Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 10:10 pm
Me no like idea,
Why not?HSharp wrote:QUOTE (HSharp @ Mar 9 2009, 06:10 PM) Me no like idea,
Page 3 of 6
Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 10:46 pm
Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 10:54 pm
Arson_Fire wrote:QUOTE (Arson_Fire @ Mar 9 2009, 12:36 AM) Graphics mods, people would reskin all ships to have white textures. Good luck hiding then. Sure those files could be locked down by ASGS but then that would kill all the legitimate mods like the texture upgrades.
Even then there are probably other ways to make ships more visible.
Assuming the cloak would make ships invisible to the eye, you would have to give it to every base killing ship for them to be viable (bomber, HTT, tp2 scout even).
Anything could scout map or spot bases so scouts wouldn't really be scouts anymore, their main purpose would be spotting cloaked ships.
The only way I could see this having even the slightest chance of working is to give everything cloaks and greatly increase the number of rocks in a sector to hide behind.
This doesn't even start to cover it really, the idea is gamebreaking and by the time you got it playable I doubt it would be recognizable as allegiance anymore.
Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 11:22 pm
I think it is absolutely critical to point out that nebula do not work that way. They seem like pretty clouds of gas from hundreds of light-years away, but the gas is actually very sparse, and if you were inside of one, you wouldn't even be able to tell. Of course, in real life asteroid fields are really sparse too, and you'd seldom be able to see two rocks at the same time, so, I'm not really sure why I felt the need to point this out. 6_6 BUT I DID.Alien51 wrote:QUOTE (Alien51 @ Mar 8 2009, 06:35 PM) Fog in space doesn't make sense you say... Just search Space Clouds, Nebula, or the like. Space has everything.
OH, more relevantly, YES, your original idea would indeed provide an alternative to sensors. Your later, less extreme idea with a limited visual range would have less of an impact. I still think extending visual range to a full kilometre would have too much of an impact, since that's a sizeable distance, but if it was a few hundred metres, it would, I think, add something pretty and cool to the game without weakening the need for sensors or otherwise detracting from it too much. >_> But your original idea, especially if combined with white textures that are repeatedly mentioned by others here (and remember, as things are now anyone can use any textures they want for any ship in the game just by changing some files on their computer, and changing this comes with its own problems), would mean you could tell where something is without it being in sensor range, which makes sig. percentages less useful. I know your original post basically asked the question of how to balance this, but I think the answer, of necessity, would be, "not easily." Basically you'd have to change the gameplay around so that visual identification of enemy objects, and visually hiding your own, would play a big role, and find some way of balancing this. Mind you, that could be fun in itself, but it changes something of a basic premise of Allegiance. It'd be more like a new game. Also I second the comment that Allegiance is not a jet dogfighting game or some such. I, personally, never much liked games like that, but I love Allegiance. Others may disagree, but in my opinion, Allegiance is a real-time strategy game where you get to participate in the action first-hand, more than it is a jet fighting game with RTS elements. A "fog of war" of some sort that makes things outside of sensor range completely invisible is usually necessary for RTS gameplay...
Mind you, I do actually like the idea of things within a few hundred meters being visually "there" regardless of sensors (mostly I just think there's a "cool factor" involved, and it's a bit more "realistic" to be able to see things that are right next to you, if you care about that sort of stuff), and I'd vote "for" that if there was a poll or something. But, I think you'd have to start a new discussion, since everyone here would focus on your original idea, and you'd still have the problem that it'd probably be a pretty massive code change, and while it wouldn't change game balance as much as your original idea, it'd still change it a bit, and, while some might like the change, it's still likely that many would not -- and some would simply fail to see any substantial benefit, and ask, "why bother?"
Of course, if you learn programming and try to write the code yourself, you'd be awesome.
Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 2:46 am
With the Space Clouds, Nebulas, and such thing... I was going on deductive reasoning. If there are particles of the gases we find here on earth in space, then why could we not find someplace in space where a lot of them are collected? Such as a Space Cloud. But enough of that, that was merely a suggestion to balance the original idea.
About the Custom Skins thing. I originally thought of adding the bulleted point, "What about Hackers?". Referring to those who would make custom skins for the sake of contrast and easier visibility. But I just kinda figured that if the idea was implemented that would be one of the first issues to be resolved. It's a huge problem in the FPS world.
Now that I think about the realistic aspect of the "Seeing everything at all ranges", it does seem rather stupid. Right now the sensor system is pretty darn balanced, if not perfect. Seeing further than your sensors doesn't make much sense. And the only way to make the original idea balanceable would be to create 100,000m sectors, if not larger, while keeping the sensor system (and other things) at the same ratio, as you said earlier.
I guess what is bugging me is that most everyone who responded "failed to see any substantial benefit". I think that the benefits are great and obvious.
About the Custom Skins thing. I originally thought of adding the bulleted point, "What about Hackers?". Referring to those who would make custom skins for the sake of contrast and easier visibility. But I just kinda figured that if the idea was implemented that would be one of the first issues to be resolved. It's a huge problem in the FPS world.
Now that I think about the realistic aspect of the "Seeing everything at all ranges", it does seem rather stupid. Right now the sensor system is pretty darn balanced, if not perfect. Seeing further than your sensors doesn't make much sense. And the only way to make the original idea balanceable would be to create 100,000m sectors, if not larger, while keeping the sensor system (and other things) at the same ratio, as you said earlier.
I guess what is bugging me is that most everyone who responded "failed to see any substantial benefit". I think that the benefits are great and obvious.
Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 2:56 am
No, yeah, it could definitely be fun, but maybe in a different game... >_>
^_^
^_^
Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 3:12 am
I tried to think about a way to make it work that would be hackproof, easy to change and also wouldn't remove interesting part of allegiance gameplay. I didn't find any.
Making stuff visible at 1k would be too far imo. 200-300m could be interesting, but I beleive there's more important stuff to work on.
Making stuff visible at 1k would be too far imo. 200-300m could be interesting, but I beleive there's more important stuff to work on.
Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 3:22 am
Games where it is easy to spot others visually are terribly boring combat-wise. I've found games with low visibility but other alternate ways to detect players are more interesting - just making everyone visible would severely detract from gameplay. I guarantee that if I bound the cockpit view keys that no SF would ever be able to sneak within 2000m of a miner without me noticing it. In your posts you're basically saying "I know this one change will unbalance a whole @#(!load of stuff but let's do it and rebalance all the other stuff too." ie "You're right girlyboy, it would be a "huge change that weakens an aspect of Allegiance that, right now is a very fun part of gameplay..." That's why I proposed we discuss how it could be balanced or w/e so that it would add this new dimension without taking out the "information warfare"." Well then you might as well just remake the game.
The human eye is more high-tech and skilled at locating and differentiating objects than any visual recognition system yet invented so don't expect ship sensors to do any better.
If you want a BS sci-fi reason for why you can't see people ( these are always easy to come up with - Star Trek anyone? ) then let's say your cockpit is not encased in glass like you expect in an atmospheric vessel but is actually a wrap-around screen with known objects projected onto it.
Semi-unrelated: I've always liked the passive/active detection system but I think alleg's system is very clever and adds to gameplay, so passive/active won't add much - but it would be really cool to be able to eye a bbr and not have him realize it
---Love the dashes - yeah
The human eye is more high-tech and skilled at locating and differentiating objects than any visual recognition system yet invented so don't expect ship sensors to do any better.
If you want a BS sci-fi reason for why you can't see people ( these are always easy to come up with - Star Trek anyone? ) then let's say your cockpit is not encased in glass like you expect in an atmospheric vessel but is actually a wrap-around screen with known objects projected onto it.
Semi-unrelated: I've always liked the passive/active detection system but I think alleg's system is very clever and adds to gameplay, so passive/active won't add much - but it would be really cool to be able to eye a bbr and not have him realize it
---Love the dashes - yeah
Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 7:18 am
On the subject of 'space fog' here is a mission from Freespace 2.
It might be interesting to have some sectors fogged up in a similar way (I don't think realism is an issue here). Dogfighting would be more challenging if you can only just see your opponents outline, and rocks would actually pose a threat to people boosting through the sector.
It would be a nice alternative to those 'dark sectors' and could be the middle ground we are looking for.
Heh, just remembered the later missions in the nebula where there are EMP storms messing with your HUD. Parts of it are flickering on and off every few seconds, your targeting system barely works and incoming text messages have random portions replaced by dashes. Far too extreme for allegiance but it's a fun thought.
It might be interesting to have some sectors fogged up in a similar way (I don't think realism is an issue here). Dogfighting would be more challenging if you can only just see your opponents outline, and rocks would actually pose a threat to people boosting through the sector.
It would be a nice alternative to those 'dark sectors' and could be the middle ground we are looking for.
Heh, just remembered the later missions in the nebula where there are EMP storms messing with your HUD. Parts of it are flickering on and off every few seconds, your targeting system barely works and incoming text messages have random portions replaced by dashes. Far too extreme for allegiance but it's a fun thought.
Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 7:33 am
I second that. Freespace 2 was awesome, and the nebula missions were some of the best, esp. because of the atmosphere (heh) they created.
I wanted to say it'd be cool if such "nebula" sectors interfered with sensors too (like a reverse sensor GA for all ships in the sector), but then I realised that'd make defending any base in such a sector near impossible, since bases are "discovered" and you only have to eye them once, while attacking bombers would be hidden by the "fog" (and even if the "discovery" of bases could somehow be turned off, it'd be easy for someone using F3 to memorize the location/give the team a waypoint). Even as a purely visual effect it'd be neat, though.
For the matter of realism, which for some reason I keep caring about, I just keep imagining that sectors in Allegiance aren't "normal" space, but some sort of weird space-time "bubbles," which could be filled with asteroid debris or, I suppose, gas (also why they have a defined shape and ships explode outside of them, and why physics work "differently.")
I wanted to say it'd be cool if such "nebula" sectors interfered with sensors too (like a reverse sensor GA for all ships in the sector), but then I realised that'd make defending any base in such a sector near impossible, since bases are "discovered" and you only have to eye them once, while attacking bombers would be hidden by the "fog" (and even if the "discovery" of bases could somehow be turned off, it'd be easy for someone using F3 to memorize the location/give the team a waypoint). Even as a purely visual effect it'd be neat, though.
For the matter of realism, which for some reason I keep caring about, I just keep imagining that sectors in Allegiance aren't "normal" space, but some sort of weird space-time "bubbles," which could be filled with asteroid debris or, I suppose, gas (also why they have a defined shape and ships explode outside of them, and why physics work "differently.")