Question on Solar System Map & Combat

Speaking of fixed arenas and hyperspace encounters. Will there be no star system in that instance or will there be no hyperspace encounters?... 

I would guess that hyperspace would just have it's own unique background with no "terrain".  Sort of the "clear skies" blank empty space fights with no gravity wells, asteroids, or defenses.  An empty map.

I'm gonna be honest, I was hoping hyperspace would be a sort of gauntlet arena, with those constant energy bolts firing everywhere. Like the asteroid fields in FTL.

Would those hyperspace squiggles damage you if you weren't in combat? They would have to, I guess. That would be okay, especially if there was an upgrade that blocked them from damaging you.

I would love a more dynamic experience in Hyperspace: more urgency, a sense of speed and power, racing against time and enemies, dodging obstacles and other unexplained phenomena, etc. Just more drama in general to keep the experience active and engaging.

The music was one of the best parts in SC2 Hyperspace, but even a hardcore fan must admit a lot of the experience was a bit boring on long stretches, particularly so when using autopilot, which was a common procedure. I'm actually all for GETTING RID OF AUTO-PILOT, to be honest.

There is potential for Star Control to carry on the idea of being an amalgamation of many different "mini games" that are all fundamentally different but come together nicely under a single umbrella and I think more active challenges in Hyperspace should be part of that.

If the act of traveling through Hyperspace were a more engaging part of the game that required players to actively navigate all the time, I feel it would be much more interesting to play and I sure would be extremely happy.

I agree, except for the removal of Auto-pilot. The way that Auto-pilot was implemented in SC2 was great because, sure, you could do less work to get the desired outcome, but it was far more dangerous to use auto-pilot. But that was circumvented by allowing the player to cleanly take over.

See, this is going to sound silly, but the first time I played SC2, it was on a machine that was *ahem* not REALLY built for anything more intense than a word processor, and so because of a combination of lazy programming and terrible hardware, I played SC2...in "realtime" (at least it felt like it. Took 45 minutes to travel to beta wolf with stock thrusters, to give you context.) It made those voyages in hyperspace that much larger and the world feel more immersive, BUT it definitely made travel boring. Though there's something to be said about that experience: combat was so much more rewarding.

I'm sure there are some wouldn't mind a time-consuming voyage, but I feel it would be a minority and I think contemporary gamers would demand something more interactive and dynamic, independent of how long the journey actually takes. Unless they can make the visual experience of just sitting and staring at the screen on autopilot something really fantastic, the process is a little mundane and repetitive and could be improved upon.

I don't play a huge number of contemporary games, but one example that springs to mind is Fallout. There are vast distances to cover between you and your objectives out in the wastelands, but while you are traveling you are always encountering something or making decisions about what to do, rather than just setting your character on auto-pilot and watching them walk to their destination.

In Half-Life 2, when you have huge distances to cover, they introduce a vehicle to allow you to get there quickly, but there are still many objectives and obstacles along the way that you are required to address in order to continue, and it isn't just a question of going around them and/or outrunning them. It's up to you to choose how to get through them.

As to the nature of the topic of map sizing and combat views, I feel that given the nature of the Nitrous engine the game's being developed on and the few hints they've dropped, our sense of a traditional "fixed view" of things will probably be very outdated in the context of this game.

I'm picturing something a lot more like a dynamic view that zooms in and out based on the situation and surroundings. While we are navigating around a star system, the view will dolly out to show a large overview, but as we approach a point of interest, engage in combat, or even go to Hyperspace, the view will follow us and dolly/zoom in to give a more intimate experience. At least that's what I'd like to see...

Combat could even take on a totally different feel with multiple viewing angle choices. There will be a top-down view as we're used to, of course, but it would be interesting to also see other combat angles like directly above and behind your ship (e.g. a third person over-the-shoulder/overhead command view). This is a pretty popular viewing angle in tons of games, from shooters to racing sims and even space combat games and I think Stardock would be wise to include something like it.

That's what I think it is based on them saying the map is "a solar system".  It is HUGE and the camera focuses on the player for combat but you are still on the solar system map.  I like this a lot, and is the best way it could work for the base defenses I mentioned in the other thread.  Map size is largely irrelevant against the AI because the AI is programmed to constantly engage the player or defend a location, so the AI effectively shrinks the map to the area it occupies.

I would love the ability to draw and enemy into an Atmospheric battle. I like in SC2 when ships would collide with planets because of gravity. I think that should be a key feature.