The teams having advantages will happen anyways. the issue is the existence of the teams is required for the game to really work at all, because otherwise resources don’t move around. It doesn’t seem like a good solution to leave everything up to teams in a game that’ll have public servers where teams will have varying presence, we want games that are just random players who don’t already know eachother to be at least similar to games where veteren teams to be at least similar right?
Im feeling like just taking the approach of an object/uplink bestowing commander is the best approach. Also opens up possibility for theft and other hijinks, and if someone is really causing problems as commander you can coup and kill them, or something. this system is also flexable, can transfer commander mid-game fairly easily and just leave it in base in case someone needs to pick up the commander role quickly. worked well in wulfram II where big capital ships and their crate supply drops(resources) had to be specifed. but dunno how that transfers to space
I’m surprised no-one evoked Allegiance yet. It was (and for some, apparently still is) a team-multiplayer arena space shooter with an RTS layer - resource control/gathering, buildings unlocking new ships that cost resources… (and half/newtonian flight). It has a big emphasis on team-work, mind you, so there are important non-(primary-)combatants roles, like the scout (miners are drones) as well as specialised combatant ones (fighter, bomber, stealth fighter, capital ships…). It also has an appointed commander.
Also making it relevant to I:B, it has multiple connected zones that are fought for, but are big enough so tactics are applicable on one zone : hiding, flanking…
It is messy, plain-looking and with a mean difficulty cliff but is still considered the best team-multiplayer arena space shooter so far by many. But while its flight model was pretty hostile, much can be learned from its strategic layer. I suggest all of you to go on their website and read about how they did it (tutorials are a good place IIRC)
It has 30v30 matches, but with a few tweaks, the gameplay could probably work for three times that number, so it is definitely relevant to I:B.
Also, it’s free so you can try and play it, but last time I checked it was pretty empty, so good luck with that. It could nonetheless be instructive if you do manage to find a match.
(tl:dr: Go check Allegiance. It’s free, and it is the one multiplayer space-shoter to do tactics well.)
Can we please sepperate Teams from Groups termilogical wise? I really get confused.
Or how do you call the side your on? I got the classic from sport where there are competing teams. I assume there will be two per Battlescape.
Then when you want to group up with a bunch of guys on your Team, you group together in a … well group. Also called “Squad” or “Wing” in other games.
Am I the odd one out?
Can’t we try some of our ideas out? Isn’t there some kind of on the fly online coding platform where we can create some kind of 2D game version of Battlescape? I know it sounds trivializing and it is. But having some kind of “black board” of coding where everyone could throw in some bits and an output field that is controlled by everyone simutaniously …
[quote=“Lomsor, post:44, topic:596”]
Can we please sepperate Teams from Groups termilogical wise?[/quote]
Sure. “Team” is a side, “Group” is a bunch of guys on a side.
Note that “team” is a term used extensively in cooperative environments. So there may be multiple teams working on various tasks for the company (our side). That is the mindset I was in when i wrote all that stuff. But we can go with the gaming terms, as we are certainly talking about gameplay.
[quote=“Lomsor, post:44, topic:596”]
Can’t we try some of our ideas out?[/quote]
To explore warp intercepts back when we were talking about such things, I built a multiplayer 2D game along the lines suggested by Lomsor; try out some ideas. I think the largest simultaneous player count we could summon was about 4 people. To get dozens of players for hours of testing would require significant support from the INS guys and some real buzz. That isn’t going to happen while they’re working up to the Kickstarter. After the Kickstarter, they’ll be doing that stuff themselves.
Mind you, I was the one managing the warp testing, and I have almost no aptitude for building a community.
A system could be setup where each player is responsible and takes actions for multiple players, if we are just testing a small subset of the gameplay like resources, spawn rates, travel speed…
The actual FPS part would of course not be simulated as FPS, it could however be simulated randomly by assuming certain attributes of ships, like it’s lifespan. I’m imagining a command interface where a dozen or so players are given control of whatever gameplay feature is being tested. It could even be turn based.
However this is still a lot of work and I don’t think it’s feasible to undertake something like that without at least an official acknowledgment of spiritual support from INS. They might not even look at this or need it.
At the end of the day, the gameplay that emerges should be what INS intends.
Well that goes without saying. Nothing wrong with throwing some ideas out there though.
I’m actually not entirely convinced when I hear game play would be based on “massive fleet battles with all hell breaking loose”. I mean that’s a great and all, but as with films, TV, music, books, etc, its all about the build up, tension and release. I think it would be good to have some smaller objectives for small groups, scouting and ambushes, hit and run attacks of convoys, etc. all building up to the big battles.
I wonder if it would work if every ship had an overall tactical display of the system, planet or whatever is the whole game area. Then link all the scanners of all players on a team. So everyone can see everything everyone on the team can. Then you make a fairly big part of the game play about sending out scouts and probes to work out what the other side is up to as well as trying to hide from or blind the enemy. Some stealth mechanics, jamming systems or decoy drones could also be added as well to mix things up a bit.
Of course, if they do try to spread things out for part of the game, then the objectives need to be designed so that the best way to win isn’t to have everybody grouped together in one fleet.
There’s a lot to be said for the atmosphere of being alone and vulnerable in the vastness of space. Even if only for a few minutes before guns start blazing.
Not sure if that’s how they see the game. Just a thought.
[quote=“CaptainRogers, post:49, topic:596”]
I wonder if it would work if every ship had an overall tactical display of the system, planet or whatever is the whole game area. Then link all the scanners of all players on a team. So everyone can see everything everyone on the team can.[/quote]
ARMA 3 does that. It works well, but it definitely empowers every player, allowing them to be more effective at soloing. While that’s fine unto itself, I’m more interested in gameplay that encourages or even requires team cooperation.
[quote=“CaptainRogers, post:49, topic:596”]
Then you make a fairly big part of the game play about sending out scouts and probes to work out what the other side is up to as well as trying to hide from or blind the enemy.[/quote]
That’s the trickier part. Why will arena players, sitting in super-duper combat ships, wait while somebody else goes into the lion’s den to look around? Are they really that worried about losing their gear? If losing gear is that dicey, surely spies will try to destroy as much gear as possible. Griefers would have fun with that as well.
Unless only groups could get access to the larger hardware… <ducks>
Throwing ideas is for sure a good thing, going into such specifics and being inflexible about those ideas, trying to discredit one to prove that yours is better, not so much.
Somebody suggesting that there should be power-ups floating around space and having WOW like action buttons and abilities, should be respected as much as one offering calculations on warp speed interdiction mechanics, until a dev says otherwise.
That’s why we need dev input, devs can easily tell us that the power-ups idea is not their intended direction and what we should actually be focusing on.
We might be sure about something as fundamental as that, but we are not getting much input or guidance from the devs.
I bet half of us here could come up with a take on power-ups that would make sense, so they might not even be out of the picture. The “command console” idea that @mattk50 was discussing borders on the power-up approach. Also it’s pretty clear that the devs are taking a fresh approach to IBS comparing to the MMO we have discussed so much, maybe power-ups, albeit of a more subtle variety are the way they wish to go, they make sense in an arena game.
Didn’t think I should have to explain this, but here goes-
Imagine you are in a small fighter. All your squad mates are dead and the remaining 2 enemy fighters from the latest encounter are on your tail. Shields depleted and hull getting gradually swiss cheesed as you barrel roll away trying to avoid incoming fire. You see the appropriately coloured blip at the edge of scanner range.
Through skillful flying you manage to make it to your target and fly through the floating space mushroom. Your ship is instantly Super Marioed into twice the physical size and strength. Ah-ha! Now the hunters become the hunted…
Who in their right mind wouldn’t want that, I ask you?
OK, more seriously:
Yeah, I wondered if it would discourage co operation. But on the other hand, if it simplifies communications by cutting back on the need for people trying to explain their situation, doesn’t that give you more time to discuss tactics? I don’t know. I never played a game with that, so you obviously have a better idea of how well it works.
Ah, good point. I guess they’d need to make sure everyone has something interesting to do for the duration. I just think it would be good to have enough time to think and plan your next move. Even, dare I say it, look at the scenery a little.
Maybe you could just join games with very different scenarios and objectives. Some could be wall to wall carnage, others a bit more spread out and strategic. I’m sure whatever they initially release, alternative game styles, specialised equipment, etc. could be added later based on feedback Which really makes this comment entirely redundant. Oh well.
Obviously not you and me, but we are not really your typical kid with $30-$50 bucks to spare for a good KS.
My point wasn’t that that should be implemented. There are gamers that enjoy that type of gameplay and there is a market for those type of games, maybe that market is larger than what market a handful of us hardcore fanatics represent. As such we would benefit by having some here and hearing how they feel about gameplay, I fear somebody talking about mushrooms wouldn’t last a day here. Their opinion and thoughts are no less valid.
And I really doubt that INS can fund their KS with us, they will need to appeal to a wider market, which probably means they will need to compromise on what we think is good gameplay.
Presented with a mushroom powerup that is worth $250k extra KS money, would they take it?
[quote=“CaptainRogers, post:54, topic:596”]
But on the other hand, if it simplifies communications by cutting back on the need for people trying to explain their situation, doesn’t that give you more time to discuss tactics?[/quote]
Sure, but why are the players going to want to discuss tactics? It means that the game has to have a significant element of timing and deployment of resources. If the fighters are here when they’re needed there, bad things will happen. But if the fighters aren’t here, we’ll never get step 6 of the conquest gameplay completed.
Note that “deployment of resources” suggests ship specialization. Perhaps any ship type can be geared any way, but any individual ship must be geared a specific way, specializing its role in the game. So when a team devotes half their resources to landing craft, they’ll be great at landing, but rubbish at combat - and that may actually work with their tactics.
Now take that game and throw a bunch of strangers together to play it. It may be that the Natural Selection 2 approach of a central commander was their way of dodging the problem of coordination. You either get a leader you like or you don’t. If nobody likes him, then the team more or less does the best they can without him. But somebody is devoted to planning and everyone else can pew-pew.
I think the bottom line is that creating a game with the potential for composing scenarios with “a significant element of timing and deployment of resources” would go a long way to making that common map useful. Being able to configure information sharing in a variety of ways would go a long way to empowering the modding community, period.
If I’ve learned anything about game design, it’s that; games should not mandate a single style of gameplay. ARMA 3 again is an example of how that can be done. They allow for extensive modding, and server operators install various packages (which can be configured) to produce experiences that players enjoy. I hope that the INS guys are thinking along those lines.
Ah, I see. I got your comment backwards. I actually thought you were having a lighthearted dig at any unnamed persons who design warp interdiction calculations and saying they should be treated with no respect.
I don’t know about market share of hardcore space fans, but if I see the word “immersion” used to back up an argument on the Elite forum one more time, I may go insane. Just saying.
Not really sure what else I have to say on the matter without going into silly detail. I just hope they don’t get too wrapped up in making the flash and not put enough thought into the gameplay, whatever route they take with it. Seems an obvious thing to say, but others have gone that way.