what type of game are we creating...

For what's not in 'Top Priority Game Design'. Post your ideas, visions, suggestions for the game, rules, modifications, etc.

Moderator: Oberlus

Message
Author
luckless666
Pupating Mass
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2003 3:16 am
Location: West Sussex, United Kingdom

#16 Post by luckless666 »

xardas wrote:Depends on what you define under secondary objectives.
In fact as a strategy game freeorion shouldnot put stress on military action, but military strategy.
Therefore I would not missed Diplomacy, it is so essential.
What I want to say is that with economic and military focus nearlay all other areas are included.

Military without research and produce the best weapons first, is no longer strategic.
For tactical military strategies you need also diplomatic and spying.
I agrre with this. Military conquest should certainly NOT be the entire focus of the game, and if you read through this thread, almost everyone is in agreement that it SHOULD be there, but not as a focal point. I would like to see some good strategic choices.
Chris Walker
| c.walker (at) mgt.hull.ac.uk |

WorldForge.org

Sandlapper
Dyson Forest
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2003 11:50 pm
Location: South Carolina, USA

#17 Post by Sandlapper »

Personally, I would like a focus on exploration, military strategy, and empire logistics. I would consider diplomacy, spying, and internal politics as secondary items to focus on; still important, but secondary nonetheless.

I always enjoyed the exploration process, finding Artifacts worlds and Rich worlds, back in Moo1. Once you knew which direction you needed to go, either defensive and hang on to what you got initially, offensively to take what you want, or tech propulsion to reach what you want. This illustrates the core appeal of Moo1, explore, race to get the good stuff, then fight to get/keep the good stuff, and finally, try to be the one with the most good stuff and winner of the game. Moo2,Moo3, and FO are merely attempts to improve Moo1, or improve attempts to improve Moo1.

I think our FOCUS should be the same focus that Moo1 had. We just need to make FO a better improvement than Moo2 and Moo3. I hope no one minds me stating the obvious. Obviously there was a lot that was "right" about Moo1, or else there wouldn't be attempts to tweak it.

We don't need to completely reinvent the wheel here; reach a consensous on what was right and wrong about Moo1. Then reach a consensous on what Moo2 and Moo3 did right, and fix what they did wrong. And finally add to FO what was left out of all three Moo's. Once we have a list of "rights", corrected "wrongs", and wanted additions;THEN PRIORITIZE.

THIS is where we decide what kind of game we want, by prioritizing this list from top to bottom. This will be the DIFFICULT part. Reaching a consensous on the order of this list. I guess we could post the final wish list in a form of a poll, the highest vote recipients would be our focus.

And finally, I would add that I think the IDEAL FO (NOT likely to be version 1.0) would be a game with an AI sufficient to allow a young child to be able to play AND enjoy FO, but also allow anyone to micro any part of the game they wanted. At game beginning, have an option of A) Let AI prompt me every turn B) Let me decide some decisions (with a sub menu for a level thereof) C) Let me manage everything.

The AI prompt version would manage all building, research, etc., it would merely prompt for which planet, what type of ship, what type of research, do we declare war?, etc.; additionally it would provide recommendations
and multible choices. Remember, this is primarily for child's play literally.

The second option would allow things like colonization, diplomacy, spying, etc. to be handled by the AI, but all other aspects be decided by the player. A simple checklist of items you want the AI to handle.

Third option is a typical game, where all decisions are made by the player.

luckless666
Pupating Mass
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2003 3:16 am
Location: West Sussex, United Kingdom

#18 Post by luckless666 »

Sandlapper wrote:Personally, I would like a focus on exploration, military strategy, and empire logistics. I would consider diplomacy, spying, and internal politics as secondary items to focus on; still important, but secondary nonetheless.
This is the problem. Everyone has different ideas as to whats the most important, even me. However, core functions should be Diplomacy, Military Strategy/combat, Economy, Exploration and Spying. These are pretty essential to a 4X game (IMHO).
Sandlapper wrote:And finally, I would add that I think the IDEAL FO (NOT likely to be version 1.0)
Your right about it not likely to be appearing in Version 1.0. Nor likely Version 2.0 either. What you describe will require one HECK of an amount of scripting, and probably that wouldnt be suffcient to do it all. Maybe a Dynamic AI that can think on the trot but they are INCREDIBLY difficult to create bug free.

However, that said, it would be THE ideal FO, as it would then cater for EVERYONE. Literally. Don't like that aspect, switch it off so it goes into background mode. Like that one, switch it on. The Childs Play option sounds good, but lets look at it, even a child wants SOMETHING to do, and having EVERYTHING (or near enough) automated will make the game very dull. Besides, such a game is unlikely to hold the long term appeal of a 7 year old.

@Sandlapper: Oh, and by Empire Logistics, what do you mean?
Chris Walker
| c.walker (at) mgt.hull.ac.uk |

WorldForge.org

iamrobk
Space Dragon
Posts: 289
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 12:27 pm

#19 Post by iamrobk »

luckless666 wrote:
xardas wrote:Depends on what you define under secondary objectives.
In fact as a strategy game freeorion shouldnot put stress on military action, but military strategy.
Therefore I would not missed Diplomacy, it is so essential.
What I want to say is that with economic and military focus nearlay all other areas are included.

Military without research and produce the best weapons first, is no longer strategic.
For tactical military strategies you need also diplomatic and spying.
I agrre with this. Military conquest should certainly NOT be the entire focus of the game, and if you read through this thread, almost everyone is in agreement that it SHOULD be there, but not as a focal point. I would like to see some good strategic choices.
I strongly disagree with your military view. I agree that it should not be THE main focus, but definately a big focus.

Sandlapper
Dyson Forest
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2003 11:50 pm
Location: South Carolina, USA

#20 Post by Sandlapper »

@ luckless666
Oh, and by Empire Logistics, what do you mean?
Primarily: Deciding what's needed (for the empire), production thereof, and redistribution among the empire.


By the way, my nephew enjoyed Moo1 as a 8-9 year old and is trying Moo2 now as a 10 year old. He isn't patient enough yet to be any good, but is learning. I wasn't thinking of him specifically, when wrote about the child's AI, but it would apply. He likes to combat earlier than he should; he could benefit from an AI prompt like " It is recommended that combat NOT be initiated, being that your fighter and two scouts are outclassed by the Meklar Battlecruiser with it's heavy fusion beams"

PowerCrazy
Creative Contributor
Posts: 383
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 2:35 am
Location: Texas

#21 Post by PowerCrazy »

I don't understand wwhy you think empire logistics is an important aspect of this game (or any other for that matter). Moo1 had zero empire logistics. Each planet was a discrete self sufficent unit. they way you would "manage" your empire is when you colonized the planet you would set the necessary levels of tech, production, etc. and then you would leave it alone. The game would adjust the sliders inorder to keep the planet "clean" but otherwise the planet would stay exactly as you set it. This was the ultimate Macro concept. Then Moo2 introduced "buildings." I question why but it didn't ruin the game simply pushed the game in a new direction. But it still didn't have "logistics" Moo3 I will not comment on...

Now if by logistics you mean fleet deployment, you might be right, but otherwise they didn't exist and I see no reason to introduce the concept of Total Micromanagement. The AI shouldn't need to be that sophisticated if we make the game simple to begin with.

Why have "buildings" why not just have a classification system that "builds" all buildings that will fit in the classification? No need to manage the planets. You just say, You are an industrial planet, GO. And in 20-50 turns you have a fully developed Industrial Planet. No need to touch it again. This allows the player to do other more interesting things like diplomacy, see what he wants to research next, figure out where he wants to colonize or when/if to go to war. Or in otherwords, allows the player to PLAY the game, rather than click on all the buildings for all his planets over and over again....

Combat will be a MAJOR focus of this game, it is the most direct FUN aspect of the game. Its why you are trying to manage your planets in the first place, its why you are conducting diplomacy, its why you are researching death rays. All so you can wail on the other player. Its one of the few things that all races MUST have. Regardless of what path to victory they are pursuing, they HAVE to have a fleet and be prepared to fight. "You can get a lot further with a kind word and a gun, then just a kind word alone."
Aquitaine is my Hero.... ;)

luckless666
Pupating Mass
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2003 3:16 am
Location: West Sussex, United Kingdom

#22 Post by luckless666 »

iamrobk wrote:I strongly disagree with your military view. I agree that it should not be THE main focus, but definately a big focus.
Thats what i had intended to say. sorry if it was unclear. 8)
Sandlapper wrote:I wasn't thinking of him specifically, when wrote about the child's AI, but it would apply. He likes to combat earlier than he should; he could benefit from an AI prompt like " It is recommended that combat NOT be initiated, being that your fighter and two scouts are outclassed by the Meklar Battlecruiser with it's heavy fusion beams"
With that example, I see what your trying to put across. And, I agree, yes it could become a good edition, to ease people into the game. (Example: Just downloaded FO for the first time, and all the options that were ever wanted have been implemented. Your not gonna know where to start with all these choices so choose the AI to control and advise for you as you play the game). You should have the option to interrupt the automation for each option whenever you like, something. this was just a thought though!
PowerCrazy wrote:No need to manage the planets. You just say, You are an industrial planet, GO. And in 20-50 turns you have a fully developed Industrial Planet. No need to touch it again. This allows the player to do other more interesting things like diplomacy, see what he wants to research next, figure out where he wants to colonize or when/if to go to war. Or in otherwords, allows the player to PLAY the game, rather than click on all the buildings for all his planets over and over again....
I, for one, am in favour of Empire Logistics. I posted a topic about this citing the email game VGA Planets, in which logistics is one of the central pillars of the game, and i think its a brilliant concept. You see, for some people, logistics is the game, and though diplomacy and what not is interesting, i would like to tinker to with the planets to my hearts content, and decide what goes where in my empire.

But i'd be willing to just decide what the planet builds, though i think a logistics angle will bring great strategies in war (cut off supplies etc). But thats just my opinion.
PowerCrazy wrote:Combat will be a MAJOR focus of this game, it is the most direct FUN aspect of the game.
Agreed. Though I'm sure there is a lot out there who dont. Combat should be there in some shape and form though.

Oh, and are we going for the traditional 2D for combat? Or we gonna try 3D on a 2D plane (a la Star Trek Armada) or totally 3D (Homeworld 2). To be honest, I would like to keep combat turn-based, so IMHO totally 3D would be out of the picture. However, 3D-on-2D (as i will now call it), should work exactly like the trad. 2D, only look a lot lot lot nicer. Opinions?

[EDIT] broken BBCode
Chris Walker
| c.walker (at) mgt.hull.ac.uk |

WorldForge.org

Sandlapper
Dyson Forest
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2003 11:50 pm
Location: South Carolina, USA

#23 Post by Sandlapper »

@ PowerCrazy

You just say, You are an industrial planet, GO. And in 20-50 turns you have a fully developed Industrial Planet. No need to touch it again. This allows the player to do other more interesting things like diplomacy, see what he wants to research next, figure out where he wants to colonize or when/if to go to war. Or in otherwords, allows the player to PLAY the game, rather than click on all the buildings for all his planets over and over again....
That's exactly what I want too. Your decision to make the planet industrial is part of what I consider "empire logistics" (what do I need for the empire). I was NOT advocating micromanagement. Decisions like what type of planet( like your industrial), ships needed, or research needed; getting production of ships from build site to the fleet it belongs to ( ship being sent automatically ala Moo1 or use of multible waypoints); getting fleets to hot spots; where and how to migrate population, this is what I consider to be empire logistics. In essence, the physical source and supply of overall game strategy.

iamrobk
Space Dragon
Posts: 289
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 12:27 pm

#24 Post by iamrobk »

luckless666 wrote:
iamrobk wrote:I strongly disagree with your military view. I agree that it should not be THE main focus, but definately a big focus.
Thats what i had intended to say. sorry if it was unclear. 8)


Oh, and are we going for the traditional 2D for combat? Or we gonna try 3D on a 2D plane (a la Star Trek Armada) or totally 3D (Homeworld 2). To be honest, I would like to keep combat turn-based, so IMHO totally 3D would be out of the picture. However, 3D-on-2D (as i will now call it), should work exactly like the trad. 2D, only look a lot lot lot nicer. Opinions?

[EDIT] broken BBCode
Aaah. I thought you were saying that combat should be one of the minor things. And about the 3D/2D thing, we never really decided except that it will probably not be 3D. You can discuss that here http://www.artclusta.com/bb/viewtopic.p ... &start=105
We also pretty much decided that the ships would be pre-rendered if we went 3D on a 2D plane, so we (the 3D artists) would be allowed to use insanely high poly counts without much slowdown. If we went fully 3D, we wouldn't be able to include a huge amount of detail. Personally I too think a 3D on a 2D plane (so it would really be 2D) would be best. Kind of like MOO3, but......better.

Aquitaine
Lead Designer Emeritus
Posts: 761
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 1:54 pm
Location: Austin, TX

#25 Post by Aquitaine »

We have not decided anything for space combat. Nothing at all.

-Aq
Surprise and Terror! I am greeted by the smooth and hostile face of our old enemy, the Hootmans! No... the Huge-glands, no, I remember, the Hunams!

luckless666
Pupating Mass
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2003 3:16 am
Location: West Sussex, United Kingdom

#26 Post by luckless666 »

iamrobk wrote:We also pretty much decided that the ships would be pre-rendered if we went 3D on a 2D plane, so we (the 3D artists) would be allowed to use insanely high poly counts without much slowdown.
How about normal mapping and bump mapping? Normal mapping is used in Doom3, and is where you make a super-high-poly model with lots of tiny details, and then pre-render it over a normal low-poly model. Gives the impression of a lot of detail whilst in actual fact its just an ordinary low poly model.


Aquitaine wrote:We have not decided anything for space combat. Nothing at all.
Sounds like a hint for a new Brainstorming thread! :P
Chris Walker
| c.walker (at) mgt.hull.ac.uk |

WorldForge.org

iamrobk
Space Dragon
Posts: 289
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 12:27 pm

#27 Post by iamrobk »

luckless666 wrote:
iamrobk wrote:We also pretty much decided that the ships would be pre-rendered if we went 3D on a 2D plane, so we (the 3D artists) would be allowed to use insanely high poly counts without much slowdown.
How about normal mapping and bump mapping? Normal mapping is used in Doom3, and is where you make a super-high-poly model with lots of tiny details, and then pre-render it over a normal low-poly model. Gives the impression of a lot of detail whilst in actual fact its just an ordinary low poly model.


Aquitaine wrote:We have not decided anything for space combat. Nothing at all.
Sounds like a hint for a new Brainstorming thread! :P
I don't know about what normal mapping is, but bump mapping is just an effect to make somethinhg stuck out or whatever (I can't really describe it.....). And Aquitaine, I guess decided was the wrong word. I really meant "had a general concensus on".

Aquitaine
Lead Designer Emeritus
Posts: 761
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 1:54 pm
Location: Austin, TX

#28 Post by Aquitaine »

We have a couple good brainstorming threads on space combat. But for 'official' questions, brainstorming threads have zero validity, and we start from scratch -- so it's basically an idea bank, so that when we DO open up the game design thread on space combat, you can cut and paste your now well-developed idea for space combat.

(unofficially, I'm with you on the 3d objects on a 2d plane. my current plan for space combat is the Total War engine in space, and we could use it for ground combat, too! of course, I also want a pony. can't have it all.)

the only reason I make an (anal) point of saying this is so new people don't read this and go 'oh hey they've decided on x and y WHY WASN'T I CONSULTED' and then pm or email me with their personal thesis on What I Did Wrong and How FO Should Be. go ahead and laugh, but I do get these. :P

-Aq
Surprise and Terror! I am greeted by the smooth and hostile face of our old enemy, the Hootmans! No... the Huge-glands, no, I remember, the Hunams!

User avatar
skdiw
Creative Contributor
Posts: 643
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 2:17 am

#29 Post by skdiw »

Aquitaine wrote:the only reason I make an (anal) point of saying this is so new people don't read this and go 'oh hey they've decided on x and y WHY WASN'T I CONSULTED' and then pm or email me with their personal thesis on What I Did Wrong and How FO Should Be. go ahead and laugh, but I do get these. :P
ROFL
:mrgreen:

luckless666
Pupating Mass
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2003 3:16 am
Location: West Sussex, United Kingdom

#30 Post by luckless666 »

iamrobk wrote:I don't know about what normal mapping is, but bump mapping is just an effect to make somethinhg stuck out or whatever
Hmmm... your pretty much right with bump mapping. Just gives a more 3D feel to it. Normal mapping is far far more difficult to explain. (modellers, correct me if im wrong!). What I was told was; Normal Mapping takes a 3D model. Lets say it has 50,000 polygons. (Very Very Very detailed in other words!!!!!!) You then reduce that to... say... 2000 polygons, which makes the same model run faster, but look a lot lot crapper!!! Only, if you do this in conjunction with normal mapping, you basically have a (from a techinical and resource point of view) 2000 poly model, that LOOKS LIKE A 50,000 poly model. therefore, it looks more detailed. do you get what i mean? Basically, you can have a 50000 poly model, cut it down to 1.5k poly model, and not be able to see a difference visually (though the computer will be able to render a LOT more in real time!!!!) Read here for more info. Sorry I cant be more detailed, but take a look @ any Doom3 sceenies, and then compare them to that of Unreal and Quake3. Technically, they the models (and scenary) arent any more detailed in Doom3 than Quake3 or Unreal (maybe a few hundred more polys per model, but due to normal mapping, it looks like a FMV!!!)
Aquitaine wrote:unofficially, I'm with you on the 3d objects on a 2d plane. my current plan for space combat is the Total War engine in space, and we could use it for ground combat, too! of course, I also want a pony. can't have it all.
Personally, it sounds like the best deal. But obviously im open to dispute. Haven't really thought about ground warfare just yet, though (from a design point of view) it would be best to implement a system similar to the space warfare one.

@ Aquitaine: What do you mean total war system. Can you explain if you can. Thanks in advance. And, personally, and in representation of this forum, thanks for bringing this project alive!!!! (and not just aquitaine, all the progammers, artists, designers etc.!!! thank you!!)
Chris Walker
| c.walker (at) mgt.hull.ac.uk |

WorldForge.org

Post Reply