Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.97a is out! (02/02/24); New blog post: Simulator Enhancements (03/13/24)

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Rushyo

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
1
Modding / Re: Battlestar Galactica Total Conversion (WIP w/ 0.65a demo)
« on: February 28, 2016, 01:32:10 PM »
Although my original plan was to continue this work alongside my hacking/intelligence consultancy work and law degree sometime this month, I've picked up a 3D games contract on the side with a well established games studio (project is NDA'd so I'll keep quiet on the details). This means my total working + study hours per week is currently ~80 hours. This doesn't leave much time for the BSG mod! (or, indeed, sleep...)

Since both my intel work and my games work are short-term contracts with the possibility of extension, I'll re-visit my priorities at the end of March to see if it's viable to pick this up again from where I left off. If it's not, I'll look at setting out a new design for an interim mod with a smaller scope I can squeeze in around stuff. On the other hand, if these contracts go well, there's also the possibility I might have a look at hiring some other folks in to help! Either way, expect things to be very quiet for the next month, but nothing's dead or scrapped if you don't hear from me.


2
Modding / Re: Battlestar Galactica Total Conversion (WIP w/ 0.65a demo)
« on: December 20, 2015, 05:20:10 PM »
Prototype DRADIS interface. Only took around ~30 lines of codes. Sprites sourced from the CIC project. Winding down the work for the Yuletide period, so updates will be more scarce for a bit.


3
Mods / Re: [0.7.1a] Combat Chatter v1.0
« on: December 19, 2015, 05:23:07 AM »
Fair enough. Thanks :) I'm not sure whether I'll take you up on your kind offer yet, but I'll bear it in mind.

Regardless of all that, I can't think of a reason why I'd ever play vanilla+ without this mod.

4
Modding / Re: Battlestar Galactica Total Conversion (WIP w/ 0.65a demo)
« on: December 19, 2015, 04:59:22 AM »
Aye. Can't argue with any of that. But it's easier to derive metallic/roughness maps for derivative art, as you can easily interpret the implied physical properties of the materials. Some values are more easily derived for objects using a PBR mindset. I don't need/want to try to reverse engineer appropriate properties based on the TV show lighting when I can just say to my tools "yeah, this bit of the ship is just dimly polished steel." Not: "Let's try 4% gloss for this particular hull surface. Nope too little. Maybe 8%? Nah, that's too close to the 9% hull over here. 6%? Maaaaaybe."

Quote
The reason most PBR shaders look good is because they use a metallic microsurface lighting technique that you rarely see elsewhere.  Blinn-Phong I found appropriate for Starsector because it simulates shiny materials, lit by hard, intense light sources.  This very closely matches conditions in a space battle, so there wasn't much of a point doing something fancy.

I agree that makes perfect sense with Starsector's default art pipeline, but if I wanted to take a new art direction to emulate the TV show, that would involve writing a custom shader anyway. If I'm going to bother to write a new shader with intent to move towards a photo-realistic approach for a bunch of metallic assets, then writing a "PBR" shader (which I'm just using in the sense of the common short-hand for the sort of shader you described) seems entirely context-appropriate. All the dynamic range of the art in the TV series is differing grades of paint-wear and metallic surfaces.

There are other benefits to physically-based shaders over Blinn-Phong, but these have more to do with the over-simplification inherent in the Blinn-Phong model than anything relating to micro-surfaces. Fresnel, for example. This is implied as part of a physically-based rendering, even if it's not dependent on anything specific to do with microsurfaces. Indeed, the PBR shader I used above is as comfortable using specular/glossiness maps as metallic/reflectivity maps. It will quite happily accept either set.

Which is all a long-winded way of saying: I know exactly what you mean, but the pertinent issues of "how you want to go about creating/baking maps" and "metallic micro-surfaces" are exactly the questions I'd be looking to address if I went this direction. I'm not one of those people who thinks PBR inherently makes things look nicer. As a general rule, I'd hope anyone talking about implementing their own PBR shaders would be aware of that!

Sort of reminds me of the casual uses of HTML5 or OpenGL. The common vernacular usage has long since departed from the technical description, but still influences the naming of things using those technical implementations.

Addendum: I should probably also clarify that when I say "photo-realistic" I mean the real-time portion of the industry's definition of "photo-realistic"; which is to say that in five years it will look positively cartoonish. I'm aware that the idea of achieving genuinely photo-realistic results with top-down 2d sprites is patently absurd. But if I were to make the decision to switch from the mod's current art style (which is tailored to minimise my art workflow as much as possible so I can focus on the gameplay) to something more realistic, I'd be obliged to make sure the fidelity level at least got over the 'uncanny valley' hump and would budget for a level of work appropriate to achieve that. Even if I didn't even up creating a physically-based shader specifically, I think the critical aspect at this point is that the benefits would have to be worth significantly expanding the scope of the work. I'm not convinced that's the case yet, I'm essentially just thinking aloud. PBR or no, the question is whether to make that big switch in art style.

5
Mods / Re: [0.7.1a] Combat Chatter v1.0
« on: December 19, 2015, 04:26:40 AM »
Ah; this is fantastic! I'd just begun implementing ship chatter in my mod yesterday, but it seems like it would probably make way more sense to use this.

Two quick questions, if I may: Is the JSON extensible via another mod? And would it be any work to add an optional sound argument, as I'm also using voice actors?

6
Modding / Re: Battlestar Galactica Total Conversion (WIP w/ 0.65a demo)
« on: December 19, 2015, 03:57:11 AM »
Not yet  ;) It was literally a morning's work. Compared to all the campaign stuff there's really not much value in testing it yet. Right now, all the focus remains on the campaign.

Having said that, looking at ShaderLib I am have been considering breaking with one of the original design principles and switching from the current hybrid Starsector/CG art style to something more photo-realistic.

Starsector's default shaders (and ShaderLib's default replacements) are good for making sprite art shine, but since I have no intention of producing any unique sprite art that's being wasted. The most obvious change would be to eliminate most of the ambient lighting that brings out the contrast on the sprites; this would permit for realistic shadowing instead. I could also introduce modern PBR rendering shaders, replacing the relatively simplistic Blinn-Phong shading used by ShaderLib.

There's a bunch of other things that could stem from this. Introducing 3D flak co-ordinates ought to produce really pretty metallic reflections on Battlestars/Basestars. I could have missiles trails fly under a Basestar's top 'winglets', instead of the current artifact where they always fly over the top of the flat sprite. Lens flares effects, 3D particle effects... loads of possibilities.

Here's an example of a Basestar rendered with a decent real-time PBR shader. The PBR shader has been given a single light source (e.g. a star). The metallic/roughness maps are being generated in real-time using a Basestar-custom pre-processing shader generated by a professional tool I have. For the final game I'd bake these instead of processing them in real time, as that would just be a waste of resources.



This would be a significant departure from the initial plan though. I guess it's a 'nice to have'.

7
Modding / Re: Battlestar Galactica Total Conversion (WIP w/ 0.65a demo)
« on: December 18, 2015, 02:34:24 PM »
The way it's handled in the TV show changes from scene to scene. The Cylons do or do not attack the civilians based on the screenwriter's prerogative, and are positioned according to logic that is completely outside the script.

The typical conceit is that it's implied the Galactica is 'between' the fleet and Cylons. In other cases the Cylons just fly in and around the civilian vessels without harming them until it's pertinent to the plot to do so. If you're paying close attention it's actually quite comical how unnecessarily benevolent the Cylons are to the fleet; they could have wiped out the human race multiple times with ease. The Battle of the Ionian Nebula is a perfect example of this. Galactica holds off the Basestars from outside the fleet, whilst the raiders just zip around the civilian vessels and only bother to ram their missiles up the ample scenery pieces (*ahem* I mean civilian ships) when they roll a natural 6, even though they could have leveled the fleet long before they detected Anders.

This is fine. It means I have room to play around and see what suits the game best. I don't have to take any 'easy routes' either way. At the end of the day gameplay takes priority, and these sorts of decisions will come out in the wash once play-testing proper starts. For now it's all about considering the implications as opposed to making hard choices on whether I should keep certain gameplay aspects before I have any feedback on them.

I had a busy morning today. Took a detour of around three hours to add a fresh new mechanic to the combat side: Firing solutions. Battlestars can now plot flak fire against either one or two angles simultaneously. This flak fire completely ignores the usual CIWS principles of Starsector's point defence weapons; instead they work as in the show, setting up a screen of fire a fixed distance from the Battlestar.

The result improves the dynamics of the fighting immensely. Being caught out of position against raiders is a bigger deal now: You either need a close escort or to allocate a certain amount of your defensive flak to negating the approach of fighters. I've also given the Cylon Basestars high-yield warheads. They're less numerous than previous, but if you let a single one through they pack a punch. They have decent range now, forcing you to always consider the position of the Basestars lest one of them swing around and start unloading missiles in to your blind spot before you can react. Naturally facing off against three, or four, Basestars, at equidistant vectors from your Battlestar, becomes an extremely deadly proposition.

The firing solutions are quite organic. If you allocate all your flak fire in an arc covered by a small number of flak cannons then the effectiveness is reduced dramatically. Similarly, if you deploy your flak on your broadsides you get maximum utility, but risk having either fighters or a Basestar sneak in their fire in to the central gaps. This makes manoeuvring far more relevant, and often I find myself drifting off-vector to get optimal positioning: trading off position for defense, offense for defense, or offense for position, as required. The cannons take a decent amount of time to re-vector on new firing angles, meaning you have to think in advance where you want your flak placed before the fracas starts.

For the purposes of testing, the firing solution is controlled via the numpad. I was surprised at how intuitive this interim solution is. After the first couple of missions, once I got used to it, I found modifying the angles to be quite a fun challenge alongside also directing the fleet and handling the other weapons. There's lots still to do though. The AI uses it, but not too intelligently; it only understands when to use broadsides ATM. Also, the flak fire should be MRV munitions that disperse in to multiple dumb warheads, but currently they're just standard single frag warheads.

I've also added standard ShaderLib support for all the major ships (Battleships/Basestars) and weapons systems, with material/normal/surface maps, which was quite painless. I also added a cringeworthy bit of CIC audio when a firing solution is first plotted. I rather hate the sound of my own voice when recorded, but it let me test out cutting voice acting in with ambient FX from the series. That bit worked as hoped; sounded like I was actually in the CIC.

The missions have mostly balanced themselves out now. I can't beat the Pegasus with the Galactica, which is now a really tough fight. I don't even get through one Basestar in the ambush scenario; too many damn raiders. Taking out the lone Basestar with the Yashuman is still pretty easy, and feels just right. The time-to-kill has increased, but with the added dynamics it doesn't get tiresome nearly as fast as before. This is closer to the intended play of combat.

The Kobol objective 'quest line' is nearing completion. Once that's in I'll be adding other multiple-battle, multiple-decision objectives to add a bit of narrative punch to the otherwise fairly dry business of keeping the fleet from falling apart.

A Galactica-class utilising the new firing solution mechanic to hold off a Basestar and her raider complement. Note that some of the raiders have gone around and snook in some fire before the Vipers can intercept:

8
Modding / Re: Battlestar Galactica Total Conversion (WIP w/ 0.65a demo)
« on: December 15, 2015, 07:33:22 PM »
Maybe make it so that Civilian ships automatically retreat.

They already do, but the standard Starsector logic allows you to override their retreat orders with your own orders.

There's a bunch of different mechanical possibilities though. The obvious, and probably worst, change is I could make it so you simply can't give them orders at all. I could make it so the civilians only accept orders that don't look blatantly suicidal.  I could make it so they actively seek military ships for cover whilst retreating; or if the appropriate faction is too powerful they could even refuse to let you get too far away from them until you sort it out!

The case of the exploding politicians is not a difficult technical problem to solve. I bring it up because this is the first time that particular gameplay dynamic has reared its head in playtesting. It's always interesting to see how the emergent properties of the a new set of mechanics result in new and different playstyles, some of them really bad for the game experience. I'm just openly musing on the possibilities to turn a negative dynamic in to a positive one. Simply taking away a negative dynamic by ripping out the mechanics that create it risks being arbitrary, dull, non-interactive, and limiting emergent gameplay. Better to consider replacing it with a new dynamic that serves the overall aesthetic of the game, such as (in this case) tying it to the political system or making civilian ships behave more intelligently so the player has to account for their behaviour.

It's a natural part of the process, when playtesting, that new dynamics emerge as new mechanics are implemented. How the game's design responds to those dynamics is what ultimately makes the game meet its aesthetic goals (i.e. be fun to play) or feel ultimately uninteresting and disjointed. Responding to negative dynamics (whether that's camping, spamming, politician genocide, etc.) by always removing the mechanics that create them is basically just shooting yourself in the foot.

EDIT: Not to mention, none of this would stop the player just shooting the civilian ship themselves :P

9
Modding / Re: Battlestar Galactica Total Conversion (WIP w/ 0.65a demo)
« on: December 15, 2015, 07:30:34 AM »


Wireframe for the new character UI.

I was recently play-testing and was dealing with a democratic President who had really low morale due to my decision to stuff a few folks out of the airlock. The whole political faction was following her lead, and were causing a huge ruckus throughout the fleet, trying to introduce laws to curtail military privileges and then eventually going so far as to decree that Tylium and other supplies were to be rationed away from the military.

A little bit later, a few Cylon Basestars showed up... and I just happened to order the President's vessel towards the Cylons. When the rest of the fleet jumped out, it turned out only one of the Quorum had survived the attack (oh no, gasp!) and their positions were largely taken up by characters from the people's faction. No more unrest!

I should probably add a new mechanic to prevent the player from ordering civilians to their obvious doom...  ;D

10
Modding / Re: Star Citizen Mod
« on: December 15, 2015, 03:06:26 AM »
I think you mistake being highly involved in a project (and thus, highly open to discussing it in depth) for being easily threatened. I will obviously be continuing to work on my project just the same regardless of what anybody here thinks; it should be fairly obvious by now I'm not doing it to appease anyone here. However, the things I said have been dismissed for reasons that I can adequately explain, so I chose to explain them. That required going in to depth, because my argument was based on spending a lot of time thinking about these things. If the overly reductionist form of my argument is dismissed, then of course I'm going to pull out the detailed rationale to try to engage in a proper, meaningful discussion. I care about games design and mod communities, having worked on many games and mods for a decade a half, and generally have a lot to say on it.

I did, certainly, feel insulted by your implied criticism of my work as inadequate, pointless, and foolish; something I would never do to a fellow designer, especially one who I'd never met before and whose work I knew nothing about. Gaming professionals don't generally behave that way at all, let alone open with it. But I chose to ignore that in favour of a constructive discussion. I try to assume people want a legitimate discussion when they have some criticism to throw my way, and not just that they wanted to pick a fight. The fact you don't choose to engage in a discussion and instead keep reducing my arguments to a strawman ("just because you are making one big IP mod doesn't invalidate anything that was said." - No, but how about the raft of arguments I actually made then, none of which you've even tried to address?) makes me now think you're no longer criticising in good faith, but just have a 'small town' mentality and aren't actually open to discussing it at all (or, perhaps, are simply incapable of having a detailed discussion about a topic you're so opinionated about?)

So, yeah, sure, let's end the 'discussion' here. There's apparently nothing to be gained or learned from it. Which is a shame. And nicely relates back to your first post about 'The community is swamped by talented artists that have little interest in using existing IP.'. Perhaps the fact that people with a deep interest in using an existing IP and traditional game design techniques can expect scorn by default from engaging the existing community is why some choose not to become part of that community in the first place, as I have intentionally avoided for years. It appears my initial apprehensions and assumptions about how it would be received were more on the money than I gave them credit for, and my earnest attempt to actually engender a discussion about this fact is a perfect self-referential example of why people like me choose not to take part in a community that has no interest in having those discussions, something I've learned from being part of a bunch of different communities, some much more friendly than others. This all rather detracts from the business of actually making games and, at the end of the day, that's way more important to me than convincing people who don't want to discuss the design of games in any depth.

Frankly, you personally come across as nothing short of an anti-social hick who doesn't like strangers on his/her turf with their big fancy ideas. I'll part with the words of the great warrior-poet Malcolm Reynolds: Go run your little world.

11
Modding / Re: Star Citizen Mod
« on: December 14, 2015, 04:28:16 PM »
i have to disagree with you Rushyo, I've done a TC before and they are not near as much work as an actual game ;)  Even when compared to a mod for a game like Starsector ( relatively low-bar of entry for assets ), an actual game requires: original sound work, original music, and a qualified coder in ways that a mod does not and never will.  

I've written mods with their own scores and I've developed full games without original sounds/music. Whether it's a TC or not is irrelevant. That's entirely dependent on the license you're working with. There is no direct link between being a TC and the need to create your own assets. There's certainly nothing that says working on a Total Conversion means you're not a 'qualified' coder or using those skills. Java is Java is Java. OpenGL is OpenGL is OpenGL.

This Battlestar Galactica TC is more complex and time-consuming than my current Unreal Engine 4 game that's taking advantage of all the latest engine features, has concept art, complex 3D animations, its own sound track, plenty of tricky shader code, etc. The fact one happens to be a mod is really neither here nor there. The distinction is in the relative complexity compared to the base they're being built on. My UE4 project is a Rainbow Six: Rogue Spear-style FPS with cutting-edge graphics and UE4 makes that relatively easy since it's purpose built for that sort of thing. Most of the mechanics already exist, and thus the desired dynamics don't require too much work to achieve. My BSG mod's dynamics are largely based on a bunch of social mechanics, which little to no engines offer a base for. So the latter was always going to require more work.

A game's complexity to produce is defined on its complexity relative to the already provided functionality of the engine its using. Writing 8-bit Elite in assembly is a massive job, writing an awesome looking 3D shooter in CryEngine is (relatively speaking) not. To my mind a mod isn't a total conversion unless it was designed as a separate game. Many things labelled as 'TCs' are just extremely elaborate mods for video games that offer exactly the same play experience, the same dynamics and aesthetics, as the game they're built off. That's cool, and maybe even entirely suitable for the IP being used, but isn't a "total" conversion because the game's design hasn't changed, only the assets and code. It's fundamentally offering the same experience to the player, just with a re-hashed skin.

For example, SS+ greatly (IMO) improves upon the aesthetic goals of the original game. It doesn't add any, though. I play SS+ for exactly the same reasons I'd play Starsector. That's the intent of the mod. It plays around with the existing mechanics, doesn't do anything too frightening with the dynamics, and ultimately serves the same aesthetic goals. The same goes for faction mods. No matter how big they are, and even if they alter the dynamics (by, say, introducing a new missile that creates a new style of play), they are still fundamentally designed to be played for the same reasons you'd play Starsector. They're just trying to improve the existing experience through variety and polish.

Creating a total conversion of an IP is a little different. The IP, in most cases, has it own aesthetic that doesn't conform to the game's existing aesthetic. The 'survival' aesthetic that is central to Battlestar Galactica barely exists in Starsector. Occasionally you might get stuck in hyperspace without much supplies and fuel, but those mechanics are not used by Starsector to create a constant focus on the 'survival' experience. The BSG TC takes those mechanics, builds upon them with new mechanics, and creates a new dynamic or two that are explicitly designed to serve the 'survival' aesthetic, creating a different experience for the player.

There are also certain elements of Starsector where it has an existing aesthetic that fits with the Battlestar IP, but are completely mechanically inconsistent with the BSG IP. An obvious example is the faction relationship system. It offers mechanics that create a dynamic of 'relationship management' based on trying to keep the various factions happy, or not, in order to achieve gameplay goals. This fits with the Battlestar universe, where Roslin, Adama, Baltar, etc are constantly fighting over political credit and their relationships are critical to the narrative and the tension.

But what SS thinks of as 'factions' are designed under the assumption that they have a relationship with the player. In the BSG universe, there's no central 'player'. What's important is the faction's relative power and morale to each other. So the BSG mod has totally different mechanics and dynamics based around 'power' and 'morale', that ultimately serve the same aesthetic goal that Starsector does through faction relationship management (and, indeed, trading, which has roughly the same aesthetic outcome even though it's mechanically very distinct). This new set of dynamics for BSG also has to be deep and interesting enough to completely surpass not only the existing faction management system, but compensate for the missing trade functionality. That trade functionality which has very little place in a BSG IP, as it would detract from the 'survival' aesthetic, whereas in Starsector there's barely any survival aesthetic to hurt, so there's no harm is having it.

This sort of problem gets at the heart of games design, and indeed there are taxonomies and game design mantras that I've used to draw these conclusions. These aren't questions a typical mod deals with. A total conversion, however, ought to be defined by exactly these sort of changes. If these sort of changes don't exist, then it's not a 'total conversion' because fundamentally it's not altering the design of the game to provide a different experience, it's just enhancing the one that is already there. I can't stress enough that one isn't better than the other, but to me a TC is absolutely defined by this distinction. Unfortunately it's not one people who haven't written games across a number of genres and engines are generally familiar with.

Incidentally, this is why I'd also love to see a Trek mod in Starsector, as you mentioned. You could build a really great experience without detracting from any of the core aesthetics of Starsector, unlike a Star Citizen mod. You wouldn't need a TC to build something that totally captured the Trek feel and resulted in enjoyable gameplay. You could do it without being a TC. Sure, it'd feel more Voyager than TOS, because you'd be laser-focused on the combat and the factions, but it'd still be Trek.

But then we have to ask why I'd pick Starsector as base. We could dismiss Starsector as completely unsuitable for a BSG mod, but that would be incorrect. It still retains many mechanics, dynamics, and aesthetics in common with BSG. Not as many as, say, a Trek mod, but then nothing else does. There is no engine more suitable for what I'm trying to do with BSG that I'm aware of. I could make it in Homeworld 2, but then I'd have to throw the political stuff (which comprises the large majority of what makes the BSG IP) out of the window. Same with Freespace. These mods already exist. But all of the existing BSG mods I've seen are entirely focused on ship combat, and use ship combat engines as a base. They forego many of the reasons you'd watch BSG as a series. If you watch BSG it is almost entirely politics and sociology. Space combat is a sideshow to move the plot along. Most of the 'big battles' in BSG, of which there are very few, are just a backdrop to some political dealings. The biggest battles largely or entirely happen off screen, because they would detract from the point of the series. Thus, to really capture as much of BSG as possible, and thus appeal to the same things that make the series interesting to viewers, a game must try to provide those political aspects. Diaspora made a decision to focus on providing heavily on a sim aesthetic with a BSG skin, and it did a bloody fantastic job, but that doesn't mean it's the only way you can make a BSG game. The 'flight sim' aspect of the BSG IP is only a minority aesthetic, and there's a severe over-representation of sim games over other aspects of the BSG universe.

There is no base engine I'm aware of that has these mechanics, but Starsector definitely comes the closest. It has classes for characters and their AI, it has basic faction handling. It can handle ballistic combat just fine, although the niceties of making that dynamic and fun on its own do need to be addressed. But it's still far better than starting with nothing, or trying to use any mainstream engine. Even if the mod ends up being 75% my own stuff and only 25% Starsector, that's still 25% saved. In that sense, Starsector is a real time saver. I just didn't go in to it with any illusions that Starsector itself was going to solve most of the game's design for me. I fully intend to build a world that realises whole new aesthetics, dynamics and mechanics across the board, only utilising Starsector where it either a) does a fantastic job of serving the BSG IP (like the Newtonian physics and supply/fuel mechanics, fleet management) or b) is 'adequate' enough at a particularly difficult job that I can offset that work until the later stages of development (most of the combat dynamics fall in to this category).

This is why I love games design. This is not a simple problem. It can't be solved by simply hand-waving. To do it well requires knowledge of games production, experience of many delivered projects, DEEP research in to the IP, lots of sleepless nights, and an obscene amount of hardcore dedicated play-testing. This is a tough games design problem, of exactly the variety that makes it my favourite professional skill. You couldn't muddle through a project like this as an artist or a programmer. To do it well requires a games designer.

I think any Star Citizen mod is likely to run in to these same questions and constraints. You could create a Starsector-feeling Star Citizen mod, but without work and design you'd be taking out many of the core aesthetics of SC (the simulation aspect, obviously, but also the 'wing commander' feel and the social aspect of multi-crew). That doesn't leave you with much value from using the Star Citizen IP in the first place; you might as well just play Starsector, or you have to understand you need to make big changes. This comes back to what Tartiflette said: You can't get rid of core gameplay mechanics from Starsector that will damage the aesthetic outcomes IF you don't have a serious plan for adding new ones in. But then, I'm arguing that's EXACTLY what defines a total conversion.

In that sense, I think a good Star Citizen total conversion could work just fine. By definition, though, it would require inordinately more effort than a typical Starsector mod. The assertion that modding for Starsector is easy, ergo making a Star Citizen mod is easy, is the thing I don't think is logically sound. I think making a good Star Citizen mod would require relatively more work and skill than, say, a good Star Trek mod, because it requires going further away from Starsector. And even that would again require even more relative work and skill than a custom IP purpose-built to build upon the aesthetic of Starsector. Ergo, I wouldn't recommend it as a first project, I'd use another IP.

I had hoped to spare the long-hand explanation of my rationale for such a relatively simple point, but meh. Sometimes complex ideas merit a complex explanation.

12
Modding / Re: Star Citizen Mod
« on: December 14, 2015, 12:36:35 AM »
Quote
And the few coders who otherwise might have done Star-wars or Battlestar mods have promptly teamed up with those artists.

I think this viewpoint focuses a little too heavily on the assumption that Total Conversions, or even large non-TC mods, are written by people who are already part of the mod community. Aside from the usual 'mod pack' TCs, in most communities I've been part of this is not the case.

I think, rather, people greatly underestimate the difference in work between a Total Conversion mod against writing a mod that adds new content to the existing framework. A decent-size Total Conversion mod is effectively a full video game. The base game serves the same role as a game engine, just a highly specialised one. I've approached my BSG mod the same way I would a full-size release (having extensive experience in both). I chose Starsector because it provided the necessary extensibility and meant I could focus more on developing a new and original non-combat aspect of the game, knowing that Starsector would largely handle the combat side and, when I wanted to focus on the combat, I would have the means to heavily modify it to introduce new mechanics.

It wasn't a question of "I play Starsector and I think it needs a Battlestar mod.". It was a question of "I want to make a full-scale Battlestar Galactica game. What engine should I use to minimise the development time and maximise the quality of the output? Starsector seems perfect for that."

Whilst I could hand-draw all the art, rather than using the current stylised form, it still wouldn't form the bulk of the work involved. In the current build I'm currently still doing some of the normal maps by hand; it's not that I don't have those skills. In fact, I contributed some 3D art to the Artemis BSG mod (and didn't get credited  :-\), rather than code, and I tend to do all my own concept art and textures for my 3D stuff.

And you had to ditch two of the main elements that make Starsector a great game with only one new mechanic in exchange: Exit the shield/flux mechanic, and the ship customization, and you apparently added some form or random events. Not sure that compensate for the drastic simplification of the combat gameplay, if you want that to work you'll have to push way WAY harder on the meta gameplay.... But then, using Starsector's engine doesn't seems like a good idea. Yup, Starsector is definitively not meant for IP mods.

I think you greatly underestimate the level of work if you imagine that 'added some form of random events' is the extent of the game's design. There is hundreds of hours of work involved, and as far as I can tell it's got more code that any other Starsector mod by quite a margin (EDIT: With the notable exception of SS+). The loss of two mechanics (however excellent those mechanics are) on the combat side is not particularly to the detriment of the game. Especially when you consider I haven't even touched the combat side for a long time now, it's essentially just a placeholder.

To re-iterate: I'm re-using huge amounts of the Starsector engine. I've also written huge amounts of code that doesn't interact with Starsector at all. I agree that flux and ship customisation are excellent, core, features, for Starsector. This is a different game, with different core features and a different USP. That's what makes it a total conversion. I do not think you can reasonably call your mod a 'total conversion' if you keep the same gameplay aesthestic and core features. That's just a mod.

That said, this is getting a bit off topic. It should probably be continued on the mod's thread if you wish to query further.

ADDENDUM: It's also worth considering that I'm looking to make a BSG game. That may or may not appeal to Starsector players at all. I'm fine with that either way; Starsector's engine is a means to an end. That's what it means to be making a TC based on an IP, and not just putting IP'd skins in to Starsector.

I think this goes back to why people don't join mod communities for writing mods that are genuinely focused on a given IP: often the overlap only exists in the terms of mechanics and not gameplay aethestics or even dynamics. Given that Star Citizen is a game whose core feature is multi-crew and wing-based dogfighting, you'd end up with exactly the same issue: Either you gut core aesthetic aspects of Starsector or you'd just be making a Star Citizen skin for Starsector. Same goes for Battlefleet Gothic, or Star Wars. There's no reason to think a mod that implements the dynamics of those worlds would actually be any fun to existing Starsector players, since by definition changing the dynamics changes the aesthetic. They would offer a different definition of 'fun', that would possibly not appeal to people who like Starsector. Or you could make a mod that retains the aesthetic of Starsector and is effectively a re-skin. That's fine too, but that's more likely to come from a Starsector player, not someone who wants to make a game of the IP.

13
Modding / Re: Star Citizen Mod
« on: December 13, 2015, 11:40:19 PM »
Star Citizen has no extensive universe to base a faction or total conversion on, 95% would have to be made up on the spot.

 ??? There are detailed design descriptions of every system. Their economics, stellar objects, factions, etc. The in-game corporations and products are all well defined to a detail far greater than necessary for Starsector. The ships are largely well-defined, and there are more available than the average Starsector mod.

There are nearly a thousand canon articles detailing the SC universe, various maps, detailed technical breakdowns for every ship and system, far beyond most other franchises.

Contrast this with my Battlestar total conversion, where all the specs are reverse engineered largely from what you can see on screen and completely lack any internal consistency. They're designed to work to meet the arbitrary needs of a plot and, as such, are a complete PITA to port to video games since they're self-contradictory. There's relatively little source material to work with and what is there changes from episode to episode. That's why almost every Battlestar game/mod invents its own ships and mechanics, with the main 'official' Battlestar game essentially being a completely standalone IP with Battlestar tacked on the front.

The mod I'm working on uses only canon ships, which meant in some cases taking the only picture of those ships in existence, with little-to-no description of their capabilities, and reading through interviews and behind-the-scenes trivia to determine what they are actually capable of. On the other hand, Star Citizen's lore goes in to far, far more detail about almost every facet of the universe than you could ever utilise in Starsector.

So, yeah, depth isn't really the issue.

Quote
However, I can sell you some ship PNGs if you like, as a bonus these ones can even fly!

I'm currently busy flying around in seamless multi-crew ships, engaging in open-world PvP and completing PvE missions with my friends in alpha 2.0. No 'PNGs' here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xf4zCCjBwOA

I wonder if you're aware you are directly copy/pasting the rhetoric of a failed games developer who calls himself an 'internet warlord' and is well known for stalking and harassing both CIG staff and members of the Star Citizen community. It's not a particularly cool attitude to have.

14
Is the format "replace":["data/strings/tips.json","",...] ?
I still haven't figured out the full functionalities of mod_info.json.

Yup, that's it  :) Gimme a PM if you have any trouble. I'm around for a bit...

15
How do I override tips(shown in main screen and under loading bar) with a mod?
I tried creating strings\tips.json in the mod category, but seems it is adding new tips instead of overwriting them...

You need to add "data/strings/tips.json" to your mod_info.json's "replace" section.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4