[Setekh]

 

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.  

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.  

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.

[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.

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?  ). 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

[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...  

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).

[Setekh]

 

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.  

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.  

[Sushi mk. 2]

 

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  
for the semi newtonian physics, try Dark Light Conflict  

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.   I'm having a hard time explaining it, but I know exactly what I'm thinking.  

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.  

[Grey Wolf]

Who needs Newtonian physics. We need EINSTEINIAN physics.

[Turnsky]

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.

[mikhael]

 

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...  

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