Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => Gaming Discussion => Topic started by: Badman on October 29, 2009, 05:30:48 am
-
Hi All,
My name is Craig and I've been playing the Freespace / 2 (and SCP) games and mods for many years - it is an exciting community and has been a pure pleasure to play (... played the Babylon Project to death)
I'm also an old-school fan of the 3000AD Battle Cruiser / Universal Combat games and am an active member of that forum. Derek Smart has matured into a wonderful grumpy wise old man (we'll not that old, same age as me anyway - 40ish) that has not let the industry make him too cynical, and has never stopped evolving the core technologies that go into making a holistic sim --- it is at least worth the attempt!!!
What is required is feedback to a question that Derek has posed ........ Within the fabric of the 3000AD universe, what sort of space / air / ground / naval / trade MMO do gamers really want?
So, I'm reaching out to the other cool sim forums around to try to get some buy-in on idea's etc. I'm really only asking this on this forum and the StarWraith forum to keep it within my favourites at this point.
The SCP is discussed with much respect on the 3000AD forums and the mods etc are often discussed; yes, as competition, but also as a wonderful indie title (well ... completely free is still indie right?)
Can you guys please help out???? If so, just go to http://www.3000ad.com and find the "Galactic Command Online" discussion in the community forums - "and So It Begins!"
-
Oh, boy. :nervous: I hope none of the old-timers decide to reactivate their grudge against Mr. Smart.
The SCP is discussed with much respect on the 3000AD forums and the mods etc are often discussed; yes, as competition, but also as a wonderful indie title (well ... completely free is still indie right?)
Technically, you need to own a copy of FreeSpace 2 for the SCP to work, so the SCP itself is hardly competition. But I'm glad things are positive; after the 'Derek Smart Wants to Buy FreeSpace' debacle I thought there would be some kind of awful bilateral hatred.
Anyway, I must say that I'm not a big fan of the MMO. If one did go off, however, I'd suggest steering more towards Freelancer than EVE in terms of flight mechanics; I'd rather have hands-on control than a click-click-click interface.
The ability to command both fighters and warships would be wonderful too.
-
Really... probably not the best forum to ask for help for Derek Smart. I personally hope his MMO costs him millions and bankrupts him. Hes an arrogant prick, and based on his dealings with us here, I very much doubt he's "matured" into anything (nd if he has, anyone who has to wait until they're 40-ish to mature enough to be allowed on the internet (I wish) probably has some kind of developmental disorder.
Actually, Derek Smart or not, I thought people who register and make one post telling us to go do something completely unrelated to Freespace got deleted as spambots?
-
Oh, let Badman be. He seems like a good guy himself.
-
Oh, let Badman be. He seems like a good guy himself.
Which is more or less why I didn't lock the thread myself.
-
Actually, Derek Smart or not, I thought people who register and make one post telling us to go do something completely unrelated to Freespace got deleted as spambots?
He's obviously not a bot. He seems friendly enough. There is no linkspam. The post is in the appropriate subforum. Mostly harmless. IMO.
-
I had honestly hoped that Battlecruiser/UC would die a painful and silent death in some obscure corner of cyberspace.....alas, even after wasting $20 on UC, I do not yet have veangence.
Badman, I'd look at how X3 works, and make it something like that, but MUCH easier to pick up and learn. Also, more combat would be nice in the UC universe that isn't a complete FUXUP unless you have carrier craft. Furthermore, you would have to make it so you could actually progress in the universe, rather than stagnate for days on one objective/career/system war.
-
He's obviously not a bot. He seems friendly enough. There is no linkspam. The post is in the appropriate subforum. Mostly harmless. IMO.
I realize he's not a bot, just following a bot's MO.
-
Yeah, I knew this site would be a somewhat delicate one to approach, but I really love FS / SCP and value the opinion of those that live here.
There have definitely been some .... uhm .... tensions in the past, but personally I don't care, I just get involved in the excitement of a possibly awesome outcome.
Anyway, thanks for not binning my post.
P.S. I own both FS and FS2 ... AND all the old Descents :-)
-
I visited 3000 A.D. a few days ago and when I saw that an MMO was in the works it caught my interest. All I want from a space MMO is a good balanced PvP system doesn't require you to grind through so many levels just to stay competitive. Anyways I wish him the best of luck on his endeavor.
-
Screw levels and grinding entirely. It's a pain in the ass.
I say this as I try to log onto Runes of Magic :P
-
Yeah i'd hate to earn a load of stuff then lose it cos i got outspanked by someone who had a months headstart on me. Multi should be one-off skirmishes with stat saving in this genre. Or EVE happens and people lose loads of real life cash.
-
Difficult to say, if anything, I'd say that Derek's stuff is more suited to MMO than single player, my concerns about BC were the fact that Derek's ideas were far grander than the systems there were written on could support, which, I think, tended to lead to dissapointment, if you could remove the need for the computer to maintain enough AI to keep the universe vibrant, so it could focus on other matters, he could have a workable formula.
As a man, he's an arrogant prick who insulted the Hard Light Community on two forums and then had the gall to try to claim we started it, but as a game concept, a BC3000AD MMO wouldn't be unworkable.
-
-I'd say keep stats to a minimum in effect, and keep them simply, say, make it so that it takes about 10hours to gain the arbitrary 'skills' in game for a class, then leave the rest to equipment.
In terms of PvP, I'd like to see system similar to BF2, in that the longer-term players have access to some better stuff, but someone whom has only played a dozen hours can be just as competitive with their equipment.
And MANUAL CONTROL TOGGLE for ships.
-
I see the name calling hasn't stopped. For those of you oblivious to the facts, Internet way back machine is your friend.
FACT is, some folks in THIS community started with the insults, name calling etc back when I announced that I was interested in licensing and doing FS3. I responded in kind. Who wouldn't?
Most of you who live in glass houses like to throw stones. Yet when someone drags in a wheelbarrow loaded with graphite boulders and lobs them through your glass ceiling, that person becomes the bad guy and you all start crying foul or reaching for the insults shoulder bag you carry around with a false sense of pride.
...and yet, here we are again.
Remember the Freespace 3 debacle? Well gee, lets see....I've shipped THREE games since then. Echo Squad SE (a space combat sim from 2008), All Aspect Warfare (2009) and Angle Of Attack (2009). Had I gone ahead worked out a license deal with Herve for the FS3 license, you would have been playing a next-gen space combat FS3 game in 2009. But no. What are you playing now in the FS world? Oh, thats right. Mods (some really good ones at that) and some half-baked space combat sims that most of you don't like and which will never aspire to be anything like FS2 or any of the mods. And Eve Online - the glorified spreadsheet in space - even with a healthy 300K subscribers - continues to be the leading space combat game. So who ended up losing? Not me, I can tell you that. I'm still making games.
Lets fast-forward.
Having shipped my two new games, I have resumed working on my MMO because I believe that my game world calls for it. And given my install base, would do well.
How many of you are happy with Eve Online (an excellent game in its own right, but a spreadsheet in space is NOT a space combat sim)?
How many of you have been waiting for the Jumpgate Evolution Beta for over TWO YEARS now? And how many of you still have hopes that it will be any good, given the information that has been coming out of Netdevil?
How many of you think that Black Prophecy will ever see the light of day? Especially given the current industry climate and the fact that they're still out looking for a publisher - and thus funding?
How many of you are waiting in the rafters to fork out your credit card to play Star Trek Online in three months? Go ahead, raise your hand.
Go ahead and think about those questions for a minute. I'll wait.
Done? Good.
I have put out a "Request for comments (http://www.3000ad.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=50026900)" so that most of you who have been wanting an engaging and worthy space+planetary combat MMO, can put in your own 2c and help with the outcome. I announced my Galactic Command Online (http://galactic-command.com) MMO just two weeks ago with an extensive FAQ (http://galactic-command.com/gco_faq.html) containing every conceivable question any space combat fan could possibly have.
And as you all know, if anyone is going to do it, then its going to be me because I don't rely on publishers to chart my course.
You have a chance to help out with a game that you might like to play and what do you do? You shoot the messenger [Badman]?
Considering that there are other space combat sim communities out there, what makes some of you think that behaving this way is going to yield any good outcome short of yet another Derek Smart bashing? You're not hurting me in any way, shape or form. I'm still twenty years and fourteen games in - and in an industry where so many have fallen. So obviously I'm not going anywhere.
Anyway, for those of you remotely interested, you know where to go. Thats it - I'm done.
-
Good to hear from you, Derek.
I'm sure the tone will stay pretty civil. We've already got some on-topic feedback coming in, and, hey, three flamey posts isn't bad.
Anyway, as this is largely a FreeSpace fansite, I'm sure that everyone agrees that the state of the space sim market isn't great right now. Although your games haven't clicked for me, you've got a successful business model and a good niche, so keep it up.
While I don't think the FreeSpace universe was right for you (your games are far, far more complex than the relatively simple arcade-shooter model FreeSpace uses), and the real prerequisite for an FS3 is the use of the :V: writing staff, I'm happy to see you keep making games. And I followed your comments on RockPaperShotgun with interest and appreciation.
-
Manual control is only valid if it plays some kind of role. There's a very good reason EVE doesn't have it: it wouldn't matter. All ships have a 360 field of fire on all their guns/launchers/mining tools. Orbiting the target is, admittedly, still kind of crappy (ask anyone who's run into asteroids via the auto-orbit feature when it didn't have to take that particular plane) but that, manual and fairly simple even with EVE's interface slashing passes, and holding a range are basically the only manuvers of any meaningful value when your only restrictions on engagement are range and turrets' ability to track the target's relative motion.
BC/UC didn't really feature it for your capitals for the same reason.
EDIT: Jesus christ on a ****stick. For those interested in Derek's overall history, I recommend Flame War Follies.
-
I feel privileged to have witnessed this historic moment.
-
Thanks General. Lets see how long it lasts.
The reason we are reaching out to all the space communities is simple. The genre is going to remain in a niche category and with half-baked attempts. So far, the likes of Taikodom are what passes for space combat MMO these days. Everything coming down the pipeline falls short in some form or another.
I can 100% guarantee you that given the number of people who have - and are quitting - Eve Online, and those who already know that JGE is only going to be a short step from the [failed] JGC, if a decent space combat MMO comes along and which captures the glory that all sides want - INCLUDING planetary aspects - we all win. Whats not to like?
I'm not developing some half-baked space combat game to cater to some investor (I have none) or publisher (don't have/need one). I'm building an MMO based on pre-existing properties which - believe it or not - continue to do well for me. However, this time around, I want to make the game more accessible so that we all win - regardless of whether or not you are in a fighter or a cap ship. Throw in first person support and planets - whats not to like?
-
Personally, I'd love something like Combat Orbiter (http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/) with a wide range of airplanes for atmospheric flight and as required, seamless transition to orbital combat as well.
Then I consider the ridiculous difficulty level it would pose for most people (who would think that the best way to reach a target ahead of your orbit would be to slow down, which moves you to lower and therefore faster orbit and lets you catch up to the target) and I realize no one will ever make that sort of game commercially.
Still, it could work if missions were cleverly designed, and if it offered a cleverly designed autopilot that would deliver you on target orbit. In fact, Orbiter's Delta Glider IV does offer a computer that does exactly that but it's sort of fiddly as you need to be clicking the flight computer's buttons on the panel to load up program codes (which you need to read from a PDF guide), and then there's the matter of time constraints - one orbit around earth takes 90 minutes at low altitudes, no one's going to really want to play one mission that long in multiplayer.
However, if the game engine could run this kind of environment seamlessly in MMO gameplay, then it gets interesting as it would be possible to have atmospheric combat missions, orbital combat, ground attacks and capital ship engagements on orbit at the same time. It would require a lot of management from teams to do effectively, and it would also require a lot of dedicated players, but it would be pretty awesome if done right.
Regarding the alleged hostility between Mr. Smart and FS2 community, I'm not really impressed by people maintaining it (from either sides of the conflict). Seriously, it's been years since that debacle. Just let it rest in piece... :doubt:
-
There's nothing wrong with more choice for players.
Out of curiosity, have you played any of the user-made FreeSpace mods? Beyond the Red Line, maybe?
Hey, everybody, let's keep this thread civil, okay? I will probably moderate the heck out of this if it gets nasty.
-
This entire thing actually sounds quite promising. Looking forward to see how this turns out. Good luck, sir. :cool:
-
Manual control is only valid if it plays some kind of role. There's a very good reason EVE doesn't have it: it wouldn't matter. All ships have a 360 field of fire on all their guns/launchers/mining tools. Orbiting the target is, admittedly, still kind of crappy (ask anyone who's run into asteroids via the auto-orbit feature when it didn't have to take that particular plane) but that, manual and fairly simple even with EVE's interface slashing passes, and holding a range are basically the only manuvers of any meaningful value when your only restrictions on engagement are range and turrets' ability to track the target's relative motion.
BC/UC didn't really feature it for your capitals for the same reason.
Rubbish. Each game's mechanics are designed specifically for the game. If you don't understand them, don't talk about them.
Eve's mechanics work within the framework of their game. It is not a twitch based game. In BC/UC the mechanics are quite different and NONE of what you posted above bares any relevence - nor makes any sense. You clearly haven't played ANY of my games - but I'm sure you wished you had.
To the rest of you, go and download the FULL freeware version of Universal Combat (http://www.fileplanet.com/section.aspx?s=49748&v=0) and go from there. And if you want to see how my twitch based combat shooter works, download the Echo Squad SE (http://www.3000ad.com/games/galactic-command-echo-squad-se/) demo.
EDIT: Jesus christ on a ****stick. For those interested in Derek's overall history, I recommend Flame War Follies.
..here we go. And the relevance to this thread is what exactly?
-
Derek Smart's posting again? Aw snap.
Personally, I'd love something like Combat Orbiter with a wide range of airplanes for atmospheric flight and as required, seamless transition to orbital combat as well.
Then I consider the ridiculous difficulty level it would pose for most people (who would think that the best way to reach a target ahead of your orbit would be to slow down, which moves you to lower and therefore faster orbit and lets you catch up to the target) and I realize no one will ever make that sort of game commercially.
That would indeed be cool to see! Personally I'd like to have the mechanics used in Orbiter, but make everything a bit "faster" so to speak, ie, a faster rate of rotation and translational movement, or maybe even a faster rate of orbital movement overall, so that one orbit at LEO would take maybe 9 minutes instead of 90. Probably would be just as difficult to make it feasible and fun for gameplay but worth trying out I'd think. Just my two cents, anyway. :)
-
However, if the game engine could run this kind of environment seamlessly in MMO gameplay, then it gets interesting as it would be possible to have atmospheric combat missions, orbital combat, ground attacks and capital ship engagements on orbit at the same time. It would require a lot of management from teams to do effectively, and it would also require a lot of dedicated players, but it would be pretty awesome if done right.
...and here's the thing. I ALREADY have that technology. And it works. Has always worked. And continues to work.
In my games, you don't have to be in orbit or deal with any of the hassles that makes it hard to play. You see a planet, you can dogfight and fly around its orbit all day long and NEVER enter the planet by accident. In order to do that, you have to target the planet and press a key to initiate a planetfall transition. When that starts, the engine switches to an external camera - you enter the planet. Land. Get out of your craft in first person mode.
In GCO, all of that will remain in-tact - but the goal is to make the game a bit more accessible than BC/UC games, without alienating the fans I have worldwide who a) like it just the way it is b) learned the hard way - but took the time to learn it.
Hence the reasons we're reaching out to ALL space combat fans so that within the next year of the game's development, I can come up with a middle ground for everyone who likes these games. And over the years, we can continue building on it. Thats why the game will have both a F2P model and a subscription model because I am building it for ALL space combat fans everywhere. You guys don't have to like me (and I don't care - never did). Its not about me and even if it was, you'd still be wasting your time because I simply won't care either way because you'd still not like me but still playing my game without admiting it to anyone. I win.
Out of curiosity, have you played any of the user-made FreeSpace mods? Beyond the Red Line, maybe?
Yep. I've played ALL of them. I'm a space sim nut, remember? I was even looking to hire in some of the guys from those mods, but given the reception I got from years ago over the FS3 debacle, I said screw it and didn't.
-
Did you have any favorites? :nervous:
(not that I'm looking to be hired now, mind, but I am a huge fanboi of a few campaigns)
-
Did you have any favorites? :nervous:
(not that I'm looking to be hired now, mind, but I am a huge fanboi of a few campaigns)
Oh, hush.
In before lock
-
I was actually thinking of Transcend and some stuff from The Babylon Project. :p
-
Wow, Derek plays FreeSpace mods? Cool.
-
Wow, Derek plays FreeSpace mods? Cool.
Yep. Apart from being an avid game collector (http://www.dereksmart.com/pics/08-04-03), I have played EVERY SINGLE space combat game there is. ALL of them. Mods and all. I played more of the FS mods because of course I was looking to see how best to approach FS3 if I did obtain the license.
And yes, I do have favorites, but I'd rather not say because that would be ill-advised. :)
-
Welcome back to HLP Mr Smart.
As for the 'name calling', we will agree to differ on that respect, since I remember a certain comment about 'girly men' before a single HLP commenter had posted, but still, that is in the past, I agree, so I'll let it lie.
As I said before, I think BC3000AD would work quite well as an MMO, it allows the universe to flourish without having to be pushed along, which leaves a lot more room for the real fun stuff server-side.
I was an Eve player, but I quit, because the game was dividing too heavily into 'haves' and 'have-nots', there were too many in-crowds, and no chance to simply wander around and experience the game universe in general, the hard part of any MMO, I suppose, is catering to the vast spread of playing types there are out there, some people prefer non PvP games, where they can sight-see, others prefer one on one combat, personally, I'm not a big fan of unsolicited PvP, something Eve was absolutely rife with, I think, to be honest, CCP got too obsessed with it being a community and not obsessed enough with it being a game. That's my experiences/thoughts on Space-based MMO's anyway.
-
<snip>
...and here's the thing. I ALREADY have that technology. And it works. Has always worked. And continues to work.
In my games, you don't have to be in orbit or deal with any of the hassles that makes it hard to play. You see a planet, you can dogfight and fly around its orbit all day long and NEVER enter the planet by accident. In order to do that, you have to target the planet and press a key to initiate a planetfall transition. When that starts, the engine switches to an external camera - you enter the planet. Land. Get out of your craft in first person mode.
Ah, but part of the appeal (to me) would be that you COULD, if you so wanted, move from space combat area of engagement to atmospheric flight, or land, or disembark your vehicle, all continuously without activating a planetfall cutscene or anything like that. And also if you were not careful, you could end up burning in the atmosphere if you overstressed your craft... or if you dropped too low in a space craft not qualified for atmospheric entries. It would be largely non-issue if the player started at 36000 km altitude at geosynchronous orbit; for all intents and purposes, orbital mechanics wouldn't really disrupt combat there.
It would also introduce some pretty interesting dynamics to the space combat, since you could then have spacecraft that are capable of only spaceflight but be more optimized for space combat (lack of wings and other accessories required of airplanes reduces weight), vehicles capable of both atmospheric and space flight, and airplanes that would only operate on the atmosphere.
The way I see it, space combat would be concentrated on a very small areas - mainly, stations on geosynchronous orbits and Lagrangian points in the system. Players interested mainly in space combat would be deployed on these areas, however it would be possible for them to traverse to the planet's surface if they so wanted. Similarly, people interested in atmospheric flight combat would be spawned either on air starts or airfields depending on the mission, but if some hardcore player really wanted, he could pick an space flight qualified airplane, get into orbit and attack the enemy capital ship on low orbit. Or a flight of ground attack craft could undock from that low orbit capital ship, descend to the atmosphere and commence a ground attack. Being deployed on the immediate vicinity of action would make the game accessible to people who aren't intersted in long sessions of simple transition from place A to place B, but continous game world would make that possible too.
...or you could have orbital drop shock troopers (with another name to avoid trademark conflicts :p) seamlessly deployed from low orbit to surface. Or you could have a transport pilot delivering a Marine squad on a space station, or other endless options.
Myself, I would prefer to fly single pilot craft in either atmospheric or spaceborne ship-to-ship combat, but the option where you would be able to gather my survival kit after crash landing on enemy territory, and try to avoid capture is sort of interesting too.
Regarding form of combat, I'm sort of torn. I personally greatly prefer visual range gun combat (aka dogfighting) to BVR missile fights, but on the other hand it might be implausible to exclude missiles altogether. Perhaps making them a commodity might work best; that way you could both make them plausibly destructive and explain why there aren't too many of them.
...and although visual range swarm missiles are visually stunning, I don't think I would want to deal with a Macross Missile Massacre (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MacrossMissileMassacre) being unleashed on me... :nervous:
-
People have to remember there is a very big trade-off involved with First Person perspective from an MMO point of view, because a heck of a lot more data needs to be passed around about projectiles, angles etc, that's why most MMO's work a 'dice-roll' system.
If you think a stand alone server has trouble keeping track of the lasers shots from a single Multiplayer game, wait until you try keeping track of the shots from a hundred skirmishes across the universe. I think you'd have to do something like turn local combat into a 'mini-multiplayer' game, and that might cause problems with ships moving locally, arriving on the scene etc, because the current state would have to be transferred to those ships as well from the combatants.
-
Yes, and that's not even the smallest of problems in a real-sized, continuous planet/solar system sized environment. To look good, the planet would need some serious model detail, and that alone would be... significantly large amount of data. :nervous: The Earth looks like crap in Orbiter when you get down from the orbit...
Realities bite. :p I suppose we need a couple more years until we can simulate an universe in our universe so we can fight wars while living in peace...
-
Make Resnig an NPC and make it possible to kill him in the most visceral way imaginable. I recommend some sort of cinematic when you throw him out of the airlock while orbiting Jupiter.
Anyway, my advices would be to:
- Make the interface follow the industry's standards. Last time I played BCMG I remember the FPS part having some unusual key configuration.
- Storywise, I'm not sure if it was resolved, but some info on the crashed probe (who launched it? what was it doing?) would be nice.
- Make it possible to invade other ships. In BCMG and UC you could never invade other ships, but you were always the one being boarded. I think this was done because of some technical difficulty but it's kind of jarring.
The BC universe always fitted an MMO better than a single-player game as someone already pointed out.
-
Yes, and that's not even the smallest of problems in a real-sized, continuous planet/solar system sized environment. To look good, the planet would need some serious model detail, and that alone would be... significantly large amount of data. :nervous: The Earth looks like crap in Orbiter when you get down from the orbit...
Realities bite. :p I suppose we need a couple more years until we can simulate an universe in our universe so we can fight wars while living in peace...
Well, we can get around that problem (sort of) with procedural environments like what Infinity is trying to do. Speaking of which they seem to be going for a pseudo-netwonian gameplay mechanic as well, though I doubt the orbital mechanics are very good, if present at all.
-
Yup, they can all be done, of that I'm certain, if there's one thing I don't think about Derek Smart, it's that he would be considering the concept if he didn't feel it was possible, and I wish him luck with it, but I will admit to being interested in how the first-person hurdle would be overcome, as I mentioned earlier, the way that occurs to me is creating a 'mini' multiplayer game that works peer-peer between the ships involved, if you could keep most combat outside the main traffic zones, that would ease a lot of weight on the servers.
-
Gah. . . Visual quality is a must-have. If it doesn't look pretty in this day and age i'm not interested. Elite and Frontier had an excuse.
I like a game like X3 to be honest. Use that as a model.
-
Welecome back Mr. Smart.
Let's try to put the flames of old where they belong - in the past - and start fresh. We got off on the wrong foot last time and I truly hope we can all have a nice and civil chat. So no flame baits everyone!
Now, with that out of the way...
Mr. Smart, I'd advise you to look into the Infinity: Quest for Earth forums. They have a whole lot of good sugegstions on their board and will probably be your competition in a sense. And competition is healthy ;)
My advice is to adjust the controls to the craft. Fighters are twich-based and should handle and be controled like that. Large capital ships are about planning and strategy. So as you move from smaller to bigger ships, the controls and mechanics move ever more from twich-based to point-and-click strategic.
What else? A certain level of modularity between ships, but not too much. Infity is going for a non-specialization principle and it's a good thing - up to a point. But if the difference between a military battelship hull and a freighter hull is miniscue, then what's the point of having different categories?
A good selection of weapons and defenses. No levels. No grinding. Let simple logic guide the universe. No traders flying state-of-the-art military warships. What kind of a retarded military would sell you one anyway? If you want it, you have to be a trusted and distinguished memer of the military. Otherwise, go buy civilian hulls/ships.
I made quite a lof of suggestions on the Infintiy boards. May be simpler to just try to find them and copy-paste. Or if you go and read the boards there I won't need to bother. ;)
-
Yes, and that's not even the smallest of problems in a real-sized, continuous planet/solar system sized environment. To look good, the planet would need some serious model detail, and that alone would be... significantly large amount of data. :nervous: The Earth looks like crap in Orbiter when you get down from the orbit...
Realities bite. :p I suppose we need a couple more years until we can simulate an universe in our universe so we can fight wars while living in peace...
Well, we can get around that problem (sort of) with procedural environments like what Infinity is trying to do. Speaking of which they seem to be going for a pseudo-netwonian gameplay mechanic as well, though I doubt the orbital mechanics are very good, if present at all.
Yes, but when the environment gets big enough, the amount of data that the client side computers is needed to recreate from given random seeds (essentially compressed format) of the game world, the loading times and hardware requirements shoot up sky high (pun absolutely intended). Procedural terrain data that uses a material system for different surface types would be the only sensible solution, but even then the sheer size of the thing would be... troublesome. The accuracy of the terrain needs to be the same for everyone so that collision detection with terrain works the same for everyone, so that means either everyone is required to use the same level of terrain detail (bad idea if you plan on making the game available for a variety of hardware specs, unless you plan on limiting the level of detail on the level that can be run with minimum hardware requirements) or you need some very intelligently designed LOD system that would decrease the surface model detail on long distance while keeping the detail constant at the immediate vicinity of the player.
Infinity is sort of close to what I have in mind... but I'm not having high hopes of it being finished in any reasonable time frame. :blah: Hopefully, they prove me wrong.
-
They are making steady progress. At least in the models department (which remids me... I have to get off my ass and finish the Deltan station).
I'm not so sure about the coding, but the trade system seems to be coming alone nicely too. That said, I do fear the game is trying to be too many things at once.
-
Hey guys, good suggestions and commentary all around - exactly the kind of discussion we should be having. Let me highlight some points which I need to make clear.
If you haven't yet, PLEASE do the following:
1. Download and play the Echo Squad SE demo (2008) (http://3000ad.com/games/galactic-command-echo-squad-se/). This will give you an idea of the twitch based fighter space combat.
2. Download and play either All Aspect Warfare (2009) or Angle Of Attack (2009) game demos (http://www.3000ad.com/aaw/media-site/). This will give you an idea of the aerial combat, first person engine etc. These are ALL new technologies which will be used in GCO and will remain largely unchanged.
3. Download and play the freeware Universal Combat (2004) (http://www.fileplanet.com/section.aspx?s=49748&v=0) game. Though this is a much older game, without having to buy the newer Universal Combat Collector's Edition v2.0 (2009) (http://3000ad.com/games/universal-combat-collectors-edition2/), this is the closest that you will get to having an idea of how the cap ship combat, space<->planetary transition, fps etc will work since everything is rolled into these UC games.
As I mentioned in the GCO game's FAQ (http://galactic-command.com/gco_faq.html) as well as on the forum thread (http://www.3000ad.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=50026900), the idea here is not to change anything that works; but rather to lower the barrier of entry somewhat, while keeping intact the elements that more advanced players love about the games
Welcome back to HLP Mr Smart.
As I said before, I think BC3000AD would work quite well as an MMO, it allows the universe to flourish without having to be pushed along, which leaves a lot more room for the real fun stuff server-side.
Indeed. Which is primarily why there are absolutely no quests, missions or anything of the sort. The IP's underlying storyline which seeds alliances, territories and such - are all there is. So this will keep the game's open ended nature intact.
I was an Eve player, but I quit, because the game was dividing too heavily into 'haves' and 'have-nots', there were too many in-crowds, and no chance to simply wander around and experience the game universe in general, the hard part of any MMO, I suppose, is catering to the vast spread of playing types there are out there, some people prefer non PvP games, where they can sight-see, others prefer one on one combat, personally, I'm not a big fan of unsolicited PvP, something Eve was absolutely rife with, I think, to be honest, CCP got too obsessed with it being a community and not obsessed enough with it being a game. That's my experiences/thoughts on Space-based MMO's anyway.
Exactly. And this is the reason why we're scouting the space sim communities and getting feedback. I certainly don't want the game to favor expert players or to have an unbalanced game world. My goal is for those starting the game today, to not be at a significant disadvantage against players who came in months before. That of course is going to be tricky, but if the game is not complex and rewards all gamers equally, I don't see that as being a problem. Sure, some issues will arise, but thats what game balancing is all about and is exactly the reason why I'm going to start the public testing from the late Alpha stage and right through to the final release.
As to the PvP vs PvE issue - I am well aware of this and will rely on the testers to shape that path. Due to how the game world is designed (http://www.3000ad.com/fleets/img/galaxy_map_links.jpg), I don't see PvP as being a big problem. For example, a Terran/Military player starting off at GALCOM HQ station (in orbit around Earth) can still trade and explore the Terran quadrant without fear of being attacked. Of course if you get too close to a hostile station (e.g. in Sygan), you will be. One thing I have in place is a "weapons off" directive whereby via electronic locks, your weapons simply won't work. Period. The problem with that is say this is activated in Earth region, this means that no combat can go on in that region - hence the station there will never be attacked.
So it is going to be a balancing act - especiallyh for a game that have PvP components. As there are no quests or stories, being that the game is neither instanced nor sharded, PvE is going to be just players going up against NPC station or base assets. e.g. if you engaged the Sygan station - even with no human players in the region - the station will launch defense assets, fire its turrets, missile batteries etc. This means that it works exactly as it does now. If you just want to trade, then you stick to the friendly trade lanes. But tbh, without PvP in this game, its not going to be much fun for long. I guess the thrill is going to be seeing how deep into enemy territory you can go with illegal arms and such withough getting blown to bits. Since the game world is already seeded, there is a lot of exploration to be done. And the richer you become, the more likely you are to find a barren rock and build something on it without anyone knowing about it.
My goal for GCO is the same as my previous BC/UC games in that I want gamers to make their own adventure. Anyone who finds this to be an issue, will have to go play something else.
Ah, but part of the appeal (to me) would be that you COULD, if you so wanted, move from space combat area of engagement to atmospheric flight, or land, or disembark your vehicle, all continuously without activating a planetfall cutscene or anything like that. And also if you were not careful, you could end up burning in the atmosphere if you overstressed your craft... or if you dropped too low in a space craft not qualified for atmospheric entries. It would be largely non-issue if the player started at 36000 km altitude at geosynchronous orbit; for all intents and purposes, orbital mechanics wouldn't really disrupt combat there.
Our games have no cutscenes. Never did. The transition from space<->planet takes place in an external camera view once you set in motion the event that drops the ship into planetfall. Having it any other way (e.g. how Infinity QfE does it) adds nothing to the game and is of no consequence whatsoever. The issue with airfoil stress, atmospheric burnup etc - again - add nothing to the game and just adds another barrier for newcomers who have to learn all that stuff. Thats not my goal. My goal is to make the game easy to get into, play and fun, not work. None of the above bear any relation to that goal.
It would also introduce some pretty interesting dynamics to the space combat, since you could then have spacecraft that are capable of only spaceflight but be more optimized for space combat (lack of wings and other accessories required of airplanes reduces weight), vehicles capable of both atmospheric and space flight, and airplanes that would only operate on the atmosphere.
None of that equals fun.
The way I see it, space combat would be concentrated on a very small areas - mainly, stations on geosynchronous orbits and Lagrangian points in the system. Players interested mainly in space combat would be deployed on these areas, however it would be possible for them to traverse to the planet's surface if they so wanted. Similarly, people interested in atmospheric flight combat would be spawned either on air starts or airfields depending on the mission, but if some hardcore player really wanted, he could pick an space flight qualified airplane, get into orbit and attack the enemy capital ship on low orbit. Or a flight of ground attack craft could undock from that low orbit capital ship, descend to the atmosphere and commence a ground attack. Being deployed on the immediate vicinity of action would make the game accessible to people who aren't intersted in long sessions of simple transition from place A to place B, but continous game world would make that possible too.
Thats now how my games work. The game world is open and with no restrictions. Also, adding artificial barriers does not equal to fun. If you see a planet, you can fly around it, do what you want etc. And if you decide to enter it, you just target it, press a key and planetfall is engaged.
...or you could have orbital drop shock troopers (with another name to avoid trademark conflicts :p) seamlessly deployed from low orbit to surface. Or you could have a transport pilot delivering a Marine squad on a space station, or other endless options.
You can already do that in my BC/UC games. But this won't be in GCO because there are no NPC crew. The only way cap ships are going to be able to deploy troops to a planet from space using the transporters, is if the troops are human players on board the ship.
Myself, I would prefer to fly single pilot craft in either atmospheric or spaceborne ship-to-ship combat, but the option where you would be able to gather my survival kit after crash landing on enemy territory, and try to avoid capture is sort of interesting too.
Thats already part of the current BC/UC gameplay mechanic. Even in All Aspect Warfare, you can shot down out in the middle of nowhere and can teleport to a friendly nearby base using a key sequence. I intend to preserve this gameplay mechanic in GCO but with some penalities.
Regarding form of combat, I'm sort of torn. I personally greatly prefer visual range gun combat (aka dogfighting) to BVR missile fights, but on the other hand it might be implausible to exclude missiles altogether. Perhaps making them a commodity might work best; that way you could both make them plausibly destructive and explain why there aren't too many of them.
...and although visual range swarm missiles are visually stunning, I don't think I would want to deal with a Macross Missile Massacre (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MacrossMissileMassacre) being unleashed on me... :nervous:
This is space in the 30th century. Use of missiles and BVR combat is inevitable. By the same token, the advance jamming tech means that using missiles doesn't always guarantee a success. Especially since the game is twitch based and thus player skill comes into play.
People have to remember there is a very big trade-off involved with First Person perspective from an MMO point of view, because a heck of a lot more data needs to be passed around about projectiles, angles etc, that's why most MMO's work a 'dice-roll' system.
If you think a stand alone server has trouble keeping track of the lasers shots from a single Multiplayer game, wait until you try keeping track of the shots from a hundred skirmishes across the universe. I think you'd have to do something like turn local combat into a 'mini-multiplayer' game, and that might cause problems with ships moving locally, arriving on the scene etc, because the current state would have to be transferred to those ships as well from the combatants.
That may be an issue for someone who has no experience with networking or building large game worlds. But its not in our case. Bah! we already did that back in 2003. Our networking architecture is client/server based and one of the reasons that I'm keeping the player limit to 256 per server is so that everything runs as best as it can in real-time. This is not P2P. The server doesn't send data to clients that don't need it. So its not like if you're in Terran quadrant, you're going to be getting server data packets from the Gammulan quadrant.
Elementary stuff really. Been there. Done that.
Yes, and that's not even the smallest of problems in a real-sized, continuous planet/solar system sized environment. To look good, the planet would need some serious model detail, and that alone would be... significantly large amount of data. :nervous: The Earth looks like crap in Orbiter when you get down from the orbit...
Realities bite. :p I suppose we need a couple more years until we can simulate an universe in our universe so we can fight wars while living in peace...
Visual quality has nothing to do with networking. The server is console based and doesn't do any graphics processing whatsoever. The visual quality of the planet as seen from space is down to how many polys are used to draw it, the quality and size of the texture used and whether or not mipmapping and/or Perlin noise is used when up close.
Again, elementary stuff that is of no consequence.
Make Resnig an NPC and make it possible to kill him in the most visceral way imaginable. I recommend some sort of cinematic when you throw him out of the airlock while orbiting Jupiter.
Anyway, my advices would be to:
- Make the interface follow the industry's standards. Last time I played BCMG I remember the FPS part having some unusual key configuration.
- Storywise, I'm not sure if it was resolved, but some info on the crashed probe (who launched it? what was it doing?) would be nice.
- Make it possible to invade other ships. In BCMG and UC you could never invade other ships, but you were always the one being boarded. I think this was done because of some technical difficulty but it's kind of jarring.
The BC universe always fitted an MMO better than a single-player game as someone already pointed out.
Ah yes, no BC/UC conversation without reference to Resnig. hehe, since there are no NPC crews in the game, I guess the only way there is ever going to be a Resnig is if a player happens to play as him and is part of your ship.
If BCMG was the last game you played, man, you're like ten years out. A LOT has gone on in terms of interface, key commands etc. Try playing one of the games I mentioned at the start of this post and see for yourself.
There is no storyline in GCO. Though there will be planned "events" which can be scheduled to take place at a certain date/time/place. If a player misses that event, then it never happens again. I intend to use this to flesh out some of the underlying mythos of the game world and its various nations. These events will be planned and announced well in advance of their occurence. And yes, the crashed probe is one of many such stories that I intend to resolve in GCO.
You can't board other ships or stations in the first release of GCO simply because there won't be any first person gameplay mode inside those assets. This will be added maybe a year or so after release as an add-on expansion. With that in place, sure you can board other ships and run around inside them in first person perspective. The FAQ has a link to shots of the Engstrom carrier levels to show as an example.
Yup, they can all be done, of that I'm certain, if there's one thing I don't think about Derek Smart, it's that he would be considering the concept if he didn't feel it was possible, and I wish him luck with it, but I will admit to being interested in how the first-person hurdle would be overcome, as I mentioned earlier, the way that occurs to me is creating a 'mini' multiplayer game that works peer-peer between the ships involved, if you could keep most combat outside the main traffic zones, that would ease a lot of weight on the servers.
Not sure I understand what "first person hurdle" you're talking about. There is no "first person hurdle". We've had first person in my games for the past ten years or so. Made even better in the recently released All Aspect Warfare and thats the same fps engine that is being used in GCO as shown in the movie currently on the teaser site.
All the server does is send data back and forth between clients. It is pure client/server architecture and with 256 players the server won't even break a sweat. It is all down to server CPU, memory and bandwidth. Nothing to do with the game itself.
Mr. Smart, I'd advise you to look into the Infinity: Quest for Earth forums. They have a whole lot of good sugegstions on their board and will probably be your competition in a sense. And competition is healthy ;)
uhm, I don't think so. I'm not going to go to someone's site and rudely peddle my game.
Apart from that, they are a totally different community. For one thing, Infinity is more of a tech demo and proof-of-concept, than a viable game property. Each time I think about it, I go back to how I started out with a ton of ambitious ideas and such - then ended up with very niche games decades later. I do not believe that it will evolve into a game that many people will play.
My advice is to adjust the controls to the craft. Fighters are twich-based and should handle and be controled like that. Large capital ships are about planning and strategy. So as you move from smaller to bigger ships, the controls and mechanics move ever more from twich-based to point-and-click strategic.
Have that already.
What else? A certain level of modularity between ships, but not too much. Infity is going for a non-specialization principle and it's a good thing - up to a point. But if the difference between a military battelship hull and a freighter hull is miniscue, then what's the point of having different categories?
Have that already.
A good selection of weapons and defenses. No levels. No grinding. Let simple logic guide the universe. No traders flying state-of-the-art military warships. What kind of a retarded military would sell you one anyway? If you want it, you have to be a trusted and distinguished memer of the military. Otherwise, go buy civilian hulls/ships.
Have that already.
I made quite a lof of suggestions on the Infintiy boards. May be simpler to just try to find them and copy-paste. Or if you go and read the boards there I won't need to bother. ;)
Nah, thats ok. As I said, GCO is built off my game properties and tech that already works.
Yes, but when the environment gets big enough, the amount of data that the client side computers is needed to recreate from given random seeds (essentially compressed format) of the game world, the loading times and hardware requirements shoot up sky high (pun absolutely intended). Procedural terrain data that uses a material system for different surface types would be the only sensible solution, but even then the sheer size of the thing would be... troublesome. The accuracy of the terrain needs to be the same for everyone so that collision detection with terrain works the same for everyone, so that means either everyone is required to use the same level of terrain detail (bad idea if you plan on making the game available for a variety of hardware specs, unless you plan on limiting the level of detail on the level that can be run with minimum hardware requirements) or you need some very intelligently designed LOD system that would decrease the surface model detail on long distance while keeping the detail constant at the immediate vicinity of the player.
Infinity is sort of close to what I have in mind... but I'm not having high hopes of it being finished in any reasonable time frame. :blah: Hopefully, they prove me wrong.
Not an issue. Even procedural terrain has its limitations. Unlike BC/UC games, GCO is not modeling entire planets because it is pointless and wasted data which nobody is going to see or play on. Sure it will be a large map, but where you emerge from space or start on from the planet side of things, is currently no larger than a 500 sq. km stretch of area. Our recent AAW/AOA games used a 400 sq. km stretch of land on a single planet - and people still complained that it was too big. Since GCO is only going to have 256 players per server, creating massive planets is pointless and adds nothing to the gameplay.
With the 500 sq. km map area, the terrain data is trivial. Heck, the map itself for each planet is only 32MB. And since gas giants don't have any terrain, of the 216 or so planets in the game world, only about 175 have any terrain. The server demand loads the entire galaxy without issue.
They are making steady progress. At least in the models department (which remids me... I have to get off my ass and finish the Deltan station).
I'm not so sure about the coding, but the trade system seems to be coming alone nicely too. That said, I do fear the game is trying to be too many things at once.
Indeed. And thats what I was talking about earlier. To me it appears to be more of a comp.sci experiment more than anything else. They are quite competent of course but the fact is, there is a big difference between a science proof-of-concept experiment and a game.
My guess is that it won't evolve as a game anytime soon. The terrain engine - if it actually does what I've read on there in any meaningful way and with decent performance - is something that they should consider packaging and licensing out. In fact, at one point I had considered joining forces with them, but decided against it because I wasn't convinced that they actually want to make a game out of it. Going from tech to game is a major leap that most first timers tend to underestimate. I should know - I've been there.
-
I think the main thing that needs to be decided is whether an accurate space sim or a space game (for want of a better word) would be more marketable. e.g. IL-2 compared to Ace Combat or Forza Motorsport compared to Burnout...
Seeing Derek's reply to Herra Tohtori's post, I expect that he has already chosen the second option.
Good Luck with this new venture.
-
Well this is certainly a interesting thread
Question Mr. Smart: How long do you expect the development phase of your game to be?
Also, how many people do you have in your team?
-
I know very little of game developement and make random guesses. :drevil:
It's all good though, it's good that the problems I see aren't that much of problems though. As to what is fun or not, I'm the first to admit my tastes reside on the heavier side of realism, as people who know me can attest to. :p I get the heebie-jeebies when I see physically impossible or, at very best, unplausible stuff on TV or games.
FreeSpace is a good example of a game that can distract me from the impossible though... it has so inconceivably well balanced gameplay that I just forget about physics most of the time I play it. The storyline is also a good distraction from inaccuracies like ships traversing on rails in space.
What kind of storyline should we expect from this game? Aside from any details, will it have a general plot, several campaigns, or will it be more individual mission based combat career game, or is that one of the points you want feedback on?
What sort of progression will be offered in the game? Promotions giving access to more hardware or something equivalent to reward success (like in Mass Effect or Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion or even Team Fortress 2), or is success it's own reward (like in, say, IL-2 Sturmovik)?
Regarding cutscenes; there are two sorts of cutscenes: videos and cinematic 3D cutscenes. Personally, I classify all sequences where you do not directly control your ship to be cutscenes. As to whether or not having the transition itself included as a simulation adds anything to the game, I can see why you have your opinion, but I disagree on it having no consequence. It can have consequences, but it would require very careful planning to make it actually work so that the player can (without a degree in astrophysics) navigate to the area where aerial combat is happening rather than landing on the southern polar cap with no fuel to get back to orbit or fly to the area of engagement. It would be a lot harder to do, but some nuts would like a manual descent option even if it wouldn't be quite in 1:1 scale (that would take way too much time to interest anyone really), but if there would be option between autopiloted, third-person descent and a computer-assisted descent where you would have some guidance like a glide slope, angle of attack and so forth toward the aerial engagement zone, I would likely pick the latter.
Then again, I'm an odd duck. ;7
Regarding the conundrum posited by qazwsx, I would prefer a game that offers both options. IL-2 does that, it has fairly flexible realism settings that - while not going up to quite Falcon 4.0 level - offer a fairly realistic experience for people who want it, and gradually reduced realism for people who don't care for realism quite that much. And that applies to both multiplayer and single player game; you just need to find a server that has realism options that agree with your style.
In the case of this game being a MMO, multiple servers with each having their own difficulty settings would probably be rather counter-productive, so in-game solutions would need to be found.
For example, in the case of controlled descent vs. automated descent - why not offer player control over such a matter? I realize that kind of things can eat up developement time and resources quite fast, but since you were asking of feedback and opinions, I offer mine.
I would be a terrible game developer though. My games would be full of feature creep and switches and goggles that do nothing in vast majority of situations.
-
I think the main thing that needs to be decided is whether an accurate space sim or a space game (for want of a better word) would be more marketable. e.g. IL-2 compared to Ace Combat or Forza Motorsport compared to Burnout...
Seeing Derek's reply to Herra Tohtori's post, I expect that he has already chosen the second option.
Good Luck with this new venture.
Indeed. As I've mentioned here and in the FAQ, the goal is for GCO to be a "fun space/planetary combat game". I have no interest in the simulation aspects, Newtonian physics or any of that "fluff" that presents a high barrier of entry for some gamers. MMO games have a different audience and so things have to be done to cater to that demographic. Its not going to be pure shooter since that would defeat the purpose.
Well this is certainly a interesting thread
Question Mr. Smart: How long do you expect the development phase of your game to be?
Also, how many people do you have in your team?
We have another year or so to go and expect the game to be fully deployed between late Q4/2010 and late Q1/2011. We have a sizeable team from all over the world, including folks who have worked on most of my games. Though a few more are coming on board, I don't expect it to grow beyond a dozen or so people.
What kind of storyline should we expect from this game? Aside from any details, will it have a general plot, several campaigns, or will it be more individual mission based combat career game, or is that one of the points you want feedback on?
As I mentioned earlier, there is no "story line", plots, campaign of anything of the sort other than the underlying IP mythos. It is an open-world, do your own thing game that is in the vein of the "freeform" nature of the BC/UC games. It has no single player component.
However, there will be planned scripted events (scenarios if you will) which take place in the game world. Refer to my post above about this.
What sort of progression will be offered in the game? Promotions giving access to more hardware or something equivalent to reward success (like in Mass Effect or Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion or even Team Fortress 2), or is success it's own reward (like in, say, IL-2 Sturmovik)?
XP gained from destroying others, capturing stations/bases etc lead to high rank and thus promotions. Those have nothing to do with equipment. So starting off as a marine in first person mode on a planet, you pretty much remain a marine, but if you have enough XP to buy a craft (any kind), then you pretty much become a marine commander. So you can start from a foot soldier all the way up to a cap ship commander who either goes around trading or looking for conflict.
The equipment upgrades have to be bought or obtained during combat. So just as in the BC/UC games, if you destroy a cap ship, you can grab its items which may or may not include upgrades e.g. a better shield perhaps.
Regarding cutscenes; there are two sorts of cutscenes: videos and cinematic 3D cutscenes. Personally, I classify all sequences where you do not directly control your ship to be cutscenes. As to whether or not having the transition itself included as a simulation adds anything to the game, I can see why you have your opinion, but I disagree on it having no consequence. It can have consequences, but it would require very careful planning to make it actually work so that the player can (without a degree in astrophysics) navigate to the area where aerial combat is happening rather than landing on the southern polar cap with no fuel to get back to orbit or fly to the area of engagement. It would be a lot harder to do, but some nuts would like a manual descent option even if it wouldn't be quite in 1:1 scale (that would take way too much time to interest anyone really), but if there would be option between autopiloted, third-person descent and a computer-assisted descent where you would have some guidance like a glide slope, angle of attack and so forth toward the aerial engagement zone, I would likely pick the latter.
Then again, I'm an odd duck. ;7
When I think cut-scene, I think pre-rendered - as thats the terminology used to describe it.
How you enter/leave a planet from orbit is irrelevant, adds noting to gameplay and is of no consequence. The key is the ability to do it with minimal interruption as possible. We achieved that back in 2003 and it hasn't changed nor will it change.
And no, it is of no consequence in MY games simply because you do have the ability to determine WHERE you enter the planet. You go to Tacops, set a waypoint, target the planet, jump to it. The ship emerges at thelocation of the waypoint. So the only time you end up at a random location - where perhaps combat is going on - is if you entered the planet without first using Tacops to plot a planetfall location. Those who have played any of my BC/UC games already know what I'm talking about. It won't change in GCO.
Regarding the conundrum posited by qazwsx, I would prefer a game that offers both options. IL-2 does that, it has fairly flexible realism settings that - while not going up to quite Falcon 4.0 level - offer a fairly realistic experience for people who want it, and gradually reduced realism for people who don't care for realism quite that much. And that applies to both multiplayer and single player game; you just need to find a server that has realism options that agree with your style.
Yes, but I'm sure that if that were something worth doing, someone would have done it by now in space games. Fact is, you only get to shoot for one target audience. Trying to cater to all the different audiences is exactly the reason why most games like that don't work.
So there won't be any realism options in GCO since its not part of the tech nor the plan. We're not interested in extending development time and budget just to cater to everyone from this perspective. There is no data that shows that realism makes gameplay any better than without out it. Thats why you have different types off flight sims. For GCO, we're sticking to what we know works: a simple, level playing field that everyone can enjoy. Someone looking for realism will have to look elsewhere. My guess is that it will never happen in our life time because it is neither financially viable for the genre nor worth it. Maybe Braben will do it for Elite IV - but I seriously doubt that it will happen - if at all.
In the case of this game being a MMO, multiple servers with each having their own difficulty settings would probably be rather counter-productive, so in-game solutions would need to be found.
For example, in the case of controlled descent vs. automated descent - why not offer player control over such a matter?
Because it adds nothing to the game and is just another layer and more work that needs to be done and with no benefits within the big picture.
I would be a terrible game developer though.
Indeed. Thats why guys like me - who already have the experience - get to make the tough decisions. :)
Remember, the game has to be fun - not work. I want someone to play for thirty mins at a time and come away feeling like he has achieved something and had fun. I don't want him spending thirty minutes wrestling with meaningless features, hard to learn flight dynamics etc.
-
I've always had a hard time getting into open-ended games, especially space-sim ones. I much prefer Freespace's "collection of scripted, tightly focused missions" approach. And I have almost no interest in MMOs.
So, I guess that my suggestion is to allow some kind of Freespace-like scripted missions that the community could create and share. They could either be separate from the existing MMO game world, or somehow built into it. Some missions could be designed to allow player characters to "take over" certain roles, so the same mission could potentially be flown as coop, team-vs-team, or solo. Whatever. :) Making it easy for users to create missions (and even campaigns) is the critical part.
Not the most feasible of suggestions, probably, but I might as well throw it out for consideration.
-
1. Download and play the Echo Squad SE demo (2008). This will give you an idea of the twitch based fighter space combat.
I highly suggest everyone try this. It might give you a bit of perspective on this MMO project of Mr. Smart.
-
It seems to me you have a fairly good idea of what kind of game you want to make. :)
Could you specify what topics you would prefer feedback on?
Regarding hard to learn flight dynamics - I've always felt that the closer the behaviour of the airplanes, spaceships etc is to what you would expect in reality, the more natural and immersive the gameplay feels. Space combat games like FS2, X-Wing series et al are an exception to the rule, since the more or less utilize rule of cool rather than immersion, but let's say you reduce the complexity of atmospheric flight dynamics until you feel it's not too hard to learn. There is a risk it ends up being a flight model that is overly simplified, doesn't offer any challenge, and actually reduces the tactical options available for players since no one ever spins out of control or makes errors in skill like tip stalling a wing by pulling too hard angle of attack, or judgement like trying a Split-S at too low altitude and not being able to pull out of the loop.
Part of the appeal in IL-2 combat is that there are a myriad of things that can go wrong, not all of them caused by enemy bullets. Maybe I'm just a remnant from times when games were hard and were supposed to be hard... but I like that.
Oh, by the way, fully configurable control inputs would be a definite bonus, for a couple of reasons. It's a huge pain to deal with games that tell you to press key X to do stuff Y only to notice that you don't have that key in your layout, or if you do it isn't on the US-104-key layout. If you can configure the keys yourself, you can at least remember what keystroke you bound to command Z. Of course if your game fully supports keyboard layouts and includes a manual that has a list of all commands and their actions, that isn't so much of a problem but I still prefer being able to customize my controls. People have different sizes of hands, for example. Some players' fingers fit better on WSQE than WSAD for movement in FPS games. Then there's the matter of personal preferences; I like to have jump at space bar, run at shift, and crouch at control. Other people very likely prefer different setups based on what they've gotten used to. Don't know if the full games have this advanced feature, but the Echo Squad demo apparently doesn't...
-
I've always had a hard time getting into open-ended games, especially space-sim ones. I much prefer Freespace's "collection of scripted, tightly focused missions" approach. And I have almost no interest in MMOs.
So, I guess that my suggestion is to allow some kind of Freespace-like scripted missions that the community could create and share. They could either be separate from the existing MMO game world, or somehow built into it. Some missions could be designed to allow player characters to "take over" certain roles, so the same mission could potentially be flown as coop, team-vs-team, or solo. Whatever. :) Making it easy for users to create missions (and even campaigns) is the critical part.
Not the most feasible of suggestions, probably, but I might as well throw it out for consideration.
Then this game is not for you. Maybe something like Jumpgate Evolution or Black Prophecy will be more along the lines of what you are looking for. Though it is highly unlikely that either one will come out before Star Trek Online - assuming those two ever see the light of day.
There are no plans to have user generated scripts or any underlying missions other than the events I have already mentioned above. And there are certainly no plans to give gamers any ability to script anything for a closed-system MMO game.
It seems to me you have a fairly good idea of what kind of game you want to make. :)
Yes, but even so, it is always good to solicit commentary (regardless of premise) in order to broaden the vision - if not immediately, but probably over time as thats how all my games were developed.
Could you specify what topics you would prefer feedback on?
You guys are doing just fine with the commentary and questions. Leaving the format "open" means that not only do I get to see what participants are thinking, but also gives me the opportunity to let you folks know whats in, whats out, whats not possible, what will be considered etc.
There is a risk it ends up being a flight model that is overly simplified, doesn't offer any challenge, and actually reduces the tactical options available for players since no one ever spins out of control or makes errors in skill like tip stalling a wing by pulling too hard angle of attack, or judgement like trying a Split-S at too low altitude and not being able to pull out of the loop.
There are no plans to change any of the dynamics (aerial, space, vehicles, fps) for GCO since those engines are already developed, tested and proven to work just fine in our games. And since they are already out there in our games (and demos) for all to try, folks should already know what to expect as there is no danger of making them overly simplified. Remember the key here is "fun" - not "realism" or "pseudo-realism"
Oh, by the way, fully configurable control inputs would be a definite bonus, for a couple of reasons. It's a huge pain to deal with games that tell you to press key X to do stuff Y only to notice that you don't have that key in your layout, or if you do it isn't on the US-104-key layout. If you can configure the keys yourself, you can at least remember what keystroke you bound to command Z. Of course if your game fully supports keyboard layouts and includes a manual that has a list of all commands and their actions, that isn't so much of a problem but I still prefer being able to customize my controls. People have different sizes of hands, for example. Some players' fingers fit better on WSQE than WSAD for movement in FPS games. Then there's the matter of personal preferences; I like to have jump at space bar, run at shift, and crouch at control. Other people very likely prefer different setups based on what they've gotten used to. Don't know if the full games have this advanced feature, but the Echo Squad demo apparently doesn't...
Already have that. Not an issue.
-
There are no plans to change any of the dynamics (aerial, space, vehicles, fps) for GCO since those engines are already developed, tested and proven to work just fine in our games.
So it's going to have a feeling similar to the echo squad demo?
-
It seems to me you have a fairly good idea of what kind of game you want to make. :)
Yes, but even so, it is always good to solicit commentary (regardless of premise) in order to broaden the vision - if not immediately, but probably over time as thats how all my games were developed.
You guys are doing just fine with the commentary and questions. Leaving the format "open" means that not only do I get to see what participants are thinking, but also gives me the opportunity to let you folks know whats in, whats out, whats not possible, what will be considered etc.
Then I shall post further questions if I come up with any; for now, I am mostly satisfied with the Q/A time. :)
There are no plans to change any of the dynamics (aerial, space, vehicles, fps) for GCO since those engines are already developed, tested and proven to work just fine in our games. And since they are already out there in our games (and demos) for all to try, folks should already know what to expect as there is no danger of making them overly simplified. Remember the key here is "fun" - not "realism" or "pseudo-realism"
Hmm... so basically if you're not intending to change the gameplay (details and balancing aside), the existing stuff should not only give me a good idea of what to expect, but also be almost identical with the exception of not being amalgamated into a single MMO engine, and probably better visual quality?
[re:controls]
Already have that. Not an issue.
Nice to hear.
-
I see I problem with the 'equality' approach. If you can't unlock new stuff (thus making you be able to wail on newer players) then how will the game advance?
Also, are you saying that there will be absolutely no NPC's? Interesting, never heard of that.
One last thing - how do you intend to handle a player's death?
-
There are no plans to change any of the dynamics (aerial, space, vehicles, fps) for GCO since those engines are already developed, tested and proven to work just fine in our games.
So it's going to have a feeling similar to the echo squad demo?
For space combat dynamics, yes. For planetside ops which include aerial, vehicular, fps etc play the AAW or AOA game demos as they give the most accurate representation for those aspects since the GCO game is built on top of those elements.
There are no plans to change any of the dynamics (aerial, space, vehicles, fps) for GCO since those engines are already developed, tested and proven to work just fine in our games. And since they are already out there in our games (and demos) for all to try, folks should already know what to expect as there is no danger of making them overly simplified. Remember the key here is "fun" - not "realism" or "pseudo-realism"
Hmm... so basically if you're not intending to change the gameplay (details and balancing aside), the existing stuff should not only give me a good idea of what to expect, but also be almost identical with the exception of not being amalgamated into a single MMO engine, and probably better visual quality?
Exactly. I think I discussed this extensively in the FAQ as well. Thats a must read for everyone in this discussion I think.
Bear in mind that a lot of the gameplay elements will be geared toward an MMO game world so single player elements will in some cases be represented differently in GCO.
As to the graphics engine, I am keeping it DX9 only for the foreseable future as we don't currently see any benefits to using DX10 or even DX11. Of course we will gradually upgrade the clients to those versions as time goes on.
I see I problem with the 'equality' approach. If you can't unlock new stuff (thus making you be able to wail on newer players) then how will the game advance?
Also, are you saying that there will be absolutely no NPC's? Interesting, never heard of that.
One last thing - how do you intend to handle a player's death?
I have already discussed progression. And progression has nothing to do with item unlocks. This is not that kind of game. It is an even playing field. I have already discussed how the game advances in a previous post.
There will be NPCs in the gameworld of course - not sure where you read that there weren't any. There just aren't any instances where encounters are dynamically generated and thus contain NPC within the scope of those encounters.
NPCs in the game world include traders going from stations to stations, stations (which e.g. are automated in terms of defense systems), starbases etc. I may also enable the ability for stations to launch intercept fighters depending on how many hostile human players are in the region. Also enable the ability for bases to deploy marines depending on how many hostile humans are detected within the base. Stuff that already works within the scope of the game.
Even with 256 players on a server, without some NPCs, it could get boring very quickly.
The "staged" events which I mentioned earlier will also introduce NPC characters to the game world. e.g. an event could be the rescuing of a friendly transport stuck behind enemy lines. Stuff like that. The plan is to schedule one event a week as that will give uses the ability to explore the game by giving them objectives. Of course someone just exploring or doing other things, doesn't have to get involved. Since the game world is not instanced, a player can just fly through the region where an event is taking place and not do anything. It no different than how it is now in my BC/UC games whereby at any one time you can come across a battle and choose to either help or go on your own merry way.
Player death is already discussed in the FAQ.
-
I've always had a hard time getting into open-ended games, especially space-sim ones. I much prefer Freespace's "collection of scripted, tightly focused missions" approach. And I have almost no interest in MMOs.
So, I guess that my suggestion is to allow some kind of Freespace-like scripted missions that the community could create and share. They could either be separate from the existing MMO game world, or somehow built into it. Some missions could be designed to allow player characters to "take over" certain roles, so the same mission could potentially be flown as coop, team-vs-team, or solo. Whatever. :) Making it easy for users to create missions (and even campaigns) is the critical part.
Not the most feasible of suggestions, probably, but I might as well throw it out for consideration.
Yeah, especially games like freespace. One of the reasons I find the more realistic flight sims so interesting is because the gameplay is so complex, whereas in Freespace all you'd do in an open environment is churn through fighters. It's the mission variety and story that sold Freespace to me, and I think the gameplay would have to be radically different to be interesting as an open ended game.
-
'Pologies for missing your previous answers, Mr. Smart.
-
Out of curiosity, have you played any of the user-made FreeSpace mods? Beyond the Red Line, maybe?
Yep. I've played ALL of them. I'm a space sim nut, remember? I was even looking to hire in some of the guys from those mods, but given the reception I got from years ago over the FS3 debacle, I said screw it and didn't.
That's pretty awesome. But now I can't help but wonder what you thought of certain elements of the Just Another Day 2 storyline. :nervous:
-
'Pologies for missing your previous answers, Mr. Smart.
uhm, no worries - there's a LOT of information going around so I'm just trying to keep it all centralized without repeating it and confusing everyone - including myself. :D
Most of the commentary I've seen here is what I would expect from you guys here - too bad it wasn't this informative a few years back or we'd be playing FS3 by now. :D /runs
Nevertheless, GCO is not FS in space or any run-of-the-mill shooter because for that, you don't need an MMO model. The truth is that going the MMO route - at least for me - is the only way to keep our space franchise going without having to do the two year song and dance with a new game every few years. Doing it this way - while catering to as much as the hybrid space combat as possible - gives us a starting position for few revisions, add-ons etc down the road. e.g. if there is enough noise and the game is profitable, there's nothing preventing us from implementing some of the ideas (e.g. scripted missions, pseudo-Newtonian flight model option) put forth here. For now, we have to start with what we have - and which we know works - and scale up from there.
Anyway, by early next year, I'll open up the Alpha to those who want to play it so we can go from there.
-
1) BTRL was really impressive stuff, I remember my jaw dropping and wanting soooo much more; being able to strafe in FS core tech is uniquely wonderful .............. IT JUST NEEDED A COCKPIT :-) .... what are those boyz doing now????? (Note, I have experimented with the cockpit work being done in the FS mod space, it soooo needs to be there ... please don't flame my ass, I know this is personal preference, yet it's very intrinsic :-))))))))
2) I have ALL the Wing Commander stuff on my system; DOSBOX is my friend (to enable WC I to III), and the rest ... I've even got the updated DVD data for the movies. So; I'm patiently waiting for Saga.
3) Every time I play the X universe I get a pain when I "loop" in a region. Not taking anything away from the power of those games though. The tech is quite beautiful.
4) And my humble take on why the "cut scene" in Derek's stuff .............. it's a question of fidelity and manpower. There are 2 different graphics engines in question here. Sure, one seamless universe is do-able as a science and "how cool can I code" experiment, but the reality is that if you want to do all of them well, it makes more evolutionary sense to break the puzzle up ... and slowly merge it. Trust me guys, Derek's approach works. The other options are the StarWraith approach, which is F*cking awesome, yet, the scales are all wrong, and the fidelity is minimal (although I am quite in awe of Vice), and "The Tomorrow War" (Factor K???) stuff is really sound core tech with glue in the sandwich missing .......... (but I really respect their approach as well. Those Russians can cut some amazingly unique code).
5) Orbiter .......... Gold. But WAY tooooo heavy. XR2 Ravenstar blows my mind; just waiting for the "living" cockpit "-). But still, it is PURE simulation (unless you do the FireFly thing, or start warping all over the place, which is inevitable :-)))))
P.S Babylon, Babylon, Babylon ......... oh hang on, I lost a good month of my life to that little lady.
P.S.S P.S.SSS ... No one ever mentions Parkan II, or Darkstar :-((( ... and don't say it's because they're crap :-), because they are NOT.
I JUST WANNA GET OFF THIS ROCK WE CALL EARTH.
-
1) BTRL was really impressive stuff, I remember my jaw dropping and wanting soooo much more; being able to strafe in FS core tech is uniquely wonderful .............. IT JUST NEEDED A COCKPIT :-) .... what are those boyz doing now?????
They're making Diaspora. Check out the Hard Light forum index, go to 'Diaspora.'
You will get several gorgeous videos of animated cockpits, too.
-
1) BTRL was really impressive stuff, I remember my jaw dropping and wanting soooo much more; being able to strafe in FS core tech is uniquely wonderful .............. IT JUST NEEDED A COCKPIT :-) .... what are those boyz doing now?????
They're making Diaspora. Check out the Hard Light forum index, go to 'Diaspora.'
You will get several gorgeous videos of animated cockpits, too.
Pardon my absolute ignorance, I have been away from these forums for 6ish months, had only popped back from time-to-time to check on 3.6.10 ... my bad.
Diaspora is so going to get my love................
-
Most of the commentary I've seen here is what I would expect from you guys here - too bad it wasn't this informative a few years back or we'd be playing FS3 by now. :D /runs
Actually, the Volition guys have said that their agreement with interplay means that it was never likely Interplay would have been able to sell you the rights, so no, we'd almost certainly not be, thank christ.
-
Black Wolf, I challenge you to an arm wrestle :-)
-
What state are you in? I'm in Perth, so if you're not over east, I'll take the challenge :)
-
Most of the commentary I've seen here is what I would expect from you guys here - too bad it wasn't this informative a few years back or we'd be playing FS3 by now. :D /runs
Actually, the Volition guys have said that their agreement with interplay means that it was never likely Interplay would have been able to sell you the rights, so no, we'd almost certainly not be, thank christ.
While I'm certainly a big believer in 'if it ain't :v:, it ain't FS3', let's not start this stupid thing again.
I'm gonna go eat some lunch. There better not be a flamewar here when I get back!
-
I'll keep an eye on it and i'm in a lock-happy mood to be honest.
-
Sydney .....
Right, I'm getting in my car right now; See you maybe Wednesday afternoon if I stop for food and petrol exclusively.
If only I could finish this bloody spaceship I have parked in my garage!!!!
General Battuta, Colonol Dekker - duly noted.
-
Most of the commentary I've seen here is what I would expect from you guys here - too bad it wasn't this informative a few years back or we'd be playing FS3 by now. :D /runs
Actually, the Volition guys have said that their agreement with interplay means that it was never likely Interplay would have been able to sell you the rights, so no, we'd almost certainly not be, thank christ.
Pure bollocks. Less than THREE weeks ago I was having an email thread with Herve about the same thing - but for other reasons. So you have no clue what you're talking about. Interplay owns the IP, not Volition.
Anyway, yeah, I think we're done here.
-
Regardless, hope the feedback was useful..
Ahem.. my buttons are in GD, i can't do much here.
-
Most of the commentary I've seen here is what I would expect from you guys here - too bad it wasn't this informative a few years back or we'd be playing FS3 by now. :D /runs
Actually, the Volition guys have said that their agreement with interplay means that it was never likely Interplay would have been able to sell you the rights, so no, we'd almost certainly not be, thank christ.
Pure bollocks. Less than THREE weeks ago I was having an email thread with Herve about the same thing - but for other reasons. So you have no clue what you're talking about. Interplay owns the IP, not Volition.
Anyway, yeah, I think we're done here.
Maybe you could get the rights and then give them to :v: as an act of incredible charity!
We would love you forever. :nervous:
-
Pure bollocks. Less than THREE weeks ago I was having an email thread with Herve about the same thing - but for other reasons. So you have no clue what you're talking about. Interplay owns the IP, not Volition.
Hey, I know what I know, and I have no reason to believe you, of all people.
Anyway, yeah, I think we're done here.
Really? Because I'm more than happy to lock the thread.
-
Right, let's not let this happen. If it's done it's done.
Hope to see you around, badman.
-
Sorry to come along a little later but I've been away the last couple of days. I know this is locked but at this late stage I'd still like to chime in and say that regardless of the past, and the fact this thread still got locked, perhaps it would be really nice if we could all forget the words "FS3" and move on from it.
Derek, if you'd like advice or feedback on titles you're developing then you're more than welcome. However clearly the FS3 thing and what happened in the past is a sore spot for some - better to steer clear of it entirely. In fact I'd suggest that nobody even mention it. If we keep coming back to it then people will get wound up and we'll end up back where we started which is not constructive or fun for anyone.
I'll leave this locked, I'm not about to step in lately and overrule the mods - they do a good job and this was kept civil up to a point. Derek if you'd like to start another thread, picking up from where the constructive elements of this one left off then do go ahead. But obviously if things turn sour again then we'll just have to leave it I'm afraid.
In the mean time, best of luck to you with your projects and lets hope everyone can keep their cool from here on. Cheers guys :)