Fractal Softworks Forum

Starsector => Suggestions => Topic started by: Gothars on January 17, 2013, 12:36:21 PM

Title: Gradual map borders
Post by: Gothars on January 17, 2013, 12:36:21 PM
 
I thought maybe gradual map borders might be better than the current abrupt borders. Could be realized with a delayed push back effect that gets gradually stronger (in space and time) instead of the sudden maximum push back (+ popup) we have now.
To not interfere with fleeing the effect had to be delayed. That means ships can pass through without speed loss as long as they head straight ahead with full speed (maybe delay time is max speed related?). If you stay in the border zone longer the push back grows stronger and eventually you are forced out of it. Closer to the real boarder the effect will grow fastest. Leaving the boarder zone resets the effect for the ship.

(http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/6889/84345581.png)

Some advantages:
- Not the annoying pop ups all the time when fighting close to the border
- Instead a text warning "leaving combat zone" that does not interrupt combat flow (pop up at the very end)
- Doesn't limit movement when fighting close to the border. It makes no sense to corner someone in open space, does it?
- Allows to maneuver behind ships that have their back on the map border
- The feeling of a cage match would be mitigated

I have no idea in how far the combat map properties are an integral part of the game engine, so maybe this is pointless.

Anyway, thoughts?
Title: Re: Gradual map borders
Post by: ArkAngel on January 17, 2013, 12:56:34 PM
I like the idea but it has to end somewhere. And where it ends you can still pin the ship :/ not sure if this would fix the issue. It would help of course, but I never had issues with it myself. I rarely fight near the borders.
Title: Re: Gradual map borders
Post by: Pendragon on January 17, 2013, 03:40:03 PM
I can see the need for it but I don't know if this is the right direction. My concern would be that this could effect handling of craft and often, particularly in the early game when you are primarily fielding fighters or weaker destroyers handling plays a big part in whether a fight is won or lost. You could possibly just have a section near the border where a message appears stating you are leaving without actually interrupting play. Then if you remain in that area for, say, five seconds or so you automatically leave.
Title: Re: Gradual map borders
Post by: firstattak1 on January 17, 2013, 09:33:17 PM
Meh, i really dont see this really needed, to me it makes it harder to escape, and easier to kill the AI if they are escaping. Unless im reading it wrong, seems like a setback more that something helpful
Title: Re: Gradual map borders
Post by: BillyRueben on January 17, 2013, 09:48:36 PM
I also don't think that it is really needed. Not so much because it is a bad idea, but more because I really just don't see the current map boundary as something that needs to be fixed. 95% of the fighting I do isn't close enough to the border to have any affect on the gameplay.

Removing the "Are you sure you want to retreat?" textbox would be nice as it is annoying. If I want to retreat from a fight, I'll fly off the edge of the screen myself.
Title: Re: Gradual map borders
Post by: Gothars on January 17, 2013, 10:13:33 PM
Removing that box is my main motivation with this suggestion. I personally encounter it a lot, for example if I out-range the enemy and fly backwards to keep it that way. Or if I try to intercept a fleeing enemy. Or at least it seems a lot because it's annoying.

Just removing it would not work, since there are situations where I accidentally cross the boarder with high speed, I would not want to retreat then by default.

Mhh.. how about just delaying it a bit, so it doesn't appear if your first pixel touches the border, but only the moment you're completely out if sight?
Title: Re: Gradual map borders
Post by: ArkAngel on January 18, 2013, 05:51:52 AM
That makes sence to me.
Title: Re: Gradual map borders
Post by: firstattak1 on January 18, 2013, 07:17:22 AM
Ya that seems like a better idea, I know what you coming from and seems like a good idea, but has sone gameplay problems sadly.
Title: Re: Gradual map borders
Post by: Gothars on January 18, 2013, 07:31:36 AM
But that would have the problem that you could have fights at the border where you don't see half of your ship for some time. Not pretty.

Which brings us back to a time delayed push back effect... only with a much smaller area with depth = ship length.
Title: Re: Gradual map borders
Post by: Hyph_K31 on January 18, 2013, 10:14:36 AM
I like the idea of soft battlefield borders. Aside from getting rid of the what is currently, IMO, a bad mechanic it'll also allow the battlefield to assume a much more natural shape, I,e; a circle. To me a square sensor range makes less than no sense.

So that's a plus one from me.
Title: Re: Gradual map borders
Post by: Sordid on January 18, 2013, 10:58:12 AM
I agree that the hard borders should be removed, but I don't think this is the way to do it. I don't see why there should be any borders at all, to be honest. There's an old fan-made Star Trek game called Final War 2. It's basically the same thing as Starfarer, top-down space combat. Thing is, the battlefields in that are infinite, you can fly your ships hundreds of kilometers apart and the game will keep track of them. So to run away you have to put a certain distance between yourself and the enemy. That means that the enemy has to be either slower than you or preoccupied by fighting someone else. If the enemy is faster and intent on pursuing you, you simply can't run away. IMO Starfarer should have a similar system.
Title: Re: Gradual map borders
Post by: firstattak1 on January 18, 2013, 12:18:23 PM
^^^^
This sounds like a cool idea. But would Alex really want to recode something like that? Not sure how code works but wouldn't this be a big change
Title: Re: Gradual map borders
Post by: Sordid on January 18, 2013, 01:08:53 PM
Definitely. But it would be worth it, IMO.
Title: Re: Gradual map borders
Post by: Alex on January 21, 2013, 09:51:24 AM
Hmm. First of all, I readily grant that the dialog about whether you want to retreat is annoying :)

I'm not sure whether expanding the area where being near a border affects gameplay (i.e. via gradual pushback) is a good idea, though. The Map border isn't the kind of mechanic you really want to build on, but rather want to keep as unobtrusive as possible - it's there for housekeeping reasons, not because anyone actually wants it or is excited about it. With that in mind, I'm definitely open to suggestions for how to make it more unobtrusive.

As to removing borders altogether, I don't think that's practical. If you consider in detail how things would play out (or, indeed, mod in a very large map for small, no-objective engagements), I think you'll start to see some of the problems. Just one example: what's likely to happen is for a few clumps of smaller combats to drift away from each other - leading to a situation where it either takes you minutes to move from one clump to another (once the battle there is finished), or to where you couldn't catch up at all due to being in a slower ship.

Then there are some nuts-and-bolts difficulties in having something actually be unbounded - not insurmountable, but not something I'm inclined to pursue, given that I think it's going to cause more problems than it solves. Conceptually, having map borders doesn't bother me - the way I think of it is ships retreating off it simply engage their travel drive, and thus can't be caught up to.

In practice, yeah, that dialog box is an annoyance, and being able to corner ships isn't exactly good. But, having objectives means that battles tend to take place away from borders, so the actual gameplay impact is reduced. As I mentioned earlier, I'm open to other ideas for further reducing it - without introducing other issues, though :)
Title: Re: Gradual map borders
Post by: Sordid on January 21, 2013, 01:10:07 PM
As to removing borders altogether, I don't think that's practical. If you consider in detail how things would play out (or, indeed, mod in a very large map for small, no-objective engagements), I think you'll start to see some of the problems. Just one example: what's likely to happen is for a few clumps of smaller combats to drift away from each other - leading to a situation where it either takes you minutes to move from one clump to another (once the battle there is finished), or to where you couldn't catch up at all due to being in a slower ship.

Couldn't you adjust the AI to make sure that wouldn't happen?

Quote
Then there are some nuts-and-bolts difficulties in having something actually be unbounded - not insurmountable, but not something I'm inclined to pursue, given that I think it's going to cause more problems than it solves. Conceptually, having map borders doesn't bother me - the way I think of it is ships retreating off it simply engage their travel drive, and thus can't be caught up to.

Again I'm reminded of Final War 2. Fleeing in that game was accomplished by actually engaging travel drives (i.e. warp) and putting distance between you and the enemy. Map borders are an infinitely more clunky and inelegant solution. Starfarer is so much more advanced than that ancient game that I guess I'm just a bit disappointed that in this particular respect it seems to have gone backwards.

(For anyone interested, you can get it here: http://www.finalwar2.wz.cz/downloads.htm It's a weird mishmash of Czech and English, but it's not too complicated to figure out.)
Title: Re: Gradual map borders
Post by: Alex on January 21, 2013, 01:51:26 PM
Couldn't you adjust the AI to make sure that wouldn't happen?

Like... make it respect some kind of border? :)

Seriously, if you're starting a question about the AI with "can't you just", the answer is more than likely "no", because AI stuff is rarely that simple. Also, I think you might be conflating map borders and retreat mechanics. They're related, but not the same.

I'm not sure I see "no borders" as particularly elegant, either - it's comes with too much baggage for me to consider it that, in the context of gameplay implications for Starsector. I can't comment on Final War 2, but in general different games are, well, different. The same mechanics won't necessarily work, sometimes for less-than-obvious reasons. (Does Final War 2 have you in command of a single ship? If so, that'd be the answer right there - this kind of approach would be infinitely more workable then.)

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this - borders are definitely staying. Not because they're wonderful, but because they're a simple, workable solution to what would otherwise be a complicated problem, and - this part is admittedly subjective - don't have much in the way of downsides. (And, honestly, one might consider that to be "elegant", in some sense :))
Title: Re: Gradual map borders
Post by: Gothars on January 21, 2013, 02:26:44 PM
Hmm. First of all, I readily grant that the dialog about whether you want to retreat is annoying :)

I'm not sure whether expanding the area where being near a border affects gameplay (i.e. via gradual pushback) is a good idea, though. The Map border isn't the kind of mechanic you really want to build on, but rather want to keep as unobtrusive as possible - it's there for housekeeping reasons, not because anyone actually wants it or is excited about it. With that in mind, I'm definitely open to suggestions for how to make it more unobtrusive.

I get that you want no involved mechanics for a necessary "evil". One could argue that you could also approach it by making the necessity a virtue instead of playing it down, but since I don't know how that would look exactly I will just shut up about it.


In practice, yeah, that dialog box is an annoyance, and being able to corner ships isn't exactly good. But, having objectives means that battles tend to take place away from borders, so the actual gameplay impact is reduced. As I mentioned earlier, I'm open to other ideas for further reducing it - without introducing other issues, though :)

How about this: If you are near the border a floating message "Press ENTER to retreat" appears (without pausing the game). Flying over the boarder without pressing the key works just like now if you click "No", it's like flying into a rubber wall. If you do press enter your ship will leave the map with the autopilot.

Title: Re: Gradual map borders
Post by: Alex on January 21, 2013, 02:43:44 PM
Hmm. First of all, I readily grant that the dialog about whether you want to retreat is annoying :)

I'm not sure whether expanding the area where being near a border affects gameplay (i.e. via gradual pushback) is a good idea, though. The Map border isn't the kind of mechanic you really want to build on, but rather want to keep as unobtrusive as possible - it's there for housekeeping reasons, not because anyone actually wants it or is excited about it. With that in mind, I'm definitely open to suggestions for how to make it more unobtrusive.

I get that you want no involved mechanics for a necessary "evil". One could argue that you could also approach it by making the necessity a strength instead of playing it down, but since I don't know how that would look exactly I will just shut up about it.

Yeah, turning it into a core design element and making it into a strength is definitely another way to look at it. Both are valid, I think - as usual, there's probably no one "right way" and it's all situational. One might also argue that "turning it into a strength" is the more elegant approach...

I (also) don't see a good way to do this here, though. Ah, well - not everything is neat and tidy :)

In practice, yeah, that dialog box is an annoyance, and being able to corner ships isn't exactly good. But, having objectives means that battles tend to take place away from borders, so the actual gameplay impact is reduced. As I mentioned earlier, I'm open to other ideas for further reducing it - without introducing other issues, though :)

How about this: If you are near the border a floating message "Press ENTER to retreat" appears (without pausing the game). Flying over the boarder without pressing the key works just like now if you click "No", it's like flying into a rubber wall. If you do press enter your ship will leave the map with the autopilot.

Love it! Added to the todo list.
Title: Re: Gradual map borders
Post by: Sordid on January 21, 2013, 02:53:54 PM
Like... make it respect some kind of border? :)

No, make it try and not get separated and driven apart. If a ship is being driven away from its allies, shift its priority from "avoid enemy fire" and "keep a distance from enemy capital ships" to "get back to fleet" and have it make a dash for it, try to break through and re-join allied forces.
I appreciate the fact that making AI is difficult and complicated, but you've done an amazing job of it so far. I have a hard time believing that preventing AI controlled ships from drifting away from each other in small skirmishes would be such a big problem.

Quote
Also, I think you might be conflating map borders and retreat mechanics. They're related, but not the same.

I'm not conflating them, they are the same. As soon as an AI ship passes the border, it's gone from the battle. The map border is the retreat mechanic. The simplest and therefore most boring one possible.

Quote
I'm not sure I see "no borders" as particularly elegant, either - it's comes with too much baggage for me to consider it that, in the context of gameplay implications for Starsector. I can't comment on Final War 2, but in general different games are, well, different. The same mechanics won't necessarily work, sometimes for less-than-obvious reasons. (Does Final War 2 have you in command of a single ship? If so, that'd be the answer right there - this kind of approach would be infinitely more workable then.)

You control only one ship, yes, but you can have many on both sides of the fight. Maybe you should try the game first before you declare that it wouldn't work in Starfarer. I think there's a lot in that game that would work beautifully in Starfarer. You said crossing the borders was basically equivalent to a ship firing its travel drive. Well, why can't we have that? FW2 has warp drive. That would neatly solve the problem of small skirmishes drifting away from each other, for one thing. Too far to quickly rejoin battle? Engage travel drive, you're there in seconds. Heck, in FW2 you can even do battle while at warp. It's a much more free-form and open combat experience than Starfarers constrictive, bordered battlefields.

Quote
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this - borders are definitely staying. Not because they're wonderful, but because they're a simple, workable solution to what would otherwise be a complicated problem, and - this part is admittedly subjective - don't have much in the way of downsides. (And, honestly, one might consider that to be "elegant", in some sense :))

It's your game, you can make it however you damn well please. I'm just disappointed that you're apparently firmly determined to go with a simple solution rather than an interesting one.
Title: Re: Gradual map borders
Post by: Gothars on January 21, 2013, 03:22:34 PM
Love it! Added to the todo list.

Hussah! I did good. Tomorrow steak.


Yeah, turning it into a core design element and making it into a strength is definitely another way to look at it. Both are valid, I think - as usual, there's probably no one "right way" and it's all situational. One might also argue that "turning it into a strength" is the more elegant approach...

I (also) don't see a good way to do this here, though. Ah, well - not everything is neat and tidy :)

I have some vague ideas floating in my head about being able to enter from another border after retreating - so you would make the border mechanic into a opportunity for tactical maneuvering with the FTL drive. Will report back if I can work that into something sensible if you are interested.



@ Sordid: I see where you are coming from and I was thinking about borderless engagements for some time myself. I think it might turn out great and it might have the potential to work better than borders. But it would require a whole lot of time and effort to clear this "mights" up (with unclear outcome), I'd rather have that time spend on campaign progression which is sure to improve the game drastically.
Title: Re: Gradual map borders
Post by: Alex on January 21, 2013, 03:46:22 PM
Quote
Also, I think you might be conflating map borders and retreat mechanics. They're related, but not the same.

I'm not conflating them, they are the same. As soon as an AI ship passes the border, it's gone from the battle. The map border is the retreat mechanic. The simplest and therefore most boring one possible.

Borders also keep the entire battle in the same area, play a part in the deployment mechanics, and probably do a few other things. You could have an entirely different retreat mechanic - or no retreat mechanic at all - and still have map borders. Also, in general terms: simple doesn't automatically mean boring, and complex doesn't automatically mean interesting. Anyway, I'd rather not argue semantics...

I think the real difference of opinion here is how we both feel about "no borders". My feeling on it is somewhere between "maybe nice to have" and "meh", and yours is I think a lot more favorable towards it :)

Hussah! I did good. Tomorrow steak.

Whoa there! Need at least 3 more suggestions for that.

I have some vague ideas floating in my head about being able to enter from another border after retreating - so you would make the border mechanic into a opportunity for tactical maneuvering with the FTL drive. Will report back if I can work that into something sensible if you are interested.

Hmm. If you think you have something interesting - sure. My gut reaction to this is it might be more interesting on paper than in action, but that doesn't mean anything :) Besides, you never know what kind of chain reaction it's going to set off. Been quite a few times when a suggestion indirectly resulted in some changes by triggering related ideas - which is part of the reason I really like to read through as much of the suggestion forum as possible, even when the initial suggestion doesn't quite seem workable as-is.

I *am* in the process of a fairly major rework of how a lot of this works, though (oddly enough, it does involve the potential for deployment from the sides). Will probably write a blog post about it - either when I'm more sure of how it plays, or do a two-part "this is what I'm thinking" and "this is how it actually came out" series. Not too sure about whether the latter is a good idea.

@ Sordid: I see where you are coming from and I was thinking about borderless engagements for some time myself. I think it might turn out great and it might have the potential to work better than borders. But it would require a whole lot of time and effort to clear this "mights" up (with unclear outcome), I'd rather have that time spend on campaign progression which is sure to improve the game drastically.

Just out of curiosity (since, again, that's not going to go anywhere), what's the upside here? All I see is a minor feel improvement, offset, like you said, by a lot of "mights" - which could probably be accomplished by better keeping the combat away from borders (via objectives and aforementioned AI tweaks).
Title: Re: Gradual map borders
Post by: Sordid on January 21, 2013, 04:32:36 PM
I think the real difference of opinion here is how we both feel about "no borders". My feeling on it is somewhere between "maybe nice to have" and "meh", and yours is I think a lot more favorable towards it :)

Well yeah, because I've experienced a very similar game that didn't have that limitation. I assure you the difference in feel is not minor at all. It's a bit hard to explain, but it's kinda like the difference between Duke 3D and Duke Nukem Forever. Big, non-linear levels versus linear corridors. Not the same thing, but the difference in feel is similar.

@ Sordid: I see where you are coming from and I was thinking about borderless engagements for some time myself. I think it might turn out great and it might have the potential to work better than borders. But it would require a whole lot of time and effort to clear this "mights" up (with unclear outcome), I'd rather have that time spend on campaign progression which is sure to improve the game drastically.

This is eerily similar to the development of Mount&Blade, come to think of it. That's a very similar game, you have a map with groups of troops moving around and when you meet an enemy, you go to a battle mode while the overworld is paused. It's also highly moddable, like Starfarer. Starfarer now reminds me a lot of M&B right around version 0.7 or so. By that point they had decent battle gameplay, so they switched their attention from that to developing the campaign, putting more towns on the map, fleshing out the factions, etc. As a result, the battles remained flawed. They take place on relatively small maps bordered by invisible walls. And much like in Starfarer it's very difficult to tell when you're about to run into those walls. You get nonsense like clumps of troops all pressed up against the wall. The AI is almost non-existent and soldiers and horses can somehow stand on sheer cliff faces. I could go on. Nevertheless it was deemed good enough.

Thing is, all that work they spent on the campaign? Nobody gives a damn, the most popular mods that everyone plays ended up overhauling all of that anyway. But the battles? Mods can't do anything about those, they're hard-coded. So now years and years down the line we have amazing mods that add incredible things to the campaign, but the battles are still the same as they were back in 0.7. M&B would have been a better game had the devs focused more on improving things only they could improve and less on things the community can do for itself.

I would love nothing more than for Starfarer to avoid that fate. It doesn't matter how elaborate you make the campaign, what factions you put in, how many ships, etc, the community's going to outdo you anyway. Focus on things the community won't be able to improve, make those as good as you can. Not just good enough.
Title: Re: Gradual map borders
Post by: Wyvern on January 21, 2013, 04:47:30 PM
I *am* in the process of a fairly major rework of how a lot of this works, though (oddly enough, it does involve the potential for deployment from the sides). Will probably write a blog post about it - either when I'm more sure of how it plays, or do a two-part "this is what I'm thinking" and "this is how it actually came out" series. Not too sure about whether the latter is a good idea.

Personally, I'd prefer the latter - I'm always interested in what changes, what doesn't work, etc, as well as what actually ends up going into the game.  Doesn't make it necessarily a good idea - there are certainly people who'll manage to overreact to stuff that ends up not in the game - but I'd certainly appreciate it.

* * *

On topic, I'm also in favor of doing something - though I'm not sure what - about the current state of map borders.  I tend to fly solo ships, so I frequently get maps with no objectives at all.  And even on maps with objectives, I'll sometimes need to abandon them simply to prevent my opponent from flanking me - which means, yes, kiting, which in turn means I run into map borders all the time.  Which, at the moment, is not just a tactical annoyance, it's also seriously immersion-breaking.

I think my main suggestion would be, if we must have borders, work them into the lore somehow.  Maybe combat occurs primarily in subspace bubbles with sharply curved space-time near the edges - go with a repulsive force & constant nebula near the edges and a battlefield that's built out of circle-y bits around each nav point, using a 2-D analogue of metaballs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaballs).

Or perhaps combat occurs in stabilized hyperspace vortices with a toroidal topology - i.e. there aren't any "borders" as such because flying far enough south brings you back onto the map from the north, and east likewise connects to west.

Or whatever ends up working.
Title: Re: Gradual map borders
Post by: Alex on January 21, 2013, 05:31:35 PM
@Sordid: But, we're not talking about purely adding campaign content - there are also features. A mod is not going to be able to add hyperspace, multiple star systems, dialog with other characters, or UI support for any number of features that may be mechanically feasible but really need it to shine. Conversely, it's quite possible to simulate borderless maps with a mod (I don't want to get into the technical details too much, but you could make the maps *much* larger, move ships around, etc).


@Wyvern: Hmm. I think the solution there might be to reduce the kiting capacity of certain ships (in addition to perhaps making some of the maps a bit bigger). Possibly by making the AI better about recognizing when it's being kited, and backing off in some form of cooperation with nearby ships.

A few builds ago - before the flanking behavior, when stuff tended to make a beeline for you on the initial approach - simply backpedaling was a very good (and boring) tactic. Flanking behavior addresses that somewhat, but I suspect you're running into the same issue by combining a lot of speed-improving hull mods and skills to where it's again very viable. I think that's whats ultimately the culprit in this case.

I suspect that if there *was* no border, just backpedaling and sniping things off would still be a fairly unengaging way to play. Hmm - now, I wonder if say halving the top speed you can achieve by pressing 'D' might not be an interesting thing to try here. But boy oh boy, would that ever break the AI.
Title: Re: Gradual map borders
Post by: Wyvern on January 21, 2013, 05:45:02 PM
To some extent it's not even kiting necessarily - against medium-sized enemy fleets, I'll often start off by heading left or right, then roll up the enemy fleet as they get in range; even if my ship is slower than what I'm fighting, that still gives me a strong ability to engage the enemy piecemeal.  Heading straight ahead is - unless you really have overwhelming firepower - stupid; that's just asking to get flanked and have to fight everything at once.  But going any other direction means map borders are likely to be an issue.

When I do have an actually faster ship, which I prefer to do, well... then it's simply good sense to engage a ship or two at a time, staying out of range of most of the opponent's fleet. And there will always be a fastest ship; reducing the kiting capacity of certain ships will just make me pick a new flagship to prefer.  Right now, the Apogee is my favorite, but I could easily go back to an Aurora, or a Sunder or Medusa or even a Hyperion, Omen, or Tempest.  Plus, skills - get enough skills (oddly, mostly tech skills - the percentage speed increase from combat only makes much difference if the ship was reasonably nimble to start with), and almost anything can put on some decent speed.
Title: Re: Gradual map borders
Post by: Histidine on January 21, 2013, 05:59:38 PM
Personally, I'd be happy with any solution that makes ships not successfully retreat while I'm still firing on them from point-blank range. (Travel drive, schmavel drive! Why can't ships activate travel drive before reaching the border, and why can't I just travel drive after the retreating enemy?  :()

But I'm perfectly happy to wait and see what you come up with, Alex  :)

Borderless design
(just brainstorming here, I don't expect an implementation or anything)

I can think of a number of solutions to the issue of combatants drifting away from the center and not being able to rejoin the fight quickly (or at all):
The first two have immersion problems of their own, though. Why can't I warp drive on top of the objective? Why does my ship magically slow down?

As for the spawning/retreat mechanic, how about something like this? (http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=4671.0)
Title: Re: Gradual map borders
Post by: zakastra on January 22, 2013, 12:52:23 AM
While im quite happy for borders to exist on the battlefield, and love the "Press enter to retreat" mechanic proposed here, I really hate the rubberband mechanic that bounces you back onto the battlefield. Its very jarring and abrupt in a game which otherwise has very fluid movement and mechanics and can easily get you killed (I lost a hyperion once to being thrown into a pair of torpedos which would have quite happily skimmed past my rear, otherwise)

I would propose handling border transitions like this :

At about 750 unit from map edge (figures subject to balancing) : Prompt the "Press Enter to Retreat" if enter is pressed the ship assumes auto pilot control and coasts off-map.

otherwise at 500-100 units from edge Reduce the percentage of speed that a ship can travel in the direction of the edge at an exponential rate the closer the ship gets to the border. Movement parralel to and away form the border would remain unaffected. This would make it clear that there is a hard boundary, but suggests it more gently and should be much less likely to cause catastrophic damage

It would be nice if the same rules applied to the AI  as well (when manouvering not fleeing) Cheeky wasp wings flying off boundaries and coming up behing my cruisers are very annoyign when I can't do the same.
Title: Re: Gradual map borders
Post by: Gothars on January 22, 2013, 02:01:28 AM
Just out of curiosity (since, again, that's not going to go anywhere), what's the upside here? All I see is a minor feel improvement, offset, like you said, by a lot of "mights" - which could probably be accomplished by better keeping the combat away from borders (via objectives and aforementioned AI tweaks).

Well, since you asked:
(I'm sorry this reads a bit like a "what is bad about borders" list instead of "what is good about no borders", but those are very similar)


Immersion - There are no borders in space, so they are a very obvious game mechanic, not even with a lore explanation I'm aware of. A borderless map would feel natural.

Influence on gameplay - Cornering enemies, being unable to fly backwards, being unable to flank or get behind an enemy... those are all unnatural obstructions introduced by borders.

Escape mechanic - A slow ship escapes from much faster ships by the crossing of an arbitrary line. That makes no sense. Travel drives which a suddenly online after crossing the line don't make sense either.

The necessity of post battle capturing / damaging mechanics - The battle goes on after you left the battle? All you have done might become irrelevant because of a dice roll? That's a pretty critical intrusion on the players (striven for) sovereignty over events. If there are no borders nothing can happen behind those (non-existing) borders, you get exactly what you see.

Connection between combat and campaign layer - Since the maps and ship positions are fixed, there's nothing to connect these two but the fleet composition. I think a tight connection between layers is critical to archive a seamless, coherent game experience. The last thing you'd want is making two games. Basing the combat map on the campaign environment would be half the rent, but since there are no borders on the campaign this is limited for maps with borders. The other half would be to take ship position, velocity and travel vector into account.


Just for fun I scribbled what a border free combat system might look like, as seen from the command interface. Obviously there are all kinds of details that would have to be addressed, it's just to get an impression. I only wrote down half of it, if something is unclear, ask. Huge, ugly pictures incoming:

Spoiler
1) You have the ability to determine a formation your fleet should travel in on the campaign layer. Simple drag & drop handling, maybe it could replace the current fleet screen. The formation determines where and in what order ships enter battle. Ships are very far apart due to collision danger/ travel drive properties.


2) Transition between campaign and combat would appear seamless, the camera zooms in when you touch the bubble of another fleet.

(http://imageshack.us/a/img708/5452/65715348.png) (http://imageshack.us/a/img842/9530/57550597.png)

3) The two bubbles merge and form the combat area.  The ships enter it with travel mode which they can turn off but don't have to.  Ships in travel mode (orange exhaust) are extremely vulnerable, sluggish and cannot turn off their drives without delay. Their sensor range is drastically reduced. Features of the campaign layer can be found on the combat map.

Spoiler
(http://imageshack.us/a/img826/9783/28486064.png)
[close]


4) The enemy and any stationary objectives are not visible. Only the general direction of the greatest enemy concentration can be detected with long range sensors. Thus scouting is important, it is possible to enter with big ships first but they would fly blind.

Spoiler
(http://imageshack.us/a/img593/7528/84941126.png)
[close]


5) The battle expands. Ships that leave the designated combat area start to enlarge it. Further reinforcements can use their travel drives to get close to the battle since they have sensor data from allies.

Spoiler
(http://imageshack.us/a/img713/9077/36772378.png)
[close]



6) A skirmish that strays too far from the main battle gets a separate bubble.

Spoiler
(http://imageshack.us/a/img689/764/31289545.png)
[close]


7) After one of the parties in a bubble has been defeated it transforms back into a travel bubble. Ships in it a recommended to engage the travel drive (starts faster in here) and head back to the main battle.

Spoiler
(http://imageshack.us/a/img33/4479/38267926.png)
[close]

8 ) The inferior enemy starts to retreat. The cruiser holds back pursuers while the hammerhead turns and activates the travel drive. Further reinforcements turn around before arriving on the battlefield.

Spoiler
(http://imageshack.us/a/img96/107/98886307.png)
[close]

9) The heroic cruiser continues to hold of pursuers while its allies escape. Without that protection it would be very dangerous to go to travel mode, it takes time during which a ship is very vulnerable. Alternatives would be to get outside the enemy sensor range or maybe hide in some nebula before activating it.

Spoiler
(http://imageshack.us/a/img850/2479/26531642.png)
[close]

10) The cruiser is history and the two fleets are in their own bubbles again. The camera starts to zoom out into the campaign map

Spoiler
(http://imageshack.us/a/img254/5026/91007089.png)
[close]

11) The view returns to the normal campaign map, the controls return to point&click. Distance that has been traveled in battle has been traveled on the campaign layer.

(http://imageshack.us/a/img812/7084/42810007.png) (http://imageshack.us/a/img571/1626/95442464.png)
[close]

In conclusion, I think borderless combat can work and it can be great, but it would require enormous changes at the campaign layer as well. If I had been around when you started drafting the combat mechanic I might have pushed for it, but now its best to improve upon the border mechanic we have and make it as unobstructive as possible. And it's not as if it had no advantages about borderless.
Title: Re: Gradual map borders
Post by: Pelly on January 22, 2013, 02:29:37 AM
Just out of curiosity (since, again, that's not going to go anywhere), what's the upside here? All I see is a minor feel improvement, offset, like you said, by a lot of "mights" - which could probably be accomplished by better keeping the combat away from borders (via objectives and aforementioned AI tweaks).

Well, since you asked:
(I'm sorry this reads a bit like a "what is bad about borders" list instead of "what is good about no borders", but those are very similar)


Immersion - There are no borders in space, so they are a very obvious game mechanic, not even with a lore explanation I'm aware of. A borderless map would feel natural.

Influence on gameplay - Cornering enemies, being unable to fly backwards, being unable to flank or get behind an enemy... those are all unnatural obstructions introduced by borders.

Escape mechanic - A slow ship escapes from much faster ships by the crossing of an arbitrary line. That makes no sense. Travel drives which a suddenly online after crossing the line don't make sense either.

The necessity of post battle capturing / damaging mechanics - The battle goes on after you left the battle? All you have done might become irrelevant because of a dice roll? That's a pretty critical intrusion on the players (striven for) sovereignty over events. If there are no borders nothing can happen behind those (non-existing) borders, you get exactly what you see.

Connection between combat and campaign layer - Since the maps and ship positions are fixed, there's nothing to connect these two but the fleet composition. I think a tight connection between layers is critical to archive a seamless, coherent game experience. The last thing you'd want is making two games. Basing the combat map on the campaign environment would be half the rent, but since there are no borders on the campaign this is limited for maps with borders. The other half would be to take ship position, velocity and travel vector into account.


Just for fun I scribbled what a border free combat system might look like, as seen from the command interface. Obviously there are all kinds of details that would have to be addressed, it's just to get an impression. I only wrote down half of it, if something is unclear, ask. Huge, ugly pictures incoming:

Spoiler
1) You have the ability to determine a formation your fleet should travel in on the campaign layer. Simple drag & drop handling, maybe it could replace the current fleet screen. The formation determines where and in what order ships enter battle. Ships are very far apart due to collision danger/ travel drive properties.


2) Transition between campaign and combat would appear seamless, the camera zooms in when you touch the bubble of another fleet.

(http://imageshack.us/a/img708/5452/65715348.png) (http://imageshack.us/a/img842/9530/57550597.png)

3) The two bubbles merge and form the combat area.  The ships enter it with travel mode which they can turn off but don't have to.  Ships in travel mode (orange exhaust) are extremely vulnerable, sluggish and cannot turn off their drives without delay. Their sensor range is drastically reduced. Features of the campaign layer can be found on the combat map.

Spoiler
(http://imageshack.us/a/img826/9783/28486064.png)
[close]


4) The enemy and any stationary objectives are not visible. Only the general direction of the greatest enemy concentration can be detected with long range sensors. Thus scouting is important, it is possible to enter with big ships first but they would fly blind.

Spoiler
(http://imageshack.us/a/img593/7528/84941126.png)
[close]


5) The battle expands. Ships that leave the designated combat area start to enlarge it. Further reinforcements can use their travel drives to get close to the battle since they have sensor data from allies.

Spoiler
(http://imageshack.us/a/img713/9077/36772378.png)
[close]



6) A skirmish that strays too far from the main battle gets a separate bubble.

Spoiler
(http://imageshack.us/a/img689/764/31289545.png)
[close]


7) After one of the parties in a bubble has been defeated it transforms back into a travel bubble. Ships in it a recommended to engage the travel drive (starts faster in here) and head back to the main battle.

Spoiler
(http://imageshack.us/a/img33/4479/38267926.png)
[close]

8 ) The inferior enemy starts to retreat. The cruiser holds back pursuers while the hammerhead turns and activates the travel drive. Further reinforcements turn around before arriving on the battlefield.

Spoiler
(http://imageshack.us/a/img96/107/98886307.png)
[close]

9) The heroic cruiser continues to hold of pursuers while its allies escape. Without that protection it would be very dangerous to go to travel mode, it takes time during which a ship is very vulnerable. Alternatives would be to get outside the enemy sensor range or maybe hide in some nebula before activating it.

Spoiler
(http://imageshack.us/a/img850/2479/26531642.png)
[close]

10) The cruiser is history and the two fleets are in their own bubbles again. The camera starts to zoom out into the campaign map

Spoiler
(http://imageshack.us/a/img254/5026/91007089.png)
[close]

11) The view returns to the normal campaign map, the controls return to point&click. Distance that has been traveled in battle has been traveled on the campaign layer.

(http://imageshack.us/a/img812/7084/42810007.png) (http://imageshack.us/a/img571/1626/95442464.png)
[close]

In conclusion, I think borderless combat can work and it can be great, but it would require enormous changes at the campaign layer as well. If I had been around when you started drafting the combat mechanic I might have pushed for it, but now its best to improve upon the border mechanic we have and make it as unobstructive as possible. And it's not as if it had no advantages about borderless.
i get exactly what you mean, and understand the reasons why, but if we take your last point that means that all these 'terrains' need to be spawned into the world and if you for example fight over the Sun you would be fighting over a bloody sun (YAY) I can see it working but I am sure it won't be that easy to do, you must also remember not everyone has beasts of computers that can randomly load up terrains then save and load them up again (even though this is a relatively small issue).

Well i wrote alot and most of it probably is babble, now try and work what I mean out :)
Title: Re: Gradual map borders
Post by: Alex on January 22, 2013, 09:55:33 AM
It would be nice if the same rules applied to the AI  as well (when manouvering not fleeing) Cheeky wasp wings flying off boundaries and coming up behing my cruisers are very annoyign when I can't do the same.

Ah - the same rules do apply - they just don't apply to fighters, on either side.


(I'm sorry this reads a bit like a "what is bad about borders" list instead of "what is good about no borders", but those are very similar)

Funny you should mention that. I think it'd be more accurate to say "here is what's bad about the *current implementation* of borders", though.

Immersion - There are no borders in space, so they are a very obvious game mechanic, not even with a lore explanation I'm aware of. A borderless map would feel natural.

Right, fair enough.

Influence on gameplay - Cornering enemies, being unable to fly backwards, being unable to flank or get behind an enemy... those are all unnatural obstructions introduced by borders.

Hmm. I haven't spent too much time making sure borders don't intrude - I suspect a day or so spent working on the AI to respect a wider buffer zone in a natural way might help here. It already does this to an extent, it's just not particularly good at it.

Escape mechanic - A slow ship escapes from much faster ships by the crossing of an arbitrary line. That makes no sense. Travel drives which a suddenly online after crossing the line don't make sense either.
The necessity of post battle capturing / damaging mechanics - The battle goes on after you left the battle? All you have done might become irrelevant because of a dice roll? That's a pretty critical intrusion on the players (striven for) sovereignty over events. If there are no borders nothing can happen behind those (non-existing) borders, you get exactly what you see.

Both of these should be pretty much addressed with the new approach. Well, the escape mechanic is still border-related, but I think it'll feel much more natural (have to see how it works out in practice, of course.)

Connection between combat and campaign layer - Since the maps and ship positions are fixed, there's nothing to connect these two but the fleet composition. I think a tight connection between layers is critical to archive a seamless, coherent game experience. The last thing you'd want is making two games. Basing the combat map on the campaign environment would be half the rent, but since there are no borders on the campaign this is limited for maps with borders. The other half would be to take ship position, velocity and travel vector into account.

Another interesting point. These changes to battle mechanics are actually driven by the need to connect the combat and campaign layers (to enable certain top-secret campaign features), but I think we're thinking of that connection in very different ways. They really are two different games, and I think trying to make them share some surface similarities (such as relative scale, positions of things, etc) would be a mistake. Better, imo, to make the connection stronger with more core mechanics that are actually designed to work across the layers - rather than trying to make scale and positioning work in both layers.

One of the more difficult things to get right is overall feel, and it very much depends on things like distances, speeds, acceleration/turn rate, sizes of ships relative to the distances they traverse, and other such... maybe not intangibles, but things that tend to get taken for granted when they are actually something that took a very long time to tune. I think that trying to make these kinds of things work across two layers with very different mechanical requirements in each would not meet with much success - it's hard enough to make them all work together within the one layer.
Title: Re: Gradual map borders
Post by: Gothars on January 22, 2013, 11:18:07 AM
Man, you sure know how to tease. Good that I'm no cat.
Did I mention that I'm all for a split blog post? ;)



Another interesting point. These changes to battle mechanics are actually driven by the need to connect the combat and campaign layers (to enable certain top-secret campaign features), but I think we're thinking of that connection in very different ways. They really are two different games, and I think trying to make them share some surface similarities (such as relative scale, positions of things, etc) would be a mistake. Better, imo, to make the connection stronger with more core mechanics that are actually designed to work across the layers - rather than trying to make scale and positioning work in both layers.

I have to say I'm not convinced that "surface similarities" are a mistake. There are some cases were they worked very well, for example the battlefields in the total war series. They are always modeled like the campaign map, including strategic elements like hills, bridges, mountains and forests. Some elements have an important (but entirely different) function on both layers, some are just decorative on one. That the location of the battle influences it so much is great contribution both for gameplay and immersion. And besides, I see no fundamental reason why core mechanics and optic should not both transgress layers.
Ah, but this is all hypothetical.





Title: Re: Gradual map borders
Post by: Cycerin on January 22, 2013, 11:19:10 AM
Please, please tell me that the new border mechanic involves a ship activating its interplanetary engines (burn drives) and burning away if it gets the time to do it. ;D
Title: Re: Gradual map borders
Post by: Alex on January 22, 2013, 11:27:36 AM
Man, you sure know how to tease. Good that I'm no cat.
Did I mention that I'm all for a split blog post? ;)

You might have, yes :) I'm leaning towards doing that, soon.

I have to say I'm not convinced that "surface similarities" are a mistake. There are some cases were they worked very well, for example the battlefields in the total war series. They are always modeled like the campaign map, including strategic elements like hills, bridges, mountains and forests. Some elements have an important (but entirely different) function on both layers, some are just decorative on one. That the location of the battle influences it so much is great contribution both for gameplay and immersion. And besides, I see no fundamental reason why core mechanics and optic should not both transgress layers.
Ah, but this is all hypothetical.

I think "surface similarities" might haven been the exact wrong term for me to use, because I'm on board with everything you're saying here. What I meant was more like movement within battle mapping directly to movement in the campaign. Surface similarities actually seem very good - create a tie-in between the layers without mucking it up by making the mechanics have overly-direct relationships.


Please, please tell me that the new border mechanic involves a ship activating its interplanetary engines (burn drives) and burning away if it gets the time to do it. ;D

I can neither confirm nor deny whether "Make retreating ships activate fake burn drive as they get near the border? Make it faster than normal." is on my todo list.
Title: Re: Gradual map borders
Post by: Gaizokubanou on January 22, 2013, 11:28:27 AM
As to removing borders altogether, I don't think that's practical. If you consider in detail how things would play out (or, indeed, mod in a very large map for small, no-objective engagements), I think you'll start to see some of the problems. Just one example: what's likely to happen is for a few clumps of smaller combats to drift away from each other - leading to a situation where it either takes you minutes to move from one clump to another (once the battle there is finished), or to where you couldn't catch up at all due to being in a slower ship.

I actually think taking few minutes to get to different segments of battle (given that you are in something as big as cruiser) is not just ok, but essential to give depth to certain aspects of the combat, like roles of carriers and light escorts for heavier/slower ships.  Inability to catch up due to being in a slower ship also sounds great actually.

A more mechanical problem I see is... if the battles do indeed drift apart, say into 3 groups (A, B and C).
1.  The minimum distance among any group pair exceeds the retreat/end battle distance requirement.
2.  A is still on going, B and C ends with different victors for each.
Should retreat/end battle mechanic kick in and just call it the end for B and C?  I think that would be bit awkward.

A possible solution would be to have both AIs sort of gather around a single ship (flagship) as their center, but that would kill a lot of flexibility in tactics (or players abusing rally points to do maneuvers that AI can not ever due to their leash around the flagship).

Another mechanical problem is... well if the retreat mechanic works by distance between the two fleets, then a faster fleet can ALWAYS just opt out to escape from battle, leaving slower ships to collect nothing but dusts except for fighting around static locations.  We can have penalty for fleets that opt out to retreat in the first place but that would feel very "gamey" and not so intuitive to the player.  This is actually a strange problem because just straight up logically speaking, this problem isn't even a problem as it accurately depicts a problem with slower vehicles.  But then again, this is already simulated by travel speed on campaign map.

Overall, I don't see much benefits to having no border within current context of campaign.  I do see benefits that could be gained from just simply having a much larger map.  I guess I just want to see bigger maps and better working carriers/light escorts ;D
Title: Re: Gradual map borders
Post by: naufrago on January 22, 2013, 03:54:00 PM
So, I have an idea, but it would require a fair bit of work. I kind of love it, though. EDIT: The wall of text is a bit daunting, so skip to the end for the cliff notes version. Also, I spoilered the wall.

Spoiler
Pre-battle
When you bump into another fleet you are given the choice to ignore or pursue. If both parties choose ignore, combat is avoided. If either side chooses to pursue the other fleet, we head to the Deployment Phase.

Deployment Phase
All ships in both fleets start out deployed. So why call it the deployment phase? Well, you know all those objectives on the map? You and your opponent can deploy them (they would also work a bit differently, explained later). Also, during this time you can choose the individual starting positions of your ships (within a certain radius of your starting position) and where to place any System Drive Interdiction Field Generators (placeholder name, explained later, hereafter referred to as "Interdictors"), if any.

The battlefield would be borderless and the default state would be that you can engage your system drive anywhere on the field. The way the system drive would work is that you press a button- I'm thinking 'C'- to increase your speed beyond its max, and once it reaches a certain speed it leaves the battlefield (when a player hits that speed, they could get the dialog box asking if they mean to retreat). Releasing 'C' maintains your current speed, and you slow down by pressing 'S' (or 'W' if you want to slow down to your top speed). You might not want your opponent to do this (and viceversa), so that's where Interdictors come in. I'll talk more about them later, but they prevent use of the system drive within their area of effect. Also, this is a good time to explain how deployment would work. EDIT: Now that I think about it, activating system drives might not even require its own special key. Just make 'W' accelerate without limits when outside of interdictor bubbles, release 'W' when you're happy with the speed you're going.

So, both fleets start at different spots on the map, relative to their positions on the campaign screen (ie. bigger fleets start farther apart, relative positions depends on your angle of approach- you might start at the 2 or 9 o'clock position, for example EDIT: not necessary, now that I think about it). You know the area where the enemy fleet can deploy, but nothing beyond that (because fog of war). You can deploy anything (besides ships), anywhere on the map, but you'll only want to deploy them where they'd be useful. The beacons we already have work basically the same, but are instead deployed by the participants (and start out 'captured' by the deployer), they have a limited area of effect, and the bonuses don't stack if they modify the same attribute. You wouldn't want to deploy them far away where they're useless, but you wouldn't deploy them too close to the enemy because it makes them easy to capture.

Deployables can be captured (except interdictors affect friend and foe alike), but they can also be destroyed. Since your enemy can flee at any time, you may want to deploy an interdictor near them to stop them from retreating. If your enemy is focused on retreating, then at this point they have two options- get out of the interdiction bubble and engage system drives, or destroy the generator and engage system drives. Depending on where you place it, you can have their system drives be jammed and yours unjammed, but it might leave the interdictor vulnerable. (I'll talk more about deployables later, but this is just to give an idea of the tactical and strategic considerations this allows for)

Combat Phase
Combat would behave much the same way it does now. Inside the effects of interdiction, the meat of the combat is essentially the same. You can even explain the Burn Drive as being "hardened against the effects of interdiction, allowing the system drive to be engaged for short intervals under jamming." Most combat will be centered around the deployables, for the bonuses they provide and some other reasons to be explained later, but it doesn't preclude the possibility of combat outside the bubbles.

Figuring out how to handle ships entering an interdiction field is a bit tricky. They could be going extremely fast thanks to their system drive, but that could be unbalancing if they can be that fast inside the bubbles. I feel like they should quickly decelerate to some upper bound for their ship size.

The framework allows the possibility of mid-combat deployment of beacons and bubbles as well (mid-combat deployment may require a specific type of ship). You could even have a ship system that allows it to be a mobile interdictor.

Post-Combat Phase
Most of the post-combat stuff remains the same, with some differences. If you win (ie. you have at least one ship on the battlefield while your opponent has none), all deployables you have captured at the end of battle become yours. Anything you don't have captured has a chance to be sabotaged (retreating/destroyed fleet sends self-destruct signal to the deployables, you attempt to jam, could be affected by skills/hullmods). If you lose (ie. you retreat, get destroyed), you lose every deployable you deployed because you abandoned them.

There will also be no need for RNG causing ships to be disabled or destroyed post-combat because there's no need to simulate post-battle pursuit; the ships have already retreated out of range with their system drives.

Deployables
This comprises all the things you can deploy on the battlefield. You have your beacons that buff you (lots of possibilities for that) and interdictors that inhibit the use of system drives, but there's a great deal of variation you can have with that. The deployables could have greater area of effect, provide larger bonuses, be more durable, take longer to capture, or even put various debuffs on the enemy depending how much you're willing to spend (and risk when deploying them). You would have to buy or capture these if you want to deploy them, so there could be a great deal of variation in their cost and size. You could even have cheap Sensor beacons that simply give you lots of visibility, which could be important on a potentially large battlefield.

Also, just brainstorming, there could be some interaction between deployables and phase cloak invisibility. Detecting cloaked phase ships in combat could require it to be within range of one of these sensor beacons. If the deployable is cheap and light, there's no reason not to have at least one, especially with fog of war being an issue. You'll really want to defend your sensor beacons if it means you won't be able to detect phase ships without them.

To explain how things are deployed pre-battle, I imagine they're launched out just before the battle begins, they drift into position, and they stop by using maneuvering thrusters or some such, just in time for when the battle begins. It wouldn't really require a specialized ship. For mid-combat deployment, I imagine that would take specialized ships to get into position and deploy them- let's call them "Construction Rigs".

Construction Rigs would essentially be used for mid-combat adjustment of the 'terrain.' They could also be used to repair nearby friendlies if that's a possibility. Not only would they be able to fly around putting up beacons or additional interdictor bubbles, they could also un-deploy them. Maybe you decide to retreat and don't want to leave that expensive, top-tier beacon behind. Maybe you just want to pick it up and move it closer to the battle.

It should take some time to un-deploy (maybe dependent on how long it would take to capture it and how large it is). Larger deployables could require larger Construction Rigs to deploy and un-deploy mid-combat. Not sure they should be able to un-deploy interdictor bubbles mid-battle, though. At the very least, it should be a lengthy process to do so.

I like this because it explain where the hell those beacons come from in the first place while at the same time giving the player and AI the ability to shape the battlefield in interesting, meaningful ways.

EDIT: Oh, you could have some deployables be armed, even make them dedicated weapons platforms, you could set up minefields... lots of possibilities.

EDIT: Decided to flesh out my idea of deployables a bit more.

So, you could have deployables be distinct items that take up inventory space and have all their stats predetermined, or you could make them modular. You could even make them take up FP and hangar space instead of cargo space (basically, treat them like crew-less ships that can't move and can be captured mid-combat). If they're modular, they could come in small, medium, or large varieties with Main System Beacon slots for different buffs (like Sensor, Navigation, or even Interdiction). You could even have different 'hulls' within their size class that have weapon slots or maybe an extra Main System Beacon slot.

Just some stuff to think about.

System Drive Interdiction
There could be a few different types of interdictors to allow for more varied battlefields. The one I refer to throughout this post would inhibit the use of all system drive activation within a certain radius (a bubble, basically). You could also have a 'ring' type that has a wide area around it that is completely unaffected, but a small-ish ring around it far away where the interdiction occurs.

Imagine an archery target- the bullseye would be like the interdictor bubble and the outermost red ring would be like the ring interdictor. You could also have weaker interdiction that affects a larger area, but allows some use of the system drive. All are interesting ways to shape the battlefield.

As for mobile interdictors (ie. interdictor as a ship system), you could have any or all of the above, but you could additionally have a single-target interdictor.

EDIT: You could also (as a default that appears of its own accord without any deployable) make a large-ish, circular interdiction field between the two fleets that may or may not encompass both fleets' deployment zones to create a battlefield, even when neither fleet has a deployable. Could be explained away as the interaction of the fields surrounding both fleets as they clash distorts space-time and disables the use of system drives. In smaller engagements, it could easily encompass both deployment zones, but since bigger fleets start farther apart, it could necessitate the use of deployable interdictors to prevent the enemy fleet from immediately fleeing.


I tried to flesh out the idea as much as possible, but feel free to do whatever you want with this.

EDIT: I just realized I never actually said exactly what interdictors do outside of System Drive Interdiction. Derp. Fixed that and put System Drive Interdiction back where I prefer it.
[close]

EDIT: tl;dr-
The changes I'm proposing fall into 3 categories:

1) Remove borders, allow use of system drives in combat. Create 'soft' borders through mechanics that disable use of the system drive.
2) Create a new class of 'ship' called deployables (placeholder name) which act much the same way the current objectives on the map do, but re-use much of the code already in place for ships. The player and enemy AI would be the ones deploying them.
3) Create a Deployment phase where you have time to set up the positions of your fleet and deployables. Allows you to create formations and influence the 'terrain' of the battlefield.

There's also the work integrating it into the current system (relatively minor, compared to actually implementing the features), balancing everything (relatively major), and teaching the AI how to handle these things (relatively major).
Title: Re: Gradual map borders
Post by: Gaizokubanou on January 22, 2013, 04:18:03 PM
The system drive interdiction sounds like a soft map boundary (because any combat outside of it would be completely voluntary and thus losing side should just opt out of it, hence no real combat outside of it), albeit it would be a circular shaped map.

Off topic suggestion but you probably want to explain what 'interdictors' are before going into combat phase instead of after.
Title: Re: Gradual map borders
Post by: naufrago on January 22, 2013, 04:30:51 PM
Off topic suggestion but you probably want to explain what 'interdictors' are before going into combat phase instead of after.

Valid point. Changed things a bit. I mostly just spewed out my concept in a rough structure and made sure things were readable.

The system drive interdiction sounds like a soft map boundary (because any combat outside of it would be completely voluntary and thus losing side should just opt out of it, hence no real combat outside of it), albeit it would be a circular shaped map.

While the point was to make a soft boundary, it's not necessarily a circular shaped battlefield. It would be more like one or two overlapping circles in small engagements, but larger engagements might require more varied and numerous overlapping circles. Depends on what you choose to deploy and where.
Title: Re: Gradual map borders
Post by: BillyRueben on January 22, 2013, 05:40:33 PM
...lots...
It sounds cool, but it also sounds like a LOT of work, particularly getting the AI to take advantage of the new system.
Title: Re: Gradual map borders
Post by: naufrago on January 22, 2013, 05:41:48 PM
...lots...
It sounds cool, but it also sounds like a LOT of work, particularly getting the AI to take advantage of the new system.

I did say it would take a fair bit of work. =p But since he's looking at the issue with borders, I figure it couldn't hurt to throw some ideas out there.
Title: Re: Gradual map borders
Post by: naufrago on January 23, 2013, 12:00:06 PM
I try to avoid double posting, but I just want to point out that I made some edits to my big post that should make it more... to the point.

EDIT: Figured I'd include this here so you don't have to scroll up to see the important change-

tl;dr:
The changes I'm proposing fall into 3 categories:

1) Remove borders, allow use of system drives in combat. Create 'soft' borders through mechanics that disable use of the system drive.
2) Create a new class of 'ship' called deployables (placeholder name) which act much the same way the current objectives on the map do, but re-use much of the code already in place for ships. The player and enemy AI would be the ones deploying them.
3) Create a Deployment phase where you have time to set up the positions of your fleet and deployables. Allows you to create formations and influence the 'terrain' of the battlefield.

There's also the work integrating it into the current system (relatively minor, compared to actually implementing the features), balancing everything (relatively major), and teaching the AI how to handle these things (relatively major).
Title: Re: Gradual map borders
Post by: Gothars on January 23, 2013, 12:28:00 PM
Uh, just to be sure you know, the talk about borderless maps was very much hypothetical. The question was if a borderless system in general could a) work and b) be better than a map with borders. (The answer to me was that the question is interesting, which is one of my favorite kinds of answers. Another good answer is "I'd hoped you'd ask that" because something interesting happens next every time, but I digress.)

So, since Alex is in the process of revising maps with borders, borderless maps are certainly not an option. I for one will hold any suggestion until I learn what is planned from the upcoming blog post.

Title: Re: Gradual map borders
Post by: naufrago on January 23, 2013, 01:02:02 PM
Well, since it's purely hypothetical, there's no harm in talking about it. =)

While I mention 'borderless', I bet my suggestion would also work fine on a map with borders if the area is sufficiently large. It would just work better without hard borders, and avoids the issue of being cornered in space.

EDIT: Well, to continue the discussion, I'll point out how my it answers a few questions and solves a few issues. Why can't I set up formations? Why can I only come in from one side? Where do these sensor beacons and nav buoys come from? Why can only certain ships activate their system drive, and only for a limited time? Those things simply don't make sense. There are probably ways to explain it away with lore that don't require any extra mechanics, though.

The game simulates several different things with its mechanics, like a larger fleet being able to deploy more of its fleet initially, but for some reason not all of it. Post-battle pursuit is simulated once everything has retreated, which leads to random losses. You don't need to simulate these things if they're played out on the battlefield. It's no longer a question of what to deploy (why deploy a freighter and risk losing it?), but of where to deploy it and how to use it... Although, that's not exactly an issue with borders. I'm probably taking things a bit off topic, actually.

If it's down to technical limitations or time constraints (or simply being not within the designer's vision for the game), I have no problem with my suggestion being ignored entirely. But keep it in mind for Starsector 2 ;D
Title: Re: Gradual map borders
Post by: Alex on January 23, 2013, 02:30:25 PM
Just a very quick note: always being able to deploy every ship in the fleets at once is not an option for performance-related reasons. And that's before you consider how big the fleets in some mods get.
Title: Re: Gradual map borders
Post by: naufrago on January 23, 2013, 03:24:19 PM
I think I vaguely recall you saying something like that before somewhere and it just slipped my mind. Well that's a shame. As long as piecemeal deployment is a thing, there will always be at least a little awkwardness. In light of technical limitations, though, I don't really see other ways to improve the current system without introducing other forms of awkwardness. I'll think about it.

Also, if I may pry a bit, could you point out what the bottleneck is? Graphics card memory, CPU cycles spent on AI, collision detection, all the independently aimed and rendered turrets...? Just to satisfy my curiosity really. I'm probably making unfair comparisons to AI War in my mind. (Although, this is question is off topic enough I might take it to that thread titled "A Few Starfarer Dev Questions")
Title: Re: Gradual map borders
Post by: Alex on January 23, 2013, 07:37:19 PM
Also, if I may pry a bit, could you point out what the bottleneck is? Graphics card memory, CPU cycles spent on AI, collision detection, all the independently aimed and rendered turrets...? Just to satisfy my curiosity really. I'm probably making unfair comparisons to AI War in my mind. (Although, this is question is off topic enough I might take it to that thread titled "A Few Starfarer Dev Questions")

A little of this, a little of that - it's pretty well distributed between the various items, as I've already spent some time eliminating the more obvious bottlenecks. Graphics usually aren't the bottleneck for large battles, though, because a lot of stuff is off-screen then, and doesn't need rendering (but still needs everything else).

A high-end machine could handle a huge battle without too much trouble - but if you don't have any kind of mechanic in place for gradual deployment, you're shutting the door on lower-end machines, and limiting what mods can do in term of fleet size.

Also, I'm not entirely certain that having a huge battle happening off-screen has that much relative value to it. It's always a tradeoff - you could instead spend those cycles making what the player actually sees and interacts with better.

And yeah, looking at some screenshots of AI War (but without having played the game), a ship-for-ship comparison would indeed seem rather unfair :)