The official GSB 2.0 gameplay discussion thread


#61

Okay Galactic Conquest will not be included in a list of changes (although I am certain people can add a whole slew of wishes to the campaign (multi-player!)

I would like different challenge types. Not just retaliate and counter retaliate which tends to get old and create the Rock,Paper,Scissors,Lizard,Spock scenario.
Something like the SAC NEC challenges with a player fixed depth (must defeat 4 fleets or 8 fleets etc)
Challenges like a built a round robin and or levelling tournament. Use FIFA or Olympic Hockey Style rules.
I would also like mini-tournaments that happen between challenges - like an attrition rule, where the retaliation’s fleet can reduce the number of $$ or pilots which would give a huge incentive to making a more efficient fleet.

I know many people want more than just the blow them all up type scenarios - like protect the transports or run a gauntlet. etc.

I am certain this subtopic could be its own thread.

Berny
Anyone remember SAC/NEC?


#62

I’m pretty sure I’ve said this before, but I think it would be great if the scenarios had more of a story, or at least a blurb of text before you start. As it is the only semblance of story is the name of the scenario itself.

I would support more types of scenarios, but I’m not sure a gauntlet or a protection mission is the way to go (maybe if it’s done right, idk). What I’ve thought of is something that has multiple waves of enemies like survival, but has a definite end. This could be used to face multiple fleets in one mission, or perhaps to have a super powered dreadnought appear at the end. Speaking of survival, I think that after a certain amount of points/time happens that the game automatically ends. I recall the pirates survival mission was so easy that my fleet was simply unable to lose!


#63

Will the ship A.I. not be obsessed with moving downwards for some reason?


#64

I have a suggestion for the orders topic.

Default ship orders would work kind of like GSB. Set target priority across 3 broad groups:

  1. Small Ships - Fighters and Gunships.
  2. Medium Ships - Frigates and Destroyers.
  3. Capital Ships - Cruisers and Battleships.

In addition to the slight adjustments to this system to account for new ship types, the importance of target priority needs adjustment. If a particular ship class has 0% priority, then weapons should NEVER target ships of that class unless there’s NO other viable target in range, and should immediately engage any higher-priority target as soon as such a target comes into range. Similarly, ships with 0% target priority should never be treated as a movement destination as long as any higher-priority target exists anywhere on the battlefield. Huge, slow and awkward Capital Ships shouldn’t get distracted chasing after Fighters when their programming explicitly stats that they will only target other Capital Ships and nothing else. It’s fine to SHOOT at Fighters if nothing else is in range, but trying to follow them is just silly. And it’s just as silly for your high-powered Capital-grade weaponry to keep hunting a tiny little gnat when there’s a real threat bearing down and your orders are to not concern yourself with anything but that real threat.

Also, for Medium and Capital Ships, another layer of “Advanced Targeting” could be added into a secondary menu. This would allow 2 things:

Medium Ships: Movement Priority

This would allow players to adjust movement and attack priorities independently on these ships. Destroyers and Frigates equipped with Anti-Fighter weapons could be programmed to move towards enemy Capital Ships in order to clear out the Fighters and Gunships escorting them, with a second wave carrying heavier weapons and escorted by Bombers programmed to target enemy Medium Ships.

Capital Ships: Secondary Weapon Grouping

This would let players select up to 50% of the ship’s weapons to give different targeting priority. This would allow lighter rapid-fire weapons like Quantum Blasters to be given some measure of anti-Fighter targeting without compromising the effectiveness of the rest of the ship’s loadout by targeting Fighters as a movement destination or wasting effort firing MWMs at them. Similarly, a relatively accurate long-range weapon like the aforementioned MWM could be assigned as a Secondary Weapon on a ship mostly armed with Plasma Launchers, and the ship could primarily target Capital Ships and move in close while the MWM preferentially hits any Medium Ships moving in to support the main target.


#65

A cleaner solution might be to give each weapon a set of orders separate from individual ships for target priority, while ships have separate orders for driver targeting.

For example, I’d order MWMs to fire at cruisers first, and pulse lasers at fighters. Then, I’d set the ships to move towards enemy cruisers. This could be handy for having a ship that is equipped with lots of anti-fighter weapons but set to move towards dreadnoughts in order to shoot down fighters heading back to an enemy carrier.

For driver orders, I rarely found the sliders in GSB1 useful as I’d almost always want a ship to focus on a specific type a often as possible. Unless others had a different experience, the 3 separate driver orders could be replaced by one that sets engagement range and one that sets priority order for different ship classes.

Another order I’d like to see included is one that’s a list of ship types to avoid by a certain (player-specified) distance - I’d like it if my frigates went around that group of cruisers to get to their target, rather than attempting to fly through them.


#66

I’d like the ability for weapons modules to have a setting for classes they are allowed to attack, then, regardless of orders, a “point defense” gun might ONLY shoot at fighters if that is all it is set to engage. Not “only fighters unless there are no fighters,” but ONLY fighters if that is what it is designed to do.

This would allow making novel weapon types or races that might specialize their weaponry. It has a con, sometimes (say they have tons of AAA, but it will never shoot a larger target), but the pro might be that it’s GREAT at hitting fighters. That sort of thing. Or a huge gun that rarely shoots, but never, ever fires at smaller vessels.


#67

BTW I am currently working on the deployment screen, specifically getting the requirement for fighters to be assigned to carriers (for the start of a battle). Get all your brilliant ideas or pet annoyances about the deployment screen in now!


#68

Would it be possible to show the Spatial Anomalies on the deployment screen, in the same way the Supply Limits are shown? It’s barely an annoyance but on occasional challenges it can be frustrating when you only realise shields don’t work after clicking ‘start fight’.

In terms of ideas, how about allowing the player to assign ships to individual ‘squadrons’ in the ship selection bar? I seem to remember GTB having a function like this, allowing players to create groups of certain designs that work well together.

I’m picturing a drop-down menu of individually-named squadrons at the top of the selection bar. Choosing one would then show just the designs that are assigned to that squadron appear in the bar. This would keep the bar cleaner and avoid having tens/hundreds of different designs to scroll through every time you want to deploy a fleet.

Obviously there should be nothing stopping players from deploying from more than one squadron on the same map. Indeed, the default should probably be ‘show all’.


#69

I second the squadron idea. I’d really like to be able to assign the “stick together” order to a group of frigates or something. Having them escort another ship sorta works, but it all gets ruined if the escorted ship dies, so being able to put higher ships than fighters into a squadron would be really cool.


#70

I’ll subdivide this to make it more legible:

I gotta “+1” that suggestion, Joecairo – it would be helpful, especially for folks coming into GSB2 who never played GSB1 :slight_smile: (Yes, I know such heretics exist but we’ll go easy on them)

Great suggestion. :slight_smile: I would love to see that in the sequel game. It would reclaim a lot of the player’s time current spent assembling formations by one ship at a time. Also, even though it wasn’t stated, I’m assuming that such a “saved formation list” would persistently carry across all missions in the game. That would make it a truly major convenience. What with the way cliffski is frequently bubbling with glee about GSB2 easily being a 500+ units on each side, pew-pew-pew paradise – and oh boy, do I want that to happen! – it would be awesome to finally be able to assemble a Massively Cinematic Doom Fleet by basically using an analogue of a cloning tool of pre-saved favorite designs; already in formation and waiting to be simply plugged-into the larger mass of the fleet.

Interesting, Doctor Xenon. Personally, I would not want to have that functionality available for anything larger than frigates – destroyers, cruisers and dreadnoughts are essentially creatures of firepower rather than of maneuver. But within those limits, the Stick Together combat order could help improve frigate warfare somewhat. :slight_smile: I’m trying to quickly think of possible flaws to that plan, but nothing immediately comes to mind.

========================================

Cliff, I need to shed some light upon UI problems, and describe my requested solutions for inclusion in GSB2.

Here’s a mock-up based on GSB1’s deployment screen. The screen capture’s native resolution in-game is 1500x950 pixels.
I’ve added a number to each area of concern, and keyed my text below to match it.
Sorry about the scrolling – you will need to scroll in order to see exactly what I’m talking about in this post –
but our forum’s wacky software has a stupidly tight limitation on vertical image size. :frowning:


[size=135]1 :[/size]
The area where hull specifics are displayed only shows the contents of 20 slots. That’s been a serious constraint for me ever since the third week of GSB1’s pre-release beta. :frowning: The number of GSB1 mods which created ships with 21 or more modules, and the number of resulting ships providing that capability to the player, is enormous. We know that you plan to massively increase mod support in GSB2, and this is one part of what’s needed. Looking to the future from a related angle, GSB2’s huge & mighty vanilla Dreadnought hulls (and perhaps even some of the more important Cruisers) will likely be carrying more than that amount of equipment. I honestly hope so. We will need a better implementation for the game UI to gracefully handle that increased hull functionality.

Any unit with more than 20 modules is displayed with the bottom of that module grid dangling over the two buttons below it in a very ugly way. And because of that overlap, UI element-focus issues do arise – it’s a mess when trying to click either of the two buttons beneath the module overhang. Please add at least enough vertical rows (6 total) in that area to immediately show in a safe way at least 30 slots’ worth of modules, or add a vertical scroll control for the existing 5-module width of that part of the Deployment Screen.

However, when you’re trying to compare module as well as weapon choices, the player really needs to see ALL of the installed shipboard items at the same time. Otherwise, you cannot make a decent comparison and your resulting gameplay experience suffers. A scroll control here fails completely at satisfying that need. What to do?

Ideally, in GSB2 we’d have those module rows made to be 10 slots wide instead of only 5 – providing 10 slots per row X 5 rows – which should solve the problem permanently for ships with less than 50 modules. Hopefully that will cover units as immensely slot-blessed as GSB2’s starbases, too. The sequel’s gonna be a big game – its UI needs more granularity to support that.

[size=135]2 :[/size]
Presently, the column of ship silhouettes is only wide enough for extremely short player-assigned ship design titles. This is a problem. If this column was widened by at least 66% more horizontal distance, that would help somewhat. When each race’s navy only has about four ships per hull size to choose between, it’s all too easy to have a large number of player-made designs based upon the same single hull. All of those identical silhouettes, plus any sort of player-made titling convention which is more than a few characters long, makes what should be an entertaining time into a frustrating time. I’m unsure that even a +100% increase in width would fully fix it, but there might be too many limits on how much room is available for a solution to this particular problem.

I’m fully aware that a mouseover event brings up a textbox of data which also includes the full extent of the player-created title of that design. As with item #1 above, this also fails the player who needs to see everything at once. You cannot do that with a mouseover. In this case, it’s not as critical as with the prior problem but it is also far from optimal because it needlessly constrains the player experience. It wastes the player’s time in looking for what he needs, and that’s unfriendly to do to him. Can we fix this in a way that doesn’t require eating-up a lot more horizontal UI space? What are the options?

[size=135]3 :[/size]
The field where an individual ship’s name appears has a problem: it’s extremely narrow. The font in use here is not monospaced, so the limit is only 7 (or 8) characters maximum. That is so horizontally constrained as to be useless. Please allow either more width for it (possibly unfeasible), or at least a two-line height for it. And would a smaller font size be possible? Both changes combined would help. What’s the fun of having such smarmy, amusing, sarcastic ship names if you can’t see them in the Deployment Screen? Both me and the ghost of Douglas Adams implore you to fix that for the sequel game. :slight_smile:

[size=135]4 :[/size]
I’m really feeling the lack of additional vertical space for the game; damn the ratios of all these modern displays! As a partial solution for that, is there a way to feasibly have GSB2’s UI scale horizontally to make use of the extreme left and right vertical strips which do absolutely nothing except show parts of the background image for that particular mission’s map? I don’t know if you’re already using any of that space in order to enable some slack for alternate game resolutions, but I have long wondered if we can steal some of (or better yet, all of) that space back for the Deployment Screen’s UI.


#71

These requests are not really very graphical; just a bunch of strictly functional things relating to the Deployment Screen that I don’t think has yet been mentioned either here (or elsewhere):

[size=115]A )[/size]
Please allow the Escort order to be applicable for fighters escorting other fighters. (Same for Gunships, too!) This will finally allow fighters configured for anti-fighter interception duty to continuously stick close to, say, a group of fighters weighed down with anti-cruiser torpedo ordnance.

True, such escorted fighters are still rather easy kills for direct fire ship-mounted AF guns; here, that won’t change much. But if the enemy has put up an interceptor umbrella over his ships and then considered himself “safe,” at least the escorting fighters can focus their massed fire onto the same fighters that are trying to splash your torpedo bombers. I’m weary of fighters not being able to effectively perform this simple and obvious kind of duty – yes, I mean the Escort order itself, but also the logical progression from that, which is the successful use of fighter-carried torpedoes itself. :stuck_out_tongue: . True Escort ability for the smallest units would add a new tactical element to the game, encouraging new methods of fighter/gunship use due to the increased longevity of escorted squadrons, and defensive ability within the escorting squadrons.

The main wrinkle in the fabric is how to keep Escort fighters effective once the squadron they’re defending starts to get disorganized and break up in different directions. But should that latter, strategy-diluting, highly annoying and angst-causing “feature” of GSB1 be carried forward into the sequel? To put it mildly, I think not. Which brings me to –

[size=115]B )[/size]
GSB2 should have a means to keep fighter-squadron (and gunship-squadron!) cohesion going for a much longer period of time than happens in GSB1.

Rather than a single-fighter-level AI, there should also be a squadron-level AI that can govern all 16 fighters as a whole, in ways that it presently cannot do. The leader AI would override the individual pilot AIs only as needed – mainly, if a single fighter/gunship somehow strays into acquiring a new target that is not the same target being hunted by the rest of the squadron. The squadron-leader AI will decisively exert its will on the pilot trying to wander away and act stupid, and all 16 fighters/8 gunships will continue blazing away at a common target until it is crippled or destroyed. Only then will the squadron-leader AI designate new prey for his wingmates, and off they shall fly to focus-fire upon it until either it is doomed, or they are.

If such a squadron is accompanied by a another squadron that’s been given the Escort [Fighters] order, the combat effectiveness of the first squadron reaches even greater heights. The two attain quite a synergy; something not generally possible in GSB1. If fighters/gunships are now going to be required to worry about their Fuel Status in GSB2, I think that they should also have this proposed ability of mine in order to make the most of their “time over target” before having to refill their tanks ( more about this in a moment ).

Not only would this allow fighters to be a more concentrated offensive threat, but it would confer better defensive strength as well. Not deviating from the squadron leader’s command, and instead keeping all 16 fighters together for longer than in the original game, would be a welcome bit of serious progress. Instead of using the currently somewhat wasteful ways of the Cautious order, consider the following:

the squadron waits until half of its fighters are down to say (for example) 33% fuel remaining and/or 33% hitpoints remaining and/or 33% of reloadable ammo expended;
squadron leader then immediately takes the entire squadron out of battle & withdraws to nearest carrier that still has fighter stores left unused;
no fighters launch until all of them are refuelled, repaired and re-armed back to full ammo-magazine strength;
leader takes the whole squadron back into combat together as a functional mass formation,
repeat this entire process until the squadron has enough of its members killed that it finally drops to a strength of one craft.

Much like the UI for the Cautious order – let’s call this new thing “Combat Resupply” – this new combat order will have slider controls so that the player may select the actionable thresholds for resupply withdrawal. The flexibility & greater lifepsan that Combat Resupply provides, as well as the better attack effectiveness in battle via the improved squadron-level coding, will give fighter & gunship combat a fascinating set of dynamics.

That whole “piecemeal” and (sadly!) unavoidable degradation of squadrons in GSB1 has always really dissatisfied me. I’d greatly prefer our smallest units to operate with more intelligent & consistent goal-fulfillment instead of being on their way to mere single-pilot cannonfodder after just two or three combat passes over the enemy. Your thoughts?

[size=115]C )[/size]
Cliff, speaking of fighters & gunships there’s two weaknesses that came to my attention in the standard shoot-'em-up Combat Orders (the typical "Attack [Fighters/Frigates/Cruisers/the Taliban/1980s fashions/Earth’s ozone layer/etc.] orders). These concern user-selectable engagement ranges. No, I’m not referring to the well-known “ships move to half of the selected range” issue; that problem is surely already on your list of things to tweak for GSB2.

Mostly for the benefit of our smaller ships, I would like minimum range for all “Attack [ship size here]” orders to be lowered from 100 to 50.

Mostly for the benefit of our larger ships, I would like maximum range for all “Attack [ship size here]” orders to be raised from 2,000 to 3,000.

The former change adds an exciting and tense new set of astoundingly close-in, do-or-die engagements involving cynical gunship crews & plucky fighter aces at “Sicilian knife-fighting range”. This also allows for new types of tiny-ship armament to exist (and other equipment as well?) that are only effective – but perhaps devastatingly so – at very risky ranges indeed. If the possible GSB2 change of ship shielding away from the traditional “large sphere with plenty of empty space within it” towards being a “hull-hugging, contoured field” is put into effect, the shorter minimum range will help the tiny ships remain effective when getting inside of the target’s shield perimeter. They may have to make somewhat more close-in combat passes over the target, but overall it’s still roughly the same number of shots fired from inside of the enemy shielding.

The latter change gives a few specialized fire-support cruisers – as well as the mighty dreadnoughts, plus all starbases – the ability to better use their somewhat awkward, but asteroid-cracking firepower at a distance (one of the dreadnought-size hulls’ primary advantages) … as well as immobile fortifications’ superior extreme-range sensors sniffing out the most likely course of an enemy advance before they know that your starbase is actually ready for them.

[size=115]D )[/size]
We have a Supply Limits screen. Of course, it limits both modules and weapons, and it’s also a highly useful tool for making truly interesting missions.

I propose that in GSB2 it also gains the ability to limit [size=125]hulls[/size]. >:]

Why did that screen never allow hull deployment restrictions in GSB1??? I have no clue, and I always felt badly about not having that obvious feature in the original game, but the sequel should definitely have it! It would tilt the relative balance of power in online Challenges away from the player’s side, and back towards the challenger’s side, which IMHO is a good thing – what with the way that a single quick peek at the scenario (deploying a single junk ship, scoping out the “hidden” Expert deployment, then quitting/retreating immediately after you had a close look), a mission rated as Expert isn’t always nearly as tough as one might assume. :frowning:

So…player reliance on certain annoyingly trend-of-the-moment, spam-worthy hulls? Goodbye forever, baby. Perhaps I’ll allow you to use 6 of them, or maybe even 60, but not 6000. This will encourage much less sloppiness or cookie-cutter syndrome when spec’ing-out your response to the enemy’s fleet. But aside from the salutary effect upon online Challenges, it’s an entertaining and usefully “high-res” method to more finely customize battles.

BTW, we could even have a [size=125]meta[/size]-supply limit in online Challenges. What’s that, you ask? Imagine a feature within a feature where one player messages the other player something like this:

"You can limit up to size=85[/size] 51 different types of modules or weapons, and you can limit up to size=85[/size]19 hulls;
Go choose them; then choose the individual quantities they’re going to be limited to.
All other hulls and modules/weapons WILL NOT be supply-limited – be devious. :slight_smile: "

Then the other player does so. After that, the second player signals readiness back to the meta-Challenging player, who then messages back, “Let battle commence!” At that point, the online Challenge combat occurs, and a good time is had by all. It’s a TRULY original feature that would certainly stir up the really tired status quo of the game’s Challenge aspect.

[size=115]E )[/size]
On a related note, I think that the general layout of the Supply Limits screen could use some love. At the moment I’m too tired to ponder it in detail, but I do admit having a general feeling over the last several years that some streamlining is needed there. Player-created mods – especially if using multiple mods at the same time, which is not rare at all – can also routinely add many modules and weapons to the vanilla game. The resulting avalanche of items means that it would be highly useful to have a quicker, more effective way to subdivide and categorize all of that content when considering deployment limits.

Whether you’re talking about limiting hulls, weapons or modules, please raise the total deployment cap for everything. With truly gigantic battles coming in GSB2, the existing limit of 100 is far too tiny a deployment ceiling. Seriously, it needs to be at least a power of ten higher – new maximum supply deployment cap, [size=125]1,500[/size] per individual ship hull and [size=125]3,000[/size] per shipboard item (module/weapon).

[size=115]F )[/size]
The hallmark of the sequel game is cosmic battles of truly heroic sizes virtually unknown to vanilla GSB. To enable this more easily, we clearly need missions/maps with wider-sized battlezones, much higher fleet-budget caps and pilot availability. IIRC, GSB1 only goes as high as 80,000 credits, and (incredibly so) even only in one lonely vanilla mission (Defend Caspian IV). :frowning:

In order to insure that GSB2 is a resounding success, I am asking for multiple 300k, 750k, and even some 1.250 million credit missions to be bundled with the basic or “core” copy of GSB2 plus whatever official DLC may exist for it (if any). NOTE — those quoted figured might go up (dramatically), depending on the price regime that ultimately exists within GSB2. It already is starting to look like GSB1 prices are not going to be strictly comparable to those in the sequel game, which look like everything is going to be more expensive.

After all, choosing a number of fighters, frigates & cruisers sufficient for your major fleet needs is expensive enough. Add in the purchase price of your necessary gunships, destroyers, dreadnoughts and even starbases, and that 80K budget in Defend Caspian IV is suddenly looking uncomfortably small. As the old song goes, “How ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm, after they’ve seen Paris?” So it is with fleet-budget sizes for vanilla in-game bundled missions. This kind of change isn’t the sort of thing that can be offloaded to exist only for online Challenges – it needs to ship with every core copy of the game, too.

Cliff, I am not saying to you “this is going to happen”. What I am saying is “this has already happened”. Anyone who’s been closely following the progress of the innovative modded content for GSB1 knows that we already passed that point years ago, and we haven’t stopped yet. As official content slowed for GSB1, modding picked up the slack, and players developed an increasingly strong taste for such content. You can probably double or even triple that rate of progression for GSB2.

Also, please kindly make it easy for players to create custom Challenges that, if players wish to, can handle a fleet-budget cap of up at least 3 million credits – hopefully that’s enough to adequately “future-proof” the game beyond what will surely be seen one day as the quaint assumptions of the old, old year 2014. [ :stuck_out_tongue: ], while still being entertaining to play on most computer hardware of today (let alone the insanely great PC and Mac hardware of the year 2019). This is not a laughable notion. What was once considered “ample” or even “diabolically huge” by GSB1’s essentially 2009 standards is now obsolete to a substantial degree, and your endlessly clever modding community is ahead of you in this area. The future is calling. :slight_smile:

==================================================

Thinking out loud…

Cliff, what are your current plans for displaying available Combat Orders as well as how the player will implement them UI-wise?

For me, I think that the pop-up Add Ship Order panel is presently “okay, but somewhat weak” – it doesn’t necessarily need to be “great” because it already does what it says on the tin and doesn’t need to do anything else. It’s job is vital, yes, but also simple enough to not need any fancy bells and whistles.

However, the descriptions of what each Combat Order does definitely DO need to be more detailed and accurate. A read-through of GSB1’s AI Thread from 2010 shows some very interesting and even occasionally mind-blowing revelations about how some Combat Orders do not work exactly as the description states! For example, the Vulture order in particular also came with some very significant trade-offs that everyone who bought the game deserves to know about – not just the few who posted in a single now-ancient forum thread about it.

That kind of specific info absolutely should have been included within the game & openly displayed there to the player. Cliff, I’m amazed that it was never patched into the game after it was revealed to us by you a year later here on the forum. Please don’t withhold that kind of data from the players in GSB2. Make sure that for the sequel, the in-game descriptions of each Combat Order (both the old GSB1 ones and the GSB2 new ones) are truly complete. A few additional tactical notes in the Add Ship Order panel about them (for players who never played GSB1) would also be a generous helping hand.

In the sequel game, by all means make this panel bigger in order to display as many new Combat Order choices as possible without needing a scroll control for the column. A larger Add Ship Order panel would be somewhat preferable over the same size panel as we have now but simply with a scroll added. With a larger panel, we can see all of the orders at the same time (I hope!).

But since vanilla GSB2 is still going to have quite a lot more Combat Orders than in GSB1 and with noticeably finer granularity to them, that portion on the Deployment Screen itself is very important to get right. If we can steal more horizontal space from the background in favor of the user controls for orders, I can’t help but think that this would be of assistance to you. We’re going to need something that’s informative yet clean and streamlined, and with no ambiguity in the data being displayed. For such a white-hot, mission-critical aspect of the game, we want to avoid all procedural awkwardness with how the player interacts here.

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.


#72

Most of my deployment screen gripes have already been addressed by others (and much more eloquently than I could manage), so I’ll just throw in a couple of quick ones that I’m sure I’ve mentioned before but I have no idea where.

1 - Ship Angle. Please make it possible to deploy ships facing in more directions than just straight to the right. It makes missions with nonstandard deployment areas - such as the Orion Ambush in GSB1 - a lot more interesting if you can actually deploy your ships in a true ring formation or what have you, rather than forcing half of your ships to move in the wrong direction to get positioned pointing at their targets. This will become critical if the firing arc notions elsewhere on the forum are implemented.

2 - Deployment Area. This is more challenge-related than anything. Please give us the ability to set a custom deployment area not only for our own ships, but the enemy ships as well. Obviously there would be a required minimum space so as not to create a new kind of irritating unplayable challenge (“I deployed 500 cruisers and only gave you room for a pair of frigates, ha ha!”) but, especially combined with the suggestion above, would make it possible to create more interesting challenges in the vein of some of the more developed mod missions out there.


#73

When assigning a number of units in a fighter squadron, let us type a number into a text box instead of requiring the slider.


#74

Wow lots of truly excellent responses. I am my laptop now, but tomorrow I’ll definitely post screenshots of the current re-vamped deployment screen, as many of the issues listed are already fixed. In brief, the screen now scales horizontally and adds extra columns of deployable ship designs, meaning that there is scope to make those wider and see more of the names.
Also, that screen at the bottom left with the modules and ship image is now history, as is the orders screen. All of that is now combined into a popup on the RHS of the selected ship (and I need another one for the design…), which works much better.

A few other points.

The revamped formation order now has no real leader, they work like fighter squadrons with dynamically elected leaders, so the whole ‘lose one ship, lose the formation’ issue is fixed.

One new problem that I’ve recently spotted (and don’t know how to fix yet), is that a cool new feature where fighters blast out of launch tubes under the carrier at battle start means they do not effectively group together at the start even if they have stick together set :smiley: I’m sure I’ll fix it :smiley:

Bigger limits for pilots and credits is already done.

I distinctly remember coding angle-adjustable deployment. Did I not put it in? Has anyone tries the mouse wheel and ctrl or shift or alt? maybe it was just a test, I honestly am not sure!


#75

Sorry Cliff, I tried using the mouse wheel and various key combinations but it was a no go… .


#76

Ok here is the current deployment screen. Excuse the obviously rubbish coder art for now…



#77

Actually is this layout better? (this is at minimum supported res (1280 width)



#78

I think that the second one is better for the simple fact that 12x9 grid is a bit overkill
additionally as AA mention wheres is the information on hull contents, or is that a wip


#79

still a workinprogress, not sure where is best to put it tbh, so I’ll experiment a bit today.


#80

I prefer the second one as well.

On a side note - is there a way of limiting the amount of choosable hulls? In GSB I can have close to 30 cruiser hulls, but in reality on a standard challenge I only use 5 or 6, and having the rest cluttering up the grid can be frustrating. If hulls could be saved into folders and using a simple radio button (like the DN CR DE FR GU FI) underneath with Folder options. Lets say 6 would fit right perfectly underneath the Race Sign, Ship Build sigh, and the Hull chooser). I use the term folder loosely, as the same hull could potentially be in multiple ‘folders’.

This way you can have only the most common ships show up or - specialty ships (for anomalies) or - those reserved for Galactic Conquest (when arrives) or - ships for specific tournaments etc.

I unfortunately lost my hard drive but I think with Parasites themselves I was up to 50 Cruiser sized hulls. All specific.

Berny_74
Rebuilding all those ships