Well, hard is not impossible, therefor I saw it as a possibility, therefor .... see my last reply.

but hard is a waste of time when little is gained. that attention can be put to better things, like a better UI.

Yes I'm sure SoaSE was a very easy game to develop and they skipped all the potential hard parts to make a better UI while the game's design sticked to the safe and expected, because apparently the UI's designers would take all the work load of experimenting with a certain different gameplay feature therefor they wouldn't have so much time to spend on the UI

...Seriously now, it's all about what kind of game they wanted to make when they started this, not how hard they thought it was to make... If it was their original concept then I'm sure come beta day you would see it working wonderfully, regardless of how hard it was to get it done. I'm sure developers like Ironclad and Stardock have a bit more in their hearts and minds when they create games and do it out of love and do it because they want it, not just because they see if they can please people they will get money (though that's needed too of course).

And no, the above does not mean I think that was their concept and we will see it like this in the beta... Just to avoid confusion

Edit: I just noticed that the FAQ page mentions "Galaxy Exploration" as one of the elements borrowed from 4X games. Of course, in what way they mean that, I have no idea as, once again, we don't know that much about the gameplay just yet.

then where would you send things to? how do you initiate scanning?

Typically they can be found orbiting around stars. Ya know, those bright points of light up in the sky. And if you try to tell me that stars are hard to find then I'm going to somehow figure out a way to reach through the internet and smack you.

They could (maybe) take the Ascendancy model where you can see all the stars from the beginning but can't see the planets orbiting around them until you have visited that system. Once you have sent a ship to that system then you can see all of that system's planets. In that game each system was going to have between 1 and 5 planets and there were a variety of planet sizes and types. From what I have seen, Sins will have a lot more planets than that but the same basic exploration model would work nicely. You start on one planet in one system, can see all the neighboring planets, then you send out a scout to the nearest other star and then you can see it's planets too.

This model requires exploration but doesn't require that you shoot ships to all random parts of the map. Only to the stars which you can't not see even if you wanted to.

Of course they could have gone with something completely different and better. Guess we'll just have to wait a few more weeks to find out

They could (maybe) take the Ascendancy model where you can see all the stars from the beginning but can't see the planets orbiting around them until you have visited that system. Once you have sent a ship to that system then you can see all of that system's planets. In that game each system was going to have between 1 and 5 planets and there were a variety of planet sizes and types. From what I have seen, Sins will have a lot more planets than that but the same basic exploration model would work nicely. You start on one planet in one system, can see all the neighboring planets, then you send out a scout to the nearest other star and then you can see it's planets too.

That would rock!

Yes I'm sure SoaSE was a very easy game to develop and they skipped all the potential hard parts to make a better UI while the game's design sticked to the safe and expected, because apparently the UI's designers would take all the work load of experimenting with a certain different gameplay feature therefor they wouldn't have so much time to spend on the UI

fog of war is definately not novel. its nothing new, its overdone and it doesnt fit.
worst of all it would be difficult to integrate into the gameplay. I'm just pointing this out.

And if you try to tell me that stars are hard to find then I'm going to somehow figure out a way to reach through the internet and smack you.

I should reach through your screen and smack you now...
stars (excluding remarkably close ones) are INCREDIBALLY difficult to find...
at least with our current tech.

They could (maybe) take the Ascendancy model where you can see all the stars from the beginning but can't see the planets orbiting around them until you have visited that system. Once you have sent a ship to that system then you can see all of that system's planets. In that game each system was going to have between 1 and 5 planets and there were a variety of planet sizes and types. From what I have seen, Sins will have a lot more planets than that but the same basic exploration model would work nicely. You start on one planet in one system, can see all the neighboring planets, then you send out a scout to the nearest other star and then you can see it's planets too.

that would work fine by me. its just that I really hate full blown Fog of war, its so un-novel, and irritating. and at the very least there should be a game mode completely eliminating any fog of war.

Calling that concept fog of war is just another way to put it down just because you don't like it... You certainly did not expect it to be this way, so it's at least unexpected, unlike your wishes, since you always assumed that's how it would be. Note I never said it's better, you are the one who keeps trying to point out what you personall prefer is better for this or that reason.

It's just a different gameplay mechanic that enables different possibilities. Note it was also a simple example. Other games have line of sight where you can only see what's visible by your units, and in some (Say, Warhammer: Dark Omen) it works great. Were you in their forums calling it Fog of War too?

Anyway, that new idea presented by Wedge is another example as an answer to your initial request for suggestions about how it could be done. You even like this one, which shows that @ first you dismissed a whole concept that can be realised in many, many many different ways for no reason and asked the forum members to become game designers, and on top of that game designers with ideas you personally enjoy, if they want to show that it's viable.

All I know is that there is no FOG is space

All I know is that there is no FOG is space

Thank you for clearing that one up...I forgot to check the forecast, No fog means I wont be slamming into an asteroid tonight.

Are you serious? Darn, I just wasted a whole bunch of money outfitting my frigates with fog lights then...

Are you serious? Darn, I just wasted a whole bunch of money outfitting my frigates with fog lights then...

get a refund and maybe put a mr fusion in there , that way you don't have to worry about anti-matter to power your ships

Note it was also a simple example. Other games have line of sight where you can only see what's visible by your units, and in some (Say, Warhammer: Dark Omen) it works great. Were you in their forums calling it Fog of War too?

that IS fog of war, and while it may work in some games I'm pointing out that it probably wont work well here
now let me clarify that I'm talking on the map scale, not the planet scale. the planet may/may not have sensors that are fog of war type.

It's just a different gameplay mechanic that enables different possibilities

like what?

You even like this one, which shows that @ first you dismissed a whole concept that can be realised in many, many many different ways for no reason and asked the forum members to become game designers

I'm dismissing the whole "find each and every everything" concept, that idea sucks.

I'm advocating something like from rise of nations: you can ALWAYS see the terrain, but you dont know whats there. that idea fits much better into a nodulated style than would, say, stumbling around in the dark.
of which, I shall point out, only creates confusion, not depth to gameplay (there is no element of gameplay in not knowing anything about where your going)

"I'm advocating something like from rise of nations: you can ALWAYS see the terrain, but you dont know whats there."

That's pretty much what "line of sight" did in games it was used, and yet you call that fog of war, again without thinking and just because you thought you didn't like it.

"it probably wont work well here now let me clarify that I'm talking on the map scale, not the planet scale."

I was making a point, not a suggestion/idea for Sins. Taking everything out of context are we?

"like what"

Space exploration aspects to the game. Some people liked the sound of it. You don't, that's fine with me.


"I'm dismissing the whole "find each and every everything" concept, that idea sucks."

No, you were dismissing the whole concept of not knowing the number of planets of all the star systems in the whole playing area right off the bat (hell I was simply saying I don't know which way they did it, knowing their number or not, and you started this discussion). Therefor you asked for examples of how it could work without knowing all that by default. You hated my example (some liked the sound of it, so saying "it sucks" is a stupid attempt to prove it's bad), but then you read another example, by Wedge, and found it a viable option therefor you were simply proven wrong in your initial and furious dislike of the whole concept.

Anything else you try to say to turn the focus of the discussion back to one of the simple EXAMPLES presented and which you apparently hate, instead of the actual point of the discussion, is irrelevant and I'll leave you to it if you keep trying...

Either way, picking the number of planets per galaxy is void if you can pick the number of total planets whether you can see them @ the start of the game or not. What would you do? Pick total planets 200 but planets per galaxy 150? Just let the game randomise the latter for a varied universe while you only chose the total number... Simple.

I was making a point, not a suggestion/idea for Sins. Taking everything out of context are we?

then your in the wrong place

That's pretty much what "line of sight" did in games it was used, and yet you call that fog of war, again without thinking and just because you thought you didn't like it.

it technically is fog of war, but not just the full blown type.

your initial and furious dislike of the whole concept.

dont read emotion in where it doesnt exist. that breeds flame arguements

Pick total planets 200 but planets per galaxy 150? Just let the game randomise the latter for a varied universe while you only chose the total number... Simple.

I dont see why it shouldnt be put in? of course you have the option not to use it.

No, you were dismissing the whole concept of not knowing the number of planets of all the star systems in the whole playing area right off the bat

because of course you must know what I was dismissing.

"then your in the wrong place"
I'm not in the wrong place, you simply were what turned the discussion into something off topic, then when I followed, you tried to make it as if I was suggesting things I want to see in Sins or think are already in Sins when I was simply responding to your very own requests for explanations or examples and nothing more.

"dont read emotion in where it doesnt exist. that breeds flame arguements"
Putting your personal likes and dislikes as something factual that simply cannot be questioned in any way shows emotion among other things like arrogance. You did resort to using terms like "it sucks" in the end, another thing which doesn't show objective and rational criticism.

"I dont see why it shouldnt be put in? of course you have the option not to use it."
Because it's simply an un needed option and I'm stating my opinion by saying it. They can put it in, I don't care, I just think it's not needed. If you have 3 galaxies and chose 5 planets per galaxy, then that means the total number MUST be 15, even if you had chosen the total number to be 20. Get it yet? One or the other works, both together are not fully functional.

"because of course you must know what I was dismissing."
Yes, I can follow a discussion, something you seem to not be able and do very well. You showed a dislike to the concept BEFORE specific examples were given by anyone, hell it was the very reason you asked for specific examples as "proof" that it is viable to not know all the planets, even though I didn't even advocate such a concept @ that point and was only presenting the fact I did not know which way Ironclad have chosen.

To remind you, it went something like this:
-Ninja: I want to see these options.
-Me: Do you know all planets by default? If not, then Ninja's option #3 should not be included.
-Ninja: No way. Go ahead and become a game designer and tell me exactly how it can be done to prove that it might be possible to not know all the planets.
-Me: Uh, okay... It could be done in this way maybe.
-Lordkosc: That would be awesome!
-Ninja: I dislike this way therefor you have not yet proven it's possible, as your mere examples should meet my preferences to be considered valid.
-Wedge: Here's a different example, it could be like in that other game, sort of.
-Ninja: That could work.
-Me: Finally, you understand that it could work in some way, and perhaps see why I made my first 100% hypothetical statement with a big fat IF at the start.

End of story as far as I'm concerned.

If you have 3 galaxies and chose 5 planets per galaxy, then that means the total number MUST be 15, even if you had chosen the total number to be 20. Get it yet? One or the other works, both together are not fully functional.

didnt notice that I didnt say "galaxy number" didja...

To remind you, it went something like this: -Ninja: I want to see these options. -Me: Do you know all planets by default? If not, then Ninja's option #3 should not be included. -Ninja: No way. Go ahead and become a game designer and tell me exactly how it can be done to prove that it might be possible to not know all the planets. -Me: Uh, okay... It could be done in this way maybe. -Lordkosc: That would be awesome! -Ninja: I dislike this way therefor you have not yet proven it's possible, as your mere examples should meet my preferences to be considered valid. -Wedge: Here's a different example, it could be like in that other game, sort of. -Ninja: That could work. -Me: Finally, you understand that it could work in some way, and perhaps see why I made my first 100% hypothetical statement with a big fat IF at the front.

and this is just massively arrogant

I'm pointing out that this game caters to gamestyle, therefore its going to require heavy options. just because there is or is not fog of war (of which I still oppose) there needs to remain options

Id like to see,

galaxy scale setting : 50%-200% , distance between systems being scaled up or down
system scale setting : 50%-200% , distance between planets and sun being scaled up or down.

Lets say you fancy a 1 solar system game with 20 planets. You might want to put the system scale setting to 200% , so things arent too near each other and you have a decent enough sized map sinc you have no inter-solar system travel only inter-planetary. Some might want it down to 50% for a tiny game, up to whoever.

"didnt notice that I didnt say "galaxy number" didja..."
We still have no idea what can or can't be adjusted. I'm just opposing the idea of something so closely calculated that makes each area sort of even, one way or another. It's probably better to have options like in GalCivII which doesn't give exact numbers but various scaling options instead. That should make each given playing field diverse enough with the game handling most of the choices other than overall size. Options are good, but not to that much extent. They might as well let you draw your universe by putting dots as planets, their color indicating which galaxy they belong in? Heh...

"and this is just massively arrogant"
Not at all. I did not say any of my ideas or opinions are better or anything similar (you tried to do that at times though). How is it arrogant? It's a simplification of the discussion's course in case you manage and see where you went wrong with it, since you seemed to have gotten a bit lost about what was being discussed, or why it was being discussed, in your last few replies.

To reinforce the above, you actually told me I'm "in the wrong forum" when I explained that I'm not making suggestions for the game, even though it was clear that I've only been responding to your request for an example of a system without all the planets visible right off the bat.

"(of which I still oppose)"
Feel free to oppose a feature nobody other than yourself mentioned. Moreover, feel free to have any kind of opposition at all, even though nobody (again other than you) said it should or shouldn't be one way or another, only provided examples after being asked to do so by you.