Do you like the mission system?

Talk about all things to do with the sequel to our flagship 4X title.

Moderator: Erinys

Locked
User avatar
Mecron
Kerberos
Posts: 38715
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 7:26 pm

Re: Do you like the mission system?

Post by Mecron » Wed May 30, 2012 8:10 pm

yep panth...I did indeed qualify it as naval...so no count rugen needed. Living off the land much easier on...land. Also much easier before mechanized infantry ;)

ForceUser
Posts: 1191
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 5:58 pm

Re: Do you like the mission system?

Post by ForceUser » Wed May 30, 2012 8:10 pm

Historically when a general/admiral/commander/captain/etc. dies in the heat of battle you don't really get the chance to say to the enemies to hang on a sec I just want to organize and brief the new general that may be many systems away. Especially being In enemy territory it usually falls to the next in line to take command and you dont nessesarily have control over that. Perhaps if the admiral died of old age/retired and is at a colony of yours then yes being able to choose the successor could be implemented. But again historically there wasn't always that choice :)
Perspective Man: Much like common sense, it's so rare it's a gorram superpower.
Agent.nihilist wrote:Ooo! Whats the gesture for ramming!?
Korgan wrote:probably a pelvic thrust
Mecron wrote:oy that is wrong at so many levels...well done! :P

User avatar
DandyOne
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 2:29 pm

Re: Do you like the mission system?

Post by DandyOne » Wed May 30, 2012 8:15 pm

ForceUser wrote:No matter how you word it or look at it you just want SotS1 movement back. At least lets be honest about that because Mecron has been honest from before sots ][ was even released, saying that sots ][ is not sots prime ;)
I do want the SotS 1 movement back. I still consider it superior and far more flexible.
I never said that I liked the mission system. I'm just trying to learn to live with it.

Borzol
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 4:51 pm

Re: Do you like the mission system?

Post by Borzol » Wed May 30, 2012 8:28 pm

DandyOne wrote:
ForceUser wrote:No matter how you word it or look at it you just want SotS1 movement back. At least lets be honest about that because Mecron has been honest from before sots ][ was even released, saying that sots ][ is not sots prime ;)
I do want the SotS 1 movement back. I still consider it superior and far more flexible.
I never said that I liked the mission system. I'm just trying to learn to live with it.


REcommend modding it back in then and using the modding forum, to your point just re-read the quote, developers are not going back to Sots 1 movement.. There is already a group of people that want to mod that back in anyways, which I am totally fine with as I do like the developers choice in SotS 2 as do many other people. Been replying/reading this thread since page 6 and have found it more useful than SotS 1 from my perspective and the perspective of other experienced players.

User avatar
Mecron
Kerberos
Posts: 38715
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 7:26 pm

Re: Do you like the mission system?

Post by Mecron » Wed May 30, 2012 8:34 pm

"I do want the SotS 1 movement back. I still consider it superior and far more flexible."

And I think that really ends the debate here...you can NOT tell someone to want something else. The man wants prime...awesome...its a good thing prime is still there for him. And the rest of you will not convince him otherwise no more than he will convince the rest of us that backwards is forwards. This is what happens when you innovate folks. Some folks are going to be groovy with it, other folks are not. This is why, to be honest, big publishers give you the same game every year. They are not wrong when it comes to min/maxing things like this. You folks into the new system wouid have bought a simple prime makeover anyway...and others would have been content.

Innovation is always risk, but you can NOT mitigate that risk by browbeating the naysayers. You just gotta take it, nod and smile, and move on. :)

User avatar
gennadius
Posts: 216
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 7:52 pm

Re: Do you like the mission system?

Post by gennadius » Wed May 30, 2012 8:58 pm

Mecron wrote:"
Innovation is always risk, but you can NOT mitigate that risk by browbeating the naysayers. You just gotta take it, nod and smile, and move on. :)


Understand and agree with respect to those that say that they simply want/prefer the old mechanics. However, with those that are misunderstanding the current system, or still trying to fully grok the current system, I think this type of discussion can help to flesh out details and perspectives from different players that will hopefully lead to greater comprehension and enjoyment.

I, for one, would hate to see all the wonderful innovation and hard work to implement such depth of detail, go under-appreciated. :)

User avatar
Mecron
Kerberos
Posts: 38715
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 7:26 pm

Re: Do you like the mission system?

Post by Mecron » Wed May 30, 2012 9:02 pm

Love the discussion, just cautioning when both sides reach that "Why can't you seeeeeeeeee?!!!!" stage and I also thought dandy's post neatly summarized the line where you have to go "Fair enough". After that if dandy is interested in knowing more about the system that is instead of the one that was, you kinda have to let him take the convo there.

Panthera Leo
Posts: 225
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 6:47 pm

Re: Do you like the mission system?

Post by Panthera Leo » Wed May 30, 2012 11:08 pm

ForceUser wrote:Historically when a general/admiral/commander/captain/etc. dies in the heat of battle you don't really get the chance to say to the enemies to hang on a sec I just want to organize and brief the new general that may be many systems away. Especially being In enemy territory it usually falls to the next in line to take command and you dont nessesarily have control over that. Perhaps if the admiral died of old age/retired and is at a colony of yours then yes being able to choose the successor could be implemented. But again historically there wasn't always that choice :)


This is a point. (Although if I like the admiral for the job, I don't see why I'm going to cry too much who he kicks around for his command staff. :P)

One would assume the player is the top of the command chain. If they don't like me switching out a 'Bad Shepard' with 2 reaction for a 'Vigilant' or 'Drill Sargent' with 24 reaction for a patrol duty? They have a nice gold star for pulling the fleet out of the fire when the old CO died, but ultimately they can just shut-up and soldier. I put a fleet there to get a job done, not make some feel fuzzy. :P

When I have to start worry about things like crew moral (which iirc, 'the crew' is cycled out many times a turn), I'll worry about it then.
No, there is no pleasing me, Why would you think there is? :P I'm mean, and always wrong...I mean right! :)

MrScribbler
Posts: 550
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 6:03 am

Re: Do you like the mission system?

Post by MrScribbler » Wed May 30, 2012 11:09 pm

I love the mission system. I'll love it even more when the ability to run subsequent missions and other things are fleshed out.

I love it so much that I'd like to see tactical level missions implemented, where you can order ships to provide cover, scout, form taskgroups etc. in both the fleet setup and tactical combat. Less clicking, more commanding.

Torquist
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 3:48 am

Re: Do you like the mission system?

Post by Torquist » Thu May 31, 2012 3:01 am

That would be nice xpac material. Levelling up Admirals that at a certain level can command multiple fleets. Or at another certain level can perform a multiple step mission within it's fleets Endurance capability.

wimpb
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 3:01 am

Re: Do you like the mission system?

Post by wimpb » Thu May 31, 2012 3:43 am

I don't mind the concept behind the mission system, but I question some of the implementation.

I can see the big advantage in empire micro of the mission system and I like that a fleet can be given a "special" mission like interdiction, but at the same time, the current implementation is a bit cumbersome. I understand it is a work in progress, but here are some thoughts on how to improve.


First off, you MUST allow orders to be given to fleets who are on a mission. Unless you also produce great AI where admirals are able to make intelligent human-level decisions on their own, this is a necessary feature. Obviously this would be subject to limitations - human fleets cannot be given orders in nodespace. But there absolutely must be some way of giving orders to a fleet after it goes on a mission. Not being able to modify missions makes the fleet system incredibly inflexible and means that players have to micro far more fleets to achieve the same things.

I would suggest that fleets sent to patrol or defend a system be given unlimited loiter time - assuming they have sufficient supply ships in the fleet that can keep them supplied while they loiter. Yes it is "realistic" that ships need to return to base every so often, but in "reality" it would be single ships that are being rotated while the overall fleet remains in place. This starts to get too complicated for a video game, so I'd suggest just allowing a fleet to remain in place. Of course, if the system is interdicted, then the fleet's position becomes untenable, which forces them to chase away the blockade or retreat. Again, this would help reduce micro, and it makes it much easier to defend new colonies.

Admirals shouldn't all be admirals. They should start a lower rank, and as they do more missions their rank will increase. This wouldn't have any real gameplay difference, it's just a flavor/UI thing. You'll be able to tell who your elite commanders are by quickly glancing at their rank. The admiral card should be a little more like a Total War style card, where it lists the traits (hover over the trait for more detail), or you can just see how many stars they have (combat experience), planets (colony experience), spanners (construction experience) for a super quick summary.

I don't know if this is an issue yet, but I'd also suggest that if you're creating lots of fleets and you don't have enough admirals, the player be allowed to recruit new commanders who have less experience. Thus you can never run out of admirals, but they would be generic or have poor traits to start with, as opposed to the "gifted" admirals who have been selected by the military academies.

User avatar
DandyOne
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 2:29 pm

Re: Do you like the mission system?

Post by DandyOne » Thu May 31, 2012 7:54 am

Mecron wrote:Love the discussion, just cautioning when both sides reach that "Why can't you seeeeeeeeee?!!!!" stage and I also thought dandy's post neatly summarized the line where you have to go "Fair enough". After that if dandy is interested in knowing more about the system that is instead of the one that was, you kinda have to let him take the convo there.
Just to clarify. I think that SotS Prime movement system is superior at the moment, but I'm still hopeful that SotS II mission system will make sense to me in the end, as I don't consider it (or the SotS II for that matter) a finished thing.

User avatar
Heart of Storm
Posts: 862
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 1:19 pm

Re: Do you like the mission system?

Post by Heart of Storm » Thu May 31, 2012 8:23 am

wimpb wrote: First off, you MUST allow orders to be given to fleets who are on a mission. Unless you also produce great AI where admirals are able to make intelligent human-level decisions on their own, this is a necessary feature. Obviously this would be subject to limitations - human fleets cannot be given orders in nodespace. But there absolutely must be some way of giving orders to a fleet after it goes on a mission. Not being able to modify missions makes the fleet system incredibly inflexible and means that players have to micro far more fleets to achieve the same things.


Gonna need an example here, of why this is *needed* - I can see this opening the door to players going back to SotS1 tactics of survey fleets with 'just in case' colonisers. - surveying a system then changing the mission to colonise when they discover an acceptable planet, which is the sort of thing that the mission system is meant to stop.

wimpb wrote:I would suggest that fleets sent to patrol or defend a system be given unlimited loiter time - assuming they have sufficient supply ships in the fleet that can keep them supplied while they loiter.


This is already the case, if you set up a 'patrol' mission within your supply bubble the fleet can remain their nearly indefinetly (I think someone reported an 800 turn patrol mission.. :shock: )

If your outside your bubble then your mission time is limited by the amount of supply you've brought with you and if you've seen any action, so this is already a feature of SotS2

wimpb wrote:Admirals shouldn't all be admirals. They should start a lower rank, and as they do more missions their rank will increase. This wouldn't have any real gameplay difference, it's just a flavor/UI thing. You'll be able to tell who your elite commanders are by quickly glancing at their rank. The admiral card should be a little more like a Total War style card, where it lists the traits (hover over the trait for more detail), or you can just see how many stars they have (combat experience), planets (colony experience), spanners (construction experience) for a super quick summary.


Again, forgetting the exercise in semantics, but my understanding is that Admirals *do* gain traits as time goes on, theres enough variance in admirals already (attributes, reaction rating, yada yada) without making it more complex. Although some tweaks to the way the information is provided is something we can both agree on

wimpb wrote:I don't know if this is an issue yet, but I'd also suggest that if you're creating lots of fleets and you don't have enough admirals, the player be allowed to recruit new commanders who have less experience. Thus you can never run out of admirals, but they would be generic or have poor traits to start with, as opposed to the "gifted" admirals who have been selected by the military academies.


Gonna echo the 'dont know if this is an issue' - I've never run out of admirals in a game, although I've never made it to truly late game so perhaps someone else can chime in here?

My general thought is the more worlds/naval stations you have, the more admirals you have available, plus they regenerate quite quickly..

Jorgen_CAB
Posts: 497
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 1:14 pm

Re: Do you like the mission system?

Post by Jorgen_CAB » Thu May 31, 2012 8:34 am

wimpb wrote:I don't know if this is an issue yet, but I'd also suggest that if you're creating lots of fleets and you don't have enough admirals, the player be allowed to recruit new commanders who have less experience. Thus you can never run out of admirals, but they would be generic or have poor traits to start with, as opposed to the "gifted" admirals who have been selected by the military academies.


Regarding this particular bit... I basically view the admirals as being an abstraction of an empires officer Core as much as being single individuals. The limits of the admirals means the limit on high ranking capable officers in your empire and the limit on your administration and strategic capacity to perform missions overall. There is just so much that one can do with what one got without overextending oneself.

Many things need to be abstracted to make sense from a gaming perspective, admirals and their role are probably not an exception to this.

Plus, I don't see myself running out of admirals all that often so far.

cbone69
Posts: 639
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 8:48 am

Re: Do you like the mission system?

Post by cbone69 » Thu May 31, 2012 9:27 am

i find myself with several times more admirals then i will ever need in a game.

Locked

Return to “SotS2”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests