June Update : SuperMelee

Identical to Star Control 2.

Thanks for the answer. I will be happy if the combat is in the same vein and feels just as fun as SC1 and SC2. 

If you want to retain "that irresistibly fun" aspect of this genre that most " just can't put their finger on", then you have to retain the pure top down view because it is that "perfect un-distorted vision of the action" that creates that "irresistibly fun" aspect that most can't identify.  I can, as I've mentioned before, it's the Pattern Recognition Addiction that you lose if you angle the camera and destroy that "perfect un-distorted vision of the action".

Personally I would retain the pure top down space combat, which is actually a great lost genre of your industry, and focus on making the space background and interface as awesome looking and modern looking as you can make them.  I've even given you Pirate Dawn's "colored space" to use for that very reason if you want.  I think you'll be very surprised at how popular top down space combat is, it is a timeless genre that was just abandoned because it was not 3D.

Of course, you could also just forget about what you perceive as a tiny minority of people like me that would like it that way.  I am certain you are wrong about this and this is a timeless genre that will be just as popular today as it was in the 1990s with Star Control and Subspace, but I could be wrong, of course.  I don't think I am, but I am sure the modern game audience would be perfectly happy with an angled view that renders the game practically unplayable.  That is what they are accustomed too.  The gaming audience doesn't know good from bad when they don't have any good to compare the bad too, you'll be just fine either way.  I won't play it if it isn't top down, but that is pretty irrelevant too you.  The modern game audience doesn't know it is "wrong" and inferior, in fact they played games with that dysfunctional view before and liked them.

So, in reality, I think the game will be successful either way.  Gamers don't miss what they don't know about.

For me the question is if/how multi-ship Super Melee is handled. Is it something that is purely for stand-alone Super Melee (not present in Story Mode combat)? Is it something that is not on the table at all? Do you have some passive support allied ships (passive in the sense that they are flying with you but do not interfere with the "main" combatants, but still provide a passive bonus which is different for different aliens). Do you have full-blown multi-ship combat and if so how would we handle "suggestions" to allied AI ships?

As I mentioned before, the melee core needs to stay the same, EXCEPT:

1. Fluid motion (that includes smooth ship turning, accelerating etc)

2. Various avionic maneuvers (Cobra, Corkscrew, Nesterov's loop etc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyotr_Nesterov )

3. Eye candy, particle effects, breathtaking backgrounds etc.

In 2D, 3D maneuvers like a loop or corkscrew have no actually effect on the situation.  A corkscrew would simply be an animated effect with no meaning.  The only way to give it meaning would be to have it create a negative modifier to weapon accuracy... but to have there be a thing called "weapon accuracy" you would have to create a combat environment that was for more complex then they are likely be planning to create for SC2.  I imagine that SC2 will have "dumb fire" weapons that are aimed entirely by the player and travel on a ballistic course.  It is certainly possible to create a more complex system where die roll modifiers could exist, my top down spaceship shooter did that, but it would have been the first one that did.  Having already done that before, I can tell you that it is a actually a fairly complex and extensive thing to do.  Not really worth the effort for a "fun cartoon", it's only really needed if you are going more in the "serious military" direction.

I actually know what Cobra is.  Only a few aircraft are capable of performing that maneuver.  Cobra actually would be relevant without "directed weapons".  But all Cobra would actually do would be to temporarily lower speed, end then resume previous speed after the animation.  Cobra is intended to make a pursuer fly by so that you are then directly behind him.  That could be made to function, but I would never try.  It would almost always get you killed in a top down space shooter because everything is moving so slowly compared to a Mig-29 moving at 1200 mph.  Cobra at slow speed just makes you an easier target.

I had thought a lot about how to add maneuvers like this to a top down space shooter at one point.  Unfortunately almost all real-world ACM maneuvers have no relevance in 2 dimensions and just wind up being animations with no inherent meaning, that can only be given meaning through die roll modifiers.  Even though my game had the capability to do it that way, I still didn't use it.  I think that adds a level of "invisible complexity" that only the top 10% of gamers would understand was there.  It would just confuse most gamers, or most gamers would never even learn that is was there, so I didn't use it even though I could have with my game's more complex "avionics".  You also need a button or key to make it happen, a different one for each maneuver, which is also a big huge strike against it what is supposed to be such a simple game.  In my game I had gone to great lengths to "make sure the player is never required to use anything but the gamepad during combat" and I personally think that is a vital rule to design by within this particular genre.

It's a good idea, it just doesn't wind up working in a very good or relevant way.

^ The avionic names are just an analogy example.

Corkscrew can be a maneuver where you decrease your ship's body volume to avoid damage by rolling (if your ship's profile is really wide, but flat). Cobra can be replaced with a quick 180 ship flip with fast deceleration if you press forward. Nesterov's loop can take your ship out of the battle plane and back in rendering you "invincible" for its duration. Etc etc etc...

All of these can be a ship's second (maybe even third) ability etc. Nothing outside the realm of classic SC2.

You're giving it too much thought.

Building on that, I think Star Control is a title that would definitely benefit from a cool factor without relevancy mattering. Often, if you're asking "why?" in Star Control, you're taking it too easily and should crack open another beer

Yes, Hunam, exactly.  It needs to be represented artificially in some way, like your "utilitarian" ideas or my "accuracy modification", they just don't actually do anything in and of themselves.  I don't like accuracy modification for Star Control, but I do like your utilitarian way of using them.  Using ACM in a utilitarian way like you propose for SC would be very cool.  I actually like all three of the examples you gave a lot.  It could even just be a ships secondary ability along with its weapon.

I bet at least several people have gone to wiki/youtube to see what "Cobra" is by now.  Only the most advanced fighters with huge thrust to weight ratios can perform Cobra.  It is generally a Russian maneuver because "huge thrust to weight ratio" is a pretty good description of the general method the Russians design aircraft by.  SU-31, SU-33, SU-35, and the SU-37 can all perform Cobra.  So can the Mig-29, the plane the tactic was first developed in.  Of US planes only the F15 can perform Cobra, but US doctrine doesn't mesh with Cobra.  We shoot planes down from "beyond visual range", Cobra is an "active defense" to a point-blank close fast pursuit that, if an American pilot is involved in, that American pilot failed in this fight long before Cobra ever happened.

You really don't want to mess with an F-22 Raptor... they really are like living Gods of the sky.  By the time any other plane in the world has a chance to shoot at a Raptor, the Raptor had time to use all of its missiles one at a time, and then eat a sandwich.

EDIT:  Performed successfully, of course, Cobra is by far the coolest maneuver in all of ACM if you were to see it actually happen.  The Russian plane points straight up briefly, then tilts right back down like a Cobra rearing up.  The pursuer flies right beneath the Russian, almost colliding with him, and as he does the Russian plane is tilting back down to be only a few hundred feet behind his former pursuer for the perfect can't miss point blank kill shot.  It's never happened in real combat, but if it did it would be the coolest thing that ever did happen in a dogfight,

Regarding maneuvers: keep in mind that (some) alien ships' special ability may actually be a "maneuver". For example, imagine an ability where while you hold the "special ability" key the ship gains 100% evasion, drains energy continuously, and is animated to fly in a corkscrew style.

This is actually a variation on the Utwig shield ability - but can be implemented as a maneuver.

I saw that you elaborated a little more later. Your normal brevity is muddling your proposal, and then you blame Kavik for overthinking?

Do you want to add maneuvers to all ships?

^^ -- ofcoz you want to see an Urquan Dreadnought do a barrelroll

I mean, as long as the Lord's chamber is gyroscopically stable, I can totally see it

Of course not.  I have thought about that more actually, because it was such a great idea (Hunam!).  So I've had time to think of a great example.

What is the difference between a secondary ability that puts up an energy barrier for 4 seconds of temporary invulnerability or Hunam's Loop that does the same thing, in 2D?  The answer is, none!  So it provides greater 'flexibility of representation".  You want a ship to have a 4-sec invuln ability?  What does the ship look like?  Would it look particularly awesome doing a loop?  Or is it big and bulky... and shielded?

That's what makes it such a great idea.  Hunam's "utilitarian use" changes nothing, but gives the designers greatly flexibility in... "coolness".  And it doesn't get any better than that.

Awesome idea, Hunam, I bet they actually use something like that on a few ships.

Yea, that is pretty much the exact example I used in reply #10

totally agree with this.   the top down view straight down needs to be maintained.  otherwise it's just another game and not the same.

With the Super Melee Prototype expected to go out to you guys this Summer/early fall, we hope to get a lot of iteration on it.  Nothing will be off the table with regards to how it looks, how it acts, etc.

We'll also be able to use the pre-alpha as a means to nail down the multiplayer aspect since you guys will be playing each other in SuperMelee.

FPS-styled base-building SuperMelee, here we come!!

^ The idea of an FPS sniper ship was thrown out there.

https://forums.starcontrol.com/475821/page/1/#3624507

My take on the statement and response...

If they are designing by committee, Henri is almost certainly close to where it will go.  If there is a single vision behind the design, then you might actually get the new and improved version of Star Control II.  The SFB Staff was a committee... of advisers.

"Game design is a benevolent dictatorship.  Considered with compassion, but ruled by an Iron Fist." - Me (1999, a paraphrasing of a much older quote about game design)

If the game is going to hell in a handbasket, we aren't the ones holding onto the handles.

Honestly, I'm not too worried about Brad's statement. To state it in another way... They want to deliver the next iteration of SuperMelee and they aren't afraid of ripping up their current work to nail the fun factor.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Changing the topic a little... I hope that the first iteration has local multiplayer in addition to net play. I'm more excited to play against my family than I am with playing against you guys.

But what about friends? If someone comes over and we fire up SuperMelee, am I violating the rules?

For me multiplayer also raises the question on whether it is server-based, and if so what will the policies be for people running servers. Since I'm in South Africa I'd ultimately want a local server to play with suitable latency.

Do it how ever you want. Just keep a top down POV availible for the purists and their like.