The official GSB 2.0 gameplay discussion thread

User avatar
CptFox
Supreme Robot
Supreme Robot
Posts: 451
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2010 5:21 pm
Location: RizingGamesUK
Contact:

Re: The official GSB 2.0 gameplay discussion thread

Postby CptFox » Sun Jun 29, 2014 9:51 pm

Awesome thank you so much Cliff ^_^

Another thing that I often pondered with while playing GSB was the option of a 'reinforcement' window, exactly the same (well, different/chosen placement areas would be cool sometimes!) as the start-up deployment screen just with additional (earn from kills?) or un-used funds and to be offered after the battle has kicked off (say at a certain amount of time taken or enemy/friendly units destroyed etc)?

I think that this would be an interesting mission variant and add allot of tactical opportunity, especially for the players that suddenly remember why they shouldn't turn up to a missile fight with just lasers! ;D

Of course the option for missions to feature both or either player/foe reinforcements at pre-selected points would be great for mission variety and creation :D

(Surprise rear attacks anyone?)
.:. Chair-leader for The Friendly Community Mod Squad.:.
Giant Space Zombie Survival: http://positech.co.uk/forums/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=6365

User avatar
cliffski
Positech Staff
Positech Staff
Posts: 7967
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 10:27 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: The official GSB 2.0 gameplay discussion thread

Postby cliffski » Tue Jul 01, 2014 4:45 pm

Just a quick updated screenshot to show the new firing arc ranges overlay. I'm grouping them together in a single color now so they don't all accumulate and go washy:
arcs.jpg
arcs.jpg (239.09 KiB) Viewed 4707 times

User avatar
cliffski
Positech Staff
Positech Staff
Posts: 7967
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 10:27 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: The official GSB 2.0 gameplay discussion thread - Deploy

Postby cliffski » Tue Jul 01, 2014 5:05 pm

Archduke Astro wrote:For example, the original game's Escort order is a boondoggle of extra panels and redundant click-throughs. I'm sorry to say this, but that sort of thing borders upon rubbish ("I already successfully set the target! Why are you still asking me for one?"). Please promise us that this sort of User-Experience landmine will become a thing of the past. We definitely do not want a UI consultant potentially strong-arming you to make things 1,000% idiot-proof at all costs, while such overly-broad "solutions" are sometimes really just aggravations that force a player to needlessly swim upstream against the game.


Indeed I've always hated this too, and now we have a new problem in that fighters have to be 'assigned' to a carrier, regardless of any escort or formation orders. Suddenly those lines that mean 'escort this ship' could be misleading. This is a UI nightmare.
My current setup:

The 'assign carrier' order is added to every fighter automatically and uncancellable. It makes the ships flash red until the order is 'resolved' by assigning a target for that order. (when selecting a carrier, only carriers with available space are highlighted to make this process easier).
You can see what fighter squad is assigned to what carrier by a white line, just like escort, but this ONLY shows if you select either the fighter squad, or the carrier. Otherwise it's hidden

I still have the current situation of adding an order to escort, means it asks you to click the ship, and to edit that, you have to select the order then select set target. This does such but I need a very OBVIOUS and SIMPLE way to do this that isn't so clunky. Dragging and dropping doesn't work because we use that to move ships around...

Berny_74
Supreme Robot
Supreme Robot
Posts: 316
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 12:42 am

Re: The official GSB 2.0 gameplay discussion thread - Deploy

Postby Berny_74 » Tue Jul 01, 2014 6:12 pm

cliffski wrote:
I still have the current situation of adding an order to escort, means it asks you to click the ship, and to edit that, you have to select the order then select set target. This does such but I need a very OBVIOUS and SIMPLE way to do this that isn't so clunky. Dragging and dropping doesn't work because we use that to move ships around...


In GSB1 I never had a huge problem with the escort/formation orders (assigning them that is) Click your ship(ships) shift-E (or F) and click the target to be escorted.

What I did have a problem was the AI around that order - the moment the escorted vessel was destroyed the fighters (or other craft) would then operate willy-nilly. Could instead of escorting a specific unit a choice of escorting a specific class. That way fighters would always defend the closest cruiser, and if it was destroyed - they would merely find another cruiser to defend (or Battleship, Frigate, etc). This would keep fighters from ending up flying around the map in useless dog fights when they should be helping.

Also could fighters not escort fighters? This was another pet peeve of mine of trying to getting fighters to proactively defend themselves.

And are all firing arcs forward facing? Would there be an order to get ships to end up behind those firing arcs?

Berny
Happy Canada Day

User avatar
cliffski
Positech Staff
Positech Staff
Posts: 7967
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 10:27 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: The official GSB 2.0 gameplay discussion thread

Postby cliffski » Tue Jul 01, 2014 7:35 pm

I'm planning on a few rear-facing firing arcs in some cases, but ships will always face their prime targets, which I think makes sense.
I can't see a problem with fighters escorting fighters, although it needs some special code, because it means escort 'any surviving ship within this squadron' which involves some new logic for that order.

User avatar
tater
Supreme Robot
Supreme Robot
Posts: 435
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The official GSB 2.0 gameplay discussion thread

Postby tater » Tue Jul 01, 2014 9:20 pm

If there is some new fighter logic, perhaps that's a good time for "expendables" as well. Fighters should carry a small number of missiles, etc, and when expended, they should use their novel fight logic to return to the CV to refuel/rearm. This would create a more complex tactical world where you might assign some units specifically to attack carriers (any larger ship can carry the bays, so that would be the target assignment, obviously). I'd like to see "bombers" attacking ships with one slow weapon that can do large damage, but survival is very hard vs a altered defense, for example.

Doctor Xenon
Type I Robot
Type I Robot
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu May 29, 2014 12:58 pm
Contact:

Re: The official GSB 2.0 gameplay discussion thread

Postby Doctor Xenon » Wed Jul 02, 2014 10:53 am

I just remembered something. I recall in a particular scenario of the Praetorian Industries mod where only fighters were allowed. (actually, maybe the player was allowed to use frigates, but the enemy only had fighters) Would matches with such restrictions not exist anymore due to the new rule of fighters requiring carriers? Or would they be an exception?

User avatar
cliffski
Positech Staff
Positech Staff
Posts: 7967
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 10:27 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: The official GSB 2.0 gameplay discussion thread

Postby cliffski » Wed Jul 02, 2014 10:55 am

I could code it as a per-scenario option I guess.

User avatar
gunnyfreak
Supreme Robot
Supreme Robot
Posts: 404
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 4:56 am

Re: The official GSB 2.0 gameplay discussion thread

Postby gunnyfreak » Wed Jul 02, 2014 2:38 pm

so I guess broadsiding ships are still not happening? That's unfortunate, can't have them all, I guess

another thing though, iirc in GSB1, the order "keep moving" was incompatible with escort, meaning if you want to make your fast attack frigates take advantage of their speed in battle, you can't leash them to your heavy cruisers and have them hit the enemy formation at the same time. Is this shaping up to be the case here?
SOOOO........... MANY........ BUGS!!!!!!

Testpilot6
Senior Line Worker
Senior Line Worker
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2014 9:23 pm

Re: The official GSB 2.0 gameplay discussion thread

Postby Testpilot6 » Wed Jul 02, 2014 11:11 pm

If possible and if not already discussed, Multiplayer would be amazing. Multiplayer might be a problem on the basis of 1 or more ships consisting of Heavy Plasma Cannons only. Some claim it as a tactic which I'd have to agree on in some cases, but that tactic does have its weaknesses. But if there was to be Mulitplayer an idea would be to implement certain System Limits and Events, like a limited number of certain or all turrets. Or another suggestion would be a Co-op on a selected mission.

Also, do you have any idea of when this game would be available to public? :D

Berny_74
Supreme Robot
Supreme Robot
Posts: 316
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 12:42 am

Re: The official GSB 2.0 gameplay discussion thread

Postby Berny_74 » Thu Jul 03, 2014 1:53 am

gunnyfreak wrote:so I guess broadsiding ships are still not happening? That's unfortunate, can't have them all, I guess


That's my feeling right now :( Was hoping for some dynamic flanking maneuvers.

Testpilot6 wrote:If possible and if not already discussed, Multiplayer would be amazing.


Uhm - hasn't there been multiplayer since the beginning? or were all of Stan Plush's challenges a figment of my imagination?

Testpilot6 wrote: Also, do you have any idea of when this game would be available to public? :D


Not soon enough - or realistically I think 2015?

Berny
Starting from the bottom.

Testpilot6
Senior Line Worker
Senior Line Worker
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2014 9:23 pm

Re: The official GSB 2.0 gameplay discussion thread

Postby Testpilot6 » Thu Jul 03, 2014 4:58 am

Oh, 2015 alrighty then. Challenges was a cool setup but what I had in mind for mulitplayer was 2 players or more fighting each other simultaneously in one match or fighting together in a match or lobby(whatever you prefer to call it).

User avatar
Archduke Astro
Positech Staff
Positech Staff
Posts: 1654
Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 10:09 pm
Location: Building The Future.

Re: The official GSB 2.0 gameplay discussion thread

Postby Archduke Astro » Thu Jul 03, 2014 7:00 am

Hello, Testpilot6. From my vantage point, I'm truly unsure if simultaneous, realtime-over-internet multiplayer is anywhere on the developer's radar, let alone something that's feasible for inclusion in the sequel game. Optimism may be premature here. I agree with you, though: if it's do-able, it would be a nice feature to have.
.
•• Positech Global Moderator & Forum Sheriff ••
GSB "Combined-Arms Combat" Advocate & Analyst
Enemy of Forum Lulz | Defender of Faction Diversity

∞∆……CURATOR OF CREATIVE CONCEPTS for GSB's Friendly Community Mod Squad……∆∞

Doctor Xenon
Type I Robot
Type I Robot
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu May 29, 2014 12:58 pm
Contact:

Re: The official GSB 2.0 gameplay discussion thread

Postby Doctor Xenon » Thu Jul 03, 2014 8:35 am

Broadsiding ships? What does this mean exactly?

User avatar
cliffski
Positech Staff
Positech Staff
Posts: 7967
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 10:27 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: The official GSB 2.0 gameplay discussion thread

Postby cliffski » Thu Jul 03, 2014 9:15 am

I think this is a reference to ships deliberately turning to face specific weapons againts the enemy. I'm not ruling this out, but it would be a nightmare to code, because you have to take into account:
[*]the weapon recharge rates of broadside plus forward firing weapons and their recharge rates
[*]The ships currently in arc of weapons, vs their expected positions when those weapons recharge and you have turned
[*]the turn rate of your ship
I can see it becoming a mess of ships spinning seemingly randomly, never quite managing to set up a broadside. It isn't a trivial thing for human captains, let alone AI.


Return to “GSB2 Gratuitous Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest