Suggestions for Distant Worlds 2...

[Guardian54]

ORIGINAL: Retreat1970

I am vaguely amazed no one thought to quote/reply/discuss with me my proposal for how 3D orientation mechanics would work and isntead this whole thread is a free-for-all about multiplayer...

3D would be interesting, but I don't know how it would work. Seems like it would be clumsy. 3D but on a fixed plane could possibly work.

3D on a fixed plane doesn't solve the fac tthat in an Elliptical galaxy stars and nebulae are orbiting the black hole every which way, which means, well, ecliptic orientations will all be planes through the galactic core and the direction of the particular star's orbit, and that's it.

This means that my homeworld could have a perpendicular ecliptic (plane through which almost all planets and asteroids orbit) relative to one of my colonies. Whiel teh computer can model this well enough I'm concerned about the UI, so I'm suggesting a "Homeworld Ecliptic" until double-clicking on a system, after which zooming in on it (or zooming down toward it rather) would only focus on the system and not zoom further than its plane (highlighting a system basically). Normally zooming functions the same as page up/page down in that it pulls the view forward/back, but not if you highlighted a system already.

You can also disable "system ecliptic" adjustments but then zooming in may find you having to offset slightly to actually be able to select objects in the system hidden by closer objects (e.g. the star occludes some planet you are interested in).

[Icemania]

ORIGINAL: Kayoz

ORIGINAL: Retreat1970

Thanks. I don't know anyone that has seen it, and I just wanted to be sure it's kid safe. I can't wait myself.

I'd say it's about on the same level as the original Star Wars, where non-kiddie material is concerned.

Agree with Kayoz just took my recently turned 7 year old and all good. Of course, I had to go earlier and check out the suitability beforehand (which to be honest was more an excuse to make sure I saw it again)!

[Blabsawaw22]

Hope everyone had a good Christmas!

This is my last post on Multiplayer with Distant Worlds, I Promise.


Had a good laugh at this one too.. not the highly regarded counterpoise I expect of the "Kayoz" from the past that I've heard about on these forums..

Why is a fact, that games make a ton of money from crowdfunding today in 2015, "irrelevant"?

Why do you need to see some mathematical statistics on the "failures" of crowdfunding when it's clearly right in front of you that Distant Worlds wouldn't fail anyway.

Some of the "failures" you must be speaking of, are complete new, first-time games, of unknown artists, and some ridiculous concept that people obviously don't care to help make. And Distant Worlds wouldn't ever fall into that category.

And if I show you 10 or more games that somehow "failed" -(whatever that means as you don't "fail" in crowdfunding, you can try as many times as you want - It's not like the game stops development in this specific scenario) What will showing you the 10 or more games prove? 10 or more games that have absolutely no relevance or are even in the same category as Distant Worlds. How does this help you in your complete mutilation of the substantial, authentic Reality that CrowdFunding works for a lot of games that are popular and works because people are interested in helping to fund it.

Is there some inkling that you have, that Distant Worlds 2 would somehow "fail" in crowdfunding? Why do continue to attempt to dilute the popularity of DW2? It is popular and will receive many donations once they show videos of whatever it is they are creating. We know this because Distant Worlds 1 was a success as well as look at how popular space games are in the market. (Eve "Online", Star Citizen, Star Nomad 2, GC3, Endless Space, Stelsaris, X-Rebirth, Sins Solar Empire, StarDrive 2 etc.. isn't it funny how many of these games have multiplayer?!)

Your lack of belief in innovation, Modernization, and just the Matrix team to be able to handle incorporating Standard Network Protocol into a 2D game, is Perplexing to say the least. (assuming DW2 is still 2D.)

On the note of why I don't crowdfund myself since It's sooo "simple" :

Did it ever once occur to you to that I have other elements in my life that I attend to? I purely and simply enjoy playing games that others make..

For Example, Why doesn't a Plumber who goes out to eat to enjoy food, also go to culinary school to make Aspic of slow-simmered veal with crisp sweetbreads and black trumpet mushrooms? Because they chose to be a plumber and they just want to enjoy food and let others make it..

It is the life of a Developer/Game Company to deal with all the aspects involved with producing whatever it is they wish to create. I'll leave the "simple" crowdfunding account they setup in 2 clicks, to Matrix.

I enjoy what others create. Simply put, I have my own life going on, and things I'm already more involved with.

On the Basis that Distant Worlds 2 would somehow be ruined, because of multiplayer, is a repulsive, abominable phantasm and illusion of your limited, conservative doctrine about Variety, Trust, and Entertainment in the Gaming Community.

[Kayoz]

ORIGINAL: Blabsawaw22

Had a good laugh at this one too.. not the highly regarded counterpoise I expect of the "Kayoz" from the past that I've heard about on these forums..

I have no idea what others think/say about me, so I'll just respond to that with a digital shrug.

ORIGINAL: Blabsawaw22

Why is a fact, that games make a ton of money from crowdfunding today in 2015, "irrelevant"?

Why do you need to see some mathematical statistics on the "failures" of crowdfunding when it's clearly right in front of you that Distant Worlds wouldn't fail anyway.

Stating the successes without the failures is meaningless. I could point to all the people who got piles of wonga from the lottery, and without looking at the statistics of lotteries, it would paint a less than truthful picture. Apparently this concept is too difficult for you to grasp.

As for DW not being able to fail, you seem to misunderstand the business of strategy games. I suggest that you do some research regarding the demographics and size of the market as compared to other genres. While I applaud Matrix's success with DW, if I were looking at DW as a potential investment, I would be very skittish.

ORIGINAL: Blabsawaw22

Some of the "failures" you must be speaking of, are complete new, first-time games, of unknown artists, and some ridiculous concept that people obviously don't care to help make. And Distant Worlds wouldn't ever fall into that category.

The decision whether or not to seek crowd funding is a business decision that someone at Matrix (probably Erik) has to make. He has far more information on the subject than I ever will, so I am not about to second-guess his decision.

ORIGINAL: Blabsawaw22
Your lack of belief in innovation, Modernization, and just the Matrix team to be able to handle incorporating Standard Network Protocol into a 2D game, is Perplexing to say the least. (assuming DW2 is still 2D.)

Network protocols is only the beginning of implementing multi-player in a game like DW. It's like hammering a nail into a board and saying, "That was simple. It's a doddle to build a house!". I strongly suggest that you have a read of some game design books. Amazon has several good ones available. Suffice to say that you are vastly over-simplifying the subject.

ORIGINAL: Blabsawaw22
On the note of why I don't crowdfund myself since It's sooo "simple" :

Did it ever once occur to you to that I have other elements in my life that I attend to? I purely and simply enjoy playing games that others make..

And yet you feel that you know better than professionals, how they should do their job? Have a little respect for Erik and the Matrix crowd. They didn't get to where they are (entirely) through luck. They have survived in the industry because they know what they're doing, and have surely considered the options where crowd-funding is concerned.

ORIGINAL: Blabsawaw22

I'll leave the "simple" crowdfunding account they setup in 2 clicks, to Matrix.

Do you really believe that's all there is to crowd-funding? You might as well describe Mario Andretti as just "some guy who turned a steering wheel". There is far more to it than just two clicks.

Honestly, I'm curious - do you really think it's that simple?

ORIGINAL: Blabsawaw22
On the Basis that Distant Worlds 2 would somehow be ruined, because of multiplayer, is a repulsive, abominable phantasm and illusion of your limited, conservative doctrine about Variety, Trust, and Entertainment in the Gaming Community.

I have no idea what sort of budget DW2 has allotted, but MP would be a resource draining distraction unless it's substantially larger than I suspect. I would much rather see a smaller, tighter, well done game - and one that's cobbled together from the sticky notes of the sales reps who follow reddit posts for what they think is "hot" in gaming.

[Blabsawaw22]

Kayoz,

I see talking with you is as useful as a Screen door on a Submarine.. ha

[Kayoz]

ORIGINAL: Blabsawaw22
I see talking with you is as useful as a Screen door on a Submarine.. ha

Since you like analogies - I'll stick with the tried and true "chocolate kettle" for the usefulness of discussions with you.

Funnily enough, I find discussion with you reminds me of chats I've had with religious fanatics. You assert everything while offering nothing for evidence. Any unknown, you see as strengthening your position, rather than stopping to think that it might be a little more complicated than you first surmised.

But it seems you're intent on trying to start a flame war. So, I'll just remind you to eat your veggies and when you grow up, it won't seem so bad.

[Retreat1970]

You assert everything while offering nothing for evidence.

I think both sides of the MP debate does this as well. If there's MP, great. If not, great. I'll still buy it either way.

[Blabsawaw22]

yes, Like I said, useless..

I've given evidence that crowdfunding works in 2015 and could allow the "resources" matrix needs to incorporate standard Multiplayer protocols that have been around for more than 15 years.

In no way is this somehow related to discussions you've had with religious fanatics, as you say, they don't give you Evidence, but I have.

Yeah, don't forget to Eat Breakfast, Stay Hydrated, and take Ginseng every morning there too buddy.

[Icemania]

Blabsawaw22 & Kayoz:

I'd suggest that this conversation isn't going to lead to anything productive and so might be worth calling it a day. If you continue please keep in mind the thread is being monitored for compliance with the forum rules.

Cheers,
Ice

[HerpInYourDerp]

The way the game currently works in terms of game mechanics means it's impossible for there to be a viable multiplayer solution. It's got nothing to do with just writing a bit of netcode.
For example, so much of the game occurs in real-time, but nearly all the strategy elements like research, diplomacy, expansion, etc. are completely or almost completely dependent on a UI that's effectively built for a turn-based/play-by-mail system.

[Retreat1970]

ORIGINAL: HerpInYourDerp

The way the game currently works in terms of game mechanics means it's impossible for there to be a viable multiplayer solution. It's got nothing to do with just writing a bit of netcode.
For example, so much of the game occurs in real-time, but nearly all the strategy elements like research, diplomacy, expansion, etc. are completely or almost completely dependent on a UI that's effectively built for a turn-based/play-by-mail system.

You are correct, but there are ways around that. For example the game could be run at a set speed (x2, x4, or whatever), but when a window is open by someone it drops to a set speed (x.5, 0).

The best games though will have some automation set for all players so the game doesn't crawl along. Auto ship design isn't that bad with the right mod.

Anything above a 700 star system would take too long, unless everyone starts at a high tech and older system. As far as balance... forget it. If I want to play a MP as Atuuk, it's my own fault.

So with a little give and take, some sacrifices, and playing outside your comfort zone, it could work. I would love, absolutely love to co-op with someone, but that's just me dreaming.

I'm not very smart when it comes to computers or designing, so I don't know what's possible. It's just a feature I would like.

[HerpInYourDerp]

Things like forced automation of certain areas would be required in this instance, yes, but that's very much a textbook band-aid fix, especially given the limitations of the AI in many places.

Changing gamespeed would be a serious issue for any multiplayer game though; not only would it be really annoying in normal use seeing as how often you're required to access a window to do anything, but is also very abusable in any notion of a competitive MP format. There's a reason almost every single game in existence with a multiplayer component either doesn't allow for players to pause/alter gamespeed in an active session or only allows this as a server admin command.

[Retreat1970]

Maybe DW2 is already here...

http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 28a0aa964e

and...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8XBx1jtvQI

Matrix/slitherine/code force worked on DW together so...

[Icemania]

Polaris Sector has a different developer. For anyone interested the developer is active over at the eXplorminate forums (Ufnv is his handle) and it's certainly a game to keep a close eye on.

eXplorminate Forums: Polaris Sector Thread

[Retreat1970]

Thanks for the link Ice. I will keep an eye on it.

[Ranbir]

Polaris looks okay but...rather gamey. I'll still get it ofc.

[echo2361]

I'm actually enjoying my testing time with PS quite a bit. Feels like an interesting mix of traditional 4x game elements with some DW added in given its real-time nature. Probably best to save such a discussion for a different thread/forum so as not to derail the discussions about DW2.

[Cepheiden]

I find that the most important issue with the gameplay in DWU hasn't been mentioned yet: population growth.

Everything is extremely easy with high population growth. Higher populations, higher income, more research, more ships and more everything.
Playing the insect races is easy mode. On the other hand, you will often find yourself in the red with slow growing races. The only racial bonus that matters is growth. What good is a 50% or so research bonus if due to lack of population the base value is barely half of what other races grow to be in within a few hours of gameplay? Even if you focus your research mostly on the economy and growth rates, you just get a multiplier to an already puny base value.

I personally modded the growth rates of each race to be within +-3% of an average value. As a result I get on average more large AI factions and consequently a much more interesting game. However, this is not a very sophisticated solution and it destroys some flavour.

What would need to be done here is to assess the actual economical value of 1 more individual. The insects might breed fast and follow orders well, however is that really enough to beat the creativity of other races where it should be quality over quantity? At the moment 1 insectoid is just as valuable as one brainy humanoid.



Another issue are the various difficulty settings in the game. Normal difficulty is rather simple after grasping the game mechanics, unless playing one of the low growth races. However it is just ridiculous that higher difficulty just means to decrease a few numbers only for the player. Why not give some bonus to the AI opponents who have trouble growing anyway? Why nerf something if you could just buff something else and the player won't feel like he just got robbed.
It's especially no good to nerf something to a point where it's almost unplayable (i.e. always being in the red and ships not hitting anything anymore).

[Retreat1970]

Everything is extremely easy with high population growth.

Yep. I'm 21 years into an extreme game as Atuuk, and I feel like I've already won. +500k cash, 150+ ships, buying every research. Now comes the tedious process to victory. The AI doesn't manage pop growth well at all.

[Cepheiden]

ORIGINAL: Retreat1970

Everything is extremely easy with high population growth.

Yep. I'm 21 years into an extreme game as Atuuk, and I feel like I've already won. +500k cash, 150+ ships, buying every research. Now comes the tedious process to victory. The AI doesn't manage pop growth well at all.

Glad someone agrees. That really needs to be reworked. Difficulty settings don't help that at all, they only bum the player out with constantly being broke and ships that miss all the time.


Another suggestion: more varied ship classes with more of an actual influence on the finished product, somewhat like the carrier option that is already in.
In that case ship classes would determine:
-maintenance cost (for example escorts can get -x% and large battleships can get +x% maintenance cost)
-min and max size (research unlocks ship min size and next level will unlock max size / new ship type)
-performance (for example frigates getting +x% movement speed and destroyers get +x% fire rate / damage)
-allowed components (i.e. carrier needs fighter bays, capital ships need capital sized weapons etc.) (that of course would require to have components in various sizes i.e. small lasers, large lasers, capital lasers etc.)

That way the player would have to think twice which ship to build instead of just building the largest possible ship.
Need cheap defense? Build escorts.
Need fast pirate hunters? Build frigates.
Need to destroy strong ships? Destroyers.
Need to send ships on a long lasting mission far away? Cruisers.
Need a ship that is heavily armored and armed against strong bases? Battleships.
Need a ship that can destroy planets? Capital ships.