Combat .. uhm.. Concerns? From irc

[Misery]

The number of ships you run into when attacking an outpost's or planet's defender is drawn from the ships they actually have. If you kill a number of enemy flagships and then withdraw without completing the attack, they still lose those ships, those ships don't magically come back to life. That goes for friendlies too.
You can actually whittle a force down by going in, killing a few, withdrawing in a repeated hit-and-run over and over again.
I'm actually somewhat surprised nobody has called that out as an exploit yet!

It isn't exploit for a number of reasons.

First of all, withdrawing from combat (for me) takes an extra 5 months on the solar map. Most of my battles are less then 2 months. So the extra withdraw time more then doubles the time the total mission takes.

Secondly, as pointed out elsewhere, races can pump out ships ridiculously fast. Even without the extra time from withdrawing, you *barely* make a dent in mid game to the total ship counts, and some races like acutians you can't make a dent at any stage of the game. If you withdraw, you never will whittle them down (at least in my game)

For these reasons, it is still best to just complete the mission and get out. You wage tactical warfare, not strategic (attrition) warfare aside from the very early game.

I actually would say it is an exploit. There are times when the race in question simply isn't getting ships out all that fast, and battles take up little time on the solar map.

I've already had this one happen a couple of times.  It's not too hard to do.

[Misery]

Imo the combat currently suffers from a clear case of "Bullet Hell" ;P And this is a HUGE problem when a single hit can take down a shield from 100% to 10% as is very possible in late game. And unlike the races, our own ship does not increase in power nor CAN it increase in power in the same speed as other races. We have no way to let research happen "in the background" just for us. And so any focus on research is going to involve us not doing anything and thus constantly losing even more power advantages.

I don't know whether Arcen would consider a complete redo of combat though. The combat right now is really imo the worst thing about the game. I am honestly intrigued by the simulation, and I would probably love this game way more if we could somehow build up our own "proxy" empire. Ie, we don't just start with a ship from 1 race, but an entire colony worth of 1 race. That we can expand, build up, and do things with. Also it would allow us to field support fleets and do research. It would allow us to subvert the original race and have a use for prisoners.

I know x4000 said that this turn based gameplay was what he had in mind from the start. But fact is, that the combat has nearly 0 tactical elements. And this is partially because the enemies are stupid and partially because when the player faces 30+ cap ships, and as thus nearly 100 enemies, this becomes a SHMUP more than a tactical strategy game.

###

Alternatively, give us a proper equipment system for our flag-ship with loot like Bionic Dues and allow us to recruit crew and elites (npc characters). Crew and Elites could level up over time, and do research on the flagships own research bay. Basically, lots of things could be done to make combat something that has a reason. (Currently, I honestly do not do missions with combat anymore after a certain level of AI growth)

Your ship can power up over the course of the game.  There is an entire category of techs designed to ONLY do this.  If you get too far behind as the game goes on, then yeah, you're in trouble.  It's a major mechanic, actually, but one that wasn't added until late in the development cycle.  You NEED these techs.  Grab them over the course of the game, and you can keep up with your enemies.

Most of these techs are listed in the lower half of the tech listing.... There's ALOT of them.  They start to unlock a few years into the game.  The ones with the green "UNI" listed cannot be researched or used by any of the races, only by you.

Also, the battles become ALOT more tactical when you CANNOT kite things. Professor Paul wrote up a detailed set of very good suggestions that should be implemented which can remove entirely the ability to kite things as a whole, which I support, because while I do not kite things, I know full well just how dull and utterly mindless it is to do so.

[chemical_art]

I actually would say it is an exploit. There are times when the race in question simply isn't getting ships out all that fast, and battles take up little time on the solar map.

I've already had this one happen a couple of times.  It's not too hard to do.

Maybe for peaceful races you can shut them down, but by year 5 the acutians already can make more ships then you can possibly destroy, and down the road other races could as well due to ship production bonuses.

And I still don't see how it is an exploit if you withdraw from combat after whittling down ships. The game already gives an option to do just that, for the very reasons given. Even if it is a possible to completely, I don't see the problem in devoting most of player influence over time in shutting down relations and power for one race when many others are doing their own thing. It isn't "free" time, it is time spent not getting resources (aside from credits) or influence (and actually this method will quickly go to the point of no return for said race). And the result of it being shut down a race is overcome by a race you want it too...isn't that strategy?

[Professor Paul1290]

To be clear, I personally don't think it is an exploit, I was just surprised nobody had called it out as such as it seemed like the sort of thing that would have been brought up as one at some point. 

[BobTheJanitor]

The problem here is that you're playing a specific individual.
Most games that I've played in recent memory, where you are a specific individual, if you die...well, that's it.

Welcome to the Game Over screen.

Batman is trying to wrangle control of Gotham, but if he dies, his story is still over. If your ship explodes, it's not like these people are just gonna say "Oh, here's another ship for you to maybe kill us with. Ta!"
The game-ending is a consequence of the particular method of player agency.
The Civ5 example doesn't work because you're not playing as a specific individual, but an entire nation. That is not so here.

Perhaps there should be something else available to avoid the dreaded game over, but if you die...well you should still die. Maybe if you get close enough Withdrawal can be accelerated?

See Drox Operative for a game wherein you play a single individual and dying doesn't result in a game over but just in a minor setback. Because gameplay trumps realism, and it makes more sense to a player that you continue going after failing a minor mission in a big strategy game, than it does to get a game over screen.

[eRe4s3r]

Imo the combat currently suffers from a clear case of "Bullet Hell" ;P And this is a HUGE problem when a single hit can take down a shield from 100% to 10% as is very possible in late game. And unlike the races, our own ship does not increase in power nor CAN it increase in power in the same speed as other races. We have no way to let research happen "in the background" just for us. And so any focus on research is going to involve us not doing anything and thus constantly losing even more power advantages.

I don't know whether Arcen would consider a complete redo of combat though. The combat right now is really imo the worst thing about the game. I am honestly intrigued by the simulation, and I would probably love this game way more if we could somehow build up our own "proxy" empire. Ie, we don't just start with a ship from 1 race, but an entire colony worth of 1 race. That we can expand, build up, and do things with. Also it would allow us to field support fleets and do research. It would allow us to subvert the original race and have a use for prisoners.

I know x4000 said that this turn based gameplay was what he had in mind from the start. But fact is, that the combat has nearly 0 tactical elements. And this is partially because the enemies are stupid and partially because when the player faces 30+ cap ships, and as thus nearly 100 enemies, this becomes a SHMUP more than a tactical strategy game.

###

Alternatively, give us a proper equipment system for our flag-ship with loot like Bionic Dues and allow us to recruit crew and elites (npc characters). Crew and Elites could level up over time, and do research on the flagships own research bay. Basically, lots of things could be done to make combat something that has a reason. (Currently, I honestly do not do missions with combat anymore after a certain level of AI growth)

Your ship can power up over the course of the game.  There is an entire category of techs designed to ONLY do this.  If you get too far behind as the game goes on, then yeah, you're in trouble.  It's a major mechanic, actually, but one that wasn't added until late in the development cycle.  You NEED these techs.  Grab them over the course of the game, and you can keep up with your enemies.

Most of these techs are listed in the lower half of the tech listing.... There's ALOT of them.  They start to unlock a few years into the game.  The ones with the green "UNI" listed cannot be researched or used by any of the races, only by you.

Maybe I was just a quick player, but in my first winning game UNI technologies were not available.... like not a single one of em. But I also was not even aware of them... was way too busy subverting race relations to start a war with the 1 last race that really did not want to join my federation ;P

If it weren't for certain missions with huge credit bonus I'd avoid combat altogether. Maybe with kiting fixes the combat could become better... but I fear fixing kiting will just increase the amount of save scumming that's needed ;p

And yes, dieing in battle should not result in game-over, because.... see the sentence before this one.

[zespri]

Because having to save scum as part of an intended design philosophy is bad design? If the expected behavior is for the player to screw up, reload, screw up, reload, screw up, reload then what is the point of even having a failure state at all? If failure was a minor setback, like wasted repair time or loss of some credits or whatever, people would take the hit and keep on playing. But since failure literally means the end of everything, of course people are going to save scum. But they shouldn't have to. If reloading the last save is a foregone conclusion, the player shouldn't be put in that state. (Not with all games obviously, don't anyone come at me with comparisons to doom 3. This isn't an arcade shooter quarter-muncher but it's using the mechanics of one, for no reason that I can fathom.)

I don't understand why you see save scumming as something undesirable. Would it be better for you if when you die you would be "returned to a checkpoint" which is essentialy gives the same result but does not hurt your feelings with "game over"?

Also it is not clear how doom and combat in tlf are different for the purpose of this conversation. In both cases you have a battle and in both cases you can end up loosing. What's wrong with trying that again? Or rewinding and trying another path/approach?

I, personally do NOT want a set back, major or minor if I happened to make subpar performance. I want a chance to try again. And that's exactly what the game lets me do.

I totally do not get the whole "permanent death" cult which is common among classic roguelike followers, but thankfully we are not talking about any of those games. We are talking about tlf. So we can skip this line of argument alltogether.

[GC13]

I think the problem people see with dying in combat being something you need to reload from is that the game isn't about the combat, yet it's something you'll probably have to do a lot of during the game. Nobody's going to suggest that you need to ironman Half-Life 2, because it's a shooter: dying is expected, and reloading is the expected consequence. The Last Federation bills itself as a strategy game though, and that's the really interesting part of it. The combat is a nice change of pace, breaking up lengthy periods of manipulation nicely, but it's not the main draw. If withdrawal had no penalty beyond you not accomplishing your goal, and "death" had its consequence of you taking five months to repair your ship, I think that would be much more appropriate to the kind of game TLF seems to want to be.

[Misery]

I actually would say it is an exploit. There are times when the race in question simply isn't getting ships out all that fast, and battles take up little time on the solar map.

I've already had this one happen a couple of times.  It's not too hard to do.

Maybe for peaceful races you can shut them down, but by year 5 the acutians already can make more ships then you can possibly destroy, and down the road other races could as well due to ship production bonuses.

And I still don't see how it is an exploit if you withdraw from combat after whittling down ships. The game already gives an option to do just that, for the very reasons given. Even if it is a possible to completely, I don't see the problem in devoting most of player influence over time in shutting down relations and power for one race when many others are doing their own thing. It isn't "free" time, it is time spent not getting resources (aside from credits) or influence (and actually this method will quickly go to the point of no return for said race). And the result of it being shut down a race is overcome by a race you want it too...isn't that strategy?

Yeah, the Acutians can produce them fast.... but in my experience, not fast enough.  I can still utterly wreck their military via this. And it's not ONLY that;  a player using this concept can combine it with other things that can slow or weaken the race in question and their ability to produce units. 

The reason it's an exploit is because it can be done in a way as to where it's so stupidly easy that you can do it in your sleep.  Even if their military force is large in numbers, I can still defeat the ENTIRE THING by simply popping in, killing 3 or 4 ships out of the entire battke (AKA, no effort or difficulty involved), and rinse and repeat.  A major military force being defeated by ONE guy managing to force small fights over and over so he can just smack a couple of them around and then leave, over and over again, also doesnt even make sense.  This game being the sort that it is, "not making any sense whatsoever" is something it needs to avoid.

And that's IF it is a large battle.  It's possible to get the AI locked into repeated fights where it's not you popping 2 or 3 ships out of a group, instead it's that 2 or 3 ships ARE the entire group. It gets even more easy.

Beyond that though, there's another bit involved, which is that it's also a form of grinding.... another thing this game needs to avoid.  This is a grand strategy game, not bloody Disgaea.  Strategy, tactics, and careful planning and thinking are supposed to be the ways to accomplish everything.  Instead, something like this can be done at times, and it's like grinding in Disgaea, popping into the same maps VS the same jerks with the same low or non-existent difficulty, and just repeating it until your goal is complete.  It's not a good thing for players to see, and it can definitely lower someone's opinions of the game (this ALWAYS happens for me in most cases, as I see the mere existence of grinding in most any game as a nasty design flaw).

[zespri]

By the way, how to lose in this game if NOT in combat? I mean sooner or later everyone will kill everyone and the only thing that will remain is the federation. No? I have not played enough so I'm not sure how this works...

[eRe4s3r]

By the way, how to lose in this game if NOT in combat? I mean sooner or later everyone will kill everyone and the only thing that will remain is the federation. No? I have not played enough so I'm not sure how this works...

The federation can actually lose to the AFA (Anti Federation Something) ;p But imo only if you severely neglect your federation members. Or you like, only have the weakest join. I don't know how the AFA could ever become a real threat though. Also races do create other alliances without you. But it seems to be a random thing (ie, who happens to trade with who, mainly)

What I saw is that negative events when not countered by you, lead to massive disadvantages for that race. Races not player friendly thus end up stacking negative effects, as they are not able to counter them themselves. That, and of course keeping your federation up-to-date with technologies.

Basically, the strategic gameplay is way, way too easy. And Combat is only there for credits really.

[Mick]

Escape pods are a concept in the game already, so it would make thematic sense. Time is pretty much your most precious resource, so I like the idea of losing months or years of game time while you escape from your new captors. It would also make sense to lose a significant amount of credit (perhaps all). If you were managing the situation well, then things maybe won't spiral too out of control and you can work back up. If things were already going to tell, you will find yourself in a situation that is much worse. I'd like that a lot more than just "crap I died, reload."

[Histidine]

Your ship uses its fancy Hydral tech to emergency teleport out of the area. No "why don't ya just shoot him?" upon being captured by the race you're -1000 influence with kind of foolishness (or having to explain where you got a new prototype flagship from).

To fix a related thematic inconsistency, withdraw on smuggling and capture tech/lab (and possibly other mission types) should be non-instantaneous (like it is if you manually choose to withdraw from the battle)  if enemies are close to you, and make it instant in all other cases. This removes an inconsistency in withdraw behaviour, while not forcing the player to sit around for 5 turns when there's already no danger around.
(Then rebalance the smuggle spacefaring tech mission to account for the fact that you can't just tag the drop point for an instant win)

[Elijah]

We could do a triple hull system similar to Monster Hunter or fighting games.




[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]

Green is your ships external armor and if it doesnt go Orange or Red you keep all your Credits. you can regenerate to Max Green.
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]

Orange is Warning and secondary armor. If your hull gets to Orange you lose 33% of your Credits in "repair costs". Can only regenerate to Max Orange
.
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]

Red is Critical, and if your hull gets to red you lose 66% of Credits in Repair Costs. Can only regenerate to Max Red.

If you lose all Red Hull, its Game Over.

I totally agree. I'd love with the credit cost of repairing to add the simple fact that if you lose the ship, you lose all powerups you collected in hydra missions or bought in the black market and then you have to find another ship. This would be very simple and elegant. Maybe also a influence drop with all the macho races ("The wimp hydra got pulverized again") or something like that.

I'd love if the system had a Mount and blade flavour in losing battles. Losing the game and loading an old savegame is the most annoying thing I find in videogames. It really breaks the immersion. I hate that. If I'm dead I'm dead. If you want me to continue just find a way to give a reason for death being not permanent.

[Azurian]

We could do a triple hull system similar to Monster Hunter or fighting games.




[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]

Green is your ships external armor and if it doesnt go Orange or Red you keep all your Credits. you can regenerate to Max Green.
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]

Orange is Warning and secondary armor. If your hull gets to Orange you lose 33% of your Credits in "repair costs". Can only regenerate to Max Orange
.
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]

Red is Critical, and if your hull gets to red you lose 66% of Credits in Repair Costs. Can only regenerate to Max Red.

If you lose all Red Hull, its Game Over.

I totally agree. I'd love with the credit cost of repairing to add the simple fact that if you lose the ship, you lose all powerups you collected in hydra missions or bought in the black market and then you have to find another ship. This would be very simple and elegant. Maybe also a influence drop with all the macho races ("The wimp hydra got pulverized again") or something like that.

I'd love if the system had a Mount and blade flavour in losing battles. Losing the game and loading an old savegame is the most annoying thing I find in videogames. It really breaks the immersion. I hate that. If I'm dead I'm dead. If you want me to continue just find a way to give a reason for death being not permanent.

Especially loose quite a bit of influence with militaristic races. The taunting would be really nice.

I also like the idea of escaping in a squadron, emergency warping out of the battle.

If people want to play with only one health bar, there can be a game option to only have one hull like we do.