3 dimensional star maps

the devs have told us repeatedly that they dont plan on making 3-D a serious issue in game, star map or otherwise
maybe they will change their minds later... but not yet

although I want to make this note: currently it is rediculously easy to bypass planetary defenses like the gauss groups by simply using ~ to go up, this will obviously create exploit issues... its a worrysome element.

I know what you're talking about here, to me the game feels almost too flat. I understand the issues making combat and planetary movement etc. 3D, but surely it should be possible to just change the heights of the planets in relation to each other. But when you phase jump to another one, you'd stop at the height of the gravity well, same as usual, making combat etc. the same as usual, but adding that 3D element of space into the game by having the actual planet slightly higher than the planet you jumped from.

Personally I don't think varying the heights of planets relative to each other would really add anything but confusion (espeically if there wasn't actually any gameplay significance to it). Co-linear phase lanes are a possible problem with galaxy generation that the devs have worked to lessen, due to the confusion they can cause.

This is legitmate concern and we have taken steps to prevent this from getting out of hand in Beta 2. Is this a recent problem, and if so, can you post a screenshot for me.

Suprisingly we started with a 3D map. It was very disorienting at the scale of our game. We know this is a tender spot with some, but we feel this is a step forward for our game. There have been a number of ideas to get that sense of 3D'ness back in the map - one that has been mentioned quite a bit in the forums is moving planets slightly above/below the plane (simulating our own solar system). Likewise for the solar systems. There are some technical issues that would need to be resolved to make this a reality. This is not high on the list at the moment, but deserving of our attention in the future.

3d star maps suck , see SOTS for the perfect example of confusion is space...

Granted. For a game like SOTS, 3D maps work because you have time to think about it, time to plan, time to keep from beeing too discombobulated by these 350 world galaxies. With SSE, we really don't since it's all in Real Time. While yeah, we're in space and there's this whole other dimention that's hardly used, it would add too much more complexity into a game of this scale.

SSE? We call it SoaSE or SINS around these parts... Pilgrim...

Yeah...but SINS makes me feel...I dunno...Evil. Like I'm a bad person for involving myself in mass genocide just so my faction can flourish across an entire galaxy....hehehehe. Mass Genocide...

Mmmm yes...

"I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened. "

...me wonders if that will be in the game as well.

Meet the Advent!

Would love to. Umm...when will we be given formal introductions?

Yes, actually I have had this in almost every game. I am using the very latest version of Sins. I'll try and grab a screenshot to show you.

I do appreciate that when playing a very large galaxy, a 3D map could get very disorienting for some.

But, if it would be somewhat simple to incorporate, I wouldn't mind having 3D maps as an option, where we can turn it on and off as we like.

a cool feature just for eye candy would be galaxies that are either oriented in 3-D, or are at angles. zooming in on one would change your perspective etc. the only issue I would see with that would be how ships orient themselves after they enter a new gravity well

seeing a 1-2 degree displacement is hardly important with the planets, but its highly unrealistic for all of the solar systems to all be oriented on a plane as they are.

To help stop the Gauss/3D exploit, maybe the Gauss canons could get a range that covers half the grav well or more.

then you have the gauss-phaselane exploit.

Heh, SotS star map was definitely not disorientating unless you have a deficiency... Or you have created a 50+ stars galaxy. Not to mention that BoB expansion can show you a 3D zone of influence - something other space games will have problems finding an answer to.

Sins is definitely not a game I'd try for it's star map. So far the developers have shown nothing except constant simplifications. I'm just waiting for an anouncement that the game will use sprites only because 3D ships could confuse 2 years old players. Come on, devs, retain some 3D content with 3D tactics. Otherwise the game will be another Warcraft without the visible ground...

an intelligent and informed critique of contemporary deficiencies.

So you limit yourself to a galaxy below 50 stars? Thats not a very fun game. (In my opinion.) It appears that the 3d galaxy map does affect game play for you. I have SOTS and BoB by the way and I never play on such a small map. I like the galaxy to be realistic as the game will let it. I want as many stars as possible.




Yeah... who in their right mind would want to. On the games own forums a lot of people have asked for a 2d galaxy right after SOTS came out and long afterwards. Many said they did not like the 3d map. Some did not have kind words for it.



Do you do any programming? I assume you don't have GalCiv2 or DA because these "devs", (those that work for Stardock) made those. Just so you know in those two games every ship is 3d on the galaxy map all the time the way it is in the battle viewer. All the planets are 3d, the stars, diplomacy, everything. Unless you zoom out to view the whole galaxy then everything goes 2d otherwise you wouldn't see anything that far away. SINS seems to operate the same way. In close up everything is 3d and when you zoom out to the solar system view the jump lanes are laid out flat, with 2d representations of facilities and ships.

SOTS and BoB are only 3d in battles, the map (just a bunch of colored dots in 3d space.), and the tech screen. (Yea! I can go in circles on the tech screen and simulate spinning.)

No asteroid mining. No fighters. No "a bunch of stuff" (unless you get a mod that still has trouble because the devs of SOTS didn't want fighters, or anything else realistic that might make it too complicated; the devs made a comment of concern about frame rates with mods on their forums.)


SINS is a RTS. It's eye candy that actually works. I've never had a problem with the SINS system zoomed out map. Everything is 3d all the time, while moving, fighting, building; except for diplomacy. Players also don't want to move the map around by rotating, panning on all axises so they can get in position to click on a planet or another star to move their ships to. It is a complex game set up in a simple way so it can be used by everyone who wants to play it. Unlike SOTS and BoB the star map is not the main feature of SINS. It looks a lot better and it can actually be modded.

sins is almost completely 3-D, yes you have the "option" to send your ships upwards in the "sphere" that is the gravity well, but the game has been so rediculously simplified that there is really no point to it. in fact the only thing 3-D about this game whatsoever is that the ships, structures and planets are 3-D. I dont even need 3-D galaxies or 3-D solar systems, I just want to fight in 3-D. well unfortunately that has been quashed.

Its coming on Monday! Sprites FTW!

Sprite games were the stuff (don't want the devs yelling at me). I miss the days when games were sprite driven. 3D is cool and all, but sometimes old school is better.

I played bigger maps, no worries. But the game looses a lot of it's fun after the whole tech tree is "spent". And if you choose a map with 30 stars you can finish it, so I usually limit myself to that number. After that it's just a lot more of the same. This is the usual problem with games though. Total war balanced M2TW nicely with all the updates so that you are unable to upgrade all cities to the full as in RTW. The player must have something to look forward to, something new. That's the reason for me prefering smaller maps.

And it's understandible that there will always be players who will want things simpler. Those are the players that should most likely look at other games, like Pacman. Space is not Space for it's flatness! And if you set out to make a 3D game, make it a 3D game. GC for instance doesn't even try to go in such details. Yes, you can design your 3D ships, but that's it. It's a candy. All the rest is a chessboard and the game is a 2D strategy. I have no problems there. But when a game calls itself a revolutionary RT4X, new era of space strategy games (I made this one up, although official ones weren't much shabbier) and fancy names like that you don't expect to get a flat space.

Let's make things clear... There are strategy games with the strategy part much deeper than Sins will have. There are games with space combat MUCH better than Sins will have. So neither is the reason for me hanging around. I saw a promise of nice rounded combination of both, something that is VERY rare. But if Sins will have very stripped strategy to make RT possible and than the map AND the fights will happen on a 2D plane with practically no influence from Space, you may as well turn the ships into Orcs and draw the surface beneath them. The lines are passages through forests and mountains and let's stop the masquerade.

I promise to stop the trolling (I guess this post could be thrown into that category easily). If I'll see the game is turning into something just not for me, I'll leave and not spoil the fun for others who want such a game, naturally.