Oh, e-sport. OK, now it makes sense.

I would say, if you intend it as e-sport customization makes no sense. Make predefined units and very few of them.

through our previous discussions the last 18 months

:D

I was stuck in the "casual market" bubble

I know what you mean. But you overlook many shades of greys. There are plenty of players between casual and pro-gamers, tons of them being hardcore gamers. If you brand everyone that is no pro-gamer as casual you are losing tons of hard die fans of the genre who love complex games.

But I guess if I had fallen into casuals trap (which fortunatelly I did not step into) I would think similar way you do...

I know what you mean. But you overlook many shades of greys. There are plenty of players between casual and pro-gamers, tons of them being hardcore gamers. If you brand everyone that is no pro-gamer as casual you are losing tons of hard die fans of the genre who love complex games.

Possibly correct. I guess it depends where I set the line between pro and hardcore... Playtesting will help determine this I hope (which I'm nowhere close to).

But I guess if I had fallen into casuals trap (which fortunatelly I did not step into) I would think similar way you do...

I didn't really fall into the trap. It was imposed on me as part of my day job :P

That being said, my reaction to the casual bubble is similar to what seems to have motivated the local indie upheaval. It may not be similar everywhere, but here, a number of smaller studios (at least 8 very serious contenders in my city alone) were created as a response to casual gaming. Most of them ended up making retro-inspired designs, or more hardcore-oriented games.

I may just be a product of my own geographical position!

but there wouldn't be an actual choice between each tech is the most pressing to implement (I need better weapons vs I need better speed)

This could be mapped to ship classes too. You need other resources for building light fighter as for ion-cannon battle ships. The economy behind your empire will limit the choice of your fleet.

I want to capture ships instead of destroying them

This is an interesting feature which could be countered by customization.

combat is pretty much a stand-back and watch.

That's pretty cool, I like it. It reminds me of homeworld, when you watch a large battle evolving, your plans succeed or failed.

If you capture ships to research new technology (like Xcom), it would work. But if you capture ships to add them to your fleet, then customization could easily counter other game experiences. Customization gives the player lot of freedom, but lot of freedom reduces the desire for some interesting goal. It is the difference between "Wow, I want one of thos alien fighters, lets think about how to capture it" vs "Nah, it is easier to customize a ship similar to this alien fighter". Strategy lives on limited options, because the decision you need to make have more impact. Therefor customization could counter some other strategy related features.

That being said, I'm a bit scared of lacking depth.

This is an effect of knowning our games to the last detail. As game designer we are bad game testers. A strategy game have lot of knowledge based challenges (no skill challenges), therefor you are more or less already a master of your game. An other player will have an absolutly other game perception. If you would make your game challenging for yourself, it would be impossible for others :P So, less is often more.

This could be mapped to ship classes too. You need other resources for building light fighter as for ion-cannon battle ships. The economy behind your empire will limit the choice of your fleet.

Indeed :) Thanks for reminding me that I spent an absurb amount of time designing an economy that would force the player to choose! Hopefully it won't be too restrictive.

Customization gives the player lot of freedom, but lot of freedom reduces the desire for some interesting goal. It is the difference between "Wow, I want one of thos alien fighters, lets think about how to capture it" vs "Nah, it is easier to customize a ship similar to this alien fighter". Strategy lives on limited options, because the decision you need to make have more impact. Therefor customization could counter some other strategy related features.

Just to be sure we're on the same page, I've never considered full-scale customization. The only form of customization that I've considered was as follows:

- Choose a specific hull design from your list (each faction has a unique list). It will tell you how many weapons (and types) you can equip on it along with a few other factory components you can swap in/out (engines, etc.)

- Choose your loadout (I want 3 phasers in my beam weapon slots! I want Transwarp drives for my engines!, etc.)

So as you see, even in a system with this level of customization, stealing a ship would still have value. Even moreso, it would make some ships highly desirable if, say, your faction doesn't have access to any mid-ranged missile ship and you believe it would benefit from that: you end up stealing ships on purpose, and lookout for them. Your opponents will use them against you because these are strong ships, but they might hold back to prevent a capture.

This is an effect of knowning our games to the last detail. As game designer we are bad game testers. A strategy game have lot of knowledge based challenges (no skill challenges), therefor you are more or less already a master of your game. An other player will have an absolutly other game perception. If you would make your game challenging for yourself, it would be impossible for others So, less is often more.

While entirely true, I think there is also the opposite: where the developer sees a lit of synergies, intertwining mechanics, in very subtle features that don't necessarily affect the whole positively. I could, for example, spend hours tuning 2 different ships so that one has a bit more armor, and the other has a bit more missiles, and make it in such a way that a 1-2 combo of these two vs a specific set of ships would give a slight victory, but it would be so subtle players would never figure it out or even care.

Possibly not the best example, but sometimes the dev sees depth where there is only unecessary depht. Depth has value only if these choices are apparent to the player, and if they're a big deal. If they aren't sufficiently meaningful, then a lot of depth just becomes complexity, or over-simplification of the core idea. In the latter case, adding more depth would be highly desirable.

I'm not fan of capturing ships. It's unrealistic, can you image Pickard or any other half decent captain to not initiate self destruct sequence when everything is lost? And how are you supposed to use an alien ships if you have no spare parts? And software in the computers that, if nothing else, uses different language? Computers not compatible with your tactical net. Different size of torpedo bays. Steering panels require 7 fingers instead of 5 plus the pilot is supposed to be 50 cm high at most :) And so on, so on.

It's far easier and more profitable to scrap such captured ship to gather knowledge, not to use it.

Also, even if we ignore realism, I don't think it adds much to the game. I mean, you have choosen a race, you should work around your weakness, not find and steal a ship that complements your setup. Your race does not have cloaking ships, deal with it.

can you image Pickard or any other half decent captain to not initiate self destruct sequence when everything is lost?

Some of my species actually have that. I have a fairly Xenophobic and proud species that would.

Sometimes however, the Captain is taken off-guard by the assault of the bridge, and perhaps the 3rd in command is in charge even for the Federation (I believe Data would have a hard time initiating self-destruct given the amount of innocents on-board, he'd probably wish to trade the ship for their potential freedom... not all species eject crew into space afterall).

And how are you supposed to use an alien ships if you have no spare parts?

It is generally damaged and requires a good tow back to a base that can actually adapt/retrofit it.

Also, even if we ignore realism, I don't think it adds much to the game. I mean, you have choosen a race, you should work around your weakness, not find and steal a ship that complements your setup. Your race does not have cloaking ships, deal with it.

I disagree. A "pirate race" starts with much weaker overall design, but has advantages when it comes to stealing ships, which emulates a different gameplay: go out, find a target, hunt it down, don't break it! This is exciting because it forces you to consider the encounter under a different light. Your objective is not to strike out the enemy fleet on your front, but rather, to boldly go anywhere they MIGHT go (not just neighboring enemies) and seek the ship you want.

If your weakness is your entire ship list, you need to work out your strengths (ability to capture) to your advantage to capture ships.

One thing I liked about Planets.nu is that it has a species (Solar Federation!) which is immune to Decloaking vessels... yet it doesn't HAVE a cloak-able vessel! At first sight, this looks like a wasted effort, but a skilled player understands how hard it can be to capture a cloaking vessel without cloaking yourself, so your cause appears desperate until... you realize that the Solar Federation is about Politics and Trades. Then, you trade away one of your bigger ships for a cloaker of a race that agrees to help you (often, the Klingons/Fascists). In this case however, the design is given, not capture, but it makes little difference.

I agree that, from a realism perspective, it wouldn't make much sense as it would infer many "universal-translator" devices are in place. But I see value in ship capture regardless. In a asymmetric setup, it can always be desirable to steal a piece from your opponent, but assuming bilateral asymmetry, it wouldn't be much use: using the opponent's weapon against themselves would end up 1:1 and not much exciting.

However, in an environment where there are more factions at work, it becomes interesting to steal a ship from opponent A to use against opponent B if that ship is particularly powerful against opponent B's ship list (focuses on a weakness inherent to opponent B's ship list).

I've just done that recently in a Planet.nu game. I was playing as the Solar Federation and wanted to wage a war against the Klingons. They could easily defend their border because I did not have a cloaking vessel, which meant they would see me coming... bad plan.

Then, I chose to attack a Romulan vessel to acquire a stealth ship to open the attack in Klingon territory. This allowed me to break past their front-line defense and wreak havoc on their other flank. By the time they repositionned against that threat, I had a few turns to close in with my actual fleet and take out their perimeter defenses which gave me a point of entry in their territory.

In most planets.nu games however, players are interested in the Meteor, a ship that simply has twice the speed of any other ship. Only one faction builds it, and this faction excels at stealing ships... this makes it hard for one to try and steal theirs, but it is nonetheless a desirable outcome, so it forces strange encounters where both sides try to capture the others' ship. The victor generally gets a lot from the exchange.

I'm not trying to convince you, we had enough of such discussions in the past :) Maye I will put it that way. VGA Planets has several degenerated mechanics and if you are going to clone it you could fix these. If you can't see anything degenerated/broken there, well.... you have a problem :) You won't be able to clone it succesfully (I mean surpass it). At most you could make a cheap imitation... So, my advice is to look at VGA Planets in a more critical eye. Then you will know how to fix it and make the way they should made it in the first place.

For example you don't need to implement pirate race at all :) Free yourself from the VGS Planets influence or at least sidetrack from it. I just wanted it to sits somewhere in the back of your head :)

Orymus3 invited me to take a look at some of the huge Acharis-Orymus3 discussions you've been having. I don't feel like I can add too much more to this particular thread, but I would like to recommend the game Stars! to both of you. It was a lesser known title that came out in 1995 and is no longer sold, but you can still download a copy and use one of the public serial numbers. If you haven't played it yet, you should check it out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stars!

The graphics were a little light, but since you guys are playing VGA planets, I don't guess that's an issue. :)

It does have ship design in it, but it's a lot more restrictive than Master of Orion 2 had. You can't cram whatever you want on whatever hull, each hull had different slot types.

http://wiki.starsautohost.org/wiki/Scout

http://wiki.starsautohost.org/wiki/Destroyer

The scout comes with 1 engine, 1 scanner, and 1 general slot. Generally scouts are used for just that, scouting. But you could put a weapon on it to snipe cargo ships or unarmed starbases. Or you could slap a fuel tank on it to make it scout further. Or a cargo pod to haul a few minerals or colonists between your worlds.

I've heard you talk a bit about logistics managing and auto-gen combat. And Stars! has a ton of both. You have to worry about fuel for your ships, minerals for your shipyards, and colonists for different worlds. It was a play by e-mail game so you only got to setup AI priorities before sending your fleets in to do battle. The strategic depth of the game was pretty darn awesome.

I'm still catching up on the last 18 months of chats, so hopefully I'll be able to contribute a little more next time around. :)

- Eck

VGA Planets has several degenerated mechanics and if you are going to clone it you could fix these. If you can't see anything degenerated/broken there, well.... you have a problem You won't be able to clone it succesfully (I mean surpass it). At most you could make a cheap imitation... So, my advice is to look at VGA Planets in a more critical eye. Then you will know how to fix it and make the way they should made it in the first place.

On that, we agree.

I've removed a number of mechanics and arranged a lot of how this works. Otherwise, I'd be making a VGA Planets Mod ;)

For example you don't need to implement pirate race at all Free yourself from the VGS Planets influence or at least sidetrack from it. I just wanted it to sits somewhere in the back of your head

I don't want to :P

The original Pirate race doesn't work all that well, and I believe I can do much better. I believe I already have as a matter of fact. Mine is more about boarding enemy ships than stealing fuel anyway (which always felt a bit out of flavor to my taste). They are real swashbucklers now! Also, they also have a reason to steal actual ships.

That being said, if you feel there are various quirks I should get rid of, don't hesitate to PM them to me. I'd rather not further side-track this forum discussion, but I'm definitely interested in your opinion: even if I don't envision things the way you do, they're always food for thought.

Orymus3 invited me to take a look at some of the huge Acharis-Orymus3 discussions you've been having. I don't feel like I can add too much more to this particular thread, but I would like to recommend the game Stars! to both of you. It was a lesser known title that came out in 1995 and is no longer sold, but you can still download a copy and use one of the public serial numbers. If you haven't played it yet, you should check it out.

I am aware :) I believe it even pops up in one of my discussions, but that may be on TIGSource, not quite sure (it's been a while).

The scout comes with 1 engine, 1 scanner, and 1 general slot. Generally scouts are used for just that, scouting. But you could put a weapon on it to snipe cargo ships or unarmed starbases. Or you could slap a fuel tank on it to make it scout further. Or a cargo pod to haul a few minerals or colonists between your worlds.

That's sort of what I'm trying to avoid in the first place though: it gives the player too much freedom where they actual fun and challenge comes from taming the ship design mechanics to field the ships you need, instead of having to choose a ship not necessarily made perfectly for what you want to do, and figure out a way to make it happen regardless.

I believe that the "ship customization" approach has been catered for by several games (with more or less detail, depending on the game), but the actual skillset of dealing with what you have appears to be under-represented. It is ever-present in RTS games, but rarely in 4X.

As a result, having a finite number of "slots" that can do anything is a simple system, and a clever one at that, but it is going the "wrong direction" for what I'm trying to achieve.

I think it is important for factions to have things they simply suck at, if only to see how players will cope with that.

For example, most of my factions have freighters, which are, dedicated transport ships. These are critical for the economy.

However:

- One faction has a stealth freighter with less capacity. Essentially, it is much harder to intercept, which means their economy is well-protected, and does not call for enemy attention, but its limited cargo size means it is not as efficient.

- Another faction has an armed cargo transport. It punished other players for attempting to intercept it, though, provided larger numbers, it can still fall.

- Another faction has a fast cargo transport. Though the cargo size is limited, it gives them a serious economic edge because they can get stuff there that much faster.

- Another faction has no cargo transports and must rely on warships to do double duty, which is less than ideal, but provides dedicated protection.

- Another faction has a very large cargo, but no dedicated escort-type ships, leaving them vulnerable in open space

etc.

How each faction interacts with this basic economic unit differs, and opens up different possibilities. Players can learn to cope with these weaknesses and capitalize on their strengths or they can force a different play (to a limited degree) that better fits their playstyle.

The fun then comes from choosing a faction that feels natural to the player, and scale up their strategy as they meet with clever players that tap into their weaknesses.

As with most asymmetric games, learning more about your opponent will help you figure out how to play your faction better obviously.

I've heard you talk a bit about logistics managing and auto-gen combat. And Stars! has a ton of both. You have to worry about fuel for your ships, minerals for your shipyards, and colonists for different worlds.

I'll refresh my memory on these. Thanks!

It was a play by e-mail game so you only got to setup AI priorities before sending your fleets in to do battle.

So was VGA Planets ;) In fact, VGA Planets was a play-by-mail (through BBS, before tze interwebs) game, and I believe I saw somewhere that it was the most play-by-mail game... ever. In hindsight, this makes perfect sense and makes a point about why it has survived to this day. Thank god they've made an automated web version however! (Planets.nu)

I'm still catching up on the last 18 months of chats, so hopefully I'll be able to contribute a little more next time around.

Acharis still has a lot of these threads opened up, and I only participate from time to time. Truth be told, most of my game design is really completed, and we're down to "level" design (in this case, ships). I still have a few large open questions, such as ship customization, but I have designs for several different outcomes that I've already laid out on paper, it's more a matter of choosing at this stage. Obviously, I can still adjust based on interested ideas that pop-up!

So was VGA Planets ;) In fact, VGA Planets was a play-by-mail (through BBS, before tze interwebs) game, and I believe I saw somewhere that it was the most play-by-mail game... ever. In hindsight, this makes perfect sense and makes a point about why it has survived to this day. Thank god they've made an automated web version however! (Planets.nu)

I'm an old BBS'er myself. I always wanted to get into Planets VGA, but it didn't catch on with the BBS I frequented. TradeWars 2002 did though and I had a blast with that.

When I get a little more time, I'll probably check out planets.nu. Some people can't play those old games anymore, but I sure can. :)

Truth be told, most of my game design is really completed, and we're down to "level" design (in this case, ships). I still have a few large open questions, such as ship customization, but I have designs for several different outcomes that I've already laid out on paper, it's more a matter of choosing at this stage. Obviously, I can still adjust based on interested ideas that pop-up!

Ship it! (no pun intended) If you're that close, pick a good option, implement it and release the game. I wish I was that close. So jealous...

- Eck