Fractal Softworks Forum

Starsector => General Discussion => Topic started by: Gothars on April 17, 2017, 06:27:58 AM

Title: Is the difficulty curve really inverted?
Post by: Gothars on April 17, 2017, 06:27:58 AM
One thing Starsector is often criticized for (http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?action=search;params=YWR2YW5jZWR8J3wwfCJ8YnJkfCd8MSwyLDEzLDgsMyw5LDEwLDUsNiw0LDE0LDcsMTEsMTJ8InxzaG93X2NvbXBsZXRlfCd8fCJ8c3ViamVjdF9vbmx5fCd8fCJ8c29ydHwnfHJlbGV2YW5jZXwifHNvcnRfZGlyfCd8ZGVzY3wifHNlYXJjaHwnfGludmVydGVkIGRpZmZpY3VsdHk=) is the way the game difficulty develops - it starts hard and gets progressively easier. In comparison to many classic video games this is backwards, these games start (objectively) easy and then get harder. These classic video games are usually linear, though. The point is to get to the end of the game, a journey during which the player skill increases, and the obstacles can and have to get more challenging to keep things interesting.

Starsector on the other hand is not a linear game, but an open world game. The goal ist not necessarily to get to the end of the game, but to grow and progress your character to increase the ways in which you can interact with the world. When the point is to get stronger, isn't it a inevitable consequence that challenges get easier?

I mean, is there any open world game that really got more difficult over time? I can't think of one. Skyrim, Fallout, Zelda BotW, they all follow the same pattern. It's so much of a standard you can even find comics about it:

Spoiler
(http://i.imgur.com/sxHFeW5.jpg)
[close]
 
Spoiler
(http://i.imgur.com/8YGIgVP.jpg)
[close]
 
Spoiler
(http://i.imgur.com/76QoDS7.jpg)
[close]

So, if Starsector has a normal difficulty curve for an open world game, can you really call it "inverted"? Ok, there can be some mean spikes at the start right now, but that's a different problem all together.



If anything, we should maybe look at other open world games and ask how this type of out-leveling difficulty can be used to make for the best possible game progression.
An example would be soft-locked areas, which are filled with hostiles that are far too strong for you at the beginning of the game. Coming back later when you're stronger and "unlocking" these areas gives a great sense of progression.
Title: Re: Is the difficulty curve really inverted?
Post by: Ranakastrasz on April 17, 2017, 06:45:29 AM
The main difference I see is that in other games, your location balances the difficulty. You have to intentionally go to dangerous locations if you want to be in serious danger above your level, while the expected path tends to match your own skill and stats.

In Starsector, you start out with low stats, but any enemy of any level (fleet size/power) can attack you, and ambushes due to sensor mechanics make that even more problematic. You don't have any safe locations to gain power, its all hardmode all the time. Gaining power makes it easier, but since the difficutly in the entire gamearea is roughly the same, the change is universal, unlike a normal game where you go to the more difficult areas when you get stronger..


Thats the way I see it anyway.
Title: Re: Is the difficulty curve really inverted?
Post by: SCC on April 17, 2017, 07:12:35 AM
Yeah. There is no clear low-level grinding area, there are just points in space where you may encounter pirates of varying difficulty. If you want to fight with factions it's a little better since you know that bigger markets mean bigger fleets. It would be nice if Alex added some "noob cave"-ish system where you start and where are only pirate scavengers or some automated hostile ships that were supposed to do some thing and now nobody know what exactly (it happens). The fact there are threats of varying degree in one spot would be easier to go around if we actually could see every one of them, but now we sort of have to pray that whatever that signal was, it was a small fleet. Then there's the fact that fleets can hide in rings and belts... I think easiest way to balance this would be to make pirates apathetic to fleets much smaller than them.
Title: Re: Is the difficulty curve really inverted?
Post by: Tartiflette on April 17, 2017, 07:14:39 AM
Pretty much, there are many open world games that did the difficulty right via zoning or some story progression: Freelancer, Wayward Terran Frontier, I-War 2 just to point a few space based ones.
Title: Re: Is the difficulty curve really inverted?
Post by: orost on April 17, 2017, 07:18:13 AM
I'm not so sure that Skyrim's or Fallout's progression is necessarily something to look up to.

Starsector has the advantage of changing scale throughout the game, you start all by yourself and end up with huge battles that resemble strategy games. Perhaps that's an opportunity to provide more varied and relevant threats throughout than typical RPG games, which are stuck at personal scale.
Title: Re: Is the difficulty curve really inverted?
Post by: Seth on April 17, 2017, 07:38:04 AM
I personally like Starsector's approach to difficulty and progression. It needs only couple of tweaks like Pirate Armada shouldn't be chasing after two tiny frigates across 3 sectors in bloody rage. SS is open world and it's also a sandbox. It's important to point out because not every open world game is a sandbox, but SS is attempting to aim at X series in this IMO, and would be great to get at that point as more updates come out. Judging by change log of v0.8 I see it slowly gets to it, and I'm really happy about it. But nevertheless it still has it's own unique vector that makes it stand out and I really enjoy.

My main point is that it shouldn't obstruct player from becoming ultimate power in the galaxy, you should have all the freedom you can have. When in Skyrim or new Fallout games levelling and becoming more powerful is an absolute goal of the game and progression, in SS it just a choice and not mandatory. In several playthroughs I've been basically roleplaying small trading fleet when I already had enough funds to build fleet that can wipe out entire factions off the map, and that was fun (with some quirks here and there).

Main focus of SS with difficulty should be making early game slightly more forgiving and simply adding more content like missions and stuff to do for later game plus expand roles you can pick. I'm talking about escort missions (in both ways, where you can hire it or provide your own services), mining, building stations, having ability to have your own impact in world economy if you will it and of course being bloody murderer as pirate or bounty hunter which is pretty much possible as it is. There are already lategame challenges (bounties) + extra hard added by mods, so content is getting there too.

In NO WAY there should be soft locked areas or enemy level compensation/power creep in correlation to your fleet. There are some mods which solve some of these issues and picking certain ideas from there wouldn't be a bad choice to improve core of the game. There MUST be areas where you can go at high risk and be able to lose much. Space must be generally unpredictable and dangerous, that's how you make things exciting. That being said, I had way more fun in early to mid game than in late game, but that's only because of lacking content.

Still can't believe one person could come up with such ideas and be able to flesh them out so well. I bet Alex is an alien. In no way human could represent space in such immersive and exciting way. All those who make arts, music and mods are probably aliens too...
Title: Re: Is the difficulty curve really inverted?
Post by: Toxcity on April 17, 2017, 07:40:12 AM
It seems exploration will help to mitigate some of these issues, though there probably won't be obvious indicators for easy or tough encounters.
Title: Re: Is the difficulty curve really inverted?
Post by: Megas on April 17, 2017, 07:57:55 AM
Finding appropriate enemies that your one frigate can kill can be hard, and even if you find them, you are weak enough to be killed by them, partly because it will likely be two or four of them against your one.  Even if kill one such fleet, you need to kill a few more before you level up and loot enough to confront bigger and stronger fleets.  Everything is a threat in the beginning.  In addition, you have no skills of significance (only when you get perks is when skill power spikes) and you may not have the best weapons either.
Title: Re: Is the difficulty curve really inverted?
Post by: Sy on April 17, 2017, 08:10:17 AM
i think the issue isn't really so much the game being more difficult early on, but rather more punishing/unforgiving.

reacting half a second too late when a pirate burns right at you can mean certain death to your early-game fleet (or at least an unavoidable loss of some of your ships while trying to escape), and in some rare-ish cases it's not even really possible to avoid this at all, even if the player immediately reacts correctly. likewise, failing to predict/avoid a single Antimatter Blaster shot or torpedo can be a death sentence to a skill-less frigate, as can maneuvering to finish off a wounded enemy and getting surrounded a few seconds later as a result. and regardless of how or why, the loss of a single ship can be crippling when your fleet is still tiny, whereas in very-late-game players often have enough credits saved up to replace several capital ships if necessary.

the actual combat and campaign mechanics don't really become easier as the game progresses, but to get into real trouble in late-game, you usually have to either intentionally seek out dangerous situations or make a series of bad decisions. in early-game, a single mistake can and often does mean "game over".
Title: Re: Is the difficulty curve really inverted?
Post by: Tartiflette on April 17, 2017, 08:23:29 AM
I also think the uniform Burn rates really made the early game way more difficult than it used to. Remember a couple of versions ago before the campaign abilities when frigates burned at 10+ and caps were limited to 3-4? There was no way a large fleet could catch you early game and it was fine. But now even a massive fleet can match the speed of most frigates using their Emergency Burn. Of course it had other issues like the impossibility to catch anything once you got a large fleet but frankly I think that was a lesser problem.
Title: Re: Is the difficulty curve really inverted?
Post by: Megas on April 17, 2017, 09:29:55 AM
Also, most open world games place the player in the "noob cave" or other relatively safe place where you can train, and you need to deliberately look for trouble or just explore without preparations.  For example, in Star Control 2, after Sol is done, much of nearby space is relatively safe, and the most dangerous opponent you will likely find early on are those self-replicating probes (which appear anywhere).  More dangerous opponents are a bit further away.

In Starsector, Corvus can have fleets of all sizes.  There is no safe spot where you can build up power, and things much stronger than you can ambush you, or a scout (which can kill your level 1) can catch you and a slower armada gets sucked into an extended battle.  Even Corvus is a decent place to chain-battle Hegemony late in the game if you are enemies with Hegemony.
Title: Re: Is the difficulty curve really inverted?
Post by: Inventor Raccoon on April 17, 2017, 10:03:14 AM
Yeah, I feel like we might need a few randomly-generated systems where practically nothing but small (1-5 ships maximum) pirate scouts and smugglers spawn. An early game player can challenge the small fleets and loot smugglers, but once you're a higher level and have destroyers and slower ships, you won't be able to chase them down and catch them without expending enough supplies to make it unprofitable.
Title: Re: Is the difficulty curve really inverted?
Post by: Megas on April 17, 2017, 10:08:17 AM
Also, a few times, I chased a small pirate fleet, and by the time I caught it, a much bigger armada that was previously hidden appears nearby before the moment of contact and joins its small friends in an extended battle, turning a reasonable fight into an unwinnable fight.
Title: Re: Is the difficulty curve really inverted?
Post by: xenoargh on April 17, 2017, 10:45:32 AM
Escape Velocity handled this fairly well, with areas close to the start where threats were low.  In SS, the big problem is that it probably needs to be structured like that, and then re-adjust as players level and buff their fleets.  Given the changes coming to Skills, I have no idea what exactly that should mean, though.
Title: Re: Is the difficulty curve really inverted?
Post by: DatonKallandor on April 17, 2017, 11:42:48 AM
It's not a coincidence those bad difficulty curve comics are all of bethesda games. They are famously bad at balancing difficutly in an open world.
Title: Re: Is the difficulty curve really inverted?
Post by: Nick XR on April 17, 2017, 12:41:48 PM
I personally love the current difficulty system, but I'll admit most people don't like it as-is as much as I.

Perhaps a chain of opt-in noob missions that when all is done the player is around level 7 or so and has familiarity with the game mechanics would be enough.

Anything that feels like wandering around the docks at night in Darklands is good by me.
Title: Re: Is the difficulty curve really inverted?
Post by: Tartiflette on April 17, 2017, 12:55:52 PM
Personally I think the issue is not only that the early game is difficult but also that the later game is trivial and far less interesting.
Title: Re: Is the difficulty curve really inverted?
Post by: Midnight Kitsune on April 17, 2017, 12:57:02 PM
I think a big portion of the early game difficulty will be relieved in .8 by both the skill changes and the tutorial
Title: Re: Is the difficulty curve really inverted?
Post by: orost on April 17, 2017, 01:02:28 PM
Isn't there also a new starting starsystem in 0.8? It's not in the changelog but I swear Alex has said something about it.

edit:

Quote
Added campaign tutorial:
*Introduces major gameplay elements and goes through active abilities
*High-level, involves doing a multi-stage mission to get out of new starting star system
*Can be skipped; if skipped starts player with similar resources/standing as if they did it
Title: Re: Is the difficulty curve really inverted?
Post by: Gothars on April 17, 2017, 01:14:39 PM
Yeah, early game will definitely be easier. But the moment you leave the starting system/tutorial you're still at the hardest part of the game, with every thing after getting progressively easier until you're unstoppable. Which, in a general sense, is OK, I think.


Personally I think the issue is not only that the early game is difficult but also that the later game is trivial and far less interesting.

Agreed. A solid solution to that are high-difficulty areas, but that's not straightforward in Starsector. After all, high level enemies are self-made, by going to war with a faction. As long as you don't do that you can go everywhere.

Maybe it would help if factions would establish patrolled no-go zones, where you are attacked on sight. Could be entire systems. I imagine there would be all kind of nice hardware and secrets to discover in these zones, if you manage to fight your way through (or get exclusively allied with the faction). At the moment there's just no real external motivation to start fights with the strong factions.

A high level general baddy would also be good, some kinda super pirates. Rough AIs or some such, hopefully story related.
Title: Re: Is the difficulty curve really inverted?
Post by: orost on April 17, 2017, 01:18:23 PM
Also once outposts are in there might be opportunities to add high-level challenges. If you have something immobile and valuable to protect and running and hiding is no longer an option, there's a whole new category of problems you can have.
Title: Re: Is the difficulty curve really inverted?
Post by: FooF on April 17, 2017, 01:28:38 PM
Agreed. A solid solution to that are high-difficulty areas, but that's not straightforward in Starsector. After all, high level enemies are self-made, by going to war with a faction. As long as you don't do that you can go everywhere.

Maybe it would help if factions would establish patrolled no-go zones, where you are attacked on sight. Could be entire systems. I imagine there would be all kind of nice hardware and secrets to discover in these zones, if you manage to fight your way through (or get exclusively allied with the faction). At the moment there's just no real external motivation to start fights with the strong factions.

A high level general baddy would also be good, some kinda super pirates. Rough AIs or some such, hopefully story related.

Good observation: the only tough enemies are the ones you make. Hadn't thought about it that way.

All of what you said is just one of the tips of the "no end-game" iceberg. Until we have a reason to lose our fleet, we're still just assembling a fancy ship collection.

I like the idea of quarantined/no-fly zones that only allies (i.e. "commissioned") parties can enter, even if you're on good terms with that faction. That would give the sector more "terrain" so to speak. A high level 'pirate' faction would also be cool: an enemy that everyone wants destroyed. Could be a Tempar-like faction, aliens, AI, a long-lost Domain enemy, whatever, but a real end-game threat.
Title: Re: Is the difficulty curve really inverted?
Post by: Megas on April 17, 2017, 02:37:14 PM
Quote
Good observation: the only tough enemies are the ones you make. Hadn't thought about it that way.
But if you want the best stuff, you will almost need to attack someone other than pirates (who usually have junk or limited weapons).  Also, commission lets you buy more stuff from one faction, and that gives you enemies.  Not to mention the automatic commission bounty for killing enemies, which adds up after the player fights lots.

The benefits of commission outweigh the drawbacks, or the benefits of commission are better than no commission.  With commission, you will have enemies.
Title: Re: Is the difficulty curve really inverted?
Post by: Gothars on April 17, 2017, 02:48:03 PM
With commission, you will have enemies.

But little reason to go and actually confront those enemies. Well, except that there's nothing better to do. Well, as FooF said, as long as there's no real end game, it's moot to talk about long-term motivation mechanics.

I had BTW several play-throughs were I got all my high-level gear from bounty fleets and had no commission to the end.
Title: Re: Is the difficulty curve really inverted?
Post by: SCC on April 17, 2017, 03:40:58 PM
I like the idea of quarantined/no-fly zones that only allies (i.e. "commissioned") parties can enter, even if you're on good terms with that faction. That would give the sector more "terrain" so to speak. A high level 'pirate' faction would also be cool: an enemy that everyone wants destroyed. Could be a Tempar-like faction, aliens, AI, a long-lost Domain enemy, whatever, but a real end-game threat.
It would be nice if every major faction had bad subfaction, like luddics have pathers and Tri-Tachyon has starlight cabal (http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=11002.0). And independents sorta-have pirates.
No-go zones are a great idea, btw.
Title: Re: Is the difficulty curve really inverted?
Post by: Ranakastrasz on April 17, 2017, 04:03:43 PM
I really like the mods that add a significant refund if you die, 80% of the price or more of the ships lost, but degrading as you level up. Makes it less stressful early game, although character level isn't everything.


Honestly, I wish you could tag along with another fleet that is heading to combat, so you would have support. Sell yourself as a mercenary, or something,
Title: Re: Is the difficulty curve really inverted?
Post by: Seth on April 17, 2017, 04:45:01 PM
Wanna add another thought: Comms. Interactions are extremely minimal. If there would be an option to extend it, build some kind of a dialogue, try to reason with pirates, rival factions etc to give something and avoid fight or just smooth talk them would be great. Also if we could actually interact with allied fleets and etc, that'd be welcome too. Hopefully in the future it will be looked into, but as of now, I haven't seen anything related in 0.8 notes.

Btw, is there a chance of modding it into the game at some degree for now?
Title: Re: Is the difficulty curve really inverted?
Post by: Midnight Kitsune on April 17, 2017, 04:45:26 PM
Wanna add another thought: Comms. Interactions are extremely minimal. If there would be an option to extend it, build some kind of a dialogue, try to reason with pirates, rival factions etc to give something and avoid fight or just smooth talk them would be great. Also if we could actually interact with allied fleets and etc, that'd be welcome too. Hopefully in the future it will be looked into, but as of now, I haven't seen anything related in 0.8 notes.

Btw, is there a chance of modding it into the game at some degree for now?

Doubt it. But I would love to be able to contact the enemy and do stuff like insult them to anger them, making them more aggressive or even reckless!

It's not a coincidence those bad difficulty curve comics are all of bethesda games. They are famously bad at balancing difficutly in an open world.
Except that the third one isn't. I'f I'm not mistaken, that is the new Legend of Zelda game
Title: Re: Is the difficulty curve really inverted?
Post by: BillyRueben on April 17, 2017, 05:13:55 PM
It would also be nice to see engagements that have objectives other than "kill everything" or "escape". Maybe an escort mission (ie some fleet pays you for protection, the less damage taken by ships in that fleet, the more you are paid), or even dare I say it a stealth mission (blow target ship up while drawing minimal attention). Those always add difficulty, or at least a change in tactics.
Title: Re: Is the difficulty curve really inverted?
Post by: Dri on April 17, 2017, 06:37:48 PM
Escort missions? Why...just why would you even mention that?

Escort missions in space games are pure devilry!
Title: Re: Is the difficulty curve really inverted?
Post by: DatonKallandor on April 17, 2017, 06:42:02 PM
Escort missions are the obvious low level mission that's missing to make the early game not a giant difficulty wall.
Title: Re: Is the difficulty curve really inverted?
Post by: BillyRueben on April 17, 2017, 06:44:42 PM
Escort missions? Why...just why would you even mention that?

Escort missions in space games are pure devilry!
Are they? I've always had fun when the missions were more than just attrition. I'd love to see some variety. Even some lore handwavy derpery to get some Battlefield style Conquest would be awesome.
Title: Re: Is the difficulty curve really inverted?
Post by: PerturbedPug on April 17, 2017, 07:05:37 PM
There just need to be more options and I think 0.8a is one of the first steps towards that. If you don't want to engage in combat you can survey planets or scavenge resources, ships, items, etc. from exploration, but there needs to be more ways of making money besides the obvious combat, trade and exploration. Perhaps spying on factions by watching fleet movements while staying hidden, sabotaging enemy markets, arming & supplying friendly rebel groups with weapons and food or transporting passengers. These are just twists on the standard 3 ways of making money but they add some interesting flavor.

More interaction with enemies is a good idea as well, perhaps pirates or hostile fleets could be bribed to leave you alone (but not if the faction is super angry with the player). An insurance plan on ships in your fleet could help ease the pain of lost ships (as long as your transponder was on when it was lost, and the ship was legally acquired) by paying out a fraction of what it was worth. Nexelerin already does this and it really cushions the blow.

Just my 2 cents.
Title: Re: Is the difficulty curve really inverted?
Post by: Sutopia on April 18, 2017, 07:03:15 PM
Just make much stronger fleet not even bother pursuit you unless they got VERY good reason.
For instance, got a heavy bounty on you, then the pursuer size will be based both on bounty size and your own size.(i.e. the enemy size range increases with bounty size.)
Title: Re: Is the difficulty curve really inverted?
Post by: Inventor Raccoon on April 18, 2017, 08:07:25 PM
Escort missions are the obvious low level mission that's missing to make the early game not a giant difficulty wall.
One of the big challenges is often having to fight multiple enemy ships at the same time, which is relieved during an escort mission, because while you have to protect some incompetent freighter, you might also have a couple of mercenary escorts fighting alongside you. Even if it's just a Lasher and Brawler, makes it much easier when you have allies.
Title: Re: Is the difficulty curve really inverted?
Post by: AxleMC131 on April 18, 2017, 08:22:07 PM
Escort missions are the obvious low level mission that's missing to make the early game not a giant difficulty wall.
One of the big challenges is often having to fight multiple enemy ships at the same time, which is relieved during an escort mission, because while you have to protect some incompetent freighter, you might also have a couple of mercenary escorts fighting alongside you. Even if it's just a Lasher and Brawler, makes it much easier when you have allies.

Definitely. I'd be down for escort missions. They'd be tricky to implement, but almost certainly worthwhile, especially for the early game.
Title: Re: Is the difficulty curve really inverted?
Post by: Thaago on April 18, 2017, 08:37:29 PM
Escort missions where the player is in command (can tell the fleet where to move on the overmap) would be ok. It would be a little strange if you in your single frigate are put in charge of what amounts to a battlegroup... perhaps whatever it is you are escorting should be the same size or smaller than the player's current fleet?
Title: Re: Is the difficulty curve really inverted?
Post by: AxleMC131 on April 18, 2017, 10:10:58 PM
I dunno. I'd have made it so that it requires you to follow an individual convoy or something, and join in quickly if they get attacked. You would gain additional payment and reputation with the faction (and convoy commander?) to make picking up the mission worthwhile, as opposed to just sticking with a random convoy and hoping they get attacked. Conversely, if you accept the escort mission then either don't follow or let the convoy get attacked without helping, you lose a bunch of rep and maybe get fined.

For balancing, the escort contract should only require you to attempt to defend the convoy. If you join them after they get attacked but still lose the battle, there isn't any penalty - you tried your best, as it were, and failed. Happens to the best.
Title: Re: Is the difficulty curve really inverted?
Post by: Voyager I on April 18, 2017, 11:35:39 PM
Escort missions sound like they have a lot of potential to be hell in an open-world sandbox where a big fuckoff ball of pirates can come down on you at any time and place.
Title: Re: Is the difficulty curve really inverted?
Post by: AxleMC131 on April 18, 2017, 11:38:04 PM
Escort missions sound like they have a lot of potential to be hell in an open-world sandbox where a big fuckoff ball of pirates can come down on you at any time and place.

True. It'd require some balancing. Perhaps it could only allow you to escort convoys of a similar size/speed to your fleet, so that you never lose any semblance of "the ability to run the f*** away".
Title: Re: Is the difficulty curve really inverted?
Post by: Nighteyes on April 19, 2017, 04:46:43 AM
I mean, is there any open world game that really got more difficult over time? I can't think of one. Skyrim, Fallout, Zelda BotW, they all follow the same pattern. It's so much of a standard you can even find comics about it:

So, if Starsector has a normal difficulty curve for an open world game, can you really call it "inverted"? Ok, there can be some mean spikes at the start right now, but that's a different problem all together.

Skyrim and other TES games use level-scaling enemies to keep the content challenging. MMOs use tiered zones to guide the player around along their journey.

SS could use something similar in the universe where each faction controls different regions of space as territory. The different factions could scale up to certain levels. When I say scale, I mean the fleets that are spawned in the region are either at a set amount, or if you choose scaling, will almost always be equivalent to whatever the player is flying around up to a set maximum value.

There are many ways to create a fun game throughout, but I have a feeling the very loud, hardcore portion of this community will denounce any form of scaling.
Title: Re: Is the difficulty curve really inverted?
Post by: Thaago on April 19, 2017, 05:10:15 AM
I'm hesitant to have the player attached to a fleet outside of their control - it sounds quite boring to me to just sit and watch, doing nothing and waiting for the fleet to be attacked.
Title: Re: Is the difficulty curve really inverted?
Post by: Inventor Raccoon on April 19, 2017, 05:58:08 AM
I'm hesitant to have the player attached to a fleet outside of their control - it sounds quite boring to me to just sit and watch, doing nothing and waiting for the fleet to be attacked.
The player already gets scripted (not sure if that's the right term) attacks from small pirate fleets while going on a procurement contract. Do the same thing with escort jobs, so you'll get a couple of guaranteed attacks. Maybe even make larger fleets avoid the target, so it doesn't become impossible.
Title: Re: Is the difficulty curve really inverted?
Post by: Immahnoob on April 19, 2017, 08:39:35 AM
I think it becomes rather easy in the late game.

I finished a Vanilla faction run with level 58, I could pretty much solo everything with my Onslaught. If I felt that things aren't going my way, I'd bring in my Paragon too.
Title: Re: Is the difficulty curve really inverted?
Post by: DatonKallandor on April 19, 2017, 10:32:23 AM
Escort missions sound like they have a lot of potential to be hell in an open-world sandbox where a big fuckoff ball of pirates can come down on you at any time and place.

Those giant pirate balls also come down on you if you're not escorting something. The one change would be that during the escort mission you've got NPC support and don't have to win with just your ship/fleet.

Seriously, ever since joining combat in progress was implemented, escort missions are a no-brainer. There's already NPC trader fleets going from station to station. There's already a way to join that fleet and help it when it gets into combat. All that's missing is a systemic way for the player to say "I'll escort you to the next station" and get paid for it - preferably in a lump sum upon completion and an escort bounty for every hostile eliminted on the way, to make the trips where the RNG just won't leave you alone worth more.

And being able to become the escorted fleet by hiring someone else for 1 to X trips would also be very useful, but not as necessary for the early game difficulty issue.
Title: Re: Is the difficulty curve really inverted?
Post by: orost on April 19, 2017, 10:48:00 AM
If there are escort missions, they should attach to your fleet. That way there's no danger of frustration from the AI being stupid and getting itself killed. If you go the wrong way or take too long they detach and you pay a rep and/or money penalty.
Title: Re: Is the difficulty curve really inverted?
Post by: Toxcity on April 19, 2017, 10:52:55 AM
Having them as a seperate entity is fine since it forces you to keep you transponder on, and fight battles you otherwise wouldn't. If you just want to earn money in your own fleet you can trade or do bounties.
Title: Re: Is the difficulty curve really inverted?
Post by: orost on April 19, 2017, 11:04:02 AM
That's not a good thing. It's the recipe for the typical frustrating escort mission which you can lose through no fault of your own based on luck. And the game cannot be made smart enough to judge whether you did your best in face of impossible odds or screwed up and should be punished.

If you're in command you can sneak and evade enemies you cannot fight, and always have a chance succeed in the mission through skill. It can still be made more challenging than regular flying around by spawning extra fleets that specifically hunt for you (the pirates found out about your escort contract and know there's something valuable to steal). And you'll have the freighters' inferior civilian sensor stats to make it a bit harder to sneak around.
Title: Re: Is the difficulty curve really inverted?
Post by: Dri on April 19, 2017, 11:18:14 AM
Escort missions are pure trash. That goes doubly for escorts missions where the NPCs get to set the pace and not, you know, the player who knows best how to protect them!
Title: Re: Is the difficulty curve really inverted?
Post by: Toxcity on April 19, 2017, 11:20:01 AM
It's not like you'd be forced to do them. Bounties, procurement, and ezploration would still be available.
Title: Re: Is the difficulty curve really inverted?
Post by: orost on April 19, 2017, 11:29:43 AM
But why would you want an escort mission where you're at the mercy of the AI, when the game's design easily allows something better? I'd have thought that these days everyone agrees that's a bad idea...
Title: Re: Is the difficulty curve really inverted?
Post by: PCCL on April 19, 2017, 11:39:16 AM
imo the best implementation of escort would be spawning a fleet that goes to the destination and you (as a separate fleet) can maneuver yourself.

As long as you stay in short range sensor (so they're comfortable you're around) and they arrive safely, you're good. Contact with your clients ("hey, we're gonna scout ahead so we'll be out of range for a few days" or "hey, we're gonna draw that pirate fleet off, rendez vouz at the jump point" or "Barad is really close to the Jangala jump point right now, consider resupplying through Asharu via fringe approach instead of resupplying from Jangala") would also be really nice but might be too complicated.

This is a bit off topic though
Title: Re: Is the difficulty curve really inverted?
Post by: Tartiflette on April 19, 2017, 01:01:34 PM
To me the best way to have escort mission would be to directly add the escorted fleet to your fleet (without sharing cargo and crew obviously), and have them spawn as allies if needed in battle. That system could also be used the other way around by hiring mercenary escorts when venturing in hostile space, or private transports to fulfill a trade mission. Could also be used to have "character" ships that can join you for specific story driven missions...
Title: Re: Is the difficulty curve really inverted?
Post by: cjuicy on April 19, 2017, 01:30:44 PM
Could also be used to have "character" ships that can join you for specific story driven missions...
Something like "A former admiral working to prove his innocence" or "Hegemony detective hunting a group of smugglers from Barad B"?
Title: Re: Is the difficulty curve really inverted?
Post by: Inventor Raccoon on April 19, 2017, 01:56:17 PM
Could also be used to have "character" ships that can join you for specific story driven missions...
Something like "A former admiral working to prove his innocence" or "Hegemony detective hunting a group of smugglers from Barad B"?
Oh my god, I realised we need unique character quests. Pop into a market, see a questgiver, accept quest, and then you engage in some premade scenario, like relieving a siege on some backwater planet, or breaking up a drug deal, with allies joining in.

On an unrelated note, it would be awesome to have an end-game mission type where you defend an orbital station (armed to the teeth and with a module that stops your ships from losing CR), from waves of enemy ships, until reinforcements arrive.
Title: Re: Is the difficulty curve really inverted?
Post by: AxleMC131 on April 19, 2017, 03:31:47 PM
I don't think the AI would ruin escort missions. You might be surprised how good the AI actually is at having convoys avoid pirate ambushes: they'll actively avoid them, and even turn their transponders off in dangerous locations.

Even so, AI isn't perfect, and it's the reason I suggest A) still being paid if you try to fight and lose, and B) only being able to escort fleets the same speed as you, so you still have exactly the same options to escape or engage.
Title: Re: Is the difficulty curve really inverted?
Post by: Voyager I on April 19, 2017, 04:08:37 PM
Escort missions sound like they have a lot of potential to be hell in an open-world sandbox where a big fuckoff ball of pirates can come down on you at any time and place.

Those giant pirate balls also come down on you if you're not escorting something. The one change would be that during the escort mission you've got NPC support and don't have to win with just your ship/fleet.

No, the difference when you're by yourself is that you don't have to fight them at all.
Title: Re: Is the difficulty curve really inverted?
Post by: AxleMC131 on April 19, 2017, 04:21:09 PM

Those giant pirate balls also come down on you if you're not escorting something. The one change would be that during the escort mission you've got NPC support and don't have to win with just your ship/fleet.

No, the difference when you're by yourself is that you don't have to fight them at all.

Neither do the AI. Do you really think a small convoy, upon seeing a pirate attack fleet coming for them, is just going to hold course? No, they don't do that.
Title: Re: Is the difficulty curve really inverted?
Post by: Bastion.Systems on April 20, 2017, 02:12:18 AM
Two examples how to create endgame challenge in an open world game:

1. Endgame crises (good example: in Battle Brothers as the game clock advances it will trigger one of three cataclysmic events that spawn very hard armies that will genocide the entire map if not stopped)

2. Boss faction (Templar mod for example spawns fleets that can easily crush the player even with a full fleet and support and need good tactics and careful execution to defeat.)
Title: Re: Is the difficulty curve really inverted?
Post by: DatonKallandor on April 20, 2017, 04:54:32 AM
A) still being paid if you try to fight and lose,

I think the best option there is you don't get the mission complete lump sum, but you do get the per-kill payment. That way you get compensated for trying, but not for failing.

Really, anybody making a sandbox space game should really play Void Destroyer 2 to see how to properly reward the player in ways that make sense and aren't punishing. From bounties scaling to the cost of the ship being destroyed to being able to get paid for non-combat stuff like having a repair ship and repairing NPCs with hull damage everything feels valuable in proportion to the risk taken to do it. It's even got Pirates that act like actual Pirates - they demand payment and only kill if don't comply (which is also how you build or lose pirate rep - demand payment and kill if refused, but if you kill somebody that paid you lose pirate rep).
Title: Re: Is the difficulty curve really inverted?
Post by: Megas on April 20, 2017, 05:01:35 AM
@ Bastion.Systems: That could be fun if my fleet/faction is the one causing the events.  If not, let the outsiders kill the competition, then my fleet gets to kill them without meddling from those Hegemony and other kids.

I would like it so that my faction becomes the boss faction (a.k.a., new aspiring dark lord in town).  You have bog standard stuff (plus maybe a few treasures), but because you are ambitious (or the game god commands all AI to kill the human because the game said so), all factions hate you and your mission is to survive (by killing all of them) with whatever you found or built.  You win if you kill them all (and rule what is left of the sector).

There needs to be something to do besides play low-level dog or thug for some major power.