seeds for map layout and everything else.
11 (2.5%)
Mechanics: make threatballs do something else if they don't attack after a while
24 (5.5%)
Mechanics: Semi-random variation in how knowledge is distributed across planets (details)
8 (1.8%)
Text: rename Hybrid Hive Spawner to Hybrid Hive Nest
4 (0.9%)
UI: A way to band-select only one's own ships in multiplayer.
7 (1.6%)
UI: be able to give attack (and set-preferred-target) orders by right-clicking the planetary summary box
13 (3%)
UI: change auto-FRD to "gets set to FRD whenever it enters an allied planet"
9 (2.1%)
UI: have astro train attacking a command station not show a warning
5 (1.1%)
UI: Make hybrid's displayed mark number reflect their maturity
17 (3.9%)
UI: make the zoom values on the QWER keys more useful
5 (1.1%)
UI: provide way to make a specific space-dock/factory not send ships to warp gate
8 (1.8%)
UI: reorder turrets on buy menu so basic, mlrs, missile, and laser are together
14 (3.2%)
UI: show icons for devourer and trader on galaxy map
16 (3.7%)
UI: Show System Mark in Intel Summary
8 (1.8%)
UI: Show the selection description window on the galaxy map
6 (1.4%)
UI: support subfolders for save/load
15 (3.4%)

Total Members Voted: 0

« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Poll: what most needs attention for 6.0? (Or: let's see if we can break polls!)  (Read 12687 times)

Offline keith.lamothe

  • Arcen Games Staff
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,505
Poll: what most needs attention for 6.0? (Or: let's see if we can break polls!)
« on: October 02, 2012, 03:50:40 pm »
Ok, so I had the questionable wisdom of asking for nominations in that other thread, and nominations indeed happened ;)  There's probably some I forgot to include, in fact, but I think 64 options is enough for one poll.

Figured 1 out of 4 is good enough so max of 16 votes per user.

What I'm looking for is priorities for the remaining polish time pre-6.0, so please keep that in mind.  If a bug sounds scary, but it's really rare and you've never seen it happen, that may not be a priority for you, etc.

Thanks for the feedback :)
Logged
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games? Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline Diazo

  • Master Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,717
  • I love/hate Diff 10
Re: Poll: what most needs attention for 6.0? (Or: let's see if we can break polls!)
« Reply #1 on: October 02, 2012, 03:55:16 pm »
Tossed my thoughts in for what it's worth.

I play with a lot of that stuff off however (see hybrids) so those did not get my vote by default.

D.
Logged

Offline Draco18s

  • Resident Velociraptor
  • Core Member Mark V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,251
Re: Poll: what most needs attention for 6.0? (Or: let's see if we can break polls!)
« Reply #2 on: October 02, 2012, 04:00:17 pm »
A lot of my votes went to small things, but they're small things that would go a long way in making the game feel more better.
Logged

Offline Hearteater

  • Core Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,334
Re: Poll: what most needs attention for 6.0? (Or: let's see if we can break polls!)
« Reply #3 on: October 02, 2012, 04:05:27 pm »
My first pass of just the most important stuff to me came in at 17 picks.  Removing that last one was so hard.
Logged

Offline TechSY730

  • Core Member Mark V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,570
Re: Poll: what most needs attention for 6.0? (Or: let's see if we can break polls!)
« Reply #4 on: October 02, 2012, 04:18:48 pm »
Derp, I forgot to nominate the various of text-box bugs, which is a MAJOR annoyance when it triggers.

And also the 9583: When using the apply to selection on something that is under contruction, the build progress is reset.

EDIT: Oh, and the issue where movement becomes strange as speed goes down (through a natural low speed, gravity, or engine damage), to the point where if a unit is at 1 speed, it can only travel in the 8 cardinal directions.

Maybe for the next round of this poll. (You did mention you may be doing another one of these, right?)

I considered nominating 9483: Regenerated AI ships through Neinzul Scapegoats trigger Neinzul Clusters, as it is a major pain in my game, but the conditions to trigger it in most games are rare, and the game setup to make a game that this is a common occurrence is also a rare setup, so it really is too specific for a nomination.


Anyways, thanks for the hard work, and pushing the forum software's voting system to its limits. ;)
« Last Edit: October 02, 2012, 05:03:35 pm by TechSY730 »
Logged

Offline Wanderer

  • Master Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,579
  • If you're not drunk you're doing it wrong.
Re: Poll: what most needs attention for 6.0? (Or: let's see if we can break polls!)
« Reply #5 on: October 02, 2012, 04:21:08 pm »
My votes are in.  There's some stuff that I don't think that should happen, personally, like k reduction on anti-missile turrets.  Shutting down a triangle vessel should be expensive.

Also, I'd like to toss in one extra vote for something I neglected in my dissertation yesterday... move the artillery bonus off of Lightning Turrets to something that can actually make significant use of the bonus.
Logged
... and then we'll have cake.

Offline KDR_11k

  • Hero Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 904
Re: Poll: what most needs attention for 6.0? (Or: let's see if we can break polls!)
« Reply #6 on: October 02, 2012, 04:24:11 pm »
Quote from: Wanderer on October 02, 2012, 04:21:08 pm
My votes are in.  There's some stuff that I don't think that should happen, personally, like k reduction on anti-missile turrets.  Shutting down a triangle vessel should be expensive.

Yeah, missiles are generally ubiquitous and not something niche like dark matter.
Logged

Offline Lancefighter

  • Core Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,440
Re: Poll: what most needs attention for 6.0? (Or: let's see if we can break polls!)
« Reply #7 on: October 02, 2012, 06:45:01 pm »
If I'm not mistaken, the main goal of anti-missile and anti-sniper turrets was actually to defend beachheads against ai, particularly where fortresses were involved. Mind, this is something like 2.0 strats, not exactly modern in any way. I'm not really sure how theyve been neglected so much, or what their current use is supposed to be..

So yeah, i voted for a few things.
Logged
Ideas? Suggestions? Concerns? Bugs to be squashed? Report them on the Mantis Bugtracker!

Author of the Dyson Project and the Spire Gambit

Offline Diazo

  • Master Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,717
  • I love/hate Diff 10
Re: Poll: what most needs attention for 6.0? (Or: let's see if we can break polls!)
« Reply #8 on: October 02, 2012, 07:12:53 pm »
For the record, I've been experimenting with Scout Starship Mk IV recently and they have counter missile ability.

One of the first bonus ships unlocked by the AI was Etherjet which used missile ammo.

I am loving being able to no-sell about 20% of the waves the AI is sending at me.

Yes, counter missile is expensive but it can be so very worth it depending on the AIs unlocks.

It can also be very not worth it depending on the AIs unlocks.

D.
Logged

Offline Volatar

  • Hero Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,055
  • Patient as a rock
Re: Poll: what most needs attention for 6.0? (Or: let's see if we can break polls!)
« Reply #9 on: October 02, 2012, 08:58:23 pm »
While I voted for a full 16 things, onestly, I think "Balance: Making multiple-ingress-points (including sattelite worlds) not so much less viable than singe-chokepoint" is the single most important thing that needs to be done.

But an important note: I think that the ability to defend multiple points needs to be buffed, not that single-point defense needs to be nerfed.
Logged

Offline Bognor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 570
Re: Poll: what most needs attention for 6.0? (Or: let's see if we can break polls!)
« Reply #10 on: October 03, 2012, 08:46:49 am »
Quote
Balance: make human ships tractored by AI ships not trigger deepstrike threat or raid engines
Noooooooooooo!  This is such a delightful bit of emergent behavior.  Keep it, keep it!
Logged
Your computer can help defeat malaria!
Please visit the World Community Grid to find out how.

Offline keith.lamothe

  • Arcen Games Staff
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,505
Re: Poll: what most needs attention for 6.0? (Or: let's see if we can break polls!)
« Reply #11 on: October 03, 2012, 11:23:39 am »
Looking at the current leaders:

18 - Unit behavior: change engineer prioritization to repair low-hp expensive stuff, quicker at switching from a full dock, etc.
18 - Unit behavior: make rebuilders target the same thing less often and do less yo-yoing back to FRD point
17 - Balance: no Fabricators or Advanced Factories near wormholes
14 - Mechanics: make teleporting ships not teleport when group-moving
13 - UI: Make hybrid's displayed mark number reflect their maturity
13 - Balance: Making multiple-ingress-points (including sattelite worlds) not so much less viable than singe-chokepoint
12 - Fix: Spider V fabs always seeding two per map
11 - UI: show icons for devourer and trader on galaxy map
11 - Balance: make human ships tractored by AI ships not trigger deepstrike threat or raid engines
9 - Fix: AI Engineers not repairing
8 - UI: support subfolders for save/load

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but is a single one of those something that wasn't in similar need of doing back in 5.0?

Not that I'm complaining, but I would have thought that refinement/fixing/etc of more recently added stuff would naturally be more needed, having had less time to "bake", etc.

Anyway, thanks for the feedback :)  Will let this run a bit more as I handle some stuff, but we're approaching the normal "voting population" I've observed in the past of 30-35 so not expecting big changes in the results.
Logged
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games? Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline TechSY730

  • Core Member Mark V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,570
Re: Poll: what most needs attention for 6.0? (Or: let's see if we can break polls!)
« Reply #12 on: October 03, 2012, 11:33:53 am »
Quote from: keith.lamothe on October 03, 2012, 11:23:39 am
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but is a single one of those something that wasn't in similar need of doing back in 5.0?

Not that I'm complaining, but I would have thought that refinement/fixing/etc of more recently added stuff would naturally be more needed, having had less time to "bake", etc.

Anyway, thanks for the feedback :)  Will let this run a bit more as I handle some stuff, but we're approaching the normal "voting population" I've observed in the past of 30-35 so not expecting big changes in the results.

The thing is, the longer an "central", common issue "stews", people will slow down actively griping about it, but will be wanting it fixed more and more.
Or at least that is my personal experience.

The only one I can think of that may have gotten less support (but probably still good support) during the 5.000 days was "Balance: Making multiple-ingress-points (including sattelite worlds) not so much less viable than singe-chokepoint", as the size of waves, threat, reinforcements, and other ways the AI can be aggressive was tended not to be quite as large back then.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2012, 11:48:03 am by TechSY730 »
Logged

Offline Draco18s

  • Resident Velociraptor
  • Core Member Mark V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,251
Re: Poll: what most needs attention for 6.0? (Or: let's see if we can break polls!)
« Reply #13 on: October 03, 2012, 11:35:24 am »
Quote from: keith.lamothe on October 03, 2012, 11:23:39 am
Not that I'm complaining, but I would have thought that refinement/fixing/etc of more recently added stuff would naturally be more needed, having had less time to "bake", etc.

I think it's a case of "longstanding issues that have gone unaddressed for too long" kind of things.

I have only played with champions (and the new units) slightly, back when there were only three scenarios.  So I can't really comment on "the new stuff."  And I suspect that there are a lot of other people in that boat as well, thinking "maybe it needs some tweaks, but I don't really know, so I'm going to vote for something that I feel does need fixing."

</totally ninja'd by TechSy730>
Logged

Offline Diazo

  • Master Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,717
  • I love/hate Diff 10
Re: Poll: what most needs attention for 6.0? (Or: let's see if we can break polls!)
« Reply #14 on: October 03, 2012, 11:36:05 am »
I think there's an assumption that the new AS stuff is going to get another polish pass regardless.

This means people are poking at their pet peeves and going 'fix this already'.  :P

Having said that, the champion modules balance pass did get a significant number of votes even if it did not make the cut.

I do agree a lot of that is in the 'nice to have' category and not 'must-fix', but looking at the poll there are very few (or even none) options that are really hurting the game.

Probably the only one I see on the list that might qualify for 'game-breaking' is the AI tractoring your units away to trigger deep strike/raid engines.

Even my personal current hot-button issue (the multiple-ingress thing) I have to admit will not hurt the game if nothing is done about it before 6.0 hits.

D.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Up
« previous next »