Taking a break

245 posts over a period of about 14-15 months? I think I earned a break.

I'll beback later, hopefully with some more nerdy stuff to talk about.

Homeworld 2 mod

In the past I've discussed what I view as the greatest strength of PC gaming, the ability to Mod the games. Recently I dusted off my Homeworld 2 CD and tried out a few mods for it that hadn't grabbed me in the past. Homeworld 2 was not as successful for me as Homeworld 1, something about the feel of the combat never grabbed me, it felt too short. While the graphics aided in making it feel epic, the speed of frigate-vs-frigate combat removed the feel of the massive ship-to-ship combat.

This is fixed in the Tactical Fleet Simulator mod. Having downloaded and played version 2.6 (or is it 2.7? I'm too lazy to check) I was awestruck at the subtle tweaks in gameplay that made it feel more impressive, immersive and enjoyable. The battles feel a little lengthened, and there are genuine choices made for researching. A minute or two of research in a field will only open up the basic parts of that field (E.G. Researching bomber craft will only give you the basic bombers, you need to put more work into it in order to get the REALLY impressive bombers).

Despite the feel of the battles, and the thought required for research, something I was not impressed with was excess of information. Yes, too much information. I understand they want you to play the mod and get a feel for how it works rather then just have it handed to you, but I sit there just scratching my head at all the information they give me. I don't NEED to know exactly what armament each fighter craft has, and all the acronyms prefixing each type of fighter is just a bit too confusing for me to take in while desperately trying to shore up my fleets woeful inadequacy in an unexpected area.

The mod itself looks beautiful. Aside from only a few small examples, the newly inserted ships (the mod uses all the original-game ships as well) perfectly fit the aesthetic established for their race, and the emphasis the mod adds to missile-combat makes things look beautiful. I have to admit, despite being a beam-man in space combat, the sight of a flight of missiles closing in on a ponderous target and shattering the starboard side of the shipyard just... makes me all moist.

Linked in with the 'too much information' problem is the excess of choice. I went through three stages of appreciation of the large number of individual ship types. First I was overwhelmed, then I was thrilled, then I was... confused. The benefit to the simplistic "This is an Interceptor, it intercepts - this is an anti-fighter frigate, it blows up fighters" approach of the original Homeworld 2 system is that everything's purpose is very clear and undisputed. When I'm designing the final fleet I'll send against my enemy, I become very unsure of what I should put in it. Rather then "Ok, I'll put three Destroyers in here to give me some good firepower I can split up if needed", I'm forced into an indecisive state where I can't work out which of the three Destroyer-like ships I should get. Should I get one of each? Should I specialise? I DON'T KNOW.

It really becomes a situation of "I don't know what to get next", leaving you frozen indecision. There are three classes of anti-fighter fighters, and even knowing that one of them is just an opening "Protect your start base" fighter, I'm left wondering which of the other two I should get. I understand they were trying to simulate actual weapon system development, which goes through several generations of progress and concurrent design, but to me a slight simplification wouldn't go astray.

But, my complaint is already answered. I haven't had the chance to try it yet, but there's a game mode that promises easier ship choice. Yeah, this mod not only provides a new feel of gameplay and new ships, it provides new game modes. A couple really stand out for me. 'Risk', where you only have Frigates and up (except if you choose to allow bombers, which REALLY changes the playstyle). Skirmish, where you have a fleet of ships, no ability to create more, and you've got to outfight the AI (who are in the same boat). Strikers, like Risk but with only fighters and Corvettes.

All in all, give it a look see. Tactical Fleet Simulator.

Others do my work

Rather then actually have to use my brain and think, I have decided to delegate my work to others for this post. What I actually mean is I've found some amusing websites and will send you there rather then write anything myself.

Some may notice a certain theme passing through these links. Don't pat yourselves on the back, the theme is bleedingly obvious. The theme is "Here are examples of stupid people."

Human beings who have done stupid things.

People with mobile/cell phones who have typed stupid things.

Patrons of businesses who have said/done stupid things.

People with computers who have typed stupid things.

People with functioning genitals who have said stupid things.

There, enjoy the fruits of others labour.

Ideal Space Empire game part 4

Now, let's talk about the final part of designing the ship. The subsystems, and bringing it all together.

As described in part 3, subsystems are balanced by four requirements. Manpower, energy, space and money. So those will be mentioned in the description of each part I talk about. If these subsections have special requirements, larger-or-smaller variants or improve with research (either automatically or opening up improved versions) I'll mention it.

Crew cabins
Manpower: Adds to your total (amount added depends on size)
Energy: Low drain
Space: Low-medium space (depends on size)
Money: Relatively low cost.
Description: These increase the amount of crew a ship can have. They range from small cabins (designed for corvette class ships) to massive living quarters (designed for destroyers and up). Since it is very difficult for research to make minimal living quarters smaller, these are relatively standard.

Energy generators
Manpower: Low
Energy: Adds to your total (amount depends on research level)
Space: Low space
Money: Moderately expensive.
Description: Most energy generators have a relatively similar size, some may be a little smaller, some a little bigger. The exception would be fighter/corvette generators, which would be smaller versions of the Frigate+ class generators. As research into generators improves, the generator designs both give more energy and cost more. However the generators in place in your designs will not alter, meaning to take advantage of generator research you must regularly update the designs.

Command center/Cockpit
Manpower: Moderate/adds to your total.
Energy: Low drain
Space: Low/moderate
Money: Moderate
Description: The command center is an essential part of the ship, no matter it's class. It determines the maximum amount of manpower and energy the ship can cope with, as well as giving slight bonus' (depending on it's quality) to all the ships abilities (accuracy, damage, speed, etc). Fighters have a different variety, the cockpit. This adds a very small amount of manpower to the fighter, usually just 1 (the pilot), but some larger varieties may add 2, potentially even 3, for fighters with turrets. Obviously command centers/cockpits will increase with research by a small percentage, but the true benefit to research will be to upgrade better varieties, and some more specialised versions.

AI banks
Manpower: Modifies Manpower requirements shipwide.
Energy: Moderate drain
Space: Low
Money: High
Description: AI banks are improved as research in their field improves, but the true benefit to doing the research is opening up even better AI bank designs. These function by reducing the manpower required by all systems by a set percentage.

AI Running
Manpower: Adds to your total
Energy: Moderate drain
Space: Very low
Money: Moderate
Description: While AI banks improve ship running by making things easier for the crew, AI running actively replaces the crew. Levels of research improve the quality of AI, meaning it grants both larger manpower bonus', and a lower penalty at a cost of increased energy requirements. AI running manpower lowers the capabilities of the ship in the same way command centers increase running.

AI Pilot (Fighter/Corvette only)
Manpower: Replaces total
Energy: Low drain
Space: Very low
Money: Low/Moderate
Description: Similar to AI running above, AI pilot is only for Fighter and Corvette class ships. It replaces the cockpit, meaning the ship is piloted by an AI as opposed to a living creature. This frees up more space for other systems, with the penalty that the AI pilot suffers a similar penalty to AI running, and are capable of only basic combat moves. This penalty is lessened with further research into the area.

Corvette/Fighter Hanger
Manpower: Very high
Energy: Low drain
Space: High
Money: Moderate
Description: Fighter and Corvette class ships are the only ship design that do not need to be given a ship drive. Instead a smaller ship engine can be mounted granting reasonable speed, acceleration and maneuverability at a lower cost, at the expense of being unable to move on the battle map. To counter this the Hanger is used. Fighter and Corvette flights are linked with a ship that holds a dock, and wherever the ship goes the fighter/corvettes will follow. This comes at the cost of lessening the capabilities of the ship hosting the hanger. Different types of hangers with different advantages (lessened space, lessened manpower cost, greater ship capacity, etc) will be found through further research. These must be placed on the ship's model in a location that will allow the ships to leave their host.

Ship launchers
Manpower: Low
Energy: Moderate
Space: Moderate
Money: Moderate
Description: The ship dock is different from a ship hanger, although it functions in a similar manner. All they really contain are the ships themselves, meaning pilots cannot enter and leave, nor the required support crews to look after the pilots. This means only AI piloted ships can use these launchers. These are the true benefit of AI pilot ships, since they are easier to contain on a larger ship then Hangers. Research opens up designs that can hold more ships. Similarly to hangers, these must be placed on the ships model.

Repair systems
Manpower: Low
Energy: Low
Space: Moderate
Money: Moderate
Description: A series of automated drones held in the ship that can repair both the ship, or other ships in the same fleet. Research opens up more efficient (and more costly) designs and makes current designs slightly better.

Turrets
Manpower: Low (for individual turrets)
Energy: Low drain
Space: Low
Money: Low
Description: When placed on a ship, a further Mass Driver or Energy weapon of appropriate size can be placed in that turret, greatly widening it's field of fire. Turret turn rate and maximum turn arc is determined by their model, with more effective turrets having higher money, energy and manpower costs then turrets with a slower turn or limited arc. Using the right turret in the right location is crucial to making cost effective ships.


Based on how much I've crapped on so far about weapons and defences, I won't go on about them now.

Well, there you have it. A look at a primary aspect of my ideal game, ship design mixed with a bit of the research. This isn't even touching on ground combat, empire management, racial modifiers on empire management, different styles of combat ship (front on shooting Vs 'ship of the line' style), all that nonsense. Be glad, otherwise this series would go on another twelve posts or so.


Well, that should be all I want to say on this topic for a while. I'm vanishing off until mid next week to do work on my Thesis. Tah.

Ideal Space Empire game part 3

Now, let's get to the nitty gritty of designing, the actual design.

The basic system used by Galactic Civilisations II works. Each size of shit chassis has a certain number of 'points' of size, and when you add a useful (I.E. Not aesthetic) piece to the ship it takes a certain number of size points. It's the general way it works. Their miniaturisation system was a bit odd, but let's just ignore that.

Upon choosing the size of ship you're going to design, you then get to work within that size limitation to create the ship of your dreams. However there are some limitations.

First off, each useful (not aesthetic) piece you put on the ship will cost at least SOME of the following.

1. Manpower. This is how many people will be required in the ship to keep it operating at peak capacity. Ships will be designed to contain the ideal number of crewmen/women needed to operate parts. Some pieces will need little manpower (Shielding will require only a few engineers to keep it functional) while other pieces may need a great deal (repair systems capable of fixing other ships in the fleet will require a large number of crewmen).

2. Energy. Ships will require energy to run, and individual parts will alter the energy requirements. Ships will need to satisfy this requirement before they can be considered a viable design. As with manpower, some parts will have a higher energy cost then others. Energy weapons and shields will require a large amount of energy, while mass drivers are comparatively energy free.

3. Money. Ships will cost money to produce. Little in life is free, and galactic warfare is no exception. The individual parts put on a ship will increase the cost of the ship as a whole. Some parts will be relatively cheap (armour plating will be mostly pretty cheap) while others - such as high end energy generators - will be quite expensive.

4. Space. Each non-aesthetic piece put on the ship will take a certain amount of space on the overall design, as described above.

So as you can see, designing a ship is a delicate balancing act of energy requirements, manpower requirements and cost, and fitting all that on the ship in question along with the facilities you require.

Now, what haven't I covered? OH YES, engines.

GalcivII had a basic "engine gets better" research system. In this ideal game of mine, though, it's a bit more complex. Keep in mind since there is actual manouvering done in the game, there's more to consider then simple engine speed.

Now, let's consider three different Engine types, just to make things interesting. We'll go soft science, because the alternative is too difficult to work with. Let us consider what they are as a basic idea, coupled with the advantages they would bring in-game. To make things simple, let's say that ships are not allowed Drives of more then one type, but each type has two different engines 'speed' engines and 'maneouver' engines.

1. Inertialess drive. As a basic rule, the reason faster-then-light travel is considered a holy grail of physics is because as you increase in speed, the amount of energy that is required to increase a step further in speed increases. Current understanding is that JUST BEFORE you hit light speed, the amount of energy required to go that final extra step is approximately infinite. The inertialess drive cancels this out and creates a general, flat ratio of energy-to-thrust.

On the game map Inertialess drive ships would move straight. This means they are unable to move through obstacles and must pass ships that may be attempting to block them, rather then go round them. The inertialess drive is relatively easy to maintain (at least compared to other hyperadvanced FTL drives) so cost less manpower, but requires a constant input of energy, so has a higher energy cost.

On the battlemap, the inertialess drive's advantage is that it has a rapid acceleration rate. It may not be faster then other drives, but it can accelerate from a stopping point much quicker. However it's turning speed is not particularly impressive. This is represented in it's 'speed' engine having a high acceleration stat, but it's manouver engine having a relatively higher cost for the same effect, compared to the other drives.

2. Warp space. Another method around the FTL limitation is simply to sidestep physics. Well, I say 'simply', in reality it's an incredibly complex procedure, but once a ship has stepped out of the real world and into the dimension past this one, normal laws of physics as we know them don't apply. A short distance in that dimension could be an incredibly long distance in our own.

In the game map, Warp space means the ship ceases to exist in our reality, travels a distance, then drops back into the reality we know and love in a different location. This means they can sidestep obstacles that may impeed their progress. Inertia drives are VERY complex to maintain, not to mention the task of navigating from one location to another in the other reality, then dropping out in the right spot is incredibly difficult, requiring a large amount of manpower. In addition, the requirements to pass from one dimension to another are very, very energy draining. This is offset somewhat by the slightly lower price of these drives, but mostly in place to make up for the immense ease they have in getting from point A to point B.

In the battle map, the pinpoint maneuverability required in the alternative dimension pays off, as the maneuvering engines are quite effective. However their speed engine has lower acceleration and top speed.

3. 'Jump' drive. While somewhat similar in appearance to the warp drive, the main effect is somewhat different in impact. The warp drive jumps the ship to another dimension to carry on it's travels. The Jump drive actually physically transports the ship from point A to point B without traveling through any of the intervening points. Literal teleportation. Unfortunately these teleportation jumps are limited in distance.

On the game map, the Jump drive is halfway between the two alternatives. It functions by making a series of short jumps, making a number of them over a turn. Though it can be fiddly, the drive can jump around some obstacles if positioned properly. However it does reappear in 'real' space often enough that it cannot bypass everything. The system does not require as much energy as one might assume, but the drives require careful preparation for each jump, meaning it needs a reasonable amount of manpower to operate.

Finally, the battle map shows the real strength of the Jump drive. While it has average speed, maneuverability, and acceleration, it has another strength. Ships equipped with Jump drives are able to physically teleport across the map once per battle. This gives them a definite advantage in tactical moves.



Now, for the final post (hopefully tomorrow) I'll discuss different types of ship subsystems.

Ideal Space Empire game part 2

First, something I forgot to discuss in the above discussion on research. Defenses.

Galactic Civilizations, which this system is heavily based upon, uses a simple three-for-three method. Lasers are countered by shields, Mass drivers countered by armour, Missiles countered by point defense. Having high protection against one will give you great survivability for that sort of attack, but also a much smaller degree (square root it) of defense against other attacks.

In this ideal game I've got in mind, there is a relatively similar system where each of the areas of protection have their best effect against their counterpart, but this effect is felt differently. Shields would automatically counter a certain amount of damage before 'shorting out', at which point they would have to recharge, with energy weapons only countering as a percentage of their total damage towards that 'short out' phase.

Armour is always effective, but in a manner stolen from the Heavy Gear games, the more damage it blocks, the less effective it is against future attacks (with solid stage mass driver weapons counting as only a percentage of their actual damage against the armour). To be precise, the armour completely ignores a certain amount of damage - meaning it may not take any damage at all - but the amount it auto-reduces is lessened by the amount of health the ship has. This means that a 'fresh' ship with high armour can take a hell of a beating, but once it's a bit more battle damaged then those small fighter attacks become more dangerous.

Missiles, as with the previous post, are the odd one out. Missiles function as normal against shields and armour, but their countermeasure (Missile point defenses, not to be confused with the point-defence turrets mentioned previously, although there could be a little overlap) are an all-or-nothing affair. Large missiles are either shot out of the air, or not, with no middleground. Smaller swarms of missiles may have some shot out of the air while others get into contact. Point defences, for obvious reasons, are useless against Mass Drivers and Energy weapons.

As you might guess from this, while each is more effective against a particular type of attack, it is certainly effective to have a ship possessing two (or even three) types of defenses. Missile defences do seem somewhat uneven, but perhaps this could be countered by giving the missiles higher damage, to provide some incentive to research countermeasures rather then just relying on the shields and armour to see you through. After all, it's a common cliche in space opera that the bombers still launch large missiles. Then again, with guided missiles there is no real concern over fire arcs and turreting. Perhaps missiles could be grouped based on their guiding? Unguided rockets and guided missiles... Hmm, it's a consideration.


Let's consider something I teased around before. Turreting. This links directly in with the ship design process.

Something I wish to consider in the designs of the ship is weapon arcs. In Galciv2 there was no difference where you put the weapon, since in the combat cinematic the weapons would often fire through your own ship in order to follow the line between your ship and theirs. However in a process of designing your own ship for a 3d space-based RTS game there needs to be more consideration for it. Part of the design process of creating your own ships would be weapon arcs. I know it seems needlessly complex, but I believe it would add to your enjoyment of seeing your own ships out in the depths of space.

First off we'll say you've created the basis for your ship (I'll cover things such as engines (which affect speed and manouverability later), life support, fighter decks, extra systems, etc, later) and now you're up to the stage of arming it. Obviously you want to put the heavy guns here... but wait! Do you want to attach it directly?

Instead this system would allow for 'turreting'. With turreting some of the ship design pieces you have access too are turrets. These have their own stats such as 'Maximum turn degree', 'available weapon classes', 'turn speed', 'cost' and 'manpower' (discussed later). These must be weighed up to judge which turrets you want to place where. Point defence weapons (as mentioned in part 1) are automatically turreted so they can just be placed wherever you wish. Heavier weapons (the medium and large weapons) can either be placed flat, in which case they have a very limited arc they can fire in. This may seem negative, but it is far cheaper then turreting, and allows for simpler, more streamlined designs. Alternatively turrets can be used. Turrets capable of full 360 rotation will either be relatively slow in their movement, or VERY costly, and possibly not even able to hold the largest class of weapons.

So in designing ships, the player must weigh up firing arcs. Do they want their ships to be far more expensive but have no 'blind spot'? Or perhaps this is a ship meant for engaging slow vessels and as such it doesn't need to alter it's firing arc much? Maybe the ship itself is highly maneouverable, so it doesn't need particularly impressive/costly turreting systems. Or perhaps the player will return to the 'good ol' days of ships having their heaviest armaments along their port and starboard sides. This way the player knows perfectly well how to arrange the ships in formation so they can fire effectively. As mentioned, Missiles have no fire arcs since they are able to change course in mid flight. This allows them unparralled versatility, but if the enemy has appropriate defences missiles are a very hit-or-miss affair.

All these things must be weighed when creating a ship, along with a vast array of others. What others? I'll explain in more detail in the next post, when I discuss extra systems such as: Engine, Life support, manpower, generators, and even things like docking.

Ideal Space Empire game part 1

Tonight I'm going to do a blog post that is of no interest to anyone but me. It's discussing an ideal game I have in mind that I am well aware will never happen.

One of my ideal games is a 4X style space-empire sim game (in this case, Galactic Civilisations II) crossed with Total War crossed with Homeworld. The ideal is that you're guiding a space empire in it's development, getting into wars, resolving situations diplomatically, directing trade, etc. One of the major appeals of GalCiv II is the ability to design your own space ships, both aesthetically and functionally. So, let us consider how this 'design your own ship' idea could function in a game like this on a larger scale, especially for use in the RTS parts of the game

The first item to consider is research. The ship cannot be designed until it's associated parts are researched. GalcivII used a three-pronged battle research system where you could focus in either Mass Driver weapons, Energy weapons, or Missile weapons (and their respective countermeasures). While it took a great deal of research points, something I found interesting was how unchallenging it was to research ALL the type of weapons over the course of a long game. Let's consider ideal concepts for this ideal game.


1. Weapon Differentiation.

The different types of weapons should have genuine differences in gameplay and design rather then merely causing different types of damage. Energy weapons and Mass Drivers are relatively similar in function (direct fire weapons). Perhaps the difference between them could come in the direct effect of the weapons, with different 'classes' of energy weapons being better at their respective focuses and worse at areas outside that, while different classes of Mass driver aren't quite as good at their focus, but better at their weak area. Missiles would be different, since most of them would naturally be able to adjust course and target nearly any vessel. However, this higher accuracy would come at the cost of delayed damage.


2. Weapon Classes

Rather then merely putting the exact same weapons on different ships, let's vary it up a little. Fighter, Point-Defence, Medium, Large. With each degree of research, different 'classes' of weapon open up. Let's take Energy weapons as an example.

The player completes X degree of research and has opened up four different types of energy weapon, we'll call these Blaster (fighter class), Laser Turret (Point-Defence class), Laser Cannon (Medium) and Lance (large). The Blaster can be equipped easily on small fighter-class ship chassis very easily, but their lack of power and inability to be 'turreted' makes them poor choices for much larger classes. The Laser Turret is a naturally turreted weapon that can be equiped on all classes of vessel. On a fighter it is very large, taking up most of the space, while large classes of vessel could have dozens dotting them. It's main advantage is against fighter-type vessels, since it naturally has a fast turret, making it ideal to dot around large vessels to defend them from fighters.

The Medium class Cannon is too large for fighters, and only the largest corvette would be able to fit even one. At the cost of increased price and space they can be turretted, allowing them a larger arc of fire on the vessel, in which case their arc must be carefully positioned to allow the player to use them effectively. Finally the Lance would be a very large, very powerful weapon, restricted mostly to very large vessels, and very, very costly to put on anything but a quite restricted turret. These would be the primary armaments of capital vessels.

You can imagine this would be similar with Mass Drivers and Missiles. Larger versions of each would be available, going from anti-fighter missiles/gatling guns as point-defence weapons, all the way up to anti-matter torpedoes/Coil-Cannons as the medium or large weapons. Or alternatively the classes may be different for different research-types of weapons. Missiles may have "Light anti-fighter" as fighter, "Light anti-capital ship" for bomber-types, "Guided seekers" for point-defence, and "Heavy Torpedoes" for heavy capital ship weapons.

Let's go back to the energy weapon examples now. Let us say nowIf the player then researched further down the research tree for this specialisation and has unlocked two further techs. Laser Cannon II and Plasma Blaster. The Laser Cannon II is a relatively simple upgrade of the Laser Cannon tech and would be automatically applied to vessels with the Laser Cannon (possibly at a small fee). However, the Plasma Blaster is a completely new Fighter-class weapon, and new fighters would have to be designed to bring this weapon into battle.

As you see, this makes research very attractive without requiring very regular redesigns of ships. Galciv's "one research opens one better weapon" method worked for it, but for a more hands-on RTS style game it would need to be streamlined a little with different types of weapons that can be used. This means fighters aren't stuck with the same types of weapons


3. Research variety

It was a bit too easy to get THE BEST weapons in multiple areas in Galciv. Maybe instead the players should choose a focus. This would be determined by the first area they begin research. All subsequent research in that weapon area is a little easier, while research in other areas is a little more costly and time consuming. A relatively arbitrary artifical scaling would work. Opening weapon research costs X research units, while researching into a different area costs X1.5, and the final area would cost X2.

Hopefully this would mean that players wanting to specialise in one area can do so, while players wanting different types of weapons (for the advantages each offers) are still able to do so.


Next post: I'll explain what I mean by 'turreting', as I talk about actually designing the ships.

Yeah, sorry this is so dull, pretty much just doing this for me.

Blogpost-words

You know what I enjoy? A movie that knows precisely what it is and honestly just doesn't give a shit. G.I. Joe is a perfect example of this mentality, it knew from the beginning precisely what it was going for and went for it with the force of a thousand hurricanes. Boobs and explosions. It knew what sort of movie it would be and it didn't try to disguise it.

Today I saw a trailer for a movie I intend to see. It's called... are you ready for this? I wasn't.

Ninja Assassin.

Yeah. It's that open about it. It's name is basically "Guy who kills shit REALLY WELL" It's like if they called Die Hard "Pissed off white dude" or Pulp Fiction "Criminal anecdotes + dead people".

The movie - from what I can tell from the trailer - is about a Ninja who assassinates people until he decides he doesn't want to assassinate people or be a ninja (so really the title should be "Ex-Ninja Assassin" or "I can't believe it's not a Ninja Assassin"). Of course the retirement plan involves killing EVERYONE so he doesn't have to kill again. It had a sharp knife on a piece of chain, lots of swords, and ninja stars that had a rate-of-throwing that could challenge machine guns.

This movie knows precisely what it is, and just goes to do that REALLY WELL. There was no hint of a love story in the trailer (though there will be at least half of one, it's an accepted fact in movies), all there were, were a large number of people getting killed to death. I want to see this movie.

Superhero MMOs - Epilogue

As a final post on the matters of superhero MMOs, I am now severely 'meh' on Champions Online. I understand I should take everything I read with a grain of salt, everyone has different opinions on what makes games fun, etc etc, but from a read-through of how combat, leveling and gameplay works in the game? It's really not jumping out at me. And perhaps the nail in the coffin is this. I'm not sure if it's ironic that the unofficial character builder is what turned me away, or what.

The truth is I struggle to wring out builds with personality that I would be happy to play from that. They all feel a bit samey to me as I wrestle around the open ended character creation. Let's see, I've made a super-strong tech-suit guy, a sword armed vampire (with 'bite' and 'summon wolves' and everything), a rejig of one of my lesser villains I played in City of Villains, hell, even a beastial werewolf among other things.

It hit me when I looked back at the builds I made. They all centered around a small number of powersets. Tech suit, Might, Martial arts (usually unarmed, occasionally 1 sword), very rarely Munitions (and then only for characterful reasons) and Supernatural. The only character who used none of these was the villain rejig who was a mix of 'Force' and 'Fire'. I have no interest in elemental or sorcery superheroes, and only a minor (it being a secondary thing) at best interest in heroes who's focus in ranged combat. If I play this 'open ended you can make anything with your character' game I'd be missing out on about 2/3rds of the character possibilities, and from the remainder I struggle to put together a really characterful build that is unique enough that it's worth putting in the builder.

I am a major Roleplaying nerd, I need to feel a character I make is not only unique enough that it's unlikely others have made them, but interesting and captivating enough to me that I want to play them. Hell, one of my favourite characters I ever made up back in City of Heroes was a sociopathic super-hero-hunter who did it for sport, then developed an obsession with a superheroine who beat him. That was some fun roleplay.


Well, drifted off the point a little bit, but it's my blog so I can do what I want! Ha! And my audience just have to sit and read the ramblings I go on ab- wait, where are you going, come back!

filler post part X+1

Short post today. I'm preparing for the first of my 5(or more) interviews I'm doing for my Honours thesis. A tad nervous, but then again she sounded a bit nervous too, so that's all alright then.

I won't really bother with a meaningful post today, since I was just sent a link to this story. It's kinda hard to write when you know full well that nothing you ever do will ever be this cool.

G.I. Joe is an awesome movie

Having seen G.I. Joe last night, I can honestly say it was one of the most enjoyable experiences I've had with a movie lately. Note, I did not say it was a good movie. It is a decidedly average movie on the good/bad scale. What it is, is fun. Pure, unfiltered, fun.

The best analogy I heard for G.I. Joe (which is a pity, since I heard it from moviebob, the movie reviewer at the Escapist, someone whom I am sincerely unimpressed with, and it always bothers me when I agree with people I don't like) was that it was like the action scenes were designed by a child in a sandbox with access to an unlimited number of G.I. Joe toys. You seriously expect to see the omnipotent hand of a seven year old reach down and move the actors, making the required sound effects with his mouth as he does so.

It is a movie that knows precisely what it is trying to do (entertain) knows precisely who it's target audience is (people who want an entertaining action movie, majoritively guys) and knows precisely how to do this (explosions and arses you could bounce a coin off).

This is a fun movie. It's a movie you rent on blue-ray, go over to your friends place with the huge TV, and watch with about four guys, two cases of beer, and enough popcorn to make a scale replica of the Great Wall of China, complete with soldiers guarding it from the Mongolian hordes. You don't NEED to watch it. You can stand around talking shit, and then occasionally cheering as you see an awesome bit of action.

The movie is like if you asked a 30 year old to come up with a James Bond plot, and a bunch of children to come up with the action scenes, then gave it both to a professional writer along with a bunch of comics and connection to wikipedia and said "make it so".

A great many things about what made this movie so fun were explained when I looked up the director. He's the guy who did all the Mummy movies.

The Mummy movies - magic + superscience - old setting + "in the not too distant future" setting - main smartarse hero + main stoic hero + smartarse sidekick + unironic Ninja + more arse + submarines = X

X = G.I. Joe
X also happens to equal fun.

Yeah, that's the equation of the movie. It WORKS.

Insert pun here about 'Steam'.

Short post today, I'm buried under a mound of not-doing-much.

I'm going to express an unpopular opinion here: I do not use Steam. I avoid getting Steam put on my computer, and even go so far as to refuse to try the Dawn of War II demo sitting on a DVD in front of me, purely because it requires Steam to be installed.

One reason for my dislike of Steam is the Big Brotherish method of playing it's games. You MUST be on the internet and have Steam running in order to be able to play it's games. That doesn't seem like a massive thing at first, but as well as using computer resources it's also keeping a tab on the games people play. It bothers me that my recreational habits are being poured over by some market research consultant (even though, let's be honest, even without Steam that's probably happening)

The main thing is that it's a DRM method that no one seems to even notice. Starforge gets every nerd's hackles up like there's a large predator in the room, and the "5 install only" methods of some recent games (Mass Effect, which I admit I loved, and Spore, which I'm INCREDIBLY indifferent to) raised more of an uproar then jokes about putting a baby in a microwave.

Steam is a DRM method just the same, which no one even considers because it means they can get games without getting to get up from their chair. I don't mind Digital Rights Management, since I believe people are entitled to payment for their hard work. What bothers me is that if another DRM company tried to do what Valve does (require you to be constantly online to play it, not to mention having a program in the background monitoring your gameplay time) they would be crucified. But because it's part of the store's system and Valve made Half Life, they get away with it.

It just bothers me.

Superhero MMOs part 3

Champions Online.

I can write the most about this at the moment since I've been reading up a fair bit on it. In the then untitled part 1 I voiced my ethical concerns about looking forward to the game, so here I'll just talk about what excites me about it, and where I've got concerns.

The fighting systems looks interesting and the requirement to use energy building attacks so you can unleash more devastating ones is something that sounds good on paper, but I'll hold off having an opinion until later.

I have to say, my only major concern at the moment is the server system. Rather then having different servers running separate and independent of one another as most MMOs do, CO is using a shard system. Basically there's one massive server and every location in it has a maximum number of players, once that's surpassed the server makes a new location for excess and so on and so forth. While this means it's easy to meet up with friends in game, it's also highly problematic. City of Heroes had plenty of times when some of the servers would go down, and players had to migrate to other servers just to play. Imagine that on a single server, if it went down every single player would be screwed.

Plus I'm a roleplayer, even when there aren't official server designations people try to label servers into types. If I'm roleplaying, I don't want to be bothered by some wanker begging people to power level him and calling them cocks if they don't

But I have to say despite that it looks pretty good. The nemesis system is clever, at level 25 - a little over halfway to max level 40 - you can create a Nemesis using the same system as is used in character creation (with the ability to describe the kind of villain they are, mastermind, thief, psychotic, etc) who is used in generated missions. I have no doubt people will come up with ways to make shit Nemesis for easy experience, but this really gets me going.

The character creation looks impressive. The physical creator looks more in depth then City of Heroes, but I've heard it has less actual costume pieces, at least to begin with. The actual leveling up and power system looks incredible. I'm seriously all goey in my manparts with anticipation. Just reading the half or so mix-and-matchable powersets they've released details on so far has me coming up with dozens of character ideas.

You see, instead of just picking your class and powersets, the game is open-ended in its design. You pick your opening powers from any powerset you want, and later on you earn roles that you can switch in and out of (with four total equating to most MMO class slots - Balanced, Offence, Defence, and Support). Individual powers within the sets have a number of power requirements you need to satisfy, usually just X (a lower number) of powers already from within that set, or Y (a higher number) of powers from outside of that set. A gun-wielding hero can dip into Supernatural and grab Regeneration with immense ease, or a Might-based hero can dip into Battlesuit for technological attacks.

I know I shouldn't be getting any distractions, now that my Honours Thesis is due in two and a half months, but fuck me this looks awesome.

Superhero MMOs part 2

Let's continue on from this small gem of a post.

As you might guess from that link, this post is about Champions Online. As someone who loves roleplaying games, enjoys roleplaying, but is bored stiff of the usual fantasy cliches, the prospect of a superhero based MMORPG is one that makes me moist.

So to deny the presence of the contenders in this market would be an act of stubbornness that is totally in keeping with my character, but doesn't match with my cool, calm, incorrect self image I've built up about myself. Let's talk about the warriors in this somewhat small ring, discussing their pro's and con's from my entirely selfish perspective.

City of Heroes
Ok, time to be honest. I've played this before, I played it for nearly two years, and in the end I just got bored of it. My main RP character was pretty much dead (at which point I killed him off, for good). It's a good game, and it's the only MMO that kept my attention for long.

It was a good game, it's well established and it's got a solid roleplaying society. However, what killed the character creation for me was the classes. I understand the need for classes in an MMO environment that contains PvP, they make it MASSIVELY easier to balance things, especially in comparison to each other, and it makes it easier for players to work on their playstyle (they know that if they play class X, they should play the game in manner Y). This doesn't mean I enjoy them. I'm not a munchkin or powergamer, I prefer more choices (with the potential for accidently (or delibrately) breaking it) rather then less choices (in order to prevent breakage). Yes, I know it's a very selfish view to take, but it's just my preference. I'd rather have a game with more choices then a perfectly balanced game. This is primarily because I don't play MMOs to be competitive. If I want competition, I play something like Chess or Monopoly where everyone is perfectly balanced already.


DCU Online
DC Universe Online (an MMO based around the DC comic universe, you know, Superman, Batman, etc) is also in the works. It's not going to be ready until much much later, but it's being worked on. Of course, being neither our nor close to release, there isn't a huge amount of info on it. And, I must admit, I haven't been following it closely. I gave it a brief look-through recently after checking out the Champions Online powersets for the fifth time that day.

First impressions are... mixed. It's got some things I like, some things I find a bit tacky/dodgy, and alot of gaps in information. One thing I have to admit admiring is it's method of dealing with loot. Loot is a fact of life in the modern MMO model. You play/grind the game through for two rewards:
1. The gradual, guaranteed reward of experience and levels. This is what makes each individual action worthwhile in the game (at least until you hit max level).
2. The random, unpredictable action of loot. That is what keeps people playing past max level, and punctuates an evening's worth of gaming with a few moments of "hell yeah!" to convince you you're having more fun then you are.

Ahem, sorry, tangent. Anyway, loot. In a superhero game, appearance is everything. In a Fantasy MMO your equipment is MEANT to change your look, it's a primary factor, it's a sign of "hey hey, look at how awesome I am, I've got this sweet loot".

However, like I said, in a Superhero game you want control over your appearance. Superman doesn't look exactly the same as everyone else with the same gear, why should your superhero? So, how does DCUO get around it? Easy, it allows you to toggle on and off which pieces of gear are visible. I think this is a neat solution to the problem, and one I'm going to shout the awesomeness of from the rooftops.


Champions Online
Ya know what, I'm tired. Let's continue this another day. TUNE IN NEXT POST FOR THE ADVENTURES OF COMPLAINY, THE BLOG POSTER.

Taking to the air

You know what, I am running out of nerdgasm topics.

Dirigibles. You know what they are? Picture a hot air balloon, inflated massively, with a full blown interior, kind of like an airplane. Actually, nevermind that, just watch Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, and you'll see one.

Using my rudimentary knowledge of things (I know a lot about things, just not much about specific things, and a great deal of general things), here is how I piece together the timeline.

Dirigibles are slower then planes, much slower, even when put side by side with directly comparable technology Dirigibles are slower. However, at the time they were around they had much larger carrying capacity.

However, there are two things that screwed with the history of the development of this stuff. Back then there were three methods of traveling between continents. Boats, which were slow and sturdy. Airships, which were a little faster then boats without the risk of dangers at sea. And planes, which were something the public found highly resistable, I mean, they're a tiny metal box with wings that's supposed to somehow stay in the air! That's friggin' mental!

The two events that occured were:

1. The Hindenburg disaster. Happening between World War 1 and World War 2, it showed just how disasterously Airships could go. Everyone on board killed in a firey conflagration of the elements. Yeah, not pleasent, but it was one of the most widely publicised disasters in media history, because the entire thing was RECORDED ON FILM. Seriously, the "Oh the Humanity!" line is common knowledge. So naturally airships got a bit of a bum rap from that.

2. World War 2. Now, in this one, I MAY be speaking out of my ass. I read this somewhere ages ago, and could be wrong, so if I am just call me on it. In World War 2 there needed to be discussion between America and their European based allies. Of course this couldn't be done over morse code or other unreliable messages, so there needed to be steady, reliable transport for the American President to meet with his allies. Airships were out, for obvious reasons. They couldn't use boats, out of fear of German boats intercepting them. So instead they went for an official plane (which, if I recall right, is the origin of Airforce 1 being used as the designation for whatever plane the President is on).

So, having seen their President go back and forth, back and forth, back and forth, side to side (sorry, just been watching too much Dr Steel) on a plane, the American public thought "well golly, if the President can use those fan-dangled plane machines, so can we!"

And now, airships are limited only to the friggin' Goodyear Blimp. Screw Godyear, I want to see research put into Airships. If they had as much technological development as planes did, they'd probably still be slower, they'd be much safer, they'd be much more luxurious (more like spacious train travels then cramped airplane confines) and I sincerely doubt they'd use as much fuel. The only major "Holy crap, we're in trouble" factor with Airships is the fact they need to use flammable gasses to lift themselves, but that is something that could be mitigated and possibly even dealt with entirely as a threat. If not for the Hindenburg, rather then Slow Boat -> Fast plane, there could be the middle ground of Slow Boat -> Moderate Airship -> Fast plane

I want an Airship, damnit!

(P.S. Yes, I know there are still some Airships in use, but I much prefer the mental image of them being used as a cheaper, longer, but more luxurious travel alternative then floating advertising).

Mystery Science Theater lives on!

I sincerely doubt they need the plug, but a couple of months ago, while looking through Zero Punctuation back catalogue, I came across 'Unskippable'.

Quickly, let's backtrack. Before I knew my left hand from my right there were a series of TV shows in America (they never got exported to Australia, I think) called Mystery Science Theater 3000. Through the magic of Youtube, about a year ago I managed to watch what is affectionately called "A shitload" of their episodes. It was great fun, and whenever I watch a bad movie I always now get the urge to give it MST3K commentary (however I imagine my ad-libbed version would be far less amusing. Everything's funnier with robots). The general idea is that three characters sit in the corner of the movie screen (as if you were sitting behind them at the cinemas) and talk smack about the movie. Simple concept, great execution.

Back onto Unskippable, when I stumbled upon this I shouted with joy and thrust my arms in the air triumphantly, as if I had achieved some kind of victory, rather then just randomly found this. Unskippable is MST3K done to game intro CGI movies.

Here's a link to their catalogue.

Something you may notice is that their most recent video is "Metal Gear Solid 4: Part 1". Yes, that's right, they're dedicating five weeks of videos to Metal Gear Solid. I gave up on MGS after the first game, but even I find this stuff hilarious. Mainly because I heard of how bad MGS cutscenes were in the past, but now I can see for myself why they're so bad.

Ultimate showdown of all time

Having just watched Godzilla: Final Wars, I am left with many questions. Many, many questions, of which I will receive no answers.

However there is one answer I will definitely never receive, which upsets me.

If Godzilla fought Superman, who would win?

I'm trying to imagine it, and it is AWESOME, but I can't picture who wins. Let's try to reason this out. First, the ground rules

1. Godzilla is moving to attack Metropolis, but not there yet, so the fight is happening in a relatively sparse area, but with enough debris around to make it interesting. This means Superman HAS to fight him (to protect the city) but Godzilla can't get an unfair advantage by inadvertently threatening people Superman cares for, thus distracting him (E.G. Lois Lane is in danger... again)
2. Godzilla is pissed at Superman and trying to kill him, rather then just ignoring him and moving on.
3. There are no reinforcements on either side.
4. The story is being written by a neutral party, so no vested interest from either DC or Toho.

GODZILLA:

PROS:
- Enormous Strength. As strong as Superman is, I think current presentation of the man of Steel (rather then the bullshit "I'll spin the earth backwards and reverse time" thing) shows him as incredibly strong, but not Godzilla strong. I would go on record that I think Godzilla is stronger then Superman, and could he get a good grip on him it is entirely possible Godzilla has the strength to crush him to death.
- Radioactive breath. While Superman is probably agile to avoid this while flying, at least once this could be sprung on him as a surprise.
- Immense toughness. Godzilla is ridiculously tough, easily tougher then any other villain Superman has faced.

CONS:
- Slow. While his large gait means Godzilla can move pretty fast, Godzilla would not be capable of the kind of rapid self correcting swing needed to swat a human-sized target in mid air while it's flying. It would be like a human trying to hit a fly. Sure some people can catch them, but it's as much luck as it is skill, and you can swing all day without connecting.
- Large target(s). Superman could never miss Godzilla. He's friggin' massive. More importantly, let's assume that Godzilla, like is the case for all animals ever, has relatively sensitive eyes. Those alone are larger then a human, and as such easy targets for Supe's.
- No Kryptonite. That seems to be the only way to beat Superman these days.

SUPERMAN:

PROS:
- Strength. As I said, I don't think Superman is as strong as Godzilla, that said, he IS very strong. He could easily start using abandoned tanks (or equivalent weigh objects) as projectiles by flinging the damn things at Godzilla, who would have a hard time dodging them.
- Speed. Superman is far, far faster then Godzilla. Godzilla would have a genuinely tough time hitting a flying Superman, either with swinging fists, tail, or radioactive breath.
- Heat Vision. Let me start off by saying I do not believe that Superman's heat vision could hurt Godzilla traditionally. However, a blast of that to the eyes would slow ANY giant Monster down.

CONS:
- Not strong enough. Superman is strong and with a myriad of offensive weapons at his disposal. I do not believe either any of them, or he himself, is powerful enough to take down Godzilla. Hell, I don't even think the Hulk, jumping at full strength at Godzilla's head, punching at full strength on the way through, could knock Godzilla over, let alone Superman.
- Not enough leverage. It's shown in plenty of Godzilla movies the most damaging way to hit Godzilla is to throw him around or knock him down. I honestly don't believe Superman could pull that off. The only way I could see that working is if he, in a matter of seconds, flew past at the same angle and hit Godzilla over and over again on the way past. However, that opens him up to a Radioactive breathing to the face.


Y'see, this is my problem. In the vision I paint above, Superman cannot really hurt Godzilla, while Godzilla cannot hit Superman enough to really hurt him. A full blown stalemate, which is as satisfying as a carelessly abandoned blowjob.

Thoughts on Infamous

Having finished Infamous twice now, once good and once evil, I have to say that I both love the game, and at the same time I'm disappointed by it.

It is a great game with great gameplay, an enjoyable story, and is a great experience for any gamer. However, my complaint comes from the moral choice system. I have already said in this post what my idea moral choice system for any modern superhero game would be, so I won't go into that.

Infamous's moral choice system makes the common mistake of "Good" or "Evil", no real middle ground involved. However the vast majority of the story ignored which choice you made. The only impact your goodness or evilness had was the power upgrades available (which, of course, is gameplay rather then story), a couple of brief mentions, how the public reacted to you, and one or two cutscenes. The entire rest of the game's story ignores the fact that you're either an asshole or a saint and reacts the same way. The only real story factor that is influenced by your good or evil nature is how your girlfriend reacts to you.

That to me was disappointing. I wanted to feel some kind of difference on my second play through, when the only appreciable change was there were more explosions, evil-side.

Building on the explosion factor and moving in a completely different direction for point 2: Something I found unusual is that the evil side had a genuinely easier time with the final boss fights. Indeed most things, with only one real weakness at all.

You see, the common theme among comparisons between good and evil characters is that good characters get little bonus' to health, healing, etc etc, and evil characters blow shit up. That is followed to the letter in Infamous, with the good upgrades all being about precision attacking and with every hit of your basic lightning bolt attack giving you more energy and health, and all the evil upgrades consisting of "Here is an explosion".

I'm not exaggerating, pretty much every evil power upgrade adds an explosion somehow, or makes a pre-existing explosion more likely to happen and stronger. Basically this means that evil characters do a great deal more damage at the cost of getting less energy and health. However seeing as Infamous takes place in a city chock-full of electricy and you can drain the stuff for health and energy, this really doesn't matter much. In fact, the only time the evil side is weaker then the good side is when there is no electricy to drain, which happens very rarely and usually is only so you feel threatened while getting from point A to point B, rather then actually fighting things.

When I fought the final boss as the good side, precision meant jack shit all since he was genuinely tougher then an armoured truck, and the health and energy boosts are rendered irrelevant by the excessive amount of energy drain power cables conveniently sticking out of the earth. So it took a few goes but I beat him.

Fighting the final boss with the evil side rolls around and suddenly the excessive amount of explosions are ridonkulously useful. In fact I got through the fight in a single go. And I don't attribute this to me being better the second time through, since I don't believe I had appreciatably improved since finishing the game the first time. Apparently being able to stick 7 miniature explosive electrical charges on someone's face was enough to slow them down appreciatably, as opposed to the good option, where I was able to precisely put a single explosive charge in their face, which made them scratch their nose but otherwise had little impact.

Long story short: There needs to be more difference between good and evil for it to really be a selling point for the game. And the game is too easy for evil people.

Logic puzzles in games

As a long term computer-game-player of various types and genres, it is quite easy to notice patterns that follow in the stories and challenges of various types of game. However there is one precise puzzle I have seen so much that it genuinely bothers me now. Yes, I understand it is one of the few types of mathematical and logical problems that can be represented with ease visually, but the number of times I have seen it renders the puzzle moot and pointless.

This is the puzzle. You have three sections of a vaguely triangular shaped object stacked on top of each other, forming the aforementioned vague triangle. This object is located on a single signifier, usually a pole forming a solid physical anchor for the object (which usually has a hole in the middle to fit the pole). There are two more anchors to one side of this. The player must, without stacking a 'larger' section of the triangle on top of a 'smaller' section, or moving a larger section if there is a smaller section on top of it, transfer the entire object to the far anchor.

Usually there are only three sections, sometimes they try to confuse it with four, but it never makes it harder. Assuming there are three sections, this is the (or maybe just a) solution.
1. Top section to far anchor
2. Middle section to middle anchor.
3. Top section to middle anchor
4. Bottle section to far anchor.
5. Top section to beginning anchor
6. Middle section to far anchor
7. Top section to far anchor

It's a seven step puzzle, and I've done it so many times in various games and other situations that I know the solution off by heart.

Why is this puzzle so common? Like I mentioned before, it is a logic puzzle that can be represented pictorially, without the pictorial representation making it ridiculously easy at first glance.

However this leads me on to a tangentially related point: Where is the decision for logic puzzles in games made? Either a game's designer goes "Shit, we need something to lengthen this point" and tries to come up with something, or there's a meeting somewhere where a large number of men in suits (and, let's be equal opportunity, a small number of women in suits) sit around and debate if there should be a logical puzzle linking point A to point B, and what particular puzzle they should use.

So, what inspired this rant? In the first expansion of Neverwinter Nights, there's a riddle section. I friggin' hate riddle sections. Once you know a riddle, you know it, and you can't unknow it. Riddle sections (just like some logic puzzles) just kill replayability. That one section you spent twenty minutes and three pieces of scrap paper (as well as a lifetime of frustration) is now suddenly gone in a matter of minutes.

Even with a strategy guide, some action and timing challenges can be a pain in the ass. The moment you catch a brief glimpse of a logic puzzle section anywhere on the internet, you get that ONE clue you need to ruin it forever. Yahtzee has quicktime events, I have logic puzzles. They ruin the replay value of the game, they're either breathtakingly, balls-achingly hard or so easy you don't even NOTICE the friggin' things, and worst of all, worst of friggin' all... Actually I can't think of a third thing to neatly round off that rant, but they're bad, ok.

Service-bot based homebrew RPG

I apologise for the lack of posts. Illness followed by alcohol is my only excuse.

So, as apologies, I share with you this: A homebrew RPG based on small service robots.

As near as I can tell, it's based on a heavily modified Storyteller system (the kind used for Vampire: The Masquerade, and other White Wolf products).

As much as I hate to admit it, this is leagues better then either of the RPG systems I've tried to make. The main reasons is that it has it's niche, and it's doing it well. Plus it's building on pre-existing concepts, ideas and systems, which means it's already been through several decades of trial-and-error before it's even been created.

All in all, despite the fact that most of you RPG players who I've met face to face freak me the hell out, I would play this game if I had the opportunity. It looks awesome and enjoyable.