2017-11-27 Status Buildings

Details about updates to Shores of Hazeron

Re: 2017-11-27 Status Buildings

Postby Chiefwaffles » Mon Nov 27, 2017 4:57 pm

The idea of being able to build military buildings anywhere on the planet once a HQ is built seems like it could be iffy (unless I'm misunderstanding it). Imagine someone just placing a HQ, then putting a ton of individual easy-to-build military buildings around the entire planet.

It'd make conquering these planets extremely tedious and just a chore for their conquerors. A player would have to find every one of these buildings and destroy them in order to conquer the planet. Having it so players can only build military buildings around the HQ (or a limited number of "Outposts" that kind of act like mini-HQs, that require the HQ on the planet to be built).

I really like all the other changes, though. Especially the new buildings and building types!
Chiefwaffles
 
Posts: 279
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 9:38 pm

Re: 2017-11-27 Status Buildings

Postby Vectorus » Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:00 pm

AnrDaemon wrote:Which mix well with overall globality of SoH, solves a number of past issues and defining a more clear gameplay field.


Agreed. But it sounds as if what Haxus is actually proposing is more granularity, not less - unless I'm misreading between the lines:
Haxus wrote:At some point you want to manage them so you build a capitol building there.
(Some point?)

AnrDaemon wrote:If you can't tell the building type by its look, it greatly taxes the perception.


I understand. Nevertheless, if a new player can design one building and reuse it for many purposes, he's more likely to give it a go. If he can spend all week modelling a house and, at the end of it, he's just got a house, with dozens more models still to make, he may not bother even to start. Probably why not many people have Empire-unique buildings at the moment. It's the same concern that gave us the refit mechanic.

That's why I think a palette system could address both our concerns. A barn-shaped building, brown and wooden, is evidently a barn. A barn-shaped building of industrial brick is a warehouse. A barn-shaped building olive-drab is a barracks. A barn-shaped building in corrugated metal is a hangar. The same high-street house could have a series of shopfronts applied to its bottom storey to make it a restaurant, a retail store, a bakery and so on. Then sub-variations within that.

Place ten houses in a row, scroll your mouse to make each one slightly different. Makes a big visual impact at ground level. No reason you can't do this now with lots of separate-but-similar designs, I just think being able to save a design with multiple sub-variations would help organize the interface.
Image
User avatar
Vectorus
 
Posts: 74
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 10:21 am

Re: 2017-11-27 Status Buildings

Postby AnrDaemon » Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:35 pm

Just give a standard library, like always.
The new designer is bad as it is, forcing everybody to use it is a road to hell.
Yak. Yak never changes.
AnrDaemon
 
Posts: 7498
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 5:37 pm

Re: 2017-11-27 Status Buildings

Postby Haxus » Mon Nov 27, 2017 6:40 pm

City and base reports will aggregate the buildings they are responsible for. Buildings lost in the wilderness could end up just that, lost.

Custom buildings can have moving parts like spacecraft. Doors open and close. Lights go on and off. Turbo lifts. Turrets. No landing gear.

Building geometry requirements are extremely simple. Only the outer shell of any building is needed. It took me only a couple of minutes to make several different buildings. A few seconds later and they were published in the exchange and ready to use on my construction window. It all came together very nicely.

Platforms, bridges, biodomes, space elevators and road enclosures will be customizable. I haven't done them yet.

Buildings are somewhat multifunctional. However, due to conflicting requirements it is not possible to make one single blueprint that can be used for every different industry. It could be done with about four blueprints, if you were prepared to make everything a relatively large building. Then a lot of buildings will have some amount of wasted space in them.

The multifunctionality of buildings means that it would be possible to reassign the purpose of a building after it is constructed, as long as the structural requirements are met. I wasn't really planning to do that but it could be done easily enough. It certainly happens in the real world.

Resource zones did not go away. They are just not treated as state boundaries any more.

Old cities will continue to function as they do now. They are not affected by most of these changes. The changes that will affect them are:
  • Old style buildings will become destroyable. At present they are never utterly destroyed.
  • Old style town squares cannot be built on a world that has a new style building.
I loved the video of the spaceman planting flags. It almost makes me want to put back the flag requirement.

Roads do impose a maximum slope limitation.

There will certainly be various strategies for laying out military buildings. I didn't want to impose a prescribed structure. I could well imagine building a few missile defense/radar bases around the planet and building a heavy concentration of forces around my HQ.

The defense of planets is intended to be a bit more difficult for a single marauding player to overcome. Many people have criticized that current city defenses are pointlessly feeble.

Finding active military buildings may not be so difficult because they will likely show up on sensors.

Nobody is forced to use the new designer. There will be ample public designs available in the exchange for them to choose from. Give it a little time.
User avatar
Haxus
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2778
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 8:00 pm

Re: 2017-11-27 Status Buildings

Postby Mr. Mortius » Mon Nov 27, 2017 6:46 pm

This update seems fantastic overall, and I'm looking forward to seeing what can be done with it. One concern I have though is that allowing buildings to be destroyed completely tilts the balance even more in favor of the attacking player. Previously, an attacker would be required to hold the city until loyalty flipped before they could do any permanent damage. This gave the defender a window of opportunity to take back the city based on the population of loyal civilians. Now, it sounds like it will be possible to simply destroy a city outright without any set amount of time where a defender could act to prevent permanent damage. All the attacker needs to do is park a large ship over a city and bombarding it into nothingness. Are there any plans to help prevent something like this from happening?
Another related question I had was on the planned volume limits for the buildings and what the health of a full size, adamantine buildings might be.
Last edited by Mr. Mortius on Mon Nov 27, 2017 6:59 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Mr. Mortius
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 9:08 pm

Re: 2017-11-27 Status Buildings

Postby AnrDaemon » Mon Nov 27, 2017 6:49 pm

Haxus wrote:Nobody is forced to use the new designer. There will be ample public designs available in the exchange for them to choose from. Give it a little time.

Exchange is another reason I don't use new designer.
Nothing useful could be found there.
Yak. Yak never changes.
AnrDaemon
 
Posts: 7498
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 5:37 pm

Re: 2017-11-27 Status Buildings

Postby Chiefwaffles » Mon Nov 27, 2017 7:48 pm

I definitely agree that it should be harder to capture planets - especially as a single player. But this difficulty should be in increased challenge to roll over NPC defenses (though that definitely looks like it's getting a huge improvement), not an increase in tedium.

I'd imagine that conquering players generally would want to participate in awesome invasions - even if they're the only player involved - where they have to outsmart, outgun, and/or just generally outplay the defenses. If the defender can build unlimited military structures around the planet, then this just means that the attacker has to spend boring time locating each one (even if locating is easy), flying to it, destroying it, then going to the next one.
Chiefwaffles
 
Posts: 279
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 9:38 pm

Re: 2017-11-27 Status Buildings

Postby Greydog » Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:56 pm

Mr. Mortius wrote: Now, it sounds like it will be possible to simply destroy a city outright without any set amount of time where a defender could act to prevent permanent damage. All the attacker needs to do is park a large ship over a city and bombarding it into nothingness. Are there any plans to help prevent something like this from happening?


You might have missed this part.

Civilian buildings are immune to destruction as long as there is a military HQ on their world. Military buildings can be destroyed.


I guess this last part would very much depend on the type and strength of defenses we're allowed to build.

My question is ..If we can't place a flag in a new city, can we place a new building in an old city?

I may want to rebuild a little at a time.
I plan on living forever ..so far so good!

Shores of Hazeron Repository
User avatar
Greydog
 
Posts: 573
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 6:44 am

Re: 2017-11-27 Status Buildings

Postby Xsnip3rX » Mon Nov 27, 2017 9:44 pm

How about all of us who have character in limbo? can you address that?
Chancellor Martok of The Klingon Empire
Xsnip3rX
 
Posts: 556
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 5:22 pm

Re: 2017-11-27 Status Buildings

Postby TestAccount » Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:18 am

This looks amazing. I'm now looking forward to this update even more.
In game name: Etgfrog
User avatar
TestAccount
 
Posts: 253
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:52 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Updates

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot], Zerak and 1 guest