Author Topic: New version .810 now out! (WeGo Turn-Based Combat! Combat Balance! Etc!)  (Read 2850 times)

Offline Hyfrydle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 587
The ability to choose and mark targets would be very cool so a battle plan for each turn can be developed and then it plays out hopefully as intended.

Just had another go and the second time was much better I actually look forward to the battles when I'm playing the solar map part of the game instead of trying to avoid combat.

I think you may really be onto something here it just seems to fit the game so much better.

Offline x4000

  • Chris Park, Arcen Games Founder and Lead Designer
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,403
I want to report that pressing Q will stop ship during turn execution. In other words, you say "go there", then press Q and your ship immediately stops. While it can be useful to avoid incoming shots, I think it's not intended.

I can't duplicate this in .811 (which isn't out yet), and I can't see how the code would allow this.  If you see it in the next version, though, do let me know!
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games?  Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline x4000

  • Chris Park, Arcen Games Founder and Lead Designer
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,403
The ability to choose and mark targets would be very cool so a battle plan for each turn can be developed and then it plays out hopefully as intended.

In a limited, by-turn fashion anyhow.

Just had another go and the second time was much better I actually look forward to the battles when I'm playing the solar map part of the game instead of trying to avoid combat.

I think you may really be onto something here it just seems to fit the game so much better.

Awesome! :)
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games?  Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline doctorfrog

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 589
It's been said, and I'm saying it too, the combat changes are a major step in the right direction. I'm going to play some more tonight and see if I can give any more helpful feedback. I'm thinking about whether it'd be fun to have the position of the ship be tactically important, or whether it'd just be fiddly nonsense. Maybe starting with having a slo-charge beam weapon that fires only forward...

edit: I should also acknowledge that the galaxy map is getting clearer. I know a good deal of work has been done on clarity there, and that there's more to come. It is driving me kind of up the wall that I can't pan through it, though.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2014, 05:30:53 PM by doctorfrog »

Offline Teal_Blue

  • Hero Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 935
Is the 'Command Room' still on the agenda. or has the turn-based combat replaced it?

-Teal


Offline x4000

  • Chris Park, Arcen Games Founder and Lead Designer
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,403
Just a note, no release tonight.  I am in the middle of working out four different control options for the combat attacking, and that's just not going to be done until tomorrow.  As a preview, they are:

1. Fire at one or more selected targets in rotation (when in range; else autofire until they come back in range).
2. General autofire like before.
3. Attack-point like before.
4. Attack-at-angle (to do sweeps while moving).

The controls for enabling autofire are also more friendly.

I have this about 80% implemented, but then I have to pretty up the GUI for it to make it clear, etc, too.  This plus the other combat balance changes really makes the combat portion of the game a much more polished and fun beast than in .810, but it's also not quite fully functional yet. :)

edit: I should also acknowledge that the galaxy map is getting clearer. I know a good deal of work has been done on clarity there, and that there's more to come. It is driving me kind of up the wall that I can't pan through it, though.

Pan in what sense?

Is the 'Command Room' still on the agenda. or has the turn-based combat replaced it?

Turn-based combat replaced it.  The only purpose of the command room was to allow for more contemplative combat, and the turn-based approach already handles that. :)
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games?  Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline keith.lamothe

  • Arcen Games Staff
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,505
edit: I should also acknowledge that the galaxy map is getting clearer. I know a good deal of work has been done on clarity there, and that there's more to come. It is driving me kind of up the wall that I can't pan through it, though.

Pan in what sense?
I'm guessing he means that, like in combat, one cannot move the viewport away from centering on the flagship.  Just zoom and move-the-flagship.  Gets me all the time too :)
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games? Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline doctorfrog

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 589
I'm guessing he means that, like in combat, one cannot move the viewport away from centering on the flagship.  Just zoom and move-the-flagship.  Gets me all the time too :)

Yep!

Offline alocritani

  • Jr. Member Mark III
  • **
  • Posts: 92
Hi guys, this morning I woke up with several ideas that I want to share with you.

I think combat would be more interesting if weapons of your ship have a limited fire-arc. This way you have to manouver more in order to put enemy ships inside your firing range, increasing the "tactical positioning" part of combat.

If you go this way, then I see other two changes needed: first you could increase turning radius for your ships, basically making your ship turning slower, in order to add complexity to the positioning part. I think this is needed because you have limited firing arc and ability to almost immediately turn your ship will make the limitation of arcs easily overrideable.

Further, since with limited fire arcs and different ranges, you could be forced to fire weapons that are not optimal against the type of hull used by enemy ship. In that case I think that the -85% of damages received by enemy ship is a too high value - maybe a -50% or -33% would be more appropriate in this scenario.

I think it could integrate well with the proposed 4 types of firing, also.

Offline Histidine

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 581
Quote from: Alpha .811 changelog
Bargaining Power has been renamed to Credit. This is something that should be a lot more intuitive in terms of understanding that this is a currency, and in distancing it from Influence. That said, it's not CreditS with an S, as that seems like something that is most definitely specific currency. Instead, Credit singular is something that could imply both social things, debt things, or currency -- and honestly the concept is a mix of all of those, so it seems pretty perfect.
I want "The Last Hydral" renamed to "The Creditor."

Offline Cipherpunk

  • Newbie Mark II
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Has anyone considered a reload mechanic for combat? I don't think you would have to limit regular weapon ammo to make it interesting. However, I think having to switch weapons between combat turns or make evasive maneuvers while reloading might add some fun tension to decision making, especially with the programmed turns.

Do I keep firing this super effective shot at that flagship and risk it barely surviving when I'm out?
Should I switch to something lower dps with much more ammo and risk additional ships being launched before I can kill it?
Maybe I should save those low dps shots for the strikecraft that I know are coming back in two rounds?

You might have to reduce weapon resistances in general to make something like this viable though. Honestly, I liked the idea of resistance on paper but in practice, it's rather annoying for me to constantly have to pause and read each ships stats to figure out why my shots aren't doing anything.

Offline Billick

  • Full Member Mark III
  • ***
  • Posts: 244
The solar system map stuff is starting to shape up.  Having more choices along with using up time to perform missions has made it a lot more interesting.  Unfortunately, I'm not feeling the new combat at all.  To me it feels really slow paced and I don't feel like I'm making any tactical decisions.  I see that other people are enjoying it though, so maybe it's just me. 

Offline Professor Paul1290

  • Sr. Member Mark II
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
If debris slowing down ships is going away, then I think perhaps debris blocking weapon fire could be emphasized more while still fitting the new combat.

If it's not going to slow the ship down directly anymore than it can be more plentiful and I suppose more durable to give the battlefield more "terrain" and stuff to take cover behind.

I think debris could be made significantly more durable without seeming too strange. It's a heck of a lot easier to shoot a ship to make it not-ship than it is to shoot debris to make it not-debris.

Offline doctorfrog

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 589
Hi guys, this morning I woke up with several ideas that I want to share with you.

I think combat would be more interesting if weapons of your ship have a limited fire-arc. This way you have to manouver more in order to put enemy ships inside your firing range, increasing the "tactical positioning" part of combat.

If you go this way, then I see other two changes needed: first you could increase turning radius for your ships, basically making your ship turning slower, in order to add complexity to the positioning part. I think this is needed because you have limited firing arc and ability to almost immediately turn your ship will make the limitation of arcs easily overrideable.

Further, since with limited fire arcs and different ranges, you could be forced to fire weapons that are not optimal against the type of hull used by enemy ship. In that case I think that the -85% of damages received by enemy ship is a too high value - maybe a -50% or -33% would be more appropriate in this scenario.

I think it could integrate well with the proposed 4 types of firing, also.

I'm sort of leaning in this direction myself, though I wouldn't expect to see them try this out until the new turn-based paradigm gets some more fine-tuning. But I'm right with you!

Offline Greywolf22

  • Jr. Member Mark II
  • **
  • Posts: 70
Yep I agree with the pan thing myself (was going to open a Mantis request on it, but assumed it might be there already).  I thought I was simply missing something...it definitely would help for planning purposes to be able to pan around the battle field, see which enemies are where so I could plan my moves accordingly (versus headed in the general direction of the dot).

Maybe this is intentional (can't see beyond your ship view points), but it doesn't feel natural to me.

Just my 2 cents.