FreeOrion

Forums for the FreeOrion project
It is currently Tue Jun 19, 2018 5:57 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Feb 17, 2018 3:12 am 
Offline
Space Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm
Posts: 250
Vezzra wrote:
labgnome wrote:
So for a terrain option in Master of Orion: Conquer the Stars, there are "red starlanes", where are there but impassible until you research the right tech. I don't know how much trouble that would be to implement, but having different types of starlanes with different transversability is an interesting possibility for creating "terrain".
Should be doable. The idea sounds interesting.
Really!?

I know that one of the design rules has been that everything has to stick to starlanes, for good reasons. But this makes me wonder. A couple of steps down the road, could multiple starlane types be an inroad to, dare I suggest it, different types of propulsion systems for ships? Warp Drive vs. Hyperspace? Different ways to expand supply? Tachyon Becons vs. Subsapce relays? Dammit plot bunnies.

_________________
All of my contributions should be considered released under creative commons attribution share-alike license, CC-BY-SA 3.0 for use in, by and with the Free Orion project.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2018 1:56 pm 
Offline
Release Manager, Design
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:56 pm
Posts: 4561
Location: Sol III
labgnome wrote:
I know that one of the design rules has been that everything has to stick to starlanes, for good reasons.
Sure, and your suggestion doesn't violate those design rules, unless I misunderstood what exactly you've been suggesting...?
Quote:
A couple of steps down the road, could multiple starlane types be an inroad to, dare I suggest it, different types of propulsion systems for ships? Warp Drive vs. Hyperspace? Different ways to expand supply? Tachyon Becons vs. Subsapce relays?
I probably wouldn't go that far, at least avoid ideas that would compromise the stick to starlane rules. But having some special types of starlanes which require the player to research certain techs before their ships can traverse them, or even require the ships to have some specific parts, why not?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2018 5:51 pm 
Offline
AI Lead, Programmer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:25 pm
Posts: 4646
Vezzra wrote:
But having some special types of starlanes which require the player to research certain techs before their ships can traverse them, or even require the ships to have some specific parts, why not?
It certainly could be implemented, and does seem kind of interesting. I'm not entirely sure I'd really want to have to keep track of what kinds of starlanes my various enemies can travel on, but if there are only 2-3 types I suppose that would be a manageable headache. If supply can only propagate along starlanes that the empire can actually travel, that would make it much easier to recognize and track that sort of thing. Also, there are issues around the pathing routine if the paths traversible by an empire were specific to individual ships rather than determined at the empire level. So if we did pursue having multiple starlane types I would strongly urge that traversal be gated by tech not by part.

_________________
If I provided any code, scripts or other content here, it's released under GPL 2.0 and CC-BY-SA 3.0


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2018 6:24 pm 
Offline
Release Manager, Design
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:56 pm
Posts: 4561
Location: Sol III
Dilvish wrote:
I'm not entirely sure I'd really want to have to keep track of what kinds of starlanes my various enemies can travel on, but if there are only 2-3 types I suppose that would be a manageable headache.
Yes, absolutely. I don't think having a plethora of different starlane types would be much fun, but, like you said, 2 or 3 different types should be managable.
Quote:
Also, there are issues around the pathing routine if the paths traversible by an empire were specific to individual ships rather than determined at the empire level. So if we did pursue having multiple starlane types I would strongly urge that traversal be gated by tech not by part.
Sounds reasonable.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2018 7:12 pm 
Offline
Space Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm
Posts: 250
Vezzra wrote:
Sure, and your suggestion doesn't violate those design rules, unless I misunderstood what exactly you've been suggesting...?
No not at all, everything would stick to starlanes. You could just have different types of starlanes.
Vezzra wrote:
I probably wouldn't go that far, at least avoid ideas that would compromise the stick to starlane rules. But having some special types of starlanes which require the player to research certain techs before their ships can traverse them, or even require the ships to have some specific parts, why not?
I mean my initial suggestion was actually a total sounds neat/shot in the dark kind of thing. I didn't even start getting ideas until I realized it would actually be "easy" to be implemented. Then my brain kind-of exploded with ideas about what else we could do with that and where it could go.
Dilvish wrote:
It certainly could be implemented, and does seem kind of interesting. I'm not entirely sure I'd really want to have to keep track of what kinds of starlanes my various enemies can travel on, but if there are only 2-3 types I suppose that would be a manageable headache. If supply can only propagate along starlanes that the empire can actually travel, that would make it much easier to recognize and track that sort of thing. Also, there are issues around the pathing routine if the paths traversible by an empire were specific to individual ships rather than determined at the empire level. So if we did pursue having multiple starlane types I would strongly urge that traversal be gated by tech not by part.
Definately yes on the supply only propagating along starlanes the Empire can use. If anything maybe have some that are the other way around, you can send your fleets, but not supply or at least supply requiring an additional tech unlock. The part about empire-level assignment is also useful information. I had considered the idea of maybe tying them to ship hulls or having "uses all the starlanes" be a thing for the spacial flux and trans-spacial hulls, or their associated parts.
Vezzra wrote:
Yes, absolutely. I don't think having a plethora of different starlane types would be much fun, but, like you said, 2 or 3 different types should be managable.
I certainly wouldn't want a "plethora" either. And honestly the number of types that would be a good idea would be heavily dependent on how we wanted to implement them. One of my random ideas was a linear everyone gets it detection-to-starlane tie-in that would have been a 3-type but maybe 4-type starlane system, but really it would just be keeping track of how far along your rival is in tech. All of my other ideas were more-or-less around a 2-type starlane system, or maybe a (2+1)-type system.

Basically if we do jump on this I think there are a few questions to work out first.
  • Do we want everyone to fallow the same path or do we want to use this to differentiate different Empires?
  • Do we want players to initially be able to see starlanes they can't use?
  • Do we want players to be able to blockade starlanes they can't use?
  • Do we want all starlanes to allow ships and supply at once, or do we want to have some initially ship only starlanes?

_________________
All of my contributions should be considered released under creative commons attribution share-alike license, CC-BY-SA 3.0 for use in, by and with the Free Orion project.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2018 2:09 pm 
Offline
Psionic Snowflake

Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Posts: 482
labgnome wrote:
Vezzra wrote:
Yes, absolutely. I don't think having a plethora of different starlane types would be much fun, but, like you said, 2 or 3 different types should be managable.
I certainly wouldn't want a "plethora" either. And honestly the number of types that would be a good idea would be heavily dependent on how we wanted to implement them. One of my random ideas was a linear everyone gets it detection-to-starlane tie-in that would have been a 3-type but maybe 4-type starlane system, but really it would just be keeping track of how far along your rival is in tech. All of my other ideas were more-or-less around a 2-type starlane system, or maybe a (2+1)-type system.


The discussion reminds me of the star drives in the old traveller RPG. There you had drives which could do a n-jump (1-jump, 2-jump, 3-jump, 4-jump..) with 1-jump ships being the normal thing. A 1-jump could jump a parsec in a week, a 2-jump 2 parsec in a week etc... . Between jumps you needed to refill. Best military was like 3-jump. The scout service which was like the pony express had very small 4-jump ships and was used for the communication inside the empires. Usually higher than 1-jump was not cost effective (needed more massive drives and computers, less space for weapons and cargo).
So a 2-jump was not only double as fast as a 1-jump, but it had big strategic advantages:
  • surprise attack by jumpin over a bottleneck (over empty space where one couldnt refill or over a fortress system of the enemy)
  • take a shortcut - maybe one could reach the target system via a number of 1-jumps
  • flee by jumping over a bottleneck where your enemy couldnt follow you

In freeorion terms those traveller-starlanes could mean:
  • extra n-jump starlanes (with n>=2, which cost n fuel to jump, probably gated by tech, minimimum speed and/or core parts) between systems which are far away
  • no supply propagation via (n>=2)-starlanes (only 1-jumps are economically viable)
  • visualization with double or triple lines
  • Optional: 2-jump capability also doubles starlane speed (..)
  • Optional: blockade rules are changed ("jumping over the others"), e.g. if you are 2-jump capable and your starlane speed is high enough to get past the first planet, you can fly by unblockaded [This is probably hard for AI]

For visualisation there could also be the difference of having to research detection tech before being able to detect the other star lanes
Code:
2jump starlane detection --> 3jump starlane detection
            \                   \
             2jump capability  --> 3jump capability

I dont think it would be necessary to tell one the detection and jump capabilities of enemies. If the enemies ship use a 2jump starlane, you know the enemy has the capability.

If you linearize the tech tree, you only would have to show two types of starlanes (those you jump, and those you can see but not jump. In this we could add more jump levels without making the interface more complicated.
Code:
2jump starlane detection --> 2jump capability --> 3jump starlane detection --> 3jump capability


In terms of terrain this would give us "mountains". One could think of building a "street" using a starlane bore project to breaking a mountain into a normal starlane (a 2jump starlane gets split into a 1jump starlane, an empty system and another 1jump starlane) or by building "a railroad" (the 2jump starlane becomes a 1jump starlane).

_________________
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 12:01 am 
Offline
Juggernaut

Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 10:15 pm
Posts: 764
Ophiuchus wrote:
The discussion reminds me of the star drives in the old traveller RPG. There you had drives which could do a n-jump (1-jump, 2-jump, 3-jump, 4-jump..) with 1-jump ships being the normal thing. A 1-jump could jump a parsec in a week, a 2-jump 2 parsec in a week etc... . Between jumps you needed to refill. Best military was like 3-jump. The scout service which was like the pony express had very small 4-jump ships and was used for the communication inside the empires. Usually higher than 1-jump was not cost effective (needed more massive drives and computers, less space for weapons and cargo).
So a 2-jump was not only double as fast as a 1-jump, but it had big strategic advantages:
  • surprise attack by jumpin over a bottleneck (over empty space where one couldnt refill or over a fortress system of the enemy)
  • take a shortcut - maybe one could reach the target system via a number of 1-jumps
  • flee by jumping over a bottleneck where your enemy couldnt follow you


For the original Traveller Universe, the Third Imperium Navy standard for warships is jump-4. And you may not need to refill, just depends on how much fuel you carry with you, you could bring along enough for 2 jump-1's for example. Yes, X-Boats are under the Scout service and are jump-4, but far from the only jump-4 ships around. Space wise though the biggest thing is the fuel for the jump. Jump-2 is faster depending on how far you travel, if you are only going jump-1 anyway, even a jump-6 drive isn't going to be any faster then a jump-1 drive, still takes about a week in jump regardless of the jump distance. Not sure about old either, there are two current editions of the Traveller RPG, Mongoose Publishing and Far Future Enterprises (T5).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 2:00 am 
Offline
Space Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm
Posts: 250
Ophiuchus wrote:
The discussion reminds me of the star drives in the old traveller RPG. There you had drives which could do a n-jump (1-jump, 2-jump, 3-jump, 4-jump..)
Um, no.

I was thinking something more like Sword of the Stars, where different types of starlane networks could be used by different empires, to the effect that they use different types of interstellar propulsion system, or like in Star Trek, where sufficiently advanced civilizations can overcome the limitations of warp drive through things like subspace corridors or quantum slipstream, and so with the right tech unlock you can use otherwise "inaccessible" starlanes. Fuel range and all of that would be the same, but where you could go and what paths you could use to get there would be different.

_________________
All of my contributions should be considered released under creative commons attribution share-alike license, CC-BY-SA 3.0 for use in, by and with the Free Orion project.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 8:36 am 
Offline
Space Floater

Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2017 4:54 am
Posts: 40
To post my two bits:
I have been wanting to suggest stealth as a attribute to starlanes for a while. Hiding things that emit comparatibly lots of energy is hard.
Hiding something that may or may not be there and requires special knowledge to use, is much more feasible. Just seems to me more plausible to stealth the starlanes rather then a planet.
So this could be a tool used by stealth empires, a ship part or building that adds stealth to value to the nearby starlanes.
Would work as existing stealth mechanics

Another attribute could be structure. A low structure star lane would reflect unmaintained / damaged/unstable starlane.
The low structure starlanes would require certain level of ship part or pilot level to traverse, depending on percent structure.
then there could be specific ship parts to repair starlane structure, so that future ships don't need the higher parts to enter. Could work as
  • total structure 100.
  • supply would only propogate across 60+ structure starlanes
  • each percent down would slow ships ie for a 50% structure starlane ,ships would travel at 50% speed.
  • starlane untraversable below 50% structure
  • does imply that starlanes are selectable to see stats.
  • disposable repair ships that are activated setting destination as the star lane to be repaired

As to needing a dash-dot engine to travel dash-dot starlane and the double bar engine to use the the double bar starlanes.
would they crossover each other? something currently forbidden
what about issues of fragmentation?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 11:46 am 
Offline
Psionic Snowflake

Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Posts: 482
AndrewW wrote:
Ophiuchus wrote:
The discussion reminds me of the star drives in the old traveller RPG. There you had drives which could do a n-jump (1-jump, 2-jump, 3-jump, 4-jump..) with 1-jump ships being the normal thing. A 1-jump could jump a parsec in a week, a 2-jump 2 parsec in a week etc... . Between jumps you needed to refill. Best military was like 3-jump. The scout service which was like the pony express had very small 4-jump ships and was used for the communication inside the empires. Usually higher than 1-jump was not cost effective (needed more massive drives and computers, less space for weapons and cargo).
So a 2-jump was not only double as fast as a 1-jump, but it had big strategic advantages:
  • surprise attack by jumpin over a bottleneck (over empty space where one couldnt refill or over a fortress system of the enemy)
  • take a shortcut - maybe one could reach the target system via a number of 1-jumps
  • flee by jumping over a bottleneck where your enemy couldnt follow you


For the original Traveller Universe, the Third Imperium Navy standard for warships is jump-4. And you may not need to refill, just depends on how much fuel you carry with you, you could bring along enough for 2 jump-1's for example. Yes, X-Boats are under the Scout service and are jump-4, but far from the only jump-4 ships around. Space wise though the biggest thing is the fuel for the jump. Jump-2 is faster depending on how far you travel, if you are only going jump-1 anyway, even a jump-6 drive isn't going to be any faster then a jump-1 drive, still takes about a week in jump regardless of the jump distance. Not sure about old either, there are two current editions of the Traveller RPG, Mongoose Publishing and Far Future Enterprises (T5).

Ah my memory failed me a bit for the military.. it's been a while. Yes a jump was around a week no matter how far you jump and what kind of drive you had.

Also I never want to copy a feature from another system. Just rip off the good parts. In freeorion the ships interaction with starlanes centers around blockades, starlane speed and fuel. In traveller you are free to jump whereever you want, the interaction is mostly refueling and jump distance depending on your drive. So is a lot of mismatch between freeorion and traveller ship moverment and i do not think we should simulate that.

I also wouldnt want to copy the "board" like in traveller (which is hmm fully-connected which would mean a lot of extra starlanes which would need to be introduced; this would clutter up the galaxy in an evil way). What i would want would be a few shortcuts only possible to pass with the right tech (e.g. connecting galaxy spiral arms like a spider-net). Also i think currently very long starlanes (by starlane boring) are too cheap fuel-wise. So a starlane nexus could generate many close 1jump, some longer 2jump and a few very long 3jump starlanes.

@labgnome I personally prefer a single mechanic giving a range of options over a collection of unconnected mechanics. This is how a lot of content in freeorion works (e.g. a single damage mechanic covering 4 types of weapons with 4 layers each). And yes, the idea reminded me of good old traveller needing a different kind of drive to jump over stretches of empty space.

A KISS minimal proposal for a "mountain terrain" would be:
  • a second type of starlane which can be detected and used only with researching the right tech
  • after researching this single tech you are simply shown the second type of starlane as well (so you see "more" starlanes)
  • this second type has a different properties than normal ones (e.g. cost 3 fuel to use, ship needs minimal speed to use, no or limited supply network propagation, maybe ships get extra stealth while travelling along that lane ...)
  • the second type of starlane is shown in a bit different way, so you know that your enemies might not be able to use them (maybe s-curved instead of straight lines)
  • no UI for showing if enemies can see
  • if enemies use a starlane you cannot see - show the incoming ships anyway if in detection range (they seem to be directly in space then)
  • universe generation uses this for shortcutting and difficult-to-reach regions (treasure planets with guardians, vacuum dragon breeding grounds...)
  • starlane boring uses this
That proposal would be pretty similar to current starlanes and without many unexpected side-issues.

I think the feeling for interacting with these mountain starlanes should be: hard to climb, powerful and sneaky.

_________________
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2018 12:05 am 
Offline
Space Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm
Posts: 250
Ophiuchus wrote:
I also wouldnt want to copy the "board" like in traveller (which is hmm fully-connected which would mean a lot of extra starlanes which would need to be introduced; this would clutter up the galaxy in an evil way). What i would want would be a few shortcuts only possible to pass with the right tech (e.g. connecting galaxy spiral arms like a spider-net). Also i think currently very long starlanes (by starlane boring) are too cheap fuel-wise. So a starlane nexus could generate many close 1jump, some longer 2jump and a few very long 3jump starlanes.
I am completely lost by what you are saying here. Currently there are no "multiple jump" starlanes in FO, nor would that even make sense for FO. Also fuel is set by you ship and the distance, not starlanes. Traveling a longer starlane will consume more fuel. The Starlane Bore or Starlane Nexus should not change that. I also don't know what you mean by "long starlanes". Both simply just generate whatever connections they can, and I haven't noticed any tendency toward longer starlanes when I use them.
Ophiuchus wrote:
@labgnome I personally prefer a single mechanic giving a range of options over a collection of unconnected mechanics. This is how a lot of content in freeorion works (e.g. a single damage mechanic covering 4 types of weapons with 4 layers each). And yes, the idea reminded me of good old traveller needing a different kind of drive to jump over stretches of empty space.
??? It would all still be a single mechanic and would have multiple options. Again I am not sure what you are talking about here. A range of options, is exactly what I was talking about. Everything would still use starlanes. it's just a question of what set of starlanes. Everything else would work the same.
Ophiuchus wrote:
A KISS minimal proposal for a "mountain terrain" would be:
  • a second type of starlane which can be detected and used only with researching the right tech
  • after researching this single tech you are simply shown the second type of starlane as well (so you see "more" starlanes)
  • this second type has a different properties than normal ones (e.g. cost 3 fuel to use, ship needs minimal speed to use, no or limited supply network propagation, maybe ships get extra stealth while travelling along that lane ...)
  • the second type of starlane is shown in a bit different way, so you know that your enemies might not be able to use them (maybe s-curved instead of straight lines)
  • no UI for showing if enemies can see
  • if enemies use a starlane you cannot see - show the incoming ships anyway if in detection range (they seem to be directly in space then)
  • universe generation uses this for shortcutting and difficult-to-reach regions (treasure planets with guardians, vacuum dragon breeding grounds...)
  • starlane boring uses this
That proposal would be pretty similar to current starlanes and without many unexpected side-issues.
If we are going to introduce new types of starlanes I don't see any reason to necessarily keep things "similar" to the current system, so long as we are still operating within the design guidelines for the game. But on some of your specific points. I wouldn't want the new starlanes to nessisarily have different properties than the current starlanes. 10 fuel should be 10 fuel, speed 20 should be speed 20, supply 2 should be supply 2, anything else just sounds confusing and frustrating. If the starlanes are going to be hidden, then ships traveling along them should also be hidden, otherwise you know where the starlane is, because there is no "off-road" travel. It would defeat the point of hidden starlanes. The last two points seem to contradict your statement earlier:
Quote:
I also wouldnt want to copy the "board" like in traveller (which is hmm fully-connected which would mean a lot of extra starlanes which would need to be introduced; this would clutter up the galaxy in an evil way).
As well as your conclusion, because we would need to change the way galaxy generation, starlane bore, starlane nexus and the Experimenter outpost all worked. Since that would seem to require making every galaxy maximally connected at generation, but then hiding a portion of of the starlanes. Personally I do think that outright creating and destroying starlanes is too valuble of a strategic tool to not actually have be available in the game. I wouldn't be opposed to a starlane changing tech, perhaps as a prerequisite to the starlane bore, being introduced once we have multiple types of starlanes, but I don't think the mechanic should replace being able to create or destroy starlanes.
Ophiuchus wrote:
I think the feeling for interacting with these mountain starlanes should be: hard to climb, powerful and sneaky.
I now perminently regret having refered to starlanes as "difficult terrain". I think you are completely misunderstanding me. This is in fact prety much the opposite of what I would want interacting with these starlanes to be like. I would not want them to be more costly to use once you found them, just for them to be unavailable until you had the right technology, otherwise "blocking" or "hiding" that path. Using the other starlanes should be a reward for investing in exploration and technology, not a further obstacle to the player. Unless I am completely misunderstanding you.

_________________
All of my contributions should be considered released under creative commons attribution share-alike license, CC-BY-SA 3.0 for use in, by and with the Free Orion project.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2018 10:29 am 
Offline
Psionic Snowflake

Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Posts: 482
labgnome wrote:
Ophiuchus wrote:
I also wouldnt want to copy the "board" like in traveller (which is hmm fully-connected which would mean a lot of extra starlanes which would need to be introduced; this would clutter up the galaxy in an evil way). What i would want would be a few shortcuts only possible to pass with the right tech (e.g. connecting galaxy spiral arms like a spider-net). Also i think currently very long starlanes (by starlane boring) are too cheap fuel-wise. So a starlane nexus could generate many close 1jump, some longer 2jump and a few very long 3jump starlanes.
I am completely lost by what you are saying here.

To understand what i mean you must understand what the system in traveller is. Its the classic hex-map. So every "system" is 1jump- connected to six other systems, 2jump-connected to twelve systems, 3jump-connected to 18 systems. So to "copy the board" using galaxy set up for up to 3jump, every system would need 46 starlanes going out. Imagine the map. Ridicilous. Thats why I said I certainly dont want to copy it.

One could simulate the map as hex field using normal starlanes, that would stil work UI-wise i think. Maybe It would be fun to add a galaxy setup for that.

Quote:
Also fuel is set by you ship and the distance, not starlanes. Traveling a longer starlane will consume more fuel.

This is not true in freeorion.

Fuel consumption is always 1, no matter if one starlane is 10 times longer than others. Also one supply always means one hop.

Quote:
Again I am not sure what you are talking about here. A range of options, is exactly what I was talking about.

Rephrased: I personally prefer a single mechanic giving a range of options over a range of multiple mechanics.

In this case the single mechanic would be n-jump starlanes and the range would be (1jump, 2jump, 3jump...)

Quote:
Ophiuchus wrote:
A KISS minimal proposal for a "mountain terrain" would be: ...

If we are going to introduce new types of starlanes I don't see any reason to necessarily keep things "similar" to the current system.. I wouldn't want the new starlanes to nessisarily have different properties than the current starlanes.

The last two points seem to contradict each other.

Quote:
If the starlanes are going to be hidden, then ships traveling along them should also be hidden, otherwise you know where the starlane is, because there is no "off-road" travel.

The question is if that is a problem. You also know that the experimentors are there if you detect a disconnected planet if you know about them. But sure, why not.

Quote:
Ophiuchus wrote:
I think the feeling for interacting with these mountain starlanes should be: hard to climb, powerful and sneaky.
... I would not want them to be more costly to use once you found them, just for them to be unavailable until you had the right technology, otherwise "blocking" or "hiding" that path. Using the other starlanes should be a reward for investing in exploration and technology, not a further obstacle to the player. Unless I am completely misunderstanding you.

Not completely. But they would not become more costly once you found them.

What you want are hidden starlanes. What i want are hidden mountain starlanes. Hidden mountain starlanes present great opportunities, but you still need to work more to use them compared to normal ones. So the gameplay would be: now I can detect those extra starlanes; I have to figure out a way how to use them. Like the overcoming the mini-puzzles that guardians monsters are in the beginning i think this is interesting.

While i think hidden starlanes are nice I think hidden mountain starlanes would add a lot more to the game.

_________________
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2018 6:28 pm 
Offline
Space Dragon

Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2015 12:58 am
Posts: 253
Extending ship reach? I just want a fuel tanker ship to get my ships either out of no-fuel trouble or to extend their reach.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2018 10:53 pm 
Offline
Space Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm
Posts: 250
Ophiuchus wrote:
To understand what i mean you must understand what the system in traveller is. Its the classic hex-map. So every "system" is 1jump- connected to six other systems, 2jump-connected to twelve systems, 3jump-connected to 18 systems. So to "copy the board" using galaxy set up for up to 3jump, every system would need 46 starlanes going out. Imagine the map. Ridicilous. Thats why I said I certainly dont want to copy it.
Well specifically that, yeah. But I don't see much functional difference between that and a maximally starlane-connected galaxy with all the starlanes being of the same value. Unless there's a direct obstacle, you can stall get to anywhere form anywhere at the same rate.

Ophiuchus wrote:
Quote:
Also fuel is set by you ship and the distance, not starlanes. Traveling a longer starlane will consume more fuel.

This is not true in freeorion.

Fuel consumption is always 1, no matter if one starlane is 10 times longer than others. Also one supply always means one hop.
I was confusing the fuel and speed numbers in may head for some reason. But still there are a lot of things about how the game works that are built on the 1 jump = 1 fuel unit, that I don't know how well it could be implemented.

Ophiuchus wrote:
Quote:
Again I am not sure what you are talking about here. A range of options, is exactly what I was talking about.

Rephrased: I personally prefer a single mechanic giving a range of options over a range of multiple mechanics.
Still confused. That is exactly what I was talking about.

Ophiuchus wrote:
In this case the single mechanic would be n-jump starlanes and the range would be (1jump, 2jump, 3jump...)
But that is a different mechanic?

Ophiuchus wrote:
Quote:
If we are going to introduce new types of starlanes I don't see any reason to necessarily keep things "similar" to the current system.. I wouldn't want the new starlanes to nessisarily have different properties than the current starlanes.

The last two points seem to contradict each other.
If you are going to quote me, please to not edit your quotes to take what I say out of context. I have no other response to this.

Ophiuchus wrote:
Not completely. But they would not become more costly once you found them.

What you want are hidden starlanes. What i want are hidden mountain starlanes. Hidden mountain starlanes present great opportunities, but you still need to work more to use them compared to normal ones. So the gameplay would be: now I can detect those extra starlanes; I have to figure out a way how to use them. Like the overcoming the mini-puzzles that guardians monsters are in the beginning i think this is interesting.
See I don't see that fun, so much as frustrating. Also guardian monsters aren't so much puzzles as obstacles. While obstacles aren't necessarily bad, I also don't think they're a reward.

Ophiuchus wrote:
While i think hidden starlanes are nice I think hidden mountain starlanes would add a lot more to the game.
How? Now that I've found a new thing I have to now figure out how fuel and supply will be effecting my development and strategy all over?

_________________
All of my contributions should be considered released under creative commons attribution share-alike license, CC-BY-SA 3.0 for use in, by and with the Free Orion project.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group