Members | Sign In
All Forums > Development

Suggestion for Version 2.0

posted Dec 31, 2012 18:47:44 by RussJudge
After having examined a lot of the different Mods and Missions that are out there, I think a good enhancement to see for Version 2 would be a way to include a vesselData.xml file in the mission folder that might add special ships and be merged with the stock vesselData.xml file, but not affect the stock vesselData.xml file. I've stumbled onto a few missions where all they want to do is add some special ship, but have to modify the vesselData.xml file to do so (and thus making it a Mod, instead of just a mission).
Author of Artemis Mod Loader.

Sign up for a free Dropbox account.
page   first prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 next last
218 replies
Mike_Substelny said Feb 19, 2013 15:12:14
Hancock: You can do transfers of DamCon Teams and Energy in a Mission Script.

Michael: I believe that Thom intends to have two playable races in Artemis 2.0, so I bet there will be side flags.
"Damn the torpedoes! Four bells, Captain Drayton!"

(Likely actual words of Admiral David Farragut, USN, at the battle of Mobile Bay. Four bells was the signal for the engine room to make full steam ahead).
MichaelMesich said Feb 19, 2013 15:55:33
I'm looking for access to the SIDE-MISSION engine. The one that pings comms and tells them to go here and then there to get this bonus.

I've been thinking a lot about using the Missions to create regular scenarios ... but custom.

Like that Trials, I suppose. But in a larger context that could grow over time.

That's why I think it would be helpful to be able to tap into the side-mission engine and lean on it a bit to keep Comms in the game without having to script every interaction for them.

Now that I think about it, tapping into the "under attack" and "sensors report [x] has been destroyed" would be nice too, and that all may very well be the same system.

Maybe these three stations and these three allied ships are flagged for that, but this other station and this other ship are only story-driven and interact via scripting.

Just day-dreaming about possibilities. :)
Captain said Feb 19, 2013 22:21:31
Hancock I totally agree. The energy transfer in game would really make sense. Also would add benefit to have large ships with smaller ships as the large ships could act as energy reserves really easily. So I am throwing that out as well as something I would like.
To Mankind
And the hope that the war against folly may someday be won, after all

Isaac Asimov
MichaelMesich said Feb 19, 2013 22:42:34
Two more things in case they haven't been brought up lately. :)

Give RED ALERT at least a nominal effect. Increase hull integrity by a smidge? Strengthen Shields a smidge? Can't really have it affect energy or regen rate as I wouldn't want it to be abused outside of combat. I think I'm going to start lying to my players that it does something anyway so they use it more!

This past weekend I had a crew that was ADAMANT about lowering shields before they docked. I'm pretty sure this has to do with having seen the message about the STATIONS not lowering their shields because enemies were too close, which certainly does lead to thinking that Artemis should have it's shields down too.

This would help curb the cheap and dirty quick-dock just before the enemy gets into range where the repairs and energy refresh allow the shields to soak up a good amount of enemy fire.

Shouldn't it have to be shields down both ways?
hancock.steven said Feb 21, 2013 16:59:30
Hi Mike, I suspect most things can be done in Mission scripts with enough creativity and ingenuity, I was thinking it would be nice to have as a core feature in settings like elite coop - for general game play.
TaigiaReilly said Feb 24, 2013 06:24:31
My Captain today said he knew something he wanted to see changed. As we rarely have a full six man crew the captain often has to do comms duty also. And he said he'd like the whole layout of the communications menu to be changed. Something more familar. Like a drop down tree.

I agree, but what are your thoughts?
Captain said Feb 24, 2013 15:37:13
What you mean by drop-down tree? I personally also would like to see some changes to the comms system. Perhaps an organization system allowing you to call up communications from specific ships when you wanted to see them. That way stopping all the cluter.
To Mankind
And the hope that the war against folly may someday be won, after all

Isaac Asimov
TaigiaReilly said Feb 24, 2013 16:47:32
It's like a windows file management drop down.


After selecting that you want from DS3 the whole thing wouldn't close. You'd still be able to click on the cluster for DS1/DS2/DS3/DS4 and choose another station. Or click on Enemy/Station/AllyShip and move down the proper try for them.
Captain said Feb 24, 2013 17:04:31
Interesting idea. That could be really useful. I support it.
To Mankind
And the hope that the war against folly may someday be won, after all

Isaac Asimov
MichaelMesich said Feb 24, 2013 17:40:29
That doesn't sound very touch-friendly though....
TaigiaReilly said Feb 24, 2013 17:55:58
We use the iPad for comms and science right now. Those consoles aren't very touch-friendly, period. In fact I know another improvement. On the iPad version have a zoom in and zoom out button. The pinch zoom is unexact and happens in the middle of trying to select enemies to scan.

And it would be very touch friendly. I'm just suggesting a drop down tree like windows explorer use to use before going to Windows7 and 8.
The tree would be on the left side of the screen and wouldn't go away when you select your final option so if you want to check another station you don't have to start over from 'Transmit'
JimGrindrod said Feb 24, 2013 20:57:39
I'm on Taigia's crew, and the iPad is mine, so I've got a little authority for what he's suggesting on this one. The iPad is a great device for the smaller stations like Science, Comms, or even just Captain's Map and Observer. However, there are a few issues with it.

1) Smalls screen. Not much to do about that, unfortunately. And on a smartphone it would only be worse, but that's a tech issue, not a program one. Still worth mentioning, however, to keep the screens from being cluttered. Thankfully, most of the screen is uncluttered. Problems only come up with helm and weapons with all the stuff they have. And DamCom team management is right out the window.
Possible Solution: not really much here to do. Just try to keep the touch as accurate as possible.

2) Map Zoom is an issue. The zoom is inaccurate, and doesn't always zoom where you want to go. It gets worse the farther in you go.
Possible solutions: Keep the Pinch Zoom option, but a simple Zoom + / - at the side would GREATLY ease this. That, or maybe a double tap, like in the street map programs. Double-tap a spot and it zooms in centered where you tapped. Just keep a zoom out option visible (but small-ish).

3) Comms' look needs a complete overhaul. It's a clunky mess of menus right now, and having to talk to multiple NPC ships or stations is a hassle and a half. Every time you do a command, it closes back to the start, and that's irritating.
Possible Solution: New tree menu. The actual order of the menus isn't at issue, but maybe have the new menu slide out while the old slides to the side or the top like a menu drop or collapse bar. When a command is given, go back only one base menu. So if you are commanding allies, when the command is given, go back to the allies menu. Keep the option to go back to the main menu.

4) Another issue with Comms is the way that communications are given. It's something of a mess of bubbles, especially when you are talking to multiple allies/enemies/stations at a time.
Possible Solution: Maybe have a scrolling text bar, looking like a chat window with clear names of who said what when. Or maybe just leave the bubbles to one section that doesn't get covered by the menus. The collapsing menus in one section while chat in another would help to streamline the look greatly.

These are just my suggestions. I don't know how much of it is possible to implement or not, but I figured I'd weigh in with my opinions. Sorry if I'm just re-stating what's already been said.
MichaelMesich said Feb 25, 2013 04:45:47
How weird since pinch/zoom seemed to work really well on my Win8 system. I figured it was a backflow from the iPad version. How weird to here that it doesn't work well on such a touch-centric device.
StephenKlauk said Feb 25, 2013 23:47:21
My thoughts on Boarding Parties:

+ Can only be sent/retrieved when shields are down on BOTH ships in the appropriate arc/facing (assuming a Star Trek-like beaming between ships - Perhaps carriers can use drones to transport teams, but still follow the same rules of having to penetrate shields).

+ Consist of your DamCom teams (so if you invade an enemy ship, you detract from the ability to repair your own ship.

+ Possibly have Comms direct boarding actions, instead of the engineer.

How it would work
+ Using the damage node system, the engineer would basically move the boarding party DamCon (BPDC) teams to a node. After the BPDC sits at an enemy node for a short interval (say 5-10 seconds), it damages/destroys the node (or if a friendly ship, repairs damage to a section).

+ If the invaded ship's DamCom team is moved to the affected node, it destroys/repels the invaders (or the computer can run the combat to see who wins, perhaps inputting skill and toughness factors into each side)

+ As always, if a BPDC or DC team is in an area that is hit by ship-to-ship weapons fire, it is destroyed

This way, I see this as making boarding actions the type of thing you do to either polish off an already crippled enemy ship (or capture it; perhaps turning it to your side) or done in desperation. At the very least, you probably don't want to be firing on a ship you're boarding, so it would make sense to drop boarders off on one ship while tackling another.

It also opens up a whole bunch of missions that could be done, such as seizing a prototype or adrift neutral vessel, "retrieving" some object hidden on a derelict ship or rescuing survivors off a ship in danger of exploding.

Hopefully, this system avoids the "one person does something while everyone else twiddles their thumbs" - while the boarding action is being resolved, the rest of the ship's crew can focus on taking on another enemy ship.
Jim Johnson said Feb 26, 2013 05:10:59
I've been trolling this thread for awhile, and I'd like to throw my two credits in. It seems like everybody is split down the middle regarding which console to have viewscreen control, shield control, etc. I understand the implications of needing Helm and Tactical to have VS control in the trial version. But, is there any way in the full version of 2.0 that we can have it so we can set the controls for view screen, shields, etc in the server menu? Personally, I like the idea of having one station handle each task. That would eliminate confusion, rather than increase it. So, the next time the ship takes a shot in the nose when the shields are down, if Tactical has exclusive control over the shields, the Captain knows who to escort to the nearest airlock! Obviously, you would also be able to set it so that more than one station can control these things as well. Bottom line is - vote is to give people a choice, rather than having it one way or another.

Another thing I want to throw out for consideration is the ability to rotate through the four visual angles with hot keys, rather than having to click the buttons on the screen. If it would be possible to add the four diagonal views as well, that would be really helpful. Sometimes we're coming in on an angle such that the enemies aren't fully on either of the two orthogonal views. Having the diagonals would make it easier.

Finally, my last request has to do with setting the firing arcs. We like to play with player firing arcs only, so we each go to the options screen, select "Player Arcs Only" , and commence with the game. When we finish and get ready to start the next one, we have to go in and repeat the process. Is there any way we can change the program so that the settings remain the same until they are changed again?
Login below to reply: