Sign up Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 5 of 9     «   Prev   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   Next   »
Dave Thaler

Registered:
Posts: 445
Reply with quote  #61 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JordanLongstaff
Another suggestion: add hotkeys to launch fighters from the bay!


At Norwescon we had Xbox controllers for each fighter station and we had to tell people to use the mouse just to launch, which was aesthetically displeasing to some of the pilots.  Ideally, we'd want each console to be able to enter their own fighter call sign (not have to type it on the main screen), and the launch hotkey on that console would launch the fighter with that console's call sign.   If their fighter gets destroyed then sure let them use some other method if they want to take out a different ship.

That would also fix the user experience of a pilot accidentally launching with some other pilot's callsign.
notsabbat

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,199
Reply with quote  #62 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JordanLongstaff
Another suggestion: add hotkeys to launch fighters from the bay!


Yes!

This would be under my request to add hot keys for all of the buttons in Artemis.



__________________
-Captain of the TSN Gungnir JN-001
-Eastern Front online group member
-My continuing bridge build:
http://artemis.forumchitchat.com/post/immersion-bridge-build-in-progress-7335195?pid=1290158413
LawsonThompson

Registered:
Posts: 567
Reply with quote  #63 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JordanLongstaff
Another suggestion: add hotkeys to launch fighters from the bay!


This, please! Number keys 1 thru 3 would be fine.

Editing: My workaround was to use JoyToKey and make the joystick hat switch or D-pad act like a mouse pointer control, and the fire button as a mouse click. You could steer the mouse pointer over to the launch button on screen--or the blackjack buttons!--without needing to use a mouse.

Discovery: JoyToKey will only make a joystick emulate a mouse if there is a mouse actually connected to the PC, even if not used. 

A more complicated setup but elegant final solution with careful application of AutoHotKey and JoyToKey, it should be possible to do this:


  • Configure JoyToKey to make the fire button on the joystick also do a mouse click.
  • Configure JoyToKey to make 3 other joystick buttons trigger Ctrl-1, Ctrl-2, or Ctrl-3.
  • Write a short AutoHotKey script to intercept Ctrl-1, Ctrl-2, and Ctrl-3.
  • In Artemis, pilot clicks the "Launch Bay 2" button.
  • JoyToKey converts the button click to Ctrl-2 keypress.
  • AutoHotKey sees Ctrl-2 and moves the mouse pointer (yup, that's a thing) to the coordinates of the Launch button for bay 2.
  • Pilot clicks joystick fire button to launch.
Or get really fancy and make the joystick directions cycle the mouse pointer positions between the Launch buttons and the Hit/Stay blackjack buttons.

__________________
----
Visit us at http://www.ltebridge.com
LawsonThompson

Registered:
Posts: 567
Reply with quote  #64 
Comms center message flow:  I might change my mind after seeing this in action, but I'd like to see the incoming Comms messages behave a bit differently.

Currently, tapping a new incoming message in the right column pushes the message onto the center, and also flips the message filter buttons to match the most recently tapped message.

Based on seeing a lot of newbies play, I think the following changes would help:

1) As new messages come in the right column, if they match the current "filter", and there is currently no mousedown/touch action in the center column, have the new message inserted at the top of the center column as if they had been tapped. This happens FAR more often than you'd expect.

2) As messages are pushed onto the center column, if there is currently no "mouse down" or "touch" action in progress trying to scroll the center column, the center column should smoothly scroll to reveal the new message, rather than the current "pop" behavior.

3) New messages in the center should be slightly highlighted by changing the color of the edge of the message frame, then fade over the course of a few seconds. The current flash behavior in the right column could be reused. The purpose: to draw attention to the fact that a new message appeared, perhaps while Comms wasn't facing the screen.

4) Eliminate the delay between a new message appearing in the right column and it being available to select to view in the center. It takes several taps to get it to trigger. Why?

5) It is only just now--and I literally mean in the moments right before I typed this very line--that I realized the filter button marked SIDE means SIDE MISSIONS and not Messages from your SIDE of the battle! Maybe re-label the button to... SIDE MISSION?

These adjustments would make a big difference especially during the game open when a Captain says, "Comms, hail all friendlies to find a side mission for stronger shields," or "Comms, which stations have extra fighters?" A large number of hails and replies need to be viewed, and it's going to reduce the number of taps to "move" the incoming messages from the right column to the center.

A possible side effect: if you don't have any filters enabled, you'll get a stream of messages down the center of all messages as they appear. 




__________________
----
Visit us at http://www.ltebridge.com
NoseyNick

Registered:
Posts: 39
Reply with quote  #65 
Think it's been said before, but in light of "blinking" suggestions in Comms I'd like to reiterate:

BLINKIES ARE BAD. Gradual fading might be OK. If you feel compelled to blink, PLEASE make it configurable / optional / easy to permanently disable.

2.7 brought blinkies in (I think?) all of Helm, Weapons, Science, LRS, TAC, Comms. We have lost valued players who don't cope well with blinking/flashing/spinning/rotating stuff. They were previously confined to the "2D" screens (with rotation OFF) but now can't even use those. As an "inclusive" community, we feel shamed into downgrading to 2.6 from time to time. Even players who CAN cope with flashing have complained "how the heck am I supposed to target this thing that's not there half the time?!?"

Anyone remember the <blink>blink HTML tag</blink>, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blink_element , "the worst thing I've ever done for the Internet", "criticised by usability and accessibility experts", "simply evil", "should be avoided", now removed from almost all browsers that ever had it... need I go on? Please quietly pretend it was a misguided April Fools joke or something      [crazy]  [frown]

Thanks!
ryleyra

Registered:
Posts: 2,890
Reply with quote  #66 

Quote:
Originally Posted by LawsonThompson


5) It is only just now--and I literally mean in the moments right before I typed this very line--that I realized the filter button marked SIDE means SIDE MISSIONS and not Messages from your SIDE of the battle! Maybe re-label the button to... SIDE MISSION?


I had this epiphany a couple of weeks ago. Previously I thought "Side" referred to sideValue, just like you. I had to actually watch the process of a Side mission coming in and realized it was categorized as such.

Unfortunately, I think "Side Mission" is a bit too lengthy to fit neatly on the button. Maybe "Mission"? I'll also note that in game messages that are Side messages ALSO are categorized as Station or Friend. In scripts, a message can have only ONE category.

ron77

Registered:
Posts: 127
Reply with quote  #67 
I would love to be able to target torpedoes. In a PvP game, because you can't target a torpedo or even tell what type it is, taking a hit from a torpedo is very risky. Sure, it could be a homing torpedo...but it could also be a nuke.

On that note, enabling enemy npc ships to target your torpedoes might also add some spice to the game. Because every one of your torpedoes that is intercepted by an enemy beam means one less beam aiimed at your ship. I believe this would slightly increase the tactical depth of the game.
NoseyNick

Registered:
Posts: 39
Reply with quote  #68 
PvP, f'sure.

Enemy NPC ships... Is that different to <set_special ability=AntiTorp> ?
ron77

Registered:
Posts: 127
Reply with quote  #69 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoseyNick
PvP, f'sure.

Enemy NPC ships... Is that different to <set_special ability=AntiTorp> ?

Yes, because there is a destinct difference between missions and scenarios. In a mission, you can just script any npc ship to have this ability. In a scenario, you cannot. And even if you gave all npc races the key hasspecials, which would seriously destabilize the game's balance, these special abilities would still be assigned randomly.

Also, on a more technical note: from what I can gather, the special ability AntiTorp does not allow npc ships to target and fire at torpedoes, it just removes torpedoes once they get within a certain distance of the ship with this ability. That's a difference from a tactical standpoint; if you have limited beams and you allocate some of them to pick off incoming torpedoes, there are less beams left to dish out damage offensively.
ryleyra

Registered:
Posts: 2,890
Reply with quote  #70 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ron77

Also, on a more technical note: from what I can gather, the special ability AntiTorp does not allow npc ships to target and fire at torpedoes, it just removes torpedoes once they get within a certain distance of the ship with this ability. That's a difference from a tactical standpoint; if you have limited beams and you allocate some of them to pick off incoming torpedoes, there are less beams left to dish out damage offensively.


The AntiTorp ability does in fact require the enemy ship to fire a beam to destroy the torpedo, forcing the Skaraan to wait until that beam recharges before it can fire again. The same is true of AntiMine, which is the same ability for mines instead of torpedoes.

I have suggested giving the players this ability as an Upgrade. You could choose to automatically have this Upgrade in PvP, or have to seek one out and pick it up.
ron77

Registered:
Posts: 127
Reply with quote  #71 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryleyra
The AntiTorp ability does in fact require the enemy ship to fire a beam to destroy the torpedo, forcing the Skaraan to wait until that beam recharges before it can fire again. The same is true of AntiMine, which is the same ability for mines instead of torpedoes.

That's weird. I've been playing for years now and never noticed Skaarans actually shooting at torpedoes or mines.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryleyra
I have suggested giving the players this ability as an Upgrade. You could choose to automatically have this Upgrade in PvP, or have to seek one out and pick it up.

That would work, too. [thumb]
ron77

Registered:
Posts: 127
Reply with quote  #72 
So, as it turns out, for a mod I'm working on we're going to have to downgrade to Artemis 2.6.

The reason for this being that torpedoes just don't behave like we need them to in 2.7, due to reduced options in the artemis.ini file. I really hate to have to do this because the convention we're making the mod for also serves as a prime opportunity to showcase Artemis as a whole, and having to use an older version of the game just doesn't do justice to the amount of work Thom puts into it.

I know it's been said before; but PLEASE ask Thom to include all the torpedo options from 2.6 in 2.7.
U.E. Admiral

Registered:
Posts: 46
Reply with quote  #73 
I heard a rumor that Thom was going to do that. No confirmation, and no timeline, mind you. Here's hoping!
__________________
"Maths is not one of Artemis' strengths" -- Lt. Jr. Starry "Heat Wizard" Wisdom, R&D Dept. Terran Stellar Navy
Mike Substelny

Avatar / Picture

Administrator
Registered:
Posts: 2,197
Reply with quote  #74 
Quote:
Originally Posted by U.E. Admiral
I heard a rumor that Thom was going to do that. No confirmation, and no timeline, mind you. Here's hoping!


Yes, Thom did acknowledge that moddable torpedo warhead strength is a thing he needs to fix. Right now he is working on his new game engine, though, so I cannot promise that it will happen soon. I can promise that I will re-emphasize the problem to him this week.

__________________
"The Admiralty had demanded six ships; the economists offered four; and we finally compromised on eight."
- Winston Churchill
Mike Substelny

Avatar / Picture

Administrator
Registered:
Posts: 2,197
Reply with quote  #75 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryleyra


The AntiTorp ability does in fact require the enemy ship to fire a beam to destroy the torpedo, forcing the Skaraan to wait until that beam recharges before it can fire again. The same is true of AntiMine, which is the same ability for mines instead of torpedoes.


Player ships may launch torpedoes but player ships may not launch drones.

AI ships with Anti-Torp elite ability can shoot down any type of player torpedo using whatever beam weapons they have ready to fire. If their beams are still cycling then they cannot shoot down torpedoes.

AI ships can also have the Drone ability, allowing them to launch drones at nearby targets with a different SideValue. Once launched the drones have their own AI and may select another target.

Player ships may use their beam weapons to shoot down drones. An AI ship may also shoot down a drone if that ship is defending the drone's target.

Player ships may not shoot down torpedoes. Nevertheless, if the players have a friendly AI ship defending them any that friendly ship has anti-torp it's possible that the friendly ship can shoot down the torpedo for them. I haven't tested this.

Finally, I believe that drones and torpedoes travel at the same speed and have the same warhead strength, though drones have unlimited range.

__________________
"The Admiralty had demanded six ships; the economists offered four; and we finally compromised on eight."
- Winston Churchill
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.