Impressions

[MarkY]

On a lark, I bought this game, and I've been quite pleased with it generally. I do have a handful of complaints -- or we can call them suggestions -- some of which have been raised already, but are worth seconding.

1) Large ships need to automatically stop at optimal firing range when they are targetting an enemy ship. This would avoid the goofy "turn away" glitch that makes close fighting so frustrating. The current system is incredibly annoying in part because often my ships move so slowly that I'm inclined to use the fast-forward option, which about 25% of the time winds up causing me to lose because of turning away.

2) The races seem a little too similar right now. Particularly, the Muktians and the Zorg seem to function identically: both warn you off, attack if you advance, and befriend you if you have one of their pilots or the cloak of Babulon. Likewise, the Tan Rau, Urluquai, and Tchorak function essentially identically, although there seem to be some modest differences in how you can pacify them (the Urluquai have gone passive on me for no apparent reason, the Tchorak [or was it the Tan Rau?] when I had the Crystal Fish). These aren't as bad as the Muktian / Zorg thing, though, because the Tchorak are conceptually so different (always one ship) and the pacifying items / conditions are distinct. Also, does the Mantle pacify the Garthans as well? (I seem to recall that it may have.)

A simple option would be to make the Muktians pacifiable through something other than the cloak -- for example, through having enough of the galaxy explored, since they are explorers at heart. I dunno. The other races feel nicely delineated, but these two just don't work for me as is.

3) There is a (modest) glitch involving the mirror that I found: if you mirror the enemy fleet away from its homeworld, you get a message about how, after a big battle, they agreed to a truce. First off, there was no battle. Second -- and I don't know if this glitch is confined to mirroring -- there is no apparent truce. When I mirrored the Urluquai from their homeworld, there was an announced truce, but when I then went to a different Urluquai fleet, they attacked (and killed!) me. I know you can weave a storyline excuse for why this is so, but it was a jarring and unpleasant gameplay experience, and I see no reason why it's not a glitch and shouldn't be fixed.

4) As others have mentioned, the wish interface probably should be retooled. My first time, I wished for "wealth" and got a fish. The second time, realizing it was an item granting tool, I wished for "hyperdrive" and got a different fish. Only after reading the board did I find out the situation with the unique items. In any event, the current mechanism seems flawed for two reasons, both pertaining to player experience. First, there is no feedback there to give an inexperienced player any idea what he did wrong (if anything). Second, it seems unbalanced that an experienced player can get a vastly better item than in inexperienced player, simply by knowing the naming rules and what items are unique and aren't.

I can anticipate the rejoinder -- "Learning to play is part of the fun!" But I'm not sure that's so in this case. Coffee break games are fun because they have static rules and thus test skill over a constant challenge. Making the *rules* of the game effectively get easier the more you play seems contrary to this system. It's one thing for a savvy player to be able to realize that, given a fixed and constantly known set of options, one is more useful in the given situation than another. It's something else to have a guessing game that requires insider knowledge.

The solution I would propose is to have him offer three or four different wishes: (1) "a journey to wherever you wish"; (2) "a fine item from my vault"; (3) "a rare creature from my bestiary"; and (4) "victory over one of your foes." #2 and #3 would be randomly generated, #1 would be a free hyperdrive jump to wherever you want (we know he can teleport!), and #4 would let you pick a fleet to destroy.

5) The player's fleet should start closer to the derelict ships. I am aware that part of the point of the distance is to build tension, but given how slow fleets tend to travel (unless you have a fighter with you), the tension shifts to boredom, even on fast forward, especially if you encounter a ship early in the game. Usually what I do in that situation is send my guy to board, turn off my monitor, and go get a drink of water. Surely that's an indicator that something isn't working the way it should.

6) The rules on retreating aren't totally clear, and I feel like I've been "cheated" a couple of times (i.e., I said to retreat, my ships didn't retreat, and I got killed). I can't really pinpoint what's going on here, other than the fact that sometimes I seem to leave the system much faster. I gather you can't retreat when an enemy's within X distance, but there seems to be more going on (for example, why my ships insist on turning, so, so slowly, to random angles before I get to leave).

7) Ripcord O'Reilly is an inside joke, I gather, but right now the only thing he seems able to do is fly quickly to derelict ships. Why can't I upgrade his gear, at least? No doubt people think he's funny as is, but since there are relatively few ships in the game that you get as companions, it's a little lame that he's so useless.

8) Folding seems very unbalanced as is. It's a pleasant gift when you get it, but it's just so, so powerful I wonder if there oughtn't be some cost involved (like a slight risk of pilot death? or a finite number of uses before he runs out of wax?).

9) The rules for guns seem fairly opaque right now. I'm aware that's part of the point of the current system, but I'm not clear why, since the other subsytems tell you (not so subtly) what the rank order of quality is. My sense is that the particle vortex cannon and the multi-missiles are the best. Otherwise I just go by cost. But cost seems randomly generated, within some parameters, so I've really got no idea.

10) Building off #9, combat in general feels a little wonky right now. It seems like I never am faced with an opponent I can beat until I can beat almost every opponent I would face. There's *some* slush room when you get to the "Garthans are a joke" stage but can still be taken down by Tan Rau or a really big Tchorak. Maybe I'm just not *good* at combat, but it feels like it takes a *long* time to get gear sufficient to beat even the easiest foes you face, and when I turn that corner it seems like I always have gear that lets me avoid battles easily until I can win the all. That is, there's never a point where I feel like I need to fight and can win the fight.

My sense is that if the gun rules were plainer, it might be possible to win fights earlier on. Alternatively, I would consider lowering the difficulty of the "easy" fights.

11) I don't understand why there is a store on Glory. The guns are always redundant with what you've got, you don't have money to splurge on them anyway, and by the time you do, you've got much better weapons. What gives?

If anything, why not make the shop offer items that would be worth ditching something for early on (like trade in your shield and your computer for a cloak, etc.)?

12) Esmerelda is a real headache as is. There's no comparable event in game right now (a purely random, totally sucky occurence), and I would suggesting cutting it or altering it in some way. The problem is that the items that stop Esmerelda are sufficiently rare, and the Esmerelda event is sufficiently rare, that I've only once caught her, despite being robbed maybe ten times.

Esmerelda is different from other instances of bad luck in the game (not meeting the Klakars early on, drawing poor items), because it's something manifestly *bad* happening to the player, which is much, much more striking (and frustrating) than the absence of something *good* happening.

I would be inclined to say that she should just be cut altogether, but cutting back content probably isn't a great idea. The better option, I would think, would be to have something like a message, "Your crew has tracked her to [System X], where she must be holed up." If you go to [System X] with an Esmerelda-catching item, you catch her and get your item back (I would remove the sabotaging). If you go there without a catching item, you get robbed again and she moves again. This would mean that getting caught is an option-creating (rather than value destroying) moment: you can try to get your hands on an E-catching item and track her down, you can avoid her, etc. It's also a low-cost solution in terms of coding / adding material.

13) The scoring system seems too opaque right now. It seems ill-advised to generate a numerical score at the end but not to tell the player the rules under which that score is generated. You give a general sense (swag for smugglers, exploration and animals for scientists, diplomacy for soldiers), but despite having played the game quite a bit, I'm still not sure how that works. Is it just a multiplier that is applied to each of the score categories or what? Is a five coin artifact better than a one coin animal for a scientist? As a soldier am I supposed to kill every hostile on the map (I gather so)? Do I sell my diplomats or keep them on board?

Again, I *know* that opacity is something that you guys seem to want, but I just don't think opacity makes sense when you yield a numerical breakdown at the end. This isn't something that would require huge, mood-breaking messages at the start, either. Just a simple message in tutorial mode would suffice.

The rules also seems maybe too complex now. I'd be inclined to say that scientists should *only* draw benefits from animals, historical artifacts, and weird occurences on planets; soldiers *only* from diplomats, destroyed enemies, etc.; smugglers *only* for the total value of their cargo / ship systems. That would make the three paths feel more distinct. Right now, they all sort of run together, particularly smugglers and soldiers.

---

Anyway, I realize this is a universally *****y list, but those were the main snags I've had with what is generally a very good game. I've tried to make suggestions within the spirit of the game (i.e., not asking for more elaborate plot, more complex interface, etc.). Right now, I'd say that the game is very fun but leaves me occasionally very frustrated in a way I haven't been frustrated by a game in a while (the last time was the weird pathfinding glitches in Starcraft that would occasionally cause your dragoons or templars to run back and forth and get creamed; before that, I'd have to go to NES "cheating game" days).

Anyway, at least some of these glitches are very low cost and very high yield, so I do hope you'll consider them.

[nihilix]

Hey MarkY - I'm one of the Fearless Testers and I want to thank you for the well thought out, comprehensive list of things you'd like changed. That's an awful lot of thinking and typing and consideration there. Thanks.


"1) Large ships need to automatically stop at optimal firing range when they are targetting an enemy ship."

First off - your complaint about the 'avoidance AI' is very common, and I get the feeling that in maybe 1.2 it will be addressed. But what is optimal range? If I have a frigate with the multi-missile, the positron ray, and the plasma torch, which would stop me? And if I were just flying around and a fighter got in my range, I'd hate to be stopped while I had a capital ship I was chasing.

Good catch, I don't like the solution.

"The current system is incredibly annoying in part because often my ships move so slowly that I'm inclined to use the fast-forward option, which about 25% of the time winds up causing me to lose because of turning away."

Try spreading out your fleet a bit.

"2) The races seem a little too similar right now."

The Zorg and the Mukts are possible ally races, and you can get their ships. Kinda similar.

The Tan Ru will never be your friend.

The Garthans and the Urlu are 'cloak-able' and otherwise pissy.

The Tchorak are wierd.

The combat differences do make for some additional variation, but I guess this has never bothered me because I'm not expecting radical differences.

"3) There is a (modest) glitch involving the mirror that I found"

I *****ed about that one too! I suspect that will be patched.


"4) As others have mentioned, the wish interface probably should be retooled."

The Timeless Bauble... yeah, it sux to have a unique item not show up if it's already on the map. As a SAIS player, I was amused with two different hyperdrives - can't I replace one with the other and that one will be ready to move?

I'd rather that he give you a 'do over' with unique items. "Sorry, friend, that item is already in the collection of someone else. Is there anything else you wish?"

"5) The player's fleet should start closer to the derelict ships."

GREAT idea. It's not like you can't take your time to arrange your fleet otherwise.


"6) The rules on retreating aren't totally clear, and I feel like I've been "cheated" a couple of times (i.e., I said to retreat, my ships didn't retreat, and I got killed)."

I agree - and the biggest problem is cloaked enemies. This is a tough programming task - how do you determine if you can flee. If you're encircled by Urlu, you can fly into range as you run. Actually, the Urluqai are probably 90% of the problems I have with fleeing.

"7) Ripcord O'Reilly is an inside joke, I gather, but right now the only thing he seems able to do is fly quickly to derelict ships."

He does do that well, you'll have to admit.

Ripcord is a little underpowered - you CAN, however, upgrade his shield and gun with some of them (you can go up to electron shield and I really like the fusion rocket launcher.) I think he's got a great turn radius, and is fast. I would dearly love him to have just one other system slot, however.

"8) Folding seems very unbalanced as is."

It does take a little time, and on a large map with a lot of nebula, it can be really limited. (stars are farther apart)

"9) The rules for guns seem fairly opaque right now."

I snipped your 'coffeebreak games' comment earlier, but here I disagree with you. Knowing combat effects is one of the best long-term rewards of the game.

Compare with solitare. You may know better what patterns you can move, but the cards are still the cards. In this game, as you enjoy the relatively repeating elements (ok, the 8 tan ru ships again) you can find little things that get you that much closer to satori (ie, your positron ray can hit them without being close enough to get them to stop following Ripcord, as you pound them into flaming space dust.)

And the designers intended to not have 'combat value' 'range' etc. on the weapons. The drives are a counterexample of this.

"10) Building off #9, combat in general feels a little wonky right now. It seems like I never am faced with an opponent I can beat until I can beat almost every opponent I would face."

Most everyone - including Penny Arcade - has commented on this. As you get better at combat and understanding what enemies are like, you find more space in the mushy middle. For instance, a fighter with an ion thruster and a frigate with the standard loadout can take 1) All Garthans, 2) Any Muktians without frigates and any Zorg without fighters, 3) Almost no Tchorak (except maybe the single little one), 4) Any Tan Ru except for Decimators, and 5) A few Urluqai, depending on setup (never with Deep Hunters, unless you're super sneaky and lucky as all get out.)

"11) I don't understand why there is a store on Glory. The guns are always redundant with what you've got, you don't have money to splurge on them anyway, and by the time you do, you've got much better weapons. What gives?"

There are very few odd-coined items in the game (well, lots of ones). The store at Glory is good for stashing stuff if you have the hyperdrive and no hold, for getting a fighter a fusion rocket launcher, and making change if you're trying to maximize your score at the end.

"12) Esmerelda is a real headache as is."

Yep. I love to hate her. Grrrr.

"13) The scoring system seems too opaque right now."

It is. Coins tell you what it's worth to you in your final score, so the 5 coin artifact is better than the 1 coin animal. The coin values change (you'd probably noted that) according to who you have.

Here's a tester hint - go open the .ini files, if you want numeric values for the scores. Someone should prolly be posting a list of these soon here or at the ISF board soon.

But yeah, scoring should maybe be tweaked.

Thanks again for the comments - hope I've shed some light.

[Combat Wombat]

Wow good job covering all the questions

Nice to see another person from Minnesota here btw, not sure how I missed that previously

[MarkY]

Thanks for the detailed reply. I don't have much experience testing games -- a bit, but not much -- but I've worked as a writer / designer fairly extensively in the game industry, so I'm trying to give the kind of advice we found helpful on the other side.

1) It doesn't matter whether they get the range *right* (or optimal) -- it only matters that they set some value for the "close enough" range (first firing range? every gun can fire range?) and then have you stop when you hit that range. Presumably, "close enough" should be "every gun can fire," since if you want to stop sooner you can do so manually.

The "close enough" range would *only* be triggered when you had selected an enemy target and were approaching it, and would only be triggered by your proximity to *that enemy.* A fighter flying between you and your target would never stop you, and nothing would cause you to stop while retreating.

This is by far the simplest fix and I can't see any disadvantages at all to it. There might be better (more effective for battle purposes) places to stop you, but figuring them out is much more complicated. This fix adheres to the KISS philosophy and solves the problem.

2) Racial similarities. The problem isn't the way they fight (or look), but rather the way they function diplomatically. They seem decently delineated from a combat standpoint, but combat isn't the be-all-end-all of the game, and I see no reason not to distinguish them more. Moreover, the Cloak of Babulon seems overpowered as is.

4) The "do over" is better than nothing, but seems nonideal by both favoring experience over strategic thinking and not granting player flexibility. If I'm already suped up, some trinket isn't necessarily what's best for me. A teleportation might be more valuable (especially if I don't have hyperdrive and want to save a "get home immediately" charm); so might wiping out a foe (he's an assassin, right?).

7) Well, chalk this one up to the rules on loadout not being clear enough. I just thought he couldn't change gear (not that it was some fighter rule). Is there any reason not to give the player a message like, "Fighters can only equip [this type of component] in [this slot]" when you try to put the wrong kind in?

8) It takes one day, right? Seems too low-cost, especially given how relatively easy it is to get one of those helmsmen. Hyperdrive takes 60 days, and feels rarer, doesn't fight for you, doesn't expand your cargo capacity, and doesn't get you friendly with the Zorg.

9) I think you're confusing two kinds of knowledge here. Imagine if Solitaire (Klondike) were played more or less as it currently is, only black eights go on black nines (and red eights on red nines), queens can stack on kings *or* fours, and the Jack of Clubs and Three of Diamonds are wild cards. Now imagine that this game boots up just like normal Solitaire. Whatever the merits of those rule changes, the benefits are completely swamped if the rules aren't told to the player, because it's simply unfair to expect him to learn by trial and error such trivia.

Now, if those rules *were* told to the player, obviously they would take a while to get a handle on, since it would introduce extraordinary complexity to the game (or, at least a little more complexity, especially if you were playing, say, Freecell rather than Klondike). You'd need to learn new strategies and whatnot. But you'd be learning those strategies in the context of completely transparent rules.

Right now, the problem is that I just have *no idea* what it means when I read weapon descriptions -- I don't know how much punch they pack, I don't know rate of fire, etc. And if I didn't read the manual, I'd never know about point defense (or was that in the tutorial?).

You describe drives as a "counterexample" to the general rule, but drives fit with the general rule and weapons are the clear exception. Shields give a plain hierarchical description (afford little protection, some protection, etc.). The computers give a plain description. So do drives and thrusters. (Moreover, money makes ranking them easy.) Scanners are clearly ranked. Repair modules are ranked. ECMs are ranked. But not weapons. It just seems silly to me.

If nothing else, it would help to have clear ranks within each class of weapons, and a quick mention in the tutorial what each class of weapons is appropriate for *generally speaking*. "Missiles are the best way to take down capital ships, while beam weapons tear through fighters." If there are special wrinkles, let the player discover them, but give him the basic rules.

11) Does money transfer between stores? It didn't seem like it to me. Do you only get scored for your coins at Glory?

13) That's really helpful re: coins. I had thought value was randomly determined each game and then there was some modifier based on class that only came in at score. It's a little weird that the galactic market price is determined by the preferences of one customer, but that's fine, I guess. I'm inclined to think that it would work better with fixed prices and then multipliers / modifiers for the score, but it really doesn't matter much.

[jab2565]

in terms of pricing, the frigate(millitary) gets the most coins for weapons and equipment, and the worse for creatures and items. Pirates get a half and half between weapons and equipment and items. The science vessel gets the best coin value for items and the worse for weapons and equipment.

I also found it a bit hard to manage battles espically when your surronded or the enemy is cloaked.

[James Sterrett]

Speaking as another Fearless Tester....


Your commentary on revealing the rules & balance issues drives, really, to the heart of a key design intent & philosophy in SAIS & WW:

Discovery of the rules is part of the game (and intended to be a *fun* part of the game).

When you start playing WW, you have little clue how good a Neptunium Railgun is. Over multiple playings, you'll start to find out what it can't do (and the special things it can).

Each new item is like a package delivery to your door with a brief marketing blurb. You've got some idea what it's meant to do - but only testing will tell the full story.

Thus the numerical breakdown at the end is useful, because it's part of the clue package.

This concept of exploration isn't for everybody; some people prefer to have everything up front and approach the game as a puzzle. WW gives you the puzzle of solving the rules first - and the randomization means you're never certain at the outset exactly which puzzle you're going to solve [kind of like playing Solitaire with 1/2 of the cards randomly removed.]


My favorite part of the testing process was getting a new build with new content - a new present to find, unwrap, and explore.

[MarkY]

Well, I think it's somewhat unfair to paint me as being unable to enjoy "the concept of exploration," although even if that were so, it would hardly explain why I like my games to be fair and frank.

Star Control was also a game of exploration, both in the accurate sense that it was about *exploring* and in your sense that it concealed details from the player -- you had no idea what each ship did until you piloted it -- but unlike WW, Star Control very quickly conveyed that information to you, because you fought battles frequently and the stakes were relatively low. You could afford to lose an Earthling cruiser here and there (or to take a few hits with your cruiser before getting the hang of it). In WW, the battles are almost always all-or-nothing affairs and you seldom get a chance to "try a gun" in anything short of an all-out slug-fest. The first time the enemy hits you, either you'll kill him or vice versa, whereas in SC battles had a great deal more give and take.

The larger problem with the opacity of the gun rules though (the smaller ones being fairness and inconsistency with other component parts) is that because I know how good a few guns are -- the Particle Vortex Cannon, the Multi-Missile Launcher -- and because I tend to be able to get those almost every game, I simply don't experiment with the guns as a player. That means the only benefit you're identifying ("discover as you go!") is illusory. The way the games are structured, there is almost no reason to engage enemy fleets until you have crushing superiority. Fast drives and scanners let you avoid enemies until you've picked clean the unoccupied systems, by which point you should have a couple of ships and heavy firepower. Then you train that firepower on the fleets left, in order of power, and you win. Or, you don't. (Or, you get a mirror, or a furies gong, or some other item that lets you defeat every foe without any struggle.) But either way, you don't go around seeing whether you can wipe out the massive Tan Ru fleet with a Micrometeorite Gun and a Sardonion Optimizer, since you know that you can find a better gun before you have to try it. As it stands, I'm never, ever, going to find out what the special things a Neptunium Railgun can do are, unless I stop playing the game for score and start playing the game with artificial restraints (like playing Freecell but handicapping yourself to only three cells). *But even if I were to play with such a handicap,* it's still not clear why the game shouldn't tell me that for *basic shooting* the Neptunian Railgun ranks a 2 and that short range guns are best for point defense while missiles are best for capships.

As I've said several times, the nuances -- the little tricks that each item hides -- can come out in the playing, but the gross plan of the rules should be evident to the player quickly. Obviously, that's the core design philosophy of WW, or else *every other component* would be just as vague and opaque in its worth as guns are. Drives would just give you fuzzy information, computers wouldn't tell you that they have the "optimum" ability, and shields wouldn't use obvious ranking language in their descriptions.

It strikes me that you're making a post hoc defense of the gun vagueness based on a philosophy that doesn't track with the rest of the game.

Anyway, I'm not going to return my copy, or not recommend the game, or anything else based on this issue (although I would mention it to everyone who asked me how the game played). It's a fairly minor point. But the refusal to hear legitimate complaints -- under the guise of having already considered, philosophically, the alternatives -- strikes me as a very poor form of customer support.

[Phoenix-D]

Point of order: you haven't recieved -any- customer support here, really; both people that replied are testers, not the game developers.

That said, I've not really noticed that issue with the weapons. The ranking isn't as clear, true, but the descriptions seem to be enough to give a general impression.

[MarkY]

Bizarrely, an edit I put in on the post didn't go through, where I addressed the customer support thing. I think it went:

"--EDIT--

I should probably clarify that I realize: (1) that some ideas clearly will be contrary to the WW philsophy -- like if I suggested that there should be a character-driven story, a save feature, or base building -- but when it's not immediately obvious that the philosophy excludes an idea, I think something more than a pro forma reference to philosophy is on order; (2) that informal beta tester comments don't consist of customer support, and the above paragraph should probably substitute "argumentation" for "customer support.""

Heh. Too bad that didn't go through last time.

[Arralen]

I must admit, your criticism is very well-worded, valid and applicable.

I had similar complains when doing the beta, but sadly, I wasn't able to make it clear to the devs. And then there remains the philosophy thingy .. AFAIK in SAIS information was as vague as well.

There is some sort of fix for your problems, though. Dig through the files and look for the weapons numbers. Make up your own table, and maybe post it somewhere as a spoiler (others may have the same problems as you).

While you're at it, you might half all weapon damages and reduce the 'radius' of the Vortex Cannon. Makes for more interesting combat, as it will last longer and the differences between the weapons are smaller. I did that when I got the very first test version, so it can't be that hard to do.