Thoughts from the devs: Alternate combat mode.

[x4000]

Hey guys,

This is something I've been musing over the weekend.  I won't lie, this is partly inspired by Super Hot, of which I am a backer and I think is totally worth your money if you're into that sort of genre.  They have a demo that is playable in your web browser so that you can see what it is all about if you like.

That said, I basically had a variant of the same idea back in 2008 in Shattered Haven, though Lars convinced me out of doing it because it "felt weird" to have the grays suddenly speed up when you started running, then slow back down when you stopped.  My version of the idea in SH was just revolving around the ability to run, not about time in its entirety, so Super Hot has a much more natural feel since everything is controlled that way.

The thing that I was basically realizing, though, is that the ability to control the flow of time is something that TLF has in spades, but in the combat we've broken that up into turn-based chunks, and that really bothers some people.  Very simply, here's an alternate combat model that has struck my fancy:

Time-Control Combat Mode
1. There is no concept of "paused."  If you're not doing something, then nothing happens, though.

2. There is no concept of turns.

3. Movement of YOUR ship becomes very arcade-y, like it used to be, more in a SHMUP fashion.  Nothing about the enemies is changed.

4. Any time you fire your weapon or use an ability, something like 0.25 or 0.5 seconds elapses.  Presuming you are just sitting there and time is not already running, anyhow.

5. You would move your ship, rather than the viewport, with WASD.  While you are moving at all, time runs for all the enemies.  Presuming you are not actively moving or firing at an enemy, then the game is "paused" (as noted above, and all the stuff that you currently see during "select movement mode" shows up.  You can switch weapons, select abilities, look at the battlefield, whatever, at your leisure.

6. PROBABLY the ability to pan the view would need to go away again, but that certainly wasn't popular last time, so I don't know.  But with this sort of control model it makes a lot of sense.  Possibly the ability to pan would just move to the arrow keys, and would be one of those things that you do when you're not moving around.  That's probably the better solution.

7. Abilities would no longer be shot-clearing as they are now, because that whole "you can't move and use an ability" thing would go away.

8. The autofire mode and hold fire modes would be retained as they currently are.  Direct-fire mode would let you directly aim your shots, but would let you do so in realtime rather than selecting a line like you do now.  This would generally be the preferred mode for expert players, in the new model.  It would be a great way to deal with hypersonic pods and so forth, for instance.

9. All of the stuff that references turns presently would just shift to referencing 2.5 seconds times whatever the turn count was before, except where we feel like more or less time is more appropriate.  The speed slider at the bottom of the screen would remain the same, and pretty well everything else would remain the same as well.

10. We'd have to split a lot of the keybindings (all of them) between the two modes, so that people can customize them individually.  Not a crisis at all, really, but something worth noting.  That way nobody using the current combat would be affected, and the new combat could be configured as is most comfortable.

I think that's about it.

Benefits
1. People who are less fond of the combat complain about how it starts and then stops frequently, and this would remove that.

2. This would allow for a lot more fluidity for those (like me) who would really like it, while letting the more contemplative among us still take just as much time as they do now.

3. Player control would GREATLY be increased, because no longer would you have to have a 2.5-second "hands off" period where you can't interact with your ship and just have to watch the results of your actions.

Problems
1. The game is already done, and is marketed as a turn-based combat game along with the larger strategic component.  I can't imagine any sort of world in which we could remove the TBS aspect and there was not some level of uproar.

2. Because of #1, this would always have to either be an alternate mode, or else if it's popular enough, then the TBS mode would be the alternate mode (but still present).

3. Because of #2, that would mean that abilities and ships and so on -- even weapons -- would need to be balanced for two modes rather than one.  That's a pretty big pain in the rear, although the modes are similar enough that it might not be too big a deal.  Maybe keeping it so that abilities continue to work the same (only working when stationary, and doing the shot-clearing) would be a good compromise that would keep the two modes from getting too divorced from one another.

Thoughts From You?
Is this something that anyone else would be interested in, or is it just me?  Also, let's keep this discussion to just this specific issue, and not a wider-ranging discussion about combat and enemy flight patterns and so on.  There is... some stuff in the works on that front that will please you, so no worries.

Final Thought From Me For Now
Part of what had me thinking about all this was that those sorts of fancier shot/enemy movement patterns will be vastly easier to deal with as a player if you don't have that 2.5 seconds of "hands off" time every turn.  Complex shot patterns require you to have much more fine-tuned input than that.  There's no time to react, otherwise.  In fact, really expanding the combat to include that sort of thing pretty much necessitates a shift to that sort of system like what I describe above, or something very like it.  The turn-based model would technically still work, but I think it would be incredibly frustrating in that context.

[chemical_art]

I oppose this for the same reason I oppose the text based version of combat in alpha. You are splitting the audience and development time for two modes and won't gain many more players in the process.

[Teal_Blue]

i think it is an interesting idea, though to be honest, i think it is something for an expansion down the line. i think there are more pressing concerns right now that need to be addressed to get the base game in the best playable and interesting shape before we add other things. Even the expansion idea is neat, but in my opinion a little premature. I am still trying to get the base game around my head and trying to deal with things i wish i had control over and don't.

-Teal

[topper]

I oppose this for the same reason I oppose the text based version of combat in alpha. You are splitting the audience and development time for two modes and won't gain many more players in the process.

I mostly agree with this comment. You already have a precedent for multiples ways to (auto)resolve battles, but splitting effort between very similar styles seems like less of a benefit to the players and your bottom line.

You could semi-implement this into the current battle model by making the turn length variable (move and fire different amounts, special abilities use the standard turn length). Maybe I should mantis that...

Why not use this new combat model for your upcoming SHMUP?

[mrhanman]

Why not use this new combat model for your upcoming SHMUP?

This is what I would suggest.  The idea certainly sounds intriguing, but I think it might be too late to try something this radically different with the game already released.  It will be difficult, if even possible, to balance sufficiently along with the current model without compromising one or the other.  It will also be difficult to relay to most players, who don't frequent the forums, that the option is there or why they should care that it is.

[chemical_art]

I will third the idea of integrating this idea in the shump proper, not into the tbs.

[Professor Paul1290]

I don't feel like that enough people have problems with the current turn-based combat any more that usual to warrant adding an additional mode.

Most misgivings I've seen about the combat tend to be balance and/or mission issues not really related to how time is handled. The fact that it is turned based but the turns move pretty fast seems to be accepted right off the bat.

[Mick]

It honestly doesn't sound like it would really be different enough from the current combat mode to be worth the effort. It's essentially turn-based, with tiny-tiny turns instead. I think auto-resolve is a good enough solution for players who don't want to do combat, and it sounds like a balance nightmare to effectively have three modes of combat in the game.

I'm also biased in thinking more effort should be put toward non-combat stuff in the game, it's more interesting.

[Teal_Blue]

... I'm also biased in thinking more effort should be put toward non-combat stuff in the game, it's more interesting.

I second this! 

[Riabi]

Better yet Chris, I think the idea of a game where time moves only when you do should be put on your ever-growing list of "games I might want to make in the future". I'm pretty sure it doesn't really have a place in TLF, and I'm not sure it has a place in the shmup either.

[UnfriendlyBG]

Even though I have a decent sized list of strategy map issues with the game that you may or may not have read, I suppose I'll be apparently the lone dissenter. I didn't click your link cause I'm on the phone but you're essentially talking about adding a twin stick shooter mode into the game. I'm all fuckin for that actually.  I don't think I've ever played a twin stick shooter that isn't fun.  I'd only be interested with controller support though.

However as others are pointing out, you might not have a lot of interest overlap between grand strategy and twin stick shooters.  I mean you might have found the only guy right here.  I'm working on my second TLF let's play... You know what I recorded and uploaded to my YouTube this morning? A 30 or 40 minute long impression video of Beat Hazard, a music based twin stick shooter released like 2 years ago.  That's pretty funny that you end up presenting this idea the same day...

A few things though.  Combat would need to be drastically shortened, I think all but the largest fights should be less than 10miminutes.  I also think combat currently takes too long with the current implementation.  Its not uncommon to have 20 something minute battles that are more tedious than anything on normal difficulty.  Plus all my allies ever seem to do is die shortly after the fight starts, when attacking a pirate base I just pick who I want to lose an armada and bring them with.

I also don't think it would be as hard to balance as some are making it out to be.  Increase damage by the player and the ai, but more for the ai.  Throw in a few more difficulty levels, make it changeable during a game and I'm pretty sure most people would find something they're comfortable with.

However, I can't stress this enough the grand strategy portion needs to be ironed out in a lot of areas before anything like this is even thought of. No one is going to play through a grand strategy mode they find lacking  to get to twin stick shooter levels.  People put up with hohum campaign maps in the Total War series because there is essentially nothing as bad ass as controlling your army in an evenly matched open field battle in Rome 2.  Contrary to popular belief open field battles in Rome 2 are actually pretty damned good and have been since release basically, its just the siege battles are so unbelievablely fubar that I actually uninstalled after 500 hours of play.

Anyway, you won't be providing the unique experience that total war provides you will not be dragging people through a campaign to play a twin stick shooter.  No offense but whatever you come up with for a twin stick shooter has probably already been done before, those games exist already and they're cheap.  The campaign must be the primary draw.  Right now I honestly get disappointed sometimes when I have to do a battle as I find what's going on on the campaign map to be more interesting than another 25 minute battle.  I always forget about autoresolve.  So I do feel shaking up the battles would help but they should always be second priority.

And an aside to aanyone: How do you kill the evuck probes without autoresolve? They just run from me as soon as I start shooting with 90% of their health left and I can get in range to shoot maybe once every 10 turns.  I autoresolve it ends in l 2 turns

[Misery]

Why not use this new combat model for your upcoming SHMUP?

This is what I would suggest.  The idea certainly sounds intriguing, but I think it might be too late to try something this radically different with the game already released.  It will be difficult, if even possible, to balance sufficiently along with the current model without compromising one or the other.  It will also be difficult to relay to most players, who don't frequent the forums, that the option is there or why they should care that it is.

The balance, I think, isnt the issue here.  For the most part, this will remain unchanged.  Things like armor/shield/attack damage and whatever, these numbers dont need to change. 

The REAL difference here is one thing, and one thing only:  Your ship doesnt JUST move along that line anymore and you dont have to give it target commands. Other things, like enemy movement/tactics, their firing patterns, damage levels, the way turrets work, the different abilities that you have access to and their tactical uses, these would remain the same.

As long as it remains just an OPTION, I dont think it's a bad thing.   This, of course, is dependant on how difficult or not it is to code into the game.  Now I dont know much about the game engine itself, but it at least LOOKS like it wouldnt be too difficult, since the game is already doing the start/stop idea.



Now, as for my own thoughts on this idea....

Well, it's hard to say.  I know one thing, and this may or may not relate to the others as well, but for me at least, the difficulty will drop dramatically.  Even on Misery, even against 30 flagships without me having any assistance, I'll be pretty much unstoppable.   And yes, I know how that sounds, but I'm just being honest here.   That's WITHOUT the clearing power of the abilities.  That's not to say I wont still enjoy it though.

For me the challenge of the current version is based on the fact of the restricted movement and such.   Typically in a shmup, the challenge comes from the stage design, or the pattern design.  There's no real "stages" here, which is pretty much as it needs to be, but there's also no real patterns either despite a bullet-hell style flow to the whole thing.  Dont ask me to explain the exacts of that one right now:  It'd take awhile.  THAT type of feedback, I'll probably save for when you're doing the actual shmup game.    Now that's not to say that you absolutely need to really get into that whole set of concepts right now, as for the gameplay model you're going with as a whole, it's not necessary, this being a battle system that is part of a larger experience.

Either way though, the difficulty level will go down alot when this is done.  ....probably.  I seriously cant speak for how the change will affect other players this time.  I know it'll drop a ton for me, but.... yeah, my feedback here is a little confused on that bit.

Some players would find this fun though, I do think so.   It's an interesting concept. 

This would also have the effect of shortening the fights.... er.... probably.  It'll shorten them for me anyway.  Which right now is probably a good thing, as I'd already mentioned elsewhere the game has been creating battles involving like 20 enemy flagships at a time.... these can take HOURS with the combat system as it is now.   Currently I've stopped playing this until that is fixed, me not exactly having much patience and all (and no, I dont want to auto-resolve if at all avoidable, it bugs me too much).  That effect then would be fine by me.


In an overall sense, I dont think this is a bad idea.... I think the core concern is wether or not you can keep it from affecting development time from here on out.  Obviously it'd take a bit to initially implement it.  But as Chemical Art says, if it causes additional time to need to be spent any time combat-related coding is done, it's essentially splitting it into two parts each time, and thus will make "main" development take longer.


If this is something you guys can do quickly and without it getting in the way of other stuff, then I'm all for it.

It honestly doesn't sound like it would really be different enough from the current combat mode to be worth the effort. It's essentially turn-based, with tiny-tiny turns instead.

That bit is going to be very subjective and is where things might get a bit strange.  It'll depend very much on the player.   For some it'll barely change.  For others it'll be a totally different experience entirely.




Oh, and on the note of the upcoming shmup game:  I wouldnt hold this idea for that one.   Again, it'd take me much too long to explain why that is, but for now I'd stick to the norm of keeping things real-time for that game.  It can be made to work with THIS one.  But alot of very, very specific things would have to be in place for it to work with THAT idea.

[Drak]

Problems
1. The game is already done, and is marketed as a turn-based combat game along with the larger strategic component.  I can't imagine any sort of world in which we could remove the TBS aspect and there was not some level of uproar.

2. Because of #1, this would always have to either be an alternate mode, or else if it's popular enough, then the TBS mode would be the alternate mode (but still present).

3. Because of #2, that would mean that abilities and ships and so on -- even weapons -- would need to be balanced for two modes rather than one.  That's a pretty big pain in the rear, although the modes are similar enough that it might not be too big a deal.  Maybe keeping it so that abilities continue to work the same (only working when stationary, and doing the shot-clearing) would be a good compromise that would keep the two modes from getting too divorced from one another.

You can make it a new game option (instead of a per combat option). So when you start a new game, you select which mode you want for combat that game. (And, of course, it remembers your last selection, so people who prefer one or the other don't need to change the selection every game, since it defaults to their last choice.)

This would make it so that the weapon/enemies/etc can be balanced in their entirety on a per mode basis, so weapons don't have to be balanced for BOTH modes, they are balanced for EACH mode. (In other words, any given weapon could be completely different between the two modes, Enemy AI could be completely different, etc.)

I think this would be the only way to deal with having two modes without risking one mode making a weapon/AI tweak/etc broken in the other mode.


In principle, I like the idea, but you should deffinently make panning available - things like deliever tech require panning to plan your strategy.

[Misery]

Problems
1. The game is already done, and is marketed as a turn-based combat game along with the larger strategic component.  I can't imagine any sort of world in which we could remove the TBS aspect and there was not some level of uproar.

2. Because of #1, this would always have to either be an alternate mode, or else if it's popular enough, then the TBS mode would be the alternate mode (but still present).

3. Because of #2, that would mean that abilities and ships and so on -- even weapons -- would need to be balanced for two modes rather than one.  That's a pretty big pain in the rear, although the modes are similar enough that it might not be too big a deal.  Maybe keeping it so that abilities continue to work the same (only working when stationary, and doing the shot-clearing) would be a good compromise that would keep the two modes from getting too divorced from one another.

You can make it a new game option (instead of a per combat option). So when you start a new game, you select which mode you want for combat that game. (And, of course, it remembers your last selection, so people who prefer one or the other don't need to change the selection every game, since it defaults to their last choice.)

This would make it so that the weapon/enemies/etc can be balanced in their entirety on a per mode basis, so weapons don't have to be balanced for BOTH modes, they are balanced for EACH mode. (In other words, any given weapon could be completely different between the two modes, Enemy AI could be completely different, etc.)

I think this would be the only way to deal with having two modes without risking one mode making a weapon/AI tweak/etc broken in the other mode.


In principle, I like the idea, but you should deffinently make panning available - things like deliever tech require panning to plan your strategy.

These are good ideas too.  Though currently I dont think the combat balance stuffs would really need to change at all for now, even if the modes were split.  They could be left alone for the time being, it should still work out fine.


Though, keeping the panning is a MUST.  .....otherwise it's possible to get lost....  pretty embarrassing in a shmup environment, I'll say that, hah.

[ptarth]

I don't really care for the idea.