The Vanguard Newsletter - Issue 1

That isn't really the point, it's not about doing it earlier or later, just that the item's priority was less than other items, once the "more important" items are cleared off the list(or get re-prioritized) Scale will rise up the list and it will get tackled. I'm sure we can agree that while scale is a big issue to some, being able to smash planets is a big deal to everybody. If Neutrino says it's on the list of things to look at, we can't really do anything more except wait until it comes up.

It's really hard to say, just because we toss a Question at Uber doesn't mean we'll get anything out of them after all. We grab questions based on what the community is talking about(posting in threads is really the best way to be heard) and also just based on what is going on from Uber's end as well so right up until we get talking it's hard to know exactly what we'll ask and even then we don't know what questions will get answers.

Mike

Just a question about the newsletter but first,

Thanks vanguards for making this newsletter, it was really well drafted and written.

Question: Can we reignite(rediscuss) these topics of orbital/commander abilities/etc. or is it better to just have these newsletters as information centers of what uber is doing for these hot topics?

Well it's really up to the community, we're not here to dictate what gets talked about it. For me, I'm not sure the new information really warrants any re-ignition, I mean, I've been saying Orbital should be cheaper since Orbital was introduced basically and we don't have anything new really to base more discussion off of yet. What it might to is focus discussion more on what could happen with cheaper Orbital stuff instead of trying to discuss the merits of cheaper vs more expensive Orbital but otherwise it doesn't really change that much.

Mike

Newsletter format comment moved to other thread...

Moved.

Since player commentary is being actively solicited, I'd like to take this opportunity to request that the Vanguards, in their infinite wisdom, consider whether or not community interest in the future function of metal planets is sufficient to warrant relating those interests to the devs. I don't know what you guys would deem the prevailing sentiments to be, but I find the concept really intriguing, and think it would be a shame to have metal planet functionality ultimately be something as uninspiring as planetary defenses or an eco boost. There have been some pretty creative suggestions (though personally, I'm a fan of the good old-fashioned Giant Space Laser TM), and I think they offer an opportunity, with a little thought and balancing, to add some really unique flavor and mechanics to larger-system games in particular.

Submitted for your approval. Hope this wasn't off-topic, and thanks for all the work you cats are doing. This newsletter is excellent proof of concept for your group, I think.

Cheers,
BL

Oh, it is not about submitting an idea for approval to us. We just take very active discussions and present them to the devs.

So we have no right to judge your idea. What we do, is collect a list of questions which has been posted about a hundred times.

As far as that goes, there are three (?) active threads about metal planet function, and I recall a stream quote saying they are satisfied with metal planets so the next step is creating their role. This is up to speculation, recently on the forums a post stated that since it is all just thoughts at the moment anyhow so it is highly up for discussion to get it there. Go find the thread if you like, I think it's here.

Point is, it isn't about our choosing, it is about how many pages and threads the topic has (hopefully not duplicate threads). As far as metal planets, they have many new pages of discussion in the forum, that absolutely qualifies it regardless of our approval, that approves it and not us.

Funny, this is practically exactly what I thought differences would be from the very start.

Don't forget to add Uber Shuriken And Lighting.

Mike[/quote]
Since player commentary is being actively solicited, I'd like to take this opportunity to request that the Vanguards, in their infinite wisdom, consider whether or not community interest in the future function of metal planets is sufficient to warrant relating those interests to the devs. I don't know what you guys would deem the prevailing sentiments to be, but I find the concept really intriguing, and think it would be a shame to have metal planet functionality ultimately be something as uninspiring as planetary defenses or an eco boost. There have been some pretty creative suggestions (though personally, I'm a fan of the good old-fashioned Giant Space Laser TM), and I think they offer an opportunity, with a little thought and balancing, to add some really unique flavor and mechanics to larger-system games in particular.

Submitted for your approval. Hope this wasn't off-topic, and thanks for all the work you cats are doing. This newsletter is excellent proof of concept for your group, I think.

Cheers,
BL[/quote]

Sentences like the one that contains, "infinite wisdom," make me worry that people think Uber employees don't want to engage with the community anymore. That is not the case, we just know we can't keep up with it all our awesome community has to offer, and the Vanguards provide an additional mechanism to make sure we don't miss as much as we would otherwise. It is meant to supplement rather than substitute for community engagement.

You have proven developer presence in the forums all the time, for instance just now with your volunteered informative post for AreaVSLine Commands.

And he is right. I like to think us and myself specifically "wise", but no human bears "infinite wisdom", and these devs prove themselves plenty wise as well, such as above.

Discussion about ideas and features are important to probably hundreds of backers who get on this forum to discuss their concept and side with existing ones. If incredibly bulky discussion happens over a topic, such as 10-30 pages over the course of a week-month, then we feel it just best to make sure the topics are gathered and presented. A discussion would mean less if not everyone was in on it.

Oh, woah, woah, woah, sorry! Subtle irony is too subtle. I know we don't "submit" ideas to you guys - I believe I grasp the concept well, and I'm sorry if my comments mislead anyone into thinking that's what your group does or how it functions. I certainly don't want to invite a WTF Are VanGaUrds?! 2.0 discussion. What's more, as I said, I think this first newsletter is an excellent demonstration of just what it is that you guys are supposed to do - sift through the most relevant community interests and concerns, relay them to the devs in an organized fashion, and report back to us info that they might otherwise not have time to detail at length. I totally get it; the above is just how I write when I'm feeling a little cheeky. Apologies for the confusion!

Also, I been all up in that metal planet thread - in fact, I have a too-long post in there myself about balancing metal planets in a such a way as to enable them to be a viable super-weapon. But anyway. You guys are on it.

As I said above, absolutely not! I was simply waxing irreverent for a moment - obviously, no one (Buddha, maybe? ) has infinite wisdom, let alone a Vanguard on a gaming forum or even... an Uber dev! There, I said it. No, I totally get the function of the Vanguard - they're to serve as a more efficient communications pipeline, freeing the devs to spend less time responding to frivolous forum issues and getting the community the more frequent, detailed info that it craves. ...aaaaaand now I feel bad, since I seem to have been counter-productive to that goal, albeit in a small way. The cruel irony!

It ceased to be relevant, but while there was more of a hubub-bub surrounding the concept of a "Vanguard," I was going to mention that it seemed to me that one of the first problems was that the name doesn't really reflect well the purpose of the group - Vanguard sounds very authoritarian, imbued with a certain power, significance, leading the charge in to battle, etc etc. While less epic, I always thought something like The Couriers would have been more appropriate. Sigh. And now back to you, Vanguard.

The nuking in transite is indeed a very sensitive issue. But it has happened to me several times. There are also times that a commander gets stuck in a circle around the sun or even inside of the sun. Nuking in transite or a "Orbital transport snipe" should be very expensive, so it isn't used to shoot down every thing in transit, but definitely possible. This is my opinion, I see no other way to prevent infinite commander in transit.

About your topic, like my reply in it, it is impossible to have no combat. You cannot have recource gathering in orbit and no units with the ability to destroy it (specially gas giants).

A few questions to Uber about Asteroids.
-In the system creator a planet type "Asteroid" (incl. number of halleys)
-Will the sizes and number of halleys change? Bigger asteroids more halleys starting at 1 till 25ish.
-Asteroid Damage. Bigger asteroids more damage?
-Asteroids and planet destruction. Small planet, bigg asteroid, should this should destroy the planet?
-Counters? Nukes to reduce damage?
-Will asteroids orbit the sun,planets and moons. Or will there be asteroid belts? (Asteroid belt only needs to be grafics like the sun, with only the useful asteroids being real.)
-Will there be rings like Saturn around planets? Because it looks nice (technically these are asteroids).

Gas giants are a special case because there is no surface area. No reason we cannot have specific gas giant units and structures. In the Gas giant scenario there would only be one combat/resource gathering layer. The orbital layer would still come into play as a second tactical layer to the gas giant combat layer.

It is my understanding that a gas giant would be mostly an orbital feature, and not like other planets. If there is a "gas giant layer" then it would probably have to be a floating platform type map, as in TA's Cluster Freak or Ooooweeee type maps.

However gas giants could easily be made to be interesting because they tend to have lots of moons. In fact, some moons of large gas giants could even be comparable in size to a terran-type planet.

That's what they've been saying.

It'd just be stuff built by orbital fabricators and fought over by orbital fighters.

Uber did say they'd be huge resource assets, so very worth fighting over.

yes same question. I always read asteroids but ingame i never see one only moons. I Like to have some realy small one where i have to build smaller halleys on. To have only moons (smal-big doesn't matter round shape and same design) arround a planet sounds bad. I Like the idea from Asteroid belts which you can place somewhere in the system and change the size of movable asteroids. There should be also some real tiny one where you can not land on. Even like in the trailer ;D

We're hoping this is just symptomatic of the game still being in development. Neutrino has talked about things like asteroid belts before so I am hoping we'll see some this expanded upon as development carries on.

Mike

I hope it will come in 2k14 ;D

would be awesome more awesome as the game is already

In the kick starter trailer I believe you can see an asteroid belt. Also, in the ks they use an asteroid not moon to blow up the planet.