Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Distant Worlds 2 - Showcase

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Coming Soon] >> Distant Worlds 2 >> RE: Distant Worlds 2 - Showcase Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Distant Worlds 2 - Showcase - 1/27/2021 4:03:33 PM   
Hanekem

 

Posts: 90
Joined: 5/22/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorgen_CAB

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hanekem

I understand and while it is disappointing, as problematic the ship design screen in DW1, it was far more free and by researching max size it did felt like our space empire's shipbuilding got better in a more progressive manner rather than you now unlocked "battleships"
I liked the idea of being able to build battleships from the get go, even if those battleships would latter on be rather destroyer in their size, admittedly I choose not to most of the time, but it made a sorta sense, given that pre-dread battleships were in the same ballpark as current day destroyers (or that current day destroyers outmass WWI and WWII era cruisers)


But my question wasn't about having a Frigate size 500 but if the frigate improvement tech was a one off tech item (with several down the line as new tech items) or some repeating tech (even if for a repeat you'd need some preconditions or something).

There was also the question about why have a base frigate hull and being able to create the frigate subclasses as oposed of having the as "stock" variants
I mean why have three variants when you can have only one and being able to fine tune it as much as you like (with in some maximum and minimum limitation for each class)
I can see the attractive of having the stock options as a go to, or for the AI, but in time I am sure I'd like to optimize the base hulls in some way (like for instance removing the hangars from the frigates in the image and using that space for something else, maybe a bigger sensor array for a "Heavy scout"/intruder or for more armor for some picket type ship)



To be honest it actually feels more realistic this way, if not just for game balance reasons. In real life you generally can't just add whatever you want to a ship based on weight alone, volume also is a thing. It also is very important where on the hull that weight/volume are going to be put and that also limit what types of systems can be utilised and where. Sensors and weapons in real ships are a pretty good example for this.

In real life there is always a measure of something added will take away particular space from adding something else but not necessarily a third system that don't compete for that physical location in the hull.

The general freedom we had in DW1 was far more unrealistic and did not present us with the general engineering challenges that we face in reality and the physical limitations of different shapes that things would in reality have to deal with.



I sorta understand what you mean, given how upgrade functioned, and I do agree up to a point
I personally would have preferred being able to design the hulls myself and use those as my upgrade constrains, basically I design a hull size 300, with say 5 engines, 5 weapon hardpoints, 4 defense, and so on and so forth and use that as my limitation for upgrade, so I actually have the option of upgrading old hulls, scrapping them, mothballing them or even selling them off to lesser powers/independents (or hell, maybe civilianizing them, turning them into scouts or armed freighters or something)
My big issue is having predesigned hulls with predesigned layouts (with the max size per hull class as a condiment) and maybe them being a research project. Honestly a part of me would like that after designing that pattern hull a yard would have to build the prototype (so rather than being a pure research project it is an actual construction order taking space and time in a slip somewhere AND built at a slower rate) and only then I could be able to start building ships to that pattern.

That for me would have been a step forward.

That said, I'd like if we had the option of having prefixes to the names of our military ships (as in HMS, USS, HMAS, MN, or none at all)


< Message edited by Hanekem -- 1/27/2021 4:07:10 PM >

(in reply to Jorgen_CAB)
Post #: 121
RE: Distant Worlds 2 - Showcase - 1/27/2021 4:47:58 PM   
Jorgen_CAB

 

Posts: 336
Joined: 3/17/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hanekem
I sorta understand what you mean, given how upgrade functioned, and I do agree up to a point
I personally would have preferred being able to design the hulls myself and use those as my upgrade constrains, basically I design a hull size 300, with say 5 engines, 5 weapon hardpoints, 4 defense, and so on and so forth and use that as my limitation for upgrade, so I actually have the option of upgrading old hulls, scrapping them, mothballing them or even selling them off to lesser powers/independents (or hell, maybe civilianizing them, turning them into scouts or armed freighters or something)
My big issue is having predesigned hulls with predesigned layouts (with the max size per hull class as a condiment) and maybe them being a research project. Honestly a part of me would like that after designing that pattern hull a yard would have to build the prototype (so rather than being a pure research project it is an actual construction order taking space and time in a slip somewhere AND built at a slower rate) and only then I could be able to start building ships to that pattern.

That for me would have been a step forward.

That said, I'd like if we had the option of having prefixes to the names of our military ships (as in HMS, USS, HMAS, MN, or none at all)



It does make a bit more sense though when you also contemplate that each hull have specific bonuses for which the actual hull was designed for which put some of the limitation of the different components you can put on them. These characteristics need to be balanced with the components so ships in general fill specific roles. The hull frame is not just a generic frame but designed in specific way from a lore perspective.



You then also have the space ship models themselves that need to be changed based on the different system you can put on them which I suppose have to be made for each individual hull type.

< Message edited by Jorgen_CAB -- 1/29/2021 9:42:00 PM >

(in reply to Hanekem)
Post #: 122
RE: Distant Worlds 2 - Showcase - 1/27/2021 5:04:20 PM   
Hanekem

 

Posts: 90
Joined: 5/22/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorgen_CAB


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hanekem

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorgen_CAB

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hanekem

I understand and while it is disappointing, as problematic the ship design screen in DW1, it was far more free and by researching max size it did felt like our space empire's shipbuilding got better in a more progressive manner rather than you now unlocked "battleships"
I liked the idea of being able to build battleships from the get go, even if those battleships would latter on be rather destroyer in their size, admittedly I choose not to most of the time, but it made a sorta sense, given that pre-dread battleships were in the same ballpark as current day destroyers (or that current day destroyers outmass WWI and WWII era cruisers)


But my question wasn't about having a Frigate size 500 but if the frigate improvement tech was a one off tech item (with several down the line as new tech items) or some repeating tech (even if for a repeat you'd need some preconditions or something).

There was also the question about why have a base frigate hull and being able to create the frigate subclasses as oposed of having the as "stock" variants
I mean why have three variants when you can have only one and being able to fine tune it as much as you like (with in some maximum and minimum limitation for each class)
I can see the attractive of having the stock options as a go to, or for the AI, but in time I am sure I'd like to optimize the base hulls in some way (like for instance removing the hangars from the frigates in the image and using that space for something else, maybe a bigger sensor array for a "Heavy scout"/intruder or for more armor for some picket type ship)



To be honest it actually feels more realistic this way, if not just for game balance reasons. In real life you generally can't just add whatever you want to a ship based on weight alone, volume also is a thing. It also is very important where on the hull that weight/volume are going to be put and that also limit what types of systems can be utilised and where. Sensors and weapons in real ships are a pretty good example for this.

In real life there is always a measure of something added will take away particular space from adding something else but not necessarily a third system that don't compete for that physical location in the hull.

The general freedom we had in DW1 was far more unrealistic and did not present us with the general engineering challenges that we face in reality and the physical limitations of different shapes that things would in reality have to deal with.



I sorta understand what you mean, given how upgrade functioned, and I do agree up to a point
I personally would have preferred being able to design the hulls myself and use those as my upgrade constrains, basically I design a hull size 300, with say 5 engines, 5 weapon hardpoints, 4 defense, and so on and so forth and use that as my limitation for upgrade, so I actually have the option of upgrading old hulls, scrapping them, mothballing them or even selling them off to lesser powers/independents (or hell, maybe civilianizing them, turning them into scouts or armed freighters or something)
My big issue is having predesigned hulls with predesigned layouts (with the max size per hull class as a condiment) and maybe them being a research project. Honestly a part of me would like that after designing that pattern hull a yard would have to build the prototype (so rather than being a pure research project it is an actual construction order taking space and time in a slip somewhere AND built at a slower rate) and only then I could be able to start building ships to that pattern.

That for me would have been a step forward.

That said, I'd like if we had the option of having prefixes to the names of our military ships (as in HMS, USS, HMAS, MN, or none at all)



It does make a bit more sense though when you also contemplate that each hull have specific bonuses for which the actual hull was designed for which put some of the limitation of the different components you can put on them. These characteristics need to be balanced with the components so ships in general fill specific roles. The hull frame is not just a generic frame but designed in specific way from a lore perspective.



You then also have the space ship models themselves that need to be changed based on the different system you can put on them which I suppose have to be made for each individual hull type.


Not a fan of hull bonuses, it does feel too much of trying to find a question to an answer (the answer being use this ship) just let a bigger amount of space for engines or directional thrusters or what not and there, done, you have a faster ship, or have more space for EW units, or what not.

As for the spaceships designs that is only a concern for the external modules, and you could always have no externally visibly modules, with engines nozzles being independent of the number of engines, and turrets being discrete affairs receded into the hull.

But even going further, how many times will you see a battle close enough to note how many maxos blasters are in a particular ship? three? five?
I know I won't be caring for that, like at all, the same way I never cared how many turbolaser batteries are in an imperial star destroyer or where the blasts were coming from
And if you do care, maybe the hardpoint is actually a double turret, or triple or quadruple... instead of being only one gunmount

(in reply to Jorgen_CAB)
Post #: 123
RE: Distant Worlds 2 - Showcase - 1/27/2021 5:15:34 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline
One of our design principles is to let folks enjoy what they enjoy, allow them to ignore what they don't enjoy as much and remove barriers if they'd like to make changes or tweaks. There doesn't have to be one right way to enjoy or play Distant Worlds.

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC




For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to Hanekem)
Post #: 124
RE: Distant Worlds 2 - Showcase - 1/27/2021 5:17:50 PM   
SirHoraceHarkness


Posts: 400
Joined: 5/17/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

One of our design principles is to let folks enjoy what they enjoy, allow them to ignore what they don't enjoy as much and remove barriers if they'd like to make changes or tweaks. There doesn't have to be one right way to enjoy or play Distant Worlds.


This is why I have over a thousand hours into DWU over the years. So many ways to set up a game that the replayability was off the charts and with the editor it added in even more layers so you could make up pretty much any scenario you wanted to play out. Hopefully there is more of the same this time around.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 125
RE: Distant Worlds 2 - Showcase - 1/27/2021 5:23:53 PM   
Hanekem

 

Posts: 90
Joined: 5/22/2010
Status: offline
I know, and I like that philosophy myself, even if I'd go out of my way to say why I feel this feels bad or not.
And by and large it is that, feels, at least at this point. I am seeing stuff that reminds me of stellaris and, as much as fun that game can be, it is as shallow as a puddle (and has a lot of questionable design choices, like that pointless planetary micro, or the original sector logic because of the even worse planetary micro 1.0 used to have)

Thus far I am wowed by DW2 and the list of features, there are things I like more than others and there are things that I feel strongly about.
But I am sure the moment I play it I'll table most of those things, and just play the game.
Anyway thanks for having patience with me. I know I can be incredibly headstrong about stuff and it is not my intention to pontificate, even if it might sound at times.
I just feel very, very strongly about the game and that has its pros and cons

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 126
RE: Distant Worlds 2 - Showcase - 1/27/2021 5:59:14 PM   
Siddham

 

Posts: 159
Joined: 3/18/2012
Status: offline
So far what I am seeing and reading about DW2 sounds great.
I literally never buy new games.....never....but for me Distant worlds is different.
So far really impressed and eager to buy & play.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 127
RE: Distant Worlds 2 - Showcase - 1/27/2021 6:39:16 PM   
Jorgen_CAB

 

Posts: 336
Joined: 3/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hanekem
Not a fan of hull bonuses, it does feel too much of trying to find a question to an answer (the answer being use this ship) just let a bigger amount of space for engines or directional thrusters or what not and there, done, you have a faster ship, or have more space for EW units, or what not.

As for the spaceships designs that is only a concern for the external modules, and you could always have no externally visibly modules, with engines nozzles being independent of the number of engines, and turrets being discrete affairs receded into the hull.

But even going further, how many times will you see a battle close enough to note how many maxos blasters are in a particular ship? three? five?
I know I won't be caring for that, like at all, the same way I never cared how many turbolaser batteries are in an imperial star destroyer or where the blasts were coming from
And if you do care, maybe the hardpoint is actually a double turret, or triple or quadruple... instead of being only one gunmount


Then again this is what modding is all about, you can remove these bonuses and make the hull more bland and give them allot more modules and play the game roughly the same as before if you like to. I bet someone will make such a mod.

Personally I think it gives the game less character and actually less actual viable options for ship configurations if they are all more or less the same except their looks.

(in reply to Hanekem)
Post #: 128
RE: Distant Worlds 2 - Showcase - 1/27/2021 7:58:22 PM   
Jon Micheelsen

 

Posts: 143
Joined: 12/26/2011
Status: offline
Hi Erik,
Awesome presentation, haven't been this excited about a game for many many years I see the proceduralism is strong, looking forward to see what that can do! And also, damn that was some nice volumetrics in that intro(those where prerendered right!?)

Moved actual questions to QA thread


< Message edited by Jon Micheelsen -- 1/28/2021 2:35:07 PM >

(in reply to Jorgen_CAB)
Post #: 129
RE: Distant Worlds 2 - Showcase - 1/27/2021 8:24:48 PM   
Pipewrench


Posts: 453
Joined: 1/5/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

One of our design principles is to let folks enjoy what they enjoy, allow them to ignore what they don't enjoy as much and remove barriers if they'd like to make changes or tweaks. There doesn't have to be one right way to enjoy or play Distant Worlds.


That is what makes the game an actual experience - its not cold and stale

Smiling as I step into another 1000 hours of moddelled Sci-fi fantasy based on a eerie trigged expanse - this truly tells a tale

_____________________________

“We are limited only by our imagination and our will to act.”
– Ron Garan

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 130
RE: Distant Worlds 2 - Showcase - 1/27/2021 9:22:08 PM   
OnePercent

 

Posts: 73
Joined: 12/12/2019
From: Australia
Status: offline
Everytime I was imagining how distant worlds 2 would improve on OG Distant worlds, aside from everything we already know, was the chance to make research immersive, by only showing the next research project etc, I am so happy that the devs were thinking along the same lines.

This was the one mechanic (of many) that I loved about Sword of the Stars, was the tech tree that was randomized/or more inclined by Alien civilization and hidden, where we only saw the next project or branching project.

After viewing stream, must say I absolutely love the attention to detail, the tiny little turrets on the ships are so cute and immersive.

Looking forward to more videos!

< Message edited by OnePercent -- 1/27/2021 10:30:30 PM >

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 131
RE: Distant Worlds 2 - Showcase - 1/27/2021 11:18:51 PM   
sinbuster

 

Posts: 60
Joined: 7/29/2006
Status: offline
Just watched the full video, Erik. Just a great job so far; I really love the way you've handled the UI. No more clutter and actionable buttons at the top level, yes please. The scale of ships and bases to planets is a lot better as well. However, you did say loading would be a million times faster so I'll hold you to that :P

One question: I noticed in galaxy creation that there was no option to choose your own research speed as in DW1. Will this be an option at release? (I like playing at the slowest tech speed possible).

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 132
RE: Distant Worlds 2 - Showcase - 1/28/2021 1:51:45 AM   
timothyfarley

 

Posts: 4
Joined: 1/26/2021
Status: offline
(Deleted - moved question to megathread, sorry!)

< Message edited by timothyfarley -- 1/28/2021 2:55:48 AM >

(in reply to sinbuster)
Post #: 133
RE: Distant Worlds 2 - Showcase - 2/7/2021 10:55:32 AM   
Webbco


Posts: 682
Joined: 2/6/2010
Status: offline
Does anyone know when the next preview will take place?

(in reply to timothyfarley)
Post #: 134
RE: Distant Worlds 2 - Showcase - 3/1/2021 8:22:06 PM   
frankycl

 

Posts: 5
Joined: 3/1/2021
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ric119
1) As the humans, will they have our Solar system or the option to start in our sol system?


(...) it would make sense to include that then and might make sense in general to add the option to have "defined" rather than procedurally generated home systems as an option. (...)


Yes, this would be very nice, imho, because after having played all the official story-line(s) some of us certainly would like to play a bit more and create our own story-line(s) or settings - even without using any mods.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

(...) regarding the hulls (...) That's actually very easy to change through modding the ship hull data files (...), but I can only say that it does work well the new way and once you play it I think you'll enjoy it (and if you don't, it's moddable!).


That's also very nice, imho, but I think I would like the now existing system enough to not having to bother with modding in this case. - But I could imagine that it could be very nice, too, to have some race-specific hull-sizes or hull-types, like e.g. mainly very large (and slow) hulls for one race and very small (and fast) hulles for another one - or even a race with mainly some super-big mothership-hulls and only many (and cheap) other tiny fighters or drones ... that would even be worth some modding, imho.



(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 135
RE: Distant Worlds 2 - Showcase - 2/1/2022 7:27:03 AM   
Filon1979

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 2/1/2022
Status: offline
Great!! Can't Wait. I'm just shaking...

_____________________________


(in reply to Secretcode)
Post #: 136
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]
All Forums >> [Coming Soon] >> Distant Worlds 2 >> RE: Distant Worlds 2 - Showcase Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.063