Why Is Ship Design Such a PAIN?! [Archive]

Orionator

06-27-2003, 09:43 PM

The coolest thing about MOO1 was ship design. It's the reason everyone loved MoO1 and hated MoO2, in fact.

You could build any kind of ship you wanted, from the Death Ray / High Energy Focus / Autorepairing Huge Hull Battleship for planetary assaults to the massive swarm of tiny, shield-piercing mass driver fighters I have always named "Orionators" (for their ability to defeat the Guardian).

In MoO, ship design was strategy. The rest of the game was simply a platform for deciding how many and how sophisticated your various spacecraft designs would be. That's what made it cool.

Then MoO2 hit the market and showed game designers that players like to build really big fleets -- penalty or not -- and concentrate them into really small areas, particularly on "Impossible" level where the AI gets massive cheats in production and research.

Will MoO3 be the game that teaches game designers the hard way that players really do like to design ships? The reason for the success of the entire MoO series is the "Ship Design" feature. That is what separates MoO from Civ: you get to design your own ships, often devoting vast resouces to the attainment of specific favorite designs, then ride them to victory (or defeat) in epic battles in space! Ship design isn't just part of the gestalt of space strategy games -- it's why we play them!

Did the people who designed this game ever even bother to PLAY it? Did they ever actually try designing a ship using the ship design interface? MoO3 ship design is so poorly-implemented I find it difficult to believe anyone ever actually tested this critical game feature before releasing the game to the public.

I discover a new ship tech in MoO3 and I think to myself, "Crap, now I have to redesign." I'm not supposed to HATE making better ships -- I'm supposed to LIKE that part of the game.

(Preemptively to those of you who say, "Let the AI do it," the rusted-out buckets the AI designs are junk and you know it!)

What went wrong?

Zero playtesting. That's the only explanation that seems to fit. It is as if no one actually tried to use the ship design interface to design a useful ship. The interface isn't bugged, so somebody somewhere must have tested it, but nobody actually used it, for if they had it would never have seen the light of day.

Here's just one example: How much thruster power can a ship of a particular loadout have? Unless you're supernumerate enough to calculate the ratios in your head, here is the procedure for finding the answer, an alogrithm called "binary serach":

Let "t" be the current best-guess at optimal thruster power, and "d" be a delta added or subtracted to "t" to move it closer to optimal.

A. Start in the "Engines" dialog. Enter half the number displayed, and let that number be "t". Let d = t/2.
2. Return to the "Ship Design" dialog. If your ship is optimized, congratulations. If it is overloaded Let t = t - d, otherwise let t = t + d.
3. Select the "Engines" dialog. Enter the new value of "t".
4. Goto step 2. After repeating this procedure a few times you might want to pound the desk with your fist and shout, "Jiminy H. Christmas this is freaking ridiculous! WTF?". Resist the urge to do this, as it will annoy the neighbors and possibly cause them to call the police (or at the very least stop inviting you to barbeques).

When you have finally had enough of this BS and are ready to break game immersiveness in the name of your sanity, you can start up a spreadsheet as another task, and use the formula
t = max_t - (ship_spc - max_ship_spc) * max_t / max_eng_size.
Whenever you design a ship, alt-tab to your spreadsheet to get the numbers you need.
Oh, yeah, MoO3 is makin' me real happy right now. WTF? Why should I need a spreadsheet to get the correct thruster setting?

Variable definitions: max_t = max thrust, ship_spc = ship space used, max_ship_spc = max space allowed for ship, max_eng_size = size of engine at max setting. For the formula to work you must begin with an overloaded ship with a maxxed-out thruster. (If you find it more convenient you could rework the formula to assume an underloaded ship with no thruster.)

Okay, so two things immediately come to mind from this hair-pulling experience: first, one must switch screens over and over again to see the impact of most changes to ship systems on ship space (the "+/-" keys only work on item counts, not item subsystem counts.) Second, the number I'm trying to find is so difficult to get at yet so fundamental it is as if the game designers never actually tried designing a couple of ships themselves. Do they not realize that designing ships is where the "magic" is?

Come on, guys, I like this game, but I'm very, very tempted to return it to the store in disgust just because designing ships is such a pain in the butt. Can't you guys do a little better with this? Patch the UI to give us a little more dynamic flexibility? I shouldn't feel the urge to alt-tab to a spreadsheet every time I want to design a ship.

James1701

06-28-2003, 12:36 AM

Please stop talking like you speak for all MOO fans. I really like the way ship design works in MOO III. I've been playing since the games release and I try new designs all the time. Some work and some don't but I still haven't run out of possiblities yet. Sure some things have changed but all the important elements are there. The only complaint I have is the poor documentation. I'm still not sure about how sensors/cloak/ecm/eccm all works together.

vorenhutz

06-28-2003, 01:17 AM

"Crap, now I have to redesign."
Exactly. I have discovered phaser miniaturisation I. I have 6 ship designs using phasers.... offs another 10 minutes in the ship design screen.
Your comments about playtesting and so on, I don't agree with. It's clear to me that (rightly or wrongly) the developers just had different priorities.

JLXC

06-28-2003, 02:00 AM

What I don't like is the lack of "special devices" in the game. Gone is auto-regenerationg ships, and every other cool device.

Now you got ECM, ECCM, and maybe Cloaking. Oh boy. Woopie.

Zyphyr

06-28-2003, 02:46 AM

Here's just one example: How much thruster power can a ship of a particular loadout have? Unless you're supernumerate enough to calculate the ratios in your head, here is the procedure for finding the answer, an alogrithm called "binary serach":

You are probably the only person I have heard of who would even want to figure out speed based on loadout and not the other way around.

Why?

Only a fool wastes space on larger engines than needed. If all of your PD and RC ships are speed 2000, geting your LRs up to 2137 is a waste of space and money - that extra speed will never be used. Use that space for more weapons. If your desired weapon loadout is to large to make that LR go 2000, drop a weapon - if it is slower than the 2000 on the PDs and RCs it is teamed with, you are wasting space and money on the PDs and RCs.

Pick a speed, design your fleet to that speed, and fit your weaponry around that speed. Don't try to fit your speed around your weapons.

Orionator

06-28-2003, 03:20 AM

James1701, you're getting me all wrong here; there's nothing wrong with MoO 3's ship designs.

The problem is in designing ships.

Do you see the difference?

I like the fact that I can design ships in MoO 3, and I like the ships I can design in MoO 3. I just don't like the interface -- it's terrible.

What is the best-rated engine that will fit the ship's remaining space?

Answer that question a few times -- exactly once for every design -- and you'll understand.

Here's another question with an answer you won't like: How many steps are required to change a parameter on an item you've just added to a ship design? (Hint: you're not allowed to "change" anything, you must delete the item you want to change and start over!)

Now, final question: how many steps SHOULD be required to change a parameter on an item you've just added to a ship design?

Let's say you picked Autofire and Armor Piercing, thought the size was too large, so you unchecked AP and clicked "Accept". Upon reflection you think to yourself, "You know, on second thought I think AP is a really good idea." Now, hit your stopwatch and count the steps required to make the change. Then ask yourself, honestly: "Did they get it right?"

The game itself is really great, and I hope they will release some more patches that fix this annoying stuff that should've been picked up by the beta testers. If you want a crap game with a crap interface look at Ascendancy -- now there was a DOG -- but MoO 3 is incredibly cool, except the interface has some serious shortcomings. Fixing those would make MoO 3 the greatest strategy game of all time.

Orionator

06-28-2003, 03:39 AM

Zyphyr, your design philosophy is right on, and indeed I don't max out the engines on LR & IF's, I cut them down to make room for more stuff.

That still leaves the question: what is the optimum engine setting for a given loadout?

If I set engine speed at "around 1000" but find I could add another gun by shaving off 8 points of thruster space ... exactly what thruster value would do that?

Alternatively if you have some leftover space designing to a particular speed and want to give a little boost to engines ... how much "boost" will your leftover space afford you?

I think I'm starting to get a better idea of the point you're making ... optimizing ship speed ceases to be a useful thing to do when you start mixing ship designs in TF's. Since I haven't done that yet ... maybe I'm a bit myopic insisting that engines be perfectly tuned?

Hempire

06-28-2003, 04:11 AM

The only ships I tune the engines on are colony/outposts. My main designs are either max speed or half (or thereabouts). Since TF speed is based on the slowest ship. When I do "tune" engines to fill out space left on colonies etc, I agree it is a pain, but I live with it.

The problem with changing weapon mods/mount/missle chassis/rack size by removing is a much more serious interface flaw. But again, I live with it.

Neither are "game breakers" in my opinion. I notice the flaws, wish they might have been better, but realize they will take a backseat to the actual bugs.

The ship design interface(and many of the other interface flaws) are only annoyances, not actual problems. For me at least. :rolleyes:

herknav

06-28-2003, 04:46 AM

I don't think there will be a UI change in the future. I know there are some issues with it, (some people have more than others) but an overhaul would be asking for more than you can rightly expect. If the redesign the ship design UI, why not the diplomacy UI? than why not the financial UI? You see where this is going?

I myself use max system speed for all my ships, except early colony and outpost ships, (you never know when some speed can come in handy). Later colony ships get max speed too, not to mention 4 pods, and some PD to boot. I NEVER reduce warp speed...

Hempire

06-28-2003, 05:31 AM

I don't think you can change warp speed. It has a little edit box just like the sys speed but you can't change it. Though I only tried once just to see, might have been a glitch.

herknav

06-28-2003, 06:50 AM

Originally posted by Hempire
I don't think you can change warp speed. It has a little edit box just like the sys speed but you can't change it. Though I only tried once just to see, might have been a glitch.

You are correct of course. Since I have NEVER tried to change it, I never noticed that. Of course, why would you want to have a slower warp speed?

Now I expect someone to come up with a reason for lower warp speeds... the is board has as many exceptions as the english language.. :)

the oob

06-28-2003, 10:02 AM

Being able to save and load ship designs would be nice. Even better if you could save and load modular parts... eg: 'load weapon bank 1' adds 10 point defense fusion cannons to my ship.

Lots of small improvements like this would make ship design, and various other parts of the game, a lot quicker and nicer.

Beamup

06-28-2003, 10:13 AM

I have to agree with Orionator here. The ship design UI is functional in that you can do what you need to do with it. What it is terribly lacking in is efficiency. A few examples:

1. Let's say I want to take the armor off those missiles I just added. Let's count clicks. I have to click on the missiles. Click Remove. Click on Weapons. Click on Missiles. Pick my missile warhead (since it defaults to Nuclear). Pick my chassis (since it defaults to PD). Click twice on Armor. Select my counts - say 2/2, so two more clicks. Click accept. Total: 10 clicks plus 2 dropdowns - many more if I have more missiles than the minimal example here.

Now, what would be a good way for the interface to work? Well, an exceedingly obvious thing would be I can double-click on the missiles to bring up the weapons screen for those missiles. Click off the Armor. Click accept. 2 clicks and one doubleclick, 1/4 of the operations and less than 1/4 of the time. And that's a glaringly obvious interface method to add.

2. I want to add my fastest engines to a ship. Now: Click Engines. Select desired system drive. Click accept. Click Engines. Select star drives. Select desired star drive. Click accept. 4 clicks and 3 dropdowns.

How should it work? Click Engines. The two dropdowns become Star and System drives instead of pick one/pick a drive. They default to my best drives instead of my worst. Click accept. 2 clicks, less than 1/3 of the operations and maybe 1/4 of the time.

And these are just things that immediately occured to me on my first brief look at the interface and wouldn't require additional artwork or screens. They're nothing more than making screens efficient (one dropdown to select between two other dropdowns? Why bother, just replace the first with the one that isn't already showing), implementing obvious ways to go between screens (I want to edit some item, OF COURSE I double-click on it), and considering for a second what should come up as default (the best tech instead of the worst).

Is this a gamebreaker? No. Can I work with the interface? Yes. Are there worse interfaces out there? Yes. Is it well designed? NO. Is it horribly designed and could easily have been far more efficient? YES. Personally, if I had designed that interface... I'd be ashamed of myself.

Orionator

06-28-2003, 02:32 PM

The number one problem seems to be editing of ship systems. All the other annoying interface problems are amplified a thousandfold by the simple inability to edit things.

I like Beamup's idea: double-click to edit. That's really all we need. (Right-click would be nice but right-click is reserved for help.)

The code required to do this would be trickier than it seems, because the actual setting of components happens under another interface layer from the main one that shows the items on the ship, and the sub-interface layer is different for different component types, but anyone who's ever swapped out parts on a ship would say fixing the UI would be worth it!

The engine problem is easily fixed by making the default engine power when you visit the "Thruster" dialog with an overloaded ship be whatever will fit. I've been convinced by now that except in a few rare cases it is pointless to optimize engine power, anyway, but it still happens often enough that the optimal number should be made available to us.

The code required to make that happen is minimal.

Lastly, the question, "If Ship Design gets an overhaul, why not Diplomacy / etc.?" The word that comes to mind is "triage" ... Ship Design is both more important and more sensitive to a broken interface. It is highly interactive and involves a great deal of spreadsheet-like "what-iffing" from aspiring ship designers.

Even someone who knows exactly what to build is still faced with cumbersome obstacles. As a veteran MoO 3'er who already knows your favorite ship designs and doesn't need to play "What-If" with ship design, how many times will you modify a ship component? Even veteran designers, I suspect, would welcome an "edit" feature ...

MooMaster

06-28-2003, 04:33 PM

I know I certainly would!

Da_Blade

06-28-2003, 05:17 PM

I think ship design is dead easy. Just need to get used to it, nothing else from Moo1.

In fact, i thought the ship design in moo1 and 2 were a pain with those huge scrollists in the end. Finding the missiles you wante din between the hundred weapons you had, etc.

I like the design in moo3 much much more.

Phezzan

06-28-2003, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by Orionator
In MoO, ship design was strategy. The rest of the game was simply a platform for deciding how many and how sophisticated your various spacecraft designs would be. That's what made it cool.
[snip]
Ship design isn't just part of the gestalt of space strategy games -- it's why we play them!

You are dead on.

I miss Hard Shields, I miss worrying about my shield generator getting damaged, I miss:

catastrophic drive failures
SPLASH damage
Frigates with Intertial Nullifiers
losing firepower to damaged internals
black hole generators
anti missle rockets
Energy absorbers
Auto Repair Pods
Suicide Frigates
Retreating in fear of Ion Pulse Cannons
Tractoring the enemy, flying behind them and blasting them to bits
Anti Matter Torpedeos
Raiding Parties
Turning around to hide my damaged shield arc

Comment on my UI suggestion:
Link (http://www.ataricommunity.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=301835)

Phez

Strifeguard

06-28-2003, 05:58 PM

Originally posted by Phezzan
black hole generators
anti missle rockets
I don't understand these 2. (I don't "miss" most of your list, but these 2 I just don't understand)

On black hole generators, haven't you missed them since Moo1? The BHGs of Moo2 were underpowered jokes. Why bother with them? Why not just load up on autofiring disruptors? What, because you like waiting around for a ship to die? Why not just take it out in 1 shot to begin with?

On anti-missile rockets. PD missiles work very well in post-patch Moo3. (Heck, they worked pretty well in pre-patch Moo3 too) and they're better than they ever were in Moo2, because in Moo3 you can up the warhead yield on PD missiles, whereas anti-missile rockets did the same, awful damage, all game long. Once you discovered gravition beams or better, why did you ever bother with these in Moo2?

Nolondil

06-28-2003, 07:09 PM

One of the things that bugs me is that shields and armor don't scale according to the size of the ship they are installed on. A battleship with Type V Shield has no more protection than a destroyer with Type V Shields, not in stopping power or recharge, yet uses far more space for that same level of protection. :bulb: And also for armor, you get exactly that many points of armor deflection and damage potential no matter what size ship you put it on. The same goes for weapons. Smaller ships can mount the exact same weapons as larger ships, just fewer of them. If not for the limit on task forces in combat it would be logical to build the smallest possible ships in order to get max protection of all your equipment in combat. More shields and armor have to be destroyed per weapon taken out = much tougher fleet. hmm... This is not nearly as well considered as the MOO 2 system.

triller

06-28-2003, 07:49 PM

Originally posted by Nolondil
One of the things that bugs me is that shields and armor don't scale according to the size of the ship they are installed on. A battleship with Type V Shield has no more protection than a destroyer with Type V Shields, not in stopping power or recharge, yet uses far more space for that same level of protection. :bulb: And also for armor, you get exactly that many points of armor deflection and damage potential no matter what size ship you put it on.

Gotta disagree on this.
Class V is Class V. Larger hull = more surface area = more shield space. The generators are a percentage of total hull space so this makes sense. Armor rating can be considered thickness of material. Same stopping ability regardless of hull size.

Wish list for UI:
Slider for system speed!

Phezzan

06-28-2003, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by Strifeguard
I don't understand these 2. (I don't "miss" most of your list, but these 2 I just don't understand)

It's not how effective they are in battle, it's how varied battle can be.
It's true that BHGs are too big and AF Disruptors are too powerful in MOO2. But the idea is great - Immobilize them and in 3 turns destroy them - and by a black hole no less! What did you think the first time the Antarans used BHG on you? For me it was OMG I'm gonna die. (Then the game crashed - v1.00 bug)

As for Anti Missile rockets - the thing we have now shoots at everything. I can't make an Anti Missile rocket because it will also be a poor Anti Ship weapon. Stuff like that is constraining, and in this case I have problems running out of PD ammo because it decided to attack the enemy TFs - and bounce off their deflection.

If I had included Stasis fields you would like it better, yes?
Also the Real Lightning Field Generator never tore through a doom star like it was butter.

Phez

Orionator

06-28-2003, 08:20 PM

Heh, my fave MoO 2 weapon was Heavy Plasma Gun + High Energy Focus + that extra-damage-to-armor special whose name escapes me.

It tore through even the best conventional shields, and totally ripped on dampening fields. Antarans buckled.

Some flavor of Autofire shield-piercing Achilles-targetting Phasor IIRC was another killer -- the AI rarely used Hard Shields, so in around 4 shots or so a phasor would hit an engine and the enemy ship would blow with full shields and armor. Didn't work on Antarans, though ...

Then there's the Time Warp / Phase Cloak cheez. Bah.

Da_Blade

06-29-2003, 09:36 AM

Would someone please remove this thread to Bug reports/suggestions or general discussion?

I'm fed up with these threads that are all over the board, and i do not want them popping up in our peacefull Strategy/Gameplay forum. Besides, this has nothing to do with Strategy/Gameplay.

I like the moo3 design better then previous moo's, you do not, too bad.

AlanC9

06-29-2003, 03:24 PM

Hey, there are some gameplay issues here too. I'm interested in seeing how people handle shipbuilding, especially since none of the problems mentioned in the thread have ever really come to my attention.

I always use autobuild to get the basic components, then strip out the weapons (and system drives on noncombat/CV/IF ships). I decide weapon types and mods before adding the first primary weapon to the ship, so the inability to mod them after adding one doesn't bug me.

I suppose this is somewhat inefficient. But probably not very.

Orionator

06-29-2003, 04:08 PM

AlanC9, the problem with not having an "edit" comes to light when making a minor change to an existing design, such as adding "Autofire" to a weapon system.

Da_Blade, can you honestly say you like that you can't double-click a ship item to edit that item? Can you give me one good reason why the "edit" feature, present in both MoO 1 AND MoO 2, was taken out of MoO 3?

You're right that I should've started this thread under "bugs / etc." Moving it would be a good idea.

Da_Blade

06-29-2003, 06:55 PM

Editing is no use really without refitting. In moo1 and moo2 it was usefull because each ship was individual. In moo3 i find i rarely edit, since i like to keep clear generations of ships.

Usually by the time i want to edit a design i'll completely redesign it because it's time to make a new generation. My main gripe with both moo1 and moo2 have been the endless scrollists of weapons and specials. I am glad the moo3 UI has cleaned it up a lot, though some improvements may be done.

A double-click edit would certainly not be a bad idea, but the way you set this thread up, and especially the title, makes me dismiss the thread's usefullness right away. I resent such title as "Why is shipdesign such a PAIN?!" since they seem to serve no purpose.

I'm sorry if i reacted a bit harshly maybe, but i am getting so tired of all the moo3 bashing around these forums, and i like the way Strategy/Gameplay has been during these times. Always a place where people were civil, and trying to help out each other. Your thread appeared as just another "moo3 is bad"-thread, which is terribly misplaced here.

Daveybaby

06-30-2003, 01:22 PM

Da_Blade - i dont think Orionator is bashing Moo3 - he is bashing the ship design UI. He is right - its appalling (from an ergonomic point of view).

This isnt just my opinion. Its a scientific fact. The Moo3 ship design UI is ergonomically bad. (Its not, however, as bad as the devplan UI, which managed to take one of the simplest interfaces in the game, and get that wrong. :rolleyes: )

There are a number of very small changes that could be made to the ship design UI which would vastly improve its usability, efficiency, intuitiveness, pleasantness etc etc... but its unlikely we will see them.

Its not a game killer by any means. I mean... you learn to work around it, and to design ships in a way that minimises the amount of grief the UI gives you. So you can still play the game... but the fact the the UI influences people's ship designs is a good indicator of how bad it is.

Flinx

06-30-2003, 03:58 PM

I discover a new ship tech in MoO3 and I think to myself, "Crap, now I have to redesign." Personally I think "I MIGHT use that WHEN I next redesign. Redesigning every tech level is pointless and gains you no meaningful advantage. Pick a speed, design your fleet to that speed, and fit your weaponry around that speed. Don't try to fit your speed around your weapons.Good advice. I thought that was what everyone did.

James1701

06-30-2003, 09:13 PM

Personally I think "I MIGHT use that WHEN I next redesign. Redesigning every tech level is pointless and gains you no meaningful advantage.

EXACTLY, that's what I keep saying. :cool:

Orionator

07-01-2003, 01:45 AM

In MoO1 you had to scrap every time you wanted to introduce a new design.

In MoO2 you had carte blanche -- you could redesign and refit any property except hull size.

MoO3 strikes a balance: unlimited ship designs but no refits. That's the best idea yet! I just wish it were as easy to improve a design in MoO3 as it was to refit a ship in MoO2.

My complaint is NOT with the actual game. The game system is well thought-out, the AI workable for everything except military build queues, and the premise quite exciting. With the New Orions lurking and the X's to find and lots of Guardians to fight there are plenty of interesting things to do. MoO1 had 1 "epic battle"; MoO2 had 2. MoO3 has several (if you count each guardian separately).

Then the UI comes along and hamstrings the whole works. It is frustrating to have such a great game yet be put-upon trying to play it. "Which of my star systems lack adequate system forces to combat piracy?" is ridiculously tedious to answer. I'd like to see the UI fixed, if for no other reason than so the game might succeed.

How many people returned this unfinished would-be masterpiece to the store because the UI is such a pain? More than one ...

It's a great game with a few crippling defects. Fixing the UI fixes the game. I hope they fix it.

Alyeana

07-01-2003, 03:16 AM

Personally I think "I MIGHT use that WHEN I next redesign. Redesigning every tech level is pointless and gains you no meaningful advantage.

I don't quite understand this. All else being equal, if my ship is using hard beams and yours is still on lasers because you waited to redesign, my ship will thrash yours. You may lose the game. Single technology advancements do have the potential to cause wins in close battles.

Furthermore, what you're essentially saying, as far as I can tell, is that you should get around the poor UI by avoiding it as much as possible. It's clear that, if you had the choice, you'd want the latest technology on all your ships rolling off the production lines, regardless of how small the difference from the previous generation was - you want all the advantages you can get, right? I'm talking about the "best case" here. Now, from your post I'm guessing that you are (as I am when I play) sacrificing this advantage because the UI is just horrible, especially when it comes to modifying your designs. I think this really needs to be changed.

One thing I'd look into when improving this screen is all the space where information is displayed, specifically the ship info in the top right and the selected system info in the bottom right. Couldn't this be changed so that the checkboxes, for example, were located on this info panel? Then we could just turn them on and off whenever we wanted, with no need to even double click anything. Text boxes could be used for quantities, with optional +/- buttons. If this was done then those huge, awful tab things that unfold from the sides could be removed in favour of some simple "Add Weapon" etc. buttons, and there'd be more space to put in information/UI elements.

I think this is probably harder to do than the double click thing, but I feel it'd be better. I do agree this should be in the suggestions forum, too. Thanks for reading. :)

Strifeguard

07-01-2003, 03:51 AM

Originally posted by Alyeana
I don't quite understand this. All else being equal, if my ship is using hard beams and yours is still on lasers because you waited to redesign, my ship will thrash yours. You may lose the game. Single technology advancements do have the potential to cause wins in close battles.
But (specifically since you used an early-game example) I can produce a significantly larger number of ships than you, because your ships equipped with the latest tech are more expensive, and take longer to build, you may lose the game.

That's what Moo's always been about, you have to balance expenses vs. available technology.

Furthermore, you're choosing an extreme example, techs that are 10 levels apart. Of course players are going to redesign every 10 levels or so (probably more often). However, the initial poster suggested that he redesigned every single time a new tech became available. If I already have hellfire cannons, redesigning once railguns become available not only isn't absolutely necessary, but may very well cost me in terms of downtime while I retool my build ques for a benefit that's not very clear-cut.

Originally posted by Alyeana
It's clear that, if you had the choice, you'd want the latest technology on all your ships rolling off the production lines, regardless of how small the difference from the previous generation was - you want all the advantages you can get, right? I'm talking about the "best case" here. Now, from your post I'm guessing that you are (as I am when I play) sacrificing this advantage because the UI is just horrible, especially when it comes to modifying your designs. I think this really needs to be changed.
I don't think this is clear at all. I think that Flinx weighs the benefits of new devices against their increasing costs, space usage (keep in mind most big improvements also require larger hull sizes to be useful, thus indirectly adding even more expense) plus potential downtime, a delay between when the last of the old ships were produced and the first of the new ships are produced.

No advantage is being "sacrificed" by doing a simple, if rudimentary, cost-benefit analysis on new devices when they become available. Ion beams and Plasma Cannons become available within 1-2 tech levels of each other, but both represent different strategies. (fire from afar, or up close) Does this mean you should redesign your fleet twice within 10-15 turns, potentially changing your grand space-combat strategy? No! It means that you should consider the costs involved with implementing the new devices, the strategies that may become available, or may no longer be available, etc.

There's no amount of UI dodging going on here, just the strategizing that most players do when they play Moo3.

Da_Blade

07-01-2003, 04:01 AM

Originally posted by Strifeguard
There's no amount of UI dodging going on here, just the strategizing that most players do when they play Moo3.

Amen.

AlanC9

07-01-2003, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by Orionator
[B]AlanC9, the problem with not having an "edit" comes to light when making a minor change to an existing design, such as adding "Autofire" to a weapon system.

Gotcha. I think I never notice this because I usually don't edit designs for a single tech advance. I typically construct ships in spurts; as long as I have adequate fleet strength, I'll go for planetary development and wait for enough techs for a wholescale redesign, in which case I'm starting from scratch anyway.

About the only time I want to edit an existing weapon is when I get a useful enhancement for one of my primary weapon systems while I'm actually at war or about to go to war. A double-click edit for those cases would be nice, but it's not very high on my priority list for interface upgrades.

Rickhan5

07-01-2003, 02:07 PM

Ok, I just spent 30min+ redesigning all my ships. Star/system/osb.
Then finish my turn. Go into combat then DirectX crash. All my designs are so much electronic chaff in the wind.
I know that the game only saves at the beginning of the turn. But why can't those shipdesigns be saved as they are being done, so i don't have to go back over old ground, if the game crashes or i just want to save a few and come back to it later to finish them when i have more time.

In Multiplay, u better just make small changes to ur ships autobuild command and don't do more than u can mentally stand incase of crash online. Which increases with each human player.

Tweaking the system speed is not intuitive, it is just trail and error for every ship size/ engine/ weapon combo possible. This is one area that is micro-managment at its best/worse.
Ship design is not the most user friendly area of the game, IMHO.
But i deal with it and have fun even if i curse a blue streak after a major crash to desktop.
"Hmmm, what was that killer design for BBsystemship....."

Rutjak

07-01-2003, 06:54 PM

Orionator is right on the money. My thoughts are these: the mistake was the use of tabs and drop-downs. The way to go is listboxes. One box for engines, warp and system. One box for armour. One box for shields. One box for weapons; missiles and beams. We are smart enough to tell the difference. One box for fighters? Maybe. The mission? Certainly a box, if the game requires it. But it should be up to me to decide what task I want my TFs to perform in battle, regardless of what name they are given.

Flinx

07-02-2003, 12:27 AM

Originally posted by Alyeana
Furthermore, what you're essentially saying, as far as I can tell, is that you should get around the poor UI by avoiding it as much as possible. It's clear that, if you had the choice, you'd want the latest technology on all your ships rolling off the production lines, regardless of how small the difference from the previous generation was - you want all the advantages you can get, right? WRONG
Where you see advantages, I see a waste of time. I do not use all possible weapons and I do not use all possible weapon enhancements. For example, IF the enemy uses minimal PD, putting shields and armor on missiles costs huge amounts of money for little gain.

Da_Blade

07-02-2003, 06:09 AM

Originally posted by Flinx
WRONG

Please, no need for such replies. You say the exact same thing by leaving this out, and just stating what you said after this. This is a civil place, and stating the word wrong so big and colrfull only has a use of heating the discussion up. You two disagree, fine, then disagree or talk it out in a civil matter.

Orionator

07-02-2003, 10:37 AM

I'm beginning to suspect that the generally low opinion of "incremental redesign" has more to do with the predominance of IF's and CV's, both of which are so Spartan in their design they just don't change that much.

My LR ships, which exist mostly in theory as they've never actually fired a shot, are in their 14th revision.

It's nearly as bad for the other beam-based ships as well.

My IF's and CV's are both in their 4th revision. Warp engines and missile / fighter technologies are about the only parts on them that really demand upgrading. They're also reigning supreme, particularly the carriers. That for me pretty well sorts out why no one thinks upgrading is a pain ... the best ships in the game are "low maintenance".

Beamup

07-02-2003, 11:06 AM

Well, I use all kinds of ships, and refuse to use speed-1. In fact, all my warships have full system speed. And I don't have a problem with redesigning them. I redesign when I get new drives, pretty much. Works just fine, especially if I think a little bit about what techs are coming up when guiding my MBQs. "OK, Hard Beams are just around the corner but no good upgrades for fighters for a while... build mainly carriers for the time being."

Given the number of ships involved in MoO3 battles, and how long it takes to build and deploy them, waiting 5-6 turns after getting a new weapon to include it in new designs just isn't a big deal.

Patton1942

07-02-2003, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by Beamup
Well, I use all kinds of ships, and refuse to use speed-1. In fact, all my warships have full system speed. And I don't have a problem with redesigning them. I redesign when I get new drives, pretty much. Works just fine, especially if I think a little bit about what techs are coming up when guiding my MBQs. "OK, Hard Beams are just around the corner but no good upgrades for fighters for a while... build mainly carriers for the time being."

Given the number of ships involved in MoO3 battles, and how long it takes to build and deploy them, waiting 5-6 turns after getting a new weapon to include it in new designs just isn't a big deal.

Agreed. I like to wait untill either a.) I'm begining to loose large numbers of ships in battle, b.) I've got all new techs (new drives, shields, weapons, etc.) or c.) The new tech is dramaticly more powerful then the last.

When these happen I redesign my ships. Its just too much of a pain to try to keep up with the massive numbers of new techs that happen.

could the ship UI use some tweaking? Yes, I think so. Is it functional the way it is? Yes, I think so.

Hopefully, with the Tech slowdown, this won't be such an issue.

Orionator

07-02-2003, 05:52 PM

What's "the Tech slowdown"?

Beamup

07-02-2003, 07:22 PM

In the final patch, tech advance will be 33% slower.

James1701

07-03-2003, 11:34 AM

Originally posted by Orionator
I'm beginning to suspect that the generally low opinion of "incremental redesign" has more to do with the predominance of IF's and CV's, both of which are so Spartan in their design they just don't change that much.

My LR ships, which exist mostly in theory as they've never actually fired a shot, are in their 14th revision.

It's nearly as bad for the other beam-based ships as well.

My IF's and CV's are both in their 4th revision. Warp engines and missile / fighter technologies are about the only parts on them that really demand upgrading. They're also reigning supreme, particularly the carriers. That for me pretty well sorts out why no one thinks upgrading is a pain ... the best ships in the game are "low maintenance".

Not in my case. I make heavy use of LR and to a lesser extent SR designs in my games. I just don't see the value of redesigning my ships everytime any new tech becomes available. Especially in the early game where you are typically well under the 10 TF/180 ship limit I use small ships that can be quickly built. During the first 50 turns I don't build anything larger than a cutter and only a few designs at that. I don't use carriers much at all until I get ion cannons as I don't feel I can field earlier versions of fighters in sufficient numbers to make them worthwhile.

I also never build a ship class until I have sufficient number of planets capable of building them quickly. In the early game this usually means at least 3-5 planets that can build them in 1-2 turns. Later on when I have a fairly large number of developed worlds I go with 2-4 turn build time as my criteria.

sleepyhead

07-03-2003, 10:59 PM

I agree wholeheartedly with the original poster.

Does the existing UI work? The answer is clearly Yes.

Is the existing UI adequate for what you need to do? I'd say the answer to that is Yes too.

Is the UI friendly, easy to use, forgiving, informative, polished? No, no, no, no, and no IMO.

The issue of the UI really goes to the heart of how a gamer feel about a game when he/she first pick up the product and actually play it. It goes beyond ship design to the rest of the interfaces too. Ship designs was an experience of pure joy in Moo2. In Moo3, you use it because it is part of your job as emperor. I derive little 'fun' from it because of its design and its clumsiness.

Seyfert

07-04-2003, 08:41 AM

Originally posted by Orionator

MoO3 strikes a balance: unlimited ship designs but no refits. That's the best idea yet! I just wish it were as easy to improve a design in MoO3 as it was to refit a ship in MoO2.

I'd have to disagree, I like a few designs (or that build que just gets ridiculous). But I'd prefer it if I redesigned a ship (for example a LRA BC) Then the AI then took my existing BC's out of service and refitted them to the new design at appropiate planets. You could then redesign when necessary and 'tell' the AI to take the old BC's away and fix them up. Most of the time I have a reserve that is hard to read for the word 'Obsolete' tattoed everywhere (and I don't me pin up russian chicks either!)

On another point a general question on shipbuilding do you 'design' a new ship or let the AI do it. I find its always going for the most advanced tech available. This may look nice but in my current game I always take out the Lightning fields and replace them with hardbeams (2lvls of mini, autofire and improved) Nothing like watching the enemy fighters rushing towards me and getting wasted in the green snot of death!
The same applies to ranged weaponry, the AI loads phasers which I swap for Ion cannon and Plasma cannon (former for range latter for sheer blat damage). It strikes me that the weighting for wepaons is a bit squiffy.

Flinx

07-04-2003, 12:04 PM

I'd have to disagree, I like a few designs (or that build que just gets ridiculous). I took Orionator's comment to mean that because of the minimal restrictions and multitude of options, the number of possible designs in MoO3 is virtually unlimited. This freedom in design comes at the price of not being able to upgrade/retrofit existing ships. Orionator's comments have nothing to do with the actual number of active ship designs a player has at any given time.

Everyone who complains vigorously about this aspect of the game all seem to have 20-30 active designs and update designs every 5-10 turns. Meanwhile, everyone who has 6-10 designs and redesign every 5 Tech Levels seem to agree that ship design and TF creation, while not perfect, are working. Personally, I fall into this latter category.

As for the red obsolete being everywhere, I do not have this problem. Within 5 turns of redesigning my fleet, all old class ships are out of the build queues and into TFs and any leftovers are scrapped. Not that I use the Fleet Screen much; why are some people always in there?

sleepyhead

07-04-2003, 05:48 PM

Quote :
Everyone who complains vigorously about this aspect of the game all seem to have 20-30 active designs and update designs every 5-10 turns. Meanwhile, everyone who has 6-10 designs and redesign every 5 Tech Levels seem to agree that ship design and TF creation, while not perfect, are working. Personally, I fall into this latter category.

My reply :
The question was never about whether ship design 'is working' like you said, but whether it is 'a PAIN' as stated in the title of this thread. I have used this analogy before and I'd like you to consider it. There is a road full of potholes. The people who use the road complained that it is bad. The people who don't use the road don't care about its condition and says its no big deal. They walk or take the train or the plane. But does it mean the road with the potholes are somehow 'not broken' because there are people who don't use it? Its the same with the interface. Who decides whether something is broken? The people who use the thing or the people who do not or have 'workarounds'?

And please don't post things like "WRONG" in big red letters. You are entitled to your own opinion of course, just like the other posters are entitled to theirs. State your reasons/logic, and let other decide on the issue instead of telling them they are wrong.

Da_Blade

07-04-2003, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by sleepyhead
Quote :
My reply :

Please learn to use the quote button, i don't mean to sound patronising or anything, but it makes the reading just so much easier.

The question was never about whether ship design 'is working' like you said, but whether it is 'a PAIN' as stated in the title of this thread. I have used this analogy before and I'd like you to consider it. There is a road full of potholes. The people who use the road complained that it is bad. The people who don't use the road don't care about its condition and says its no big deal. They walk or take the train or the plane. But does it mean the road with the potholes are somehow 'not broken' because there are people who don't use it? Its the same with the interface. Who decides whether something is broken? The people who use the thing or the people who do not or have 'workarounds'?

Nice analogy, only problem with this is; if a road is potholed it is a fact, and you cannot argue about it. The whole thing with the design UI, is that some think it is 'potholed, others do not. And it's not just the people that do not take the road that think it is not. I use the UI quite extensively, and i still prefer this UI much much more then the moo2 and especially moo1 interface, which were much more unclear, mainly because they had large scrollists, which are divided up in the moo3 UI.

Now, i won't say the UI is perfect the way it is. A 'simple' simple would make it mucho better for me personally, which would be when you doubleclick a weapon it would automatically open up the related tab and selections of the current weapon, and configuring it thus that the subsequantly made changes replace the weapon/special that was doubleclicked.

But, a suggestion is not a complaint. I can still use the UI quite easily, now i just remove the weapon i want to modify and replace it with the weapon i want. Maybe a few extra clicks, but not much effort. I certainly do NOT think it is potholed, but as i said: it's an opinion some evidently do not agree with :)

And please don't post things like "WRONG" in big red letters. You are entitled to your own opinion of course, just like the other posters are entitled to theirs. State your reasons/logic, and let other decide on the issue instead of telling them they are wrong.

Couldn't agree more.

Flinx

07-04-2003, 07:56 PM

Alyeana could not have been more WRONG in projecting her preceptions and play style of the game on to my comments, and I felt that a big red WRONG was the simplest and easiest way to express that. I still do.

Ron_Lugge

07-04-2003, 10:13 PM

Originally posted by sleepyhead
The question was never about whether ship design 'is working' like you said, but whether it is 'a PAIN' as stated in the title of this thread. I have used this analogy before and I'd like you to consider it. There is a road full of potholes. The people who use the road complained that it is bad. The people who don't use the road don't care about its condition and says its no big deal. They walk or take the train or the plane. But does it mean the road with the potholes are somehow 'not broken' because there are people who don't use it? Its the same with the interface. Who decides whether something is broken? The people who use the thing or the people who do not or have 'workarounds'?

And please don't post things like "WRONG" in big red letters. You are entitled to your own opinion of course, just like the other posters are entitled to theirs. State your reasons/logic, and let other decide on the issue instead of telling them they are wrong.

Your analogy has one fatal flaw... I don't use a workaround, and I use the same UI screen. Main difference? I like the way it works. I won't say it couldn't be improved (click to edit, change the mount descriptions to include individual weapon stats, make the space tab in missile selection factor in rack and reloads when computing size) but the interface works FINE for me.

sleepyhead

07-05-2003, 02:08 AM

Ron, clearly the original poster of the thread wasn't concerned about whether the UI works 'fine' for you, but for him. And like the road with the potholes, just because someone can drive over the holes FINE for him, workaround or not, does it somehow negate that the road have holes since even you admitted that the UI can be improved?

You are certainly welcome to support this game as much as you like. No argument about that right here. Just like this thread was never about if the UI works, but whether the UI works WELL.

It all comes down to how demanding gamers wish to hold developers in this and other games to high standards and quality of excellence. Even you said in your post that the UI can be improved. Surely there is no harm in discussing what its current shortcomings are so it CAN be improved, right? Imagine if there were no uproar about the problems during the game's initial release, do you think there would be incentive for QS to make a patch? Will it lead QS to believe that in the future it is "okay" to release a game that its developers publically admit is incomplete if people simply accept it and say it is 'fine'? If fans didn't compile long lists of problems/bugs/needs for improvement, do you think the patch will be as good as it is now? Last but not least, if gamers just accept a product they bought as "the best the developer can make it", will there be incentives for the industries to strive for their best in the future?

*****

As to the potholes in the road being facts and the issues of the UI not being 'fact', one can easily point at a physical hole in a road as 'proof', just like one can cite examples of problems in the current UI (many other threads cover this and I won't open that can of worms). If one believes those holes/problems are not important, then it isn't a 'fact' to that person. Playing devil's advocate, if I were to take the position of a 'very enthusiastic defender of the road', I can say things like : 1) The holes are very small, so it isn't a flaw, or 2) We should be grateful that there is a road here at all, or 3) The road feels FINE when I drove over the holes, so having potholes isn't really a 'fact'.

It all comes down to perspective. Nobody's views here is invalid. But we need to decide how high/low of a standard we want to hold the maker of the road/game for the drivers and gamers now, and when future products/patches come out. If we as gamers do not voice, the bean-counters in the industries will decide on the quality of games for us.

Ron_Lugge

07-05-2003, 02:40 AM

Originally posted by sleepyhead
Ron, clearly the original poster of the thread wasn't concerned about whether the UI works 'fine' for you, but for him. And like the road with the potholes, just because someone can drive over the holes FINE for him, workaround or not, does it somehow negate that the road have holes since even you admitted that the UI can be improved?

Er... the road right outside my window works fine - no potholes, cracks, or what have you. Yet it is in dire need of improvement (needs another couple of feet for clearance).

You are certainly welcome to support this game as much as you like. No argument about that right here. Just like this thread was never about if the UI works, but whether the UI works WELL.

Good thing it works well then.

It all comes down to how demanding gamers wish to hold developers in this and other games to high standards and quality of excellence. Even you said in your post that the UI can be improved. Surely there is no harm in discussing what its current shortcomings are so it CAN be improved, right?

Nope. And there is no need to call it junk... THAT is what I'm objecting to.

Imagine if there were no uproar about the problems during the game's initial release, do you think there would be incentive for QS to make a patch? Will it lead QS to believe that in the future it is "okay" to release a game that its developers publically admit is incomplete if people simply accept it and say it is 'fine'? If fans didn't compile long lists of problems/bugs/needs for improvement, do you think the patch will be as good as it is now? Last but not least, if gamers just accept a product they bought as "the best the developer can make it", will there be incentives for the industries to strive for their best in the future?

I'd have no problem with an uproar if the game was bad. IT WASN'T. I have EVERY RIGHT to defend a game that I feel very well executed.

It all comes down to perspective. Nobody's views here is invalid. But we need to decide how high/low of a standard we want to hold the maker of the road/game for the drivers and gamers now, and when future products/patches come out. If we as gamers do not voice, the bean-counters in the industries will decide on the quality of games for us. [/B]

Fine. Voice your way, I'll voice mine. Avoid bashing (which you guys aren't) and I'll avoid calling the game perfect (which I don't; I just call it well executed)

sleepyhead

07-05-2003, 03:17 AM

Oh plueease Ron.

1. "Call it junk?" Pray tell where did I use that word? Please don't put words in my mouth or dramatize my posts just to make it appear that you have a grievance.

2. Yes, you have EVERY RIGHT to defend the game. I said that in my thread already. Who are you arguing against? If I don't disagree on that point, why are you even bringing that up, and in CAPS?

3. "Avoid bashing (which you guys aren't)"? Clearly we disagree in opinions. But show me where in my posts was I impolite or inappropriate in stating my opinion? Once again, please don't accuse me of something improper just to make your case look better.

If you want to present your arguments logically, then by all means do so. If you are unable or unwilling to response to the question about whether it is better for gamers to hold the gaming industries to high standards, please dont change the subject by making up stuff or arguing against something that no one is contesting.

Ron_Lugge

07-05-2003, 03:49 AM

Originally posted by sleepyhead
Oh plueease Ron.

1. "Call it junk?" Pray tell where did I use that word? Please don't put words in my mouth or dramatize my posts just to make it appear that you have a grievance.

I was NOT directing my comments solely at you; I was directing them at those who have taken the "anti-moo3" side. I recognize they don't have the coherence of a real side, but it gets my point across.

2. Yes, you have EVERY RIGHT to defend the game. I said that in my thread already. Who are you arguing against? If I don't disagree on that point, why are you even bringing that up, and in CAPS?

[quote]You made it seem like you were complaining about me defending this game. I may have misread you.

[quote]3. "Avoid bashing (which you guys aren't)"? Clearly we disagree in opinions. But show me where in my posts was I impolite or inappropriate in stating my opinion? Once again, please don't accuse me of something improper just to make your case look better.

See above.

If you want to present your arguments logically, then by all means do so. If you are unable or unwilling to response to the question about whether it is better for gamers to hold the gaming industries to high standards, please dont change the subject by making up stuff or arguing against something that no one is contesting. [/B]

I'm willing to let people hold it to high standards, and I *said* so. You just seem to be twisting the words as far as they will go..

It may be that we need to back off, and calm down a little.

sleepyhead

07-05-2003, 04:07 AM

Wow we agree on something!

Yes, lets back off a bit. Let's do that, for this and the other thread too.

Ron_Lugge

07-05-2003, 04:13 AM

Originally posted by sleepyhead
Wow we agree on something!

Yes, lets back off a bit. Let's do that, for this and the other thread too.
Yeah, nothing sucks worse than argueing real hard only to discover that the problem is really a definition decision (E. G. I call item X Y, and he calls item X Z, so when I say Y is needed and he says Z is needed we're saying the same thing.)

BoydofZINJ

07-05-2003, 05:09 AM

I have no problem about ship building.

I do not micro making ships every new tech I get. Normally, I will make a new design only if i have found a valuable new tech. Putting an extra Phasor on a titan+ ship may help the overall damage. However, a mere phasor will rarely win or lose you a battle.

My rule of thumb is this...

if i discover a must have tech... i design my fleets. Every 10 ~ 20 turns (once my research starts pumping in) I will look at my ship designs and see if i can tweak them.

I sometimes have fleets or ships which are no longer effective.

This is why coding your ships is useful.

For instance, a simple but effective way to code your ships is to assign it a number. If you use Orionator on your Titans, for instance, "Orionator-1" for the first titan built... "Orionator-2" is the new modified version of it... if you redesign that one... "orionator-3"

Please note I go by a differnent method myself. I go by naval terms and numbers and sometimes I will add a letter to let me know what type of ships they are (what role they play). I strongly believe in specializing ships - for the most part.

Cruisers I will call CA

CA - 1 (my first all purpose cruiser)

CA - 1V (this is the same as a CA-1 in tech but i add V to make it into a mostly carrier ship)

CA - 1ECM (for a mostly ECM ship)

CA - 1CV (a ship with 1 or 2 fighters and mostly long range weapons)

CA - 1LR (a long range ca)

etc...

now with this in mind... in turn 300 if i am at the number 25 and i see a 18 i know that ship is crap and I ignore it... or use it as cannon fodder patrolling in rear areas.

Sorry if my post is now drifting from the topic.

Try not to redesign your ships after every discovery! you be surprised how much time you save and easier it is. If you are like me who likes to have a strong economy and support a large research empire... you can easily get new techs every few turns... so building a modern fleet is all but impossible.

However, I see certain techs as MUST HAVE! If i get a certain tech I will start to mass produce a new set of fleets. old fleets either get thrown in suicide missions or regulated in the rear for pirate duty. Why would I want to scrap all my ships if i just got gravoton when phasors are 15 turns later?