The Super Melee wars

1. Deck.

2. 1vs1 Unless the Ai is comparable to each other.

3. Zoomed out at start, so a tactical assessment can be made at the beginning of the battle, then switch to free form.

1) Dynamic.  Matches what Star Control has always been and adds an extra level of strategy.

2) Solo.  I don't want to watch my ships get derped by the AI.  I want to be the one to derp them.

3) I'll say zoomed out, but this one is much tougher to say until we can see both in action and get an idea of which feels better.

1 - Dynamic sounds better, you can adapt (if you have the ships) for what is coming next

2 - While it would be awesome to have more than 2 ships on screen (makes the universe more alive) Solo (1vs1) is actually easier to play and more fun

3 - You can put a "lock camera" option! and it would be awesome if in the beginning of every battle, there was a option to start paused (so you can adjust the camera) or just begin

Yes, that is a big part of the balance, actually.  I talked before about how the system used in SC, which is really a simple version of SFB's BPV system, has a self-balancing effect too it.  The ships in SC are not balanced, they aren't meant to be.  They are wildly unbalanced.  What makes it work is that the ships are valued reasonably within the point system, and the player selects their lineup of ships... and which ship to use against whatever ship the enemy is currently in when you die and choose a replacement.  That's all part of the almost infinitely forgiving balance of this design.  You don't need to worry if the ships are "balanced" with each other at all, only that you can assign it a point value in relation to the other ships that seems reasonable to everyone.

Then, the player chooses their own 300-500-1000 points, or whatever, worth of ships.  Then they choose when to use them as the situation warrants.  In the end, because of how the system works, the player believes and feels that the game and ships are "balanced" when, in reality, they are wildly unbalanced.  It is the system that creates an illusion of... perfect balance.  As long as the power of the weapons and devices are reasonable, the only "balance" arguments you are likely to ever have is how many points a ship should be worth.

SVC truly is a genius, I don't just say these things:-)

1. Deck (all dynamic response will do is make you pick a counter everytime = no pre-fight strategy = brain dead ship picks every time)

2. 1 vs 1 (I like pure combat experience)

3. When combat starts I'd like to assess my environment, so I want my camera to be MAX zoomed out to see the whole arena. If ships become very small (due to large arena area) - drop a marker so I can see the opponents ship orientation. I'd also like a READY - FIGHT countdown. Then zoom in to the combat level of zoom and blast away. I also wouldn't mind trying out an auto-dynamic zoom where both ships are on screen 100% with the game engine controlling the zoom level if possible (it will be redundant with small arenas though).

1. I prefer the freedom to choose which ship enters combat. I think an RNG/adaptive/automated approach to ship selection will just frustrate players if they know they already have a preferred counter to their opponent in mind.

2. 1V1 is probably the way to go to start, but I'm intrigued by the idea of multi-ship combat and I think it should be an eventual feature at some point if not upon release. In most strategy games, you cannot simply spam a single type of unit and expect to win; usually a variety of units that can successfully cover for one another's weaknesses ends up being the most effective way to win and I think this would be a very cool concept to see applied to Star Control. Don't see why we can't have both at some point if team combat is actually already being tested. I'd be willing to wait for that as a future feature, especially as more ships become available in expansions.

3. The camera should be whatever distance is required for all ships to be in view. I don't see a need for it to be completely zoomed out at the beginning; I guess it can start with an overview of the whole arena but as combat begins, the camera should adjust to keep however many ships there are in view. The dynamism of that constantly moving camera is part of the heart and soul of Star Control combat. A big part of what it helped to do was to determine whether you were gaining or losing distance from your opponent. It could be hard to discern the difference in speed between two ships, but the camera zoom basically served as an indicator or whether one could outpace the other. The feeling of watching the camera slowly move in as you closed the gap on an opponent was always really engaging.

They all need to be playing on the same computer to get the spirit of "playing in a room together".

Deck vs Dynamic Response:

I assume that even in DR, you will point-buy your fleet ahead of time, like SC2. (Wait - We can't assume anything... WILL DR LET YOU POINT-BUY YOUR FLEET AHEAD OF TIME?)

DR is the better system. Even though you are inclined to choose a counter, you are also inclined to hold certain ships in reserve until the end. I liked that strategic decision in SC2.

One other question... Will matches have a time limit? Because if they don't and you go with a deck option, I'm going to troll all of you by taking the fastest ships and fly around Skiff-Style. Since you won't have the ability to choose a counter, you'll be stuck with me. I may do this anyhow even if there IS a timer. }:>

Solo vs Teams:

Solo. It will be easier to balance and harder to cheese.

Camera:

Dynamic zoom - every ship should be visible. It will also make Local Multiplayer easier to implement.

If there is ever a time where the zoom is too great, do something like make your ship larger or show a ring with your current heading. That way, you can always tell what direction you are firing in.

Star Control has a Nemesis Balance, that is how it works.  You can't just make wildly different and unique ships and then "straight balance" them.  It can't happen.  This group of ships needs to be balanced by the strategic layer.  A "deck", as some of you are calling it, would just amount to a random guess at what order you should put the ships in, with no information to base it on at all.  Just a totally random guess.  It's kind of important that the player get to pick a lineup they think is good, and then use each ship when they think is best.  That's how this system works in Star Control.  This way the player is "responsible" for the "balance".  If you lost, you don't think "it wasn't fair, that ship was too good", you think "I had the wrong line-up, and I should have used Ship A first instead of Ship B".  The ships are wildly unbalanced, on purpose, the player is creating "balance" through their choice of the mix of ships the chose based on the points available, and then how they use them.

This works across all fleet sizes, any point value you want to name.  All you have to worry about is that no one ship is dominant, either unreasonably powerful or able to beat all other ships.  As long as all the systems are within reason, and every ship has 2 or 3 others that it has trouble beating... then the only thing you need to worry about is the point value of each ship.  If the players generally agree with the point values, they will consider the entire thing to be "balanced"... even though it clearly isn't.  It is self balancing based on the player's control of ship selection, but they have to have complete control of ship selection for that to be true.

In the end this is a very forgiving system.  It could be so badly done that monkeys could have made it, and yet still have a majority of players insisting that it was "perfectly balanced".

^ I think I know where you're getting... I'm sure the "balance" will be discussed when we actually get to press buttons. So, here's more brain movement from me:

With "Dynamic response" and RPS (rock, paper, scissors/nemesis) ship balance (SC2) I see a lot most of the online matches go like this:

Players pick their first ships. Loser (let's say P1) picks the perfect counter, winner (P2) frustrated, concedes, picks the counter, P1 frustrated, concedes, picks the counter etc. etc.

We're talking internet MP. Everyone and everything is extremely competitive. I play Hearthstone and FIFA... All people do is cheese, exploit and abuse the system. You always play anti-meta in HS and pace is king in FIFA.

Deck is better over internet IMO. (BUT, Dynamic response is still better in Hotseat (Local MP) just 'cause player's intent is different)

But, before you guys (Stardock) make your final decision, we (founders) need to test the ships' "balance". Maybe it's not RPS and there is no perfect counters (SPAZ). If yes, is it still fun to play somewhat similar in strength ships? In this case Dynamic response is fine over internet and most likely better than deck, since skill level is gonna play a bigger role.

Am I making sense here?

How are decks even built? Can we pick 1 type of ship? What's the deck size range? 5-10 ships? 3-6? Does dynamic response let you "buy" ships on the fly or you still have to make a pool/deck like in SC2 (just reiterating IBN here)?

I think I figured it out:

"Deck" means you pick a ship from a pre-built deck/pool of ships which is most likely less then 14 ships in size.

"Dynamic response" means you "buy" ships on the fly (you don't pre-select any ships at the match start).

So, both types let you pick a ship before engaging, except in "deck" you are limited to your initial picks and in DR you aren't. The final judgement on which system is better is still dependent on ships balance I'd say... 

God I hope not. That would make matches take forever. Choosing a ship is slow enough. Choosing a ship and doing math is even worse.

It isn't like local multiplayer, where you can just hit your opponent's enter key if they are taking too long to decide.

I am assuming it would work exactly how it did in the original, actually.  It is essentially the BPV system from SFB.  There is a lot of SFB in Star Control and I would be very surprised if either Fred or Paul didn't play SFB back then.  In fact, one of them had too, there is just too much SFB in it for that not to be true.  So I have a lot of actual experience with how this system works, and it is very simple.  Each of the ships has a point value.  The two players can set any point amount they want to play by, and/or you also have set values to play by (good idea for SC).  There will be "popular" point levels, like in SFB 150 BPV is very popular for dueling... that buys you a CA (i.e. USS Enterprise equivalent ship) and some options.  The same will be true in SC, for example I imagine a point level that buys you 6 medium size ships would be a popular super-melee point level.  Let's say that was 200 points.  So you might allow players to set any value they want, but also provide some suggested point levels to play by that might be 100, 200, 400, 800 just for the sake of example.  Then, like I mentioned in another post, Stardock could to a SF Battle Force type thing and let founders submit their "stock fleets" for those levels and they could pick the best of those to be the stock fleets for each side in the published game if they wanted.

So now, when you go to play a supermelee game you will pick a point level to play at, and then pick a line-up of ships within that point level.  The order of the lineup doesn't matter, because just like in original SC, you get to pick the next ship you want to use when you die.  This allows you to take a ship that is good at fighting the ship the enemy is currently in, and taking a lineup of ships that is diverse and allows you to counter anything your enemy might use is a big part of what makes a good lineup a good lineup.  For example, the only reason the Sofixti existed in the original was to get a cheap kill on an expensive ship like the Ur Quan, Khor Ah, Chmrrr.  If you could detonate and trade a 6 pt ship for a 30 pt ship... you've gone a long way towards winning.

The big advantage here is the freedom of ship design that this system allows.  The ships can be wildly different, and not "balanced" with each other at all.  Because half the game is in the strategic decisions the player is making in regards to ship lineup and how they use that lineup... like baseball!!!  And so you won't be hearing a lot of argument about "ship balance" in the finished game, as long as the ships are reasonable and have their nemesis ships, because the players know and understand that the ships aren't "balanced" (i.e. generally equal in capabilities).  That's not how it works.  The ships aren't supposed to be equal too each other, you as the player are supposed to use them better than your opponent to win and all the choices in how you do that are up to you.

There is near complete freedom in the design of the ships, because not only do they no have to be equal too each other... the entire point is that they not be.  It's actually hard to make a ship that is not "balanced" within this system, you actually have to try to do that.  Where the "balance" actually lies in this system is making each ship an equally valid choice, that there be a reason a player might want to use it in their lineup.  It's OK to have 2 or 3 ships that work the way that they do and are not really useful choices in supermelee for the sake of the single-player game, but most ships should have a reason to use them in supermelee.  That's what the "balance" is.  Even if it is just a use like the Sofixti was, a type of gamble almost, a one-trick-pony type of thing.  If everyone is picking the same three ships, that is a balance problem.

I'll need to think on this. Seems pretty game-changing.

I think I'd have to have a chance to try out both before I can decide.  Remember with dynamic response in MP, the other player(s) can easily counter the ship you brought in to counter just as easily.  It needs to be seen in action before any decision can be made I think

If you wanted to add something to the ship selection you could use "command ratings".  Classify each ship into categories like... Battleship (Ur Quan, Khor Ah, Chmrr), Battlecruiser (Utwig, Melnorme), Heavy Cruiser (Vux, Syreen, Yehat), Light Cruiser (Supox, Thradash, Pkunk), Destroyer (Earth Cruiser, Sofixti).  Then assign each class a "command rating" or, how many ships it can command.  So maybe a BB can command 9 ships, a BC 7 ships, a CA 6, a CL 4 and DDs 2.  Then you would have a point range for each class, to vary the size/power of the "fleet" under that ship.  A player can have fewer ships than allowed, but not more, and can't pick any ships that are larger than the command ship.  This adds more too it, but its still really the same system.  Except now you pick a command ship class, then one of 2 or 3 point levels available in that class or just the ability to set any point level withing a range appropriate for that class of command ship.  This also keeps the bigger ships out of the smaller fights if you are wanting to do that for balance reasons.

^ That is way more complicated than it needs to be. A point buy system and a maximum ship count is all that is needed.

There wasn't anything wrong with SC2's system (aside from some balance issues that the 3rd party mod attempted to fix).

Why are we trying to reinvent the wheel here? More importantly, why is SD spending money to reinvent the wheel?

#1 Fleet building: Make a deck vs. Dynamic response

We have both but only one way is going to survive to release.  One path lets you set up the order in which your reinforcements arrive in battle when a ship is lost. The other path lets you pick the next ship after seeing what your enemy has on the board.

Uhh... is there a cross between the two? I don't want to choose my ships and have them be locked in a specific order... but I also don't want to choose which ship I pick from the entire list. Part of the awesomeness was the gamble that you took by choosing your lineup (but NOT the order) beforehand and see how you can make them work against the enemy. So, the third option should be: 

• You choose ALL your ships up front
• When one dies, you get to pick from the ships you chose, which one's up next

#2 Solo vs. Teams

We may offer both modes but that depends on the schedule.  Only one is likely to survive into the beta though.  One mode has 3 on 3 Super Melee with the AI handling two teammates for you.  You can instantly jump into control of an ally with the tab key.  The other mode is 1 v 1.

I've said it before - there's a million games where you're fighting a ton of other ships. There's only one that has 1 v 1 ship-combat. Only one. And that single one, is Star Control II and there's never been another, ever, in all of history. Do you want to be unique and stand out? Or just part of the massive throng of multiple-ship-combat games. Stardock should be confident that Super Melee's ships are designed well enough to still thrilling, within the confines of 1 on 1 dogfighting.

With that said, if you're including co-op? I'd be down to fight with just a friend or two on my side against more than one enemy ship. Oh shit, CO-OP. During the main storyline. That would be insane (though highly implausible). I assume the multiplayer portion is for Super Melee mode only. If you can co-op against the computer, I'd be down with that. 

#3 Camera 

The camera can be angled any way you want it.  The question is whether the camera should, by default, zoom out to show all the ships at all times or leave it free form so the player can zoom in and rotate the map as they see fit.

Again, I'd like to stress sticking close to the SCII roadmap set forth 25 years ago, when possible - or when it would be pointless to change things. Do STAR CONTROL. Star Control II always showed your adversary on screen, clunkily zooming out to include your enemy when he was far away, zooming in real tight when he was close. The tension was PALPABLE. It was white-knuckled and frantic when you could both fit on the same screen, all the way zoomed in. You knew he was close, and he was going to destroy you if he had lasers or the dreaded Ilwrath flamethrower. I would jump out of my seat when that camera zoomed in, because I knew he was within breathing distance. It was insane, it was frantic, and it was goooooooood. It also drilled into your head that you are LOCKED INTO a battle to the death, and there WAS no escaping. Ever. 

So my question would be - why? Why change something so good and truly unique? Something so special? Why change it to be "just like every other game"?

1. I definitely prefer the deck concept. This adds more complexity to super melee and counters the innate imbalance that Star Control has. Sure, this particular ship counters 4 or 5 other ships and would wipe the floor with them, but it didn't get drawn, buddy. Stack the deck? Welp, now you don't have the points for anything else, so this makes the player make more interesting choices when constructing fleets other than "14 of this ship. Bam, done."

2.  I'd like both options, honestly, but clearly 1v1 needs to be done before release.

3. Here's the thing, there's a concept in game development, "Form follows function". SC2 and SC1 used top-down not because that was their goal, but because it was familiar. It was what was done in the vast majority of vehicle games at the time, because it worked. Hell, even RPGs used top down in most cases. However, we've gotten to the point where players have the choice of how they view their games now. Bethesda's Fallouts allow you first person and 3rd person views, and 3rd person doesn't lock your camera. World of Tanks has complete camera freedom. Even Stellaris has a free-range camera, and it doesn't need one at all. You know why? Because the player's familiarity, and player choice > everything else. As we've said, you have to hook a player within the first 15-20 minutes,  and if it feels awkward, clunky, or unwieldy, the hook won't take hold. 

So I'm putting my money on Free-form camera control.

^ But why are we stuck in this whole, "Let's do what everyone else does these days" loop? Star Control was a certain, very special thing, for many, many people. If we give it a freeform camera, that can even follow you over your shoulder, and not include enemies on screen... doesn't it cease to be Star Control and instead become... any number of space games? Freelancer? Rebel Galaxy? Star Citizen? No Man's Sky? Galaxy on Fire?

Decide what made Star Control special, and keep those things. "Upgrade" everything else for a modern audience.

What I'm worried about? Legitimately worried about? Fallout 3/NV/4's 3rd person camera SUCKED and was wholly useless in a firefight. What if the core gameplay of top-down Star Control gets the same, half-assed treatment, and even though they include it, you're severely hindered playing that way?

It didn't look like their deck proposal was random draw.

Because everyone else does it for a reason. It works. Some are clunky, but it's not simply because "everyone does it". That's an incredibly naive way to look at it. I mean, if you want to reinvent the wheel, that's fine, but how does this impact you, when free-form can just as easily be top-down. And I feel like you didn't read the first part of that. Form follows function. FORM FOLLOWS FUNCTION. Style isn't as important as functionality, in the grand scheme of things. IF something is very pretty, but unusable, it's useless, get rid of it. I also do not  feel that top-down was uniquely star control. Star Control was one of many games that used that, at the time, but we've learned and evolved.

Because they don't think the old Star Control SuperMelee is a viable title in the current marketplace. It's a pretty clear message they are giving us, and it isn't a new message that they just sprang on us. No Top Down. No Point Buy. No 1vs1. No single planet. No local multiplayer. 

What we are getting is Star Control 3 Part Deux which is targeting millennials who never played the originals.

Edit: Sorry... Feeling a little jaded right now.

I will refute your statement with one (obviously very personal) explanation: Star Control II's top down combat is more fun for me, than Freelancer or Wing Commander or NMS or Star Citizen or Elite:Dangerous or Rebel Galaxy or the new SPAZ 2. MAYBE that's just me. Or MAYBE Star Control is special for certain reasons. I'm only relating that I think we should identify what's important about Star Control II and it being so special, to so many people, and NOT change those things. 

For the record - Fallout 1 and 2 were WAY better than the modern Fallouts. Diablo II with its non-3d graphics and static camera were WAY better than Diablo III. SPAZ 1 was WAY better than SPAZ 2. I feel like the followups lost a lot of what made the previous games special.

I agree, but I know SD does not. They are ignoring their core audience that wanted a remake because they arrogantly think that they can do better than Paul and Fred in all areas. 

^ But therein lies disaster. By ALL means, do better than Star Control's creators. PLEASE. In almost every way. Better graphics, better story, better controls, better 'splosions, better mysteries, better customization, better balance, better everything - EXCEPT the things that made the core game fun. Don't make a conversation wheel that says a one word hint about your response, a la Dragon Age/Mass Effect. Don't make generic pewpewpew laser weapons for every ship. Don't make humanoid, standard aliens that are generic and devoid of humor. Don't make colonization or base-building. Don't make this a trading game where you play the market for better prices in different systems. Don't make quest markers that lead you deep into a tomb, to the exact treasure chest containing the item you need, even though you've never been there before and have no clue there would be a chest in that exact spot, a la Skyrim. Don't make combat a tiresome, needlessly complicated affair a la Elite:Dangerous. These other games are good and fun IN THEIR OWN RIGHT - I loved them all! But they have no business being systems in Star Control, specifically.

In fact, now that there are a lot more voices on here, I'm thinking maybe I'll make a thread about the Ten Commandments of Star Control. I think that could be a good place to sound off on the developers hopefully not committing the sins of lying, stealing, committing adultery or making conversation wheels for people who don't like to read.....

^ Make sure it's not 5 screens long.