Quote:

Original post by Edward Ropple Find a way how not to keep the majority of stars (every one an alien empire has control of, every one a player has control of) in memory at any time. You'll shortly find that you'll be running low on available memory really quickly, even on fairly buff machines.

Let's say that, oh... NPC empires are not run. They're stagnant. Meaning that you don't need to update the worlds they control. You just need to have a list of planets (or maybe even stars, or maybe even sectors) they own. They don't compete with you, so you don't have to worry about balancing it. They just exist.

Let's say each sector/star/planet is given a number representing how advanced and productive it is. That's it, a simple 32 bit number. The strength of the empire is the sum of all it's parts. The player interacts with said empire, forming trade agreements, etc. and finds that NEVER does he have to deal with how advanced each of the individual parts are.

As far as keeping every colony the player owns in memory... That really isn't any more difficult than what a 4x game deals with. And I don't think I really need to. I just have to update them when it will affect something.

Let's say that after a player forms a colony, it's easy to calculate what will happen in the colony even 500 years down the road (game time of course). Then you just have to calculate a new state for the colony every few years, and replace the old colony database entry with the new one.

Quote:

Also, somehow I doubt your uber-l33t procedural generation routines will be able to come up with the alterations the player and AI empires/players have put onto planets they control, etc. If the game is on such a scale as you're talking about, this alone could run to tens of megabytes. Even with procedural generation, there's a hell of a lot of stuff you need to put on disk.

Okay, 1st: Hardly uber-elite. It's just pasted together using simple calculus and fudge factors. Check out this article and this one. I just combined the two ideas.

As for the actual algorithm for generation of stars, etc. I'm using this article as a launching point, modifying it slightly for my uses.

If that makes me uber-elite... WOOT! I finally made it. Was easier than I thought.

2nd: No, you can't store all the alterations for NPC empires. You just have to simulate them. That's the tradeoff for procedural generation. I think it's acceptable, since you're not competing with NPC empires anyway. In a 4x game it wouldn't be, but as I said, mine is not a 4x game.

3rd: Storing the alterations the player has formed is very possible. Colony control isn't as in-depth as in other games. Probably only have to store ~100 bytes a colony, which isn't monstrous at all. The game isn't real time, so I can spend 10 seconds updating all the colonies if I want, I imagine most people wouldn't mind too much.

4th: 10's of megabytes is nothing. Most modern computers have 256-500MB RAM, and then you don't even count virtual memory which windows handles automatically.

If you show me a computer where a 35 MB game is a problem, I'll show you a paperweight.

Anyway, I doubt that my game will use more than 2-3MB, excluding 3D models and textures of course. The point of the game is procedural generation, not storage. If that means there is some small fudging here and there, so be it.

Y'know, with all the limitations you're putting on it, I really don't see the "game" aspect of it...this strikes me as a simulation more than a game.

There doesn't seem to be all that much in the way of competition or drive to keep playing, from what you've written.

So, in that case, it doesn't matter which way you do it.

Quote:

Original post by Edward Ropple Y'know, with all the limitations you're putting on it, I really don't see the "game" aspect of it...this strikes me as a simulation more than a game. There doesn't seem to be all that much in the way of competition or drive to keep playing, from what you've written.

My gameplay is based alot off of 7 Cities of Gold. I remember playing it when I was a little kid, and I had alot of fun with it. You weren't competing against anybody in it either. You just ran around exploring and making colonies and trading. That pretty much desribes my game.

That's a misconception with modern gaming, that you need someone to compete against. Sometimes it is fun to just be alone in a game. Myst, 7 Cities of Gold, and a few others just left you alone with a world, and let you do what you want to it.

If that's not your cup of tea, so be it. But please do not attempt to criticisize an idea in gaming which has already been well established and well recieved.

Quote:

So, in that case, it doesn't matter which way you do it.

That sounds suspiciously like what a little kid would say if he doesn't get his way. I've been kind enough to respond to your posts, which have been combative from the start. If you're going to criticisize my idea, however, please have the curtesy to flush them out.

Specifically:

Quote:

Original post by Numsgil Quote: Original post by Edward Ropple First: Just make a cap a player can choose for number of stars. Have it go as high as you please. Don't make the player choose how "big" it should be in spatial directions; do that behind the scenes. Okay... but why not? I imagine most of us think in terms of spatial coordinates.

Never recieved a reply. Please post respectfully and don't turn this into a flame war over something relatively stupid.

Quote:

Original post by Numsgil Quote: Original post by Edward Ropple Y'know, with all the limitations you're putting on it, I really don't see the "game" aspect of it...this strikes me as a simulation more than a game. There doesn't seem to be all that much in the way of competition or drive to keep playing, from what you've written. My gameplay is based alot off of 7 Cities of Gold. I remember playing it when I was a little kid, and I had alot of fun with it. You weren't competing against anybody in it either. You just ran around exploring and making colonies and trading. That pretty much desribes my game. That's a misconception with modern gaming, that you need someone to compete against. Sometimes it is fun to just be alone in a game. Myst, 7 Cities of Gold, and a few others just left you alone with a world, and let you do what you want to it. If that's not your cup of tea, so be it. But please do not attempt to criticisize an idea in gaming which has already been well established and well recieved.

Seven Cities of Gold was good, no doubt about that. However, I've always thought the setting/milieu is the reason it worked, myself.

Quote:

Quote: So, in that case, it doesn't matter which way you do it. That sounds suspiciously like what a little kid would say if he doesn't get his way. I've been kind enough to respond to your posts, which have been combative from the start. If you're going to criticisize my idea, however, please have the curtesy to flush them out.

My apologies if I sound combative. I'm generally just blunt. If I see no fun factor, I'm not going to call it a game, and, for both technical and design-related reasons, this seems to have a few very large holes in it. I still don't see the fun factor in it. Seven Cities of Gold had a more limited scope and amount of power/resources you could use; this doesn't seem to have the same.

Quote:

Specifically: Quote: Original post by Numsgil Quote: Original post by Edward Ropple First: Just make a cap a player can choose for number of stars. Have it go as high as you please. Don't make the player choose how "big" it should be in spatial directions; do that behind the scenes. Okay... but why not? I imagine most of us think in terms of spatial coordinates. Never recieved a reply. Please post respectfully and don't turn this into a flame war over something relatively stupid.

Well, for one, programmers may thing spatially--but making it easier on the user seems to me to be a more simply defined number.

A new player doesn't know how long or how much it'll take to traverse 10000 LY. They've got a better idea when you say "about ten million stars."

I don't know why I didn't respond to this--I probably didn't notice it.

EDIT: One very simple technical question. If you're using procedural generation, what happens when the player starts bumping into these NPC empires? Procedural generation fails completely once you introduce independent variables into the equation.

[Edited by - Edward Ropple on November 28, 2004 4:56:42 PM]

Quote:

EDIT: One very simple technical question. If you're using procedural generation, what happens when the player starts bumping into these NPC empires? Procedural generation fails completely once you introduce independent variables into the equation.

The player can't really affect the empire (short of stealing planets), but the empire can affect the player. So even after the player discovers it, the empire is following in its preset pattern.

The list of interactions with NPC empires is pretty broad, but none of them affect the NPC empire in-game. If you create a trade agreement, your trade increases. The game doesn't worry about the empires'.

That may sound a little flat, but why would you have a dynamic empire if the player isn't competing with it? The only reason would be to have NPC empire to NPC empire interaction, like most 4x games do. I'm cutting off this in favor for expansiveness.

Hmm. I suppose that makes sense.

What I still don't get, however, is the fun factor of this game. In Seven Cities, there were still challenges and such to the gameplay. I don't really see any such challenges in this. Non-competition is fine (though a completely flat system of play), but there still needs to be some challenge to keep the player interested--and "discover X things" doesn't really work.

Quote:

Original post by Edward Ropple Hmm. I suppose that makes sense. What I still don't get, however, is the fun factor of this game. In Seven Cities, there were still challenges and such to the gameplay. I don't really see any such challenges in this. Non-competition is fine (though a completely flat system of play), but there still needs to be some challenge to keep the player interested--and "discover X things" doesn't really work.

Everything you can do in 7 Cities you can do in my game. 7 cities is what my initial gameplay was entirely based off of, until it evolved to the point it is now.

I think in many ways this is borderline toy/game. I could have the game set some goals for you to accomplish, but the game is just too broad to keep the player constrained within lines like that.

When I was a little kid, we had a forest in the backyard, which led to an airforce base, so it was big (or seemed that way, I was 4 after all). It never got old to go exploring the woods. I'm trying to capture that same expansive, open ended play.

Whether I'm on the right track or not is open to interpretation.