Being disappointed about reality (as perceived as a mental construct) is the same as being pessimistic about life. Both are negative takes on the same viewpoint (i.e. your eyes to the world). Disappointment passes. Yours doesn't.
Idealists believe that conflict raises barriers between people, preventing society from reaching its full potential. Idealists seek harmony in personal and professional relationships, working toward solutions that respect the needs of all parties involved. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealist_temperament Is this you?? Were is your solution?
Thing is that we just don't know, we know as little about Gas Giants as we did Orbital pre-52512 and less than we now know about interplanetary. Based on Dev comments we have a handful of pieces to the Gas Giant puzzle, but not nearly enough to know what the puzzle actually looks like and really we're not even confident that teh pieces we do have will actually fit...... So far my favorite theory/hope is that Gas Giants will be predisposed to having an above average number of moons/asteroids orbiting them and they will have as the 'land' where you build bases and fight over the Gas Giant's resources. It could be a very dynamic and fast paced combat area with lots of use from the unit cannon and such due to the smaller gravity well of the smaller moons/asteroids. But in the end we just don't know. Mike
It seems to me, that much of the discussion originates from the wish for 21th century behavior without 21th century drawbacks and the resulting discrepancy is more strongly apparent in the orbital layer than in the air or ground level. I would go more for the direction extermians suggested in form of more passive and remote systems: some ground facility to launch orbital stuff: - ground control facilities - different types different orbital units - limited number of controllable units per building spy satellites: - indestructible from ground - are deactivated if not enough ground control available - you can "hide" / jam their information flow - limited information richness nuke satellites: - indestructible from ground - limited number of shots (their ground facility works like a factory where you can queue up replacements) - are deactivated if not enough ground control available - jamming still works, but you could fire blindly Main tactic is ground oriented by preventing the construction of ground control buildings or at least ensure their destruction. Orbits would be cosmetic/implicit, and the functionality of spying and attacking would be more a variant of pointing at a target and returning the result in a bit more variable time (considering implicit orbit shifts) than ground or air alternatives. Something along those lines would be my suggestion in case we want to reproduce 21th behavior and limitations. The rest would be a challenge of balancing costs. On the other hand, if we consider the assumptions made for the rest of the game, we can do almost anything in orbit as the main limitation, energy, is mostly irrelevant on a per unit base. Then we could also allow structures (e.g. power generators etc) in the orbital layer and anything can have absolutely arbitrary positions with reference to the planet. I for one can deal with both cases, the first one might be more nostalgic but the second one is actually more logical considering the given assumptions.
Nope, that's me lol. I'd call Nanolathe more of a manipulative idealist. Yes, he wants everyone to have a good time and what not, but only if it's his kind of good time.
I can't really find his kind of good time ind any posts he's made. Can you inliten os nano. What will make you so very happy?
It's more of the "manic laughter" type of happy. You won't really get that on the forums. But his arguments are usually well though through and he does show up real flaws which are very likely to cause even more trouble. A pessimist would say "that could go wrong because I have a feeling", but he actually explains HOW it will go wrong / be exploited, based on what he would do to exploit it. Manipulation is just an apprentice piece, and nothing more than a tool to make other people understand the relevant mechanics.
The Devs including us more actively in the development process, rather than just throwing stuff at us and saying "figure it out". And thank you exterminans. Unfortunately I don't always explain everything, but that's because I have a terrible habit of flip-flopping between giving people the benefit of the doubt, assuming that they are able to use a little logic ... and then realising that I'm mistaken, and that some people lack the required greymatter to open a ring-pull can.
Having the benefit of Nanolathe's dulcet tones in your ears over teamspeak gives you a much better idea of the way he approaches things. Though I think he can come across a bit strong on here, he only does it out of love of the game.
Man am I glad there are no cliques forming that allow users to get away with vitriolic comments on the forums because they're actually decent human beings elsewhere.
You're just jealous you don't have your own "clique". Though I know not all of us would call it that. Mike for example prefers the term "Think Tank" and WrongCat just loves to call us something of a family.
I usually drink from a bottle. You have to use a tool for that. http://www.urlesque.com/2010/09/20/open-beer-bottle-without-bottle-opener/ Maybe its just me. And you're sexy voice will change all that. But is this not a part of the development process. They build stof, we shout or likes and dislikes. They hopefully listen and give os true orbital. What more is there. Did you hear, The Gods of Uber just removed a polygon on the delta coms left arm!!! The horror, The madness, ANGER!!!. Let's discuss it over a cup of tea.
It's "Tea" by Jove! I have a cup already handy. Just wouldn't be Cricket without an Englishman with a cup of tea nearby, what-what. Edit: Now you're spelling it right. Good thing too. Can't have people going around misspelling the word "Tea", now can we old bean?
No it wouldn't. English men and bats, thank the uber gods for tea. But seriously what do you think we are missing. I have never been in a more open game development then this.
It's not Nanolathe: The Game Though I am amused at the high regard the English tongue is often held in. As an Englishman myself, it's fun when Skyping with people I game with regularly.
Again, it's the "Here's what we've done, It's still early and we don't have a plan... but there it is" kind of attitude that I just can't wrap my head around. Neutrino doesn't want to share his ideas because (and these are his own words), it would turn into a circle-jerk. I argue that there's so much circle-jerking going on in these forums already that we'd barely notice the increased "circle-jerky-ness", and we'd be better off since we'd know what the hell Jon has planned for the game. They claim to be shooting to get the game as close to the kickstarter video as possible... but there were no orbital units in the kickstarter video. So the Community is going into this whole thing completely blind, without a clue as to the intended direction and Jon is sitting there, holding all the cards. Then you have Garat who's acting incredulous when he sees the continued request for more information, and more developer involvement in the creative process. We don't know what to expect, because Jon (and the rest of Uber) has not given us any reasonable primer on what to expect outside of the Kickstarter PreVis. When we don't know what to expect you get threads like LocalMadSci's Orbital ideas and the T1 - T2 and now with Orbital units T3 "upgrade" issues and a plethora of other problems that keep cropping up again and again without developer comment. We're getting mixed messages and miscommunication (or a total lack thereof) on key features because of Jon's opinion of "sharing our ideas is bad".
I think Uber just needs to clarify the slippery-slope items when they can. For example with orbital, instead of vaguely hinting that orbital may or may not be just another layer of Air, they could have said "We are leaning towards not using an orbital model for the Orbital layer." We would have still disagreed with them but there wouldn't have been as much yelling and misunderstandings. I know that clarifying things in an iterative environment is hard, but the general direction of development can at least be given.
