Jump to content


Community Feedback Thread | The Galaxy Map


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
112 replies to this topic

OrionSol #1 Posted 28 February 2016 - 04:46 AM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 431
  • Member since:
    06-12-2015

In an attempt to streamline the community feedback during this testing phase, I would like to break the game into some core systems and give feedback in a focused manner. 

 

So, the galaxy seems "off" somewhat.  Like, most or many of the stars seem to all be roughly the same distance from one another.   Just feels visually inaccurate to me.  

No black-holes, nebula, or "invading" space monsters? 

 

I would like to see more depth to the galaxy.   Solar systems with more than 1-4 planets.  Travel restrictions - range is not taken into account AT ALL, and that is a shame.  

Travel speed - is "ok" but should take much longer early game 

 

Star Lanes.  Well, I have a whole thread about this.   I still don't like them, but I get the entire game is based on it, so... a bit a of a mut point now.  

 

The galaxy needs more wonders and mysteries.  It seems... too basic and empty.  Probably Alpha issues but just giving the feedback

 

 


Edited by OrionSol, 28 February 2016 - 04:47 AM.

Jedi Master Or-ion Sol

Founder of THE JEDI ORDER | Community of Guilds 

www.jediswtor.com 


OrionSol #2 Posted 28 February 2016 - 04:49 AM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 431
  • Member since:
    06-12-2015

Also

 

Can we PLEASE be allowed to NAME a star system if we are the first to colonize it, 

 

And, renaming our Emperor / Leader would be cool too. 


Jedi Master Or-ion Sol

Founder of THE JEDI ORDER | Community of Guilds 

www.jediswtor.com 


DelGormo #3 Posted 28 February 2016 - 06:02 AM

    Ensign

  • Players
  • 5
  • Member since:
    02-28-2016

As far as the warp points go, i just want more consistency based on distance and availability. I don't like how system A can reach System B which is 2x distance away but not system C which is x distance away. Or at least some sort of logic for why distance does not equate to availability of travel.

Also, the last scroll out step is massive, i'd like a gradual scroll from largest to smallest as I tend to like the zoom right before the massive jump to the whole galaxy and am constantly giving myself accidental vertigo. 


Edited by DelGormo, 28 February 2016 - 06:03 AM.


Mathias_Zealot #4 Posted 28 February 2016 - 06:16 AM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 286
  • Member since:
    04-12-2011

Renaming is a must. For single player you should just be able to rename any system you can see (It isn't like the AI cares what it's named), for multi player it should probably be restricted to systems/colonies you own.

Planetary specials seem both too common and almost worthless. Certainly nothing to fight over or rush for. Red Fungus (I think) feels like the only really notable one since it can provide a food supply on a no farming world for a decent jump-start. Maybe the Industrial special (Dark Quartz?) on a Rich/Ultra Rich just for the pinnacle of productivity by a few points.

edit: Asteroid/Gas Giant structures should really improve with tech levels to make them at least a modest loss compared to making a colony out of it.
 

Strongly suggest that Star Lanes be kept in a separate thread, like the ones already present in both forum groups.

 

Block Quote

 Or at least some sort of logic for why distance does not equate to availability of travel.

 

Well there's the usual argument that the fancy FTL drives work along a pre-existing natural linkage (of phlebotinium) between stars that allows for ships to travel galactic distances in years (turns) instead of centuries.


Edited by Mathias_Zealot, 28 February 2016 - 06:53 AM.

EA4 Weapon Data (5-27-16)

Dave_Astator #5 Posted 28 February 2016 - 08:18 AM

    Commander

  • Players
  • 104
  • Member since:
    02-27-2016
naming is a must, and also id like to see landing animation not a ship flying over skybox. The moment of landing foot on the surface was so impressive in original moos, that you wanted to do it again and again. And with technologies of 2016 yuo could even allow citizens walking on surface animation, placing the flag of your race in an untouched soil and naming the planet/system.

vyshka #6 Posted 28 February 2016 - 09:09 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Players
  • 10
  • Member since:
    05-17-2011

View PostDelGormo, on 28 February 2016 - 06:02 AM, said:

As far as the warp points go, i just want more consistency based on distance and availability. I don't like how system A can reach System B which is 2x distance away but not system C which is x distance away. Or at least some sort of logic for why distance does not equate to availability of travel.

Also, the last scroll out step is massive, i'd like a gradual scroll from largest to smallest as I tend to like the zoom right before the massive jump to the whole galaxy and am constantly giving myself accidental vertigo. 

 

It might not necessarily be based on distance. Perhaps it is meant to be something along the lines of the wormhole junctions in the Honor Harrington books.

Jadeonar #7 Posted 28 February 2016 - 11:04 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Players
  • 23
  • Member since:
    02-26-2016

Totally agree on naming the Planet or system (system takes on the planet name even?)

 

Star systems - would be nice if there were larger star systems, with more than 4 planets or asteroid belt rings.

 

Definately could use a much larger galaxy map... easily twice the size. Considering how long it takes to travel from top to bottom of the map right now. would seem more realistic for the same time a map twice the size. (likewise the current map size shold only take half the time to cross top to bottom).

 

I do remember fleet travels were faster in MoO2. Directly related to technology researched and equipped on the ships of course.

 

I do miss the "range" a fleet or ship was allowed to hop in number of hops. Different drives and techology would play effect as well.

 

What ever happened to Jump Gates that allowed a fleet to jump Point A to Point B (and in some many fewer turns) when in your controlled space?

 

Here's an idea, If a player was given a choice to build either or: Military Outpost or Jump Gate at the Warp Entry point of a systm... Warp Entry Point would be undefended entry point into a system that had a Jump gate built however, it would allow Point A to Point B direct fleet jumping in fewer turns than into a system without Jump Gates... That would be strategy and tactics. Especially for systems on the fronteir borders of racial owned territory may choose to not have jump gates, or have the back-facing warp points only with Jump Gates while the front facing Warp Points have Military installations built...

 

This would allow for faster direct fleet travel in your controlled space (especially moving the bulk of your fleet(s) to a system that the enemy is invading), while still taking the regular long time to travel uncontrolled / unowned star systems via exploring or to conquer enemy space.

 

Forgot wormholes... First gameplay through, one located opposite ends of the map (left to right) which was great... new game - 2 wormholes and maybe 3 systems apart from one another... ugh...

Edited by Jadeonar, 28 February 2016 - 11:28 AM.


Andruski #8 Posted 28 February 2016 - 02:56 PM

    Lieutenant

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

I have been extremely frustrated by the need to wrestle with the zoom levels. I am constantly and nauseatingly switching between the zoom levels for every basic need of my empire. Since movement within a solar system is a thing now, and since you cant see the whole galaxy while also seeing individual planets within a solar system, I suggest 2 changes:

1. Give us an additional zoom level between the two highest levels. It is a massive jump between the two. It is impossible to play the game on the most zoomed out (galaxy) level (cant do anything with systems/planets) but it is just as impossible to see whole whole empire or even a movement destination when on the next level down.

 

2. Give us a picture in picture of the selected star system when at the galaxy view level. I whipped this up on MS paint but you get the idea. Where did I get such a brilliant idea you ask? Master of Orion 2.  

Posted Image
 

 



M002mod #9 Posted 28 February 2016 - 03:02 PM

    Commander

  • Players
  • 241
  • Member since:
    11-02-2015

{off-topic, but just had to show it as a means of reply}

i mocked up a pic for a widescreen moo2 some time ago

compare the relaxing black background (plays well at night!!) to the more harsh blue&yellow of moo4

 


Edited by M002mod, 28 February 2016 - 11:07 PM.


11171971 #10 Posted 28 February 2016 - 06:51 PM

    Commander

  • Players
  • 127
  • Member since:
    02-28-2016

I agree with the feedback so far.

 

  • Have an option to name systems, including homeworlds at the beginning of the game.
  • Have a "globular galaxy" setting with a classic background similar to MoO2 instead of the current spiral galaxy background (too visually distracting)
  • Add nebula and real black holes (not just rename the current black holes wormholes) for more variation
  • Have more control during galaxy generation of # of planets per system, rarity/abundance of asteroids/gas giants, rarity of empty systems
  • Controlling ship travel when individual systems and the galaxy are on the same view but different zooms is a pain, especially getting fleets to move across the galaxy late game
  • Have an additional list view for the manage structures part of the planet screen, trying to find all the improvements scattered across a rotating planet is annoying
  • Option to show pollution icons for planets with more than 50% pollution on the galaxy view\
  • Huge and Massive galaxy sizes


Chibiabos #11 Posted 28 February 2016 - 11:04 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Players
  • 28
  • Member since:
    02-28-2016

Agree thus far.  I would also add:

 

  • More planets per system -- In addition to bigger galaxy sizes, would be nice to allow more planets per system (controllable via game setup settings).  Soo many systems only have 1 or 2 planets.  I didn't even think more than 3 were allowed until I tried Spiral and found a few 5ish planet systems, but those are pretty rare.  Allowing more planets per system favors "turtling" gameplay (since you could build a more robust empire with fewer systems, and needing to build fewer Military Outposts to protect more planets) which I know isn't for everyone, but some prefer this.
  • Game event map bouncing -- this is uber-frustrating.  We shouldn't just have an alternative to this, the current system needs to be removed and replaced.  Its frustrating enough the map likes to 'stick' and rebound unsmoothly from zooming and scrolling, but auto-bouncing to show every combat within sensor range (even those you aren't involved in) isn't really useful.  Would love an alternative like this:
    • Map markers for events -- instead of bouncing around too quickly and crazily to be useful, how about markers on the maps to show events like combats you've seen, maybe linked to an events list, and would be great if you could click on a marker for more specific information (if for a combat, for instance, you could see the starting forces that engaged and the results -- including destroyed ships and/or damage incurred by the victor for the combat).  I think this fits better with the notion of a turn-based strategy game versus the current 'if you missed seeing and grasping the split-second auto-bounce-to animation on the map, sucks to be you!' effect because you can review such events on your time.


Vahouth #12 Posted 29 February 2016 - 12:05 AM

    Vice Admiral

  • Players
  • 1,288
  • Member since:
    10-03-2015

Anyone else feels that the asteroid mine should yield production instead of BC?

It is a much harder decision between production & research IMO.



BionicDance #13 Posted 29 February 2016 - 01:43 AM

    Rear Admiral

  • Players
  • 699
  • Member since:
    02-27-2016

If I have anything to say about the galaxy map, it's that there needs to be another, larger size. 

 

As it is now, having even two opponents means you're going to be starting right in someone else's backyard, and while some people might want that, I like my first contact situation to happen later in the game. And I shudder to think what it's like if you play with every currently-available race...egad.

 

So, yeah...need a bigger galaxy size available.



OrionSol #14 Posted 29 February 2016 - 03:03 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 431
  • Member since:
    06-12-2015
we definitely need to add blackholes, nebular, pulsars etc.  

Jedi Master Or-ion Sol

Founder of THE JEDI ORDER | Community of Guilds 

www.jediswtor.com 


11171971 #15 Posted 29 February 2016 - 04:04 PM

    Commander

  • Players
  • 127
  • Member since:
    02-28-2016

View PostVahouth, on 29 February 2016 - 12:05 AM, said:

Anyone else feels that the asteroid mine should yield production instead of BC?

It is a much harder decision between production & research IMO.

 

Logistically though where would it go? I think the asteroid/gas giant buildings only provide bc and research since those are empire wide, if they provided production there would need to be a separate mechanic to channel the production to a planet like in Galactic Civ 2 (which is a good idea). I'd just like those improvements to be worth more than they are now so there's not a 100% incentive to turn them all into planets for colonies. 

Solidarious #16 Posted 29 February 2016 - 05:01 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Players
  • 29
  • Member since:
    11-22-2015
I think someone mentioned there needs to be jumpgates, which there are, and they are awesome. They help a fleet jump directly to another planet that also has a jump gate, a mechanic that you really end up appreciating after running the starlane gauntlet. (By directly I do mean a couple turns depending on distance and tech, they also put in a little triangle above the planet that has one in a system to identify it better)
I think the core of the difference in New Orion is that you don't need to upgrade your tech in any way to encounter other races. You will eventually, and they can reach you. There isn't any fuel tech, or jump distance tech or range tech that limits your ability to interact with another race, or them with you. So the galaxy is never going to be big enough. In MO2 sometimes you couldn't reach another race or them you. I think that really changes the feel of the game.
Maybe a way to create starlanes between systems and/or destroy them? That seems like an interesting possible mechanic. A way to change the map in game. Could also allow for more map building options. Low starlane, medium, or high. Even have systems isolated from each other. Tech could be added, to increase the range of your starlane building, or destroying. A limit to how many starlanes in a system.

Vahouth #17 Posted 29 February 2016 - 06:21 PM

    Vice Admiral

  • Players
  • 1,288
  • Member since:
    10-03-2015

View Post11171971, on 29 February 2016 - 06:04 PM, said:

 

Logistically though where would it go? I think the asteroid/gas giant buildings only provide bc and research since those are empire wide, if they provided production there would need to be a separate mechanic to channel the production to a planet like in Galactic Civ 2 (which is a good idea). I'd just like those improvements to be worth more than they are now so there's not a 100% incentive to turn them all into planets for colonies. 

 

If I'm not mistaken both BC and research are added to the system, they are not empire-wide. 


Mathias_Zealot #18 Posted 29 February 2016 - 09:01 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 286
  • Member since:
    04-12-2011

View PostVahouth, on 29 February 2016 - 06:21 PM, said:

 

If I'm not mistaken both BC and research are added to the system, they are not empire-wide. 

 

I don't think there is a real system level in this game, because wealth and research are all empire level things while production is planetary. The only system level information (that I know of) is what system unique structures have been built in that system. So, take a system with an asteroid and 2 colonized planets: The research or wealth just goes to the empire, but which colony gets the production?
EA4 Weapon Data (5-27-16)

Technomyke #19 Posted 01 March 2016 - 04:27 AM

    Ensign

  • Players
  • 4
  • Member since:
    03-01-2016

Rally points and rally all to move rally points be great.

galaxy customization doesnt have info on what each does. what does spiral do? how many starts are in a medium galaxy? what does Age do?

more galaxy types.

More opponents

bigger galaxys

Re add fuel range, star lane is boring, other 4x games have done it to death and have done it better.

Galaxy seems super small. give me epicness. Give me the cold vastness of space. make me struggle to conquer space and the others in it.

 

 



Ddraig_Goch #20 Posted 01 March 2016 - 04:48 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Players
  • 14
  • Member since:
    07-30-2015

Strongly recommend that advanced galaxy settings allow players to control average planets per system and average starlane nodes per system, to tweak the galaxy to their preferred style.

 

Strongly recommend that red starlanes stop being used as a means of sectioning off the galaxy, it just feels contrived and artificial.  Rather see red starlanes work as wormholes.  You can see them from the beginning but you can't use them till mid-to-end game.  They should travel long distances, not to the next star system over.

 

And planet renaming should be available :)

 

I do love how you can hover over the stars and see the color descriptions, like the original games.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users