argument to remove need for spec
-
- Developer
- Posts: 2150
- Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:17 am
- Location: Pennsylvania
- Contact:
argument to remove need for spec
Trying to get hyper realistic when having dog fighting in space ships is a recipe for disappointment. Instead of thinking about pilot human limits on acceleration, it would make things much more functional to just deal with ship limits. If things are kept in terms of the capabilities of the ship, we can make balanced mechanics that will actually be seen reflected in game play. If they are based on the extreme limits of human physiology, all ships would have the same limits because they would all be capable of exceeding what a human can handle.
If it were possible. I'd remove spec. Get rid of the whole travel great distances linearly, and thus negate the need for unrealistic acceleration. Implement a type of bsg style navigation which leaves the least amount of logic holes for intra system travel and we would have much tighter game play. All the positives of big systems and none of the negativs we currently have.
Basically, no relativistic speed. No need for rapidly accelerating to crazy velocities. Dog fights and such happen near points of interest. Not from you just stumbling into a waiting wing. Enemy can wait far away just near edge of their sensors, jump in near you then jump out. I have come to really think merging bsg and b5 mechanics is the best of both world's. But we definitely need to ignore the human component for the most part. It is an unrealistic combat situation and being too real makes that readily apparent.
If it were possible. I'd remove spec. Get rid of the whole travel great distances linearly, and thus negate the need for unrealistic acceleration. Implement a type of bsg style navigation which leaves the least amount of logic holes for intra system travel and we would have much tighter game play. All the positives of big systems and none of the negativs we currently have.
Basically, no relativistic speed. No need for rapidly accelerating to crazy velocities. Dog fights and such happen near points of interest. Not from you just stumbling into a waiting wing. Enemy can wait far away just near edge of their sensors, jump in near you then jump out. I have come to really think merging bsg and b5 mechanics is the best of both world's. But we definitely need to ignore the human component for the most part. It is an unrealistic combat situation and being too real makes that readily apparent.
Ed Sweetman endorses this message.
-
- Elite
- Posts: 7243
- Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
- Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina
Re: Acceleration, physics, and other ship enhancements/rebal
@safemode, problem is, if you remove linear travel, you need orbital maneuvers, which are more complex than the average space shooter player is willing to engage in.
-
- Developer
- Posts: 2150
- Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:17 am
- Location: Pennsylvania
- Contact:
Re: Acceleration, physics, and other ship enhancements/rebal
klauss wrote:@safemode, problem is, if you remove linear travel, you need orbital maneuvers, which are more complex than the average space shooter player is willing to engage in.
I didn't mean it that way. . I mean no flying long distances through space. Most flight in game would be between wormholes and carriers or stations etc. Inter planetary would be bsg style jumping. Inter system would still be wormhole.
By removing the need to fly long distances you remove the requirement by players to always travel max speed
Ed Sweetman endorses this message.
-
- Elite
- Posts: 1363
- Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:42 pm
Re: Acceleration, physics, and other ship enhancements/rebal
Whether or not that is the case, having dogfights at hyper speeds has also proven to be a recipe for disappointment. So these patches improve the situation by making things slower and based more on how you maneuver your vehicle in a dogfight and less on having super human reflexes or auto aiming weapons that do all the work for you.safemode wrote:Trying to get hyper realistic when having dog fighting in space ships is a recipe for disappointment.
What VS had before was not a dogfight, it was just high speed jousting and push button warfare.
Building a craft that can accelerate fast enough to kill a human, while doing everything else ships do in game, is impossible. Accelerating at even 10gs is enormously costly in space, where you have no supply of energy or reaction mass beyond what you take with you. And every part of your craft will have to be built to take that stress, which will require more material and more mass to have to accelerate at the 10gs. So you end up with no longevity and no room for payload.Instead of thinking about pilot human limits on acceleration, it would make things much more functional to just deal with ship limits.
These aren't short range missiles, they are combat vehicles with a long list of mission criteria to fulfill. If they sacrifice everything else for absurd acceleration then they fail in their mission.
Changing from one flavor of the month FTL mechanic to another won't affect dogfights. They are just what gets you there, it is the newtonian physics balance which decides if the game is any fun while you are there.If it were possible. I'd remove spec.
Last edited by Deus Siddis on Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Bounty Hunter
- Posts: 174
- Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:49 am
Re: Acceleration, physics, and other ship enhancements/rebal
I think your referring to if SPEC was removed and time compression was the only way. I agree that if gravity was implemented this would make staying on target time consuming and difficult. Should not expect the player to preform strategies that the character could have days to plan in an action game. It would turn into a game of ruining the enemy out of options, fuel and patience. It would be a totally different game. But seems Safemode is saying something else.klauss wrote:@safemode, problem is, if you remove linear travel, you need orbital maneuvers, which are more complex than the average space shooter player is willing to engage in.
BSG jumps are neat, they are kind of like this " 'Sir, the ship has jumped into the mountain' said crewman, captain replies 'What?, well go after him before he gets away!' " LOL maybe not totally like this.safemode wrote:I didn't mean it that way. . I mean no flying long distances through space. Most flight in game would be between wormholes and carriers or stations etc. Inter planetary would be bsg style jumping. Inter system would still be wormhole.
By removing the need to fly long distances you remove the requirement by players to always travel max speed
I like the idea of having system jump nodes closer to the stations and planets as if they built the station there because of the node; But if gravity was implemented would those inter-system Jump nodes, traversal wormholes, slipstream entrance, space fabric weak points or what every they are called orbit planets with the stations? I think the some types would since everything is relative in the universe.
Agree with Deus Siddis on these short points, and like the hole argument.Deus Siddis wrote:What VS had before was not a dogfight, it was just high speed jousting and push button warfare.safemode wrote:Trying to get hyper realistic when having dog fighting in space ships is a recipe for disappointment.
Changing from one flavor of the month FTL mechanic to another won't affect dogfights. They are just what gets you there, it is the newtonian physics balance which decides if the game is any fun while you are there.If it were possible. I'd remove spec.
Well, I partly disagree with this part. Earlier in the discussion I supported the creation of in game components to mitigate inertia for high end ships, so that some extreme ships could go faster than the 10g rule. The consensus seemed to be that they could exist but they would be a small part and a rare exception to a balance that should not require many or any exceptions, and I agree with that.safemode wrote:...If they are based on the extreme limits of human physiology, all ships would have the same limits because they would all be capable of exceeding what a human can handle.... [...] ...But we definitely need to ignore the human component for the most part. It is an unrealistic combat situation and being too real makes that readily apparent.
As for this being an unrealistic combat situation, I have been working on some posts that explain certain criteria for cannon tech that would provide reason for "pilot to pilot" space combat being favored over unmanned drone ships. There is no need to throw physics laws out the window, it can be made to work in a coherent way without breaking any fundamental physics laws. Actually your non linear travel Battle Star Galactica style jumps comment may be the solution to an issue with a new drive I was proposing at "Add SPEC functions to allow for seamless orbit syncs". I'm going to make my comment on how this could be a simpler replacement for my 'SPEC Dilation' solution there.safemode wrote:...Get rid of the whole travel great distances linearly, and thus negate the need for unrealistic acceleration. Implement a type of bsg style navigation which leaves the least amount of logic holes for intra system travel and we would have much tighter game play. All the positives of big systems and none of the negatives we currently have.
Basically, no relativistic speed. No need for rapidly accelerating to crazy velocities. Dog fights and such happen near points of interest. Not from you just stumbling into a waiting wing. Enemy can wait far away just near edge of their sensors, jump in near you then jump out. I have come to really think merging Battle Star Galactica and Babylon 5 mechanics is the best of both world's.
-
- Elite
- Posts: 7243
- Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
- Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina
Re: Acceleration, physics, and other ship enhancements/rebal
I also think removing SPEC is going in circles. Rather than giving up on it, we should just make it work. SPEC was added as a replacement to "BSG-style jumps", only we previously called them autopilot. This was pre-0.4.3 IIRC. In any case, we wanted something better than just jumping to destination.
Removing SPEC, thus, is going in circles. I'd say no, just because going in circles is bad. We either make SPEC work, or make time compression work, or work out some other way of travelling that does not involve mini-jumps (which we tried to get away from).
Removing SPEC, thus, is going in circles. I'd say no, just because going in circles is bad. We either make SPEC work, or make time compression work, or work out some other way of travelling that does not involve mini-jumps (which we tried to get away from).
-
- Developer
- Posts: 2150
- Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:17 am
- Location: Pennsylvania
- Contact:
Re: Acceleration, physics, and other ship enhancements/rebal
klauss wrote:I also think removing SPEC is going in circles. Rather than giving up on it, we should just make it work. SPEC was added as a replacement to "BSG-style jumps", only we previously called them autopilot. This was pre-0.4.3 IIRC. In any case, we wanted something better than just jumping to destination.
Removing SPEC, thus, is going in circles. I'd say no, just because going in circles is bad. We either make SPEC work, or make time compression work, or work out some other way of travelling that does not involve mini-jumps (which we tried to get away from).
I don't think you can make an argument that could make spec make sense. Auto was spec without in game graphics. I'm not talking about that. But it is a non issue for now.
PS. If any devs have android. Pm me your account. Sometimes it is faster to converse through gtalk than the site.
Edit.
My opposition to spec is two part.
1. It complicates game mechanics. Things in spec still interact with the regular game. Coding for that is exceedingly difficult or impossible.
2. It is more logically flawed than a number of alternatives.
If we want to approach the physics problem with a little KISS, then spec is out. FTL and regular spacetime travel don't mix. Not programmatically or logically.
Ed Sweetman endorses this message.
-
- Bounty Hunter
- Posts: 174
- Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:49 am
Re: Acceleration, physics, and other ship enhancements/rebal
LOL Warping space makes plenty of sence; just as much a skipping through a higher dimention of space as seemingly required by non linear travel.safemode wrote:klauss wrote:I also think removing SPEC is going in circles. Rather than giving up on it, we should just make it work. SPEC was added as a replacement to "BSG-style jumps", only we previously called them autopilot. This was pre-0.4.3 IIRC. In any case, we wanted something better than just jumping to destination.
Removing SPEC, thus, is going in circles. I'd say no, just because going in circles is bad. We either make SPEC work, or make time compression work, or work out some other way of travelling that does not involve mini-jumps (which we tried to get away from).
I don't think you can make an argument that could make spec make sense. Auto was spec without in game graphics. I'm not talking about that. But it is a non issue for now.
PS. If any devs have android. Pm me your account. Sometimes it is faster to converse through gtalk than the site.
Edit.
My opposition to spec is two part.
1. It complicates game mechanics. Things in spec still interact with the regular game. Coding for that is exceedingly difficult or impossible.
2. It is more logically flawed than a number of alternatives.
If we want to approach the physics problem with a little KISS, then spec is out. FTL and regular spacetime travel don't mix. Not programmatically or logically.
I really like SPEC as it is now, I call it 'SPEC' 'Alcubierre warp function' to avoid confusion. In no situation proposed so far would I recommend removing it because moving through space linearly faster than light is seems like something that a ship should be able to do before beforeany other tech comes along that can pop out of existence or skip through the apparent nothingness. Potentially I think it could be better for game play if one can to struggle to escape an enemy who may have barely enough jamming tech or power to contain the other. One can't have a chase nessasarly with non-linear travel.klauss wrote:I also think removing SPEC is going in circles. Rather than giving up on it, we should just make it work. SPEC was added as a replacement to "BSG-style jumps", only we previously called them autopilot. This was pre-0.4.3 IIRC. In any case, we wanted something better than just jumping to destination.
Removing SPEC, thus, is going in circles. I'd say no, just because going in circles is bad. We either make SPEC work, or make time compression work, or work out some other way of traveling that does not involve mini-jumps (which we tried to get away from).
Now that I think about this again, I remember that mini-jumps where already kinda vetoed even for the sole purpose of attaining orbital speeds, by those who have already seen it in action. At minimum if it was to come back it should not be in the same form as before, or with the same function. It should not replace SPEC as a regression. What I figured when I thought it would be some use for jumping to a new relative speed, was there is already a jump drive on the ship that makes use of worm holes, so adding short point to point jumping functions to the jump drive, would be similar to adding additional functions to SPEC, which was already my plan. They serve a similar purpose, but SPEC 'dilation' would be linear and more gradual, rather than non linear and instant. Limitations like the devices jamability would be inherited from the particular drive.
Basically if orbits are to work, quick relative speed changes are necessary. So simplest way is to just put them at that speed instantly with a simple graphic which could be identical to BSG-jumps. It may not be the most elegant way to do it, but it is simple and definitive if not also cheap on manpower to do. Any way I look at it seems to require either a two function drive, or two drives with each one function, where one is to travel and the other is for quick relative speed change.
As for time compression, I would only see it only as a time saving tool for the player, not for cannon long distance travel for the in game characters. In addition to the actual travel, if gravity was to be implemented at some point, a way to get to a particular relative speed quickly for changing orbits is important. With the proposed 'dilation' drive once far away from any significant object one could use SPEC drive to accelerate impossibly fast. With Local Non linear travel, one could jump a short distance to and from any near location that is not jammed at a high energy cost. Maybe it would look something like this. The positive would be that it is easy to understand, clearly unique in appearance from SPEC, and can make use of the jump drive that currently only has a single purpose. So if SPEC is damaged there is a hope of getting home the old fashioned way by getting up to speed and just coasting.
On the surface there are essentially 3 ways for the player to travel through space quickly:
#1 'Time compression' like fast forward in games; Firefly's skipping to the action, mysterious inertia free acceleration, and extremely close proximity system of moons.
#2 'Linear travel' like Startrek's "Time Warp Factor" and current SPEC's 'Alcubierre warp function';
#3 'Non-linear travel' where they either travel through or skip though an alternate space point to point, which is popular in the majority of science fiction. Some that slowly travel through some alternate space are: Starwars's 'Hyperspace', Andromeda's 'Slipstream'. Some that quickly travel point to point are BSG's 'jump', Farscape's 'Starburst', and many other media and games that I missed.
Again I'll say I only support non-linear travel as a very short range alternative to impossible accelerations for getting into orbit. Meaning not even the range to get to the moon, but enough to escape the atmosphere if not jammed or blocked the physics or by stations who want to avoid the wake or huge sonic boom of a ship displacing the air as they jump in.
-
- Developer
- Posts: 2150
- Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:17 am
- Location: Pennsylvania
- Contact:
Re: Acceleration, physics, and other ship enhancements/rebal
Eager to try out things once I hammer down my dev system
Warping space around you to create a bubble makes some sense. Since the only thing that is not limited by light is space itself. Such a method is star trek like. However, you are technically creating a micro universe consisting of only your ship andtraveling in a type of subspace. There is no em interaction between your warp bubble and rest of universe.
Compressing space makes no sense. You cant do it and not effect energy density within that compressed space. Ie. It is destructive. I deny the feasibility of any actual traveling via such drives.
Time dilation makes no sense. This is an in-game short cut, not meant to reflect actual tech.
We aren't really concerned with how much likely something is to be real. It is more if it can make internal sense. I don't think any FTL that tries to avoid traveling outside of our space is internally logical at even the most basic level. Additionally, those methods will make interactions with the game around them into account and that has proven to be highly problematic. Both due to the above issues mostly becoming apparent in deciding what should happen.
My suggestion was not auto pilot. And additionally, we would have to change the game play to center around the inter system jump gates. Really reduce the planet hopping or having stations half a system away that we need to goto. Keep space big. But gameplay very close together and you can have more realistic physics without sacrificing it to deal with the flawed notion that gameplay needs to span the system.
Warping space around you to create a bubble makes some sense. Since the only thing that is not limited by light is space itself. Such a method is star trek like. However, you are technically creating a micro universe consisting of only your ship andtraveling in a type of subspace. There is no em interaction between your warp bubble and rest of universe.
Compressing space makes no sense. You cant do it and not effect energy density within that compressed space. Ie. It is destructive. I deny the feasibility of any actual traveling via such drives.
Time dilation makes no sense. This is an in-game short cut, not meant to reflect actual tech.
We aren't really concerned with how much likely something is to be real. It is more if it can make internal sense. I don't think any FTL that tries to avoid traveling outside of our space is internally logical at even the most basic level. Additionally, those methods will make interactions with the game around them into account and that has proven to be highly problematic. Both due to the above issues mostly becoming apparent in deciding what should happen.
My suggestion was not auto pilot. And additionally, we would have to change the game play to center around the inter system jump gates. Really reduce the planet hopping or having stations half a system away that we need to goto. Keep space big. But gameplay very close together and you can have more realistic physics without sacrificing it to deal with the flawed notion that gameplay needs to span the system.
Ed Sweetman endorses this message.
-
- Developer
- Posts: 2150
- Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:17 am
- Location: Pennsylvania
- Contact:
Re: Acceleration, physics, and other ship enhancements/rebal
Think about if we made jumping within a system a bit involved. Open nav computer. Use 3d map. Select a location to jump to, a precise location with wire frame models of significant units. All the while you are vulnerable to attack. Actual jump could kill weapons and shields. Take time, the more you allow t. more accurate your jump is to where you selected.
They would be rare. Expensive. And make the player strategize them. Instead of fixing spec. We should be trying to avoid ever needing it. It does nothing to improve the game and in effect only magnifies the flaws
Edit.
Space is huge. Empty. And boring. The only way to make the game not reflect that without relying too much on magic is to bring the actual action to where the player is. Keep the main features of the game close to wormholes. Really we need to sit down and really rethink how the gameplay should be expected to work. It feels like vs is two games fighting to be played at the same time. It doesn't work.
They would be rare. Expensive. And make the player strategize them. Instead of fixing spec. We should be trying to avoid ever needing it. It does nothing to improve the game and in effect only magnifies the flaws
Edit.
Space is huge. Empty. And boring. The only way to make the game not reflect that without relying too much on magic is to bring the actual action to where the player is. Keep the main features of the game close to wormholes. Really we need to sit down and really rethink how the gameplay should be expected to work. It feels like vs is two games fighting to be played at the same time. It doesn't work.
Ed Sweetman endorses this message.
-
- Elite
- Posts: 7243
- Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
- Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina
Re: Acceleration, physics, and other ship enhancements/rebal
Why do you think FTL is that infeasible? Freelancer had something similar, and it made it work. We just have to find our own unique way of making FTL work.safemode wrote:We aren't really concerned with how much likely something is to be real. It is more if it can make internal sense. I don't think any FTL that tries to avoid traveling outside of our space is internally logical at even the most basic level. Additionally, those methods will make interactions with the game around them into account and that has proven to be highly problematic. Both due to the above issues mostly becoming apparent in deciding what should happen.
My suggestion was not auto pilot. And additionally, we would have to change the game play to center around the inter system jump gates. Really reduce the planet hopping or having stations half a system away that we need to goto. Keep space big. But gameplay very close together and you can have more realistic physics without sacrificing it to deal with the flawed notion that gameplay needs to span the system.
All those methods to make strategic use of mini-jumps necessary, can be readily applied to FTL.
-
- Developer
- Posts: 2150
- Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:17 am
- Location: Pennsylvania
- Contact:
Re: argument to remove need for spec
Because to FTL in normal space your explanation on how it works is related to how it behaves with the rest of the non- FTL system and it will undoubtedly fall into readily explainable objections. There is very little to no room for plausible feasibility.
It would not simply be a matter of explaining away energy usage or something like that. If we are FTL in regular universe, we have to deal with all the problems we currently do with spec. Those are noticeable bugs that are directly caused by spec
It would not simply be a matter of explaining away energy usage or something like that. If we are FTL in regular universe, we have to deal with all the problems we currently do with spec. Those are noticeable bugs that are directly caused by spec
Ed Sweetman endorses this message.
-
- Elite
- Posts: 7243
- Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
- Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina
Re: argument to remove need for spec
But bugs are fixable. I think SPEC needs to accelerate slower, and have a much bigger warm-up delay.
And, call it unoriginal, but I think we must subscribe to Freelancer's idea of trade lanes. If not in Freelancer's form, in some other, but it's just a natural and useful construct.
And, call it unoriginal, but I think we must subscribe to Freelancer's idea of trade lanes. If not in Freelancer's form, in some other, but it's just a natural and useful construct.
-
- Developer
- Posts: 2150
- Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:17 am
- Location: Pennsylvania
- Contact:
Re: argument to remove need for spec
Logical issue: In spec you can see the universe around you.
Leads to gameplay complication: we have to make why we can see it and how we see it a function of the transport mechanism. Furthermore, we have to invent rules of interaction. Each adding more fictional nonsense on top of our tech.
Look at it from this point of view
Spec is a crutch for bad game design. Period.
We place things we need players to get to too far apart because we think we need to make use of these entire systems we have. That is a pitfall. We do not need to utilize entire systems. The player should not be falling back to Speccing constantly and time dilating when they can't spec to do every little damn thing. That is horrible design.
Spec should not only be time expensive for players to initiate. It more importantly should almost never NEED to be used in the course of normal game play. That is key. I'm tired of the game getting dropped by everyone because they spend their time going from a to b to c.... but more, I'm tired of it being just about going from point a to b to c. Space in reality is too big and too boring. Instead of trying to bypass the truth, we should build the universe like a people would work around that problem.
Most activity would revolve around our wormholes. That is where we should head things. If we marginalize the use of things like spec, gameplay can only benefit and we will no doubt win some more users.
Leads to gameplay complication: we have to make why we can see it and how we see it a function of the transport mechanism. Furthermore, we have to invent rules of interaction. Each adding more fictional nonsense on top of our tech.
Look at it from this point of view
Spec is a crutch for bad game design. Period.
We place things we need players to get to too far apart because we think we need to make use of these entire systems we have. That is a pitfall. We do not need to utilize entire systems. The player should not be falling back to Speccing constantly and time dilating when they can't spec to do every little damn thing. That is horrible design.
Spec should not only be time expensive for players to initiate. It more importantly should almost never NEED to be used in the course of normal game play. That is key. I'm tired of the game getting dropped by everyone because they spend their time going from a to b to c.... but more, I'm tired of it being just about going from point a to b to c. Space in reality is too big and too boring. Instead of trying to bypass the truth, we should build the universe like a people would work around that problem.
Most activity would revolve around our wormholes. That is where we should head things. If we marginalize the use of things like spec, gameplay can only benefit and we will no doubt win some more users.
Ed Sweetman endorses this message.
-
- Elite
- Posts: 7243
- Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
- Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina
Re: argument to remove need for spec
There's a flaw in that logic. You cite canon inconsistencies as a reason for poor playability. That's just unrelated. Canon inconsistencies are just that, and most people just ignore it.safemode wrote:Logical issue: In spec you can see the universe around you.
Leads to gameplay complication: we have to make why we can see it and how we see it a function of the transport mechanism. Furthermore, we have to invent rules of interaction. Each adding more fictional nonsense on top of our tech.
Look at it from this point of view
Spec is a crutch for bad game design. Period.
However, I have been thinking of making the universe around you distort while you're in spec, to add a bit of consistency.
Yes. It is. But it's not SPEC's fault, it's a fault in our game design (unrelated to SPEC).safemode wrote:We place things we need players to get to too far apart because we think we need to make use of these entire systems we have. That is a pitfall. We do not need to utilize entire systems. The player should not be falling back to. Speccing contently and time dilating when they can't spec to do every little damn thing. That is horrible design.
The fact that you have "patrol 8 points" missions where those points require you to travel extensively, that is poor game design. The fact that travelling is boring, that is the probem in the design, not SPEC.
I agree again. But the solution is not to drop SPEC. SPEC is freedom, you can explore with SPEC. Mini-jumps would dis-incentivate players from exploring.safemode wrote:Spec should not only be time expensive for players to initiate. It more importantly should almost never NEED to be used in the course of normal game play. That is key. I'm tired of the game getting dropped by everyone because they spend their time going from a to b to c.... but more, I'm tired of it being just about going from point a to b to c. Space in reality is too big and too boring. Instead of trying to bypass the truth, we should build the universe like a people would work around that problem.
Most activity would revolve around our wormholes. That is where we should head things. If we marginalize the use of things like spec, gameplay can only benefit and we will no doubt win some more users.
The solution is to concentrate gameplay around "activity nodes", nodes that are close enough to not require long SPEC journeys (or none at all).
-
- Developer
- Posts: 2150
- Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:17 am
- Location: Pennsylvania
- Contact:
Re: argument to remove need for spec
I cite programmatic issues that will eventually become canon issues. In order to portray spec in the game, we have to understand how we want it to behave in the fictional universe. We can't necessarily do one thing without the other. Furthermore, the programmatic issues are not trivial. Some simply become too cumbersome to avoid the bugs that spec causes with physics simulation. Why bother with such a solution when better less complicated ones (both in programming and in canon) exist?klauss wrote:There's a flaw in that logic. You cite canon inconsistencies as a reason for poor playability. That's just unrelated. Canon inconsistencies are just that, and most people just ignore it.safemode wrote:Logical issue: In spec you can see the universe around you.
Leads to gameplay complication: we have to make why we can see it and how we see it a function of the transport mechanism. Furthermore, we have to invent rules of interaction. Each adding more fictional nonsense on top of our tech.
Look at it from this point of view
Spec is a crutch for bad game design. Period.
It is both. It is bad game design because we have to use spec to do it. SPEC is BORING, tedious, and ultimately poorly implemented since it is basically free.However, I have been thinking of making the universe around you distort while you're in spec, to add a bit of consistency.
Yes. It is. But it's not SPEC's fault, it's a fault in our game design (unrelated to SPEC).safemode wrote:We place things we need players to get to too far apart because we think we need to make use of these entire systems we have. That is a pitfall. We do not need to utilize entire systems. The player should not be falling back to. Speccing contently and time dilating when they can't spec to do every little damn thing. That is horrible design.
The fact that you have "patrol 8 points" missions where those points require you to travel extensively, that is poor game design. The fact that travelling is boring, that is the probem in the design, not SPEC.
example: Patrol 8 points mission. While tedious in nature, lets see how two solutions behave ... One is spec, the other is jumping BSG style. (THIS IS NOT LIKE AUTOPILOT)
1. In such a mission, SPEC has us spending the vast majority of our time in SPEC. Going from point to point. Nothing happens here (NOR SHOULD IT). Once a destination is reached... whatever happens happens and it's back to SPEC'ing to the next point. Overall, the player spends probably 75% of the mission sitting watching absolutely nothing happen on the screen. (watching space via SPEC offers no more to exploration of the system and universe than you get by looking around at any destination ....not that you should be able to see anything recognizable when in SPEC but that's a different point).
2. You enter your nav computer and select a location close to point A. (this can be done by not rendering textures or minor units and having the camera free roam around nav points (significant units)... the player selects a position when they are satisfied. Finished with laying the course, the player exits nav computer and is back in normal view in their ship and the jump command is available. Holding down the jump key until a status bar goes green (starts from black to red to yellow to green depending on distance to jump point with a max distance dependant on ship/equip) dictates how close to the selected jump point you are likely to be when you let go of the button. Jumping upon letting go is instant. One moment you are in one place, the next moment you are at your destination in the same system of course). Once the player jumps he spends his time at the nav point and then plots the next jump point. This method has the player spending their entire time at the points of interest and absolutely no time doing nothing. More expensive ships and equipment may offer auto selecting jump points near significant units but players may still prefer to do it themselves to avoid common jump point locations that pirates may be watching or perhaps their ship is damaged and it's offline ...etc.
exploring can be done with both. I wonder if you are equating to watching the screen while the ship is getting from point A to point B as "exploring" vs being at various points in the system. The former doesn't invalidate or even subtract from the latter. Both explore, but one is enjoyable and the other is a sure fire way to never get any real userbase.I agree again. But the solution is not to drop SPEC. SPEC is freedom, you can explore with SPEC. Mini-jumps would dis-incentivate players from exploring.safemode wrote:Spec should not only be time expensive for players to initiate. It more importantly should almost never NEED to be used in the course of normal game play. That is key. I'm tired of the game getting dropped by everyone because they spend their time going from a to b to c.... but more, I'm tired of it being just about going from point a to b to c. Space in reality is too big and too boring. Instead of trying to bypass the truth, we should build the universe like a people would work around that problem.
Most activity would revolve around our wormholes. That is where we should head things. If we marginalize the use of things like spec, gameplay can only benefit and we will no doubt win some more users.
The solution is to concentrate gameplay around "activity nodes", nodes that are close enough to not require long SPEC journeys (or none at all).
Lets pretend we are a civilization exploring the stars via wormholes. Now, we dont have a means of rapidly traveling any other way ( I'm making two arguments in this post, one is for an alternative to spec, the other is to remove the need for any type of spec or alternative altogether...this is the latter now.). Of course, we would eventually travel and colonize worlds within the system if any can harbor life. But where do you think 99% of the space activity would be in such a civilization? Around the wormholes. No where else. It may take weeks or months or maybe even years to reach areas of systems not near wormholes. They would do it ...and we could have such ships in simulation making such journeys ....but the player wouldn't be interested in the common goings on of colonies and the mundane needs of space stations (food deliveries and such)... The player is a space jockey and probaly not looking forward to seeing the same image of space for hours on end trying to reach their destination... So the player spends the vast majority of their time moving from wormhole to wormhole (system to system).. exploring each system but not really exploring all of each system in person. That's not necessary in order to give the user the ultimate huge space experience we want to offer. So around these wormholes is a bustle of activity. Multiple space stations, different cultures and types of people ....each wormhole is an important crossroads for each system. The prospect that they wouldn't be is not really feasible. There is more than enough possibilites for the player to embark on with such a setup, and the player need not ever even venture into the realm of unending traveling or needing to time dilate the game becaues it's unending sequences of traveling in empty space.
Really, that type of game is one that solves more problems and requires the least amount of work than any other method i can think of.
Ed Sweetman endorses this message.
-
- Elite
- Posts: 7243
- Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
- Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina
Re: argument to remove need for spec
There are some easy ways out of some problems. For instance, we could remove mid-spec collisions by disabling them. We could cheat physics in a number of ways that are quite legal in games.safemode wrote: I cite programmatic issues that will eventually become canon issues. In order to portray spec in the game, we have to understand how we want it to behave in the fictional universe. We can't necessarily do one thing without the other. Furthermore, the programmatic issues are not trivial. Some simply become too cumbersome to avoid the bugs that spec causes with physics simulation. Why bother with such a solution when better less complicated ones (both in programming and in canon) exist?
I hope you realize the amount of work 2 would be.safemode wrote:example: Patrol 8 points mission. While tedious in nature, lets see how two solutions behave ... One is spec, the other is jumping BSG style. (THIS IS NOT LIKE AUTOPILOT)The fact that you have "patrol 8 points" missions where those points require you to travel extensively, that is poor game design. The fact that travelling is boring, that is the probem in the design, not SPEC.
1. In such a mission, SPEC has us spending the vast majority of our time in SPEC. Going from point to point. Nothing happens here (NOR SHOULD IT). Once a destination is reached... whatever happens happens and it's back to SPEC'ing to the next point. Overall, the player spends probably 75% of the mission sitting watching absolutely nothing happen on the screen. (watching space via SPEC offers no more to exploration of the system and universe than you get by looking around at any destination ....not that you should be able to see anything recognizable when in SPEC but that's a different point).
2. You enter your nav computer and select a location close to point A. (this can be done by not rendering textures or minor units and having the camera free roam around nav points (significant units)... the player selects a position when they are satisfied. Finished with laying the course, the player exits nav computer and is back in normal view in their ship and the jump command is available. Holding down the jump key until a status bar goes green (starts from black to red to yellow to green depending on distance to jump point with a max distance dependant on ship/equip) dictates how close to the selected jump point you are likely to be when you let go of the button. Jumping upon letting go is instant. One moment you are in one place, the next moment you are at your destination in the same system of course). Once the player jumps he spends his time at the nav point and then plots the next jump point. This method has the player spending their entire time at the points of interest and absolutely no time doing nothing. More expensive ships and equipment may offer auto selecting jump points near significant units but players may still prefer to do it themselves to avoid common jump point locations that pirates may be watching or perhaps their ship is damaged and it's offline ...etc.
Anyway, why does the user spend travel time doing nothing? A ship the size of an apartment should have stuff that can be done inside. You cite jump planning. I will counter with planning overall. Long trips should be able to be planned, and the NAV system and autopilot should remind you of your plans. Imagine planning nav points or entire trips through several jump points, checking the maps of other systems to find a suitable trading post, stuff like that.
That should be doable while in transit. And transit times should be just enough to do that, and not excessive. SPEC is boring because it's largely out of tuning. It's an undue tactical advantage since it's ramp-up time is not enough. It's slow around planets. It's dangerous to approach ships (not slow enough reaching small targets). And it's too slow for large trips, so it's boring. That can all be fixed with some tweaking.
Watching is nice. I like being able to watch. It's inspiring.safemode wrote: exploring can be done with both. I wonder if you are equating to watching the screen while the ship is getting from point A to point B as "exploring" vs being at various points in the system. The former doesn't invalidate or even subtract from the latter. Both explore, but one is enjoyable and the other is a sure fire way to never get any real userbase.
But I mean actual exploring. Right now, our radars see mostly everything in range. There's plans to make them more selective, small stuff detectable at smaller ranges, and there's even been talk of undiscovered jump points, you'd have to get close to them to detect them. Salvage, stuff like that. We have none of that, but we could have some of that.
Yes, yes... how would you flesh such a system?safemode wrote: Lets pretend we are a civilization exploring the stars via wormholes. Now, we dont have a means of rapidly traveling any other way ( I'm making two arguments in this post, one is for an alternative to spec, the other is to remove the need for any type of spec or alternative altogether...this is the latter now.). Of course, we would eventually travel and colonize worlds within the system if any can harbor life. But where do you think 99% of the space activity would be in such a civilization? Around the wormholes. No where else. It may take weeks or months or maybe even years to reach areas of systems not near wormholes. They would do it ...and we could have such ships in simulation making such journeys ....but the player wouldn't be interested in the common goings on of colonies and the mundane needs of space stations (food deliveries and such)... The player is a space jockey and probaly not looking forward to seeing the same image of space for hours on end trying to reach their destination... So the player spends the vast majority of their time moving from wormhole to wormhole (system to system).. exploring each system but not really exploring all of each system in person. That's not necessary in order to give the user the ultimate huge space experience we want to offer. So around these wormholes is a bustle of activity. Multiple space stations, different cultures and types of people ....each wormhole is an important crossroads for each system. The prospect that they wouldn't be is not really feasible. There is more than enough possibilites for the player to embark on with such a setup, and the player need not ever even venture into the realm of unending traveling or needing to time dilate the game becaues it's unending sequences of traveling in empty space.
Really, that type of game is one that solves more problems and requires the least amount of work than any other method i can think of.
Re: argument to remove need for spec
While I don't really care about the technobabble, I share the notion that FTL needs fixing. Especially this:
As for the explorative aspect and "going where no one has gone before". Why not let the player target astronomical objects and jump towards them or into their proximity if they are close enough? Maybe even allow to override the max safe jump distance for the adventurous ones, with some severe effects on the jump precision of course.
I am with @safemode on this one. Skip SPEC. Focus on the fun stuff.
And why not drop the SPEC indeed. I know there have been proposals to integrate SPEC more into the game by adding that jamming stuff and all. But this would require development resources which could be used elsewhere, to make the game more interesting where it matters, at places like space stations and jump points.Overall, the player spends probably 75% of the mission sitting watching absolutely nothing happen on the screen.
And here we have a nice way to integrate it as an active gameplay element.Holding down the jump key until a status bar goes green (starts from black to red to yellow to green depending on distance to jump point with a max distance dependant on ship/equip) dictates how close to the selected jump point you are likely to be when you let go of the button.
As for the explorative aspect and "going where no one has gone before". Why not let the player target astronomical objects and jump towards them or into their proximity if they are close enough? Maybe even allow to override the max safe jump distance for the adventurous ones, with some severe effects on the jump precision of course.
I am with @safemode on this one. Skip SPEC. Focus on the fun stuff.
-
- Bounty Hunter
- Posts: 153
- Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2011 9:17 am
Re: argument to remove need for spec
It might be worth using the experimental branch more, where we can remove spec and test things. The other option i have been thinking about it to create a realism mod for vs, where all this stuff that people argue about can be implemented without effect the games canon. If new features pop up in the mod that everyone like they can be put into the full version, but at the moment nothing gets changed and we all spend too much time on the forums arguing about everything
-
- Developer
- Posts: 2150
- Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:17 am
- Location: Pennsylvania
- Contact:
Re: argument to remove need for spec
Well as soon as I figure out why my sf login isn't behaving... I want to first focus on any support issues of modern libs. Then other stuff.
Primarily, I want to move to Python 3.2/3.3. Before making extensive Python mods. Big job. But should get done.
Primarily, I want to move to Python 3.2/3.3. Before making extensive Python mods. Big job. But should get done.
Ed Sweetman endorses this message.
-
- Elite
- Posts: 7243
- Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
- Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina
Re: argument to remove need for spec
Python 3 isn't even source-compatible with 2. We'd have to move to py3 in all fronts. My fear is that it may be the coup de grâce for mac.
-
- Developer
- Posts: 2150
- Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:17 am
- Location: Pennsylvania
- Contact:
Re: argument to remove need for spec
Times change. Getting stuck on old revs is not really acceptable for any reason. It isn't like I'm trying to push the bleeding edge. P3 is not new to the scene. Those who can't or don't want to can continue using the current release. Nobody loses.
0.6 will simply be a new starting point. We remove boost prior to .5x, move to Python 3.2+ , retool the gtk apps to be truly platform independent move forward unencumbered.
0.6 will simply be a new starting point. We remove boost prior to .5x, move to Python 3.2+ , retool the gtk apps to be truly platform independent move forward unencumbered.
Ed Sweetman endorses this message.
-
- Elite
- Posts: 7243
- Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
- Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina
Re: argument to remove need for spec
I'd suggest py 3.3, it has dramatic memory improvements we actually need. Without those improvements, py 3's memory footprint is about 4x of py 2 when string usage is heavy (and it is for VS)
-
- Developer
- Posts: 2150
- Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:17 am
- Location: Pennsylvania
- Contact:
Re: argument to remove need for spec
3.2 and 3.3 don't require code modification to take advantage of back end improvements. So we will be good there. I'm building against Debian unstable. So if it has it, likely everyone else has the rev or newer. This way I'm not pushing bleeding edge.
I'll move discussion to a 0.6 thread once I start work
I'll move discussion to a 0.6 thread once I start work
Ed Sweetman endorses this message.
-
- Elite
- Posts: 7243
- Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
- Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina
Re: argument to remove need for spec
There seems to be quite a bit of support (as in people interested) for the mini-jump idea.log0 wrote:I am with @safemode on this one. Skip SPEC. Focus on the fun stuff.
I'll have to open my mind a bit. But... I would really like to see SPEC made to work. I genuinely think it's a better option.