Paradoxnt Paradoxnt

Phase Highways in space is a bad game concept!

▼

Phase Highways in space is a bad game concept!

from Sins Forums
I really don't like the beta's Phase Highway system. There should be no artificially forced space highways in the game. Okay, I've said it. My friends and I were really hoping that this game would use a less constricting movement system more like MOO or Rebellion for traveling between gravity wells.

The Phase Highway concept has been bugging me since I've started playing the beta. I've been quiet about it till now (mostly) because the beta has a lot of potential in other areas. But if we don't say anything about the Phase Highways now, they will be guaranteed to be included in the final release.

Also, these developers really want to hear us. They don't want us to say "yeah, the beta is just awesome" but then we don't buy the final release because we don't like it.

Games like Space Empires and Empires at War have their own versions of Phase Highways. The problem is that they kind of suck because of it. The concept of Phase Highways has been done to death in past games. Modders especially complain about them (check out the recent modding posts in the Space Empire Forums), because forcing players to use space highways mean that they can't make proper mods for Star Wars, Star Trek, Babylon 5, Battlestar Galactica, and so on.

By getting rid of Phase Highway limitations, SoaSE will be purchased by ALL of the space modders out there. I know for a fact that the talented Evillejedi from the Homeworld 2 Star Wars mod is keeping his eye on SoaSE to see if it has any potential. The game would also see a serious increase of its shelf life because of all of the modding potential made possible.

The Phase Highway concept is used because game designers think that players need short term goals in order not to get bored/discouraged. They also think that the average player's intelligence can't handle too many choices at once. They really should acknowledgment that SciFi gamers are smarter than other gamers and that we would welcome more choice and potential. Besides, players can still choose to play on small maps if they want.

Let's briefly examine how the game could work without using any Phase Highways and instead allowed ships to travel wherever they wanted to go. Of course, Phase Space itself should still be the means of traveling between gravity wells as it is a good game concept.


-To see the other destination gravity wells in your home star system, Astronomy could become a researchable technology. The higher the level you have in Astronomy, the further your planets/asteroids/ships could see possible gravity well destinations.

-Allies should share gravity well destination points. Hmmm, maybe you could even sell/buy gravity well destination points in the trade menu.

-Stars should probably always be valid destination points regardless of your Astronomy Tech level, since they are so easy to see. Hmmm, you might make it so you have to jump to another star before you can initially see any of the planets in its orbit (somewhat realistic even).

-There should be an option to turn off Astronomy and allow players to see all planets/asteroids. Players would then be able to jump to whatever destination they wanted right from the start. This would mostly be used by modders and professional multiplayers.

-Some people might worry that defensive strategies without Phase Lanes would become impossible. This simply isn't the case. With sensors (and audio warnings), you can be warned of incoming enemy fleets as the beta already does. Defending players should be able to see the destination point of the incoming fleet. If they are trying to reach your inner planets by bypassing your outer worlds, you'll be able to send a suitable intercept fleet to the contested system. Your fleet is going to be closer and so will arrive first. If certain ships can be equipped with Phase Space Inhibitors, that would prevent invading fleets from endlessly jumping around in your back lines. Of course, you could also build Phase Space Inhibitor platforms in your back lines as well to prevent leapfrogging hostile fleets.

*Modders should have the option of removing the long range warning sensors that show incoming enemy ships to help them build more accurate mods. Or possibly make them a research option.

-If people have trouble dealing with multiple incoming fleets...well, they realistically should have trouble sending interception fleets to deal with multiple attacking empires at once. Still, SoaSE has a good AI, and your ships can handle themselves while you are focusing elsewhere. So handling multiple incoming attackers at once won't be as fatal for you as it would be in other lesser games.

-I suppose that Phase Space travel speed could be slowed down a bit if players find they have trouble organizing multiple defense and attack fleets. You might even allow a research tech that messes with Phase Space and slows travel through it. Or your ships might be allowed to travel a bit faster when traveling in Phase Space inside your empire's borders (they would have a better grasp of local phase space conditions).

-Finally, if absolutely necessary, the distance ships can jump in Phase Space could be tied to a tech level. The higher the tech level, the further your ships can jump. I know you don't want to use Anti Matter as a limiter for Phase Space jumps, so I didn't bother mentioning a fuel range.

So, please remove the Phase Space Highways. They are standing between this game being a good game, and one of those all time great games that set the benchmark for years to come. Please tell me Blair that you guys are considering doing this.

Posters who've read this and agree with me, now is the time for you to speak up. They might be able to make a serious gameplay change like this now, but they won't be able to do it when the game nears release.
76,054 views 211 replies
Reply #176 from Sins Forums Top
That concept was also used in Star Trek as well. It was most prominently used is Voyager and to a lessor degree DS9.
Reply #177 from Sins Forums Top
something which likely has already been mentioned. jump gates: if you build one in one of your systems it could open a temporary phase lane to any planet you want, but the farther away, the shorter the time of opening. provided reload time is long enough and the gates are expensive enough this would bring some break of the choke point dilemma without resulting in a complete defensive nightmare.

as a bonus to the defending player, he might get a notice of say 20 seconds that a phase line is building up, that, coupled with travel time should give him some time to organise a proper defense even if the world is rather away from the front lines.

and lastly, and that is the neatest of it all, you can establish a quasi-permanent pase lane by building a jump gate in the destination system as well. this would lock in both gates, so they couldn't dial any other destinations, but travel would be as just as between two planets with normal phase lanes - as long as both gates remain operational. so this results in the attacker fanatically trying to build/ complete his jump gate and the defender trying to knock it out all cost. if you allow all sides to use these gates, then destroying them also wouldn't always be the only option, as you could effectively mount a counter attack, but it would be into unknown territory and your opponent could readily destroy his jump gate to trap you.

well, in any case, seems to me this would present some interesting strategic options.
Groupy 2 - Organize multiple applications into grouped tabs on your Windows desktop
Reply #178 from Sins Forums Top
Okay, I've stayed out of this discussion long enough. I came up with this last night:

1) First of all, let me say I support the current system of phase lanes.

2) Phase Gates could be permanent buildings that you can build around a planet/asteroid. Phase Gates automatically generate phase lanes between all allied phase gates, thus giving a certain advantage to the defender, without relying on turtling of static defenses.

3) Since the Vasari have much more advanced phase space technology, it only makes sense that they would be the ones to have the advantages with it. Remember the Vasari scout from the old ship descriptions? That would fit perfectly into this idea. What they could do with this scout is run it to the enemy back lines (the scout could easily have phase jump immunity, as the Arcova does), and open a phase gate there, allowing the Vasari player to bring his army in behind the front lines. This wouldn't be completely whack-a-mole, though, as the defending player would be able to see this scout traveling through their territory, and possibly be able to react in time to stop the enemy.
Reply #179 from Sins Forums Top
Maybe I'm a little lost here. Saying you support the current system and then proposing a "gate anywhere" system does not add up. Moreover what are the "certain advantages" given the defender vs the Vasari?
Reply #180 from Sins Forums Top
Statteggi is one of those "I love you just as you are, but....".

I am still convinced that open connection inner star systems and Phase Laned star to star maps are the way to go. The completely illogical phase lane concept between planets and their star is removed. This will allow for 'realistic' fleet maneuvers inside systems...which seems to be something most of us would prefer. The fun killing (over hyped?) threat of 'whack-a-mole' would be nullified to some extent (if not entirely), as open connection movement will only occur WITHIN star systems. Sensor research would also provide an increasingly effective (tiered) means of keeping track of enemy movement within any 1 star system and reduce any 'whack-a-mole' stress even further.

The Phase Lane star to star movement simply makes sense. Phase Lanes seem to be a means of traveling out of phase between 2 gravity wells. While there shouldn't be any problem traveling between the gravity wells of planets you can literally see with the naked eye, you obliviously can't directly see the planets of distant star systems. The only distant Phase Space 'viewable' gravity well target you could lock onto for your destination point would be the star.

Also, the above mentioned movement system would give the AI programming something to strive for. The basic strategy would be to take over a star system completely, perhaps fortify it, and then move on to the next one. Some programmed AI special situation criteria could be added to allow for surprise moves.

To limit star to star to star to star leapfrogging, a fuel range limit could be added that prevents star to star jumping past a certain range. So, you would have to make (or take) a base in one of the star systems between you and the out of range star you want to reach.
Reply #181 from Sins Forums Top
To better implement the 'open connection inner star system and Phase Laned star to star movement system', a small game change could be made. Star systems could be reduced to maybe 10 or so usable planets. Also, there will have to be more star systems present in a game. Of course, all this should remain fully selectable for multi player games.

As the game is right now, it has very little to do with galaxies and more to do with a handful of star systems. To make the game more about galactic empires duking it out, there really should be more star systems involved in clashes.

More star systems would be easily implemented without fear of overwhelming players because star systems would be reduced to a more manageable (and perhaps more realistic) number of planets.
Reply #182 from Sins Forums Top
I think I hear the fat lady singing not to far off in the distance.

Anyway, I have to concur with the prior two posts that painfully regurgitate our position. In short system limited free space travel with star to star only lanes is good for the solo user, good for multiplayer and most importantly good for the AI. Moreover no one has provided any reasonable counter arguments to the proposed system. Personally speaking I dont really see any downsides to it either.
Reply #183 from Sins Forums Top
A knock-on effect of having the interplanetary freestyle / interstellar phase lane system will be to make critical the starting positions of the various factions. I suggest that if the map has sufficient stars that each faction should start in its own system. Otherwise, a faction that does start in its own system will have a major advantage over factions that do not - namely the ability to control a "chokepoint" to its planets rather than having to fight for control of the starting system on the equivalent of an open plain.

To sidestep this situation, I will reiterate the suggestion to increase the number of star systems and decrease the number of planets / asteroids that each system contains.
Reply #184 from Sins Forums Top
You said it!
Reply #185 from Sins Forums Top
I suggest that if the map has sufficient stars that each faction should start in its own system

this should be toggleable.
options being
1) all in same galaxy
2) all in different galaxies
3) evenly spaced out (with no 1 person galaxies)
4) randomly generated.

finally, I want the galaxies to be more organic, the original one is usually fully flushed out with the perimeter ones being almost predictable (almost like a nodule fan of planets ordered in a litteral row most of the time)
Reply #186 from Sins Forums Top
@Schem - good clarification. I assumed the developers would have inherently understood that. But we all know what happens when you assume things.

It looks like this thread has run its course.

I wonder if the devs are going to provide any more input...
Reply #187 from Sins Forums Top
Honestly, I've not read all of the posts. The arguments just seemed to get very circular after a while.  However, right now, phase lanes are not going away (though tweaks are certainly being looked at).
Reply #188 from Sins Forums Top
@Yarlen, we are not arguing for them to be removed but to be tweaked\overhauled for star to star travel only and allow for free travel within a star system.

This of course does not imply any planned faction based travel system is to be discarded. We would be able to speak more intelligently on such points but we have not seem the other factions so we dont know what you guys are planning if anything for race based travel tech or inherent abilities.
Reply #189 from Sins Forums Top
1Spartan, when I said I want phase gates to be in the game, I said they should be buildable structures, meaning you would need to own both planets to link up the structures, the advantage to the defender I mentioned was not specifically against the Vasari, but in the fact that with these additional phase lanes inside your territory, it would be easier to move your fleets around.
Reply #190 from Sins Forums Top
I'm clearly aware of your position. It is in effect what we are pushing without the gates as a necessary condition for planet to planet travel however. Personally speaking I dont mind a gate option with increased speeds however I dont think the AI will make effective use of such tools and it may in fact hurt it but I could be wrong.
Reply #191 from Sins Forums Top
To be fair, constructible Phase gates would be something the AI could handle IF they simply were programmed to link up all their planets. Still, it would be much more simple to allow free travel within star systems and dispose of the contrived Inner system phase lanes altogether.

I just hope they allow us to mod in a free movement system or this game is likely going to be average at best.
Reply #192 from Sins Forums Top
how come people seem to disregard the fact that the phasegate is a vasari specific creation...
Reply #193 from Sins Forums Top
Becuase the games story and race definitions havent been updated in ages.
Reply #194 from Sins Forums Top
I personally think its an injustice that everything is outdated (even the beta data)
but, to save us all time, I'll assume the roles of the 200 something other forumites who will be outraged by your comment:

how dare you? how could you? they are working round the clock nonstop blah blah blah blah blah cant stop to update a stupid websi... blah blah blah dont you want a good game? blah blah blah ...eta 2 is coming soo... blah blah blah.

ok, everyone can calm down now. the chastising is over with.
Reply #195 from Sins Forums Top
ok, everyone can calm down now. the chastising is over with.


Well, not really. But, I will let you go on this one cause I agree.
Reply #196 from Sins Forums Top
Well, it looks like the Phase Lane concept is here to stay. Nor does it look like it will be possible for modders to mod the Phase Lanes out of existence and form fully open connection maps.

I had wondered if it would instead be possible to make a single Huge gravity well that contains all the stars/planets/asteroids needed to make several entire star systems. This would be another way to get by the Phase Lane constraints. The problem here would be that ships would need to be able to use Phase Space travel within a single gravity well without Phase Lanes being present. Also, Phase Space Inhibitors would need to have a limited spherical effect instead of a gravity well wide effect.

Unfortunately, Yarlen has indicated that the above is not likely to be possible.

That really leaves one method left for those of us who want to play open connection maps. It might still be possible to make custom maps where all gravity wells are connected to all other gravity wells. I do hope we can make the phase lanes invisible though, or these maps will likely resemble spider webs to some extent.

Please Ironclad, do not remove this last open connection (hmm, more like ALL connection) map possibility for us modders as well.
Reply #197 from Sins Forums Top
You can hide the phase lane lines now in the options screen.
Reply #198 from Sins Forums Top
@Para- the last method you are suggesting would look like crap for star to star connections. Surely they will let us enable and disable lanes between planets and just keep them hidden; otherwise that would be a boot in ass for modders.
Reply #199 from Sins Forums Top
Hi 1Spartan. Yarlen is telling us that we can hide the phase lane lines, so it will look fine for star to star connections (thanks for the info on that Yarlen). That means we can now do every gravity well inside a star system interconnected and all stars interconnected (or stars connected in series). It probably even means that we can do ALL gravity wells on the map interconnected, if modders want to go that way.

Also, the last method I suggested above is going to be easy for Ironclad to allow for modders. From what I understand, the only thing that we will need is the ability to use customized user maps.

If they make it so modders can't make specified gravity well connections by invisible phase lanes on a customized map, then they would be doing it just to limit modding potential for the sake of limiting it...something I can't see Ironclad doing.

Reply #200 from Sins Forums Top
I simply cant see blowing up the GW like that; maybe I'm old fashioned or something. Moreover if we can manually link the stars for a custom map logic would follow that we can link the planets then hide the links except for the stars.