I wish Reiche and/or Ford would provide some input on what they would and wouldn't change if they made another SC, i feel most of these "modernisations" are taking the game too far away from the SC roots.

It might just be me though, since some people seem happy enough, dreaming of having different camera presets for each ship and hotkeys for different camera angles.....and here's me thinking "what was wrong with top down and just using up,down,left,right, primary, secondary? Isn't that the game we loved?".

Hell i would think adding maybe a third action button would be modernisation enough.....

Maybe i'm just too stuck in my nostalgia and i'm the only one who basically just wants a new story with the old mechanics. Use the power of the engine to do what SC2 did but prettier. Lighting, explosions, black holes, lasers, bullets....make em glorious but make em top down sez i......

You also have to consider that the last game in the franchise came out in 1996, and Sony's revolutionary Dualshock controller came out in 1999. On the PC end, consider that in 1993, a year after SC2, DOOM was released. We've spent the last 17 years playing action games with controllers that have two analog sticks, with one of those sticks frequently bound to a camera. Or we've played them with the camera bound to the mouse. Camera controls aren't revolutionary or modern at this point. They are accepted.

There's nothing wrong with top-down, 6-button controls. The beauty is that you can have this AND I can have my 7th "switch camera" button, my 2nd analog stick for camera controls, and a host of customizable settings in the option menu.

If we are waxing poetic about nostalgic controls, I don't hear the complaints about being able to turn the ship smoothly 360°. THAT is going to have more effect on your gameplay than being able to move the camera around. Aren't you going to push to limit the game to 16 turning "ticks"?

The question to ask yourself is it the specific mechanics, or the experience that made Star Control the game you love. I'd wager to say it was the experience you had playing it. While there are memorable mechanics you remember from that experience they aren't the driving thing that made you love it. There have been plenty of indie games who have taken the exact mechanics and implemented them, but the games themselves have not captured the same love as Star Control. The essence of Star Control and the way the whole package comes together is what makes the game. 

We are modernizing the game and part of that modernization includes integrating new expectations. To use an obvious example, the original SC2 has no mouse support, if we didn't make the game playable with a mouse I believe that 99.9% (0.1% is the extreme hardcore fans) would rise up in revolt and we'd get the lowest game rated of all time. 

It may have been the "experience" for the rest of the game, but for combat, it was the "specific mechanics" that made the game memorable.

While I see no issue with including mouse support... You could give me a lobotamy and I would still beat someone trying to play with a mouse with one arm tied behind my back:-)

Quoting Kavik_Kang, reply 30

While I see no issue with including mouse support... You could give me a lobotamy and I would still beat someone trying to play with a mouse with one arm tied behind my back

 

But then how will you hold your cane?

I've said this before and I'll say it again:

Just make it so I can't crash into the planets AFTER I've won the battle, and I'll be happy.

You know, IBNobody, you actually had a great idea for a weapon in this game and I totally missed it because I was thinking of other things.  I would not allow the player to take the camera out of top down in combat because I believe that view is what creates the addictively fun quality this genre is known for.  Your brain can't do it in 3D, but is exceptionally good at these patterns in 2D.  But you wanting to look over the shoulder to fire a sniper weapon is still an awesome idea for a weapon in this game.  When you push the button it pulls the view down to an "over-the-shoulder" view at the FARTHEST hostile tagret, maybe even giving you some crosshairs to aim, and when you let the bottn go it fuires and pulls you back into top down view.  That would be a very cool way of doing a sniper type of weapon in this game.

To answer the question you made me ask myself: For combat it was definitely the mechanics, and i doubt you can get the same experience from an isometric view coupled with mouse input.

What i fear is that when you fill the game with stuff simply because it is expected, you then have to make it work and will have to make concessions.

Simple example: You implement mouse aiming, since it is expected, but then you are going to already have a radically different form of combat from SC2. In all probability mouse will be a superior way to aim over keyboard or controller, and everyone is forced into using the best mechanic if they want to compete online, so suddenly we're playing quake 3 arena in space (possibly a slight exaggeration ) instead of Super Melee Reborn™.

Again it might all work out perfectly and i might enjoy it immensly, and of course it's still early days and when you see all the elements we get glimpses of in the vault come together it might be super awesome.......i'm just here to voice my concerns at what i've seen so far and my wish for the new SC to be more like SC2 but prettier rather than a whole new type of game.

So far imo:

- critters and aliens and ships - on point

- planets and combat - too far from roots

As for 99.9% rising up in revolt over no mouse support, in this day and age with indie titles doing novel things like going back to 8-bit looking graphics and other things considered "old school" having keyboard only with 1 or 2 buttons might just be seen as a nice novelty

No worries there.  The Subspace/Continuum community thrived for almost 15 years.  This information is already known.  Ganmepad and keyborad turn out to be equal but different control methods.  There are maneuvers you can do on keyboard that you can't do on a gamepad, and there are maneuvers you can do on a gamepad that you can't do on a keyboard.  It comes down to a matter of personal prefferance.  In Subspace I used a gamepad and was among the top players in the hockey and base defense zones I played in.  My brother "Indra" was widely considered to be the best duelist in the world, and he used the keyboard.

Joystick and mouse are both terrible ways of trying to control this type of game and anyone trying to use either device will be at a great disadvantage in online play.  It doesn't really matter for single player.

Now, as purely a style decision, I would not include ineffective control methods in game.  The fact they are available implies they work well.  If they don't work well, I would not make them available.  But this is purely a style decision and it doesn't really matter either way.  Steve Cole's adage of always allowing the player the option to make a mistake doesn't apply to non-game elements like control devices or interfaces.  

For those of you complaining about aiming I can only say you guys really are awful in playing games....

I say that with confidence because I actually had quite a good hit rate against Thraddash ships and Arilou ships (about a 10% hit rate) while using the Druuge ships.

And against bigger ships I got close to 40%. And that was with the annoying constant zoom-in zoom-out.

Not that I ever won many wars with the Druuge since the recoil effect always made me crash into a planet and then I would die. Or I would fly straight into Thraddash flame trails or Kohr-ah ninja stars.....

Those were truly starwars moments when I would take a shot at a Thraddash ship at the other side of the screen and get a hit.

(I think that Thraddash are one-shot kills with the Druuge or maybe one crew was left over.)

It doesn't matter what perspective we use, we are humans, capable of quickly adapting to new situations and unconsciously calculating shots and angles.

I am confident that I won't have any trouble aiming regardless of camera perspective as long as I know where the enemy is and I can see the angle I am facing. That is, at the very least I would need a radar showing the enemy position and the radar should accurately show which direction I am facing. OR I would need a zoomed out view of the whole combat area and thus able to see where the enemy is.

Not sure if I may have missed this some where.

Will there be any form of fog-of-war in combat?

Radar in this type of combat?.. You can't be serious...

You don't realize how impossible it is to aim effectively from over the shoulder perspective view without reticle or graphical line of sight. And you don't want a reticle for every ship in SC, unless you wanna butcher the combat completely.

I played FIFA 14 and 15 for 2 years straight. Nearly every day. I still have almost all my controls on Assisted/Semi-Assisted, where the direction of a kick is being corrected by AI for you. There are like 1000 out of a few million players that use Manual controls. Why? 'Cause perspective over the shoulder view in-game. You can't aim precisely with it. You just don't have enough time. All tournament pros use Assisted controls. If your grandma played, she'd use Assisted. And in SC combat you don't even have time to look at the radar, let alone to aim. It's all muscle memory and reflexes. You can spend a year and acquire a real feel for it, but I personally can't be assed to do it. I wanna enjoy my combat right out of the box.

I agree with those that are of the opinion that combat is first-and-foremost a top-down affair. I don't mind an iso-view for exploration. I don't mind a story-view for exploration. And if there are masochists that want to play combat in isometric view then having the option to do so is - I guess - fine; it's a form of freedom of speech (just because you have a rubbish opinion, doesn't mean that I'll stop you from playing isometric Reborn combat).

But I feel strongly about a "true" SC2 style combat system (that is to say top-down view). 

The isometric view is the right choice in several genres. ActionRPGs (Diablo), MOBAs (Dota), RTS (StarCraft) all benefit a lot from the view. And of those 3 types, ActionRPGs come closest to the "spirit" of StarControl style combat. However, in all three cases the UI relies on mouse controls to determine movement and actions.

Mouse-based ship controls is not what SC2 style combat is all about. Even in modern renditions of the style of combat using a mouse is counter-intuitive and does not integrate naturally with Newton-based ship motion.

Now it is of course fine to create a SC2-inspired game that completely drops the SC2-style of combat; but then you give up the right to call it a successor to SC2. You could create a form of tactical combat system that would be reminiscent of StarCraft based combat - but attached to a space opera adventure (that would allow pretty angled visuals and easy mouse control). But you cannot create a combat system that draws directly from the style of combat that SC2 brought to the table and rely on a mouse as input system. It is a chore to control ships with a mouse under Newtonian physics. Nor can you play a decent space combat in isometric view when using keyboard/gamepad.

If you stick to keyboard/gamepad controls, but try to run an isometric view you immediately run into aiming issues. Rotation, perspective, distance, and angles are severely impaired. 

I appreciate that the Combat sample video is an early engine sample - but in terms of how it would handle for players it is terrible.

...

I'm generally very much in favor of the modernization done for Reborn (I like the planets for example) - but going with an isometric combat system is not the right choice.

The isometric view space shooter is not a "new" or modern thing. You can find isometric-based games (space shooters and otherwise) dating back in to the early 80s; and not as rare once-off concept games either. The original SC1 and 2 both had the option to go with an isometric design - but they chose not to because it is a poor choice for the type of combat that they wanted to run.

Naturally one of the major experiences and enjoyment that SC2 rendered onto us was the adventure, the exploration, the discovery. But that needs to be considered in separation from the combat system. SC2's combat system was spectacular for its time - and cannot be replicated any other way because any other visual layout requires mouse use to function naturally and intuitively, whereas keyboard/gamepad rely on a simplified axial system to convey the necessary framework for ship combat.

...

One last plaidoyer: consider other genres where the isometric view is (or can be) used, the sports sim. Here the action works perfectly fine without a mouse - and the reason for that is that axial precision isn't needed. You have a "pass" button and a "shoot at goal" button. Facing is incidental to the process. The same type of system doesn't apply to SC2-style combat; having a button that automatically shoots at the enemy both dumbs down the combat, as well as making it impossible to lure/feint or lead with shots.

Here are various responses/comments.

Why are people taking this quote and assuming that they'll be able to turn their ship in combat using the mouse? Did I miss something? Because I thought the point of this example was to point out that SC2 had no mouse support whatsoever. Even in the open-source UQM, you couldn't even click on the menu. Being able to click on menus with the mouse is an expected requirement. Mouse-based ship combat? Not so much.

I'm not the originator of said full-length-laser-blast idea, but I'm glad you liked it.

Maybe... If SCR were to be set up to turn the ship to match the angle of deflection of the analog stick (and a trigger bound to accelerate), you could dominate long-range shooting matches. Enemy is at 2 o'clock? Angle your stick to 2 o'clock, wait for your ship to turn to 2 o'clock, and fire.

Same here. I loved Broodhome unshattered crystal hits. It will be even easier to do this now that you can turn smoothly rather than in 22.5° ticks.

I don't want radar, but what about edge-of-screen indicators pointing to enemies that are outside your field-of-view? I think that would be very useful if you were in a multiplayer battle, were in close proximity to an enemy, and had someone else farther away trying to attack you.

Over the shoulder is hard to aim, but over-the-head isometric with a camera locked to your turning would not be hard *for this game*. You only have to aim in the X-Y direction, not the Z direction.

Let's make it clear about some terms we use here.

What you guys call isometric/isometric 3D is in fact a perspective view (that's what's in the presented combat & exploration WIP vids).

Just "isometric" view is a parallel view (what SC3 melee has).

Here's visual difference:

Sure, I don't mind that as long at it's noticeable, but subtle. Have an option to turn it off even.

Awkbird mentioned it and I myself don't mind it either as long as there's classic option. But as I said it limits weapon and possibly ship design, 'cause you can't see behind your ship. At least not as far as in-front of you. And I'm not sure if majority of players wanna be assed with figuring out best views for every ship in game like you propose. 

Per-ship may be cumbersome, but customized views bound to hotkeys, bound to a cycled button, or bound to a momentary button would do the trick.

• I could hit F5 to switch to top-down, F6 to switch to iso w/ camera-locked to turning, F7 to switch to iso w/o camera-lock etc...
• I could hit select/back on my gamepad to cycle between top-down, iso, etc. (We'd need to cull views from this mode - too many options makes cycling hard.)
• I could hold left-shoulder on my gamepad (or lshift on my keyboard) to switch to a pre-configured iso and release to switch to top-down.

I'd probably use the third option the most.

I'd stay in top-down until I needed to fire long-range. I'd point my ship in the enemy's general direction, pop into an over-and-behind-the-ship camera turn-locked iso mode, and fire off a few long-ranged projectiles. This firing mode means that my bullets are always firing up the center of the screen, making them easy to aim. (Since I'm not entirely in FPS mode but am instead above the ship X-Y plane, I can better visualise the distance of my target and the amount I would need to lead them to hit.)

After I fire, it's back to top-down for general piloting. If I need to handle short-range weapons, I'd stay in top-down mode.

I am actually in favor of a small simple radar box in the lower right corner.  It is very useful, without it any ship off screen is just lost and invisible too you.  Subspace had this, so I am used to it.  It really can be very helpful to have.

Sell me on it. Why a radar box versus using off-screen screen-edge indicator tabs? Will the combat arena be that massive? In single-player, will I often be up against 2 ships at once? In multi-player, can't I track the location of 2 enemy ships? (The third would likely be on my screen.)

For a slick little off-screen edge indicator, scroll down for a working in-browser example!

http://gamedevelopment.tutsplus.com/tutorials/positioning-on-screen-indicators-to-point-to-off-screen-targets--gamedev-6644

I have nothing to sell.  Edge of screen indicators would work equally well for me in the game they are saying they are making.  If 6 ships are the most that can ever be on the screen at once then edge of screen indicators would work just as well as a small radar box.  The only advantage of the radar box in this case is that it would be needed to support more ships than they currently ever plan on having in a fight.  So the only real advanage of radar over edge of screen indicators is that radar would give modders the freedom to have more players on a map... like having 12 player base defense, capture the flag, and space hockey zones:-)

We also need to keep in mind that we need a view of projectiles, not just other ships.  The current perspective in the video can potentially put the player at a loss without some other indicators on the screen that things are happening.  

Okay let me try and sell you on this.

The screen is square. Fast moving objects will move the indicator tabs very awkwardly due to the squareness of the view. Unless you want the screen-edge indicator tabs  to not go around the screen but rather around a circle.

Obstacles may block line-of-sight and radar view but how will that work for indicator tabs? How will you know it is an obstacle? Or a cloaking device? 

With a line-of-sight radar it should be easier to see hiding spots where enemies might be hiding.

And it would be useful in determining last known location in cases were ships have cloaking abilities.

Also a radar method is best to help determine range and distance of the enemy which directly ties in when using stationary (mine placement) or long range weapons (sniper weapons).

It would also help said long range weapons if the radar showed the projectile's movement.

Plus with a radar option it could be useful to help implement a ship that has a radar jamming ability (this can be done for screen indicators as well but you would not know if it is a cloaking ability, a jamming ability, or an obstacle).

Anyway, this is space we are talking about. With ships that magically fly in the black emptiness, and scanners that can see the core of any planet, and weapons that can lure you into open space, or melt you from inside out.

And yet we have no radars in battles to have an overview of the battlefield and detect the enemy?

You know what they say about games like that......

Regarding radars vs screen-edge indicators:

If we're "just" dealing with classic SC2 style encounters then screen-edge indicators would be fine. However, keep in mind that Stardock indicated that multi-ship combat may very well be in the cards. If you now picture a 5v5 (+projectiles) then using screen-edge indicators will be more confusing than helpful (since there are too many and with at most wishy-washy distance suggestion).

In multi-ship combat radar is definitely the superior choice.

I don't think I'm convinced. In fact, I'm leaning against a radar display. I want to keep the number of UI elements that I have to pay attention to at a minimum. Adding a radar display, especially if it includes projectiles, is just too much information for this style of game. We're not playing a space sim. We're playing an arcade-y action game with a fixed arena size, and with only 2 allies and 3 opponents max.

You could argue that edge tabs would be TMI too, but my counter is that the edge of the screen is a single UI element. If I'm staring at my ship or an enemy ship, edge indicators are visible in my peripheral vision and give a great indicator as to where I am vs where other players are.

"Those stupid space games without radars..."