Did it have a chance of winning? Or did it just decide that saving some is better than loosing all?

Oh, and the TW AI has been quite improved for M2TW - not to mention that the modders fine-tuned it.

Why there are slots at all escapes me. one the primary things that drew me to this game was the notion of gravity and orbits.


So there shouldn't be slots so much as orbits. And those orbits (think hoops of various sizes) can be orriented any way you like. YOu can have some going at 15 degrees to the orbit or 90... or you can rotate them about the Y axis 50 degrees and 20 on the z and 42 on the x... Whatever you like... Some orbits can be clockwise and others counter clockwise. You can have all your ship yards and defensive structures in one place or scatter them around the orbit. The speed of orbit is determined by the size of the orbit... smaller orbits are faster and wider orbits are slower. You should be able to determine where each asset goes. When the enemy fleet comes in furthermore, orbital defenses should have "some" ability to change their orbit. I have no problem with them being slow but they should be able to alter their orbit either to close gaps in the defensive shell or converge on a coming threat. Remember these are not fixed installations built into rock but completely bodies in free fall... literally NO resistance to movement aside from inertia and gravity. A freaken' road flare would provide "some" propulsion. So fit some little engines on the turrets so they can slowly move about. Nearly all satellites EVEN WE have in orbit can change their orbit. The same goes for the ship yards. They should be EXTREMELY slow in changing of course... but the should be able to do it. In fact, you might even have some kind of towing ship opperate near the planet that can move things like shipyards around a little faster. This allows you to reconfigure everything in orbit on a regular basis. The enemy can scout to see roughly what is in a system but they can't be sure where it will exactly be...


can all of htis get complicated? Yes... not required to play and by default you can force them to put everything in one orbit or whatever seems easier. But let people willing to deal with the complexity play with the details. Otherwise we can't tease the real tactical depth out of the game.

it would actually fix the gauss turret if it could be moved, all be it very slowly, and obviously not outside of the orbit ring.

Was originally in the game, but the devs decided it wasn't going to be fun that way.

Thats why its soooo anoying, because every week we have a bunch of new noobs who forget to use the search function and start a thread like this. Its already been talked about by quite a few members, the devs know its desirable. 3D movement was discussed before the beta even came out, and even then the devs were iffy. But it just wont work. You can move your ships in 3D if you want to, they AI does so rarely, because gets what? Its not as useful as all you wannabes make it sound. So discussing it further wont help anyone. It would just waste time!



Thats a dead asteriod, they arent worth much to the AI unless they have a strategic possition in which case the AI goes crazy with hangar defense.



The same reason why we have Phase lanes, and it is also the same reason we wont have 3D movement. The game would be more of a hassle and less fun.

then I'm utterly confused as to how your battles are colorfully three dimensional, while mine are sparring squares.

I dont want to be an ass, but if you have found a significant reason that 3-D shouldnt be incorporated, you've hidden it REALLY well from us.


at the very least remove 3-D entirely so we dont have to deal with the cheap tactics.

Hehe, now Schem wants 3D removed altogether.

I am happy with the present 3D (but mostly non-developed) system. The developers are leaving a lot of tools available for modders to tweak around in 3D. So no worries here.

I always said that if they are really adamant on not doing the right thing, then 3-D needs to be removed.

that being said, its a rediculously benefitless and very costly move (hey, a euphemism!) for something that could be VERY easily accomplished without making too much confusion!

its like saying that the interstate is blocked up because theres a bumper-to-bumper on mainstreet. buh, WHAT?

I couldn't disagree more. What's the point of setting this game in space if you take away the 3d movement?

In fact, what makes this game even unique if you remove gravity and orbits? That was like the whole draw of the game...


Have the movement/pathing AI simplify things to the extent that if you say "attack that" it will match orbit with whatever it's attacking and engage. You don't need to figure out the orbital mechanics... the computer can do that for you. So I don't even see why it's hard.


As to having phase lanes... that's new... a lot has apparently changed since I've been gone. You should be able to travel to any world within range... not be trapped into some set track.


You guys... this is going BACKWARDS. Everything you're talking about has been done before. If you're doing things that have been done before, then you're not being innovative. This is very disappointing.

The cross between RTS and 4X games. Even if they have (vastly) diminished the latter so far.

No, it's been done before if they remove these elements. I can think of two or three games that fit.


They're losing the unique and innovative edge here.

I have to agree with karma, I could understand the slipping that has happened so far, but if it continues to regress this game will not be distinguishable from the next.

A lot of things make this game unique, just the general basis make it unique.

This game wasnt about orbits and gravity in the first place, so I dont get your statement whatsoever.

Orbits would really detract from game play for the pure reason that it would make the game almost unplayable in multiplayer because everything would be forever changing. Plus Phase Lanes wouldnt work with orbits.



How long have you been gone for? Since early beta one?



How will it not? It is different. I cant think of one game that matches this discription. This game was supposed to blend 4X and RTS not to be revolutionary and change things for the entire genre. Not one game that I know of has orbits, or full operating gravity.

Minus 3d movement and gravity you're almost there already. 3d movement isn't even innovative. It's just the bare minimum you need to have to match homeworld. Gravity is what will propel you beyond that.

Look, it's unlikely that this game will be as big as homeworld simply because stardock so far as I understand them doesn't have the advertising capital to make that happen. So what's going to draw people to your game is going to be the game itself. And predominetly the people that are going to try an almost indy game like this are going to be the hardcore gamers. And if you want to make the hardcore gamers happy you're going to have to deliver on the features.

There have been 2d space RTS/4x games before. And if that is what they were offering in the beginning then the whole Homeworld thing wouldn't make sense. Remember that many of us were told that this would be like homeworld only with an empire to run instead of a single fleet. Well... in homeworld I could go up and down and even then it was limited. So if it's VASTLY more limited then homeworld then what's the damn point?


I was told there would be gravity. THAT was the primary thing that drew me to this game in the first place. Take that away and the game isn't a next gen game. The gravity is really more important then the 3d movement. But both are very important. If they're having a hard time with the interface, then that's the problem. Not taking out features that are required. It's like making a tank and then leaving out the armor... sure... you've got the big gun but the whole point of the tank is to break the deadlock of trench warfare... a car with a gun on it doesn't break trench warfare... it's in fact almost completely pointless. Likewise this game without gravity and and 3d movement isn't innovative enough to get noticed. You've making things easier to get the noobie crowd but at the same time you're making the game so gray and vanilla that no one will notice it or care about either way.

I don't mean to sound militant here or hostile but I can't believe we've allowed these things to get thrown away without getting upset about it. That means we as a community have FAILED. It is our job to get excited about good stuff and upset about bad stuff. What after all is the POINT of this game if you throw these things away? Where is the innovation or unique quality? It's not worth signing up for prebeta and waiting for years if all you get at the end is a boring concept that's been done before.

I'm just very upset that they're throwing away core features like this... and almost more upset that so many in the community don't see what a horrible idea it is... It is your job as community members to put your foot down when a bad decision in made. If the game takes another 4 or 5 months to get made because they have these changes to make. So be it. Better that it gets made properly.

Oh really? cite something that's unique then?


It was about 3d movement and gravity. Gravity was a big feature that they were talking about in the old days. Furthermore, 3d movement was how they pulled in the homeworld crowd.




It would be more realistic and I don't see why it would be unplayable at all. Explain why changing things would make it unplayable.


What do phase lanes have to do with orbits at all?



I left not long after they joined stardock. Mostly because there weren't many updates and I got bored... so I left and then came back later to see what was going on.



From what I've seen the RTS element is being made increasingly weak by reducing tactical depth and the 4X element is simple empire building.

RTS games that let you build up an empire have been done before... many times before.


What would make this different is the game mechanics. Gravity, 3d movement... that sort of thing is at the heart of the innovation. Remove it and you might still have some innovation... but not much.




Exactly.

That is the innovation. You know it's innovation because it hasn't been done before. Simply combining things that haven't been combined before isn't nearly as innovative... It's a bit like the clock radio. Not really worthy of being remembered. Full gravity with orbits however would get everyone's attention.


gaming publications would review your game and talk about it simply because it was doing things that had never been done before. That's worth money all by itself. Remove those features and they'll still review you... but they won't likely get very excited about it.

You think Relic had that much capital to work with when the released HW? Dont make me laugh.



Well then, this is a 3D game isnt it?



You can go up and down as much as you want to in this game. Its just doesnt make that much of a differance.



Hate to brake it to you, but there is gravity in this game. Otherwise they would make ships tack like the do without them having to fight against a pulling force. That or Iron Clad knows nothing about physics. Plus what about gravity wells? It has the word gravity in it



Assumptions are dangerous to make. The people who have previewed this game seem to find something about it that you dont. What could that be?



I hope by we, you mean you. Cause you have been gone so long that you dont count as part of the general 'we'. People were upset, and apparently they still are. Now, lets look at what the devs said. They said the tested an open point system, and 3D movemetn and found it to take away from gameplay. I believe them, dont you?



I think you have failed, by trying to compare this game to other games and not having your mind set wide enough to see that... oh, this games a differnt game? HW2 was the last good space RTS, and that was a decade ago. This game has potential, but nay sayers like you will keep it down in the dust cause it just doesnt compare to the almighty HW2. Which in my opinion became boring, very very fast.



These things havnet ever been core features as far as I have seen. Like ever.

Who published them?

Don't make ME laugh.



Is it? Sounds like it's got 2d movement and tactics with 3d models. Not really 3d at all.




So I can go above the north or south pole of a planet?


Because that's how far I should be able to go. Anywhere.



If there's gravity, then there must be orbits.

Furthermore, please explain how this works with the ships?


One thing that sold me on this game in the old days was the ability to "slingshot" around a planet to catch another fleet on the far side of a planet.


Can you still do that?



Give your unwillingness to cite such things doesn't lead me to trust that.

I don't know what they're doing. I can only go on what I'm hearing. I was going to buy the prebeta but this sort of thing has scared me off.



By being part of the community I'm part of the "we". I'm not arguing with you about such an asinine point.

As to simply trusting the devs are always right, you've got to be kidding me. That has to be the most ridiculous thing I've heard in days... which is an accomplishment. What then is your point? Why have beta testers and a community if all you're going to do is just agree with the devs about everything?


Your whole point is to have a UNIQUE opinion and perspective. If you just copy the devs you have neither.

What I think happened is they tried a 3d system and had a hard time with the interface.

Ergo the problem is not hte movement, but the interface.




That doesn't even make sense... seriously... think about what you said... you might as well have told me you were wearing a duck on your head to help you think about sailing ships.

Nonsense.


What does that even mean? Furthermore, they've stripped most of what was good about HW2 out of this game. They've lost the tactical depth and 3d movement.


I think we're having a language problem here. You need to finish your thoughts before moving on.


Oh? What potential? And I know it's easier to be a critic then to make this something like a good game. I'm pretty sure I could never make a good game on my own. But it's also much easier to be a mindless fan boy then to be a critic. You're not making this game any more then I am. And by not questioning what hte devs are doing you're not helping them. They don't need cheerleaders. They need feedback. If you only give positive feedback then you're not worth anything.


I was around before you were... so the statement "as far as I have seen" is rather telling.


Look, seems like you've allowed yourself to get all emotional and I'm not going to egg you on. Please calm down and think about this logically. We have a disagreement. I will not be insulted by you nor will I carry on a discussion with someone who is too excited to think clearly.


Please take a breather and respond in a constructive manner.

The devs early builds had it, and it didn't work. It wasn't fun.



Simple, really. The display issue becomes abominable really quickly -- planets with phase lanes could end up on the other end of the system from each other, making for a (really) ugly mess even before you consider the criss-cross spider web such a system would make.

On top of that, you end up with the headache players will have with keeping track of which planets are where. Having a multi-empire star system quickly becomes a real big headache.

Again, I think that was an interface problem.




Wait, is a phase lane a physical object in the game? Like something orbiting the planet? Or is it just an unmarked part of the gravity well your ships will have to go to warp to a different system?


I can see the problem if currently there's a physical object marking that spot. But that's easy to fix by simply replacing it with a HUD marker. The computer would tell you where that spot was without having to have a physical object there which would of course respond to gravity.


Not if you can seamlessly zoom out of any system to see where thing are... Also planets should probably have names or labels of some kind. Have a list of 200 or 1000 names and have them randomly given out to various planets upon map generation. You can even let whoever owns a planet rename it if he wants.

You can move in 3d moron.



Actually, you can go up and down as far as you want to they havent set a limit on it yet.



In the real world yes, in a game no



Its not really slingshotting but the close you get to a planet the stronger its gravitational pull so the slower your ships move away from it, making it harder to run away.



Maybe its cause they tested it, and said it didnt work, or the implemented it. I dont know why the would try to lie to us.



They know more about making a game then I do. So yes, I believe them.



Okay, we have been bitching about 3d movement since beta 1, and you think that I didnt at first? I did, but I accepted it and moved on. You should too.



I was here during all the big discussions about what was to be in the beta, as well as participatin IN the beta. I beat you in that prospect my friend



I will, when you stop sounding like a record player

Simple, really. The display issue becomes abominable really quickly -- planets with phase lanes could end up on the other end of the system from each other, making for a (really) ugly mess even before you consider the criss-cross spider web such a system would make.



Thank you ron!! See he gets it? Will you?

Okay, well I think your both making plenty of good and bad points.

Firstly I think it is unfair to define this game's main selling point as orbits/gravity and 3D movement. I never thought of it that way, nor saw any mention of the sort. It is about 4X and RTS combined. Everyone seems to have agreed that 4X is woefully lacking at the moment.

The general opinion on 3D right now, is that it should be in, the problem as I see it, and many others, is that with the current set up its not even important. To be relevant we need the position of resource asteroids to matter, as well as in-system fog of war, as well as a non entirely flat galactic map, as well as... it can go on... but with such small theaters of combat it doesn't matter without these other elements.

Gravity versus orbits. Karma is definitely correct, aside from the arbitrary term 'gravity well' there is no gravitational force in the game. Things do not accelerate towards the grav well easier than away for example. Not to mention the complete lack of orbits. Orbits could be implemented very easily, you could even keep the game as it is 3D wise, IE no 3D of any merit, and orbits would be easy and fun.

Emperor- questioning someone about why they don't trust what the devs say is very poor argument. The devs have a financial motive in this, and therefore should not always be believed or trusted, Its up to each individual to decide what he/she believes. In this case Karma doesn't think that it detracted from gameplay as much as they had interface issues.

Also- ORB had objects such as asteroids move in orbits and such. SO at least one game did it.

PS-

Yeah I really respect the argument of calling the guy a 'moron' you should apologize.

Instead of moving planets we could orbit buildings and asteroids, thus allowing you to plan much niftier attacks.

That could actually be possible, but the thing is, thing might collide with each other, and currently there are no collisions allowed in the game. Which makes it funny to watch jumping ships sometimes.

I would like stations and asteriods rottate though.

Edit: your kidding me right? I should say sorry for trying to drive a point through someones head. But fine, I am sorry

That was a big selling point when it was first pitched to me. Furthermore, its the most unique concept the game could have.



Having things orbit is different from having them be in free fall. I don't think orb had gravity as much as chunks of rock going around in circles like a toy train. If I set off an explosion that stopped an a body would it then fall into the star... or whatever it's orbiting around?



Look people, physics are getting employed more and more in gaming. We even have dedicated physics chips. So the idea of a game that makes use of physics is next gen. That is cutting edge. A game that doesn't however basically belongs to the pervious era of gaming. It's old hat by default. Instead of ditching these really cool features they should have worked through the interface problems.


The only thing I'm assuming with my thinking here is that the pathing AI could calculate an intercept vector without too many problems.


See, movement in these games has thus far been more a matter of x distance over T time. Which is wrong. It should factor in acceleration, mass, and whatever gravitational pull it's experiencing via any large bodies of mass in the area. Thus fast objects would have higher acceleration to mass ratios.


And there should be no top speed... well.. you can have lightspeed if you like...


A big problem with homeworld is that your fleet could THRUST in one direction for a long time and it actually didn't increase in speed after the initial boost. That makes no sense. IF I thrust from one end of the map to the other... by the time I get to the other side I should be going like a bat out of hell. Now... stopping is going to be a problem... but transit should work like this... you say you want to go to point XYZ... the ships then take into account acceleration, mass, and gravitational pull. They then vector for that point and accelerate towards your destination for about 50 percent of the trip. Then halfway through they turn around and start slowing down. So when you arrive you've come to a full and complete stop.


The tactical depth that allows for is impressive. You can have big capital ships shoot by heavily defended areas and destroy weak units and then be gone long before they can take significant damage. Think of it like a battle ship flying by coastal defenses at mach 3... getting off a volley and then being gone.


And I'd just like to confirm, you can no longer sling shot your forces around planets? Because that was totally a feature they used to have.

wow you are all spammers... dont you have lives to live?

while the ideas were cool, they were never central.

I'm sad that IC cannot have incorporated them, but keep in mind we're dealing with a fledgling company with a bit too much on their plate.

but again, theres a certain point beyond which this game has no originality, and we are getting far too close far too quick for my tastes.