What do you think about the workings of the current orbital units?

You know, I guess I am a little upset about Uber's defunct decision being to water down orbital to make it more accessible to the audience. Well, not upset, moreso thoroughly surprised. PA is, as of the moment, very unfriendly to newbies, and its not looking to be the easiest game to learn. Then again, I have NO IDEA what being "new" to this kind of games feels like, at least I don't remember what being new feels like. So I can't really speak about the learning curve, all I can do is help newbies out.

As for your post Garat, its the result of miscommunication. It was stated in the patch notes that the current orbital is

alongside Neutrino stating

results in the community freaking out because they extrapolate (and rightly so) that Orbital units will be simplified, but the simplification isn't actually done yet. So the "basic" system will get better, but it will remain unrealistic and depthless. It's kind of like polishing a turd, you have a really shiny object, but it's still a turd.

Isn't it premature to extrapolate from that that orbital units won't orbit the planet? Once the layer is implemented, it shouldn't be too hard to insist that units follow a set orbit or have a reduced number of movement options, it just won't be the result of a real orbit simulator. If we (the community and devs) decide that a satellite can't change its orbit the engine can just define a circle around the planet and just move the satellite along it similarly to the way they have free movement now. As I understand it, its the real-time physics simulation that isn't to be included.

Or conversely if we can set a patrol route, that acts like an orbit, then I will be happy. The choice to orbit or keep your satellites stationary would be interesting.

There are definitely some members in the community that are freaking out, but you do not speak for the entire community. I am not freaking out, and I have not extrapolated the same interpretation that you described.

I think you are reading to much into things which is what Garat has advised us not to do. For example, my interpretation of the two quotes you compared is as follows:

"We're not going to implement fully simulated real-world orbital mechanics, and here is an early preview of three orbital units which are using existing game systems because we are still iterating on how the orbital mechanics will work."

That's it. In fact, all I really did was paraphrase and join the two comments from Neutrino and Garat that you quoted, because that is all they state. Your comments about "basic system will get better, but it will remain unrealistic and depthless" and "it's kind of like polishing a turd... but it's still a turd" are not facts but simply an example of someone jumping to conclusions as a result of their frustration at the lack of detailed and frequent information from the devs.

If the devs have not communicated enough details about orbital mechanics perhaps it is because they haven't decided on all the details yet. As has been mentioned many times by Neutrino, the development process for PA is very iterative. Again, the development process for PA is iterative which means that the Uber dev team may not be able to currently provide us all the details about how orbital unit mechanics will work.

I feel like some members of the community are expecting an unreasonable level of communication from the devs. Feedback from the community is VERY important, and I believe that Uber takes it very seriously, but the reality is that we are not professional game developers and we are not employees of Uber Entertainment. PA is being created due to the financial investments from many in this community (i.e. the backers), and development is being shaped in part by feedback from the community, but our financial contributions and feedback do not automatically make us privy to the same type of back-and-forth/hypothetical/brainstorming information that Neutrino, Garat, and other members of the Uber dev team probably discuss internally at the Uber office (though the 10K backers might be privy to this ). As such, some members in the community need to reset their expectations for communication about PA's development.

Having said this, some members of the community actually are expecting a reasonable level of communication which the Uber devs may not actually be fulfilling (personally, I think communication has been sufficient). If this is the case, perhaps it is because the devs have been more and more focused on making the game which naturally leads to less communication with the community. Regardless of the reason, the solution to what some in the community perceive to be a lack of communication may be here soon. What I am talking about is the new Uber Community Manager who will hopefully help to bring clear, consistent, and more frequent information about PA's development from the Uber devs to the community.

So take a deep breath and try to be a little more patient. When emotions begin to escalate, it may be a good time to step away from the forums and focus on another game or another activity in the real world. Please try to control your excitement and feedback about PA so that it stays constructive and positive.

Im an aerospace engineer. Im all for realism, though I want a fun game. Real satellite orbits would be cool, but would they be fun? Im not sure. maybe just try it out. On the other hand, in a future, where we can move asteroids, every satellite orbit is realistic, as delta-V is no problem anymore. Everey orbit can be reached then, with continuing thrusting of perfect low fuel consuming high ISP engines^^

And would everybody just chill down? xD Im not even able to read everything with my limited time^^

i read the part that it is placeholder, it is only so that alpha players can have orbital units at all considering to wait for the code would put it mid beta. I do encourage this, i hate playing the game in raw vanilla state. In fact, if you implemented an interplanetary system based on adding the launcher and just making it teleport to its destination, that would add a lot to how we can play.

I noticed it was being blown out of proportion, all i said is that orbital shouldn't be t3 air, which is only current because it's the only unit in code, and that orbit should be too far outside the planet, much higher than current, to direct combat, and that it should maybe play more unique roles like staging invasion or passive defense and surveillance.

My main reason for this is to make satellites seem more like satellites, those things with the solar panels that are way too high up for you to mess with on ground, or like the hyperion satellite where it is an overlooking nuisance at best even if that is visible from the ground.

You should be able to affect a planet from orbit alone and just from orbit only use everything on a planet, but if enemy units are on the ground you should be left to chunk ineffective attacks on one another due ti sheer distance, like landing parties and tactical missiles and as i suggested maybe a transitional unit that can attack upper orbital and ground but be attacked from the ground and air.

It would make sense if an orbital armada could camp in orbit and both use the planet and cut off enemy orbital, while enemies were using the ground occupying the actual land, and both had to live with each other.

Garat

The reason for some of the heightened emotion currently rolling around the forums is based on the comments that Neutrino made ten days ago that orbital units were not going to orbit and that was basically going to be the end of the discussion.

I refer to the same posts that Nano has been quoting from: "There will not be orbiting orbitals. It's not in sync with the design." etc. But there was quite a long dialogue with YourLocalMadSci, where Jon really pushed his side and it pretty much seemed he had made his mind up and that was the end of it.

Hence the over the top response from the community...

The mechanics actually used is only one of the issues which have split the community.

There other one, is the selection of units you choose to test the mechanics. You did just what everyone worried about: You turned orbital units into pure T3 units, both in terms of cost and in terms of prerequisites as well as the magnitude of the effect.

Including aircraft (orbital fighters) into the orbital layer didn't make things better as you contributed to yet another (rather rational) fear: That the orbital layer will just feature a complete unit set consisting from defensive units, offensive units and path blockers, turning into a game of its own - and mostly a copy of the layers below.


These two issues combined are the cause of the outrage over what we like to call "Air 2.0", you accidentally turned the orbital layer into something which feels like a second, higher tiered air layer, rather than into a unique feature.


The first issue most likely originates from the lack of appropriate levers which would allow to balance orbital units in the first place. Well, thats not entirely true, one of the required triggers is already in the game: Upkeep cost. But upkeep alone doesn't solve the main critic with the spy satellite: The incredible amount of information it delivers, and that is not about the radius of the radar circle, it's all about the actual quality of information.
Having a satellite above your base reveals pretty much the whole structure of your base, including the layout of defensive structures and preparations for assaults. Revealing the location of your base (by revealing factories and resource buildings) would be fine for most of us, the amount of information yield by the current iteration of radar however, isn't.


The second issue results from a misunderstanding about the connection between "gas giants" and "orbital units". In the vision of many users, those two features are not tied together in the way you maybe pictured them.

They expected a set of units for the orbital layer - and one set of units for the "surface" of the gas giant. One based on satellites and spacecraft, the other one remotely based on adapted air mechanics. When you excluded space combat from the game (with the valid argument that it would derive focus from the planets surface), they assumed that this would also include direct, combat oriented interactions inside the orbital layer.

Guys,

Why is everyone giving Uber such a hard time? We're all invested in this, we've all put money into this and Uber are probably more invested then anyone of us. Why do people always assume their intentions are the worst possible? Seriously...... This makes me rather disappointed to be apart of this community.

I get that people are passionate, that's a good thing but sometimes the delivery...gosh the delivery just ruins the message. I keep seeing orbital being described as air 2.0........ I honestly feel as though this discussion has become steam forums 2.0.

Just so negative

Look i know i'm not helping the negativity as I'm sure i'll get flamed but can't we seriously just all get along? Is that too much to ask for on the Internetz?

Cheers,

-Todd

Well they presented a prototype and we all jumped on the problems of how it was done instead of the actual units themselves.

Not blaming anybody, but I am gland that unlike some forums all of the louder members of the community were not just outright banned for having a descenting opinion.

So some good to take away from all of this.

Overall from the unit balance, I feel like that the current implementation has the orbital stuff being far too late game than it should be.

And that going for orbital stuff should be a tactic that could be used in place for going for just more naval/air or land factorys, and that a simple T1 launch pad should be available for players to begin producing simple orbital units from the get go if they believe that they will be of most use to them, giving them unique intel/counter-intel options and possibly some kind of harassment options for interfering with enemy operations. Useful against economic play-styles and weaker against direct confrontations due to the diverted resources.

Then possibly leading on to more advanced options so that players can build the landers to take individuals or small groups to different planets/moons along with more potent orbital superiority devices to protect their harassment tools and to eliminate enemy ones.

+1 to this. Make T1 Sats cheap to launch. Give them limited intel and have them move in actual orbits

If we are picking our battles, I feel like I want to support the T1 satellites before the orbiting mechanic.

Agreed here too.

Cheaper recon satellites would be interesting. It'd make balancing them against scout planes more complex (slash-requiring more fine changes), but better in the long run I think.

I for one would actually like to see the effect of making space a starting tech (like air, bots and tanks).
It could be pretty interesting, or it could be a total failure. Who knows.

Don't think it could become a failure, as long as you even try to balance it.

The correct balancing for T1 orbital units would be: Cheap to (re-)deploy, costly in upkeep (you don't want that stuff to be spammed), and taking it down should cost more than the small(!) advantage is worth for the owner.

Weirdly, I always assumed that Orbital was going to be just another option as a "start", just as bots, tanks, air and naval are. Such a possibility always seemed natural to me, especially after the Kickstarter Trailer when the Orbital Launcher is built, seemingly, very early on.

The problem is introducing more elements than the player can reasonably be accustomed to. Land, sea and air (dependent on the biome) is already a significant amount of complexity that isn't generally inherent to RTS in general (even in CnC sea-based units were further along the tech tree; basing the primary victory objectives on land-based dominance).

What people can be accustomed to, especially here, with intelligent motivated minds keen on working out how to maximise gameplay elements, is different from what is the most elegant number of available options for the playerbase as a whole.

I'd be against introducing orbital as another starting option tree, but I would prefer that it is introduced as a layer above all three of those trees. Reduces confusion to the player as well as enabling orbital constructs nomatter which unit type(s) a player focuses on at the start of the game.

+1 For cheap T1 orbital units. I never thought of orbital as a late game unit or game ender class. To me it was always a sidegrade alongside bots and vehicles - much like air: You cannot win with air alone (at least not in early-mid game) and it is therefore a companion to your ground units.

Not if we make it clear that orbital units are not supposed to be a replacement for land or air units.

As long as orbital units are not really direct attack units then players will have to use other unit types to fight their battles, while learning to use orbital unit to support their actions.

It should be clear that orbital units cannot counter land based units, leaving the players to decide what else they need to fill that role.