Core Gameplay loop?

[Providence1111]

I'm excited for this game, not sure a hard science fiction spaceship sim exists, immersive space sims are an under-served genre, space skyrim does not serve this niche well.

But I have some serious concerns about the implementation of what is a really fantastic concept, regarding the core gameplay loop.

Let's take for example engineering. In the tech demo we get a peek into a fully simulated system of managing a reactors fuel and power distribution arrays. While an impressive feat, the system is a large spread out system of binary switches. The management of said system appears on the surface cumbersome and uninspiring. It appears the player would need to memorize the system to maintain it or have access to some sort of datapad that triggers a waypoint system or ability to give commands to crew to maintain it. in any case the multiplication of binary actions would appear to rapidly lose its luster quite fast. While the scale of the system certainly makes for an immersive simulation, it's really the core gameplay loop that's called into question. In context of say a space battle, if the role of engineer is frantically travelling across waypoints to push buttons, you've essentially built a complicated game of "whack a mole", which does not appear to have much opportunity to express player agency or be very rewarding, and given it's a complete system of interdependent modules, there doesn't appear to be much room for strategy.

From a "hard science fiction" standpoint this isn't at all practical. A proper reactor system would have few (but robust) control modules. It certainly would be detailed, but that would be a "drill down" mechanic, start up, power connection and distribution would be automated sequences with much fewer top level options required to maintain. Otherwise it wouldn't require a system so spread out and maintenance across the ship would look much more like removing wall plates to access various components of the system for repair of the power grid, and a series of levers (not control panels) to manually manage internal fuel systems, which makes a lot more sense in design from an engineering standpoint assuming a total power failure could not rely on powered interfaces but instead would use manually controlled mechanisms required to start up the reactor in an emergency.

So during combat we could assume a lead engineer is on the bridge and managing power distribution as needed to divert power to thrusters, shields, weapons, etc. able to manage reactor power load. maybe the number of crew members in engineering could contribute to how response or efficient the systems run, a situation arises where the engineer would need an escort of security or medical to go to the deck to clear threats, revive crew or assist in specific repairs.

But I digress, without a definition of a core gameplay loop these scenarios are difficult to hash out. But among all of the attempted simulation sandbox games out there this is where a huge risk exists, where as you can make a heroic development effort to hash out a complex simulation for a gameplay mechanic that becomes ancillary or uninteresting to players. These sorts of decisions lead early access games on horrendous development timelines, stagnating the base of interested players who lose interest over time and lose their core audiences to other titles which eventually pop up doing what you were attempting better because they learned from your mistakes.

Lastly I wanted to mention the challenge of splitting up roles on the bridge. This presents the question of the minimum number of players required to play the game, dynamic role switching, and/or the need for a master command console that give a basic HUD of every relevant aspect of the ship in any given scenario. It is quite challenging to imagine how detailed the game AI would need to be if you can only control one thing at a time. for example, if you want to control a weapon with a need for manual aim you need to somehow tell the pilot how to maneuver, or rely on an AI to aim. In Red alert scenarios, managing power, maneuvering, and firing weapons becomes a convoluted effort without a master command view which you can control them all at the same time, sort of making the whole role concept invalidated. If you have to be in one role at a time, then it's all reliant on how the AI manages their roles as to how easy or hard the game is, which reduces player agency and limits strategy.

At the end of the day the question would remain if this game morphs into a complicated version of "The Sims" where you manage crew members, an endless series of decisions like a 4X game, or a mechanical RTS requiring mastery of complex real-time controls, or an RPG in which simulation elements are little more than RNG values determining priorities. It appears the most compatible would be the command portion of the game X-COM, wherein your gameplay has an overarching "end game" that is encroaching upon you, giving context to the decisions you make in progressing through acquisition or resources and mastery of your various roles needs making them more efficient and effective in conjunction with scaling difficulty. However a model like this drastically reduces the need for a complex build out of various ship role simulation as allocating supplies or research to various core sectors of the ship is best managed via command and there is little gameplay value to be found in expanding much more than basic aspects of those roles as most research would be allocation of personnel and resources against the time required to complete. Otherwise the game risks frantic management of mechanics with unknown value which may not offer any reasonable satisfaction to the play other than busying them about with minutia tasks that rapidly become very boring to complete.

at any rate i'd love to hear how others see the more complete build of this game looking.

[ODST_General]

Well there is a lot to respond to there and I will make my best effort. Though I am sure Dan the developer will be along at some point to respond to this comment with a better/more accurate response.

At the core Dan pretty much wants a fully simulated ship. In part because he wants to properly and dynamically deal and apply damage to the systems during things like combat. Which in part creates some of the complexity and spread you were speaking of as several things you have to deal with are intended as redundancies. Also going through something like the Cold Start tutorial isn't going to be common, once the ship is powered on it will typically remain on.

Now once we start getting main systems like weapons, shields, life support, etc. hooked in there will be a lot of more ongoing needs for balancing power and ongoing maintenance. So for the average daily tasks of engineering will be removing panels to repair and replace damaged stuff. Additionally other parts will wear down over time and need to be replaced.

But a lot of the game is being designed in such a way that a single person should reasonably be able to play on their own. AI crew will be in the game and like in your sims reference they will have various tasks and needs that they will automatically fulfill throughout the course of gameplay. Someone like the engineering chief may be able to assign specific personnel to specific duties. But when it comes down to it, Dan would like the ship/crew to be automated and Independent enough to be capable of operating the ship with no player input. So much so that a player will be able to essentially act as a passenger on the vessel and such ride around during its voyage.

But for those who are more inclined to knowing every nitty gritty detail or have very technical gameplay. The option will be there for you the player to hop into those roles and do all of that work. So essentially skill baseline versus skill ceiling. At the base, Dan wants the game as accessible and playable to as many people as humanly possible while still remaining fun and entertaining. On the other side he wants to ensure that players who have been playing potentially for years to still find challenge and entertainment and having the ability to control pretty much every facet of the ship does aid that goal.

Now if I understand your RPG reference correctly, there will also be elements of that in here too. As not only do the crew have to do things like eat and sleep, but the ship will need fuel and materials for small scale repairs. So the AI will have to balance out keeping the ships resources at a set minimum or higher, maintaining a base operational state, and exploring and conducting research to improve the ships technologies.

As for splitting roles on the bridge. Again the individuals on the bridge will have certain set functions or priorities they will seek to fulfill or accommodate. But similar to something like bridge commander/crew the captain (and presumably the XO) will be able to issue commands to have certain crew carry out specific actions. The big decision going forwards will be how granular that should become, or if a system like Bridge Crew be added where you can take direct control of a crew member.

[Providence1111]

Originally posted by ODST_General:

Well there is a lot to respond to there and I will make my best effort. Though I am sure Dan the developer will be along at some point to respond to this comment with a better/more accurate response.

At the core Dan pretty much wants a fully simulated ship. In part because he wants to properly and dynamically deal and apply damage to the systems during things like combat. Which in part creates some of the complexity and spread you were speaking of as several things you have to deal with are intended as redundancies. Also going through something like the Cold Start tutorial isn't going to be common, once the ship is powered on it will typically remain on.

Now once we start getting main systems like weapons, shields, life support, etc. hooked in there will be a lot of more ongoing needs for balancing power and ongoing maintenance. So for the average daily tasks of engineering will be removing panels to repair and replace damaged stuff. Additionally other parts will wear down over time and need to be replaced.

But a lot of the game is being designed in such a way that a single person should reasonably be able to play on their own. AI crew will be in the game and like in your sims reference they will have various tasks and needs that they will automatically fulfill throughout the course of gameplay. Someone like the engineering chief may be able to assign specific personnel to specific duties. But when it comes down to it, Dan would like the ship/crew to be automated and Independent enough to be capable of operating the ship with no player input. So much so that a player will be able to essentially act as a passenger on the vessel and such ride around during its voyage.

But for those who are more inclined to knowing every nitty gritty detail or have very technical gameplay. The option will be there for you the player to hop into those roles and do all of that work. So essentially skill baseline versus skill ceiling. At the base, Dan wants the game as accessible and playable to as many people as humanly possible while still remaining fun and entertaining. On the other side he wants to ensure that players who have been playing potentially for years to still find challenge and entertainment and having the ability to control pretty much every facet of the ship does aid that goal.

Now if I understand your RPG reference correctly, there will also be elements of that in here too. As not only do the crew have to do things like eat and sleep, but the ship will need fuel and materials for small scale repairs. So the AI will have to balance out keeping the ships resources at a set minimum or higher, maintaining a base operational state, and exploring and conducting research to improve the ships technologies.

As for splitting roles on the bridge. Again the individuals on the bridge will have certain set functions or priorities they will seek to fulfill or accommodate. But similar to something like bridge commander/crew the captain (and presumably the XO) will be able to issue commands to have certain crew carry out specific actions. The big decision going forwards will be how granular that should become, or if a system like Bridge Crew be added where you can take direct control of a crew member.

thanks for the reply.

still concerned the big shiny simulated ship could be obscuring the need for dynamic game play mechanics. im sure like many who played the demo, i imagined taking that ship on adventures. an ant farm with some sims and rpg dialogue trees is less compelling as you can imagine.

[DanGovier]

Thanks for the detailed question, I always appreciate the opportunity to delve into the game systems a bit more deeply.

Starsim is a game of two parts really. On one side you have the ship simulation, and on the other you have the galaxy simulation. The goal with both aspects is to simulate them as deeply and as realistically as possible, with a few caveats in the name of practicality (such as having artificial gravity).

The Engineering systems of the ship as they stand right now are still in their infancy, and really only represent the basic electrical system. The Cold Start tutorial is generally the only time you'll need to do that much running around flipping switches, because once everything is on there's rarely a reason to turn it off again.

It's worth noting at this point that all the pipes and cables are physically doing a job, and if one of them were to be damaged, the impact would cascade through the whole system. This is where Engineering gameplay will become important.

Over time everything will take natural wear and tear, to a lesser or greater extent depending on how much you push the limits of the hardware. In addition to that, any incoming damage the ship receives will be calculated as a sphere of influence based on the impact location. Where you take damage actually matters, and that will make the difference between losing lighting on a deck or losing the ability to fire your weapons.

As an Engineer, you will be working alongside a team of NPC's based on a task list that's set by the Chief Engineer. That can be a player or an NPC. During peacetime that will be general maintenance activities based on what is most worn, but during combat it will be essential to repair critical systems as quickly as possible.

When you "patch up" a dodgy cable for example (yes, you will need to remove a wall panel to get to it), its overall durability will decrease. That means it will take damage more quickly every time you patch it up, until replacing it entirely is the better option. Replacing it entirely will require more resources, so it will generally be better to fix something in-situ a few times before outright replacing it. Of course, if the ship takes external damage that cable might be destroyed entirely anyway, so you'll have no choice but to replace it.

That's where the breaker switches will come into play, because you'll need to disconnect power from a damaged section in order to perform repairs.

If you now take the above and apply that to every system on the ship, that's essentially where we're going with it. At some point we also want to implement sub-components, so you'll be able to open the box on the wall and repair/replace its individual components.

Of course, with all that having been said, if you're not playing as an Engineer, you shouldn't need to care about any of that. The NPC engineering crew will manage it all for you.

------

Regarding the Bridge gameplay, as with Engineering the NPC crew should be capable of running the whole ship without you based on priority trees. In fact, the "Passenger" role is designed with that exact scenario in mind, so you can chill in the bar and watch events unfold around you.

Whatever role you choose aboard the ship, that should be the only thing you have to worry about.

The Captain however will have the ability to issue commands, which we plan to handle in two ways. Firstly, by providing a radial UI when looking at an NPC and pressing the interact button, and secondly by performing actions directly using the Holo-Display.

The command-console where the Captain sits will have a screen that allows you to bring up any bridge station on the holo-display. So, for example, you will be able to bring up the sensors, walk over to the display, physically click on a star, and select "navigate to this system" or "scan this system", etc.

Same for tactical, you will be able to click on a target and issues commands such as "destroy this target" or "disable this target".

The holo-display is the focal point of the bridge, and we intend for it to be the main tool for the Captain to manage the ship. As the Captain you need to be making the decision on what actions to take, not performing those actions yourself. You have staff for that.

------

In terms of a comparison to the The Sims, there will be some similarities in terms of NPC needs and desires, but with none of the management aspect. If an NPC needs the toilet they will go to the toilet, if they're hungry they will grab some food. You won't need to tell them to, or be involved in any way. We want the NPC crew to have its own agency, and we have no desired to turn the game into a crew management sim.

The over-arching gameplay loop is one of exploration. You pick a star system to visit, you scan the system for objects of interest, and what happens next depends on what it is you've discovered. There could be a friendly species that points you in the direction of something useful, or a hostile species that really wants you out of their system. There could be a wormhole that takes you somewhere entirely random, or a strange planetary nebula that drains your systems and leaves you struggling with limited power.

By having everything simulated as physically as possible, the potential scenarios become endless, because rather than having to write new systems to handle a new scenario, you just throw physical affects at the ship and see how it handles it.

Ultimately though, this is a role-based game where you focus on your own job. You are just a small cog in the machine that is the starship and her crew.

That having been said however, we absolutely plan on making much smaller, intimate ships that are designed for ~5 crewmembers. Not everyone is going to be into the capital ship experience, so if you want something more like Firefly then we'll definitely get to that at some point.

[Darksol]

It very much seems like...

A) This is really going to be a game for people who enjoy the all of the details and "little things" that make such a grand enterprise possible, and can have fun doing those mundane tasks while being part of a much greater adventure.

and B) This game is really going to require a competent AI crew that can handle all the tasks that the player is not involved in. Otherwise it will require a large online multiplayer crew working together to make it fun which will probably only happen for a handful of players. If a single player is command staff, the engineering and other general crew will need to keep things running with only occasional attention needed in normal operation, and if you are "minor" crew(or a passenger) the AI command staff will need to be able to handle all the decisions like pursuing a main mission while knowing when to divert and go to places to collect resources when necessary as well as competently(but maybe not too competently) dealing with emergency situations like combat.

Replay value could be another concern, as you wouldn't want to just go through the exact same scenarios every time with so many variables in play.

If it all works, it could be absolutely amazing.

[Providence1111]

Originally posted by Darksol:

Replay value could be another concern, as you wouldn't want to just go through the exact same scenarios every time with so many variables in play.

great comment, and hits on one of the primary motivations for my post.

the fully simulated starship is going to be a very very cool, even mind blowing *initial* experience. the substance found in the core of the gameplay loop tho determines how much of this is a satisfying to play (alone or with friends) for more than like 5-10 hrs.

I mean this space sim genre is severely under served and what are our major titles? Star Citizen, 13 years in development and still a buggy mess. No Mans Sky, one of the most controversial launches in gaming history due to vastly under delivering, even now that they have a proper title compiled it still falls off a cliff after around 10 hrs cause you find yourself fiddling with a million inventory squares, traveling to planets with carbon copy POIs, and featuring some of the easiest combat in any space game (as well as ♥♥♥♥ fps mechanics). then starfield, another game largely considered a disappointment, a handful of novelty experiences slapped on a dated rpg engine. Elite Dangerous is a standout for probably having the best ship control mechanics/combat by long shot, but the game wants an obnoxious amount of time to grind and due to the devs whiffing on a few attempts at expanding the game, it's barely made any progress since launch.

you are 100% right about though about replay value being core, especially since it's a sandbox sim, the sand has to be fun to play in or else its little more than a novelty, a toy, rather than a proper game.

[Fleetyard Studios]

We're very much focused on the "discovery" aspect of exploration, so our long term goal is for the galaxy to continue to get deeper and deeper, with additional layers of content building on the existing foundations.

We want every new alien civilisation you discover to be completely unique, with its own backstory, system of government, social development, and anything else we can add to the list.

We've said it a few times before, but the design goal is for every star system you visit to generate anticipation and apprehension in equal measure. Not knowing what you'll find is really the secret sauce to engaging exploration gameplay, so our job is to make sure the galaxy always provides surprises.

The galaxy has actually been built in a modular way, with continual development very much in mind. Once we have the funding for it, we intend to have a dedicated team of developers literally doing nothing else but expanding the asset pools for the procedural galaxy systems.

Being a sandbox there is no real "endgame" as such, but the ship and crew departments will have upgrade paths, and that will ultimately be needed to reach and interact with the top-tier content.

Ultimately we want the galaxy's depth to equal or exceed its width.