Mind helping out Chris a bit? Lists of features and their basics - V2!

[kasnavada]

formations

That deserves a better thread, but... If formations lead to the removal of FRD and attack move in AI war, basically... That'll kill the uniqueness of AI war movement for me.

What I love here is that the units decide for themselves to group. That one double click or one rectangle on the screen is a new group.
If you put up formations in a game, basically you don't control thousands of units. You control a few dozen, which displayed as lot of dots moving arounds. That's fine in other games, but that's not AI war.

[chemical_art]

tl;dr : Keep the crystal shard logic from the Spire campaign so it can be flushed out for other uses.

the tl:

Procedural generated "quests" mid game.

The idea of this is to provide what in other games be called "quests" that would occur mid game to provide players guidance and rewards for accomplishing goals. These quests would not be addressed as such but by terms that would work mid game.

The function of these events are to provide variation and guidance in the mid game, which can easily become overwhelming and boring if one does not already know what to do. I know there was progress in making lists of things the player could accomplish, but even these lists got overwhelming and bland.

I am thinking of using the logic that Spire crystals did in their campaign in terms of procedural generated events. That event in itself could be a tool of one the possible events: Escort X to Y for Z reward. Obviously escort missions would not be the only thing, but that is kind of the goal of this.

The rewards, etc, can be worked on down the road but the concept is what I am purposing.

[Draco18s]

I realize there's a lot less flexibility for quests in an RTS, but it reminded me of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otAkP5VjIv8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur6GQp5mCYs

Edit:
I had to add part 1 as well.  There's good detail in both videos.

[chemical_art]

I realize there's a lot less flexibility for quests in an RTS, but it reminded me of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otAkP5VjIv8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur6GQp5mCYs

Edit:
I had to add part 1 as well.  There's good detail in both videos.

I am glad I read that in chronological order.

For the second part said "You can understand this convoluted quests if you watch the eyes [minor detail] then..."

And that I consider just as bad design. And reading that actually soured the good feelings of the first one. One person's "lore building" is for me "far too much attention to minor details". I should not have to ask random people in the hope one of them gives me a hint that leads to me another person. Nor should I hope to observe a minor visual detail to start a quest. One may consider random talking to people good encouragement. I view it just like fishing instead of with actual fish you are doing it with virtual people. You know, like a detective. Also known as a job that people pay because they do not want to do it themselves.

I will admit that did make me wonder about for a moment about why the quests structure is what it is...but after I thought about it for a few minutes I recognized the "superior" methods are really not in any way better for in my eyes they are both tedium.

[Draco18s]

2:50 in the first one is more the kind of thing I'd want to see.  Not necessarily the specific implementation, but the kinds of details.  Stuff that is more....narrative.  "You find a ring at the bottom of a lake, no explanation, the ring's got OK stats, but the flavor text says that the ring has an inscription, 'a promise for a lifetime', later you encounter a guy who tells you a story about a woman who threw herself off a cliff after the city guards killed her husband. You mention the ring you found near that area and he mentions that the barkeep's daughter had a ring with that inscription..."

The barkeep never said anything about a daughter, the fact that she was dead, or her missing ring.  Rather you found the ring first and a series of other encounters led you back to him.  Nothing said "this is a quest" on it.  No exclamation points over people's heads, none of that.

Yeah the quest in The Secret World involving the sewer plates is a bit much, but the point he was making there was that a small detail of the world you wouldn't otherwise notice takes on new meaning once it's pointed out.  It's not a series of yellow dots on a minimap, there's no waypoint that says "go here."  Instead it's built into the world before hand.  The whole "look it up on Wikipedia" ends up just clunky.  But that wasn't the part I found amazing about it, what I found awesome was the fact that the signposts leading you down a path were completely innocuous before being told they were sign posts.  True secret society stuff, which fit right in with that particular game.

Anyway, in an RTS set in space, we're not going to see many opportunities for stuff like that, the conversation just reminded me of it.

[Pumpkin]

Hey, Chris! How are things going? Are you satisfied by the document, right now? Are we going in the right direction? Are there more specific needs?

[Kahuna]

Apparently Champions are so forgettable that they haven't been added to that document that has literally everything (except Champions) listed, including the kitchen sink. I'd not miss Champions if they were left out.

Champions are especially fiddly and micro heavy. Also imo the fact that they respawn endlessly every time they have been destroyed seems kind of cheap to me.

[Cinth]

Apparently Champions are so forgettable that they haven't been added to that document that has literally everything (except Champions) listed, including the kitchen sink.

That is false.  They just haven't been put up into the main body yet (the shadow frigates are the first stage of the champions).

I'm still finding units to put on the list so I haven't had opportunity to do much there.

[tadrinth]

Chris, you said you want mechanics and that this is to serve as a basis for a design doc.  That means you want not just unit mechanics, but basically all the mechanics in the game, right?  Everything you'd have to code.  That's broad and I don't see anyone else adding that kind of stuff.

How much detail do you want? Like, do you just want a line that carriers contain ai units, or do you want notes on each distinct mechanic associated with carriers? Like, they deploy ships when they enounter humans, they transfer damage to internal units, they power up based on the strength of units contained, they disappear when empty, they use bullheaded targetting... Carriers are complicated. Do you want all that detail? 

[Cinth]

Chris, you said you want mechanics and that this is to serve as a basis for a design doc.  That means you want not just unit mechanics, but basically all the mechanics in the game, right?  Everything you'd have to code.  That's broad and I don't see anyone else adding that kind of stuff.

How much detail do you want? Like, do you just want a line that carriers contain ai units, or do you want notes on each distinct mechanic associated with carriers? Like, they deploy ships when they enounter humans, they transfer damage to internal units, they power up based on the strength of units contained, they disappear when empty, they use bullheaded targetting... Carriers are complicated. Do you want all that detail?

If it's in the game, yes, by all means add it to the list.  Be complete but please be brief.  Just going to point out that Carriers are on the list and have a brief description already added.

[Misery]

It's really interesting to look at this document and see some of the stuff written about all these different things.

It's also interesting to see just HOW MANY different things there are.  You've really got your work cut out for you here, eh?

Also I hadn't realized there were that many Astro Trains.   

[Captain Jack]

It's really interesting to look at this document and see some of the stuff written about all these different things.

It's also interesting to see just HOW MANY different things there are.  You've really got your work cut out for you here, eh?

Also I hadn't realized there were that many Astro Trains.

A lot of work went into making Trains work. NEEDLESS TO SAY...

Real talk: Astro Trains should be considered very carefully, and Chris/Keith should dump them the second they start thinking "Maybe with a few more days I can fix this!".

[PokerChen]

Two points:
1) Real talk should go into the doc.
2) Given that there's going to be 300++ entries at least, I'm more inclined to bet that Chris will take the essentials and build again from the ground up than try to port the whole game over.

[Draco18s]

A lot of work went into making Trains work. NEEDLESS TO SAY...

Real talk: Astro Trains should be considered very carefully, and Chris/Keith should dump them the second they start thinking "Maybe with a few more days I can fix this!".

Astro Trains: Lets Talk
I already formulated an idea that Chris liked, feel free to chime in.

[Pumpkin]

Chris, you said you want mechanics and that this is to serve as a basis for a design doc.  That means you want not just unit mechanics, but basically all the mechanics in the game, right?  Everything you'd have to code.  That's broad and I don't see anyone else adding that kind of stuff.

I did. There is a category, near the end of the doc, for mechanism. Even resources are being added.