|
Your SEV Game Design
Ok, seiv has been hashed for quite sometime, we've given Aaron our ideas for sev etc. So how about this one.
If you were designing SEV, how would you design the game, what races, traits, facilities etc, would you put into the game. Here is everyone's chance to put forth their dreams and wants into their own design for SEV. Lets see how creative everyone can be.... lets see YOUR Version of SEV just some ideas Mac |
Re: Your SEV Game Design
TNG holo-suite technology.
|
Re: Your SEV Game Design
Quote:
I know a lot of people have expressed their opinions on what they want on another thread, so some of this might be redundant: better AI, fog of war, better graphics. There's probably more, but that's all I can think of now. |
Re: Your SEV Game Design
Yeah, there's another thread for this ("SE5 Tell Aaron What's On Your Wish List") so let's not clog up the forums with too many wishlist threads http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
|
Re: Your SEV Game Design
But that thread has become so bloated with Posts and ideas that it lost any vestages of organization a long long long time ago. Hell I tried to organize it once, gathering up all the suggestions and such, but I soon realized that that was an enormous task far beyond my willingness to do. I posted what I had, some 200 suggestion, and I only covered about five pages.
There are a lot of excellent ideas in that thread, but they are so horribly unorganized that no one can make sense of them all. No human that is. So why not break the threads up, use this one to post ideas for SE V and start a new one for improvements to SE IV? Then as time permits, go through that old thread and organize the suggestions, ideas, and what nots into something that Aaron can use. |
Re: Your SEV Game Design
Quote:
|
Re: Your SEV Game Design
no, more like the holo technology used to coorinate the fleet battles in BAB5, from on board the Mimbari cruiser.
|
Re: Your SEV Game Design
I'd like to see a more robust and thorough campaign/game/mod editor.
|
Re: Your SEV Game Design
The intention was not just for minor suggestions, but for how you would design SEV.
|
Re: Your SEV Game Design
i wasnt making a minor suggestion, i was saying that it should play like that. I want to stand in a big black room, and see my fleets and empire arrayed around me in holographic form, and be able to give orders to them all.
in all seriousness though, I would take a more modular and object oriented approach to the game design. It may be that way now, but I get the impression that alot of things are fairly fixed in place. I would start with the foundation that there are "abilities" such as those in the abilities.txt file. these are the fundamental things that make the game work. these abilities can then be applied to different objects, or containers for objects. most basically, to a component or facility, just as they are now. then, to a ship or a planet, which is a container for a component or facility. larger Groups would be sectors, systems, and empires. another group i would include, would be trade lanes, so certain systems could be linked into a larger Category. I would like it to be dynamic, such that it would be easy to add or mod in new categories and groupings. trade lanes would have to allow for systems to be added to or removed from the larger group classification, by the presence of a component or facility with a certain ability. for example, the ability MAKE THIS [CATEGORY A] A SUBSET OF [CATEGORY B] where Category A is the planet, or sector, or system, or empire where the thing is located. thus, there may be a facility that carries an empire wide bonus to something. there may be a component that improves production output within a certain trade lane, requiring you to better manage your infrastructure. A modder could add in new categories as they see fit, perhaps adding some ability for multiple empires to be grouped into a larger whole, similar to a trade alliance. Everything would be dynamic and changeable. right now, many things are hard coded or fixed in place. for example, stelar phenominons like planets, storms, suns, and asteroids all have specific fixed abilities. I would include for each one, the following kinds of flags: -is a type X stelar object (where X is an arbitrary categorization, preset ones will exist for storms, asteroids, suns, planets) -can be colonized? -can be remote mined? -has resource value? and stelar manip components may have abilities like "destroys type X stelar object" or "creates type X stelar object" or "turns type X stelar object into type Y stelar object" so it would be perfectly possible for someone to mod a device that turns a planet into a storm, or mods in colonizeable suns, or remote mineable storms, or whatever nonesense they like. ICE, ROCK, GAS, as well as atmosphere, would be another defineable variable, rather than a fixed value. more could be added by modders, but they would also have to supply all the other things that would be needed (such as related components, images, etc.) once that foundation is in place, the interface and implementation could be anything. systems could be 3d with the actual orbital mechanics modled in, and ships traveling on real vectors that are affected by gravity. or systems could be abstract things with a simple list of the planets and major bodies in them. the actuall presentation of the game would not matter, once the foundation existed. of course developing the interface and presentation of the game is probably ALOT more work than setting out the foundation, and most people tend to think of how they are going to present the game and then work backwards, but I would first start with the foundation described above. that way, i think it would be easier to make sweeping changes and adaptatoins later, or easier just to fine tune things later. and then I'd start shooting the fans who think they know so much, and cant stop talking about how THEY would do things, when they hardly know anything about programming. at least, i'd shoot the ones that live in the same town as me. good thing Aaron doesnt know what i look like, or I might be in trouble. |
Re: Your SEV Game Design
Quote:
|
Re: Your SEV Game Design
In UI, less is more.
The 'main screen' of SE V should be the galaxy map. The commands can be on a movable button-bar just like you see in MS word. Want it on top? Grab & push it to the top. Want it on the bottom? Push it there. Want it to float? That's fine too. No stupid 'frames' to draw, no mucking around necessary to adjust for the screen size. Everything you need to do is accessed by clicking on a system or clicking on a button on the bar that is placed where you want it. Systems should be hexagon-based rather than squares. This is easy enough to do once you give up on forcing the system window into a defined square in a rigidly divided UI screen. Click on a system and pop-up a hexagonal system map. Do whatever you want to do in that system. Click a 'close' button to make it go away and return to the galaxy map. The 'radius' should be much larger than the current system size. At least twice. This quite is doable when the system map can fill the screen. Then 'vision' in a system should be range based instead of absolute as it is now and you can finally have exploration and a real need for 'patrols' instead of each system being a little room that you can guard from one sentry-post. The Research and Intel systems need to be drastically revised. Something like the SE III system would be better, with the ability to adjust how much of your research or intel resources to devote to each field or enemy. The AI must have multi-dimensional decision making! This 'anger level' thing is so crude it's laughable. We need an AI smart enough to try to get a treaty even if it hates you when it realizes it can't defeat you. It would just choose a different sort of treaty, a 'non-aggression pact' instead of a trade treaty or alliance. And we need it to be smart enough to honor its treaties and aid its allies when asked, as well as ask for and deliver diplomatic favors. The treaty system should be broken down into individual options, not the current 'hierarchy'. Why wouldn't there be situations where I'd want to share intelligence with some ally but not give them access to my resupply depots? Population AI needs to be smarter, too. Populations need 'loyalty' as well as a general 'morale' level. A 'culture' rating similar to the Civ 3 concept wouldn't hurt, although drawing borders would be tough in a space game. Just giving each colonized planet a 'sphere of influence' would probably good enough. Planets need to have much more complex environments defined by gravity, temperature ranges, and radiation levels along with atmosphere, and populations need to migrate more-or-less like they do in MOO 3 (the one really interesting and well done feature on that disaster) so you don't have to move them manually. Culture level could be an additional draw besides environment factors, and have an effect on assimilation (loyalty level) of non-native populations. I could write volumes about what technologies it ought to include and what racial characteristics, etc... these are 'bells and whistles' that can be altered once the game is mostly done. I like most of the current technologies and racial traits. I'd just add a few. Like area effect weapons (which would be really cool in 3D! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ), some way to give 'special powers' to ship hulls without having to add a component (a 'mount' for hulls is the way to say it, I guess) and options to use any of 'warp points' (natural), 'warp gates' (artificial), or 'hyperspace' interstellar travel instead of only the one model at present. [ January 09, 2004, 01:03: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ] |
Re: Your SEV Game Design
Quote:
|
Re: Your SEV Game Design
That's not what he said to us in the SE IV Beta forum where we discussed some alternatives. I could go look it up but I don't think I'm supposed to post stuff from the Beta forums out here. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Don't be too certain that hex 'cannot' happen.
|
Re: Your SEV Game Design
It is what he said in the IRC chats a few months back when I asked him that question directly... good to see that he might be changing his mind.
|
Re: Your SEV Game Design
This is not your wish list for SEV, This is how YOU WOULD DESIGN THE GAME if you had the opportunity.
just some ideas Mac |
Re: Your SEV Game Design
I would keep the current races that are in the game and add probably 4-6 others including a nomad or pirate race which could be played by the AI as well as a human player.
Increase the types of maps and include a random factor of a 2nd hidden, (smaller) universe which you would find hidden somewhere within the map. This univers would be smaller then the original (Due to space limitations) but would include say up to 50 planets & moons, maybe have 2 or 3 hidden entrances and exits that have to be found In corporate a number of ideas from the various current mods like various weapon mounts, I also like the idea of keeping anti ftr and anti seeker weapons seperate so one does not shoot at both add new additional types of ships, like corvette, super DN, monitor etc, just like in some of the mods Would put in a better ground combat system, possibly based on something similiar like that of the old Star General Game (simple but fun) you could chose ground combat say anywhere from 5-10 ground combat rounds per 1 space turn. This would be actual combat between the differnt types of units, you could have infantry, aritllery, planes, tanks, etc. Capability of adding a monster race or two if one wanted to Making the AI more affective and smarter (I know this is the hardest part http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ) but some of the mods out there for seiv are pretty good with some of the races add more types of ftrs & seekers, give some races some type of bonus for their ftrs or seekers as this could be a specialty. Maybe make them harder to hit, faster, more accurate, maybe start out with a higher experience level or something on that level just some ideas Mac |
Re: Your SEV Game Design
"he 'main screen' of SE V should be the galaxy map. The commands can be on a movable button-bar just like you see in MS word. Want it on top? Grab & push it to the top. Want it on the bottom? Push it there. Want it to float? That's fine too. No stupid 'frames' to draw, no mucking around necessary to adjust for the screen size. Everything you need to do is accessed by clicking on a system or clicking on a button on the bar that is placed where you want it."
Good ideas so far. An adjustable interface is definitely a good thing if done well. I don't like the galaxy map being the main display, though..see below. "Systems should be hexagon-based rather than squares. This is easy enough to do once you give up on forcing the system window into a defined square in a rigidly divided UI screen. Click on a system and pop-up a hexagonal system map. Do whatever you want to do in that system. Click a 'close' button to make it go away and return to the galaxy map. The 'radius' should be much larger than the current system size. At least twice. This quite is doable when the system map can fill the screen." Congradulations, you just made a system that takes twice as much clicking as the current one. To what advantage? All I can see is allowing for a slightly larger galaxy map without scrolling. I'd prefer keeping the system map the main map, perhaps like SE3's system with it in a resizable section of the screen. The current system for this is IMO intuitive and works quite well. "Then 'vision' in a system should be range based instead of absolute as it is now and you can finally have exploration and a real need for 'patrols' instead of each system being a little room that you can guard from one sentry-post." Should be based on your sensor technology, and maybe on what the enemy has on their ships. "The Research and Intel systems need to be drastically revised. Something like the SE III system would be better, with the ability to adjust how much of your research or intel resources to devote to each field or enemy." Probably. Micromanging intel projects could stand to go, or not. I'm ambivalent on that one. "The AI must have multi-dimensional decision making! This 'anger level' thing is so crude it's laughable. We need an AI smart enough to try to get a treaty even if it hates you when it realizes it can't defeat you. It would just choose a different sort of treaty, a 'non-aggression pact' instead of a trade treaty or alliance. And we need it to be smart enough to honor its treaties and aid its allies when asked, as well as ask for and deliver diplomatic favors. The treaty system should be broken down into individual options, not the current 'hierarchy'. Why wouldn't there be situations where I'd want to share intelligence with some ally but not give them access to my resupply depots?" I like the indivudual options, but you're asking a -lot- of the AI here. As sad as it is, SE4's AI compares well against many in the genere. The game is too open and too flexible for any AI to adapt well. Not that it doesn't need to be better; I just don't have much hope for it. "Population AI needs to be smarter, too. Populations need 'loyalty' as well as a general 'morale' level. A 'culture' rating similar to the Civ 3 concept wouldn't hurt, although drawing borders would be tough in a space game. Just giving each colonized planet a 'sphere of influence' would probably good enough. Planets need to have much more complex environments defined by gravity, temperature ranges, and radiation levels along with atmosphere, and populations need to migrate more-or-less like they do in MOO 3 (the one really interesting and well done feature on that disaster) so you don't have to move them manually. Culture level could be an additional draw besides environment factors, and have an effect on assimilation (loyalty level) of non-native populations." This is more feasible, though I'm not sure I like auto-migration or more complex enviroments. Though, the user doesn't need to see all this- just use the Conditions display for it. All the conditions of a planet could be put together for an averge value, on a per-race basis. Removes some of the micromanagement while still allowing for details. At the very least, the possibility of auto migration should be adjustable during empire designs. Some empires might allow it, but the more controlling ones (Starfire's Bugs..any top-down government system..etc) wouldn't. |
Re: Your SEV Game Design
First of all, the game needs to be based on Windows windows. All the control goodies would come along with it. (mousewheel, menu, right click, resizeable windows, etc.)
game engine I think I would design it based around things called stellar objects and components. A stellar object could be any object that appears in the game: a planet, a star, a ship, debris, anything. Each stellar object would have different abilities, just like the abilities in SE4. Except any ability can apply to any object. And every characteritstic is part of an ability. For example, the weapon characteristic is an ability, not a special entry in the components file. Seeker is an ability like cargo storage, "launch from stellar object", "can be stacked", "can be colonized", damages only engines. That way we can mod ships that can land on planets, ships that can be carried on other ships, and even wierd stuff like mobile planets and ships that can land on stars. Components are another type of object. Components are sub objects that make up a stellar object. They would use the same abilities as the stellar objects. The tonnage of all components on a stellar object + the tonnage of the stellar object = the total tonnage of the ship or planet or whatever. That total tonnage can affect propulsion, shields, armor, whatever the game designer or modder wants. With this system, facilities on planets are component objects. And the same abilities that let troops invade planets will let those same troops invade and capture enemy ships (since they're both stellar objects). quadrant and system maps 3D. Gotta go 3D. It's how space really is, and I've never seen a 3D turn based space strategy game. It would add a whole other dimension to strategy. It should be much easier to code than a 3D real time game. For the quadrant map, nothing 3D needs to be rendered at all. All you need is a coordinate system. All the map need are little dots for the systems, circles to show selection, names, and warp point lines. Rotate, zoom, and pan should be no problem as long as the coordinate system is in place. There was an old game back in 1990 that used a 3d star map. It was easy to navigate, showed dots and lines, looked great, and ran easily on my 386. The system map is just as simple. Instead of dots, just use 2D sprites represented by bitmap image files, just like in SE4. It's quick to render, looks good, easier to program than 3D, and can be easily modded. AI design First of all, family numbers out. They're arbitrary and don't really mean anything. They only make modding tougher. AIs can design things based on weapon damage, weapon range, ability ammount, ability ammount/tonnage ratio, etc. Just assign variables to all the different abilities. Then in the AI files, the selection of components could be based on mathematical expressions. It will make for a much more elegant AI design, and shorter AI files. ministers and micromanagement SE5 will probably be more detailed and in-depth than SE4. That means more micromanagement headaches for players. Some like it, some hate it. There's a solution. Minister data files. They can be divided into two types: global ministers and individual (or stellar object) ministers. Global ministers can be set to handle large things like total mineral output of the empire or whole systems. Individual ministers can be set to control planets (then they'd be governors) or ships (then they'd be captains). How a particular minister behaves could be controlled by its particular minister data file. A minister that's good at controlling unruly population or managing the design que might be terrible at managing a ship. (run it into black holes and stuff) While another minister would know how to assault a planet or know how best to fight against seekers. construction I think the old SE3 construction scheme was much better than the current SE4 one. When a ship is built, you immediately get a hull with all damaged components on it. The components are then repaired "built" over time. That means I can send a partially constructed ship into combat if I need to, and if an enemy attacks my space yards, I need to defend the partially constructed ships or I have to start all over again from scratch. components as cargo As cargo, components can be retrieved from debris after a battle, or salvaged after deconstructing a ship. Components as cargo can be jettisoned, transported, or traded. With components as cargo I can retrofit or repair ships at a ship yard with already existing components rather than having to build new ones. I can also capture components that I'm unable to build and fit them onto my ships. Or trade them to an ally. I could capture some organic armor and, with some research points retrofit it on to my cruiser. research The research system from SE3 was also much better than SE4. Each tech area had a progress bar that would increase with the research points you put into it. If you decided to switch to a different area, the progress bar would remain at the same level. Meaning you can't loose your progress. Also there was the starting tech levels. You could select what tech levels your empire started the game with. Instead of just a high, medium, or low setting. the data files I'd make each component object family have a single entry. For example: Depleted Uranium Cannon I-V would be represented by a single entry in the data file. Each attribute would be a mathematical expression with a variable for the sequence number (roman numeral). That would make smaller data files. And it would be easier to mod. |
Re: Your SEV Game Design
I wouldn't necessarily care about 3D mapping (as distances can be represented on a 2D map. Maybe not as cute looking.
BUT, what I'd like to see would be solar systems that moved. Every month that passed would result in an orbital movement of all the appropriate planets, asteroids, moons, etc. Ship movement would need to be modified or adjusted to take into account this movement of the "heavenly bodies" but I think it would add a nice dimension to the game. |
Re: Your SEV Game Design
Perhaps more events that randomly teleported planets could be done within SEIV ? ie suck out of one solar system and into another just like ships are now ? or within the same solar system - warp points that moved on on a random basis. Asteroids that turn into planets ie random spatial anolmoly - as planets explode now the opposite could be useful - the emergence of a new alien race out of no where posing a risk for all existing players (like the borg in star trek ?)
Rioting planets that break away to form independant empires without the involvement of intelligence projects ie a rioting planets with a % chance of rebelling ? |
Re: Your SEV Game Design
I would go with a combat system that is focused on a good experience for PvP games wtih the current simultaneous(sp) combat.
Instead of all of one player's ships moving and firing, use an impulse system similar to Star Fleet Battles. This could also be combined with some sort of initiative system. I think the current system where a ship can move 10 space from out of weapons range to point blank and bLast you without any response is unreasonable. I would also like to see comand and control limits or modifiers for large fleets. Also ECM and ECCM should have an area affect centered on the ship. Combined with things like stealth armor, the whole detection/electronic warefare system should provide defensive bonuses that decrease at close range and allow for ships to remain undetected at long range. I like the concept from MOO3 of a task force grouping structure that allows core ships, outer ring and picket ships. The different parts of a fleet should be able to have different missions/priorites. I feel that the current fleet strategy is not very useful. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:17 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.