(Please review) Design info for re-launch of AIW 2 Kickstarter

[Cinth]

I'm thinking of an abandoned ship that I can capture and do something with

Technically, that's what is happening.  You capture those derelicts and doing something with them.  That something is automated though.

[kasnavada]

We've been using derelicts to refer to the metal and research points on the map.

Jack, the problem is that a lot of people really like the word derelicts. So to some extent we have to change the mechanic to fit the word

That said, I don't see wht they can't simply be an old broken asteroid mine, an old broken energy reactor, an old broken science archive, or an old broken network node (hacking points).

I think I misunderstood something here. Derelicts were from what I expect, from the name only, some "exceptional" historic sites or older "lost science points", or similar things. Are they for all "ressource" points ?

Calling derelicts technology such as extracting metal or simple research centers for a civilization that heavily uses metal makes litterally no sense to me. An metal asteroid mine mostly does not require high-tech / exceptional stuff to a spacefaring people. Derelict implies something worth rebuilding / that somehow is lost and can't be done again. Making them all exceptional ain't the solution either. To quote a movie I liked a lot, "And when everyone's super... no one will be".

Outside of context, what "derelict" evokes me in a "salvage strategy game" is that it should be somewhat of a goal.

[keith.lamothe]

Fair point on the mines/reactors. I think it's not too unusual for an extensive mining network in a large asteroid to be something you wouldn't have time to build yourself, but either way.

Anyway, what we're dealing with on one hand are "derelict facilities".

On the other hand there are the derelict flagships (formerly "secondary motherships") that you find and repair and then do stuff with.

We could also change "Broken Golems" => "Derelict Golems".

[x4000]

Wait, wait, wait -- something has gotten screwy in the terminology since I last was the one writing the document (first KS).

Derelicts: these are indeed intended to be singular ships, which are where you extract metal and science from.  That's my intent anyhow, and I think I get final say on that in this case since it's primarily an art thing.   The debris fields are ugly as well as hard to see, and it's so much more thematic and interesting to see this burned-out ship that you learn stuff from and get resources out of.  The idea that there would be X number of derelicts on a planet, same as there were previously X number of scrap metal points.  We'd have a variety of actual derelict definitions that look different as well as being different sizes, and they would yield different amounts of metal per second and/or different amounts of science total.  I may never have been very clear on that.

Husks: I was using this term to refer to ships that were once functional but that you can repair back to a functional state.  Whether that's a flagship that got destroyed and is now a husk you have to go rescue and repair (so you can't permanently lose a flagship -- I really like that mechanic both in terms of the safety as well as the need to rescue them occasionally), and in terms of golems.  Basically these are "burned out husks" that you get to repair.  The name with these is freakier and more menacing, hence my preference for using husk for the ones that are more rare (these not being scattered all over every stinking planet, heh).

That was my intent, anyhow.

[Captain Jack]

Wait, wait, wait -- something has gotten screwy in the terminology since I last was the one writing the document (first KS).

Derelicts: these are indeed intended to be singular ships, which are where you extract metal and science from.  That's my intent anyhow, and I think I get final say on that in this case since it's primarily an art thing.   The debris fields are ugly as well as hard to see, and it's so much more thematic and interesting to see this burned-out ship that you learn stuff from and get resources out of.  The idea that there would be X number of derelicts on a planet, same as there were previously X number of scrap metal points.  We'd have a variety of actual derelict definitions that look different as well as being different sizes, and they would yield different amounts of metal per second and/or different amounts of science total.  I may never have been very clear on that.

Husks: I was using this term to refer to ships that were once functional but that you can repair back to a functional state.  Whether that's a flagship that got destroyed and is now a husk you have to go rescue and repair (so you can't permanently lose a flagship -- I really like that mechanic both in terms of the safety as well as the need to rescue them occasionally), and in terms of golems.  Basically these are "burned out husks" that you get to repair.  The name with these is freakier and more menacing, hence my preference for using husk for the ones that are more rare (these not being scattered all over every stinking planet, heh).

That was my intent, anyhow.

Not sure how that works from a suspension of disbelief perspective. Individual ships producing research as you study them? Makes a lot of sense. Endlessly mining individual ships for metal? Not so much. A single ship is a finite resource, once you cut it up it's gone. Think about how many ships a player usually fields in AI War, even the largest Golem could only support a(n expendable) fleet or two. And that's BEFORE you talk about the gaping holes in the structure that rendered the ships derelict in the first place. Debris fields "worked" because there's no issue with using up an individual ship.

Saying the the ships are "generating" metal after you repair them opens up a lore hole, because then the AI should recognize them as a strategic target and obliterate them like everything else.

Making the derelicts into facilities per Keith's musing works well. Making the derelicts into derelict fields works. Even making derelicts into super-size things that the AI can't completely destroy works (and then begs a whole BUNCH of new questions). The idea as it stands now does not work.

[x4000]

Why would there be facilities all over the place?

At any rate, perhaps these things used some sort of specialized interdimensional warp drive or something, and we're extracting resources from an alternate universe through quantum holes inside the warp drive.

Or similar BS.

[Draco18s]

I'm unsure if "husks" is the more-better object to turn into a functional unit than a "derelict" would be.

A husk, to me, sounds empty inside.  e.g. "An empty husk, worth no more than the metal it is made of."  Whereas a derelict is just in poor repair due to having been abandoned; i.e. fixable.

[Captain Jack]

Why would there be facilities all over the place?

At any rate, perhaps these things used some sort of specialized interdimensional warp drive or something, and we're extracting resources from an alternate universe through quantum holes inside the warp drive.

Or similar BS.

Because there were people all over the place! 

As to your second point: the AI's not stupid, why would it leave these derelicts alone if you could mine from them forever? AND it's really dangerous to advance galactic technology to that point. Interdimensional resource extraction is a skip away from being able to create wormholes on demand. "Instant wormhole, just add quantum" makes slinging galaxies around look inefficient and lazy.

[Tridus]

Wait, wait, wait -- something has gotten screwy in the terminology since I last was the one writing the document (first KS).

Derelicts: these are indeed intended to be singular ships, which are where you extract metal and science from.  That's my intent anyhow, and I think I get final say on that in this case since it's primarily an art thing.   The debris fields are ugly as well as hard to see, and it's so much more thematic and interesting to see this burned-out ship that you learn stuff from and get resources out of.  The idea that there would be X number of derelicts on a planet, same as there were previously X number of scrap metal points.  We'd have a variety of actual derelict definitions that look different as well as being different sizes, and they would yield different amounts of metal per second and/or different amounts of science total.  I may never have been very clear on that.

Husks: I was using this term to refer to ships that were once functional but that you can repair back to a functional state.  Whether that's a flagship that got destroyed and is now a husk you have to go rescue and repair (so you can't permanently lose a flagship -- I really like that mechanic both in terms of the safety as well as the need to rescue them occasionally), and in terms of golems.  Basically these are "burned out husks" that you get to repair.  The name with these is freakier and more menacing, hence my preference for using husk for the ones that are more rare (these not being scattered all over every stinking planet, heh).

That was my intent, anyhow.

Not sure how that works from a suspension of disbelief perspective. Individual ships producing research as you study them? Makes a lot of sense. Endlessly mining individual ships for metal? Not so much. A single ship is a finite resource, once you cut it up it's gone. Think about how many ships a player usually fields in AI War, even the largest Golem could only support a(n expendable) fleet or two. And that's BEFORE you talk about the gaping holes in the structure that rendered the ships derelict in the first place. Debris fields "worked" because there's no issue with using up an individual ship.

Saying the the ships are "generating" metal after you repair them opens up a lore hole, because then the AI should recognize them as a strategic target and obliterate them like everything else.

Making the derelicts into facilities per Keith's musing works well. Making the derelicts into derelict fields works. Even making derelicts into super-size things that the AI can't completely destroy works (and then begs a whole BUNCH of new questions). The idea as it stands now does not work.

Agreed. Unless we're talking finite amounts of metal now (which is a large departure that I don't see mentioned in the design document at all), a single derelict ship that I can salvage to get enough resources to make twenty fleets of ships out of makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. What is this ship, the Death Star?

[Apathetic]

Wait, wait, wait -- something has gotten screwy in the terminology since I last was the one writing the document (first KS).

Derelicts: these are indeed intended to be singular ships, which are where you extract metal and science from.  That's my intent anyhow, and I think I get final say on that in this case since it's primarily an art thing.   The debris fields are ugly as well as hard to see, and it's so much more thematic and interesting to see this burned-out ship that you learn stuff from and get resources out of.  The idea that there would be X number of derelicts on a planet, same as there were previously X number of scrap metal points.  We'd have a variety of actual derelict definitions that look different as well as being different sizes, and they would yield different amounts of metal per second and/or different amounts of science total.  I may never have been very clear on that.

Husks: I was using this term to refer to ships that were once functional but that you can repair back to a functional state.  Whether that's a flagship that got destroyed and is now a husk you have to go rescue and repair (so you can't permanently lose a flagship -- I really like that mechanic both in terms of the safety as well as the need to rescue them occasionally), and in terms of golems.  Basically these are "burned out husks" that you get to repair.  The name with these is freakier and more menacing, hence my preference for using husk for the ones that are more rare (these not being scattered all over every stinking planet, heh).

That was my intent, anyhow.

Not sure how that works from a suspension of disbelief perspective. Individual ships producing research as you study them? Makes a lot of sense. Endlessly mining individual ships for metal? Not so much. A single ship is a finite resource, once you cut it up it's gone. Think about how many ships a player usually fields in AI War, even the largest Golem could only support a(n expendable) fleet or two. And that's BEFORE you talk about the gaping holes in the structure that rendered the ships derelict in the first place. Debris fields "worked" because there's no issue with using up an individual ship.

Saying the the ships are "generating" metal after you repair them opens up a lore hole, because then the AI should recognize them as a strategic target and obliterate them like everything else.

Making the derelicts into facilities per Keith's musing works well. Making the derelicts into derelict fields works. Even making derelicts into super-size things that the AI can't completely destroy works (and then begs a whole BUNCH of new questions). The idea as it stands now does not work.

Agreed. Unless we're talking finite amounts of metal now (which is a large departure that I don't see mentioned in the design document at all), a single derelict ship that I can salvage to get enough resources to make twenty fleets of ships out of makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. What is this ship, the Death Star?

I think that depends on what you're doing with the derelict.  Are you taking the derelict apart for material, or are you rebuilding it so that it can harvest metal from an asteroid belt, or convert solar energy into usable material (yes the conversion rate should be awful), if it's one of the latter options than it makes sense it can produce material in perpetuity. 

[x4000]

I mean, if you guys just want a pile of trash and we call it a derelict, I can certainly do that.  If I don't make the trash pile have a bunch of gaps in it, you'll still be able to see it from afar just fine.

As far as any objections to particular believability bits: frankly Keith and I historically tend to think that technobabble can sort out most things.

1. Why doesn't the AI realize the benefit the players are getting from the derelicts and do it themselves?  Because they don't rely on optical sensors, perhaps (why would they?), and there's something only apparent in the visual spectrum.  Or because they already have a much better source of resources.  Heck, maybe they ARE using them.

2. Why not destroy them if they know what they are?  Maybe that would cause a really really big explosion.  Or maybe they just figure they'll recapture them soon.  If someone invades your own country, generally you don't firebomb your own fields and factories unless you REALLY don't think you can get them back.  Sabotage them, though, sure: and we already see the AI doing that.  If the AI assumes it's going to win, its behavior seems entirely reasonable to me.

3. Isn't advanced technology risky there?  Sure, but perhaps these are things that accidentally happened when AI weapons of some specific sort hit a certain kind of human propulsion system, creating these too-small-to-do-much gates between universes.  All you can really do is suck matter through the cheese grater that are these existing gates.  This would also explain why you can't move these things.  So nobody made it on purpose, and it's not useful in anything remotely close to its current form in general.

Or pick your alternate BS explanation.  Basically anything you can come up with that is a problem, things can be twisted to make that not a problem.  That can then create new problems, but then just twist and repeat until there are no problems left.  And now you have Star Trek!

[Tridus]

aka: You really want to use derelict ships for whatever reason and just want to handwave it away. Change for the sake of change? I honestly have no idea.

Derelict ships that you capture and repair and/or disassemble for research and such are reasonable enough. Other derelict ships that provide infinite amounts of resources because space magic? I simply have no understanding of how that's an improvement.

[kasnavada]

Because there were people all over the place! 

This. I mean I can get that one derelict gives a boost to metal reserves for a while, but endless ? Then the derelict is a mine that pumps to another galaxy. Ok, why not. ONCE or twice a game. For every ressource ever ? Huuuuu, suspension of disbelief died, no matter the amount of technobabble. If it's advanced at that point... there's no way the AI would win.

I mean, there is a spacefaring civilization prior to the AI invading stuff, and that requires somewhat automated basic mines and somewhat automated building center to work.

[Cinth]

For every ressource ever ? Huuuuu, suspension of disbelief died,

And you were able to maintain that feel in AI War Classic even though metal was gained in infinite quantities from those tiny asteroids?

That aside, was there this much complaining about derelicts in the first proposal?  I don't recall.

[z99-_]

Just out of curiosity, were there people complaining about the human settlement/colonies giving metal when they were first implemented in AIWC? After all, they are just bubbles in space, with no explanation as to how they could produce metal constantly . . .

On the other side, if we're thinking of using X amount of technobabble to make normal derelict ships believable, why not instead use X amount of technobabble to allow normal facilities to be made cooler while still being believable? For instance, from an idea perspective (certainly not a mechanics perspective) I really loved the gravity drills from AIWC. The idea of drilling into the fabric of spacetime to generate energy just seems so awesome - regardless of how scientifically accurate it is. The unique concept also allowed a similarly interesting sprite to be used. Surely, if the facilities in AIWII could be made just as unique, designing them wouldn't be a drag?