Return to “Dev Logs”

Post

Re: [Lindsey] Friday, October 27, 2017

#92
LindseyReid wrote:
Mon Oct 30, 2017 9:55 am
the size, tech advancement, and personality of each faction will inform how their ships and stations look, which will be a big part of our strategy for combating the ship aesthetic being 'too' random.
I'd particularly like to know more about that "factional personality" aspect of procedurally generating ships/stations.

Obviously there's a ways to go yet, but this plays into a couple of thoughts:

1. Factional constructions (ships, stations, drones?, planetary cityscapes seen when landed on a planet if that's still a planned feature?) need to satisfy at multiple levels:

  • Assembly: core construction rules for joints, seams, welds, blending
  • Functional: visible components indicate in-game function (moving, shooting, storing, docking, etc.)
  • General aesthetics: constructions look nice as art -- composition, color, coherence
  • Game "feel": constructions fit factional personality as a unique selling point for Limit Theory

For that last requirement, how does a faction's personality affect the appearance of the kinds of structures it builds?

In other words, what are the components of factional "personality," and what are the rules by which those components apply to how pieces of constructions are put together procedurally to give those objects distinctive and personality-plausible visible forms?

2. What is the general concept by which factional personality is reflected coherently in the game world in all possible ways, of which ship/station appearance is just one?

In other words, I'm imagining that a faction's "personality" vector will be expressed in multiple ways, but those ways should be connected to and support each other.

For example, a faction's personality should (we're suggesting) guide (within some randomness) the appearance of the ships it builds. But that faction's personality should, with some variation for individual pilots, also visibly guide its dynamic behaviors in the world: how it fights in small encounters, its fleet tactics, its trading behaviors, its tolerance for interactions with non-factional individuals, its desire for expansion versus resource protection, and so on. And each of these expressions of personality should consistently support the others: a highly aggressive and disciplined faction might favor tightly coordinated and well-planned tactics, and the appearance of their ships should reflect and support these behaviors.

This is why I wonder about having a general concept for how factional personality will be realized in the game world. Even if it's not realistic (every object built by members of Western Civilization doesn't share a single clear visual design ethos), being able to recognize factions from the appearance and behaviors of their artifacts is a useful and enjoyable gameplay feature.

Having a generalized system for how factional personality is applied to the creation of factional artifacts -- including the procedurally generated appearance of ships and stations -- helps to deliver that utility and fun.
Post

Re: [Lindsey] Friday, October 27, 2017

#93
Flatfingers wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 3:06 pm
1. Factional constructions (ships, stations, drones?, planetary cityscapes seen when landed on a planet if that's still a planned feature?) need to satisfy at multiple levels:
...
2. What is the general concept by which factional personality is reflected coherently in the game world in all possible ways, of which ship/station appearance is just one?
This is a super detailed question with lots of cool, detailed ideas in it. I want to answer it at length right now, but instead, I'm going to leave all of those details for later devlogs when the details are actually being hammered out for real in the code. I've talked a little bit generally about how faction personality will affect appearance, but it won't be as interesting (or practical) to give details about how we want that to play out until I have real, in-engine visuals for how they work. I'd say the same probably goes for how faction personality bleeds into gameplay aspects, although that's more up to Josh. We've got plans for how all of this will work, but there's also large amounts of room for iteration on how we'll actually execute it, as we have to balance what's interesting or possible in our imaginations with what's actually fun and executable in a reasonable amount of time.

So, in summary, I'd rather not give details of these plans until they've been executed in code, as those plans are subject to change.

This is not meant to deter you from posting cool-ass ideas like these. I love y'alls imaginations & inspiration! I just can't always confirm or deny every detail until we actually start hammering out those systems in code.
"You’ve got to work on something dangerous. You have to work on something that makes you uncertain. Something that makes you doubt yourself... because it stimulates you to do things you haven’t done before. The whole thing is if you know where you’re going, you’ve gone, as the poet says. And that’s death."
- Stephen Sondheim
Post

Re: [Lindsey] Friday, October 27, 2017

#94
I understand completely, Lindsey. I'm not trying to get you to talk about something you're not ready to discuss.

I usually ask questions not in a "There is a correct answer and I demand that someone state it for me right now" way (even if that's how people sometimes take it), but more as, "Hey, here's something interesting that's worth thinking about now so that there are some ideas about it ready when the time comes to work on it." Or maybe having a conversation about some future feature will spark a good idea for some other feature in work now.

Of course, if you'd like to share some general thoughts on one of these grand ideas, well, I expect we could run with that. :D

But unless I clearly request some specific information -- and preface the question with your name or Josh's or Adam's -- then it's just mostly just a conversation-starter.

Details on NPC/factional personality stuff when or if you feel like it. Thanks!

Meanwhile, we can always speculate wildly. ;)
Post

Re: [Lindsey] Friday, October 27, 2017

#95
Flatfingers wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 10:41 pm
I understand completely, Lindsey. I'm not trying to get you to talk about something you're not ready to discuss.

I usually ask questions not in a "There is a correct answer and I demand that someone state it for me right now" way (even if that's how people sometimes take it), but more as, "Hey, here's something interesting that's worth thinking about now so that there are some ideas about it ready when the time comes to work on it." Or maybe having a conversation about some future feature will spark a good idea for some other feature in work now.

Of course, if you'd like to share some general thoughts on one of these grand ideas, well, I expect we could run with that. :D

But unless I clearly request some specific information -- and preface the question with your name or Josh's or Adam's -- then it's just mostly just a conversation-starter.

Details on NPC/factional personality stuff when or if you feel like it. Thanks!

Meanwhile, we can always speculate wildly. ;)
Got it, thank you for the clarification. I'm still new to talking to the community from a developer perspective, so I appreciate the feedback.

Yes, speculate away!
"You’ve got to work on something dangerous. You have to work on something that makes you uncertain. Something that makes you doubt yourself... because it stimulates you to do things you haven’t done before. The whole thing is if you know where you’re going, you’ve gone, as the poet says. And that’s death."
- Stephen Sondheim

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron