WYRDYSM GAMES

Home of Battleships Forever
It is currently Sun Sep 21, 2014 10:00 am

All times are UTC + 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 73 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 4:32 am 
Offline
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 4:50 am
Posts: 2519
Location: Antwerp, Belgium
Hint; it's called 'realism versus fun'. Your arguments may or may not make sense, but noone's gonna care since the game is fun as is. Realism to the slightest details is 1) Less fun 2) a bitch.

_________________
Check out The Star Wreck project!
Check out the Epic Music Library
Image
And in this Alliance we bestow our hope and will, that the Dogs of War may never harass the people of our homes again, and that it will bring peace, equality and liberty for all in need and despair. One Universe, One Goal. By the Manifest we command this.~ Saren Vil Ush


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 4:56 am 
Offline
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 3:19 am
Posts: 73
ArcaneDude wrote:
Realism to the slightest details is 1) Less fun 2) a bitch.


That depends.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 4:56 am 
Offline
Lieutenant
Lieutenant

Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 1:15 am
Posts: 46
ArcaneDude wrote:
Hint; it's called 'realism versus fun'. Your arguments may or may not make sense, but noone's gonna care since the game is fun as is. Realism to the slightest details is 1) Less fun 2) a bitch.

Thanks. This is why I just wanted to talk about it, not make demands. I guess I chose a bad topic, since everyone just seems to respond with "whats the point?" and miss the actual point.

@Skirm: yes, the customization certain allows you to add whatever degree of "realism" or whatever you want to incorporate that you wish. I'd be lying if I said that this didn't draw me to the game heavily.

In regards to energy weapons, I'm pretty sure that just about any energy beam would be invisible. Even bolts of electricity are only visible due to the super-heating of the atmosphere. In space, there'd be nothing for it to superheat. Same goes for any other energy or even small matter stream: with no air particles to heat up, bounce off of, or react with, there'd be no visible effects regardless of what the energy was. Something would have to be sent along with it to make it visible, since otherwise there'd be no reason for the particles to emit photons to make it visible. Of course, I'm no physics major either...

All I can say about ballistics is that I <3. I've always been more of a bang boom kinda guy than a pew pew type. Though huge godly death beams have their own aesthetic. I'll have to look up this whole Delta-V thing though.

Force fields is one thing that, oddly, have never really bothered me. I guess it just happens to look neat enough for me not to care. I like the Rorschach module a lot though. I'm also cool with nanotechnology, as well as armor with really weird properties. This is the distant future, after all.

Also, point defenses are great. Actually, I'd go so far as to say that, from a realism standpoint, the point defenses in BF are very INaccurate. Even modern point defense and anti-air guns are pinpoint accurate. Despite what entertainment shows us, you do NOT outmaneuver automated AA turrets. They shoot you, unless they're malfunctioning.

Also as an update, I messed with the speeds a bit. It seems that ships don't really slow down until they reach their destination. So if you do the low acceleration + high top speed thing that I suggested, you just wind up with something that way overshoots its destination, which is no good. Oh well.

And controlling speeds does kinda make sense since if they do want to go particularly far or fast, they can just use their hyperspace jump things. Though it doesn't explain the logic behind making your biggest and most powerful and probably most useful ships the slowest. Besides game balancing that is.

_________________
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." ~Edmund Burke


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 7:43 am 
Offline
Captain
Captain

Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 11:44 am
Posts: 474
Location: USA
Darlos9D wrote:
I guess I chose a bad topic, since everyone just seems to respond with "whats the point?" and miss the actual point.

On the contrary, I found this thread quite interesting. It seems I may be in the minority, but I thoroughly enjoy comparisons between Science Fiction and Science. I'm a fan of realism, because in many cases reality is more peculiar than the fiction based on it, but there are points where the fun factor wins out. As far as BSF is concerned, I'd say the fun factor vs. realism ratio is very well optimized, but that doesn't mean the comparisons aren't still interesting to read.

One of the only things I would like to see more often in games such as this is clever handling of sound. Obviously, it doesn't travel in a vacuum. That doesn't mean games have to be silent. You'd still hear the sound of your own weapons firing, as they would likely cause some sort of vibrations in your hull. It would likely be a low, muffled sound. The same could be said for engines and especially enemy attacks. BSF really isn't suited for this kind of thing, as it's fleet based as opposed to single-ship command, but I can't say I've ever played a space game with realistic sound handling, yet it seems like an easy thing to do, and I feel it would greatly add to the immersion of the player.

Quote:
In regards to energy weapons, I'm pretty sure that just about any energy beam would be invisible. Even bolts of electricity are only visible due to the super-heating of the atmosphere. In space, there'd be nothing for it to superheat. Same goes for any other energy or even small matter stream: with no air particles to heat up, bounce off of, or react with, there'd be no visible effects regardless of what the energy was. Something would have to be sent along with it to make it visible, since otherwise there'd be no reason for the particles to emit photons to make it visible. Of course, I'm no physics major either...

This is, as far as I am aware, correct. In space, all light based weapons would be invisible. When they hit a hull, though, you would get a very bright burst of light of the same color light the beam is made out of, assuming the beam is in the visible spectrum. You'd also get a good bang, though only audible to the crew of the receiving ship. You might be able to see plasma weapons, as they are matter (ionized gas), but known science states that plasma weapons are, by their very nature, not possible. The plasma would just dissipate into space. I can't speak for the visibility of particle beams. I doubt they'd be visible, but I really don't know. They would be more powerful than lasers, but the individual particles tend to repel themselves, causing the beam to widen fairly quickly, rendering it all but useless. This gives it a shorter range.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 9:32 am 
Offline
Captain
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 11:32 pm
Posts: 486
As far as the realistic sound goes, I think that it could work great in DC mode. the game could, when in DC (Direct Control: you take mouse/wasd control of one ship) mode, only play the sounds that your ship would hear to give a more realistic feel and show you actually controlling the ship.


Last edited by FIREST0RM000 on Thu Jan 29, 2009 10:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 10:03 am 
Offline
Lieutenant
Lieutenant

Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 1:15 am
Posts: 46
Some kind of plasma weapon might work out if the ionized gas is contained by some magnetic field, which is generated by a solid core. So really you'd be firing a projectile that generates a magnetic field and is surrounded by plasma. Of course, this weapon would only be reasonable if the plasma were far more damaging than more conventional weapons.

As for sound, yeah, not just in games, but in all audiovisual entertainment, having no sound except for particular things that you might hear from the current vantage point in space could actually be really dramatic. I remember watching the Iria OVA (some classic and artistic anime right there) and there's a scene where the main character watches as a space station blows up a distance away from her own small ship. The explosion slowly expands with no sound, and some sad music is played. The scene is fairly emotional.

One might think this is less applicable to video games, but I think some games that present an entire emotional experience through such direction could work very well, since you're actually immersed in the experience. In fact, without said emotion, you wouldn't be immersed much at all. So anything that can help it along would be good.

Of course, BF isn't really being advertised as an emotional experience, so such things aren't necessary in its case. Plus it's fleet-based, so that kind of ruins any singular perspective.

_________________
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." ~Edmund Burke


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 11:02 am 
Offline
Commander
Commander

Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 4:37 pm
Posts: 174
Location: Frontlines againest a piggy invasion
Darlos9D wrote:

Of course, BF isn't really being advertised as an emotional experience, so such things aren't necessary in its case. Plus it's fleet-based, so that kind of ruins any singular perspective.


Adding to the fact that most people that play BSF don't have a degree in space engenieering with their only source of space-borne combat knowledge coming from Gundam/Macross/Star Wars/ Sci-fiction and we have a population of ship-builders that only likes really big lasers and explosions.

It's not a bad thing really, abiding by real-world physics is limiting yourself. Going beyond the impossible is where the fun is, after all, even flinging around blackholes gets boring after a while :wink:

_________________
Avatarless and proud of it! And being really crazy and screwing everything conventional!
Currently working on:

The largest transforming mecha EVAR!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 11:38 am 
Offline
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 3:19 am
Posts: 73
Ship's Computer:

Captain, please note that all laser beams and weapon sound effects are provided by the ship's internal systems to better provide the bridge crew a representation of what's occurring outside. There is no sound in space.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 12:03 pm 
Offline
Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 12:01 am
Posts: 941
Actually, draco is right.

I never actually fleshed it out, but the conceptualization for the graphical style of the game is that it's an enhanced image that is displayed on the tactical display in the CIC of your flagship. This accounts for beams and the glowy ships. Also it's plausible that the tactical display compresses distances into a useful representation, since Newtonian motion has very little meaning if not taken in relation to other moving objects.

_________________
Sean 'th15' Chan
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 5:53 pm 
Offline
One-Ban Limit

Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:19 pm
Posts: 107
Location: Maquesas Interplanetary Expedition Force Flagship
Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann can be best described as the Rule Of Cool Incarnate. Everything the characters or mechs do, and even the laws of physics themselves, are subject to Rule Of Cool. The fight scenes especially make absolutely no logical sense whatsoever, but it really doesn't matter because they're so awesome. Simon and Viral once actually kill enemies by the sheer awesome they radiate, for God's sake!!!

:p

_________________
"What is it your Borg friends say? Resistance is futile."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 6:59 pm 
Offline
Commander
Commander
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 12:09 am
Posts: 107
Darlos9D wrote:
In regards to energy weapons, I'm pretty sure that just about any energy beam would be invisible. Even bolts of electricity are only visible due to the super-heating of the atmosphere. In space, there'd be nothing for it to superheat. Same goes for any other energy or even small matter stream: with no air particles to heat up, bounce off of, or react with, there'd be no visible effects regardless of what the energy was. Something would have to be sent along with it to make it visible, since otherwise there'd be no reason for the particles to emit photons to make it visible. Of course, I'm no physics major either...


The trails of modern-day Ion Engines like the ones used on NASA's Dawn probe and the Japanese Hayabusa spacecraft are supposed to release a faintly glowing bluish trail from their thrusters.

I'd expect particle beam weapons to do so too. Sufficiently energetic electron or ion beams ought to at least have a faint glow.

Quote:
I'll have to look up this whole Delta-V thing though.


www.projectrho.com/rocket

The one-stop-shop for all your realistic Sci-Fi needs.

Delta-V is simply a fancy term for a change in velocity.

Quote:
Also, point defenses are great. Actually, I'd go so far as to say that, from a realism standpoint, the point defenses in BF are very INaccurate. Even modern point defense and anti-air guns are pinpoint accurate. Despite what entertainment shows us, you do NOT outmaneuver automated AA turrets. They shoot you, unless they're malfunctioning.


No, you can modify your PD weapons to be more accurate if you want. And point beams are fail-proof dead-on accurate.

Quote:
And controlling speeds does kinda make sense since if they do want to go particularly far or fast, they can just use their hyperspace jump things. Though it doesn't explain the logic behind making your biggest and most powerful and probably most useful ships the slowest. Besides game balancing that is.


Bigger ships means more mass. More mass means more inertia, and more force needed to accelerate, decelerate and turn. More force calls for more energy to be used, more reaction mass to be spent.

If your dreadnought and your cruiser have equal maneuvering fuel, you will need the dreadnought to be slower and less agile. On the other hand, if you do cram proportionally more fuel into the dreadnought, both can have similar performance.

Small, fast, agile starfighters, though, are outright unrealistic.

Sponge wrote:
This is, as far as I am aware, correct. In space, all light based weapons would be invisible. When they hit a hull, though, you would get a very bright burst of light of the same color light the beam is made out of, assuming the beam is in the visible spectrum. You'd also get a good bang, though only audible to the crew of the receiving ship. You might be able to see plasma weapons, as they are matter (ionized gas), but known science states that plasma weapons are, by their very nature, not possible. The plasma would just dissipate into space. I can't speak for the visibility of particle beams. I doubt they'd be visible, but I really don't know. They would be more powerful than lasers, but the individual particles tend to repel themselves, causing the beam to widen fairly quickly, rendering it all but useless. This gives it a shorter range.


For lasers, the beam would be invisible, but the burst of light and jet of expelled mass upon impact would be visible.

Plasma weapons would be akin to guns that shoot steam. You could do it, it would just be really, really dumb.

Particle beams would pack more punch than lasers, but would have shorter range due to electrostatic repulsion or neutralization defocusing.

Basically, if your hypervelocity ballistics and unguided rocketry have range 10000(limited by the quality of your targeting computer and sensors), your missiles would have something like range 4000(limited by onboard fuel for maneuvers), your invisible lasers would have range 700-800 and your particle beams would have range 300-400.

Quote:
Some kind of plasma weapon might work out if the ionized gas is contained by some magnetic field, which is generated by a solid core. So really you'd be firing a projectile that generates a magnetic field and is surrounded by plasma. Of course, this weapon would only be reasonable if the plasma were far more damaging than more conventional weapons.


You could make your plasma weapons, yes, but as I have already said, just about everything else would work better and do more damage for the amount of energy spent.

th15 wrote:
I never actually fleshed it out, but the conceptualization for the graphical style of the game is that it's an enhanced image that is displayed on the tactical display in the CIC of your flagship. This accounts for beams and the glowy ships. Also it's plausible that the tactical display compresses distances into a useful representation, since Newtonian motion has very little meaning if not taken in relation to other moving objects.


You mean, like the radar screen in an AWACS plane, showing all friendly and enemy aircraft and missiles in the area? But with spiffy special effects?

_________________
My ships:
Federation of the Rings(old)
Random Ships
Vol'Nir Star Navy(very old)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 7:05 pm 
Offline
Captain
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 3:13 am
Posts: 395
th15 wrote:
Actually, draco is right.

I never actually fleshed it out, but the conceptualization for the graphical style of the game is that it's an enhanced image that is displayed on the tactical display in the CIC of your flagship. This accounts for beams and the glowy ships. Also it's plausible that the tactical display compresses distances into a useful representation, since Newtonian motion has very little meaning if not taken in relation to other moving objects.

That's kind of what I've always been envisioning.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 9:11 pm 
Offline
Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 12:01 am
Posts: 941
Skrim wrote:
Darlos9D wrote:
You mean, like the radar screen in an AWACS plane, showing all friendly and enemy aircraft and missiles in the area? But with spiffy special effects?


Ships have all their tactical command from the CIC. Since engagement range extended beyond line of sight, it's become pointless to actually be on the bridge for combat command. Instead, officers are staring at plotting screens and radar displays a lot closer to what's in this picture:
Image

On top of showing the radar picture of the surrounding area, the display will show target tracks and lock-ons, acquired target information such as course and speed. You can even see rain clouds of your radar, depending on what wavelength your radar is operating at.

And even with millions of dollars of equipment and trained personnel, actual combat displays and interfaces rarely reach the level of ease of use and density of information that gamers take for granted in RTS games.

_________________
Sean 'th15' Chan
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 30, 2009 12:01 am 
Offline
Captain
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 3:23 am
Posts: 284
Location: Poland, Some old closet
th15 wrote:
And even with millions of dollars of equipment and trained personnel, actual combat displays and interfaces rarely reach the level of ease of use and density of information that gamers take for granted in RTS games.


Rule of simplicity, they should be as simple and clear to read as possible and needed.

_________________
Comrade Malahite
Red Star Navy senior designer

"True beauty lies in the eye of the viewer"
Image
"For all we ought to have thought, and have not thought; all we ought to have said, and have not said; all we ought to have done, and have not done"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 30, 2009 12:50 am 
Offline
Captain
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 1:43 am
Posts: 319
Location: Florida, USA
Skrim wrote:
If your dreadnought and your cruiser have equal maneuvering fuel, you will need the dreadnought to be slower and less agile. On the other hand, if you do cram proportionally more fuel into the dreadnought, both can have similar performance.

Small, fast, agile starfighters, though, are outright unrealistic.


Aaactually, thanks to the square-cube rule, I do believe that if you scale a ship down it will need proportionally thinner, and therefor lighter, structure. So in that way, smaller, more nimble fighters are moderately realistic. The degree to which this is generally taken, to the point of emulating WW2 naval combat, is still silly though.

_________________
seriously sws. seriously oh my gawd seriously.

Author of DAF and Sillyness
Co-founder Homeworld:@


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 73 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC + 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group