Has BSF lost its way? - No, just it's mind.

[Slayer0019]

I think the biggest thing we are missing is having something to do with your custom ships. Sure you gan see if your ship can single-handedly take a Leviathan, but that's no challenge seeing how weak the Leviathan is. Some kind of automated spawn system, giving both you and the enemy reinforcements at an interval you set, of the ship type (or range of types) you set, would be the best thing in my eyes.

[Normandy]

Conversely, take the alleged Spore route, whereas what you meet depends on your playstyle and skill level, as determined by certain quantifiable things (e.g. what range your ships keep at, how many sections per minute you destroy on average, the size of your ships [the circle], etc....)

[Raul]

Just a thought from someone who knows nothign about coding or game design. Seems like the game has many components to it that all are less than they should be to accomidate the others... As I understand gamemaker being pretty simple, why not break up the game?

write shipmaker as one program for designing ships but not playing with them. Have another that just loads .shp files for multiplayer without AI or lag inducing graphics. Then have another, perhaps with more AI or encounter options, for playing the campaigns. Since code for each already exists, seems like you'd mostly be splitting up code, then adding whatever you want to each component, though im sure theres more to it than that.

I know that would be alot of work and probably not practical at all, but just throwing out the concept since its been made very clear what the limits and options with the current 'everything in one' design are. Not a permanant solution compared to getting bsf2 but if thats in the hands of developers instead of you guys, seems like it would be somethign to work on in the meantime, especially if we get multiplayer!

[Kaelis]

As I understand gamemaker being pretty simple, why not break up the game?

Uh, GM as an IDE is pretty simple, yes. I guess you could also say that GMScipt is simple, but the same is true in certain aspects for C++ or any programming language out there. However, BSF as a game and GM project is NOT simple. How 'simple' GM is has nothing to do with how easy or fast would it be to break up the game.

Why not break it up? Well, because it would achieve nothing.

write shipmaker as one program for designing ships but not playing with them.

Uh, thats what the shipmaker is at this moment.

Have another that just loads .shp files for multiplayer without AI or lag inducing graphics.

AI is very simple and does not induce lag. Same for graphics, or rather - theyre not the most important performance factor; and you can optimize them yourself by disabling surfaces and particles, the rest is largely irrelevant to performance.

Whats lagging BSF so badly is the number of objects in existence and being drawn, specifically sections, weapons, and bullets. Its an inherent GM flaw that performance drops radically with the number of objects, especially if theres alot code pertaining to those objects.

I once toyed with the idea of making a separate exe for just sandbox. I removed everything from BSF except sandbox and sandbox-related functionality. Except for slightly shorter loading times, there was no appreciable difference. Same for graphics - if you disable everything short of just drawing of sections, its still slow.

Then have another, perhaps with more AI or encounter options, for playing the campaigns.

And thats what BSF is atm.

Since code for each already exists, seems like you'd mostly be splitting up code, then adding whatever you want to each component, though im sure theres more to it than that.

Code for multiplayer does not exist.

I know that would be alot of work and probably not practical at all, but just throwing out the concept

Heh, a bit of a contradiction there. First you acknowledge that the suggestion is basically useless, then you say you're gonna go with it anyway

since its been made very clear what the limits and options with the current 'everything in one' design are.

Umm, no, not really.

[Raul]

Ok my mistake, I was working off bits of information from too many sources so most are obviously wrong.

I know bsf has no multiplayer code, but was led to believe that gamemaker allows for it. Figured making a simpler program that just loads sb4s might not be too hard. I'll trust your answer about objects since it makes more sense than internet babble. Wasn't contradicting, just hoping someone with more knowledge could get something out of it, but if you already tried it then no point suggesting a bad idea.

Ok thanks for indulging me with answers. I appreciate your time.

[Skull13]

I actually think that SM is a bit too complicated. What I liked about SM first going in is that anyone could do it, but it took a pro to master it. Now, what I want to say is that since the drivers and rotating sections and all of that other stuff was added, I feel like a damn fool. I don't PLAY BSF .90 anymore. I like .88 that much. Not to mention that all the ships I already made are still there.

[Exethalion]

I actually think that SM is a bit too complicated. What I liked about SM first going in is that anyone could do it, but it took a pro to master it. Now, what I want to say is that since the drivers and rotating sections and all of that other stuff was added, I feel like a damn fool. I don't PLAY BSF .90 anymore. I like .88 that much. Not to mention that all the ships I already made are still there.

That's something I've been trying to get into words, and I agree with you. But one of the setbacks of pre 0.9 was that the nature you decsribed led to it being too restrictive for the rapidly increasing number of skilled shipbuilders. The custom ships forum was becoming clogged up with old ideas already seen and it was hard to make something innovative and new. There was a danger of shipbuilding falling out of fashion because of this.

That's why the update was made. It does result in some awesome creations, but I also think it widens the gap between those who are adept and shipbuilding and those who aren't and struggle to improve.

[Skull13]

I didn't know that, and its probably a result of me not reading the forums very often. While I think that it is nice, the new upgrade feels... alien to me. I don't feel comfortable using custom sprites, I hate using moving or rotating sections (never can make them look good), the ship deployer is a nightmare (unless you no longer need to type the directory path yourself), and don't even get me STARTED on drivers and such.

The documentation is not a guide. No matter how many times I read it, I can't make sections follow a circular path, I can't have weapons drive each other, and I can't find ways to fit the new sections together that look good!

[Wicky_42]

the ship deployer is a nightmare (unless you no longer need to type the directory path yourself)
...
No matter how many times I read it, I can't make sections follow a circular pathgood!

In the latest build there is a normal explorer dialogue for locating ships for the ship builder - nice and easy now

For circular paths, link the section you want to rotate to an invisible/layered section at the centre of the circle and set it to rotate. Easy!

With regards to triggers and such, yeah, they're pretty buggy in places, and as a result I've ignored them. Which is the great thing about having so many options - there's all this flexibility and options IF YOU WANT, but no-one's forcing you to do anything more complicated than you used to.

[Kaelis]

... i don't feel comfortable using custom sprites, I hate using moving or rotating sections (never can make them look good) ...

...and I can't find ways to fit the new sections together that look good!

Thats not a problem with the shipmaker becoming complicated. Its simply lack of skill and/or experience.

The shipmaker did not become more complicated at all. Heck, in some aspects its even simpler - fixed mirroring etc. There are just more options now, more features. But noone forces you to use them - you can still stick to your 26 sections and build ships the old way, without moving sections, drivers or triggers, right?

I won't comment on the 'can't make sections rotate despite reading documentation' part because i don't want to insult you.

[Arcalane]

Thats not a problem with the shipmaker becoming complicated. Its simply lack of skill and/or experience.

Indeed, the basics have grown no more complicated than SM was originally, though as a whole it has somewhat. But, intuition and common sense are also pretty useful when it comes to working with some of the more complex parts. It's really very simple logic if you consider it. All you need to do is stop and open your eyes.

... i don't feel comfortable using custom sprites, I hate using moving or rotating sections (never can make them look good) ...

...and I can't find ways to fit the new sections together that look good!

Then that is your problem, not ours. Only a foolish craftsman blames his tools.

[Skull13]

I won't comment on the 'can't make sections rotate despite reading documentation' part because i don't want to insult you.

You misunderstand. I can make them spin. I just can't make them go in a ring shape. Spinning is fine though. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

[Arcalane]

A ring shape is impossible using only one section, so I suggest you follow Wicky's advice. A section's children move and/or rotate with it.

[Kaelis]

You misunderstand.

No, i don't. I just simplified for the sake of being terse.