Poll: Worst Unit Of The (time interval) Award (IV)

[CodeMichael]

We already have the template system set up for Riot Control Starships, so it isn't a gigantic stretch.

No, modules are easy, templates are easy.  Managing those on a planet to planet basis?  There a UI for that sort of thing, but not for use in this way, this is a "new case".  I am certain the the design would want to be made such a way to prevent micromanagement beyond a certain level since that would quickly become a necessity (all harvesters within X of a wormhole etc etc).  Keeping it at planet level makes sense to me, but maybe not the development team.  Not to mention that I've really just scratched the surface here.  I really like the idea of taking this further, but again, my desires and the devs may not align here   Fun conversation though.

[TechSY730]

For the modular harvesters idea, here is a concrete proposal:

http://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php/topic,10057.msg96324.html#msg96324

[TechSY730]

We already have the template system set up for Riot Control Starships, so it isn't a gigantic stretch.

No, modules are easy, templates are easy.  Managing those on a planet to planet basis?  There a UI for that sort of thing, but not for use in this way, this is a "new case".  I am certain the the design would want to be made such a way to prevent micromanagement beyond a certain level since that would quickly become a necessity (all harvesters within X of a wormhole etc etc).  Keeping it at planet level makes sense to me, but maybe not the development team.  Not to mention that I've really just scratched the surface here.  I really like the idea of taking this further, but again, my desires and the devs may not align here   Fun conversation though.

The proposal I just posted not only handles templates, but also the "what to build on each planet", "what to build on new planets", and "how to track what to rebuild" issues in an elegant way without tons of extra information to track in code beyond what is already tracked.

[doctorfrog]

I'd love to have a thread like this that concerns the map generators.

[TechSY730]

I'd love to have a thread like this that concerns the map generators.

You mean the map styles? (Like tree, simple, grid, maze, etc.)
Or do you mean how the game preplaces stuff? (AI planets, AI stuff on planets, what the AI starts with, what the human player starts with, avoidance of "unfair" situations like no raid engines next to human homes)


If it is about the map style, I have only one complaint.
The map styles that are provably always planar should be laid out nicely like X and concentric circles do. This would include, but not limited to, snake, leaves, vines, tree, and spokes. I know that this requires refactoring of old map types, but personally, I think it is worth it.
Maps types that are not provable always planar can retain their "random" positionings. This would include, but not limited to, simple, realistic, and lattice.

If it is about how stuff is preplaced for both players, can you be more specific?

[doctorfrog]

I'm referring to the galaxy view layout. I think you sum up some of what I'd like to see in the map generators. I hit the refresh button a lot to get what I like. I avoid the vines/tree type maps where it's just a tangled blob, and don't really like the map layouts that resemble no-nonsense grids.

It's not so much that I have a very specific list of demands that must be fulfilled, but I'd just like to see some discussion into map generation, possibly driven by the developers.

Here's an example of a map that I like:



You'll notice:

• It's more or less easily scannable with stuff laid out at a consistent distance from one another.
• There are a few areas where wormholes "leap" to other parts of the map. This is acceptable, and even wanted, but this type of "tangling" is minimized.
• There are chokepoints that lead to small, "isolated neighborhoods" of planets, but they are organic and unpredictable.
• There are no weird offshoots of tiny strings of planets that are just miles away from their neighborhood, and connect to nothing.
  
• On a widescreen monitor, the map expands to fill the entire area (not all of the map algorithms do this.)

I also have a few Mantis requests relating to map generation, may as well use this opportunity to ask for some upvotes:

A location 'jitter' button to optionally make the more artificial map types look more organic: http://www.arcengames.com/mantisbt/view.php?id=5170

Make a concentric map type for widescreen monitors: http://www.arcengames.com/mantisbt/view.php?id=5169

Circuitboard/subway map style map types: http://www.arcengames.com/mantisbt/view.php?id=3151

Since this discussion is regarding units, I'll bow out now (I've derailed enough as it is), but similar to how the developers solicit input on specific ships, it would be nice to have other game features discussed in the same way.

[TechSY730]

• It's more or less easily scannable with stuff laid out at a consistent distance from one another.
• There are a few areas where wormholes "leap" to other parts of the map. This is acceptable, and even wanted, but this type of "tangling" is minimized.
• There are chokepoints that lead to small, "isolated neighborhoods" of planets, but they are organic and unpredictable.

These requests are actually quite difficult to insure in a truly randomly generated map with no "underlying structure" for its base like tree or spokes has.
And I don't just mean difficult in a coding sense, I mean difficult in a mathematic sense.

EDIT: Don't get me wrong, I love maps like these too. It's just that they can be difficult to make unless you are willing to constrain the overall structure of the map.

However, for maps with boundaries on the structure it can take, sometimes it can become quite easy to ensure (hence my suggestion to make tree, spokes, etc. "look" nice when generated, even if the actual structure does not change)

• There are chokepoints that lead to small, "isolated neighborhoods" of planets, but they are organic and unpredictable.
• There are no weird offshoots of tiny strings of planets that are just miles away from their neighborhood, and connect to nothing.

In addition to the map types you suggested, it sounds like you would also like a clustered map type

• On a widescreen monitor, the map expands to fill the entire area (not all of the map algorithms do this.)

That should actually be relatively easy-ish to do. Just scale how it interprets the internal X,Y coordinates to the X,Y where it draws it on the actual UI depending on resolution. Thus, no internal state is changed, it is a graphical, in the UI transform only.

Since this discussion is regarding units, I'll bow out now (I've derailed enough as it is), but similar to how the developers solicit input on specific ships, it would be nice to have other game features discussed in the same way.

Yea, if we want to keep discussing this, we probably better start a new thread for it. 

[keith.lamothe]

FYI, the in-progress release notes for 5.031 have been updated with the changes to harvester-exo-shields, harvesters, warp jammer command stations, and mines (they weren't in the poll due to my oversight, but they needed it pretty bad).  Not sure when we'll get 5.031 out, but my guess is sometime before next weekend.  I don't think I'll have time for more changes (might toss something the MRS's way, but I'm still thinking through that one) but if there are any objections to what's in the notes please let me know

[Orelius]

So... harvesters are getting a massive boost?  Count me in!

[keith.lamothe]

So... harvesters are getting a massive boost?  Count me in!

The upgrades are, and particularly the mkIII upgrade.  And all that does is make it numerically competitive with econ station upgrades at 26 resource spots (of the type of the upgraded harvester).  But even getting to that point involved numbers beyond what I ever expected to have to do, so one step at a time

[Volatar]

FYI, the in-progress release notes for 5.031 have been updated with the changes to harvester-exo-shields, harvesters, warp jammer command stations, and mines (they weren't in the poll due to my oversight, but they needed it pretty bad).  Not sure when we'll get 5.031 out, but my guess is sometime before next weekend.  I don't think I'll have time for more changes (might toss something the MRS's way, but I'm still thinking through that one) but if there are any objections to what's in the notes please let me know

Well, lets see...

Harvester II production from 28 => 38 (so +8 => +18).
Harvester III production from 36 => 105 (so +16 => +85).

Woah is the only word to describe that. Massive, massive change there.

That should be really interesting to play with in my current game. Playing the Fallen Spire campaign on an X map. Taking the "full fledged frontal war with the AI" thing probably a bit too seriously. 

Warp Jammer Command Stations, in honor of tying for third in the first "Worst Unit" poll it was eligible for:
Now prevent their planets from putting adjacent AI planets on alert.
Those adjacent planets can still be put on alert any other way (for example, but another bordering human world without a jammer or by a significant human presence on the planet or a different adjacent planet).
But this still allows a new strategic choice in shaping the AI's response to your presence.
Notably, this could be used on a planet adjacent to a particularly hard-to-crack AI planet to allow you to get supply on the target planet and thus deploy turrets and such without putting the target planet on permanent alert (which is normally a distinct no-no for core worlds and homeworlds). But beware, if the jammer is destroyed, its effects go away. Also, jammers are far from free.

Now that sounds REALLY interesting. Could be very fun to play with those.

[TechSY730]

Warp Jammer Command Stations, in honor of tying for third in the first "Worst Unit" poll it was eligible for:
Now prevent their planets from putting adjacent AI planets on alert.
Those adjacent planets can still be put on alert any other way (for example, but another bordering human world without a jammer or by a significant human presence on the planet or a different adjacent planet).

So they don't really prevent adjacent planets from going on alert, but merely do not trigger alertness themselves.
Still useful, but that means you still gotta be careful.


Also, since MRSs are tied for third with Warp Jammer's, does that mean MRSs are getting a lookover too? (Maybe not tonight, but before next release) EDIT: Sorry, didn't see you comment about this.

[Kittens]

The harvesters seem over the top. I believe that this is what parity looks like, but like you say, Econ stations take up the "slot" of the command station which really is a big deal and they should therefore be a bit better. So harvesters should probably be a bit under parity with Econs,  for example 36/90.

[PokerChen]

Harvester II production from 28 => 38 (so +8 => +18).
Harvester III production from 36 => 105 (so +16 => +85).

Wow. 105 resources/sec. I personally think the K-cost should come down in return for a smaller increase (60/sec?) but wow. You're gunning for the 'big strategic path' with this one aren't ya? That kind of power is equivalent to unlocking Neinzul Starship mark-IVs...

[keith.lamothe]

The harvesters seem over the top. I believe that this is what parity looks like, but like you say, Econ stations take up the "slot" of the command station which really is a big deal and they should therefore be a bit better. So harvesters should probably be a bit under parity with Econs,  for example 36/90.

Anybody object to 36/90?