|
|
Post by Rob on Apr 17, 2018 10:25:05 GMT
Registered just for this post  i assume we'll have several maps, just like in EA1, so why not use both systems? huge single-system maps or several smaller maps with choke-points, connected by your quantum fracture points. in EA1 big maps work because there are chokepoints and it's not totally open field, on the other hand Star Wars Empire at War doesn't need chokepoints since the maps are quite big and the main buildings heavily defended. so while i'd love to be flying more than 3 minutes and have fleets fighting in a huge space, i'd also enjoy matches like i had in Conquest: Frontier Wars with lots of systems of different size, cleaning a system, establishing fleets around the wormholes to intercept all hostile ships, claiming the systems piece by piece and forcing my enemy further and further back. so please both. if just one is possible then please jump points, many systems but make them varying in size, from 1 or 2 minutes to 10 minutes till you reach the other side Unfortunately I dont think both sized maps would work due to the way the Unity works, would have a massive problem with draw distances and floating point issues, would have to be same size systems or one big one. You can still have choke points in the big system such as in Star Trek armada 2 and Haegemonia, also it will open up new strategies such as nebular and asteroid fields blocking routes and line of sight. In the end the main reason to try the bigger maps was to make it more like a traditional RTS game meets Elite Dangerous, plus in FPS mode you can see off into the distance better which makes it look far more spectacular, plus gives your fleets more room to manoeuvre  Still not set in stone though as still experimenting, fixing other things. Cheers for the feedback from everyone though |
|
|
|
Post by spoopidy on Apr 21, 2018 2:54:08 GMT
I've been registered for a while now, but never really had anything to say up until this point...
I'm not sure what to say except that both systems have great potential, and could change game play significantly. To me, that diversity is a bonus, and I think, if possible, both should be used.
I'm not in any way experienced in such things, but I have some ideas all the same. The two systems don't have to be separate in any way; they can both be used, even within a single map. Your map designs could have sectors of differing sizes, all linked by quantum fracture points. With this flexibility in the map creation, you could have both "systems", along with any combination in between both extremes. It might not work to have multiple large, expansive star systems to a map, but the flexibility in the map creation would certainly open the door to many new situations - and new game play.
You could also add natural hazards into more expansive sectors(this could apply to the map style above, or just one big map, like you suggested). This could give you some of those choke points that were so important in EA1. For example, harmful nebulae, or densely packed asteroid fields. This idea is my favorite - you could have stars go into periods of high activity, damaging any unprotected equipment in a certain area - you could research tech to traverse it, giving you an upper hand.
Again, I know nothing about the nuances of how you want this to go forward, or what can or cannot be done, but these hybrid maps don't have to be that large. For example, you could have two small star systems that have two quantum fracture points each, all leading to one large sector in between. You could even have a single player start in the centre of one large sector, with another player starting in a small one, with quantum fracture points leading from the small sector, to all around the large one.
I'm not very experienced, or knowledgeable, but I hope some of these ideas were useful in some capacity.
|
|
|
|
Post by hayden on Apr 21, 2018 19:06:34 GMT
I love this idea! It would add a "grand" strategy concept which would be pretty cool. I also being able to place a lot of outposts with interiors all around space would be very nice to see.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mick9330 on Apr 22, 2018 0:42:17 GMT
Why not simply put both in? You could have options to select which to play on. As it looks like it'd be a waste to remove something you're putting work into if you follow a consensus of the 9 systems, or you follow the 1 system. It's a great idea, but so is the 9-system choke points. So if you could it'd be better to add options to select which type.
If it's too much I'd rather have the large system with spectacular superweapons, but if it is possible I'd say do both.
|
|
|
|
Post by radimentrix on Apr 22, 2018 11:27:20 GMT
Registered just for this post i assume we'll have several maps, just like in EA1, so why not use both systems? huge single-system maps or several smaller maps with choke-points, connected by your quantum fracture points. in EA1 big maps work because there are chokepoints and it's not totally open field, on the other hand Star Wars Empire at War doesn't need chokepoints since the maps are quite big and the main buildings heavily defended. so while i'd love to be flying more than 3 minutes and have fleets fighting in a huge space, i'd also enjoy matches like i had in Conquest: Frontier Wars with lots of systems of different size, cleaning a system, establishing fleets around the wormholes to intercept all hostile ships, claiming the systems piece by piece and forcing my enemy further and further back. so please both. if just one is possible then please jump points, many systems but make them varying in size, from 1 or 2 minutes to 10 minutes till you reach the other side Unfortunately I dont think both sized maps would work due to the way the Unity works, would have a massive problem with draw distances and floating point issues, would have to be same size systems or one big one. You can still have choke points in the big system such as in Star Trek armada 2 and Haegemonia, also it will open up new strategies such as nebular and asteroid fields blocking routes and line of sight. In the end the main reason to try the bigger maps was to make it more like a traditional RTS game meets Elite Dangerous, plus in FPS mode you can see off into the distance better which makes it look far more spectacular, plus gives your fleets more room to manoeuvre Still not set in stone though as still experimenting, fixing other things. Cheers for the feedback from everyone though i'm sure i'd enjoy just one huge map as well but i wonder why unity is so limited, even the aforementioned Conquest: Frontier Wars had systems with different size, back in 2001 and regarding obstacles, do you plan to limit the height of the maps? or what should stop me from just moving above/beyond an asteroid belt? (or just through it with a smaller ship) €: i just remembered something that had been done in Star Trek Armada 2: if you plan to make the obstacles impenetrable, you could make a map or two (or more) that is split into several "small" areas, connected by "wormholes" (quantum fracture points?) so you don't teleport into another small sector but just a few kilomter on the same map |
|
|
|
Post by Rob on Apr 23, 2018 11:41:51 GMT
spoopidy, That idea of traversing a system once you have the correct technology sounds very interesting, I think I will look into that. radimentrix, The main reason for the limitation is because the game has to look and work great at a first person level as well as in an RTS setting too. If the game was just RTS then there would be no issue like Conquest.
|
|
|
|
Post by radimentrix on Apr 25, 2018 15:01:02 GMT
hmm, well, i'm not a programmer so i don't understand why different sizes are a problem in 1st person or isometric view  but as i said, i'd probably have fun on a huge map too. just wanna fly these ships |
|
|
|
Post by spooki444 on May 28, 2018 5:04:29 GMT
so have you decided
|
|
|
|
Post by Rob on Jun 7, 2018 14:05:32 GMT
Sticking with the small maps for now |
|
|
|
Post by cheeseboy on Jul 2, 2018 2:18:02 GMT
I think including a larger area(s) would be Beneficial. While the 9-system model conducive to faster action, a more expansive map sounds desirable as well. I think you should include them both. Apart from the advantages listed above for the 9-system model, I really want to see the open model for two reasons:
-A Seamless involvement that encompasses the entire play area would give a varied experience from the 9-system model, allowing for different strategies, play-styles, and whatnot. It would ultimately create a mode with a longer lasting, more "marathon" style game which will many will find appealing.
-Specifically pertaining to combat: larger battlespace will allow for more sophisticated tactics like flanking, hammer and anvil tactics, and strategic maneuvering. I think it would be so cool to have the freedom to execute large scale maneuver tactics, strategically partitioning my forces to overwhelm positions or eliminate enemy ships.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thelisia on Jul 15, 2018 11:10:22 GMT
I would rather have like 6 much bigger sectors, or an ability to go FTL in the giant playfield.
|
|
I Darkstar X
Junior Member
CEO of Darkstar Incorperated
Posts: 82 
|
Post by I Darkstar X on Jul 17, 2018 17:43:36 GMT
I feel that having one big sector would be too much of a paradigm shift from what is already in the game.
HOWEVER, perhaps, and this is a BIG perhaps, perhaps the idea of a "one big sector" be used for a PvE mode? As for what this PvE mode could entail, I'm not sure, but it would allow for more freedom with stuff such as land battles, which everyone seems to want for some reason, as if its players versus an AI, it wouldn't be as disruptive.
It could even allow for some fairly cinematic boss battles with super-sized ships that have to "boarded" and destroyed form the inside as they make their way form one side of the big sector to another.
Food for thought, I suppose.
|
|
