I'm an old BBS'er myself.

I am old enough to have caught up with the dying years of the BBS (89-95).

In a lot of ways, social-bound games have dealt with similar challenges in the recent past (2008+) given the strong return of asynchronous time management. It is interesting to see how little it has progressed in-between, and possibly explains why these 4X games are still relevant nowadays.

TradeWars 2002 did though and I had a blast with that.

Was that similar to Barren Realm Elite? (B.R.E.)

When I get a little more time, I'll probably check out planets.nu. Some people can't play those old games anymore, but I sure can.

If you do end up registering, please let them know I referred you: that gives me extra time on my registration :) Plus, everyone will see that I have recruited new blood, and there's even a ladder for that :P

Ship it! (no pun intended) If you're that close, pick a good option, implement it and release the game. I wish I was that close. So jealous...

I am sort of running with it as we speak actually. I really wanted to go the no customization approach given that it seems it would be viable and simpler, but I can't shake the feeling I might just do it better than my reference by putting meaningful options (and a limited amount).

Call me crazy :)

On that, we agree.

Ugh... We agreed on something, that's a bad sign :D

That being said, if you feel there are various quirks I should get rid of, don't hesitate to PM them to me.

Nah, as long as you are not a blind worshipper you will instantly notice, these are quite obvious :)

My take on "no customization"

I plan something like that for my game.

- You research hulls and modules

- Then you build hulls (ships), these are fully functional, these have various slots

- You produce modules (AFTER you have built the hulls) that can fit these slots

- Ships are auto upgraded with these modules based on your priorities and availability upon regular maintenance (done automaticly as well)

So it's kind of customization, but after the ship was produced, so it avoids redesigning all ships designs every time you research a new laser.

I still need to figure out how to tie the production of modules with the retrofit and the player option to select what should have what installed in what order.

So it's kind of customization, but after the ship was produced, so it avoids redesigning all ships designs every time you research a new laser.
I still need to figure out how to tie the production of modules with the retrofit and the player option to select what should have what installed in what order.

VGA Planets 3.0's Solar Federation used that system.

In VGA Planets 4.0 (less popular) all races used that system.

It was somewhat interesting because people would pump out ship hulls (strong ones early) and outfit them with cheap engines and weapons, and adjust as their economy allowed.

Originally, I wanted to keep that kind of flexibility, but this IS a customization system. Assuming I do keep customization in, that would be a viable approach indeed, but I'm still not entirely sure about the ramifications of such a system.

- Encourages players to build strong hulls and cheap components early (assuming ship limit mechanic)

- Allows ships to remain relevant as the game progresses (not bound by earlier decisions "forever")

- Ship building choices are less relevant, only ship hulls truly matter.

- Emulate a growing system where earlier hulls are recycled with new purposes as the game progresses (remove top weapons from small gunships and put them on a warship and recycle the gunships as cheap scouts, or break apart weapons from a large ship to outfit a bunch of deadly gunships and turning the bigger ship into some kind of freighter).

- Assumes some form of ship customization is in place (weapons, at the very least)

- Could be an interesting reason for ships to return to a planet that has a base capable of refitting their ships, and that has the necessary ship components.

- Emulated multi-base independence (one base constructs top hulls, another constructs top weapons, ships move from one to the other as a sort of assembly line). Instead of maxing all bases, a player benefits from this specialized system.

- Causes an issue: how do you move components from one base to another?

These are just early thoughts...

I would not allow modular weapons, these come with the hull. The slots would be for "boosters" of all kinds: electronics, targetting computers, cloaking devices, shield boosters, additional thrusters, escape pods, scanners, battle bridge, command stations, etc. If there are weapons these would overshadow everything :) Plus, these are boring (you almost always select the best weapon, not much of a choice here). I mean, the decision what to install should be less obvious and more about building a unique fleet. Like you want cloaking, you install it, if you like high accurracy you install targetting computers instead, or maybe you want better detection and you go for scanners.

Something that's not trivial to calculate (make the player compare apples to bananas).

For weapons I would make a simple upgrade. You research new weapon (beam), all future hulls are produced with new beam weapons (no choice), also you have an option to retrofit ships with older beam weapons.

Also I was thinking of mutually exclusive choice of "versions" of the hull. Like they research a new "destroyer hull" and you are presented with 9 variants (better speed, better armour, different weapon proportion, etc) and you select one. From now one only that one can be produced. These difference would not be drastic, like you are not deciding if it uses beam weapons or torpedoes, that's hull dependant, but you have a choice if it has a bit more beam or a bit more torpedoes. You are able to choose a slightly different version of destroyer to use (making fleet more personal).

This conversation has been going on for a while, I see, and I'm sure it's been said before, but my two cents:

Personally, I like ship customization, and there are a few reasons:

1. It gives players a sense of ownership, in terms of more creative input into the game

2. It creates a slight sense of uncertainty in play, which helps balance new and experienced players (those who have memorized all ship types and their abilities)

3. Uncertainty also makes the game more interesting and exciting without introducing real randomness (something I dislike in games, because you can have bad luck), through trying to read the mind of your opponent, which is a skill that is hard to master and NOT just based on rote memorization.

4. It allows the game to change over time as players discover new combinations that work. Yes, this can also mean that sometimes it breaks, but it keeps things lively.

Now, as another said, it is important to consider what's core to your game. If this is supposed to be chess, which is an excellent game, and you don't want to sacrifice any of the pure strategy to unknown, then you may want to avoid it. But I see pure strategy in these situations as overly favoring people who have memorized everything, which makes games less accessible to new players; something that IMO should be avoided at almost any cost.

I would not allow modular weapons, these come with the hull. The slots would be for "boosters" of all kinds: electronics, targetting computers, cloaking devices, shield boosters, additional thrusters, escape pods, scanners, battle bridge, command stations, etc. If there are weapons these would overshadow everything Plus, these are boring (you almost always select the best weapon, not much of a choice here).

In a 'slot' system, weapons don't take the room for special components.

Also, speaking to 'best weapons', my customization approach had no dominant strategy (in fact, it was pretty much built around the concept of having none). Think of it as a trading card game mechanic where the metagame dictates what would be best at any given time, but kept in constant flow.

Like you want cloaking, you install it

I always figured cloaking was a hull-centric ability, not something you can just add to any ship. Granted, I have more gameplay reasons to do so than flavor. I'd really hate to see cloaked battleships be standard issue to win the game. Instead, most cloaked ships should be smaller, and any faction with a cloaked battleship or cruiser would have a great advantage, so the ship itself could still be under par: it would see a lot of play.

if you like high accurracy you install targetting computers instead, or maybe you want better detection and you go for scanners.

I've thought long and hard about this, and for the most part, I think power generators and sensors capabilities are also hull-centric. I'm not saying you can't have a support slot filled with something to enhance your capabilities, but I think it makes a lot more sens to have it hull-based. Once again, it prevents you from trying to do everything (a battleship acting also as a detector-type of ship that can see cloaked enemies). I'd much rather have players dedicate funding to producing sub-optimal ships only because they are good detectors, then figuring out a way to make these ships actually useful (canon-fodder? transport? etc.)

For weapons I would make a simple upgrade. You research new weapon (beam), all future hulls are produced with new beam weapons (no choice), also you have an option to retrofit ships with older beam weapons.

The more I think about this, the more I realize I can make this game work with upgrades without an inflation of the base damage, which would annihilate the need to have the fleet 'match up'.

One of the great examples for this:

You start with cost-efficient (cheap) beams and missiles. But, as techs get unlocked, you find a beam that focuses to overpowering shields, but has little effect on hull, and then you unlock terrible missiles that deal with hull. You swap out 'vanilla designs' for a combo punch (the beams take out the shields, and the missile volleys destroy the ship). Despite having roughly the same damage output, its specialization allows you to deal with some enemies better. Just an example, but hopefully it opens up possibilities in trying to make some combos (range, rate of fire, modifier vs shields, shield penetration, etc.)

Also I was thinking of mutually exclusive choice of "versions" of the hull. Like they research a new "destroyer hull" and you are presented with 9 variants (better speed, better armour, different weapon proportion, etc) and you select one. From now one only that one can be produced. These difference would not be drastic, like you are not deciding if it uses beam weapons or torpedoes, that's hull dependant, but you have a choice if it has a bit more beam or a bit more torpedoes. You are able to choose a slightly different version of destroyer to use (making fleet more personal).

I was thinking a bit differently about this, but hopefully the result is similar: at level 1, you have a default scout.

At level 2, you unlock another scout perhaps, but this one is either faster, or has better detection, but costs a bit more. So from here on, whenever you want to build a scout, you can choose between the 'Yvan class Scout' or the 'Karbo class Scout' and they're somewhat different. Yvan class is more cost-efficient, but if you intend on running more complex missions with it, Karbo offers you a more rounded deal (possibly has large cargo as well, etc.)

If you only want to scout the enemy territory, Yvan is ideal as even if it gets destroyed, it won't hurt your economy much, but if you have a more complex purpose in mind (moving cargo, possibly resupply a warship, etc.) the Karbo might be a better fit, but is also a more interesting target for a cloaked enemy vessel.

1. It gives players a sense of ownership, in terms of more creative input into the game

I agree, though, too much customization is really playing the ownership card too much. I think most 4X games err on the side of player self-expression, and fail at actual strategy. Culture or Economy or Scientific progress quickly becomes the sole vector to determine who wins. I think keeping these concepts grounded and focusing on a more limited approach to ship design shifts the focus back to tactical prowess.

2. It creates a slight sense of uncertainty in play, which helps balance new and experienced players (those who have memorized all ship types and their abilities)

That is one of my serious concerns with a system that has absolutely no customization, and why I'm recurrently led back to going back to my customization system. Replayability insists that some form user-induced control be applied to insure the metagame evolved over time and keeps tacticians interested.

In VGA Planets, one of the dreaded / most boring moments is when you play a non-carrier race (a race that cannot construct large battle carriers) and you see one coming your way: experienced players know exactly what set of ships to 'sacrifice' to kill the carrier while taking minimal economic damage. This is not very intuitive, and it requires unnecessary memorization that does not feel like having earned battle experience. I'd like for players to learn from their experience and guess the 'right answer' to these scenarios, not from memory, but from trial and error. It should 'make sense'.

For example, if you see a frail 'sniper ship' coming your way with very long range rockets, you might want to build a tank (well armored) ship with long-range weaponry yourself and soak up some of the damage with your armor, all the while exchanging fire at long ranges, and come on top. Or you might want to build a high agility and fast ship to dodge the rockets and close on the enemy for ultimate damage. Whatever your strategy, it should make sense why you've won/lost the encounter, without having to refer to a manual written by experienced players on how to overcome specific strategies.

3. Uncertainty also makes the game more interesting and exciting without introducing real randomness (something I dislike in games, because you can have bad luck), through trying to read the mind of your opponent, which is a skill that is hard to master and NOT just based on rote memorization.

THIS.

If you've read a few of my previous posts, you'll know I'm not a fan of complete randomness. I don't feel it is interesting to win/lose because one got lucky. I think skill comes from gauging risk, and risk does not necessarily depend on a die roll. Seeing an enemy ship on your radar, but not knowing how its outfitted gives you a narrow and deterministic list of outcomes. You need to guess what your opponent has outfitted the ship with in order to make the right call, or ultimately, you can dedicate more forces than needed to overcome this. If you overcommit there, you can't commit elsewhere, and your opponent might play on your fear by sending volleys of weak weaponed ships your way. It's not random, it's fun, and if you lose, you can only say 'well played sir!'

4. It allows the game to change over time as players discover new combinations that work. Yes, this can also mean that sometimes it breaks, but it keeps things lively.

Agreed. Touches on the idea of a shifting metagame I was referencing earlier.

Now, as another said, it is important to consider what's core to your game. If this is supposed to be chess, which is an excellent game, and you don't want to sacrifice any of the pure strategy to unknown, then you may want to avoid it.

I like the concept of chess, it's high level of competitiveness, but chess gets boring to me, because of the steep learning curve of having to memorize a lot of stuff. That's where the idea of minimal customization comes in I believe, and I'm inclined to agree that it may be necessary for me to yet reimplement it.

I don't want to reward players that have learned these things by heart.

On the other hand, I want to reward players that have a lot of experience playing the game, and also those that took the time to make spreadsheets to figure out how to min/max the game and figure out what approaches are ideal. True, the metagame might shift, rendering their strategy useless, but that's only for a time. And even then, sometimes, proper execution of a sub-optimal plan can still lead to victory.

For example, in Starcraft 2 (and 1) there is something known as the build order. Basically, what's your usual 'opening' for the game. There are some 'cheesy' ways to open the game (forward gate push, zergling rush, etc.) and these may overcome a usual build order, but oftentimes you'll notice that expert players are so comfortable with their build order that they can deal with these unexpected strategy, and once they've clearly demonstrated they can survive it, they tend to win very quickly as a result. In these cases, their original build order was sub-optimal (the rush should be considered optimal unless the enemy sees it coming) but proper execution of a well rehearsed and thought-out plan actually manages to strike victory regardless. I think it really demonstrates how player skill should affect gameplay.

In my game, a player might go for an aggressive start and still be defeated by a methodical player that has a lot of experience playing the game.

In a recent VGA Planets game, someone took my homeworld early in the game, which would've normally meant immediate GG, but I've still managed to put up more than a decent fight, so much so that he was willing to concede his error and abort his attack on me and negotiate terms. If I was new at this game, I would've fallen immediately without any ability to come back.

I think that, to a degree, customization helps this as it allows for proper execution to thrump having the right idea.

Do you remember Yamato gun from StarCraft 1? That's one reason why I don't want weapon slots. It would make weapons too standarized & boring :) I would prefer much more various electronics, ECMs, scanners, thrusters, shields enchancers and the like. Also, I don't like the "beam that focuses on overpowering shields" as slot weapon, since it completely changes to purpose of the hull (type of damage). These should come with the hull.

A ship/hull should have some "style" and predictable use. Then you upgrade it by new weapons (pure damage upgrade only, not damage type) and customize by adding boosters.

As for "scanners on every ship" I would not demonize it. I think, every ship should have some scanners by default, but it does not mean they are able to detect cloaked ships or that it makes dedicated scanner/recon ships not needed. I just feel some sort of at least basic scanners should be on every single ship (if nothing else for the mood and realism).

ANOTHER CONCEPT:

Ships have "obligatory slots" (like scanners, ECM, main computer) and have these produced separately and retrofited anytime. So, you build scanner I, scanner II, scanner III and these are successively installed replacing older models if possible. When you build a hull and there is no required obligatory scanner in storage it automatically also build the newest scanner and install it. The player has an option to "obsolete" certain model of scanner and it will be never installed on new ships anymore (it would treat is as if there is 0 of these in storage).

Some ships (recon) could have more scanner slots, alco could have boots (like "all scanners on this hull get +50% to level and double range). Also big ships could have 4-6 scanner slots but these work at -80% efficiency (so big ships require more scanners but it does not make them be more efficient at scanning) (I guess a better example would be computers, a battleship requires more of these because there is more stuff to control).

Do you remember Yamato gun from StarCraft 1? That's one reason why I don't want weapon slots. It would make weapons too standarized & boring I would prefer much more various electronics, ECMs, scanners, thrusters, shields enchancers and the like. Also, I don't like the "beam that focuses on overpowering shields" as slot weapon, since it completely changes to purpose of the hull (type of damage). These should come with the hull.

I don't know that it does though. The beam that focuses on shields is pretty useless against everything else.

Sure, in SC, it would annihilate Protoss units pretty mindlessly (EMP attack), but given all ships have shields (or so) and that the armor is then pretty tough to dent, this weapon wouldn't be any "better" than any other unless you have a strategy that leverages that.

Any high damage weapon with a higher range than the beam should be discarded (you'd be wasting potential), so you would end up with a ship that has mid-range shield-drain beams, and then focus on short/mid range heavy damage to armor.

This leaves you vulnerable to a number of ships, such as artillery-ships (long-ranged attacks) and carriers (which are throwing volleys of fighters at you before you even close in on it).

A ship/hull should have some "style" and predictable use. Then you upgrade it by new weapons (pure damage upgrade only, not damage type) and customize by adding boosters.

The amount of weapon slots, and their categories would give some form of predictability: max 4 missile launchers and 1 beam. This would pretty much guarantee that didn't go for the EMP-beam and short-ranged heavy hitter missiles. This would probably work much better as a long-range ship (4 missile launchers) with limited mid-range point defense (the beam).

To a degree, the weapons you can or can't mount on that design will limit how it can behave.

I agree however that just having "weapon slots" is largely insufficient.

As for "scanners on every ship" I would not demonize it. I think, every ship should have some scanners by default, but it does not mean they are able to detect cloaked ships or that it makes dedicated scanner/recon ships not needed. I just feel some sort of at least basic scanners should be on every single ship (if nothing else for the mood and realism).

I probably expressed myself poorly. All of my ships currently have a "default sensor". Some of them also act as detectors (twice the sensor strength for example). While a support component could be boarded to strengthen the sensors, I don't think it should allow someone to turn a regular ship into a detector. At best, it should be somewhere in-between.

Ships have "obligatory slots" (like scanners, ECM, main computer) and have these produced separately and retrofited anytime. So, you build scanner I, scanner II, scanner III and these are successively installed replacing older models if possible. When you build a hull and there is no required obligatory scanner in storage it automatically also build the newest scanner and install it. The player has an option to "obsolete" certain model of scanner and it will be never installed on new ships anymore (it would treat is as if there is 0 of these in storage).

>I'm having a rough time figuring out the flow, in-game, when you want to upgrade an obsolete ship... I would need to return to a base and invest?

That *may* be interesting, would love to hear a bit more about this.

Some ships (recon) could have more scanner slots, alco could have boots (like "all scanners on this hull get +50% to level and double range). Also big ships could have 4-6 scanner slots but these work at -80% efficiency (so big ships require more scanners but it does not make them be more efficient at scanning) (I guess a better example would be computers, a battleship requires more of these because there is more stuff to control).

Interesting. You're suggesting to scale up price through components, but have an inversely scaled effect.

In VGA Planets, engines worked that way: the bigger the ship, the more engines it required, but beyond having 2 engines, there were no added gain, so this was a hidden tax on components so that bigger ships ended up being much more of an investment.

What you're adding here however is to have contextual modifiers. I'm not too fond of having too many exceptions: I prefer simple systems. So having to read on how each ship interacts with components could be tedious. But having an inversely proportional system might be a lot more streamlined.

I believe that Gratuitous Space Battles had a system where each added component of the same class had diminishing gains. For example, having a shield generator would provide 100% of its stats, but having a 2nd one would behave at 75-80% efficiency only (and a 3rd one would go down to 60, etc.) This was an interesting means to insure variety within a ship (straight all beams/all shields were inefficient). This would nudge the player into trying all of the computers (ECM, Tracker, etc.)

Acharis, on 01 Nov 2014 - 3:54 PM, said:


Do you remember Yamato gun from StarCraft 1? That's one reason why I don't want weapon slots. It would make weapons too standarized & boring I would prefer much more various electronics, ECMs, scanners, thrusters, shields enchancers and the like. Also, I don't like the "beam that focuses on overpowering shields" as slot weapon, since it completely changes to purpose of the hull (type of damage). These should come with the hull.



I don't know that it does though. The beam that focuses on shields is pretty useless against everything else.

Sure, in SC, it would annihilate Protoss units pretty mindlessly (EMP attack), but given all ships have shields (or so) and that the armor is then pretty tough to dent, this weapon wouldn't be any "better" than any other unless you have a strategy that leverages that.

Any high damage weapon with a higher range than the beam should be discarded (you'd be wasting potential), so you would end up with a ship that has mid-range shield-drain beams, and then focus on short/mid range heavy damage to armor.

This leaves you vulnerable to a number of ships, such as artillery-ships (long-ranged attacks) and carriers (which are throwing volleys of fighters at you before you even close in on it).

I meant the mood Yamato gun was a huge cannon (like half the ship), taking long to charge and demolishing stuff with one shot. I meant that such weapon can't be "slot based", it's too unique. Such weapon would not make sense on another vessel.

I probably expressed myself poorly. All of my ships currently have a "default sensor". Some of them also act as detectors (twice the sensor strength for example). While a support component could be boarded to strengthen the sensors, I don't think it should allow someone to turn a regular ship into a detector. At best, it should be somewhere in-between.

Agreed on that.

But I think slots should allow some "turn your shop into something else/more". I mean, use it as a "rtace customization". Like you can install *one* thing on your ship (and only one, or only two, anyway you need to resign from something to do it). Like you can make "all your ships high ECM" or "make all ships have good shields", but you can't do both.

But I wonder if something like this should not be done by something other than slots...

>I'm having a rough time figuring out the flow, in-game, when you want to upgrade an obsolete ship... I would need to return to a base and invest?

That *may* be interesting, would love to hear a bit more about this.

You will not like this I plan all ships returning regularly and automaticly to some sort of starbase/shipyard for a regular maintenence. Upon maintenance they are upgraded if needed.

Interesting. You're suggesting to scale up price through components, but have an inversely scaled effect.

In VGA Planets, engines worked that way: the bigger the ship, the more engines it required, but beyond having 2 engines, there were no added gain, so this was a hidden tax on components so that bigger ships ended up being much more of an investment.

What you're adding here however is to have contextual modifiers. I'm not too fond of having too many exceptions: I prefer simple systems. So having to read on how each ship interacts with components could be tedious. But having an inversely proportional system might be a lot more streamlined.

I believe that Gratuitous Space Battles had a system where each added component of the same class had diminishing gains. For example, having a shield generator would provide 100% of its stats, but having a 2nd one would behave at 75-80% efficiency only (and a 3rd one would go down to 60, etc.) This was an interesting means to insure variety within a ship (straight all beams/all shields were inefficient). This would nudge the player into trying all of the computers (ECM, Tracker, etc.)

Important thing, you can not choose how many components to install. Battleship requires 6 scanners and it has to get these, also all of these scanners need to be identical.

As for degrading efficiency, I used it only as an easy explanation to player (and to not make "big" versions of compnents). It could be done different way, like there are no penalties but you need to install 6 and these work as one, or on;ly the first grant the scanning bonus. It's a technicality how to phrase it only, the math are identical (battleship requires 6 scanners but these are worth as much as 1 scanner on a small ship).

I meant the mood Yamato gun was a huge cannon (like half the ship), taking long to charge and demolishing stuff with one shot. I meant that such weapon can't be "slot based", it's too unique. Such weapon would not make sense on another vessel.

Agreed.

VGA Planets refers to these as "super-weapons", but they did not exist until v4.

Personally, I also felt they didn't add much to the game and introduced a level of complexity that was unwarranted.

I'd much rather have individual hulls display unique attributes that are not directly "firepower-centric" though.

Agreed on that.

But I think slots should allow some "turn your shop into something else/more". I mean, use it as a "rtace customization". Like you can install *one* thing on your ship (and only one, or only two, anyway you need to resign from something to do it). Like you can make "all your ships high ECM" or "make all ships have good shields", but you can't do both.
But I wonder if something like this should not be done by something other than slots...

I guess it depends on how "different" the outcome ship would be then...

You will not like this I plan all ships returning regularly and automaticly to some sort of starbase/shipyard for a regular maintenence. Upon maintenance they are upgraded if needed.

Why would I not like this? The automatic part, I'm not too fond of specifically, but having a reason to return to base may be interesting or irritating, depending on how it is introduced. Then again, it is a matter of determining how much this really adds, and whether this compensates for the level of complexity involved (might be a lot to keep track of these routine maintenances).

Important thing, you can not choose how many components to install. Battleship requires 6 scanners and it has to get these, also all of these scanners need to be identical.
As for degrading efficiency, I used it only as an easy explanation to player (and to not make "big" versions of compnents). It could be done different way, like there are no penalties but you need to install 6 and these work as one, or on;ly the first grant the scanning bonus. It's a technicality how to phrase it only, the math are identical (battleship requires 6 scanners but these are worth as much as 1 scanner on a small ship).

Yes, this sounds exactly like the engines in VGA Planets: having 6 does not do a better job than 1, but on a large ship, 6 is required to move (With the effect of just 1).

Thanks.