Return to “Dev Logs”

Post

Re: Sunday, March 26, 2017

#61
JoshParnell wrote: Although in case you haven't noticed, I do have this fetish for re-inventing wheels without looking at references :ghost:
I did notice that. But I would rather put it another way: you reinvent the material and the tools the wheel is made of and with and come up with a totally different approach on how to make the wheels. And you don't start with a simple wheel made out of rock, oh no. You go directly to the sci-fi hover ball wheel that is able to turn in each axis and is held up by magnetic fields.

In case you don't know what I mean
Automation engineer, lateral thinker, soldier, addicted to music, books and gaming.
Nothing to see here
Flatfingers wrote: 23.01.2017: "Show me the smoldering corpse of Perfectionist Josh"
Post

Re: Sunday, March 26, 2017

#62
@JanB1, I play X3. One of my favorite games! Have to keep myself from using SETA! :D ..I usually just read a book while I'm waiting for the ship to get anywhere. :) Just like real life. Truck drivers take days to drive the intercontinental highways.....Or weeks for ships to cross the ocean......or around the horn. Life is about patience....IMHO. Oh...and in Avorion...many of the large ships putter about @30-50 m/s...I can keep my speed under 60 m/s and actually get things done!

About CD...if the ships are piloted by computers...then I'd leave it OFF...If they are piloted by humans, then I'd leave it turn ON! ;)

I plan on modding the zone tech, adding zone speeds. Zones with asteroids/stations max speed of 100m/s. Zones without entities? Pedal to the metal.
Post

Re: Sunday, March 26, 2017

#63
Silverware wrote:
Should take this elsewhere, but think.
When ships are slow, its better to be well armored and shielded. Because you can't dodge.
Therefore ships get bigger to carry heavier guns and more armor. Thus get slower.

You turn it from a game around fighters, to one around massive capital-ships, where carriers are useless.

If fighters/bombers are overpowered, then capitals die off, and its Carriers + Strikecraft.
If fighters/bombers are under-powered then they die off, and its Battleships.

Its a very very fine balance.
After WW2 Fighters/Bombers got faster and deadlier, while boats didn't get much deadlier or faster. Its why we have carrier fleets now.
With the advent of railguns, over the horizon weapons, and better anti-missile defenses, we will start to have fast assault cruisers take the primary naval role, as other ships are too slow to dodge rails, or too small to use good rails.

Speed, armor/shielding, and weapon compactness dictates combat mechanics and spread of useful ship types.


Just in case you wanted to have carriers be useful :3
I would love for this to be integrated but I can see that it would be difficult to have a constant flux between really small and really fast to really big and really strong.

Making speed require a certain resource would allow a flux between factions. Would be cool to see the interplay between factions with large amounts of the resource and factions without.

Research is another option to include it, but I expect it would lead to one type being good for a small amount if time, and the other dominating the rest of the game.

Edit:
Could implement a sinusoidal system where every "basic" technology can be improved up to a point, and if you keep trying to improve that technology, you can have a eureka tech, where you get a new tech to improve upon that's equivalent to the max of the previous tier. Would have to worry about power creep though...
An idea that is not dangerous is unworthy of being called an idea at all. - Oscar Wilde

We often refuse to accept an idea merely because the tone of voice in which it has been expressed is unsympathetic to us. - Friedrich Nietzsche
Post

Re: Sunday, March 26, 2017

#64
Kekasi wrote:
Silverware wrote: I would love for this to be integrated but I can see that it would be difficult to have a constant flux between really small and really fast to really big and really strong.

Making speed require a certain resource would allow a flux between factions. Would be cool to see the interplay between factions with large amounts of the resource and factions without.

Research is another option to include it, but I expect it would lead to one type being good for a small amount if time, and the other dominating the rest of the game.
Hmm...I have played a game where there's no speed difference between small and capital ships, it's just that the small ships don't take as long to accelerate as the large ones. And the large ones have FTL drives (because the FTL drives are too large for the small ones). The game was really different to play because you would have to stop giving forward thrust to maintain a speed, or you would just continue accelerating. Sometimes there were massive ships going by at thousands of meters per second. THAT was really frakking dangerous. And you would have to constantly give a specific level of forwarding and side trust to get fly curves. There were just no inertial dampeners. It was REALLY weird to play and wrap your head around. Because in space nothing stops a capital ship from going really fast (besides possible obstacles).
Automation engineer, lateral thinker, soldier, addicted to music, books and gaming.
Nothing to see here
Flatfingers wrote: 23.01.2017: "Show me the smoldering corpse of Perfectionist Josh"
Post

Re: Sunday, March 26, 2017

#65
JanB1 wrote:
Kekasi wrote:
Silverware wrote: I would love for this to be integrated but I can see that it would be difficult to have a constant flux between really small and really fast to really big and really strong.

Making speed require a certain resource would allow a flux between factions. Would be cool to see the interplay between factions with large amounts of the resource and factions without.

Research is another option to include it, but I expect it would lead to one type being good for a small amount if time, and the other dominating the rest of the game.
Hmm...I have played a game where there's no speed difference between small and capital ships, it's just that the small ships don't take as long to accelerate as the large ones. And the large ones have FTL drives (because the FTL drives are too large for the small ones). The game was really different to play because you would have to stop giving forward thrust to maintain a speed, or you would just continue accelerating. Sometimes there were massive ships going by at thousands of meters per second. THAT was really frakking dangerous. And you would have to constantly give a specific level of forwarding and side trust to get fly curves. There were just no inertial dampeners. It was REALLY weird to play and wrap your head around. Because in space nothing stops a capital ship from going really fast (besides possible obstacles).

game?
Post

Re: Sunday, March 26, 2017

#66
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
JanB1 wrote: Hmm...I have played a game where there's no speed difference between small and capital ships, it's just that the small ships don't take as long to accelerate as the large ones. And the large ones have FTL drives (because the FTL drives are too large for the small ones). The game was really different to play because you would have to stop giving forward thrust to maintain a speed, or you would just continue accelerating. Sometimes there were massive ships going by at thousands of meters per second. THAT was really frakking dangerous. And you would have to constantly give a specific level of forwarding and side trust to get fly curves. There were just no inertial dampeners. It was REALLY weird to play and wrap your head around. Because in space nothing stops a capital ship from going really fast (besides possible obstacles).

game?
"The tomorrow war". Has a rating of 6/10 on steam. It's not that great, but it had some neat ideas. It's from 2006.
Automation engineer, lateral thinker, soldier, addicted to music, books and gaming.
Nothing to see here
Flatfingers wrote: 23.01.2017: "Show me the smoldering corpse of Perfectionist Josh"
Post

Re: Sunday, March 26, 2017

#69
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
JanB1 wrote: "The tomorrow war". Has a rating of 6/10 on steam. It's not that great, but it had some neat ideas. It's from 2006.
i should play it further than the second mission at some point then.
Yes. I quit after the second mission too. :lol:

But after a few weeks I thought "C'mon, I gotta give it another chance!". Well, it still wasn't one of the best games I played, but it was decent. :D
Automation engineer, lateral thinker, soldier, addicted to music, books and gaming.
Nothing to see here
Flatfingers wrote: 23.01.2017: "Show me the smoldering corpse of Perfectionist Josh"
Post

Re: Sunday, March 26, 2017

#70
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
RedDwarfMining wrote: How would the GTA/Skyrim/Witcher/ETC... work if they had to load their maps/entities so often/fast? What If their horses/cars/characters could travel @1800-10,000 m/s? Bet there would be one or two cases of 'pop in'...whole towns infact. :lol:

Hard to have nice things in space games...because they are going to be off screen in seconds!!

Make space games Navy based travel not a Air Force. boats not planes.

15 m/s limit on the big ships...20m/s frigates ...30m/s max all other craft. From a distance they would be barely moving...infact the universe would look frozen...nothing moving...until you get close to the entities and realize they're moving.

Collision detection hogging frame rates? Turn it off. Turn it on when a entity nears another...should take awhile!

The game Dreadnought does a pretty good job...I like that, but in deep space.

Star Citizen tried to slow down the ship speed and give the engine/server a rest...but the fanatics shouted that down.
And now scale the 10km/s to the relative scale and movement speed of the witcher and think again :P

"Absolute" movement speed means nothing.

an asteroid field with 1000 meter rock distance and 1000m/s top speed is exactly the same as a forest with 10m distance between trees and 10m/s top speed when sprinting or on horseback.
At least in terms of loading and detail density.
The forest very likely having higher density because its not just rocks in nothingness
Well...Space sims bring the hardships on themselves! Their gameplay is usually centered around a gagillion asteroids, massive planets(that gamer's want/demand to land/walk on!!), space stations everywhere.......Why can't they be set in deep space with only stars in the background? Oh and Heaven help the flight sims! :lol:
Post

Re: Sunday, March 26, 2017

#71
RedDwarfMining wrote:Well...Space sims bring the hardships on themselves! Their gameplay is usually centered around a gagillion asteroids, massive planets(that gamer's want/demand to land/walk on!!), space stations everywhere.......Why can't they be set in deep space with only stars in the background? Oh and Heaven help the flight sims! :lol:
They can.

But then you have to design gameplay that happens inside a single complex ship, so that there's something to do.

Which design has its own challenges. :D
Post

Re: Sunday, March 26, 2017

#75
Talvieno wrote:System Shock 2 took place on an enormous spaceship with no traditional space travel.
Oh. Yeah, well...lot of games played on spaceships and stations and you had no way of flying away from them. So, that was the reason I didn't really get it. :P
Automation engineer, lateral thinker, soldier, addicted to music, books and gaming.
Nothing to see here
Flatfingers wrote: 23.01.2017: "Show me the smoldering corpse of Perfectionist Josh"

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron