Post by peddroelm on Sept 25, 2021 23:32:33 GMT -5
Here's the recording of the 'fight' to see 'some' of the numbers involved :
In a potentially long IRONMAN mode game inches from the Game OVER thanks for P(l)aying screen ! Please consider supporting our other projects !
The combat log has 1 job:
Display when skill pool checks are occurring
Display WHAT attributes/stats/modifiers are involved ! {you do something similar to what it should look like in the log for ONLY 1 of the 2 ships involved WHY JUST 1
?? in the UI why not in the combat log !?!?! }
Display the (APPROXIMATED if must be) ODDs of the entire simulated operation. { this PERCENT IS WHAT PLAYERS NEED TO MAKE QUICK DESCISIONS ON ! }
never ALWAYS tell me the odds !
(in some of the card game / mission feedback screens you show rolls and then name the stats involved.
Assuming reading from top to bottom . don't start with otherwise meaningless values !
Skill check strong( electronics + cpt'n Cha/2 ) vs ..... and then the actual values will make sense on the line bellow)
The actual dice results or accumulated dice results ARE USELESS as player feedback since THEY HAVE NO CLUE of the size of the expected intervals involved.. Was it a good set of rolls ? A terrible set of rolls ? From my part from his part ? What can one tell about the size of the possible result from 1 roll statistically speaking ? Why even consider having the player do this math when YOU CAN JUST DISPLAY the relevant information ??!
The conclusion I'm able to draw from what the combat log in its current form provides.
Attempting to escape at range 5 -> 6 while the enemy attempts to close range from 5 -> 4 (JUST MIGHT) INVOLVE TWO skill pool checks .
One of those checks I'm passing with some degree of consistence .
One of those I've been failing quite badly .. The move from 4->5 might been the AI deciding to use more guns at range 4 and not attempting to close.
The conclusion from the [UNNCESARLY CRYPTIC AND CRUEL] in-game combat log feedback is:
Capt'n ! Our ship is consistently faster than the enemy ship WHILE AT THE SAME TIME our very same ship is consistently slower than the very same enemy ship !!
Basic logic apparently NOT always required when designing game systems ,,,
On a less salty note :
2 SEPARATE skill pool checks
Its either those checks involve different STATS or the enemy gets some sort of hidden close in bonus (and then why even roll the easy one when you must pass a harder roll anyway ?! (because its still lowers the overall chance of success..) )
(don't know what's involved stats/modules/cards - Don't know what can be done to improve the odds in the future . I don't have the an ability to control/predict odds for game action outcomes ... ) .
I've been here before, it caused me to almost abandon this game for good, decided to give it another chance, apparently nothing did and looks extremely unlikely to change for the better..
steam forum thread
Design choice : Make players associate early ship combat with GAME OVER screen.
Design choice : HIDE (on purpose and very deliberate !) the few stats, numbers and basic arithmetic operations involved so that when ship combat does occur players can't learn what works / why it works / what doesn't / why doesn't / what can be done to improve.
Sometimes it 'works' sometimes it doesn't .. And that's how you get players with 400+ h in this game who are still NOOBS at ship combat ..(and that exactly how you want them !)
Same policy for crew combat but there the penalty is less severe (not always straight to game over screen).
If the players cannot understand how his 'choices/decisions/paths' presented in-game affect different in-game outcomes (other than 'make believe') all those 'choices' become meaningless ! (illusion of choice or some twisted version of Russian roulette: just keep mashing buttons, sometimes it works trust us !! )
From what I've been allowed to understand of them the game system simulation seems complex enough that making it clear to player HOW they work wouldn't make it trivial to 'solve' / 'abuse' ..
Would help iterate faster towards a more balanced state ..
The player base should never be in legitimate position of suspecting the dev team of playing hokey-pookey behind the scenes. The core simulation mechanics should be explained/transparent/followable ( ideally in-game ) and there should be clear feedback presented in-game for the players who try to do a bit more than just pushing random buttons and hoping it sometimes works .. (such TRUTH/honesty policies do help a ton with bug squashing if you would give a damn about that ..)
Very displeased with those design choices !
In a potentially long IRONMAN mode game inches from the Game OVER thanks for P(l)aying screen ! Please consider supporting our other projects !
The combat log has 1 job:
Display when skill pool checks are occurring
Display WHAT attributes/stats/modifiers are involved ! {you do something similar to what it should look like in the log for ONLY 1 of the 2 ships involved WHY JUST 1
?? in the UI why not in the combat log !?!?! }Display the (APPROXIMATED if must be) ODDs of the entire simulated operation. { this PERCENT IS WHAT PLAYERS NEED TO MAKE QUICK DESCISIONS ON ! }
(in some of the card game / mission feedback screens you show rolls and then name the stats involved.
Assuming reading from top to bottom . don't start with otherwise meaningless values !
Skill check strong( electronics + cpt'n Cha/2 ) vs ..... and then the actual values will make sense on the line bellow)
The actual dice results or accumulated dice results ARE USELESS as player feedback since THEY HAVE NO CLUE of the size of the expected intervals involved.. Was it a good set of rolls ? A terrible set of rolls ? From my part from his part ? What can one tell about the size of the possible result from 1 roll statistically speaking ? Why even consider having the player do this math when YOU CAN JUST DISPLAY the relevant information ??!
The conclusion I'm able to draw from what the combat log in its current form provides.
Attempting to escape at range 5 -> 6 while the enemy attempts to close range from 5 -> 4 (JUST MIGHT) INVOLVE TWO skill pool checks .
One of those checks I'm passing with some degree of consistence .
One of those I've been failing quite badly .. The move from 4->5 might been the AI deciding to use more guns at range 4 and not attempting to close.
The conclusion from the [UNNCESARLY CRYPTIC AND CRUEL] in-game combat log feedback is:
Capt'n ! Our ship is consistently faster than the enemy ship WHILE AT THE SAME TIME our very same ship is consistently slower than the very same enemy ship !!
Basic logic apparently NOT always required when designing game systems ,,,
On a less salty note :
2 SEPARATE skill pool checks
Its either those checks involve different STATS or the enemy gets some sort of hidden close in bonus (and then why even roll the easy one when you must pass a harder roll anyway ?! (because its still lowers the overall chance of success..) )
(don't know what's involved stats/modules/cards - Don't know what can be done to improve the odds in the future . I don't have the an ability to control/predict odds for game action outcomes ... ) .
I've been here before, it caused me to almost abandon this game for good, decided to give it another chance, apparently nothing did and looks extremely unlikely to change for the better..
steam forum thread
Design choice : Make players associate early ship combat with GAME OVER screen.
Design choice : HIDE (on purpose and very deliberate !) the few stats, numbers and basic arithmetic operations involved so that when ship combat does occur players can't learn what works / why it works / what doesn't / why doesn't / what can be done to improve.
Sometimes it 'works' sometimes it doesn't .. And that's how you get players with 400+ h in this game who are still NOOBS at ship combat ..(and that exactly how you want them !)
Same policy for crew combat but there the penalty is less severe (not always straight to game over screen).
If the players cannot understand how his 'choices/decisions/paths' presented in-game affect different in-game outcomes (other than 'make believe') all those 'choices' become meaningless ! (illusion of choice or some twisted version of Russian roulette: just keep mashing buttons, sometimes it works trust us !! )
From what I've been allowed to understand of them the game system simulation seems complex enough that making it clear to player HOW they work wouldn't make it trivial to 'solve' / 'abuse' ..
Would help iterate faster towards a more balanced state ..
The player base should never be in legitimate position of suspecting the dev team of playing hokey-pookey behind the scenes. The core simulation mechanics should be explained/transparent/followable ( ideally in-game ) and there should be clear feedback presented in-game for the players who try to do a bit more than just pushing random buttons and hoping it sometimes works .. (such TRUTH/honesty policies do help a ton with bug squashing if you would give a damn about that ..)
Very displeased with those design choices !
(those are some dreamy values AT THE START OF THE COMBAT TURN)