Vote on your campaign priorities


#1

Which feature is more important?

  • Support for easier modding of campaign maps
  • Letting you see the wins/losses of your uploaded campaign fleets.

0 voters

Which should I pay more attention to?


#2

voted for easier modding but i cant really decide…
you know,if i had that disease that inhibits the ability to make decisions,whatever its called,i could probably sue you for making my head explode like a ballistic tomato :smiley:


#3

I’m trying to mod a campaign map at the moment, and it isn’t going well
Easier modding please!


#4

We already have statistics for challenge fleets. Do people really want statistics for fleets built on a dynamic map with no size limits, supply limits and with randomly mixed in captured ships? And if you can’t examine the opponents fleet, what’s to say that the opponent fought with a reasonably matching fleet? Or if he decided to retreat the instant the battle starts or after a long fight?


#5

Can I vote Bug Fix first?

If not then modding friendly gets my vote.


#6

Bug fix would be in parallel with feature development I assume. :slight_smile:

Replayability would be greatly improved by having a greater map selection. Support for modding maps could potentially lead to a way for people to share campaign packages in-game, in similar fashion to how challenges are shared.


#7

And/or variation on which planet you start from.


#8

I curious would a map editor feature be too much to ask? could add for more control of quality on a modded campaign map

or a realtime multi player campaign option? (something closer to risk)

I’m not sure of the time and effort needed to make such features but they could add more longevity to the game.


#9

I think this would actually DECREASE the number of pure FT fleets. Pure FT v Pure FT is not only boring, it changes thing so the FT you’d make (ie, anti-fighter fighters) would be relatively poor against cruisers. You’d probably see a shifting focus to anti-FT cruisers, then pure range cruisers having it devolve into something much more interesting and varried


#10

Sorry but what is FT? I’m a little light on the jargon.


#11

FT stands for FighTer, FR is FRigate, and CR is CRuiser. Just shorthand ways of typing out ships


#12

Slang for Fighters (FT).


#13

actually if you want to use navy designations,its F,FF and C (FF is a NATO frigate designation)
and yes im aware that theres a ton of other letters in it,but lets stick to bare essentials :stuck_out_tongue:

edit: just a thought… are we ever getting destroyers and battlecruisers?


#14

I brought this up a while ago…
They exist already in the sense that they are just frigate or cruiser hulls with certain numbers of slots
Otherwise, it requires Cliff to define a new class, causing some MASSIVE coding things


#15

i dont think massive…
i didnt actually check the code,but im fairly sure it shouldnt take long… granted my coding skills are very limited at best but it should be a simple matter of adding it along with module classes and then the modules for it ofcourse… shouldnt be too painful?

modding was soooo much easier with space empires :stuck_out_tongue:


#16

I know enough C and C++ to know it’d be a non-trivial amount of code. You’d have to get Cliff’s opinion on it, but i’d rather that be one of the selling points of GSB 2.0


#17

Interesting. I hadn’t realized that the modding community was so vast.

Well I hope you guys get what you like, then!


#18

yeah the modding is wining :slight_smile:


#19

Well it’s either that or most people really think the 2nd choice is pointless…


#20

Neither. The expansion is both too imbalanced and too shallow in ways that neither of these things would improve.

I don’t see how statistics would change much, we’re still just going up against a completely faceless, undefined enemy that can pull 100,000 credit fleets out of its rump on turn 5 at will. It’s just survival mode with the difficulty of each wave set to ‘random’.