Reducing a Planets axis for rotation.

After spending a couple hours playing the beta, i really don't like building on a sphere. getting the placement of buildings correct, as well as sending out units is a pain. I actually found myself becoming nauseated so I had to take a break, and at present I don't feel inclined to pick it back up.

I'm not writing for this senseless complaining though. At least in my opinion the situation would be greatly improved with two changes:

1. Allow planets to only rotate on a single axis.
2. All planet should have polar ice caps as a no-mans-land

My reasons include:
1. the player would have something they could put the back of their base against. The fact that armies can still travel the circumference of the planet is still plenty complex. It would greatly alleviate the stress of omni-directional combat which I really have issues with.
2. It would be far less difficult to become disoriented when moving quickly along the planet's surface.
3. A mini-map (if implemented) with the current planets would require un-wrapping the surface into something that doesn't translate well for quick information. A planet one one axis with polar caps at the top which the player cannot traverse looks more like a long rectangle.
4. a hell of a lot less clicking.

Honestly, interacting with the planets now feels like it requires a form of gaming technology that isn't available, and that's to be able to interact with the planet in a 3 dimensional plane with a hand, not a 2D flat screen monitor with a mouse.

Granted, it's still beta and in development. And I'm sure there are others that experience a great ease of use as it is now. But I just cant handle what it is now. I'm choosing to trust that options for improvement will present themselves and that the devs are going to produce and polish something wonderful.

Originally, planets were planned to be cylinders (so no access to caps). The community didn't like that at all, and pressured Uber into changing it to what we have currently.

Planets do rotate on a single axis. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that.

That is to say that it be limited to only one axis, ever. Currently planets can be rotated in any direction.

Thank you for the reply though, I think I remember you from the GPG forums way back when. I am disappointed though to hear the community wanted complete spheres for battle terrain. They certainly look cool in those videos and sound cool, but interacting with them is a pain in the ***.

I've always seen myself as a pragmatist, but this might actually be a single decision that could make or break at least my interest in playing PA. And please believe me when I say that I make that previous statement without the callous disregard that so many on the internet have for the over-exaggerated weight of their own words. I'm not trying to sensationalize my own point. I actually mean it.

I'm assuming you mean that the Camera is locked to a single axis, not the planet itself. You aren't rotating the planet after all, just moving the camera around it, have your tried the Pole Lock Option?(Ctrl+N)

Mike

Ctrl+N turns on metal spots.
N will align the camera to North/South once, but won't maintain it that way. You have to press it every time you move the camera, or hold it down yourself (which can get a bit jittery). I'm not sure there's a proper hotkey to turn on pole lock, so it has to be enabled from Settings.

I think there's something else that affects disorientation.
When zoomed out, the camera is perpendicular to the planet's surface exactly in the center of the screen. That leads to precisely half of the scene being essentially viewed from the underside, with gravity being directed upwards. That's not a natural perspective (unless you're a fly on the wall) and could be uncomfortable for a player, because they'll instinctively want to turn their head 180 degrees whenever they look at half the screen... At least, that's what happens to me. Half the screen is friggin' upside-down!

No to cylinders. They are not that hard to work with. Many people apparently do not have a problem with it, I am one of them. I -love- that we fight on an actual sphere. That you can be attacked from all directions adds to the strategic depth of this game and is one of the few things that make it special.

Regarding the minimap - We managed to put our own planet on proper maps. Why would we not manage that with the planets in PA?

Our maps are highly warped.

And is not like you really need that with strategic zoom and chrono cam.

Support for multiple screens/views would be the most luxurious option. Though I'm not sure how many computers could handle it at this stage.

An arbitrary compass or gyroscope would be a handy gadget. Could even be a mod...

A lot of people can navigate and do not get lost on the spherical maps we have currently. I like them and I feel they add to strategy. Cylinders would be too easy.

Supreme Commander came out in 2007, 6 years ago.
This was back when most people still ran dual core systems. Multiple screens/Windows was implemented then and worked great.
Uber has promised and confirmed that multi-windows will be in this game. Since the optimization will improve, this shouldn't be a problem.

You are right. Some people have a fantastic directional sense and it's great that you are one of those people
However, most people do not have your level of sense of direction.
You may think a cylinder map is too easy.
But for other people. that is already very hard.

The UI should help the lowest common denominator.
I think what is best for this game (at large) is if everybody regardless of their sense of direction can navigate very well.
Personally, I feel the only thing that should matter is how to build your econ, how to spend your econ, and where to send your army and when.

I think that if the player has to fight the navigation of the software, then we end up playing the game for the wrong reason.

Let's theoretically apply that to SupCom (or TA). If I was able to send units off to the left side of the map and have them appear on the right side of the map, it would be the same as a cylinder. How many strategy games offer that? Was Total Annihilation too easy because the map had borders, or any other strategy game for that matter? It's actually a huge twist in planning and movement.

If anyone is willing to delve past the figurative and jump head first into the actual mechanics behind what I'm referencing, I've included a link to a TED presentation below. It's only 10 minutes long. In short, being able to scrub the planet in any direction doesn't offer a consistent keystone or perspective for orientation. Scrolling across the planet may mean seeing buildings from another direction. And if that unique perspective been processed and stored by neurons then it will lead to disorientation.

TED Presentation:
http://www.ted.com/talks/neil_burgess_how_your_brain_tells_you_where_you_are.html


And i do agree with what Culverin said as well.


As a side note, I did contact Uber's support that said they are planning on making a way available to transfer a game key to someone else to allow the sale of the key. Given the communities choice about the direction of the game, the problems I have with it are inevitable. I am grateful that Uber would offer that much flexibility to their customers, even if it means I'll lose money in the process. Better then nothing.

Change is scary, isn't it?
Maps without borders add a huge strategic value. Just with this feature, PA is extremely interesting compared to classic RTS games.

I was referring to cognitive neurology and spatial perception, not simply "change." That's a different conversation likely with someone other then myself. You can't just overlook the way the human brain processes information and just say "meh, i think we'll do it differently now." That's simply sheer ignorance. Scientists and researchers have won the Nobel Peace Prize for this kind of research. But you think a video game can trump that? Good luck trying.

Apparently my brain is more evolved. I can understand a spherical map. But there is a "pole lock" option in the gameplay settings that permanently makes it so that you only rotate on the axis. That should help you with the "perception issues".

While scientists say one thing, I say, "whatever". I can play the game either way. You can use landmarks to navigate or "pole lock" as I suggested. I don't see why we have to bring in neurology into this.

If you can not simply handle omnidirectional combat then leave it at that and see about dealing with your key. We don't need "science" debates and name calling. you've stated your position. Unless you have anything else constructive to say, please just let it all go. The forums are here to discuss matters, not to play "Science Avenger!" and defend against the "ignorant hoard".

[Science changes, people change, brains change. People play and don't get lost. People play and get lost. Pole lock is the solution. Not "rectangular map combat 2.0"]- Opinion.

(Side note: Please don't mention the NPP, their credibility has dropped since they gave it to a unapologetic warmongerer who spies on his on people and attacks them(and a lot of other people)with missiles all over the world)

... wat?

Nitpick: The nobel peace prize is one category of the nobels, there are separate prizes. Nobel physics, nobel chemistry/medicine, nobel literature etc.

Either way, you're reading too far into that particular research finding. It's not that strong, it's just an interesting step along the way to understanding how some parts of the brain work. It does not preclude spherical maps; they are by no means inherently unamenable to the human brain. People just aren't used to using them. Obviously though, they are more complex than a flat board so there will be people who just can't deal with that.

I agree he wouldn't have received it today after all that, but remember the reason for it in the first place: a big nuclear disarmament treaty. A couple of drone strikes are nothing compared to what one of those weapons could do.

I have never seen someone peel an orange then throw up.

Navigating a sphere should not cause neurological problems in normal human beings.

I have gotten sick from playing 3D games before, but that is from constantly spinning and turning very quickly in an FPS or other fast-moving game.

In a RTS, you aren't going to be spinning that globe around constantly. And if that really is a problem for you, I'm sure you'll be able to set up "Camera Positions" and hotkey them so you can find locations quickly (I would use these and I don't have any issues with the global maps)

I also see no reason how a Cylinder Map would help you rather than a Sphere. Because first of all, when you are zoomed in you can't tell at all that it is even a spear, it looks like any other RTS, and when you zoom out whether it has ice caps or not you will still be looking at a Sphere.

@flatlander it's not so much that we're on a sphere, but rather a sphere this small with high degree of spinning makes people lose their orientation.

Somewhat like spinning yourself on your computer chair.
Yes, part of it is from your inner ear losing your equilibrium.
But losing your orientation without being able to track everything makes people queezy.
That's why figure skaters and ballerinas focus on a fixed point so they don't get dizzy.



The problem without pole lock is the wonky way the planet rotation work.
The planet also rotates on an "axis perpendicular to your monitor screen"
Yet the player has no control over this spin.

Some 3D modelling programs break up screen into 2 zones of control.
1. Mouse over object to pan. (This is what we have now).
2. Mouse outside object to rotate "axis perpendicular to your monitor screen"


We should be looking to the multi-thousand dollar programs for answers.

Spore had a minimap that allowed you to jump the camera to the location you clicked on.


PA has planetiods that closely resemble Spore, maybe similar in game tech not sure.
Im sure if the planets in spore could be mapped to a minimap like the pic above then PA could easily have one too.
But, if the game is going to have multiple picture in picture styled windows like uber has planned, it may not be needed as you could have a small window onscreen with the planet zoomed out as your minimap.

I have to agree izak and Culverin on some points. Sometimes I also lost my orientation. But I want to add another important point here: The maps from PA have no special orientation points. The maps are mostly random and uniform (for now).

If you would project "Setons Clutch" to a spherical body (a planet), there would be a much better orientation as for now. You would have a point of reference, namely the "center" of the map. (Unless you turn the planet upside down.)

Sorry. My english sucks.