Expectations (and managing them)

they commented many times before that implementing the unitcannon and multiunittransports turned out to be difficult to programm and need more work than anticipated ... most of the stuff were also stretchgoals as i said before some of which i innitialy actualy didn´t expect to be implemented in the first place before the basegame was done ... naval, gasgiants, lava and metal weren´t actualy neccesary they are kinda extracontent that could have been easily posponed and no one would have argued with that ... the basegame consists mostly of air,vehicles, bots and orbital ... everything else is just extracontend that could have and actualy will come as gamesupport goes ... so you actualy realy get a bigger package already than it would have been without the stretchgoals ..

now propper multiplayermatchmaking and ladder aswell offlineplay/serveraccess are the more concerning features people are worried about ... which is the more understandable thing instead of removed wreckage for instance ...
i can live with certain stuff that is cool but ultimatly secondary being implemented rather later than sooner ...

the problem isn´t muliple planets but orbital ... we´ll see if the unitcannon and multiunittransports will help that ...
but seriously i don´t see a problem with the multiple planet idea at all
to me it is fun it gives different options and strategys, so imho it IS good
it is its own style of RTS game ... PA is meant to be PA and not TA nor SupCom ... it simply uses content and functions of both games
and uber has veterandevs that worked on afformentioned games before aswell

The game isn't finished yet.

Orbital still needs work.

Unfortunately, it probably won't be fixed at 1.0. There's too many things we need that Uber won't work on until later.

We'll get there.

In the meantime, single planet gameplay is a lot of fun. And it won't be long before we get flat map mods for those who are into that stuff.

or inverted map mods, where the players play from the perspective of the sun on a dyson sphere.....in a dyson sphere.

And don't forget about halo ring maps!

Orbital is a primary source of inter-battlefields interactions in this game, if Uber unable to figure out how to get them on the right track throughout the whole early access, there's likely some problems on the map topology.

Older multi-battlefields RTS usually have entrances on the map for inter-battlefields unit transfering, they serve as choke points and make clear frontlines possible on the multi-battlefields level. I find that make more sense than PA's current inter-battlefields transfering, which encourage massive unit stacking.

Also it seems Uber's original plan for PA was a RTS on multiple torus battlefields, not spheres. Torus is much easier for UI, pathing and terrain generation, all three aspects happen to be significantly flawed in the current game, it seems Uber really underestimated the risk when they choosed the current topology. While pathing and terrain generation might be be fixable with "raw" technical power, UI isn't.

what seems to be to you is irrelevant in this case ...
they chose spheres from the beginning and try to work that out ....
also that chokepointthing of yours doesn't make sense for when units can enter and attack from anywhere in the orbitsphere ... it would be rather a arbitrary limitation

Units being able to enter anywhere means there would be no real defense line against them, which doesn't sound like good RTS gameplay to me.

As for Uber's original plan:

I completely agree with what you're saying. Building up hype for a game that ends up mediocre is quite a common thing these days. Consumers of games, movies, products, ... need to keep a clear head and have a sober look on things. Between all the bright lights and 'false' promises there often is a great product. Publicity and commercial habbits nowadays are terrible.
That being said, if you set out certain goals for your game and start accepting money to start building to these goals, you kind of tie yourselves to those goals. And if you can't expect those features to be in the release well, as a consumer you kind of have the right to complain a little. (Not me though, I bought the game early this year). Anyway, we'll have to see what happens, PA won't launch next week, I think most issues will get fixed. But if certain major improvements do not happen it will still be a great game but, imho not a game that should be the 1.0 release.

but that is the point ... spheres are not supposed to have chockpoints that is what you have on surface and still enemies can attack you from any direction as opposed to being clumped up in a corner ... in this game you have to think a bit differently ... and not so old school anymore

Yep, I think this is a much more fun model, as you don't have a corner to turtle up in.

I like the fact there is no artifical 'edge of the map'. As for choke points, well certian terrian features do creatre choke points, and it is possible to build a well defended base in the middle of a mountain range for example. I think the main issue to this is the fact that even if you protect youself from all sides, you've then got to worry about orbital

This game is essnetially a turtle players nightmare!

Depth of aggression mostly come from how it interact with defense and obstacles, if interplanetary assaults can't be obstructed by anything, it's really difficult to add much depth to it.

People who like the turtling most are the casual RTS players, they are also the ones who would buy the game just for its concept. So from a business perspective, I'm not sure making turtling so weak is a good idea.

Interplanetary assaults certainly can though- in fact we have complaints about turtling on a planet! Because hunkering down and preventing any access at all is easy on planets, especially small ones.

"and I better get them" sounds vaguely threatening, to me at least

"or else i'll quit" is that the unspoken final portion of your thought?


expectations are like opinions, everybody's got one

wait, er... well, something like that


i'll bet this isn't the first game that disappointed you? do you still play them?

Planetary defense is uninteresting since it lacks spatial element in traditional RTS gameplay, in which the opponent might try to destory a important structure of yours, his units might break though or sneak around your frontline turrets or units, and you have another force to intercept them before they causing damage to the structure, and the enemy retreat and you chase them for a moment. We don't have much of these things left if the assualt force can just enter anywhere and retreat to anywhere.

This would be the first Early Access game that could disappoint me, yes.. They promise all these features and they turn up half baked ideas that aren't quite ready yet or still haven't implemented. I followed the kick starter and paid a full $90 for a what is $29.00 game. So yea, I do want Asteroid belts and offline play at 1.0 release. People I've noticed are way turned off by this game due to no offline play.

i love traditional rts, but i also love the fact that i now have to keep looking behind me, and above me

it feels more real to me... since both have been factors in real-time war strategies for the last 100 years now

so... you'll quit, is that what you're saying?

if every most PA details don't match your current expectations

you certainly have that right, but you'll be missed!

At some point i'm in the same position, but as John Mavor explained it, having the game in its current state is just some kind of miracle (from lots of perspectives). Meaning, If Uber had not made it, this game was unlikely to be released, ever, by another game studio (Same number of people). So Yes, there are missing promised features, but looking at the kickstarter trailer, one can't legitimately state that Uber has not achieved their goal. Do not also forget, the additional stuff taking this game accross 3 distinct platforms at the same time (Windows, Linux, Mac OSx) and on a wide range of heterogenous hardware, where graphic optimizations when dealing with openGL is just a ton of work.
Instead of looking at the half empty glass, look at the half fullfilled glass (that's what we say in France). And by the way, it's much more 90% fullfilled than 50% fullfilled.

No, I want this game to succeed and grow. I'm concerned about about people who haven't played the game yet not wanting to buy the game because of the offline play and missing features. Would you want to buy a game and see that half the features that are listed not present in the game? Maybe saying that Asteroid belts "better be in the game or else" was a bit much, but I least want the offline play.