project-navigation
Personal tools

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Psawhn

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 14
76
Artwork / Re: UGV pod
« on: March 07, 2008, 07:49:37 pm »
I like it as it is, myself. I don't think dropping vehicles straight down is a problem, considering that in PHALANX use it's probably only ever attached to a STOVL aircraft - and the mission commander elects to only deploy it as the craft is landing or after landing. (As seen by game mechanics: The UGV starts with the rest of the squad at the start - you can't elect to drop it on a building or in another location before the mission begins.)

An alternate idea is to deploy the UGV on a platform with rails to ensure a clean separation from the pod at any speed. Throw on something like a drag chute to ensure it lands vertically and an airbag on the bottom of the platform to cushion landings, and you've got a delivery system that quickly and easily deploys the UGV at low altitudes at a wide range of speeds. (This also eliminates need for extra modelling, as all mechanisms are internal.)

I also realized that the communications gear is probably a relay between the smaller wireless comms on the UGV within battlefield ranges, and the much more powerful satellite systems on the dropship.

77
Artwork / Re: MIMIR Telescope/Carrier Animation
« on: March 07, 2008, 07:29:40 pm »
The grid effect was an experiment. I guess it didn't go over too well. Here's a try with the grid set to only 10% opacity.
The timer was also originally in realtime. (Useless trivia: the camera orbits the Earth in realtime, too.) I sped it up x3 as you asked.

https://webdisk.ucalgary.ca/~djetowns/public_html/misc_files/UFO_AI/MIMIR_final14_0001_0940.avi

You can still go ahead and be really picky if you want. ;) For instance, there's a weird star shape in the second sequence (that can be called a nebula). and the clouds seem to disappear for some reason.

78
Artwork / Re: MIMIR Telescope/Carrier Animation
« on: February 29, 2008, 09:43:21 pm »
Here's the newest version. I still have to figure out how to fix those weird star shapes, but overall it's probably almost ready.
https://webdisk.ucalgary.ca/~djetowns/public_html/misc_files/UFO_AI/MIMIR_final13_0001_0920.avi

The weird static is actually caused by the xvid compression. The raw files look more like this:

I actually kinda like the distorted look of the compressed version, but I admit I don't know what rewind-static would actually look like with digital video.


I also just realized I made the timer compressed during the fast-rewind, but I forgot to reverse the timer! :P I'll fix that right away.

Edit: Fixed timer:
https://webdisk.ucalgary.ca/~djetowns/public_html/misc_files/UFO_AI/MIMIR_final13b_0001_0940.avi

79
Artwork / Re: Models Needed
« on: February 29, 2008, 08:19:35 pm »
How about doing best of both worlds? Leave the current thread as it is, but add the needed models into the sticky as well. That way, you catch both groups of people. :P

It does mean twice as much work, though, when the hordes of modelers start finishing projects and you need to update the 'completed' status of each one. :)


Edit: On the UGV pods, I always had in mind that they'd land with the aircraft and open up to allow the UGV to drive off. If it's dropped before landing, then there's the possibility of damaging the UGV from the fall or from the dropship landing on it. It also wouldn't need communication gear: the hardpoint would transfer all applicable telemetry to/from the UGV/Pod/Dropship.

80
Feature Requests / Re: Scientist skill feature suggestion
« on: February 18, 2008, 08:12:08 pm »
Thinking about it, in real life having different people from different backgrounds on a project has the potential to increase, instead, the research speed. With different backgrounds, they can look at a problem from many different vantage points and catch things the others wouldn't have thought of.

For example: the current description of plasma rifles. Sure, it seems like its all high-energy physics and magnetic fields and thermodynamic plasma fields and stuff. However, it'd likely be someone like a biotechnologist who discovers one of the key parts of the rifle: the spinners that make the plastic shells.

That's an argument against separate skills, but I do like the idea of separate scientist skills. I get the impression that the range would only be, say, 80% to 120% of average - so if you don't pay attention you won't notice a difference, but if you manage things right you'd get small bonuses to research production. In fact, if you only research one item at a time with all your scientists, there'd be essentially no difference at all. The only way to get this bonus would be to split projects up into teams.


Example:
Suppose there are two projects that need 800 research points to complete, but one is a biology project, the other is physics. You have four scientists: Two with 60bio/40phys, and two with 40bio/60phys.

In a four-man team, the scientists have a total of 200bio and 200physics, so researching each project would take 4 days. Researching both projects would take 8 days. This is the exact same situtation that we have now (each scientist gives an equal value).

In a two-man team the bioscientists would have a total of 120 bio points, and research the bio project in 6.7 days.
The same thing happens to your physicists: They can research 120 points together, and finish the physics project in 6.7 days.
In this case, the two teams will finish at the same time.

If the physics project was a vital armour that you need to get on your troops ASAP, you'd stick all four labcoats on it, so you can finish it in 4 days. However, the next project done will take another 4 days to complete.
If your goal is to research the entire tech tree as quickly as possible, then it's best to split your projects into smaller teams (even if you only have 4 guys available). You'd have to wait an extra couple days for your first tech to come out, but the second tech will be done a day ahead of of if you just tasked all your guys on them both.

This way, players are rewarded for thinking ahead and micromanaging, without forcing them to or penalizing them if they don't. In fact, it's a trade-off between getting a project done now, or getting more projects done sooner later on.

81
Design / Re: Managing Mundane vs. Cutting Edge Gear and Equipment
« on: February 17, 2008, 11:11:15 pm »
Ok so I have to remove the dust on my Linux partition  ;D


Or just install OO for windows. :) Took me less than 5 minutes.

82
Design / Re: Aliens in player's team
« on: February 17, 2008, 10:12:44 pm »
You can select an alien team for multiplayer, but I think that's the only way to see an alien inside a blue/green circle.

83
Design / Re: Managing Mundane vs. Cutting Edge Gear and Equipment
« on: February 17, 2008, 10:10:41 pm »
Yes, it's an openoffice document.

Some comments:

The Stiletto is the smaller, cheaper knife-fighter developed by Phalanx. The Saracen is a long distance, hypersonic interceptor developed by another country. Their prices should probably be switched about.
Similarly, the cost of a Firebird seems a bit cheap to me. Most bases will only have one, maybe two, Firebirds, with few replacements as they're not meant to come up against UFOs. I've always seen transport ships as a significant investment to bring a base up to mission-capable status.
Actually, squeeze the three aircraft's prices together so the most expensive is no more than $10,000,000 or so than the least expensive. The Saracen could be maybe 4 to 6 million more than a Stiletto, which is again 4 to 6 more than a Firebird.

The grenades seem too cheap by about an order of magnitude, compared with the gun prices. Maybe values like:
Flashbang: $175
IC Grenade: $275
Frag: $225
Smoke: $200


Maybe squeeze the ammo prices together a bit. $60 for a pistol round (old, but with super-high-velocity powder) vs. 450 for a SMG mag (which is a 50 year old design). Maybe reduce the spread a bit to $80 - $240, and drop the SMG to fit in the middle-lower end. Sniper and MG ammo should be good at the high end of $240. Flamethrower ammo might drop down around $260-$320, just to keep it competitive.
The combat knife could be halved or even quartered - it's a last-resort melee weapon, and forging a solid blade of steel/ceramic should be incredibly cheap for postmodern production.

Weapon prices themselves seem pretty good, along with base facility prices.

Maybe increase the cost of missiles a tad, and double the ECM and ECCM (Raven and Targetting Computer) Aircraft expansions - those are likely only bought once per each aircraft. Maybe also decrease the cost of Shiva rounds.


*I should note that I'm basing these modifications based on feel, not game balance, unlike FrancoC's work.

Aside from that, everything looks nice. I really like seeing those lots of zeroes at the tail end of aircraft and base facilities :D.

Something I noticed when seeing the big lists of numbers, was that it actually isn't hard to compare between the numbers. Numbers can be divided into their approximate magnitudes, and comparisons are only valid within a single bracket. For example, it's useless to compare something that costs $2,000 with something that costs $42,000, because unless you're doing work that'd need a calculator, you can just assume that $2,000 is as good as zero compared with the higher order number.


Some other things I was noticing about a number scale like this:

Aircraft costs, while realistic at the multi-million dollar range (and I love seeing those big zeroes), may make the cost of losing aircraft in interceptions so expensive as to discourage any interceptions at all - a single lost aircraft might be most of the monthly budget. Aircraft may need a Rent/Lease system (much like the original X-COM), so the loss of an aircraft you only spent $600,000 on for the past few months is easier to swallow than a lump sum of fifteen million dollars. This also provides an incentive to switch to researched aircraft - much lower monthly fees, at the cost of an up-front manufacturing cost and the requirement of antimatter to fuel your planes.

The costs are divided into 3 groups matching the three areas of gameplay: Tactical ground combat, Tactical air combat, and Strategic Base Management. The player will likely make no cost comparisons between any item in one group with an item in another group. Only Strategic Base management has single prices that exceed $1,000,000. Under that ceiling, it's easier to estimate the magnitude of a price by simply glancing at the number's length. Ie: 5200 vs 51000. There aren't too many zeroes to confuse the player.
Columns, and comma/decimal separators, make the price comparisons almost trivial.

Having the prices divided into three groups like this does make troop equipment practically free. Combined with unlimited stocks as suggested in the first post would mean the player hardly has to worry at all about making sure the equipment for the troops are there, with the exception of planning ahead for transfer times. Different people will probably see this as a good thing or a bad thing for gameplay.

Expensive tactical equipment is not listed. UGVs and alien weapons will likely cross the price group lines.

84
Discussion / Re: Grenade Launcher
« on: February 17, 2008, 08:31:48 pm »
Being able to select the low-angle or high-angle solution to the parabolic curve would be very useful for thrown grenades as well.

Back to the original idea of increasing grenade range: I was just thinking that would change it to become more of a tactical artillery weapon, because of the small map sizes. :P

85
Design / Re: Damage types
« on: February 16, 2008, 05:15:03 am »
I think the word you're looking for is "blunt." ;) That seems to me to be the right word for batons and rifle butts.

And at first glance, combining damage types seems only applicable to explosive weapons.

Luckily, combining damage types is simplified because armour failure is not modeled. There is no question of "do we apply the 15DMG of Blunt first then the 40DMG of Blast second, or the other way around?" because there is no difference. (Well, in either case they'd be modified by resistance first, then added and applied to armour and health).

86
Design / Re: Managing Mundane vs. Cutting Edge Gear and Equipment
« on: February 16, 2008, 05:07:38 am »
Or, to make everything incredibly confusing, use metric suffixes! :P

$71,200,000 becomes 72.2 Mc (megacredits),
$512,000 becomes 512 Kc (kilocredits), and the yearly expenditure of
$8,987,559,000 becomes 8.987559 Gc (gigacredits)!
And the sweetener for the morning coffee adds an extra 300mc (microcredits) to the price of a 1.5c (credit) coffee.
Those numbers become fun to compare. :D


Nah, seriously, I do think that the player would be more immersed if the numbers were either on the low end or the high end. On the low end, a state of the art laboratory cost of 120 credits is obviously not $120, but representing something like $12,000,000 or even $120,000,000. In the middle ground, a player might just believe he's buying that laboratory for $12,000 or $120,000.

But on the other hand, using denominations such that the cost of the cheapest purchasable item (pistol clips) is in the single digits, to me that reduces believability. "Why is pistol ammo conveniently at $1.00, and Assault rifle ammo $2.00?" I'd wonder. Better to leave Terran firearm ammo (or even most guns themselves) free and subsidized by the U.N.

87
Artwork / Re: Symbols for the geoscape
« on: February 15, 2008, 10:36:42 pm »
If the engine supported it, would an animated texture like this work?

https://webdisk.ucalgary.ca/~djetowns/public_html/misc_files/UFO_AI/xvi_test1_0001_0125.avi

(Yay procedural texture animation. :) )

88
Design / Re: Managing Mundane vs. Cutting Edge Gear and Equipment
« on: February 15, 2008, 10:14:44 pm »
Yes, this is definitely some well-needed and appreciated work.

Another idea is just to increase the cost of items all around the board, such that it really does feel like you're running a multi-million dollar international organization. Base modules could cost millions to build, instead of a few hundred thousand. Aircraft would cost several million each.

But I haven't given that enough thought to see if it would balance well with other, lesser things, such as weapons and ammo, and salaries. You'd have better experience to know. :)

89
Discussion / Re: A few suggestions and thoughts.
« on: February 15, 2008, 07:36:26 pm »
I also agree that the mouseover-hidden buttons for Base, Statistics, and Ufopaedia are very bad design. In fact, many parts of the game need a UI makeover.

90
Discussion / Re: Melee attacks -- roadmap?
« on: February 15, 2008, 07:34:42 pm »
Something really neat would be if certain weapons could be used as a defensive reaction to melee attacks. Someone with a rifle, knife, monoblade, kerrblade, or stunrod would attempt to parry or block an incoming melee attack, independent of reaction fire. Of course, blocking a kerrblade with a sniper rifle would probably break the rifle, but that would give another reason to equip secondary weapons.
(Skills involved would be Speed and CC vs. Strength and CC)

Of course, that's a somewhat drastic gameplay change, and much harder than simply adding a normal attack firemode to weapons.

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 14