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.

28,329 views 119 replies
Reply #101 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   

people... I don't know how many times I have to explain this... the pathing AI will understand gravity as well and thus will not fall into the planet... It will actually USE gravity to get better acceleration...


As to cap ships turning in mid flight, I see no reason why they can't be made more agile in turning... Yes, they're big but they're in freefall and a vacuum... so they shouldn't be that hard to move around if you have a decent sized thruster.


As to gauss turrets gravity should effect their shots at long range. At close range it probably won't matter that much... but at long range anything with mass should slow down or feel the deceleration of the grav well. This enhances tactics because it means that missiles and gauss cannons work better into the gravity well as their shots will accelerate FASTER then shots fired OUT of the well. Laser cannons etc shouldn't be noticeably effected unless you're kissing a star or something...


This increases tactical depth because it puts forces defense fleets to remain far from the inner ring of the grav well. By staying towards the outer part they can move faster by diving into the well and sling shotting to the other side or engage an enemy and fire at them from the OUTSIDE of the well towards them... thus gaining the advantage of well.

However, the attacking fleet will be at an advantage against any mass attacking them from the inner ring of the well. So if you have gauss cannons or missiles or even fighters/bombers coming from the inner ring of the well they'll all travel a little slower. To counter that you can have laser cannons instead of gauss cannons, more powerful multistage missiles (imagine seeing slightly bigger missiles fired from the ring that break apart as they travel farther and like the Apollo missions), but fighters and bombers will probably just be slowed down... of course the reduction in speed only happens when you leave the well... once you arrive your speed won't be as much effected because you'll be changing vector all the time... sometimes going in or out or along the well.
Reply #102 from Sins Forums Top
Likewise Sins needs to be fun for idiots and remain interesting for people that are not idiots.


And again, you aren't listening to me: the idiots won't play because they don't understand orbital mechanics, and don't want it. Its counter-intuitive, and unlike "surface mechanics" they aren't forced by real life to learn it.

Pay attention.


Funny command from someone who's ignoring it himself.

Let me spell this out for you as clearly as I already did:

If his ships are doing things he doesn't understand, he's not going to like it and he's not going to play.


It doesn't matter if the AI can "handle it for him". He isn't going to understand why he's loosing (or winning), so he will quit. Let me design a game for you in C++:

main (){
char a;
int win;
while(win!=3)
cout << "Press Attack! (A key)" << endl;
cin >> a;
win=rand()%1
if (win==1)
cout << "You win! Want to play again? (press 3 to quit)" << endl;
else
cout << "You loose! Want to play again? (press 3 to quit)" << endl;
cin >> win;
}
}

Gee, what fun! 50% chance of winning every time! Won't that be a blast to play!

And thats pretty much exactly what you're asking them to play, because they won't understand whats going on, so they can't manipulate it to win.
Star Control: Origins
Reply #103 from Sins Forums Top

Likewise Sins needs to be fun for idiots and remain interesting for people that are not idiots.


And again, you aren't listening to me: the idiots won't play because they don't understand orbital mechanics, and don't want it. Its counter-intuitive, and unlike "surface mechanics" they aren't forced by real life to learn it.




I still have a hard time believing that even 1/3 of gamers don't understand orbital mechanics. Ask my 4 year old nephew and he will say that all the planets in our solar system orbit the sun, and the moons orbit the planets. I say if the idiots don't want to play a game because they don't understand orbital mechanics, then they can go play space invaders. IMHO the last thing we need these days are games that dumb down or simplify realistic behavior because some idiot was too busy getting high in school to learn about how gravity works.
Reply #104 from Sins Forums Top
they don't need to be able to understand it to be able to predict and use it.


Does a cave man have to understand how fire works to cook his food? No... he has to know it eats wood, the wind can blow it out, it needs some access to air, and it can hurt him.


That's all the cave man needs to know about fire. Does he have to know that what's really burning is liberated hydrogen from the carbon hydrogen bonds in the wood? Does he need to know how many moles of oxygen will be required for each gram of wood?


No he doesn't.


He might figure some things out like it's easier to burn old dry wood instead of fresh green wood.


Understanding of orbital mechanics is not required to manipulate it. Much as a cat does not need to understand F=MA to be able to leap upon it's pray.


Functional understanding of your environment does not require mathematical or scientific deconstruction. They'll make a few mistakes here and there... and then they'll see the patterns and get it.

They might not be able to tell you why it works but they'll know what to do to get the reaction they want.


I can't be any more clear then this... So I'll just tell you this... People like myself are going to make up a larger proportion of the people playing the game then the complete f'ing morons you want to sell to. If they seriously can't grasp these very simple ideas and are incapable of quickly learning then the game will be so stupid as to not be worth playing by anyone but idiots. And idiots have less money then I do.


Based purely on economics you're branding this to such a simple crowd that you'd have to sell this to people in assisted living.
Reply #105 from Sins Forums Top
It's not a matter of people not understanding it--it's that it's just *not fun* when you have to deal with the map changing its layout constantly. Even moreso without free movement in deep space, which has its own un-funness issues.
Reply #106 from Sins Forums Top
I've played ORB and I would have to say I understand this argument, its only fun sometimes, and others its just too much of a hasstle. Thats why ORB had it be optional... Im not suggesting that though.

I would like simplistic orbiting buildings and moons though, as an option... maybe in an expansion, as i understand its a little late.
Reply #107 from Sins Forums Top
so ok the planets and astroids cannot orbit for fun.


what about moons and the rocks in the grav wells.


i have noticed or at least i think i have seen someof those rocks tumbling
Reply #108 from Sins Forums Top
@karma, fire eets wood?
and how the eff would a cavemain know that fire has to have access to air?

and 1/4 of the people in america are retarded, it said so on southpark
Reply #109 from Sins Forums Top
Statistically one half of the American population has below average intellegence...and they are over-represented in the government.
Reply #110 from Sins Forums Top
Statistically one half of the American population has below average intellegence..




and the other half is above average. but they do not or will not speak up for themselves. so which group is the idiot.
Reply #111 from Sins Forums Top
so which group is the idiot.


ME!
Reply #112 from Sins Forums Top
Good post right here.
Reply #113 from Sins Forums Top
Karmashock, your posts are very offensive. I am neither an idiot nor a complete f'ing moron, and I think I would enjoy the game physics the way they currently are a lot more than trying to implement what you suggest.

You are entitled to your opinion, and you are also entitled to express it, but please refrain from being insulting to people (no matter how superior to them you may feel you are).
Reply #114 from Sins Forums Top
Reply #115 from Sins Forums Top
I still have a hard time believing that even 1/3 of gamers don't understand orbital mechanics. Ask my 4 year old nephew and he will say that all the planets in our solar system orbit the sun, and the moons orbit the planets. I say if the idiots don't want to play a game because they don't understand orbital mechanics, then they can go play space invaders. IMHO the last thing we need these days are games that dumb down or simplify realistic behavior because some idiot was too busy getting high in school to learn about how gravity works.


The fact that planets and moons orbit isn't the problem. Its the way things move in space that is. To catch up with something in front of you, you don't fire your thrusters to go faster, you fire them to orbit slower. At a later point, you fire them to move faster and your in front of the guy that was in front of you. Counter - intuitive, and confusing. Add in the fact that most people don't (possibly can't or won't) understand the concept that in space there is no maximum speed, only acceleration, and they don't get orbital mechanics.
It's not a matter of people not understanding it--it's that it's just *not fun* when you have to deal with the map changing its layout constantly. Even moreso without free movement in deep space, which has its own un-funness issues.


We've moved past that into the argument over whether they'd find the way objects (AKA ships) really move in space fun. The whole acceleration over speed thing is beyond most people, alas, and Karma just doesn't get the fact that they aren't going to be interested in learning it.


They might not be able to tell you why it works but they'll know what to do to get the reaction they want.


Sure, after they've played a few hours. But they aren't going to do that because they aren't going to enjoy something so counter-intuitive. We've been trained, biologically for centuries and intellectually all our lives to think in terms of speed over acceleration. Breaking that barrier requires someone to actually think, which most people aren't going to be interested in doing for a mere game.
Reply #116 from Sins Forums Top
well ur sort of right but do you need to make us all sound like stupid monkey's in the process, lol
Reply #117 from Sins Forums Top
do you need to make us all sound like stupid monkey's in the process


yah, we might have to start flinging poo at you
Reply #118 from Sins Forums Top
well ur sort of right but do you need to make us all sound like stupid monkey's in the process, lol


The only reason you sound like stupid monkeys is because you want to think you sound like stupid monkeys. Most people are fairly smart, its just that they either can't or won't use those brains.
Reply #119 from Sins Forums Top
It's not a matter of people not understanding it--it's that it's just *not fun* when you have to deal with the map changing its layout constantly. Even moreso without free movement in deep space, which has its own un-funness issues.

yes and no, quite a few games have added various physics "features" in the past and the biggest problem is HOW it is implemented . . normally the “budget” has not been there to even attempt a implementation, let alone device a good one. I find the fast paced multi player goal has allot to do with this.

Functional understanding of your environment does not require mathematical or scientific deconstruction. They'll make a few mistakes here and there... and then they'll see the patterns and get it.

There is a good point here . . it was said Homeworld would be too hard for people to play because people did not “understand” 3D . . (funny really) and had the same arguments. Then Homeworld became the benchmark for all space RTS’s . . .
What you need to do is to make the UI simple and intuitive. . so even confusing and unintuitive actions are easy to do . . people will get the hang of it quickly . .
I made a 3D space game as an exercise and all ship movements showed a course plot line . . . unlike normal games this was not just a strait line but because of various physics acting on the ship it ended up being arcs (not to hard to understand) also I allowed final facing to be set (normal in RTS’s now) and some other simple parameters . .
Stop at end of plot - basic move and station keep,
Moving waypoint - keep moving from final heading even if movement orders end,
Intercept target - allows default/optional ranges . . you get the idea, but the “navigator” would have to find a plot that would work.
Orbit target - also allows default/optional ranges (default planet, default combat etc)

This is rather basic and can be added to . . .
These can be combined to make complex movements and if the “navigator” could not find a plot that worked it turned red and you could move the waypoint around till you found something that did work.
Most have been in other more sim games for a long long time . . heck even EVE online uses similar (but basic). . just point and click .

Since autonomy is needed in SINs this could even be more usefull . . set standing orders for ships/fleets . . various patrol, defend, explore - aggressive, stand off, retreat %, etc.

So . . . who needs to KNOW the physics or orbital dynamics?! It will just happen . . ships will try to do what you order, and show you how they will do it, if they can’t it will let you know . . some basic AI can go a long way . . you are a commander you want X fleet there pointing that way at ~ that speed . . “make it SO!”
Easy to learn and use and you learn from watching what physics or orbital dynamics does in space . . .OMG you may learn something!

Now having said that . . personally the scale of SINs (really exaggerated! big sizes / small distances) does not lend it self well to this . .and that is ok . . there may not be a good way to add physics or orbital dynamics to this current frame work and leaving it out is a good move . .BUT that does not mean by nno account that that is the case for ALL games.