|
Post by rocket54321 on Sept 19, 2016 12:06:32 GMT
What if... you could run "simulations" and basically play through the game again from god mode if you're too lazy to start a new save?
|
|
|
Post by rocket54321 on Sept 16, 2016 23:31:39 GMT
Maybe a ksp style rocket builder, with the size limited by VAB size but parts built like every other part.
|
|
|
Post by rocket54321 on Sept 15, 2016 21:09:34 GMT
Would organic ships/buildings/vehicles be fully implemented into the game? If it is implemented, will there be a special editor that will allow you to take certain organisms from the environment and allow you to morph them with a combination of organic and mechanical parts (sorry for the long sentence)? Or maybe there could be an organism that could already be molded into certain units like the Lekgolo in Halo? I can imagine giant spider like tanks and weird flying ship creatures in the sky. Kinda like the Combine in Half-life. Oh yeah I was also wondering that; being capable of making "biomachines" like the hunter, the strider and airships from Half-Life 2. and the houses from Railhead (book) also, organic spaceships maybe you could do GM trees that are super strong and could replace metal girders. Or... Idea! GM tree space elevator, with the canopy forming a organic spaceport!
|
|
|
Post by rocket54321 on Jun 7, 2016 15:42:48 GMT
sure optimising vehiecles and so forth would be a fun way to engage the player in the industrial stage, but I think it would be best if the cars, trains or whatever are automaticaly controlled and generated. Like in the Total War games, where you just build the roads and set up trade agreements but the trading itself doesn't need the players intervention. But unlike TW, we would be able to create our own vehiecles etc... just without the need to tell every ship individualy what to do (like one has to in the Anno games) I think that is what we've been saying. You set up production centers, transit routs, and buy/optionaly optimize the vehicles, then you're dandy!
|
|
|
Post by rocket54321 on Jun 7, 2016 15:38:04 GMT
That's where the more fictional sci-fi technologies kick in I guess. You could go the Xenonauts/XCOM route and build plasma weapons based around graviton emitter tech. Basically: a plasma gun fires plasma and a bundle of gravitons which holds the plasma "bolt" together. Thus pretty much working like a traditional "plasma gun". This kind of thinking could probably be applied to other kinds of tech as well. (But since gravitons are only theorethical, they probably wont be in the game.) But why would you bother doing all the research necessary to fire self-contained blobs of plasma that would simply dissipate most of their energy before they reach the target, when you could create a laser-pumped particle beam weapon that can do much more damage, or indeed, if you can harness gravitons or gluons, simply fire those? Plasma throwers follow rule of cool, sure, but I happen to think there is already a cornucopia of cool that we can gorge ourselves on while being less unrealistic. Edit: as for artificial life, yeah, we will definitely allow the creation of artificial life as part of future-tech. The first half of the game would already have all the systems involved in creating a new lifeform, so from a software-engineering standpoint it's not an insane proposition. But I'm unsure if we'd put much work into allowing you to create things that you wouldn't have been able to evolve in the game. Maybe some new organelles that you can develop and put in artificial cells, maybe some new types of tissue that include synthetic materials, but more than that would probably involve a lot of extra work. I'm sorry, this is a sci-fi stage in a sci-fi game. Plasma cannons can be in it. I think that if we are fine with a space stage, then we are fine with plasma cannons. And lasers. And spaceships. All the spaceships. Never judge the spaceships. Never. I think we should go with plasma cannons. Spaceships.
|
|
|
Post by rocket54321 on Jun 1, 2016 15:22:39 GMT
Have you played Stellaris? They have exactly that. FTL methods are what inspired this idea, actually. Yup. What would be even cooler is if you could have all of these methods at the same time!
|
|
|
Post by rocket54321 on May 31, 2016 15:56:35 GMT
What would be really cool is different FTL methods for you to discover, and the ability to use them all for different things (like a warp drive which would be versatile but slow, good for low-mass things like warships, wormholes which would be fast but require lots of warmup for high-mass things like cargo ships, and hyperdrives, which would need warmup and cooldown but would have lots of range, for exploration and stuff).
|
|
|
Post by rocket54321 on May 25, 2016 15:52:01 GMT
Would it realy be nescessary to manage the transportation of each good individualy? I mean I love building interdependent economies and trade routes in the Anno style as much as every one else, but I think in the Thrive context that would just be too much. I mean wouln't it be better, if the player would manage his civ more on a macroeconomic level? Here's my idea: So every city/centre produces certain goods. City A produces Iron. City B doesn't. Naturaly you would try to export excess Iron, not needed in A to B, in order to use it there. We could attach two values to the comodity Iron: 1. Transportability (wich is influenced by weight, size and wether it will go off after a time). So Iron is quite heavy on one hand, but easy to transport since you can smelt it into bars and it does not go off (like food would), so it doens't matter how long transportation takes. 2. Economic worth: determined by supply, demand and the availability of other, similar comodities. If Bronze is accessible in City B, and will do the job too, why go to the truble of importing iron? The transportability will be affected mainly by the accessibe means of transport. Using this value a maximum range can be calculated over wich a good can be transported. As I just said, Iron doesn't care about time, so a handcart transporting Iron will have a long "range" on the time axis. On the other hand Iron is rather cheap, wich limits it's transportation range, due to rising costs from transportation. If City B is whithin A's Iron transportation range the Iron supply in both cities will equalize itself over time. Still the price for Iron would be higher in B than in A, due to transportation costs. Transportability will be affected positively by Roads/Railroad infrastructure, Tech. advancement (ie Horses, Steam engines, Cars) and geography (mountains bad, rivers GOOD). So now City B has access to a limited supply of Iron at a slightly higher price than A. (This price should decrease over time as efficiency in transportation rises.) Now we go a step further; City C also whants Iron. The problem is, it's located too far away for it to be profitable for handcarts to travel all the way from A to C transporting Iron. (this might change when Horses are tamed, who knows?) ON the other hand, City C is in the transportability range of City B, wich leads t othese Cities equalising their supply again, even though Iron will be slightly more expensive in C than in B. The players part in all this would simply be to build and protect the infrastructure. The Trading would work without him, leaving him free to pursue other projects (like burning and looting Troy or whtever). Also if a single boat is sunk your whole trade network wouldn't colapse like in Anno (wich always anoyed th Belgium out of me) Furtermore the TRUE beauty of this system is you get an easy to understand, difficult to master but acceptably realistic macroeconomic simulation for the price of a handfull of (I hope) simple algorithms. Any comodity produced ANYWHERE in your empire will over time be accessible everywhere else, like in the CIV games, but still work in a realistic way unlike the CIV games by making them more and more expensive, and limiting their supply propotionaly to the distance they traveled) Also this creates a time lag between the accessability of a comodity in Cities A, B, and C. Wow, I love this idea! But what would be even cooler is if player could not only set up the tracks, stations, ports, airports, ect but also be able to optimize the vehicles operating on specific routs to be able to transport one goods type more efficiently in order to have more control over what's going on (so that you could create supply pipelines and boost manufacturing centers).
|
|
|
Post by rocket54321 on May 23, 2016 15:45:45 GMT
Sci-fi theme
Clase encounters of the somethingth varaety!: have your creature abducted while you are controling it
It's falling, With style! Die while trying to fly
More power, Scotty! Build a spaceship without enough power to function
I beleive I can fly! Build a flying machine that crashes on the first flight
All Hail the Mighty Glow-Cloud Worship a nebula
This is the end of your pititful rebelion! Put down an uprising
Here today, Next week tomorrow! Travel FTL
|
|
|
Post by rocket54321 on May 6, 2016 15:48:03 GMT
It's just a visual point, but when you make your posts, do you mind breaking it up with paragraphs, please? It's just a bit off putting having one huge block. Thanks. Sorry. Should be better now!
|
|
|
Post by rocket54321 on May 5, 2016 15:14:44 GMT
One of the things that I really didn't like about spore was the simplicity of the civ stage. You were either religios, economic, or military, which determined what behicles you could make. You could only trade if you were a economic civ, only fight wars if you were a military civ, ect. I think there is some concensus that this won't be the case in thrive. But something that is overlooked in this forum is the actual method of supporting/using/attaining vehicles. Boats are pretty simple, you should build a shipyard on the coast and build boats there, and service/load/unload them at a port, which would be built in coastal cities. Aircraft are similarly straightforward, you would need airports to be serviced/load/unload, and you would first be able to build small, slow, short range aircraft and get bigger and better planes through research, and would upgrade airports accordingly (spaceplanes?). Ground vehicles, however, might be more complex. You should almost certainly need to actually build and maintain roads, and progress from wagons to cars and trucks, increasing speed and capacity. Roads should be somewhat cheap to build over flat ground, but it should expensive to build tunnels and bridges, you can design your vehicles, et cetera. But what about railroads? It is accepted that the invention of steam power heralded the industrial revolution, and Thrive should probably follow suit. And with steam power for you factories, what about trains? I think you should be able to (design and) build railroad lines, which would basically be more expensive roads, and design and build your own locomotives and carriages (passenger and freight), which would go from cute little chugging wagons, to huge, sleek maglevs flying throug vacuum tubes. The players ability to construct complex rail networks should be pretty in depth, but signaling shouldn't be a concern. Railroads should require teams of workers some time to build each line, and the player should be able to control what is shipped, and train building and routing should be like railroad tycoon, exept you pay for cars and they don't disappear at stations. This should all be driven by some sort of economy that requires goods and people to travel between places that would persist from the society stage through the space stage. What do you guys think? Anywhoos, Cheers! rocket54321
|
|
|
Post by rocket54321 on May 5, 2016 14:44:27 GMT
Incedentaly, what timescale are we looking at for the next stages?
|
|
|
Post by rocket54321 on May 4, 2016 22:12:12 GMT
But it all really depends on how you build it. That list probably will only directly apply to prebuilt ships.
|
|
|
Post by rocket54321 on May 4, 2016 22:08:21 GMT
Think about space combat like this: Large starfleets should be expensive to maintain. You should probably be able to have maybe two huge standing fleets at any one time. Most of a war is going to be a couple ships patroling your border systems to repel invasion attempts and dispatching troop transports (landing needs to be a thing, the battle mechanics similar to the society stage, exept with better stuff) to capture enemy planets. The battles royal between massive fleets should take place in strategic systems (ie ones with lots of recources and stuff), and these should be able to turn the todes of a war. Enemies should surrender when they are crippled, e.g. can't make more ships and lost more than 75% of their ships or are outnumbered by like 3-1, or if you've crippled economy (i.e. they can't pay for any more stuff because you captured their good systems). Boarding enemy ships should be a thing but should require specialized craft, require special reaserch, be riske, and be somewhat expensive (in manpower and craft).
|
|
|
Post by rocket54321 on May 4, 2016 15:54:40 GMT
I think the transition should be a KSP like system for early space/late industrial, with a space center built by the player where primitive rockets are built and (autonomously) launched to player determined goals. Also, there shouldn't be much difference in the space stage compered with industrial stage in terms of abilities, you should have the same control over colonies and stuff as you do for yout homeworld in the society stages, exept with a much bigger scale.
|
|
|
Post by rocket54321 on May 4, 2016 15:47:48 GMT
There should definately be ftl comms. Maybe a system similar to master of orion with the player being able to micromanage each colony world, but with systems for autonomy of certain things like production, and without warp points. Any ship with an apropriate drive should be able to travel between any system, the only factor should be increased travel time for longer voyages. The star fleets should also be under direct player control, otherwise it wouldn't be fun. But yes, a 4x direct control system would be way more fun!
|
|
|
Post by rocket54321 on May 4, 2016 15:42:39 GMT
You should probably need specialized space stations for building large ships
|
|
|
Post by rocket54321 on May 4, 2016 15:40:36 GMT
Really, you have to think about this in the context of practicality. All starfleets are probably going to end up looking pretty much the same: Massive transport ships regularly traveling between your worlds (scheduling/automatic delivery prioritization system maybe) carrying goods and passengers (there should be some need to transport lots stuff between worlds to keep up your economy). Large colony ships that can be built and sent somewhere to be loaded, then dispached to colonize a planet. Military transports that can land troops and equipment on worlds (a society/industrial stage type combat system should exist for ground assaults). Ships for orgital bombardment, again working wih a planetary ground assault system, using lasers to destroy enemy ground units. Carriers to launch fighters to engage enemy fighters, assaoult craft, and bombers, assault craft (like fighters but a bit bigger with more firepower) to help figters and attack enemy ships, and bombers (bigger than assault craft) to attack enemy ships. Troop Transports to jump/warp in, difspach landers (craft that carry troops and tanks and stuff) to invade a planet, and jump/warp out. Battleships/cruisers/destroyers/frigates: ships to engage enemy ships. These should be expensive to maintain, and it should only be worth having one or two large standing battlefleets at any one time
You should be able to design these from the ground up or use prebuilt ones. Again, this is what I would consider pracitcal. Remember, large ships should be expensive to build and maintain in order to encourage creative and versatile designs. At any rate, cheers! rocket54321
|
|
|
Post by rocket54321 on May 3, 2016 22:56:46 GMT
Ok so I just wrote this, not sure why, not sure if it's helpful. I was going to delete it but thought I might as well post it. It's quite long. -- 13 is quite young but think of it this way. If you practice programming each day for the next 5 years you'll be a wicked good programmer and you'll only be 18, which is a very powerful combination. What should you program? Here's some cool advice from Bruce Lee, "A goal is not always meant to be reached, it often serves simply as something to aim at." So set yourself a cool goal and try and work towards it. That's kind of what Thrive is. It's not some sensible, achievable thing. It's just a crazy far away mountain to see if we can get to. Once you have that all you need is persistence and basic intelligence. This is kind of a big topic but what is basic intelligence? It means trying something and then thinking about what to try next. So say you want to cross a river, maybe you build a raft and the raft sinks. A stupid person will just try and build the raft the same way again and again and never get across and give up. A person with basic intelligence will try the raft a little differently each time, or maybe give up on a raft and try a bridge or try to build a glider and fly across. They won't give up and eventually they will make it across. This method works in everything. If you have basic intelligence every task will have one of three outcomes, you succeed, you give up or you die. And if you have persistence then you either succeed or die. Only running out of time can stop you. I'd say this to everyone reading this. If you want to be a problem solver start now and solve problems just for the fun of doing it. Pick a goal just to have something to aim at. Have basic intelligence and persistence and you will surprise yourself with what you can do. Be your own teacher, get yourself to work when you have energy to do so and let yourself rest when you need rest. Look after yourself. Don't look at people who are much more able or more advanced than you and get discouraged, you are really lucky to have great teachers to learn from. The world would be poorer without those people in it. Don't look at people who are much weaker or are far behind you and feel lonely, it's great to have people to teach, you can learn so much through teaching. The world would be poorer without those people in it. Ultimately in almost all of life someone has been where you are before and can tell you a good way of handling the situation. If a right triangle has side lengths 3,4 and x what is x? Well someone has been here before and solved this problem. But maybe you should solve it again from scratch, because one day you may end up in a place where no one has been before and no one knows how to solve the problem. Do the Navier-Stokes equations in 3D have a unique solution? No one on the planet knows. No one on the planet knows how to find out. That's amazing. And what can help you with that? Persistence and Basic Intelligence. Someone will solve the Navier-Stokes problem, there is definitely an answer to it. And they will solve it with these two simple things, like people have solved every problem. The world can be very entertaining and diverting and it can be easy to think the best thing is to do what you are told. In the end no one else can help you. You need to train yourself to become the person you want to be. You need to be your own boss and learn to be self-reliant. And one day, if you follow this method, you will reach some lofty goal which you set for yourself many years before and it will be a sad day. Like the day Thrive is finally finished. Because the journey is over and all the wonderful sights and sounds and experiences are done. The mystery is revealed and what is seen cannot be unseen. So stop and smell the flowers as you go. Persistence combined with Basic Intelligence is a road of gifts. Each day there is some little new thing which the universe will grant you, enjoy each one in it's right place and don't rush. The last day of your life will not be the best, I promise you that. Wow. I was not expecting something like this. Thanks. A few words though. My grades can attest that I do not think the best thing to do is the stuff I'm told. I'm also using my free time at school to build a adding machene instead of studying. The day thrive is finished will a. never come because if someone abandons this project calling it "finished" someone else will make it better, and b. will be the day one of the best video games in the universe and both a day of celebration a day of reconing for EA. As I've said, I'm already learning to code in Java, but I might switch to C just to work on thrive. Also, would you have reacted that way if I hadn't revealed my age? I feel like I can get a knowledge of C good enough to work on Thrive in a few moths if I apply myself. I think that I'll see how far I can gat over the summer and then try signing up to work on the game. Maybe this is (extreme) optimism, but hey, why not? Plus, I'm doing biochem next year, so I might be of use in other ways. Cheers! rocket54321?
|
|
|
Post by rocket54321 on May 3, 2016 15:51:37 GMT
Also, I only have acces to a mac at the moment. I'll be getting a PC soon however. Even so, I'm more than willing to invest in this project even if I can't play the game.
|
|