The Galaxy Map

currently news is that you choose the number of planets with no upper, or lower bound (except 2 for beginning planets, I believe)
aside from that we dont know much more. and the planet # system may/may not be removed.

There will be plenty of customization of the galaxy. We haven't finalized all the options but the number of planets or galaxy size is almost guaranteed.

I personally like the idea of these
1 ) shape (strategic differences between maps, especially phasespace travel)
2 ) # of planets (duh)
3 ) # of planets / galaxy
4 ) space between planets
5 ) speed of rotation of planets around a galaxy (if this is even included at all... although it would be pretty sweet. in real life it would take way too long... but still) and if it actually is, just remember to make the internal planets go faster   

He he he, pretty demanding... I'll settle for 1-3.  

No. 5 could also damage gameplay since the galaxy would be ever changing. Imagine trying to build a homogenous empire than each star in it drifts with it's own speed...

I don't know how the game works and if when you start a game you can already see how many planets there are in all systems... But if you actually have to discover them first, then I'd only want to be able to set the total number of planets and have the game randomly share them to all the systems. That way you don't start a given game knowing "okay, 5 planets in every system, I need to explore this one until I discover all 5 of them".

maybe our next wallpaper or febuary screenshot would be of the galaxy map?
...cough...yarlen...cough...

Check out the March issue of Games for Windows magazine.

Check out the March issue of Games for Windows magazine.

yeah would love to, but we dont that magazine, in the realm of denmark

Yarlen January 31, 2007 10:35:55 Reply #7 Check out the March issue of Games for Windows magazine.

DEATH STARE !!!!!

That way you don't start a given game knowing "okay, 5 planets in every system, I need to explore this one until I discover all 5 of them".

of course it would be an average,
and second of all: it doesnt work that way...

additionally the homogenity between galaxies would be nice to adjust.

Well I was simply responding to your post that wanted to adjust the number of planets per galaxy on top of the number of total planets. I just think one or the other option is void for the reasons I posted.

What doesn't work which way and feel free to enlighten me about that though.

you dont "discover" planets. that cannot possibly make sense in a nodule system.

So, when you start a sins game you can instantly zoom the camera around and know the position of everything that could be of interest to you, including planets and enemies? I really don't know, the only refference I have to games like this is Gal Civ II and I believe in that one you had to first find the planets... Maybe I remember wrong, I only played it @ a friend's place.

What do you mean a nodule system, how does that make it impossible to have the element of discovery?

planets yes, enemy no.

a nodule system is where you have discrete sections. in this case planets, the planets are not joined by a transversable space. they are distinct units. discovery elements doesnt work in such a disjointed nodule system. the results are usually clunky gameplay. for instance how would you tell where a galaxy is? how close would you have to be? same things go for stars and planets.
I'm just making the assumption here that Ironclad made the obviously better choice.

I don't think either choice is "obviously better", only leads to very different game pacing and style. Obviously space is massive so you could get lost but I'm sure if they wanted they could come up with ways to keep you in the right direction without simply giving everything away from the start... Anyway... Anybody got the magazines that previewed the game? Please share some info...

I'm sure if they wanted they could come up with ways to keep you in the right direction without simply giving everything away from the start...

if you have any suggestions I'd by glad to hear them. but as far as I see it cannot work this way.
the reason this would differ from standard ground-based RTSs in this aspect is that you have physical blockages to your vision on a spherical planet. its not the same with space, you can tell where all the formations and (with precise enough technology) all the planets, you just aren't going to be fully aware of the aspects of the planet, fortification, enemy presence, planet condition etc.
so as far as I see better game play + better realism = better choice

I think you say that it "can't work" because you have a certain view in your mind of how the game plays. Seeing as we don't have that much actual info about that, I said those things in my responses covering the case I mentioned.

If I had to make a suggestion for a game I barely know anything about yet, then I would say that, since you mentioned technology, space awareness of the players could be limited by technology levels. Players could see the overal structure of the galaxy when zoomed out (so that they don't take their fleets out of the bounds and into empty space), but not a detailed view when zoomed in (planets not discovered would not be rendered). That would force them to actively search for the planets using passive technology such as radars and telescopes alongside active technology such as scouting drones.

If I had to make a suggestion for a game I barely know anything about yet, then I would say that, since you mentioned technology, space awareness of the players could be limited by technology levels. Players could see the overal structure of the galaxy when zoomed out (so that they don't take their fleets out of the bounds and into empty space), but not a detailed view when zoomed in (planets not discovered would not be rendered). That would force them to actively search for the planets using passive technology such as radars and telescopes alongside active technology such as scouting drones.

that would be awesome!

I think that it is reasonable to assume that you know the locations of all the planets in a system that you have a presence in. I mean really, how hard is a planet to find? They're big, round, and reflect sunlight. Earthbound astronomers found this solar system's planets by just looking up and noticing that some of the "stars" moved from night to night.

Now, whether or not you know the location of the planets in solar systems that you haven't been to is another issue. Maybe you DO know every planet's location from the get-go but maybe not. Maybe you have to actually visit the solar system (or scan it somehow) before you can see its planets.

It was just an example answering ninja's question, I didn't say that's how it should be or that's how I want it to be or even that it's the most realistic game design... Maybe it could be incorporated in my Battlestar Galactica modification idea I wrote in another thread since it would make more sense story wise as well.

Players could see the overal structure of the galaxy when zoomed out (so that they don't take their fleets out of the bounds and into empty space), but not a detailed view when zoomed in (planets not discovered would not be rendered). That would force them to actively search for the planets using passive technology such as radars and telescopes alongside active technology such as scouting drones.

that is exactly what I was pointing out...

how hard is a planet to find? They're big, round, and reflect sunlight

with our current technology? near impossible
but several thousand years in the future I'm sure they'll have a way.

Now, whether or not you know the location of the planets in solar systems that you haven't been to is another issue. Maybe you DO know every planet's location from the get-go but maybe not.

then where would you send things to? how do you initiate scanning?
its all overcomplication of a much simpler gameplay, and it doesnt do much in terms of advancing strategy, its just creating a new phase in the game known as "stumbling around in the dark"

That's subjective (hey, one person liked the concept already), all you asked from me was to give a suggestion about how it could be possible to start without knowing the location/number of planets in a given system, and I gave a valid example. As for how you would start scanning, well, even if I answer that you'll once again ask for more things ending up in me having to come up with a whole game's concept... Sorry I don't have time for that unless you want to fund a project?

I'm just pointing out that this makes things over complicated and would only deteriorate the current (theoretical) setup of SoaSE.

Look. All I initially said was that IF the planets have to be discovered, then you shouldn't be able to pick exactly how many planets per galaxy you want as was your suggestion.

After that I was merely stating that planet discovery elements, regardless of what you think, are a viable possibility which is what made me write the statement as seen above. Obviously if they had done it like this, then they would have found a way to make it an interesting part of the game and the whole game would have been designed in a way that supported such a feature.

The point is, I did not know, and still do not know how the game really is. My ideas were only replies to your own questions since you felt the need to confront me about my initial hypothetical statement. I never said they are ideas I want to see in the game or ideas I hope they will include after seeing them here. I'm sure whatever decisions they have made will result in a grand game.

your acting like this is an escalation.
I'm just making input. putting this in the game would be incredibally hard to integrate, I'm hoping Ironclad wouldnt try that stunt.