deathstrandingiscool deathstrandingiscool

Learn from past space game mistakes!

▼

Learn from past space game mistakes!

Learn from history, Ironclad!

from Sins Forums
Hi. I consider myself to be a big 4E genre player. I play them for considerable amounts of time and I think i got a fair taste of what its all about. What i'm struggling with is what they are screwing up that past games already screwed up on in the first place!

1. Everything is stationary.

Every 4E game i've played kept the planets and stars in the same place. Now i'm not asking for much, I just want each planet and asteroid to orbit. I know that if they are at different speeds it would mortally screw up the fast travel system (i've discused this in other posts) so all i'm asking is to slooowly rotate the entire solar system... just a little. Slow enough to not be bothered by but fast enough to notice when you zoom out.

2. Moons and other space junk.

Star Wars: Empire at War did a great job of interactive environments (asteroid debris, gas clouds, starship wreckage, etc.) and don't mark it down just because its a star wars game. It was made brilliantly. It's also an RTS but much more slow paced and paused to paly each battle. In Sins your lucky if you get debris from destroyed research stations. Plus, you can shoot through pretty much everything. Fighters and bombers can even fly STRAIGHT through a planet (try it, I double clicked on the guys and zoomed in, its pretty funny). Throw in a solid Moon where you can hide behind from enemy fire. Ship debris should at least be avoided. I know its a game, but make it a little more realistic.

3. Stop and go spaceship battles.

I hate it when you move in a group of 20 kodiak cruisers and they just but on the brakes and stare at gauss cannons (don't worry, they fire). I want to see some evasive maneuvers! Missed shots! At least can you just make em' motorboat around, NOT looking like the engine guys took a coffee break? And how the hell do you decelerate in space with no reverse thrusters?!? Think about it.

4. Individuality of planets.

In Sins, if you've seen one asteroid, you've seen em all. Dead or no, they're boring and all the same. Learn from Star Wars, make each region have just a tweak of uniquness. Mkae the gravity ring in this planet have increased speed because of chemicals in the atmosphere! Make an asteroid have a lot of debris lowering your shield regeneration!

5. MORE TYPES OF PLANETS

Six types of regions just ain't enough. Throw in a gas giant, where population is low but high logistics and tactical. Hell, put in a few dust rings around it like Saturn. Im not talking little differences. No, that would be a pain in the a**. Just make a little more variety. Make a giant ocean planet like in Freelancer or dark planets (like muck and swamps, I guess). Sure, the artwork and detail on the planets are beautiful but I want a little more.

6. Detail the ships.

The kodiak is my weapon of choice. It's powerful, quick, and easy to upgrade. But if you zoom in, it's uuugly. Boring colors, 3 liitle cannons, and a whimpy dim glowing engine. Make the ships more bada** and exiting. You did great on captiols and fighters but don't neglect the backbone of your space fleets.

Well, that's basicly a rough outline of it. Hopefully they'll catch these before they release the legit version of the game. So far it's one of the most thrilling 4E i've played and it's only in Beta. I'm just putting in some history.

28,328 views 119 replies
Reply #26 from Sins Forums Top
The problem with realistic planet locations is the players go for the unexplored regions near the sun and it dosen't make the game fun. They tried it in beta 1 and it didn't work.

Reply #27 from Sins Forums Top
shibfilet is correct.  We tried realistic planet placement and the problem is that then everyone knows exactly where the best worlds are (because they're always in the same area). Gameplay trumped reality on this one (and always will).
Curtains - Customize Windows with additional styles
Reply #28 from Sins Forums Top
But with ice planets near the outside and terran planets near the in?

Must've been a trade off between getting minerals first or getting credits first.
Reply #29 from Sins Forums Top
But with ice planets near the outside and terran planets near the in?

Must've been a trade off between getting minerals first or getting credits first.


Good point . . it did not work because terrain planets are superior in everything . . If say Ice planets had high Crystal resources, and Hot planets had High mineral resources . . Far beyond what a Terrain planet could do then they too would be VERY sought after . . this would ADD to strategy . .

Terrain = population = money and empire base / Low Crystal and mineral (massive mining kills )
Ice = High Crystal resources / Better military bace? no civ's
Hot = High Mineral resources / Better military bace? no civ's

Since you start out on a Terrain it is up to you to go in for Mineral or out for Crystal . . or lateral for population. you NEED to do all of these and a deficit in any will harm your empire.

Seems like the first version/attempt did not have the big picture in mind.
Reply #30 from Sins Forums Top
I think ice planets with 3 crystal asteroids is pretty overkill already.

Metals are also pretty easy to get in Asteroid systems.

I would like to see Terran planets stripped of more features though, becoming a credit/military/logistic point.
Reply #31 from Sins Forums Top
I wanted ice to have high logistics because i can't ever find those damn desert planets. Also, ice and lava planets have near the same pop cap. That does not make sense at all. A planet that you can walk on beats a planet that you don't even THINK about going outside!
Reply #32 from Sins Forums Top
About Orbiting:

interestingly enough the now ancient space game of Ascendency had orbiting... it was turn based of course, each turn the plants in a system... in all systems moved on their projected path by oh so much...

It didn't matter very much, and the AI was so bad that what tactics could be exploited were not neccessary... buuuut it was cool... I would plan my attacks to coincide with the right orbit, and this allowed me to enter the system and destroy/invade planet A with no defenses.... avoiding Planet B which had tons of defenses.

It would be very cool if we had small moons that rotated in the system... but thats a great deal of new work, and I don't think it will happen.
Reply #34 from Sins Forums Top
" but thats a great deal of new work"
well yes and no . . if the framwork is not flexable and would really need to be overhalled yes. . . If the game was set up well, not in a "get it working now" mode (which is common and not entirely bad) adding features like that should be relitively easy . . but since it is rather late in development I do not see movement happening.

Though! makeing planet placement, content and overall use play a larger role in overall gameplay and tactics . . . That could and Should be done.
Reply #35 from Sins Forums Top
All this talk of moons and one method wasn't discussed here yet, and if it has...then chalk this one up as a vote in favor of it. In the code, each planet type has it's own set of values as far as current pop, max pop, etc. Moons could be a way of modifying the core planet, upping population max, adding logistic slots, and so on. In essence, making it a singular entity.

How they would be visualized: They could be above and below the main playing plane that is already there as static items...kind of like the resource asteroids that are already there. And all those little ships we see flying over the surface of the worlds could commute along invisable tran lines between the planet and the moons adding to the idea of a singe entity. Moons would work just like planets in a sence that their bonus would be set, but randomly placed.

Now while this does bend the rule that states that there will be no direct 3D gameplay, I don't feel that this downright breaks it because players only interact with the planet and not directly with the moons. I dunno. What do you all think?
Reply #36 from Sins Forums Top
All this talk of moons and one method wasn't discussed here yet, and if it has...then chalk this one up as a vote in favor of it. In the code, each planet type has it's own set of values as far as current pop, max pop, etc. Moons could be a way of modifying the core planet, upping population max, adding logistic slots, and so on. In essence, making it a singular entity.
How they would be visualized: They could be above and below the main playing plane that is already there as static items...kind of like the resource asteroids that are already there. And all those little ships we see flying over the surface of the worlds could commute along invisable tran lines between the planet and the moons adding to the idea of a singe entity. Moons would work just like planets in a sence that their bonus would be set, but randomly placed.
Now while this does bend the rule that states that there will be no direct 3D gameplay, I don't feel that this downright breaks it because players only interact with the planet and not directly with the moons. I dunno. What do you all think?



i like this idea
Reply #38 from Sins Forums Top

Why are all planets in science fiction SINGLE TERRAIN? the ICE planet, the DESERT planet, the FORREST planet, the WATER planet -_-



Planets terrain should be based on their position. I mean it's fine to have single terrain planets once in a while but they shouldn't dominate the galaxy. Or be in absurd places (I.E. A Ice planet near the sun, or a water planet in a remote reach)


What about the popcorn and bubblegum planets? I want one of those

A cool idea would be terraforming. for example, you could upgrade an asteroid to support more population/logistics/other stuff. Or it could be used to change a less habitable (read: ice, lava, desert) to a more terran planet. Just to make things interesting or something. I don't think I worded this right, but you should get the idea.
Reply #39 from Sins Forums Top
A cool idea would be terraforming. for example, you could upgrade an asteroid to support more population/logistics/other stuff. Or it could be used to change a less habitable (read: ice, lava, desert) to a more terran planet. Just to make things interesting or something. I don't think I worded this right, but you should get the idea.


This is already in the game. It's called upgrades. If you read the description for the population upgrade it actually says it terraforms the planet.
Reply #40 from Sins Forums Top
BTW, as far as "Swamp planet" "water planet" etc etc goes, just think of it as planets being labeled for their dominant land form. Volcanic / ice planets would just represent planets were the land form is dominated by one type of thing -- ice planets are frozen over, volcanic planets have so much geological activity that they're covered in volcanoes.
Reply #41 from Sins Forums Top
just to note: volcanic planets can be newly formed planets rich in resources, especially since any new heavy metals havent gone through their half lives yet

an ice planet can just be frozen over; Europa, one of Jupiter's moons, has around eight miles of ice under which scientists believe is fresh water and possibly life. (thermal vents supply heat and nutrients)

does anyone else find a swamp planet rater rediculous?
Reply #42 from Sins Forums Top

does anyone else find a swamp planet rater rediculous?


I find your spelling ridiculous

That said, a "swamp" planet could be achieved by having lots and lots of flat terrain, with water inside It doesn't have to be full swamp, just predominantly swamp.
Reply #43 from Sins Forums Top
i know where a water world is.
Reply #44 from Sins Forums Top
<3 ron

i guess it could work... i just dont see it as happening all that often... then again, its a friggin galaxy, anything can happen XD


...ok daniel...?
Reply #45 from Sins Forums Top
earth it is 70% water.
Reply #46 from Sins Forums Top
Yeah, but you still wouldn't describe it as a swamp world....unless you lived in Muskoka region in Canada.
Reply #47 from Sins Forums Top
Yeah, but you still wouldn't describe it as a swamp world


It's just a matter of topography and climate. If the oceans basins were smaller and the land flatter, at an altitude right around sea level mostly, that could well happen (provided it wasn't then too cold/hot).
Reply #48 from Sins Forums Top
which is why i called it rather unlikely, im too lazy to go into scientific details that i would prolly get yelled at by erog about, the volcanic activity and whatnot would make it REALLY hard to make a planet like that.
Reply #49 from Sins Forums Top
the volcanic activity and whatnot would make it REALLY hard to make a planet like that.


Unless we get the infinite improbability drive and use it to travel to the planet of the planet-makers!
Reply #50 from Sins Forums Top
Way to bring up Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy Ron. That series gets progressivly gets worse as you read each book   but it starts ok.