I just read this quote from Tynan in the kickstarter comments.
QuoteCurrently battles are kind of micromanagey; I'm considering ways to make them less directly controlled.
I'm just curious what people think about this general direction with regards to combat. I haven't played the game yet so I'm actually not sure what would feel right to me. I guess I just read so many topics that talk about increasing the complexity of combat that I was forming an image in my head that involved more direct tactical control. But those are just user suggestions, of course, and don't necessarily reflect where Tynan is actually going with the game.
Thoughts?
The first thing I think is that this thread belongs to the Suggestions sub-forum ::)
For the second thing... I already touched on the subject (http://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=234.msg3520#msg3520) of colonists control.
My point is that the game might get kind of boring if all we have to do in the game is from a distant perspective, as it is already for the most part: we pinpoint things/areas to build/clean/repair/mine/whatever, and, depending on the colonists' allowed skills (and their priorities), they do it at their earliest convenience.
We're not in the action, we are following the story.
Now, the battles are different.
Once we draft colonists, we are in control.
The colonist are doing what we order as we order it.
We have a direct incidence on the story.
We *are* the story.
Of course, it can become a mess with too many colonists to handle, but I do like the idea of that part of the challenge.
In the end, I'm not advocating that every (non-drafted) action should be totally controllable by us, but I think it's important to keep a part of the game were we are more than tinkering bystanders.
Well I viewed it as a discussion, not a suggestion thread, but if someone wants to move it, that's fine.
You make a lot of good points. One question I have, what percentage of gameplay time is spent dealing with battles?
As long as you ask people to discuss about their opinion of a part of the gameplay, it will most likely differ to that of Tynan's, thus becoming suggestions ;)
Regarding the time spent in battles, I'll give you a "false" answer: it depends on which AI you choose.
Testers might be able to be more specifics with their own experiences.
Quote from: nomadseifer on October 14, 2013, 06:38:55 AM
I just read this quote from Tynan in the kickstarter comments.
QuoteCurrently battles are kind of micromanagey; I'm considering ways to make them less directly controlled.
I'm just curious what people think about this general direction with regards to combat. I haven't played the game yet so I'm actually not sure what would feel right to me. I guess I just read so many topics that talk about increasing the complexity of combat that I was forming an image in my head that involved more direct tactical control. But those are just user suggestions, of course, and don't necessarily reflect where Tynan is actually going with the game.
Thoughts?
This game has a really deep combat system that absolutely rewards micro-management of units during combat. I find myself trying to optimize outcome by doing things like having my colonists run in and out of cover to draw fire away from turrets - even if they don't have a weapon. In a game like this where you can pause at any time to issue orders, combat at later stages in the game has the potential to become a circlejerk of infinitesimal micromanagement where you pause, issue 20 orders, unpause for 1 second and then rinse and repeat. It just doesn't quite feel right to have that level of control during combat and only combat when the engine just seems to accentuate macro-management in general. It's going to become a more cohesive experience when combat is a little more streamlined and will HUGELY benefit the game. I don't know about what he is planning to do specifically, but I can throw my chips in the bucket and tell you it's going to make it a lot more fun. What this game needs is a combat system that allows you to mostly just test the effectiveness of your preparations as your colonists face the challenge.
I want to ask questions like "Are these solid positions for my turrets? How favorable is my base layout, defensively? Which colonists should have this weapon equipped?"
Instead I usually disregard a lot of the preparation stages and take a much more action-oriented approach to combat. During a raid, Rimworld becomes a Real-time-strategy.
I think either approach to combat will be fine. Tynan's plan is likely a move to tie the game elements together more solidly. The opposite would be to really refine the combat into an even deeper, grittier endeavor. Right now it's on the fence. All we need is for the game to embrace one of the two.
Sorry for the ramble, TL;DR it's going to be a great fix, even if it takes time to refine.
QuoteIn a game like this where you can pause at any time to issue orders, combat at later stages in the game has the potential to become a circlejerk of infinitesimal micromanagement where you pause, issue 20 orders, unpause for 1 second and then rinse and repeat. It just doesn't quite feel right to have that level of control during combat and only combat when the engine just seems to accentuate macro-management in general. It's going to become a more cohesive experience when combat is a little more streamlined and will HUGELY benefit the game.
This makes a lot of sense to me. You don't want to pace of the game to slow down drastically during combat.
Well, *you* don't want that.
Doesn't mean everybody else does as well.
Quote from: British on October 14, 2013, 08:55:26 AM
Well, *you* don't want that.
Doesn't mean everybody else does as well.
Agreed, I'm with British on this I'm afraid. Combat
should be about the micromanagement of forces and we've got time-controls in there for a reason, I'll always be against automation tbh because it places too much faith in AI which is always a risky move in terms of bugs betraying the player rather than skill and generally it just seems lazy or as though you're not invested in the game if you want the outcome without controlling the event just to keep pace, the game is story-oriented and I love that aspect but removing the only (current) aspect of total player control for the sake of letting it 'flow' better isn't wise.
Quotethe game might get kind of boring if all we have to do in the game is from a distant perspective ... we are following the story ... Now, the battles are different.
Once we draft colonists, we are in control ... We *are* the story.
I really see what you're saying, but it just seems like the game you're describing (which may accurately describe the current build) is a combat sim with a colony sim as the backdrop. That is, the game is most enjoyed and 'won' on the battlefield and the colony aspect is a supporting role to that ultimate end. This is basically how XCom:EU works, though in a very different manner.
If the game is to be a colony sim first, which I hope it will be, then the battles need to not be as important or time consuming. Tynan has already talked about adding objectives for the raids that do not include all-out destruction. Thus, you could lose a battle without losing the colony. Also, there need to be ways to 'lose' other than through combat as well, such as mismanagement.
There is no "right" way. It depends on the scope of the game. =)
If any individual soldier is easily replaced then a more hands-off approach is justified. Just send 10 more soldiers.
If an individual soldier is hard to replace and/or has unique skills that benefit the colony, then the player should be able to keep this particular bloke alive by making him take cover at the right time or moving to a safer spot.
Gazz, I guess that's where having less-lethal raids would help a lot. I agree that if every single time a raid comes, its live or die, that it could be risky to let the colonists AI work things out for you and ruin a lot of what you've already done. But if you are given the option of peaceful surrender during a raid, then you could decide whether to let someone valuable die and maybe you fight on to win the battle, or you surrender and let them live.
Also, you could give colonists battle 'modes', basic frameworks for how they will react in combat. If a character is absolutely critical, then you set them to 'do not engage' mode and they'll just wait inside till the battle is over.
Real pirates aren't all murderous psychopaths, either.
Video game pirates are because it's a lot easier to make an actor fight (or die trying to kill you) than it is to make it stage a diversionary fight while it's buddies steal your stuff.
I just thought of something about combat...
Tynan is using a very refined combat system, with managing covers and such, and while I don't really think that the combat system is going to be so streamlined that we won't have to do much anymore (no I'm not exaggerating, get out of my head !), I'd be sad to lose that.
Or at least to lose the direct "experiencing" of it.
I don't want to lose out on combat micromanage. Tynan has said 20 colonist is a lot and micromanaging 20 people can be a pain but it should be if you have a big colony :P
To make combat not so pause and go, pause and go it should be slowed down.
Would be nice to have a stream lined option if you don't feel like micromanaging
Isn't the combat system part of what is being sold on the kickstarter? Unless the page has updated recently I think it is. To take out that part of it or streamline it would be crazy in my opinion. I enjoy combat where I am not in direct control in the DF style way because the game has a lot more to offer than just a combat simulation, but this game seems as if it isn't going to have any systems as meaty (read: complex) as the DF systems. I'd prefer to micromanage my engagements.
As far as I know, Tynan doesn't specifically mention direct control during combat as a feature in the kickstarter
QuoteRimWorld uses an engine that I originally developed to power a tactical sim similar to Jagged Alliance 2. This means it has a lot of features designed to make small-team firefights interesting. For example:
•There's a cover system that models low cover and leaning around corners.
•There's a really nuanced algorithm for determining and reporting hit chances based on distance, skill, weapon, lighting, angle, and cover.
•Weapons have some pretty deep stats.
•The AI plans and executes tactical moves like flanking while trying to stay out of the enemy's line of fire. It uses a number of heuristic algorithms to analyze the battlefield and use the space effectively. It works with allies and avoids bunching up.
I think most base-builder developers wouldn't put this much effort into a tactics engine, but having inherited from that earlier project, RimWorld benefits greatly in unexpected ways.
Because of how important cover and positioning are in gunfights, our combat interacts deeply with the colony's layout and structure. This means players have to think about how they want to position their constructions to maximum advantage in future firefights. Combat in general is a lot more interesting than the traditional trading of blows you might expect in a base-building game. And it's possible to build a wide variety of base configurations for maximum tactical advantage against diverse foes.
QuoteQuote from KickStarter
As it has be said, there's a very neat and deep combat system... what's the point if we can't enjoy it by actually
playing it ?
Quote from: British on October 15, 2013, 05:10:54 AM
QuoteQuote from KickStarter
As it has be said, there's a very neat and deep combat system... what's the point if we can't enjoy it by actually playing it ?
The elephant in the room here is the question: Do we want a settlement-simulator like DF where we macro-manage everything?
Or do we want X-Com where we micro-management everything?
Or a mix-thereoff?
I genereally like the DF/Gnomoria Macro-aproach. Asign your colonists to a squad, have it patroul or guard an area and enjoy the show :D
Next question, what does Tynan want / what can he create (programming wise)?
That only he knows. But judging from the current state of the pre-pre-alpha I thing we wont see any change to the current system.
Quote from: British on October 15, 2013, 05:10:54 AM
QuoteQuote from KickStarter
As it has be said, there's a very neat and deep combat system... what's the point if we can't enjoy it by actually playing it ?
I guess that's like saying whats the point of a deep relationship system, if you can't directly make one character have an affair with another. The depth comes from the interaction of the colonists and the world you create around them. So relationships might live or die based on the placement of bedrooms, and the colonists might live or die during a battle based on the layout of the defensive structures and the weapons technologies you've made available.
Quote from: nomadseifer on October 15, 2013, 01:56:10 PM
I guess that's like saying whats the point of a deep relationship system, if you can't directly make one character have an affair with another. The depth comes from the interaction of the colonists and the world you create around them. So relationships might live or die based on the placement of bedrooms, and the colonists might live or die during a battle based on the layout of the defensive structures and the weapons technologies you've made available.
I'm really against the idea of 'farming out' combat to an AI it just feels wrong to actively
remove something that works from the game; particularly as it's a major part of a currently-bare-bones project.
However I have to admit you make a very valid point regarding contrasting the micro-management (which I love for both sim/building AND combat btw), I'd considered the approach to relationship building myself and was unsure of how we should approach it.
Perhaps a way around it might be to choose a colonist(s) to draft to become the 'General' of sorts for the colony with generally-set behaviour and the type of leader you wish him to be. In battle it's not micro-management, it's farmed out to an AI as suggested, yet it's still somewhat player-controlled and not left to chance?
QuoteI'm really against the idea of 'farming out' combat to an AI it just feels wrong to actively remove something that works from the game
I think this is the bigger issue at hand and will be more so once the kickstarter ends and more people are playing. If micromanaging combat is fun and meaty, compared to the rest of the game, then people will gravitate towards keeping it in and most likely
expanding it. Already on the forums there are plenty of combat related suggestions that would add much more tactical depth.
Another problem with micromanaged combat is that you have undue ability to 'beat' the game. There is no way that enemy AI will ever compare to even an average player who has complete control over his colonists. So the major inflection points of the game will always occur in combat where the player can really extract maximum value from situations. The only way to counter this is to send many more raiders and then that puts you into the normal strategy game situation where you are clearly smarter than the computer and they stop feeling like an opponent and more like a cheating game system. Think how high-difficulty levels in Civilization amp the bonuses available to the other civs. Not smarter, just
more.
I agree with a previous comment that combat should be a mix of micro and macro management. The game seems to be rich on AI scripting so it should be possible to give individual orders to units or give the units AI controlled responsibilities. Just as with setting up the home base area to enable automatic actions, like putting out fires, similar auto AI can be given to combat. The use of check boxes/Drop down for AI tactics would give the player this sort of flexibility.
Examples:
Engage hostiles. Check/uncheck to create selected colonists for active or passive patrol duty. These colonists will primarily patrol the perimeter of the home base and will react to hostiles when encountered. If on active patrol the colonist will alert other combat colonist and engage in combat immediately. If passive patrol the colonist will not engage immediately and instead only alert other combat colonists and will only defend him/herself when being engaged. This would help so that a single watchmen doesn't go off on a suicide mission by engaging hostiles alone.
Option for melee or long range combat. For example you have a group of riflemen or archers and you want them to maintain distance in combat. Have a check box for long range combat and melee combat. Uncheck melee and the AI will try to run away and fire from a distance. Or a combat medic who only tries to heal or treat wounded soldiers and you don't want them engaging hostiles so you uncheck the box for auto-engage.
Another example would be reconnaissance. Set a few AI up for recon and they will either wander the map and will only report events on the world map. If hostiles are encountered they will try to escape and alert the home base. If they find resources they'll alert home base so the user can collect the resources. Or the player can direct them to recon specific locations on the map. Of course this would only be necessary in a fog of war scenario. If the entire map is already visible that wouldn't be necessary.
If having various options for AI do's and don'ts is too complex then a simpler system for assigning a group set of behaviors could be implemented. For example combat AI can be set to Melee or Ranged. Auto-engage or passive. Chase or not chase targets.
Micro management can still come into play if you want a more RTS approach by group selecting colonists and issuing commands like Attack and move, etc.
With a mixed system of combat it will give the player a broader experience so they can play the game best suited for their play style. One player may be more combat oriented and prefers to take direct control of their troops. By taking direct control said player will be able to minimize causalities and consequences.
Another player may prefer a more sim building experience and prefer to leave combat up to the AI scripts. While player controlled actions will be more effective and precise the AI should be made effective enough so they can overcome combat situations on their own however with more causalities and consequences because the player chooses not to intervene or intervenes infrequently.
P.S. I'm brand new to this forum and game so please forgive me if anything I've stated previous is already discussed or being implemented.