 |
| First Attempt Tech Tree Interface |
Aside from preparing a demo for this year's FIG Boston, this week I started work on Tech Trees.
Tech Trees will work similarly to skill trees found in most RPGs: players will periodically get to unlock technologies that lie along various research branches. Technologies give bonuses to various ship functions and/or unlock new ship modules. For example, before players can build missile modules for their ship they'll need to research the appropriate technology. Once they have missiles, new technologies may give them longer range, more powerful warheads, better target seeking, etc.
Starcom: Nexus will use a slightly different system than the standard "leveling up" found in most RPGs. To research technologies, players spend Research Points. Research Points will be earned by observing and doing new things: seeing a star nova at close range, destroying an Omen missile frigate, or befriending an alien race. The players will only get the RP the first time they "observe" and event.
The idea is to have a system that rewards exploration over grinding. There may be some grindy aspects if a research event isn't 100% guaranteed to "drop," but generally players will be encouraged to seek out and explore strange new things, even if they aren't tied into the main story line.
Even though I've made progress, there's still some open questions on how Tech Trees will work, such as how much information players start with about the various tech paths:
- Does the entire tech tree start visible, with players being able to see every future research and its benefits? This is typically how skill trees work and lets players aim for specific technologies they want, but removes some of the mystery.
- Do players see all of certain tech lines, with other lines being hidden until the player has unlocked certain prerequisite techs. This lets players aim for specific weapon/defense builds, but with the possibility that other surprise options will open up.
- Do players only see the immediately accessible tech nodes, withe future nodes becoming visible when their prerequisites have been completed?
Obviously if the tech trees are predetermined, the mystery only exists the first time the player plays (or until she or he unlocks all techs), but an important design goal for the game is to give the player a strong sense of exploration and discovery.
Ideas? Opinions? Leave a comment.
Looks Good
ReplyDeleteI liked the way that you could potentially learn new tech by studying the odd pieces you picked up from wreckage in the first game, and I hope to see that continued. I tend to be completist, so I'd want to be able to get everything eventually, but it's nice to have little odd surprises thrown in. It adds replay value for nitpickers like me: maybe I don't chance upon those high-powered lasers quite so early this play-through, so I've got to re-think my strategy.
ReplyDeleteAs far as tech trees go, I'm not sure how far in-depth you want to develop the idea, but instead of researching specific technologies, why not research more general fields, with the goal of the tech being an application of what is learned in those fields?
For example, if you research propulsion, you learn to make better engines so your ship can go faster, but you also learn how to make your missiles faster, too, because it seems intuitive that those things ought to be related.
Or maybe it doesn't have to be obvious: suppose you try reverse-engineering that cool, souped-up, alien shield module, thinking that it'll boost your research in defense. You find out that it's incompatible with your systems (at least for now) because you don't know how to control those kinds of energies in a stable shield--but then some bright boy in R & D figures that if you decide you're not looking for control and stability, that module makes a great way to double the output of your plasma weapons.
I like little unexpected ideas like that; it adds something to the depth of the story to have your research jump down odd turns.
That's a good point, the tech tree lines may not be so straight forward as "plasma weapons" with every advance being distinct to plasma weapons.
DeleteIt's a trade-off between mystery and transparency. On the one hand, it's fun to be surprised, but on the other hand players will probably want to aim for specific ship capabilities.
Right now I'm leaning toward players being able to see one or two nodes past what they've currently researched, plus some tech lines that need to be unlocked before they can start research, e.g., by finding a specific artifact.
Thanks for the suggestions!
The third option sound best because I'd definitely replay the the game
ReplyDeleteFollowing on from K's suggestion, maybe have general research, general research within a field, targetted research within the field, and straight up targetted research.
ReplyDeleteGeneral research would be the cheapest, but you'd have no idea of the outcome. GR within a field be slightly more expensive to represent hiring specialists, and you'd have an idea what you'd get based on the field you are studying. TR within a field be more expensive still due to hiring and going down some blind alleys, and you'd have a general idea of what you'd get from it. The straight up TR would get you exactly what you wanted, but would be very expensive (hiring, blind alleys, failed prototypes).
For example you could have: Research, Plasma Physics Research, Plasma Weapons Research, and Research Heavy Plasma Cannon.
On the flip side, you could also have success rates: Normal success, Breakthrough, and Paradigm Shift.
Normal Success is just that, normal success, and you get something. A Breakthrough could get you the item and list of possible other applications, and maybe a spinoff technology. A Paradigm Shift could get you the stuff a Breakthrough does plus either open up new fields of study or get a larger list of possible applications.
The TR would have the lowest Breakthrough and Paradigm Shift rates. The TR within a field would have slight better Breakthrough and Paradigm Shift rates. The GR within a field would have average Breakthrough and Paradigm Shift rates. The plain GR would have the the highest Breakthrough and Paradigm Shift rates.
In advance, my condolences for time spent reading this comment.
ReplyDeleteSequoiasaur has presented something rather interesting in my opinion but we may want to remember that research doesn't always yield such radically successful results, or anything truly practical. New technologies are always the most expensive as well. Could end up costing more in the end or being an inefficient build until looked into again or further, with a little more understanding after the fact.
I agree that researching propulsion and such should be potentially useful for anything that really moves in space. Same with material research and energy containment/generation being useful for making things of different substances and power outputs(such as armor or shields, reactor, weapons). All grounded in science if we can have that, and likewise having properties and potential trade-offs that make sense.
And while I briefly mentioned the premise of moving in space, permit me to say that there is no turning without thrusters that face in lateral dimensions. No amount of wing or fin turning will change the course of an object while it propels itself with a main thruster. This means that missiles would actually need at least four thrusters to be effective in a three dimensional space environment(a powerful one on the rear thrusting it forward towards a target, and- at the very least- three equally distanced, triangularly placed maneuvering thrusters which thrust laterally near the front to redirect the force and direction of all that mass(plus it aims the actual pursuit engine in the back). Any spacefaring vessels would require similar thrusters for maneuvering as well(probably more though) and thrusters that discharge in the opposite face of the rear ones are needed to achieve reverse thrust. Starcom had turning thrusters on the player controlled ship(loved it) but not on any other object that I saw. Everything ever in space actually needs these.
Beyond this, actual science(which most games happily ignore for the sake of ease and gameplay) dictates that a huge capital ship battlecruiser whatever that has massive engines to lumber itself around will actually be able to outrun anything with a propulsion force of lesser magnitude. This would conventionally mean that a cruiser would outrun and destroyer and anything smaller, as well as missiles, simply because of physics. However, the cruiser would also has greater mass which makes acceleration in any direction require more force, which potentially means it will steer like a cow(if the thrusters are not actually proportioned for the vessel sensibly). In order to fire any type of weapon at another 'whatever' that happens to move, you'll need to give it an acceleration(force divided by mass) that exceeds the targets maximum. So if a missile happened to have greater output in relation to its mass than a cruisers output related to its mass, that missile would be able to catch it and make impact. Same with a fighter outpacing a destroyer- they just need greater acceleration(which is honestly very hard to achieve unless you go ham on the engines of an interceptor so that you can outrun a frigate). Almost always, a larger ship will be able to reach higher accelerations due to having a larger engine. Yet of course there are exceptions and ways to make that not the case. Reaching a certain precipice of mass(uber huge) the engines would reach sizes so ludicrous that it would probably cost more than feasible to field in space, just to move it, and then moreso to try having capture speeds for hunting down runners.
So in conclusion, science. Science is a thing in space and I'd very much love to see it.
TL;DR Physics
I do not mean to sound particularly douchebag at all but I really do like realism. A whole mighty lot. And most people have taken general physics so I am not patronizing anyone. Or at least I hope not.
Keep it up Kevin.
This was part of the original one but there is a character limit, haha.
DeletePhysics demonstrates that ballistic weaponry(both explosive and material based) are actually more efficient mediums of destructive energy tranfer. Sending a projectile with a certain force will typically transfer kinetic energy with less energy waste than a laser or plasma projectile would. So if one unit of energy was used making a plasma bolt versus one unit used for launching a particularly sized projectile, more of that one unit would be wasted in making the bolt. The kinetic tranfer is "cleaner" in its simplistic ways. But you know, ammunition. No one likes running out. With that in mind though, gas particles and ions are needed for certain energy weapons as well, so ammunition doesn't always disappear when energy weapons are used. As well as other things needed to do energy weps. Plus 'energy' weapons are still kinetic energies in the world of science, really. But eh, in game making I lack the credentials and I my sccientific knowledge is not exactly mind-blowing. Just I really like it all.
For suggested weapons,
--Lasers are awesome and I do love me some red lasers(though red is a lower energy wavelength than blue or green)
--Ion launchers(which are really just plasma guns(charged ions from heated gas or other methods). Cannons, projectors, guns. Names are irrelevant except for style points. Rad gnarly.
--Material Drivers. Rail/Coil/Gauss/Particle Projection/Magnetic- firing slugs with energy usage as well. The happy medium of balistics and energy weapons. Charged particles, payload bearing projectiles, solid shells for piercing; the possibilitues are endless. Again, Cannon/Rifle/Gun/Driver -- the name is all style score.
--Good old fashioned combustion guns. Shells that throw a payload or slug with the explosive breakdown of chemical substance in a concentrated direction. Never fails.
--Spaceships. Because fork the other guys day. Managing to ram a detroyer into a large battlecruiser at re-enter-the-atmosphere speeds would probably do some devastation to quite a few systems and whichever parts get hit, maybe tear it apart completely. And likewise with any object, really. Physics.
--Thermal radiation. From lasers, plamsa ions, projectile impact friction, chemical substance burning, electical current and discharge, whatever it may be, thermal energy is a pretty hot idea. Heat it up.
--Antimatter. Warheads, reactors, electromagnetic suspension fields to hurl it at someone. But what color is it?
--Atomic Particles. Protons, electrons, neutrons, other things I lack specific knowledge about. Do things in powerful destrctive or productive ways for the way of the future.
--Many more. All aboard the Imagination Station to orbit the moons of creation. Science fiction means that you can probably make space magic and no one can argue.
And of course these concepts all have brutally vast applications and variations, not just weaponized. So many different types.
--Radiation never bothers anyone in space either so, nuclear fusion and fission bombs.
I also personally really like the old HUD you had in Starcom. The side bar made visuals in every direction equal(something that makes more sense than being able to see more on the left and right of the screen(unless first peron shooter)) while housing an adaptable radar display, information screen, and ship status readouts. Loved it and I think it made Starcom feel like Starcom. The whole thing meant that there was no actual screen pollution and all functions were served comfortably.
Perhaps others feel this way also.