Suggestion for Version 2.0

Chris: Mines aren't that rare. They take one one more minute to build then a homing missile from a station and are normally carried very heavily by the stations. But they aren't that save to use either. If someone is getting behind you you have to put on enough speed to get the right distance away from them to drop the mine or else you'll miss, or get trapped within the mines 1000 range blast radius. I will order mine drops against single ships but they tend to be Skaaran.

I am going to have to try what Jim is suggesting. It sounds like a hoot and a half.

Ok powering up regular homing missile. I think there is a rather simple way to do this. Since the homing is a kinetic middle it wouldn't be affected my shields. Instead it would penatrate the hull doing direct damage to the ship. That means you have a chance at destroying critical systems before combat. This is however wouldn't be overpowered because 4 missiles would be required to destroy one ship. Now of course you ask since the nuke is kinetic would it do the same? It would not the reason being that if it exploded inside the ship the sheilds would hamper the travel of explosive energy impairing its splash effect. Do logically it wold make sense to have it explode before hitting the vessel. Stronger missile solved.

You are talking about an in universe explanation for why something would happen. I am talking about the mechanics of the meta-game. I think an buff in damage between 30 dmg and 40 dmg. Then they would do noticeable damage to the enemy ships.

Exactly. I am giving a real explanation that could be implemented in the game mechanics to allow for missiles with a little more umph. Not more damage but more actual effect.

Relative nubie to Artemis (so if I've missed a similar posting, forgive me).
Some improvements I'd like to see (if not already there)

1. Any # of observation computers should be allowed (allowing multiple locations to watch (on and off site))

2. The Observation computers should have the ability to display all screens (even if being used by others). This would allow a trainer or others to watch and learn from others without sitting at the same location (say off site).

3. There should be several modes of the Observation computer display, sort of like this
a. Display a single screen at a time
b. Display a large single screen, with smaller versions of all the screens around it. When you click on one of the small screens, the large screen is replaced with the small screen just clicked, and that small screen just goes black
c. Display a tiled display of all the screens in miniature
d. Rotate through the screens (or just specific selected screens) with a display time setting for each
e. Rotate through the large screen as described in b above with a display time setting for each

4. Record the events of a mission into a log on the server (Time and Date stamp in the name) so that the mission could be played back. Using this, you could replay the mission one screen at a time, and capture the screens for tutorials and the like (or maybe to even do debug of an issue)

5. For Helm, it would be maybe useful to have the ship's speed be proportional to how far from the center of the display (green triangle) that the mouse is clicked. Clicking inside the angle circle could be impulse, and outside could be warp (or jump drive)

Chris:

We had five last Saturday; and played a Dreadnought/Missle Cruiser pairing. It's not impossible to play multiple ships with less than full crews - you just don't get all of the stations running on each ship, and therefore not all your resources are available to you. I can just about get by without a Comms or Science officer; but, not having an Engineer really hamstrings ship operations!

If we had just one more show up, I was going to try running three Scout ships. I've always thought it would be cool to try some wolfpack tactics!

I had an idea that I wanted to share. Some people have complained about not knowing the status of something for there station. For example, helm doesn't know if they don't have power to warp or if it was destroyed. Weapons might not have tubes loading or beams firing. Now I don't think they need to have the level or information that engineering has. Then you wouldn't get the communication between consoles that is important to this game. I suggest a simple signal. It is solid red when the system is unpowered or destroyed. Any power above 0% or the ability to function at all gives s solid green light. Then the stations have a quick easy way of knowing if it will work but not how well it will work. And they can talk with their engineering about getting more power, repairs, what have you.

I like where you're going with that idea, but I think that a three color light system would be more useful and still promote communication. Instead of just red for no power and green for any power, I would suggest red for no power, yellow for 1-50% power, and green for 51-100% power. It would be nice to know the difference between working with limited power vs. moderate to full power. The station in question would still need to communicate to either the Captain or the Engineer that they could use more power if available, but they might be better prepared to do without if they see a yellow light in a tense situation.

Ohhh pretty lights. Now I am going to go expanding again. I like the light idea but three lights is to few. I want a light informing you if the system is damage or overheating. Like a blinking red light so you don't spend a bunch of time yelling at engineering when the systems is destroyed. And that's my to cents. Ohhh and I still like my middle idea. Just mentioning it to see others thoughts.

Maybe. I liked the binary aspect of it because if you had a green light but things were still sluggish you have to ask "am I missing power? is my tube/beam/maneuvering/impulse/warp/sensors damaged?"

The big problem for me with the dual light set up Taigia, is that my engineer rarely checks with me (the Captain) before doing anything. I usually order him to drop power to a system, only to find out that he had already done so without telling anyone what was going on. He usually has a very good reason for making these changes but instead of consulting with me he typically just makes them. I heartily appreciate his efficiency, but he's not the best communicator.

Same with my engineer. And it works well. The problem with engineering checking in is if they do the job to the full potential they never stop changing systems. So unless you want the engineering talking the whole time you can't have constant status updates. That's why I think having four lights would work. You can see where things are or if the engineering is attempting to repair them. Gives you a better view of how the station works.

I think the concept of a systems status related to their station would be useful.

So for helm, there should be status indicators of current power to impulse, warp and maneuver, as well as front and rear shields (so he can rotate ship to best shield if needed) These should be bar graphs with a number underneath or on top of bar

For Weapons, he needs to know power to Beams and Torpedoes

Science needs to know sensor power

To go a step further, each station can have a request button to decrease or increase more power for an item by clicking at the appropriate point on the bar graph. Engineering would see a blinking line on the appropriate bar and have to allocate power to that by adjusting it. However, because engineering needs to manage the power, he may give more or less to the requested power.

:3

That's why I think having four lights would work.

How many lights are there, Captain?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAdGhMRBbzY

I couldn't agree less with tt. The reason why I said a red and green light is to keep it simple. The consoles have enough to deal with without having information over load. It is up to them to ask engineering for more power and engineering to give it. Not for weapon and helm to be micro managing the power and coolant levels of the systems they operate.
And having their own status bars would remove a lot of the communication of between the consoles. This is a co-op experience the likes of which is rarely seen in any kind of video game. The next two closest examples I can think of from different genres are the 'Left 4 Dead' series and 'World of Warcraft'(and by contrast any other MMO)

In L4D if everyone is moving as a unit and no one is wandering off or doing something stupid they almost don't need to talk to each other all at except for situations when an individual is in trouble. For example when the person bringing up the rear is pounced on or smoked. As long as no one is moving ahead of the others then they don't even need to say when they are throwing a Molotov.
In WoW when doing a raid it is all based on a plan. If everyone knows the plan to perfection and follows it exactly there doesn't need to be any communication at all.

In both my examples the only time communication is needed is when the shit has hit the fan. Artemis is unique in that a good crew should almost always be talking to each other. The only times in Artemis I've seen when no one was talking is when on a high level we were kiting the enemy ships into minefields, space monsters, and black holes because all the stations had been destroyed and we couldn't re-arm. And that could have just been me being silent because a weapons officer with nothing to put into the tubes really doesn't have much to talk about.