I will not do siege tanks for numerical selection. You can MC the same unit 6 times pretty quick. Siege tanks might save a few seconds if you have korean clicking skills. However just plain MC is so much more noob friendly that the losses involving siege tanks far outweigh the benefits.

I have made a pretty ridicolous amount of weapons but I would argue that they all have a purpose, except perhaps the Pulse Cannon which is supposed to immitate a Mutalisk Attack and bounce to adjacent targets. I should delete it for something more original -.-

The weapons, by purpose, are as follows:
-The 3 classic weapons from 1.X: (Laser, Rail Gun, Torpedo)
-The 3 "this range only" weapons which do more damage than the 1.X equivalents, but faster foes may spell problems with the minimum ranges. (Anti-Matter Gun, Plasma Cannon, Proton Launcher)
-The Fusion Beam is sort of a kamikaze weapon as it only fires point-blank range, can do immense damage, and potentially damages the ship holding the Fusion Beam.
-The Acid Stream is a "hit and run" weapon intended for Zergy/Fast Fleets. You're supposed to jump in and out of your enemy's range.
-The Graviton Ray is unique for doing damage if the ship moves next turn. A counter to hit and run perhaps.
-The Ion Beam is unique for doing damage if the ship fires next turn. Could be the bane of very large ships.
-The Nuclear Missile does splash damage. For those pesky swarms of ships.
-The Phasor, which is reasonably competitive at all ranges, so its safe, but underperforms at any given range. (Range 1 = 0-7, Range 2 = 0-5, Range 3 = 0-3, Range 4 = 0-1)
-The Pulse Cannon, which I'm contemplating deleting as it overlaps with Nuclear Missile in purpose.

I suppose I could get rid of the Pulse Cannon and rid myself of the Dragoon/Goliath from equipment as they are too big. Broodling and DT would fill their slots.

Or you could line up a row of the maximum number of an equipment you could add and wherever you MC, all the ones before add.
You want one? MC the first. Two? the Second. Seven? The Seventh etc etc.
If anything this is more intuitive than otherwise, and if it isn't initially they'll catch on instantly.

Then a confirm selection, if you want, although you can just do it off the first MC.

I also think you worry about being not being noob friendly too much. People are only noobs once and most people who actually enjoy won't want to have it take forever everytime they play just because of noob friendly methods.

As such I would make the switch to the next menu level instantaneous. People understand they just made a choice and don't need to wait a second before making another one.

If you really want you could have an option for an Explanation scene at the very beginning. This way people will understand how to do it and you can have a quick selection system.

Its all your choice of course.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jul 20 2008, 6:42 pm by Kaias.

I played this with Echo, and have two major complaints:

1. Because the larger ships have so many more slots than smaller ships, like the BC you basically cannot win without having huge ships, which I really don't like.
2. Because every kind of ship can always fire its weapons at another ship your "speed" advantages with smaller ships are essentially negated.

I mean, think about how hard it would be to shoot a small, fast moving ship. It seems fairly unrealistic that every laser attack hits, every large ship can aim at it, and that the small ship can never get away.

Sorry if you've changed anything, but these things are extremely annoying to me, as they make small ships virtually useless against any larger ship.

Neither of these problems are really present with thoughtfully designed ships. There's an enormous advantage to faster speed: you get to choose the range at which you engage. Suppose the enemy has a cruiser, which you are trying to attack with some fighters. Because they move 3, fighters can move from beyond laser range to torpedo range in one turn (Similarly, frigates can jump to railgun range, and can hold four of those things if you're a firepower-obsessed nutcase). If your fighters are filled with torpedoes, that can be a lot of damage. But what of the cruiser? Well, if the cruiser were armed entirely with shorter-ranged weapons, then its owner would be completely screwed if your fighters were armed with lasers instead, since they could simply stay out of its range and shoot away until it died. So a slower ship has to distribute its armaments among all ranges, instead of specializing in an optimal range. Furthermore, larger ships cost more per equipment slot than smaller ships.

Well said, FoxWolf.

I've only played the map once so far, but I really like how it played, and I like the direction you're taking it. I DO like more weapons, as while at first they may be confusing, all games must have some learning curve in order to have reliable replay value. I've just skimmed over the past couple pages, but the wep designs seem to have good uses. Perhaps this is overlapping with another wep, but I thought it might be good to have a chain-gun type of weapon, essentially attempting to make the shield fail with a large number of shots at close range (1-2), low damage per sub-shot (0-1) * # decided. At range 1 only, it may be a good weapon of choice for BC's against high-shielded but slower CC's that just won't die. Knocking out a thing or two can make all the difference.

I'm not sure 1-range-only weapons will be that fun to use... seems like it'd be better to have different weapons, save maybe one like that. Also, from what i've gathered on the deflector vs shield systems, they seem to be basically interchangeable, so please re-explain it if you would. I gather deflector (like old shields) does 0,1,1,2 each attack, and new shield does 0,1 once, defining defense for the rest of the attacks. I must say, I don't like that much, gameplay-wise. Unless there's more difference, i'd go with old shields. In fact, i would go with deflectors in this set-up anyways. Instead of a new shielding system (other than armor, which i appreciate, but think should be 2 parts prolly, not 3), perhaps you should add a movement speed variable to the chance of hitting. This would of course make little ships more valuable, so you'd prolly have to lower the cost difference range, but yeah. It just makes sense, and probably everyone deep down wishes it were in. Just means some more random switches... should be a fairly small effect probably. maybe before each hit, secretly calculate hit = 1 miss = 0: [0,1,1,1,1] for a full 1 move speed. Put more 1's in if you need, etc.

Something else I'd like you to think about is making utilities other than defense and engine. Consider a warp drive function that takes up maybe 2 or 3 slots (consider multiple slot parts too). It would have a "charge-up" time, in which it would perhaps activate the first turn (requiring no movement from that point on), target hex selection (like nuke without range) 2nd turn, then it would activate instead of moving normally on 3rd turn, providing nothing takes the spot that turn. If you must change target location, you're basically at step 2 again, or you have to start over (this might be better, to prevent "sudden-synchronized-warping" at opportune times (they keep selecting a spot that's likely to be moved to, perhaps by themselves [which could be denied]). This would greatly enhance the gameplay, to be able to occasionally move large ships, at the cost of not moving for 3-4 turns. I hate to have to keep my little forces hiding behind the capital ship until the enemy finally intercepts.

Please further consider aid utilities, like a repair kit (several slots required), or a nydus canal wormhole effect. I also like the idea of 2 designs per ship or 1 design only. no more. they both have their advantages. beyond that it's too confusing for fun gameplay. 1 design actually makes it easier to play quickly, but i admit i'd love to have 2 types of fighters or planetsmashers. But please don't allow the enemy to know what you have, at least until they spot the individual ship. I've even thought fog of war might be appropriate... perhaps allowing sensor utilities too....

Also, another weapon idea: consider a straight shooting dormant missile "ship" that you target for a square similar to warp drive. Once it reaches its target area, it would have 0-1 range and suicide attack essentially. Damage doesn't have to be much. Perhaps 0,1,1,2,2,3.

@Kaias: I'm using rows to show the special effects of the other weapons. I really don't think MC'ing a weapon 4 or 5 times is going to be that bad. MC is reasonably fast. It's certainly much better than beacons.

@FoxWolf1: Thanks for pointing out the range issue. Torpedo Fighters will always rape a larger ship equipped exclusively with Lasers. If the same weapons are used, then bigger ships do have a statistical advantage.

@StrikerX22:
#Chain Gun Idea: I like the idea but there is a 1 range weapon that I called the Fusion Beam. While it is a single hit, it's basically the same purpose as your chain-gun I'm afraid. It's balanced by the fact that it does feedback damage to the ship using it.

#Repair Idea: I consider repair to be a taboo. As it is, in high mineral value battles, there are often long standoffs just beyond maximum range as ships try to get into position. Repair would just make the game take forever and imbalance larger ships with long range weapons.

#Warp Drive Idea: I like the idea but I'm not sure I can trigger it. I've contemplated things like "Emergency Propulsion Boosters" which would self-destruct upon use but count for like 3 or 4 engines before.

#The Multiple Equipment Slot Idea regarding both Repair, Warp Drive, and other Utilities: I can't do it. Starcraft limitation. I would then have to remember damage points for individual ship components, and create an unholy amount of triggers for design verification. Believe me, may times I have wished this was my own little VB or C or C++ program or something and I could just make almost anything I imagined that way... it would be like a combat simulator for MOO2 and beyond.

#Missile "ship": It would be pretty nice, I could use scourges, but I can't make the map remember the direction of the scourge! Also, directional movement is not possible due to a very odd behaviour of starcraft regarding grids of units/buildings (in this case i used flags). Basically... insert the above VB/C/C++ emotional rant.

Missile: I suppose you could put a marker, but you may have a limit of one missile per player in that instance. If you did that, then you'd have to just estimate the minimum movement each turn for the missile, and follow it with a location, make the comp move it toward its location for a short few seconds and then "move stop" to loc. Once it's close to its destination, it would lock to the hex and do its thing. If you know how to get around the one missile thing, then great. You could have an excuse for multiple rockets heading to the same "beacon" also. It's probably possible to keep track of them that way at least.

Multiple slot toys: ah, you mention damage points.... I'd suppose one hit would actually knock out all slots containing that equip. Don't know if that changes things much though in your design.

Warp: I think an emergency boost type of thing would be just fine though, if you work it out. Perhaps make it not ship mass based though? Sudden mobility at a cost would be great, but if the Planetsmasher only gets 1 more hex to move... kinda sucks.

Repair: I definitely see where you're coming from, as I thought of that during my first game even. But just to be clear, i didn't mean a repair kit for the ship holding it... I meant an ability to go to another ship, and maybe have a chance to roll for repair of one system on adjacent ship. Perhaps that would seem less rigged. If it gets out of hand at all, it just means they gotta focus fire on the repairers and kill em in one or two shots before they can regroup. Perhaps disable their move if they repair, if you can keep track of that.

Chain-gun etc: I can't say that particular idea was the best implementation of the concept, but my wish was for a light-damaging weapon that had a higher chance of puncturing a very high number of shields and whatnot. If you have any other ideas, I'd love to hear them.

I don't want to push you too much in making things more complicated.... I'm sure the first version's triggers were a pain enough... I left a map hanging for years cuz i couldn't stand the thought of several hundreds of triggers to copy and edit slightly, after working out bugs and crap already. I look forward to seeing your decisions.

I've done a fair amount of thinking and I've more or less come to the conclusion that for the map to be the "thinking man's game" that I intended it to be, I need to get rid of random attack rolls and shield/defense rolls.

If I were to just change 1.04 as it is, I would have it like this:
-Lasers always do 1 damage, Rail guns always do 2, Torpedoes always do 3.
-Shields always block 1 damage per turn. (Not per attack)
-It would be nice to have an armor that blocks 2 (maybe 3?) damage per unit but that's all for the whole game.

However, I see the game being all "design choice luck" then. I don't know what to do
EDIT: Do you think I should maybe create some sharing of information during design... e.g. atleast see which ships (not the equipment onboard) the enemy is buying?

MAn this is a great map ive played it b4 and i recomend it for any one who likes a good strategy game

No no no, don't take the luck element out. You're just putting yourself in a corner by that. You actually DID improve it, by making it a bell curve. Please keep this model, as it is the best of both worlds. Furthermore, I see issues with shield always doing 1. Weapons on small ships would never break through if the shield is sufficient enough on a very large ship. In any case, it just makes lasers more useless.

It's a thinking game even with the current probabilities. If bell curves are doable, then do that, cuz it'll make the chances make sense, putting more emphasis on thinking. but players like the suspense of not knowing exactly how it's gonna turn out. Bell curves will help out with preventing weird things like 1 shield always firing, etc. Chance gives the element of "action" to the board game, simulating dodge and whatnot. I'd reconsider.

The best kind of strategy games are the ones with luck mixed in.

QFT. The reason I'll never go any farther in chess is because I know I'll never hold a candle to someone that knows all the possible plays. It feels like there's simply no point. at the same time, you want to keep the randomness to a limit, or it feels like there's no point for those that would be as skilled as possible.

Also, don't be like smash bros brawl and add in some retarded concept of randomness like characters that suddenly trip for no reason in that game only. I never knew heroes needed to be such klutzes. =P The randomness needs to make sense, and not completely annoy the players.

I don't believe in randomness. There aren't set 'moves' that you can win with in games like this one. Starcraft is a very good game and one of the primary reasons for this is that there are very very few chances involved. The randomness involved hardly matters.

If the game is balanced well where there are always ideas you can come up with to counter, then you don't need it to be random. Plus I hate my inability to win fair and square with my skill as my only weapon. If I'm going to win, it's going to be because I'm lucky (if my opponent is at all decent) as is which is lame, there's no pride involved in that. It means more when I actually deserve and earned it instead of left it to chance.

I heard that if a switch that is set to "Off" is randomized, there is more of a chance that it will set to "On." If this is true, you could negate the problem by having an always trigger that randomizes every switch in the map with a preserve trigger.

Have you thought of this problem?

Awesome map though I can't wait to try it out!

Is that Really True??! that's whack...

Anyways.. I've played this map.. it is certainly great triggerwise.. but it does take a long time to play .. It's definately like Chess on SC XD

You do have a point in that there is no set moves, but there are also times when turn-based games have "always a way to win" or "must lose if other player plays correctly." All it takes is someone to really analyze it. It may be as easy as a certain configuration of ships. SC has a little randomness, and adds more in the fact that it's an RTS. Players can never play quite the same, even pros. Also, in SC, it makes sense to have your units retreat. If the randomness is taken away here, it'll seem like every time you attack with small ships, they're on a suicide mission. Where the hell is the dodging? Well, it'd have to be in randomness.

If you want a turn-based game like this to have no randomness, I believe it needs to not enable players to move all their pieces at once. Too much or too little control allows the players to easily influence the game in their favor. Furthermore, the Bell curve aids in making it much less "random." I'm sure it would seem more of an issue of skill with that. If it's still too much of an issue, then perhaps a weapon could be more like [2,3,3,3,3,4] instead of so wide a range of numbers, with a more focused center.

Cool idea... but i'm not such a big fan of it Oo

This map reminds me heavily of Master of Orion II Great gameplay, nice job.

Moo II, Space Empires, Pax Imperia, Star Fleet Command, and other games I cant remember off the top of my head have all influenced my map design.

A Fellow Moo 2 Player: AUTOMATIC HIGH FIVE

Version 1.06
Download Here
(1.05 was a failed attempt at fixing the same bug)

This version addresses a rare bug that occurs when ships of the same type are vertically aligned after the movement phase. During the targeting phase, one ship would occasionally fire twice while the other got skipped. The change now gets certain triggers to cycle through the ships using a more local location rather than the entire board, eliminating the possibility of this happening again. This is a regrettable behaviour of StarCraft as location centering on units is consistently left to right, but it is unpredictable regarding vertical alignment.

Also, most of the delays with messages have been shortened, accelerating the map overall.

Btw... while all of my maps have shrunk between 10 to 45% during compression/protection with PRO Edit, Spaceship Combat GROWS a few kilobytes. WtfLol?