Indeed, you’ve summed up my thought on the matter. Of course some people love the current system, which is why supply limits will only be for certain scenarios.
Ultimately, of course, you are going to have to make GSB the centerpiece for a massively multiplayer persistent world empire space building game in order to fully fulfill my dreams.
Can you have that ready by June?
Scenario specific supply limits sound interesting. Certainly there is no way that they could be seen as a negative – any more than having certain modules disabled (as we currently have) is a negative. Random Thoughts:
A) IF weapons are restricted by specific type, there are usually weapons options that are all but identical. For example, “Limited fusion beams” changes nothing, as the player can just switch to lasers. The same applies across the board with any weapon restriction, unless…
B) Entire weapons classes are restricted. For example, no beam weapons, no guided weapons, etc. However, in such a case all the scenario designer is really doing is restricting the viable options capable of winning that scenario. If, pre-limits, there were twenty basic ways to defeat a scenario, post-limits there might be only five. Figuring out which five might be interesting, or not.
C. Limits or restrictions on modules generally have a counter that is hopefully self-evident to anyone playing. (Restricted shields results in more armor or speed on the defensive end, and a focus on armor defeating weapons offensively). And while this might force players to design new ships to fit within these limits, I suspect that many players will either run the fleets they use currently (if they can) or avoid the really restrictive scenarios altogether.
D. While it is not my place to say, would this investment of development time not be better spent adding NEW TOYS and fleet control options? Perhaps bigger ships and weapons, specialized hulls, deeper electronic warfare, new weapons classes, things like that?
E. And speaking of new things (heh-heh) how about a campaign mode in which ships are build on a campaign limited budget and remain from challenge to challenge until defeated?
/random thoughts
Maybe the feature should simply allow for arbitrary links.
0/10 weapon A
0/10 weapon B
0/20 weapons C,D,E,F
0/8 weapons G,H
etc
That way rather than link “all missiles” together, the map designer could link whatever they wanted.
Conceptually it would be like you have access to a beam laser factory and they can build you 20 beam lasers of whatever type you desire. They cannot build you pulse lasers or missiles or plasma though. Or maybe the beam laser factory also does pulse lasers, so they can build you 20 lasers of any type, but not missiles, plasma, etc.
Yes. I assume that is exactly what we will have, but it doesn’t really change the point. To elaborate:
Let’s say, for the sake of discussion, I currently run a preferred fleet that consists of a front line of three fusion armed cruisers backed by a second line of three plasma armed cruisers. The scenario limits both fusion and plasma. Looking at the breakdown I see that I can only run two fusions cruisers and two plasma cruisers, OR alter the current design on both. I choose the former, open ship design and swap beam lasers for fusion. Done. I do the same for plasma’s, and swap plasma on one ship with missiles. Done. My new fleet now consists of a front line of two fusion cruisers and one laser cruiser, and a back line of two plasma cruisers and one missile cruiser. Finished in two minutes. Note that it would have made no difference in outcome had I simply adjusted the existing ship designs to swap a couple fusion for lasers on each ship. In either case NOTHING changed. Not my designs or my tactics. All these particular limits did was add another layer of work.
Where it becomes interesting is if a scenario introduces multiple and varied module restrictions. Perhaps you can only have twenty engines, 8 fusions, 2 lasers, 2 fast missiles, 1 multi-missile, 2 armors, 4 shields, etc.
Suddenly you are faced with redesigning everything, including formations. However, the bigger the chore the more I suspect that people will simply ignore it. Particularly when there is no objective reason to bother.
I suppose my point is this: there is nothing wrong with adding this. It will definately make things more interesting. BUT, would this dev time not be better spent adding new toys and more meaningful options? Obviously it is not my place to say. I don’t know how much dev time this will take compared to other things, nor do I know what other things are in the pipeline – either for this game or hopefully “Gratuitous Space Pwnage 2 – Explodiness Squared!”
That’s certainly an open question. Limiting the numbers of certain items is one way of stopping “spam”. What’s another way?
Most games have built in limits because that actually ends up being more fun for everyone in the long run. Think about, say, Magic the Gathering (or any card based strategy game). MtG tournament decks limit you to no more than 4 of any card. You simply aren’t able to create a deck that uses dozens of the same card. The restriction is there precisely to force people to put in more thought and create a deck that’s more diverse rather than finding one thing that works and doing only that one thing. Otherwise it would be boring, and yes, fighting someone’s “awesome” missile spam fleet is boring after you’ve beaten a dozen nearly identical fleets.
Although I think it could also be argued that it’s a flaw in some of the current weapons. People spam missiles because missiles don’t have enough weaknesses. Same for plasma and fighters and even ion cannons. You rarely see a “beam laser spam fleet” because beam lasers have a pretty good weakness. I don’t think I’ve seen a cruiser laser spam fleet. It’s a good weapon but it has its drawbacks and you have to make some serious sacrifices to really make good use of it.
So I think the argument could be made that spam fleets may be solvable with changes to balance. e.g., maybe missiles and plasma should simply cost more power and/or crew such that it’s basically impossibly to fit all of your hard points with them because you’d have to fit 4 reactors and 3 crew quarters to handle it.
I also dispute that “nothing has changed” in your first example. You switched from full plasma to plasma and lasers. Your ability to penetrate both armor and shields at long ranges via full plasma spam has been impaired. By making you pick up some lasers we have forced you to create a more rounded fleet. You have better average accuracy but less average shield penetration. YOUR tactics may not have changed but the people who would fight your fleet now have more options and frankly, they have more to deal with. A single-minded plasma fleet can be defeated by a single-minded anti-plasma fleet. That anti-plasma fleet may actually not work against a plasma+laser fleet.
hi,
another way of countering spam: don’t play against spam.
yes i know, its’t not the final solution.
but you are right, spamming just exploits some unbalanced weapons (plasma…) and limiting them is an obvious way to deal with it, but balancing sure is the better way 
some of the suggestions to limit modules sound rather complicated too…
however i’m not a big fan of limitations, especially not if i’m forced to them, so my question is (i might have missed that it was already answered):
will those limitations be optional?
greetings
driver