Do you like the mission system?

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

Moderator: Erinys

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

Re: Do you like the mission system?

Post by Jorgen_CAB » Fri Jun 01, 2012 11:54 am

I guess we just have to disagree on what constitute a survey then.

In my opinion the Australian coastline had been mapped for nearly 150 years by many explorers before any settlers where sent there. To me this would clearly mean that it was explored in SotS terms before settled. Given the technology of the day it is my opinion that mapping the coastline is an enough comparison to a SotS survey. The rest are just semantics...

I'm sorry for being an "arse" I just get upset when people in general go out and state fact about history that are not true. History should not be taken lightly.
Last edited by Jorgen_CAB on Fri Jun 01, 2012 11:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
HyperionOmega
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:02 am

Re: Do you like the mission system?

Post by HyperionOmega » Fri Jun 01, 2012 11:55 am

Well to respond to the OP the answer is a resounding no. The mission system seems to be horribly bloated and nonsensical. The current system puts a wall up between the player and the game. No more is the quick reaction fleets or the daisy chain explorations of prime, instead we have a time consuming "do a mission and then return" system that inflates game time without actually adding any real gameplay value. For instance all of the move commands currently listed as missions were easily achievable in prime and were able to be expanded upon at a moments notice, the move order was a strategic move while all the other instances (like patrol ,invade or even interdict ) were tactical calls the player made when the fleet showed up at the desired planet.

The current system forces you to guess at what will be needed sometimes several turns in advance and then forces it into stone with no way of changing your mind as events come to pass and even when tactical combat is triggered the strategic options that you used to order the ship to the system imparts no helping or hindering effect to your fleet on the battlefield. This is only amplified when you find out you can't have multiple fleets on the tactical grid so using the new mission system as a means to set up combat is out the door, in effect rendering the mission system a purely strategic concept that again fails to impart any real gameplay advantages.

This is not to say the whole system should be done away with especially as the mission system and colonies is a pretty damned good idea as is the supply idea my only qualm is I can see several ways where the mission system can be relaxed and still comply with the new supply issue and still have the same strategic depth if not more than the current system.
:amoc: :any:
Winter is coming--Stark Family Motto
Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves. ~Abraham Lincoln

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 » Fri Jun 01, 2012 12:04 pm

HyperionOmega wrote: The current system forces you to guess at what will be needed sometimes several turns in advance and then forces it into stone with no way of changing your mind as events come to pass and even when tactical combat is triggered the strategic options that you used to order the ship to the system imparts no helping or hindering effect to your fleet on the battlefield. This is only amplified when you find out you can't have multiple fleets on the tactical grid so using the new mission system as a means to set up combat is out the door, in effect rendering the mission system a purely strategic concept that again fails to impart any real gameplay advantages.


Just like real life perhaps?

Read 'The Deacons Tale' whole Colonies are wiped out and months roll by before anyone notices, the idea that an event can happen at one end of the galaxy and you can instantly know and order fleets to drop what their doing and counter this is unrealistic, the mission system in part abstracts this.

You now have more flexibility as of this current patch so relocate after patrol and suchlike are now achievable but I don't buy that the mission system forcing you to think about what your doing several terms in advance is somehow a 'bad thing' games, it forces you to actually think and means that badly thought out actions by the player will have negative consequences.

As for the combat system, I really don't get what you mean here? you can pick what fleets fight in each and every combat, so how does the mission system prevent combat set up? If I attack a planet with 4 fleets (2 combat, one supply/repair and one Biowar) I can choose to fight the first 3 combats with my 2 combat fleets and the final battle with my biowar fleet, based on the assumption that my first 3 battles will remove the enemies defences. That is high level planning and is frankly lightyears better then spending time shuffling ships around in a giant reinforcment queue on the fly and trying to forceretreat my ships?

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

Re: Do you like the mission system?

Post by DandyOne » Fri Jun 01, 2012 12:07 pm

wimpb wrote:In any case, colonizing wasn't what I had in mind, but rather flexibility in military fleet movement. I send a fleet to patrol system X, but system Y comes under attack. I want to send my fleet directly from system X to system Y, but I can't - they must first be recalled to their base before being sent off to system Y - I'm assuming that's how things work right now. The problem is that players will feel heavily constrained by an arbitrary mission system. It goes for other stuff as well - it isn't fun when the game tells you that a construction fleet needs to fly back to base after completing a mission rather than the player being able to say "hey, while you're there build another station".

It basically boils down to the fact that it sucks when a game is frustrating and players can't do things that seem reasonable to them.
And this is the reason I still play SotS Prime.
I would probably switch to SotS II if this was addressed.

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 » Fri Jun 01, 2012 12:13 pm

DandyOne wrote:
wimpb wrote:In any case, colonizing wasn't what I had in mind, but rather flexibility in military fleet movement. I send a fleet to patrol system X, but system Y comes under attack. I want to send my fleet directly from system X to system Y, but I can't - they must first be recalled to their base before being sent off to system Y - I'm assuming that's how things work right now. The problem is that players will feel heavily constrained by an arbitrary mission system. It goes for other stuff as well - it isn't fun when the game tells you that a construction fleet needs to fly back to base after completing a mission rather than the player being able to say "hey, while you're there build another station".

It basically boils down to the fact that it sucks when a game is frustrating and players can't do things that seem reasonable to them.
And this is the reason I still play SotS Prime.
I would probably switch to SotS II if this was addressed.


If the attack at System Y is close enough then the Patrol fleet will intercept it, if it isnt then perhaps theres a question mark around whether the Patrol Fleet still has the supply available to travel to the new system, fight, AND get home.

From memory the same thing could happen in Prime, only you never had to worry about the return journey after.

Not sure how hard it is to code in, however the ability to divert combat missions seems more sensible then some of the other multiple mission suggestions being bandied around.

I do however wonder, with the supply system, exactly how often your likely to find an attack thats just outside patrol intercept range but still within attack/return home range..

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

Re: Do you like the mission system?

Post by ForceUser » Fri Jun 01, 2012 12:21 pm

Interdict, Invade and Strike.
+ Construction, Upgrade and Patrol missions now have an optional rebase on completion.
+ Ships waiting at base will now replenish crew and supplies.


Since people don't seem to read patch notes :)

ps. posted before HoS post ;)

Just to clarify, the Interdict, invade and strike missions entry I believe point towards the missions now actually doing what they say they are doing and doing very different things, giving different bonuses etc. I hope it will be better explained int he new manual Saterday.

Also, Mecron has said form the start that SotS2 is different, it's here to innovate, do new things, do things better and is never going to go back to sots1. Suggestions are cool and there is a cool forum called suggestions for you ideas on how to make the mission system "a lot more flexible without making it sots1 all over again" (Yea good luck with that chief ;) )

The things people have done with the mission system as it is now blows anything you could do in sots1 (latest patch) out of the water and we're not even at sots ][ 1.0 yet o.0

It's unfortunate people don't like it but it's not going to stop the rest of us from doing some truly batshit insane stuff with it. Personally i can't wait for the TARs to come in and to do my own :D
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
Tarrak
Posts: 1668
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 5:38 pm

Re: Do you like the mission system?

Post by Tarrak » Fri Jun 01, 2012 1:05 pm

Styx wrote:The point I was trying to make however was about the detail involved in the planning over what was then an enormous distance. Cook found Botany Bay by just stopping at a convenient river mouth to load fresh water. He got home and said it looked habitable and they sent convicts. There was no "survey". Cook wasnt equipped to map great swathes of land, or to check what the soil was like and so on. The level of exploration detail involved was, in my opinion, more analagous to knowing that there's a planet over there than to a detailed feasibility study of colonisation.

Why do you think it was called Botany Bay? Because on the expedition there were a group of botanists who had a lovely time collecting a great load of samples (apparently in the range of 800 different), surveying the surrounding areas, trying to contact the locals (who avoided the newcomers entirely). Basically they were so impressed with the plantlife that the place was called Botany Bay. It had all the prerequisited for human habitation, and had a protected bay to boot. In those days it was damn near perfect.

And actually Cook was well equipped for mapping, as he did of New Zealand (his maps being used for a very long time indeed, because it was mostly correct) and most of the eastern coast of Australia. In fact he nearly shipwrecked when the expedition ran into the Great Barrier Reef because he wanted to map the coastline. In hose days the coastline was all that was needed for surveying, as any new colony would be coastal anyway.
Every time you use 'fluff' for lore a Kerberos developer dies. And they are already an endangered species.

Alganhar
Posts: 167
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Do you like the mission system?

Post by Alganhar » Fri Jun 01, 2012 2:51 pm

Erm, every one of Captain James Cook's expeditions was an exploration/survey mission. He was an expert cartographer, probably one of the finest of his era, and his maps were down to a level of detail not actually seen up until then. Copies of some of his maps were actually used till the middle of the 20th Century...

So no Styx, you are wrong, Cooks expeditions were Survey missions from start to finish. HMS Resolution, which Cook captained, was outfitted with the most up to date navigational and cartographical equipment available in the period. The colonists were not sent until a considerable period of time following Cook's death.

EDIT: Besides, colonising another star system is more than just moseying along to have a look see. First you have to determine that the atmospheric conditions and temperature ranges are in the survivable regions for your colonists and equipment. You will be looking at tectonics and atmospheric compositions as well as other planetary features in a level most space going craft would not require.

Additionally you will be looking very carefully at what other life is upon the planet in question. A planet could be a veritable paradise, but if its a right handed protein base and you are a left handed protein based species (homochirality... gotta love it!) the place may as well be Venus, because you sure as hell could not survive there as your digestive enzymes simply could not process the right handed proteins.

So a Survey is a little more complex than simply taking a look through a telescope and deciding, yeah, that looks a nice place, we'll take it.

Ruanek
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue May 22, 2012 7:52 pm

Re: Do you like the mission system?

Post by Ruanek » Fri Jun 01, 2012 3:06 pm

One of the problems with comparing Earth's real-life colonization to colonization in space is that on Earth, we knew that basically all land (excluding things like desert and tundra, which are identifiable from a distance and generally aren't around coasts) was livable. Sure, some was better than others. Some spots had more dangerous predators than others. But by the time we started colonizing those weren't huge issues. We could expand basically anywhere without worrying too much about the different climate/atmosphere/natural predators. None of that is true for colonization in space, as it is in SotS 2.

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

Re: Do you like the mission system?

Post by Jorgen_CAB » Fri Jun 01, 2012 3:54 pm

When it comes to Patrol missions I do understand some frustration over the fact that you can't redirect it to another system and Patrol that instead. Now, I do think there will be tweaks to the system that will fix many things. If you include the latest patch you can now re-base the fleet to where they are, thus cancelling the mission mean you can give it a new mission directly.

Give it some time and I do think that the missions system will become near perfect. It is good as is and can only become better with time. :)

Unthinking_Pain
Posts: 215
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 4:25 pm

Re: Do you like the mission system?

Post by Unthinking_Pain » Fri Jun 01, 2012 4:09 pm

Not sure why anyone would try to compare Cook era exploration to SOTS II era surveying.

Also, you humans may have gotten so weak your "frontiersmen" need coddling, but we have Workers ready by the thousands to go make a new world for the Princess. (I.e. - Don't legislate morality through general game mechanics imo. If it's actually possible to get an advantage through some tactic, someone will do it.)

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

Re: Do you like the mission system?

Post by gennadius » Fri Jun 01, 2012 5:52 pm

HyperionOmega wrote:Well to respond to the OP the answer is a resounding no. The mission system seems to be horribly bloated and nonsensical. The current system puts a wall up between the player and the game. No more is the quick reaction fleets or the daisy chain explorations of prime, instead we have a time consuming "do a mission and then return" system that inflates game time without actually adding any real gameplay value. For instance all of the move commands currently listed as missions were easily achievable in prime and were able to be expanded upon at a moments notice, the move order was a strategic move while all the other instances (like patrol ,invade or even interdict ) were tactical calls the player made when the fleet showed up at the desired planet.

The current system forces you to guess at what will be needed sometimes several turns in advance and then forces it into stone with no way of changing your mind as events come to pass and even when tactical combat is triggered the strategic options that you used to order the ship to the system imparts no helping or hindering effect to your fleet on the battlefield. This is only amplified when you find out you can't have multiple fleets on the tactical grid so using the new mission system as a means to set up combat is out the door, in effect rendering the mission system a purely strategic concept that again fails to impart any real gameplay advantages.

This is not to say the whole system should be done away with especially as the mission system and colonies is a pretty damned good idea as is the supply idea my only qualm is I can see several ways where the mission system can be relaxed and still comply with the new supply issue and still have the same strategic depth if not more than the current system.


The mission system is enforcing a new gameplay mechanic that adds a layer of strategy to empire level fleet management that was missing in SotS Prime. All movement in SotS Prime was largely tactical, the only considerations you had were speed, distance, and objective. In fact, especially late game, you could have a single large fleet that would do anything and everything if you really wanted to. More likely there were several large fleets roaming around and doing whatever they wanted to whenever they wanted to.

What the mission system changes here is that you need to think at a higher level with respect to planning how to use and where to deploy your Naval resources. This is in line with the supply and logistic mechanics which also stress a more strategic level of thinking with respect to where you base ships and how you expand and defend your frontiers.

As for committing a fleet to a specific mission, that is also a reflection of a more strategic approach to naval management and an abstraction of how an empire's navy may actually work. A fleet is assembled, it is typically earmarked for a specific mission. They are trained for a specific mission, given intelligence appreciations for a specific mission, and plan directly for that mission. They are then sent on their way to execute that mission. Along the way, they are most likely continuing to drill and train and plan for the specific mission that they were given. To all of a sudden pull that rug out from under them and give them a new mission could be a path to disaster.

This is even more true if, depending on the fluff, there is no way for the command structure of the Navy (the Admiralty or whatever you have) to communicate in real time with their fleets. With the distances and time frame involved, that very well may be possible. In that case the commander of the fleet is expected to carry out the mission, while utilizing their own initiative to take actions of opportunity (reaction movement for intercept, cancel mission in the face of overwhelming or unexpected resistance, etc.).

User avatar
HyperionOmega
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:02 am

Re: Do you like the mission system?

Post by HyperionOmega » Sat Jun 02, 2012 3:17 am

Heart of Storm wrote:
HyperionOmega wrote: The current system forces you to guess at what will be needed sometimes several turns in advance and then forces it into stone with no way of changing your mind as events come to pass and even when tactical combat is triggered the strategic options that you used to order the ship to the system imparts no helping or hindering effect to your fleet on the battlefield. This is only amplified when you find out you can't have multiple fleets on the tactical grid so using the new mission system as a means to set up combat is out the door, in effect rendering the mission system a purely strategic concept that again fails to impart any real gameplay advantages.


Just like real life perhaps?

Read 'The Deacons Tale' whole Colonies are wiped out and months roll by before anyone notices, the idea that an event can happen at one end of the galaxy and you can instantly know and order fleets to drop what their doing and counter this is unrealistic, the mission system in part abstracts this.

@HoS and gennadius your counter arguments already suffers a flaw as this is a game, a futuristic sci-fi game so defense of any issue using reality as the basis of said defense is absurd. If this was a historical game set in a past conflict you might have traction with this argument.

Secondly using a book written on the backstory to justify questionable game play decisions is also a non sequitor as a story must have certain elements in it to drive it on while a game must have other elements to make it seem enjoyable. This can be seen if you reverse the viewpoint and imagine combat not being triggered or not even being notified when slavers hit several colonies, that would be very annoying as you would have to continually count your colonies to make sure all is well. So again trying to justify the mission system on anything other than just pure enjoyment is superfluous.
Heart of Storm wrote:As for the combat system, I really don't get what you mean here? you can pick what fleets fight in each and every combat, so how does the mission system prevent combat set up? If I attack a planet with 4 fleets (2 combat, one supply/repair and one Biowar) I can choose to fight the first 3 combats with my 2 combat fleets and the final battle with my biowar fleet, based on the assumption that my first 3 battles will remove the enemies defences. That is high level planning and is frankly lightyears better then spending time shuffling ships around in a giant reinforcment queue on the fly and trying to forceretreat my ships?

The main point of my argument was that missions could have had a reason beyond the strategic scene if you were allowed to have more than one fleet in real-time combat. For instance imagine you sent 2 fleets to a enemy system, one under the order of invade the other under the order of interdict. Then when combat is triggered you get both fleets in the system but your invasion fleet ends up close to the main planet while your interdict fleet ends up on the outer edges of the system close to any ships entering or leaving the system in short your strategic option was more than just how combat was triggered it was also a means to set up where your fleets appeared in tactical in relation to the enemy. This type of shadowing into the tactical realm would be a means to increase the meaning of the mission system since at the moment it seems a sad step back from where the old move system was. If it actually added more strategic depth I would have no argument but it does not add any and on top of it all it ties my hands so I can not react in the manner that I did in prime. I cannot plan contingencies I can only order ships on missions and press endturn then set back and twiddle my thumbs hoping my fleet missions can cover all my bases in the best manner possible. The old system was better in a sense in the fact that you could bring your supply wings and biowar wings all rolled into one fleet and if needed could pull back ships and call others forward to deal with unforseen threats or even just in case the resistance was lighter than expected and your siege units could be brought in after your main line units were pulled out.

In short its like Prime was a chess game where I could move each individual piece as I saw fit, yet LoW is more along the lines of I can't move individual pieces I can only name the strategy i wish to use with a small chance that I might be able to change strategy later. I'll leave it at this before my post gets any longer :oops:
:amoc: :any:
Winter is coming--Stark Family Motto
Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves. ~Abraham Lincoln

User avatar
Mecron
Kerberos
Posts: 38675
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 7:26 pm

Re: Do you like the mission system?

Post by Mecron » Sat Jun 02, 2012 3:29 am

no really...if you edit out the stubborn and close minded parts...its really quite short ;)

Looking over the last 10 pages or so you get a lot of the same people trying vainly to make arguments against a tag team of petulance from smaller numbers of folks who let one dance till he is argued to a standstill and then another steps in.

Am thinking we are pretty done with this topic folks...before it dragged down it generated some nice insights on both sides and a host of good suggestions. Calling this one an agree to disagree. ;)

Locked

Return to “SotS2”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest