Planet Landings?

[pjknibbs]

Well, I can say it definitely didn't work that way in WoW. In that game your client actually told the server where your character was at any time--this was done to reduce lag, because if you have a 400ms ping, it would take nearly a second before your character reacted to any movement key. Eve can probably get away without doing that because you don't directly control your ship, but an X MMO would have the same issue and would have to solve it the same way.

[jlehtone]

So assuming (never seen or used anything "multi") a server (A) and two clients (B and C):

Player on B sees own character and char of C. Player on C sees own character and char of B.

"Server":
B and C send laggy input, A calculates and returns new state (with lag), B and C render. Renderings are laggy, but B and C are about in sync.

"Client":
B strikes and hits the opponent, result is sent to A, which passes it to C. Meanwhile, C dodges anticipating an attack from B, By the time A tells C that opponent hit you, C was already somewhere else according to its own calculations. Two alternate versions of history hard to sync, or the sync procedure shows the lag at some point?

For game like current X it seems imperative to have non-laggy connection, regardless of who computes.

[Realspace]

Nice dissertations here but ... don't you think we're going a bit OFF TOPIC??? Please.. ..X3 is not multiplayer and probably will nevere be.

In anycase ninjitsumonk, who started this topic, wanted to receive feedbacks about the opportunity to engage into a long hard modelling work to create land-sectors to simulate planets. Now, before doing this, he'd like to understand if players really want planets or that's just one of those futile wish-lists you see in all games. That's why he posted in X-universe.

Just to understand in details what it's all about, take a look at the topic I started, it is not the same procedure he's on but can give you an idea of the huge amount of work it requires: http://forum.egosoft.com/viewtopic.php?t=195712

Finally, please people, expecially normal players, post here your idea about this kind of planetary inclusion, how you like it, do you really think it would radically change the game, does it value the efforts? etc. etc.

[jlehtone]

In anycase ninjitsumonk, who started this topic, wanted to receive feedbacks about the opportunity to engage into a long hard modelling work to create land-sectors to simulate planets. Now, before doing this, he'd like to understand if players really want planets or that's just one of those futile wish-lists you see in all games.

The OP looks more like an observation than question. Observation that the game files do define on sector with scenery quite different from celestial objects.

Sure you can design stations and asteroids that look like Grand Canyon, Pizza Hut, and Golden Gate. IIRC the Death Star was modeled by somebody already. Impressive work all that, but what does it add?

X2 had tunnels in big asteroids. It was fun to fly them through, once or twice. X3 does not, but its plot, if you choose to follow it, forces you to do that. X-Wing had one mission to fly a "canyon". One of Wing Commander sequels had the same. So how would a "planet" differ from any other station? You go there, trade, and leave. Asteroid rich sectors are not nice to be in for frame-rate and collisions. Planet sector simply has a bit more "matter" than Ore Belt, ie is worse of the same.

Except planet should have notable gravity and drag from atmosphere. There is no point to build spaceships that can do both combat in space and cope with planetary flight. I rather have that extra gun turret than propulsion required to leave an orbit.

But the bars at planet are better than Teladi Pleasure Center? Then why do other players demand to see all BBS missions without even docking in space station? Sure looks good to do all the landing procedure only to hear that "you might get hurt, so we do not give this job to you"?

Ahh, but to walk on solid ground/inside station? When others demand RTS user interface? All RTS I've seen, you command armies "from outside". Much good does it do to desing elaborate (and no doubt breath-taking) sceneries so that others simply send an OOS fleet to take it over.

But planets have population and economy? Sure, X is an economic simulation. There are sources of matter (NPC SPP and Asteroids), conversion of matter (Factories), transport of matter (all sorts of freighters), and sinks of matter (NPC Docks, other secondary consumers, and the player). It is a bit abstract in order to keep it computable. Which one of these functors should a planet be? If it is one of them, it is just more of the same. If it is not, please describe the different playable economic model in more detail.


Lets assume there are planets and they can be taken over. Then you can justify making M0 class planet destroyers too. And once you have destroyed a planet, the universe has permanently changed in your game. You are suddenly public enemy number one for doing what Xenon and Kha'ak have failed. The races of X-Universe have to react. That is RTS, and you no longer play in sandbox. Radical change and much more than just drawing different background.

So does it value the efforts? IMO no, but if she has fun doing it, then it is worth it at least for her.

[Realspace]

So does it value the efforts? IMO no, but if she has fun doing it, then it is worth it at least for her.

So ninjitsumonk is a She ... ooops, sorry ... I said He ...
... that's why she is so polite, not one of us stupid male goat-heads..


Anyway, good poits you make there. let's think about.. ..

[Alfred Bester]

Finally, please people, expecially normal players, post here your idea about this kind of planetary inclusion, how you like it, do you really think it would radically change the game, does it value the efforts? etc. etc.

I think CBJ summed it up nicely. Is there really anything more to tell on this subject?

[Realspace]

The OP looks more like an observation than question. Observation that the game files do define on sector with scenery quite different from celestial objects.

... right, she didn't say it but we talked on it on the other post and i feel comfortable in saying this is also a kind of response topic. Anyway it would be very usefull to finally say "ehi people, we have a kind of planetary landing, do you really want it?" ... imagine how many of those regularly boring wish-topics on planets will be avoided

[jlehtone]

imagine how many of those regularly boring wish-topics on planets will be avoided

Statistically? I bet 0 avoided threads. That is the nature of posters.

[Realspace]

I think CBJ summed it up nicely. Is there really anything more to tell on this subject?

From a devs/marketing point of view, yes of course...very resolutive, but the question is much more opened for modders/players

imagine how many of those regularly boring wish-topics on planets will be avoided

Statistically? I bet 0 avoided threads. That is the nature of posters.

at least we can point attenction to this thread each time one of those posts is started

[ninjitsumonk]

Except planet should have notable gravity and drag from atmosphere. There is no point to build spaceships that can do both combat in space and cope with planetary flight. I rather have that extra gun turret than propulsion required to leave an orbit.

That is why I said in the other topic that having a method to get in and out of the atmosphere, for example landing struts or having a kind of gate system ala freelancer.
As for gravity, it's not much of a problem at all, I've still got a bit of work to do on it, my 3d maths functions should be able to handle it pretty well, I just need a bit more work on the mechanics side of things(doing maths mech+pure atm so shouldn't be too long till I fully understand)

But the bars at planet are better than Teladi Pleasure Center? Then why do other players demand to see all BBS missions without even docking in space station? Sure looks good to do all the landing procedure only to hear that "you might get hurt, so we do not give this job to you"?

ah, that's where you're wrong, that happened in freelancer, but if I get my way then planets will have much more .

Ahh, but to walk on solid ground/inside station? When others demand RTS user interface? All RTS I've seen, you command armies "from outside". Much good does it do to desing elaborate (and no doubt breath-taking) sceneries so that others simply send an OOS fleet to take it over.

again, this goes down to the whole gravity thing, I wasn't planning to allow large fleets to attack planets, M1's and M2's IMHO would be ripped apart by the sheer amount of gravity pulling them down because of their weight.
And also, again if I have my way, planet's will have much better methods of defending themselves

But planets have population and economy? Sure, X is an economic simulation. There are sources of matter (NPC SPP and Asteroids), conversion of matter (Factories), transport of matter (all sorts of freighters), and sinks of matter (NPC Docks, other secondary consumers, and the player). It is a bit abstract in order to keep it computable. Which one of these functors should a planet be? If it is one of them, it is just more of the same. If it is not, please describe the different playable economic model in more detail.

It fills all of those categories and more, diplomacy.
Planets can not only be taken over by sheer force, but by winning over the population. I haven't done any work on this yet(and neither do I intend to in the near future) but it's an idea.

Lets assume there are planets and they can be taken over. Then you can justify making M0 class planet destroyers too. And once you have destroyed a planet, the universe has permanently changed in your game. You are suddenly public enemy number one for doing what Xenon and Kha'ak have failed. The races of X-Universe have to react. That is RTS, and you no longer play in sandbox. Radical change and much more than just drawing different background.

I totally agree with you on this point.

So does it value the efforts? IMO no, but if she has fun doing it, then it is worth it at least for her.

[ReggieReddog]

So ninjitsumonk is a She ... ooops, sorry ... I said He ...
... that's why she is so polite, not one of us stupid male goat-heads..

Yeah, blows my mind too. (I don't really know any chick gamers. Although, there was this chick at a house party that was whooping butt at MarioBros one time...)

It would (probably) be great if X was an actual universe simulator, but geez that would be a gigantic game if you could fully interact with planets and cities and stuff. I can't imagine the game would be able to earn back the coding hour$ spent to make it. Some simpler "outside" interaction with planets would be pretty cool though. Although it would also be cool to impose Xtreme taxes on a conquered planet and then have to add tons of military bases to crush the ensuing rebellions.

[Carlo the Curious]

Just divert a few asteroids in their direction to make an example

[jlehtone]

(Presumed) Gentlemen, due to the nature of the communication the true identity of participants remain uncertain. As the OP has a habit of using "she" for self-reference (for whatever reasons) it is merely consistent for others to use the same form.

It fills all of those categories and more, diplomacy.

"All those categories", ie does not differ from regular sector with regular stations. Elite had one station on orbit of one planet per system and effectively you did trade with the planet, although you did dock on the station. Type of the planet/system determined prices and availability of tradeables. In X3 each sector has specific mix of food/tech/energy production, so does not differ from system in Elite.

But diplomacy, that would be something novel. X has only two bits: race relation, and "this station is mad at you" flag. Well, the race relation has "core" and "border" varieties. But that is it. Player able to own a station might be considered part of diplomatic status too.

Railroad Tycoon 2 allowed buying and selling of existing industry. Owned industry in well served area generated revenue. But you were not able to build, you had to wait for the equivalent of "X3 GoD" to create some. In X3 you cannot "own" NPC stations in the same way as in RT2. Would this added diplomacy work on that area?

BTW, to quote von Clausewitz with attitude of Sun Tzu:

Peacetime diplomacy is war conducted without military forces.

Gun, credit, and cunning speech are just different implementations of getting something happen to our liking.

[Nanook]

Except planet should have notable gravity and drag from atmosphere. There is no point to build spaceships that can do both combat in space and cope with planetary flight. I rather have that extra gun turret than propulsion required to leave an orbit.

That is why I said in the other topic that having a method to get in and out of the atmosphere, for example landing struts or having a kind of gate system ala freelancer.
As for gravity, it's not much of a problem at all, I've still got a bit of work to do on it, my 3d maths functions should be able to handle it pretty well, I just need a bit more work on the mechanics side of things(doing maths mech+pure atm so shouldn't be too long till I fully understand)

But the bars at planet are better than Teladi Pleasure Center? Then why do other players demand to see all BBS missions without even docking in space station? Sure looks good to do all the landing procedure only to hear that "you might get hurt, so we do not give this job to you"?

ah, that's where you're wrong, that happened in freelancer, but if I get my way then planets will have much more .

Ahh, but to walk on solid ground/inside station? When others demand RTS user interface? All RTS I've seen, you command armies "from outside". Much good does it do to desing elaborate (and no doubt breath-taking) sceneries so that others simply send an OOS fleet to take it over.

again, this goes down to the whole gravity thing, I wasn't planning to allow large fleets to attack planets, M1's and M2's IMHO would be ripped apart by the sheer amount of gravity pulling them down because of their weight.
And also, again if I have my way, planet's will have much better methods of defending themselves

But planets have population and economy? Sure, X is an economic simulation. There are sources of matter (NPC SPP and Asteroids), conversion of matter (Factories), transport of matter (all sorts of freighters), and sinks of matter (NPC Docks, other secondary consumers, and the player). It is a bit abstract in order to keep it computable. Which one of these functors should a planet be? If it is one of them, it is just more of the same. If it is not, please describe the different playable economic model in more detail.

It fills all of those categories and more, diplomacy.
Planets can not only be taken over by sheer force, but by winning over the population. I haven't done any work on this yet(and neither do I intend to in the near future) but it's an idea.

Lets assume there are planets and they can be taken over. Then you can justify making M0 class planet destroyers too. And once you have destroyed a planet, the universe has permanently changed in your game. You are suddenly public enemy number one for doing what Xenon and Kha'ak have failed. The races of X-Universe have to react. That is RTS, and you no longer play in sandbox. Radical change and much more than just drawing different background.

I totally agree with you on this point.

So does it value the efforts? IMO no, but if she has fun doing it, then it is worth it at least for her.

Sounds like someone wants to tack on a bit of GalCiv2 to X3. Maybe you should look into a merger between Egosoft and Stardock.

[ninjitsumonk]

(Presumed) Gentlemen, due to the nature of the communication the true identity of participants remain uncertain. As the OP has a habit of using "she" for self-reference (for whatever reasons) it is merely consistent for others to use the same form.

Not quite so sure what you meant by this, but I'm sure you didn't mean offence, but just to clear up with anyone else, I am a girl, my (now)fiance got me into space games long ago, and since I've allways loved them.
If anybody really needs confirmation that I'm a girl I can post pictures if you really want(not that type of picture! I'm happily engaged thanks ).
I also realise that he is the normal for "unknown sex" and whilst I'm not a particular fan of being called he, I'm not going to take offence ...... Though I do wonder what reactions I'd get if I started calling everyone "she"....
back to the topic though, I'm just working out whether the ships in game(based on their max speeds) would be able to travel under the influence of gravity(using 9.8 as the gravity constant, which I do realise is for earth, but its a start).
Is there any way I can check how many G's some of these planets have?

[pjknibbs]

There's no real way to tell what gravity the planets have just by looking at them. However, there aren't many ships in the X universe with an acceleration lower than 10 m/s^2 anyway!

[ninjitsumonk]

Yeah, you've got a point. i guess if I'm going to use a form of gravity, I should probably take one number and stick with it, though not realistic it will allow for gravity, if gravity would even affect them that much.

[Realspace]

And you can assume that inhabitable planets can't have a too high gravity otherwise no life form of big size (human size is) could live there, even the massive paranids !

[ninjitsumonk]

So what are we looking at max 2-3G's or can people survive higher?

[Carlo the Curious]

Define 'people' .

Most (human) habitable 'high-G' worlds I remember from sci-fi seem to fall into the 1.5-2G range.