Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[intrinsic_parity]

This is primarily a question about design philosophy for Alex but I would like to hear everyones opinions as well.

In 0.7, the players role was the Hero ship. Skills made the player so powerful that the friendly fleet was basically just a distraction while the player killed everything. If you were good enough, you didn't need that distraction. The opposite extreme would be an RTS game where the player issues commands to the AI who actually fight etc. It seems like the limited number of command points are an intentional decision to steer the game away from that sort of RTS style where the player is micromanaging their fleet rather than flying their ship.

It seems like in this patch, the players ability to influence the battle individually has decreased in both ways. The player no longer has access to a lot of the commands they did before like rally strike force etc. (admittedly some of those were not very effective or useful so that's probably why they were removed) and the player has also lost a lot of capability because of skill nerf (which I agreed with as well).

My question then are as follows:

1) Do you think the amount of influence the player has individually over the battle is in a good place this patch?

2) Do you think the player should have more control over friendly AI to make strategic decisions (i.e. flank this ship, engage this ship) or should the players role be primarily to fly their own ship and let the AI do its thing?

Maybe the strategic decision making could be unlocked in the leadership skill tree to give the player the option to have more control over their fleet at the cost of the capabilities of their own flagship? I'm just wondering what Alex's vision for combat is.

[Alex]

1) Do you think the amount of influence the player has individually over the battle is in a good place this patch?

Are you asking if the player ship has enough influence, or if the player does? If it's the latter, there's a lot of variables here, too, from ship loadout to officer choice to orders given, so it's a bit vague. I don't think you mean pre-combat decisions, but aside from that, I'm not actually sure about the scope of your question.

Although, regardless of the answer: I think it's in a pretty good place right now The player ship makes a good impact even w/o any skills, so anything it gains from said skills is a bonus in that department. It doesn't always have to be direct damage, but also creating openings for other ships.

And the orders - especially eliminate - allow for some decisive control, which was not an option before.

2) Do you think the player should have more control over friendly AI to make strategic decisions (i.e. flank this ship, engage this ship) or should the players role be primarily to fly their own ship and let the AI do its thing?

My feeling is that the player should give a few orders now and again but should mostly focus on piloting. There's some room on both sides here - a few more orders and more time spent in the combat map, or just giving orders once at the start and not worrying about it from that point on - but ultimately the game shouldn't make you want to check the map all the time. Not "never", but not to the degree where you're giving tactical orders and need to check on their execution a few seconds later.

As you say, the number of command points available and the rate at which they regenerate - and the means to influence it - are indicative of the design intent.

[StarGibbon]

I think the players role is determined by what type of fleet they want to run, and the choice of ship as much as skill choices.  If theres only one effective way through the skill tree, then there might as well be no branching skilll tree.

To this end, .8 has provided more opportunities for specialization, which is what I'd like to see in the game. I'm happy the combat tree has been nerfed to make other possible avenues of specialization appealing.  There are at least three different solid approaches to being "good" at combat: Strong Player Ship (combat tree focus), strong carrier focused fleet (Leadership focus), and industrial fleet (throw large, cheap disposable trash fleets at the enemy).

In addition, there are more ancillary activities in the game now, making fleet specialization in more combat adjacent activities possible.  Id like to see more of this.

Point is, know what you want your fleet to spend most of its time doing, and build for that. Your role in that fleet will vary accordingly.

[K-64]

I find that the player still has a large role in how a battle pans out. Like I'm still able to get a zero loss victory against fleets that should by all accounts easily do the same against me, and that's without using orders other than Full Assault when it seems an opening presents itself.

As for the AI orders... I think they're in a good spot, although take that with a grain of salt since I've always used them sparingly. I like that they do go towards whatever you order them to do, but still use their own judgement on how to approach it, so to speak.

So yeah, I like where things are at the moment in regards to that. Not quite as insignificant as a mere cog in the machine, but still not exactly able to solo entire fleets in a Hound type of deal (Hyperbole I know, but you get the picture).

[StarSchulz]

In addition to the combat skill nerf, there are many other very useful utility skills that greatly increase your campaign ability. Now you also have to choose which ones you really want, as you can't get them all. So you must choose, your ship or your fleet.

Rally strike force was for getting bombers and fighters together so they all went in at the same time, but since each carrier does it individually it is pointless to have it.

I like what the update has done, combined with officers and the new skills the power is spread through your fleet instead of concentrated on yourself. I agree that we could use more options to tell the AI what you want them to do. Currently the eliminate order is very useful in focus firing, and is far better than the old "engage" order.

[StarGibbon]

In the most basic sense, the player's "role" on the battlefield will always be determined by the choice of ship to pilot, as different ships have different areas of expertise.  How effective they are at executing that role will come down to skill selection and player ability, but a player will always be better at any given role than the AI.

Your battlefield role is not the same as your campaign role, however, and players can increase battlefield effectiveness in many indirect ways as well.

[intrinsic_parity]

1) Do you think the amount of influence the player has individually over the battle is in a good place this patch?

Are you asking if the player ship has enough influence, or if the player does? If it's the latter, there's a lot of variables here, too, from ship loadout to officer choice to orders given, so it's a bit vague. I don't think you mean pre-combat decisions, but aside from that, I'm not actually sure about the scope of your question.

Although, regardless of the answer: I think it's in a pretty good place right now The player ship makes a good impact even w/o any skills, so anything it gains from said skills is a bonus in that department. It doesn't always have to be direct damage, but also creating openings for other ships.

And the orders - especially eliminate - allow for some decisive control, which was not an option before.

I was more thinking about the players ability to determine the outcome of the battle individually vs. putting it in the hands of the AI.
In .7 the player was all that mattered. They could single handedly win battles. There is also another extreme where the player micromanages individual ships to influence the outcome of the battle. The opposite extreme is auto resolving. I don't want any of these things but my question is more about how much of the battle you want in the players hands, vs getting a good fleet, hitting autopilot and watching the fireworks. I'm not trying to suggest it's in a bad place, just interested in what your vision is for that.

I would also like to mention that I have noticed eliminate being a much more effective command and am loving it. Kinda wondering if you plan to continue down that route at all, giving the player more control over the fleet rather than just setting the pieces in motion.

[Alex]

I was more thinking about the players ability to determine the outcome of the battle individually vs. putting it in the hands of the AI.
In .7 the player was all that mattered. They could single handedly win battles. There is also another extreme where the player micromanages individual ships to influence the outcome of the battle. The opposite extreme is auto resolving. I don't want any of these things but my question is more about how much of the battle you want in the players hands, vs getting a good fleet, hitting autopilot and watching the fireworks. I'm not trying to suggest it's in a bad place, just interested in what your vision is for that.

Using autopilot and just watching it go is very much not an "intended" way to play. You can do it, but there's a solid chance it's not going to be great and/or the AI will get into some sort of weird situation if one insists on keeping autopilot on. The game design assumes one of the ships on the battlefield is player-driven. Plus, it's just very much a waste of potential.

I would also like to mention that I have noticed eliminate being a much more effective command and am loving it. Kinda wondering if you plan to continue down that route at all, giving the player more control over the fleet rather than just setting the pieces in motion.

I could see adding a few orders here and there, but it'd have to be compelling. I don't want micromanagement, and "eliminate" really covers a lot of cases where you really wanted to do something, but couldn't. Last thing I want is to add a bunch of not-well-functioning commands and clutter things up again.

[intrinsic_parity]

The game design assumes one of the ships on the battlefield is player-driven.

I didn't know that, very interesting.

Thanks for answering my questions 

[Solar]

One strategy I find works is switching my ship mid battle. Start off in my safety override medusa with antimatter blasters to quickly slaughter a few frigates that go for the comm relays, nav bouys etc. After a minute or two, when the medusa CR starts to drop, I switch to my Paragon to take on the larger enemy ships.

Having commands to tell friendly ships to generally focus on larger or smaller ships would be nice. If the player wants to pilot and onslaught, you want your fleet to focus on frigates and destroyers if they have the option. Or in you want to specialise your own ship for quickly killing smaller vessels, it is annoying to watch your sunders spinning round trying to hit a frigate.

Other commands I would be particularly interested in is a general fleet stance. When fighting an inferior fleet Its good to get in and be aggressive before they start running away. In a more difficult engagement it would be nice if the AI could be a bit more relaxed. The avoid command is too black and white for this, sometimes if you use it, your fleet sits way behind you while you get wrecked. On the other hand its annoying when your lashers are bumping shields with a dominator and getting obliterated 1 minute into the battle.

The two different retreat commands are great, It would be nice to have two similar "seek and destroy" commands. Attack aggressively or attack but prioritize self preservation. The role of the player is undermined if the fleet goes too aggro and gets crushed.

[StarGibbon]

The two different retreat commands are great, It would be nice to have two similar "seek and destroy" commands. Attack aggressively or attack but prioritize self preservation. The role of the player is undermined if the fleet goes too aggro and gets crushed.

Isn't this essentially what "Eliminate and "Engage" are?

[Solar]

The two different retreat commands are great, It would be nice to have two similar "seek and destroy" commands. Attack aggressively or attack but prioritize self preservation. The role of the player is undermined if the fleet goes too aggro and gets crushed.

Isn't this essentially what "Eliminate and "Engage" are?

Except that these focus on individual enemy ships? I could be wrong.

[StarGibbon]

The two different retreat commands are great, It would be nice to have two similar "seek and destroy" commands. Attack aggressively or attack but prioritize self preservation. The role of the player is undermined if the fleet goes too aggro and gets crushed.

Isn't this essentially what "Eliminate and "Engage" are?

Except that these focus on individual enemy ships? I could be wrong.

Oh, I see your point now. Sorry. Carry on.

[edit] A global attack stance that prioritizes survival is basically the default stance, though. 

[arwan]

Speaking on combat, there are 2 situations that I believe could use a little refinement. (As the rest is I believe quite solid)

1. Carriers (primarily but not exclusively) seem intent on sitting so far away from combat at times that their fighters are completely out of range of the fighting. Even when said fighters would be the tipping point of the battle. This also can happen when you completely out number an opponent but at that point it's more or less irrelevant.

2. Ships doing what I call the slap dance of combat. This happens when you outnumber the opponent, or vise versa. (I have seen it as bad as 5 vs 1 with some of the 5 being destroyers and the 1 being a frigate.) all sitting just outside of combat range when they can easily close the distance and finish the fight if they would just work as a team and move in on the prey. This should not be confused with a retreating opponent. As what I'm talking about is an enguagment where neither side is actively retreating yet. Of course every once in a while a single ship will move up just enough to enguage. But once they do the other ships still don't seem to want to commit and finish off the combat. Instead both ships soon retreat to again just out of reach and vent. Prolonging the combat and running down CR.

This is one situation where I wish the overwhelming force would just grow a sac and throw caution to the wind for a few seconds. All enguage see what happens and then after a few moments, decide if they really can win or retreat back for another go.

[StarGibbon]

2. Ships doing what I call the slap dance of combat. This happens when you outnumber the opponent, or vise versa. (I have seen it as bad as 5 vs 1 with some of the 5 being destroyers and the 1 being a frigate.) all sitting just outside of combat range when they can easily close the distance and finish the fight if they would just work as a team and move in on the prey. This should not be confused with a retreating opponent. As what I'm talking about is an enguagment where neither side is actively retreating yet. Of course every once in a while a single ship will move up just enough to enguage. But once they do the other ships still don't seem to want to commit and finish off the combat. Instead both ships soon retreat to again just out of reach and vent. Prolonging the combat and running down CR.

This is one situation where I wish the overwhelming force would just grow a sac and throw caution to the wind for a few seconds. All enguage see what happens and then after a few moments, decide if they really can win or retreat back for another go.

Thats what the eliminate command does. It orders  ships to attack the target aggressively, even if it puts them at risk.