Author Topic: So, what most needs attention for 6.0?  (Read 16732 times)

Offline Lancefighter

  • Core Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,440
Re: So, what most needs attention for 6.0?
« Reply #15 on: October 01, 2012, 11:37:00 pm »
Maybe I am overvaluing shields slightly? I just feel that early on when it really means something, i cant actually have missiles (because of unlock cost), and that I will want mk2 mrls/shield first anyway)

Later, with bigger hulls, its not as much of an issue to put 2-3 heavy weapons on, and let those deal massive damage, because you end up with a lot more hp through shields, in addition to more slots.
Ideas? Suggestions? Concerns? Bugs to be squashed? Report them on the Mantis Bugtracker!

Author of the Dyson Project and the Spire Gambit

Offline Faulty Logic

  • Hero Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,194
  • Bane of the AI
Re: So, what most needs attention for 6.0?
« Reply #16 on: October 01, 2012, 11:43:35 pm »
The only outstanding issues I can think of (other than 10/10 being, barely, beatable) is the nebulous AI low ship cap bug, and the hybrid targeting bug.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2012, 11:46:15 pm by Faulty Logic »
If warheads can't solve it, use more warheads.

Offline Draco18s

  • Resident Velociraptor
  • Core Member Mark V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,251
Re: So, what most needs attention for 6.0?
« Reply #17 on: October 02, 2012, 12:14:54 am »
Looking at some notes from my last game (cough, a month ago) I have down here...
"Buff player etherjets" specifically a way to make the ones that are tractoring something into a selection by themselves AND/OR etherjets with a tractored target ignoring movement commands in favor of the rally logic (otherwise they never re-rally, making the "issue six move orders to catch that fleet" not useful, as they ones that do catch a ship don't retreat).

I also have "Nerf AI blade spawners" but I don not recall why I wrote that down.

Offline Wanderer

  • Master Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,579
  • If you're not drunk you're doing it wrong.
Re: So, what most needs attention for 6.0?
« Reply #18 on: October 02, 2012, 07:35:03 am »
I've been trying to think over a 'wish list' of things that really get to me, and of them, I think only a few are doable in an immediate timespan.

- Remove Deepstrike and Raid Engine penalties for 'stolen' ships.  Deepstrikes are supposed to punish me for poor play, not because I'm fighting a bunch of honeycombs that split in 5 directions and fire up 5 unique deepstrikes.  Raid Engines... well... that's just mean.

- I'd like to be able to take a particular space dock/factory out of the warp gate system, so I can have my home builders setting up primary fleet and warping them to whatever front line world I want, but have a space dock or two on the whipping boy(s) building defensive units and not having them randomly hauled across the galaxy.

- Threatball dislodgement.  I haven't seen any serious changes to threatball momentum in the notes, and if I missed it please just point it out.  At some point, I'd like to see a threatball 'Fish or Cut Bait'.  Hell, turn them into Special Forces or Coreworld defense fleet... but if they're just not gonna get off my wormhole... ever... that's just silly.  It's also boring as hell when they get to 'rediculous' as you pound your head over and over again just trying to open the dang door, particularly when the threatball could have wiped your whipping boy, blown up your dyson fleet, and probably paved your homeworld because there's four+ waves sitting on the other side of it.

- Rebuilders who think they always should go home.  Drop yourself a minefield at the inbound at your wave point.  Now, grab your rebuilder fleet, and FRD them way in the back, say, right next to your cmd center where they're built.  Now, watch how they try to rebuild.  3/4 will try to rebuild the same thing, and sometimes it'll take .1 second, sometimes 5 seconds.  Errr, okay.  Now, watch as they ignore the rest of the dead minefield and start going home, only to turn back around to start repairs on something else.  Between the sporadic repair times (with banked econ) and this game of 'yo yo' they play, it takes two to three times longer than it seems like it should to actually get your turret banks/minefields/forcefields rebuilt.



Of the other things I'd like to see overhauled eventually...

Interface
I'd like to tell my friends that tried the demo and were completely put off by the control schemas that you guys had overhauled it.  Unfortunately, I think doing this would require actually dragging the game out to PAX or something similar and having complete newbies attempt to play through the tutorial.  Not one of my three friends could explain to me exactly the problem, and obviously I wasn't sitting over their shoulder when they were trying it or I could be more explicit.  We're too close to the trees to see the forest anymore, and are far too used to it in its current state to understand what a newbie fights with... I sure as heck don't remember the thousand little things that drove me nuts until they're almost second nature now.

Satellite Worlds
I'd like to eventually have a way to better protect satellite systems without losing my serious wave defenses.  Yes, this goes back to the other discussion about multiple ingress points and wave targets, but really, what it comes down to is this:  The game has always generally rotated around the idea of having a whipping boy or two, even historically in 2.0 from what I understand, and then really the rest of your planets only have to deal with CPAs.  The problem is how easy it is to create free float threat at this point.  A transport can release upwards of 400 ships of threat if you're not careful, and that's simply because it routed through the wrong system and you didn't notice.  That 400 threat is going everywhere.  Token 'stop a drifter' defenses to deal with the old special forces have no chance of standing up to something like that, and with a higher volume of reinforcements it's real easy to get raided, HARD, on your satellites.

Even if we leave the current turret situation as is, I'd like to see if we as a community can come up with an acceptable compromise to allow for some reasonable (not wave level robust) defenses that could be assigned without limit to our satellite worlds.  This could be something as simple as allowing us to have warp gates that don't hook to spacedocks but merely to each other so we can get our fleet where it needs to be when these things occur.  In many cases, without speed boosters obviously, it can take 5-10 minutes for primary fleets to reach a satellite...  and if you raced them through you've probably merely compounded the issue of free threat.

I have a few 'out of the box' ideas, like being able to build a permanent structure from the space station that causes a 5 minute gravity stall so you can get reinforcements there, but in general I'd like something that means that if a satellite comes under attack, you don't just write the poor thing off.  That's not always an option for worlds like your Fact IVs, but if you've already split your whipping boys you're in for a heck of a ride trying to defend three worlds.  I realize a lot of this is because I don't tend to build the higher level turrets for more defenses, but that has always seemed like a diminishing returns game.  Taking a world (because of the wave multipliers) means I NEED more defenses.... which means I need to take another world... which gets exponentially worse.  ... this is starting to become a rant, and I've presented this as well as I can without a dissertation.

Engineers are morons
Ever have a stack of docks in a location because you've either run out of build-space in one or because you're micro-managing your build queues to make sure, for example, bombers ALWAYS have 5+ Engineers assigned to them?  Your free floating engineers are morons.  They'll continue to attempt to support 'full' lines for far too long, they won't switch to a building line (mind, you have to have say 60+ of them to see this, multi-HW) for a full minute on occassion as the queue eventually gets around to them.  Add to that when the fleet comes in they repair in one of the strangest selection orders I've ever seen.  Oh, that limping 3% hp no engine cruiser?  Nah, ignore that, we're gonna do paint touch-ups on the fighter squadron... oh, look, a butterfly... anyone see that smoke?  No?  Alright, start on the Infiltrators.  Couple this with constantly trying to repair a unit that's being shot at while there's, oh, 50 or so NOT being shot at right there, and they can get downright frustrating.

Economy
In general, I think the economy needs a long, hard look.  I believe this is partially because it's inherited from other RTS games where economic starvation is a main strategy, not a limiter mechanism to allow the AI time to 'develop' its responses to over-extension by the player.  However, I have a hard time seeing 'feast or famine' being a primary design decision and simply being the result of the current mechanics.  The economics don't apply much strategic weight to the game as they stand, they merely apply time.  What actually applies strategic decisions is the economic CAP and 'wasted resources'.  Time DOES result in certain strategic results occuring (CPAs, Hybrid plots, etc) and your ability to counter them, I agree.

I just think there has to be a better way, and between the devs and the brains we've got kicking around here I'm sure we could come up with a few inspired alternatives.

MOAR stuff to want to take and hold
Fact IVs, awesome.  MK V fabricators... usually awesome, need 2/3 in a system to really justify the defenses.  ... aaaannnnddd.... that's pretty much it.  Anything else is held for resources, chokepoints, or energy concerns, all of which are easily rebuilt.  I'd like to see more choices out there about what to try to hang onto rather then absorb and abandon just as a stepstone.  More reasons to satellite and get a boost to my empire, and more risk as I spread what I've got just that much thinner.  This is slightly contradictory to my earlier request for satellite defenses, but not really.  There's a difference between trying to defend against a CPA or an Exo strike and having to deal with 50 drifters off a MK III that run over Deep Space IX because it hasn't gotten a gun upgrade since it was originally constructed.

What options do we have here and what does/doesn't unbalance the game unreasonably?  Errr, well, I'm not entirely sure, honestly.  "I've got ideas!"... yeah... we've all got some.  Mantis is FILLED with 'em.  What can be reasonably implemented?  I dunno.
... and then we'll have cake.

Offline Martyn van Buren

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 642
Re: So, what most needs attention for 6.0?
« Reply #19 on: October 02, 2012, 09:30:34 am »
Out of curiosity, what's your current planning on the armor rework people were talking about some time ago?  If you've decided on a plan for it I think it would be good to roll it out before 6.0 so whatever new players get persuaded to pick up the game by the expansion don't wind up going through the testing period for that one.

Offline TechSY730

  • Core Member Mark V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,570
Re: So, what most needs attention for 6.0?
« Reply #20 on: October 02, 2012, 09:47:23 am »
- Threatball dislodgement.  I haven't seen any serious changes to threatball momentum in the notes, and if I missed it please just point it out.  At some point, I'd like to see a threatball 'Fish or Cut Bait'.  Hell, turn them into Special Forces or Coreworld defense fleet... but if they're just not gonna get off my wormhole... ever... that's just silly.  It's also boring as hell when they get to 'rediculous' as you pound your head over and over again just trying to open the dang door, particularly when the threatball could have wiped your whipping boy, blown up your dyson fleet, and probably paved your homeworld because there's four+ waves sitting on the other side of it.

Have you checked out some of the various threat related suggestions?
Here are some:

9465: Give Freed AI Ships more possible actions (a psuedo-parent issue; check out the related issues for more ideas)
7016: Reduce the firepower cutoff ratio that "stalking a wormhole" AI ships will wait for before entering
9396: After waiting a long time on a wormhole, threat should "reroll" which planet to stalk
9466: Let threat attack at random sometimes

Offline Trandrin

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
Re: So, what most needs attention for 6.0?
« Reply #21 on: October 02, 2012, 09:57:40 am »
I second the vote of more goodies on planets to capture. Stuff that makes players desire to have, but making them choose between its powers and the extra AiP.  Lots of worlds in my games I would never even think of taking just because there is no point.

Oh also could we see that warp gate for our nebulae spawns? They sure are getting lonely.

Maybe for  satellite world defenses we could have a turret/structure that is very powerful, but has limitations on how close to your home world it can be and how many you can place in a system. Thus it can help support far flung outposts, but you won't be able to stack them to create massive firepower advantages or use them close to your power base (Home world and a few jumps around it.).


Offline TechSY730

  • Core Member Mark V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,570
Re: So, what most needs attention for 6.0?
« Reply #22 on: October 02, 2012, 10:04:08 am »
Just FYI, I finally managed to pin down what is causing ships to auto-target stuff they shouldn't auto target. It has to do with attack-move.

You can see my detailed notes on it in the comments of www.arcengames.com/mantisbt/view.php?id=8819

Offline Diazo

  • Master Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,717
  • I love/hate Diff 10
Re: So, what most needs attention for 6.0?
« Reply #23 on: October 02, 2012, 10:16:30 am »
Ummm.

Well, taking out the garbage apparently took me all night.

Going back to the wave size vs. number of ingress points it looks like the math is working correctly.

It just looks like my last two waves were at the extremes, one small, one large.

Code: [Select]
Next-wave-time-calc: normal range of mulitiplier for modifier is -2:4, or: -540:1080
Next-wave-time-calc: because Diff >= 7 and entry_points = 4, entry-point-modified range of mulitiplier for modifier is 0:4, so: 0:1080
Next-wave-time-calc: because game time > 2 hours, using entry-point-modified range: 0:1080
Next-wave-time-calc: actual random modifier rolled: 6; that + base = 906

Code: [Select]
Next-wave-time-calc: normal range of mulitiplier for modifier is -2:4, or: -540:1080
Next-wave-time-calc: because Diff >= 7 and entry_points = 4, entry-point-modified range of mulitiplier for modifier is 0:4, so: 0:1080
Next-wave-time-calc: because game time > 2 hours, using entry-point-modified range: 0:1080
Next-wave-time-calc: actual random modifier rolled: 1033; that + base = 1933

Having said that, it looks like I fundamentally mis-understood how this multiple ingress points is affecting things. I went back and checked the patch notes and I misread it entirely. Patch notes in question.

This ingress modified is not applied to the wave sizes as they are created, rather it affects the 'time to next wave' variable, and since waves are sized based on the time since last wave this ingress modifier is indirectly affecting wave sizes this way.

However, I'm not sure this is working as intended. As I am not able to parse the wave logs, or I don't have a big enough sample to pull the variables I need to confirm my assumptions about the background logic so please check your PMs Keith.

D.

edit: Pulling more numbers, it looks like it is working as intended. My current understanding is now that if the RNG was not present and everything was perfectly average a player empire would face the same absolute number of ships over a game. A single front defence would face fewer, larger waves while a multiple front defense would face waves more often, but they would be smaller.

I'm going to think on this for a bit (and wait for Keith to reply to my PM making sure I got the game mechanics right. )
« Last Edit: October 02, 2012, 11:10:39 am by Diazo »

Offline Kahuna

  • Core Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,222
  • Kahuna Matata!
Re: So, what most needs attention for 6.0?
« Reply #24 on: October 02, 2012, 10:56:43 am »
Tackle Drone Launcher, Zenith Beam Frigate, Shield Bearers, Medics, Munitions Boosters and Area Mines are overpowered.

Deflector Drones, Infiltrators, Electric Shuttles, Anti-Starship Arachnids, Grenade Launchers, Teleport Raiders and Flak Turrets are underpowered.

Zenith Electric Bombers need bonus damage vs Heavy.

Zenith Space Time Manipulators are overpriced (in terms of Knowledge).

Fabricators and Advanced Factories shouldn't be allowed to be located right next to a wormhole.

"Need" more ships with bonus damage vs Artillery. (Missile Frigates are the new OPs (after fighter and bomber balance change))

Counter-Missile Turrets are overpriced. 2,5k-3k Knowledge might be ok. 4k is a bit too much imo.

Counter-Dark-Matter Turrets are overpriced. Making them also counter Antimatter Bombs would make them worth it. Or even more. (Zombards are overpowered in AIs hands).

It should be possible to put Matter Converters into stand down mode.

MarkIII scouts are a bit too expensive (in terms of Knowledge). Imo 1750 would be ok.
set /A diff=10
if %diff%==max (
   set /A me=:)
) else (
   set /A me=SadPanda
)
echo Check out my AI War strategy guide and find your inner Super Cat!
echo 2592 hours of AI War and counting!
echo Kahuna matata!

Offline Hearteater

  • Core Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,334
Re: So, what most needs attention for 6.0?
« Reply #25 on: October 02, 2012, 11:34:39 am »
Probably the biggest change I'd like to see is the Armor Rework.  Although I'll probably still prefer attack damage scaling armor effectiveness to how the discussion finally turned out, I'd welcome any improvement to the armor system.

Here are some issues that came up in my Neinzul game.  I highlighted the key points in red.

Closing Thoughts
Version: I upgraded as patches came out and finished the game in version 5.060.

Hybrids
I really enjoyed having them on.  I probably wouldn't go above 4/10 because any more of them would have just been annoying.  I'm somewhat inclined to say they mature a little too quickly, and that I think I'd prefer the x/10 system increased maturity rate instead of number.  Or maybe increased both by a smaller amount.

What are the Construction spawners?  Since Hybrids can't make turrets anymore, do these even do anything?

Also, it took me awhile to find the actual Hybrid spawners because their name is Hive Spawner, and there are also Drone Spawners, so I was getting them confused as the same unit.  Maybe the Hybrid Hive Spawner could be renamed to Hybrid Hive Nest instead, a more distinct name.  I know, I'm always trying to get you to rename stuff :) .

Is there any chance that Hybrids can get their Mark # to reflect their maturity?  I could tell by zooming in and mousing over mounts or counting number of weapons they mount, but I'd love a quicker way to tell them apart at a glance.

There was a Super Hybrid on Galt, with the Dyson sphere.  It did nothing all game.  It never moved.  Basically it was pointless.  I'm not sure why it never felt the need to get involved.  Maybe it was trying to do the Advanced Hybrid plot, but I didn't have Advanced Hybrids turned on.

Threat
AI threat is a little brain dead.  I was able to hold off tons of threat by just putting a Fortress on each entry into my core systems.  In fact, this is the only reason I unlocked Fortress IIs.  Not because I needed them to shoot at anything, but because they effectively paralyze a large amount of threat.  But even then, there was enough threat that if it all moved to Ullanor it could have broken through easily.  Basically, the AI really should re-evaluate its threat ship placement occationally.  Maybe if it has multiple "large" pockets of threat, it should randomly determine which threat blob is next to the weakest human system and send all the other large threat pockets there.  Because threat was such a non-issue, you'll notice I never mentioned CPAs because they didn't do anything.  Sure, they were pretty small because I got my AIP pretty low, but they didn't even attack my really weakly defended stepping stone systems over by Chaeronia.  It was just too spread out and never combined to break through anywhere.

Neinzul Rocketry/Preservation/Enclaves
I still don't know the difference between the Wardens and Enclaves.  I think I saw a lot of Enclaves (look like the Neinzul starship and spawn younglings of various sorts).  But I don't think I saw a single Preservation Warden, so I can't really comment on them. <<1>>  The Rocketry Corps were interesting, and I claimed two systems with Rocketry Corps in them (Caeronia and Typhon Primaris).  I had about 3 EMP warheads explode, but I was able to keep the system alive fairly easily.  Mainly with a golem to defend them until their defenses came back.  The Lightning Warheads generally got killed by turrets before they could get anywhere special and so did no damage.  All-in-all, interesting, but probably not something I'd play with in every game.

Attached Image: Cloaked
The ridiculous cloaking threat left by the Super Terminal.  For some reason these never attacked with the rest of the Super Terminal force.<<2>>  This may also have been another factor in why I had such an easy time.

<<1>> I think there is something broken with them, either in what they do, or how often they appear.

<<2>> Problems with cloakers have been mentioned before, but my Super Terminal fight really highlighted the issue.  Cloaked units often sit and hide without attacking, which they did in this case even though I was actively hacking the Super Terminal!  This effectively diluated the ST spawns by 20-25%.

And finally some Mantis Issues I'd love to see resolved:

Visual/UI:
System Mark in Intel Summary (#3515) - Very helpful when using things that care, like Spirecraft
Show Selected Units on Galaxy Map (#3586) - So I can tell what I'm order where, and if alt-click will pull up unit or galaxy context
Reorder Turrets in build menu (#9307) - Ok, maybe a little OCD
Devourer and Trader icon on map (#5671) - Very useful
Show Selected Units on Galaxy Map (#3586) - Much rougher on new players, but still annoying to veterans

Number issues:
Fix wave warning count (#5466) - It's really unclear, since it counts starships twice
Fix Guard Post count on Intel Summary (#4780) - Basically, it isn't clear what it's talking about

Controls:
Better zoom QWER settings (#4704) - I want to use these, but they aren't at useful values
Right-click sidebar to attack (#6606) - And of course this would allow preferred targets to be set this way
Change Auto-FRD (#8345) - My favorite solution to the Engineer FRD, very simple and elegant. The current change on this to make Control Groups have their own settings is far more complicated and too much hassle for the Engineer FRD problem.

Astro Trains:
Astro Train warnings are annoying (#3710) - They aren't going to kill your CS
Astro Train improvements (#2734) - Brainstorm of Astro Train ideas

Hybrids:
Advanced Hybrid Plots (#5665) - More evilness!

Setup
Random start multi-HW (#9478) - Imagine the initial consolidation
Two seeds for maps (#9399) - So I can keep a layout I like, but have everything else different
Random knowledge from planets (#4918) - Be sure to read all the comments

Units
Youngling Mark V immune to Warp Gate paralysis (#9291) - They are younglings, let me use them like younglings (one of mine I forgot)

Saving
Folders (#7825) - Would make my save games so much easier to manage

Bugs
Two Spider V Fabs on every map (#7615) - I never remember if this is fixed, but it always annoyed me
AI Engineers don't repair (#4833) - So sad, also applies to Remains Rebuilders and mines

Offline keith.lamothe

  • Arcen Games Staff
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,505
Re: So, what most needs attention for 6.0?
« Reply #26 on: October 02, 2012, 01:13:02 pm »
Ok, here's the list thus far; if I've left something important off let me know soon and I'll try to include it before posting the poll (trying to get that part going, if you didn't get a chance this time there'll be another chance).

Fix: (Apparently rare) Human units showing up on far-distant AI worlds, possibly due to scapegoat regeneration.
Fix: AI ships getting stuck and/or jumpy movement
Fix: Human FRD ships not always regathering at FRD point
Fix: Auto-kiting units sometimes kite out of range
Fix: Human ships sometimes autotargetting wormhole guard posts
Fix: Auto-gather-knowledge units getting stuck (sometimes nebula-related)
Balance: Another pass on champion modules
Balance: Making multiple-ingress-points (including sattelite worlds) not so much less viable than singe-chokepoint
UI: A way to band-select only one's own ships in multiplayer.
Balance: Make 10/10 (somewhat) harder
Fix: Making Hybrid preferred target doesn't seem to work
Balance: buff etherjets
Balance: make human ships tractored by AI ships not trigger deepstrike threat or raid engines
UI: provide way to make a specific space-dock/factory not send ships to warp gate
Mechanics: make threatballs do something else if they don't attack after a while
Unit behavior: make rebuilders target the same thing less often and do less yo-yoing back to FRD point
Unit behavior: change engineer prioritization to repair low-hp expensive stuff, quicker at switching from a full dock, etc.
Balance: nerf Tackle Drone Launcher
Balance: nerf Zenith Beam Frigate
Balance: nerf Shield Bearers
Balance: nerf Medics
Balance: nerf Munitions Boosters
Balance: nerf Area Mines
Balance: buff Deflector Drones
Balance: buff Infiltrators
Balance: buff Electric Shuttles
Balance: buff MkV Spiders
Balance: buff Grenade Launchers
Balance: buff Teleport Raiders
Balance: buff Flak Turrets
Balance: give Zenith Electric Bombers bonus vs Heavy
Balance: reduce Zenith Space Time Manipulators knowledge cost
Balance: no Fabricators or Advanced Factories near wormholes
Balance: give more ships bonuses vs. Artillery (i.e. vs Missile Frigates)
Balance: reduce Counter-missile-turret knowledge cost
Balance: reduce Counter-Dark-Matter Turrets knowledge cost
Balance: reduce MarkIII scout knowledge cost
Balance: make hybrids mature more slowly
Balance: make hybrid plot-intensity affect maturity rate instead of (or in addition to) spawn rate
Text: rename Hybrid Hive Spawner to Hybrid Hive Nest
UI: Make hybrid's displayed mark number reflect their maturity
Fix: Super Hybrids spawning despite there being nothing for it to do.
Fix: Preservation Wardens not showing up
Fix: Cloaked ships spawned by super terminal not attacking
UI: Show System Mark in Intel Summary
UI: Show the selection description window on the galaxy map
UI: reorder turrets on buy menu so basic, mlrs, missile, and laser are together
UI: show icons for devourer and trader on galaxy map
Fix: Wave warning counts counting starships twice
Fix: Intel Summary Wormhole Guard Post count is just called "Guard Posts"
UI: make the zoom values on the QWER keys more useful
UI: be able to give attack (and set-preferred-target) orders by right-clicking the planetary summary box
UI: change auto-FRD to "gets set to FRD whenever it enters an allied planet"
UI: have astro train attacking a command station not show a warning
Mapgen: have separate seeds for map layout and everything else.
Mechanics: Semi-random variation in how knowledge is distributed across planets (details)
Balance: make MkV younglings attrition again, but be immune to warp gate paralysis
UI: support subfolders for save/load
Fix: Spider V fabs always seeding two per map
Fix: AI Engineers not repairing

And some stuff that I noted but don't see being able to sufficiently handle  in this time frame

UI: attempt to improve interface impression on new players
Balance: The armor rework (I'd want at least a month and a half of shaking out the balance implications for this, and a couple days to actually do the initial logic and numbers).
Mechanics: make econ less feast-or-famine
New units: more take-and-hold capturables that the player actually cares enough about to go after
Mechanics: reimagining astro trains
Mechanics: more advanced hybrid plots
UI: be able to have lobby pick multiple random homeworlds for you (this would be tricky to indicate in the lobby controls)

And stuff I've noted but don't think would be good/necessary:

"It should be possible to put Matter Converters into stand down mode." Then we'd be right back to the original problem they were supposed to solve, just with less math: optimal play would involve always having enough converters (energy reactors, before) to cover any conceivable energy deficit, and turning off as many as you could while still covering your current energy needs.

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: So, what most needs attention for 6.0?
« Reply #27 on: October 02, 2012, 01:34:11 pm »
Something I saw listed not in that list is that Z bombards seem overpowered in AI hands, even though they are about right in human hands. (Not sure if I agree with this, but I didn't see it on the list even though someone mentioned it)

Also, I didn't see anything about the potential low cap ship in AI hands count oddities, though that is being handled in a different thread.


I would like to nominate a few AI behavior tweaks, but I am not as "fervent" about these:
6527: AI Neinzul units should not retreat in general circumstances
6529: AI Units retreating from attacks should consider using carrier guardians
6528: AI Units wait too long before retreating to a carrier guardian
« Last Edit: October 02, 2012, 02:08:05 pm by TechSY730 »

Offline Hearteater

  • Core Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,334
Re: So, what most needs attention for 6.0?
« Reply #28 on: October 02, 2012, 01:38:48 pm »
I picture a scene like this:

Keith: Wow, I'm just about done the expansion!  Only a few more little things on the To Do list.
Chris: Nice.  Maybe you could post a thread and see if anyone on the forum can think of anything.
Keith: Good idea.
...later...
Chris: How'd that thread go?
Keith: What thread? *delete*

Offline keith.lamothe

  • Arcen Games Staff
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,505
Re: So, what most needs attention for 6.0?
« Reply #29 on: October 02, 2012, 01:48:59 pm »
I picture a scene like this:

Keith: Wow, I'm just about done the expansion!  Only a few more little things on the To Do list.
Chris: Nice.  Maybe you could post a thread and see if anyone on the forum can think of anything.
Keith: Good idea.
...later...
Chris: How'd that thread go?
Keith: What thread? *delete*
Not really ;)  I just figured this would probably be the best way to make it more likely that my remaining polish time went towards issues that at least some significant portion of the playerbase cares about, specifically in the context of an official release.

List is a bit longer than I was expecting, but not by much.

Somewhat surprised no one mentioned the champion respawn stuff, but that's already near the top of my list anyhow.
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games? Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!