May Update Feedback

I'm here.

Well, I'll post some. There doesn't seem to be a WHOLE lot going on on the discord either.

I loved this update, loads of cool stuff to read through and much eye candy. A lot of the discussion of the game and design philosophy is stuff Brad has shared before, so I don;t have a lot to say on that except "you're doing good as far as I can see, keep up the good work".

The sector map comparison SC2 to "what we can do in 2017" I assume the 2017 is representative, because it has a TON fewer stars.

The ship building screen makes me squee. I had been assuming all along that in order to get my own ships into the game, I was going to have to design them in something like 3dsmax and then import them into SC:O. Having an actual ship builder in the game engine is very cool. I guess my own question around that is, OK, I can construst a ship and make it look however I want. There's going to be Enterprises and Millennium Falcons and Enormous Space Penises galore. What about adding the special abilities and weapons? Many of the existing ships will have cannons and rockets etc, so I assume those will be in the builder, so I can make my ships go pew pew, but what about if I want to add Orz-style marines who jump out and attack the other ship, or homing rockets that then gloop down the other ship and slow it, or a rotatable turret that I control by holding down alt-fire (ala Orz) etc. I'm wondering how robust the ship designer will be for adding features that don;t simply already exist in one of the ships that come with the game?

Planet landings etc look good. I like how you have combined the best of both worlds with having a bar versus blocks for "how much X there is" and now it's a bar made up of blocks, each made up of a tiny bar, I think it's a nice aesthetic. 

I was really looking forward to seeing how the main ship looks now, but both views are marked "Old Ship Design". Any chance of seeing some shots of how it looks now? Also, a question on that - you say "Over time, however, through many adventures you will be able to either beef it up or be able to afford to have a grand fleet but not both" - I assume this means "within one playthrough of the main universe" and it doesn't mean that I will need to play the game over and over, essentially NewGame+ ing it every time to get a better and better ship? I would expect that in a single playthrough of the SC:O campaign I will build my ship (and/or fleet) up for the big final confrontation etc. And is the intention that when people make new universes etc that I would take my ship and fleet into those universes and keep "levelling" or would each universe someone makes essentially be it's own start-to-finish game?

Camera: I really like the top-down view for super melee. Can this be an option rather than the almost side-on view?

Finally: beta keys and reviews. Is there any reason why founders couldn't create a new Steam account (assuming they have two email addresses) to play the beta on but then buy the game on their other/regular Steam account where they can then provide a glowing review. That seems like it would work fine to me? I would certainly be happy to do that.

"Over time, however, through many adventures you will be able to either beef it up or be able to afford to have a grand fleet but not both"

Why is that?  What's the fleet look like if it's "grand"?   What stops you from both?" Limited resources?   Limited time?  Trade offs like: Big gun = -2 fleet slots?  What's your angle?

Also does "many adventures" mean many playthroughs of the same universe or many separate visits to multiple universes?  How do you define an "Adventure?"

My feedback has been focused mostly on what we have in hand currently.  I think I've covered 6 ships and have quick notes on a couple more.  I've spoken my mind regarding hyperspace.  Everything else seems like things I agree with.  Me agreeing with SD over and over isn't valuable to them.

I mean, I'll miss hyperspace, but I can live with it. It's not like it added a massive important facet to gameplay, really.

I enjoyed how casually the fact that Hyperspace travel was brought up as though it's some kind of nuisance alongside the fact that it's being removed in its entirety. Am I to understand that one of the most disengaging aspects of SC3 (clicking on a star system to be instantly warped to it, or something akin to that) is being adopted here? Because I certainly don't recall this ever being a point of discussion or polling among founders.

I don't think you need to suggest to founders to "go back and play SC2 and fly around in Hyperspace" as though we aren't familiar with it, only to unilaterally shit on it as being "not fun" and "frustrating", neither of which are adjectives I'd have used to describe that part of the game. Found this to be extremely condescending to fans, and to the legacy of the game. If the problem with traveling between stars was some kind of tedious chore, there are likely a hundred ways to improve on that to make it less frustrating or time consuming (just like what's been done with planet exploration) before resorting to amputating it from the game completely. I've a feeling that if this had been an idea proposed to the founders, it would have been met with very little positive response.

And if it was considered "frustrating" and "not fun" then why was it a "tough call" to remove it? Because it was already completed? Sorry to call a spade a spade, but this is completely circular logic because these are contradictory statements that conflict with one another. If it was so unbearable to play, then it would not have been a difficult decision to remove it regardless of how far along it was in development. And if it was unbearable, then that's squarely on Stardock for not improving on it. Outdated gameplay mechanics can always be modernized. This comes off as an excuse and reflects more poorly on Stardock than on SC2's design philosophy.

SC2 hyperspace was definitively more enjoyable then SC3 click and get to destination. And great background music helped a lot.

The question is with what was Hyperspace journey replaced with in Origins?

.

Map travel in adventure exploration game can be fun. Good example I can think of is King's Bounty remakes, or old classic Pirates.

On another note, was super melee music from previous vault update iteration replaced with the new one found in May update?

Or do we have multiple battle tracks?

Actually, you know, you're right. I was thinking quasispace while writing hyperspace. I could live without quasispace (warp points between starbases or whatever would do as well) but hyperspace would seem an odd one to remove - I wouldn't like to go back to just jumping from system to system like in TheStarConThatMustNotBeNamed...

I do not get the removing of hyperspace either.  The only people finding it frustrating are people with extreme ADD.  Speaking as a programmer myself, that is the kind of excuse I give when I do not want to program something, or the excuse I make to meet a time line....

See the other current live thread. It now appears that hyperspace hasn't gone gone, so much as changed a but (for the much better).

I'm curious about the same thing.  If I wanted to design a ship that looks like a giant pizza, what's the likelihood that I'll also be able to blast other ships with tomato sauce and spinning pepperonis?

the background photos in the may update were really nice.  beautiful!

the music was great.  loving the vibe.

So... long update, long comment.

1. Congratulations, Brad on being Lead Designer. As you said, this is probably the most "flak-drawing" position on a game. Good luck.
2. I agree about the Mass Effect point. I love Mass Effect (probably because of its roots in Star Control) but the trilogy nailed itself into a corner as far as further development is concerned. Andromeda was a "let's ditch everything by going to another galaxy" Stargate Universe kind of a thing but less good. I'm glad you're thinking about the future.
3. I'm a game developer by trade and am used to working with certain tools. While I did find some tools in the past to be stupendous (StarCraft's mission editor), I found others to be annoying (Hammer). I just hope yours will be user friendly and easy to use.
4. You know what? If there's enough lore there to justify a book, I'll fucking read it! I still have the entire Star Control II backstory printed out somewhere that I think is just too cool.
5. I also agree that the Super/Hyper/Ultra Melee is one of the core pillars of Star Control and if it's not amazing, it will tarnish the whole project. That is why I want to play with it as soon as possible. I like the ship design but it's not a big thing for me. Right now, the screenshot of the actual melee doesn't feel quite right for me. But I am interested in SCO's TTP (Time to Penis).
6. I am also concerned about the removal of Hyperspace travel. I loved it and auto transport feels wrong. I won't bother reiterating the reasons others have already given but I will mention that I think we should all get to see it before it's final decision time. And I also think the Hyperspace music in Star Control II is one of the best in the game (I consider it the unofficial theme of the game) and I would hate to give up on that.
7. In regards to all the editors? Will they be available in the Alpha and Beta versions? Because I would like to give impressions on those too.
8. I am also interested in whether the limitation on improving ship vs. fleet will be time or resources or something else. Because maybe there should be an option to grind to get better stats. Something that won't be incredibly difficult but still take time is a good option to have for those of us who just aren't very good at video games despite how much we love them.
9. I really have no suggestion about the Steam thing, like I said on the other thread. It's something that will have to be negotiated with Steam. But there should be an option to allow certain accounts to have a game for a specific price or specific discount. I thing the Hard Reset guys did it. In that case, you could give us simple executable packages for Alphas and Betas and when the game launches on Steam, give a 99% discount to all Founders. I'm willing to pay a dollar or so more if it means Steam will recognise me as a paying user.
10. I like the alien designs but at three already (besides the Humans), I think you should aim for a less bipedal bibrachial form factor. It makes the aliens seem much more alien.

^^^ Point #5. "But I am interested in SCO's TTP (Time to Penis)."

Um, what?  

Quoting Van_Adel, reply 15

^^^ Point #5. "But I am interested in SCO's TTP (Time to Penis)."

Um, what?  

I'm not entirely positive, but I DO think that's the official nautical measure of time until someone creates a penis-ship...

I am pretty sure that the balance there will be your decision to build a "pure warship" or a "carrier".  The issue they are trying to get around is that if you build up the mothership, it will be so powerful that you will never use the "fighters" (ie the Star Control ships).  So a natural, and easy way to handle that issue is to let the player decide if they want to play through the game using the Star Control ships or the "Uber Mothership of Death".  So you can focus on aquiring a wide variety of "satellite ships" or you can focus on building the mothership, in which case you will only be able to afford 1 or 2 satellite ships to have with it instead of 6 or 8 of them.  I am pretty sure that is what they meant by that.

This also creates a kind of extra, unspoken, difficulty level within the game because the game will definitely be harder using satellite ships.  Obviously, your pumped up mothership will be like easy mode.  This was a problem in SCII, there wasn't really any reason to ever use anything but the mothership once you had a few upgrades on it.  With what they are talking about, it will be the player's choice as to which way to go... instead of the mothership upgrades just making all the other ships obsolete and useless.  So with this, it is your choice as a player to make the satellite ships obsolete and useless by turning the "carrier" into a "battleship" instead.

I'll go with the "carrier build" because I specifically want to use the wide variety of satellite ships, and have to learn which ships are best to use in each situation, it's all far more interesting too me that way.  But, like I said before, the "battleship" route also creates an almost "easy mode".  The balance has to be for the satellite ships, which makes the upgraded mothership practically god-like.

I started thinking about this and realized there are some issues here I can help with, so Brad and Stardock can avoid wasting a lot of time figuring this out on their own. The main problems with doing it this way, and I do think this is the best way to deal with the problem that existed in SCII, are that there is a middle ground and that replacement “fighters” will cost the “carrier player” a lot more over the course of the game than “battleship upgrades”.

The first problem has no solution. Most players, and any who are trying to min/max the most powerful setup they can, won't build the battleship or the carrier. They will build a “hybrid carrier” or, in terms everyone will easily understand... the Battlestar Galactica. A ship that is half warship and half carrier. Instead of choosing a battleship with 2 fighters or a carrier with 8 fighters, they will build a heavy cruiser with 4 fighters. “Hybrid carriers” are always the most powerful design for a starship, so this is what any min/maxing players will wind up doing. They'll build the mothership to be just as powerful as it needs to be to be the “Trump Ship” that breaks the rock, paper, scissors balance and has little trouble beating any ship in the game and then carry as many fighters as they can after getting that going. There is no solution to this, the designer just needs to be aware that this is actually the build that most players are likely to go with.

The second problem does have a solution. Building the pure warship is going to be a lot cheaper than regularly replacing satellite ships. This has been an issue in other games and I already know that it will exist a problem of economic balance and how to fix it. About half the satellite ships should be said to be readily available too the ship, because the ship is allied with the production facilities for those ships. These ships receive “free fighter replacement” meaning that you only have to buy it once and it is replaced for free whenever you lose it. The other ones, the more rare and better fighters you can carry, are from species you have less of a relationship with and you have to buy another one any time you lose it. This basic concept is how you solve the economic balance issue that you are going to run into doing it this way.

I hope this helps save you guys some time and money having to realize these things on your own as you go...