Enemy AI is easy in this type of game and can be made to be very challenging.  It's allied AI that is a hopeless cause.

2v2 and 3v3 multiplayer will work fine if 1v1 does, no separate balance is needed for that.  I've also mentioned before something that I think gets overlooked... 3-way fights/scenarios are particularly interesting and work very well in top down space combat.  So even if they are only doing a single 1v1 supermelee map as multiplayer they really should consider also allowing for 1v1v1 games because 3-way FFA is just really good within this genre.

As for the camera.  Everyone knows I will only even really play multiplayer if I can have my view be top down, I hope they still plan on allowing that as an option and that hasn't changed.  I would do the view for SC exactly as I would do it in my own game, which is very similar and inspired by how Subspace did it.  And this works just as well with 1v1 or 64 player maps.  Two levels of zoom, close range and medium range.  Radar on bottom right corner.  Close zoom is the "normal fighting view" that the view is in if any hostile ships are within that view range.  If no hostiles within close zoom view range, then view zooms out to medium range.  Radar is BVR ("Beyond Visual Range"), while both close and medium zoom represent "visual range".  It is harder to hit things beyond close zoom range because the target has a longer period of time to react to incoming fire... and yet with a long range weapon it is still possible to hit things "off screen" just by taking a good guess at where to shoot based on radar (just like in Subspace).  So there is Close View, Medium View, and Radar.  And that's all you need to handle an unlimited number of ships in a map, or 1v1, perfectly.  

Then you can allow the camera to rotate, and allow the player to make the mistake of distracting themselves with the camera only to distort their view... but I would lock it top down.  "You always have to leave the player the option of making a mistake." is a pretty good game design quote, but doesn't apply to the interface.  Angling the view and distorting your vision and aim, especially when modern gamers are going to want to because that is what "looks right" too them, is not a mistake you really want to let them make.  Then again, if supermelee is only ever going to be this single 1v1 map, and you don't plan on any of the expansions expanding it, then it is such a small thing it's not worth letting interfere with the main game.  In that case, you probably do want to angle the camera for the better look since it doesn't really matter against the AI.  In that case... just please leave us old guys the option of putting the view into top down in supermeleee:-)

Quoting Kavik_Kang, reply 51

Enemy AI is easy in this type of game and can be made to be very challenging.  It's allied AI that is a hopeless cause.

2v2 and 3v3 multiplayer will work fine if 1v1 does, no separate balance is needed for that.  I've also mentioned before something that I think gets overlooked... 3-way fights/scenarios are particularly interesting and work very well in top down space combat.  So even if they are only doing a single 1v1 supermelee map as multiplayer they really should consider also allowing for 1v1v1 games because 3-way FFA is just really good within this genre.

As for the camera.  Everyone knows I will only even really play multiplayer if I can have my view be top down, I hope they still plan on allowing that as an option and that hasn't changed.  I would do the view for SC exactly as I would do it in my own game, which is very similar and inspired by how Subspace did it.  And this works just as well with 1v1 or 64 player maps.  Two levels of zoom, close range and medium range.  Radar on bottom right corner.  Close zoom is the "normal fighting view" that the view is in if any hostile ships are within that view range.  If no hostiles within close zoom view range, then view zooms out to medium range.  Radar is BVR ("Beyond Visual Range"), while both close and medium zoom represent "visual range".  It is harder to hit things beyond close zoom range because the target has a longer period of time to react to incoming fire... and yet with a long range weapon it is still possible to hit things "off screen" just by taking a good guess at where to shoot based on radar (just like in Subspace).  So there is Close View, Medium View, and Radar.  And that's all you need to handle an unlimited number of ships in a map, or 1v1, perfectly.  

Then you can allow the camera to rotate, and allow the player to make the mistake of distracting themselves with the camera only to distort their view... but I would lock it top down.  "You always have to leave the player the option of making a mistake." is a pretty good game design quote, but doesn't apply to the interface.  Angling the view and distorting your vision and aim, especially when modern gamers are going to want to because that is what "looks right" too them, is not a mistake you really want to let them make.  Then again, if supermelee is only ever going to be this single 1v1 map, and you don't plan on any of the expansions expanding it, then it is such a small thing it's not worth letting interfere with the main game.  In that case, you probably do want to angle the camera for the better look since it doesn't really matter against the AI.  In that case... just please leave us old guys the option of putting the view into top down in supermeleee

 

I've never wanted to simultaneously agree and vehemently disagree with you. Ever. Let it be known that I agree with the sentiment of allowing the player to make a mistake. However, you're dead  wrong about the camera. And I will NOT be convinced otherwise.

What do you mean?  If the camera is angled your view of the area, and your aim, are distorted.  And the action is so fast, if you play with the camera you are dead.  I played Subspace for over 10 years.  I've actually done this a lot as exactly this type of arcade game.  Things are moving very fast, you don't have time to look around like you are playing World of Warships.

I'm calling bullshit. If you know your ship, ie if you are good at using that particular ship, the camera angle doesn't matter. If the camera angle impacts your performance, you're just bad at the game.

Well, no, it's like how a flat map of the Earth is distorted, and only a globe can display an accurate map.  If you angle the camera you are distorting the view, and your aim will be off.  Your brain has to recognize and factor that distortion into the aim of the shot.  From direct top down, or "God's View", you are seeing a pure and undistorted view of the action.  I'm guessing those high-math wiz types could probably express this as an equation that would show exactly how distorted your view is a various angles.  It's a real thing, not just psychological.

That's true, but that doesn't change the fact that a good player will account for that. It's not "I need  to turn this many degrees and fire after this many seconds", it's "This feels like it did when it hit before. F***ing fire."

1. Dynamic

2. Teams.

3. Free form

Why should they have to account for it?  It also destroys the primary quality that makes this genre so well-known for being addictive.  And, with your inferior "compensated aim" (and your inferior overall situational awareness, greater difficulty in avoiding things like mines, etc) in supermelee you will be at a significant disadvantage against someone looking in the top down view that this genre actually is.  Which is why I worry they won't allow you to even put the view into top down, because it is a big advantage that most don't even know exists.

There was a reason these games were famous for being addictive, something that I began calling "Pattern Recognition Addiction" long before I learned that it was actually a real thing and they called it the same exact thing, haha!  You lose that when you tilt the camera angle, and so you lose the best and most important thing that people loved about it.

It is a HUGE deal to the artists.  That is the real issue.  They can't work well in this view, much of their art is in "perspective" and that is lost in a straight top down view.  I understand this.  The question is are you willing to give up the art in this one aspect in the game to retain the quality that makes this genre so famous for being "addictively fun".  You lose the Pattern Recognition Addiction when the patterns become distorted by the view angle.  And those patterns are where the "aim" really is, you aren't "leading targets" in this genre, you are introducing a new object into the pattern.  It really is its own unique thing.  The question is if they want that thing enough to actually make that thing, or if looking pretty at first glance is more important.

No one activity is addictive. One has to have a predisposition for addiction. But you know what? That's not what this is about. What's so hard about simply saying "I don't like free-form cameras"? 

Also, for your information "Pattern Recognition Addiction" is not the term. Pattern Recognition is certainly an attribute of the brain, but that's like saying  "Communicative Cognizance Addiction" or "Network Inhibition Addiction". Just because you use an actual neurological term and slap "addiction" on the end of it doesn't make it an actual thing.

I'm not seeing the logic wherein just because free-form cameras are available that somehow that means top-down is not a thing. Believe me, in most engines that I've worked in, having multiple camera objects for a single asset is a non-issue. 

AND WHILE WE'RE MENTIONING THE GENRE, you know there's an entire genre of fast-paced pattern recognition for ships that fits what you want way more. Ever heard of bullet-hells? Because that's LITERALLY just ships with guns in predictable patterns in top-down. Star Control is not a bullet hell, and I swear to god, if it becomes a bullet hell, there will be hell to pay.

Actually there are several activities that are actually addictive, FPS games are as well.  And there is an actual psychological term called Pattern Recognition Addiction, I noticed it because I had coined the same term to describe the effect these old arcade games have that made them so addictively fun.  It's all actually related to hypnotism, some of the same principles apply anyway.

I never said you can't have multiple ships with an angled camera, you can.  But the view is distorted when you do that, and it causes a whole huge range of different issues not the least of which is removing the addictive quality that made this genre so popular.

And if you have experience playing this type of game... Do you ever look at your own ship while you are fighting?  You don't, if you are good.  You are constantly taking in the whole screen as a "complete picture" of the relative motion of the objects.  Right?  So that "complete picture" view being distorted really destroys the entire experience.  It really is it's own unique thing.

Playing with a mouse is heresy. The original games supported controllers and had no mouse support.

I personally encourage you to use non-snapping zoom controls. While you are fiddling with the zoom, I'm kicking your ass.

Who the hell said anything about a mouse? If there's support for it, I will play with keyboard only. Stop putting words in my mouth.

Being addictive and have addictive potential are two different things. The weak will assume it was the object or activity's fault, rather than taking responsibility for their own addictive predisposition. 

1: Seems like the option are the same. Just one you are setting to random as opposed to selecting. Random would be nice for not breaking the game flow.

2:Unless the AI is awesome, teams sound frustrating. Great when it's all players for every ship but awful when solo. So I would say 1 vs 1 now and 3 vs 3 when the xbox comes out. You may not need AI players when the fan base is huge. Games that rely to much on team AI's tend to do poorly. I t was why Dragon Age 2 was so panned, your AI was horrible and you had to rely on them. Even SPAZ, I have to control the little guys myself or the AI gets them killed constantly.

3: Rebel Galaxy shows that a dynamic camera can be great. This has to be perfect though or it completely ruins the game if it is not. Top-down would seem safer to start in and then allow manipulation. I just worry about it after Star Control 3 version of the camera was so terrible.

Pattern Recognition Addiction is a very real psychological thing based on core aspects of how our brains work.  It's something we've done naturally since before we were even human.  That's why this genre was once legendary for it's highly addictive quality.  Games like Asteroids, Star Control, Subspace, there were a lot of them back in the early days when graphics were primitive, they were are known for being games you couldn't put down.  You would sit down to play for 15 minutes and still be going 3 hours later.  The flowing motion of top down space combat does this better than any other game, or anything really, it's really perfect for it which is why you had half-a-million or so hardcore Subspace players who stuck with it for a little over 10 years.  Microsoft canceling support for the Sidewinder gamepad so many of us used, then the operating system that the Sidewinder wouldn't work with coming out shortly after that killed that audience more than anything else.  If it's done right this genre can retain an audience for a very long time, because really is very addictive for those that it draws in.

You did.

What are you using that mouse for that could frustrate you enough for you to break said mouse?

Don't shoot the messenger, buddy. You said it.

Just because I'm not using the mouse doesn't mean it can't be broken. Don't need to be literal here.  Is the concept of broken peripherals due to rage completely foreign to you?

1. Dynamic for sure.   That offers a bit of a strategy game play based on your blunders during the battle. 

2.  Solo    1v1.   I think its better to polish what works already rather than to spend time on something that is untested/unproven.

3. Zoomed out mode show all ships.  Very similar to the old format.  You show them all and as they come together you zoom closer in  again shows both ships.

Dragon Age 2 had some serious flaws, but those centered on the awfully limited environments and the re-use thereof. The AI was adequate - the base assumption is that you control the party and they just cover the deadspace in commands.

1. Dynamic, definitely.

2. Teams could be great but it's all in the execution.

3. Zoomed out by default I think.

Also, I have some thoughts on other melee questions:

I don't like the idea of the solar system melee, for a simple matter of scale. Solar systems are huge, planets are far away from each other. Ship-to-ship combat that shows all of the planets in a solar system on the melee screen would mean that the scale is nonsensical. I know it's already kind of absurd in that in SC2's super-melee the planets are much smaller than they should be, relative to the ships, but it's manageable. Having ships flying around a solar system on the melee would just be ridiculous though, the overall effect could only be totally cartoony, I think too much so. I already think that the art style is in danger of getting a little too cartoony, this would take it over the edge for me.

That said, I do like the idea of the multiple gravity wells etc. Would it be helpful to have planetary melee, but include moons, where appropriate? You would then have the opportunity to include multi gravity wells, within a slightly more realistic area of space.

One the point about wrap-around map area vs a fixed size - it always bothered me slightly in SC2 how ships would wrap over from one side to the other. On the one hand it created some interesting gameplay dynamics, but also some stupid ones. On balance I think there should probably be a fixed melee map area.

The question is, what happens when a ship flees the area? There would need to be some penalty that made sense, or it seems like fast ships would have a huge advantage, being able to engage only when it suited them. Whether a ship leaving the area should be totally destroyed isn't clear to me though - and what would be the in-story mechanic for making that happen?

Could you come up with a system that led to ships attempting to flee being slowed down somehow, allowing the other ship to draw closer and forcing the fleeing ship to turn and fight?

I don't think solar-system scale is a problem. The ships are obviously powered with some super engines - it takes days to travel between stars. In that time frame, I can see solar-system wide dogfights being a thing.

I'm very pro-multi-planet.

Not foreign. I'm pointing out your contradictions to try and lead you around.

So, no mouse, and no controller. Just keyboard camera controls only. And snap zoom is bad? Because I truly want to find out how you propose to beat someone of equal skill who isn't chained to analog camera controls mapped to a digital input such as keys.

My argument is that regardless of which standard input device is chosen, someone with a snap zoom (push to zoom) + dynamic keep-both-ships-on-screen zoom is going to beat a manually controlled "analog" zoom because there is less attention required and no gain in manually controlling said zoom in a granular manner.

I also argue that any form of manual zoom in SuperMelee combat is not needed. I'm still not convinced that SC2's dynamic zoom was flawed.  The snap zoom idea was put forth to placate the zoomers.

Here is some food for thought. General question.

If we were to add multiple obstacles to the combat arena, it could increase the time some match up battles take. More obstacles reduce lanes of fire and add more hiding spaces. (More obstacles would also mean more hazards, but the only reason I ever hit the planet in SC2 was because of the horrible screen warp.)

How much longer could you tolerate battles taking? Would ship and projectile speeds (or long range damage) need to be increased across the board to account for this? 

Snap zoom is a problem because the default position it will snap to will inevitably snap when I don't need it to. I should be able to lock it in any position I want for as long as I want. Now say someone IS using a keyboard and mouse, they should be able to steer the ship with the keyboard and control the camera with the mouse. Any idiot can do it.

That isn't the type of snap zoom I'm talking about. "Snap when I don't need it to" is the giveaway. In my system, you hit a button or flick the stick up, or whatever, and you are in a preset zoom level for as long as you want. Then when you release the button or toggle it again or whatever, it goes back to the original zoom level or type, be it free camera or the superior SC2 zoom.

If you end up breaking your peripherals in rage because you hit the wrong button, that's on you.