what type of game are we creating...

For what's not in 'Top Priority Game Design'. Post your ideas, visions, suggestions for the game, rules, modifications, etc.

Moderator: Oberlus

Message
Author
luckless666
Pupating Mass
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2003 3:16 am
Location: West Sussex, United Kingdom

#61 Post by luckless666 »

Maybe, if we implement a time limit, and the timer runs out, but the attackers fleet is very obviously stronger than the defender, we should have a stalemate, and the system becomes blockaded by the attacker. Each turn, the attacker can decide to finish them off, or the defender could decide to break the blockade. A kind of 'Siege' game element if you wish. unsure if it will work, and even if it did, it may become a nuisance, not a brilliant feature.
Chris Walker
| c.walker (at) mgt.hull.ac.uk |

WorldForge.org

guiguibaah
Creative Contributor
Posts: 441
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 1:00 am

REpost

#62 Post by guiguibaah »

I wrote a lenghtly post and I forgot to click the submit button, so here's the gist of what it was.

To give some more tactical element, each ship type could have a potentiate 'counter' ship to it. I used the example of the Starcraft Battlecuiser beat Valkyrie, Valkyrie beats wraith, wraith beats battlecruiser (well, costwise).

I poposed a few chip classes.

Beamship - Like in Freespace 2, they could take 2 to 3 turns just to charge their capacitors. When they fire, they do a LOT of damage. Take 2 turns to charge capacitors at the beginning of combat. Then they must recharge again. The counter would be a disruptor ship. Good vrs point assault ships, torpedo ships, etc.

Missile ship - Fires lots of missiles. Takes an initial 1 turn to arm the missile at the beginning of combat. Good against Beamships, weak against Assault and Defence Ships.

Carrier - Fires lots of fighters, ready at combat onset. Good versus beamships, weak against point assault ships and torpedo ships.

Torpedo ship - Fires torpedoes that cause an area of effect damage (like artillery). Good versus a pack of weak ships or fighters. Weak versus heavy armed ships.

Point Assault ships - Engage in point defence and move up and close (the melee equivalent) of ships. Good versus missile and carriers, weak versus beamships.

Disruptor ships - cause charging ships to lose a turn. Good versus Beamships, weak versus missile ships.


Something like that. I really liked the idea in Freespace 2 where these behemoths would stand charging these large beam weapons, then you'd hear silence... quickly followed by an immense burst of light that would cause massive damage to the targeted ship that would last about 5 seconds until the charge emptied and it had to recharge. I'm sure you'd have a few players shouting "Common... FIRE... FIRE!!! FIRE FIRE FIRE FIRE!!!!"

Anoyhow, just a though.
There are three kinds of people in this world - those who can count, and those who can't.

PowerCrazy
Creative Contributor
Posts: 383
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 2:35 am
Location: Texas

#63 Post by PowerCrazy »

Paper-Rock-Scissors? Not too keen on the idea. And how would a player desgined ship fit the role? We would be forced to restrict player design descions to "cookie-cutter" models. The only limiting factor to building a ship should be the size of the ship. Now we oculd have paper-rock-scissors armor and weapons. And missiles would naturally be better vs big ships etc. But there wouldn't be an artificial "rule" per se. It would just so happen that a Huge ship can only engage so many targets/turn, and if the number of missiles exceeds that number then the huge ship gets hit. Whereas a fleet of small ships could easilly shootdown a swarm of missiles.

What i'm saying is we don't need to "define" a missile ship, a beam ship, a carrier, etc. The players will do that themselves. And for the AI we can easilly call a ship with more than X% missiles a missile ship, for the purposes of its role in combat. etc.

This keeps the option of hybrid ships open. A Carrier/beam frigate. Or a Missile Troop Transport, A Planet Buster/PD Behemoth ship, ineffective but an option if you wanted.
Aquitaine is my Hero.... ;)

iamrobk
Space Dragon
Posts: 289
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 12:27 pm

#64 Post by iamrobk »

Pretty much no matter what we do, it's always gonna boil down to a "rock paper scissors" design. Hell, nearly anything does.

User avatar
utilae
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2175
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 12:37 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

#65 Post by utilae »

I sure hope it does not turn out to be rock/paper/scissors. That would be really bad.

We could have a variety of weapon types, which are effective against different types of armour/shield, etc.

We could have weapons of different styles, not just the shoot bullet in a straight line type weapon.
eg
Shoot bullet, ring explodes at target.
Shoot bullets at multiple targets at once (spread fire).
Random devastation (maybe rings exploding everywhere).
Homing bullets.
Bullets that spawn other bullets.
Area effect weapons (eg FEAR area effect on nearby enemies).
Expanding radius or part radius weapons (maybe a half circle of energy flies at the enemy, taking out heaps of ships at once).

Things like tractor beams were cool, also we could have status ailment type effects, such as poison, slow, paralyse, panic (enemy unresponsive and running around afraid).

The more complex it becomes, ie the more stategies there are, then no one can be prepared for every strategy, so you would never have people master the game. Things would be unpredictable... etc.

iamrobk
Space Dragon
Posts: 289
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 12:27 pm

#66 Post by iamrobk »

utilae wrote:I sure hope it does not turn out to be rock/paper/scissors. That would be really bad.

We could have a variety of weapon types, which are effective against different types of armour/shield, etc.

We could have weapons of different styles, not just the shoot bullet in a straight line type weapon.
eg
Shoot bullet, ring explodes at target.
Shoot bullets at multiple targets at once (spread fire).
Random devastation (maybe rings exploding everywhere).
Homing bullets.
Bullets that spawn other bullets.
Area effect weapons (eg FEAR area effect on nearby enemies).
Expanding radius or part radius weapons (maybe a half circle of energy flies at the enemy, taking out heaps of ships at once).

Things like tractor beams were cool, also we could have status ailment type effects, such as poison, slow, paralyse, panic (enemy unresponsive and running around afraid).

The more complex it becomes, ie the more stategies there are, then no one can be prepared for every strategy, so you would never have people master the game. Things would be unpredictable... etc.
It would still be (if you dumb it down) rock-paper-scissors. BF1942 is a RPS game......artillery beats tanks, tanks beat people, and people beat artillery (with planes and such thrown in too). I could use more examples, but seriously, when it boils down, nearly everything is a modified RPS.

luckless666
Pupating Mass
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2003 3:16 am
Location: West Sussex, United Kingdom

#67 Post by luckless666 »

I could use more examples, but seriously, when it boils down, nearly everything is a modified RPS.
Its true, any game where the idea is to defeat an opponent through warfare and control of an army (there are other examples obviously, but this one is true for all wargames (RTS, TBS, 4X, etc.), there will be some form of RPS in it. This is because there needs to be balance (that all important word) for it to be playable. Imagine coming upto a the end boss, and discovering you can't kill him because hes invincible against everything. puts a downer on the game if you cant finish it!! (poor example but hey...)

But in agreement with utilae and PowerCrazy, I too do not want to see a RPS, and this can be done by making it covertly (as opposed to overtly) RPS. Let the player decide (strategy, in other words) which weapon is best, instead of saying 'Your scientists have built beam weapon A and claim its very effective against armour type B' etc etc.
Last edited by luckless666 on Fri Jan 30, 2004 2:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
Chris Walker
| c.walker (at) mgt.hull.ac.uk |

WorldForge.org

Sandlapper
Dyson Forest
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2003 11:50 pm
Location: South Carolina, USA

#68 Post by Sandlapper »

Well, we always ask for the game to be balanced, R-P-S does this.

As for ship types, I also prefer multi-purpose chassis; put in any weapon that fits.

I would like to propose the use of system ships, void of a warp drive, they offer more space for weapons,specials. Gives a one on one advantage to the defender ship of same class. I would allow attacking carriers to bring system ships in system to fight, if they fit inside or onto a carrier.


I like the idea of a slow power build up and slow repeat rate of fire for more powerful weapons ala Starcraft Battlecruiser Yamato Weapon.

luckless666
Pupating Mass
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2003 3:16 am
Location: West Sussex, United Kingdom

#69 Post by luckless666 »

Sandlapper wrote:I would like to propose the use of system ships, void of a warp drive, they offer more space for weapons,specials. Gives a one on one advantage to the defender ship of same class. I would allow attacking carriers to bring system ships in system to fight, if they fit inside or onto a carrier.
They could be created by making a special engine that takes up less room than a warp drive, but that isnt capable of warp space. They can be any class of ship, but obviously only Fighters can be carried in the hold of a carrier (at least early on...)
Sandlapper wrote:I like the idea of a slow power build up and slow repeat rate of fire for more powerful weapons ala Starcraft Battlecruiser Yamato Weapon.
Maybe wrong, but didnt the Stellar Converter in MoO2 take a turn to recharge after it was fired. May be getting myself confused...
Chris Walker
| c.walker (at) mgt.hull.ac.uk |

WorldForge.org

Sandlapper
Dyson Forest
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2003 11:50 pm
Location: South Carolina, USA

#70 Post by Sandlapper »

luckless666 wrote:
They could be created by making a special engine that takes up less room than a warp drive, but that isnt capable of warp space
Exactly, like the Impulse engines in ST.

luckless666 wrote:
I like these ideas. But where do the Minefields get set up??
I revisit this to answer your question and add another element.

It would probaly be to complex, but I think mines put into starlanes would be an interesting plot.

Initially it would be in between system planets to bridge and build a 'wall'. I guess a 'Gate' could be put in a wall to allow controlled ingress/egress. We might put a limit of say 200 mines in a system and place where we want. The other element, use refited scouts as minelayers; replace the obselete probes with mines for late game use of scouts.

EDIT: Added Minefield info

User avatar
skdiw
Creative Contributor
Posts: 643
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 2:17 am

#71 Post by skdiw »

Instead of having a specific type of ship designed for system like in moo3, we should just allow to player to be able to design ships to that effect without specifically classify as such. So, the player can chose what kind of tactical engine and what kind of warp engine they want to use. Moo3 ships types are too complicated.

Part of the reason why moo3 had all those ship types is for tatical combat group formation. Obviously, moo3 didn't complete its job so none of the formation worked. For example, bet most of you didnt know that you get a 5% bounus if you had 2 tf flanking on 1 tf; at least that's what moo3 designers intended, but nobody have found that out to be true in the actual release.



I think tactical mines and galaxy-map mines are good ideas. I think we can make mines really simple and interesting.



Above all, almost every idea and question that came up also came across moo3 designers. Lets not make the same mistakes they did by planning for all these cool ideas and then trying to meet the deadline next day.
:mrgreen:

Daveybaby
Small Juggernaut
Posts: 724
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 11:07 am
Location: Hastings, UK

#72 Post by Daveybaby »

utilae wrote:I sure hope it does not turn out to be rock/paper/scissors. That would be really bad.
The alternative is to end up with one type of ship which is better than all of the rest, and thus is the only type which ever gets used. Which doesnt make for interesting gameplay.

You *have* to have some kind of RPS in there somewhere, otherwise you wont have much in the way of tactical gameplay. Any ship design should have at least one weakness which can be exploited by another ship which is designed in the right way to do so. This is the way in which a player who plans well and executes that plan skilfully can defeat a player with a stronger, but badly designed fleet.

In fact, you should design mechanisms into the game which encourage the player to build ships which have clear strengths and weaknesses - which is what the ship class bonuses are all about.

These are the bonuses which i've initially come up with for the COW project:

Fighters

Scout
+25% Speed
+25% Sensor range
+100% Manoeuvrability

Interceptor
+25% Weapon Accuracy
+25% Weapon Firing Rate
+100% Manoeuvrability

Bomber
+50% Direct Fire Weapon Power
+50% Bomb/Missile Capacity
+50% Manoeuvrability

Escort Ships

Reconnaissance
+25% Sensor range
+25% Speed
+25% Range

Point Defence Escort
+50% Accuracy against fighters, mines, missiles.

Destroyer Escort
+25% Beam weapon capacity.
+25% Beam weapon fire rate.

Capital Ships

Carrier
+25% Fighter capacity
+25% Launch/refuel/land rate

Long Range Attack
+25% Direct Fire weapon capacity.
+25% Direct Fire weapon accuracy against capital ships.
+25% Decrease in range dissipation effects

Short Range Attack
+25% Direct Fire weapon capacity.
+25% Combat speed
+25% Armour
+15% Direct Fire weapon power
+15% Increase in range dissipation (to counter increased power)

Indirect Fire
+15% Missile capacity
+15% Missile accuracy
+15% Missile evasion
+15% Missile range

Planetary Strike
+25% Bomb capacity
+25% Bombing accuracy against planetary targets

System Patrol
+25% Armour Points
+25% Hull Points
+25% ECM

Command
All other ships in task force gain a +10% increase in their bonuses.


Non-Combat Ships

Troop Transport
+25% Troop capacity
+25% Troop deployment speed (reduces deployment losses)

Colony Ship
+50% Colony Capacity


Those bonuses may seem ridiculously large, but the whole point is to diversify ship designs, so that you get ships which are particularly good at one thing but not at another. Also bear in mind that I havent even attempted to balance the bonuses, so at the moment it might work out that one class is totally overpowered, so all of the actual figures are subject to change.

I'm not saying that this is what you should implement for the FO project, but its important to encourage some diversification in players ship designs.

noelte
Juggernaut
Posts: 872
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2003 12:42 pm
Location: Germany, Berlin

#73 Post by noelte »

I really like the idea of having a kind of racial traits for ships (pro's/con's).

One the other hand we could achive this diversity otherwise.

system drives
system speed vs. used space - System drives have a max speed, but can be limited to a lower speed to save space.

beam weapons
recharge time vs. damage - reduce recharge time to do less damage quicker (maybe to defend against incomming missles/fighters)

sensors
sensor range vs. used space - stack them to increase sensor range / weapon accuracy

shields/armor
hit points vs. used space - shields have lower hit points but regenerate.


Maybe we could also add weight to the components to modify resulting speed.

Ronald.

emrys
Creative Contributor
Posts: 226
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 3:44 pm

#74 Post by emrys »

Daveybaby wrote:These are the bonuses which i've initially come up with for the COW project:
COW?

Daveybaby
Small Juggernaut
Posts: 724
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 11:07 am
Location: Hastings, UK

#75 Post by Daveybaby »


Post Reply