Fractal Softworks Forum
Starsector => Suggestions => Topic started by: Ostin on February 18, 2012, 01:58:17 PM
-
Hi. I played only a few missions so far and want to share my personal expirience with current fleet control system. Excuse me my not perfect englesh.
This system so far looks very unintuive to me. I dont feel like I'm using it I'm rather fighting it or trying to trick it to make it do a very very simple things. For example if I need "this guy" to atack "this guy" it seems like im not able to do that without making all my flleet or a part of it to do the same thing. Another example. I started the missions, set few orders for capturing objectives, set a defend point. Here comes enemy. All his fighters flew forward and left some bigger ship behind. Sending my torpedo bombing wing to destroy it seemed like a good idea. Again, thats impossible to do just that? And I wanted all my other ships to stay on their positions to protect objectives and my main forces to defend point that I set. But as soon as they capture the objective, they desided to go to Defence point since it has higher priority then when enemy captured this obectives they went back to retake them. OMG.
All that causes alot of frustration for me and more importantly it just doesn't give me enough control and there for it takes away almost all the tactical gameplay I was looking for.
I can understand the limited number of orders, it gives opportunity to play this game as an action without having to constantly giving orders to all you ships in order to make them do the optimal tasks in each moment.
So what I want to see is system much like in classic RTS. But I have limited number command points that I regain over time (I personally wouldnt even want that). Certain objectives can increase command points regeneration. I select units with left mouse button and give them tasks with by RMB. When I click right mouse button the context menu appears and I can select action. Another way to implement this and probably more convinient is to make a panel with actions available for the selected ship. One task for one unit costs 1 command point (may be cost can be different). I can do SHIFT+LMB to add waypoints if I dont want my ships to fly straight to target location (probably each waypint in that case can cost 1 CP). Etc. With system like that I can do whatever I want.
I realy realy dont understand why you would choose unintuitive system with standing orders, automatic assignment, inconvinient interface, fixed priority order, over classic RTS interface and control mode.
Imagine an RPG like Dragonage or RTS like Warcraft or Starcraft with controls like currently is Starfarer =) You cant control your units, you have to set a rally points keeping in mind the pryority order... Argh. I just dont uderstand =)
-
have to say that gettin used to the command system is pain in the *** but once u get the basics u can almoust everything u want, not everything like complicated maneuvers are no go but u can order spesific ship to attack spesific enemy just click on the enemy choose haras or intercept then click on the unit u want to engage it and click assign order then click on the enemy again it should reassing that ship to take the task and free the ship it would have sent otherwise (brobably from the other side of the map ::))
-
You see? Thats what Im talking about. Isn't it still pain in the same place? You need minimum 4 clicks to do that, 2 CP (which you'll have like 10-20 in entire mission?). But in some cases You'll need 6 - 25 clicks and just won't have enough CP... Anyway is there a point in all this?
Note: In system I have in mind you should be able to assign ships to the groups and giving orders to that groups will cost the same amount of CP as giving orders to 1 unit.
I'm Indie game developer (first project in alpha stage) my self and I will probably end up making my own tactical game of that kind which I wanted to play for such a long time but never seen one =)
-
I also do not understand the purpose of limiting the player with the way orders work/CP limitations. I'd love to hear the reasons behind it.
-
I think you guys should try making it possible to split a fleet and assign different ships to different task forces. I think this would work well because you could use it to pull out some faster ships from a massive armada in order to hunt down and assualt some of the smaller groups that you cant keep up with
You should also make it possible move to certain ship groups and planets from the map when your in the fleet mode
-
As I see it either there needs to be no arbitrary restrictions on how we can take care of our ships, OR the in-game AI needs to be brought to a level of competence where every variant from a Talon wing that should be avoiding combat and scouting, to a giant ass Battleship, knows its role and keeps itself alive without needing your meddling.
Having the level of micromanagement reduced is a cool idea IF the fleet orders system is incredibly well designed and that incredibly competent AI is there, but if you just restrict me from doing what needs to be done to keep my ships alive, all you're doing is frustrating the hell out of me. But that said, I haven't heard the devs explain the purpose of the system yet, I might be missing the point.
-
Hi guys.
This blog post (http://fractalsoftworks.com/2011/07/27/fleet-control/), and the one after it, talks about the rationale for the command system. We actually tried an RTS-like control scheme first, but found that it's not a good match for Starfarer. The posts are a bit out of date (we've tweaked things since then) but they do present the thinking behind the decision.
As far as the new system, the Escort orders aren't working well - so I wouldn't use them for now, it'll just lead to frustration. I'm actually re-working how these behave as we speak. Aside from that, I think the system works well, and it's largely a question of learning it - it IS different, but I find that it lets me do all the things I need to when playing. With the caveat about the Escort orders, of course.
-
Thanks for your response! The problem I have right now with the way it all works is the micromanagement is still there and in fact made worse due to the system being incomplete. Caps work pretty well with it but Fighters, Talons in particular, are really bad at taking care of themselves and love to charge into enemy Broadswords/Frigates/Anything they see when they should really be running from everything except other Talons and maybe some bombers. It also seems like regularly I'll have only one enemy left on the map and put an intercept on him as he runs away, but only one of my fighter wings/ships will be assigned to chase him and all the others will just do whatever still, so having some control over how many ships/fighters go after an objective would be nice maybe.
I also feel very inflexible in the role of scouting - I have to spend a lot of CP to have a Talon wing effectively scout around the map without getting themselves killed in the process.
For me the biggest problem is that it's a double whammy of restriction - the fleet commands can be micro'd to do what you want BUT you can only do so much ordering around. Unless the fleet AI is INCREDIBLY competent, having a restriction on the amount of commands you can give per battle is just a huge gut punch for the player in my opinion.
Having said that, until I read that blog I didn't realize how recently you'd implemented all this. Considering it's a very new system I'm sure you guys will get around to stuff like this, and if so, the system itself is very interesting, kudos to you for it. As long as it's helping us instead of restricting us I'm all for it.
-
Great game and props for everything so far... however, I'm still not sold on current fleet control system.
It restricts the player for sake of restriction, which would be fine because that's what games are about, but it does in one area where players should feel the least resistance; user interface. This game can have both RTS control with smart unit behavior, because they are not mutually exclusive as the blog post makes it out to be. Most, if not all of the current control scheme are in fact very rudimentary. What is "escort"? In RTS you do this by simply clicking on the unit. Every form of movement (capture/rally) and attack is simple right click. So why can't current unit behavior work with simpler RTS style commands? Only thing that'll be different from traditional RTS would be that once the units begin to fight, they maneuver on their own. And that's really the only thing that's currently different from traditional RTS anyway.
Also, RTS control basically uses right mouse click and the game interprets it based on the context (who is selected and is the mouse click on hostile/friendly unit or interactive/open terrain?). Starfarer does this in backward order by asking the player to choose what kind of action they want to take, then having the player to specify where it should happen. Why take such intuitive control scheme and force the player to approach it in reverse (where precision and time is lost by great deal)? The blog says it's to simulate commanding over personal. I agree with the spirit, but disagree with the implementation. Current fleet control not only takes away some micromanagement (what weapons should the ships shoot? Should fighters stay mobile? etc., all good things to let the AI handle), but it takes away many of critical fleet wide tactical/strategic planning out of the commander's hands. For example, blog says and the game shows that when order capture of a point, the game selects a unit for you to do the job... WHY? Isn't it my job as the admiral (or if you are running single carrier, captain/commander) to plan the battle? The type of unit that will head out to capture a location is something that player should decide because that's tactics/strategy! Another example is fleet positioning... Right now the commanders have no control over fleet formation. Pre-battle fleet formation is not micromanagement... it's essential part of the commander's job. You guys are right that commander shouldn't micromanage, but the current system takes away too much of tactical and strategic control from the player to justify itself. Sure, let the AI handle the shooting and simple maneuver during combat, but that can be done with traditional RTS control.
A much more intuitive system that lets you perform tactics and strategy and better simulate command structure would be like this...
Have traditional RTS control for capture/way point/attack. Keep the ship's automation over combat maneuvers and weapons control. Now to simulate the subordinates... depending on the veteran status of a ship's crews, change it's behavior and probability of following direct orders (done via RTS control) in middle of battle. For example, if the crew of a ship is mostly green, it has high probably of going out of player's control in combat. Such ship would retreat if few of its weapons are damaged, and pursue damaged units recklessly. Your veterans and elites will be much less likely to break during combat, and have enough discipline to stay in formation even if tempted by an easy target.
-
For those of us who have been playing the game, on and off, for the last nine or ten months it can be difficult to understand the frustration with the current system. It has to be said though, when the game changed away from the RTS type controls to the one we have today, some of us probably did look at each other (metaphorically, of course) and think something along the lines of "Why are they doing this?" I didn't think it worked initially, until I had played just a few missions, and remain convinced that this one is better than the one before.
My personal opinion is that this discussion will probably never go away in its entirety as the RTS control system is just too widespread and familiar, it stands to reason that, in a sense, it is much more intuitive for the average gamer.
What I think will help greatly, is a robust, clear tutorial system that guides the player away from seeing the game in the context of an RTS, and more in the context of a 'battle / command simulator'. Would you send a single wing of Talons scouting in to the great unknown, in real life? Or would you sit back, knowing what you are likely to face off against, and prepare your lines accordingly?
On the subject of frustrations around your units not doing what you want them to, that feeling is magnified three or four times (maybe even five) when the interface you are using implies that they should be doing what you tell them to. One of the major frustrations previously was, for instance, ordering a Wasp Wing to retreat away from an engagement and watching them get chewed up in the melee - at least you didn't use up a command point whilst you were growling at their soon-to-be-smoking shells for disobeying your orders.
-
What I think will help greatly, is a robust, clear tutorial system that guides the player away from seeing the game in the context of an RTS, and more in the context of a 'battle / command simulator'. Would you send a single wing of Talons scouting in to the great unknown, in real life?
Yes. Especially since you have no idea what is in the "great unknown". This is extremely logical in context of battle/command simulator. You just don't plan without learning what it is that you are facing against. And the recon element are often agile/stealthy elements that can move in and out fast to gather information. Hence sending in a single wing of Talons for scouting makes perfect sense.
Or would you sit back, knowing what you are likely to face off against, and prepare your lines accordingly?
How the hell would you know what you are likely to face off against if it's from the "great unknown?" Either you don't know so you need to scout, or you know and you don't.
On the subject of frustrations around your units not doing what you want them to, that feeling is magnified three or four times (maybe even five) when the interface you are using implies that they should be doing what you tell them to. One of the major frustrations previously was, for instance, ordering a Wasp Wing to retreat away from an engagement and watching them get chewed up in the melee - at least you didn't use up a command point whilst you were growling at their soon-to-be-smoking shells for disobeying your orders.
Now I know that escort is broken, that's that but you guys are still dodging the question; what's the reasoning behind lumping all controls to unit types and hence limiting any tactical/strategic options for the player? Right now if you want to move something, you have to move every single unit under that category. That's not simulating command structure/battle. That's just most awkward artificial restriction I have seen in a game where you command a large force. Imagine if US Navy had the same restrction as SF player... when you, as the admiral of a CTF, receive request from a marine force for air support against a two deozen enemy soldiers in entrenched position. You as the Admiral have the option of either A) launch all 400+ fighters for CAS mission or B) do nothing or C) launch all 400+ fighters and let them figure everything out ::)
Look, it doesn't even have to be like traditional RTS control, but it has to allow us to do more with our force than just "every X ship type, go here". At least let us create multiple task forces which will then operate as a unit on its own. Having 3 or 4 groups consisting of 1 carrier 1 destroyer 2 frigate and 2 fighter wings that operate as a unit is far more feasible than current system's "ALL 8 fighters go to A, ALL 4 carriers go to Y", etc.
-
Great game and props for everything so far... however, I'm still not sold on current fleet control system.
Hi there! Happy to hear you like the game overall. I appreciate your support in pre-ordering it, and that you cared enough to drop by here and share your thoughts :)
Now I know that escort is broken, that's that but you guys are still dodging the question; what's the reasoning behind lumping all controls to unit types and hence limiting any tactical/strategic options for the player? Right now if you want to move something, you have to move every single unit under that category. That's not simulating command structure/battle. That's just most awkward artificial restriction I have seen in a game where you command a large force. Imagine if US Navy had the same restrction as SF player... when you, as the admiral of a CTF, receive request from a marine force for air support against a two deozen enemy soldiers in entrenched position. You as the Admiral have the option of either A) launch all 400+ fighters for CAS mission or B) do nothing or C) launch all 400+ fighters and let them figure everything out ::)
Look, it doesn't even have to be like traditional RTS control, but it has to allow us to do more with our force than just "every X ship type, go here". At least let us create multiple task forces which will then operate as a unit on its own. Having 3 or 4 groups consisting of 1 carrier 1 destroyer 2 frigate and 2 fighter wings that operate as a unit is far more feasible than current system's "ALL 8 fighters go to A, ALL 4 carriers go to Y", etc.
That's not actually how it works. You certainly can't say "all fighters go here", so I don't think that's a good premise to debate the current system from. For the assignments that are type-based (fire support, carrier group, strike force), you can create more than one, so you're not limited to one location, either.
As far as being able to group certain ships together, a combination of improved Escort commands and some judicious direct orders should do the trick.
I know you've made the argument that an RTS approach would have the same amount of micro, but having tried both systems, I have to disagree, and by a rather wide margin. I can't really say that you're "wrong", though, nor do I think that. Perhaps there's some way to make it work in an RTS-like setup - but having spent a fair amount of time on it (after all, moving from that control scheme completely, and writing a rather involved replacement for it, was not a decision made lightly!), I couldn't make it work well.
I've been keeping up with all the feedback re: the control system. A lot of it is positive, but there's certainly some negative feedback as well, and there are some good points there. I think improvements already in the works will address most of those concerns, but I have to say this - if one keeps trying to play it as an RTS, it's just never going to work.
I hope I can say this without it coming across the wrong way - the current system is here to stay. I certainly don't mean that it won't change and get better, but if you're interested in helping improve how fleet controls work, changes that work within the current system are the way to go.
-
So I've only played the game for about 5 hours (having picked it up about 2 am this morning) but after doing the tutorial and playing a few missions I'm having no issues with the control system. I had initially written a rather long post, but decided to delete it in the interest of not stirring things up to much when I'm still such a newcomer to the community. So, we'll just settle with me giving a big thumbs up to Alex for the control scheme. It may not be perfect yet, but with just a bit more refinement it will be great. Keep up the good work!
-
Now, after I played a bit in campaign mode, I see this game differently. I really really enjoyed the the 1v1 1v3 fights on my frigate. But as soon as I have 5 or more units, I cant enjoy this kind of arcade shooter gameplay since I have constantly monitor the strategic situation ant taking care of my ships. So if this game would be just about 1 ship (may be with some minor escort) player would be able to assign targets to weapon groups and give orders to his team (1 - 4 units) right on the battlefield that would be such an amazing game. In case someone newer played the best space arcade/tactic game ever made and one of the best game for me personally check out Space Rangers 2. Best SO FAR. I really think that Starfarer would be even much better then SR or any game of this kind, if it would focus on that kind of gameplay.
On the other hand I would love to see some 2d space tactic strategy with full controll over my units including all sorts of micro. And there is no such game exists so far. Starfarer looks to me like it wants to be both, a shooter and a tactic strategy with the huge fleets. But I'm afraid it's impossible..
-
I was hoping that the fleet control system would "grow" on you as your character begins to slide more and more towards a fleet commander. Starting from giving simple directions, roleplayed in the current system, to ordering sub-fleets round like an RTS; as your character becomes more accustomed to giving commands and demand better fleet management technologies.
Sort of like unlocking perks that give the player more control over the fleet :P
-
I think a 'reinforce' order would be real nice, personally. Basically an order to send a certain CP's worth of ships to an objective, useful for fine tuning your fleet disposition across battlespace.
A 'withdraw' order would be nice too, to pull a unit back from an objective without retreating him off the freaking map.
-
I hope I can say this without it coming across the wrong way - the current system is here to stay. I certainly don't mean that it won't change and get better, but if you're interested in helping improve how fleet controls work, changes that work within the current system are the way to go.
No you did not come with it in a wrong way :) I do hope that my US Navy example was funny enough though lol
Well then, I think ability to adjust how much of your force is being committed to certain action would be very handy. For example, in Oil Rush has this function where you can adjust the percentage of your forces that's going to follow some basic attack/defend command. I think it was like 25%, 50%, and 100% (not that it has to be that number, but just bringing out as an example). This kind of splitting of forces could open room for flanking, and since this game features directional shielding, that would mean epic tactical options for players.
-
Well then, I think ability to adjust how much of your force is being committed to certain action would be very handy. For example, in Oil Rush has this function where you can adjust the percentage of your forces that's going to follow some basic attack/defend command. I think it was like 25%, 50%, and 100% (not that it has to be that number, but just bringing out as an example). This kind of splitting of forces could open room for flanking, and since this game features directional shielding, that would mean epic tactical options for players.
Hmm. About flanking, specifically - in most cases that's a tactical-level action, not something you'd have much success explicitly ordering, even if you could. For example, frigates tend to get behind enemy ships and blast their engines - you could hardly micromanage that without a lot of effort, and besides, they're aware enough to try for it themselves.
However, there *is* something you can already do here that's devastating if set up well. If you create a "Rally Strike Force", any bombers en route to a "Strike" objective will pass through the rally point first. So, you could use this to set up a flanking bombing run on an enemy capital ship. The "For the Greater Lud" mission offers a good testing ground for that particular strategy.
-
I think the current system can work very well for the way you're envisioning it, and I want to make it clear that it's not the lack of an RTS system itself that I miss, it's the level of control and thus freedom/flexibility that system provides that I miss. I don't care how you give me that control whether it's default RTS style or your fleet system, all I want is to be assured that unless I make mistakes or the odds are bad, I have all the control over how many casualties I'm going to take, and that if I think of something neat I want to try, your system does not arbitrarily hinder me from doing it.
I like keeping my dudes alive, that's my thing, Ground Control was my favourite RTS for this reason and it's become a huge part of how I get immersed in games. I'm on the complete other end of the scale from the guy who drag-boxes the entire army and attack moves, I want to keep as much alive as possible. I think your delegating Fleet System is perfect for that as long as the ships understand how to stay alive and as long as it becomes easier for us to make adjustments. What I do want to ask you is - why is there a restriction on the amount of commands you can give in this system? I jump into this great fleet system and I'm excited to try it out and let it help me, and without arbitrary restriction I could work around its quirks easily, so my question is - how does restricting the amount of commands I can give out help the player have more fun? What if there's a guy out there who enjoys micromanaging but also loves the style of Starfarer - why can't we let him have fun the way he wants instead of the way the game expects him to?
What worries me most is the response of mendoca - yes, of course I would send out scouts! In my opinion, this is part of any good strategy game, it lets the player actively gather intelligence in a straightforward and intuitive way, and it provides a clear and defined role for Talons which, otherwise, are worse than everything in every way. As long as they have the speed and sight range and AI smartness to avoid taking fire, using Talons as scouts is incredibly safe compared to the alternative of using them as combat ships, in which role they constantly get themselves killed to my great frustration. But what is worse is what this disagreement shows - if mendoca decides scouting is not useful but I decide it is, why do we have to argue over whether we should be allowed to do it in Starfarer? Why not just let us play the way we like?
That kind of thing is what really scares me about this fleet system - we are forced to play the way the developers think we should play, and if they don't think something is worth doing (e.g. scouting) then we can't do it. I don't want to be forced to play the game the way the developers see it. A default RTS scheme is so loved because it's basic and open and free and lets you try and do whatever you want. Command and Conquer sure wasn't made to be a game where you care about your troops and keep them alive, but you know what? It lets me play it that way! I can play the campaign missions and take an hour longer and not lose a man, and I'll have fun doing it, because Command and Conquer doesn't say "you can't do that, it doesn't make sense". Command and Conquer says "hey, do what you like, as long as you're having fun!" If you want to try scouting, sure, knock yourself out. If you want to try flanking your frigates, go ahead. Have fun! The pitfall of a complex command scheme like your fleet system is you are restricting us to your vision of your game. It only lets us do what you have decided we should be able to do. There is no creativity or flexibility in a system like that. Unless you have the super-human ability of considering every possible thing a player commander might want to try, you're restricting him for a reason I can't understand, and that takes out a lot of the fun and longevity in a game that is going to otherwise thrive on it.
I think your Fleet System can be amazing - as a tool to help the player - but as the only control scheme that we are forced into, its scary. If you had this fleet system as a helpful tool that was built on the foundation of a basic and free system like a normal RTS model, I think you'd have nothing but good feedback. I'm really interested to hear what you think on this topic Alex - being stuck playing the game in one particular way could quite possibly make or break Starfarer for me, and I hope not as it seems like it could be an amazing game.
EDIT: One extra thing that is related to Fleet control feedback - I'd really prefer the auto-pausing when you bring up the control map to not happen. Maybe have it as a toggleable option if a lot of people like it, but I hate it. If you're trying to play without using pause it's annoying, if you're trying to give out some orders in a low-intensity battle it's annoying, and it's really easy to just hit pause anyway, or hit pause and then open your map, or open your map and then hit pause.
-
People will play to the most optimal method, to suggest the current method be a learning tool is to suggest that it not exist at all. More than anything, people need to understand that this is not an RTS, and was never meant to be one.
I can go through most fights without losing a single ship and I never feel like I'm tricking the AI into doing anything, that should be proof enough that an understanding of the system can result in very good results. Starfarer is not a game where you micromanage the actions of your fleet, it was not made to be one. You would not complain about the dice rolling poorly in Baldur's Gate resulting in a miss, and you should not complain about your subordinates occasionally being stupid in this game.
Every game imposes a set of expectations upon its players. The expectations RTSs place upon you are simply more familiar to you, which is why you're getting that dissonance. This game is not built the way you want to play it because it's meant to offer something new. There are a dozen drag and click space strategy games out there, there are not very many where the experience of a ships crew plays into how they choose to fight on the battlefield, not merely the damage they do or some statistical increase.
If you're upset about that then you probably ought not play this game.
-
If you're upset about that then you probably ought not play this game.
This kind of reply does not help at all. Why can't you play the game the way you want and I play it the way I want? Who cares if it isn't intended to be an RTS - why not let people who want to play it as one have that freedom? As long as they're having fun, what is the problem?
You say you can go through most fights without losing a single ship, that's great. But what if, shock horror, other people don't play the exact same way you do? What if you're using destroyers and others want to use fighters? Do we all have to use the Iscariot strategy?
I would complain in Baldur's Gate if instead of being able to cast Magic Missile when I want, I have to set a marker on an enemy and someone in my party will cast a spell on them. I think the Fleet System is groovy, but why not let us do both instead of restricting us to one style of play?
-
I'm not attempting to be helpful, or offensive, really. Your simply seem to have different gameplay priorities than are intended by the designer, irreconcilable differences.
If an RTS system were there and present, even as an option, the entire point of the variable AI, crew experience, and the randomness of battle would utterly evaporate.
You're asking Alex to do a Subzero and pull out the backbone of Starfarer, and he's not going to.
-
Hmm. About flanking, specifically - in most cases that's a tactical-level action, not something you'd have much success explicitly ordering, even if you could. For example, frigates tend to get behind enemy ships and blast their engines - you could hardly micromanage that without a lot of effort, and besides, they're aware enough to try for it themselves.
I've been noticing this a lot. Specifically during the early game where I have one ship and I encounter two others; those hounds always seem to circle around my rear.
That kind of thing is what really scares me about this fleet system - we are forced to play the way the developers think we should play, and if they don't think something is worth doing (e.g. scouting) then we can't do it. I don't want to be forced to play the game the way the developers see it.
Isn't that true of all games? There has to be some restrictions in the system otherwise there'd be no game at all. You have to collect resources before you can do anything, you have to kill the enemy to win, you have to click around to move stuff. You can't tell any of your units to do something complicated like prime their grenades. If the RTS control scheme is the make all of the game, Men of War would be as popular as Starcraft, they allow for much better control of your own units. The control scheme is a part of the game as a whole. Starcraft is successful despite its relatively restrictive control scheme because it fits within the game and what it's trying to do.
A default RTS scheme is so loved because it's basic and open and free and lets you try and do whatever you want. Command and Conquer sure wasn't made to be a game where you care about your troops and keep them alive, but you know what? It lets me play it that way! I can play the campaign missions and take an hour longer and not lose a man, and I'll have fun doing it, because Command and Conquer doesn't say "you can't do that, it doesn't make sense".
As far as I understand, it does let you play however you want, it's just really really hard to pull it off.
I would complain in Baldur's Gate if instead of being able to cast Magic Missile when I want, I have to set a marker on an enemy and someone in my party will cast a spell on them. I think the Fleet System is groovy, but why not let us do both instead of restricting us to one style of play?
There are reasons for doing the things Alex is doing. They don't always work, but I think it's important that people try to do things differently. There are control schemes that somewhat mirror what he's doing as well as being popular. DF being the obvious example, Dungeon Keeper 2, and the Sims.
-
I think we misunderstand each other Iscariot, I'm not asking him to radically redesign the game or give us a control scheme where units react to your orders instantly, I'm only talking about the way you give orders and how there is a lot of restriction there.
Flare, to respond to you:
Restrictions in games make the challenge of the game - of course, but you need a more in-depth view of it than to say "any restriction is a good way to make the game more challenging". Needing resources restricts how fast you can get a huge army. Needing different units because you don't just have one unit that does everything makes for good gameplay. Having a restrictive control scheme is not the same as having restrictive game mechanics - you are taking the fundamental interface of the game and making it harder for the player to use.
I want to also make clear the distinction between a lack of depth and restriction. Not being able to tell your men to individually prime grenades in Command and Conquer is because there wasn't a need to simulate things at that level of depth. Not having the ability for fine aim in Counter-Strike is a lack of depth. The Fleet Command system is not a lack of depth, it is a restriction. You don't have to add in more depth to let a particular fighter wing be sent on scouting missions around the battlemap - that's already totally possible within the game and fits within the depth of it. The only reason you can't is a restriction has been placed on you that stops you from doing that.
StarCraft does not have a restrictive control scheme! It lets you do whatever you want within the limits of your units. It gives you Marines and says "do whatever you want with them". StarCraft is a great example of a game where the players can exhibit creativity and ingenuity thanks to the basic freedom the control scheme provides.
I don't want people to mistake me for hating the Fleet System or trying to fundamentally change the game into something it's not, that is completely not my intention. What I'm saying is the way the current system is implemented places a lot of restrictions on the player that get in the way of something that should never be hindered - communicating his will effectively into the game. I'm not asking the developers to spend time and effort on making the game deeper or removing features or making it a different genre - I'm simply supporting an ideal that asks you take away the restrictions that force us to play it in a specific way; give us your awesome game and then let us decide how to enjoy it.
-
Restrictions in games make the challenge of the game -...
This isn't the interface we're talking about though, it's the orders that you can give to your ships. It still has the same point and click interface of other games, it just has difference effects of what actually happens.
I want to also make clear the distinction between a lack of depth and restriction. Not being able to tell your men to individually prime grenades in Command and Conquer is b...
I disagree, that distinction you're drawing isn't clear. A lack of depth is a restriction. While it may be justified in Command and Conquer not to have its units prime their grenades, its still a restriction imposed onto the player on what should in all respects the Marines be able to do. Not having fine aim in Counter-Strike too would be a restriction. The acceptance of these sorts of restriction and intolerance for others are merely what one has come to expect from playing other games.
The reason I raised this issue was in response to your point about the game limiting the ability to do certain things, and that you did not like the way in which it limited despite the reasons given why such a limitation might exist. From what I understand, the argument raised was one based solely around gameplay not the explanation for it. I will argue that there aren't any grounds of which you can argue whether a feature of the game justifiably restricts gameplay or not.
StarCraft does not have a restrictive co...
It gives you the ability to tell them where to do and what to try and shoot at, that's it. There's some controls about holding fire, or holding position yes, but that's more or less it. I imgaine this is acceptable not because it provides people with absolute freedom with the marines, but that it adheres to peoples' concept of what restrictions they should tolerate from an RTS game.
I don't want people to mistake me for hating the Fleet System or trying to fundamentally change the game into something it's not, that is completely not my intention.
No worries here. Just focusing on a little point you've raised.
What I'm saying is the way the curren...
As far as I understand it, it's just a problem of what can be done by clicking inside of the game. There are some things that you can't accomplish by said clicking alone, and there are some things that can't be accomplished by any amount of clicking because the option just isn't there like having absolute control in Starcraft, or having absolute control in Starfarer.
-
Hmm. About flanking, specifically - in most cases that's a tactical-level action, not something you'd have much success explicitly ordering, even if you could. For example, frigates tend to get behind enemy ships and blast their engines - you could hardly micromanage that without a lot of effort, and besides, they're aware enough to try for it themselves.
However, there *is* something you can already do here that's devastating if set up well. If you create a "Rally Strike Force", any bombers en route to a "Strike" objective will pass through the rally point first. So, you could use this to set up a flanking bombing run on an enemy capital ship. The "For the Greater Lud" mission offers a good testing ground for that particular strategy.
I'm not talking about fighters and frigates zapping around, I'm talking about in more grand scale, like having 4 of your capital ships split into 2 along with necessary support elements to sandwich the enemy fleet between them or something along that line.
And yes, what you described with bomber is kind of similar in how it would work in control, except I want to try it with complete set of force, rather then certain unit types. Right now if I tried that it would be a micromanagement nightmare, as I would have to setup two sets of waypoints for all the ship types in my fleet and then hope they they split up evenly instead of doing whatever it is they may do.
Another aspect that current fleet control have in reverse that is not just counter intuitive, but creates excess micromanagement is that if you want to order small section of your fleet to act, you have to issue more orders to make sure the rest of your fleet doesn't act. For example, in middle of a huge battle I notice that enemy sends a lone fighter squadron (because that's all it has) to capture a nav point. I have 6 fighter squadron so I have the necessary tools to stop it. With SF's fleet control, I can order all fighters to go after that fighter or go to that nav point, or I can try to reduce the size (since 2 squadrons should be more than enough) of the reactionary force by... issuing at least 2 other orders or more to be sure that some fighters are left to do what they were doing.
Why is it like this? Because most orders you give out in fleet control is issued fleet wide without exception. That's not how command and control works IRL... you don't issue an general order to the entire base to rerun the obstacle course that John Smith did poorly in then issue another order to everyone who is not John Smith that the previous order should be ignored...
The suggestion I made before, about using sub-groups to simulate chain of command, would make more sense and simulate the command aspect of fleet much better. Have users create multiple groups (given how big the battles can get in this game, 10 should be plenty but no harm in having much higher cap for those who actually want to micromanage bit more) for all the ships... the player can customize completely, no restrictions. And depending on the type of units in the said group, the group can be issued an general order just like how it is given out in the fleet control right now, and the group will figure out how to do it just like it does now, except it'll only apply to the ships in the said group. This idea of sub groups and issuing orders to the group to carry out better represents chain of command as it would be like a high ranking officer telling lower ranking officer what the mission is then having the lower ranking officer "micromanage" the mission. Instead right now we have this weird system where general of the army is yelling out general orders to everyone and then letting everyone sort out whatever it is they will do based on the order.
-
I think we could debate the exact meaning of vague concepts for a while, and that makes me think it's not the best use of our time. Let me show what I mean more specifically to avoid any more misunderstandings. I want to show you how, working with the Fleet System (not throwing it out!) and intelligent AI, I believe it can be modified to be an awesome tool if instead of being designed to restrict, it's designed to aid.
(http://i.imgur.com/FlRaW.png)
Here's a quick little mock-up to illustrate how much better I believe the Fleet System could work with modification. Before we start, erase the idea of Command Points from your mind - we've got rid of them. The player is free to give as many orders as he likes.
The first thing I do is set up some move points (the Patrol Points in the picture) with the intent for my Talon wing to scout out these points in order - First Beta, then move on to Delta, then to Gamma. I assign them to each waypoint in a queue of orders - this would be most easily done with a simple "right click, go here", but it would also work albeit taking more effort by establishing the patrol/move points as assignments, then assigning the Talons to move to each in turn. This provides a great screen of intelligence for me and assures me I will find the enemy at some point - if I wanted to be more thorough I could send some more guys to scout from the right first and meet at the middle. But how can we be confident our little Talons are smart enough to stay alive if they find any enemies on their patrol path? Aiding this scouting effort, imagine we have the ability to toggle each unit's intended behavior. I toggle my Talons on to passive/scouting/whatever you want to call it, with the function being that they will manuever to ensure no enemies catch them in firing range, and that their top priority is survival. In this way, if the Talons get to a scout point and there are enemies, they will skirt around the enemies instead of flying straight in and getting killed. This behaviour could be very useful for a lot of things - you could assign fast scouts to follow an enemy ship around but stay away from any fire that could occur. This kind of behaviour toggle already has precedent in the Harass option, and Harass in my mind is perfect to move from an objective to an intended behaviour choice.
I think the way the Fleet System lets you set assignments is awesome, but it needs tweaking to be really fluid in my opinion. We set a capture order on the bottom left sensor array, SA Alpha. We know no enemies will be there so we want to send something low priority there - for demonstration's sake, lets say we don't send anything there now. Meanwhile, we can expect heavy resistance at the Nav Buoys in the middle of the map, so we split the bulk of our forces between them - with the current system, this is a bit difficult, but in the system I want to describe to you, it's quick. We set Capture/Assault assignments on both, then we select the ships we want to go to each and right click on one of those markers. As you can see, I've set an Assault/Capture mark on NB Alpha and then I've selected my fighter/bomber wings and right clicked on that marker - ignore that I've also set the leftmost Frigate to that marker, that's a mistake. They're all now assigned to that objective, and I can rely on their intelligent AI to assault and preserve themselves, especially if I can control their behaviour and know they'll attempt to fight/harass/run in accordance with my planned strategy. At no point are we asking the AI to be mindless RTS drones or trying to up the amount of micro for the sake of micro, we're simply making it easier to make your dudes do what you want them to without feeling like we're fighting the system.
We've sent our fighter group to the left objective, no problem. Now we want our bigger ships to head to NV Beta, but we'd like them all to stay together as a cohesive task force. Escort! We set an escort marker on the Hammerhead, then select our frigates and right click on the Hammerhead. This is already very similar to how it works with the current system, but it's streamlined to take less menus and effort and it gives us complete control over what is escorting what and gives it to us easily. The frigates are now assigned to escort that ship and will perform that role with all the intelligence we expect of Starfarer's AI.
These kinds of modifications to the existing system emphasize easy intuitive control for the player and allow him to implement his strategy the way he sees fit. Once we've taken the middle Buoys, moving on will be as simple as selecting our units and right clicking on movement/assault/escort assignments and setting their behaviours accordingly. If we see the enemy flanking to patrol point Beta, we can easily select as many craft as we deem necessary and send them in that direction, either to that marker or simply giving them a new move assignment. We can easily change who is escorting what on the fly. We can easily recall our fighter wings to the Carrier for R&R/escort if enemies sneak up on it.
This is hardly an in-depth idea that I've thought long and hard on, it's just a quick mock-up that emphasize the ideals I've been trying to bring across in this thread. I think that the Fleet System works on assignments and tries to use the intelligent AI to achieve a degree of autonomy is excellent, but too much restriction creates a lack of control that means that autonomy is taken too far and the AI is making the kind of decisions that the player should be handling instead. By removing the restriction of Command points and giving the player quick and easy control over what units are doing which assignments, we allow him to make those decisions easily and without penalty. We enhance his ability to decide exactly how much of his force he will assign to each assignment, while the intelligent AI is put to excellent use by completing those assignments they are tasked/queued with. At no point are we throwing out the Fleet System or requiring our ships to act like traditional RTS units - we're embracing their intelligence and initiative, but we're making sure the player controls how it is used and that it is in line with his intent. Also, by making the interface more intuitive and faster to use, we aid players who want to play without pausing constantly by giving them quick access to ordering their troops.
Thoughts?
-
I really like the command system. I found that once I stopped struggling against the command system it did almost exactly what I wanted, but I did feel a little restricted. I would love to see four things implemented; three having to do with fighters and one with options on opposing ships:
1) A "Rally Interceptor" rally point. (1 command point)
Fighters are quite good at surviving in fights in their weight class... but when that battleship comes along, they die in half a second - just like they should! Just like strike fighters have the rally and strike commands, interceptors could as well (heck, there is even already an intercept command). I could also then tell my fighters to hang back as my capital ships engage - then throw them along with the strikers to act as screens.
2) A "Repair and Refit All" option (1 command point)
Again, the AI is pretty good about going in on its own when damaged. Sometimes when there is a lull in the battle though I would like the option to tell all wings to return and get in top shape for the next round.
3) A "Scout" direct order (1 command point per ship)
Setting up that perfect flank or ambushing fire support ships means knowing where the enemy is. Assigning a ship as a designated scout is costly - it takes a command point and removes that ship from active combat - but I would love to see it as an option.
4) An "Avoid ship" order on an enemy ship (1 command point, 1 to cancel)
Very rarely I wish I could just let an enemy escape, or just avoid that battleship until I've taken out all of its escorts. It would be a nice option.
I think all of these are in the spirit of being a fleet commander, and would not lead to micromanagement.
Thanks for reading!
-Thaago
-
Thoughts?
I think it might run into the same problem with the first release and its RTS controls- few of us found any reason to command any ship when we had such great control over the whole operation. Most of us found ourselves sitting in the warroom and watching a bunch of symbols on the map blinking against each other as the most effective means of winning the battle. While this may at first seem like a choice between letting the player choose how to play, it's actually a choice between allowing the player to play in a way that isn't very fun at all but accomplishes the requirements of winning more easily, or providing the player a handicap so the game is actually fun to play. I guess it's kinda like imposing resource gathering in an RTS game instead of providing units via a counter to accomplish a gameplay goal.
I think the original download is still operational, if you want, you could take it for a spin and see what I mean.
http://fractalsoftworks.com/2011/06/10/starfarer-0-34a-released/
-
I just can't agree that balancing something by making it frustrating to do is a good way of doing things. With queueing and an easier to use system, we would have time to both control our fleet and control our ships. This isn't RTS micro, it's just taking our current system and making it easier to use, really.
-
I just can't agree that balancing something by making it frustrating to do is a good way of doing things.
As far as I experienced it, it's only frustrating if you want it to be. Just give it a chance.
With queueing and an easier to use system, we would have time to both control our fleet and control our ships. This isn't RTS micro, it's just taking our current system and making it easier to use, really.
The old system did allow you to que stuff up. It really didn't do much in way of alleviating the need to sit in the warroom though. Even if you set timers on how long a ship should stay at a waypoint, being in the control room just allows you to be able to respond all the much quicker to the situation as it changes.
-
I have too agree with Beagle on this one, like him, I just do not see the point of "Command Points" really. I mean, IRL, a commander could give any amount of orders he would like, so this is unrealistic. Secondly, I agree that we should have more freedom. We should be able to scout simply by 1-2 clicks, not by putting 5 rally points and ending up losing our scouts. I understand this is NOT an RTS game, but we do need more freedom with what we can do in the UI interface, and in my opinion, the UI as it is right now is unfriendly to the player.
-
I have too agree with Beagle on this one, like him, I just do not see the point of "Command Points" really. I mean, IRL, a commander could give any amount of orders he would like, so this is unrealistic.
Well if you want to go down that route, a commander certainly could. Although I think it'll only remain cohesive to the point where the communications officer relays it to other ships. From what I know of naval and land operations, a great deal of authority is given to the captains of the ships. There would be briefings to go over what objectives must be accomplished sure, but often how it comes about is left to the captain of each ship. This is done throughout communication technological leaps because when the firing starts, there's often way too much going on than any one crew or admiral can keep track of.
Admirals usually don't give out orders non-stop during engagement. There's often some basic procedure the ships and crew are trained to follow in reaction to events.
-
When the new system came I was initially very frustrated and didn't understand how to command my fleet properly. Granted, before the new system came I spent more time in the tactical screen than I spent commanding my ships. I have since grown accustomed to it and I find it works marvellously. My main enjoyment from the game doesn't necissarily come from commanding the fleet, however.
These days I give out commands at the start of combat. Review mid-way through and can throughout any engagement focus on fighting. This works well for me even with large fleets.
While I can agree that some features can be added, like a good command for scouting, I do like the limited amount of orders you can give out. It gives the tactical combat a slight board-game style of strategy which I think works well considering what the main focus of the game is. Ship AI and priorities can be tweaked to make the tactical side make more sense, sure. But at the end of the day I think the system works as intended. That is by putting focus on fighting in your ship as opposed to spending time in an overview map.
-
I'm not sure how to explain my idea, so bear with me.
I think it would be better if you could give more direct orders if you have a small fleet, consisting of frigates and destroyers, nothing bigger. In this case you're not fleet admiral, just a captain/commander of the leading warship, so you could communicate mid battle with other captains of other similar-class warships like it probably happens in real life. Now, when you get a bigger ship, your rank (this could probably either be made into player levels or just a simple ships-class = rank system) would be higher than a captain. For the sake of clear distinction, let's take a capital class ship and Admiral as rank. Now, since you're not a captain anymore, you don't communicate that much with individual captains, you're doing more tactics than battle (Obviously you still battle other ships, but it's more of a 1vsX rather than 2v2, 3v3 teamwork battle). All orders would be like now, kinda widespread and less specific, and it would all come down to captains of small ships to try and figure out the best way to complete this assignment.
I would probably advise against command points, since you won't need lots of them with this system, because its just a few general orders. What I would instead offer is to use command points on direct orders, like if an Admiral sees some rare opportunity that would help immensely or he has some specific plan/tactic that he would like to execute, he could override captains orders/authority and give direct order to specific frigate/fighter wing/whatever. This would fit nicely with limited command points, since Admiral shouldn't give direct orders often or to everyone, but if he has a request, it should be done, because well, he's an Admiral and he's more experienced so he should know better.
As you see, this would leave the current system intact for fleet wide battles, but will give more control for small fleets, if you can call them a fleet. This way it would divert focus for big battles from tactical screen to actual battle, but for people with small fleet/number of ships, they could spend a bit more time on tactical screen because it would be less frantic and hence consume less focus but give same amount of control in a way.
Thoughts?
-
I'd much rather be able to play with a good control scheme no matter the size of my fleet. From the feedback in this thread alone there's clearly a wide range of desires, which is why I'd like to see the system just be open and flexible and let everyone enjoy it their own way.
-
As a heavy RTS player I to found the command interface limiting and found it frustrating at times often for the harder missions I found the surest way to win was to spend 90% of my time in the war room and I imagine if I had been around pre 0.35a I would have always played in the war room. After only a few days of playing the game my thoughts where very much "arbitrary restrictions" etc. etc. However the more I have played the more I realise that it is mostly about how well the AI acts or rather how the AI acts vs How you expect it to act. This requires 2 things you to know how the AI works and for the AI to be good enough. one of these things you learn by playing the game enough and the other is still a work in progress (fighters particularly I believe).
I think what I'm trying to say is at the moment I have my complaints but I can't wait to see where this ends up as it could be a great system and I think for the time most of the people that don't get on with the system need to be patient to see where its going to end up.
A good example of how the system has improved is before 0.5a once your units had captured a location they wouldn't care about it at all now however they are more mindful of trying to keep it under your control. Which is a vast improvement.
keep up the great work!
-
First off I like the fleet control system, One thing that I think might improve on it though might be to work on giving different ships a "survival instinct". You already have a RPS style weapon/armour system so why not have crews do a quick threat assessment of whatever it is they are about to engage and determine their behavior based on that.
-
why not play like i do spend 3 seconds during initial phase to order capture capture assault then ignore all your other ships for 20 mins then scream out loud when u are swamped by enemies once your AI fleet is dead ^^
(i gave up trying to command the fleet long time ago;3)
i might order cap or intercept order every now and then but really i just let em do their own thing i can usually take the enemy fleet with my 1 ship rest are just fodder to keep enemy busy so i can kill em one by one :-\
-
3) A "Scout" direct order (1 command point per ship)
Setting up that perfect flank or ambushing fire support ships means knowing where the enemy is. Assigning a ship as a designated scout is costly - it takes a command point and removes that ship from active combat - but I would love to see it as an option.
Hmm, yeah. I think I'll be adding a "Scout" order, similar to "Capture" but available only on waypoints. Will mull over your other suggestions, as well.
... With SF's fleet control, I can order all fighters to go after that fighter or go to that nav point, or I can try to reduce the size (since 2 squadrons should be more than enough) of the reactionary force by... issuing at least 2 other orders or more to be sure that some fighters are left to do what they were doing.
I think I already mentioned this - that's not how it works :-\
If you issue an intercept order on the enemy fighter, *one* of your nearby fighter wings (or fast frigates) will break off and go after it. If you need to beef if up, you could use a direct order to add another ship to the mix.
... which is why I'd like to see the system just be open and flexible and let everyone enjoy it their own way.
If one way lets you be more effective, most people will feel forced to play that way, regardless of what their preference might be.
Re: what you're outlining - that's rather close to how the current system works now. Sans the removal of command points, of course - but you'll be able to control how many of those you get by building your character to match your playstyle.
Do you know about the "Assign Task..." order? Just read through what you've said again, and I'm not sure you mentioned that anywhere, but I could be mistaken. It lets you assign specific ships to specific tasks, overriding the AI's assignment decisions.
-
Ok I'm a noob, but I sort of agree with OP on this one. I think SMALL fixes could make it a little better.
Clicking/Shift-clicking - Allow direct orders like harass, etc to be ordered from a specific ship. Keep the auto feature, so lets say I dont care who harrasses said ship, the game can still pick the one they think should be sent, but lets say for some reason I want a certain frigate with a special load out to handle the bomber wings, then I should be able to just click that frigate, select attack, then simply click which enemy and boom I'm done. Thats alot more intuitive and user-friendly. Shift-clicking comes in with the same idea just multiple ships, if I want two frigates to attack one bombing wing, I would click the first while holding shift, click the second, then release shift and the menu pops up, choose attack and I can click who I want them to go after.
As for the control points, I do agree in an analytical sense it doesnt make a whole lot of sense, but I love the strategy it adds to the game in that its not ONLY point, click, attack, repeat. Maybe mix it up a bit? Some larger battles have CP, others you just start with the whole fleet, etc.
I LOVE the warroom idea as it allows you to choose which battles you want to directly control, but I agree it definitely could use some more user-friendly tweeks so that what you think you should do to make ships perform certain actions, is what you actually do. I agree some of the warroom controls are really unintuitive and frustrating at times.
-
I think I already mentioned this - that's not how it works :-\
If you issue an intercept order on the enemy fighter, *one* of your nearby fighter wings (or fast frigates) will break off and go after it. If you need to beef if up, you could use a direct order to add another ship to the mix.
You are right. It's bit unpredictable sometimes (mainly due to strafing runs that AI performs, which changes the distance from the target and sometimes AI gets bit wonky over who to send where because of this) but I should've noticed this lot earlier. My apologies.
I think I sounded like complaining asschat long enough, so time to mention something awesome about fleet control and question on its implementation if you guys could give an answer to it...
It's the priority system. I noticed that Capture/Assault had "high" priority compared to "Patrol". And Assault had priority over Capture in terms of the number of ships used for that command. I really liked this because it lets me shift the main weight of my fleet to a more appropriate location while still have few fast ships go around capturing nav point. All are orders that can be used to take over nav points, but gives you clear option on how you do it. Really simple, clean, and extremely predictable outcome.
The question is... do you guys have plan to implement this kind of priority system variations to every commands available? Like for example, once escort gets fixed, say I have a capital ship and 2 cruisers and want them all escorted by 9 fighter squadrons. Will you let the game automate the priority based on ship value or whatever, or allow players to set it manually by having another optional option? I think with the default option of automated with the option for players to redefine priority would be awesome. I think you can already do this somewhat via direct order, but this optional way of doing things would cut down on some micromanagement.
-
(This post is not part of the Great SF Command Debate)
I would just like one small tweak to direct orders. If you give a direct order, a ship goes to fulfill that order. But, if you assign another ship to do it, the first ship breaks off. Could we have an option to "assist with order" as well as "assign order", so that we don't have to reassign the original ship to the order?
Okay, my wording of that isn't the best so I will give an example:
First, you set an order, and one ship – which I will call ship A – is going to follow the order. If you now assign another ship – let's call it ship B – to the order, ship A breaks off. You have to assign ship A to the order it was originally going to follow, taking 3 command points to send 2 ships at one order.
-
- "Here we are with breaking news again, I'm Vanessa Drenn and we have an exclusive interview from a frustrated captain."
- "...so the last frigate was retreating as fast as he could, as usual", said the captain with a subtle smile on his face.
- "and obviously, we were ought to intercept it. The only ship that was close enough to almost engage it was 'ISS Mars', and seeing that this engagement would be no problem, I gave an order to capture any fighter wings left behind and switch to cruise speed to conserve fuel as my ship wouldn't make it in time anyway. What happened was", captain made a pause, trying to recall what he felt at that very moment.
- "...very unexpected for me. The frigate that was chasing the fleeing enemy, chose to stop the pursuit and follow my other order! I was speechless for a moment there, thinking could this be a bad dream, but that was enough for a fleeting enemy to get into a safe zone and engage FTL drives. He was gone. Just like that. Gone."
- "Very saddening news captain, but why did it happen, who's at fault here?", news reporter quickly asked.
- "I'm afraid fleet communications is at fault here. I never thought it could be a problem but after experiencing it myself, I definitely know now. They should do something about it."
- "Thanks for your story cap'n, I hope everything will get fixed and no enemy will dare to flee like that anymore.", the camera was now focused solely on reporter.
- "Stay tuned for an exclusive video footage on what could be an actual cloaking tech, according to latest rumors. This was Vanessa Drenn from News5."
-
It's the priority system. I noticed that Capture/Assault had "high" priority compared to "Patrol". And Assault had priority over Capture in terms of the number of ships used for that command. I really liked this because it lets me shift the main weight of my fleet to a more appropriate location while still have few fast ships go around capturing nav point. All are orders that can be used to take over nav points, but gives you clear option on how you do it. Really simple, clean, and extremely predictable outcome.
The question is... do you guys have plan to implement this kind of priority system variations to every commands available? Like for example, once escort gets fixed, say I have a capital ship and 2 cruisers and want them all escorted by 9 fighter squadrons. Will you let the game automate the priority based on ship value or whatever, or allow players to set it manually by having another optional option? I think with the default option of automated with the option for players to redefine priority would be awesome. I think you can already do this somewhat via direct order, but this optional way of doing things would cut down on some micromanagement.
Hmm. The question, for me, is how much that would actually get you. It'll add some complexity - and I think we probably agree that less complexity is better here, to help with the learning curve. So I'll have to give you something of a non-answer - I'll have to wait and see how it pans out.
The scenario you describe - 9 fighter squadrons and 3 large ships - that's already 12 ships deployed. Sure, it'll come up, but it probably won't come up very often - probably in a fight where you have the edge in fleet points, and have captured a Comm Relay or two, to boot. If direct orders (via "assign task") are enough to deal with any needed details here, then that may be good enough. After all, chances are that auto-assign won't get it all wrong - you may want to tweak an assignment or two, but shouldn't have to reassign everything.
In general, I'm a bit wary about letting the player tweak priorities, because they've been assigned rather carefully. Changing them can lead to some unexpected assignments (don't have any examples handy, unfortunately). The most I could see doing is highighting a single assignment as a "priority" one, but then, a few direct orders should do the job here, too.
First, you set an order, and one ship – which I will call ship A – is going to follow the order. If you now assign another ship – let's call it ship B – to the order, ship A breaks off. You have to assign ship A to the order it was originally going to follow, taking 3 command points to send 2 ships at one order.
"Capture" is special that way - it only takes one ship. What usually happens is that if you want to assign something else to "Capture", you *don't* want the original ship to stick with it. If you want multiple ships to go there, "Patrol" is probably a better choice, though it probably needs to be a bit higher priority - I need to take a look at that.
Alternatively, when "Escort" starts working, you could assign a light escort to the ship that goes off to "Capture". You can still do it now, just don't expect the escorting ship to stick close by its charge when combat starts.
-
Alex - yeah, I know about Assign Task, it just feels very fiddly because there's a bunch of menus and because of the command points system I don't like having to use it because it can cost up to 2 CP just to do something like sending a Talon wing to move. What I outlined was very similar on purpose, I want to work with the Fleet System like you said we should.
Let's drop the discussion of command points, because worst case, I'm sure I can just have a mod that gives me unlimited of them and play the way I want. Instead let's just discuss what I was saying about having the interface be retooled slightly for faster orders - would you agree that's a good thing? Are you already planning to do that? What I mean is, instead of having to click a fighter wing and click assign task, I can just click on a unit and right click on a task - just using context to cut out some unnecessary clicking. Stuff like that. Less clicking the better no matter what your intent is, right? And would you consider the behaviour stuff so we can tell our troops "Avoid contact, just observe"? And removing the auto-pause thing so people who don't like to auto-pause don't have to?
I know it's probably a little trying to discuss this system to death over and over with people who are probably raising the same questions, so thank you for your posts in this thread, it's nice to get the dev's perspective.
-
Some constructive suggestion from me. This system can really work out in my opinion if it would have following features. Some of them was mentioned before.
1. Assigning units to groups.
2. Assigning orders in both ways with RMB context menu and autoassign if no units were selected, and selecting unit (or group of units) with LMB and giving order to it with RMB context menu.
3. Ability to set the priority of each order.
4. Ability to create modify behaviors of the ships and activate them manualy and automaticaly during the battle. Example of automaticly activated behavior: if health lower than (20%) -> retreat. Manualy activated behaviour "Safety first" including avoid damage (100%) priority, makes ship avoid damage at all costs. Also options\priorities can be like hold ground\avoid enemies, primary target if (rockets) would be selected then unit for example would defend escorted unit from incoming missles. Avoid weapon (weapon type) (Configurable behaviours will make AI behaviour predictable for the player and will make it act exactly like needed in current situation without constant manual control. System like that was implemented in Dragon Age. Do you familiar with it, Alex?
-
In general, I'm a bit wary about letting the player tweak priorities, because they've been assigned rather carefully. Changing them can lead to some unexpected assignments (don't have any examples handy, unfortunately). The most I could see doing is highighting a single assignment as a "priority" one, but then, a few direct orders should do the job here, too.
Here is one odd behavior I found due to either a bug or something.
I had 3 tempests and I was controlling a capital ship. I ordered intercept on enemy fighter squadron, so one tempest was sent. So far so good, but this is where it gets weird. So the fighter squadron is damaged but managed to land back to its carrier. All the sudden, all of my tempests are hovering over the carrier. It was the capital ship class tachyon carrier so they got their asses handed to them. I even gave all of them direct order to protect a nav buoy far away to pull them back, but no luck. Thankfully before the tempests died, the fighter squadron came out and I managed to cancel the intercept order, which quickly prompted all the tempests to follow the order to protect the nav buoy.
-
I like all of the interface suggestions that Beagle has put forward, his points are quite lucid.
I only occasionally find myself fighting with the interface system, generally when the excellent AI starts doing something stupid, like bombers engaging in a bombing run flying straight through a lethal amount of fighters and frigates - Individual ship types and classes need to have behavioral modifiers before I will feel truly comfortable with the limits of the flotilla command system as currently implemented.
Behaviors like
Harry: Used on a fleet(speedy) vessel, it stays around maximum projectile/energy weapon range and harries it, used for disruption of enemy formation (The harass command, as a behavior)
Scout: Unit attempts to avoid maximum weapon range of enemy units, while maintaining line-of-sight
Brawler: This behavior tells the unit to engage enemies at the minimum effective distance of its weapon systems, and to stick onto any targets until they are destroyed.
Flanker: Unit has no preference for range of engagement, but will always attempt to circle an enemy between it and another unit with the flanking behavior.
Etc.
The command point limitation, incidentally, feels EXTREMELY arbitrary, and mostly serves as artificial difficulty for the player, and that's not cool game design.
Edit: Additionally, behaviors should have somewhat hidden parameters (you would need to go further down a menu into an option field, as this level of fine control would be unnecessary for the average player's enjoyment, and is there for those who enjoy the fidelity of command systems like GSB) whereby you can describe at what damage levels they should retreat, avoiding (or not) the majority of a vessel's firing arcs, the ranges at which it will attempt to hold itself from enemy combatants, and so on.
Edit2: THE BADS http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FakeDifficulty (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FakeDifficulty)
-
ishman read this blog post its a bit old. but it outlines why Alex uses command points.
http://fractalsoftworks.com/2011/07/27/fleet-control/
-
Why not make Assign Task free?
That way even if we use Command Points to limit the number of assignments we can have, we're free to specify what parts of our forces are assigned to what without having to worry about wasting a precious commodity in the process.
-
Yes, I've read that post, and while I understand the reasoning, that does not mean I agree with it.
While the limitation is not infuriatingly egregious, it is still off-putting, and the logic behind it relies on the assumption that every player who will touch this game is of the archetypal min-maxer variety, which is blatantly invalid.
You can do well just giving a few general orders, but knowing that optimal play requires more micro than enjoyable is hardly ideal.
This restriction of the player based on the assumption he is going to throw out hundreds of commands to maximize combat efficiency is far too presumptuous for my taste; and I feel is insulting to the player, whether he may want to give intricate and detailed commands vulnerable to collapsing like a house of cards, or a few broad strokes and rely on the excellent AI as intended.
-
Yes, I've read that post, and while I understand the reasoning, that does not mean I agree with it.
While the limitation is not infuriatingly egregious, it is still off-putting, and the logic behind it relies on the assumption that every player who will touch this game is of the archetypal min-maxer variety, which is blatantly invalid.
You can do well just giving a few general orders, but knowing that optimal play requires more micro than enjoyable is hardly ideal.
This restriction of the player based on the assumption he is going to throw out hundreds of commands to maximize combat efficiency is far too presumptuous for my taste; and I feel is insulting to the player, whether he may want to give intricate and detailed commands vulnerable to collapsing like a house of cards, or a few broad strokes and rely on the excellent AI as intended.
I just want to post that I wholeheartedly agree with you on this. I'm trying to work within the limits of the existing system as everybody seems fervently set on keeping it, but honestly, when I first found Starfarer I thought I'd found the most perfect game in my life, and it is such an incredibly frustrating feeling to find that game and then see that it is being dumbed down because of a fear that people won't be able to handle it.
-
I don't know if 'dumbing down' is fair, really.
I understand where you are coming from, and to an extent sympathise for what you would like Starfarer to be. But Starfarer is first and foremost a 'game'. It needs artificial rules and structure to allow the player some context in which to enjoy the game.
Artificially setting command points, and limiting the nature in which commands can be given, is a key facet of the game that Starfarer is, and also to what it will be. This is also meant to be an important part of the abstraction of character skills (a better commander will have more command points), and you will be working alongside Captains, with their own personalities.
Removing this would, in my opinion, massively flatten out that aspect of the planned game, and the game and the characters and stories that it creates would lose quite a lot of personality.
It might turn the game in to an awesome battle simulator, allowing the player full freedom to do whatever he/she wants in the field, but this game is also about relationships with sinister corporate factions, simple mining outposts and getting attached to Captain Shucksmith, who you have been flying about with, miraculously unharmed, for the past two cycles. This doesn't work so well, unless, for example, Capt Shucksmith can actually take some credit for saving your behind.
I may sound like I'm rambling, and I am probably completely incoherent, but I think things like this that seem unrelated will really affect how the game ties together as a coherent whole.
-
Behaviors like
Harry: Used on a fleet(speedy) vessel, it stays around maximum projectile/energy weapon range and harries it, used for disruption of enemy formation (The harass command, as a behavior)
Scout: Unit attempts to avoid maximum weapon range of enemy units, while maintaining line-of-sight
Brawler: This behavior tells the unit to engage enemies at the minimum effective distance of its weapon systems, and to stick onto any targets until they are destroyed.
Flanker: Unit has no preference for range of engagement, but will always attempt to circle an enemy between it and another unit with the flanking behavior.
And I suggest to make this behaviours configurable for units and squads. Because all combinations of AI settings will overwhelm the interface. Also players will invent new tactics and if they will be able to create AI profiles (behaviours) by setting up the priorities, actions and reactions on certain events, that will satisfy all players needs in control and by automating the units. Such tactics are created outside battle so player can just enjoy battle knowing exactly what his units are up to. Possibly player won't even need to give any orders at all.
I think it would be awesome. Just imagine. You think of the tactics while sitting in safety on some station, create behaviors or they can be called "tactics", you asigning this tactics to units, you group units and setting up their teamwork. For example I can make a tactic where my carier works in group with fighters and interseptors and they staying togeather and protecting each other and you can set up who flying with who and doing what. Then you can just "copy" the same tactic to another group. And you can set priority to the group or separate units to capture or defend objectives and set up the conditions when they will fall back or iven ask for backup. For example [Event: enemy aproaching, Parameter: enemy force, Condition: > allies force (30%), Action: require assistance \ fall back] AI will deside what kind of units they need for backup and will call them or player will recieve notification and will decide what to do. So you can have profiles with tactic setups and if when you entering the battle you have one that fits current situation you just select it, deploy units and play, ultimately without even ever going to war room.
-
I'm not sure how to explain my idea, so bear with me.
I think it would be better if you could give more direct orders if you have a small fleet, consisting of frigates and destroyers, nothing bigger. In this case you're not fleet admiral, just a captain/commander of the leading warship, so you could communicate mid battle with other captains of other similar-class warships like it probably happens in real life. Now, when you get a bigger ship, your rank (this could probably either be made into player levels or just a simple ships-class = rank system) would be higher than a captain. For the sake of clear distinction, let's take a capital class ship and Admiral as rank. Now, since you're not a captain anymore, you don't communicate that much with individual captains, you're doing more tactics than battle (Obviously you still battle other ships, but it's more of a 1vsX rather than 2v2, 3v3 teamwork battle). All orders would be like now, kinda widespread and less specific, and it would all come down to captains of small ships to try and figure out the best way to complete this assignment.
I would probably advise against command points, since you won't need lots of them with this system, because its just a few general orders. What I would instead offer is to use command points on direct orders, like if an Admiral sees some rare opportunity that would help immensely or he has some specific plan/tactic that he would like to execute, he could override captains orders/authority and give direct order to specific frigate/fighter wing/whatever. This would fit nicely with limited command points, since Admiral shouldn't give direct orders often or to everyone, but if he has a request, it should be done, because well, he's an Admiral and he's more experienced so he should know better.
As you see, this would leave the current system intact for fleet wide battles, but will give more control for small fleets, if you can call them a fleet. This way it would divert focus for big battles from tactical screen to actual battle, but for people with small fleet/number of ships, they could spend a bit more time on tactical screen because it would be less frantic and hence consume less focus but give same amount of control in a way.
Thoughts?
Anyone? This doesn't change current system much but still allows some control, although with smaller fleet. At least I like the direct orders using CP, not just any order. I would really like to see something like this.
-
People should understand that the way the fleet control system work right now is to avoid "perfect" battles: you have to rely on limited resources (command points). This is a specific feature of the game and in my honest opinion is way better then giving the player full control of the fleet. This way the game "emulates" human errors (like fighters that will sometime fail to return safely to the carrier without a direct player command), and it gives me a whole different feeling from a standard RTS (like Stacraft where the best micromanagement skill win, and I don't like). This game emulate the chain of command of a real fleet and is good as it is right now (in my opinion!).
Not really a suggestion, more like feedback. ^^
-
The problem is that I don't want the game to emulate human errors, I want to make them myself or let crew make them.
And another problem is that with current system, it's trying to be something in between chain of command and RTS style. You can't directly send specific ships anywhere or do anything, and yet you can't command a frigate and expect it to hold that objective by using tactics, like for example, if I could tell my attack frigates to hold Nav Buoy B with high priority, it would capture it, hold ground, maybe setup a fighter wing on flanks to be ready for incoming frontal assault, then retreat 1000 meters if they are losing the battle to try to flank them again but with a different plan. I mean, in chain of command, you are given an assignment and you should use own tactics to complete it, but right now its more of a dumbed down version of it. You can order them indirectly but they will mostly do it simplistically, which is probably a problem if you're against a bigger fleet and tactics is the only advantage you can use, but it becomes moot because the AI isn't that good at it.
So either give us more control, or add captains with their own tactics and plans, et cetera. Right now it just feels like you're an Admiral and everyone else is a sailor, no captains or anyone who is fit to lead an attack on or complete an assignment.
[/imho]
-
Alex - yeah, I know about Assign Task, it just feels very fiddly because there's a bunch of menus and because of the command points system I don't like having to use it because it can cost up to 2 CP just to do something like sending a Talon wing to move. What I outlined was very similar on purpose, I want to work with the Fleet System like you said we should.
Let's drop the discussion of command points, because worst case, I'm sure I can just have a mod that gives me unlimited of them and play the way I want. Instead let's just discuss what I was saying about having the interface be retooled slightly for faster orders - would you agree that's a good thing? Are you already planning to do that? What I mean is, instead of having to click a fighter wing and click assign task, I can just click on a unit and right click on a task - just using context to cut out some unnecessary clicking. Stuff like that. Less clicking the better no matter what your intent is, right? And would you consider the behaviour stuff so we can tell our troops "Avoid contact, just observe"? And removing the auto-pause thing so people who don't like to auto-pause don't have to?
I know it's probably a little trying to discuss this system to death over and over with people who are probably raising the same questions, so thank you for your posts in this thread, it's nice to get the dev's perspective.
Right, a smoother UI is always better. What I personally do, btw, is use the 'A' shortcut for "assign task", which makes it quite fast.
As far as right-clicking, that sounds like a good enough idea, except that tiny little UI things get in the way. For example, right-clicking will now immediately close the menu and let you pan the map around. If right clicking on a ship accidentally (while trying to pan) gave a direct order, that'd be bad, and in general, I'm sticking with the "left click = interact, right click = scroll/pan" paradigm. So we could left-click to give a direct order, except that right now this opens the context menu on the target instead. Also no good. Plus, what if the target of your direct order is underneath the context menu itself?
Those types of annoying little problems have to be resolved, unfortunately.
You can do well just giving a few general orders, but knowing that optimal play requires more micro than enjoyable is hardly ideal.
This restriction of the player based on the assumption he is going to throw out hundreds of commands to maximize combat efficiency is far too presumptuous for my taste; and I feel is insulting to the player, whether he may want to give intricate and detailed commands vulnerable to collapsing like a house of cards, or a few broad strokes and rely on the excellent AI as intended.
It seems like a good idea to design the game around it being played optimally. I believe that players that stick with a game will tend to gravitate towards optimal play over time, and optimal play resulting in a good experience is what makes for a game with replay value. Of course, someone has to judge what a "good experience" is, since that's subjective.
The command point limitation, incidentally, feels EXTREMELY arbitrary, and mostly serves as artificial difficulty for the player, and that's not cool game design.
...
Edit2: THE BADS http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FakeDifficulty (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FakeDifficulty)
Command points don't fit any of those categories, sir. They're a clear and simple mechanic. I don't believe that you like it, but that doesn't make it bad design :)
To everyone that I haven't had a chance to respond to directly - thank you for your feedback! I've read everything in this thread, and I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts.
Edit:
Here is one odd behavior I found due to either a bug or something.
I had 3 tempests and I was controlling a capital ship. I ordered intercept on enemy fighter squadron, so one tempest was sent. So far so good, but this is where it gets weird. So the fighter squadron is damaged but managed to land back to its carrier. All the sudden, all of my tempests are hovering over the carrier. It was the capital ship class tachyon carrier so they got their asses handed to them. I even gave all of them direct order to protect a nav buoy far away to pull them back, but no luck. Thankfully before the tempests died, the fighter squadron came out and I managed to cancel the intercept order, which quickly prompted all the tempests to follow the order to protect the nav buoy.
Ohh, that's a bug. Thanks for reporting - I'll take a look. The assignment should get cancelled when they land on the carrier.
-
I really like the command system, even the limited points. It allows me to implement strategies without clicking the mouse like a mad person and it also adds the challenge of actually giving efficient orders. I find that I can usually split my force into two groups for flanking, capture objectives, set up a strike ambush and still have several points left over for emergencies. The key to getting everything done (at least for me) is to trust the ai - which is extremely good for most situations (although I do wish fighters would stay away from capital ships unless ordered).
My only suggestion would be to have the points recharge slowly over time. Sometimes in an extremely long battle I feel like my captain must just be twiddling his thumbs to not give more orders :D
Alex - thank you for reading the forums and listening to feedback. As someone new to the game it is extremely encouraging to see such active engagement.
-
The command point limitation, incidentally, feels EXTREMELY arbitrary, and mostly serves as artificial difficulty for the player, and that's not cool game design.
...
Edit2: THE BADS http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FakeDifficulty (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FakeDifficulty)
Command points don't fit any of those categories, sir. They're a clear and simple mechanic. I don't believe that you like it, but that doesn't make it bad design :)
I think they fit # 4 pretty well, "the outcome of the game is influenced by decisions that were uninformed at the time and cannot be undone". That fits command points like a glove. You have to give commands without knowing how many more you're going to have give in the future, and if it turns out that you have to give a lot and you run out of points, then that's pretty much it.
I would agree with Thaago that CPs should slowly regenerate over time. Especially so given that the game is heavily reliant on the AI taking part in your chain of command. Now this AI is very very good, there's no question about that, but it still occasionally does something I don't want it to do, sends a different ship than I wanted to send, etc. That means I have to go and manually swap ships around until I have everyone going where I want them, wasting valuable CPs. Having to correct bad decisions made by an AI is bad enough, but not being able to do that at all, losing a battle not because of a mistake of my own but because the AI screwed up and I was denied the ability to fix it, that is infuriating.
-
The command point limitation, incidentally, feels EXTREMELY arbitrary, and mostly serves as artificial difficulty for the player, and that's not cool game design.
...
Edit2: THE BADS http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FakeDifficulty (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FakeDifficulty)
Command points don't fit any of those categories, sir. They're a clear and simple mechanic. I don't believe that you like it, but that doesn't make it bad design :)
I think they fit # 4 pretty well, "the outcome of the game is influenced by decisions that were uninformed at the time and cannot be undone". That fits command points like a glove. You have to give commands without knowing how many more you're going to have give in the future, and if it turns out that you have to give a lot and you run out of points, then that's pretty much it.
You can see how orders will be followed before unpausing, and cancelling them refunds the command points if you don't like what you see. As for not being able to predict the future while deciding how to spend a limited resource... I'm not sure what to say to that, really :)
That point is about, say, not giving the dog the cheese sandwich in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. (http://www.the-spoiler.com/ADVENTURE/Infocom/hitch.2.html).
I would agree with Thaago that CPs should slowly regenerate over time. Especially so given that the game is heavily reliant on the AI taking part in your chain of command. Now this AI is very very good, there's no question about that, but it still occasionally does something I don't want it to do, sends a different ship than I wanted to send, etc. That means I have to go and manually swap ships around until I have everyone going where I want them, wasting valuable CPs. Having to correct bad decisions made by an AI is bad enough, but not being able to do that at all, losing a battle not because of a mistake of my own but because the AI screwed up and I was denied the ability to fix it, that is infuriating.
I wouldn't call it "wasting" - the amount you get is/will be balanced around needing to do that occasionally. Keeping a few spare ones to deal with emergencies, vs spending them all on a master plan that leaves no room for the unexpected is a choice you can make. If it doesn't come off well, that's largely your mistake as the commander.
You could take the "losing a battle because the AI made a mistake" argument very far - for example, say you can pilot a ship better than the AI can. You could then blame the AI for losing a battle, where if *you* piloted every single ship, you would have won.
Learning how the AI behaves and putting it into situations it can handle well is a skill being tested by any game that has the AI fighting on your side. This is true even for an RTS, and it's only a difference of degree.
As far as getting points back, you do get some every time you capture an objective. In longer battles, this translates to more points, and is paced to the progress of the battle, instead of being tied to map size (as any time-based recovery would be, making it difficult to balance).
-
You can see how orders will be followed before unpausing, and cancelling them refunds the command points if you don't like what you see. As for not being able to predict the future while deciding how to spend a limited resource... I'm not sure what to say to that, really :)
Well it's a question of degree, isn't it. ;) I feel that some leniency towards the player should exist. I have already had a few battles where I was just a single point short of being able to send a big cruiser into the fray that would've turned the battle in my favor. And I can't really work out why I couldn't do that. Did the batteries in my walkie-talkie go flat all of a sudden or something? I don't really get it. Seems too... arbitrary.
You could take the "losing a battle because the AI made a mistake" argument very far - for example, say you can pilot a ship better than the AI can. You could then blame the AI for losing a battle, where if *you* piloted every single ship, you would have won.
I don't think that argument could be taken quite that far. As a mere human being I couldn't possibly pilot every ship at once even if the game somehow made that technically possible. Correcting mistakes in decision making, that is something I could do.
Learning how the AI behaves and putting it into situations it can handle well is a skill being tested by any game that has the AI fighting on your side. This is true even for an RTS, and it's only a difference of degree.
Yes, but in other games you're not limited in the number of times that you can correct a misbehaving AI. The AI is not limited in how many mistakes it can make. ;)
As far as getting points back, you do get some every time you capture an objective. In longer battles, this translates to more points, and is paced to the progress of the battle, instead of being tied to map size (as any time-based recovery would be, making it difficult to balance).
Capturing objectives requires spending points. I find that even when I outgun the enemy and everything goes without a hitch, I usually end a battle with only one or two points to spare, often none at all. There's very little margin for error.
As for pacing it to the progress of the battle, I think that's a very good concept, but I feel that it doesn't quite work. The 'objectives' aren't really the objective, are they? The game assumes that the point of the battle is to scatter the enemy force and capture the objectives, while to the player the point is to kill as many enemy ships as possible in such a way that they can be boarded and taken over. I cannot describe the dismay that I feel every time I see an enemy cruiser slip away past the edge of the battlefield and the game goes, "Yay, the last enemy has run away, you've won!" And I'm like, "Nooo, that's not what I wanted! This isn't a victory! The objective of this battle wasn't to conquer this empty bit of outer space and drive the enemy out of it, the objective was to get that ship!"
Perhaps additional objectives/enemy targets could be set before the battle and points awarded for destroying them? Ask the player what it is he's attempting to accomplish in this particular battle and then reward him based on how well he does.
-
Ok so caveat, I have like 20 minutes with the game. Hard to find the time I want to now a days, instead I can just read and post on forums ;) Anyway some thoughts on just turning everything around in my head:
--The reason I preordered this game is because of the control scheme. I find staying away from RTS controls and exploring more of a simulated approach with broad brush stroke orders to be very appealing and unique...If I want RTS controls I'll go play homeworld. I had hoped supreme commander would do this, but it ended up feeling very micro managment heavy anyway.
--I just wanted to say also that for command points, is the method that once you spend it, its gone? Or does it have the fixed limit? I like the idea better of the max command points, ie when you cancel an order it comes back. Cap the nav point to get 5 instead of 3 etc. It's not the way that you spend it and its gone, right?
--I think the amounts of customization in the game should be kept in alignment. What I mean by this is that, if you can assign weapons to hulls and create ships, there should be some degree of control over what ship 'category' (intercept, strike, etc) it falls under. I like that the game is using the mech warrior 4 hardpoint approach to design. This does heavily nudge ship types into specific roles, but it is still not the final arbiter of how you might want to use the ship.
I guess my question/concern really is, when a ship is deployed, and you add a cap, or strike, or assault order, even with custom load outs, are the ships sorting themselves out where they should be? Is the player always going to be happy with what a ship type thinks they are? Is it too much micro to assign broad categories to ships when they are designed?
So is it too much to say that in the design phase of a ship hull, you can assign it a role, Striker, Interceptor, Escort, Defender, etc?
-----------------
Ok so this next section I guess depends really on my understanding of what the scope and scale of the game will be. On the one hand, is the idea that you are always one cohesive fleet that will basically be huddled up together as they move around, while tossing out small independent strike teams to complete 'missions' and tasks?
EG Most typically the bulk of your forces will be as one, with short term objectives for wings of your force only?
Or, is the goal to be a much bigger fleet, that might separate and square off on majorly independent tasks while still working for an overarching goal?
I guess a better way to think of this is in a WW2 example, is the scale a complete carrier group, or are you the entire Navy?
I get the feeling that you are in essence a carrier group, a host of various ships that will always be honing in on the same task and constantly supporting one another. Is this the feel the game is aiming for?
If the former, that the game is meant to simulate broad fleets and you at the helm, I guess I was going to suggest some idea of being able to assign carrier groups ahead of time. In game you could assign the same command orders but to specific fleets. Group Alpha, Capture objective. This way only ships in that group would consider these orders.
Would have to be in a limited capacity such that you could only have say 2 groups max, and need to grow highly experienced commanders or ones that might learn or have come with a special trait/perk/whatever before you could create that second group.
But as I think about it if the game is a sole carrier group in a way, assigning specific groups is overkill to what it is trying to simulate. Really to help improve player control is to just figure out more and more what players want to do, and make sure there are appropriate commands for it, IE the way a 'scout' order has been developed in this thread.
**So to meat out this wall of text and in summary, I think it would be important to have each ship player assigned to a role, striker, interceptor, etc. The roles should be well defined with AI behaviors, as I think they are now. This allows a player some custom control before the battle begins, yet still create predictable behavior in game. I know that if I drag my huge battle cruiser into the scout group it's going to act like a scout, but maybe that is what I want to do as a player even though that might just be completely silly.
In this way there is some player flexibility to play wacky and weird, while still adhering to the need to have a set of predictable behaviors.
I also think there is a need to assign rules of engagement in some capacity, either at group level or just fleet level. To have the ai kite or directly confront or bull in. This also gives room for the AI to misbehave, EG General orders: do not engage. *Sigh* Cmdr. Maniac is once again going full steam for their battle cruiser, everybody, follow him in! General Orders: Engage!
(Lastly a side note about personality, which is out the fleet command idea but fits here. Give those commanders names, and put those names up in game. The USS Dawn - Jake Runsalot. Put jake's name up when he tells you stuff in game. Command log might be like:
> Jake: USS Dawn taking heavy fire!
> ~USS Dawn, main gun disabled~
Putting names to AI failures and successes is incredibly immersive, don't miss out on the chance! :)
Finally, thanks for sticking through the long post if you did. This week I hope to find more time to really get a feel for the alpha, but these are just my thoughts on reading up a lot on things and a few minutes in game.
-
The problem is that I don't want the game to emulate human errors, I want to make them myself or let crew make them.
And another problem is that with current system, it's trying to be something in between chain of command and RTS style. You can't directly send specific ships anywhere or do anything, and yet you can't command a frigate and expect it to hold that objective by using tactics, like for example, if I could tell my attack frigates to hold Nav Buoy B with high priority, it would capture it, hold ground, maybe setup a fighter wing on flanks to be ready for incoming frontal assault, then retreat 1000 meters if they are losing the battle to try to flank them again but with a different plan. I mean, in chain of command, you are given an assignment and you should use own tactics to complete it, but right now its more of a dumbed down version of it. You can order them indirectly but they will mostly do it simplistically, which is probably a problem if you're against a bigger fleet and tactics is the only advantage you can use, but it becomes moot because the AI isn't that good at it.
So either give us more control, or add captains with their own tactics and plans, et cetera. Right now it just feels like you're an Admiral and everyone else is a sailor, no captains or anyone who is fit to lead an attack on or complete an assignment.
[/imho]
Alex has mentioned working in various pilots/commanders with their own personality traits and such that you would be able to assign to various ships. I have a feeling this would be in line with what you're suggesting at the end of your post.
-
I've been playing Starfarer for 6-8 hours a day since 0.5 came out and I think fleet control system is by far the weakest point of the game.
I know you were trying to create something that siuts Starfarer better than standard RTS system, but right now there aren't that many differences between the two. Apart from different UI the only major differences are the limit of orders forced by command points and AI automatically assigning ships to tasks. Choosing vessels for certain tasks is an important decision and should always be made by player. Given unlimited number of command points player could set a task and then assign chosen ship to it, which is exacly the same as selecting a unit and right-clicking in any RTS. Thats why current system seems overcomplicated and unnecessery. It works in the same way as RTS-style, just with limited commands and impractical UI.
The reasoning behind limit of commands player can issue was that players would focus on micromanaging other ships instead of controling his own. I can see why you want to discourage player from spending too much time on tactical screen in the middle of combat, but it may be possible to do it without taking so much control over battle from the player.
I suggest at least adding some kind of planning phase before engagement, when player could issue orders freely and give general instructions to capitans of particular ships. During actual battle number of orders aviable for quick reaction would be still limited by command points or some other factor. That way we could enjoy both combat and tactical aspects of the game.
After all it's a sandbox game, without overarching goal other than having fun. It should give player as much freedom as possible.
And please don't get me wrong, I love this game. It's just like seeing an ugly scrach on a gem ;).
-
It's more like a comfy t-shirt with a design you don't like. Many people like the current system. And it will improve.
-
first off let me apologize.. the length of some of these posts puts me off on reading them.. so what im about to say probably has been suggested somewhere in the library of comments in this topic.. i just dont want to take an hour to read them all. ( i dont read very fast)
why dont you make the command points refund when you cancel and order or when an order auto cancels and just keep a lower number of them for use (for balance). this way if you gave your ships a seemingly good command to follow like attack that capital ship pronto.. and noticed it was all of a sudden turning into a turkey shoot of your own guys you could rescind the order and tell them to do something else.
that being said it is just a suggestion and personally i have never run out of command points.. at least not outside of missions. as the way i use the command system is like im looking at a large table map (think WWII where all the generals and leaders are in a room discussing grand campaigns of troop movements) so i mostly give general orders. and if something comes up that deserves more orders like intercept this or harass that or defend here pronto. then i use more. and i let my guys do there thing.
-
The thing that I want to be able to control is formations. It would be WAY cool to have a line of onslaughts or somesuch in a phalanx like formation so it would be harder to flank them. Thats just my two cents.
-
I would far prefer the potential micromanagement of a more SC2 style system to the clunkiness and frustration of the current one. It's simply near unworkable for me at times. As for micromanagement, adding in full SC2 esque controls, where you could drag your cursor to control several craft, and give them an A-click command to attack-move, would resolve any worries there quite nicely.
Perhaps you could work to just add such a system as optional? Because I sure as heck can't personally see a lot "smarter" about how the units currently handle. =/
Hi guys.
This blog post (http://fractalsoftworks.com/2011/07/27/fleet-control/), and the one after it, talks about the rationale for the command system. We actually tried an RTS-like control scheme first, but found that it's not a good match for Starfarer. The posts are a bit out of date (we've tweaked things since then) but they do present the thinking behind the decision.
As far as the new system, the Escort orders aren't working well - so I wouldn't use them for now, it'll just lead to frustration. I'm actually re-working how these behave as we speak. Aside from that, I think the system works well, and it's largely a question of learning it - it IS different, but I find that it lets me do all the things I need to when playing. With the caveat about the Escort orders, of course.
-
Eugh!
The LAST thing I want is an SC style control system. I don't want it AT ALL. Give players the ability to micro exactly what you want to happen and you kill the game, even if it's optional. Because if you could play with ridiculous precision, why wouldn't you?
I'll repeat myself. If you can't get over preconceived notions of battlefield control, and you can't accept the degree of automation present in Starfarer, I think you have an irreconcilable difference with the game. I mean no offense to any of you, I don't mean to say that your opinions are wrong, merely that your expectations are not going to be fulfilled, nor were they ever intended to be fulfilled-- Starfarer is simply a game that encourages a conservative style of command, a game where AI *** ups are meant to be enjoyed as a component of the personality of your fleet. That is all.
-
I agree. The current system and the direction it's heading is great and any suggestions should be how to progress with the current system, not scrapping it unless there's a brand new system entirely that sounds much better. It's been stated and it's been tested with the more RTS style controls and that's been rejected. That's case closed in my opinion. If it was never attempted I'd say otherwise, but since that was how it started, going backwards is silly. Can't we respect the developer's (aka Alex) decision that RTS style commands are not coming back? Every argument for both sides are easily countered with an argument from the other side, thus leaving the decision to the designer's wishes. Alex has moved past RTS and has his reasons... whether we like them or not...
-
I gotta agree that I like the controls as is. Honestly, if I wanted Starcraft 2, I'd play Starcraft 2... I've been playing for a bit now and once you wrap your head around things and just let your ships fight on their own the beauty of the control system really comes into its own.
I mean I'm no Sun-Tsu but for the most part I just pop assault objectives on the control points, put a carrier rally point behind my lines and then put strike or intercept orders on targets as they come up. It seems to work fairly well. My ships don't behave like idiots for the most part and I can focus on fighting my own ship while they do their thing. If I had to micro the entire fleet I think the game would loose a lot of appeal. I've been trying to build my flagship around the idea of it serving as a rapid response unit that I can keep in reserve to shore up weak points or help finish off a weakened enemy task force.
Just a suggestion for those having issues with the system. Try fighting a battle where you issue no commands apart from assult orders on the objectives. Just let your ships do their own thing while you park yourself in a fire support cruiser or something and watch from a distance. It might give you an idea of how the AI works so that you can work with it, rather than fighting against it.
-
It's been stated and it's been tested with the more RTS style controls and that's been rejected. That's case closed in my opinion. If it was never attempted I'd say otherwise, but since that was how it started, going backwards is silly.
No, it is not. It's the best option when you've made a mistake. And the current system, as it is, is definitly not an improvement over RTS controls. Basically, it lets you issue the same set of commands you may expect in complex RTS, but assigns ships to it automatically and has a command limit. Those are just arbitrary restrictions and don't add anything of value to the gameplay. They just limit possibilities.
To clarify, an RTS-style control system does not exclude autonomy in ships behavior. It's just a way of transfering players intentions to the game. There's still plenty of room for disobeyance and "human error" for computer controled ships.
The difference between Starfarer and any RTS should lie in highly autonomus ships' AI capable of making it's own decisions in the midst of combat, not in a crippled control system.
-
paw i dont know how long you have followed the game or what you have read and im only going by your number of posts which at the writing of this is 3.. so dont take what im about to post the wrong way. but you may want to read the blog that this link goes to
http://fractalsoftworks.com/2011/07/27/fleet-control/#more-1047
in essence what i believe one should take from the current control system is that you should think of yourself as a admiral in a war room on your flag ship giving general orders for the battle field and as such dont have a direct person to person line of contact with the captains of the ships in your fleet. instead your admiral staff takes your orders and filters them threw the fleet to the captains for them to do for you.
this way you have more time to fly your ship and not be like the game supreme commander.. from that post i also take away that Alex does NOT want the system to work like traditional RTS games wherein you effectively are every man on the battlefield personally. as in ai is very limited and basically only decides how to get from point a to point b and only shoots things that come in range while doing so and takes no further action once it gets to point b until you tell it otherwise or an enemy unit comes within range.
which in turn takes a significant amount of time away from flying your flag ship when one is doing this.
also i believe (and this may only be my belief) that most of the people who do play the game agree on this point with Alex and have learned to play with the system as it is now and like it for this game. which is why (im pretty sure has been said before in this thread) the idea of going to a traditional RTS style now runs into a lot of friction and dislike.
now everyone is privy to there own ideas and beliefs in how they think things should pan out for the game.. but ultimately its up to Alex and his team on how things end up. so i would say dont get to frustrated if what you want to happen for the game does not happen for the game.
and if what ends up for the game ruins the fun of the game for you then i do apologize but the game then likely is not for you.
-
I hope I can say this without it coming across the wrong way - the current system is here to stay. I certainly don't mean that it won't change and get better, but if you're interested in helping improve how fleet controls work, changes that work within the current system are the way to go.
Paw, this is quoted from the first page of this thread if you want a little more clarification. The biggest debate here is for switching mostly to a system that had been done already, and the current system came as a result of that first system and as Alex as stated, it's here to stay. Whether or not we like that decision is definitely not up to us. It can be suggested to change, as it has a hundred times and will a hundred times more, but fighting for a system that won't be brought back is pointless. It's better for us to take the time to debate improvements and changes for the current system instead of fighting to scrap it for a system already scrapped.
The biggest argument I hear is 'arbitrary restrictions' about the command points. Is it? Yes. Do some games have arbitrary restrictions? Yes. Do some games not have arbitrary restrictions? Honestly, I can't think of very many that have limitless freedom and control. Everything has some form of restrictions... but people tend to fight against only a couple. If you are going to fight against one with the argument that it limits possibilities, then you have to argue against all the restrictions. Why am I forced to play a single character at a time? Why can't I play two characters at once, or three? Why can't I build and design my own ships by hand and say forget balance, I want 50 weapons, invincible shields, no flux overload and 500 speed on all my ships. Any restriction to me being able to do that is now limiting the possibilities I want, yes? And why is that? Because there are rules... restrictions... things that, yes, do force or guide you down a certain playstyle. Quite frankly, much of the talk makes me think of playing D&D style RPGs. Why am I forced to roll some dice to decide how I can hit something? Surely I could aim better and hit better if they gave me FPS style control... but chances are it's not going to happen because that's not how those games work. That's not how they want it to work, and I bet it drives away many players, but it's still wildly successful.
The same is with this system, and Alex and the team have been very good to take feedback and try to offer good reasons for why everything is the way it is, but sometimes things are going to be a certain way because that's how they want it to be. Are we allowed and should we voice our concerns if we dislike it? Of course, but sometimes the answer will be no and that's it. Instead of fighting things after being told no, try to work with it and adjust it from there. All of us want our favorite game, but unless we're developing it personally, the final decision is not ours to make, nor is it ours to say it's wrong. It just is. Hopefully, when everything is said and done at the end, we all will still find enjoyment in it... no matter how it ends up, which could have a whole new command system that is unlike anything ever seen... only time will tell.
-
Is it WAD that you can only use assignment on pre-existing orders?
-
Well I haven't followed the game developement for a long time, but I've read this blog.
My point is that current system doesn't do much to make you feel like an admiral in a war room. There's no carefull planning before battle, no general advise for individual ships. You can't even choose starting formation of your fleet. If all this was implemented, limited commands in actual battle won't bother me that much.
as in ai is very limited and basically only decides how to get from point a to point b and only shoots things that come in range while doing so and takes no further action once it gets to point b until you tell it otherwise or an enemy unit comes within range.
That's not what I had in mind. I don't want ships to be mindless drones, like units in Starcraft 2. It would be terrible. I was thinking of something more similar to SPAZ rather than SC2. It has RTS-like quick and easy to use interface, quite competent AI and no possibility to micromanage computer controled ships (at least not in my expirience). Of course SPAZ combat lacks depth in comparison with Starfarer, but with some tweeks I think it might work. It would be more convinient for sure.
Why can't I build and design my own ships by hand and say forget balance, I want 50 weapons, invincible shields, no flux overload and 500 speed on all my ships.
The beautifull thing is - you can. Starfarer has mod support and nothing stops you from doing just that. Isn't it great?
Restrictions in games come from different sources. Computers have limited recources, so you can't have gigantic battles with hundreds of ships and detailed combat. Game universe has it's own boundaries, what's why you can't walk through walls in FPS. But some feel just unnessecery, for me at least. I understand that game can favor certan playstyle, but it shouldn't force it.
and if what ends up for the game ruins the fun of the game for you then i do apologize but the game then likely is not for you.
All of this does not stop me from enjoying the game. I still can't stop playing it.
-
My point is that current system doesn't do much to make you feel like an admiral in a war room. There's no carefull planning before battle, no general advise for individual ships. You can't even choose starting formation of your fleet. If all this was implemented, limited commands in actual battle won't bother me that much.
I think some of these issues will be fixed in the future and are certainly changes that can be done within the current control paradigm.
Whether the system is unnecessary comes down to what the game should be, I think. Rarely do you argue against a boardgame having limited amounts of orders available, and I think you can draw that parallel here. Also taking into account the RPG influences the game has, or rather will have, the command points make perfect sense. To me at least.
I have learned the system and much prefer it to the old one. I think many of the complaints have solutions within the system. Such as an admiral perk allowing you to give further individual orders to ships, etc. Changes like these might seem arbitrary, but then so are most restrictions put in an RPG. I like the framework the current system offers and I look forward to see the improvements of it.
-
I've made a few posts in this thread mostly saying the same thing but I seem to get misunderstood in my intent, explanations, or concerns. I'm going to hit this thread with what originally started as an average-sized post and eventually became huge as I attempted to make it an in-depth explanation so that no-one is confused and nothing is left to speculation or misdirected criticism.
I strongly believe that both sides of the argument in this thread, whether they love the fleet command aspect of this game or not, whether they like RTS controls or not, really want the same thing - a good combination of clever interface and excellent gameplay that doesn't require so much micro that you can't fly your ship. The reason this post is so long and in-depth is I want to be sure whoever reads it understands why I am sure we can all have what we want without limiting our controls or compromising each others ideal game.
I also want to emphasize that I think this game is amazing! Regardless of whether or not the limitations of command remain or are taken even further, I'll be playing Starfarer, and I don't want the devs to feel pressured like they're going to lose a customer for not bowing to my view. That said, I make this post because I believe the way we are looking at dealing with excess micromanagement in Starfarer, as evidenced by 0.5's implementation and by the arguments made in this thread, is a mistake that is weakening the game, if not for every type of player then certainly for those types who are most interested in its strategy aspect.
Can't we respect the developer's (aka Alex) decision that RTS style commands are not coming back? Every argument for both sides are easily countered with an argument from the other side, thus leaving the decision to the designer's wishes. Alex has moved past RTS and has his reasons... whether we like them or not...
Lets be clear - the topic of real discussion here in this thread is not whether we should go back to a pure RTS control scheme, it is feedback on the Fleet Control system and how a lot of people feel it could be improved.
Eugh!
The LAST thing I want is an SC style control system. I don't want it AT ALL. Give players the ability to micro exactly what you want to happen and you kill the game, even if it's optional. Because if you could play with ridiculous precision, why wouldn't you?
I'll repeat myself. If you can't get over preconceived notions of battlefield control, and you can't accept the degree of automation present in Starfarer, I think you have an irreconcilable difference with the game. I mean no offense to any of you, I don't mean to say that your opinions are wrong, merely that your expectations are not going to be fulfilled, nor were they ever intended to be fulfilled-- Starfarer is simply a game that encourages a conservative style of command, a game where AI *** ups are meant to be enjoyed as a component of the personality of your fleet. That is all.
First, a short reply unrelated to my main post - I think this idea that everyone in the world is a min/maxer is an issue of people looking at how they themselves play games and assuming everyone else will do the same. You can look at almost any game and see the majority of people play it their way for fun, not discarding their preferences to play in the most optimal way.
I don't intend to argue that further with anyone, though. It's too open to personal interpretation without hard stats, and in any case, it's completely irrelevant. It's irrelevant, because what you say you're afraid of - that giving us the capability for more micromanagement capability will result in Starfarer players being bogged down in micromanagement - is a fear that is fundamentally flawed.
Seriously, think about it for a second, rationally and logically. Let's define the difference between how we're looking at this problem, and how we should be looking at this problem.
PROBLEM: Too much micromanagement required in commanding Starfarer fleets
CAUSE: The capability for micromanaging Starfarer fleets in and of itself is what results in excess micromanagement
SOLUTION: Remove the capability for micromanagement
It doesn't take the keenest mind to read the CAUSE line and realise that's fundamentally wrong. This isn't an opinion or a different taste in gameplay, this is simply an incorrect way of looking at this problem. Make sure you understand what I'm trying to say here, because it's easy to overlook it by making the argument that the only way to make sure we don't spend a lot of time managing our fleets is to restrict our ability to do so, without sparing a thought for how little sense that makes.
We know where the error is coming from though - its our CAUSE line. It's obvious that we're not doing something really un-fun just because we can - we're all smarter than that. So if we're not micromanaging just because we have the capability of micromanaging, then why are we? Well, what is micromanagement? In our discussion of micromanagement dealing with game AI, it's where we exert direct control over our units to make them perform optimally. Why do we need this? Because the AI isn't smart enough to do its job optimally itself.
This was clearly an issue to me as soon as I tried 0.34. I hadn't tried it before I started posting in this thread, and someone suggested I check it out to see why everyone believed an RTS control scheme didn't work for Starfarer's intended audience. Now, I'm a big RTS fan, I love having freedom to control, I've been arguing for relaxed limitations and more flexibility in every post, and I'm very comfortable with high levels of micromanagement. I should love build 0.34, right?
As a matter of fact, no. Compared to the current system, 0.34 has too much pointless micromanaging required to keep things running smoothly. However, this is not just because such micromanaging is possible with a free RTS control scheme - its because the simplicity of the implementation requires it. Think of what we've talked about regarding micromanagement. Why did I have to micromanage a lot in 0.34? Because the AI is not doing its job optimally, so I have to step in and do it for them. I couldn't tell the AI to escort allied ships or move/attack together, so I have to use micromanagement to keep them protecting each other and fighting/moving together. The fact that I could not rely on them to do this competently by themselves meant I had to constantly open the command map and keep checking their progress and giving them new orders. This was on the second mission, Greater Lud, a mission of offense with a sizable fleet. The end result was I had to individually manage all my units regularly and it was a pain in my ass.
As a contrast, the first mission, Turning the Tables, was a breeze with the old 0.34 command system. You know why? I only had a cruiser and 2 mining fighter wings to manage, and all I had to do was defend. I just told those suckers to sit together in part of the map and wait for the enemies to come. I didn't waste my time trying to micromanage the mining fighters to somehow fight better beyond keeping them together, as some people in this thread have suggested I would, because there's no reason to micro for the sake of micro - the AI is already doing its job optimally. Beyond giving them focused targets if I felt like it, there wasn't a whole lot to do. Compare this to Turning the Tables under the new system. I put a defend or patrol or capture or assault or escort waypoint down and assign all my ships to it, and wait for the enemy to arrive. If I feel it is necessary I'll place attack assignments on what I want focused, then assign ships to that task.
I am still going to do the exact same things as I did in 0.34 - I want to stay strong in numbers and focus my firepower. The difference is the system is now designed to try and limit me from doing these micromanaging tasks. This is a forlorn hope - if a player sees the need to help his troops by ordering them to focus their fire and stay together, he will try to do so regardless of whether your system is intuitive for that or not. I see a lot of people in here telling me that limitations and hinderances in the control scheme supposedly make for fun challenges for the average player. You know what makes for fun challenges for players? Letting them use their brains to implement strategies and tactics that allow their troops to perform at their peak effectiveness. Removing the ability for a player to micro does not remove the need for a player to micro, it only frustrates him when he realises he can't. This is because you're blocking a symptom instead of treating the cause - the cause is still there, you're just saying "you can't do anything about it, deal with it, sucker!"
So, we've talked about what was wrong with 0.34, and we've talked about why it wasn't anything to do with micromanagement being possible. Let's redefine our problem.
PROBLEM: Too much micromanagement required in commanding Starfarer fleets
CAUSE: The basic nature of the Starfarer AI requires too much micromanagement to optimally perform in battles
SOLUTION: Improve the AI and enhance the control scheme to embrace it
And you know what? The developers did just that! 0.5's system of assignments works beautifully with its AI that knows how to run things at the ship-to-ship level. There is no need for excessive micromanagement because the AI is entirely capable of taking care of itself. When you assign an AI to harass something, you do so knowing that it will competently keep itself alive while *** that something off. When you assign it to assault an objective, you know it is competent enough to do it without you telling it exactly where to move. This is fantastic!
So why is there negative feedback? Because, the assignment system that lets us embrace the intelligent AI to do our bidding is only one part of what the developers implemented - its the other part, the restrictions part, that we're trying to deal with in this thread. It's the limitations that are designed to stop us from being able to micro, because we're still thinking in the terms of our first problem definition - we're still thinking "to stop excess micro, we should limit the ability to micro". Guys, we've already solved the problem! The assignment system that embraces the intelligent AI is a fantastic way to reduce the amount of management your fleet needs, and I love it. On the other hand, making the control system resistant and limiting to micromanagement in the fashion we have in 0.5 does the exact opposite - it forces us to do more management, and at its worst, creates more micromanagement work and then restricts us from being able to get it done!
This is due to two big things we take away from the player with the 0.5 system's restrictive properties - we take away his freedom to make decisions, by giving those decisions to the AI, and then we take away his ability to correct the AI's fuckups, due to the limited pool of Command Points. Put simply, we're taking things the player should be doing, letting the AI *** it up, then restricting the player from being able to fix those decisions that he should be making in the first place - we're adding insult to injury here.
I don't mean any insult when I say the AI is *** up the bigger decisions - its not its fault that it has been put in charge of *** it has no business being in charge of. I also understand the concept of believing in your fleet's chain of command. However, the most important part of the chain of command is you need good commanders at each point in the chain, or it just doesn't work. From what I've seen your AI is fantastic at ship-to-ship tasks, but strafing and fighting is completely different from the kind of tactical and strategic possibilities and decisions that must be considered when deciding what ships go where, how many ships are assigned to a particular task, and so on. These are decisions that the player is perfect for, and these decisions SHOULD be given to the player - they're fun! You engage your brain and decide exactly how to split and project your force, in what fashion, at what time, in what order. This is the meat and potatoes of any game with tactical elements. On the other hand, the AI, or at least the AI we have in games today, is NOT good at these decisions. Even if you want to argue that, you cannot argue that a human player will be better than the AI at these decisions tenfold.
This is why having the AI automatically choose ships for assignments is a bad thing. I understand that it is meant to reduce the amount of management that the player must visit upon his fleet, but because the AI is more often than not going to make decisions the player doesn't agree with, you actually create more management busywork by making us have to correct those mistakes. You are not reducing needless micromanagement by trying to automate these decisions - this is not micromanagement, this is tactical decision making. This is some important-ass ***. If we keep taking this idea that we should make the AI do more and more and the player less and less, we end up with a Starfarer where you just pick from "Search and Destroy" or "Fall Back" and watch the fleet do its own thing. A few people in this thread have argued against allowing more control by saying if they wanted to play Homeworld or StarCraft 2, they'd go play Homeworld or StarCraft 2. Well, to respond, if I wanted to go play Gratuitous Space Battles and not be able to control ***, I'd go play Gratuitous Space Battles and not be able to control ***. I hope we can agree on that line of reasoning being a dead end now.
On the second point of Command Points, there's not a huge amount to elaborate upon apart from reiterating how much of a double-whammy gut punch it to let the AI *** on our car and then take away our hose. Some people in this thread have told me that I should learn to enjoy the AI's *** ups as part of their character and that when the AI makes the wrong decision, those are the breaks. In my opinion, those kind of excuses are a complete cop-out. Any player with a brain between his ears knows the AI isn't *** up because sometimes he makes mistakes, its because the AI is not competent enough to fulfill that role. This is not loveable Captain Dahmer misjudging the situation, this is a bunch of programming that is only able to perform as well as it has been designed for, trying to decide things it really shouldn't decide. In this way, you make these characters seem less human and more like malfunctioning machines. Being unable to fix these mistakes because of an arbitrary restriction compounds the frustration, and while I understand your reasoning that it makes each order more important, I suggest that this does not necessarily make for a more enjoyable command experience.
I've made this such a long and exhaustive post because I believe people are misunderstanding my intent, and because I believe contributing to the success of a game with such amazing potential is worth a little effort and persistence. If you continue to look at micromanagement as a problem in and of itself instead of a symptom that has causes, you are gimping the potential of this amazing multi-genre game. To summarize neatly, what do I think needs to be done with Starfarer's control system? I think we need to remove Command Points and remove the AI automation in places where it is not necessary or competent, and try to reduce excess micromanagement not by restricting it, but by instead continuing to improve the intuitiveness of the control scheme and the intelligence of the AI so that less micromanagement is necessary. Restrictions to fight excess micromanagement without treating the cause are just slapping a band-aid on the problem - a dirty, itchy band-aid to boot, because the things that need to be micromanaged are still there, glaring us in the face, you've just stopped us from being able to deal with them. Will allowing us the freedom of managing our fleet sans Command Points and not forcing us to deal with automated AI decisions require more micromanagement from the player? No, that need for micromanagement was already there, you'd just be allowing us to do our jobs and manage it. You either need to improve things so that the need for micromanagement is not there, or let us do it, because leaving it in our faces without letting us deal with it only causes frustration.
I believe it makes sense to you to resist any suggestions that sound more like your old 0.34 RTS system, because the new Fleet System is much better, but I believe the problem is you attribute the success of it in part to the definite micro-limitations you've put in the game. I strongly believe that if you removed those limitations and let us use your new Fleet Assignment system freely, you'd have a system where the player and the AI are in perfect harmony - the player handling the decisions while the AI carries out his intent, a role it excels in.
If you take anything away from what has become an essay of a post, just remember what micromanagement is and why it exists. This thread and any other discussion like it does not exist because people are "playing the game wrong", it exists because there are flaws in the current implementation that need to be addressed. Putting the AI in charge of decisions such as what ship is assigned to what task and how many ships should go where is the perfect example of something the AI is not smart enough to do better than a player. What happens when an AI is not smart enough for its job? It *** up, and we have to micromanage it. What happens when the amount of times we can fix its *** ups is limited? This thread!
-
I got about halfway through your post Beagle before the profanity laced comments that are uncalled for were getting more frequent... I think it's not too much to ask for to keep things cool and not get yourself in a war of words with people, especially when the topic of this thread is suggestions and feedback, which means both positive and negative feedback...
From what I gather, you hate the AI messing up and want to keep correcting them over and over again and are frustrated by limitations to do so. You said the AI isn't good enough to handle the situation, but I completely disagree and can do so without trying to feel like a big boy by using curse words every other sentence. I've had very few battles where the AI has screwed up and lost it for me, and even if it does, tough luck. It happens and I learn to beat it the next time. I mean, seriously... are people so afraid to not be able to do things 100% perfect in a game? I didn't read anywhere in you essay that you are unable to accomplish your goals in the game with the current system... to me it sounded like you are getting upset when one thing goes wrong and you find yourself unable to correct it because of how you chose to spend your CPs to begin with. This is the very reason you want them done away with, so you can freely order rally points, direct assignments, etc. because you yourself said "putting the AI in charge of decisions such as what ship is assigned to what task and how many ships should go where is the perfect example of something the AI is not smart enough to do better than a player. What happens when an AI is not smart enough for its job? It *** up, and we have to micromanage it. What happens when the amount of times we can fix its *** ups is limited? This thread!"
So, are you finding yourself unable to play the game, win battles, have success because the AI is so screwed up or your limited points are making you lose repeatedly? Or is it simply that you might be losing a ship or two that you are unwilling to lose at all? You mentioned that the view of people being min/maxers being the issue for the limitations, and that this is a wrong assumption, yes? If you are able to win battles, progress in *current* game and just succeed in general, you're able to do what is intended. If your issue is based on the above mentioned AI screwups you can't continuously correct, it's very hard not to see you as a min/maxer then. I get the impression you're very interested in the strategy aspect, which is what I'm interested as well... well, isn't part of most strategies making plans and being able to recover from failed strategies or unexpected instances? You're upset you can't correct them all, as you seem certain you can perform flawlessly (and I'd say 100% positive you can do better, for we all can do better than most AI) whereas the AI is flawed. Being able to succeed flawlessly in every battle and being upset that you can't is a min/maxer, I'm sorry. Min/maxer or perfectionist, which in my opinion is the same thing, just different terminology for a different medium.
A question in general to everyone who reads this too... have we forgotten this is still in it's very early stages of an alpha build? Have we forgotten that there will still be character skills and hopefully the individual pilots/commanders with their own personality traits and such that we can assign to various ships? I think people are getting stuck on CPs without yet experiencing what is in store for us in the future and how it may affect those various things... on top of the continuous improvements to the AI to handle the current system better and better. Removal of CPs is the band-aid fix for those without patience... the band-aid is not the restrictions to fleet micromanagement, in my opinion. Oh, and while I'm in this portion, Beagle... my previous post was not suggesting that people want pure RTS controls... but people are indeed wanting RTS style controls... hence all the Starcraft 2 comments I've seen posted. Removal of CPs will make people order and re-order again and again. I'm sorry, but that's RTS style. Constant ordering is the basics of RTS, because AI is very limited on the human player's side in most cases. Will everyone be constantly ordering? Of course not, but when they get into a jam where it'll get them out of it... I'd bet the majority of hold-outs would find themselves using it now and then.
I wish I could find the posts Alex made elsewhere about how the AI vs AI works and how constant player control over their own ships can easily throw off the enemy AI... sadly, I can't find it right now so I won't say anything I'm not more than certain about, but I believe this is part of the issue with limiting control (iirc, if not... my mistake... I'm only human... or perhaps AI?). Not to mention, the AI can only do the very same things the player does. The AI uses the CP system as well and gets no added benefits over the human player... removing CPs would likely hinder the AI even more because it'd be harder to program it to take into account a human player issuing possibly 100 orders when the AI would probably be lucky to utilize 10...
I was thinking, with so many people being frustrated with the arbitrary CP system... I haven't heard many argue against the 'deployment' costs for ships either. I've heard many describe how the CP system is like someone is telling them their batteries ran out in their walkie-talkie... so are deployment costs... why should one frigate cost more points to deploy than another frigate? These are more of those limits that people seem willing to accept, but aren't willing to accept CPs and this is what confuses me... until I honestly think of those people as min/maxers... and while these threads are not popping up because people are playing the game wrong, they do seem to pop-up usually because people can't get that perfect battle as easily as they'd like... when I can do it in the current system and I doubt I'm the only one. Am I saying I'm better? Nope. Far from it. I'm saying I've learned to play the game, not fight it and request time be spent to redevelop the AI to take on a player with unlimited control over their fleet... not to mention it actually trivializes the human ship's AI... if unlimited ordering is allowed, I'd hope my ships get stuck with virtually no mind of its own so I can have my precision control... which also means forget adding in unique pilots and personalities, because I don't want a 'courageous' pilot to somehow break my orders and attack the enemy when they shouldn't...
-
I'm honestly sorry if my post offended you. I have zero hostility towards you or anyone else in this thread. If you have a problem with profanity, I'm happy to censor my post for you. In my country we're very casual with it, and I forget not all the world is so blase in regards to cursing.
I don't mean to insult you or the devs or anyone who doesn't share my point of view. If you found I worded things too strongly, I apologize, I only wanted to convey my opinion, not offend or one-up anyone. I wanted to have one big clear post that totally explains how I feel about the system and what flaws I think exist, what I like about the way the devs have done Fleet Control and what I dislike, in an honest format - rather than continuing to make a few more smaller posts that would probably add up to that size in the long run. I especially don't want anyone to feel that I'm trying to badger them or the devs into accepting my point of view by making a giant wall of text or by cursing - I just wrote at the level of depth I felt necessary in the style of language I'm used to. I don't intend to push my opinion of Fleet Control mechanics any further in this thread or any subsequent ones, thus I wanted to get my perspective out in full.
-
There is not a single mission, I repeat, a single mission where I have succeeded by virtue of putting together a master plan, spending all my command points and then allowing to victory to come through that grand overture. I have over a 90% rating on every single mission on that page, and the way I have that score is by making conservative decisions, and reserving command points for targets of high priority.
Case in point, the Last Hurrah. If you set a single assault objective, you will be quite together, but it won't help you worth a damn because the key to winning that mission is to point cap enough that you can frontload enough of your forces to commit to a side of the map and have your concentration of fire mid to late game, because the enemy has enough fast craft that they WILL beat you in map control. In other words, cancelling objectives turns out to be just as important as giving orders, because the way to draw a fleet together is to limit is mission scope, and they way to expand it is to do the same to said mission scope. I have a 95% on the mission, and I don't mean to say that as a means of bragging-- it's my favorite mission and I've played it, to failure, dozens of times and it's interesting every goddamned time.
If I could have played that mission with unlimited command points, determined the exact course of my fleet, told my ships exactly what other ships to engage-- both suggestions you have made-- I am not certain I would play the map any differently. In fact, the only thing I'd change is that at the start of the mission, I'd spend a lot of time clicking to set up waypoints, objectives, what ships take those objectives, then in the when I hit contact, I'd pause and start clicking to assign targets, and click a whole bunch more to get my scouts back. I don't see how that's anything more than tedious.
Now, I've gone back and read Beagle's wall o' text posts, and there's a bunch of stuff I agree with. A 'tail' order would be great. An automated 'scout' order would also be great. I don't think that the current system is perfect, and there are a lot of things I would like to be able to do as well. But I don't see removing command points and by default assigning ships to objectives is the right solution, because I have never run out of command points, and frankly, a 'reinforce' order would do just fine.
My suggestion to improve the control system, the way to improve the control system in my opinion, is to add more orders (reinforce, withdraw, scout, tail) and to add squadrons/formations and unit dispositions. A unit disposition would be something like 'conserve guided munitions' or 'prefer long range', something to tweak the AI by changing how they act, and it'd act across squadrons/formations, and you could tweak it at will. It doesn't require command points because it isn't a command.
We don't need to tear anything out. We just need to add. In fact, I suspect that at this juncture, all we CAN do is add, there is probably a lot premised on Command Points, from how your character levels up to maybe various doohickeys and items. By widening the breadth of the orders, allowing pre-defined units, and adding an element we can change without expenditure, I think we come pretty close to addressing some of Beagle's concerns without pulling out a core gameplay element of Starfarer, that is, the notion that the right order at the right time is better than ten or twenty orders whenever you want.
-
I was thinking, with so many people being frustrated with the arbitrary CP system... I haven't heard many argue against the 'deployment' costs for ships either. I've heard many describe how the CP system is like someone is telling them their batteries ran out in their walkie-talkie... so are deployment costs... why should one frigate cost more points to deploy than another frigate? These are more of those limits that people seem willing to accept, but aren't willing to accept CPs and this is what confuses me... until I honestly think of those people as min/maxers... and while these threads are not popping up because people are playing the game wrong, they do seem to pop-up usually because people can't get that perfect battle as easily as they'd like... when I can do it in the current system and I doubt I'm the only one. Am I saying I'm better? Nope. Far from it. I'm saying I've learned to play the game, not fight it and request time be spent to redevelop the AI to take on a player with unlimited control over their fleet... not to mention it actually trivializes the human ship's AI... if unlimited ordering is allowed, I'd hope my ships get stuck with virtually no mind of its own so I can have my precision control... which also means forget adding in unique pilots and personalities, because I don't want a 'courageous' pilot to somehow break my orders and attack the enemy when they shouldn't...
Because CP restriction cuts out user interaction directly. Deployment costs CAN do this, but the way it is implemented right now, you will feel the limitations from CP and the control scheme long before ever pondering what you wish you could have done with that 15th ship.
But for the reasons you mentioned, I'm not too worried about CP just yet. 10 is pretty damn low amount though, not sure why they capped it at that in this build. It makes user interaction with the fleet in large battles almost irrelevant. To put it in perspective, a large battle may last from 5 ~ 15 minutes. You can give 10 orders for that entire battle. Micromanagement in RTS is when you perform at least 30+ action per minutes (anything below that is... just playing the game). SF's CP let us perform like 0.67 to 2 actions per minute ;D
My biggest concern is that we hardly have a say on what the fleet does. I mean sure, we can order general retreat, that's pretty important. We can order it to cap those points. Order carriers/bombers/fire support ships to stay at certain location. Well, that's about it. Yeah, I have no trouble winning because campaign mode it's really easy to stack the odds in your favor, but I definitely don't think anything I ordered made my fleet perform much differently (besides capping those points).
I have no problem with the dev's desire to remove micromanagement and to focus on ship action as much as possible... then at least let us create a battle plan before the action or something. Actually you know what, this might be the best solution ever for fleet control in SF! Pre-battle planning. I mean it makes perfect sense that a general or admiral makes majority of battle plan pre-battle, then only make adjustments during battle but let things play out on their own because it's hard to have precision control over a battle.
Brilliant! fractalsoftworks, if you can implement pre-battle plan then the current control scheme (minimum interference with unit autonomy) will make a whole lot of sense!
-
You can give 10 orders for that entire battle.
I'd just like to say that on a map with significant control point real-estate, this is highly unlikely to remain the case, as you win extra control points by capping all types of points.
Only changes your argument slightly, but can form a massive part of a control-point-limited battle strategy.
-
Well I was able to spend time with the game and get to know it.
When I started, I wanted to play an RTS game and steer one unit. That was how I'd been trained to play a multi-unit game my whole life, whether it is a turn based war game or and rts game. You move your guy around, you tell the troops what to do.
I failed pretty hard trying to do that.
Next, I went into forlorn hope and learned a bit about the combat system and steering/managing my ship. I didn't beat it, but after 10 or so tries I had learned how critical it is to drop shield before overload, and when you should and shouldn't vent flux (hint: not when 8 bombers are about to drop a pay load on you :(( ).
So with a good feel of how to get around in the combat environment I went back to the missions. I started doing the broad orders, capture, this, this, and this, defend here, rally there, waypoint this. I didn't really think about the command limit. I had some more success but my fleet got split up all over the place and I didn't know where to be when.
Finally I tried giving less orders. Take this way point. Carrier group here, Strike group rally over here in the corner. Follow up some of my fleet that is engaging the enemy, try to assist and keep them alive.
At this point I notice the AI is doing a pretty awesome job keeping itself alive. I started to trust it to take care of itself. I realized it's playing the game better than me at this point. So the enemy flag ship shows itself, and I set another rally point and send my strikers around back, finally I give the strike order and come up from the other end timing myself to arrive with the strike group. I launch my missiles, it hits the command ship and loads the shields up, shortly after my bombers come in and drop their payload, ending in a big bang. All that coordination, so little orders issued.
The more I take in how to play the game, the more 'free' I feel from the need to micro my troops. This means that I'm "safe" to spend an extended time in the game maneuvering, delivering weapons, and posturing to keep my fleet and myself safe.
The fact that I can ward AI off from an area by sweeping my missile firing arc in its direction is awesome, and seeing mixed results depending on the AI captain type when that is in place is going to be pretty awesome. But you would miss all that if you were constantly ordering what should be happening at each point in the battle.
The control scheme here is FREEING. Limited command points are there to tell you, Hey, hey man, just let it go. Save those for when the AI is doing something nuts, give those direct orders.... HEY. GET BACK HERE!
But that is the point of direct orders and broad objectives, they are behind the glass, and you break it only in an emergency.
So, all this stuff can be improved though. Adding in some RPG qualities like you have stats as you level up, you could grow yourself as a command oriented character with 30+ command points, or as a fighter jock type with great maneuverability but 3 command points to use.
There are many things that can be added, improved, and tweaked, but if you lose the command point limit and indirect control, you destroy almost everything that makes this game stand out and be unique.
-
First off I'd like to say I like the current fleet control system. I've never played 0.34 and is not aware of how hectic the old system was, but did had bad experience in other games when heavy micromanagement was needed and my skills simply weren't up to the task. It wasn't the game's fault but it did feel bad.
I find the current fleet control system to be quite effective - this is a testament to the capable AI of the game, which I find handle assignments pretty well. I do hope they have more sense of self-preservation - that is knowing who they should avoid and let other suitable craft handle. Maybe assignments details should include Both What to do and what not to do: say, if a certain hostile craft is worthy enough to be given a "strike" order, wouldn't your carriers and whatever crafts incapable of striking want to avoid it? It's all about common senses. Assignments could be a way to tell the AI how to approach a problem (namely killing a hostile craft) and avoiding complications (getting friendlies unfit for the task killed).
I have never run out of command point myself. Maybe I'm just lazy, and never have some elaborated plan for engagements, but most of the time I find it unnecessary to give many direct orders when my fleet is handling themselves well enough. I do believe a bit of leniency won't hurt in terms of allowing player to specifically telling which ship what to do - Maybe upon creation of a new assignment, we could let player assign a ship or two this assignment for no CP cost? In Alex's own words, the current system is "Telling ships what to do", then isn't "Telling which ship what to do" alright? "Intercept these bombers" take a few seconds to speak, "Alpha wing intercept these bombers", while do take a bit more time to say, is probably not long enough to validate use of an extra CP.
I never know re-capturing objective also grant CP but that's pretty neat, and probably good enough to keep your commanding juice going.
And I do find a lot of room to abuse the assignment system : I don't need a scout command when telling them to "capture" an objective would send a ship towards the area somehow - most of the time the objectives are where it's meaningful to go anyway. A lot of time I simply tell my carrier group to rally at the central objective, and you hit two bird with one stone. You concentrate your forces with one assault/defence, split your forces with two, possibly controlling the composition with one assault/defence paired with a rally [shiptype]. If you want a small detachment use patrol. Cancelling assignment also affect how ships behave. Do understand that "no assignment give" does not mean "not doing anything", at times "search and destroy" is simply enough. It is usually enough to tell them "where to go", and the task is accomplished with minimal amount of clicks. It may not be how you envisioned to be, but it does not have to.
As for micromanagement ,When I seriously need it I simply transfer command to one of the ships suitable for the task at hand - there's no better way isn't it? the ultimate form of micromanagement, to be in the unit's commplete control. The rest I'd just have to cooperate with the AI. It's not like I need to tell them to circle around that assault cruiser when that's what they're going to do anyway.
But as a commander I'd love to see more events get reported. Regularly checking map works but require me to actively doing it and also cause a break in action. It would do much help if we're told "XXX's shield overloaded" or "AAA's hull integrity at 75%", which usually spell trouble can could probably need some attention. Reports on "bomber sight close to [certain carrier]" may also be good but a balance need to be striked between lack of heads up and information overflow. A toggleable mini-map (or radar even) is also a good idea, those icons on the edge of the screen is okay but sometimes they overlaps and make it hard to read them.
-
But as a commander I'd love to see more events get reported. Regularly checking map works but require me to actively doing it and also cause a break in action. It would do much help if we're told "XXX's shield overloaded" or "AAA's hull integrity at 75%", which usually spell trouble can could probably need some attention. Reports on "bomber sight close to [certain carrier]" may also be good but a balance need to be striked between lack of heads up and information overflow. A toggleable mini-map (or radar even) is also a good idea, those icons on the edge of the screen is okay but sometimes they overlaps and make it hard to read them.
This is a good suggestion. I'm a capital ship guy, so I generally don't have a problem with diverting my eyes from the capital craft to manage the battle, but I know some of you here hate capital ships and like to zip around in Medusas and Tempests, so your piloting roles are a little bit more.... intense. Having recently flown the Tempest as my flagship for an extended period of time, I can say that it is definitely distracting from the big picture. Having rough updates ('I'm taking heavy damage!' <75% hull) would help alleviate that somewhat, even if I am not a fast ship pilot myself (not of preference, anyway).
Also, hearing the screams of your subordinates as they're cooked alive inside their detonating ships is always fun, even if it's in text.
-
@Beagle: Before I reply, I just want to say that I read the entirety of your post :) Thank you for taking the time to explain your thoughts.
I think your main point boils down to you wanting to control ship assignments yourself, without a command point limit.
If that's the case, I think the current system actually isn't very far off from your ideal one. It certainly lets you do that, provided you have enough command points. I disagree with your premise that the AI gets the assignments mostly wrong, though. In my experience, it gets them mostly right, and the occasional direct order is enough to set it straight.
Part of it is getting a feel for how assignments interact and being able to get the right behavior by putting together the right set of assignments. Auto-assigning ships saves a lot of busywork in this case. You don't have to pick the closest Talon wing and assign it to capture a nearby objective every single time, it just does that for you - because most of the time, it's the right thing to do.
Or you can kind of bull your way through it by using a less careful mix of assignments and lots of direct orders. I suspect that more experimenting with assignments would allow you to produce desired results with less time and effort. That's what I've found personally, in any case.
I see a lot of people in here telling me that limitations and hinderances in the control scheme supposedly make for fun challenges for the average player. You know what makes for fun challenges for players? Letting them use their brains to implement strategies and tactics that allow their troops to perform at their peak effectiveness.
You can make a strong argument that restrictions fuel creativity. (Case in point: the popularity of Minecraft vs "3d editing software"). That's almost a moot point, though, because as mentioned above, I think the current system and what you are arguing for are very very close, and I believe that the current system gives you plenty of ways to express your will.
I think you've got a good point that it's inevitable that a lot of players will try to play in an RTS fashion, because that's a natural first approach. How to address that is still TBD in my mind.
fractalsoftworks, if you can implement pre-battle plan then the current control scheme (minimum interference with unit autonomy) will make a whole lot of sense!
Could you elaborate on what you mean there? I feel like you can already do that, since command points are refunded for assignments cancelled w/o unpausing.
The control scheme here is FREEING. Limited command points are there to tell you, Hey, hey man, just let it go. Save those for when the AI is doing something nuts, give those direct orders.... HEY. GET BACK HERE!
Just wanted to say that this "freeing" is exactly the goal of the new system.
But as a commander I'd love to see more events get reported. Regularly checking map works but require me to actively doing it and also cause a break in action. It would do much help if we're told "XXX's shield overloaded" or "AAA's hull integrity at 75%", which usually spell trouble can could probably need some attention. Reports on "bomber sight close to [certain carrier]" may also be good but a balance need to be striked between lack of heads up and information overflow. A toggleable mini-map (or radar even) is also a good idea, those icons on the edge of the screen is okay but sometimes they overlaps and make it hard to read them.
Yeah, I'd like to revamp this at some point - probably when officers are in the game, because I suspect that will have a lot to do with the specifics. You'll need some feedback on how officer personality is shaping their behavior, after all.
In closing, I'd like to thank everyone again for sharing your thoughts. I might not post in this thread again (got to get some coding done!), but I'll certainly be reading it.
-
fractalsoftworks, if you can implement pre-battle plan then the current control scheme (minimum interference with unit autonomy) will make a whole lot of sense!
Could you elaborate on what you mean there? I feel like you can already do that, since command points are refunded for assignments cancelled w/o unpausing.
You feel like you can already do this because... yes, you can. This is really a timing alternation more than anything, but hear me out on how it will work and how it can change the player's perception of the control scheme.
1) First, for there to be pre-battle plan, you need information. Allow ships over certain speed (like 150 or so, so it'll be mostly fighters or frigates) to perform recon mission. Depending on the ship and character traits (which I read that will be in later release when character leveling is more fleshed out), allow better estimate of AI's deployment (I'll explain below why this will be more important).
2) Second is how you deploy. Right now you can choose what you can deploy, which is important, but it's only half of the plan. For the full plan, it should be more involved, like
a) non capital ships should be deploy-able other than the default position. To prevent insta-gibbing enemy ship, each side will still have limits, but the theoratical limit should be like this
i---------------------i
i i
i i
x x
x x
xxxxxxxxxxxYxxxxxxxxxx
If Y is where you normally spawn, all the x's are where you can deploy the faster ships. Depending on how fast they are, the further away from Y they can enter the battle. This is where recon mission will help, because the AI can deploy just like you so knowing where it's stuffs are will help you adjust accordingly.
3) Last detail is what the ships' jobs are. Yes, you can already do this, but it's limited and rather abstract. I'm talking about full blown mission roles, like "designate Frigate A to capture nav points, with cautious behavior", or "fighter squadron D escorts destroyer E to the death". It'll be similar to what you can do now, except you are free from CP and more detailed like you can adjust individual ship's aggressiveness and preferred engagement distance and so on. When lower ranking officers are included in the game, then yes their own traits would augment this, like say one captain loves getting in close to the enemy, so whatever the preferred distance is, if it's beyond his traits, he'll ignore this, etc. Or really disciplined traits will allow the captains to follow the order to the letter. Since most of this is now done before the battle, during battle you would only be allowed to give simplest of orders, like assignments and retreat function.
If adjusting ship behavior is too much to do every battle (probably is... really tedious), then let it be part of the refit/fleet screen so that you can set it there once and apply to every battle until you adjust it otherwise.
Oh and if you are attempting to break through the line or any other events that may be included in the later versions of the game, then yeah your ability to plan out for the battle should be limited or removed altogether.
So why do this pre-battle? First, it's closer to how plans are formulated; they are formulated in great details before the bullets fly. I really think current system is no better at representing commanding role than traditional RTS because it falls under the other far end of the spectrum; RTS let's you control too much, fleet control let you control too little. So anything to increase immersion should be great. Second, it'll make it easier for people to accept that this is not RTS, because well, none of your units are on the field while you are giving orders! It'll basically present fleet control as planning, not some mutated RTS control (which is what some people are thinking when they try to play it like RTS). Third, it helps the players focus ship piloting even more because you have done your work beforehand.
-
I think you've got a good point that it's inevitable that a lot of players will try to play in an RTS fashion, because that's a natural first approach. How to address that is still TBD in my mind.
I think there is an option here of underscoring the raw greeness of the player's ability to command when he or she is first starting out. This will be most efective when the game includes things like character traits or ancillaries that quickly allow your character more command points, I think it's a doable approach in such circumstance. The first one or two battles sets the tone that you're not an omnipotent commander, the following battles your character has leveled up or garnered more experienced communications crew to expand your command points to the level at which it is now.
I think there's a great deal about just what happens in the command bunker or the command room around the admiral or general that just gets glossed over in other games. Showing this aspect and the way in which it gets better and more refined as time goes on could give the appearence that better justifies command points.
-
I think there's a great deal about just what happens in the command bunker or the command room around the admiral or general that just gets glossed over in other games. Showing this aspect and the way in which it gets better and more refined as time goes on could give the appearence that better justifies command points.
But it would still not justify the fact that once you run out, then that's it. Having more experienced communications officers would result in being able to issue orders more efficiently, i.e. being able to give more orders in the same amount of time. But I can't think of any reason why a commander would completely cease to be able to give orders other than the communication equipment on his ship being destroyed.
IMO a much better system would have a limited number of regenerating points. The number of points is your number of communications officers, i.e. how many orders you're able to issue at once. When you give an order, a communications officer starts a transmission and you lose a CP. After some time, dependent on the experience of the officer, you get the point back, representing the officer having finished transmitting and being free to relay more orders. And of course the ship being commanded would obey the order only after the transmission is finished, i.e. once you get the CP back, not immediately after you click with your mouse.
I think this would represent the limited ability to command much better, without an arbitrary limitation. Your command ship would also play a role, since different could only accommodate a limited number of officers. So when you're starting out you'd have a very limited number of CPs. Once you progress in the game and get a bigger ship, you're able to coordinate larger operations. You could also use a hull mod to install additional communication equipment to boost your ability to command at the cost of decreasing your ship's battle effectiveness.
-
I recall that in the early discussions on this topic that people suggested that any order given over the command point limit be "subpar" or quite general in terms of the communications group being tied down with what they've taken monitoring and providing behind the scenes instructions, information, and follow up. There's several ways for this to manifest. Maybe the orders you can give are not going to be followed as well as ones that take up a command point. This would suggest that trying to give any instructions beyond simple orders might be a very bad idea. Additional to this, the more orders you give while out of command points, the more likely your ships are likely to screw up the instructions might be a good idea.
I guess there's a fair bit of abstraction about what goes on when the player issues an order. Giving an order often isn't an open shut case once the comlink is turned off. There's quite a bit of follow up, monitoring, correcting, and providing additional information that the command team is supposed to do. This is prominently seen I think, in WWII and WWI era plans and after action reports. People tend to get a lot of stuff wrong even if it's as simple as getting from point A to B. Modern day communications alleviate this somewhat by providing more information about where the group is and more reliable and sophisticated communications equipment. But with these advances, it's often the case that the people needed to make sense of all the data and keep in touch with the forces they've issued instructions for to steadily increase along with their work load. The situations where a vital piece of information may be overlooked, glossed over, or outright forgotten takes place when the command team is handling forces that are in direct combat like that of Starfarer's combat.
I think there's a bit of work conveying all that in the game if this is the explanation that's settled upon. For example, if the graphical feedback of simple orders like patrol or capture were made to be much more complicated than they look to illustrate all the stuff the ship doing it is doing and the command crew is doing to help them get there, it could provide more justification for the system as is.
-
I guess there's a fair bit of abstraction about what goes on when the player issues an order. Giving an order often isn't an open shut case once the comlink is turned off. There's quite a bit of follow up, monitoring, correcting, and providing additional information that the command team is supposed to do.
But there's none of that going on in the game. You can see precisely what all your ships are doing regardless of how many CPs you have, so the CPs don't represent that. You do make a good point that orders require monitoring, though, and I would love to see that modeled in the game. But they don't require monitoring once they're completed. Perhaps CPs could be refunded once an order is completed (as opposed to received, as was my suggestion)? E.g. you order a ship to capture an objective, you lose a CP. Objective is captured, you get the CP back (unless the ship starts executing another order that you've given in the meantime).
-
But there's none of that going on in the game. You can see precisely what all your ships are doing regardless of how many CPs you have, so the CPs don't represent that.
You raise a very good point, I think we should use CPs to a point where it allows us to monitor what is happening with the other ships. CPs should really allow for a wider range of actions that the command team undertakes and takes up their man power. I think this could also reinforce the notion that the player is more confined to his ship and the command team is far more limited than in an RTS.
You do make a good point that orders require monitoring, though, and I would love to see that modeled in the game. But they don't require monitoring once they're completed. Perhaps CPs could be refunded once an order is completed (as opposed to received, as was my suggestion)? E.g. you order a ship to capture an objective, you lose a CP. Objective is captured, you get the CP back (unless the ship starts executing another order that you've given in the meantime).
I totally agree on this point. Captured points that turn into control points should really refund their CPs, and strike teams that destroy their target should return the CP point. I think this could be integrated with the rally points. Strike craft that finish their work and return to the rally point should yield the CPs back as they are at rest.
-
Overlooking the fact that some orders are never 'completed' or have added benefits... such as the capture order. Order to capture a point, once you capture it, it shouldn't be refunded because your capture order still applies to that location as long as you don't remove it. If the enemy retakes that position, your capture order is still in effect and will send someone to attempt capturing it again, all without spending more CP.
-
I think what you're suggesting is equivalent CP wise to having that CP point refunded when you cancel that control point that was once was a capture order. The rally points should really be more integrated with the CP points, returning there should be like the command team and admiral not having to deal with them anymore and freeing up more time to deal with other things. Of course, however, combat in this game, though not quick, happens too quickly I think that this would be of much use over the course of the battle.
-
You raise a very good point, I think we should use CPs to a point where it allows us to monitor what is happening with the other ships. CPs should really allow for a wider range of actions that the command team undertakes and takes up their man power. I think this could also reinforce the notion that the player is more confined to his ship and limited command team than in an RTS.
This could possibly be modeled by removing the information that the ship relays to the commander. You could give orders when out of CPs, but in such a case you'd be out of contact with the commanded ship, i.e. it would cease to clear the fog of war and it would disappear from your view (and map) once it left your visual range.
-
I guess with that model the system really needs to have variable amount of CPs for orders and actions for the command crew. Having someone in the command team switch attention to the other ships should cost way less CP than telling a wing to go check it out.
This discussion reminds me, shouldn't bigger ships with larger crews have more CPs just due to how many people you can have in the CIC. I imagine the equipment in those ships would be far more accommodating to a commander and the team than a 24 person frigate. It would really open up a whole new dimension if picking a ship for your flag ship goes beyond the direct combat stats but also the amount of commanding equipment it can take or whether it has extra internal facilities.
-
I guess with that model the system really needs to have variable amount of CPs for orders and actions for the command crew. Having someone in the command team switch attention to the other ships should cost way less CP than telling a wing to go check it out.
Should it? I'm not sure. Either way the officer is keeping an eye on a ship, I don't think it makes that much of a difference which ship it is.
This discussion reminds me, shouldn't bigger ships with larger crews have more CPs just due to how many people you can have in the CIC. I imagine the equipment in those ships would be far more accommodating to a commander and the team than a 24 person frigate. It would really open up a whole new dimension if picking a ship for your flag ship goes beyond the direct combat stats but also the amount of commanding equipment it can take or whether it has extra internal facilities.
Yes, that was part of my suggestion. I imagine it's not in the game because CPs are an arbitrary limitation and what we're doing here is trying to find some kind of reasonable explanation for their existence. And yes, I agree completely, having to make that decision would add a lot of depth and make the game a great deal more interesting.
-
I could very well see character skills and being a sort of deciding factor on what class of ships you could use... something along the lines of your ability to command a ship and issue orders to your own vessel. Those with larger crews would take a greater understanding of leadership and getting crews to follow your orders, so if larger ships could end up adding to CP due to having a larger crew compliment for commanding from... it wouldn't be much different then having a character skill that augmented CP as it increased, perhaps it might even make sense more.
Edit: I guess the only issue would be transferring command during battle... if you were limited to say a destroyer... it'd prevent you from transferring to say a cruiser... so I doubt any of us would want that either.
-
That reminds me of another awesome game, Age of Pirates 2: The City of Abandoned Ships. That had a system whereby if you took command of a ship larger than your skills would allow, you'd get penalties to your base stats. I'm not sure if Starfarer will go in the direction of a full-blown RPG with stats and skills and all that (and I'm not even sure I'd want it to), but the basic idea of giving you penalties for commanding a ship larger than you can handle could be applied to great effect here.
Among other things, it would prevent the player from advancing too quickly. There's a big difference in CoAS between being able to get a big ship and being able to use it effectively. I find in Starfarer, much like in CoAS, it's fairly easy to get a big ship if you luck out and happen upon a remnant of a larger fleet. In CoAS you can also take such a crippled ship fairly easily, but it'll be useless in your hands because of the penalties. What you can do is give it to an officer. That way the officer gets the penalties, so the ship will still be useless in combat, but it doesn't really matter if all you want him to do is follow you to the nearest port to sell the thing.
-
There will be character skills, so you will have that portion of an RPG system... as far as stats... that'll sorta be based on your skills and your ship I think. What could happen is, you can capture ships that you can't 'command' and you could transfer command into those ships, but yes, it could be penalties in the way crew experience sorta works. If you can only use up to destroyer class, and transfer command to a cruiser class, even with an elite crew on board, perhaps it's capabilities are reduced in some way to be equal to a recruit level or worse. If the CP system was affected by the type of ship size, your CPs wouldn't change because your 'flagship' you started in is what determined CP. It would then be beneficial with the unique pilots/commanders feature too, because you could recruit captains that have the capabilities to command those cruisers for you with no penalty... be a nice added function for their use.
Thinking about it, it could be pretty nice to have it that way... how it would actually function and feel is far different though...
-
I have two hopefully useful ideas to contribute to this, especially relevant to some of Beagle's points:
First, I believe that there should be a Forbid Ship order that stops a ship from being considered for a given assignment. Sometimes I really, REALLY don't want a certain ship doing a certain thing, because I think it'll get itself killed. Maybe I'm wrong, but I should be given the option :) - this would cost 1cp just as Assign Ship does. However, see my second idea below:
When you are creating a -new- order (which you pay 1CP for as usual), you should be able to use the Assign Ship command to freely assign ships to that order, and the Forbid Ship order to freely forbid things. As soon as the order is actually okayed and set, it starts costing command points to shift things around, but in essence this would mean that your stock of command points will actually translate into that many assignments, consisting of whichever ships you want, and you can either spend more time OR NOT as desired. Personally I usually think the AI does a fine job of assignments, but there are occasions when I want to tweak it, and I don't really like being charged for that as I'm defining an order, because it feels like double costing. "Someone Attack that cruiser... No, I meant... YOU Specifically! attack that cruiser", wheras I believe most commanders would just say "You! Attack that cruiser".
If everyone thinks that's really too much, then another possiblity would be only unassigned ships can be assigned for free, but I do think free assignments (at order creation, never free after) should be trialled if it's not a big deal to try it - It's not all that different from now after all, and then I would suggest a lowering of the amount of general command-points to balance.
I also really like the idea that the bigger or more suited for command a ship you use as your flagship, the more you get. (Perhaps there should even be a hull-mod, Expanded CIC, but that does seem a little overspecific)
Anyway, what does everyone else think?
-
First, I believe that there should be a Forbid Ship order that stops a ship from being considered for a given assignment. Sometimes I really, REALLY don't want a certain ship doing a certain thing, because I think it'll get itself killed. Maybe I'm wrong, but I should be given the option :) - this would cost 1cp just as Assign Ship does. However, see my second idea below:
I think the player should be able to set down some general rules prior to any fighting. Currently any ship that doesn't have any assignments that fits its role automatically goes on search and destroy. It would be nice if you could change the default behaviour a bit in some sort of briefing screen.
-
I think I already mentioned this - that's not how it works.
If you issue an intercept order on the enemy fighter, *one* of your nearby fighter wings (or fast frigates) will break off and go after it. If you need to beef if up, you could use a direct order to add another ship to the mix.
If the system worked that way, it'd be amazing. But it doesn't, unfortunately. The problem tends to arise when the AI makes really questionable decisions, forcing you to use your Command Points to correct AI oversights rather than to enhance your strategy.
Lets take the intercepting fighters example. I've given my capture orders and such, everything in the fleet is moving. But out of nowhere, a bomber wing appears on the left flank. I give the Intercept order...and it assigns a seemingly random Frigate from across the map to intercept them. I would much rather have my nearby Talon Wing or Point Defense Frigate do that, because they can certainly do it a hell of a lot better than my Brawler Gunship.
If you're gonna have the really general stuff, you need to tweak the AI, so that it realizes that Point Defense Frigates and Fighters are better interceptors than Assault Gunships. Or that my Close Support Frigate would be better at striking a Carrier than my Point Defense Frigate. IMO, the best way to do that would be to let the player add "Tags" to ships before a battle. "Tag" a wing of fighters as Interceptors so they prioritize enemy fighters and bombers. "Tag" a Frigate as Attack, Close Support, Assault, Point Defense, ect. So the AI would know what it's best at when auto-assigning.
And, for the love of god, stop making AI-controlled Fighter Wings ignore Bombers/Torpedo Bombers and charge at Capital Ships that they can't hurt.
The Command Point limit is the biggest issue. You can't correct bad AI decisions without wasting several Command Points. I cringe when I see my Talon Wing targeting a capital ship, my Carrier trying to intercept a pack of Frigates, or my Pirhana Bombers trying to Intercept a wing of Broadswords...
Other issues that need addressed:
1) Damaged ships don't seem to know when they need to get out of the fight. I frequently have to order Fighter Wings to manually Repair and Refit because they won't do it on their own when they're all almost dead. They tend to wait until only 1 ship remains before repairing, even if all 3 ships have almost no hull left. Crippled frigates have similar behavior. I've never seen them retreat on their own.
2) Specific orders regarding Fighters. "Fighter Screen" for capital ships instead of general Escort (Would make the assigned fighters prioritize enemy bombers and fighters attacking the ship they're screening over any other threats.), and "Intercept Strikecraft" or something similar would be good for telling available Fighters or Point Defense Ships to intercept instead of assigning a random ship.
3) Some sort of self-preservation setting for ships that are heavily damaged or crippled. Or at least some notification that they're taking heavy damage. Currently, you can manually retreat them, but I usually don't even notice they're in trouble until they're dead.
4) The Command Points seem really arbitrary. If someone wants to play the Command System a ton to strategically win battles, he should be able to do that without having to work around the Command Point System. It really feels like just tacked on difficulty. A nice fix for this would be making Assign Task not cost Command Points. You'd be able to bolster orders and specify what you want each ship to do. And counteract bad AI choices (No, Talon Wing, you shouldn't intercept that Onslaught). Hopefully officers and character skills should help that, but it definitely needs tweaked.
5) Once an order is completed (IE: A ship retreated, a fighter wing repaired, a target you specified is destroyed), getting the Command Point back after an order is successfully carried would be a nice way to ensure that you can keep assigning points. Perhaps add some sort of Character-Based skill that does that if you design your character in that way?
-
Escort, as an order, currently just doesn't work, according to Alex.
Regardless, I would rather have 'escort' and 'intercept' work than eliminate command points and the conservative command system with it. Personally, I've never had a problem with the intercept order, but I agree that it could probably be refined if the AI could increase or decrease its determination to stay and fight depending on the disposition you order them to take up, ie 'fight to the last man', 'retreat when necessary', or 'flee at first contact'.
-
If the system worked that way, it'd be amazing. But it doesn't, unfortunately. The problem tends to arise when the AI makes really questionable decisions, forcing you to use your Command Points to correct AI oversights rather than to enhance your strategy.
Lets take the intercepting fighters example. I've given my capture orders and such, everything in the fleet is moving. But out of nowhere, a bomber wing appears on the left flank. I give the Intercept order...and it assigns a seemingly random Frigate from across the map to intercept them. I would much rather have my nearby Talon Wing or Point Defense Frigate do that, because they can certainly do it a hell of a lot better than my Brawler Gunship.
That... doesn't happen. The Brawler will be way down on the priority list for an intercept, as the suitability is based largely on the ship's speed. The intercept order also weighs how long it will take something to get there, so the "across the map" assignment should not happen either.
If you're gonna have the really general stuff, you need to tweak the AI, so that it realizes that Point Defense Frigates and Fighters are better interceptors than Assault Gunships.
Already does that. It'll prefer more PD-capable ships for an intercept (making the aforementioned Brawler example even less likely). Now, I'm assuming what you're talking about actually happened, and you're not just making up a random example for the sake of making a point - I'd love to see what the map looked like for that assignment. A Brawler getting assigned from across the map when an interceptor wing is nearby is all but impossible - the only scenario I can see is if all the nearby ships already had direct orders, and couldn't break off for an intercept (which has higher priority than just about anything else).
And, for the love of god, stop making AI-controlled Fighter Wings ignore Bombers/Torpedo Bombers and charge at Capital Ships that they can't hurt.
I think you'll like the new escort behavior, then - fighter wings will stay by your ship and actively intercept incoming fighters and missiles.
Also - interceptors already preferentially target nearby fighters and bombers.
And counteract bad AI choices (No, Talon Wing, you shouldn't intercept that Onslaught).
... or my Pirhana Bombers trying to Intercept a wing of Broadswords...
Ok, now you *are* making stuff up!
I do appreciate you taking the time to offer your feedback, though. I just want to note that if you refrain from exaggerating, it'll be more useful in improving the game :)
-
The intercept order also weighs how long it will take something to get there, so the "across the map" assignment should not happen.
I can verify that it indeed does happen. Not very often, but once in a while it does.
-
The intercept order also weighs how long it will take something to get there, so the "across the map" assignment should not happen.
I can verify that it indeed does happen. Not very often, but once in a while it does.
Mind taking a screenshot when it does? It's hard for me to picture how it'd happen in the absence of direct orders to all the suitable nearby ships, so seeing it would be really helpful.
Edit: I mean specifically with a slower ship, poorly suited ship. A faster ship getting assigned from across the map can make sense if it gets there faster (or a little later, but is better for the job). Though any screenshots of assignment oddities are welcome.
-
I'll keep an eye out for it. Knowing my luck, it's not going to happen again to me, ever.
-
A faster ship getting assigned from across the map can make sense if it gets there faster (or a little later, but is better for the job).
Yeah I've seen this a lot. It can be annoying when your talons are nearly at a capture point, then a lasher gets assigned instead as your talons go intercept some bomber wing. But I also appreciate that I now would rather that happen, and if not I can make the assignments. Running out of CP's is bad, but if you set up your early game right, you can usually soldier though late battle okay. (since you'll get more from captures)
-
i would like to see my fighters also escort bombers. as much as my own ship.. or other ships in my fleet that should have fighter escorts... like carriers.
-
Alright, so, the point of this game is that each ship has individual captains, which is great, because it reduces the requirement of micromanagement! I, too, hated the system originally, until I realized that, in campaign, you rarely use up all your points, and it works pretty well for being able to tell people what to do (and the AI usually doing a damn good job of it), and then taking a zippy little flagship and ramming some AM blasters into a capital ship's pooper.
-
If the system worked that way, it'd be amazing. But it doesn't, unfortunately. The problem tends to arise when the AI makes really questionable decisions, forcing you to use your Command Points to correct AI oversights rather than to enhance your strategy.
Lets take the intercepting fighters example. I've given my capture orders and such, everything in the fleet is moving. But out of nowhere, a bomber wing appears on the left flank. I give the Intercept order...and it assigns a seemingly random Frigate from across the map to intercept them. I would much rather have my nearby Talon Wing or Point Defense Frigate do that, because they can certainly do it a hell of a lot better than my Brawler Gunship.
That... doesn't happen. The Brawler will be way down on the priority list for an intercept, as the suitability is based largely on the ship's speed. The intercept order also weighs how long it will take something to get there, so the "across the map" assignment should not happen either.
That happens in all my random battle games. The AI will pull capping/patrolling lashers/hounds/talons from across the map, and swap priorities with a perfectly capable ship that was right next to me. Controlling points is extremely important since there's so many units (multiple cap ships), and a simple intercept command will mess up positioning enough to cost the game.
If you're gonna have the really general stuff, you need to tweak the AI, so that it realizes that Point Defense Frigates and Fighters are better interceptors than Assault Gunships.
Already does that. It'll prefer more PD-capable ships for an intercept (making the aforementioned Brawler example even less likely). Now, I'm assuming what you're talking about actually happened, and you're not just making up a random example for the sake of making a point - I'd love to see what the map looked like for that assignment. A Brawler getting assigned from across the map when an interceptor wing is nearby is all but impossible - the only scenario I can see is if all the nearby ships already had direct orders, and couldn't break off for an intercept (which has higher priority than just about anything else).
It doesn't take into account enough information. It doesn't factor in the level of danger involved in completing its task. Last game, the AI wanted to pull a backcapping Hound I had across the map, to fly through through 2 Onslaughts surrounded by 4 Enforcers. Also, say I have a Wolf with gravitons/3 tacs (something that annihilates fighter wings) close by. It'll assign the talon wing I had capping instead, and swap their places. It won't just swap the places of those two units, but it will affect a chain of units, that I had placed all over the map since all their priorities shift.
Another example is when it assigns a wasp wing to intercept a Xyphlos wing (guaranteed casualty) instead of the pulse/Antimatter tempest (guaranteed win).
-
Just to clarify, the AI assigns ships to follow your fleet command based on their weapon load-out correct?
Is it possible to dictate the role (or multiple roles) of individual ship in the refit window thus overriding the current AI selection criteria? For example, AI regards my cruiser armed with a High Intensity Laser as support but what I really want is to use it to obey my 'Strike' command. Currently you can only do so by individually assign orders but it's quite frustrating and uses up a lot of unnecessary command points.
This should solve situations like when AI chooses to 'Intercept' with a fighter wing half a map away instead of using a closer frigate simply because the frigate might not have the ideal weapons.
-
Though any screenshots of assignment oddities are welcome.
(http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b208/Gaizokubanou/screenshot000.png)
Do you see that Tempest all the way to the top? I gave it direct order to defend sensor array alpha, yet it kept moving up north east to fight an enemy. Worst part is, it kept moving with shields down while missiles were battering it down. It made me rage because it's pretty common with frigates and only solution I found was to simply order all smaller ships to retreat after they cap control points.
Another problem is when you order a unit to retreat, it'll try to make it out of the map using shortest distance... even if it means it's going through every enemy ships.
-
You have a control order on Sensor Array Alpha, not a defend order.
-
You have a control order on Sensor Array Alpha, not a defend order.
You are right, still, there is that suicidal charging into missile and awful retreat pattern but that's something else.
I wish assignment was more than just adding a ship to existing order...
-
From what I've seen of Tempest behavior, they tend not to raise their shields because with engine boost on, they can outburn every missile in the game. It's kind of infuriating, actually. A lot of times, I'd rather an enemy Tempest keep their shields up and overload so I can pound it into dust than drop its shields, take a few hits, and burn out of my range. Especially since a Tempest with a veteran crew and improved thrusters moves 250 base, and 300 with the engine boost.
-
If the system worked that way, it'd be amazing. But it doesn't, unfortunately. The problem tends to arise when the AI makes really questionable decisions, forcing you to use your Command Points to correct AI oversights rather than to enhance your strategy.
Lets take the intercepting fighters example. I've given my capture orders and such, everything in the fleet is moving. But out of nowhere, a bomber wing appears on the left flank. I give the Intercept order...and it assigns a seemingly random Frigate from across the map to intercept them. I would much rather have my nearby Talon Wing or Point Defense Frigate do that, because they can certainly do it a hell of a lot better than my Brawler Gunship.
That... doesn't happen. The Brawler will be way down on the priority list for an intercept, as the suitability is based largely on the ship's speed. The intercept order also weighs how long it will take something to get there, so the "across the map" assignment should not happen either.
That happens in all my random battle games. The AI will pull capping/patrolling lashers/hounds/talons from across the map, and swap priorities with a perfectly capable ship that was right next to me. Controlling points is extremely important since there's so many units (multiple cap ships), and a simple intercept command will mess up positioning enough to cost the game.
I don't think that's the same situation, though. An "intercept" has a higher priority as a capture, so it'll pick the nearest/best ship (even if it was capturing), and that's expected. What I was talking about is a situation where there's a nearby available ship, and something from across the map gets assigned to an intercept anyway. If I'm misunderstanding, *and* it happens all the time, I'd really appreciate a screenshot.
The situation you describe, in my mind, is a perfect candidate for a direct order - just need to give one to set it straight.
It doesn't take into account enough information. It doesn't factor in the level of danger involved in completing its task. Last game, the AI wanted to pull a backcapping Hound I had across the map, to fly through through 2 Onslaughts surrounded by 4 Enforcers. Also, say I have a Wolf with gravitons/3 tacs (something that annihilates fighter wings) close by. It'll assign the talon wing I had capping instead, and swap their places. It won't just swap the places of those two units, but it will affect a chain of units, that I had placed all over the map since all their priorities shift.
Another example is when it assigns a wasp wing to intercept a Xyphlos wing (guaranteed casualty) instead of the pulse/Antimatter tempest (guaranteed win).
Fair enough, the intercept probably needs to consider more things (or, perhaps, less, and just assign the nearest combat-capable ship). In fact, I'll change that right now.
It'll never get things perfect, though - that's impossible, and that's also why direct orders exist. I'm fine with needing to use a direct order to guarantee a specific matchup (aforementioned Tempest vs Xyphos Wing).
Do you see that Tempest all the way to the top? I gave it direct order to defend sensor array alpha, yet it kept moving up north east to fight an enemy. Worst part is, it kept moving with shields down while missiles were battering it down. It made me rage because it's pretty common with frigates and only solution I found was to simply order all smaller ships to retreat after they cap control points.
Hmm, about the "with shields down" part - that's unrelated to the command system. I haven't actually seen that happen myself - frigates are very vigilant about dodging and shielding off missiles, in my experience - but I'll keep an eye out.
The AI has a tough time disengaging once in combat. That's a tricky thing to do - if it does it wrong, it'll just promptly get killed - so the alternative of being sluggish in obeying orders, in the name of self-preservation, seems the better one.
-
I would like more "attack" commands with a better description of what they do...
Intercept, Harrass and Strike work pretty well... most of the time but i would like more
Intercept - More PD centered, against fighters and frigates...
fast ships with PD weapons
very aggresive command where the ship will do anything to stop the guy
i think it shouldn't even show up on bigger ships, only usable on fighters, bombers and... maybe frigates
because... i don't really know which ship would be suitable to intercept a destroyer or even a cruiser
Harras - similar to what it does now, just annoying the enemy
ships with long range weapons or missiles
ship will try to keep as much distance as possible and will avoid coming into weapon range if possible (or as much as possible)
(the ai of the piranha bomber wing does this very well right now when fighting against frigates)
usable on everything except fighters...
Strike - keep it as it is...
maybe make it a bit more hit and run for bombers that don't use all their ammo in 1 run (piranha)
Engage(?) - Sends a similiar or bigger sized ship into combat against a ship
preferably attack or assault variants
ship behaves similiar to the current 1v1 behaviour of most frigates
that would be a command to issue on big or scary ships where a ship of you,
capable of holding it in check tries to keep it away from your other ships
swarm - sends several! smaller ships against a big ship (cruiser and above)
fighters, attack-, assault-, support frigates, maybe even destroyers(?)
aggresive behaviour with a lot of flying around the ship and shooting it from every side
basically an alternative to a strike command when you don't have a good strike team or it is currently busy
also good to get rid of big ships with a lot of PD
-
I just realized something - the current captain personality system can have some rather odd-looking effects on assignments. For example, one captain may be unwilling to go on an intercept or an assault, while another will ignore a fire support assignment because that's not enough action for their taste.
This should only happen in missions, but can significantly muck things up because there's no feedback as to what's going on. I think I'll turn off the effect of personality on assignments (but not the in-combat behavior), because as implemented now, it's just confusing. I have a feeling this would resolve most of the odd-looking assignment situations.
Sorry I hadn't brought it up sooner - truth be told, I forgot.
-
All I want is a 'move here' order for assign task. Thanks for all your involvement Alex!
-
Alex, we just need a detailed description of your AI behavior when you have the time to write it up. Most of the complaints here stem from the fact that us players don't know how you've prioritize the AI behavior in response to fleet command.
-
Also more feedback within the game would be nice. I never even knew there was such a thing as captain personalities.
Though quite frankly if I was running a fleet and one of my captains refused to follow an order because he didn't feel like it, I'd have him shot on the spot. If you insist on having captain personalities in the game, then please make sure such a feature is also present. Otherwise you'll end up with the same thing as Command Points, a frustrating annoyance that the player has no way of dealing with.
-
Captain personalities will be something you can change... you're going to be able to recruit and get captains/commanders with different personality traits that you can assign to your ships. They won't be random all the time. I think they are now for the 'no captains' issue we have.
-
And, for the love of god, stop making AI-controlled Fighter Wings ignore Bombers/Torpedo Bombers and charge at Capital Ships that they can't hurt.
Also - interceptors already preferentially target nearby fighters and bombers.
http://youtu.be/D7EepqavWmI
Here's an example of an AI Xyphos wing deciding to "intercept" a cap ship on its own. It flew all the way across the map from its carrier, ignoring 3 cap points, light frigates, and torpedo wings to attack a Paragon. When it reaches the Paragon, it can't decide which target to defend against, and spins in circles before being vaporized.
The AI will assign ONE fast unit to intercept a target, while the rest charge off to find targets they have no business attacking. To many players, this is one of the reasons why to it looks like the AI is hijacking your orders in favor of suicide missions.
And counteract bad AI choices (No, Talon Wing, you shouldn't intercept that Onslaught).
... or my Pirhana Bombers trying to Intercept a wing of Broadswords...
Ok, now you *are* making stuff up!
Units are being sent to "intercept" targets they have no chance against as a result of the priorities system. Unit speed is the main factor when determining priority, it doesn't take into account threats along the way, or the difficulty of completing its objective. In my random battles, bombers will often be autoassigned to capture/patrol points, where they come across fighter wings and frigates along the way and at the objective. You might be given 2 Cap ships, 3 Cruisers, and a mass of destroyers that would dominate a capture point, but it'll send a bomber wing because it was the fastest. Someone might say "just give a direct order" and I do use that to assign bigger ships to cap points, but the AI will STILL send the bomber wing for objectives, since the the bigger ships don't count as light/fast units. Also, larger ships directly assigned to objectives seem to lose most of their AI, and become sitting ducks. If I cancel the objective or set the AI to "search and destroy" any time something comes into range so the AI ship regains its senses, then the command point won't be set to recapture (the AI will ignore the backcapping) and I have to manually reassign, costing several more CP (the AI will priority shift, moving fast units across the map rather than cap with the larger ship right next to it). In the end, it costs me all the CP I have to perform the simplest things.
Say you have Talon/Bomber wings on escort (yes, I know it's not working as intended). You want them leashed to something so they don't just fly off on suicide missions, yet stay close enough to the battle to actually have a function. You want them to avoid units they'll be crushed against, while protecting its charge from missiles and attacking units they're strong against. Yet the Talon will chase after targets with tons of beam weapons or flak, and the bombers will engage fighters because they were the first target in range.
Lastly, why not let ships be the target of strike rally points? Why have a strike craft rally point that you have to constantly micromanage, when you could simply rally your strike craft around the carrier? Currently, bombers leashed to ships with "escort" lose their AI (they try to mirror your ship's movement and stop moving intelligently), and completely ignore all "Strike" commands.
-
And, for the love of god, stop making AI-controlled Fighter Wings ignore Bombers/Torpedo Bombers and charge at Capital Ships that they can't hurt.
Also - interceptors already preferentially target nearby fighters and bombers.
http://youtu.be/D7EepqavWmI
Here's an example of an AI Xyphos wing deciding to "intercept" a cap ship on its own. It flew all the way across the map from it's carrier, ignoring 3 cap points, light frigates, and torpedo wings to attack a Paragon. When it reaches the Paragon, it can't decide which target to defend against, and spins in circles before being vaporized.
I was talking about regular search-and-destroy AI behavior. The Xyphos is not an interceptor from that point of view - it's a heavy fighter. Things like Wasps and Talons will prefer fighters if left on their own.
Someone might say "just give a direct order" and I do use that to assign bigger ships to cap points, but the AI will STILL send the bomber wing for objectives, since the the bigger ships don't count as light/fast units.
Oh, that's a bug! Thank you for bringing that up - fixed.
Also, larger ships directly assigned to objectives seem to lose most of their AI, and become sitting ducks.
Just "Capture". They are very tightly leashed then. An "Assault" (or multiple "Assaults") is probably the better choice if you have a mass of destroyers and such.
Say you have Talon/Bomber wings on escort (yes, I know it's not working as intended). You want them leashed to something so they don't just fly off on suicide missions, yet stay close enough to the battle to actually have a function. You want them to avoid units they'll be crushed against, while protecting its charge from missiles and attacking units they're strong against.
Yep, this is pretty much how it should work. What's in the dev build now is certainly much closer to this.
Alex, we just need a detailed description of your AI behavior when you have the time to write it up. Most of the complaints here stem from the fact that us players don't know how you've prioritize the AI behavior in response to fleet command.
I think it should be more... learnable? as development goes on. Right now, the problem is some things don't work as they should, and you the player are left to wonder what's actually intended and what's not. When things are more uniformly working right, the system should become more transparent just because of that.
-
I think it should be more... learnable? as development goes on. Right now, the problem is some things don't work as they should, and you the player are left to wonder what's actually intended and what's not. When things are more uniformly working right, the system should become more transparent just because of that.
Some things are very hard to figure out on your own. You just mentioned that ships on Capture are more tightly leashed than on Assault. That's another thing I never realized, and I bet that applies to a lot of other people as well. Nuances like this really should be explained somewhere. The user interface and heavily AI-reliant tactical gameplay are very unorthodox, to the point of being slightly overwhelming. Accessibility is extremely important, I would hate to see Starfarer to turn into anther Dwarf Fortress.
-
Some things are very hard to figure out on your own. You just mentioned that ships on Capture are more tightly leashed than on Assault. That's another thing I never realized, and I bet that applies to a lot of other people as well. Nuances like this really should be explained somewhere. The user interface and heavily AI-reliant tactical gameplay are very unorthodox, to the point of being slightly overwhelming. Accessibility is extremely important, I would hate to see Starfarer to turn into anther Dwarf Fortress.
Heheh, I'll assume you didn't mean that in the "gets incredibly popular, and quite possibly becomes one of the best games of all time" sort of way.
Joking aside, you've got a good point. What's really needed is a solid tutorial - but given that it's still early-sh and things are changing too fast, that's not an option yet. It's a lot of work to make a good one, and so is constantly changing/updating one. On the bright side, this thread (and others like it) also provide a lot of food for thought re: just what should be in said tutorial.
-
I think it should be more... learnable? as development goes on. Right now, the problem is some things don't work as they should, and you the player are left to wonder what's actually intended and what's not. When things are more uniformly working right, the system should become more transparent just because of that.
Some things are very hard to figure out on your own. You just mentioned that ships on Capture are more tightly leashed than on Assault. That's another thing I never realized, and I bet that applies to a lot of other people as well. Nuances like this really should be explained somewhere. The user interface and heavily AI-reliant tactical gameplay are very unorthodox, to the point of being slightly overwhelming. Accessibility is extremely important, I would hate to see Starfarer to turn into anther Dwarf Fortress.
HWAAT! Dwarf Fortress is amazing!
....point taken though, I still can't play that game in the original ASCII.
-
It sounds like we need a thread about improving the tutorial and explaining things that are not evident through experience or is difficult to deduce from intuition.
-
Heheh, I'll assume you didn't mean that in the "gets incredibly popular, and quite possibly becomes one of the best games of all time" sort of way.
No, I meant in the "has an interface so counter-intuitive and willfully obtuse that it takes several hours of hard work just to learn how to make the damn buggers perform the most basic of tasks" sort of way. ;) I love DF, but goddamn does it need an interface overhaul.
-
Also, larger ships directly assigned to objectives seem to lose most of their AI, and become sitting ducks.
Just "Capture". They are very tightly leashed then. An "Assault" (or multiple "Assaults") is probably the better choice if you have a mass of destroyers and such.
"Capture" is a one-off no-priority function, ships will cap the point, then revert to search and destroy behavior where they run off to attack things, or go to the next objective. It doesn't leash once the objective is taken. What I need is for an assigned unit to patrol/defend a CP's general vicinity, taking it back and preventing backcapping, but not sit on a single spot eating missiles/being surrounded. Patrol is perfect for this, except the part where AI stops moving intelligently, dodging just enough to avoid a missile.
"Assault" is out of the question, the priority is high, so it overrides the entire fleet's behavior. There are 5 objectives in random battles. It means all my ships, large and small, bunch up on a single area. I don't need my entire frontline buffer to go after an objective, I just need enough to take, and control the area from backcaps. Setting multiple "assaults" just divides my entire force into several weak positions (like Onslaughts being pulled to side points), which is even worse. I can individually set "search and destroy" but there are more units than there are CP, and any time I assign a new order, the unit behavior reverts to default. Furthermore, once the assault objective is completed, the objective changes to "defend" which means ships charge off to attack things far away, flying back and forth between objectives in a completely uncoordinated manner, spinning in circles while trying to decide where to go. Right this moment I'm looking an Onslaught leaving a contested frontline point set to "assault" (something it had taken half the game reaching), to fly all the way back to the bottom left CP, where there is already an enforcer. "Patrol" is the only function where I can assign ships, and they will behave.
I challenge anyone to try random missions where you're not given any fast units, against an AI that is given many, where you are continuously harassed by backcap attempts. I play on full difficulty, and if there's a way to win that without some elaborate micromanagement/escort chain/patrol assignment trickery, I'd love to hear about it.
-
The Xyphos is not an interceptor from that point of view - it's a heavy fighter.
As a side note, I am very strongly of the opinion that xyphos fighters should not be considered heavy fighters while their singular weapon is a beam weapon. Even a dozen of them isn't going to dent a shield.
Right now, they are at best a defense or support role fighter useful mainly for momentarily distracting or getting the odd lucky hit in from the flank in any manner of skirmish that can be considered "heavy".
Otherwise, they are the best anti-fighter fighters I can think of, thus, honestly, interceptors.
-
Just wanted to add my two cents... Not sure what of this has been covered before but seeing as fleet control is my main complaint (though not that big of a one) in the game I thought I should add my thoughts.
First off, I love the *idea* behind the fleet control system, and for the most part it works good, but it does need tweaking.
Few things:
- I really want to be able to have ships automatically retreat when they have taken significant damage, the enemy AI already does it. You might say I should retreat ships manually, but there is two problems with that. One it requires extensive micromanaging and monitoring ships. The fleet interface isn't great for monitoring your ships as you get no info other than their position unless you click on them. Second there just isn't enough CPs to retreat your ships regularly.
- I would really like to group ships and then have groups do assignments instead of single ships. For instance, in midgame, heck even early, talons suck, and they should since they are super cheap. But their lives could be greatly extended if they band together. Currently there is no way to do this. Now I could assign escort orders to say a frigate and have a single wing of fighters follow it, but that is one ships and once you have dozens it isn't enough.
- I feel as though I have little control over my larger ships. I put a assault order somewhere and they plod over there, but then I discover that the enemy cruiser is way over here, I can put a defend order where I think they are going to be, or else do a direct command... Neither is what I really want to be honest... I really wish I could group the cruiser or capital ship with a destroyer, two frigates and two fighter wings and send them as a group to go after the enemy. I find that a army of fighters and bombers trumps the annoyance that is commanding cruisers and capital ships.
- Sometimes it would be nice to have a strike and harass command at the same time on a ship... Pretty please?
Overall the idea works it just needs some tweaking and more CPs...
One other thing, are more weapon groups planned? 4 is fine for frigates and destroyers, but once you get up to cruiser it is not enough...
-
Otherwise, they are the best anti-fighter fighters I can think of, thus, honestly, interceptors.
Technically anti-fighter fighters are air superiority fighters (or space superiority fighters, I guess). Interceptors are fast but not as maneuverable, primarily designed to intercept bombers.
-
Otherwise, they are the best anti-fighter fighters I can think of, thus, honestly, interceptors.
Technically anti-fighter fighters are air superiority fighters (or space superiority fighters, I guess). Interceptors are fast but not as maneuverable, primarily designed to intercept bombers.
In the modern day, those two things are often the same thing though. F-22, F-15... all superiority aircraft, designed primarily as interceptors as well.
-
Otherwise, they are the best anti-fighter fighters I can think of, thus, honestly, interceptors.
Technically anti-fighter fighters are air superiority fighters (or space superiority fighters, I guess). Interceptors are fast but not as maneuverable, primarily designed to intercept bombers.
In the modern day, those two things are often the same thing though. F-22, F-15... all superiority aircraft, designed primarily as interceptors as well.
I think it's just a function of how the more a piece of technology advances, the more functions it rolls up into its purpose, as miniaturization lets it fit in more and better mechanisms. The Xyphos is fast, maneuverable, well-armed, durable - thus combining all the desired traits into a superior fighter.
-
Not only that, but modern guided surface-to-air missiles have rendered the pure interceptor obsolete. Hence multirole fighters.