|
I am in utter AWE of your harddrive capacity.
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 01:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 23:06 |
|
|
Just when I was getting ready to try it again, they sink it under a new load of bugs. Ah well. Our old hopes of the SotS/BoB/AMoC pattern following with SotS may well come true after all. I actually enjoyed vanilla SotS (or SotS prime or whatever the Mectards over at the official board get huffy about calling it.) Of course, AMoC took it from cool and relatively playable game to damned good one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 01:44
|
|
|
Commoners posted:Why hello there, SotS2, I missed- I think the Loa have infested your system. The upside is that your gaming rig will be run by sentient supercomputer AIs. The downside is that you'll precipitate the downfall of humanity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 01:55
|
|
|
Oh sweet. New thread. I only stopped by because I worked out how to turn off Trading in SotS1 and was looking for somewhere to tell people about it. Page 2 of a new thread makes more sense than page 300 of the old one. Or is this a well known thing?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 03:12
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Oh sweet. New thread. I only stopped by because I worked out how to turn off Trading in SotS1 and was looking for somewhere to tell people about it. Page 2 of a new thread makes more sense than page 300 of the old one. Or is this a well known thing? Out of curiosity, did you make a mod for it or download one? Just removing trade would cripple Morrigi (as their economy is primarily trade-based), and make Zuul a lot stronger, if I understand the way the game's economy works correctly. If there's a way to remove trade, normalize planet income, and boost overall planet income to compensate for the reduced revenue from trading, that would be ideal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 03:15
|
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:Out of curiosity, did you make a mod for it or download one? Just removing trade would cripple Morrigi (as their economy is primarily trade-based), and make Zuul a lot stronger, if I understand the way the game's economy works correctly. What I'd really like to do would be to keep Trade intact but just have 1 ship per trade route or something. e2: Which I just worked out how to do 
Splicer fucked around with this message at 03:26 on Dec 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 03:16
|
|
|
Splicer posted:I just set the chance to research the trade ability to 0. e: And set police ships to just require FTL Broadband and fusion. Yeah it's kind of a kick in the teeth for Morrigi, which is my preferred faction (ships so pretty) but it's just. So. Fiddly. I could probably put more work into it, but if it's just for my own enjoyment I'm not too pushed (and I hate playing against Zuul so I rarely put them in anyway). I looked around for existing notrade mods but nada. I thought there was a mod for that in the old sots1 thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 03:25
|
|
|
I haven't been following anything SotS after the first month of laundry list bugfix patches for 2, but didn't somebody at Kerberos say that they'd sooner admit their space whales had faults before putting in a playable AI race?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 03:26
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:I thought there was a mod for that in the old sots1 thread. e: Nevermind, it's actually pretty trivial. Hooray! Splicer fucked around with this message at 03:36 on Dec 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 03:31
|
|
|
I still think my idea for a new race's FTL drive is the coolest - a solar sailing species that has their FTL speed based on the star they're leaving. They would have to be able to colonize a wide range of planets to make up for this, but having a race with very different needs from what other people look at when they colonize would be interesting. 80 CH planet with a red dwarf - pass. 280 CH planet with a blue giant - grab it! Unfortunately actually playing this game less fun than talking about it at this point. Thanks to the thread I can actually run the game without it chugging now on my very nice new computer that can run the Witcher 2. I attempted to start up a Morrigi game last night; that's the one that crashed just before I ended turn 1. It probably never even autosaved. I'm starting on Disk with 10 techs researched and research efficiency at 150% - any advice? The station system seems to be the biggest WTF factor coming over from the old game. Fleets and missions I can wrap my head around, but the station menu is just so loving opaque I have no idea where to start. Every module is just a little clicker with no indication of how costly something is to build or what effect it will have. How many support modules should I build? Three? Twenty? No clue.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 06:50
|
|
|
It tells you what a station module will do when you hover the mouse over it. When you add one it also tells you how much it will cost. As for how many to get, it depends entirely on what you need - never build stations just because you can (only get as many docks as your planet can/will produce goods for example). Edit: Time to forget the Loa tips from earlier in the thread, since they've been changed again. Armor doesn't increase their cube cost/construction cost anymore so you can slap it on everything again. DatonKallandor fucked around with this message at 12:07 on Dec 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 10:20
|
|
|
DatonKallandor posted:(only get as many docks as your planet can/will produce goods for example). ... produce goods? What?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 13:10
|
|
|
So is this actually playable now? Or is still a broken buggy mess that is patched continually by a bunch of teenagers led by a paedophile?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 13:30
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:... produce goods? What? Trade view: top row are circles denoting goods produced by the system. they start off empty and are filled by moving the industry slider from construction to trade. Middle row show possible trade docks constructed in that system (at a civilian station). they also start empty and are filled by a freighter constructed in system. Therefor, each matched up filled trade good circle and freighter triangle equals one active trade route that produces cash.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 13:34
|
|
|
WMain00 posted:patched continually by a bunch of teenagers led by a paedophile?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 13:37
|
|
|
Splicer posted:I'm sorry what Nothing, I just don't have alot of respect for Kerberos anymore.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 13:45
|
|
|
WMain00 posted:Nothing, I just don't have alot of respect for Kerberos anymore.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 13:47
|
|
|
Splicer posted:I got that but I've spent too long on the internet to assume a comment like that was just hyperbole. Yeah i got that vibe too. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 13:54
|
|
|
I'm just bitter because I've had this game in my steam list broken for a full year and gave a company money for it when I really shouldn't have.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 14:04
|
|
|
So I researched deep space construction and I thought I would be able to place Stations anywhere in a system now. Turns out I still can't. What did this research even do?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 15:00
|
|
|
DarkAvenger211 posted:So I researched deep space construction and I thought I would be able to place Stations anywhere in a system now. Turns out I still can't. What did this research even do? You can put mining stations around asteroids with mining, and you can drop naval bases in systems without colonies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 15:05
|
|
|
Nuclearmonkee posted:You can put mining stations around asteroids with mining, and you can drop naval bases in systems without colonies. I didn't know the part about naval bases in non occupied systems, this changes things! However mining stations are based only on overharvesting tech in the industry tree. What deep space constructions does is allow you to create torpedo platforms together with torpedo tech, which is crazy good. Fusion torpedo platforms are relatively cheap and easy to get, and they fire 8 torps.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 15:23
|
|
|
Nuclearmonkee posted:You can put mining stations around asteroids with mining, and you can drop naval bases in systems without colonies. We need a list like this for all the crazy research technologies that aren't clear in their function. For example, every tech in the whole tree because their tech tree is terrible and doesn't explain very much.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 15:30
|
|
|
WMain00 posted:I'm just bitter because I've had this game in my steam list broken for a full year and gave a company money for it when I really shouldn't have. Yes, it's playable and is about equivalent to SOTS1 around the time of the first expansion. It's got a bunch of new systems that are somewhat vague in their function until you mess with them, but again, that's similar to SOTS1. You can tell because people are actually discussing playing the game now  The expansion just came out last week so if you've waited this long you can feel free to wait another week or so for a few more stability patches, but you can also dive right in right now and have a pleasant experience.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 16:23
|
|
|
Demiurge4 posted:I didn't know the part about naval bases in non occupied systems, this changes things! It also leads to the battle rider satellite, though that one costs 3 cap to place, not 1.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 16:31
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:It also leads to the battle rider satellite, though that one costs 3 cap to place, not 1. Is there any way to get more cap?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 16:38
|
|
|
Naval Bases. One of their upgrades increases defenses support cap. Also make sure to retrofit Naval Bases once you give them combat sections (Hiver Gate Stations too) since they only have heavy mass drivers by default. Each large turret is actually 2 mounts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 16:43
|
|
|
TehSaurus posted:Is there any way to get more cap? Naval stations have modules that add to your defense capacity. Upgrading your naval station will let you place more of these modules if you need them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 16:43
|
|
|
Jesus, I watched some of that stream the guy mentioned it took 2 hours to play 12 in-game turns, was Sots1 multiplayer that slow?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 17:15
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:Naval Bases. One of their upgrades increases defenses support cap. I believe it's warehouses that increases the size of naval bases. Stupid question: How do I design / build defensive satellites? I don't see them in the design or build screens, and I can't seem to figure it out. I know how to place them from the system details (where you place fleets around planets) but haven't figured out the first part.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 17:18
|
|
|
Is the manual still completely lacking in detail except where it describes non-functional features? I tried reading it the week of the launch and it was like reading a manual for a game of space Diplomacy that bore almost no relation to the actual game.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 17:22
|
|
|
Rakthar posted:I believe it's warehouses that increases the size of naval bases. Warehouses and command modules, actually. You can't build defense sats until you have a sat technology researched. The easiest one to get is drone sats off the battle-rider tree. Once a defense satellite tech is researched, then you will have a new ship type (platforms) in the design window.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 17:28
|
|
|
WMain00 posted:Nothing, I just don't have alot of respect for Kerberos anymore.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 17:36
|
|
|
Fire Storm posted:I've been having a bit more respect for them lately. It's almost like they are actually trying to make this game playable! They released an obviously, painfully unfinished wad of code as a "finished game". They refused to be honest about the state of the game at the time. Mecron only apologized after three days of internet fury. They have not documented their game very well. Their interactions with other human beings are usually snarky, smug, and superior. They have shown exactly the bare minimum of respect from their customers as is required to get money out of some of them and no more. I see little reason to give them any in return.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 17:43
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:It also leads to the battle rider satellite, though that one costs 3 cap to place, not 1. It's worth mentioning that 3 capacity is a steal for a Battlerider platform. They're really incredible. Also things to keep in mind about Mining bases: They don't take up Station Slots. You can have multiples in the same system (depending on how many asteroid belts you've got). You can get them Upkeep-free if you let the free market place them by putting stimulus into mining. The Manual seemed pretty good last I checked. They updated it a lot over the last year. As for Kerberos: They patched their mess all year round, gave out free content and have never stopped fixing bugs, all for no further money. If you've paid any attention to PC devs in the last few years you'll notice the fact they didn't abandon it after 2 patches is extremely rare, and does deserve respect. DatonKallandor fucked around with this message at 18:06 on Dec 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 17:46
|
|
|
Counterpoint: fleet system.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 17:57
|
|
|
DatonKallandor posted:If you've paid any attention to PC devs in the last few years you'll notice the fact they didn't abandon it after 2 patches is extremely rare, and does deserve respect. I honestly don't get this line of thought. They didn't spend the last year "patching" the game. They spent the past year finishing it. I would be inclined to respect a developer that sold me a finished game and then spent a year giving it great support. That's amazing. In this case, the developer sold me a pile of inoperable code and then took an additional year to get around to finishing it. That's horrible. That says "I think my pre-order customers and loyal fan base are basically a piggy bank and they'll forget I screwed them over if I patch the game enough." That's not respect. It certainly doesn't deserve respect in return. At that point it doesn't matter how much additional free stuff they throw on the pile, they've already shown me exactly what kind of team they are and I'd rather give my money to folks who'll do it right the first time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 18:03
|
|
|
MisterVec posted:I honestly don't get this line of thought. They didn't spend the last year "patching" the game. They spent the past year finishing it. Sure and if you ever find a dev that does it right the first time, much less in the same genre, give us a shout.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 18:08
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I attempted to start up a Morrigi game last night; that's the one that crashed just before I ended turn 1. It probably never even autosaved. I'm starting on Disk with 10 techs researched and research efficiency at 150% - any advice? Check the permissions for your save folder. At some point one of mine became 'read only' that was causing the database save step from failing. There's also a dump log that might provide for some amusement.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 18:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 23:06 |
|
|
DatonKallandor posted:Sure and if you ever find a dev that does it right the first time, much less in the same genre, give us a shout. Easy peasy. Any developer who manages to release a finished, functional game prior to extensive patching is doing it right the first time. Your library is full of those (I hope). Sure, some need post-release patching to address some bugs and some benefit from some additional polish, but they were playable games when you bought them. So, the list is probably quite extensive, I'd wager. As far as the same genre, that's easy, too. The Total War games are also turn-based management with real-time combat games. They aren't set in space (yet), but they do share the same genre and tend to be functional and playable on release. If you want one set in space, Gratuitous Space Battles now has an optional empire management mode with persistent, user-designed fleets. You do have options.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 18:39
|
|