A different idea for a space sim
by Daniel Buckmaster · in Game Design and Creative Issues · 08/14/2008 (10:37 am) · 25 replies
Warning. If you're not in the mood to read a rant, hit your browser's back button. I'm a bit disparaging towards some very respectable games. And I tried very hard not to snigger when I wrote 'respectable'.
I've just started playing X2 (: The Threat) and I'm loving it. Well, not everything about it - but the concept is really cool. Having this huge universe that you can play through sort of freestyle. I've also had a go at Freelancer, which is similarly cool.
However, whenever I play them, I get this feeling... it's like watching kids' cartoons on Saturday mornings. And with the setting of a space opera, this, to me, reeks of wasted potential.
Some specific examples of my space-sim pet peeves:
-Shipboard computers seem about as advanced and capable as a 1980s Amstrad.
-Some games take inertia into account when moving, but some don't - and when they don't (X2 is a notable example), ship movement sort of feels... fake...
-Laser beams. I know, I know. But I hate laser beams. Lasers are fine. But not laser beams.
-Even more than that: laser projectiles. Oh, the agony...
-Speed limits. Seriously, this has to be one of the worst examples of gameplay kicking simulation in the <3 ever. And no, that wasn't a heart being depicted.
-'Jump gates'. I know, they're a necessary contrivance. But a contrivance is still a contrivance. And since I want to say contrivance once more, um... yeah.
-The tiny little dots you can see floating in your vision that sort of look like stars, except they seem to be spaced about ten metres apart. Again, I know - they tell you how fast you're going. Great.
-Sensors. I can see with my eyes farther than my ship's sensors in X2. Makes you wonder why the sensors aren't based on visual recognition.
-Asteroids. Another Hollywood problem, like lasers. This one could be slightly more forgivable, and slightly less.
What I'm looking for is something... less focused on trying to emulate gameplay people will be familiar with. Like 2001 compared to Star Wars. I'd love someone to do in the space game genre what 2001 did in the space movie genre.
But the critical element here, in my opinion, is the control scheme. Spaceships shouldn't be controlled the same way as a soldier or car, or even a plane - and that seems to be the current paradigm in space games: a flight-sim game without gravity.
As much as I hate to say it (those who know me can attest to the fact that I hate games in the vein of WoW), I'd love to see a space sim with an MMORPG-like control scheme. As in, you're not using the arrow keys to turn your ship and other keys to accelrate or decelerate - you're, in effect, moving via point-and-click.
Of course, this would have to be some advanced pointing-and-clicking. In space, you can't just point to the spot you want to be in with any sort of accuracy. And it were simply limited to objects and preplaced locations, well, you'd be restricting players' mobility to a billionth of a percent of the available space.
I'm still pondering this, but my first idea was basially altering acceleration and velocity for your ship, and setting pan/tilt/roll in the same manner (with widgets on a 3D representation of your ship). Your shipboard AI would allow even more advanced functions - matching course with another ship, computing an orbit, docking with stations.
The ship computer would have to be an essential part of the game. Because everything is so much more complicated than your average game - but it still shouldn't alienate people. Well, not too many people. Basically, your ship computer would do the fine control of ship movement, because this fine control is made clunky with the point-and-click mechanic. Like MMORPGs - when you want to go somewhere, you don't want to have to click and drag each foot every step of the way. You click on a location, and the character runs there.
I think it's a ridiculous control scheme when dealing with human characters, or even vehicles - but with spaceships, it just seems to make more sense to me, to have controls set up that way.
I've just started playing X2 (: The Threat) and I'm loving it. Well, not everything about it - but the concept is really cool. Having this huge universe that you can play through sort of freestyle. I've also had a go at Freelancer, which is similarly cool.
However, whenever I play them, I get this feeling... it's like watching kids' cartoons on Saturday mornings. And with the setting of a space opera, this, to me, reeks of wasted potential.
Some specific examples of my space-sim pet peeves:
-Shipboard computers seem about as advanced and capable as a 1980s Amstrad.
-Some games take inertia into account when moving, but some don't - and when they don't (X2 is a notable example), ship movement sort of feels... fake...
-Laser beams. I know, I know. But I hate laser beams. Lasers are fine. But not laser beams.
-Even more than that: laser projectiles. Oh, the agony...
-Speed limits. Seriously, this has to be one of the worst examples of gameplay kicking simulation in the <3 ever. And no, that wasn't a heart being depicted.
-'Jump gates'. I know, they're a necessary contrivance. But a contrivance is still a contrivance. And since I want to say contrivance once more, um... yeah.
-The tiny little dots you can see floating in your vision that sort of look like stars, except they seem to be spaced about ten metres apart. Again, I know - they tell you how fast you're going. Great.
-Sensors. I can see with my eyes farther than my ship's sensors in X2. Makes you wonder why the sensors aren't based on visual recognition.
-Asteroids. Another Hollywood problem, like lasers. This one could be slightly more forgivable, and slightly less.
What I'm looking for is something... less focused on trying to emulate gameplay people will be familiar with. Like 2001 compared to Star Wars. I'd love someone to do in the space game genre what 2001 did in the space movie genre.
But the critical element here, in my opinion, is the control scheme. Spaceships shouldn't be controlled the same way as a soldier or car, or even a plane - and that seems to be the current paradigm in space games: a flight-sim game without gravity.
As much as I hate to say it (those who know me can attest to the fact that I hate games in the vein of WoW), I'd love to see a space sim with an MMORPG-like control scheme. As in, you're not using the arrow keys to turn your ship and other keys to accelrate or decelerate - you're, in effect, moving via point-and-click.
Of course, this would have to be some advanced pointing-and-clicking. In space, you can't just point to the spot you want to be in with any sort of accuracy. And it were simply limited to objects and preplaced locations, well, you'd be restricting players' mobility to a billionth of a percent of the available space.
I'm still pondering this, but my first idea was basially altering acceleration and velocity for your ship, and setting pan/tilt/roll in the same manner (with widgets on a 3D representation of your ship). Your shipboard AI would allow even more advanced functions - matching course with another ship, computing an orbit, docking with stations.
The ship computer would have to be an essential part of the game. Because everything is so much more complicated than your average game - but it still shouldn't alienate people. Well, not too many people. Basically, your ship computer would do the fine control of ship movement, because this fine control is made clunky with the point-and-click mechanic. Like MMORPGs - when you want to go somewhere, you don't want to have to click and drag each foot every step of the way. You click on a location, and the character runs there.
I think it's a ridiculous control scheme when dealing with human characters, or even vehicles - but with spaceships, it just seems to make more sense to me, to have controls set up that way.
About the author
Studying mechatronic engineering and computer science at the University of Sydney. Game development is probably my most time-consuming hobby!
#2
2. I enjoy (or enjoyed in the past) many space sim dogfight games and the fact that they weren't "realistic" didn't really detract from the fun for me. If you want to make a "dogfighting" game, you break what rules you want to make it a better dogfight.
08/14/2008 (10:58 am)
1. Sounds like an idea with potential. I personally like RTS(s) and this seems to me like a space combat game that has moved some from the FPS dogfight end of the spectrum more towards the RTS & Tactics end. If you think about it, even in current day space travel we don't manually fly the spacecraft most of the time, its all through computers. Have you played EVE online or homeworld? Both space games with "point and click" movement.2. I enjoy (or enjoyed in the past) many space sim dogfight games and the fact that they weren't "realistic" didn't really detract from the fun for me. If you want to make a "dogfighting" game, you break what rules you want to make it a better dogfight.
#3
08/14/2008 (11:05 am)
Isn't Daniel describing Elite? ;) 
#4
08/14/2008 (11:16 am)
The X series is the spiritual successor to Elite. but He makes a few good points. in most cases its a case of story and game mechanics getting in the way of physics and realistic setups. 
#5
You should try it out if you want to see how well point and click and scale can be pulled off in a space game. It's only missing a realistic physics system which would have made flight in that game so nice. There isn't a good single player space-sim that I can think of which used all of these ideas however.
08/14/2008 (11:59 am)
I kept thinking of EVE Online throughout the entire point-n-click and scale rant. The point and click system for EVE is great, allowing you to orbit around enemies or allies in combat, keep within certain distances, etc... It also had amazingly epic scale. The first time I clicked to map button and it slowly zoomed out to show my solar system I screamed out "wow!" And when I zoomed out further to show the whole 2000+ star systems in game I nearly pissed myself. I felt like I was being submitted to the Total Perspective Vortex (H2G2 reference :P ) And I loved the size of my ships sensors and tracking range. Rockets fired from 40km away? Epic. However it had a huge learning curve due to how different everything was in it. I had to quit the whole MMO thing though.You should try it out if you want to see how well point and click and scale can be pulled off in a space game. It's only missing a realistic physics system which would have made flight in that game so nice. There isn't a good single player space-sim that I can think of which used all of these ideas however.
#6
EVE online I haven't played (mainly because of my MMO aversion), but I'm interested in how it plays. I guess the net is my friend there, gameplay videos and such...
Real world space travel is another inspiration for wanting to make a game that's less like an FPS - but of course, it'd be no fun at all to program a course from the ground and then just sit there while the ship flies it ;P
Glad you like the idea, though :)
With regards to number 2, I agree and I can see that point of view... I guess its just personal opinion. I highly doubt space combat will ever take the form of WWII air dogfighting :P. Even modern air combat has moved past that somewhat. In fact, modern air combat might be a great analogy for what I want to achieve (though you're still controlling your plane directly with a joystick).
Ronny: Elite is a game I've often heard mentioned, but never actually played. But as far as I know, it's more one of the first-person dogfight space sims. I could be totally wrong, though.
Edward: Story doesn't have to be involved there, but it is definitely game mechanics that are precluding realism. I wonder if it is a case of pandering to the market, or if it really is because any other way is less fun. I guess once I've worked up a prototype, we'll see... :P
08/14/2008 (11:59 am)
James: Yeah, I have played Homeworld 2 - I totally forgot about it, though! I guess I classed it as a different game completely to the space-sim genre. I like Homeworld's movement system, for an RTS - but in a combat situation that isn't an RTS, the movement model would be a bit different. You're not going to want to say 'move here', and have your ship move there and stop, like RTS units do. And if you ever do, it's extremely likely to be because you're docking with a station or another ship - in which case, the action can just be performed relative to that object.EVE online I haven't played (mainly because of my MMO aversion), but I'm interested in how it plays. I guess the net is my friend there, gameplay videos and such...
Real world space travel is another inspiration for wanting to make a game that's less like an FPS - but of course, it'd be no fun at all to program a course from the ground and then just sit there while the ship flies it ;P
Glad you like the idea, though :)
With regards to number 2, I agree and I can see that point of view... I guess its just personal opinion. I highly doubt space combat will ever take the form of WWII air dogfighting :P. Even modern air combat has moved past that somewhat. In fact, modern air combat might be a great analogy for what I want to achieve (though you're still controlling your plane directly with a joystick).
Ronny: Elite is a game I've often heard mentioned, but never actually played. But as far as I know, it's more one of the first-person dogfight space sims. I could be totally wrong, though.
Edward: Story doesn't have to be involved there, but it is definitely game mechanics that are precluding realism. I wonder if it is a case of pandering to the market, or if it really is because any other way is less fun. I guess once I've worked up a prototype, we'll see... :P
#7
But of course, with sensor and weapon ranges of more like 4000km. Long enough that visuals are useless. And because, face it, you need long-range sensors in a spaceship, right? :P And of course, that means missiles will have to have pretty damn good acceleration.
Has anyone read the Night's Dawn books? That sort of space combat has inspired me...
Got the reference. Nice ;)
Though I never understood why people abbreviate it as H2G2...?
08/14/2008 (12:02 pm)
Morrock: Sorry, missed your post while replying. EVE seems like something I really need to look into. Those sorts of combat behaviours are just the sort of thing I'd like to implement.But of course, with sensor and weapon ranges of more like 4000km. Long enough that visuals are useless. And because, face it, you need long-range sensors in a spaceship, right? :P And of course, that means missiles will have to have pretty damn good acceleration.
Has anyone read the Night's Dawn books? That sort of space combat has inspired me...
Got the reference. Nice ;)
Though I never understood why people abbreviate it as H2G2...?
#8
I would recommend going over to the EVE online forums and researching what people think of their point and click interface to get a general vib. As far as its appeal I know that much of the draw for space sim players is the direct control of a starship which gets sacrifices in a point and click scheme so you'll need to be ready to affectively justify your choices to your customers. There are people who like do like point and click over direct control though, so its just a matter of appealing to them in the right ways.
Overall its an intriguing idea that I think could work nicely if implemented correctly.
2. I think your diagnosis is more common then you might think. There are quite a few people who agree with you and like the idea of a realistic space flight system. The problems been typically how difficult it can be to implement correctly and still be able to implement game mechanics that keeps the user interested. Realistic just isn't that fun sometimes. There ARE people who would play it though if you can build it correctly and find them. Your logic seams pretty sound for your diagnosis and I do think theres some kind of market in that direction.
08/14/2008 (12:17 pm)
1. Sounds a lot like EVE online as far as the point and click interface. Armada online also uses a kind of point and click interface in space, though its more arcadish in nature. Honestly I was reminded of Indepedance Wars too, which had the most realistic physics to date in a space sim ( arguably of course), though lacks the point and click interface your describing.I would recommend going over to the EVE online forums and researching what people think of their point and click interface to get a general vib. As far as its appeal I know that much of the draw for space sim players is the direct control of a starship which gets sacrifices in a point and click scheme so you'll need to be ready to affectively justify your choices to your customers. There are people who like do like point and click over direct control though, so its just a matter of appealing to them in the right ways.
Overall its an intriguing idea that I think could work nicely if implemented correctly.
2. I think your diagnosis is more common then you might think. There are quite a few people who agree with you and like the idea of a realistic space flight system. The problems been typically how difficult it can be to implement correctly and still be able to implement game mechanics that keeps the user interested. Realistic just isn't that fun sometimes. There ARE people who would play it though if you can build it correctly and find them. Your logic seams pretty sound for your diagnosis and I do think theres some kind of market in that direction.
#9
H2G2 because their are 2 H's and 2 G's :p instead of HHGG.
08/14/2008 (12:21 pm)
A massive range like that would definately make sense, but it could take away from some of the excitement of combat. How big would an explosion have to be for you to see it from that far? Or even for your computer to register it as destroyed?H2G2 because their are 2 H's and 2 G's :p instead of HHGG.
#10
- Realistic space combat would be a pain to model (includes gazillion factors to consider, everything from acceleration/mass center shift due to released munitions, ejected propulsion material etc. ... and subsystem damage). It would be interesting though if done decently. Check out I-War 2 for "somewhat realistic" flight model (though the rest is pretty much basic dogfight with short range weapons and not much computers to assist you).
- Strategy-centric gameplay could evolve around capital ships, hit-and-run / hide-n-seek tactics, possibly taking hours to maneuver and position to gain the upper hand (similar to naval or submerged warfare -- avoiding/hiding from the enemy is on of the key tactics). Starshatter is a game that comes to mind.
- Action/tactical gameplay would be more faster paced but also much closer to the "big money games". Maybe combining the elements of the mentioned EvE and Elite into some sort of hybrid could be a good starting point.
08/14/2008 (12:40 pm)
I wrote a long rant on the subject -- but only the few first senteces were ever posted! Sorry, don't have the energy to re-write all the stuff, here's an ultra condensed version:- Realistic space combat would be a pain to model (includes gazillion factors to consider, everything from acceleration/mass center shift due to released munitions, ejected propulsion material etc. ... and subsystem damage). It would be interesting though if done decently. Check out I-War 2 for "somewhat realistic" flight model (though the rest is pretty much basic dogfight with short range weapons and not much computers to assist you).
- Strategy-centric gameplay could evolve around capital ships, hit-and-run / hide-n-seek tactics, possibly taking hours to maneuver and position to gain the upper hand (similar to naval or submerged warfare -- avoiding/hiding from the enemy is on of the key tactics). Starshatter is a game that comes to mind.
- Action/tactical gameplay would be more faster paced but also much closer to the "big money games". Maybe combining the elements of the mentioned EvE and Elite into some sort of hybrid could be a good starting point.
#11
I agree that user interest is a big problem with realism. I'll have to see how that goes :P. But I think that reality has enough cool things ot offer in this respect that players' interest can be held. It's walking a fine line, I guess.
Morrock: Good points. I don't actually know whether 4000km would be an optimum weapon range - but with nuclear warheads being the use-equivalent of today's high explosives, there's sure to be quite a substantial bang...
Of course, I agree that it could be quite boring for players to have not much to see in the way of enemies most of the time. I really don't know how to remedy that. Of course, the environments should be quite beautiful, and cool stuff can be done with sensors (how about infrared sensors that render in 3D? So you can see heat smears following sensor contacts across the sky...).
EDIT:
One simple thing to do is visual enhancement. So if you've got a telescope like thingy on your ship, you can focus it on one enemy at a time to actualy see what the enemy looks like. Of course, this could be done for other sensor types as well - you could render little radar images or infrared images of the enemy ship. Doing this could allow a lot greater player-enemy interactivity. For example, you could, given enough experience, tell what sort of reactor (and how many) a ship has installed by how 'hot' (meaning radiation) different sections of the ship are. That allows players to tangibly increase their performance as they become more experienced - if they see an enemy's reactor is too weak to power all those installed laserf effectively, you can go in with an advantage. Conversely, if you see they have a really strong reactor, you know they'll have a lot of power to feed into their weapons, and may choose not to approach.
I'd have to look into other sensor types that could tell you more about an opponent (how about a way to see density? So you could gauge armour thickness, how full the magazine, etc).
/EDIT
Ah, that's the reasoning. Stupid me. :P I would have abbreviated it to HGTG or something :P H2G2 is much snappier.
Henri: Yeah, a really detailed physics model would be a pain. But if the game uses a good physics library, all this sort of stuff, like centre of gravity, should be natively supported - it's just a matter of programming the magazine or fuel tank bit of the ship to get lighter :P.
Subsystem damage is a big part of what I want to do. As well as cool damage effects. Because, face it, if the only thing you can see in nearby space is your ship, you want it to look good, and that includes when it gets beaten up. I told a friend this, and he was amused that the most prominent graphical features of the game would be seeing your ship get taken apart ;P.
Agree about your two gameplay routes. I haven't fully thought of a universe to set the gameplay in, but I don't know ifI want to make capital ships a big feature. You don't see massive blimps and B52s or carrier planes in today's air force.
(Though actually, I guess that's because we have ships to do the carrying...)
I'm deliberating how focused on combat the game should be. I'd love to have trading and such - which has been done to death, of course. Exploration should play a part - procedurally generated universe, anyone? I'm even debating whether to try to include much of a storyline. Though a nice hard-sf story could drive home my 'realistic' punch :P
08/14/2008 (1:06 pm)
Scott: that's a good idea, thanks. As for relinquishing the direct control of the ship - I did have some ideas about including that, as some sort of addon that allows you to control the starship directly. But I don't actually see that there's a place for it. There will be controls to directly afect your speed and orientation, but with nowhere near the ease of typical controls. Meh.I agree that user interest is a big problem with realism. I'll have to see how that goes :P. But I think that reality has enough cool things ot offer in this respect that players' interest can be held. It's walking a fine line, I guess.
Morrock: Good points. I don't actually know whether 4000km would be an optimum weapon range - but with nuclear warheads being the use-equivalent of today's high explosives, there's sure to be quite a substantial bang...
Of course, I agree that it could be quite boring for players to have not much to see in the way of enemies most of the time. I really don't know how to remedy that. Of course, the environments should be quite beautiful, and cool stuff can be done with sensors (how about infrared sensors that render in 3D? So you can see heat smears following sensor contacts across the sky...).
EDIT:
One simple thing to do is visual enhancement. So if you've got a telescope like thingy on your ship, you can focus it on one enemy at a time to actualy see what the enemy looks like. Of course, this could be done for other sensor types as well - you could render little radar images or infrared images of the enemy ship. Doing this could allow a lot greater player-enemy interactivity. For example, you could, given enough experience, tell what sort of reactor (and how many) a ship has installed by how 'hot' (meaning radiation) different sections of the ship are. That allows players to tangibly increase their performance as they become more experienced - if they see an enemy's reactor is too weak to power all those installed laserf effectively, you can go in with an advantage. Conversely, if you see they have a really strong reactor, you know they'll have a lot of power to feed into their weapons, and may choose not to approach.
I'd have to look into other sensor types that could tell you more about an opponent (how about a way to see density? So you could gauge armour thickness, how full the magazine, etc).
/EDIT
Ah, that's the reasoning. Stupid me. :P I would have abbreviated it to HGTG or something :P H2G2 is much snappier.
Henri: Yeah, a really detailed physics model would be a pain. But if the game uses a good physics library, all this sort of stuff, like centre of gravity, should be natively supported - it's just a matter of programming the magazine or fuel tank bit of the ship to get lighter :P.
Subsystem damage is a big part of what I want to do. As well as cool damage effects. Because, face it, if the only thing you can see in nearby space is your ship, you want it to look good, and that includes when it gets beaten up. I told a friend this, and he was amused that the most prominent graphical features of the game would be seeing your ship get taken apart ;P.
Agree about your two gameplay routes. I haven't fully thought of a universe to set the gameplay in, but I don't know ifI want to make capital ships a big feature. You don't see massive blimps and B52s or carrier planes in today's air force.
(Though actually, I guess that's because we have ships to do the carrying...)
I'm deliberating how focused on combat the game should be. I'd love to have trading and such - which has been done to death, of course. Exploration should play a part - procedurally generated universe, anyone? I'm even debating whether to try to include much of a storyline. Though a nice hard-sf story could drive home my 'realistic' punch :P
#12
Eve Online
Not exactly what you wanted - but about 90% of it. You'll probably try and say "Tis lame." Well, then the learning curve must be too much for you - it's an extremely complicated game. It might seem simple at first. Not so, my friend.
Has point-and-click navigation, lock your target then activate weapons to shoot, shtuff. Orbits, automated docking... acceleration isn't how you wanted, but really? that wouldn't work. Loading would suck. There are jumpgates, but unless you wanted to point your ship at the next solar system and leave it for a few thousand years, good luck. Warp drives to make you go insane speeds, very useful. Long range combat, I think it's like... 300km with some ships? Lots more, check it out.
Just saw Scott's post :D
08/21/2008 (5:48 pm)
Looks like you just described Eve Online.Eve Online
Not exactly what you wanted - but about 90% of it. You'll probably try and say "Tis lame." Well, then the learning curve must be too much for you - it's an extremely complicated game. It might seem simple at first. Not so, my friend.
Has point-and-click navigation, lock your target then activate weapons to shoot, shtuff. Orbits, automated docking... acceleration isn't how you wanted, but really? that wouldn't work. Loading would suck. There are jumpgates, but unless you wanted to point your ship at the next solar system and leave it for a few thousand years, good luck. Warp drives to make you go insane speeds, very useful. Long range combat, I think it's like... 300km with some ships? Lots more, check it out.
Just saw Scott's post :D
#13
And, gameplay aside completely - real life doesn't have speed limits, so why should a game, if it's aiming to be closer to a simulation?
But just let me say... SPEED LIMIT...
;P
For the record, I've just downloaded Freespace 2, and I'm really enjoying it. Despite the fact that it includes basically every single one of the things I dislike in space sims :P. It's just well executed.
It helps if I pretend I'm flying a plane (and tripping, which explains the nebulae and stars...).
08/22/2008 (1:48 pm)
Quote:acceleration isn't how you wanted, but really? that wouldn't work.Bah. I'll have my unlimited-speed, thank you very much ;D I don't see why it wouldn't work, if players used it intelligently. You could obviously get into a situation where you're accelerating to ridiculous speeds and take ages to slow down again - that's your own problem. But when you'e making an attack run on a station, or travelling between stations, you want to be able to move fast.
And, gameplay aside completely - real life doesn't have speed limits, so why should a game, if it's aiming to be closer to a simulation?
Quote:There are jumpgates, but unless you wanted to point your ship at the next solar system and leave it for a few thousand years, good luck.I have plans to get around that, just like every other sci-fi game, but it doesn't incolve a cop-out like mysterious technology left by some careless elder race. It involves a cop-out like physicists discovering ftl travel :P So you point at the next solar system, engage the ftl, and sit back for a few minutes.
Quote:You'll probably try and say "Tis lame." Well, then the learning curve must be too much for you - it's an extremely complicated game. It might seem simple at first. Not so, my friend.Not so - I like to think I'm somewhat broad-minded. I've played space sims, and found them lacking. I haven't played EVE, so I would get the trial (or look up some gameplay videos) before criticising it.
Quote:Has point-and-click navigation, lock your target then activate weapons to shoot, shtuff. Orbits, automated docking... Long range combat, I think it's like... 300km with some ships?Awesome. Sounds perfect.
But just let me say... SPEED LIMIT...
;P
For the record, I've just downloaded Freespace 2, and I'm really enjoying it. Despite the fact that it includes basically every single one of the things I dislike in space sims :P. It's just well executed.
It helps if I pretend I'm flying a plane (and tripping, which explains the nebulae and stars...).
#14
08/22/2008 (3:50 pm)
Well, your ideas are definitely well thought-out, it looks like... hope you put them to use!
#15
Someone actually jumped continuosly across the EVE universe measuring their jump distances to find that the EVE system is about 100 LY across (ironically a few hours later, the company themselves told them it was actually 90LY)
The only problem I see with an unlimited speed limit is the size of space. No doubt EVE had to use some sort of system of "instancing" each sector of space to keep it from being too large computationally (like the 10,000+ glitch in Torque) and if you could simply fly from area's of space that would need massive changes to a conventional engine as far as I know. You need to warp from most planets to planets or station to station; (even if you tried flying...I did the math once, it would take 4-ish years for my ship to fly from 1 planet to one on the opposite side of the system.) and jump from system to system which is likely when it loads each new sector.
08/23/2008 (3:33 pm)
Quote:And, gameplay aside completely - real life doesn't have speed limits, so why should a game, if it's aiming to be closer to a simulation?Exactly, but most of these games aren't going for pure simulation; they need to take into account balance and multiplayer tactics, which is why it is very uncommon (if around at all). How unfair would it seem if in EVE a pilot of a starter level ship flew by the one you spent months crafting, all because he had been accelerating longer.
Quote:I have plans to get around that, just like every other sci-fi game, but it doesn't incolve a cop-out like mysterious technology left by some careless elder race. It involves a cop-out like physicists discovering ftl travel :P So you point at the next solar system, engage the ftl, and sit back for a few minutes.They have this in EVE too :p. Just the ships capable of doing it are amazingly expensive and take a minute or 2 to recharge their capacitors and jump again, it is still faster than warping to a jumpgate, jumping, warping to the next, jumping, etc.. to cross many systems.
Someone actually jumped continuosly across the EVE universe measuring their jump distances to find that the EVE system is about 100 LY across (ironically a few hours later, the company themselves told them it was actually 90LY)
Quote:Not so - I like to think I'm somewhat broad-minded.I think he was actually talking about the difficulty of the game, it will definately hinder your first bit of play time (I took 3 free trials for it before I learned it enough to like and buy it) As a friend of mine once said, "A learning curve? In EVE? Haha! There is a giant brick wall which has 'LEARNING' graffitied across it, but a curve? I haven't seen one yet."
The only problem I see with an unlimited speed limit is the size of space. No doubt EVE had to use some sort of system of "instancing" each sector of space to keep it from being too large computationally (like the 10,000+ glitch in Torque) and if you could simply fly from area's of space that would need massive changes to a conventional engine as far as I know. You need to warp from most planets to planets or station to station; (even if you tried flying...I did the math once, it would take 4-ish years for my ship to fly from 1 planet to one on the opposite side of the system.) and jump from system to system which is likely when it loads each new sector.
#16
I tried eve myself and i'm hitting the learn curve wall Morrock mentioned. Perhaps i need to give it another try.
Btw i believe there where several new Space MMO's announced,but i forgot there names.
So perhaps we see some new innovations there. But i doubt if they would remove the speed limit on ships.
Have you guys heard of Infinity?
That game really adds scale to a space sim! It is still far from finished but it looks so promising.
You will be able to land and fly on planets, something i really miss in todays games, like X3.
For more information check it for your self at www.infinity-universe.com
08/23/2008 (4:28 pm)
Interesting discussion. I agree that the ships AI could be a lot smarter.I tried eve myself and i'm hitting the learn curve wall Morrock mentioned. Perhaps i need to give it another try.
Btw i believe there where several new Space MMO's announced,but i forgot there names.
So perhaps we see some new innovations there. But i doubt if they would remove the speed limit on ships.
Have you guys heard of Infinity?
That game really adds scale to a space sim! It is still far from finished but it looks so promising.
You will be able to land and fly on planets, something i really miss in todays games, like X3.
For more information check it for your self at www.infinity-universe.com
#17
You're right, the ftl system would have to be used for intrasystem travel as well. I'm toying with some constraints on the ftl engine - like, if you're too close to a planet, it takes exponentially more power to use, and then there's random fluctuations in the power requirement. Well, not random - they're based on a deterministic algorithm that may seem random, but actually has definite patterns. So, there are certain areas in space where it's pretty much always easy to enter ftl, and some of these zones shift periodically.
Hans: Yeah, I ran into Infinity early on when I was researching this stuff. It looks pretty sweet. The seamless space/planet transition is something I'd really like to include as well - though it'd be tricky. If you were going too fast, air friction would tear apart your ship...
08/24/2008 (5:47 am)
Quote:Exactly, but most of these games aren't going for pure simulation; they need to take into account balance and multiplayer tactics, which is why it is very uncommon (if around at all).Yeah, that's exactly the reason. But as I've stated before, I dislike it when balance takes precedence over realism in blatant cases such as this. Of course, the game has to be fun - and that's where game balance succeeds. I just believe (hope...) that it's posible to make a fun simulation.
Quote:How unfair would it seem if in EVE a pilot of a starter level ship flew by the one you spent months crafting, all because he had been accelerating longer.Me personally, I wouldn't bat an eyelid. It's just be one of those obvious things. Or I'd give my ship better engines :P I guess the type of game I'm talking about would have a completely different target audience to an MMO that is balanced carefully. It'd probably attract the hard-sf junkies and people like me who like simulation.
Quote:They have this in EVE too :p. Just the ships capable of doing it are amazingly expensive and take a minute or 2 to recharge their capacitors and jump again, it is still faster than warping to a jumpgate, jumping, warping to the next, jumping, etc.. to cross many systems.Oh, okay. I am thinking that this technology will be quite expensive, so at least initially, the player must ride on ferries over long distances. I don't know; it all depends on the background I finally work out.
Quote:The only problem I see with an unlimited speed limit is the size of space. No doubt EVE had to use some sort of system of "instancing" each sector of space to keep it from being too large computationally (like the 10,000+ glitch in Torque) and if you could simply fly from area's of space that would need massive changes to a conventional engine as far as I know.Yeah, this is definitely a design consideration, and one of the reasons I wouldn't base this game on Torque. I've read an article on Gamasutra, and the guy suggested using doubles to store object positions (but converting to floats for rendering calculations, to save speed). He had a demo where he presented a true-scale Earth and Moon, and it seemed quite smooth (the planets, at least - I don't know how other small-scale objects would have turned out).
Quote:You need to warp from most planets to planets or station to station; (even if you tried flying...I did the math once, it would take 4-ish years for my ship to fly from 1 planet to one on the opposite side of the system.) and jump from system to system which is likely when it loads each new sector.Yeah, it took me a good few minutes to fly between the Earth and Moon, even accelerating at thousands of metres per second. According to him, using doubles would get you safely out several times Pluto's orbit (I think he said several thousand times, actually :P) without running into accuracy problems.
You're right, the ftl system would have to be used for intrasystem travel as well. I'm toying with some constraints on the ftl engine - like, if you're too close to a planet, it takes exponentially more power to use, and then there's random fluctuations in the power requirement. Well, not random - they're based on a deterministic algorithm that may seem random, but actually has definite patterns. So, there are certain areas in space where it's pretty much always easy to enter ftl, and some of these zones shift periodically.
Quote:I think he was actually talking about the difficulty of the gameThe way I read it, it seemed to me that Fredulus was suggesting I'd discount EVE on the grounds to its similarity with other space sims. Sorry, Fred, if you didn't mean it that way :)
Hans: Yeah, I ran into Infinity early on when I was researching this stuff. It looks pretty sweet. The seamless space/planet transition is something I'd really like to include as well - though it'd be tricky. If you were going too fast, air friction would tear apart your ship...
#18
Nothing is unlimited. As for Eve, they have zones but you never really see when the transition happens. To be honest, when making games you'll have to fake stuff. Look at bumpmapping, it's one of the biggest fakes used today and it's very popular. Not many care it's a fake, since it looks good which is what games graphics are all about, not the most accurate algo.
If you watch carefully when you warp in EVE, you'll notice the ghosting system pops in objects right when you enter a zone. Client-side objects like planets make the transition seem real but it's actually disconnecting from the first zone, continuing to play the warp effects, then connecting to another zone, making sure it gets all the ghosts in that area before turning off the warp-effect. If two players warp at once and have different connection/hardware performance, they will arrive at different times eventhough they warped out at the same time.
08/24/2008 (6:17 am)
Quote:
The only problem I see with an unlimited speed limit is the size of space. No doubt EVE had to use some sort of system of "instancing" each sector of space to keep it from being too large computationally (like the 10,000+ glitch in Torque) and if you could simply fly from area's of space that would need massive changes to a conventional engine as far as I know.
Nothing is unlimited. As for Eve, they have zones but you never really see when the transition happens. To be honest, when making games you'll have to fake stuff. Look at bumpmapping, it's one of the biggest fakes used today and it's very popular. Not many care it's a fake, since it looks good which is what games graphics are all about, not the most accurate algo.
If you watch carefully when you warp in EVE, you'll notice the ghosting system pops in objects right when you enter a zone. Client-side objects like planets make the transition seem real but it's actually disconnecting from the first zone, continuing to play the warp effects, then connecting to another zone, making sure it gets all the ghosts in that area before turning off the warp-effect. If two players warp at once and have different connection/hardware performance, they will arrive at different times eventhough they warped out at the same time.
#19
or be attack by nearby players while heading towards another planet.
08/24/2008 (10:36 am)
You could possibly try to make it where you travel from planet to planet. Traveling in spaceships and attackor be attack by nearby players while heading towards another planet.
#20
I'd like to address this, but I don't exactly know the max range of a double, hehe. MSDN says "1.7E +/- 308 (15 digits)" So is 15 digits right? Either way, 1 Astronomical Unit = 149 598 000 000 meters, Pluto at it's max orbit is around 49 AU's from the sun, or 7.330302 * 10e12, or 7 330 302 000 000 meters. That's pretty big. Any chance you have a link to this article? I'd love to read it.
edit: last paragraph got cut off.
08/24/2008 (12:28 pm)
Quote:Yeah, this is definitely a design consideration, and one of the reasons I wouldn't base this game on Torque. I've read an article on Gamasutra, and the guy suggested using doubles to store object positions (but converting to floats for rendering calculations, to save speed). He had a demo where he presented a true-scale Earth and Moon, and it seemed quite smooth (the planets, at least - I don't know how other small-scale objects would have turned out).
[...]
According to him, using doubles would get you safely out several times Pluto's orbit (I think he said several thousand times, actually :P) without running into accuracy problems.
I'd like to address this, but I don't exactly know the max range of a double, hehe. MSDN says "1.7E +/- 308 (15 digits)" So is 15 digits right? Either way, 1 Astronomical Unit = 149 598 000 000 meters, Pluto at it's max orbit is around 49 AU's from the sun, or 7.330302 * 10e12, or 7 330 302 000 000 meters. That's pretty big. Any chance you have a link to this article? I'd love to read it.
edit: last paragraph got cut off.
Torque Owner Daniel Buckmaster
T3D Steering Committee
First, a true physics system. When you're flying around in X2, navigating your way into a station, I'm slightly annoyed at the lack of momentum/inertia. However, I have no doubt that I'd be infinitely more annoyed if they kept it in, because it'd be damn near impossible to get your ship into those tiny docking bays. The solution? No, don't make the docking bays bigger. Instead of requiring the player to calculate an appropriate way to get rid of his ship's momentum, let the computer do it, based on simpler player input.
Second, one of my pet peeves was speed limits. I consider it the height of stupidity that anyone could just stick a limiter on the speed of a spaceship flying through vacuum. The only limit, and the defining factor of agility in space, is acceleration. And I would have lots and lots of it. So you're looking at ships moving extremely quickly through space. And if your enemy target is moving at a dozen kilometres per second (or more, if they've had a while to accelerate), it's going to be absolute hell trying to hit him with any type of weapon. So what to do? Make weapon controls point-and-click, and have the computer calculate the firing solution.
Third. Of course, with great speed comes another problem - great combat ranges. And if we take the combat scenario above, two ships converging at extremely high velocity, then that represents a huge problem for typical space sim sensors. Because once you're in sensor range, it would take half a second for you to pass the enemy and be back out of sensor range. The simple solution, of course, is to increase sensor ranges. Which sort of segues nicely into my next point - size in general.
(Fourth, by the way.) Scale in space sims seems to me to be all messed up. There are huge capital ships, but puny stations. And the planets in Freelancer were... fascinating experiments with astrophysics. I would have called them astroids, actually. A space sim needs a better sense of environment than this. You need to see how big planets actually are, get a feel for the amazing setting the game is using. I think that's a fundamental 'cool' factor of space - everything's bigger, further away. Which most games seem to forget, in favour of 'well, we can't actually model a whole planet... so here, have this mini version!' I've seen games, though, that can have true-scale planets. There's even a demo I downloaded where someone made a true-scale Earth and Moon. That's what I'm talking about.
Okay, congratulations if you read this far. I'd like to apologise in retrospect for all the mean things I said, but I do feel pretty strongly about this topic. And for the record, I'm not just raging at the machine. After my current project is put to bed (we're talking... 2020, maybe... :P) then I'm going to seriously consider putting these ideas into action. Not with Torque, but I figured this is a great community to put the idea to. I'm probably looking at OGRE for rendering, and a physics library like Bullet or PhysX. No networking, single-player only, unless my overall design goal changes substantially.
But basically, I have two questions for the community.
1. Does the idea of a point-and-click (for the record, I don't like to use that term) space sim appeal? Does it sound too complicated, or too much like a genre crossover that should never happen?
2. What do people think about my diagnosis of the space sim genre in general? (I'm sure I didn't need to ask that; I'm basically doing the closest thing to flame-bating it's possible to do without actually doing something as obnoxious as flame baiting. That was a stupidly complex sentence.)