Having said that, you DO have options as a gamer. Don't trust release dates anymore. Just wait until the reviews pour in and then decide if you want to buy something. It just takes a little patience, and will save you lots of money. I do the same thing with movies now. I don't bother watching movies that are panned, and yet bad movies keep getting made! So somebody is out there supporting the bad movies, just like people are still supporting bad games.
Barring some kind of aforementioned meteor strike on a certain developer's studio, I don't think SotS II will end up being a bad game. I think it will turn out to be an awesome game. And no, what they did with this release wasn't cool. I wonder if you can summon up a little sympathy in your heart for folks that think dishonesty is the only way they can scrounge up the cash to bring their lovechild into the world.
Ill "shut up" when
A.) I get my refund
B.) I get banned (but considering I actually try to pay attention to forum rules hopefully wont happen)
C.) They make it so I can play and enjoy the game.
In another thread you have now decided you may *keep* the game. Its nice to see that the game has won you over already to changing from REFUND NOW to I MAY keep it.
Perhaps in that case you can understand people getting a wee bit frustrated with constantly negative posts - Constructive ones people are fine with but messages of doom, doom, doom, do get a bit wearing after 5 days.
"You can make an omelet without breaking any eggs; it's just a really bad omelet"
~ Stephen Colbert
Right... lol I love being the worst person in the internet here
My sig attacks SOTS2... My sig attacks the ppl qqing about the ppl asking for refunds because they were sold a lemon. Im not gonna be one of those that pretend what it says in my sig isnt true, cause I dont like lying to myself.
I see... truth hurts.
As for me being negative, think about this, be objective (or try to anyways) do you REALLY think I have NOTHING to be upset about over this? Hell, Im even TRYING to calm other ppl down on the "theyre not giving us refunds" thing cause they didnt say "no" they said "next week"
IM TRYING to give over to not being as "doom an gloom" as I was as Im TRYING to get less angry about this whole thing. Trolling me for every thing I say doesnt help with that
Everybody please take a deep breath, relax, and be nice to each other. Get up, away from the computer, fetch yourself a nice cup of tea, and then re-read your reply before you hit the "post reply" button!
When I speak in regal, manly grey I do so as a moderator.
Never publicly comment or answer to a moderation post. Please write a PM (see Rule #2 of the Forum Rules).
How to give a proper man-to-man hug
Ireland's Teardrop -- EU3 DW Munster/Ireland AAR. Follow the story of Munster, taking over the entire North American continent!
Rule Helvetia! Helvetia Rule the Waves... -- Victoria 2 beta AAR. Watch Switzerland defeat the British Royal Navy... or die trying!
What if the Pope had 200,000 men? -- A Papal States EU3 1.3 aar (abandoned/finished after owning 70% of the world)
I don't know what you mean by technical requirements vs coding requirements. I'm getting the impression that you are not able to or not willing to try and understand what I'm saying, which is a broad assertion.
To achieve individual hits you analyse the ship component before hand, either manually (artist who built the component defines locations) or automatically (write a tool that "compiles" the component as part of the build process). The end result in either case is the same - different locations around the centre of the ship correspond to different ship systems. This can be represented as meshes or primitives, either way something that can participate in collision detection. The data structure to hold this connection is a simple map. When a hit occurs it will have a location relative to the centre of the ship and correspond to one of these predefined components. This is something basic that the physics simulation provides. With that coordinate relative to the ship centre you look up the ship system in the above date structure.
All of this can be built around the what a basic engine would provide, and an FPS engine. What happens when a hit is scored and how you process that is irrelevant. The engine just wants to have objects, render them, move them, perform physics simulation, and then hand over control to your game logic which may result in some objects remove/added/modified or your internal data structures changed. It doesn't care.
The number of components, races and so on is completely irrelevant, that is a question of game content - art and design. Adding another 10 races to the game would have added relatively little coding to game logic and no code to the graphics engine. The different travel methods affect mostly the strategic game logic, they have almost no effect on the battles other than slightly different physics properties of ships.
I'm going to "speculate" again and say that you don't like what I have to say but you have very little knowledge in this area and you don't really understand what I'm talking about. I suggest you take a deep breath and simply say what really is on your mind rather than trying to dig deep into technical details in something you don't really understand.
As to which systems you have gates in - when you click an uncolonised system the pop up display should automatically switch to fleet view where on the right it shows the Gate ship deployed. Not as convienient I agree and something Kerberos are looking into along with the pathing Hope that helps
I find it more plausible that it was a bad decision due to the usual reasons - bad decision making process / no planning / lack of understanding by the people at the top coupled with pushing by the techies who were eager to build an engine, or alternatively the CEO thinking it's cool to let his team build an engine not understanding or not willing to thoroughly check the costs of building your engine engine vs. licensing another.
Last edited by Nighthaunt; 02-11-2011 at 23:53.
While the CEO clearly made bad decisions (otherwise we would not have gotten this flaming bag of poop instead of a working game), I am not sure it is fair to say this is one of those bad decisions without knowing information that none of us (with possible exception of some of the mods) are privy to.
The game engine required for the Total War series is very different to an FPS. The Total War engine dealt with a huge number of objects in a huge scene. In the recent versions it's even more complicated because they have tried to break the "army of clones" pattern so that means each solder is now made of different parts (much like ships in sots, but on a huge scale). In addition the Total War engine had to be able to deal with zooming out and taking a bird eye view of the scene, i.e rendering many of these objects but at lower details, or zooming into the action, and that can happen within a split of a second. That meant the camera culling, the LOD and the mesh / material caching had to be very streamlined and they would have needed different data structures to hold the game objects than an FPS would. These characteristics set it apart from the average FPS. Also the Total war series started many years ago, when the availability of engines, free or licensable wasn't like what it is today. And by now they have the know-how in house of how to do what they are doing and they take incremental steps.
For the record I wasn't saying that that engines built today would support DX9 (actually I said the opposite) but that if they used an existing engine that has been around for a while it would have likely supported DX9.
RE small companies making their own engines I don't completely agree, it's too broad a statement. The kind of engine we are seeing here is quite complex to build from scratch and is a big undertaking. I doubt many small companies, specially with relatively little resources, would opt to do that. If you are referring to other scenarios of simpler engines, or their own game engines based on existing 3D graphics engines then I can understand that but is that what happened here?
It's a non-issue though. Most new games this year are also using DX10 as a baseline. It's only really the cross-platform releases that retain DX9, and that's simply because the current console generation is limited to DX9 (and even then, when they can be bothered to do proper ports it's turning up in DX10, it's getting to the point you can almost spot the shoddy ports by their DX9 support ...).
Also Mars 2 is based off the original Mars engine, so it's not like Kerberos built their own engine from the ground up for this - they upgraded the engine they built from the ground up for their previous release. I wouldn't speculate on the why; quite frankly there's as many downsides to licensing an engine as there is to building your own, not least of which is the cost.
This thread is actually getting interesting
Heraldic Armies: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/...eraldic-armies
Founder: Paradox Modders International, The Iconians Club 20, 150+ friends association,The Chaapa'ai, 500k Club Social Groups