TBeholder wrote:Brendan wrote:...no sane person is going to transport raw resources to a processing plant billions of kilometres away in the middle of nowhere - they're going to build the processing plant into the space station itself to reduce transport costs.
Or somewhere near the source, for that matter?..
I agree, the map should make sense if there is enough content to do it. All permanent installations should simply be forced to be generated near a natural significant object. Specifying station types could also be done, but any station should plausibly be able to do all basic operations.
@safemode I didn't post this before because I felt my arguments a big distraction from your work on upgrading python and other things. Lots of good points needed to stick and the posts where getting too long for that. On that thought, here another really long post for everyone.
safemode wrote:Seamless planetary flight sounds like you're looking to combine the most boring aspects of space exploration with the most boring genre of games Flight simulators. [...] That's not a game. That's a training tool. There is no practical way you can make that entertaining.
I would argue this otherwise because your saying you don't enjoy simulators and VegaStrike is one of the few physically realistic space simulators out there. The only games I can play are simulators and I do it for fun. I still say the same thing to this argument I have herd before, leave the simulation in as basic game play and possibly add non realism as optional equipment to buy. This can apply to every non realistic feature one could implement and would face the inconsistencies head on. Anyone interested in programing a system called RAILS "Rectification Array for Inertialy Linear Space"
This is just suggesting that the game continue to be what says on the front page of this site, a "3d Action Space simulator". I interpret this as 3d Action, built on top of a space simulator. I think that perfectly describes what should continue to be accomplished.
safemode wrote:Spec. Not needed. We dont need to spread our finite resources thin for no real reason and then be forced to create another even less plausible FTL mechanism that doesn't offer anything towards gameplay for the player and needlessly complicates physics simulating and game mechanics.
Making planets more exclusive is good, making them completely unreachable by removing SPEC exploration removes features without replacing it with something interesting. The only way I can see this making sense is if you also want to completely replace Semi-Newtonian physics with point and fly ship on rails physics.
Point and fly would be supported by me as long as it is off by default but can be turned on at will like a device, similar to but more pronounced than the way "Iwar2" has it on by default and can be turned off temporarly,
shown here on this video. This video also mentions and inhibition field near all of the bases.
People are divided on the subject and I do prefer Newtonian physics greatly myself. Anything else is too easy to master, and I would have been bored with this space simulator long ago I think. If looking for a younger audience, the game could cheat on the physics. Though if replacing Newtonian physics, any breaking of the laws of motion I think ideally should be tweakable if it is not already. That would be most useful to everyone including modders.
safemode wrote:...other ship is usually over a kilometer away and close combat is nearly impossible because the game has to have ships capable of extreme speeds because the distances everything you need to go to are too great to have realistic speeds, so you spend the entire time spinning around and around trying to find the AI ship that is simply zipping by you back and forth or racing away to 6000 meters before making another pass
The new ballance if slowing ships a bit. Maybe speed matching could be automatic if people don't use it when shooting at something or when autopiloting somewhere .
safemode wrote:or even better, hitting spec and suddenly being a thousand km's away with no chance of catching. awesome.
This would not happen in new proposed jump hubs as soon as interdiction would be put up there, and it would stop happening elsewhere too with shipboard drive interdiction.
safemode wrote:These aren't simply tweaks or minor issues that need to be fixed here and there, they're fundamental problems involved with the basic layout and implementation of VS and it's been this way for years.
Yup, which is why I'm glad the consensus is to concentrate game play to those Jump hubs and significant places. It puts it on track for action paced game play as I have long vouched for with my interdiction field and inhibition field comments.
Here is where the debate still is when you get to the point where you would remove SPEC. I don't know how much code this effects but to create harmony in close quarters battles there must be limitations on FTL travel and on how much a player use them to increase their relative velocity to opponents during combat. There are only two sane ways that I can imagine a complete solution done, and the simplest one that your suggesting involves removing a large part of current and future game play which I really don't support. So lets look at really how much work each is and what current work is lost and what is the relative payoff. Would be much more pride in creating a creative solution I think.
Without interdiction fields around stations to inhibit FTL transport drives in the hub, or some sort of way to reduce the combat ultility of SPEC, it would indeed become imcompatible with space shooter game play.
Traditional 3D Space Shooters must have these limitations. The difference here is either having in game devices to explain the fictional physics, or changing cannon game physics to create action paced close quarters combat. I much prefer coming up with a creative realistic solution that sticks to reality.
For the record I really like the unique Semi-nutation physics Vega-Strike has. It is one of it's main appeals I thought. I'm not a fan of ship on rails dogfights. I would prefer to keep the much more individually entertaining Newtonian physics, and reserve options to improve it. Some of these improvements.
Without sandbox game play the appeal is tied up in one time scripted missions which would run out and don't even exist in the dynamic universe. I would prefer that most scripted missions are reusable, like the sandbox missions and politics in the highly rated & modded combat simulator Warband. |
Offica||
Desura|
Youtube| Though the mission computer and bar is fine, characters with personalities like in War Band that come go, and lead their armadas, would lead to infinite variety. Beware this could also lead to endless addiction but is good for continued development.
safemode wrote:I'm inclined to believe that a feature that's been broken / partially implemented for years to the detriment of gameplay isn't a feature that is just waiting to simply be fixed but is rather a feature that should never have been implemented in the first place.
I would rather say nothing is a detriment to game play unless it I had been given priority over something else with more potential for long term results. If there was nothing else at the time it was an asset. It is easy to no longer give something priority once the alternative is well defined as better.
safemode wrote:Every system (or nearly) that the player jumps into should be bustling with activity as soon as they enter it. Units should be contacting them and dockable ships should be well within a short flight while the player gets their bearings. The systems should look alive and things should be busy near the [...] gateways in and out of the system. We dont need to simulate 20,000 units to do this. Patrols that scan you for contraband would now make sense. Bases can be full of characters and the mission computer can be full of various things people need to get done rather than a meager handful of things. All of that makes sense when you bring everything in towards the wormhole and make it the crossroads for the entire system. Each system would then have an intrinsic identity that the player will notice rather than every system being identified simply by their background texture.
Now this sounds just like what I figured you where hinting at for new game play the hole time. The only thing is, this involves lots of content creation, so maybe we need to start being nice to people who are good at telling stories, and create an environment to allow them to have fun building what your describing here. JackS dosent want to reveal any story so he has created a cannon queries bug tracker. This is an issue to work around, I would think it better just to have it all open to be contributed to.
safemode wrote:Obviously that doesn't mean you couldn't point your ship into empty space in a system and fly and fly and eventually reach distant planets or moons etc. But you wouldn't. it's not fun. It's not fun now and it's not going to be fun then.
Your assuming no SPEC which points out the problems with removing it. This is a good direction, but it would be optimal to allow people to develop biased on their motivation for developing in the first place. Keeping it open beyond just implementing simple jump hubs play is my suggestion, because removing things won't fix all the game play problems alone.
safemode wrote:The discussion of SPEC is going to end up being decided by what gets better implemented. Or implemented at all.
LOL, I partially agree but SPEC is already implemented. What does that say about SPEC
I still think killing SPEC would get negative long term results. Though your strangling of SPEC has been pretty positive discussion wise.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shark wrote:1. I would like to see SPEC stay. Though I would like to see it mostly limited to (but not forcibly limited to) 'trade routes' that generally follow the shortest/best route between two (or more) locations.
I agree, a setup of
space lanes like in freelancer would be good. They could work differently be bigger, faster, but I like the idea that when you are in the lane all the ships inside are pulled along but will instantly stop if when flying out of the lane or being interdicted. Pirates could interrupt a space lanes and have a inflow of victims till they are chased away.
Shark wrote:Alternately, we could limit SPEC drives to large ships such as huge inter-system ferries that carry players' ships between systems. You would then simply 'dock' with the ferry, and watch as the ferry transports you between systems.
Actually I was thinking this would make more sense if it could be done by any capable ship that is paid enough for their time and effort. This would solve the problem with ships getting stranded in space while they have a full bank account. This is to say the mission computer should be available everywhere. Maybe save too, because I have never played a game where I wish I could note save anytime to replay a moment.
Shark wrote:2. I agree that 'docking' with planets currently is a bit weird. Maybe replace it with space elevators and ferries as long as it is visible to players? I.e. you dock with a station, the station puts you on the elevator/ferry, and the elevator/ferry takes you to the surface. And you see it all happening. Time compression of course would speed things up for the player as per usual. I.e. if you really want to get to a planet's surface you can, but it's going to cost you money and time.
Agree with all of this. A low orbit skyhook could be an interesting alternative to the geosynchronous space elevator.
Shark wrote:3. I think atmospheric damage is a good idea, except for ships specifically designed for atmospheric flight. But planetary flight is not currently implemented and probably never will be so the point is moot.
Well this makes me sad because it is like to say that the engine is aging and will be eventually abandoned. What really is wrong with VegaOgre? It has planetary flight and seemed like it was the future of upgrading the engine to keep it updated. I'm almost afraid to hear the answer. Developers talk about refactoring and it seems like a good idea, but how extensive is that. When would be the optimal time to do it, I think the goals and payoffs would be best well defined for results.
Shark wrote:4. I'm not a big fan of wormholes. I think they are kind of cheesy. But I am not totally against them if they are popular with a huge number of people and I can choose not to use them. They were OK in Deep Space 9 because they were exceedingly rare. Making them more common is suckage IMO.
Again totally agree. I don't like the two sided wormhole graphic at the jump nodes much since ships can fly in at all directions. I would like the see that graphic as a rare wormhole that can with the right equipment be traversed but can also be crashed into or sometimes lead to the wrong randomly generated universe where you can meet yourself, just as a potential Easter egg.
Shark wrote:In general I would like to see more infrastructure in space above and beyond the solitary space stations floating around planetary systems.
The solar systems should resemble the layout of real solar systems with asteroid belts around planets and suns. Though interesting and rare phenomena like collisions, making local asteroid and junk fields may happen more often due to intelligent life.