I'm wondering as to how realistic the solar system will be in PA. Will the planets have orbits around a star? Will the planets orbit at different speeds? How far apart will the planets be from one another? (Because there needs to be room for orbits of satellites, and orbits of moons etc) Will the planets rotate? (giving a day/night cycle?) Will Icy planets (if there are icy planets) be farther away from the star than barren Mars type planets? Will some planets be uninhabitable at first without the proper tech? (Such as hot planets that are too close to the star like Mercury, or acidic planets like Venus)
I hope so! And.. Also, there's another thread on the topic, though it started off primarily on solar power. And here's another one, primarily on wind (but I kinda directed the post towards planets as well)
As much as I want to have orbiting planets, there's a balance problem if you want to [semi] accurately do launches. Basically, depending on where you are, it'll cost lots of fuel to launch in on direction, but half-of-a-poofteenth in the other. It means that some people will have massive advantages colonising other planets/moons/etc.
I don't see why that's an issue. Whether the system exists or not you'll have the same balance issues, especially with the procedurally generated world. I really don't see how this system worsens the situation. However it might be unnecessary complication when you want to just go and colonise other planets, as it'll probably often be hard to predict costs.
Why would people have an advantage? Planets rotate, and moons orbit. The moon won't stay in one place. This would mean that you would have to time your launch and plan ahead. An easy way of doing this would be to have a mechanic where you tell your launchpad that you want to colonize this planet/moon/asteroid, and a countdown would start where the rocket would wait for the moon to come into position, and then launch automatically. This would also mean that other players could strike at your launch pad before liftoff to keep you grounded.
I could slingshot my invading army by way of gravity from other planets if I choose so carefully, or I could leverage my own planet's rotation to do the same. NASA does this currently. If your planet is spinning the wrong way, you have to overcome that rotation too! Or, suppose that there's a large asteroid that floats past my planet, then your planet, then orbits all the way around the star for about an hour (an hour isn't realistic, but I chose it to be sensible for gameplay). I can scoot my army to the asteroid, let it float straight to you, then hop off the asteroid and pummel into you. If you want to invade back, you need to jump onto the asteroid, then wait an hour. Now suppose that instead of one asteroid, there's an ENTIRE BELT OF THEM. And they all orbit the same way. I can send wave after wave at you, with little concern about you fighting back.
Yeah, I don't expect (nor do I think) that they will be simulating star systems to that extent... I think it'd be sufficient enough to just have planetary rotation and general classes of planets. If they want to throw in gravity, I'd be OK with that too, but that would only factor into escape velocities etc... and it'd be simple to ensure fairness in multiplayer games by just ensuring that other players spawned on the same planet or on planets with similar conditions.
To me that's an issue with the map generator which creates an unbalanced map. The argument seems akin to saying "don't have cliffs in the game because they can create an imbalance: one player's base is stuck at the bottom of the cliff while the other's is at the top, creating a clear disadvantage for one player".
This is my point. We don't need to have these complex systems, however, having a basic system with planet orbits, speeds, and rotation for a day/night cycle is a must. They are making a game where the solar system is our playground, it is fair to suggest that it should behave like one. In your post, you assume our planets are orbiting at the same speed. I could hop on the asteroid to attack you, or I could wait till your planet is in range in order to strike. You will spend resources on building your asteroid base, while I will be consolidating my base, leaving your attack fruitless. Honestly, we can go on and on all day, but this is where the strategy aspect of an rts comes in. The model that you speak of is too complex for a game like this. Orbits, speeds of planets, and planetary rotation are the minimum for an immersive solar system. The alternative are planets that float in space never moving, with floating moons and floating asteroids.
What's an orbit that doesn't benefit one player over another? How do you have orbits that are balanced? I can think of but one: where orbital velocities are equal in both directions. Mathematically, there's only one way that can happen... when the orbits are stationary. I make no such assumption. Very, true. But you'd only be attacking the forces I've committed to that asteroid. You certainly could wait... but how long will you be waiting? While you're waiting, I'm still attacking you. Bringing the fight to my one asteroid is certainly a plausible action, but that won't work if there's numerous asteroids. In this hypothetical, my asteroid base wouldn't be a base at all. Given that the asteroid floats by, then is off away into the depths of the rest of the solar system; it makes no sense whatsoever to invest resources into build a base there. That asteroid will return... eventually, but I can't guarantee the game won't have ended by that time. I'm only using orbits, speeds of planets, and rotation. I don't see why you think my model is too complex, when I'm using your model. This is certainly able to be balanced fairly.
Leave it up to the server host and the map generator settings to decide how equal player starts should be. There could be 'symmetric', 'balanced', and 'random' as general settings (symmetric meeting your standards for exactly equal footing), and then allow players to tweak the # of planets and star systems. Otherwise, really, I'd opt for cool orbits at the expense of less cool 'exact equalness'.
This is an option I can get along with. An option to keep the ranked/competitive scene happy, and an option that still lets people be a little crazy from time to time.
Ok let me think... moon orbits are actually unnecessary to create at least partial balance. if a moon is geostationary(or both are not moving) the millicannon shown in the trailer could only work, for one of the players wouldn't be able to shoot at the other side of the world. Unless the moon is geostationary and the planet has a day/night cycle making it facing each side to the moon in time. The slight imbalance is the direction in with the moon would rotate compared to the planet (or the other way around) in the trailer they actually showed something like slingshot orbit mechanics. I suggest for ease though, that during the launch of missiles, landers, transports or asteroids, that the actual location of launch / or impact is left out of the equation, taking the center of the planet instead and automatically let the landing/impact area be where the player targeted. in other words, the planetary rotation would not matter, only the locations and gravitational pull of the astral bodies. While disregarding the local location of launch and impact.
While we've been told not to take the video as gospel, I would imagine that launching units through space by cannon would still follow a gravity based trajectory like the rockets do, making it capable, if possibly taking more time, of hitting almost anywhere. It seems more like a balance issue that would be sorted out in beta at the end of the day though as its major impact is unit balance instead of physics.
