Xenonauts and the fellowship of the Flat Earth Society

[tirlimpimpim]

Hi everybody,

First I love what you are doing and I am anxiously waiting for the game - big fan!

I recently had a chance to try out Xenonauts v17.6 and one thing struck me - the Earth is flat! And I don't mean it in representation of geoscape (which is pretty nice, though Antarctic is missing for some reason, probably was not discovered back in 1979 ), I mean that curvature of the Earth is totally ignored.

• Correct me if wrong but you guys seam to compute distances using Euclidean geometry, rather than spherical, which does matter.
  
• Secondly, if one was to build a base in northern Canada, its radar should cover northern Russia, but in flat Earth case it becomes nonsensical.
  

I hope you will notice this issue and address it in you final release. Best of luck and fortitude!

Cheers,

K.

[Max_Caine]

This "problem" is not going to be addressed. I refer you to this comment by Chris.

[tirlimpimpim]

that's a bummer

How about an option for realistic radar distances, flight paths, etc.? I mean a little tribute for the nerds to opt in? Please please, pretty please make one!

Edited February 27, 2013 by tirlimpimpim
new idea!

[crusherven]

It would be a lot of work to do something only a few people will notice or use. There's a lot of other things I'd rather they spend their time on.

[tirlimpimpim]

I don't think it would be that hard actually (though I admit I have no idea of how creation team have implemented mechanics), just having a distortion mesh on the map and having a function, adjusting the distances and flight speed would suffice, plus enabling radar to cross over the poles.

And it's not just visual aspect, the game system is distorted due to this simplification. Currently maximum of 3 bases are required to cover most of land masses and all of them are just a little north of equator

[Max_Caine]

So, how hard would it be? Giovanni, one of the developers for Xenonauts, took some time out in another thread to explain how to mod the geoscape map. (About 4 posts down).

Edited February 27, 2013 by Max_Caine
changed words. durrr. words are pritty.

[tirlimpimpim]

Thanks for the tip, however it seams that Giovanni was discussing moding the geoscape in regard with all the changes that have to be implemented in order to keep the whole scoring/financing system tied up together with the map. I am not advocating changing the whole map, but just adjusting the travel time/radar range in accordance to the distortions introduced by projecting a geoid on to rectangular 2d map.

[Max_Caine]

I am not advocating changing the whole map, but just adjusting the travel time/radar range in accordance to the distortions introduced by projecting a geoid on to rectangular 2d map

So, you want to change the whole map, then.

EDIT: I found another thread on that subject. Here you go

EDIT 2: The thrust of Giovanni posts are about modding the geoscape map and all that entails. Others have modded the geoscape map.

Edited February 27, 2013 by Max_Caine

[tirlimpimpim]

No no, the map stays as is (lets pretend its a projection in Xenonauts headquarters used by commanders on the Ipads they seem to have ), what needs to be changed are the calculations of jet/ufo movements and radar distances, plus ability to traverse poles.

I mean just because back in headquarters, for convenience sake, Earth is represented as a rectangle, does not mean that it became one, and now jets have to fly from Russia tu USA longitudinally instead of shorter route taken latitudinally.

[Max_Caine]

You want to radically alter the gameplay elements of the geoscape. You want to radically alter how the geoscape is perceived.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that's a bad thing. But, you want to change the whole map. Or, let's be more precise about it. You want to change how the map and it's associated UI and gameplay elements in the geoscape are used.

You want to change the whole map.

[tirlimpimpim]

Yes, for a lack of better expression, I want to change the whole map, but its not a change per se, its removal of logical inconsistency in the game, that is the aim. I can see how developers went for projection rather than 3D model of the Earth, but I think that they have missed some issues, this change has introduced to the gameplay, and I hope they will fix it.

[TrashMan]

Travel time and distance changing depending on map coordiante would be very unintuitive, and making those changes would be time-consuming and for no practical gain whatsoever.

[erutan]

imho most people would be really confused by having spherical behavior being represented on a flat interface.

Since we don't have a fancy floating globe, I think it's best just left as is for simplicities sake as the game engine tends to make changes harder than they seem they should be.

[Max_Caine]

@tirlimpimpim, fair enough. What's your case for doing so in gameplay terms? I mean, ignore for the moment logical inconsistancies. Let's talk gameplay. As the gamer would see it. Over the term of the game, how would this improve gameplay? Bearing in mind that with the release of the new UI the actual map isn't going to change form (it won't, for example, become squashed). With this map, how would the changes you propose improve gameplay?

[tirlimpimpim]

OK, I will try to address the issues:

1. Having realistic movement and radar ranges would unnecessary confuse players. - First we should remember, that Xenonauts will be quite sophisticated game with sophisticated audience. I don't think adopting realistic spherical projection should baffle the minds of most of them, even further, I would tend to believe, that due to its legacy and indie status most people would expect sophistication level to be higher than most common blockbuster titles, since developers don't need to ponder the least common denominators (that is to make it as retard accessible as possible). By visually displaying not circular, but projection distorted radar ranges in the first stage of the game, when the location for the main base is selected, would automatically introduce player to the fact, that the map does not follow Euclidean geometry. An additional paragraph (two/three sentences) could easily explain the discrepancies in travel time. Lastly, this approach could possibly even introduce and familiarize some players to the basics of cartography and geodesy, which is a very fancy and noble thing to do, but that's just a bonus

2 What improvements would this bring in comparison to the current approach? -

a) In current system three bases can basically cover the whole world as shown in figure:

. The downside of this approach is that logical sites for bases are very few and forced. This diminishes replayability value. By using realistic projection, players will have more freedom to distribute bases in original and different ways.

b) Having realistic movement of crafts does not introduce cumberence to the player. The routes are computed automatically. The benefit to the player is that he can deploy bases and receive realistic gameplay, e.g. a craft from Siberia can reach Canada by traversing northern pole, rather than flying a half of equatorial circumference longitudinally and finally ending up without fuel.

And last but not the least point - logical consistency! Not having it might seam like a small thing, but it just might be the pebble in the shoe...

Finally, on difficulty of implementing such approach. True, I have no idea how hard it would be to make such changes in accordance to the game engine, I just hope its doable, not too late and that this will be done.

Anyway, thanks for taking time to mind my babbling

[GizmoGomez]

Oy vey, lots of posts saying the same thing.

I doubt that it'll be done, maybe you could mod it in (I didn't read Giovanni's posts, I'm not all that much concerned tbh).

It'd be cool, and I'd appreciate it (Riemannian geometry is so often overlooked, unfortunately). However, since not everyone's a geometer, it may confuse people (which frankly I don't care about, but the devs probably would) and while it'd make gameplay more realistic and flexible, it'd take too much time to implement.

[Gorlom]

@tirlimpimpim, fair enough. What's your case for doing so in gameplay terms? I mean, ignore for the moment logical inconsistancies. Let's talk gameplay. As the gamer would see it. Over the term of the game, how would this improve gameplay? Bearing in mind that with the release of the new UI the actual map isn't going to change form (it won't, for example, become squashed). With this map, how would the changes you propose improve gameplay?

That link led me to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eckert_II_projection

Can't we use this one? I really REALLY like it

[tirlimpimpim]

Sure, I'm buying the the game anyway, however isn't the whole purpose of this forum to provide feedback and make a game better?

On the implementation point, I intuitively feel that it shouldn't be a big deal. Having an approximate deformation mesh on the map and applying these coefficients to elongation/speed should do the trick fairly well.

[Gorlom]

OK, I will try to address the issues:

1. Having realistic movement and radar ranges would unnecessary confuse players. - First we should remember, that Xenonauts will be quite sophisticated game with sophisticated audience. I don't think adopting realistic spherical projection should baffle the minds of most of them, even further, I would tend to believe, that due to its legacy and indie status most people would expect sophistication level to be higher than most common blockbuster titles, since developers don't need to ponder the least common denominators (that is to make it as retard accessible as possible). By visually displaying not circular, but projection distorted radar ranges in the first stage of the game, when the location for the main base is selected, would automatically introduce player to the fact, that the map does not follow Euclidean geometry. An additional paragraph (two/three sentences) could easily explain the discrepancies in travel time. Lastly, this approach could possibly even introduce and familiarize some players to the basics of cartography and geodesy, which is a very fancy and noble thing to do, but that's just a bonus

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ViewersAreGeniuses

I disagree with you on what you say in that paragraph. I think it would bother some/a lot of players even if they know it is more accurate, because it seems odd and looks counter intuitive.

Another simple way to fix your problem with the 3 radars covering the whole planet is to simply reducing the radar range.

[tirlimpimpim]

I disagree with you on what you say in that paragraph. I think it would bother some/a lot of players even if they know it is more accurate, because it seems odd and looks counter intuitive.

For these guys http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/ the fact that Eart is a geoid is also counter intuitive Point being that intuitive might be a little overrated.

Another simple way to fix your problem with the 3 radars covering the whole planet is to simply reducing the radar range.

It kind of would, in a cheating way, but this does not fix neither the flight range of the crafts, nor provide logical consistency.

[erutan]

Barring the fact that stats (including ranges etc) haven't been balanced yet, one reason there may be more pushback than intended is that there is already a fully functioning system that works and the game is nearly at beta.

re 1) It would look kind of strange if planes sped up towards the poles and slowed down near the equator, which would happen given the way the map is laid out, and it'd make it a bit harder to guess whether you could intercept or not and/or how that would play out. Granted that's what it would happen if you laid out flight paths on a distorted grid, but it's more to track in your head. It's not a dealbreaker, but it adds some complexity.

re 2) Do you have any proof that there is no optimal placement for bases if they'd switch systems or is that an assertion? A quick google showed a FAQ for original XCOM that said:

If you build your first base in Northern-Central US, build your

second in Europe, and vice versa. The third base should be near

Japan to cover Japan, China, Russia, and hopefully India (maybe

not), and fourth base should be in Africa covering Nigeria and

South Africa (an important contributor). If you build a fifth

base, it should go in South America, covering Brazil. If you

want a sixth base, built it in New Zealand or Northeastern

Australia to covering most of the Pacific (covering Australia)

.

via http://www.the-spoiler.com/STRATEGY/Microprose/xcom.ufo.defense.1.html

[Gorlom]

For these guys http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/ the fact that Eart is a geoid is also counter intuitive Point being that intuitive might be a little overrated.

I don't understand what you are getting at? You seem to be under the impression that because those people are evidently wrong and could be considered stupid (for disregarding empiric evidence and instead trusting interpretations of bible passages) you have a point. 0.o

Personally I am rather inclined to believe they are a club for pathological liars that find people believing they really think that is hilarious.

[erutan]

@gorlom, I think his point that aiming to be intuitive for the lowest common denominator is not always a good idea.

[Gorlom]

@gorlom, I think his point that aiming to be intuitive for the lowest common denominator is not always a good idea.

So his point is that they are wrong and therefor the game should be made less appealing to anyone that isn't a geometrist or cartographer? You don't have to go as far to make it intuitive for the lowest common denominator, but maybe you shouldn't make it intuitive only to the highest 1%?

Imo it is not a point, it is... something dulled. The irrelevant reference (distraction) to the opposite extreme (FES) is a fallacy. The ~400 members of flat earth society and what they believe in has nothing to do with this. They are just used to insinuate that the flat geoscape is stupid.

I think that the OP is overestimating how many people would be ok (as opposed to "annoyed", rather than furious and flipping tables) with realistic representation on the geoscape. And I think even less would be happy with it.

Edited February 28, 2013 by Gorlom

[tirlimpimpim]

Barring the fact that stats (including ranges etc) haven't been balanced yet, one reason there may be more pushback than intended is that there is already a fully functioning system that works and the game is nearly at beta.

Well now might be the last chance to make this change and I hope developers will consider it.

re 1) It would look kind of strange if planes sped up towards the poles and slowed down near the equator <...>. It's not a dealbreaker, but it adds some complexity.

True, but with complexity comes enhanced possibilities.

re 2) Do you have any proof that there is no optimal placement for bases if they'd switch systems or is that an assertion? A quick google showed a FAQ for original XCOM that said:

Actually in original XCOM the first base was forced to be placed in Switzerland, because of high density of funding nations in Europe, but later ones could be distributed with high degree of freedom. In Xenonauts case, sadly, the placement of bases is effectively non-existing aspect of game.