Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Author Topic: Not a list of planned features  (Read 9567 times)

Gothars

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4260
  • Eschewing obfuscatory verbosity.
    • View Profile
Not a list of planned features
« on: May 31, 2013, 11:31:42 AM »

So, what is it? Just a little collection of interesting developer statements. Yes, they concern the future of Starsector, but they rank from "not unlikely" to "definitely ruled out". Mostly ideas being tossed around.


Please do not confuse these with promises!
Spoiler
Yeah... as much as I want to talk about what's coming up, I think it'd be a bad idea. Anything I say might be taken as a promise (or, worse yet, factor into someone's decision to buy the game!) - and the fact is, lots of things that are planned will change as development goes on. You just never quite now how something is going to shape up until you actually do it.
[close]

Most of the quotes contain something that I, personally, found interesting. So, no claim for completeness whatsoever. Statements directly concerning the next update (from the blogpost etc.) are deliberately not included, I consider them general knowledge. The same goes for obviously planned stuff like in the "Upcoming Features"-list on the homepage.
If you find something that would fit on the list, or mistakes, let me know.


Points are color-coded like this:

green = Was under serious consideration or planned. Might still have a decent chance of being realized.
orange = Was an idea. Might have been ruled out long ago or be still a possibility.
red = Not going to happen. Probably on the list because the fact or reason of the denial was new or interesting to me.
blue = Hurray, implemented by now!



Campaign
Spoiler
Skills for AI fleets
Spoiler
Actually, Alex, will the AI have access to the same skill-set players do at some point?
That's very likely. Having experienced (read: skilled, as in with various relevant skills) enemy captains seems like a good way to up the challenge - potentially dramatically - without resorting to having the enemies cheat or throw extremely large amounts of ships at you.
[close]

Player influence on the Sector
Spoiler
You, the player, can either make the situation [in the Sector] deteriorate faster for large short-term gains, or fight against entropy and maintain the status quo. The latter is considerably less profitable, but has brighter long-term prospects. Of course, you'll be able to mix the two however you please :)
[close]

Overseeing mining operations (instead of mining manually)
Spoiler
I like the idea of mining operations. Not so sure I'd like to do the actual mining, though. Depends on how it's done.

Maybe there could be valuable sites in space (rich asteroid belts) that we could fight to control, and once we control them we could invest in a mining operation that took place without us needing to do it ourselves. That way we could keep fighting, have an important resource to defend, and earn money/materials outside of combat.

Over time, given substantial investments, maybe that mining operation of ours could get seriously lucrative (and really draw attention).

That's just right on. We'll do our best to make it work that way :)

I'm not a fan of having to actually do the mining myself. I'd much rather set something up and worry about the strategic aspects of it than steer asteroids into the hold over and over again.
How about the logistics part of [Mining]? Asteroids in belts are quite far apart. I think a very basic management of the supply lines from the mines to the refineries, factories, depots, and trade stations might be worth taking a look at.
Yep, to me that's part of "setting it up". I didn't say the setup would be mindless, in fact, it ought to require some thinking, so that you can do a good or bad job of it. The plans for the economy revolve around moving about resources extracted in different places - so logistics will play into it big time.
[close]

In-game news service
Spoiler
I was thinking that one thing I would REALLY like to see in SF at some point is an in-game news service.
In my mind, this is extremely important. Getting good information should be crucial to making an impact in the sector, especially if you have to do much with limited forces - and as you mentioned, awareness of happenings outside your vicinity makes the world feel more alive. I don't want to go into the details, as they may change, but this is something we're considering very closely in the design.
[close]

Time will be critical
Spoiler
There will be time pressure to get things done (i.e., you could wait for optimal CR or you could go and save your outpost). As long as time has no meaning, any kind of delay is a pain; hence the insta-repair option at the current Orbital Stations. But when time actually causes things to happen, managing those delays will become a strategic consideration. For example, supposing CR took a really long time to regenerate, you might set things up so that you could work in a trading run while it did. Or, if there's a pressing danger, you might decide that you have to go for it with low CR, and damn the torpedoes.

Instant repairs are a placeholder, there to speed things along because time is meaningless at the moment. Once time starts to matter (i.e you might lose an outpost because your fleet wasn't ready to intercept a pirate fleet in time, or you can do other useful things with that time), I'd expect those mechanics to go away or alter quite a bit.
[close]

Fuel will be important
Spoiler
Yeah, fuel opens up a lot of interesting interactions. I like the idea of fuel being a significant limiting factor, so you actually have to prepare for long-range exploration or extended conflict - maybe going as far as setting up resupply points ahead of time. Have to be careful so that it's not boring and the payoff is actually worth the trouble, of course. I'm a big fan of how Star Control 2 handled it.
... we're going to need a tanker-type ship. I can just see stranding a huge Hegemony fleet by intercepting refueling fleets headed for it. That'd be very neat. Must... code... faster.
[close]

Campaign-level stealth for phase ships
Spoiler
Phase ships could probably use a balancing pass at some point, but they are likely to get special campaign-level functionality, so it doesn't make sense to balance them *now*. Some kind of campaign-level stealth could be worth a lot of traded-off combat capability.
[close]

Missions inside the campaign
Spoiler
Re: the OP - I feel comfortable saying that it'll be a sandbox, without "you have to do these story missions to progress" type of mechanics. Not to say that there won't be missions, or even mission chains - that's still TBD.
[close]

Bounty hunting
Spoiler
Quote from: Alex on twitter
Bounty hunting is a fun sci-fi trope, yeah - I'd be surprised if it didn't end up in the game one way or another.
[close]

More crew types
Spoiler
- Have you thought about a third crew type Engineer Crew; that doesn't count towards ship crew requirement (like marines) but work towards repairing/CR?
An "engineer" crew type is a really neat idea, will keep that one in mind.
[close]

More involved boarding decisions
Spoiler
yes, more feedback would be nice, agreed there, also maybe a chance to withdraw the team at some point would be nice, kind of a mini dialogue of the operation

Something like this (a few possible scenarios)

Spoiler
-The assault team reports (light/medium/heavy) resistance. You order them to...
--Push through
--Hold for reinforcement (returns to the send people slider)
--Retreat

-The assault team finds a demolition charge, armed and about to detonate, (x) minutes are left on the clock, (enough/possibly enough/not enough) time for a clean evacuation. You order them to...
--Attempt to disarm it
--Push ahead and seek shelter
--Withdraw and evacuate the vessel

-The assault team reached the enemy bridge, their captain, (accompanied by (x) crew/standing alone), holds (his/her) hand over the self destruct button and threatens your team. You order them to...
--Negotiate
-----Listen to the captain's demands
-----Offer the captain a chance to join your crew
--Eliminate the captain and secure the bridge
--Back away slowly and evacuate the vessel
[close]
@gunnyfreak: You know, I've been thinking along the same lines. I just don't think it's worth fleshing out now, when the reward is so lackluster. Trying to design it so that it's fun in the current state would probably lead to different decisions than expanding it later.
[close]

Interstellar travel, space lanes vs. open space
Spoiler
So, I had a question. Does anyone (even Alex) know how travel is going to be handled outside of a star system? Will it be like a SPAZ system of travel, where there are defined "space lanes" of travel, so that in order to go from system A to system D, you have to go to systems B and C first. Or, will it be done in real time, where you can adjust your course will you are flying between stars, and maybe even be able to intercept other fleets? Has this even been decided yet?

Personally, I'd prefer the real time travel, but I can see where that would take a lot more development time.
It hasn't been 100% decided, but I'm leaning strongly towards the second option. As with most things, though, will have to see it in action to be sure it works well.
Spoiler
The one thing I want to ensure is the feeling of open exploration, regardless of how it's actually accomplished. Star lanes do offer some interesting gameplay, but I think they could also emerge naturally - say, from a combination of supply/demand and the need to refuel - instead of being hardcoded in.

The player could then go anywhere they want, if they were adequately prepared in terms of fuel and supplies - while the AI would largely stick to established star lanes, with the benefit of supply outposts and escorts along the way. That's not to say that's *all* the AI would ever do, but it would make a lot of sense for freighter convoys and such that don't get paid to take risks.

The specifics of inter-system travel are TBD right now - we'll likely end up trying a few things before settling on something that feels right.

I will say that I prefer the Star Control 2 model where you can go anywhere to the one with fixed lanes between the stars. Functionally, I suppose they're very similar, and the one with lanes is a reasonable simplification - but for me, it detracts from the feeling of free exploration. There's that feeling of actually being in deep space, which I find very immersing - and the "lane" systems I've seen gloss over it completely. Not to say that it couldn't be done, though.

I don't know that I would frame open exploration vs starlanes as realistic vs not - each is about as realistic as the other. I think the open feel is a better match for Starfarer - and it doesn't have to mean "realistic" distances. Though I would like to avoid the "oh I walked for 3 minutes and I'm halfway across the world" that some sandbox games have going *cough* Oblivion *cough*. As much as distances are important for gameplay, they are also a big deal for feel.
[close]
[close]

Setting up outposts planetside
Spoiler
Quote from: Alex, transcribed from Immortal machines interview
Managing outposts takes place planetside, of course.It would be sort of like a minigame. Not quite a real time RPS type thing, but you'd put down buildings in a way that would optimize how they work together.
[close]

The end of the game and retirement
Spoiler
Quote from: Alex, transcribed from Immortal machines interview
Quote from: host
Is there a time limit or a natural end to any given campaign, or do you just go until you reach your personal stopping point?
That a good question and I can’t give a definite answer to it. One natural stopping point is if you’re not doing that great and the universe becomes kind of an emptier, lonelier, more hostile place, then you just might not be able to progress anymore.
On the other hand, if you kind of carved out your place in it, and your able to keep that up even though the rest of it is going to hell in a handbasket you might be able to play for a long time.

I’d like to add an option to perhaps retire your character and see how you did and perhaps a little text blurp that describes the future [like in Sid Mayer’s pirates].
But, at the same time, when I play sandbox games myself, it usually just ends when I lose interest in the particular character or the particular situation that has arisen in the sandbox world. So I don’t know how many games would actually go to completion. But it’s important to have some way to end it, if you want to.
You definitely don’t want the game to just completely end on you and tell you “you can’t play anymore”. Even in a scenario where the Sector has basically reached its lowest low, you can still keep going, it just might be very difficult.
[close]

Score
Spoiler
Quote from: Alex, transcribed from Immortal machines interview
There might be scoring to determine the state of the sector at the time you end playing. But I don’t know if it lends itself well to having online leaderboard type of thing. Especially because you can very easily change your stats and mod thing and edit safe files.
[close]

Ship variant generation
Spoiler
I'm not entirely sure just how variants will ultimately be created for the campaign. One idea I'm kicking around right now is generating them on the fly from what's available. *If* (and that's a fairly big if) that's how it ends up working, pre-set variants would be an ideal that the variant creator would strive for, given the weapons/hullmods they actually have available.
[close]

Destroyed worlds can't be re-civilized
Spoiler
Is it possible to re-civilize a world? It would probably be very costly and time consuming, but if you could protect it and it had some kind of serious value to it, it could be profitable in the long run, given the supplies and abilities.
Well, we'll have to see how it plays out to say for sure. At this point though, I'm thinking no. Decivilized worlds play a large role in the sector and have some special mechanics planned that I don't want to reveal quite yet.
[close]

Fleet splitting
Spoiler
Now that it takes combat readiness and supplies to deploy ships, we would now need to include utility ships to carry the abundance of supplies needed to engage in combat for prolonged periods away from stations. Would we be able to split the fleet, and leave the utility ships at a certain point while the faster ships pursue our targets? Most of those cargo freighters tend to be very slow in comparison to combat ships and would drag the whole party down.
Haven't decided, need to see how the larger campaign plays out first. It's a possibility, but at the same time, fleet splitting has the potential to be really annoying if one has to do it. You'd have to split up supplies/crew/fuel/cargo, give some orders to the other fleet, etc. Could get pretty messy.
[close]

Ranks for marines
Spoiler
As far as marine levels, maybe - once marines have a larger role in the game, I'll take another look.
[close]

Influence of astronomical events
Spoiler
Any chance, down the line, to have astronomical events actually influence game events?
A definite maybe :)
[close]

Renaming officers
Spoiler
That reminds me, any idea on if we'll be able to name our own ship captains?
Probably yes. It's a question of "realism" (note the quotes), which is at odds with letting you rename people, vs it being a sandbox and a roleplay-your-own-adventure type of thing. I'm leaning strongly towards the latter.
[close]

Construction of the Sector - handcrafting and procedural generation
Spoiler
I don't mind talking about it, with the understanding that things can (and probably will) change :)
The current thinking is to hand-craft the key systems - such as ones with core worlds, for example - and then use procedural generation for the rest. Fleets and such would mostly originate from planets, so I don't see a lot of hand-crafting for those - aside from setting up an "ideal" composition for, say, a Hegemony patrol, and the AI trying to create those types of fleets when possible.
[close]

Functional equipment in the cargo hold
Spoiler
Yeah, I think some enhancements along those lines would be cool. I'm thinking of perhaps adding some "equipment" down the line, carrying which in your cargo holds would provide certain bonuses - among them, improved boarding abilities. Don't hold me to that, though :)
[close]

Post battle debris
Spoiler
Could be nice in conjunction with something like lootable post-battle debris floating about, if that ends up being a feature (which it may, or may not).
[close]
[close]

UI, graphic and sound
Spoiler

(Text) chatter from officers
Spoiler
I think you're right on, especially in that having captain personalities makes this that much more desirable. Just have to figure out a way to do it that doesn't flood the player with chatter, especially in large battles. Well, it's definitely on the list.
Right, that message list needs (and will get) more work. One thing that's in the pipeline already is sound cues for important events like objectives changing hands. The rest of it, well... it needs to be cleaned up and re-worked. One thing in particular I'd like to convey through the messages is the personality of the officers under your command, so you get some insight into why they're doing the things they're are doing... and what those things actually are.
[close]

Better shield effects
Spoiler
It would be nice to have some feedback, like if a kinetic weapon hits the shield, display some kind of shield dispersion effect, just a small one...so you know that something realy bad for your shields hit it.

Funny thing - we already have some shield animation graphics for just this purpose. Just haven't had time to add those in :) Btw, the "shield hit" sound is different for kinetic damage vs everything else, though it's easy to miss in the heat of battle.
Shields have been on my list of "graphics to improve" for a while now. I wouldn't say they're *bad*, but we've got some ideas.
[close]

UI as part of the world
Spoiler
Soooo... does that mean you plan on introducing such a world-intrinsic UI across the board? :)
If it happens, it'll be a gradual process. I've been wanting to make things less UI-looking for a while, and this is a step in that direction. But I'd expect some of the older UI elements to stick around for a while, if not longer.
[close]

Radar changes
Spoiler
Hmm. I'm actually considering of changing the ribbon back to a very basic radar at some point. Small, with just various-sized pips. The ribbon has some issues, as you point out... not 100% set on this, though.
[close]

Zoom further out
Spoiler
As far as increasing the zoom level specifically, that's not likely - we're building the game around playing at those zoom levels, as far as both the graphics (the "Supreme Commander" problems show up faster than one might expect) and the actual combat mechanics. But other improvements to help with general tactical awareness - such as improving the usefulness of the radar ribbon, for example - are certainly on the table.
[close]

Revision of old ship sprites
Spoiler
Regarding revising old ships, it's not something I want to think much about unless I see glaring problems. It is better to have a less than perfect but complete set of game assets than to have a more perfect but incomplete set of game assets. I try to keep in mind that the goal here is to make a game, not to make the perfect game asset. Forest, trees.
[close]

Voice samples
Spoiler
I think it's safe to say we're not going to be adding voiceovers any time soon :) Regardless of cost (ha!), adding that type of content also locks you down into particular mechanics. It's hard to throw out and start anew after spending resources creating it, even if mechanics changes otherwise warrant it.
[close]
[close]
« Last Edit: August 14, 2016, 02:09:46 PM by Gothars »
Logged
Arranging holidays in an embrace with the Starsector is priceless.

Gothars

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4260
  • Eschewing obfuscatory verbosity.
    • View Profile
Re: Not a list of planned features
« Reply #1 on: May 31, 2013, 11:31:55 AM »

Combat
Spoiler
Smarter Commander AI
Spoiler
The fleet AI will likely get totally overhauled at some point.
[close]

Ship specialized on sensors
Spoiler
As to a sensor ship, something like that is actually very likely :)
[close]

Officers on fighters
Spoiler
You'll be able to assign an officer to a fighter wing in the role of "wing leader"
[close]

Combat effects of officer personality
Spoiler
A suicidal frigate commander would focus on attacking the enemy, regardless of how outgunned he was, where a more cautious one would run away from superior firepower (tactical), or if outnumbered (more strategic). How cautious the captain is determines exactly what constitutes "superior firepower" or "being outnumbered".
Either one can be effective depending on the tactical situation, though. You probably want someone with guts piloting an Onslaught. A Sunder might be more effective if the captain has more ... discretion.
[close]

Ship explosions
Spoiler
I am *so* looking forward to when I can devote a couple of weeks to doing this right :D It still wouldn't be too frequent, btw - part of the idea for having disabled ships mostly-intact is they'll be salvageable after battle, to various degrees - depending on luck, player/command staff skills, equipment, etc.
So a ship would fall apart like that when it would currently be simply destroyed by overkill damage (if you keep shooting a hulk, it will eventually explode).
[close]

New civilian ship types
Spoiler
One thing the game ultimately needs is more Mule-like civilian/combat hybrid ships.
[close]

Asteroid destruction and size
Spoiler
(Also, would [a destroyed asteroid] break up into smaller asteroids?)
Been meaning to do that for forever, even for these smaller guys :) Would be nice if they also left dust clouds, too.
I've got half a mind to try huge (say, Onslaught-sized) asteroids. Seems like those would be a lot of fun.
[close]

Construction rigs
Spoiler
Much longer-term plans include using construction rigs to build defensive platforms around objectives and repair ships behind the lines - adding more in the way of structure to the fight, if you so choose. A carrier behind your lines repairing fighters also adds to that feeling of having some structure to your deployment.
Munitions ships are just about in "not going to happen" land. Mines a bit less so. Construction rigs will get some more consideration.
[close]

Fire weapon groups instantly
Spoiler
As far as firing a group immediately, that's on my list of things to take a look at. If all goes well, it'd most likely be configurable in the weapon groups dialog, in an extra row - like the default autofire mode is now. If on, selecting the group would instead fire its weapons. (So, no new controls, and also, likely no autofire for a group that's set to work this way.)
[close]

Build in hull mods and carrier differentiation
Spoiler
Will there be any direct difference in fighter replacement speed between carriers (with the same number of decks)? Or maybe there  will be a indirect effect because of better CR upkeep on certain ships? Or is a Gemini (freighter) still just as good a carrier as an Condor (dedicated carrier)?
Not at this point. I'm thinking about adding built-in hullmodsfeatures, though (i.e. a hullmod that can't be removed from a hull), that could do this among other things. Not 100% on the idea, though.
[close]

More varied nebulas
Spoiler
How about more stuff that uses the flux mechanic? Like a Nebula where you have 200% flux dispersion, or only 50% etc. Or maybe some kind of support weapon, like a beam which you can use on friendly ships to lower the flux?!

You know, nebulas actually worked this way in earlier builds. You could even charge them up by firing beam weapons through them, and charged nebula clouds raised the flux levels of ships inside. Ended up being a huge mess in pracice (see your point above re: feedback to player). Still, cool ideas, and we'll probably revisit them at one time or another.
[close]

Joining ongoing battles
Spoiler
Just very briefly: this is something I've given some thought to. I'm going to take another look at it once the campaign is much farther along, basically, the campaign mechanics need to drive how this is going to work, not the other way around.

I can pretty much promise that free-for-alls won't be in the picture, but, multiple-factions-per-side battles (with two sides total) are a possibility.
[close]

New engagement types (Raid)
Spoiler
There have been some ideas about adding extra engagement types.
One example is "Raid", where the defending side starts with very few fleet points, but gets a big bonus after a certain time, to reflect noticing and reacting to the incoming threat. The defending side would have to be protecting some static installations, with the goal of the raiding side being to destroy some. This isn't set in stone, though - just to give you an idea for the types of things being tossed around.
[close]

Encounter option that allows a small fleet to fight a bigger one
Spoiler
I've also got some vague ideas about encounter options (perhaps unlocked by skills) that would allow a smaller fleet to isolate a portion of a larger one to fight against. It's not something I want to start out with, though, but something I'm going to keep in mind in case the campaign shapes up in a way that makes adding something like that desirable.

I was also thinking it could be an interesting means of checking the player's fleet size if it was used against them. It could also make smaller fleets suddenly become a threat regardless of how huge your fleet is. This is all handwavy musings about a potential future, though
[close]

Changing asteroid damage
Spoiler
As for asteroid damage, there's actually a larger issue here with the way that's calculated. Damage is based on the mass of  both colliding objects, so heavy ships suffer way more than they should, though it's usually more than offset by their armor. It's something I'll take a look at soon.
[close]

Asymmetrical AI behavior
Spoiler
Can the AI behavior be separated between allied and enemy ships? If so, I'd like to see the enemy ships be a little more aggressive than friendly ships. There have been more than a few times where I've been on the ropes, but I was allowed to escape due to the extreme caution of the AI.
Funny, I started thinking along the same lines here. On the one hand, it doesn't feel right to have differing AI for each side. On the other hand, it could significantly improve gameplay. So, compromise! If I ever do do that, I won't tell anyone about it :)
(Another way to go about this could be to have the "default" officer personality be hyper-aggressive, with actual named officers generally taking a more cautious stance.)
[close]

Beams passing over ships
Spoiler
I have to say, the idea of having beams pass over friendly ships is intriguing. I have no problem lore-wise with saying they're accurate enough to fire past friendly ships, while ballistic weapons aren't. I just don't want to make the change simply for the sake of making a change - but will definitely keep this idea in mind should the need to improve (and further differentiate!) beam weapons come up.
[close]

Shield position locking
Spoiler
Thing is, shield locking - especially on small, nimble ships - is even trickier. I've tried it, and it felt like a complete mess.
[close]

Gravity wells behaving realistically
Spoiler
Tried it the "realistic" way first... it just totally did not work given the relative ship scales, speeds, etc. Was surprisingly horrible :)
[close]
[close]

Miscellaneous
Spoiler

Soundtrack release
Spoiler
Will you be releasing a soundtrack? I would definitely pay money for it.
Yes, at some point. Up to Stian (he's the composer) exactly when/what shape that will take. I'm sure he'll be happy to hear your sentiment, though :)
[close]

Replay function
Spoiler
Replays would be very nice to have... but are pretty far from straightforward to do. One day I'll take a real crack at it, but I suspect it'd take about a week of work just to figure out if it's going to work well or not.
[close]

Mission Editor
Spoiler
That's good, but it does mean the mission editor you were considering didn't make it, right? :-\
Still looking at it. (To avoid confusion: it was never a mission editor, but rather a suggested expansion of the mission API.)
[close]

Mission-Campaign
Spoiler
Taking a step back, I can certainly see a much more involved mission system for Starfarer, with groups of missions being organized into "tours of duty", with ship/item/character persistence across those, etc. However, that's tangential to the direction of the game overall - it seems more important to forge ahead with the real campaign, rather than to keep adding features to missions. Those kinds of things would be nice to have later, but for now missions are a representation of the kind of battles that would take place in the campaign, and not the more elaborate scripted affairs.
[close]

Endbosses?
Spoiler
I expect to make nothing larger than the current largest [ships] except perhaps in special circumstances which I would not be able to discuss at this point if they even existed.
[close]

Story
Spoiler
Quote
As far as the story, I think we're creating an interesting world with a backstory that's important to the gameplay - but the game itself won't be story-driven, and will instead focus on open-world exploration and building up your character/fleet/holdings/etc.
Our focus is on creating a world you can change in meaningful ways (and create your own story in the process), and that goes against having predetermined story arcs.
The final game will be a sandbox. There might be a few missions here and there, but the focus is on the sandbox aspects.

The player is seeing the backstory of the game through the lens of many in-game character's and institutions's interpretations & bias. This confuses the ability to say that some aspect of the game-world is absolutely one Known thing, but it tells a lot more about what is going on in the game-world contemporary to the player's interactions. You learn how the Hegemony wants history told, and tells you perhaps as much about the current Hegemony as it does actual history.
[close]

[close]
« Last Edit: August 14, 2016, 02:12:57 PM by Gothars »
Logged
Arranging holidays in an embrace with the Starsector is priceless.

PCCL

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1996
  • still gunnyfreak
    • View Profile
Re: Not a list of planned features
« Reply #2 on: May 31, 2013, 11:42:32 AM »

well done, sir, this has been very helpful
Logged
mmm.... tartiflette

Silver Silence

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 980
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Not a list of planned features
« Reply #3 on: May 31, 2013, 02:30:02 PM »

Interstellar space highways/"space lanes" vs Open Space.


Have you ever warped in EVE Online, only to not have enough power in your ship to make the full warp, and thus get dumped in the middle of nowhere? The "dead space"? Yeah, I can see myself getting lost in dead space while travelling between systems. That is, once such travel is possible in-game. For extra giggles, the map could work like Skyrim/Oblivion's "local map" in that it only scrolls so far in any direction. So if there's no particular landmarks on the map, well.... Time to call the local Space Tow Truck services.
Logged

Movementcat

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
Re: Not a list of planned features
« Reply #4 on: May 31, 2013, 03:34:57 PM »

Hopefully Alex do propper self Mining...
Logged

Silver Silence

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 980
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Not a list of planned features
« Reply #5 on: May 31, 2013, 04:19:32 PM »

Hopefully Alex do propper self Mining...
What, this?
Ehhh, it's not for everyone, certainly. It's sometimes a necessary evil in SPAZ for example when you run out of credits, but it gives you the downtime to think on how to improve your ship's fittings against whatever killed you. Not sure what I'd want to do with mining stuff in Starfarer. Considering such things as the combat readiness, I think it'll end up being something you'll have to do, to avoid combat and still be making some dolla dolla bills.
Logged

Foxtrot

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 97
  • \m/
    • View Profile
Re: Not a list of planned features
« Reply #6 on: May 31, 2013, 10:31:20 PM »

Hey for the fuel one, are we talking 1. infernium fuel for jumps will be important or 2. a new fuel being added that you have to use for everything but jumps? Because 2 would suck, alot
Logged
"Do your duty as you see it, and damn the consequences!"
-General George S. Patton

Reapy

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 52
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Not a list of planned features
« Reply #7 on: June 01, 2013, 07:03:57 AM »

Nice work!

For the open lanes vs explore... I like the idea of exploring a lot, I play a lot of games for that, but I also like the tactical gameplay that lanes provide. Maybe a good hybrid is to have space lanes as man made objects, hyper accelerators either at end points, or like a highway, they dot the entire highway, either a series of poles or rings that make up a lane.

Have special rules for traveling in them, maybe you need special engines to enter and exit at will, else you can only enter at pre built points. Or have a device that can pull a passing ship out of the lane to engage in combat.

When flying in them you can have different combat scenarios, maybe some ships are better made for fights in the 'warp'.

The gates could have a maintenance cost associated with them, or, there could be some faction that builds and controls the gates (like battle tech commstar for their comms).

Either way, have the player or factions be able to build gates / lanes, at not a trivial cost to build and maintain. That way support would spring up along established highways and see increased traffic, but then you could still stock up on supplies and venture off the beaten path and maybe even establish your own travel lanes (or sell your charts to ai factions who might build routes to them).

Since that would let you have a huge world at one scale, you can also include some more eclectic exploration engines than do things sort of like 7 league boots style jumps or accelerate you to high speeds but give you little steering and things like that.

I alway thought that was the best way to handle jump points between sectors while still making you feel like its a big world out there. At the end of the day you want to speed up repetitive travel times and draw players and the ai into common areas, but you also want space to feel vast and empty at times too.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2013, 07:09:38 AM by Reapy »
Logged

Gothars

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4260
  • Eschewing obfuscatory verbosity.
    • View Profile
Re: Not a list of planned features
« Reply #8 on: June 01, 2013, 08:06:11 AM »

Hey for the fuel one, are we talking 1. infernium fuel for jumps will be important or 2. a new fuel being added that you have to use for everything but jumps? Because 2 would suck, alot

Don't worry, option 1.



@Reapy: I think manipulating the sector by building or destroying traffic infrastructure is an interesting concept. Something that allows you to weaken an enemy who is far to strong for a direct attack.
 
I could imagine starlanes emerging through continued use, like a bootleg trail. Every ship in hyperspace leaves a weak  (and fading) trail that allows other ships to fly faster on the same route, a cumulative effect.
Maybe then you get the option to fortify the trails with stabilization rings or whatever, kind of like paving a path with stone slabs.

As a side effect that might also allow you to track down other ships by following their trails (hello Star Trek).

Logged
Arranging holidays in an embrace with the Starsector is priceless.

Rec

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Not a list of planned features
« Reply #9 on: June 01, 2013, 11:27:48 AM »

Hey for the fuel one, are we talking 1. infernium fuel for jumps will be important or 2. a new fuel being added that you have to use for everything but jumps? Because 2 would suck, alot

Don't worry, option 1.


i love you. that is all.


Thank you for sharing all this with us.
Logged

joey4track

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 108
    • View Profile
Re: Not a list of planned features
« Reply #10 on: June 03, 2013, 09:21:03 AM »

Wow, what a great post, thanks! (except the orange text on blue hurts my eyes :o )

Any news of trade and economy??

EDIT: Or a message log screen??
« Last Edit: June 04, 2013, 10:10:09 AM by joey4track »
Logged

zakastra

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 215
    • View Profile
Re: Not a list of planned features
« Reply #11 on: June 04, 2013, 03:20:21 AM »

I could imagine starlanes emerging through continued use, like a bootleg trail. Every ship in hyperspace leaves a weak  (and fading) trail that allows other ships to fly faster on the same route, a cumulative effect.
Maybe then you get the option to fortify the trails with stabilization rings or whatever, kind of like paving a path with stone slabs.

Oh my god yes, I very much enjoy this idea.
Logged
Oh DRM, bane of the carrier captain...