Banner advertising on our site currently available from just $5!
SuperGMember Since 06 Oct 2007
Offline Last Active Jul 03 2015 03:07 PM
- Group Members
- Active Posts 53
- Profile Views 2,832
- Submitted Links 0
- Member Title Member
- Age 45 years old
- Birthday May 23, 1970
Posted by SuperG on 01 April 2015 - 11:44 PM
If you have many fleets some might be reserve to re- enforce or replace battle reduced fleet.
Ship damage comes in light and heavy. Light can be repaired by ship crew medium need repair assistance heavy damage a repar frigate. Or equipment dock. While severe damage means shipyard or repair dock.
That means depending on mission impotance. Some mission have a high priority and are crusal for the war. Then ships go all the way. While less urgend missions depending on damage, ships return to shipyard. Or fall back to the support group.
So as commander you can set the urgency of mission and treshold when to go to defensive stance to where return for repairs.
Repair are costly but lot less then build a new ship.
Posted by SuperG on 24 May 2014 - 11:11 AM
Well I think there would be a better way, or better a most less wrong way. Or better you need to decide in allotted time what to do and what could be done in time. Which often is a compromise. When is there the time to do it right. it's done when it done.
Example of more health. Any thing could influence the gameplay. Health to more leeway to take huge risk. Faster pace more rushing. Other way
like If enemies are less accurate, you just keep more distance but in close range it doesn't matter. Games could be linear and corridor based with lots to close encounters.
More health means. Much more time to react. Making wrong responsive decision don't weight that heavy. Having much more chance to get through a ambush. Wenn not you move slower and more observing to spot first the opfor dose you.
What this means if you go for action rich epic story regular game are hanging back. Might not be the game flow you intended.
I do think there is a right way but it's to costly to develop.
You also need to know very much about the gamer. Ask that when showing the difficulty screen. |then the game adopts to player in way he prefer.
If you are into deep story you want a good story flow game experience. So don't replay a part to much better not at all.
If you are a action gamer you want to have fun it's less about survival but more ammo rich environment. high number but effective weapons.
Then those very hardcore player who want to be challenged.
these kind of gamer exist in all skill levels but need different adoption.
Also mostly the game flow difficulty is very variable. While mid and end part should be going up they could be walk in the park, but there are point replayed dozen times.
A very costly to implement way could be. Taunting and reputation. If you are good the AI adapts to more care full approach. Calling reinforcements before they going in.
while if your barely move forward. The opposing force get more risky and let it know by letting you know your time has come and going after you without backup.
I more a games who want to shoot and just follow the story line. Having some core gameplay action. Without end bosses QTE or cut scenes.
Normally I choose Easy or normal. But some games Hard is easy.
Posted by SuperG on 23 February 2014 - 01:12 PM
There is good reason for Co-op but the story must be coop related.
A chuck Norris or Rambo one man army action story doesn't work well. Some uses like QTE are disastrous. cut scene rather not. But handy for breaks. But doing squad based mission as story's. You are a team in SP with AI teammates. In coop with players with empty slot filled with AI.
Ghost Recon Advanced Warrior. We played GRAW 1 & 2 on 3 PC in a row each PPU powered I got this Black hawk down movie experience. Very Cool. It made the 3th guest gamer a Xbox360 console game buy a PC. Operation Flashpoint 2 Red River. Same thing. except the cut scene NPC / actor was very irritating.
Co-op works with team based story's or plots. The problem is AI if the story demands a team even for solo play. This is a very complex problem. As a AI designer you design your AI with specific gameplay in mind. But gamers are unpredictable play as it often not meant to be played. Like hanging back get the flow out of the game. Starting a spawn wave notice. Or rushes like Rambo so aren't moving as team. get shot in the back. Hinder visa versa. Or find exploit to do things the AI can't adapt to. And often the AI get the blame. But its large the player who play it as the designer had in mind. Good AI should also address strange behavior of gamers. But also the game flow could adopt to the gamers so to the AI. Problem this is to much for a game with tight deadlines so often not done. So to me the AI works fine a bit limited. But I know I need to take a regular action flow and move the AI as team. Real gamers. well we start OFP2RR and the pure COD guy was fast to action and dead. So I said this is not COD move as team.
It would be nice if the story scales well up from solo to team you then need not to use such advance AI.
Posted by SuperG on 18 August 2013 - 12:04 PM
Dumbing down is the negative alias of accessibility.
It's the glass is half empty vs the glass is half full.
Apparently gamers are selfish. More non selfish proposal would be a good skill adoptive game.
problem is, that no easy task and add to complexity of game production. So often limited to a setting like Easy Normal and Hard etc.
Large funding's and production cost needs large target audiences.
I have no problem with it. Dumbing down is fine with me. Most singleplayer games are some how story driven. So I like a smooth story flow. Instead a QTE that rewind as a A-B loop. replay the same part n times. Or a end boss you try to beat 20 times. That conflicting with story flow.
Also games have a difficulty that is perceived not constant level trough the game levels and gamers differ in how hard or easy a situation is solved.
So a game that dynamical act on player skill and adopt in a smart manner would be great.
Some games have more then 4 difficulty levels.
Posted by SuperG on 28 July 2013 - 09:40 AM
OOP well the way I have read about it. Code reuse is common practice. So even in C you got function libraries. Might be that code reuse is made lot easier with OOP.
But I think it more a way to handle large software solution more practical. With a highlevel of view by its objects. So devide it in manageable components wich are decoupled as much possible. with it software solution becomes easier manageable and extensible. Also it seams you could do it the right way but also wrong. I suppose there is some skills involved to choose your classes right and depend also on the task at hand. So doing the OOAD right needs also some experience.
C++ Got to much pitfalls so Java or C# seams a good start on learning OOP
Posted by SuperG on 01 July 2013 - 10:47 PM
Counceler the ship shrink like in startrek.
But i would not take startrek aproach to away teams. TV series have a huge flaw to reality a smal pool of actors competing for screen time. So a TV series focus on a few main characters and some support requring and guest actors. That suficent for a small ship like firefly a freighter. But a starship with multi hundred of crew not. I expect more for a carrier of few 1000 crew, they have dedicated roles. Bridge commanders won't go as away team members you have specialist for that.
Stargate a archelogist and a sientist atlantis crew won't go on combat missions. Also a away team doesn't have to be TV show small.
But altho TV series have there limitation. For me they are the main inspiration for such games. Altho most of them are very much soft scifi. So I would go for game that has more a TV show point of few. You as player are the captain. I would even go for a FP point of view. With this there becomes a option to extend to 3D FPS boarding feature and real security NPC like FPS bots in a ship like Map. But also every role are NPC characters.
Then a carrier is like a mobile base or mobile airfield the navy counter part. In space these things would be much more independand. For the docked ships you have command center flight controle.
A carrier has a huge logical staff and a huge warehouse for long and independant missions.
As having similarity as needs off airfield base, they have also a large enough repair crew and maintnance toolshops.
Also for naval carrier due to the fact airplane need a land and take off deck and have a fast take off speed need. In space not. So in space there is no need to pure carriers very recognisable to it land and take off deck. In space you can easaly floot out and gain speed slowly. In naval there exist some hybrid carrier battleship alltho very rare. In space it would be common. The difference would be more space used for docking then huge honking space guns.
Posted by SuperG on 24 June 2013 - 11:46 PM
How ever depending on what the core gameplay of the game is. There is a pool off gamers that want excesive deep managing core gameplay wich is micro managing. The very multitask capable gamer might like that.
But micromanaging is a very unrealistic way how thing in reallife goes. The norm there is delegation and reponsability. In game this means automation and AI.
The empiror don't command each unit directly. Only his commanders with support of advisors. And go down the chain only in very crusial missions. I expect such game very AI demanding. A empire could be huge with a large amount of ships.
Some RTS games scale down to mission of what commander does. To a group off units. To get a small number game with lot less level off posible micro management.
But it seams it is more large scale with micromanagement off crew.
Posted by SuperG on 28 May 2013 - 11:59 PM
A very general "everything welcome" brinstorming about what an emperor of some sort of a space empire can/should do? What are his daily routines what is his job?
Alternatively, you can note what he is not supposed to do.
It's for a strategy game that simulates a space emperor (rather then the space empire), so a game more from the point of view of the person, the emperor.
There is difference between empire and emperor.
The first is more used if some nation is apparently the most sucsesfull . Like kolonial sucses. Like the say the british empire. But it doesn't have a emperor. And it has a form democracy. But not directly ruled by the royal headfigure the king or queen. So its more a symbolic function.
A emperor rulez over it empire. More of a absolute ruler. So simulation of a emperor. Is more communicating with his advisors and military commanders. And anyone who directly reports to the emperor. Wich are a bunch of functions.He would see the space empire in a very high level of abstraction. And would only get lower if it was a very critical mission.
Then you have a choice, of what subgenre to go for. Political? Would fit more a non absolute ruled empire.
And political ath is not my choice and would go for that. But maybe others will.
So I would focus more on handling space empire from the point of view of the emperor. Communicating with his staf of commanders and advisors and special funcion like finance. Tech devision with education. You interact with NPC wich represent someting big.
Like communicating officer of commander runing a campain a war insome region of space. Head of militar technolegy. Top of security. Head of covert operation so critical mission and spying. Ministiry of defence. Also a command center where groups of military assets are representet in a iconic abstract way.
My opinion a emperor who rules the empire does so in a high level abstract way. Would not go into micro managing and command units far down the hiarchy of a battlegroup. A emperor can not multitask like a many 1000 core gpu. So he stick on desision wich go over the bigger picture of ruling empire. Also the empire does not do mission.
Like no ruling from a space fighter in battle. Wenn mobile it wouls be some flag ship battle star with a empirial command center department in it. The emperor controled that ship trough the commander or captain.
My guess is such game would be very AI heavy on different levels. A advisor is a AI agent like a ghost player who give hints or advise instead doing it self. Also option for cooperate play adviser with emperor.
Posted by SuperG on 29 March 2013 - 12:22 PM
FPS is often mostly about dealing death in a cool way as possible. Competing with skillz in simple set of rulez. You can still go the other way. Much more gore more dismemberment. Wich I miss.
If you want this less violent aprouch, the theme must support this. A police FPS like SWAT there you have huge ROE limitation. And there is some rule set to minimize voilence. And get the bad guy alive if posible. That give such game much more depth wich make sense and fit the theme.
In military disipline you don't need to kill, severly wound can be enough but its not crusial. It give more design and content constains that complicate things. So is avoided. While with the police theme it could be key point of police work. In some sitution you need instant kill, brain stam. Wich is sniping within 100 yards. Or un arm a bad guy by snipe his weapon. A guy with a knife atacking shoot him in the leg from 3 yards. Nonlethal weapons. Beanbag shotgun.
The free America amy game had medic training in it. Altho ver limited, but it makes it more authentic. Also wenn hit you leak so need to be treated or bleed to death. Also team survival is of some importance. ROE is also into the mix.
But lots of gamers want to shoot online and have fun competing. If that not your thing go Nintendo.
Me want more gore. Soldiers of fortune is more my thing.
I guess most of the gamers are into those kind of games, and with that, these games are most produced. So I think its more a problem that FPS hater don't have that much titels to fulfill there game needs.
Like I miss the high quality triple A space shooters. Well we still have the indies small and big.
Also CoD online is like quake or unreal tournament with a modern warfare theme on it. Fake unrealistic gameplay with realistic looks but not feel. Then on top of it some rpg like leveling and unlocks, and score streaks.
But heavy rain and the walkingdeath from telltale are totaly not my thing. Blasting zombies in a cool shotgun way is.