Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - DavidwMiller

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
News / Re: Star Ruler 2 Announced!
« on: August 11, 2013, 03:28:12 AM »
Excellent news :P

I was worried you guys were going off and trying something different. Which, while I'm sure it would be fine, wasn't likely to appeal to me in the same way a Star Ruler did.

But, new and improved Star Ruler is something I'll happily buy ;)

Star Ruler Discussion / Re: Wiped out in 3 hours, need tips!
« on: January 15, 2012, 12:11:17 PM »
The most basic thing to suggest is that if you only had 3 systems 3 hours in, you simply need to expand more, sooner.

3 systems after 3 hours is practically nothing in terms of expansion, and even with an easy AI, the fact of the matter is simply that they would have had many, many more planets by that time which allowed them to have vastly more resources and higher research.

If you need tips on how to expand decently, other players are more suited to offer it, but that's the core of your problem.

The matter generator logic is very solid and not weak at all. The value of fuel/ammo is irrelevant. People are complaining on the basis that you are getting more for less. Well how is that harder to understand than getting something for nothing? Even if it is an inferior logistic resource.

That logic isn't solid at all. The matter generator is a plain old matter from energy tech common enough in sci-fi. And if there were to be a metal from energy device, I'd be fine with that. But there is no such device, there is only a salvager and for that logic to hold up the salvager would have to double as a matter generator that generates metal.

But, it's not that, if the game was intended to allow you to create metal from energy, you would have a stand alone device capable of doing that as well, there is no logical reason for such a technological ability to be tacked on exclusively to the salvager, a device with an entirely different purpose to begin with, and no reason it would function only while salvaging. If you were capable of creating metal from energy, it would be capable of running all the time. That suggests that the outcome can only be a mistake.

Now, I don't particularly mind it as I don't play multiplayer, and as such it's just something I can play with when and if I feel like it, but unless the devs specifically confirm the opposite of what I just said, it is an oversight in the design of salvaging and most definitely an exploit. Trying to justify it as otherwise does not make it so, only the devs directly stating that such a function is intended will do that.

Star Ruler Discussion / Re: ship movement
« on: September 27, 2011, 12:39:32 PM »
Not that I've played the demo, but I would almost guarantee that movement as you've experienced in the demo version is unchanged in the full version and no, it's not likely to change.

Star Ruler Discussion / Re: Star Ruler Mini Analysis
« on: September 01, 2011, 05:56:52 PM »
As far as 3D is concerned, my opinion is that without 3D it cant be a modern game. There was a similar game, Distant Worlds, that received 8/8 in "OutOfEight" review, but when I saw the screenshots/youtube video, it was a 2D game and that extinguished my interest in the game.

I don't think that's really the point he intending to be making. 3D graphics are fine, the "issue" is more in regards to fact that the game world is open in all axis. Being able to spin the camera around in all directions may be an asset to some, but can be irritating and frustrating to many who prefer always viewing the game from the same angle and often find themselves getting things spun around, or simply spending half their time trying to adjust the camera back to a position they're comfortable with.

The other part he may be getting at is the maps themselves, playing with full 3D star placement can be incredibly confusing and difficult to navigate. This of course is mostly irrelevant as people who don't like it (such as myself) can simply check the "flatten map" option and it isn't a problem. 

Simple answer is that Star Ruler is nothing like either of those games except for the basic concept that both are about space based based empire building and conquest.

Star Ruler Discussion / Re: Live Patch Notes
« on: August 09, 2011, 02:10:50 PM »
That is one of the ways to capture enemy designs, yes.

Not sure I have any suggestion on how to make it better, but would like to point out that that can get incredibly annoying. I find that late game, with multiple opponents and planets constantly changing hands, the blueprint list simply gets absolutely flooded with enemy designs, most often ones I can't be bothered with anyways. Perhaps an option in addition to "Show Obsolete" for "Show Captured" ?

Star Ruler Discussion / Re: Star Ruler Retail Cover
« on: July 29, 2011, 08:33:26 PM »
"create and destroy new worlds through advanced technological research"

Since when? (the create part, I mean)

Well gave it some time with the new new information panel. Not really a fan of having separate tabs.  >:(
It does look nice however :)

Ill see if I enjoy the tabs more with more playing.

Same, I've found that I've mostly stopped using that panel now, simply can't be bothered with the tabs. Simply can't be bothered with it anymore, if I'm going to be cycling tabs and mousing over things to see numbers I might as well just open the full planet menu.

Hate to complain in light of such an awesome patch, but could there be an option regarding the new planet info panels that locks the actual number values as always visible?  I like to be able to just select a planet, and at a glance see the resources available on it, having to swap tabs is bad enough, but the new bars don't do a lot of good unless I have the planets storage value committed to memory, and it'd be much nicer to at least have the option not to have to mouseover to see the specifics.

Also, having the slots used/total as a bar in that panel seems a tad pointless. You see that information when you mouseover the planet anyways, which is required to get to that panel in the first place.

David: I would disagree with that.  Controlling units in DK2 made a great deal of difference when it came to combat.   You were much smarter about how to move around and use your abilities compared to the unit AI; which I could compare to Star Ruler.

You are a much better target processing system than the swarm-based system.

Enough to compensate for the fact that it required your absence on the strategic scene managing your dungeon? And even then, it was more of putting up with the feature to gain that advantage, it still wasn't any fun. And I don't see either aspect (fun or advantageous) being the case in Star Ruler. 

It's unfair comparing the "commanding individual units idea" to a pure space combat game

it would be better to compare it to say Dungeon Keeper or it's like

Which is also a great example of how it would be a complete waste of time... Rather than be a good FPS within a larger game, it was a half assed feature that was "neat" as a concept, but fun for all of 5 minutes and wasn't really worth bothering with. If nothing else, it offered a neat perspective to check out your stuff, but Dungeon Keeper also had a lot more variety in what you'd be seeing, and a lot less camera control compared to what is already in Star Ruler.

* The ability to command your individual units in a Combat Flight Simulator sort-of way

The only thing I see absolutely no appeal in is the flight sim sort of thing. Perhaps if you're simply talking about a future game and that's the direction BMS wants to go, sure, why not? But as an extension to Star Ruler? I bought Star Ruler for what it is, a relatively unique space RTS on a grand scale.

If I'd wanted a space combat game of any kind, I would have bought one. And even so, plenty of those already exist and even were it to be a completely new game and not a Star Ruler expansion, I have my doubts much could be offered that others haven't already done better. When you consider the concept implemented within the Star Ruler we already have, I simply can't picture a final product that would be at all interesting, let alone fun. But like I said, even if it turned out great, I want Star Ruler for the genre of game it is now, not for it to try to be in another one as well.

If it was something fairly easy to do, then whatever, but I'd be much more willing to pay for an expansion consisting on any sort of features expanding Star Ruler as the type of game it already it.

Also, still no Dyson Spheres :( In general really, the game is still lacking in super projects and needs more both leading up to ring worlds, and more to follow. No super advanced space empire is complete without (at the very least) the means of mastering the very stars that make up the galaxy, harvesting them rather than destroying them. Why worry about making it a space flight sim when there's still so much more to be done that will appeal to the space empire sim crowd?

Anyways, simple answer. I'd gladly buy expansions that consisted more or less of bulk releases of the same sort of updates we've been seeing in the many patches put out so far. Just keep improving every aspect of the game in it's current form.

Star Ruler Discussion / Re: Live Patch Notes
« on: July 20, 2011, 09:46:56 PM »
CrewQuarters are a bit more than just their bunks, it's the place they live. When the lights are out for a second of game time, it could be hours on board the ship.  So they likely die from too high or too low temperature, lack of oxygen during that time. It can be argued there should be some safeguard against this, at least for some time... Easier to code a delay to their death than any fancy slow death script.

While an argument for what you're talking about could be made, most of the specifics you just mentioned are life support. And since that's an already existing distinct subsystem of it's own, don't apply.

Strategy / Re: Building Ringworlds
« on: July 12, 2011, 07:23:55 PM »
The new patch fixes that issue it seems, being able to designate some planets as fetch only planets and the main as deposit only.

Unfortunately, I believe that applies to starports as well. So if you set the world to fetch only, it will also stop getting deposits from the galactic bank, making it useless for this task.

So who else is just going to go and start a game on level 40 tech just to blow up the quasar? :P

Star Ruler Discussion / Re: Live Patch Notes
« on: July 04, 2011, 09:53:06 PM »
Being actively required to trigger the DSM is almost a balancing factor to prevent it from being a straight upgrade in exactly these kinds of situations.

Key word, "almost". Making the interface more fiddly is not exactly what I'd call balancing...

Star Ruler Discussion / Re: Defensive Satellites?
« on: July 03, 2011, 11:21:37 PM »
Ok stupid question, why cant we put a planetary thruster on a station AKA the Death Star :)  Just wondering

You can, it's called a ship.

Star Ruler Discussion / Re: Live Patch Notes
« on: July 03, 2011, 11:20:40 PM »
They are not. Only the player that owns a carrier/planet can see what is docked there, why would any other player be able to?

Probably the same reason they have instant vision of every corner of a solar system the moment they cross an arbitrary line at the edge...

Star Ruler Discussion / Re: Ship Scale vs Ship Technology
« on: June 30, 2011, 02:29:06 AM »
But have you ever attacked a ship, 1 on 1 (or close enough to) that was twice the size of your attacking ship and emerge unscathed due to your technological advantage?

Technology is already very important in the game, I agree. But whenever I encounter a new ship, due to the game mechanics, my first thought is always, "I'm going to need a bigger ship!" and never "I really need to research some new / more powerful weapons / defenses!".

Yes, but that wasn't really my point. Mine was just that when I have the better tech, I also have the bigger ships. I don't tend to encounter situations where I have one and not the other.

Star Ruler Discussion / Re: Ship Scale vs Ship Technology
« on: June 29, 2011, 08:18:02 PM »
Having better tech tends to allow you to have better everything else, including the capability to build more and larger ships. Can't say I've ever been out-scaled by someone who I had out-teched.

Star Ruler Discussion / Re: Balancing mining laser and export dock
« on: May 21, 2011, 01:58:17 AM »
Ummm I'm pretty sure you can't setup a mining vessel without at least a small cargo bay for the simple fact that you need some storage space. (Unlike planets I don't believe the subsystems provide their own storage space)

At least some of them do, so yes, you can. Although personally I prefer having at least a scale .25 cargo bay in there just as a buffer, and also because they seem to use one of the combat ship models if there isn't a cargo bay.

Galactic Armory / Re: [Archive] Galactic Armory Discussion Thread
« on: May 02, 2011, 01:35:27 PM »
I seem to be getting a lot of crashes when I use the "move to system" command. Haven't done too much testing to see exactly what conditions cause it to happen, but just checking if it's already a known issue or not, it has been very common my last two games.

Note: This is also with the "remnants" add-on made by whatshisname, don't know if he changed anything in that area or not.

Strategy / Re: Dry Docks
« on: May 02, 2011, 09:54:51 AM »
for a decent orbital world have 1-4 shipyards

What purpose do the shipyards have in this case? I can understand having more to start with, to assist with the construction of your drydock, but after that, what benefit is there to having them? I can see 1, just for the sake of having the extra labour for whatever tasks are needed, but do they have some purpose I'm not familiar with that would merit having 4 to support a dry dock?

Suggestions / Re: Ship AI Suggestions
« on: April 30, 2011, 06:15:19 PM »
Make the supply order ignore other ships with the supply order.

I think this is already on the live patch notes, in the form of an option to not allow a ship to be supplied.

Suggestions / Re: Suggestion Compliation
« on: April 30, 2011, 06:11:07 PM »
Ships that have the ability to protect surrounding systems will automatically go to and from places.  Are you always 100% accurate when determining when ships will or will not even touch the border of a system? :P
To be honest, I'd forgot that whole custom defend ranges thing even existed, but while I do see your point, I still don't see it being much of a problem. It's not really a case of just being a little bit off with your estimating the range from a system to the blackhole, it's a case of you setting the range to be so large that your ships go flying off trying to attack ships on the other side of it. That requires a rather large error in judgement, which I don't think will be all that problematic. Also, would it be possible that, when setting the defense range on a ship, it scans the area within that range and gives you a warning that there is a potential hazard within range? Black hole, enemy system, etc...

Also, when something like a black hole is generated on the map, it could also come with a larger than normal space between itself and other stars, so that it still serves as a tactical element for moving around the galaxy, but is less likely to infringe on the local area of specific systems.

Suggestions / Re: Suggestion Compliation
« on: April 30, 2011, 03:26:40 PM »
Ships do not have pathfinding and so will accidentally get slurped up all the time.  If the player notices that the ship is on course to a blackhole and the ship has built up enough speed, they will also be unable to divert the ship from hitting it in time.  Overall:  Can't do that -- it would be very annoying.

I don't really see the logic there, they wouldn't have to be something that was hidden, and if the player can plainly see where they are, there's very little reason to think that players would accidentally have their ships crossing paths with them. It would simply be something to avoid when moving ships around, the same as say, an enemy occupied system.

Star Ruler Discussion / Re: Live Patch Notes
« on: April 27, 2011, 02:53:54 PM »
There's always this old post by Firgof to go by if you really need something, a few things listed that have already been done.

  Still not in: Race Customization, Fleet Management, Empire Customization, More Treaty Options, Multi-system orders, Multi-system Rally points, Viewmodes other than the default viewmode, Ship Status Window, Modifiable Ticker, More Robust Chat System, The Lobby, Scenarios, The Scenario Editor, Campaigns, the Campaign Editor, more functionality and user friendliness in the current devtools (particle editor, model configurator), Planet Type Effectors, the Genetic Algorithm for the AI so that it can put ships together on its own; even in mods it couldn't understand, more robust combat system controls, more System Types (Nebula, etc.), Star Explosion damage, Pan-System trade, Blockades, Improved Planetary Bombardment, Planetary Invasion, Ship-> Ship Invasion, Pirate faction, Science Council, more default galaxies, different kinds of AIs, a mount-system for the blueprint section of the game, the ability to research a ship design to improve it specifically, sharing of blueprints, technologies, and the loaning thereof, means to manage ships onboard carriers, ship renovation, system improvements such as warp gates/system interdiction devices/etc., OOS combat support, fully generated multiple galaxies, espionage (industrial/scientific/political), victory conditions, lose conditions, stats screen, forcing models in blueprints, forcing icons in blueprints, renaming planets and stars, allowing for volley-fire and target selection rules on ships, mousing over a subsystem displaying what stats it modifiers and mousing over a stat showing what subsystems are modifying it, more AI settings, the planet governor editor interface, more diverse in-system art, more kinds of fleet grouping, fleets moving as a cohesive unit, fleet subsystems, Terraforming, Solar Terraforming, more Superconstructions (Dyson Spheres, etc.), random events, the ability to 'buy off' the pirates, the ability for Pirates to perform espionage, improvements to the research window ("how do I unlock...", "what does X do..."), queue-management rules, governor profile settings applicable to entire systems, the ability to group systems into layers or groups to easily control them in a broad-sense through the system window, a filter/search addition to the object info panel, having the object info window display categories of things, in-game Wiki, smarter AI-AI relations ( if you get too big and tough, they start forming alliances against you ), more unique research opportunities (LV 25 Spatial Dynamics?  Alright, all Jumpdrives now may jump anywhere and with no charge required  LV 25 Beam Weapons?  Alright, now your Beam Weapons are constant-fire solid beams.), restarting disabled ships, the ability to gain blueprints from the Analyzer...

Suggestions / Re: Diplomacy
« on: April 27, 2011, 06:15:25 AM »

That's true if it is playing against another AI but against real people it is an advantage if it can identify player traits and anticipate upon them. An example there treachery and deception by the player. (sign peace, move ships into assault position & declare war)

A fool me once and fool me twice situation.  :D

Exactly what I was going to mention, in my last game I completely lost count of how many times the AI screwed itself over by making peace treaty offers, right while it was making some serious progress against me, and no matter how many times I simply redeclared war 5 minutes later when I was better positioned.

In that game, the AI only lost due to it's complete inability to recognize the fact that I was not taking it's peace agreements seriously.


The biggest question is: What the heck is small weapons and ditto with large weapons?  I can't remember the exact wording on the different armor types, but it says something like 'this is good against lasers and small weapons' or 'this is good against large weapons and explosions'.  The lasers are obvious, but what's a 'small' weapon...what's a 'large' weapon?

I'm not much of an expert on how exactly armour works, but my understanding is that "large" and "small" is is only referencing size relative to the ship and it's armour planets. You'd have to decide what falls under those terms based on the ships you expect your design to be facing off again, but basically, if your ship dwarfs the opposing ones, you want something like ablative armour, where unless the opposing weapons are large enough, damage is mostly negated. On the other hand, if your ships are smaller, and you're expecting them to be targeted by overkill type large calibre weapons, you may want reactive armour (which I have less of a clue of how it works, but just like to think of as anti-super-gun armour)

Next: when one of your ships explodes, does it damage your nearby ships? If I stick an antimatter generator on my fighters and one blows up, will it damage my other fighters? I've never noticed this, but I'd like to be sure.

Yes, it will. Although I find that hull strengths quickly out-pace the damage caused by this and it quickly becomes irrelevant.

Last: Are multiple plates of armor damaged from top to bottom, or is it random? When watching my ships die, it appears to always be top to bottom.

I've heard it said that armour taking damage is directional, have never really put it to the test.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5