Galactic Starfighter....suggestions to give it wider appeal, short and long term

[SammyGStatus]

The main character in Artemis Fowl was a dude

 

And Nem, I wish you would stop being so old How would you even play X-Wing vs. Tie-Fighter nowadays? Emulator?

 

Suggestion to give wider appeal: I want to see Starbuck before I click that launch button. Serves as good inspiration. Also, more monies, more req, and flashy cosmetic things that make others on the fleet go "That jacket's tight son, yaaaaaa meaaaaannnnn" (but in order to be truly effective, the voice used during their awe must replicate the interaction seen

) Edited July 9, 2014 by SammyGStatus

[Kuciwalker]

On the surface, it seems like it would be fairly tricky to make a competent 3D pilot AI, especially one that can interchangeably react with both the player and other pilot AI's. But thinking back to X-wing and TIE Fighter, I do not recall ever finding the AI easy or unbelievable. Part of this may have been due to the mission structure and heavy scripting.

 

I recall that many missions would involve stopping a wing of TIE Bombers from attacking some objective. The Bombers would fly toward the objective, lock on torpedoes and fire at range. That's pretty simple. The trickier bits came when you started shooting at them. They'd juke and try and make themselves difficult to hit. At first they'd "stay on target", but eventually they'd enter some evasive pattern (which could distract you from the rest of their wingmen). And if you made them severely damaged, they'd even abandon their mission and try to return back to their capital ship.

 

And usually there would be a wing of TIE Fighters or Interceptors that were programmed to attack the player and/or his wingmen. I wonder how they determined who to attack within that target set, and what their conditions were for switching. But even then, that's all just simple scripting.

 

The more interesting questions concern their movement and shooting, moment to moment. Were they always just flying directly toward the target and shooting? Did they try to get behind a target? Did they try to avoid collisions? I know for sure they worked hard to avoid missiles fired at them.

 

As a kid, I found it all pretty natural and believable. I should give it another try and see how that AI holds up now.

 

I can only immediately recall one exploit. In many missions when you destroyed a full wing of fighters (such as all TIE Bombers in the Beta wing), another identical wing would immediately spawn at the enemy Star Destroyer. Some missions had respawn limits, some didn't. The exploit was that if you destroyed all but one of the ships in the wing, but only severely damaged the last one, it would go into retreat mode and begin the long, slow flight back to its capital ship. The new wave would not spawn until the damaged ship had gotten back home. Doing this trick often bought valuable time. You could delay a new Bomber or Interceptor wing from coming, which gave you an opportunity to deal with secondary and bonus objectives.

 

But apart from that (which was an exploit of scripting), I cannot remember any particular exploit cheese you could use to win a dogfight against AI. In fact I remember the most difficult missions were the ones where you had to defeat a lot of enemy fighters who, instead of focusing on objectives, were solely focused on you. In particular, I recall one very difficult mission where you were one TIE Defender against a whole lot of TIE Advanced with advanced concussion missiles. You couldn't use aggro tricks or any other scripting exploits. You just had to outfly them, and on the hard difficulty, it was indeed hard.

 

I also remember X-wing had a training mission where you dueled against progressively more difficult AI pilots, culminating in a fight against the "TOP ACE". I wonder what the differences were between the TOP ACE pilot AI and the lesser AI levels, in terms of why the TOP ACE as so much harder to beat in a dogfight.

 

1. Have you played Freelancer?
   
2. Consider that because computers have preternatural aim, it's actually pretty easy to make a very "competent" AI, and generally you have to have some parameter that dumbs the AI down. cf FPS
   

Edited July 9, 2014 by Kuciwalker

[Nemarus]

1. Have you played Freelancer?
   
2. Consider that because computers have preternatural aim, it's actually pretty easy to make a very "competent" AI, and generally you have to have some parameter that dumbs the AI down. cf FPS
   

 

I did play Freelancer, but I recall very little about the intelligence of its enemy pilots, unfortunately. It was enjoyable (I played it while recovering from wisdom tooth removal), but It is not burned into my very soul like my memories of X-wing and TIE Fighter.

 

And yeah I know computers have good aim. But the AI pilots in X-wing seemed decent at dodging, too. Of course they probably just had a handful of pre-scripted evasive maneuvers. That being said, I never did see them crash into obstacles very much, so they must have had at least some predictive lookahead when setting an evasive course.

 

The really interesting thing I do remember was that if used the record feature during a mission then played it back later, sometimes the mission would go entirely differently. Given their replays were explorable in 3D space, I suspect they simply recorded the stream of user input and then use had their engine re-enact the entire mission (like Halo 3's replays).

 

But more often than not, the mission would go completely differently than it really did. I don't know if it was because there was some random element at play that didn't get properly recorded, or because there was a bug in the way their scripting worked in theatre mode, or because they messed up logging user input. But it was fun to observe

 

I would love to have lunch with Lawrence Holland someday.

[dancezwithnubz]

The starship bridge simulator is named after http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis

Why? An archer goddess is used as an analogy for the bridge- someone "calling the shots".

It is very definitely named after the goddess.

 

The "mobile experience" (Artemis Networks) is named after http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis

A classical name is pretty common in tech and military.

 

The genome browser is named after http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis

It is presumably named after her for being a huntress.

 

The embedded experience http://www.artemis-ju.eu/home_page actually has a picture of Artemis, you know, this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis

On their logo.

 

I can't find the horse post. I can find horses named after many gods and goddesses. Lemme assure you, whatever it is that you think this this, it's named after http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis

 

The "hunting gear" thing is named after http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis because she's a goddess of hunting.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_(software) is a "a sister product to Apollo". Any of these things are all named after the goddess Artemis, normally for being an archer, a huntress, or any of the other things associated with her.

 

Any character named Artemis in any media is named after http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis

 

 

 

 

My name has nothing to do with your name. However:

 

1)- Verain is one of the archaic spellings of some plants of the Verbena family.

2)- If you google image search Verain, you'll see a flower first off, and a bit later you'll see a WoW character of mine.

 

The town in France ("Saint-Veran") is unrelated and from a different source ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint-V%C3%A9ran ) - it is named after a literal saint who apparently beat up some dragon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_V%C3%A9ran

 

 

 

 

So you named yourself after a goddess and messed up your title, and when questioned the best you can do is a bad ad hominem. Got it.

 

I've been a moderator on several gaming forums over the last ~15 years.

 

if you posted a personal attack on another member like this on any forum I'm a moderator of, I'd ban your ***.

if it was a repeat offence, that ban would be permanent.

you truly live up to your claim to be "the most despicable person on the GSF forum" with this sort of trash.

 

edit: for a bloke (assumption on my part) who whines about 'ad-hominem' arguments, you're a past master of both strawmen and red-herrings. what's next, will you start playing the victim?

Edited July 10, 2014 by dancezwithnubz

[Fractalsponge]

I've been a moderator on several gaming forums over the last ~15 years.

 

if you posted a personal attack on another member like this on any forum I'm a moderator of, I'd ban your ***.

if it was a repeat offence, that ban would be permanent.

you truly live up to your claim to be "the most despicable person on the GSF forum" with this sort of trash.

 

Um, what? That wasn't a personal attack - he's just making fun of the guy for his forum handle. Get a grip.

[dancezwithnubz]

he's just making fun of the guy for his forum handle.

 

I left in the key words of your response.

 

Verain picked a fight, then argues the toss while making derogatory remarks.

all of which adds up to: personal attacks on another member in my books.

 

Who cares why he called himself LordArtemis? fine discuss the background of the name Artemis, but there's no need to "make fun of the guy" in quite that manner.

[Fractalsponge]

I left in the key words of your response.

 

Verain picked a fight, then argues the toss while making derogatory remarks.

all of which adds up to: personal attacks on another member in my books.

 

Who cares why he called himself LordArtemis? fine discuss the background of the name Artemis, but there's no need to "make fun of the guy" in quite that manner.

 

I'm glad I never had to deal with you moderating then, if that's a a bannable offense in your books... I'll say it again, get a grip. I do agree the whole exchange is pointless though.

[dancezwithnubz]

I'm glad I never had to deal with you moderating then, if that's a a bannable offense in your books... I'll say it again, get a grip. I do agree the whole exchange is pointless though.

 

hey, i once gave the site FOUNDER of one forum I'm a mod of a three day holiday over a similar incident.

 

he got over it.

 

granted, that incident took place in a sub-forum dedicated to political discussion. after some early ugliness in that sub-forum, I wrote up a set of blitzingly strict rules which are, by and large, followed very well and there's some awesome discussions going on.

[phoenixjon]

I've been a moderator on several gaming forums over the last ~15 years.

 

if you posted a personal attack on another member like this on any forum I'm a moderator of, I'd ban your ***.

if it was a repeat offence, that ban would be permanent.

you truly live up to your claim to be "the most despicable person on the GSF forum" with this sort of trash.

 

edit: for a bloke (assumption on my part) who whines about 'ad-hominem' arguments, you're a past master of both strawmen and red-herrings. what's next, will you start playing the victim?

 

For the sake of trolling... This is a personal attack so you should ban yourself if you were a moderator. ERMAHGAD HYPOCRITE!

Hugs n kisses.

[Verain]

1. Consider that because computers have preternatural aim, it's actually pretty easy to make a very "competent" AI, and generally you have to have some parameter that dumbs the AI down. cf FPS
   

 

 

Interestingly, computers have a harder time doing something harder than playing an FPS. In (most) FPSes, your character can "aim" separately from your position, and your character can "accelerate" instantly (no rotational inertia). Often, your aiming can also be done infinitely fast.

 

This is fundamentally unlike a game where you have inertia, turning radius, etc, and those games don't offer the same level of power to the player units.

 

 

That's not to say that such a thing can't be done- merely that I wouldn't use the "instantly set aim reticule at face" thing as a good example.

 

if you posted a personal attack on another member like this on any forum I'm a moderator of, I'd ban your ***.

if it was a repeat offence, that ban would be permanent.

 

Since it isn't a personal attack you are quoting, who cares about a forum like that? You would ban me the moment I disagreed with you, and permaban me the moment I showed any of your emotional points to be just that.

 

 

 

The reasons I chose that name are my own, but there is no connection with the goddess you reference.

 

This is simply not true. "Artemis" exists literally nowhere else besides the goddess. Artemis Fowl, referenced in this thread, is also named after the goddess (originally he was going to be a more traditionally male name, but Artemis is occasionally an honorific for a great hunter [because, again, the goddess] ).

 

 

Nothing is named Artemis without being named for the goddess. You'll note that you don't actually say what you named yourself after, because you know- inevitably- that a quick google search will reveal the truth.

[Verain]

The "Saint-Verain" is interesting, and named after I think a French surname. In either event, it's just one of a few things that Verain can be (not really, because I think "Saint-Verain" doesn't imply "Verain")- but in English, it's the archaic name of the flower.

 

 

This "standard 16 gear whatever", whatever it is, is just another thing named after Artemis, the goddess, just like everything else I linked, just like the google search, just like whatever you are thinking of, and just like the name "LordArtemis". Because that word has been around for like, millennia, and has always meant the same thing!

Edited July 10, 2014 by Verain

[dancezwithnubz]

Since it isn't a personal attack you are quoting, who cares about a forum like that? You would ban me the moment I disagreed with you, and permaban me the moment I showed any of your emotional points to be just that.

 

BOOM!

there it is: playing the victim.

[LordArtemis]

This is simply not true. "Artemis" exists literally nowhere else besides the goddess. Artemis Fowl, referenced in this thread, is also named after the goddess (originally he was going to be a more traditionally male name, but Artemis is occasionally an honorific for a great hunter [because, again, the goddess] ).

 

 

Nothing is named Artemis without being named for the goddess. You'll note that you don't actually say what you named yourself after, because you know- inevitably- that a quick google search will reveal the truth.

 

The truth has been revealed. The fact you do not want to accept truth does not mean your truth is anything other than ridiculous diatribe sprinkled with little bits of fact in a futile attempt at legitimacy combined with a rather weak effort to be combative for entertainment, an effort that obviously made you look rather foolish.

 

But thats ok. Ill let my post history and yours stand in evidence. especially in this thread and let others decide. You can continue to iceskate uphill if you choose. It's not like I can stop you......

 

...Saint-Verain.

 

Unfortunately one can not teach self respect. And you seem to have every intention of demonstrating a lack of it.

 

I mean, come on Verain.....if you are going to troll with intent, and attempt to demonstrate pride in that fact (your signature) you could at least be good at it.

Edited July 10, 2014 by LordArtemis

[SithAceI]

Luke,(Verain/Artemis)

 

"Many of the truths we hold onto come from our own point of view."

 

Obi-one said it best. LOL

[LordArtemis]

This "standard 16 gear whatever", whatever it is, is just another thing named after Artemis, the goddess, just like everything else I linked, just like the google search, just like whatever you are thinking of, and just like the name "LordArtemis". Because that word has been around for like, millennia, and has always meant the same thing!

 

This is a perfect demonstration of someone iceskating uphill. It was named for the person that invented the gear. If you refuse to accept that because it makes you look foolish...you could simply avoid looking foolish by preventing yourself from spouting uninformed diatribe.....

 

Names exist before famous folks use them or have a story written about them. Names continue to be used after that famous person has moved on in history. Is every person named Michael named after the archangel Michael? Of course not.

 

Not to mention I made it clear that the name is a mispronunciation that became a nickname...the reason I used it is my own. It's none of your business.

 

I will give you this...you find ways to continue pointless conversations like no one I have ever seen.....

 

"hunting gear" lol.

Edited July 10, 2014 by LordArtemis

[Kuciwalker]

Interestingly, computers have a harder time doing something harder than playing an FPS. In (most) FPSes, your character can "aim" separately from your position, and your character can "accelerate" instantly (no rotational inertia). Often, your aiming can also be done infinitely fast.

 

This is fundamentally unlike a game where you have inertia, turning radius, etc, and those games don't offer the same level of power to the player units.

 

That's not to say that such a thing can't be done- merely that I wouldn't use the "instantly set aim reticule at face" thing as a good example.

 

1. Actually hitting the leading indicator is still a reasonable component of GSF difficulty that is completely obviated for AIs.
   
2. Pointing a ship at a moving target is basically just a control system, something that's been extensively studied and that has very good textbook solutions (e.g. a PID controller).
   

Edited July 10, 2014 by Kuciwalker

[Verain]

While an AI could definitely auto click on the reticule, that's still not anything close to what can happen in an FPS.

 

In fact, if you were slow GSF down, you'd probably have a pretty interesting challenge to work out- you can click on the reticule and on average do N damage, assuming he holds his current path, or you could jerk the craft in a direction (being unable to fire on him) in the hopes of having an average M damage in the future, M>N.

 

Now, the CPU *could* cheat- it could flick the reticule to the target for a brief hair of a moment, click, then flick it back to the directional thing, which, not at the speed of ludicrous, is a big part of why BLC is a strong weapon- this mechanic happens in human time- but even THAT is nowhere close to what a CPU opponent could do in like Quake or whatever, where there's no limit. This CPU opponent could still be flown behind and he couldn't instantly turn to you.

 

Pointing a ship at a moving target is basically just a control system, something that's been extensively studied and that has very good textbook solutions (e.g. a PID controller).

 

Dude, no way. That would let it aim a railgun or something, but it would be irrelevant for this discussion.

 

 

Again, it's totally possible to make an AI for this game- but it's definitely a step above infinite-pivot, 100% accuracy, or infinite-aim solutions that are possible in "first person shooter" games. Those games almost always involve a supremely responsive (read: totally nonhuman / nonphysical) player, not one who models anything resembling the skin (which is often a giant man with a gun), and the AI devs can make hugely simplifying assumptions.

 

If you are tailing someone, every action you make commits you to some set of future actions.

 

 

Again, possible- but definitely not as easy or the same type of thing as an FPS.

[Kuciwalker]

While an AI could definitely auto click on the reticule, that's still not anything close to what can happen in an FPS.

 

In fact, if you were slow GSF down, you'd probably have a pretty interesting challenge to work out- you can click on the reticule and on average do N damage, assuming he holds his current path, or you could jerk the craft in a direction (being unable to fire on him) in the hopes of having an average M damage in the future, M>N.

 

Now, the CPU *could* cheat- it could flick the reticule to the target for a brief hair of a moment, click, then flick it back to the directional thing, which, not at the speed of ludicrous, is a big part of why BLC is a strong weapon- this mechanic happens in human time- but even THAT is nowhere close to what a CPU opponent could do in like Quake or whatever, where there's no limit. This CPU opponent could still be flown behind and he couldn't instantly turn to you.

 

All of these things are still very big CPU advantages. Especially over "normal" players, who frequently miss shots purely because their cursor was not over the leading indicator when they shot. CPU would never miss for that reason (unless it were deliberately hobbled).

 

Dude, no way. That would let it aim a railgun or something, but it would be irrelevant for this discussion.

 

It works just as well for regular weapons, really.

 

Again, it's totally possible to make an AI for this game- but it's definitely a step above infinite-pivot, 100% accuracy, or infinite-aim solutions that are possible in "first person shooter" games. Those games almost always involve a supremely responsive (read: totally nonhuman / nonphysical) player, not one who models anything resembling the skin (which is often a giant man with a gun), and the AI devs can make hugely simplifying assumptions.

 

If you are tailing someone, every action you make commits you to some set of future actions.

 

Again, possible- but definitely not as easy or the same type of thing as an FPS.

 

1. AI fighters don't have to be super awesome at tailing people. They just have to occasionally succeed at it a little bit.
   
2. not as easy != not easy
   

Edited July 10, 2014 by Kuciwalker

[Kuciwalker]

I mean, really. Consider the skill level of the "average" GSF player you face. Can't you imagine that even a fairly simple AI would probably be just as challenging to fight?

[Verain]

Ho ho ho, good point!

 

 

1- (Spacebar) intermittently

2- (left click) Open fire at 8km with quads

3- (right click) Feebly attempt to lock missile

4- Explode

5- (mental) Assign blame randomly: Premades, Gear Difference, No Lifers

6- (Alt+Tab) Go to forums, make post complaining about (premades, gear difference, no lifers)

 

See, now we need them to pass the Turing test too!

Edited July 10, 2014 by Verain

[TrinityLyre]

Assign blame randomly: Premades, Gear Difference, No Lifers

6- (Alt+Tab) Go to forums, make post complaining about (premades, gear difference, no lifers)

 

lmao, you left out ship choice and VOIP. Wouldn't be a solid substitute without those!

Edited July 10, 2014 by TrinityLyre

[Verain]

lmao, you left out ship choice and VOIP. Wouldn't be a solid substitute without those!

 

Premade I thought covered VOIP. I find that the more advanced players are the ones that complain about class balance- you gotta get that 400k flashfire on your bar before you suddenly believe that gunships and bombers are noskill, and your victories over all those strikes are just because those players are dumb, or whatever!

[TrinityLyre]

I find that the more advanced players are the ones that complain about class balance- you gotta get that 400k flashfire on your bar before you suddenly believe that gunships and bombers are noskill

 

Fair point, I suppose those can be introduced at higher difficulty settings.

Edited July 10, 2014 by TrinityLyre

[MatuVonnegut]

 

1) Cockpit view and Joystick control. Also, if joystick option can't be implemented, perhaps some kind of interface to assign keys to a joystick would work, or at least joystick capability would be appreciated IMO.

 

 

You can do this already with Saitek's programming software for the X-52. It doesn't work properly, however. When rolling your ship left or right it doesn't begin to roll-out until the joystick has reached it's fixed center position and begins to go the other direction. Basically it makes for a huge deadzone when turning.

[Verain]

You can do this already with Saitek's programming software for the X-52. It doesn't work properly, however. When rolling your ship left or right it doesn't begin to roll-out until the joystick has reached it's fixed center position and begins to go the other direction. Basically it makes for a huge deadzone when turning.

 

There's no joystick support in this game.

 

Here's joystick support, as an example:

 

The joystick DIRECTLY and INSTANTLY controls the ship, NOT THE RETICULE.

 

The hat on top of the joystick controls the reticule.

 

 

We have nothing like that.

 

 

This feature cost even TRYING the game to two of my friends, who I had asking me all kinds of questions at "vaguely like X-Wing / TIE Fighter" and who were just done when I said mouse, no matter what I talked about with the reticule.

 

The color blind thing cost another, but he at least tried the game, found he couldn't read his shields, and said so.