Orbital units - 2 directions

should we poll this so the devs can get a good and straight opinion about it instead of reading hundereds of comments?

Yes, me.

I don't think turning off the Stop button is a drastic change to the UI.

From the perspective of an average consumer, chances are they don't even know what a geostationary orbit is. I am not really interested in an accurate representatation, what I am interested in is having units perform differently from air units and for them to visibly orbit as the name implies. The current way orbital works is in my opinion still very much air 2.0 even if it's a gameplay abstraction of a geostationary orbit, I simply don't want that.

Yes, but this forum technology isn't comprehensive enough for this. I'm looking at making a Survey Monkey poll.

I currently have the following questions - they'll all be want/don't care/don't want or something similar to that.



Well I wasn't expecting it to paste a picture. That's rather cool.

Give me feedback and more questions, I'll put up something in a few hours.

For those who haven't seen I've posted another detailed idea for orbital here, but it could do with more discussion. IMO it's the close we can get to orbital whilst still using the same user interface and controls as currently offered.

http://what-if.xkcd.com/58/

And that is why you go sideways the same speed as the planet turns thus having a geosynchronous orbit and the sat is precived not to move if you stand on the surface and look up.

Actually, also wrong. You only get the perception of not moving if you're orbiting around the equator. If all orbital units were around the equator, then all would be well and good. But from what we understand, units will be able to go any-which-place they happen to like.

You are right most satellites usually "wobble" around, but then you have to do the argument that has been used all the time, with unlimited energy and fast calculations you could keep it pretty stationary if you do correction burns from time to time.

So, I think this discussion has hit it's apogee, and is now steadily heading downhill. The coherent visions have been discussed, and wave of discussion is once again collapsing into the random static of small suggestions and divergent chatter. Time for a summation, so that when this pops up again in the future, we have something to refer to:

The biggest point of discussion between Neutrino, and those who want orbital mechanics is one of UI. Unlike a position on a planet, an orbit mathematically requires 6 parameters to define it, instead of 2. A single mouse click can only define two parameters, meaning any orbital system will require more than this if it is to capture more than the most cursory aspects. Fundamentally, this means that all orbital mechanics systems will require a different UI paradigm than the existing movement system.

Those who like orbital mechanics contend that it's depth and novelty mean that some compromise on this is worth making. That orbital mechanics would generate sufficient differentiation between the other theaters that it is worth the cost of fracturing the UI system into orbital and non-orbital UI systems.

Neutrino holds that a consistent and coherent UI is more important, and that the shell approach can still be plenty fun to play, drawing on a variety of units, roles and buildings. A new UI system may not be the best use of a developer time for the gameplay that would come out. In order to differentiate orbital from other theaters, instead of relying on orbital mechanics, units will move differently by having terrible accelerations, but high top speeds.

Others have suggested a variety of systems which seek to simplify orbital mechanics. Ultimately these still run afoul of requiring a new UI in order to extract any depth out of an orbital system.

I may personally pine for orbital mechanics, and I look forward to the day when an RTS makes full use of them, but I understand and respect Neutrino's decision on this. I even made a suggestion to this movement system some time ago, but suspect the folks at Uber had this in mind well before that.

I have made my case, Neutrino has considered it, and ultimately decided that a more homogenous UI system is the more important aspect. I am absolutely fine with that, and at the end of the day, he is the one with the experience making games.

Now...

I'm really really glad that this discussion has occurred. Even if it didn't result in a change in the direction that an aspect of the game is going. This is precisely the kind of community interaction that is necessary to keep the discussion here fresh and interesting. It doesn't need to be all the time, but believe me, this kind of thing is excellent because there will now be a lot of people going a way from this discussion with a better idea of your thought processes. This is enriching for the community, as it means we can discuss things that are much more relevant to how the game is likely to play out. It won't eliminate silly posts and thoughtless chattering, but it will provide much more ammunition for those who want to discuss things rationally and in greater detail.

Neutrino, I'm sorry if you ever come away from these discussions with the feeling of "maybe I should just axe this feature entirely". I can understand how draining such discussions can be, and I hope that I'm never one to contribute to such feelings. At the end of the day, you're the guy in charge, and I will always bow to that experience if I understand your reasons.

I like the interaction he had on this topic but i think many people where a bit ambitious and aggressive.
I think we should go forward on a more how to improve what we have now then doing new systems/ideas, like the post i made the page before this about how to make it look better and make more sense which cheap tricks.

Poll is not a good idea. Requirement to explain your idea and reasoning behind it is a good filter against complete idiots, while pointing at a checkbox requires no intelligence at all.

Well, this was a long thread. I guess, I changed my mind. Originally I was on the "real orbits" side. You can find my main idea on page 9. I still think that out of "real" ones - this one is the most simple in terms of UI and control. And it does not sacrifice that much of deph in my opinion.
But now, after reading through this whole thing... We really tried to solve visual problem through mechanics. The proplem is: satellites look like they need to orbit but they don't. We tried to make them orbit, while the simplest option is make them look like they act. Put little engines on it and everything will be fine. As for gameplay, I think low acceleration and high top speed might make them distinct enough to not be just another air.
Someone will make true orbital mod. But it's really not the thing that Uber should spend its resources on.

Good someone else noticed this as well!
But you've got to remember the most simple solution is always the hardest to figure out.

Polls like this are pointless. Without random sampling of a significant proportion of the population they are meanless at best and actively miss leading a good part of the time. There is no way you can even get 1% (4-5000 backers) to take the pole for a statistically significant sample, and no way you can make a random sample in a forum.

See the following links for more details why the last pole on this (there was one last week) was meaningless.
https://forums.uberent.com/threads/...urrent-orbital-units.50947/page-7#post-779944
https://forums.uberent.com/threads/...urrent-orbital-units.50947/page-8#post-779957

You know, if someone wrote an in-game window for the poll that was pushed to random people by Uber, it would be more effective. It would require a bit of work but might be useful in the long run.

Then again, this isn't a democracy, we're just advisors. And if someone has a good, logical, sensible idea, their first thought is to either message the devs or go on the forums. Everyone else would either be opinionated for reasons they can't understand, don't care to understand, or are simply too uninformed to make a rational decision.

At this point, I think anything other than Uber focusing on their current (original) plan is a gross waste of time. Neutrino has made his position pretty clear, and it is one I support whole-heartedly.

Orbital should be mid game and fairly expensive.

Yes, if you read a bit further on in the thread, neutrino gave a cost range (around the same cost as current t2) that I think is reasonable. It's actually possible to build a lander quite fast and expand on a nearby moon or somesuch, which was really all I wanted in the first place.

I'd like that

I'm not sure why a exclusive layer is necessary for orbital units. Gunships and fixedwings obey to different movement rules in any TA-like game, yet they are in the same layer. Orbital units could simply exist as air units on high altitude, this makes things more gradual thus make the middle place possible for new units.

Unit interactions based on altitudes could also be something more than a stark armour system, for example we could have air units that need to lower their altitude for attack, or anti air units that could hit units in higher air only when on high grounds.