Author Topic: New version .806 now out! (super duper combat updates!)  (Read 13506 times)

Offline Cyborg

  • Master Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,957
Re: New version .806 now out! (super duper combat updates!)
« Reply #45 on: March 17, 2014, 10:13:13 pm »
Thanks for the detailed reply.  In terms of maintenance... I don't know, I could eat these words, but I don't know that it would be a huge deal more for us as developers.  If this thing takes off, I mean.  If it's bringing in so many extra players that it can pay for itself, then that's where I mean the maintenance would not be an issue.  It's if we got caught in the middle where it sort of took off, but now we have a split playerbase that has tons of demands, that we'd really be up a creek.  And that's never happened before.  *cough*

Incidentally, the combat was originally side view, really relaxed in most senses, and really thoughtful, etc.  Unfortunately, it was thoughtful in the "pondorous" sense, not in the "mentally engaging" sense.  It really didn't work, in the end.

One idea that I have been toying with in the back of my mind is actually being able to build up a roster of mercenary contractors.  Basically these would work like the dispatch missions in FFT.  You'd have to sink resources into them, etc, but you could dispatch them into combat so that you didn't have to go.  That would be one potential form of auto-resolve that is actually more of a game-like thing, rather than just being an interface option.  I was thinking about these for non-combat purposes originally, but I think I've found a much better way of handling that without involving the middle layer of contractors (instead costing you sim-time but not real-time).  But for combat... I don't know, it could be interesting.

While we are talking about this, let's just step back a minute.  Cyborg: If I could wave a magic wand and make some combat that worked exactly the way you wanted, what would that be like?  Would it be abstracted away, like Paradox titles?  Would it be something more hands-off except for occasional tweaks, like with AI War?  Or something else?  One thing that I could add to the combat would be an auto-aim option like we had in Valley, where you basically didn't have to worry about targeting.  But you would need to worry about switching guns, and moving to appropriate locations.  And possibly ability triggering, I don't know.  That sort of thing then undermines the people who do like the more action-oriented stuff, because it seems like a cheat to them, but right now I'm really not trying to nail down anything specific, I'm just kind of mulling pro's and con's of every approach I can think of.

I and a number of people think that the current kind of combat is really fun.  I think that it is likely to sell the game to a substantial portion of people.  However, I think that it is also likely to highly alienate a certain group of more thoughtful players like yourself, and gosh darn it there's no reason that folks like you shouldn't be able to enjoy the solar map parts without the combat getting in the way.  The solar map is sturdy enough for that, I feel.  But there has to be some form of representation of your involvement in combat, or else a lot of this just doesn't make sense.  So that's where we are.  I have the one form of auto-resolve that I started working on but then had to set aside a few days ago to work on other things.  But it's early enough in to that that I'm certainly open to alternative approaches.

Gotta run for the night, but will check back in the morning.  Cheers all!



If you did a side view, that would be something like Smugglers, which I actually like. I enjoy Space Rangers. Master of Orion. FTL. I also like starsector, which is the closest to what you have, although I admit I'm terrible at it. I did not like drox; it was tedious, the action required too much twitch, and I didn't like lawn mowing unexplored spaces. If you went with a paradox approach, that would have been fine, although we all know paradox games have a niche audience. How many people don't know how to play a paradox game, or *can't* play a paradox game because it's too hard to understand? They really shouldn't be a goal for anybody. Congratulations to them on finding their niche audience and the success they have found with it, but that's really hard to do in the independent scene.


And really, there are some traditional games normally thought of as being reflex but can be very thoughtful. You should see me attack a pinball machine, slowly, methodically, and extremely high scores. I'm not the guy that mashes the flippers. I cradle the ball, I go for high traffic, deep area objectives, I will tilt and abuse deep playfields, and I am very very good at it. When it comes time for the reflex shot, I'm going to land it, I know I'm going to land it, and it feels really good when I'm on top of it. Real-life and digital machines.


I guess that's neither here nor there, but maybe that give you insight into the difference between reflexes I enjoy and reflexes I don't.


So what could fix this…


Just putting aside the combat genre for a moment, one of the fixes that you really need are missions that indirectly (perhaps subtly) or directly target the variables of your simulation in ways that the player can understand. For example, if you want to attack the health of the planet, maybe you do a virus delivery mission through a complicated gauntlet. I think that your contract screen needs to disambiguate the connection between the state of the simulation (read as, the variables) and the mission itself.


It also wouldn't hurt to add potluck situations or units you might not be expecting; a mission that could change things in unexpected ways. For example, what if your pirate mission had some ships where if you destroyed one, it might have contained special documents. Or maybe there's a hostage somewhere that you didn't expect. Stuff like that.  The same level of randomness and surprise on the solar map could really spice up your combat. RPG's are not the same genre, but do you remember how nice it was to get an item drop that you were not expecting that might lead you on a quest or change the build of your character? You need the same hook that loot provides, even if it's not loot directly that you're getting.


So aside from the mechanics and the controls, you really need to find ways of keeping your combat fresh and exciting.


Now putting the genre back in perspective, if I could order my mercenaries to go do my dirty work, that might be a different game, but I would certainly do it. And I would like it. I also wouldn't mind a visual novel probability style where you have different options with probabilities of different results, and you have to live with it. I would choose that over this, also, while still expecting surprises and situations to come up.


I would even choose a galactic space battles style over this, and if anyone knows my comments on that, they may be surprised, but if you had tried something like that with the chance to give some commands during the battle, that would've been fine.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2014, 10:16:50 pm by Cyborg »
Kahuna strategy guide:
http://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php/topic,13369.0.html

Suggestions, bugs? Don't be lazy, give back:
http://www.arcengames.com/mantisbt/

Planetcracker. Believe it.

The stigma of hunger. http://wayw.re/Vi12BK

Offline madcow

  • Hero Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,153
Re: New version .806 now out! (super duper combat updates!)
« Reply #46 on: March 17, 2014, 11:28:00 pm »
Oh yeah, I expect it'll be awhile before I get in, I'm cool with that (and is still my preference!) just hoped to clarify that it doesn't bug me! It was just wanted to see it all in one place ;)

Offline chemical_art

  • Core Member Mark IV
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,952
  • Fabulous
Re: New version .806 now out! (super duper combat updates!)
« Reply #47 on: March 18, 2014, 12:45:12 am »
The increased "action" in combat is causing me to worry a bit this following the same problem as in AVwW 2. With both intense deep action and strategy you will indeed attract a certain audience who wants both, but also push away those wanting just one. I didn't get to the strategy of AVwW 2 because I didn't like the action for example. Ditta for BD.
To give an idea of the gulf of expectations, when you mentioned adding auto aim my mental jaw dropped. I figured it was already done. This was billed a strategy game, not a twitch one, is it not? So there is a brick wall right there. I was actually going to ask for an option fo the guns to auto-decide the best gun based on selected target to reduce micro, but then you mention worrying about adding it as being unfair for action players, and its already clear in one post just how vastly different my hopes as a not (yet) alpha player and the current reality. I will not be the only one would be very unpleasantly surprised at the heavy action straddling the deep strategy. It will cut the other way too, I'm sure some of those action ship games will find the strategy simply too much work between dealing with fights. You can't appease everyone, and trying to do everything at best makes it all mediocre...which critics will pounce on as a game worth passing on. Gamers don't want mediocrity...they want great.

To be clear, not all combat is action. Like at MOO. That is strategy. SPAZ is action.

Which also makes it counter-intuitive, but I also stand by the worry of fragmentation of both dev time and community with trying to pursue both text based and actual combat. You mention worrying about the extra work about trying to account for things like guns...but if you do not, the player will not have any reason to pursue these upgrades for combat. And thus, the solar map will be "easier" as time / missions / resources that would be spent making actual combat easier are instead devoted to making the federation. You have to account for these things somehow. But that will be a lot of work, and players will always game the system the best they can.  You are opening up a whole new can of worms. Will it really pay off. Especially, as someone said, they first try the demo, see one model or another, hate it, and run before trying the other? It WILL happen, to both reviewers and players just taking a quick browse as part of the very many other games out there.


Someone once said there is identity crisis going on, and I agree. Is this a great strategy game, or (twitch) action game? The record on trying to be both equally rather then internally accepting one as superior/more focused is poor in my experience. You are not just fighting dev resources, but competing player bases.
Life is short. Have fun.

Offline Misery

  • Arcen Volunteer
  • Core Member Mark V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,109
Re: New version .806 now out! (super duper combat updates!)
« Reply #48 on: March 18, 2014, 01:05:16 am »

And really, there are some traditional games normally thought of as being reflex but can be very thoughtful. You should see me attack a pinball machine, slowly, methodically, and extremely high scores. I'm not the guy that mashes the flippers. I cradle the ball, I go for high traffic, deep area objectives, I will tilt and abuse deep playfields, and I am very very good at it. When it comes time for the reflex shot, I'm going to land it, I know I'm going to land it, and it feels really good when I'm on top of it. Real-life and digital machines.


This is one thing I wanted to focus on here a bit.... the odd idea that simply because something is a "twitch" game, that it's not "thoughtful".  I dont think that's true for a minute.

Even something like a pure shmup, one of the ones with 10 gazillion bullets.... something like that is only mindless twitch play at the lowest levels. It changes alot as you go further on.... if you "just shoot everything", chances are you'll A: die, or B: die faster. 

Something like this, for example:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75MXLijhy_8    That's gonna look like total chaos to those unfamiliar with the genre.   It is though alot like the pinball games you mention (and I say this as a fan of pinball in general myself, I tend to love complicated games that are played for score) in that you cant just go in and randomly flail and expect to get anywhere.   Oh, you can have some simple fun at lower levels by doing that, but if you wanna score big, it's just not that simple.  With something like that one, I know every nuance of the scoring system (and scoring systems in these tend to be complex), I know how the level is going to work, I know how to apply those scoring techniques based on the situations that the level creates, I know when to switch modes and when not to, and all sorts of other small things that go together.  And there's ALOT to it.  And like pinball, you must apply all of these various techniques and tricks and proper actions without screwing up and getting a game-over, as your scoring run stops right there if you do.   

And with Last Federation here, it seems to me that this sort of idea is exactly what they're going for.... you've got this twitchy sort of gameplay, but when you get into it you find that it's really not quite that simple.  You cant just run around blasting at random.  You have to know your weapons and your abilities, you have to know the enemy, you have to be able to read a situation and decide on the proper course of action based on what's going on and what you have available to you.  And really, there's alot of emphasis on this.... just the fact that you can slow down the game dramatically or even pause it and look at things proves this.  No pure "twitch" game with simple gameplay would allow you to do this, because that sort wants you to just react, rather than really think about it much.  This game is a bit different from that though.   Particularly with the new combat model.

I did a battle just now, a "destroy pirate base" mission on Misery difficulty. Just flying around shooting randomly at this difficulty will get you killed REALLY fast.  Have to be efficient about defeating enemy ships, because the more they spawn, the lower your chances of not exploding.  And destroying a ship with a weapon it's strong against takes bloody forever here.  Drastically increased enemy range also means that you have to be constantly watching the situation, so you can tell where you should and should not maneuver, and when it's a good time to go after an important target.   And there's other funky things too.... the missile turrets, for example.   These actually might be outright broken right now... I'll probably make up a mantis thing for them... their range is absurd, they fire missiles that hit like freight trains, they have a high firing rate, and most of the player flagships CANT dodge them, literally.  The missiles are faster than the player, and they last forever.   A bit of thinking though allowed me to pop the accursed things anyway.   Used the garbage eject ability to create a couple of walls I could dive behind/into, and I could pop out and fire from behind those.  That only stops some of the missiles though... the rest, I'd maneuver so they gather in a heap, and then delete them with the Mass Driver weapon.   When I had a clear shot, switching to the energy weapon allowed me to pop the turrets and get inside the ring.   There was even more to the mission than just that, but that particular part is a great example of the concepts used within this context. 

Hardly mindless twitch gameplay, I think.   And of course the player doesnt need to have crazy reflexes to do this either.... they can always lower the speed if they want, or pause as many times as they want.  Me, I keep the speed up because dodging everything is fun, but.... that's just one way to do it.   Which is something I'm liking about this game in an overall sense, both with the combat and the solar map, there's ALOT of ways to approach things.  There's all sorts of other possible tactics I could have used to break through those turret rings.... that was just one of them, based on my current equipment.

All in all, I think there's alot more to it than merely zooming and firing.


Though, as with previous games like Bionic Dues, I have to wonder how much of this shows up at the default difficulty level.   I havent messed with Normal myself, and am probably not the right one to test that bit, really.   But that was definitely an issue with BD:  The default difficulty of the game didn't require much strategy, so it made the game look too simplistic, hiding the depth that the game as a whole actually had.


The solar map part, at least, doesnt really have this issue.  But I think the combat might.

I've forgotten what else I was going to say, due to a lack of sandwiches.



Offline folexe

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: New version .806 now out! (super duper combat updates!)
« Reply #49 on: March 18, 2014, 01:25:54 am »
I am looking forward to this game very much. It became anxious by v0.806 footage. The combat screen became a twin stick shooter instead of RTS. If it is right, you should study the fun of other twin stick shooter.


1) The play in a gamepad.
The pleasure which avoids an enemy's attack is born by more nearly intuitive operation. If a guided missile also makes an angle of traverse small, makes it high-speed and is made tailing for a definite period of time, the pleasure to avoid will increase.

2) An attack judging is enlarged.
I want Waves and Geometry Wars to teach. The pleasure of a twin stick shooter is not robustness but an attack. Although AVWW2 is so, an attack is too small, and is hit the mark and irritated by an enemy. Mini cancer will become easy to shoot down a small aircraft, if it is made into 3Way. A powerful attack lengthens a short range, a big attack judging, and a reload time. A very powerful attack is delivered a charge shot and gives a damage in the attack range at the time of a hit. Although proper use of arms is important, it is not a good hand of mouse operation. You should make judgment, such as distance with an enemy, and enemy's kind.

3) Shields weakly and gathers recovery speed.
The present shield is too hard and there is no feeling of tension by fear of death. If many attacks are received at once and a shield will be destroyed, the importance which avoids an enemy's attack will increase. The pleasure which chooses capture whether for it to destroy and to secede only from an objective or to persuade one by one from an end and to repeat hit and away increases. It destroys, and secedes only from an objective, or persuades one by one from an end, and repeats hit and away. The pleasure which chooses the said battle method increases.

4) The lapsed time in a combat screen is added to the time of a star system screen.
You have to give punishment to the player which takes too prudent a plan. Otherwise, the invigoration of a repeated game is spoiled in unnecessary hit and away. The objective which escapes is defeated. Restriction is prepared at strategy time. Although those restrictions are also important, it should be made conscious of selection of whether BP is taken or to take time, and a player should be made to study an efficient play. The time which passed in the battle will be shown by displaying the event which occurred by the star system on a combat screen.

5) According to an enemy's military power expansion, you should also upgrade a self-opportunity.
The fun of a game is produced by power balance of an ally with an enemy. It is tedious if too strong from the beginning. How to use BP is used for the power balance of each country, or it uses for extension of a self-opportunity, or should enable it to choose. Is he strengthened, or do you side strongly on a combat screen, or weaken an enemy? The width of how to play increases. The numerical value or defense power of offensive strength should not be improved, and strengthening of a self-opportunity should also be strengthened with the variation that a defense screen, a chaff and the powerful gun of a bullet purchase system, and 3Way turn into 5Way. Only by a numerical value improving, neither appearance nor capture has becoming better for the change, and gets bored immediately.

6) They are drops of peculiar arms in a combat screen.
You should prepare unexpected joy also during a battle. Otherwise, it is working, and becomes pain and it comes to be thought that the automatic battle was better. Since the half of a game is the battle performed by a player focusing, it must continue giving joy corresponding to it. When peculiar arms are acquired, they are used, and they are lost after the end of a battle. Equipment which can be used permanently. You should prepare these two kinds. You have to make it have to collect the peculiar arms dropped during a battle by touching by a self-opportunity. There is joy just because there is a risk for obtaining arms.


A combat screen looks boring although the star system screen seems to be very interesting. A combat screen will become more interesting, if the invigoration and difficulty of a combat screen are raised, an unnecessary prudent policy is punished and cooperation of a combat screen and a star system screen is strengthened more.

This game is due to be introduced with Japanese web radio. I am looking forward to the further strengthening of the battle screen.

Offline Misery

  • Arcen Volunteer
  • Core Member Mark V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,109
Re: New version .806 now out! (super duper combat updates!)
« Reply #50 on: March 18, 2014, 01:38:22 am »
The increased "action" in combat is causing me to worry a bit this following the same problem as in AVwW 2. With both intense deep action and strategy you will indeed attract a certain audience who wants both, but also push away those wanting just one. I didn't get to the strategy of AVwW 2 because I didn't like the action for example. Ditta for BD.
To give an idea of the gulf of expectations, when you mentioned adding auto aim my mental jaw dropped. I figured it was already done. This was billed a strategy game, not a twitch one, is it not? So there is a brick wall right there. I was actually going to ask for an option fo the guns to auto-decide the best gun based on selected target to reduce micro, but then you mention worrying about adding it as being unfair for action players, and its already clear in one post just how vastly different my hopes as a not (yet) alpha player and the current reality. I will not be the only one would be very unpleasantly surprised at the heavy action straddling the deep strategy. It will cut the other way too, I'm sure some of those action ship games will find the strategy simply too much work between dealing with fights. You can't appease everyone, and trying to do everything at best makes it all mediocre...which critics will pounce on as a game worth passing on. Gamers don't want mediocrity...they want great.

To be clear, not all combat is action. Like at MOO. That is strategy. SPAZ is action.

Which also makes it counter-intuitive, but I also stand by the worry of fragmentation of both dev time and community with trying to pursue both text based and actual combat. You mention worrying about the extra work about trying to account for things like guns...but if you do not, the player will not have any reason to pursue these upgrades for combat. And thus, the solar map will be "easier" as time / missions / resources that would be spent making actual combat easier are instead devoted to making the federation. You have to account for these things somehow. But that will be a lot of work, and players will always game the system the best they can.  You are opening up a whole new can of worms. Will it really pay off. Especially, as someone said, they first try the demo, see one model or another, hate it, and run before trying the other? It WILL happen, to both reviewers and players just taking a quick browse as part of the very many other games out there.


Someone once said there is identity crisis going on, and I agree. Is this a great strategy game, or (twitch) action game? The record on trying to be both equally rather then internally accepting one as superior/more focused is poor in my experience. You are not just fighting dev resources, but competing player bases.


I think this is exactly why they're adding the "no battle" mode.  And why it's such a good idea.   One way or another, the solar map is the true focus of this game.... everything else, including the combat, revolves around it. The combat exists for the sole reason of accomplishing goals that affect the solar map (and also to break up the gameplay). Just like how with Bionic Dues, the missions and the battles within them were the focus; the map screen added a meta that strung them together, and dealing with the equipment gave you something to do that had complexity of it's own, but both were still side bits revolving around the combat.  The second Valley Without Wind is similar, though the parts are a bit more equalized in that one, which was probably part of the problem with that game; neither side had more focus than the other.  That issue is not present in this one.

I dont think for a moment that the strategic depth of the solar map is going to be lessened by the existence of the action part.

One way or another, the options to have the combat.... or to not have it.... means that the game can attract a wider variety of players.  Something like the Total War series was very, very good at this concept.  You had the turn-based strategy.... but then you also got to take part in the battles DIRECTLY, in an RTS fashion.  Both types of players could get something out of the game, and there are ways of essentially skipping the RTS bit if you dont like it.  Which is good, because the two sides of the game are VERY different from one another.   Yet you dont NEED the RTS bit there for the turn-based part to work.... same with this game.



Quote
3) Shields weakly and gathers recovery speed.
The present shield is too hard and there is no feeling of tension by fear of death. If many attacks are received at once and a shield will be destroyed, the importance which avoids an enemy's attack will increase. The pleasure which chooses capture whether for it to destroy and to secede only from an objective or to persuade one by one from an end and to repeat hit and away increases. It destroys, and secedes only from an objective, or persuades one by one from an end, and repeats hit and away. The pleasure which chooses the said battle method increases.

Just increase the difficulty.... this bit changes.  You wont be able to rely on your shield nearly as much and you'll have to think things out alot more.

That being said, there's still balancing issues that'll get worked out over time.

Offline chemical_art

  • Core Member Mark IV
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,952
  • Fabulous
Re: New version .806 now out! (super duper combat updates!)
« Reply #51 on: March 18, 2014, 02:00:21 am »


I think this is exactly why they're adding the "no battle" mode.  And why it's such a good idea.   One way or another, the solar map is the true focus of this game.... everything else, including the combat, revolves around it. The combat exists for the sole reason of accomplishing goals that affect the solar map (and also to break up the gameplay). Just like how with Bionic Dues, the missions and the battles within them were the focus; the map screen added a meta that strung them together, and dealing with the equipment gave you something to do that had complexity of it's own, but both were still side bits revolving around the combat.  The second Valley Without Wind is similar, though the parts are a bit more equalized in that one, which was probably part of the problem with that game; neither side had more focus than the other.  That issue is not present in this one.

I dont think for a moment that the strategic depth of the solar map is going to be lessened by the existence of the action part.

One way or another, the options to have the combat.... or to not have it.... means that the game can attract a wider variety of players.  Something like the Total War series was very, very good at this concept.  You had the turn-based strategy.... but then you also got to take part in the battles DIRECTLY, in an RTS fashion.  Both types of players could get something out of the game, and there are ways of essentially skipping the RTS bit if you dont like it.  Which is good, because the two sides of the game are VERY different from one another.   Yet you dont NEED the RTS bit there for the turn-based part to work.... same with this game.

You still haven't addressed the fact that with no combat, the time devoted on the solar screen toward combat is lost, so you have to adapt the whole solar screen in response to this. The addressing of this causes a "branch" from the solar screen with combat, and the result is a fracturing of two different communities. Those with it, those with out. It simply is. If you don't adjust the solar screen in response to the no combat, suddenly the screen is easier as you can ignore any actions that aid combat. If you compensate the solar screen...then its a new game with new rules, etc. I don't really see a way around this fact.

To say battles is secondary to the solar screen doesn't address this.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2014, 02:01:52 am by chemical_art »
Life is short. Have fun.

Offline Misery

  • Arcen Volunteer
  • Core Member Mark V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,109
Re: New version .806 now out! (super duper combat updates!)
« Reply #52 on: March 18, 2014, 02:43:24 am »


I think this is exactly why they're adding the "no battle" mode.  And why it's such a good idea.   One way or another, the solar map is the true focus of this game.... everything else, including the combat, revolves around it. The combat exists for the sole reason of accomplishing goals that affect the solar map (and also to break up the gameplay). Just like how with Bionic Dues, the missions and the battles within them were the focus; the map screen added a meta that strung them together, and dealing with the equipment gave you something to do that had complexity of it's own, but both were still side bits revolving around the combat.  The second Valley Without Wind is similar, though the parts are a bit more equalized in that one, which was probably part of the problem with that game; neither side had more focus than the other.  That issue is not present in this one.

I dont think for a moment that the strategic depth of the solar map is going to be lessened by the existence of the action part.

One way or another, the options to have the combat.... or to not have it.... means that the game can attract a wider variety of players.  Something like the Total War series was very, very good at this concept.  You had the turn-based strategy.... but then you also got to take part in the battles DIRECTLY, in an RTS fashion.  Both types of players could get something out of the game, and there are ways of essentially skipping the RTS bit if you dont like it.  Which is good, because the two sides of the game are VERY different from one another.   Yet you dont NEED the RTS bit there for the turn-based part to work.... same with this game.

You still haven't addressed the fact that with no combat, the time devoted on the solar screen toward combat is lost, so you have to adapt the whole solar screen in response to this. The addressing of this causes a "branch" from the solar screen with combat, and the result is a fracturing of two different communities. Those with it, those with out. It simply is. If you don't adjust the solar screen in response to the no combat, suddenly the screen is easier as you can ignore any actions that aid combat. If you compensate the solar screen...then its a new game with new rules, etc. I don't really see a way around this fact.

To say battles is secondary to the solar screen doesn't address this.


If time on the solar map even passes during combat, I've never seen or noticed it.  Even despite the often very long battles I tend to have, being on the highest difficulty.

Even if it did.... I'm thinking it'd be a simple matter to simply have the solar map stuff simulate a bit and then "jump" you forward to the point at which the battle concludes.  Hell, Chris had already mentioned the idea of doing this with that "mercenary mission" idea that he had.

In other words.... not an issue.


....and heck, I'm not even sure that having time pass during combat makes sense.  Isnt time on the solar map supposed to be basically an accelerated rate?  The game does count "years", after all.... chances are, considering that, nothing significant can happen in the tiny space of time that a single battle lasting a few minutes of game time, as opposed to the HUGE amount of time that passes quickly on the solar map.

Offline chemical_art

  • Core Member Mark IV
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,952
  • Fabulous
Re: New version .806 now out! (super duper combat updates!)
« Reply #53 on: March 18, 2014, 03:24:03 am »


If time on the solar map even passes during combat, I've never seen or noticed it.  Even despite the often very long battles I tend to have, being on the highest difficulty.

Even if it did.... I'm thinking it'd be a simple matter to simply have the solar map stuff simulate a bit and then "jump" you forward to the point at which the battle concludes.  Hell, Chris had already mentioned the idea of doing this with that "mercenary mission" idea that he had.

In other words.... not an issue.


....and heck, I'm not even sure that having time pass during combat makes sense.  Isnt time on the solar map supposed to be basically an accelerated rate?  The game does count "years", after all.... chances are, considering that, nothing significant can happen in the tiny space of time that a single battle lasting a few minutes of game time, as opposed to the HUGE amount of time that passes quickly on the solar map.

[The problems of never having played alpha]

Do you...ever spend any <resource> making your ship stronger? Maintaining your fleet? Hiring allies to help you? Fend off enemy attacks on yourself?

If you remove combat, these issues become non-existent, because you just...don't need to do it. So what makes up the vacuum of not using these resources? Using them on the solar map. Which means no combat is easier then any combat at all. So it is a different game.
Life is short. Have fun.

Offline Misery

  • Arcen Volunteer
  • Core Member Mark V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,109
Re: New version .806 now out! (super duper combat updates!)
« Reply #54 on: March 18, 2014, 04:11:56 am »


If time on the solar map even passes during combat, I've never seen or noticed it.  Even despite the often very long battles I tend to have, being on the highest difficulty.

Even if it did.... I'm thinking it'd be a simple matter to simply have the solar map stuff simulate a bit and then "jump" you forward to the point at which the battle concludes.  Hell, Chris had already mentioned the idea of doing this with that "mercenary mission" idea that he had.

In other words.... not an issue.


....and heck, I'm not even sure that having time pass during combat makes sense.  Isnt time on the solar map supposed to be basically an accelerated rate?  The game does count "years", after all.... chances are, considering that, nothing significant can happen in the tiny space of time that a single battle lasting a few minutes of game time, as opposed to the HUGE amount of time that passes quickly on the solar map.

[The problems of never having played alpha]

Do you...ever spend any <resource> making your ship stronger? Maintaining your fleet? Hiring allies to help you? Fend off enemy attacks on yourself?

If you remove combat, these issues become non-existent, because you just...don't need to do it. So what makes up the vacuum of not using these resources? Using them on the solar map. Which means no combat is easier then any combat at all. So it is a different game.

You spend exactly 100 BP to have your ship fixed, by the mercenary base (same place where you can also do things like buying bribe items, and other stuff).  Restores hull to 100%.

Though, some actions will also have the race you're helping give you a free repair as a bonus.

As for upgrades, you either find them in very specific mission types (asteroid/ice field missions where the point is "search for lost Hydral technology".  You CAN buy these same things at the mercenary base, but they cost a rather silly amount (5000 BP). 

Obviously I dont know exactly what Chris has in mind, but I'm going to take a wild guess and say he's probably already thought of this issue.  Were it me, I'd have these things changing up ship stats that the simulator uses when it simulates the combat for you.  Like how alot of turn-based games that use equipment work.  That'd be the most obvious choice, anyway.

As far as I know though, those are pretty much the only two actions you can take that have a direct impact on your ship at all, as resources go.... I've not seen any others, out of the gazillions of possible things that are already implemented in the solar map.  And I wont be surprised if the cost on that second one changes, with BP being rebalanced a bit.  Not sure.

Technically, as I understand it, what he's implementing isnt "no combat at all", it's merely the game simulating the combat for you, and then giving you the results.  You still get your hull damaged, or come out of that specific mission type with new tech to use.   What'll be interesting to see is HOW it does it.  I'm thinking it'll be a good bit more creative than my idea!

Now, as for DURING actual combat, there are no resources to spend.  Your abilities have limited uses per-battle, but they always start at full each time.   There's no ammo or anything to worry about... only hull integrity.  Definitely a good thing, having to manage ammo or something like that would be a bit of an unnecessary hassle.  And ability/weapon equipping is simply done at the mercenary base/

Offline Histidine

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 581
Re: New version .806 now out! (super duper combat updates!)
« Reply #55 on: March 18, 2014, 09:33:37 am »
One little thing I find a bit... strange, for lack of a better word (though not necessarily wrong) is how hard the counters are. Compare minigun vs. turret or Pirate Raven to energy blaster against the same targets.

Depending on what you're shooting at, the multipliers can be 0.15x with one weapon and 3x with another - a 20-fold difference.

Offline keith.lamothe

  • Arcen Games Staff
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,505
Re: New version .806 now out! (super duper combat updates!)
« Reply #56 on: March 18, 2014, 10:05:28 am »
To answer a question: no solar map time passes during combat.

On the more general issue, a few thoughts:


AVWW1 was primarily an action/platformer game.  Though the platformer aspect wasn't added until about halfway through pre-alpha went it went from topdown to side-view.  But even before that, primarily an action game.  The strategic layer was added to give context in a unique way, so that the game would deliver an experience you can't get anywhere else.  Ultimately the strategic portion went through several revisions and guttings (in order to stop getting in the way of the action game, in part) and didn't really end as a coherent "game" (the "loops" just weren't "closed", if you follow my meaning), just more of a contextual layer for the primary action experience.  Which was just fine for a lot of people, from the number I've seen say they preferred AVWW1 to Valley2.

Valley2 was more of a hybrid, with the design emphasis on a strategic layer with teeth (big, nasty, pointy ones, in fact).  But it was still primarily an action experience set in a strategy-game context.  Though there having those strategic teeth has actually been a damper for some folks who really were way more interested in the action.

In both cases the addition of the strategy layer was intended to avoid it being "just another platformer" (or something not far off).  And I think that, as far as it went, that goal was met.  They're unique games with their own niches, if not as large ones as we'd been hoping.


TLF, however, is primarily a strategic game.  And its strategy layer is already very unique.  There's not really a "just another (insert genre here)" comparison that would be levelled against it, except perhaps "just another 4X space game" but that wouldn't survive even the most cursory inspection of the game due to the scope of the game-world and the nature of the player's agency.

So why does it even need a layer in a different genre?

What goal is achieved?  I see some, mainly in adding appeal for those who like action.  But even if we can deliver pinball-action as opposed to bullet-hell-action (and I think either is achievable)... what does that get us?

Sure, the Total War series is enriched by the combination it contains, but they had a great deal more resources to find and polish those experiences.
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 Mick

  • Hero Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 911
Re: New version .806 now out! (super duper combat updates!)
« Reply #57 on: March 18, 2014, 10:07:39 am »
Forgive me if I'm way off since I am not currently in the alpha.

What does the weapon switching really provide? It doesn't sound like a very deep choice to match the weapon type against the target. It sounds like something you simply learn once, and then go through the motions in every combat. Here are the paper ships, time to bust out the scissors. Here are the scissor ships, time to bust out the rock.

I mean, I understand that there was a problem in bringing only one weapon type, so I'm not saying it makes sense to go back to that, but I'm wondering what benefit this whole mechanic provides at all?

Offline chemical_art

  • Core Member Mark IV
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,952
  • Fabulous
Re: New version .806 now out! (super duper combat updates!)
« Reply #58 on: March 18, 2014, 10:21:20 am »
Forgive me if I'm way off since I am not currently in the alpha.

What does the weapon switching really provide? It doesn't sound like a very deep choice to match the weapon type against the target. It sounds like something you simply learn once, and then go through the motions in every combat. Here are the paper ships, time to bust out the scissors. Here are the scissor ships, time to bust out the rock.

I mean, I understand that there was a problem in bringing only one weapon type, so I'm not saying it makes sense to go back to that, but I'm wondering what benefit this whole mechanic provides at all?

Agreed. I actually think one gun more sense for it was an element.
 of strategy for what the players ship strengths and weaknesses would be in a given battle. The effect  i imagine is there somewhat with three bit the whole weakness part especially is diluted and replace with micro
Life is short. Have fun.

Offline nas1m

  • Master Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,268
Re: New version .806 now out! (super duper combat updates!)
« Reply #59 on: March 18, 2014, 10:21:32 am »
Forgive me if I'm way off since I am not currently in the alpha.

What does the weapon switching really provide? It doesn't sound like a very deep choice to match the weapon type against the target. It sounds like something you simply learn once, and then go through the motions in every combat. Here are the paper ships, time to bust out the scissors. Here are the scissor ships, time to bust out the rock.

I mean, I understand that there was a problem in bringing only one weapon type, so I'm not saying it makes sense to go back to that, but I'm wondering what benefit this whole mechanic provides at all?
From what I understood, this was a further step along the way to give the player "more" to do during the action sequences, i.e. the shift that started with providing movement via WASD and a direct fire ability...
Craving some more color and variety in your next Bionic run? Grab a boost and a couple of custom floors!