StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Stark wrote:yeah homeworld is so forgotten and neglected

does anyone even remember it

In terms of having actual 3D space battles, yeah. I can't think of anything recently that's got it. I don't mean the games are forgotten per se, just some of the stuff they had. Hell, Warzone 2100 was pretty much an evolution of TA, albeit with a 'unit limit' something I heard rumours of in TA, but never found evidence for.

well the 3d thing was pretty much worthless or annoying at best

what you should REALLY be asking is why it took A FUCKING DECADE for anyone to steal the 'press space to go to giant huge map of whole map on screen' feature

which some rts's that have been made STILL DON'T FUCKING HAVE i shit you not

and if you never hit the unit limit in ta you weren't building enough turrets

I think at last count my unit limit was in the 10000 region. I find that with only a few dozen Intimidators, you've got a pretty decent line. Course, then you've got the Punishers, GAATs and nuclear land mines infront of them, but that's still only a few hundred, tops.

Oh, and why did it take A FUCKING DECADE for anyone to steal the 'press space to go to giant huge map of whole map on screen' feature?

I loved the homeworld series. The spacebar map toggle was pretty much the way early predecessor of supcom's strategic zoom. Stealing enemy units was always hilarious and awesome, especially taking those taiidan heavy cruisers.

Vanas wrote:I think at last count my unit limit was in the 10000 region. I find that with only a few dozen Intimidators, you've got a pretty decent line. Course, then you've got the Punishers, GAATs and nuclear land mines infront of them, but that's still only a few hundred, tops.

Oh, and why did it take A FUCKING DECADE for anyone to steal the 'press space to go to giant huge map of whole map on screen' feature?

Aw shit. Now you're reminding me of all the things SupCom lost over TA... No land mines; no floating dragons' teeth, no floating resource structures... shit, they even lost the underwater metal extractors. -_-;

Hawkwings wrote:I loved the homeworld series. The spacebar map toggle was pretty much the way early predecessor of supcom's strategic zoom. Stealing enemy units was always hilarious and awesome, especially taking those taiidan heavy cruisers.

uh... it's exactly the same as 'strategic zoom' which is just a stupid modern marketing term applied to a decade-old feature

oh except it uses really terrible icons for the smaller units lol

Stark wrote:

Hawkwings wrote:I loved the homeworld series. The spacebar map toggle was pretty much the way early predecessor of supcom's strategic zoom. Stealing enemy units was always hilarious and awesome, especially taking those taiidan heavy cruisers.

uh... it's exactly the same as 'strategic zoom' which is just a stupid modern marketing term applied to a decade-old feature

oh except it uses really terrible icons for the smaller units lol

to be fair supcom does implement it slightly differently, instead of it being a distinctly different view it's just "keep zooming out until you see the whole map, lol"


that said I never really got much into actual stock HW, I could never get into (read: be any good at) the real game so I either dicked around in AI skirmishes building LOL HEAVY CRUISERS or played the Star Trek mod


i was really sad when almost all the modders gave up on HW2 because I think HW2 has a pretty good-looking engine




speaking of which I had another thought about "what would make a good space fleet combat game" (but I didn't want to bump my old thread cause I didn't want someone bitching at me for necro even though this doesn't really warrant a second thread on it) and that was that starfighters could have an ammo system (and a fairly loose fuel system too) that requires them to replenish at a carrier or something, that way you can theoretically have effective starfighters without being able to just spam a billion fighters and bombers and roam the entire map with it owning everything you come across

"oh okay cool your massively expensive bomber swarm just took out my battleship, guess my destroyers here will just kill your carrier while they're reloading, gg"

it would probably be one of those things that's a total bitch to balance correctly but whatever


is that a decent idea or is there something i'm missing




EDIT:

Vanas wrote:I think at last count my unit limit was in the 10000 region. I find that with only a few dozen Intimidators, you've got a pretty decent line. Course, then you've got the Punishers, GAATs and nuclear land mines infront of them, but that's still only a few hundred, tops.

Oh, and why did it take A FUCKING DECADE for anyone to steal the 'press space to go to giant huge map of whole map on screen' feature?

haha god damn, 10000 units, I never played with the unit limit hacks that much because A) my computers usually couldn't handle me and an AI tussling with much more than 500 and B) after a certain point the pathfinding system just shits its pants and it's just frustrating more than anything else

Uraniun235 wrote:starfighters could have an ammo system (and a fairly loose fuel system too) that requires them to replenish at a carrier or something, that way you can theoretically have effective starfighters without being able to just spam a billion fighters and bombers and roam the entire map with it owning everything you come across[...]is that a decent idea or is there something i'm missing

Sounds interesting to me. I figure you could have it so one of the two is faster to reload than the other. Fuel or ammo, whichever. You could actually perhaps implement that for everything, then have ships that manufacture ammunition and/or fuel for others, a high-end tech that makes fuel a non-issue.

Then you could go all out and factor in crew fatigue, which increases drastically when in combat.

i dunno that sounds like it could sort of overcomplicate it, the fuel thing is really just to make it so that you can't have a big fighter swarm endlessly patrolling back and forth across half the map.


of course part of that depends on the scale you want the game at, if you're going to have big fleet battles then I think that degree of detail could get oppressive/overwhelming, but if you're looking at smaller actions then it could be okay. hmm... or maybe make it so that the recovery/rearming/relaunch process takes quite a bit longer anyway, such that docking your fighters means taking them out of action for a couple of minutes no matter what - making it a strategicalistic decision...


i think that's something that would ultimately have to be seriously playtested against the rest of the game, as i think the best model would probably be dependent on what the rest of the game was like. still, interesting to consider.

Uraniun235 wrote:i was really sad when almost all the modders gave up on HW2 because I think HW2 has a pretty good-looking engine

You can has objective interim next-generation network-centric adaptive-capability naval simulation?

More seriously, the HW2 engine was never really designed to be modified, and it never quite sold enough either. Still, it's pretty remarkable what people have done (and I still fire up a game of HW2 Complex every so often).

speaking of which I had another thought about "what would make a good space fleet combat game" (but I didn't want to bump my old thread cause I didn't want someone bitching at me for necro even though this doesn't really warrant a second thread on it) and that was that starfighters could have an ammo system (and a fairly loose fuel system too) that requires them to replenish at a carrier or something, that way you can theoretically have effective starfighters without being able to just spam a billion fighters and bombers and roam the entire map with it owning everything you come across

HW1 had fuel for fighters! Made some missions a bit tricky when you needed to keep them out there. Some of the HW2 mods also had expendable missile weapons for fighters, too (though it never really worked all that well)

The need to refuel strikecraft in HW1 was pretty cool (even if it did jack up the micro) in that it opened up interesting tactical possibilities. Sadly, HW2 sucked.

phongn wrote:You can has objective interim next-generation network-centric adaptive-capability naval simulation?

More seriously, the HW2 engine was never really designed to be modified, and it never quite sold enough either. Still, it's pretty remarkable what people have done (and I still fire up a game of HW2 Complex every so often).

hahahahaha PDS, what a hilarious chapter in game modding, they got even more addicted to constant change than the old Uberhack gang did with TA. ("no I SWEAR 2.0 will be final! *a month passes* "okay so i had this idea to tweak the Penetrator a bit more...") It's understandable, I think people had more fun arguing over what tweak broke what than they did actually playing the game. That said I don't think anyone ever wrote Uberhack-specific fanfiction... nor saw it as some "ongoing in-universe development cycle" thing.


I think it's really a shame though that it was "never designed to be modified". Surely they saw the numerous mods that had been made for HW1? I heard some rumor somewhere that it was actually designed to be difficult to modify, but I haven't been able to find any interview or article to that effect.


I used to fire up an old version of PDS every so often to fight a battle (I actually installed the HW1 Classic mod on top of it - yay more choices on unit caps!), although since moving to Vista x64 it seems like the game really dogs and I'm not sure why, though I saw elsewhere people reporting similar issues.

HW1 had fuel for fighters! Made some missions a bit tricky when you needed to keep them out there. Some of the HW2 mods also had expendable missile weapons for fighters, too (though it never really worked all that well)

I remember that HW1 had fuel! I can't remember how much there was, though. Stark nailed it really, the micro could become overbearing really easily with fuel limitations, I mostly wanted it more as a "okay you can send your fighters out but you can't just roll a big swarm of them all across the map and back and mop up whatever you find" thing.

I think the limited ammunition thing would probably work best with the bombers, that way you can have an attack wave which beats the shit out of a capital ship but then needs to reload. I mean interceptors would still have ammo but they'd be able to hang in a firefight for awhile. As for alleviating micro - maybe "attach" fighters to a carrier so that if you select a carrier and tell it to "attack" a target, it actually sends the fighter/bomber squadrons to do the job... maybe with options for "massive time-on-target bomber barrage" or "continual harassment" or "intercept anyone headed for x point in space or y friendly unit" or "defend this group of ships" or something like that. I mean maybe you could also have the fighters as separate units that you control manually if you want, but I think it could be neat to have fighters potentially be an extension of the carrier unit itself that you manage through the carrier rather than trying to keep track of a few dozen starfighters buzzing around your fleet.


EDIT: honestly I think really what i'm going after is emphasizing the role of the carrier as, you know, a carrier, rather than just a manufacturing barge that happens to dock fighters sometimes

Uraniun235 wrote:I think it's really a shame though that it was "never designed to be modified". Surely they saw the numerous mods that had been made for HW1? I heard some rumor somewhere that it was actually designed to be difficult to modify, but I haven't been able to find any interview or article to that effect.

A basic SDK did come out for HW2 but, well, it was still a pain to work with. It's certainly not like SupCom, which for all its faults was designed from the ground up to be easily modifiable.

I used to fire up an old version of PDS every so often to fight a battle (I actually installed the HW1 Classic mod on top of it - yay more choices on unit caps!), although since moving to Vista x64 it seems like the game really dogs and I'm not sure why, though I saw elsewhere people reporting similar issues.

There's some compatibility issue there, especially relating to CD check on it. There might be a bunch of assumptions made in development, too, that it'd only run on IA32.

EDIT: honestly I think really what i'm going after is emphasizing the role of the carrier as, you know, a carrier, rather than just a manufacturing barge that happens to dock fighters sometimes

That sounds pretty good, actually. There was the kernel of that in the "drone frigate" but it could've been heavily improved. Might be fun, too, to see a carrier forming up a massive alpha strike and then suddenly getting sucker-punched by an incoming raid before it can defend.

Uraniun235 wrote:EDIT: honestly I think really what i'm going after is emphasizing the role of the carrier as, you know, a carrier, rather than just a manufacturing barge that happens to dock fighters sometimes

Yup. Annoyed the shit out of me how worthless the carrier was, other than an expensive way to draw enemy fire.

Personally I tended to find the fuel thing in HW1 more annoying than interesting, although the furballs were always good fun to watch.

As for Starcraft... it caught on in South Korea in a big way, and I believe is still going fairly strong there.

Hey look, it's another 90s era game with a whole bunch of features devs in 2009 are still totally oblivious too! Some even claiming they invented said features! Remember, don't bring any of this stuff to their attention. If you do, they'll get really sad and spin all sorts of excuses about how those features would be "impossible" to implement because of "balance (hint: laziness)" and "resource (hint: graphics)" issues.


Stark pointing out that it took RTS games years just to feature "press spacebar to go to overview map" makes me cry. Remember, their are blithering fanboys on youtube right now commenting on how much their pet studio loves them and cares about what they want.

CaptHawkeye wrote:Hey look, it's another 90s era game with a whole bunch of features devs in 2009 are still totally oblivious too! Some even claiming they invented said features! Remember, don't bring any of this stuff to their attention. If you do, they'll get really sad and spin all sorts of excuses about how those features would be "impossible" to implement because of "balance (hint: laziness)" and "resource (hint: graphics)" issues.


Stark pointing out that it took RTS games years just to feature "press spacebar to go to overview map" makes me cry. Remember, their are blithering fanboys on youtube right now commenting on how much their pet studio loves them and cares about what they want.

Sadly we all know that RTS cunts dont want anything knew, need i meantion poor old World in Conflict

I remember playing a game on a lan party where the option for aircraft was disabled. However, since this was a water map, by some exploit you could still build seaplanes.

JointStrikeFighter wrote:
Sadly we all know that RTS cunts dont want anything knew, need i meantion poor old World in Conflict

Has no base building = bad game. Haven't you heard?

Uraniun235 wrote:

HW1 had fuel for fighters! Made some missions a bit tricky when you needed to keep them out there. Some of the HW2 mods also had expendable missile weapons for fighters, too (though it never really worked all that well)

I remember that HW1 had fuel! I can't remember how much there was, though. Stark nailed it really, the micro could become overbearing really easily with fuel limitations, I mostly wanted it more as a "okay you can send your fighters out but you can't just roll a big swarm of them all across the map and back and mop up whatever you find" thing.

I think a better way of implementing that would be to give the fighters a specific range, that they can't go too far out from their parent ship. You could then have the refueling vessels as a way of expanding that range. You could keep the fuel thing, but automate it so the fighters will automatically know when to return for fuel.

I mean maybe you could also have the fighters as separate units that you control manually if you want, but I think it could be neat to have fighters potentially be an extension of the carrier unit itself that you manage through the carrier rather than trying to keep track of a few dozen starfighters buzzing around your fleet.

I think that would be best. Have normal fighters/bombers/interceptors that are built/assigned to their parent ships, and maybe some special long-range fighters or corvettes that are independent.

Also, the ability to build your small craft purely as squadrons. Maybe have a squadron/wing customization screen, available even outside the battle/match, where you can adjust numbers and composition, then when the game begins, just hit the icon for that configuration and the factory churns them all out at once. Maybe extend that to capital ships, too. So carriers and whatever else can carry with small craft come out with their full complement of craft built it.

Oh fuck, now I'm on a roll. A free-form Strategy game set around the time of Cataclysm (or between that and part 2), where you play as a Kilth or other force, and can design your ships and squads, buy or research technologies to outfit them with, bargain for territories, favors, tech, and contracts, and vie for supremacy between rivals and enemies. Pirate raids, Taidanni attacks, the works. Maybe allow you to choose from a number of pre-established Kilths, and if doing the Cataclysm period, actually have the Somataww campaign be a remake of Cataclysm, and if playing another Kilth, you can stick your nose into the affairs if the opportunity arises.

Vanas wrote:

Stark wrote:yeah homeworld is so forgotten and neglected
does anyone even remember it

In terms of having actual 3D space battles, yeah. I can't think of anything recently that's got it. I don't mean the games are forgotten per se, just some of the stuff they had.

Nexus: The Jupiter Incident has 3D space battles, though with small fleets and a focus on tactical combat. It's a a half-decent game, and I like it. There's no base building or resource gathering, you customize your ship's load-out between missions, though the way it's handled is a bit restrictive and clunky. It also only has the campaign game, once you've run through it that's it. However, you can find a mod that adds a skirmish mode.

I think it's worth it to give it a try.

Nexus sucked. Three types of damage, three types of hitpoints, all the micro ever. Terrible mission scripting killed the rest even worse.

Ironically 'proper' 3d is near useless in an rts. Conquest was just fine without it, sins wouldn't have been improved by it, and so on.

I'm going to go on record as saying that I think 'researching' is really truly awful.


Also god damn please tell me I wasn't the only one that thought HW: Cataclysm's ships were totally buttugly.

The dreadnaught and the carrier were pretty bad, but I liked the destroyer and the acolyte.

Uraniun235 wrote:I'm going to go on record as saying that I think 'researching' is really truly awful.

Excluding scenarios where it makes sense, like in, say, Civilization. 'Researching' technology in a tactical timescale is retarded.