Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

For current design process, Str.Design stat is absurd

 
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] >> Shadow Empire >> For current design process, Str.Design stat is absurd Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
For current design process, Str.Design stat is absurd - 12/3/2020 9:33:55 AM   
Locarnus


Posts: 287
Joined: 5/30/2010
From: Earth, Sol
Status: offline
This stat is not only bad, with the current land unit design process it is diametrically opposed to "realistic" and "balanced".

With the current process, "new design" instead of "updated design" is only a viable option before designs are used in numbers. And "new designs" of the same model type are somehow more expensive, yet you do not even learn from failed attempts.

In stark contrast to real life, where designers at least learn from bad designs when building a new design of the same type. And additional attempts are considerably cheaper, not more expensive.

Solution => simply ignore the structural design values in the calculations (ie as if it was 100 for every type).

Thus until the unit model design process is overhauled, only the "update design" is relevant. So designers can learn from past mistakes or at least not repeat them!

A lot of frustration would be removed from the gameplay. Especially when more important model types get repeated bad structural design rolls without learning from past attempts. Like Inf or LightArmor.

< Message edited by Locarnus -- 12/3/2020 5:50:14 PM >


_____________________________

Post #: 1
RE: Petition to remove "Structural Design" fo... - 12/3/2020 9:50:14 AM   
springel


Posts: 354
Joined: 1/2/2005
From: Groningen, NL
Status: offline
I disagree.

Structural design errors were common, you only discover them - at the decisive level - over time. But starting fresh to correct them instead of working around them is expensive, and you don't know where the new design will have a flaw. Take things like nose heavy panzerjaegers, and those were relatively late designs, but a real grog can point to structural errors in almost every historical design. And then look at all those historical designs that were abandoned after a few prototypes, or after one battle.

One can maybe question the fact that the structural design error is immediately visible; that way you know that you should abandon the model immediately, instead of after discovering the failure in the battlefield :-)

< Message edited by springel -- 12/3/2020 9:52:20 AM >

(in reply to Locarnus)
Post #: 2
RE: Petition to remove "Structural Design" fo... - 12/3/2020 10:47:39 AM   
Locarnus


Posts: 287
Joined: 5/30/2010
From: Earth, Sol
Status: offline
I'm not saying that the concept is bad.

I'm saying that within the current design process, using that concept is bad.
Why does it cost more than double the bp to create a new design of the same type, if I already have created basically the same design the previous turn?
Bad structural roll on initial model => request new design for 120bp? => bad structural roll on second design => request new design for 300bp??????

This is imho extremely unrealistic and extremely frustrating.

Since you are essentially locked into that structural design for that type for the rest of the game.
The next new design models with the exact same! components should only cost half of the first one with those components, not 250%! Then it is ok, then I can decide whether I want to play re-roll simulator for a few turns.

_____________________________


(in reply to springel)
Post #: 3
RE: Petition to remove "Structural Design" fo... - 12/3/2020 12:09:16 PM   
springel


Posts: 354
Joined: 1/2/2005
From: Groningen, NL
Status: offline
Well,some nation prove to be bad at the production of certain weapon types. It happened in history. Either you spend huge amounts to stubbornly try to improve, or you decide to use other weapon systems.

This is a game about dealing with challenges in a hostile world. Frustration is part of that world. You have to deal with incompetency, just like in the real world. :-)

(in reply to Locarnus)
Post #: 4
RE: Petition to remove "Structural Design" fo... - 12/3/2020 12:29:50 PM   
Pratapon51

 

Posts: 100
Joined: 6/28/2020
Status: offline
I don't mind the stat that much, but I want base numbers to be affected by Leader Skill and have Linear Techs that can boost it (Infantry Equipment Design, Tank Design, etc), just as Aircraft Design techs now do for Air models.

(in reply to springel)
Post #: 5
RE: Petition to remove "Structural Design" fo... - 12/3/2020 1:35:46 PM   
zgrssd

 

Posts: 3033
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Locarnus

I'm saying that within the current design process, using that concept is bad.
Why does it cost more than double the bp to create a new design of the same type, if I already have created basically the same design the previous turn?
Bad structural roll on initial model => request new design for 120bp? => bad structural roll on second design => request new design for 300bp??????


Structural Design and the BP costs for new designs are two unrelated mechanics.

Strucutral design is not at fault for the BP costs.
Nor is the BP cost a factor in the Structural design roll.

If I wanted to "fix" the scenario, I would give a bonus to the structural design roll for the new design, equal to the number of design lines already started. Already got 4 failed design lines of Tanks? Not to worry, the extra BP cost gives you way better odds this time!

< Message edited by zgrssd -- 12/3/2020 1:36:49 PM >

(in reply to Locarnus)
Post #: 6
RE: Petition to remove "Structural Design" fo... - 12/3/2020 1:37:45 PM   
Locarnus


Posts: 287
Joined: 5/30/2010
From: Earth, Sol
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: springel

Well,some nation prove to be bad at the production of certain weapon types. It happened in history. Either you spend huge amounts to stubbornly try to improve, or you decide to use other weapon systems.

This is a game about dealing with challenges in a hostile world. Frustration is part of that world. You have to deal with incompetency, just like in the real world. :-)


No, there is no historical precedence at all for either being stuck with a "stat" or starting from scratch. Bad designs provide information on what to avoid/improve in a future design. Sometimes those lessons are ignored and rediscovered, but there are always lessons.

It is inconceivable that a guided missile destroyer has engine design flaws, just because the original torpedo boat destroyer in the 19th century had an engine design flaw.

Or a modern infantry unit has a worse assault rifle, just because the original line infantry musket had design flaws.

And there is no historical precedence at all for a 2.5 times increase in design cost, for the sole reason of having designed the exact same type two months earlier.

You are focused on a theoretical concept for a stat, without considering how it is implemented into the game.
With that mindset, the game will never improve...

_____________________________


(in reply to springel)
Post #: 7
RE: Petition to remove "Structural Design" fo... - 12/3/2020 1:42:44 PM   
Locarnus


Posts: 287
Joined: 5/30/2010
From: Earth, Sol
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

quote:

ORIGINAL: Locarnus

I'm saying that within the current design process, using that concept is bad.
Why does it cost more than double the bp to create a new design of the same type, if I already have created basically the same design the previous turn?
Bad structural roll on initial model => request new design for 120bp? => bad structural roll on second design => request new design for 300bp??????


Structural Design and the BP costs for new designs are two unrelated mechanics.

Strucutral design is not at fault for the BP costs.
Nor is the BP cost a factor in the Structural design roll.

If I wanted to "fix" the scenario, I would give a bonus to the structural design roll for the new design, equal to the number of design lines already started. Already got 4 failed design lines of Tanks? Not to worry, the extra BP cost gives you way better odds this time!


No structural design stat => no need for completely new designs.

Ignoring the structural design stat is simply a quick and easy stop gap measure until the design process is overhauled. A five minute fix before a more detailed rebalance.

_____________________________


(in reply to zgrssd)
Post #: 8
RE: Petition to remove "Structural Design" fo... - 12/3/2020 2:01:47 PM   
zgrssd

 

Posts: 3033
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Locarnus


quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

quote:

ORIGINAL: Locarnus

I'm saying that within the current design process, using that concept is bad.
Why does it cost more than double the bp to create a new design of the same type, if I already have created basically the same design the previous turn?
Bad structural roll on initial model => request new design for 120bp? => bad structural roll on second design => request new design for 300bp??????


Structural Design and the BP costs for new designs are two unrelated mechanics.

Strucutral design is not at fault for the BP costs.
Nor is the BP cost a factor in the Structural design roll.

If I wanted to "fix" the scenario, I would give a bonus to the structural design roll for the new design, equal to the number of design lines already started. Already got 4 failed design lines of Tanks? Not to worry, the extra BP cost gives you way better odds this time!


No structural design stat => no need for completely new designs.

Ignoring the structural design stat is simply a quick and easy stop gap measure until the design process is overhauled. A five minute fix before a more detailed rebalance.

A 5 minute rework, that will undo any guide and make newcommers think it is a massive rework when it is re-added.

The cost seems to high, for me at least.

(in reply to Locarnus)
Post #: 9
RE: Petition to remove "Structural Design" fo... - 12/3/2020 3:25:19 PM   
Locarnus


Posts: 287
Joined: 5/30/2010
From: Earth, Sol
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd
A 5 minute rework, that will undo any guide and make newcommers think it is a massive rework when it is re-added.

The cost seems to high, for me at least.


If there is no structure design stat displayed and no "new design" option available (if there is already a design of that type) then how are guides irrelevant? It is simply something less to worry about.

You mean the video guide by DasTactic, that has the design stats mixed up and leads to people discarding good Str.Designs because of bad B.Design stats? Frequently leading to worse models for the rest of the game?
That guide?

I ve had enough of successive 80s Str.Design rolls for infantry and light tanks, combined with prohibitively increasing new design costs. And being essentially locked into those for the rest of the game, if I do not re-roll immediately.

This is a key element of a core feature (warfare) of the game and this topic has already been discussed on these forums multiple times.

I expected it to get fixed with the aircraft introduction, and for the steam release. I could simply regularly run a find and replace script on savegames, setting all Str.Design values to 100 for all existing designs. But modding and even savegame editing is not possible.

This is an absolutely unnecessary frustration, and with the forum fanboy attitude going on, the only option left is a bad review on steam to maybe get a fix for something that should not have survived the game design stage, let alone beta testing.

There are quite a few other unneccessary frustrations still in the game, but if the forum attitude can be summed up by "just accept the way it is, since I am not personally annoyed by that particular issue myself", then I m not surprised.

Indie game or not, it is still a 34€ game half a year after release. If the dev goes out of his way to prevent fixing or working around stuff myself (modding, savegame editing), then in turn I expect a 5 minute fix for a major issue (even for a seeming minority of players).

_____________________________


(in reply to zgrssd)
Post #: 10
RE: Petition to remove "Structural Design" fo... - 12/3/2020 3:48:02 PM   
springel


Posts: 354
Joined: 1/2/2005
From: Groningen, NL
Status: offline
quote:

and with the forum fanboy attitude going on


OK, that's it. You are just another spoiled brat who thinks people who disagree with him are 'fanboys'.

Yeah, so your tanks are not going to be greatest in the world, deal with it!

(in reply to Locarnus)
Post #: 11
RE: Petition to remove "Structural Design" fo... - 12/3/2020 4:27:11 PM   
Locarnus


Posts: 287
Joined: 5/30/2010
From: Earth, Sol
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: springel

quote:

and with the forum fanboy attitude going on


OK, that's it. You are just another spoiled brat who thinks people who disagree with him are 'fanboys'.

Yeah, so your tanks are not going to be greatest in the world, deal with it!



"This is not a problem for me, so it should not be fixed for you".

Fanboy (urban dictionary):
[...]"Known for a complete lack of objectivity in relation to their preferred focus. Usually argue with circular logic that they refuse to acknowledge. Arguments or debates with such are usually futile. Every flaw is spun into semi-virtues and everything else, blown to comedic, complimentary proportions."[...]

Spoiled Brat (urban dictionary):
[...]"Children who use their parents' weaknesses in order to get material goods. The weakness is usually guilt. These are the kids who expect their parents to buy them an awesome car for their 16th birthday, and another car when they crash that one. These children are truly ridiculous and give kids everywhere a bad name."[...]

Also, there is some mild difference between describing a general forum population attitude and name calling someone because of a disagreement. But I guess that this debate is futile...

_____________________________


(in reply to springel)
Post #: 12
RE: Petition to remove "Structural Design" fo... - 12/3/2020 5:04:09 PM   
KarisFraMauro

 

Posts: 113
Joined: 12/2/2020
Status: offline
I look forwards to some day reaching a level of game comprehension where I can participate in these discussions. And yet at the same time, I kind of don't... ;)

(in reply to Locarnus)
Post #: 13
RE: Petition to remove "Structural Design" fo... - 12/3/2020 5:32:20 PM   
Locarnus


Posts: 287
Joined: 5/30/2010
From: Earth, Sol
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: KarisFraMauro

I look forwards to some day reaching a level of game comprehension where I can participate in these discussions. And yet at the same time, I kind of don't... ;)


I look backwards to a day where I did not consciously notice these issues and thus was not as frustrated by them. Ignorance truly is bliss.
And yet at the same time, I like to investigate and understand stuff.

_____________________________


(in reply to KarisFraMauro)
Post #: 14
RE: Petition to remove "Structural Design" fo... - 12/3/2020 6:36:30 PM   
bvoid

 

Posts: 99
Joined: 5/16/2013
Status: offline
I agree certain aspects of the design process are rage-inducing.

Most obviously - if you get a bad roll for your initial infantry model this can be crippling - even more so on exteme/slow-tech.

I suggest the penalty for new designs be reduced. Also it would be nice if the skill of the Model director improved chance to get higher structural design. Does this have any effect Vic? Skill just speeds up the bp investment right?

(in reply to Locarnus)
Post #: 15
RE: Petition to remove "Structural Design" fo... - 12/3/2020 8:24:52 PM   
Edmon

 

Posts: 146
Joined: 9/16/2020
Status: offline
Springel & Locarnus,

Please avoid any unnecessary name calling. We're all here to both further understand and further improve the game. It is ok to disagree with each other, it is not ok to be hurling accusations of being children at each other.

I happen to feel this is an otherwise really good topic, so lets keep that focus on the details of the game and not the details of each other :).

Thanks guys.

< Message edited by Edmon -- 12/3/2020 8:25:20 PM >

(in reply to bvoid)
Post #: 16
RE: Petition to remove "Structural Design" fo... - 12/3/2020 10:37:49 PM   
lloydster4

 

Posts: 164
Joined: 6/19/2020
Status: offline
I think I disagree with you on some fundamental points

1) I don't stress too much over Structural Design unless it is particularly low. If a unit has low design values, I'll usually deploy a small number of prototypes and throw them into combat to get the Base Design value up high. With a high base design, there's a very good chance you'll be getting decent design rolls sooner rather than later.

2) I definitely don't feel "locked in" to a model for the entire game. By the end of a game, I've probably used 2-4 models for each type of equipment. At some point, the BP cost for upgrades becomes so high that you're almost forced to research new models.

3) Finally, this may be a controversial opinion, but I only have fun in Shadow Empire when things aren't going well. Overcoming a disadvantage is the most interesting part of this game. Developing a wide array of high-quality models will take a lot of time and resources (and luck) to accomplish. For me, that's fun.


(in reply to Edmon)
Post #: 17
RE: Petition to remove "Structural Design" fo... - 12/4/2020 7:42:22 AM   
ramnblam

 

Posts: 199
Joined: 6/9/2020
From: Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: lloydster4

3) Finally, this may be a controversial opinion, but I only have fun in Shadow Empire when things aren't going well. Overcoming a disadvantage is the most interesting part of this game. Developing a wide array of high-quality models will take a lot of time and resources (and luck) to accomplish. For me, that's fun.




Heavily agree with you on this lloydbaby <3

(in reply to lloydster4)
Post #: 18
RE: Petition to remove "Structural Design" fo... - 12/4/2020 8:49:35 AM   
Maerchen

 

Posts: 338
Joined: 6/16/2020
From: Germany
Status: offline
The logistics hell this game is IS the fun part...

_____________________________

The logistics hell this game is IS the fun part! - Maerchen, 2020

The good thing is, we have all the information in the reports. The bad thing is, we have all the information. Maerchen, 2020

Came for SE. Will stay for SE.

(in reply to ramnblam)
Post #: 19
RE: Petition to remove "Structural Design" fo... - 12/4/2020 12:33:43 PM   
Locarnus


Posts: 287
Joined: 5/30/2010
From: Earth, Sol
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ramnblam


quote:

ORIGINAL: lloydster4

3) Finally, this may be a controversial opinion, but I only have fun in Shadow Empire when things aren't going well. Overcoming a disadvantage is the most interesting part of this game. Developing a wide array of high-quality models will take a lot of time and resources (and luck) to accomplish. For me, that's fun.



Heavily agree with you on this lloydbaby <3


Yep, it can be fun if things are not going well. But imho that heavily depends on the implementation, whether the obstacle and the possible solutions fit into the world mechanic or if they are mindless rng.

There is a difference between season 1 smart but sometimes foolish and caring Tyrion getting captured by Lady Stark and having to use his wits to get back to King's Landing, and season 8 Euron re-rolling Dragon shots with his scorpions, hitting nothing from dozens of land based scorpions while doing a no-scope 2/2 hit and kill on a dragon from a mile away from a ship mounted scorpion...

The current mechanic just does not make sense. Having a structural defect from slug thrower infantry being carried over to laser armed infantry. And having a second attempt a month later costing 250% for no reason instead of eg 50% less due to learning effects. And so on.

But of course season 8 was full of many twists and thus had its fans. It just depends on what is more important to you. Having more story twists or having more cohesive world building.

< Message edited by Locarnus -- 12/4/2020 12:49:08 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to ramnblam)
Post #: 20
RE: Petition to remove "Structural Design" fo... - 12/4/2020 1:08:28 PM   
Janekk

 

Posts: 7
Joined: 6/8/2020
Status: offline
I don't like how current system works too. I don't have a problem with str. design stat itself. Issue is literally 2-3 completely random rolls with no way for player to influence them can actually ruin your game (I'm thinking multiplayer in particular). Getting 2-3 bad basic infantry (or anything important really) designs in a row puts you at massive disadvantage against other major regimes. Not only your basic unit will be weaker, it will continue to be weaker throughout the game. Spending increasing amounts of BP to try to fix the design is gonna put you behind significantly on model design in general. Player who got lucky and got like 120 roll from the start will be investing that into light tanks, artillery etc. getting ahead even on those designs. Let's say you eventually on third roll finally get something decent. Guess what? Player who started with good design has been putting field testing into his model this entire time, you are starting from scratch even if you do get a good roll eventually. If you decide to stick with bad design and just overcome it with field testing ... again you're still behind and will continue to stay behind for whole game. There is no real catch up mechanism and it is frustrating since player has no control over it, it's literally single die roll with no modifiers or anything you could influence.

I proposed it in some other thread but I would like for field testing to apply to some nation design score for model type so even if you do get bad roll then at least you can work on field testing in the meantime and you can focus on getting ahead on other design types instead of trying to roll single design type multiple times in a row because field testing is tied completely to one particular model line. Game would flow more naturally and frankly make more sense, it is weird how models of the exact same type exist in completely isolated bubbles.

Another idea would be to compensate for worse stats with better field testing growth (easier to improve when well there is more things to improve on) and to add to that since in that case low str. design wouldn't be necessarily such a bad thing you could just get rid of upgrade option and just balance game around doing new model with new str. score every time you want new model. Sometimes you'd get better stats sometimes you get better growth for the future but that's more of a complicated idea for more of a total rework of system since you'd also need to figure out how weapon/armor/engine would tie into that and probably some other stuff too.

Anyway just few random thoughts. IMO I already got my moneys worth out of them game .

(in reply to Maerchen)
Post #: 21
RE: Petition to remove "Structural Design" fo... - 12/7/2020 7:44:38 PM   
lloydster4

 

Posts: 164
Joined: 6/19/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Locarnus
The current mechanic just does not make sense. Having a structural defect from slug thrower infantry being carried over to laser armed infantry. And having a second attempt a month later costing 250% for no reason instead of eg 50% less due to learning effects. And so on.


I think you've got 2 valid points here.

1) It's a bit strange that design scores are preserved even if you replace all of the unit's equipment.

2) The escalating design costs are just a matter of game-balance. The current values are intended to encourage model upgrades over re-designs. (Digression: That said, new designs don't get easier, faster, or cheaper in the real world. The Abrams wasn't easier to design than the Patton. The F-22 wasn't easier than the F-16.)

When you combine these two ideas, you end up with a system that over-rewards a lucky S Design roll and over-penalizes an unlucky one. Personally I would have the system be even more random, whereas you only want to eliminate it entirely.


(in reply to Locarnus)
Post #: 22
RE: Petition to remove "Structural Design" fo... - 12/8/2020 6:31:42 PM   
SuperTris

 

Posts: 2
Joined: 12/8/2020
Status: offline
I love the way strat design works, I think it's an elegant and subtle way of making sure games are varied and also realistic.

Here's how I think of it:

The unit design doesn't represent just how good a weapon system is - the effectiveness of different formations has always been reliant on training, doctrine and logistical assumptions. When you design a unit your model design team isn't spending months worrying about "wait...could we give this new gun to a soldier???" A new design represents not just technical designs ("Automatic rifle technology) -> "Chobsky & Co Military Rifle 2092") but also the assumptions, tactics, support chain, that take you from ("Chobsky & Co Military Rifle 2092" -> "Piedtruppen '93")

When you redesign, you go from "Piedtruppen '93" to "Piedtruppen '98". Even without weapon changes, you apply lessons learnt - maybe they carry less ammo per soldier, because you find weight makes them less effective and your supply assumptions weren't tweaked quite right. But if "Piedtruppen '93" were a flawed formation because there was a bit too much emphasis on personal courage over discipline, squad sizes were too big to be maximally effective, and your supply chains assumed more coherence than exists on the battlefield so sometimes logistics bogged down on a divisional level, the Piedtruppen '98 are based on the same structural design choices.

You want different? That requires a structural redesign - *and your designers already did the best they could at first pass* So you want a new design, even for infantry formations, let alone armour? It'll take longer. And, probably, some folk need to lose their jobs, to get lead designers with different assumptions about doctrine, etc etc. Roll another unlucky str design? Sounds like next time through you need to sack most of your design bureau. They're all entrenched in a philosophy of design that just doesn't get the best results. Of course, at some point, you're going to have a ****ty tank design - just like some nations historically did.

By thinking about it as formation design - the whole way that a group of units fights, rather than individual tank/soldier design, it makes total sense to me.

----
As another angle to approach it, I'm pretty sure anyone at least as groggy as me can name militaries that have kept a reputation through a drastic evolution in the technology they fight with. From wooden ships with cannon to modern carriers in the royal navy, for instance. Or even if you insist on seeing it as a model only design process and for a less extreme example, how long has the structural design of the M1 Tank provided the US with a good MBT? It's 40 years old! Do you think the structural design of the original M1 doesn't play in to its effectiveness today? Of course not - the incremental improvements were cheaper than designing a new tank, and the initial structural design still affects the modern variants.

(in reply to lloydster4)
Post #: 23
RE: Petition to remove "Structural Design" fo... - 12/9/2020 3:50:30 AM   
Pratapon51

 

Posts: 100
Joined: 6/28/2020
Status: offline

Again, I don't have a problem with the stat itself, but I dislike that it is completely random and is one more factor that negatively affects possible multiplayer balance (not that there are already many balance isues in that regard...).

I'd like a Vehicle Design linear tech to improve it the same way Aircraft/Thopter/Helicopter Design works, too. Maybe to a lesser extent if we'll have the Leader's skill rolls affect it, e.g. Str. Design is 70-130 + Vehicle Design/4.

(in reply to SuperTris)
Post #: 24
RE: Petition to remove "Structural Design" fo... - 12/9/2020 6:46:49 PM   
Mitigan

 

Posts: 4
Joined: 6/15/2020
Status: offline
i think to solve the str.design problem all we need is a reroll button. basically when you ask for a NEW design you ask for a prototype. the BP is spent and when done the director will show you one or multiple prototypes, aka it will show you the design stats of the model(s). you can then either accept one of them, or discard them and try again (reroll). every reroll would train the model director, so overtime you would eventually get a good or decent model. the idea is that since you want a good model for yesterday this exchanges valuable time for a chance at a better model.

(in reply to Pratapon51)
Post #: 25
RE: Petition to remove "Structural Design" fo... - 12/9/2020 9:44:09 PM   
DTurtle

 

Posts: 443
Joined: 4/26/2010
Status: offline
I like structural design. It can force you to take something different than the "optimum" path.

Even with bad structural design rolls you can still get good design rolls. Once you've made a good roll, you can never get worse than that for that model line. So be smart with getting field testing and iterating on your designs.

In one game, my enemy got ridiculously lucky with his design rolls for his infantry. Well, so I never fought his infantry with mine and instead went with mass light tanks. In addition I didn't get good rolls for my medium tanks, only relatively decent ones. Well, I iterated on two medium tank lines until I got lucky on the third or fourth iteration of each model and then stayed with that one.

< Message edited by DTurtle -- 12/9/2020 9:47:18 PM >

(in reply to Mitigan)
Post #: 26
RE: Petition to remove "Structural Design" fo... - 12/11/2020 7:51:08 PM   
Locarnus


Posts: 287
Joined: 5/30/2010
From: Earth, Sol
Status: offline
@Janekk
Yep, the current implementation is the issue and your suggestion of nation design improvements is great.
Maybe we could improve components, not just the model. Eg a unit model would include a 500kg engine&transmission. And we could improve that 500kg engine.

@lloydster4
While the F22 was not easier than the F16, it is rather a successor to the much bigger F15.
And I have no problem having to pay more for more advanced designs decades later. I have a problem with the same design at the same tech being much more costly for no reason.
Why would the YF-23 cost 2.5 times as much as the YF-22? And why would neither of them incorporate any lessons learned with the F-16?

@SuperTris
Practically no nation built a great prototype of anything without learning from previous experiences (own or others).
The Abrams was not a number of dice rolls in various categories. It built upon the experiences with the Pattons, Pershings, Shermans and Lees, and considered the testing and reports of Soviet, UK, German etc models.
No one started from scratch and got it right (M3 Lee says hello). On the contrary, not learning is the key reason why some countries built bad stuff for quite some time.
You are saying that you love how Str.Design works, while your text argues against how Str.Design currently works.

< Message edited by Locarnus -- 12/11/2020 8:03:07 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to DTurtle)
Post #: 27
RE: For current design process, Str.Design stat is absurd - 12/13/2020 4:56:25 AM   
Prozorovsky

 

Posts: 19
Joined: 12/9/2020
Status: offline
Do we not have influence over the quality of our designs through the people we put in charge of designing them? An adviser skilled in the relevant skill can also be added into the mix. Doesn't seem completely random. If you're getting bad designs consistently you're either very unlucky or your staff have a competency issue.

Then there's field testing guaranteeing improvement bad design or not, there's potential for something there to be salvaged. And if you get a bad design, early game sure it's a problem, but you can get the model designer first and focus getting something better as quickly as possible. Your new model blows? Nothing is stopping you from just starting from scratch right away.

Bad designs can be made up for by overcompensating as well whether that be by numbers or putting a bigger gun etc on it. Sure its more expensive to make and run but maybe it'll do.

The structural defect in infantry may not be the gun but something else in the kit, you're not just making a gun when you design infantry but a kit. The increase in expense may represent stretching something beyond what it can easily do. Has the rest of that infantries kit been made with that new laser rifle and polymer armor in mind? Maybe there's all sorts of issues that need to be worked out.

Same goes for that tank based on an old design. Is it really meant to have that 88? Can the structure handle it? It was made for a 40! The Panzer III was replaced in part because it couldn't be made it fit the 75 and why bother when they had the IV. Eventually you get to a point where you've just pushed something too far. It gets harder and harder to do. I think ballooning model costs represent a lot more then may come to mind.

You gotta retool factories, prototype, work out how to make this old thing work with the new thing, or just a new thing work with new things, paper design these things took years and in game it days often takes a few seasons.

I'm not saying it's perfect but for an abstract mechanic trying to represent something complicated I'm able to rationalize/imagine what it represents and I'm okay with it. I'm all for improvements though! If it can be better, why not? I don't know.

Edit: Working on individual components would be very cool, an engine could carry over between designs etc. Reminds me of Aurora if anyone has played that. That being said, this game is already scary I think for most I think haha.

< Message edited by Prozorovsky -- 12/13/2020 4:59:09 AM >

(in reply to Locarnus)
Post #: 28
RE: Petition to remove "Structural Design" fo... - 12/14/2020 4:13:40 AM   
ColRosenberger

 

Posts: 26
Joined: 6/11/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pratapon51

Again, I don't have a problem with the stat itself, but I dislike that it is completely random and is one more factor that negatively affects possible multiplayer balance (not that there are already many balance isues in that regard...).

I strongly object to the game being affected in any way, shape or form by "multiplayer balance". I've seen this mentality suck the fun out of multiple games, usually for the benefit of a microscopic group for which the game wasn't designed in the first place, and which demands change loudly but then dies off quickly, leaving a mess behind.

This game is a simulator and is inherently unbalanced (like real life). The only sane way to play it in multiplayer is with a roleplaying mindset, to see what happens and play it through even if you get destroyed by bad luck. It won't ever be a competitive-friendly game... at least I hope not, because it would destroy the fun.

Now regarding this particular mechanic, I don't have a strong opinion at the moment. Except that if it gets changed it should solely be to make the single-player experience more fun.

(in reply to Pratapon51)
Post #: 29
RE: Petition to remove "Structural Design" fo... - 12/14/2020 2:33:43 PM   
licker34

 

Posts: 6
Joined: 12/14/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColRosenberger


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pratapon51

Again, I don't have a problem with the stat itself, but I dislike that it is completely random and is one more factor that negatively affects possible multiplayer balance (not that there are already many balance isues in that regard...).

I strongly object to the game being affected in any way, shape or form by "multiplayer balance". I've seen this mentality suck the fun out of multiple games, usually for the benefit of a microscopic group for which the game wasn't designed in the first place, and which demands change loudly but then dies off quickly, leaving a mess behind.

This game is a simulator and is inherently unbalanced (like real life). The only sane way to play it in multiplayer is with a roleplaying mindset, to see what happens and play it through even if you get destroyed by bad luck. It won't ever be a competitive-friendly game... at least I hope not, because it would destroy the fun.

Now regarding this particular mechanic, I don't have a strong opinion at the moment. Except that if it gets changed it should solely be to make the single-player experience more fun.


I agree with ColRosenberger.

Seems the issue for MP should/could be simply addressed by an option to normalize Structural Design values across all players. Hell, that option could be used for SP as well.

(in reply to ColRosenberger)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Shadow Empire >> For current design process, Str.Design stat is absurd Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
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

0.281