Design: Battle Math

Past public reviews and discussions.
Message
Author
User avatar
pd
Graphics Lead Emeritus
Posts: 1924
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 6:17 pm
Location: 52°16'N 10°31'E

Re: Design: Battle Math

#61 Post by pd » Sun Dec 28, 2008 12:04 am

IConrad wrote: [...]So we don't want to make it too boring. [...]
You are implying that a simple system as proposed by Geoff is boring - that is however not necessarily true. Especially at such an early point, where we don't have any prototype to play with, it is quite a statement. Strategy will arise from other aspects of combat than shields and health.
IConrad wrote:
Krikkitone wrote:However, where each item has its own individual hp seems to get too complicated, since you would need to know what systems were damaged to what degree.
That, I feel, is what the reporting icons are meant to be for. We obviously need to limit the number of these icons and color-code them for ease of review.
Keep in mind, that the user interface should not try to fix things that are poorly done on the game design level. It's best to prevent such things to happen in the first place.

I feel that - as a player - having to keep track of individual sub systems and being presented with all this information will be quite a pain(even with just a handful of ships). The simple system proposed by Geoff seems to be a nice trade-off and actually sounds like fun.
Think about it this way: As an emperor you don't want to know all the details of your ships, you are working on a macro level, giving rough instructions(positions, formations, securing supply, etc).

In addition, having ships basically fully functional to the end(but doing less damage) will also be easier on the AI programmers, because ships don't have to be judged by the AI on what components are working.

User avatar
IConrad
Space Kraken
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 5:55 pm

Re: Design: Battle Math

#62 Post by IConrad » Sun Dec 28, 2008 4:29 am

You are implying that a simple system as proposed by Geoff is boring - that is however not necessarily true. Especially at such an early point, where we don't have any prototype to play with, it is quite a statement. Strategy will arise from other aspects of combat than shields and health.
Well yes -- strategy will arise from other aspects. But what about tactics? Certainly, for initial implementation, however, the simpler approaches are better.
Think about it this way: As an emperor you don't want to know all the details of your ships, you are working on a macro level, giving rough instructions(positions, formations, securing supply, etc).
As an emperor you wouldn't even see the battle happen at all, unless it were within immediate range of command. We are assuming here that in each battle you play the role of the general -- and such information as which systems are impaired to what degree is exactly the sort of information you run into as a commander in battles. Simplifying the reporting system means that this information can be assessed in a simple, facile way.
In addition, having ships basically fully functional to the end(but doing less damage) will also be easier on the AI programmers, because ships don't have to be judged by the AI on what components are working.
Which is why I suggested that the computer opponents have automatic regeneration to all systems (except main structure) based on a sliding scale tied to the game difficulty level. This eliminates the need for the AI programmers to code in for such assessments.

And we're already assuming that the player is going to handle it for their own ships.

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 12268
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

Re: Design: Battle Math

#63 Post by Geoff the Medio » Sun Dec 28, 2008 6:31 am

As eleazar noted earlier, this thread is getting quite off topic. It's also served the intended purpose of discussion the proposed battle math. As such, I'm going to close it.

Please continue discussions in a brainstorming thread, if so inclined.

Locked