Map Size and The Kaufman Retrograde

from Stardock Forums

A critical aspect of this game will be map size and type.  There are two types of maps for top down space combat, closed and open.  An open map is endless, like space.  A closed map has a barrier, or wall, and is limited in size.  There are many problems with using an open map, the most obvious of which is an endless ability to run away.  Star Control will almost certainly use closed maps.  Using  a closed map, map size becomes a critical component to both the combat environment and they way the game feels to the player.  If the map is too small the player feels too boxed-in, but if it is too large it may as well be an open map.  It will be more important than most are likely to realize that the map be just the right size.  Getting the right size will have a huge impact on both the combat balance and the feel to the player.  The map should be round, not square.  A square map has corners that a player can be trapped in, creating a large advantage for ship that use seeking weapons such as missiles or plasma torpedoes.  A round map has no corners, only the barrier, and does not provide a corner location for seeking weapon armed ships to trap enemies in.

A concept closely related to the map size issue is something Star Fleet Battles players call "The Kaufman Retrograde".  In simple terms, this means that a ship running away from an enemy and firing backwards towards it's pursuer is, as a general rule of thumb, at a 3:1 advantage over the pursuing player.  The retrograding player can more easily control the range at which fire is exchanged.  A mine dropped by the retrograding player is a fast moving missile coming at the pursuer, a mine dropped by the pursuer is simply left behind.  A missile launched by the retrograding player is approaching the pursuer at double-closure rate, a missle launched by the pursuing player must make a long, slow, uphill climb to reach it's target.  There are other advantages as well.  The Kaufman Retrograde is a primary reason why map size is so important.  The "right" map size will be one that is large enough to feel that you have room to fight, but small enough to force you to fight and limit the usefulness of the Kaufman Retrograde.

I just thought this was an early type of issue to get right in the design that might be overlooked by someone making a top down space combat game for the first time and thought I'd just put this out there.

 

20,669 views 4 replies
Reply #1 from Stardock Forums Top

I read somewhere that the super-melee map is a solar system.  I understand what they mean by that, it means the map will be large with "terrain" like planets that create gravity wells, asteroid fields that limit maneuverablity, and dust clouds that might have various effects.  This would mean that SC2 would actually use an open map.  In that case, the devs should be aware of the concept of the retrograde when designing the ships.  Faster ships that are able to fire backwards as they run are in danger of either being too powerful, or an annoyingly boring opponent to face.  The Spathi in the original, for example, was designed to retrograde and was balanced due to that fact.  On the other hand, you all probably remember how the Spathi was the one ship that could fight any of the others on even terms and didn't really have a nemesis... because it was designed to retrograde.

A small map is not necessary for balance, it simply solves retrograde problems for all ships.  You can also address the problem by designing and balancing the ship for the retrograde.  The danger, again, is a ship that is either too powerful or one that is annoying and not fun to play against.

Reply #2 from StarControl Forums Top

I tend to agree. It must be difficult to define the limits of the combat arena in a new and modern way. I have a feeling it made more sense to scale up the combat with the new engine so as to include multiple planets instead of just one.

I wonder if the ships will still swap orientations once they reach the furthest distance from one another as we are traditionally used to, or if they'll use some other gameplay mechanic to keep combat from stalemating due to one ship simply outrunning the other. Maybe there are other considerations they're making in the ship design that we haven't even thought of to keep the gameplay from becoming a monotonous chase if one ship chooses to "kite" another.

Initially I thought when you were referring to the size of the map, I figured you meant the actual starmap and the distance the player could travel within the game universe relative to their starting point. In SC2 Hyperspace, the starmap was only so large and you could only go as far as the edges of that map; your ship would simply not go any further past that artificially enforced boundary.

I was thinking a cooler way to do it would be to have no boundaries on the map; most of the stars you will visit are in a small cluster around you but everything else beyond that is a limitless expanse where you could conceivably go forever if you had unlimited fuel. In order to keep players from going too far off the beaten path, perhaps the available locations to visit simply drop off beyond a certain point and there is seemingly nothing left to visit, but you aren't prevented from going further should you choose to. It would just be empty space you're traveling through as you get further and further away from familiar territory. Maybe there are completely amazing things out in that "uncharted" territory that only the bravest adventurers can find!

Not sure if this idea for an unending map is something Stardock would consider but it would definitely add to the sense of adventure to have a virtually boundless and borderless universe where the player can continue exploring as far as their ship can take them without ever knowing the actual limits of the map or how far they can actually go to discover something new.

Curtains - Customize Windows with additional styles
Reply #3 from StarControl Forums Top

I often mention the problems associated with multiplayer on a large map, I thought I would explain in more detail what the primary issue actually is in a way that everyone should be able to understand.  There are many issues with what SFB players call an "open map", but these are the two really big ones that must be addressed in some way to avoid... an unpleasant experience for the player.

Imagine yourself playing me, here are the two worst things I can do too you on an open map...

The first is simple.  With unlimited room to run and a significantly faster ship I can "grief" you forever by just staying out of your range.  As loooooooong as I want too.  There is nothing at all you can do about it, except quit that match and not play with me anymore because I am a jerk:-)  "Speed is life", it's an immutable law.  A truism, an axiom.

The next thing is a little more complicated to explain, but is basically me using the same principle from the first example in a far more annoying way.  In SFB terminology I can use the Oblique Attack to repeatedly achieve the Oblique Option Point.  We have a specific name for this tactic, it is called "The Klingon Sabre Dance".  In layman's terms, it means that I can approach at an angle from outside of effective weapon range already half-way through the turn away ("The Oblique Attack"), firing at the edge of effective weapon range ("The Oblique Option Point") and turning away to either circle around, fly a figure-8 pattern, or simply turn out and back in in a wave-like pattern.  There is nothing at all you can do about this, assuming I am in a significantly faster ship.  Oh, and the Sabre Dance is lethally effective in Star Control, where your health does not regenerate.

Now, imagine yourself as my opponent in a 1v1 duel.  Are you having fun?  I certainly am, but I doubt you are.  I bet you'd appreciate a smaller area that interfered with my ability to do this too you, wouldn't you?

These are the two really big issues with an open map, there are others, but these are the potentially game breaking ones that need to be addressed in some way to prevent winding up with what is an ultimately boring combat environment.  The "best" solution the SFB community ever came up with to address this issue is a "Tournament Map" that was just the right size to allow the faster ship to control the range, but small enough to limit and contain the retrograde (the Sabre Dance is an extension of the concept of the retrograde).

 

 

Reply #4 from StarControl Forums Top

It would probably also help the devs to know the true root cause of retrograde problems, that way they can address any issues that arise the right way and not endlessly play wack-a-mole trying to correct 1,000 symptoms of a single problem without ever recognizing the actual cause of the problem (You know, how 99% of people blunder through making games).

The retrograde is not a flaw, either in the game or in its representation of reality.  Retrograde issues arise entirely due to the psychology of gamers. The retrograde is only an issue in combat for the sake of combat, something that never actually occurs in the real world.  Despite what many today seem to believe, military commanders do not risk the lives of the people under their command lightly.  In the real world there must be a reason to fight, or no fight will take place.  In a game, the player just wants to fight for the sake of fighting.  There isn't necessarily any reason for the fight.  This is the true root cause of all retrograde issues.  There is no point or reason for the fight other than to fight, which does not happen in the real world.


Any objective immediately solves all retrograde issues.  The tactic of running away is not useful in defending a point, or in capturing one.  The player will not choose to retrograde whenever their is an objective other than combat.  It is not a useful tactic in those situations, which in real life would be all situations.

A fight between ships in the middle of empty space would be very unlikely to ever happen.  In reality, there would have to be something there worth fighting for.  A planet, valuable minerals in asteroids, or even just a strategically valuable Lagrange Point in a solar system.  A "meeting engagement" in open space would be very unlikely, as there is no reason to fight and risk people's lives over nothing at all.  Even if attrition of the enemy fleet were a goal... it would have to be the goal of both fleets for a fight to take place.  It could happen, but it would be very rare.  Almost unheard of.

So retrograde issues are ultimately caused by the pschology of gamers and the fact that they are willing to participate in combat purely for the sake of participating in combat and retrograde issues only become a problem in this situation.  Any objective eliminates the usefulness of the retrograde.