Personally I'd be happy continuing the top-down view. (with more than 16 directions)
One cool improvement would be the ability to have multi-ship battles. Maybe you control your flagship, and choose one wing-man to take into each battle. Or each race has a range of ships, from fighters to cruisers, and you control the flagship, while the other ships around you battle it out. One thing that always bugged me about SCII, was you never felt like a giant fleet of allied races, with the 1 on 1 battles.
It would also be cool if you "escorts" could participate in more ways. Having certain allied ships in your fleet could open up options in conversations, or talk directly to other races with you. They could have specific actions during planetary exploration.
Ish like that.
@DMRawlings: I love these ideas. Especially love the notion of adapting a tower defense and territory control gameplay mode into it. I think 360-degree rotation on the ships is a foregone conclusion today, but I would absolutely love to see Stardock turn Melee into a much more comprehensive and diversified experience that extends far beyond two teams of ships going at each other one at a time. So many games these days have different modes to play and there are limitless variations on the Melee theme that could be made into distinct modes, from MOBA-inspired battles to tandem 2v2 / 3v3 / 4v4 combat to ladder-ranked leagues like in StarCraft. A lot of my experience with online matchmaking is admittedly based on Blizzard games, so my thoughts are modeled around that.
I was also thinking recently: what if there were a deckbuilder aspect to melee, similar to trading card games like Magic and Hearthstone? Every player will have an online profile and as you win matches (whether against AI or other players) you collect new versions of ships (like rare cards) with extra features and bonuses. In SC2, you simply had ship slots to fill up to create a team, and some ships had more point value than others. You could create a whole team of Ur-Quan or Chmmr ships with a very high point total, but there were no other matchmaking or handicap features to even out how fleets were were built other than trying to get the point totals to be similar.
I think one important feature for online matchmaking would be to have a handicap that allows only so many points to be assigned to each "fleet deck" you build, and the ships you choose must come in under that power point total. You could conceivably have a fleet of just two or three powerful ships that can go against a fleet of a dozen less powerful ships, even though the point values are similar.
Players can then also choose whether they'd like to compete against someone of higher skill on the ladder with a point handicap, e.g. a higher-ranked player with a 100-point fleet taking on a lower-ranked player with a 200-point fleet, etc.
I imagine that someone with a deck of less powerful ships would gain significantly more experience points for being at a handicap against a more experienced player, or a player with a more powerful deck.
I'm not a fan of such 'deckbuilding' in multiplayer. More experienced players should have enough of an advantage without potentially being able to pull things that a less experienced player may never have seen before, let alone have any idea how to counter.
On the whole, I think it's important for the 1v1 melee to remain in the game - it's an archetypical part of the franchise. However, I would also love for the chance to see fleet battles involving the different types of ships working together as well as the 1v1 (often rock-paper-scissorsish) dogfights. Imagine, for instance, a classical Alliance fleet - slower Cruisers and Broodhomes forming a firebase at the core, Terminators forming a cordon to block enemy fire with their shields that the Cruiser point-defence can't handle or diving on enemies that close with the fleet with their powerful close-range guns, Penetrators, Skiffs and Scouts dogfighting with their opposite numbers or harassing slower enemy ships, and X-Forms using their flexibility to act where it would help the most.
In single-player, this could be represented either as more of an RTS mode - or you could take control of a single ship to control as normal, with other allied ships responding to your actions according to the type of ship. For instance, using the SC2 ships as examples, you could have the following categories:
Capital ships: Large, powerful ships suited to being the core of a fleet. Cruisers and escorts will try to remain close to capital ships, protecting them from lighter enemy attacks while the capital ship's firepower destroys enemy ships. Examples: Avatar, Broodhome, Dreadnought, Marauder.
Cruisers: Slower ships that are lighter than capital ships, and are suited to flanking capital ships to defend against lighter enemies. Alternatively, where capital ships are not available, a cruiser or group of cruisers may serve as the core of a fleet, being protected and supported in turn by escorts. Examples: Cruiser, Intruder (would not have the warp-in attack in fleet battles), Jugger, Podship, Terminator, Trader.
Escorts: Light, fast ships whose characteristics make them well-suited to defending and supporting heavier ships like cruisers and capital ships. If no such ships exist, they may act as raiders, albeit more inclined to operate in squadrons than true raiders. Examples: Blade, Drone, Guardian, Penetrator, Stinger
Raiders: Light, fast (usually) ships whose characteristics make them unsuited to operating as part of a fleet. Such ships may retreat towards the fleet as a safe haven when threatened, but largely operate independently to harass the enemy or engage enemy raiders. Examples: Avenger, Eluder, Fury, Mauler, Nemesis, Probe, Scout, Skiff, Torch, X-Form
Thus, if the player is controlling a capital ship, they can expect most of the fleet to follow them. If they're a cruiser and break off from the fleet, then if there are any capital ships they can expect most of the fleet to stick with the capital ships, although they may draw a couple of supporting escorts with them. An escort or raider that splits off is likely on its own, although they may be joined by a wingman with similar movement characteristics.
As an added player, the player might be able to change the designation of individual ships on the fly, possibly including a 'flagship' designation (which becomes an even higher priority than capital ships).
Combat is certainly one of the core elements of Star Control. Initially I had mixed feelings about top-down vs full 3D but I’m starting to lean towards the idea that top-down combat would probably be more fitting even though modern tech certainly allows for gorgeous 3D fights. 3D battles Homeworld-style naturally award the feeling of grand scale but as we lack any knowledge about the mood and theme of the coming game, it’s not necessarily necessary at all.
Will the game be more lightweight and gamey or more immersive story-heavy epic? Remains to be seen. I’ll live either way but I think the classic top-down view would be more in the spirit of Star Control. It offers some benefits over 3D as well. Actually the only bone I've to pick with the classic system is that as previously mentioned, ships flying to combat 1 by 1 don't really give that feeling of big battles. Scale and immersion aside, the bonuses of top-down are many. Here's what I'm thinking:
Pros:
As for complexity and depth, who’s to say it has to be just like 20 years ago? There’s plenty of room to expand the original concept. Most of the things I'd like to see have already been suggested but nevertheless here's my list of cool stuff:
Super-melee could also feature a healthy bunch of different game modes. First ones to come to mind would be:
I was never a fan of star control's melee combat. I would much rather something different, enabling all of your fleet to fight together.
It felt like a big disconnect having ships fight each other one at a time and I really did not like it at all.
I would much rather full 3d real time tactical battles. I know many SC fans may disagree but that's how I feel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6SkYQyz7l8
I'd also like mini games beside resource gathering and combat like flying through static/moving asteroid/mine fields to pick something important up (the choice of a ship should matter here). Boss/space station fights where you need to figure out its behavior/weak spots and the strategy to beat it. Resource gathering on planet - top down view, full 3D, Mass Effect style Mako (jet jumping, amphibious/underwater capable) fully upgrade-able and customize-able vehicle. Also, scanning the planet needs to be meaningful: not only planet conditions needs to be compared to capabilities of your Lander, but also, bio life needs to be player analysed in order to know if you can take on it. Example: if speed and weight mass of creatures exceed speed and firepower of your Lander - you better find some other hunting ground 'cause that T-Rekt will rofl stomp your ass into dirt and your syreen son will live the rest of his life as a bastard.
To be honest I never ever fought any aliens with anything but fully upgraded Vindicator, 'cause losing ships was too costly (resource gathering gets boring + you're timed in SC2) and you had poor choice of ships through out the game.
So, I'd rather have tons of upgrade choices and customization for my Vindicator (to make it a glass cannon or a tank or a midrange allarounder) & Lander and keep other fleet ships for special missions and mini games than anything else. I want to have a frakkin' Death Star/Destroyer of The Worlds at my disposal at the end of the game, so my upgrades for the main Boss fight would matter and I wanna be able (with proper upgrades) to steam roll anything last 1/3" of the campaign, 'cause to be frank combat gets boring after awhile.
Ever since the 3d style pictures of ships in SC1, the possibility of playing Starcontrol in 3d from the cockpit, or bone bowl, has been a dream...
Star Control should definitely remain a top down space combat game. This is the great forgotten action genre of computer gaming that needs to be brought back. The Star Fleet Battles board game is the original top down space combat game, top down space combat in slow motion under a microscope, and there is over 30 years of tactical knowledge from that game that completely dissects how top down space combat works. Done right, top down space combat can be many times better than any first person shooter. Space War, Asteroids, Star Castle, Star Control... many of the best earliest games were top down space combat games. Subspace was among the most successful of the earliest online games.
Nobody has ever done top down space combat truly right in a computer game. It is a special area of expertise of mine that I hope to have the opportunity to impart to the development team as a founder if I am chosen. In general, and to be brief for now, I would say that Star Control should definitely remain a top down space combat game but use a different balance than the original series. The original Star Control games used what I call a "Nemesis Balance"... modern game designers call this a "Rock, Paper, Scissors Balance". This means balance was achieved simply by making sure that each ship had a nemesis ship that would easily defeat it, this is also a big reason for the way super melee was structured to use different ships in succession. I think the new Star Control should use what I call a "True Balance", where all of the ships are roughly balanced with each other, although a slight nemesis balance might still exist within that framework. So I think it should definitely remain a top down space combat game, but with a different balance than the original had.
Much more can be done in this genre than has been done before. In previous top down space combat games all weapons have always been "direct fire" (i.e. unguided, aimed by the player). It is possible to use guided weapons and other ship systems that require tracking and a lock-on, and make that work in a simple way and still be very fun. Star Control could use this to vastly enhance the combat experience in this game compared to all those that came before it. The top down space combat genre dissapeared after Subspace, lost in an industry dominated by tech types who want to push technology more than they want to make classic games. So this genre died because it wasn't first person 3D and the programmers and artists couldn't show off with it. So it never developed beyond it's most primitive state in computer games. Star Control has the opportunity to create the first modern top down space combat game, and if they do it right you will be blown away by just how fun this kind of game can be.
I would like to see the space combat readn relatively simple and arcade styled, with some automated RTS elements (like the Kzer-Za Ur-Quan dreadnought fighters). At it's core, Star Control was about fun and light entertainment, not hardcore space flight simulation or doctorate level economics and glacially slow tier progression (I'm lookong at you EVE Online).
I'm definitely in the top-down view camp, but i think even more important are the ship controls. Back when SC2 was out, it was accepted that you played using a keyboard or maybe a joystick and the gameplay seemed to suit that with the firing directions etc. Now that every computer has a mouse and it's an accepted requirement for gaming, i think combat should make use of it and ditch the firing direction limitation.
I'd like to see the introduction of strafing into ship combat, if not for all ships, at least the smaller nimbler ships. I'd like to imagine the ship combat could be like the combat in Battlestar Galactica, especially taking inspiration from the hyper-maneuverability of the Viper class ships. It would really give that modern day 'arena combat' feel that I think Star Control 2 had in its time. It could also be another element for ship balancing much like ship speed, inertia and turn rate were for prior SC games.
I guess I'm not super fussed whether the SC reboot comes with multiple melee modes or support for large numbers of simultaneous players. It would be great if it did, but in my opinion the strength of SC ship combat is really in satisfying that 1v1 competitiveness
Honestly, I think there should be two modes of combat. An action and tactical mode. Action mode would be more of the traditional melee mode, maybe in isometric or 3rd person camera (must have asteroids and environmental hazards!)
Tactical mode would be more like Star Wars Rebellion, and be more for people like me who are not in it for the action.
Full controller support for the whole game would be my preference, which makes the second part tricky.
Top down is a must. That was the most engaging and memorable part of the original. It was a sphere but also a plane, why else could you fly off one edge and back onto the opposite? Gravity wells and asteroids should return too. Such a small thing as an asteroid affected so many battles when I played. There was nothing quite like seeing a parade of 10 Ur-Quan fighters coming at you, and then WOOSH! a passing asteroid destroys 9 of them. That was always a fun occurance.
Keeping top down limits the directions involved, which simplifies combat and makes it doable outside of a cockpit. It also keeps complexity down in favor of a melee mode that you can jump into over a lunch break, or for a few minutes with a friend. That was a big part of the original appeal too! Keeping melee half way simple would be a good choice. Make the campaign as complex as you want, but keep the melee game straightforward.
I agree that 1 primary and 1 secondary ability was the way to go then. It made comparing ships easy, and controling them easy. Especially, when you consider that you could jump between 16 different ships in a 10 minute melee. The less you have to remember when switching ships, the better.
Someone replied about having different ship classes. Is that going to be part of the design process? Are you going to set out to make, for example, 6 large, 12 medium, and 10 small ships?
While, over the years, I have loved to speculate what other game genres set in the Star Control universe might work, I think this one should keep it very traditional when it comes to combat. Spacewar type ship vs ship with plethora of different kinds of ships with some rock, paper, scissors (lizard, spock) type balance, adjusted with ship costs if that isn't enough. Top down is a must, but maybe like in some modern sequels of classic fighting games, there could be some 3D effects and flourishes that pop out of the 2D plane occasionally.
I also find the idea of having multiple ships fighting interesting, but that's really hard to fit in the classic formula on singleplayer at least. My tentative idea would be having 2 "capital ships" fighting each other as before, but there could be also weaker AI controlled auxiliary ships. Much like the Uq-Quan autonomous fighters, but more elaborate. They would also be counted as ships in the fleet, though possibly in their own ship slots. You need to build/recruit and crew them or put them in the roster in Super-Melee. They aren't just there automatically.
Multiplayer can naturally have more freedom. I'm assuming Super-Melee online. Could have team vs team and FFA with multiple players. Throw some sort of objectives in the mix, or even make it a sort of MOBA. I think, especially if the standard fight mode is drasticly different from old SC, there should also be a "classic" mode where everything was as close to the originals as possible.
On the subject of multi-ship melee fights, the game Starscape was heavily inspired by SC2 and has multiple ship battles or rather the player has his sole ship agains multiple ships. There are no planets in the center for gravity whips though. During battles he must also protect his large mother ship.This video shows some space fights from that game.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZybT_l5lTFI
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
