Complaint about orbital layer

I too hope that orbital is worked on more.
Otherwise gas giants will end up being very bland.

Complexity argument is irrelevant. You could create a fairly accurate approximation of true orbital simply by giving the units a massive upper limit on speed and a much lower turning rate and acceleration/braking rate.

Edit: I appear to have been labelling a lot of arguments lately as irrelevant. Sorry guys.

Edit 2: Huh... I didn't actually read Uber's linked thread, and reinvented the wheel in concept. Pat on the back for me XD

OMG, incomplete feature is incomplete!

Was not the only thread on it at the time, there was a flurry of people creating here's my vision on orbital essays.

I'm just going to throw this out there...

THE GAME ISN'T FINISHED YET.

while I feel its better than it has been, it still has room for addition.

sadly, it isn't so much another air layer, as it is another land layer, considering it contains structure role units in it.

however, it easily feels workable from its current form. It definitely is better to play since alpha ends orbital.

*Dusts off Prophet Hats*

It's more so that we figured that "Actual Orbits" would be the "best" way to ensure that Orbital didn't end up being Air 2.0 but it certainly isn't the only way.

In the end we were worried about Orbital just being Air 2.0 and so far that's exactly what we got. Obviously yes the big hub bub you linked to settled the debate of Orbits, but in even other aspects like the introduction of the Avenger as a "test"(I'm starting to think I was pretty naive to think it was only a test) but once it got a model that kind of sealed it, speaking of which...

True, but at the same time we can't just wait until it happens to change. Fact is that people have been concerned over Orbital becoming Air 2.0 pretty much since the Orbital Layer was even mentioned and given how pretty much all of the things done to orbital nicely tie into it just being Air 2.0 and it's not exactly reasonable to expect Uber to just about face in the final dash to release all of a sudden, ditching all the work they've done. Can that happen? Yes. Is it likely to? No.

We can still be displeased about a choice regardless of capability and/or intent to change it, heck I'm sure some of us will even be displeased AFTER it would be changed because welcome to the internet but that doesn't mean you can just ward us off because the game isn't done.

Mike

One thing I'd like to see with orbital is the ability to view the shell separately from the planet below it. I find the icons stack on top of one another and it's possible to zoom in so that your camera actually passes below the orbital units. A lot of the time, I find myself shifting the planet to a side view and trying to background those units against the backdrop of space to see them.

I do agree that I think they should rethink the whole thing. It needs to better interact with all other layers (yes that includes the "travel between planets layer"). I think that we should be able to build a "orbital factory" and other space stations to make the majority of orbital units.

Another idea, I don't know if it would be good or bad, would be to have "high orbit" and "low orbit" layers.

true orbits would be a way to take it away from air 2.0 but I don't think it is the only way.

There is a design flaw from the start. Orbital implies that things are orbiting.

If not, you have just a spaceship or a plane that goes really high. So no big surprise if it plays as a second air layer...

Well like I said, many figured "proper" orbits is the "best" way to distinguish orbital and I do still believe that myself but its far from the only way. Even things things how they are now it's easily possible to create orbital units that don't act exactly like air units, it's not perfect obviously but the core design behind orbital unit plays a big part in how a unit is perceived.

Mike

i am probably the only one kinda being ok with how orbital seems to work right now ....

the only real change i would want is that some units like say the anchor and maybe solarrays shall not be able to travel between planets but be locked to the planet they were build on since anchors f.e. act more as defensive structure
avengers are imo ok .... they may become the escortunits you need for orbital transports
other then that to me honestly orbital almost acts as i hoped it to be .... information, expansion and a bit of eco ... it doesnt feel too much like air 2.0 to me as some people say ... the battles between air and ground seem way more frantic than orbital and i don't think putting too much interaction between orbital an surface is that good of an idea ..
i am aware that for some people orbital lacks in some ways but the thing is the game is not bout orbital ... but surface ... infact orbital isnt even needed for singleplanetmatches but multi and imo generaly is best used for information expansion to other planets and orbital blockade ...

i also stand by my point that once propper orbital transportation is included (not the unitcannon)
gameplay will be more flexible and more options available ... also im looking forward to how gasgiants may work out ... they may not be as engaging as surfacebattles but nontheless become a critical part depending on how a system is set up ...

one thing that i am rather disapointed of honestly is of how some parts off the community engage in some topics that to me often feel premature ... i myself was or may have been guilty of that too ... i am not saying that those topics shall not be discussed by any stretch but to me they are often feel lacking in some way were i think those could be discussed better ...