Ludeon Forums

Ludeon Forums

  • October 07, 2022, 05:11:38 AM
  • Welcome, Guest
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic: Less Direct Control During Combat ?  (Read 6514 times)

nomadseifer

  • Drifter
  • **
  • Posts: 86
  • Moko Choko
    • View Profile
Less Direct Control During Combat ?
« on: October 14, 2013, 06:38:55 AM »

I just read this quote from Tynan in the kickstarter comments. 

Quote
Currently 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?
Logged
Love of an Idea is love of god - FLLW

British

  • The Third Kickstarter Backer
  • Colonist
  • ***
  • Posts: 455
  • Actually not
    • View Profile
Re: Less Direct Control During Combat ?
« Reply #1 on: October 14, 2013, 07:04:04 AM »

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 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.
Logged

nomadseifer

  • Drifter
  • **
  • Posts: 86
  • Moko Choko
    • View Profile
Re: Less Direct Control During Combat ?
« Reply #2 on: October 14, 2013, 08:03:00 AM »

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? 
Logged
Love of an Idea is love of god - FLLW

British

  • The Third Kickstarter Backer
  • Colonist
  • ***
  • Posts: 455
  • Actually not
    • View Profile
Re: Less Direct Control During Combat ?
« Reply #3 on: October 14, 2013, 08:09:31 AM »

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.
Logged

Jakadasnake

  • Colonist
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
  • Refugee
    • View Profile
Re: Less Direct Control During Combat ?
« Reply #4 on: October 14, 2013, 08:20:36 AM »

I just read this quote from Tynan in the kickstarter comments. 

Quote
Currently 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.
Logged

nomadseifer

  • Drifter
  • **
  • Posts: 86
  • Moko Choko
    • View Profile
Re: Less Direct Control During Combat ?
« Reply #5 on: October 14, 2013, 08:42:06 AM »

Quote
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.

This makes a lot of sense to me.  You don't want to pace of the game to slow down drastically during combat. 
Logged
Love of an Idea is love of god - FLLW

British

  • The Third Kickstarter Backer
  • Colonist
  • ***
  • Posts: 455
  • Actually not
    • View Profile
Re: Less Direct Control During Combat ?
« Reply #6 on: October 14, 2013, 08:55:26 AM »

Well, *you* don't want that.
Doesn't mean everybody else does as well.
Logged

AspenShadow

  • Colonist
  • ***
  • Posts: 205
  • Designer
    • View Profile
Re: Less Direct Control During Combat ?
« Reply #7 on: October 14, 2013, 10:38:56 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.
Logged

nomadseifer

  • Drifter
  • **
  • Posts: 86
  • Moko Choko
    • View Profile
Re: Less Direct Control During Combat ?
« Reply #8 on: October 14, 2013, 12:25:50 PM »

Quote
the 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. 
Logged
Love of an Idea is love of god - FLLW

Gazz

  • Drifter
  • **
  • Posts: 49
  • I'm in your brains. Thinking your thoughts.
    • View Profile
Re: Less Direct Control During Combat ?
« Reply #9 on: October 14, 2013, 12:37:00 PM »

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.

Logged

nomadseifer

  • Drifter
  • **
  • Posts: 86
  • Moko Choko
    • View Profile
Re: Less Direct Control During Combat ?
« Reply #10 on: October 14, 2013, 01:44:21 PM »

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. 
Logged
Love of an Idea is love of god - FLLW

Gazz

  • Drifter
  • **
  • Posts: 49
  • I'm in your brains. Thinking your thoughts.
    • View Profile
Re: Less Direct Control During Combat ?
« Reply #11 on: October 14, 2013, 04:57:44 PM »

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.
Logged

British

  • The Third Kickstarter Backer
  • Colonist
  • ***
  • Posts: 455
  • Actually not
    • View Profile
Re: Less Direct Control During Combat ?
« Reply #12 on: October 14, 2013, 05:03:54 PM »

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.
Logged

Conti027

  • Drifter
  • **
  • Posts: 46
  • Hello, Sir
    • View Profile
Re: Less Direct Control During Combat ?
« Reply #13 on: October 14, 2013, 06:02:28 PM »

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
Logged

Nero

  • Drifter
  • **
  • Posts: 29
  • Refugee
    • View Profile
Re: Less Direct Control During Combat ?
« Reply #14 on: October 15, 2013, 12:26:02 AM »

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.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2