Notifications
Clear all

 


I use crypto.com app personally on a daily basis and its great and takes the stress out of learning crypto and the crypto debit cards are great, ask me anything on this. I will probably make a thread discussing crypto soon. REFERRAL CODE = p5mu64hcq4
 

The major factor


MawhrinSkel
(@mawhrinskel)
Master Chief Registered
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 155
Topic starter  

It's still quite early days for Shallow Space and there is the option for public opinion to steer the development process somewhat.

I've posted this poll on several other places on the internet (the Nexus 2 and Homeworld FB pages) and received some very interesting results. If you're viewing this post in the Space Sim Central news reel you'll have to click on it to get access to the questions and survey options, if you have different priority feel free to reply to this post.

 

Also head over and join the Nexus 2 Facebook page, it's an excellent community for lovers of the genre (

) and they do post some amazing wallpapers!


Quote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 

I would have to choose the granular control.

 

It gives more depth to the combat experience.


ReplyQuote
MawhrinSkel
(@mawhrinskel)
Master Chief Registered
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 155
Topic starter  

I would have to choose the granular control.

 

It gives more depth to the combat experience.

 

Yeah I totally agree with that personally, else it just degenerate into a cake-and-arse fest, hoard your units and throw them at the enemy.

Poses some interesting challenges with resource collecting though, I think ships and upgrades will be expensive and resources scarce with limits on how many ships you can control given your main characters level maybe...


ReplyQuote
Xankar
(@xankar)
Crewman Registered
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1
 

Definitely granular control! micro-management has always been my favorite part of any strategy game.


ReplyQuote
MawhrinSkel
(@mawhrinskel)
Master Chief Registered
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 155
Topic starter  

Definitely granular control! micro-management has always been my favorite part of any strategy game.

 

Hey Xankar, yeah me too, the whole hoard and release of traditional RTS's bores me to tears


ReplyQuote
Arparso
(@arparso)
Crewman Registered
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 7
 

Voted for large scale this time... but yeah, tough choice. I like both systems. Thinking back about Supreme Commander I'd usually set up multiple factories over time with each one constructing units on an endless loop. There'd be a constant stream of fresh units coming out of my production centers either to straight up reinforce my frontlines or to amass an assault force. Very different gameplay style from more tactical games such as Nexus, but still very rewarding and challenging on a more global strategic level. Instead of being concerned about individual units and micromanaging each facet of their operation, you'd be concerned with unit blobs, their right composition and whether you have enough factories to outproduce your losses in the constant battle that's waging over large portions of the map. Great stuff!

 

Then there are games like "Wargame: Red Dragon" and its predecessors, where you may have hundreds of units on the field but still have and need that granular control. "Hoard and release" as well as mass spam of units is (with few exceptions) terribly ineffective here and the game is a lot more about careful positioning, exploiting the terrain, combining all the different troop types to great effect as well as creative tactics.

 

That being said, I'd be happy with a small-scale, but in-depth tactical game as well. Like I said - I enjoy both gameplay styles.


ReplyQuote
SJones
(@sjones)
Master Chief Registered
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 197
 

All of the options have good and bad points, but I would say out of them all the RPG element has the least negatives, yet this is the weaker of the choices, ultimately it is down to how you make the game, how it plays, how much the choices you are able to make effect the outcome.

 

The thing that I would like from a game like this is the ability to quickly and easily go to battle, not spending ages micro managing everything, sins of a solar empire has this problem to a point, keeping up with everything on a large map takes a long time and gives little time to concentrate on battles (the fun part) however, having the ability to tweak stuff to the situation your in is great, though maybe presets for something like defensive, aggressive etc.

 

Large fleets would be my choice but again, I don't want to spend 15 min managing fleets to get them setup correctly to then have a 5 min battle and lose (or win, winning helps the matter), a good option here is to have pre made formations (total war maybe?) this could tie into the next point with the pre-game player setup where you can make your own formations.

 

Thus the RPG choice, if you can setup the ships before hand, take a look at imperium galactica II, its old but they have the mechanic in it though they did not implement it too well, allow the player to have menu's and sub menu's to loadout their ships however they want before the game and easily navigate to that choice in game for production of said ship, e.g. support menu, with its sub menu of support ships the player has made.


ReplyQuote
Gazz
 Gazz
(@gazz)
Petty Officer Registered
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 14
 

Sorry but... none of the above. =)

 

"Granular control of the ships" is probably closest to what I want to see but what is on my wish list:

 

Instead of direct control of many low level systems on ships, I'd like to be able to define Rules Of Engagement.

For instance:

  • Retreat if visible enemy units have 30% more tonnage than visible friendly units.
  • Assume defensive stance (protecting own ships only) if special anti-fighter corvettes are present.
  • Engage capital ships first.

Yes, the more complex rules you define for your ships, the more likely they are to lock up in indecision.

That means you're a bad, micromanaging type of commander... and failure should be allowed! =P

 

ROE do scale with increasingly large fleets so they don't turn into micromanaging hell as easily.


ReplyQuote
AnastasiusFocht
(@anastasiusfocht)
Petty Officer Registered
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 13
 

Hm I want it all!


ReplyQuote
MawhrinSkel
(@mawhrinskel)
Master Chief Registered
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 155
Topic starter  

Hm I want it all!

 

Yeah, it's a silly poll really - a subtle blend of all three is likely best.


ReplyQuote
LordBaal
(@lordbaal)
Petty Officer Registered
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 15
 

I'll say start with the detailed control, then make an AI that can handle it in a decent way and then scale up to large fleets action. That way you have both huge fleets and the possibility of tweaking whatever you want whenever and wherever you see fit.


ReplyQuote
Void3dge
(@void3dge)
Crewman Registered
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 6
 

Hey folk !

 

I just find out his project. I have been seeking for such space RTS since Homeworld, and Shallow Space looks very promising. So First, thank for all the work and dedication that your team put into this game 😀  Some comments before answering the poll. In my opinion, a fundamental aspect of best SciFi/Space books, films, and games is the multi-scale dimension of the conflict, from galactic Realpolitik to the individual exploits of depressed, drunk fighter pilot.

 

A 4X game will focus on the first, and a space shooter on the later. But the task is less straightforward for RTS games, because the tend to cover a wider scope. We, players, want at the same time :

- Dominate the sector system after system (Story/campain)

- Large scale fleet battle (strategy)

- Ship-level management (tactics)

- Identification to a character (roleplay)

 

So I would answer : Granular control of the ships, tweaking energy level, subsystem damage

But, a successful space RTS should manage to implement this granularity in order to capture the multi-scale essence of space conflicts, and do so avoiding numerous pitfalls :

- Large number of ships / structures and too much customization leads to an overwhelming micro-management

- Fast-paced combat turns tactics into click-fest, especially with a 3D battlefield

- Slow paced, long games are bad for multiplayer.

- Imbalance from too much customization breaks multiplayer

 

For example, one could imagine the following granularity for encounters / multi-player encounters

  • Admiral (the player) & Capital ship
    • The ship requiring the most micro management during the game
    • Displacement should be slow or limited to strategical points on the map (hiding in a nebulae, orbiting around an asteroid, ...
    • Customization :
      • admiral perks / special abilities
      • 10-20 modules slots. Here the player build ships factories, research stations, shields generators, power plants, deep space radar etc. They can be targeted individually and powered up/down. They could be pre-build in campaign encounters.
      • X Weapons systems
    • Resources :
      • Energy used by waepons and modules.
      • Metal/Ore to build modules and units.
      • Crew to operate the capital ship and man new ships (could be an interesting attrition mechanism. Could also be collected by "mining" civil ships or orbital stations)
  • Cruiser
    • Costly ship (metal and crew) so one can build only a few on those, in late game. Require micromanagement for orientation, weapon and system
    • Customization :
      • 1-3 modules slots
      • X Weapons systems
    • Resources :
      • Energy used by weapons and modules.
  • Frigates :
    • Medium sized, common ship. They are build with predefined hull and modules
    • Several types of frigates (stealth, fast, heavy armoured ...)
    • Customization :
      • X Weapons systems
  • Wings :
    • Small ships flying in formation. Speed and turn rate limited by the less manoeuvrable corvette
    • Customization : the choice of ships
      • Fighters : effective vs bombers and corvette
      • Bombers : effective vs corvette and frigates
      • Corvettes : add extra as long range sensor, stealth, anti-fighter flak gun, shield, mining drones, FTL drive...

 

  • Weapons system
    • could be divided in 3 classes, and have customizable fire mode, in order to allow the player some control over targets without too much micro management during combat:
    • Super-Heavy.
      • Fire mode : Auto / Off / Player's focus
    • Heavy / bomber
      • Fire mode : Auto / Nearest / Weakest / Strongest / Player's focus
    • Light / figher
      • Fire mode : Auto / Missiles / Nearest / Weakest / Strongest

The player would pre-set all modules / weapons / fire modes prior combat according to his playstyle and the intel collected. During combat, the player would focus on positioning ships, designating Focus targets (ships or modules) and modifying fire modes if required.


ReplyQuote
brianpurkiss
(@brianpurkiss)
Petty Officer Registered
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 28
 

Lots of great responses here. Thanks so much for the steady stream of ideas and feedback. 

 

We're still chugging along and I can't wait to show y'all what we have done so far, and what we have planned for the future.


ReplyQuote