SE5 Poll on Slot Layout, take 2
 

From recent interview:

Some of the screenshots feature a ship design system much like that in Starfury.

The question is, did you request this? Think about how this works in Starfury.

Please read the entire thread before voting to see all views presented by other posters.

Re: SE5 Poll on Slot Layout, take 2
 

How about an option - plainly - I did not ask for slot layouts based on the Starfury design, I thought SE4 system worked just fine.

Re: SE5 Poll on Slot Layout, take 2
 

The way ship design works could probably have a big impact on the population of players that SEV would appeal to. If things are just like they are now in Starfury, it would likely be very interesting to the more hard-core set that likes to dig down into the nitty-gritty details, and would turn off casual players who would rather not spend five mintues designing one ship.

What would be really nice is "have your cake and eat it too". List out a bunch of components you would like to include, and the game will generate a design based on that list. Those who are interested in the details of design can then shuffle around the placement of components. Otherwise, the design can just be accepted as-is.

Re: SE5 Poll on Slot Layout, take 2
 

Although Fyron's poll is obviously biased, you should also consider some features that slot layouts have such as directional damage, a bit of eye candy to overcome spreadsheet feel, and in Star Fury's case moddable weapon arcs etc.

On the other hand, there has to be some caution for use of slot layouts, such as having them attached to individual ships as in Star Fury, if you are transferring such a system to a Space Empires type game.

And for the record I can design ships equally fast between both systems. The primary reason why it might take longer to design is a ship is not necessarily click and drag, but because you need to take more caution in where you place items - which sounds like a strategic decision to me...

Re: SE5 Poll on Slot Layout, take 2
 

The unknowns for non-beta testers are:

- (from the recently posted interview with MM) component placement affects damage in a similar way that Starfury handles damage. i.e. damage from the front hits shields, then armor, then outer hull then inner hull; internal damage is more likely to hit components placed in the front. With the AI handling multiplayer combat, how much does that affect gameplay? The real question is that for ships with identical components, how much does component placement matter in combat? My gut feeling is that this is a good thing that doesn't make a huge difference but adds another facet to ship design. I would think from a reality standpoint (let's not argue about reality in this game) it makes sense that damage should be taken this way.

- How much of a pain is it to design or re-design ships with this method? Time spent designing ships would probably go up, but personally that doesn't bother me because proportionally time spent in ship design is small. Additionally, if component placement has in-game effects, so much the better for game detail. Also, if I modify a design by only moving a component, I would assume that this would be considered a new design and as such previously constucted ships would have the old layout. Would I have to "upgrade" the ship to relocate components?

- Are there exploits to this method or are they not considered exploits at all. What if I shielded my bridge with cheap components. Exploit or smart design? I'd say the latter and also would point out that most Navy combat vessels have more vital areas shielded by both armor and less vital components. What if statistically more damage is taken from the front? A smart player would shield his vital components from the front with less vital components in between.

- I played a lot of Star Fleet Battles (SFB) in the '80s and that's how I eventually stumbled upon the Space Empires series around the time of III transitioning to IV. Each game has good reasons for its mechanics but I have always wished for some of the SFB aspects to be in SE such as weapon arcs and side-specific shields. Starfury has weapon arcs and side specific shields (armor too), I'm guessing SE:V probably has them too. SFB handled internal damage via a chart so there was no aspect of component placement. Now with the AI handling the helm during multiplayer combat, maybe SE:IV 360 degree arcs are superior, but they should be easily modded in SE:V if desired. Would the AI maneuver to protect downed or lesser shields?

Overall opinion: I did not ask for it but based on playing SF and knowledge of SE:IV, I think I might like it. Subject to change after playing SE:V.

Re: SE5 Poll on Slot Layout, take 2
 

Slots are ok if 'inconvenient' when dealing with many components. The real problem is the difference between ship sets. In the 'form fitting' slot scheme, races that have been given 'slender' ship artwork will have far fewer actual slots to work with in designing their ships. With Starfury you can go buy another ship if you want something different. With SE V you will be stuck with the racial set you have chosen, and screwed if that set has 1/2 the slots of some other player's shipset. Ships needing many small components, like transports, could be impossible to finish properly in some shipsets. We need a standard grid for a game like SE V where fitting weapons to firing points is not necessary.

Re: SE5 Poll on Slot Layout, take 2
 

Erm... how is the poll biased? It covers all the opitons: yes and yes, yes and no, don't care, no and yes, no and no. The descriptions are not slanted or anything. It covers both extremes, having changed your mind, and the middle ground.

Re: SE5 Poll on Slot Layout, take 2
 

Um, perhaps this sentence right before the poll? And perhaps some of the language in the poll itself, i.e. suck and hate?

Re: SE5 Poll on Slot Layout, take 2
 

I like the idea of directed damage...If this also applies to shields then I'm even more sold...

But...

How do slots correspond to space/tonnage?

Re: SE5 Poll on Slot Layout, take 2
 

Ever played Starfury? Presumably in (stock) SE5 it will work much the same way - you have a bazillion slots, but a tonnage limitation, so you can't possibly fill up all of them with components. (This also does help with the "Oh no, my shipset sucks therefore all my designs suck" problem - unless you are playing with a mod that has very light components or a shipset with very small ship models, you will not run into a shortage of slots on your ship!) In Starfury, for instance, you might have 50 slots on a ship, with the average component weighing in at maybe 20-50kT - but only the largest ships reached 1000kT, let alone 2500kT! Presumably SE5 will be similar...

Re: SE5 Poll on Slot Layout, take 2
 

I'd have to test-drive it. Sounds neat so far.

Re: SE5 Poll on Slot Layout, take 2
 

We are limited to what we can say for or against SLOTs.

Re: SE5 Poll on Slot Layout, take 2
 

I did not request it and I am not opposed to it.

Fyron: Your bias is implied in many ways. My first thought while reading the poll description was, "Fyron found out there might be slotted components in SEV and thought 'Who the hell ever asked for that? I sure didn't and I don't want it.'"

Re: SE5 Poll on Slot Layout, take 2
 

That's a good point, I'm concerned about that too.

OK, for SEV I'm only going to play races with square blocky ships like the Borg! Yup, the Borg are my favorite race now. Hopefully the Borg dreadnought will be just a huge cube full of slots that takes up the entire ship design window. With the maximized number of components, it will easily beat other races with thin spindly-shaped ships. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: SE5 Poll on Slot Layout, take 2
 

Ships still have a tonnage as dictated by the game and not by the number of slots they have... what BM was saying below was that if slots were based on each ship so some might have an advantage in how you could arrange components...

Re: SE5 Poll on Slot Layout, take 2
 

The number of slots will most likely be standardized.

Re: SE5 Poll on Slot Layout, take 2
 

Naturally there is always a reason for making a poll... But I did try to keep the options covering everything. I originally had it say yes, no and don't care, but it was pointed out to me that it would be a more useful poll to have the broader options currently in place.

Re: SE5 Poll on Slot Layout, take 2
 

That sounds really bad. IMHO the number and placement of slots should be independent from a ship's artwork. It seems very silly that you could get a huge bonus or handicap just because you prefered certain artwork when designing your race. (It would also confuse newbies in terrible ways, and pbw players would be forced to all take the same shipset for a fair game)

That said I really do like the idea of firing arcs and directed damage, but like Munchausen said there should be a standard grid for ships, I know that would probably mess up the current ship design window, since the grid would not fit on the artwork, but the ships for SEV are quite low on polygons and have low res textures anyhow, and these flaws are clearly visible in the shipdesign window. The shipset artwork (though very nicely done) is not designed for showing the ships zoomed in that far.

So my advice would be to change the shipdesign window so it gives a standard grid for each shipsize without the top-down view of the ship. You could replace it with a nice looking texture or some fancy artwork. The ship's artwork could still be displayed somewhere in a corner of the screen at a more apropriate zoom-level, maybe with some nice rotating animation.

(Anyhow thats just my opinion, based on incomplete knowledge and vague assumptions on how the current seV system works, I have not yet voted for this reason)

Re: SE5 Poll on Slot Layout, take 2
 

In the Starfury demo, I found the amount of slots on the mere Destroyer to be immense; if the screenshots are any indication (Jraenar Frigate) the same thing is true with SEV. So unless either A.) you've got ships with immense tonnage ratings or B.) you're placing lots of low-tonnage comps (or C.) both) you won't run out of slots, and their main function is to determine component placement i.e. what Slick said about wet navy ship designs.

About the poll; I didn't vote, as I never actually requested slots, but I do think they're a good idea. In my case "no I didn't request it" means "I never really thought about it".

Re: SE5 Poll on Slot Layout, take 2
 

Actually, I was saying that you might not be able to use the full tonnage allowed because of not enough slots. It won't happen early, of course, but ships that use many small components, like transports, could in fact run out of slots.

There are also very real differences between the shipsets in the proportions of armor, outer hull, and inner hull slots. This also will make for arbitrary and unfair ship design restrictions.

Re: SE5 Poll on Slot Layout, take 2
 

Since it's such a bad idea, what makes you think it's in the game?

Re: SE5 Poll on Slot Layout, take 2
 

...I'll have to second that...

I wanted an option, "I hadn't really given it any thought, but it seems like a great idea."

Realistically, form-factors do impose limitations. Space that can be used for sensors (external) and space that can be used for life-support are mutually exclusive. Solar panels do not interfere with armor, and armor doesn't interfere with missile pods. A ship using reaction-mass propulsion cannot be filled entirely with engines unless it is many times wider than its length - like pancake flying in the 'wrong' orientation.

I don't know who is in the beta, and it my be 'known' that the implementation is 'bad'. In my abstract view, though, injecting realism is good... and this step is entirely beneficial in a way that could only be subverted by a horrible interface or crippling unbalance for the sake of aesthetics, both of which are possible, but should not be assumed.

Old (or first-attempt) RPGs occasionally lacked 'paper dolls', such that a hero could accumulate the bonuses of wearing 10 sets of dragonscale armor, or employ 3 longswords concurrently... and even modern games often have mystifying conventions, where an earring or lapel pin or enchanted peg-leg cannot be used together, because there are not enough 'special' slots. Examples of the former include 'La Pucelle Tactics' and (IIRC) HOMM II, while the latter includes virtually everything, from World of Warcraft (special slots) to Dominions II (special slots, and ranged weapons competing with melee weapons for space) to Jagged Alliance II (can't put a rod&spring, scope, laser, bipod, extender, silencer, and grenade launcher on the same gun... though I do it all the time in RL).

In all cases, there are unrealistic decisions forced upon the player instead of real decisions, do to incomplete modelling, and arbitrary restrictions employed to prevent exploitation of the incomplete modelling. The solution is obviously to model more completely.

To be prefectly honest, I don't understand your goal with the poll. You seem to preclude that any attempt at better modelling starships (specifically, their component organization) will fail abysmally, and create a discussion under this strict assumption. Is it actually known that the release version of SEV will have a terribly flawed paper-doll model; are you opposed to the concept of limitations on starship components; or are you simply assuming that whatever the possibly advantages of a new system, something will go horribly wrong? I'm not trying to be aggressive, but a lot of people seem to agree with you, and I can't figure out whether these anti-slot opinions are a result of a few 6-month-old screenshots, playing Starfury, leakage from beta testing, or just resistance to limitations. All the reasons I see are expressed as "If x and y, then z might be impossible". But that's like saying, "I see an equation with the term '100' on the left side, so the right side can never be equal to '5' no matter what else you put on the left side", which is clearly wrong. There's no reason, for example, that components couldn't stack in a slot, up to a maximum tonnage (per slot)... or a maximum cubage (cubic meters)... or a maximum outward-facing surface area... or a maximum power draw. So, there's no basis to assume that slot count (above zero) should in any way influence total component count, unless there is some insider information proving that this will not be the case. And as there is no evidence (to my knowledge) that the game bounds-checks slot locations versus the ship's graphical dimensions, there is no reason to assume that shipset design should be in any way relevant to slottage. Just as a 1-pixel SEIV ship could have 600kT of components, why couldn't a 1-pixel / 4-triangle SEV ship have a 4x8 grid of slots, on the far left side of the screen, far away from the optical center of the hull?

Maybe those questions have good answers, but if not, this thread seems to have a lot of Murphy's Law devotees. I've always felt that there will be plenty of time for criticism once a game is released... except in certain cases (like Oblivion) when 'final' bad decisions are publicized beforehand, or when the developer has a history of deception and bone-headed choices. But neither of those really apply here.

Re: SE5 Poll on Slot Layout, take 2
 

That sounds like a "No I didn't request it, but yes, it sounds good to me now" vote.

Re: SE5 Poll on Slot Layout, take 2
 

Let's stop being pedantic about the wording. Its just semantics; the meaning of the options is the same either way.

Saber Cherry and Strategia, you are both covered by option... 4? "No, but I like it."

Re: SE5 Poll on Slot Layout, take 2
 

How about 'I'll make up my mind when I play the game?'

Re: SE5 Poll on Slot Layout, take 2
 

Since I'm in the beta I can't really comment on the whole slots issue (though I can vote http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif ), but I'll make the following contribution:

Eeep! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

Re: SE5 Poll on Slot Layout, take 2
 

Well,even if different shapes of ships give different advantages or disadvantages because of the number and positions of slots that are available, we could probably use mods to balance things out. A race that has slender ships with few slots could receive extra racial points, for example. But it would be better if every race had the same number and arrangement of slots, regardless of what the ship graphic looks like.

Re: SE5 Poll on Slot Layout, take 2
 

Saber Cherry:

I can't really speak for current implementation, and probably shouldn't try to address your post at all... I made the poll because I want to see what the (active) community at large thinks of slots.

Re: SE5 Poll on Slot Layout, take 2
 

because by then it will be to late to change?

Re: SE5 Poll on Slot Layout, take 2
 

by then it will be either to late, or to late.

Re: SE5 Poll on Slot Layout, take 2
 

Ok, semi intoxicated, didn't see an answer so.. This poll is biased towards players who are doing beta testing as there is no option for "I have neither played spacestarfury nor am I in beta for SEV".

I.E. You speak of things the vast majority of us know nothing of.

On the other hand.. Played a bit of SFB and I wholly approve of any online game that I pay next to nothing for including the best elements of SFB for me to play with.

On the other other hand..

Unless it crashes the game it's almost always impossible to get a large enough sample size for your beta to adequately involve all possible player opinions..

I.E. They almost always hate you or love you to such a degree that clear thinking upon beta tester opinions is near impossible due to the extreme opinions generated.

There is different, there is different which broke the game and there is different which changed the parameters of the game, made folks think and in the end changed the paradigm people were used to in their game but rapidly got used to in the new settings..

Being not a beta tester, I await

Rathar

Re: SE5 Poll on Slot Layout, take 2
 

I spoke of nothing. All I did was ask a simple question based off of the interview and previous screenshots. There is nothing in the poll at all related to beta testing. If I want to poll beta testers, I will do so in the appropriate place. I did not ask how it plays, I asked what you think of what you see.

Re: SE5 Poll on Slot Layout, take 2
 

As I read it, you did exactly as you have said you have done. Your poll is based off of information that Aaron himself has made public. Any one saying you are violating the Beta NDA is mistaken in my opinion. Good poll by the way. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: SE5 Poll on Slot Layout, take 2
 

Could it be that the features list in Malfador's site says so? Or could it be the screenshots?

http://www.malfador.com/SE5scr012.htm

And then there is the recent interview already cited.

There are several 'fun' things about designing ships this way, but this is not like Starfury in one respect. You cannot change your shipset. Whatever set you choose at the game setup is what you are stuck with for the whole game.

Re: SE5 Poll on Slot Layout, take 2
 

Well, in that case, my opinion is: Slots are a great addition if they are well-implemented. But that really says nothing http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: SE5 Poll on Slot Layout, take 2
 

Ok, that's scary. But it shouldn't be too hard to mod the pics.