Igncom1 wrote:
Then whats the point? Make 1 mistake and immediately lose, that might as well be a game of rock paper scissor.

It still wouldn't be immediate. But you can't seriously tell me there's a good reason why a player can churn out 236 crap fleets just to delay a defeat that's physically impossible to avoid.

Igncom1 wrote:
Only in the short term, and the Sophons have better ships anyway.

Not at first.

Igncom1 wrote:
Then allow ships to attack more then once a turn.

That doesn't completely negate the issue.

Igncom1 wrote:
If your playing counter cards, your not repairing. And ships can only repair otherwise in friendly territory or with a heroes support.

I assume you're not going to leave your hero behind when shipping off towards 236 enemy fleets.

Igncom1 wrote:
Because comparisons don't work for SIFI.

SIFI?

Igncom1 wrote:
Other then dramatically increasing the odds because of the certainty of another ship being at the end when you arrive.

Not dramatically. Yes, it increases. But if you have a .1% percent error, adding another ship will change that to what, .05%? Big whoop, in the long term.

Igncom1 wrote:
Because you don't want to use more then 1 or 2 fleets at a time?

Why should I be tasked with managing two fleets when I can bundle them into one?

Igncom1 wrote:
Time matter little when compared to making the game completely unplayable.

You're exaggerating again, and throwing your own gameplay interpretations out as the industry standard. You're not the only person here who doesn't want larger fleets, but I'm not the only one here acting in favor of them. And again, I was proposing a toggle, so how would it make the game COMPLETELY unplayable?

Igncom1 wrote:
Because of the amount of hupla people have gone on about these things and how the games balance is bad, why make it worse by creating multiple levels of it?

We have G2G votes that allow the community to decide what they want to see. A suggestion shows what people in the community want to see. So people can then move in favor of it or in favor of other things. But that's why we have choices.

Igncom1 wrote:
And because why should there be an addition like this, as it is really more about preferences then actual gameplay, its a waste of time.

If you're seriously going to tell me you think the argument for larger fleets has absolutely nothing to do with actual gameplay, you need to reread the argument.

I have the impression of a general lack of activity here in especially from the dev side...the last real patch was weeks ago although there were many bugs discovered.

However maybe you should add a poll here so that anyone can just vote on the topic.

Tredecim wrote:
Well said, indeed!

Let's see what the future brings up..

The future brings up a lack of further responses, which deeply saddens me.

I really think ES looses much of its potential by the bad implementation of fleet and combat management including the fleet cp limit. When you are familiar with software development (and admit i am because this is my job) and you do some investigation on a software then you get a destinct feeling at which point the program management has decided "the project is now expensive enough and it is time to speed up progress and make money". This points usually lead to what Igncom1 called "design decisions". The developers themself usually are not happy with this "design decisions" but due to program management having the money they can not do much.



So please dont make the mistake to think everything implemented is originated in careful consideration and do not think everything that is implemented is what the developers wanted to implement. It is our task as customer to force those freaking program managers to let the devs to their work. And this we are trying by posting suggestions. And this suggestion is good one because it is clearly attacking one of those very suspicious money saving design decisions no developer but every program manager would support.

Well said, indeed!

Let's see what the future brings up..

ørret wrote:
Take M002 as example. There you have an overall empire wide fleet cap that depends on the owned systems/star bases + research + heroes. However fleet size is nearly unlimited. Or take SOASE you have gigantic fleets there. Both are good games and in both games would't be good if fleets were restricted to 5 ships.







I really think ES looses much of its potential by the bad implementation of fleet and combat management including the fleet cp limit. When you are familiar with software development (and admit i am because this is my job) and you do some investigation on a software then you get a destinct feeling at which point the program management has decided "the project is now expensive enough and it is time to speed up progress and make money". This points usually lead to what Igncom1 called "design decisions". The developers themself usually are not happy with this "design decisions" but due to program management having the money they can not do much.



So please dont make the mistake to think everything implemented is originated in careful consideration and do not think everything that is implemented is what the developers wanted to implement. It is our task as customer to force those freaking program managers to let the devs to their work. And this we are trying by posting suggestions. And this suggestion is good one because it is clearly attacking one of those very suspicious money saving design decisions no developer but every program manager would support.

You make good points sir, I do not retract my statements, but I retire from my argument.



Good day/night gentlemen. Best of luck.

ørret wrote:
Or take SOASE you have gigantic fleets there.

I already pointed that out, igncom countered by saying that Sins is real-time where as ES is turn-based. Is MOO2 turn-based?

ørret wrote:
So please dont make the mistake to think everything implemented is originated in careful consideration and do not think everything that is implemented is what the developers wanted to implement. It is our task as customer to force those freaking program managers to let the devs to their work. And this we are trying by posting suggestions. And this suggestion is good one because it is clearly attacking one of those very suspicious money saving design decisions no developer but every program manager would support.

Well-said, my good sir.

Fenrakk101 wrote:


I haven't played many 4X games, so I can't think of counterexamples (TBS games with high or non-existent limits), so I'll just assume there are some great counterexamples until someone else comes in and tells me whether or not there are.

Take M002 as example. There you have an overall empire wide fleet cap that depends on the owned systems/star bases + research + heroes. However fleet size is nearly unlimited. Or take SOASE you have gigantic fleets there. Both are good games and in both games would't be good if fleets were restricted to 5 ships.

Igncom1 wrote:


You could just Mod the game and see the results, instead of spending development time on theoreticals.

I really think ES looses much of its potential by the bad implementation of fleet and combat management including the fleet cp limit. When you are familiar with software development (and admit i am because this is my job) and you do some investigation on a software then you get a destinct feeling at which point the program management has decided "the project is now expensive enough and it is time to speed up progress and make money". This points usually lead to what Igncom1 called "design decisions". The developers themself usually are not happy with this "design decisions" but due to program management having the money they can not do much.



So please dont make the mistake to think everything implemented is originated in careful consideration and do not think everything that is implemented is what the developers wanted to implement. It is our task as customer to force those freaking program managers to let the devs to their work. And this we are trying by posting suggestions. And this suggestion is good one because it is clearly attacking one of those very suspicious money saving design decisions no developer but every program manager would support.

Igncom1 wrote:
You were referring to the one fleet using the nano-reapir, when I was referring the the many fleets doing so.

Again, we're assuming that the many fleets will be devastated by the single fleet.

Igncom1 wrote:
It was a design choice to have the current limit, but if you feel the devs are mistaken, then add a poll to the suggestion and let people vote.

That wasn't necessarily the point of this thread; I was only asking if the devs had already commented on this. There wouldn't be a point to adding a poll if the devs had already turned this down.



In that instance it would make sense, but not in regards to the overall effect of having fewer massive fleets.

Igncom1 wrote:
So your assuming? Then I really cant argue if your just going to make stuff up.

The problem being, 400 people can say "there's no turn-based game without fleet limits" and then it only takes one person to say "hey, what about (x) game?"

Although, does Civ IV work as an example?

Fenrakk101 wrote:
Not to achieve an end, just to be a pain. Which is the problem.

The problem is not the act, but the method.

Only if you're saying that 40 turns is the same as 100.

What?

I'm starting to get the feeling that one of us is very confused, and I have no idea who it is.

You were referring to the one fleet using the nano-reapir, when I was referring the the many fleets doing so.

That wouldn't work. The only people who install the mod are people who want this to happen, and they'll either say it works amazing and we need it in game, and you'll make the same argument, or they'll say the cap should be removed entirely. To get an accurate representation of what the community thinks of it, the devs themselves need to put it into testing.

It was a design choice to have the current limit, but if you feel the devs are mistaken, then add a poll to the suggestion and let people vote.

That's the problem. I have twenty GROUPS of 2-3 fleets each when I may as well just have twenty separate fleets.

In that instance it would make sense, but not in regards to the overall effect of having fewer massive fleets.

I haven't played many 4X games, so I can't think of counterexamples (TBS games with high or non-existent limits), so I'll just assume there are some great counterexamples until someone else comes in and tells me whether or not there are.

So your assuming? Then I really cant argue if your just going to make stuff up.

Igncom1 wrote:
Yep.

Not to achieve an end, just to be a pain. Which is the problem.

Igncom1 wrote:
o your saying that 100 turns is the same as 236 turns yes?

Only if you're saying that 40 turns is the same as 100.

Igncom1 wrote:
So your referring to the single fleet having the advantage, and not the hundreds of fleets? Then the smaller fleet would be screwed if that 236 fleets become 60.

I'm starting to get the feeling that one of us is very confused, and I have no idea who it is.

Igncom1 wrote:
You could just Mod the game and see the results, instead of spending development time on theoreticals.

That wouldn't work. The only people who install the mod are people who want this to happen, and they'll either say it works amazing and we need it in game, and you'll make the same argument, or they'll say the cap should be removed entirely. To get an accurate representation of what the community thinks of it, the devs themselves need to put it into testing.

Igncom1 wrote:
20 Groups of fleets. Not the same as individual fleets.

That's the problem. I have twenty GROUPS of 2-3 fleets each when I may as well just have twenty separate fleets.



They are RTS games, not TBS games.

Igncom1 wrote:
Different games, different balances, different settings and different technology.

I haven't played many 4X games, so I can't think of counterexamples (TBS games with high or non-existent limits), so I'll just assume there are some great counterexamples until someone else comes in and tells me whether or not there are.

Fenrakk101 wrote:
I believe it can already be done with mods, but there are issues with this, first one being the fleet positioning in the battle scenes (If you have more ships than the game is designed to handle, who knows how they're going to be rendered).

They render in a big old line, there is a video somewhere here of it.

Fenrakk101 wrote:
That if you're going to lose and you just keep 236 fleets in one place, you're not trying for a chance to win, you're just trying to make the other person wait.

Yep.

You could.

And the Sophons could also have a huge tech advantage.

Not 236 of them.

So your saying that 100 turns is the same as 236 turns yes?

I thought we were talking about one fleet attacking hundreds? You seem to be the one lost here.

So your referring to the single fleet having the advantage, and not the hundreds of fleets? Then the smaller fleet would be screwed if that 236 fleets become 60.

Yes, my bad. My point is that if you have to be 99.8% accurate, 99.81 isn't a massive difference.

And if it's so pointless to discuss, then why don't we just add the toggle for larger fleets and see how it really impacts the gameplay instead of just theorizing what the consequences could be?

You could just Mod the game and see the results, instead of spending development time on theoreticals.

No, it's not, because it's set across a galaxy and I might have 50 fleets to manage individually when I'm using them as 20 anyway.

20 Groups of fleets. Not the same as individual fleets.

So you're going to tell me Sins of a Solar Empire is a horrible game because their fleets can have hundreds of ships? Command and Conquer is impossible to win because you can have dozens of tanks? You're acting as though large forces/fleet sizes make games less fun, when many of the most popular games have had higher or nonexistent caps.

They are RTS games, not TBS games.



Different games, different balances, different settings and different technology.



Apples to Oranges.

You might notice in my first post I posed the question: Is this on the table, or already scrapped? You're not on the dev team and thus cannot provide the answer.

Congratulations, I wasn't trying to.

Tredecim wrote:
So many quotes... but the idea is good - but i'm no pro 'bout implenting that stuff - but it would be nice if it's possible to implent...

I believe it can already be done with mods, but there are issues with this, first one being the fleet positioning in the battle scenes (If you have more ships than the game is designed to handle, who knows how they're going to be rendered).

So many quotes... but the idea is good - but i'm no pro 'bout implenting that stuff - but it would be nice if it's possible to implent...

Igncom1 wrote:
Errr, to delay the inevitable? Why not? Whats the problem?

That if you're going to lose and you just keep 236 fleets in one place, you're not trying for a chance to win, you're just trying to make the other person wait.

Igncom1 wrote:
At first you don't have hundreds of ships.

You could.

Igncom1 wrote:
Yes it does, you can kill all the crap fleets in much fewer turns then normally.

Not 236 of them.

Igncom1 wrote:
15 or so heroes, Hundreds of fleets.

I thought we were talking about one fleet attacking hundreds? You seem to be the one lost here.

Igncom1 wrote:
You mean .2% surly? as the error percentage would go up, meaning in the long term it only gets worse.



And this is exactly why I said it was pointless to discuss the theoretical crap!

Yes, my bad. My point is that if you have to be 99.8% accurate, 99.81 isn't a massive difference.

And if it's so pointless to discuss, then why don't we just add the toggle for larger fleets and see how it really impacts the gameplay instead of just theorizing what the consequences could be?

Igncom1 wrote:
Because the game is set across a galaxy, and that is just laziness.

No, it's not, because it's set across a galaxy and I might have 50 fleets to manage individually when I'm using them as 20 anyway.

Igncom1 wrote:
By allowing a stupid amount of ships to bundle up into a single fleet that can zerg past anything that isn't the same.

So you're going to tell me Sins of a Solar Empire is a horrible game because their fleets can have hundreds of ships? Command and Conquer is impossible to win because you can have dozens of tanks? You're acting as though large forces/fleet sizes make games less fun, when many of the most popular games have had higher or nonexistent caps.

Igncom1 wrote:
People suggest a variety of things, this doesn't mean the ideas are a good thing to do.



And the vote is only for what Amplitude is willing or able to do.

You might notice in my first post I posed the question: Is this on the table, or already scrapped? You're not on the dev team and thus cannot provide the answer.

Fenrakk101 wrote:
It still wouldn't be immediate. But you can't seriously tell me there's a good reason why a player can churn out 236 crap fleets just to delay a defeat that's physically impossible to avoid.

Errr, to delay the inevitable? Why not? Whats the problem?

Not at first.

At first you don't have hundreds of ships.

That doesn't completely negate the issue.

Yes it does, you can kill all the crap fleets in much fewer turns then normally.

I assume you're not going to leave your hero behind when shipping off towards 236 enemy fleets.

15 or so heroes, Hundreds of fleets.

SIFI?

Science fiction.

Not dramatically. Yes, it increases. But if you have a .1% percent error, adding another ship will change that to what, .05%? Big whoop, in the long term.

You mean .2% surly? as the error percentage would go up, meaning in the long term it only gets worse.



And this is exactly why I said it was pointless to discuss the theoretical crap!

Why should I be tasked with managing two fleets when I can bundle them into one?

Because the game is set across a galaxy, and that is just laziness.



[/QUOTE]You're exaggerating again, and throwing your own gameplay interpretations out as the industry standard. You're not the only person here who doesn't want larger fleets, but I'm not the only one here acting in favor of them. And again, I was proposing a toggle, so how would it make the game COMPLETELY unplayable?[/QUOTE]



By allowing a stupid amount of ships to bundle up into a single fleet that can zerg past anything that isn't the same.

We have G2G votes that allow the community to decide what they want to see. A suggestion shows what people in the community want to see. So people can then move in favor of it or in favor of other things. But that's why we have choices.

People suggest a variety of things, this doesn't mean the ideas are a good thing to do.



And the vote is only for what Amplitude is willing or able to do.

If you're seriously going to tell me you think the argument for larger fleets has absolutely nothing to do with actual gameplay, you need to reread the argument

Its not about the problem, it about what you want in spite of the problem.

A lot of people seem to be having issues with the fleet sizes being too small, and I didn't see anything about it in the "Community Suggestions Amplitude is Following" thread (but maybe I'm blind).



My assumption right now is that the CP limits are low due to rendering/computer issues; if they were any higher, it would be more difficult for people to enjoy the CG battles on lower-end computers.



But the CP limit seems to be damaging the replayability of the game for many people. And so, to keep both camps happy, I think it might be a good idea to implement a slider/option in the game options menu, similar to what Sins of a Solar Empire had, to adjust fleet sizes. Increasing the fleet sizes would increase the base CP, and could also scale up the CP boosts from tech and the Cravers' faction trait. Even if it's just a choice between "Normal" and "Large," it would keep a lot of people interested. Are there any talks on this, or is it low priority, or a rejected idea?

Fenrakk101 wrote:
If you can't destroy it, you've already lost. The same goes in the current system, but in the current system is takes twenty times as long for the defeat to be final.

Then whats the point? Make 1 mistake and immediately lose, that might as well be a game of rock paper scissor.

The Cravers tend to have more Dust. They can afford a larger fleet. The Sophons cannot.

Only in the short term, and the Sophons have better ships anyway.

You seemed to be assuming that all 236 enemy fleets were of equal power to his own. If any one of those fleets would have destroyed his fleet on the first go, there wouldn't have been a point in him mentioning it. So you can assume that his fleet was capable of destroying all 236 fleets at one time if it had to, but the process was obviously slower than necessary.

Then allow ships to attack more then once a turn.

Then you can play counter-cards. Ships repair each round anyway. So even if you did some damage to their fleet with every battle, it wouldn't amount to very much, if anything.

If your playing counter cards, your not repairing. And ships can only repair otherwise in friendly territory or with a heroes support.

So what was the point of the seaborne ship comparison?

Because comparisons don't work for SIFI.

I didn't say it was, but you didn't even talk about that. You were more interested in pointing out just how easy it was for a ship to end up inside a star. If those are how bad the odds are stacked against you, then adding another ship doesn't change the difficulty a whole lot.

Other then dramatically increasing the odds because of the certainty of another ship being at the end when you arrive.

No, I want double/triple sizes. The current sizes may be just fine on Small 1v1 maps, but in large 8-player spiral galaxies they're more of a burden than a feature.

Because you don't want to use more then 1 or 2 fleets at a time?

It's more time consuming than the alternative.

Time matter little when compared to making the game completely unplayable.

EDIT: Why are you so adamant about not adding this to the game, anyway? The suggestion was for a toggle/slider, not for a change in the core gameplay mechanics that was mandatory for everyone.

Because of the amount of hupla people have gone on about these things and how the games balance is bad, why make it worse by creating multiple levels of it?



And because why should there be an addition like this, as it is really more about preferences then actual gameplay, its a waste of time.

Igncom1 wrote:
And that solves the problem HOW? Small fleets, and not may fleets is what the solution is, not a massive fleet you can't destroy!

If you can't destroy it, you've already lost. The same goes in the current system, but in the current system is takes twenty times as long for the defeat to be final.

Igncom1 wrote:
How in the love of god does that inflate the problem? Ships that cost more cause more problems for players who field more ships not less! The Sophons would have the advantage.

The Cravers tend to have more Dust. They can afford a larger fleet. The Sophons cannot.

Igncom1 wrote:
What? What does that even mean? You lose so there is not a problem because you lose the game?

You seemed to be assuming that all 236 enemy fleets were of equal power to his own. If any one of those fleets would have destroyed his fleet on the first go, there wouldn't have been a point in him mentioning it. So you can assume that his fleet was capable of destroying all 236 fleets at one time if it had to, but the process was obviously slower than necessary.

Igncom1 wrote:
And the opposing player will consecutively use the offensive type cards to counter.....so how is that even a problem?

Then you can play counter-cards. Ships repair each round anyway. So even if you did some damage to their fleet with every battle, it wouldn't amount to very much, if anything.

Igncom1 wrote:
And you know ships in ES are the exact same right?

So what was the point of the seaborne ship comparison?

Igncom1 wrote:
How the hell so? If 2 ships collide when exiting FTL speed that is some how makes it as easy as a single ship that won't collide with anything?

I didn't say it was, but you didn't even talk about that. You were more interested in pointing out just how easy it was for a ship to end up inside a star. If those are how bad the odds are stacked against you, then adding another ship doesn't change the difficulty a whole lot.

Igncom1 wrote:
Quite frankly you seem to be arguing for unlimited sized fleets of death, a scenario where the Cravers and Hissho can never be beaten.

No, I want double/triple sizes. The current sizes may be just fine on Small 1v1 maps, but in large 8-player spiral galaxies they're more of a burden than a feature.

Igncom1 wrote:
What you suggest makes the game impossible to play, over the current system that is easy to use and play is only a little time consuming.

It's more time consuming than the alternative.



EDIT: Why are you so adamant about not adding this to the game, anyway? The suggestion was for a toggle/slider, not for a change in the core gameplay mechanics that was mandatory for everyone.

Igncom1 wrote:


Changes to fleet upkeep will prevent a massing of ships, as well will multi battles per fleet from moment speed prevent useless fleets.

This could be a good point to do some investigation and this may be a way to replace the empire wide cp cap which is (to be honest) also not really logically explainable) as an overall ship limiting factor.

Igncom1 wrote:


Or you know just lose, because you don't have 236 ships and such stacking of fire power on few ships would negate any defenses you are capable of mounting.

Oh come on dont you think an empire owning 1000 ships should win over one owning 10 ships?

Igncom1 wrote:


The only conceivable situation where you can win is if the enemy fleet is made of wood, or you have a larger fleet they they do.

This is the principle of war. Either win in numbers or win in quality. Anyway even very poor equipped ships should be a thread in large numbers (the "goblin" principle lol). This would be the way races like cravers or sowers win over Sophons or Amoba.

Igncom1 wrote:


This would further promote the eXterminate part of the game to the point where doing anything else is pointless!

I dont think so. It could even make the decision to attack another faction harder because you know you will loose many ships in such an epic battle even if you have advanced tech . Currently you can almost be sure that your ships survive without a scratch when you have an advanced fleet.

Igncom1 wrote:


Imagine the complex calculations needed to keep a fleet together in FTL travel, 1 degree of difference can mean a ship ends up on the other side of the galaxy by the end of the journey, not to mention the possibility of 2 ships exiting FTL speeds at the same point.

This seems not to prevent them from sending 236 fleets at once to a system.

Igncom1 wrote:


Fleets need to be small because of the processing power of the ships computers networking all available data together, thus ensuring you get there in one peace, and not inside of a star.

Then bigger fleets should even be more capable of this task because they could build up kind of neuronal network combining their calculation power on the same task

Igncom1 wrote:


Races like the Cravers are more loose when it comes to safety.

Cravers would focus on quick production of many ships which is as i understood the lore correctly their purpose as "space locusts" while sophons would excel in building less but deadly highly advanced ships. This would even give the game much more life.