Page 14 of 15

Re: Small things that would be nice to have

Posted: Mon May 22, 2017 11:46 pm
by JanB1
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
Silverware wrote: Including volume into the equation. Not something that is easily achieved.

Will depend upon the speed of the shots if that is an issue or not.
well, one could map the lead points for all (very highly LOD'd) vertices and then render their connecting polygons as the total targetting area.
would provide the "full" set of targettable area, although overdefined.


as an addition we could also mark subsystems on the aimmap and trivialise aiming at subsystems with that.
you dont have to select the turret, you just aim at it on the mapping.
Phew. That will be a lot of work to implement such a thing. And to be honest, I don't need something like this. Mostly, the battle goes really fast, and the small circle is enough. And if the ship is large enough, it is slower and you have time to target individual parts of the ship anyways.

Re: Small things that would be nice to have

Posted: Tue May 23, 2017 2:55 am
by Cornflakes_91
Hence why "if feasible" and why it is in the "nice to have" thread :monkey:

Re: Small things that would be nice to have

Posted: Tue May 23, 2017 4:13 am
by JanB1
Cornflakes_91 wrote:Hence why "if feasible" and why it is in the "nice to have" thread :monkey:
Okay, I'll give you that one. :roll:

Re: Small things that would be nice to have

Posted: Sun Jun 04, 2017 9:53 am
by Cornflakes_91
In ships with many turrets an interface to assign individual turrets independent aim points could be useful.

say you sit in your artillery battleship and want to snipe a couple of turrets off another ship or just a couple of ships in general.
You set up their target selections (ships or points on those ships) and open fire when all is allocated.
This wouldnt work well in fast situations but in slower situations with low angular velocity (aka the target doesnt rotate much relative to you) it could have some niches.
It could also be extended to whole fleet settings "squadron A takes on this cruiser, B that other one and C gets the shield gen of that carrier"


But the actual inspiration came from gazz' ancient Headlights thread.
Especially the section about working lights during mining:
Gazz wrote:Different colours of light highlight different ore areas on an asteroid, letting you target distinct ores while accepting more loss on others.

The red light shows you X, the green light Y.
Fire up both and you get yellow light, which shows you Z.

This way you can use "weapons" (searchlights mounted in hardpoints) to enhance the mining mini game... without an additional interface.
an universal multiple-aimpoint interface could becused to position lamps and mining beams on multiple independent sections without having to resort to roundabout fighting-the-turret-ai scenarios or having to make do with single beams


Just rambling

Re: Small things that would be nice to have

Posted: Sat Jun 17, 2017 1:28 pm
by JanB1
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
Sun Jun 04, 2017 9:53 am
In ships with many turrets an interface to assign individual turrets independent aim points could be useful.

say you sit in your artillery battleship and want to snipe a couple of turrets off another ship or just a couple of ships in general.
You set up their target selections (ships or points on those ships) and open fire when all is allocated.
This wouldnt work well in fast situations but in slower situations with low angular velocity (aka the target doesnt rotate much relative to you) it could have some niches.
It could also be extended to whole fleet settings "squadron A takes on this cruiser, B that other one and C gets the shield gen of that carrier"
Yeah, I like this idea. I always loved to shoot down different systems on the ships in FreeSpace. :D

Re: Small things that would be nice to have

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 12:40 pm
by Cornflakes_91
I'd really really really really like that people actually react to (fresh) wrecks.

because often npcs just ignore the big slaughterfield you just created and act like nothing happened (or just always flee without trying to help the fallen/wounded).

NPCs not reacting to obvious things like fresh corpses/wrecks always breaks my immersion

Re: Small things that would be nice to have

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 1:07 pm
by Hyperion
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
Sat Jul 08, 2017 12:40 pm
I'd really really really really like that people actually react to (fresh) wrecks.

because often npcs just ignore the big slaughterfield you just created and act like nothing happened (or just always flee without trying to help the fallen/wounded).

NPCs not reacting to obvious things like fresh corpses/wrecks always breaks my immersion
Image

Yes please! ;)

Re: Small things that would be nice to have

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 1:42 pm
by Cornflakes_91
doesnt have to be salvagers and bottomfeeders, tho :P

Just people flying around and looking (for survivors) and visibly acknowledging the existence of the wreckage.

Re: Small things that would be nice to have

Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2017 1:04 am
by Flatfingers
This obliviousness was one of the few problems I had with Star Wars Galaxies.

Players with stupidly overpowered Jedi characters would enter an Imperial-controlled town and proceed to carpet the ground with stormtrooper corpses... and five minutes later, NPCs would stroll through the carnage as though it were just another pleasant day.

On the other side of this environmental awareness coin, I absolutely loved how NPCs in the first Witcher game would run for cover when it started to rain. It was a small thing, but remarkably immersive.

So here are some constructive questions regarding this kind of awareness in LT:

  • Should NPCs in different roles behave differently? (small combat ships, big combat ships, miners, traders, civilians)
  • What behaviors should NPCs express when they encounter a fresh battle site?
  • How close should an NPC ship be to a battle site to trigger this behavior?
  • How big does a battle site have to be? One wreck? Five? Twenty? More?
  • For how long after wrecks are created should reactions be triggered?
  • (Bonus question: how are wrecks removed from existence? They don't last forever, do they?)

All this assumes that when a ship gets blowed up real good (once the human player starts a game of LT), a wreck is created. Is that confirmed?

Again, please note that these questions are not criticisms of the idea that NPCs should be able to perceive fights during and after they occur. I support that idea. I really am just curious about how people believe this idea might be implemented practically.

Re: Small things that would be nice to have

Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2017 11:00 am
by BFett
Flatfingers wrote:
Sun Jul 09, 2017 1:04 am
So here are some constructive questions regarding this kind of awareness in LT:

  1. Should NPCs in different roles behave differently? (small combat ships, big combat ships, miners, traders, civilians)
  2. What behaviors should NPCs express when they encounter a fresh battle site?
  3. How close should an NPC ship be to a battle site to trigger this behavior?
  4. How big does a battle site have to be? One wreck? Five? Twenty? More?
  5. For how long after wrecks are created should reactions be triggered?
  6. (Bonus question: how are wrecks removed from existence? They don't last forever, do they?)

All this assumes that when a ship gets blowed up real good (once the human player starts a game of LT), a wreck is created. Is that confirmed?

Again, please note that these questions are not criticisms of the idea that NPCs should be able to perceive fights during and after they occur. I support that idea. I really am just curious about how people believe this idea might be implemented practically.
These are really good questions Flat. Here are my guesses on them.

1. Yes, the fewer the weapons a ship has on it to defend itself the more likely it should be to flee upon seeing signs of combat.
2. This depends on the kind of NPC that finds the site, the type(s) of wrecks destroyed, and the equipment on the NPC ship. I imagine that an NPC may ignore, explore, or flee the combat site.
3. Within about 1.5 km.
4. This really depends on the amount of fire power it took to create the wreck(s) and the ratio of fire power the ship discovering the wrecks has. Which means that the size of a battle site depends on the viewer. So anywhere between 1 and 2000 wrecks.
5. I'd guess roughly 2 minutes
6. Wrecks are removed from existence 5 minutes after being salvaged. If a ship doesn't have anything worth salvaging then the wreck lasts for 5 minutes (from the time of death) then disappears.

Re: Small things that would be nice to have

Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2017 1:32 pm
by Cornflakes_91
Flatfingers wrote:
Sun Jul 09, 2017 1:04 am
Is that confirmed?
Well, the videos all show that destroyed ships stay there after the fact.
:shrug:

BFett wrote:Within about 1.5 km.
Because we know sooooooo much about ranges in LT.
:P
And from the things we actually saw 1.5k is basically bumping into the wreck

Re: Small things that would be nice to have

Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2017 2:15 pm
by BFett
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
Sun Jul 09, 2017 1:32 pm
BFett wrote:Within about 1.5 km.
Because we know sooooooo much about ranges in LT.
:P
And from the things we actually saw 1.5k is basically bumping into the wreck
If you have a better guess fire away! I'm assuming that you'd want a ship to be fairly close to a wreck before it does something. Also, size and distance are relative. A fighter isn't going to be over 10m long in most cases, and if you look at how close combat and mining occurs in the LT videos I think it's safe to say that LT is going to be a very point blank game. Heck, look at the prototype. LT isn't going to be close to realistic distances.

Re: Small things that would be nice to have

Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2017 3:34 pm
by Cornflakes_91
And? that theres no realistic distances doesnt matter.

The distances shown during combat between ships was still hundreds of meters.
For reference in freelancer the average range of a gun was 700 meters, and in the videos josh was blasting along with 1500-3000 units/second
So 1k5 are 1-2 seconds of flight distance, which is basically colliding.

I dont know a good range, but then i also dont make absolute numerical statements :P

Re: Small things that would be nice to have

Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2017 2:06 am
by BFett
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
Sun Jul 09, 2017 3:34 pm
And? that theres no realistic distances doesnt matter.

The distances shown during combat between ships was still hundreds of meters.
For reference in freelancer the average range of a gun was 700 meters, and in the videos josh was blasting along with 1500-3000 units/second
So 1k5 are 1-2 seconds of flight distance, which is basically colliding.

I dont know a good range, but then i also dont make absolute numerical statements :P
So you'd rather I say some general range of numbers so that it doesn't upset you? You seem to be nit-picking

Re: Small things that would be nice to have

Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2017 2:12 am
by Dinosawer
No, he wants to know what you practically imagine gameplay wise instead of naming numbers that tell us nothing because they're not based on anything. A general range of numbers wouldn't say anything either.
e.g. when the wreck comes in visual range, close enough to scan for age, close enough for thermographic scans, whatever.