Say hypothetically...

Talk about all things to do with the acclaimed 4X title.

Moderator: Erinys

Post Reply
User avatar
rytram
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 6:09 am

Re: Say hypothetically...

Post by rytram » Sun Feb 10, 2019 12:33 pm

i think ya'll are misunderstanding my last comment. or rather taking it too literal.

i will try to rephrase. in SoTS. when you choose the weapons to equip on the ship. all mounts have a predetermined effective radius..or as i was stating, an arc. like this turret has a 90 degree Fov in which it can fire, that turret has a 100 degree FoV. on destroyers. you often have a limited amount of turrets. and none of them are particularly good for Point Defense. i happen to have most of my experience playing Liir (as the avatar suggests) on their ships a basic armor class ship has 5 small mounts and a missile rack. on that ship the best turret to use PD is the top center it has something like a 320 degree FoV. this is actually pretty decent. but it leaves the rear exposed to missiles, which is usually the place where u get a missile shoved up your ass when running from something like a asteroid monitor or a derelict. so, you have to place another PD in the rear mount which has like a 170 degree Fov. both mounting positions house a single small mount. the front mount both has around 270 degree Fov. this is the standard setup before any other command sections or Drive sections are acquired. with new sections comes a different configuration with different FoV.

my only thought was that if PD turrets had their own specific FoV to make them more effective. actually, i did state that each weapon type would have its own specific FoV instead of that FoV being dependant on what mount was chosen. this would allow us to further customize how our ships are designed and built. lets say the common laser mount would have a 180 degree FoV and a 70 degree pitch. you could choose to place it on the left and right side and then adjust the angle to face more forward or to the rear. you could choose to place a PD turret on the top mount and the PD would have a 270-360 Fov for best coverage, ETC.

you see. 2 of you chose to focus on a small portion of what i said and make it literal, i wasnt saying HAY MECRON, LETS PUT Phalanx CIWS's on our space ships. nope, i didnt say that. i was merely using it as a reference on how the PD works and its accuracy and FoV.

Mecron thought i wanted to locate mounts wherever i wanted on the hull and not in specific locations, which also isnt what i was saying. to top it off, after i shared my thoughts i asked him what he thought. he then essentially scoffed (in traditional Mecron fashion) and then tried to Jargin me with war tactic mumbo jumbo which was baseless. so i told him to look up to look it up. the intention of the reply was to state that with modern technology. in fact as early as 1977 we have had an anti missile/air defense turret capable of the shit i was explaining, which made the assumption that in a far distant future of SoTS that this Technology would be a basic concept.

which leads to
Rossinna-Sama said: ""Which is operating in a planetary atmosphere and doesn't have to deal with the conditions found in deep space, not to mention if it was actually hit by anything resembling a SOTS-style weapon, it'd shatter in an instant."
HERP DERP HERP DERP

like i said. too fucking literal. and a pretty dumb reply. not at all what i was suggesting. and MECRON gives it the ol thumbs up which leads me to believe he had no damn clue what i was saying either.

Fivve was actually paying attention and made a good point, but his point doesnt necessarily mean my idea wasnt reasonable. it was merely an idea anyway.

the entire point of this damn thread is to share ideas. it isnt attention seeking. hell, even this post isnt for the purpose of seeking attention. it is for the purpose of clarification and maybe challenging some people to properly read shit before replying.

Mecron. i get that you are essentially the God of your own game. but when you make a thread asking for feedback and suggestions try to take some of them with a grain of salt. i keep telling you that not all ideas will be good. but there is no point in ridiculing people for sharing their ideas. you are your only PR, and you are doing a shitty job of being the PR person. you are NOT the average forum member. i swear it is your favorite pass time to come on these threads and bash on your own fan base. i am not talking about your interactions with me specifically. anyone could go on any of your threads and read to see this. in fact there are a few people whom have pointed this same thing out before. you know what a REALLY good idea is? dont respond to comments or ideas you do not like or agree with. respond only to the ones worth your attention that makes sense to you. if you wanna troll and shitpost. dont shit where you sleep. honestly, it makes me question if you are even serious about selling your games lol. because, people can be quite stubborn and decide to not support a company whom disrespects their own fan base much like you yourself often do. that being said. id probably still buy a SoTS HD. because i like sots. but as far as your other games. forget it. hell. id still buy Sots even if the Franchise was sold to a different company. which honestly feels like the only way we will ever get a new SoTS lately anyway. you are too arrogant and stubborn for your own good Mecron. MOST of my comments have been suggestions to help the future of SoTS and KERB. you only chose to take insult where it was not intended. the other posts were meant to show some teeth because they were responses to your needlessly rude replies.

since i have been active. i have made suggestions on not only features and mechanics of the game. but uneducated suggestions on how to secure the funding for the development of the game and its advertisement. hell i have even gone to my local tabletop game store and asked them about stocking your "SOTS: TP board game" to try and help you. i have been careful to not suggest you to just sell the damn IP to someone else better equipped to see it through. and that is mostly because we dont know what we could expect from that game if it were. and you are clearly the most reliable team to develop the game....if you even can. after all. funding IS the issue. not desire. so pleeeease. fuck off with all that rude shit and being insulted all the time when someone shares an idea.

BTW Mecron. hows the mole?
Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war!

User avatar
fivve
Posts: 60
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 12:57 pm

Re: Say hypothetically...

Post by fivve » Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:37 pm

Rytram, I think there has been some serious misunderstanding here.

I think they were referring to the trend in regards to Warship designs in general across all strategy games where the rear is always vulnerable. For example Star Wars: Empire at War, Sins of a Solar Empire, Battlefleet Gothic Armada, Homeworld, Endless Space, I could go through my entire collection, as I've seen that issue in pretty much every game, but that would be sad.

I always thought that the rear was poorly defended for 2 reasons... 1) The engine cluster pretty much dominates the rear end. 2) It can only be intentional as I have noticed it everywhere, so we will be more tactical when deploying ships in combat. SotS on the other hand gives us the spin option so we can spin a ship round to take out any incoming missiles and torpedoes, however as you know that ship will most likely have to stay back and die allowing the other ships to escape.

As I have been writing this I have been playing SotS and something very important has come to my mind or should I say the end has come to my fleet. I suspect this to is by design, as in fleet placement is random when entering a system.
I sent my fleet from Mu to Metaluna however there is no way I am going to win this fight so I decided to retreat. Funny enough my fleet is on the other side of the Solar system from the Mu jump lane. Out of pure interest why do fleets get placed so far away from the jump lanes they emerged from? Would that be too difficult to code in SotS HD or is it a lesson to be learn? As in don't go exploring with ill equipt fleets.

User avatar
Mecron
Kerberos
Posts: 38654
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 7:26 pm

Re: Say hypothetically...

Post by Mecron » Mon Feb 11, 2019 7:34 am

I think its getting pretty clear we can live without Ry. Do I have a second on this?

User avatar
THIEFs
Posts: 147
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 9:21 pm

Re: Say hypothetically...

Post by THIEFs » Mon Feb 11, 2019 4:36 pm

+1
Mecron wrote:
Fri Feb 08, 2019 2:18 am
Yeah...you see... SotS was meant to be about war...real war. And real war engineering. Putting your own turrets where you want where everything is optimal is a fantasy that has never existed and hence I really wasn't very interested in simulating it. SotS ships feel real because they are built to reflect real world engineering issues that prevent everything from being perfect.
and that's exactly what made SOTS sots awesome and amazing... I really hope the core balance and those unique pros-cons of various there is plenty of other numbed down min-maxing 4X games games... strapping more and more guns does not make game fun at all... or having something that can universaly cover all... In fact smaller number is more interesting and more manageable for pulling off various tactics, module targeting etc, when you have limitations of arcs, and blindspots... that's what I was missing in SOTS2, that for some reason there was not as much time to manage fleets in detail... shis were too fast.. guns too many, coverign all directions too well.. they died off too fast on both sides.. enemy and mine.


I guess its a matter of taste.. i do preffer things that are along the lines of "Gratulous space battles" or "Nexus: The Jupiter Incident"
rytram wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 12:33 pm
but it leaves the rear exposed to missiles, which is usually the place where u get a missile shoved up your ass when running from something like a asteroid monitor or a derelict. so, you have to place another PD in the rear mount which has like a 170 degree Fov.

Ry, you just explained it to yourself.. your ships have pros and cons... if you want to cover you ass, you have to sacrifice some offensive firepower for extra protection etc.. .. or you can slightly angle your fleet whenever cluster of missiles is coming closer.. or spread formation i such a way that ships cover each other... ;) just like in real life... if you make Point defense stronger by making missiles stronger and moents later your whole battle system is a mess :)

Torezu
Posts: 1748
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 7:06 pm

Re: Say hypothetically...

Post by Torezu » Tue Feb 12, 2019 6:22 pm

rytram wrote:
Fri Feb 08, 2019 9:52 pm
Which is operating in a planetary atmosphere and doesn't have to deal with the conditions found in deep space, not to mention if it was actually hit by anything resembling a SOTS-style weapon, it'd shatter in an instant.
i dont understand what you are trying to explain. please elaborate
This is just speculation. Imagine that you're human, and you have your main stardrive, which takes an enormous amount of space relative to most of the rest of the ship, aimed to the rear. You can't really put much outside the node ring, because of the physics of how the node ring works. There's little room for turrets pointing backward, especially directly backward, so you cram some things in wherever you can. It's not ideal, but you need point defense. So you sacrifice some offensive firepower for that PD, and even then it doesn't work perfectly.

The various races' ships are designed the way they are for game balance reasons. Don't try to optimize the game to be the way you want to play it - play it the way it's been designed. Make suggestions, but don't expect them to be well-received when you use backhanded compliments, or insults, to get your points across. And if you've learned anything in your time on the forums, it should be that Mecron doesn't mince words.

User avatar
Mecron
Kerberos
Posts: 38654
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 7:26 pm

Re: Say hypothetically...

Post by Mecron » Tue Feb 12, 2019 8:17 pm

Yes, tor...you may want to remember that I can smell passive/aggression a mile away and when ry has the right to abuse other board members, I will let him know. Otherwise if he tries the "your stupid" gambit on another board member, he can go.

As for the fragility point, a turret meant to operate in deep space has to be an order of magnitude tougher than the analogous terrestrial turret just to resist the environment, never mind enemy weapons. Something meant to harm a futuristic starship hull would make mincemeat of a modern turret.

Also...

"The various races' ships are designed the way they are for game balance reasons."

....Yes and No. The various races ships are designed to be consistent with the fiction of the game, everything, including balance, flows from that.

User avatar
rytram
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 6:09 am

Re: Say hypothetically...

Post by rytram » Mon Feb 18, 2019 12:58 am

Yes, tor...you may want to remember that I can smell passive/aggression a mile away and when ry has the right to abuse other board members, I will let him know. Otherwise if he tries the "your stupid" gambit on another board member, he can go.



if any abuse was issued it was at Rossinna-Sama. and you are still missing the point. however, i do apologize for it. it IS stupid, and what i said was far more stupid and unnecessary.

so, in the interest of getting back on track and working towards the main goal of this thread, lets agree to disagree on this topic. in fact i think that all of this has gone WAY too far. not just the tit for tat between Lord Mecron any myself. but the point is feedback on OG SoTS vs an HD remake. i think a lot of us has let our imaginations run wild with this.

at this point i dont even give a shit. it is an HD SoTS. this should imply that it is the SAME GAME with an HD overhaul. i am guilty of throwing wild ideas out as well.

what to expect from an HD remake (if ever there would be one)

1. Hi-Resolution Graphics
2. New engine with modern hardware capabilities.
3. Revised AI.
4. possible UI changes (i never personally had an issue with this)
5. Matchmaking

that's it.

everything else is secondary and besides the point. only to be explored if time and funds permit.

Trade? maybe reduce it to one Freighter per route, and maybe connect sectors together IE each trade sector has a single route to another. i don't even know if this matters at all. but sometimes a whole sector will only have 1-2 planets in them. i cant speak on SoTS 2 trade.

more Techs? id consider this to be a new expansion idea. new race? same. in fact a lot of non-mechanical improvements would be best as part of expansions or regular content updates that we may pay a subscription for.

now, how to make this a reality. should a group of threadsters and loyalists collaborate and try to come up with a marketing campaign to secure funding for this project? (if it is not already in development)
Last edited by rytram on Mon Feb 18, 2019 1:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war!

User avatar
rytram
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 6:09 am

Re: Say hypothetically...

Post by rytram » Mon Feb 18, 2019 1:40 am

As for the fragility point, a turret meant to operate in deep space has to be an order of magnitude tougher than the analogous terrestrial turret just to resist the environment, never mind enemy weapons. Something meant to harm a futuristic starship hull would make mincemeat of a modern turret.
this is where you are getting confused. and i specifically explained this. first the question would be what is the difference. it is supposed to be assumed that the PD turret is a futuristic one (as they already are). the modern turret was a reference point. secondly. what environment? zero G, vacuum, radiation? sure i suppose you could make those arguments. but at the same time, i am NOT implying that the turret be a modern one. i don't even know how this became an argument. the concept i proposed was having PD or other mount types to have specific FoV. where did this turn into a debate over terrestrial vs space turrets? doesn't matter tho. because the idea was not well received. end of story. the rest of the crap was me attempting to explain my meaning. and therefore reacting to others whom were making poor attempts at ridiculing this idea. at this point it is a cake i cant eat scenario.

how about instead of that first idea. simply increase the RoF of PD?

i actually wrote this before the previous post, but forgot to submit it until now
Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war!

ZedF
Board Ninja
Board Ninja
Posts: 12579
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 7:13 pm

Re: Say hypothetically...

Post by ZedF » Mon Feb 18, 2019 2:57 am

Rytram, there is no point making specific balance suggestions for a game that doesn't even exist yet. If you want PD to be more effective and more of a hard counter against seeking weapons it's appropriate to be used against, then just say that and let the devs take that into consideration during the design phase. The devs don't need ideas for how to do things, they just want opinions on what kinds of things in general folks would like to see.
Zed's TARs (sample):
Fractious Allies -- Hiver vs. Hiver, with allies
Who Let The Bugs Out -- Hiver vs. Tarka and Zuul
Tarka Ascendant -- Tarka vs. Hiver and Zuul

Strategy & Tactics Forum Archive -- More posts on strategy, tactics, and TARs

User avatar
rytram
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 6:09 am

Re: Say hypothetically...

Post by rytram » Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:46 am

ZedF wrote:
Mon Feb 18, 2019 2:57 am
Rytram, there is no point making specific balance suggestions for a game that doesn't even exist yet. If you want PD to be more effective and more of a hard counter against seeking weapons it's appropriate to be used against, then just say that and let the devs take that into consideration during the design phase. The devs don't need ideas for how to do things, they just want opinions on what kinds of things in general folks would like to see.
i get that. what i was doing was not so much telling them they should do it as it was correcting their assumptions about what it was i was saying. i simply cant let misunderstandings lie, it is a short coming of mine. like a compulsive urge to set the record straight sort of thing.

but to counter your point. Mecron has made it clear that he wants those details. as is expressed in this comment on the first page.
Mecron wrote:
Thu Apr 21, 2016 11:46 pm
So you mean you want us to wave a wand to make all your computers the same? Cause that's what you are looking at there... A fast computer being burdened by a slower one. We can use non-lockstep but then one player will have to be a host and broadcast to everyone and that can be a whole different world of lag.

Also, seriously, if you lugnuts have nothing more concrete to offer about interface than the "terrible" guy, its not really very useful. I know actual constructive examples are not as easy as using hip words like "intuitive" but try harder...I have faith in you 8) Follow Nspace's lead to the land of the concrete!!!
i attempted to do this. but then i got misunderstood, and then when i made further attempts to rephrase or clear up the misunderstanding, they stuck to the prior point. i dont mind constructive criticism, so long as that criticism is about the shit i actually said, and not some false assumption someone came to. i really try too damn hard and i get it lol. thats why i called to move on from this topic.
Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war!

ZedF
Board Ninja
Board Ninja
Posts: 12579
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 7:13 pm

Re: Say hypothetically...

Post by ZedF » Mon Feb 18, 2019 12:20 pm

That's talking about UI changes, not balance or gameplay changes. Big difference there! Mecron has specifically asked us to avoid details on gameplay design, but for UI changes he wants more details on why a particular UI element doesn't work well, rather than just saying it's clunky or unintuitive.
Zed's TARs (sample):
Fractious Allies -- Hiver vs. Hiver, with allies
Who Let The Bugs Out -- Hiver vs. Tarka and Zuul
Tarka Ascendant -- Tarka vs. Hiver and Zuul

Strategy & Tactics Forum Archive -- More posts on strategy, tactics, and TARs

User avatar
Mecron
Kerberos
Posts: 38654
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 7:26 pm

Re: Say hypothetically...

Post by Mecron » Mon Feb 18, 2019 8:47 pm

ry,..get over your self...please. Be civil. Stop with the personal crazy. You are a person with an opinion and that is it. You are not saving anything. You are participating in a conversation. Either grasp these concepts or please go elsewhere. Its really very simple.

If you make ANY more posts in this topic about anything except game mechanics or features you would like to see in a SotS reboot, you will be banned. Are we clear?

Good.

Moving on...

User avatar
rytram
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 6:09 am

Re: Say hypothetically...

Post by rytram » Tue Feb 19, 2019 12:00 am

Mecron wrote:
Mon Feb 18, 2019 8:47 pm
ry,..get over your self...please. Be civil. Stop with the personal crazy. You are a person with an opinion and that is it. You are not saving anything. You are participating in a conversation. Either grasp these concepts or please go elsewhere. Its really very simple.

If you make ANY more posts in this topic about anything except game mechanics or features you would like to see in a SotS reboot, you will be banned. Are we clear?

Good.

Moving on...
we are not allowed to have a discussion between us about these things? when i post an idea and someone misunderstands that post am i not allowed to clear up the misunderstanding. because that sounds like what you are saying. in any case i said lets move on, multiple times.

but i just thought about something. and in all earnest i am super curious. i have been following this thread for a while now, i have read through it multiple times and this is something i really want to know.

Mecron. you have been taking in all manner of suggestions, ideas, and feedback. but i am not sure if anyone has bothered to ask this question.

Mecron. hypothetically speaking. if there were an HD remake of SoTS. what would YOU want to change or impliment? is there anything in particular that you thought would improve the games experience that you wish to incorporate into an HD Remake?

Secondly. out of all the feedback you have received Thus far from the community. what are the best suggestions you are willing to consider?
Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war!

User avatar
Mecron
Kerberos
Posts: 38654
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 7:26 pm

Re: Say hypothetically...

Post by Mecron » Tue Feb 19, 2019 12:27 am

SotS2 contained most of the things I considered should be changed from sots prime. Sadly, none of those ideas were funded properly enough to be developed correctly so we will never know if I was right or not about them.
The best suggestions have had to do with clarity and gui, both of which are very useful to get input on from the outside.

User avatar
rytram
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 6:09 am

Re: Say hypothetically...

Post by rytram » Tue Feb 19, 2019 4:22 am

Mecron wrote:
Tue Feb 19, 2019 12:27 am
SotS2 contained most of the things I considered should be changed from sots prime. Sadly, none of those ideas were funded properly enough to be developed correctly so we will never know if I was right or not about them.
The best suggestions have had to do with clarity and gui, both of which are very useful to get input on from the outside.
Well, i am sure that in the event you did see a SoTS remake that you could make use of some of those things. at least the ones that wouldnt drastically change the core experience of what SoTS Prime is. being that you would need to develop a new engine. or contract one like some other Devs do such as the unreal engine (i know nothing about how engines really work). if you still had stuff from the SoTS 2 project on back-up you may be able to use that to create better versions of them. but this is code. and i have repeatedly made it clear that i understand that it is always easier said then done. but my point is. i would like to see you make proper use of some of those things you put your heart and effort into and see them done correctly the way you intended them to be. what can be used in a SoTS remake that is.

what little of SoTS 2 i played i can say with 100% certainty that there were definitely things i did love. some things i didnt completely understand, such as the feasibility portion of research. i am sure a lot of what i dont understand comes from a lack of actually playing the game. i find myself intimidated by learning a new game, and from the experience i had with SoTS 2. it felt like i had to relearn how to play SoTS. this isnt so much a bad thing. its just something of an anxiety issue i get sometimes. i WILL get around to it. in fact i have been playing BSoTS mod the last couple days, and while it is interesting and fun, my personal Hiver game was a piece of cake steamroller game lmao. so while i am in a sots mood, i think ill finally look up some SoTS 2 tuts and give it the first go since its launch.

do you feel like the "planetary systems" you used in SoTS 2 would be ok to use for an HD remake? or is that too much of a change?
Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war!

Post Reply

Return to “SotS”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests