Started by nomadseifer, October 14, 2013, 06:38:55 AM
QuoteCurrently battles are kind of micromanagey; I'm considering ways to make them less directly controlled.
Quote from: nomadseifer on October 14, 2013, 06:38:55 AMI 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?
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.
Quote from: British on October 14, 2013, 08:55:26 AMWell, *you* don't want that.Doesn't mean everybody else does as well.
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.