3D Terrain a gimmick?

OK, I realize this is probably anathema here, but, the terrain. I'm sorry, I think that it just doesn't work. Every time I play PA I'd much rather be playing on a regular boring flat map. For example, you can't see ****. The planet gets in the way. No full-map view like in SupCom. Another simple example is that because you can't see the full map, you can't zoom in on an arbitrary section of it on demand, you have to laboriously scroll around it, which is a big step back.

I'm sorry guys, the spherical terrain sounds good, but really, I'd much rather have a flat map back. It's just a lot easier to actually play on.

It's a pretty good challenge in my eyes to play on it and keep track of stuff. I like it. Add a better UI (especially some kind of orientation helper) and it will be good imho.

Map navigation definitely needs work. Dragging the sphere around is a carpal tunnel nightmare, on top of taking an absurd amount of time.

How have the trials with mini maps gone?

I think a distorted world mini map would do some good. Or a 6 part view of the planet (top, bottom, left, right, front, back).

Currently my feeling is that a 3D mini map with a transparent sphere might help.
And really important: both that mini map and the actual planet need pole markers.
Especially on moons it is pretty hard to find the orientation back once it has been lost. When playing on the poles N doesnt help at all.

When selecting my starting zone I usually try to avoid the poles for that very reason.

I like the 3D terrain, love the real time shadows. Gimmick? No way! :geek:

Definitely NOT a gimmick imho.

Having a map in a sphere means that you can be attacked from any direction!

Pole lock is alright, if you find you hit "n" a lot. Still haven't decided which I like better. It can be a little weird feeling keeping an eye on the enemy if the path to the enemy is shortest over the poles. Almost like you're taking the long way or something.

Honestly though, I'd rather they add in visual poles before changing anything more with map panning.

I don't really see the point of a minimap in this instance as you just scroll away currently. As it was meant to become multiple viewings thats different I've never played anything like that so I can't know how it'll work when finished / added in

I imagine Neutrino has lots of ideas they want to execute for planet navigation and such, might be worth holding out a bit more to see how it fully develops.

Mike

the actual 3D terrain was the main reason for me to back this game in the first place. I still hadn't gotten over the Spore disappointment , I have very good hopes PA will deliver the things I hoped to get from that game (The RTS part), especially when I watch the alpha streams.

I do have one concern though: The terrain is still, I believe flat as a billiard ball, except for the CSG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructi ... d_geometry)

Currently the game looks pretty good already, but I think it would look so much better with the addition of hills (rather than only cliffs). The bits of ocean in the planet are technically valleys, so the engine should be capable of it . I just hope it fits with the angled shape of most of the units/objects.

And apart from that, ambient occlusion (or something to that extent) when the post process pipeline gets done. To improve the contrast between the units/buildings to the terrain.Heck, even simple blob-shadows would probably be able to fix that (in addition to the shadows already present)

I have the same concerns and had a look at an older livestream where they show the planet generation. There is actually a height variation slider which does this in the stream so I assume it will be possible.

For the minimap, it should really be implemented like the spore minimap. It uses the Robinson Projection, which works pretty well and makes a lot of sense from a strategic standpoint, once you adjust to the warping. The minimap would, of course, display the current planet in question.

A nice feature would be to have unit paths for select units displayed on the minimap. That way, you can see how they're getting to their destination, and ensure they're going to flank the enemy the way you want them to.

If the battles were restricted to just a single planet I would agree deadmg.
I think the spherical layout will start to make a lot more sense once we have multi-planet battles and asteroids hurtling into things.

I would also like to see the poles better marked, or perhaps the ability to overlay latitude and longitude lines.

I suggest a hotkey or two:

hotkey 1: rotate planet 180°
hotkey 2: rotate planet 90°

That way you can easily switch sides.

degree rotate hotkeys are actually a great idea

Multiple viewports.

As in, the intent is to allow users to create as many windows as they like, each with it's own (changeable) viewpoint, which can be used as minimaps or shorcuts (e.g. focus one on your opponents main base so you can select units on your main view, and click the attack order on the viewport). People running multi-monitor setups will be able to segregate "map" views and "in-use" views however they like, across any of the monitors. Imagine multi-monitor SupCom, but with ad-hoc zooming and scrolling available on all attached devices, and the ability to have more than one (resizeable) view on each device.

That has yet to be implemented though, and I suspect won't be until we get much closer to beta and Uber are happy the rest of the basics are working. We're stuck with one purely because it removes the viewport issues from the bug stream, leaving the devs to concentrate on a subset of feature issues at any one time.

Regarding flat terrain, if you look at the planets zoomed out, you'll see that they are not perfect spheres. Uber are going for a minimalist approach to terrain by generating features (mountains, mesas, ravines), as seperate objects rather than as part of the base heightmap. It is less realistic, but also less overhead than allowing the engine to create a much larger height discrepancy over much smaller distances; effectively the differences are currently highly smoothed over large areas, with features placed to accentuate the terrain height.

It would be possible to try and make it more realistic (with simulated plate boundaries making mountains and ridges etc.) however I suspect the framerate on "average" hardware would die. 3 years from now when everyone has 12+ cores and half a terabyte of RAM it'll work fine, but you need to optimise for your current hardware base, then add optional complexity afterwards for those running bleeding edge gear.

I don't currently have the scratch to spring for dual Titans or HD7990s so I can enjoy better than single digit framerates, so I'd rather like the engine to allow for simplicity where possible, even if it does make the planets feel a little flat in the process

I think people will just get used to it after a while.

The pole lock option is a good idea, but personnaly, as long as rotation axis don't get tilted randomly I can follow the game fine.

Plus it's not a gimmick since an interplanetary warfare with FLAT planets DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

However, I'm more concerned about the lack of height map and the artillery range being way to long right now. What's the point of having tactical nukes if artillery can go all over the planet, above mountains, and even in orbit ?
I think gravity should be higher on planets, and there should be LOS limiting hills and valleys.

This way, the world be less flat, while staying spherical ;-)

Currently I found it an annoying gimmick that bring more problems than it solve.

I will see what Uber will propose to solve the issues in the future, but currently I'm not convinced at all. (hey, I can only judge what can I see).

If it stay in the current state, I believe than when multiple planets will be in, it will add an extra-layer of annoyance in the overall visibility of the game that will make me forget the 3d sphere "problem".
Let me explain : It currently feel like playing a hide & seek game (where you sometimes search for yourself), I can't see that going better with multiple planets.

IMHO, that's something they HAVE TO deal with before even thinking of implementing multiple planets or even the moon.
I'm afraid they are maybe going too far with that already without fixing basic problems.

Sorry for only seeing the "worst case scenario", but so far, nothing was told or done or showed, and I find it pretty frightening as it's a core component of the game. (it's even the only thing that make it really unique so far and the whole game is based on that).

I feel that's something you should think while in the design process (t least have some good ideas to deal with it, and probably a proof of concept), not at the alpha stage.

Oh god no, I really don't feel like playing "Parking surveillance - The RTS".
Also, I want to against fight giant robots, not fight with camera controls.

:ugeek:

Having a corner XYZ axis tracker and a manipulable spherical minimap in the corners might help, and I find that scrolling using the 'border push' function seems to work better than dragging the sphere.

Of course, they would be optional, and the minimap doesn't need to be very detailed.