So, we know that orbital units will get a rework and that we're likely to see an orbital fabricator that spawns out of an orbital factory. My biggest question is: Will there be stationary orbital defenses like we have on the ground? Because I personally think that it would make a lot of sense, now that there will be an orbital factory and possibly other buildings that can fly in orbit. Also I think that it's almost necessary for gameplay on gas giants to work, because gas giants will only use the orbital layer. I just can't imagine that without stationary defenses of some kind. What do you think about orbital defenses? Greetings
Well the nature of the medium that they exist in (Falling with style) suggests that stationary might be a wrong way of thinking about it. However very slow orbital-to-orbital defensive units could be really cool.
Well it kinda really depends on what the new implementation of Orbital will be, Orbital 'defenses' may or may not make sense in the end. Mike
Sure, but the announcement of an orbital factory kinda suggests really slow moving, structure-like objects floating in an orbit. Or doesn't it?
It's a possibility for sure, but making large assumptions on a single piece of info like that is dangerous. Mike
Okay, I know we already have Avengers, but I think that we should have some kind of slower moving more powerful orbital unit that could act like a turret, the shear size of the space map makes stationary orbital defenses inadvisable at best and a useless waste of money at worst since the enemy could move around them or out of range. Therefore you would need something that can move, think of it this way, if the Avenger is the space analog of a Bot, then we need a space tank! or from the fan art section
I think orbital in general should be somewhat more slower paced than ground play. Orbital should maybe be more about gaining big strategic advantages that support ground battles, like radar coverage and nuke defense, area of effect stuff with less emphasis on direct fire from orbital to ground. I think the means to gain orbital dominance should be through ground forces. It would be probably favorable to the gameplay to mix the different layers this way, so that to attack orbital stuff you need to use ground units, while orbital units have a big effect on the ground. Translation: I don't think it is a good idea to make orbital play identical/similar to what we have on the ground.
I think I like the idea that orbital units are more like slow sitting ducks that you have to guard carefully by keeping a presence on the ground, rather than having orbital to orbital conflicts. I bet it would make for intense battles where you chase down those pesky enemy satellites with a couple of expensive anti-orbital vehicles protected by tanks. It would also make the gameplay more manageable by focusing on the ground, while still keeping orbital meaningful.
Orbital defenses are gross. Defenses slow the game down, and orbital is already the slowest game of all. Orbital bombardments are dumb. You've already had a taste of it. Big things shoot down, big things shoot up, and not a single robot gets to play. Dumb. Orbital invasions are cool. It's solid robot vs robot strife-porn. Robot battles should dominate the game from start to finish. That is all.
But the gameplay on the orbital layer isn't slow. It's the same speed as everything else. Travelling between planets is slow and we're not talking about that. How do you invade gas giants? Aren't orbital units robots, too? And what have orbital invasions to do with this thread? I hope so. Merry X-Mas
What I would really like to see is a genuine orbit. It doesn't necessarily have to be completely simulated orbital mechanics- simple circular orbits at determined altitude(s) would be fine. A unit that is "stationary" would therefore be one that has a fixed orbit that it cannot change. It would constantly move at a certain speed in a circle around the planet, and cannot change its path. It constantly moves in a certain orbital pattern, and is therefore 'immobile' even though it is constantly in motion. Satellites without engines would be static features, but have a presence everywhere on the planet intermittently. Mobile orbital units would then be able to change their orbit. This includes changing direction, as well as changing speed (which has the effect of increasing or decreasing distance from the planet). You also need thrust in order to be able to go to other planets. Keep in mind that it is still possible to arrange a geostationary orbit by orbiting at the same angular velocity as the planet's rotation. A satellite positioned in geostationary orbit will never move with respect to a certain point on the planet, which might be useful. But a satellite that orbits can be useful in other places, although it also exposes itself as it orbits. Geostationary orbits also have some fairly special properties, most notably that they are quite far from the planet because typically planets rotate rather slowly compared to their size. And let's not forget that orbits are completely separate from the planet's rotation, so even circular orbits don't necessarily go in the same direction as the planet's spin. Low orbit satellites circle a planet very rapidly. As the satellite gets further away (assuming constant velocity) its relative angular velocity compared to the planet's surface drops. Eventually, the satellite completes an orbit once per planet spin, and can even go further than that to go even slower. What this means is that the closer a satellite or ship is to the planet, the better coverage it has over the whole planet because it is overhead on a particular spot on the surface more quickly. However it is also exposed to more of the planet, and its closer range makes it easier to reach. Objects in orbit that are further away might be less able to interact with the planet due to limited range, but they would also be harder to reach, and would have less presence on the planet's surface because their orbital path around the planet is slower compared to the surface.
Yes. If you choose to ignore everything to the contrary, then orbital is exactly the same speed as everything else. Except... Orbital requires high tech. Everything in orbit is more expensive to give less. Orbital roles are far more limited. Reaching another world is sloooooow. So I guess orbital play is slower after all. Playing any game for any length of time confirms it. What is there to invade on a gas giant? Can a gas giant be populated? Why worry about a dead world where no one can go, there's nothing to harvest, and nothing to do? Uber had plans to add energy harvest points for a gas giant. But that was it. There is no metal to fight over in a pure atmosphere. Anything important has to happen somewhere else, such as on a gas giant's inevitably present and numerous MOONS. It is a baaaaad idea to have a completely new game type centered around space battle, when the ground battle is priority #1.
Sorry but... that doesn't make any sense. How is gameplay on the orbital layer slower? Did you ever move some orbital fighters from point A to point B? They're quicker than most ground units, so I can't really follow you. Even the orbital laser platform could be considered moving at least quicker than ants. And we're assuming that orbital gets a rework. So playing any game at this stage doesn't confirm anything, because everything you're about to experience in a game now is probably going to change soon. And that's exactly what is assumed in this thread. Mavor said that they're thinking about making the orbital launcher cheaper and more accessible earlier in the game. That's probably because you'll have to build a factory in orbit to get to more advanced stuff. So it's really irrelevant how it is now. I'm not talking about a completely new game type. Where did you get that from? Sorry, but did you even read what I'm suggesting? Ground battles can't be #1 priority when you're fighting on a planet without a ground layer. I think that's obvious. Orbital gameplay shouldn't need to be dependant on other layers, like the ground layer, to be interesting. Orbital gameplay should even be interesting on planets, like the gas giants, where there is no ground layer. And energy points on gas giants that you can harvest seems to suggest that there will be strategic points to fight over, which makes "stationary" defenses all the more reasonable, don't you think? You can't just go like: "F*ck gas giants, they're not important. They have moons around them, that's all they need to serve interesting gameplay." But every other planet can have moons too? What's your point? So to make my point: All we know about gas giants is that they'll only have the orbital layer. That means that orbital fighters vs orbital fighters won't be enough to make gameplay on those planets (or anywhere else) even remotely interesting.
It would be a mistake for uber to conform to people like you. Bob, if you want a ground only game, we have every other RTS that exists. Why would you implore making the exact same type of game that already exists. PA is supposed to explore way beyond what people like you can comprehend. If you are having such trouble with this game, you should probably just not play it buddy. The only thing you are suggesting here is to stop expanding the game, and balance what exists, so you can play it. YOU. So you can have a game that everyone else is disappointed in. no one wants orbital gone.
And when you win the orbital layer, what do you do next? Oh yeah, you invade. The simple fact is that orbital attacks have more steps than ground attacks. You have to fight a space war. Then and only then can you fight the ground war. Therefore the amount of effort is greater than that of fighting a pure ground war. Effort + 1 > Effort. QED, orbital war is always slower than ground war. Could you go for the comm snipe? Sure. But you have to conquer the orbital layer and deploy your Comm busting satellite, which is once again more laborious and resource intensive than going for a direct attack or bombing run. Slower. If you are still confused, pacing does not have much to do with actual unit speed. What matters is the game timer that you see at the end of a match. Show me your fastest orbital game, then show me your fastest ground game. It's that simple. The more obvious thing is you don't fight on gas giants at all. There is nothing to do on a gas giant, and no metal to fight over. It is a complete waste of time. One could get clever and utilize the thick gas atmosphere as a platform for naval power. But the same core problem remains. Where does your metal come from? Where do you build your base? Without either metal deposits or ground terrain, the game is a non-starter. You need solid ground with real resource deposits. In short, a gas giant can not function without MOONS. The money is on the moons, and there is no central planet to claim or build bases on. Therefore the battle must happen between moons, between moon bases, with lots of cheap and easily available orbital things. In short, gas giants are an island map in space. The only thing a gas giant can do is to add key features to assist in the battle between moons. Cheap energy deposits are a strong possibility. Chances are that orbital tech is going to need lots of T2 power, so the gas giant boosts things along by providing big energy early and cheap. It could be built on the planet directly, or it could be pumped by a moon-bound station. It's not like gas giants have any shortage of moons, or tidal-locked moons to make lunar installations easy. The most important feature is that all of the moons are locked around the same planet. This means any orbital-length weapons, lighter/cheaper moon-to-moon hopping units can be used freely, and resources can be shared if one chooses to break up resources in a certain way. Super long range travel is not required. How do you propose we fight across worlds, then? Should it be with nukes and satellites? Now you are playing a defcom game. This is not a defcom game, this is a ROBOT game. Why build a ground army if there's nothing for them to do and no way to invade with them? That is an even bigger mistake than not having ground units at all. Big units do have a place in the PA universe. They can break turtles and give us the epic effects that make PA stand apart from other RTS games. But they are not the game's main focus, nor should they ever be. Big units are problem solvers. Their role is to solve problems, such as breaking a stalemate where you can not invade, or moving armies when asteroids are not available, or finding Commanders when they're so sneaky-like. Stalled games are not fun, and that's why big units exist to fix it.
I dunno... I think we need to see what Uber's complete re-working of Orbital looks like. Probably, but since Orbital is being completely re-done, then we need to wait and see what it will be like.
