What comes after Artemis 2.0?
Yeah, so I'm impatient and/or forward-thinking :)
Are there long term plans to continue working on Artemis? It seems to have really taken off, so I'd like to think it's going to keep getting developed/sequeled for a little while yet.
The possibilities for adding new features are just about limitless, but the one I'd like to see most (apart from the obvious improvements, like non-gimped 3d, smoother netcode, prettier graphics, etc) would have to be Starship Interiors.
This is a big idea. It's huge, detailed, and if Thom reads this he'll probably have a heart attack over the amount of work it would require if he was crazy enough to do it :)
But hey, five years back, this game was the kind of dream everyone had and couldn't do anything about. There's precedent for blowing minds. Here goes:
The current engineering damcon display is a nice start, but I think the concept has a LOT of potential to expand.
First up, I believe the Engineer can have enough on her plate just juggling energy and coolant. There are eight systems now, and I can think of a few more systems and other engineering resources that we'll need before this idea runs dry. Take away the existing damcon system and fold it into a new role.
I don't know what this role should be named. XO, perhaps? Security officer? Human Resources?
The point is, this individual would basically be the guy who handles everything that happens inside the ships. He'd have an overhead view of the *inside* of the ship, (think roughly along the lines of Xcom: Enemy Unknown, or Natural Selection's commander). With this interface, the XO would command the damcon teams in pretty much exactly the same manner as the Engineer used to...
...oh, and the combat squads too. Yeah, that's right, it's time for an away mission!
The men and women on the ground would be the eyes and ears, reporting back to the Officer, giving him a RTS-esque overview of the Artemis and other friendly/neutral/enemy vessels/locations. A transporter system would be added to all ships to facilitate boarding.
The Science Officer may be able to assist in remotely spotting enemy internal movements and status prior to insertion or during away missions. The transporter would be a bottleneck to troop movements, making it effective for surgical strikes but not typically a tool of outright conquest.
Once on board, the away team would be able to take different courses of action, such as hunting enemy damcon teams, escorting friendly damcon teams (aboard friendly/neutral/abandoned vessels), fighting enemy combat squads, sabotaging/damaging systems, fighting infestations, interacting with NPCs or objects for quests, using/deploying short ranged sensors, siphoning energy from the reactor, rescuing POWs, and maybe even teaming up with friendly away teams from other ships to bust into the enemy bridge and seize it (hopefully before they get a chance to set off the self destruct and beam out)
In a hypothetical Artemis 3.0, I can see the XO happening purely as a RTS-mode station that controls redshirts like the current damcons.
In Artemis 4.0, I can see the game progressing to a point where the location interiors are fully 3d modelled and the concept of a "Helm Officer" (for example) no longer exists. Rather, they'd simply be a "Player", who joins the game as a First Person Shooter-esque individual inside a Starbase briefing room, before heading to the transporters and beaming onto a suitable ship (or remaining on the station as an Admiral/Fleetcom/Reserve) and walking to the bridge, over to the Helm station and taking a seat, or perhaps reporting to security for assignment with a boarding team.
Weapons officer in over his head? The Captain can push him aside and take over for a minute, or order him to report to the comms station where he can't get everyone killed.
Enemy boarding party overwhelming your security? Step away from the console, unholster your sidearm and make your way to the weapons locker. Or if the Captain says those dramatic words, ALL HANDS ABANDON SHIP, the entire crew can run like hell to the transporters and try to make it to a friendly/neutral location, or even force a boarding of an enemy ship in a desperate attempt to gain control of it and stay in the fight.
It might be a slight compromise of the "you don't play the captain, you ARE the captain" social LAN aspect of the game, or maybe the greater scale of gameplay is exactly what it needs to increase that amazing "Trek" sensation that we're all here for.
Are there long term plans to continue working on Artemis? It seems to have really taken off, so I'd like to think it's going to keep getting developed/sequeled for a little while yet.
The possibilities for adding new features are just about limitless, but the one I'd like to see most (apart from the obvious improvements, like non-gimped 3d, smoother netcode, prettier graphics, etc) would have to be Starship Interiors.
This is a big idea. It's huge, detailed, and if Thom reads this he'll probably have a heart attack over the amount of work it would require if he was crazy enough to do it :)
But hey, five years back, this game was the kind of dream everyone had and couldn't do anything about. There's precedent for blowing minds. Here goes:
The current engineering damcon display is a nice start, but I think the concept has a LOT of potential to expand.
First up, I believe the Engineer can have enough on her plate just juggling energy and coolant. There are eight systems now, and I can think of a few more systems and other engineering resources that we'll need before this idea runs dry. Take away the existing damcon system and fold it into a new role.
I don't know what this role should be named. XO, perhaps? Security officer? Human Resources?
The point is, this individual would basically be the guy who handles everything that happens inside the ships. He'd have an overhead view of the *inside* of the ship, (think roughly along the lines of Xcom: Enemy Unknown, or Natural Selection's commander). With this interface, the XO would command the damcon teams in pretty much exactly the same manner as the Engineer used to...
...oh, and the combat squads too. Yeah, that's right, it's time for an away mission!
The men and women on the ground would be the eyes and ears, reporting back to the Officer, giving him a RTS-esque overview of the Artemis and other friendly/neutral/enemy vessels/locations. A transporter system would be added to all ships to facilitate boarding.
The Science Officer may be able to assist in remotely spotting enemy internal movements and status prior to insertion or during away missions. The transporter would be a bottleneck to troop movements, making it effective for surgical strikes but not typically a tool of outright conquest.
Once on board, the away team would be able to take different courses of action, such as hunting enemy damcon teams, escorting friendly damcon teams (aboard friendly/neutral/abandoned vessels), fighting enemy combat squads, sabotaging/damaging systems, fighting infestations, interacting with NPCs or objects for quests, using/deploying short ranged sensors, siphoning energy from the reactor, rescuing POWs, and maybe even teaming up with friendly away teams from other ships to bust into the enemy bridge and seize it (hopefully before they get a chance to set off the self destruct and beam out)
In a hypothetical Artemis 3.0, I can see the XO happening purely as a RTS-mode station that controls redshirts like the current damcons.
In Artemis 4.0, I can see the game progressing to a point where the location interiors are fully 3d modelled and the concept of a "Helm Officer" (for example) no longer exists. Rather, they'd simply be a "Player", who joins the game as a First Person Shooter-esque individual inside a Starbase briefing room, before heading to the transporters and beaming onto a suitable ship (or remaining on the station as an Admiral/Fleetcom/Reserve) and walking to the bridge, over to the Helm station and taking a seat, or perhaps reporting to security for assignment with a boarding team.
Weapons officer in over his head? The Captain can push him aside and take over for a minute, or order him to report to the comms station where he can't get everyone killed.
Enemy boarding party overwhelming your security? Step away from the console, unholster your sidearm and make your way to the weapons locker. Or if the Captain says those dramatic words, ALL HANDS ABANDON SHIP, the entire crew can run like hell to the transporters and try to make it to a friendly/neutral location, or even force a boarding of an enemy ship in a desperate attempt to gain control of it and stay in the fight.
It might be a slight compromise of the "you don't play the captain, you ARE the captain" social LAN aspect of the game, or maybe the greater scale of gameplay is exactly what it needs to increase that amazing "Trek" sensation that we're all here for.
I think your ideas are a bit.... off, particulalry the 4.0 stuff. The idea for Artemis developing in to a FPS style game where you play a character isn't really the concept that Thom seems to be going for. How would it work when people already have bridge set-ups in their basements? You sit at your console, then control a character to move them to sit at a console? 3D modelling of a ship's bridge is already sorted... you build one in your basement. You can't really get better than that.
I think there should be no compromise on the concept of "you are the helms officer," or "you are the captain," because that is what makes the game so distincitive from every other game out there. You are the officer, physically, for some sat on an actual bridge. You are actually shouting orders and operating ship systems, for some even throwing the odd beer bottle or food item at your incompetant crew. That is what makes the game.
As for you comments on new consoles or roles, there are lots of ideas that people throw about. Personally, I would prefer to see an expansion of the sector maps, more ship types, enemies, phenomenon, and more things that you can do in the mission scripting, rather than an expansion of the amount of people I need to try and gather in one place. 6 people is a good number, not too few but not too many, and if you can only get four people together you can still pretty effectivly run a bridge. A decent sized living room would comfortable hold 6 people as well.
I think there should be no compromise on the concept of "you are the helms officer," or "you are the captain," because that is what makes the game so distincitive from every other game out there. You are the officer, physically, for some sat on an actual bridge. You are actually shouting orders and operating ship systems, for some even throwing the odd beer bottle or food item at your incompetant crew. That is what makes the game.
As for you comments on new consoles or roles, there are lots of ideas that people throw about. Personally, I would prefer to see an expansion of the sector maps, more ship types, enemies, phenomenon, and more things that you can do in the mission scripting, rather than an expansion of the amount of people I need to try and gather in one place. 6 people is a good number, not too few but not too many, and if you can only get four people together you can still pretty effectivly run a bridge. A decent sized living room would comfortable hold 6 people as well.
Captain Xavier Wise
T.S.N. Falcon (BS-042)
Link to TSN RP Community pages
Link to TSN RP Universe pages
Link to Blog
T.S.N. Falcon (BS-042)
Link to TSN RP Community pages
Link to TSN RP Universe pages
Link to Blog
I agree with Xavier. While a game where you run around the planet, then run around the ship interior, then fly the ship could be cool, that's not recreating the Starship bridge simulation anymore. Oddly, Notch (of Minecraft), recently opined about that kind of idea, so maybe let him do it...).
For myself, I like the concept that THIS game is a bridge simulator. it's part LARP in that the real players are pretending to do those things, and the game fills in the simulation gaps.
What I would like to see is expansion of the scale of operations. The map is tiny. I want to explore space and fly to distant stars and planets. While we can't do everything we see in star trek, I'd like to do other ship/bridge oriented things besides hunt red dots and kill them.
A sandbox mode that lets me head out that away, explore a new planet, deal with an alien virus, deal with an alien invasion fleet, rescue a ship in distress with equal priority to each. Right now, the game ends when I kill all the red dots for my difficulty level. I don't need to do any of the other stuff the communications officer blathers about.
Some of this big scale stuff needs balancing. There's a reason everything is so tight, as it gives the crew focus. But on the other hand, I never have time to take in the sights or record a captain's log.
For myself, I like the concept that THIS game is a bridge simulator. it's part LARP in that the real players are pretending to do those things, and the game fills in the simulation gaps.
What I would like to see is expansion of the scale of operations. The map is tiny. I want to explore space and fly to distant stars and planets. While we can't do everything we see in star trek, I'd like to do other ship/bridge oriented things besides hunt red dots and kill them.
A sandbox mode that lets me head out that away, explore a new planet, deal with an alien virus, deal with an alien invasion fleet, rescue a ship in distress with equal priority to each. Right now, the game ends when I kill all the red dots for my difficulty level. I don't need to do any of the other stuff the communications officer blathers about.
Some of this big scale stuff needs balancing. There's a reason everything is so tight, as it gives the crew focus. But on the other hand, I never have time to take in the sights or record a captain's log.
When you describe commanding the repair/security crews from a top-down view that sounds a lot like the game FTL. I think it's a fun idea with a lot of merit, but the whole 3D FPS thing is, as has been mentioned, a completely different game type. If you want something like that, wait til Star Citizen comes out.
Artemis doesn't have to contain every single gameplay element from every game you like to be good. I think the idea of incorporating away missions would be interesting, but that doesn't mean we need Halo. This game is a starship *bridge* simulator. If Thom does add away missions I would expect, and even hope, that the players role in it would be largely administrative. Plan what you want done, pick who is going to go do it, and then abandon them all on the planet when a Skaraan decloaks.
And for the record I am all for adding (the right kind of) complexity to Artemis, but I don't think it would be good to turn it into a different game.
And for the record I am all for adding (the right kind of) complexity to Artemis, but I don't think it would be good to turn it into a different game.
Yea... if you want to play FPS, there is always Star Trek: Elite Force :)
Play Artemis for a while, if the shields on your ship go down in a battle, pause the game and have everyone jump into a Death Match game and have some other players 'invade' the ship... fight them off... then go back to Artemis!
Play Artemis for a while, if the shields on your ship go down in a battle, pause the game and have everyone jump into a Death Match game and have some other players 'invade' the ship... fight them off... then go back to Artemis!
I don't particularly disagree with anything anyone said above (except erickarick :) ).
The comments about how the game needs to have bigger sectors and more enemies and such are entirely accurate. Those things need to happen, and first. But at the same time, those are just incremental improvements. I'm thinking more along the lines of a true sequel.
Some of what I suggested was my imagination running wild with the concept, but I still think that at least bringing the starship interior into the simulation is the way to go. The first-person stuff I mentioned is more of a whimsical idea, and something I've wanted to see done right in a game for near two decades now, but I can understand it's not for everyone and definitely represents a break from the established design of this game.
Zachary mentioned FTL, and I'll freely admit that FTL played a significant part in inspiring me. It's basically "the other half" of a Trek-esque game. There's very little modelling of the starship combat, but the ship interiors are the focus and are very nicely implemented. It's also got a very solid (if primitive) questing system, where basically every single encounter involves a bit of flavour text and maybe some dialogue and decision making, where Artemis is basically just "all fight, all the time" in a dead universe.
In short, Artemis and FTL are each about 40% of the way towards implementing the perfect "Spaceship TV show" game. But then, I'm only assuming that's the goal here. It'd certainly be my goal :)
The comments about how the game needs to have bigger sectors and more enemies and such are entirely accurate. Those things need to happen, and first. But at the same time, those are just incremental improvements. I'm thinking more along the lines of a true sequel.
Some of what I suggested was my imagination running wild with the concept, but I still think that at least bringing the starship interior into the simulation is the way to go. The first-person stuff I mentioned is more of a whimsical idea, and something I've wanted to see done right in a game for near two decades now, but I can understand it's not for everyone and definitely represents a break from the established design of this game.
Zachary mentioned FTL, and I'll freely admit that FTL played a significant part in inspiring me. It's basically "the other half" of a Trek-esque game. There's very little modelling of the starship combat, but the ship interiors are the focus and are very nicely implemented. It's also got a very solid (if primitive) questing system, where basically every single encounter involves a bit of flavour text and maybe some dialogue and decision making, where Artemis is basically just "all fight, all the time" in a dead universe.
In short, Artemis and FTL are each about 40% of the way towards implementing the perfect "Spaceship TV show" game. But then, I'm only assuming that's the goal here. It'd certainly be my goal :)
I still don't understand this idea of a "starship interior" in the simulation... if you want that, build an actual starship interior in a spare room. The starship interior is the actual room you are in, not an image on the screen. The image on the screen is just the console display. If you had a starship interior as part of the simulation, it would be like Captain Picard looking at a viewscreen that showed some of his bridge, maybe the corner of a console or two, maybe even a member of the crew... or Sulu looking at the helms console and seeing an image of a helms console... The whole idea would detract from the immersion of the game, particularly those who build their own bridges. It might be nice for online players, but this was never designed to be an online game. And to be honest, I play solely online and I see no need, now or in the future.
Artemis isn't just an "all fight, all the time" game either. The mission scripting system is so versatile, and the ability to mod the game so easily, that anything you can think of can be done. I have designed missions where you have to traverse huge distances, travelling through several sectors linked with Gateways, some "edge-to-edge" with nav points. One mission I have designed is an exploration mission, another a supply run, a third and escape and evasion. You can design diplomatic missions, a search rescue mission, or a mission controlled by a GM. The only real limit is your imagination and creativity with the script.
Artemis isn't just an "all fight, all the time" game either. The mission scripting system is so versatile, and the ability to mod the game so easily, that anything you can think of can be done. I have designed missions where you have to traverse huge distances, travelling through several sectors linked with Gateways, some "edge-to-edge" with nav points. One mission I have designed is an exploration mission, another a supply run, a third and escape and evasion. You can design diplomatic missions, a search rescue mission, or a mission controlled by a GM. The only real limit is your imagination and creativity with the script.
Captain Xavier Wise
T.S.N. Falcon (BS-042)
Link to TSN RP Community pages
Link to TSN RP Universe pages
Link to Blog
T.S.N. Falcon (BS-042)
Link to TSN RP Community pages
Link to TSN RP Universe pages
Link to Blog
"I still don't understand this idea of a "starship interior" in the simulation"
Look at the Engineering console. See the bit with the damcons running about? That's the Starship interior. It's already in the game. I just think it has potential to be better than it is.
Look at the Engineering console. See the bit with the damcons running about? That's the Starship interior. It's already in the game. I just think it has potential to be better than it is.
I see, you have addressed a misconception created by the way you presented your ideas.
From the way you presented your argument about a starship interior, I constructed a very different idea of what you were trying to say. A change to the ship on the engineering console wouldn't be a modification to the starship interior, rather a modification to the visual display of the engineering console. That same image is presented only on a status display and as a small rotating image on helm and weapons consoles. The term "starship interior" is what created the misconception. That, coupled with a reference to FPS (however whimsical the idea), has caused the confusion.
From the way you presented your argument about a starship interior, I constructed a very different idea of what you were trying to say. A change to the ship on the engineering console wouldn't be a modification to the starship interior, rather a modification to the visual display of the engineering console. That same image is presented only on a status display and as a small rotating image on helm and weapons consoles. The term "starship interior" is what created the misconception. That, coupled with a reference to FPS (however whimsical the idea), has caused the confusion.
[Last edited Jul 04, 2013 22:28:01]
Captain Xavier Wise
T.S.N. Falcon (BS-042)
Link to TSN RP Community pages
Link to TSN RP Universe pages
Link to Blog
T.S.N. Falcon (BS-042)
Link to TSN RP Community pages
Link to TSN RP Universe pages
Link to Blog
I would think the games advancement should be building on what's here, rather than adding entirely new concepts which in themselves are just different games. (This isn't an FPS, why are you making an FPS? If you want an FPS to impact a spaceship game, look at dust and EVE, one directly impacts the other, but they are two distinct games). When I heard of this game I loved everything, the concept, the layout... What i found really disappointing was learning it was based in one plane. A game as detailed, intricate and focussed as this should have proper 3D, each station has its own character, the helm is lacking in that out of the four tenants of piloting, Thrust, Roll, Pitch and Yaw, only 2 of these exist in the game, and the other is (kinda) being implemented now. This should be expanded, as is being done this update. Add in roll and proper flight controls, have the Weapons and Helmsmen have to be an entity as one, rolling into an engagement to bring the guns to bear then continuing the turn to protect the turret hard points from counter broadside. Make it a spectacle worth risking a look away from your station for, just flying the game.
I agree that that Artemis is not a fps it is a bridge sim and does not need fps elements at all. But I also understand what stonefish is saying and to be honest if I could combine Elites procedural generation, bridge commander kobayashi maru mod, elite force last outpost mod, and artemis i would say there is exactly what Star Trek Online should have been. just saying. As far as Artemis goes a xo station with a ftl style map of other areas of the ship would be nice it would allow boarding party, away missions, and a more detailed damage control. I'm thinking along the lines of a blueprint map with red dots for enemys green for marines and blue for damcon or other crew. heck you could even have a sickbay at that point with coms working with the xo for sending teams to areas needed. I know its the worst space game in history but battlecruiser did this with a simple list menu that would show location and allow orders to be issued.
An example of play would be like this. engineer: sir our rear shields are down.
Captain: Xo Dispatch repair crews and medical teams and clear rear decks.
engineer: xo damage to deck alpha section 3.
comms: sickbay reports several wounded in section 4.
Captain Xo send in a med team
Xo: Comms Med team gamma is in section 2 they are closet send them to section 4. and damcon team 2 is in section 5 send them to section 3 please.
Science: Sensors detect a beam in section 7.
Captain if they blow the core we are all dead xo dispatch marines
Xo: comms priority alert strike team 1 in section 6 to section 7.
An example of play would be like this. engineer: sir our rear shields are down.
Captain: Xo Dispatch repair crews and medical teams and clear rear decks.
engineer: xo damage to deck alpha section 3.
comms: sickbay reports several wounded in section 4.
Captain Xo send in a med team
Xo: Comms Med team gamma is in section 2 they are closet send them to section 4. and damcon team 2 is in section 5 send them to section 3 please.
Science: Sensors detect a beam in section 7.
Captain if they blow the core we are all dead xo dispatch marines
Xo: comms priority alert strike team 1 in section 6 to section 7.
It would be great to be able to do that, however in its current state, battles in game just don't last that long. Usually a Kralien fleet can be despatched within a matter of seconds. Larger fleets, with Torgoths and Arvonians, take a little longer. With a well coordinated crew and sound tactics, they can still be pretty easy to despatch, even on higher difficulties (e.g. 9 and 10).
The only battles I have had which have lasted any length of time are those in which it was BvB or during the Elite Coop mode, in which the enemy was given bonuses of 150% on everything. BvB makes the most intense fight. Some expansion on this mode may allow you have the extra work for the officers, with the enemy crew being able to target systems or send over boarding parties and you having to counter it all.
Of course, the BvB combat that I have played has been so fast paced, you don't usually have time to think about all that. Comms and science do nothing, whereas Engineering, Helm and Tactical are stretched to the limit, and the action goes so quick that as Captain you have to give the order to attack then chip in when and where you can. You really have to have a good crew and trust them (in the RP, the captain gives an attack order and then the helm has tactical control of the ship - they maneouvre and call for targets and firing of ordnance). There was a couple of us online working out a way to disable warp during BvB. When in close proximity, warp would diable so that you couldnt warp away from combat too easily. Often you would just warped away if you were taking too much damage, breaking off from combat. In BvB, energy management becomes vital, torpedoes become useless (low warp away until they burn out), and mines a hazard to all. The only effective weapon is beams, and you can't target any particular system.
If the game were expanded to include more features for BvB, or have enemies that were much more durable and intelligent, then I could see such an idea working out well. Fewer, stronger and better crewed ships would make battles much more interesting. Taking on 3 stong Kralien battleships, which have better weapon systems, higher shield strength, better tactics, and a more durable hull would be a real challenge. Something where helm has to really maneouvre the ship, where engineering has to actually repair damage, and where an ECM/Nuke salvo doesn't wipe them all out immediately. At the moment, they are just cannon fodder, not worthy of being called a "Battleship".
The only battles I have had which have lasted any length of time are those in which it was BvB or during the Elite Coop mode, in which the enemy was given bonuses of 150% on everything. BvB makes the most intense fight. Some expansion on this mode may allow you have the extra work for the officers, with the enemy crew being able to target systems or send over boarding parties and you having to counter it all.
Of course, the BvB combat that I have played has been so fast paced, you don't usually have time to think about all that. Comms and science do nothing, whereas Engineering, Helm and Tactical are stretched to the limit, and the action goes so quick that as Captain you have to give the order to attack then chip in when and where you can. You really have to have a good crew and trust them (in the RP, the captain gives an attack order and then the helm has tactical control of the ship - they maneouvre and call for targets and firing of ordnance). There was a couple of us online working out a way to disable warp during BvB. When in close proximity, warp would diable so that you couldnt warp away from combat too easily. Often you would just warped away if you were taking too much damage, breaking off from combat. In BvB, energy management becomes vital, torpedoes become useless (low warp away until they burn out), and mines a hazard to all. The only effective weapon is beams, and you can't target any particular system.
If the game were expanded to include more features for BvB, or have enemies that were much more durable and intelligent, then I could see such an idea working out well. Fewer, stronger and better crewed ships would make battles much more interesting. Taking on 3 stong Kralien battleships, which have better weapon systems, higher shield strength, better tactics, and a more durable hull would be a real challenge. Something where helm has to really maneouvre the ship, where engineering has to actually repair damage, and where an ECM/Nuke salvo doesn't wipe them all out immediately. At the moment, they are just cannon fodder, not worthy of being called a "Battleship".
Captain Xavier Wise
T.S.N. Falcon (BS-042)
Link to TSN RP Community pages
Link to TSN RP Universe pages
Link to Blog
T.S.N. Falcon (BS-042)
Link to TSN RP Community pages
Link to TSN RP Universe pages
Link to Blog
Xavier has some interesting points about the current game play.
There's an RPG forum I'm on, and somebody just recently brought up the idea of using a video game to deal with the combat scenes. I referenced Artemis as an example where trek RPers have been heard of handling their ship combat via Artemis. Xavier's observation surprises me as it mirrors what happened when folks tried to use the Neverwinter Nights engine to play D&D like a D&D game. Once the humans sat down at the computers, they ran around like they do in MMOs, instead of playing D&D as a party at a traditional table.
What Xavier describes for the BvB is similar (but different). The mechanics of humans on a ship attacking humans on another ship start trimming away the trek-like trappings of the game down to the kill humans basics.
So, when faced with the pressure to succeed (competition versus a worthy adversary), players skipped all that role-playing stuff and cut to the chase.
I suspect that part of the problem is the game is too fast paced. As in certain things are allowed to happen quickly, in the interest of time/player attention span (like warping from point A to B). There's no time to monologue during the trip. there's no time cost to jump to warp to avoid incoming missiles (just slide the bar). There's no time to talk to Science to get their shield frequency, so just keep running and gunning.
So basically, parts of the Artemis game setup the Star Trek feel, but parts of the game don't enforce the Star Trek feel. When it is more expedient to victory to fight like the ship is a fighter craft and not like a star ship, the players will do so. When facing a human opponent, they are going to be pressed to do that.
I think certain parts of the game need to be slowed down, to require Science to contribute to a solution in the fight. For maneuvering to matter more. For micro-warps to not be feasible. For the game to feel like the Enterprise playing hide and seek with Khan.
The Jump drive seems like it does some of this (haven't used it yet). You shouldn't be able to just jump willy-nilly about the battle field. Perhaps the Warp needs a similar delay mechanism. Maybe you can have power to Impulse or Warp, but not both. So while the ship is in combat, the Warp is offline. Engineering would have to pull power from Impulse to give it to Warp, leaving the ship vulnerable for a short bit. This might make doing the micro-warp a rarer riskier strategy.
I suspect its a solvable problem. Adjust the pacing of the game to support the desired style of game play (presumably Star Trek/BSG). Make some game balance tweaks like Xavier suggests.
There's an RPG forum I'm on, and somebody just recently brought up the idea of using a video game to deal with the combat scenes. I referenced Artemis as an example where trek RPers have been heard of handling their ship combat via Artemis. Xavier's observation surprises me as it mirrors what happened when folks tried to use the Neverwinter Nights engine to play D&D like a D&D game. Once the humans sat down at the computers, they ran around like they do in MMOs, instead of playing D&D as a party at a traditional table.
What Xavier describes for the BvB is similar (but different). The mechanics of humans on a ship attacking humans on another ship start trimming away the trek-like trappings of the game down to the kill humans basics.
So, when faced with the pressure to succeed (competition versus a worthy adversary), players skipped all that role-playing stuff and cut to the chase.
I suspect that part of the problem is the game is too fast paced. As in certain things are allowed to happen quickly, in the interest of time/player attention span (like warping from point A to B). There's no time to monologue during the trip. there's no time cost to jump to warp to avoid incoming missiles (just slide the bar). There's no time to talk to Science to get their shield frequency, so just keep running and gunning.
So basically, parts of the Artemis game setup the Star Trek feel, but parts of the game don't enforce the Star Trek feel. When it is more expedient to victory to fight like the ship is a fighter craft and not like a star ship, the players will do so. When facing a human opponent, they are going to be pressed to do that.
I think certain parts of the game need to be slowed down, to require Science to contribute to a solution in the fight. For maneuvering to matter more. For micro-warps to not be feasible. For the game to feel like the Enterprise playing hide and seek with Khan.
The Jump drive seems like it does some of this (haven't used it yet). You shouldn't be able to just jump willy-nilly about the battle field. Perhaps the Warp needs a similar delay mechanism. Maybe you can have power to Impulse or Warp, but not both. So while the ship is in combat, the Warp is offline. Engineering would have to pull power from Impulse to give it to Warp, leaving the ship vulnerable for a short bit. This might make doing the micro-warp a rarer riskier strategy.
I suspect its a solvable problem. Adjust the pacing of the game to support the desired style of game play (presumably Star Trek/BSG). Make some game balance tweaks like Xavier suggests.
I think the solution is to use mission script modules written by your Game Master. If you play out RPG combat scenarios in Invasion Mode you will get random enemies against whom micro-warps and bombing runs are a great tactic.
A custom written Gamer Mastered mission module could leave plenty of room for the captain to monologue or the emotional character to argue with the logical character about the best course of action.
Granted, given the current mission scripting language any Game Master worth his salt could spend about 100 hours programming for the players to enjoy a good 20 minute combat interlude, but I think it's worth it.
A custom written Gamer Mastered mission module could leave plenty of room for the captain to monologue or the emotional character to argue with the logical character about the best course of action.
Granted, given the current mission scripting language any Game Master worth his salt could spend about 100 hours programming for the players to enjoy a good 20 minute combat interlude, but I think it's worth it.
"Damn the torpedoes! Four bells, Captain Drayton!"
(Likely actual words of Admiral David Farragut, USN, at the battle of Mobile Bay. Four bells was the signal for the engine room to make full steam ahead).
(Likely actual words of Admiral David Farragut, USN, at the battle of Mobile Bay. Four bells was the signal for the engine room to make full steam ahead).
I don't think that this is a problem that needs to be resolved by "slowing down" combat. It's frantic against a large group of AIs as it is, and I would imagine that the AIs are only going to get more clever as Thom works. Kiting fleets into singularities isn't going to work forever, and in Trek, everyone has warp.
The problem is that Kirk and Picard were EXEMPLARY captains. Kirk was capable of three-dimensional tactics against Khan. Picard wrote the book on short-range tactical warp jumps. We're a bunch of Monday Morning Quarterbacks, having learned EVERY trick in the book, having watched them in place from others.
Remember, hide-and-seek vs. Khan took place with two crippled starships in a sensor-masking nebula. When the Enterprise blasts in at high warp in a warzone, there isn't any delay. Heck, when Voyager did it, there was no delay. You drop out of warp, get a target lock, and fire a full spread at the enemy. There's no lag, there's the raw fury of an armed-to-the-teeth Federation starship doing what it's built to do.
The tone certainly isn't Classic Trek, I'll grant that. It's more DS9, with the Defiant against a (gradually improving) Jem'Hadar fleet. I'm okay with that, but I would grant that there are a few things that would improve BvB combat.
1) Warp designed to reflect lightspeed. Short range sensors should be optical, which is a huge game-engine rendering challenge. If I fire at you, take a microburst towards you at Warp 2, and then fire again, which weapon was fired first? Can I torpedo you from long range, come in, ECM you at point-blank, and jump to a THIRD point to fire beams, ensuring that you get ECM'ed, I'm out of range, and you're getting pummeled from outside your firing arc by my beams when the torps finally catch up? Which blip on the tactical screen is the ACTUAL me? That's the Picard Maneuver on steroids.
2) Comms should have more options. Perhaps hacking remote systems, placing Comms up against Engineering? Gathering additional intelligence, like the current beam frequencies of enemy ships, or other things sent on insecure internal channels? Did enemy DamCon lose half of their crew?
3) This might also open up an Ops role, dedicating extra CREW to certain roles. Someone's got to load the torps, maybe an extra man gets the job done faster? Diverting injured DamCon people to sickbay? Taking over DamCon to let Engineering focus on actual power management? This might also overlap with a security role, allowing for Ops to divert Security teams to repel boarders identically to DamCon.
4) Science, likewise, needs to be more involved. Maybe scanning should be faster at close range, owing to being able to aim multiple scanning beams at the targeted ship? Can Science divert systems to create unique, short-term effects? Maybe some energy-hungry boosts, such as a unidirectional short-term shield, allowing the Artemis to survive a nuke (at the cost of a lot of energy?) With the additional info from Comms, maybe Science should also be scanning for energy usage on nearby ships: Is that ship powering up beams? Are they overcharged? Did they divert power away from rear shields?
I certainly don't want any vast sweeping changes to the feel of Artemis, but if you want to involve players a little more, and/or add another seat, there's a couple of crazy thoughts. At the end of the day, I certainly think that you need a well-manned bridge. One of my best crewmen was a brilliant helmsman who immediately learned how to kite enemy fleets, or coordinate nuke strikes with immediate high-speed warp jumps, or request power boosts to spin around and bring enemies into weapons range as quickly as possible. As Captain, I became very accustomed to simply specifying the overall maneuver and allowing the crew to coordinate almost silently. If an idea doesn't contribute to getting more out of the ship by getting more out of the CREW, I'm simply not going to recommend it.
The problem is that Kirk and Picard were EXEMPLARY captains. Kirk was capable of three-dimensional tactics against Khan. Picard wrote the book on short-range tactical warp jumps. We're a bunch of Monday Morning Quarterbacks, having learned EVERY trick in the book, having watched them in place from others.
Remember, hide-and-seek vs. Khan took place with two crippled starships in a sensor-masking nebula. When the Enterprise blasts in at high warp in a warzone, there isn't any delay. Heck, when Voyager did it, there was no delay. You drop out of warp, get a target lock, and fire a full spread at the enemy. There's no lag, there's the raw fury of an armed-to-the-teeth Federation starship doing what it's built to do.
The tone certainly isn't Classic Trek, I'll grant that. It's more DS9, with the Defiant against a (gradually improving) Jem'Hadar fleet. I'm okay with that, but I would grant that there are a few things that would improve BvB combat.
1) Warp designed to reflect lightspeed. Short range sensors should be optical, which is a huge game-engine rendering challenge. If I fire at you, take a microburst towards you at Warp 2, and then fire again, which weapon was fired first? Can I torpedo you from long range, come in, ECM you at point-blank, and jump to a THIRD point to fire beams, ensuring that you get ECM'ed, I'm out of range, and you're getting pummeled from outside your firing arc by my beams when the torps finally catch up? Which blip on the tactical screen is the ACTUAL me? That's the Picard Maneuver on steroids.
2) Comms should have more options. Perhaps hacking remote systems, placing Comms up against Engineering? Gathering additional intelligence, like the current beam frequencies of enemy ships, or other things sent on insecure internal channels? Did enemy DamCon lose half of their crew?
3) This might also open up an Ops role, dedicating extra CREW to certain roles. Someone's got to load the torps, maybe an extra man gets the job done faster? Diverting injured DamCon people to sickbay? Taking over DamCon to let Engineering focus on actual power management? This might also overlap with a security role, allowing for Ops to divert Security teams to repel boarders identically to DamCon.
4) Science, likewise, needs to be more involved. Maybe scanning should be faster at close range, owing to being able to aim multiple scanning beams at the targeted ship? Can Science divert systems to create unique, short-term effects? Maybe some energy-hungry boosts, such as a unidirectional short-term shield, allowing the Artemis to survive a nuke (at the cost of a lot of energy?) With the additional info from Comms, maybe Science should also be scanning for energy usage on nearby ships: Is that ship powering up beams? Are they overcharged? Did they divert power away from rear shields?
I certainly don't want any vast sweeping changes to the feel of Artemis, but if you want to involve players a little more, and/or add another seat, there's a couple of crazy thoughts. At the end of the day, I certainly think that you need a well-manned bridge. One of my best crewmen was a brilliant helmsman who immediately learned how to kite enemy fleets, or coordinate nuke strikes with immediate high-speed warp jumps, or request power boosts to spin around and bring enemies into weapons range as quickly as possible. As Captain, I became very accustomed to simply specifying the overall maneuver and allowing the crew to coordinate almost silently. If an idea doesn't contribute to getting more out of the ship by getting more out of the CREW, I'm simply not going to recommend it.
Login below to reply:
