CorranSec Posted November 12, 2002 Share Posted November 12, 2002 I also see Kryllith's ideas, and I'm deeply saddened, as I always considered him a rational kind of person (aka generally on my side). The dark side claims another soul.... To be successful, popular and most of all enjoyable, a game (especially RTS) must be playable both single player and multiplayer. Having two completely separate "game modes" (not ground and space, the "fast" and "slow" modes that Kryllith suggested) is definitely NOT the way to do this. Even if you could switch between ground and space 'quickly and easily' (though I don't see what's quicker and easier than clicking a button and having a quick load time), the whole ground/space thing just doesn't fit in with the kind of game GB is. You're completely right, Madrix- it's far too complex for this kind of RTS. For something like RoN or Rebellion, it might be plausible, but it is not for Galactic Battlegrounds 2! Switching between ground and space are not in any way like switching between war and economy. @ To begin with, ground and space don't mix and interact, while war and economy most definitely do. To start with, you have to BUILD your war units, which you subsequently might send into battle. @ Ground and space are completely separate and limited modes, while economy and war, while not actually being modes at all, don't require any kind of real switch, and can actually be easily managed simultaneously, without requiring great depths of detail and concentration. OK. First you were mad, now you've stepped over the edge into insanity. Ground/space modes was bad enough, but I assumed that at least one and hopefully both would include a building/economy effort. But now you want to drain the game DRY of any economy (and thus depth of gameplay) it might have possesed, and turn it into a solely-battle game whose only actual strategy is in the battle. You've gone too far! This is absolutely nothing like the original GB, and not even close to RoN or Rebellion! Please, I beg of you, contain these ideas and try to think about a kind of game that is at least remotely similar to GB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadrixTF Posted November 12, 2002 Author Share Posted November 12, 2002 Ah, my dear CorranSec, it is all a matter of opinion and not insanity... I can give you an example of how space and ground interact - i use a Death Star to DESTROY the ground! hehehehehe You shouldn't be "saddened" by the fact that Kryllith has turned to the Dark Side - it is inevitable and irresistable - soon you too will see that the Dark Side can offer you so much more.... Let me re-iterate (at the risk of sounding like Joe): I have NEVER played Rebellion or RoN so i don't EVER compare to them or get ideas from them - just so we are clear... And, it wasn't my idea - i just like the idea of incorporating Space Combat seeing as how it is STAR WARS!!! So, to conclude, don't be so narrow-minded and try to think of what is possible and not what already is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryllith Posted November 12, 2002 Share Posted November 12, 2002 Originally posted by CorranSec I also see Kryllith's ideas, and I'm deeply saddened, as I always considered him a rational kind of person (aka generally on my side). The dark side claims another soul.... To be successful, popular and most of all enjoyable, a game (especially RTS) must be playable both single player and multiplayer. Having two completely separate "game modes" (not ground and space, the "fast" and "slow" modes that Kryllith suggested) is definitely NOT the way to do this. Even if you could switch between ground and space 'quickly and easily' (though I don't see what's quicker and easier than clicking a button and having a quick load time), the whole ground/space thing just doesn't fit in with the kind of game GB is. You're completely right, Madrix- it's far too complex for this kind of RTS. For something like RoN or Rebellion, it might be plausible, but it is not for Galactic Battlegrounds 2! Switching between ground and space are not in any way like switching between war and economy. @ To begin with, ground and space don't mix and interact, while war and economy most definitely do. To start with, you have to BUILD your war units, which you subsequently might send into battle. @ Ground and space are completely separate and limited modes, while economy and war, while not actually being modes at all, don't require any kind of real switch, and can actually be easily managed simultaneously, without requiring great depths of detail and concentration. Heh, I wouldn't consider it being drawn into the darkside. Now wanting certain civs to be totally bs at that sufferance of others... that's being drawn into the darkside. Besides, why not allow different types of games in one game? I've seen numerous games that have had a variety of modes. Giving different modes simply allows people to play the style of game they're interested in playing. Personally, I'd probably play "full game" mode all the time. Not only that, we're talking about a game that would probably not be released for another 3 years or so. Who knows what type of engines may be available at that time. If at all possible, I'd love to have both land and space mode running concurrently. If we're talking about adding a bunch of different types of air, including multiple levels of capital ships, then why should we limit it to ground/air combat? Why not ground/space combat? We could have planetary bombardment by capital ships, would could send fighters/transports down, either to capture the planet and use the resources. Or you simply annihilate the opponent, perhaps at the cost of wiping out all the resources, effectively making the planet worthless. What people ultimately decide would depend on how they stay economically and militarily. Of course, if we're allowing bombardment, we could also allow for planetary defenses, like the Ion Cannon. Such defenses would be worthless against ground and air, but highly effective against space-based attacks. Point is, we're looking at 3 years of potential gaming/computer evolution. We may not have the capabilities to run such a game with current engines on current systems, but that doesn't mean we should be reliant on today's standards for tomorrow's games... Kryllith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadrixTF Posted November 13, 2002 Author Share Posted November 13, 2002 Well said Kryllith! That's exactly the point that i was trying to get through to CorranSec as well... I sincerely hope that game developers are as open-minded as you and i so that we may see these type of "engine-innovations" in the future... I really like your idea about capturing the planet and using resources, plus having planet defence with Ion Cannons - sounds like fun! CorranSec - we understand that you are used to the simple type of games such as WC3, but please, please lets just think about what could be possible in the future and NOT what we have available at the moment! You are always using Siths line about "Gameplay>Realism" - but if we have the technology in the future it will be possible to have "Brillant Gameplay+Realism" - the only reason why realism is sacrificed is because the technology is not good enough yet.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur2 Posted November 13, 2002 Share Posted November 13, 2002 eh i think we shold convince Lucasarts first cuz i don't think they are even gonna have a SWGB 2 project Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryllith Posted November 13, 2002 Share Posted November 13, 2002 Of course, if the thought of controlling both planetary and space units seems too overwhelming (which admittedly it could be, unless AI has improved quite a bit), then here's another idea for making the system work better. When I first started playing AoC, my friend (who'd played for a while) had me play MP against the computer. He and I used the same civ on the same team, effectively meaning we controlled the same units. In the planet/space version this tactic could work quite well. One person could control the land/air units (and the ground based economy), while the other focused on space battles, bombardments, and other potential space aspects--trading perhaps, or even resource gathering if it's available. Afterall, we know from the movies that the land and space units were typically run by different commanders... Kryllith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted November 15, 2002 Share Posted November 15, 2002 Madrix- I understand that you have absolutely no idea what 'games I am used to.' I am not 'used to' any game, and I take offense (as I'm sure and Blizzard-liker would) at your accusations that WC3 is designed for simple-minded people. Rather, it is the opposite; the battle micromanagement of the Crafts is in many cases more complex than the simple point-and-click of GB. But that's not the debate. Please, let's leave comparisons, insults and the like out of this. So it's Star Wars. This is what I'm trying to show with my air units ideas. With these, we CAN HAVE a truly SW game, without being forced- and yes, it is forced- to resort to such desperate measures of mode-switching. So it's Star Wars. Stars, I wish Sith was here. He'd give you a good dressing down for that comment. I sincerely hope that game developers aren't as single-minded and reality-focussed (and game-destroying) as you, and that we will never see these "innovations" (which are more like steps backward) in the future. I'd much rather the typical planet-battle style of the current GB (and every successful strategy game in the past, as far as I know of) that your 'planet capture' method. With this planet-battle style, augmented by the many ideas suggested above (the ones which I've supported, not YOURS:rolleyes: ), we will have a real combined SW battle. The only reason that realism is sacrificed is that it would be plain stupid to put a perfectly real game ahead of gameplay. If we look at the SW universe, if it was perfectly recreated in a game, the Rebels would always lose, UNTIL they got Luke and through him the Force. And, powerful technology or otherwise, it's impossible to accurately represent that in a game. The only games which will totally realistically represent space battles are space simulation games (eg. XvT, which did a damned good job). In three years, how can we hope to achieve such visual and gameplay effects as fighters moving up, down, around, dodging debris and other fighters, twirling to dodge laser fire, and finally being intercepted and destroyed? And let's think about cap ships.... there's one captain for every ship, and it requires all his concentration to decide which of his gun batteries he'll fire, how he's going to start up his damaged engines, and so on. That would be a GREAT game. Because it's so realistic, all one player can completely control is a single battleship! And you'd have to select each turret, designate targets, yada, yada... Yeah right. What you're aiming for is more like "Pretty nonexistent gameplay and a vague attempt at realism>Corran's ideas which can actually make the game good"! Kryllith- I'm not quite sure what you meant about making some civs bs at the expence of others, but that couldn't have been aimed at me, because I'm totally avoiding that. I've seen numerous games with a variety of modes, and none of them were particularily realistic or had innovative gameplay. Giving different modes simply forces people to make a choice between several modes, all rather limited, rather than having a single mode which encompasses the best of all modes. And besides- you're fooling nobody here. A game can never, absolutely never, please anybody. And why even try to please everyone at the expense of good gameplay? I think it was Luke's dad who said this: "That's stupid. If we wanted options, we'd just put in options for everything, and that'd make the game useless." He's completely right. You may take a small step to pleasing everyone by incorporating options for absolutely everything, but some options will definitely give an advantage to one side. And that is something that I want to avoid. I can't be sure about you. Not only that, we're talking about a game in the future. And we mustn't forget: "Always in motion is the future." We have absolutely no idea what could happen in 3 years, but I'd rather undershoot than overshoot. Look at GB: It's several years below the games around it, but we don't hate it. And I'm giving options which are far and above GB, while yours don't promise any particular innovations at all. There were mode-switching games decades ago, and your idea only takes some vaguely SW ideas and shoves them in. If we can have ground/air combat, without having to resort to the mediocrity of mode-switching, why limit ourselves to ground/space combat? I'm talking about adding a bunch of different air units, all of which will fit in with any battle, WITHOUT needing mode-switching. We could still have transports, smaller cap ships, and so on, without needing to limit the game to mode-switching. The game you're proposing seems: @ Incredibly limited @ To lack any credible details, eg. where econ will take place, tech trees, etc. @ To be promoting a vague form of realism above the varied and intriguing gameplay I am promising @ To be turning the game into a Master of Orion-type game: very long, unsuitable for multiplayer, and requiring long single-player sessions to even get anywhere in the game, unless of course you're wiped out within the first couple of TURNS. @ And yes, it seems that in one mode at least, you'd have to go back to turns. If you're going to be moving massive ships and such around the galaxy, most of these epic-scale games do use turns. And they sometimes work. But I'd much rather a REAL-TIME Strategy game, not a TURN-BASED Mode-switching game. Point is, we're not really talking about the amazing innovations and capabilities of tomorrow's computers, especially that your game doesn't seem to be needing any of them. I'm not 'relying on today's standards.' Some of the concepts I'm promoting have never been considered before, though I do admit that some are based on other (top-rated) games. In conclusion: Please. Drop this idea, and let's get back to some down-to-earth discussion of what could be in Galactic Battlegrounds 2. Edit: Whoa. Long post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadrixTF Posted November 15, 2002 Author Share Posted November 15, 2002 Looks like you've had another case of verbal diorriah! You seem very self-opinionated and really love your own ideas - even though other people happen to have better ideas. I will say it one more time: The mode-switching was NOT my idea - i just support it because in my opinion it is the closest we will get to a tue Star Wars game. (and please don't start on gameplay>realism beacause it is obviously that when designing this sort of game they should put gamplay first) There are many people on this forum who want to see space-combat incorporated into a Star Wars RTS - it only makes sense really! Yes, you seem to have plenty of ideas about Tech Trees and units, etc., etc. - that's all good and well, but they don't really seem to indicate any form of Space combat (ok, i haven't read ALL of your lenghty posts, so you may have suggested this somwhere at some point) or correct use of Capital Ships. If you are really so against mode-switching, then why don't you rather suggest an alternative that does incorporate space combat? So, if you come up with a better idea, then i am willing to drop it, ok? Oh, and i won't mention the Craft games again - it seems to be a sore point so we will just have to "agree to disagree" on that one and leave it alone... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryllith Posted November 15, 2002 Share Posted November 15, 2002 Originally posted by CorranSec Kryllith- I'm not quite sure what you meant about making some civs bs at the expence of others, but that couldn't have been aimed at me, because I'm totally avoiding that. Actually it was targeted of armour and shields, 2 missile launchers, and 4 independent firing lasers. Certainly wasn't targeted at you, because even if you do one high powered units, you want them for all the civs, not just one or two. I've seen numerous games with a variety of modes, and none of them were particularily realistic or had innovative gameplay. Giving different modes simply forces people to make a choice between several modes, all rather limited, rather than having a single mode which encompasses the best of all modes. And besides- you're fooling nobody here. A game can never, absolutely never, please anybody. And why even try to please everyone at the expense of good gameplay? 1) Simply because you've seen past games that weren't realistic or innovative, doesn't mean that such games cannot exist. Let's keep a little optimism. 2) Personally I like choices. As far as I'm concerned if they can come out with a game that works perfectly well as a ground based game (like the current GB) and then toss more elements into it, I'm all for it. If people just want to play the ground based game, there's nothing to stop them. If people prefer to play a space game, more power to them. If they prefer to combine them (which, admittedly would place quite a bit of stress on the player and might serve better if more than one player played a single civ) then why not? 3) Who's trying to fool anybody? Point of the various thread is for people to express what they'd like to see. This is what I'd like. I think it was Luke's dad who said this: "That's stupid. If we wanted options, we'd just put in options for everything, and that'd make the game useless." He's completely right. You may take a small step to pleasing everyone by incorporating options for absolutely everything, but some options will definitely give an advantage to one side. And that is something that I want to avoid. I can't be sure about you. Options hardly make a game useless, they just allow you to customize it however you want to. Besides, I'm really only talking about giving a ground, space, or ground/space game, not whether individual units, upgrades, etc are available within the individual games. Of course, if we DIDN'T have options, then we wouldn't be able to choose map sizes, map types, single or multi-player, whether or not people can cheat, which civ we wanted to play, etc. So it's not like there aren't already options in the game. Not only that, we're talking about a game in the future. And we mustn't forget: "Always in motion is the future." We have absolutely no idea what could happen in 3 years, but I'd rather undershoot than overshoot. Look at GB: It's several years below the games around it, but we don't hate it. And I'm giving options which are far and above GB, while yours don't promise any particular innovations at all. There were mode-switching games decades ago, and your idea only takes some vaguely SW ideas and shoves them in. Excuse me? I'm not sure where the heck this is coming from, but apparently you haven't been paying attention to all the ideas I've either introduce or added on too since I've been here. I'm NOT interested in just taking any slipshod ground and space game and just jamming them together. Am I overshooting? Perhaps, but after seeing the leaps and bounds made in technology over the course of a few years numerous times, I'm willing to overshoot. Will I be disappointed if GB doesn't contain space combat? certainly not. But I'm all for promoting the idea in the hopes that they will anyway (or even for a later game, if more time is required). If we can have ground/air combat, without having to resort to the mediocrity of mode-switching, why limit ourselves to ground/space combat? I'm talking about adding a bunch of different air units, all of which will fit in with any battle, WITHOUT needing mode-switching. We could still have transports, smaller cap ships, and so on, without needing to limit the game to mode-switching. Same response to this... if GB2 came out and had all this, I'd be perfectly happy. On the otherhand, if more was possible without detracting from the game, then why limit? The game you're proposing seems: @ Incredibly limited @ To lack any credible details, eg. where econ will take place, tech trees, etc. @ To be promoting a vague form of realism above the varied and intriguing gameplay I am promising @ To be turning the game into a Master of Orion-type game: very long, unsuitable for multiplayer, and requiring long single-player sessions to even get anywhere in the game, unless of course you're wiped out within the first couple of TURNS. @ And yes, it seems that in one mode at least, you'd have to go back to turns. If you're going to be moving massive ships and such around the galaxy, most of these epic-scale games do use turns. And they sometimes work. But I'd much rather a REAL-TIME Strategy game, not a TURN-BASED Mode-switching game. 1) How so? I'm suggesting the complexity of the original game, with more on top of it. Granted it may require either really good AI or another player to make it perform really smoothly. 2) Econ and tech trees would work pretty much the way it does now. People would start on a planet and gather resources the same as usual. When they get high enough tech to produce capital ships, then they make explore elsewhere. If an opponent(s) starts on the same planet, then the player would probably have to eliminate said opponent(s) before continuing elsewhere. They don't HAVE to of course, but since you'd need to take workers and possibly military when you travel to another planet (unless you're just scouting) it might be a good idea to remove the threat before weakening your colony. There may be outerspace econ (having ships gather gases, rock fragments, or the like) but it would be primarily ground based. 3) That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. However, I personally don't see it as being nearly as vague as you suggest. 4) Of course, you wouldn't be required to play the very long game. Some people like them, some don't. I play both depending on my mood, so I'd prefer the ability to play either. I wouldn't consider them unsuitable for multi-player. I know quite a lot of people that would be more than willing to play very long mp games... 5) I wouldn't use turns quite frankly. Turns serve to allow people to keep tabs on everything that's going on at the risk of losing units because the player's too busy dealing with a crisis elsewhere or just not paying attention. The pause button works just as well in this capacity, if people really need to jump around a lot. Otherwise, I'd rather play it give and take. You make the choices based on priorities and if that means you lose the bulk of your fleet, or your armour, or your base, then so be it. It's already like this in the game anyway, this would just require more to pay attention too. Course, better AI or players working together can help counter it. Kryllith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted November 16, 2002 Share Posted November 16, 2002 Whoa! Those were very long threads! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadrixTF Posted November 18, 2002 Author Share Posted November 18, 2002 Thanks Kryllith for putting it into perspective for CorranSec - your suggestions are rational and logical and seem to consider the greater gaming community! I also like your idea of being able to collect resources in space - gases, rock/asteroid fragments, etc. I also agree that it shouldn't be a Turn-based game - i think it should be real-time (i think the Turn-base suggestion was CorranSec overreacting again ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted November 20, 2002 Share Posted November 20, 2002 OK. This is getting very complex. Too much for my Craft-liking brain to handle, eh? Madrix- I wouldn't call it verbal diorrhea (sp?) but rather a sudden flaring-up of my righteous anger. Self-opinionated? Maybe. Like my own ideas? I've yet to come across a single person on this world who doesn't like their own ideas. If I didn't like it, I wouldn't have said it. I have no doubt that you and Kryllith love the ideas that you support. Better ideas? Each to his/her/its own. I believe my ideas are better. You believe your ideas are better. Simple. Okay, so the mode-switching wasn't your idea. Nevertheless, you support it, and I'm going to argue with you about it. Simple. And yes, when designing games it is obvious that they should put gameplay first, and put all concerns about getting a true SW game later. Are you by any chance admitting that your ideas- whoops-a-daisy, the ideas you SUPPORT - would never actually fit in with a game, and that you wouldn't make a good game designer? There are many people on this forum that support jedi monkeys (eg. myself, sith, emimar) but that doesn't quite mean they'd fit in with the game. No matter which way public opinion goes, I have every right to continue arguing my case- at least until I'm found, arrested and shot by your secret police. Space combat.... space combat, space combat, space combat. It seems to be the word of choice these days. Before I even get into MY ideas for space combat, let me say just one thing- must there be space combat at all? For the sake of gameplay and all those other nice things, it may turn out far better to simple forsake space combat and have air combat or some such instead. Is there such a difference anyway? One is in the atmosphere, one is in space. In terms of gameplay, it would most likely be much better to just settle for what is indeed a wide and useful range of flying units which can be used in either, like the ones I've provided. If you want space combat, I'll make sure that "asteroids" and "space" map types are included, so you can play them all the time. And-bonus bonus- not only are there air units in space, but you can also use the full range of other units as well? Apart from sea units of course... but nobody seems to care about them. What precisely is "correct use" of cap ships? If all we seek is a completely real use of cap ships, we'll end up with a BAD GAME. If you're talking about correct tactical use of cap ships, what is this correct tactical use? And, may I ask, what exactly are cap ships? I have proposed several kinds of 'capital ships,' as defined by SW material, which can legitimately fit in with various kinds of maps and gaming styles without needing mode-switching. What do you think they are, if not Capital Ships? *end righteous anger* Kryllith- I'll come back to you. I don't want my posts getting toooo long, or people will just skip through them, and I don't want that. P.S. Spoiler- do not read unless you have absolutely no hope of coming to an agreement with me! I have an idea for a slight compromise. Perhaps if you play a kind of "space" map, like the "space sattelites" in the current GB, different (and larger) kinds of ships and airborne buildings will be available. I haven't thought much about this, but you might like it..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OOM-9(2) Posted December 2, 2002 Share Posted December 2, 2002 Yes, but only on space/asteroid games. On land, they'd be to destructive- Fed lander or droid control ship anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.