Dondragmer - I hope to sort out much of these issues by leveraging the community for lots of play testing while still in the early stages of development.
all good points btw
all good points btw
As the game develops one thing that can add some variety is how the wingman AI interprets your commands. That allows you as the developer and the player to keep the control scheme simple with basic commands like "attack/protect my target" "disengage" etc. (Although one that I always thought was missing from the wing series was "this one's mine" wherein the AI protects you but doesn't engage your target directly IMO). If you define individual AI profiles for the wingmen one might behave more aggressively toward a particular class of enemy ship, or want to engage their targets at close range with guns and only use missiles as a last resort, that kind of thing. If you don't make it too obvious by giving the wingmen callsigns like "guns" players can figure out which wingmen they like to fly with vs. the ones they don't. Each player has a unique playstyle so it'll be a unique experience.You've had some discussion of complex wingman orders. These seem tempting, but risk turning your game into an RTS with a clumsy control scheme
On the other hand, you don't want ships to be too similar. And if ships are all evenly balanced but each designed for certain job (bomber, anti-bomber, dogfight etc.) there's a risk that for each mission one of the ships is obviously best choice.Oh and one more thing, which is extrapolation on some points from earlier. as you want' to let player choose their ship you should avoid two things:
1. A ship that makes most people think "I flew this once and I will never want to fly it ever again"
2. A ship that makes most people think "Now that I can fly this, I don't want to fly anything else ever again"
I'll be testing using both a xbox1 and ps4 controllerOne thing about controls: consider adding controller support. Joystick would be great, but also think of x360 controller as many PC gamers have some kind of of xbox pattern controller. This obviously shouldn't mean that game is not easyto play with keyboard/mouse.
I believe what you're referring to is called 'harmonization' of the guns. basically aligning the angle of the weapons so that the bullets converge at single point as you said.Well to the question of side mounted guns.
I'm not sure how to translate it, since I'm not a native speaker, but will try to expain.
In many WWII flight sims you have to set up the weapons alignment (not sure if this is correct term) range - the distance on shich all your bullets and shells will pass through one point in space.
Probably you can let player configure the alignment at home (1000 clicks? 1250 clicks? Whatever distance you like), change it in flight.
Or just make all your round fly into the target and say "automated alignment system".
I'm in favor of detailed communications, as long is they're actually useful. This means that:As the game develops one thing that can add some variety is how the wingman AI interprets your commands. That allows you as the developer and the player to keep the control scheme simple with basic commands like "attack/protect my target" "disengage" etc. (Although one that I always thought was missing from the wing series was "this one's mine" wherein the AI protects you but doesn't engage your target directly IMO).
How about having ships require extensive service between missions, so any ship you choose will be unavailable for the next mission or so? That means you can be less concerned with balance, and can even have obviously inferior/superior ships. If you can complete the next mission with the worst ship in the hangar, take it, and save the other ships for the harder missions in the current series.On the other hand, you don't want ships to be too similar. And if ships are all evenly balanced but each designed for certain job (bomber, anti-bomber, dogfight etc.) there's a risk that for each mission one of the ships is obviously best choice.
I'm not sure how all this should be done. Maybe 4-6 ships so that you simply sacrifice speed and agility for armor and firepower step by step?
I'm fine with space shooters that ignore Newton, but rolling just makes no sense. Please make A and D YAW (or give me the choice if some of the airplane pilots out there expect ROLL).Should A and D be YAW or ROLL? or should the player choose?
I'd quite like to see this, but only if implemented with great care to maintain pacing. I like FTL, but it rewards (and sometimes demands) pausing the game every five seconds to issue new orders. If anyone out there makes a game with this system, make sure it's optimal to issue new orders at moderate intervals, like every 20 to 60 seconds. Also avoid any micromanagement of your own ship in such a game - no weapon selection or power management. (Do still have some weapon variety, but on different ships. This would reward using the right wingman for the right job.Wingmen orders
Depending on the complexity of orders, you could have a power wheel, think Mass Effect, which stops time to allow you to give out specific orders. Give you a tactical view of the field by pushing you into a 3rd person perspective and allow you to use that perspective on your wingmen enhancing your situational awareness, something I never feel I have in 1st person combat view. On the flip, you can give simple commands so that the combat isn't stalled each time you give an order.
Yes, I have been playing the 2012 X-COM lately, and it probably did influence my suggestion. I like turn-based strategy, but often minor setbacks end in me save-scumming until I've leaked all the fun out of the game. X-COM is one of the few where I've managed to acknowledge a squaddie's sacrifice, then keep playing. (However, after two Total Party Kills I did reload for the alien base assault and some of the longer missions that followed that.) I strongly recommend game designers who want long-term continuity study just how X-COM encourages this. However, it also relies on having no fixed time limit and having aliens that only escalate once X-COM starts succeeding. This does not fit stories with a tighter narrative. There, early failures lead to a death spiral (not fun) and early successes may build to overwhelming power (also not fun).