I am all for sandbox games but what are the possible goals in this game?

[Sunbather]

Usually in 4X/sandbox space titles (Stellars, Endless Space, Starsector) you experience joy in dominating or joining other factions, become more powerful and/or avoid bigger factions.

Then there are the grindy multiplayer space games (Elite Dangerous, Eve Online) in which you go the competitive route.

I wonder now: what are goals in Stellar Tactics? Or let me rephrase that: what makes you keep playing? Is there some sense of progess (and be it just for you to survive other factions)?

(Sorry for my bad English but I can't seem to wrap my head around this game. The different parts all look very intriguing but I can't make up what the game is supposed to be.)

[diasho2]

at this point after the first couple of quests the story is not in yet since the dev has been focused on the core workings of the game. now that part is done for the most part the focus is on developing a story and other things that will keep you playing

[Panzakat]

Originally posted by Jeb:

I wonder now: what are goals in Stellar Tactics? Or let me rephrase that: what makes you keep playing? Is there some sense of progress (and be it just for you to survive other factions)?

Personally, I love the merging of two great genres, elite rule the stars and farm it, married to an X-com style squad tactics.

So I keep coming back each patch to play some more boarding action, attempt to exploit and break everything, then report it. So ST has a great release candidate!

Not sure I'd know what to do with a story, the original Elite premise iirc, was get home, never managed that!

[DEFIANCE is Back !!]

Yeah opening poster you're hitting on what seems to be a weakness of the game -

no real sense of progression and completion to the game (so far, obviously this is about the current state of the game and this can, and should, change further in development),

this post isn't meant to insult the game but I noticed throughout the forums critical questions such as 'scaling' of enemies etc are quietly not talked about,

the developer is pushing the idea that no save games will be wiped, etc,

but I'm not sure he realizes that's a critical thing to make sure a 'completed' game has a starting and end point.

Development as it stands now seems to be around the 'no game save wipes' because it uses scaling of enemies,

therefore, the more you level, the enemies level with you etc therefore save wipes is a problem not to worry about,

but there's an opposing view (shared by many, dare say 'most') gamers that if you want an actual sense of progression to a game and sense of achievement and satisfaction (especially if the game has leveling, experience points, rpg aspects etc),

then you need to have more or less fixed enemy levels and yes, heaven forbid that means you have to wipe saves as you incrementally develop the game.

The big factor in all this is the label 'old school rpg',

unfortunately, by him wantonly using it in his marketing and store page,

only for a person to find out the game is scaled and is designed to really have no sense of progression,

then the whole thing collapses like a house of cards.

I'll stop with that because I don't want to seem like I'm berating the devs hard work (since up until the point of 'enemy scaling', I too thought it was going to be my 'dream game'),

but yeah,

'old school rpg' and 'enemy scaling' are two things that don't mix,

[zuehli_2003]

There are advantages and disadvantages of enemy scaling. You posted in like 5 threads, that an old school rpg needs to have no enemy scaling and that every game needs windowed mode. And you talk about the precious time of the player, but you write in several threads several text walls, that can be summarized in two sentences: "I want an easily accessable windowed mode, with resizing of the window. I don't want enemy scaling."

Old school rpg and windowed mode don't fit together as well, btw... because real old school rpgs were DOS based, so no windows at all.

No offense here, but I don't understand people, who pretend that their personal preferences are a must and apply to all players around the globe. There are a lot of player types.
I'm fine with your personal view. But please, write it concisely and make clear (to yourself?) it's your personal preference or maybe the preference of the people you have talked to or whatever your sources are. Don't speak for all of us, we have a voice ourselves. Thank you.

[DEFIANCE is Back !!]

There are advantages and disadvantages of enemy scaling. You posted in like 5 threads, that an old school rpg needs to have no enemy scaling and that every game needs windowed mode. And you talk about the precious time of the player, but you write in several threads several text walls, that can be summarized in two sentences: "I want an easily accessable windowed mode, with resizing of the window. I don't want enemy scaling."

-- well based on your attitude and tone it sounds like you already know everything and other people's opinions don't count -

that's exactly why I post in different threads and try to elaborate with 'walls of text',

to give people various angles and reasons to understand that there's already 1000 generic 'star games' out there and when your angle is '250 000 star systems and old school rpg' then it should be high on the priority list to realize scaling defeats the purpose of that.


-- " No offense here, but I don't understand people, who pretend that their personal preferences are a must "


-- like I said, the key phrase here is 'old school rpg',

if you phrase something that's trying to target a specific market - give them what they actually want.

My 'personal preference' is shared by the majority who prefer 'old school rpgs',

that has been mentioned repeatedly throughout the forums by other people but in a very quiet unassuming way,

I was trying to make that clear (i.e. refer to the 'walls of text'),

and sure enough I get the flak from people like you,

but that's okay cause I seen this happen many times in forums,

there' s a reason his game isn't taking off (when so much of it is amazing) and I was trying to show one of the clear reasons why.

[DEFIANCE is Back !!]

it's your personal preference or maybe the preference of the people you have talked to or whatever your sources are. Don't speak for all of us, we have a voice ourselves. Thank you."

-- what makes your obnoxious post even more ridiculous is you posted in a thread _directly_ related to the opening poster feeling somewhat 'frustrated' that he feels the game doesn't have a sense of 'completion' -

which is a direct result of enemy scaling.


This is one of the many threads that try to address this and scaling (or lack thereof) is how you solve these kinds of issues,

which as stated - is a very common denominator with people who like 'old school rpgs'.

You never felt at a 'loss of what to do' in them because there was always a 'sense of progression' --

which is a direct result of having set enemy levels (whether soft or hard capped) to overcome.

I hope that wasn't too 'wall of text' enough for you to understand.

[Montavious]

This is confusing. Why would I not want my enemies to scale with me? This isnt an MMO where you go certain places and certain camps to level up. And windowed mode, not really a concern for me. This isnt a 2d game like Terraria. I mean, if this game isnt for you, then just quit or get a refund if you can. There are hundred of games in my library I didnt like for some reason. Celendrin, you posted in a thread that died in February. So youre obviously looking around for threads and spamming them because your salty that you cant get your way. Ive had my issues with the game, but im not sh-posting everywhere trying to get "my" opinion across. I simply stopped playing. Not because its a bad game, but because its not for me at this moment.

[zuehli_2003]

Like I said, I respect your opinion, but expressing it in 5 threads in a very short period of time does not make sense. Non-scaling enemies are like transparent walls: you see, there is something, but you can't get there. So non-scaling enemies are in fact scaled, but the basis is another. Enemies are scaled to a level the player is supposed to be, when he can beat them.
I understand your point. That's why I said, that this has advantages and disadvantages. That's why you can't say one option is good and the other one is bad. Many games with non-scaling enemies are very immersion-breaking: you enter one part of a forest and each single enemy kills you instantly. You go in another forest and you kill all enemies easily. Without any obvious reason except for that you are not supposed to enter those areas by design. It's a personal preference, if you like this or not.

And the OP wanted to know, what the motivation for other players is. There is no word about scaling or non-scaling enemies. This game is not about dominating the whole universe and build an ever-lasting empire. At least not atm.

And I didn't try it yet, but I think, enemies aren't fully scaled to the player level. Star systems have levels and I think missions from systems of higher levels then the player level actually are harder. I haven't been to a higher level system, so I'm not 100% sure about this.

Furthermore, 'old school rpg' is hard to define in my opinion, because there are many different kinds of 'old school rpgs'. So I wonder why you insist, that you know, what all 'old school rpg' fans like. There are people, that share your opinion, of yourse. Maybe its even the majority. I don't know. However, that's no reason to insist, that everything has to be like you want it to be. Maybe this is a niche game? This is neither good, nor bad. It's just what it is.

Sorry, for the wall of text -.-

[Itharus]

Originally posted by Sunbather:

Usually in 4X/sandbox space titles (Stellars, Endless Space, Starsector) you experience joy in dominating or joining other factions, become more powerful and/or avoid bigger factions.

Then there are the grindy multiplayer space games (Elite Dangerous, Eve Online) in which you go the competitive route.

I wonder now: what are goals in Stellar Tactics? Or let me rephrase that: what makes you keep playing? Is there some sense of progess (and be it just for you to survive other factions)?

(Sorry for my bad English but I can't seem to wrap my head around this game. The different parts all look very intriguing but I can't make up what the game is supposed to be.)

I haven't played yet, so this may not totally apply atm... but Privateer was the same way. You could sandbox all day long and just be a part of a "living" universe and play as you wished for however long you wished. Progression was basically getting the baddest ass ship you wanted and pimping it out. There was an optional story line to complete as well. If you wanted to "beat" the game, you played that part.

Personally I enjoyed just being a part of the universe. Eventually, when there was nothing better to get, I did grow tired of it, beat the quest, then restarted to enjoy that sense of progression from a nothing to someone with all the toys. I sank a LOT of hours into Privateer.

Few if any games are actually perpetual unless you just don't get tired of repeating things.

[rompier02]

Originally posted by zuehli_2003:

Star systems have levels and I think missions from systems of higher levels then the player level actually are harder. I haven't been to a higher level system, so I'm not 100% sure about this.

I have. They do. The damage done on the bosses with skulls in these systems are lower than your capacity.

[[Ej-PH]-Gus-Arg]

The game would make the big leap with an online.
It gives another method of gameplay more interesting and competitive.

[Tchey]

I’m very mostly a solo player, and in this game, i don’t the point of online interactions.

However, i don’t usually like auto-scaling. A "good way" it can be done, IMO, is :

- a place has autoscaled range 1-10, so if you go level 2, enemies are level 1-3, if you go at level 9, enemies are level 8-10, if you go at level 27, enemies are level 10. Numbers are random, to be adjusted on the way the player progresses, of course.

This way, you can explore, and have a sense of power progression, and real danger, go places beyond your level, but if you are skilled or lucky enough you may win.

There is a drawback : content can be obsolete pretty fast. With auto scaling, everything you do (as a developper) keeps its meaning, you can visit the same village/ruin/station forever, it will have some challenge.

The thing is, whatever the options, all games will feel repetitive after 10, 50, 1500 hours, depend on the perception of the player and the implication ingame to give you a "sense of life".

Here in current state, goals are personal mostly. Buy a bigger ship, clean a new star system, equip the best weapons, max out a skill etc.

[rubish 1]

oh is there level scaling? if there is ill probably just remove it from my wishlist

[Neme]

IS this thread even on topic anymore..

Started out as
"what are the possible goals in this game?"

& now it is nothing but leveling scaling this and level scaling that

On that note. This level scaling business should be in its own thread.. not multiple

[SpiralRazor]

A lot of games in this kind of genre are open ended, meaning you can just keep doing stuff even after the main quests are finished. Yall must not really play a lot of these types of games.

Get Freelancer, which is a good example. By the time you are able to complete the "main story" quest, you are likely in a mid range ship....getting top of the line stuff will take you much longer then it takes to "finish" the game.

and as regards level scaling, areas have difficulty levels 1-10, 11-20, etc. Its quite easy to farm 1-10 once you have a decent squad or ship...but venture to the higher sectors its gets harder with commensurately better rewards possible. Whiners about the level scaling sheesh...