Return to “Suggestions”

Post

Re: Ship Roles (UI)

#31
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
Neandertal wrote:and the behavior settings will need to be hardcoded to know what to do with bombers and what with interceptors ets.
bombers:
preferred target size 300-infinite |---0---0|
ship size range to avoid 0-120 0---0----|
preferred target range 500 metres |--0----|
etc.

interceptor:
preferred target size 0-120 0---0-----|
ship size range to avoid 120-infinite |---0----0
preferred target range 200 metres |-0----|
etc


why do you insist so hard on hardcoding?
The above would work as (changeable) default behavior settings. So maybe the call for hardcoding was unneccessary :oops: .

But the game should still have some pre-defined classes with pre-defined behavior settings out of the box. Otherwise a new player is in for some heavy configuring before he can use his fleet.
Post

Re: Ship Roles (UI)

#33
If you click on an NPC and click "attack this fleet" the NPC will work out its own strategies for attack.

If you want to adjust them you can open up the node set and configure what it's doing.

If it works, you can click "save this as a behaviour set" and use it again.
Post

Re: Ship Roles (UI)

#34
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
Neandertal wrote:and the behavior settings will need to be hardcoded to know what to do with bombers and what with interceptors ets.
bombers:
preferred target size 300-infinite |---0---0|
ship size range to avoid 0-120 0---0----|
preferred target range 500 metres |--0----|
etc.

interceptor:
preferred target size 0-120 0---0-----|
ship size range to avoid 120-infinite |---0----0
preferred target range 200 metres |-0----|
etc


why do you insist so hard on hardcoding?
That would work for Bomber. What about Stealth? And I don't want to set all these options for every ship type I build. I want a set of pre-defined(hardcoded) options to choose from.
Post

Re: Ship Roles (UI)

#35
Neandertal wrote: What about Stealth?
signature reduction measurements strong |-----0|
[governs how agressive the ship tries to minimise its sensor signature by running the reactor on low settings or hides near massive objects]
Neandertal wrote: And I don't want to set all these options for every ship type I build.
you just copy or inherit them.
you wont create completely new settings for every ship you equip.
Post

Re: Ship Roles (UI)

#36
I think there's a little semantics disparity going on. 'Hard-coded' implies the settings are locked and can't be changed. Pre-defined is definitely better term. In any case, there's no reason ships can't have pre-defined behavior settings, while still allowing those settings to be programmable. Presumably the game will be able to infer an appropriate set of behaviors based on a ships attributes and equipment (after all, the AI has to be able to do this).
Post

Re: Ship Roles (UI)

#37
i think an approach like
Spoiler:      SHOW
Gazz wrote:
Cornflakes_91 wrote:I think your hierarchy is too deep before you give the first command, it should be faster to give an attack order.
Cornflakes_91 wrote:The intent behind this UI discussed here is that it is agnostic to the amount of ships you have.
This.

I imagine the role-based well... organisation to be an alternate plane of existence.
There are all those ships, squads, fleets, wings, and whatnot with lots of connections on the whiteboard.
Now you wipe away all the connections, leaving only ships.
Then you draw the role "connections" for the ships.


Taken to extremes and with ships having multiple role "tags", you would not need a dedicated organisation into wings and fleets!
You can have a whole cartload of features and structures... with only one system!


Fighter_413 has the roles: Interceptor + Blue Wing.
Fighter_285 has the roles: Interceptor + Red Wing.
Corvette_35 has the roles: Escort + Blue Wing.

See where this is going?
Send a command to "Blue Wing" and Fighter_413 + Corvette_35 get it.
Send a command to "Interceptor" and Fighter_413 + Fighter_285 get it.

Command Blue Wing to follow / dock at Carrier_18 and you have stationed these ships on the carrier, from which they will launch as necessary.

The order is the structure.


Now if every ship remembers it's last homebase, you get a rather dynamic fleet structure.

Order your "Interceptors" to follow Carrier_18 and they immediately become part of this carrier's complement. (and may split to carriers following Carrier_18)
Order those interceptors to attack something, then RTB, they return to their last homebase... Carrier_18's group.

could be used for effectively sorting fleets, but with a difference to what gazz described.

Tags dont exist on the same level like gazz suggested but they create a "folder structure"

so multiple tag groups with #squadron 1 could be used, but in different fleets / aboard different carriers

so the whole tag would be for example
#fleet 1 #carrier group 1 #carrier 1 #squadron 1

so this would be the first squadron of the first carrier in the.... (you know)


this could create semi-automatic scoping of commands

so you can make yourself part of #sqadron 1 and any quick commands (like "help me" or "retreat") only affect squadron 1, and not the whole fleet or even every #squadron 1 instance in your posessions...

this would work with any size of ship arrangement, so if you command #carrier group 1 every quick command affects the whole hierarchy below.


we could also expand this to multiple tag fields (in my mind 3)

one for allocating the organisational structure
his is for allocating resources and reinforcements

one for defining home bases
a fighter might be under command of a C4 ship but has the carrier of the group as home base

and one for defining default position in the greater formation
so a fighter might default to enter formation with one of the escorts of his carrier


so the whole tag structure could be (for a single fighter)
#fleet 1 #carrier group 1 #carrier 1 #squadron 1
#fleet 1 #command ship
#fleet 1 #carrier group 1 #escort 1


this is pretty complex, but also very powerful and easily readable in my opinion
Post

Re: Ship Roles (UI)

#39
Gazz wrote:Why do these tags not exist?
I cant answer that, you'd have to ask josh :P

As an afterthought:

The 3rd tag could actually be used for any "standing order" on the ship, for a fighter it might be
#fleet 1 #carrier group 1 #escort 1 #defend

And for a mining ship it could be
#arztlotlotl cluster #anomine system #anomine 3 asteroid belt

(Or even for pipelines
#pipelines #randomium 2)
Last edited by DWMagus on Mon Sep 22, 2014 10:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Double post
Post

Re: Ship Roles (UI)

#40
Interesting ideas all around, and I do like the idea of a role + gambit system, but just one question as to player parity, how does the AI general create roles and set up gambits? Perhaps they don't need to, but were such a system adopted, the AI should not be disadvantaged.
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.

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron