Don't worry, I'm a regular at RPGCodex, so I've seen much worse.
MoO 1 and 2 had this. We'll assume you're excluding MoO3. Pretty sure your Rock Guys get numeric Buffs too. So, if your trait, ability, or gimmick (3 words that come down to the same thing), arent going to be numerical in nature affecting the game system, then what exactly are you doing here? Also the screen show of the Rock Guys have a Typographical error. "They are able to regenerate they bodies by using..." I'm pretty sure you mean their instead of they.
So yea, nothing really said here.
I've never said there won't be any numerical differences. However, in addition to that, species will have a unique ability (or trait. or gimmick.). Those rock guys, for example, feed on the planets they colonize - so while they don't need farmers, after a few hundred turns, they have to relocate their colony to another world.
- Complexity as a means to an end – most of today’s games are catered to the casual gamer, and thus stripped of many features and lacking depth. On the other hand, we feel that stockpiling gimmicks and mechanics that have no real influence on the game’s flow and only make playing more of a chore is a dead end. Complexity is a must, but it has to serve the player, not the other way around.
Wow, wow, Most? Wii bit of an over generalization isnt? And We've seen Complexity because its gotta be there. MoO3 for instance. In fact it was so hardcore with its complexity, it didnt even tell players why things werent working.
And again, nothing is said here.
Have you read the sentence above this list? "Design philosophy", it reads. Yes, nothing specific is said here. I didn't write the game's exact mechanics, because frankly, they aren't set in stone yet.
- Technology more than just a linear progression – again, latest 4X games struggled a lot with coming up with a sensible tech system. Separate trees that you select and research one by one are not interesting the slightest. In Starlife, we are trying to put some meat on these bones.
What do you mean by modern? Can you offer games your contrasting against? You're aware that MoO 1 and 2 both had linear tech trees right? It tried to provide variety through variations of techs given, but the progress was upward and forward and you generally knew what techs are coming up.
And why are you saying they're struggling? Who struggled? What do you mean by that?
Endless Space. StarDrive (still beta though).
MoO had semi-linear. Though every tech category had tiers, you weren't able to research all of them.
- Quick, but tactically satisfying combat – battles are one of my favourite parts of strategy games. Unfortunately, most of the time they are considered of secondary importance and are either simplified or tend to drag. Starlife will feature hex-based combat system rooted in board games that is quick to resolve and offers a tactical challenge.
What Strategy game do you consider that has tact on combat? Sin of a Solar Empire, or Anon series, Civilization series? What are you contrasting against here. Elsewise, you're just not saying anything substantial. I gotta tell ya, MoO1 and 2 combat, is pretty freaken shallow. It was more like a mini game that broke up the segments of managing the empire.
Tact on?
Civ series had a very basic combat system - but IMO better than MoO, simply because while both weren't complex, Civ
- No unnecessary micromanagement – Micro is always a bane of 4X in longer, bigger games. Our plan is cutting down on it without limiting players’ choices.
Didnt you just bitch at games for being to causal? Some of that casualty with 4x games comes from taking away micro mgm. But since you arent telling us where you're cutting micro or /how/ this isnt saying anything.
You do realize that that is a Contradiction right? Fuck Casual but less Micro!
again, what's the connection? Micromanagement does not equal complexity. A game can be heavy on micro and yet shallow.
- Your subjects are living creatures (unless they’re robots) – Have you ever felt that those billions of subordinates on your colonies are mindless drones that need constant babysitting? Well, we have. That’s why in Starlife citizens actually have will of their own. They are quite helpful, but, if mistreated, can make your rule a pain.
This sounds neat, but what does that mean exactly? You know that what Abstraction through Mechanics are right, or Metaphor Through Mechanic. There a really good design reason why City Pops for 4X game, have more or less been Worker Placement.
What do you we gain out of having a Sim of citizens? I thought you wanted to cut down on Micro Mgm, but now we're going to have to carter to these Sims?
I'm not sure you understood. It's quite the contrary - you
don't have to babysit your subjects in StarLife. I gave a few examples in an earlier post.
How research will probably look like:
Research
Range of a species’ knowledge is divided into two groups:
Concept
CONCEPT - defines innate civic skills and notions of a race.
For example: CONCEPT OF SPOKEN LANGUAGE, CONCEPT OF TELEPATHIC LANGUAGE, CONCEPT OF TRADE, CONCEPT OF WALKING, CONCEPT OF FLOATING, CONCEPT OF FLYING, CONCEPT OF DIPLOMACY, CONCEPT OF WAR, CONCEPT OF DECEIT, CONCEPT OF MUTATION, CONCEPT OF BUILDING and so on.
A race that has no CONCEPT OF TRADE won't be able to trade with other species. It will, however, have an option to learn about this Concept:
·It can OBSERVE OTHER RACES. Observation and coexisting with a species utilizing a concept will earn knowledge points, and with time full understanding will be achieved. SPYING can increase the rate of gaining knowledge points.
·It can ASK FRIENDLY RACES or allies to teach them about the Concept. This is the fastest way, but it requires the goodwill of another race.
·Finally, it can INTERROGATE CAPTURED ENEMIES. This method is faster than observation, but necessitates declaring war and disabling enemy ship in a won battle. Some races cannot be captured or interrogated.
Technology
TECHNOLOGIES - defines knowledge that can be researched and applied directly, improving one or more aspects of a race.
For example: AGRICULTURE IN ZERO GRAVITY, ADVANCED TOOLS IN SPACE MAINTENANCE, PRIMITIVE LASER IN VACUUM, UNDERSTANDING ALIEN ENTERTAINMENT, TRACTOR BEAM BEYOND SAVE & RESCUE, DEEP FREEZED FOOD IN LONG SPACE TRAVELS.
There are FOUR WAYS TO LEARN A TECHNOLOGY and one way to EXPAND IT.
·The first way is to RESEARCH the technology yourself.
·The second way is to STEAL OR TRADE the technology from another race.
·The third way is to have your CIVIL POPULATION RESEARCH THE TECHNOLOGY for you.
·The fourth way is by PROTOTYPING; if you capture or steal an enemy ship that contains technology you don't have, using the vessel will make you start to understand it.
Each technology can be RESEARCHED AGAIN after gaining knowledge of it to further improve it.
Any of the four above ways will give you ACCESS TO THE TECHNOLOGY, but combining them will enhance the design greatly. Each method represents a different approach to the problem, and thus will give you access to different information.
Prototyping is the least effective way to learn new technologies but it's great to improve ones you already have. Civilians can be made research a technology, but though you save time, it costs a lot of money and isn’t very effective when it comes to improvements. Stealing or trading can be used to quickly gain access to new designs. It’s also the best way to augment existing techs.
Both concept and technology research rates vary from race to race. Some may excel at prototyping, while others have perfected the art of interrogation.
Your main goal, as stated above was for it not be linear. But when you show us the Tech Tree stuff, you dont describe how its none linear?
Also, if you dont like Races getting flat bonuses then why is it cool for technology to get bonus stacking? You'll be facing Techs way more then Races.
why do you think one has to exclude the other?
Also on your website:
"Prototyping is the less effective way to learn a new technology..."
"Each method will give a different bonus, prototyping will give the best bonuses,..."
I'm finding these statement to be in contradiction, but overall, I find the section on your website about the Tech Tree, to be muddled. I think you're using a few definitions of Prototype and Research, and I think they might be being exchanged for one another. So, I dont think you have a clear understanding of these words mean. Also I'm really surethat its suppose to be least effective.
Less effective = much slower.
Overall, I find your website to be riddle with typos, filled with muddle writing and just fairly arrogant.
Are you so far ahead that you left grammar behind? (They state their far a head of the curve.)
Our main dev and coder is Brazilian and his English isn't very good. There will be some major improvements in the next couple days.
What are your relevant game making experiences? How many games have you two worked on that have shipped?
This is our first venture. I have some experience on designing board games.
How can really tell us you'll get this game out in under a year? Are you stupid or just that arrogant? Or will this game be so small, that no one will care about it as a 4X?
We have a working engine with all the basic stuff implemented, a rudimentary combat system that you can check yourself. And all that was made in free time. With a successful KS - full time work put into it, I see no problems in getting the game finished in, maybe not under, but about a year or so.
Overall, my impression is that the lol internet opinion congealed into Orange Purple Games.
I've no idea what you mean by that, but I'm sure I wouldn't like it.
The screenies look pretty cool, I'll be keeping an eye on this. Mayby you could add some screenshots into your OP? Just use [spoiler][img]imageurl[/img][/spoiler]
Yeah, sure.
Author
Topic: Starlife - an indie sci-fi 4X in making (Read 16128 times)