I agree with everything CutterJohn has said. Except for abstract types of ammunition, unless we speak just for basic weapons. To me, missiles should be different from each other.

ThymineC wrote:I'm not saying that I don't want to be able to die or that the game should be easy. It's just that if I die, I generally want it to happen when it's in the heat of battle. Dying like that would be fun for me. Dying because I ran out of fuel and was forced to commit suicide? Not so much, personally.

Then you should be cautious and take enough supplies in your travels. Besides, this creates a need to contact NPCs: You need to regularly visit suppliers or space stations, or hire someone to provide you with them, whether a manager who does all the work (at a high cost) or different providers for each service.

If you prefer to remain independent, you have to purchase or demand to build different ships that provide the various services, traveling all together (like in the new Battlestar Galactica), or to make a self-supplied mega ship (as the one we saw in the update #6 video, still my favorite):

Etsu wrote:[...]

But you already have to do all that anyway between all of my proposals, it's just that you don't necessarily die/get deadlocked if you fail, which is perfect for me.

ThymineC wrote:But you already have to do all that anyway between all of my proposals, it's just that you don't necessarily die/get deadlocked if you fail, which is perfect for me.

Again, I find your statements a little contradictory. I understand that there is a lot information on these topics, and it is always possible to lose or forget some details, but ... Explain to me how it is possible to have a source of energy that doesn't require fuel, while having to control how much fuel you carry to make sure you don't run out of it. How can it be both? You can still die if you run out of water or other resources. What is the difference?

But this is not my game. I should not be arguing about how will be or will not be the gameplay.

Etsu wrote:

ThymineC wrote:But you already have to do all that anyway between all of my proposals, it's just that you don't necessarily die/get deadlocked if you fail, which is perfect for me.

Again, I find your statements a little contradictory. I understand that there is a lot information on these topics, and it is always possible to lose or forget some details, but ... Explain to me how it is possible to have a source of energy that doesn't require fuel, while having to control how much fuel you carry to make sure you don't run out of it. How can it be both? You can still die if you run out of water or other resources. What is the difference?

But this is not my game. I should not be arguing about how will be or will not be the gameplay.

I have to agree with hardenberg when it comes to fuel. If you're having to refeul all the time, it suddenly becomes one extra click that could eventually get repetitive and hated (ask anyone who had the prototype trying to repair their fleet; a single pop up box that was a great initial idea suddenly became one extra click that was a pain) and could cause headaches if you forget it one time.

@Thymine; Do you feel as though you shouldn't have a game where you get 'deadlocked' and are forced to suicide? How would that be different from other action games that don't have regenerative health (Doom 1 and 2 and other early FPS / action games) and you get brought down to a low enough HP anything kills you and you're not skilled enough to get out? Would you prefer something akin to checkpoints?

If we don't have these deadlocked situations or similar, what would cause a 'Game Over' outside of battle? Or better yet, what would be list of 'Game Over' conditions and how could they be met?

When it comes to a trader or someone who would play the economy game instead of engaging in battles to make their money, fuel ends up being about the only enemy.

Not picking on you, but just trying to pick your brain from a design standpoint. If you're seeing something we're not, be all means, expand on it. I try to choose certain 'Game Over' conditions based on all the different gameplay methods and choose the ones that try to satisfy all methods.

Etsu wrote:I agree with everything CutterJohn has said. Except for abstract types of ammunition, unless we speak just for basic weapons. To me, missiles should be different from each other.

It honestly depends on the scope of the game. In a game where I was in charge of a single ship for the entire game, I'd be perfectly happy having to stock dozens of different supplies. If I can switch ships out, then that would need to be reduced.

In a game where you control fleets, otoh, it gets really tedious to manage it all. The multiple ammos and missiles were fine in X when you had only one ship, or a small handful. When you got dozens or hundreds of ships it was annoying as hell and the game basically broke, as it clearly wasn't designed to support such gameplay.


Which, tbh, is the problem Josh is going to face. He's going to have to find a compromise between single ship players and fleet players or, alternatively, find a way for the fleet players to abstract the micromanagement away. A player only has so much patience to deal with logistics and housekeeping.

Etsu wrote:Explain to me how it is possible to have a source of energy that doesn't require fuel, while having to control how much fuel you carry to make sure you don't run out of it.

Quite simple, really. You just say it does. Remember Homeworld 1? The fighters had a limited fuel supply. If that ran out, they weren't deadlocked, they just got extremely slow. Supreme Commander utilized the same mechanic for its fighters.

Considering their fuel was really important, but not absolutely 100% required. If you messed up and they ran out of fuel, the AI could still make it back to a support frigate or carrier and get refueled.

You can explain it in game however you'd like, or not explain it at all and simply present it as an aspect of the game, as Homeworld did.

CutterJohn wrote:

Etsu wrote:I agree with everything CutterJohn has said. Except for abstract types of ammunition, unless we speak just for basic weapons. To me, missiles should be different from each other.

It honestly depends on the scope of the game. In a game where I was in charge of a single ship for the entire game, I'd be perfectly happy having to stock dozens of different supplies. If I can switch ships out, then that would need to be reduced.

In a game where you control fleets, otoh, it gets really tedious to manage it all. The multiple ammos and missiles were fine in X when you had only one ship, or a small handful. When you got dozens or hundreds of ships it was annoying as hell and the game basically broke, as it clearly wasn't designed to support such gameplay.


Which, tbh, is the problem Josh is going to face. He's going to have to find a compromise between single ship players and fleet players or, alternatively, find a way for the fleet players to abstract the micromanagement away. A player only has so much patience to deal with logistics and housekeeping.

we'd need good automation options, something you set up and look after it from time to time but in general you dont have to babysit it

Cornflakes_91 wrote:we'd need good automation options, something you set up and look after it from time to time but in general you dont have to babysit it

That is one solution, yes. Another would be modules you can install, or ships you can bring along, that are presented as having the ability to manufacture what you need.

To use yet another Homeworld example, the RP for the missile destroyers stated that they had embedded missile factories(though technically this wasn't presented in game, since the act of constructing them should have consumed resource points). The drone frigates said the same.

In gameplay this could present itself as an optional module you install onto the ship.

Mostly I'm just extremely wary of an AIs ability to take care of itself, and the AI economies ability to meet that demand.

CutterJohn wrote:

Cornflakes_91 wrote:we'd need good automation options, something you set up and look after it from time to time but in general you dont have to babysit it

That is one solution, yes. Another would be modules you can install, or ships you can bring along, that are presented as having the ability to manufacture what you need.

To use yet another Homeworld example, the RP for the missile destroyers stated that they had embedded missile factories(though technically this wasn't presented in game, since the act of constructing them should have consumed resource points). The drone frigates said the same.

In gameplay this could present itself as an optional module you install onto the ship.

Mostly I'm just extremely wary of an AIs ability to take care of itself, and the AI economies ability to meet that demand.

i already outlined here some partial solution to the problem.

we should continue the discussion in the same thread

CutterJohn wrote:In a game where you control fleets, otoh, it gets really tedious to manage it all.

Yes. But as it was explained before, you don't need to do that. While in command of a single ship, which will be most of the time I presume, it would be fun to carry different types of ammo and keep the best quality ones for those times where are needed. Of course, this may be limited to missiles, mines and other special types of ammunition. However, having conventional projectile weapons for example that use better or worse kinds of ammunition opens up many possibilities and strategies and makes more interesting the use of the Tech Tree.

From a mechanics designer POV, I basically don't want to ever get to a position where I'm not dead but there's nothing I can do to prevent death from happening. What I mean by that is that, if I ever find myself in a sticky situation, there are two possibilities:

• Immediate or otherwise quick death.
• Eventual recovery.

If don't want to be taking an exploration vessel into deep space and accidentally fly beyond the PNR, thinking to myself "Oh shit, well whatever I do now I'm absolutely fucked."
If I die, I want it to be sudden, like having my reactor explode during combat. Otherwise I want there to be some way to recover.

From a simulationist POV, I quite like the idea of having to take fuel, food, etc. into consideration and have them possibly lead to game over scenarios. For one, it provides immersion. It also leads to more variety of gameplay, and provides the same kind of appeal as DayZ had. In addition, if your ships are crewed with NPCs and they require food to survive, then it should be the case that you require it too in order so that the game isn't differentiation between you and NPCs.

My inner Kerbal likes reaction engines. I want my ship to shake like a caffeine addict in his 65th espresso of the day as it spits the fury of a bazillion suns out the back.

Just my 2p.

HowSerendipitous wrote:My inner Kerbal likes reaction engines. I want my ship to shake like a caffeine addict in his 65th espresso of the day as it spits the fury of a bazillion suns out the back.

Just my 2p.

I wouldn't mind reaction engines if there was full-Newtonian physics. But I don't think full-Newtonian physics is great for LT.

ThymineC wrote:I wouldn't mind reaction engines if there was full-Newtonian physics. But I don't think full-Newtonian physics is great for LT.

Why FULL-Newtonian physics? Ships can have some sort of assisted flight, and you can turn it off if you want. It's like Star Citizen works. It's like Rogue System works. Did you play I-War 2? Piloting and traveling is so good in that game, it costs me to imagine how someone could do it better. Colliding with another ship and start spinning out of control is chaotic and wonderful.

In the last video, Josh fired on a ship, and it just stayed there, static. It would have been so great to see the ship continued its course through inertia, perhaps representing a danger to the nearby space station. I imagine that space stations could have some kind of shield to stop the approaching objects, including asteroids. It would be great to see the pieces of a ship moving away from it, turning adrift, as it starts to break apart through your shots.

Another thing that happens in I-War 2 is that near a space station you are subject to a speed limit due to the gravitational attraction (if I understood it well). You have to get away from the gravity zone of the station before even attempting to use the autopilot. Best of all, it works very well and makes you feel you're part of this unique universe.

Etsu wrote: Why FULL-Newtonian physics? Ships can have some sort of assisted flight, and you can turn it off if you want. It's like Star Citizen works. It's like Rogue System works. Did you play I-War 2? Piloting and traveling is so good in that game, it costs me to imagine how someone could do it better. Colliding with another ship and start spinning out of control is chaotic and wonderful.

In the last video, Josh fired on a ship, and it just stayed there, static. It would have been so great to see the ship continued its course through inertia, perhaps representing a danger to the nearby space station. I imagine that space stations could have some kind of shield to stop the approaching objects, including asteroids. It would be great to see the pieces of a ship moving away from it, turning adrift, as it starts to break apart through your shots.

Another thing that happens in I-War 2 is that if you are near a space station are subject to a speed limit due to the gravitational attraction (if I understood it well). You have to get away from the gravity zone of the station before even attempting to use the autopilot. Best of all, it works very well and makes you feel you're part of this unique universe.

I-War 2 had full newtonian physics, only the steering engines were disproportional powerful.

the ship drifted, a bit. before coming to an halt because of the drag that keeps the physics engine from crashing.
it was very high drag and i would appreciate if it were lower

and you are not bound to a speed limit next to stations, its just your board computer tuning down your safe relative speed and eventually switching of because of liabilities of the autopilot
they were also projecting an interdiction field to prevent you from LDSing through the station

Cornflakes_91 wrote:and you are not bound to a speed limit next to stations, its just your board computer tuning down your safe relative speed and eventually switching of because of liabilities of the autopilot

Thanks for the clarification. I guess what confused me must have been the speed limit imposed by space stations. A legal ordinance then, not a physics element.