Matrix Games Forums

Excellent update! Hats off to the CodeForce crew...

ORIGINAL: WoodMan

2. The AI seems to regard the Space Creatures as not that important to kill.  In both my 1.0.5.7 and 1.0.5.8 game the AI was sending Construction Ships to fix the Devastation Moon without killing the Space Creatures guarding it first.  The Construction Ships would flee, then come back, then flee in an endless loop.  I have a save with this going on if you need it.  A second example I've noticed of AI not killing Space Creatures, in several games over several versions (including 1.0.5.8 )I've come across AI planets with Giant Kaltors over them eating Freighters that come near, resulting in an absolutely massive Kaltor or two over the planet, this goes on until I send my own ships to kill them.

+1

would it not be possible to make any system with a space creature a yellow color on the colonize and resource drop down and script in a no go for civilian traffic until the danger is removed. This way the ai is protected and the player has the visualization for his or her military and the civilian traffic is protected?

ORIGINAL: MuthaF

ORIGINAL: the1sean

ORIGINAL: hidden_asbestos

Still no windowed mode? [:(]

The game handles different resolutions already -- why not let us pick as smaller one than the desktop size?

you know it DW is just a "fill screen" window? You can just alt tab out of it, really fast and stable...

Thats is not his point i guess - not everyone got multimonitor setup like i do, so on monitor and DW always on native res, he never got any usable workbench and DW in view. Also, on my win7 it cant be minimized to taskbar, unless i minimize ALL windows... So this windowed mode has NONE usual features of windowed app...
I can empatize with other people on this

Thanks, glad to hear that someone else understands what I mean for once [&:]

I guess repeatedly telling me how the full screen display is achieved with this game is very important and every opportunity to explain this should not be overlooked.

Amusingly, the fact that it is a large window makes it even more trivial to slap a caption on top complete with a minimise button and let you move it around. Perhaps this is why I keep getting told this is a big window when I make this request that has so far been totally ignored by the developers?

Open 1.0.5.8 and 1.0.5.7 in different windows to see difference... or the following:

Bug Fixes 33-36

AI + Automation Changes 8-9

Interface Improvement 14

Game Balance Changes 12-15

Erik, can you please mark changes made in newer versions of betas? It is indeed very difficult to read through the full list in attempt to search for new fixes. Something like this with a brief explanation in the top or bottom of your new-version-available post will be very helpful:

Changed in 1.0.5.6
Changed in 1.0.5.7
Changed in 1.0.5.8

I understand that this is quite time-consuming, but it will really help your fans

ORIGINAL: hidden_asbestos

Thanks, glad to hear that someone else understands what I mean for once [&:]

I guess repeatedly telling me how the full screen display is achieved with this game is very important and every opportunity to explain this should not be overlooked.

I didnt intend to trivialize your request, or anyone else's. I was just trying to let you know an easy workaround/feature. Some users dont know about holding down the "alt" key and pressing the "tab" key to switch back to the desktop or other windows. Many games dont alt-tab well or at all, they might even crash. Distant Worlds alt-tabs easily and painlessly, and automatically gets minimized (at least on Windows 7, which I use). Many people explain its already windowed nature to explain why the alt-tab feature works so well. The intention wasnt to ignore your suggestion, but to help you out.

ORIGINAL: hidden_asbestos
Amusingly, the fact that it is a large window makes it even more trivial to slap a caption on top complete with a minimise button and let you move it around. Perhaps this is why I keep getting told this is a big window when I make this request that has so far been totally ignored by the developers?

So far the developers have been working on bug and gameplay fixes. Windowing options are a nice thing to have but arent nearly as critical as, well, gameplay killing problems, bugs, and crashes.

Many of the community's less time-critical requests have been noted and commented on by the devs, but this upcoming patch is about gameplay fixes and bugs. I personally have requested "click and drag" map interface options, and Erik said we should get it, but it wont be in until a later patch. Same goes for mod support, it isnt as critical.

They are listening, just try to be a little patient, I dont think anyone is trying to stonewall you.

Anybody losing stuff like ship triangles and those tiny plaques on planets showing population and race in close up view, or is it just me? Galaxy map is fine though.

ORIGINAL: taltamir

.....
Also, its very arrogant of you to say I am discounting geology, physics, climatology and biology. I took all of those into account, I assure you.

.....

[shortened quote to MINIMIZE size; just to make clear whats this replying to]

I am sorry, i have been pretty busy lately, in fact i had to keep this as short as possible right now...

- i dont recall discussing terraforming/active artificial restoration being a factor at all - there were no mention of any resources being spent for that purpose
- maybe its just problem of scale? remember, we are talking TOTAL LIFE EXTINCTION event, not just 'regular' Major Extinction Event
- as this was about MAXIMUM possible planetary bombardment damage without actually destroying the planetoid itself (given enough time & resources it was)
- i never argued about elements tranformations in planetary bodies collision - i specificaly stated, that all the carbon now contained in biosphere would be in atmosfere (thats reads element MOVE not TRANSFORM in my dictionary
- without biosphere there is not enough carbon storage processes available, thus semi-permanent atmosphere change
- without free oxygen replenishment systems (biospehere) all 'breathable' oxygen from atmosphere will end up chamically bonded to something - semi-permanent atmoshpere change
- impact induced volcanismu would also drastically alter atmosphere composition
- impact induced lava oceans
- methan contained in permafrost/ocean floor would almost surely be released to atmosphere...yeah im tlaking Earth, but what other real habitated world exmaple we have right now?
...i hope u get the picture. I recon this is about quarter of reasons i can think of that make planets unhospitable in any (humanly) meaningful timeframe with before-mentioned planetary bombardment methods - in fact i dont consider any explosive devices at all, just kinetic impactors
- for the sake of argument, even if u 'only' wiped out all 'higher' life than bacteria/prokaryote group, atmosphere restoration would take milions of years as i stated (see primordial atmosphere as example)
i could go on for a page, but not enough time, also i suspect no one else reading this thread is really interested so just few off-hand sources i've digged out in the little time i had for this:
this paper is pretty relevant - impact induced volcanism: http://www.mantleplumes.org/WebDocument ... er2003.pdf
and here u can see small example of direct results we talk about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deccan_Traps
Big enough collision can theoretically even demagnetize planetary core, change planetary orbit/rotation axis but i admit that is probable over-scaling - though not impossible
anyway, i admit the sourcing part is pretty poor, but i hope it will at least partially prove my point - i sadly dont have enough time run proper thoeretical model, but on the other hand i dont really feel the need considering (not)sourcing of counter-argument..
Anyhow, if you are genuinly interested in proper debate, i will be happy to as time allows, but only on condition of proper sourcing/exampling in argumentation, and (i suspect for others sanity) in different thread or through PM

damn, so many things on mind, so little time and sourcing at hand, well RL calls again.

Uh, maybe in the hurry i forgot to make my main point clear:
its basically all about changing conditions on planet AND wiping out all(almost) support mechanisms for correction - kinda like restarting earth evolution to primordial conditions.

the thing is, life doesn't need to EVOLVE again... it merely needs to be reintroduced, by sentient custodians who have access to some pretty advanced technology.
The mechanisms you are now suggesting are interesting, but I would like to see some more detailed sourcing, as well as go over the data myself before I conclude one way or the other...

A few issues:

- without free oxygen replenishment systems (biospehere) all 'breathable' oxygen from atmosphere will end up chamically bonded to something - semi-permanent atmoshpere change

It will most likely end up bonded to hydrogen in the form of dihydrogen monoxide (water); to other oxygens in the form of ozone or O2 molecules, and in carbon dioxide molecules. Mainly, all organic matter is being incinerated by massive energy release... incineration involves converting atmospheric oxygen and biomass to water and carbon dioxide.

Autotrophes take in cabon dioxide and water and produce oxygen, according to researchers, early earth had almost no free oxygen in the atmosphere, it all came from autotrophes. So there is nothing permanent about that.

Same can be said about the CO2...

as for methane... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane

Methane is a relatively potent greenhouse gas. Compared with carbon dioxide, it has a high global warming potential of 72 (calculated over a period of 20 years) or 25 (for a time period of 100 years).[2] Methane in the atmosphere is eventually oxidized, producing carbon dioxide and water. As a result, methane in the atmosphere has a half life of seven years

nothing permanent about it, it will naturally oxidize to water and carbon dioxide... and it will do so rapidly (7 years half-life). No "millions of years" process.

Volcanic gasses... this has me curious. I am looking it up now:
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php
so... nothing permanent, and nothing overly severe. Almost all the emissions from volcanoes are water, carbon dioxide, and Sulfur dioxide.
Sulfur dioxide is dangerous to mammels, but it is used and produced by a variety of living organisms.... plus, its not like it will even stay in the atmosphere too long, its heavy enough to deposit.

Biochemical and biomedical roles
Sulfur dioxide is toxic in large amounts. It or its conjugate base bisulfite is produced biologically as an intermediate in both sulfate-reducing organisms and in sulfur oxidizing bacteria as well. Sulfur dioxide has no role in mammalian biology. Sulfur dioxide blocks nerve signals from the pulmonary stretch receptors (PSR's) and abolishes the Hering-Breuer inflation reflex.

All that being said, I am inclined to think it will take longer then I initially though, maybe a few decades... it will take some years to get rid of the sulfur dioxide, it will take some decades for the methane to go away, etc... Still, I don't see any reason why it should take millions of years. Heck, i don't see any reason why it should take longer then 20 years.
That is of course assuming severe enough bombardment (we are talking extreme overkill here, much more then would have been needed to merely kill the sentients who colonize the planet). If they merely nuked the cities, then planet quality should not be significantly altered. nor would it be a big problem to restore it.

I keep scanning the betas hoping, but is there any realistic chance for a multiplayer addition for this game? I've held off buying it because I have plenty of single-player 4x games and my friends and I prefer to play with/against each other. I bought Armada 2526 hoping it would add internet play, but that doesnt seem overly likely at this point so I don't really want to pick up another space 4x game and then not be able to play online.

Sooo, I recall when Distant Worlds was released that MP play was discussed. Is there anything moving in that direction or it not likely at this point?

Thanks!

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

I keep scanning the betas hoping, but is there any realistic chance for a multiplayer addition for this game? I've held off buying it because I have plenty of single-player 4x games and my friends and I prefer to play with/against each other. I bought Armada 2526 hoping it would add internet play, but that doesnt seem overly likely at this point so I don't really want to pick up another space 4x game and then not be able to play online.

Sooo, I recall when Distant Worlds was released that MP play was discussed. Is there anything moving in that direction or it not likely at this point?

Thanks!

adding multi-player is a massive undertaking.
I have NEVER heard of any game, EVER to have a FREE multiplayer addon if it was released as single player only game originally. A few rare ones release a multiplayer expansion pack that costs money (and takes quite a while to develop).
If someone knows of any game where this happened, please post...

Note, heroes of might and magic 5 doesn't count, the game advertised multiplayer and was supposed to have it from the starts... the game went on sale saying they had delays with multi-player, but it will be released ASAP via a patch (the main menu had a multiplayer button, if you clicked on it, it explained the situation). So... yea...
Anyways, I would like to hear about it if such a game exist, but I really would not expect distant worlds to be the first.

multiplayer would be awesome, but then you probably wouldn't be able to adjust speed...can you imagine DW without a pause-function? or the ability to go to 4x speed?

ORIGINAL: the1sean
They are listening, just try to be a little patient, I dont think anyone is trying to stonewall you.

You're right, sorry!

adding multi-player is a massive undertaking.
I have NEVER heard of any game, EVER to have a FREE multiplayer addon if it was released as single player only game originally. A few rare ones release a multiplayer expansion pack that costs money (and takes quite a while to develop).
If someone knows of any game where this happened, please post...

Well I just seem to be recall it 'being on the list' and I'm wondering if it's something that is getting any priority or if it's not expected at this point. Even in an expansion would be fine if it was something relatively definite on the horizon.

Hearts of Iron 2 was a good "pausabll-realtime-4x" that had good multiplayer. I think it could work with Distant Worlds, you would just have to set certain things to automatically taken care of or suggestion oriented, with maybe a few more options to streamline control (i'm thinking of spying and ship customization specifically).

I've never played multi in it but I know they play EU3 multi all the time. Same deal.

ORIGINAL: jalapen0

I've never played multi in it but I know they play EU3 multi all the time. Same deal.

Yeah, and most of the fans of those games are pretty hard-core, so it could definitely work with Distant Worlds. The best part about DW is the streamlined gameplay and intelligent, helpful AI. That would be a huge bonus over many other realtime-4X's out there!

multiplayer = lame

multiplayer = lame

Yes, MP with random internet d-bags = lame, but MP with friends is some of the best gaming I've ever done. And we've played Civ 3/Civ 4, SEIV, MOO2, EU3, and a TON of older games dating back to Command HQ and the like.

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

multiplayer = lame

Yes, MP with random internet d-bags = lame, but MP with friends is some of the best gaming I've ever done. And we've played Civ 3/Civ 4, SEIV, MOO2, EU3, and a TON of older games dating back to Command HQ and the like.

what is a "friend"?

what is a "friend"?

lol, you make an "ally" in real-life like you might do in DW... at least I think, something like that anyway.

As I stated before, MP is fine as long as the single player is not adjusted in anyway whatsoever to make way for multi (like pace increase, loss of pause etc).  I think the modders patch is next, thats more important to me than MP, but Elliot seems pretty good, so if lots of people are asking, maybe in the future you will see it.