SATELLITE REIGN
About the Game
Satellite Reign is a squad-based stealth and combat RPG published by 5 Lives Studios in 2015. The setting is a cyberpunk dystopia in which the nefarious Dracogenics corporation has developed cloning and consciousness transfer, effectively granting immortality to those who can afford it. The player controls a small resistance group of field agents and researchers with the goal of overthrowing Dracogenics. Along the way, a variety of non-linear missions can be completed to steal technology, shut down security systems, and assassinate high profile targets. As of June 2017, Satellite Reign has received Mostly Positive reviews from 1,400 Steam users.
Satellite Reign is a squad-based stealth and combat RPG published by 5 Lives Studios in 2015. The setting is a cyberpunk dystopia in which the nefarious Dracogenics corporation has developed cloning and consciousness transfer, effectively granting immortality to those who can afford it. The player controls a small resistance group of field agents and researchers with the goal of overthrowing Dracogenics. Along the way, a variety of non-linear missions can be completed to steal technology, shut down security systems, and assassinate high profile targets. As of June 2017, Satellite Reign has received Mostly Positive reviews from 1,400 Steam users.
Part 1: Working Backwards
At the beginning of the game, the player's primary objective is made clear: assault the Dracogenics headquarters and eliminate the boss, Dengler. All other missions are optional, but provide rewards that can make future missions easier -- weapons, armor, tools, funds, and experience points. In order to balance a system like this, it is helpful to work backwards from the end of the game to identify how the player's progress is constrained.
--What prevents the player from skipping missions and rushing to the end of the game? --
There are two constraints. First, there is the implicit assumption that the final level is so difficult that the player must acquire significant mission rewards in order for it to be possible. Some testing revealed that this assumption is simply not true. The following video demonstrates how it is possible to complete the final mission using only the starter pistol and one skill from each class.
At the beginning of the game, the player's primary objective is made clear: assault the Dracogenics headquarters and eliminate the boss, Dengler. All other missions are optional, but provide rewards that can make future missions easier -- weapons, armor, tools, funds, and experience points. In order to balance a system like this, it is helpful to work backwards from the end of the game to identify how the player's progress is constrained.
--What prevents the player from skipping missions and rushing to the end of the game? --
There are two constraints. First, there is the implicit assumption that the final level is so difficult that the player must acquire significant mission rewards in order for it to be possible. Some testing revealed that this assumption is simply not true. The following video demonstrates how it is possible to complete the final mission using only the starter pistol and one skill from each class.
Second, the game world is divided into districts separated by security checkpoints. To pass through a checkpoint, the game tells the player that "You've got to have the right credentials—or very big guns and poor decision-making skills." Combat items and credentials can only be obtained by completing specific missions. But is it possible to make it through the checkpoints without combat or credentials? The answer is yes, as shown below.
--What are the key weaknesses that make these exploitative methods possible? --
The most pervasive issue is the enemy AI. As shown throughout both of the videos above, guards have tiny fields of vision, they don't communicate with each other, their search patterns are unnecessarily restricted, and they have no memory of agent locations when line of sight is broken. These weaknesses enable the stealth approach to be successful with minimal effort, risk, or experimentation.
The most pervasive issue is the enemy AI. As shown throughout both of the videos above, guards have tiny fields of vision, they don't communicate with each other, their search patterns are unnecessarily restricted, and they have no memory of agent locations when line of sight is broken. These weaknesses enable the stealth approach to be successful with minimal effort, risk, or experimentation.
One problem that is more specific to the final mission is the assassination mechanic: if a human enemy is shot at close range without being detected, it results in an instant kill, regardless of the base damage of the weapon used. The last level in any game should serve as a final exam of everything that the player has learned and every advantage they have accumulated. In Satellite Reign, however, the final exam can be passed using a weapon and technique that are provided during the opening tutorial.
|
Both of these weaknesses help to illuminate a simple rule of thumb for designing combat mechanics: if damage output and health were doubled for all enemies, would it have any impact on the game's difficulty? If the answer is no, this indicates that other changes need to be made in order to achieve a well-balanced system.
--What changes can be made to resolve these imbalances? --
The assassination mechanic is the easier of the two problems to solve. There are two simple methods for bringing down its power level while still ensuring it is a viable option throughout the game:
Fixing the AI is a more subtle problem. Small changes in enemy behavior can shift the stealth approach from being a consistently dominant strategy to being so unreliable that it rewards luck more often than skill. The goal is to hit the sweet spot in the middle where stealth rewards skillful play but punishes mistakes. Possibilities include:
--What changes can be made to resolve these imbalances? --
The assassination mechanic is the easier of the two problems to solve. There are two simple methods for bringing down its power level while still ensuring it is a viable option throughout the game:
- Shield augmentations provide immunity to assassination. This would prevent the player from using the technique
for the third Dengler attack, and for many (but not all) late-game enemies. - Assassination gives a bonus multiplier to the weapon's damage, rather than guaranteeing an instant kill. This would force the player to consider weapon damage and enemy health before attempting an assassination.
Fixing the AI is a more subtle problem. Small changes in enemy behavior can shift the stealth approach from being a consistently dominant strategy to being so unreliable that it rewards luck more often than skill. The goal is to hit the sweet spot in the middle where stealth rewards skillful play but punishes mistakes. Possibilities include:
|
World Scan mode
|
These specific improvements to the enemy AI would increase the difficulty and depth of stealth gameplay without greatly affecting the combat approach. For example, a stationary enemy next to an important computer console poses a real challenge to the pacifist gamer, but does not impede the progress of a well-armed squad.
-- Summary --
The assumed difficulty of the final mission and the district checkpoints discourage the player from skipping missions and rushing to the end of the game. However, these constraints are easily circumvented due to the overpowered assassination technique and poor enemy AI. Specific changes can be made to both of these mechanics to encourage problem solving and add value to mission rewards. With these elements rebalanced, the next step is to tweak the difficulty of optional missions to ensure a consistent level of challenge.
-- Summary --
The assumed difficulty of the final mission and the district checkpoints discourage the player from skipping missions and rushing to the end of the game. However, these constraints are easily circumvented due to the overpowered assassination technique and poor enemy AI. Specific changes can be made to both of these mechanics to encourage problem solving and add value to mission rewards. With these elements rebalanced, the next step is to tweak the difficulty of optional missions to ensure a consistent level of challenge.
Part 2: Design Paradigms
After making various adjustments to encourage optional missions, our attention should now turn to ensuring that those missions themselves present a fair and consistent balance between risk and reward. Playing through the game without weapons, gear, or augmentations revealed a number of flaws that contribute to imbalanced missions.
After making various adjustments to encourage optional missions, our attention should now turn to ensuring that those missions themselves present a fair and consistent balance between risk and reward. Playing through the game without weapons, gear, or augmentations revealed a number of flaws that contribute to imbalanced missions.
--Mission Imbalances --
|
- Some early missions employ doors that can only be unlocked by accessing multiple security terminals in rapid succession, which requires the player to coordinate multiple agents simultaneously. This motif is largely abandoned in later missions, which contributes to the game's erratic difficulty curve.
- Escort missions often feature ziplines and vents that are unhelpful while infiltrating, but make it substantially easier for the target to escape. While this feels appropriate for industrial complexes, it is utterly nonsensical for the prison missions.
--The Underlying Cause --
At first glance, it may appear that many of these issues have easy fixes. But perhaps a more pertinent question to ask is: how did these issues arise in the first place? Ordinarily, StratBuster makes no attempt to evaluate the methods used by developers, instead focusing on the game itself. However, in response to Part 1 of this article, a member of the development team wrote:
"The game from the ground up was built to encourage creative solutions to the obstacles in the game. We internally discussed that we hoped to eventually see speed runs and play-throughs with as minimal upgrading and equipment as possible. Stealth and subversion can and should always be a viable strategy." When the question of enemy AI was raised, specifically in the final mission video, the response was that the guard behavior was "working as intended."
StratBuster articles are written under a paradigm that could be called "balance by design", whereas these quotes suggest "balance by preference." The collapsible content boxes below elaborate on these two paradigms.
Balance by Design
Balance by design is a paradigm in which the game presents problems, and the player has resources from which to compose solutions. The complexity of each problem and the utility of each resource are adjusted to ensure that:
- All problems are solvable
- Every resource provides real utility
- No resource is strictly superior to another in terms of both cost and utility
- Strategic allocation of resources should confer a greater advantage than the "more of everything" approach
- Multiple strategies are viable
Balance by Preference
Balance by preference is a paradigm in which the game presents scenarios, in which players choose from options to create experiences. The variety of options available should aim to satisfy the preferences of different players, even if some options have little effect on the game's difficulty.
In Satellite Reign, this paradigm is exemplified by the research, cloning, and hijacking mechanics. None of these elements are crucial to the game, and it is possible for a player to complete the campaign without even knowing how they work. However, they give the game world a greater sense of depth, and allow each player to mold the experience to best fit their preferences.
In Satellite Reign, this paradigm is exemplified by the research, cloning, and hijacking mechanics. None of these elements are crucial to the game, and it is possible for a player to complete the campaign without even knowing how they work. However, they give the game world a greater sense of depth, and allow each player to mold the experience to best fit their preferences.
-- Conclusion --
These paradigms each have their advantages, both in terms of developer workflow and player experience. However, if Satellite Reign had been developed under the balance by design paradigm, it is likely that the imbalances listed earlier would have been detected and fixed early in the testing process. This highlights an important takeaway for designers: the extra scrutiny required to create a well-balanced system will naturally reveal other flaws in the game. As such, there is an argument to be made for a more rigorous approach to balancing, even if the end goal is to create a game that appeals to a broader audience.
These paradigms each have their advantages, both in terms of developer workflow and player experience. However, if Satellite Reign had been developed under the balance by design paradigm, it is likely that the imbalances listed earlier would have been detected and fixed early in the testing process. This highlights an important takeaway for designers: the extra scrutiny required to create a well-balanced system will naturally reveal other flaws in the game. As such, there is an argument to be made for a more rigorous approach to balancing, even if the end goal is to create a game that appeals to a broader audience.