Uniformity vs. realism

[Zaimat]

When you're the "allmighty" creator fiddling around with your galaxy (yes, that's exactly how it feels sometimes) you sometimes come before a quandary. And you ask yourself would players like it this way or that way...

One such example is about planets. Do you let them orbit in their system, that would be more realistic but more difficult for a human player to keep track of.

Another of lesser importance is how to place orbital builds such as space stations. I was fiddling around with this tonight when it occurred to me it would be a simple matter to randomize the position. So not all space stations would be exactly in the same spot in orbit of their respective planet.

But then it's so 'comfortable' and being able to click on your mini-map indicating a planet and finding the space station and other structures exactly where you would expect.
_________________
Horizon - Lead Designer

[Therlun]

I wouldnt mind if planets would stand still.
Better once arranged in a nice and clear way, than "find Waldo IV" all the time.


Concerning stations it would depend on the game.
If it is one station per planet then I would like random placement.

If there are different kinds of Stations that can be build in the same orbit, I would like them in a distingishable order all the time.

However, its difficult to comment on the topic without ever having seen an ingame screeny...

[Anguille]

While i think that planet orbiting (slowly) would be nice. I don't believe it would had to the gameplay.

As Therlun said, it's difficult to comment on the space stations, but i'll give a shot:

- Space stations around planets should be able to defend the entire planet....so maybe you need 4 stations (if the game is 2d layer) to cover all sides.

- Frontier stations should stay where we placed them.

Cheers
_________________
I may not post so much...but i am here watching!

[DeckPrism]

I recall one game, whose name escapes me, where your space ship/fleet approached a system from any angle you chose on the galaxy map, but once you entered system range you showed up on that vector. The planet(s) would be in orbit, and you might be near or far from it. You'd also see a dot for enemy forces. You could dash out to hyper (the galaxy map) and reenter the system on a different vector, but the planet would have moved a little bit during that short time. It was neat. The question comes down to does it add to game play and is it fun. In this case it did. Now if you had a different movement system with warp points, moving planets might or might not make sense.

Where orbitals go is different. I think it comes down to how many orbitals you plan on letting a player have. If it is 1, then random is ok. If it is many, then random would be bad and I'd much rather let the player choose either the orbit or orbit speed, or simply make things standard. I do like seeing orbitals orbit though. But aside from eye candy, I'd expect your scale to have an impact on how tacticaly relevant some of this is. If it is not meaningfull tacticaly, then why bother?

So, some of this we can't intelligently answer because we don't know what else you have going on that might impact things.
_________________
Do not let light shine upon your opponent's mind through a hole in your body.

[Zaimat]

One station per orbit, but several orbitals can be built. Yes about screenies, more coming in the next 2-4 weeks including this.

There are no warp points or star lanes etc. It's open space (2 axis) movement, no restrictions. Any ship can come from any direction anytime.

It would be mostly for 'realism' but that can add to gameplay. Still not a big factor and if it makes it harder for the player or more annoying than it is usually not worthwhile.
_________________
Horizon - Lead Designer

[Therlun]

[DeckPrism]

So, orbitals orbit and there can be many of them, but there is only 1 station per planet? Stations != orbitals?

If that is true, I'd like to see the player have the choice of which stable point (lagrange point) to place the station. I could see the orbitals still orbiting, but maybe the stations are big enough or important enough to need to go to one of the L points. Well, there are lots of reasons why those points would be the natural and usefull places to put a station. And I think it would be a nice mix to have both moving and stable objects. I do think the player should choose which L point , because it could make a big difference in a fight if you chose the L point between the sun and the planet, or on the opposite side of the planet from the sun.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/lagrange.html
_________________
Do not let light shine upon your opponent's mind through a hole in your body.

[Zaimat]

You can build 1 station at a time but you can have multiple orbitals at the same time.

Furthermore the planet as big as it is, can't be made in proportion. It is further back (Y axis, the axis going in the screen, away from you).

The ships/space station/other objects etc are closer in proportion and much closer in Y, close to you. They are 'BIG' and in relative proportion to each other.

Y=3u Stars (far away)
Y=2u Planets
Y=1u orbitals
Y=0u All ships and other objects (closer to your screen)

Player moves ships in X/Z, X being horizontal on your screen, Z being vertical.

Here is an example to show the setup, this is not an actual screenshot but an old design sketch rendered. Just to show the view setup.


_________________
Horizon - Lead Designer

[Zaimat]

The Lagrange points setup is very interesting. It would be stationary though, stations don't just move around (I don't think the article suggests moving them around), it would be a one time thing when they are built and it would remain permenant.

But it might be a nice option to give the players several choices. The advantage of one point is it's easyer to identify at a quick glance especially if considering points far away in orbit.
_________________
Horizon - Lead Designer

[Warcaster]

i would suggest the following.

large orbitals such as space stations, shipyards, trading posts etc are given set locations above a planet (so they are easily found at a glance and so that they do not crowd in any 1 location)

as for orbital defense, monitor stations, weapons platforms i would have these given set locations within an orbit. for example you code a moving orbital path around a planet with 5 'locations' on it. the player builds 5 weapons platforms, each occupies a location so they are equally spaced from each other while still moving round the planet.

whats your thoughts? good/bad/ugly?

warcaster

[Jambi]

Some great replies, but I'll still add my own.

My first thought as to whether or not planets should orbit is, if there would be a point in having them orbit, meaning, would there be tactical advantages or disadvatages in having them move? If not, then I say why bother with the trouble in having them orbit. I personally would like them to orbit if there would be tactics that would be invloved.

I think that orbitals in predesignated spots would be fine, I too like the comfort of knowing where to find things that I need, especially in the heat of battle. If orbitals are placed randomly, would it be feasable to have a, orbital button or hotkey that would take us to the first or closest orbital? That would elminate having to look around for the dang thing.

[Fideach]

In "Sword of the Stars", there orbital defenses orbit around the planet during battle at even spaces for the most part, as long as you have the max 10, around the planet. I found it useful, but in that one, you fight 360 degrees completely around the planet on a 2d plane. If your only fighting "over' top of the planet, as I think you would in "Horizon" from my understanding so far of the game concept. I might make more sense to just have positions to fortify around your planet, instead of them just wondering around.
Also, in that game, the planet itself lunches missles, so I ask, would we have ground platforms that add to the defense by the way?
And I agree, its too quiet, so I'm babbling in quiet a few posts today in my over excitment to play this wonderful game.

[Therlun]

The problem with ground defenses is mass.

In moo1 you could build as many missile-bases as you wanted...
In the end that FORCED the game to make offense stronger than defense.

In moo2 (aka boring micro game, with bad technology system) you could build only one of each kind, which is really stupid.
So you have the capital of your e pire, room and industrual outpout of a whole planet, and you can build ONE missile base, and ONE fighter garrison?!..

Difficult thing to balance...

[Fideach]

I've never played MOO1, or 2, I've only played the third one which I owned(paring if I can ever find the cds again after moving). It was alright game, but I've diffently have seen better since.
In SE4, they limit how many ground defenses you can have by the capacity of storage per planet, based on facilities, type, and size of the planet, and rather or not the colony is built inside of domes due to inability of the race to breath the planet's air.
I thought that worked well, and let ground defenses be stronger then ships in some ways.