next »

[gimymblert]

It's an empty space which you can barely hide, you can see people miles away on a black background, at it's most basic it's literally about aiming in 360°. Targeting tend to have an over reliance on HUD so it become a game of watch the UI.

What makes them mechanically works? the setting is the most barebone for a shooter than you can get! what is the simplest control mechanics that makes a space battle works at its most fundamental level?

Using my hazy memory, I think that having constant movement (speed is not only a button press but have to be actively throttle up and down), you are not the main target/goal and multiple targets to distract the other ships, seems to be the basic requirement in my observation.

what do you think?

[JWK5]

Project Sylpheed/Project Sylpheed: Arc of Deception (SquareEnix, XBOX360) all the way!

Youtube: Project Sylpheed

This game by far is my favorite space battle game, it is like StarFox merged with Panzer Dragoon with full 360 degree aiming played through the perspective of a pilot clearly having an acid trip.

I absolutely loved the long ass light trails ships leave behind when they hit high speeds because it is like following blood trails while hunting prey, even when they've zipped above or below you out of sight (or otherwise not in you peripheral vision) you can easily keep track of them just following the trails they've left behind. In the later levels where there are tons of enemies it is like a full on light show with streaks of colorful light zigzagging every which way. As you can see, despite being in space even the settings and backgrounds were vibrant and lively.

I've not played any space shooters since that really left as strong as an impression on me as did the Sylpheed games (at least the 360 ones). They managed to give simple mechanics a lot of tactical usage and did a great job at giving everything a rail shooter's pace in massive freely explored 360' space (the StarFox-like character banter was a nice touch too). For me they are exactly what I wanted out of a space shooter and kind of what I was hoping No Man's Sky would be like given some of the images I'd seen of its space battles (but alas, it was not so).

[voidSkipper]

Simply put, I don't think 360' open space makes for a good space battle.

The game that I judge all other space games by is Freespace2, and its most iconic levels had one or more of the following factors:
>Limited visibility caused by nebulae
>Limited radar function caused by interference
>Hulking great behemoths of ships, friendly or otherwise, with greebling that you could fly through and use as cover
>A reason to stay in a particular area of space (escort and defense missions, "scan the cargo without getting shot down" missions, pursuit missions), meaning that your ability to charge at, and endlessly furball with, enemy fighters was very limited
>Wide disparity between your craft and other craft (a stealth mission in a ship with no shields, flying a very slow bomber that physically can't turn fast enough to furball with the lighter craft, etc)

Another time that this was done very well was X-Wing VS Tie-fighter's "Furball in an asteroid field" scenario. It played like a zero-gravity FPS death match. 

In fact, essentially, I think space combat level design should just be thought of as FPS level design with more degrees of freedom; nobody would consider it acceptable to release an FPS with levels that consisted of infinite flat fields of concrete that periodically spawn enemies in the distance.

Space battle is one of those scenarios where you don't want realism - very few people would find it entertaining to launch missiles from the edge of radar range and call it a day. You need a reason to fight close, and you need a reason for the battle to not be decided by who has the better turning speed.

[Alec S.]

(As I mentioned in the "Interesting Design Elements" thread) I've been playing Project Sylpheed myself, and oh man do those energy trails really help solve a lot of problems I have with the Space Combat genre.  

Also, I agree with the Freespace games being pinnacles of the genre.  They also did a really great job of having really impactful scripted events during missions.

Although one thing I wish is that more games in the genre cheated the distance and made everything a lot more close-quarters.  As much as there's a simulationist thrill of relying on a bunch of hud elements (just like a "real" space pilot), I wish there were more times when I were shooting at a ship I could see, rather than a tiny dot in the middle of a circle.

Also, one of the primary mechanics in Space Combat games is the fact that generally the weapons are physical projectiles rather than hit-scan weapons.  Meaning A) you have to lead enemies in order to hit them B) moving unpredictably can throw of a persuers aim, since they're shooting towards where they thought you would be, but you're not there and C) there's a massive advantage to being on an enemy's tail, because it means changes in speed no longer effect whether or not your projectiles hit

[gimymblert]

So the main idea seems to be that even with good control, they can't work in vanilla empty space with only a bunch of ships?

[Alec S.]

I mean, they can, and many good games have done so (the Freespace games are mostly in empty space, and the only "landmarks" are particularally large, slow-moving ships, which aren't omnipresent).  But it does lead to a pretty major barrier of entry in that it's really hard to parse your own movement and position when everything around you is also moving, which is a problem because of how much these games rely on movement and positioning for anything other than really base-level gameplay.  

Another thing worth mentioning is the divide between games that use a Newtonian physics model and games that use a simplified system.  In other words, there are games that let you, for example, fly in one direction, cut your power, and turn while still moving in your initial direction because there's no friction in space. 

[gimymblert]

I was thinking about the complain with no man sky, some player seems to enjoy space battle, but they are now at 20+ ships and many freighter battles, while most people where put off by the empty 3 ships pirate battles and didn't pursue that game system to its later progression. Looking at it critically from a design perspective it seems that this initial set up (bunch of ships in empty space without big passive ships or landmark) is what is bad, maybe not the simple battle control. EVERY example I have seen when researching where always big scripted sequence where the player where not the sole target, also massive automation (lock on missile, massive hud help, etc ...).

But then maybe what's missing is an overhaul of spaceship battle, maybe a lock like in zelda and rethinking shooting and counter measure (something like the timed barrel roll in star fox to deflect shots).

[Alec S.]

So, a lock-on is interesting, and I've seen a few space combat games do it (Project Sylpheed has one, and Star Fox Zero had one).  The issue, though, is that unless a space game is a complete six-degrees-of-freedom type game, your ship is going to control basically like a plane, which means it can only move forward and turn in all directions.  Which means it's got a similar situation to tank controls where, if the camera angle doesn't match the angle of your ship, it can feel a bit unnatural to maneuver.  On the other hand, it can be useful to help give you a better sense of the spacial relations of the area. 

[gimymblert]

I'm only talking about 6dof cockpit battle! NOT plane base dogfight lol, the lock on would be more like zelda than star fox (ie follow the target) maybe more like metroid prime wii (lock on and aiming are dissociated).

[Alec S.]

Yeah, lock-on would be pretty great in a 6dof game.

[quantumpotato]

It's an empty space which you can barely hide, you can see people miles away on a black background, at it's most basic it's literally about aiming in 360°. Targeting tend to have an over reliance on HUD so it become a game of watch the UI.

What makes them mechanically works? the setting is the most barebone for a shooter than you can get! what is the simplest control mechanics that makes a space battle works at its most fundamental level?

Using my hazy memory, I think that having constant movement (speed is not only a button press but have to be actively throttle up and down), you are not the main target/goal and multiple targets to distract the other ships, seems to be the basic requirement in my observation.

what do you think?

X-Wing vs TIE Fighter had fantastic space fights that I have never seen paralleled in any ship shooter since.

Main mechanic: You filter energy between engines (speed), lasers (recharge speed + damage) and shields (survival).
A "Match speed" button bound to backspace let you keep pace (if possible) once you got close to your target.
Fast but not instant projectiles meant a bit of prediction & juking made for exciting fights, especially when big ships were spraying lasers & homing missiles at you.

Another cool feature: you could pick which team to fight on and which squadron to fly. So you could see the same battle from 8 different perspectives -- very cool.

[gimymblert]

it's on gog right?

[quantumpotato]

it's on gog right?

Holy shit I thought I'd never play it again! https://www.gog.com/game/star_wars_xwing_vs_tie_fighter
Joystick highly recommended. It's only $10.

If anyone wants to get "missile at radar range technical", there's an entire website devoted to space battles: https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/essay-on-realistic-space-combat-i-wrote.131056/

Some salient points: things are very far away, so you'd see missiles coming way in advance. You'd need psychic targeting or huge blast radiuses to kill dodging ships. Or, maybe just shoot a lot of missiles in a lot of places and cluster bomb the 3D space around your target.

They talk about ramming ships into planets, among other things.

[s0]

How playable are these games without a joystick? Because I'm definitely not buying one.

[gimymblert]

octopus playable maybe? you can use remapper anyway.

[quantumpotato]

How playable are these games without a joystick? Because I'm definitely not buying one.

X-Wing vs TIE Fighter is worth buying a Joystick for!

[Alec S.]

How playable are these games without a joystick? Because I'm definitely not buying one.

Project Sylpheed is on Xbox360, and I played through both Freespace games on Mouse and Keyboard. 

[s0]

How playable are these games without a joystick? Because I'm definitely not buying one.

Project Sylpheed is on Xbox360, and I played through both Freespace games on Mouse and Keyboard.  

i meant the xwing games specifically, but thanks.  

edit: i just discovered i have these games on GOG for some reason.

edit2: lol, x-wing won't even start without a joystick

[quantumpotato]

How playable are these games without a joystick? Because I'm definitely not buying one.

Project Sylpheed is on Xbox360, and I played through both Freespace games on Mouse and Keyboard.  

i meant the xwing games specifically, but thanks.  

edit: i just discovered i have these games on GOG for some reason.

edit2: lol, x-wing won't even start without a joystick

I'd hope your X-Wing or TIE Fighter would refuse to start without a joystick. You'd shoot off into space!

[gimymblert]

Pick glove pie and remap it, you may need another soft though I dont remember, but it's all in the txt