Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10

Author Topic: Fleet control system suggestions and feedback.  (Read 41299 times)

Iscariot

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 852
    • View Profile
Re: Fleet control system suggestions and feedback.
« Reply #15 on: February 20, 2012, 01:18:12 PM »

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.
Logged

The idea is that the various tech levels represent different - not "better" - ways to do things.

Gaizokubanou

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 347
    • View Profile
Re: Fleet control system suggestions and feedback.
« Reply #16 on: February 20, 2012, 02:11:12 PM »

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.
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 24157
    • View Profile
Re: Fleet control system suggestions and feedback.
« Reply #17 on: February 20, 2012, 02:38:48 PM »

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.
Logged

Beagle

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Fleet control system suggestions and feedback.
« Reply #18 on: February 20, 2012, 08:06:05 PM »

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.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2012, 08:29:02 PM by Beagle »
Logged

Iscariot

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 852
    • View Profile
Re: Fleet control system suggestions and feedback.
« Reply #19 on: February 20, 2012, 08:21:11 PM »

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.
Logged

The idea is that the various tech levels represent different - not "better" - ways to do things.

Beagle

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Fleet control system suggestions and feedback.
« Reply #20 on: February 20, 2012, 08:32:05 PM »

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?
« Last Edit: February 20, 2012, 08:35:19 PM by Beagle »
Logged

Iscariot

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 852
    • View Profile
Re: Fleet control system suggestions and feedback.
« Reply #21 on: February 20, 2012, 08:53:18 PM »

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.
Logged

The idea is that the various tech levels represent different - not "better" - ways to do things.

Flare

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 906
    • View Profile
Re: Fleet control system suggestions and feedback.
« Reply #22 on: February 20, 2012, 09:05:13 PM »

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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Logged
Quote from: Thana
Quote from: Alex

The battle station is not completely operational, shall we say.

"Now witness the firepower of this thoroughly buggy and unoperational batt... Oh, hell, you know what? Just ignore the battle station, okay?"

Beagle

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Fleet control system suggestions and feedback.
« Reply #23 on: February 20, 2012, 09:19:00 PM »

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.
Logged

Flare

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 906
    • View Profile
Re: Fleet control system suggestions and feedback.
« Reply #24 on: February 20, 2012, 10:13:48 PM »

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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Logged
Quote from: Thana
Quote from: Alex

The battle station is not completely operational, shall we say.

"Now witness the firepower of this thoroughly buggy and unoperational batt... Oh, hell, you know what? Just ignore the battle station, okay?"

Gaizokubanou

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 347
    • View Profile
Re: Fleet control system suggestions and feedback.
« Reply #25 on: February 20, 2012, 10:27:54 PM »

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.
Logged

Beagle

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Fleet control system suggestions and feedback.
« Reply #26 on: February 20, 2012, 10:33:13 PM »

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.



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?
Logged

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7233
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
Re: Fleet control system suggestions and feedback.
« Reply #27 on: February 20, 2012, 10:50:48 PM »

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
Logged

Flare

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 906
    • View Profile
Re: Fleet control system suggestions and feedback.
« Reply #28 on: February 20, 2012, 11:28:31 PM »

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/
Logged
Quote from: Thana
Quote from: Alex

The battle station is not completely operational, shall we say.

"Now witness the firepower of this thoroughly buggy and unoperational batt... Oh, hell, you know what? Just ignore the battle station, okay?"

Beagle

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Fleet control system suggestions and feedback.
« Reply #29 on: February 20, 2012, 11:34:20 PM »

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.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10