Suggestion for Version 2.0

If we do have boarding parties and such, is it possible to add another station for it? I can see a "Security Officer" handling such duties.

I haven't played much but these would be my two cents.

1. Mentioned many times but I want to get my vote in for Comms controlling the Main View Screen.
2. On the Comms LRS screen allow a double click on a target to bring up the comm options for that object that can then be clicked. This should not be in place of the main Comms screen but more of an enhancement to it.
3. An X-Plane FlightSim like interface system. X-Plane pretty much broadcast I believe UDP messages of all flight variables and it is up to the developer to create a listener to use them. Years ago I created some remote instruments in Java and it was pretty simple. This would really open up the possibilities for interfacing equipment for those who wish to make some sort of dedicated bridge instruments. It also allows the setting of variables within the simulation making the interfacing of all sorts of equipment possible.

In addition I would like to enter my vote for not having boarding parties. I see this as a "Bridge" simulation and not a squad level gaming environment. Boarding parties would also limit your options because you would have to stay docked or in transporter range of the ship you are boarding. What I don't want is for my crew sitting around as I or another crew member plays a mini-boarding party or away team game. I use to make add-ons for Orbiter Space Flight simulator and more and more people wanted to be able to walk around the ships, stations and ground. They wanted to have assault squads and towns to walk around. They wanted Sims in space or Second life in space they didn't seem to "get" the flight simulation aspect and I would hate to see Artemis heading in that direction. Enhance the bridge simulation and then when it's perfect think about squad level assault options.

Also keep in mind that station overload does not a better simulator make. In the future I would expect a lot of AI type automation helping to lessen the burden on the crew. We don't need to "stir the pots" so to speak. Reference to Apollo 13 and my dislike of micro management of ship functions in Orbitersim.

That's about it I guess. Everyone seems to have good ideas, except for the boarding party stuff that is.

It is hilarious to me that so many players are asking for Comms to control the main view screen! That was an original feature in Artemis that Thom removed due to frequent player confusion!

I think the real issue is that the main viewscreen cannot be taken away from Helm and Weapons, since their control is essential to the free trial version of Artemis.

It is already possible to create warp driven escorts simply by modifying vesseldata.xml or by writing a mission script.

I like the main view screen controls where they are. When I'm helm I have a flight stick so I have a free hand for doing things like shields and changing the viewing modes.

I have never had a problem with changing main view screen when I have played helm or weapons. It take seconds and little thought. And as Mike said, what about the Demo version?

I also whole heatedly agree with JT and his comments on boarding parties. Mini games and extra things to do are not really required in my opinion. Each console has a good level of complexity and depth already. I am also opposed to additional consoles and positions. They not are required to make the game better.

One idea I was considering was to do with zooming in on the Captain's map and the Science console. As you zoom in, I'd like to see a more detailed grid appear, breaking the large grid in to smaller sections, so I could give more precise locations. For example, if you were to zoom in on grid D1, it would be split in to a finer grid of 9 squares (D1-1 through to D1-9) The idea is one that I have seen used in the game Silent Hunter 3. When you zoom in on the map, the grid references become finer. It occurred to me when trying to tell science which fleet I wanted scanning, particularly when there are multiple fleets in the same grid. When there were two enemy fleets in the same grid I'd have to say something like "scan the fleet in the top left corner of D2"(i.e. not the one in the bottom right corner). It would be much more immersive if I could say "Scan the enemy fleet in grid D2-1" (the top left corner, the other enemy fleet being located in grid D2-9.. the bottom left corner).

hmm...Yes I agree xavier the finer map would be very helpful. My ideas differ from your however or boarding. While I don't think there should be a whole complex mini game where individual characters control individual boarding members I think the idea that you can be boarded or be able to board others would add a lot to the game. Perhaps even using your boarders to take over the ship. But that I do believe is something that can wait till later. However what I want far more that boarding would be fighters. A much argued over and highly debated topic. But I do believe there benefits would be immense to the game. I have oft stated this opinion maybe even in this thread so I apologize if I repeat myself but I really believe it is a good idea.

<It is hilarious to me that so many players are asking for Comms to control the main view screen! That was an original feature in Artemis that Thom removed due to frequent player confusion!

I think the real issue is that the main viewscreen cannot be taken away from Helm and Weapons, since their control is essential to the free trial version of Artemis. >

I don't get the confusion angle at all. When I first played, it was the Comms job to change the screen at the orders of the Captain and only him. I guess my crew doesn't depend on the main viewer as much as others. Having not played for a while we were surprised that it had been taken off the Comms screen. I didn't read the forum enough to see that removal was apparently a much desired feature. I wasn't advocating the removal of switching from the other stations. I just liked it on the Comms as well. So in light of the fact that removal was a requested "upgrade" I withdraw that suggestion.

Yes, I was not asking to remove it from other station. Just put it back for COMM
Why was it confusing to have one more people having control over view? 2 or 3, means more then one.

Just make sure everyone knows who has the priority over the main control view.
Captain should assign the duty to who he thinks best. If the COMM officer is incapacitated after a torpedo hit, weapon or helm can take over easily :)

-Maybe add an option to hide/show main view control when you select a station, making sure there is no confusion... But I think a little preparation can do that.

You know, a good compromise for the Main Screen controls question would be to have an option when you set up the server to designate which console(s) controls the main screen. That way, the captain can decide if he only wants one console to be able to control the main screen, or if he wants to give that to multiple consoles and then just give specific orders (a la "Helm, give me long range scanners on-screen").

Just starting to get into Artemis. I love it, but some things I'd like to request:

1) An option for the main screen to "follow" a target regardless of the viewing angle. Also an option to "swivel" the viewing angle of the main screen manually (so you could, for example, have a Forward/Port view). It would also be nice if the main screen itself had the options on it to designate the viewing angle (and the captain or someone else could then operate it) or to allow the screen to be controlled/over-ridden from another station.

2) An enemy race with the ability to cloak and player ships that can cloak (perhaps limited to scouts?).

3) The ability to play different races. I would like to see the ability to have different groups in the sim playing different races, perhaps as a sort of 'general' directing the forces of their races. Or just being able to play one of the other races to try out a different ship type.

4) 2D+; in that all ships fall on a general "galactic plane", but you can raise or lower you ship on that plane to be higher/lower than "0K" (say, by up to one sector's height up or down). While this might only be eye candy, it could also be built into the combat minigame (some ships are more vulnerable from above or below, some areas of an enemy ship may only be targeted or more easily targeted from above or below).

4a) Break shields into 4 or 6 quadrants - for bigger ships. Bow, Aft, Port, Starboard, Top and Bottom. Scouts might just have bow/top/port/starboard and aft/bottom shields. Battleships might have Bow/Top, Aft/Bottom, Port & Starboard shields. Dreadnoughts might have Bow, Aft, Port, Starboard, Top and Bottom separate shields.

5) Planets and the ability to orbit said planet in a fashion similar to docking with a station. Planets can provide/need resources, need to be defended if friendly, scanned and cataloged if unknown (perhaps dispatching colonist ships to claim the planet) and bombarded if enemy-controlled. Planets could have gravity wells like (but lesser than) black holes and block/obscure scans of objects orbiting them.

6) +1 for boarding actions, as an optional (check-box) option.

7) More space anomalies - a World Destroyer to attack planets & space stations that are only harmed by nukes, Space Sargasso (requiring a helm speed minigame to escape ["Captain,]), Space Junkyard (often hiding powered down enemy ships, but great for salvaging repair parts), Rogue comets, Energy Storms (recharges ship's energy but damages ship's hull), Ghost ships (fake objects that can only be removed from the LRS by actively scanning them), Wormholes (Jump from point A to B), Space Whale hunters (Save the Whales!), Marauders/Pirates who appear as friendlies until close enough to attack transports or the player's ship, etc. As many as could be conceived would be nice, and only a couple showing up in any one game (say 2-3).

I also only have a few missions under my belt but, I wish to comment on your points.

1. I don't see it being that great of an advantage but, my crew really doesn't use the main, "look out the window", view that much. We like to have the Captain's view as the main and then put up others as needed. I may find having the ability to have multiple displays up on the main may be interesting.

2. I personally don't care about cloaking. Sensor jamming that Science may have to break through would be interesting.

3. Seems like something more suited to a single player game. My crew is human and I have to look at them and interact with them. Having a name tag that says we are Martians seems kind of meaningless. If the idea is to have a greater selection of playable ships then I can understand the different races desire but, we can already have different ships with different abilities.

4. 3d would add a lot of complexity to the game and I'm not sure of the return on investment with it. I also don't consider combat as a mini-game. Combat is the game. It is all about how well your team works together during a stressful time. We have an established section of the galaxy to patrol and to protect. We are not explorers or diplomats.

4a. This would require Engineering to also be able to manipulate those screens. Not a bad idea and adds a little to the Engineering burden.

5. I like this idea but, I'm not sure the scale of the verse lends itself to it. The only part I don't like is the colonist angle. It doesn't seem to add to the game and as a ship of war it's not my job to deal with colony building.

6. I can't express how much I dislike the boarding idea. It may be fine for a single player type game but I really don't want to hang around as one member of the crew plays some sort of mini game to control boarding parties. Artemis is a social teamwork game and having boarding aspect would in my opinion take away from that.

7. I like the Space junk idea and I would also like to be able to salvage stuff from ships we destroy in battle. The pirate idea could also add something to the game especially for those ships that request help. This is were the stealth could come in as that cargo ship you are meeting up with turns into a well armed ship that attacks you. This would require some sort of sensor spoofing on their part. The ghost objects is also a neat idea. The others I do care about.

I have a lot I could comment on about the last few posts but not much time so I'll just point out that Thom has already said there will be a new playable race in V2.0 called the Ximni. You can find the information under the beneith the timeline in the latest version of the game manual.

Sorry. The last part of number 7 should be "The others I do not care about."

1) I know there are work-arounds for those so inclined, but to have bridge to bridge webcam coms built into the game would really add to the atmosphere.

Comms "Captain, TSN Ouroboros are hailing us."
Capt "On screen."

Similarly it would open the door for video comms messages in missions, as the next step from audio. I don't imagine the practicalities for mission writers would be significantly harder. Just like voice actors, they could be sourced remotely. People could film their lines remotely on their webcams. Plus I reckon the community would have a lot of fun, dressing up with sci fi b-movie quality SFX make up when they're portraying aliens. Very reminiscent of ToS.

2) This friday we are planning to run two ships. If there isn't already, the facility to transfer energy, damcon teams and ordinance to friendly vessels, perhaps by docking, would be awesome. Perhaps while docked it might be nice to enable Engineering to see the friendly vessel's status to allow them to manually allocate Dam Con teams to fix their ship. So whilst docked with a friendly ship you or they could temporarily have 6 dam con teams, for a speedy repair. I'm thinking about the kind of thing that I've seen in Sci Fi shows.

Capt "Engineering, send a team to help them with their repairs."
Eng "Aye, Captain"

Incidentally, it struck me as odd that different classes of TSN vessels all have of the same max number of DamCon teams, from Scout all the way up to Dreadnought. Similarly it requires the same amount of energy for a scout and a dreadnought to accelerate up to full impulse, to shield the different size vessels etc. Also they have the same size reactor i.e. max energy level as each other. As the two would vary in tandem it would be a moot point unless ships were able to transfer energy. A dreadnaught would easily be able to spare the energy a scout needed, but probably not vice-versa.

I would like to see Missions get the ability to flag bases and friendlies as side-mission available and then tap into the side-mission engine.

I really miss those side missions in less story-driven custom missions and would much rather tap into the engine rather than script them out myself. :)