The bottom line for me is this, will civilian ships really add THAT much to the game? If it's just to add more ships in the background and to make the universe feel more alive? Then I will always been against it. More ships one place does mean less ships somewhere else in the end. If I can't have my massive space battles because of it I will always say no.

Yes, I have read all the above posts on morale and what not. It COULD add to the game, it may make the game more in depth. I think at this point I would rather see the game finished and released and then maybe add something like this as a patch afterwards (with an option of turning it on or off)

Also, we don't need to tell Josh that if something is happening then he is doing it wrong. He is a savant of programing. I expect we will see great things from this kid. I know the statement was clarified and apologies where given afterwards. I was actually somewhat upset when I read the original statement however.

Cornflakes_91 wrote: Neither lighting nor internal logic are the bottlenecks.
Lighting was solved on may 3rd and internal logic wasnt even mentioned.

Collision detection is the bottleneck.
And this bottleneck is independent from ship geometry complexity (most of the time) and also independent from the AI complexity running said ship.

More civilians mean less "slots" free for action making ships.

The slow, dumb existence of your haulers does not make any difference here.
They could as well be full worker AI's with simple tasks

Ah, I see. Could you not also have priority collision detection as well, in that some things have no collision detection until something else is close to them? For haulers, could they not only have detection when an executive ship is within a given proximity? or if fired upon, the proximity of active ammunition also triggers the collision detection?

and Poet, I am not sure I would want background fluff that simply exists to look like it's doing, I something. I much prefer that everything in LT has some real function (excluding maybe nebulae, which exits to look awesome), that it has real utility for someone or something. I think there is room in LT for dentists and dog groomers, but they wouldn't have their own ships. they would travel as passengers, contribute to or function as commodities that planets and Stations desire as consumable credit sinks or morale/mission tokens

Real CPU related limits aside, all we are really saying by bundling civilians into cargo holds and the stupidest simplest ships is that space travel is still too expensive for literally everyone and their grandmother to own a private spaceship and jaunt around the galaxy.

Zanteogo wrote:Also, we don't need to tell Josh that if something is happening then he is doing it wrong. He is a savant of programing. I expect we will see great things from this kid. I know the statement was clarified and apologies where given afterwards. I was actually somewhat upset when I read the original statement however.

Don't be too upset, Zanteogo. Josh is made of tough materials. He isn't offended easily and he is well aware that the things we say are usually as a result of the passion we have for his game. If you knew of the things I have said to him in the past you probably have more cause to be upset with me.

Actually I was upset by this:

Zanteogo wrote:The bottom line for me is this, will civilian ships really add THAT much to the game? If it's just to add more ships in the background and to make the universe feel more alive? Then I will always been against it. More ships one place does mean less ships somewhere else in the end. If I can't have my massive space battles because of it I will always say no.

That's what I call selfish but you won't find me sharpening my knife.

Victor Tombs wrote:

Zanteogo wrote:Also, we don't need to tell Josh that if something is happening then he is doing it wrong. He is a savant of programing. I expect we will see great things from this kid. I know the statement was clarified and apologies where given afterwards. I was actually somewhat upset when I read the original statement however.

Don't be too upset, Zanteogo. Josh is made of tough materials. He isn't offended easily and he is well aware that the things we say are usually as a result of the passion we have for his game. If you knew of the things I have said to him in the past you probably have more cause to be upset with me.

Okay, I really wasn't intending that statement to be directed at him at all. It was directed at the assumption that collision handling bottlenecks game design, which was what I thought Cornflakes was saying - apparently mistakenly. Josh has even said himself that collision handling will run smoothly after he optimizes it.

Hyperion wrote: Ah, I see. Could you not also have priority collision detection as well, in that some things have no collision detection until something else is close to them? For haulers, could they not only have detection when an executive ship is within a given proximity? or if fired upon, the proximity of active ammunition also triggers the collision detection.

Covered in the thread I linked to.

Victor Tombs wrote: Actually I was upset by this:

Zanteogo wrote:The bottom line for me is this, will civilian ships really add THAT much to the game? If it's just to add more ships in the background and to make the universe feel more alive? Then I will always been against it. More ships one place does mean less ships somewhere else in the end. If I can't have my massive space battles because of it I will always say no.

That's what I call selfish but you won't find me sharpening my knife.

I wasn't too happy about it either. I did propose a method that would allow civilian ships to become a very important element in the game - and yes, you'd still get your massive space battles.

Victor Tombs wrote:
Actually I was upset by this:

Zanteogo wrote:The bottom line for me is this, will civilian ships really add THAT much to the game? If it's just to add more ships in the background and to make the universe feel more alive? Then I will always been against it. More ships one place does mean less ships somewhere else in the end. If I can't have my massive space battles because of it I will always say no.

That's what I call selfish but you won't find me sharpening my knife.

I'm not attempting to be selfish, I'm trying to be realistic here.

To me, all the AI in the LT universe are (or can be) the civilians already. An AI faction that only mines or trades and does not empire build are basically the "civilians".

I look at it this way, how much does this idea add? How much does it take away?

I see it adding something, though not a massive amount.
I see it taking away a bunch, both in programming time and ship count.

This is more along the line of something to be added after the game has been released. I think so anyways.

Talvieno wrote: I wasn't too happy about it either. I did propose a method that would allow civilian ships to become a very important element in the game - and yes, you'd still get your massive space battles.

The idea it's self is not a bad one. I personally would rather see the game finished at some point rather than adding it however. (Again, it would be great as a patch afterwards)

I however stand by my statement that adding this will take away from something else in the end. I mean no offence but your just mistaken to think that adding more object flying around space won't eat away at the "program resource" pool. It just has to.

To me, all the AI in the LT universe are (or can be) the civilians already. An AI faction that only mines or trades and does not empire build are basically the "civilians".

Your first assumption is that all civilians are capable of buying ships - which isn't the case anywhere, even in a perfect world. Not all people today have cars, right? Or, perhaps a better analogy: not many people own planes. Spaceships are relatively expensive, as you won't see "rush hour traffic" in space... (Although that does sound very attractive for a sci-fi universe, come to think of it......... *steers self back on topic*) In this model, the civilians are actually nothing more than little bits of cargo information. It adds a very small handful of ships (less than 5%), and has them going about their daily lives, helping the universe evolve in very real and visible ways.

Let's be honest. You're not going to miss 5% of your max ship count in a space battle.

You are, however, going to notice civilian traffic, and more than that, planetary evacuations as huge evac ships launch themselves and try desperately to break through your blockade, while you bomb their planet from orbit.

You're also going to notice the opportunity to destroy civilian transport ships, making the enemy faction's people unhappy, and thus persuading them to leave and migrate to your worlds instead - upping your production, and cutting off the enemy's supply of planetary resources.

This is a huge difference, and it's not purely aesthetic. It's more immersive, too. Mr. Parnell aims to make the universe feel alive, and nothing feels more alive than showing that people are actually living peaceful lives in your universe.

Talvieno wrote: Mr. Parnell aims to make the universe feel alive, and nothing feels more alive than showing that people are actually living peaceful lives in your universe.

Victor Tombs wrote:

Talvieno wrote: Mr. Parnell aims to make the universe feel alive, and nothing feels more alive than showing that people are actually living peaceful lives in your universe.

I'll admit I'm curious to know what you in particular thought about my proposal.

Talvieno wrote:

Victor Tombs wrote:

Talvieno wrote: Mr. Parnell aims to make the universe feel alive, and nothing feels more alive than showing that people are actually living peaceful lives in your universe.

I'll admit I'm curious to know what you in particular thought about my proposal.

What! You mean three very happy faces doesn't give you any indication of how I feel about what you are saying? If you read some of my posts concerning the RTS elements of LT you will understand my feelings exactly. My game has always been the "sandbox space exploration game" with a heavy leaning towards RPG. Freelancer being much superior to Starlancer or Wing Commander. I have no argument with those who want to play the warlord/fleet game but to me that is the tacked on part of Limit Theory. Immersion is everything in my game and civilians help with that immersion.

I still try very hard not to endorse any proposal, Talvieno.

I don't mind gameplay ideas related to civilian ships, or to "cargo" civilians (as Hyperion neatly pointed out).

I also don't mind civilian ships (including miners) simply as a kind of dynamic eye candy for human players, making systems feel more alive.

But for me, the real value of civilians is as a kind of "indicator species." Let me quote the first two lines from that link:

An indicator species is an organism whose presence, absence or abundance reflects a specific environmental condition. Indicator species can signal a change in the biological condition of a particular ecosystem, and thus may be used as a proxy to diagnose the health of an ecosystem.

In Limit Theory terms, think about when you jump into a new star system. The presence, absence, or abundance of civilian ships that you can observe will give you an immediate understanding of the safety and economic activity of that system.

That knowledge could let you prepare for trade deals, or even save your (character's) life. If you jump into a system and, after some safe passive scans, don't observe any civilian ships but see plenty of what look like armed vessels, that is a very useful clue that you might want to either raise shields and power weapons, or perhaps fly back through the wormhole you came from until you can bring some well-armed friends with you.

The utility of implementing civilians as an indicator species is not limited to human players. NPCs can also benefit from doing a quick scan, categorization, and count of visible ship types to plan their own actions.

Everything takes time when you're building a game. The value of implementing civilians has to weighed against the cost to do that.

These comments are intended to place an additional weight on the "value" side of the scales.

Flatfingers wrote: I don't mind gameplay ideas related to civilian ships, or to "cargo" civilians (as Hyperion neatly pointed out).......

Civilians are so essential, Flat.

Flatfingers wrote:indicator species

Good lord, why didn't I think of that... my Environmental Science major has failed me...
That's a great point...

Talvieno wrote:Spaceships are relatively expensive, as you won't see "rush hour traffic" in space... (Although that does sound very attractive for a sci-fi universe, come to think of it.........

Let's save the rush hour traffic for planets Ala coruscant tyvm, It would break my immersion to see bumper to bumper lines... in the middle of space, and if there was so much traffic to take up all the space, it should gravitationaly implode...
again we need more Info on planets... Josh better cover planets in June

I really like the indicator species idea. :3

KatyPanda wrote:I really like the indicator species idea. :3

As do I - that's the best reason to have them that I've yet seen.

Hyperion wrote:

Talvieno wrote:Spaceships are relatively expensive, as you won't see "rush hour traffic" in space... (Although that does sound very attractive for a sci-fi universe, come to think of it.........

Let's save the rush hour traffic for planets Ala coruscant tyvm, It would break my immersion to see bumper to bumper lines... in the middle of space, and if there was so much traffic to take up all the space, it should gravitationaly implode...
again we need more Info on planets... Josh better cover planets in June

I didn't mean for Limit Theory, it just seems interesting to have a spaceport surrounded with enough traffic to consider it "rush hour".