Question: Is there plan for T2 space?

Discussion in 'Backers Lounge (Read-only)' started by thedarkpumpkin, March 21, 2014.

  1. thedarkpumpkin

    thedarkpumpkin New Member

    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    For now, the space layer doesn't follow the same pattern as other land/air/naval layers:
    "T1 Facto -> T1 Faber -> T2 Facto -> T2 Faber".
    Is there plan for a T2 Space facto and a T2 Space faber?

    If yes:
    - Do you plan to make T2 orbital factory... actually orbital?
    I mean: a building/satellite (moving or not) actually far over ground.
    - Do you plan to revamp T1 space-facto to make it more like other t1 factories?
    I mean: the commander and any T1 faber (and T2) can build it, it requires less energy, has a lesser build rate, ...

    If no:
    - Do you definitively consider space as a T2-only (or T1.5) technology?
    - What about gas planets project? Will there be more space units/buildings/satellites?

    Thanks in advance.
  2. thetrophysystem

    thetrophysystem Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,050
    Likes Received:
    2,874
    orbital itself is considered t1.5. Meaning its not an equal member t1, it is a t1 utility, and all things under it are utility branches.

    I am fine with it. Its fine to have orbital launcher same tier as pelter, and orbital require fabbers to build in space to balance its cost and speed of deployment.

    they could add or adjust things though.
    Twinstar and igncom1 like this.
  3. Shalkka

    Shalkka Active Member

    Messages:
    166
    Likes Received:
    51
    It kinda is already divided into what the factory can build and what the fabber can build
  4. brianpurkiss

    brianpurkiss Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,879
    Likes Received:
    7,438
    We haven't heard any plans along these lines from Uber.

    Maybe after 1.0 eventually... maybe not.

    I think there's various issues with Orbital, and I don't really know what the fix would be. Maybe advanced orbital would be a good thing. I'm not sure.
  5. Geers

    Geers Post Master General

    Messages:
    6,946
    Likes Received:
    6,820
    There should be because orbital bombardment is cool.

    [​IMG]
  6. zurginator

    zurginator Member

    Messages:
    92
    Likes Received:
    19
    I think that orbital bombardment would be an excellent (and awesome!) planet cracking tool - but at the same time, it would be extremely difficult to keep it balanced.
  7. Geers

    Geers Post Master General

    Messages:
    6,946
    Likes Received:
    6,820
    Anchors.
  8. igncom1

    igncom1 Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,961
    Likes Received:
    3,132
    I think it would be cool if laser satellites did this, instead of their single big bang attack.
    stormingkiwi likes this.
  9. Geers

    Geers Post Master General

    Messages:
    6,946
    Likes Received:
    6,820
    Or a Star Destroyer.
    stormingkiwi and igncom1 like this.
  10. trialq

    trialq Post Master General

    Messages:
    1,295
    Likes Received:
    917
    I hope there's no plan for t2.5 orbital. Teching up is already as drawn out a process as it needs to be.
    zaphodx, bradaz85 and igncom1 like this.
  11. Geers

    Geers Post Master General

    Messages:
    6,946
    Likes Received:
    6,820
    Well you're boring.
    sypheara likes this.
  12. trialq

    trialq Post Master General

    Messages:
    1,295
    Likes Received:
    917
    Enlighten me then. How would introducing yet another layer of '->fabber->factory' be a better way of introducing new units, than just adding them to t1.5?
  13. Geers

    Geers Post Master General

    Messages:
    6,946
    Likes Received:
    6,820
    Um. TIE fighter?
    sypheara likes this.
  14. trialq

    trialq Post Master General

    Messages:
    1,295
    Likes Received:
    917
    Put it in t1.5. Pay attention you in the back, I'll only repeat myself as often as need be ;)
  15. zweistein000

    zweistein000 Post Master General

    Messages:
    1,362
    Likes Received:
    727
    I think orbital bombardment is good as it is now - a single target attack from orbit (if you want more, build a nuke). We only need a way to deal with OP anchors and umbrellas. I think there should be an aerospace craft (either a dedicated fighter-bomber, or the current avenger or maybe even an orbital ship) that enters the air layer to kill umbrellas and fight enemy air units so we at least have a tool other than smash or nuke spam to deal with fortified planets and another craft that can deal with anchors - like a spaceship or something.
  16. igncom1

    igncom1 Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,961
    Likes Received:
    3,132
    maybe.....Im just not sure I like the lasers power, and long build time.
  17. Geers

    Geers Post Master General

    Messages:
    6,946
    Likes Received:
    6,820
    Orbital bombardment should fill you with glee and awe. It shouldn't be something you look at and think "Hey the US made serious plans for that in the '80s and we're almost completely capable of doing it today".
    Last edited: March 25, 2014
    stormingkiwi and vyolin like this.
  18. superouman

    superouman Post Master General

    Messages:
    1,007
    Likes Received:
    1,139
    Speaking of graphics effects, a continuous energy beam is a must have.
  19. thetrophysystem

    thetrophysystem Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,050
    Likes Received:
    2,874
    meh, its not the teching that is interesting, its the units themselves.

    I like Meirid's "Microwave Satellite" idea, where it does very low lingering damage over a wide area. Matches more this game's theme.
    igncom1 likes this.
  20. Geers

    Geers Post Master General

    Messages:
    6,946
    Likes Received:
    6,820
    Only if it melts units instead of just making them explode.

Share This Page