A comprehensive Example of Orbital Combat

Yes all in all Alpha is Alpha, but if we're given these as a preview despite the fact that all the supporting systems are not ready yet I'd have to say they have some confidence that what they've shown don't need that level of context to understand/use regardless of the missing systems. In that light, these recent developments are very troubling.

At this stage Orbital is looking to be nothing more than a slightly different Air Layer, in particular the inclusion of an Orbital 'Fighter' enforces this.

If that is not the case and what we're being show is not indicative of the plan, then the real question is why show it at all if what you're going to show isn't actually related to what the end goal is? For the last year Uber has been pretty careful to show things only once they've matured to the point that they aren't easily misunderstood and are indicative of Uber's goal, and while we might have griped about it when things have been quiet, this whole situation is a prime example of why they do it.

Of course, Uber has been very, very vague on Orbital and Interplanetary (in certain respects), so we've been free to imagine things without any kind of starting point or foundation and it's only been pretty recently that Uber has even started dropping hints about how things might be so expectations are a bit high at this point, but the fault is on both sides at this point and we have been getting some mixed messages as Nanolathe mentioned, we have the very simulation focused game, yet Orbital units going in an actual Orbit not being part of that is kinda counter intuitive.

Mike

I think you're expecting some kind of logical plan, where features are implemented in a logical order. I think that working iteratively is not about logical orders and planning ahead that much. They just work on what they need to make it work from a technical perspective and then just look at how it can fit into the current gameplay.

Yes, but the point is that Uber has so far held things back until they've had the chance to work on it and deal with the bigger issues or whatever, we've never really gotten 'previews' that aren't indicative of Uber's end plan for that particualr feature/unit/whatever.

If this is the case for Orbital then they've already made a lot of decisions regarding Orbital, this is re-enforced by Dev comments in this very thread.

If this isn't the case, then why the sudden shift in methodology? Why hold back on everything else up until now then suddenly flip around and do it differently?

Mike

I think it's a bit early to judge the orbital layer at the moment, sure on a single planets it's essentially air 2.0 but when your working with multiple bodies and all the units it could feel very different.

That doesn't make any sense. Having "satellites" on more than one planet doesn't change how they 'feel', primarily because in-game you can only manipulate a single planet at a time.

Mike

Actually this is the post that doesn't make any sense.

Take for example a game where combat takes place on a single battlefield , playing with 4 bases feels different than playing with 1, air units play a larger role than when utilizing a single base of operations. They feel different, sending engineers across 50 miles of desert is wasteful when you can transport them by air for example. This allows an interaction between bases that vastly changes up how the air layer feels.

This game has all that, plus a whole new layer. (multiple planets) Right now you are only seeing play on a single planet, playing with multiple planets is going to be a new experience and as orbital units are the only units that can operate across that scale they will inevitably feel different than they do across a single planet. And as such it's far too early to judge them, especially since only a fraction of them are even in the game.

Does that make anymore sense?

It doesn't have a "whole new layer" though. It just has a second Air layer pasted over the top of the previous one.

You are of the belief, that an entire solar system as a battlefield, is a second air layer?

Because that was what I was referring to.

Until planet destruction is in, it's pretty much just island hopping.

Yes which will feel different...

Like i said, to early to judge, it might be good, it might be bad, but right now you are guessing it's beauty by looking at it's shoes.

I don't think in the end result we'll only be able to manipulate one planet at a time.

Based on what, exactly?

"Planetary annihilation is basically the ultimate macro game"

Ah great. Look at the shortcuts which already are in the game, and you will see that they actually planned quite a lot of "orbital" units already.

And all of them fit perfectly in that "Air 2.0" scheme, introducing just another movement layer, although these units could have been integrated into air layer easily.

Including such "incredible" ideas like mines. In space. Where you can evade in 3 dimensions. And the obligatory death laser. Now all we need are space defense towers, space walls and space tanks, then the set would be complete. Ah wait, don't forget the Mega Maid.

Great move. Really great move.

Given the hints we have available, it looks like the "orbital layer" they are currently working on, will only introduce some "spacy" hovering effect for the units and unlock their rotation to create the appearance as if they were floating in space.

So +1 for constantly hopping between planet surface and orbit while attempting to micro units in both viewports.

I can't tell what is sarcastic and who really is being extreme in their opinions any more.

Let's be honest here igncom1, the forums have been on a knife-edge for some time now. This is just another straw on the already overburdened camel's back.

For some, it was the breaking point.

If you've been following development, you'll know there's been several Alpha units they flat out removed from the game and completely changed models etc. Assuming anything from the current data files is a mistake.

It's the only source of information we have right now, so what?

If we had more informations, we wouldn't have to assume the worst. But we don't, so we are left with extrapolating from what we have.

But why?

The lack of information?

Maybe in a regular RTS game with the singular 'all inclusive' map map having multiple different bases makes thing feel different, but trying to say compare Old Style RTS design with PA's Planet Design is akin to comparing my Honda Accord to a Go-Kart(A nice one, but still). Multiple planets is most similar to an Island map from 'old-style' RTSs, but there are several key differences that the comparison effectively worthless from a nitty-gritty functional viewpoint.

Fact is that because in PA each planet will be it's own standalone entity, with few enough ways that they directly interact that I can count them one hand, makes it a totally different beast. So far, Seems like Orbitals are locked to the Planet of their origin, So I build a satellite in Planet A and it has NO effect on anything going on on Planets B, C or D. compared to an Old-style game where everything on that map is directly interconnected so you can directly send a unit from one corner of the map to another corner. In PA, you have this huge long process including launching the lander to build a base to build a Teleporter Gate(In both locations mind you) before you can even think of sending more than a handful of units 'across' the 'ocean'.

Orbital play is kinda unique it that it won't change between planets. Orbital doesn't have ANY terrain and the only thing that brings in any kind of variance is planet size and what players do for defenses(if the design of these is such that they do that), so even more than anything else it will be the exact same 'gameplay' across any planet.

Orbital won't feel different at all no matter how many planets you are using it across concurrently at the same time.

Mike