Matrix Games Forums

War in the West gets its first update!Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm version 2.08 is now available!Command gets huge update!Order of Battle: Pacific Featured on Weekly Streaming SessionA new fight for Battle Academy!Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager is out for Mac!The definitive wargame of the Western Front is out now! War in the West gets teaser trailer and Twitch Stream!New Preview AAR for War in the West!War in the West Manual preview
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Gas & Mining stations Petition.

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Distant Worlds Series >> RE: Gas & Mining stations Petition. Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Gas & Mining stations Petition. - 1/19/2013 11:51:51 AM   
w1p

 

Posts: 135
Joined: 11/23/2011
Status: offline
Firstly, in response to Shuttle Door Gunner, AYE! :)

quote:

ORIGINAL: feelotraveller
* In the quote above I was referring to examples being adduced as to why constructor ships should or shouldn't be able to upgrade remote bases (and not whether they currently do so or not) in the game. jpwrunyan seems to think that there is some logical reason why they must be able to upgrade bases - a reason that I can't see.


1) You can't upgrade remote bases. You have to destroy and rebuild manually, or destroy and hope your auto-constructors rebuild.
2) I can see the logical reason. Construction ships carry basic components, arrive at the destination, then fabricate the parts. Based on this theory, arriving at a remote station and replacing some parts with others makes sense.

(in reply to feelotraveller)
Post #: 31
RE: Gas & Mining stations Petition. - 1/19/2013 3:45:16 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7188
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: w1p

Firstly, in response to Shuttle Door Gunner, AYE! :)

quote:

ORIGINAL: feelotraveller
* In the quote above I was referring to examples being adduced as to why constructor ships should or shouldn't be able to upgrade remote bases (and not whether they currently do so or not) in the game. jpwrunyan seems to think that there is some logical reason why they must be able to upgrade bases - a reason that I can't see.


1) You can't upgrade remote bases. You have to destroy and rebuild manually, or destroy and hope your auto-constructors rebuild.
2) I can see the logical reason. Construction ships carry basic components, arrive at the destination, then fabricate the parts. Based on this theory, arriving at a remote station and replacing some parts with others makes sense.


Which is the problem. I build a big fuel depot base in the middle of a gas cloud and the design updates its weapons, I either have to leave the oroginal base as is or destroy it (losing the fuel) to completely rebuild the newer, better protected design. If it truly is nothing more than updating my maxos blasters to phaser beams, then it should be a simple retrofit.

And even if you do add new components, it should be possible for a construction ship to do that, instead of having to start over again.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to w1p)
Post #: 32
RE: Gas & Mining stations Petition. - 1/19/2013 7:33:33 PM   
feelotraveller


Posts: 1040
Joined: 9/12/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: w1p

Firstly, in response to Shuttle Door Gunner, AYE! :)

quote:

ORIGINAL: feelotraveller
* In the quote above I was referring to examples being adduced as to why constructor ships should or shouldn't be able to upgrade remote bases (and not whether they currently do so or not) in the game. jpwrunyan seems to think that there is some logical reason why they must be able to upgrade bases - a reason that I can't see.


1) You can't upgrade remote bases. You have to destroy and rebuild manually, or destroy and hope your auto-constructors rebuild.
2) I can see the logical reason. Construction ships carry basic components, arrive at the destination, then fabricate the parts. Based on this theory, arriving at a remote station and replacing some parts with others makes sense.


1) Yes, I like it that way. Makes you think a bit when building a base. I hope it remains that way.

And to go over it again...
2) Auto-factories assemble basic components into cars. Based on this theory taking a car back to the factory to replace some parts with others makes sense.

Or maybe not. Actually either way is entirely viable depending on the story told. I guess that is a logos but it is not something which is becomes necessitated by logic but rather remains a matter of whimsy. So expressly there is no 'logic fail' in constructors not being able to retrofit bases.

(in reply to w1p)
Post #: 33
RE: Gas & Mining stations Petition. - 1/19/2013 7:34:55 PM   
feelotraveller


Posts: 1040
Joined: 9/12/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL:  w1p
Firstly, in response to Shuttle Door Gunner, AYE! :)
quote:

ORIGINAL: feelotraveller
* In the quote above I was referring to examples being adduced as to why constructor ships should or shouldn't be able to upgrade remote bases (and not whether they currently do so or not) in the game.  jpwrunyan seems to think that there is some logical reason why they must be able to upgrade bases - a reason that I can't see.

1) You can't upgrade remote bases. You have to destroy and rebuild manually, or destroy and hope your auto-constructors rebuild.
2) I can see the logical reason. Construction ships carry basic components, arrive at the destination, then fabricate the parts. Based on this theory, arriving at a remote station and replacing some parts with others makes sense.

1) Yes, I like it that way.  Makes you think a bit when building a base.  I hope it remains that way.
And to go over it again...
2) Auto-factories assemble basic components into cars.  Based on this theory taking a car back to the factory to replace some parts with others makes sense. 
Or maybe not.  Actually either way is entirely viable depending on the story told.  I guess that is a logos but it is not something which is becomes necessitated by logic but rather remains a matter of whimsy.  So expressly there is no 'logic fail' in constructors not being able to retrofit bases.

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 34
RE: Gas & Mining stations Petition. - 1/27/2013 10:19:35 PM   
jpwrunyan


Posts: 446
Joined: 12/3/2011
From: Uranus
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: feelotraveller
jpwrunyan seems to think that there is some logical reason why they must be able to upgrade bases - a reason that I can't see.


jpwrunyan doesn't seem to think this. jpwrunyan does think this. I know because I am jpwrunyan.

Anyway, get yourself a cup of coffee, because I intend to say everything I have to say about this and be done with it. Or maybe not. Depends on what's on TV later.

I do not understand the difference between building something from scratch in space out of raw materials and modifying something in space with raw materials from a techinical standpoint. If anything, I think adding components to a pre-existing structure would be less challenging than building the original structure. And car anologies aren't going to do it for me on this one.

I am sympathetic to the game-play arguments against (oh yay, another feature the AI sucks at). This argument is compelling.

I am somewhat sympathetic to the colony base upgrade vs. constructor upgrade incosistency arguments against, but feel those are less compelling. Everyone does accept that constructors essentially play the same role as a planet when building in deep space, though, right? Yes? Good. I will just leave it at that.

The scientific, technical, and narrative arguments against, however, are not compelling. Saying that a constructor ship would be capable of the engineering feat of building a space station in deep space but not capable of the engineering feat of refitting a space station in space does not make sense to me. What tool or technique is missing? Is it the ability to transport necessary materials? No. Is it the ability to fabricate components? No. Is it the ability to attach components to pre-existing components? No. Is it the welding? No. Is it what to do with the crew? Well, unless you also care about how the crew got there in the first place, then no. What is it then? Disassembling a no longer needed component is all I am left with. I don't see why that should be a problem. Sorry, but my logic circuits are failing me here. So unless someone here works at Nasa and can go into the specific details of zero-gravity engineering in deep space, we just have to agree to disagree.

Of course, one of us could make the effort to read something on Wikipedia or even start a thread in a science forum and find out, but nah, that's too much work. Me? I have filled my quota of wikipedia links, already. (this is just snark, don't take offense)

Back to serious mode. In the end, the real issue here for me is a game-play issue. Everything else is just vainglorious bloviating. The game-play desire for this stems from the hassle of having to commit two distinct commands in real time if you want to replace a space station. First, you have to scrap the base. It just disappears immediately (the crew dies, btw. how do I know? because scrap a base with a scientist on it and see what happens). Then you have to tell a constructor to go to that location at some time in the future and replace it. This is annoying. First, because until the base is scrapped, I can't tell a constructor to build a new station there. Second, because it disrupts empire resource infrastructure. I do not receive those resources, tourism income, and/or research while I have to wait for the constructor to pick up resources and go to the location to replace the base. Why can't this be planned for ahead of time and streamlined? If this issue could be resolved with one command, I would be moderately happy. If it could be resolved with one command and resulted in the previous base only being scrapped immediately before the constructor arrives to build the new station, I would be ecstatic (I will make-believe whatever I want about how this is actually done and will give the astronauts involved their own special names, too). Disagree with the non-game-play related justifications for this game-play feature, but address the desire for this game-play feature. Explain what the merits and demerits are in your own mind. I believe the merits of stream-lined gameplay and uninterrupted (or less interrupted) empire economic infrastructure outweigh the demerit of an AI that *potentially* would not effectively do the same. Remember, everything other than what is in this paragraph is utterly unimportant to me.

At any rate, please no car anologies.

Oh, and finally, bump.

(in reply to feelotraveller)
Post #: 35
RE: Gas & Mining stations Petition. - 1/27/2013 11:03:13 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7188
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jpwrunyan

quote:

ORIGINAL: feelotraveller
jpwrunyan seems to think that there is some logical reason why they must be able to upgrade bases - a reason that I can't see.


jpwrunyan doesn't seem to think this. jpwrunyan does think this. I know because I am jpwrunyan.

Anyway, get yourself a cup of coffee, because I intend to say everything I have to say about this and be done with it. Or maybe not. Depends on what's on TV later.

I do not understand the difference between building something from scratch in space out of raw materials and modifying something in space with raw materials from a techinical standpoint. If anything, I think adding components to a pre-existing structure would be less challenging than building the original structure. And car anologies aren't going to do it for me on this one.

I am sympathetic to the game-play arguments against (oh yay, another feature the AI sucks at). This argument is compelling.

I am somewhat sympathetic to the colony base upgrade vs. constructor upgrade incosistency arguments against, but feel those are less compelling. Everyone does accept that constructors essentially play the same role as a planet when building in deep space, though, right? Yes? Good. I will just leave it at that.

The scientific, technical, and narrative arguments against, however, are not compelling. Saying that a constructor ship would be capable of the engineering feat of building a space station in deep space but not capable of the engineering feat of refitting a space station in space does not make sense to me. What tool or technique is missing? Is it the ability to transport necessary materials? No. Is it the ability to fabricate components? No. Is it the ability to attach components to pre-existing components? No. Is it the welding? No. Is it what to do with the crew? Well, unless you also care about how the crew got there in the first place, then no. What is it then? Disassembling a no longer needed component is all I am left with. I don't see why that should be a problem. Sorry, but my logic circuits are failing me here. So unless someone here works at Nasa and can go into the specific details of zero-gravity engineering in deep space, we just have to agree to disagree.

Of course, one of us could make the effort to read something on Wikipedia or even start a thread in a science forum and find out, but nah, that's too much work. Me? I have filled my quota of wikipedia links, already. (this is just snark, don't take offense)

Back to serious mode. In the end, the real issue here for me is a game-play issue. Everything else is just vainglorious bloviating. The game-play desire for this stems from the hassle of having to commit two distinct commands in real time if you want to replace a space station. First, you have to scrap the base. It just disappears immediately (the crew dies, btw. how do I know? because scrap a base with a scientist on it and see what happens). Then you have to tell a constructor to go to that location at some time in the future and replace it. This is annoying. First, because until the base is scrapped, I can't tell a constructor to build a new station there. Second, because it disrupts empire resource infrastructure. I do not receive those resources, tourism income, and/or research while I have to wait for the constructor to pick up resources and go to the location to replace the base. Why can't this be planned for ahead of time and streamlined? If this issue could be resolved with one command, I would be moderately happy. If it could be resolved with one command and resulted in the previous base only being scrapped immediately before the constructor arrives to build the new station, I would be ecstatic (I will make-believe whatever I want about how this is actually done and will give the astronauts involved their own special names, too). Disagree with the non-game-play related justifications for this game-play feature, but address the desire for this game-play feature. Explain what the merits and demerits are in your own mind. I believe the merits of stream-lined gameplay and uninterrupted (or less interrupted) empire economic infrastructure outweigh the demerit of an AI that *potentially* would not effectively do the same. Remember, everything other than what is in this paragraph is utterly unimportant to me.

At any rate, please no car anologies.

Oh, and finally, bump.


I agree, especially with the part I have bolded. Now realistically, you'd probably want to load all the workers off the station onto a passenger ship for safety's sake, but there is no reason an already built structure couldn't be upgraded. Of course this is DW and offloading the workers isn't necessary.

And for those that disagree, think of it this way...you don't tear down your house and rebuild it because you want to renovate your kitchen do you? Same goes for a space base (especially considering the amount of money you have invested in it already).

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to jpwrunyan)
Post #: 36
RE: Gas & Mining stations Petition. - 1/27/2013 11:05:20 PM   
Vedric

 

Posts: 35
Joined: 6/2/2005
Status: offline
If the primary concern is with the AI's inability to cope with upgrading stations via constructors then the only solution is to have non orbital bases upgrade as part of the auto upgrade routine. Simply allow manufacturers to make the component parts needed for the base upgrades. The parts are then shipped to the bases by freighters. This would require cargo bays, possibly a redesign of default bases and perhaps a look at the AI's base design priorities. Once all parts are on hand the base will begin upgrading. The engineering team on the base performs the retrofit.

Economic balance issues would have to be tested with the AI of course. I see no logical reason outside of AI concerns not to allow non orbital base upgrades.

(in reply to jpwrunyan)
Post #: 37
RE: Gas & Mining stations Petition. - 1/28/2013 5:15:57 AM   
feelotraveller


Posts: 1040
Joined: 9/12/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jpwrunyan

quote:

ORIGINAL: feelotraveller
jpwrunyan seems to think that there is some logical reason why they must be able to upgrade bases - a reason that I can't see.


jpwrunyan doesn't seem to think this. jpwrunyan does think this. I know because I am jpwrunyan.




And I am not.

Gameplay wise I have two major problems with retrofittable bases (at non-colony locations I'll have to add, and probably should bold so someone(s) don't jump to the wrong conclusions...). The second of these problems is that of the AI doing badly with actually using the feature. How important that is depends on the first and predominant reason I don't want this mechanic. But let me first say that I agree fully with you that it would be highly convenient for the player to have this feature... and I think that players will highly utilise it, meaning that it will affect the AI quite badly if it can't use it well.

What I envisage happening if players get this ability (fingers crossed that the state actually is not allowed to retrofit private sector bases...) is that bases will get retrofitted left, right and centre. Early mining bases maxed out with umpteen corvidian shields and maxos blasters and 4 miners (pirate immune supersuckers) will, later on, get a couple of miners stripped off and (depending on location) mininal better shields and armour installed and weapons disposed of. So super-fortified early mining base which has become something of an economic drain bristling with expensive caveman clubs gets refurbished to low cost resource earner. Alternatively if the base has ended up in a hostile border zone it will get given high tech shields and tons of up to date weapons and pretty much be unassailable to the AI. This will extend the players advantage both in the early game and later on. I think the chance of codeforce in the near future producing an AI which can keep this a level playing field is zero. (Or approaching zero for the mathematical pedants. )

Before all the if and buts think about the consequences. Pirates? Stomping on the AI as usual but no longer much of a challenge to the player (after the first few bases get destroyed or upgraded). Border skirmishes? AI unable to even raid bases successfully. Economics? Tilted even further towards the player.

Now feel free to point out how misguided this all is and how the AI will be much better at knowing which bases (and when) to retrofit to various designs than the poor dumb player will be, and how this is so unfair because it is already so hard to compete. (Okay irony sucks but every time I see this idea of retrofitable remote bases come up I am appalled.)

(in reply to jpwrunyan)
Post #: 38
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Distant Worlds Series >> RE: Gas & Mining stations Petition. Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.078