Messages

481

Precursors / RTS / FPS aspect, with comments on AI

« on: July 21, 2005, 04:58:46 pm »

Also, something else I forgot to mention: The missions setup and the resulting increase in available equipment would be a good replacement for the "stand in line to kill the monster" and "I gotz the l337 goodz cuz I killed the monster wit my mad skillz" form of quests found in most MMORPGs.  I'd rather have the quests be missions, and the missions be dynamic, based on where each side stands.  I'll explain more in a future post, but basically have a chain of command, with the head cheese say "we want this planet", and missions coming about as a result of that mandate.  Thus, the universe is always in flux, meaning that just because one player partook in a mission doesn't mean that all players will have to do the same mission.

~Brian

482

Precursors / RTS / FPS aspect, with comments on AI

« on: July 21, 2005, 08:31:41 am »

Here's my ideas for the RTS command aspect:

Equipment is assigned to the players. They mostlikely will not 'own' much of anything, it will all be provided.

The immediate problem I see with this is lack of customizability.  One of the things that makes MMOGs successful (IMO) is the ability for Players to customize their characters as much as they want.  This goes beyond simple changes like hair and eye color - they will want to modify their equipment loadout as much as possible.  If Players aren't given that option, then they will all become mercs, and few if any will join the factions' militaries.

The reason Players like to customize their equipment is twofold: 1) They may be naturally good at something (e.g., sniping); and 2) The status symbol.  If you see somebody walking around, toting the DeadEye sniper rifle (one of the best ones out there of both legal and black-market rifles), then you know that Player is good to be able to afford it.

However, we have to mix this with the military-style control aspect.  The Commander may want or need a particular kind of soldier on the battlefield.  If we have everybody running around as snipers, then we're in trouble.  Thus, here's what I would propose for the military-based aspect:

Let's say our Player trains as a sniper. When they finish the training, he (or she, of course) is given the basic sniper rifle and other entry-level equipment.  The Player is then sent into the battlefield as a sniper with this basic equipment.  As they gain experience (in general, not talking about Exp here) and skill (again, in general), they will gain access to higher-level equipment (e.g,. the DeadEye rifle) for their particular faction.  They will essentially "own" this equipment - it will be in their inventory.  However, they don't "buy" it, since it's part of the military's equipment.  They simply choose what they want out of the equipment list they can access.

Now, when a Commander is given our Player, the Commander has to decide what to do with them. If they don't have any need for a sniper, then the Commander can put our Player to use in another area, though the Player is obiously not going to perform as well in the area, since it's outside of his expertise.  If the Commander wants a sniper, but needs for the Player to use a different weapon, then the Commander can give the Player that weapon.  If necessary, the Commander can override the clearance for the Player to give him access to a higher-level weapon.  At the end of the battle, the Commander can make this change permanent, or can revoke it and place the Player back at their original equipment clearence.  In any event, thought, the Commander should have a good reason for changing the Player's equipment loadout. If the Player is part of a particular squad, then the Commander might have to clear it with the Player's Squad Leader first, or something like that.

Alternately, the Commander could request certain soldier types for the coming battle, and they receive that exact set.  If they don't request a sniper, then our Player gets assigned somewhere else.  The Commander might alternately request certain squads, and receive all the soldiers in that particular squad.

As far as the AI is concerned, if the Commander is using an NPC soldier, then the NPC is given the default loadout for the current choice; the Commander can customize this equipment as much as is needed.

So how does this differ from the setup that Chris is proposing?  Well, it differs in the following ways:

• Players can choose their loadout from the equipment available, based on faction and equipment clearance, rather than having it always be assigned by the current Commander.
• Commanders should stick with the Player's current loadout except in exceptional cases.  If we can find some way to enforce this, all the better.

Now, resorces are another thing to think about.. having tones of money doesn't mean you have a ton of guns... you *could* if you buy them. What you outfit your people with will be dependant on what's available, and what can be bought. However, ammunition, guns, and other weapons aren't unlimited like in most RTS.

Agreed. However, the Commander might be able to mine resources from the current planet and refine them at the base. Then, s/he could take those refined resources and manufacture weapons on-site.  If the Commander can't build a particular weapon (either due to lack of resources or due to lack of manufacturing capability - the plant can't build everything), then they can send for it.

One major difference in the two systems would be this: the military would require a lot more planning, since they can't just buy whatever they need.  They have to manufacture it somewhere, either at their base or on another planet.  Thus, the better they plan it out, the more stuff they have when the battle starts, rather than having to wait for the equipment to come from somewhere else.  Furthermore, the supply line would be important as well - if conditions change, then the Commander needs to be able to send for more or different equipment and soldiers. Thus, space battles could play a tremendous role in a battle on the surface of a planet - if the Commander loses his supply line through space, then he's on his own until those lines re-open (or he loses the battle).

Mercs, on the other hand, depend more on money and buying equipment from suppliers.  They have to plan, but their organizations are too small to really maintain manufacturing plants on multiple planets. Thus, they are useful in small situations, where they can buy equipment to suit their needs, and can do so readily and on-the-fly.  There's nothing to say that the supplier couldn't be the military the merc is working with, or whoever else they're working for, but they are more concerned with buying stuff when situations change than with having to plan out the battle beforehand and keep supplies coming.

Anyways, those are my ideas for right now.
~Brian

483

Precursors / Re: XML

« on: July 20, 2005, 12:45:11 pm »

Just a note on the XML -- I feel that no user should have to edit any XML, except for the power users that want to do extreme customization[...]

That's what I had in mind - the defaults will suffice for most people.  However, if you want something more fine-tuned to your tastes, you can either write the XML file yourself, or you can have somebody write it for you.  That's what I was thinking of earlier - the "power users" that will customize a game anyways (e.g., modding, reverse engineering, adding or modifying content, etc.) could make some in-game cash by coming up with a particularly useful setup, then selling it to other people.  The obvious downside is the need for quasi-DRM for the files, but if we can find a way around that, we should be in good shape.

Now, how will average users do basic customization? We should have a in-game graphical utility that lets users drag-n-drop components and resize them etc into a window and then have the program write out the XML. Maybe as a free download on the website, or as a seperate program bundled with the game, but it should be available somehow.

Agreed. Further, it should be *freely* available. However, I would limit the power of the tool to simple customizations of current profiles. I'm not saying we should do this artificially, but writing a program to do the higher-end stuff *may* require a lot of time and effort to code effectively, time and effort that would better be spent on the game itself.

Oh yeah, and switching to certian modes should be able to do certian things to your ship[...]

I really like this idea.  Anything that makes the game more intuitive to the Player is a good thing.

~Brian

484

Precursors / Uber-Tuff DoomSender Anti-Capital Ship Pistol [and others]

« on: July 13, 2005, 08:28:05 am »

These are all good ideas... Unfortunately, they would also require obtaining permission from their respective copyright holders to use them.  Unlikely, given this is a commercial product not particularly related to what they are doing.  Nontheless, it's gonna be a pain to do anyways.

Nevertheless, I'd love to pick a fight with a Borg Cube. :-)

~Brian

485

Precursors / RTS / FPS aspect, with comments on AI

« on: July 12, 2005, 11:25:53 pm »

Well, the reason I put in there about treating Players as quasi-heroes is that Players will likely want to customize their equipment - weapons, armor, etc.  Personally, I think they should be given the opportunity to.  I suppose we could allow them to obtain weapons and armor from a depot in-base.  However, this also can make it more difficult for Commanders to control their Player units, especially if they're running low on the high-powered guns.  Ranks could allow some amount of control - "You have to be at least Rank X to use the Uber-Tuff DoomSender Anti-Capital Ship Pistol."  

However, this creates a conflict - when a new Soldier is sent out into the field (question - do we allow "creation" of soldiers, or how do we deal with "creating" a new Marine or whatnot?), if the Commander doesn't tell them what to get, then the AI ones will have the basic loadout (or a random one, if we program them that way).  So in my own fatigue-induced way, I guess I'm asking what should the balance be between the Commander's choosing the proper loadout, the Player's desire to choose their own loadout, and the AI's inability (due to lack of freewill) to know the difference?

This also brings up another consideration, and brings back the idea of teleportation - how do people get back to base?  Anyone who's played an RTS game knows that the bases are usually fairly far apart.  Since battles are planning to rage over continents (if not entire worlds), that's a LONG way to walk.  At the very least, the Player should be able to teleport back to the base - they might lose some of their equipment and such (to create a cost system - yeah, you just saved your life, but you have to start back at square 1 with the Dinky Pea Shooter Standard.

I agree that the game should be immersive, to be certain, and I fully support the goal of indistinguishable AI (honestly, might be a little out of our grasp, but I'm all for trying :-) ).  

Also, I have the beginnings of ideas on things like reinforcements and death on the battlefield.  However, it's late, my brain is close to mush, so they're not formed well enough to post yet.

~Brian

486

Precursors / New HUD in Development

« on: July 12, 2005, 11:07:20 pm »

But, what does the player need to see while he's fighting?

One of my mottos is "gluttany over starvation."  I'd rather have too much than not enough.  If we're gonna give the users the option to set up their own HUDs, then we shouldn't be asking "what does the Player need?" or even "what does the Player want?" - we should be asking "what information can we stick up there?"  Naturally, we'll start out small.  But after we get the system set up, we should be able to add just about any information in any form at a later time.  The trick is gonna be allowing fancy displays, like the shield display in FreeSpace (used a rounded box with 4 sides and different intensities to show the shielding).  I haven't done much with XML, but I would think we could put something of an if / else structure in there.

don't care if they can customize it, we need to figure out what we want there by default....

Also agreed.  Thus, in terms of default information output, I'd say we'd need this at a minimum:

• Health - this includes not only physical damage, but shield and hull | armor integrity.
• Systems status - this goes with the above.  The goal is for the Player to know what the status of their ship is at all times.  However, this is put separate from the overall health of the ship (assuming there is one - I think there should be, even if it's nothing more than a percentage of max Service output) for reasons stated below.
• Ammunition / Wep status - MechWarrior 3 (brought up earlier) had a listing for each weapon equipped on your Mech.  When the weapon fired, it turned red, and turned back to green as the weapon cooled down (went from left -> right - think progress-bars).  We need something like that to tell the Player when they can fire their weapon again.
• Compass / radar - they need to know where they are, where they are heading, and where their allies and enemies are.  Nuff said.
• Tracker - shows the location of the targeted enemy / ally in relation to them - which direction they have to turn to face them, etc.  Note that this applies to all aspects, not just the space sim one.
• Damage indicator - shows which direction they're being hit from.  I've played games with crummy hit indicators - makes life much more difficult.  In real life, you get hit by a missile, you KNOW which direction it came from.  In the game, this needs to be shown, since it can't be felt (easily).

What information CANNOT be in a menu, or something a few click away.

Well, most of this should be bindable to keys on the keyboard.  I think we could have toggles on most information, so the Player can customize their HUD at run-time by toggling certain information on / off.  This is why we want a more granular interface control than simply "toggle health" to do the whole ship's health status.

As an example, if the Player's ship's Systems are all working, then the Player should [be able to] turn off that display so it doesn't pollute the viewing area with useless information.  However, when the ship gets hit by the flaming green missile of death ;-), the Player needs to be able to bring up that display with the push of a key, and be able to send commands to it with keystrokes as well.  As someone who's used both a mouse and a keyboard (e.g., while playing RTS games), I can promise you that when you figure out keyboard shortcuts, your productivity goes up FAST.  Having stuff via a menu, esp. a mouse-based menu, will get Players killed, which in turn will get them very pissed off.

~Brian

487

Precursors / New HUD in Development

« on: July 12, 2005, 02:58:03 pm »

I like the style in general - I'm a big fan of blue ;-).

However, I do think we may need something that is more see-through.  I know that the HUD is translucent, but that can still interfere with the Player's view and can sometimes make it worse - the Player can see that something's there, but they still have to move their ship to see it.  This can distract the Player from what they are trying to concentrate on (e.g., an enemy ship shooting at them).

I have played a little Freespace 2 (the stripped-down, OEM version that came with my joystick).  I like their HUD - it tells you what you need to know in an intuitive fashion, but it is completely clear.  No boxes or anything - if it doesn't have anything important to display, then it doesn't display anything at all (yes, I'm paraphrasing Thumper.  Got a problem with that? :-P)

I also think a good idea is to have a data-driven display, likely using an XML format.  It would be possible, I think, to give the Players the opportunity to create their own HUD displays - they could even share (perhaps even create an entire in-game market for them...  Players create their own HUDs and sell them for credits....  ah, the possibilities).  If nothing else, it would likely make it easier on us to modify huds without having to recompile the game - data driven design at its best.

~Brian

488

Precursors / RTS / FPS aspect, with comments on AI

« on: July 12, 2005, 11:46:09 am »

As far as how we interface the RTS aspect with the FPS and FlightSim aspects of the game, I am thinking something along the lines of Warcraft 3.  Only played it a little bit, but I've read enough to know that the premise of the game isn't to simply amass the crapload of units and overwhelm the enemy base.  The goal is to choose and buff your hero, and with supporting units use the hero to kill the enemy base.  Alternately, think of Commandos in Command & Conquer.

The point is that Players should be these hero-style characters, even if they're on the lowest rank in their group.  Commanders also can create / build AI-controlled soldiers, which are lower powered (requires less computer resources to handle them if they're fairly simplified), that are more or less expendable.  Further, the Commander can build tanks and vehicles and such that either have NPC pilots or Player pilots.  The Commander's goal is to use the NPC soldiers to protect their "hero" Player soldiers, while using both to wipe out the enemy base.  Likely strength as commander will be heavily influenced by the number of Players killed while under their command.  

The AI for the NPC soldiers would be that of most RTS games - pathfinding and such, combined with intelligent / realistic behaviors (like hiding behind crates when getting shot at, moving in groups [using flocking behaviors most likely], etc.).  They just have smaller / less  owerful weapons than do the Player characters.

Any other ideas?
~Brian

489

Precursors / AI in the game

« on: July 11, 2005, 04:46:31 pm »

First, as far as the AI for right now is concerned, "move -> turn -> shoot" will at least give people something to shoot at - get their target practice with.  When we add networking, it will likely be even better.  I think this is a good starting point until we get something more sophisticated.

Second, as far as the AI in crewmates is concerned, I agree with the idea of having an NPC be the engineer / etc.  Some people might want to do that kind of job on a ship, but most likely won't - they'll want to be piloting or whatever.  NPCs could do those jobs (similar to how we as a society are planning on having robots do those kinds of jobs in the future).  In the example given, the AI should automatically realize that the engines are damaged and begin repairing them immediately, unless given prior (or countermanding) orders not to.  You never know, the captain may need those resources for the final laser shot to blast the enemy cruiser into the unknown...

We also need to plan for the flightsim, RTS, and FPS aspects, and the AI associated with them.  I already have some ideas for the RTS / FPS interaction, so I'll post those in a separate thread later.  As far as the AI goes for the current flightsim aspect, I'd say mcrobotics is on the right track.

~Brian

490

Precursors / We're still here

« on: July 08, 2005, 10:01:59 pm »

We know it's been pretty quiet on the main forums lately.  Just wanted to let everybody know that we're still here.  We've been hashing out what we want to do next and how we're going to fix some of the bugs that Precursors has at the moment.  But don't worry, we haven't forgotten about you!  We'll be going back through these forums to answer all your burning questions.  Stay tuned!

~contingencyplan

491

Precursors / Happy 4th of July people!

« on: July 04, 2005, 05:13:42 am »

Hey everybody,

Just wanted to wish y'all a happy 4th of July!  So what are y'all going to do - cookouts?  Parades?  Fireworks?

(perhaps we should make an off-topic forum for things like this?  Oh well.)

Everybody have a good day!
~Brian

492

Precursors / Experimental technologies?

« on: June 27, 2005, 03:52:54 pm »

Player gets in cockpit.

Player turns on engine.

Player's ship starts to fly.
Audience:  "ooooh..."

Player's ship sputters, then flies in a sudden burst of speed while spiraling uncontrollably.
Player's ship explodes into a fireball of death and destruction.
Player dies, has to recreate character from scratch (with a -10 INT for stupidity in the last life).
Audience: "WHOA, COOL!"

Sadistic?  You haven't seen sadistic...

Anyways.
~Brian

493

Precursors / Robots and Cyborgs

« on: June 27, 2005, 03:49:19 pm »

One thing I'd like to see would be robots and cyborgs.  While not necessarily a "race", and maybe not even a playable one, I think we might could add them into the game.

Robots are autonomous computer-controlled beings created by humans.  They are especially common in Terran-controlled areas - the government uses robots to do most jobs so its citizens have the time to pursue their own interests.  Much of the society is provided and cared for by robots.

The Terrans have advanced the research of robots considerably, and this is especially evident in their military.  Their smaller, simpler combat fighters, as well as non-combat freighters and cargo ships, are controlled by on-board AI.  They are also working on robots capable of making more advanced battlefield decisions, allowing them to use robot infantry units.  Prototype units are seeing limited combat with promising results.

I was even thinking we might have a race of robots, created by the Terrans, who gained self-awareness, rebelled, and fled their human creators.  No one knows what happened to them; there have been no reported sightings.  The Terran government chalked the incident off to "risks associated with robotics research" and declared the rogue robots destroyed when no trace of them was found.  Most have forgotten about them since, but they're still out there... somewhere...


Cyborgs are humans that have had much of their body replaced with cybernetic tissue.  We see some of this today (i.e., 21st century) with advances in robotic limbs for people missing a leg or an arm.  In the future, we might have robotic eyes or hearts or such.  Some, especially soldiers, who have had severe damage to their bodies have had a much larger portion of their body replaced, some to the point that the only organic, human part of their body is their brain - the rest is robotics (think Dragoons from Starcraft, but more human-looking).  The League has been researching this extensively - controlling electronics and cybernetic bodies directly via the brain.   They believe that consciousness defines life, so even if only the brain remains and the rest of the body is machine, the person is still alive.  Thus, they seek to protect and extend people's lives through the use of these cybernetic bodies.

They are also focussed on remote-controlling ships using this brain-machine interface.  They are now introducing prototype carriers with smaller ships that are controlled not by a pilot in a cockpit, but rather a pilot onboard the carrier controlling the ship remotely.  Ongoing experiments are seeking to interface larger fighters with their pilots through this brain-machine interface.

~Brian

494

Precursors / Experimental technologies?

« on: June 27, 2005, 11:24:20 am »

Looking over the technologies part of the storyline - black projects, horror stories, death and mayhem...  This gives me an idea:

What about these black projects?  Maybe we could give certain players (who have distinguished themselves or something) the option to participate in the experiments - with a high amount of risk vs. reward of course.  If the experiment goes wrong, then the player could potentially die.  However, if the experiment succeeds, they gain great recognition, and get a big reward (likely related to the experiment), in addition to a pretty big boost to their skills.  

The success would involve some amount of randomness, but would also rely heavily on the players' skills in research and the like.  Perhaps that could even be a specific skill area - Experimental Project Research or something like that.

~Brian

495

Precursors / Recent Sticky Posts

« on: June 25, 2005, 09:44:51 pm »

Ah, okay - I wasn't sure you wanted anybody to post on those, or whether those were considered more "official" documentation or something.

I'll post my ideas later tonight, hopefully.

496

Precursors / Player Creation

« on: June 22, 2005, 11:21:47 am »

Well, I can definitely see a use (and need, storyline-wise) for cybernetic implants.  If you've ever played Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, that's kinda what I'm thinking - have the ability to buy implants and install a finite number that give you enhanced / special abilities.  Roughly equivalent to buying magic in Planeshift, except we won't have mana.  Like I said, have connections built-in that allow you to interface easily and effectively with computers.  Or, reload faster or aim better.  

Perhaps the player could select what kinds of implants s/he would like to be able to use (e.g., certain connections in the brain, or in the arms, etc.), and maybe be able to receive a basic-level one at creation.  However, I would say save the best ones for shops and quests.

Another aspect (though not part of character creation) is what will be displayed on the inside of the visor in your helmet?  Presumably, everyone will wear a helmet with a visor or something like that.  Provides protection, of course, but also displays information, such as ammo, health, etc.  I'll likely put this in another topic.  So, how do we determine what is displayed on the visor and what is sent directly to the brain?  Perhaps something of both - if it's displayed on the visor, the visor is directly linked to the brain, so...

As far as genetic engineering, I can see the pros and cons to that.  But, if all 3 races are genetically modified humans, perhaps a player could choose:
[list=1]

• What race they are, and
• What genetic modification(s) they have, if any
[/list:o]
Certain genetic modifications could supplement certain abilities, like computer intuition (though I wouldn't want them to be the source of the intuition), just like certain implants would.

497

Precursors / Health

« on: June 22, 2005, 11:11:20 am »

Discussing the visor display gave me another question: How will we implement player health in the game, esp. in the FPS mode?  I'm not particularly in favor of a strictly health-points system, even if we have certain areas inflict more damage when hit (e.g., headshots, leg shots).  I think we could do something like Systems for the person him/herself: the legs provide the Service of movement, arms provide the service of aiming, etc.  When those get shot, they are typically damaged / disabled, and thus limit the abilities of the character.  The head / heart provide "life support" (literally), so if they're hit, you get deadded.  ;-)

What do you think?
~Brian

498

Precursors / Other options?

« on: June 22, 2005, 10:36:53 am »

Here's another couple of ideas that I had for Player creation.

What about genetic modifications?  By this time in the future, we should have a better understanding of the human genome, and may even be able to add characteristics like nightvision or things like that.

Additionally / alternately, what about cybernetic implants - things that help you think?  This might work well for a Field / Squad Commander, who switches from FPS to RTS view frequently.  This view could be switched and controlled directly via the brain, rather than having something like an arm-mounted device.

Perhaps we could have human-computer interfaces as well - this would definitely help enhance people's computer skills, since they can control a computer by thinking, rather than via physical devices (keyboards, mice, touchscreens, holograms, or whatever they're using 600 years from now).

What do y'all think?
~Brian

499

Precursors / Stock market?

« on: June 18, 2005, 02:37:57 pm »

Real economy - have a stock market?  That would be cool - esp. if you have real businesses that post profits, etc.

500

Precursors / Player Creation

« on: June 17, 2005, 02:17:38 pm »

Personally, my view on life is that just about any skill can be trained and knowledge can be learned, while talent / intuition cannot.  IMO, this would be a fairly good basis for character creation:

Let's take working on computers as an example.  I have a good, intuitive understanding of how computers (esp. software) work.  I can look at a program and to some degree see how it is working, what it's thinking.

However, I do not have all the knowledge I may need to fix a computer.  For a given problem, I have the intuitive understanding so I can understand the solution when I find it, but I lack the knowledge to have the solution ready to go.

On the other hand, given the right knowledge, any person can fix a single computer problem - all they need are the steps to follow.  However, if they lack an intuitive understanding of computers, they may not be able to modify those steps to solve a different (though perhaps similar or related) problem.  If someone's just following a manual to find the solution, then when a situation outside of the manual presents itself, the troubleshooter is lost.

So how does this relate to skill?  Skill comes when knowledge and intuition combine with use over time (perhaps even on a mathematical level).  I have an intuitive understanding of computers, and I have a fair-sized knowledge base to draw on.  Furthermore, I have worked with computers for a long time, and I have learned where I can find answers if I don't know what to do already.  I have honed my intuition and increased my knowledge by applying them over years.  Thus, I consider myself to be "skilled" with computers.

So how can we incoporate this into the game?  Well, let's say you're working on a computer fixing skill.  You have a datapad that you can use to download and learn new information - gain knowledge.  However, you must have an intuition in that skill area to be able to use your knowledge effectively.  And by using that skill more and more, you become more proficient at its use.  

Thus, when you use your computer skill, knowledge + intuition (+ time, maybe) determine whether you succeed in using it.  If you can succeed, the three combine to determine how long it takes you to accomplish the task.  

Btw: I think the inverse should be true as well - if you don't use your skills much, over time they begin to weaken.  This way we don't have any leetster "pwnzor of all teh trades" players.  

Perhaps we should also have a general "computer skill" that you can emphasize when creating your character, then have sub-categories underneath that (hacking, troubleshooting, etc.).  The intuition aspect applies to all, while the knowledge and time applies to the specific category.  

In short, anybody can learn to do something by gaining knowledge and spending time using the subject.  However, their "intuition" determines how successful they are in using that skill, both in areas within the subject that they are familiar with and in areas they are not.

My rambling thoughts on the subject. (I'm eating, working, and sleep-deprived while writing this post.  Interesting combination.)
~Brian