my interest is in surface wars not in surface vs orbital always think multiplanet .... what do you think will people do when they have an opponent on another planet? they would spam the orbit with any sorts of units ... you think this wont be an issue on single planets or people starting on one planet but it will be massive issues on multiple planets ... and the guy who spams orbital then the most wins .... why build anymore tanks or aircraft when anything can be shoot from orbit ... i can see this happen easily ... no i rather would have propper orbital transportunits before having anymore orbital weapons of any kind
That's why there needs to be FAR more surface anti-orbital than just the umbrella, and it can't just be a T1 umbrella. It has to be something that you would build for other reasons. It should be possible to fight an entire match where one player only uses orbital and another only uses surface units, and it should be more interesting for the surface player than "Do I have enough umbrellas?"
But that's already an issue... All this would do is make that more interesting, by making it more varied, and giving you more ways to break through that. Of course it's no fun when people do that, but it doesn't invalidate a layer, or shift all the focus to that layer. Does naval invalidate ground or shift focus away from ground? No. Does air invalidate ground or shift focus away from ground? Other than needing some balance fixes, no. Will orbital improvements invalidate or shift the focus away from the ground layer? No. It will just add more depth to the game.
Exactly. Though having orbital units to break orbital seiges or turtles (like the bomber unit I suggested in the other thread, or a frigate unit) wouldn't hurt either.
This is the whole point I'm trying to get at. You don't have to spam air units to fight a player who only uses air. Similarly, you shouldn't have to dedicate yourself to orbital units to fight an orbital player, you should have a diverse set of tools buildable on the surface to counter his orbital.
there is no orbital player as their comm is always on surface .. and surface units should be mainly what destroys a commander .... i want to bring my surface army to his planet i want my planes to get to his planet he can already stop me with avangers and umbrellas and anchors .. but again if i can attack him from orbit what is the point in him investing in anything that isnt antiorbital? the gameplay would revolve around spamming orbital units ... there is no point in air as it cant get to another planet .... there is no point in building tanks as there would be no chance to me to get them to him without a teleporter because he would cover his planet in anti orbital stuff ... so i can only counter him with orbital to surface ... your proposals wont solve a stalemate but create another one and shift the focus entirely to orbital vs surface warfare ..
No they won't that's the point. They will add a new dimension to the warfare, yes, but they won't shift everything to the orbit-ground warfare, not more than it already is. You are assuming that all the units that can hit the ground will be easy to make, and powerful. My suggestion makes most of the anti-ground weapons immobile structures, meaning they have to be built by orbital fabricators. Orbital fabricators can be killed from orbit, or from the ground, so you need to make an orbital beachhead and protect them. Oh look, I already have to do that in the current build, except only one unit is needed, instead of a variety, to deal with different situations! Any anti-ground orbital units are either, inexpensive and weak, or expensive and powerful like the SXX. My proposals won't shift the focus at all, because it only varies what is already there. Currently I wouldn't build tanks, because I need to get a teleporter up, but he's defended himself with umbrellas all over, and anchors all over. Oh well, gg then. With my proposal it would look more like this: Oh he's got umbrellas and anchors, that's fine, i'll build some anti-orbital-structure units and some frigates to clear his anchors, and try and make an orbital beachead. Now i'll use a dropship, or some SXX platforms or something to either land units to clear his umbrellas or destroy them from orbit with heavy losses. Now I have to build a teleporter to get units on the ground Or I won't be able to get past the rest of his anti-orbital defense without heavy losses. Oh look! ground combat again! Essentially this: instead of having anchors and SSX platforms VS anchors and umbrellas, I suggest having more units and structures to create actual strategy in the orbital layer. The focus won't shift to only orbit-ground warfare because it has already shifted that way as far as it can go, as soon as you make an inter-planetary stalemate.
There have been a couple of threads like these over time, and they still pop up almost weekly. Not that strange since they all have a valid point: orbital in the current build is (still) not balanced and not fun, but hey, it's work in progress so everything will work out eventually For now, I think that it is given that more orbital units are needed. The essentials are there, but it still lacks a spark or any reason at all to invest resources in orbital units. The idea proposed here was, in an other form, also posted here. Both ideas come down to an orbital layer which mimics surface combat. Opponents of this view often name this 'air/navy layer 2.0' as it does not really distinguish the orbital layer from other layers other than being orbital. Other ideas included orbital as a specialised transport layer or intel layer or idea's about orbital having 'orbital' pathways & high speed, making them more akin to real satalites. I also feel obligated to link to Neutrinos 'direction of orbital' post from a while back, which gives some insight on ubers view on the subject. Personally, I think it is a dificult matter. An expansion of orbital units & structures seems unavoidable, since gas planets are confirmed to only have orbital. More interaction between orbital, surface and air is something everybody wants (i'm especially fond of the idea of the peregrine becoming a air-orbital amphibious craft ) And also think orbital should have some unique units with mandatory end game abilities (interplanetairy nukes and such) The Orbit-to-orbit teleporter sounds awesome!
just have groundlanding transports and air entering aircraftcarriers ... no beachhead nessesarily needed this alone would allow you to have a continueous line of reinforcements: build transports, have them assist factories with the ferrysystem, have those be assisted/escorted by avangers and have additional avangers for orbital superiority ... whats the point in having those units you say when i cant effectivly spam them ... diversaty is not just having the options of different units but indeed using them as much as neccesary ... the ssx by itself is a rare unit to use and barely diversefice orbital combat ... it is still mostly avangers umbrellas and anchors ... in that case you proposals barely have any meaninful impact ... the only additional antiorbital defense that makes sense would be a naval umbrella making satalites immobile is just totaly arbitrary the biggest thorn in my eyes would be those frigades and bombers which if spammable would lead to horrible commsnipes .. and what would happen to counter those i have said already i stand by my point unless orbital transportation doesn´t propper work i have no interest in furter orbital weapons ...
From your posts here, I deduce that you seem to be an avid fan of a minimalist approach to orbital, MrTBSC As it currently stands, I'm kinda with you. The current build of PA does not really need an additional layer of fully fledged warfare (as you yourself adequately stated). However, I do think that specific weapons (a pimped-out laser satalite or interplanetary bombardment device) could be valiable in line of this supportive role of orbital to ground. Eventually, I think that Uber will have to increase the activity in the orbital layer if they want Gas Planet battles to be fun and not just a silly gimmick
I still vote for a way more simplistic version of orbital. Orbital factory - gone Orbital attack or defense units - gone Keep the power, satalite and orbital laser unit, but i would put a limit on them. I'm still of opinion that fights should not take place on multiple dimensions on a single planet like some kind of 3D chess game. If you limit orbital satalite and have no orbital fighters or defense units that would mean you can not make enough to have the hole planet without fog of war and would make it easier to sneak on the planet and start a base there. Also orbital carriers that could carry abit more then just 1 units would be a good edition. If they want this game to be interesting the game should be more open to planetary invasions, since the goal is still 40man multiplanet battles.
Yes, and that would be one way to do it. But if I build anchors everywhere, then your transports can't get through at all. More units such as the bombers I mentioned would lead to strategy in the orbital layer since they could then take out the anchors, otherwise it just stays as it is now, which is a boring layer which people only use for anchors, a radar, and SXX spams. More units allows it to support the other layers just like air does, and makes it fit better into the rest of the game, while making it more enjoyable. You can spam them, I don't see why you couldn't... That's like saying you couldn't spam dox because stingers exist... And you would use the units as much as possible, just like in any layer, to deal with whatever your enemy is doing. Currently it goes like this: "Oh, my enemy has built 30 anchors. I guess I can't go orbital now." The SXX is rare, just a bit more rare than nukes. My suggestions make the SXX more diverse. And the SXX doesn't add anything to the orbital battlefield, so of course there are only anchors and avengers they are the only units you can spam. You haven't given a reason as to why my proposition wouldn't have a meaningful impact, you've just stated the obvious problems with the current build... If anything your statements support my suggestions because they point out that some more diversity is heavily needed in orbital... Why? No it isn't. Realism POV: geostationary orbit. Gameplay POV: Having certain things in orbit be static would make them be more balanced (anchors for example). It's not totally necessary, but it allows for a different balance than if everything was a unit. Also, Uber has already made stationary orbital structures (experimental anchor, and orbital factory) Neither of them would be effective, because the frigates would have weak anti-ground capacity if any, and the bombers are only for use against orbital units. The frigates would be used for shelling armies from orbit, and the bomber is for use against orbital structures. If we limit orbital to what we have now, we are just going to have a stalemate all the time, and orbital transports are going to suck. Also gas giants are going to be really boring.
But limiting things is the exact opposite to what this game is about... I don't think we should be limiting what orbital can do, we should be making it a more diverse and fun layer to use. It's not much more difficult to use now, so it just adds more depth to the game.
Not true, if you want to put focus on the part the game is about, then you should have to. But yeah there might be better solutions.
well I guess at that point it's a point of view thing, since I'm the kind of person who bought PA because of the lack of limits to the gameplay. Personally I don't like games that limit the unit cap at all, or put some arbitrary restrictions on certain unit types... Then again, there are a lot of people who do like that stuff, so I can't say you're totally wrong. EDIT: I also do not understand why a lot of people are against diversifying orbital, I thought we wanted more units, and I thought we wanted orbital to be interesting...
Huh, I wasn't aware that this was classified as a balance discussion. Thanks for the heads up! I'll be sure to post here instead next time!
from the orbital mex modthread: https://forums.uberent.com/threads/suggestion-orbital-metal-extractors.61312/#post-951434 i post this here as this is more a discussion about the involment of orbital in vanila differently then orbital naval has much MUCH more options currently that makes it more influential but relying on how a planet is set up ... as in if it has more water than land or a well mix of both ... and if that is the case you likely see more navalwarfare involved into gameplay (not neccesarily more than land but generaly more than other biomesettings ) and more focus on the naval theater because why wouldn´t players build long range ships or naval aa when those while more expensive are also more effective than their landcounterparts or why limit yourself to land territorycontrol only ... ... also if a planet is entirely water then there is NO OTHER WAY but to built naval units and structures and air becomes more a part of the naval battle on a single planet if you now provide a player with enough options for orbital then he will use them, if he knows how and clearly gets an advantage out of it ... be it econmyboost, unitspamming or siege ... if he can focus his strategy on orbital antisurface he will and the player who is stuck to his planet/s because he went full surface would be at a severe disadvantage unless he decides to go antiorbital (again having the provided options) ... but then as i explained before it will become a game of surface vs orbital or worse a orbital vs orbital stalemate ... if the player, who chose orbital as the way to go, has the ability to spam orbital antisurfaceweapons and units why should he ever decide to go surfaceunits ?... you also have to consider unlike planetbiomes the availability of orbital space does not change ... it´s ALWAYS there ... even more important players HAVE TO go through the orbital layer in order to get to other planetoids unless there are teleportplattforms that don´t require an exitgate or it being possible to link teleportgates to allied gates on other planets ... however with gasgiants implemented you would still be forced to get into the orbital layer ... there is ultimately no way arround it that you have to get into orbital at some point in a multiplanetmatch ... and since mentioning gasgiants : they would be/will/are THE theater for orbitalfocused warfare ... already ... just as a sidenote ... so i say it again ... for vanila i personaly don´t want orbital to be too much involved in a antisurfacemanner as i care more about surfacearmy vs surfacearmy battles ... but with something like your suggestions f.e. i can see this happening and it worries me ... and i don´t care about disableoptions as i like to play vanila multiplayer as it is meant to be played ... my apologies if i may sound ranty somewhere, the caps are for mere highlighting ...
Because there would be more surface to orbital units, and structures. It would be like the air layer, if your opponent has lots of ground-based AA, then you don't just run your planes into it, you need to build ground units to make any headway into their territory. Similarly, if they are spamming orbital, just build more anti-orbital defenses, and they will need to spam a surface units to get through (or try to get around it). Yes, just like the air layer. I don't say that I want orbital mexes and such 100% I offered it up as an idea. Since we HAVE TO go through orbital if using multi-planet warfare, why does orbital have to be so boring and binary? I'd rather have much more unit variety and inter-layer interaction, making inter-planetary warfare more about strategy and less about having more avengers than your target. Also, if gas giants were implemented now then nobody would play them, because there would be no value in doing so, and with the current orbital features, it would be boring as hell.
if gas giants were in now we already would have the options to play with them propperly aswell because that was the point in their implementation in the first place ... but nevermind both orbital and surface are still missing some unitypes aswell as some functions to allow for more intresting orbital siege and surfaceinvasion warfare ... i can see f.e. multiunittransports, orbital carriers and eventualy antiorbital naval help making that a bit more intresting ... however i disagree with orbital being binary as you actualy have options for areacontrol, intelligencegathering as well as starting a siege and attack ground ... so different strategies are already there ... the only issue is that surfacevise a bit more antiorbital options are missing ... the rest is balancing what we can´t have is orbital becoming a full air 2.0 or naval 2.0 .... or both as that would make the other layers redundant ... this is why orbital needs to be be somewhat limited in unittypes ... other than that we have to wait for more vanilagamestuff to eventualy come in post 1.0
I guess "binary" isn't the right term. I mean that there are 2 orbital combat units, and that's it. (i'm not counting the SXX for this). I guess "lacking" would be a better term to describe orbital. Orbital seige isn't really a thing. You can all to easily lock down orbital right now. Intel is availible, that is true, but there isn't really much strategy for orbital area control. The counter to building anchors is spamming avengers. The counter to avenger spam, is spamming more avengers. I think orbital needs at least 5 or 6 more units to fill out the roster a bit. Wait so you want more orbital units? Why were you arguing against more orbital stuff earlier then? And why stop at carriers? Why not an anti-anchor unit, or just units that add more variety? More units for helping to establish a beachhead? Well, it is kind of naval/air 2.0 already, but I don't really see how adding more unit variety will make anything worse, other than making it less boring. I think adding orbital "structures" kind of separates it from the air/naval layer, because then you get things like orbital fortifications and such (anchors, and slightly different anchors) like naval, but you have the entirety of the sphere like air. I'm totally for multi-unit transporters as well, don't get me wrong, I just don't think that we should limit orbital like that.
