Return to “Announcements”

Post

Re: Development Update #14: February 2014

#61
I realize this is all a work in progress. I follow the forum dev logs (BTW interesting stuff and great to see how games are made).

My thoughts:

Overall: very impressive. I find this game visually relaxing.

Ice looks great. Especially when the sun is behind it.

Nice image quality (I assume this is the anti-aliasing at work).

Camera and ship momentum (by camera I mean rotating the view): this has the potential to be somewhat unsettling in what your virtual "avatar" (i.e. fingers on keyboard & mouse) is doing vs. motion on screen (as in motion sickness). It's hard to judge this effect from watching video since it is passive.

I prefer the boxy shapes of ships and stations. I'm surprised that you call the previous ships awful (the ones starting from video #6 onward are all great looking and believable).

Mini-map: love the 3D globe effect but I find the radial pulsing "ping" slightly distracting.

Battery/capacitor: instantly understandable.

I like the visual language of spinning HUD elements' speed relating to a value (I see this in at least two places).

HUD intentional glitches: I like them. Perhaps some natural phenomena could aggravate this.

Scanner: looks great. This is much more intuitive and less obtrusive than the radial version. There is potential for some interesting mechanics with this.

Dynamic lighting: very impressive at 1080p (e.g. where the transfer beam lights up the asteroid).
Post

Re: Development Update #14: February 2014

#62
XergesXSX wrote:I prefer the boxy shapes of ships and stations. I'm surprised that you call the previous ships awful (the ones starting from video #6 onward are all great looking and believable).
I think a lot of what is spawning these thoughts are due to the fact we haven't seen them textured. As much as I love the new ships, I think the older ones would look just as good if they were given the same texture treatment upgrade.

Also, welcome to the forums! :wave:
Image
Early Spring - 1055: Well, I made it to Boatmurdered, and my initial impressions can be set forth in three words: What. The. F*ck.
Post

Re: Development Update #14: February 2014

#63
New account, just discovered this game about a week or so ago and have since watched all of the vlogs present on YouTube.

Some things:
  • Scanner: The scanner currently does not really comply with the electromagnetic spectrum. The visible light regions should mostly always be lit up (this would introduce an interesting gameplay aspect in that if you introduce cloaking, the visible light would be lower but other frequency areas are much higher). If you go with this, you should also add captions under the various frequency ranges to prevent confusion.
  • Boost Capacitor: Not sure on this one. I like the idea of it boosting the energy supply (and thus boosting all systems), but as somebody else mentioned this could disaffect long distance travel within a system. Countering this by introducing higher capacity boost capacitors would simply lead to abuse for those that wish to use it for short travel/combat, like searching within an asteroid belt. A way to fix this would be to introduce a metric, "boost/charge rate", whereby it takes some time to give a complete boost to all systems (e.g. short boost times for small capacitors designed for quick jumps/combat, and long boost times for larger capacitors designed for long-distance travel and whatnot).
  • Speed limitation at cargo capacity: Should make mass affect acceleration/deceleration and maneuverability (i.e. inertia), not top speed.
  • Mining laser destroys ore at capacity: I really like this idea. If a person isn't paying attention, then that asteroid will become depleted and they can't come back to it to mine more. On that note, do the drones stay there, can you locate their position from a distance, go and retrieve them? Even after docking? If not, then there should be a way to 'tag' asteroids to come back to.
  • HUD: Love it. Except for perhaps the informational text detailing speed and cargo capacity (I'm thinking in the future, but they could get in the way during combat, especially as they are so near to the targeting crosshair).
Love looking at excerpts of the game and cannot wait to purchase it when it comes out. On that note, is there any way I can still donate? :)

Regards,
Daniel.
Last edited by Daniel on Sun Mar 02, 2014 1:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
"The first 90 percent of the code accounts for the first 90 percent of the development time. The remaining 10 percent of the code accounts for the other 90 percent of the development time." —Tom Cargill
Post

Re: Development Update #14: February 2014

#64
XergesXSX wrote:I realize this is all a work in progress. I follow the forum dev logs (BTW interesting stuff and great to see how games are made).

My thoughts:....
I too would like to welcome you XergesXSX. :wave:

If you normally post as you have in this instance then I, for one, will enjoy reading your thoughts and suggestions. It reminded me of Mr Parnell's new style dev logs. :D

The great thing about Limit Theory will be the freedom of choice Josh is providing with his game. Those tools he mentions in the KS and at various places throughout the forums are what will put this game on a totally different level to some you may have experienced. If you find something that is not to your taste then it is likely that Josh has given you the option to modify or switch off the unpalatable feature.

The ships? Well, you will have the option to design your own with the fully featured editor if you so desire. :thumbup:

May I extend my welcome to include you Daniel. :wave:
Last edited by Victor Tombs on Sun Mar 02, 2014 1:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post

Re: Development Update #14: February 2014

#65
Daniel wrote:Scanner: The scanner currently does not really comply with the electromagnetic spectrum. The visible light regions should mostly always be lit up (this would introduce an interesting gameplay aspect in that if you introduce cloaking, the visible light would be lower but other frequency areas are much higher). If you go with this, you should also add captions under the various frequency ranges to prevent confusion.
This brings up a good point in relation to the EM spectrum. It also means that you can pick up heat signatures and the like. Of course, the oversight could also be that Josh hasn't added that in yet.
Boost Capacitor: Not sure on this one. I like the idea of it boosting the energy supply (and thus boosting all systems), but as somebody else mentioned this could disaffect long distance travel within a system. Countering this by introducing higher capacity boost capacitors would simply lead to abuse for those that wish to use it for short travel/combat, like searching within an asteroid belt. A way to fix this would be to introduce a metric, "boost/charge rate", whereby it takes some time to give a complete boost to all systems (e.g. short boost times for small capacitors designed for quick jumps/combat, and long boost times for larger capacitors designed for long-distance travel and whatnot).
Keep in mind, the original idea was to have the equivalent of an afterburner that we usually see in some 3D space sims. It was just that Josh took this idea and applied it to everything instead of just engines. I feel as though there is a little bit of confusion but I think it will become intuitive once it is in play.
Speed limitation at cargo capacity: Should make mass affect acceleration/deceleration and maneuverability (i.e. inertia), not top speed.
I like adding in mass affecting acceleration and maneuverability as well, but I think we can't break it away from top speed due to the physics engine being used and having drag-based physics (or a decoupling thereof).
HUD: Love it. Except for perhaps the informational text detailing speed and cargo capacity (I'm thinking in the future, but they could get in the way during combat, especially as they are so near to the targeting crosshair).
I think this will be customizable. Not sure if you were around for the previous video update, but one thing Josh introduced was different screens that act in the same way Linux does with desktops. You have a 'desktop' for each thing you're doing and this was the one for mining. I'm sure that the combat one would be more geared towards combat and wouldn't have things like capacity or the like.

Good points and welcome to the forums! :wave:
Image
Early Spring - 1055: Well, I made it to Boatmurdered, and my initial impressions can be set forth in three words: What. The. F*ck.
Post

Re: Development Update #14: February 2014

#66
DWMagus wrote:This brings up a good point in relation to the EM spectrum. It also means that you can pick up heat signatures and the like. Of course, the oversight could also be that Josh hasn't added that in yet.
Yep. Completely understandable. Just wanted to get something in before the design has been finalised :)
DWMagus wrote: Keep in mind, the original idea was to have the equivalent of an afterburner that we usually see in some 3D space sims. It was just that Josh took this idea and applied it to everything instead of just engines. I feel as though there is a little bit of confusion but I think it will become intuitive once it is in play.
Yeah, I know it was originally supposed to be an afterburner. But I think now that Josh has introduced this new mechanic, that consideration should be taken into the areas it affects.
DWMagus wrote:I think this will be customizable. Not sure if you were around for the previous video update, but one thing Josh introduced was different screens that act in the same way Linux does with desktops. You have a 'desktop' for each thing you're doing and this was the one for mining. I'm sure that the combat one would be more geared towards combat and wouldn't have things like capacity or the like.
Yep, the old workspaces concept :)
DWMagus wrote: Good points and welcome to the forums! :wave:
Cheers, glad to be here :D
"The first 90 percent of the code accounts for the first 90 percent of the development time. The remaining 10 percent of the code accounts for the other 90 percent of the development time." —Tom Cargill
Post

Re: Development Update #14: February 2014

#67
Some thoughts on the Ice:
( Good first shot at it, but I mean there is so much cool stuff you can do with this ).

1.) A more dense field (this goes for normal asteroid fields as well), In general dense fields are awesome IMO since they convey a more intense feeling. What would be really cool is if the density is gradual, so that it drops of at the edges of the field, the current density feels like we are on the outskirts of a ice-field to me.

2.) To round ice blocks. I know it's logical in space but visually I am not getting the right feeling. I ( and I think most others ) strongly associate ice and cold with vertical shapes and icicles. I fondly recall how awesome this looked in freelancer (first 30 seconds): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JJATsmA96g

Some more inspirational examples of this:
Image Image Image Image The visual types I would experiment with if I was you is to keep the current "top" half of them as they are right now (roundish), and add elongated icicles or sharper shapes going downwards. This could also add really cool dogfight elements for larger asteroids where you can fly between icicles.

3.) Reflecting at least your own ship when you get up close would be really sweet.

4.) Some more dust close up can really help to convey the feeling of cold. This you can see in the freelancer video too where there is both dust and small debris with dust after them. Think cold winter breath:
Image
More crazy ideas:

* Some holes/caves in the larger ice asteroids big enough to fly through with smaller dogfighting ships = epic cool!
* Destructible / shattering ice? The fragility of Ice means it's easier to explain away it turning into dust or water vapor when shot.
* Add hybrid asteroids with a rock core, and ice built up on top of them so mining mechanics include first smelting through the ice layer.
* Expand the above to comets with a long ice dust tail, mining a moving target makes for even more fun!
* Ice reflecting lasers?
* Dynamic graphics effects on stations and larger ships in "cold" icefields, icicles and freezing on top of the metal?



Another input: You really want to build the AI at the same time, for an engaging game and believable universe there should be nothing the player can do that the AI can't. If your focus is truly on the AI you should rather cut a game-play mechanic no matter how cool it is if it's not possible or to time consuming to teach the AI how to do it well.

Scanner feedback: Love then new scanner!!! How about scaling the background sound the scanner is making with any detection you are making? Possibly also by changing pitch slightly depending on what Hz you are picking up signals at?

Otherwise great job as usual! :thumbup: Ice is awesome already!
Post

LT Dev Update #14

#68
Life is too busy and unfortunately I'm left watching the updates on youtube so I'm not as familiar with what is happening as I have been in the past. Still super excited for the game thus far. Anyway, here are my thoughts on what is up right now as per the latest update.

1.) The Look: Liking the fact that the look is getting better. The metal, lens flares, etc etc. Yes the scattering effect of the HUD is annoying as hell but you said it isn't suppose to be that bad. I'd still like an option to shut it off completely as well as one to amp it up in combat especially if you implement subsystems and they are damaged.

2.) Scanner: Much improved and I like the new look and idea behind it. I'm worried that current artifacts in the game will take up too much of the bandwidth not to mention things added on later and soon you really wouldn't have any good idea what is happening on that band than you would if you didn't have it. I know it is a work in progress but just wanted to point it out.

3.) Mining Drones: There DEFINITELY needs to be a decay timer on them. Not only do I see it becoming resource intensive in a system that is covered/littered with them, it is somewhat... well... ugly and the information gets lost in the sea of other information making it unuseful. The ability to recall would be nice, but there does need to be a decay as well.

4.) Tracker Drones?: These might be more interesting to have however. Drones with either EXTREMELY long decay timers or even no decay timers. Sort of a personal way to track toward a mineral rich field, a quick way home, or even tagging good mineral asteroids for later use. Maybe even a path into an enemy base. Several ways to set this up. One is an expensive one time use drone that you can track on your scanner from great distances and even more expensive models that others can't (or your crew alone can) track. Think of the pathing and AI implications! Tag a ship/station/stupid rich asteroid, tell everyone to attack/mine/avoid it from the safety of the station! Another is to make them a relatively inexpensive asset and you basically tag/deploy them along a route you have found that works well for you so you don't lose your path. This can include a path that intersects some enemy NPCs trade lanes for easy pirating or a safe route through enemy zones. Once again possibly creating a path your AI bunch can follow to an objective of your own choosing should you wish.

5.) Mining options: I like where you are going with the options on mining. I like the beam effect and stuff. I would like to caution you, however, and remind you to not make something difficult for no other reason than you are overthinking it. I actually like the zeroing in on rich parts of asteroids, but remember there is a fine line between "fun little quirk of gameplay" and "needlessly difficult". I think you have a good sense of this and so do several others on this forum. Just keep on the lookout and listen when a lot of people are suddenly trying to reign you in on the complicated. :D
An eye for an eye and the world goes blind, but in the land of the blind the one eyed man is KING!
Post

Re: Development Update #14: February 2014

#71
One of the best updates so far.

Josh, the only thing you should look at should be decrease of top speed due to mass, its not logical.
It would be much better to decrease acceleration and maneuverability as mass goes up, so piloting heavy transport ships will be cool (empty vs full load difference will be very notable due to great mass they can take in cargo, it sound fun, i think.. but not top speed or freighters will get even slower)
I̲̩̳̺̩̫n̵̻̘͚͖̗͎ͅ ͢J̜̬̗̦o̩̘̦̪͕͉ͅs͞h̞͘ ̯̹͈͙w̯̙̥e̱͉ ̬̙̘̭̯̦͕t̹͖͔̖͘r͚̠̰͍͚̹ụ̸̭͍͕̯̹̙s̩͓̼̲̲͉̹t̰.̴͈̖͙̜̲

We will never forget the "Heavenly hundred"
Failures lead to success.
Post

Re: Development Update #14: February 2014

#72
Can't point my finger at the main reason(s) for it, but LT looks so much more appealing in this update.
Not that I was concerned about visual aspect at all earlier, it's just that now it's starting to look more like the game means business.
Scanner and mining mechanics look awesome. I can only imagine how good they'll get when they get finished.
Keep it up.
Post

Re: Development Update #14: February 2014

#73
Shuul wrote:One of the best updates so far.

Josh, the only thing you should look at should be decrease of top speed due to mass, its not logical.
It depends on the tech:
  • With reaction thrusters, having a top speed at all is not logical, so I really don't get why people are complaining about realism here.
  • With H-drives, mass-dependent top speed is a logical consequence of the way the system works and the way it worked from the start.
Shuul wrote:It would be much better to decrease acceleration and maneuverability as mass goes up, so piloting heavy transport ships will be cool (empty vs full load difference will be very notable due to great mass they can take in cargo, it sound fun, i think.. but not top speed or freighters will get even slower)
I quite like the idea of bigger ships having a lower top speed. It feels more natural to me and something I assumed would be the case anyway. It's also in general how it works in EVE Online.
Post

Re: Development Update #14: February 2014

#74
Its important to note that mass is only one variable. I'd expect f=ma to apply and for top speed to be approximately correlated to acceleration, so you could still make a heavy ship fast by increasing the proportion of that mass devoted to whatever drive mechanic you chose to use.

Or you could leave it as a big lumbering supertanker with just enough thrust to get a million tons of ammonia between systems in a fortnight.

Up to the design needs of the ship in question, not to any predefined system.
Post

Re: Development Update #14: February 2014

#75
McDuff wrote:Its important to note that mass is only one variable. I'd expect f=ma to apply and for top speed to be approximately correlated to acceleration, so you could still make a heavy ship fast by increasing the proportion of that mass devoted to whatever drive mechanic you chose to use.

Or you could leave it as a big lumbering supertanker with just enough thrust to get a million tons of ammonia between systems in a fortnight.

Up to the design needs of the ship in question, not to any predefined system.
nothing prevents you from building a high-speed battleship, but ships tend to get slower the bigger they are

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron