Here we are in our third version of Galactic Civilizations. I figured maybe we could ditch grids completely. But they do have some use.
Hexes, on the other hand, though having some use, create really silly situations that look down right stupid. For instance, my colony ship is moving to the southern end of the map. On a grid, in the previous games, the ship made a clean arc to the proper rank and then moved in a straight path to the destination.
On the hex-grid, however, the colony ship snakes back and forth every hex, completely destroying any immersion, unless you just happen to be on the perfect rank.
Perhaps it's a back-end thing? Couldn't you use an UI overlay each time you click on a ship to show it's possible range in an arc (with the option to turn it off)?
Couldn't we just measure, like in sandbox style, tabletop gaming, from point to point?
I really cannot stress just how bad Gal Civ III look on a hex-grid.
Captain Tolan T. Grimm
It is true that you should change problems or wrong directions when you are in the alpha stage. But the hex based part is closer to the basic building blocks of the game that are pretty well set at the moment. Yes, some of the items do feel like an expansion pack from GalCiv 2 until I play GalCiv 2 again. There have been quite a few changes including how graphically different the game looks and feels. I would not chalk this up to a glorified expansion at the moment.
I do agree that everyone should voice their opinion without being disregarded off hand. It is important that they see these comments even if the game will not change for this version, but maybe deeper or other considerations will be considered in future games. I don't expect that GalCiv 3 will change from hexes, but I do like hearing and learning from each of these exchanges.
I would like to see the opacity of the hexes turned down. Right now they're pretty bright and distracting.
You mean like that the game goes in the wrong direction? That was from you and is a generalisation, if i have ever seen one.
Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but it seems very strange to me, that you are railing against features that are known and decided from the start.
Basic system development has been done before the first programmers even start to work and switching from 2D to 3D is not a trivial undertaking. The engine is done, and it is 2D.
And a code rewrite from 32bit to 64bit is something i wouldnt call expansion pack either.
All that was known before you even had the possibility to decide if you want to become a founder, so i still dont understand why you even did so, if for lack of reseach on your part.
It is not for you to decide what is the wrong or right direction for the game. Considering the unbelievable success that was GalCiv2 i would guess they are very well on the right track.Are you just trolling because you wasted $100 on a game without doing any research about it?
The same could have been said about Masters of Orion 3 and we all know what a mess that turned out to be. And he is entitled to his opinon no matter if you agree with him or not.
(to be read out loud in the voice of Smith from the Matrix movies.)
Once upon a time in my head.
I read a holy book. I came to the conclusion that most of this book was 4,500 year old nonsense, but with some ideologies that could be adapted for modern practical use.
One area I came to a different conclusion on was peoples opinions. It is wise to listen and consider peoples words and reasoningsss. But, after that a decision must be made. Do you believe what was said or not? If you do then follow their instructions. If not...treat such words as the lies they are by ignoring them and destroying everything they claim to be true.
So yes you should respect and listen to opinions, yet to say nothing of what you believe to be untrue words is to let false knowledge be learnt by the unenlightened.
DARCA.
Yes he is, but i am not the one telling others thier opinion sucks ("You're going in the wrong direction"). I do not object to his opinion, but to his choice of communicating it. I find it offensive and his words belittling the effort already put into the game.
He doesnt even has any good or well thought out arguments, just his opinions, some very vague 'cant be that hard to do' and some pics that have no basis in gaming whatso ever.
I dont understand what MoO3 has to do with anything in this thread. Can you explain, please?
If you are suggesting they rip out hexes for squares that is not a 'minor' thing. There are entire sub-systems that are dependent and assume hexes at this point. Graphical pipelines, game mechanics, etc. Something as core as 'hexes/squares' isn't something that's going to be changed this far into development. Unless there is something FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED with hexes. And so far none of the criticisms about hexes even come close to that level.
The game being in alpha doesn't mean making such changes is 'easier'. Something as fundamental as hexes/squares is something ou flesh out in the prototype stage. It's just as rediculous to say "Hey they should totally make this FPS a 3rd person perspective game" at this stage of development.
I'm just as entitled to my opinions as anyone else and will continue to highlight when someone makes a generalisation and declares it a cast-iron law.
And others are free to criticize your opinion and show where there are vast flaws with what you're asking for.
I really must have upset some people, almost as much as DARCA1213 has done. Sorry but I find it too easy to slip into sarcasm sometimes and pretty much everything here on the forums is Opinion-based. The devs ask for our opinions everytime we start-up an Alpha game. This is not the Only thread where objections to Hexes has been complained about. And I thought this thread had been pronounced DEAD by at least 1 of the devs as well as the Original Poster.
Yes he is, but i am not the one telling others thier opinion sucks ("You're going in the wrong direction"). I do not object to his opinion, but to his choice of communicating it. I find it offensive and his words belittling the effort already put into the game.He doesnt even has any good or well thought out arguments, just his opinions, some very vague 'cant be that hard to do' and some pics that have no basis in gaming whatso ever.I dont understand what MoO3 has to do with anything in this thread. Can you explain, please?
Well I mentioned Moo3 because Moo2 and Moo were beloved TBS Space games like GS and GS2 and maybe if people had said that MOO3 was heading in the wrong direction perhaps disater would have been averted or not. But since then I encourge people to speck thier minds if they see something wrong with a game while it is still in development no matter if I or others Agree ot disagree with this stance. And his wording was not as bad as you make it out to be. Had he said "You're a moron if you keep going in this direction" then there would be a problem. But just saying ("You're going in the wrong direction") is not insulting unless you an over sensitive type.
Now I don't agree with him on his stance by the way for the most part.
Another reason I keep bringing up MOO3 is that I don't want Stardock to make the same kind of mistake that happened with MOO3. And given the last game they made does not give me confidence that they won't mess this one up. But I'm still hopefull.
Long have I played Gal Civ II. For YEARS all (I wanted) was the exact same game simply updated for newer hardware and graphics. I wanted larger maps, more AI players and maybe a longer tech tree. These are all I personally wanted because in (my opinion) Gal Civ II is perhaps one of the Best 4x games ever made. Now with that said, I can tell you that everything I wanted has happened. Brad took what he knew to be a success and took it further because today's technology has allowed him to. The game is on track as far as I am concerned. As for the debate for or against Hexes its really a moot point. Hexes are staying, period. I do know the Dev's will fix the zig zag pathing of the ships and 'smooth out' the travel we see.
I personally turn off the grid. The game is simply beautiful without it.
Hexes for the win!
Yes OsirisDawn as you say "Also for what i know GalCiv3 isnt inventing something new, but is more an itteration of past games. Thats all i want." The Game does seem more of an expansion pack.
This topic just won't die.
You love to hate this, that's why it won't die.
if they added hexs in this "expansion" then maybe 3D will be in the next!
OK. I give up. If people think 64bit reprogramming, a new economy and a new battle system, a new engine an a new tactical layout (square to hex) is expansion style content, i have nothing more to contribute.
The gap of perception is just to wide.
It is not an expansion if your re program the game to be native in 64 bit. That would constitute a NEW game.
If all they did was rewrite Gal Civ II in only 64 bit that would still be a NEW game, because that would open up maps and features far beyond what Gal Civ II could previously handle.
I think some people's definition of 'new game' means it has to have tactical battles and 3D maps.
Quit putting tactical battles in the same boat, that's actually been done before! Fyi.
3D maps have been done before too. For example, Ascendancy (1995) and Sword of the Stars 1 (2006). There are more games with 3D maps, but those are the ones I've actually played.
It seems like those games use a "star to star" travel system (phase lanes)...it's easy to do a 3D game with that system. GC maps out every parsec in the galaxy. That's a whole different ball of wax. It would be ridiculously complex (and fun killing) to try to move ships around a galaxy like that. Try to imagine the reality of it, you zoom in on a ship, click it, then thousands of cubes appear all around the ship. Imagine trying to click on another cube to set a destination? How do you do it with 2D mouse movement? I don't think 3D proponents are really considering the little details of that system. It could work, using a phase lane system, but phase lanes suck.
I do not support a 3D system, but for UI control, when clicking on the ship you move only in the plane, when holding shift you decide what plane you wish to move your ship aka vertical movement. It is cumbersome in a cube and the player can effectively see what cube to select as they always see a 2d plane to choose from. A highlight shows the viable cubes to be selected. But unless we program this, I wouldn't know the ease of use of the system, but it surely won't show an overwhelming amount of cubes.
This is sort of the way it is done in some RTS, but they don't have the visible cubes to cloud the player view.
I do not support a 3D system, but for UI control, when clicking on the ship you move only in the plane, when holding shift you decide what plane you wish to move your ship aka vertical movement. It is cumbersome in a cube and the player can effectively see what cube to select as they always see a 2d plane to choose from. A highlight shows the viable cubes to be selected. But unless we program this, I wouldn't know the ease of use of the system, but it surely won't show an overwhelming amount of cubes.This is sort of the way it is done in some RTS, but they don't have the visible cubes to cloud the player view.
That's really a 2D system, but with multiple 2D "boards" stacked.
Yes, that is precisely what a 3D is in a lattice system. Think about 4D with time, it is just multiple 3D boards stacked moving in a Time reference plane.
Mind-blown.
Either way, 3D adds no fun.
For stellar travel, yes. However, Ascendancy uses a real 3D map for the actual star systems (with planets moving around the star each turn). You can freely move your ships anywhere along the X, Y, and Z coordinates.
Anyhow, I was just refuting DARCA's claim, that 3D maps haven't been done before. I don't want it in GalCiv 3 for pretty much the same reason you stated. Plus, think about all the on-screen data: stars, planets, ships, starports, starbases, anomalies, asteroids, resources, black holes, etc. How can you quickly tell where everything is with that much going on? Even on a 2D map it's easy to sometimes miss something.
How come no one mentioned Ascendancy before?!?!?
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
