What do you think about the workings of the current orbital units?

Ah, to be frank it could have been clearer then.

Mike

I never intended for the poll to be extrapolated to everyone who has bought the game. It was merely created to get a bearing on what people here want.

Besides, it seems my poll isn't perfect - a lot of people want satellites to orbit but these people all want it to happen in different ways.

You could also cut me some slack and not assume the worst possible interpretation of something I write. At this point, you know me and my posting style fairly well.

Given the circumstances I guess we're all on edge.

Mike

I think it's fair to assume at this point that the community has made its concerns clear. Now perhaps we should give Uber time to work.

Fully agree with you, it's just been put out on alpha it's not ready for mass consumption now I just need to move my files onto my gaming rig to try em out

Some of the feedback (Process related, not content feedback about what you guys think orbital should be) is a little bit frustrating. I'll explain.

You guys want to see systems before they're done, which is the main reason I decided to include the rapid data prototypes of the orbital units in the build. So you guys could talk about it before we were weeks into the code implementation. Certain parts of the code development are already underway, but specific unit behaviors on the orbital layer are still pretty early in their development.

We released these so you guys could see where they're at and have a discussion about them before we've spent a lot of time on that behavior. And combined with a lot of great feedback, there's also a small, loud group who seem angry that we're not being open enough and listening to or asking for the community's input.

You'll pardon me if my reaction to the accusations are a little incredulous. I'm not mad or even upset, I'm just trying to help explain how we actually build things. But I am human, and it is easy to get defensive, and when we get accused of insane crap, yes, I get a bit defensive of this very awesome team.

Don't take this as a slap if you were one of the ones getting a little worked up and accusing us of stuff. We really do understand getting riled up about things that are important to you. I'm simply asking you all to take a step back and focus on how you'd really like to see things implemented, rather than telling us that "the feedback Uber is trying to get from us is useless" (slightly paraphrased but actual quote). We still have a lot of feedback from early in Alpha that we have every intent of revisiting, but when that feedback has little to no impact finishing the basic features we still need to get in, we're not going to stop the whole team to change current systems that are functional, even if they're not perfect. That really is what beta is for. We want feedback and input now, so we can really determine what needs tweaking, what needs polishing, and I'm sure in one or two cases, what needs to be completely re-written, once we're in beta. Orbital unit behavior is one of those rare systems where feedback now might actually help us to tailor our actual code implementation as it's one of the things we're actively developing. So that rather than waiting on beta iteration, we can hopefully make some progress on the first pass implementation.

Does that help a little to understand how we approach development? Just because we're not changing things RIGHT NOW to address feedback doesn't mean we're not paying a lot of attention to it.

So, if I can make a suggestion to those trying to carry on this discussion. Among all the discussions about too much micro I've found it hard to imagine what is too much because I have about zero idea what number of units we are aiming for. I'm not asking for a hard single number (like exactly 25 recon sats total), but things to help give me an idea of what people are intending.

Examples of types of numbers that would help:
1% of total units
10 per planet (or moon or etc...)
1 sat for every 100 air/sea/ground/etc.

My thoughts are currently between the management type system and the MadSci type system. I don't want too have to have to try and match up orbits and I for some things want it to be set up and forget. But others I want a level of control and customization based on my geography/base locations/situation that I'm not sure is possible with a purely management system.

What if we could define and edit orbits as entities, and we could direct units to those orbits. Maybe even throw in a few standard orbits. You could have a few behaviors for units on these orbits as a property of the orbit, rendezvous, spread, and 'precise' (i.e. I want you to be 'here' on this orbit, for GEO mainly). When setting up an orbit you get a band showing coverage of said orbit, and 2 numbers, one being orbit time, the other being how long it takes an orbit to sync with the ground again (it takes 10 minutes or 3 orbits or etc. to get back to the state relative to the launch site when the satellite began its orbit). The thought is you have 100's of non orbital units to orbital units, and the orbital units would be expensive compared to their same tier counterparts (so, like 1.5x-5x for the sake of wildly making up numbers) and ASAT weapons would be of similar cost.

T1 orbital would have no weapons capable of attacking down, but maybe have a suicide sat, and non orbital ASAT units would be T2 (i.e very specialized AA units). T2 orbital is where the ground attack units come in. Generally like MadSci's suggested unit list, I think, but I can't remember any unit list proposals right now and I feel lazy.

I think then the issue is that you gave us the wrong data. What we go tin the last patch isn't really worth all that much as it's isn't representative. As a seed for meaningful discussion it's only worth is to draw out what people were hoping for but you could have gotten the same thing by just asking.

I think that instead a few paragraphs(or more, more is good too) summarizing what you guys see as the end goal is for Orbital would have gotten much more mileage.

If you guys aren't confident enough yet to share that vision/goal publicly yet that's fine, but it help if you at least let us know that's the case and if you can why it's the case.

I hope this acts as a lesson for future Information Sharing, elements like Gas Giants, and to a degree Inter-planetary stuff are things that we know very very little about so far with little Dev interaction aside from some very 'high concept' type stuff like Gas Giants having HE3 as a resource or that there will be certain transportation options. And that was great info to have back then, but we're in a stage where the community has covered those topics in depth and matured to the stage that we want more details, something we can really sink our teeth into to revitalize these topics. We want more than just the 'what', we also want the 'why' and 'how' so we can form that complete picture and get a better grasp of it all.

I Don't think anyone wants information about Gas Giants to cause a repeat of this, because lets be honest, no one is happy about this situation, both sides are just unhappy about different things.

Mike

You are coming across as condescending and self entitled.

The community are putting them in a no-win situation. They don't release stuff, they get hounded. They release things, they get hounded.

How many more times do they need to say the same thing though? They've said this plenty, and it keeps getting ignored. People seem to like extrapolating from current, temporary, first pass implementations and saying "This is how it will be", utterly failing to realise that in most cases, the units are just placeholders to test the underlying mechanics, and we wont see all the real meaty changes with regards to units AFTER the alpha. Uber could put a warning sign in 100pt red blinking font above each patch notes and people will still do this.

The problem is most people don't know what game development is actually like. They are getting a glimpse into a game very early that is more together than a lot of games are this stage even (props to Uber for their hard work). Then you get different people with different opinions. Some people would rather wait for finished content and say such, then other people ask for new features in patches even if they aren't done. Right now we need to stop aggregating all these different opinions of individuals and referring to them as "the community".

As for people not understanding Jon Mavor I don't get that. He is constantly on the ball with warning this is early early and everything is subject to change. And that last line results in a few passionate people raging against changes that make the game less of what they envisioned as opposed to what Uber actually has envisioned. The feedback is good, but people need to learn how to word their thoughts into constructive criticism instead of just grabbing the pitchforks and torches.

In my humble opinion, if at all possible they'd be best with a bit of both ^^;

To be more precise I'd say that it might be better to have some orbital units that can be locked into an orbit or have the option to be launched into space. By default it'd make sense to me for them to hang in orbit until sent out with a particular order. Though simulating an orbit for every planet could get pretty tough on reflection. That said an orbiting satellite seems more natural and just looks a little cooler than one that is anchored to the spot.

I'd say for the sake of variety some things would make sense to float out at a distance like some kind of listening post or spy station. I can imagine there being a need for some kind of platform to launch a commander out of a solar system to be outside a planet's orbit. But then there's the issue of how to destroy something if it is that far away and not close to anything big like a planet or asteroid belt.

It's only an opinion, uninformed by the facts and realities of programming, time and budgeting. Though personally I'd be happy with them just being in the game and seeing where they go from there, can't wait to try them and I'm very glad they are on their way sooner or later.

I'd say whatever works best with all the other elements though, like the Alpha my opinion will probably change as developers teak and change the game but I'd say I am pretty confident that the finished game will be well worth the wait and costs! =3

And as a last note I'd say there's no real reason to be unhappy with Uber on this, it shows respect that they share details this early on. I'm just grateful they're making this game and giving me and my friends a chance to watch and have a say in how it may grow and evolve.

I'm not unhappy with them, I couldn't be. These guys are making a game for ME, so far. It's exactly my kind of game, and can only get to be "more" up my alley as time goes on. In fact I am very happy that they are showing us this stuff early on so we can tell them, from a Player's perspective, what will and will not work.

This is good, as they don't end up with things like C&C4 and SupCom2 where all the game mechanics changed because the developers/publishers thought "Hey, that'd be a good idea, people will probably like that I hope." And then they get a black mark on their name and end up falling back down to the bottom of the industry and having to rely on shitty publishers that are more or less slave drivers for developers. I won't say what company I am referencing, but it isn't EA and it is headed by a man we all know and love.

Now that my rant is over, Orbital is the only thing I am unhappy with in this update. I love metal planets, Lava planets need some more work, but I can see them shaping up to be awesome. The update to Virtual Texturing makes my Graphics Card happy in his pants (do GFX Cards have pants?), as he no longer needs to use all his cores, memory and cooling mechanisms to run this game (and fail miserably in doing so). I really cannot wait until Beta when the game goes from becoming an engine with a game tacked on to a full-blown game, with asteroids smashing into stuff and rockets raining down from the heavens.

I will play nothing else. After the retail release, I don't think anything could live up to PA but a sequel. And even then it would be nearly impossible to actually build on the glorious construct that PA is, this game contains all of the most state-of-the-art technologies and, historically, the best gameplay model there is as far as I am concerned.

For all of gaming kind this game shall be PERFECT, the fanbase is just intent on making sure it is their kind of perfect.

I think this is more os a recent attitude, the several months after the kickstarter saw a lot comments and discussion, but it was a lot of the 'high concept' type stuff it was vague in any number of regards or for a variety of reasons but to be fair that kind of stuff is also easy to do, 'low risk' in a way. Eventually that kind of feedback can't sustain the community forever, especially as we see how the game is making leaps forward in Live Streams and eventually the Alpha itself. I think Uber had a really hard time figuring out how to move on from that content and with good reason.

PA and Uber is really one of the 'trail blazers' for this level of sharing and community involvement, there will be bumpy times but we can't sit back and just give them a free pass for everything. They need to reach out to us in the same way we've reached out to them. Make no mistake, Uber has in some areas gone above and beyond(this is the early post-KS stage of PA) but honestly I think they might have burned themselves out a bit and that they aren't quite matching up to those earlier days. Orbitals, Gas Giants, Interplanetary are all things that weren't as fleshed out in back then and we've seeing the effects of that now.

But that's just it, "the units are just placeholders to test the underlying mechanics" the problem in this case is not so much the Orbital units we were shown, but the Mechanics that drives them. Yes it's worrying to see that so far that Orbital is viewed as a third tier but that's only one part of it all. Garat says we shouldn't read into what we got in the patch, but on the other hand Neutrino is saying we won't get orbiting orbital units. We don't know up from down, according to Neutrino what he have in the patch could be accurate, but Garat says it isn't but we they won't orbit and they won't do what they do in 52512, what WILL they do?

Mike

Agreed Mike. The mixed messages coming from two developers is not conducive for we, the community, having a good basis of knowledge to use as a jumping off point for suggestions.

And Garat, I don't feel like I am mistaken when I say the communication levels that the community receives from Uber, are inadequate. Incredulous you may well be, and defensive of your team you may become, but the fact of the matter is; there are requests for clarification that go unanswered and the overall sense of direction that the community is made aware of, by Uber could be clearer. I think the feedback you have already gathered on the 52512 update is proof of that.

I do apologise for getting frustrated, however I do feel that several concerns I have raised have not been addressed.

Unless I have totally forgotten one of my posts, all I've said about the patch, and the current orbital units, is that they were prototypes using existing systems to see how they would impact gameplay. I'm not entirely sure where the confusion is coming from.

Nothing I've said has contradicted Jon, I have simply provided the information I have at hand. I simply said "there's no actual code support yet for this", take it as you will, provide feedback.

So far, my takeaway is "don't include unfinished features unless I have time to write a 10 page post describing every possible implementation and design thought behind it".

See what I did there? Took the worst possible interpretation of your feedback so far.

Sigh.

What did you expect Garat?
Given Uber's reluctance to comment on the why's and how's of the design behind PA, we must take things presented to us at face value.

But you're well aware that humans don't work like you want them to. We extrapolate, we theorise, we look for patterns. Asking us not to look too much into the current design is like telling the tide not to rise and ebb.

So what we have seen is Jon saying
"There will not be orbiting orbitals. It's not in sync with the design." And now you saying
"None of the systems are in yet, this isn't final."
So which is it?
Do we have the chance of orbiting orbital units or not?

What parts of the code are already underway? What parts are still open to change? Are 'Orbiting Orbitals' 100% completely out as Neutrino implies or can we change your minds? Do our recommendations and desires for a more fleshed out Orbital design fall upon open minds or deaf ears?

Upset was probably the wrong word, I do agree it is important to point out what to the player will and will not work. Also I too am glad this game doesn't have to play it safe to appeal to an audience that wouldn't appreciate it as some developers have to on the behalf of publishers for the sake of profits.

I guess all I really am appealing for is calm and civil debate with some patience, mutual respect and so on. Not that it really needs to be iterated on reflection, though I'd be the first to admit when there's something I am passionate about it can often be difficult to be like that. x3;

I like the way the satellites work at the moment however i don't want to see them be as useless as the experimental satellite from FA.. took to long to maneuver and packed to little of a punch... I do agree with other backers in that satellites should primarily be a support unit to the ground layer.