[4 feedback] New game-type, widgets and controls

[4 feedback] New game-type, widgets and controls

Discuss game development here, from a distinct game project to an accessible third-party mutator, down to the interaction and design of individual units if you like.

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply

Which part sounds interesting for you?

WH40k and want a similar game with the Spring engine too
1
8%
The lore about BattleWorlds
0
No votes
The 2 of A+B+C choices with cooldown for the third
1
8%
Limited mexes for a more dynamic battlefield
1
8%
Less units, more micro
2
17%
Each building being a Garrisons
1
8%
Obstacles
0
No votes
Towers
1
8%
Survivability-Points rather than Hit-Points
1
8%
Energy/Moral
1
8%
Ammunition
1
8%
Fixed Rate of Infantry rather than the choice between tanks/infantry based on terrain
1
8%
Improved unit orders
1
8%
 
Total votes: 12

User avatar
NeonStorm
Posts: 173
Joined: 23 May 2012, 18:36

[4 feedback] New game-type, widgets and controls

Post by NeonStorm » 05 Aug 2015, 11:18

––– Intro –––
Hi spring-players, bots and devs, ;)

I haven'T jet found a game which is perfect.
And because Spring is essentially dying (<20 players most times - without BA-DSD specs) there needs to be something new.

Who knows Warhammer40k?
I played "WH40k - Dark Crusade" and I don't want a free clone, but some game elements are really neat.

But it lacks the power from spring widgets (formation move/fight, line-queuing of build orders, ...) and tanks tend to spread out over 2 screens and 3 different roads, ...
One funny bug is that it is impossible to self-d finished units and buildings in WH40K. You can trap a limited-builds unit which also blocks your population cap until some enemy is nice to you and kills it (except Eldar which can relocate buildings and some units ;D)


I really want a game like this with access to the source and I can make it, but only without the models :( but I haven't decided jet how to make it unique enough.


I am interested into a mod/game which utilizes (moral|endurance) and survivability (based on probability) instead of HP and more detailed units.
. . not necessarily Warhammer++, it should have another lore and maybe other units/factions/models/... (it's copyrighted anyway).
. . and there may also be less details about control zones and neither instant reinforcements on the battlefield or different emphasis on technology research.

But one thing I don't want to touch are technologies which automatically upgrade existing units.
  • In WH40k, you have 2-3 Gardist-platoons and then you research armour MK2 for about the cost of 1 basic 4/10 filled platoon and not only have a 50% stronger army, but also a cheaper supply.
It's like jumping from T1 stumpies to T2 panthers without a 1/4-metal T2 factory and no need to reclaim T1 or build power plants.


––– The idea –––

It's 2150 and 420 billion humans live for 200 years and want to have at least 5 childs. Apparently, this creates and exponential problem.

Politicians created BattleWorlds, a war game in distant, dying worlds - and all agreed that it was the only possible solution for peoples who want more than 2 childs.
  • This solves the problem why everybody arrives at the same time with no technologies "researched" at the battle-field.
  • And why everything has to start over and over again in the same place

Instead of Arm/Core, you can build everything (like in Zero-K), but you have to stick to the exclusive choice you made - for some time.
  • If you have A+B and only 2 of A+B+C are allowed, C is put on a 2 minute CD which does not start counting down until A+B + sub-elements are lost/destroyed and which is reset if the lost/destroyed is replaced before it ends.
  • A could be ultra-fast (but a bit weaker) raiders
  • B could be a stealthy invisible ranger platoon (light attrition damage to units)
  • C could be a Tank which destroys the formation (breaks the moral and increase the part of damage dealt to the lowest-health unit).

Movement should be rewarded.
  • Limited number of mexes and metal-spots should generate 1m/s and fill a Buffer which can hold 200metal which can get depleted by a mex (like red annihilation, just with a limit on the buffer).
  • Building a mex elsewhere after one gets destroyed should always be more rewarding than rebuilding it at the same spot (rewards porc).
  • I think this makes the battlefield more dynamic than the ever-same BA-DSD porc wars before T3.

Less units, more micro+details on each (more like EvolutionRTS).
Each platoon can have build-options (for situational extra weapons).


Garrisons: Every building can contain infantry which is damaged when the buildings "Core HP" are damaged (about "Core HP", see below)


You get a fixed rate of infantry. If you don't use them on the battle-field because you don't have the resources to properly equip them, they might still give you a little extra fire-power with a cheap hand-gun.


Obstacles between attacker and selected target are not completely blocking, except for garrisoned targets.

If an obstacle is between you and the enemy, the one which is closer gets a defence bonus.
. distance/distance>=0.7 -> damage=1.0
. distance/distance=0.5 -> damage=0.6
. distance/distance<=0.3 -> damage=0.4
The rest is applied to the obstacle. Vehicles can not use cover.
Note:
  • For evasion, damage is mostly handled like a percentage of projectiles which hit, not like a lower-damage projectile.
  • But for cover, the unit is able to hide the most vulnerable parts, thus it's calculated like a lower-damage projectile and the unit becomes "heavier" with it's armour-level.
There should be a transport platform as a mix between vehicle and infantry - imagine a mobile bunker.
Transports where no unit can not fire from inside out are dumb.


Towers:
  • Towers can have a reduced cost, but their main advantage should be a separate/lower unit-capacity usage and much higher HP.
  • Towers should have different morph-levels of fortification.
  • For strength-balance, towers can have a higher ammo capacity or regeneration (higher fire rate than units), but not stronger guns than tanks (cuz mitigation).
  • Towers can have an accuracy bonus (+10/20/30% accuracy/range) and thus choose to engage at a higher range than tanks/heavy-/light- infantry.
  • Towers can have a lot more HP (burrowed - dirt does not cost much) because you can choose to not fight it.
  • The more spare energy you have, the lower the accuracy (and higher the range) at which energy towers engage (ask the "Where does power do the most damage"-central-intelligence).
  • Towers with ammunition can be supplied by underground pipelines supply-carrier or troops with compatible weapons. They try to spend as much % ammo as they have (%*1.25) hp lost and engage further if they have more ammo, lower range if they have less than that ratio.

HP system which offers more details (maybe call them "Survivability points"?)
  • Units have 4 HP-segments: Core, Structure, Slots, Plating.
  • Plating mitigates some damage from fast attackers (but takes at least 25% (heavy) or 50% (medium) of the dealt damage). It costs few energy to repair.
  • + if plating is below 100%, an equal % of damage penetrates into the structure part.
  • The structure is damaged after the plating and does not mitigate damage. It costs a lot of energy to repair.
  • + damage can also bleed into the core part.
  • If the core is damaged, the unit loses equal % of firepower, move speed ... Repair works only in a factory or hangar (except self-repair).
  • + redundancy can avoid that anything takes more than x% damage from a single shot if it is a "piercing shot" (mitigation<damage<hp).
  • Slots are damaged if the structure or plating is damaged. This covers weapons you purchase separately.

Energy, Moral, Ammunition more detailed (except for static weapon batteries).
  • Each unit creates energy relative to Core health.
  • While moving, less energy is left.
  • Energy-Weapon capacitors are charged with the energy which is left while chemically driven weapons have ammunition.
  • Both weapon types stockpile between 0.0 and at least 1.3 to make it more fluid.
  • Units can have more ineffective burst-weapons which catch huge amounts of excess charge, especially when a unit is not moving/firing.
  • Moral deficit lowers accuracy and evasion.

Infantry or tanks?, in most games it's only a choice of unit stats.
But in real life, would you choose to suicide a fighter-pilot or a dozen peoples on ground?
  • Supply of infantry should be limited by reinforcements over time.
  • You get a number of peoples every now and then and you can equip or train them how you like (The fast training requires brain-downloads and that is why everybody has the same skill ;) ).
  • If you want more power and have spare resources, build vehicles for your soldiers.

Unit-Orders (improvements):
  • Don't choose an order (fight, move) for a unit - choose a preference for your platoon (platoon = same type of units which try to stay in formation)
  • Don't choose (hold position | move forth+back) for a unit, but queue an order to override the chosen.
You might have 2 platoons: Snipers, Jedi-Knights which hold position, but should still be able to exchange positions (Sniper which hides behind a Jedi and gets damage reduction).

Don't-Follow-But-Move command:
. Imagine melee-units like (StarWars)Jedi mixed with ranged units like a Trooper. If they follow, they might run into towers.

. But they should still be able to retreat from danger and go back to the position they were.
. They should be able to move in a circle between the position they retreated to to stay out of range and the position of their last move order if the enemy runs into that circle.

. A guarding unit shouldn't follow the unit to guard, but go ahead of it and scout a little bit further.If one unit guards another, they should recognize each other and the unit which is targeted.
. A melee should both try to approach the target and let the guarded ranged unit go away, they should pass each other peacefully. It should intercept the ones following the guarded by moving left or right around the guarded.


––– The lore (just a draft) –––
2015, Earth had about 7.3 billion peoples

Since 2040 our food-supply and medical technologies advanced together with artificial-intelligences and in 2060, we only spent 1/5 as time for producing food and survive any trial of nature to reduce the size of our population.

2080 every Human was able to produce food, recycle everything and replicate anything with "Magic", the ultimate technology.

"Magic" is an implant that reads the human mind and injects knowledge about the price in "Mana", the new currency and exchange model which evolved from BitCoin and is now used by the majority of Humanity to measure the impact on matter, energy and time compared to the total of what each and all living humans posses.
If you can synthesize any amounts of anything (including food and living materials or houses), uniqueness is most valuable.

2100, 30 billion humans were alive simultaneously.

But this is not how a human is supposed to live. We weren't made for that. You don't want everybody being able to reproduce a weapon of mass-destruction.
If everyone has 10+ childs on average before an accidental death (or out of boredom), humans will again get greedy for resources.

2121, 94.2 billion humans are able to travel in the "Sea of Worlds" which includes not only World-Space but also short distances trough Warp-Space.

(3) Earth's surface has been converted into Biological Solar-Pannels Computronium, Space-Ships and retro-nature-reservations.
Finally, the now-immortal humans were human-enough to revert Earth back to what it was like 2000 and created a huge museum.

(4) Mars has been colonized and terraformed.
(2) Venus has been colonized with flying cities utilizing vacuum-balloons (it has a heavy atmosphere).

2150, 420 billion humans were alive (mostly childs of immortals) and the simulations of inter-planetary over-population spread fear.

Because nobody can accidentally get a child anymore, politicians decided that humans are responsible for their impact on population.

They decided that every human should only have 2 childs, no matter how long he lives, except one dies, he got siblings or a genetic relative died with less childs (preferable each human should not have more than 3 childs finally, except the rare case where the third exceptional birth were siblings).

Everybody who wants more than granted, has to participate in BattleWorlds.
BattleWorlds searches for dying Worlds or solar systems where a catastrophe is like a black hole or super-nova is near and fight for their right there, because nobody wanted to ruin peaceful, beautiful worlds.

Every time enough humans died in these battle-worlds, all others which were participating on the opposing side get the right to get 1 more child.
Parents which want to partipate have to wait until all childs are adult (with 30-40 years, depending on character).

Nobody was happy about the decision made. But all agreed that it was the only choice.
0 x

Orfelius
Posts: 103
Joined: 17 Nov 2014, 20:57

Re: [4 feedback] New game-type, widgets and controls

Post by Orfelius » 10 Aug 2015, 02:39

Lalalala NeonStorm thread. You know what? You are basically a living legend back on ZK forums! Every thread full of a bunch of random suggestion is called a "neonstorm" now :D

I feel like somebody should respond to this train of thoughts and since nobody has so far for 5 days I figure that I can.

First and foremost: are you seriously willing to work in order to make things happen by even coding the game itself.

Then accordingly:
I haven'T jet found a game which is perfect.
Face the truth: the perfection cannot be acheived. What is "perfect" to you might not be to others. Bah they might even not like it at all.
And because Spring is essentially dying (<20 players most times - without BA-DSD specs)
Untrue. You only think so because ZK has its own server now so they are not counted.
there needs to be something new.
MechCommander: Legacy

Now now. I am a huge fan of the first iteration of WH40k games (not WH40k 2 because that was kinda meh) and I have played Dark Crusade for many many hours. It was so enjoyable. From the overall looks of it you basically want Zero-K and WH40k to have a baby which is a totally interesting idea.
But one thing I don't want to touch are technologies which automatically upgrade existing units.
Soo do you want technologies in the game or not? I am slightly confused.
Instead of Arm/Core, you can build everything (like in Zero-K), but you have to stick to the exclusive choice you made - for some time.

If you have A+B and only 2 of A+B+C are allowed, C is put on a 2 minute CD which does not start counting down until A+B + sub-elements are lost/destroyed and which is reset if the lost/destroyed is replaced before it ends.
A could be ultra-fast (but a bit weaker) raiders
B could be a stealthy invisible ranger platoon (light attrition damage to units)
C could be a Tank which destroys the formation (breaks the moral and increase the part of damage dealt to the lowest-health unit).
I am not sure I understand it correctly: you basically want to preselect available units before the start of the game? Special upgrades chosen before the game? Could you elaborate a bit on that?
Each platoon can have build-options (for situational extra weapons).
So you want squad based units? Like in WH40K? is this even possible in Spring? I am not sure honestly.
You get a fixed rate of infantry.
Confused again. What is "a rate of infrantry"? Do you mean stable income of new troops that do not cost any $$$ or just fixed amount per game and if you lose them then you are done.
Obstacles between attacker and selected target are not completely blocking, except for garrisoned targets.
So garrisoned units get blocked by obstacles?
If an obstacle is between you and the enemy, the one which is closer gets a defence bonus.
. distance/distance>=0.7 -> damage=1.0
. distance/distance=0.5 -> damage=0.6
. distance/distance<=0.3 -> damage=0.4
Now this is just a terrible mechanic to have. It is super random and unintuitive. "Oh I am close to this cover I guess it will give me an aura of protection".
In WH40K there is a legit cover system that makes sense but this is just an aura modifier from some pile of rocks or a wreck. How would you even display such mechanic? Not to mention that units tend to crush their cover because of pathing (and if they do not crush it they instead get stuck upon it).
survivability (based on probability) instead of HP
Survivability based purely on the propability whether the bullet will connect can be feeling kinda iffy. Especially in RTS's. If you do not have 1 shot one kill weapons then you do have some sort of hp system but it is just not as elaborate as it is in most Spring games.
HP system which offers more details (maybe call them "Survivability points"?)

Units have 4 HP-segments: Core, Structure, Slots, Plating.
Plating mitigates some damage from fast attackers (but takes at least 25% (heavy) or 50% (medium) of the dealt damage). It costs few energy to repair.
+ if plating is below 100%, an equal % of damage penetrates into the structure part.
The structure is damaged after the plating and does not mitigate damage. It costs a lot of energy to repair.
+ damage can also bleed into the core part.
If the core is damaged, the unit loses equal % of firepower, move speed ... Repair works only in a factory or hangar (except self-repair).
+ redundancy can avoid that anything takes more than x% damage from a single shot if it is a "piercing shot" (mitigation<damage<hp).
Slots are damaged if the structure or plating is damaged. This covers weapons you purchase separately.
By adding these "details" you are making the player do not care about the state of their units what so ever. You also give random unintuitive percentage based modifiers upon damaging core. This whole system is a huge redundancy by itself. Instead you could use a simmilar system that MC:L uses that is a modules. So lets say you have: left track, right track, engine, turret, gun, energy generator, battery etc. Upon destroying one of them a special effect would happen like while the track is damaged the unit would be much slower and when it is destroyed it would not be able to move etc. It is logical and easily understandable instead of doing math on the run of some silly percentages. Its not tabletop.
Energy, Moral, Ammunition more detailed (except for static weapon batteries).

Each unit creates energy relative to Core health.
While moving, less energy is left.
Energy-Weapon capacitors are charged with the energy which is left while chemically driven weapons have ammunition.
Both weapon types stockpile between 0.0 and at least 1.3 to make it more fluid.
Units can have more ineffective burst-weapons which catch huge amounts of excess charge, especially when a unit is not moving/firing.
Moral deficit lowers accuracy and evasion.
Morale is an very interesting mechanic from WH40k I agree but munitions can be a bit of a hassle. If you mean munitions in the sense of Spring44 then its rather fine. This system is relatively easy to use. However if you want to use certain types of amunitions per unit then it begins to be a irritating unnecessary hassle. "oh crap that ammo truck didn't bring my missiles and I have too much bullets already!"
But in real life, would you choose to suicide a fighter-pilot or a dozen peoples on ground?
This is a game. That is about people wanting to have kids for fun and all of the humanity deciding that the ones that want to have more kids must go trough trial by fire. "real life" argument is irrelevant.
Jedi-Knights
Since when have we changed game themes from WH40k like-game into sudden StarWars?

Eh I wont get into details about how ridiculous the plot is (I already did a bit regardless) nor will I write about my own ideas since the post has turned out to be soo long. However I will point out one more thing:
If everyone has 10+ childs on average before an accidental death (or out of boredom)
You have clearly never even thought about having children.
0 x

User avatar
PicassoCT
Journeywar Developer & Mapper
Posts: 10096
Joined: 24 Jan 2006, 21:12

Re: [4 feedback] New game-type, widgets and controls

Post by PicassoCT » 10 Aug 2015, 10:28

Heres a guy who knows what he wants..

Heres a tutorial:
http://www.lua.org/pil/1.html
and a wikki
https://springrts.com/wiki/Main_Page

Now i will leave this thread, and whatever happens in this thread, stays in this thread.

Make it real.
Even the worst game ever made, is better then the best idea ever uttered and unrealized.

We are in moddev if you need help
0 x

User avatar
NeonStorm
Posts: 173
Joined: 23 May 2012, 18:36

Re: [4 feedback] New game-type, widgets and controls

Post by NeonStorm » 10 Aug 2015, 18:28

Orfelius wrote:I feel like somebody should respond to this train of thoughts and since nobody has so far for 5 days I figure that I can.
Thanks!
Orfelius wrote:First and foremost: are you seriously willing to work in order to make things happen by even coding the game itself.?

Then accordingly:
I haven'T jet found a game which is perfect.
Face the truth: the perfection cannot be acheived. What is "perfect" to you might not be to others. Bah they might even not like it at all.
Face the truth: The human language is context-sensitive.
I meant perfect for peoples with similar interests to me. If you have too many special interests, less peoples play with you, and a perfect game (fitting your interests) will become less perfect (nobody plays with you). Perfection of a game is balancing this.
Perfection in this context is that there is no game else out there which does something better, while if you include that something you would still have an optimal playerbase.
Orfelius wrote:
And because Spring is essentially dying (<20 players most times - without BA-DSD specs)
Untrue. You only think so because ZK has its own server now so they are not counted.
The devs decided to go a way that you can't access it without their own lobby.

A lobby which is developed to work with the NET-framework released by Microsoft - the support for such software over future updates is unreliable on Linux.
Microsoft has the ugly habit/mannerism to make itself incompatible with Linux and make you dependent on it like a drug-dealer - and drugs are illegal in my country: Microsoft should be too.
Orfelius wrote:
there needs to be something new.
MechCommander: Legacy
It isn't accessible over spring lobby, where is the player-base?
Orfelius wrote:Now now. I am a huge fan of the first iteration of WH40k games (not WH40k 2 because that was kinda meh) and I have played Dark Crusade for many many hours. It was so enjoyable. From the overall looks of it you basically want Zero-K and WH40k to have a baby which is a totally interesting idea.
But one thing I don't want to touch are technologies which automatically upgrade existing units.
Soo do you want technologies in the game or not? I am slightly confused.
I prefer a cost for upgrading existing if you want that technology to apply to existing units.
I also prefer higher technology levels to use a more expensive economy-backbone for each unit you produce, using this level.

If units have 10% bonus damage, and you fight with 90% units against 100%, equal losses, or not?
But after the fight you keep the technology level while your enemy has to replace 10% more units.

Technology should more be a technique to get out more of your limited units instead of making them more cost-efficient.
The square law in combat will do the rest. 3% improvement is enough for the price of a single squad.
Orfelius wrote:
Instead of Arm/Core, you can build everything (like in Zero-K), but you have to stick to the exclusive choice you made - for some time.

If you have A+B and only 2 of A+B+C are allowed, C is put on a 2 minute CD which does not start counting down until A+B + sub-elements are lost/destroyed and which is reset if the lost/destroyed is replaced before it ends.
A could be ultra-fast (but a bit weaker) raiders
B could be a stealthy invisible ranger platoon (light attrition damage to units)
C could be a Tank which destroys the formation (breaks the moral and increase the part of damage dealt to the lowest-health unit).
I am not sure I understand it correctly: you basically want to preselect available units before the start of the game? Special upgrades chosen before the game? Could you elaborate a bit on that?
Imperials can use A sensor-ability from each of their main-bases to reveal units, especially annoying if you have Eldar-Rangers or Tau-Ghost-XV15s.
But imperials also pay 160 (compared to 85 for Tau and 130 for eldar) for their basic HQ-combat-platoon which can capture point.

If you choose the cheap option of invisible ghosts, you should also have to forfeit the ability of using the scanner.
If you choose a platoon where the leader can reveal invisible units (Eldar), should you also be able to build Necron-Warriors for 0 energy/territory-points? (They are "heavy" infantry with bonus armour).

With Tau, there are 2 incompatible command towers. If you build one at the frontline and get the technologies, AI-enemies will soon kill it and you can build the other (the experience I made with a pre1.0 version), getting more upgrades.

Instead of making them Incompatible, you can have the requirements bound to a HQ-control area (which is large enough to not be a problem like in WH40k, but can not overlap either).

Orfelius wrote:
Each platoon can have build-options (for situational extra weapons).
So you want squad based units? Like in WH40K? is this even possible in Spring? I am not sure honestly.
It is possible to write it with
  • gadgets to disallow unit commands except to the leader (which can also be invisible + existing as long as the squad does).
  • widgets which redirect the unit selection to the leader, but show selection for the squad if the leader is selected.
    gadgets to handle formation
The StarWars-mod already let's you purchase a scout-squad (4 units, 2 vehicles + 2 infantry) at once - but it's not meant to be used as a platoon only.

Orfelius wrote:
You get a fixed rate of infantry.
Confused again. What is "a rate of infrantry"? Do you mean stable income of new troops that do not cost any $$$ or just fixed amount per game and if you lose them then you are done.
You have a limit of "infantry-rate * game time" and it can (maybe) be a bit more early.
Infantry-rate is an income equal for all players independent of territory or economy.

It's true that infantry does not cost any $$$, but you are neither able to use them effectively without equipping them first. Equipping will cost $$$.
You can garrison them in a building which may provide default hand-guns for each garrisoned unit.

But once you use them outside a building, they also need bullet-proof and plasma-proof outfits, survival kits, camouflage clothes, … for $$$ ;)

Orfelius wrote:
Obstacles between attacker and selected target are not completely blocking, except for garrisoned targets.
So garrisoned units get blocked by obstacles?
If an obstacle is between you and the enemy, the one which is closer gets a defence bonus.
. distance/distance>=0.7 -> damage=1.0
. distance/distance=0.5 -> damage=0.6
. distance/distance<=0.3 -> damage=0.4
Now this is just a terrible mechanic to have. It is super random and unintuitive. "Oh I am close to this cover I guess it will give me an aura of protection".
In WH40K there is a legit cover system that makes sense but this is just an aura modifier from some pile of rocks or a wreck. How would you even display such mechanic? Not to mention that units tend to crush their cover because of pathing (and if they do not crush it they instead get stuck upon it).
Simple. Units will get symbols over their head like a HP bar. Short = low damage reduction, Long = high damage reduction.
To reduce clutter, only the leader may have this bar which shows the average for the squad.

And no, the units won't get stuck or go out of cover.
If you give one unit the order to go into cover, all other units try to go into a similar level of coverage too.

The cover only works if the building is between units and the attacker when he fired the projectile. The building will receive damage the units won't receive.
But the coverage works mostly in advantage of those who stand closer to it.

Only if units get constantly pushed out of cover (by grenades for example; triggered by second push) and would take longer to go their again than they stayed there, they would prefer to shoot from where they stand (to maximize dps).
But you can give another order to take cover to inhibit that behaviour once or adjust "take cover"|"stay until next order"|"auto" yourself.

Orfelius wrote:
survivability (based on probability) instead of HP
Survivability based purely on the propability whether the bullet will connect can be feeling kinda iffy. Especially in RTS's. If you do not have 1 shot one kill weapons then you do have some sort of hp system but it is just not as elaborate as it is in most Spring games.
Iffy? In WH40k, you have coverage and nowhere it shows the exact % of damage reduction.
You can upgrade necron warriors twice and eldar armour+accuracy also (separated), but by how much? Not visible!

There is just evasion(works like a % damage reduction after armour) which is countered by AOE and AOE is countered by vehicles.
And there is armour, basically a % damage reduction based on projectile type (Light, Medium, Heavy)

Not just 2* rock+scissor+paper, because some units have a "Light" constant dps and a "Medium" burst like mines, while others have a "Light splitter mine", Medium plasma guns and a ammo-sensitive Heavy rocket launcher against an occasional vehicle
If I didn't answer your concern, can you elaborate "iffy"?
Orfelius wrote:
HP system which offers more details (maybe call them "Survivability points"?)

Units have 4 HP-segments: Core, Structure, Slots, Plating.
Plating mitigates some damage from fast attackers (but takes at least 25% (heavy) or 50% (medium) of the dealt damage). It costs few energy to repair.
+ if plating is below 100%, an equal % of damage penetrates into the structure part.
The structure is damaged after the plating and does not mitigate damage. It costs a lot of energy to repair.
+ damage can also bleed into the core part.
If the core is damaged, the unit loses equal % of firepower, move speed ... Repair works only in a factory or hangar (except self-repair).
+ redundancy can avoid that anything takes more than x% damage from a single shot if it is a "piercing shot" (mitigation<damage<hp).
Slots are damaged if the structure or plating is damaged. This covers weapons you purchase separately.
By adding these "details" you are making the player do not care about the state of their units what so ever. You also give random unintuitive percentage based modifiers upon damaging core. This whole system is a huge redundancy by itself.

Instead you could use a simmilar system that MC:L uses that is a modules. So lets say you have: left track, right track, engine, turret, gun, energy generator, battery etc. Upon destroying one of them a special effect would happen like while the track is damaged the unit would be much slower and when it is destroyed it would not be able to move etc. It is logical and easily understandable instead of doing math on the run of some silly percentages. Its not tabletop.
I thought similar a time ago, but changed my mind because of reasons.

Think about …
  • …Plating as shield (cheap repair on field with an engineer while out of combat)
  • Structure as HP
  • Core as circuitry, Crew and everything else inside.
  • Slots as weapons attached to the hull. Usually resistant to damage because these parts are covered with more armour to avoid disarm.
You would try to retreat earlier rather than later and keep your units near full hp because it is easier to repair the hull/plating rather than the content.

Perhaps the math is not perfect jet, but I am thinking about how to improve it. Suggestions are welcome.

The things to keep in mind are: Heavier shells should be effective against heavy units, but have a disadvantage from either the evasion which comes with unit count or the ammo cost.

I have slots (which is basically what you called modules), but reducing speed for one unit is a bad idea since it splits the formation.
For a low number of vehicles (high cost ones which take a lot of the vehicle cap) it might be ok.
Infantry should be expected to take care of their platoon-mates and carry them if wounded.
Orfelius wrote:
Energy, Moral, Ammunition more detailed (except for static weapon batteries).

Each unit creates energy relative to Core health.
While moving, less energy is left.
Energy-Weapon capacitors are charged with the energy which is left while chemically driven weapons have ammunition.
Both weapon types stockpile between 0.0 and at least 1.3 to make it more fluid.
Units can have more ineffective burst-weapons which catch huge amounts of excess charge, especially when a unit is not moving/firing.
Moral deficit lowers accuracy and evasion.
Morale is an very interesting mechanic from WH40k I agree but munitions can be a bit of a hassle. If you mean munitions in the sense of Spring44 then its rather fine. This system is relatively easy to use. However if you want to use certain types of amunitions per unit then it begins to be a irritating unnecessary hassle. "oh crap that ammo truck didn't bring my missiles and I have too much bullets already!"
Suicidal units don't need a high ammo magazine - they focus on doing as much damage as they can until they die.
Rangers (hit&run + survival) need more ammo.

Towers maybe have an underground pipeline to resupply ammo|energy or just provide garrison for units and have a rather small gun.
Towers may also prefer energy weapons powered by the generators which also power your factories – you don't have to pay for a mobile energy generator and the propulsion / carry-weight high-energy weapons usually require on mobiles.

I am thinking about 3 ammo types and mixed usage:
  • Light ammo : refills in {ammo deposit, barrack, HQ, troop camp or troop-transporter}, cannibalize from {dead platoons|vehicles}.
  • Medium : refills in {ammo deposit} and carried by {troop-transporters, dead platoons|vehicles}
  • Heavy ammo : refills in {ammo deposit, engineers(by using up abundant Medium ammo or when ordered)}. Vehicles need to stay near dead ones without suffering damage for 5-10 seconds to cannibalize the wreck.
  • (for medium+heavy) : The transporter lets some infantry fire out of it and only keeps a small part for itself (except on ejection on death) and shares to troops (default).
    .
  • Energy+Light/Medium/Heavy ammo : regenerates slower with reduced clip size. Effective while near a separate power-supply or while in garrison / on a tower or for burst damage.
  • Energy-pure : few dps, mostly used for charging up no-damage-abilities (teleport, warp, holographic illusions, …), by long-range static anti-air or against light infantry only (expensive extra guns, one shot every now and then).
Suppliers and Deposits carry Light/Medium/Heavy pure. Receivers of ammo can only carry it as weapon-dependent ammo (which may limit cannibalizing).
Transporters which carry+use an ammo type, may only recharge the weapon with an engineer on board.
Orfelius wrote:
But in real life, would you choose to suicide a fighter-pilot or a dozen peoples on ground?
This is a game. That is about people wanting to have kids for fun and all of the humanity deciding that the ones that want to have more kids must go trough trial by fire. "real life" argument is irrelevant.
True, but you would make a similar decision if the supply of peoples for infantry+pilots is limited. You may prefer to sacrifice one over many.

*joking* perhaps we should make peoples trying to run away if they see death and you have to trick them with wrong information to make them suicide for others ;) */joking*
Orfelius wrote:
Jedi-Knights
Since when have we changed game themes from WH40k like-game into sudden StarWars?
or think about Eldar-Banshees.
This sentence came from the thought to make the reasoning for melee units accessible to more forum-readers and maybe show that it is a 1:1 WH40k clone but a "Warhammer+Spring baby" to use your earlier words :p
Orfelius wrote:Eh I wont get into details about how ridiculous the plot is (I already did a bit regardless) nor will I write about my own ideas since the post has turned out to be soo long. However I will point out one more thing:
If everyone has 10+ childs on average before an accidental death (or out of boredom)
You have clearly never even thought about having children.
In some countries, 3.5 children per family is average, 5 children may not be uncommon there.
If the technology level is high enough and the living cost low + the expectation that soon a technology is available to settle in the whole universe, what do you expect?
Countries with 3.5+ children would naturally settle in more territory (heard about refugees IRL?) and teach their childs the mindset that led them to have 3.5+ childs, if nothing interferes with it.

As a child, I felt pain from the loud noise of other childs screaming like childs do when they play. It is not natural for the average human to feel pain while being together with other peoples. If I get a child and it will be like me, wouldn't I have "taken the risk that another person gets injured mentally"?

Please tell me, how should I understand why peoples get more than 2 (maybe 3) childs rather to ensure these 2-3 child's get the love and attention they deserve?
Maybe I am too young to think about marrying someone (as in: I feel still too much excitement for things you can do alone, not by age).
Or I just haven't found the right person because I only know a few persons longer than 2 years.

But I am not a 14-year old teenie anymore. Please don't think I wrote what I wrote without reason except to have a reason. (I could have put the plot 100 years later).

About the plot, I think about requiring a very long observation and analysis (around 10-25 years) of the special warp-space-dynamics around a sun-system before being able to risk a warp-jump.
Or supporting stationary warp-beacons (satellites sent on a Jurney for many years), with each new warp-route being a great investment of time (at least in the early stages).
This explains why overpopulation still matters and nobody can just go anywhere alone instantly.
0 x

Orfelius
Posts: 103
Joined: 17 Nov 2014, 20:57

Re: [4 feedback] New game-type, widgets and controls

Post by Orfelius » 10 Aug 2015, 22:41

Oh boy what have I done. At least we do not have to worry about moderation because there is no way that admins will get trough these walls of text :D
Face the truth: The human language is context-sensitive.
Obviously. The thing is that I didn't know the context because you failed to encode your information properly. You could have said "interesting" or "engaging" instead of something vague as "perfect". Proper vocabulary is important in communication.
The devs decided to go a way that you can't access it without their own lobby.
Untrue, Zero-K server can be accessed via ReactSWL and flobby as well. Besides Microsoft has actually made NET open source recently (like half a year ago or so).
It isn't accessible over spring lobby, where is the player-base?
Accessible? You could just make a room with it thats all. There is no player base because afaik the game is in early stages of development. Its not like the playerbase will magically spawn for your own project as well. In fact there is a huge chance it will share the fate of Cursed, EvoRTS, GundamRTS, Conflict Terra, Metal Factions and various other games that failed to gain a sustainable playerbase.
Imperials can use A sensor-ability from each of their main-bases to reveal units, especially annoying if you have Eldar-Rangers or Tau-Ghost-XV15s.
But imperials also pay 160 (compared to 85 for Tau and 130 for eldar) for their basic HQ-combat-platoon which can capture point.

If you choose the cheap option of invisible ghosts, you should also have to forfeit the ability of using the scanner.
If you choose a platoon where the leader can reveal invisible units (Eldar), should you also be able to build Necron-Warriors for 0 energy/territory-points? (They are "heavy" infantry with bonus armour).

With Tau, there are 2 incompatible command towers. If you build one at the frontline and get the technologies, AI-enemies will soon kill it and you can build the other (the experience I made with a pre1.0 version), getting more upgrades.

Instead of making them Incompatible, you can have the requirements bound to a HQ-control area (which is large enough to not be a problem like in WH40k, but can not overlap either).
That doesn't answers my question at all. You are talking explicitly about WH40k and a bunch of alien units yet you want the game be about humans? I do no see the premise, nor the comparisions.
If I didn't answer your concern, can you elaborate "iffy"?
Because Spring uses deterministic physics for projectiles unlike WH40k engine.
In some countries, 3.5 children per family is average, 5 children may not be uncommon there.
If the technology level is high enough and the living cost low + the expectation that soon a technology is available to settle in the whole universe, what do you expect?
Countries with 3.5+ children would naturally settle in more territory (heard about refugees IRL?) and teach their childs the mindset that led them to have 3.5+ childs, if nothing interferes with it.

As a child, I felt pain from the loud noise of other childs screaming like childs do when they play. It is not natural for the average human to feel pain while being together with other peoples. If I get a child and it will be like me, wouldn't I have "taken the risk that another person gets injured mentally"?

Please tell me, how should I understand why peoples get more than 2 (maybe 3) childs rather to ensure these 2-3 child's get the love and attention they deserve?
Maybe I am too young to think about marrying someone (as in: I feel still too much excitement for things you can do alone, not by age).
Or I just haven't found the right person because I only know a few persons longer than 2 years.
This is not how humans work. sure there are such countries these are called "developing countries". Yet in more wealthy countries the the average child per family is much lower as you should probably notice since you are German. You wanna know why? Thats because of industrial revolution. In pre-industrial times families were huge because children were more likely to die. They also were some sort of "retirement fund" once parent would not be able to work anymore. More children = more labour. Then industrial revolution came and as people started to get wealthier and wealthier on median suddenly population booms would happen since everybody suddenly was healthier and had more food (especially that pharmaceutics were also heavily develping in that period). And their children had more children. Though the lifestyle of a median person would start to change since the education became much more important with time (what is happening since 50s upon today) and people would start to devote their lives more upon their carriers not family matters thus they would start their families later and later on which resulted in lower child number. The process continues to today where there is even a recession in countries like Japan where more people die that they are being born. Now you might say "but it is all in the past!" and you are wrong. While it might have happened in developed countries already there are still a lot of countries that are 70% of current world population in the industrial revolution cycle. Such as China, Idia, most South American countries (but to lesser extent), most African countries and so on. Eventually if there is no some other major breaktrough in life style of a medicore human the population of our planet will stabilize on certain level.
Humans are not rabbits they do not reproduce like crazy. It also is impossible that suddenly anybody would decide "I want to have more than 2 babies I guess I will have to risk my life for it" this is just stupid...
tl; dr Better technology and wealthier people != more babies

Eh whatever. I would like to touch on other points of your ideas but it is clear that there is no point into it since you seem to set your mind into it already. If you ever want to attract other devs into your project (assuming that you are going to actually start it) you will need to make some sacrifices regarding your neonstorm.

Here is a link to a good tutorial channel that I have learned modelling from. Since you know... I don't think that anybody will join on your project until you can present that you can do some stuff. Alternatively you could just steal some models from another open source game and use them temporarily until you learn/find somebody modelling thingies.
Like Picasso said: leave this thread just start on chugging your ideas into reality otherwise it was just a waste of mine and yours time and I do not like to waste time so you better do something about it :P
0 x

Post Reply

Return to “Game Development”