Paradoxnt Paradoxnt

Phase Highways in space is a bad game concept!

Phase Highways in space is a bad game concept!

I really don't like the beta's Phase Highway system. There should be no artificially forced space highways in the game. Okay, I've said it. My friends and I were really hoping that this game would use a less constricting movement system more like MOO or Rebellion for traveling between gravity wells.

The Phase Highway concept has been bugging me since I've started playing the beta. I've been quiet about it till now (mostly) because the beta has a lot of potential in other areas. But if we don't say anything about the Phase Highways now, they will be guaranteed to be included in the final release.

Also, these developers really want to hear us. They don't want us to say "yeah, the beta is just awesome" but then we don't buy the final release because we don't like it.

Games like Space Empires and Empires at War have their own versions of Phase Highways. The problem is that they kind of suck because of it. The concept of Phase Highways has been done to death in past games. Modders especially complain about them (check out the recent modding posts in the Space Empire Forums), because forcing players to use space highways mean that they can't make proper mods for Star Wars, Star Trek, Babylon 5, Battlestar Galactica, and so on.

By getting rid of Phase Highway limitations, SoaSE will be purchased by ALL of the space modders out there. I know for a fact that the talented Evillejedi from the Homeworld 2 Star Wars mod is keeping his eye on SoaSE to see if it has any potential. The game would also see a serious increase of its shelf life because of all of the modding potential made possible.

The Phase Highway concept is used because game designers think that players need short term goals in order not to get bored/discouraged. They also think that the average player's intelligence can't handle too many choices at once. They really should acknowledgment that SciFi gamers are smarter than other gamers and that we would welcome more choice and potential. Besides, players can still choose to play on small maps if they want.

Let's briefly examine how the game could work without using any Phase Highways and instead allowed ships to travel wherever they wanted to go. Of course, Phase Space itself should still be the means of traveling between gravity wells as it is a good game concept.


-To see the other destination gravity wells in your home star system, Astronomy could become a researchable technology. The higher the level you have in Astronomy, the further your planets/asteroids/ships could see possible gravity well destinations.

-Allies should share gravity well destination points. Hmmm, maybe you could even sell/buy gravity well destination points in the trade menu.

-Stars should probably always be valid destination points regardless of your Astronomy Tech level, since they are so easy to see. Hmmm, you might make it so you have to jump to another star before you can initially see any of the planets in its orbit (somewhat realistic even).

-There should be an option to turn off Astronomy and allow players to see all planets/asteroids. Players would then be able to jump to whatever destination they wanted right from the start. This would mostly be used by modders and professional multiplayers.

-Some people might worry that defensive strategies without Phase Lanes would become impossible. This simply isn't the case. With sensors (and audio warnings), you can be warned of incoming enemy fleets as the beta already does. Defending players should be able to see the destination point of the incoming fleet. If they are trying to reach your inner planets by bypassing your outer worlds, you'll be able to send a suitable intercept fleet to the contested system. Your fleet is going to be closer and so will arrive first. If certain ships can be equipped with Phase Space Inhibitors, that would prevent invading fleets from endlessly jumping around in your back lines. Of course, you could also build Phase Space Inhibitor platforms in your back lines as well to prevent leapfrogging hostile fleets.

*Modders should have the option of removing the long range warning sensors that show incoming enemy ships to help them build more accurate mods. Or possibly make them a research option.

-If people have trouble dealing with multiple incoming fleets...well, they realistically should have trouble sending interception fleets to deal with multiple attacking empires at once. Still, SoaSE has a good AI, and your ships can handle themselves while you are focusing elsewhere. So handling multiple incoming attackers at once won't be as fatal for you as it would be in other lesser games.

-I suppose that Phase Space travel speed could be slowed down a bit if players find they have trouble organizing multiple defense and attack fleets. You might even allow a research tech that messes with Phase Space and slows travel through it. Or your ships might be allowed to travel a bit faster when traveling in Phase Space inside your empire's borders (they would have a better grasp of local phase space conditions).

-Finally, if absolutely necessary, the distance ships can jump in Phase Space could be tied to a tech level. The higher the tech level, the further your ships can jump. I know you don't want to use Anti Matter as a limiter for Phase Space jumps, so I didn't bother mentioning a fuel range.

So, please remove the Phase Space Highways. They are standing between this game being a good game, and one of those all time great games that set the benchmark for years to come. Please tell me Blair that you guys are considering doing this.

Posters who've read this and agree with me, now is the time for you to speak up. They might be able to make a serious gameplay change like this now, but they won't be able to do it when the game nears release.
75,887 views 211 replies
Reply #101 Top
Lanes are better then open imo - 51%

btw - has anybody discussed the possibility of "charting spacelanes" ,i.e you choose the lanes





Reply #102 Top
Charting sounds like a good idea for a tech development feature maybe using gates.

At any rate for me at the end of the day, lanes will always be a poor excuse for a fixed wormholes. I do however think they have an intrinsic use as star to star gateways for what its worth.
Reply #103 Top
Check again P5y, we were at 53% (one guy voted but didn't give a % number in his post), how does your vote count as 2?

Hehe, if I were a smart ass, I would make an argument now that people who want Phase Lanes can't do math...and who wants to be on the side of people who can't add or subtract.

Of course, that argument would only last as long as it took Schem to get involved and ask how the hell was the original 50%/50% value reached, and how is it that each new vote is worth exactly 1% each time.
Reply #104 Top
one guy voted but didn't give a % number in his post


thats why...
Reply #105 Top
how does your vote count as 2?

his doesnt...

































but mine does!
Reply #106 Top

Open for me too.

If GC2 can be open with so called best AI ever in the universe omg I'm gonna explode.

And plenty of other real time games have had openings with some on occasion 'natural' barriers with good AI. It has to be possible here!


I think GC2 is amazing too, but I come to a totally different interpretation: Like Ashbery pointed out, the reason why GC2's AI is so good probably mainly due to it's so restricted and simplified in many ways. Say, speed attack is strongly discouraged in GC2. The range is usually very limited as well. Judging by what I read here, I believe quite some of the pro-open guys actually want to do speed attack in SOASE too. Using speed attack against other human players is fair, but using speed attack against AI will ruin the single player experience IMHO.

A lot of other games cheat or use fixed maps in the scripted campaign to achieve a more balanced gameplay experience - again, that won't help with the replay value in the skirmish mode.
Reply #107 Top
wd schem
Reply #108 Top
Still, you Phase Lane boys are only at 49% = loss

Okay, seriously though. About half of you are fine with the idea of limiting Phase Lanes. Fine, let's say that the SoaSE standard campaign uses Phase Lanes and that the developers won't change their minds about this. In fact, I don't even think most of us Pro Open Connection Map guys even care about whether the campaign uses open or closed maps.

What I am curious about is how many of the pro Phase Lane group doesn't want modders to have the choice of making mods that use open connection maps. Or how many of the pro Phase Lane group doesn't want multi player to possibly have an option of using closed or open maps.

The game engine can handle either/or, and the developers can put a choice in the game for modders and multi players. Is there anyone here who is saying "I don't want the other group to have any choice in the matter, even if it doesn't effect me in any way!"
Reply #109 Top
Say, speed attack is strongly discouraged in GC2. The range is usually very limited as well. Judging by what I read here, I believe quite some of the pro-open guys actually want to do speed attack in SOASE too. Using speed attack against other human players is fair, but using speed attack against AI will ruin the single player experience IMHO.


I've never understood the 'range' in GC2. Even on the largest galaxy map possible, most ships are capable of covering two thirds of it.

There must be better ways to handle 'speed attacks' than simply cutting out possible avenues to play/win the game. Personally, I'm not interested in speed attacking. I'm just afraid my options in military logistics aren't going to be as wide as they are in other strategy games. I like the fact the AI in GC2 can send ships around my empire and attack me from 'behind'.

At the moment it's all looking, overwhelm one planet and then move to the next one on the branch. And it will be moreso once that horrible ability to phase jump through wells is fixed.



I don't mind the story campaign using phase lanes. I'll be more into the sandbox games and, hopefully, the mods. Hopefully it doesn't have crucial things hardcoded. *whines about combat in gc*

So as long as modders can mod away the phase lanes and also have access to tweak the AI themselves to handle open space and other key components (if the devs really do leave it up to the modders) it'll be fine and dandy.
Reply #110 Top
Paradoxnt:

I can't imagine that anybody would want to prevent the game from being modded to make people happy
Reply #111 Top
chiming in late here guys, but here's my 2c.

as unrealistic as phase lanes are, i can see why they would be seen as a necessary game concept. without them, you can get from any place to any other place on the map with no chance of interference. it completely removes all concept of terrain and front lines, chokepoints, etc. i know some have said there should be no chokepoints in space, but think about it. imagine playing starcraft (or any other game) where the enemy can get into your weakest base at any point in the game; you can be effectively outflanked no matter what you do. it would be really frustrating because you would have to be constantly moving your fleets around for defence, building up massive planetary defenses to protect your resource gathering; that would encourage an overly defensive, turtling style of play. sure it would be more "realistic", if you can call a gameplay mechanism based on a technology we haven't even discovered (hyperspace) "realistic". it would also be more realistic if the games would take several years to play (which is what would probably happen if people have to spend all their money on defense

the only real alternatives i can think of restrict your movement in other ways. one is to allow people to build jump blockers in arbitrary space, preventing other players from jumping into their back lines. which would be interesting for sure, but do we really want this to turn into a wall building game? with a game of this scale, they're trying to AVOID micro. another alternative imho would be to change the jump blockers to have a range greater than that of the grav wells - so any ship jumping by would be prevented from moving past the blocker until it was destroyed, but this would depend highly on where the planets were placed, and would be totally useless if you realism-monkeys () got orbiting planets.

the most viable alternative imho would be this:

a) reduce number of planets per system to something more realistic (1-10), and increase the number of systems
b) allow construction at the stars somehow (maybe don't tie construction ship to planets)
c) keep the mechanic that you can only jump from system to system by going star to star (ie, you can't jump from a planet in system A to a planet in system B, only from star A to star B)
d) allow arbitrary jumps within the system (no phase lanes)

effectively this would allow terrain/chokepoints in combination with arbitrary movement. you would block people from jumping directly to your resource planets by building jump blockers at the stars, but once they got into your system, you could expect attack from any side.

thoughts?
Reply #112 Top
I'm already on record for supporting the lanes for star to star travel. My solution for planet to planet jumps would simply be space stations and automated gun platforms and beacons. There could be tech in the tree that "destabilizes" subspace for a range around the station or beacon effectively pulling ships out of hyperspace en route to a planet.
Reply #113 Top
I kinda like the Star to Star Phase Lane concept. It could even be explained as some kind of subspace connection/space folding between extremely deep gravity wells...a sort of poor mans wormhole that can be used with advanced technology. You can't go from a planet to another distant star because the planet's gravity well is too small to connect properly to a far away star (or because the planets gravity well is too eclipsed by its star's huge gravity well to be useful over such long distances).

As for in system travel, we could get rid of phase lanes altogether and let people go at it. We could explain the fast travel between in system gravity wells as using the same tech for traveling between stars (except on a smaller scale), EXCEPT you can travel to any gravity well in a star system (ie, open connection map = everything in system is connected). Planets, even with their tiny gravity wells, connect up because they are so close to each other (the star's huge gravity well can't totally eclipse the connection between tiny gravity wells, because the distance isn't very far between in system planets/asteroids).


Attack would become more important than defense, for sure. Still there are some ways to minimize this to a small extent.

1. Planets can have automatic shield generators tied to the advancement level of the planet (instead of those shield generator platforms in space). This way, a tiny fleet can't do squat to an advanced and important planet. You would need a sizable fleet to get enough bombardment firepower past the shields to do any real damage.

Of course, this would leave dead asteroids, or less advanced planets vulnerable. but that is what fleets and defensive platforms are for.

2. Long range sensors in a system can be used to spot incoming fleets, giving you time to send an intercept fleet. Your effective sensor range could even be tied into a research level.

3. Maybe Ironclad could introduce technology in the game that could make more efficient "Phase Lanes" between in system player/allied colonies. So, two colonies that make these Phase Space Emitter platforms would form more efficient subspace/ space fold lanes between them. Friendly ships traveling along that path would be a bit faster than ships without (because they would have a better grasp on conditions between those two points. This would help a bit in getting fleets quickly into position to fend off attackers.

4. Of course, Phase Space Inhibitors need to be used as well. I would prefer it, however, if these inhibitors had a range that didn't include the entire gravity well because I think Ironclad will be increasing the size of gravity wells (also, modders will for sure make bigger gravity wells).

So, ships within range of a warp inhibitor can't jump at all (and get rid of the nonsensical research that makes scouts immune). Ships that are out of the immediate range of inhibitors (for example, the inhibitor is on the other side of the gravity well) should only have their jump prepare time increased by 2 or 3 times.
Reply #114 Top
it completely removes all concept of terrain and front lines, chokepoints, etc. i know some have said there should be no chokepoints in space,


But phase lanes don't give any concept of space terrain.

They could do that with nebulae, blackholes, plasma storms, asteroid belts and a myriad of other 'space' terrain.

These things would not only give space some substance, but actually provide extra tactical options. Nebulae to hide your ships from enemy sensors. Lure enemy into plasma storms to damage them. etc. etc.

Most scifi shows have had regions of space that were under some scifi mumbo jumbo that affected ships in some ways. No space game I know of atm seems to really take advantage of all the amazing phenomenons space provides.

It's just strange to think maps in space can't be more interesting than just the bog standard stars and planet affair.
Reply #115 Top
OK I think my pro free phase opinions are known for purposes of voting but I want to add a few more observations and suggestions along those lines, for purposes of persuasion!

Currently phase lanes don't give you any of security or simplicity they were put into the game to achieve, because the scouts can completely ignore the inhibitors and don't have an effective fuel requirement meaning they can dance about all over the place. This increases MM rather than decreases it.

So the bottom line is they are a strait-jacket which doesnt work. Proving once again, if any proof were needed, that the lunatics are running the asylum. lol j/k

I can see how with free phase, space terrain could be more meaningful. To show you what I mean here are some ideas for terrain which dont need lanes.

Planets with rings for example or with extra strong magnetic fields might disrupt phase travel at a greater radius thereby increasing their effective gravwell range. This gives the owner more time to mobilise to defend the planet but makes it a longer journey to enter the fray at the planet.

Within solar systems, asteroid belts might divide inner and outer planets, forcing a nonphase journey across the belt but also providing a region of richly resourced asteroid planets worth fighting over. A ring might be complete or partial and if partial might rotate as if in orbit to provide a periodic gap or gaps which a discerning player could time his phase jumps to pass through. Also the asteroid belt rotating around the sun might protect the static asteroid planets in a similar way to planet rings and magnetic fields, but only some of the time! (until the gap showed up)

Between stars, nebulae could provide phase obstacles, sensor blocks or shield disruption, maybe even energy weapon disruption. On the very distant edges of solar systems cubewano type planets could provide stepping stones into the void between stars and Oort cloud planetismals could provide a few key bases further out in the interstellar region which might be useful for refuelling and for launching assaults on other star systems. These could interact with the nebulae to provide tactical variations.

Personally I would like to see more solar systems so that more play takes place in interstellar regions.

The problem with phase lanes is that they competely negate range and that entire tactical consideration is reduce to topology instead, this reduces the possibilities for emergeant strategies and reduces variation in the game experience and replayability.
Reply #116 Top
Very nicely done Booly.
Reply #117 Top
Anyone remember that game Strange Adventures in Infinite Space? It allowed you to jump to any star at any time, gave you a travel time based on distance and nebulae and black holes and whatnot, and worked perfectly. Granted, it was an adventure game, but with nebulae and other space phenomena, it did create a good system of terrain in space.
Reply #118 Top

The problem with phase lanes is that they competely negate range and that entire tactical consideration is reduce to topology instead, this reduces the possibilities for emergeant strategies and reduces variation in the game experience and replayability.


Again, my assumption is that it's actually the point of phaselane. By heavily limiting the possibilities, Iron Clad may be able to come up with a decent AI that doesn't depend on scripted events, cheats and specially designed maps, hence gives the game a better replay value in the sandbox mode. Personally I have no interest in seeing beautifully made MODs with braindead AI. That won't be fun to play with except in the multiplayer mode.

That said, it's just my assumption. If a better sandbox experience is not the rationale behind phaselane, then I'm absolutely fine with open maps.
Reply #119 Top
By heavily limiting the possibilities...


Doesn't that make you sad for a supposed genre defining RT4X game?
Reply #120 Top
Just an idea..but why not space charting rather then pre-defined spacelanes.

You have to chart spacelanes to navigate a safe route through it. The safer a space lane the bigger the ship that can pass through.

implications...

eXpand vs eXterminate - chart lanes to neutral areas in the hope of expanding?, or chart lanes to the enemy to attack?.

Enemy lanes arent the same as yours.

eXploration isnt predefined. You choose where to chart to. Maybe you can just chart a lane to allow safe passage of explorers and concentrate on charing more important things

Espionage element . You need to know where your enemies lanes are pointing to. Is there a potential ally who has a lanes you could share? could you potentially steal lanes charts? Could you find out where the enemy has all his lanes pointing to and up the defences there?

Frigate battles?. Lanes that arent safe enough for caps but are for frigates? The first fights for evenly contested resources would be a frigate fight before caps can come.

No piggyback jumping. If an enemy attacks a planet , he cant just jump to one of yourplanets , jump again , jump again ..and get to your back planets. He has to slowly but surely chart his way through ..or possibly steal charts/attain charts. Can the conquered player destroy charts before the enemy gets them from an attained planet..or does he still need some lanes back to this planet to retake it








Reply #121 Top
@P5y - I had also thought about that but I figured it programming side of it would be prohibitive to say the least. But hey, I'm by no means an expert on programming I was simply considering all the calculations necessary to quantify the exponential values of the possible paths for each of the AIs. If it could/would be possible it would be real nice and add a boost to the level of realism in my opinion.
Reply #122 Top
It seems as though the design so far has gone down the free jump with fuel range route only to be changed to phase lanes at the last minute. So that programming is already part done.

In fact I am puzzled why they went with the decision to go with lanes when the fuel range is clearly not fully implemented and presumably never has been, how can they have tested free jump without that? It reminds me of MoO3 in several ways, not just the use of lanes but also hacking the programme about without a viable design and specification. If MoO3 is anything it is a prime example of what NOT to do. I would caution the devs not to do that kind of thing but to find a design they want and make it work, not switching design at the first sign of trouble. I would also comment making a design for devs to follow does not mean you have to give the design spacelanes for players to follow, that would be a mistake of sorts IMHO.

If they really want to use the lanes system IMHO they should just make everything connect to everything else and then hide the lanes and also use the fuel range system (which they will have to implement anyway unless they ditch the inhibitor immunity tech) to determine which objects you can jump to. Then b.t.w. if you give players the tech to create objects like space stations & refuel depots which they can deploy and phase to, you have a form of virtually free phase lane jumping but without the confusion of unlimited freedom! lol

Does that make sense ?
Reply #123 Top
@booly - and dollars brother...

Reply #124 Top
I would caution the devs not to do that kind of thing but to find a design they want and make it work, not switching design at the first sign of trouble.


Blair said (emphasis added):

Secondly, we spent almost a full year testing the fully connected model which is essence means no lanes and the ability to jump to any planet at any time. This was the original design for Sins because like you, that sounded the coolest and there are plenty of great arguments for it. Unfortunately, it just didn't cut it, and boy did we try like madmen to tweak it to get it to work. When we made the switch,  the current system was unanimously acclaimed as more fun, especially when so directly contrasted against the previous system.



Reply #125 Top

I would caution the devs not to do that kind of thing but to find a
design they want and make it work, not switching design at the first
sign of trouble.


Blair said (emphasis added):

Secondly,

I have been debating whether or not to come up with a detailed analysis of how realism can be maintained in a space RTS and still keep it fun. Of course, it wouldn't be a small undertaking and I keep asking myself the question....

Is it worth it???