Orbital and planetary environments and their respective effect on gameplay

I guess you could say there are no rivers in earth type planets right now. Although you could also say that those water paths between islands are rivers and the long cracks in more desert type planets that get filled partly with water are rivers. so I guess what you are trying to say is there are no dedicated river types.

elaborate constructively

I think what kayonsmit101 means is, It looks like we are running into exactly what I originally thought. This is all just becoming too much to keep track of and every thing is becoming just another worry or extra the game doesnt need. This is a game about the meta, not micro, and all these ideas are mod worthy for sure, but for it to be a true feature, there needs to be follow through with concepts from idea to idea. you need to make concepts that are similar in form so the idea of breaking ice on an ice planet is similar to another idea on another planet to the point that no new concept must be learned by the player. Everyone here is posting narrow ideas on the scientific aspects of a snow planet or lava planet, because the scale is so large and there is so much room for possibilities that it will be hard to find a solid direction. And even if we find something that works, can we really say PA needs it? I would rather look for more game modes that alter the game at the highest level creating whole new things to master like capture the flag or hold the line than worry about how to make something that is already working and not broken more complex.

If this was a rts game about survival on a planet while terraforming it to your needs, I would totally see these ideas be implemented.

I am not going to argue this and why I may think another way etc etc etc. I am just going to drop to the core of the issue as a whole.

Solar systems and planets are only meant to be a back drop for your epic battles, nothing more.
vs
Solar systems and planet environments are meant to influence how you have your battles, grow your base and should be a big influence in your strategic decisions throughout the game.

I believe the latter.

If we were to keep it as it is now, lava planets would be no different than desert planets and moons. They would all be just a sphere with art and obstacles that units would have to go around. They would have no strategic value thus making the choice of lava vs desert planet bare no meaning at all. I am looking for ideas that would make planets of different types have different strategic values. That is all.

I wholeheartedly support your sentiment! It is about time maps evolve to something more than a canvas that is nice to look at.

Question, why is this bad? in any other rts game, fps, ect, An environment dictates 4 major things, ambush locations/hiding spots, defend-able positions, transitional areas, and strategic objectives, all of which are only effected through the changing of a layout in a level. Most rts games only use environments as scenery, and occasionally allow for taking cover, garrisoning buildings, and hiding in forests as a tactical options because they focus on tactical capabilities. PA isnt about tactics, its about strategy and production efficiency. Most of the tactics are either streamlined or in future updates, done for you via sub-commanders and formations. I'm all for adding more to enrich a game, but not when its breaking the core gameplay already laid down. I hate to say it, but all we are doing now is adding things we would like to see an rts do (believe me, there are lot of rts mechanics i want to see) but PA isnt the right canvas for this particular idea.

PA is not any other RTS game and should never be any other RTS game.
PA is the perfect canvas for these types of ideas. For practically the first time in the RTS genre we no longer just have one type of map in a single game, we have many. We no longer have just 2 layers to play on (referring to land + air) we have 3 or actually 4 if you count travailing between planets and maybe more coming. Because we have 4 to 5 "maps" or planets in a normal game there is no reason not to have advantages and disadvantages between these "maps", in fact it would be rather shortsighted not to. In order to give orbital expansion strategic objectivity we need differentiation between planet types as well as the orbital environment its self.

If PA is to change the RTS genre like they are striving to do and already doing, then this is the perfect time to include these type of mechanics. Its time for the map to not just make the game look intriguing, it is time for it to become part of the game.

This is where I find naivety in your statement. PA is not the end all to RTS gameing as you seem to suggest. It is just another idea, dime a dozen, and uber developers are not gods, just damn good developers and good at adapting old ideas while adding something of their own. If you want to look at PA itself, most mechanics in the game are straight from supreme commander and total annihilation (PA is a nod to the games predecessors). The differences are mainly galactic warfare, a few game mode options and some nice new features like interplanetary combat. There was no reason why some other company couldn't have developed it 2 years ago, other than the fact RTS games are becoming rare to develop because publishers see it as risky. The reason this game is doing so well is because:

1. Uber realized they could use kickstarter to circumvent publishers.
2. Uber employees are ex rts developers who really wanted to make another RTS
3. Uber is really good at adapting ideas and making it their own (even monday night combat is very much like team fortress 2)

Don't get me wrong, Uber is very good at what they do, and out of all the developers, they made PA, not gas powered games, not relic, but uber, and I will be surprised if not dumbfounded, if more rts developers will not follow their example. Furthermore I'm glad it was them because they know how to adapt previous rts games to make this work.

What you are asking uber to do, is make an end all perfect rts game, which is a fools errand for any genre. It does not exist and should not exist.

If you want to argue reasons for choosing one planet over another, i can only give you the minor reasons already present in the game. If you want a reason at to jump plants at all, well lets see, we have asteroids, secret unhindered expansion, the promise of not losing to defend against a lost battle, secret production of units, ect. And if you think these are not good enough, we still don't know what the upcoming galactic war mode will change to the underlying game. And if that still isn't enough reason to jump planets, then its a balance issue because the incentive is there, it just needs to be more desirable or easier to perform.

Wow. You clearly don't understand what I am talking about do you? Or you just look over it to try and get to your point. I never once alluded to it being a "end all" if anything I said it was a beginning to something new, which it is. And yes it takes a lot from other successful games of which most of the developers worked on which is another thing that makes it so good. No it is not just another idea, it is trying go for something bigger and to keep the "big" RTS genre alive because most are focusing on a more zoomed in perspective. (quote from kickstarter)

If anything I do not want them to make a "perfect" RTS game because through trial and error is how new things and ideas are created (the whole point behind their current business model and beta in of its self. Through trial and error with the consumers you can make a end product or service that most of them will enjoy). I just want a company to have the guts to try something new of which Uber seems to have. I am getting board of the same game in a different box over and over and over and over because companies want to play it safe. Yes all games have slightly different features but hopefully you understand what I am saying.

However you just seem to want things not to change, which I guess is ok and is your personal opinion.

last paragraph alludes to this:

Solar systems and planets are only meant to be a back drop for your epic battles, nothing more.
vs
Solar systems and planet environments are meant to influence how you have your battles, grow your base and should be a big influence in your strategic decisions throughout the game.

You know where I stand and unless you changed I know where you stand so lets end this.

The whole point of this thread is to provoke plausible ideas for Orbital and planetary environments and their respective effect on gameplay. Basically it is supposed to be a cooking pot for ideas, not slamming the thing altogether. Yes people like you are going to disagree, and that's fine, state why and be done with it. Real post should state the idea, others will debate back and forth till they hopefully come to an agreement or a closing of sorts. I will try to not have a hand in the matter from now on I will make suggestions and some neutral comments, and update the starting post, that is it.

"PA is not any other RTS game and should never be any other RTS game.
PA is the perfect canvas for these types of ideas. For practically the first time in the RTS genre we no longer just have one type of map in a single game, we have many. We no longer have just 2 layers to play on (referring to land + air) we have 3 or actually 4 if you count travailing between planets and maybe more coming. Because we have 4 to 5 "maps" or planets in a normal game there is no reason not to have advantages and disadvantages between these "maps", in fact it would be rather shortsighted not to. In order to give orbital expansion strategic objectivity we need differentiation between planet types as well as the orbital environment its self."

This does not allude to a grandiose RTS? Granted I will give you that perhaps "end all RTS" was a bit much but Im pretty sure i didn't skip your point as I mentioned Uber Isn't trying new ideas, because they are better at adapting old ideas than making new ones. Yes new ideas are good, but when they fail (and they do believe me) who picks up the pieces? Besides, there is plenty more to come (galactic war anyone?) without the need for these advanced and complicated ideas making this thread premature.

As for your statement in which i don't want things to change, i would remind you i actually caved and started going with the suggestions like the breaking ice idea. I started critiquing ideas and added a bit of my own, reversing my stance only when the flood of ideas started to become too much. I've also posted various ideas and suggestions on other threads about things i want changed so im pretty sure this argument is invalid.

Lastly, yes this conversation is becoming toxic, so i will end it as well. Word of advice, when presenting an idea that comes under criticism, don't defend it. if it cant defend itself, it isn't worth defending because arguments like this break out as a result and everything becomes screwed. Besides, by posting, you basically are opening yourself to criticism, take it or leave it.

i took time to read everything, and overall, here's what i think :

i agree with antiglow, but not on everything. i want the planet to influence the gameplay, not just being spherical battlefields with useless pretty things on it.

because for now, that's what it is, there is only 2 things blocking your path : seas and mountains+chasms. everything else is only decorative, trees, jungle, rocks, snow, etc... all of those have no impact on gameplay, but i want this to change. i'm not fond of periodical storms or stuff like that, but i believe we can make those ideas work nevertheless.

i see you always speak about "ice planets", "desert planets", "jungle planets" and so on, but most planets are not made of one single biome, most planet have ice caps, deserts and jungles, and the whole point of giving different properties to each biome is to have people choose. some biome may give a defense bonus, some may provide natural radar jamming, some may not be accessible to one kind of units, and so on.

this is the kind of things that would make biomes more than just pretty textures on the planet. building your base in the middle of a jungle shouldn't be tactically equivalent as building it in a grassland.

what i'm proposing next is merely a possibility, we can add or remove stuff from it, but i don't think adding more stuff would be a good idea. basically i put what makes sense to me, no more, no less.

first, planets with only one biome, actually this part is the most important for me.

moons : no air and no sea, quite plain, but that's what moons are.
lava planets : no sea, i like the idea that heat fragilizes armors (+% damage depending on temperature), maybe volcanoes ?
gaz giants : only orbital and air ?
metal planets : no air, maybe seas or "lakes of coolant", maybe super weapons ?

and then multi-biome planets :

forest biome : bots not affected, tanks move at reduced speed,vision in and out reduced, aircraft have no visual on what's under the trees. forest absorbs some damage, can be burned to allow airborne vision, but regrows.

jungle biome : essentially the same as forest plus : bots slowed down, tanks cannot enter it, radar also decreased. that would help differentiating the roles between tanks and bots too.

snow/ice biome : biome can be under a snowstorm decided during planet generation and never changes or stops. the snowstorm should at least reduce radar range and sight, plus possibly slow down units, or mess with aircrafts, or whatever.

desert biome : about the same as snow biome, but with sand. probably should damage aircrafts. i suppose it would appear on warmer planets.

water biome : i don't really see what to put, if it's a sea, i'd say nothing, but if the planet's mainly water, the only thing you need is a bunch of islands here and there.
i think cliffs would look weird, ships are too large relative to the size of environment, so it wouldn't work. and whirlpools makes no sense, your ships' AI would just consider it as impassable area, so it would be just a bad solution compared to putting an island.
maybe marine currents could be nice, you could attack and/or retreat fast if you have marines currents appropriately placed and use them in a smart way.

volcanoes : not really a biome, but essentially a volcano and its surrounding. i kind of like the idea, but it needs to have ways to know when it's going to erupt, maybe just build seismic station (or radar) next to it to have a timer pop above the volcano. i guess it should destroy everything around it, this way being the only one who knows when it's going to erupt can be interesting to attack just after.
of course the logical consequence of volcanoes would be to build huge thermal power plants above them that could produce insane amounts of energy (and stop the eruptions), but you have to complete it before the volcano blows up everything. that would be cool, but sadly that seems to be a lot of work for very little practical use in the end.

"ice breaking up" : i don't like the idea, how would that work ? do you mean ice should form, detach, and then do it again ? and what do you plan to do with it ? you can put a few tanks on it, but then what ? the ice will eventually melt and you tanks drown. and how should it handle collisions ? if it destroys everything in its path that would seems a bit unfair, it feels a lot like losing ships at random because of bad timing. it's different from a volcano where everything is very punctual, here the block detaches and drifts for a while, there's no way the pathfinder will forbid your ships to go in front of the ice, it will be a mess.
and if you talk about breaking ice with artillery, well, that may be fun, but that would essentially mean being able to destroy almost everything in one hit if it's on ice, i don't think it's a very good thing.


okay, now i'm pretty sure i forgot half of what i wanted to say, but that will come back to me someday. the most important to me is that some planets should have air, some shouldn't, the same should also be true for land, sea, and maybe orbital. also bots and tanks behaving differently depending on the biome is important to my mind.