Suggestions for Distant Worlds 2...

[Kayoz]

ORIGINAL: ASHBERY76
Listen to Brad Wardell's explorminate interview.Stardock spent a third of the games resources on MP and only one man and his dog played it.It is a massive resource hog that is better spent on the SP game.

That many, eh?

[Blabsawaw22]

An immense amount of time testing and balancing would be required. Matrix doesn't have an unlimited budget to make DW2. Other things would inevitably have to be sacrificed to include multiplayer.

Actually Kayoz I have to say you are "Wrong",


You seem to live in the past thinking about things like Game Developers test games today? ha.. no they send them out to the public after charging for things like "early release" and crap and then have people tell them the problems and they try to fix it.. maybe try to fix it..

Matrix doesn't need to spend millions and much effort when they have beta testing teams of free- no charge people testing for them.. hello..

this is what companies do today.. put out shoddy products and wait for the public to tell them whats wrong and then try to fix it.. like I said, maybe..

[Retreat1970]

An immense amount of time testing and balancing would be required.

The game is naturally unbalanced so no need to balance anything. What testing would be required besides connection and networking? We could play the game right now, as it is, against each other. Set the game rules and go. Auto design or not, auto research or not, etc.., default game speed, game speed when window open. connect and go. Can't play anymore? Drop and AI takes over. Lose connection, AI takes over. Then me and Blab can play each other lol, until someone else wants to try kicking my Atuukian butt lol.

[Blabsawaw22]

Amen, it's like if Distant Worlds was multiplayer we'd be in the game right now instead of blabbing away out here..

[Chris21wen]

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore

ORIGINAL: Chris H

More race specific technology.   The empire policy screen for each race list preferred research and design that the AI uses.  I know some think AI design ships are rubbish but using the list in you own designs leads to a much more interesting game.  Hiding research and/or making it harder to research stuff that isn't on the list would stop the 'one suits all design' that currently exists.   This should not stop getting the tech through spying, nor acquiring it from space debris.

The AI ship design is horrible. It makes "weak" combat strength ships that I can take over an redesign and make twice the power and more defense as well. It just uses the very basics and doesn't use the full amount of potential that is out there. If I relied on AI designed ships the hard difficulty would stomp my ass.

I do not deny and I never said use them but you can use the basic design in your manual designs. I.e. if it says a torps don't use missiles, if it says rail don't use beam. If your going to have preferred tech hide stuff that isn't and/or make it harder to research. But it's all a matter of choice on how you want to play but there's no reason why a ticky box couldn't be used for full tech/realistic tech option.

In the real world even weapons that are supposed to be the same do not necessarily perform the same from country to country. Just because one country say has a 120mtr it does not mean another has or would even use it it found out it existed.

Other than for a few items in the game you finish up with the highest tech available which to me leads to a very boring end game.

I wouldn't play multiplayer and spending time developing it would impact an the single version but the option might draw other players into the game.

[aaatoysandmore]

ORIGINAL: ASHBERY76

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore



Sorry, but, Galactive Civilization II takes that honor. DW is a cute little 4x but it's hardly King material with all it's flaws.

Errr no.GC2 was never even better than Moo2.DW is a next generation 4X with Stellaris taking that model further.GC is a bland game with bland ideas.

Tons better than MOO 2. I don't even play MOO 2 anymore. Sales wise would also show differently. Gal Civ 2 is very popular. Even moreso than Gal Civ III I am reading. [:)]

[aaatoysandmore]

Multiplayer might be fun if they only allowed the human component to do a few things. Like ship design, diplomacy and declaring or ending wars. The rest the computer AI must do and you can't do anything about it but delete milatary units on ships and the ground as your deficit gets higher and higher as it runs you into bankruptcy. [:D] You would do all this stuff in the background as the game kept running. No pause at all.

[Blabsawaw22]

We haven't even gotten to the parts about how you could also play multiplayer like that you discussed.. but "noooo" it would take away from the Singleplayer game.. haha

It would be so fun and everybody knows it.

[Noble713]

ORIGINAL: ASHBERY76
Errr no.GC2 was never even better than Moo2.

Agreed. I hated GalCiv and GalCiv2. Especially the ship design system and combat mechanics. But my favorite 4X game, mechanics-wise, is Aurora 4X so maybe my standards are a little different from most players.

ORIGINAL: Blabsawaw22
They already made DW1 such an in-depth game..so DW2 can only bring new to the plate

I prefer evolutionary, rather than revolutionary, development. This applies to both software and hardware. A good example of (largely) evolutionary game design: Ilwinter and the Dominions 4x fantasy games. Or Paradox and their Europa Universalis and Hearts of Iron series. Hardware design: Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, the M16 rifle family, and the Porsche 911.

ORIGINAL: Raap
For me, the ideal and realistic sequel would just be the same essential game we have now, with slight improvements here and there, but built on top of a new future-safe game engine that runs better.

^this x1000.

ORIGINAL: Retreat1970
Wouldn't it be great, though, to play co-op with a friend against the AI?

No. Even if I had friends who enjoyed 4X games, I would never do this. I spend hours playing games when I want to *avoid* human interaction. "Co-op with a friend" = me and one of my wingmen go cruising for women. Far more rewarding...

[AKicebear]

Listen to Brad Wardell's explorminate interview. Stardock spent a third of the games resources on MP and only one man and his dog played it.It is a massive resource hog that is better spent on the SP game.

This is the main reason to avoid multiplayer. A minority of players argues that single-player-oriented clients are being selfish. Yet 1% of the fan base demands an investment of 30% of the dev-time for multiplayer... Let's be honest, not many people are willing to play multiplayer games that run for 10s of hours. The entire game would need to be redesigned with multiplayer in mind, something I think is a very bad idea. Also, I think a major flaw in many modern 4Xs is the desire to balance perfectly for multiplayer, which really screws up a lot of the interesting variety you can have when instead designing an asymmetric single player only experience.

More positively, things I'd like to see added:
* A new engine, including better graphics/UI. This will sell many more copies than any other addition, and it would make it that much easier for anyone to enjoy playing, including legacy players. I love DW1 but it does show its age quite badly.
* New engine built from the ground up with modding in mind. Another feature that would be a big boon for sales, given this is strong evidence of a long shelf life. I'd like to see modders enabled not only to do tweak settings/graphics, but also add narrative-style events.
* More varied "big events" (e.g. Shakturi). I'd like for there to be dozens of such events that can occur at varying points in a galaxies development, with the set occurring in a single play being drawn randomly from that pool. This would really help for variation between plays (which is already quite good).
* Related to the above, a bit more effort to add narrative via UI elements. I want to feel like I'm the galactic emperor trying to sort through all this madness, not a god sorting through spreadsheets. This is an issue of displaying the same data in a more natural way.
* Many quality of life improvements in the UI - beyond just how it looks, make it more sensible to issue mass commands, more intuitive to design a ship, manage a planet, etc.

[Retreat1970]

This is the main reason to avoid multiplayer. A minority of players argues that single-player-oriented clients are being selfish. Yet 1% of the fan base demands an investment of 30% of the dev-time for multiplayer... Let's be honest, not many people are willing to play multiplayer games that run for 10s of hours. The entire game would need to be redesigned with multiplayer in mind, something I think is a very bad idea. Also, I think a major flaw in many modern 4Xs is the desire to balance perfectly for multiplayer, which really screws up a lot of the interesting variety you can have when instead designing an asymmetric single player only experience.

Not true. I'd argue my point, but i'm tired of arguing about it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raap
For me, the ideal and realistic sequel would just be the same essential game we have now, with slight improvements here and there, but built on top of a new future-safe game engine that runs better.



^this x1000.

Are you kidding? That sounds like a patch not a new game. Your standards are pretty low.

[ASHBERY76]

It's going to be pretty hard to have all the stuff we have in DW1 on release for DW2.A new engine plus all these features is a lot of work for one guy on a tiny budget.I also fear about expectation for the visuals comparing to the likes of Stellaris,Moo4 and ES2.Those games are bigger than anything Matrix can fund.

[Retreat1970]

A new engine plus all these features is a lot of work for one guy on a tiny budget.

Is Elliot locked in Matrix's basement with a fridge full of Hot Pockets and Dew? Poor guy, but I doubt he's alone.

I did not know about MoO4. Thanks for the heads up.

[Blabsawaw22]

retreat1970, lets go play a multiplayer game. haha..

if Distant Worlds was multiplayer now, I could use some help defending my 200 mining stations that are impossible for a "single" player to defend.. I could also use help defeating off the Shakturi with some human help.. blah blah.. ha.

leave these single"players" to their singling..

Look, there is a concept called drop-in, drop-out multiplayer gaming.. actually I think it even has a more technical name I can't think of right now but it's been around for ages people.. ages in the computer world..

A game is hosted.. as long as the host is up, the game has a persistent world in which players can "drop in, and drop out" of the host game at anytime.. there is no need to play "10 hour games"

it's just another element of fun and if there isn't enough "resources", then shame on Matrix and the Developer for not getting with it in 2015

Kickstarter, GoFundMe, Indiegogo, RoceketHub, Indiefund, they can put it up "early accees" for $900 on Steam (bastards..) Facebook even has some funding thing now,

Don't lie to yourself and think that in 2015 people won't donate money for computer games..

uh.. Star Citizen? and that's just the biggest game.. I didn't list the other millions of smaller games that still make good money! Don't make me post the smaller games and how much money they made.. and they are crappy compared to Distant Worlds..

[Guardian54]

I think DW2 can pull off 3D warfare well enough. Scroll wheel can be for travelling up and down through space and panning goes left-right as usual. The ecliptic of the galaxy vs systems (e.g. plane in which the planets orbit) won't be an issue for spiral galaxies, but for other shapes there can be a "Snap to ecliptic" option when selecting a system, and when deselecting it the screen can stay in that particular view or snap to Capital System Ecliptic view for what is up/down scrolling versus panning.

[Chris21wen]

ORIGINAL: Blabsawaw22

retreat1970, lets go play a multiplayer game. haha..

if Distant Worlds was multiplayer now, I could use some help defending my 200 mining stations that are impossible for a "single" player to defend.. I could also use help defeating off the Shakturi with some human help.. blah blah.. ha.

leave these single"players" to their singling..

Look, there is a concept called drop-in, drop-out multiplayer gaming.. actually I think it even has a more technical name I can't think of right now but it's been around for ages people.. ages in the computer world..

A game is hosted.. as long as the host is up, the game has a persistent world in which players can "drop in, and drop out" of the host game at anytime.. there is no need to play "10 hour games"

it's just another element of fun and if there isn't enough "resources", then shame on Matrix and the Developer for not getting with it in 2015

Kickstarter, GoFundMe, Indiegogo, RoceketHub, Indiefund, they can put it up "early accees" for $900 on Steam (bastards..) Facebook even has some funding thing now,

Don't lie to yourself and think that in 2015 people won't donate money for computer games..

uh.. Star Citizen? and that's just the biggest game.. I didn't list the other millions of smaller games that still make good money! Don't make me post the smaller games and how much money they made.. and they are crappy compared to Distant Worlds..

Everybody has a choice, mine is I don't play multiplayer and/or real time games. Your choice seems to be you do. If I'm correct then go play them and leave us single game players to enjoy the games we enjoy.

[Blabsawaw22]

My point was that everybody keeps saying that multiplayer will somehow ruin the game.. Never did I say people have to follow any of my rules for games.. like "they have to play multiplayer"...

??

so back on point, if resources are a problem, Matrix has plenty of options to gain the "resources"..

[Retreat1970]

Everybody has a choice, mine is I don't play multiplayer and/or real time games. Your choice seems to be you do. If I'm correct then go play them and leave us single game players to enjoy the games we enjoy.

This is a real time (Though you can pause) game. This isn't just YOUR game, it's MY game too, and I thought it would be neat to have the OPTION to play against other people. No one is forcing multiplayer on anyone. I own a lot of games that are single player, and that's how I play them, but guess what... the games have multiplayer too. It's nice to have another OPTION to play, don't you think? This game running multiplayer will not hurt your way of playing at all, so why the big uproar?

[Kayoz]

ORIGINAL: Blabsawaw22

You seem to live in the past thinking about things like Game Developers test games today? ha.. no they send them out to the public after charging for things like "early release" and crap and then have people tell them the problems and they try to fix it.. maybe try to fix it..

Matrix != CA

I'll leave someone from Matrix staff to address the lack of importance QA seems to have in your view of the game development cycle.

ORIGINAL: Blabsawaw22
Matrix doesn't need to spend millions and much effort when they have beta testing teams of free- no charge people testing for them.. hello..

An open beta isn't the panacea for QA woes. Sorry, but you have a vastly inflated opinion of the value of an open beta, where it comes to getting quality and useful feedback for the developers.

ORIGINAL: Blabsawaw22
this is what companies do today.. put out shoddy products and wait for the public to tell them whats wrong and then try to fix it.. like I said, maybe..

It's what SOME companies do. Matrix Games is not CA. Matrix is not Konami. It's rather disingenuous to paint all game companies with the same brush, for the misdeeds of a few.

Nothing you wrote, in any way, contradicts my point that the time and expense to make DW a multiplayer game would cause other aspects to suffer. I'm not sure how your post addresses anything I wrote.

ORIGINAL: Retreat1970

An immense amount of time testing and balancing would be required.

The game is naturally unbalanced so no need to balance anything. What testing would be required besides connection and networking? We could play the game right now, as it is, against each other. Set the game rules and go. Auto design or not, auto research or not, etc.., default game speed, game speed when window open. connect and go. Can't play anymore? Drop and AI takes over. Lose connection, AI takes over. Then me and Blab can play each other lol, until someone else wants to try kicking my Atuukian butt lol.

For a multiplayer game, it would HAVE to be balanced. For races, events, lag, etc. Otherwise, in any competitive multiplayer game, everyone would choose the same few races.

I can't say more than: You have a vastly over-simplified view on how multiplayer games are designed.

ORIGINAL: Chris H

In the real world even weapons that are supposed to be the same do not necessarily perform the same from country to country.

Eh? You're saying that an F-16 in Taiwan won't work the same as one in Turkey, comparing like fighter configurations? I'm not sure of the basis for this.

ORIGINAL: Chris H

Just because one country say has a 120mtr it does not mean another has or would even use it it found out it existed.

Once again, I have no idea what you're referring to. Do you mean a 120mm mortar? If so, then history has shown repeatedly, that once a technology has been demonstrated, it's much easier for others to copy it. The A-bomb may have taken the world's geniuses to make, but since then, it's become an engineering problem and not a scientific one.

[Blabsawaw22]

Kayoz, I actually addressed everything you wrote.


You talk only about how Matrix's budget and "resources", "time and effort", to work on Multiplayer, would cause DW2 to "suffer"..

I discussed where resources can come from and even gave examples..


Here we go:

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
An immense amount of time testing and balancing would be required. Matrix doesn't have an unlimited budget to make DW2. Other things would inevitably have to be sacrificed to include multiplayer.

Just discussed this in my last post.. CrowdFunding is just one example, Steam Early Access is another..etc..

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
I would hope that humanity comes together in a unified confederation, free of borders, hate and prejudice. I think I'm more likely to see what I want than you.

Uh..? actually my hope of a game company making a better game is pretty more likely.. have you seen the news? Israel, France, etc. ha..

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
Developing a game to a budget is a zero-sum game. If you want to add somewhere, the resources ($$$) have to come from somewhere else. Add multiplayer, so the dev time, QA, game balance, etc - all has to come from somewhere. In the end, it's a business decision. Allocation of resources to maximize the return on investment.

Again I "discussed" the funding aspect.. there are many ways to market and make money in 2015 to gain "resources"

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
I'll leave someone from Matrix staff to address the lack of importance QA seems to have in your view of the game development cycle.

It's what SOME companies do. Matrix Games is not CA. Matrix is not Konami. It's rather disingenuous to paint all game companies with the same brush, for the misdeeds of a few.

Don't pretend like you don't know how companies are run and what they are after.. You know as well as I that is how the world works. Money. It's pretty simple. I'm pretty sure Matrix isn't run by some rich wealth gamer trying to give out to the public for free and the better good of humanity.. But they do make great games yes.

And

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
Nothing you wrote, in any way, contradicts my point that the time and expense to make DW a multiplayer game would cause other aspects to suffer. I'm not sure how your post addresses anything I wrote.

Really?

As for some others,

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
Eh? You're saying that an F-16 in Taiwan won't work the same as one in Turkey, comparing like fighter configurations? I'm not sure of the basis for this.

Perhaps he means the quality, as a F-16 built in Taiwan may have more problems with their fuel injectors or become jammed more easily compared to whatever they make in Turkey's F-16's.. I doubt planes is a good example to use. but I'm sure that's where he was going..


_____________

Anyway, I don't know how you don't see how you've been "addressed".

The whole point of this, by the way, is I love playing Distant Worlds and anything more on top of the "singleplayer" game would just be more icing on the cake..