Turres-Monacorum
Turres-Monacorum copied to clipboard
nczempin
more annoying "instability" effect when a generator takes damage
Whenever the main base (or one of the additional generators that we are now able to place) takes damage (I guess that would mean that we'll have to enable towers to take damage somehow) there could be some kind of effect that makes everything look like we're losing the transmission signal.
That would possibly require a sound effect (like radio static or some kind of electric spark) and some shaders. Not sure if we need any actual art assets.
It should be annoying (we could disable the game inputs for a moment) enough that the player would really want to avoid the generators taking any damage.
to clarify: we already have the screen shake on generator hit, but let's make it more annoying
I really like the idea. However, it does not really fit my narrative idea that the player sees the base through a camera mounted on his/her spaceship. The camera doesn't take damage because it's just the mining base far below that is under siege. Making things too complicated (e.g. "the base is transmitting a signal from a camera that is mounted on a tower next to it and takes damage with the base because it relies on its power supplies") in order to combine the two ideas seems a little too confusing to me. I'm just wondering: Given the setting I proposed, will players perceive it as inconsistent if the camera image flickers when the base takes damage (because it is) or will they not realize it and just enjoy the cool effect? I can well imagine that they won't even notice that it doesn't really make sense.
Oh, I hadn't noticed that we are looking at the action directly. Most of what I was envisioning, with all the CRT effects we have already, was that we are looking at something remotely, so there can be "interference" effects.
When I originally wrote this issue, I think we didn't have that screen shake; when we got that, the priority for this one decreased quite a bit, and now I'm wondering if the screen shake is not sufficient for now.
My line of thought: We are not in a ship directly above the colony, but quite a bit away, and the images are produced by relay satellites; hitting generators may cause some sort of interference.
Of course the real reason behind it is that I like all those scanline / green monitor etc. effects.
Actually, I did think of the player (and the ship) as being too far away to look at the scenario with the naked eye. I mean: "in the orbit" is still very, very far away and would make the use of a camera necessary – your camera optics are where I got the idea from in the first place. I just thought an interference from the creeps hitting the base with the ship's camera system wouldn't make a lot of sense, but maybe it does (or at least we can say so) – and if not, as mentioned above, the player probably won't even think about it. (I'd also love to see those monitor effects in the game. :smile: )
Well, they wouldn't interfere with optical cameras, but we can add all sorts of radio transmission effects when they're not optical. I'd also have a hard time explaining why the masses of aliens wouldn't simply go for the mother ship if it's in orbit.
So the cameras are on satellites, and we are connecting to those from far away. The satellites' cameras are not affected directly, but the transmissions might be affected by those hits on our mighty generators.
In the end, whatever we do, we either need to change the text as it is (I've added it in the current develop branch) or we need to find some other justification why a base hit would provide such strong interference.
In either case our base is supposed to be really important, in, I guess, some sort of huge network of bases.
After all, when our base dies, the game is over.
Alright, let's stick with the satellite-thing then! It appears to make the most sense. I'll change the text accordingly.
Just another question, now that you mention it: Doesn't the player defend several bases in the course of the game? I thought he did (because changing level environments were mentioned somewhere), so I wrote "Other stations are sending out distress calls as well" in the intro. I don't think it has to be the same base all the time. In my opinion, it's okay that the game is lost when a base gets destroyed even if it's just one among a hundred. The demanded goal wasn't accomplished, so the player has to start over. (Same thing with NPC characters you have to protect in other video games: If they die, you are forced to redo the mission, even though in real life you could just go on without them.) I don't mean to say that we have to make the player defend different bases. I'm just saying we can and I thought we would. (:
Yes, we move around different bases. we are the only ones within comm range, and once we fail defending one base, the others are overrun.
As to replaying missions, whether won or not, no idea if we should find some justification for that or simply assume that the player travels back in time, like in most other campaigns in which you can re-try missions ;-)
I'll leave it up to you. I'm currently working on a few levels with tutorial character, so you'll start out with fewer towers and fewer enemies. I'm also working on getting a "mission briefing" screen up before each level (and possibly wave, i. e. I'm envisioning we will have a basic map layout, kill all the enemies and then the aliens will send more, etc.
So before you go into details you may want to wait until the basic levels are done, along with the wave/level system.
Of course you can also make some levels of your own, be it "full missions" or tutorials.
I don't think I'll be able to create missions (I started coding less than a year ago), but maybe I'll mess around with a previous build just to learn something. (: I just summarized our conversation in the "story" thread. Let's focus on the camera effects in this one, now that we found a way to justify them!