|
Post by newageofpower on Oct 31, 2017 17:31:42 GMT
dichebachLess dense fuels require more mass/cost for armoring them; which is why most players use methane or the higher alkanes when building armored vessels. The more armor you slap on, the more attractive the denser fuels become.
|
|
|
Post by dichebach on Oct 31, 2017 17:48:28 GMT
Good stuff! Thanks folks Rocket science . . . who knew it was so complicated!?
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Oct 31, 2017 18:26:16 GMT
Good stuff! Thanks folks Rocket science . . . who knew it was so complicated!? literally everyone who has heard the phrase "At least it's not rocket science"
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Oct 31, 2017 18:35:41 GMT
Good stuff! Thanks folks Rocket science . . . who knew it was so complicated!? Oh Boy will it be fun when you try to design a Laser!
|
|
|
Post by dichebach on Oct 31, 2017 18:51:15 GMT
Missiles and drones: maybe I'm missing something?
But these things strike me as "barely functional."
(a) no way to multi-select vessels that include missiles or drones and give a common order to each to deploy X amount
(b) once X amount is deployed, no easy way to specify a spacing or formation for the items
(c) more egregiously, no auto "attack this enemy fleet" function. Yes, it is NICE that one has the option to give very nuanced navigational orders to missile and drone fleets using the same 3-prong maneuver node interface as crewed fleets. But the fact this is the ONLY way to control them creates a dynamic where using the damn things is "un fun"
(d) So we all know there is a "sweet spot" in terms of numbers of these things which attack at once (especially the nukes): too few and they are easy pickings for Point-Defense, too many and they interfere with each other or even disarm one another. This naturally leads to a dynamic were deploying and attacking with them in separate waves or salvos is attractive. However, what happens when you get > 8 or so such "fleets" operating? The program starts to choke and wheeze.
What am I doing wrong here?
The easiest way to use nukes that I've found is to get the whole mother fleet into a "near collision" retrograde matching orbit to the enemy. Then just launch them. Then make an orbital change to the mother fleet so that it will not intercept or will intercept later. Anything except this is tedious to be honest, and then you get the 1 Frame Per Minute effect when you deploy 200 missiles "properly" i.e., in 8 fleets of 25 missiles deployed between 1 and 5 minutes apart.
|
|
|
Post by treptoplax on Oct 31, 2017 20:12:15 GMT
Missiles and drones: maybe I'm missing something? But these things strike me as "barely functional." (a) no way to multi-select vessels that include missiles or drones and give a common order to each to deploy X amount (b) once X amount is deployed, no easy way to specify a spacing or formation for the items (c) more egregiously, no auto "attack this enemy fleet" function. Yes, it is NICE that one has the option to give very nuanced navigational orders to missile and drone fleets using the same 3-prong maneuver node interface as crewed fleets. But the fact this is the ONLY way to control them creates a dynamic where using the damn things is "un fun" (d) So we all know there is a "sweet spot" in terms of numbers of these things which attack at once (especially the nukes): too few and they are easy pickings for Point-Defense, too many and they interfere with each other or even disarm one another. This naturally leads to a dynamic were deploying and attacking with them in separate waves or salvos is attractive. However, what happens when you get > 8 or so such "fleets" operating? The program starts to choke and wheeze. What am I doing wrong here? The easiest way to use nukes that I've found is to get the whole mother fleet into a "near collision" retrograde matching orbit to the enemy. Then just launch them. Then make an orbital change to the mother fleet so that it will not intercept or will intercept later. Anything except this is tedious to be honest, and then you get the 1 Frame Per Minute effect when you deploy 200 missiles "properly" i.e., in 8 fleets of 25 missiles deployed between 1 and 5 minutes apart. These are all pretty legit annoyances. My 2c for what it's worth: a) Because of the overhead for minimum crew size, and probably some reasons I've forgotten, carriers in particular tend to get somewhat more efficient as they scale up. I usually have either 1 or 3-5 carrier-type ships in my fleets, so it's not a big deal to click between them and launch 5 or 20 craft each. (Or I'll just not be bothered and use one carrier per salvo). But, yeah, annoying. I think maybe you can group all ships of a type and order them to launch the same number of craft?? b) Yup. it would be nice to launch some drones/missiles and keep them with the mothership but as a screening force out in front. c) Also somewhat annoying. One thing that was a surprise to me is the extent to which strategic 'distance' in the game is about gravity wells, rather than space. Fighting an enemy around Venus actually takes some maneuver. In Vesta Overkill it's this tiny asteroid that you can't even orbit at any appreciable speed - it's a fight in a phone booth despite all the distance, and mostly you burn straight at 'em. In this case I did find that setting the view perspective to be Centered on Enemy fleet (I think that's what it's called?) made setting the "fly these drones straight at the enemy capital fleet" maneuvers much easier to set. But then again half of what I'm doing now is just testing designs against each other in sandbox mode AI-vs-AI so I don't have to screw around with an of that at all... d). Hm. I haven't noticed large numbers of fleets being a problem (lots of guns firing, yes). One thing that might help is staging missiles in a single fleet; set orders to "none", then set them to be in groups of five, and order each successive group to "homing" order after a few seconds delay. The retrograde thing is a good trick, it's not as useful around Vesta just because the orbital velocities are so low...
|
|
|
Post by Rocket Witch on Oct 31, 2017 20:38:43 GMT
Some things to add about some points. a) There is a drag-box type selection mode you can enable in settings, if that's any good for you, and there are some grouping controls at the top left. c) If there's something coming at your fleet you can launch something, enable trajectory editing for it then just click on it and you will have an option to flyby the nearest enemy. This is only half a shortcut since you'll still need to put in some of your own velocity input to distance your interceptor wave from your fleet. I also felt like making a ship specifically for Vesta: steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1187169605I'm not saying "use this" though, rather since I made it anyway it just might be interesting to have a look at. It's more satisfying to beat Vesta with one's own designs. While testing I found I could lase the drones if I target the weapons, and they won't even begin ignoring range to retaliate, so the lasers will actually cover all the point defence needs and the massive arsenal of 200x10 Strikers is just for effect.
|
|
|
Post by dichebach on Oct 31, 2017 23:30:33 GMT
Wow, only 790 m/s dV. What a strange scenario this Vesta Overkill is . . .
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Nov 2, 2017 2:09:22 GMT
Wow, only 790 m/s dV. What a strange scenario this Vesta Overkill is . . . You don't need any dV on most combat based missions if you've got good enough missiles with tens of thousands of dV(s) (you get what I mean).
|
|
|
Post by treptoplax on Nov 2, 2017 3:03:30 GMT
Wow, only 790 m/s dV. What a strange scenario this Vesta Overkill is . . . Well on Vesta Overkill it's tough to evade the enemy missiles/drones, and the enemy fleet will come to you anyway. You could win that almost as easily with a practically immobile ship unless you have a particularly exotic strategy.
|
|
|
Post by 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖒𝖈𝖍𝖆𝖈𝖑𝖊 on Nov 2, 2017 6:10:07 GMT
you have to create a helium refueler in module design IIRC, or click on one of the Helium tanks then go to the sidebar and click "Add Refueler" and select one from the drop down. your lack of rocket science shows, Helium is not fuel, it is propellant, propellant is what you shoot out the back of the space craft, fuel is what you burn to make propellant go faster. Nuclear Thermal Rockets are decent for surface to orbit launch but chemical rockets are better as you need thrust not specific impulse on launch, also people are deathly afrid of the N word and R word so no nuclear launches )-; which is a shame because the best surface to orbit launcher involes detonating a series of ~200 sub kiloton atomic bombs well, you could consider the helium the "fuel" and you would understand what they are trying to say, but yeah, i guess the fuel would be the... Uranium in the nuclear reactor lol
|
|
|
Post by dichebach on Nov 2, 2017 6:18:04 GMT
Wow, only 790 m/s dV. What a strange scenario this Vesta Overkill is . . . You don't need any dV on most combat based missions if you've got good enough missiles with tens of thousands of dV(s) (you get what I mean). Yeah . . . well. I think your typical gamer would like the game better if it was a bit less "on rails." Great game, but the fact each mission is a highly contrived scenario in which the computer opponent has been hand crafted to pose a specific--if not annoying--irritation . . . erm, I mean CHALLENGE to players probably accounts for the SteamSpy numbers. Just assembling the builder and simulation parts of this are an astounding feat of programming. But the game design is more along the lines of Chemistry lab, and the final exam is cumulative. There is an axiom that all game developers should write on their mirror and read every morning before they embark on their work: "Give players options and they will be happy. Constrain players options and they will be cranky." And the corollary of that: "Force players to jump through hoops in order to teach them a lesson, and they will either disengage entirely or seek to return the favor of punishment."
|
|
|
Post by Rocket Witch on Nov 2, 2017 14:30:06 GMT
Yeah . . . well. I think your typical gamer would like the game better if it was a bit less "on rails." Great game, but the fact each mission is a highly contrived scenario in which the computer opponent has been hand crafted to pose a specific--if not annoying--irritation . . . erm, I mean CHALLENGE to players probably accounts for the SteamSpy numbers. Just assembling the builder and simulation parts of this are an astounding feat of programming. But the game design is more along the lines of Chemistry lab, and the final exam is cumulative. There is an axiom that all game developers should write on their mirror and read every morning before they embark on their work: "Give players options and they will be happy. Constrain players options and they will be cranky." And the corollary of that: "Force players to jump through hoops in order to teach them a lesson, and they will either disengage entirely or seek to return the favor of punishment." I don't think so. Plenty of linear games do well, like Inside which released in the same year. The main thing accounting for CDE's low sales is the fact that very few people care about space warfare, especially since just grasping the basics of peaceful space travel takes >70 hours in KSP. Very niche simulation. Also Scott Manley didn't like it that much, and he was probably the game's biggest outlet to a wider audience. There were some legit problems back then though, like missile guidance being a mess. If the game released a couple months later than it did when most of these issues were ironed out, it might've done noticeably though I don't think much better. Also the game looks like it has placeholder graphics and poor presentation, which it doesn't really but impressions count. The campaign more or less is an introduction to various different aspects of how the game works, indeed. Most Steam reviews actually applaud this though, since grasping space travel takes some work. While I do agree it could've done with a more free-form flow, maybe like the campaign in Close Combat 2 which starts with the historical premise of Operation Market Garden but can diverge in details from where and when you win and lose, I'm not sure it would've been worth the cost/benefit ratio for the developer. It's a wonder the game even has a campaign and doesn't just throw the infolinks in one's face on its first startup. I will say, however, that the sandbox could do with a lot of fleshing out. That's where the meat of the game is, but you can't even set up interplanetary scenarios or combat involving multiple fleets from within the game... yet. Q is very responsive to feedback; plenty of additions we've gotten since release have simply been because we asked for them, like tapered radiators, a few UI buttons, extruded turrets, etc.
|
|
|
Post by dichebach on Nov 2, 2017 19:08:51 GMT
Yeah . . . well. I think your typical gamer would like the game better if it was a bit less "on rails." Great game, but the fact each mission is a highly contrived scenario in which the computer opponent has been hand crafted to pose a specific--if not annoying--irritation . . . erm, I mean CHALLENGE to players probably accounts for the SteamSpy numbers. Just assembling the builder and simulation parts of this are an astounding feat of programming. But the game design is more along the lines of Chemistry lab, and the final exam is cumulative. There is an axiom that all game developers should write on their mirror and read every morning before they embark on their work: "Give players options and they will be happy. Constrain players options and they will be cranky." And the corollary of that: "Force players to jump through hoops in order to teach them a lesson, and they will either disengage entirely or seek to return the favor of punishment." I don't think so. Plenty of linear games do well, like Inside which released in the same year. The main thing accounting for CDE's low sales is the fact that very few people care about space warfare, especially since just grasping the basics of peaceful space travel takes >70 hours in KSP. Very niche simulation. Also Scott Manley didn't like it that much, and he was probably the game's biggest outlet to a wider audience. There were some legit problems back then though, like missile guidance being a mess. If the game released a couple months later than it did when most of these issues were ironed out, it might've done noticeably though I don't think much better. Also the game looks like it has placeholder graphics and poor presentation, which it doesn't really but impressions count. The campaign more or less is an introduction to various different aspects of how the game works, indeed. Most Steam reviews actually applaud this though, since grasping space travel takes some work. While I do agree it could've done with a more free-form flow, maybe like the campaign in Close Combat 2 which starts with the historical premise of Operation Market Garden but can diverge in details from where and when you win and lose, I'm not sure it would've been worth the cost/benefit ratio for the developer. It's a wonder the game even has a campaign and doesn't just throw the infolinks in one's face on its first startup. I will say, however, that the sandbox could do with a lot of fleshing out. That's where the meat of the game is, but you can't even set up interplanetary scenarios or combat involving multiple fleets from within the game... yet. Q is very responsive to feedback; plenty of additions we've gotten since release have simply been because we asked for them, like tapered radiators, a few UI buttons, extruded turrets, etc. I am admiring, inspired and even awe-struck by what Q-switched has pulled off here. Astounding spaceship combat and module/shipbuilding 'simulator.' The fact the "Campaign" progresses through graded stages of difficulty, providing what is one of the better 'tutorials' for how to understand the underlying science and game concepts are highly laudable. I think there are two major design decisions that hurt sales, and he may be perfectly aware of these and resigned to the fact that he made these design decisions for pragmatic reasons: 1) the universe in which game episodes occur is not a living thing. There is no permanence (player teleports across the solar system between episodes). There is no "living sand box" for which the "campaign" prepares the player to operate in once each step in the series has been mastered. Logistics, economics, planning, construction, resource control/extraction/stewardship are irrelevant. I could add to this that, apart from the very brief mentioning of some NPCs, there are effectively no "characters" in the game. 2) putting the module and ship design behind a "grind wall," and making non-random scenarios the central focus of the game which I've heard more than one commentator reflect on by saying "this is a puzzle game." Both are perfectly understandable for a one man show, and even making such an intricate, accessible, fun and additive game as this is, for one person, an enormous accomplishment. But those are the two reasons why I believe the game didn't engage more. -=-=-=- I think that LOTS of people care about science fiction, with space travel and space combat and space warfare all being favored themes. Granted, games like Empyrion, Kerbal and No Man's Sky are not exactly pulling in PUBG or CSGO numbers, but they are apparently selling hundreds of thousands of units. Even little Distant Worlds Universe, with graphics that are WORSE than CDE, a UI that is far worse than CDE, and with a flavor of "soft science fiction" that is more or less the antithesis of what Qswitched set out to do here have sold nearly 100,000 on Steam (and probably in excess if one considers its pre-Steam years when it was sold on Matrix store only). I don't think "general lack of interest in space-based stuff" can account for it. The "diamond-hard science fiction" imperative could be seen as a turn off for some, but I don't think that is "lethal" to a game's market potential. It is true, many gamers cannot be bothered to learn about game representations of complex and difficult technical matters like orbital mechanics, or materials science or "how to build a nuclear reactor." Extreme realism probably does inherently alienate a sizable chunk of prospective audience and there may be no way around that. But even with that chunk subtracted, I believe there are large numbers of gamers who thrive on the sorts of complex technical challenges that a game like CDE offers, as long as it is served up to them on a proverbial silver platter and is fun. Arma is quite realistic (as tactical FPS combat shooters go) and it doesn't harm its popularity. Silent Hunter series: pretty brutally realistic. Rome Total War: not much in the way of Deus Ex there and to the extent that emergent gameplay veers from "realism" it is not because the game rules and topics are fantasy, it is simply because the algorithms comprising the computer opponents (what gets erroneously called "AI") are just simply terrible at matching even a 8 year old humans tactical and strategic acumen. Generally "tough AI" is a matter of mobbing, hit points, reaction times, 'precognizance' which reflects the developer knowing enough about the game to write the algorithms appropriately, or some other form of "human handicapping" like giving the computer a 50% bonus on mass and currency allotment. In this sense, despite its admirable devotion to create a simulator that breached as few laws of reality as possible, the actual game play is pretty typical in forcing the player to face the computer opponent on the developers' terms . . . Lots of games that are really not much less "realistic" than CDE (piles and piles of war games, for example) . . . Even games which make enormous arm-waving motions and breach physical and natural laws for the sake of game play often involve quite complex rules of internal consistency (EVE Online, Civilization, etc., etc.). I'm hesitant to say too much. I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings or offend anyone. I don't know any of you, and in truth, I have zero experience with actually shipping titles so it is easy for me to spout about "good game design" when I'm really more of a "student" of the topic than a practictioner. But I really feel that this game has tremendous untapped potential, which (depending on his situation) even the lone father of the thing might be able to untap with sufficient clarity and motivation. There may be little or no motivation, I don't know. If I had to put in simple terms what I think a major overhaul, update or expansion should do, I'd have to say: open world. Bring the CDE solar system to life and place the player IN that world and give them the options to navigate it on their own terms, but with a sufficient number of (a) major story arcs that form a narrative backbone; (b) a handful of "side-quest" story arcs, some more pre-meditated, some more random-configured, and some a mixture and with varying degrees of linkage to the "main quest" (as they say in Bethesda fan communities); (c) living world that pulses and breathes and throbs all by itself, and out of which a reasonably frequent rate of "random scenarios" can crop up.
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Nov 2, 2017 20:27:23 GMT
I don't think so. Plenty of linear games do well, like Inside which released in the same year. The main thing accounting for CDE's low sales is the fact that very few people care about space warfare, especially since just grasping the basics of peaceful space travel takes >70 hours in KSP. Very niche simulation. Also Scott Manley didn't like it that much, and he was probably the game's biggest outlet to a wider audience. There were some legit problems back then though, like missile guidance being a mess. If the game released a couple months later than it did when most of these issues were ironed out, it might've done noticeably though I don't think much better. Also the game looks like it has placeholder graphics and poor presentation, which it doesn't really but impressions count. The campaign more or less is an introduction to various different aspects of how the game works, indeed. Most Steam reviews actually applaud this though, since grasping space travel takes some work. While I do agree it could've done with a more free-form flow, maybe like the campaign in Close Combat 2 which starts with the historical premise of Operation Market Garden but can diverge in details from where and when you win and lose, I'm not sure it would've been worth the cost/benefit ratio for the developer. It's a wonder the game even has a campaign and doesn't just throw the infolinks in one's face on its first startup. I will say, however, that the sandbox could do with a lot of fleshing out. That's where the meat of the game is, but you can't even set up interplanetary scenarios or combat involving multiple fleets from within the game... yet. Q is very responsive to feedback; plenty of additions we've gotten since release have simply been because we asked for them, like tapered radiators, a few UI buttons, extruded turrets, etc. I am admiring, inspired and even awe-struck by what Q-switched has pulled off here. Astounding spaceship combat and module/shipbuilding 'simulator.' The fact the "Campaign" progresses through graded stages of difficulty, providing what is one of the better 'tutorials' for how to understand the underlying science and game concepts are highly laudable. I think there are two major design decisions that hurt sales, and he may be perfectly aware of these and resigned to the fact that he made these design decisions for pragmatic reasons: 1) the universe in which game episodes occur is not a living thing. There is no permanence (player teleports across the solar system between episodes). There is no "living sand box" for which the "campaign" prepares the player to operate in once each step in the series has been mastered. Logistics, economics, planning, construction, resource control/extraction/stewardship are irrelevant. I could add to this that, apart from the very brief mentioning of some NPCs, there are effectively no "characters" in the game. 2) putting the module and ship design behind a "grind wall," and making non-random scenarios the central focus of the game which I've heard more than one commentator reflect on by saying "this is a puzzle game." Both are perfectly understandable for a one man show, and even making such an intricate, accessible, fun and additive game as this is, for one person, an enormous accomplishment. But those are the two reasons why I believe the game didn't engage more. -=-=-=- I think that LOTS of people care about science fiction, with space travel and space combat and space warfare all being favored themes. Granted, games like Empyrion, Kerbal and No Man's Sky are not exactly pulling in PUBG or CSGO numbers, but they are apparently selling hundreds of thousands of units. Even little Distant Worlds Universe, with graphics that are WORSE than CDE, a UI that is far worse than CDE, and with a flavor of "soft science fiction" that is more or less the antithesis of what Qswitched set out to do here have sold nearly 100,000 on Steam (and probably in excess if one considers its pre-Steam years when it was sold on Matrix store only). I don't think "general lack of interest in space-based stuff" can account for it. The "diamond-hard science fiction" imperative could be seen as a turn off for some, but I don't think that is "lethal" to a game's market potential. It is true, many gamers cannot be bothered to learn about game representations of complex and difficult technical matters like orbital mechanics, or materials science or "how to build a nuclear reactor." Extreme realism probably does inherently alienate a sizable chunk of prospective audience and there may be no way around that. But even with that chunk subtracted, I believe there are large numbers of gamers who thrive on the sorts of complex technical challenges that a game like CDE offers, as long as it is served up to them on a proverbial silver platter and is fun. Arma is quite realistic (as tactical FPS combat shooters go) and it doesn't harm its popularity. Silent Hunter series: pretty brutally realistic. Rome Total War: not much in the way of Deus Ex there and to the extent that emergent gameplay veers from "realism" it is not because the game rules and topics are fantasy, it is simply because the algorithms comprising the computer opponents (what gets erroneously called "AI") are just simply terrible at matching even a 8 year old humans tactical and strategic acumen. Generally "tough AI" is a matter of mobbing, hit points, reaction times, 'precognizance' which reflects the developer knowing enough about the game to write the algorithms appropriately, or some other form of "human handicapping" like giving the computer a 50% bonus on mass and currency allotment. In this sense, despite its admirable devotion to create a simulator that breached as few laws of reality as possible, the actual game play is pretty typical in forcing the player to face the computer opponent on the developers' terms . . . Lots of games that are really not much less "realistic" than CDE (piles and piles of war games, for example) . . . Even games which make enormous arm-waving motions and breach physical and natural laws for the sake of game play often involve quite complex rules of internal consistency (EVE Online, Civilization, etc., etc.). I'm hesitant to say too much. I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings or offend anyone. I don't know any of you, and in truth, I have zero experience with actually shipping titles so it is easy for me to spout about "good game design" when I'm really more of a "student" of the topic than a practictioner. But I really feel that this game has tremendous untapped potential, which (depending on his situation) even the lone father of the thing might be able to untap with sufficient clarity and motivation. There may be little or no motivation, I don't know. If I had to put in simple terms what I think a major overhaul, update or expansion should do, I'd have to say: open world. Bring the CDE solar system to life and place the player IN that world and give them the options to navigate it on their own terms, but with a sufficient number of (a) major story arcs that form a narrative backbone; (b) a handful of "side-quest" story arcs, some more pre-meditated, some more random-configured, and some a mixture and with varying degrees of linkage to the "main quest" (as they say in Bethesda fan communities); (c) living world that pulses and breathes and throbs all by itself, and out of which a reasonably frequent rate of "random scenarios" can crop up. The biggest problem is that the game hides its biggest selling point behind several missions, it can be skipped by using an option in the info link which is pretty well hidden. An open dynamic world the size of KSP solar system plus several AI factions, combined with random events, resources and multiple ways to complete missions with consequences, that would give CoaDE not only the gimmick factor of being realistic and having module designing. But the engine seems to limit the communities modding ability, fusion drives are in the form of relatively accurately simulated chemical reactions and the rest is pretty much only materials provided by Rocket Witch and uh.. some others. CDE seems to be played by a lot hard sci-fi authors, probably because CDE is on a lot of Atomic Rockets pages. And an "realistic" space warfare simulator plus ship designing plus also making your own parts is great for everyone that wants to design a practical spaceship.
|
|