Hah, I just now noticed the planet is named "Mavor Prime". I've watched that trailer like a dozen times and never noticed that. On topic: It could be that the asteroid belt around the planet is just its ring(s), much like the rings around the gas giants in our solar system. Though to be fair, those "asteroids" are incredibly small, ranging from the size of a car to dust particles.
Yeah but even then, would rings even go that far? I mean, I know they extend pretty far, but beyond the moon?
Some of Saturn's moons are inside the orbits of the rings. They're actually called "Shepard moons" because they keep the rings in place.
I don't think a ring of debris around a planet is too far fetched, just because we don't have any in our solar system (well, besides saturn's rings). Besides, most of the orbits in-game are pretty unrealistic (barycenters? anyone?), especially when more than two bodies are involved. With that said, an alternative would be an asteroid field situated at a trojan point relative to the moon, even though that doesn't really happen with such small bodies. Honestly, I don't think the ring is that much more unrealistic. It could be debris from a collision, for instance.
My nitpick about the kickstarter trailer is why do air fabbers look absolutely cool, compared to what we have?
Aren't the current t1 fair fabbers used in it? The ones that rotate but keep their wings level? It's the T2 fabber that's pretty dull IMO. Don't forget the mini rockets that carried air fabbers to an asteroid, that thing was interesting, but I can understand why it might be scrapped (since orbital turned into air 2.0 instead of the "large rocket to move things").
Aha, if you think that b*tching about the absence of promised features in a product you pre-paid is *stupid*... please, let me sell you something. Anything. Trust me, it's gonna be a good deal
I didn't call it stupid, just a nitpick. If I did call the Unit Cannon thing stupid I'd have put '(not unit cannon related)' before stupid, not after. Although either way it's written incorrectly, so what about that thing you're selling?
vs I feel that the top image looks more like a machine that could exist, whereas the bottom one looks more like a toy.
Yeah, I'll agree with you on that then. Here's the example that's been bugging me the most: The vanguard looks like a random assortment of blocks with very low texture resolution. Compare it to the trees. I'm honestly not sure why those trees have particularly high texture resolution for their size and relative to the model's detail. I'm also not sure why they have hard edges for the foliage. Compared to the vegetation seen in the kickstarter video, they're not even close (and I also think they're a tad too small, but that's just me). I'm also of the opinion that the industrial look of the buildings in the kickstarter video was cooler and gave a better indication of scale than a lot of the buildings in-game. And some people might hate me for this, but I also think that there should not be secondary colors, and that there should probably be less primary color on units. The yellow and sky blue colors on this tank definitely aren't helping to make it look like a machine of war.
I´d like to have the nanolathe from the kickstarter video and the dark glowing green of the unfinished buildings - they just look ...... better. And I still miss those laserbots :-(
I hate you now. I'm kidding. I absolutely agree with the first part, disagree with the second. I like the two colors. I mean the combination and idea, it's something that makes PA a tiny little bit more unique. I still want dual-color icons, so the secondary color has a purpose. The current colors are too bright on the units themselves. Making them look darker and rusty will help with the 'machine of war' thingy. (not that much, but I don't care for realism, I'm going for awesome.) What me bugs the most is the big rocket and awesome animation on the orbital launcher picking up and launching the commander, as well as landing it on the moon. I want this so bad. Needs more awesomeness.