Galaxy In Flames

Talk about anything and everything related or unrelated to the FreeOrion project, especially Strategy Games.
User avatar
Space Floater
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2010 5:50 am

Re: Galaxy In Flames

#16 Post by namehere » Fri Jul 02, 2010 5:23 am

i read some more about that and it seems i was completely wrong, sorry for the misinformation :(
well it looks like the infinity team is already making your game thundax, and i was right about it taking years, its still being made now, but this doesnt have human character gameplay, you can expect to see me playing that game, we may even become friends in it :P

Space Krill
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2010 10:35 pm

Re: Galaxy In Flames

#17 Post by Thundax » Fri Jul 02, 2010 12:34 pm

it's cool man...

Just be careful what you post and be a bit more open about things other people say and try not to read your own assumptions into things. It can be hard for all of us.

At least you can admit it, and that puts you one up above most.

I haven't modeled any hand held guns. I've modeled ships weapons only thus far. Some tanks have also been modeled.

I'm not going to lie, the game will be huge. Actually it will be gargantuan. It will take a very long time, but, it will be worth it. Also the ships moving in true 3D will be easy. Look at some of the code for movement and object location tracking in Homeworld, it's fairly simple.

And yes, true total random is impossible. Think of Diablo, each time you start a new game, each level or area is completely different with the exception of certain static designed areas. The maps are generated based on a set of rules. My game would work in a similar manner. It would mimic real life. Stars would be generated on a galactic plane or in a galactic cluster zone. The cluster would be more irregular or golobular with great z variance. Spirals would be more planar and the plane would have only slight z axis variance compared to cluster galaxies. The random generated stars would all have an orbital plane which planets would be locked into with increasing deviation with increasing distance from the star. Planets would have completely random orbital plane/polar orientation. However, thier other values would be based on the star. Simple equations and rules could be developed to directly correlate the values of orbital speed, orbital incidence, rotational speed, orbital ellipticallity or aphelion value to the size, rotational speed, mass, and galactic position of the star. The mass and solar distance of the planet would also have an effect on these values.

There are actually numerous equations already developed by astro-physicists which already directly or inversely correlate these values. I can simplify them and use them for the random generation aspect. Black holes and all the other spatial anomalies will follow similar rules based on thier nature. Black holes will tend to be located centrally in golobular, elliptical, and spiral galaxies. Massive ones may even function as a galactic core in many cases. Smaller black holes may roam areas near the parts of the galaxy where there are older stars. The same goes for nuetron stars.

Quasars will be reachable only towards the maximum level of development and if they are near the galaxy. Small clusters and galaxies may be near your own as well, but also not reachable until the maximum tech level has been reached. They will be randomly generated on a massively reduced scale with many fewer stars, but, each will contain something truly special which can't be found in your own galaxy, maybe a temporal distortion, white hole, dark matter bloom, or super massive nuetron star. Who ever reaches these first could develop a special tech and gain a decent edge.

The whole purpose of this is prevent stagnation and stalemate in large galaxies with a small number of players. This happened alot in Pax:Imperia. In large 100 star galaxies players would gain a relatively close and large number of resources and planets early on before even making contact. They would already be developed well and at the point of stalemate by the time of contact and the result was a game that featured battles where no one could gain any real edge and a very long game of repetative fights. I want to prevent this by doing a few things. First, having much more massive, not so linear, and more race specific tech trees. Second, creating unique entities which grant thier finder special techs after they learn to harness them. Third, completely race specific special techs which are powerful, yet balanced. Fourth, allowing planetary battles where the player has control, and placement of structures for defense, number and organization of attacking forces, strategy, and tactics are critical. Fifth, placing more of an emphasis on economy, diplomacy, espionage, and non-military game aspects. Finally, allowing the player a great deal of creativity in, and control over, ship design
and ground unit design.

The other aspects mixed with those will make for what I believe will be a very engaging and addictive game. The other modes of play which I haven't mention ed will also help it appeal to a wider player base. The player can choose to just design ships and/or ground units and just fight one space/planetary battle, like a skirmish in most current top down RTS games. He/she can choose to fight for only a single solar system with a large number of planets which will lead to a faster game but with a significant tech restriction. Finally, He/she can choose to pilot a ship in an AI fleet battle.

There also game modifiers/mutators which the player or host of a multiplayer game can choose to alter the gameplay slightly, some are for speed, some for power, and some for laughs. The game has two main methods of player control in empire mode or solar domination mode. These are the universe view and the war room. The universe view is just that, a view of the universe where the player can zoom and focus on any object freely. The UV also has a transparent/translucent menu which allows the player to perform various tasks, issue commands, view data, and control various empire aspects. The war room and the UV have access to many of the same areas but display thier data and allow the user to control these things in different ways. The universe view could be compared to Homeworld mixed with your own Free Orion. The war room would be compared to Pax:Imperia or Reunion.

Anyways, I'm going on a bit. It's all written out and outlined in a few documents on my comp.

Some of the tech is sweet and I've already made some wicked effects in blender.

Human Tech Example.

Phase Collapsar Gun (The PCG gathers particles of matter and fuses them together into a semi-singularity. The resulting particle has intense gravity and is contained by a field until it contacts the target. The weapon then fires the particle in a ion beam that allows it to penetrate into the target ship. The result is that small, spherical sections of ship "collapse" into the massive gravity well caused by the particle.)

I have an effect image for it somewhere on an untextured human carrier against a background similar to what you could expect in game.

Space Krill
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2015 4:34 pm

Re: Galaxy In Flames

#18 Post by asdfj » Fri Jan 30, 2015 5:02 pm

*cracks knuckles*

Like it or not, you did come "with your chest all puffed out." You did not claim this would be a better game. However, you did claim:

1. This game will be a mixture of everything.

2. It "will be the standard all 4x games are measured by."

3. The core design principles will be: [a list that doesn't even include interesting mechanics]

4. "There are actually numerous equations already developed by astro-physicists...", AKA you are literally trying to base the game's balance around real life.

5. "You don't have any idea about what I have outlined for the game and all of the various ideas that I would like to try and implement. So...You are the arrogant one." Well, if your only claims are that it is a mixture of everything but better, it's quite reasonable for him to say that you're too focused on size.

I knew a guy who wanted to make Pokemon exactly the same, but with gem leaders of gem leaders, so altogether the game is 64x as long. When I asked him how he intended to make different content for each region, he said he could switch the body parts of pokemon, i.e. have a squirtle with a pikachu tail. He had copyright permissions, and people in high-up places that were helping him along.

He was a little insane. But it wasn't like I was going to be able to do anything about it, and same as with you, I didn't know if he is actually really good at programming or something, so I didn't want to totally denounce every part of the project.

No one is mad at you because you're not really hurting them, you're potentially hurting yourself. This is the internet, and people can just walk away from that.

Free-lance programmers and/or game designers are kind of scary to other programmers in that sense. Everyone who actually cares about programming enough to be useful for free cares about programming enough to make their own thing, so we can be constantly trying to "assimilate" each other.

Basically, you can't try to make a rework of something made by a corporation, with only better balance and the like. The corporations will eat you alive. It would be like facing a Panzer with a Magnum: you stand no chance. Instead, you find some metaphorical C4 (representing a cool, unique idea) and try to strap it on the belly of that tank. Who knows, maybe you'll hit the fuel tank.

Again, this is the internet. I have no idea who you are, what your situation is, or whatever. In fact, I'm not going to do anything with this account, I won't be responding and you won't be able to track me down. You can reply to this post, or you can refuse to read it, it's your choice. But either way, you should know that the pessimist "namehere" was not alone; the internet is just skewed to make it seem like that.

Post Reply