ED did a pretty good job of the distance/velocity/time indicators, you have a velocity indicator, a time estimate and distance to target, all scaled to the closest unit.
I know that serious gamers tend to love numbers, but I do not. I’d prefer that I have the ability to play with as few of them as possible because I prefer to rely on my view of the game environment instead of numeric displays.
When I built the warp prototype, I left out velocity and distance indicators because I don’t use them. I need to slow down before I slam into the planet, and I can get to closer planets sooner than farther planets. I accomplish those things by relying on my view of the game environment. Naturally, as soon as I showed the prototype, I was asked for numeric displays.
I feel the same way about HUDs. Keep them as minimal as is humanly possible. If there’s a way for me to look at the game world to understand what’s going on, then let me do that. Certainly don’t show me stuff that I really don’t need to see - even if it follows the “rule of cool”. One man’s cool is another man’s rubbish.
So consider this a vote for UI minimalism. Subtlety. Cues and hints. Instead of a screen full of icons and flashing lines.
2 Likes
I think both could be done. EQ allows nothing to all kinds of windows.
1 Like
If I recall correctly, the warp prototype was a top down view of an entire solar system?
In a first-person perspective, correctly anticipating when to slow down to avoid smacking into a planet becomes somewhat harder as it may have to be done when said planet changes from the size of 0.5 pixels to 0.7 pixels. Of course putting up a map would be an option… but then you’re replacing a relatively unobtrusive 3 digits and 2 letters with a map view taking up a good portion if not all of the screen.
Alternatively a system of flashing lines could be used to visually indicate the optimal timing for a suicide burn (and when to just try to pass around the planet this time)… but yeah, that’s not going to reduce the HUD complexity, at least for new players.
1 Like
[quote=“Runiat, post:31, topic:847”]
In a first-person perspective, correctly anticipating when to slow down to avoid smacking into a planet becomes somewhat harder as it may have to be done when said planet changes from the size of 0.5 pixels to 0.7 pixels.[/quote]
There are no such critical maneuvering decisions to be made while a planet is still a pixel. If there are, then the movement system is busted.
[quote=“Runiat, post:31, topic:847”]
Of course putting up a map would be an option… but then you’re replacing a relatively unobtrusive 3 digits and 2 letters with a map view taking up a good portion if not all of the screen.[/quote]
I can replace those 3 digits and 2 letters with balls representing the planets where the opacity of each ball indicates its relative distance. That’s even more unobtrusive because I’m expecting the planets to be there. Or the balls are color coded near and far. Perhaps my favorite: red for approaching and green for receding. Or how about adding a trail to show the orbit of the planet? There are piles of data visualizations that can be tried in order to help players navigate a system, and presenting the distance may well not suffice.
Something that I’d like to see is a way of holding down a key to show an overlay of information. When I release the key, the overlay goes away. If I double-tap the key, the overlay stays up. Double-tap again to dismiss it. If an overlay is staying up and I hold down the key, the overlay goes away - until I release the key.
So if I want my targeting overlay up for a momentary check, I hold down the T key for a second, then release it. If I get into combat, I double-tap the T key. If there are consequences to bringing up an overlay (showing the targeting overlay involves powering the weapon systems) then the decision to look at such displays, and the timing of them being up and active could make for some interesting gameplay consequences.
Properly implemented, the game would allow configuration of overlays. I may want to define a combat overlay. Or a maneuvering overlay. Or a mining overlay. And so on. Then I can use subsets on keys to turn other things on and off, or temporary display or dismiss them.
4 Likes
We were wrong, Battlescape is a First Person Shooter.
[EDIT] Note not the reason I posted this, just that Battlescape is getting its own page on moddb/indiedb
1 Like
Gah! First person shooter! Dear god… what have I done… goes to ModDB… grumbles
Edit: Combat Sim probably fits best… eeeeh, categories are limited. Wheres the Genre that blends SpaceSim with Epic scaled first person combat mechanics…
5 Likes
@cybercritic Don’t think there’s any new stuff to add to the OP from this recent Flavien statement, perhaps cities? It could be used as additional confirmation for some of the features listed though.
1 Like
I can not edit the OP, it has been over 6 months and editing is disabled.
@INovaeKeith, can you please change that single number in the settings file @hrobertson pointed out and allow longer edits?
/edit
Since editing is fixed, I added a few more recent facts, including stuff from that post you quoted.
A question for @INovaeFlavien / @INovaeKeith : if a procedural planet bobble head (really love the idea btw) can be different every time, why not do the same thing for the BattleScape solar system? I’ve got the impression the solar system in BattleScape will always look the same. It seems like a big strength of the engine isn’t being used this way.
1 Like
The reason is artist placed assets on the planets in the solar system. There is an element of level design to the planets for optimal gameplay vs. the planetary bobble head, which just cycles through seeds where no structures will be placed etc.
1 Like
Will anything actually change between Battlescape rounds? I expected structure and objective placement would have been one of those things.
1 Like
Thanks for your really quick answer!
I’m guessing level design is only about placement of man-made structures such as buildings on the ground and spaceports. Am I correct in that assumption? Isn’t it possible to also procedurally place such structures? Level design can be described as a set of rules (spaceports spawn close to grond structures for example). Of course hand made levels look and feel better, but variety in planets and moons also adds too look and feel.
An other idea would be to only change textures of planets and moons but keep structure placement the same.
I’m sure you have already considered these options, but I’m not sure on what grounds you decided for a solar system that’s always the same. Could you elaborate on that decision?
1 Like
Depends on funding level reached.
Depends on funding level reached.
Base game, artists will design/place the batlescapes in a static solar system. With more funding comes more variation.
4 Likes
Good to hear it’s not ruled out. I hope you will be able to show of the capabilities of the engine!
I’d be very interested in seeing a video of different planets generated in quick succession, in order to see the range of the variation the engine can produce. Same for landscapes, with a camera close to the planets’ surfaces 
1 Like
That was 8 minutes ago, I’ll add it, thanks.
One of the most authoritive sources of information about Battlescape is Flavien’s blog post he wrote last month:
Let’s move on to the good stuff now: gameplay. Now of course, the prototype being pretty recent, it doesn’t feature any advanced gameplay. It’s pretty much a huge sandbox multiplayer game. Players spawn in different areas. There are a multiple points of interest including planetary bodies ( the Earth-like moon has rings ), a gas giant and a bunch of installations on planets or in space. The Hellion is the only player-controlled ship ( there are others in the system though ). There’s only one weapon type. Many ship sub-systems are functional though ( boosters, warping, front lights, energy redirection, detection sensors… ). The physics are completely newtonian, ICP-style. You can fly your ship with auto-assist on, which helps to control your flight direction and speed. It also performs hovering on planets by compensating the gravity by using the lateral thrusters. If you disable your computer’s auto-assist mode though, you get pure newtonian physics including gravity from planetary bodies. Orbital velocity mechanics are also supported.
The HUD is very basic at the moment, but functional. There are also multiple squad “formation” modes supported. For example, it is possible to automatically align your velocity to a target’s. It is possible to align not only your velocity, but also your position behind a target to “chase” it. Flying on planets as a formation in canyons is tons of fun, but the leader has to be careful not to lose his teammates with brutal movements. Oh, speaking of planets, there’s an experimental atmospheric flight model, which takes into account friction ( based on your ship’s shape and size ), thrust, lift, stall, gravity, wind and much more. When you fly too fast in atmospheres, you start losing control / maneuverability of your ship, which can sometimes lead to collisions. Different planets have different atmospheric conditions.
Possible stuff from there to add to the OP includes:
- Boosters, warping, front lights, energy redirection, detection sensors.
- The physics are completely newtonian, ICP-style. (no longer an inferred feature)
- Orbital velocity mechanics are also supported.
- There are also multiple squad “formation” modes supported.
- There’s an experimental atmospheric flight model, which takes into account friction ( based on your ship’s shape and size ), thrust, lift, stall, gravity, wind and much more.
- Different planets have different atmospheric conditions.
3 Likes
There’s also the volcanic moon to put in there along with the other planets.
1 Like
Alright, added videos that show the known planets/moons.
1 Like