SuperMelee Duration Limitation

My opinion is that this is a tough issue to solve, and there is no easy way to solve it. I truly want to hear how the SCO team plans to tackle the issue.

A stiff time limit would not work, because it would be difficult to determine a victor via an algorithm if neither ship scores a hit.

A gradual damage field would not work either unless the game enforced that fast ships had low crew. (SC2 did not enforce this across the board.)

A gradual ship speed normalization would help, but it would still make it so that teleporting ships like the Measured could stay away from enemies.

Doing nothing isn't an option because it would make me want to not play SuperMelee against gg-ez-pz players and other internet trolls.

(Incoming obligatory Kavik SFB post.)

Haha.

The screen wrapping is what "solves" that problem, actually.  It's not that it solves the problem, it is just one of the ways of doing it.  It is the easiest, and most free, way of dealing with it.  Infinite space is really not workable, as fun anyway, for a wide variety of weapons/systems and ship designs.  That is really the best way of thinking of the problem in the most general sense, how restricting it is to the design of the ships.  So an "open map" that is infinite, the most realistic option, works the worst by far for a wide variety of reasons.  The obvious seeking weapon issues have been mentioned before... consider massed proximity photons from a fleet that never lets you get within even medium range.  Infinite maps have lots of problems when it comes to fun, realism is a completely different thing, but in games you want fun that looks like realism.  A closed map with some kind of border, confined to deal with speed issues, works very well across the spectrum of problems... assuming all of the ships are designed to work with it.  This isn't easy to do, and limits weapons/systems and ship designs somewhat.  Not as much as an open map, but it is still somewhat limiting.  

A map where the enemy ship is brought back to you really means their is actually a point where a ship's speed begins to work against it.  And "map size" (more a range, in this case) is still used to control the problem you are talking about above.  This is the "most freeing" and easy way to balance this, because even "stupid-insane speed" can be used and it doesn't really break anything.  I actually think they should have a ship with a "screen-shaking rocket booster" that lets it temporarily go really fast... it will only come right back too you.  This forces the fight to whatever range they choose, you can never get farther away than what-ever range they set for the "screen wrap".

Another thing is that screen resolutions are much higher than in SC2.  So that thing with running into planets you can't see until you hit them won't exist here.  Your ship won't need to be at the edge of the screen, you'll see that stuff coming because of the higher screen res to let you see in that direction.

Kavik,

Can you explain to me how this is going to stop me from taking a fast ship and not engaging you? What is going to stop me from making your game playtime miserable?

I feel like you come from a world where there are no malicious players. Said players are not invited back to play a board game campaign again. You don't have that luxury with online multiplayer unless you only play with friends.

Because you are just going to come right back too me if you are going too fast.  There is no solution to the speed issues when it comes to making it fun.  I see what you are saying now.  In this, if you have a significant speed advantage, you can "dance on the edge of the neutral zone" out on the edge of where it is about to screen wrap.  But this is "self correcting" in the nemesis design (or "rock, paper, scissors") that SC already uses.  This is a good example of why you need to be able to choose your next ship from the pool you have selected.  Any ship with a significant speed advantage over another is usually going to be a "nemesis ship" for that ship, and this is one of the reasons why.  So when you die you will take a faster ship against it.  A slower ship that can shoot long range can get shots at you if you are doing this too him, and health does not regenerate.

What you are describing is a problem in some matchups if a player wants to make it be a problem, but there is no perfect solution.  Border edges like we most often use in SFB are a great solution at the slower pace of SFB, but don't work as well in the high-speed true real-time environment of SC.  They make anything with seeking weapons, just as one example, very hard to balance because either they are very ineffective unless you trap them against the wall, or they work well in the map center and are devastating if you trap them against the wall.  That is a much bigger and more limiting problem than a problem that is only a problem when someone knows they are being a jerk:-)

But he won't be going too fast. He'll be going fast enough to just make you Alt+F4 your game.

And, actually, in SFB terms (:-))... This is how the Klingons fight in SFB.  The core of their tactics that many other races use as well.  It is the most common "opening gambit" in any 1v1 fight.  We call this "The Klingon Saber Dance" or "The Oblique Attack".  Most often both players are seeking to do this on the first pass of any 1v1 fight no matter what faction they are playing, and the "Oblique Option Point" is one of the most discussed aspects of the tactics of SFB.  It all revolves around differences in speed, what range your effective firepower is, and too many things to get into here.  The Klingons are specifically designed to take the most advantage of this knowledge, it became who they are within the SFU, but it is really the basis of all tactical knowledge within that system.  "Speed is life" as we say... after stealing it from the Israeli Air Force:-)

Everything really comes down to speed within this genre, and in real life, really.

I snorted when I read this. Bravo. Yes, this is it exactly.

Sure, but you don't give any solutions to this other than to suicide into a planet and choose a ship with homing projectiles. (And even that isn't a solution against the Arilou Skiff in SC2. They can just park behind the planet or hyperspace away.)

Like I said, there are no complete solutions to speed problems that I know of.  This wrapping screen just does the most to eliminate it.  The ships always have to be designed to work with the map.  The only direct solution, other than as small of a map as possible, is to ensure all ships have some means of dealing with this situation.  This is probably not the case in the current designs.

Some indirect ways would be as simple as a 3 minute time limit on battles and if nobody is destroyed both players move on to their next ship.  This is the problem of "refusal to engage".  In an SFB tournament this is one of the first questions asked of a game that has gone to the 3 hour limit, "Which side was more aggressive in engaging".  If, for example, you were a Romulan who spent half the time cloaked you will pretty much lose the decision for that alone.  This is an example of how there is no complete solution to these speed issues.  That's why one of my first posts here was about the Kaufman Retrograde and Map size.  This is the most difficult aspect of making this work, and there is no perfect solution that works for everything.  Which is why the best answer is that you design the ships specifically for how the map/scenario works.  That is the best solution we ever came up with.

I keep thinking about that old arcade robot football game.  The ball would glow brighter and brighter until it exploded and took out your QB if you didn't throw it soon enough.  Maybe there could be something like that.  The "true balance" solution, of course, is for all ships to have a way of dealing with the situation.  Mostly the slower ships have a problem with this.  The Dar Nath gravitic torpedo works for him, you probably can't do this to him already.  I like solving it through ship design more than a timer.

My next ship is the same as my current ship. The ship after that is the same as the last two. If I make you lose 3, 6, 9, 12, or 15 minutes of your time, I win.

And I don't think you could come up with an AI formula that would make sense and not be exploitable.

I am afraid that you may be correct in this. If they cannot devise an equalizing system, they will have to Nerf fast ships.

Question to Stardock: Are you going to keep ship balance issues separate? Will my exploiting ships in SuperMelee Multiplayer cause you to Nerf ships in the single player campaign? (I hate when this happens.)

They don't have to nerf the fast ships.  Through using the smallest map that is still fun, and designing the ships so that each has a means of hitting you with a weapon (health does not regenerate) or getting within range of you in some way, or dealing with that situation in some way.  This same problem existed in SC2, it is no different here.  I think I can help solve it better, even completely if they were willing to go as far as changing some current ship abilities since all ships probably don't currently have a means of dealing with this.

To better explain the situation, in the classic way... "Speed is life."  More specifically, "Speed gives you the initiative."  A slight speed advantage is useful, but a significant speed advantage gives a ship complete control of the situation.  The faster ship will choose when and where exchanges of fire will take place, and there is nothing at all that the slower ship can do about it.  

This is the core of the issue.  The best way to deal with this that our community came up with is, as I have said, restrict the size of the map and design the ships for the map and how they work on that map.

How about a sub light fuel gauge for fleet ships?

Bigger slower ships would theoretically contain more fuel, allowing them to prolong battles

Faster smaller ships wouldn't have as much fuel capacity and would have to get it done in a very short battle

Upon depletion of the fuel escape would be impossible and it would be up to luck & skill compliment on the ship on if it could survive close quarters combat with the other ship.  In the event of both ships depleting their fuel outside of weapons range of each other... maybe a random event to end it in a tie such as a freak meteor shower or pirate raid or something.

I understand the concern, but this was never a huge issue in classic melee despite the fact that faster ships were always outrunning slower ones. This could be seen in AI battles all the time when difficulty was on max; the computer was always trying to outpace you. But eventually someone slips up and there's an opportunity to close the gap and exchange fire. It wasn't always a perfect system because some battles (particularly slow ships with long range weapons like the Chenjesu and Mycon) could become prolonged battles that felt like stalemates. Nevertheless, the match would eventually resolve itself.

That being said, one thing that springs to mind in classic melee that would interfere with this dynamic were the environmental gameplay elements and random events, namely in the form of the planet and asteroids. I often felt some of the asteroids were spawned directly in my path or thrown in my direction if I was spending too much time fleeing and not fighting. I think if Stardock could expand on the idea of environmental hazards (or even buffs) then they could really shake up the combat to an even greater degree and make this sort of "kiting" behavior naturally difficult to maintain.

Another option, maybe as an alternate gameplay mode for PVP melee, could be a timed match, for those who are really that concerned about games taking too long. A lot of one-on-one fighting games have timed modes for exactly these reasons. I would imagine not everyone would want to play with a timer, but if there are people who want to abuse gameplay then perhaps Stardock could have some kind of metric for tracking how long one player engages or avoids combat, and offending players who spend all their time avoiding engagement will forfeit their ship and it will basically be considered lost, while the pursuing player who is more active gets to keep their ship for the next round.

Pyro's idea of slower ships having more travel range is interesting too, although I'm not sure speed and a fuel-limited range should necessarily be correlated. Maybe this idea could be yet another type of "fuel limited" play mode? My real desire with this new generation of melee would be to have lots of option customization, to the point that players can decide which handicaps they'd like to enforce when the match starts, so if they don't want to play "standard melee" they can basically create their own little custom game modes with whatever house rules they want.

Typically the faster ships should have a shorter range weapon, while slower ships should have a longer range, or at least a way to neutralize the speed difference (VUX).

If the concern is for online multiplayer, why not have a match length option?  Set your desired match length from a drop-down and queue up for the matchmaking service.

Neat idea. MP ships would have to have a fuel gauge then.

Here's what I came up with. A time limit (let's say 2 minutes) and behind-the-scene Aggro Meter (AM).

It works like this:

If the angle between two ships and their movement vector is greater than 90 degrees, then AM doesn't go up - ships are not trying to close the distance = are not trying to engage.

If the angle between two ships and their movement vector is lesser than 90 degrees, then AM goes up like electric meter - ships are trying to close the distance between each other = trying to engage.

If both ships are intact after 2 min. The victory goes to the one whose AM is higher. It can be exposed, but it doesn't have to.

Obviously if both ships aren't moving from the start to the end both players get defeat (inspired by HS [shamelessly stolen]).

Disclaimer: This idea was developed by me on Nov 9 2016. If Stardock ends up using it, I don't know who came up with it.

Just so you all know... When SuperMelee comes out, I am going to do my best to frustrate all of you at least once. It's best to get it out of the way now in early development rather than in post-release. It isn't anything personal, and I apologize in advance. I want to nail this before the real griefers show up.

If you make the arena smaller, it only increases the level of finesse I need to troll you by not engaging. Parking the skiff behind the planet and using it as a shield was a valid defense in SC2. It would work here, too. 

What happens when you are coasting, though? Does fuel get consumed? It would have to, or else you could coast to victory. If fuel gets consumed no matter what you do, this is essentially the speed normalization idea I mentioned.

If the game was going to keep itself limited to ships like in SpaceWar, this would work. However, there are many SC2 ships that would get penalized for not facing your opponent. The Mmrnmhrm, Humans, Spathi, and the Arilou would fall into this category.

This is one of the reasons why I am against smart systems that try to figure out if you are actually trying to win or if you are just running away. It limits ship designs significantly. It's akin to Overwatch punting players playing Widow/Ava or Bastion.

Not necessarily, and that only makes a difference if someone was playing normally.

Would you still get matched with players who didn't want a time limit? Plus, think about 2 years down the road when MP is relatively dead.

That's the whole point of that system!! To penalize you for stalling. With Human and Spathi ships you don't care for AM, you care for time the most. You have to find a way to kill your opponent before timer runs out. And you can't make them chase you (if they decide not to), just 'cause that's what your ship design dictates. Nobody in MP will be playing by your rules.

Some ship designs WILL clash and there's nothing you'll be able to do about it. Example: Arilou vs Arilou. How the heck are you gonna make THAT work?

AM doesn't even matter if you kill your opponent (that's why it doesn't have to be exposed). Isn't it why you're playing MP? Tweaking ship speed and/or combat time to balance the experience can easily be done during alpha, beta, kappa stages.

Do you think random trolls will be a problem 2 years from now?  I don't.  Seems like a good reason for local multiplayer to be a thing.

I think finding players in general will be a problem 2 years from now. This trolling will happen during the game's activity window.

If you play as Spathi and damage but don't kill your opponent in 2 minutes, but they were always facing you and you were never facing them, it doesn't seem fair that you should lose the match. Such a system would discourage the use of some ships because they don't generate aggro.

^ you can tweak weapon damage/missiles duration on those ships in MP then.

Hmm.... I don't like the idea of tweaking these ships to fit within this aggro or time limit system. Feels like a cart-before-the-horse scenario.

Can you come up with a different system that adapts to the ship rather than having ships adapt to the system?

Hehe...

It seems so simple... but it is almost certainly the most complex thing in all of gaming to understand.  This really is entertaining, though:-)

"Speed is life."  More specifically, "Speed gives you the initiative."  A slight speed advantage is useful, but a significant speed advantage gives a ship complete control of the situation.  The faster ship will choose when and where exchanges of fire will take place, and there is nothing at all that the slower ship can do about it.

Restrict the retrograde with map size, and then design the ships for the map.  Everything else is a distraction.

I believe it could be handled a few different ways, much of which would be dependent on ship type...

All* ships would continue on in the direction at the velocity they were moving at prior to losing fuel, at which point they would have very few options to slow down or change course.  For example maneuvering jets or said equivalent and use of a cannon like the Druuge to obtain velocity in a different direction.  This could lead to an interesting win scenario by getting your enemy's ship entrapped in or destroyed by certain Gravity Wells "Suns, Planets, Black Holes, Etc"

*All Ships being defined as those following what resembles known physics.  Any ships designed to move via a method outside of our understanding of physics is left up to the developers prerogative.

this was just part of my mind set by a mesh of different technological lore from different games/shows.

Huge ships outside of those specifically designed for war would tend to balance Life Support, Speed, Cargo Space, Weapons and Protective equipment to varying degrees.

IE: Colony Ships, Precurser Utility Ships, Death Star, Massive Cargo Fleet

Medium & Large sized ships aka the ones we would be sending into battle I won't say much, the ship design ideas thread is pretty awesome & fleshed out.

Tiny ships, this could be anything from planetary exploration to ship to ship combat dogfighters

With the dog fighters generally you find them as fast / agile / short range with minimal protection and designed for hit & run tactics in short battles.

^ Who wins if both ships run out of fuel and unable to finish each other off?

Draw or Dual Loss - some sort of random cosmic accident like a rogue black hole, meteor storm, pirates, or something else comes and shreds the ships. -- Original idea from earlier up the replies.

I also like the thought of treating it as a battlefield medic would, suppression fire is laid down by the entirety of both fleets and a medic / tugboat / repair ship would run to retrieve it for fixing up, but would have a chance of failure causing the ship to be lost & your lifeline ship to be lost.

Hmm maybe a surrender mechanic to allow for the fleets to retrieve the ship in question to be repaired at a later point in time and finish the battles off after the ship has been rescued or abandoned.