(11-17-2019, 05:34 PM)tophattingson Wrote: I advocate for a pizzabox-shaped galaxy. Similar to "The Box", but flatter and wider. Something like 50x50x5 sectors, instead of 9x9x9. The smaller galaxy should encourage player interaction beyond the hide and grief activity that dominates empire-empire interactions when the players are spread out. This would also mean only one galaxy. The aim should be to have a roughly even mix of inhabited and uninhabited areas, so the pizza box should be expanded should playercount suddenly increase.
As for the shape? Consider the two reasons:
1. For an equal-volume galaxy, you get a greater corner to corner distance.
2. 3d space is confusing. It's easier to understand claimed regions of space when they don't overlap in the z axis.
Slightly more controversial: Defensive positions at chokepoints make for good gameplay. Warp/deadhead does not allow chokepoints - empires can be attacked at any system at any time. The wormhole network should be improved by buffing the number of wormholes per system to make it easier to navigate, and deadhead/warp either removed or reduced to a scouting role. There's a reason wormholes or other strict system to system paths are used in many space strategy games.
More controversial: Conditional on Hazeron eventually coming to a wider audience on steam, I want to see some division between ownership at a...
(Has anyone here played CK2? If so, think what happens to counts when the title of King changes hands: They might not like the new king, but generally they get to keep their position)
While the current permission system of empires does sort of allow them to play the game as above, it only would happen if they chose to deliberately do so. I think if would benefit gameplay if those players who govern cities do not have their work at risk of being destroyed immediately upon the owning empire of a city changing, but instead got the opportunity to continue as part of the new empire.
Likely my most controversial suggestion here is general disapproval of how the custom building system works. Custom models for buildings are fine, but being able to customise the functionality of the buildings is just a recipe for abuse. I much preferred it when a farm was just a farm, and a machine shop just a machine shop, for gameplay purposes. You shouldn't need to go into the building designer to put together a decent city.
Just wanted to say I highly agree with all of this! In terms of the galaxy shape and size, just like what Staines said, I think a flatter, wide and fairly small pizza box galaxy would encourage player interaction and still have more than enough space to accommodate quite a lot of players! Not only that, your slightly controversial idea about wormhole chokepoints and more limited warp/deadheading sounds good too! I have good memories of pre-warp warfare where some empires would place strategic blockades/defensive positions around system entry points and it made some super interesting situations!
In terms of your more controversial suggestion, I also fully agree with this! Being able to manage your cities and work on them regardless of which empire you're part of would make it far less annoying than losing the city because of said empire ownership switch. I personally love the sound of being able to run my own corner of space with the option to defect to an empire that claims it as I wouldn't really mind who I'm being taxed by, as long as I get to continue playing. In fact, the current government system might allow something similar to this, but it does take quite a lot of configuration and I'm not sure if it would work as well as your suggestion.
Finally, I also agree with the building point. Custom models are cool, but the functionality just gets really confusing, and even the blueprint exchange is really hard to use and determine which building does what.
(11-17-2019, 06:22 PM)OriginalGangstaStaines Wrote: System Permanence
I'm not sure if it still works this way but, with a smaller universe, there will be fewer star systems that could possibly be cached. For that reason, I'd recommend that when a system is generated, the information for that system is permanently logged by the servers, instead of the system regenerating worlds/qualities. This should create areas that are permanently desirable this has the benefit of creating legendary systems and regions and galactic terrain.
I also wanted to say I highly agree with this! Because systems can completely decay and regenerate with completely different worlds and resources, it makes systems not really that valuable or worth fighting over, whereas if a system was permanently set, it could create areas of space that have really desirable qualities and planets, especially in rare situations like binary/trinary ringworld systems!
What even