Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Shrike on January 28, 2002, 04:31:00 am
-
I'm sure some of you are gonna recognize this. (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif) But it's been over half a year since it was last brought up, I'd like to see what the new people can add, starting fresh.
This is not intended to be a thread on what you would want in FS3. That has been done to death. Instead, consider what is possible with a fresh game.
Some topics for consideration:
Primary weapons on capital ships; Cannons, Beams, Torpedoes, others, or multiple types?
Style of weapons on fighters; Large number of small missiles (FS) or few powerful missiles (SL, WC)
Weapons outfits; Fully modular (FS), partially modular (see mechwarrior 4) or fixed (SL/WC)
Level of armament; Heavy armament of light weapons or light armament of heavy weapons?
Physics involved; Newtonian or non?
Shielding; All ships (SL, WC), some ships (FS) or none/special only (B5)
Should fighters have turrets?
How big should capships be?
Some things I'd like to see implemented:
A MW4 style modularity, allowing heavier weapons to be mounted on larger ships.
All subsystems be destroyable objects.
Have multiple parts to capital ships and perhaps fighters so concentrated strikes are more effective.
Post your thoughts.
-
Originally posted by Shrike:
Primary weapons on capital ships; Cannons, Beams, Torpedoes, others, or multiple types?
How big should capships be?
Capships should be huge, impervious to fighter based weaponry (except perhaps anticap torps) and should be bristling with beams (for other caps), and turreted cannons and missiles(for fighters and installations). I don't like the fact that a fighter can take down capships in Freespace or Iwar2. It detracts from their (supposedly) awesome might.
Also, a proper naval progression from corvettes up through juggernauts should be in place. None of this corvettes bigger than cruisers nonsense.
Style of weapons on fighters; Large number of small missiles (FS) or few powerful missiles (SL, WC)
Weapons outfits; Fully modular (FS), partially modular (see mechwarrior 4) or fixed (SL/WC)
Level of armament; Heavy armament of light weapons or light armament of heavy weapons?
Fighters should carry projectile weapons (kinetic, limited ammo, unaffected by shields, low damage due to muzzle velocity), energy weapons (unlimited, affected by shields, recharge delay, higher power), missiles and rockets. I thought that Freespace had the best rocket/missile system of any space game. Its a worthy example to follow.
For weapons loadouts, I recommend the use of an Iwar2 like hardpoint system, with a few more limitations. Heavy and light munitions mounts, heavy/medium/light cannon mounts, special weapons mounts and special purpose mounts (extra magazines, extended sensor packages, etc).
Level of armament should be determined by a mix of mission structure (materiel availability, clearance, etc) and weapon mounts on the various ships. An interceptor might would carry a couple of light munitions hardpoints and two or four cannon hardpoints, whilst a interdiction fighter would carry several large munitions hardpoints, and four cannon hardpoints.
Physics involved; Newtonian or non?
Newtonian. All the way. Make those capships lumber and make the fighters and corvettes use inertia to their advantage.
Shielding; All ships (SL, WC), some ships (FS) or none/special only (B5)
All capships should be shielded. Starlancer had a good model in this case, just make those shield generators are well defended. Fighters and bombers should be able to equip a variety of shields on the special purpose mounts. Shields should not be too strong, however. I'd like to prevent the 'flying tank' syndrome of Freespace, wherein a fighter can run torpedo intercept by blocking the torp with his own ship and live.
Should fighters have turrets?
Turrets should only be found on larger ships like bombers and corvettes (see WC).
Some things I'd like to see implemented:
A MW4 style modularity, allowing heavier weapons to be mounted on larger ships.
All subsystems be destroyable objects.
Have multiple parts to capital ships and perhaps fighters so concentrated strikes are more effective.
I would like to see modularly destroyable capships that leave large, dangerous hulks drifting upon destruction. All external/near-hull systems on a ship should be destroyable.
Last, and most important is interface stuff:
- the camera field-of-view, depth-of-focus and perspective correction need to be adjusted so that capships and installaitons look big.
- modular HUD
- contact list with hostile/friendly/critical/noncom filters
- the Orb. Its the best spatial reference model I've ever seen in a game, bar none.
- pilot head. I should be able to pan around the cockpit to look out windows and visually track combatants
- user defined linked weapon groups
I think that covers it all. (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif) I've probably missed a few thing.
------------------
--Mik
http://www.404error.com
ruhkferret on ICQ/AIM
"Your guy was a little SQUARE! You had to use your IMAGINATION! There were no multiple levels or screens. There was just one screen forever and you could never win the game. It just kept getting harder and faster until you died. JUST LIKE LIFE." --Ernie Cline
-
I'd agree with Mikhael on the above, except for capital ship hulls, as - if you parallel it with current day naval warfare - a single fighter can very easily take down a warship (i.e. during the Falklands, the Argentine Skyhawk using Exocet missiles took down the HMS Sheffield , I think, and a large cargo ship - and they could have taken down the fleets carriers if they got past the radar net)
As for capships;
- A mix of Fs style beams, but with particle stream-like effects, and pulse lasers - barrage guns firing energy bolts at rapid speed.
- Huge - 5km plus - that was one of the few things that dissapointed me in IWar2, the ship size. And even bigger installations (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif), capable of refitting tens of capital ships at a time
-Fully deformable - able to make realistic holes, dents, etc in the hull, and even being able to cut massive sections off... and leave the hull and some debris floating in space.
- Localised damage effects - fire, vented gas, shrapnel, and even seeing the breached levels of the hull
- some larger, 'special case' ships shielded.. a large carrier (eg) class of about 10km, with comparatively weak weapons but deckplate shielding.
- Fighters
- I like the Fs2 fighter style, but maybe slightly less like 'modern' fighters in design
- With some deformable geometry, and certain key parts, like a cockpit, which can be destroyed
- The pilots head visible - like in Starfox / Lylat Wars (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif)
- Weak shielding, possibly only in certain parts
- Possibly a slow autorepair system, which requires energy from other parts... maybe a bit complex though - I prefer point and shoot to engineering management
- bombers should be big, slow, but well armed and strongly shielded. I think FS possibly makes a bit too little distinction between bombers and fighters, bar the Ursa.
- Optional turrets - which can be 'locked' onto a target or set to free fire
- Modular weapons systems (like in IWar2, methinks)
- Oh, and cloaking devices (at expense of weapons or some other function)... (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/wink.gif)
Weapons
- I prefer fast, rapid fire but weak weapons... most improtant is that they look good, and have definite advantages and disadvantages.
- Specialised EMP weapons would be good, too.
- Lots of light, fast weapons on big ships- looks better than 1/2 heavy lasers bolts per second.
The rest
- A mix of newtonian physics, but possibly with a little bit of inertia dampening (compared to I War2).
- an IWar2 style 'freeform' system, with travel a part of the game, but based upon being part of a larger force - i.e. stationed on a carrier. Possibly with promotion allowing more say in mission objectives & planning.
- an option to go it alone as a trader / pirate (possibly after the main storyline), to explore and trade.
- customisable logos, etc on ship - eg your callsign & squadron on your helmet in cutscene (using engine), on the side of the ship. Being able to set cockpit preference,s like lighting, and easily add skin info to your ship - i.e modding for those who can;t mod (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif) - or even being able to pick furry dice (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/wink.gif)
- Virtual cockpit, with damage effects (something IWar2 lacked a bit, methinks)
-
-
Mikhael pretty much got all of it. (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/wink.gif) One area of weaponry that has been somewhat explored in the space-sim world seems to be remote mines or explosive drones which could be placed at strategic locations such as jump nodes in FS2. (they could operate similar to the seeker mines in D3 but with more power) It would also be nice if certain ships had a rear-mounted cannon or two, which would be helpful against tailgaters.
[This message has been edited by CP5670 (edited 01-28-2002).]
-
How about we just include ALL the weapons, and make it really..really..l33t, and hell for the poor guys flying the fighters? (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif)
-
Originally posted by aldo_14:
- bombers should be big, slow, but well armed and strongly shielded. I think FS possibly makes a bit too little distinction between bombers and fighters, bar the Ursa.
I've been toying with the idea of fighter-bombers recently. A slow, unmaneuverable, weak ship, with only 2 primaries but with 3 missle banks, able to carry anti fighter missles, light bombs..LRMS..a stand-off missle boat (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif) It's my dream fighter I'd love to fly something like that
-
Babylon 5, basically (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/wink.gif)
I reckon fighters shouldn't prove a problem to large cap ships (anything over destroyer class- eg: Cruisers, Battleships, Carriers etc), and should have a hard time taking out smaller ships. Bombers, however, should have large amounts of firepower but be significantly less maneuverable, and not really suitable for large scale Anti-cap action, rather only for smaller ships, or isolated ships. Anything else goes to the Capships and their beam/pulse weaponry (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif)
------------------
Chickens are strange things really. They pop up whenever you don't expect them.
"Why do I have a conscience, all it does is **** with me, why do I have this torment all I wanna do is **** it away"- Korn
"When you're ripe, you'll bleed outta control" Deftones
HERE FISHY FISHY FISHY!
HELLO OLLY! IT'S A DEAD OLLY!
-
How 'bout wide-dispersal beam weapons? You know, where instead of it being just a straight line, it's a cone of damage that becomes less effective as one gets closer to the edge?
-
Originally posted by aldo_14:
- Lots of light, fast weapons on big ships- looks better than 1/2 heavy lasers bolts per second.
You mean like this ("http://www.geocities.com/sandvich/fs2/fs2_mods.html")? (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif) (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif) (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif)
Originally posted by Stryke 9:
How 'bout wide-dispersal beam weapons? You know, where instead of it being just a straight line, it's a cone of damage that becomes less effective as one gets closer to the edge?
Useful for wiping out hordes of bombers and their bombs, eh? I liek! (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/wink.gif) (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/tongue.gif)
------------------
America, stand assured that Israel truly understands what you are going through.
Know how to use Rhino3D? Want to put your ships into Freespace 2? You've come to the right place ("http://www.geocities.com/sandvich/fs2/rhino_fs2/")!
"He who laughs last thinks slowest."
"Just becase you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you."
"To err is human; to really screw up you need a computer."
Creator of the Sandvich Bar ("http://www.geocities.com/sandvich/index.html"), the CapShip Turret Upgrade, the Complete FS2 Ship List and the System Backgrounds List (all available from the site)
-
steal a concept from Heavy Gear 2. Critical hits. Armor should be considered seperate from structure, and once you start damaging it, you have an increased chance of completely destroying whatever it is protecting. Also the concept of weak spots in the design of a ship, ie such and such class ship has an I beam junction that if destroyed and the ship is forced to manuver, she will shear herself apart, or something like what happened in world war two with the carriers in the pacific, you can pound the ship for days and all you will do is add holes to the hull. but if you hit something like an ammo magazine or a fuel line, boom.
the concept of a set number of hit points is retarded imho
-
tractopr beams would be cool to be caught in tractor beasm but ones that you can see and have your mauvering reduced hugely and you have to destroy the tractor emmited which while beign used cant be protected by sheilds - obviously capital ship only thing
-
Last night I was sitting and mulling this over. It was the topic that was making me thing. All the things I listed and most everything everyone else listed, are all 'been done' sorts of things. Not 'next gen' at all. In fact, only NegspectahDek mentioned someting not yet done: structural modelling.
Negspectah's WW2 PacFleet carriers are the very model of how capships should be simulated (Aldo mentioned Exocets being used to take out British Ships of the line in the Falklands, but this rings of a fluke, or poor shipbuilding on the part of the British. I'm not knowledgeable enough about the situation to say for sure either way). The seperation of armor from structure/subsystems is a good idea and would go a long way toward making capships feel like the mighty beasts they are supposed to be. It would also enhance the role of boarding actions in anticap operations.
The next thing that needs to be revamped/replaced is the comms system. Voice activation should be considered an absolute baseline for a next-gen space-sim. I realize there are third party products that you can use for this sort of thing, but they all run outside the game, and are thus not tied in anyway to the game's timing loop. This can cause some odd timing issues as clock cycles get divided up. I think a standardised API (lets call it DirectVoice) should be put together and used, such that personalized voice libraries could be used in many seperate games. Voice control adds a great deal to the realism (if not necessarily the control! (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif)) of a sim. Not only does it remove all those bizarre menu and keyboard interfaces from some things that should be voice activated (like ship to ship comms), but it adds an uncertainty to the situation. If you're in a stressful situation and you clip off an order to a wingman, it might come across garbled, prompting him to bounce back with 'whiskey tango foxtrot, Alpha one? your last was garbled.' Its less precise and less certain, but I think its more realistic.
The next thing is LAN usage. Most games use LANs for deathmatch style action, sometimes cooperative style action. I suggest stealing a page from the Longbow2 book: cooperative multiplay as pilot, gunner, engineer, etc, in the same ship. Rather than make a single player switch, put multiple players into the same ship, performing different jobs.
One might think this would be boring at first, but imagine taking control of the belly turret on a corvette-bomber whilst the pilot vectors in on the softened up hull of a cap. In fact, imagine having one person working the sensors to scan for softened up areas of a cap's hull and managing ships systems while the pilot is juking, dodging, and dogfighting along its surface.
Adding a second person also opens up possibilities for more interaction between the player ship and the AWACS (requesting that they focus sensors in a particular place, or move 6km spinward to see what's behind the sensor shadow of that juggernaut).
The biggest thing that a next-gen space sim author needs to work on is the pilot AI. By and large, this is absolutely the weakest part of every space-sim made to date. Everyone complains of the uselessness of wingmen, and the ineptitude of enemy pilots. I'm not sure how to rectify that, short of doing a great deal of research into the whys and wherefores of real human pilots.
If I think of anything else, I'll post that too.
------------------
--Mik
http://www.404error.com
ruhkferret on ICQ/AIM
"Your guy was a little SQUARE! You had to use your IMAGINATION! There were no multiple levels or screens. There was just one screen forever and you could never win the game. It just kept getting harder and faster until you died. JUST LIKE LIFE." --Ernie Cline
-
remember also though if you make the enemy ai too good downing a ship of equal capibities will be difficult - there for missioins will never put you into mealstrom of fighters cause at best you can handle too - and there is alot to be said when you finish a mission to have reacked up 30 or so kills its fun =)- the voice activation i think is a great idea - i would love to be able leave the fighter - so that you combine a first person shooter with the space fighter section so you can partake in the boarding operations etc ina scramble mission you can be in the rec room and here alarms then you have to run for the docking bay climb into your ship then fly out throught tha hanger and for normal mission just here over the intercom an order for you to report ot a brieffing etc and where its possible if your feeling brave to board enemy ships yourself and try and take the comand center to neutralise the ship etc - just things to add realism above all else so its not you only ever in teh cockpit of the plane but its more a life your living - from what i hear unreal 2 is going to be abit like this just without the flying sections since its a first person shooter and stuff but you can interact with teh crew of the vessel ferruing you from planet to planet
-
Originally posted by KillMeNow:
remember also though if you make the enemy ai too good downing a ship of equal capibities will be difficult - there for missioins will never put you into mealstrom of fighters cause at best you can handle too - and there is alot to be said when you finish a mission to have reacked up 30 or so kills its fun =)-
when you improve enemy AI, you also improve friendly AI. The maelstrom is more lethal overall. I don't understand feeling good for knocking down 30 poorly simulated pilots. That's shooting fish in a barrel. The best part of a combat for me is knowing, deep in my gut, that I'm not going to make it, and then somehow, pulling it out of my hat and limping home victorious. The accomplishment isn't real if the fear isn't real.
...
i would love to be able leave the fighter - so that you combine a first person shooter with the space fighter section so you can partake in the boarding operations etc ina scramble mission you can be in the rec room and here alarms then you have to run for the docking bay climb into your ship then fly out throught tha hanger and for normal mission just here over the intercom an order for you to report ot a brieffing etc and where its possible if your feeling brave to board enemy ships yourself and try and take the comand center to neutralise the ship etc - just things to add realism above all else so its not you only ever in teh cockpit of the plane but its more a life your living - from what i hear unreal 2 is going to be abit like this just without the flying sections since its a first person shooter and stuff but you can interact with teh crew of the vessel ferruing you from planet to planet
This idea is something that lots of people ask for, but I can never get behind. Beyond the extreme difficulty of building an engine that handles enclosed spaces (corridors) well and handles open spaces (space) well, it just doesnt' seem like a lot of fun to me. That could be my general pejudice against first person style games speaking, though. Besides that, it leaves the 'space sim' aspect behind at that point.
Where something like this could work is in a online multiplayer game. Some players fly fighters, another player handles the APC/Dropship and delivers other players playing marines to the enemy vessel. while the battle rages outside (in a space sim engine), the boarding action takes place inside (in an FPS engine). Throw in some software to handle comms bridging between the two arenas, and you're in business.
------------------
--Mik
http://www.404error.com
ruhkferret on ICQ/AIM
"Your guy was a little SQUARE! You had to use your IMAGINATION! There were no multiple levels or screens. There was just one screen forever and you could never win the game. It just kept getting harder and faster until you died. JUST LIKE LIFE." --Ernie Cline
-
The Horror! British ships are unmatched in the quality of their construction!!!
-
Originally posted by mikhael:
Negspectah's WW2 PacFleet carriers are the very model of how capships should be simulated (Aldo mentioned Exocets being used to take out British Ships of the line in the Falklands, but this rings of a fluke, or poor shipbuilding on the part of the British. I'm not knowledgeable enough about the situation to say for sure either way). The seperation of armor from structure/subsystems is a good idea and would go a long way toward making capships feel like the mighty beasts they are supposed to be. It would also enhance the role of boarding actions in anticap operations.
Seeing as most modern military vessels (except for very recent ones) are built out of thin aluminium in order to save displacement, it's not surprising the Exocet did what it did. Those British frigats were probably only a few thousand tons, and totally unarmored. There's a reason they call them 'tin cans'. (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/wink.gif)
I believe that this is the reason the new Burke class destroyers are of all-steel construction (which means they don't have as much internal volume) and have low-weight Kelvar armor over vital sections.
The next thing that needs to be revamped/replaced is the comms system. Voice activation should be considered an absolute baseline for a next-gen space-sim. I realize there are third party products that you can use for this sort of thing, but they all run outside the game, and are thus not tied in anyway to the game's timing loop. This can cause some odd timing issues as clock cycles get divided up. I think a standardised API (lets call it DirectVoice) should be put together and used, such that personalized voice libraries could be used in many seperate games. Voice control adds a great deal to the realism (if not necessarily the control! (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif)) of a sim. Not only does it remove all those bizarre menu and keyboard interfaces from some things that should be voice activated (like ship to ship comms), but it adds an uncertainty to the situation. If you're in a stressful situation and you clip off an order to a wingman, it might come across garbled, prompting him to bounce back with 'whiskey tango foxtrot, Alpha one? your last was garbled.' Its less precise and less certain, but I think its more realistic.
The next thing is LAN usage. Most games use LANs for deathmatch style action, sometimes cooperative style action. I suggest stealing a page from the Longbow2 book: cooperative multiplay as pilot, gunner, engineer, etc, in the same ship. Rather than make a single player switch, put multiple players into the same ship, performing different jobs.
One might think this would be boring at first, but imagine taking control of the belly turret on a corvette-bomber whilst the pilot vectors in on the softened up hull of a cap. In fact, imagine having one person working the sensors to scan for softened up areas of a cap's hull and managing ships systems while the pilot is juking, dodging, and dogfighting along its surface.
Adding a second person also opens up possibilities for more interaction between the player ship and the AWACS (requesting that they focus sensors in a particular place, or move 6km spinward to see what's behind the sensor shadow of that juggernaut).
The problem is that not everyone has voice-recognition equipment attached to their PC. And to tell you the truth, I think I'd feel like a jackass talking to my computer. (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/tongue.gif)
The biggest thing that a next-gen space sim author needs to work on is the pilot AI. By and large, this is absolutely the weakest part of every space-sim made to date. Everyone complains of the uselessness of wingmen, and the ineptitude of enemy pilots. I'm not sure how to rectify that, short of doing a great deal of research into the whys and wherefores of real human pilots.
AI is very hard to do, especially one that is challenging but doesn't cheat.
[This message has been edited by Shrike (edited 01-29-2002).]
-
I'm not interested in FPS part in a freespace-like game. Would fit much more for iwar2 imho, but anyway it's not the point.
You want a good AI? play crimson skies! just got it, and, well, bow down. The pilots in there do incredible things, they fly at 2 meters above the ground, fly under hangars and between buildings to dodge your shots! amazing! It my be scripted ( so if the guy comes near the hangar, it follows a path and goes under it), but it does the trick perfectly ( plus FS2 does the same when a fighter/bomber attacks a turret, excepted the FS2 AI can't even follow the path and will collide anyway (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/rolleyes.gif) ), each kill is a real pleasure, and your wingmen are really good. At first I thought, what the hell, we can't even give them orders! And I never noticed them being hotshots. So I looked at a mission, not dogfighting, just looking at the enemy and my wingmen. it was a real airshow (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/eek.gif). I can't even give them orders and yet They are way more effective than FS2 wingmen.
If they can do that for a flight sim, I assume doing that for a space sim would be even easier no?
For the kind of ships and weapons, hell, there's no rule. it all depends on the timeline, the tech available, the species involved etc. If I play a space sim supposed to happen in a close future, I want only ammo based weapons, no beams, no lasers etc. If I play a space sim that happens in 3150, trash the ammunitions! Homing plasma balls and twisting beams all the way if you want (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/wink.gif)
I completly agree with nexpect... (scroll down to check the name)... Negspectahdek, HP are retarded. I think it should work kindda like warhammer: a weapon has a hull penetration factor, and a hull has a strengh factor. The more powerfull the weapon, the more chances it has to go through the hull (If the shot goes through the hull or not is determined randomly, based on both penetration and hull factor), and then hit a critical element (same way to destroy the subsystem than go through the hull).
Voila voila (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif)
-
Originally posted by venom2506:
...You want a good AI? play crimson skies! just got it, and, well, bow down. The pilots in there do incredible things, they fly at 2 meters above the ground, fly under hangars and between buildings to dodge your shots! amazing! It my be scripted ( so if the guy comes near the hangar, it follows a path and goes under it), but it does the trick perfectly ( plus FS2 does the same when a fighter/bomber attacks a turret, excepted the FS2 AI can't even follow the path and will collide anyway (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/rolleyes.gif) ), each kill is a real pleasure, and your wingmen are really good. At first I thought, what the hell, we can't even give them orders! And I never noticed them being hotshots. So I looked at a mission, not dogfighting, just looking at the enemy and my wingmen. it was a real airshow (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/eek.gif). I can't even give them orders and yet They are way more effective than FS2 wingmen.
...
Crimson Skies, for all the blatantly poor simulation (try crashing into the ground. I dare you. *BOING!*), has--hands down--the best wingmen in any combat game I've ever played. I hadn't even thought about it before you mentioned it Venom.
BTW, the path following they use for aerobatics is very loose and affected, I believe, by the pilots skill. They don't always succed at those barnstorms. (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif) Sometimes, you'll dip through the hangar on their six, and you'll find a fireball waiting for you.
I wish I could reinstall Crimson Skies. (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/frown.gif) It always hangs at 99% and then crashes the computer.
------------------
--Mik
http://www.404error.com
ruhkferret on ICQ/AIM
"Your guy was a little SQUARE! You had to use your IMAGINATION! There were no multiple levels or screens. There was just one screen forever and you could never win the game. It just kept getting harder and faster until you died. JUST LIKE LIFE." --Ernie Cline
-
Originally posted by mikhael:
Crimson Skies, for all the blatantly poor simulation (try crashing into the ground. I dare you. *BOING!*), has--hands down--the best wingmen in any combat game I've ever played. I hadn't even thought about it before you mentioned it Venom.
BTW, the path following they use for aerobatics is very loose and affected, I believe, by the pilots skill. They don't always succed at those barnstorms. (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif) Sometimes, you'll dip through the hangar on their six, and you'll find a fireball waiting for you.
I wish I could reinstall Crimson Skies. (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/frown.gif) It always hangs at 99% and then crashes the computer.
hmm, dunno, I can tell you I don't "boing" that often (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif) (remember that race in hollywood settings? flying through the bridge -not under, throught!-, and then through one of the O of Hollywood, and then in the street of the fake New York, I can tell you, I tried many times before beating it -just did this yesterday night lol). well, sometimes, I'm get caught by one of the gridders on a blimp, and make a pretty u-turn w/o dying (but the wing is almost gone then), and it's damn funny (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif)
agreed, it's fairly poor simulation, but it's not a simulation so there's no pb (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif)
If you didn't get me, I've fallen in love with that game, rah, flying over that train, in a tunnel, that was hot (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif)
I'd love if it was editable (but it's not it seems (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/frown.gif) )
-
Originally posted by CP5670:
One area of weaponry that has been somewhat explored in the space-sim world seems to be remote mines or explosive drones which could be placed at strategic locations such as jump nodes in FS2.
You've been playing Fighteer's mission "Dragon's Teeth" again, haven't you? (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/wink.gif)
-
I think capital ships need to be a lot bigger - they got to be bristling with turrets - of all sizes - like the massive ship in the intro vid to Quake2 - now that looks awesome - all those turrets locking onto the target (Strogg Planet i think). And when i say big , i mean big - should be able to fly a fighter around skimming along the surface - winding through turrets and antenae and other projections. U should also be able to fly into them like enter the fighter bay, etc.
As for the fighters - i think the FS style is perfect - but there should be area sensitive damage - and most importantly - the fighters n other ships shouldnt just blow up allways when hull drops to zero (btw - the hull dropping to zero concept also makes no sense), they should for example have their engines flicker off and stop - now dark or if they do explode - should have the debris all over. Same with capital ships - infact capital ships shouldnt ever blow up totally - should be like the cutscenes in FS2 Intro or if they do blow up cos of something really bad like getting rammed or something - they should blow up slowly - like the ships in Independance day or the Lucifer for that matter.
-
Hehe... my dream sim, or MERELY nex-gen? (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif) Too bad, you get mostly the former.
Capships, methinks, have gotten plenty big for most things lately. The trick isn't the actual SIZE of the ship... it's much more important to make them feel big. This can be improved in a couple of ways- adjusting camera perspective, and high-res textures and modeling. It's easier to believe something is huge when you fly by individual windows and hatches, but only if the objects in question are the right size. Half the laser turrets in FS2 are bigger than the fighters they're shooting at!
Physics- at least MOSTLY newtonian. Full Newtonian, IMO, gets pretty annoying when it comes to dogfighting. If you go full Newtonian, you better have an extremely good "helper" system that makes it SEEM like you're flying something else, but it must be a system that won't restrict your ability to fight too far below full manual control. And of course, you must be able to turn it on or off in flight. Or better yet, you could dynamically adjust the amount of automatic compensation. I have to admit, I'm a bit at a loss for exactly how to pull this off, but I want dogfights as visceral and close as they are in FS2 and WWII sims, with as much Newtonian physics working as possible. (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif) I'm not interested in something where realism takes away from the fun factor. I want realism that adds as much complexity to the dogfight as possible without stopping it from being fun.
FS2 is quite good at this, but falls short in a physics engine that is just too simple. Remove the upper speed limit and make turning rate decrease in proportion to forward speed and I would be very satisfied indeed. I would love to see what would happen if you could dynamically adjust the amount of "slide" allowed in a turn during the fight, so that in a given turn you could only rotate at the rate your ship requires to keep the ship and velocity vector within a specified range. A high range would allow for huge, skidding turns, and would be most truly Newtonian, with an infinite range being pretty much purely Newtonian and allowing you to fly one way, whip the nose around, and fire backwards without changing your velocity or flight vector at all. Low values would be like XWvsTF where tight turns require low speed, and you're always flying the direction you're facing. I've done the latter- I like it, it's fun. Admittedly, I haven't really tried the former- it seems to me though that it would reduce dogfighting to an aiming contest, since nearly every situation would allow a shot of some sort. Right now, I'm leaning towards an adjustable slide tolerance- but the tolerance has an upper limit that varies ship to ship. All ships would also be able to apply thrust in any of the 3 axis of movement... but compared to the Z axis, it would be very weak.
Fighters- lots of em. As you may have picked up, I'm mostly interested in flying these, and I want fighters to have weapons that can destroy each other with only a few hits- difficult to obtain ones. See above for the physics to do that, weapons would be very similar to the ones currently in FS2 in fire rate and damage. Shields would be standard on all fighters, once again, I think FS2 has the fighter shielding and hull damage system down pretty much perfect.
More on weapons- NOT fully modular, I haven't played MW4 but I'd like to see something common to most current fighter jet sims, where you have so many hardpoints per fighter/bomber, but they are not all the same in what they can carry. Each hardpoint would have it's own specified Weapons Allowed, as well as a number for each specified weapon that indicated how many could be carried on that hardpoint- think clusters of small missiles or one or two large ones. There would be no restrictions on primaries/secondaries: the engine would be able to handle a ship that carried only primaries, a ship that carried only secondaries, or a ship that could do something in between. Or either. Some ships would be more flexible than others, obviously. What Mik proposed is pretty much what I'm thinking, only somewhat less flexible in the combinations of armaments you could come up with. It would do nicely also. (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif)
Turrets on fighters- only if you make them dumb enough. FS2 turrets are just plain lame. They almost never miss. Simulate a human-controlled turret, not a Perfect Shot AI turret, and it could work. Same goes for capships- not turrets that aim well but fire slow, easily-dodged blobs, and not turrets that rapidly fire faster shots that are a royal pain to avoid. Howabout turrets that fire lots of medium fast shots, dangerous enough that you have to sweat to avoid them, but that will act like a human gunner, starting out innacurate but getting more so as you fly in a straight line? Give the turret guy a machine-gun style laser- but one with fairly high spread, so even accurate shots will mostly miss at long range.
Other capship weapons- for antifighter use, keep the beams and the flak, but modify them slightly... IMO aaafs should be slashers, where you actually have a slight chance to get out of the way. The flak should be more powerful, but with a slower fire rate. Missiles- just the way they are in FS2... almost. More on that below. FS2-style beams MUST stay. However, they must also have longer range and more built-in innacuracy. Slasher beams can stay just the same style they are. Focused beams would start out fine, but lose focus as the beam continued, and start to drift at an accelerating rate until it was too far off and automatically deactivated. Other capship weapons- cruise missile-style torpedoes, large cap-to-cap warheards.
-
Wow- so long it made me put it in two messages! (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif)
Cockpit- Virtual cockpit, DEFINITELY. Nothing has a greater improvement on the fun of a dogfight, IMO. With the virtual cockpit, of course, a full 3D cockpit, preferably one that varied by ship type.
More on missiles/weapons: These should also be newtonian in nature. Missiles especially. They should accelerate throughout their flight, with their initial speed being the same as the firing ship. Primaries also should add the velocity of the ship firing them, and damage should vary depending on impact speed as well as type of weapon.
Systems and hull should DEFINITELY be seperated- it should be possible to attack a subsystem or turret without even touching the hull. Or even do nothing more than superficial damage that doesn't affect hull integrity OR any systems.
Beams should NOT be able to simply ignore shields. That would only be allowed for specially designed and extremely rare torpedoes, that in the context of the game would either have to be preprogrammed with the proper frequency or would only be able to work after the proper frequency was obtained through a long scanning process.
Full, to-scale stellar systems with seperate methods for inter-system and intra-system travel, a la IW2.
NegspectahDek's description of critical hits. Right on. (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif) Let's get away from just hitpoints, if it's possible.
More complex radar systems: I don't think this is really necessary. OK, maybe a bit more interesting than it is in FS, put a range limit on it that varies with the size of the ship being tracked.
AI: How could I almost forget? Need much better. Not sure how, but it has to happen! FS2 AI, for example, is quite good at doing what it is told- and nothing else. Give them some Situational Awareness, for crying out loud! Let them see that the guy moving onto their tail deserves a response BEFORE he is putting missiles through them! Easier said than done, though.
Being able to get out of your ship: I don't think it's worth the extra effort. Being able to dock and switch ships? Maybe.
Voice comms: Not worth my processor power, IMO. Even less so my bandwidth! (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif)
HIGH MODDABILITY! Whatever the sim, there will be things to improve about it. Always. By making the game easy to add on to, gamers can make it into whatever they want. Best example in existence: Half life. People are STILL coding mods for that engine!
Multiplayer: In addition to the below, a good Coop system is imperative. Flying on the same ship could also prove a ton of fun.
And probably the most ambitious of all:
Instead of just a single player campaign and token multiplayer, support for massive Internet team warfare a la Warbirds. Two, three, or ten teams to an Arena, and multiple styles of play, including CTF and other games in addition to standard force-on-force play. This, of course, would also be mod-extendable. The force-on-force would be kind of the core game- each team in an arena(size limited, of course, just to keep the action fairly tight) with a full spread of fighters, bombers, and capships. Players could choose to be any of these, including gunners on someone else's corvette or bomber. Once they died, they would respawn, although larger ships would probably have extended respawn times, or at least a transit to the battle arena long enough to prevent them from dominating the game. Various variations would balance the game differently- one mode would have so many "points" per ship type and would require each team's points to be approximately even. Another would have pilots who do well in fighters, turrets, etc earn the option to command larger ones, if a slot is open on that team to allow such a ship.
There are virtually infinite possible ways to arrange such a thing, I have to admit, I haven't really thought through it completely myself. The hardest part would be attracting a player base. But hey, I can dream, can't I? (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif)
I think I'm done now. (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/wink.gif)
-
Originally posted by Sushi mk. 2:
Shields would be standard on all fighters, once again, I think FS2 has the fighter shielding and hull damage system down pretty much perfect.
Originally posted by Sushi mk. 2:
Systems and hull should DEFINITELY be seperated- it should be possible to attack a subsystem or turret without even touching the hull. Or even do nothing more than superficial damage that doesn't affect hull integrity OR any systems.
Hmmm..... Contradicting yourself? (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/wink.gif)
-
what i was thinking was that would would have the choice you could play it purely as a space sim but could also play the first person sections sometimes it makes it easier somtimes ahrder for example boarding a sathanus alone with only you side arm would not be a good plan but boarding a small cruiser might be entirely upto you giving yout he choice on how you fight the game
-
Are we looking for 'ideal THIS gen' space sim or are we looking for a 'next-gen' space sim?
We seem to be continously rehashing old ideas. These ideas have already be implemented in one game or the other, with the exception of some of what NegspectahDek mentioned. (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/frown.gif)
Shrike mentioned that not everyone has voice-recognition gear on their computer. He's absolutely right, but I was trying to keep from thinking about what we have NOW and think what would be good to have or an improvement on what we have now.
------------------
--Mik
http://www.404error.com
ruhkferret on ICQ/AIM
"Your guy was a little SQUARE! You had to use your IMAGINATION! There were no multiple levels or screens. There was just one screen forever and you could never win the game. It just kept getting harder and faster until you died. JUST LIKE LIFE." --Ernie Cline
-
Two words: geo-mods.
------------------
"An evil mind is a constant comfort."
Revisit the Great War at The Freespace-Freespace 2 Port Project ("http://www.angelfire.com/games4/freespace/")
-
A modular system, where you have a set of base ships and a certain amount of credits, each with a certain base speed and a certain number of 'slots'. You could buy engine upgrades (or downgrade your engine to save money), and you could buy parts to go into the 'slots'. For instance, you could buy a afterburner cluster which would take up, say, 3 slots; a cargo bay/dockpoint which would take up 4; a turret which would take up 2; and a missile or primary bay that would take up 1. you'd gain more credits by acting as a mercenary (example: Kill all pirates in System ABC for 200 credits) or by transporting goods (example: transport foodstuffs to System 123 for 100 credits). You could also act as a pirate.
-
Two more things to add. Damage Control and Tactics.
Damage control in FS2 is retarded. The fighter repair way too fast and never run out of replacement parts, and the cap ships dont repair at all. In fighters, damage control should be slowed down and all the sub systems should have a list of parts that that can be destroyed and replaced and a list of parts that if destroyed will cause the system to become inoperable. For example, if you take a hit in your cooling fan, you replace it, but if destroy the engine mount, no amount of new parts will get it working again. Same thing goes for caps. If a bomb manages to take a scoop out of the hull where a subsystem was, then no more subsystem, and if there are no more backups, well too bad.
Tactics. Fred2 lets us script postions of battle but not how battles are fought. Say you have a small strike force, 2 corvettes and standoff missile frigate. And your target is another corvette. FS2 will just have your ships come in and circle each other while firing. The best way to set this battle up would be to have the corvettes close to firing range and have the frigate launch so that the missles hit at the same time the corvettes let loose, that way damage control has less time to compensate. Needless to say, tactics would change based on the nature of the engagement and what the objectives are and the experience level of the captain and crew. Also required is the ability for the cap ship AI to change tactics in mid battle to react to a change of orders or ship destruction.
Make that 3 things.
Caps ships have a set number of damage control teams. If they get hit, they die. If they all die, no more damage control or very ineffective recruits trying to do whatever they can to help out.
-
Originally posted by Shrike:
Hmmm..... Contradicting yourself? (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/wink.gif)
First one is about fighters, second about capships. (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif)
-
Originally posted by mikhael:
Negspectah's WW2 PacFleet carriers are the very model of how capships should be simulated (Aldo mentioned Exocets being used to take out British Ships of the line in the Falklands, but this rings of a fluke, or poor shipbuilding on the part of the British. I'm not knowledgeable enough about the situation to say for sure either way).
Well, i can;t speak for modern day, but in 1982 the Exocet was letahl.... because it could hole a ship below the waterline, and sneak through the radar net. The British tactics mainly consisted of putting rings of patrol ships around the 2 flagship carriers - basically acting as decoys. Had an exocet hit one of the carriers, and not a helicopter transporting super-freighter, Argentina would probably have won the war.
That's one thing I'd like to see in space sims - even in the new generation of FS2 and I-War missions (etc) - the sheer brutality of war. At the monet - possibly because of a lack of recognisable NPCs - you're far too distanced from the sheer hell of it all.... I'd like to see an aspect of that come in (not at the expense of fun)
-
exocets (and any cruise missile of the same kind) are still very efficient. They just go throught the hull and explode inside. Any ship will be sink by a direct impact.
For the sliding thing, it's already in wing co (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif) you should know your classics (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif) You hold a key, and when you turn, the ship won't change it's trajectory, so you can do strafing runs on a capship, flying along it, and destroying all the turrets this way, pretty useful (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif)
for the semi newtonian physics, try Dark Light Conflict (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif)
As Mike said, about everything has already be done in a game or another. Anyway, it doesn't mean it's bad (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif) Just need to put that together in a good way ( Think pod for racing games, they took the best parts of all arcade games and the game was a litle jewel of fun ). IMHO, some of the ideas here just can't go together. Some will fit with a Iwar style game, where you play as a private ( full stellar systems etc), but are not really usefull for a military orientated sim like FS2. You're told to go there, you don't have to fly free. going through multiple areas should be made thanks to mission editing, will save resources. Wel, there's lots of things to be said, and if I go on, I'll fill the whole thread with my posts (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif)
-
Originally posted by aldo_14:
[B...
That's one thing I'd like to see in space sims - even in the new generation of FS2 and I-War missions (etc) - the sheer brutality of war. At the monet - possibly because of a lack of recognisable NPCs - you're far too distanced from the sheer hell of it all.... I'd like to see an aspect of that come in (not at the expense of fun)
[/B]
Indeed.
One thing that has lacked in most space combat games has been a solid, emotional story. Wing Commander tried hard to show this, but Roberts' always let the media overshadow the message. Freespace utterly failed at this. Starlancer had some of the feeling of being in an actual war, but it lacked the out-of-cockpit stuff that is so necessary for such things.
On another note, I guess we're discussing rehashing this-gen space games?
------------------
--Mik
http://www.404error.com
ruhkferret on ICQ/AIM
"Your guy was a little SQUARE! You had to use your IMAGINATION! There were no multiple levels or screens. There was just one screen forever and you could never win the game. It just kept getting harder and faster until you died. JUST LIKE LIFE." --Ernie Cline
-
Originally posted by mikhael:
Originally posted by aldo_14:
[B...
That's one thing I'd like to see in space sims - even in the new generation of FS2 and I-War missions (etc) - the sheer brutality of war. At the monet - possibly because of a lack of recognisable NPCs - you're far too distanced from the sheer hell of it all.... I'd like to see an aspect of that come in (not at the expense of fun)
[/b]
Indeed.
One thing that has lacked in most space combat games has been a solid, emotional story. Wing Commander tried hard to show this, but Roberts' always let the media overshadow the message. Freespace utterly failed at this. Starlancer had some of the feeling of being in an actual war, but it lacked the out-of-cockpit stuff that is so necessary for such things.
On another note, I guess we're discussing rehashing this-gen space games?
[/B]
I must temper that: FS2 failed, i agree, but FS1 really gave the right feeling, you were really into the war, with the ionstoppable lucifer and all, trying to save civilians, watching the lucifer destroying orions and arcadias...
The mood was great. FS2 emphasized only on some details( the ravana in the nebulae, the sathanas in the nebulae, when they appeared, were scary. Okok, it's all about the nebula (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/tongue.gif) ) Those details apart, the mood was nowhere near as good as the FS1 one (the FS1 musics were more adapted, too).
-
Originally posted by aldo_14:
Well, i can;t speak for modern day, but in 1982 the Exocet was letahl.... because it could hole a ship below the waterline, and sneak through the radar net. The British tactics mainly consisted of putting rings of patrol ships around the 2 flagship carriers - basically acting as decoys. Had an exocet hit one of the carriers, and not a helicopter transporting super-freighter, Argentina would probably have won the war.
No that would seal there fate, it would of lead to a even bigger war.
-
Originally posted by venom2506:
I must temper that: FS2 failed, i agree, but FS1 really gave the right feeling, you were really into the war, with the ionstoppable lucifer and all, trying to save civilians, watching the lucifer destroying orions and arcadias...
The mood was great. FS2 emphasized only on some details( the ravana in the nebulae, the sathanas in the nebulae, when they appeared, were scary. Okok, it's all about the nebula (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/tongue.gif) ) Those details apart, the mood was nowhere near as good as the FS1 one (the FS1 musics were more adapted, too).
I have to disagree, Venom. Freespace1 was, if anything, less interesting (storywise) than Freespace2. The mood didn't work any better there either. The one thing that Freespace1 had that Freespace2 lacks is a proper story arc, not the up and down sine-wave of Freespace2.
------------------
--Mik
http://www.404error.com
ruhkferret on ICQ/AIM
"Your guy was a little SQUARE! You had to use your IMAGINATION! There were no multiple levels or screens. There was just one screen forever and you could never win the game. It just kept getting harder and faster until you died. JUST LIKE LIFE." --Ernie Cline
-
Originally posted by mikhael:
I have to disagree, Venom. Freespace1 was, if anything, less interesting (storywise) than Freespace2. The mood didn't work any better there either. The one thing that Freespace1 had that Freespace2 lacks is a proper story arc, not the up and down sine-wave of Freespace2.
FS1 story was not original, but it was well done, and I still think the mood was deep and great.
-
Fast firing, anti-capship pulse weapons.
Destroyable sections on ships (like KA) so you can see the fires raging on exposed decks.
I'll like to see that.
------------------
'Honour the valiant who fall beneath your sword, but pity the warrior who slays all his foes.' - G'trok, in the poem lu geng
'Well, since the whole loaf won't be mine, I will settle for whatever slices fall my way.' - Mazrim Taim
Why not visit the Time of Change ("http://www.geocities.com/ackleyfarran/fsmain.html") website?
-
Personally one of the reasons I bought the FS games was part of the description on the box was 'to engage in combat against massive capital ships with move, reacting gun turrets that not only fire at you but can be blow off creating new obstacles'.
How many obstacles do you get when you blow off a turret? You MIGHT bump into it while flying in thta direction, but then the debris zooms off into space to be destroyed against the far wall of the game map.
In other words, MORE DEBRIS!
I don't care if destroyed cap turrets fly apart at the seams and slap me with a 10' laser barrell, DETAILS DETAILS. (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif)
Zeronet:
The Horror! British ships are unmatched in the quality of their construction!!!
Except that british ships use steel for their armor belts only. For the superstructure and other bodywork, the British use ALLUMINUM because it reduced ship costs by quite a bit.
The missle evaded the CIWS(Provided it was functioning, the jury's still out on whether or not the ship was properly defending herself), penetrated the belt (like it was designed to do) and exploded. The heat generated from the explosion MELTED the hull of the ship nearby.
You can fight fires all day long, but if the deckplates molten slag, there's not a hell of alot that you can do to stop it.
Hopefully the RN is using stronger materials in their ship construction after this.
However on the other hand, the USS Stark was hit with TWO Exocets and managed to limp home.
But I'm not saying she didn't look too good... http://www.usswaddell.com/Memories/uss_stark.htm ("http://www.usswaddell.com/Memories/uss_stark.htm")
I searched for awhile, but I couldn't find any images of the Sheffield. The only ones I could find was her predasassor, a WWII cruiser who was scrapped in '69.
------------------
~Space Kitsuné
6-tailed modder.
-
Originally posted by venom2506:
IMHO, some of the ideas here just can't go together. Some will fit with a Iwar style game, where you play as a private ( full stellar systems etc), but are not really usefull for a military orientated sim like FS2. You're told to go there, you don't have to fly free.
What about a system that does combine those two qualities. A combination RPG & Space-sim. You start as a private citizen. You can join up with pirates, mercenaries, or the military. And even joining the military could be temporary, like you've joined with the reserves. All career choices you can take can involve single or multiplayer gaming. If you're in the reserves, you can download a campaign (company or fan made) as if you're being called into battle (only you don't have to create a new pilot or get those FS warnings when you're changing campaigns, you're pilot would grow in experience with each campaign). You could also play multiplayer like in military training exercises. You could quit the military life and join up with mercenaries or pirates, and have the same options of single or multiplayer gaming.
An idea I thought up yesterday... team vs. team capship flying. If you're playing a team vs. team game, your team can choose to pilot a capship, with each person on the team taking different roles aboard the capship. One person would operate the helm, one person the weapons system, maybe one person comm (to coordinate and give orders to fighers, bombers, and other capships), and even one person could be the captain, keeping a constant eye on the battle field and let the other players know where the enemy is and give commands and tactics.
Joe.
-
Originally posted by joek:
What about a system that does combine those two qualities. A combination RPG & Space-sim. You start as a private citizen. You can join up with pirates, mercenaries, or the military. And even joining the military could be temporary, like you've joined with the reserves. All career choices you can take can involve single or multiplayer gaming. If you're in the reserves, you can download a campaign (company or fan made) as if you're being called into battle (only you don't have to create a new pilot or get those FS warnings when you're changing campaigns, you're pilot would grow in experience with each campaign). You could also play multiplayer like in military training exercises. You could quit the military life and join up with mercenaries or pirates, and have the same options of single or multiplayer gaming.
An idea I thought up yesterday... team vs. team capship flying. If you're playing a team vs. team game, your team can choose to pilot a capship, with each person on the team taking different roles aboard the capship. One person would operate the helm, one person the weapons system, maybe one person comm (to coordinate and give orders to fighers, bombers, and other capships), and even one person could be the captain, keeping a constant eye on the battle field and let the other players know where the enemy is and give commands and tactics.
Joe.
Hey, it's Joe! Welcome back dude, it's good to see you again. (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif)
I like your second idea. I think capship battling was what IW1 was mostly consisting of, though one player had to juggle all the systems you mentioned above - quite an effort! A multiplayer effort on a single ship would be fascinating. (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif)
And, on your first paragraph... the possibilities are just endless. There are just too many, I don't think we could ever isolate which one is the best.
-
I'll address Steak's second point first: With JoeK's first suggestion, you don't need to 'choose which is best'. He setup a system there in which the player chooses what HE considers best. That would be excellent--and in theory--not to difficult to build. The problems will rear their heads when campaigns are not coordinated, and so the player ends up ventilating a space station and another campaign assumes that said station has thrived for decades.
The capship idea is an excellent one for people who are into tactics. Back in the late eighties, some of the people in one of my classes suggested a possible game using linked computers (we didn't know there were LANs or the Internet!). Each computer would simulate the console of a different ship's station. This, naturally grew out of a desire to simulate capship combat from an almost star-trek point of view. It never went anywhere.
When this topic came up the other day, I went and talked to a programmer friend of mine and asked her ideas. She suggested almost the same setup, and threw in some awesome complexity (Programmers. Who knew? (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/wink.gif)). She suggested making sure that the server tracked ships' statuses in detail, generating parts requirements and the like and requiring engineering officers to cannibalize systems for the sake of spaceworthiness, etc. I responded that such things would make the game complex and boring. She pointed out that managing a capship, a great nearly immobile brick, would almost certainly be boring without that complexity, unless you had people manning the turrets, which would certainly be unrealistic. I think she's right.
Our discussion is what prompted me to suggest smaller ships (corvettes and smaller) with smaller teams and more action to break up the management.
------------------
--Mik
http://www.404error.com
ruhkferret on ICQ/AIM
"Your guy was a little SQUARE! You had to use your IMAGINATION! There were no multiple levels or screens. There was just one screen forever and you could never win the game. It just kept getting harder and faster until you died. JUST LIKE LIFE." --Ernie Cline
-
I just thought up a way around the campaign problem you came up with, mikhael. Instead of having static campaigns (which would soon result in said campaign being an out of date before it was released) designed by people, you have dynamic, server-generated campaigns based on the current 'lay of the land' and then generate appropriate briefings and the like... (i.e.: "Okay men, we're low on supplies and the enemy has plenty at point A. Well, we're going to take point A and get those supplies that we desperately need..." or "Intel suggests that the enemy is preparing to mount a major offensive into our territory. We're going to launch a two prong attack on point A via routes of point B & C and stop it before it happens.") Essentially the server would become GTVA Command (or the equivilant) and have to act like the whole game is a kind of galactic chess game with it playing as all of the sides (although the strategies for each side would be kept unknown to the other sides except in the form of history and current events). It would take a LOT of work but freelancer has a similar type of system (albeit not as complicated) so it would be doable... (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif)
and playing as a ships weapons or helm officer would definately be fun I think (of course it depends on how well the system for single capship/multiple players works out).
-
Originally posted by mikhael:
I'll address Steak's second point first: With JoeK's first suggestion, you don't need to 'choose which is best'. He setup a system there in which the player chooses what HE considers best. That would be excellent--and in theory--not to difficult to build. The problems will rear their heads when campaigns are not coordinated, and so the player ends up ventilating a space station and another campaign assumes that said station has thrived for decades.
Oh yes, most definitely! I was just noting that there are endless possibilities... which is a good thing for us modders and gamers in general. (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/wink.gif)
Cobalt, I toyed with that idea not long ago! I thought of having packs that the developers create that stimulate events in the player's universe. Would be very cool indeed. (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif)
-
Originally posted by venom2506:
For the sliding thing, it's already in wing co you should know your classics. You hold a key, and when you turn, the ship won't change it's trajectory, so you can do strafing runs on a capship, flying along it, and destroying all the turrets this way, pretty useful (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif)
for the semi newtonian physics, try Dark Light Conflict (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif)
Never played DLC. Or even really heard of it...
As for Wing Commander(At least how it was in WC3), That system is too simple, and I have to admit, not a lot of fun. It's still not newtonian- you just temporarily uncouple the direction your nose is facing from the way you are flying, but you're stuck in the direction you were already going. Plus, the transition between the two modes is very rough. It was a good attempt, but the fact is it simply doesn't work the way I'm thinking. Haven't played IW2, but from what I hear, what I want would be most similar to it's assisted flight mode, but where you can adjust the level of assist that you get. Heck, if I had the source code for just about any space sim I could probably code the physics model I want. (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif) I'm having a hard time explaining it, but I know exactly what I'm thinking. (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/wink.gif)
And Cobalt, the campaign type that you are discussing with dynamically generated goals has been done before- the best example I can think of is Falcon 4. The good news is, you have an endless variety of missions and objectives and settings, and it's the closest thing you can get to being a pilot in a real war. The bad news is, it makes it pretty much impossible to tell a story. Also, building such a campaign engine is EXTREMELY difficult to do.
A hybrid WOULD be possible to do, sort of like IW2, where most missions are random, but there are certain key missions and events that occur that move the story along. I would like to see it. (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif)
-
Who needs Newtonian physics. We need EINSTEINIAN physics.
-
I think that there should be an allowance of fighters on screen, with much larger and well protected cap ships, to influence the use of tactics involved, there should be much more diversities in each class of ship, therefore brining in a more 'military' feel to the whole game.
-
Originally posted by CobaltStarr:
I just thought up a way around the campaign problem you came up with, mikhael. Instead of having static campaigns (which would soon result in said campaign being an out of date before it was released) designed by people, you have dynamic, server-generated campaigns based on the current 'lay of the land' and then generate appropriate briefings and the like... (i.e.: "Okay men, we're low on supplies and the enemy has plenty at point A. Well, we're going to take point A and get those supplies that we desperately need..." or "Intel suggests that the enemy is preparing to mount a major offensive into our territory. We're going to launch a two prong attack on point A via routes of point B & C and stop it before it happens.") Essentially the server would become GTVA Command (or the equivilant) and have to act like the whole game is a kind of galactic chess game with it playing as all of the sides (although the strategies for each side would be kept unknown to the other sides except in the form of history and current events). It would take a LOT of work but freelancer has a similar type of system (albeit not as complicated) so it would be doable... (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif)
and playing as a ships weapons or helm officer would definately be fun I think (of course it depends on how well the system for single capship/multiple players works out).
I like that idea, Cobalt. It is, in fact, one of the best suggestions I've ever seen for the network in a game.
------------------
--Mik
http://www.404error.com
ruhkferret on ICQ/AIM
"Your guy was a little SQUARE! You had to use your IMAGINATION! There were no multiple levels or screens. There was just one screen forever and you could never win the game. It just kept getting harder and faster until you died. JUST LIKE LIFE." --Ernie Cline