follow/goto
Follows or goes to target. A standard command on several RPGs. Saves a few key strokes. Why not include it?
auto-aim
Extend the functionality of targeting. Aims the ship to strike the target. Perhaps turn this on/off with Caps Lock. May require a ROM; the developer decides.
stasis
The pilot goes to sleep, wakes up much later in game time. The game progresses as usual without the pilot's presence: battles play out, hunters that pursue you through the gates gather to await you or attack you if you left the ship vulnerable. It's prudent to turn all your systems off and park somewhere safe before entering stasis.
ideas: follow, auto-aim, stasis
-
Betelgeuse
- Fleet Officer
- Posts: 1920
- Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 6:31 am
I do like the follow idea but it has come up before. Some think it will make guarding missions too easy.
auto-aim: I don't like this due to it will lessen the distinctness of omni weapons.
stasis: I don't really understand what you want with this. Autopilot can do the same thing.
auto-aim: I don't like this due to it will lessen the distinctness of omni weapons.
stasis: I don't really understand what you want with this. Autopilot can do the same thing.
Crying is not a proper retort!
-
Ttech
- Fleet Admiral
- Posts: 2767
- Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 12:03 am
- Location: Traveling in the TARDIS
- Contact:
stasis oculd be badl0mars01 wrote:follow/goto
Follows or goes to target. A standard command on several RPGs. Saves a few key strokes. Why not include it?
auto-aim
Extend the functionality of targeting. Aims the ship to strike the target. Perhaps turn this on/off with Caps Lock. May require a ROM; the developer decides.
stasis
The pilot goes to sleep, wakes up much later in game time. The game progresses as usual without the pilot's presence: battles play out, hunters that pursue you through the gates gather to await you or attack you if you left the ship vulnerable. It's prudent to turn all your systems off and park somewhere safe before entering stasis.
For one, because it's THE FUTURE and suspended animation is neato. Another, I don't like to wait IRL and autopilot isn't fast enough. Some things take a while. Attackers tracking you through the star gate accumulate slowly. A lengthy epic battle takes a while to conclude. Adjacent to a star gate, a station kills everything passing through and slowly accumulates wrecks. A scavenger slowly gathers everything for you in one convenient location. With stasis you can skip game time, destroy all those things that accumulate, collect all the scraps, without pointlessly waiting or eating a taco and getting fatter.
So it's not as useless as you think. There are unlimited applications for this sort of thing. Only takes some imagination.
I don't like the criticism that following makes guarding too easy. It's the future, there are computers, it's a straightforward thing to program a ship to do. Plus, let's make this game FUN, not artificially challenging. Unless you consider calibrating the speed of your ship to match another's 'fun'. If the challenge is too easy, make it challenging. EMP interference and H4X are interesting.
I don't like the criticism about auto-aim either. In the future, you SHOULD be able to auto-aim. For the sake of all that makes sense, our fighter jets have this technology today, why can't freaking space cruisers in the future have it? It resolves the restriction with the ship's 40 orientations. Plus, weakening distinctness with omni-weaponry is not a good reason to reject it. Auto-aim interferes with steering, omni-weapons don't. Further, it does not imply perfect accuracy. As with omni-weapons, sometimes the best-guessed trajectory to strike a moving target still misses because targets can change motion.
So it's not as useless as you think. There are unlimited applications for this sort of thing. Only takes some imagination.
I don't like the criticism that following makes guarding too easy. It's the future, there are computers, it's a straightforward thing to program a ship to do. Plus, let's make this game FUN, not artificially challenging. Unless you consider calibrating the speed of your ship to match another's 'fun'. If the challenge is too easy, make it challenging. EMP interference and H4X are interesting.
I don't like the criticism about auto-aim either. In the future, you SHOULD be able to auto-aim. For the sake of all that makes sense, our fighter jets have this technology today, why can't freaking space cruisers in the future have it? It resolves the restriction with the ship's 40 orientations. Plus, weakening distinctness with omni-weaponry is not a good reason to reject it. Auto-aim interferes with steering, omni-weapons don't. Further, it does not imply perfect accuracy. As with omni-weapons, sometimes the best-guessed trajectory to strike a moving target still misses because targets can change motion.
-
Betelgeuse
- Fleet Officer
- Posts: 1920
- Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 6:31 am
Wow, just wow.It resolves the restriction with the ship's 40 orientations.
I didn't think anyone would really ever say that. I understand that l0mars01 is new and doesn't know any better but still I think I died a little on the inside.
Beyond that you have to realize that the game is meant to be played many times sometimes it will be harder than others. The automation would just make it boring (if you had that just hold down fire and watch tv and you have cleared the system).
Crying is not a proper retort!
-
Ttech
- Fleet Admiral
- Posts: 2767
- Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 12:03 am
- Location: Traveling in the TARDIS
- Contact:
Betelgeuse wrote:Wow, just wow.It resolves the restriction with the ship's 40 orientations.
I didn't think anyone would really ever say that. I understand that l0mars01 is new and doesn't know any better but still I think I died a little on the inside.
Beyond that you have to realize that the game is meant to be played many times sometimes it will be harder than others. The automation would just make it boring (if you had that just hold down fire and watch tv and you have cleared the system).
???
-
Ttech
- Fleet Admiral
- Posts: 2767
- Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 12:03 am
- Location: Traveling in the TARDIS
- Contact:
l0mars01 wrote:For one, because it's THE FUTURE and suspended animation is neato. Another, I don't like to wait IRL and autopilot isn't fast enough. Some things take a while. Attackers tracking you through the star gate accumulate slowly. A lengthy epic battle takes a while to conclude. Adjacent to a star gate, a station kills everything passing through and slowly accumulates wrecks. A scavenger slowly gathers everything for you in one convenient location. With stasis you can skip game time, destroy all those things that accumulate, collect all the scraps, without pointlessly waiting or eating a taco and getting fatter.
So it's not as useless as you think. There are unlimited applications for this sort of thing. Only takes some imagination.
I don't like the criticism that following makes guarding too easy. It's the future, there are computers, it's a straightforward thing to program a ship to do. Plus, let's make this game FUN, not artificially challenging. Unless you consider calibrating the speed of your ship to match another's 'fun'. If the challenge is too easy, make it challenging. EMP interference and H4X are interesting.
I don't like the criticism about auto-aim either. In the future, you SHOULD be able to auto-aim. For the sake of all that makes sense, our fighter jets have this technology today, why can't freaking space cruisers in the future have it? It resolves the restriction with the ship's 40 orientations. Plus, weakening distinctness with omni-weaponry is not a good reason to reject it. Auto-aim interferes with steering, omni-weapons don't. Further, it does not imply perfect accuracy. As with omni-weapons, sometimes the best-guessed trajectory to strike a moving target still misses because targets can change motion.
Waiting too long? TransSPace Jump Drive...
I like the idea of setting autopilot destinations (where the destination may include another ship - following). Not because it's hard to follow a ship - it isn't, it just would be nice to be able to punch in "St. K's" and fly there automatically while you peruse your cargo manifest or whatever.
On an unrelated note, but I was thinking about it lately - flying isn't boring if there is theres' stuff to DO. If you could, as I say, peruse your cargo manifest, or check local goods prices, or check the Space internet for missions, or look at your (multi system spanning) map to plan trade routes, or check on your relationship status with the various local warlord and pirate factions, or etc etc, then you could remove autopilot and the player still might not get bored waiting around. (not suggesting removing autopilot).
I agree that in the future space combat will likely be completely automated as far as direct manual control of craft (heck, TODAY space flight is completely automated - I don't see a reason to change it just because we put guns on the ships).
However if you're going to make realism your goal, in many cases it's best to go all the way or don't even try (see the gravity in transcendence thread for a lengthy discourse on this). It is my opinion that consistency is more important that realism (although realism is still quite important).
A system which only lines your nose up with the enemy leaves you vulnerable to return fire - you can't take any evasive maneuvers because your nose is locked to the target. (yes, you can turn the system on and off to evade but this is awkward). It would make more sense to just have the ship fly itself - the pilot enters coordinates and the general outline of maneuvers and such and the ship executes them (ingame this might manifest like a realtime strategy game with only one unit). That game is unfortunately not the way Transcendence is set up - it's set up for manual flight - in fact, a large portion of the game is built around manual combat. Steering your ship for you is taking away a large portion of the game, which is why you're encountering resistance to the idea.
I think it's handy at first glance when you're talking about shelling a station from afar or something, but then I think about close in fighting - you would be vulnerable due to lack of course correction, true, but often it's not advisable or necessary to change course (escorts, flyswatting, just lining up a shot). But then I think that it's just taking away the point: where is your challenge? Eliminating tedium is a noble goal, but AIMING is tedious? Now you just sit around and press fire, as Betel says. Why? Marksmanship is part of the challenge, not the tedium.
For the record i feel the same way about omniweapons but at least there is a limited selection of them and they are expensive, rare, generally fire slower and do less damage than their non-omni counterparts.
On an unrelated note, but I was thinking about it lately - flying isn't boring if there is theres' stuff to DO. If you could, as I say, peruse your cargo manifest, or check local goods prices, or check the Space internet for missions, or look at your (multi system spanning) map to plan trade routes, or check on your relationship status with the various local warlord and pirate factions, or etc etc, then you could remove autopilot and the player still might not get bored waiting around. (not suggesting removing autopilot).
And that is my objection to it in a nutshell.l0mars01 wrote:Auto-aim interferes with steering, omni-weapons don't.
I agree that in the future space combat will likely be completely automated as far as direct manual control of craft (heck, TODAY space flight is completely automated - I don't see a reason to change it just because we put guns on the ships).
However if you're going to make realism your goal, in many cases it's best to go all the way or don't even try (see the gravity in transcendence thread for a lengthy discourse on this). It is my opinion that consistency is more important that realism (although realism is still quite important).
A system which only lines your nose up with the enemy leaves you vulnerable to return fire - you can't take any evasive maneuvers because your nose is locked to the target. (yes, you can turn the system on and off to evade but this is awkward). It would make more sense to just have the ship fly itself - the pilot enters coordinates and the general outline of maneuvers and such and the ship executes them (ingame this might manifest like a realtime strategy game with only one unit). That game is unfortunately not the way Transcendence is set up - it's set up for manual flight - in fact, a large portion of the game is built around manual combat. Steering your ship for you is taking away a large portion of the game, which is why you're encountering resistance to the idea.
I think it's handy at first glance when you're talking about shelling a station from afar or something, but then I think about close in fighting - you would be vulnerable due to lack of course correction, true, but often it's not advisable or necessary to change course (escorts, flyswatting, just lining up a shot). But then I think that it's just taking away the point: where is your challenge? Eliminating tedium is a noble goal, but AIMING is tedious? Now you just sit around and press fire, as Betel says. Why? Marksmanship is part of the challenge, not the tedium.
For the record i feel the same way about omniweapons but at least there is a limited selection of them and they are expensive, rare, generally fire slower and do less damage than their non-omni counterparts.
An auto position the ship by itself wouldn't fix the facings "problem" either - note that the AI ships fail to hit you often because of their facings and they already have auto-aim . Perhaps what you're looking for is partial omni weapons that cover your blind spot? There's a mod for that already around (18 degree swivel mod) that makes all weapons have an 18 degree swivel (it was made back when there were only 20 facings).It resolves the restriction with the ship's 40 orientations.
Ttech: yes, stasis also works as a poor man's jump drive. You might even joke about it being a TransTime jump drive stuck in the forward setting. I had other uses in mind, too...
And thanks for the input guys. I'm not trying to be rude, only direct to the point.
Onto objections: that 'all or nothing' argument strikes me as a fallacy. There can be something gained with partial embellishments even if imperfect. This is somewhat besides the point, however, because I'm not about approximating physical reality: that's too CPU intensive. I'm about maximizing fun in line with the design principles of the game. From what I gather, this game is meant to be a NetHack-inspired space adventure. NetHack-like in the sense that it handles nearly all common contingencies and some uncommon ones, eg, wielding a cockatrice's corpse to petrify enemies and petrifying yourself if you stumble down the stairs and mishandle that corpse.
Here, I was thinking about common actions the user might expect, and not how to make the game more realistic. With the presence of installable ROMs, the user might figure the ship has an onboard computer and wonder 'Why won't it compute my best firing trajectories?'. That's a basic contingency. Others are following and going to mapped destinations. The latter 2 I picture as actions you can interrupt and and resume mid-transit, when you need to break off course and fight, for example (yes, the game still animates the entire transit in continuous time).
Now auto-aim: I imagine a command that aims your ship toward any position, and not only 1 of the 40 orientations. The game merely illustrates the ship in the nearest orientation while aiming it more precisely. Pressing the arrows keys places you back in one of the discrete orientations.
Contrary to what others may think, auto-aim does not have to make a game monotonous and boring. GTA features auto-aim and anyone who plays it will tell you that game is incredibly fun. If anything, it allows you to fiddle less with fine adjustments and focus more on creative attack and defense strategies (because all your opponents will have auto-aim, too). Further, a defense strategy that takes advantage of blindspots due to restricted orientations of an attacker is highly artificial and unsatisfying. That's an artifact due to programming limitations and not an ideal part of the game design. I imagine a Transcendence that is something like GTA meets an RPG meets a 2D space shooter.
Finally, the whole point of auto-aim is to override your steering. It interferes with your steering only insofar as you hold down the auto-aim key. And this is no more awkward than aiming manually. In fact, one uses auto-aim only because its faster and more precise than correcting yourself with manual controls. This allows you to focus more on evasion and less on aim.
And thanks for the input guys. I'm not trying to be rude, only direct to the point.
Onto objections: that 'all or nothing' argument strikes me as a fallacy. There can be something gained with partial embellishments even if imperfect. This is somewhat besides the point, however, because I'm not about approximating physical reality: that's too CPU intensive. I'm about maximizing fun in line with the design principles of the game. From what I gather, this game is meant to be a NetHack-inspired space adventure. NetHack-like in the sense that it handles nearly all common contingencies and some uncommon ones, eg, wielding a cockatrice's corpse to petrify enemies and petrifying yourself if you stumble down the stairs and mishandle that corpse.
Here, I was thinking about common actions the user might expect, and not how to make the game more realistic. With the presence of installable ROMs, the user might figure the ship has an onboard computer and wonder 'Why won't it compute my best firing trajectories?'. That's a basic contingency. Others are following and going to mapped destinations. The latter 2 I picture as actions you can interrupt and and resume mid-transit, when you need to break off course and fight, for example (yes, the game still animates the entire transit in continuous time).
Now auto-aim: I imagine a command that aims your ship toward any position, and not only 1 of the 40 orientations. The game merely illustrates the ship in the nearest orientation while aiming it more precisely. Pressing the arrows keys places you back in one of the discrete orientations.
Contrary to what others may think, auto-aim does not have to make a game monotonous and boring. GTA features auto-aim and anyone who plays it will tell you that game is incredibly fun. If anything, it allows you to fiddle less with fine adjustments and focus more on creative attack and defense strategies (because all your opponents will have auto-aim, too). Further, a defense strategy that takes advantage of blindspots due to restricted orientations of an attacker is highly artificial and unsatisfying. That's an artifact due to programming limitations and not an ideal part of the game design. I imagine a Transcendence that is something like GTA meets an RPG meets a 2D space shooter.
Finally, the whole point of auto-aim is to override your steering. It interferes with your steering only insofar as you hold down the auto-aim key. And this is no more awkward than aiming manually. In fact, one uses auto-aim only because its faster and more precise than correcting yourself with manual controls. This allows you to focus more on evasion and less on aim.
-
Xephyr
- Militia Captain
- Posts: 857
- Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 1:52 am
- Location: Orion Arm, Milky Way
- Contact:
Why would we do that? the whole point of games is to challenge your abilities. Maybe for *ahem* "less functional persons" we can make an exception. You can go ahead and make a stasis mod, or an auto target, or anything else, but don't say things that are generally unwanted.l0mars01 wrote:Plus, let's make this game FUN, not artificially challenging.
-
Ttech
- Fleet Admiral
- Posts: 2767
- Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 12:03 am
- Location: Traveling in the TARDIS
- Contact:
Xephyr wrote:Why would we do that? the whole point of games is to challenge your abilities. Maybe for *ahem* "less functional persons" we can make an exception. You can go ahead and make a stasis mod, or an auto target, or anything else, but don't say things that are generally unwanted.l0mars01 wrote:Plus, let's make this game FUN, not artificially challenging.
I agree with you , its fun and addicting because its so challenging.
First of all, who is to say what is "generally unwanted" and even were it so, why discourage it? I don't understand this whole "I disagree = I hate your face" mindset....Why would we do that? the whole point of games is to challenge your abilities. Maybe for *ahem* "less functional persons" we can make an exception. You can go ahead and make a stasis mod, or an auto target, or anything else, but don't say things that are generally unwanted.
Second, l0mars01 said ARTIFICIALLY challenging (however I don't believe aiming is an example of artificial challenge in this case). An artificial challenge is when you only get 19 bullets in a shooter game to counteract the poor enemy AI and level design - instead of making the bad guys not run at you in a straight line all the time they just made more bad guys or made ammo scarcer/etc.
Now:
GTA can be fun for a long time without you ever firing a shot, though. There just isn't enough to DO yet in Transcendence - combat is almost all of the game (and not that I wish it wasn't so - I'm very much a proponent of "less but harder enemies"). As much as I'd like it to be about creative attacks and such I'm not sure if there's room for it...space combat isn't as tactically stimulating as an urban environment either.Contrary to what others may think, auto-aim does not have to make a game monotonous and boring. GTA features auto-aim and anyone who plays it will tell you that game is incredibly fun.
When I said "all or nothing" it wasn't so much a realism point but a gameplay one: you perform all flight maneuvers manually except for the ones that involve lining up on target? Why not take the manual flight out of the equation and issue general orders instead? Take all the twitch out and leave the strategy part. I could see that being fun, maybe, if there were a lot of changes in gameplay - you'd need a lot more avenues of attack to keep it interesting (ever played Dungeon Siege? Bad guys appear, click on them, they die, repeat.)- things like cyber attacks and sneakery, more compelx autons and wingmen and most of all some more interaction - a real economy for trading/investing etc, tons more characters and all kinds of other things
I'd like it if it did so and then displayed the result onscreen as a line/cone of fire, which I could then manually execute.with the presence of installable ROMs, the user might figure the ship has an onboard computer and wonder 'Why won't it compute my best firing trajectories?'.
Here is a rant that started as a parenthetical aside and then grew too long - I put it here because it's relavant but doesn't flow with the rest:
My tried-and-true method for "is combat fun" in games has nothign to do with "is it challenging" or even "is it realistic". It is this - do I avoid it or seek it out?
In lots of games combat appears to be fun (and it certainly is challenging) while it's happening but I'll find that whenever craploads of enemies appear I just go "great, here we go again" and reluctantly run off to fight them (see dungeon siege above). If combat is really fun you'll reload a save game after you win the fight just to fight them again (I could go on and on about how Far Cry is actually not a very good game but I played one of the early mission about six times in a row so it passes the test at least for that mission)