|
Gimmick Account posted:the hyper-aggressive AI (another thing that's hopefully behind us) would inevitably swarm you with size 12 fighters and bombers (!) and size 1000+ capital ships. This is why I abused the poo poo out of Nano Armor. Sure, my ships are a bit smaller but they regenerate more health than they have and you don't have enough firepower to one-shot them without focusing your firepower.  My planets would be kinda poo poo out of luck, though.
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 17:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 16:00 |
|
|
Gimmick Account posted:Oh yeah, that pretty much sums up my experience, too. You had absolutely NO margin for error or delay from the second the game started. No exploring, no peaceful research, nothing - Because if you didn't expand like the Mongols, the hyper-aggressive AI (another thing that's hopefully behind us) would inevitably swarm you with size 12 fighters and bombers (!) and size 1000+ capital ships. Psychotic like demands for consumer goods/luxuries by the truckload (because they had none) from an AI with the "Eusocial Society" trait which means they don't produce and have no need for said resources. But I've also got Eusocial so I can't give them any either except by extorting them from the fourth and fifth AIplayers... who are also all Eusocial because morale-boosting supplies were only good for keeping AIs peaceful and wasting factory slots. And you can protect planets by using the Planetary Thrusters to move your empire into intergalactic space. Then build ringworlds with nothing but spaceports to feed resources to deatstar-sized orbital shipyards. Then build disposable planet-sized stealth fighters to keep the enemy's fleets busy while you produce capital ships literally the size of the galaxy. It's a weird universe where victory goes to the cheesemongers. Survival of the craziest.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 18:30
|
|
|
I always got GIVE ME 100,000 RESEARCH FOR THESE 20K ELECTRONICS OR I DECLARE WAR!!!!!!! Silly AI.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 19:15
|
|
|
Firgof posted:We're taking care to note and address the major faults of SR1 both in design and execution. That sounds good as a general direction, certainly the vision was probably the strongest part of SR1, being as it was "Iain M Banks' Culture Simulator 2010". I'll be following it with interest definitely, SR1 would probably have been my favorite space RTS had it worked out better in practice. Looking forward to seeing where you go with it. Also not able to access starruler2.com. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Sep 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 19:58
|
|
|
Shugojin posted:I always got GIVE ME 100,000 RESEARCH FOR THESE 20K ELECTRONICS OR I DECLARE WAR!!!!!!! Mercedes or war.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 20:05
|
|
|
Sorry that y'all aren't able to access our website; I'll pass the problems you're having on to Lucas and Reaper. Edit: Problem should be fixed now; let us know if you still can't access the website. Firgof fucked around with this message at 17:45 on Sep 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 16:27
|
|
|
Firgof posted:Sorry that y'all aren't able to access our website; I'll pass the problems you're having on to Lucas and Reaper. starruler2 website posted:It works! IPv6 address resolves to 2001:41d0:a:2e4a::1 IPv4 address resolves to 37.187.78.74 Nevermind, fixed itself about 10 minutes after I posted this. mezoth fucked around with this message at 02:48 on Oct 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2013 02:41
|
|
|
Looks fine from here, try clearing your cache. Edit: ah.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2013 02:50
|
|
|
There needs to be way more research to slow the game down along with absurd planetary defenses so your planets dont get glassed by that suicide fleet. I'd love to see some 40k style solar system wide mine fields and defense stations that are just massive ships without engines for an appropriately cheap price. If you bother to build a fleet of 1000 ships you should be able to watch a fun massive battle as they struggle to take that fortress world instead of watching the fortress world kill 2-3 then instantly get obliterated. Basically you have some wonderful roses but i have no time to smell them because i get wiped out if i do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2013 04:22
|
|
|
I read the devblog on diplomacy. I like the amount of depth being added, it reminds me (and this is meant in praise, though the devs may not appreciate it) of the Civ 5 Brave New World 'World Council' mechanic. I have two nitpicks, though. 1. It's going to depend on making influence production balanced, which is not as easy as it sounds. Again looking at Civ 5, it has quite a few 'other mechanic' resources. Like culture points and religion points and suchlike. They can have wildly different amounts of production which is only really ok because they have massive diminishing returns, and none of the systems they fuel will win you the game (any more, culture points used to). It's going to be tricky to balance the influence production, so I'd be interested to hear how that's going to work. 2. While it's very cool to have everyone involved in big decisions which affect the entire universe, it's also really odd that you can't stop fighting someone based on what other people say. I mean practically if neither side wants to continue the conflict, the other powers can't make them fight each other, so why let them control the offical diplomatic standpoint? It seems a bit weird. War and peace should really be between the two parties, or at the very least I should be able to declare war and accept peace myself if I want to.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 01:05
|
|
|
It might seem counter intuitive, but stuff like that happens in diplomacy all the time. Just look at WW1, complete clusterfuck from seemingly nowhere because of a complex web of treaties. It gives factions that focus on diplomacy actual power in multiplayer. In other games of this genre, diplomatic bonuses were outright ignored by min/maxinig players because they only really counted vs AI. The downside of course is it takes some agency away from players, which can be annoying. However if both sides want to stop fighting badly enough, they could just stop throwing fleets at each other, turning the conflict into more of a cold war... what this mechanic means is you could stop two factions getting the specific benefits of peace more than anything (trade, open borders etc). As long as it's made fun it's all good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 01:20
|
|
|
tooterfish posted:It might seem counter intuitive, but stuff like that happens in diplomacy all the time. Just look at WW1, complete clusterfuck from seemingly nowhere because of a complex web of treaties. Hmm, I can certainly see getting a major diplomatic kick in the teeth from not honouring treaties and such, to use the world war 1 scenario. Perhaps the other factions (especially the one you say gently caress you to) would get a casus belli mechanic where they can easily get other people to declare war on you for treaty breaking, or just as a function of you doing whatever the hell you want in the face of major diplomatic pressure. But I still think it should entirely be the player's choice in the end. It's one thing to have warmongering or allying with unpopular factions rally the galaxy against you, it's another to have it be literally impossible to decide who you want to war or ally with because of the decision of some senate you may or may not give two shits about. If you want a way to make it work in player versus player, have economic, scientific, and military benefits to being in the diplomatic good books. Your military may not be large as a diplomatic faction but it should have the benefits of cooperative technology, and other players should want to defend you to keep those bonuses. Again drawing from the civ 5 mechanics. You could even have diplomatic attacks, like if you can get enough popular support you can literally cause rebellions and AI pirate raids on a faction, which would represent a concerted effort by the other powers to undermine that faction internally. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 01:47 on Oct 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 01:44
|
|
|
Firgof posted:It should be noted FTL is likely to be available right from the start of the game; the primary limitation of utilizing FTL systems is they require a specialized fuel that you can only contain so much of, generates slowly, etc. A reason to use carriers! This is good news.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 22:36
|
|
|
Tophereth posted:A reason to use carriers! This is good news. Yes I'm interested in the FTL system too, I never quite liked the newtonian model for interstellar flight because ships tended to be slow, but untouchable in-flight, and there was no concept of a 'border' to your space, because everything can fly everywhere. A limited FTL resource sounds pretty excellent honestly, especially if you can block ships from using it to fly through your empire or something.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 23:04
|
|
|
So I'm looking for a new space strategy to play- is Star Ruler 1 a good purchase for its price, or should I just wait for 2?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 09:09
|
|
|
CommissarMega posted:So I'm looking for a new space strategy to play- is Star Ruler 1 a good purchase for its price, or should I just wait for 2? At $20 I wouldn't say so, though you can play the demo and get a feel for yourself (and of course wait for sales). Mind you, Star Ruler 2 is a fair way off still.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 09:29
|
|
|
I somehow missed that it had a demo- thanks for the heads up!
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 09:47
|
|
|
(Sorry for the lengthy delay between responses)Arghy posted:There needs to be way more research to slow the game down along with absurd planetary defenses so your planets dont get glassed by that suicide fleet. Battles in general should take much longer than SR1's "flashpaper combat" and planets ought to be capable of mounting a much more effective defense than before. Combined with the new approach to research and how expansion functions along with the Budget cycle mechanic, the game in general is much slower than SR1's pacing. quote:(Regarding whether Diplomacy will work or not) It's going to depend on making influence production balanced, which is not as easy as it sounds. quote:I mean practically if neither side wants to continue the conflict, the other powers can't make them fight each other, so why let them control the offical diplomatic standpoint? quote:Hmm, I can certainly see getting a major diplomatic kick in the teeth from not honouring treaties and such, to use the world war 1 scenario. quote:If you want a way to make it work in player versus player, have economic, scientific, and military benefits to being in the diplomatic good books. Firgof fucked around with this message at 00:51 on Oct 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 00:40
|
|
|
Do you have any idea or plan on how end game pacing will play out? I'm playing the new endless space expansion and its gone from awesome tooth and nail struggle to me sending out waves of ships to multiple planets capturing them like dominoes. I've been saying for the longest time that planets should be able to handle entire fleets if properly invested and the only 4x game thats come close was the SotS1 mod ironclads which allowed you to build 3 rings of defensive sats instead of just 1 ring of 10. As it currently gos in most 4x games when you reach a certain point be it victory or defeat its all down hill. It would be awesome if you could reach that point then focus on that 1 fortress world holding off the more powerful enemy till you bounce back and on the flip side be able to spam fleets like no ones business but still be forced to play the game to kill that guys fortress world. You should be encouraged to stop expansion at some point and invest in the worlds you have rather then expand non stop wiping out each others fledgling planets. Someone who spends the same amount of effort into 3 planets should be able to compete with someone who's put their effort into 14 planets. The most important part would be to ensure the AI also does this because in every 4x game its pretty much a fleet game with the AI leaving their planets as easy pickings while your planets can actually withstand an invasion. I'd love to see if everyone felt the same as me--when i've spent all the effort to reach the goddamn endgame i still want to play the goddamn game! I want to fight with my awesome ships i've spent so much time creating not just kill the 1 enemy fleet then just glass world after world. If anything a option to allow the AI to cheat like crazy should be added so you could toggle it on for a few turns to let the AI beef itself up haha. I remember just gifting the AI a huge mass of resources to try and encourage it to put up a fight hahaha.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 11:15
|
|
|
quote:Do you have any idea or plan on how end game pacing will play out? quote:As it currently gos in most 4x games when you reach a certain point be it victory or defeat its all down hill. So, rather than remove you from the game, they can opt to defeat you without having to go through the morass of bombing each and every one of your worlds. In exchange you're able to keep playing the game, regroup and formulate a new strategy, and try to get yourself out from under their control at some point in the future. So yes, we recognize the common problem of 'someone is definitely going to defeat you somehow, but we have to make you both play through the motions in order to actually resolve the conflict because there's not a more attractive path to take'. We are looking at providing alternatives in addition to the standard routes to victory. quote:It would be awesome if you could reach that point then focus on that 1 fortress world holding off the more powerful enemy till you bounce back and on the flip side be able to spam fleets like no ones business but still be forced to play the game to kill that guys fortress world. Firgof fucked around with this message at 00:52 on Oct 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 16:09
|
|
|
Man, I can't wait for this. I could never really get the hang of Star Ruler, but for some reason every time I booted it up I'd lose like four hours minimum. It looks like it's shaping up great. Keep up the good work!
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 16:13
|
|
|
Arghy posted:Do you have any idea or plan on how end game pacing will play out? I'm playing the new endless space expansion and its gone from awesome tooth and nail struggle to me sending out waves of ships to multiple planets capturing them like dominoes. I've been saying for the longest time that planets should be able to handle entire fleets if properly invested and the only 4x game thats come close was the SotS1 mod ironclads which allowed you to build 3 rings of defensive sats instead of just 1 ring of 10. Master of Orion 3 had great defensive options. You had planet and moon based weaponry that automatically scaled with your research, so you had one layer that was based on research. You also had the option to build ships without FTL drives for system defense - they were naturally quite a lot stronger than equivalent weight FTL ships (more room for other poo poo when you rip out the FTL drives) but they took up production when you built them. So that's a layer that scaled with economic power. A heavily fortified system meant less offensive power since your factories were busy building non-FTL ships and ground based defense bases, but it was a real bastard to crack open. The home system of the big superpower had giant fuckoff beams on every little moon that would blast your fleets before you could even see the defense boats. So it can be done - you can make a 4x where planets can be made fortresses without destroying the rest of the game balance. DatonKallandor fucked around with this message at 17:16 on Oct 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 16:56
|
|
|
Ugly In The Morning posted:Man, I can't wait for this. I could never really get the hang of Star Ruler, but for some reason every time I booted it up I'd lose like four hours minimum. It looks like it's shaping up great. Keep up the good work! Yeah star ruler just had the bad luck to come to my attention when mass effect and like 4 other games did, never got the love it deserved.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 11:25
|
|
|
quote:Keep up the good work!  quote:So it can be done - you can make a 4x where planets can be made fortresses without destroying the rest of the game balance. quote:Yeah star ruler just had the bad luck to come to my attention when mass effect and like 4 other games did, never got the love it deserved. Adding to that: our marketing materials were never where our game was -- just comparing v1212 with the game's official launch trailer shows a great deal of contrast between what we're promoting and what we have to this day, three years since that trailer was launched. We're going to work extra hard this time around in our marketing. Hopefully Star Ruler 2 will receive exactly what it deserves; we hope that it'll be a spot on y'all's (e)shelves and a special place in your hearts. Honestly -- as long as we get to keep making games we couldn't ask for more. Firgof fucked around with this message at 21:57 on Oct 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 21:39
|
|
|
Firgof posted:StarRuler2 Firgof: I actually bought your game twice. Once at fullprice on gamersgate. Then realized that the update system was horrible and then bought it again on steam because gently caress downloading updates on my own. If you can deliver ANYTHING on your list you have 50 bucks from me right here. Right now. I will send it your way immediately. I love Sci-fi RTS and they always turn out like poo poo. (See Stardrive). Please make it more like Imperium Galactica 2 and Distant Worlds and stardrive and star ruler instead of poo poo. Avoid poo poo please. What I'm saying is, please don't disappoint me. My heart can't take it anymore. I want a good game. I am playing the poo poo out of distant worlds right now because I just discovered it and it is great. But there are aspects to that game that make it not fun. Things that make it bland and unfun. Also, avoid the horrible, uninspired piece of poo poo technology system that was in endless space (and really, who am I kidding, galactic civilizations). I am posting this because in alpha, things change. I would give you an itemized list, but that is boring and spergy. Instead, make your vision awesome, and know, at least 1 person will buy it. No matter what any other goon says.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 22:03
|
|
|
Rhonyn Peacemaker posted:I would give you an itemized list, but that is boring and spergy. Instead, make your vision awesome, and know, at least 1 person will buy it. No matter what any other goon says. Seconding this, I think many of us can say we have faith in your ability. I too will, 100% guarantee, purchase this game, because Star Ruler was awesome and I know this will be awesome too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 04:46
|
|
|
I have over 300 hours on SR1/Galactic Armory and I have money hanging out of my pockets.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 08:22
|
|
|
Firgof posted:That's probably our fault however. We were never very good at getting attention for SR1. In fact without the aid of forums like SA I doubt we'd have even approached the level of success we did. It was thanks to you, our fans and supporters, who got us on Steam, after all. To be honest, I bought SR because I love 4x games, but it has sat unplayed for more than a few short trial sessions because resource management scared me away.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 08:51
|
|
|
A goon linked me the first SR1 thread and i bought it after he told me about planets loving flying around haha gonna buy SR2 on principle cause we need more 4x games! If you haven't seen endless spaces relic/planet bonus system i highly suggest copying it verboten cause holy gently caress it rocks!
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 10:16
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:To be honest, I bought SR because I love 4x games, but it has sat unplayed for more than a few short trial sessions because resource management scared me away. quote:If you haven't seen endless spaces relic/planet bonus system i highly suggest copying it verboten cause holy gently caress it rocks! Many supporters posted:Support!
Firgof fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Oct 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 17:51
|
|
|
Firgof posted:
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 23:29
|
|
|
Nothing's been decided yet. As currently stands, earliest opportunity to give money may come in the form of the beta. If you're just out to give us a little more money to work with buying SR1 would certainly help.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 23:51
|
|
|
Firgof posted:Nothing's been decided yet. As currently stands, earliest opportunity to give money may come in the form of the beta.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 00:01
|
|
|
Fair enough and thanks much. Hopefully it won't be long until I can answer the first part of your question with some certainty.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 00:11
|
|
|
Time for a new dev diary I think.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 00:32
|
|
|
We were just discussing that the other day, actually. We're still sorting it out but it might be about planet management. Firgof fucked around with this message at 00:40 on Oct 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 00:38
|
|
|
I'll be interested to see that because SR1 had a lot of options for that, but I often didn't use a lot of them, I also tended to stop caring about planets fairly fast because you end up with a lot of them. Curious to see if the slower pace (I like the sound of that) and less expansionist focus would let me build more memorable worlds and systems. I do hope the diplomacy stuff works out, it sounds like you've thought it through a lot so I've no doubt it'll be interesting and worth trying even it it doesn't come off quite perfectly, frankly given the rather anemic offerings on the diplomatic side of strategy games in general, a complex and involved system would be a welcome sight and a worthy experiment. The idea of being able to play as... a protectorate? I suppose? That sounds kinda cool. I guess it'd mesh nicely with the whole binary resource thing, as you say you'd presumably be able to build up some good ships and keep competitive without being the biggest empire in the world, hell that generally would improve the game because once you have most of the resources, expanding will give limited returns if the economy is strongly limited by those have/have-not resources. It sounds good, and I think I'd like to buy it if it went into beta on steam and I had the money.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 00:54
|
|
|
Our Twitter posted:Things you can never have enough of. Sorry it's taking longer than I hoped for this next dev diary. There are a lot of systems that are kinda/sorta not quite ready to show and under some flux so it'll be a while yet before we can showcase more on the game. Hopefully not too long though. (Please note: The above GIF doesn't represent how fast the game runs; it's much smoother and faster than the GIF implies.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 01:02
|
|
|
Firgof posted:Sorry it's taking longer than I hoped for this next dev diary. There are a lot of systems that are kinda/sorta not quite ready to show and under some flux so it'll be a while yet before we can showcase more on the game. Hopefully not too long though. Hey you're not dead. That looks pretty neat, very supreme commanderish, what're those circles around the ships for if I can ask? I'd guess weapon range but they seem to be firing far outside that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 01:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 16:00 |
|
|
In truth, I spammed a bunch of flagships for the purposes of the shot. (Please excuse my rampant cheatery) At the moment: So flagships have this little 'ring' indicator at the moment. It shows you where you can place their subordinates and they'll stick to those coordinates. Since all the ships I spawned were flagships, they all have those little rings. The opposing ship was also a flagship though I'd already destroyed its escorts with the unnecessary volume of bullets and rockets.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 01:15
|
|