RE: Distant Worlds: Shadows (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Distant Worlds 1 Series



Message

Bebop Cola -> RE: Distant Worlds: Shadows (11/4/2012 3:31:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
- Play as an independent space-based faction, a very different play experience from the existing "Empire" gameplay.
-- Choose from several playstyles, including Smuggler, Pirate and Mercenary.
-- Compete in victory conditions against other space-based factions.
-- New Pirate Leader and Pirate Captain characters

Will it be possible for an empire to transition back and forth between these states? For example, could a space-based empire capture a planet to become a traditional empire, then return to being spaced-based if their last planet is captured while they still retain say, a construction ship, in play?


quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
- Choose to play in the existing Distant Worlds timeline or the pre-hyperspace "Age of Shadows"
- Assault pods and ship to ship or base boarding actions, including ship and base capture
- Gravitic Weapons and Tractor Beams
- New expanded Ground Combat with new troop types and an animated ground battle resolution screen
-- Infantry, Armor/Mech, Special Forces, Planetary Defense Units (multi-layered)
-- Resolution of the multiple stages of a planetary assault
-- Expanded troop experience
-- New Ground Combat technology tree
- Expanded and improved Area Weapons
- New planetary facilities
- Improved AI and new comprehensive difficulty settings

The rest of this sounds pretty good. Gravitic weapons and tractor beams aren't really my bag, but the rest sounds fun.

One minor(I think) thing that I'd like to suggest if it can be squeezed in, if I may. A way in the editor to grant or remove specific technologies. If I recall correctly, that was in the editor prior to Legends, then Legends transitioned into a technology slider. I like the slider, generally speaking, but I'd like to be able to customize an empire's specific tech loadout in play.



Anthropoid -> RE: Distant Worlds: Shadows (11/4/2012 6:11:23 PM)

Sounds great Erik!



drillerman -> RE: Distant Worlds: Shadows (11/5/2012 1:21:53 PM)

I have a suggestion!!!
Get rid of the silly space monsters. Yes I know you can turn them off in the options menu.
.......and
Have moving black holes. Think of the havoc that could cause.



tjhkkr -> RE: Distant Worlds: Shadows (11/5/2012 3:40:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drillerman

I have a suggestion!!!
Get rid of the silly space monsters. Yes I know you can turn them off in the options menu.
.......and
Have moving black holes. Think of the havoc that could cause.


Is not a moving black hole sort of like a space monster writ large? [:D][;)]



Kayoz -> RE: Distant Worlds: Shadows (11/5/2012 8:02:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tjhkkr
Is not a moving black hole sort of like a space monster writ large? [:D][;)]

A very very small monster, actually. Black holes aren't very big at all. Some theories postulate that the black hole proper (not it's event horizon or ergosphere) is a singularity.



drillerman -> RE: Distant Worlds: Shadows (11/5/2012 8:30:52 PM)

The thing is that at least a black hole is sort of more believable than a giant slug in space.[8|] At least you can see them all the time. In the game they would have to move very slowly. Obviously we would have the option to turn them off but it might add a twist to the game???



Bingeling -> RE: Distant Worlds: Shadows (11/5/2012 8:43:20 PM)

Black holes travelling and influencing anything (apart from those seeking them out) would not make much sense at all. I don't find the game's time frames to be very large.



Kayoz -> RE: Distant Worlds: Shadows (11/5/2012 8:50:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drillerman
The thing is that at least a black hole is sort of more believable than a giant slug in space.[8|]

Given our ingenuity - even given our pathetically small experience - in modifying plants - a slug living in space and feeding on the asteroids isn't that odd. AFAIK, nobody ever said the slugs were natural.

And it if is... well, we've only examined part of one tiny ball. We have nothing to compare "our" life form to. Big universe out there. Bound to be a lot of weird stuff.

quote:

ORIGINAL: drillerman
At least you can see them all the time.

You can't. You can see the effects of a black hole. You can't actually see the black hole itself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: drillerman
In the game they would have to move very slowly. Obviously we would have the option to turn them off but it might add a twist to the game???


I agree with you here, entirely. The time scope of a DW game is a few hundred years at most. That's diddly in terms of the lifespan of a galaxy. A black hole moving across the galaxy at speeds that would influence the game is far more unlikely than the space slugs.



Haree78 -> RE: Distant Worlds: Shadows (11/6/2012 1:24:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
You can't. You can see the effects of a black hole. You can't actually see the black hole itself.


By that same logic I could say that I can't see my TV screen because the TV is off ;)

It is an interesting idea though that you could say that a black hole is impossible to observe, or rather once observed impossible to take the results outside of the Event Horizon unless we invent teleportation I guess. Is there anything that doesn't get affected by gravity like that?



Dracus -> RE: Distant Worlds: Shadows (11/6/2012 1:37:50 AM)

Not a expert on the matter but I think the reason we could not see a black hole without all the junk being pulled it is due that the fact that our eyes are designed to see light waves and if ligh is not being produced or bounced off the black hole then we can not see it. This does not mean that we can not detect it by some other method.



Kayoz -> RE: Distant Worlds: Shadows (11/6/2012 5:45:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dracus

Not a expert on the matter but I think the reason we could not see a black hole without all the junk being pulled it is due that the fact that our eyes are designed to see light waves and if ligh is not being produced or bounced off the black hole then we can not see it. This does not mean that we can not detect it by some other method.

The statement was in response to "see a black hole"; the nail of which your statement on light hit on the head.

As to whether anything isn't affected by that sort of gravity - erk - no idea. Physics under those conditions isn't something I have any comprehension of. Things get plain weird. Here's a pretty good description, though:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U309Z0XQEhU#t=06m40s



tjhkkr -> RE: Distant Worlds: Shadows (11/6/2012 6:06:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drillerman
The thing is that at least a black hole is sort of more believable than a giant slug in space.[8|] At least you can see them all the time. In the game they would have to move very slowly. Obviously we would have the option to turn them off but it might add a twist to the game???


I was just messing with you a bit... [:)]
But I can see what you are saying.

I turned monsters off... and then turned the giant Kaltors in all the ship yards into Crystaline Entities...
So I do see your point. [:)]

FYI: I think IGard is implementing a Crystaline entity. Cannot wait to see how his looks. But I watched my own and it is way cool to see move...[:)]



tjhkkr -> RE: Distant Worlds: Shadows (11/6/2012 6:10:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
quote:

ORIGINAL: tjhkkr
Is not a moving black hole sort of like a space monster writ large? [:D][;)]

A very very small monster, actually. Black holes aren't very big at all. Some theories postulate that the black hole proper (not it's event horizon or ergosphere) is a singularity.


I stand corrected... very small with billions of tons of mass...
I was trying to make a little joke... [;)][:)]



Kayoz -> RE: Distant Worlds: Shadows (11/6/2012 12:51:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tjhkkr
I stand corrected... very small with billions of tons of mass...
I was trying to make a little joke... [;)][:)]

It was a cheap excuse to get my post count up. Oops, damn... there I go again!



lsc9x -> RE: Distant Worlds: Shadows (11/6/2012 8:07:43 PM)

Sounds like a freaking amazing addition to an already awesome game!

I just started playing DW with Legends a few days ago, and I am already massively hooked. Best strategy game I have played in DECADES.

Thanks so much for all the hard work!



ASHBERY76 -> RE: Distant Worlds: Shadows (11/6/2012 9:29:39 PM)

Now we finally have some info.I WANT MORE.[:D]



Igard -> RE: Distant Worlds: Shadows (11/6/2012 10:45:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tjhkkr

FYI: I think IGard is implementing a Crystaline entity. Cannot wait to see how his looks. But I watched my own and it is way cool to see move...[:)]


Already implemented TJ. I put in the Picard Era Total Conversion mod. That's the mod that changes all the base game files, not the actual mod that goes in the customization folder.

The CE replace the silvermist creature, so it's exactly the same behaviour. I changed the text as well so you get some backstory and a vague mention of the fact it can now spawn 'offspring'. [:)]



ehsumrell1 -> RE: Distant Worlds: Shadows (11/7/2012 1:20:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Igard

quote:

ORIGINAL: tjhkkr

FYI: I think IGard is implementing a Crystaline entity. Cannot wait to see how his looks. But I watched my own and it is way cool to see move...[:)]


Already implemented TJ. I put in the Picard Era Total Conversion mod. That's the mod that changes all the base game files, not the actual mod that goes in the customization folder.

The CE replace the silvermist creature, so it's exactly the same behaviour. I changed the text as well so you get some backstory and a vague mention of the fact it can now spawn 'offspring'. [:)]


...and if I must say....Igard did a FANTASTIC job of the Crystaline Entity changeover. In the
'Star Trek' frame of mind, the immersion is great! Good job Igard! PASS THE ALE!!!!! [sm=party-smiley-012.gif]



tjhkkr -> RE: Distant Worlds: Shadows (11/7/2012 2:21:07 AM)

IGard always does an extraordinary job...

But I need to put mine out there if for no other reason than to prove I can do it to... [:D]
Another Star Wars/Star Trek contest... actually kind of a stupid contest because Star Wars does not have a lot of space creatures like Star Trek... unless I want to turn the slugs into mynock. [:D]



ehsumrell1 -> RE: Distant Worlds: Shadows (11/7/2012 12:46:32 PM)

Drink enough of Igard's Vintage Romulan Ale and ANYTHING will look like a Mynock! [sm=party-smiley-012.gif] [sm=00000280.gif]



[image]local://upfiles/35889/E32189508F484E0ABFC14FDCA5B208D1.jpg[/image]



tjhkkr -> RE: Distant Worlds: Shadows (11/7/2012 5:58:09 PM)

You are just begging for Data to strike are you not?[:D][:)][8D][:'(]



tjhkkr -> RE: Distant Worlds: Shadows (11/7/2012 5:59:34 PM)

Well [:(], I was going to upload my Crystaline Entity - Kaltor replacement, but it is too large to be put on the website.  [:(]



Darkspire -> RE: Distant Worlds: Shadows (11/7/2012 6:18:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tjhkkr

Well [:(], I was going to upload my Crystaline Entity - Kaltor replacement, but it is too large to be put on the website.  [:(]


You could always put on here. Ive used them for years, free and a good service as well.

Darkspire



Kayoz -> RE: Distant Worlds: Shadows (11/8/2012 8:18:40 AM)

Looking over the feature list of Shadows, I'm concerned over a few issues:

1. graphics
I hope not too much time has gone to improving graphics. DW could use some improvements to the efficiency of the graphics engine - but trying to make the game prettier is, in my opinion, a waste of time in a strategy game.

2. bling weapons
Please don't add weapons and expand the combat without making an equal improvement to the AI behind it. All the additions to the invasion mechanics or addition of boarding will mean nothing if the AI is not also improved.

3. technology tree
Please make sure that the AI tech decision isn't "everything" as it currently is. Inefficient use of tech research by AI further degrades the already weak AI.

4. multiple stages of a planetary assault
Please make sure that this also applies to pacification. Currently, it's "invade, load troops, invade next" - there's no need or benefit to pacify a planet - so you can easily steamroll an empire down to nothing in the matter of a few minutes. This does not seem to add to the game play.

5. new planetary facilities
Running costs. Please. Every planet with full shield, ion cannon and everything else is a bit boring. Adding a dozen more facilities I can build with my nigh limitless funds is a big yawn.

6. Pirates
More control or at least hiring of them to perform specific missions would be greatly appreciated. I don't want the pirates to simply suicide on mining stations - I want them to blow up a SPECIFIC mining station. And if they need ships, I want to be able to give them ships - not cash which they'll spend building a dozen useless escorts.

7. area weapons
Please make them hit fighters and possibly missiles/torpedoes. Area weapons are either useless or a detriment to any player that's daft enough to use them.

8. diplomacy
Blockade mechanics need a serious look over. Attacking ships that are blockading your planet should have little or no reputation hit. Also, the current implementation of diplomatic demands to remove military forces from my (player) system seems to go to NULL. There's no indication what's being done with diplomacy, but please FIX the existing problems before adding new ones!

9. difficulty settings
Grand news. More the better. Expose everything - even if it's in an ini file. Allowing players to tweak the game to suit their desires will only lengthen the life of the game. And for such a tiny dev cost as well!

10. memory management
Please please tell me that Elliot has implemented his own memory manager. The .net limit of 800-1200mb is ridiculous given modern PCs. It's purely a .net limit, which he can (hopefully) easily work around. Please please please tell me he's done this...



jabbahutt -> RE: Distant Worlds: Shadows (11/8/2012 9:54:19 AM)

Sounds great,

Personally I have two things that I would like changed and would make the game just about perfect:
1. Mechanical races (Borg anyone?)
2. Random tech trees - where not all techs always appear and the research time is semi-random.

My two cents.



Haree78 -> RE: Distant Worlds: Shadows (11/8/2012 10:30:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayoz

Looking over the feature list of Shadows, I'm concerned over a few issues:

1. graphics
I hope not too much time has gone to improving graphics. DW could use some improvements to the efficiency of the graphics engine - but trying to make the game prettier is, in my opinion, a waste of time in a strategy game.


Can't say I agree.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
2. bling weapons
Please don't add weapons and expand the combat without making an equal improvement to the AI behind it. All the additions to the invasion mechanics or addition of boarding will mean nothing if the AI is not also improved.


I would be surprised if the AI doesn't get a lot of tweaks, I have posted a ton of issues and suggestions in dev forums and things rarely get ignored.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
3. technology tree
Please make sure that the AI tech decision isn't "everything" as it currently is. Inefficient use of tech research by AI further degrades the already weak AI.


Agreed, we need research orders modding too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
4. multiple stages of a planetary assault
Please make sure that this also applies to pacification. Currently, it's "invade, load troops, invade next" - there's no need or benefit to pacify a planet - so you can easily steamroll an empire down to nothing in the matter of a few minutes. This does not seem to add to the game play.


That's a good idea. A certain level of troops required depending on race family that will change over time as local enforcement is set up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
8. diplomacy
Blockade mechanics need a serious look over. Attacking ships that are blockading your planet should have little or no reputation hit. Also, the current implementation of diplomatic demands to remove military forces from my (player) system seems to go to NULL. There's no indication what's being done with diplomacy, but please FIX the existing problems before adding new ones!


Yeah blockading seems strange why can't I send a military fleet to counter a blockade, if they fire on freighters then shoot back.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
9. difficulty settings
Grand news. More the better. Expose everything - even if it's in an ini file. Allowing players to tweak the game to suit their desires will only lengthen the life of the game. And for such a tiny dev cost as well!


Agreed but we already have quite a few ways to alter difficulty. Starting system, the types of enemies we can have, money the AI gets, how big the AI starts off, what tech the AI starts on.
Difficulty needs to be enhanced by improving the AI mainly. Once you nearly catch up with the AI in economy or tech it's easy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
10. memory management
Please please tell me that Elliot has implemented his own memory manager. The .net limit of 800-1200mb is ridiculous given modern PCs. It's purely a .net limit, which he can (hopefully) easily work around. Please please please tell me he's done this...


Oh please explain, used .NET plenty of times and had no idea there was some app memory limit?
Isn't using .NET and using your own memory manager the same as buying a car to push down the road?



Kayoz -> RE: Distant Worlds: Shadows (11/8/2012 4:35:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Haree78
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
Looking over the feature list of Shadows, I'm concerned over a few issues:

1. graphics
I hope not too much time has gone to improving graphics. DW could use some improvements to the efficiency of the graphics engine - but trying to make the game prettier is, in my opinion, a waste of time in a strategy game.


Can't say I agree.

I'd be happier with the graphics improvement left till the next version. Doing so in an expansion seems to be a waste of time, considering other places Elliot can focus his efforts. Improving the AI, for example, would appeal to me far more than eye candy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Haree78
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
10. memory management
Please please tell me that Elliot has implemented his own memory manager. The .net limit of 800-1200mb is ridiculous given modern PCs. It's purely a .net limit, which he can (hopefully) easily work around. Please please please tell me he's done this...


Oh please explain, used .NET plenty of times and had no idea there was some app memory limit?
Isn't using .NET and using your own memory manager the same as buying a car to push down the road?


Bad wording of the issue - I mean memory pool.

DW seems to have serious issues with memory fragmentation. Memory pool might help.




Bebop Cola -> RE: Distant Worlds: Shadows (11/8/2012 6:30:43 PM)

I tend to agree with mot of Kayoz's suggestions, but to highlight:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayoz

4. multiple stages of a planetary assault
Please make sure that this also applies to pacification. Currently, it's "invade, load troops, invade next" - there's no need or benefit to pacify a planet - so you can easily steamroll an empire down to nothing in the matter of a few minutes. This does not seem to add to the game play.

5. new planetary facilities
Running costs. Please. Every planet with full shield, ion cannon and everything else is a bit boring. Adding a dozen more facilities I can build with my nigh limitless funds is a big yawn.

I'd like to emphasize both of these as well. As it is, I almost find colonization/conquering to be an inconvenient necessity. I don't place as much value on my acquisitions because they're virtually guaranteed assets. They don't cost much to obtain and hold, they chug out resources I honestly don't need in the long run, and the only real risk to them comes from another empire attacking them.

I think having some greater responsibility towards them would make them a bit more valued. They become an investment rather than a given. I'd like to see a bit more discontent within the population be that from simple unhappiness(grater impact from taxes and reputation, or more sources of potential discontent), disillusionment(more impact from being enamored with neighboring empires or simply because a lack of external threat breeds more desire for independence), or general lawlessness from corruption, pirate activity, and/or recent invasion.

I'd also like to see much more done with running costs. Not just raw cash, but resources as well. Large worlds need to be gluttons for resources and those resources need to disappear. Most times I feel like large stockpiles are just shuffled around currently.

In general, I suppose the economy itself is just my bugbear. I'm not sure why trade happens considering how cheap and easy it is to squat on a source of raw materials(strategic or luxury) and get it myself. I guess I have to defend the mining base and all, but I can almost get all the luxury resources I need in one or two systems. Certain strategic resources can be a bit more of a pain I guess, but nothing insurmountable. There seems to be a theme of trade in the new expansion, so it may already be in the works, but I'd just like to suggest trade goods once again. Manufactured goods that certain empires make either more efficiently or with higher quality, or goods that they make exclusively. Raw materials are bulk commodities. Manufactured goods are where the money is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayoz

6. Pirates
More control or at least hiring of them to perform specific missions would be greatly appreciated. I don't want the pirates to simply suicide on mining stations - I want them to blow up a SPECIFIC mining station. And if they need ships, I want to be able to give them ships - not cash which they'll spend building a dozen useless escorts.

Definitely this, and it seems right up the alley for the expansion. That said, I don't want to nitpick on this too much until more details are posted for the new release. Just wanted to let it be known that this is very much desirable.



Haree78 -> RE: Distant Worlds: Shadows (11/8/2012 6:33:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
DW seems to have serious issues with memory fragmentation. Memory pool might help.


Oh I see. Well if you were to implement some kind of memory pool in a .NET app you are getting rid of some of the advantages of .NET. I imagine the memory manager deallocating memory as we zoom in and then zoom out away from close up graphics is some of the reason we can use so many ship sets etc. Although I agree it is probably partly to blame for some of the jerkiness as we zoom out etc.
I would surmise that a lot of the later game slow down isn't so much the memory issues as the amount of ships and decisions the game is making all the time. I would be surprised if the later game issues are mostly memory related. I don't get issues late game personally by the way.

I don't know though, never written anything like DW.



Bingeling -> RE: Distant Worlds: Shadows (11/8/2012 7:09:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayoz

1. graphics
I hope not too much time has gone to improving graphics. DW could use some improvements to the efficiency of the graphics engine - but trying to make the game prettier is, in my opinion, a waste of time in a strategy game.

I feel this is for a dw 2. A dw 2 could also be a nice tool to suck more money from oldtimers, and also allow a point of time for new players to obtain the game at a recent version and a reasonable price. It could be hard to pull off, though.

I think the game look perfectly OK (and I don't struggle with small text either, having good glasses, and "large" monitor).

quote:


2. bling weapons
Please don't add weapons and expand the combat without making an equal improvement to the AI behind it. All the additions to the invasion mechanics or addition of boarding will mean nothing if the AI is not also improved.

In general, don't add stuff that don't work well. The new weapons don't interest me much until I see them, as I am not sure their impact will be significant. I fail to see the huge leap forward by the previous addition of rail guns and phasers. More choices will if nothing is done make the AI worse, as there is even more for the AI to breadth-research before getting to useful stuff...
quote:


3. technology tree
Please make sure that the AI tech decision isn't "everything" as it currently is. Inefficient use of tech research by AI further degrades the already weak AI.

Research and design streamlining is an obvious point for AI improvement. Have the AI have an idea about what it wants, and work towards that idea, ignoring unnecessary stuff.
quote:


4. multiple stages of a planetary assault
Please make sure that this also applies to pacification. Currently, it's "invade, load troops, invade next" - there's no need or benefit to pacify a planet - so you can easily steamroll an empire down to nothing in the matter of a few minutes. This does not seem to add to the game play.

Pacifying sounds like a great idea, if implemented well. If the troop stuff is improved so that transports don't carry away troops where not wanted, adding some troops/roles to pacify would become a good option.

quote:


5. new planetary facilities
Running costs. Please. Every planet with full shield, ion cannon and everything else is a bit boring. Adding a dozen more facilities I can build with my nigh limitless funds is a big yawn.

For me, this is a seriously uninteresting part of the game, more annoying than fun (since there is not much fun in them at all). I tend to run infrastructure on suggest, and it is major PITA when basic stuff like shields and fortifications are researched. Either a chore to build at a lot of colonies, or en endless stream of single build suggestions, one at a time.

quote:


6. Pirates
More control or at least hiring of them to perform specific missions would be greatly appreciated. I don't want the pirates to simply suicide on mining stations - I want them to blow up a SPECIFIC mining station. And if they need ships, I want to be able to give them ships - not cash which they'll spend building a dozen useless escorts.

The current pirates (non legendary) are a nice early game challenge, a late game chore, and a cheesy way to tweak reputation. I am happy to see this area get some love, and I hope the changes are good. Your idea sounds nifty.

quote:


8. diplomacy
Blockade mechanics need a serious look over. Attacking ships that are blockading your planet should have little or no reputation hit. Also, the current implementation of diplomatic demands to remove military forces from my (player) system seems to go to NULL. There's no indication what's being done with diplomacy, but please FIX the existing problems before adding new ones!

Yes, blockades are stupid indeed.

quote:


9. difficulty settings
Grand news. More the better. Expose everything - even if it's in an ini file. Allowing players to tweak the game to suit their desires will only lengthen the life of the game. And for such a tiny dev cost as well!

And give export/import strings with settings for us to share on the forum. Random generated evil opponent setup would be great (like having some distant insects start with way of darkness, a zentiba source, and a few extra planets).




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
5.484375