Jump to content


Allow me to Illustrate the Star Lane Debate


  • Please log in to reply
154 replies to this topic

Lucian667 #141 Posted 08 April 2016 - 01:45 PM

    Rear Admiral

  • Players
  • 579
  • Member since:
    10-08-2015

View PostMathias_Zealot, on 08 April 2016 - 01:19 PM, said:

There's no absurd reduction to pointing out that you both want text to carry a tone when it suits you and not carry a tone when it works against you. Either text can carry a tone or it cannot; you cannot have your cake and eat it too.

As to fuel ranges: At the same time the fuel range restriction is being loosened, there are technologies to increase defensive response capability by decreasing response times with Star/Jump Gates, increase defensive advantage with Battle Stations, Star Fortresses, Artemis Nets, and/or Warp Inhibitor, as well as allowing earlier responses to incoming threats with Improved Sensors. By the time tech has progressed such that the attacker can actually reach deep into an empire without a colony nearly in the defender's space, the defender has the ability to see the threat, move defensive fleets into place, and/or launch counter-offensive fleets in response. Early Game, fuel range limitations and frontier defense dominate. Late game, defensive infrastructure and mobile defense fleets dominate. If you want to talk absurd reductions, let's talk about how strategy always seems to boil down to very late game tech while ignoring the early game and how strategy develops through the game with tech.

 

I was going to respond to Caedeed but you pretty much addressed my ideas point for point. He's talking about extreme late-game fuel tech as if it applies for most of the game, not just when mopping up at the end when the game is usually already decided, and is completely ignoring other advanced techs that help compensate for late game fuel restrictions being relaxed. Well written.

Ceadeed #142 Posted 08 April 2016 - 03:14 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Players
  • 76
  • Member since:
    03-10-2016

View PostMathias_Zealot, on 08 April 2016 - 01:19 PM, said:

There's no absurd reduction to pointing out that you both want text to carry a tone when it suits you and not carry a tone when it works against you. Either text can carry a tone or it cannot; you cannot have your cake and eat it too.

 

Entirely misconstruing my words.  I never said text cannot carry a tone.  I said it does not carry a tone until the writer gives it a tone.

 

View PostMathias_Zealot, on 08 April 2016 - 01:19 PM, said:

As to fuel ranges: At the same time the fuel range restriction is being loosened, there are technologies to increase defensive response capability by decreasing response times with Star/Jump Gates, increase defensive advantage with Battle Stations, Star Fortresses, Artemis Nets, and/or Warp Inhibitor, as well as allowing earlier responses to incoming threats with Improved Sensors. By the time tech has progressed such that the attacker can actually reach deep into an empire without a colony nearly in the defender's space, the defender has the ability to see the threat, move defensive fleets into place, and/or launch counter-offensive fleets in response. Early Game, fuel range limitations and frontier defense dominate. Late game, defensive infrastructure and mobile defense fleets dominate. If you want to talk absurd reductions, let's talk about how strategy always seems to boil down to very late game tech while ignoring the early game and how strategy develops through the game with tech.

 

Except fleets scale exponentially while stationary defenses scale linearly.  By the time you exit the early game stationary defenses are irrelevant, at best speed bumps for small fleets that happen to visit that world.  As I've been saying, it is also not necessary to have infinite range, midgame tech gives you enough range to dive past border worlds, rewarding you for sending mob fleets into enemy territory.  Your only risk is that the enemy has devoted entirely to defense and is thus able to match your fleet strength.  I am not ignoring the early game, I have said multiple times that fuel works well in the early game, though star lanes act in an extremely similar way at that point.  But the early game does not last long, and by midgame fuel's utility has already begun to wane.

 

This is, at worst, no more an absurd reduction than reducing starlanes to massive fleets parked on warp points.  That is not an effective strategy by any means, happens rarely, and is actually more heavily punished with starlanes than with fuel limited free travel.



Provinfistoris #143 Posted 08 April 2016 - 03:28 PM

    Commander

  • Players
  • 175
  • Member since:
    02-27-2016

View PostMathias_Zealot, on 08 April 2016 - 01:32 AM, said:

 

 

Today on Ceadeed vs. Ceadeed: posts cannot have tone except when posts havetone.

 

Man I wish I had upvotes to give you right now. It's like all the anti-free movement people base their argument off very late game techs. 

 

Caedeed - You act as though late game tech is the only strategy. I honestly finish most games long before I ever reach end game tech, either through domination or diplomacy. It's rare game where I'm sitting there with Stellar converters,  and infinite range fleets. Also the larger maps make fuel range very much a concern. If you only play on small galaxies of course fuel range is irrelevant.

 

On the note of fleets being committed to their moves, you ever heard of hyperspace communications? It's a tech that allows you to change fleet movement after they've been committed. It's great for fluid fakeouts, and rapid defensive redeployments. 

 



Endsor #144 Posted 08 April 2016 - 03:35 PM

    Commander

  • Players
  • 118
  • Member since:
    11-01-2015

View PostCeadeed, on 08 April 2016 - 03:14 PM, said:

Entirely misconstruing my words.  I never said text cannot carry a tone.  I said it does not carry a tone until the writer gives it a tone.

 

Yes you do, you say it here.

 

View PostCeadeed, on 07 April 2016 - 05:59 PM, said:

Tone is entirely added by the reader, not the author.

 

Unless I must again look up the meaning of the word 'entirely'.

 



Ceadeed #145 Posted 08 April 2016 - 04:37 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Players
  • 76
  • Member since:
    03-10-2016

View PostProvinfistoris, on 08 April 2016 - 03:28 PM, said:

Caedeed - You act as though late game tech is the only strategy. I honestly finish most games long before I ever reach end game tech, either through domination or diplomacy. It's rare game where I'm sitting there with Stellar converters,  and infinite range fleets. Also the larger maps make fuel range very much a concern. If you only play on small galaxies of course fuel range is irrelevant.

 

On the note of fleets being committed to their moves, you ever heard of hyperspace communications? It's a tech that allows you to change fleet movement after they've been committed. It's great for fluid fakeouts, and rapid defensive redeployments. 

 

So, effectively, you are agreeing that fleets being committed to their moves is not a restriction on attacking fleets, because they are not actually committed to their moves.  Why then is it claimed to be a restriction on free movement?  You claim I am against free movement, which is wrong.  I think free movement needs certain restrictions to work well, but with those restrictions is better than either option.  So far every argument claiming I have said otherwise cites restrictions as things that make free movement great.  You are agreeing with me, and then attempting to tear down my entire argument.  That doesn't serve your purposes.

 

Again, I am not ignoring end game and had you actually read any of what I have said you would understand that I agree that free movement works well in the early game.  You are assigning a view I don't hold to me, then judging that because the view you have fabricated and assigned to me, though I do not actually hold it, has flaws which invalidate my entirely different viewpoint.  This is a strawman argument and not a valid way to engage in debate.  Free movement falls apart in the mid and late game, this is a flaw with the system which I have been trying to point out and ironically been supported through the many arguments supposedly against the point.  It has entirely been other people claiming that I am applying this lack of restriction to the early game, a point at which the restrictions are solid enough that the system works well.

 

In the end, you are claiming I am wrong, and then saying the right thing is a restatement, almost word for word, of what I am saying.

 

View PostEndsor, on 08 April 2016 - 03:35 PM, said:

Yes you do, you say it here.

 

Selective reading.  You are taking words out of context to change their meaning.  Explicitly: text does not carry tone (IE: tone is ascribed by the reader), until tone is explicitly added by the author, which is most readily done in discussion by applying an opinion to another part of the conversation.  "Your words are wrong," does not carry a tone, the statement is either true or false and provably so, "your words are bad," carries a tone in the form of an opinion on someone else's statement, a subjective judgement which cannot be argued against.  Facts do not carry tone, regardless of whether those facts are right or wrong or whether they reflect well or poorly on the subject matter.



forum_account #146 Posted 08 April 2016 - 04:47 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Players
  • 16
  • Member since:
    03-06-2016

Blah blah blah, yakkity shmakity.  What is this Congress?!?  Let's focus on ways to improve the current system as it stands.    

 

If some form of slower out of lane travel is implemented, what are some other ways it could be controlled other than by fuel range restrictions?   

 

  



Stelar_7 #147 Posted 08 April 2016 - 05:26 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 341
  • Member since:
    04-14-2011

View Postforum_account, on 08 April 2016 - 04:47 PM, said:

Blah blah blah, yakkity shmakity.  What is this Congress?!?  Let's focus on ways to improve the current system as it stands.    

 

If some form of slower out of lane travel is implemented, what are some other ways it could be controlled other than by fuel range restrictions?   

 

  

 

Here here,

 

Being slower is already a control, harsh range limits would also be a control. I think that having some locked star system location could be a control (Right now there are locations at the warp points and planets/asteroids), ad a star system location, either call it the ort cloud or something or perhaps at the star itself, and if you get enough tech you can open those locations, as an attacker or defender. Off lane movement could be from these points only with any fluff reason we like about gravity or hyperspace physics. If the location is close to the star, then shield tech opens it, your ships can survive in the corona, if out in the ort cloud then it's navigation/computer tech.

 

I also like the ideas of mobile sneaky ships opening a bridge, there range isn't the limit but the ship being vulnerable is, if the bridge ship gets blown a fleet in transit is lost.



forum_account #148 Posted 08 April 2016 - 06:56 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Players
  • 16
  • Member since:
    03-06-2016

View PostStelar_7, on 08 April 2016 - 05:26 PM, said:

 

Here here,

 

Being slower is already a control, harsh range limits would also be a control. I think that having some locked star system location could be a control (Right now there are locations at the warp points and planets/asteroids), ad a star system location, either call it the ort cloud or something or perhaps at the star itself, and if you get enough tech you can open those locations, as an attacker or defender. Off lane movement could be from these points only with any fluff reason we like about gravity or hyperspace physics. If the location is close to the star, then shield tech opens it, your ships can survive in the corona, if out in the ort cloud then it's navigation/computer tech.

 

I also like the ideas of mobile sneaky ships opening a bridge, there range isn't the limit but the ship being vulnerable is, if the bridge ship gets blown a fleet in transit is lost.

 

I'm not all for range restriction, but I find it odd that a scout can patrol the entire universe w/o ever having to stop...I digress.

The concept of there being an ort cloud or star system location isn't bad.  Do you envision all systems having them or would they be randomly seeded?  

I like your idea of a ship/ships paving the way and enabling a fleet to navigate in open space.  Special engines and combination of sensors or whatever that make it possible.  What if 2 ships didn't create a path, but the technologies required essentially fill a ship and turn it into a deep space escort.  Could even limit how many ships can be guided per deep space escort.  Perhaps it generates a field of some sort so that standard engines work, but can only create a field so large.  Larger ships can have larger field generators and through technology and miniaturization eventually you could squeeze a cloaking device and some PD or w/e on there.             

Andruski #149 Posted 08 April 2016 - 08:37 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Players
  • 90
  • Member since:
    05-04-2011

I did always like the way Sword of the Stars tied movement with making each race feel unique (note that there was a fuel range mechanic limiting all of them). 

http://swordofthestars.wikia.com/wiki/FTL_Drive_Technology

Since this was much closer to the core of the game, I wouldnt think they would do anything drastic like this in Moo, particularly with the game as far along as it is, but it brings up an interesting angle of having races bring their own unique flavor to travel. - though it likely also created major game balance issues. 

 

When it came to gameplay flavor, I felt they were very successful with

the Hivers, as they were bugs creating a hive network ( though I felt when a human played them it was completely OP)

the Zuul; a violent, slave-taking, scavenge-stuff from-our-enemies race who 'rips' their own unstable starlanes in space time

the Morrigi - birds (crows?) who would move in swarms of smaller ships (interesting in a game when usually bigger ship = better), gaining more speed the more ships moving together (hey! like a flock of birds!)

 

 



Omega_Weapon #150 Posted 09 April 2016 - 01:18 AM

    Rear Admiral

  • Players
  • 596
  • Member since:
    11-15-2011

View PostMathias_Zealot, on 08 April 2016 - 08:19 AM, said:

There's no absurd reduction to pointing out that you both want text to carry a tone when it suits you and not carry a tone when it works against you. Either text can carry a tone or it cannot; you cannot have your cake and eat it too.

As to fuel ranges: At the same time the fuel range restriction is being loosened, there are technologies to increase defensive response capability by decreasing response times with Star/Jump Gates, increase defensive advantage with Battle Stations, Star Fortresses, Artemis Nets, and/or Warp Inhibitor, as well as allowing earlier responses to incoming threats with Improved Sensors. By the time tech has progressed such that the attacker can actually reach deep into an empire without a colony nearly in the defender's space, the defender has the ability to see the threat, move defensive fleets into place, and/or launch counter-offensive fleets in response. Early Game, fuel range limitations and frontier defense dominate. Late game, defensive infrastructure and mobile defense fleets dominate. If you want to talk absurd reductions, let's talk about how strategy always seems to boil down to very late game tech while ignoring the early game and how strategy develops through the game with tech.

 

Could not have said it better myself Mathias. I'm not really patient enough to explain basic stuff like this to people who already act like they are top experts on the topic. Glad you did though.

Omega_Weapon #151 Posted 09 April 2016 - 01:40 AM

    Rear Admiral

  • Players
  • 596
  • Member since:
    11-15-2011

View PostStelar_7, on 08 April 2016 - 12:26 PM, said:

Being slower is already a control, harsh range limits would also be a control. I think that having some locked star system location could be a control (Right now there are locations at the warp points and planets/asteroids), ad a star system location, either call it the ort cloud or something or perhaps at the star itself, and if you get enough tech you can open those locations, as an attacker or defender. Off lane movement could be from these points only with any fluff reason we like about gravity or hyperspace physics. If the location is close to the star, then shield tech opens it, your ships can survive in the corona, if out in the ort cloud then it's navigation/computer tech.

 

      Yes. Slower movement is the main difference. Harsh limits on range is okay to start with but I'd like to see range improve as ship technology improves. I actually like the current outer ring for each system that allows for outer defenses (outposts). Don't want to see it go. I would suggest fast warp travel within a star system not be allowed. Warp travel must always be from a suitable system exit point to a suitable entry point. These can be the same warp points we already use in game. For constancy I'd like to see 4 warp points for most systems (a top, bottom, left and right, or north. south, east and west if you prefer). Systems on the outer edge of the map can have just 2 or 3 warp points as appropriate. Whenever using off road travel a ship would have to go from a warp point to the closest corresponding warp point in the destination system.

     As for other restrictions I think making ships able to change direction while in a starlane but unable to change direction during free travel could be one. Another idea is that off road travel is more risky (meteor showers, uncharted anomolies, etc...), so it could easily involve risk. For each turn you are warping through free space, your ship has a chance of taking some damage, being delayed, being knocked off course, or in rare cases even vanishing without trace or explanation. Again tech should be available later on to minimize those kinds of risks but make such tech require module space on ships that want to off road reliably.


Edited by Omega_Weapon, 09 April 2016 - 01:42 AM.


Ceadeed #152 Posted 09 April 2016 - 03:37 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Players
  • 76
  • Member since:
    03-10-2016

View PostOmega_Weapon, on 09 April 2016 - 01:18 AM, said:

Could not have said it better myself Mathias. I'm not really patient enough to explain basic stuff like this to people who already act like they are top experts on the topic. Glad you did though.

 

More projection and strawman arguments.  This thread was just starting to get good again, why must you continue to pass blame for things you, yourself, are doing?

JosEPh_II #153 Posted 09 April 2016 - 07:06 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 336
  • Member since:
    01-22-2016

View Postforum_account, on 08 April 2016 - 10:47 AM, said:

Blah blah blah, yakkity shmakity.  What is this Congress?!?  Let's focus on ways to improve the current system as it stands.    

 

If some form of slower out of lane travel is implemented, what are some other ways it could be controlled other than by fuel range restrictions?   

 

  

 

1. Engine Developments/Advancements which game already has.

2. Ratio of OR vs SL, and later maybe even OR vs Jump Gates.

 

MoOIII's OR vs SL was a 3 to Ratio but in a 3D map vs flat map in game now. III also used a "Fudge Factor" that was applied to the 3 to 1 ratio. SL had a value of 1, OR had a value of 3, Both were Multiplied by the "FF" which was 5. That's why ppl have posted Pics of MoOIII saying it took 25 turns (and up to 65 turns) to get to an "adjacent" star but only took X turns to another "adjacent" star that had a SL connection. If you did not rotate the map, what Looked to be adjacent in relative terms could in fact be rather far away. Still technically "adjacent". But at no time did any of the Pics and examples show an Actual SL path to the "adjacent" star they were using for OR comparison. The formula was 1 X distance per SL movement times 5 for actual SL movement per turn. The same formula was applied to OR but OR was 3 X distance x 5 for OR distance traveled per turn. So using that 25 turn example that was Screenied in another thread If a SL had been seen going to that Particular "adjacent" star it would have taken 6 SL turn to get there. The Ratio was still 3 to 1 for those that mocked. Engine advancement changed the X distance/turn.

 

Was the MoOIII formula too harsh? Must have been for those that did not want to use it. But for this iteration of MoO that very formula could be "tuned" differently and be made a viable alternative to use OR. Even more so for this MoO4 as it only uses a Flat map.

 

Then the question becomes when does this OR tech come into the game with what has already been laid down in code as the games movement foundation? Early, Mid, Late? As the game stands right now it would only be logical for beginning of game or late game, impo.

 

As I've stated elsewhere I have no objection to the current movement system nor would I object if it was made strictly OR. Objectively for the game to appeal to a wider audience both methods "could be"/perhaps "should be" used. All within reason of course for cost of changes and product delay.

 

The current state of the game has made much of the early debate less and less relevant. And we really don't know how far the Devs will continue to move in this area.

 

I'm finding that for me this is becoming an enjoyable game. Another long awaited version of the MoO series, different in many respects to the other 3 but yet with enough sameness to "connect" with my sense of MoO.

 

JosEPh

 

 

 


Edited by JosEPh_II, 09 April 2016 - 07:07 PM.

Old and Slow.....Watch Out! It's Not Y'uns Turn!

Ilserrad #154 Posted 10 April 2016 - 01:22 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Players
  • 98
  • Member since:
    03-17-2016

Now, if you really want to hurt your brain. Imagine if they did both.

For each tier of engine tech, you had to choose either a Jump Drive (on road) or Warp Drive (off road)

Jump drives would be substantially faster than the equivalent warp drive, and an individual ship could only install one or the other (to keep the game's pathfinding algorithm from going up in flames)



neilkaz #155 Posted 14 April 2016 - 07:27 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Players
  • 14
  • Member since:
    09-22-2015

It is such a shame to see that the developers of this game which brings back this venerable franchise are still insisting upon restricting movement to star lanes. I think that in total I've played about 1000 games of MOO1 and MOO2 (most recently Ice-X mod) and being able to move, attack, and defend freely results in a considerably deeper strategic and tactical game than  simply creating blockades at the warp points. I played maybe 25 games of Ascendancy and quickly tired of attacking or defending against this boring and narrow strategy.  As for MOO3, I hear it had star lanes (can't recall since the game was so bad, I never finished the two games I started), but we can't compare that disaster to any decent games.

 

Sure, there are plenty of games of this genre today that have star lanes, but that shouldn't matter noting that the original MOO's (arguably the best 4X space games ever and certainly both way ahead of their time) did NOT constrain game play by the unnecessary use of star lanes.

 

OK I read that the community here is divided and I see flames from both sides. Here's how the devs can fix this and get a game that certainly will sell more copies and be played for longer. 

 

This game should be designed so that a player can choose whether to play with star lanes or not right from the start. AI's can certainly be designed for both contingencies. Note that I am not talking about a mix of star lanes and free travel in both games (OK a couple worm holes is OK). If some movement restrictions and choke points are desired, add in some black holes, nebulae and asteroids. 

 

I watched about 3 hours of quill18's lets plays and immediately didn't like the star lanes. Once tactics centered upon having space constructors building structures to beef up defense at these choke points, I wanted to rip out my eyes.

 

Please don't ruin what otherwise looks like an engaging and interesting new game by forcing star lanes on us. But instead give us a box when we start the game to choose either star lanes or free travel and create competent AI's for both types of movement. This game will sell many more copies with that option and some players will try it both ways.

 

thx for your consideration ... neilkaz ...






5 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 5 guests, 0 anonymous users