Request for Comments: Ship Design

For what's not in 'Top Priority Game Design'. Post your ideas, visions, suggestions for the game, rules, modifications, etc.

Moderator: Oberlus

Message
Author
User avatar
eleazar
Design & Graphics Lead Emeritus
Posts: 3858
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:09 pm
Location: USA — midwest

#76 Post by eleazar »

Sloth wrote:
Geoff the Medio wrote:
eleazar wrote:Graphically, if we do (as i hope) build 3D models of the weaponry, and place them on the 3D hull models, it would be rather cool to have weaponry that's much bigger than the weapons you can build at the start. The dramatic impact of a death star with lots of little weapons isn't nearly as dramatic the one huge beam.
If we assume that one slot represents a fixed volume of physical space, then this might be a problem, but the number of slots in a hull doesn't necessarily have to scale proportionally with the on-screen apparent volume of a ship model, as long as we can fit the weapon models onto the hull model somehow... So, we could have a single-slot death-star laser that looks much bigger on the model than a single-slot pea shooter tier-1 PD weapon.
Having just one-slot-weapons and each slot representing a fixed amount of space would have more disadvantages, namely that huge ships would have to have a large amount of weapons instead of huge weapons, which is not only boring but also means tedious designing.

That just leaves the decision between (or taking both):

1. multiple-slot-weapons

2. slots representing a variable amount of space

concerning 1. there has been some contras in this topic (For example from me).

There is no concept how to accomplish 2. in these posts so far ( I think?). So are there any ideas?
No, variable space-slots is not a workable option, assuming:
1) the smallest ships are much smaller than the biggest ships
2) the difference in the size of weapons is significant
3) Weapons will be large enough to be visible on more than rare occasions.

And if 1, 2, & 3 are not true there's not much point in actually displaying the weapon models on the ships. We can't "just fit the weapon models onto the hull model somehow". If a scout can hold 5 ordinary laser cannons, it can't fit 5 death-star beams in the same spaces. Slots need to have at least a general association will a volume of space. — or else weaponry doesn't show on the model, and the question is moot.

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 13587
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

#77 Post by Geoff the Medio »

eleazar wrote:Slots need to have at least a general association will a volume of space. — or else weaponry doesn't show on the model, and the question is moot.
The physical positions on ship models corresponding to individual slots could perhaps just be spaced out far enough for the largest weapon models to fit... Then smaller weapon models would just have some extra space. Not ideal graphically, obviously, but if such a system was better in various other ways...

User avatar
utilae
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2175
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 12:37 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

#78 Post by utilae »

Sloth wrote: Having just one-slot-weapons and each slot representing a fixed amount of space would have more disadvantages, namely that huge ships would have to have a large amount of weapons instead of huge weapons, which is not only boring but also means tedious designing.

That just leaves the decision between (or taking both):

1. multiple-slot-weapons

2. slots representing a variable amount of space

concerning 1. there has been some contras in this topic (For example from me).

There is no concept how to accomplish 2. in these posts so far ( I think?). So are there any ideas?
Ok, so I assume you are talking about a grid of squares where we try and arange components in this grid, where each component takes up:
(1) or (2) as you state.

Is (1) that a weapon always takes up multiple slots, eg 2x2?
Is (2) that a weapon takes up any number of slots, eg 1x1 or 2x3, etc?
How is (2) not achievable? It has been done in games like Diablo and many other RPG games.
eleazar wrote: No, variable space-slots is not a workable option, assuming:
1) the smallest ships are much smaller than the biggest ships
2) the difference in the size of weapons is significant
3) Weapons will be large enough to be visible on more than rare occasions.

And if 1, 2, & 3 are not true there's not much point in actually displaying the weapon models on the ships. We can't "just fit the weapon models onto the hull model somehow". If a scout can hold 5 ordinary laser cannons, it can't fit 5 death-star beams in the same spaces. Slots need to have at least a general association will a volume of space. — or else weaponry doesn't show on the model, and the question is moot.
Why do we suddenly need to be able to attach weapons onto the hulls in a 3d model system like Galciv2? This seems overblown to me.

We should just place components in slots, how ever many slots they take. Have the 3d ship models be some overall ship design that doesn't show weapons.

Eg look through out scifi and you you see ships that don't show weapons:
Romulan Warbird
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/4196/warbird.jpg
Last edited by utilae on Sat Mar 31, 2007 1:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
eleazar
Design & Graphics Lead Emeritus
Posts: 3858
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:09 pm
Location: USA — midwest

#79 Post by eleazar »

utilae wrote:Why do we suddenly need to be able to attach weapons onto the hulls in a 3d model system like Galciv2? This seems overblown to me.
Because if we don't there's no way to gauge on sight anything but the size of the ship. Not an impossible situation, but certainly undesirable.

If your enemy has 1 big ship with (it's current best tech) a stellar converter, but dozens of a similarly sized vessels, you want to know that at a glance, not after your system's star has been pushed to nova, or less dramatically not after having to check the into on each one.

Being able to identify on sight many of the capabilities of your own ship would make sorting and controlling your own fleet easier too.


It should be obvious i'm not proposing anything like GalCiv2. There is nothing in my proposals that would allow you to make a ship that looks like a Transformer, star trek ship, or whatever. I'm proposing a 1-to-1 correspondence between what has been placed in various external slots, and how the ship looks— no complicated 3D modeling interface of any kind.

User avatar
utilae
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2175
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 12:37 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

#80 Post by utilae »

eleazar wrote: Because if we don't there's no way to gauge on sight anything but the size of the ship. Not an impossible situation, but certainly undesirable.
I doubt that even if there was a bunch of guns on a ship, whether big or small, 1 or 50, you won't be able to tell what weapons and abilities it has. Sure, you could see that a ship has a stellar converter, because it is the biggest gun in the galaxy, but what about the little laser cannons or nuetron blasters.

This is not an RTS, so there is time for the GUI to tell us about each ship, but I think you should still be able to give each ship a distinctive style and look, but were only focusing on weapons. Are we gonna show what systems the ship has by making them visible too?
eleazar wrote: If your enemy has 1 big ship with (it's current best tech) a stellar converter, but dozens of a similarly sized vessels, you want to know that at a glance, not after your system's star has been pushed to nova, or less dramatically not after having to check the into on each one.
I like not exactly knowing what the enemy has. Eg you see some Shadow ships (Babylon 5). No sweat you think, then bang, massive pink particle beam cuts your ship in half.

Suprise is good. Besides knowing what the enemy has is what scanning and detection is for. I don't think visual clues by themselves are going to make the difference you think.

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 13587
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

#81 Post by Geoff the Medio »

A case could be made either way...

Alpha Centauri had rather poor voxel unit graphics, but if you looked reasonably closely, you could usually figure out what weapon a unit had, and could always discern a terraformer or colony pod or supply crawler due to their overall different appearance. As long as we keep the number of weapons per ship small, and the relative size of weapons on a ship rather large, it should be possible to make ships appearance indicative of their function to some useful degree. Likely not all details will be shown... particularly internal components... but we can take some creative and practical liberty with "realistic" weapon, engine or defensive component sizes compared to overall hulls in order to make the ships more distinctive...

That said, some GUI indicators could be used instead of relying on the appearance of ship models. This might be more flexible, and would allow ship models to be more carefully crafted to be more interesting looking, without having to worry about where on them a variety of differently-shaped weapon models could be mounted. This would have a drawback of making it harder to decide where to show beams or fighters or missiles coming out of an attacking ship, however...

User avatar
eleazar
Design & Graphics Lead Emeritus
Posts: 3858
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:09 pm
Location: USA — midwest

#82 Post by eleazar »

Geoff the Medio wrote:A case could be made either way...
Perhaps, but no one has made a case that being able to see some of what a ship can do is bad. (The coolness of something in a movie doesn't usually carry over to a movie intact.)
These are the strongest counter-arguements i can imagine are:
1) it's too much work
2) it will prevent the ships from looking really cool


1) it's too much work
Well, this certainly is a less functional aspect of v.4, and the whole could work without it. I can't accurately estimate how much additional coding this would require, but it'd guess it's a small fraction of the total v.4. As for the art, it probably would be a lot of work to create all the weapons and whatever, however it should be easier to create a weapon than a ship. And we don't need to wait for all 3D models to be complete before this system has value. Even if at first the whole gamut of laser cannons is represented by only 3 models, that's still more information than nothing.

2) it will prevent the ships from looking really cool
This is true, to a point. Ship models that must accept arbitrary additions all over the outside will generally look less cool than ships models designed as a single piece. However, realistically FO is not going to win in the contest for wiz-bang, snazzy, eye-candy-yummy space ships. Even if we attracted top talent, graphics that impress are judged on an ever harsher scale as technology improves.
So while we should make things look as good as we can, it's unlikely we'll knock anyone's socks off with pure eye-candy power. So let's not try. Rather let's give the form of our ships interest by giving them meaning. The image of a destroyer with a doom-ray may still give the jaded player chills, not because the art is the best ever, but because that doom-ray has, in the past, cost him victory.

Geoff the Medio wrote:...As long as we keep the number of weapons per ship small, and the relative size of weapons on a ship rather large, it should be possible to make ships appearance indicative of their function to some useful degree. Likely not all details will be shown... particularly internal components... but we can take some creative and practical liberty with "realistic" weapon, engine or defensive component sizes compared to overall hulls in order to make the ships more distinctive...
Exactly what i'm thinking.
Geoff the Medio wrote:That said, some GUI indicators could be used instead of relying on the appearance of ship models. This might be more flexible, and would allow ship models to be more carefully crafted to be more interesting looking, without having to worry about where on them a variety of differently-shaped weapon models could be mounted.
I think there should also be ways via the GUI to find out more detail about a ship— possibly related to your scanner tech. But persistent indicators, that gave more than the most simplified info about a ship would be intrusive and probably annoying.



Also Utilea, and anyone else. Please don't post such large graphics without a good reason. It makes the forums hard to use, unless one devotes ~1100px screen-width to the browser, assuming one has a big enough screen.

marhawkman
Large Juggernaut
Posts: 938
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 9:34 pm
Location: GA

#83 Post by marhawkman »

I must now offer a counter point.

A heavily armored vessel might have enough armor covering the outside of the ship that it's (visually) little more than a metallic blob. It might not have any visible systems at all. Many ships in Babylon 5 and Star Trek were like this.
Computer programming is fun.

User avatar
utilae
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2175
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 12:37 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

#84 Post by utilae »

eleazar wrote: Also Utilea, and anyone else. Please don't post such large graphics without a good reason. It makes the forums hard to use, unless one devotes ~1100px screen-width to the browser, assuming one has a big enough screen.
Yeah, sorry, it was hard to find pics of a descent sice. But yeah, Ive made it into a URL link. All other pics can be done like that, to give people the option.


@eleazar
I see that your idea of weapons visible on ship models is similar to Galciv2, except that it is automated, so it is really closer to Diablo 2 and other RPGs where the players visual appearance is a reflection of what they have equiped.

I wouldn't mind your system, but I am just weary that we do it the right way. I don't care if it is difficult, just that it is done right.

marhawkman
Large Juggernaut
Posts: 938
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 9:34 pm
Location: GA

#85 Post by marhawkman »

I think it'd be better to get a functional combat system up even if it's (initially) no more complex than the one in MoO2. fancy graphics are a project for later.
Computer programming is fun.

User avatar
utilae
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2175
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 12:37 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

#86 Post by utilae »

Yeah, well I guess first is:
*Overall 'one piece' ship models.
*Basic list ship design.
*Display ship models on a map.

User avatar
Yeeha
Pupating Mass
Posts: 93
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 10:06 pm

#87 Post by Yeeha »

But what about more nonmilitary designs, i think i proposed somewhere sometime ago miningship for production bonus from asteroids. And if you do cataclysmic events then special event required ships would be interesting too - Your sun is not stabile anymore build 4 scientific baseships that would hold sun stabile. And if enemy attacks your system and destroys those baseships orbiting sun, well...
Well those things probably cannot be for 0.4 but it would be very interesting and new strategical angle to game imho.

marhawkman
Large Juggernaut
Posts: 938
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 9:34 pm
Location: GA

#88 Post by marhawkman »

But.... those would be best done as special ship designs, not as special ship hulls.
Computer programming is fun.

User avatar
eleazar
Design & Graphics Lead Emeritus
Posts: 3858
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:09 pm
Location: USA — midwest

#89 Post by eleazar »

marhawkman wrote:But.... those would be best done as special ship designs, not as special ship hulls.
Agreed.
I don't think anyone has seriously proposed that ship function be strictly limited to special hulls.

Unless it somehow impacts the way ships will be put together, this thread isn't about the various roles ships might perform. I don't believe any of the ship design methods discussed would have any more difficulty accommodating a solar-stabilizing-beam than a planet-busting-blaster.

Weather we have solar-stabilizing-beams is a question for another time or at least another thread.

User avatar
utilae
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2175
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 12:37 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

#90 Post by utilae »

Combat and Non Combat ships can be made based on what components and systems that have.

Eg
Typical Combat Ship has Lasers.

Typical Repair Ship has repair drones, engineer teams.

Typical Mining Ship has mining equipment, can deploy into mining station.

Typical Colony Ship has colony equipment, can deploy into colony.

etc

Post Reply