No that’s a basic wagon never intended or marketed to be a sports car. That also perfectly sums up why so many suggested fix’s for this game are off the mark and differ from what IDA intended Outscape to become.
Yeh, you’re both still missing the point. The point is more along the lines of the progression in a (MMO)RPG. At level one you might jump into any basement, kill some rats and have grand ol’ adventure, but as you grow more powerfull, the enemies you fight grow sparser and further apart, untill at the end you’re fighting just a handfull of entities across several planes of existence, although of course, you could still jump into any basement and kill some rats. There is just no point to doing so anymore.
Imagine we see half the planets with resource A, a quarter with B, an eight with C, and so on. Now each resource gives you a strong boon, say +100% hull hit points, and they are fully stackable. So if you construct ships with resource A and C you get +200% hull hit points, with A,B & C you get +300% hull hit points. But, as you only have a forth as much of resource C as you have of resource A, there is no real point in having 4 resource A planets, just one will do just as fine. Hoarding the other resource A planets just gives you diminishing returns.
Rather than hull points, it’d be more interesting if you tie it to research / research cap. But hull points are an easier explanation.
Outscape 4X MMO has nothing to do with MMORPG, but people tend to think of MMORPG whenever MMO is mentioned.
Planetside 2 is a nice ActionMMO but has nothing of the stuff you just suggested.
You didn’t score well on comprehensive reading, did you? I’ll take my contributions elsewhere, I guess.
I am not sure what you think I missed. while yes, a player with res C is unlikely to attack a player without it, the player without it would have a difficult time during that era. Try playing civ without any marble or iron, it was a rough go and not one I enjoyed, and had my opponent been in such a situation, I would have crushed him without mercy so if you think this is what I missed just because I didn’t specifically respond to it…
To be fair, I had previously stated I like the concept, and still do to some degree, but a player lacking in 2 sequential and essential resources will suffer for it.
If there is something else I am missing please state it, otherwise I am not sure I am missing anything.
What specific player interactions? As it is, it’s already quite possible to exploit multiple accounts through use of resource pods, fleet transfers, planet transfers, cooperative in-game combat actions, &c.
How would this work, exactly?
I oppose this idea. I can see why it’s suggested for balance reasons, but it removes a lot of flavor from the game to make everything generic-with-options.
Frankly, I don’t understand this. If you don’t have enough gold, you build and upgrade city centers for gold. If you don’t have enough of whatever resource, you build mines of that type. If you don’t have enough shipyards and/or planets to change resources into usable assets, you build shipyards or colonize planets. Resources are always limited. I’m sure you had something else in mind, but I don’t know what that might be.
As a suggestion, as a guide for planning features, sure. But how exactly would that happen?
The imbalance here seems to be that it’s super quick and easy to build a massive credit income, but building and assembling the resources required to spend that income is much harder.
I think the easy fix may be to simply raise the population required for city centers, so that we can’t stack them up so easily.
This is one of the few things I think I may end up disagreeing with Slamz on.
I agree it’s possible to get increased gold income, compared to resource income. But I don’t think that’s an issue. I just think it’s one of these core mechanics that a player needs to understand and adjust to.
At the beginning, players are short on gold. They start with some cash, but that’s quickly exhausted compared to all the resources they may have on hand. But once they set up a money world or two, players can end up with a load more gold than resources.
But isn’t that just inexperience? If a player is experienced, they should know they can’t use so much gold, so they know instead of moving population to income worlds, they should move population to mining worlds.
If you’re running thirty T3 entertainment centers on a planet without city centers just so 100% tax can be generated, that’s 120,000 population that isn’t devoted to deep mining or whatever. So I figure really, maybe players are used to being greedy or something, and they think they need those entertainment centers or whatever because they’re “optimizing”. But what they needed to “optimize” wasn’t raw credit income, it was optimizing balance of credit and resource income, and spending so that income is leveraged into gains.
Raising the population required to staff city centers I oppose. Sure, it might make it harder for players that don’t want to think. Woops, they accidentally built up a huge credit surplus! But in the end, it just reduces the choices available to players. Leaving players a lot of choice in how they want to use excess population - whether for troop generation, or resource generation, or for T4 shipyards, or for ODSs or whatever - is a good thing.
I can’t agree more with this post. “Too many credits” isn’t a game problem, it’s resource mismanagement.
This is realy tough and outside box thinking is required. I have no real solution to that problem.
Something in regards to visibility might work, that destroying as it is now is still a thing as in the player does lose control on a visibel level but still has access on a lower level. So that the player that is being destroyed does not lose access / control over the planet like now but is changed to a different type of control, e.g. instead of just losing control over a planet after an invasion, a player will not longer be able to move pops / build structures and so on, but gets access to new stuff that is only possible on occupied planets, like acts of sabotage, infiltration of the sensor net of the invader, small scale raids and such. Maybe even be able to steal ships of the aggressor or enable you to persuade rimworlds that have high corruption to join your cause and extend your hidden access, something like the loyality mechanic in Imperator: Rome. A whole lot of asymetric warfare needs to be possibe, so that strong military can be fought with something else instead of just brining your own military.
Something like this might even be some sort of new softcap for expansion, the number of planets you can safely manage while having insurgents trying to get rid of you.
So losing something does not just reduce your gameplay but actually enables you to do more and different stuff.
In addition to the mootables Rae posited in their o.p.
The online-offline and it’s sibling debate over vacations/holidays.
Is the possibility of progressively ‘automating’ various game plays by employing A.I. worth exploring.
4X a.i. programming is an ‘extensively’ researched field. I am here playing Outscape because current 4X a.i. technologies are as yet weak.
However, not throwing the baby out with the bathwater, I do believe that they could for limited time domains effectively substitute for a player in Outscape. A scripting language to prefigure each a.i. could also be mucho fun.
Does this notion propose an achievable effective fix ?
p.s. searching under governors reveals that what a.i. does exist is woeful. Does this knead necessarily be true ?
It’s just not cost-effective to try to get an AI to substitute for human players. Everything @ops2048 wrote - scripting language, automation, etc, all good, but those don’t make a substitute.
Suppose three human players are gearing up for war activity. They have to plan the composition of fleets days in advance, then they have to coordinate multiple fleets arriving in multiple locations in advance, they have to set up perimeter scouts, minesweepers, cloak detectors, minelayers, &c.
Now remove a human player and put in an AI. The AI is not going to know that that particular player over there that has no NAP agreement is actually a player that left the game, or that that particular player over there that has no NAP agreement is a new player that only speaks German (so the human player didn’t want to grief the new player, but couldn’t communicate to explain how NAPs work etc.) Instead, the AI is going to waste a lot of effort mining perimeters that don’t need to be mined, attacking players that don’t need to and shouldn’t be attacked, and isn’t at all going to be capable of doing the days of coordinated action necessary to proper war activity.
“But the AI could be modified to handle user inputs” you say? Sure. Features could be added telling the AI to do minesweeps and cloak sweeps on user-defined areas, to screenshot under XYZ conditions &c. And that’s all very good stuff that I think should be done. But in terms of coordinated war activity, there’s just no way it’s going to work unless the AI can accept inputs from other designated human players - which amounts to allowing multiple players to control any particular colony or fleet, rather than really having the AI handle stuff.
As to “cost effective” - the developers COULD create Skynet, but it wouldn’t be easy.
I think most players would settle for the basics in the near term, albeit, I have No idea how long or short near term is. General defend territory, defend solar, and other more simple basic functions like refuel, rearm, automatic repair, keep cloak detection active, and sweep any mine field that is detected and being placed in our areas as well as allied notifications.
Beyond that a replay video of sorts to demonstrate what happened while we were gone would be nice, or a contrail of sorts at the very least to see that something was there.
I am not proposing to replace players. The aim is to reduce the consequents of being human in this game design. An a.i. to temporarily fill in for the player while they attend to real life.
Having the a.i. prepare and deliver a report textual of all significant events upon handing control back to a player sounds like a great idea and should be fairly trivial to implement.