New version .812 now out! (Improved TBS Combat Balance, Solar Map Balance, etc)

[x4000]

Chris... you and I spent a LOT of time going over whether or not this should be turn-based or real time, and, I have to say, I think, in the end, you might have been right on the combat needing to be turn-based. But, with everything going on in the meta game, I think if you make it turn based it will feel like a chits-on-hexes war/board game. Even if you don't actually move every piece in this game like you do those games, I suspect it will still have a smilar feel, and players will want to check on every little thing, even though all that info isn't necessary all the time. IMO, use the tried and true Paradox method.

I'm with you, you're right.  (I'm still not used to your username, by the way. ).  But having the option for the other mode isn't something that I think is really a bad thing.  I play SimCity on precisely two speeds, for instance: Paused and Cheetah, hah.  For people who want to do that sort of thing, I think that's okay.

[Teal_Blue]

I'm not saying it shouldn't be optional.

I think it's a little ironic that many here are using Paradox as a example to support no-pause, when Paradox games are what I was thinking when I asked for pause to begin with!

No problem, optional sounds wonderful to me!! 

-T

[Morslok]

Hi all!

So I tried the game out a bit, and I have some feedback on the new turn-based combat. It's great, and I much prefer this for this sort of game than how the previous iteration looked, but I do have some minor thoughts on the nature of the movement while in combat. This does apply to the overall solar system map, as that is more abstracted by default.

The movement in this turn-based combat seems strange to watch. When I click to move my ship, set targets, and watch it play out, it just looks strange. There's no momentum to player movement. You move to the spot you clicked and then full stop without having to slow at all. I can understand why this is done the way it is at this point from a gameplay perspective, since you don't want the player not to be able to dodge the shots coming at them, but at the same time, I feel it would make the combat deeper if you had to take inertia into account. Like say, when you click, if you don't click the very outer ring of the movement circle, it would still take your ship the full "round" to reach that point rather than starting and stopping on a dime, which would keep you in range of the enemy ships, but also you would be moving slower so the enemies shots might be harder to dodge while you try to take your shots.

I don't know if that makes sense, but I thought I would throw it out there.

Thanks!

[x4000]

Now that I do like!  Having to manage deceleration is something that I think makes a lot of sense.

[_K_]

This version is where i got my first impression.

The biggest complaint i have by far is the lack of "action" on the solar map. Having different coloured ships and some icons is NOT how you visualize fierce orbital and planetary combat. Where the hell are the explosions, laser beams and missiles flying? Why are those icons just floating around each other? Are they at peace, or what?

Guys. Seriously. Guys. You want a very clear indication for every instance of combat that is going on in the system. You want a very clear indication for every time something (an armada i guess) gets destroyed. You want a very clear indication whenever there is a battle in the orbit, a planet gets bombed or invaded by troops.


In addition, i would like to inquire about the relevance of all that planetary data. There are like 50 stats, from obvious things like population, to some weird ones like resource production, crime rate, life expectancy, and average number of teaspoons per household.
How are these relevant? What point do they serve? If you display them, you need to give the player a way to find out how those stats interact with everything, how they affect other things and how they get affected!

When I click to move my ship, set targets, and watch it play out, it just looks strange. There's no momentum to player movement. You move to the spot you clicked and then full stop without having to slow at all.

I have missed the real-time game so i dont know if it was much better, but that is exactly how i felt about the current system.

Are you sure the entire fact of it being real time really is the problem, and not your specific implementation? There are plenty of 2D space shooters that have rather thoughful, slow combat. You can try and look up the following games: Space pirates and zombies, Battleships forever, Gratuitous space battles, or even super-primitive Pax Britannica

See the pattern? In all of those games, the capital ships are very slow not only to move but also to turn. This brings a sense of weight and massiveness to them.
I believe such system could work fine in TLF. Capships must be slow and turreted, shots should not have such huge sprites so you can fit more of them.
I would assume you could give the player a 3-button control of the ship (W to accelerate, A-D for turning), add inertia, put some auto-turrets, give a manually-aimed main weapon (with or without a limited arc), and you'd have an excellent space shooter. Slow everything down to a proper level, adjust object scales (diff ship classes, and shots), add ability to spawn smaller friendly ships. There you go, a slow and strategic space combat.

If you are absolutely convinced turn-based is the way to go, then you still need to give that feeling of weight somehow. Being able to jump all over the place is EXTREMELY unnatural. Look at how Space Rangers did it. It is turn-based and not inertia-based, but the ships are still forced to turn more naturally. Sure, you cant then visualize your range as a cute circle. But it does not matter as much as making the movement feel at least remotely natural.

You could go with a "select in which direction to turn and then how much to accelerate", but those are fine controls and i am not sure they would well in turn-based combat. I guess another approach would be to do what Riabi suggested. Instead of ships, we could be looking at abstract boardgame pieces that represent ships. If the game area looks like an abstract board, not as an actual area of space, then you can get away with unrealistic movement.

[Mick]

Space Rangers is simply the best example to look toward to get WeGo space combat to feel more natural.

[x4000]

Point taken on the explosions and laser fire on the solar map; that is actually on our polish list in terms of things that had been intended to be done, but have not yet been.

Regarding the combat having ships that are unnaturally quick and sprites that are overlarge... well, yep.  That reflects the mechanics of combat, really.  I have people on the opposite side of this argument (Misery, for instance) who were lobbying specifically for being able to precisely control ship speeds and to have larger sprites.  I find I agree with him more on this one.  It's true that it doesn't give any sense of weight to the ships, but that's not really something I've ever enjoyed in a space game, personally.  I couldn't ever enjoy Sins of a Solar Empire because I felt like I was shoving bricks around in mud when it came to ship movement, and that's why AI War is as quick and unrealistic as it is with the ships.

[_K_]

that's why AI War is as quick and unrealistic as it is with the ships.

And AI war gets away with it because it is fairly abstract. You rarely (if ever) zoom in enough to see actual units instead of icons. That is also the reason nobody really cares about the quality of ship "models" in AI war.

TLF is different. The solar view is abstract, and thats why nobody complains about unrealistic movement there.
Battles are not abstract. You see ships and you expect them to behave like you would imagine spaceships would. You dont expect them to turn and change movement direction instantly. Not the big ones at least.

High speed and having responsive controls give a feeling of lightness, a feeling of controlling a light fighter. You dont give the player a huge "flagship" and expect him to just accept that it behaves like a fighter. Big = slow and ponderous, small = fast and agile.

and to have larger sprites

I have found the specific post that was asking for this. What Misery was lobbying for is more visible bullets. And his request is absolutely justified.
You can fix it by adjusting the background. Right now its too colourful, making the shot sprites blend with background effects. The way background elements move with the camera does not help at all either.

being able to precisely control ship speeds

That's because the combat mechanics are no different from the old real-time bullet hell. It is still bullet hell, but now its turn-based. You NEED precise controls and highly visible bullets in bullet hell.
The most dedicated players have adapted to the problem, and now you make them more comfortable, instead of fixing the problem.


Space rangers did not have this problem for a very simple reason: The shots were not simulated. The weapons were stats-based, like in Warcraft 3. Most weapons were insta-hit beams, and the projectiles would just home on you.
Sure, that means no cool bullet dodging mechanics. But are you sure you want combat to be about dodging bullets in a turn-based enviroment in your strategy game?

[x4000]

The notes:

1. Fair enough on AI War being abstract, but I'm still not sure that I buy the argument that that utterly breaks this here.

2. Changing the backgrounds to be less colorful would I think majorly detract from the experience, as well as our ability to sell the game in general (beauty being a major selling point).  Plus the beauty and vibrancy of the battles just makes them feel more relaxing in general.

3. Having larger shots also means that you can see them better from further out.  These are actually about half the size of the ones in AI War, even now.  I also don't think that having more shots is a good thing.  It makes each one matter less, and in general it makes it so that you can't position yourself to avoid shots.

4. The combat mechanics being about dodging shots is one of the things I'm most proud of in this TBS environment, actually.  Normally a big problem in TBS games is making position matter.  In Chess or similar, the way you do this is with the relative position of pieces.  With a game like this one, where there is one piece, that just does not work.  I struggled with the problem for weeks, and this whole thing with positioning yourself to avoid incoming fire while also being able to launch fire of your own is, in my opinion, just golden.  It makes it so that position matters when you have a "squad" of one, which is not something I've seen solved in any other TBS game before.  For that reason, having the shots be simulated and all the other baggage that goes with that is absolutely important.

I think we have different goals for the feeling of combat.  If it was slow and hefty in movement, frankly I would hate it.  I'm open to ideas on how to retain the sense of speed here while maintaining a better illusion of natural-ness, but at this point I don't really have plans on massively overhauling combat again.  We are 3 weeks out from release, and reactions to the video of the latest combat has been really positive, aside from reactions of the bulk of players testing it.

I can't please everyone, but I do hear what you are saying and I recognize the fact that some unknown number of people are going to agree with you.  Maybe a lot of people, and it will be something that really comes back to bite me.  Maybe a small contingent of people who gripe about it but love the game anyway, despite that.  It's impossible to project right now.  So what I'm asking is, given the constraints of working within my own goals for the game as expressed above, what could I do to make you happier, at least?  I can't transform it into exactly what you are looking for, because that's not what I'm looking for, but if there are ways that I can help to make things better for you then I would very much like to.  I hope that makes sense and that you don't take offense.

[Mick]

I don't think that you have to make movement feel "sluggish" in order to make it feel more natural, I think that the turn-on-a-dime movement and the instant-stop-and-wait when you only move in half your circle makes things kind of awkward. It seems like the combat is trying to be a dog-fight-in-space, where position and dodging is very important, but without the factor of momentum involved.

To me a momentum component in this type of system would look like the following:

* If you click within the circle (don't move your max range), then you move slower during that combat turn (such that you end up at the position at the end of the turn, not get there and stop for the remainder)

* Your speed in your last turn factors into the max distance you can travel for the next (this doesn't mean you have to have molasses acceleration, it could just mean that going from stop to full speed takes a one combat turn instead of instant).

* You can travel farther if you continue in the same direction than if you turn. Say something on the order of straight = 100% distance, 90 degree turn = 75% distance, 180 degree turn = 50% distance.

[x4000]

Right, a lot of that does make sense.  A big part of it is not being able to show that to the player in the current model.  I was mulling this more, and I've been putting together the framework for a math model to come up with that.  Basically the data I would have to give in, and the data I want back out, and then seeing if Keith can come up with the actual math in the middle to turn one into the other.  IF that is the case, then I'll try this out and I think that possibly a solid middle ground could be found.

For now I guess let's shelve this discussion, and then see how things look once we get past that other prototype.  Fair?  Because I agree, it could stand to feel more natural... it's just a matter of not wanting it to be sluggish.  So there is some room for middle ground there, for sure.

[_K_]

So what I'm asking is, given the constraints of working within my own goals for the game as expressed above, what could I do to make you happier, at least?  I can't transform it into exactly what you are looking for, because that's not what I'm looking for, but if there are ways that I can help to make things better for you then I would very much like to.  I hope that makes sense and that you don't take offense.

I will test more and try to figure the specific points that make me feel uneasy.

Lets be honest, you guys are probably one of my favourite devs as personalities go, which is why i am trying to be as brutally honest  as i can. I am not going to treat you like a girl who asks me if i like her new dress.

[keith.lamothe]

Lets be honest, you guys are probably one of my favourite devs as personalities go, which is why i am trying to be as brutally honest  as i can. I am not going to treat you like a girl who asks me if i like her new dress.

Does this fleet make me look OP?

[x4000]

I very much appreciate the kind words, and believe me, the brutal honesty is what I'm looking for.  If it doesn't come from the testers now, when we can theoretically do something about it, then it will come later, from outside sources, when we can't do anything about it.  I much much much much much prefer the former case.

See my note above in response to Mick, though.  We're going to try some stuff, and I think you may like the new one a lot better.  Let's then talk more after that version.

[_K_]

Okay, i have played for a little bit, specifically looking for how the shots feel.

• When paused, you have no indication about direction and speed of the bullets. You can judge by the sprite and tell their speed from experience, but it is inaccurate, and not easy for some sprites. It would be great to get some primitive indication about direction and velocity. The best way is probably to try and add some simple trail to the bullets. The shot sprites themselves also could get some simplification. If it is your decision to go with the shmup approach, then you will eventually reach the same conclusion: The most primitive, bright and contrast shapes are what works the best in shmups. Use trails and light motion blur properly, and i guarantee they will not look ugly.
• When moving, you have very limited time to note every single projectile flying around you. This is compounded by the fact they come from all directions, unlike in shmups where they mostly come from ahead.
• On top of all that, the camera also moves, making it even harder to tell the direction of the bullets during the short period of real-time