Why there are slots at all escapes me. one the primary things that drew me to this game was the notion of gravity and orbits.


So there shouldn't be slots so much as orbits. And those orbits (think hoops of various sizes) can be orriented any way you like. YOu can have some going at 15 degrees to the orbit or 90... or you can rotate them about the Y axis 50 degrees and 20 on the z and 42 on the x... Whatever you like... Some orbits can be clockwise and others counter clockwise. You can have all your ship yards and defensive structures in one place or scatter them around the orbit. The speed of orbit is determined by the size of the orbit... smaller orbits are faster and wider orbits are slower. You should be able to determine where each asset goes. When the enemy fleet comes in furthermore, orbital defenses should have "some" ability to change their orbit. I have no problem with them being slow but they should be able to alter their orbit either to close gaps in the defensive shell or converge on a coming threat. Remember these are not fixed installations built into rock but completely bodies in free fall... literally NO resistance to movement aside from inertia and gravity. A freaken' road flare would provide "some" propulsion. So fit some little engines on the turrets so they can slowly move about. Nearly all satellites EVEN WE have in orbit can change their orbit. The same goes for the ship yards. They should be EXTREMELY slow in changing of course... but the should be able to do it. In fact, you might even have some kind of towing ship opperate near the planet that can move things like shipyards around a little faster. This allows you to reconfigure everything in orbit on a regular basis. The enemy can scout to see roughly what is in a system but they can't be sure where it will exactly be...


can all of htis get complicated? Yes... not required to play and by default you can force them to put everything in one orbit or whatever seems easier. But let people willing to deal with the complexity play with the details. Otherwise we can't tease the real tactical depth out of the game.

Was originally in the game, but the devs decided it wasn't going to be fun that way.

then I'm utterly confused as to how your battles are colorfully three dimensional, while mine are sparring squares.

I dont want to be an ass, but if you have found a significant reason that 3-D shouldnt be incorporated, you've hidden it REALLY well from us.


at the very least remove 3-D entirely so we dont have to deal with the cheap tactics.

I always said that if they are really adamant on not doing the right thing, then 3-D needs to be removed.

that being said, its a rediculously benefitless and very costly move (hey, a euphemism!) for something that could be VERY easily accomplished without making too much confusion!

its like saying that the interstate is blocked up because theres a bumper-to-bumper on mainstreet. buh, WHAT?

The cross between RTS and 4X games. Even if they have (vastly) diminished the latter so far.

I have to agree with karma, I could understand the slipping that has happened so far, but if it continues to regress this game will not be distinguishable from the next.

Minus 3d movement and gravity you're almost there already. 3d movement isn't even innovative. It's just the bare minimum you need to have to match homeworld. Gravity is what will propel you beyond that.

Look, it's unlikely that this game will be as big as homeworld simply because stardock so far as I understand them doesn't have the advertising capital to make that happen. So what's going to draw people to your game is going to be the game itself. And predominetly the people that are going to try an almost indy game like this are going to be the hardcore gamers. And if you want to make the hardcore gamers happy you're going to have to deliver on the features.

There have been 2d space RTS/4x games before. And if that is what they were offering in the beginning then the whole Homeworld thing wouldn't make sense. Remember that many of us were told that this would be like homeworld only with an empire to run instead of a single fleet. Well... in homeworld I could go up and down and even then it was limited. So if it's VASTLY more limited then homeworld then what's the damn point?


I was told there would be gravity. THAT was the primary thing that drew me to this game in the first place. Take that away and the game isn't a next gen game. The gravity is really more important then the 3d movement. But both are very important. If they're having a hard time with the interface, then that's the problem. Not taking out features that are required. It's like making a tank and then leaving out the armor... sure... you've got the big gun but the whole point of the tank is to break the deadlock of trench warfare... a car with a gun on it doesn't break trench warfare... it's in fact almost completely pointless. Likewise this game without gravity and and 3d movement isn't innovative enough to get noticed. You've making things easier to get the noobie crowd but at the same time you're making the game so gray and vanilla that no one will notice it or care about either way.

I don't mean to sound militant here or hostile but I can't believe we've allowed these things to get thrown away without getting upset about it. That means we as a community have FAILED. It is our job to get excited about good stuff and upset about bad stuff. What after all is the POINT of this game if you throw these things away? Where is the innovation or unique quality? It's not worth signing up for prebeta and waiting for years if all you get at the end is a boring concept that's been done before.

I'm just very upset that they're throwing away core features like this... and almost more upset that so many in the community don't see what a horrible idea it is... It is your job as community members to put your foot down when a bad decision in made. If the game takes another 4 or 5 months to get made because they have these changes to make. So be it. Better that it gets made properly.

You think Relic had that much capital to work with when the released HW? Dont make me laugh.



Well then, this is a 3D game isnt it?



You can go up and down as much as you want to in this game. Its just doesnt make that much of a differance.



Hate to brake it to you, but there is gravity in this game. Otherwise they would make ships tack like the do without them having to fight against a pulling force. That or Iron Clad knows nothing about physics. Plus what about gravity wells? It has the word gravity in it



Assumptions are dangerous to make. The people who have previewed this game seem to find something about it that you dont. What could that be?



I hope by we, you mean you. Cause you have been gone so long that you dont count as part of the general 'we'. People were upset, and apparently they still are. Now, lets look at what the devs said. They said the tested an open point system, and 3D movemetn and found it to take away from gameplay. I believe them, dont you?



I think you have failed, by trying to compare this game to other games and not having your mind set wide enough to see that... oh, this games a differnt game? HW2 was the last good space RTS, and that was a decade ago. This game has potential, but nay sayers like you will keep it down in the dust cause it just doesnt compare to the almighty HW2. Which in my opinion became boring, very very fast.



These things havnet ever been core features as far as I have seen. Like ever.

The devs early builds had it, and it didn't work. It wasn't fun.



Simple, really. The display issue becomes abominable really quickly -- planets with phase lanes could end up on the other end of the system from each other, making for a (really) ugly mess even before you consider the criss-cross spider web such a system would make.

On top of that, you end up with the headache players will have with keeping track of which planets are where. Having a multi-empire star system quickly becomes a real big headache.

You can move in 3d moron.



Actually, you can go up and down as far as you want to they havent set a limit on it yet.



In the real world yes, in a game no



Its not really slingshotting but the close you get to a planet the stronger its gravitational pull so the slower your ships move away from it, making it harder to run away.



Maybe its cause they tested it, and said it didnt work, or the implemented it. I dont know why the would try to lie to us.



They know more about making a game then I do. So yes, I believe them.



Okay, we have been bitching about 3d movement since beta 1, and you think that I didnt at first? I did, but I accepted it and moved on. You should too.



I was here during all the big discussions about what was to be in the beta, as well as participatin IN the beta. I beat you in that prospect my friend



I will, when you stop sounding like a record player

Simple, really. The display issue becomes abominable really quickly -- planets with phase lanes could end up on the other end of the system from each other, making for a (really) ugly mess even before you consider the criss-cross spider web such a system would make.



Thank you ron!! See he gets it? Will you?

PS-

Yeah I really respect the argument of calling the guy a 'moron' you should apologize.

Instead of moving planets we could orbit buildings and asteroids, thus allowing you to plan much niftier attacks.

That was a big selling point when it was first pitched to me. Furthermore, its the most unique concept the game could have.



Having things orbit is different from having them be in free fall. I don't think orb had gravity as much as chunks of rock going around in circles like a toy train. If I set off an explosion that stopped an a body would it then fall into the star... or whatever it's orbiting around?



Look people, physics are getting employed more and more in gaming. We even have dedicated physics chips. So the idea of a game that makes use of physics is next gen. That is cutting edge. A game that doesn't however basically belongs to the pervious era of gaming. It's old hat by default. Instead of ditching these really cool features they should have worked through the interface problems.


The only thing I'm assuming with my thinking here is that the pathing AI could calculate an intercept vector without too many problems.


See, movement in these games has thus far been more a matter of x distance over T time. Which is wrong. It should factor in acceleration, mass, and whatever gravitational pull it's experiencing via any large bodies of mass in the area. Thus fast objects would have higher acceleration to mass ratios.


And there should be no top speed... well.. you can have lightspeed if you like...


A big problem with homeworld is that your fleet could THRUST in one direction for a long time and it actually didn't increase in speed after the initial boost. That makes no sense. IF I thrust from one end of the map to the other... by the time I get to the other side I should be going like a bat out of hell. Now... stopping is going to be a problem... but transit should work like this... you say you want to go to point XYZ... the ships then take into account acceleration, mass, and gravitational pull. They then vector for that point and accelerate towards your destination for about 50 percent of the trip. Then halfway through they turn around and start slowing down. So when you arrive you've come to a full and complete stop.


The tactical depth that allows for is impressive. You can have big capital ships shoot by heavily defended areas and destroy weak units and then be gone long before they can take significant damage. Think of it like a battle ship flying by coastal defenses at mach 3... getting off a volley and then being gone.


And I'd just like to confirm, you can no longer sling shot your forces around planets? Because that was totally a feature they used to have.