General > Discussion
Request for Ideas : 2D combat in space
Kornel Kisielewicz:
Ok, I'll take a look at the references. But I took a look at Wierd Worlds and I see a way to use a similar combat system, and make it fun :).
--- Quote from: Igor Savin on December 12, 2006, 09:12 ---Now for the combat ideas...
As a matter of fact, you don't really need battlefield for space combat. Imagine GearHead without terrain. It doesn't make any sense then; all that matters is the distance between you and your enemies; so all the movement you need is either "Advance" or "Retreat".
"UFO: Enemy Unknown" air combat is a good example of how "strategy-fuelled" combats should occur (the ones that are won or lost before all the shooting begins).
--- End quote ---
True, but it wasn't much exciting wasn't it? It was also meaningless almost -- you could judge by the look at it what would exactly happen. It had a big advantage tough -- it was fast. But it was way too deadly for a single ship game.
--- Quote from: Igor Savin on December 12, 2006, 09:12 ---First of all, I think there should be detailed scheme of ship systems. You can get all the important nodes damaged, from weapons and shields to lifesupport and engines. Divide you crew as you seem fit, repair one node over another, set the work mode (easy, normal, insane) - but look out for the morale.
--- End quote ---
True, but we can't overcomplicate matters. One of the biggest things that made DoomRL successful was that it was very easy to learn. I want that in the space game too. But yes, I want multiple options. Here's the solution -- A basic ship that you get in the beginning doesn't have much controls. But the more upgrades you buy, the better computer you install on it, the bigger ship you buy, the more ways to influence combat you have. This way the interface complicates gradualy while the player learns the controls.
--- Quote from: Igor Savin on December 12, 2006, 09:12 ---Okay, I'm just throwing in random ideas, and not the ones you most probably need. I'll try to return back on topic.
--- End quote ---
Quite on the contrary! -- I guess now most of the forum will finaly know WHY you are Chaoslord ranked ;].
--- Quote from: Igor Savin on December 12, 2006, 09:12 ---the ships are handled, what they consist of) - the more detail there will be, the better. I'd hate simple "HP over HP, Damage over Damage" bash.
--- End quote ---
You forget about user friendlyness here. But as I wrote above -- there's a way to get around it :).
--- Quote from: Igor Savin on December 12, 2006, 09:59 ---As I have already said, Movement part isn't all that important or interesting in space.
--- End quote ---
I can almost agree on that paragraph, except you forget about one vital aspect -- facing. Why is it important? Gun mountings -- startegy in space combat can be outmaneuvring your enemy by getting into the Arc of fire where he has the worst guns. On the other hand you try to get into a place where you can face the enemy with your main cannons. This would be especialy important in case of large, unmaneuvereable capital ships.
--- Quote from: Igor Savin on December 12, 2006, 09:59 ---Of course, you can spice things up with stuff like Nebulas that slow ships down, Blackholes that start sucking you in if you are passing by, Vortices that teleport you across the field, Meteorites that fly by, causing damage... Maybe even various rubbish do generate, including even shipwreck capsules, that might work like levers - there might be fuel, shield battery refill, or ticking bomb inside (or swarm of alien raider ships)...
--- End quote ---
This is very unrealistic considering the scale of the fight. And although I take a lot of liberty in case of realism (like the fact that considering relativity of stadard space travel speed most ships would fire at eachother form distances where the ship couldn't even be one pixel sized) I'd like the game not to turn into a child's game-like. I will try to preserve some serious mood there ;].
--- Quote from: Igor Savin on December 12, 2006, 09:59 ---There's nothing special about Attacking as well. Weapon shoot, weapon hit or miss; if we're lucky, weapon heats up and jams. Ability to make called shots like in GearHead would be great. It might be interesting to make Star Control-like kind of weaponry, where guns are completely different, not only colour and damage wise. Something like Druuge's gun. Something like Chmmrm sentinels. Something like Thraddash afterburner.
--- End quote ---
Agreed. But one aspect that needs to be remebered is that there are guns against capital ships, and guns against fighters.
--- Quote from: Igor Savin on December 12, 2006, 09:59 ---It's Acting where we have the most freedom and are capable of inventing totally new stuff. Balance energy spending between shield recharge and laser build-up.
--- End quote ---
X-Wing FTW!
.... nothing less from the Igor I know ;].
Igor Savin:
"Ok, I'll take a look at the references. But I took a look at Wierd Worlds and I see a way to use a similar combat system, and make it fun :)".
Hmm, it was Gombrowicz who said that he didn't learn as much from the classical literature, as he did from the bad one..
"True, but it wasn't much exciting wasn't it?"
Yeah, they barely happened.
"One of the biggest things that made DoomRL successful was that it was very easy to learn"
...to learn, but not to master!
"A basic ship that you get in the beginning doesn't have much controls. But the more upgrades you buy, the better computer you install on it, the bigger ship you buy, the more ways to influence combat you have"
Similar system worked well for GTA: SA, where "new features" were introduced as the plot moved on. Yes, that sounds like a good idea.
"I guess now most of the forum will finaly know WHY you are Chaoslord ranked ;]."
...since you can't resist my charming gaze!
"you forget about one vital aspect -- facing. Why is it important? Gun mountings -- startegy in space combat can be outmaneuvring your enemy by getting into the Arc of fire where he has the worst guns. On the other hand you try to get into a place where you can face the enemy with your main cannons. This would be especialy important in case of large, unmaneuvereable capital ships".
Hmmm... Remember GearHead? It did have facing system. Was it of any practical use? Most of the time it simply took one more keypress to shoot; and it never actually decided anything. Nothing more than a little annoyance.
Though capital ships change the picture radically... Will your game feature large-scale ships (think Star Destroyer vs. X-Wing)? They would benefit greatly from facing.
"I'd like the game not to turn into a child's game-like. I will try to preserve some serious mood there ;]"
Okay. Then we can have not all of them at the same time, but only one; sometimes.
"But one aspect that needs to be remebered is that there are guns against capital ships, and guns against fighters"
Will there be accuracy penalties for the first, and damage penalties for the second, or they will be simply unuseable?
"X-Wing FTW!"
You know my sources ;).
Kornel Kisielewicz:
It's great to have you back :D
--- Quote from: Igor Savin on December 12, 2006, 10:46 ---Hmmm... Remember GearHead? It did have facing system. Was it of any practical use? Most of the time it simply took one more keypress to shoot; and it never actually decided anything. Nothing more than a little annoyance.
--- End quote ---
Yes because facing wasn't vital, and wasn't tactical. Here we will probably have realtime, and turning for a big ship will be slooow.
--- Quote from: Igor Savin on December 12, 2006, 10:46 ---Though capital ships change the picture radically... Will your game feature large-scale ships (think Star Destroyer vs. X-Wing)? They would benefit greatly from facing.
--- End quote ---
Yes, that's the whole point. Although I don't want to go immidately large scale, I have to keep that in mind. Anyway the turning speed will be one advantage that small fighterlike-ships will have over big trader ships.
--- Quote from: Igor Savin on December 12, 2006, 10:46 ---"But one aspect that needs to be remebered is that there are guns against capital ships, and guns against fighters"
Will there be accuracy penalties for the first, and damage penalties for the second, or they will be simply unuseable?
--- End quote ---
Try hitting a X-Wing with a turbolaser :).
--- Quote from: Igor Savin on December 12, 2006, 10:46 ---"X-Wing FTW!"
You know my sources ;).
--- End quote ---
Being a GREAT fan of StarWars space-sims I could not let that pass :D.
Igor Savin:
"It's great to have you back :D"
It's great not to study Latin :-P
"Anyway the turning speed will be one advantage that small fighterlike-ships will have over big trader ships"
Will the control be mouse-driven like in WW? It won't be fun to constantly click, in order to keep your fighter's position in trader's weak spot, as he turns..
"Try hitting a X-Wing with a turbolaser :)."
Point taken.
"Being a GREAT fan of StarWars space-sims I could not let that pass :D."
Only "sims" ;)?
(what happened to that movie project of yours (ok, of your friends), btw?)
Kornel Kisielewicz:
--- Quote from: Igor Savin on December 12, 2006, 11:00 ---Will the control be mouse-driven like in WW? It won't be fun to constantly click, in order to keep your fighter's position in trader's weak spot, as he turns..
--- End quote ---
Yeah, probably mouse-driven. But the interface part needs to be thought about. Anyway, you will usualy not be the fighter.
--- Quote from: Igor Savin on December 12, 2006, 11:00 ---"Being a GREAT fan of StarWars space-sims I could not let that pass :D."
Only "sims" ;)?
--- End quote ---
Okay, okay, Jedi Knight series also :-P
--- Quote from: Igor Savin on December 12, 2006, 11:00 ---(what happened to that movie project of yours (ok, of your friends), btw?)
--- End quote ---
Don't ask ^_^. They didn't have much motivation.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version