Lessons Learned from Dungeon Monkey

[Joseph Hewitt]

So Dungeon Monkey has shipped, it's time to start looking at GearHead2 again. I think I've learned some things from this project which can be ported to GH... and I have some other ideas which I may need you to talk me down from.

Appearance
IMO Dungeon Monkey looks much nicer than GearHead2. It's not simply a matter of the artwork, either- mostly it's the little touches like the border between water and land, or the textured text boxes.

In addition, the Dungeon Monkey interface tells the player everything they need to know. The GearHead2 interface suffers from some hidden data (encumberance level, for instance) and missing graphics (many status effects just show a blinking box).

I think the 2D SDL version should become the default. It's less ugly than the 3D.

Content
Playing my first few games of GearHead after working on Dungeon Monkey all summer, the game felt really empty and incomplete. This is surprising because if you check the series files GH2 has around 10,000 pages of exciting stuff that can happen while DMU just has, like, five different possible story events (all of which are dungeons). When this was mentioned before I kinda handwaved off the subject with a "yeah, yeah, needs more content"... I'm no longer convinced that this is the case.

Y'see, that's one of the good things about taking a break. When you're working on a game full time it's hard to see the big picture because everything about the game is in your head. You know what's supposed to be there so you don't notice the things that aren't.

Anyhow, back to content... In GH1 you start in a village full of people. There's some area to explore beyond the visible village and a couple of things to discover. There are several people to talk to in town and a couple of missions/tasks you can do. There's a dungeon and an arena, allowing you to start combat very quickly if you want. In DMU you start next to town; there's a large map to explore with monsters to fight and potentially treasures to find. You can start with different party configurations, trying out different tactics.

In GH2, on the other hand, you start out in an empty house (maybe you'll have parents who do nothing, but maybe not) and pretty much have to go to the CavClub first. Once there, you'll probably go for the lancemate and the bonus mecha next... no exploration. No chance of finding something fun and unexpected. Not a lot of planning to do. Instead, there's just this kind of confused silence... try to find something to do in a big empty world.

I think the opening needs to be completely redone. Start with a bang, get the player personally involved in the core story, introduce some NPCs who can potentially become lancemates- then allow the CavClub visit after this first part. The important parts here are that 1) the story gets introduced before the PC really gets to do anything by themself, thereby helping to remove the whole "free-floating anxiety" opener, and 2) there should be multiple things to do and they should all be introduced, rather than lying around like a forgotten penny.

Something else that really needs to be done is to make exploration more important- there should be a reason to check out the different buildings in town.

Tactics Mode vs Clock Mode
I thought that writing a tactics game would help me get the tactics bug out of my system. It didn't really work. Instead, I find myself seriously thinking about converting GH2 to a complete tactics game... even though I know this would destroy a good part of the game's signature feel. Here are the advantages of importing DMU-style tactics to GH2:

1) Ranged weapons and close combat weapons can both be useful. The balancing act is a bit less troublesome.

2) More interesting combat scenarios would be possible; instead of one scene for one combat it would be possible to lay out several different encounters on a single map. If you're trying to destroy a base there could be wandering guard patrols which you could either fight or avoid. If you've been sent to patrol an area, there might be several groups of mecha, and you have to interact with them to see which ones (if any) are up to no good (no bonus for blowing up the bus full of nuns). Missions with multiple objectives and partial victory would be possible.

3) If models no longer have a facing, this greatly simplifies the creation of new sprites since we only need one view for each sprite. Also, it makes paper dolls possible... maybe even paper dolls for mecha.

4) Another advantage of simplifying the movement rules is that it'd really simplify the enemy AI.

Less Scripting
One of the problems with adding new things to GH2 is the amount of scripting that needs to be done. It's insane. Did you take a look at the AdvCom files for DMU? Hardly any scripting there. The world generator takes care of most scripting tasks, allowing the content files to just mostly describe what they want and let the program put everything together.

Another problem with GH2's scripting is that it limits the ways in which a problem can be solved. Take, for instance, the core story encounter location subplots. Over the run of a single campaign you'll probably meet two or three rowdy raiders. If you have Conversation or Intimidation you'll probably use the same dialog options each time to get the info (if you always take one skill or the other, you'll probably even think that the skill you chose is the correct skill for this situation and there's no other way through). No matter how many individual subplots get added, they're still a finite number and when you encounter one that you've seen before you'll probably try to get through it the same way.

What I should do is script less and model more. It should be possible for a plot to define a situation, put the elements in place, and then leave it up to the PC how to interact with it. Define some objects, their interactions, and some end states... but how to model this in GH where there are so many NPC interactions and so on? My intuition tells me that this can be done with the current plot generator. I'm going to think about it for a while.

Gonna Need a Better Plan
So far I've just been playing around. It's time to get serious and turn this toybox into a game... after which I can start playing around again.

[Frumple]

IMO Dungeon Monkey looks much nicer than GearHead2. It's not simply a matter of the artwork, either- mostly it's the little touches like the border between water and land, or the textured text boxes.

Yeah, I'll be hammering the ASCII nail pretty hard here, but... DM doesn't have ASCII mode. The simplified (simplified =/= worse, of course) graphics makes it less of an issue, but I'd still like to see my @s firing * all over the place.

In addition, the Dungeon Monkey interface tells the player everything they need to know. The GearHead2 interface suffers from some hidden data (encumberance level, for instance) and missing graphics (many status effects just show a blinking box).

All the status effects display clearly when targeting the enemy

At least in ASCII (and until you've got like seven stacked on something; the window runs out of space at that point...). Agreed there's no at-a-glace identifier as to if they're on fire or what-have-you, though. I guess I wouldn't mind seeing something like crawl's ctrl-x command, which lists out all visible objects -- in GH, it could show status effects too. Dunno if that'd be viable with GH's code base, though.

For ASCII, something as simple (I'd hope it was simple, anyway...) as color-shifts for the letters might be helpful; possibly depending on the status effect (for single effects; a single color for multiple effects, probably.).

I think the 2D SDL version should become the default. It's less ugly than the 3D.

Just leave an ASCII mode around and I probably wouldn't complain

Kudos on figuring out what the entire PSX era game development never really caught on to, though. 3D doesn't look good until a ridiculous amount of time and/or money is invested into it. 2D doesn't require even remotely the amount of effort.

Content
I think the opening needs to be completely redone. Start with a bang, get the player personally involved in the core story, introduce some NPCs who can potentially become lancemates- then allow the CavClub visit after this first part. The important parts here are that 1) the story gets introduced before the PC really gets to do anything by themself, thereby helping to remove the whole "free-floating anxiety" opener, and 2) there should be multiple things to do and they should all be introduced, rather than lying around like a forgotten penny.

Though, like in GH1, an option to blow all that off and meander into the distance would be really, really nice. If there's one thing that'll get a person more riled up than 'free-floating anxiety', it's being shoehorned into doing a mini-tutorial (even when it's interesting) for the N^3 time to get that incredibly helpful piece of loot (See GH1 tutorial mecha!).

All in all, though, the snipped points are a kind of generalized 'agreement'. GH2 does, actually, have a lot of content, it just feels all... free-floating, or something. Not really connected to the world/area the content's in, which makes it hard to actually find all the neat stuff that's there.

Something else that really needs to be done is to make exploration more important- there should be a reason to check out the different buildings in town.

This would be nice. 90% of the time, I only go to 1)The space port, from which I phone my way through mission grind/plot and 2) the shopping centers. Unless I'm after something specific (Mission req, blackmarket, arena, etc.), the other buildings just don't get visited. No reason

2) More interesting combat scenarios would be possible; instead of one scene for one combat it would be possible to lay out several different encounters on a single map. If you're trying to destroy a base there could be wandering guard patrols which you could either fight or avoid. If you've been sent to patrol an area, there might be several groups of mecha, and you have to interact with them to see which ones (if any) are up to no good (no bonus for blowing up the bus full of nuns). Missions with multiple objectives and partial victory would be possible.

Isn't this already possible in GH's time-style mode? You've got wandering missions (pirates, patrol-folk), I'd think you could key those to neat things.

Though I see what you're saying about keeping it to a single map instead of having several (encounter-type) maps attached to a main one. Might have to implement even larger (oy) maps, though.

3) If models no longer have a facing, this greatly simplifies the creation of new sprites since we only need one view for each sprite. Also, it makes paper dolls possible... maybe even paper dolls for mecha.

Ahahahaha! ASCII VICTOLY! Well, not really, but still. @ (Well, the letter) plus =@+ is a rather elegant solution, much less effort than multiple sprite facings

Facing and firing arcs are a pretty big thing in GH, though. I'd hate to see those get tossed to the wayside.

Less Scripting
One of the problems with adding new things to GH2 is the amount of scripting that needs to be done. It's insane. Did you take a look at the AdvCom files for DMU? Hardly any scripting there. The world generator takes care of most scripting tasks, allowing the content files to just mostly describe what they want and let the program put everything together.

Maybe get around to rustling up a 'mission editor' of some sort? Utility (hopefully easily upgradeable, to account for eventual code changes) that does the scripting 'grunt work'? I think I speak for the crowd when I say that, irregardless of its benefit to you (imagine the saved keypresses!) all of us on the other side of the program would be all over that. We'd love to be implementing scene ideas, but item/mecha content is the only thing that's, uh, readable to the uninitiated.

Other than that, coding's not my thing. Even that is more wish than actual suggestion. My big suggestion would be to figure out what simplifying GH2's scripting system is going to cost, then compare it to the benefits. Might be a case of the shinies sitting on top of a sping-loaded leprosy syringe, yanno'?

[magic.coding.fairy.peridot]

IMO Dungeon Monkey looks much nicer than GearHead2. It's not simply a matter of the artwork, either- mostly it's the little touches like the border between water and land, or the textured text boxes.

This may partly be an effect of trying to support too many interfaces. I would vote for dropping the 3D interface entirely; it's ugly and slow. I don't use the ASCII version, but clearly others do. It was actually the 2D SDL interface that initially sold me on GH1.

I think the opening needs to be completely redone. Start with a bang, get the player personally involved in the core story, introduce some NPCs who can potentially become lancemates- then allow the CavClub visit after this first part. The important parts here are that 1) the story gets introduced before the PC really gets to do anything by themself, thereby helping to remove the whole "free-floating anxiety" opener, and 2) there should be multiple things to do and they should all be introduced, rather than lying around like a forgotten penny.

Something else that really needs to be done is to make exploration more important- there should be a reason to check out the different buildings in town.

I agree with both of these. I liked the backstory in GH1 about fleeing your home on the Moon, though it didn't seem too relevant to the rest of the story. In GH2 this might be complicated by the fact that you can currently start in any spinner. How about starting off in a spinner that is attacked and destroyed by a hostile faction? You would then escape with just the shirt on your back and a few credits, vowing revenge. One could even have a losing-battle scenario in which you are drafted into the militia, given a junky old mech, and taught the basics in a combat you can't win - all you can do is try to get out with your life and your mech intact. You'd then make it to a ship to the start spinner, where you'd arrive with a clear enemy and an initial feel for the game.

If this narrows the scope of the early game too much, well, there could be several possible initial scenarios (your home spinner is overrun with biomonsters - all you can do is flee, and your ultimate goal is to get strong enough to be able to come back, and ultimately even clear it out). Either of these scenarios would also allow you to introduce random NPCs in other spinners who are also refugees from your home spinner; some will share your cause, some will be indigent and hopeless, some will have turned to a life of crime (possibly including you!), et cetera.


I haven't yet got DMU working, so I can't yet comment on your other responses (except to say that yes, GH2's scripting setup is nearly impenetrable).

[L-Charlotte]

lol . . . i played games to enjoy not to learn lessons man !!!

[Trucidation]

Sure it's possible to enjoy yourself without using your brain (i.e. TV), but he's talking about something he's coded    Besides discussions like these are part of the fun.

I agree with both of these. I liked the backstory in GH1 about fleeing your home on the Moon, though it didn't seem too relevant to the rest of the story.

If I'm not mistaken you can get a different background story, think it was if you rolled a younger character. Something about you being a native of the area and wanting to expand your horizons. Didn't get far on that playthrough though, the monetary tradeoff imho isn't worth it; rolling an "older" character is well worth the exp since age doesn't really seem to matter after that. I suppose one could write a subplot dependant on the PC's age but I haven't come across anything like that yet in GH1.

Though, like in GH1, an option to blow all that off and meander into the distance would be really, really nice. If there's one thing that'll get a person more riled up than 'free-floating anxiety', it's being shoehorned into doing a mini-tutorial (even when it's interesting) for the N^3 time to get that incredibly helpful piece of loot (See GH1 tutorial mecha!).

Splitting the tutorial between different NPCs would help I guess, so you could skip the ones you don't need.

I don't have any beef with ASCII mode but it's a bit too retro for my tastes. Having to deal with a text-only interface designed by trologdytes all day at work doesn't help. The 2D in GH is decent, if you had to axe the 3D that's fine - seemed a little iffy to me during the short stint I tried GH2.

Something about DMU's tactics mode though; it's basically you-then-them. I kinda prefer GH's style, based on speed rather than who's team's turn it is to move. It'll allow for more spell / status effect fun. Just my $0.02.

[plllizzz]

I think the 2D SDL version should become the default. It's less ugly than the 3D.

tottaly that, still, like Frumple, I'm still an ASCII veteran

the main difference between GH1 and GH2 that makes for me, it's that GH1 is more... lively, colorful, packed, call it what it want

I know it actually has much smaller area but it's really nice walking around in cities with random pople, chatting to get some info etc.

There should some mechanic that let's you gain something being liked by the majority of the community, not only shopkeepers and mission givers - for example, you could get more money for concerts, or from time to time some random mercenary/potential candidate would be generated in the city, getting some small quests in helping the spinners, hell, even a chance to become a Major in some godforsaken asteroid colony

I understand it wouldn't be easy to input, but you could really feel like a part of the world then, maybe even come to care about those 0s and 1s called 'NPC'

[Joseph Hewitt]

Yeah, I'll be hammering the ASCII nail pretty hard here, but... DM doesn't have ASCII mode. The simplified (simplified =/= worse, of course) graphics makes it less of an issue, but I'd still like to see my @s firing * all over the place.

I won't have time for it myself, but if anyone else wanted to add an ASCII interface it would be a pretty straightforward job, I think.

Though, like in GH1, an option to blow all that off and meander into the distance would be really, really nice. If there's one thing that'll get a person more riled up than 'free-floating anxiety', it's being shoehorned into doing a mini-tutorial (even when it's interesting) for the N^3 time to get that incredibly helpful piece of loot (See GH1 tutorial mecha!).

Not a mini-tutorial, introducing the core story and integrating it into the PC's background right off the bat. I think the first episode can be divided into two parts: an introduction, and then the actual mission. The game starts with the introduction, introduces some NPCs, and maybe even spawns some introductory missions. Then the PC is free to wander around town or do whatever until choosing to start the second part of the episode.

Facing and firing arcs are a pretty big thing in GH, though. I'd hate to see those get tossed to the wayside.

You're right, but the simplifications + ease of adding new graphics that'd come with removing facing makes it so attractive.

There should some mechanic that let's you gain something being liked by the majority of the community, not only shopkeepers and mission givers - for example, you could get more money for concerts, or from time to time some random mercenary/potential candidate would be generated in the city, getting some small quests in helping the spinners, hell, even a chance to become a Major in some godforsaken asteroid colony

This is one of the big problems with the current scripting system. The adventure is divided into tiny parts which then get recombined, which should make it easier to add new parts and increase the amount of variety... and it does, up to a point. The problem is that now every subplot is responsible for checking every possible state of the PC/game world that it should react to. This is a huge amount of overhead.

Here's what I'm thinking but can't exactly formalize yet: Allow a kind of "raisin bun" plot creation. Pass on the important points to the plot generator, then allow free reign in how to put these together. Instead of using strict function calls like I'm currently using, use a broader description of the game state and probabilistic construction. I started thinking about this after reading a series on language over at the Child's Play blog (which is currently down for maintenance- I'll post a link when I can). It seems to me that this could work, and I've come to trust my intuition very much about such things, but I need to do more research and some modeling before I know for sure.

[magic.coding.fairy.peridot]

Tactics Mode vs Clock Mode
I thought that writing a tactics game would help me get the tactics bug out of my system. It didn't really work. Instead, I find myself seriously thinking about converting GH2 to a complete tactics game... even though I know this would destroy a good part of the game's signature feel. Here are the advantages of importing DMU-style tactics to GH2:

1) Ranged weapons and close combat weapons can both be useful. The balancing act is a bit less troublesome.

2) More interesting combat scenarios would be possible; instead of one scene for one combat it would be possible to lay out several different encounters on a single map. If you're trying to destroy a base there could be wandering guard patrols which you could either fight or avoid. If you've been sent to patrol an area, there might be several groups of mecha, and you have to interact with them to see which ones (if any) are up to no good (no bonus for blowing up the bus full of nuns). Missions with multiple objectives and partial victory would be possible.

3) If models no longer have a facing, this greatly simplifies the creation of new sprites since we only need one view for each sprite. Also, it makes paper dolls possible... maybe even paper dolls for mecha.

4) Another advantage of simplifying the movement rules is that it'd really simplify the enemy AI.

I've now played DMU a bit, and I'm still not quite sure by what you mean by "tactics mode" here. I can see a few differences between DMU and GH's combat:

* DMU has no facing or speed; GH does.

* DMU lets you control all your characters; by default GH lets the AI control your lancemates, but you can take over.

* DMU has you encounter enemies on the same map you fight them; most of the time in GH this is not the case (dungeons and building interiors are the exception).

Or is there some other difference that you're calling "tactical" here?

Personally, I think the facing is really important to GearHead's "feel": it makes the mecha feel like vehicles, when you get them moving rapidly and it becomes tricky to turn them, and when you need to worry about which way they're facing to see who you can shoot. The control interface allows you to not worry about this if you don't want to. (The space-based combat is just a pain; the movement is complicated enough that I don't think most players really understand it, they just fly back and forth making passes at opponents.) I realize that it complicates the AI, but I think it's important that the mecha feel like vehicles, not just like every other roguelike's characters. The complexity of generating art is a problem, but here too the art serves to distinguish GH from other tile-based games.

I like GH2's compromise on lancemate control; for the many boring battles I'll just let my lancemates fly around doing whatever and I'll blow up the really dangerous opponents. For the battles that are actually tricky, I'd like to take personal control of my lancemates. My only criticism is that I'd like to be able to switch back to automated lancemates more easily; the current limitations make dungeon exploration kind of a nuisance.

The idea of battles on the same scale as exploration I do like, generally speaking. It means you have to worry about keeping your lancemates in formation as you explore (all too often in GH I stumble across a nasty enemy and my robots are stuck in a corner somewhere across the map) but it also makes the world feel more interactive - there's a wider range of things that can happen as you explore. The gang-warfare events in GH1 were like this - you're in the middle of town and suddenly violence erupts around you. In fact, this single scale probably contributes to the less-empty feeling of GH1 - on the same map you have different shops, people wandering around, dungeon entrances, occasional events (lost wallets, explosions as the town is attacked, hostile bar patrons). In GH2, each "place" is a collection of shops, usually on a theme, with a few customers and shopkeepers. If you go outside you get a map with nothing interesting. Very rarely something will randomly happen on this map, but even then you don't actually see anything; you're just suddenly dropped into a local combat. Similarly, when you leave the spinner, there's a whole lot of flying around in space, where you don't see anything, and if anything happens it immediately drops you into a local view. At least with GH1's world map, you could see other cities and terrain to explore.

How about declaring that you can't hide in space, so that any mission in free space showed the mech, and players could approach or avoid them? I'd actually argue for many fewer free-space missions, so how about surrounding the spinners with many visible asteroids and derelict ships? I do think using a different scale for "world-map" travel and combat makes sense, but perhaps it would be possible to pursue or flee on world-map scales?

For the interiors of spinners, I'm not sure what to suggest; perhaps make it mecha-scale - so that it's more like GH1's cities only with mecha instead of pedestrians? They might have to be bigger, which could make getting from building to building more laborious (though it wasn't so bad in GH1, and you don't have to do it as often with the phones and the multipurpose buildings).


More generally, I think in DMU or something like Angband or Nethack, there's always something obvious to do that will take you forward - dive into the dungeon and start killing monsters. In GH1 and 2, very often there's no obvious way forward. You just have to wander around hoping someone will offer you a job - and half the time when they do, they don't let you take it. I think this is one reason Cayley Rock is such a popular starting spot - people can always dive into the mines and make some progress. I personally dislike arenas, but putting pirate dens, exorg spawning pits, haywire robot factories, and that sort of thing - places people can just go fight and advance their game - might help with this. 

[Joseph Hewitt]

I've now played DMU a bit, and I'm still not quite sure by what you mean by "tactics mode" here. I can see a few differences between DMU and GH's combat:

* DMU has no facing or speed; GH does.

* DMU lets you control all your characters; by default GH lets the AI control your lancemates, but you can take over.

* DMU has you encounter enemies on the same map you fight them; most of the time in GH this is not the case (dungeons and building interiors are the exception).

That's pretty much it. The important bit wouldn't be the change itself but the things the change would allow- bigger maps, more complicated combat scenes, simplified graphics, so on and so forth. The fact that this would also simplify the game balance by oodles is another consideration.

Personally, I think the facing is really important to GearHead's "feel": it makes the mecha feel like vehicles, when you get them moving rapidly and it becomes tricky to turn them, and when you need to worry about which way they're facing to see who you can shoot. The control interface allows you to not worry about this if you don't want to.

You're right, of course... I've mostly convinced myself that radically changing GearHead's combat system at this late date would be a bad idea. Mostly.

The complexity of generating art is a problem, but here too the art serves to distinguish GH from other tile-based games.

When we can get art in the first place, that is. We still don't have a complete set of jobs, and there's no consistent style among the sprites. The character sprites that I did myself are all crap. There are loads of mecha that don't have a sprite yet.

In general, simple graphics which are done well are better than flashy graphics which are done poorly. Of course, I could go with flat graphics and indicate the direction with a facing indicator, just like in ASCII... hmm, now there's an idea. Maybe I should try a mockup.

How about declaring that you can't hide in space, so that any mission in free space showed the mech, and players could approach or avoid them?

Several of the encounters which are currently hidden should be revealed by default. Any encounter which the PC knows is there should be revealed- I'm sorry, everyone, I really did think this was a good mechanic but you were right and I give up. Some encounters will remain hidden- the ambushes, defense patrols, and other things that the player won't be intentionally seeking out.

I personally dislike arenas, but putting pirate dens, exorg spawning pits, haywire robot factories, and that sort of thing - places people can just go fight and advance their game - might help with this.

Y'see, that's one of the great things that could be done with the tactics change- mecha encounters could be created dungeon-style. Gah. Now I'm thinking about that again...

Ooh, here's a good one- we could revise the scale system so there are only three scales: personal, mecha, and spaceship. Have things so personal scale is just like now, mecha scale is the city interior, and spaceship scale is the city exterior. Instead of going off the exterior map to enter the world map, have the spaceship scale make a huge, continuous map linking all the spinners (with maybe some hidden things out there as well). entering combat on the spaceship-scale map would take you to a mecha-scale sub-map, while combat could happen directly on the mecha-scale and personal maps.

[clockworkspider]

You can take control of your lancemates?  How?

[Frumple]

Shift-p (in default control scheme, windows, ascii version), which turns the combat mode from clock to tactics; in tactics, you've got full control of your entire party.

[magic.coding.fairy.peridot]

I personally dislike arenas, but putting pirate dens, exorg spawning pits, haywire robot factories, and that sort of thing - places people can just go fight and advance their game - might help with this.

Y'see, that's one of the great things that could be done with the tactics change- mecha encounters could be created dungeon-style. Gah. Now I'm thinking about that again...

Ooh, here's a good one- we could revise the scale system so there are only three scales: personal, mecha, and spaceship. Have things so personal scale is just like now, mecha scale is the city interior, and spaceship scale is the city exterior. Instead of going off the exterior map to enter the world map, have the spaceship scale make a huge, continuous map linking all the spinners (with maybe some hidden things out there as well). entering combat on the spaceship-scale map would take you to a mecha-scale sub-map, while combat could happen directly on the mecha-scale and personal maps.

I like this idea. And the ship scale has a natural interpretation; it's while you're aboard ship. Then "space" battles would normally involve docking with or landing on spinners, asteroids, derelict ships, freefall trash aggregations/squatter colonies, ... which would put you into mecha or personal scale.

One problem with all-one-scale is that it's hard to create quests. GH's quests are easy; they get dedicated maps which you get to by just accepting the mission (in GH1) or by zooming in from a larger scale (in GH2). Nethack's "quests" are fixed ahead of time, so that they can be built into the dungeon geography. Zangband's "quests" rely on the ephemeral levels, so that they get assigned to you at level creation time. ToME's quests are a mix of Zangband's quests and GH-style ones that are special maps attached to the world at entry points generated when the quest is assigned.

The basic problem is that if there's some one big map and you want to add a quest, you have to fit it into the existing geography somehow. If the quest is "raid the pirate command center", where do you put the pirate command center when the player gets assigned the quest?

If you're willing to generate quests early enough, you can build them into your geography. This is nice in that players can stumble across the pirate command center and possibly interact with it entirely apart from the quest mechanism, but it makes it hard to generate appropriate quests for the player: GH's reputation/levelling system is based on having an unlimited supply of quests. This is already a problem for people focusing on SF:0, because many of those quests are already single-scale and hard to add to.

Maybe another way to state the problem is: if you want an unlimited supply of quests, and you want to build them into your geography, you either need unlimited geography or a way to fit quests into existing geography.

[Trucidation]

Colour me confused, but I thought quest maps were only generated when the quest itself was triggered? I don't know how the games actually do it but that's what I thought because otherwise you run into the problem of players accidently stumbling upon these maps if they were predefined somewhere.

[RadonPlasma]

JH:  Hmm...  I think it's too bad that we'll be losing the backs of our mechs (graphics wise), but oh well.  I just hope you decide to keep facing as a gameplay feature.  As for interface, might I suggest an approach?  How about a little arrow that shows up next to the model, either on mouseover or during its turn?  That way you'd have something that is clearly and visually associated with the object in question, but not always taking up screen space.

As for the 'only three scales' thing... I'm not sure I get it.  Are you saying you'd like to get rid of the arithmetical relationship between the scales, and just leave the differences as abstractions?  I have to admit to not liking that much; even making a 'scale list' in the form of an extensible enumeration would likely mean keeping some amount of formulaic interplay in place.  Still, if you've got your heart set on simplifying the game's nature - *chokes up* - go for it.

Frumple:  Heehee, I love you for the comment on nineties game development.  So true, man, so true.

[Seriyu]

I really do like the tactics "playstyle" more then what gearhead 2 currently has, but I do agree that changing the battle system this late into development is probably asking for trouble. Although for future considerations, firing arcs and the like are very much possible in tactics games - iiiif facing is in it. It seems like some interesting weapons could come into play with that sort've setup. 

In my opinion a tactics style layout could work for gearhead, but it would require facing to make it more then a series of attacks back and forth. I feel like that sort've thing works better in games where the player charecter and party members are a good deal more fragile, and it'd only take a few hits tops to kill one or the other, like in, well, most roguelikes.