If you want open connection maps, just mod a map so every planet has a phase lane to every other planet, it would work in the same way, unless I'm completely mistaking what you're asking for.

That is what we've been talking about Stratteggi. With custom maps, a designer could effectively make a totally open connection map by interconnecting ALL gravity wells. They could of course also make semi-open connection (Phase Laned Inter system/open connection inner system) maps.

It also looks very likely that Ironclad will allow modders to make these kinds of custom maps. Customized maps are a standard feature for games of this type and I would be surprised (and saddened) if Ironclad tried to do away with them.

So basically, we all win here. People who like the current Phase Lane system can rejoice because it will be the game default system. However, gamers who want to use open connection/semi-open connection maps for multiplayer or their mods, will be able to make custom maps to do so.

So, I guess we can stop arguing about open connection and semi-open connection maps.

well said, it will appease the masses...

It is good that modmen will be able to do such things and I'm truly happy about it being a modman.

I do however feel sad for the average gamer who is not a mod maker type who simply wants to be able to click an option to have open maps as part of his auto setup configuration.

Yup. Now you need to figure out is how to prevent the "deep behind the frontline" jumps. This could be annoying, Star Wars or no Star Wars. Actually I don't think the saga deals with the supply problem so I guess anything one comes up with is ok as long as the map is open.

Perhaps there could be a way to link the length of the phase lane with the quantity of the AM being consumed. So that if a fleet is sent far beyond the lines it will come out with no AM.

I mentioned this elsewhere, but...

This will work as long as there is no hard limit on either total number of phase lanes or a limit on the number of phase lanes that can be connected to a location.

For every location on a fully connected map the number of connections goes up by (n-1). 15 locations has {1+2+3+...+14 =}105 connections / phase lanes. Since maps generally have many more than 15 locations, this # is going to get huge.

Question: If you are playing on a map with a huge # of phase lanes with an AI active (not only human players) is this situation going to induce "analysis paralysis" in the AI?

1. These customized 'open connection' maps are going to be more for multiplayer than anything else. AI players might be tossed into the mix for fun, but the experience will still be more for modders and elite multiplayers.

2. 1Spartan mentioned that it will be a shame that regular players won't get the chance to try out these customized 'open connection' maps. I think it is likely that Ironclad and Stardock will have mod content available for download with the other official files.

3. SrGalen is concerned that there will be a mess of phase lane connections in such a customized map. Well, it won't be a problem since you can make the lanes invisible. Also, if you wish, you could make the contents of star systems open/fully connected, but have the star to star phase lane connections in series. This would both help the AI and reduce PC processing strain.

Actually, my concern is whether tech/programming issues will start to affect the game when the open-ended parameter of phase lanes (or really, by extention, any other parameter) gets to be a very large #. I picked on phase lanes in a fully connected map model because of the rapid growth potential. This would obviously have to be determined as we go along, but possibly could be handled by a warning to mod'ders such as "WARNING - Don't make maps with more than XXXX phase lanes (or locations, or...) - you won't like the results" (note: 46 locations = 1005 lanes fully linked) Depending on the number of people playing, that could be enough, or not nearly enough locations. And yes - using limited interstellar connections / fully connected interplanetary systems will keep the numbers of phase lanes down and may well turn out to be a required workaround. Despite that IMO this could be a better general map model (with some restrictions on starting position determinations).   

I'm not trying to borrow trouble, but having a totally open-ended parameter without at least some information on what the practical limits are just means someone will push the envelope until the camel's back is shattered (forgive the mixed metaphor).

I did read earlier that you could turn off the visible aspect of the lanes (although I just now wondered if you can leave the interstellar ones on if you only fully link the interplanetary locations).

I'm pretty sure the limits will be VERY quickly be found by the modders... Not that I'm against Ironclad giving a few pointers, naturally. But modders test the limits in any case.

-edit-

Okay, from what I've read, it seems Ironclad is having some trouble deciding how to have ships traverse gravity wells. Right now, ALL of us hate the "one step back and phase space to the next gravity well" right smack through the gravity well the ship is already inside.

The easy way would of course be to increase ship speed and make gravity wells smaller. Unfortunately for, it looks like ALL the beta players (myself included) want much bigger gravity wells and quite of few of us want slower ship speeds (but if the gravity well is bigger, we probably would be fine with ship speed remaining the same).

So, here is my 5 cent suggestion.

Gravity Well's are 3D spherical zones. Phase exit points to the next gravity well should be anywhere along the gravity sphere side facing the destination gravity well. Hmmm, that sounds pretty confusing.

So let's look at an example where you arrive at a gravity sphere, and you want to jump to the next gravity well over. In this case, your next destination gravity well is directly on the other side of the gravity well you just arrived at. You cannot jump through the gravity well you are now inside to reach your next destination. What you would have to do is reach any part of the gravity well outer edge that faces the destination gravity well in order to jump.

This would also likely have the advantage of bringing more 3D deployments into the game since that outer facing side represents a fairly large 3D zone.

My thoughts exactly. Rather than letting ships jump from anywhere outside the well, or requiring them to jump from the exact lane endpoint, why not go halfsies and let them jump anywhere +/- 90 degrees from the lane endpoint?

Precisely Kyro. The best way to go here is by using a 3D +/- 90 degree phase exit point anywhere on the gravity well's outer sphere.

For the destination point, Ironclad would then have to decide if all fleet arrivals from phase space should appear at the same point or if ships should arrive at positions relative to their departure points.

I personally like the current system of +/- 30*, now there is a completely new element to the game of stopping your enemy from traversing straight on through your gravity well, it makes macroscopic defense far easier.


yeah... I find that the ships appear to move really quickly and can pounce on my base in a second, I dont like that so much.

personally a slow down of 10-15% would be sufficient, nothing major but enough to have an effect.

I do hope that there are phase space inhibitor ships in the game. They would need to run off anti matter and have a count down to be balanced though.

Phase space inhibitor ships would also allow the gravity wells around stars to become interesting battlegrounds (Note that I am against weapon or inhibitor facilities being built around stars).

I have to agree with Para. It would also have some serious poetic merit given the name of the project. Just clear your mind and think about for a few seconds... Great fleet battles next to a star prior to the invasion of a new system. It really works out and would be great for a movie deal after the title becomes a runaway hit - trust me!

but for nice star battles, the star well will have to be at least tripled, I'm favoring a far grander expansion

Triple the Star's gravity well then. I am all in for that.

Think of the consequences of Phase Space Inhibitor ships. When players finally solidify their base star systems, there are going to be some massive battles around their stars. In fact, there will occasionally be some epic simultaneous player face offs around the same star. I am already drooling.

I'm going to have to agree with that, the idea of massive battles around stars is awesome. We need stuff in the game to encourage that more

Cool! We talked about this before, maybe in this thread or the one about object scale but the idea seemed to have been discarded or overlooked. Anyway I'm glad to see so many people agree on the idea.

Regarding the solar well size honestly I dont think a triple will do or be just for that matter. I'm leaning towards 5x myself simply do to the shear size of stars.

Ships speeds can remain the same if the distances between planets etc. are made much longer... But that's just my opinion.

I have to agree with Space Voyager. If the gravity wells are increased in size by 3-5 times, I would be perfectly happy with the present speed of ships.

I just hope that the planets, and most especially the stars, are also increased in size (asteroids are fine as is). I understand that Ironclad is worried that making gravity wells, stars and planets bigger will drag out the game and even turn off some gamers But look at the beta reactions so far. It looks like almost 100% of us are asking for bigger gravity wells, planets and stars...just be sure not to also increase the size of ships and installations.

Also, there were discussions earlier about how to reduce the time it takes to get a ship/fleet into position to phase jump to the next gravity well BUT without jumping THROUGH the gravity well. Probably the best way to go about this is to only allow ships at the edge of the gravity well FACING the target gravity well to be able to jump into phase space. That basically means that only the half of the gravity sphere facing the target gravity well is a valid jump off point.

add to that fact that anti-matter regeneration is higher around the stars, and battles will really rock!

Good point Lordkosc about AM and battles around stars.

Here is an interesting tactical possibility. Say for instance, you have a huge fleet of frigates that would usually crush your opponents much smaller capital ship fleet. A prolonged battle around a star (with its quicker AM recharge rate) might give those capital ships enough of an edge to make it a much closer fight.

a possible negative effect could be stars randomly launching off solar flares that could take out ships