Ground Rules clarifications

I'm curious about this as well.

I think what they meant by "the player only controls one ship" is that it is a top down shooter and not an RTS-like game.

Top-down is optional

Quoting Volusianus, reply 3

Top-down is optional

End of Volusianus's quote

We'll see how optional it is in multiplayer when they give us Supermelee.  I really think that things are moving too fast and if you try and play with the camera you are just going to die for it.

Quoting Kavik_Kang, reply 4

Quoting Volusianus,

reply 3

Top-down is optional

 

We'll see how optional it is in multiplayer when they give us Supermelee.  I really think that things are moving too fast and if you try and play with the camera you are just going to die for it.

 

End of Kavik_Kang's quote

See, I'm not too sure about that. When I played SCNot3, I found that if I treat the ship like a gun in a FPS, I would hit EVERY shot. I think individual skillsets and training will be the deciding factor. Especially if teamplay is involved.

I think it might be possible to use the camera for some type of longer ranged sniper type of weapon, but those aren't all that useful in multiplayer especially 1v1.  Almost all combat in this type of game takes place at "knife fighting" range, and everything is moving very fast.  I can't say for certain because I can't remember ever playing a top down space combat game where you could move the angle of the camera, but my experience with Subspace tells me that trying to play with the camera will only get you killed.  Unless you are at a longer range, which is uncommon.

It would be cool to use ships from your fleet to explore planets and gather resources while your flag ship does the same. By doing so give the ships experience in collecting and exploring and improves their efficiency in each task. the less experience the greater chance they loose crew from ALFs or planetary events quakes, lightening, etc. That's one of the things that annoyed me about SC2 is that you have a big old fleet and they do nothing but fight and you still have to pay to plus up their manning rosters. Dang man earn your keep, get me some cheddar! 

Please no, no XP.

Your ship gets hit, some of your crew might die and you need to invest in new crew.....decreasing the chance they die because you farmed enough XP makes for grinding and that shouldn't be what SC is about in my opinion.

It starts with XP and then the next step would be skill trees or level requirements for tech you could afford 3 hours ago but you need to go explore 5 more planets for enough XP bull excrement.....no thanks.

There are no XP requirements in Star Control. 

Sometimes I wonder why I  answer posts.

 Barring the XP as a afterthought. We can at least consider using fleet ships to collect resources or scout planets in-system as they may not have landing craft.

Utilizing your fleet in some capacity beyond simple combat is a great idea, however I feel using them as resource automatons is one step too far. I'm not opposed to the idea of sending them off as scouts to survey uncharted regions that you don't necessarily have the time or fuel to visit though. This puts the onus on you as to whether it's worth it to go explore their recon findings. I don't think it serves the gameplay for your fleet to be on automatic mining duty because most of them simply aren't designed with that purpose in mind and it takes something away from you as the player on an adventure.

Also, they may not necessarily survive out on their own against unknown odds. The act of going on an expedition, whether for resources or intel, is not something that should be taken lightly; risk vs. reward should be made clear to the player, with big paydays being fraught with danger. Part of the experience of an adventure is in not delegating or automating too much of the core gameplay to NPCs. The various elements that made up SC2 were basically all player-driven mini games in and of themselves: combat, resourcing, exploring. One step too far into the realm of strategic automation and it starts to become a 4X/RTS game and I don't know that I want NPCs doing too much of the work for me.

A big part of what makes an adventure is the weight of your decision and its dramatic impact. If you did have the option of sending fleet out to recon, which parts of your fleet would you keep under your wing for additional protection, versus sending them out for intel at the expense of your own safety? Or at the expense of their own safety? Out on their own they might be far more vulnerable, and therefore using them for recon could be extremely risky as you may never see or hear from them again.

While it was confirmed above there aren't any XP "requirements" I don't think that should preclude experience serving some kind of purpose. The idea of unlocking new tiers (technology upgrades, new ship types, areas or exploration, etc.) as you accrue experience could be interesting if done right and I wouldn't be opposed to it. I know that's likely to be a controversial opinion with this game but experience leveling is very common in modern gaming and I think it should be adapted in some capacity.

I agree in a lot of ways. Take, for example, that you could split your fleet in SCNot3 and use them as a sort of vanguard. Now, I don't think it should go that far; if combat occurs, YOU should be the one deciding the outcome of that encounter (unless, of course, you're playing with cyborg mode ).

As for XP, I think having tiered upgrades could help with combating a potential lack of tangible progress. Of course, we've already gone over this ad nauseam in other threads.

I would hope that they would avoid all of these kinds of things.  Star Control isn't an RPG, it's 2 arcade games inside of an adventure game.  I would rather not see any RPG elements in it.  Uprgrading the mothership is good, but I would even go as far as saying I'd rather not see upgrades for the satellite ships.  They are what they are, the later game satellite ships are the upgrades.

Although I do realize that this is an "old school" opinion from a design standpoint and that most game makers today feel as though they MUST have elements such as upgrading the satellite ships and wouldn't be surprised if there were upgrades for them.

I don't think it's as cut and dried as "all or nothing". I feel like a happy balance could be like, the satellite vessels don't get as many robust or specific upgrades, but just get generally better. Putting too much emphasis on the satellite vessels would be just as damaging as not putting any at all, imo.

Star Control is a RPG with arcade action elements. How can it be construed as anything different? You play the role of  a captain of a starship, following a storyline, exploring, doing missions enhancing your character or ship trying to achieve goals. How does this not fall in the genre of RPG? 

But again I'm not a well versed all of you.

Savage, I personally define an RPG as a game where the focus is ultimately on your character.  Going up levels, gaining new skills, getting better equipment, etc.  An adventure game, in my mind, is a game that is about the story, and your character never really changes.

Volusianus, I would actually upgrade the systems before the "inherent" characteristics of the ships.  Personally, as I said in the previous post, I would consider the late game ships to be the upgrades of the satellite ships and never upgrade the satellite ships at all.  But if there were going to be upgrades, I would rather see the weapons/devices upgraded than the ships themselves, and in meaningful and noticeable ways such as a single shot gun upgrading to a mutli shot gun, etc.  Upgrading the inherent characteristics of ships as simple as those found in Star Control or Subspace more transforms the ship into a fundamentally different ship than upgrades it.  These simple ships are largely defined by their speed, turn rate, health, and energy recharge rate/weapon cycle time.  I would avoid changing any of those qualities as changing those qualities really changes what the ship is, it isn't really an upgrade, it is more of a transformation.

Ah, see, I think this is where some of the confusion lies. What's being taught in a lot of game design curriculum now is that a character, in terms of game mechanics, doesn't necessarily need to be a "person" per se.

Take Faster Than Light (FTL for short), for example. It's certainly a roguelike, but it's also an RPG, but what is the real representation of YOU, the player? Is it the crew? Certainly not, I've finished a campaign with a crew that was 100% NOT the same crew I started the game with. So the only other conclusion is that the SHIP is your avatar, for all intents and purposes. In the same way, sure the captain is you, but so is your flagship. It's as much the player as the captain avatar is.

An interesting example too me since I consider Faster Than Light to be the most SFB-like computer game ever made, even more so than Master of Orion or Star Fleet Command.

Yes, the mothership is "the upgradable character" in Star Control, but at the same time you are being represented as the star character in the story of an adventure game.  Thst is a minor RPG element.  I think this is a case of Star Control showing how uniquely awesome it is by being impossible to categorize.  It's not an RPG, or an adventure game, or an arcade game... and yet at the same time it IS all of those things.  This is one of the things that makes it one of the best computer games ever made.