Author Topic: AI War II: Design Document Updates 6: Fuel and Solar Systems v2 (no Orbits)  (Read 2322 times)

Offline x4000

  • Chris Park, Arcen Games Founder and Lead Designer
  • Administrator
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,047
Re: AI War II: Design Document Updates 6: Fuel and Solar Systems v2 (no Orbits)
« Reply #30 on: September 08, 2016, 02:56:12 PM »
Bear in mind that there's a sharp limit to how many square pegs I'm going to try to fit into round holes.  When ZPGs don't work, then they either get shifted to something else or just removed entirely.  I'm not going to gut the game, but I'm also not going to bloat it with things that aren't really needed.

Thanks for the reminder about Exos, that makes sense on that.  I'm not sure if we'll have those kind of wormholes this time or not.  Might handle that in a slightly more interesting way, or else will just do that again, depending.

In Sins I seem to recall that they heavily darkened the space outside of the gravity well, which I'm not sure how well that would look here.  It can certainly be done, but I'm not sure how annoying it will be.  I'd like to do something a little more subtle than that if possible.

Either way, making wormhole connections directional is something that I really agree with.  At least the lanes within the solar system, to be sure.

Dyson spheres would be an example of something that changes dramatically, yes.  The idea behind them is awesome at the core, but their model from before is something I'm bored of and always felt was limited anyway.  We can do something richer here.

I've been back and forth on if 20 systems would really be the new default, though.  Certainly it will be an option, but I'm not sure if it will really let me get everything in there that I'd like to have in one game.  Doing some things like "solar gates" that are the one building you can build on suns in either allied, owned, or neutral solar systems, but then let you fast travel units from that sun to any other sun with such a gate on it, could help matters quite enormously.  It would bring a new element to deep strikes and planet hopping.

The "sunwell" is an awesome idea that we should totally put in there.  I think that's a lot more interesting than the ZPG in this game, for sure. :)

I like solar systems but don't like the idea there can be multiple AIP hits if a solar system changes hands several times. it punishes "bend but don't break" strategies and goes back to making whipping boys. There is already plenty  ways that encourage the latter.

I will make it an option, but I think it makes good sense.  Let's actually play out a few scenarios and when you gain AIP:

1. GAIN: you take a planet from the AI anywhere.
2. NOPE: you lose a planet that the AI takes over, and then you take it back
3. GAIN: you take the entire solar system (let's say 5 planets in a group) from an AI.
4. NOPE: the AI pushes back into that solar system and takes 4 of those planets from you.  You then reclaim all 4 of those planets.
5. NOPE: the AI pushes back into that solar system, knocks you off all 5 of them, and then takes 2 of them before you knock them back off those 2.
6. NOPE: the AI again comes in, knocks you off all the planets, and takes 3 planets so that they now control it again.  You retain control of the remaining 2.
7. NOPE: the AI pushes you off those remaining 2, and then you retake them.
8. GAIN (repeat): you take the solar system back from the AI.  You'd take a hit from the 3 systems they reclaimed as part of their empire, and from the system itself.

I think perhaps you were envisioning this as being much more harsh on when you get repeat gains?  You have to get pushed pretty far back before this is even an issue.

I am still not a fan of fuel for it seems it will be mildly annoying to veterans and a great source of frustration to new players. It lacks depth but is challenging to new players. I think the opposite is desired.

Fuel = energy, in every way, at this point.  However, it separates your offensive and defensive budgets so that you are never having to struggle between offense or defense when it comes to territory-limited assets (unlike, say, metal income, which you of course still have to figure out how to allocate).
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 skrutsch

  • Newbie Mark III
  • *
  • Posts: 41
Re: AI War II: Design Document Updates 6: Fuel and Solar Systems v2 (no Orbits)
« Reply #31 on: September 08, 2016, 03:05:34 PM »
I like the solar system revisions.  One small question:  Does a Planet Ring solar system need to have an accessible sun?

A larger question:  What are the advantages of a player taking ownership of an AI solar system?

The AI Progress increase for conquering a system seems wrong, especially when....
Quote
The amount of the hit will be different based on how valuable that solar system is (generally speaking how large it is, and how good the planets on it are).

Why wouldn't I just take the AIP hits for the "good" planets, leave an AI planet be (so the system would still belong to the AI) and not have to suffer the extra AIP hit for solar system conquest at all?

Offline Tridus

  • Master Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,305
  • I'm going to do what I do best: lecture her!
Re: AI War II: Design Document Updates 6: Fuel and Solar Systems v2 (no Orbits)
« Reply #32 on: September 08, 2016, 03:12:55 PM »
In Sins I seem to recall that they heavily darkened the space outside of the gravity well, which I'm not sure how well that would look here.  It can certainly be done, but I'm not sure how annoying it will be.  I'd like to do something a little more subtle than that if possible.

Either way, making wormhole connections directional is something that I really agree with.  At least the lanes within the solar system, to be sure.

I don't think you have to do it the same way that Sins did it, but they make a good example. :) I don't know how moving around between planets in a system works in AIW2. In Sins, you'd just zoom out and browse over, as the entire game was visible at once if you zoomed out far enough. I don't know if AIW2 is working more like that, or more like AIW1 where you only view one planet at a time.

Mostly I think the connections between planets and connections between systems should be very distinct from each other. Wormhole for one, something not-wormhole for the other. There's some room to figure out exactly what they look like, but lanes are an easy one just because so many other games use some form of it. It's a genre language that people will easily understand.

Offline kasnavada

  • Hero Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 911
Re: AI War II: Design Document Updates 6: Fuel and Solar Systems v2 (no Orbits)
« Reply #33 on: September 08, 2016, 03:24:49 PM »
I've been back and forth on if 20 systems would really be the new default, though.  Certainly it will be an option, but I'm not sure if it will really let me get everything in there that I'd like to have in one game.  Doing some things like "solar gates" that are the one building you can build on suns in either allied, owned, or neutral solar systems, but then let you fast travel units from that sun to any other sun with such a gate on it, could help matters quite enormously.  It would bring a new element to deep strikes and planet hopping.

The possibly limiting the number of planets per system, and augmenting the number of systems. Like 2-6 planets / system and 40-50 systems.


Quote from: chemical_art on Today at 01:42:22 PM

    I like solar systems but don't like the idea there can be multiple AIP hits if a solar system changes hands several times. it punishes "bend but don't break" strategies and goes back to making whipping boys. There is already plenty  ways that encourage the latter.


I will make it an option, but I think it makes good sense.  Let's actually play out a few scenarios and when you gain AIP:

1. GAIN: you take a planet from the AI anywhere.
2. NOPE: you lose a planet that the AI takes over, and then you take it back
3. GAIN: you take the entire solar system (let's say 5 planets in a group) from an AI.
4. NOPE: the AI pushes back into that solar system and takes 4 of those planets from you.  You then reclaim all 4 of those planets.
5. NOPE: the AI pushes back into that solar system, knocks you off all 5 of them, and then takes 2 of them before you knock them back off those 2.
6. NOPE: the AI again comes in, knocks you off all the planets, and takes 3 planets so that they now control it again.  You retain control of the remaining 2.
7. NOPE: the AI pushes you off those remaining 2, and then you retake them.
8. GAIN (repeat): you take the solar system back from the AI.  You'd take a hit from the 3 systems they reclaimed as part of their empire, and from the system itself.

I think perhaps you were envisioning this as being much more harsh on when you get repeat gains?  You have to get pushed pretty far back before this is even an issue.

I have the same reservation as Chemical art on this.

And, for me at least, that feels like locking the player to whatever he's controlling. I think a more "fluid" concept of territory could be an idea. Have you seen the idea I put on the previous page ?

Offline Draco18s

  • Resident Velociraptor
  • Core Member Mark V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,053
Re: AI War II: Design Document Updates 6: Fuel and Solar Systems v2 (no Orbits)
« Reply #34 on: September 08, 2016, 03:32:40 PM »
Bear in mind that there's a sharp limit to how many square pegs I'm going to try to fit into round holes.  When ZPGs don't work, then they either get shifted to something else or just removed entirely.  I'm not going to gut the game, but I'm also not going to bloat it with things that aren't really needed.

Dyson spheres would be an example of something that changes dramatically, yes.  The idea behind them is awesome at the core, but their model from before is something I'm bored of and always felt was limited anyway.  We can do something richer here.

I definitely understand square pegs. ;)
I was just wondering if they'd been considered yet, and if so, how.

Dyson worlds should absolutely have an incarnation, they're too cool to see cut.  What they do on the other hand (the gameplay mechanics) can definitely be up in the air and jiggled about, even written from whole cloth all over again.  But visually and in some way meaningful for the new system maps will be awesome.

ZPGs are less important (thought: what if they supplied fuel instead of power?) to keep in the game, they just stuck out like a sore thumb.

Offline Toranth

  • Hero Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,231
Re: AI War II: Design Document Updates 6: Fuel and Solar Systems v2 (no Orbits)
« Reply #35 on: September 08, 2016, 04:05:53 PM »
The proposed solar system design sounds neat, but it prompted a new question for me.

Is each gravity well still going to be a (effectively) limited circle of moderate to small size?  Technically, the AI War Classic planets were infinite in size, but because of the Gravity Well building restrictions and the outer well movement speed limit, they were effectively limited circles.  I've been assuming that the same would hold for AIW2's planets - but when thinking about the solar body 'gravity wells' I wasn't sure any more.

Would it be possible to create neutral (aka, uncontrollable) ring-shaped zones in the systems? 
The solar body would be one such around the star (Don't wanna get to close to that sun, no siree).  An asteroid belt could be one in the middle of the system, with wormhole links scattered around the zone.  An Oort-cloud-like ring could be the outside edge of the solar system.  While each of these zones could be limited in thickness, even smaller than AI War Classic Gravity Wells, but due to the long circumference, could end up having a very large total area.

As for the "Why", I'm looking at mixing up the shape of systems, providing more neutral territories, and adding more potential map types, like the Concentric type (one I've always been fond of) for in-system; and the possibility of linking solar systems through the Oort cloud ring instead of the solar body.

Offline zharmad

  • Hero Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,070
Re: AI War II: Design Document Updates 6: Fuel and Solar Systems v2 (no Orbits)
« Reply #36 on: September 08, 2016, 04:57:50 PM »
<Graphics of gravity well and moving between planets in solar system>
[/quote]
For reference, here are a couple of comparisons:

Stellaris - Clear arrows with dotted line boundaries.
Spoiler for "Stellaris":
-------
Stardrive 2 -  Orbits with no boundaries. Solid line jump.
Spoiler for "Stardrive 2":
-------
Sins - Highlight area within grav well, solid line jump and circle
Spoiler for "SoaSE":
-------
Star Ruler 2 - toy model like, using trade-route like animation between system
Spoiler for "Star Ruler 2":
-------


Would it be possible to create neutral (aka, uncontrollable) ring-shaped zones in the systems? 
This would definitely be nice. If it's not in for v1.0, I'd vote for it in an expansion. Allows the possibility of both full asteroid fields, and ring worlds around the sun.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2016, 05:03:51 PM by zharmad »

Offline Mckloshiv

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • Just another paradox of the mind~
Re: AI War II: Design Document Updates 6: Fuel and Solar Systems v2 (no Orbits)
« Reply #37 on: September 08, 2016, 05:17:54 PM »
Oh would we be able to build Dyson Spheres/Clouds around stars? That would be awesome! :D
Wherever the galactic winds blow, I'll be there.

Offline Captain Jack

  • Hero Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 808
  • Just lucky
Re: AI War II: Design Document Updates 6: Fuel and Solar Systems v2 (no Orbits)
« Reply #38 on: September 08, 2016, 05:57:22 PM »
Oh would we be able to build Dyson Spheres/Clouds around stars? That would be awesome! :D
I don't think AI War humanity has reached that point on the Kardashev scale yet.  ;D

Offline tadrinth

  • Sr. Member Mark III
  • ****
  • Posts: 432
Re: AI War II: Design Document Updates 6: Fuel and Solar Systems v2 (no Orbits)
« Reply #39 on: September 08, 2016, 07:54:22 PM »
Oh hey, you changed Fuel to work exactly as I expected it to in the first place.  Nice!

Offline Mckloshiv

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • Just another paradox of the mind~
Re: AI War II: Design Document Updates 6: Fuel and Solar Systems v2 (no Orbits)
« Reply #40 on: September 09, 2016, 03:23:38 PM »
Oh would we be able to build Dyson Spheres/Clouds around stars? That would be awesome! :D
I don't think AI War humanity has reached that point on the Kardashev scale yet.  ;D

Eh, they have giant spaceships and nukes capable of destroying entire galaxies.... I would think surrounding a star with a million little solar panels would be a simple feat. ;D
Although, reading the energy more carefully, the Dyson Cloud idea would be useless; since it would only power one area.
Wherever the galactic winds blow, I'll be there.

Offline Captain Jack

  • Hero Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 808
  • Just lucky
Re: AI War II: Design Document Updates 6: Fuel and Solar Systems v2 (no Orbits)
« Reply #41 on: September 09, 2016, 05:43:31 PM »
Oh would we be able to build Dyson Spheres/Clouds around stars? That would be awesome! :D
I don't think AI War humanity has reached that point on the Kardashev scale yet.  ;D

Eh, they have giant spaceships and nukes capable of destroying entire galaxies.... I would think surrounding a star with a million little solar panels would be a simple feat. ;D
Although, reading the energy more carefully, the Dyson Cloud idea would be useless; since it would only power one area.
Destroying things is much simpler than cultivating and utilizing them! (Besides for all we know it's a wormhole weapon that doesn't do anything to planets without wormholes)