I think the whole argument here is resting on the wrong terminology. I don't have the beta, but given the descriptions I've seen/read I have to agree with the proposed overhauls here.

More importantly, it's not a matter of realism as it is a matter of authenticity. Sticking a bunch of planets in a big cloud and linking them with cute little lines might make it easy from a gameplay perspective but it makes it lame from an authentic standpoint. I'm not asking for anyone to come out with some sort of detailed astrophysionomial algorithm calculating the exact orbital speed of each planet around their transaxiormial suns or to generate realistic asteroid belts where each rock is thousands of miles apart from its nearest neighbor and precisely oriented around its heuganejaysuistic axis; instead, I'm just asking for it to *feel* like I am moving my ships through a solar system.

Phased lanes should be done away with; space is *big* and it just feels wrong to be arbitrarily constrained to a few narrow lanes for no reason other than the fact that that's how it was programmed. Instead of phase lanes, there should be nebulas or gas clouds in between planets to set up ambushes or secret shipyards. There should be asteroid belts to hide in. There should be black holes and cosmic maelstroms that are a danger to fleets and can destroy them. Imagine this scenario: a fleet is traveling in open space between a nebula and a black hole. An enemy fleet emerges from the nebula, ambushing them on their flank and, in their hasty retreat to react, the fleet is pushed further and further back and is sucked into and destroyed by the black hole. My issue is that Ironclad is defending the phased space lanes by hiding behind the explanation that THEY and ONLY THEY are what gives terrain to the game, whereas, as the example shows, this is completely false. There are plenty of ways to terrain space, it just takes time and a little creativity. Admittedly, it would take *a lot* of time for a game on the scale of Sins.

Basically, it should look like I'm managing a solar empire, not a bunch of circles linked by lines that generate numbers which let me make more ships.

but of course, because black holes take up massive expanses of... nothing...

sarcasm over with, its neither realistic (shame) nor feasible. you try to program it!

I dont really like the phaselines, but as of now they appear to be the best option (hey, how about showing us what a game looks like without them?)

Yes indeed, it's a matter of starting with an idea and then making it practical. Maybe not black holes, but you seem to have ignored the possibility of putting maelstroms, suns, or any other sort of violent space phenomena in. Hell, make stuff up - I'm sure we haven't discovered every potential entity in space, so be creative. Phase lanes are not creative. They are derivative and boring, precisely because they have been done before and make things arbitrarily narrow.

I'm not saying I would appreciate all of those elements, just that getting all of it isnt feasible
I can say that phaselines should be adjusted significantly though.

the only real thing that fixed lane travel does is eliminate those cities in between the planetary orbits

and again i think the phase lanes should have to be put in by the player after the game starts

that way you can have the fast traval of the lanes and the openness of space without the lanes

It is strange that Ironclad had the opportunity to release a separate open connection map beta test. This way we could have all experienced how well or poorly open maps work. We would have been able to say for sure which we preferred.

Still, as long as SoaSE offers the ability to mod in open connection maps, I'll be happy. IF SoaSE also offers open connection maps as a special multi player map option, then I'll be ecstatic. I just wish Ironclad would come out and say if they are going to do this or not in the final release. It would put an end to much of this debate.

Hmmm, I suppose we would still have quite a bit to argue about without phase lanes. We would instead be focusing on issues like planet placement, orbits, moons, gas giants, nebulae, black holes, sensors, stealth, ramming, pirate factions, research trees, jump ranges, jump speed, and so on.

I disagree.
I feel that both realism and authenticity take a backseat to gameplay and fun. If an open game is actaully more fun then with lanes, then I'm all for the open ended model. But I don't think it is more fun.

I think the game becomes unmanagable and far to chaotic to be enjoyed, in a pure open model. Not that the idea is inherently bad, or that lanes are the end-all of game making, but I say "Go with what's fun"

I agree, if its open like everone seems to want, what keeps you from just building an uber fleet and going straight for the main homeworld?

the only problem with this argument is that unless you have the phase interrupter then the game really is open becouse enamy ships can jump before defenses can get to them to stop them

Did you ever play Homeworld? And Homeworld was programmed a few years ago (meaning programmers should be able to do even more today). The only thing is, Homeworld did not have planets or stars ... only the astroids. Couldn't the two be put together? The devs did try an open concept here, but limited it to an in-house trial which wound up with them deciding, among other things, it "... stresses even our best tester's RTS micromanagement skills and ability to multi-task."





I think I would really like that opportunity! I have been following this discussion from the beginning. I think I started out liking the phase lanes, but so many good posts and with each one I find myself flipping back and forth ... still wondering what would be best. I am truly undecided, and would really welcome the opportunity to try both in order to decide.

If the devs really want to appeal to the most players then I would expect that letting the players vote after playing each way would be the best way to accomplish it ... but then, I am no marketing expert.