Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Sat, 21 October 2006 03:49]

Report message to a moderator

Discussions have been in past. No much new can be said on that matter.

Maybe ... take some bigger game you have played.
Report/Dump to text file/Universe definition.
Report/Dump to text file/Planets.
Report/Dump to text file/Fleets.
Make a little program to import and visualize that data in 3D. OK, no packets, minefields and scanning but general idea it gives.

Then show it to us and then we have at least something new to discuss.

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Sat, 21 October 2006 22:12]

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Coyote wrote on Sun, 22 October 2006 05:11

One thing that might be fun and not add too much horrible complexity is to make one or both the edges wrap. Also, maybe a Moebius-strip option so the left-right edges connect inversely somehow.

Yes. For strategy it is good idea. Lack of corners and edges makes the strategic situation more equal for all players. Also the start is more obvious because every player has his HW as centre of the universe.

However ... the whole coordinate system must be remade then somehow. All distances are ... different.

Moebius (Clehn bottle) effect is making it maybe little more complex too. I think people will start asking for minimap with it. Fortunatelly it cant be simultaneously in two directions (up-down AND left-right) otherwise corners will be ... buggy.

Report message to a moderator

Kotk wrote on Sun, 22 October 2006 05:26

Yes. For strategy it is good idea. Lack of corners and edges makes the strategic situation more equal for all players. Also the start is more obvious because every player has his HW as centre of the universe. However ... the whole coordinate system must be remade then somehow. All distances are ... different.

Not really... you'd just have a sort of "meridian" where the coordinates switch over to zero somehow. Think of it as the surface of a sphere.

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Sun, 22 October 2006 17:39]

Report message to a moderator

Coyote wrote on Sun, 22 October 2006 04:11

I think it'd be too hard to set waypoints... it might look cool visually but IMHO it'd be too messy to use, and to code as well.

Wellll, Homeworld's "sensors interface" comes to mind... It looks like an extension of their 3D battle engine, and easy enough to learn (or you die )

OTOH, I don't think Stars! needs anything like that. Perhaps something for a more advanced, SSN-like version...

Report message to a moderator

Coyote wrote on Mon, 23 October 2006 00:27

Not really... you'd just have a sort of "meridian" where the coordinates switch over to zero somehow. Think of it as the surface of a sphere.

Have you noticed that global meridians are given in degrees. Probably some purpose?
If to be strict it is no way sphere. I am maybe not good at English terminology but correct ... whereever i am wrong:
1: If one edge wraps its one surface of cylinder strip.
2: If one edge wraps inversely its suface of Moebius strip.
3: If both edges wrap its surface of torus.
4: If both edges wrap and one of them inversely then its surface of Klein bottle.

Lets say one edge wraps, then that direction has to be in wrapping coordinate system too. If both wrap then both have to be degree-like. I am unsure about Moebius effect because there directions switch sides too.

All distance calculations got of course take that wrapping into account. For example scanner close to one "corner" of such Klein bottle... what it does see and what it does not?

HW forum is weak carrier for such discussins because i cant attach illustrations here.

Report message to a moderator

Remap the coordinate field to center on (0,0) whatever object the player is working with, whether it be a fleet, a minefield, a system or whatever else. In parenthesis next to the remapped (relative) coordinate list the homeworld-based (absolute) coordinate, so that players can perform tasks like have multiple fleets meet at the same location in deep space. Given the limited number of objects in a game (compared to modern and semi-modern processing power, anyway) such remapping is a trivial task.

If it makes you feel better about visualizing the shape, think of it as the surface of a point.

For two or more players to cooperate in any spacial sense, they'd have to use coordinates relative to the same object. You could include an option to allow allied players to switch to your coordinate system... though that would reveal your homeworld location.

Honestly, I'd arrange the coordinate system this way whether or not the universe wrapped. Self-centered mapping encourages self-centered thinking, which is a good contributor to conflict. Anything that helps put the 'war' in 'wargame' or the 'fist' in 'pacifist' must be good. Or the 'romance' in 'necromancer'... but I digress.


Edit: Depending on the flexability of the in-game communications (perhaps even outside of the turn-based system), perhaps you could send marked maps that would automatically convert to the coordinate system of the player receiving them. Label the marked points, and refer to them by the labels, much as we already do with systems and sometimes fleets.

[Updated on: Mon, 23 October 2006 18:11]

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Marduk wrote on Tue, 24 October 2006 01:07

Remap the coordinate field to center on (0,0) ... Given the limited number of objects in a game (compared to modern and semi-modern processing power, anyway) such remapping is a trivial task.

I dont care much about processing power, thing that concerns me is correct algorithm. The Moebius strip (and so Klein bottle) surface has some oddities. Mapping one point into centre is not enough to decide what way is "closer".
There are cases when best way i can come up ... say "how far are two gates from each other?" is to calculate distances in two (or more?) directions and then to take the shortest (mapping to center does not aid).

Quote:

If it makes you feel better about visualizing the shape, think of it as the surface of a point.

Visualizing is the last concern about any concept (despite this thread is about visualization). First is the engine level.

Quote:

For two or more players to cooperate in any spacial sense, they'd have to use coordinates relative to the same object. You could include an option to allow allied players to switch to your coordinate system... though that would reveal your homeworld location.

Again ... in turn/dump/diplo/etc.deliverables it is best probably to use the "raw" coordinates ("coordinates of the Precursors"). So the self-centered view can be client-side artifical option.

Having hyperspace as Klein bottle surface is however far lot more logical and fun concept than rectangle.

Report message to a moderator

Kotk wrote on Tue, 24 October 2006 07:36

Having hyperspace as Klein bottle surface is however far lot more logical and fun concept than rectangle.

Who says it has to be hyperspace for the map representation? As for a rectangle not being fun, tell that to the people who got addicted to the Asteroids game! (I figure *someone* had to be addicted to it.)

Besides, rectangle and cube are simpler both in concept (everyone is used to them) and implementation. I grant you that the 3D shape of a triply-wrapping cube is beyond reason... just ignore that. Or if you have to understand it, just spend a week staring at the works of M. C. Escher and Salvidor Dali. And taking large quantities of hallucinagenic drugs. That should do the trick.

My own preference is for a standard cube with no wrapping, containing a globular or cluser galaxy. Or, with a more or less even distribution of stars and more of a concession to the relatively tiny distances involved, representing a subset of a galaxy. I imagine the stars as being only the ones with resources (planets or a sufficiently large and calm asteroid belt, the right kind of stable star) suitable for large-scale exploitation. As for why the inhabitant races couldn't simply expand outside the box, there are large voids in many galaxies; or clouds of debris and/or areas or especially intense radiation that make travel impossible or at least impractical for normal life forms with normal technology. The foul Mystery Traders have mastered methods for traversing these hazards, but the rest of us are stuck.



Edit: You could still be stuck in a 'bad' position by starting on the edge, but the edge of a 3D space is a lot better than the edge or corner of a 2D space.

[Updated on: Tue, 24 October 2006 13:53]

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Hi!

Coyote wrote on Sun, 22 October 2006 04:11

One thing that might be fun and not add too much horrible complexity is to make one or both the edges wrap. Also, maybe a Moebius-strip option so the left-right edges connect inversely somehow.

I don't find that cool. 've seen and played such an universe in Reach for the Stars II and I can tell you it's quite frustrating.
No safe border (attack can come from every direction),
no reference point (like starting position - HW centered) in late game, when ships could travel everywhere, and
in any universe larger than what fits on ~four screens (50-60 stars) I've had problems navigating (what part of uni I'm actually looking at, where's that star I had to check).

Things went so far I lost the patience to finish the "Enter the Klaaken" campaign, when presented with a huge wrapped-up universe.

BR, Iztok

Report message to a moderator

iztok wrote on Wed, 25 October 2006 10:07

I don't find that cool. 've seen and played such an universe in Reach for the Stars II and I can tell you it's quite frustrating. No safe border (attack can come from every direction), no reference point (like starting position - HW centered) in late game, when ships could travel everywhere, and in any universe larger than what fits on ~four screens (50-60 stars) I've had problems navigating (what part of uni I'm actually looking at, where's that star I had to check).

Yes, i also found that "adds no much complexity" surpizing.
On any case if something like this will be ever implemented then only as game generation option (like PPS) and probably together with other helping measures.

So:
Additional (to "galaxy clumping") "galaxy constellated" and/or "galaxy with voids" game generation opitions would give naturally "safer" borders even in wrapping universes.
Every race has HW so some reference point they always have, that can be extended into minimap. I mean minimap where current view is displayed as grey border, in wrapping universe HW may be always center.
Stars! was designed when 800x600 screen was considered good one. Widespread screens have grown 4 times meanwhile. Some additional eye candy (like background pattern) may be added to help visually recognize places.

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Marduk wrote on Wed, 25 October 2006 20:59

What about Star Trek warp, where they generate a warp bubble and travel in that, but remain analagous to a position in normal space? etc.

You are right there. Something must not be possible at all to make a movie (or a game) about it. So ... yes ... the sole argument why to use something remappable into 2-dimensional square map in interstellar strategy game ... is easy and understandable user interface.

Quote:

Too many people don't understand the "infinite mass at light speed" thing.

Seems you are not excluded. You forget "the time stops at light speed" thing. So since time slows down in ship it makes its "constant" acceleration weaker and weaker for external observer.

It is impossible that something accelerates itself to light speed ... instead you may "create" something that is initially faster than light (useful for communication or energy transfer) but that is whole different story.

Report message to a moderator

Coyote wrote on Sun, 22 October 2006 04:11

One thing that might be fun and not add too much horrible complexity is to make one or both the edges wrap. Also, maybe a Moebius-strip option so the left-right edges connect inversely somehow.

iztok wrote on Wed, 25 October 2006 09:07

I don't find that cool. 've seen and played such an universe in Reach for the Stars II and I can tell you it's quite frustrating. No safe border (attack can come from every direction), no reference point (like starting position - HW centered) in late game, when ships could travel everywhere, and in any universe larger than what fits on ~four screens (50-60 stars) I've had problems navigating (what part of uni I'm actually looking at, where's that star I had to check).

Wrapped edges would be a nice feature if it would be an additional feature that can be turned on or off like other general game settings (eg public player score). But if somebody ever implements this feature, I would strongly recommend that it should go along with the implementation of freely scrolling the map. Otherwise it't a headache to visualize in your head that your corner is in fact NOT a corner.

While I am not a fan of it myself, the point is valid that wrapped edges make starting positions of players a lot more equal and to some this will probably appeal.

I myself would rather agree with iztok that I don't like it. I experienced it in some other games, namely ImperialConflict.com. My experience was:

1) Wrapped edges and what it means for your empire is surprisingly difficult to handle in your poor human brain (easier for an AI)

2) To quite an extent planning your defense, offense, with whom to ally, whom to make war with or a NAP is based on your and the other players' location on the map. And just think about your usual tactic to enclose another player, to cut him off from further expansion or the cornered player who has to do some hard thinking wether he gets out of his corner by allying or by war... All this gets much more difficult with wrapped edges (see also 1), some things become impossible.
You can't strife anylonger to create a secure backyard-corner but need to think rather in circles with only the core (perhaps) secure.

To sum it up, IMHO wrapped edges take out some of the fun and make things much more difficult.

And somebody mentioned 3d or even more dimensions... puuuh, and all that put on a 2d-monitorscreen... I get a headache just thinking about the complexity this involves. Gone would be the days where I can do some thinking about my tactical situation in the Stars!-universe while taking a shower.

Report message to a moderator

Here is an example of the view angle I was trying to explain:

[img]http://members.cox.net/ilovestars/3dstars.jpg[/img]

It's a top down, but not completely top down approach. This took longer to get working than I would have liked, but alas, such is the nature of 3D. Everything is 9 times harder.

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Neo the White wrote on Sun, 31 December 2006 04:21

Quote: Seems you are not excluded. Wink You forget "the time stops at light speed" thing. So since time slows down in ship it makes its "constant" acceleration weaker and weaker for external observer. It is impossible that something accelerates itself to light speed ... instead you may "create" something that is initially faster than light (useful for communication or energy transfer) but that is whole different story. I think this physics is rather funny thing and very irrealistic. First time as a measurable unit exists only as an artificial thing measured and created my man. If a ship would move faster than light then if it can adjust its over-light speed from 1x times to 5x times then the acceleration effect would equally vary for traveller and outside observer. the time is but an artificial factor just like meter or yard is not a universal factor. neither is the speed of light an universal factor. It can travel faster and slower depening on space dust and gases or not.

Sorry about this, I know its a bit off topic but I'm doing an extended physics major at uni and I love it! Anyway, there have been some interesting theories//experiments on the speed of light recently which suggest that the speed of light itself is not constant in a vacuum at all. That it varies about 300m/s in different directions. Also I will have to agree with time, as a measured unit, existing purely as a perception of mankind- it is just an easier way of describing the difference between two different events occuring in the same spatial coordinates but at different temporal coordinates. Oh this stuff does my head in after a while...

Either way, it is physically possible to travel at 2.7 times the speed of light through the glorious method of quantum tunnelling. Granted it is HIGHLY unlikely to work for any amount of matter (considering the compton wavelength of proton is in the realms of a 1.321x10-15 metres) but that doesn't mean that it is impossible (just highly HIGHLY unlikely). Also there have been some CRAZY (ie; pseudoscientific) theories, involving exotic matter, about FTL drives which, instead of bothering to accelerate matter, accelerates a 'bubble of space', thus avoiding the inconvenient increase in mass and time dilation effects (because matter isn't being accelerated, just the space in which the matter is located. Mathematically it is sound, until you attempt to STOP the device. Can anyone say spontaneous blackhole generation? ).

[Updated on: Fri, 08 June 2007 09:10]

Report message to a moderator