Dextron wrote:
I'm slightly disappointed to hear about the lack of doom weapons. They're kind of a staple of the space opera genre - although breaking away from clichés can be a good thing for sure.



Quote from FOmar: "I hate the idea! do you know the technlology needed to destroy a planet? and the technology needed to BUILD one!

No i think we should focus on the ablity to actually detail your empire, not to chese at the end game with a lame ass doom beam."



Technology required: I think you'd be surprised how easy it is to destroy a planet. Anyone capable of interstellar flight could probably pull a large asteroid into a collision course with a planet.



The end game cheese thing: I understand where you're coming from, but consider this. In games like this, by the very late game one player tends to have such a huge advantage that no-one else has a chance and its just a matter of time before its over. The purpose of the super weapons is just to give the winning player a way to quickly mop up, so the end game doesn't drag on too long. That's the way I've always seen it anyway.

ROFL yeah mop up, reminds of when I actually managed to win a session of Call to Power (1 or 2 not sure which) . Nothing says your screwed like a floating fortress/massive air ship, which ever it was, that can lay waste to whole cities. Hmmmm maybe I should reinstall GalCiv 2.

Kruos wrote:
Sorry guy, but you seems to be completly missing the point of my post. Re-read it please.

Big ass lasers is a stong argument, but the consept is not.

That is BAL in technical terms lol

Igncom1 wrote:
Big ass lasers is a stong argument, but the consept is not.

Kruos wrote:
Unnecessary/necessary... how is it possible in real physics... blablabla... this is not the point. The point is : Doom weapon IS fun.



And more, if it is well put in the tech tree, and balanced, it could add some depth by allowing a player to return a critical situation. And if a tech could allow to build a planet from asteroide, it would be even more depth.



It is not because ES is a very simple and elegant 4X that it has to be a 4X for babies!

To begin, I did not say that it was unrealistic - This is a Science Fiction game; Is that term even allowed? I said it is unnecessary.



Why, you ask? Well, although I have already said it, I will tell you. There is no need for an end-all "I win" button mechanic in this game. Sure, it's fun to stomp the AI, but what about against humans? What's the point of continuing the game if someone managed to build their Ultra Mobile Moon Laser Nuclear Chemical Warhead Assimilator?



There is no balancing it - If you balance it, it just becomes another tier of weapon that everyone has, so what's the point? And there is surely no more depth. I would argue there is less - It just turns in to "Who can get a UMMLNCWA first?"



Finally, you overstep yourself by claiming we are babies. The utter foolishness of a superweapon/doomsday device in Endless Space has nothing to do with the simplicity, elegance, or difficulty of the game. There is just absolutely no reason to create a situation in which players no longer have to think to win; which is essentially what a superweapon provides.

@Kuros: You think they are fun, I and it seems many others think they are not... plain and simple.

The reasons for why I don't like them are mostly covered by Admiral666.

Ok guys, it seems we have a very different way of seeing things and how playing.

Admiral666 wrote:
Finally, you overstep yourself by claiming we are babies.

Loosen your string, take the blue pill. Hey Admiral, guess what? I was joking. (this time I put two smileys to avoid some misunderstanding)

Admiral666 wrote:
To begin, I did not say that it was unrealistic - This is a Science Fiction game; Is that term even allowed?

Someone says something like that at the beginning of the thread. Btw I fully agree with you.

Admiral666 wrote:
I said it is unnecessary.



Why, you ask? Well, although I have already said it, I will tell you. There is no need for an end-all "I win" button mechanic in this game. Sure, it's fun to stomp the AI, but what about against humans? What's the point of continuing the game if someone managed to build their Ultra Mobile Moon Laser Nuclear Chemical Warhead Assimilator?

Many things :



1) Why why why it has to be necessary? If you put only the necessary, where is the fun, where is the magic? If it is not fun it is no longer a game, it is something like an e-sport, a competitive thing I mean.

2) Why an end-all "I win" button? It could just be only another possibility, with its requirements (many differents ressources, build cost, etc...) and its weakness (reputation impact, etc...)...ok it is obvious that it would be a powerful thing, but it could be designed to not be a "I win" thing. And this thread could be a very good brainstorming device I think.

3) The point to continuing game is that you have to explore, research and finally find a solution in order to counter it!

4) Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that the multiplayer is only an additional module, the single player IS still the focus. Far from me the idea to re-open a very boring debat about Multiplayer VS Singleplayer, but as the single player is the focus it is not because a concept/idea would be difficult to balance in multiplayer that it has to be remove from the game.

Admiral666 wrote:
There is no balancing it - If you balance it, it just becomes another tier of weapon that everyone has, so what's the point? And there is surely no more depth. I would argue there is less - It just turns in to "Who can get a UMMLNCWA first?"

1) I still think that it is possible to implement it in a balanced way.

2) By adding a planet destroyer weapon, you implement new possibilities and thus you increase the depth, it is a fact. It could turn in what you say only if this is the ultimate thing and that no counter has been also implemented (I call that : "balance"), which is the way I would like it (doom weapon + counter/solution to defend against).

Admiral666 wrote:
The utter foolishness of a superweapon/doomsday device in Endless Space has nothing to do with the simplicity, elegance, or difficulty of the game. There is just absolutely no reason to create a situation in which players no longer have to think to win; which is essentially what a superweapon provides.

Again, not if you implement it nicely.

StK wrote:
@Kuros: You think they are fun, I and it seems many others think they are not... plain and simple.

The reasons for why I don't like them are mostly covered by Admiral666.

Maybe it has never been well implemented in the games you have tested? Personnaly, I find the way MoO2 put them in was fun, but not the best. I prefer the way they are implemented in Distant World (via exploration).





Sooo, that being said...





In order to make the thread interesting and to share ideas, here is my proposal after some reflexion about a Planet Destroyer technology (PD) :

(and also to avoid this thread to become a [Doomweaponfans] VS [Doomweaponhaters] )



- PD would be an endless technology, not researchable by the classic way

- PD technology would be only available thought exploration of temples/moons

- PD technology would be in many pieces, exploration of 2-4 (depending of galaxy size) temples should be needed to assemble the puzzle and discover its secret

- some dust could be spend to help the survey team during exploration of the old temple, allowing to find clue(s) on the locations of the other temples in the galaxy

- PD module would be so huge that only a dreadnough ship with extended cargo (via support module) could have it

- PD module would need a mix of many ressources (cristals, minerals, etc...) to be built

- PD use would also needs availability of a mix of ressources (maybe different ones)

- as it is an old endless technology, WD module would be fuelled by dust (an upkeep one and maybe also additional cost for each shot)

- each shot would decrease relations with other races

- PD shot would only destroy planet -not ship

- a destroyed planet would be replaced by an asteroid field, as large as the planet was

- PD shot would need several turn of preparation in orbit



I hope I have forgotten nothing.



What do you think? (I was also thinking to a supernova maker, which would make star become supernova, thus destroying all planets in the system, and transform it and all the cosmic lines into wormhole connections )





Sorry and thanks for reading this wall. My apologies if there are some 'non-english' sentences

My champion has talked, all hail the champion!



This forum clearly doesn't have to force sell the concept to the devs, pros like us are not masterminds who got into devs' thoughts.



There's always a simple way to add a concept like this and add depth to the game.

If it's not gonna be in, i'm fine the same way, i already love the game the way it is, it's an amazing job for an alpha version, and i hope we'll love as much what's still up to come in the game.



And i feel like there are other more interesting concepts to add/develop before this one (like spying/sabotage) but this is a fun and rich one to me, like it was in MOO2.



There's no need to hate or love completely an idea until the concept is done and you're testing it to approve or disapprove it.

Being completely against it means that you already have your idea of what it would be.



Simpliest way to have everybody ok with that would be to have it as an option to activate or not while you set up your games... (or through a DLC)

If you don't like Ewoks than don't go to Endor's moon... as simple as that.



The funny thing is that i started that thread as an open question, but i'm not even a militaristic fan when i play, i just want to have the idea on the table and have a chat around it.

I was thinking (yes it happens) : maybe an admin could move this thread to the suggestion forum? It seems to be more suited for such discussion I think.

I don't have time to counter this point by point. Just this one statement.

Kruos wrote:
2) By adding a planet destroyer weapon, you implement new possibilities and thus you increase the depth, it is a fact. It could turn in what you say only if this is the ultimate thing and that no counter has been also implemented (I call that : "balance"), which is the way I would like it (doom weapon + counter/solution to defend against).

Right, when you balance it you just add another layer of ship/weapon/defense that everyone has to build, to what end? Fun? I don't think my planets exploding is FUN. Okay, so you counter it, right? So, is it a cheap enough counter that I can actually put it in all my systems? If so, what's the point? If not, then it's not FUN because my planets exploding is not FUN.



It's a horizontal increase in depth, if any, instead of the vertical increases that should be encouraged. It's not a "new" mechanic, it's just furthering the already somewhat mangled combat system.



Also. Why did I bold that statement? Because it is not a fact, it is your opinion.



And I needn't loosen anything, nor chill, relax, or calm down. You just made a broad assumption, and I called you out for it.

Kruos wrote:
1) Why why why it has to be necessary? If you put only the necessary, where is the fun, where is the magic? If it is not fun it is no longer a game, it is something like an e-sport, a competitive thing I mean.

Because I, and apparently the majority in this thread, do not think that is fun. It is an unnecessary addition, something that would lose its little appeal after a few uses. There is simply no need for this, whatsoever.

Kruos wrote:
2) Why an end-all "I win" button? It could just be only another possibility, with its requirements (many differents ressources, build cost, etc...) and its weakness (reputation impact, etc...)...ok it is obvious that it would be a powerful thing, but it could be designed to not be a "I win" thing. And this thread could be a very good brainstorming device I think.

Destroying enemy planets doesn't scream "I win" to you? Regardless of how hard it is to get, once you have got it, you are now thrust far above the other players. There is no rebuilding a destroyed planet.



And there is no need to brainstorm a mechanic that we don't want, is there?

Kruos wrote:
4) Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that the multiplayer is only an additional module, the single player IS still the focus. Far from me the idea to re-open a very boring debat about Multiplayer VS Singleplayer, but as the single player is the focus it is not because a concept/idea would be difficult to balance in multiplayer that it has to be remove from the game.

You are wrong. The majority of the time I will spend on this game will be playing games with my friends. Singleplayer is nice, but Multi keeps the game alive. I would hope that the focus is on Endless Space, not on just singleplayer, as that would be a mistake indeed.



K, so I responded to a few.



Edit: Jazzmiq, the problem I have with that is that I am fully against the concept. I feel as there is absolutely no need nor place for any sort of superweapon/doomsday device in this game, no matter what you call it or how you propose to balance it. Superweapons take away the challenge and strategy of the game.

Admiral666 wrote:
Right, when you balance it you just add another layer of ship/weapon/defense that everyone has to build, to what end? Fun? I don't think my planets exploding is FUN. Okay, so you counter it, right? So, is it a cheap enough counter that I can actually put it in all my systems? If so, what's the point? If not, then it's not FUN because my planets exploding is not FUN.

It is not at all what I have written, neither what I have suggested in my proposal. Re-read my post please.

Admiral666 wrote:
It's a horizontal increase in depth, if any, instead of the vertical increases that should be encouraged. It's not a "new" mechanic, it's just furthering the already somewhat mangled combat system.



Also. Why did I bold that statement? Because it is not a fact, it is your opinion.

No, it is a fact.



If you re-read my post, and espescially my proposal, you will see that I propose the addition of a new mechanic : destruction/construction of a planet (before in this thread we were also suggesting planetoide construction possibilty -directly linked to that). So it is an increase of vertical depth. Moreover, this mechanic would also increase horizontal depth by increasing the strategy diversity like : new exploration interest, new dust interest, new ressource interest, new specific hull interest, etc...



So as you can see, I just demonstrated what you deny since the beginning : doom weapon, if well implemented, could lead to an increase of depth, both horizontal and vertical.



Also. Why did I bold that statement? ... Ah yes, because it's a fact.

Admiral666 wrote:
And I needn't loosen anything, nor chill, relax, or calm down. You just made a broad assumption, and I called you out for it.

Yeah, and thanks for that, it's always fun to kick some ass with words.



(and also to share ideas and point of vue, even when they are 180° opposed)

Admiral666 wrote:
Destroying enemy planets doesn't scream "I win" to you? Regardless of how hard it is to get, once you have got it, you are now thrust far above the other players. There is no rebuilding a destroyed planet.

Again, re-read my post and my proposal. There is absolutely no mandatory link between the unlock of the ability to destroy a planet and the fact that then you can steam roll the galaxy. I would even say that with some fine tuning my proposal should be an excellent balancing mechanism against a steam rolling player.

Admiral666 wrote:
Because I, and apparently the majority in this thread, do not think that is fun. It is an unnecessary addition, something that would lose its little appeal after a few uses. There is simply no need for this, whatsoever.

Admiral666 wrote:
And there is no need to brainstorm a mechanic that we don't want, is there?

Sorry, but that two statments are not a proof of intelligence. Open your mind.

Admiral666 wrote:
You are wrong. The majority of the time I will spend on this game will be playing games with my friends. Singleplayer is nice, but Multi keeps the game alive. I would hope that the focus is on Endless Space, not on just singleplayer, as that would be a mistake indeed.

Again, no. Multi keeps multiplayer focused game alive, that's all. TBS games are not multiplayer focused. Why? Because a game is too long, and the majority of multiplayer fans do not like that. You really think that a TBS game like Civ5 is still alive thanks to its multiplayer module? Dont make me laugh. ^^



Moreover, I sincerly hope that ES will be more single player focused than multi. Why? Because if the game is good in solo, then there is a lot of chance that will be also good in multi, whereas the reverse is far from being warranted (IA coding for example).

Admiral666 wrote:
K, so I responded to a few.

Yeah, and thanks for that. And be sure that you will be the first target for my swarms of predators when we will encounter each other in multi. I will not need any destruction weapon to doom you.

jazzmiq wrote:
I can't remember seeing anyone talking about the classical destroyer of world (probably as an ultimate military research in the tech tree)

But would that be useful and sexy to help you reach the militaristic victory (which conditions i ignore)?

I'm pretty sure it's not within the plans of the release, but maybe a concept to add in a future addon... i don't know.



Turning a planet into an asteroid field is fun.

On the opposite it would funny to be able to create a planet out of an asteroid field (as an ultimate terraforming technology)

Hum ? You want this ? Really ?

If it's a late game hard achievement that can find its balance inside the game then yes.

I'm not with the idea as it should be a top militaristic research, not at all.

This ,in my mind, should involve the four branches of the technology tree.

And keep clear that this is not the ultimate big thingy that is going to make you win the game, as it's always going to be able to counter, like any other thing.

Victory by domination is just one of the multiple possibilities to win the game.

Igncom1 wrote:
Its just stupid, such a weapon is just that a 'doom' weapon that cant really be stoped, if developed by the strongist guy in a game, then there is no real point in playing becuse he will just stuff his ships with it.



And if it were balanced? then it would have not differance with any other weapon, and destroying planets? that just means there is no recovery from an attack making its compleatly unfair for its target empire.

Sorry guy, but you seems to be completly missing the point of my post. Re-read it please.

I loved the stellar convertor in MOO2 and i would like to see it againn. there is just one problem right now that i think would make it very unbalanced: There is no planetary defense. Means: I go into the system with one ship (if there are no defending ships) shoot that thing and warp out again. If planets had a defense to hold small fleets off it would be different.



There would actually be multiple ways to make those weapons weak then.

The weight limit for example could be at the complete maximum, so you cant put any other offense/defense system on the ship.

The weapon could need one or 2 turns, before it can fire, so the defending player has a chance to get a fleet in to defend.

There could be a multi turn cooldown time afterwards.

There could be a limit of one "Superweapon" per race (like in real time strategy)



This would still allow a destrucion weapon, but gives it weaknesses so it can be destroyed easy.





But there would be other possibilities... A weapon that destroys everything on a planet (inhabitants and structures) and makes it uninhabitable for a certain time.

or put a status on the planet like the ones you already can find, like acid soil or something, that has a very negative influence and needs a long removing time (maybe radioactive soil?)



The more im brainstorrming here the less i like the actual invading system, that doesnt have ground battle and is just waiting in the system until the bar is full/empty

Kruos wrote:
Blah blah everything you said

I don't care enough (Just got home, long day, tired, already made my points anyway) to say any more than 1. Your opinion is your opinion, not fact, regardless of how many times you say otherwise and 2. Attacking my argument instead of countering it (Namely the "proof of intelligence" bit makes me want to entirely disregard what you are saying.



Oh and I disagree with you anti-multiplayer views. I feel as though both facets of the game are equally important. I wouldn't use Civ 5 as an example, either, but that's just my preference. I just know that my friends and I still play Civ3, SotS1, and Sins (A RTS but, still a 4x) regularly. I would much rather play a game over the course of several days or weeks with them than to just play SP. AI simply can't beat a skilled player. That said, there should be no favoring either SP or MP: both should be equal (as I said).

Admiral666 wrote:
I don't care enough (Just got home, long day, tired, already made my points anyway) to say any more than 1. Your opinion is your opinion, not fact, regardless of how many times you say otherwise and 2. Attacking my argument instead of countering it (Namely the "proof of intelligence" bit makes me want to entirely disregard what you are saying.



Oh and I disagree with you anti-multiplayer views. I feel as though both facets of the game are equally important. I wouldn't use Civ 5 as an example, either, but that's just my preference. I just know that my friends and I still play Civ3, SotS1, and Sins (A RTS but, still a 4x) regularly. I would much rather play a game over the course of several days or weeks with them than to just play SP. AI simply can't beat a skilled player. That said, there should be no favoring either SP or MP: both should be equal (as I said).

My torpedoes were loaded and ready for launch, so sad...



Hey Admiral, the game list you play catch my attention. May I ask what is your opinion about the doom weapon in Civ3 (aka the "nuclear missile" or something like that)? I am curious.

To be honest, I like the idea of a doomsday weapon, but you have to make them valuble. Hard to build, hard to defend, middle of the road in difficulty to destroy. Look at Star Wars Rebellion, you could make the Deathstar, and yes it could be overpowered, but if you had fighteres in the system when the Deathstar dropped out of hyperspace, they could make a trench run to kill it. When my friends would build it I would just mass build Awings and it woudlnt touch me. If somebody builds it in multiplayer, yes they have an advantage that way, but they had to sacrifice a lot of fleet building capability to do it. Unless your getting roflstomped it should balance out in the end.



At the end they are a staple of sci-fi, as much as we dont like them. Yes Stellar Converters in MOO2 were easy to make, but they werent that great in fleet to fleet. Personally in MOO2 ill take the equivelent cost in heavy mount disruptors over a stellar converter any day of the week.

lol it has been brought up and shot down. no doomsday weapons. :P

blackswordca wrote:
To be honest, I like the idea of a doomsday weapon, but you have to make them valuble. Hard to build, hard to defend, middle of the road in difficulty to destroy. Look at Star Wars Rebellion, you could make the Deathstar, and yes it could be overpowered, but if you had fighteres in the system when the Deathstar dropped out of hyperspace, they could make a trench run to kill it. When my friends would build it I would just mass build Awings and it woudlnt touch me. If somebody builds it in multiplayer, yes they have an advantage that way, but they had to sacrifice a lot of fleet building capability to do it. Unless your getting roflstomped it should balance out in the end.



At the end they are a staple of sci-fi, as much as we dont like them. Yes Stellar Converters in MOO2 were easy to make, but they werent that great in fleet to fleet. Personally in MOO2 ill take the equivelent cost in heavy mount disruptors over a stellar converter any day of the week.

Slar wrote:
lol it has been brought up and shot down. no doomsday weapons. :P

Eh, something to mod in.

A type 2 or 3 civilization could very well destroy planets if they wanted. Our current civilization here on earth is a type 0. we are less than ants to a type 3 in terms of energy usage and scientific capacity. death stars would be childs play to such a civilization. I hereby ask the devs, I WANT A DEATH STAR! wont be a space 4x game without it. oh and one other thing. ringworlds.