Detailed Real-ish yet Simple Orbit Proposal

I don't really think about it that way. I'm just trying to make the game I had in my head that I pitched in the KS video.

- large scale
- powerful elegant UI
- see what's happening in the game world
- moddability

I'm definitely not trying to make a game just to appeal to as many people as possible. However, I am very cognizant that the forum represents the hardcore players and not your average joe that enjoyed TA.

Well there is a difference between bad and "not right for this game". I try to make decisions based on the core design principles I've been espousing.

Since when was anyone paying you to be a nice guy Neutrino?



Give your feedback in any manner you like. It's better for the thread to be commented on and directed towards something productive (or curtailed if it can not be so), rather than let it stew... and tempers to flare up over the lack of any comment whatsoever.

Yeah because I want to be the next Phil Fish. No thanks.

Well, ok. Maybe not any manner you like...

My natural personality would probably piss off a lot of people.

In fact I really like Googlefrog and generally think he has great ideas. I don't like pissing on his ideas. Especially when it's game design which, quite frankly, comes down to opinion in most cases. It's also a waste of time to negatively comment on stuff and generally just gets me in a bad mood

Community manager ho!

Or at least I assume that what he's going to be doing for you, and for the community here on the forums...

... not just pissing on people's ideas and getting in a bad mood, obviously. But at least there being a more ubiquitous and consistent presence on the forums, correct?

Firstly I think honesty (or bluntess) is good otherwise you're just saying inconsequential things and there is no communication.

When writing this system my aim was to create the simplest system which supports the ability to choose between orbits. This was done to support circular orbits (which is a requirement for a 'real' system) and orbital factories/engineers which are able to be clumped. I think this is pretty much the simplest system satisfying these constraints.

I chose these constraints because (as I have said elsewhere) I think that a pure geostationary system will not be distinct from ground combat so won't add valuable gameplay, orbital factories work best when geostationary and because similar systems were proposed earlier but not fleshed out. It creates a lot of interaction between layers which I think is good.

The proposal is long because I explicitly explained the mechanics and the UI. Any system would be quite long when these things need to be defined.

It is good to be wary of complicated systems but you shouldn't assume that simpler systems are always better. Compare the effects of the system vs the cost of the complexity it adds.

What do you mean by "custom interfaces"? The only added interface in this system is the ability to right click and drag for a move order with a specified facing. There are currently RTS games (for example CoH) which have exactly the same UI to specify direction. I would not count it has a custom interface, it uses exactly the same commands but in a slightly extended way. It would be good to know your threshold for what is a "custom interface" because if it's as low as it seems to be you won't accept any system other than 'fake' geostationary.

That part of it seems ok I suppose. However, the click drag thing is going to be used for other things...

Fake orbital and what you are suggesting are really not very far off. What you are proposing isn't going to make the "real orbital" people happy either. I just see it as a poor compromise.

I want to keep the orbital layer simple to implement and tune and very consistent with the other layers. If it sucks we can always improve it but I just don't see it as smart to take a bunch of risk in this area. It's always possible to add more units in the future with different behaviors like real orbital mechanics etc. I know how to make the fake stuff work with very little risk.

Also keep in mind I'm kind of in a crap mood now so I'm going to bow out for the PAX weekend. I'm really not in a mood to be constructive right now.

This is clearly a highly contentious issue but I think you are dealing with it absolutely fine. Take some time off, enjoy PAX and muse on the issue.

Neutrino, i thought in the same direction - maybe you can take some ideas of my idea.
https://forums.uberent.com/threads/compromising-on-orbital-mechanics.51012/#post-780201

So we have heared a lot about realistic versus Air layer two. Lets turn our backs on that and focus on fun and awesome: i would define awesome as orbital lasers hurling around the planet at crazy speed, burning a path of destruction through any (enemy) base they fly over. I really hope people agree with me on that... because ignoring geosync orbits gets us one big advantage aside from the less-ui-needed-aspect: how to differentiate ground/air from orbital? Easy! If it hurls around the planet at breackneck speed, it's orbital!
Now why would we want really realistic Orbits? This is not satellite simulator 2000, it's a game about blowing things up! Just use a circle around the planet and be done with it to focus on what we really need:
I see two things you could want from orbital units: attack another unit (orbital fighter) or pass a certain point (recon / attack a base). This can be done with just the normal commands: attack, like with any other unit, makes the unit attack that unit as fast as possible - i guess it should be possible to automatically compute an orbit that brings your fighter into firing position. Who cares about the precise way into that firing position, ingame i need that orbital deathlaser gone fast and by any means neccesary! Next would be positioning, mainly for recon satellites and orbital laser cannons. For easy gameplay, just let the user mark one or two points like with the usual move orders, then move to an orbit that passes these one or two points. no direct control needed. Patrol can just alternate the move orders given (shift+(click, click, p for patrol, click, click): move to first orbit, move to second, move to first...
Now for the fear of too many orbital units: you obviously need a rocket to get your satellites up. This rocket will be debris after delivering the satellite - if you have 100 satellites, collisions with debris create more debris. Problem kinda solved... we littered orbit with debris, satellites are hard to use - awesome, we have totally destroyed everything and seen explosions everywhere! Kaboom! And after a while, debris orbits could destabilize, old satellites and rockets crashing into the planet, making room for new ones (if you survive the random bombardment with all the pricy equipment you launched earlier).

TL;DR:
In conclusion, i want to say that fast-moving, slow-steering, only marginally controllable satellites crashing into each other and down on the planet after some time would really add something new to the game for me.

<Neutrinotag> Criticize me bluntly, i want to learn from my errors. </Neutrinotag>

I'm convinced that this idea is just as workable with no changes to the way commands are issued. It would allow for formation moves so it would be the superior method. I'm not expecting much more from this thread but I will post the changes here for completeness.

Move orders within the Geostationary Band are completely normal. Move orders can now be placed outside the Geostationary Band. Such orders cause the unit to launch itself from the Geostationary Band into a Close Orbit passing through it's current position and the position of the move order. The order is considered complete as soon as it launches and the unit continues to orbit if there are no further orders. If a unit's next order is a move order and it is already in a Close Orbit then it will move to the Geostationary Band and then act as defined above.

This system is basically equivalent to many others which have been proposed. It looks like anything which involves a floating band around the equator and the inability to stop while over the poles.