Xenonauts and the fellowship of the Flat Earth Society

[tirlimpimpim]

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.

FES is just a comic relief, but yes, in case of Planetary Defence Simulator pretending that the planet is a cylinder is not the most intelligent choice

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.

How you figure this one? Would you personally be annoyed by this feature?

[TrashMan]

True, but with complexity comes enhanced possibilities.

Enlighten me...what new possibilities and gameplay enhancements we get from this?

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.

Bollocks.

The Earth is as it is and in any fixed landmass configuarion you will find an optimal deplyoment, regardless if the Earth is represented as a sphere or not.

Not to mention, the placemetns of bases depends on more than jsut geological location, but also other factors (like nation standing, funds, etc...)

Edited February 28, 2013 by TrashMan

[tirlimpimpim]

Enlighten me...what new possibilities and gameplay enhancements we get from this?

Bollocks.

The Earth is as it is and in any fixed landmass configuarion you will find an optimal deplyoment, regardless if the Earth is represented as a sphere or not.

Not to mention, the placemetns of bases depends on more than jsut geological location, but also other factors (like nation standing, funds, etc...)

Well on Earth there is a lot of land in northern hemisphere, thus having near polar base would be a very logical choice, however in this setup it becomes pointless.

[TrashMan]

One door closed, another opened.

Logical setup 1 is replaced by logical setup 2.

[tirlimpimpim]

OK so apparently Xenonaus are using plate carrée version of equirectangular projection map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equirectangular_projection so the distortions are not so significant as one might think, thus there would not be a huge noticeable "unintuitive" increase in speed of the crafts. However the fact that craft can't traverse poles bugs me big time

[thothkins]

First we should remember, that Xenonauts will be quite sophisticated game with sophisticated audience...

My first thought when reading that part, was that it was an assumption that was pretty likely to sink a game. People I know still moan about the dumbing down of those huge wargames of the 1970s. Not because those wargames were necessarily fantastic, but due to the rather elitist stance that insanely complicated equals good. It doesn't and the more you add on in an attempt to cover every eventuality invariably obfuscates the rules and prevents any sort of significant progress.

An X-Com example would be the Firaxis version. There's a vid where the lead dev talks about an early version of the game they tried out. I think it was around six months work and they thought they had nailed it. Except that the feedback they got made it clear they were going down the a path that was wrong for them. It may have had lots of X-Com bells and whistles, but that extra sophistication made it clunky and unappealing to everyone else.

It's how you define "sophisticated" It means to make more inclusive, less natural and to falsify through reason. If you asked a fair number of people, they would think that sophisticated would only mean elegant and effortlessly wise/beautiful/ stylish.

I do understand why the OP thinks this is a good idea. I do think that some players, looking at the map, would think that it was broken as the craft changed velocity for what would seem like no reason on a flat map.

I do miss my secret Antarctic base though...

[tirlimpimpim]

I do think that some players, looking at the map, would think that it was broken as the craft changed velocity for what would seem like no reason on a flat map.

OK, lets look at it this way - at the menu screen, we see some generals leaning on the map of the Earth with figureheads of jet aircrafts, when we start the game, the geoscape basically represents THAT tactical table with the map, so it's totally fine that it is squared. However this is not an "actual" Earth, as was in original XCOM, so why does it limits the gameplay?

[Gauddlike]

I would turn that around and ask why the current map limits game play as well.

The only down side I can see is the lack of overlap across the poles.

The distorted radar footprints and skewed flight paths that would be necessary if the distortion was added would be far less appealing to me than the current method.

It may not be 100% accurate but very little is 100% accurate in any game.

I can live with a bit of inaccuracy in order to make the game play smoother and more intuitively.

[thothkins]

It's a perceptual thing. You mention the generals and the map. If they were updating aircraft positions on that map, they would either:-

- do it every few minutes, so on an electronic version of that map, you'd have a blip sort of effect if it was on a screen.

- move it continuously at a constant velocity, which would appear as a constant on any map analogy.

When is the last time you moved a board game piece, slowing and increasing it's pace as you went across a map, imagining the curvature of the planet it represents. You just don't.

So, a player viewing aircraft across the geoscape, may wonder why they change velocity as it isn;t what they would expect to see on a flat surface.

[tirlimpimpim]

So, a player viewing aircraft across the geoscape, may wonder why they change velocity as it isn;t what they would expect to see on a flat surface.

Well the crafts would accelerate when approaching the pole and decelerate when travel away from it - imagine a craft flying like that from Russia to USA via the north pole (that is it goes up through one point of the map and reapers 180 degrees away) and I bet you would not be confused by it in any way especially if a pretrail course line would be presented in advance.

[tirlimpimpim]

Finally, it might be not a primary way, but just a feature for those geeks and nerds who favour accuracy over intuitiveness, but for the love of Flying Spaghetti Monster please just do it!

[GizmoGomez]

Not to be dissing the FSM, but I don't think appealing to the love of (him? it?) is going to change anything, as far as what'll actually be done. You can't say "Just do it" and expect it to be done, especially since it's not even that important of a detail. I too would appreciate it if it were changed, but that doesn't mean it'll be done. The only way to have that implemented is to convince the devs that it's actually important, and then it might be done. Come up with some more really good ideas why it should change, and maybe that'll help.

[radister]

OK so apparently Xenonaus are using plate carrée version of equirectangular projection map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equirectangular_projection so the distortions are not so significant as one might think, thus there would not be a huge noticeable "unintuitive" increase in speed of the crafts. However the fact that craft can't traverse poles bugs me big time

the equirectangular map tho doesn't deal with the POV depth perception tho, so i think it would be harder to caculate projects then easyier.

As when you get higher on the Y axis your still covering the same distence as cell lower on the map. however becuase the Y axix of each cell get smaller you have to slow down speed to a count for the objecting moving away from Z (z 0 point is POV) however on the X axis you don't have that, so if we had a craft heading in a diaganal line from the bottom of the map to top conor, the player would see a x to a - y speed before incressing to x to the same y then back to an x to a -y. so it would more go in a zigzag.

so while the map might be a equirectangular projection map, the code isn't anywhere near that level of complexity to assist the shown map.

So for the poles, the only way that could be done on a map would be if you when you went off the top you showed up at the top on the other side X axis of the map. which is a tab confusing.

I mean i guess if you use the Mollweide projection map and get Code that works out cell logic to work out the geometry of the round world. then it should be possible and still look good.

However The amount of work to do that would be alot. and I image right now they use a 2D map based matrix with the sides scroling back to the start or the end. So to go from that to a round world system would be alot.

(Not to forget you would need to redo all the path finding for alien ships too)

[ciago92]

I like what OP is getting at but I don't think it's feasible. I would like to see the ability to traverse poles, but that opens up a whole can of worms to the point that I just don't think this is feasible.

[GizmoGomez]

Perhaps transversing poles could be implemented, just not in a way that's perfectly realistic, per say.

I dunno how that would be done, though. Just putting it out.

[Gauddlike]

We had a similar discussion a while back.

My thoughts at the time (which haven't changed) were that it just wouldn't look right.

For example:

The radar circles would distort and warp as you moved the base around to place it.

If they weren't shown then you would have no real idea what your radar coverage would be in any given area (with the possible exception of the equator).

Your coverage would also be odd in that the enemy could approach your base much more closely from some directions than others without hitting your radar coverage (visually at least).

Craft would disappear off the top of the map and reappear elsewhere along that border, seemingly without traversing any distance in between.

Logically I know there is no distance between but it does not look right.

Craft flying East to West would have a different visual speed from those flying North or South.

This would also be different to those flying diagonally.

Your interceptor which appeared to be faster because it is flying in a certain direction could appear to suddenly slow down and be unable to catch the enemy craft it was apparently outrunning a second before, simply because it had to change direction.

All visual illusions caused by changing the map to a realistic view but ones that I feel would actually detract from the game play experience.

I would have preferred a globe to be used (as would Chris judging form some previous posts) but that isn't going to happen and I feel that the current implementation is smoother than the suggested alternative.

Developing two systems side by side is also highly unlikely to be done due to cost and time constraints.

Getting the game finished once is challenge enough without having to do parts of it twice.

[erutan]

The thread is pretty much rehashing old arguments at this point, I think Chris has enough to go on to make up his mind.

Perhaps tirlimpimpim can get a quote on how much money this would cost to implement it and fund it himself?

[GizmoGomez]

That'd be some mod...

[tirlimpimpim]

Perhaps tirlimpimpim can get a quote on how much money this would cost to implement it and fund it himself?

Man this is cold All I am trying to do is to bring attention to one aspect of the game, which IMO strays too far away from level of quality expected from Xenonauts, that's it.

And yes, it's time for developers to make a choice if this issue is relevant to there vision of Xenonauts or not.

[Gauddlike]

I think that decision was made quite a while ago on one of the other threads mentioned.

I think it was linked on post number two of this thread.

[Max_Caine]

Yo.

tirlimpimpim, while the response you've gotten may feel like haterz gonna hate, if you check other threads (just type "flat earth", you'll find that the paying public in general cares more that the geoscape isn't a 3D globe, and far, far less that the geoscape we currently have is a flat map. Chris's remarks (on the two threads that I've linked to and more!) run to: "yeah well, it would have been nice to do at the time, but it's too late now".

Sorry dude.

[erutan]

Sorry if it came off as cold, but that's what it boils down to. You brought up a legitimate case of a lack of realism in the game, but this thread has just been going in circles - there are many longer threads (suppression), but there was a progression and refinement of thought vs the same positions being repeated. At the end of the day the entire IGOUGO turn based system is unrealistic, how funding works will at some level be unrealistic, how fast things are researched will be unrealistic, etc. The game is full of abstractions / constructs meant to feed gameplay.

The game engine kept this game from having a 3D globe which would have been the ideal solution, but most people think that keeping the geoscape as is and focusing on other things makes more sense. I realize that this is something you're passionate about, you seem involved in mapping and I'm sure this bugs you, but any non-random system has an "optimal" spread regardless of how it is represented so this really comes down to it being portrayed in an incorrect manner vs being better for actual gameplay. See the machinegun thread.

[crusherven]

Man this is cold All I am trying to do is to bring attention to one aspect of the game, which IMO strays too far away from level of quality expected from Xenonauts, that's it.

Quality =/= realism. I think the suggestion would make for an uglier world that would be less easy to understand.

[thothkins]

Man this is cold All I am trying to do is to bring attention to one aspect of the game, which IMO strays too far away from level of quality expected from Xenonauts, that's it.

And yes, it's time for developers to make a choice if this issue is relevant to there vision of Xenonauts or not.

To be fair, if things had been different, perhaps a globe would have been the choice made. So, it's not as though your points haven't been taken on board. It;s just that as things are, the geoscape is considered a little easier to play, retaining it's 2d nature.

The new UI Geoscape is rather fitting in the style of old war rooms, so that helps my suspension of disbelief quite a bit.

[Chris]

My stance on this hasn't changed. Even if we wanted to change to a 3D Geoscape now, the time requirement would be prohibitive as it'd involve redoing pretty much all of the Geoscape code.

As for realistic flight paths and radar ranges, they'd look really ugly and confuse as many people as they would impress through their realism. You do bring up valid points but the realities mean the cure would be worse than the problem.