Hot posts in thread: ISG Dev Diary #1: Starmap and Exploration

Is the first post here still relevant to how the star types and other bodies work? I've been wondering on how to prioritize the exploration part. If it is then it would be great to be added to Steam as a guide so people can get a real taste of the depth in the exploration phase.

 

What can I say?, short, concise and straight to the point.
I agree with this and perhaps we should look at this from a different angle, specifically what you refer to in your previous post when you cite rationalizing that the map represents only the important stars.
A neat way of handling a smaller map is similar to BotF and IG2. They both used the strategic fog of war concept meaning that you did not even know where the systems were until you scanned for them. This concept created a lot of good things.
Allowed ships to enter, occupy and have combat in any square, not just those containing a system
Extended the exploration stage and added a new layer to it
Caused a small butterfly effect and paced the game more
Negated the feeling that 100 systems was small as you had to search for them.
I think something like this could benefit any game where the map is noticeably small.

 

The problem with increasing map size is most clearly apparent in a game like Distant Worlds. DW is a great game, one of my favorites, but if you make the map too large (1400 stars) then even extravagant automation wont save you from having constant important messages bombard you like rapid machine gun fire. They come at you so fast that by mid-game or so, the scrolling message window literally cant scroll fast enough and never catches up, just getting further and further behind for the entire game.

As the area of the "known universe" that the player interacts with increases, the number of important events that really should be handled by the player rises exponentially fast. This can be partially solved by making the game turn-based (DW is pausable RT). It can be further addressed by adding extensive automation which eventually has the very undesirable side-effect that the game feels like its playing itself.

But make no mistake, if you keep increasing the number of stars, eventually nothing will save the game from becoming a completely chaotic, frantic, unplayable mess. By us poor, limited humans at least.

Sadly I think concessions to reality must be made in any good game design to account for the fact that humans are only capable of dealing with a certain limited volume of information per turn or per second. Too much and fun turns into work, add even more and dealing with it all just becomes impossible for anybody.

 

Standing room only. That is one way I would describe the later stages of Moo2.
To use a more terrestrial analogy, you had cities and suburbs with no countryside. The design of Moo2 pretty much dictated that this was inevitable. While less of an issue at the time, today it is hard to accept. The question then becomes if this can be addressed without resorting to a drastic increase of the map size. Personally I think this depends largely on other mechanics found in the game. Mechanics related to population growth, industry growth, terraforming capabilities and effects, etc.
I'm somewhat stubborn in my belief that all problems have a solution and it is usually more simple than we think. We have become so sophisticated in our thoughts and capabilities as a species that we tend to overlook the obvious at times and go straight to extravagant and complex solutions without first examining the simple ones.
I'm also quite pragmatic.
This means I understand that no matter what solution we look at the elephant in the room is the map size, there is only so much that can be done to address the problem before this fact will act like a stone wall in our path. Hopefully we will find that enough adjustments can be made to other areas of the game so that we can get some countryside (outer rim) without an increase in the map size or at most, a minor increase only

 

I guess in the end, what many of us want is to relive/replay in such a game is a Star-Trek-like (or pick any other, similar show if you prefer) experience: Exploration of the unknown (the final frontier!), but also empires, big and small, interacting. Or, alternatively, its like the (actual) age of exploration, just in space, with lots of "here be dragons" regions left, while empires fight about the best parts of the discovered world (funny to think we have reached the boring endgame of the age of exploration in today's world ).

 

Matthias, this is exactly what i am also hoping for. Slow pop growth, a few core worlds on the rare gem planets that can harbor life (Earth like) and a dozen mining colonies on other mineral rich worlds, and a bunch of worlds left over. With 10 empires each having about 10-15 star systems under their control, and 20 minor races that would be about 120-170 star systems in use, out of 1000 star systems available. If you had a 1000 star systems, they would effectively become background graphics, but could be used to hide secret fleets and spy bases. Reconnaissance ships would be able to scout (in a low level way) several neighboring star systems a turn. If something interesting is spotted, you could go to that system and scout it in more detail. Better space telescopes from later tech could scout more systems in a high level detailed way.

 

I think I like the idea of having many stars because I don't like the endgame too much, which feels crowded (all useful planets occupied) and boring (all planets look the same). If there are many stars, you could have core worlds and rim worlds, and lots of unused space around it all, and you could still have empires interacting. If there is some "scarcity" element introduced (as discussed in the respective thread), e.g., if population growth is very limited and its more a question of distributing your homeworld population among a few great planets, combine it with mining outposts to make the whole empire-thing work, then, you would indeed develop cores / rims and could live with leaving most of the galaxy untouched. So I guess my position on this is: as many stars as are necessary to leave many of them unexplored or at least unused when the game approaches the end. If that is a 1000 stars, then so be it, but if it can be implemented with 200, just as fine with me.

 

I usually try to suspend my disbelief when presented with game "galaxies" having only 100 or so stars by rationalizing that there are really are a lot more stars out there, but the ones shown are the only really "important" exploitable ones, either strategically or economically. All the others are essentially useless and therefore not shown.

But lets face it, there's no way we're ever going to get anything approaching actual realism here, that would require somewhere around 400 billion stars or so. I dont really have a problem with abstraction as long as it either makes sense or serves a vital game purpose and in this case the purpose of keeping the star numbers manageable for good gameplay is pretty vital.

 

I want to expand on this a bit more and offer a clearer explanation of my stance on it. Before doing that however, I just want to take the time and say that I thoroughly enjoyed your post and the ideas you presented. In my opinion these could be implemented with minimal effort but offer a very good return.

Now to the topic of how many stars.

I wish I could say that the number of stars is not an issue for me but it is. This is not to say that I am looking at this from purely a mathematical perspective (1000 stars = good, less = bad,) quite the contrary. My belief is that 1000 Moo2 type systems would be unworkable without major alterations and additions of automated processes, even then, it could present other problems in the game such as relating to pacing.

The problem for me is less the actual number of stars or systems but more so in how those stars relate to and create strategic depth.

Moo2 had very little strategic depth, usually you explored the systems in your immediate vicinity and if you were lucky perhaps a bit more before you ran into another race, once this happened, like it or not, you were now at a different stage of the game. In Moo2, playing a large map with 8 races meant that on average, a nine system empire for all, translated into a saturated map. This was mitigated somewhat in the early game where slow engines and limited range still played a role, once faster engines and extended ranges came into play there was no strategic depth to speak of. (Warp interdictors helped somewhat but not enough)

140 stars would double the depth then, (unless of course there were more than 8 races present), so what more could be done? actually a lot and it need not take great effort to do it.

Speed will play a factor, the longer ships stay slow, the longer the map will feel big

Range will play a factor, Keep ranges limited with only incremental increases as tech progresses, the longer this is done, the longer the map will retain strategic depth.

Not allowing newly conquered worlds to instantly and automatically extend range will help. (Similar mechanic to 2056)

Etc.

As I stated in another post I have seen 75 planets total feel like a galaxy because a lot of these issues (and others) were addressed so it may be worthwhile to consider them.

This brings me to another issue I have, namely referring to a map this small as a “galaxy”. I think this could be explained nicely but I want to polish my idea a bit more before I present it, if nothing else it should offer some entertainment value.

 

I love huge galaxies and I agree that the exploration is very important.
I think Star Ruler 2 has one of the best representation of an universe. The only limitation is your PC.

Look at this beauty.



Five galaxies, different sizes and types, all waiting to be explored. For me something like this would be amazing.
Of course, something like this involves a very good optimization, especially in the late game.

 

Not harsh at all A.R.M. quite balanced in fact.
Wanted to share some info with you today.
IG2 had a total of about 75 planets. This was executed in a way that was nothing short of brilliant.
To find these planets you had to literally scour every square inch of the map. This created a feeling of searching the galaxy for the few places you could inhabit. Strategic depth was also retained throughout the game.
In this case the small number of planets was never an issue as it was dealt with in game by certain mechanics.

 

Greetings A.R.M.
Please do not misunderstand me. Overall I feel that you and the rest of the Devs are doing an outstanding job. It is my nature to see both sides of an argument and at times I tend to play the devils' advocate which is why I bring certain points of view to the forefront.
In essence I agree with you but the lack of statistics does not mean that there wont be a small minority that will not appreciate the star map.
In my experience dissent is voiced in a manner that is disproportionate to the numbers of those dissenting.
I only suggest that any minor action that can be taken to remove dissent should be looked at, there is nothing to lose by doing so.
As for the rest of my concerns, I have faith that should any issues arise, you will acknowledge them and correct them prior to launch, you and the rest of the Devs have proven quite flexible thus far and this does instil me with confidence.

 

Like it or not, certain aspects of 4x games are contentious and divisive by their very nature. The presence of star lanes is such an aspect, RTS versus TBS is another and so is the size of the map.

In reading the various materials posted here I had anticipated a small map size but in all honesty I was surprised at just how small the developers had in mind.

I played Moo1 and when 2 came out, I believed it to be superior in every way except one, the map size had actually decreased. Oh I know we now had multi planet systems which gave the game an illusion of being bigger but the fact is we had fewer systems than before. This not only bothered me on a personal level but manifested itself in a negative fashion throughout the game.

The feeling of exploring the vastness of space quickly gave way to a feeling of standing room only, the map was dense and crowded.

Strategic depth which was somewhat adequate in the early game disappeared entirely as fuel cells affected the game. The deeper we got into the game the smaller the map became.

Steamrolling an opponent became easier.

Microprose could be excused for many shortcomings as there was no history to draw from, no past mistakes to learn from. Developers today have no such luxury or excuse for not addressing certain issues during development.

The game as envisioned so far, would never work with 1,000 systems, I understand this on my own but the number being floated around is too small.

Look at it this way

Some won’t mind at all or actually praise the decision

Some will mind but overcome it

Some will never overcome it and may not even give the game a chance because of it

As a business man I would look at ways to diminish the negative effects of the map size, particularly if it can be done in a way that does not change the core vision or game.

For example

Explain it a away as part of the game lore

Increase the number of systems, even 10 more would get you past a minor psychological barrier. (What sounds better 140 or 150?)

No one is denying that you can infuse fresh ideas into the game without a huge and drastic alteration to the star map.

At the same time, denying that this issue is critical to the success of the game is also unrealistic.

My advice then is simple, retain your core vision but address this issue in any credible way possible.

 

This is something I think a lot of space 4x games miss out on. Why does everything have to be about entire galaxies? Why can't we just be focused on a particular sector or area of space where certain species happen to have evolved and are now coming into conflict?

If the scale of this game is going to remain small, which I'm perfectly fine with, just help it to make sense by never using the word "galaxy" anywhere in game creation or the game play map. Make it clear the game focuses on a limited sector of space and people will be less likely to constantly bemoan the lack of thousands of stars on the "galaxy map" if its actually called the sector map.

 

If the game is a Moo2 clone, then the numbers (35-140) are about right. But Moo2 was released over 20 yrs ago, do we really want another Moo2 clone, or game that advances the genre and offers something new and interesting? I would like to see a game in this genre have about 5000-10,000 stars, but still only have a few dozen at most colonies per empire. With that many, they would basicaly become the background graphics of the galaxy map. The Milky Way is huge, its estimated to have up to 400,000,000,000 stars. Within 20 light years of Earth are 150 stars. That 20 light yr radius volume is only 0.000000006% of the galaxy. Am I to believe that the entirety of a Moo2 huge map game is to take place in only such a small fraction of the galaxy? I know a game cant have a 400 billion stars, but if you make it sufficiently huge with thousands available, it should convey the grand scale of the galaxy.