KickStarter Mechajammer (formerly Copper Dreams) - cyberpunk RPG from Whalenought Studios

[Ninjerk]

With any luck, r3jonwah85 Keldryn swinezig and the like won't pull a CrazyLoon on us.

What's a CrazyLoon?

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...-historical-fiction-12th-century-china.80544/

Inquire within, please.

 

[Keldryn]

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...-historical-fiction-12th-century-china.80544/

Inquire within, please.

That's why you'll never catch me making some big announcement with a bullet list of features until such time as I actually have a game mostly completed and I'm polishing it for release.

So far all I've done is share screenshots of stuff I've been working on. Some/all of which may never amount to anything. .

 

[Ninjerk]

 

[ArchAngel]

I'm a little surprised the higher tiers weren't sold. I was sure the $250 & $500 tiers would sell out.

$250 tier was extended multiple times. $500 tier was added like 3 days before the end.

 

[Metal Hurlant]

I picked up two of the $500 mega-box editions. It says you have a choice of the Serpent in the Staglands Handbook or Banquet of Fools Handbook. I pledged twice with two accounts to get both.

 

[Bumvelcrow]

I picked up two of the $500 mega-box editions. It says you have a choice of the Serpent in the Staglands Handbook or Banquet of Fools Handbook. I pledged twice with two accounts to get both.

Spoiler

Whalenought_Joe, here's your new best friend.

 

[ushas]

Back to the Burning Candle combat system...

In previous episodes:

Turn-based Combat with Simultaneous Real-time Resolution
Turn-based Combat with Time-based Resolution
[Turn-based combat] inspired by Grandia
Asynchronous Turn-based [Combat]
Turn Based Real Action
Active Time Battle​

...

It depends on what the main goals are. Apart from a catchy needs, there is still some difference between composing an apposite short phrase using already established terms, and searching for a unique label, for example. Some buzzword phrases will eventually start to move toward the edge of a naming^TM with further need of clarification.

In regards of the descriptive power, Infinitron is right, a few words phrase isn't enough for an all-encompassing understanding. On the other hand, in the case when it's uniquely associated with the specific combat system it will eventually refine it's meaning. Well, I guess that will also happen with buzzwords

And that's actually the case of Square's "Active Time Battle". It's well established. And unless Joe and Hannah are about to incorporate timing for issuing commands, perhaps it's not the best to directly associate with ATB. Even when players don't know jrpgs, it's all over the internet. For example, the wiki page Turns, rounds and time-keeping systems in games has a whole section about it.

To lesser extend, it's similar when thinking about "Asynchronous Turn-based", as it's also associated with a subset of multiplayer mobile games with alternating turns.

As for the Frozen Synapse example - foremost developers call it "simultaneous-turn-based tactical game". Perhaps using similar terminology Athelas labeled Grandia as "Simultaneous turn-based (with asynchronous turns)".

So using my limited understanding, if I would have to describe the Burning Candle combat, at this moment I might conjure something in similar fashion:

Simultaneous Turn-based Combat
{ with time-based / timed actions { and initiative roll } }​

or

{ with clock-based actions { and initiative roll } }​

etc...

Note: The brackets { } symbolize how I think the hierarchy goes, eg. when one wants to elaborate how it differs from the norm...

explanatory babbling

I agree with Sensuki and Excidium II that the fundamental feature of this peculiar turn-based system is that it's in real time - "Simultaneous Turn-based" emphasises that (as well as practically any other combination with real-time, like "Turn-based with Simultaneous Real-time Resolution"). As I have seen it used for similar reasons in strategy gaming.

So if we put aside an initiative and give everything the same duration - all units will always declare turns at the same time, and well as execute their actions at the same time (simultaneously). Now, when we put more complexity on top of that in the form of various durations for different actions, waiting, etc., and sprinkle it further with an initiative - the events eventually shift. And if I understand it correctly, it will become more apparent that units play their own independent rounds (but they weren't dependent on each other in the first place already).

Note: The first part with a simultaneous execution sounds probably the same as when it's phase-based. However (and please correct me if I'm wrong), I think this system in principle lacks a time flow element. So the further time-based complexity may not fall into the phase-based category any more...

About "Clock-based" the wiki page above says:

Clock-based games tie all unit actions directly to the game clock. Turns begin and end depending on the duration specified for each action, resulting in a sequence of turns that is highly variable and has no set order. This system is frequently cited for its realism when compared to other turn-based systems. It is also possible in this system for different players' actions to occur at the same time with respect to the game clock, as in real-time or simultaneously executed games. Examples of video games that use this type of system include Typhoon of Steel (1988) and MechForce (1991), both originally for the Amiga.

I haven't found much more apart from that.

TL,DR: What's more important - a short description, a label for the combat system, or both? And should it be totally unique or more like implying an affinity with other games/systems?

 

[Alienman]

They should honor Metal Hurlant with making him the main villain.

 

[mindx2]

I picked up two of the $500 mega-box editions. It says you have a choice of the Serpent in the Staglands Handbook or Banquet of Fools Handbook. I pledged twice with two accounts to get both.

I already have a SitS Handbook from the last KS but am wondering how/when/where to get the Banquet of Fools Handbook since I didn't go for the $500 tier?

 

[Bubbles]

I picked up two of the $500 mega-box editions. It says you have a choice of the Serpent in the Staglands Handbook or Banquet of Fools Handbook. I pledged twice with two accounts to get both.

I already have a SitS Handbook from the last KS but am wondering how/when/where to get the Banquet of Fools Handbook since I didn't go for the $500 tier?

I'm guessing Banquet for Fools is still a couple of years away, so they've probably not finalized anything about that handbook yet.

 

[ArchAngel]

I picked up two of the $500 mega-box editions. It says you have a choice of the Serpent in the Staglands Handbook or Banquet of Fools Handbook. I pledged twice with two accounts to get both.

I already have a SitS Handbook from the last KS but am wondering how/when/where to get the Banquet of Fools Handbook since I didn't go for the $500 tier?

I'm guessing Banquet for Fools is still a couple of years away, so they've probably not finalized anything about that handbook yet.

No, it should be done in 2017.

 

[Bubbles]

I picked up two of the $500 mega-box editions. It says you have a choice of the Serpent in the Staglands Handbook or Banquet of Fools Handbook. I pledged twice with two accounts to get both.

I already have a SitS Handbook from the last KS but am wondering how/when/where to get the Banquet of Fools Handbook since I didn't go for the $500 tier?

I'm guessing Banquet for Fools is still a couple of years away, so they've probably not finalized anything about that handbook yet.

No, it should be done in 2017.

I'm wondering about release dates because Whalenought have described CD as the "maiden voyage" of their new ruleset, which is also being used for BfFs. If CD comes out as announced in March 2017 (big if, but not strictly impossible), does that mean that work on BfFs will start right afterwards, running parallel to post-release support for CD, with a 7-8 month development cycle (for a free expansion, mind)? Or is development already ongoing while they're working on CD? I can see why Whalenought haven't given details on any of that, but there's plenty of interesting implications to consider.

 

[Metal Hurlant]

I already have a SitS Handbook from the last KS but am wondering how/when/where to get the Banquet of Fools Handbook since I didn't go for the $500 tier?

I missed the last KS for SitS. So I'm glad I've been able to pick up the handbook with this KS. Banquet of Fools might be released before Copper Dreams and I imagine that's when we'll see the new handbook and some copies of those will be put aside for this KS.

 

[Sensuki]

Nah it will be after, they said in my interview. They also said that they're not sure if it will be only free for SitS owners, or free for everyone. They haven't decided yet.

I also imagine it will be a 2017 release.

 

[NotAGolfer]

Great, seems like my bank has updated its list of shady sites since my last pledge. It includes Kickstarter now.
Either this or I don't know why the card that worked perfectly before and still works on every other major money-grabbing site gets declined now.

I won't bother to contact my bank because of this though, this is the last time I will use that shitty Kickstarter platform to support projects anyway. Everyone who wants something from me has to set up alternative payment methods like paypal using his own website from now on.

Not a problem in this case though, I still have my login from the SitS preorder, used paypal there and will just pledge the same amount I promised over Kickstarter.

 

[udm]

I picked up two of the $500 mega-box editions. It says you have a choice of the Serpent in the Staglands Handbook or Banquet of Fools Handbook. I pledged twice with two accounts to get both.

I already have a SitS Handbook from the last KS but am wondering how/when/where to get the Banquet of Fools Handbook since I didn't go for the $500 tier?

Hey mindbro I PMed Joe on Kickstarter about this. His response is probably highly relevant to your interests:

We will have the boxes on our site to order through paypal for a limited time after the Kickstarter since they're exclusive to the campaign, but if you'd like to order one in the future just message us through here and we'll work something out for you!

"You" referring to me of course since I'm also keen on getting it

 

[Higher Animal]

https://www.neondystopia.com/cyberp...ms-dystopian-crpg-with-old-school-tendencies/

You wade ashore, half-drenched and foggy from the effects of space travel. In the sea behind you, thousands of empty pods just like the one you crashed in on bob silently, uselessly. The government only issues one-way tickets to those drafted to populate the frontier colonies.
Your eyes travel from the rocky beach at your feet up to the concrete high-rises crowding the island city. It’s not very attractive, but neither are you at the moment.
You hear a muffled gunshot to your left and drop for cover, your instincts still sharp from your time in the Second Civil War. Peering past a rock, you see a woman in a grey jumpsuit crumple to the ground. A moment later you recognize what can only be the shuffle of papers, and your name called in the dispassionate tones of a mid-level bureaucrat.
“It’s my pleasure to inform you that you’ve accepted your new position as an Agent of Asset Inquiries with Wolffz Bay Services. Your benefits and salary are detailed on these papers. Please initial here, here, and, yes, here as well, in black or blue ink.”
Uneager to offer any dissent to a man that just gunned down a woman as casually as he might order a danish with his tea, you sign as directed and follow him into the dark shadows of the city before you.


Copper Dreams title image. A man holding a customised submachinegun with what looks like a partially augmented body.
Are you dreaming of a new life in the off-world colonies? Would you be satisfied instead with the thrill of a pen-and-paper role-playing game on your home computer? No dice. No missing character sheets. No problem players. Just you and the soothing glow of your monitor bathing you in neon until late into the night. If you’re already sold on this idea then take a look at the kickstarter page for Copper Dreams. If not, then allow me to give you a summary of why Copper Dreams is going to scratch the itch at the back of your neck in a way that the real world just can’t.

 

[Infinitron]

June 9, 2016

It's okay man, the Kickstarter is funded now.

 

[ushas]

(not so non-obvious attempt to bump the thread. Anyhow, does visibility helps in reaching stretch goals in the post Kickstarter period?)

The more I think about it, the more it blurs my mind. What is the nature of turn-based or real-time life?

Let me elaborate. It seems to me that Copper Dreams combat falls into the mix / hybrid subcategory of the two, and I can imagine it to be marketed as such to both TB and RTwP crowds, respectively.

Some relevant quotes from Sensuki:

It's still a turn-based game because each unit will have their own discrete turn and the game stops and waits for a player's input on their turn. The game is bereft of the time-critical element that many people dislike about RT/wP combat. The staggered simultaneous real-time resolution of unit actions is different though and one of the things I've been focusing my feedback on is helping to make sure that the game takes advantage of the strengths of this unique combat system.
...
It will probably look kind of similar to RTwP with forced autopause with regards to how the game looks at a glance, but it is definitely turn-based. The AI gets turns but the game will not stop to wait for their input by default as it will be processed automatically. There may end up being an option to toggle a short wait for AI input though.

I think the most important difference between turn-based and real-time for most people is the difference of player input. Turn-based is not time-critical and the game stops and waits for player input. Real-time (with pause) has a time-critical element. I think this game will be more popular with those who enjoy turn-based combat than with those who prefer real-time combat, but we'll see.
...
I think the limit to player & AI input makes it a bit easier to design for than RT/wP. Units can only make one decision on their turn, rather than loops constantly running updating their decision making. Likewise, players can't correct their actions once they've issued their units commands.

Soo when we assess two similar systems,

(1) Simultaneous turn-based where actions take time
(I've used similar one back then, but use anything else you like as description for Burning Candle ruleset's combat, till we get the official one)
(2) Real-time with forced autopause
(eg. after an execution of command or a set of commands)​

I can see that the main distinction is that in (1) each unit is constrained to make a declaration of action(s) in the specific window (turn) on its timeline and has to stick to that decision till its next turn. While in (2) each unit is still theoretically able to reevaluate and alter this decision at any point till the [end of] execution. Ok.

Except that specific implementations blur the line. For example, in 7,62 High Caliber their Smart Pause Mode (SPM) distinguishes between by player interruptible and uninterruptible actions. So you can pause and cancel an interruptible order or a whole set of orders (and issue different ones) as in (2). But once an uninterruptible action started you have to wait till it's completed (to the next unit's turn). Yet another case is an unresponsivity tied to ongoing animations, but that's different stuff. Etc.

So do we call (2) RTwP, while the case of (1) is TB, because the decision is always restricted to the unit's turn window?

Edit: Without further explanation from sly snake devs, seems to me that the combat system from Spy DNA might fall under (2), but they themselves call it Concurrent Turn-Based.

What if I limit (2) further so that the declaration is designed as in (1), and thus create a mutant such as

Real-time with [forced] autopause and turn-based declaration of actions ?
(a time-critical element mentioned above is no more)​

Huh, that boils me down to seeking out systemic differences between:

(1) Turn-based with real-time resolution
and
(2) Real-time with turn-based declaration
​

don't

I would hate to be the one to derail this thread, but now I cannot get out from my head that something like this is what PoE2 combat wants to be when it grows up. Remember action meters filling up above units heads prone to an interruption by enemies till execution, and recovery and reloading times? If I'm not mistaken, they would be able sell it as RTwP, and at the same time might also fulfill creators' wish to make a TB game. With a clever PR it could be advertised as a complex tactical improvement.

And with some good player's AI configuration* RT fans can play without pausing every unit's turn, watching combat resolving mostly without interruption if they desire. Or a player may want to leave an autopause on while in the same time having set AI for his units (or queue actons). So [when paused] UI will show a suggested course of action(s), and if he agrees he will just unpause the game without changing orders. This potentially feels more dynamic with less management (of repetitive actions, for example), whilst still not sacrificing to usual RTwP chaos... (just to be clear I'm talking about PoE2 right now, not CD)

Are there any mini chances at all to persuade Obsidian into taking this path?

Ad *: eg. something more complex than in PoE, or perhaps something like an improved DAO+Advanced Tactics mod. (just found out that there are Even More Advanced Tactics, that's neat. Sadly, I don't see myself coming back because of that.)

 

[Sensuki]

Action selection in combat is absolute, once you've picked an action in combat mode, you can't change it.

 

[ushas]

Yes, that's how I understand turn-based declaration. In case you talk about CD combat, that's taken for granted. The question was basically whether that's only difference between TB and RT and it's strictly sharp edged (so that Real-time with turn-based declaration cannot exist even when otherwise could be the same as Turn-based with real-time resolution, or I just misunderstood what the former means) or whether there is some gray transition area (where it could be both, so some developers are prone to invent new labels), but whatever.

 

[Sensuki]

In my experience, that is one of the two key differences between real-time (broad term) and turn-based (broad term) gameplay. The second being that the game stops to wait for player input in turn-based games, and does not, in real-time games.

Most turn-based games have declaration and resolution for the same unit following each other immediately before the next unit's turn.

Copper Dreams has

• Turn-based (absolute) action declaration
• Time-oriented turn order [which is what Infinitron means when he says asynchronous]
  
• Simultaneous real-time action resolution

I think that action declaration is the most important difference between the two systems from a player's perspective because it provides a structure for decision making. The player only needs to make decisions on their turn. They cannot do anything about what is happening in combat until it is their turn, so until their turn comes up, they do not need to make decisions. They can make a decision and then carry it out on their turn, but they're not required to. Once the player has inputted their commands, they cannot change them.

Real-time (with pause) combat is different because the player input is constant, and the game has no structure for decision making, it's up to the player to decide when to make decisions and assert their input. They also have the freedom to alter or cancel their commands in most systems.

I think that people who prefer turn-based enjoy it primarily for three reasons - structured segmented format, (usually) no time pressure and the terminal decision making compared to RTwP. That's why I think it's important to market Copper Dreams as a turn-based game even if 2/3 components of the combat structure are essentially the same as a real-time game because it still has those three elements that TB players look for.

 

[Infinitron]

Here's a question, Sensuki. From my understanding, when combat is initiated, character turns are "scheduled" according to initiative and arranged on the combat bar. So when a battle begins, there's the rough approximation of a turn-based system, even with the real-time resolution. Each character will have his turn N seconds after the previous one.

But here's the thing. Because actions can take different amounts of time to perform, in theory the schedule could be shifted over the course of the battle so that turns happen simultaneously. You'd pick an action for a character, and then immediately for the one after him. Or it could be shifted so that there's a long wait between two characters' turns. Etc.

Is that how it works, or am I missing something here?

 

[Sensuki]

Yeah that's basically correct. Currently all actions put the unit back onto the top of the action bar and they have to wait 4 seconds before their next turn, so the difference ends up being the starting difference plus the time it took to complete the selected action (which can be delayed with interrupts). In my playtesting I felt that this model made non-attack actions (especially short ones) pretty sucky so there may be some tweaking done in the future on this.

 

[ushas]

I've imagined it in a way, that basically you have to allow it to act simultaneously (WE-GO), but it's also shifted by initiative and actions having different durations.

Btw., Sensuki, I apologize for not being clear (~not talking about traditional systems) so I've unintentionally forced you to repeat yourself in the other post above. But thanks for the well structured summary anyway.

I think that people who prefer turn-based enjoy it primarily for three reasons - structured segmented format, (usually) no time pressure and the terminal decision making compared to RTwP. That's why I think it's important to market Copper Dreams as a turn-based game even if 2/3 components of the combat structure are essentially the same as a real-time game because it still has those three elements that TB players look for.

Ok. I've a kind of downgraded player's perception. I don't argue against selling it to TB crowd or having TB in the description, I agree. But for the clarity sake does it also mean that they shouldn't talk about CD combat having some common ground or selling it to RTwP players (they will not like it?), in the same time?

Furthermore, does it also imply that once I introduce actions to be uninterruptible (by the unit who declared them) into RT combat with autopause (for example in High Calibre), then in practice that combat will turn into TB system, because the important decision making aspect, which has been changed into turn-based form, will complete three reasons you mentioned and therefore the game becomes more compelling for TB crowd?


On a side note. There is also this big players base which prefers (or thinks of TB) in the sequential manner (I-GO-YOU-GO, eg. chess). Beside the implementation point of view, from the player's perspective it feels differently (at least I usually plan turns differently). And fans of that often argue that they prefer to have total control over their own turns, including how their actions play out (which isn't fulfilled in RT nor in TB WE-GO systems - at least not in the execution phase, thus also not in case of CD combat). So just from this side of things, and I'm probably mistaken here, I can imagine turning the argument around a bit...

But to be honest, I'm just trying to theoretise about uncommon systems for fun. I don't have any real interest in CD being presented as RTwP. On the contrary, if this is successful, it will convert more people towards TB territory.