We've run into some questions about our Line of Sight ("Fog of War") model. I thought it may be interesting to see what the opinions might be from the forum readers...
The question is whether people would prefer to play with a "standard" or "fuzzy" line of sight. In the standard mode, a hex is either "in" or "out" of your sight; If a hex is "in sight", then all enemy units in that hex would show up as visible to the sighting player.
In a "fuzzy" mode, units may or may not be visible depending upon the strength of your sighting, and the level of their "stealth". On this mode, an F117 Stealth bomber could get pretty close without being seen, while a Hercules transport would be seen much farther away. A sub could get in close, but a battleship would be seen a fair distance.
Among the many difference between the two modes:
- In "standard" mode, it is possible to draw a fog-of-war map overlay; you can see quickly where you have visibility, and where you don't. In fuzzy mode, there is no such dividing line, so no accurate 'fog' can be shown on the map (most games use a greyed-out map area to represent fog-of-war).
- In fuzzy mode, it is possible to see some units in a hex but not others (ie, see the Transport plane but not the F117 in the same hex). This might be confusing to some players.
The spotting range/strength is a variable of each unit and some buildings - ie, recon units and AWACS planes have strong spotting abilities, infantry garrisons have poor spotting.
The questions are: How would YOU want to play a scenario - standard or fuzzy spotting rules?
-- George.
<Lead Programmer, BattleGoat Studios>
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: George Geczy on 2003-06-23 16:56 ]</font>
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: George Geczy on 2003-06-23 16:57 ]</font>
I can see for miles and miles...
Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators
-
George Geczy
- General
- Posts: 2688
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Location: BattleGoat Studios
- Contact:
-
tkobo
- Supreme Ruler
- Posts: 12397
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Location: In a vast zionist plot ...RIGHT BEHIND YOU ! Oh Noes !
-
3iff
- Brigadier Gen.
- Posts: 606
- Joined: Jun 27 2002
- Location: Birmingham, England
Probably in standard mode...at the start. But once I'm used to the game, I would almost certainly use fuzzy mode.
...any chance of both alternatives offered to the player at the start of the game, then not changeable during the game?
Fuzzy mode would make a game slightly harder and having units suddenly appear 'out of nowhere' because you weren't able to see them 'last turn' would be unsettling.
If only one option is possible, then fuzzy.
Could lead to some nice ambushes though, with your transport plane being escorted by a few stealth fighters...
...any chance of both alternatives offered to the player at the start of the game, then not changeable during the game?
Fuzzy mode would make a game slightly harder and having units suddenly appear 'out of nowhere' because you weren't able to see them 'last turn' would be unsettling.
If only one option is possible, then fuzzy.
Could lead to some nice ambushes though, with your transport plane being escorted by a few stealth fighters...
-
Juergen
- Brigadier Gen.
- Posts: 709
- Joined: Jul 05 2002
Somehow I knew that this week is going to be very important...oh well.
The only 3 words which Im sure about:
Fuzzy!Fuzzy!Fuzzy!
As to the rest of the topic Im not sure if I really get your meaning George...
At the moment I can see 2 ways to understand the meaning of the topic:
1.)You are going to implement the option to choose between "standard" and "fuzzy" in the game.So that we basically can play it the way we want it to play at the moment.
And in this case you are simply asking us what we would prefer normally.
2.)You are going to implement only ONE (1) of the two modes of sight.
Whatever mode will be implemented it will be FINAL with no further options later in the game.
And also in this case you would like to hear what we are thinking.
As I said im not sure what you mean,but I can tell what my opinion would be in both cases.
1)Even more options and ways to play the game.Thats most cetainly a good thing.
As 3iff already mentioned this way both beginners and veterans alike will be pleased because they can choose how they want to play the game.
I think if theres is a way to have both then go for it
2)That an entirely different matter:
In this case I think that the question is put into words that are far to harmless...so I would like to cry out aloud how important the matter is:
WARNING! WARNING! WARNING!
THIS MATTER IS VERY IMPORTANT!
THIS IS EASILY THE MOST IMPORTANT THREAD AT THE MOMENT!
PLEASE READ ON:
I think that the question asked (or at least discussed) in this thread is the following:
Which way will Supreme Ruler 2010 go,will it be:
1)THE NEXT GENERATION OF STRATEGY GAMES
2)ANOTHER "AGE OF LAME GAMEPLAY"
And now you will be certainly asking me:
"Why do say that?"
I will tell you what I think:
You cant fight what you cant see.
This is the reason why we have all these kinds of "stealth weapons" in our world.
A submarine that can be spotted from many hexes away by just ANY unit would be pointless.
All I would have to do would be to scrap a few cheap interceptors together and send them over the ocean to look for the submarines.
And the all the recon aircrafts like the "Hawkeye" would also not be really usefull because every fighter could do what they can do without being as vulnrable.
And you could also forget about the stealth bombers because their presence would not really be a suprise...a lot of wasted money so why not take a cheaper regular bomber.
Rather uncool if you ask me.
And the "special forces" will also find them quickly ountnumberd because they were detected.
I hope you agree with me when I state:
"The way you can see in a game determines the way you play the game"
Just think of all the things you could with the "fuzzy" mode,it will really make the game richer in gameplay and make it more realistic.
"Standard" mode is just like any other strategy game like Starcraft,Warcraft and so on...
Choosing this option would make this game not much different from these games,it would be very different to the game it "could be" with the "fuzzy" mode.
I know that a lot of people love the simplicity of these games I mentioned above.
But my word to these people is:
Look around there is more than enough for you!
I think that Suprem Ruler 2010 is supposed to be different.
But then perhaps this is all not happening and and the choice doesnt have to be made because we can have both modes of play an all will be fine...
I do hope so.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Juergen on 2003-06-24 10:06 ]</font>
The only 3 words which Im sure about:
Fuzzy!Fuzzy!Fuzzy!
As to the rest of the topic Im not sure if I really get your meaning George...
At the moment I can see 2 ways to understand the meaning of the topic:
1.)You are going to implement the option to choose between "standard" and "fuzzy" in the game.So that we basically can play it the way we want it to play at the moment.
And in this case you are simply asking us what we would prefer normally.
2.)You are going to implement only ONE (1) of the two modes of sight.
Whatever mode will be implemented it will be FINAL with no further options later in the game.
And also in this case you would like to hear what we are thinking.
As I said im not sure what you mean,but I can tell what my opinion would be in both cases.
1)Even more options and ways to play the game.Thats most cetainly a good thing.
As 3iff already mentioned this way both beginners and veterans alike will be pleased because they can choose how they want to play the game.
I think if theres is a way to have both then go for it
2)That an entirely different matter:
In this case I think that the question is put into words that are far to harmless...so I would like to cry out aloud how important the matter is:
WARNING! WARNING! WARNING!
THIS MATTER IS VERY IMPORTANT!
THIS IS EASILY THE MOST IMPORTANT THREAD AT THE MOMENT!
PLEASE READ ON:
I think that the question asked (or at least discussed) in this thread is the following:
Which way will Supreme Ruler 2010 go,will it be:
1)THE NEXT GENERATION OF STRATEGY GAMES
2)ANOTHER "AGE OF LAME GAMEPLAY"
And now you will be certainly asking me:
"Why do say that?"
I will tell you what I think:
You cant fight what you cant see.
This is the reason why we have all these kinds of "stealth weapons" in our world.
A submarine that can be spotted from many hexes away by just ANY unit would be pointless.
All I would have to do would be to scrap a few cheap interceptors together and send them over the ocean to look for the submarines.
And the all the recon aircrafts like the "Hawkeye" would also not be really usefull because every fighter could do what they can do without being as vulnrable.
And you could also forget about the stealth bombers because their presence would not really be a suprise...a lot of wasted money so why not take a cheaper regular bomber.
Rather uncool if you ask me.
And the "special forces" will also find them quickly ountnumberd because they were detected.
I hope you agree with me when I state:
"The way you can see in a game determines the way you play the game"
Just think of all the things you could with the "fuzzy" mode,it will really make the game richer in gameplay and make it more realistic.
"Standard" mode is just like any other strategy game like Starcraft,Warcraft and so on...
Choosing this option would make this game not much different from these games,it would be very different to the game it "could be" with the "fuzzy" mode.
I know that a lot of people love the simplicity of these games I mentioned above.
But my word to these people is:
Look around there is more than enough for you!
I think that Suprem Ruler 2010 is supposed to be different.
But then perhaps this is all not happening and and the choice doesnt have to be made because we can have both modes of play an all will be fine...
I do hope so.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Juergen on 2003-06-24 10:06 ]</font>
-
Tecuma
- Corporal
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Jun 19 2003
Are you asking what we want in the game or how we would play it?
If it is what we want in the game and I have only one choice standard or fuzzy, then I agree with Juergen, What value is stealth, or deployment tactics if everyone can see you coming? Just because I have a satellite over head should I be able to see every thing? A unit in the desert or on the move is much easier to see than one entrenched or moving in the mountains or around a city. What about intel. It was no secret to Saddam what units were coming for his hide, all he had to do was watch cnn for that.
Do we have intelligence reports that give us approximate or false ideas of what units or force size may be in the area and or possible location for some units? Often in war there will be local intel some of it good, some of it false thus the job of surveillance and recon to figure out where they are and how they will be coming. I can think of nothing cooler than see a unit on the map but by time I executed the attack, I find out that they managed to move out undetected. This type of thing allows a whole new level of game play with a variety of possible tactics. The whole purpose of Satellites, Surveillance planes, recon, Intel, LP/OP's is to gain an advantage in the situational awareness on the battle field. Billions are spent to improve these abilities. To lessen them in any degree takes away from the value of investing in this type of technology and gives an unwarranted advantage for those that don't invest or aren't capable.
If it is how we would play it, well in short, Fuzzy is the way for me.
If it is what we want in the game and I have only one choice standard or fuzzy, then I agree with Juergen, What value is stealth, or deployment tactics if everyone can see you coming? Just because I have a satellite over head should I be able to see every thing? A unit in the desert or on the move is much easier to see than one entrenched or moving in the mountains or around a city. What about intel. It was no secret to Saddam what units were coming for his hide, all he had to do was watch cnn for that.
Do we have intelligence reports that give us approximate or false ideas of what units or force size may be in the area and or possible location for some units? Often in war there will be local intel some of it good, some of it false thus the job of surveillance and recon to figure out where they are and how they will be coming. I can think of nothing cooler than see a unit on the map but by time I executed the attack, I find out that they managed to move out undetected. This type of thing allows a whole new level of game play with a variety of possible tactics. The whole purpose of Satellites, Surveillance planes, recon, Intel, LP/OP's is to gain an advantage in the situational awareness on the battle field. Billions are spent to improve these abilities. To lessen them in any degree takes away from the value of investing in this type of technology and gives an unwarranted advantage for those that don't invest or aren't capable.
If it is how we would play it, well in short, Fuzzy is the way for me.
-
George Geczy
- General
- Posts: 2688
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Location: BattleGoat Studios
- Contact:
But Juergen, what do you REALLY think ?
Obviously one of our concerns is that we must make sure we don't alienate 'average' players with confusing gameplay. David and I rather suspected that the more passionate strategy players would strongly support 'fuzzy', but I was interested in hearing some varied opinions on the topic. I'll give a few more days for any more people that would like to add comments to this thread, and then I'll summarize our plans for how we're going to move forward.
-- George.
PS - even though "Age of Lame" sounds like a cool name, I don't think you'll need to worry about us using it
Obviously one of our concerns is that we must make sure we don't alienate 'average' players with confusing gameplay. David and I rather suspected that the more passionate strategy players would strongly support 'fuzzy', but I was interested in hearing some varied opinions on the topic. I'll give a few more days for any more people that would like to add comments to this thread, and then I'll summarize our plans for how we're going to move forward.
-- George.
PS - even though "Age of Lame" sounds like a cool name, I don't think you'll need to worry about us using it
-
Juergen
- Brigadier Gen.
- Posts: 709
- Joined: Jul 05 2002
Now that is an interesting questionOn 2003-06-24 14:11, George Geczy wrote:
But Juergen, what do you REALLY think ?
!Well what do I think:
I think that the "fuzzy" model is just right for a game of this scope.
This game really deserves an elaborated LOS system
With the "standard" system the game simply "wont be what it could have been",just like Moo3.
The hardcore gamers will be dissapointed with such a simple system because it doesnt offer much variety.
And the "standard" gamer will simply not care because this game is too complex anyway.
For him the LOS system is simply the tip of the iceberg.
I think that that any gamer who is interested in complex strategy game will learn to appreciate the "fuzzy" model.
Besides,I also remember one of you saying that you want to make the game YOU want to play
because all the other gamer dont offer the depth that you want.And I suppose that this game would be using the "fuzzy" model of course.
Forgive me for not being very original now but I think that you are "The good guys" who will do their best to make this the best game possible
Thats what I think.
-
3iff
- Brigadier Gen.
- Posts: 606
- Joined: Jun 27 2002
- Location: Birmingham, England
As Juergen has already eloquently said, Fuzzy has to be there if it's the ONLY option. Although the fog of war will be there, the whole point of stealth is to further increase that fog, and to counter the increase in electronic detection.
If at all possible, I would prefer to see both choices there as an option...but fuzzy has to be there regardless.
As for 'dumbing down' this game, you have been very determined NOT to do this. That is the way to go. I was following the recent talk about Freelancer, and that seems to have suffered from being changed from what was originally intended, to something more palatable to the 'buying public'. That results in a bland, ordinary product. I don't think anyone on these forums wants this...
...thanks for listening, and WANTING to hear our views and ideas.
If at all possible, I would prefer to see both choices there as an option...but fuzzy has to be there regardless.
As for 'dumbing down' this game, you have been very determined NOT to do this. That is the way to go. I was following the recent talk about Freelancer, and that seems to have suffered from being changed from what was originally intended, to something more palatable to the 'buying public'. That results in a bland, ordinary product. I don't think anyone on these forums wants this...
...thanks for listening, and WANTING to hear our views and ideas.
-
Empier4552
- General
- Posts: 327
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Contact:
Just my two cents, Fuzzy sounds excellent, however as pointed out beginners (I hate the term newbs) or those who simply prefer semi simplicity with such an already complex game might prefer the standard.
I would preferably want both options just to experiment and such.
If it comes down to ONE..Fuzzy! I'd suggest strongly though make a few scenario tutorials or something or cover it indepth in the manual if possible on how fuzzy LoS Works. Give it simple words that the average joe can understand.
Ex- Fuzzy LOS differs from standard Fog Of War in most games because it allows players to see units based upon how good their stealth is against your detection. If a units stealth is lower than your detection ability you can see it, however other units may still be in that same hex which you may not see due to them holding a higher rating than you.
Or something just extremely simple and to the point
I would preferably want both options just to experiment and such.
If it comes down to ONE..Fuzzy! I'd suggest strongly though make a few scenario tutorials or something or cover it indepth in the manual if possible on how fuzzy LoS Works. Give it simple words that the average joe can understand.
Ex- Fuzzy LOS differs from standard Fog Of War in most games because it allows players to see units based upon how good their stealth is against your detection. If a units stealth is lower than your detection ability you can see it, however other units may still be in that same hex which you may not see due to them holding a higher rating than you.
Or something just extremely simple and to the point
-
SeaMonkey
- Warrant Officer
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Aug 29 2002
-
3iff
- Brigadier Gen.
- Posts: 606
- Joined: Jun 27 2002
- Location: Birmingham, England
But remember, in most games, you either see all the units in a hex or none. Fuzzy will allow you to perhaps see SOME of the units. You might see a few armoured cars and think that's all, missing the information that there are also some other hard-hitting units in the same hex!
What I'm concerned about is the shift from what I'm used to, to this new 'fuzzy spotting' situation.
Fuzzy could also extend the fog of war to your own side. Perhaps you can see planes but can't identify what they are, so you know there are units 'out there' but no idea of type or numbers (or even who owns them?)
What I'm concerned about is the shift from what I'm used to, to this new 'fuzzy spotting' situation.
Fuzzy could also extend the fog of war to your own side. Perhaps you can see planes but can't identify what they are, so you know there are units 'out there' but no idea of type or numbers (or even who owns them?)
-
George Geczy
- General
- Posts: 2688
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Location: BattleGoat Studios
- Contact:
Well, I think you should all know that this thread has cost me a week of development time But, the game now has the option to play in "Standard" or "Fuzzy" (also called "Advanced") Line of Sight modes.
I should note that the "Standard" mode actually does address stealth in one way, which I think was discussed somewhere on the forums a while ago. With Standard mode, even though you see every unit in your LOS range, the units with higher stealth suffer much less damage when hit at range - so it is sort of a "you know it's there, but very hard to hit" effect.
So that mode remains, but now the true "fuzzy" mode has been added, pretty much exactly as described above; in depending upon your unit's spotting strength and the enemy unit stealth levels, you may see some, all or none of the units in a hex. I'm sure there will be a few very minor quirks, but overall it operates quite realistically. We'll test it out in a multiplayer game this week to see how it holds up - but I sense a lot more sneak attacks coming on
Thanks everyone for the comments and opinions on this thread. In the interests of finishing the game sometime before the year 2010 actually arrives we have to start picking and choosing between features that are really important to players and the ones that are just the "wish list", so this sort of discussion helps a lot.
-- George.
PS - I'm glad computers are getting faster, because the fuzzy LOS code chews up a chunk of CPU time! But the real-time mode game still runs quite well on our PII-400 test notebook, so for now the low-end is still safe...
But, the game now has the option to play in "Standard" or "Fuzzy" (also called "Advanced") Line of Sight modes.I should note that the "Standard" mode actually does address stealth in one way, which I think was discussed somewhere on the forums a while ago. With Standard mode, even though you see every unit in your LOS range, the units with higher stealth suffer much less damage when hit at range - so it is sort of a "you know it's there, but very hard to hit" effect.
So that mode remains, but now the true "fuzzy" mode has been added, pretty much exactly as described above; in depending upon your unit's spotting strength and the enemy unit stealth levels, you may see some, all or none of the units in a hex. I'm sure there will be a few very minor quirks, but overall it operates quite realistically. We'll test it out in a multiplayer game this week to see how it holds up - but I sense a lot more sneak attacks coming on
Thanks everyone for the comments and opinions on this thread. In the interests of finishing the game sometime before the year 2010 actually arrives we have to start picking and choosing between features that are really important to players and the ones that are just the "wish list", so this sort of discussion helps a lot.
-- George.
PS - I'm glad computers are getting faster, because the fuzzy LOS code chews up a chunk of CPU time! But the real-time mode game still runs quite well on our PII-400 test notebook, so for now the low-end is still safe...
-
Juergen
- Brigadier Gen.
- Posts: 709
- Joined: Jul 05 2002
Finally!On 2003-06-29 03:19, George Geczy wrote:
Well, I think you should all know that this thread has cost me a week of development time
I have been waiting for good news for a whole week.
As I stated already above this is the best way to please the most people.
However there is one question I would like to ask:
Would it have taken a lot of less time if you had just implemented the "fuzzy" mode?
Oh well...but at least it feels better when its possible to make a choiceIn the interests of finishing the game sometime before the year 2010 actually arrives we have to start picking and choosing between features that are really important to players and the ones that are just the "wish list", so this sort of discussion helps a lot.
I didnt really think that everything possible would get into the game but I ask myself if you are planning to cut "real serious stuff" or things that are more or less minor and have so far only existed on the wishlist.
I do know that it is difficult to hazard a guess but what features do you think are threatened?
I personally would like to know if any WMD things and missile features are in danger.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Juergen on 2003-06-29 12:19 ]</font>