Two new articles about Distant Worlds 2

[Erik Rutins]

"Regardless of where the team has chosen to focus in terms of priorities, so far things seem to be shaping up nicely. This will definitely be one of those information-heavy strategy games, much like the older Paradox grand strategy games, but there’s already plenty here to look forward to."

https://www.pcgamesn.com/distant-worlds-2/engine-tech

"This is exactly what fans of the first game appear to have been clamouring for. Fans loved how deep and absorbing the universe was, and may favour a shinier version that builds on the previous entries strength."

https://www.gamewatcher.com/interviews/ ... view/13306

[zgrssd]

"This is exactly what fans of the first game appear to have been clamouring for. Fans loved how deep and absorbing the universe was, and may favour a shinier version that builds on the previous entries strength."

I like to say: "Distant Worlds 1 was a realy good game, held back by it's poor UI."

[Retreat1970]

How exactly was the interface bad? Just asking.

[beyondwudge]

When you don't make it yourself, it is always easy to find fault.

[beyondwudge]

Hey Erik,

Regarding the PCGames^N article, I read that the ship designer will add new ship components to the mesh. I am guessing this is another procedural generation technique like with generating the planet visuals and animations.

I'm curious, will the location of a 'side cannon' affect the combat logic for a ship? For instance, does it have constraints on its arc of fire, does it have a vector representing its direction and need to intersect within some margin with a target's in-game location, etc. I'm sorry if the answer would be obvious from Distant Worlds 1 (or is answered in an FAQ), but I only just discovered the game last week.

Also, regarding the Game Watcher article, I saw a quote about variable paths for technological research. From what I can gather, you are psuedo-randomising the children of some or all nodes.

I'm interested, is there a particular logic for this? I'm guessing complete chaos would lead to unpredictable outcomes for the players. How is the variability constrained? Is there an upper bound on how many nodes are adjusted and if so, is it a one for one swap with another node's child or can you have some technologies dead-ending and others on the same level all sharing a single child.

Thanks,
beyond

[Galaxy227]

ORIGINAL: Retreat1970

How exactly was the interface bad? Just asking.

I'll reference this post of mine on the old forum months ago, where I listed some of the countless drawbacks pertaining to the functionality of Distant Worlds' interface. Beyond function, it also just looked terribly dated; bland colors, windows from Microsoft's OS, unreadable text, among other aesthetically displeasing things.

Edit: Reading through my list again, nearly all of my gripes were about the interface, and to my surprise, many of the suggestions I put forward are now additions to the upcoming sequel. It seems Elliot's vision aligned with my own when it came to the interface of DW:U.

Edit 2: In response to beyondwudge below, I'm aware Retreat had already replied to my thread, but my point still stands. His reply months ago doesn't negate my list's relevance to this conversation today. In fact, Elliot going through with many of my suggestions only further solidifies their worth. TL;DR: Distant Worlds' interface was poor.

[beyondwudge]

Retreat1970 already replied to your thread.

[SirHoraceHarkness]

ORIGINAL: Retreat1970

How exactly was the interface bad? Just asking.

Eh bad is probably too strong a word. I'd say inefficient and a bit non intuitive would be a better descriptor with bad scaling for higher resolutions. The ship design screen is a good example as it doesn't really show you how the various systems will perform together and the energy numbers can be a bit misleading. But overall the ui was just clunky.

[beyondwudge]

Hey Erik,

In DW1 do you generate the background elements for the Selection Panel (bottom-left) buttons in software? I mean the dark grey to grey gradient for the main box, the light gray (?) / dark blue split background for each cycle button and the light blue / dark-blue split (with black checkerboard when inactive) background for the bottom row of Action buttons.

I have hand inspected almost every folder in the DWU installation and I can't find these graphical elements. I was wanting to test playing with solid fills behind the icons but I can't find the correct images to edit.

Thanks,
beyond

Edit: I think I found a workaround. The icon images can have their canvas expanded to the size of the button element (give or take one or two pixels) and block out the background. It's just a little bit more work to get the effect.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: beyondwudge
Regarding the PCGames^N article, I read that the ship designer will add new ship components to the mesh. I am guessing this is another procedural generation technique like with generating the planet visuals and animations.

The models are actually built with the required component sub-meshes, including some support meshes so that everything looks seamless whether the component is there and visible or not. Then we turn them on or off based on whether the player chooses to put a component in one of those externally visible component bays.

I'm curious, will the location of a 'side cannon' affect the combat logic for a ship? For instance, does it have constraints on its arc of fire, does it have a vector representing its direction and need to intersect within some margin with a target's in-game location, etc. I'm sorry if the answer would be obvious from Distant Worlds 1 (or is answered in an FAQ), but I only just discovered the game last week.

Yes, I think this is explained a bit more in some other threads, but weapons do now have fire arcs and for military ships, the arrangement of weapons differs somewhat by faction and ship role. The ship designer shows you the fire arc for each weapon bay and what size weapon it can fit so that you can design as you like.

Also, regarding the Game Watcher article, I saw a quote about variable paths for technological research. From what I can gather, you are psuedo-randomising the children of some or all nodes.

I'm interested, is there a particular logic for this? I'm guessing complete chaos would lead to unpredictable outcomes for the players. How is the variability constrained? Is there an upper bound on how many nodes are adjusted and if so, is it a one for one swap with another node's child or can you have some technologies dead-ending and others on the same level all sharing a single child.

There's a designed tree with multiple possible pre-requisite paths as well as "fallback" paths and probabilities for each. The game in effect "rolls" against these probabilities each time it generates a research tree for a new game and then further events and actions on the player's part can still enable projects that are otherwise inaccessible.

Some additional info on research here:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5106472

Regards,

- Erik

[Retreat1970]

ORIGINAL: Galaxy227

ORIGINAL: Retreat1970

How exactly was the interface bad? Just asking.

Edit: It seems Elliot's vision aligned with my own when it came to the interface of DW:U.

Edit 2: In fact, Elliot going through with many of my suggestions only further solidifies their worth.

Thank you for your genius.

[beyondwudge]

Erik,

1. RE: Ship Design

I see, you've designated specific hull locations (component bays) for types of sub-object with 'active' and 'inactive' versions of the location.

I'm curious again: for component damage calculations - would this interact with the impact locations of projectiles, the explosive radius of missile detonations and so forth? Would the fall of a shot on a weapon more likely damage that weapon component and if so, are the other components also given location positions and volumes inside the main object as well? Could you adjust your ship's AI to prioritise a particular component type or give an order of priority to how they target an unshielded vessel?

It sounds like the system is a lot more complicated than in Distant Worlds Universe, I look forward to seeing what you've put together with these new tools.

2. RE: Research Paths

I read the link and the article. So the point is to increase the inter-relationship between the in-game map and objects and the player's research progression, requiring the player to look, plan and react to the developing research situation. The system isn't representing any particular conceptual paradigm about researching technology, but rather trying to make research require more player involvement. Have I got that right?

I'm curious, why did you decide to introduce research bonuses pre-requisites for some technologies? Is that about gently encouraging the player about the importance of building research stations / obtaining bonuses or are the technologies in question meant to be particularly valuable, useful or off-the-beaten-path as to be worth locking behind a bonus wall?

I don't know what to make of the system yet. It seems that a lot of the impact would be in the exact magnitudes of locked technologies, of number-of-research-points-spent / resources-expended-for-bonuses to unlock these technologies, of how variable the locking of important technologies is and so forth. I can remember how Master of Orion 2 worked where you had to steal, trade or conquer to obtain most of the tech tree, for example, but it seems that the context of that system was very different to the context of DW1 and most likely to DW2. However, it is a question that can only be solved by playing the game and seeing what you've done.

I appreciate your explanations. Most interesting.

Thanks,
beyond

[Galaxy227]

ORIGINAL: Retreat1970

ORIGINAL: Galaxy227

ORIGINAL: Retreat1970

How exactly was the interface bad? Just asking.

Edit: It seems Elliot's vision aligned with my own when it came to the interface of DW:U.

Edit 2: In fact, Elliot going through with many of my suggestions only further solidifies their worth.

Thank you for your genius.

And you, you're inability to comprehend what makes a good interface.

Edit: Don't poke around pretending DW's UI was all sunshine and roses, only to be reminded it wasn't, and then refuse to debate about said reminder. At that point your initial remark served no purpose to begin with.

[Erik Rutins]

Let's all keep things civil please. DW1's UI was functional, but certainly had issues, partly because of its layered evolutionary nature. We took a lot of feedback on board as well as putting our own heads together in figuring out how to hopefully improve that in DW2.

[Galaxy227]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Let's all keep things civil please. DW1's UI was functional, but certainly had issues, partly because of its layered evolutionary nature. We took a lot of feedback on board as well as putting our own heads together in figuring out how to hopefully improve that in DW2.

I'd like to add by no means do I intend to talk about DW2's UI negatively. I think the work that has been invested SHOWS. It's amazing, where nearly everything that (I believed) desperately needed work from DW1's UI has either been fixed, added onto, or completely redesigned altogether. From more map modes presented on the playing galaxy, to fleet templates, to a completely reorganized menu fixated on the left (rather than the tabs across the top screen in DW1), resolution scaling, better aesthetics & colors... Point being, there clearly has been a lot of thought, time, and money invested into improving the interface. I really look forward to what DW2's interface has to offer, and am certain the improvements will draw in all sorts of new players who were hesitant before.

[beyondwudge]

Well, that's much nicer.

[Retreat1970]

lolz

[beyondwudge]

Look, the user-interface is important. However, if the game isn't worth playing in the first place, having a great UI doesn't make it worth playing. Improving a UI can also be an expensive, iterative process that introduces a lot of bugs to code that used to work just fine. Worse still, the users who want the UI change also tend to be quite unthankful about the time and effort you had to put in to create a smooth interactive experience for them. Its explicable that DW1 has the quirks and missing links between objects and actions that it does.

However, it really would be a shame if DW2 had a great UI but didn't pull its weight as a game.

Lets support the developers about the things that really matter, in the order that they matter. UI just can't be first in line. It's a bit like trying to write the final wording of a journal article on the first draft. It's a mind-numbingly expensive way to do it. How can you finalise how zooming works in a game if you aren't even sure what monitor resolution's the game can be played at, how close the viewport can get to the objects before looking ugly, how far away can you move back and still clearly distinguish different objects, etc. These type of questions can be up and the air until weeks before shipping, depending on how the project is being managed. It's why a lot of games come V1.0 with obvious gaps in how the interface, game objects and game logic are connected together.

Now, to be honest, UI is very important to me as a player. Extremely important. However, if I want a great UI I'd be expecting to pay the developers for it. I'd expect to at least pay the cost of DLC, if not of several DLC, to get the kind of custom inputs and outputs I would like as a player. It is expensive to make happen.

I'd also expect to have to put in some work myself to get the result I want. I can't believe that the whole game can revolve around my particular input-output needs. Other players have far different needs and the game has to accommodate everybody, over a long period of time with each user changing and growing in how they interact with the system. If all I received was just the tools to get the UI to where I would like it to be then I'd put in the work myself.

That being said, I'm looking forward to DW2 and willing to tolerate significant issues with how smooth, intuitive, convenient or even logical my interaction with the machine-system is, as much because new game features don't tune, balance or integrate themselves and those features are necessary for the game's success. Yes, I'd hope the game is a pleasure to play by the time the last DLC is released, but I can wait, or at least, would happily do the final leg work myself, until that time.

[zgrssd]

ook, the user-interface is important. However, if the game isn't worth playing in the first place, having a great UI doesn't make it worth playing.

People seem to have read only the 2nd half of my quote.

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

"This is exactly what fans of the first game appear to have been clamouring for. Fans loved how deep and absorbing the universe was, and may favour a shinier version that builds on the previous entries strength."

I like to say: "Distant Worlds 1 was a realy good game, held back by it's poor UI."

Which consists of two sentences. One of which is: "Distant Worlds 1 was a realy good game."

[zgrssd]

ORIGINAL: beyondwudge

2. RE: Research Paths

I read the link and the article. So the point is to increase the inter-relationship between the in-game map and objects and the player's research progression, requiring the player to look, plan and react to the developing research situation. The system isn't representing any particular conceptual paradigm about researching technology, but rather trying to make research require more player involvement. Have I got that right?

I'm curious, why did you decide to introduce research bonuses pre-requisites for some technologies? Is that about gently encouraging the player about the importance of building research stations / obtaining bonuses or are the technologies in question meant to be particularly valuable, useful or off-the-beaten-path as to be worth locking behind a bonus wall?

I don't know what to make of the system yet. It seems that a lot of the impact would be in the exact magnitudes of locked technologies, of number-of-research-points-spent / resources-expended-for-bonuses to unlock these technologies, of how variable the locking of important technologies is and so forth. I can remember how Master of Orion 2 worked where you had to steal, trade or conquer to obtain most of the tech tree, for example, but it seems that the context of that system was very different to the context of DW1 and most likely to DW2. However, it is a question that can only be solved by playing the game and seeing what you've done.

I appreciate your explanations. Most interesting.

Thanks,
beyond

Not having played it yet, I forsee 2 effects from this design choice:
1. It makes those bonuses worthwhile getting. Something akin to a rare resource deposit. Something to start wars over or to trade for.

If it just increased the research of specific technologies they would be "meh". I did not realized that beofore, but this is a issue in Stellaris:
I would never pick a scientist with a bonus to a specific sub-category, if I have the choice. Even if they were a +20%. I always try to get the ones with +5% or +10% to all research (there are other factors like the draw weight being skewed by a specialist. But even when looking for a specific direction, I always prefer general bonuses).
Even the planets you get reserach points from a little more the "Background Noise". I hardly even notice if my science is heavily skewed due to space resources.

2. It makes general Reserach Bonuses realy important.
Keep in mind the treshold is checking Genereic Reserach Bonus + Specific Category Bonus.