Stuff I'd like to see

I know this has been brought up before

from Sins Forums
This has been brought up before, however I think this might be the best way of making it work.

I love the Gas Giants in the game; however I do not like the idea of them being un-colonizable. I know of course technically they cant be, however I believe they should, my reasoning would be like that of star wars, orbital cities. To make them colonizable, I wouldn’t give them population points or even that many logistical points, but tactical points, yes they should get some. I would say that starting off with no investment in them, they would get 0 population, 3 logistics, 10 tactical and no fleet points, since it doesn’t have a population, it would be like a dead asteroid, however the ability to have minimum logistical buildings. You could make this ability to colonize them a tech tree requirement, a higher up tier. This would also bring up my next main reasoning for gas giants being colonizable, Moons! Gas giants have lots of moons.

Moons should be in this game as well. You don’t have to make them rotate around the planet or anything, but have them in the game as minor colonies to planets. You could have colony ships be able to colonize them or if you control the planet first with a moon in system, have in the planet improvement tab, an icon to colonize the moon. If this were possible, I would say they give like 5 population on the first investment then 10 on the second. And they also provide an unlimited metal and crystal income, it would be lower than asteroids, but improving tiers of investment would increase the rate of extraction from them, never exceeding the asteroid extractors. This way of having them as separate entities in the same area of a planet would make for very tactical games, as in a player may control the planet however his opponent controls the moon in the system; this could spark a huge conflict right inside a single gravity well. Terran systems would have a single moon and gas giants could have 2-3, while other planets might have them or not.

And an unrelated thing to the Gas Giants and moons, this game needs Battle Stations. They don’t have to be mobile or anything, but a massive fortress in space that has defensive guns with long range (lasers, missiles, etc..) and fighter bays. Of course it would cost more then building the other structures individually in tactical points, however it would make defending a planet easier to the eye then massing massive amounts of other buildings that clutter up the space around a planet. Instead of having like 12 defensive structures around a planet, you could only have 4 stations.

And that’s my spiel!
67,569 views 36 replies
Reply #1 from Sins Forums Top
There won't be moons or battle stations added (not enough time left in the development schedule).
Reply #2 from Sins Forums Top
Gas Giants are one of the (very few) "neutral" grav wells where encounters can occur without encountering enemy defenses -- lets keep them that way!
Groupy 2 - Organize multiple applications into grouped tabs on your Windows desktop
Reply #3 from Sins Forums Top
So far we have asteroid belts, gas giants, nebula and stars as neutral zones. They certainly can add some interesting strategic/tactical considerations to a game.

It would be a shame to remove any of them as neutral zones.
Reply #4 from Sins Forums Top
And don't forget, gas giants are the one place where positioning means anything as stands -- being too close tot he planet is a bad idea, since when your ships go boom, they do splash damage to other nearby units. (Unless of course the enemy is fighter based, then you want to be int he middle because the boom might take out some bombers).
Reply #5 from Sins Forums Top
There won't be moons or battle stations added (not enough time left in the development schedule).
Well since this is a “Stuff I’d like to see” thread is there time in the dev schedule for a (Move to position and hold) command button?   Sometimes commanding your ships it like herding cats when there are enemies passing through the system.  

Reply #6 from Sins Forums Top
You can already set their 'stances' so they respond to all threats in a gravity well, respond only to nearby threats and respond only to threats actually in weapons range.
Reply #7 from Sins Forums Top
Yup, as Paradoxnt stated, that's already in the game.
Reply #8 from Sins Forums Top
Well I went in game and looked and looked then checked the commands list didn't see anything. After that I looked at the attack button (that I never touch) and thought maybe right click and well crap... All this time I thought it was just attack. 
Reply #9 from Sins Forums Top
That is a legit concern Rhaw. We are currently exploring ways to make the command more obvious.
Reply #10 from Sins Forums Top
That is a legit concern Rhaw. We are currently exploring ways to make the command more obvious.

Maybe add annoying flashing lights and a loud voice that says “right click me.”  

Was it in the tutorial, because it has been some time since I did it. Maybe I should do it again.  

Reply #11 from Sins Forums Top

That is a legit concern Rhaw. We are currently exploring ways to make the command more obvious.


Its in the tutorial -- past that, there's not a lot you can do other than going with older, more frequently known, and (frankly) inferior systems. Don't loose the current system.

That said, the ability to position ships to jump out on command (aka I give the order and they jump THEN, not 30 seconds from then) would be nice. As things stand, the most you can do is order the group of ships to the edge of the system, and tell them to be ready to jump individually -- which can take a while to get them in place, which isn't good when you've got what amounts to a "nodal" response force that needs to jump out when ordered.

Just to show you what I mean, imagine a "cluster" off three planets, two connected to the star and to the third planet -- which leads off towards a plasma storm and the rest of a "space" -- with a very sharp angle between them and the third planet (as well as the star). With the command, one force could (easily) guard each of the three systems from enemy incursion (be in the "node" system, jump out to either of the sun connected planets).

I actually faced this situation in a recent game -- two planets, whose phase lanes connecting to the star were just a few degrees apart, making it impossible to gauge pirate / enemy attacks destination even with a scout in system until after they'd actually jumped. The connections to the third planet were further apart, but one fleet placed in between both phase lanes would have been in a perfect position to jump out with only minimal "lining up"... except there was no quick way to get all the units placed right on the edge of the system. Which didn't work too terribly well even manually, seeing as how units all move towards a common jump point even when they're told to jump separately. (Bad, bad move devs!)

Speaking of which, another thing I'd like to see is having ships calculate jump pathing independently when they're given a move order and are told to jump singly -- as things stand, they'll all head to the same spot, ignoring what might be quicker for them. Saves a minimal amount of system resources (I think) compared to the annoyance of having to give the jump order ship by ship. (Try having cobalts, say 20 or so, spread evenly around an entire star system to test this, its a good way to see the problem)
Reply #12 from Sins Forums Top
I agree with Ron. This is a superb command option - using one button with two functions. Perhaps the tutorial should be more firm in making a player use it a couple of times with each functiona but that is it.
Reply #13 from Sins Forums Top
I agree with Ron. This is a superb command option - using one button with two functions. Perhaps the tutorial should be more firm in making a player use it a couple of times with each functiona but that is it.


Having to cycle through 1 button to get 3 different functions (while compact) I don’t necessarily see it as being superior. The problem is less of function and more of quick clear communication of what does what. The (Attack Button) has 3 functions, the (Move Button) has 2 functions, and the (Stop Button) has one function stop whatever. Usually when I want something to stop I just click a new destination for the ship, so I never touch the stop button. Most other things you may want to stop they commence instantly or after the fact and there is no chance to stop them.

Attack usually means in other games to just attack not necessarily rules of engagement. I saw the first word ATTACK and didn’t think anything else of it “it’s like attack in all the other games.”  

A better idea I would think would be to change the name of the attack command to (Rules of Engagement) and the move command to (Move Orders). Then the first impression upon glancing at them would be less ambiguous and clearly say there is something else there. 

Of course this is all playing on my own lack of attention. When I don’t play games for long periods of time and pick them up again the little things get forgotten. 
Reply #14 from Sins Forums Top

Having to cycle through 1 button to get 3 different functions (while compact) I don’t necessarily see it as being superior. The problem is less of function and more of quick clear communication of what does what. The (Attack Button) has 3 functions, the (Move Button) has 2 functions, and the (Stop Button) has one function stop whatever.


? Both the attack and the move buttons have two functions: the actual command, and a modal command that manipulates the unit's "AI" for that primary function. E. G. the move command can be used to move a ship, or tell a group of ships whether or not to jump as a group. The attack button can be used to tell a group to attack, and control how they will attack (will they go and engage the enemy, or wait for him to come to them).

That said, doubling the names like you want is likely to confuse more players than anything else. This really is a good system, and anyone who fails to play the tutorial really is shooting themselves in the foot. In the end, I'd really recommend having a quick "fact-sheet" in the manual that just covers the major differences between this game and any other -- stuff like how referies / trade ships allow infinite resources, the movement / attack UI's double functions, etc etc.
Reply #15 from Sins Forums Top
A better idea I would think would be to change the name of the attack command to (Rules of Engagement) and the move command to (Move Orders). Then the first impression upon glancing at them would be less ambiguous and clearly say there is something else there.


How about just naming it to the classic "attack stance" and "move".

And as for all your suggestions, they would be a good idea for an expansion perhaps. perhaps battlestations could be only 1 per system, and only in neutral systems, allowing some mild control over systems, but would cost mainenance... I gtg but i could go on.

Reply #16 from Sins Forums Top
well, since we are into commands: can you order your ships to a specific point in another grav well? with waypoints it hasnt worked so far, they stick at the edge of the gravwell next to the planet they came from, I think with move orders it would be the same. just a small thing but it would be nice to be able to give a direct "take up this position in this gravwell".
Reply #17 from Sins Forums Top
You can now... more or less
Reply #18 from Sins Forums Top
? Both the attack and the move buttons have two functions: the actual command, and a modal command that manipulates the unit's "AI" for that primary function. E. G. the move command can be used to move a ship, or tell a group of ships whether or not to jump as a group. The attack button can be used to tell a group to attack, and control how they will attack (will they go and engage the enemy, or wait for him to come to them).


How many people click the attack button to tell ships to attack and how many people click the move button to tell ships to move? It simply isn’t necessary I just select the ship or group of ships and click on what I want attacked or where I want them it go.

When I say function I don’t mean attack as one, because it isn’t necessary to use it for that. I mean the persistent commands issued on the ships when you aren’t telling them what to do. In the case of the attack button it has 3 commands to choose from. Attack in gravity well, local area, and hold position.

You can go on and on about how it is a great system all day long, but I’m not saying anything about changing the system or suggesting adding printed words to thousands of instruction manuals. I’m just suggesting making the names more clear as to their functions.
Reply #19 from Sins Forums Top
yeah I see no problem with that... it really should be labeled as 'attack stance' and 'Movement Stance'
Reply #20 from Sins Forums Top

Attack is becoming just attack and the right click of it will turn auto-attack on and off (this is now important because you may not want to attack units of players you are trying to build a relationship with). The range controls are being moved into a tactical submenu so it has its own special button (toggles thru hold, near, and grav well). There will be other new stuff in this menu as well. Sins has too many nifty features like this that the majority of players don't even realize are there despite the tutorials and the descriptions on the tooltips so we are going to try and make things more obvious.

Reply #21 from Sins Forums Top
lists?

I have always not liked lists, too slow...

if they have key bindings then I am more than good with it though.

rember HW, almost EVERYTHING had a list, then again, almost everything a realy good hotkeys. I think I used my keyboard hotkeys in that game more than my actull mouse.
Reply #22 from Sins Forums Top

I'm not sure what you are referring to regarding lists but either way, everything in sins already has a key binding.

Reply #23 from Sins Forums Top

I'm not sure what you are referring to regarding lists but either way, everything in sins already has a key binding.




I think he's commenting on my idea of a quickie "fact sheet" to get put in the manual covering the less obvious stuff.
Reply #24 from Sins Forums Top
While we're on the subject of stuff we'd like to see in the final game, I was wondering if in the campaign there will be any characters, like in Nexus? It couldn't hurt, and I think it would make the campaign better as it wouldn't be just a bunch of ships and nameless commanders/crews.

Now about battle chatter. I'm not sure, but has this been comfirmed that it will make the final game? I know that I'm not the first to request this, but it would add depth to the battles. Picture a bomber making an attack run on a cap ship. Wouldn't it be awesome if the bomber as it launched its attack said something like "Weapons away!" or "Missiles launched!".

While on the subject of in-game chatter, why does it seem that ALL the voices are male? I'm not sure if anyone else has considered this, but I think it would be much more realistic if there were some female commanders on some of the ships. Think about it. There are female pilots, officers, etc. in today's military. It would also add a bit more variety to the in-game chatter.

The music has come along quite well. There was even a track that seemed to have more of a "marching drum" sound to it that wasn't in Beta 2, when I suggested that more militaristic music be added. Just another fine example of the developers listening to our comments.

Now onto the subject of the background. Has their been any consideration as to random events or changes in the scenery? I'm thinking perhaps randomly and very, very rarely that something could happen, such as a star suddenly brightening into a supernova very far off in the distance. Perhaps comet could zoom by. As I said, this would happen very rarely, but it would be neat to see and add yet another level of depth in the game, giving the player a sense that the universe outside his/her empire is a dynamic place.

I suppose that's it for now. I welcome any responses to these suggestions.
Reply #25 from Sins Forums Top
Wouldn't it be awesome if the bomber as it launched its attack said something like "Weapons away!" or "Missiles launched!".


No. It'd be more atmospheric, but hardly "awesome" -- one of the most overused words in the English language.

That said, do be aware that most of the audio stuff is really placeholders at the moment -- they haven't even finished all unit selections 100%, they're hardly anywhere close to being in a position to have a finalized voice overs.