Return to “General”

Post

Re: The "Game" in LT

#16
As I continue to read all the posts here, I'm just going to post a quick thought regarding your comparison of LT to Freelancer and Minecraft.


I think your representation of Freelancer is dead-on. However, when it comes to Minecraft...

Image
This is how I imagine Minecraft as it used to be, in the pre-release versions, far before the ender dragon and all the endgame content. It is the quintessential open world experience. In fact, any open-world game without any direction would look exactly like this. You start at the beginning with nothing, and as the game goes on, you can take any path you want - even skipping "steps" entirely. It's the skipping step portion I'm putting here, because there's more than one path to a specific goal. For instance, if you want wood to build a fence, you could harvest the wood from forests, grow your own trees, or just go into the mines and knock down some fence posts in there and skip the tree step.

At this point, though, it looks more like this:
Image
You start at the red dot, and have a fair bit of freedom as to how you go about doing things - but at certain points of the game, everything comes together. You must always find ender pearls, for instance, to find the fortress with the portal to the ender dragon. There may be other alternate steps you can take along the way, or you can speedrun it and get to the end really fast if you want, but you're still being funneled down a path. It feels like you're being funneled down a path. The open-world feeling is gone because you know there's an end goal you're supposed to be working toward. You are no longer the one setting the ultimate goal. You can ignore the end goals, of course, but then you miss out on a significant amount of content, and a significant portion of the game.

I think LT would be best considered the first of the two images. You can skip steps and pretty much do whatever you like - even going somewhere new and starting fresh. Or, to put it another way: I think LT is most like Minecraft pre-release. It has very little in common with post-release Minecraft, which makes me somewhat hesitant to consider the two at all similar.

edit: Split off a derail. I know Hyperion really doesn't like his threads derailed.
Have a question? Send me a PM! || People talking in IRC over the past two hours: Image
Image
Image
Post

Re: The "Game" in LT

#17
Talvieno wrote:
Fri Jul 21, 2017 11:21 am
As I continue to read all the posts here, I'm just going to post a quick thought regarding your comparison of LT to Freelancer and Minecraft.

I think your representation of Freelancer is dead-on. However, when it comes to Minecraft...

Image
This is how I imagine Minecraft as it used to be, in the pre-release versions, far before the ender dragon and all the endgame content. ... I think LT is most like Minecraft pre-release. It has very little in common with post-release Minecraft, which makes me somewhat hesitant to consider the two at all similar.
It may be relevant that I don't even know what "ender pearls" are. I've heard of the ender dragon, but the way I play Minecraft today is pretty much just like I played it back in its very early alpha days: solo Peaceful mode with no mods.

I'm aware that's not how most people play Minecraft, so maybe I should be more careful to say "The pre-release version of Minecraft was basically a combination of free-range exploration and survival excitement."

Even so, I think my main point still holds: Minecraft is one of the rare games that successfully blends strong systems-exploration with sensational survival challenges without severely undercutting one of those two ways of having fun. Most games that try something similar wind up hosing their exploration play with excessively hardcore survival rules, IMO because their developers don't understand that these two ways of having fun are different and can interfere each other if they're not consciously balanced. (Short version: stop claiming Explorers will enjoy your roguelike or CoD-clone that punishes them for trying new ideas.)

Freelancer's exploration features weren't as strong as Minecraft's. So Freelancer didn't suffer as much as other games that think they're blending exploration content with exciting combat content. However, Josh is, apparently, planning on including complex systems to explore in LT far beyond Freelancer's universe. So sensation-generating tactical play (like unexpectedly being attacked) will need to be balanced carefully against thoughtful exploration play. Exploration fun shouldn't be interrupted or penalized too often, and the exciting fun of figuring out how to reply to your ship or faction being attacked shouldn't be blocked by having to fiddle with excessively complex systems. (I'm not suggesting Josh is failing in either of these things; I'm just describing the general case of insuring that knowledge-seeking fun and sensation-seeking fun are designed to support each other, not interfere with each other.)

These same arguments apply to identity-seeking fun (story, characters, relationships) versus security-seeking fun (competition, leaderboards, achievements, "winning" the game). Not only do these need to be balanced against each other, to whatever extent they appear in LT, they each need to be designed to be in balance with sensation-seeking and knowledge-seeking features and content. In the best (most memorably enjoyable) games, developers spend time in the design, implementation, and polish phases looking to reduce ways in which features aligned with each of these kinds of fun fight each other, and to create more supportive connections among these features so that the game as a whole feels coherent as a uniquely distinct play experience.

Easy to say, hard to do, of course.
Post

Re: The "Game" in LT

#18
So I spent some more time thinking on how to implement some more conventional "game" aspects into LT. I should note that these are fairly rough ideas.

It might be useful to create some "playable" cards in regards to delegation. These would be an optional shorthand that tells the AI how to prioritize their decisions in a particular situation or location, effectively grouping a number of orders into an easy to understand (for both players and NPCs) set of actions.

Action Cards
Action Cards are basically a "playable" function that groups orders and gives them priority weights. They consolidate the many possible orders/stances/reactions/etc. into a few dozen easy to understand "cards".
Examples:
"Patrol"
  • Travel between systems [X],[Y],[Z]
  • When Encounter Hostiles, Strength <= [.7] self(squadron), engage [always]
  • When Encounter Hostiles, Strength [1.2] >= X <= [.7] self, engage [if weak friendlies nearby]
  • When Encounter Hostiles, Strength [1.2] self, engage [never, send for backup]
  • Alert Local Command [always]
  • Alert High Command [if strength >= [20] self]
"Trade"
  • Travel between systems [X],[Y],[Z]
  • When Encounter Hostiles, Strength <= [.7] self, engage [defensively]
  • When Encounter Hostiles, Strength [2] >= X <= [.7] self, engage[Avoid]
  • When Encounter Hostiles, Strength [5] >= self, engage[Avoid, Drop cargo unless Critical]
  • Trade commodities [X],>[Y],>[Z], Sell @ [.95] market average, Buy @ [1.2] Market average max, max [300] credits/unit
  • [!y!/n] Buy Opportunistically all goods with known values >= [1.2] local market avg compared to other markets on route
Administration Tiles
Similar to Action Cards, these would be territory/spatially specific cards that give an AI or player a quick way of defining how their subordinates should treat a certain zone/system/sector. For example placing a "Maximize production of [X],[Y],[Z]" tile in one system, while playing a "[Offensive/Defensive]Battlefront" tile in another, tells the subordinates roughly how to treat a given space, whether to focus on mining every last rock, or to guard the wormholes and organize defensive/offensive fleet layouts.


Creating a few dozen pre-defined cards would, I imagine, go a long way in getting AI to understand more complex orders and develop long term planning, as well as giving players an easy way to implement a somewhat complex set of instructions in a simple and familiar way. Of course, as these are just groupings of normally independent orders, they don't limit the ability for more free form play. And perhaps even present players to create and even share their own custom Action Cards and Administration Tiles.



Another thought on creating a more traditional "game" mechanic in LT is environmental periodicity. Meaning that there are predictable cycles of events in some places... what that means specifically, is open to exploration.
Image
When you're trying to fill an infinite multiverse, if you're not willing to consider the entire creative output of humanity as a starting point, you're wasting your time.
User: JoshParnell is accountable for this user's actions.
Post

Re: The "Game" in LT

#19
Hyperion wrote: Creating a few dozen pre-defined cards would, I imagine, go a long way in getting AI to understand more complex orders and develop long term planning, as well as giving players an easy way to implement a somewhat complex set of instructions in a simple and familiar way. Of course, as these are just groupings of normally independent orders, they don't limit the ability for more free form play. And perhaps even present players to create and even share their own custom Action Cards and Administration Tiles.


Another thought on creating a more traditional "game" mechanic in LT is environmental periodicity. Meaning that there are predictable cycles of events in some places... what that means specifically, is open to exploration.
So you basically want an easy way to setup tasks using predefined cards? Would you be able to set the cards for entire groups of ships and individual ships as well (scouts come to mind)? Does this conflict with the notion that NPC's are equivalent to the player or are we assuming that these are just generic orders which are applied to a object which can be assigned to particular ships?

I'm fine with predictable cycles so long as they occur naturally and fit within the LT universe.
Image
Post

Re: The "Game" in LT

#20
Yes, essentially you're taking a group of discrete tasks and grouping them into an "Action Card". These are general tasks which could be given to any NPC or the player individually, there's nothing inherently special or different about them than issuing all the component tasks manually, this is just a way to do it in a simpler, more concise form. And yes, I would say that these action cards would be applicable to any subordinate asset or group of assets from single ship to entire sector.

With these "Action cards and "Administration Tiles" different tasks are also given different priorities while the card/tile is in play. This allows for more intelligent AI planning and delegation, given that the player can tailor their cards in play to their long term goals, and NPC's can issue cards that maximize their various priorities. And of course a player could create their own cards, or tweak the pre-defined ones. This would then allow the AI to use all new cards.

A player or NPC can have many action/administration cards in play at once, depending on the scale of their operations. If implemented through it's own interface, this could serve as a sort of "Master Plan", where you could see what cards and tiles you have in play, get regular status reports, drill down and see what's working and what's not, alter orders within an action card if you deem necessary...or not, you could just play some pre-defined cards and let it be.

Part of my thinking behind this is that it also empowers espionage, you can find out what "cards" your competition/enemy is "playing"
Image
When you're trying to fill an infinite multiverse, if you're not willing to consider the entire creative output of humanity as a starting point, you're wasting your time.
User: JoshParnell is accountable for this user's actions.
Post

Re: The "Game" in LT

#21
Okay, most of that makes sense. If the player can also develop their own custom cards from the "deck" that would be very neat as well. I'm thinking of a process where certain commands could be moved around so that a new card could be made for a specific task.

I think I'd treat the card system more like in game modding and less like something that could be stolen. However, I do see that there would be risks to depending too much on particular cards as their may be ways to exploit the AI which the player wasn't aware of. This could also be a fun way to teach people how to mod LT using LUA code.
Image
Post

Re: The "Game" in LT

#22
Why would "attach orders to spatial/logical volumes" be anything like modding?

Its pretty much exactly like the gambit systems in final fantasy or dragon age (or any number of RPGs)

why would you need LUA for using it?
Why would you force players to interact with it through LUA? (Because thats what i read out of your statement)

Also, why not be able to gain knowledge about the area orders the AI assigns?
Getting to know their behaviour rules for different situations (that arent the general AI behaviour) is a valuable intelligence asset
Post

Re: The "Game" in LT

#23
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
Tue Jul 25, 2017 7:50 am
Why would "attach orders to spatial/logical volumes" be anything like modding?

Its pretty much exactly like the gambit systems in final fantasy or dragon age (or any number of RPGs)

why would you need LUA for using it?
Why would you force players to interact with it through LUA? (Because thats what i read out of your statement)

Also, why not be able to gain knowledge about the area orders the AI assigns?
Getting to know their behaviour rules for different situations (that arent the general AI behaviour) is a valuable intelligence asset
Why are you questioning my idea? Do you dislike it that much?

It's an opportunity to teach people how to code within LT. There's no reason why it "has to be done that way", it's simply an idea. For me learning is easiest when the task is enjoyable. I think having the option to program AI logic in LT would give the players insight into how modding works and it does it in such a way that it can be easily discarded if it doesn't work as intended.

Hyperion brought up the idea of "cards" and "decks" which is what I'm expanding off of. I don't know how you read into my previous post as me stating that the player should be forced into doing anything. I rarely if ever suggest that the player should be forced to adhere to a feature I suggest.

Sure, let the player gain knowledge about the areas the orders are being assigned to. Why do you think this would be restricted?
Image
Post

Re: The "Game" in LT

#24
As another note, I've been thinking whether the "cards" metaphor Hyperion's using is basically functionally equivalent to the "project template."

I'm imagining the "project" as the core concept for all NPC AI. Some particular features might actually be implemented using unique code systems -- a 3D, field-aware variant of A* for pathfinding, perhaps -- but conceptually it feels satisfying to me to think of every namable decision-making operation for NPCs as a "project."

The nice thing about this approach is that it offers a simple but powerful way to address what I believe will be the single most important (i.e., fun) aspect of NPC AI in LT: delegation. And that's done by saying that a Project is composed of Tasks (atomic actions performed by activating a game verb) and Goals (a detectable game-state condition). (There'll also need to be a way to specify resource inputs and outputs, and probably a simple way to specify conditionals, but those aren't what's important to this conversation.)

Following this structure, the AI for NPCs in LT is defined as "whatever allows an NPC to decide how to satisfy the Goal(s) of a Project."

And one of those tools is delegation, which will be the AI system with which an NPC 1) breaks down a Goal into smaller Goals and/or Tasks, and 2) assigns all of those decomposed Goals and/or Tasks to some or all of the NPCs under this NPC's direct factional management. Note that any delegated work more complex than a single Task can be treated as a Project, which itself can be decomposed or delegated. (Note also that the NPC itself counts as "managed" for the purposes of delegation -- a solo NPC will break down a Project's Goals until they're all atomic-level Tasks, and assign all of those Tasks to itself.)

As each Task is completed, its result is rolled up to the owner of the Project that included that Task or the Goal from which that Task was delegated. Eventually the satisfaction conditions of the Goal of the top-level Project are either satisfied, in which case the output resources are awarded, or the Goal's satisfaction conditions are failed or flagged as unsatisfiable, in which case any penalties associated with the failure of the Project's Goal are imposed.

I think this captures most of the capabilities of the Card/Tile metaphor, with the important distinction that the Project notion is explicitly defined as recursive to support the delegation effect. It also handles the idea of pre-defined cards as Project "templates." Make Money By Mining, Make Money By Market-Trading, Patrol Within X LTDistances Of Station Z, Defend Allied Ships, Fly Efficiently From Current Position to Target Position, Disable Target Vessel, Lead Squadron To Destroy Large Target Vessel, Hire HPC For Faction, Gain Factional Control of Star System X, Balance Factional Expansion and Defense -- all of these and many more could be defined as templates.

Heck, that's something we out here could help do without even having LT to play with yet. :D

And as a special bonus, discussion of "What gameplay verbs should be implemented and treated as atomic Tasks?" also starts to provide fodder for the conversation I still haven't gotten to on "What kinds of features does a game like LT need in order to satisfy the playstyle interests of its likely players?" :oops:

Does any of this seem tolerable, or maybe useful?
Post

Re: The "Game" in LT

#25
"Limit Theory, Making Project Management Fun since 201TBA"

Honestly Flat, I really like that idea, it fits more with what I envision LT being like than a "deck" of "cards".

Jumping off from your idea, here's an idea for a Project Management Interface

In an interface is a list of "Projects". There are predefined templates and template categories for common things like mining, patrols, frontlines, trade routes, construction, etc. but also an ability to make custom projects either from the template or even entirely user defined with a check to make sure the project is coherent.

Projects can connect to other projects for Macro-projects and Sub-projects, meaning you can connect a new mining project to your overall sector project and have it auto-fulfill the demands of the sector project in ways you defined. You can also copy projects, so you can set up identical or similar mining projects for different materials or different locations.

You can also then drill into a project and review details about it's history, profitability, kills, what equipment is being used (and then the ability to upgrade any and all equipment) and so on.

Here's a visual example to give a clearer picture

Image
Image
When you're trying to fill an infinite multiverse, if you're not willing to consider the entire creative output of humanity as a starting point, you're wasting your time.
User: JoshParnell is accountable for this user's actions.
Post

Re: The "Game" in LT

#26
Hyperion wrote:
Wed Jul 26, 2017 8:50 am
"Limit Theory, Making Project Management Fun since 201TBA"

Honestly Flat, I really like that idea, it fits more with what I envision LT being like than a "deck" of "cards".

Jumping off from your idea, here's an idea for a Project Management Interface

In an interface is a list of "Projects". There are predefined templates and template categories for common things like mining, patrols, frontlines, trade routes, construction, etc. but also an ability to make custom projects either from the template or even entirely user defined with a check to make sure the project is coherent.

Projects can connect to other projects for Macro-projects and Sub-projects, meaning you can connect a new mining project to your overall sector project and have it auto-fulfill the demands of the sector project in ways you defined. You can also copy projects, so you can set up identical or similar mining projects for different materials or different locations.

You can also then drill into a project and review details about it's history, profitability, kills, what equipment is being used (and then the ability to upgrade any and all equipment) and so on.

Here's a visual example to give a clearer picture

Image
Yep, this is pretty much what I was envisioning as well.
Image
Post

Re: The "Game" in LT

#27
There just is nothing like a good visual mockup to convey an idea, is there? Nice work, Hyperion. I think that's on the right track toward a project builder.

I didn't get a chance to reply when I saw that earlier today, but it did give me time to think. One of the things I thunked was that maybe there really are two key interfaces needed, and they don't necessarily have to be different conformations of the same visual system: 1) the New Project Editor, and 2) the Project Management Display.

What you've shown seems like a cut at a New Project Editor. That makes sense; that's what we were talking about.

But it seems to me that, as we're doing things in the game ourselves (rather than creating projects for NPCs), we'll want a visual representation of the projects that are active for our character and for our current role in the faction(s) to which we belong. With so many different kinds of things to be able to do, both at any moment and over time, I'm thinking players will absolutely have to have a screen that's dedicated to managing all active projects associated with their character.

The default view would show all current projects and their general status. If possible, it would also show their hierarchy (if JoshCo implement the "nested projects" notion). We should be able to filter on:

  • all Projects/Tasks/sub-projects assigned to our character personally
  • all Projects/Tasks/sub-projects assigned to any faction for which our character is the top-level leader
  • all Projects/Tasks/sub-projects assigned to our character's subordinate role in a faction and all sub-roles managed (see below)
  • Project category
  • Project status
  • Other Very Obvious Thing I Failed To Think Of

(The question occurs to me: should Projects and Tasks be assignable to characters only? Or should roles in a faction -- other than the CEO role -- exist independently of whether a character currently fills that role, and managers can assign Projects and Tasks to a role as well as to individual characters?)

From the base Project Management screen, it should be possible to click on an individual project to drill down into it to see its details, in particular the satisfaction conditions and their specific statuses. Finally, each (sub-)Project and Task assigned to an NPC should also show that NPC's name (and maybe location? and current activity?), and allow clicking on that NPC's name to see specific details of assigned Tasks and their statuses. (This last part might actually need to be part of the Faction Management interface -- wouldn't suggesting some design features for that interface make an interesting new thread? hint, hint ;) )

(Another question I just thought of: under what conditions should it be possible to change the conditions or rewards/penalties of a Project after it's been assigned? I think it's pretty clear that characters should not be able to change the terms of any Project assigned to them. It also seems obvious that the creator of a Project should not be able to change the terms of a "mission" Project after it has been accepted by a non-factional character. But are there any circumstances under which it would be OK for a Project creator to alter the terms of a project after that project has been assigned to a factionally subordinate character?)

An aside: I can imagine the eyes of some people reading this glazing over about now. "Why in the world should it be that complicated? If there's that much stuff Josh has to worry about, maybe just don't include this feature?" I think I'd reply by saying that this is part of what implementing gameplay looks like. (The other part is fighting with the chosen programming language to make it do what you want.) Until you start breaking down a game idea ("projects!") into functional activities and interface affordances for controlling those activities and receiving feedback information about them, you don't realize just how much goes into actually figuring out, writing, testing, and rewriting the code behind a game... and we've barely scratched the surface here of all the "guts" that have to be created to turn a simple feature concept into working code. Oh, and that feature has to remain fun to click on 10,000 times. And it has to be fun in combination with all the other features of the game. No pressure.

One last thing: if I'm being honest, when I imagine what I'd hope the base Project Management screen would look like, something like this is what I see:

Image

Oh, and one more thing: it's a shame ThymineC couldn't be here for this. He'd have enjoyed this discussion, I think.
Post

Re: The "Game" in LT

#28
Looking over the suggested project interface, I would say that that is fairly intimidating for anyone not familiar with it. I think it's important to have fine control over individual projects and have an interface such as that available, but the card idea is a much better introductory game mechanic. The idea I'm thinking of here is that by default applying a card to an area creates a project in that zone and assigns it's inputs, processes and outputs based on the card you've put on that area. If you come back later you can modify either the card or the project itself. That way if you want super fine detail you can modify an individual project using a suitably involved interface, but if you want a simpler approach you can just use cards. I think what this comes down to is player motivations as mentioned earlier. Some players will be uninterested in managing projects, and so it would be nice to provide a simpler way to interact with projects that doesn't require a lot of learning in order to know how to use it.
A life well lived only happens once.
Seems deep until you think about it.
Post

Re: The "Game" in LT

#29
vector67 wrote:
Thu Jul 27, 2017 11:17 am
Looking over the suggested project interface, I would say that that is fairly intimidating for anyone not familiar with it. I think it's important to have fine control over individual projects and have an interface such as that available, but the card idea is a much better introductory game mechanic. The idea I'm thinking of here is that by default applying a card to an area creates a project in that zone and assigns it's inputs, processes and outputs based on the card you've put on that area. If you come back later you can modify either the card or the project itself. That way if you want super fine detail you can modify an individual project using a suitably involved interface, but if you want a simpler approach you can just use cards. I think what this comes down to is player motivations as mentioned earlier. Some players will be uninterested in managing projects, and so it would be nice to provide a simpler way to interact with projects that doesn't require a lot of learning in order to know how to use it.
Frankly, I agree. The project creation interface i showed should be a sort of middle ground interface. Which actually brings up an interesting idea i had as typing that sentence :p

There should be several levels of complexity and detail, perhaps a top level of "Cards" several dozen being pre-defined but also the ability to add your own from the lower levels. These are pretty simple and you just place a card on an asset or subordinate and it uses the pre-defined defaults. And you can also drag a card-asset/subordinate pairing into another project to connect them.

Behind the Card interface is a box and description layer like what i showed, it shows all current projects with their defined settings, where you can tweak them and get into more detail about the specifics, as well as create new ones either from card templates, or custom ones.

Behind That is a nitty gritty details interface which shows all the various tasks that can be assigned, the various dependencies and ability to connect them to different projects, organize them in custom hierarchies, each level having it's own details. so you could theoretically implement a whole sector-scale project with all the nitty gritty details on mining, infrastructure, defense, and whatnot all in a single project that you can execute at once, and basically order the full construction and expansion into a new region with just a few clicks.

Each level would be for more and more advanced players, but the front "cards" would just be a pre-defined selection from the stuff available in the interfaces behind it.

This would give simplicity on the surface, but extreme depth for those who want to micromanage.

Flatfingers wrote:
Thu Jul 27, 2017 12:43 am
One of the things I thunked was that maybe there really are two key interfaces needed, and they don't necessarily have to be different conformations of the same visual system: 1) the New Project Editor, and 2) the Project Management Display.

What you've shown seems like a cut at a New Project Editor. That makes sense; that's what we were talking about.

But it seems to me that, as we're doing things in the game ourselves (rather than creating projects for NPCs), we'll want a visual representation of the projects that are active for our character and for our current role in the faction(s) to which we belong. With so many different kinds of things to be able to do, both at any moment and over time, I'm thinking players will absolutely have to have a screen that's dedicated to managing all active projects associated with their character.

The default view would show all current projects and their general status. If possible, it would also show their hierarchy (if JoshCo implement the "nested projects" notion). We should be able to filter on:

  • all Projects/Tasks/sub-projects assigned to our character personally
  • all Projects/Tasks/sub-projects assigned to any faction for which our character is the top-level leader
  • all Projects/Tasks/sub-projects assigned to our character's subordinate role in a faction and all sub-roles managed (see below)
  • Project category
  • Project status
  • Other Very Obvious Thing I Failed To Think Of

(The question occurs to me: should Projects and Tasks be assignable to characters only? Or should roles in a faction -- other than the CEO role -- exist independently of whether a character currently fills that role, and managers can assign Projects and Tasks to a role as well as to individual characters?)

From the base Project Management screen, it should be possible to click on an individual project to drill down into it to see its details, in particular the satisfaction conditions and their specific statuses. Finally, each (sub-)Project and Task assigned to an NPC should also show that NPC's name (and maybe location? and current activity?), and allow clicking on that NPC's name to see specific details of assigned Tasks and their statuses. (This last part might actually need to be part of the Faction Management interface -- wouldn't suggesting some design features for that interface make an interesting new thread? hint, hint ;) )
Hmm, a project editor & project management, good idea. I agree with your filters, but i would also add a Map function to see where different projects are.. The map of projects having some quick info and more detailed, clickable, hover text. There should be filters for firepower, income, recent hostilities and combat, togglable alerts for different satisfactions and statuses.
The map should also show the delegation of who is controlling what projects at different levels... to see a sort of territory makeup within your territory of the higher ranking members and sub-factions... and a direct way to communicate with those npcs from the map.

Yes, i think there roles and projects should be independent of those filling it, except in the case where your subordinates created their own projects... because that would probably happen too, no?

Drilling into the details should definitely show some stats, such as the history of different aspects in both spreadsheet & graph forms, show who attacked you, when, and where from, and with what strength.
It should tell you how much is being freelanced, how much is done by controlled assets, and so on.

In regards to changing the conditions of a project, yes, i think that should be doable at any time. contracts which have already been outsourced are locked though, a contract is a contract, and for outside work, it should be a "going forward" sort of policy, while with owned assets, the changes are immediate.

And flat, that image of the nodal data editor, yes, yes, yes, and more yes. if we can get anything that looks like that, it will be amazing
Image
When you're trying to fill an infinite multiverse, if you're not willing to consider the entire creative output of humanity as a starting point, you're wasting your time.
User: JoshParnell is accountable for this user's actions.
Post

Re: The "Game" in LT

#30
i'd personally keep the area cards independent from the project mechanics.


projects have explicitly assigned assets and a goal.
you assign resources to them and give them something to do and the AI uses the resources to archieve the goal.


an area command (card) doesnt have explicitly associated assets or resources or even a dedicated end goal.
they are (sets of) orders that apply to all ships in the volume the cards are designated to.
it doesnt matter to which project the ship belongs or if it belongs to any project at all.

a "stay the fork out of there" card applies to everyone in your fleet
(or a "buy x if you find it below y and bring it to z" , "keep shields raised in this area", "discourage people from getting close here", "if enemy detected here notify this fleet")
basically everything thats a general order for your whole fleet (or parts of your fleet like all civilian ships, or all ships of your trade and transport division)

area commands will occasionally interfere with other orders and projects.
i think direct orders should override cards which should override projects which dont actively disagree with the card. (or maybe just a set of precedence orders, maybe per card?)
say if theres a card forbidding access to an asteroid field and a project explicitly for mining that asteroid field both the project and the card should give an error and the miners continue to mine

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron