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.

28,342 views 119 replies
Reply #76 from Sins Forums Top
But at the same time, even while realistic physics are in their own way important, I would argue engaging and fun gameplay is more important.

The game is not meant to be a real-world space simulation, it's basically a science fiction game. If you argue the small things like engine trails and maneuvering, why not keep going the realism route and argue that phase jumps between planets should be impossible too and for realism's sake every ship should fly only on sub-light (to borrow the popular term) engines?

You see how realism can easily go too far to make the game enjoyable? Granted, most of the suggestions here are moving closer to "realism", but in a good way. Debris (and collision detection) would add a good element to the game. Line of sight would also, to allow you to hide behind planets from visual sight and possibly from sensors.

There's a huge difference between realism with our current level of technology, and realism with the level of technology in the game. There's nothing that says the races in the game aren't advanced enough to figure out how to maneuver ships, and hey, maybe the fact that their ships can maneuver means they do constantly have various thrusters firing and thus also need to keep their main engines burning to offset the various forces?

I guess to sum up the distinction I'm trying to make is this: realism in a space game should only go as far as things that are always constant in the universe and have no relevance or connection to our current level of technology. Improvements to gravity, space phenomena (whether nebulae, black holes, asteroid fields, even different type of stars like pulsars, dwarfs, or even two stars about to collide or supernovae) are all realistic in the scope of the universe and I would say would add a deep level of strategy and entertainment to the game. But bringing the game's level of 'realistic' technology to our own would not have the same effect, and it would be counter-productive and detracting to the entertainment we get from it!
Reply #77 from Sins Forums Top

But at the same time, even while realistic physics are in their own way important, I would argue engaging and fun gameplay is more important.

You need both to be a good game.


Case in point... legend of Zelda... the first one... great game... fun and engaging gameplay... but the graphics suck horribly compared to todays games so most people won't play it. It's hard even for someone that played when they were littel to play through it again.


Why is that?

because graphics matter.


Physics are becoming a required feature in games. You need it.

The game is not meant to be a real-world space simulation, it's basically a science fiction game. If you argue the small things like engine trails and maneuvering, why not keep going the realism route and argue that phase jumps between planets should be impossible too and for realism's sake every ship should fly only on sub-light (to borrow the popular term) engines?

If you're going to just exclude gravity from your vision of the universe while at the same time having stars and planets and other things that could only form in gravity then why have ships at all? why not have massive swarms of flying elves that fire arrows from their nostrils?


Make some effort to be realistic. I can accept FTL drives and all sorts of nifty inventions. But try to obey some of the laws of physics...



You see how realism can easily go too far to make the game enjoyable?

Only because I knew before your horrible example... What I'm suggesting wouldn't ruin gameplay it would enhance it by adding whole layers of tactics for your ships.

Debris (and collision detection) would add a good element to the game. Line of sight would also, to allow you to hide behind planets from visual sight and possibly from sensors.

Why is that good and gravity bad?


Gravity is if anything more important.
There's nothing that says the races in the game aren't advanced enough to figure out how to maneuver ships, and hey, maybe the fact that their ships can maneuver means they do constantly have various thrusters firing and thus also need to keep their main engines burning to offset the various forces?

That makes no sense... you've stretched so far to grasp a hopeless point you've just dislocated your arm...

Improvements to gravity, space phenomena (whether nebulae, black holes, asteroid fields, even different type of stars like pulsars, dwarfs, or even two stars about to collide or supernovae) are all realistic in the scope of the universe and I would say would add a deep level of strategy and entertainment to the game. But bringing the game's level of 'realistic' technology to our own would not have the same effect, and it would be counter-productive and detracting to the entertainment we get from it!

If I brought the tech level to our own then there wouldn't be space ships fighting each other at all.


so you can stop exaggerating. Expecting the laws of gravity and inertia to apply is not unreasonable... give me a flipping break.


Tactics are what make REAL TIME strategy games good. A real time strategy game with no or poor tactics might as well be turn based.
DeskScapes - Bring your desktop background to life.
Reply #78 from Sins Forums Top
If you're going to just exclude gravity from your vision of the universe while at the same time having stars and planets and other things that could only form in gravity then why have ships at all? why not have massive swarms of flying elves that fire arrows from their nostrils?


Make some effort to be realistic. I can accept FTL drives and all sorts of nifty inventions. But try to obey some of the laws of physics...


I was making the point that if little things like engine trails or the ability of ships to maneuver irk you that much, the ability to phase jump between planets at FTL travel should be off the scale, no? If you can accept FTL drives, why not accept that technology in the universe of the game will allow ships to interact with gravity (which I never claimed was not important) in a way that will enable them to maneuver?

Arguing proper physics is very valid, the point I'm making is if you're going to argue them, you can't really pick out which laws of physics you should follow and which you should ignore. Furthermore, like all scienctific theories, they fit only what we know, can quantify, and explain currently. Long ago the 'law' was the earth was flat, later on that we were the center of the universe/galaxy/solar system, but they were proven wrong and new laws and models were created to explain our new knowledge.

If I brought the tech level to our own then there wouldn't be space ships fighting each other at all.


so you can stop exaggerating. Expecting the laws of gravity and inertia to apply is not unreasonable... give me a flipping break.


Tactics are what make REAL TIME strategy games good. A real time strategy game with no or poor tactics might as well be turn based.


I was not exagerrating. I was making the distinction between the realistic behavior of the universe and the realistic behavior of technology. Forces of gravity and inertia will always apply, but it is technology that limits interaction with these forces. And, simply put, the game's physics should not necessarily be bound by the limits of our technology.

As far as tactics, I'll quote your original post:
Hard banks and turns for example are impossible in space unless you have some VERY powerful maneuvering engines ...


You, yourself, directly link physics with technology. This is the point I'm trying to make. Heavy maneuvering is impossible for us right now. Who's to say it is impossible for a much different level of technology as is present in the game world? How is limiting ship maneuverability tactical? If that was the case and every ship handled like a slug, why even bother with different hull types and sizes? There would be no point of having small nimble ships that can dodge fire from larger ships, so you might as well make every ship a capital.

So, I'll try to clarify my point again: realism, physics, whatever you prefer to call it should be present to a degree. The way the universe behaves on its own should be as realistic as possible. The way player objects (structures, ships) interact with that universe should be as realistic as possible within the scope of the level of technology. It is unreasonable to insist that FTL technology pre-dates technology that allows maneuvering, for example.
Reply #79 from Sins Forums Top

Something that's always bothered me in space games is using my engines to keep burning when I'm not speeding up or fighting the pull of anything.

Same here.  Our engines only turn on while the ships are moving, although for coolness factor, they are still lit up when stationary

Reply #80 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.


   I am not a Planetologist, but a am touched you though of me     

I could care less what kinds of planets there are as long as there is variety enough to make the game interesting. . . . the game is kind of light at the moment in variety and complexity. . 4-5 games till boredom . . slight more vs humans. . . but they are doing a good job so far, they just need to keep it up . .
Reply #81 from Sins Forums Top
? "slight more vs humans"

You already have been playing multiplayer?
Reply #82 from Sins Forums Top
Just a little point:

Karma, you mentioned that you need realistic physics and engaging gameplay to make a good game.

Thats gotta be the most foolish thing I've read you say. I respect your point of view and how gun-ho you are for the physics, and on most things I'll agree with you, not as extremely but in general I think you and I want more physics in the game.

But according to that statement, virtually every game ever made is a bad one because of physics.

Halo... you can't turn in mid air.

Tetris, things don't fall at different speeds like that. Nor would they softly land. Oh and you can't turn things spontaneously in mid air.

Mario: corpses don't disappear.

Almost any game with a wrap-around map is too small to produce gravity for the units to stay on.

WarCraft: There's no such thing as magic.

Should I keep going... it was a stupid thing to say Karma. The game can be fun and have No realistic physics. That doesn't mean the game should be made without them (or rather some) but it does mean that they don't have to use them, they have to find a nice balance.
Reply #83 from Sins Forums Top

Case in point... legend of Zelda... the first one... great game... fun and engaging gameplay... but the graphics suck horribly compared to todays games so most people won't play it. It's hard even for someone that played when they were littel to play through it again.


Really? ./looks at his DS

I'm still playing it. Easily.

so you can stop exaggerating. Expecting the laws of gravity and inertia to apply is not unreasonable... give me a flipping break.


Except... everyone always ignores them. Except for techno-geeks like you and I, most people don't even understand stuff doesn't work like that up there. Hence why graphics on shows and games don't follow the rules, at all.

Physics are becoming a required feature in games. You need it.


Quite correct... in FPS games where people understand the rules because they live them every day. Orbital mechanics is not something they understand, and is often quite counter-intuitive. Ergo they don't want to bother learning it

Tactics are what make REAL TIME strategy games good. A real time strategy game with no or poor tactics might as well be turn based.


OK, you go find yourself a real time tactics game. We'll be waiting here, with a really good real time strategy game.
Reply #84 from Sins Forums Top
First things first: PLEASE GOD NO on the orbital mechanics. In case you didn't hear me properly, PLEASE GOD NO!!!!!!!!!! (Yes, I do consider the emphasis necessary). If any of you have looked through a physics textbook recently, you'll realize that if you want a space combat game, you need to skip all the mucking about in orbits and stuff because its impossible to coordinate a battle until gravity is relatively unimportant. Here's the short version: fighting in orbit constrains maneuverability so hard that you need a degree to even understand how not to crash your ships. And unless we want to reentitle this Sins of a Solar Empire Orbital Combat University and charge thousands of dollars a year for a (handsome) diploma, there is no way it will be a profitable game. Instead: keep all the orbital mechanics/gravity stuff out, which will make all the players happy and make the game fun, like the game is now and should stay. So skip the bloody physics and we'll still have a fun game. No max speed, good idea. Massively constraining orbital mechanics that make the battles feel like they're in a flushing toilet, bad idea. Oh, and I love the TEC ships, and my friends envy them. So I vote for let them be.

And finally, last thing, MORE CRYSTAL PLEASE! It's really annoying that ice planets, which are pretty rare, are the only decent source of crystal in the game. I don't want much more crystal, but a little bit would be great for keeping the price of 100 crystal in my games under 2000 credits, since it kills the possibility of a victory through superior upgrades.
Reply #85 from Sins Forums Top
Ice planets aren't rare, the random map generator blows. I've had some games where one out of three planets is ice and I'm trading crystal like crazy, and then others where there isn't a single one in a 100 planet map. It's like it freaks out most of the time after adding a volcanic or ice planet and gets scared of the opposite. One ice planet will counter-act three asteriod planets, you just tend to have either lots, or none.
Reply #86 from Sins Forums Top
First off, it is still in BETA, meaning nothing is finalized yet. So as to how the final game turns out, we do not know for certain. If the screenshot previews hold up, then we'll be in for a treat.

The other points you have made except for 1 and 6 are doable to a point. 1 and 6 would severly shorten the market range that this game would be sellable to because it would severly increase the amount of resources a system must have for the game to run at a decent pace even in the midst of a large battle (and it can get choppy in a large battle scene). You have to remember that not everyone has glorified systems running high-end hardware.

As others have mentioned above, realistic orbits for planetary objects would be very hard to implement within a game. The complexity is one thing, but the constant drain on processing power and memory would not make it very worthwhile (unless the ship cap was much smaller and the battles were less "epic").
Reply #87 from Sins Forums Top
short and to the point. when it does not hinder gameplay or at least when it adds some strategic dimension to the game, physics would be interesting. I remember half life 2 being promoted as having a very good physics engine. I didn't play the game myself but I think you could use a number of objects in a meaningful way. that did add to gameplay.

otherwise I'd say forget about it.
Reply #88 from Sins Forums Top
The problem is that the more complex we make the game, the harder it will be to play in tournaments or online play. Complexity = longer games usually. Personally, I think we should still be arguing about the Z-axis movement than Gravity. Even then, Gravity would not be THAT big of an issue. The mass of the ships are so huge that gravity will be a lot smaller influence than you would think it would be. Also, the ships probably can calculate the influence of a planet's gravity and use their engines/whatever and use the differential. What would the use be for sling shotting around a planet anyways? WE sling shot, so we have increased speed for the next seconds and then... wait... we just warped! There's no use for it overall, especially since you will be sending a massive fleet, not a few ships. Imagine the collisions if 30 JRM frigits + Battleships + Cruisers did that? most likely you will lose most of your fleet from collisions! Overall it would just be to appease the geek.
Reply #89 from Sins Forums Top
The mass of the ships are so huge that gravity will be a lot smaller influence than you would think it would be


Um, what? Gravity is a constant acceleration, mass has no importance except to indicate what force is needed to counteract it.
Reply #90 from Sins Forums Top
"The problem is that the more complex we make the game, the harder it will be to play in tournaments or online play. Complexity = longer games usually. "

Not a good reason to gimp a game in my opinion.

"As others have mentioned above, realistic orbits for planetary objects would be very hard to implement within a game. The complexity is one thing, but the constant drain on processing power and memory would not make it very worthwhile (unless the ship cap was much smaller and the battles were less "epic"). "

Well, not THAT hard . . you are not modeling collisions and deformations?!? Just regular movement using some simple formulas . I was doing "realistic orbits for planetary objects" back on the early systems as some of the first cool screen saver and such (used Voxals) but it was still 3d and nice and smooth with out killing a 32mz Motorola based system. . . OO giving away my age there . .
Supreme commander is a good example of how to do it well . . .you can’t get more epic that some of those battles (though the most massive ones . . yes you need a powerful system . . .but a fair off the self one will do also)
The reason most do not use it is time effort and complexity (more then not adding it . .that = $$) . . .remember the QA costs too complexity just makes there matrixes larger and that = time = $$ also.
Also some people can get very confused when they see physics work “correctly” . . This I find strange from my point of view but understand it since most people are not “into” physics and keep well with in a very narrow frame of reference - so never experience, simulate, or study such movement.

"There's no use for it overall, especially since you will be sending a massive fleet, not a few ships. Imagine the collisions if 30 JRM frigits + Battleships + Cruisers did that? most likely you will lose most of your fleet from collisions! Overall it would just be to appease the geek."

Ah, if you could not control your craft then YES it is no good . . BUT do not conclude that ADDING some physics to the movement model to will loose control - at most change the control scheme. . . I have modded physics into many games and there was no such problems . .that is a crazy non issue.
Reply #91 from Sins Forums Top

But according to that statement, virtually every game ever made is a bad one because of physics.

No... I'm talking specifically about new games. I made comparisons between 3d graphics and old games.


I said that old like Zelda have great game play yet if anyone made a game like that today only better no one would play it. Because it doesn't have high quality 3d graphics.


Likewise, physics are very quickly becoming REQUIRED. It's just something you have to put into your game.


Now, sins is the first big space game to come out since the physics thing started heating up. All they have to do is include some basic physics... have the planets literally exert a gravitational pull on ships... Thus forcing objects in freefall to orbit or fall into the well.


Allow ships to sling shot... allow ships to accelerate and accelerate and accelerate... a huge ship could end up going very fast simply by thrusting for a long time. There's generally not a whole lot out there to stop it.



Halo... you can't turn in mid air.

Turning is something anyone in real life can do is mid air... a good example is the flipping... what you can't do obviously in real life is change direction which I think is what you meant.


At the same time halo isn't a good example for you because they have introduced rag doll physics for all the bodies in the game... you cna also shoot things and react to the force, bounce off of stuff, fly through the air, then come back to earth and skid to a stop.


So it does have fairly elaborate physics... more in fact then what is being proposed for Sins.



anyway, I made it very clear that I was talking about modern games... and bringing up something like dance dance revolution or some other game where the physics have no place in the game to begin with not a discussion I'll waste time on.
========================================================================
As to making the physics work it has to be simple... at least in getting gravity to work... and from that one rule everything else should flow.


In any FPS game you have gravity... it's very simple... it pulls you down... well in sins "down" is the center of the well. Everyone has played Unreal where the gravity bomb goes off and pulls everything near it... an easy way to get out of it is "orbit" the singularity created by the gravity bomb until it burns out. You can see people and debre flying AROUND the well getting sucked into it just like you'd expect. This wasn't even the latest version of unreal or the version that's about to come out. It was the original unreal tournament... I think the game of the year edition... it had gravity bombs and they pretty much proved it's not that hard.



Where it gets a little complicated is programming the pathing AI to understand gravity. That is if I tell my ships to go from point A to point B the pathing AI (that's the AI that moves your ships when you tell them to move) has to know how to use or avoid or manage gravity to arrive at that position in hte shortest period of time.
Reply #92 from Sins Forums Top
Where it gets a little complicated is programming the pathing AI to understand gravity. That is if I tell my ships to go from point A to point B the pathing AI (that's the AI that moves your ships when you tell them to move) has to know how to use or avoid or manage gravity to arrive at that position in hte shortest period of time.


Then you need to get the AI to maintain the proper orbit at the specified altitude. Then, when an enemy force comes into play, you'll have to drop down into a lower orbit to catch up with them, and then try to match their orbit so you can stay around to exchange fire. Keep in mind that you have to be watching all of this, and planning in this environment. (try determining the best orbit for your LRMs to avoid those cobalts coming around the planet at you).

And of course, you have to understand that the average joe thinks orbital mechanics are what they see on Star Wars.
Reply #93 from Sins Forums Top
the average joe doesn't need to understand it... clicking on the enemy ships sends your ships after them... the calculation for your own pathing AI isn't abnormally complicated either...


the gravity effect is there for two reasons.

1. it gives the game serious innovation points... which it needs.
2. It gives people that are not morons something to play with...
Reply #94 from Sins Forums Top
the average joe doesn't need to understand it...


If he's playing the game, yes he does. If his ships are doing things he doesn't understand, he's not going to like it and he's not going to play. And he won't be nice word-of-mouth for others to play the game. And the reviewers won't give a good review, so even less people buy it.
Reply #95 from Sins Forums Top
WOW last time i checked this post was at 72 and dead on September 4. I should get back into posting....

Look, gravity actually being applied in Sins.... no. Its disgusting. Having to constantly reposition your ships and keep them from crashing into the planet? No thanks. Once im in the mid-late part of the game I usually just send a big ol' fleet to a system and leave them fighting. I have too many things to worry about than to watch a battle and babysit every ship that strays too close to a planet. Im still pissed off about trade ships passing through a gravity well thats PACKED with gauss turrets with a stupid grin on their face. Honestly, who the hell does that?!? Scuicidal traders... not a good sign   
Reply #96 from Sins Forums Top
Yeah, traders/refinery ships should only pass through friendly or neutral territory.

We should also be able to name ctrl group fleets.
Reply #97 from Sins Forums Top
name? like echo or charlie? Nah i'm still waiting patiently for naming planets. "shibfilet" is a wonderful name for an ice planet.
Reply #98 from Sins Forums Top
Yeah, traders/refinery ships should only pass through friendly or neutral territory.



i agree with this
Reply #99 from Sins Forums Top
besides: if this discussion is whether ships and structures should fall onto the planet because of gravity, bear in mind that planets do not orbit graphically, yet we all know it. so by the same token you could argue that the orbit just doesn't happen graphically.

hm, forget that thought. got a new one.

if you really do want to implement physics one way would to have everything in a planet's athmospehere orbit it. that's the way it works in reality. this of course means that those gauss canons you previously placed so nicely will shift out of way, which in turn gives certain windows and times that are better suited for attacking. maybe then defense would move into a ring like system and a lot can be compensated by increasing range or damage or both. I have no idea how it would be with ships, but since the already have drive it can be assumed that the just use it to keep position or the orbit as well.

do I have to have that? not necessarily. it might add something, I actually doubt it, but it would show a slightly more precise physics system.

as for realistic acceleration/ deceleration: I don't really think its such a good idea. if anyone can show how it can be reasonably implemented, well go ahead, otherwise not. after all you would have to decelerate in time and turning capships in mid flight would barely be possible, if you consider the strain put on both man and materiel.

what might be cool is when battle debris and other stuff could fall down to a planet cousing damage there. you could use it if you are low on the stuff that actually attacks planets.
Reply #100 from Sins Forums Top

the average joe doesn't need to understand it...


If he's playing the game, yes he does. If his ships are doing things he doesn't understand, he's not going to like it and he's not going to play. And he won't be nice word-of-mouth for others to play the game. And the reviewers won't give a good review, so even less people buy it.

no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no NO.


Pay attention. Do you understand how your brain works? Do you understand how your heart works?

Do you need to know that to have a decent life?

no.

Why is that? Your body knows what it's doing and takes care of itself pretty well.


Likewise, the automatic systems in the game can take care of these things for people that don't understand how gravity works... and seriously I don't think that's going to really confuse anyone. It's something that most of us should understand. Not the equations but the principle. And even if they don't... it shouldn't matter.


Click "attack" on something and the pathing AI will work it out FOR YOU.


people that do understand gravity of course will do better. But you can still play without understanding it.


I'm tired of games being made for retards and then pushed on hard core gamers.

What we need here is a game with multiple levels... think of it like Shrek or something... sure it's fun for little kids but there's a buried line of jokes and humor for adults. Likewise Sins needs to be fun for idiots and remain interesting for people that are not idiots.


The pathing AI allows idiots to operate in a gravity and orbit environment without problems. The presence of gravity and the ability to use it for special tactics allows the game to not suck for people that are not idiots.