Jumpdrives!

[BigBANGtheory]

It just means, that for conventional navigation 2d map will be enough - you'll never see one station placed above or below another station.

It's pretty much the same way as it was in X3 - most of stuff was placed close to the some plane, unless sector designer wanted to hide things (for instance, high-yield asteroids were almost always far above or below zero plane).

I get all that the sector design doesn't concern me, the concept of space cities or a strip of stations clustered close to each other is good thing. My point is I might not want to jump straight to that area, within reason I should be able to pick co-ordinates in space that may or may not have a point of reference nearby including above or below the plane of activity.

So I can fly/pilot myself there but in order to jump myself or order another ship to that point I need some way of selecting those co-ordinates. The only way I have seen that work well is a 3d map that you can pan/zoom/rotate so you can visualise the 3d world on a 2d display, be that your monitor or some kind of menu/monitor in game.

[Night Nord]

I get all that the sector design doesn't concern me, the concept of space cities or a strip of stations clustered close to each other is good thing. My point is I might not want to jump straight to that area, within reason I should be able to pick co-ordinates in space that may or may not have a point of reference nearby including above or below the plane of activity.

So I can fly/pilot myself there but in order to jump myself or order another ship to that point I need some way of selecting those co-ordinates. The only way I have seen that work well is a 3d map that you can pan/zoom/rotate so you can visualise the 3d world on a 2d display, be that your monitor or some kind of menu/monitor in game.

As it doesn't sound as frequent operation - probably you'll be just fine with old X3 2d map, maybe improved a bit. You just need to select point on "plane of activity", then flip to vertical direction and select height you need.

Actually for flat design 2d map is perfect - it's easy and understandable. 3d map is very-very hard to make right. So, unless there is a requirement for 3d map (that is - truly 3d sector design) you should avoid 3d map.

2d map as in X3 is fairly well. Sure, it has some usability problems, as all of X3 UI, but it wasn't anything broken by design.

The X-Z plane. Press Pg-Dn for Y.

Whatever.

[Wraith_Magus]

In X:R there will be predefined build-spots. So if there are any trade missions, you'll never encounter the issue you've described. Probably, that is =). And if there are, I think your mission won't be just to buy and place station, but rather oversee it's progression, defend build-place from pirates, supply with required resources and other stuff. Station building now isn't that easy as before.

I was talking about "Build" missions.

As in, there are supposed to be Trade, Fight, Build, Think missions, but since the way that "Build" is so radically different, how are build missions supposed to work?

Build missions were always the more limited type of mission, (while "think" missions were basically just a catch-all of the most interesting missions,) but it seems like there will be no room at all for us to get requests to player-build a new rastar refinery. At most, we just get requests from NPC stations to bring in the materials to expand existing modular stations. What's the difference between that and "Trade" missions?

They said that there will be plenty of build-spots, including in "middle of nowhere". I think they just have some kind of random algorithm placing them withing some big radius around highways and other "interesting" spots in a required density. So if you can reach something in viable time - there should be a build-spot, I suppose.

The thing is, "pre-defined build spots" and "even in the middle of nowhere" give off mutually-exclusive implications.

Either we can build practically anywhere in the universe, except in pre-defined "you-can't-build-here spots", which means we actually CAN build totally out in the middle of nowhere, or we can't build wherever we want, only in the specific "player allowed building areas".

The difference between the two is massive.

The latter means "middle of nowhere" just means there's one or two pre-designated player customizable areas that just happen to be a good distance away from everything else, not that we can actually build in a ton of areas.

Which brings me to this:

The limitation is that stations are only allowed to be placed in designated points. But they have also said there will be numerous places you can build a station. This is probably to make sure the AI can path find easier instead of a player putting a station to close and then causing a situation where the AI can not go to either station effectively.

Given the sheer scale of the game and the area we will be playing in. I doubt we'll be able to build enough stations to fill up every point that is capable of placement. On top of that, I doubt that the systems could even support the resource demands if every point were to be taken up.

In the hypothetical most extreme POSITIVE case, there's no limit to how far out of a given solar system we can travel, and areas beyond a certain point are just functionally equivalent to an unfocused jumpdrive sector, and simply never saved and are re-randomized (if anything exists in them at all) if you leave and re-enter. Then, we're only allowed to build in the saved areas. (This raises the question of why they couldn't build in the capacity to save a few slots in randomized territories, since people have certainly wanted to try building in UFJD sectors before.) Then, we're also not allowed to build in the plot areas, since they obviously built some things like that Lost Colony with the station built out of a broken split cap ship, which is obviously not modular. Other than that, we're basically in the same situation as building in X3 - build in any of the more minor territories you like, or even on the fringes of major plot areas.

In the hypothetical most extreme NEGATIVE case, we might be restricted to just a specified number of player space stations, based off of completing a plot mission, the way that HQs were given out in previous games, which can only be placed in one of 10 or so pre-designated areas, like the way that we could choose one of five player-owned sectors in X3:TC. (After all, if we're supposed to just be satisfied with only one ship, why not be satisfied with only one space station until the next game comes out to add back in the features we had in previous games?)

I severely doubt it would be the case that it were THIS extreme, (the players would revolt,) but my point is that the terms about how many and where the stations can be placed are all vague. "Numerous" is a purely subjective term. (Coming from the same people that brought us cap ships being too boring to let us fly, and expecting us to swallow that one uncustomizable ship is plenty enough for every player.)

The way that stations were discussed, for that matter, with "build trees" for the stations can also imply that we might have anywhere from hundreds of thousands of permutations of final station layouts, (that is, fully upgraded,) to possibly just a few types of "builds weapons" or "makes food" stations, where all weapon-building stations are basically the same.

Likewise, jumpdrives might just go from one exit of a highway to the next, simply as a crutch to get past the fact that cap ships don't fit inside highways. Or they might be capable of jumping to any valid spot within a solar system instantly.

When the terms are as vague as they are, it's healthy to keep a large degree of skepticism in mind.

[Wraith_Magus]

As it doesn't sound as frequent operation - probably you'll be just fine with old X3 2d map, maybe improved a bit. You just need to select point on "plane of activity", then flip to vertical direction and select height you need.

Actually for flat design 2d map is perfect - it's easy and understandable. 3d map is very-very hard to make right. So, unless there is a requirement for 3d map (that is - truly 3d sector design) you should avoid 3d map.

2d map as in X3 is fairly well. Sure, it has some usability problems, as all of X3 UI, but it wasn't anything broken by design.

Except in combat.

As stated before, it's absurd to think players won't want to try flying ABOVE the massive array of shields drones if their left and right paths are blocked.

Again, wasn't the whole point of making a new engine to improve the interface?

When there are several obvious solutions to the problem, and player requests for maps that aren't just a sonar grid with abstract icons, it seems like simply putting in a RTS-style overview map with the capacity to have a camera with an honest-to-God PAN CAMERA feature would be the least they could do.

And again, having the capacity to just click on a 2d plane and drag up or down for the 3d element is a simple solution that has been around for about a decade now. With nobody mentioning any reason it wouldn't work, or why that would be so onerous, I don't see why you would argue that it's too much trouble to implement.

[stilgarpl]

They said that there will be plenty of build-spots, including in "middle of nowhere". I think they just have some kind of random algorithm placing them withing some big radius around highways and other "interesting" spots in a required density. So if you can reach something in viable time - there should be a build-spot, I suppose.

The thing is, "pre-defined build spots" and "even in the middle of nowhere" give off mutually-exclusive implications.

Either we can build practically anywhere in the universe, except in pre-defined "you-can't-build-here spots", which means we actually CAN build totally out in the middle of nowhere, or we can't build wherever we want, only in the specific "player allowed building areas".

The difference between the two is massive.

The latter means "middle of nowhere" just means there's one or two pre-designated player customizable areas that just happen to be a good distance away from everything else, not that we can actually build in a ton of areas.

I see it as a square paper: you can put your letters in every square that doesn't have anything else in them.
I think build spots will be autogenerated based only on "enough empty space and nothing in the way"

[Night Nord]

Build missions were always the more limited type of mission, (while "think" missions were basically just a catch-all of the most interesting missions,) but it seems like there will be no room at all for us to get requests to player-build a new rastar refinery. At most, we just get requests from NPC stations to bring in the materials to expand existing modular stations. What's the difference between that and "Trade" missions?

There was no big difference ever, then. In X3 build mission were like "Hire/bring a BIG transport, buy a BIG package and bring it here". Now you have to find the required blueprints, bring materials + plus I think game may generate a bunch of other difficulties along the path of construction - pirate attack, some malfunction or missing ship...

If there are build missions, then they will be very different from trade missions - trade missions are now "select ship to execute and that's all". Build missions may actually fill the gap of player-engaging and interactive missions.

The thing is, "pre-defined build spots" and "even in the middle of nowhere" give off mutually-exclusive implications.
...

We don't know specifics. Pre-defined spot means only one thing - there are enough space between two, so stations built on both won't collide ever and there will be plenty space for ships to move around.

If they have random algorithm I've mentioned above, nothing prevents them to put build-spots everywhere in the solar systems.

I honestly think it would be enough to have build-spots to be placed everywhere in reasonable-reachable areas (for instance - there is no sense in placing build-spot in-middle of super-highway - there is no way someone may reach it in less then few hours wasted). But if we have point-to-point jumpdrive that may "reach" any area in solar system, then reasonable-reachable are all areas. Thus - spots all around the solar system.

I don't see any reason expect anything else.

In the hypothetical most extreme POSITIVE case, there's no limit to how far out of a given solar system we can travel, and areas beyond a certain point are just functionally equivalent to an unfocused jumpdrive sector, and simply never saved and are re-randomized (if anything exists in them at all) if you leave and re-enter.
...
When the terms are as vague as they are, it's healthy to keep a large degree of skepticism in mind.

I see no reason for them to actually limit player anyhow. Only reason could be - really dumb NPC trader AI that will attempt to reach your very-far-away-placed station wasting a lot of time and hurting game's economy. But as they promised to make AI better, I doubt it.

I think that most optimal solution is to make random-generator with predefined "seed" for each sector, so you don't need to store all the build-spots in the level. You only mark some "forbidden" areas and each time player want to build station, you just generate a bunch of build-spots around him from scratch using the seed.

Except in combat.

You are using map in combat? Well, your combats seem to be much more thoughtful then mine, good sir. I bet you are also drinking tea with cheese between shots. Well, I guess you are one of thus who love flying big capital ships =)

As stated before, it's absurd to think players won't want to try flying ABOVE the massive array of shields drones if their left and right paths are blocked.

Sure you want - but how exactly map will help you here? Unless you want to setup a path for your (other) ships, which is actually a tactical interface. Or setup a bunch of waypoints for yourself, which is also a new feature.

When there are several obvious solutions to the problem, and player requests for maps that aren't just a sonar grid with abstract icons, it seems like simply putting in a RTS-style overview map with the capacity to have a camera with an honest-to-God PAN CAMERA feature would be the least they could do.

And again, having the capacity to just click on a 2d plane and drag up or down for the 3d element is a simple solution that has been around for about a decade now. With nobody mentioning any reason it wouldn't work, or why that would be so onerous, I don't see why you would argue that it's too much trouble to implement.

It's not hard to implement. TBH, it could be even easier to implement then a unique 2d view. It just could be unnecessary complexity confusing some people.

Nobody tells that 2d map should be as rudimentary as in X3. Obviously it should see interface improvements - and ideas I've just given are perfect example of what should be done (dragging instead of pressing button to flip to vertical direction is great idea, BTW). Sure you can make perspective view for height selection, but it will only confuse people as perspective will hinder actual height differences making it hard to align your height to another object.

So, unless we are talking about tactical interface - i.e. control of your fleet - there is no much need for actual 3d. But tactical interface should feature RTS camera and Homeworld-alike controls

[Wraith_Magus]

EDIT: Closing a quote bracket... EDIT 2: twice.

There was no big difference ever, then. In X3 build mission were like "Hire/bring a BIG transport, buy a BIG package and bring it here". Now you have to find the required blueprints, bring materials + plus I think game may generate a bunch of other difficulties along the path of construction - pirate attack, some malfunction or missing ship...

If there are build missions, then they will be very different from trade missions - trade missions are now "select ship to execute and that's all". Build missions may actually fill the gap of player-engaging and interactive missions.

Speaking of not knowing the specifics, I'd like to see you cite a source on that sort of thing... Besides, I hope they don't really go that route of scripting pirate attacks on every trade mission. The covert ops thing gets really old, really fast because of that "surprise" that happens EVERY time.

Anyway, build missions were different from trade missions in X3; trade missions required a different specific kind of ship to be done properly, and involve a lot more effort when you have to hire a TL. (And pretty much every mission is basically just "have this ship to complete properly", I'd like to see you run passengers in a TL or do patrols or asteroid scans in a TS. The Engine Component Delivery mission is basically a sign that says "you must have a Springblossom or overtuned Hyperion, with a turbo booster AND jumpdrive to ride this attraction", since they basically require you to go 15 km in 4 mins in a ship with XL cargo.)

Beyond that, the most major difference in build missions, and the largest reason why I bee-line to them, is that they actually build a new station that eats up more resources, that needs a supplier for that resource, that can be ME, so I make more profitssss. (OK, maybe that part might be the same, either way, provided NPC build missions don't create self-sufficient stations.)

The thing is, "pre-defined build spots" and "even in the middle of nowhere" give off mutually-exclusive implications.
...

We don't know specifics. Pre-defined spot means only one thing - there are enough space between two, so stations built on both won't collide ever and there will be plenty space for ships to move around.

Funny how you can say that you don't know the specifics in one sentence, and then in the very next sentence, go on to say that you know that it can only mean only and exactly one thing... which you know... specifically.

I honestly think it would be enough to have build-spots to be placed everywhere in reasonable-reachable areas (for instance - there is no sense in placing build-spot in-middle of super-highway - there is no way someone may reach it in less then few hours wasted). But if we have point-to-point jumpdrive that may "reach" any area in solar system, then reasonable-reachable are all areas. Thus - spots all around the solar system.

I don't see any reason expect anything else.

How about because there are gaps between zones in the game that aren't actually saved?

That way, they give the impression of having larger amounts of space, but don't actually fill that space up with anything... it's just big, open, empty space.

Because... you know... that's what space is like?

The thing is, they can't actually model all that much space all at once if you fill it up with stuff like stations or resources, so, much like the UFJD sectors, they have to remove them from the game the instant you stop looking at it.

Every single sector (or zone, now,) you add and fill with stations selling goods and flood with traders moving those goods around multiplies the complexity of the background calculations on goods-trading.

Except in combat.

You are using map in combat? Well, your combats seem to be much more thoughtful then mine, good sir. I bet you are also drinking tea with cheese between shots. Well, I guess you are one of thus who love flying big capital ships =)

As a matter of fact, I like changing ships frequently. If I see small numbers of enemy units in M5s, I'll pop out in my Kestrel for high-speed dogfighting. If it's a pair of Qs on the horizon, I'll take my M7. And I'll dart in and out of combat, and order fighters around while waiting for my guns to recharge, yes.

And I'll point out that, after a certain point, EVERYONE is going to have to engage in OOS combat.

The Dual Convoy mission is basically built entirely upon the idea that they'll force you to send off a wing of ships to engage the enemy in OOS combat.

The very slowness of the game, in general, is built around simply letting the player build around the slowness of the commands punched into the interface. Improve that interface, and you can speed the game up, considerably.

And actually, as it stands, I tend to spend a lot of time in X3 later into the game just plain docking at one of my stations so I can manage various things from the property menu or map view. The last major thing I did was pirate a megalodon about an hour and a half of gameplay ago. But then I had to run around repairing lost Boron rep. And the Megalodon needed repairs. And I had to sell those 36 IBLs (?!) it was carrying. And then I had to expand one of my facilities. And CLS pilots need transitioning to new routes. And then I had to tow asteroids. And then I bought new fighters to stuff in the hangar. And then I needed software for all those fighters. And then there was a supply hiccup in a complex, so I had to shift prices so I wouldn't sell all my rastar oil. And then pirates attacked a CLS, so I had to jump it out. And then I deployed more lasertowers around my facilities. And then I got tired of staring at the same docking arm for so long, so I decided to hop in my M7 and start seeing how many xenon ships I could simply RAM with swinging my bow around.

Since I ALREADY spend so much time staring at the tactical overview maps, anyway, I don't see a reason you couldn't make the whole game playable from a better-designed map where you can just pan the camera, (RTS-style, or tactical-style, as you're putting it,) click on your units, and then click where you want them to fly or attack. In fact, considering as flying by the map room is the way that a Skunk docked in a capital ship is implied to work, it seems this may just well be the future of late-game flight and fleet management. (At least, if they're smart, it will be.)

... And if I like drinking tea when playing my game, I'll DRINK my tea pinky-out while I show those scurrilous dogs what-for! IT'S TEA TIME, ARGON SCALLYWAGS! HAVE AT YOU!

[BigBANGtheory]

We are talking about an interface to control point 2 point jumping, so that you do have control, and yes it probably should be part of a wider tactical interface that can handle movement orders that would make a lot of sense.

Without it you might as well jump through a gate or jump to a navigation beacon all you can really control is when you jump and to what local system. That's not point to point in my book that is just jumping without gates you can see, and the legacy X3 system was broken once you reached a point of navigation and control of many ships.

[Wraith_Magus]

Just to add...

I like the Panther more than the Tiger for M7 flying, and part of the reason is that I see the fact that the computer shoots my frontal turrets for me as a plus, not a minus, since it means it's one less thing I have to manually aim. I can focus more on having the camera in third-person view, and evading the giant death waves of cap ship fire, or giving off rapid commands while I'm boosting out of range for my guns to recharge. (And yeah, I can fly with the map up. I just wish the map was a LITTLE more transparent.)

If Yisha isn't dumb as bricks like the old autopilot, and I can actually trust her to not fly us into the first solid object she can find, then I'm almost certain to spend the overwhelming bulk of my game looking at maps, and not out the stupidly small cockpit windows.

If they just gave me full tactical control in an actual easy-to-use interface controlling the fleet ships from the map room when I docked in the M1-equivalent, and let me play Homeworld instead of a first-person space flight simulator, I might even go a good portion of the way towards forgiving not being able to "fly" all but one ship. It'd still be weird to be playing an out-and-out RTS after a certain portion of the game, but if they did it well, I'd still be happy with it.

... The M6-flyers will hate it, but I, at least, enjoyed playing Homeworld and Nexus. Personally, I prefer the Kestrel or Mamba Raider or Spitfyre for dogfighting, and all reason to fly anything maneuverable ends as soon as you get up to ships with flak guns or Xenon PBE that make being skilled at dodging meaningless.

[stilgarpl]

If they just gave me full tactical control in an actual easy-to-use interface controlling the fleet ships from the map room when I docked in the M1-equivalent, and let me play Homeworld instead of a first-person space flight simulator, I might even go a good portion of the way towards forgiving not being able to "fly" all but one ship. It'd still be weird to be playing an out-and-out RTS after a certain portion of the game, but if they did it well, I'd still be happy with it.

I would love to have a room on Skunk with table that displays 3D holographic image of space around my ship (or any other part of space I have a map of) so I can give orders from there, rts style.

[Wraith_Magus]

I would love to have a room on Skunk with table that displays 3D holographic image of space around my ship (or any other part of space I have a map of) so I can give orders from there, rts style.

From the way that docking on cap ships was described, I was hoping that was how being on a cap ship would work:

You don't get to pilot it directly, you just sit in some command room with the big holographic table and some old guys in stuffy uniform with mustaches and one doing the Gendo Ikari pose watches and rattles off reports about the fleet as you push fighter wing icons around. (He could drink tea, too, if he ordered hundreds of men to their death while drinking it.)

[elektrohawk]

Gonna laugh when OP finally gets the jumpdrive on his dreadnaught, gets his ship in, tells the dread to jump out, and realizes the enemies prioritized knocking out his dreadnaught's engines. After sending the command for the 5th time, and only just realizing why the ship isn't jumping, the GAME OVER screen pops up, OP realizing that he hadn't saved in the last three hours.

[BigBANGtheory]

If they just gave me full tactical control in an actual easy-to-use interface controlling the fleet ships from the map room when I docked in the M1-equivalent, and let me play Homeworld instead of a first-person space flight simulator, I might even go a good portion of the way towards forgiving not being able to "fly" all but one ship. It'd still be weird to be playing an out-and-out RTS after a certain portion of the game, but if they did it well, I'd still be happy with it.

I would love to have a room on Skunk with table that displays 3D holographic image of space around my ship (or any other part of space I have a map of) so I can give orders from there, rts style.

Sadly it didn't make the short list for the initial release date, Egosoft had to draw a line and that line was above this. I think that was a mistake which will continue to alienate a certain type of player hopefully that wont last though as it does appear to have made the shortlist for potential future development which is a very good thing.

What we can hope for is some basic features in the cockpit map/tactical interface that is present for the release product. The fact we haven't seen it yet suggests that it is still being worked on. Do what you can Egosoft, the more you can get into the tools/gui/controls the more interesting the sandbox becomes.

[JClosed]

If they just gave me full tactical control in an actual easy-to-use interface controlling the fleet ships from the map room when I docked in the M1-equivalent, and let me play Homeworld instead of a first-person space flight simulator, I might even go a good portion of the way towards forgiving not being able to "fly" all but one ship. It'd still be weird to be playing an out-and-out RTS after a certain portion of the game, but if they did it well, I'd still be happy with it.

I would love to have a room on Skunk with table that displays 3D holographic image of space around my ship (or any other part of space I have a map of) so I can give orders from there, rts style.

Sadly it didn't make the short list for the initial release date, Egosoft had to draw a line and that line was above this. I think that was a mistake which will continue to alienate a certain type of player hopefully that wont last though as it does appear to have made the shortlist for potential future development which is a very good thing.

What we can hope for is some basic features in the cockpit map/tactical interface that is present for the release product. The fact we haven't seen it yet suggests that it is still being worked on. Do what you can Egosoft, the more you can get into the tools/gui/controls the more interesting the sandbox becomes.

Well - there is an ladder to an hatch at the top of the ramp leading into the skunk. Who knows what is in the upper part of the skunk, where that hatch leads to? For now it remains a mystery...

[DaddyMonster]

If they just gave me full tactical control in an actual easy-to-use interface controlling the fleet ships from the map room when I docked in the M1-equivalent, and let me play Homeworld instead of a first-person space flight simulator, I might even go a good portion of the way towards forgiving not being able to "fly" all but one ship. It'd still be weird to be playing an out-and-out RTS after a certain portion of the game, but if they did it well, I'd still be happy with it.

I would love to have a room on Skunk with table that displays 3D holographic image of space around my ship (or any other part of space I have a map of) so I can give orders from there, rts style.

Sadly it didn't make the short list for the initial release date, Egosoft had to draw a line and that line was above this. I think that was a mistake which will continue to alienate a certain type of player hopefully that wont last though as it does appear to have made the shortlist for potential future development which is a very good thing.

What we can hope for is some basic features in the cockpit map/tactical interface that is present for the release product. The fact we haven't seen it yet suggests that it is still being worked on. Do what you can Egosoft, the more you can get into the tools/gui/controls the more interesting the sandbox becomes.

Well - there is an ladder to an hatch at the top of the ramp leading into the skunk. Who knows what is in the upper part of the skunk, where that hatch leads to? For now it remains a mystery...

Somehow, and this isn't based on anything in particular, I don't think there's going to be anything more to the Skunk than we've already seen. I originally thought that maybe we would get a turret fitted but I think Bernd said that the exterior wouldn't change visibly with upgrades. I expect that that's just decoration and we've seen all there is to see. Would love to be wrong on that count.

[JClosed]

Well - there is an ladder to an hatch at the top of the ramp leading into the skunk. Who knows what is in the upper part of the skunk, where that hatch leads to? For now it remains a mystery...

Somehow, and this isn't based on anything in particular, I don't think there's going to be anything more to the Skunk than we've already seen. I originally thought that maybe we would get a turret fitted but I think Bernd said that the exterior wouldn't change visibly with upgrades. I expect that that's just decoration and we've seen all there is to see. Would love to be wrong on that count.

Hmm.. If I remember well the "pride of Albion" (better known as Skunk) has room for more crew members. It is fully possible the room above is for those crew members. Question is - is there room for more than that?

It would surprise me if they would place a ladder beneath that hatch, when you cannot use it. Why place a ladder there if it just as easy could be left out? So - it has to have a function. I fully admit I am just speculating here, but I hope there are still some surprises in the upcoming game..