Hi everyone.


I've read into the "Survey"-thread and I have the impression that you are making a grave mistake by approaching your gameplay it this way. Fun must be absolute paramount when dealing with a game so the gameplay needs to be fun-oriented. I know this is what you are trying to achieve with your survey but your questions strike me as horrifyingly premature.


Sorry if I' being really, really blunt here but right now the fun people get out of playing CC is almost entirely due to its engine, NOT the gameplay. If you ever hope to release this game you have to really nail the gameplay, which strikes me as something you absolutely haven't done yet. Fixing the details you described in your survey won't get you anywhere until you guys have a coherent picture of how the player is supposed to "skillfully" interact with this game from start to finish.

You've made an amazing job with your engine so far but the fortress-gameplay honestly sucks. Playing it is not very rewarding or fun and it will never become so, even with all the fine-tuning you outlined in the survey. The fortress-gameplay you envisioned is definitely not the best possible use of your game engine, if your aim is the most fun for the player.

(Sorry again for being so blunt. Please understand that I'm absolutely not here to trash your efforts, this is a really well-meant critique. Because one day I wanna play a finished, polished version of Cortex Command and I want to enjoy it to the fullest extent possible ).




You surely get a lot of suggestions for gameplay improvements, so please consider these ones as well:


I think you need to abandon the concept of player vs. cpu dumping their stuff all over each other in an attempt to either conquer or defend a fortress. At least in its current form - I'll expand on that in a minute. Fortress is definitely not the gameplay-style by which people can get the most fun out of your lovely game engine and I hope my coming suggestions will make that clear. I will try to explain what's wrong with the current fortress-style gameplay and afterwards I'll make suggestions on how gameplay could be vastly improved with a reasonable ammount of effort.


A thing to keep in mind:
Cortex Command should obviously be approached as a single-player game, since you won't include internet connectivity. If a single player won't be blown away by it's addictive gameplay, then playing with/against a friend on one machine will not make up for it. Or put differently - the process of playing against the CPU must feel very rewarding every step of the way.



And this is already the first major reason why the fortress-style gameplay should be abandoned: It's not very rewarding - neither winning it nor playing it. Either the player or the CPU plays the role of a sitting duck (brain) while the opposite fraction dumps all their crap over you and tries to make headway towards your brain. (Or vice versa).
The first problem with that is that it doesn't feel like a "fair" game. It is "asymetrical" gameplay and no matter which side the CPU is on, winning against him is not as rewarding as it should be.

-If the player has to defend his brain then it always feels like he is playing against a CPU retard whose only chance of winning is by utterly flooding the players fortress with brainless zombies. Which feels unfair to the player.

-If the player is attacking the CPU's brain on the other hand, to him it will always feel he is only winning because he is exploiting the stupidity of the CPU. Which feels unfair as well and is not very rewarding.

Gameplay against the CPU should be symmetrical, then it feels fair and rewarding while you play, and winning is also real sense of accomplishment. So in a skirmish match both CPU and Player need to start with pretty much the same resources and positions.




Here are my suggestions on how to make the game more engaging and rewarding:

You need to add some sense of progression during the skirmish gameplay to make it more rewarding. One good way of doing this is to not only make it about destroying the other brain but to also add the element of territory control. There is a good reason why the concept of territroy control is so popular in many games - it is fun fighting over land, especially if it gives you some sort of resource or gameplay advantage!

I'll be more precise how this might translate to Cortex Command: Instead of using "repeating" maps, use long, horizontal maps with a clearly defined left-to-right orientaton.
Both players start at the opposite ends of the map. Along the map both have to conquer "outposts" that might fulfill a variety of functions. They could simply be above-ground bunkers. (Which I would favor over e.g. just flags because bunkers provide an inherent gameplay advantage rather than just an abstract one).

-Either those bunkers could be the only parts of the map where dropships can be called OR the conquering of such an outpost extends the dropzone from your end of the map all the way up to your furthest ourpost.

-They are a neat little challenge along the way. Like a walnut that you need to crack in order to progress further and gain the upper hand over your enemy.
And likewise they also slow down your enemy in his attempts to claim your land and kill your brain. They are a rewarding stepping stone on the players march to victory.

-Outposts might be the steady source of your income-flow.

-Apart from doors, bunkers and concrete walls should be indestructible.

-Outposts might have an indestructible attachment on top that rather reliably takes out unfriendly approaching dropships.
For example a laser that instantly cuts through debree that might be on top of the gun and destroys nearby enemy dropships in no time.
A nice little something to ensure that players (and CPUs) don't just let their dropship appear over their own territory and manually fly it all the way over to the other side of the map. This also adds one thing that might not be obvious at first but is very important: At last there is a real frontline the player can focus on!
Right now stuff can be dropped everywhere and the player has to pay attention to too many things because attacks can come from anywhere.
If there is a frontline that is enforced by outposts the gameplay gets much more focused and intense in those areas rather than being all over the place.

-You might need to capture those outposts with your brain. That adds a nice element of risk that might add to the gameplay experience.
(Or maybe not but it should be tried out!) I liked the concept art of the brain on top of spider legs. A really tough and fast spider that captures those bunkers would surely be entertaining.

-And while we are at it - I hope you will be able to improve the pathfinding capabilities of the AI. The only way to ensure that the players really enjoy this game as much as possible will be that they can be confident that an AI soldier will generally end up standing where they order him to go to as long as that position is reachable to the unit. Also please teach the AI not to shoot its own people in the back.



Apart from the AI I think the gameplay changes I described up until now would not be that hard to pull off and I hope you agree that they would add tremendous fun to the experience of playing CC.



Now another basic observation: Right now gameplay takes part in two spheres. Above and below ground (including vast bunkers).
Ideally both spheres should play slightly different yet rewarding and complementary to each other. So better get both right or stick to just above the ground.
No one needs a half-assed attempt at broadening gameplay by taking it underground if it isn't actually fun.


Here are a few suggestions how to improve the underground gameplay:


-Get rid of the gold digging. Seriously no one wants to go pixel hunting with those insipid didding tools while a war is taking place.
(No, not even if a robot will do it for you!). I agree that some form of resource management is necessary but not like this. There is no one ever thinking "oh gee all this shooting is getting boring, I'd rather have fun with the digging tools." Digging for gold in its present form is not fun. At all. Therefore it should not be part of the game.

Right now the first player to run out of gold is generally doomed. You cannot possibly earn enough money by digging up gold while simultaneously fighting. The only sensible way of resource management for Cortex Command (which seems to be based on the idea of dropping disposable units onto a battlefield) is to conquer something and then get a steady income stream from that captured resource until the enemy takes it over or you win.


-If you want to keep the underground gameplay then you need to fix the way digging is handled. One way would be to get rid of all handheld digging tools and instead use specialized units for digging underground. The "drone" unit is halfway there already. You should be able to give the drone "waypoints" by click-commands and it should steadily dig out a tunnel going from one waypoint to the next. No matter if vertically, horizontally or diagonally. There should be no debree left, tunnel-digging should be a perfectly close shave so players won't be annoyed by getting stuck in pixels when they navigate units through dug tunnels. Think of how it was handled in the 2D worms games, that should give you a clue.

-If you want to keep the resources underground rather than coupled to the outposts (which would be an incentive to not neglect the underground portion of the gameplay) then you should make them something like big/medium sized indestructible clumps of gold that a specialized little unit (maybe like a bug) can latch onto to provide you with a steady stream of income/resources.

-Perhaps bunkers could extend all the way down into the ground so players have two potential infiltration routes. But also two entries to worry about.

-A nice way to distinguish above-the-ground action from below-the-ground action could be fog of war. Players might be able to see the whole battlefield above but undeground they can only see in a lit circle around units.

-To enforce this you could either completely separate those two areas by an indestructible barrier of stone in between. (That would ensure that units can only enter or emerge from underground tunnels through bunkers.) Or you simply make it really, really hard to bomb your way through the ground.

-Players should be able to not only order but also build stuff during gameplay. Not whole bunkers but little things - especially doors in different strengths that fit the bunkers and tunnels. So you have to fight your way through a door into a bunker and then repair those doors with your own ones that open automatically for your soldiers. Other things might be upgrades for the bunkers like small machine pistols. For that to work however there needs to be a little change of the game engine...

-I know you are proud of your destructible game environment but it seems you have concluded that it is so amazing that everything should be destructible for maximum fun.
This is dead wrong and I hope I can explain to you why. The whole point of DIVERSE and engaging gameplay is that the environment behaves differently depending on what you do with it. Right now all the player or the computer has to do in order to win is to get the best digging tool, invest some serious time and simply dig through everything in a straight line until you hit the brain. Sure some things take longer to get through but essentially that's how it is.

This freedom of territory destruction is not as good a choice as you might think because that way victory essentially comes cheap for both the player and the CPU. You should restrict the players by adding indestructible structures into the mix and force both - player and CPU - through those bottlenecks. This adds more gameplay elements and tactic into the game, because right now terrain and essentially everything is simply one big homogenous mass which makes it... well, boring.

Bullets should only be able to go through "light" earth, bodyy parts and debree. Not stone and concrete walls. Maybe not even metal debree in fact.
Rockets on the other hand might be allowed to damage stone.


-You should also consider implementing one of two things. I know this might be hard because it means changing an integral part of the game engine but you definitely need some way of keeping the piling debree from getting into the way of the gameplay. This might sound a bit shocking because the whole game seems to be based on the idea that every pixel should be part of the gameplay but what's the point if it doesn't make it a more fun experience?

There are three basic ways of solving this issue. Either you make units much less succeptible to getting stuck on little and even rather medium irregularities of the landscape. (Yes, it is really annoying). Or units can push debree out of their way as if it were show (with some good ammount of resistance is what I wanna say). Or you make the debree slowly disintegrate over time. Or preferrably evan all three things. (SHOCK! ) I know.

But as I said. The purpose of a game is to be fun to play. And if players get annoyed and held up by getting stuck on tiny pixels with their units then those pixels have to go one way or the other. Seriously, why not let debree that is NOT earth slowly disintegrate - scraps of metal could slowly turn rusty red/brownish and slowly and steadily disintegrate from top to bottom. Same goes for rotting body-parts. Earth and dirt can stay the way they are, since they are part of the landscape.

This would make the landscape nicely destructible and deformable yet at the same time it wouldn't make it almost completely impossible for many units to cross the terrain. The goal is obviously to keep the nice effects of your game engine while at the same time not letting those tiny particles negatively interfere with the gameplay.
Seriously, most of the annoying micro-management in CC is due to the high difficulty of manouvering units over rugged terrain and debree.




So far so good. I hope you will use at least some of my suggestions to make Cortex Command a more fun game to play.



PS: Along with the new, better skirmish you should obviously also keep those little "Zombie Cave" style missions in the campagin. They are fast and fun to play.

Not sure about limiting tunnelling and removing debris, that's one of the things that make the game interesting. The map changes over time, maybe a good route is now blocked because a dropship crashed, or a safe zone is now vulnerable because there's a gaping hole in the side.

About the AI, not only should they avoid shooting friendlies, but they should crouch if they're in front and stand if they're behind, to allow for more firepower, but I think this kind of issue will be fixed in an update.

I believe you should play this game longer. You have zero idea of how to play, the strengths of the engine, or even the limitations.

Sounds like you tried the demo for less than the total time limit and then quit.

Despite your evident confidence in your opinions, CC does not "honestly suck" and will continue to do so without your obviously poorly researched opinions. Many people do find CC very fun, especially the Fortress gameplay. I, for one, find modifying my deployment tactics to defend a constantly deforming base to be fun and engaging.

And again, despite your conviction, CC isn't just a single player game. Many, including myself, play splitscreen with other players, sometimes a full four. Multiplayer "fortress gameplay" is very deep, with multiple valid strategies and varying levels of skill in terms of fine unit control. Even with just one friend on one machine is very interesting and can keep one (two) entertained for many a afternoon.

Many people enjoy the "player vs. cpu dumping their stuff all over each other" gameplay- have you noticed how Dan Tabar has been living off the profits of CC for quite a few years now? Again, it really is enjoyable to try building the most interesting base you can and seeing how long you can last against an infinite onslaught of shambling AI. Perhaps this isn't your game, but I can speak for quite a few when I saw this game is enjoyed.

Even charging an AI-defended base, while not as difficult as against a human, is fun and rewarding. Go beat the Dummy Assault with one clone and then try to tell me it isn't rewarding. There are numerous ways to approach the many scenarios that arise in attacking a base, creative use of jet pack, grenades- all sorts of things keep the game fresh and fun.

While I agree that the AI does feel retarded often- which game AIs do match a skilled human? For years games have relied on AI opponents, are you going to tell me that Mario wasn't fun? That basically every FPS single player wasn't fun?

I don't really see getting rid of underground combat being a huge improvement to CC. I've had great times attacking or being attacked underground by friends and even AI. Tunnel fighting has it's own unique metagame and mindgames and is a valid and balanced part of CC, especially in PvP.

I find your comment on gold digging to be one of the greatest indicators of your vast inexperience. "You cannot possibly earn enough money by digging up gold while simultaneously fighting." <- bull♥♥♥♥. If anything, money is too easy to earn digging. 8 seconds of digging can yield over 500 oz. Really, I don't know how to further refute such a ridiculous comment. It is blatantly incorrect. You don't even need to divert your attention to gold digging. If you had played the game for more than five minutes you would realize that you can set waypoints with the Go-To command, making digging very easy. Digging is one thing the AI is good at. Why can't bunkers have entries deep within the the ground? My friends and I have both created bunkers with underground entry points- it is a way to start your digger close to a big gold vein without breaking our "all underground ares must have a path to the surface" rule. I've breached and have been breached through such tunnels.

Fog of war is coming, next build.

Breaching bunkers by simply digging through them is not a end-all tactic. It is slow. It may work to some extent against the AI, but by that time you've probably been stormed twice; even against the AI it's likely they'd have melted your grey-matter already. Against a human it is certain they'll destroy you before you dig to them/ destroy your digger. Diggers are major targets, PvP. It's generally the first thing you want to go for, if they're not well-defended.

In-game base building has already been accomplished. By Grif in fact, the poster below me. Besides, repairable bunkers would only promote stalemate.

Getting around isn't difficult, if you've played the game at all. Jetpacking, even in little bursts will extract your actors out of pitfalls quite easily. Even the admittedly snail-ish marching isn't that bad. The Go-To command can be used effectively to tell your guys to move somewhere while you give commands elsewhere.

I don't like your tone or the way you say things. I don't like your penchant for misspelling. Try to make your phrases more into polite suggestions, rather than hostile accusations. Run your speeches through Microsoft Word before you post. Above all, actually know what you're talking about before you attempt to change the entire game with your hastily put together ideas.

Edit: I realize I'm taking this guy a little too seriously. Ehh, the wall-of-text is already up, I ain't deleting it.

DEBRIS

DEBRIS

DEBRIS

DEBRIS

DEBRIS

DEBRIS

DEBRIS

PS while you actually make some decent points several of them are things that are probably going to be adressed by future versions of the game

also your overall strategy contains either A: things that won't get done because the one-man development team just wants this project done or B: can be added third-party using lua scripting, rather easily.

It's a crab, Napalm, not a spider.

In my opinion, debris should slowly remove itself over time. Sure, it's not realistic, but i hate to notice after 5 minutes of playing that my bunkers windows are all filled with dropship parts.

Just buy a guy with a digger then.

Debris?

♥♥♥♥ happens, English is my third language.
Sorry bout that and any other errors there might have been.


@ Contrary:
Well I sorta expected hardcore fans who are accustomed to the style of gameplay CC sports right now to:

1) Feel deeply hurt about my lack of tact in criticising it and not wrapping every sentence in friendly, colorful cotton balls .
2) Explain to me how my baboon-sized brain doesn't grasp the intricate awesomeness of the current gameplay.
3) Explain to me how fortress gameplay is so much fun playing it with other players.
4) Defend every single point about the game I criticized. Even the friggin gold digging.
5) Defend the AI, saying mario is fun as well. (And for some reason they always bring up mario to make this argument).




1) I know, my critique is not going to win an award for being the pinnacle of carefully crafted diplomatic dialogue.
It might not be as self-evident as I thought but I do find CC fun to play already. I wouldn't have bothered coming here and giving my opinion on how to improve it if I though it was trash beyond repair, would I?

2) Yes you are right, I surely didn't spend a hundred hours playing it but neither will the average player if it's not "pick up and go".
Maybe the issue of gameplay really comes down to this:
Either Cortex Command is made to appeal to a nieche audience or it's made to be a popular game (read:widely played and enjoyed).

I look into my crystal ball and I tell you that the current fortress based skirmish and digging for pixels is never going to be popular with the crowd.
At best it will continue to please hardcore fans but the current gameplay style will simply alienate most players.
Which is a goddamn shame because you could get so much more potential fun out of the particle/physics engine.

Yes the gameplay I tried to outline is radically different from what you are used to right now. That is the whole point to begin with.
Because what you are used to is not appealing to a broad array of players and it will never be.
But I now understand something that slipped my mind before:
Maybe that is was CC is actually meant to be - a game for a small nieche audience.
Fair enough if that's the case.

3) Yes, and waiting for the paint to dry can be fun with the right friends as well. I recommend it.
(Will say: That is not a valid argument. Most players will play this game in single player, if it can't convince there MP won't save it)

4) Dude, seriously?

5) Well this ain't mario. Sure AI can be as dumb as a brick without spoiling a game, the point is that the AI must be adequate to the kind of gameplay the game features.
And I'm not so sure if that that's the case here yet.



Is that how you experience it in PvP? But still you can't reach the digger underground until he breaches your wall. (Or am I missing something?)
Except shooting through the wall yourself, you don't seem to have any real options. And if fog of war is coming with the next build then you can't even see diggers approaching until it's too late. Also once the wall is breached you can't repair it, the concrete gun is a joke.



Heavens no, you are right! Somewhere in between dropping crabs from the sky and shooting zombies in the face, players will definitely smack their gob and think to themselves: "Boy this game sure is realistic, but I just wish the debriS would stay forever and clog everything all the time. Disintegrating debriS is so friggin' unrealistic, I think I'll stop playing now."


I don't wanna! And neither does Joe Average.

Sweet Jesus, I hit the "New Topic" button instead of the "Post Reply" one.

Please move it into the other thread. I'm really sorry about that.

Robot with light digger = Janitor

TL;DR - Cortex Command, the incomplete indie game primarily developed by 2 main people, could stand to be improved.

What news this is.

How the hell do you know what "Joe Average" wants?
Considering that you're the only person who's joined this 3800 member forum and complained about it I'd place you firmly in the minority.

I really think you're placing far too much weight behind your own opinion.
Apart from the things you suggested that Data is ALREADY PLANNING TO DO, we're all pretty happy with the game as it is now.
The fact that one other guy doesn't like it doesn't call for a massive engine upheaval.

It seems to me that you want CC to become ANOTHER Liero or Soldat. That would be terrible. Those games have their own feel, and if we want a game with the changes and mechanics you are describing, we can go to those other games. But we will never get another CC, so there is no reason at all to trash an already beautiful, if buggy, gem.

Dude...I just have to point out, the game is about digging for gold. It isn't a feature, it's the focus. Gold is why Tradestar is on Midas, and it's the reason everyone is here.

Also, I'd recommend a spell checker, especially if English isn't your primary language.

I ♥♥♥♥ love PvP fortress wars. Large horizontal map like battlefeilds, a superbunker at each end and my mate and I lob various military assets at each other all day long. We have mines that fund our bases. We dig towards each other, and ♥♥♥♥ hits the subsurface fan. It's awesome, and saying otherwise could only be justified by a mental instability!

What's better, is that same sort of gameplay will eventually exist for singleplayer in later versions of CC.

Actually, you could whip up a singplayer gamemode exactly like that right now with only a small amount of coding.