L3O Interactive

"Today is a good day to die" -- Worf, Star Trek

HOME FORUMS GALAXY SCREENSHOTS CONTACT
Horizon space strategy game
 
FAQ Log in
Search Profile
Memberlist Usergroups
Log in to check your private messages
Register
The Space Strategy Game
Space Travel
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Horizon Forum Index » Main » Space Travel
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Sobriquet
Vanguard


Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 118
Location: Reno, NV

 Post Posted: Sat Aug 07, 2004 10:04 pm    Post subject:
Reply with quote

Quote:
[Ravana] After a while, all that detritus builds up and you have a wealth of ideas or suggestions to annoy your local, friendly Canadian games designer with!


lol . . . very true.

From my perspective, I'd like to see a space TBS that was able to focus on the interaction of the different races and/or systems as they raced towards the endgame. Full-fledged interactivity and immersion for the player. Not only just expand and exterminate, but more experiment and exploit. A glorious war is a good thing, but for once I'd like it to not be the only thing. Give the player the option of ending the game in a manner of their own choosing. Whether it be by preset victory conditions at startup or a decision tree throughout the game.

QSI tried to deliver at least part of this aspect, but fell short. The senate was a nice try, but obviously under developed. Previous MOO iterations had an election, but they seemed so 'tacked on' that they were more of an annoyance than a viable endgame scenario.

Fully fleshed out diplomacy, where the player actually cares about what a race says/does during the game. How many declarations of war have you outright ignored because you knew the AI was too crippled to pose any sort of real threat.

A tech tree that has easy to understand/easy to implement technology. Advanced symbiotic realtionship anyone?

Tactical space combat where formations, firing arcs and angles of attack matter. Space in space, not just connect the dots expansion.

Damn, now I'm ranting . . . Mr. Green
 Back to top »
View user's profile Send private message
Zaimat
Dev. Team


Joined: 08 Aug 2003
Posts: 350
Location: Canada

 Post Posted: Sat Aug 07, 2004 10:04 pm    Post subject:
Reply with quote

Quote:
[Ravana]Would you be able to clarify "ambushing" for us? This is a fascinating idea, and I'm interested in the viable use of the terrain we encounter in a sector.


Can't say much more about that in particular for now. We have not yet implemented space 'terrain'.

It is something we want to add. We have held internal discussions recently after the enthusiastic feedback from you guys and moved it up on the priority list. Until we see how it turns out it would be hazardeous Wink for me to speculate.

Quote:
[Ravana]
In addition, if a map sector equates to a system, will we see disparate types of terrain in that area e.g. the Kuiper Belt in our own fair solar system?


This will depend on how easy it is to implement once we have worked out the general idea (which in itself has a lot of possibilities). What you describe would be nice but it's a small detail, so prudence would suggest for me to note it but no promises.

There is so much we can do with terrain given time..

Quote:
[Ravana]
Almost forgot this Zaimat. Wink Would you be able to tell us if we can develop super-luminal travel (?) methods in the Human research tree? Think of the strategic possibilities!


Hehe, well traveling methods is one of the single most difficult factors to balance AND implement in a tactical combat system. There is a lot of methods that can be added but for now we are going to stick to what we already have planned and see to how it plays out. [edited]
 Back to top »
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Zaimat
Dev. Team


Joined: 08 Aug 2003
Posts: 350
Location: Canada

 Post Posted: Sat Aug 07, 2004 10:04 pm    Post subject:
Reply with quote

Quote:
[Ravana]
After a while, all that detritus builds up and you have a wealth of ideas or suggestions to annoy your local, friendly Canadian games designer with!


Hehe, don't worry it's actually very nice to hear ideas and I welcome them. A lot of stuff I have thought about while some not. And whether re-visiting or thinking of some new thought I hadn't considered is very positive and helpful Smile

Quote:
[Sobriquet]
where the player actually cares about what a race says/does during the game. How many declarations of war have you outright ignored because you knew the AI was too crippled to pose any sort of real threat.


I think you hit the nail right on the head. *caring* what a race does or if you don't, you find out later and tell yourself "damn I should have!"

It's easy to fool the player early on when the game is new but once the player learns how the AI works that's when it becomes too predictable. This is also true versus human players in other games, playing board-games for example you get to know someone's style. Our brain is very good at seeing patterns develop.[edited]
 Back to top »
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
RobHuntingdon
Vanguard


Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 146
Location: Cincinnati, OH, USA

 Post Posted: Sat Aug 07, 2004 10:04 pm    Post subject:
Reply with quote

OK... so if this is primarily, or more likely entirely, going to be a SP game... and you know that the users will see patterns as they play... obviously you've thought this through better than I. How do you prevent a game from being boring after playing four or five dozen times? Aside from the fact that dissing the powers-that-be can be deadly, how do you prevent the player from finding and exploiting holes in the AI that keep them safe from all harm (or whatever)?

I'm speaking as much theoretically as asking how you plan to apply it here, though I'd be happier if you can answer both sides of the question... Wink [edited]
 Back to top »
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Ravana
Vanguard


Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 139
Location: United Kingdom

 Post Posted: Sat Aug 07, 2004 10:04 pm    Post subject:
Reply with quote

With the best of intentions we are dealing with a finite-state machine, so it's really a matter of minimising the repetition and avoiding pattern recognition.

1. The use of a random map does help; such an element can only be relied upon to be unpredictable.

2. The use of a "limited tech-tree" might help - similar to MoO where you cannot research everything without being a creative race. That way, you'll never receive all of the technological capabilities in any one game.

3. Of course, Zaimat has said that we can develop multiple technologies simultaneously, but by developing such tech we may neglect other aspects of our empire such as military might, spying capabilities, trade routes, diplomatic relations etc. Our little kingdoms cannot be everywhere at once, so we'll have to make a choice about what we want to achieve.

4. Our NPC friends/enemies may have different agendas each time: a list of social structures could be devised with one or more chosen for each race, which gives clear or distinct parameters for that empire. A sort of code of conduct e.g. honourable, sneaky, greedy, militaristic etc.

5. Although there has been little real talk concerning the Advanced Races (AR), it may be they will be used as a potential galactic "cosh". A set of parameters could be used to define the AR's behaviour, which may make them hostile to one particular race or races due to past behaviour. Or they may perceive one particular race as more of a threat to them or to galactic peace in general. Perhaps, they can be persuaded to join with your empire as equals, or become a patron to the younger races, uplifiting us to a higher state of being (thanks for the phrase GURPS!)...I should point out that this is a view based on a B5 approach to AR.

6. Maybe there'll be a pay-off matrix which defines imperial behaviour. You could have elements defined as concrete or as nebulous as being attacked and acting defensively, or feeling envious of the economic power generated by your trade with their enemy and they decide to attack you because you're militarily weaker. You could imagine the equation as something like this:

SCENARIO: Player A, Empire B, Empire C

Economic Rating 1, Military Might 2, No. of Planets 3

Decision to attack -

IF (A1 > B1 OR A3 > B3) AND A2 > B2 THEN TARGET = A ELSE TARGET = B

This is a spurious example of an equation, but you get the drift. The real skill is in allowing numerous opponents with multiple paths to appear to operate simultaneously!

Some of this might be speculative, and some of it might be absolute rubbish, or at least very simplified, but I think we'd all like to believe that there is some structure to the inter-relation of species and their behaviour.
 Back to top »
View user's profile Send private message
Sobriquet
Vanguard


Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 118
Location: Reno, NV

 Post Posted: Sat Aug 07, 2004 10:04 pm    Post subject:
Reply with quote

Quote:
[Zaimat] What we have done is give each race a list of possible choices in terms of their disposition/nature which is randomly selected at the start of each new game. These choices are part of the type of race they are (race specific) but at the same time allow the race to play differently.


Sounds great. It will be the things like this which keep the game feeling fresh longer.
 Back to top »
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Horizon Forum Index » Main » Space Travel
Post new topic   Reply to topic All times are GMT - 3 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Solaris phpBB theme/template by Jakob Persson
Copyright © Jakob Persson 2003



Powered by phpBB 2.0.10 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
L3O Logo

Horizon - A new space strategy game. Copyright 2004 L3O Interactive. All rights reserved.

L3O Logo