Posts: 2,752
Threads: 166
Joined: Nov 2009
Staff roles: Systems Developer
Hello everyone. A bit more than a month has passed since the 5.0 release. With it, many changes occurred in all departments of the development team, with Systems being no exception. That's why we have decided to make this thread and gather community input on the topic of the Systems department specifically.
A few words from us first. For starters, the entire department lineup has changed compared to a couple of months ago, with @Wildkins being the new department head. As such, the current members were not around for most of the changes in 5.0 which is why, as the title suggests, our primary focus is on future plans. We still have quite a few older changes to catch up on, fine-tune, and see through. Additionally, we will attempt to be more transparent towards the community in general.
Without further ado, here are the questions we'd like to see you answer. Strictly following them isn't necessary, nor do you have to answer them all, though it is appreciated.
System design:
-What would you like to see future system design focus more on, and why? Some examples: visuals, gameplay, story progression, hazards, treasure hunts, environmental storytelling, etc.
-What do you think current systems, on average, suffer from the most? Use the above examples. An additional example: Overcrowdedness (lack of barren, dangerous space) can be a valid reason as well.
-Would you rather the Systems team focused more on reworking existing systems, adding new systems, removing obsolete ones, or a balance of everything?
-Where and how do you think existing systems could be enhanced with environmental storytelling and worldbuilding? Example: How would you make systems like Hamburg, Tau-23, or Hokkaido more interesting?
Travel times:
-Would you like to see travel times between two regions' hubs increase, decrease, or be kept the same? Example: New York - Omicron Delta.
-Would you like to see travel times between two regions' most distant points increase, decrease, or be kept the same? Example: Vespucci - Omicron Mu.
-Would you like to see travel times without using trade lanes decrease? How would you do it? Example: A Liberty Rogue inside of Liberty not using trade lanes or jump gates for inRP reasons.
System connectivity:
-Do you think systems, on average, have too few, or too many connections? Do you think the concept of having defined activity hub systems per region is good or bad?
-Do you think all systems should have an equal number of connections, instead of sacrificing some over the other? Example: Sidelining Omicron Kappa in favor of Omicron Theta.
-How much value do you put on connections of a system? Would you be satisfied with a system being sidelined connections-wise, but having importance in another aspect instead such as interesting gameplay or story asset relevance, and why? Example: Dublin, Omicron Pi.
-Would you like to see a) fewer systems with more connections, or b) more systems with fewer connections? Example image:
5.0 feedback:
-Give us your brief 5.0 feedback - system addition/removal, reworks, merges, connections, gameplay aspects such as hazards, treasure hunts, flavor wrecks, overall environmental changes.
-What did you like the most?
-What didn't you like at all?
One thing to note: try to avoid confusing Systems with Story. Although they are often correlated and work together, Story is a separate department primarily responsible for narrative, lore, diplomacy, and asset progression. While you can provide brief feedback on how Story should collaborate with Systems for a logical, cohesive development flow, try to keep the main focus on the Systems field of work. Thank you for your attention.
As a brand new player to Discovery, I'm sure that my feedback will probably be different from a lot of other people. But the first two things that pop into my head are (1) Environmental storytelling, and (2) hyperconnectivity.
One of the first bits of environmental storytelling I discovered in 5.0 was Kepler being...gone. Or at least gone in the sense that I remembered from 20 years ago. After digging a bit in the forums I found that this was a feature and not a bug. While things like that can feel punishing for newer players, they help drive home the idea that space is dangerous and constantly influx.
Not necessarily related to hazards specifically, but just wrecks and various objects placed in out of the way systems to discover is also just a lot of fun. There doesn't necessarily need to be any direct explanation, because sometimes the meaning the player adds to the experience itself can be just as rewarding.
Hyperconnectivity - I don't necessarily think that everything should be connected and easy for all players to get too. But I like the idea of alternate paths/hidden jump holes/etc that can lead to faster or more varied playstyles if you know the game's secrets.
I wish the game could support the starspheres Groshyr used for the Uncharted systems. Apparently it cannot without shitting itself, so that's sad. But similar quality of starspheres for future event/special systems would be very-very cool.
with an average of ~20 players and a maximum of ~60, we may need..to shrink a little ?
I know there's a lot of work to throw away just for gameplay sake, but it is what it is ..
This could be temporarily measure, only remove jumpgate access and resume it if we ever go above these unfortunate circumstances .
Posts: 6,060
Threads: 303
Joined: Aug 2007
Staff roles: Story Dev Economy Dev
Something I really love about the new exploration based systems is the way that fields and solar features are used to guide people towards points of interest. For a long, long time Discovery has approached wrecks and similar PoIs in a fairly careless way.
When these things are just thoughtlessly tossed into a remote spot, all it incentivises is people using external tools to look up where they are, because organically discovering those PoIs simply isn't enjoyable. Who wants to grid search a system on the off chance you might find a fighter wreck with a boilerplate infocard?
What I really would like to see more of is these carefully placed objects with interesting stories attached. That could mean restoring patrol paths and placing wrecks on pirate routes, so you can find things by thinking logically and using your map. Or considering flight routes between existing assets in a system, placing wrecks along those natural routes.
We could even delete some of the older vanilla and modded wrecks and replace them with new ones that are characterful and contribute to enhancing the worldbuilding and current stories. No more generic "Liberty Heavy Fighter" wrecks!
(11-20-2023, 10:51 PM)Antonio Wrote: What would you like to see future system design focus more on, and why?
Making systems a pleasing eye candy but also something that gives players to interact with, not necessarily a resource mining spot, but something immersive, like the Azurite Reactor that we had in Omicron Delta.
Perhaps you could take inspiration from the Zelda games and add dungeon systems with scripted puzzles. Like Omicron Major, except make it a maze that needs solving (not like Kepler) which has a huge reward at the end of it (a very unique codename weapon or an inRP component)
(11-20-2023, 10:51 PM)Antonio Wrote: -What do you think current systems, on average, suffer from the most?
Forced tightening of routes that was supposedly meant to increase player interactions (it didn't) as well as merger of different systems into bigger ones, like Omicron-74 being merged with Kappa, Omicron Chi with Omicron Beta, Omega-49 with Omega-47 and so on and so forth.
(11-20-2023, 10:51 PM)Antonio Wrote: -Would you rather the Systems team focused more on reworking existing systems, adding new systems, removing obsolete ones, or a balance of everything?
Definitely adding the new ones. As we are, we're at the smallest amount of systems that we had in years. Return alternative routes, but make them worth taking, not just a system that could be used to avoid interaction.
(11-20-2023, 10:51 PM)Antonio Wrote: -Where and how do you think existing systems could be enhanced with environmental storytelling and worldbuilding?
As few as they are, the existing systems do fine with environmental storytelling. But putting a few solars here and there never hurt anyone.
(11-20-2023, 10:51 PM)Antonio Wrote: -Would you like to see travel times between two regions' hubs increase, decrease, or be kept the same?
As it is right now, the travel time between regions is good. With some systems not being as big as the others or as their previous iterations, and with bigger systems having shortcuts like tradelanes or inter-system jumpholes (i.e. Coronado), flying around in Discovery from one hub to another - as dull as it can get due to lack of diverse pretty sights - is not a bother.
(11-20-2023, 10:51 PM)Antonio Wrote: -Would you like to see travel times between two regions' most distant points increase, decrease, or be kept the same?
Travel times should remain the same, but diversified with additional systems and alternative routes.
(11-20-2023, 10:51 PM)Antonio Wrote: -Would you like to see travel times without using trade lanes decrease? How would you do it?
Yes, there should be a faster alternative to trade lanes for lighter crafts. Use unstable connections as shortcuts between systems, ones that capships or transports can't use, but snubs can. Like the Leeds-Magellan one.
(11-20-2023, 10:51 PM)Antonio Wrote: -Do you think systems, on average, have too few, or too many connections? Do you think the concept of having defined activity hub systems per region is good or bad?
As of 5.0, the connections are too few, even for the activity hub systems. No, the concept of having a designated place where everyone can go and chat is not bad, hubs like Freeport-11, Ames, Trenton, Gran Canaria draw a lot of attention from people who enjoy the roleplaying part of this mod.
(11-20-2023, 10:51 PM)Antonio Wrote: -Do you think all systems should have an equal number of connections, instead of sacrificing some over the other?
Not every system should have 6 connections at the same time. Some should have few, some should have more.
(11-20-2023, 10:51 PM)Antonio Wrote: -How much value do you put on connections of a system? Would you be satisfied with a system being sidelined connections-wise, but having importance in another aspect instead such as interesting gameplay or story asset relevance, and why?
Depends on a system and where it lies. If it's on the outskirts and you REALLY need to try and get there (Tau-61, Omicron Pi) - yes, feeling like it's a dead end is good. However, Tau-44 didn't need that sort of connection. Feeling like the system is a dead end, but when it has a lot of stuff to explore, is good for immersion, for those who care about it anyway.
(11-20-2023, 10:51 PM)Antonio Wrote: -Would you like to see a) fewer systems with more connections, or b) more systems with fewer connections?
A healthy mixture of both, more systems with diverse connections which would form different routes from point A to point B
(11-20-2023, 10:51 PM)Antonio Wrote: -Give us your brief 5.0 feedback - system addition/removal, reworks, merges, connections, gameplay aspects such as hazards, treasure hunts, flavor wrecks, overall environmental changes.
There were new systems in 5.0? Apart from four Uncharted ones, which are a pain to reach. Removing systems for sake of increasing player interactions - for a mod that's specifically named "Discovery" - is bad. Hazards could be a little less instakil. Apart from that, the changes to the stuff we already had were very good. Omicron Lost has gotten more atmospheric, so did Orkney and Tau-61, Earhart is an interesting concept, I do wish that the Uncharted systems were more accessible (for anything bigger than a bomber, that is).
(11-20-2023, 10:51 PM)Antonio Wrote: -What did you like the most?
How Omicron Nu was repurposed into the other side of the Omega-4 Relay
(11-20-2023, 10:51 PM)Antonio Wrote: -What didn't you like at all?
The avoidance of connection hubs and making some systems flat out useless connection-wise (Provence, Picardy, Orelanais, Sigma-59, Omicron Kappa)
tl;dr add more systems but make them worth visiting
(10-13-2023, 12:51 AM)Haste Wrote: This is a feature as most Discovery players would not receive a response from women.
1. Visuals, not stuff like Jump holes that tank fps but assets, particularly ship skins, some are just a bit dated looking. More treasure hunts objects to explore things to find.
2.Some systems just are too small/crowded like NY for example. Makes you feel boxed in. Though it's a main hub for travel.
3. Add systems.
4. I do not have anything to add to the story of systems it develops itself.
Travel times:
1.Kept the same or decreased.-Through hyperconnectivity
2.Kept the same or decreased.-Through hyperconnectivity
3.Decrease in systems without trade lanes. Remain the same in systems that do.
System connectivity:
1. Too few connections, everything has both sides to it, but while a main hub is nice and necessary to show populated areas like city's, commodities and facilities should be spread out.
2.Not really equal but interconnectedness is the key.
3.If a system doesn't have connections it just doesn't see much use by a portion of the player base. Let alone new people that like to stick to the main SP paths like NY to New Berlin.
4.If I had to choose I'd still pick hyperconnectivity, but id still just prefer more systems with more connectivity and highways like Champagne/Zurich/cologne.
5.0 Feedback.
Overall decent feels a bit grindy at times though. Some like that. It'd be nice to make more cash as a lawful Corp without having to enter heavily pirated systems like delta or Dublin. 5k trains shooting performance is absolutely terrible the turret arcs on the collosus are impossible to shoot anything with and you cant shoot anything that gets too close to you. While not meant to be a killer defending itself against NPC encounters should be possible. I'm not a pvp person so I can't comment on that side, POBs are awesome just need a few more refinery factory options like brewerys, maybe fighter construction, etc. I like the idea of the mining Container, but they should be more persistent and have a bit more internal storage/have a setting to hold or expel material in stacks. So one can fill a MC and make multiple trips back and forth to it without worry of it disappearing/despawning. Lots more but this is where I'll start. Thank you for reading this far if you did.
-Visuals and environment are key to systems. Without good visuals, you have glorified hubs. Without good environment, you have empty glorified hubs.
-Systems currently misses slightly with visuals, and puts far too little value on spectacle. The remaining black hole in the mod is locked away in an uncharted. There used to be two wildly different ones that were in a border system and tucked away in a guard system. I also don't like the new crunched map. I find it very funny that the people demanding that systems be deleted and connections to be removed to "force interaction" are generally terrible to interact with.
-Adding new systems and reworking "obsolete" systems. Development is a state of growth or advancement. Please grow and advance the mod, and if something is wrong, please advance it into something right.
-I've noticed that systems makes little-to-no use of solar warships. Undockable solar warships would do wonders to simply show what a house or warship-capable faction is doing at the moment and what they care about. Outside of factions, I suggest looking into astrophysics. There's a bunch of cool inspirations that could make for great systems that already exist in real life. Quasars come to mind immediately. I've also noticed that the use of wrecks is slightly skewed. Generic wrecks are ok in the areas around recent battlefield, but I've also seen completely empty, generic wrecks on the far right of Zeta that hold nothing, are near nothing, and aren't the site of anything.
Travel times:
-In all, I think travel times should simply vary. Traveling between Bretonia and Kusari taking longer than between Bretonia and Rheinland is fine, the state of the story and economy should simply reflect that. Inconsistency in travel time is fine (for everyone but traders).
System connectivity:
-Some regions will define activity hubs for themselves. Omicrons used to have Malta, and eventually that switched to Omicron Delta. Now that old Delta is back, given some time to settle, I think Delta will become a hub system again.
-Variance in system connections is fine, if anything, a cap of jumpholes per size could make sense. Larger systems could reasonably have more jump holes than others without making it a "parking ship here is manditory" system. Smaller systems would then have less jump holes because the time to cross it would hopefully help mitigate the "you will be ambushed here" nature.
-The connections of a system matter in terms "central systems" versus "fringe systems". Fringe systems can be dead ends very easily. Having less connections on a central system usually makes it a pain to deal with.
-Having more connections and more systems would be optimal. Streamlined systems makes space feel 1) overcrowded and 2) restrictive. I'm sure some people play space games to feel restricted, matter of fact I firmly believe that there are people who play Discovery and enjoy the feeling of there being only one path to really get anywhere. I personally despise it.
P.S. I still have too much ping to enter Kepler, apparently it's either the peak of systems development or the valley of such.
I already said this and i wil lsay again .. you guys give too much importance to visual quality, and that ruins gameplay, cause will drop fps, and not only on older pcs, many times saw players complain that fps went very down on big battles. i ahve priorities i life, like having a house and car and living life without begging money to a bank, and i'm not buying a super pc just for one simple game ... i would play this mod even if the visuals were the same of the original game ... i prefer gameplay than visuals.
second, how you want us to explore if you removed so many systems? the uncharts could look cool ... but just at the beggining and then later ... boring!! i already explored some news systems and ... why? Copernicus ... why? Why removing Nu it was such cool system ... if exploring is a feature of this game, so removing systems and making new ones that look so boring after exploring, is not a good option. too many system dead end or almost dead end! Dublin is the biggest example of it!! Even Omega 48 ... why? give us routes to travel, places to visit ... locations to look at like wreck bases or special things ... stuff to visit ... explore and things like that. it doesn't matter you reduce the system numbers because there are few palayers, if people are bored with the same system over and over again, and pass most their times on Conn or only log on if there is a event or a base siege or whatever.
Regarding systems connectivity, I think that a hybrid of the two ideals makes sense. It seems to me that the house systems within the core (the "circle" that connects the major houses) would have a higher degree of inter-connectivity than the outlying systems. Those being the oldest and more organized systems. It likewise makes sense that the systems outside that area would be less well integrated, having at least initially been reached via exploratory excursions for usable resources. Those which held such materials would likely have been left with dead-end connections so long as there was a route to move those resources into the core systems. Also, the houses would have made some attempts to both streamline (expand connections) and secure (restrict) those pathways according to their internals needs.
Also, although FL displays Sirius as being flat as a pancake, (unrealistic) in truth the systems being beside one another on the map doesn't particularly that they're close to one another, so hyper-connectivity would usually be a difficult and expensive initiative which would only be used as necessary.
In short, the location of resources and pathways to move and trade them would, at least initially, be the basis for systems connectivity.