Not a member yet? Why not Sign up today
Create an account  

Poll: What do you think is most important for devs to focus on?
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
Content Updates
16.36%
18 16.36%
Quality of Life Updates
18.18%
20 18.18%
Bug Fixes
14.55%
16 14.55%
Stable MP
15.45%
17 15.45%
Campaign Focus
20.00%
22 20.00%
Design Possibilities Focus
15.45%
17 15.45%
Total 110 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

  • 4 Vote(s) - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
 
What is your vision for From the Depths

#21
Gladyon probably doesn't have much pull in the art/style direction being the new guy on the team.


That being said, please do tell us what you'd like to see in FtD, you're the guy who is going to realize our dreams, after all.





Adding content so this post isn't wasted space:


I'd love FtD to continue being my ultimate playground for weapons testing, and to continue to evolve into an almost Total War-esque strategy game. The primary feature of this game that drew me into it so deeply was the main campaign, and the fact I was basically playing an RTS game, except I got to design ALL of my own units, and program them how I see fit.

To that end, I'd like to see 2 main branches of work done:

Firstly, I'd love plasma weapons, fires, more things that can go wrong and more things to design. Not quite complexity for complexity's sake, but I would always enjoy new toys. However, this takes a major backburner to the next:

The Campaign. This is what drew me in, While the current state of the campaign is Really Good for the amount of resources the dev team possesses, I'd love to see the addition of a more sophisticated AI system into the fleet cards, and a general expansion of weapon ranges. APS and CRAMs should both be able to shoot out to ~10km in vanilla, and the AI should have built in rudimentary pathfinding with terrain avoidance, and for enemy fleets, a more generalized, "Overseer" AI. This Overseer AI would effectively command the enemy ships; all ships would be in patrol mode, so they get to use their own AIs for guidance, but the overseer would try to use tactics. It would prioritize targets, based on a configurable (so its different for every faction) set of rules, and use its capability to plot waypoints to "fan out" ships, to allow them to surround and engage the prioritized target. Based on the AI in the ship, it would try to either make the ship orbit, (naval), ram (Air), or move to a distance, basically, it would take over the role of AI for the enemy vessels, but combine them into one, larger AI, which has perfect information about all ships under its control so that it can guesstimate naval maneuvers. The idea here is to be able to operate a fleet as a fleet, not as a loosely correlating group of individual units; In actual implementation, it would just be a second overarching "enemy Ai" that checks for collisions, and plots waypoints as necessary, to avoid them, and does its best to expose the prioritize target to as many weapons as possible (again, behavior dictated by AI card, broadside for naval, head on for air, basically, it would be the exact same as the normal AI except networked to not kill one another and to provide a greater challenge).

This AI would not need to run very fast, calculating at 1Hz would be plenty. The target prioritization and rudimentary friendly avoidance would go MILES toward making the enemy fleets feel less like robots.



I also believe that Nick should definitely reevaluate his distaste for multiplayer. It draws a lot of players in and if it worked correctly would be a larger revenue source, but if the game isnt set up from the beginning to handle it then its a lost cause, and I agree with him. It'd be nice to have, but ultimately not really necessary.



Second major focus should be on perfecting what we have. The only real areas in the game that I think require rebalancing are Missiles (Being done), Shields (duh), and CRAMs.
I'll refrain from commenting about missiles until we get some information on what is actually being implemented into the next update.
Shields would work entirely proper if they were implemented as designed originally in 2.0, tons of discussions on this, but imo the whole shield problem boils down to the fact they function purely off of the velocity of the incumbent shell. This directly conflicts with the naval artillery vision offered by APS and most surface vessels and while originally done to try and make CRAMs better VS shields than APS, it instead just sorely limits effective shell types.
the CRAM rebalance is entirely dependent on how shields are decided to be redone. IMO CRAMs just need to do 20-50% more damage and pass through (velocity based) shielding, assuming no shield rebalance.

If I had my way, shields would be a 100% reflect if and only if the shield had sufficient "Health" to reflect the entire kinetic damage of the shell. This "Health" would simply be a buffer based on shield strength and battery reserves (a % of battery reserves, based on shield strength, with AC = Shield Str), when the "Health" hits zero, the shield block is destroyed (And preferably would also explode like ammo), and a shield must charge to full before it reactivates, so you not only need to repair the shield block, but you need to let it charge to full (draining X amount of battery per second until it is filled, again based on shield strength, probably tooled so that it takes a set X seconds for shield recharge, regardless of strength.)
Grav rams are like the Looney Toons of shell types... Absolutely hilarious in short bursts.
Reply

#22
@Khaz Can we have tracks pls thx.
"If it's stupid but it works, it's not stupid."-TheMightyJingles.

My last name is Proctor
The Proctor is a ship in the game
Yay. I'm happy.

Blueprint thread: http://www.fromthedepthsgame.com/forum/s...?tid=28006
Reply

#23
@Synth

Good idea about the overall command for the AI ships. It would be nice if your own ships could also do that on a certain fleet setting, too.


I think that the campaign would be so much better if it was set up so that you can win, and you can lose fights, your ships can take damage, or maybe come out almost unscathed, you can wound an enemy fleet into retreating, etc. The way to do this would be to more or less level the general playing field. What I mean is to make it so that a single, efficient, player ship cannot kill an enemy fleet 5x its cost. Buffing the AI to make it smarter than a sack of rotten potatoes will help, and in turn the player should maybe get a bit more resources, but be forced into turtling to begin with. It is far to easy to make a single fighter and then just fly out and kill the entire DWG.
(2017-04-20, 06:54 PM)Hikari Wrote: I made something that has an impact of a type 1a supernova. The projectile already breaks laws of physics by going way past the speed of light.

2000mm HE Dakka Enthusiast
Reply

#24
(2018-05-22, 04:11 PM)MizarLuke Wrote:
(2018-05-22, 07:54 AM)Gladyon Wrote:
(2018-05-22, 02:09 AM)MizarLuke Wrote:
(2018-05-21, 08:32 PM)LoSboccacc Wrote: [Image: mbXl5E7.png]

Yep. 10/10 I agree. Happens to me a lot too. Another nice thing would be the start game loading time. It regularly takes 30 secs to 2 minutes, but it has taken 15 minutes before.

FtD do not crash at exit.
It's ProtecTechTools which crashes at exits.
I have finally found and fixed that bug, it should be released at the same time as the next FtD release.

About the loading time, it has been greatly reduced in the devtest version, I find it bearable now (but maybe it's because I was so used to an excessive loading time so any improvement make it bearable...).

I've got no mods. FtD will freeze at the main screen when you press quit after you have played for awhile (probably just on low-end PCs). It requires a bit of spam clicking to crash it and get yourself free. Hasn't happened to me in a awhile, but I think it may just be because I've been in designer more and for shorter periods of time. It may have been patched out, but I don't think so. It isn't much of a concern, and probably just from bad computers, mostly.

Nice of you to grace us with your presence, Gladyon. It would be nice to see a dev's point of view on this in general, what you want FtD to become.

no mod here as well. exit from menu doesn't crash the game, alt+f4 in game scene does tho
gets high on math
Reply

#25
(2018-05-22, 05:00 PM)SynthTwo Wrote: Gladyon probably doesn't have much pull in the art/style direction being the new guy on the team.

If he asks I'll have a go, final style rests with Nick though Smile

(2018-05-23, 09:24 AM)benzo711 Wrote: @Khaz Can we have tracks pls thx.

Rhea's tracks were slated to go in but I seem to remember in another post Nick saying about wanting them to behave like actual tracks (get a proper bit of coding in there) and not just be a skin for the current wheels and unity wheel colliders before they go in.
Reply

#26
-Cut out quote wall about issues with quitting FtD-

Recently, especially as I've been downloading more community BPs and uploading more to Discord, along with having my browser open, the load time and quit time of FtD have increased dramatically. It takes 10-15 minutes to load, and probably more than 5-10 minutes to quit. I normally have to force it to by spam-clicking. Additionally, the previously rare issue of the game disappearing from the bar at the bottom of my desktop (I'm on Windows 7 or something) and only being accessible by the task manager has become more common, sometimes happening multiple times in one play session. It has also quit suddenly and without a crash report or anything If I am on Discord at the same time. I'm in the stable branch, too.

This may be better off in an independent bug report, but since there is discussion, I'll leave it here.
(2017-04-20, 06:54 PM)Hikari Wrote: I made something that has an impact of a type 1a supernova. The projectile already breaks laws of physics by going way past the speed of light.

2000mm HE Dakka Enthusiast
Reply

#27
(2018-05-22, 05:00 PM)SynthTwo Wrote: Gladyon probably doesn't have much pull in the art/style direction being the new guy on the team.

It's worse than that, I have absolutely no taste at all for anything remotely related to art.
I'm pretty sure that if I tried to create something artistic, it would be banned by the Geneva convention and classified as a terror weapon because it would be able to make people go mad just by hearing about at it.
Believe me, it's better that I stick to code.


As for my vision of FtD, well, I'm afraid I cannot really tell.
In fact I don't even know what I would like.

I guess that a challenging campaign, different every time, would be great. Something where the faction aren't always the same (say, 50 factions in total, but each campaign only has 12 of them, picked at random).
With adaptive AI in order to offer a challenge for newbies and veteran players.

But there are tons of other things I'd like to see in FtD, it's just unrealistic to want them all in one game.
Reply

#28
(2018-05-25, 04:21 PM)Gladyon Wrote: As for my vision of FtD, well, I'm afraid I cannot really tell.
In fact I don't even know what I would like.

I guess that a challenging campaign, different every time, would be great. Something where the faction aren't always the same (say, 50 factions in total, but each campaign only has 12 of them, picked at random).
With adaptive AI in order to offer a challenge for newbies and veteran players.

But there are tons of other things I'd like to see in FtD, it's just unrealistic to want them all in one game.

I think that fifty factions would be infeasible, but perhaps a few more, or at least a rearrangement of the map with each new campaign would be nice, as long as there are settings for which difficulty of factions can spawn touching the player. This would also benefit from diplomacy to get your higher-difficultly neighbors to like you.


Another thought that I just had: Something which would be really nice for the campaign would be a city or capitol mechanic, where you have a designated capitol (which can be changed, just at some sort of cost)and various other cities. Any resource zones outside of cities take a debuff to material mining (or ones in cities get a buff), and the capitol's RZ gets a bigger buff. Repair tentacles can only be on craft dedicated as "capitol vehicles", and have some drawback, such as cost or a large generator or something. It should be enough of a drawback to limit it to only large carriers and maybe battleships and large buildings.
(2017-04-20, 06:54 PM)Hikari Wrote: I made something that has an impact of a type 1a supernova. The projectile already breaks laws of physics by going way past the speed of light.

2000mm HE Dakka Enthusiast
Reply

#29
An improved CC environment for campaign making and TRACKS
Asus Windows 10 1080P (Decent build quality poor cooling)
i7-7700 3.2 GHZ (Good Enough DO NOT OVERCLOCK)
16GB Crusader RAM (More than enough)
GeForce GTX-1060 3GB (3GB is not enough for large good game-play go with a 1070 8GB Atleast)

If i broke something its not fool proof
Reply

#30
Quote:I think that fifty factions would be infeasible

unless one can generate ship out of faction preferences

man that'd be an interesting side project
gets high on math
Reply



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)