The pulsar could cause damage if you get too close. Another cool terrain feature might be something that emits a regular gravity pulse so it is like the opposite of a gravity well and flings you away if you are near it when it pulses.
Nothing has changed, it's just that GalCiv is supposed to be a "more serious" universe than Star Control. Games like GalCiv strive for that Babylon 5/Star Trek/Star Wars feel. With Star Control I think they are going for more of an artsy, cartoonish look like Team Fortress has. Personally I like that idea and think it would be a great look for Star Control. I'm no artist, and it's just these three planets we are talking about, but too me they seem "too br
Yes, all those things are true. And against the AI most of the problems associated with map size are not relevant because the AI is programmed to constantly engage the player. The primary problems with a large map arise from a faster player who refuses to engage, or from a concept called "The Kaufman Retrograde" which in simple terms means that a ship running away and firing backwards towards it's pursuer is at about a 3:1 advantage. The retrograde really is a big issue.
I would guess that hyperspace would just have it's own unique background with no "terrain". Sort of the "clear skies" blank empty space fights with no gravity wells, asteroids, or defenses. An empty map.
If combat takes place on the solar system map, with an SC2-like autozoom to focus on the players location, which I think would be awesome, then the map is HUGE. Pointlessly large for 1v1 multiplayer dueling. I've mentioned before some of the effects of map size within this genre. A smaller map is actually better for 1v1 dueling and "fixed scenarios". There are a lot of problems associated with large open maps, the ships need to be designed to work on a large map
[quote who="IBNobody" reply="8" id="3609284"] Quoting Kavik_Kang, reply 7 This wouldn't make it any of those things. The player doesn't own or build these defenses, the AI does. They could be used as little or as much as the designers see fit. This made me wonder if the gam
[quote who="Tovanion" reply="6" id="3609260"] Quoting Kavik_Kang, reply 5 Besides... "peeling the onion" is fun[e digicons]:)[/e] I think I saw a SD post stating that this game wouldn't be 4x, nor a RTS. [/quote] This wouldn't make it any of
[quote who="IBNobody" reply="19" id="3609206"] A different secondary ability: If it changes how a ship can fight, it changes the balance of combat. That's pretty cut-and-dry. [/quote] These ships, being so simple, are even more sensitive than that. Lots of people have talking about upgrades and things for ships, but any change to any ship really fundamentally changes what that ship is because there are so few variables involved. Speed, thrust, maneuverability
[quote who="Vaelzad" reply="4" id="3609148"] The current plan is to have one energy system that is shared between the abilities. [/quote] As I said, that works too, and has it's own unique mechanics to work with that separate bars don't. It is a style choice, not a balance problem. Separate energy bars is just more flexible, allowing for more variety in how systems work and fine control over how often each system can be used. I am just throwing ou
Just in case it isn't as obvious as I was thinking it would be... Here are some ways system defense might be used. Example #1. Homeworld the designers don't want the player to be able to defeat. Starbase surrounded by minefields and DefSats at homeworld (Starbase is barely beatable on its own by players entire fleet, it would be almost impossible for the player to defeat this starbase or easily made absolutely impossible by extending the minefield out to prot
[quote who="Hunam_" reply="1" id="3608996"] It'd be nice to not have to press the scan button. Auto-scan with nice graphics effect triggered by planet proximity would be perfect IMO. If we'll have the planet features hidden before scanning then during the scan the exaggerated features can be revealed in a nice graphic effect manner (like mountains growing out of the planet surface taking their shape, trees bloom into their full tiny 3D model glory etc.) That might solve the probl
It's just 2 systems. 2 Energy bars. It's very easy to keep track of. The thing is that with only 2 systems you can have a lot more variety in weapons and devices. A single energy bar is very limiting and prevents you from having certain weapons and devices. It can work with 1 energy bar, obviously, just not as well and with less variety in the available systems. You don' have to "monitor" both energy bars, in fact it's pretty rare to actuall
I didn't explain this aspect of it well in the first post. I said these were the components of a simple defensive system. These things create "layers" of defense that need to be taken apart in sequence. SFB players call it "peeling the onion". The minefield is the first layer, the defsats are the second. A "base station" is equal to a big ship that can't move, and is a third layer. A "Battlestation" is like an even bigger ship that has killable weap
[quote who="Awkbird" reply="1" id="3608758"] These ideas all have merit and I'm inclined to agree they would be cool, but I think given what's been stated about how the game is being designed, there will be little if any focus given to setting up outposts or other fortifications in the context of the story. [/quote] Actually, I thought this fit in with their description of the supermelee map as a "solar system". I assumed that meant t
I mentioned these briefly in a post about "boss fights", which made me realize this post was a good idea. There are some basic defenses that work well in this genre, and could be used in more than just boss fights if they were going to exist for those anyway. In the original SC you always fought on the same map, and a homeworld was simply unbeatable with unlimited ships and you had to warp away. System defenses could exist in populated systems that would still be fairly si
In the original Star Control there was a single energy bar for both systems. If this SC intends to keep ship at 2 systems each, possibly 3 on one or two, then it could use separate energy bars for each individual weapon or device. I would strongly recommend this. With such simple ship designs a single energy bar for both systems is very restricting. It eliminates a lot of potential weapon/system designs from consideration all by itself, greatly complicates the design o
StarControl Forums
I don't know about the beginning, but I know how I'd like it to end. I know they probably won't do this, but I have always wanted to see a game or movie where the hero fails in the end. Clint Eastwood kind of did an ending like this with Gran Torino. I would have liked to have seen the Enterprise lost with all hands while trying to do some great thing in the last TOS movie. I think it would be really cool if you went through this whole story and adventure o
That's what makes top down space combat so addictive. This type of game is ultimately a flowing dance of various patterns that a person comes to recognize and seeks to repeat the successful ones, giving them an actual chemical rush when successfully "pulling off one of the moves". It gives this type of game a long term appeal to those who get into it. People actually become addicted to these types of arcade games. Which is one of the reasons base defense, capture
A boss fight in this game doesn't necessarily have to require the mothership. Early game bosses could be designed to be "picked apart" little by little by the ships the player is likely to have at that point in the game. I think at least a half dozen or so boss fights throughout the full game would be great, if they are well-designed and fun fights. The way the ships are so unique makes it kind of easy to design boss-type fights that particular ship will be good at deali
That's what I am saying. It should have things in it that make it better, just not things "piled on" just for the sake of having more stuff in the game. SC2 already has this minimalist philosophy, so it would be in keeping with the original game. Make what is already there as interesting and dynamic as possible, then see what other elements might actually belong with what is there instead of just piling on every system from every similar game just because "gamers expect
Yes, using the map to show that better is a great idea.
I realized overnight why I made this post. It was because I had just made another post about how I thought Star Control should "be more game and less game design". I really would not want to see un-needed "extra stuff" like tech trees, "officers" that vastly improve ship abilities, and all the other stuff that is usually thrown on top of just about every game just in an attempt to make it more complex or "add more game". The game it is should be made dynamic enough to achiev
Hmm... I can see what you are saying. Adventure games are not generally my thing, SC is one of the few I have liked, and I am prone ignore the story and focus on playing the game. So I wasn't absorbing the hints I should have been, I was wanting to play the exploration/lander/space combat game parts. I can see how something obvious like a clock counting down would actually be a bad thing in this type of game. This might just be a case of me not being very good at a
Maybe they do, which would go back to the earlier point that the player needs to be more aware that the timers exist, since I didn't get any kind of hint that it they were extending the time... if they are.
Oops, double post.