Author Topic: A Question of Length.  (Read 1172 times)

Talverin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
A Question of Length.
« on: June 20, 2015, 05:28:26 PM »
I am an avid fan of Star Ruler. I was counting my pennies (Figuratively) waiting for a chance to get my hands on SR2, which the Steam Summer Sale let me get my hands on. However, the epic length which I had grown accustomed to in SR1 seemed... Lacking. The game seems almost mid-game oriented, with, from my (Admittedly somewhat limited) experience seems like a relative lack of endgame. Unless you have a ton of very high production worlds, truly massive scale ships (On the one to two thousand scale. I know there's no way they're allowing me to get my hands on a scale 200k stellar annihilator in this game) are impractical. Only highlighting this is the statement that, for optimum play, I should have at most 25 systems per player? Or so the new game menu has told me. While the emphasis seems to have been turned toward building micro-economies - A bare handful of level 3 to 5 worlds, with most of the others being relative dead weight. It almost feels like the jump between Supreme Commander 1 and 2, where the emphasis is on early and mid game, and where the 'late game' is something rarely seen, and not for long.

Is this an intentional aspect of the game's development?

dalolorn

  • Sentient
  • **
  • Posts: 199
  • Karma: +7/-0
  • ABEM Developer
    • View Profile
Re: A Question of Length.
« Reply #1 on: June 21, 2015, 04:30:11 AM »
Good questions, actually.

That being said, nobody's stopping you from using less 'optimal' system counts. (Mind you, I suspect that part of the issue lies in the fact that having hundreds of star systems would really gobble up bandwidth in multiplayer, and would be hard to process both in multiplayer and singleplayer alike.)

Talverin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: A Question of Length.
« Reply #2 on: June 21, 2015, 11:01:53 AM »
I normally use around 100 systems total, but that's mainly because I'm only running 1v1 at the moment. The larger number of systems per player means you can use strategies like defense in depth, making your opponent wade through several systems, before ever even reaching your 'critical' systems. Microcline dead zones are fun. I also have to drop 'resource scarcity' to zero, or else a little over half of the planets that spawn are usually completely barren.

dalolorn

  • Sentient
  • **
  • Posts: 199
  • Karma: +7/-0
  • ABEM Developer
    • View Profile
Re: A Question of Length.
« Reply #3 on: June 22, 2015, 04:06:26 AM »
Nobody really uses defense in depth (not the way I interpreted your version of it, at any rate) because it's a terrible waste of planets. :P

Anyway, I also remove scarcity. Nice concept, but the end result just isn't my cup of tea.

Talverin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: A Question of Length.
« Reply #4 on: June 23, 2015, 11:30:16 PM »
It'd be cool if the barren worlds had some advantage to them, like a research bonus from them, or perhaps a defense bonus (After all, the world is just one huge practice range/staging area, right?) Or the ability to build specific structures on it, like planetary drydocks or huge industrial complexes to take advantage of the fact that there's no atmosphere to get into the way. Maybe some bonuses to planetary defenses, because, as it stands now, I feel PD's are very underpowered anywhere past early game, where you're not using them anyway.

dalolorn

  • Sentient
  • **
  • Posts: 199
  • Karma: +7/-0
  • ABEM Developer
    • View Profile
Re: A Question of Length.
« Reply #5 on: June 24, 2015, 04:35:51 AM »
Well, barren worlds can be terraformed without having to overwrite an existing resource. :P