Where in that quote did he say it wouldn't be in a universe like Firefly? Firefly was launched 2002. It isn't exactly modern or vintage. The only firm word I saw is that they'd like to do their own IP, not something licensed. That certainly leaves it open for franchises in that style, which are no more modern than Star Trek and those of the last 50 years.
I just don't want to see a sci-fi skinned "wizards and warriors" idea like Star Wars or Starfield. I'd like to see the "chosen one" schtick shelved for a while. It's overused and generally a lot more restrictive for role-playing character development.
This is an issue that causes a lot of angst. But we are talking solo player, so the issues you have in games like Age of Conan with the chosen one are not there. I certainly think we could do with something "strictly sci-fi", leaving all the fantasy elements out. But how hard sci-fi do you go? Thinking back to Frontier First Encounters (part of the Elite series), it decided use more realistic physics for space encounters and the combat was horrible.
So I lean to soft Sci-fi, setting wise I would be happy from anything from the solar system to beyond. There is so much uncovered ground in games, think of how well The Expanse was received.
Where in that quote did he say it wouldn't be in a universe like Firefly? Firefly was launched 2002. It isn't exactly modern or vintage. The only firm word I saw is that they'd like to do their own IP, not something licensed. That certainly leaves it open for franchises in that style, which are no more modern than Star Trek and those of the last 50 years.
I just don't want to see a sci-fi skinned "wizards and warriors" idea like Star Wars or Starfield. I'd like to see the "chosen one" schtick shelved for a while. It's overused and generally a lot more restrictive for role-playing character development.
This is an issue that causes a lot of angst. But we are talking solo player, so the issues you have in games like Age of Conan with the chosen one are not there. I certainly think we could do with something "strictly sci-fi", leaving all the fantasy elements out. But how hard sci-fi do you go? Thinking back to Frontier First Encounters (part of the Elite series), it decided use more realistic physics for space encounters and the combat was horrible.
So I lean to soft Sci-fi, setting wise I would be happy from anything from the solar system to beyond. There is so much uncovered ground in games, think of how well The Expanse was received.
I was thinking the same thing. How "hard" sci-fi do people want because I suspect when people say they want "sci-fi" they really don't want sci-fi.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Where in that quote did he say it wouldn't be in a universe like Firefly? Firefly was launched 2002. It isn't exactly modern or vintage. The only firm word I saw is that they'd like to do their own IP, not something licensed. That certainly leaves it open for franchises in that style, which are no more modern than Star Trek and those of the last 50 years.
I just don't want to see a sci-fi skinned "wizards and warriors" idea like Star Wars or Starfield. I'd like to see the "chosen one" schtick shelved for a while. It's overused and generally a lot more restrictive for role-playing character development.
This is an issue that causes a lot of angst. But we are talking solo player, so the issues you have in games like Age of Conan with the chosen one are not there. I certainly think we could do with something "strictly sci-fi", leaving all the fantasy elements out. But how hard sci-fi do you go? Thinking back to Frontier First Encounters (part of the Elite series), it decided use more realistic physics for space encounters and the combat was horrible.
So I lean to soft Sci-fi, setting wise I would be happy from anything from the solar system to beyond. There is so much uncovered ground in games, think of how well The Expanse was received.
I was thinking the same thing. How "hard" sci-fi do people want because I suspect when people say they want "sci-fi" they really don't want sci-fi.
The harder it is the more you will have something like The Martian rather than The Expanse. But that's not a problem for story, you can tell just as good a story. It may be an issue for gameplay, but you can get round that if you are willing to take some soft liberties here and there. So ignoring a lot of Newtonian physics when flying a spacecraft does not make the game overall soft sci-fi.
As long as hard SF does not mean needlessly hard gameplay (like shooting past opponents because that's what would happen unless retro thrusters were engaged for just the right amount as you approach each other) then it could work well.
Where in that quote did he say it wouldn't be in a universe like Firefly? Firefly was launched 2002. It isn't exactly modern or vintage. The only firm word I saw is that they'd like to do their own IP, not something licensed. That certainly leaves it open for franchises in that style, which are no more modern than Star Trek and those of the last 50 years.
I just don't want to see a sci-fi skinned "wizards and warriors" idea like Star Wars or Starfield. I'd like to see the "chosen one" schtick shelved for a while. It's overused and generally a lot more restrictive for role-playing character development.
This is an issue that causes a lot of angst. But we are talking solo player, so the issues you have in games like Age of Conan with the chosen one are not there. I certainly think we could do with something "strictly sci-fi", leaving all the fantasy elements out. But how hard sci-fi do you go? Thinking back to Frontier First Encounters (part of the Elite series), it decided use more realistic physics for space encounters and the combat was horrible.
So I lean to soft Sci-fi, setting wise I would be happy from anything from the solar system to beyond. There is so much uncovered ground in games, think of how well The Expanse was received.
I was thinking the same thing. How "hard" sci-fi do people want because I suspect when people say they want "sci-fi" they really don't want sci-fi.
As long as hard SF does not mean needlessly hard gameplay (like shooting past opponents because that's what would happen unless retro thrusters were engaged for just the right amount as you approach each other) then it could work well.
Few realize EVE Online combat outcomes are greatly influenced by how well a pilot understands and manages their "velocities" including radial, transversal and angular for both their own ship as well as an opponent. (Additional info below for any who care to know how it works.)
I imagine many gamers do not find much "fun" in such combat which is somewhat more reliant on Newtonian physics than is typical in other space games.
Despite the many jokes about EVE combat being a spreadsheet battle in space, they are not wrong, except pilots have to rely on the spreadsheet in their heads due to the fairly quick reaction times required.
Practical Meaning
Due to the mechanics of Turret Damage, velocity plays a large role in determining the probabilty of successfully hitting targets. Knowing how to control your shared velocity variables can be a huge advantage in a fight.
For example, the reason that frigates can tackle battleships and survive is due to the relation between the high angular velocity and the battleship's turret's low tracking speeds.
Also, the rate at which a ship is closing in on another is determined by its radial velocity. By balancing radial velocity with transversal/angular velocity can help you pull range or close in on a target, while still being able to survive.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Few realize EVE Online combat outcomes are greatly influenced by how well a pilot understands and manages their "velocities" including radial, transversal and angular for both their own ship as well as an opponent. (Additional info below for any who care to know how it works.)
I imagine many gamers do not find much "fun" in such combat which is somewhat more reliant on Newtonian physics than is typical in other space games.
Despite the many jokes about EVE combat being a spreadsheet battle in space, they are not wrong, except pilots have to rely on the spreadsheet in their heads due to the fairly quick reaction times required.
Practical Meaning
Due to the mechanics of Turret Damage, velocity plays a large role in determining the probabilty of successfully hitting targets. Knowing how to control your shared velocity variables can be a huge advantage in a fight.
For example, the reason that frigates can tackle battleships and survive is due to the relation between the high angular velocity and the battleship's turret's low tracking speeds.
Also, the rate at which a ship is closing in on another is determined by its radial velocity. By balancing radial velocity with transversal/angular velocity can help you pull range or close in on a target, while still being able to survive.
Quite happy to accept all that but EVE has a quite unique version of ship to ship combat. My impression of EVE is that there would be more time to make some calculations, imagine closing at Elite speeds and having to do those sums on the fly.
Not only that but if you slow down too much you often find your opponent will sail past you maybe taking a couple of shots and be very difficult to catch up with.
I understand Star Trek Online has a hybrid arcade/somewhat EvE(ish) slower paced version of combat, interesting to hear how that compares with the others ways of playing a space battle.
Few realize EVE Online combat outcomes are greatly influenced by how well a pilot understands and manages their "velocities" including radial, transversal and angular for both their own ship as well as an opponent. (Additional info below for any who care to know how it works.)
I imagine many gamers do not find much "fun" in such combat which is somewhat more reliant on Newtonian physics than is typical in other space games.
Despite the many jokes about EVE combat being a spreadsheet battle in space, they are not wrong, except pilots have to rely on the spreadsheet in their heads due to the fairly quick reaction times required.
Practical Meaning
Due to the mechanics of Turret Damage, velocity plays a large role in determining the probabilty of successfully hitting targets. Knowing how to control your shared velocity variables can be a huge advantage in a fight.
For example, the reason that frigates can tackle battleships and survive is due to the relation between the high angular velocity and the battleship's turret's low tracking speeds.
Also, the rate at which a ship is closing in on another is determined by its radial velocity. By balancing radial velocity with transversal/angular velocity can help you pull range or close in on a target, while still being able to survive.
Quite happy to accept all that but EVE has a quite unique version of ship to ship combat. My impression of EVE is that there would be more time to make some calculations, imagine closing at Elite speeds and having to do those sums on the fly.
Not only that but if you slow down too much you often find your opponent will sail past you maybe taking a couple of shots and be very difficult to catch up with.
I understand Star Trek Online has a hybrid arcade/somewhat EvE(ish) slower paced version of combat, interesting to hear how that compares with the others ways of playing a space battle.
Quite honestly most close quarter fights in EVE end up with both pilots furiously circling each other (or smaller ships circling larger) to keep transversal velocities high and damage low.
Then it comes down to minute factors such as turret or missle types, skill training differences, gear quality/capability and other factors.
But I've seen a few EVE pilots who can deliver beyond average damage and succeed against much greater odds or opponents by being able to fly by the seat of their pants and work the three velocities to their favor moreso than most.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Where in that quote did he say it wouldn't be in a universe like Firefly? Firefly was launched 2002. It isn't exactly modern or vintage. The only firm word I saw is that they'd like to do their own IP, not something licensed. That certainly leaves it open for franchises in that style, which are no more modern than Star Trek and those of the last 50 years.
I just don't want to see a sci-fi skinned "wizards and warriors" idea like Star Wars or Starfield. I'd like to see the "chosen one" schtick shelved for a while. It's overused and generally a lot more restrictive for role-playing character development.
This is an issue that causes a lot of angst. But we are talking solo player, so the issues you have in games like Age of Conan with the chosen one are not there. I certainly think we could do with something "strictly sci-fi", leaving all the fantasy elements out. But how hard sci-fi do you go? Thinking back to Frontier First Encounters (part of the Elite series), it decided use more realistic physics for space encounters and the combat was horrible.
So I lean to soft Sci-fi, setting wise I would be happy from anything from the solar system to beyond. There is so much uncovered ground in games, think of how well The Expanse was received.
I'm not looking for hard boiled sci-fi, in the vein of AC Clarke or R Heinlein's more dry stuff. I just want to avoid "chosen one with latent god powers" plots or settings that are really high fantasy magic with a sci-fi skin. It can have some elements of that, but I would like it to be about adventuring through life in a space-faring society.
Soft sci-fi like Traveller, Star Trek, Firefly, Cyberpunk, Shadowrun, and the like would satisfy. There can still be lots of powerful alien tech, psionics, and unexplained phenomena, just not Jedi prophecies and lineages, Starborn/Dragonborn, etc.
By the way, I don't find Elite to be hard sci-fi or realistic at all. It's pilot sim porn. In an advanced society like that no one would be manually piloting ships into the docking bay or any number of other manual tasks they have players do.
I'm not looking for hard boiled sci-fi, in the vein of AC Clarke or R Heinlein's more dry stuff. I just want to avoid "chosen one with latent god powers" plots or settings that are really high fantasy magic with a sci-fi skin. It can have some elements of that, but I would like it to be about adventuring through life in a space-faring society.
Soft sci-fi like Traveller, Star Trek, Firefly, Cyberpunk, Shadowrun, and the like would satisfy. There can still be lots of powerful alien tech, psionics, and unexplained phenomena, just not Jedi prophecies and lineages, Starborn/Dragonborn, etc.
By the way, I don't find Elite to be hard sci-fi or realistic at all. It's pilot sim porn. In an advanced society like that no one would be manually piloting ships into the docking bay or any number of other manual tasks they have players do.
I don't see Elite as hard SF, the way their spacecraft handles is quite arcade like. Agree about the examples you mentioned, we need more games in those types of settings!
You have taken us on to another interesting dilemma in Science fiction. It is what I think of as how much of a Space Opera you want in your Science Fiction. There is a problem with technology, as it becomes more and more advanced it take over from what you would have people in your story do or at least change how they do a task.
Back in the days of the Lensmen (Doc Smith) and Flash Gordon they never had this problem, the "principles" piloted the spacecraft. Look at how automated flying can already be in planes, where is the drama in having technology flying you to the stars? Do you want the stories hero's to fly the vehicle or sit in a passenger seat? This has led to authors like Frank Herbert in Dune creating a highly technical civilization that has an A.I. jihad and reverts to everything being manually operated.
Authors have commented on the similarity between nanotechnology and magic, which is exactly what we wanted to get away from in the first place. Some settings just embrace that though, the brilliant TTRPG Numenera (there is even a great video game you can play) says "Ok nanotech is like magic and in this world some people think tech is magic, lets just get on with the story/game".
Comments
So I lean to soft Sci-fi, setting wise I would be happy from anything from the solar system to beyond. There is so much uncovered ground in games, think of how well The Expanse was received.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
As long as hard SF does not mean needlessly hard gameplay (like shooting past opponents because that's what would happen unless retro thrusters were engaged for just the right amount as you approach each other) then it could work well.
I imagine many gamers do not find much "fun" in such combat which is somewhat more reliant on Newtonian physics than is typical in other space games.
Despite the many jokes about EVE combat being a spreadsheet battle in space, they are not wrong, except pilots have to rely on the spreadsheet in their heads due to the fairly quick reaction times required.
Practical Meaning
Due to the mechanics of Turret Damage, velocity plays a large role in determining the probabilty of successfully hitting targets. Knowing how to control your shared velocity variables can be a huge advantage in a fight.
For example, the reason that frigates can tackle battleships and survive is due to the relation between the high angular velocity and the battleship's turret's low tracking speeds.
Also, the rate at which a ship is closing in on another is determined by its radial velocity. By balancing radial velocity with transversal/angular velocity can help you pull range or close in on a target, while still being able to survive.
https://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Velocity"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Not only that but if you slow down too much you often find your opponent will sail past you maybe taking a couple of shots and be very difficult to catch up with.
I understand Star Trek Online has a hybrid arcade/somewhat EvE(ish) slower paced version of combat, interesting to hear how that compares with the others ways of playing a space battle.
Then it comes down to minute factors such as turret or missle types, skill training differences, gear quality/capability and other factors.
But I've seen a few EVE pilots who can deliver beyond average damage and succeed against much greater odds or opponents by being able to fly by the seat of their pants and work the three velocities to their favor moreso than most.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
You have taken us on to another interesting dilemma in Science fiction. It is what I think of as how much of a Space Opera you want in your Science Fiction. There is a problem with technology, as it becomes more and more advanced it take over from what you would have people in your story do or at least change how they do a task.
Back in the days of the Lensmen (Doc Smith) and Flash Gordon they never had this problem, the "principles" piloted the spacecraft. Look at how automated flying can already be in planes, where is the drama in having technology flying you to the stars? Do you want the stories hero's to fly the vehicle or sit in a passenger seat? This has led to authors like Frank Herbert in Dune creating a highly technical civilization that has an A.I. jihad and reverts to everything being manually operated.
Authors have commented on the similarity between nanotechnology and magic, which is exactly what we wanted to get away from in the first place. Some settings just embrace that though, the brilliant TTRPG Numenera (there is even a great video game you can play) says "Ok nanotech is like magic and in this world some people think tech is magic, lets just get on with the story/game".