Combat and game stage: The whole cake

[Admiral.Piett]

To everyone who will give into his or her time to read this, my intentions are solely to provide a different, stage view of the current status of the development of the game, and its mechanics, mostly focused to combat.

I mean no disrespect to anyone ever, I use information from previous alpha and beta testing, and also will try to show insight on how games are developed, and what currently the developers have told us in QA's


Currently, StarMade is in Alpha

And what this means, as in most software development, is that the main focus of this game stage, is to add all the planned features (or most of them) into the code, and remove as many bugs as possible from the interaction of the features on themselves. Therefore, most suggestions in this stage of development are encouraged to bug tracking and solving, and to test that the game features do work as intended, and are shaped to maximize the potential of the gaming software.

But I don't want to wait until release to tweak everything!

So, you won't! That is what beta testing phase is for. In beta, most features will be complete, so the interaction between mechanics is finally in the proper place to begin balancing everything out into the sweet spots everyone wants them to be. It is the main focus of a beta stage to sort balance into the game.


So, in alpha, what i should contribute should be....
Toward finding exploits, bugs, and anomalies in the game features as they are being added. X weapon effect does nothing, cores detach turrets, shields won't work, defensive bonuses don't work etc.... and make use of the bug tracker to sort out the issues as they keep adding features. To help Shape the features, not in values, but in use and functionality. Shields stop bullets?, good they work. How many? well, not in there yet. Do ships move like they should according to mass, and the games flight model? Yes, then move ahead. Do weapons do damage? All of them? With all effects? they all work for sure? in all situations? Good. And so on. Features that are inside, and have functionality, even if limited or not in their adequate spectrum, can wait a little bit to the beta stage. Also making the game as flexible and balanced into the main core feature in this case: Ship building. The more flexibility we try to add thru suggestions, the more designs become more viable for more roles, and the better the overall experience should be!


So, in the beta, I should make suggestions towards mechanics interacting with each other and balance them?

That is what the beta is for! It is the IDEAL stage to tweak all the numbers you want to tweak in any game.


Now, how I propose we look at combat now, and in the future.

Combat is a complex thing to balance, and that is something that must always be kept in mind.

In this game in particular, combat has several aspects, all of which will interact and directly affect the others once all of the mechanics are working the way they are intended to work. A shield stop bullets. Armor makes up the ship. Weapons damage shields and turrets. The ship moves the way it should.

So we can say combat is composed of:

Movement: The primordial thing to do in every situation that demands the use of force. This is terribly important to every game featuring combat, and even most of the ones that don't have it, use it as its main gameplay feature. It is something that inherently decides the nature of any engagement, and even a game.

Offense: The ability of the in-game features to cause damage to an enemy.

Defense: The ability to withstand damage, in any form, with the in'game features.

Skill: How actually able is the pilot or person in the game to perform the first three components.

Optional feature: Economy. War has to be profitable, right?

Several game systems make up more than one of the aspects listed here. And they are correlated, because movement directly affects your ability to deal damage, or defend yourself, in any given situation.

The game directly controls 3 of the 4 variables above. The first step, as i said before, in any Alpha, is making sure they all work the way they are intended to work.

Do combat works right now the way it should be?

Certainly not! Movement, the way I read the QA's and most of the moderator opinions, is still being reworked in order to make ships follow the flight model the developer wants to use in the game.

Offense is still being adapted, and although it works, it has more additions being planned to it.

Defense, is also having more features added, in the way of effect blocks.

Also, economy will sort out even more details, like fleet composition and ship size feasibility.

So, if i say that X system needs a rework right now, it could be biased due to game state?

Yes, I am very afraid almost all combat experience, from everyone, at this stage of development, while not futile, only serves on purpose: Making sure things have the functionality they should have, as explained above. Making sure things work, is our duty as players on Alpha stage, while trying to enjoy ourselves as much as we can!

I believe this is something to be read by everyone, depending on game stage development. I followed what I've seen people do in other alphas and beta I've been.

 

[Lecic]

Judging from the title, you made this because of Planr's thread about shields needing a change, as you were talking about cakes and partial slices in your last post there. Also, this entire thread is basically your entire argument over there.

If it's still in alpha and we're testing things out, wouldn't it make sense to experiment around with the values?

 

[Ithirahad]

I agree to an extent, but sometimes it's better to get a value right the first time, so that one number tweak doesn't end up cascading into seven thousand two hundred and three different resulting rebalances...

 

[Admiral.Piett]

Because of how games are developed, I tried to explain over there how it should be thought and approached. But you people insist in thinking a simple number change is going to fix all your troubles. Integral approaches to every situation, provide the best solutions. And here I am covering what I believe is a bit of a flaw when we all suggest things. It still is, just an opinion, based on previous testing experience, and nothing else. I learned thru my own path how this things work, and I am but sharing what I know. I won't justify this thread, but it helps on focusing what we should be looking forward to in this stage of game development.

It is terribly hard to balance one thing right now, then add somethings else, and hope it would still be balanced then. It rarely ever happens.

 

[Sven_The_Slayer]

Waiting to balance is all well in theory but gets thrown out the window for public alphas. Yes, we are all alpha testers but if the game is in an unplayable state because of bad balancing it becomes imperative to find a proper solution.

 

[Admiral.Piett]

It is not unplayable. You just said it yourself, lad. Features work, and are getting there, but they need time and thought. Rushing decision often leads to bad consequences.

 

[ResonKinetic]

this is the funniest OP i've ever seen

 

[Admiral.Piett]

Down-voting things for the sake of it, is not helpful at all. Please we wary that i am open for all the feedback you might have on this.

 

[ResonKinetic]

Down-voting things for the sake of it, is not helpful at all. Please we wary that i am open for all the feedback you might have on this.

A. I'm not down-voting things for the sake of it; I legitimately disagree with you because you are so out of the loop it is comical.
B. You obviously aren't open for any feedback considering how you side-stepped and ignored or disagreed with everything in Planr's thread, which is obviously what this thread is about.

I must commend you for taking your bullshit elsewhere though; good job on that.

 

[Admiral.Piett]

Ok, I can't give up. But I must says this is disappointing. I gave true and proved reasoning. You all, please, for the sake of it, need to inform yourselves about game development, staging, objectives, and how all this experience comes to shape out a successful game. I've never had this problem before, and it is astonishing. I am left with a big amount of despair, on how you can't see, as i've said before, the whole cake.

Making fun the way you are doing, or claiming, has no argument base what so ever. It is flawed on the very way you look at a problem. I can't help more than sharing a straight, balanced, point of view. Or as close as i can get to that. To disagree over something there needs to be a base for it. You have none other than personal opinion, which is the least productive or objective one. I didn't sidestep things, I gave a honest review of the situation, and I did not disagree to everything. Seriously, It is a bit hard to keep track of everything everyone says, but you are bringing the discussion from there, to here. And this is a different strike, and point of view, to all the game problems, not just Planr's opinion on shielding and my counter thoughts over it.

 

[PizzaPress]

We get it. Beta is where the balance really comes into full. But right now, if the community can discuss and decide on a change that helps right now, and schema thinks it's a good idea, we can change a little value in the config that can be changed back later if it seems like it needs to be changed to fit new features. You're overreacting to the concept of changing shield values. The reason we do full balance in beta is because large amounts of balancing work will need to be redone. This small change? It's pocket change. Doesn't need to be all-or-nothing(and it is almost nothing). Remember that playability right now is, while not a priority, still helpful if it only takes 2 seconds to implement and means more bug reports. Schema didn't just leave shields the way they were, he did change them. Some balance changes are helpful. The tankiness of shields really is too much, even when things are whole. Thus, things later on would actually be benefited by this change. If, for instance, fighters go crazy-fast, then the shields' strength plus dodging means combat will take forever.(You don't expect every shot to hit in a dogfight, do you?)
EDIT: And really, I think this discussion has gone on quite long.

 

[starhaiden]

maybe just make the sheild have a maxium sheild damage but lower recharge rate

 

[Jonj57]

Quite frankly if they wanted a game that was only for testing purposes they shouldn't have made suggestions forum. You won't find a game that didn't overgo multiple balancing overhauls in alpha, beta, or even release. All of these stages are perfectly viable and extremely reasonable to implement changes to any system.

I can see the whole cake as you do, the problem you keep encountering with you peers is you'd like to eat the entire thing in one bite where the average person wants to serve it up piece by piece.

 

[ToyotaSupra]

I was going to make a long ass post about why posting

"You people need to educate yourselves"

might be considered flaming and quite rude as well, but you seem to not really care, owing to the fact you carried your old fight with
Planr into a whole new thread.

Honestly? You're entitled to your opinion especially if it includes discussion but not if it's gonna cause a fight. Relax, you're more likely to get what you want if you do...

 

[Admiral.Piett]

@[email protected] Maybe I'll be over extending, into wanting to wait for all (actually, just a few more) features. But in this particular case, you can't provide an objective, proven and logic solution to a problem, if you don't know all the "factors" and this case they are constantly changing. I was perhaps too.... assertive. But I can't assume everyone knows everything about game balance. I am sure I don't know all of what there is to know either, but I at least, within my resources and available experience, however limited, try to objectively reject or accept an idea.

The best way to approach every problem, is the most integral, widespread view of the panorama while focusing in the issue. That is how medicine, engineering (Hello programmers!) and creative gaming balance works. Because we couldn't have built a rocket until we understood all the physics involved in such a feat. Because we couldn't treat leukemia if we didn't know how cells work (and we are still far from it, that's why not everyone recovers, but the more we understand, the closer we get to it). Because we can't (objectively) judge interaction if we don't know all the things that intervene in the said interaction.


I don't fight, I digress. Sometimes, strongly. I don't flame, and I don't like using that word, ever, because of the stigma it generates using that vocabulary on the internet, as a synonym of written rage when all reasoning and logic has been defeated by one side.


I've been on both sides of the coin, and not because everybody agrees, or disagrees, means that you are wrong (or right).

 

[Jonj57]

The best way to approach every problem, is the most integral, widespread view of the panorama while focusing in the issue. That is how medicine, engineering (Hello programmers!) and creative gaming balance works. Because we couldn't have built a rocket until we understood all the physics involved in such a feat. Because we couldn't treat leukemia if we didn't know how cells work (and we are still far from it, that's why not everyone recovers, but the more we understand, the closer we get to it). Because we can't (objectively) judge interaction if we don't know all the things that intervene in the said interaction.

You're right, but in order to build the rocket they didn't make a bunch of broken engines, hulls, etc and then fix them all once they thought they had a floor plan and all of the core pieces.

Each piece was built one by one and adjusted as things changed accordingly, just as with anything. You can have the floor plan for a building nobody is going to say that's a bad idea, but you can't attempt to lay all of the bricks at once you have to start somewhere and work your way through it. What if halfway through your building you find that you can't get your plumbing extend that far (i'm not an architect and this is a terribly constructed example) do you keep building until the building is finished before you go back down to fix the issue? You change the plan accordingly and adapt.

 

[Admiral.Piett]

Your example is assuming we've laid all pieces. I think some parts of the game have not been decided at all. And your reasoning is flawed. No one lays a brick into the ground until you know the ground can sustain all of them. All pieces, before laid down, are designed and each piece is designed and adjusted to fit with all the other pieces, thus making a final product. When making a cake, you don't add eggs in a way you think is enough. Nor any of the other ingredients. You give a try with what the instructions on the box say, and there, you get a final product. But taste isn't right. Or consistency. Or maybe even the whole cake is just terrible! If the first 2 cases, since all the ingredients are mixed, and we get a final flavor, we can the attempt to make those little adjustments, until the cake tastes just they way you want.In the last case, it might need to go back into the drawing board.


My cake analogies ain't the best. And they did make broken engines. They did make prototype hulls that didn't work. And once they pieced it together, they tried, and tried, and tried, until the right mix was achieved. Prototypes exist for a reason (Or was Apollo 11 the first space program ever launched? was the Soyuz the first attempt of the Russians to send something to space, too?). And some times, even with all that work and testing, things are still not right in the end.

It is a delicate, thoughtful process. Hyperbolic changes may strike issues sometimes. Most of the time they only generate a whole lot more of trouble. I only want to bring that learning: You shouldn't go around yelling at the person who is in charge of something, to change an aspect of that thing, if you don't have a complete view/taste/experience of what that thing is or will become.

Also, there is this http://na.leagueoflegends.com/en/news/game-updates/features/dev-blog-design-values-league-legends

Although everything there does not apply to this game (hardcore game), it provides a good view of how multi-player gaming is approached by most by companies out there. Or at least the ones wiht successful games.

 

[Jonj57]

I had typed up a counter argument, but it's really not worth it. I could probably spend days with you debating on why things are this way and why things are done that way. And in the end it doesn't matter at all, there is a feed back section for a reason and if devs truly believed that opinions on incomplete products didn't matter they would just ignore it anyways making all of this pointless.

As stated in the other thread, impasse due to opinionated differences; not much you or I can do about but stop talking.

 

[Jimbob7595]

The point is, your analogies are wrong. Going back to a house, you plan a house and build it from the foundations upwards. Once it is built you can knock through some walls, separate rooms, decorate the interior and add furniture, appliances etc. You cannot however alter the foundations once the majority of the house is built. To apply this to Starmade, the fundamental game mechanics need to be functioning correctly before other advances are made. Lets say it's decided to change the shield system during the beta or release, when lots of other components and systems have been added. Changing the shield system then will affect the balance of other systems which have been added, meaning then they also have to be changed. If it is altered now, the rest of the game can be built around a functioning mechanic, rather than one which a lot of people dislike that doesn't work. Also, in alpha, players expect large updates and changes, so are more accepting when big changes occur like the weapons and earlier shield change, however, once the game is in beta or released people will be less forgiving if a huge nerf or buff comes in and ruins their ships.

 

[ToyotaSupra]

The point is, your analogies are wrong. Going back to a house, you plan a house and build it from the foundations upwards. Once it is built you can knock through some walls, separate rooms, decorate the interior and add furniture, appliances etc. You cannot however alter the foundations once the majority of the house is built. To apply this to Starmade, the fundamental game mechanics need to be functioning correctly before other advances are made. Lets say it's decided to change the shield system during the beta or release, when lots of other components and systems have been added. Changing the shield system then will affect the balance of other systems which have been added, meaning then they also have to be changed. If it is altered now, the rest of the game can be built around a functioning mechanic, rather than one which a lot of people dislike that doesn't work. Also, in alpha, players expect large updates and changes, so are more accepting when big changes occur like the weapons and earlier shield change, however, once the game is in beta or released people will be less forgiving if a huge nerf or buff comes in and ruins their ships.

It's irrelevant now because he has got his wish: New shield buffers are now in the game. Ships that once had thousands of shields now have a few thousand, and in my opinion it is all because noobs cannot figure out how to use the new weapons kit effectively or realise that a fighter is not supposed to kill a titan. Ahh wall, time to redesign our ships all over again! (Yeah, yeah I know it's an alpha and things change. Don't need to tell me.)

However I'm not going to scream 'STARMADE IS DEAD OMG OMG' because I'm sure it will be straightened out. Features like this should really be voted on first though.