Orbital units - 2 directions

So start on the same planet. There is no requirement anywhere in the game mechanics to start so physically separated unless you want to. I've very committed to supporting a variety of types of gameplay and styles.

There are just plenty of scenarios where you aren't going to see another player for a while if it's only two people in a very large space. If you don't like that then don't setup such a scenario.

Find them.
Nothing worse than the Starcraft approach of telling units to move to each start location and then look away and wait for the attack signal. Exploration is going to be a fun part of this.

And what about competitive play and you don't have the luxury of setting up a scenario?

Ortikon... How are you supposed to "find them" if you can only look on your own planet... AND you don't know where your enemy has chosen to start?

We all pick start locations at the same time without knowing where an opponent picks. Is that changing and we'll be taking "turns" to pick, having knowledge of where the enemy picks? (at least the planet they picked)

Intel, energy, interplanetary and heavy bombardment would be a good summary of where I see orbital fitting it.

Anyway it sounds to me like I could make some people happy simply by adding in a t1 orbital factory that launches intel satellites. In fact I'm getting the vibe that we could just cut orbital down to interplanetary transport and recon and that would make some people happy.

I think when competitive comes along we would have favorite scenarios or common set up maps that are pre-determined.

I would assume all competitive play is going to have different setups and rules depending on what you are into. In fact there may be many players that would like a longer buildup in 1v1. If you want quick engagements play in a game mode that supports that. I don't see how supporting variety is a bad thing.

Will there be some sort of options in the Lobby to set up limits around starting placement in a multiplanet system? ie All start on one planet, 2-x players per planet, or free for all go anywhere?

So you're in full support of variety, yet also in favor of putting a hard limit on when you can get Orbital, thus limiting variety of ways you can play?


I know you can use that kind of excuse to stop players going "Nuke first"... but why apply it to All orbital units?

I like the Intel,energy, interplanetary, and heavy bombardment. To see a portion of those go would break a bit of my heart.
I still consider bombardment support, maybe its not accurate but more pestering and creating pressure on the enemy. I still call that support and it is considered so in military as well. So perhaps my definition of what I see support as sounds less featured to some more than others. Alot of people see support as healing and recon.

Most very good players in any game hate luck in a game because it evens the playfield. My response to that would be to play in a game mode with less variables (e.g. fixed start spots).

That kind of stuff is planned for the System Editor, yes?

Heh don't you love the wisdom of the masses, you could make some people happy by removing orbital all together I guess the upside is you'll make at least a few people happy no matter what you do and the vast majority of players and kickstaters who get the game when it comes out will be happy with what ever it comes with as long as it's fun.

Hell if after the games released and every one is going on about how orbital is all right but full simulation of an orbital system for Sats would be better well then you've got your first xpack idea

I can totally imagine some official maps brewing up in the community in the future.

I also like variety, yet implementing just another layer consisting of buildings and units with 'move to x, attack y' behavior doesn't make it much different than the other layers IMO. Orbiting units would at least add variety

Its a risky proposition to be honest. It could work out great, or fail spectacularly. The only issue I have with the current set up is it feels too similar to naval or Air, both of which you have stated you are trying to avoid (correct me if I'm wrong). With this proposal I'm trying to set a different tone for the orbital layer, thus making it unique in application and feel.

As some have pointed out this would make polar bases somewhat safer against orbital assaults. I have to ask: Why does this matter? What about a base built behind mountains to protect against artillery? or one built on an island and behind a massive fleet to protect against ground units? There are strategies to counter anything, and honestly this just opens a method of avoiding being completely steamrolled if you lack orbital superiority, such as when your making your first landing on the planet. Rather than aim for the equator, attack the poles to avoid orbital counter fire. Worried about people landing there? Build Ground to Orbit weaponry and fortify the region with tanks and bots. Consequently maybe scouting will prove that the enemy has over committed land forces to the pole, thus making it more sensible to assault the equator. There are always strategies to adapt to the conditions of the battlefield. As I see it this prevents Orbital from gaining complete dominance late game, while at the same time not reducing its importance.

What I personally don't want to happen is PA to end up like SupCom in that competitive play is only good for small maps, 1v1s or 2v2s at best. I'm not talking about top-level play, but rather two players of near or equal skill level engaging one another.

If I were a top-level player (I was at one point in the PA Alpha), I would want to be just as happy with engaging an enemy on a small planetoid throwing Scampers and T1 Tanks at them as I would throwing asteroids at their heavily-defended capitol planet.

In a perfect game, every single stage of a match is rife with opportunities to exploit and overpower your opponent with the use of strategic maneuvering. SupCom was almost the polar opposite of this, where your opportunities were limited to very specific points in the game and were frequently reliant on prerequisites. The fun part of a strategy game is the planning, the scheming and the successful execution of those designs. Not having to make sure that your fabbers build those mexes, and that your Commander gets repaired, and that your expansion is babysat and doesn't get destroyed by one or two errant Scampers because your tanks decided to stay put. Macro is, in the end, always far more rewarding than macro, both in terms of player satisfaction and the outcome of the match.

I'll be happy with just intel and interplanetary transport.

I'll be VERY happy with adding energy, heavy bombardment, etc.

This game must be huge uber on every layer !

You don't think it adds variety just because they don't move differently? What about what the individual units actually do? Honestly I really don't get this thought process.

I've never claimed that I've able to build a perfect game BTW. I have a vision for a game I think would be fun. I have a vision for how I think orbital units should work. I think they will be fun. But perfect? Hahaha, my ego isn't nearly that big

That's the idea.