Author Topic: AI War II: Design Document Updates 6: Fuel and Solar Systems v2 (no Orbits)  (Read 4213 times)

Offline Draco18s

  • Resident Velociraptor
  • Core Member Mark V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,191
Re: AI War II: Design Document Updates 6: Fuel and Solar Systems v2 (no Orbits)
« Reply #15 on: September 08, 2016, 12:51:38 PM »
ZPGs are going to be.....uh.....interesting to try and migrate.  400 free local power isn't going to be as awesome as it used to be.

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 #16 on: September 08, 2016, 12:59:53 PM »
The big point on that is that maps will be a lot smaller, aka not 600+ planets.  Instead the default of 20 systems, with 3-12ish planets in each, so closer to 100-120 planets in all.

If you want to crank it up (or down) from that, you still could.

Also, the number and type of map types is dropping like a rock, yet the number of interesting outputs will actually be far higher than before.  So it's kind of a mixed-message there, but basically it's frankly apples and oranges now.

That actually sounds quite nice. If you can zoom the map out to looking at systems, you can see an overview of who is where. Then you can zoom in further towards planets to see individual systems in more detail.

A map of 20 systems (with a bunch of connections inside them) is a lot easier to process mentally than a map of 100 individual planets.

Quote
Yep, this is true.  My mind is really failing me, though: embarrassingly, I need you to remind me exactly what exo wormholes are.  I seem to recall having those on the AI homeworlds, and I think I even added them on the player homeworlds at one point, but maybe that got taken out or was just a lobby option.

It's a wormhole on the AI Homeworlds that goes to whatever galaxy the AI is busy in. It acts as a warp gate that you can't get rid of, so the AI can always send stuff there. Exo strike forces also launch from it. If you send the Exodian Blade through it, stuff goes boom. :D

One of the AI Types was able to add one to your own homeworld.

Quote
Quote
OMG I already imagine the reworked Dyson Sphere! It is the sun and its mood depends on the balance in its system. *.*
And nebulae: sunless systems! Yay!
I really love the possibilities this offers, now that I really understand it.

I haven't even thought about the dyson sphere yet, but that would be an awesome way to handle it for sure!  That would be an example of a minor faction controlling a solar system (permanently, in that case).  A thread about that would be great.

That would be awesome.

Quote
Quote
Personally, I'd probably use "travel lanes" between planets in a system instead of wormholes, because that largely provides the same thing (fly to the edge of the well and then you enter the travel lane to the other planet), but makes it really clear at a glance that wormholes to different systems are special and important.

Maybe!  I understand what you mean, but I'm having trouble picturing how it would look in practice.  I think that Sins did that, but it's been a long while since I played that.  Any links to screenshots?

I'll see if I can find some, but I'm at work so I can't just fire up Sins to take a few. :)

Roughly though, it is the way it worked in Sins (except the Vasari, who could bypass it with Phase Gates), or Endless Space. On any given planet, it's connections to other planets are drawn as lines (or something flashier) from the edge of the gravity well to wherever else it goes. You enter that travel lane by flying over to it, then you go off the grav well and to the other planet through that lane. In AI War it could function *like* a wormhole, where you enter it and appear on the other side, except it always appears on the edge of the grav well and isn't drawn like a wormhole.

So, say for example we have our solar system, where each planet has a travel lane to the planet adjacent to it, and Earth has a wormhole to Polaris or wherever. On Earth, you'd see a wormhole to Polaris somewhere in the grav well. At one end you'd also see a line that goes to Mars, and somewhere else,another line that goes to Venus.

The biggest upside is that because only one of those things looks like a wormhole, everybody (including newbies) can tell instantly it's different than the travel lanes (which it is, because it's leaving the system). Lots of games use travel lanes between planets like this, so it shouldn't be hard for people to pick up what they mean. In terms of automatic navigation and such, the game could just consider it a wormhole to Mars that's on the edge of the grav well, and nothing else really changes.

edit - Here's an example screenshot of what a system might look like, from Sins. If you zoom in on a given planet, you'd see the given lanes at the edges of the grav well, and you warp out at them to go to the other system. In AIW2's case, there'd also be wormholes somewhere in there to get you in/out of the system. I can't find one zoomed in at the right height to see it in a specific system unfortunately.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2016, 01:13:53 PM by Tridus »

Offline Orelius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 328
Re: AI War II: Design Document Updates 6: Fuel and Solar Systems v2 (no Orbits)
« Reply #17 on: September 08, 2016, 01:20:32 PM »
So if we have solar systems, will Dyson spheres change significantly?  I think it would be pretty penalizing to be unable to colonize an entire solar system.

Offline PokerChen

  • Hero Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,087
Re: AI War II: Design Document Updates 6: Fuel and Solar Systems v2 (no Orbits)
« Reply #18 on: September 08, 2016, 01:22:56 PM »
Tick, I can support a Sins-style split in graphics between lanes and actual wormholes. What I'd like to really avoid is the original ambiguity as to which wormhole leads where - one had to remember planet names since the planet view only had names and "hostile?" information.

Hmmm. With 20 systems (simple layout), averaging ~6 planets each, the complete number of hops from one end to the other would be ~4x3 or 12 hops - more closely connected than a standard 80-planet simple layout, IIRC?

Graphically speaking, it's also worth noting that the system view in Stellaris gives you the direction and name of neighboring systems in the form of very fat arrows at the edge of the circle.

Offline Nuc_Temeron

  • Newbie Mark III
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: AI War II: Design Document Updates 6: Fuel and Solar Systems v2 (no Orbits)
« Reply #19 on: September 08, 2016, 01:26:06 PM »
I like these changes! Fuel and Power make good sense.

It's always bothered me just a little that there were no solar systems in the game. I'm very glad to hear those are in now.

I think that it's very easy, scientifically, to move between planets in one system, compared to moving between solar systems. Connections between planets in a solar system should be plentiful.

Finally I can stop using the terms Planet and System interchangeably. Ha!

Offline kasnavada

  • Hero Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 967
Re: AI War II: Design Document Updates 6: Fuel and Solar Systems v2 (no Orbits)
« Reply #20 on: September 08, 2016, 01:31:35 PM »
ZPGs are going to be.....uh.....interesting to try and migrate.  400 free local power isn't going to be as awesome as it used to be.

Strap engines on it, make it go nuclear if it is destroyed. Something that produces that much power can't be stable, right ?

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 #21 on: September 08, 2016, 01:32:40 PM »
Arrows and names would work too. Names should really be there so you know where it goes. :)

I don't think it matters a ton of it's arrows or lines or whatever, just that they're distinct from the wormholes that leave the system.


As for the ZPG...it could be a very powerful generator on one world that basically runs on no metal. It could be a special generator that's so powerful it can also power adjacent worlds (which would make it extra special and important because if it gets taken out, *multiple* worlds go down, which isn't a thing that otherwise happens anymore). It could not exist at all.

The framework that's presented in the document now gives a lot of ways to go with it beyond the original "it's got a huge power number".

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 #22 on: September 08, 2016, 01:40:56 PM »
ZPGs are going to be.....uh.....interesting to try and migrate.  400 free local power isn't going to be as awesome as it used to be.

Strap engines on it, make it go nuclear if it is destroyed. Something that produces that much power can't be stable, right ?
There's a reason the Zenith still school everyone despite being dead as a civilization for millenia.  :D

I think the ZPG will end up wholly repurposed. I could see them being cores of superprojects for you/the AI/minor civs.

As for superfuel stations, how about a sunwell? Plug it into a star you control and it makes you a bunch of fuel at the cost of being really hard to defend. Brought to you by the same dead people who brought you the Megalith.  ;)

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 thought you only gained AIP progress if the AI retakes a star system entirely? That happens is if you lose every command center in a system AND the AI repopulates half of it. There's a lot of margin there for a comeback, so it seems fine to me.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2016, 01:59:18 PM by Captain Jack »

Offline chemical_art

  • Core Member Mark IV
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,952
  • Fabulous
Re: AI War II: Design Document Updates 6: Fuel and Solar Systems v2 (no Orbits)
« Reply #23 on: September 08, 2016, 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 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.
Life is short. Have fun.

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 #24 on: September 08, 2016, 02:02:59 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.

Is it really "bending" if you lose control of an entire system, though? That's not losing one planet.

That said, I think the idea of making that a lobby option was pitched.

Offline Draco18s

  • Resident Velociraptor
  • Core Member Mark V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,191
Re: AI War II: Design Document Updates 6: Fuel and Solar Systems v2 (no Orbits)
« Reply #25 on: September 08, 2016, 02:05:07 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 thought you only gained AIP progress if the AI retakes a star system entirely? That happens is if you lose every command center in a system AND the AI repopulates half of it. There's a lot of margin there for a comeback, so it seems fine to me.

I think you misunderstood.  The AI retaking territory doesn't reduce AIP.  When they take over the whole system you taking planets there again costs AIP all over again.  It resets the "take it the first time" bool.

Offline kasnavada

  • Hero Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 967
Re: AI War II: Design Document Updates 6: Fuel and Solar Systems v2 (no Orbits)
« Reply #26 on: September 08, 2016, 02:07:45 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.

About that part, I like Infested Planet's system of node capture, which shares the asymetrical design of AI war, but is billions of time faster. It also has the concept of recaptures by both the player and the infested. If you want ideas on how to make the AI rebuild / capture that could be a start.

Anyway, I disgress. There is a system of points that you can gain by capturing nodes, but it counts only the "total" number of nodes under control by the player at a given point, rather than what is captured or not. That has a lot of strategic values because you can abandon places and / or exchange nodes under control. If you're losing ground, the AI does not get any less strong though.

In AI war 2 systems could be worth "points" and the sum of points under the player's control would be the only thing that counts toward AI progress. That would allow strategic re-captures to be more significant, lessen the penalty on back & forth, and also allow strategic retreats, and / or redefining one's territory as one sees fit.

The second possibility is especially important. In AI war 1, I always felt "locked" to defend a system because it permanently was a reinforcement penalty, a wave target and so on... if that's in place, no more. Also, if some objectives appears as part of a scenario somewhere, you'd be able to regroup differently. Which is a possibilty I dearly like.

PS : "only thing seems dumb": yes. Another proposal;: the AI progress could be in 2 parts: a static "pool" that you'd gain by doing what the AI does not like, and another pool that you'd gain by this concept of territory size.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2016, 02:12:53 PM by kasnavada »

Offline chemical_art

  • Core Member Mark IV
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,952
  • Fabulous
Re: AI War II: Design Document Updates 6: Fuel and Solar Systems v2 (no Orbits)
« Reply #27 on: September 08, 2016, 02:08:03 PM »
For me bending is taken almost to the exteme.

In AIW1 that would mean losing, depending on the map, 3 hard checkpoints and 6 softer points from the nastiest of waves late game.

If it was just done so that you got the AIP back if the AI retake the world then I would be fine
Life is short. Have fun.

Offline Draco18s

  • Resident Velociraptor
  • Core Member Mark V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,191
Re: AI War II: Design Document Updates 6: Fuel and Solar Systems v2 (no Orbits)
« Reply #28 on: September 08, 2016, 02:11:17 PM »
If it was just done so that you got the AIP back if the AI retake the world then I would be fine

Nothing I saw in the design doc said that you get the AIP back.

Offline chemical_art

  • Core Member Mark IV
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,952
  • Fabulous
Re: AI War II: Design Document Updates 6: Fuel and Solar Systems v2 (no Orbits)
« Reply #29 on: September 08, 2016, 02:13:54 PM »
If it was just done so that you got the AIP back if the AI retake the world then I would be fine

Nothing I saw in the design doc said that you get the AIP back.

I know, which is why I asked if for it to be so  ;)
Life is short. Have fun.