Planet size issues

[Vice]

Should planet sizes be increased at some point in the future in a new game, a new planetary terrain engine would be developed to facilitate the greater scaling to provide a higher level of detail to cover the larger landscapes, at least to the current level of detail with the smaller scale. Part of the challenge would be to include such a terrain engine within existing memory confines, but it is feasible and I've developed prototype systems for just such functionality.

A beneficial side of effect of having to increase the scale of planets would be that everything else would likely also have to be scaled up, including gas giants and stars. Even the sectors themselves would likely grow by 1000% to better hold larger objects (and so you wouldn't have to navigate through 5 separate sectors just to travel around a planet). Plus, the existing size limits would no longer have to apply with an entirely new and different universe object placement/scaling system. So in theory, this would provide things like gas giants that are significantly larger than terrain planets and stars that are much more massive.

While technically possible, the objective of this thread is to determine what gameplay benefits there would be (or not) under such changes. I've got quite a list of negatives (both potential and actual after trying such scaling years ago) collected over time, so I'm gauging what kind of shifts in interests there may have been since to decide how practical and gameplay beneficial such a direction might be.

Although some players enjoy just dropping to a planet to fly over it in a flight-sim style, others do seek more purpose in the voyage. For them, the lost containers on the surface, some of which do contain very valuable items, helps, along with various other planet-side specific activities/contracts... more will likely be important though. But that will be in phase two of this consideration process and I'll likely pose a new round of questions addressing those and other points when/if the time comes. Interesting line of discussion for sure

[Maarschalk]

As long as travel time to and from planets stays the same I do not see a problem with a bigger more realistic scale!
If I think about a game that I have limited time to play and enjoy as Real Life Issues usually gets in the way I do not want to have to spend a lot of time wasting for travel to dock at a city to find some special equipment or minerals or to do a specific contract.....etc! The balance of scale and the time to travel from system to system from a game perspective is just right at the moment imho!.....

[DynamicRanger]

I agree with Maarschalk and others who have expressed satisfaction with the existing scale. To test it out, I tried traveling to and from the surface of planets in Pearl and Pices at 200 to 300, alternating contracts between the planet and an orbiting station. I really enjoy the flight model, so the extra travel time wasn't unbearable at all, but it didn't seem to have a major impact on actually playing the game for me. It might get annoying after a while of not being able to do as much in a given session. Overall it doesn't seem to have any positive effect for the way I play the game, but the negative impact was minimal.

[Marvin]

Part of the challenge would be to include such a terrain engine within existing memory confines ....

Now, that's gotta be the biggest hurdle ... either that or bite the bullet and go for a bigger download.

Adding size isn't the same thing as adding dimension. Most simulations allow for a variety of modifications ... letting the players tinker with the game so as to create stuff the developer either never thought about or wasn't all that interested in adding to the game.

Big planets require an incentive to be explored. Cities and other terrain features could be the objective of modders ... except for one problem. Most heavily modded games are those where the programming engine is set in cement. It takes a lot of time to create a full-blown mod (such as the one for Oblivion). Consequently, the basic program must do what Microsoft promises to do with every new operating system (checks in the mail): be backward compatible.

[-splosives-]

For them, the lost containers on the surface, some of which do contain very valuable items, helps, along with various other planet-side specific activities/contracts... more will likely be important though.

Right, I forgot about the containers. That's a reason to go on a planet.
But still, the reason why you should change the size probably isn't the gameplay, but rather just the realism factor.

Right now, I don't think of evochron as an actual "space simulator", but more like a space combat/contract game (even though it feels more realistic than most space games).
This is because, even though it looks like you're in space, it always seems like there's something off about the universe. This is likely caused by wrong scaling.
If you improve realism, the game will become more "space simulator" while hopefully retaining the combat/contract part.

I like the game like it is right now, but I think it would be interesting to see a bit more realism in the game.
That's why I'm not voting for any option yet. I would first have to test the new scale.
I'm trying to imagine as objectively as I can what the effects of increased scale would be.

[DynamicRanger]

Right now, I don't think of evochron as an actual "space simulator", but more like a space combat/contract game (even though it feels more realistic than most space games).

Evochron draws inspiration from the conditions in the real space environment to make a fun and interesting game. Most other space sims are inspired by science fiction set in space, to make more or less fun and interesting games. A lot of players of other space games view Newtonian motion as a hurdle in the way of a fun game, but I think EM's flight model has proven that wrong. I think we're lucky that a move toward realism in this vein (semi-Newtonian physics) amounts to an excellently fun experience, and we shouldn't necessarily assume that every move toward realism will have the same returns. Planet and distance scaling could, of course, be much more realistic, but I don't think they would have the same "return on investment" of smart, engaging and challenging fun that the flight model does.

Take this with a grain of salt, but I also think that the environments Evochron currently renders so well should be made richer, deeper and given more variety and unpredictability before fundamentally restructuring them. I'd rather see more realistic game systems in play, not necessarily things.

[DaveK]

Right now, I don't think of evochron as an actual "space simulator", but more like a space combat/contract game (even though it feels more realistic than most space games).
This is because, even though it looks like you're in space, it always seems like there's something off about the universe. This is likely caused by wrong scaling.
If you improve realism, the game will become more "space simulator" while hopefully retaining the combat/contract part.

I didn't realise that it was supposed to be or trying to be a space simulator - if it is, them we lose gates, jump drives and wormholes (both inside and outside blackholes)

Andomeda (another galaxy) is also in for the chop



[Edited on 30-7-2013 by DaveK]

[-splosives-]

Right now, I don't think of evochron as an actual "space simulator", but more like a space combat/contract game (even though it feels more realistic than most space games).
This is because, even though it looks like you're in space, it always seems like there's something off about the universe. This is likely caused by wrong scaling.
If you improve realism, the game will become more "space simulator" while hopefully retaining the combat/contract part.

I didn't realise that it was supposed to be or trying to be a space simulator - it it is, them we lose gates, jump drives and wormholes (both inside and outside blackholes)

Andomeda (another galaxy) is also in for the chop

I didn't say it was supposed to be one, I am just saying that increasing realism will make it more like a sim.

I'm trying to be objective here.

[Marvin]

I didn't realise that it was supposed to be or trying to be a space simulator -

Most science fiction ... even when it manipulates time and space ... still manages to keep the galaxy a realistic size. Planets are planet sized and stars are star sized (red dwarfs are small and main sequence stars are bigger). The pseudo science of warp drives, mega-weapons and shields have been explained so often we now take them as a done deal some time in the far distant future (if we didn't, it would be called "fantasy" and not "science fiction"). My only concern is that science fiction writers somehow assume that almost every planet (other than our own) consists of only one society. Sometimes that society has factions ... but each planet has only one government.

[Maarschalk]

I didn't realise that it was supposed to be or trying to be a space simulator -

Most science fiction ... even when it manipulates time and space ... still manages to keep the galaxy a realistic size. Planets are planet sized and stars are star sized (red dwarfs are small and main sequence stars are bigger). The pseudo science of warp drives, mega-weapons and shields have been explained so often we now take them as a done deal some time in the far distant future (if we didn't, it would be called "fantasy" and not "science fiction"). My only concern is that science fiction writers somehow assume that almost every planet (other than our own) consists of only one society. Sometimes that society has factions ... but each planet has only one government.

LOL, so true. Probably it will be also the other way around. The science fiction writers or scientists of other societies on other planets will also assume that we would be one society with one government. If we where able to travel intergalactic and meet another friendly intergalactic traveler say between Andromeda and the Milky Way and we would ask each other where they where from they would mention their respective galaxy!

Same principle would apply to an interplanetary meeting of 2 friendlies they would mention their respective planets.

Same for International travelers they would mention their respective countries!

Same for State to State travelers, City to City travelers till you get to the Inner City travelers, than no one wants to give their address to a complete stranger!.....:P

[DynamicRanger]

I'm pretty interested in responses to Vice's questions, because I am having trouble imagining them. Am I missing something that makes larger planets and greater distances more conducive to interesting gameplay? It doesn't seem like it would make the game any more challenging, just more time-consuming. I'd rather see the relative range and strength of planets' gravity increased than their physical size; that would have an impact on gameplay and challenge, for better or worse.

[-splosives-]

Right now I think Evochron is balancing on the edge between space game and space sim.

The question to you, vice (and to the community). Do you want this game to feel more like a sim, or feel like a game?
The sim will feel more realistic and immersive than the game, but the gameplay might be more time consuming.

There's lots of pro's and con's to this matter, and no matter what you do, there will be people that like it, and people that don't.
So I think the best thing you should do, Vice, is decide for yourself what you want to do with your game, or maybe the next installment.

[DynamicRanger]

Personally, I lean toward game. I want a more realistic Privateer or Elite because, as it happens, the strategy and challenge of maneuvering a ship that behaves more like a spaceship than a WWII Spitfire is really fun. I don't want a bigger, combat-focused Orbiter. I think EM is now much closer to the former than the latter, so even if I supported aggressively honing the realism and sim aspects of the game, I'd have a lot more updates to wait for.

I appreciate that EM is more realistic than other space games and I think Vice has created something incredible by making ship systems and the flight model reality-inspired. But in the end, I'd rather fly a ship more-or-less realistically in a less realistic space environment, than be limited by total realism.

[Thalium]

so will they be made bigger ? or what u see from space isnt what u get when you land gonna stay ?

[Thalium]

[HawkEye11]

I have made some observations over the years, I hope that my opinions are acceptable.
I would like to entertain the idea of our having the cake and eating it too.

I think that it would be beneficial to have a larger Evochron with much larger planets with plenty of space in between and a more powerful gravity system. Regardless of the size of the planetoids, my opinion is that they are far too close to each other for the player to be able to really believe in them. I am not suggesting that they should be spaced apart from each other at realistic distances, but only marginally more so that the player's perception is that they are in space where distances are vast. This game mimics realism in only a very few subtle ways, often resulting in experiences that could be more exciting (planet landing, navigating through space) due to the lack of elements that would stimulate a players immersion into the game.
The possibilities and challenges presented by nature itself are not entirely overlooked in this game, but mostly not present; Maybe Vice has just not had the time, budget, or tech to implement just yet, maybe he dosn't want it, also he can still think stuff up. No these challenges do not have to be implemend like a true flight sim(though I would personally love such a system the more real the better if you ask me), they could be implemeted in a matter that would not be really difficult but a small challenge and most probably a very fun addition. Leaving out these opportunitys to emulate real life with fun game play would be a mistake in my opinion.
Some space faring endeavors feel more like humdrum tasks, with no challenge. I am not saying Evochron is a safe place, there are abundant enemies with very good AI, and I suffer asteroid collisions still from time to time, but things that should at least be challenging like navigation, or planet-side docking, or just docking for that matter, are as exciting as driving to church on Sunday.
I believe that a space ship, tough as it may be, should explode when it collides at high speed with another object greater than 1000 times of it's own mass. When an audience sees something, and that thing is looking right and also behaving like they would expect that thing to behave they begin to believe in what they are experiencing and the world they are in. I wish that a stop at the trade station docking bay could be as risky as when I dock my own car here on Earth, trust me I don't always try to see how fast I can enter the gas station.
I believe it would be relevant to mention veloity: the community can have it's cake and eat it too. If the universe is to be bigger it would make sense to increase all things to scale with it, though not including the size of our spacecraft's hulls of course. This way anyone who does not want to spend more time navigating to make up for the increased amount of space will not have to. Things will stay balanced as they were. As far as a general increase in the amount of sectors between planets, and perhaps maybe between star systems: I say more would be better. To keep things balanced as they currently are: create new gates; or new navigation system; or new jump drive capability;or the ability to stop and ask the locals for coordinates(directions); or etc.; or use your even better idea you just thought up; or use all these put together.
-I realize that the current "air-speed" of spacecraft scales well with the size of the game in general and that it probably helps ensure the continuity of a sound multiplayer experience (less jumpy ships). However well the system works; the speeds of spacecraft in Evochron still feel very slow most times.
An increase in velocity for spacecraft would be the most welcome change in my opinion, and would require an increase in the scale of the universe as well, in order to maintain Evochron's current model of spacetime.

[Edited on 7-30-2013 by HawkEye11]

[DaveK]

Quote - splosives: I didn't say it was supposed to be one, I am just saying that increasing realism will make it more like a sim.

Sorry - misunderstood you - my fault! I agree that more realistic is almost by definition moving towards sim, but I don't think it's an arithmetical continuum scale. A sim by definition has to be limited to what is real - a game doesn't. So with gates and jump drives and stealth and force field shields and artificial gravity and black holes with wormholes inside them and so on, EM (thankfully) is way over to the game side of the scale.

Quote - Marvin: Most science fiction ... even when it manipulates time and space ... still manages to keep the galaxy a realistic size.

Most scifi is written and it's easier to 'keep the scale' because you can use paragraph skips - you don't have to write the details of the three week warp journey between system A and system B Even the movies fit everything into a couple of hours


I guess the perception of the sim/game balance shift depends on how much an individual thinks a particular change adds to a sim feel, rather than just having something that is a bit more realistic added to the game. If that makes sense . - An example: having entrances to stations is realistic, but doesn't make docking feel more like a sim than a game, to me at least!

All that said I would love to see bigger planets, more complex cities, more cities/towns/outposts, more realistic gravity, stations that can be explored, and so on. For me it would make EM feel a more complex sandbox to explore rather than more of a sim. But as long as we are happier because of the change, it doesn't really matter what we call the change!

[Maarschalk]

To me the docking at planets and stations seems quite realistic relatively speaking! If you think about it in the far future when we are able to travel from star system to star system and our galaxy in real life becomes as populated with Stations, Cities and maybe jump gates as Evochron is, there will be a lot more sophisticated computers and gravity management systems to make docking a piece of cake, a walk in the park as is the case in this game! Just because we are far removed from the possible technology presented in Evochron's game it seems unrealistic and game like to some players! Well so was the roundness of planet earth an unrealistic concept to the caveman(No offence to the Cavemen out there!.....:P)

Being the wrong scale and less graphically detailed does make this more a game than a simulator, even the best computer flight simulators you know because of the graphics details you know it is a simulator and a simulator is still a game relatively speaking for some players!

So if the bigger more realistic scale and detailed graphics do not interfere with loading, playing, travel time and docking time and procedures, to planets, cities, stations and systems I say go for it!......

[Marvin]

Hawkeye mentioned navigation through space. That part of the game could be enhanced if stars were made visible in a more realistic way.

[Maarschalk]

Hawkeye mentioned navigation through space. That part of the game could be enhanced if stars were made visible in a more realistic way.

Now that is a good point I agree with! Although it would not be a game breaker but it would be nice to see some of the stars from many sectors away, ofcourse in reality some will be obscured by dark matter, Nebulae, Huge space dust clouds and asteroid fields and overpowered by the light of the Star closest to you depending how big and bright and how close you are to that star!.....

[Marvin]

Also, with visible stars to navigate by, Vice would have the excuse to up the price of even the most basic navigation computer ... forcing cheapskates like myself to navigate manually: pointing at a star, setting inertial, and gunning the ol' motor until reaching Cindy's secret maximum speed.

[DaveK]

The system star being really 'visible', either like the like Sun from Earth or just a very very bright star like Sol appears from the outer planets would be great. But if we are to be able to navigate 'by the stars', does that mean that every system would have to have it's own background constellations? Now that would be cool!

A whole new exploration project and publishing enterprise springs to mind! 'The Official EM Encyclopedia of Star Maps and Constellations.' Available in book and electronic formats

[Marvin]

But if we are to be able to navigate 'by the stars', does that mean that every system would have to have it's own background constellations?

The constellations wouldn't be formed by the usual background graphic ... they would be formed by other visible stars as seen from the pilot's current position in the 3-dimensional universe. But, to keep the stars from "clumping" when seen from an edge of the universe, each star would need to be plotted according to a set of parameters which would preclude the clumping effect.

[DynamicRanger]

If the stars were realistically placed in 3D space and visible/identifiable from most places in the universe, wouldn't that only help with navigating completely without gates? Or is that what we're talking about, gate-less navigation? I mean, if you knew which stars were where relative to your given position, you'd still need a map to figure out where you are and which direction to go in. If you have a computerized starmap, then why wouldn't you be able to place navpoints in the standard fashion? I'd be more interested in a system whereby the accuracy of your fulcrum jumps drops depending on your distance from civilization, although I'm sure practiced explorers will shoot that notion down immediately, as it would make their work a lot harder.

[DaveK]

I'd need a nav computer that could recognise the stars (perhaps from their spectra) and draw me a map!