Return to “Polls”

What LT features would you be willing to give up?

Individual character AI guiding ship behavior
Total votes: 6 (5%)
Large-scale conflict/economic activity
Total votes: 5 (4%)
Dynamic level-of-detail (LOD) scaling
Total votes: 2 (2%)
Procedurally expanding universe
Total votes: 5 (4%)
Procedurally generated ships and stations
Total votes: 2 (2%)
Atmospheric graphics
Total votes: 4 (3%)
Moddability
Total votes: 19 (15%)
Ship designer/editor
Total votes: 9 (7%)
Ship component configuration
Total votes: 3 (2%)
Emergent production-based economy
Total votes: 2 (2%)
Tactical dogfighting
Total votes: 6 (5%)
Fleet operations
Total votes: 5 (4%)
Strategic empire management
Total votes: 10 (8%)
Factions
(No votes)
Colonies
Total votes: 5 (4%)
Research
Total votes: 8 (6%)
Asteroid mining
Total votes: 1 (1%)
Detailed scanner/sensor operations
Total votes: 4 (3%)
Information as a commodity
Total votes: 14 (11%)
Slick, highly configurable user interface (UI)
Total votes: 17 (13%)
Total votes: 127
Post

Re: Which Features Would You Cut?

#46
BFett wrote:How do you define "strategic empire management"?
For the purposes of this poll, it's really just all the asset management and faction-expansion gameplay that's at a larger scale than the RTS fleet-flinging.

These are the control features that would start to be useful once you lead a faction that controls, say, 10+ star systems. Around that point, rather than directing every action yourself and enjoying immediate results, you'd want to be able to start setting policies to be pursued by your lieutenants that (should) lead to a stable and (if you want) expanding empire over time.

So, basically, strategic empire management would be the phase of the game where you're acting indirectly for long-term results, rather than directly for near-immediate results.

There's no reason why a game with factions and a procedurally-expanding universe couldn't support this kind of play layered on top of the RTS gameplay. I wouldn't go so far as to say it's necessary for LT 1.0 (especially if player control of factions is not implemented in that version). But I believe it would be fun for a non-zero number of fans of Limit Theory.

Going by the poll results so far, apparently those "fans" are just me. :D I guess we'll see at some point.
Post

Re: Which Features Would You Cut?

#51
BFett wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 6:53 pm
Looks like we are getting a mod-able game even though most of us were willing to have that feature cut to get LT out the door more quickly. Maybe we should reallocate that vote to somewhere else since mod-ability is not something that can be dropped at this point.
The only reason people think modability could/should be dropped, is because they don't understand programming.

It's not some magic switch to go from Modable, to Unmodable, or back.
It's core engine changes, either a game CAN be modded easily, or it CANNOT. There are no other states, and once a game is one, it is damn near impossible to move it to the other without a similar level of effort as it would be to recreate the core engine.

So, because Josh wanted mods in eventually, he had to make sure the engine could handle it from the get go.
°˖◝(ಠ‸ಠ)◜˖°
Toba - A Development Dump
Post

Re: Which Features Would You Cut?

#52
Well said, Silverware.

I think "moddability" remains a reasonable poll option to include. It's interesting, and maybe useful, to understand how some likely players of LT feel about learning how to mod the game. I take their lack of interest here to mean, not "I don't think anyone should be able to mod LT," but "Modding LT is not something that I personally ever expect to do."

Really, though, moddability might be best understood as simply a happy side effect of choosing to implement game features using a scripting language for speed/simplicity versus hardcoding everything in C. I suppose Josh could have imposed some sort of encryption on the script files to prevent players from altering His Game, but why? This way he gets to crank out gameplay code quickly -- we assume ;) -- and players get the power to mod the game themselves as a bonus.

(It's not quite this simple; I believe Josh is spending some time to add a more formal mod control facility to manage mod clashes. But that work is, I suspect, relatively far simpler than the work needed to write game features in a scripting language at all.)

Speaking just for myself, I'm terribly offended that so many people would jettison "strategic empire management" and "information as a commodity." Philistines. :D
Post

Re: Which Features Would You Cut?

#53
Flatfingers wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:23 pm
Speaking just for myself, I'm terribly offended that so many people would jettison "strategic empire management" and "information as a commodity." Philistines. :D
The first is a reasonable drop, that's mostly UI and command layers.
The second is a core component, and would require major underlying systems to be replaced to add it back in.

Dropping the first wont save a huge amount of time, but it could be easily added back in later.
While the second would require a huge amount of rewrite later. Not worth dropping if it's part of the design.
°˖◝(ಠ‸ಠ)◜˖°
Toba - A Development Dump
Post

Re: Which Features Would You Cut?

#54
Silverware wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 3:44 pm
Flatfingers wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:23 pm
Speaking just for myself, I'm terribly offended that so many people would jettison "strategic empire management" and "information as a commodity." Philistines. :D
The first is a reasonable drop, that's mostly UI and command layers.
The second is a core component, and would require major underlying systems to be replaced to add it back in.

Dropping the first wont save a huge amount of time, but it could be easily added back in later.
While the second would require a huge amount of rewrite later. Not worth dropping if it's part of the design.

I wasn't being entirely serious.

These are features I personally enjoy. And I think they'd be appropriate for a game with all of LT's other features. But I don't really mind if others don't find them as exciting as I do.

I would suggest that "strategic empire management" is more than just a layer of UI paint, though. Strategy's not just a one-way function -- it's not just big-picture information coming in to the player (via the UI stuff); it's also the capability to design high-level plans of action that span and integrate multiple forms of force (military, political, economic, cultural, etc.); and it's also also the ability to hire appropriate people to whom strategic plan segments can be delegated and who can in turn smartly break down those plans into operational missions (the "RTS" level of play) that together can achieve the intended outcomes of those plans.

Furthermore, if player/NPC parity is to be maintained, then if the player has verbs for acting strategically in the world (big-picture info in, creative planning for enhancing strategic resources, high-level delegation out), then so should NPCs.

I'd say all this would be the minimum for an enjoyable strategic empire management subgame in LT. Of course that means the cost to implement it is considerably more than just some additional universe-level data displays. My calculation is that this cost would be worth paying to give Limit Theory the high-level game that would fit so beautifully into its overall structure, but I expect that's just my bias for strategic fun talking.
Post

Re: Which Features Would You Cut?

#55
Flatfingers wrote:
Thu Feb 02, 2017 4:03 pm
Velifax wrote:
I voted to wait on tactical dogfighting.
The "I'm here for Freelancer 2.0" contingent may want to have a few words with you. Out back, in a dark alley.

Which reminds me: where's Victor? I've been waiting for him to weigh in on Josh's return, but I don't think I've seen much. Hope he's OK.
I miss so much, Flat. I've only just come across these words of yours. :(

I try to stay out of the controversial stuff nowadays. It does bad things to my sense of mental balance and the truth is everyone knows where my interests lie concerning LT. Anything that is contrary to my interests isn't worth raising my blood pressure over. I've said it all in the years I've been here. Some have even suggested I should give it a rest. :angel:

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron