Author Topic: Jump Gate Construction/Destruction (split suggestions)  (Read 5493 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Rabid_Cog

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 240
  • Thanked: 6 times
Re: Jump Gate Construction/Destruction (split suggestions)
« Reply #90 on: June 13, 2018, 04:24:31 AM »
The general complaint seems to be "Jump gates are too cheap and easy, while jump engines are expensive and fat".

Isn't the simplest solution just to address the  balance between those previous two issues?

Make jump gates more expensive (flat value, not micromanagement) and/or make jump engines cheaper/smaller perhaps?
I have my own subforum now!
Shameless plug for my own Aurora story game:
5.6 part: http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,4988.0.html
6.2 part: http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,5906.0.html

Feel free to post comments!
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,5452.0.html
 

Offline the obelisk

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • t
  • Posts: 61
  • Thanked: 8 times
Re: Jump Gate Construction/Destruction (split suggestions)
« Reply #91 on: June 13, 2018, 11:54:38 AM »
The general complaint seems to be "Jump gates are too cheap and easy, while jump engines are expensive and fat".

Isn't the simplest solution just to address the  balance between those previous two issues?

Make jump gates more expensive (flat value, not micromanagement) and/or make jump engines cheaper/smaller perhaps?
Seems to me that the people talking about jump gate micromanagement feel that having to worry about any transportation+usage of resources for creating a jump gate will be micromanagement.  While I disagree, I can understand why they'd feel that way.  I think the real issue (beyond the fact that this is Steve's game, and he'll make what he wants) is that there doesn't seem to be a community consensus about jump points.  You've got people who don't want micro, people who see jump gates as being too cheap an alternative to jump tenders, people who don't like the AI building gates everywhere, etc.  I personally agree that jump gates as they are, are in large part a cheap, upkeep free alternative to jump tenders, but at the same time I don't agree with people who want to just replace them with jump tenders, because jump gates work fundamentally differently than tenders, and not just in terms of capacity.  A single tender can allow traffic to and from another system, where as gates are one way.
 

Offline Whitecold

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • W
  • Posts: 255
  • Thanked: 53 times
Re: Jump Gate Construction/Destruction (split suggestions)
« Reply #92 on: June 14, 2018, 01:46:55 AM »
@the obelisk I would very much prefer gates as an alternative to tenders, but as they are now, I'd rather have only jump tenders than the gates as they are now, because they pretty much always are the better option.
 

Offline Darkminion

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • D
  • Posts: 19
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: Jump Gate Construction/Destruction (split suggestions)
« Reply #93 on: June 14, 2018, 12:10:33 PM »
A player in my game once told me something in relation to this and it has effected doctrine for both fleet deployment and expansion. The quote goes something like "You don't build an empire by paying the ferryman every time you want to cross a river, you build bridges" and that's how I treat gated JPs in my games. When planning expansion I will typically build a gate on both sides of every JP within what I consider within my borders and secure. Like bridges they provide ease of movement between colonies, even for commercial ships with no jump engines. For me jump gates have also had the added benefit of of allowing you to make your warships more efficient. Not requiring a jump drive on a military vessel allows more tonnage to be put towards either defensive systems, sensors, or offensive weapons. I prefer gates over tenders mainly for that reason. That doesn't mean jump tenders don't have their place or I don't design ships with jump drives for assaults across unstabilized/un-gated JPs or for exploration. Both have their pros and cons. This freedom of movement is also passed onto enemy forces (even though most NPR ships Ive seen have jump engines). Being able to remove/restrict strategic or economic freedom movement by reversing whatever process allowed it would add to gameplay and could be critical in some circumstances.

There has been mention of balance between gates and drives here as well. Tweaking the amount of time it takes to build/stabilize would be a better way to balance gates rather than adding a component cost or building a gate via factories or a shipyard (and also for the sake of micro). Falling back to my bridge analogy, these can be more investments in time rather than resources.

 I think a lot of this also boils down to how the individual plays aurora. if you use a lot of jump tenders one may not put much value in gates/stabilized JPs as their style allows them to move more freely without them, they can almost become a second thought.
 

Offline Whitecold

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • W
  • Posts: 255
  • Thanked: 53 times
Re: Jump Gate Construction/Destruction (split suggestions)
« Reply #94 on: June 14, 2018, 05:03:30 PM »
@Darkminion Your analogy pretty much breaks down that a bridge is way, way more expensive than a ferry. I don't saw anyone arguing that JGs were underpowered.
 

Offline Person012345

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 461
  • Thanked: 16 times
Re: Jump Gate Construction/Destruction (split suggestions)
« Reply #95 on: June 14, 2018, 05:22:40 PM »
The fact that a fair number of people think JG are better and a fair number of people think tenders are better implies to me that they're already relatively well balanced. I tend to use JG's to save on time and resources (playing conventional starts) and maybe they could be nerfed a little in some terms, but from this thread it doesn't seem like they need a huge nerf (although with the coming changes in overall gameplay the balance might shift).
 

Offline the obelisk

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • t
  • Posts: 61
  • Thanked: 8 times
Re: Jump Gate Construction/Destruction (split suggestions)
« Reply #96 on: June 14, 2018, 07:19:47 PM »
The fact that a fair number of people think JG are better and a fair number of people think tenders are better implies to me that they're already relatively well balanced. I tend to use JG's to save on time and resources (playing conventional starts) and maybe they could be nerfed a little in some terms, but from this thread it doesn't seem like they need a huge nerf (although with the coming changes in overall gameplay the balance might shift).
Maybe I'm misremembering, but i don't think a single person in this thread has said that tenders are better.  The people  who exclusively use tenders are using them because they feel that JG's are too good.
 

Offline QuakeIV

  • Registered
  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 268
  • Thanked: 18 times
Re: Jump Gate Construction/Destruction (split suggestions)
« Reply #97 on: June 15, 2018, 12:26:14 AM »
I mean, I'd prefer to use tenders if not for the micro.  In general if the game had more automated logistics tools then a lot more cool stuff would be preferable and nice, but thats a legitimately difficult thing to do, so I don't really see the point in broaching the point at least until he has finally gotten a test campaign going.  (i personally see that as the point where his progress starts feeding on itself since he is playing the game again)
 

Offline Whitecold

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • W
  • Posts: 255
  • Thanked: 53 times
Re: Jump Gate Construction/Destruction (split suggestions)
« Reply #98 on: June 15, 2018, 12:41:43 AM »
I mean, I'd prefer to use tenders if not for the micro.  In general if the game had more automated logistics tools then a lot more cool stuff would be preferable and nice, but thats a legitimately difficult thing to do, so I don't really see the point in broaching the point at least until he has finally gotten a test campaign going.  (i personally see that as the point where his progress starts feeding on itself since he is playing the game again)
What micro exactly are you talking about? You need to move the tender to the WP, and leave it there forever. If you make the gate a ship component, you build your gate, tow it to the WP and leave it there forever.
All you need to get rid of the micro of deployment times is introduce a reduced mil jump drive capacity on civ drives.
 

Offline QuakeIV

  • Registered
  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 268
  • Thanked: 18 times
Re: Jump Gate Construction/Destruction (split suggestions)
« Reply #99 on: June 15, 2018, 12:21:08 PM »
Well, you can't leave it there forever.  You need to keep it supplied with MSP and eventually it will need an overhaul.  There is no way to automate any of that.  Yes you can make super long maint life ships, but you will also need to periodically upgrade the things as you get bigger ships and shipyards, so I would argue that point is moot.  If you have like sixty jump points then the overhead of continually doing that can get kindof tedious.

e:  I suppose you might generally play with all the maintenance stuff turned off, generally I don't because that removes a gigantic aspect of warfare that is trying to supply your ships.  That is by far the main limiting factor preventing someone from just churning out a potentially infinitely large fleet, and supply lines are also a huge potential warfare mechanic.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2018, 12:24:22 PM by QuakeIV »
 

Offline Darkminion

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • D
  • Posts: 19
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: Jump Gate Construction/Destruction (split suggestions)
« Reply #100 on: June 15, 2018, 01:00:02 PM »
@Darkminion Your analogy pretty much breaks down that a bridge is way, way more expensive than a ferry. I don't saw anyone arguing that JGs were underpowered.

I apologize if my post was construed in that manner, it was not my intention. Gates were compared to bridges as they are static infrastructure that allow movement across JPs without anything additional being required. They are good for established routes and take time to build. I do not believe adding a component cost to these would improve anything for the player. I personally feel they should take a longer investment of time to complete as they stand right now. I also feel that they should be destructible/removable as they are an invulnerable strategic object in their current VB6 form and adding this would provide a simple addition to gameplay which can have far reaching effects. Again the bridge analogy comes into play here as they are similar in a few regards and how I view/use them personally. They are strategic objects which facilitate movement, their construction or de(con)struction effects the freedom of that movement.

 

Offline QuakeIV

  • Registered
  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 268
  • Thanked: 18 times
Re: Jump Gate Construction/Destruction (split suggestions)
« Reply #101 on: June 15, 2018, 05:44:13 PM »
I'd think bridges would be more along the lines of whole new jump points, this is more like paving a road.
 

Offline Whitecold

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • W
  • Posts: 255
  • Thanked: 53 times
Re: Jump Gate Construction/Destruction (split suggestions)
« Reply #102 on: June 15, 2018, 11:22:56 PM »
@QuakeIV Only military ships need to be maintained. Civilian ships are fine, so by making gates civilian components you should be all good.

The main point that irks me is when would you decide not to build a bunch of gates. As they are right now, you basically keep your constructors running, building gates pretty much whether they are really needed or not. I'd like to have a reasonable choice between using gates and using jump drives.
Right now even if you only ever need to visit a system once you just dump a gate there instead of bothering with jump drives.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2018, 11:37:02 PM by Whitecold »
 

Offline JacenHan

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 281
  • Thanked: 33 times
Re: Jump Gate Construction/Destruction (split suggestions)
« Reply #103 on: June 16, 2018, 01:38:20 AM »
Part of the issue is that there is no cost to having your constructors building gates 100% of the time. I would love to see an associated wealth cost as well as an increased construction time. In my opinion this would at least mitigate most current concerns while keeping the mechanics basically the same.
 

Offline Bremen

  • Captain
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 407
  • Thanked: 22 times
Re: Jump Gate Construction/Destruction (split suggestions)
« Reply #104 on: June 16, 2018, 08:56:01 PM »
@QuakeIV Only military ships need to be maintained. Civilian ships are fine, so by making gates civilian components you should be all good.

Except that then you couldn't send military ships through them.
 

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53